Author Topic: Firebombing Double Standard  (Read 6669 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Firebombing Double Standard
« on: October 17, 2016, 10:55:11 AM »
If instead of a Republican headquarters being firebombed and hate speech spray painted on a wall referring to Republicans, a Democratic headquarters had been the victim, it seems to me we'd be getting wall to wall coverage.  Reporters would be on-sight in the damaged area and we'd see endless articles linking the "hate" of the Trump campaign to this violence.  Why so little focus (if you believe the media isn't in the tank)? 

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2016, 11:28:08 AM »
I just googled "North Carolina G.O.P. Building Is Firebombed" and got 947,000 hits.  Many of the major news outlets were on the first page.  The story from FOX was about Democrats raising money on behalf of the office.  What are you looking for that isn't there?

Make no mistake, nobody of any decency wants this to happen.  This goes beyond partisanship.  Whoever did it should be found and punished.  The fear that many people have is that it opens the door for similar attacks against Democratic offices or even worse given the calls that are already starting for open rebellion by some Trump supporters.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2016, 11:42:01 AM »
The fear that many people have is that it opens the door for similar attacks against Democratic offices or even worse given the calls that are already starting for open rebellion by some Trump supporters.

I think this is sort of Seriati's point. If attacks did happen against Democratic offices they would be attributed to these 'calls for open rebellion' you speak of, and Trump would be blamed. He is suggesting that the lack of blaming Clinton and the Democrats for this bombing may indicate a double standard.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2016, 11:47:50 AM »
To claim any sort of equivalency between her campaign's rhetoric and his you have to show the rhetoric that you think is somehow equivalent.  Otherwise, he and everyone else are free to complain as much as they like and not provide a basis in reality for it, but should not expect anything beyond speculation that it might be possible.  I suppose it's possible.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2016, 11:48:05 AM »
I watched the MSM coverage this morning.  It was a story that got a few minutes and moved on from, none of the channels I looked at had an onsite report.  If it had been a Democratic HQ, everyone of the stations would have had a live on the ground report, and it would have been a lead covered for 15 minutes or more, with "analysts" brought in to explain to us how this is a predictable result of Trump's message of hate to his supporters.  Honestly, how many times did they cover the "hate" and "violence" at Trump's rallies, blaming it on him and his message, when all signs are that it was protesters who provoked all the violence?  No way, you get the same treatment on the left.

As to Google results, don't care, you should be able to go to CNN, the New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC and find multiple articles and stories.  I have no doubt, you'd find exactly that if the equivalent happened to a DNC local headquarters.  Not to mention the unsubstantiated changes of racism and voter intimidation they would add and replay for weeks.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2016, 11:51:31 AM »
Counter-factual hypotheses about media coverage annoy me. They seem dependent on pre-existing beliefs about the biases of the media. Even comparing it to previous or future events is problematic since circumstances are rarely sufficiently similar. Trump is sufficient novel that the atmosphere can't be compared to previous elections.

As for the double standard on rhetoric, has Clinton said anything that could be seen as condoning or promoting violence? 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2016, 11:57:07 AM »
Seriati is right about the violence at the rallies, though. Rather than commiserating with Trump for having to deal with it the media seemed rather to suggest that it was his own fault. Even the trouble at Bernie's rallies was sometimes blamed on Trump, which at the time I did not believe was a plausible explanation.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2016, 11:57:57 AM »
CBS, right now, 2/3's of the way down the page is the only story, and that shows the picture calling Republicans Nazis not the firebombed head quarters.

CNN, right now, no picture no main story, just a link in the news items at the left.

NY Times, right now, don't even see it, but do see a giant picture of Michelle Obama and a love note to her, and plenty of anti-trump pieces.

ABC News, right now, don't see any article.

NBC News, right now, don't see any article.

NPR, right now, don't see any article.

