Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations
from the Make-America-Grovel-Again dept
Something pretty ugly has been attached as a rider to a routine reauthorization bill. If the bill manages to move forward without this being stripped, future elections would resemble those held by dictatorial governments, where the outcome is assured before the first voter is even intimidated.
President Trump would be able to dispatch Secret Service agents to polling places nationwide during a federal election, a vast expansion of executive authority, if a provision in a Homeland Security reauthorization bill remains intact.
This appears to be the result of Trump's continued insistence he would have won the popular vote if there hadn't been so many illegal votes. Of course, the administration has produced no evidence this happened in the last election. The only story that surfaced as a result of this post-election scrutiny was one involving someone who voted twice… for Trump.
Needless to say, state officials overseeing elections are horrified. The intrusion of the law enforcement branch that works closest with the president would give elections the appearance that Secret Service agents are there to prevent voters from voting for the wrong person. Given Trump's antipathy towards anyone that isn't white with a red hat, dispatched agents would certainly deter those not matching the chosen description from exercising their rights.
State officials are trying to get the attention of unwary Capitol Hill legislators before it's too late. The bill with the rider attached has already passed in the House. The Senate is still looking through its two versions of the reauthorization bill -- one with the rider attached and one that's arguably more respectful of voting rights and the citizens exercising them.
“There is no discernible need for federal secret service agents to intrude, at the direction of the president, who may also be a candidate in that election, into thousands of citadels where democracy is enshrined,” according to a letter opposing the provision that was signed by 19 bipartisan secretaries of state and elections commissioners.
The letter — sent to the Senate’s majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and its minority leader, Charles Schumer, on Friday afternoon —requests that the Senate keep the Secret Service provision from the final legislation. The elections officials described the proposal as “unprecedented and shocking.”
“This is an alarming proposal which raises the possibility that armed federal agents will be patrolling neighborhood precincts and vote centers,” according to the letter, which was obtained by the Globe.
Very few people are going to see the presence of federal agents -- especially from an agency with close ties to the White House -- and think a fair election is in progress. The presence of any federal agents would be cause for concern, if not for the integrity of the election, than for the safety of those voting. Generally, a large law enforcement presence does not indicate safety. It indicates the area they're guarding may come under attack. Either way, this will do nothing for voter turnout and will definitely dissuade those who aren't voting for the party in power from casting their vote.
As it stands now, federal law prohibits federal agents for entering polling places. This rider would eliminate a protection put in place to protect Americans from government intrusion into the democratic process. Dispatching the Secret Service to any place Trump feels might be overrun with fake voters would only give citizens the impression the fix is in. And if it's already been decided, why bother running a federal gauntlet just to show support for your candidates?
Hopefully, common sense will prevail. But given the fact the rider was already approved by one half of legislative branch, relying on common sense seems almost nonsensical.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: authoritarianism, donald trump, polling places, secret service, voter fraud
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What a way to ruin what started as a great article. Hard to take anything serious from someone throwing a tantrum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Which is why Trump is making a laughing stock of your country. He does little else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Red Hat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Desire to be Dictator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Congress members can not meet with anyone with out armed federal police monitoring their actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Good, I don’t have to take you seriously, then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Desire to be Dictator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Desire to be Dictator
Don’t forget about his “joke” that he wants to be president for life. He does not want to lead—he wants to rule.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get back to tech stuff
You may a number of completely false statements and quite a WRONG few assumptions based on some vague theory that you obviously created from a warped liberal mindset.
While I agree that the Secret Service is probably NOT the agency to be monitoring election polling stations, the fact that there ARE monitors should make people feel SAFER to vote, knowing there is someone there to prevent ANY political organization or group from intimidating LEGAL voters.
But... the moment they advocate one party over another or turn away a single LEGAL voter, then I would have a problem with it. THAT'S when it becomes similar to a dictatorship. If there are secret service agents walking into the booth with guns drawn while you cast your vote, then we have an issue. Just having armed members of law enforcement around... no... not even REMOTELY close to the "elections" in dictatorships.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get back to tech stuff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get back to tech stuff
But, you're clearly a partisan idiot so you're rather whine about "liberals" than accept objective reality into your thought process.
"But... the moment they advocate one party over another or turn away a single LEGAL voter"
That's far, far, far more likely than Trump's claim that he only lost the popular vote by 3 million due to illegal voting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
Oh, don't start that nonsense. The US is a democracy, as intended. It's also a republic. The two are not mutually exclusive. "Republic" just means no monarch.
