• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trump pledges to send 'sheriffs' and 'law enforcement' to polling places on Election Day

W_Heisenberg said:
Local law enforcement, yes.

Federal law enforcement? Read the statute, and also the commentary I posted earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...

It says "troops or armed men." So as long as they are not armed, they can be sent to the polls as far as that law is concerned.
 
Taylor said:
Sheriffs and law enforcement officials aren't "troops". :roll:
Click to expand...

Don't bother, they're all basically buried up to the neck in themselves at this point.

Just let them come crawling out the other end, speaking more **** than they ever did before.
 
LouC said:
Won't fight the war on the Pandemic but is all eager to go to war against the electorate.

What a worthless pathetically sick POS-SOB Trump is!
Click to expand...

Good to see your head is as deep in there as you can get it apparently.

So keep your opinion and I'll keep mine.
 
Oborosen said:
Don't bother, they're all basically buried up to the neck in themselves at this point.

Just let them come crawling out the other end, speaking more **** than they ever did before.
Click to expand...

So, would you like to offer your argument as to why you think the statute in question does not apply to armed federal law enforcement?

Would you like to offer your argument as to why former DOJ employees, Craig C. Donsanto, Director of the Election Crimes Branch, Public Integrity Section, and Nancy L. Simmons Senior Counsel for Policy Public Integrity Section are wrong?
 
Oborosen said:
Good to see your head is as deep in there as you can get it apparently.

So keep your opinion and I'll keep mine.
Click to expand...

LouC was not responding to anything you wrote in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
It's not because "elections are conducted by the State" but because he doesn't have authority over state and local law enforcement. He could hire off-duty police as observers. No, you wouldn't want them dressed to intimidate.
Click to expand...
Then why is Trump shooting his mouth off?
 
ReubenSherr said:
???

Trump has his own pollsters.

You all need to understand this. We think you are going to cheat. The theme of your entire convention was "rise up."

Paterson, NJ, to hold new election in City Council race marred by voter fraud charges | Fox News
Click to expand...

Such cases are rare. A study by Justin Levitt, professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, found just 31 possible cases out of more than 1 billion votes cast from 2000 through 2014.
One of those cases may have taken place in Hoboken in June 2007, when both city council candidates in a runoff election reported that people at the polls found someone else had voted in their names, Levitt said. It could not determined whether this was a case of actual voter fraud or simply a clerical error in which the registrar marked the wrong name.

In any case, what's going on is crystal clear. Trump in a rare truthful statement, said that 'high voter turnout is bad for Republicans.' As such, he's looking for any and all ways to suppress the vote of legitimate voters because he thinks it's good for his re-election and damn democracy.
 
Oborosen said:
Good to see your head is as deep in there as you can get it apparently.

So keep your opinion and I'll keep mine.
Click to expand...
What we all would prefer is, that you keep it....

to yourself. (Rather, than, polluting so many threads with deflections and nonsense.)
 
Tlrmln said:
That law does not prohibit law enforcement officers from being present at the poll to enforce the law there.
Click to expand...

Interesting. A consent decree that lasted for quite a while prohibited republican voter intimidation. It expired in 2018 or 2019.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
So, would you like to offer your argument as to why you think the statute in question does not apply to armed federal law enforcement?

Would you like to offer your argument as to why former DOJ employees, Craig C. Donsanto, Director of the Election Crimes Branch, Public Integrity Section, and Nancy L. Simmons Senior Counsel for Policy Public Integrity Section are wrong?
Click to expand...

They can interpret it as they like. But unless we get a ruling, they can only have their own interpretation on the statute.

As written however, they're stuck.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Trump pledges to send 'sheriffs' and 'law enforcement' to polling places on Election Day, but it's not clear he can - CNNPolitics



This idiot doesn't know what he's suggesting is illegal, but expect his authoritarian supporters to wholeheartedly endorse the idea because Trump supporters hate democracy just like their dear leader.

18 U.S. Code SS 592 - Troops at polls | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...

Federal law says that "no person ... shall intimidate, threaten, coerce ... any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of [that] person to vote or to vote as he may choose." Many states have their own laws prohibiting voter intimidation.

If someone is attempting to interfere with anyone’s right to vote, it is voter intimidation and a violation of federal law.
 
LouC said:
Apparently not.

Reading has almost always been very fundamental for me.

It remains so even now.
Click to expand...
You did realize I was referring to your correspondent, I hope. The one who can't be bothered to read the statute that was cited to him.
 
NWRatCon said:
You did realize I was referring to your correspondent, I hope. The one who can't be bothered to read the statute that was cited to him.
Click to expand...

Ayup!

I knew.

Was just preemptively putting it out there in case.

My correspondent missed those two key words.

You didn't and I didn't and some others didn't.
 
Ikari said:
Do you honestly think that Trump thinks about anything, let alone researches it, before opening his big, fat mouth?
Click to expand...

Of course not, even his sister says he does not read or think things through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom