Thursday, November 01, 2012

WI GOP Poll Watchers Mislead by Fearless Leader!

NOTE: The bullet list immediately above is a power point slide from a recent Romney Poll Observer training session in Racine. Note that the trainees are directed to sign in not as representatives of the Romney Campaign or the GOP, which they clearly are, but as concerned citizens. This little but of subterfuge must have a purpose, like allowing them to pack more of their people into a polling station as the Chief Election Inspector has a right to limit the number of reporesentatives of any one group at her polling place.

The latest in a long line of Republicon dirty tricks and tampering with the sacred right of American's right to vote is seen here in the Romney Campaign's inaccurate and deceptive poll watcher training right here in Wisconsin:

Seems Republicon poll watchers are being given inaccurate and incomplete information about who can vote and what proof of residency is sufficient to excercise the right on which ALL OTHER RIGHTS of Americans stand, the right to vote.

They're also telling their poll watchers to lie when checking in at the polls, to not identify as a Republicon or a representative of the Romney Campaign. That of course will give the GOPsters and the Romney campaign plausible deniability when one of their volunteers, amped up on the Cult of Con voter fraud mythology, goes ape shit, intimidates voters and disrupts the polling place because someone gets to vote that they don't believe should, based on the bad information they've been fed by the campaign. Ya know, kinda like what went on in Racine back in June.

Republicons can't win on the merit of their values and ideas. That's why they lie, hide (or change) their agenda during elections (aka Gubna Romnesia & Scooter Walker) and perenially engage in efforts to mislead voters on who, what, when, where and how to vote in order to supress legitimate voters who don't like to vote for Con artists.


Philip Hein said...

For what it's worth, I attended Ronmey poll watcher training in Racine and was never told to lie. Also, we were warned on pain of death to never talk to a voter or poll worker, only the head person at the polls. It's going to be tough to intimidate anyone under those circumstances. If a poll watcher questions a voter's legality, does that qualify as going, "apeshit"? Hopefully everything will go smoothly on Tuesday.
Phil Hein
Phil Hein

Philip Hein said...

PS. The GAB has mandated that poll observers maintain a six foot distance from the poll workers. I'll try not to make any intimidating faces at anyone.

Sean Cranley said...

So Phil are you going to report to the chief poll workers as a representative of the Romney campaign or the Republican Party?

The six foot rule is so that poll watchers don't get in the way and are less likely to bother and intimidate voters, which has been a problem and I must say particularly from Republican poll watchers and especially at polls with significant minority populations.

I understand your point about proof of residency on electronic devices, but you can't read a drivers license or a lot of toher things from 6 feet away either. I trust that the poll workers are of good intent and are doing their jobs the best they can.

I too hope all goes smoothly on Tuesday. And I too will be poll watching that day.

Best of luck!

Philip Hein said...

The six foot rule is to ensure that poll watchers can't see what's going on. Same thing with the allowing of electronic proof of residency. I'm sure the poll workers have good intent and are doing the job as best they can, but my understanding is that the poll watchers are there to help ensure things are being done correctly--tough to do from six feet.

If a poll watcher can't talk to poll workers or voters, how are they intimidating minority, or any other kind, of voters? I just don't understand the supposed intimidation factor.

I would assume I'd declare as a republican, but I'm not sure. What would be the difference? How are you declaring yourself?

That cartoon is offensive. I'm tired of all the acusations of racism.

Sean Cranley said...

Your contention rthat the six foot rule is so poll watchers can't see what's going on sounds like another wingnut conspiracy theory that somehow the GAB is promoting voter fraud. That is ludicrous.

Republicans have intimidated voters before in election and your right, it will be more difficult to do do that now and to disrupt polling places with the new 6-foot rule. GOOD!

I will be poll watching tmake sure that none disrupt the process and that no legitimate voters are turned away for illegitimate reasons. I will be there representing the Democratic Partt d the Obama campaign and will decare as such to the chief poll worker upon arrival. I will post a slide at the top of this post from the recent Romney campaign training in Racine that instructs their poll watchers to report as concerned citizens and not as representatives of the GOP or Romney campaign. In addition, to the plausible deniiability that I mentioned previously, this is a way to get around the fact that the Chief Poll worker has a right to limit the number of representatives from any particular group at a polling place so they pack it with their people. I will be the only Dem at my assigned pollin place during my shift. No weaselly tricks here.

