In his work “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell explains that “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” If so, the news this week took a truly Orwellian turn as Democrats rationalized or even praised the effort in Alaska to put a decoy “Dan Sullivan” on the ballot to confuse Alaskans and cause mistaken votes. Other Democratic politicians are entirely silent on the allegation that the campaign of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola engineered this grossly unethical tactic. The very same people running on “saving Democracy” are, once again, defending ballot manipulation designed to negate the votes of citizens. It is the ultimate expression of rage politics, excusing any act needed to achieve power.
On NewsNation Now, Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) went beyond many of his colleagues in saying that the Alaskan scandal shows precisely where all states, including Virginia, should go. When asked about the scandal, Subramanyam insisted that it showed how all states should embrace the widely criticized ranked-choice voting system. (Alaskans may finally reject the system this year). While asked about the use of a decoy candidate, Subramanyam bizarrely spun the question as third-party candidates — a bizarre claim since the fake Dan Sullivan has not campaigned, has never run for office, and is obviously on the ballot solely to confuse voters.
Nevertheless, Subramanyam insisted, while he would not run a decoy, “I also don’t have a ranked-choice voting system in Virginia. I wish I did, honestly. But, in Alaska, they have ranked-choice voting, and third-party candidates are very relevant. And so, if you recruited a third-party candidate who can take votes away from your opponent, that’s part of the process, and that’s just how it works in Alaska.” Previously, Subramanyam also supported the most radical gerrymandering effort in the nation (which was later struck down as unlawful).
Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) seemed to snowball as he tried to rationalize the move. He first attempted to blame it on one woman who was a “disgruntled former employee.” When CNN host Kaitlan Collins noted that The New York Times was relying on a large number of sources in the Peltola campaign, Murphy said it wouldn’t bother him at all to have decoys on his ballot because no one would be confused when voting. Of course, the entire reason you put another Dan Sullivan on the ballot is to confuse voters and cause citizens to throw away their votes on the wrong man. In a close election, that can easily make the difference in the outcome of the election. Murphy also praised the Peltola campaign and said he “trusts” them, despite the New York Times saying they actively sought to cause such voting errors.
In 2025, Murphy appeared on any cable show that would have him to declare that “those of us who believe that the threat to democracy is urgent” need to “act like it.”
Most Democratic leaders refused to say anything at all in the face of an open effort to nullify votes through candidate confusion.
Pundits and party officials have dismissed the scandal as brass-knuckles politics or even as humorous. The head of Alaska’s Democratic Party, Eric Croft, insisted that the sole consideration is whether it is a crime, not whether it is unethical: “I reread all of Alaska’s statutes. I’m kind of a recovering attorney up here. And there is nothing, there’s no legal issue to it. On your, you know, sort of dirty tricks thing, I think Alaskans have a different take there too.”
When pressed whether it is a good thing to try to confuse Alaskan voters and nullify their votes, Croft responded “No, I think it’s funny.”
That knee-slapper involves a politician and campaign that allegedly lied to the public about their involvement. It involves a decoy who is also accused of lying when he said he had no interaction with third parties and did not enter the race to confuse voters. (Notably, the decoy, when asked by the Division of Elections how his name should appear on the ballot, reportedly asked to use “S” as a middle initial (like the senator) as opposed to his own initial of “J.” ).
One would think that this would be an easy question for candidates who insist that they are defenders of democracy. However, in 2024, Democrats moved to remove Trump and other Republicans from ballots while claiming to be protecting voters by denying them the choice of candidates. The fact that the voters gave Trump the popular vote and swept every swing state only magnified the hypocrisy of these Democratic leaders. Yet, some of the same figures are back at it again with efforts to manipulate balloting to confuse or nullify votes in the name of protecting democracy.
Some of the same figures, such as Marc Elias, have reappeared in yet another election scandal. The Elias Law Group was named by the New York Times as involved in the controversy. Elias was a central figure in the Russian hoax as the campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign for violating election rules in hiding the funding for the infamous Steele dossier. Before the election, Clinton officials denied any such involvement.
In an age of rage, consistency, like decency, is a stranger to politics. We are left again in that moment with lawyer Joseph Welch in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954: “Have you no shame, sir, at long last? Have you no shame?” The answer today is clear: No, but I have the votes.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Buffoonery from the trump administration and JT is silent.
More than 4 in 10 names flagged as possible noncitizen voters in California by the Trump administration cannot be found on the state’s voter rolls, according to a legal filing Saturday by an immigrant-rights group.
Immigrant-rights group has access to the voting rolls? Buffoonery from CryBaby!!!!
So 6 out of 10 can?
Disappointed? TDS. Particularly vulnerable are people with: unresolved childhood conflicts with their parents or other authority figures, low self-esteem, disappointments and bubbling resentments.
Tell me about your mother.
So what ? That is because CA refuses to actually provide Voter registration lists as required by law.
Regardless still sound like 6 in 10 of possible noncitizens ARE in CA voting lists.
I though you said non-citizens are not voting ?
Why BTW would an immigrant rights group have any knowledge of either CA voter roles or DOJ lists of possible illegals ?
And why would we trust a group that is advocating for illegals in a dispute over illegal s voting ?
CBT – just have CA provide the election data that federal law requires it to give to DOJ,
When CA has actually complied with Decades old Federal Law, then we can debate whether DOJ lists of people who they think should be removed from the rolls, should be.
I would note that CA provides Drivers licenses to illegals – which is why the SVE act can not use drivers licenses as proof of citizenship.
CA is even providing CDL’s for illegals who do not reside in CA – creating nationawide problems.
CA does not veryify citizenship – beyond registrants saying they are citizens, and it does nothing to prosecute those who register illegally.
LA as an example has more registered voters than people living there.
Why are you demanding perfection from DOJ when CA will not even provide information it is required to by law.
Trump will likely lose these cases at lower court levels.
But this will get to SCOTUS eventually and that decision will be easy and possibly 9-0
FOLLOW THE LAW.
DOJ would not be suing for this information – if states had actually done their job.
How hypocritical. Republican oligarchs have recruited and are financing the campaigns of third party candidates in states where they think the vote will be close—including in Alaska and Ohio. The intent is to bleed off voters who might have voted for Democratic candidates. The Republicans in Alaska already went to court and the ballots are as clear as possible. The Republican candidate is clearly indicated.
Oligarchs? Is that you Bernie?
If you have specific instances where Republicans are committing election fraud – as we do in Alaska, please raise those and if they are actually fraud I will be happy to condemn them.
The Big example that those of you on the left seem to use is the Hafner family.
The Hafners have been legally running in elections accross the country. While they appear to be scurilous – they have run as democrats against democrats and as republicans against republicans. And while Eric Hafner appears to have illegally threatened people – including republicans and is in jail for that. He has not committed election fraud and he has been legitimately trying to get elected for more than a decade in a variety of race.
He is not a decoy candidate – he is a PITA for both parties.
IK have many problems with the Hafners and wish they were gone. I would be happy to bar them from elections – if that could be done constitutionally – it can’t. They are NOT engaged in election fraud.
The Hafners are not being recruited or supported by any republican candidate, they are not tied tho the NRSC they are not engaged in fraud.
This has been to court. A correction made. Dan Sullivan, republican, incumbent. Whatever the initial is I’m fatigued.
Primary yield was Peltola 49%, sullivan 1at 41% and Sullivan 2 at 2%, Heinke repub at 1%. Read it and weep. I rounded.
Back in court! Read it and weep.
You don’t have the votes. The scandal may make a difference. There are the numbers. Has anyone been charged with a crime?
You’re welcome
30 Subpoenas already. Investigations ongoing CARPE!! DUH!!!
Don’t have the votes? Didn’t know the election was already over.
Let’s see if a scandal made a difference in voting.
California is single party control.
adios
And Idaho is single party control. What’s your point?
So is Indiana— so red that Trump doesn’t even bother to stop by, even though Congresswoman Victoria Spartz is embroiled in a stock trading scandal. She has traded $5 million in stocks recently, even though she portrays herself as the wife of a farmer.
BTW a breakdown of votes received from the ranked voting may be available. I’d look there for votes thrown to Peltola as 2nd and 3rd choice. There’s quite a gap. I’m fatigued.
They were smart enough to get a court’s stamp …
And charges may be coming. Courts looking at it again. Courts can reconsider rulings.
And the Petola campaign the lawyers for Decoy dan and decoy dan lied in court.
Petola only got 46% in the primary.
That was BEFORE this exposed the core of her campaign as fraudulent.
I think Ranked choice voting is a bad idea – but presuming that RCV voters in Alaska stick to the same party in their 2nd and third choices – Sulivan wins.
Petola is running between 46-48% in the polls – all other candidates are Republicans.
I do not know what the normal pattern of polling error in Alaska is – but nationwide over the past 2 decades the pols have under estimated republicans buy alteast 3.5% or more.
If that holds for Alaska – Petola loses.
everyone is trying to read tea leaves on this election – but the data so far is mostly not consistent with polling.
Democrats are not doing as well in mailin and early voting as they normally do, and a normal republican mid term turnout will wipe out most current democrat leads.
This is specifically why the press., MSM and the left are hyping a blue wave – because they need Republican voters to decide this is over and not vote.
