No. I object to militant political groups being poll watchers. For thoroughly obvious reasons.
Perhaps I misunderstood. You said in the above post that you objected to "ideological groups" as poll watchers. But it's only "militant political" groups you have a problem with?
Yes. Either militant literally (as in NBPP or the Minutemen) or militant figuratively - loose cannons like mobs of OWS or Tea Party.
Quote from Illuvator Brightstar »
How about a better question? What law is he breaking by doing so? Assuming he is being passive (the article would likely mention if he was actively harassing people), the absolute worst you could hit him with is what, loitering?
Or shall we pass a law that says no one can stand outside polling places for longer than X minutes? Should we limit it to just those who associate with people we don't like (NBPP?)?
To use a previous example someone else mentioned - should we allow the KKK to stand watch? Law or no law, the answer is clear: of course not. The law may have a ton of gray areas, but I'm pretty sure that we all oppose voter intimidation. Right?
Ought they be there (NBPP or KKK)? No. I would agree that it is a bad idea and they should have far better things to do.
That said, do I think we should start passing laws requiring dress codes in order to stand outside polling places? No, I think that's a bad idea too.
Yes. Either militant literally (as in NBPP or the Minutemen) or militant figuratively - loose cannons like mobs of OWS or Tea Party.
That seems like a poorly defined standard. Why shouldn't someone who counts themselves as a member of the Tea Party be allowed to observe voting?
You're right. It's the behavior that counts. If Tea Party/OWS can behave themselves and it's only 1 or 2 of them then I guess I'm OK with that. The biggest thing to worry about with those groups is size - I referred to "mobs" earlier.
But back to the NBPP/KKK/etc. example - I'll count the uniform as a behavior - continued below...
It seems to me that a more sensible standard would be whether actual intimidation occurs. Having a visible weapon seems like actual intimidation. Mere presence with no implied threat does not.
Here I'm going to disagree with you. I don't think someone in a KKK robe requires an actual weapon to intimidate. In the same way, throwing a bunch of nooses up on a tree is not "actual" intimidation but it works just the same. That's not the primary reason the KKK "uniform" exists but surely they love it as a side effect.
The NBPP doesn't cast as tall of a shadow, of course not. They're still not the kind of guys you want to mess with, and let's not lie to ourselves about what they're doing by appearing in uniform. They're making their presence known. I'm sure that's comforting to some but intimidating to others.
Assuming the religious posters and iconography don't have a political message (in which case they would be required to be taken down) -- why would they be a problem?
I'd say for the same reason you have a problem with Black Panther uniforms; it's intimidating to voters.
That said, do I think we should start passing laws requiring dress codes in order to stand outside polling places? No, I think that's a bad idea too.
We already have those! But, that's not the point. The point is that (depending on neighborhood) the NBPP and the KKK uniform itself is enough to intimidate some voters away from the polls -- the person wearing the uniform may as well be carrying a weapon. The problem is the intentional affect it has on voters.
Assuming the religious posters and iconography don't have a political message (in which case they would be required to be taken down) -- why would they be a problem?
I'd say for the same reason you have a problem with Black Panther uniforms; it's intimidating to voters.
1) how is religious iconography intimidating to voters?
2) what? Seriously? what? How does that make sense?
the NBPP [...] itself is enough to intimidate some voters away from the polls
Is it though? The guy in the video doesn't seem to even have identifiable insignia or anything. I don't see how you could reasonably construe him as threatening or intimidating.
the NBPP [...] itself is enough to intimidate some voters away from the polls
Is it though? The guy in the video doesn't seem to even have identifiable insignia or anything. I don't see how you could reasonably construe him as threatening or intimidating.
Can someone post this video? This thread is moving fast and I couldn't find it. I saw the article with the picture in full regalia (at a different event), but I didn't see this video. It obviously changes things if they're not identifiable. They can still say things that are intimidating but that's a separate, unproven matter.
Assuming the religious posters and iconography don't have a political message (in which case they would be required to be taken down) -- why would they be a problem?
I'd say for the same reason you have a problem with Black Panther uniforms; it's intimidating to voters.
1) how is religious iconography intimidating to voters?
2) what? Seriously? what? How does that make sense?
A great deal of political stances are made for religious reasons.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Assuming the religious posters and iconography don't have a political message (in which case they would be required to be taken down) -- why would they be a problem?
I'd say for the same reason you have a problem with Black Panther uniforms; it's intimidating to voters.