MSNBC, right now, yeah right.  lol

There is no way, absolutely no way, this occurs if its a DNC HQ.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2016, 12:31:44 PM »
Curiously, you left out FOX.  Nada, which can only be explained by the fact that FOX is in the tank for Hillary.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2016, 12:59:16 PM »
It wasn't a feature story but NPR did talk about it this morning.  (10/17)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2016, 01:46:48 PM »
Seeing as this is a time of the conspiracy theory

The GOP firebombed their own office as it’s a win win for them however the press reports it
Classic False Flag attack

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2016, 01:49:54 PM »
Had the attack been on a Democratic headquarters I would bet on Trump calling it a False Flag attack

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2016, 02:08:42 PM »
Honest to goodness, firebombing an election headquarters is a direct political and voter intimidation, which has been a charge of the left for a long time on far less threat.  Downplaying this is a joke.

And AI, I was waiting for you to post about Fox, glad to see you agree that it's only news if its on Fox.  Lol.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2016, 03:19:17 PM »
It surprised me that you left them out. I assume because it would have spoiled your left wing attack theme.  The first place I saw it reported was the NY Times.   My god, think of all the permutations that make democrats look like villains, but nobody I saw on the conservative side reported on the two armed Trump supporters who patrolled outside a democratic party headquarters.   As the Donald would say,  SAD!
« Last Edit: October 17, 2016, 03:21:52 PM by AI Wessex »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2016, 03:22:37 PM »
It surprised me that you left them out. I assume because it would have spoiled your left wing attack theme.  The first place I saw it reported was the NY Times.   My god, think of all the permutations that make democrats look like villains, but nobody I saw on the conservative side reposted the two armed Trump supporters who patrolled outside a democratic party headquarters.   As the Donald would say,  SAD!
You do KNOW that carried fireARMS, are different from thrown fireBOMBS, right?  :)

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #15 on: October 17, 2016, 03:30:13 PM »
The news coverage, I think, is mainly driven by the question of how likely is this firebombing to be the first in a series, or just an isolated incident?

Since Hillary supporters haven't been talking about "rebellion" or "second-amendment" solutions, I don't think anyone believes this is anything but an isolated incident (as terrible as it is).  So while it is a horrible local story, it does not warrant much attention.

But since Trump supporters have been talking about "rebellion," and he has mentioned "second-amendment" solutions, the media (and us) would worry that this is just the start of an open rebellion.  So, yes, the media would then give it a lot more coverage.

So lack of front-page coverage doesn't indicate some grand conspiracy among the media (including Fox News :)).  It probably just indicates that few expect anything more to come out of this.

After all, does anyone here think this is not just an isolated incident, and that others major acts of violence against Republicans will soon occur?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #16 on: October 17, 2016, 03:32:13 PM »
It surprised me that you left them out. I assume because it would have spoiled your left wing attack theme.  The first place I saw it reported was the NY Times.   My god, think of all the permutations that make democrats look like villains, but nobody I saw on the conservative side reposted the two armed Trump supporters who patrolled outside a democratic party headquarters.   As the Donald would say,  SAD!
You do KNOW that carried fireARMS, are different from thrown fireBOMBS, right?  :)
I agree that intimidation is less than actual violence, but it was a warning.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2016, 03:48:40 PM »
(1) How much coverage has this gotten compared to Mike Pence using Indiana State Police to seize 45,000 voter registration forms a week before the deadline because 10 were deemed fraudulent (that's 44,990 American citizens who will not get a vote because of potential flaws in ten forms)? This firebomb affected no voting registrations, and in fact a citizen who was a Democrat led a crowd-funding effort to pay for repairs, and there was widespread condemnation of this action from Democrats everywhere.

(2) The media has to deal with the real possibility that this is a false flag attack, because its happened before. Almost 8 years ago to the day:

Quote
Ms. Todd told police a black man with a knife approached her at a banking machine at Citizens Bank at Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street in Bloomfield shortly before 9 p.m. Wednesday. She said after she gave him $60, the robber spotted the McCain stickers on her car, became enraged, knocked her to the ground and punched and kicked her.

She quoted him as saying "You are going to be a Barack supporter," as he sat on her chest, pinning both of her hands down, and scratched the letter "B" on her right cheek.

First among the problems with her story was the fact that the "B" scratched on her face was backwards -- as it might be if she had done it herself using a mirror.

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/neighborhoods/2008/10/25/McCain-volunteer-admits-to-hoax/stories/200810250133


D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2016, 03:54:10 PM »
Blame McCain.  I think his suggestion that should Hillary win they won't let her sit a SC judge kinda bumps stuff like this out of the spotlight.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2016, 04:04:43 PM »
The news coverage, I think, is mainly driven by the question of how likely is this firebombing to be the first in a series, or just an isolated incident?