That has worked in the distant past, but not more recently.
So far early return data is showing an OLDER electorate – that is a huge problem for Dems – Their far loft voters vote early and by mail,
They do NOT show up on election day – the far left is NOT turning out in this election, and that is usually a harbringer of doom for Dems.
Other numbers are all over the place – but by early voting by party affiliation as best as we can determine has Democrats doing SLIGHTLY better than past elections – 1-2 pts NOT 8+% – again that is NOT going to yeild a blue wave.
Regardless without any doubt Election day turnout will be the deciding factor – low election day turnout will result in a blue wave – high election day turn out will result in a GOP backlash – possibly even GOP gains.
Reality will likely fall in the middle.
Let’s just break this down to the simple. You’re in the grocery store and your kid steals a candy bar. You think, oh well they have lots of candy bars so it won’t make a big difference. This is what the Democrats are saying about recruiting a man with the same name as the primary candidate running against the Democratic for the U.S. Senate. Oh it really doesn’t matter that much. Bart Simpson couldn’t have said it better. Nobody saw me do it. You didn’t see me do it. You can’t prove a thing. The reality cartoon continues in Alaska brought to you by the Democrats of Alaska and sponsored by kooky puffs cereal. Go ahead take another spoon full and with the milk running off your chin vote for a Democrat for Senate. Yoo hoo, crazy for kooky puffs crazy for kooky puffs.
Candy bar = voter fraud? You are a special kind of stupid.
Too stupid to figure it out ANON?? AS USUAL!!
Fraud is fraud. That is the point.
I have no idea if this particular fraud will actually make a difference. The polls are with near certainty under counting republicans,
They have been doing so for decades.
I oppose RCV but do not see how RCV actually hurts Sen. Sulivan – unless votes for Decoy Dan are actually Petola protest votes with Petola as their 2nd choice.
Regardless, “Its OK because it will not make a difference” – is evidence of the moral degeneracy of those of you on the left.
Is it that hard to say – “this is wrong” ?
Yeah, it’s hilarious that the only way dems can win elections is by lying and cheating. Hysterical. 😐😐😐
Yeah, it’s those “Dems” who start an insurrection when they lose an election and lie about not starting any new wars and immediately bringing down the price of groceries, gas and energy.
It’s not the “Dems” who are financing third party candidates in states where they think they can bleed off votes from Democrats.
DEMS tried to jail Trump and take him off the ballot. DF ANON!!
May a Nuclear bomb from Iran hit you on the head! ha ha
Pay a little more now or face the consequences of a Nuclear war.
So republicans started an insurection with No guns ? Really ? What about knives, rocks, laswers, frozen water bottles ?
So 2500 people – who between them likely own over 1000 AR-15’s did not even bring a handgun to an “insurection” ?
ARE YOU NUTS ?
“It’s not the “Dems” who are financing third party candidates in states where they think they can bleed off votes from Democrats.”
Decoy Dan is running as a republican – not a third party. I posted the Alaska ballot earlier.
I am libertarian – I normally vote libertarian – neither Dems nor Republicans are “financing” libertarians.
Regardless the libertarian vote traditionally hurts republicans.
Regardless Republicans are no more entitled to libertarian and constitution party votes than democrats are entitled to Green and communist votes.
So long as people know what they are voting for – that is NOT FRAUD.
Decoy Dan is running as a republican, has no platform and according to NYT is doing so specifically to help Petola – that is fraud.
Clinton’s former top strategist expresses concern Alaska ballot trick is fraud
“The candidate has no campaign and has disappeared. This is not election high-jinx but outright fraud on the voters. It cannot stand and no one who okayed this should be elected,”
— Mark Penn, former strategist for former President Clinton and Hillary Clinton
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/clintons-former-top-strategist-expresses-concerns-alaska-two-sullivan
So what. Just posting links makes you smart? You SF.
PSYCHO MORON ANON STRIKES AGAIN!
Large numbers of Democrats grasp this is fraud.
Why don’t you ?
While the legal issue will be decided in courts,
This is also a moral issue.
Weak claims that republicans might be doing something vaguely similar – do not change whether this is fraud.
The typical counter example is Eric Hafner – you want me to denounce Hafner I will. But Hafner is not only following the law, he is a legitimate candidate. Just not one I like. But not an actual fraud.
If you have REAL examples of others – republcian or democrat ACTUALLY doing the same thing – I will be happy to condemn them.
Where possible I will support prosecuting them.
REpublicans are doing it to is not a defense. It does not change the morality. It does not change the legality. Worse still – you have not provided actual ecamples – just vague claims that “republicans are doing it too”
Protest candidates exist. That is legal, moral and absolutely legitimate.
I am libertarian – I typically vote libertarian when I can. I do that on principle, I do that often as a protest.
You want my vote – you need to earn it.
I have no problem voting for a third party candidate that better reflects my personal views.
But that is not the same as running a Fake candidate just to steal votes.
What does Decoy Dan stand for besides helping Petola to win ?
Just the News is MAGA —disregard.
ANON IS PSYCHO- disregard.
Just the News is John Sullivan who broke the fact that Clinton was behind the Steele Dossier
John Sullivan has broken more major stories of political corruption than anyone else.
He was also provided the earilest evidence of Biden corruption in Ukraine.
I trust journalist right and left who get major stories right long befor e anyone else.
John Sullivan is one of those.
Americans can thank their first communist, Abraham Lincoln, for the outcome and consequence that is about to befall America.
Enjoy Lincoln’s tireless work on Karl Marx’s “…reconstruction of a social world.”
To wit,
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
________________________________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
__________________________
“The workingmen of Europe…consider…that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
________________________________________________________________________________________
Letter of congratulation and commendation from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
Hey George, why don’t you use your real name. Your excessive fixation with Lincoln is old hat.
What we have here is a rare breed today. A southern cracker Democratic still outraged about Lincoln.
George is still a Democrat today. Democrats were bigots against Jews even way back then and the still are Jew hating racist today. Nothing has really changed from the days of Lincoln and George is the perfect example of the old Democrats being the New Democrats. Thanks George for your contribution to the cause. Keep your white sheet pressed and ready for action.
Thank you so much for your concession and concurrence regarding “Crazy Abe’s” contribution to the incremental implementation of communism in America by providing the inflection point for its “fundamental transformation.”
Replying to yourself? Another LDS Anon??? SAD!
Replying to yourself? Another LDS Anon??? SAD!
Replying to yourself? Another LDS Anon??? SAD!
PSYCHO ANON
Replying to yourself? Another LDS Anon??? SAD!
Replying to yourself? Another LDS Anon??? SAD!
Grow up dumb ass Anon!
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address, January 27, 1838
___________________________________________________________
Lincoln was.
STUPID ANON!!
LDS 162 years later!! WHAT A BOZO ANON!! Lincoln’s fault for everything? Get a Life!!
And 189 years since 1837 LAME ANON!!
Thank you so much for pointing out that American freedom perished for a mere 71 years until Lincoln nullified the Constitution and he and his communist successors began the incremental implementation of the Communist Manifesto in America. Long gone are restricted government per Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property. Isn’t the communist American welfare state great? By the way, wasn’t there a Mensa meeting today? What in the world is an intellect such as yours doing here today?
“persisted”
LDS and TDS together WOW!! Sounds deadly!!!
“persisted”
“persisted”
What a DF ANON is!! And a PSYCHO
“persisted”
“persisted”
Of course Lincoln is not a communist and did not end freedom.
ANON’S mother screamed Lincoln! Lincoln! when Anon was conceived!!!! Anon’s fault!
“GO HOME, JEROME!”
The American Founders expounded on and legislated a disposition for Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) and his ilk.
To wit,
“We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY….”
– The American Founders/Framers
_______________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802 (four iterations for maximal clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
After viewing app the mudslinging negative-push Ads and “I’m the Good Guy” Ads,
How many of you are going to sit this one out?
After speaking with people, the consensus is: Our Government is a mess (messed-up).
Yet they keep running unrealistic Candidates (All Sides) from which we are to choose, to wit keeps the Government messed-up.
This begs the question:
Are They trying to keep it messed-up?
or
Are They trying to keep a ‘Chill-Effect’ so you don’t vote (Participate in Democracy)?
It seen that They have succeeded at both.
“How many of you are going to sit this one out?“
I have sat out elections in the past, and frequently voted according to my political/philosophical convictions for a candidate with no realistic chance of being elected (e.g., Ron Paul). However, even though I have some very serious issues with the Republican Party in general, and with some individual Republican candidates specifically, I plan to vote the Republican Party line on Tuesday. Why, you ask? Because I strongly believe that if the Democrats retake the House and Senate majorities in this election, and gain the Presidency in 2028, they will expeditiously accomplish the permanent destruction of the grand experiment in guaranteed individual Liberty that the U. S. has been, in spite of its many faults, from its inception. I honestly think that the situation is that dire.
Grima Squeakersen,
The first time, I voted for Obama. Which I do regret. S. Meyer and I had a conversation about it.
The following election, I voted third party.
I, like you, are voting strait Republican. I do think the situation is that dire. They have said it, they want one party rule and have laid out for all to see and hear how they want to do it.
