Mitt Romney clearly violating voter law

[Double Trouble]

Massachussets law says that the definition of declaring your residence is that it's where 'you dwell, and the center of your social and civic life'.

So, he's declaring legally that he dwells in his son's basement and the basement community is the center of his social and civic life.

Uh, no.

Uh, can you prove that his son's basement is not where he dwells? Can you prove that it's not the center of his social and civic life? And don't come up with a bunch of blah blah, actual proof that would hold up in a court of law? I'm guessing no. That's a very difficult thing to prove. All he has to say is "yeah, I might be in CA most of the time, but I still feel like my home is MA, I feel connected there, most of my friends are there, and I spend as much time as I can there".

Regardless, I think it's idiotic to have these laws on the books if they can't or won't be enforced. Politicians of all kinds regularly flout them, with no consequence. Ultimately, the voters are to blame: they have a choice to simply not vote for the people like Romney, Hillary, Rahm. The voters clearly don't care about this issue.

 

[Thump553]

I've heard of plenty of adult sons living in their father's basement but never vice versa. The kid should kick him out and tell him to grow up and get a real job.

 

[thraashman]

Craig, of all the problems in this country you choose this one to start a thread about??

Seriously?

Oh! The Irony!

LOL. This is the blackest I've ever seen a pot call a kettle. Thanks Perknose for making sure I didn't miss that while browsing over this thread.

 

[Red Dawn]

Mitt Romney is clearly violating the voter law in declaring and voting based on his declaration that he's a resident of Massachussets - living in his son's basement.

He sold his home in Massachussets, and moved to another of his homes in La Jolla, CA ($12 million on the beach) (and has others).

Massachussets law says that the definition of declaring your residence is that it's where 'you dwell, and the center of your social and civic life'.

So, he's declaring legally that he dwells in his son's basement and the basement community is the center of his social and civic life.

Uh, no.

But this is a case where the law simply is not enforced despite the clear violation.

He pulled the same thing when he ran for governor - for which there's a requirement he had continuously lived in Massachussets for the last 7 years continuously - but he'd been living in Utah. With his Utah home registered as his primary residence, saving him $54,000 in taxes. But when the scandal broke, he just paid the difference and had his PR team say 'oh that was Utah's mistake' - and he was not held accountable. He's not supposed to buy where he lived retroactively.

What he's doing is a crime, with a punishment of years of jail time. But apparently it's just not enforced.

Below is a link to the story including a man who has made an issue of exposing 'Romney's character' lying about this, including interviewing people near the son.

Standard comment on this sort of thing: imagine the outrage from the right if it were Obama, Pelosi, or another Democrat. Listen to their silence for their team.

This isn't a scandal with a big impact - other than their guy not having the right to have been governor or register where he did (hello, birthers, why so quiet).

But it's an issue for the law to be broken.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller...egationsagainstmittromneywontbeinvestigated_1

Jesus the Faux outrage. You're as bad as ProJo, Whitey07 and the other wingnuts who post in thios forum.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Jesus the Faux outrage. You're as bad as ProJo, Whitey07 and the other wingnuts who post in thios forum.

There might be hope for you yet my friend. ()

 

[rudder]

This isn't a scandal with a big impact - other than their guy not having the right to have been governor or register where he did (hello, birthers, why so quiet).

From 2002...

The Ballot Law Commission unanimously ruled that Romney, while in Utah, maintained enough financial and personal ties to Massachusetts to meet a state constitutional requirement that gubernatorial candidates live in the state for the seven years prior to an election.

The commission was a 5 member panel. (3 repubs, 1 dem, 1 independent). No appeal to the ruling was filed.

Apparently he did have the right to run for governor. but really... is he any different that any other politician?

 

[fantolay]

So... I heard J-walking is never enforced either.

 

[waggy]

Jesus the Faux outrage. You're as bad as ProJo, Whitey07 and the other wingnuts who post in thios forum.

him pretanus, prjo etc are all fucking hacks. They don't give a shit about the nation its all about there team winning.

The op is a perfect example. Fuck Romeny for doing something. people point out Dems have done it..OP its ok though..

fuck them.

 

[werepossum]

Craig - you're dealing with folks in a constant outrage... Their hypocrisy means nothing as they can't live without the anger...

Since you're accusing the right of being in a constant outrage in a reply to Craig, poster boy for one-sided political rage, you have my sympathies for whatever horrible accident destroyed your brain centers for logic and irony.

 

[BoberFett]

Why? He should stand up and say "Yeah.. that's my cock. It's fucking huge. Chicks dig it. My wife doesn't like it when I email it to teenagers but she sticks with me anyway because I have money."

