Sestak and the White House

[Lurker]

Just so we're clear, you're position is that the founding fathers didn't engage in political horse-trading?

*trying not to laugh*

[Fallakin Kuvari]

So we're clear: My position is that if you're claiming something as a fact, you should provide evidence that it is indeed true.

[Harlowe]

I am actually looking for information from Lurker or you, Harlowe. Its true I could go look this stuff up on my own, but since Lurker is the one stating it as fact I think the burden is on him to prove it.

Why would it be his burden to prove something to someone that is being willfully ignorant about history? Besides, Partha gave you an example.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

...

Are you seriously going to go with "Partha gave you an example (of the Founding Fathers)" when he was talking about Abraham Lincoln?

[Lurker]

I won't spend a single second finding examples of political horse-trading done by the founding fathers. You know it's an obvious fact or you would have answered my question differently. And it's just too much fun watching you make an ass out of yourself.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I'm not the one claiming something is a fact without supporting it.

I answered your question in a neutral fashion because I figured the first thing you'd do is pull out Alexander Hamilton and his political horse-trading to get D.C. where it is today (though that was trading votes for relief of state debts or other agreements).

I'm not finding anything involving political horse-trading for positions in government like what happened with Sestak (as you claim happened back then).

[Harlowe]

Lurker said the from the Founding Fathers on ...you then stomped your feet demanding proof, Partha gave an example of an early President, you then go "FOUNDING FATHERS NYEAH", because you are Literal Boy and also seem to have very little experience with Google.

No one is going to waste time on educating you, because you don't really want to know facts. You just want to one-up someone by attempting to make them jump through hoops and create a wall of links just to appease you, knowing most people aren't going to bother. You just want to beat your chest while tickling your pickle.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Tell me, HarLOL, which number President was Abraham Lincoln? Was he a "Founding Father"? Was he alive during the founding of the country?

I did search Google. The only thing it spat back at me was the Alexander Hamilton thing I already referenced.

I would love to know the facts, if either of you could provide them. I'm not even trying to make you create a wall of links. I just want ONE link from a non-opinion based source that provides the truth. If what Lurker is stating is a fact then it shouldn't be hard to provide.

[Kulaf]

I doubt you are going to find an example of any of the Founders (at a federal level) interfering in the election of a state congressman because the level of state autonomy was much greater back then than it is today. I have no doubt that it occured at the state level, and among those at the federal level.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And the founding father's position is irrelevant anyway. Laws today are different from over 200 years ago. It may not have even been illegal then. Election tampering, using a federal job as an enticement to shape elections, and outright bribery were probably not as well defined then as they are now.

[Lurker]

Laws today are different from over 200 years ago. It may not have even been illegal then.

And it isn't illegal now either.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

18 U.S.C. 600 would disagree with you, Lurker.

So, found anything you're willing to share that makes your claim true?

[Lurker]

I haven't looked. Even you aren't so stupid as to think the founding fathers didn't engage in political horse-trading on every number of things, from ambassadorships to where the capital will be located to who will serve in who's cabinet. I have no interest in trying to find an exact match to the current situation.

And every independent legal scholar (even the Republican ones) that have looked say that statute doesn't apply to this type of political horse-trading. Embar admitted as much. It's gone on since the founding fathers with nobody batting an eye.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I haven't looked.

It's gone on since the founding fathers with nobody batting an eye.

You haven't looked, but yet its still a 'fact'?

Sounds like maybe you should dig into that a little rather than just repeat what you've heard around the internet.

[Lurker]

I added more to my comment after you posted. I won't be responding to you on this again, and I will keep using the line because it's true.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Unless you've read on the matter (and you obviously haven't, nor cared to) and found it to be the truth, its not. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, its still not going to be a truth without facts to support it.

I don't believe they did engage in political horse-trading of this nature because they likely saw it happen in England and were appalled by it. If they wanted to set up their own system and engage in the same political horse-trading they just as easily could have remained a part of England. (Votes in exchange for the relieve of state debts and the future location of the National Capital is an entirely different beast that I'm sure was more prevalent.)

Do you believe Washington was involved in any political horse-trading?

[Partha]

Hamilton certainly was; google '1796 Presidential election'.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

There were rumors that southern electors pledged to Jefferson were coerced by Alexander Hamilton to give their second vote to Pinckney in hope of electing him President instead of Adams. Indeed, as it turned out, all eight electors in Pinckney's home state of South Carolina as well as at least one elector in Pennsylvania cast ballots for both Jefferson and Pinckney.

Says nothing of political horse-trading, just of coercion. It would be better if it specified.

Similarly this article also does not specify what he did to coerce them.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Thanks for that, though, Partha. Thats at least a indication that something like Sestak may have happened with the Founders.

[Ddrak]

I don't believe they did engage in political horse-trading of this nature because they likely saw it happen in England and were appalled by it.

I seriously doubt King George was involved in any political horse-trading of this specific nature. Politics around the monarchy were quite a bit different...

Dd