And now, it is no secret that the DSA plans are to take over the Democrat party as a whole and shape it into their image: a socialist/communist party and want to force their policies on everyone in America. It is not some wackadoodle conspiracy theory. They have said it. It is on their web site.
*straight.
I was reading an article about the situation in the ME.
Do you wear a condom when you are banging your sheep?
And his pigs. Ever see his wife and kids.
Ever see “Lamb”with Noomi Rapace?
Grow up PSYCHO ANON
Does Anon wear one banging himself?
Anyone that votes for Rob Paul is voting for the Democrats. Just dumb moral preening.
Alaska would have less of this sort of trouble if they required caucuses and conventions among dues-paying party members, required designating petitions be circulated, or required aspirants put down a deposit (refundable if you perform passably) in order to appear on the ballot. Ideally, if you made use of one or another of these methods, you’d have an appendix to the constitution which specified certain formulae and procedures be followed. Right now, they only require a filing fee of modest value (around $100 for a statewide contest). The race Sarah Palin lost some years back initially had 35 contestants.
Marc Elias’s license to practice law should be eliminated. The guy has held lawyers up to disrepute and he has conducted himself in an unethical manner.
How many of trumps lawyers have lost their license?
At least 3, Come back to this question in 5 years and see what the number is.
The Peltola campaign and their Democratic Party masters could not be showing more contempt for voters. And now their pawn, the little guy, the Manchurian Dan, is going to be in a world of hurt. Think they’ll stick by him? I mean, after the election?
Manchurian Dan may be a Peltola flunky, but unless he is a complete fool (which he may actually be), he’s starting to figure out who’s going to be left holding the bag. And he’s going to start talking..
Are you making the point that MAGA are the dumbest people on earth? They can’t tell the difference between the Dan’s? One of them says “Incumbent”. Let’s say that word together In Cum Bent. New word for the day for the dumbest people on earth.
CryBaby is the dumbest person!
Douglass Mackey (known online as “Ricky Vaughn”) was prosecuted for a simple meme so why is this is ok?
Republicans sure want to make this into an issue despite the ironic fact that they did the same thing back in 2024. Look up Eric Hafner. They put an inmate still in jail on the ballot using the same tactic Democrats are using. This is why “crying foul” is such a joke.
There is no crime. Just smart political trickery, legal trickery that Republicans once used. Now they are mad that it was used against them. It’s a simple as that.
Some Democrats don’t like it, but…they can’t really argue with the fact that it is completely legal and…effective. That is why Trump’s DOJ is ‘investigating’. LOL!
Republicans did the “same thing?” So Eric Hafner had the same name as an existing candidate? Wrong. Super dishonest by you. Spreading lies just like a typical Democrat.
So prove how it’s wrong. Show us why YOU can claim it is wrong. Go ahead.
Now tell us all about Artiles and Rodriguez.
reference for the curios: https://floodlightnews.org/former-florida-senator-convicted-in-ghost-candidates-scandal/
you should learn to read what you post, clown. Completely different charges and offenses.
“Artiles was convicted of conspiracy, making campaign contributions above the $1,000 limit and “false swearing” for instructing Alex Rodriguez — who actually lived outside District 37 — on how to fill out paperwork to get on the ballot.”
So you’re saying that there should or will be charges and offenses in the Alaska situation?
FYI – the anon who posted the link to the article (me) is different than the one who mentioned A&R in the first place. I looked it up to read the details and shared. I’m still not entirely sure which side of the argument he was trying to support in mentioning them. Was he pointing to the similarities, the differences, or the fact that someone was convicted for it, etc.
Also, the last I heard there were not yet any official charges in the Alaska case. I believe the investigations are currently ongoing. Whether there eventually are any, or how similar they might be to the Florida case are TBD. At a high level there are certainly similarities – ghost candidate put up to drain votes from opponent. Not in itself illegal, but with the opportunity to break many laws in the execution of the plan.
Personally I think running with no intention of serving, or intending only to dilute an opponents votes SHOULD be illegal (as well as conspiracy to abet those goals), but given that intent is a major component of the crime, I’m not sure how you’d write a constitutional, effective, enforcable law to that effect.
@X: Your justification for the left doing possibly legal, but certainly unethical things is that the Republicans allegedly did something similar in the past. Does right and wrong mean nothing to you? You don’t want Republicans in charge, but given your take on ethics, I’m not sure why anyone would believe that having your lot in charge would be any better.
As a related question, do you try to live by the Golden Rule, or do you prefer ‘an eye for an eye’?
You are completely misreading the point. Pointing out the Republican hypocrisy regarding Eric Hafner isn’t an ethical justification for the Democrats’ actions—it is an exposure of the fake moral outrage being manufactured by Republicans. Nobody is arguing that right and wrong mean nothing; the point is that both political parties actively play by the exact same “brass-knuckles” rules when a loophole benefits them. Condemning one party as an existential threat to democracy while aggressively defending and funding identical ballot-spoiler tactics for your own side isn’t a stance on ethics, it is just pure partisanship.
In this extreme political environment following the golden rule is no different than an “eye for an eye”. Democrats are just treating Republicans how Republicans treat Democrats and Republicans are upset about it without any self awareness about the irony.
No, YOU said that Republicans “did the exact same thing.” They did not, and you know it.
Anonymous – it does not matter. It is likely that sometime some where some republican tried something similar – X’s example Eric Hafner, did NOT do the same thing, he did NOT do anything illegal, he did not do anything fraudulent, he did not do anything unethical.
He merely followed the rules and ran for congress in states where he did not live – which the constitution and law allow.
He did not deceive people about who he was, where he lived or really pretty much anything.
If you voted for him you did so because you wanted Him as your represenative – not because he lied about who he was.
Nope. Sullivan did everything legally. The tactic was the same. Stacking the ballot.
I guess you were never taught what the golden rule actually is. The wife of a friend of mine had the same misconception.
For your and other’s edification:
• Maxim: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. / Treat others as you would like to be treated.
• Intent: Focuses on treating people well based on your understanding of universal standards.
• Maxim: Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
• Intent: Focuses on boundaries, peace, and non-interference.
• Maxim: Do exactly to them what they did to you.
• Intent: Focuses on setting a proportional punishment after harm is done.
• Maxim: Do it to them before they do it to you. / He who has the gold makes the rules. / Might makes right
• Intent: Focuses on dominance, survival, and exploitation.
Even in our current political climate, employing the Golden Rule and ‘an eye for an eye’ do not support equivalent actions.
In order for the Golden Rule to not be violated here, you would have to be supportive of someone else trying to fool you into voting for the wrong candidate. I doubt that is the case.
No, the maxim is: what you do to others will be done to you.
@X: As an adendum to my post, I do not miss your point. Pointing out hypocrisy is fair, but as you noted people on both sides engage in it regularly. Since every claim of hypocrisy by one side is inevitably offset by another observed by the other side, I don’t see any advantage gained by anyone in dwellling on it.
I’m respectfully asking you (and everyone else) to transcend the partisanship and condemn bad actions no matter which tribe commits them. If you wish to help make the world a better place, you have to be able to abandon the Hatfield vs McCoy mentality – that just perpetuates a never ending spiral of misery. This often means having the courage to try to be unbiased even if the other side does not.
In your case, I take it you generally support the policies of the Democrats. I’d respect your posts more if you’d acknowedge bad actions done both by those you support as well as those you oppose. That doesn’t mean you have to abandon your policy goals; you can even still vote for non-perfect candidates so long as you believe the alternatives are worse for the world/country (for example Stalin was a very bad guy, but the world would be a worse place if we didn’t team up with him). Just don’t minimize the faults of those you support, or overstate the faults of your opponents. Also give credit where its due without partisan bias.
Admittedly, being honest and playing it straight can put your preferred outcome at risk, but if you win dishonestly, you’re contributing to the corruption of the system, and that’s to no honest person’s benefit. Corruption is the ultimate danger to any society, and once the tipping point is passed, recovery if possible, generally entails great violence and harm to guilty and innocent alike. I for one would like to avoid that eventuality.
Be the level headed person trying to bring the temperature down, not the hothead trying to score a point or provoke a fight. Be honest and forthcoming; In that way I, and others, may be able to respect your opinions even if we disagree with them. If folks can agree to this, maybe we can even see less namecalling in the comments (but I’m not holding my breath 🙂
“Republicans sure want to make this into an issue”
Of course they do – this is a great issue for them.
Democrats caught in what is undeniable election fraud.
Further the efforts to defend this are great.
Pelosi has both condemned running fake candidates – saying Democrats would never do that and then had no answer when it was pointed out that Petola was doing that right now in Alaska.
Contra Turley Sanders and Several other Democrats have condemned this. I have significant problems with Sanders – he is Wrong, he is deluded about socialism and its bloody history. But aside from actually beleiving in nonsense shilling for things that do not work and living differently from his ideology he is generally not a liar or a fraud – he is a deluded true beleiver.
Yes Republicans have done this in the past – and they have been prosecuted for it.
Both parties have done this in the past. More democrats than republicans but still there are bad actors in both parties.
We need clean simple elections with laws to protect against fraud, because there are plenty of people who will do whatever it takes to gain power.
It is not republicans that are claiming we need not scrutinize elections because nobody would cheat.
