And you think that, in Democrat counties, or when a non-conservative was the person doing the picking, they were just race-blind and welcomed straight white men with open arms?
You think that bias only exists in conservatives?
Well um ackshually dark money, spooky PAC's, and unlimited corporate campaign money is good, sweaty.
- Thread starter Eacaraxe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You think that bias only exists in conservatives?
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Well poll watchers are chosen by their party so even in Democratic counties, hes going to have to deal with the conservatives that would judge him as to if they were comfortable with him watching polls on their behalf.
1) You're avoiding the question. We're not talking checks-and-balances with observers, we're talking about how poll workers are selected, and whether or not the system allows for political bias
2) We have hours of video evidence and witness testimony showing that republican observers and challengers were prevented from meaningfully doing their jobs. In one county, they were restricted to stand in a corner of the room, far away from the poll workers, and did not have the authority to challenge anything. In other counties, they were kept 6 feet away, behind Plexiglas, and couldn't see what they were supposed to be observing. They were watched like hawks by the democrats with authority over them and as soon as they broke mask protocol or social distancing measures, they were kicked out with extreme prejudice. Democrats cheered when they were kicked out. It was an unequal enforcement of rules aimed at excluding Republicans.
Trump et al. won a lawsuit in PA and made the court order the county to allow the observers to come within 6 feet.
You can say you have observers, and it sounds good on paper, but the reality of the situation is that the Republican observers were prevented from doing their jobs.
Last edited:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
1. No, each political party assigns its own people to work at the polls so they can answer any questions and assist with voting to ensure no one can lie about things.
2. Fuck off with that bullshit.
You said "poll watchers" in post #42. Did you mean "poll workers"?
If you were correct in saying "watchers", then I'm correct in saying that you're talking about something irrelevant.
"watchers" and "workers" are not the same thing.
If you meant to say "poll workers", then you'd need to explain why Gergar's own political party rejected them on the basis of their race and presumed politics.
That's a mean way of saying "LALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING TO FACTS LALALALA"
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
My bad, yeah, I meant poll workers. Because if he looked asian then they probably assumed he was a plant or something to steal american jobs. You would have to ask the local republicans of whatever district he lives in.
You are bad at facts and I'm not getting into that bullshit. You can argue with someone else.
True, the CEO might have to go the route of asset-stripping for the same effect, at least as regards his own job. Of course, since CEOs are typically rewarded lavishly for existing anyway, they're also typically shareholders. And the more they are paid, the more they can dump into stocks and stock market shenanigans.
True to a large extent. But a CEO that oversees a collapsing firm takes a hit to their reputation (and ego); their ongoing income depends on the company, as they are frequently part paid in shares in the company they run, it is relatively hard for them to sell their assets in that company until their job is done. Thus they tend to have a vested interest in the wellbeing of the company where shareholders do not.
Perhaps more often then not, but there seems to be a great many exceptions to that rule.
In that they would be no different from any other occupation. There are teachers who don't much care about educating, cooks who have no passion for preparing good meals, and retail assistants who don't like helping customers buy things. Although there's also incompetence, of course.
I don't know their record is even necessarily that bad. CEOs are more commonly notable for their companies' wider societal irresponsibility than wrecking their companies. For instance if we imagine the top 100 companies in my country, if I were to count up a lot of the scandals where CEOs have been found to have done something seriously improper or destructive, it's low single digit percentages at worst. As a whole, there is of course a valid question to be asked about whether executives are obscenely overpaid (at company, worker, consumer and shareholder's expense).
@Gergar12 are you a Democrat, Republican, or Independent?
Do you know the political affiliation of the person you had to go through in order to be a poll worker? Do you know if it was a member of your own party?
Did your county vote red or blue?
Worgen, I think that only Watchers are chosen by their own party. I think Workers are chosen by whoever runs the county's election, and I think whether that person is Democrat or Republican correlates to how the county votes.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Some states require political party affiliation to be a poll worker.
Poll Worker Resources for Voters | U.S. Election Assistance Commission
The EAC encourages those interested in becoming poll workers at the polls on Election Day to learn more about what is required and how to sign up to work with your local election office.
I am a democrat, but they don't require you to disclose your political leanings in my district/county. They do know about it since it's public information as I am listed on a government website.
It's a Republican county too, not too crazy, as our last Republican who retired hated Trump, and we are Kasich's district.
Prohibitively expensive dog and pony shows for parties to pretend candidates are democratically chosen. At the end of the day machine politics are not dead, candidates are still chosen in proverbial smoke-filled backrooms, and party-aligned media still does the heavy lifting manufacturing consent for selected candidates. Only contrast now is the backrooms aren't smoke-filled, and the melodrama doesn't play out weekly in the papers, it plays out hourly on our idiot boxes.
The sick irony in this, is Obama and Trump were the first candidates respectively to be (more or less) democratically chosen in decades, because they had levels of support among voters so overwhelming the party leadership couldn't ratfuck them without baring their whole asses to the general public. Obama leveraged his public support to buy his way into the backroom, and for better or worse, Trump threw grenades in the backrooms. Democrats bared their whole ass in 2016 to stop Bernie, and they did it again in 2020 except this time they're trying to propagandize it as virtuous. Hence, that bullshit article.
This means that Sanders would've been the people's choice? That requires extraordinary evidence. Then again you could say that the system always plays someone like him to the sidelines. Or that people don't actually want anymore presidents.
Whether or not he would have won -- all things being equal -- is not actually relevant to my point. What is, is the primaries in question were not executed equally or fairly in the first place.
The evidence this occurred is overwhelming and undeniable -- whether from the financial interference waged by the DNC and friendly actors as admitted to by the likes of Brazile and Wasserman-Schultz, to the procedural shenanigans as admitted by DNC's counsel in court of law (along with the argument as a private organization, the DNC is under no legal obligation to honor primary outcomes in the first place), all the way to defamatory articles and op-eds in the media designed to turn public opinion against him like those of Chris Matthews and Cuck Todd.
After some googling around it's evident, as even MSM reported DNC's bias for Biden. I'll take your word for the rest.
Hey it's only fair Bernie too gets Nazi references his way. /s
Depends on what you mean by "the system". In a way, the primaries system can encourage extremism rather than moderacy - e.g. Trump. Parties often overrepresent political fanatics who reflect the national average very poorly.
System that doesn't really want the people's choice to win unless people and corporations want the same winner.
Not really. We got to Trump by way of Goldwater, Reagan, Bush II, and the forty years of sustained and ridiculous jingoism and neoliberalism between Reagan and now. Trump didn't magick himself straight out of the luminiferous aether, and exceptionalizing him is a fool's errand. The US has allowed itself to slide so far rightward Trump isn't an extremist in the American context, and neither are the people who voted for him -- they're simply mask-off Republicans, and the past four years' of media circus is little more than a desperate attempt to put the mask back on.
I keep telling you all the evidence for the bell curve in US politics is vague, undefined, counter-indicated by voting trends, and perpetuated by largely baseless and memetic repetition in the press.