NAACP Takes Over Houston Polling Station, Advocates for President Obama

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I find it hard to believe in a 3 hour long line in early voting.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Taiyed
 


Why no video or pictures of this "take over"?

Do people in Houston not have cameras?

You might have missed this being asked and addressed on a previous page you were posting on, but it's illegal to record film or audio at the polling place.

I'd initially encouraged people to film wrong doing....and that is my bad. I'm glad you mention this so I have the opportunity to absolutely state again (I had once before) ...

DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...NOTHING...NOTHING...within 100 feet of the Building. Preferably the property line. The mere attempt at trying to decipher laws which cover each location is a nightmare for a migraine. Federal Law...State Law...Local Law...they overlap, sometimes compliment and other times contradict. It's a maddening thing.....but the 100 feet from the building, doorway, driveway...etc etc..IS solid everywhere. It's one of the only things that is. To be safe then, I'd suggest 100 feet from the property line itself if anyone wants to film or record a thing.

Otherwise...You could record wrong doing...to find yourself the only being escorted from the facility or even arrested and they'll be right to do it by the same law you're trying to record a violation of.
edit on 5-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
I find it hard to believe in a 3 hour long line in early voting.


Early voting sets records in Texas
Texans wait in long early voting lines to cast ballots ahead of general election

www.click2houston.com...



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
To be safe then, I'd suggest 100 feet from the property line itself if anyone wants to film or record a thing.



At my early voting location the campaign signs (estimate near 100 signs) were at the entrance to the parking lot stretching toward the entrance to the city hall, but likely about 100 feet from the door. At least where I am the law seems to be 100 feet from actual voting location (booths) rather than property.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Missed that part...apologies, still said anecdotal + Bias/Townhall.com doesn't boost credibility.


Aside from the fact this source site is conservative and by your definition that brings credibility and accuracy into question by default, you have yet to show a thing they have done or reported here or in the past that is not accurate or where they have falsified a thing.

If they have a record or even a single major instance of badly stretching if not misrepresenting the truth, I'll be the first to state I made a mistake in using them. I've done it once before when I discovered a source I'd used was not what I'd believed it was. In this case, I've checked it relating to the ongoing challenges in this thread far beyond what I need to satisfy myself that this source is as credible as any other these days. 100%? Nope. CNN and Fox fail to meet that standard themselves....although I cannot point to anything in particular why they'd fail 100% in this case......but no one is perfect. Must be some small thing, somewhere.....that isn't worth my time to hunt THAT hard to find.

If you claim they can't be trusted? Prove it beyond opinion and insinuation. Evidence...would be a start. Evidence of something beyond being political in the reporting. It's an election. EVERYONE is political in their reporting on this.


Well, thank goodness that wasn't the "best" I could come up with. You seem to have discounted fundemental logic? Why would any organization risk significant legal consequences to sway the vote in a state where Romney leads by +20?? Deep breath...no bias...does that make any sense what-so-ever?

Asked, answered and more than once now. This was the LOCAL CHAPTER of the NAACP in Houston. THEY WERE NOT THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION'S PEOPLE. They have not, that anyone has suggested, acted with the encouragement or even KNOWLEDGE of the NAACP Organization as a whole. They were local office members who, failing evidence to prove otherwise, came up with a brainstorm and acted on it. It was a bad idea and it was illegal. We're not condemning the NATIONAL Organization.....I'm personally condemning the actions of 3 people who are members of it, and were wearing their T-shirts to advertise that.


The NAACP does participate in "partisan politics"...so does "Truethevote"...taking money from GOP activists, attending GOP events and founded by a Tea Party head. Confused on what the distinction is?

Yes... They both do. There is a huge difference, True The Vote has the authorization to place poll observers in these locations in a non-partisan role to observe the events. The NAACP DOES NOT have that authorization or the trained people in this case to be there and observe. What they did was without legal basis and without legal authority to even be on the property beyond the time it took to vote. WHY they were not removed is part of the issue in question.


So you concede that this makes no sense from a strategic standpoint? Then what was the motivation? Either local or national. I am uncertain why you think that the local NAACP would think it possible to turn TX blue and reverse a +20 lead for Romney any more than the national NAACP? I still have to return to the most logical explanation...they were handing out water on a warm day where there were long lines?