Government exists BECAUSE aportion of people will use force or fraud to get their way.
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
James Madison Federalist 51.
Is there anyone out there saying Republicans would never committ fraud ?
Republicans engage in political violence.
Republicans engage in political fraud.
History shows they do so LESS than democrats.
But they still do so.
“Look up Eric Hafner. They put an inmate still in jail on the ballot”
Is Hafner trans ? HE not THEY.
Regardless, did you actually look up Hafner ?
HE is the candidate that was in Jail
HE ran for Election in Alaska in 2024 from a jail cell in NY – but he was ACTUALLY running for election.
HE and his mother have been doing this for a long time. They get on the ballot for federal offices in states they have never visited in much less resided.
They are NOT engaged in Fraud – they are always legitimate candidates running on their real names.
The constitution does not require residency for federal elected office.
What they are doing is not Fraud.
“using the same tactic Democrats are using.”
False – you apparently did not look up Hafner.
While the Hafners are certainly very political, and Eric was found guilty of threatening Government officials in NY – Something you told us was acceptable in another Turley post. The Hafners have not committed election fraud. They follow the law and get on the ballot legitimately.
They are not lying about anything, there is no fraud.
” This is why “crying foul” is such a joke.”
Why ? Bernie Sanders is crying foul, the hosts of the View are crying Foul. Nancy Pelosiis simultaneous claiming this is wrong and illegal and that it did not happen and democrats would never do such a thing.
MOST politicians of BOTH parties would not pull a stunt like this.
While Turley is incorrectly claiming that Democrats are not coming out against this – MANY are.
Crying foul is not a joke, it is a litmus test. Republcian or democrat – if you are appalled by this your credibility is enhanced.
If you are not, or worse defending it – you are showing everyone your true self – and we should vote accordingly.
“There is no crime. “
And yet people are in jail for exactly this.
“Just smart political trickery, legal trickery that Republicans once used.”
Probably true – but your Hafner example – AS USUAL is poorly researched and not correct.
The Hafners legitimately go through the process to get in the ballot legitimately in states they do not live in and have never visisted.
The constitution allows that. They are not engaged in identity theft – Danial J. Sulivan Jr. initially sought on the Ballot as Daniel S. Sulivan – not his real name. Eric Hafner ran as Eric Hafner. The only Hafner on the ballot.
“Now they are mad that it was used against them. It’s a simple as that.”
I doubt Republicans are mad.
I bet they are happy.
You have given them a club to beat you with for years.
This was a senate contest, not only is this fraud by a Democrat senate candidate – but much of the campaign, as well as Marc Elias, and the DSCC are part of this fraud.
Significant portions of the democrat party have opened themselves up for years of anal probing and negative news stories and being painted as fraudsters.
“Some Democrats don’t like it”
This is not about what you like and do not like.
This is FIRST about whether you are willing to lie to people to get what you want.
And then whether it is legal.
It is legal to run for congress – regardless of what your name is.
But it is not any more legal to deceives than it is to deceive consumers.
You can not commit fraud when you sell cars
Nor can you commit fraud when you sell yourself as a political candidate.
The critical question – both in the prior legal actions regarding this case, as well as the future legal action will be whether Daniel J. Sulivan Jr. is running for the purpose of deceiving Daniel S. Sulivan voters or whether he is doing so to advance himself and his political views as a legitimate candidate.
YOU noted that the courts sided with him initially – that was specifically because in his court filings he painted himself as a person running as himself offering his own views on politics and policy.
Recent revaluations STRONGLY suggest that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. LIED = not just to voters but to the courts.
Attempting to deceive voters – can be a crime.
“They can’t really argue with the fact that it is completely legal and…effective.”
Both are false. Eric Hafner did not engage in fraud. He did not misrepresent who he was.
Nor was he particularly effective.
Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. is ONLY effective if he is ALSO engaged in fraud. He is not trying to persuade voters to vote for him because of his policies and views.
He is trying to get voters to vote for him when they intended to vote for Daniel S. Sullivan – that is a crime.
And you KNOW that. It is a crime to sell someone one thing and deliver to them something different.
If Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. was running in Alaska in the same way as Eric Hafner ran in many states – distinguishing himself from other candidates rather than trying to get people to vote for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. when they intended to vote for Daniel S. Sullivan.
Regardless, this is not going away.
I do not beleive Petola was going to win even if this did not come out. Petola was polling 1.2% above Sen. Sullivan.
There has been atleast a 3.5% +R shift between week out polls and election results for each of the past 20 years.
While that is a national average it likely means Petola was 2pts behind before this.
But this could be the one election where the polls are right. And there could be a tooth fairy.
We do not have new polls on Petola yet – But I would bet that her poll numbers are crashing.
Equally important this will likely hurt democrats accross the country – though not as much as it will hurt Petola.
It is especially damaging to Petola as she was specifically running a campaign claiming to be an ethical outsider fighting corruption.
This is like voters discovering the candidate campaigning for laws protecting Children from sexual predators is actually a pedophile.
With respect to national democrats it is merely more evidence of the win at any cost corrupt nature of democrats today.
You claim this is legal – You are likely to learn otherwise. People are in jail for this.
You claim this is effective – not if you are caught. That BTW is the big tell for whether this is fraud.
If something is only effective if people are deceived – then it is fraud, and usually a crime.
But worse still – you are further burning your own position on election fraud.
Legal or not – Democrats were caught in large scale election fraud.
Not just a few staffers, Not even one Senate candidate – but the DSCC and Marc Elias and significant national democratic brass.
Tell us again how a Republican shadow organization sending out fake trans pamphlets to scare people is totally ok.
First, show proof. Then we’ll argue.
Different topic; nice try though.
Professor Turley is an honest Democrat; let’s hope Democrats are equally as angry at the attempted Party manipulation when they vote.
Turley is a MAGA.
And you are a PSYCHO MORON ANON
You must be drunk.
Why S. Meyer, why should this even be an issue?
Republicans have been doing this for some time too. What Turley and many here are not saying or showing is how this is illegal. I’ve seen no one pointing out any law or statutes showing what is happening in Alaska is a crime or illegal. Perhaps you can show us.
It is unethical; that should be sufficient.
Unethical is still not illegal. It is exactly what republicans did in 2024.
So unethical is a good thing?
Unethical is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on the context. In this case it’s not a crime.
Do you even hear yourself?
The rest of us do and recognize you as the slimy little worthless whore that you are.
Not true. More than false, X. See my comment to you below. thanks
Lin, and I responded to your comment showing why it’s true. You didn’t show why it’s false. You just didn’t read your own sources all the way through.
Yup, I did show what you said was false. You expressly said that Republicans “did the exact same thing.” and “Republicans pulled this exact same stunt in Alaska.”
No they did not. Go back and read my source–all the way through, mind you,– as well as other sources, so that you can try to comprehend the differences.
Enough. I say no more. thanks anyway
GSX, it is an issue because the left has gone to extremes. Professor Turley is a legacy Democrat and continued to be a strong supporter until recently, when he, as an honest person, became angry. He is ethical and has a sense of morality; you have neither.
Extremes? S. Meyer, Democrats are using the same tactic Republicans used in 2024. That’s why Republicans are upset. Because they know the tactic is legally sound.
Turley is a libertarian registered as a Democrat. I am a progressive registered as a Republican.
Turley is not a honest person. He’s cleverly disingenuous at best.
Do you know what the word “same” means? Apparently not. That definition is above your pay grade.
Both Democrats and Republicans can be libertarians. I am a classical liberal/libertarian. I started life as a Democrat. I never bothered with the party label until I wanted to vote for a specific person who was a Republican, so I became one as well. I was an independent voter for a long time, but with the Democrats becoming crazy, I am a Republican. Thank goodness, because being a Democrat in today’s world would make me more like you.
S. Meyer, what on earth are you talking about?
Clearly you can’t follow a discussion or conversation.
You became a Republican because Democrats got “crazy”? You could have remained an independent and still not be a democrat. Republicans have also become the crazy party under Trump.
But…glad we both belong the same party. That is one thing we have in common.
Similar actions were taken by Republicans, not the “same” actions.
I mostly approve of Trump’s actions and can defend them based on principle; you are little more than a parrot.
S. Meyer, “similar” and “same” are distinctions without a difference. Did you know that?
You can’t defend Trump’s actions. Nobody can. Not without lying and deflecting. Ironically you just parrot the talking points of the Trump team to “defend” his actions.
They are not “distinctions without a difference.” Did you know that? Reading some of your comments over the last two years has reminded us of your faulty logic. but Thanks anyway for the English lesson, albeit incorrect.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/same-similar-identical
https://geekbitz.com/what-is-the-difference-between-same-and-similar/
A poodle is similar to a Bichon. Are they the same?
Sure, I can defend Trump’s actions that I agree with, using facts and truth. You can’t defend your position on Trump because you are a liar and lack facts and critical thinking skills. I don’t support Trump. I support most of his policies. You blindly support the likes of Media Matters and will change your position in the next paragraph.
X
Unfortunately Meyer has great difficulty with the English language. He believes that words can mean whatever he wants them to mean in any given circumstance, and he often tries to redefine words in ways that are completely at odds with the meanings accepted by those of us who are actually familiar with the English language.
As just one example, he recently tried to argue that the word “actual” can mean “informal approximation”.
This argument pretty much sums up his fundamentally minimal grasp of the common usage of the English language. The language with which he is familiar can best be described, in his own vernacular, as an “informal approximation” of the English language with which you and I are familiar.
Oh my, Sigmund the Fraud returns, spewing the same garbage as before, only to run away again when challenged. He says (leaving out the needed comma), “Unfortunately Meyer has great difficulty with the English language”. He sees the argument over the words “similar” and “same”. Sigmund doesn’t know the difference. This excuses his bedtime activities with a female goat. After all, all females are the same.
Final Grade: Caprine Casuist (Failing)
*Utterly incapable of distinguishing nuance, logic, or livestock.
It appears that you have consulted the eminent Dr. Roget to find a synonym for the word “sophist” in an attempt to sound like an erudite scholar of language. Unfortunately, you chose an inappropriate synonym, that being the word “casuist”.
Those of us who have complete mastery of the English language, and have an extensive understanding of etymology, know that the original meaning of the word “casuist” is one who is skilled in evidence-based reasoning, and who can apply logic and ethics to explain difficult moral situations to individuals of lesser intellectual capacity.
However, in more recent times the word has been usurped by those of lesser intellect, who actually benefit from casuists, and is used as a pejorative to insult those casuists. This was done because these lesser individuals felt humiliated by the skill of casuists in explaining that which they were incapable of understanding.
As such, I will regard your use of the word “casuist” to describe me as your acknowledgment of my highly skilled reasoning abilities. Unfortunately, you feel humiliated by my high level of reasoning, and resort to using the word as an insult, as has been done by other riff-raff such as yourself in more recent times.
https://www.britannica.com/search?query=casuist
This error of yours is a classic example of those with limited cognitive abilities who rely on AI to explain the world of reality to them. Unfortunately, you lack the wherewithal to comprehend what AI is actually saying. It is really quite pitiful that you use AI so extensively, without the ability to actually understand what it is telling you.
While on the topic of insults, I note that you now indulge in low, carnal insults as befitting your low intellectual capacity. You have previously used what I have described as childish schoolyard insults, but now you are descending into lower carnal insults. This is indicative of a certain uncontrollable feral instinct on your part. Rather than engage in a constructive debate, your feral animal instincts overcome what minimal intellect you possess to put forth these base insults of a wantonly lewd nature.
“Turley is not a honest person. He’s cleverly disingenuous at best.”
That’s either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the context.
“Republicans have been doing this for some time too.”
You have said that repeatedly – but your one example ISNT.
A couple of other examples of democrats doing this have been found – even some infamous ones.
But no one has actually found a REAL example of a republican trying to get voters to vote for him because his name was similar to someone else.
While I do beleive for many reasons that Republicans are LESS likely to commit election fraud, to commit political violence, to engage in political corruption – I do not believe Republicans are universally virtuous.
One of my serious concerns about this and ALL forms of election fraud is YOUR attitude that this is all perfectly OK and we should do nothing.
In 2020 Ballot harvesting was illegal in 49 states. It was done by democrats nearly everywhere.
Now Republicans are getting good at it.
But the right answers is NOT to have political operatives come to your door and gently or not so gently induce or coerce you to vote for their candidate and then hand carry YOUR ballot to the ballot box to make SURE their coercion/inducement worked.
We have secret ballots as constitutional amendments in 38 states for good reason.
We do not want ANYONE to have anyway of coercing or inducing your vote.
You can not effectively coerce a vote if the ballot is secret and you can not know how the person voted.
You ranted when Musk offered money to people for voting – not for voting for specific candidates, just for voting.
So you seem to understand that everything about voting must be secret and completely voluntary.
Instead of trying to conduct elections that are free from fraud – you are here arguing – “Dems are just better at it”
Is that what we really want – the parties competing to see who can be better at election fraud ?
Is that your idea of how to conduct good elections ?
“What Turley and many here are not saying or showing is how this is illegal.”
You think it is OK to try to trick someone into doing something that is not what they intended ?
It is called fraud.
If I trick you into buying swamp land that is OK with you ?
“I’ve seen no one pointing out any law or statutes showing what is happening in Alaska is a crime or illegal. Perhaps you can show us.”
Perjury.
Danial J. Sullivan Jr.s big problem is perjury.
But the democrats involved in this are in deeper trouble – they are part of a conspiracy to commit election fraud.
Daniel J. Sullivan has a defense that you can not prove intent.
They do not.
S. Meyer,
Well said.
I hope the moderate and traditional Democrats are fed up with their party and the stupid and crazy that they either dont vote, or leave the party.
As I have noted before, no, it is not illegal. However, the NYT piece, which I also listen to on NPR, just goes to show the level they will go, the number of people who conspired to rig the election. The put their ethics on full display.
To which I say thank you.
You still listen to NPR?! I thought they were…fake news and whatnot. Wow.
GSX, you failed again. Many of us listen to all sides to prevent confirmation bias.
You listen to the slogan of the day that changes with the news cycle. That is a sign of an uneducated listener.
Upstate has sworn off NPR multiple times and here he admits he still listens to it.
Prevent confirmation bias? LOL!! You’re projecting your own issues onto others…as usual.
X I listen to YOU in the faint hope that you will someday reveal and actual flaw or weakness in one of my arguments or have an original thought of your own.
As SM said – many of us seek input that is at odds with out own views to test those views and protect ourselves from bias.
John Say: An excellent response. Glad I saw it before I leave tonite. (I also listen to NPR when I am driving somewhere, and I will call their hotline with counterpoints whenever I can.)
What is wrong with that nutcase GSX (George, Svelaz, X…)? He is ignorant and cannot think.
I agree, upstate farmer is ignorant and cannot think. Thanks for pointing it out.
I will remember that next time upstatefarmer whines about NPR whenever Turley brings it up.
GSX, you cannot read. The quote was, “What is wrong with that nutcase GSX (George, Svelaz, X…)? He is ignorant and cannot think”.
S. Meyer, pay attention to how you write things. That is not what you said. You addressed me by saying “that nut case”. Who is “that”? You’re addressing me directly so why would you include “that”? It looks more like “that” nutcase is upstate farmer. LOL!
When you address me in the same sentence with “YOU” and include “THAT” nutcase you’re clearly not referring to the same person. The only conclusion is you’re referring to upstatefarmer. Hilarious!
GSX, it is not “the only conclusion”, but context and prior history make it clear. However, it could have been clearer, so I thank you for your input.
I will make it clear: GSX is the nutcase I was referring to,
S, Meyer,
No clarification is needed. Anyone with an IQ above room temp (that would be 62 in my house) knew you were saying:
“What is wrong with that nutcase GSX (George, Svelaz, X…)? He is ignorant and cannot think.”
“that nutcase” immanently followed by “GSX (George, Svelaz, X…)?” was reference to GSX. We all saw it. You were beating X, and he attempted to change the topic.
As to my listening to NPR, I have stated in the past, I used to (past tense) listen to NPR from morning till dinner. I have listened to NPR in the field and I have had more than a few driveway moments. Then 2016 happened and the went CNN pannel-O-pundits like, blaming anything and everything on Trump. I said I switched them off. What I have also said is that I will occasionally tune in, in the truck to see if they have changed or not. For the most part, no.
However, when this story broke, I wanted to listen into the article as it was on their New York Times podcast, The Daily. Like the NYT report, it was surprisingly factual. When the host attempt to put on leftist spin, the reporter pushed back. They did note that this kind of thing was not illegal a few times. But the reporter stuck to the facts.
So, in summary, we knew who you meant by “nutcase,” i.e. GSX, I stopped listening in general to NPR but I never said I sworn them off. That is a lie.
Upstate, GSX is a liar, and little more needs to be said. He also can’t read, but his playmate is back. I guess even the goat turned his back on him (Sigmund the Fraud).
* Note: final grade in last reply to Sigmund the Fraud.
X
You are exactly correct yet again.
Meyer’s minimal grasp of the common usage of the English language is on full display once more.
As I pointed out above, he struggles mightily with understanding the true meanings of words. Here he proves, once again, that he has a minimal grasp of grammar and syntax.
His repeated errors of grammar, syntax and misuse of words is consistent with a diagnosis of functional illiteracy.
Given his astoundingly poor grasp of language, I sometimes wonder how he manages to read the comments here. I suspect that he uses a text-to speech app, or has someone read the comments to him. Even then, his low intellectual functioning still prevents him from fully understanding the comments.
pretending to “diagnose” other commenters by using generalized, multisyllabic words is consistent with a diagnosis itself of functional dissociative identity disorder, defective ego-functioning, and intellectual incapacity to distinguish real from phony debate arguments.
The goatherd is back and retakes his name: Sigmund the Fraud. The goat got tired of his pedantry mixed with a fowl smell.*
Final Grade: Terminal Pedant and Defrocked Diagnostician (Failing
*The ducks must be big, but then again, we already know Sigmund is very small.
the comment indentation clearly shows that S. Meyer was responding (@ 12:35) to Upstate (@11:41) , not to you, X.
lashing out like a child, you just keep digging yourself in deeper. Please. just.stop.
thank you
“The only conclusion is you’re referring to upstatefarmer.”
