By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Why would organizations warning of voter fraud on billboards not identify themselves?

Max King of the Wild on 16 October 2012

I'm 26 years old. I had to show my ID to a security guard to step foot in a fucking shopping mall. I'm sure people can show their ID to step foot in a voting booth



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 16 October 2012
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:

Apparently the signs slipped through.  Company policy is supposeed to be whomever is paying for the signs is supposed to identify themselves.

As far as death threats go, moment you get any, they get you increased media coverage and police protection.  Plus the police go and hunt the culprits down.  For political reasons, which is what drove the signs being up, this is a net political positive.  First side to get to death threats loses.


If your main strategy is to drive attention to yourself for current or future political gain then you probably want to engage in a political stunt which will draw negative attention to yourself or your family; in contrast, if you just want to make a statement you probably don't want the world to know who you are.

Essentially, this is the same reason why you will see many bloggers who blog anonymously.

You could set up an organization, have it screen power players, but then be identified as to who did it.  The media then approaches you and you release press statements to them about their questions, and keep the issue in play.  

You bring up bloggers.  Would bloggers go on 4Chan and post messages there?  No, they want traffic.  They want attention.  They just don't want their personal lives messed with.   What the organization did is equivalent to what Anonymous would do, without saying "We are legion".



HappySqurriel on 16 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:

Apparently the signs slipped through.  Company policy is supposeed to be whomever is paying for the signs is supposed to identify themselves.

As far as death threats go, moment you get any, they get you increased media coverage and police protection.  Plus the police go and hunt the culprits down.  For political reasons, which is what drove the signs being up, this is a net political positive.  First side to get to death threats loses.


If your main strategy is to drive attention to yourself for current or future political gain then you probably want to engage in a political stunt which will draw negative attention to yourself or your family; in contrast, if you just want to make a statement you probably don't want the world to know who you are.

Essentially, this is the same reason why you will see many bloggers who blog anonymously.

You could set up an organization, have it screen power players, but then be identified as to who did it.  The media then approaches you and you release press statements to them about their questions, and keep the issue in play.  

You bring up bloggers.  Would bloggers go on 4Chan and post messages there?  No, they want traffic.  They want attention.  They just don't want their personal lives messed with.   What the organization did is equivalent to what Anonymous would do, without saying "We are legion".


How do you know it is an organization and not an individual?



thranx on 16 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
thranx said:

well of course its intimidation. Its the the threat that if you commit voter fraud, that you are commiting a felony crime. Whats the issue here?

 

Edit: There is nothing incorrect on the signs. They just state one simple fact. The only people who would be effected are people breaking the law, so really how is this racist or a problem?

Why would you conceal your identity if there is nothing incorrect on the sign?  Usually organizations running advertising want to be identified, because you get media attention on yourself, and also get an opportunity to get more funds donated your way.  If it is so much above board, and motivations are pure, why hide yourself?

Again, look at your question and ask, if it is proper, why do you hide your identity?  Could it be it has ties to rich individuals who, if their identity got out, would end up generating a political firestorm that would work against the Republican party?  Nah, it is just individuals who are concerned about there not being voter fraud.


None of that matters with the message. None of it.

 

But if it is as it says, a Family, than it is probably for safety reasons. Its not unheard opf for there to backlash in this country for any comments made, especially political ones. That backlash can come in violence, in loosing your job, etc. Not everyone likes or agrees with facts, so even though it is factual does not mean people will want their name plastered on it, many people would rather keep their political and social views private.



richardhutnik on 16 October 2012
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:

Apparently the signs slipped through.  Company policy is supposeed to be whomever is paying for the signs is supposed to identify themselves.

As far as death threats go, moment you get any, they get you increased media coverage and police protection.  Plus the police go and hunt the culprits down.  For political reasons, which is what drove the signs being up, this is a net political positive.  First side to get to death threats loses.


If your main strategy is to drive attention to yourself for current or future political gain then you probably want to engage in a political stunt which will draw negative attention to yourself or your family; in contrast, if you just want to make a statement you probably don't want the world to know who you are.

