8-27-08: Sen. Stevens wins Alaska primary despite fraud indictments

[Darwin333]

Google "Bill Jefferson".

Why don't you people get it? Both sides are corrupt as all hell but we fool ourselves into thinking one side is more or less corrupt depending on whose "team" we are on.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Indictment is not a conviction.

Innocent until proven Guilty - does that ring a bell.

A simple Google search shows that the documented depth and breadth of his corruption is so stark that I doubt you've read any of the accounts of what Stevens is known to have done.

If Alaskans are stupid enough to re-elect him, he'll soon be tossed out of the Senate, and they'll be stuck with the cost of replacing him and the public embarrassment of proving how lame they are.

I am not questioning what is documented. What I am questioning is the fact that he is being convicted without a trial and jury of his peers.

In a court of law, he is innocent until brought to trial and found guilty by a jury. That jury is NOT the court of public opinion.

As others have posted in this thread; it is suspicious to find many thousands of $$ bills in a freezer or to have a bag of white stuff in your glove box.

Yet you have the inalienable right to be considered innocent in the legal sense until actually convicted of breaking the law by a trial of your peers.

People complain the the government is taking away rights; yet they are so willing to deny rights to others of innocent until proven guilty. This is not Europe where the opposite is true.

We are not talking about deriving someone of rights. We are talking about people making an intelligent decision when hiring someone to fill a position.

If you owned a daycare would you hire a person who was being tried for child molestation with DNA evidence? He hasn't been convicted yet but it looks pretty damned bad.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Indictment is not a conviction.

Innocent until proven Guilty - does that ring a bell.

A simple Google search shows that the documented depth and breadth of his corruption is so stark that I doubt you've read any of the accounts of what Stevens is known to have done.

If Alaskans are stupid enough to re-elect him, he'll soon be tossed out of the Senate, and they'll be stuck with the cost of replacing him and the public embarrassment of proving how lame they are.

I am not questioning what is documented. What I am questioning is the fact that he is being convicted without a trial and jury of his peers.

In a court of law, he is innocent until brought to trial and found guilty by a jury. That jury is NOT the court of public opinion.

As others have posted in this thread; it is suspicious to find many thousands of $$ bills in a freezer or to have a bag of white stuff in your glove box.

Yet you have the inalienable right to be considered innocent in the legal sense until actually convicted of breaking the law by a trial of your peers.

People complain the the government is taking away rights; yet they are so willing to deny rights to others of innocent until proven guilty. This is not Europe where the opposite is true.

We are not talking about deriving someone of rights. We are talking about people making an intelligent decision when hiring someone to fill a position.

If you owned a daycare would you hire a person who was being tried for child molestation with DNA evidence? He hasn't been convicted yet but it looks pretty damned bad.

Exactly the point I was trying to make :thumbsup:

Amazing how CC doesn't see this... no one is saying we should lock Stevens up without a fair trial.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

I am not questioning what is documented. What I am questioning is the fact that he is being convicted without a trial and jury of his peers.

In a court of law, he is innocent until brought to trial and found guilty by a jury. That jury is NOT the court of public opinion.

So what? We're not talking about a court of law. In an election, we ARE talking about the court of public opinion. There's enough documented information about Stevens' corruption that, without strong evidence that he's being set up or framed, it defies common sense for Alaskan Republicans to re-nominate him as their Senatorial candidate, if for no other reason than it gives Democrats so much more ammunition for their side.

Personally, I think he's guilty, but I'm not from Alaska. If Alaskan Republicans want to commit political suicide, I'll be glad to watch and laugh. And if the majority of Alaskans are stupid enough to elect him, they deserve every bit of shit that falls their way when he's booted out of the Senate.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Indictment is not a conviction.

Innocent until proven Guilty - does that ring a bell.

Not in Dave's America. And apparently, in Dave's America there is only one political party.

It doesn't matter; if the Dems sweep it all in November, Dave will probably make a 180.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, an incumbent senator won his primary against 6 poorly funded challengers. This will happen 100% of the time unless Stevens is actually caught in bed with a 10 year old boy. If he wins the actual election after his trial then I'm prepared to dispair about American politics like you guys are. Anyone who looked at the primary knew he was going to win a long time ago, indictment or no.

The fact that Stevens' victory was a foreseeable event does not make it any less deplorable. A vote for the corrupt piece of trash is inexcusable, and Alaskans who voted for him should be ashamed of themselves.

The dude delivered a $250M in funds for a bridge to an uninhabited island. Crooked he may be, but he shows them the money!

Like I said, anyone who voted for him should be ashamed of themselves. Excusing his behavior because he only steals from people in other states is no justification.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: babylon5
Bridge to nowhere: Alaskans don't care about corruption, as long as they get the loot reward from the rest of America taxpayers money?

Makes you question about the brains of average Americans.

Exactly. The average voter is dumb as a brick, and completely self-interested. We've elected the gov't we deserve, which is a shame.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Google "Bill Jefferson".

Why don't you people get it? Both sides are corrupt as all hell but we fool ourselves into thinking one side is more or less corrupt depending on whose "team" we are on.

Oh people get it, the problem is that it's a "prisoner's dilemma" situation. And even if people aren't familiar with game theory, they grasp the basic problem.

If people who normally vote Democratic and people who normally vote Republican ALL get together and decide to "vote the scumbags out", both sides could vote for candidates who more truly represent their views and we're better off. However, if people from only ONE voting block vote the scumbags out and then vote for 3rd party or otherwise less well known but more ethical representatives, chances are that the side that stuck with their party will win the majority of the seats in congress, because they stick together and their candidates are more well known. Both sides realize this problem, and so they vote for "their" candidate even if he or she is not their first choice, because they know they'll get even more screwed if they vote their conscious and the other side doesn't.

In fact, although I said this is a "prisoner's dilemma", it's actually worse than that. In a classic prisoner's dilemma, it's assumed that both sides can win if they play the game right (the fact that they don't is what's interesting about it), but in an election example, it is NOT in the best interests of conservatives for liberal candidates, honest or not, to win an election (and of course it's true the other way as well). This means that not only is it in your best interest to vote for a mainstream candidate so you don't get screwed by the opposition, but it's also in your best interest to convince the other side that they SHOULD vote for the honest guy nobody has heard of, because he's less likely to win against your mainstream candidate and you don't want him in office anyways.

In other words, the ONLY way we can throw the bums out is if the alternative choices have broad appeal across the spectrum. When you can no longer split people on liberal/conservative lines, Republicans and Democrats lose their power over the voters. But since the split seems to be getting worse, rather than better, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Lemon law]

As for the average Alaskan being dumber than a box of rocker, Stevens may be in a heap of doo doo, because the venue of the trial is not in Alaska, and a jury not accustomed to Alaska corruption norms will decide the fate of Ted Stevens. And when the only thing ole teddy boy brought that jury is a boondoggle bridge to no where, he starts out behind the eight ball.

Coming to a mainland court room September 22, three week trial and verdict likely before the general election. Only superman or GWB can save his ass.

 

[Zorba]

They vote for him because he brings home the Bacon, and if you've ever been to Alaska you know they need more money for better infrastructure. Alaska's infrastructure is a just a few steps above Puerto Rico. My Uncle live up there and he is a liberal, but he still votes for Stevens, because that is the only way they get any infrastructure built.

 

[Fern]

NM

Boberfett beat me to it.

Fern