Reply With Quote
Are we talking about the same type of incitement the DNC was paying operatives to do at Trump rallys?
WHEN Donald Trump recently asked his supporters in Ohio to keep an eye out for voter fraud on election day, his plea came with a knowing suggestion: “When [I] say ‘watch,’ you know what I’m talking about, right?” Mr Trump’s worry that the election will be “rigged” has inspired repeated calls for volunteers to serve as poll watchers in cities including Philadelphia, Chicago and St Louis. At a recent rally in Pennsylvania, he had this to say: “You've got to go out, and you've got to get your friends, and you've got to get everybody you know, and you gotta watch the polling booths, because I hear too many stories about Pennsylvania, certain areas”. It would be a shame, Mr Trump said, to lose the White House “because of you know what I'm talking about.”
hat Mr Trump seems to be talking about is scores of black and Latino voters who are unfriendly to his candidacy and—purportedly—not eligible to vote. With little more than a hunch that “of course...large scale voter fraud” prevails in “certain communities”, Mr Trump ignores studies belying the claim. A review of 12 years of allegations turned up just 10 cases of confirmed fraud. Another study found 31 cases of voter impersonation out of a billion votes cast from 2000 to 2014. There are no signs that Democrats are coordinating a national strategy to harness voter fraud to steal the election.
...
Some legal experts note that the Republican nominee’s comments are edging closer to “incitement”, a category of speech that enjoys no cons utional protection. The Supreme Court said in 1969 that a speaker who wilfully attempts to whip up a crowd to commit an imminent crime could be subject to criminal prosecution.
This standard is plagued by vagueness, making incitement quite difficult to establish. But Sonja West, a law professor at the University of Georgia, says it’s not out of the realm of possibility for the 2016 election. “Even if [Mr Trump] is only implying that his followers illegally harass minority voters, if it can be shown that he intends for them to read between the lines and it's likely they will read between the lines...there’s a good argument” for viewing his appeal as “directed to inciting law breaking”.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...angled-rigging
Are we talking about the same type of incitement the DNC was paying operatives to do at Trump rallys?
the main difference is, Trumpistas will do it for free.
the Brandenburg (v Ohio) test is the federal standard for incitement...
1 - the speech must be directed at producing the imminent lawless action (intent must be clear)
2 - speech is likely to incite or produce such action
in cases like this the "imminent" standard is pretty tough to meet unless it's specifically referring to currently open early voting locations. it's also questionable if trump is actually, directly calling for "lawless" action. has trump actually called for people to harass voters?
no, he exaggerates the significance of in-person voter fraud and encourages his followers to stake out minority-majority districts.
human nature will take care of the rest.
btw, it's a felony to harass someone trying to vote. the mixture of bogus information and political passion could get ugly.
Wtf are they supposed to watch and what is the protocol?
Fn ridiculous.
how does one reliably identify a voter for HRC in order to challenge their credentials and prevent massive vote rigging?
How dare you bring facts to this moronic thread??
uber-macho tough guys TSA and hater clutch their pearls over agents provocateurs
"He did it first!" was a poor defense in grade school. Hasn't improved with age.
No, we're not.
essentially yes.
The main difference is that the one doing the incitement isn't some dumbass mid-level party official, it is the ing top of the ticket candidate.
Do you think it is appropriate for a president to incite violence from his supporters?
I do not think it is appropriate, just like I don't think it is appropriate for a campaign to pay people to incite violence.
Probably the horns poking out of their heads, no? In lieu of that, maybe skin color or gender?
The whole thing is ludicrous and Trump has lost any claim of patriotism by continually bringing the validity of election results into question. Conflating his dog whistles with Gore's willingness to wait out a recount just illustrates the electorate's declining attention to the details of virtually anything (and certainly history).
"maybe skin color or gender"
... or location of the polling place in non-white area.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
