The New York Times ("All the news that's fit to fake...") regales us with a story about Arizona democrats fuming over "fake" Green Party candidates...who happen to be Homeless* folks recruited by evil republicans...
What does it say about an Arizona democrat if you lose elections to the Homeless*? What does it say about democrats in general, when they have spent decades championing the cause of The Homeless*, only to suggest that The Homeless* have no right to run for political offices that should have gone to democrats because..well...they deserve them.
I mean, aren't The Homeless* citizens, too?
Well, if you're a democrat, apparently not. Everyone knows The Homeless* are simply a club with which to beat republicans over the head when they're in power. But, I digress...
Of course, all the consternation boils down to one thing: the elitist attitude of some democrats, who believe they are entitled to win elections because...they care...and stuff, and that some candidates are more deserving than others, especially those who have patiently awaited their turn while dutifully serving the democratic Party machinery. These small posts are often springboards to better, and more powerful ones, from whence they can really do damage to society and the Republic, and better implement their oppressive brand of utter bullshit. They deserve these posts, many of which are simply sinecures, by virtue of who they are, and what they claim to stand for. You can't let something as trifling as a requirement for a competitive election get in the way of getting a democrat elected to anything.
That a Homeless* person might actually be able to do the job they're trying to get elected to do never seems to enter into the equation, nor does anyone even think about their rights as citizens or to hold public office -- if they somehow find the means to run (I rather doubt you get there on spare change and turning aluminum cans in for recycling).
Now, is it political subterfuge by republicans to pull any douchebag off the street and stick him/her on a ballot in the hopes of splitting the Leftard vote? No more than it is keeping dead democrats on the voter rolls, some who were born in 1825, I guess.
If I remember correctly, in the 2000 Presidential election,The City of Philadelphia (democratic stronghold)reported a 104% turnout by registered voters.
Chicago politics is (in)famous for it's ability to get dead voters to go out and vote for live people. In fact, Chicago democrats don't even try to hide the fact that their elections are rigged.
In the 2000 Senate Elections,Missouri democrats pulled off an even more amazing feat and got live people to vote for a dead man (Mel Carnahan), who's office was mysteriously passed on to his wife Jean when he won, posthumously. I didn't realize one could bequeath a Senate seat to a bereaved widow, did you? I wonder what article of the Constitution that one's in? She was such an effective legislator, and such a memorable personality, that I doubt that even anyone in her own family -- let alone the state of Missouri, and certainly not many nationally -- remembers just who the fuck she was.
In the 2000 Presidential Election, it was common knowledge that Al Gore's minions went out, scooped up every elderly person not circling the bowl,every welfare recipient and illegal alien they could find, bussed them to the polls, provided them with lunch, and even told them to "Pick #2" . The only reason this did not achieve the desired result, is that Gore was actually #3 on most ballots, hence all the hullabaloo about chads, scuff marks and divining "voter intent", and fucking lawsuits.
Every year, we hear stories of people handing out cigarettes and cash to the Homeless* to go and vote for certain candidates, or tires being slashed or vehicles vandalized to keep republicans from bringing their voters to the polls. Gunshots, Molotov cocktails through campaign-office windows, destruction of campaign signs, are election-year staple stories for most newspapers and local news channels, and the perpetrators of these acts typically turn out to be democrats.
John F. Kennedy became a senator because his father hired a man with the same name as JFK's opponent, and got him on the ballot, and in such fashion split the vote in Kennedy's favor. That bit of subterfuge eventually led that incredible douchebag to the Oval Office.
The point being, that if anyone knows a thing or two about voter fraud and political subterfuge, it would be a democrat. While I'm not for subverting the political process in any way, and would cheer the day when elections in America were truly fair, I find it uproariously funny to listen to democrats squeal when they are beaten at their own game, and with their own tactics.
* The Homeless live in refrigerator boxes, subway tunnels, abandoned buildings, mental institutions, and publicly-funded shelters. They are not so much"Homeless" as they are "people without a permanent address". Notice that under a democratic party regime, no one is talking about those who used to have a permanent address, but no longer do because they lost their job and defaulted on the mortgage...