Then look at the reporter's face, say 'MYOB sugar-tits', and walk away.

I'd pay to see that.

 

[Anarchist420]

Ultimately, the voters are to blame: they have a choice to simply not vote for the people like Romney, Hillary, Rahm. The voters clearly don't care about this issue.

+1.

 

[Zargon]

"Rahm Emanuel Can Run for Chicago Mayor, Illinois Supreme Court Rules"

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rahm-emanuel-run-mayor-illinois-court-rules/story?id=12781668

yeah the IL SC ignored an on the books 'law' of the city of chicago, another shining example of how fucked up IL is.

the court was rahms last ditch attempted after he tried to buy out the lease on his house from the guy he rented too, who wouldnt move.

basically they didnt say he lived there, they said they didnt care about the rule and ignored it.

 

[waggy]

yeah the IL SC ignored an on the books 'law' of the city of chicago, another shining example of how fucked up IL is.

the court was rahms last ditch attempted after he tried to buy out the lease on his house from the guy he rented too, who wouldnt move.

basically they didnt say he lived there, they said they didnt care about the rule and ignored it.

EVERYONE in IL knew Rahm was going to win it. once the Dems and obama said he was best he was going to get it. nothing. not even the law would stop it.

but thats just how fucked up IL is. some of the shit that goes on is amazing.

 

[Fern]

Mitt Romney clearly violating voter law

Doesn't seem to be anywhere near clear, contrary to your assertion.

What is clear is that at this point it's unproven accusation, and given that the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Elections Division is declining to investigate I'd say it's going no where fast.

I'm not even sure what you think the outrage is? Is it that he's voting in MA instead of CA? FFS, given that guy's been a governor there I'd say he's got a lot more in connection with MA than CA and probably should be voting there.

If he's voting in both places, which no one alleges, then I could see some outrage.

Is he paying income taxes in MA? Does he file taxes as a MA resident? If so, I really don't see any problem whatsoever. I suspect that's the MA official's POV too.

The other homes, physical presence etc cited is likely not as determinative of resident as you apparently think. It may be that he has not established a new residence outside of MA, likely meaning he retains the MA residency perfectly normally/legally.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Although Craig has as usual wrapped it in his "Democrats good, Republicans bad"* spiel, he has a ghost of a point. Each person should have ONE legal primary residence, for voting and for tax purposes, in which he or she lives the majority or plurality of the time. Eligibility should also follow that one primary residence. I have no problem if that residence is rented, even if the person owns other homes, but state income tax (if any) should follow that residency. This is a very common dodge, but that doesn't make it right.

* My own "Republicans bad, Democrats worse" spiel is completely unrelated.

 

[ElFenix]

Why? He should stand up and say "Yeah.. that's my cock. It's fucking huge. Chicks dig it. My wife doesn't like it when I email it to teenagers but she sticks with me anyway because I have money."

Then look at the reporter's face, say 'MYOB sugar-tits', and walk away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcNGYRKBfHA

 

[Craig234]

Doesn't seem to be anywhere near clear, contrary to your assertion.

You're wrong (again).

You are failing at the basics of the English language. Which are you not understanding?

He sold his home in Massachussets, and moved to another of his homes in La Jolla, CA ($12 million on the beach) (and has others).

Massachussets law says that the definition of declaring your residence is that it's where 'you dwell, and the center of your social and civic life'.

So, he's declaring legally that he dwells in his son's basement and the basement community is the center of his social and civic life.

Uh, no.

But this is a case where the law simply is not enforced despite the clear violation.

Are you not understanding that the law says the residence has to be the person's location the dwell, and the center of his social and civic life?

Is that where he *dwells*? Clearly not. The law here is different than the law elsewhere; but even if you apply the same rules, Romney does not have his son's basement as a long-term residence while he has a position temporarily in Washington D.C., like, say, President Obama does.

And clearly his son's basement is not the 'center of his social and civic life'.

The fact that you can't admit the water falling from clouds onto your face is raid doesn't mean it's not clear it's rain, and your cluelessness on this doesn't make it not clear.[/quote]

What is clear is that at this point it's unproven accusation, and given that the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Elections Division is declining to investigate I'd say it's going no where fast.

If the person next to you watched me pull out a board and wack you in the head with it (however many times, I lost count), his saying I did so is an unproven accusation.

It hasn't been 'proven' in a court of law. Now, if the prosecutor screws up and the charges are dismissed, it remains an unproven accusation - even if you have film that's clear.

It doesn't mean it's not CLEAR, which is what I said. We aren't talking about "proven", we're talking about "clear", which to someone with a clue, it is.