Should it be?  If that is your consistent view, then virtually all instances of voter/political intimidation should not be covered, unless you can provide evidence of a general conspiracy.

Quote
Since Hillary supporters haven't been talking about "rebellion" or "second-amendment" solutions, I don't think anyone believes this is anything but an isolated incident (as terrible as it is).  So while it is a horrible local story, it does not warrant much attention.

But since Trump supporters have been talking about "rebellion," and he has mentioned "second-amendment" solutions, the media (and us) would worry that this is just the start of an open rebellion.  So, yes, the media would then give it a lot more coverage.

I see.  Honestly, that sounds to me like you have a preconceived theme you want to sell (that Trump/Republicans are not the verge of  armed revolt) and since this doesn't fit it has to be discarded.  However, it seems to me, that in the history of political violence it's overwhelmingly the left and its supporters that engage in it, well at least in the last 30 years or so.  Show me any right wing riot, show me any coordinated campaign by Republicans to commit violence, or else just admit, you're selling a story that doesn't match reality.

Quote
So lack of front-page coverage doesn't indicate some grand conspiracy among the media (including Fox News :)).  It probably just indicates that few expect anything more to come out of this.

After all, does anyone here think this is not just an isolated incident, and that others major acts of violence against Republicans will soon occur?

So just to confirm, isolated incidents of violence should no longer be reported on.  Or is this another one of those one sided standards (which is exactly my point in labeling this thread "Double Standard")?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2016, 04:15:25 PM »
(1) How much coverage has this gotten compared to Mike Pence using Indiana State Police to seize 45,000 voter registration forms a week before the deadline because 10 were deemed fraudulent (that's 44,990 American citizens who will not get a vote because of potential flaws in ten forms)? This firebomb affected no voting registrations, and in fact a citizen who was a Democrat led a crowd-funding effort to pay for repairs, and there was widespread condemnation of this action from Democrats everywhere.

So, I know you have hung your hat on voter fraud being a fake issue because there are no proven cases (in your view), yet, in this case the police investigating several hundred (Christian Science Monitor says over 300) apparently fraudulent voter registrations and your complaint is that they aren't filing the rest for the organization?   Other sources imply the State police believe there are thousands of fraudulent applications involved.

Somehow you equate policing of election fraud with firebombing?

Quote
(2) The media has to deal with the real possibility that this is a false flag attack, because its happened before. Almost 8 years ago to the day:

Or they have to make a backhanded allegation that a false flag is occurring to blow smoke in the face of a very real Fire(bombing), to cast doubt.  If they have evidence of the same let them bring it up, have no tolerance for an act like that.

Of course it's not like there aren't instances (documented) of Trump supporters being beaten up for their political views.  Are they all false flag attacks to?  They must be, right, no Democrat would ever use violence to support their political positions after all.

Don't want to be too harsh with you here, but it seems to me like you too are deliberately underplaying this.  Do you agree or disagree this would have been covered differently if it was a DNC HQ that was attacked?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2016, 04:38:48 PM »
I think if the coverage is low, there are a lot of factors. Nobody got hurt. It appears nobody got there in time to catch footage of the fire prior to it being put out. News organizations love having fire trucks, firefighters, and fire footage.

There were no protests or rallies about the incident. The location is not in a major urban center. There are apparently no witnesses to interview. Since nobody has been making any particular threats to commit violence against the RNC, it is hard to spin it into a larger narrative.

Now, if they track down the people who committed the crime and they turn out to be Mexican or Muslim you'll see the volume pop up in a hurry.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2016, 04:45:01 PM »
Quote
So, I know you have hung your hat on voter fraud being a fake issue because there are no proven cases (in your view), yet, in this case the police investigating several hundred (Christian Science Monitor says over 300) apparently fraudulent voter registrations and your complaint is that they aren't filing the rest for the organization?   Other sources imply the State police believe there are thousands of fraudulent applications involved.
So around 0.6% have issues? That seems like a decent error rate to me.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #23 on: October 17, 2016, 08:25:47 PM »
Seriati, I just read about a Democratic campaign office attacked in the same city as the Republican office attack on the same day.  How come nobody reported on this?