First, I've conceded absolutely nothing. I stand behind my report and my OP. That's more than once I've said it to your posts specifically....and multiple times on the thread. C'mon.... I'm trying to discuss this, but your rehashing the same points over and over again.


Now, there are two things about Texas and Houston in particular.

First. Houston is NOT a "red" city. In fact, it's a sanctuary city for immigration. That makes it, on the face, about as far from solid red as it comes. In fact, in this election, Texas locations are voting on things as important as a referendum to block Obamacare, the end of Sanctuary City status, School Prayer and other items that Texans consider very important and are VERY contentious for the outcome.

Second.... Texas controls much of the flow and content of American school books. You may recall the enormous battle recently over this very issue. It became a publicly stated priority after that last round for Texas politics to change. I like it just how it is....but others feel very differently. Perhaps, these 3 are among those folks. We'd have to ask them.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well then you really have no proof if the NAACP was within 100 feet of the polling place, do you?

Don't let that stop you though, I'm sure it won't.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Taiyed
 

I guess you missed the part in the op where the NAACP people were *INSIDE THE BUILDING* and handing out water to people in line while helping others to find the front of it. Front....that would be AT the tables of the polling place.

If you're here to pick fights...your welcome to move on...anytime now. It's not even creative anymore.


edit on 5-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
Why no video or pictures of this "take over"?

Do people in Houston not have cameras?



That's what I've been asking this entire thread. The op claims that friends in the area told him that they witnessed this personally. Did they not call the authorities when they saw this happening? So to be fair to the op am I supposed to believe that a bunch of Tea Party members saw the NAACP commit a crime and chose to blog about it instead of informing the police, sherriff or whoever?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 

The OP has answered that...Numerous times....


......and it's your burden to read the thread you're coming back to complain on. If you haven't yet seen the answer for why nothing was or can ever be recorded? You need to re-read replies before adding to the list of questions already answered.....many times now. If I'm not mistaken, it was first answered on page 1 or 2...and a few times since.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Missed that part...apologies, still said anecdotal + Bias/Townhall.com doesn't boost credibility.


Aside from the fact this source site is conservative and by your definition that brings credibility and accuracy into question by default, you have yet to show a thing they have done or reported here or in the past that is not accurate or where they have falsified a thing.

If they have a record or even a single major instance of badly stretching if not misrepresenting the truth, I'll be the first to state I made a mistake in using them.


Posted the link a couple of pages back...here it is again



might as well be Harry Potter’s invisible Knight Bus, because no one can prove it exists.

The bus has been repeatedly cited by True the Vote, a national group focused on voter fraud. Catherine Engelbrecht, the group’s leader, told a gathering in July about buses carrying dozens of voters showing up at polling places during the recent Wisconsin recall election.

“Magically, all of them needed to register and vote at the same time,” Ms. Engelbrecht said. “Do you think maybe they registered falsely under false pretenses? Probably so.”

Weeks later, another True the Vote representative told a meeting of conservative women about a bus seen at a San Diego polling place in 2010 offloading people “who did not appear to be from this country.”

Officials in both San Diego and Wisconsin said they had no evidence that the buses were real. “It’s so stealthy that no one is ever able to get a picture and no one is able to get a license plate,” said Reid Magney, a spokesman for the Wisconsin agency that oversees elections.In some versions the bus is from an Indian reservation; in others it is full of voters from Chicago or Detroit. “Pick your minority group,” he said.


www.nytimes.com... _r=0

Get to the rest in another post...lots there.
edit on 5-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

Originally posted by Taiyed
Why no video or pictures of this "take over"?

Do people in Houston not have cameras?



That's what I've been asking this entire thread. The op claims that friends in the area told him that they witnessed this personally. Did they not call the authorities when they saw this happening? So to be fair to the op am I supposed to believe that a bunch of Tea Party members saw the NAACP commit a crime and chose to blog about it instead of informing the police, sherriff or whoever?

What does it really matter if there are pics or video?

The Black Panther incident in Philadelphia was videotaped, they had billy clubs, intimidating voters at the entrance to the polling place.