And finally, I'm not saying that you would disrupt a polling place or that you are a racist. But as for the disrupting of polling places and intimidating voters, the GOP has a history here.

The GOP also has a history of suppressing minority voters. The cynically political purposes behind that are as plain as day to anyone willing to look with an open and critical mind. That's no necessarily racist, but if you've got a different explanation for the extreme and irrational hatred of President Obama other than racism, I'd love to hear it. I'm sorry but for many on the extreme, I think that shoe fits and maybe they should just wear it instead of using ludicrous code words like "socialist".

Hell Donald the dork Trump still wants to see Obama's paper birth certificate and college transcripts. Those things were never asked of a white president. Government records and graduation were always good enough before, but not for the black guy. It's as plain as day.

Philip Hein said...

Here's an explanation for the "exreme" opposition to Obama from the right. Let me ask you this: Would your opinion of Bush, Cheney, Walker, Rumsfeld, and all your other right wing enemies change if they were black? Of course it wouldn't. You wouldn't consider yourself a racist, and you wouldn't be. You would adamantly oppose their policies based on your beliefs, not the color of their skin. you've answered your own question.
Give me a break.

Philip Hein said...

PS. We know Bush's college grades. Google it. There's no way on God's green earth that a republican, be they black, white, green, yellow, or purple would be able to be so secretive about their lives. The left's focus on race is absurd. What republicans don't like about President Obama is the fact that he's unqualified and has done a horrible job. His policies haven't worked and are terrible. Please research the events in Benghazi and tell me that you wouldn't have gone completely over the edge if that had happened under Bush. Oh, wait. They haven't covered Benghazi on MSNBC or the daily KOS.

Sean Cranley said...

You're right I opposed the Bush regime for the extreme things they did that were criminal, morally bankrupt and un-American. I don't want to rehash the Bush administration right at the moment but believe me I could expound at great length and detail with fact-based logical argument on why George Bush was THE WORST president in American history base on those extreme actions which we are still trying to recover from.

Where your argument falls flat on it's face is that Obama hasn't done things that are expreme or criminal or morally backrupt. His administration is NOT a mirror image of the Bu$hites.

You simply cannot declare the "President Obama is the fact that he's unqualified and has done a horrible job. His policies haven't worked and are terrible." You have to construct a logical fact-based argument to support you declaration. Without that it's a worthless statement.

However, so called "Conservatives" really suck at he whole reasoned argument thing, because the Cult of Con is a faith-based ideology, you beleive what you believe beacuse you believe it and you don't the facts get in the way.

Hey but maybe you are the exception I have been locking for. So have at it, bring on you reasoned argument back up your declaration.

In the meantime I will not be deterred at all from recognizing that for a significant number of Cons gtheir haterd of Obama has little to do with wisp a reasoned argument they can make on his actions, and more to do with simple who he is, a black man.

I've looked at Benghazi, it's very unfortunate 4 people died, but it's just not the kind of story your ideological minders are going to be able to politicize and make hay out of. It sure isn't any 911, when Bushyboy went on vacation afgter being warned repeatedly. so I hope you're not being a hypocrite in holding for dead Americans as Obama's fault and letting Georgie slid on 3,000.

Philip Hein said...

The point of my post was not to debate the merits of Bush vs. Obama. We won't change each other's minds on any of that. It was the ridiculous notion that republicans don't like Obama because he's black.

You didn't answer my question above. Would your feelings about Bush, Cheney, Walker, Rove, Rumsfeld, and all the other evil, criminal "cons" change if they were black? Would that make you a racist? The answer to both is "no". You have no answer for that because you really want to believe that conserative opposition to Obama has to be based on race, and it simply isn't. Of course there's some racists in the republican party. Guess what, there are racists in the Democrat party, too. But you are truly deluding yourself if you think it's about race.

Sean Cranley said...

On the contrary Phil, I DID answer your question and it is that Obama has not done anything radical, criminal, immoral or unamerican to merit the extreme hatred for him coming out of the Republicons. In fact he has governed very moderately and he has been fiscally responsibly while trying to clean up the mess left by the irresponsible, radical and incompetent Republicons.

So if you're going to make BS declarations like "What republicans don't like about President Obama is the fact that he's unqualified and has done a horrible job. His policies haven't worked and are terrible." then I'm going to call you to account for you opinions by identifying the "policies" and making the case that they "haven't worked and are terrible."