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2016, 09:14:24 PM »
I read about this event in multiple places well before Seriati's complaint and don't ever visit right-wing news sources, so it obviously got covered enough to reach the average web-surfing human.

This strikes me as some persecution-complex stuff. Don't join the culture of victimhood, Ser. Don't do it. The water's toxic in that pool.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #25 on: October 17, 2016, 10:56:20 PM »
Quote
If that is your consistent view, then virtually all instances of voter/political intimidation should not be covered, unless you can provide evidence of a general conspiracy.

Seriati, it was covered.  Remember?  You yourself listed the times it was covered, just above.  ::)

The thing you're complaining about is it didn't get enough coverage for your taste.

A few more firebombings and you'll see quite a bit more coverage.

Quote
Honestly, that sounds to me like you have a preconceived theme you want to sell (that Trump/Republicans are not the verge of  armed revolt) and since this doesn't fit it has to be discarded.  However, it seems to me, that in the history of political violence it's overwhelmingly the left and its supporters that engage in it, well at least in the last 30 years or so.  Show me any right wing riot, show me any coordinated campaign by Republicans to commit violence, or else just admit, you're selling a story that doesn't match reality.

Gee, I guess the bombing of a government building and the deaths of over 120 people isn't worth mentioning when we're talking about "violence."  Or several abortion provider murders.  Or shooting of police by Bundy supporters.  Or...

Sounds like you have your own preconceived notions of violence that happens to omit the Right. ;)

Tell you what:  show me a left-wing riot over this election that doesn't get front-page coverage and we'll talk.  Otherwise, let's just keep an eye out for right-wing reaction to the "rigged election" (as the Republican Presidential candidate keeps repeating).  Because with the Republican's stupid representative, there might be some of those stupid followers that are gullible enough to take him seriously and take things into their own hands. :(

Quote
So just to confirm, isolated incidents of violence should no longer be reported on.  Or is this another one of those one sided standards (which is exactly my point in labeling this thread "Double Standard")?

Just to set you straight, I never said this story shouldn't be reported.  But by your own list above, it was reported, by just about every major news source.  So your only complaint was that it wasn't reported on enough by your standards.  So stop trying to say that I don't want the story reported.  And get over the fact that the rest of the world doesn't conform to your personal standards of how much a story should be reported.  You're starting to sound like Trump.  :P

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2016, 01:28:38 AM »
Quote
So, I know you have hung your hat on voter fraud being a fake issue because there are no proven cases (in your view), yet, in this case the police investigating several hundred (Christian Science Monitor says over 300) apparently fraudulent voter registrations and your complaint is that they aren't filing the rest for the organization?   Other sources imply the State police believe there are thousands of fraudulent applications involved.

There's a huge difference between a registration form that is flawed and a faulty vote cast.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2016, 01:40:10 AM »
I think the point is also about the difference in coverage. If it was the other way and a DNC office experienced this the media would be freaking out about the hateful Trump rhetoric that is inspiring violence whereas nobody says that about the hateful rhetoric coming from the left about how Trump is a Nazi, "literally" Hitler, a racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, sexual assault criminal, and more. This is the kind of violence inciting rhetoric the left has been using to a lesser extent against the police and even at that lower level of hate it has still prompted people to assassinate police officers in cold blood right on the street.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2016, 09:12:51 AM »
Cherry, I'll grant you that people on the left do say some or all of those things about Trump, me included.  There are two significant differences between the political oppositions, however.  First - and most importantly - Trump himself says all of the hateful things about Clinton and has over and over called for citizens to take matters into their own hands against her and by extension, the political establishment.  There is scant difference between his statements and those of an insurrectionist.  By calling for 2A backers to take action, he's perilously close to calling for a jihad or even terrorism against the government. 

Second, nothing like this has happened to Democratic Party offices yet.  I'm deeply worried that there will be violence between now and the election and even more worried that Trump has helped coalesce a counter-government movement of armed anarchists who will continue to "take action" after the election and perhaps for years to come.

