College Republican punches Kerry supporting teacher's foot with his leg

[Bricker]

@wring

My point is that having an arrest warrant out in your name is not generally acceptable as a reason to refuse to allow someone to vote. Especially since they’ve not been found guilty of anything.

In Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U. S. 318 (2001), the Supreme Court considered the case of a woman driving in Lago Vista, Texas, with her small children when a police officer observed a seatbelt violation. He pulled Atwater over, verbally berated her, handcuffed her, placed her in his squad car, and drove her to the local police station, where she was made to remove her shoes, jewelry, and eyeglasses, and empty her pockets. Officers took her mug shot and placed her, alone, in a jail cell for about an hour, after which she bonded out and was released, charged only with the seatbelt violation. She sued the city, saying that her treatment violated the Constitution. The Court found that it did not, and that the rude conduct of the officer and the admitted overreaction was not an ill that the Constitution cured.

Why do I bring this irrelevant case up?

The opinion denying Atwater relief pointed out that, among other reasons, there was simply not a widespread problem of this nature:

The upshot of all these influences, combined with the good sense (and, failing that, the political accountability) of most local lawmakers and law-enforcement officials, is a dearth of horribles demanding redress. Indeed, when Atwater’s counsel was asked at oral argument for any indications of comparably foolish, warrantless misdemeanor arrests, he could offer only one. We are sure that there are others, but just as surely the country is not confronting anything like an epidemic of unnecessary minor-offense arrests.

I believe the same reasoning applies here. If crowds of police were, in fact, swarming the polls on Election Day with the intent of serving any warrant, however minor, just to prevent people from voting, and without care for the truth or falsity behind any charges underlying the warrants, I might agree with your concern. But there is no such “parade of horribles” - in fact, can you name five people that have been arrested at polling stations under such circumstances?

…and, of course, spreading rumors trying to get folks to keep away from the polls because they may or may not be arrested for warrants they may or may not have is unethical.

Sure it is. Who has done this?

[Frank]

@danceswithcats

Sorry, but I don’t a vote to be swayed by deadbeats and felons.

Too bad there is no morality clause in the constitution. You are, of course, aware that in many states, convicted felons are allowed to vote after their release from prison/parole? Are there any other classes of people that you believe are too morally corrupt to be allowed to exercise their franchise?

As Bricker is fond of saying: you don’t like it, get a law passed.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Liberal

Actually, I believe that, by the definition provided, spin would be a comment on the statement, such as…

Were you or were you not suggesting in post 51 that I was being dishonest?
Daniel

[danceswithcats]

@This Year's Model

Too bad there is no morality clause in the constitution. You are, of course, aware that in many states, convicted felons are allowed to vote after their release from prison/parole? Are there any other classes of people that you believe are too morally corrupt to be allowed to exercise their franchise?

As Bricker is fond of saying: you don’t like it, get a law passed.

Yes, I’m quite aware that the law differs from state to state, and you’d know that, had you taken the time to read my posts regarding the issue.

Whatever law is extant in a given place needs to be enforced until it is changed or rescinded. That is my one belief relevant to this issue.

[wring]

do I have evidence of this being done? gosh golly gee, no, I don’t. You do understand, of course, that ‘evidence of a rumor’ would be singularly difficult to provide, don’t you?

however, that wasn’t my point with you. And, if you look back, you will, I think, see it. My point was that it was not out of line to suggest that there were hoards of police waiting w/arrest warrants at polling places could have a chilling effect on those attempting to vote. and that the persons being concerned about cops being there would not necessarily have been guilty of anything at all.

the sequence as I saw it, was that comments were made about the chilling effect such a rumor may have on legally registered voters. You seemed to object to that concept, point being that if one had a warrant, they were indeed fair game,
I pointed out a number and variety of ways some one may indeed have a warrant out for their arrest and yet not be guilty of anything at all, suggesting that your (seeming) position of ‘gee if they’re worried about a warrant bad on them’ that it was something in their control.
you then acknowledged that some folks may indeed have warrants w/o being guilty but gosh darn, they should take care of them before voting, and if they even suspected same, they should check to make sure.

and again, I’m suggesting that’s not a reasonable position.

So, now you seem to be shifting gears away from the “if they’re a-scared of potential warrants, it’s their fault and so what” to “is there any proof that it’s actually happening to significant numbers of persons” (adding that last bit 'cause of your reference to the case).

My position is that the suggestion/rumor of cops lurking at polling places ready w/arrest warrants is of and by itself sufficient to deter some folks including some who may not be guilty of anything at all, from exercising their right to vote (obviously not enough to scare you off, but you’re not ‘some folk’), and therefore is a ‘bad thing’ and ‘good folk’ should be horrified at anyone doing that. And not to get off on the ‘well, some one who’s a fine and upstanding citizen shouldn’t be worried about warrants, therefore anyone who is worried isn’t a fine and upstanding citizen and who cares if they vote or not’.

clear? agree? disagree?

[Shayna]

@Bricker

@wring

…and, of course, spreading rumors trying to get folks to keep away from the polls because they may or may not be arrested for warrants they may or may not have is unethical.

Sure it is. Who has done this?

Well, let’s start with Republicans in the 2003 Philadelphia Mayoral race…

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/21/intimidation/

In an attempt to intimidate African-Americans and deter them from showing up at the polls, the Katz campaign, or one of its associates, put together a team of men dressed in official-looking attire – dark suits, lapel pins bearing insignia of federal or local law-enforcement agencies – and sent them into areas of the city with large black populations. According to Sherry Swirsky, a local antitrust attorney who is active in Democratic politics and who worked as an election monitor that day, the men carried clipboards and drove around in unmarked black vans.

“Some of them were just driving around neighborhoods, looking menacing,” Swirsky recalls. “But others were going up to voters and giving them misinformation about the kind of I.D. they needed in order to vote. The truth is, you don’t need any I.D. to vote. But they were telling them they needed a major credit card, a passport or driver’s license. They were telling them it was risky to vote if they had any outstanding child support bills. Imagine the menacing presence of a bunch of big white guys in black cars who look like they’re law-enforcement people telling you all these things.”

Isolated incident, like the one from the OP that started this whole thing? Hardly…

The voter-intimidation campaign that Republicans mounted in Philadelphia was not an anomaly. Instead, it marked a routine occurrence in American elections, a national scandal that rarely makes the front page. The sad fact is that voter-intimidation efforts aimed at minorities have been carried out in just about every major election over the past 20 years. The campaigns are almost always mounted by Republicans who aim to reduce the turnout of overwhelmingly Democratic minority voters at the polls.

In Florida, State Police “randomly” selected ONLY elderly black homes to “investigate” absentee ballot concerns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/opinion/16herbert.html

State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd “investigation” that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November.

…

I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place.

“I can’t talk about that,” he said.

I asked if all the people interrogated were black.

"Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at - yes,’’ he said.

He also said, “Most of them were elderly.”

When I asked why, he said, “That’s just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview.”

…

Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people’s homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, ‘Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?’ "

According to Mr. Egan, “People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don’t want to risk a criminal investigation.”

Coloradoans seem to be under the impression that debt collectors may be at polling places…

In some areas, voter intimidation has taken the form of telling certain groups that when they present their identification at the polls, this will be cross-checked against, say, utility bill payments. Potential voters could be frightened off by rumours that debt collectors will come after them, particularly if that threat is coupled with stern-looking people in suits standing behind the desk at their polling place.

And in Ohio…

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/politics/campaign/01voting.html?hp&ex=1099371600&en=5b1bfa67832f6165&ei=5094&partner=homepage

…officials say at least a handful of voters have reported receiving a notice on phony board of elections letterhead saying that anyone who had registered through a variety of Democratic-leaning groups would not be allowed to vote this year.

