Trump Administration Wants To Start Sending Secret Service Agents To Polling Stations

Failures

from the Make-America-Grovel-Again dept

Wed, Mar 14th 2018 3:23am — Tim Cushing

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

175 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Jack.., 14 Mar 2018 @ 3:51am

“Given Trump's antipathy towards anyone that isn't white with a red hat”

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 chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 4:11am
  
  Re:
  "Hard to take anything serious from someone throwing a tantrum."
  
  Which is why Trump is making a laughing stock of your country. He does little else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Jack.., 14 Mar 2018 @ 4:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    You're an idiot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 4:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, with that level of insight and intelligent rapport I assume you voted for Trump? Seriously, the article is about him throwing a tantrum, and the rest of the world is laughing at you for putting him in charge.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Jack.., 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Those laughing are welcome to join the China-Russia alliance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good to see Info Wars readers coming here to see what real news is like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nah, we'd rather wait until you elect someone competent and help our allies pick up the pieces, thanks. Assuming the orange moron hasn't goaded your enemies into WW3 via Twitter by then, anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Poster wants us to work with her and her Russkie cronies?
        Interesting!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How do your new jack boots fit?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Agammamon, 15 Mar 2018 @ 12:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    To be fair, our last 4 President's warmed up the crowd for the latest joker.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- carlb, 14 Mar 2018 @ 4:13am
  
  Red Hat?
  Indeed. He should install Debian instead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:23am
    
    Re: Red Hat?
    Maybe Umbuntu - wait no it sounds too black!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Stan (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:42am
      
      Re: Re: Red Hat?
      Umnuntu? What is that? Some OS frem Kenya?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2018 @ 6:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Red Hat?
        No, Hawaii.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 4:42am
  
  Re:
  Good, I don’t have to take you seriously, then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:11am
  
  Re:
  Even from 8000 miles away, we can see that Trump is a racist tyrant. He HATES anyone who isn't white. If you can't see that from inside your own country, maybe you're a racist too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    He doesn't "hate" them. They just don't have business being in Trump's own country, molesting Trump's women before he has the opportunity doing them himself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    Even from 8000 miles away, I can see you're an idiot.
    
    See how easy that is to do? It requires nothing to back it up, and is clearly unassailable.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Roger Strong (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:11am
      
      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 chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Gosh, it must be just a coincidence that he's surrounded himself with white supremacists. Gosh, it must be just a coincidence that he called the murderous Nazis in Charlottesville "good people". Gosh, it must be just a coincidence that both the Klan and Nazis have gone on the record stating that Trump supports them. Gosh, it must be just a coincidence that Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon have played key roles in his administration/campaign. Gosh, it must be just a coincidence that he called for the execution of the Central Park Five AFTER they were exonerated by DNA. Gosh, it must be just a coincidence that he was fined for racial discrimination in housing. Gosh, it must be just a coincidence that he calls out black politicians and athletes but not white ones. Gosh, it must be just a coincidence that he's directed the Justice Department to stop going over the most violent and dangerous people in America: white supremacists.
      
      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 chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:23pm
      
      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 chronology ]
  - ShadowNinja (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    But Trump holds rallies talking about the plight of black people!
    
    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 chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:43am
  
  Re:
  Tim Cushing has taken to forcing SJW rhetoric into his articles lately. It's actually kind of tempting to build a FF plugin to hide his writing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    Are there SJWs on both sides?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ther's no justice on the Russian/Repug side.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    Feel free to do so, Russkie!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      
      Everyone who disagrees with Tim Cushing's decisions is a Russian.
      
      Bow to your god, cow.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You sound triggered.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, far easier than either a) reading opinions from someone who disagrees with you politically or b) scrolling past the article when you see his name.
    