I'm not even sure what you think the outrage is? Is it that he's voting in MA instead of CA? FFS, given that guy's been a governor there I'd say he's got a lot more in connection with MA than CA and probably should be voting there.

The point is he is *violating the law* and lying. You know, "lying", the thing Congressman Weiner did about a personal sexual behavior, not about voting.

I said, this is not about the substance of the harm - though Republicans will make a huge federal case out of one 'fraudulent voter' if it serves their agenda.

It's about lying and breaking the law openly as a candidate for the presidency. That should not happen. It should not be ignored and condoned.

Today voter registration, tomorrow as President something far worse.

If you're right, change the law. The law hasn't been changed. It says he is NOT allowed to register to vote in Massachussetts no matter how much you think it's wrong.

If your standard for presidential candidates is 'breaking the law and lying doesn't matter, it's ok, unless you also show the impact is big enough to matter', say that.

If he's voting in both places, which no one alleges, then I could see some outrage.

He didn't vote in two place, he didn't send naked photos, he didn't kill a puppy.

He broke the law and signed his name to a lie.

Is he paying income taxes in MA? Does he file taxes as a MA resident? If so, I really don't see any problem whatsoever. I suspect that's the MA official's POV too.

No, apologist, he didn't dodge taxes (this time, that we know of). He broke the law and signed his name to a lie.

The other homes, physical presence etc cited is likely not as determinative of resident as you apparently think. It may be that he has not established a new residence outside of MA, likely meaning he retains the MA residency perfectly normally/legally.

Fern

You don't understand the English language. 'where he dwells'. 'center of his social life'. 'center of his civic life'.

The first two at least are clearly not the case, and probably not the third either.

He doesn't live in his son's basement, where he says he does. He didn't keep his home in Massachusetts as his dwelling - he sold it.

It doesn't get to be a much clearer violation of the law as written than putting down a phony address you don't live at as the one you live at for establishing false residence.

You don't understand the English language.

The fact it's not enforced doesn't change the fact that he's breaking the law and lying.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
You are failing at the basics of the English language. Which are you not understanding?

Craig,

This is a technical legal matter. I can you tell you from years of professional experience a simple reading will quite often lead to the wrong conclusion.

And you're basing conclusion upon the word of the accuser. Just because he says they "moved" doesn't mean they did so according to a correct interpretation of MA law.

Aside from the above there are simply far too many unknowns IMO to even bother getting into the details and nuance of MA law.

Occam's razor and a little common sense should indicate if the MA official responsible doesn't think there's a problem, then likely there is not. Otherwise we must assume the official is incompetent or corrupt.

Fern

 

[Lanyap]

While I believe it should have been investigated, it's clear that this is a complaint filed by one individual for political reasons and based mostly on hearsay. Contrary to OP's title, it's not clear that he violated voter law. Sounds like OP has a case of weiner envy.

To support his allegations, Karger probed Romney’s real estate history and interviewed people belonging to his former church’s congregation. He additionally asked Ann Romney where the couple lived, and she reportedly told him California.

According to the complaint, “A member of the nearby Mormon Temple and Meetinghouse in Belmont, Massachusetts, where Mitt and Ann Romney were weekly church goers, said she ‘hadn’t seen the Romneys since 2008.’” Additionally, “Their realtor at Coldwell Banker who sold them their new town home in Belmont stated, ‘Oh, they moved to California.’”

 

[fskimospy]

Craig, of all the problems in this country you choose this one to start a thread about??

Seriously?

Very interesting. In the past our good friend Pro-Jo believed voter fraud to be a serious issue, one that he was very excited to investigate and limit. He also noted that officials declining to investigate was perhaps the insidious work of corrupt officials. He didn't need proof, and studies to the contrary that showed voter fraud wasn't an issue were dismissed out of hand.

Now we have a former high ranking official and current presidential candidate being accused of voter fraud, and Pro-Jo doesn't even want to talk about it. Something must be different, I wonder what it is?

I can only assume that Pro-Jo has looked into the available evidence and recognized the incredibly obvious reality that voter fraud of this type is basically a nonexistent problem for the US. I can't possibly think of any other difference between those previous cases and now, so let's all celebrate Pro-Jo's newfound grasp on reality!

 

[Craig234]

Craig,

This is a technical legal matter. I can you tell you from years of professional experience a simple reading will quite often lead to the wrong conclusion.

And you're basing conclusion upon the word of the accuser. Just because he says they "moved" doesn't mean they did so according to a correct interpretation of MA law.