Logic is not your forte.
I would advise you against making arguments like this one – because you are incredibly poor at it.
But then you seem to think that the list of logical fallacies is actually a list of the rules of logic.
Only means there are no other possibilities. One of those is that nutcase means you.
There are clarity issues, but it is not a logical error to refer to “that nutcase” and “you” in the same exchange to mean the same person.
X I mostly do not listen to NPR news or politics any more – because there is better sources on the left elsewhere.
But I go out of my way to make sure that I get exposed to the positions of the left – particularly as articulated by the thought leaders or actual leaders on the left.
I do listen to music on NPR – when I am unable to run my personal playlist.
Ignoring NPR is not the same as living in a bubble like you.
I will bet I have heard more from Hassan Piker than you – or myriads of other allegedly leading left wing minds.
Honest? He can’t even get the Joseph Welch quotation right..
I assume you are speaking of Senator Welch. Did Turley misquote him, or are you worried about Turley’s interpretation of Welch’s famous words? That statement is misunderstood all the time by both sides of the aisle
Lawyer Welch asked Sen. McCarthy if he had any decency, not shame. In his rush to get his daily effusion of rMAGA propaganda out, Turley is often very careless.
Robert, what do you mean by careless? Tell us what Turley said. Skip the generalities.
RW – Honestly WHO CARES. MacCarthy had neither Decency nor shame.
RW do you have either decency or shame ?
This should not be a MAGA issue.
I am pretty convinced by the arguments that this is a crime and that people from Decoy Dan through Petola will be prosecuted.
But if you beleive differently – that is fine.
But to those of you saying – it is not a crime so it is OK – REALLY – “Have you no Decency” – Have you no shame ?
To those saying – republicans do this all the time – REALLY – I have asked for examples and gotten some guy running under his own name – a name with nothing in common with any other candidates, who was running legally, and with the desire to sell his platform and to win an election. But lets say despite the absence of evidence that Republicans do this all the time – SO WHAT ? Does that make it right ?
Provide me with an actual example of a Republican doing this and I will condemn them. Bernie Sanders can condemn this – Nancy Pelosi said this was so illegal no democrat would ever do it. Petola is running a campaign claiming to bring integrity to DC.
I have found no evidence that Republicans have done this in the past – though there are a few other examples of democrats doing this.
I have found no evidence of anyone doing this in a US Senate race. I have found no evidence of anyone doing this in an election for Federal office. I would note that for Federal offices – not only does State Law apply, but federal law does too. Both Alaska and DOJ have open Criminal investigations.
To those of you who say -“but it is clear which Republican Dan Sullivan on the ballot is the incumbent” SO WHAT ?
I will agree that it is unlikely that very many voters will be deceived into voting for the wrong Dan Sullivan.
Just as I do not beleive very many minorities will be unable to vote because of voter ID laws.
I do not believe that voters are nearly as stupid as apparently those of you on the left do.
Regardless is Fraud acceptable to you – because only stupid people are deceived ?
Regardless there is a significant number of democrat leaders from Petola through Marc Elias and the DNCC that beleived that this would deceive enough voters to make a difference in a close election.
Is it OK with you that an aparently large number of leading democrats were part of this fraud ?
Is that what the Democrat party stands for – lying stealing, fraud and deception ?
Again some of you say – this is OK – because it is not a crime – REALLY ? If it is not a crime – are you going to be OK if in 2028 Republicans put decoy candidates on every ballot for ever democrat running for office ?
Whether successful or not this is a deliberate effort to deceive voters and to sew chaos and confusion in our elections.
If you can not condemn this – please do not ever claim you give a schiff about election integrity or that election fraud does not occur.
When Republicans do or say something I believe to be stupid or deceitful, I usually don’t attack them. I just refuse to defend them and let them face their critics without people like me. We had a GOP guy running for the Senate, and I was so disgusted with him–for all kinds of reasons–that I just refused to vote (I can’t vote Democrat–sorry not sorry). He lost in a deep red state, so there were a lot of people like me. In the end, we got rid of him, and we got rid of the Democrat two years later.
Watching Democrats justify this campaign scandal, watching trolls try to change the subject by insulting commenters, man, I thought ol’ Diogenes was cynical. I can’t hold a candle to these hypocrites.
Perfect comment Diogenes. I won’t defend Republicans when they do something I disagree with, even Trump. But Democrats like X will defend anything liberal or Democrat supporting. Well X will also just be a contrarian nut job because he thinks this is how the legal mind works.
You won’t defend it. Cool. But you won’t condemn it either, right? As long as it ‘hurts’ Democrats. Riiiight?
That’s not what hullbobby is saying.
X – there is absolutely nothing so egregious that a democrat can do that you refuse to defend.
If El Sayed was caugh with his winkie up the a$$ of a 4yr old – you would be defending it.
I have no idea what criteria Diogenese uses to distinguish what he supports what he ignores and what he condemns.
But none of us are obligated to condemn something just because YOU do not like it.
We are not even obligated to condemn everything we do not like.
It is not moral error to refuse to waste time condemning people for parking meter violations when others are committing murder.
I have condemned Biden Bribery – because it is clear criminal corruption.
I have not condemned every financial activity of Trump and his family – because NONE of it is CLEAR CRIMINAL CORRUPTION – most of it is CLEARLY LEGAL and CLEARLY ACCEPTABLE.
One of the clues that something is likely NOT a huge problem is whether it is being hidden or not.
The Trump family business dealings are all right out in the open.
And in many isntance ANYONE can particuipate in them.
Buy Trump sneakers – don’t.
Or match the Trump family investments if you wish – you can invest int he same companies they do.
There is not 20 layers of secret off shore shell companies.
Hiding things does not prove they are corrupt or criminal.
But crooks almost never advertise their crimes.
Regardless, you keep demanding the rest of us condemn Trump – but you seem to want people to condemn neutral acts or acts that are just not my cup of tea,
I do not condemn people for being gay.
I do not condemn men for dressing up as women.
I do not praise those either – just as I do not praise (or condemn) people for the ordinary business of life.
I condemn people for cheating – men for competing against women in sports.
For political and cultural indoctrination of children that are not their own.
I condemn people for actual fraud – such as this.
Not for paying for an NDA with a porn star over activities that are not likely to have happened.
Do I beleive Trump would cheat on his wife ? Absolutely, he has done it atleast 2 times that we know of – and he married them.
Do I beleive Stormy Daniels ? No. Does it matter ? No.
You want me to condemn Trump for something he probably did not do, that obviously was not a crime, and certainly none of my business and that YOU pretended was a crime and convicted him of ?
I do not expect perfection of Trump.
At the same time I have no reason to beleive that Trump Crypto that you are free to buy or not that is being done out in the open is corrupt because you say so.
I have plenty of reason to beleive that “5 million for the big guy” is.
Diogenes,
Well said and I agree.
Again, this is not illegal and both parties have done it.
What needs to be pointed out is the depth and breadth, the length to cover up their actions, the number of people who conspired to rig the election. That is what needs to be highlighted. Again and again.
The upside is the Alaska election commission put the word incumbent after the real Dan Sullivan.
However, Democrats are still depending on their dirty trick to work. They said it themselves.
Every time they say it is not illegal, or that both parties do it, it is a reflection of their unethical actions and to what lengths they will go.
If a Dem accuses you of something, it’s only because he’s already guilty.
“In one early meeting…aides with the DSCC introduced a veteran Democratic operative named Jerid Kurtz…Kurtz, a native of Ohio, was introduced as a specialist in secret ballot manoeuvres[sic]….Months later, in early 2026, Kurtz participated in a video call with members of the ballot composition team…He told the group he had made contact with one of the Dan Sullivans…Kurtz saying he used pseudonyms and cover stories to keep his activities under wraps…
“The team’s spirits rose with the results of the August 18th primary, as both Dan Sullivans advanced to the four-way general election. But there was one problem: The fourth spot on the ballot had gone to a Democrat who could siphon some votes away from Peltola…That Democrat, a progressive named David Leslie, quickly faced calls from his party to withdraw. One of those callers…was Kurtz. Kurtz met Leslie in person, at a cafe in Fairbanks, according to a person familiar with the exchange. Leslie soon agreed to drop out.…
“Matthew Salisbury, of Anchorage, said he [also] got a call out of the blue in December from an unfamiliar Google Voice number with an Ohio area code…’I’m not naive,’ said Salisbury…When the New York Times sent Salisbury a photograph of Kurtz, Salisbury identified him as the man who called himself Zane.”
Kutz’s team also tried to create a fake MAGA team, with its own fake right-wing candidate, but that failed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2026/10/29/us-midterms-inside-the-democrats-secret-effort-to-sow-confusion-in-alaska-ballot/
““In one early meeting…aides with the DSCC introduced a veteran Democratic operative named Jerid Kurtz…”
This very relevant content has never reached the surface of media reporting I’ve seen read, or heard, neither locallhy, nationallhy, or internationally. As for Marc Elias, his wretched unethical ass remains yet to be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. It boggles the rational mind why he is remains free to participate in the scenarios he has the reputation for.
Lin,
Thank you for pointing that out.
