It's pretty hard for me to believe that you guys didn't immediately think of 'detective' when reading Ljoss's description. I mean like..seriously? Maybe you just don't know what a fedora is?
It's pretty hard for me to believe that you guys didn't immediately think of 'detective' when reading Ljoss's description. I mean like..seriously? Maybe you just don't know what a fedora is?
This whole argument seems ridiculous. I have a question for people in the 'no harm, no foul' camp. Why do you suppose that he chose to wore that particular outfit? Obviously there was a reason for it. Should this just fall under the blanket concept of 'freedom of speech'?
I know what a fedora is, my brother wears one all the time. It just wouldn't occur to me that it was a 'detective' look. Detectives to me are the Law & Order: SVU (and the hundred other similar shows and movies) folks, not Dick Tracey.
It falls under the blanket concept of "If there's no law against it, it isn't illegal."
Is there a law that says that standing outside a voting station wearing apparel associated with the NBPP while minding your own business/politely holding the door open for people going in is illegal?
There are laws against voter intimidation, but is this specific act covered by them?
Is there a law that says that standing outside a voting station wearing apparel associated with the NBPP while minding your own business/politely holding the door open for people going in is illegal?
Why yes, yes there is a law against intentionally intimidating voters.
There are laws against voter intimidation, but is this specific act covered by them?
At every poll in existence? Probably not. At this specific polling place, where this specific person was last year? I don't think any reasonable person can contest that he was intentionally intimidating voters.
It's pretty hard for me to believe that you guys didn't immediately think of 'detective' when reading Ljoss's description. I mean like..seriously? Maybe you just don't know what a fedora is?
This whole argument seems ridiculous. I have a question for people in the 'no harm, no foul' camp. Why do you suppose that he chose to wore that particular outfit? Obviously there was a reason for it. Should this just fall under the blanket concept of 'freedom of speech'?
You want a plausible reason? Here's one.
The NBPP was annoyed that this guy caused them so much negative publicity by his actions 4 years ago. To prove to the community that they aren't so bad, they send him back to the polling place to volunteer and assist voters. They make sure he dresses such that people know his affiliation, attempting to get some positive publicity out of it.
I'm sorry, but I flatly dismiss any argument that hinges on "well he was dressed like he was up to no good!" to make its point. The fact that your argument goes further, and actually demands we discover his REASONS for dressing in a certain way puts it well beyond reasonable. From all reports, this guy was nothing but helpful at that location this time around, to all voters white and black.
To those comparing his getup to a KKK robe and hood, I say this. The KKK has earned itself a special place when it comes to election law due to systemic violence against citizens including many documented murders and beatings. The NBPP (and even the BPP) has never quite earned that distinction, nor have many other "hate" groups.
Is there a law that says that standing outside a voting station wearing apparel associated with the NBPP while minding your own business/politely holding the door open for people going in is illegal?
Why yes, yes there is a law against intentionally intimidating voters.
Can someone find that law for me? I have had no luck in searches. I mean the literal law plus any relevant court decisions - I want to know what they actually say.
If it doesn't say that dressing in NBPP garb outside a polling place in itself constitutes voter intimidation, then no, it isn't a law against that.
If it does, then yes, he should have been removed. Given that Fox News was on the scene, though, somehow I'm guessing that if it was against the law, the police would've been alerted.
There are laws against voter intimidation, but is this specific act covered by them?
At every poll in existence? Probably not. At this specific polling place, where this specific person was last year? I don't think any reasonable person can contest that he was intentionally intimidating voters.
That's... pretty hyperbolic. No reasonable person could believe that he has to *do* something before it rises to the level of voter intimidation, that wearing garb not associated in the public mind with acts of brutality is not itself voter intimidation?
Illuvator just spelled out one possibility. There are others. There are plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with intimidating voters to send him.
So, anyone know what happened in Florida with those lengthy lines to vote?
The way I heard it, many polling places in Miami stayed open long past closing time because there were still hundreds of people waiting to vote. Supposedly there were still people waiting to cast their vote long after Obama was declared the winner.
How did the election people screw things up so badly?
Don't they by law HAVE to stay open as long as people are in line? I don't know what it is like in the states but here in canada they can stop adding people too the line after their close time but if you got in before that mark they stay open for you.
Don't they by law HAVE to stay open as long as people are in line? I don't know what it is like in the states but here in canada they can stop adding people too the line after their close time but if you got in before that mark they stay open for you.