Non-republic democracies also tended to limit voting to white males until around the same time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Desire to be Dictator
Time will tell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Red Hat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
I am surprised at how long this supposedly despised President has lasted without being shot at compared to historical precedence. Oh right. He brought in his own security on the get go. 🙈🙊🙉
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Techdirt carrying the water
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
That could be arranged, though possibly not in the way he intends.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The statement is not wrong, perhaps there is something I am not aware of - if so, please explain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a supremely idiotic statement, with no bearing on reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
The electoral college was created when the educated and well-off lived on country estates and plantations.
Workers, merchants, and craftsmen lived in the cities, and were usually less-educated than the rich.
After the Industrial Revolution, the educated and rich now live in the cities and the uneducated live on farms and small towns, so the electoral college gives priority to the ignorant, as this past election proved!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
2) Big mid terms coming up
3) ?????
4) Celebrate huge win at the polls
5) More collusion, extortion and general grifting
6) Profit!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bow to your god, cow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
no literacy required
Also it seems Congress members don't read the bills anymore and just assume it's good as long as someone else says it's okay to vote on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But, hey, why exercise intelligent thought or risk being exposed to alternative ideas, when you can just create an echo chamber for yourself? If you build it right, the world will conform to your ideas instead of you being forced to adapt to the world!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: no literacy required
Who was it that said "We have to vote on it to find out what's in it"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Can you find 3 examples of him showing true empathy* towards anyone that isn't white with a red hat?
*(this excludes obvious PR stunts and blatant attempts go gain personal benefits from it)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: no literacy required
Someone who's constantly incorrectly quoted out of context to distort what she was actually talking about. It seems to be a popular tactic in some quarters, since otherwise people who actually hear the correct context seem to end up agreeing with the speaker rather than the "news" outlet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But, I normally exercise my brain to avoid them, rather than pretending you people don't exist. That way, I'll occasionally come across comments like yours and be reminded that people like you sadly still exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
See how easy that is to do? It requires nothing to back it up, and is clearly unassailable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: no literacy required
I took the Pelosi statement as an admission that they do not or are not given time to read the bills before voting. Some bills are not even readable, it is chicken scratching in the margins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This guy can prove us wrong if he wants. But, since his reaction thus far has been to whine about a blog writer having opinions different from his, and wishes to hide those ideas rather than discuss them, he probably won't do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The secret service was originally created to protect from counterfeiting.
So at least there's theoretically an incredibly tenuous link between the SS and protecting election integrity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
Oooh, do you have some of that proof that Trump never bothers to provide? Cool, let's see it!
I would note that voters being turned away tends to happen with a little more subtlety, through poll taxes, gerrymandering and the like rather than literally standing there at the door, but this isn't an administration that's known for subtlety.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: no literacy required
Cool, always nice to know that someone is just pretending to be that ignorant. Though, I wish you wouldn't. It's too hard to tell the difference nowadays :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you whine about identity politics on the sites that taught you to whine about people who disagree with you as being "SJWs" as well, or only here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why is your reaction to try and avoid him and call him names rather than address the smaller points you disagree with him on?
"The fact that you see all criticism as disagreement"
No intelligent criticism has been presented as yet. Give it a try, you might see a better reaction than I have to childish name calling and whining that the author isn't reflecting your personal political views.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then why are you name calling instead of doing that?
"They dig in against different challenges to the hivemind aspects of their communities."
When the only thing presented from outside of the "hivemind" is people calling names and whining that the author doesn't subscribe to their vires, can you really blame them? You're not even being original with your whining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want better, give me something to work with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's actually you.
>When the only thing presented from outside of the "hivemind" is people calling names
Again, you.
>whining that the author doesn't subscribe to their vires
Not what's happening. And I don't believe you could miss the point this hard without doing so intentionally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why, did I miss something of value that you posted?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that's the person rambling on about SJWs and hiveminds.
"Not what's happening"
Strange, that's exactly what your first comment in the thread was, from what I can see. What did I miss?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not. You're projecting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Techdirt carrying the water
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
Yeah, I got caught by that when I moved. I haven't voted Red since I was 19, and now somehow a valid out-of-state drivers license, a valid social security card, and a valid military birth certificate isn't enough to prove who I am enough to be eligible to vote at my new place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-says-central-park-five-are-gui lty-despite-dna-n661941
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial- comments-about-judge-trump-un/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-ra ce.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/they-dont-look-like-indians-to-me-donald-trump- on-native-american-casinos-in-1993/2016/07/01/20736038-3fd4-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_video.html
https:/ /www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/29/16713664/trump-obama-birth-certificate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't tell us; tell Trump. HE'S the one who has tirelessly cultivated his "hates everyone who isn't white with a red hat" persona.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get back to tech stuff
There's a good reason federal forces are not allowed at polling places. Their presence is not neutral and absolutely represents a threat. If you cannot see that then I suggest you go study sociology and psychology a little more. They don't have to DO anything to affect people's decisions at the polls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same sites that, despite all evidence and facts to the contrary, insist black is white, the sky is falling, and Ajit Pai saved the internet? Those sites?