The NPR/NYT radio article also mentioned how and to what lengths Kurtz went to deceive or cover up his actions.
Is any of this actually illegal? That seems to be the only real problem for Republicans who are trying to stop this or make it into something more than it is. Even Turley tacitly acknowledges that this is not illegal by any means. It’s just your basic dirty campaign tricks.
Turley “forgot” to mention how Republicans pulled this exact same stunt in Alaska, ironically involving Mary Peltola. Look up Eric Hafner. Republicans deployed the exact same tactic in 2024, except they boosted a man who was actively serving a 20-year federal prison sentence in New York for making threat-related crimes. Democrats unsuccessfully tried to have Hafner removed from the ballot, but the Alaska Supreme Court denied their request for the exact same reasons they allowed the second Sullivan on the ballot: he met the literal, administrative criteria of the statute, and the court refused to police a candidate’s political motives.
Democrats are simply using the same tactical playbook that worked for the Republicans in 2024. The current federal investigations are nothing but a smokescreen to give the Republican legal challenge a false sense of legitimacy. Federal officials can’t do much other than…”investigate.”
X writes, “Look up Eric Hafner.”
I did. Hafner has done this before, both on the GOP and Dem tickets in other states. He’s a nut and a felon.
Alaskan Democrats accused Eric Hafner of being a GOP plant in 2024, but NO EVIDENCE has been produced to support those claims. The GOP did argue in court that Hafner should stay on the ballot. I’m not thrilled about that, and if Democrats had done only that with fake Dan Sullivan, I would call it fair.
HOWEVER, there is evidence to suggest that Democrats may have actively recruited, funded, and perjured on behalf of this fake Sullivan. Several Democrat campaign staffers are making those claims, not just the GOP. Don’t argue with me; argue with your buddies at the NYT.
Perjury on election documents is illegal. Sometimes, X, it’s better to just shut up and let your guys take the heat.
Diogenes,
“Alaskan Democrats accused Eric Hafner of being a GOP plant in 2024, but NO EVIDENCE has been produced to support those claims.”
But that’s not actually true.
Text messages, campaign finance filings, and public reporting have since exposed that national and state Republican-aligned dark money groups actively spent money promoting Hafner to Democratic and progressive voters in 2026. They used anonymous text blasts and mailers to artificially boost his vote total so he would advance to the general ballot as a spoiler to siphon progressive votes away from Mary Peltola. The evidence of GOP-aligned entities backing Hafner is documented, not just an accusation.
“The GOP did argue in court that Hafner should stay on the ballot… if Democrats had done only that with fake Dan Sullivan, I would call it fair.”
It was fair. That’s why Republicans don’t really have a case here. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled on the decoy “Dan Sullivan” case using the exact same judicial rationale that kept Hafner on the ballot in 2024. In both instances, the party benefiting from the spoiler candidate (the GOP with Hafner in 2024/2026, and the Democrats with Sullivan in 2026) went to court to aggressively defend the candidate’s right to remain on the ballot. Arguing that one party “only defended him in court” while ignoring that both parties actively weaponized the court system to protect their respective spoilers is logically inconsistent.
“…Democrats may have actively recruited, funded, and perjured on behalf of this fake Sullivan.”
Nope. For one simple reason.
Mainstream Democratic campaign staffers and operatives are not the ones who signed documents under oath. The individual facing direct perjury and false statement scrutiny is the decoy candidate himself, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. He is the one who filed sworn affidavits asserting that he acted completely independently and had no coordination with third-party campaigns—claims that leaked text logs have since directly contradicted. While campaign staffers may face conspiracy or wire fraud exposure, the specific act of perjury rests on the decoy candidate, not “the Democrats” as a collective group.
This is why the whole issue is such a joke. It’s merely useless protestation against Democrats using the exact same tactic Republicans used in 2024. They are butt-hurt about the fact Democrats dared to use the tactic on them. Sometimes Diogenes, facts matter.
“Text messages, campaign finance filings, and public reporting have since exposed that national and state Republican-aligned dark money groups actively spent money promoting Hafner to Democratic and progressive voters in 2026.”
Republican-aligned dark money groups? What does that mean, X? You need to document that claim, because that sounds a lot like everybody is racist because Democrats say so.
Diogenes,
“Dark money” simply refers to funds spent by politically active nonprofits (like 501(c)(4) organizations) that are legally permitted to hide their donors. This isn’t a vague accusation; it is heavily documented in the current 2026 race.
According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) independent expenditure data compiled by OpenSecrets, outside groups have poured over $453,000 targeting the race.
Groups like Fair Deal Alaska have spent massive sums explicitly boosting Eric Hafner and fringe candidates. They do this because Hafner is a registered Democrat serving a 20-year sentence in a New York federal prison who has never even been to Alaska.
As reported by the Anchorage Daily News, voters have been hit with anonymous, untagged pro-Hafner text blasts urging them to “vote Democrat”.
The actual, endorsed candidate of the Alaska Democratic Party is an independent named Bill Hill. The Republican goal in spending nearly half a million dollars to promote Hafner to progressive voters is mathematically simple: keep a fake “Democrat” on the ranked-choice ballot to siphon votes away from Hill.
Just read what anonymous wrote below at 1:47 PM. He countered this argument already.
“Mainstream Democratic campaign staffers and operatives are not the ones who signed documents under oath.”
No, they are the ones who are repeating the abuse, X. Democrats who have more of a conscience than you have ever displayed on this blog.
Correction: I meant reporting the abuse, not “repeating.”
Haffner has run many times in many elections – as a republican and as a democrat.
He ran under his own name, with no one else in those elections with a similar name.
You say he siphoned off democrat votes. Every legitimat vote for every legitimate candidate takes votes from someone.
Unless you are a democrat – you can only vote once.
You rant about money and email blasts – Campaigning – that is what legitimate political candidates do – they solicit campaign contributions and they use that money to persuade voters that they should be the candidate they vote for.
Your argument makes every losing legitimate candidate a fraudster.
Do you actually think before you make idiot claims.
“The Alaska Supreme Court ruled on the decoy “Dan Sullivan” case using the exact same judicial rationale”
FALSE
Please read the actual decision – the Alaska supreme court litterally said in their opinion that Because Decoy Dan had assured them that he had thought of running for office as a republican for decades, and because he had sworn that he had no contact with Democrats, and that he was not induced by anyone and was not running to aide Petola, that he was running on his own platform to get his positions before the voters. that the State had failed to demonstrate that he was not a legitimate candidate.
All of this was LIES – for which he can and likely will be criminally prosecuted.
Your OWN claims regarding Hafner PROVE that he was running a legitimate campaign.
No one has seen Decoy Dan in weeks. He has never had a campaign event No one knows what his positions are.
His campaign web site is likely constitutes copyright infringement on Sen. Sullivans site.
He has not conducted any fund raisors, Not been interviewed by anyone.
all of the things that actual candidates did – that Hafner did that offend you – Decoy Dan did NOT do.
Hafner is a perenial political candidate – he primarily runs are a republican, but he has run as a democrat.
Further get your FACTS straight – Hafner did Run in 2024 against Petola for a US rep Seat.
He is AGAIN running in 2026 for a US rep seat – he is running against an Incumbent republican as a democrat.
There are 9 other people on that ballot. Eroc Haffner is not pretending to be any of them.
And as YOU noted – he is doing the things REAL candidates do.
“Mainstream Democratic campaign staffers and operatives are not the ones who signed documents under oath.”
Do not bet on that. Regardless, that merely preclude perjury charges.
“The individual facing direct perjury and false statement scrutiny is the decoy candidate himself, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. He is the one who filed sworn affidavits asserting that he acted completely independently and had no coordination with third-party campaigns—claims that leaked text logs have since directly contradicted. While campaign staffers may face conspiracy or wire fraud exposure, the specific act of perjury rests on the decoy candidate, not “the Democrats” as a collective group.”
Good – you seem to grasp that all these democrats can be prosecuted for Conspiracy.
Depending on their other acts they may also be guilty of obstruction of justice.
I would further note that the NYT story allegedly has multiple sources inside the Petola campaign.
These are people who are with near certainty going to cooperate with federal and state criminal investigations.
“This is why the whole issue is such a joke.”
Conspiracy to commit election fraud is not a joke.
I would note that besides Perjury Decoy Dan can also be convicted of election fraud, as well as obstruction of justice.
All those part of a conspiracy are culpable for the crimes committed by any of the conspirators.
Once a criminal conspiracy starts – proving you are part of the conspiracy makes you criminally culpable for all the criminal acts of the conspiracy – unless you affirmatively remove yourself from the conspiracy and go to law enforcement.
X you seem to have acdepted that Decoy Dan is guilty of perjury. That also makes him guilty of election fraud, and probably obstruction.
You appear to have accepted that Democrats conspired with him.
“It’s merely useless protestation against Democrats using the exact same tactic Republicans used in 2024.”
Yet YOU have pointed out that Republicans did NOT use “exactly” the same tactics – facts do matter.
YOUR argument makes everyone but the winner of an election guilty of election fraud.
Did Hafner run under the name of an existing candidate ? Hafner has been a political candidate MANY times before.
He has run ACTUAL campaigns in each of these elections.
The similarity between Hafner and Decoy dan is that they both are on the ballot in Alaska – that is all.