    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 chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I've seen enough SJW rhetoric to know it's not going to "challenge" me, and that I don't want it in my tech journalism. Thanks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is this nebulous SJW to which refer?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's one of the silly labels that the right-wing media outlets seem to use to describe people they don't like. In my experience, it's a red flag indicating that the people using it aren't worth your time nor interested in addressing positions you actually hold. They'll usually attack strawmen then call you names and disappear when you correct them.
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not they're "different" from mine. I actually agree with him, for the most part. The fact that you see all criticism as disagreement, and all disagreement as desecration is the problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I actually agree with him, for the most part."
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're part of the hivemind. There's no such thing as intelligent criticism against Techdirt writers to you, because Techdirt is your echo chamber.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See what I mean? Strawman positions, so much better for you than addressing actual viewpoints. You guys are so predictable - self-important whining rather than addressing real thoughts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think you understand what a strawman is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A strawman is an invented position that you can attack instead of a person's real opinions. It's a common tactic of your type, who would rather whine about "SJWs" and other labels than engage in real conversation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Given the frequent wars in the comment section from varying perspectives...
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        Toom1275 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Not being an alt-Right echo chamber" =/= "being a left-wing echo chamber"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        People who can't write about anything without injecting identity politics. They think they sound smart and clever, but all they're doing is changing their writing from something compelling and thoughtful to something that only appeals to people who already agree with them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You just described yourself, you know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All you've managed to respond with, to this point, is "ur dumb" and "nou."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All you've managed is "SJW!" and "I don't want to read the opinion of someone on an opinion blog!"
        
        If you want better, give me something to work with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Out of all the chains going on here, this is the worst possible one in which you could have tried to make this case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The case that you have nothing to add to the conversation and are instead whining that a writer on an opinion blog offered his opinion?
        
        Why, did I miss something of value that you posted?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you feel better yet?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, nothing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm calling this one for Paul...
        
        Paul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAUY1J8KizU
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Heh, thanks. To remind everyone what I said earlier about people who use terms like "SJW" seriously:
        
        "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 chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 4:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not sure how either of them "won". They both sounded like assholes to me; one red, the other blue.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only thing you’ve talked about so far are identity politics you numpty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:47pm
        
        Re: What is this nebulous SJW to which refer?
        Some up-and-coming rubgy player named Sonny-Joe Williams or something.
        
        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 chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've seen enough idiots to know that anyone who uses "SJW" seriously are probably getting so much misinformation from their chosen news sources that they aren't worth debating with. They usually seem to be addressing strawmen and fantasies rather than real life issues, because they've been trained to apply silly labels to people and assign teams rather than address actual ideas..
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tim Cushing is injecting identity politics into Techdirt articles. This is indisputable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is an opinion blog. The author is stating his own opinions on politics, on an article about politics. This is also indisputable.
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, they're already capable of having discussions without everything devolving into identity politics. They dig in against different challenges to the hivemind aspects of their communities.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "No, they're already capable of having discussions without everything devolving into identity politics."
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >Then why are you name calling instead of doing that?
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That's actually you."
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        These sites being the ones that are themselves so "hiveminded" that they can't refer to the people who disagree with them as anything other than "the left", "snowflakes", and "libtards", even when they are none of those things?
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Their projection is so good that one can ascertain their game plan from what they are accusing their opponents of.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is you so far. “SJWs are touching dicks over my Cheerios. “
        
        “No U”
        
        Repeat
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Toom1275 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, you've already made it perfecly obvious you're "challenged" enough as it is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        0/10 troll
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's strange that you'd mark yourself out of 10, but I can't dispute that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A lazy "nou." How trite.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, feel free to offer something worth responding to without mockery if you wish. I can only work with the meagre offerings you're presenting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh look. Another "ur dum."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, if you're so offended by that, do you want to stop acting like it, then? I can only address what I'm being presented with, and so far that's taken the form of a childish fool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        >if you're so offended
        
        I'm not. You're projecting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OK, so you're just whining for the hell of it then. I'm still not being presented with anything that warrants a different reaction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jesus you are the saddest troll I’ve seen in a long time. Lazy, uneducated, uninspired, and just plain dumb.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 3:02pm
    
    "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 chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:02pm
      
      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 chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:44am
  
  Re:
  “Given Trump's antipathy towards anyone that isn't white with a red hat”
  