But I don't think he wants that outcome.  In fact, I don't think he cares about that at all.  His son has already started exploring creating a Trump TV network, and Trump has amassed several $100M from supporters that he will find a way to convert to his own use.  If the country goes to hell and people firebomb each other, that will be ok as long as they tune into channel 666 and pretty women throw themselves at his feet.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 09:15:21 AM by AI Wessex »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2016, 09:40:36 AM »
If right wingers start rioting after a stolen election should they be given "space to destroy" like BLM? Or will Hillary issue orders to shoot on sight?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2016, 09:51:30 AM »
Will the election be stolen if Trump loses?  Right now the chances of him winning based on national polling is about 10%.  We can discuss whether Hillary will shoot suspected Republicans on sight once we get clear on this point.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2016, 09:53:46 AM »
One of Trump negotiation practices is to loudly accuse others of doing the very thing he himself is doing.
A kind of intentional hypocrisy smoke and mirrors that is surprisingly very effective.

If trump is saying that the elections maybe rigged it’s because he is trying to rig them via intimidation and bulling (it’s what he knows).

Trump calling on his followers to “watch the polling stations” while not using the word intimidation should know that such action could be perceived as intimidation. His pretense of innocent ignorance should disqualify him from office.  Frankly I think it is skirting the line of criminal.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2016, 10:44:24 AM »
Didn't Obama's justice department say it wasn't voter intimidation when Black Panthers were prowling voting stations while repeatedly slapping clubs into their hands like a person looking for someone to give a beating?

Also I've noticed that very thing about Democrats accusing others of doing the very thing they are doing so it's funny you should mention that.

I've known for a long time, long before Trump ever came on the scene and noticed the same thing, that there is massive voter fraud going on and the Democrats have been getting away with it because they've gotten so good at it. That's something that comes from experience. Some proof of it is opposition to voter I.D. because they know that will seriously cramp their style.

Yes I understand Democrats don't want to see it. They don't want to see Hillary's real position on gun control either, which is she is pro-confiscation exactly like what the Heller decision banned. People aren't going to see what they don't want to see, especially when it's inconvenient for their agenda to see it, even if it means covering their own eyes with their own hands, and before you say it yes apparently that goes for me too.

As for the polls, for one thing the media has thrown away their journalistic integrity in order to elect Hillary, and for another thing, Brexit.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2016, 11:31:37 AM »
Didn't Obama's justice department say it wasn't voter intimidation when Black Panthers were prowling voting stations while repeatedly slapping clubs into their hands like a person looking for someone to give a beating?


AFAIK, there was exactly one NBPP guy carrying a billy club, Samir Shabazz. Suit was filed under the Bush Administration, and dropped by the Obama administration. The police moved the guy along, the NBPP suspended the Philadelphia chapter. None of the other 300 NBPP members in Philadelphia had billy clubs. Some had official credentials as poll watchers.

Meanwhile, it is the RNC that has the judgement against them from the 70s and 80s that remains in effect, and Trump better be careful in his calls for "poll security" against the "rigged" election.

The consent decree is as follows:

Quote
refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose…

Now, hopefully if Trump supporters go to the poll, they won't be armed, but I wonder. And if they are, it will likely be with something significantly more deadly than billy clubs.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2016, 12:11:34 PM »
Neither side is willing to claim it's crazies and extremists.  Both sides seem to delight in pointing out the other side's crazies and extremists.  Nothing new there.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2016, 12:22:48 PM »
One thing I wouldn't see a problem with is somebody counting every citizen who goes in there to vote. You won't know who voted for whom but you will know the maximum number of votes there should be counted at that poll station, so if there is ballot stuffing or someone is voting multiple times in one trip at least that will show up. Surely that is done already though, isn't it?

Actually it shouldn't just be somebody but multiple people from each side doing it. Also they might want to just observe what's going on in general, for instance if you have a couple of busloads of people coming in to vote then that's fine, but maybe some of the observers will follow the buses out and just make sure the same people aren't also being given transportation to another polling station to vote there too. I keep hearing how numerous investigations haven't uncovered significant voter fraud but I wonder if any of the investigations have engaged simple tactics of observation like this, or if instead they are relying on after the fact paper investigations that may not uncover these types of schemes especially when they use real voter rolls to vote for real people who just don't show up themselves but have other people vote in their place where no photo I.D. is required and / or of course the poll workers are in on it anyway so facilitate the fraud. Anyway, that's the type of thing I think the Trump observers will be looking for which in no way intimidates any lawful voter against exercising their franchise.