1) how is religious iconography intimidating to voters?
2) what? Seriously? what? How does that make sense?
A great deal of political stances are made for religious reasons.
the NBPP [...] itself is enough to intimidate some voters away from the polls
Is it though? The guy in the video doesn't seem to even have identifiable insignia or anything. I don't see how you could reasonably construe him as threatening or intimidating.
Can someone post this video? This thread is moving fast and I couldn't find it. I saw the article with the picture in full regalia (at a different event), but I didn't see this video. It obviously changes things if they're not identifiable. They can still say things that are intimidating but that's a separate, unproven matter.
By comparison to the guys in 2008, he doesn't have a night stick, he doesn't have the jacket with an insignia on it, and he's holding the door for some old ladies.
I can't believe you're being this asinine. If a mural of Obama isn't allowed on a building, then neither is a picture of Jesus on the cross.
Many people, if voting in a church, would feel influenced by the imagery present. That's the only thing that matters. We can't vote in clean rooms with perfectly blank walls, but we should eliminate any kind of subliminal messaging we can.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
the NBPP [...] itself is enough to intimidate some voters away from the polls
Is it though? The guy in the video doesn't seem to even have identifiable insignia or anything. I don't see how you could reasonably construe him as threatening or intimidating.
Can someone post this video? This thread is moving fast and I couldn't find it. I saw the article with the picture in full regalia (at a different event), but I didn't see this video. It obviously changes things if they're not identifiable. They can still say things that are intimidating but that's a separate, unproven matter.
By comparison to the guys in 2008, he doesn't have a night stick, he doesn't have the jacket with an insignia on it, and he's holding the door for some old ladies.
Hopefully we can all agree that it's a good thing he doesn't have a nightstick. A really, really good thing.
He does have the beret, the all black garb, etc. I know if I saw him, I would probably think he was associated with NBPP or a similar offshoot group. Now, maybe you make the case that the average voter wouldn't know that, I'm not sure.
Also, I couldn't see the insignia on his beret clearly. Could you? There is an insignia there.
This is definitely better than last time, because last time not only did you have the weapon but you had multiple guys... a lot more intimidating.
He has something on his beret, but I have no idea if it's some sort of insignia.
Having a beret and a black jacket/pants is surely not sufficient to designate someone a member of a hate group. If every time you see a black guy with a beret you assume he's a member of a hate group, that's your problem.
I can't believe you're being this asinine. If a mural of Obama isn't allowed on a building, then neither is a picture of Jesus on the cross.
The mural of obama isn't allowed because he's one of the guys that we are voting on. If, for example, he had decided not to run for re-election, the mural would have been fine. Or, the election in 4 years -- mural will be fine.
The reason the mural violates the rule is becuase it is in support of one of the candidates.
Many people, if voting in a church, would feel influenced by the imagery present. That's the only thing that matters. We can't vote in clean rooms with perfectly blank walls, but we should eliminate any kind of subliminal messaging we can.
howso? In what way are they influenced by the imagry?
He has something on his beret, but I have no idea if it's some sort of insignia.
Having a beret and a black jacket/pants is surely not sufficient to designate someone a member of a hate group. If every time you see a black guy with a beret you assume he's a member of a hate group, that's your problem.
Much like having a white robe with a pointed cloth hat is surely not sufficient to designate someone as a member of a hate group. If every time you see a white guy with a white robe and white hat you assume he's a member of a hate group, that's your problem.
(note, for those of you being super obtuse, that was sarcasm. I believe my point came across though.)
The mural of obama isn't allowed because he's one of the guys that we are voting on. If, for example, he had decided not to run for re-election, the mural would have been fine. Or, the election in 4 years -- mural will be fine.
The reason the mural violates the rule is becuase it is in support of one of the candidates.
I don't buy that. I wouldn't approve of a political mural, regardless of whether it was for a current candidate.
He has something on his beret, but I have no idea if it's some sort of insignia.
Having a beret and a black jacket/pants is surely not sufficient to designate someone a member of a hate group. If every time you see a black guy with a beret you assume he's a member of a hate group, that's your problem.
Sure, berets aren't common at all - not where I live, at least. I don't think I've got a single friend who wears one. Not one.
So if I see a black man that has very good posture, dressed all in black, wearing a black beret, at a political event?
Yep. That's exactly what I think - that they're either part of NBPP or a similar movement.