  The statement is not wrong, perhaps there is something I am not aware of - if so, please explain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    You want him to be a racist, so you feel good hating him. That doesn't actually make him racist, though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This whole racist thing is a joke! The left keeps throwing that out there making that word worthless. Protecting our borders doesn't make a person racist.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you think people are calling Trump racist only because of the wall, you're not paying attention.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JMT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:04pm
        
        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 chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But Trump is racist- he doesn't like anyone who isn't green enough.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He is a racist. It's just a fact. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I did not use the term racist, you did. What does that say about your opinions?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It says his opinions are right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:50am
  
  Re:
  You’re right about that last sentence. Too bad you have the self awareness of a dead sloth.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 4:14am

Desire to be Dictator
Is there any doubt that Trump is jealous of Putin after this? This attempt to interfere with the voting process should lead to impeachment. He seems to have no grasp of what democracy is and will stop at nothing to pervert it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 14 Mar 2018 @ 4:45am
  
  Re: Desire to be Dictator
  The U.S. never aimed to be a democracy. It is a republic. The electoral college is just one measure for mitigating the influence of less desirable people. Slaves and women were not supposed to vote at all. Trump is just turning back the clock and not even to the Middle Ages.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:40am
    
    Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
    The electoral college, along with the delay between election and inauguration was a solution to the problem that it took weeks, if not months, to travel from one end of the states to the other. That was also the time it took news to travel across the states.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - An Onymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
      This. Can we please do away with the electoral college now? Please? It's an antiquated system easily replaced by the instant communication of which we're now capable.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - David, 14 Mar 2018 @ 3:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
        
        Can we please do away with the electoral college now? Please? It's an antiquated system easily replaced by the instant communication of which we're now capable.
        
        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 chronology ]
  - Roger Strong (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:04am
    
    Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
    
    The U.S. never aimed to be a democracy. It is a republic.
    
    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 chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:47am
    
    Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
    You neglected to answer the main point of the post to which you replied - nice deflection.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:50am
    
    Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
    "The electoral college is just one measure for mitigating the influence of less desirable people."
    
    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 chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
      HAHAHHA, what a load of crap.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
      Was that back when only property owners were afforded the right to vote?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:52am
        
        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 chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 3:08pm
    
    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 chronology ]
- Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 4:46am
  
  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 chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:42am
    
    Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
    
    Don’t forget about his “joke” that he wants to be president for life.
    
    That could be arranged, though possibly not in the way he intends.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
      I think he should be made president of the bitch brigade in Gitmo.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:56am
    
    Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
    Yeah - I doubt was a joke, he is as serious as a heart attack.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:13am
  
  Re: Desire to be Dictator
  It seems to me that even if they are being hit from all sides by those in power, American democratic protections are pretty strong. They have been under fire for decades now and haven't broken down yet. Trump is the ultimate trial. If the US survives this then it's going to be a much better place.
  
  Time will tell.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Annonymouse, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:28am
    
    Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
    Well the trial was already passed when the anointed one did not win despite all her and those in the shadows tried otherwise.
    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 chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
      She lost, get over it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:21am
    
    Re: Re: Desire to be Dictator
    
    It seems to me that even if they are being hit from all sides by those in power, American democratic protections are pretty strong. They have been under fire for decades now and haven't broken down yet. Trump is the ultimate trial.
    
    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 chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 4:26am

I fully support this after one simple amendment...
Congress members can not meet with anyone with out armed federal police monitoring their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:12am
  
  Re:
  That only works if the police are more than just a bodyguard service for the oligarchy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 15 Mar 2018 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re: Silly
  This whole thing is silly and much ado about nothing.
  
  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 chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2018 @ 5:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Silly
    You might want to review your comment in light of the changes to Title 18 proposed by Section 4012 to what has passed the House, I.e., https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2825/text
    
    The section seems a bit broader than merely accompanying one under SS protection to a polling location.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 15 Mar 2018 @ 6:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Silly
      SEC. 4012. SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION AT POLLING PLACES.
      