Perhaps most people don't expect these types of shenanigans in this day and age when it seems easier just to change an input in a computer to get the dirty deed done but as the old saying goes you don't always get what you expect. You do, however, get what you inspect.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2016, 12:32:07 PM by cherrypoptart »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #36 on: October 18, 2016, 12:27:10 PM »
There would still be claims that some people are voting multiple times.  Either at the same place with multiple ID's or at differing locations with the same ID.

I wonder if we could afford a state cop in each polling place, just to make sure no one person is ever alone with the machine.  And more so, that multiple volunteers couldn't count on knowing (and conspiring with) specific people. 

Now, I'm not one who believes this is even a problem, but there are easy (but affordable?) methods to reassure people.  At least a little bit more so.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #37 on: October 18, 2016, 12:36:16 PM »
I'm not sure that people would be reassured.  Some of them would think the state cops were there to keep prying eyes from noticing the shenanigans.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2016, 12:38:21 PM »
True enough, one man's oversight is another man's conspirator...

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #39 on: October 18, 2016, 12:40:26 PM »
My fear is that people will show up, have ridiculously long waits such that they cannot effectively stay and vote and/or be turned away. 

Once everyone who wants to vote can, then I'll worry about magic votes appearing without a legitimate voter attached.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2016, 01:08:59 PM »
Exactly D.W. - certain states in the USA have booming disenfranchisement industries, and generally, the people who support those industries tend to be the same people who claim to worry about almost non-existent fraud at the polling booths.

The fact that these industries have evolved in states where other historical disenfranchisement tended to be most widespread is not a coincidence, but it is easily ignored by those who historically benefitted and who currently still do benefit.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2016, 01:21:40 PM »
The only thing I know with certainty in this world is that we create what we fear far more often then what we hope for.  Trumps campaign of hyperbole, fear and conspiracy is truly terrifying.

When he does create what he fears he gets to say – I told you so. Win Win we all lose.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2016, 01:30:09 PM »
That fact that anyone should have to wait more then fifteen minutes to vote is atrocious.

In the UK every neighborhood has a polling place. The wait times are short or non existant.

Funding the logistical side of voting is a fundamental part of a functioning democracy, and yet funds for that have been getting cut, not increased.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2016, 02:56:45 PM »
Quote
One thing I wouldn't see a problem with is somebody counting every citizen who goes in there to vote. You won't know who voted for whom but you will know the maximum number of votes there should be counted at that poll station, so if there is ballot stuffing or someone is voting multiple times in one trip at least that will show up. Surely that is done already though, isn't it?

Although I don't know for sure, I would bet that this is already done.

In California, when we vote, we first have to have our name checked off a list of registered voters for that polling place.  Only then are we given a ballot.  At the end of the day, I would bet that the poll workers check the number of ballots they have against the number handed out over the day.  (It would be very quick and simple at that level.)

I would think other states have similar methods.

The problem with someone counting every person who goes to vote is identifying which ones vote.  The person would basically have to be standing next to the poll worker to make sure he only counts those who got ballots, and not anyone else who might be accompanying someone else.  Which is kinda pushy and distracting to the poll workers... ;)

A better idea would simply to be one of the poll workers. :)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #44 on: October 19, 2016, 01:35:16 AM »
There are methods common in casinos that could be used. Facial recognition is an easy one for multiple voting.

For people voting outside their proper area, that would be a tougher proposition.

People casting a vote under an expired registration (dead, moved), that is even more difficult. Find me 100 instances where that happened, and I might be willing to support spending millions on it. ID laws can't stop it, if I'm hell bent on committing fraud, its not that hard to get a fake ID that would fool the average poll worker.

We could move to electronic voting, but then people would mistrust that even more. I currently cast my votes as a stockholder online, and there are various methods of security to stop someone gaming that system.