I wouldn't say they were necessarily part of a hate group, because I don't associate it with hate per se. Fully possible that they're a member of some similar black movement that is not as hateful as NBPP. Heck, after all, the old BPP wasn't quite as hateful and they had the same getup.
I don't see what the big deal would be if you did venture a guess that they're part of NBPP. It's not a bad educated guess. I suppose a white man in a long flowing white robe could just be playing a ghost in a play, or dressing up as one for a costume party - but I wouldn't bank on it.
Much like having a white robe with a pointed cloth hat is surely not sufficient to designate someone as a member of a hate group. If every time you see a white guy with a white robe and white hat you assume he's a member of a hate group, that's your problem.
(note, for those of you being super obtuse, that was sarcasm. I believe my point came across though.)
White robes with pointed hoods are more closely associated with the KKK than black fatigues and berets are associated with the NBPP. US Army soldiers wear black berets (although I believe no US military personal wear black fatigues).
This isn't to say the guy in the video isn't NBPP. Just that trying to state that the KKK uniform is much more ingrained into our culture.
howso? In what way are they influenced by the imagry?
The imagery is tied to a religion which has strong political stances. If seeing a picture of Obama or Romney on voting day can influence someone's vote, so can seeing a picture of Jesus.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
I don't know if he's associated with any hate groups. The black beret in and of itself isn't the issue.
Look, lets be honest with ourselves here: Anyone claiming that the individual at the philly polls isn't intentionally identifying himself openly as a member of NBPP is being daft, and isn't really interested in discussing this.
howso? In what way are they influenced by the imagry?
The imagery is tied to a religion which has strong political stances. If seeing a picture of Obama or Romney on voting day can influence someone's vote, so can seeing a picture of Jesus.
You'll note I already said I wouldn't have an issue with them realxing that rule and that I don't think political t-shirts (or yes, even the mural) would actual influence the vote. But, there is no question that it is against the current rule.
There's a handful of guys in the NBPP, and hundreds of thousands in the military. Perhaps beret=panther is not a good guess.
I disagree. It's a very good guess. It could be more thoroughly explained, and I will do so now...
In this example, you have a black man with good posture and a black beret, true - but that's where the similarities end.
Here's some differences:
He's got a visible tie. Never seen standard NBPP wearing visible ties. I guess a few do, but generally they do not wear ties. You'll see them most of the time with the jacket covering most of the tie region.
He's not wearing all black.
His jacket is solid green. Not an NBPP thing.
His jacket has brass buttons on it. Again not an NBPP thing.
I would never mistake him for a NBPP guy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ought they be there (NBPP or KKK)? No. I would agree that it is a bad idea and they should have far better things to do.
That said, do I think we should start passing laws requiring dress codes in order to stand outside polling places? No, I think that's a bad idea too.
You're right. It's the behavior that counts. If Tea Party/OWS can behave themselves and it's only 1 or 2 of them then I guess I'm OK with that. The biggest thing to worry about with those groups is size - I referred to "mobs" earlier.
But back to the NBPP/KKK/etc. example - I'll count the uniform as a behavior - continued below...
Here I'm going to disagree with you. I don't think someone in a KKK robe requires an actual weapon to intimidate. In the same way, throwing a bunch of nooses up on a tree is not "actual" intimidation but it works just the same. That's not the primary reason the KKK "uniform" exists but surely they love it as a side effect.
The NBPP doesn't cast as tall of a shadow, of course not. They're still not the kind of guys you want to mess with, and let's not lie to ourselves about what they're doing by appearing in uniform. They're making their presence known. I'm sure that's comforting to some but intimidating to others.
We already have those! But, that's not the point. The point is that (depending on neighborhood) the NBPP and the KKK uniform itself is enough to intimidate some voters away from the polls -- the person wearing the uniform may as well be carrying a weapon. The problem is the intentional affect it has on voters.
1) how is religious iconography intimidating to voters?
2) what? Seriously? what? How does that make sense?
Is it though? The guy in the video doesn't seem to even have identifiable insignia or anything. I don't see how you could reasonably construe him as threatening or intimidating.
Can someone post this video? This thread is moving fast and I couldn't find it. I saw the article with the picture in full regalia (at a different event), but I didn't see this video. It obviously changes things if they're not identifiable. They can still say things that are intimidating but that's a separate, unproven matter.
A great deal of political stances are made for religious reasons.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
and? How does that make it intimidating?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7rkSmdDIIU
By comparison to the guys in 2008, he doesn't have a night stick, he doesn't have the jacket with an insignia on it, and he's holding the door for some old ladies.
