Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: kgbsquirrel on November 06, 2012, 06:00:12 PM
-
Welcome to Phily, can you guess who the Polling Station judge is voting for?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweaselzippers.us%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FScreen-shot-2012-11-06-at-11.15.03-AM.png&hash=707df041ff7b924b5b01702a37af6311cc6270c5)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2Forder.jpeg&hash=1d89c89054e8e7964564047de589098e832eb06f)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg210.imageshack.us%2Fimg210%2F455%2Fmuralcovered2.gif&hash=fe7bcf941d0cbd0226ac57359d9b0ab087ed0b87)
:mad:
What part of "invisible in its entirety" is so effing difficult?
-
*crickets* Wow.
-
Nothing will come of it.
-
Yeah, the polling judge will be charged just like that guy the other day on an internet video who said he'd voted five times that day.
-
Yeah, the polling judge will be charged just like that guy the other day on an internet video who said he'd voted five times that day.
Are you a racist who believes in voter suppression?
-
What part of "invisible in its entirety" is so effing difficult?
Also, what about "blank paper" is difficult to understand?
-
Take that, racist judge. (Not that giant murals of our leader's face is creepy or anything.)
-
Take that, racist judge. (Not that giant murals of our leader's face is creepy or anything.)
In a school no less.
-
who would change their vote because of a picture on the wall?
-
who would change their vote because of a picture on the wall?
Based entirely on my own unscientific opinion I'd say at least some of those 60 million people who voted for Obama would fall into the "ooo, shiny, I'll mark him" category.
-
who would change their vote because of a picture on the wall?
Why do you ask?
-
who would change their vote because of a picture on the wall?
A lot of people. And not just the "oh, shiny" kinda stupids, but also folks who are easily intimadated or scared.
The message is one of "false choice". Vote for this guy, or else...
Our voting laws and procedures are suposed to be protective. The ability to choose your canadate with no one knowing who or what you picked and no one allowed to influance or badger you to choose one way or the other.
By keeping the campaigning outside, and those who have obvious bias away from the actual polling, everyone should be able to have the security to make their own decision without feeling pressured or endangored. It's saftey via animity.
-
i assume the court ordered this covered to keep it from influencing how people would vote. who goes to the polls not knowing who they are going to vote for? a picture wouldn't change my mind one way or the other. is the average person so weak willed that they would forget who they came to vote for?
Based entirely on my own unscientific opinion I'd say at least some of those 60 million people who voted for Obama would fall into the "ooo, shiny, I'll mark him" category.
evidently the republicans seemed worried that it would be their voters influenced. that doesn't sound like they have a lot of faith in their constituents. it's not like they're ordering a big mac.
-
A lot of people. And not just the "oh, shiny" kinda stupids, but also folks who are easily intimadated or scared.
The message is one of "false choice". Vote for this guy, or else...
Our voting laws and procedures are suposed to be protective. The ability to choose your canadate with no one knowing who or what you picked and no one allowed to influance or badger you to choose one way or the other.
By keeping the campaigning outside, and those who have obvious bias away from the actual polling, everyone should be able to have the security to make their own decision without feeling pressured or endangored. It's saftey via animity.
i agree that people should not feel intimidated at the polls, i just don't see how a picture would do that. perhaps i have little understanding of, or too much faith in, the average person.
and yes, an obvious contempt charge should be in order.
-
i agree that people should not feel intimidated at the polls, i just don't see how a picture would do that. perhaps i have little understanding of, or too much faith in, the average person.
*shrug* someone raised in a country were such propaganda covered the walls and civil liberties are strictly monitered might.
Or laws are to prevent that eventuality. Obviously, they are not working.
-
i assume the court ordered this covered to keep it from influencing how people would vote. who goes to the polls not knowing who they are going to vote for? a picture wouldn't change my mind one way or the other. is the average person so weak willed that they would forget who they came to vote for?
evidently the republicans seemed worried that it would be their voters influenced. that doesn't sound like they have a lot of faith in their constituents. it's not like they're ordering a big mac.
Do you really not grasp that a polling place should strive for a non-partisan atmosphere? Do you really not see the impropriety in a polling place looking like a campaign office for one of the candidates? The voter should be able to expect that their vote will be duly recorded. If those running the polls appear to all partisans of the opposing party...
:facepalm: Not that hard.
-
Do you really not grasp that a polling place should strive for a non-partisan atmosphere? Do you really not see the impropriety in a polling place looking like a campaign office for one of the candidates? The voter should be able to expect that their vote will be duly recorded. If those running the polls appear to all partisans of the opposing party...