What was done about it?

Nothing.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Taiyed
 

I guess you missed the part in the op where the NAACP people were *INSIDE THE BUILDING* and handing out water to people in line while helping others to find the front of it. Front....that would be AT the tables of the polling place.

If you're here to pick fights...your welcome to move on...anytime now. It's not even creative anymore.


edit on 5-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


And they can do that, they can help all they want.

You have to prove they were actively advocating or promoting Obama while they did that AND that they were within 100 feet when advocating for him.

You have no proof, just fantasy.
edit on 5-11-2012 by Taiyed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 

The OP has answered that...Numerous times....


......and it's your burden to read the thread you're coming back to complain on. If you haven't yet seen the answer for why nothing was or can ever be recorded? You need to re-read replies before adding to the list of questions already answered.....many times now. If I'm not mistaken, it was first answered on page 1 or 2...and a few times since.


Come on I have read this politically slanted thread since the beginning. Nevertheless you have failed to answer the questions that many have asked. I already know that no picture or videos were taken. However no one could have taken a picture at 110 feet?


Sec. 61.014. USE OF CERTAIN DEVICES.
(a) A person may not use a wireless communication device within 100 feet of a voting
(b) A person may not use any mechanical or electronic means of

recording images or sound within 100 feet of a voting station.

(c) The presiding judge may require a person who violates this

section to turn off the device or to leave the polling place.

(d) This section does not apply to:

(1) an election officer in conducting the officer's official

duties;

(2) the use of election equipment necessary for the conduct of

the election; or

(3) a person who is employed at the location in which a polling

place is located while the person is acting in the course of the

person's employment. station.


statutes.laws.com...

So no one could have taken a picture @ 110 feet to show the authorities even though these people have been trained on how to react to voter fraud and intimidation? I am sure they are well versed on rules and procedures. But according to you these trained persons did not take pictures as evidence or call the authorities. I read about the person who claimed to receive a call from downtown. Considering the importance of the situation did she not ask who she was speaking to or their rank in city government? Was the violation(s) not enough to call the governor's office and report the NAACP as well as the poll supervisor? IMO the reason so many do not believe your op is that here we have a person who was been trained to deal with these types of situations and they did nothing but blog. If this is the best that True The Vote has to offer they should give up looking out for the voter's best interest.
edit on 5-11-2012 by FreebirdGirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
If the reports of cutting people in line are true, that just makes their intent that much worse. But that seems to be so stupid as to be wholly unbelievable on the surface.


Ironic...that bit might be the answer to the mystery.

The poll lines stretched to a minimum of a 3 hour wait, polls closed at 7pm, those in line are still allowed to vote and were waiting at a minimum until 10pm.

Apparently there are reports that the NAACP was trying to help disabled voters move to the front of the line.

Assistant County Attorney Doug Ray was present and says that the NAACP was straightened out, disabled or not, you can't mess with the line. He also said that their was absolutely NO ELECTIONEERING going on, no talk of Obama etc.

www.chron.com...

Truththevote also claimed in WI that a mystery bus was going to polling booth to polling booth filled with foriegners that were illegally registering and voting, though no one was able to identify or see the mystery bus.

Just not buying it.

I thinik the NAACP had good intentions, but made a mistake in trying to help disabled voters who were waiting 3+ hours in line late at night. The rest is spin and BS IMHO.


Well....i could buy that. I totally could.

Or, I could buy that some NAACP volunteers went a little too far promoting their personal politics.

And I can believe everything in between.

This IS US politics, afterall.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taiyed
Why no video or pictures of this "take over"?

Do people in Houston not have cameras?


Stupid questions deserve stupid answers, but I will resist.

People who are not at a polling place to vote have no business hanging around the polling place.
Giving out water can be construed as vote buying.
Helping anyone to the front of the line is uncalled for. No one person's vote is more impotant than another. If someone is too crippled to stand in line they should have sent for an absentee ballot and voted by mail.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
I find it hard to believe in a 3 hour long line in early voting.


There are a lot of people in Houston, especially in the low income housing area where they are like sardines in a can.