I can't believe you're being this asinine. If a mural of Obama isn't allowed on a building, then neither is a picture of Jesus on the cross.
Many people, if voting in a church, would feel influenced by the imagery present. That's the only thing that matters. We can't vote in clean rooms with perfectly blank walls, but we should eliminate any kind of subliminal messaging we can.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Hopefully we can all agree that it's a good thing he doesn't have a nightstick. A really, really good thing.
He does have the beret, the all black garb, etc. I know if I saw him, I would probably think he was associated with NBPP or a similar offshoot group. Now, maybe you make the case that the average voter wouldn't know that, I'm not sure.
Also, I couldn't see the insignia on his beret clearly. Could you? There is an insignia there.
This is definitely better than last time, because last time not only did you have the weapon but you had multiple guys... a lot more intimidating.
Having a beret and a black jacket/pants is surely not sufficient to designate someone a member of a hate group. If every time you see a black guy with a beret you assume he's a member of a hate group, that's your problem.
The mural of obama isn't allowed because he's one of the guys that we are voting on. If, for example, he had decided not to run for re-election, the mural would have been fine. Or, the election in 4 years -- mural will be fine.
The reason the mural violates the rule is becuase it is in support of one of the candidates.
howso? In what way are they influenced by the imagry?
Much like having a white robe with a pointed cloth hat is surely not sufficient to designate someone as a member of a hate group. If every time you see a white guy with a white robe and white hat you assume he's a member of a hate group, that's your problem.
(note, for those of you being super obtuse, that was sarcasm. I believe my point came across though.)
I don't buy that. I wouldn't approve of a political mural, regardless of whether it was for a current candidate.
Sure, berets aren't common at all - not where I live, at least. I don't think I've got a single friend who wears one. Not one.
So if I see a black man that has very good posture, dressed all in black, wearing a black beret, at a political event?
Yep. That's exactly what I think - that they're either part of NBPP or a similar movement.
I wouldn't say they were necessarily part of a hate group, because I don't associate it with hate per se. Fully possible that they're a member of some similar black movement that is not as hateful as NBPP. Heck, after all, the old BPP wasn't quite as hateful and they had the same getup.
I don't see what the big deal would be if you did venture a guess that they're part of NBPP. It's not a bad educated guess. I suppose a white man in a long flowing white robe could just be playing a ghost in a play, or dressing up as one for a costume party - but I wouldn't bank on it.
Which hate group is this guy a member of?
http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ehow/images/a07/2e/1s/army-beret-colors-1.1-800x800.jpg
White robes with pointed hoods are more closely associated with the KKK than black fatigues and berets are associated with the NBPP. US Army soldiers wear black berets (although I believe no US military personal wear black fatigues).
This isn't to say the guy in the video isn't NBPP. Just that trying to state that the KKK uniform is much more ingrained into our culture.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
The imagery is tied to a religion which has strong political stances. If seeing a picture of Obama or Romney on voting day can influence someone's vote, so can seeing a picture of Jesus.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
The U.S. Military.
What's your point?
There's a handful of guys in the NBPP, and hundreds of thousands in the military. Perhaps beret=panther is not a good guess.
I don't know if he's associated with any hate groups. The black beret in and of itself isn't the issue.
Look, lets be honest with ourselves here: Anyone claiming that the individual at the philly polls isn't intentionally identifying himself openly as a member of NBPP is being daft, and isn't really interested in discussing this.
this would be a valid point, if the beret was the only thing people were using to identify him.
But, since its not hte only thing, its not a valid point.
You'll note I already said I wouldn't have an issue with them realxing that rule and that I don't think political t-shirts (or yes, even the mural) would actual influence the vote. But, there is no question that it is against the current rule.
The other things are, what exactly? A jacket? Sunglasses?
If he were like the guys in 2008, with a big ol' NBPP insignia, I'd agree. But he's not. He's just a guy in normal clothes.
I disagree. It's a very good guess. It could be more thoroughly explained, and I will do so now...
In this example, you have a black man with good posture and a black beret, true - but that's where the similarities end.
Here's some differences:
He's got a visible tie. Never seen standard NBPP wearing visible ties. I guess a few do, but generally they do not wear ties. You'll see them most of the time with the jacket covering most of the tie region.
He's not wearing all black.
His jacket is solid green. Not an NBPP thing.
His jacket has brass buttons on it. Again not an NBPP thing.
I would never mistake him for a NBPP guy.