That is NOT “exactly” the same – “facts matter” words have meaning. Hafner is not committing fraud.
Diogenes: Thank you.
I really wish you would stop telling lies. Learn to read with comprehension P.L.E.A.S.E. And try to read the entire piece to explain what happened.
“Asked whether anyone associated with the Alaska Republican Party, Begich’s campaign or another Republican group had encouraged Eric Hafner to run, remain in the race or otherwise assisted his candidacy, Carol Hafner responded: “No—absolutely not. Zero contact.”
https://www.newsweek.com/eric-hafner-alaska-democrat-gop-ballot-mary-peltola-12638704
thank you in advance. from lin
Nice try, Lin, but you are completely confusing initial recruitment with active campaign spending and legal defense. Nobody cares if the GOP didn’t talk to Hafner beforehand; the fact is that the Alaska Republican Party formally intervened in court to legally protect his spot on the ballot, and Republican dark money groups spent over $450,000 on text blasts and mailers to boost him as a spoiler. Try reading past page one before lecturing others on comprehension—a quote from a candidate’s defensive mother doesn’t erase official FEC spending filings or Supreme Court intervention records.
That is how reading comprehension works. 👍
The reason the Democrat Party is so dirty, decadent, and nuts is because people like you will defend anything. Stop always defending them. If you want a strong party, stop excusing it’s weaknesses.
Diogenes,
BOTH parties exercise this kind of behavior. Don’t pretend it does not. Can you say the same of Republicans who did the same thing in 2024?
It’s your average petty dirty tricks in a very competitive race. And it’s legal. Every time one party does it the other will always complain.
I am really quite amazed at your lack of comprehension, X.
You stepped on your own foot this time with your sentence, “Nobody cares if the GOP didn’t talk to Hafner beforehand; the fact is that the Alaska Republican Party formally intervened in court.”
The entire issue being discussed HERE is the Democratic Party’s involvement in recruiting Sullivan to run. Your initial reply to my comment was no less than comical, because your very first sentence distinguished illegal from legal–(in your usual combative tenor when you see my name) —which is an argument I never made or mentioned. Indeed, it is you who has changed the argument.
By making the above statement, you admit and acknowledge your mistake. As you know, the Alaska court sided with Republicans in 2024-
Please, don’t waste our time on this good blog, OK? Here, try spending your time watching the cute puppies–also in the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/23/world/europe/finland-puppies-livestream-slow-tv.html Since puppies do not speak English, you might haVe a better chance comprehending.
thanks anyway
Nice bait and switch to hide a weak argument Lin, but on cigar.
Nice try though.
aw, how cute! how hilarious! ROLF! Now Georgie copycats Lin’s frequent calling him out about “not even close and no cigar.”
from X: ” Nice try, Lin, but you are completely confusing initial recruitment with active campaign spending and legal defense.”
Wow, X, you really bit your own tail this time. Doesn’t get any funnier than this, folks.
X
As usual , the more you blabber the more you end up outing yourself as a fraud
You keep arguing that the Republicans did the same thing which was not illegal and then you yourself point out that there is a very distinct difference of recruiting a candidate versus supporting and already on the ballot candidate
And a decoy Dan Sullivan is likely to face charges for lying about whether or not he volunteered to run on his own decision, yet the Democrats claim that they had no involvement in recruiting him, which has now improved false by the former campaign manager
That would imply that the campaign like we filed false election documents, and lied under sworn testimony to the court
While the passage raises valid points about the role of third-party spending and public legal interventions in Alaska’s elections, it relies on several logical shifts, legal oversimplifications, and aggressive rhetorical spins to force an equivalence. First, the text shifts the goalposts by hand-waving away initial recruitment as something “nobody cares” about. In election law and political ethics, the distinction between active, back-room candidate recruitment and independent, post-filing spending is paramount; orchestrating a candidate’s entry under false pretenses or false sworn statements presents vastly different legal and ethical liabilities than third-party groups taking advantage of a candidate who qualified independently. Second, the author treats state party organizations, independent Super PACs, and non-profit groups as a single monolithic entity, conflating legal independent expenditures with direct party direction. Third, pointing to public courtroom litigation over ballot access statutes as evidence of hidden trickery twists the nature of open legal proceedings; participating in a statutory ballot dispute before the state Supreme Court is standard, transparent legal defense, whereas the real controversy around decoy candidates usually hinges on covert coordination and false affidavits.Finally, by relying on dismissive ad hominem attacks and hand-waving counter-evidence, the author selectively frames the facts to insist on an exact partisan symmetry that ignores key legal and procedural differences.
You are correct, even if “you” are an AI response, but I do not believe “X” is capable of comprehending your words, –and I do not mean that as a personal attack; it is premised on my experience with this commenter “X.” If there is a response at all, it will likely be in the form of AI assessing itself, then responding accordingly.
Lin,
Well said.
That is why it is generally best to just scroll past GSX. Not worth the time to read or respond to.
Thanks for making these points, and I agree.
x – first you are not credible – As Lin pointed out – you have already lied about Hafner.
Beyond that you keep claiming things are EXACTLY the same – they are not.
Do you recall the part where I said there is a difference between what people do in secret and what they do in public.
Republicans intervened in court PUBLICLY. AND even you appear to now be accepting that the people who appeared in court for the GOP, were not part of some conspiracy – that there was no such conspiracy. Yes the GOP intervened in court to keep a legitimate candidate on the ballot. If that is all Elias and Democrats did – they are in the clear. If they lied in court – they are in trouble. You admit that Decoy Dan appears to have lied. Decoy Dan’s briefs to the court were likely filed by attorney’s who also had to swear to their truthfulness.
If they KNEW those statements were false – then they committed sworn falsification too.
If they participated in inducing and soliciting Decoy Dan to get on the ballot – then they KNEW his statements were lies and they too are culpable. Both as a matter of ethics and in many instances as a matter of criminal law an attroeny can not present evidence they KNOW is perjured.
“Kurtz met Leslie in person, at a cafe in Fairbanks, according to a person familiar with the exchange. Leslie soon agreed to drop out.…”
The subterfuge of enticing a like-named candidate onto the ballot in order to draw uninformed votes from the serious candidate, even if that enticement involves compensation, appears not to be a criminal offense. Can the same be said of bribing a candidate to remove himself from an election? Those activities are similar, but I observe that the law sometimes makes subtle distinctions between such.
At the very least this criminal confusion has been brought to light.
Happy Halloween
Caveat emptor. While dirty tricks played by politicians and their lacky media is a shame, it is not the biggest problem.
Our nation’s biggest problem, at this point, is an electorate that is 50% filled with un-educated, mis-educated, willfully ignorant and utterly illiterate voters who do not possess or will not utilize any form of intelligent discretion in casting their votes.
This mass mob at the left end of our political spectrum is the largest danger to the constitutional republic that we have now.
When you have citizens (or non-citizens depending on your state) supporting communism and islam it is quite clear that their understanding of these ideologies is either totally non-existent or greatly degraded by indoctrination, brainwashing and cult adherence.
Unless those views held by these mobs can be changed, we will end up like France in no short time.
Agree, education coddled people. Children should have a portion of history devoted to the Jewish holocaust including the camps and skeletons, crematoriums and piles of shoes and personal things. The Diary of Anne Frank wasn’t enough.
As a nine-year-old in 4th grade Catholic school, I was required to read The Diary of Anne Frank. I remember being quietly affected, as the book edition also had many photographs* in it.
*a time when historic photographs were considered genuine, not AI-generated.
Lin, roughly four Jewish scientists directly survived the concentration camps, forced labor, or hiding in occupied Europe to win the Nobel Prize in science. That number expands to roughly 30 when including those who escaped murder at the hands of the Nazis by fleeing.
Since the Holocaust destroyed six million out of the nine point five million European Jews, wiping out over 60 percent of that population, the statistical loss is straightforward. Based on the rate of survivors, the destruction of European Jewry cost the world approximately 60 potential Nobel Prize winners in science.
I presume that most or all of those Jews who won Nobel Prizes in science predate the relatively recent devaluation of the Nobel by means of rampant wokism?
Likely more than that.
The average IQ is 100.
The average IQ for caucasions us 100.
The average IQ for east asians is 120.
Only one other group in the world has an average IQ of 120 – Askanazi Jews.
There are only 20M in the world. Only 1 in 12 people in the world have an IQ of 120.
But it is likely that approx 12 Jews today have an IQ of 180.
Approx 100 have an IQ of 175
Approx 1000 have an IQ of 170.
The average IQ for a Nobel winner is 145.
The minimum IQ of Nobel prize winners is 120.
This is a small highly educated population with an average IQ 2 std devs higher than normal.
There is a reason that there are so many Jewish Billionaires, Doctors, Lawyers and Nobel winners.
John, that is another way to estimate how many Nobel Prize winners we’ve lost. My calculation was based strictly on the immediate victims, but once you factor in the compounding effect across subsequent generations, the two methods converge on a larger total.
The notion the median IQ for Orientals is 120 has no reality.
You must be part of that 50%. No one can be a ignorant as you.
‘”No one can be a ignorant as you.’
Live without mirrors, do you? What a drag it is to read you!!