Essentially, this is the same reason why you will see many bloggers who blog anonymously.

You could set up an organization, have it screen power players, but then be identified as to who did it.  The media then approaches you and you release press statements to them about their questions, and keep the issue in play.  

You bring up bloggers.  Would bloggers go on 4Chan and post messages there?  No, they want traffic.  They want attention.  They just don't want their personal lives messed with.   What the organization did is equivalent to what Anonymous would do, without saying "We are legion".


How do you know it is an organization and not an individual?

Sign says "A private family foundation".  It doesn't say something like "A concerned citizen".  In short, it is an established organization which didn't want to know it is connected with the sign.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 October 2012
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
It's worth noting that i'm against how the laws are being implemented, not against the idea of voter ID altogether. Similar to how one could say i'm opposed to Obamacare but not to universal health care. I see these laws as generally maliciously intended, because some Republicans have gone on record talking about how this is good for them from an electoral perspective.


Except that's not what you've said in this thread... which is why it's hard to take you seriously when you make these arguements.

You have constantly been argueing the law is racist in of and by itself.

The law is, not what the law is trying to implement. Especially the one in Pennsylvania which is imposing too-strict of standards

Except the standards aren't too strict.  They're the same standards you need to open a bank account... or cash a check.

It should be easier to comit voter fraud then check fraud?

Christ it's the standards set out by Jimmy Carter.

Well all know what a rightwing repubican racist hatemonger Jimmy Carter is.

 

I mean, how does say.. a phone bill stop an illegal alien from voting?  They get bills.

As of now, by federal law, to register to vote, all you have to do is say you are a US Citizen.

Nobody checks, nobody is allowed to check... heck that can't even check if the name you gave is real.  It's pretty easy to get a bill sent to your house with a fake name.

Therefore a form of identification that is only given to citizens is the only way to ensure fraud prevention.

Standards in Pennsylvania demand a photo ID with an expiration date, which disqualifies certain forms of state and federal ID

 

If you look at the commission chaired by Jimmy Carter that involved voter fraud, one of the biggest kinds of voter fraud was double voting.

Where you voted where you used to live, and now where you do live.

 

Requring expiration dates on ID's is the best way to prevent this outside of a National voter ID card... since to renew it, you may have to reprove residency if it's not a drivers lisecnse.  Which generally your new state forces you to get rid of your old states Driver's liscense.

 

Nowhere good as one national voter ID law requiring a federal voter ID... but you won't get Democrats behind that.  Or Libretarians for that matter.  who are afraid that a government national ID is going to let big government track you... when big government can already fucking track you because you need a government issued photo id to properly function in society anwyay.



Viper1 on 17 October 2012
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:


How do you know it is an organization and not an individual?

Sign says "A private family foundation".  It doesn't say something like "A concerned citizen".  In short, it is an established organization which didn't want to know it is connected with the sign.

I've worked with several private foundations that are just 1 person.   In fact, the majority of 501(3)'s are single entity operations...menaing it's just 1 person.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

richardhutnik on 19 October 2012
Viper1 said:
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:


How do you know it is an organization and not an individual?

Sign says "A private family foundation".  It doesn't say something like "A concerned citizen".  In short, it is an established organization which didn't want to know it is connected with the sign.

I've worked with several private foundations that are just 1 person.   In fact, the majority of 501(3)'s are single entity operations...menaing it's just 1 person.

I actually started a non-profit in NY state.  I know with my experience working with non-profits, that there are 3 Ms they seek for survival: Money, Media, and Members.  You want to get as much media attention to your issue, and your organization, to be able get more resources by those who would support it.  You hide your name because you know there will be a backlash against it, and the outcome would be worse than if you show your face.  Pretty much, in short, probably not above board.  You likely can ding Anonymous on it.

An angle here is it is also possible some rich liberal side might of done it, so the blowback would be bad for those who are pushing the need for cracking down on voter fraud.  By not identifying oneself, one opens up to having one's views distorted.