Nobody has to wait more than fifteen minutes to vote, because absolutely everyone can cast an absentee ballot, and many areas have expanded to extended days of voting.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #45 on: October 19, 2016, 08:49:54 AM »
Sometimes at the bank they will take my fingerprint as I.D. That might be an option eventually. Kind of a high tech spin on dipping your finger in purple ink. Come to think of it dipping your finger in purple ink might also be an improvement over what we have now.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #46 on: October 19, 2016, 08:56:23 AM »
Quote
Sometimes at the bank they will take my fingerprint as I.D. That might be an option eventually.
Hard for me to imagine hard-edge right-wingers letting the government take their fingerprint without having committed a crime.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #47 on: October 19, 2016, 09:21:58 AM »
That comment didn't move the discussion forward, so I'll offer some suggestions that might.  First, ballot-box fraud could be due to either the voter or the box.  Starting with the box, the solutions are not that difficult to imagine, but they're not cheap.  First, the box itself should collect and store votes electronically.  In 2011 a Professor in Maryland showed how Diebold machines could be hacked remotely.  The machines should be toughened to prevent that.  The computer networking industry has largely solved this problem for commercial servers already, despite the lazy corporate server protection policies leading to hacks that are pointed at to say otherwise.

All voting booths should be connected to central servers in each county or district where the machines can be monitored in realtime.  This setup is called either hub-and-spoke or edge computing.  The regional stations collect the votes in aggregate for each voting option and periodically forward their totals to state level master aggregation servers.  States could even use cloud systems to centralize the collection and processing of the information.  All servers at every level continuously monitor their own activities and log every event (each vote, each heartbeat test, each aggregation requested or sent).  I've worked in distributed server and MPP (Massively Parallel Programming) for over 20 years and can tell you that none of what I've proposed so far is in any way new. 

What's new is putting the hardware in place to do these things. Edge machines are cheap and powerful, and you don't need one for each "booth", only one per voting place.  I won't get further into the weeds on how this can all be configured.  The higher level machines would be of higher power, but not by a lot given the rapidly increasing capacity and power of the machines in recent years coupled with their lower costs.

Back to the bottom, each voter is verified by the voting machine, not by your grandmother's older sister.  This can include signature recognition, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest fingerprints or other biometrics, for reasons I mentioned in my previous post.  FWIW, the government has my fingerprints already from my Global Entry application process, but I don't want mine used for voting either.

As for voter fraud, that's an inherently more difficult problem to completely eliminate, but not nearly as hard to reduce to the point of irrelevancy.  First of all, it hasn't been proven (only asserted) that one party benefits from voter fraud more than the other.  Vote fraud may cancel itself out, in other words.  For it to matter if one party does do it more than the other, it has to occur enough that the result for the entire state swings to that candidate.  No one has ever proven that such a thing has happened.

I'm left thinking that preventing voter fraud would be too expensive and too intrusive.  OTOH, voter validation is much more achievable and relatively easy to achieve, as well.  Some suggestions:

* Register voters when they get a driver's license or register their cars.
* Register voters during the diennial census process, since the government has people going door to door across the country
* Allow people to register at their local municipal government office with utility bills or pay stubs.
* Beyond that, let them register at the voting place using any government issued ID.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #48 on: October 19, 2016, 10:27:39 AM »
From your own article:

Quote
The hack is performed by inserting a cheap electronic device into the e-voting machine.

That's not exactly hacking remotely, in the traditional sense. It is tampering with the hardware.

I don't understand how real time results improve security, and having central servers creates a whole new tampering opportunity.

Many states already do voter registration through DMV, but people likely move between license renewals so that's only a partial solution. Same with many of the other proposed methods. Now, if the concern is that people who shouldn't vote at all get registered, then utility bills and paystubs are insufficient.

To some extent, long voting lines help prevent repeat voters, if that's a thing. :D

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Firebombing Double Standard
« Reply #49 on: October 19, 2016, 10:37:03 AM »
Any system of voter fraud prevention has to take into account experienced and determined Democrat operatives who know the system inside and out and have detailed plans for circumventing it. Operatives like the one exposed here.

http://therightscoop.com/watch-new-bombshell-video-just-released-james-okeefe-mass-voter-fraud/

If there isn't a system in place to stop men like this and their efforts, then Republicans are right to freak out about the massive voter fraud that has gone on undetected for decades and will no doubt happen again in this election too.