Fight against so-called voter "fraud" unwittingly targets legitimate voters.

[Felch]

What the hell does that mean?

[Hauldren Collider]

Apparently, "tea baggers" giving their opinions is political oppression...? Not totally sure. It's pretty incoherent.

[Hauldren Collider]

Also, kentonio, Zevico puts a lot more thought and effort into his posts than you do, and is always civil about it. Your refusal to honestly debate him is a failing on your part.

[DaShi]

Also, kentonio, Zevico puts a lot more thought and effort into his posts than you do, and is always civil about it. Your refusal to honestly debate him is a failing on your part.

That's a half truth. Zevico only puts effort into his posts.

You and your little twin are the only ones here who believe him. To hilarious results, might I add.

[Dr Strangelove]

The question is, if there were men brandishing weapons outside of a polling place why weren't the police called?

[MrFun]

The question is, if there were men brandishing weapons outside of a polling place why weren't the police called?

Um, yeah that is a good question.

[Felch]

The police were called. The guy with the club was sent away. Do you guys seriously not believe that this happened? I don't get why you're all hell bent on defending this sort of criminal behavior.

[kentonio]

The police were called. The guy with the club was sent away. Do you guys seriously not believe that this happened? I don't get why you're all hell bent on defending this sort of criminal behavior.

Sent away? As in asked to leave? If the police didn't think it was worth arresting anyone over, then what makes you believe their behaviour was so criminal?

[Zevico]

The police were called. The guy with the club was sent away. Do you guys seriously not believe that this happened? I don't get why you're all hell bent on defending this sort of criminal behavior.

Vanity. It's much easier to seek the adulation of your peers and stake out a comfortably selfish plank of "meaning well" over actually examining the consequences of your views and actions and seeing where those views and actions take you. See, this is information you could easily find if you read the report.

But the report doesn't exist. It wasn't approved by the right people. Extracts weren't published in the right newspaper. It conflicts with prevailing, politically correct notions. People might look at you strangely if you mention it. So it doesn't exist.

It's much easier this way.

Take this quote:

The facts of the case are relatively simple. Two men were captured on a video standing outside a polling place in a black Philadelphia neighborhood on Election Day in 2008. One of the men had a nightstick, if an unclear agenda — though a member of the black nationalist New Black Panther Party, he had earlier professed loathing for the Democratic "puppet" candidate, Barack Obama, who went on to overwhelmingly carry that precinct.

It's just enough information to provide the right narrative. You wouldn't want to provide any other details. You need to filter them out, lest people come to the wrong conclusions.

For example:

1. The Department of Justice instructed its members to ignore subpoenas from the Commission on pain of prosecution. This meant that subpoenaed employees were put in the invidious position of being held liable for disregarding departmental instructions (a civil offence) or disregarding a subpoena (a civil offence).

2. The Department of Justice had already obtained a default judgement against the defendants in this action (by way of Republican appointed DoJ attorneys). All that remained was for the Department to file an application for the orders it sought following same, such as injunctions preventing members of the NBP, or at any rate those specific members from persisting in this conduct in future (or risk contempt of court). Correction: the DoJ's political appointees declined to do this in all cases but one--that of the man carrying the truncheon. The NBP and truncheon-carrying man's associate were not included in the injunction, which only extended to the city of Philadelphia. (Presumably this man can't catch a bus).

Please note, so far as federal law is concerned this is not a crime but a civil offence. You need to go to court, prove the case and get an injunction before you can lock people up for contempt of court.

There may not be a state criminal or civil offence for voter intimidation. Equally, it may be that the officer simply elected to move this person on rather than make an arrest.

Whether or not that is so, there can be no doubt that this conduct was calculated to intimidate voters and prevent them from voting. That was its purpose.

Equally there can be no doubt that the Department of Justice elected not to pursue injunctions against NBP on the specific instructions of the Assistant Attorney-General.

The question that remains is: why?

[Felch]

If you want an answer, you'll have to click this link. Or just go on being ignorant.

X-post

[Dr Strangelove]

Whether it happened or not you've indicated that these guys were hostile to both parties in the election. Their actions were then not discriminatory against the GOP but ( ironically ) against black people.

[Zevico]

Whether it happened or not you've indicated that these guys were hostile to both parties in the election. Their actions were then not discriminatory against the GOP but ( ironically ) against black people.

Yes, that's the point! Thank you!

[DinoDoc]

Whether it happened or not you've indicated that these guys were hostile to both parties in the election. Their actions were then not discriminatory against the GOP but ( ironically ) against black people.

No one said that they were meant to be intimidating GOP voters, only that they were guilty of voter intimidation and of violating the Voting Rights Act. Stop being stupid.

[kentonio]

So how the hell does it make any sense that the DoJ under an Obama administration would be plotting to protect people who are costing the Dems votes? As conspiracy theories go, that one's pretty dumb.

[DinoDoc]

So how the hell does it make any sense that the DoJ under an Obama administration would be plotting to protect people who are costing the Dems votes? As conspiracy theories go, that one's pretty dumb.

What conspiracy? Seriously, your desire to paint every criticism of the Obama admin as a paranoid conspiracy theory is bewildering. The accusation is that the Civil Rights division is reluctant to enforce the civil rights laws in instances where those committing voter intimidation and discrimination were black.