If you can construct a reasoned, fact based argument to support your claims, then they may have some merit. If not, then they're not worth the electrons you printed them with.


Philip Hein said...

Hi Sean,
You simply have not answered my original question. You don't have the time to list all the reasons you think republicans are "radical, criminal, incompetant, and immoral" and I don't have time to list all the reasons I think Obama's policies are terrible. THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION.

Please leave this aside for a minute and answer the question I've asked twice now: Would your opinion of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Walker, and all the other "cons" you despise change if they were black? I undertand why you oppose them. I don't agree with you, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING. My contention is that your opinion wouldn't change, and the fact that you would still feel that way about them wouldn't make you a racist. Guess what. It's the same for the right. The fact that you don't agree with the reasons we disagree with his policies, or adamantly think that those reasons are crazy, does not change the fact that those beliefs, which again, I KNOW YOU THINK ARE NUTS, have nothing to do with race. Just like your reasons for hating the "cons", which I think are nuts, wouldn't make you a racist if the situation were reversed. To say that republicans are upset because they "can't use the "N-word" anymore like they'd like to" is offensive and absurd.

Philip Hein said...

PS. I'm going to preemtively answer your reply. OK, you win. Obama's great, republicans are terrible. Now I'm going to ask you again: Would your opinion of Bush, Walker, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and all the other evil republicans change if they were black? If your opinions of them wouldn't change if they were black, and that doesn't make you a racist, why does disagreeing with Obama and thinking he's worthless based on policy make me a racist? Again, would your opinion of these people and those like them change if they were black?

Sean Cranley said...

Phil, you are right, my opinion of the Bush and his cohort would not change no matter what color they were, because they did horrible things.

But you and your question continue to miss the point. You keep talking about "not agreeing with Obama and his policies", which is pefectly understandable. But that is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the extreme hatred for this man from many on the right that simply does not comport with the relatively moderate policies he's pursued. If he had pursued wild lefty policies with horrible results I could perhaps understand, but he hasn't.

But perhaps there is another answer besides racism for this hate. Perhaps many on the extreme right are simply ignorant about what Obama has actually done and have been mislead by their ideological minders to be full of that hate and fear. But that doesn't change the fact that they still hate President Obama. And that aloow themselves to be manipulated this way by the GOPropagandists at FuxSnooze and Rightwing Radio.

O.K. now, I'm not asking you list all of Obama's policies you disagree with and why they "haven't worked and have been horrible." I'm asking you to name ONE Obama policy (JUST ONE!) and answer two questions about that as follows:


I'm not asking you to thinkObama is wonderful. Can you prove to me that you are the exception to rule and are one conservative who is able back up his statements of opinion with a reasoned argument, based on the facts?

Because if you can't do that any further exchange of IDEAS will be worthless and one-sided in terms of quality.

And while I'm at it, so an actor with a Bachelor of Arts in sociology and economics from Eureka College who was a Governor is qualified to be president.

But a community organizer with a Bachelor of Arts in political science from Columbia U. and a Juris Doctor of law from Harvard (Magna Cum Laude) who was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, a state senator and a U.S. Senator is "unqualified" to be President?

Excuse me Phil, but it just might be that your fly is undone and your hypocrisy is hanging out!

Philip Hein said...

Part 1.
The stimulus was a complete failure. We're trillions, TRILLIONS, in debt with nothing to show for it. That's being "fiscally responsible and moderate?" You absolutely have to be kidding me. Unemployment is worse now than it was when he took office (or close enough that it doesn't matter). Obamacare was rammed down our throats with over 60% of the population not wanting it. Nancy Pelosi, "We'll have to pass it so we know what's in it". (You would have lost your mind if republicans would have put something like that through congress while they had a super majority with no democratic votes). Taxes are going to go up for everyone, we're going to turn into Europe, and go bankrupt and NONE of the programs we need to save are going to be solvent--you do understand that these programs are going to go away when we don't have any money, don't you? You do realize that you could take every cent from the 1% and it wouldn't o anything to bring down the debt, don't you? Again, you can take every cent from everyone who makes over a million dollars a year and it wouldn't do squat. Obamacare will bankrupt the country and make our health care as shitty as Europe's. And it is shitty in Europe (and Japan--I've had some experience there). The green job companies the government has invested in are a joke (since when does the government invest our money in companies? How about letting the market decide winners and losers), several have gone bankrupt, and still he spouts about green energy. He refuses an oil pipeline (shovel-ready jobs!) that would help us not depend on middle eastern dickheads that hate us. Now that oil is going to go to China from Canada, a situation that is environmentally bad for the world and fiscally bad for this counry.