Don't make me laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: no literacy required
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzbhbetwYFU
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Techdirt carrying the water
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Rallies that are attended by mostly white people sure... where he talks as if all blacks live in crime infested urban areas... and all of them are on welfare... despite the fact that none of those things are true...
OMG, Trump is totally a racist, I must be the first person to notice!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Get back to tech stuff
I disagree. I would feel much safer if there is *no one* with a gun standing around. If some group shows up to try to intimidate legal voters, you call the local cops. But until such a threat manifests, having armed guards present only escalates tension/anxiety because they themselves might be seen as intimidation or as a sign that such protection is *necessary*; where otherwise I would have assumed everything is fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
Illegal voting aka voter fraud has indeed happened. I think one can count them on one hand. The last one I read about was some dude that thought he could cast his deceased wife's ballot.
On the other hand - electoral fraud is a huge problem.
But you knew this - right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, Techdirt is arguably not an echo chamber. Being an echo chamber would imply the ability to shut out those who disagree and prevent them from posting comments.
Even when a comment is hidden due to being flagged, you can still click to show it. The ability to comment without logging in means there is no effective way to ban people from the system.
Techdirt just fights speech with more speech, regardless of what perspective you hold.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: no literacy required
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
Oh nonsense. Democratic protections rely on the populace doing/wanting the right thing. An election which fails to make anybody but the "ultimate trial" president means that the democratic protections have broken down.
That holds even if you consider Trump the lesser evil since democratic protections are meaningless when procedures leave nothing but evil to choose from.
You cannot talk about the U.S. as if it were an occupied country. That's just revisionism, like a Germany or other country full of resistance fighters overcome by a few dozen magical bad guys like "the Nazis".
You can't magically hope this to be the worst to come yet and magically better choices being available next time round. Where should those better choices be coming from, and why would they be allowed to thrive in the first place?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why haven't we seen Trump's long-form birth certificate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAUY1J8KizU
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you don't see all this (and there's more, but I got tired of typing it out) then you're willfully blind. TRUMP IS A RACIST, dummy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They'll usually attack strawmen then call you names and disappear when you correct them."
I forgot the whining about echo chambers, but it otherwise holds true here. I'm still yet to see anyone use such terms and not scurry back to whichever swamp they picked the terms up from once they realise they're being seriously challenged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Techdirt carrying the water
[ link to this | view in thread ]
correct solution
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
money is speech
speech is voting
therefore money is voting
I'm beginning to see the big picture - LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE; THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION
Trump is a fascist, pure and simple. He DEMANDS loyalty. If you did not vote for him, you made an illegal vote. He praised/is praising Duterte, who instituted executions of SUSPECTED drug dealers, not convicted, suspected. He praised Erdogan as his men attacked US citizens on US soil. He praised President Xi as he became president for life in China. THEN SUGGESTED WE SHOULD DO THE SAME. *Here's where Trump is an Idiot, before 1952 we did NOT have a term limit on the office of the president, it wasn't until FDR's 4th term that everyone said, "you know, maybe we should have a term limit." And do we even have to discuss Putin/Trump yaoi relationship?
Republicans, by and large, are also complicit. They do not want to govern, they want to rule. Any Republican that puts party over country is (or at least should be) guilty of outright treason, or at the very least sedition against the United States. By defending Trump, they are also defending all of the above leaders I have talked about. Oh yes, John McCain will be "Very concerned" but is unlikely to do Jack and Shit about it. The simple fact is, To many Republicans, being Literal Hitler is better than being a dirty commie treehugging hipster Democrat, Even being Literal Satan is better than that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Voted twice
How do we know who they voted for? It's supposed to be a secret ballot. Are we just going by their claim?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Voted twice
I don't know, just guessing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Red Hat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
Don't forget, not just property owners, white male property owners where white pretty much just meant English (can't have those dirty Irish voting).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“No U”
Repeat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, during the last presidential election, I think I recall seeing a small number of women arguing that women's right to vote should be revoked...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rules be damned - people will act in their own interest
When the threat of deportation is hanging over the heads of illegal aliens, depending on the outcome of an election, they have every reason and incentive to unlawfully vote (for Democrat candidates of course).
Likewise, any Democratic party official would be a fool not to secretly encourage this sort of illegal voting, since it obviously helps get Democrats elected.
