Teabagger would-be brownshirts announce plans to intimidate voters at the polls

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/politics/27fraud.html?_r=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yeah Democrats have never done that. 

[Frink]

Yeah Democrats have never done that. 

We aren't discussing Democrats doing that in the South 60 years ago or the New Black Panther Party doing it two years ago; we're discussing the Tea Party.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yeah Democrats have never done that. 

We aren't discussing Democrats doing that in the South 60 years ago or the New Black Panther Party doing it two years ago; we're discussing the Tea Party.

Right, no voter intimidation by Dems has occurred since then. 

[Frink]

Yeah Democrats have never done that. 

We aren't discussing Democrats doing that in the South 60 years ago or the New Black Panther Party doing it two years ago; we're discussing the Tea Party.

Right, no voter intimidation by Dems has occurred since then. 

You seem to be a master at reading what you want to read rather than what was actually written. I made no such claim anywhere, but just because I lean left you seem to think its implied.

All I can say in response is, kindly:

Once again: this thread isn't about voter intimidation by the Democratic Party, the NBP, or even the mainstream Republican Party. Stop trying to hijack the thread because its hard to admit people with similar political views to your own would do anything wrong.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I guess my question is, Foster, what's new here?   Lief is apparently outraged that this could happen, and I don't know why he's outraged?

[Frink]

I guess my question is, Foster.  What's new here?   Lief is apparently outraged that his could happen, and I don't know why he's outraged?

Heh, I agree with you on that bit Gramps, its really nothing new or shocking. Its still wrong no matter the side that does it, but frankly it basically comes with the territory of any democracy.

Does that mean more should be done to stop it? Well yes, but the problem with that is all the sides benefit in some way from it so any process to stop it would be extremely politicized. Of course there has been some limited success stopping it in the South with "preclearance" and the VRA, but even then the work isn't really complete.

[perdedor]

This is why Democrats/liberals really need to get on board with this 2nd amendment rights thing.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Once again: this thread isn't about voter intimidation by the Democratic Party, the NBP, or even the mainstream Republican Party.

I think you're trying to intimidate me into reading what you want me to read into this thread. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Does that mean more should be done to stop it? Well yes, but the problem with that is all the sides benefit in some way from it so any process to stop it would be extremely politicized.

Ding Ding Ding!!!!  I agree!

Usually the only reason one party gets pissed, is the other guys are doing a better job of it

[Frink]

Once again: this thread isn't about voter intimidation by the Democratic Party, the NBP, or even the mainstream Republican Party.

I think you're trying to intimidate me into reading what you want me to read into this thread. 

If your so easily intimidated over the internet; you may not have a thick enough skin for this sort of thing jmfcst

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah Democrats have never done that. 

We aren't discussing Democrats doing that in the South 60 years ago or the New Black Panther Party doing it two years ago; we're discussing the Tea Party.

Except, on this forum, I can guarantee that if we have a topic where liberals are intimidating voters, a bunch of our liberals on the forum will start talking about "Oh yeah, the Tea Parties did it too!"

[Frink]

Yeah Democrats have never done that. 

We aren't discussing Democrats doing that in the South 60 years ago or the New Black Panther Party doing it two years ago; we're discussing the Tea Party.

Except, on this forum, I can guarantee that if we have a topic where liberals are intimidating voters, a bunch of our liberals on the forum will start talking about "Oh yeah, the Tea Parties did it too!"

I'd likely come out on your side and tell them to make another thread about it as well in that situation.

[tpfkaw]

Not to mention that there are a hell of a lot of actually-fraudulent voter registrations.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Whataboutery is an excellent word.

[Eraserhead]

They can try and question me if they'd like.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How is this any different than normal poll challenging?  Or are they talking about taking individuals aside as they try to walk in?  The article wasn't exactly clear.

[tpfkaw]

How is this any different than normal poll challenging?  Or are they talking about taking individuals aside as they try to walk in?  The article wasn't exactly clear.

It's the former, but Dems like to pretend it's the latter because it feeds their victim complex.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Not to mention that there are a hell of a lot of actually-fraudulent voter registrations.

3 ballots out of hundreds of thousands in Hennepin County, Minnesota.  This belief that there are all these fraudulent voters is a myth.

The only reason they do this is to suppress turnout for the Democrats.  When people turn out at the polls, Democrats win.. pure and simple.  That's why, for example, the SoS position is such a nasty battle here every election... because the GOP wants to make it very hard to vote in this state while the DFL wants to make it very easy, knowing that while it may increase fraudulent voting, it will raise turnout more than enough to make up for it.  Besides, the people who would be voting fraudulently, here at least, would have to register on election day because, say, if you're a felon and ineligible, your registration is void.

So you fill out a registration form.. well, you need photo ID with proof of residence on it or a utility bill with your address and an already registered voter to vouch for you.

When fraud is roughly 0.08% of all votes in a system that makes voting easy and leads to the nation's best turnout year after year... I think I'll stick with that.

[tpfkaw]

Your whining would make more sense if the Democrats did not give themselves paroxyisms every time a photo ID law is proposed anywhere.  If they've implemented that in Minnesota, that's a step in the right direction.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Your whining would make more sense if the Democrats did not give themselves paroxyisms every time a photo ID law is proposed anywhere.  If they've implemented that in Minnesota, that's a step in the right direction.

No photo ID needed to vote.  Only to register.  If your'e already registered, you walk in, give them your name.. and they cross it off.

Every time I have registered to vote it was at the polling place on election day.

Having arcane laws of mailing in a registration by a certain date with all this information is ridiculous.  I'd prefer automatic registration upon the voter's 18th birthday myself.

And if you are going to require photo IDs to vote once you're already registered, then every person who registers should get a photo ID from the state that can be used as both a general, non-driving license ID and for voting.  That way, everybody has photo ID... none of this requiring a photo ID because you wanna keep minorities and poor people away from the polls cuz they don't vote your way.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What Snowguy said also applies to me. Except you actually don't even need photo ID to register either, you just need someone pre-registered to sign something saying that they agree you live in the precinct. As a result it's not uncommon for people to come to voter lines in Minneapolis with no ID and just ask some random person in line to do so, which will almost always get someone to agree. Helps too if you're wearing a shirt proving you're a liberal (obviously shirts promoting candidates are illegal, but there's tons of other ways to show as such.)