This country is on its ass, and he's overseen it. OK, it's Bush's fault. Bush has has been gone for 4 years. Obama came in saying he was going to fix it. Not in 8 years, but in 4. You wouldn't give a republican any slack. I'm not giving him any slack, especially when EVERYTHING he's done is ass backwards and not working. You want me to name a bad policy, how about you name a good policy that has had concrete results?

Philip Hein said...

Part 2
Terrorists are just as likely to hit us now as they ever were. His handling of Benghazi was a disgrace. (Bush doesn't enter into this. He's not the president. Whatever he screwed up--and he did screw up--isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the guy in office right now. And he sucks. And I can't stand him because of it. I don't care what color he is. In fact, his color is the only thing about him that doesn't piss me off. I'm proud that this country elected a black man president. I just wish it had been the right one. There's no hypocricy. I'd vote for Romney even if he was a goof because I believe in Republican ideals. Just like you're going to vote for Obama even if he's a goof because you believe in his vision for America. I'll list all of Bush's failings for you if you want, and there were many. It doesn't change the fact that I and many conservatives (or is it "cons") think Obama is a terrible president--based on everthing I've just listed. Domestic policy is a total failure. Name me one thing that has gone well. Foreign policy is a failure. Name me one area where we're better off now than 4 years ago. Iran? Israel? Great Britain? Poland (missile shield-nice move!) China trade? Reliance on foreign oil? Terrorism? HE (or his underlings-same thing) DENIED EXTRA SECURITY TO THE CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI. IT WAS ATTACKED. FOR WEEKS HE BLATHERED ON ABOUT A VIDEO AND A DEMONSTRATION. "NO TERRORISM HERE! EVERYONE LOVES US. AL-QAIDA IS ON THE RUN. WE GOT OSAMA, SO IT'S OVER, RIGHT? If Bush had acted like that you would have lost your mind. The Fort Hood shooting was an "isolated incident." This has nothing to do with Bush. We're not talking about Bush. Bush isn't the president. Obama was never in charge of anything more than some neighborhood committee or the Harvard Law Review. Big F'n deal. He doesn't know how to make big decisions because he'd never made a big decision in his life. I wouldn't trust him to lead a bunch of boy scouts across the street, and his record proves it. He can't lead. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He relies on class warfare to pit one segment of society against the other (just yesterday he said a vote for him was good "revenge". Nice. That will bring us together). He's an absolute failure and a moron. OK, Bush, Reagan, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Walker were morons too. SO IS THIS GUY. Seriously, if you think I feel this way because he's black, you're delusional. And yes, I know you think I'm delusional for feeling this way. That's fine. I think you're delusional for the things you've said here, too. So I guess we're even. It just pisses me off to be accused of racism for disagreeing with someone over politics.

Sean Cranley said...

Phil said: "The stimulus was a complete failure. We're trillions, TRILLIONS, in debt with nothing to show for it."

WRONG on two counts. First of all the $787 billion stimulus (1/3 of which was tax cuts not spending) is not TRILLIONS of debt.

Secondly, it wasn't a failure:

EXCERPT: In a survey conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, 80 percent of economic experts agreed that, because of the stimulus, the U.S. unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise.

EXCERPT: CBO’s own analysis found that the package added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of 2010, and may have prevented the nation from lapsing back into recession.

By the way Phill CBO refers to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

I didn't read beyond the first sentence or two, because I can see that you are still just making a series declarations according to Phil with absolutely NO reasoned argument to support your statements, which as can be seen by the sourced information I provide above are nased on FACTS.

If you'd like to try again I'll take a look. If I get thw time and the inclination I'll will further slice and dice your unsupported declarations of faith.

You and your Cult of Con bretheren consistently fail be able to make good argument to support you statement of belief. You believe what you believe because you believe it. Your's is a faith-based ideology, grounded not in reality, but based entirely on gut emotion. And mostly negative emotion taboot.

Oh and ah you should try a little invention called paragraphs, they're all the rage these days and quite useful for helping to organize your thoughts.

Sean Cranley said...

Also Phil you need to work on your reading comprehension, because I never accused YOU PERSONALLY of being a rascist.