      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 chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2018 @ 7:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Silly
        It is the “or pursuant to...” part that stands out to me as possibly problematic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 16 Mar 2018 @ 11:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Silly
        That phrase relates to how people become USSS protectees. There's a list in Section 3056 of officials who automatically receive USSS protection (president, vice president, spouses, foreign heads of state, etc.) and at the end of that list it says, "And anyone else whom the president directs via memorandum". Which means the president can order the USSS to protect someone who's not on the automatic list if he deems it necessary. This is how, for example, Obama's mother-in-law became a USSS protectee while Obama was in office. Obama directed the USSS to protect her.
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2018 @ 12:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Silly
        Thank you for your perspective. Your’s was originally mine until I read 4102 a second time and noted that my original view was fully met had 4102 stopped upon referencing 3056. The text following “or” can be read as an authorization that is in addition to the authorization conferred by 3056.
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2018 @ 12:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Silly
        4012, that is...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

John E Cressman, 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:09am

Get back to tech stuff
Please get back to things you can speak intelligently on.

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 chronology ]
- Stan, 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:18am
  
  Re: Get back to tech stuff
  Curious how nobody remembers the panthers posting members at voting stations back in 2008.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:32am
    
    Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
    Unless I'm mistaken, that was a single group at a single station and it was never proven that they caused any voting problems (although they did make it into quite a lot of racist memes that pretended differently).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:08am
    
    Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
    Curious how some ignorant morons can't discern the difference between private citizens with no legal authority and armed federal officers with the the authority to use legal force.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:31am
  
  Re: Get back to tech stuff
  You'd think by now the number of times you idiots have whined about this site not covering tech on a particular story, you'd have worked out by now that this site does not only cover tech issues.
  
  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 chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:25am
    
    Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
    Voters being turned away hasn't happened. Illegals voting has.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
      "Illegals voting has."
      
      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 chronology ]
      - Toom1275 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
        And ID hoops.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
        Well, that's certainly covered by poll taxes, I think. But, I've seen far more evidence of disenfranchising certain groups of people than I have of illegal immigrants voting. The idea that immigrants would risk deportation by voting in an election where their individual vote will not have a significant impact doesn't even make sense to begin with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JoeCool (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
        
        And ID hoops
        
        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 chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
      Voters being turned away because they have no special ID that was just made mandatory ... you mean those folk?
      
      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 chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
        Congratulations you are wrong about every single thing you just said.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 1:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
        Do explain
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JMT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:11pm
        
        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 chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2018 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get back to tech stuff
        afaik, electoral fraud includes most forms of disenfranchisement invoked by governmental institutions, employees, etc. It is a well established fact that such activities are rampant - but it is not a problem according to some study you fail to specify. Ok - whatever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 3:12pm
      
      "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 chronology ]
- Cdaragorn (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:15am
  
  Re: Get back to tech stuff
  IF we were talking about a neutral law enforcement force being present, perhaps you'd be right. If you read the entire article you'd hopefully have noted that the true issue here is the presence of a clearly NON-NEUTRAL force.
  
  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 chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:55am
  
  Re: Get back to tech stuff
  > 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.
  
  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 chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:13am

Big government is fine as long is it's our team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:40am

Techdirt carrying the water
Way to take every opportunity to insight hatred techdirt. You just couldn't pass up the opportunity for bashing "wrong think".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:08am
  
  Re: Techdirt carrying the water
  Clearly, your incite is lacking.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Toom1275 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:40am
    
    Re: Re: Techdirt carrying the water
    ICWYDT
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- An Onymous Coward (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: Techdirt carrying the water
  You mean like how you weren't able to pass up the opportunity to post your empty thoughts?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:49am

"Given Trump's antipathy towards anyone that isn't white with a red hat"

This is a supremely idiotic statement, with no bearing on reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:54am
  
  Re:
  You haven't been paying attention.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:59am
  
  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 chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    The proof isn't finding him showing empathy, which isn't his strong suit. It would be finding him acting with antipathy toward people based solely on their lack of whiteness.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow, that's so difficult.
      