These are hardly exhaustive, but merely a representative sample of the examples you requested. I simply don’t have the time, energy or resources to provide you with an all-inclusive list of every immoral and/or illegal effort the Republicans have waged in an effort to intimidate potential (LEGAL) voters from even showing up at the polls, so these will have to do.

[Liberal]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Were you or were you not suggesting in post 51 that I was being dishonest?
Daniel

Okay, look, I’ve entertained your self-absorption long enough. I dug out your quotes for you. I posted your definition for you. I even gave you examples. If you think your tea is too sweet or your ice is too cold or your porch rocker squeaks too loudly, then you need to hire yourself a wet-nurse. You already said your own wording in that post was poor. In that post, you yourself called it spin. Now, you’re putting your rhetorical finger in my face and demanding to know whether I was or was not this or that. You know what? Fuck you. You’re a liar. A very, very dishonest man.

[Starving_Artist]

And a hypocritical one as well. Go back and look at post #97, LHoD, and tell me which of us started with the condescention you are so fond of complaining about.

Or were you simply embarrassed that your condescention in that post was so full of holes and exposed as such, whereupon you decided to take it out on me?

Don’t shoot the messenger, you know?

[Bricker]

@Shayna

Well, let’s start with Republicans in the 2003 Philadelphia Mayoral race…

Uh huh. From your quote:

In an attempt to intimidate African-Americans and deter them from showing up at the polls, the Katz campaign, or one of its associates, put together a team of men dressed in official-looking attire – dark suits, lapel pins bearing insignia of federal or local law-enforcement agencies – and sent them into areas of the city with large black populations…The campaigns are almost always mounted by Republicans who aim to reduce the turnout of overwhelmingly Democratic minority voters at the polls.

Wait. The Katz campaign, or one of its associates? So… the writer isn’t sure who did this? On what basis does he says it’s the Katz campaign? He makes this statement without reference to any proof at all. In fact, later in the article, he concedes:

The Republican Party denies any plans to suppress the minority vote this year; in fact, President Bush has recently attempted to court black voters. Swirsky and other Democrats who fear that the GOP may attempt to suppress the black vote can produce no proof that Republicans are up to no good.

So - when come back, bring evidence. This was a trick conducted by the Democrats so they could accuse the Republicans of voter intimidation. Or at least that’s my first guess. And it has just as much evidence as any other guess.

In Florida, State Police “randomly” selected ONLY elderly black homes to “investigate” absentee ballot concerns.

What crime were the State Police investigating? One that centered in elderly black neighborhoods? Yes, I’m sure they were, since this is where Democrats sign up false names and create fictious addresses most often. Again - a little light on the evidence. You tell me that the State Police acted improperly, but provide no evidence of that.

Coloradoans seem to be under the impression that debt collectors may be at polling places…

And who told them that? Your story doesn’t say.

And in Ohio…

And who did that? It doesn’t say. But it does say that someone registered 10,000 names with apparently phony addresses. Was that also the Republicans? How do you know? The Republicans say it was the Democrats that did this. Are they right or wrong?

These are hardly exhaustive…

And they are hardly responsive.

I didn’t ask for unsubstantiated stories pulled out of the asses of writers. Where is the evidence that the Republican Party is doing these nefarious deeds?

[Bricker]

And again let me say this:

If a rumor does get spread that debt collectors are lining up at voting places, ready to seize voters with unpaid debts… and voters are so stupid as to believe that… then, in my view, they are too stupid to vote. I am happy that such idiots are not voting.

[Shayna]

@Bricker

And again let me say this:

If a rumor does get spread that debt collectors are lining up at voting places, ready to seize voters with unpaid debts… and voters are so stupid as to believe that… then, in my view, they are too stupid to vote. I am happy that such idiots are not voting.