:facepalm: Not that hard.
+1
What can I say, when he's right, he's right.
-
+1
What can I say, when he's right, he's right.
Unpossible.
-
Unpossible.
Every so often, it happens.
-
Do you really not grasp that a polling place should strive for a non-partisan atmosphere? Do you really not see the impropriety in a polling place looking like a campaign office for one of the candidates? The voter should be able to expect that their vote will be duly recorded. If those running the polls appear to all partisans of the opposing party...
:facepalm: Not that hard.
sure, your point is well taken. just speaking for myself, it wouldn't change my vote . how about you. now with the non-trust issue in tow, i should take my vote all the way to washington by myself and there we should all call out at once aye or nay, 'cause how else are we going to know? if i were running a corrupt polling place, the last thing i would have is a picture of the person i was counting for there on the wall.
speaking of security of my voting privacy, i couldn't help but notice the election helper take a long look at a few of the ballots as she was helping people with the new machines.
-
sure, your point is well taken. just speaking for myself, it wouldn't change my vote . how about you.
;/
-
sure, your point is well taken. just speaking for myself, it wouldn't change my vote . how about you. now with the non-trust issue in tow, i should take my vote all the way to washington by myself and there we should all call out at once aye or nay, 'cause how else are we going to know? if i were running a corrupt polling place, the last thing i would have is a picture of the person i was counting for there on the wall.
speaking of security of my voting privacy, i couldn't help but notice the election helper take a long look at a few of the ballots as she was helping people with the new machines.
Remember, your talking to a bunch of cynical folk who like to look behind the curtain. I doubt anyone here really gives a flying *expletive deleted* what anyone knows about how they vote or would change their minds for such a dum dum reason.
The poll workers can be as corrupt as they want, but it's not so freeking hard to keep up at least the apperance of impartiality.
Sorry, is one of those things that also triggers my "proffesional impression" mindset.
Yes, there are a whole host of legitamate reasons for it. I can also see an athesitic reason for it. It's just not classy to demean the actual act of voting with campaign signs and banners. Let them get as trashy as they want outside, but can we at least behave *some* once we go through the door. =|
-
There was a state senator (now a federal judge) in WI named Lyn Adelman. He was working in his garden as an elderly couple walked by. When they complimented him on the size of his tomatoes, he gave them some. After that, he gave them tomatoes every year, and they put out his campaign signs in their front yard every two years, and presumably voted for him. That's how shallow many people can be.
I don't doubt for a minute that there was a least one person who wasn't entirely sure whether to vote for or against Obama, and seeing the magnificent image of him tipped the scale.
-
Remember, your talking to a bunch of cynical folk who like to look behind the curtain. I doubt anyone here really gives a flying *expletive deleted* what anyone knows about how they vote or would change their minds for such a dum dum reason.
The poll workers can be as corrupt as they want, but it's not so freeking hard to keep up at least the apperance of impartiality.
Sorry, is one of those things that also triggers my "proffesional impression" mindset.
Yes, there are a whole host of legitamate reasons for it. I can also see an athesitic reason for it. It's just not classy to demean the actual act of voting with campaign signs and banners. Let them get as trashy as they want outside, but can we at least behave *some* once we go through the door. =|
The Politics Place forum is open-access, at least for read-only. How many of us posted their intentions or actual votes over there? *WE* generally don't seem to care all that much, at least in part because we regard the others here as our friends despite our differences, and at least some of us don't care if outsiders see our votes, either. I certainly understand that some (here and in the general public) don't want that info to be known to anyone else, though.
Having said that, the mural DEFINITELY should have been covered up before the court direction even came down; a contempt charge is in order, though I do not expect one to ever be pursued.
-
. . . is the average person so weak willed that they would forget who they came to vote for? . . .
Not necessarily the average person, but remember, the left side of the bell curve is about the same size and shape as the right side . . . and there's a lot of area under that part of the curve.
As for corrupting influences in the polling place . . . my Dad told me that many decades ago in Chicago, it wasn't unusual for Democrat precinct captains to stand right in the polling place to "encourage" people to vote correctly - they'd time how long people were in the booth, and if they took longer to vote than it took to pull the lever for a straight Democratic Party ticket, they'd become irate, and occasionally even enter the voting booth to "help" people cast their ballots. (But that last was pretty blatant, even for Chicago. I understand my grandpa punched some guy in the nose who did that with him . . . and he was a registered Democrat!)