That's the law here, and what in fact happened.
Basically, they provided insufficient voting resources in heavily Democratic, highly populated areas in the state. As a result, lines to vote ran to 8+ hours at times.
When the polls closed, the line was still ridiculously long, but people stayed in line and kept voting. The line was so long that about 3.5 hours later, when the election was called for Obama, there were still people in line to vote.
How did the election people screw things up so badly?
They screwed nothing up. They targeted heavily Democratic neighborhoods to receive insufficient resources in an effort to make it difficult to vote, betting that enough people would opt to go home rather than waiting through the lines to deliver the state to Romney. Well, they may have screwed one thing up - it backfired. Turnout was as high as ever and Obama won the state.
Is there a law that says that standing outside a voting station wearing apparel associated with the NBPP while minding your own business/politely holding the door open for people going in is illegal?
Why yes, yes there is a law against intentionally intimidating voters.
There are laws against voter intimidation, but is this specific act covered by them?
At every poll in existence? Probably not. At this specific polling place, where this specific person was last year? I don't think any reasonable person can contest that he was intentionally intimidating voters.
It's more despicable when an entire party conspires to suppress the votes of the opposing party.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My guess was gonna be spy or hitman...
I know what a fedora is, my brother wears one all the time. It just wouldn't occur to me that it was a 'detective' look. Detectives to me are the Law & Order: SVU (and the hundred other similar shows and movies) folks, not Dick Tracey.
It falls under the blanket concept of "If there's no law against it, it isn't illegal."
Is there a law that says that standing outside a voting station wearing apparel associated with the NBPP while minding your own business/politely holding the door open for people going in is illegal?
There are laws against voter intimidation, but is this specific act covered by them?
Why yes, yes there is a law against intentionally intimidating voters.
At every poll in existence? Probably not. At this specific polling place, where this specific person was last year? I don't think any reasonable person can contest that he was intentionally intimidating voters.
You want a plausible reason? Here's one.
The NBPP was annoyed that this guy caused them so much negative publicity by his actions 4 years ago. To prove to the community that they aren't so bad, they send him back to the polling place to volunteer and assist voters. They make sure he dresses such that people know his affiliation, attempting to get some positive publicity out of it.
I'm sorry, but I flatly dismiss any argument that hinges on "well he was dressed like he was up to no good!" to make its point. The fact that your argument goes further, and actually demands we discover his REASONS for dressing in a certain way puts it well beyond reasonable. From all reports, this guy was nothing but helpful at that location this time around, to all voters white and black.
To those comparing his getup to a KKK robe and hood, I say this. The KKK has earned itself a special place when it comes to election law due to systemic violence against citizens including many documented murders and beatings. The NBPP (and even the BPP) has never quite earned that distinction, nor have many other "hate" groups.
Can someone find that law for me? I have had no luck in searches. I mean the literal law plus any relevant court decisions - I want to know what they actually say.
If it doesn't say that dressing in NBPP garb outside a polling place in itself constitutes voter intimidation, then no, it isn't a law against that.
If it does, then yes, he should have been removed. Given that Fox News was on the scene, though, somehow I'm guessing that if it was against the law, the police would've been alerted.
That's... pretty hyperbolic. No reasonable person could believe that he has to *do* something before it rises to the level of voter intimidation, that wearing garb not associated in the public mind with acts of brutality is not itself voter intimidation?
Illuvator just spelled out one possibility. There are others. There are plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with intimidating voters to send him.
The way I heard it, many polling places in Miami stayed open long past closing time because there were still hundreds of people waiting to vote. Supposedly there were still people waiting to cast their vote long after Obama was declared the winner.
How did the election people screw things up so badly?
That's the law here, and what in fact happened.
Basically, they provided insufficient voting resources in heavily Democratic, highly populated areas in the state. As a result, lines to vote ran to 8+ hours at times.
When the polls closed, the line was still ridiculously long, but people stayed in line and kept voting. The line was so long that about 3.5 hours later, when the election was called for Obama, there were still people in line to vote.
They screwed nothing up. They targeted heavily Democratic neighborhoods to receive insufficient resources in an effort to make it difficult to vote, betting that enough people would opt to go home rather than waiting through the lines to deliver the state to Romney. Well, they may have screwed one thing up - it backfired. Turnout was as high as ever and Obama won the state.
It's more despicable when an entire party conspires to suppress the votes of the opposing party.