Aside from the above there are simply far too many unknowns IMO to even bother getting into the details and nuance of MA law.

Occam's razor and a little common sense should indicate if the MA official responsible doesn't think there's a problem, then likely there is not. Otherwise we must assume the official is incompetent or corrupt.

Fern

You are not in any position to use the phrase "common sense" when you can't understand the issue with his using his son's basement he has never lived in, versus the law.

Yes, there are all kinds of other facts involved in whether he'll be held accountable, from working practices to politics, and they don't change the facts about breaking the law.

You have no logic at all with your argument: 'ignore what the law says, and assume that if he's not being prosecuted, it's for all the right reasons he's not breaking the law.'

The fact that the accuser doesn't like Romney does not prove he's wrong - yet another flaw in the 'logic' you use.

Watch this: I have all kinds of issues with George Bush. I say that he avoided serving in combat in Vietnam. One bit of evidence of that is his own confession he did so.

But your 'logic' demands that obviously, the claim he avoided combat in Vietnam can't be correct, because the claim was made by someone who has issues with him.

You are apparently incapable of looking at the facts of the issue independent of the motives of the person who has put the effort into collecting and presenting them.

On the one hand you raise the technical issues with what the meaning of is is, er, what the meaning of 'moved' is, and that would be fine as far as it goes, but you fail to actually say anything about the legal issues, to add anything to the discussion, to pay any attention to what the law actually says (we know that, it's been posted) - you merely think that saying 'it's a legal issue' is some sort of refutation to the actual facts. It's not.

Remaining consistent in being wrong, you also get it wrong the official must be 'incompetent of corrupt'. The issue isn't about the official - you ignore the issue.

But on the official, there are any number of reasons for them not to prosecute despite the fact Romney is violating the law. To mention just one, it can have to do with the political culture there having decided to ignore the law. There are various laws not enforced - it could easily be it's a widespread practice they've adopted, with no special treatment for Romney, that doesn't fit 'incompetent or corrupt'.

On Rahm's residency issue, the appeals court rules against him; the state Supreme Court reversed them. Does that mean that the judges were 'incompetent or corrupt'?

No. There are other explanations.

It's clear you have nothing to do but repeat the same thing over and over while ignoring the facts, so why don't you not bother to repeat the same wrong info again.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ we also have a Secretary of State saying that he is not going to look into it.

Now why do you guys have no problem with Rham doing what he did, but have a problem with Romney?

In both cases the presiding authority said that there is nothing wrong.

 

[Craig234]

While I believe it should have been investigated, it's clear that this is a complaint filed by one individual

Yes, it's being raised especially by one individual who has put a lot of effort into it.

Does that make him wrong? Now he's been repeated by many others who think he's right.

for political reasons and based mostly on hearsay.

What are his 'political reasons'? Here's your logic:

Person A finds politician B is breaking the law and getting away with it. Person A doesn't like that and publicizes the issue. Lanyap responds, "Person A is attacking Politician B, therefore Person A is an enemy of Politician B, therefore Person A is lying." By this logic, every exposure of any wrongdoing by any person is always a lie by an enemy.

There are two main categories of attacks by 'political enemies': those that are correct, and those that are not correct.

You are saying that all attacks by a political enemy are not correct.

You are not saying anything about the known facts.

Contrary to OP's title, it's not clear that he violated voter law.

Yes, it is, and you offer zero to back up your claim.

The fact he's a political opponent is fine for treating him skeptically - it's not fine for ignoring all the facts he presents and just saying he's wrong.

 

[Craig234]

^ we also have a Secretary of State saying that he is not going to look into it.

Now why do you guys have no problem with Rham doing what he did, but have a problem with Romney?

In both cases the presiding authority said that there is nothing wrong.

Because the Supreme Court is the official decider of the law, and explained their legal argument for their decision. You are welcome to argue why they're wrong. You haven't.

A political official saying they're not going to do anything about it has nothing to do with whether it's a violation of the law - only with whether he'll be held accountable.

You predictably run from the issue every post - one minute you say there should be outrage over these things when you think you can pin them on Democrats, the next minute you reverse yourself and run off to the next bad argument. The law is stated, and unless you want to argue Romney actually lives in his son's basement, the issue is clear.

 

[Lanyap]

..It's clear you have nothing to do but repeat the same thing over and over while ignoring the facts, so why don't you not bother to repeat the same wrong info again.

What facts? All I see are allegations by one of Romney's political opponents. We understand you are very upset by the weiner scandal and want to deflect to the evil republicans but you need something better than this.

The allegations come from fellow Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger, a self-desribed “old opposition research campaign consultant” who is running a long-shot campaign.