      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 chronology ]
    - JoeCool (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, it certainly isn't hard to find examples of him acting with antipathy toward people based solely on their lack of maleness. I was completely shocked that any women voted for Trump at all! I suspect that most women voting for Trump held their nose and voted 'Republican' rather than 'Trump'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not necessarily. I happen to personally know one who called Trump "an answer to prayer". I was shocked into total silence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JoeCool (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would be as well! I can possibly see "lesser of two evils" (never mind that they didn't need to choose EVIL in the first place), but "an answer to prayer"? It's hard to imagine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 15 Mar 2018 @ 1:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Depends what the prayer was for. Not everybody prays for positive things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SteveMB (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 5:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > I happen to personally know one who called Trump "an answer to prayer".
        
        "O Lord Satan, please destroy America...."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just remember, there were some women back in the 1910's who were against women getting the right to vote at all.
        
        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 chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 12:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh I see, you were late for a Klan meeting and couldn’t get around to posting a reply after you got told.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stan (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Didn't Trump invite Frederick Douglas over for a beer in the WH Rose Garde?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Mar 2018 @ 8:19am
  
  Re:
  h. he definitely likes those guys with the pointy white hats. Called them good people didn't he.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:54am

1) Voters do not like your policies
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 chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:55am

no literacy required
Who added the language to the bill in the first place?

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 chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 6:59am
  
  Re: no literacy required
  Probably some intern ... just like last time.
  
  Who was it that said "We have to vote on it to find out what's in it"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:14am
    
    Re: Re: no literacy required
    "Who was it that said "We have to vote on it to find out what's in it""
    
    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 chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: no literacy required
      I know ... I was troll baiting - sorry, I'm guilty.
      
      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 chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: no literacy required
        "I know ... I was troll baiting - sorry, I'm guilty."
        
        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 chronology ]
      - JoeCool (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: no literacy required
        I always thought this summed up how politics worked rather well.
        
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzbhbetwYFU
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: no literacy required
        Harrumph
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toom1275 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:26am

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 chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  Hmmmm
  
  money is speech
  speech is voting
  therefore money is voting
  
  I'm beginning to see the big picture - LOL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toom1275 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:37am

It's interesting to see the Internet's Canary-in-the-shit-mine in action. The moment trolls ooze out of the woodwork to infest the comments of any article that can even remotely be interpreted as criticizing Trump/Russia, their actions immediately add to the article's credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Toom1275 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 7:38am
  
  Re:
  Just like how Blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baron von Robber, 14 Mar 2018 @ 8:46am

Trump is upset that somebody is investigating him to see if he has any known connections to America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  That would be a cheap shot if it weren't for Trump's wingnut claims that the previous President wasn't born in America.
  
  Why haven't we seen Trump's long-form birth certificate?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bernicestockstill (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 10:20am

correct solution
на самом деле очень правильное решение, потому что это выборная фальсификация имеет просто бешенные обороты
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryunosuke (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 10:38am

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 chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Mar 2018 @ 3:21pm
  
  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 chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 10:51am

Voted twice

The only story that surfaced as a result of this post-election scrutiny was one involving someone who voted twice… for Trump.

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 chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 11:10am
  
  Re: Voted twice
  Discovery followed by journalists in the court room?
  I don't know, just guessing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 12:25pm

rules be damned - people will act in their own interest
Although I usually agree with Tim Cushing, I think his logic is completely flawed here.

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 chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re: rules be damned - people will act in their own interest
  When did illegal aliens vote? How did they do this?
  
  Of the many studies into voter fraud, which ones do you think are wrong?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2018 @ 3:46pm

There are reports that Homeland Security and an independent third-party have conducted review of the 2016 election and reports are due in the coming months.

We'll see whether those reports ever come to light and be substantiated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agammamon, 15 Mar 2018 @ 12:06am

1. Are there even enough SS agents for this to have any effect? And what are they going to do there? Check IDs of anyone who isn't sufficiently close to either end of the skin spectrum (ie, isn't Black or White)?

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 chronology ]
dickeyrat, 15 Mar 2018 @ 1:24pm

What will probably happen
It's all building the platform for Trump to outright-cancel the 2020 election, due to some unforeseen "national emergency", then remain in power for life, the way his much-admired Xi is doing in China. Even Trump will eventually die; then the power can be passed directly to his idiot sons.
North Korea has its Kims, Haiti had its Duvaliers, Cuba had its Castros--and America will have its Trumps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]