Of course you’ll simply have to take my word for this, but I had one more sentence at the end of my above reply, which I deleted before submitting because I didn’t want to appear as though I was intentionally being antagonistic. It read as follows…

Originally typed, then deleted by Shayna

Having come to know you as I have, I have no doubt whatsoever that your response will be to dismiss every one of these examples, and close by saying something to the effect of, “…and if they’re stupid enough to fall for these tactics, then too bad, so sad, they don’t deserve to vote.”

Congratulations, you didn’t fail to live down to my low expectations of you.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Liberal

You know what? Fuck you. You’re a liar. A very, very dishonest man.

gobear, you’ve made your point well. That’s it for me in this thread.

Daniel

[Bricker]

@Shayna

Of course you’ll simply have to take my word for this, but I had one more sentence at the end of my above reply, which I deleted before submitting because I didn’t want to appear as though I was intentionally being antagonistic. It read as follows… Congratulations, you didn’t fail to live down to my low expectations of you.

And yet, somehow, I struggle on.

[Kythereia]

I am so hopelessly lost.

Let the woman who kicked the man in the shins be arrested on assault charges and given a fine. The man is being a halfwit, but he has the right to sue if he wants to.

Simple as that.

Why is everyone blowing this out of proportion?

[Brainiac4]

@Bricker

What crime were the State Police investigating? One that centered in elderly black neighborhoods? Yes, I’m sure they were, since this is where Democrats sign up false names and create fictious addresses most often. Again - a little light on the evidence.

You have evidence of this, then, I suppose? Otherwise you’d simply be doing what you decry.

Look, you’re really good at argumentation, and I’m sure you’re a fabulous lawyer, but do you see the inconsistencies in your positions? You’ve posted multiple times that you oppose illlegal actions, and you’ve castigated Democratic actions as unethical. But when presented with the possibility of Republican actions which are similarly illegal or unethical, you resort to casuistry to defend them. “I would condemn these actions, if they ever took place, but of course it’s never been proved that they have, so I don’t need to condemn them. The Democrats, on the other hand…”

It’s a free country, and you’re of course free to approach the situation with preconceived notions that cause you to dismiss all contrary evidence out of hand, but at some point, don’t you think you should acknowledge that’s what you’re doing? I realize I’m probably going to be attacked for this, but I can’t sit by and watch any longer. You’re hiding behind a facade of reasonableness. I’d like you to either make it real or drop it. Please.

[danceswithcats]

@Kythereia

I am so hopelessly lost.

Let the woman who kicked the man in the shins be arrested on assault charges and given a fine. The man is being a halfwit, but he has the right to sue if he wants to.

Simple as that.

Why is everyone blowing this out of proportion?

Let me tell you a bedtime story, Kythereia.

Once upon a time, there was a new thread on the train of thought, and the new thread really wasn’t newsworthy, but it gave the people who live in the land of SDMB something remotely new to argue about. Before very long, the original premise had been forgotten, because the people in the land of SDMB became so angry with each other that they hijacked the thread train. Worse yet, they became so distracted with their squabbling, finger-pointing and name calling, that they couldn’t see the train was doomed to wreck unless they pulled back on the throttle, and behaved in a civil manner to each other. The End.

Now go to sleep, and make sure you wake up early, because tomorrow is Election Day.

[Kythereia]

I be Canadian, I dunna vote for Bush or Kerry.

But thanks for the perspective.

[danceswithcats]

@Kythereia

I be Canadian, I dunna vote for Bush or Kerry.

But thanks for the perspective.

You’re welcome.

[Starving_Artist]

Most amusing, dances. But I would suggest the train had pretty much run out steam and left the people of SDMB land with nothing to do but find some other way to entertain themselves, so in the time-honored tradition of the Pit they began to fight amongst themselves to keep it interesting.

That, and it’s the night before the election when everyone’s nerves are on edge.

[danceswithcats]

I kinda hear you Starving Artist. The outcome of our collective votes will hopefully be known sometime around this time tomorrow, but I’m not crossing my fingers, and figure what will be, will be. It’s also my choice to be an asshole or not, which was really the issue in the OP. Pax.