In contrast, Republicans would benefit by spreading false rumors that polling stations would be scrutinizing voters in search of illegal voters and naturalized citizens who have an illegal alien in their household (reportedly a significant percentage) in the hope of preventing a large segment of eligible voters from voting (for Democratic candidates)
Yes, it's all dirty and underhanded, but isn't everything in politics? A "fair" election is when the effects of Republican skullduggery cancel out Democrat skullduggery, even if both are present in spades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: rules be damned - people will act in their own interest
Of the many studies into voter fraud, which ones do you think are wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"SJW rhetoric"
Should we infer from this you stand for social injustice?
Rather than labeling and dismissing you could, you know, actually make a disagreeing argument.
Or is that too difficult?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not even to the Middle Ages.
No. The corporations have turned us back to the middle ages. They are the new aristocracy, only they owe fealty only to their shareholders and neither the territory nor the people who dwell upon them.
So we've receded back to a perversion of feudalism before the social contract.
I'd say I miss the rule of law as defined by the Napoleonic code, but we never had that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Voters being turned away hasn't happened"
Voter suppression has totally happened.
Seriously, you'll do better on the test if you study first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Literal Hitler
We almost went Literal Hitler (literal Fascism, at any rate) while it was still en vogue, until a general named Smedley blew a whistle.
But the Democrats have gone way, way to the right of us dirty commie treehugging hippie liberals, these days.
I was on the moderate left, once.
Once.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We'll see whether those reports ever come to light and be substantiated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
Well, communication is just as instant from Russia. If you don't get your information via slower and more reliable channels, you might just as well elect Trump president.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"O Lord Satan, please destroy America...."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What is this nebulous SJW to which refer?
Sorry, but we tend to get too much sport in the NZ media, and after a while it all kind of blurs together ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"See how easy that is to do?"
I'm not sure why you think it's a valid comparison. You made a judgement based on one comment, whereas an opinion on Trump can be made based on thousands of comments, tweets, videos' speeches, etc. And if you can't see and admit that he's racist from all that, you're clearly racist too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "SJW rhetoric"
However misapplied the label, it is kinda amusing that there are people who think it's an insult to accuse someone of fighting for social justice. It's like they never actually learnt what the words mean.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Protecting our borders doesn't make a person racist."
No, but repeatedly and demonstrably showing a hatred of other races does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
"...electoral fraud is a huge problem."
...said nobody who has independently researched the issue and published their findings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
2. Does Trump think the SS *is on his side*? There's only two possibilities for the SS - they take their duty seriously and so don't take sides (in which case they won't be doing anything at a polling station) or they're part of the deep state, wouldn't be unhappy if Trump ate a bullet, and would be more likely to help his *opponent* get elected.
There is no way that deploying SS agents to anywhere is going to provide him an advantage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What will probably happen
North Korea has its Kims, Haiti had its Duvaliers, Cuba had its Castros--and America will have its Trumps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Silly
No Secret Service agents will be at polling places monitoring your votes. The agency only has 2500 agents total. And they're already damn busy trying to protect the people they're assigned to protect. There's no physical way the USSS could monitor elections at the thousands of polling places across the country even if they completely dropped protection on all the officials in their charge-- which is something they're never going to do.
The source of this kerfuffle was a rider in a bill to permit Secret Service agents at a polling place WHEN THE PERSON THEY ARE PROTECTING GOES TO VOTE THERE. Apparently during the last election there was some pushback when Hillary Clinton went to vote and the poll workers didn't want to let her Secret Service detail into the polling place with her. So this rider is meant to address that issue and make it legal for USSS agents to be present at a polling place when their protectee is voting.
That's it. That's all it is.
It's no evil conspiracy to turn Trump into a dictator and if Cushing was honest and not pushing his own political agenda here, he'd have included the full explanation in his article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Silly
The section seems a bit broader than merely accompanying one under SS protection to a polling location.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Silly
Section 592 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
"This section shall not prevent any officer or agent of the United States Secret Service from providing armed protective services authorized under section 3056 or pursuant to a Presidential memorandum at any place where a general or special election is held.”
That does exactly what I said it does. It amends the law to make it clear that USSS agents cannot be barred from a polling place if they are providing protection to an authorized protectee. Nothing more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Silly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Silly
That's what the "pursuant to a Presidential memorandum" phrase is referring to. It's saying that "if a Secret Service agent is protecting someone under the authority of 3056 or under the authority of presidential memorandum, he/she cannot be barred from a polling place".
This really is a huge nothing-burger that has people who don't understand statutory language all in a lather for no reason whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Silly
Personally, I do believe you are correct. Nevertheless, I cannot dismiss the possibility that a court presented 4102, if enacted as passed by the House, for interpretation might take a hyper-technical approach towards grammatical construction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Silly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Red Hat?
[ link to this | view in thread ]