DNC and Voter Suppression 159
An anonymous reader points to this Drudge Report story about an election day manual specifying aggressive tactics to be used in the event of any election problems. While Drudge says the Democrats are planning to "declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists", that's not what the manual says.
Re:what's worse? (Score:3, Informative)
But Democrats, who verified as authentic the page from a playbook called "Colorado Election Day Manual: A detailed guide to voting in Colorado," said they must be pro-active to assure that minorities and all others are not scared away from the polls.
--trb
Re:what's worse? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pre-Emptive Strike? (Score:3, Informative)
And yet htis gets modded interesting? yea this is not a troll/flamebait. I love it when Democtrats and Republican knee padders point to eachother and cry *liar* voting for a 3rd party this time around its great to see.
You point out something with a little more substance, we'll talk.
Ok put your knee pads back on cause I have something for you and I know your going to have to find a way to ignore/spin it.
South Dakota [rapidcityjournal.com], Dems Paid $12,000 to South Dakota Vote Fraud Figure
The South Dakota Democratic Party reportedly paid the person at the center of a growing voter fraud investigation more than $12,000 in the last three months, according to the Rapid City (S.Dak.) Journal which revealed that the figure is shown in Federal Election Commission (FEC) records from July, August and September.
The FEC records revealed that Becky Red Earth-Villeda got 18 paychecks totaling $12,867 allegedly for administrative costs or voter drives. One of the checks in the amount of $3,500 was racked up as travel expenses.
Sarah Feinberg, indented by the Journal as a Democratic Party spokeswoman explained that contractors are paid by the number of voter registration cards and absentee ballots they collect.
See, I AM a Democrat, an active one
No fsck? really? I never would have guessed by the wear mark on the floor where you, ummm, assume the position for your party.
and I have NEVER heard a fellow Democrat encourage vote fraude by either word or deed. I HAVE heard Republicans defend it.
Oh well if a democratic partison says so who am I to argue..
Did you read the .jpg? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, the
NOTHING.
It's all about making sure everyone (particularaly minorities who have been targetted in the past) knows the past attempts so that if they are attempted again they will not work.
But if this manual is real, I have to say that I am ashamed to be associated with whoever wrote it or intended to follow it.
Don't worry. I'm sure they feel the same way about people who won't read the material and, instead, listen to what other, biased, sources say about it.
I did read it. (Score:3, Informative)
No, I read that. And then I read the actions recommended. And they're short so I won't have to "summarize" them like you did. (Strange how your "summary" uses more words than were on that
If you bother to read the rest, it basically says that, if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were.
Nope, it says (and I quote):
2. If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there[sic] techniques have been tried in the past).
- Issue a press release
i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
- Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
- Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
- Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
Nothing at all about, as you claim, "if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were."
If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table.
I did. I quoted the
Re:what's worse? (Score:4, Informative)
What about the fact that illegal 527 groups have fought to get Nader on the ballot when they, the groups, are professed Republicans?
That right there is worse. Think, although neither party shares all of Nader's views the Democrats are arguably the closest thing to him. If Republicans are fighting to get him on the ballot it is for one reason only: to syphon votes from John Kerry.
Don't even try that bullshit about Republicans fighting for Nader's rights either because it won't hold water. If they really cared about Nader they would adopt some of his ideas
From this page [whywehatebush.com]:
More? [the-hamster.com]
Oregon is the state being hit the most with these underhanded actions. Why? Because there are lots of liberals up in Oregon who would vote for Nader just as fast as they would vote for Kerry.
When Nader takes money from groups like "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" it makes me wonder if he really is the man he says he is. Has Nader realized that running for office is a very lucrative job?
Democrats are the party of intimidation (Score:3, Informative)
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who actively lynched blacks in the South for voting, who instituted poll taxes and reading requirements. Republicans are the ones who fought them and instituted federal rules on who is and is not allowed to vote, and prosecuted the lynchings by the Democrat Ku Klux Klan. (Yes, that's right, most KKK members were democrats!)
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who managed the counties where the voters were reportedly disenfranchised in Florida during the 2000 election scandal. The butterfly ballot was approved by democrat election officials. This claim was unsubstantiated because it didn't happen, yet they continue to insinuate it.
* It was Democrats, not Republicans, who want illegal aliens and non-citizens to vote. They impose the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for motor voters, where even the forms cannot state the requirements for voting.
* It is Democrats, not Republicans, who have told the elderly that if Bush is elected, their social security check would disappear. Newsflash: They are still getting their social security checks.
* When someone comes along and says, "Maybe we should purge the rolls of inactive or moved voters, or at least verify people's identity before they vote" it is Democrats, not Republicans, who scream bloody murder and say we are trying to disenfranchise voters.
I'll get modded down, and I know it, but those who browse at -1 will get to see the truth.
Re:To be fair... (Score:3, Informative)
1998 Florida Mayoral [csmonitor.com] race overturned because of massive voter fraud. This is only the most recent of a half dozen cases [state.fl.us] in Florida some of which resulted in convictions and/or invalidated elections. Lots of funs stuff... Deceased voters, vote buying, non-resident voters, ballot switching - the whole nine yards. (Gee I wonder if THAT could possibly explain the "intimidating" presence of Republican poll watchers and an attempt to purge the rolls of deceased, illegal and non-resident voters? NO it MUST be "suppression"). As it turns our there WERE still dead people that voted in 2000. The Miami Herald found André Alismé who died in 1997 among 144 other illegal voters after investigating only about a sixth of the precincts in Miami.
Forged absentee ballots [cnn.com] in S. Dakota in 2002
Apparently some of the Democratic voting dead vote in primaries too [dailyadvance.com].
Deceased voters [sfgate.com] still making it to the polls
Of course the 1960 Presidential election [msn.com]... Long past history but memories are long and political
And there is plenty of proof that this year may be a high-water mark for fraud... Fictional people registered to vote [enquirer.com]
Tons of registrations accumulated over months including many fraudulent ones with fictional names, dozens of the same name, forged signatures, dead people etc. all dumped on the county offices at the last minute to overload the checks to prevent fraud in Pennsylvania [pottstownmercury.com], Florida [palmbeachpost.com] (and here [floridatoday.com]), Colorado [9news.com], Texas [woai.com].
Re:what's worse? (Score:3, Informative)
The fraud in Chicago was matched by GOP fraud in rural areas. One reason why neither state party wanted to allow Tricky Dicky's proxy demands for investigations.
Today the fraud is committed by Jeb Bush who ordered the use of a fellons list that he had been told was blatantly inaccurate.