I guess all these people are voting early to avoid the crowds.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Talk about lies, and generalizations... Of course YOU would claim "Democrats don't cheat but Republicans do"... Your statement right there shows your mindset, and condescending attitude towards anyone who happens to disagree with your political points of view...

You should grow up first before posting at all, and then never post such blatant lies. Democrats/Liberals have been caught PLENTY OF TIMES doing voter fraud, and other sorts of fraud, and yes there have been Republicans, and people from other parties who have done the same thing, and they are all wrong for doing these things...
edit on 5-11-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
In Texas electioneering is permitted X feet from the physical polling location. Election judges are given a measuring tape and they have to walk off the distance then post a sign at that point. If the polling location is deep inside a building, then it's conceivable that the NAACP is within their rights.

Also photography IS allowed in the polling place, but it's at the desecration of the election judge. (How many times have you seen video and photos of voters voting?) If this were a true report, then a thug organization like true the vote would be the first to call.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
To clarify this... Electioneering in Texas is 100 feet from an outside door of the polling place which a voter may enter. Here is the statute.


Sec. 61.003. ELECTIONEERING AND LOITERING NEAR POLLING PLACE PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if, during the voting period and within 100 feet of an outside door through which a voter may enter the building in which a polling place is located, the person:
(1) loiters; or
(2) electioneers for or against any candidate, measure, or political party.
(b) In this section, "voting period" means the period beginning when the polls open for voting and ending when the polls close or the last voter has voted, whichever is later.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.


This deals with another area of trouble one may get in (not alleged to have happened in this case)


Sec. 61.006. UNLAWFULLY DIVULGING VOTE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person was in a polling place for any purpose other than voting and knowingly communicates to another person information that the person obtained at the polling place about how a voter has voted.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.
(c) This section does not apply to information presented in an official investigation or other official proceeding in which the information is relevant.


This part DID happen in this case by the reporting of the observer. (refer to OP story on details...but so much as saying Obama's name ..or Romney's in another polling place...is electioneering. Nothing more..Just speak the names...and you're out if they are enforcing the law)


Sec. 61.008. UNLAWFULLY INFLUENCING VOTER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person indicates to a voter in a polling place by word, sign, or gesture how the person desires the voter to vote or not vote.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.


And for those who simple cannot stop asking? This is the state law prohibiting the recording. These 3 were inside the polling place. So...What would a picture from 100 feet outside likely show? Maybe something...probably nothing.


Sec. 61.014. USE OF CERTAIN DEVICES. (a) A person may not use a wireless communication device within 100 feet of a voting station.
(b) A person may not use any mechanical or electronic means of recording images or sound within 100 feet of a voting station.
(c) The presiding judge may require a person who violates this section to turn off the device or to leave the polling place.
(d) This section does not apply to:
(1) an election officer in conducting the officer's official duties;
(2) the use of election equipment necessary for the conduct of the election; or
(3) a person who is employed at the location in which a polling place is located while the person is acting in the course of the person's employment.


Source - Texas State Election Code

Now, those are the laws by chapter and verse in how Texas covers it on the state level. I've mentioned this isn't all inclusive to the laws which Govern a polling place in that state and sure isn't for any other state. It's merely SOME of the laws, by specifics, that cover what the people in the OP story did. I hope this helps with both clarification to this story as well as information for Texas residents on precisely what this area of the law does and does NOT say.

I also hope this clears up some of the misinformation being spread across the pages of this thread. It took a few minutes to locate this....simply because I wouldn't settle for less than a Texas State site with straight, dry and official language of the code involved. Learning what the laws were, outside having to use the above text for it....took less than 1 minute on Google. Snopes is among many who have most of the above, word for word.

Good luck tomorrow everyone and stay safe, whomever you are voting for!! Remember, we're all Americans after the vote is cast. R and D between normal people stops being terribly important after that.


If you see something, say something. THAT isn't illegal and if someone chooses to remain silent when seeing wrong doing.....you can't very well complain later that the system isn't fair or working right. Just my thoughts...



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 

If you believe it's true and a person could have taken a meaningful video or photo at 110 feet, stop throwing empty accusations or implications of what coulda, woulda, shoulda. It would take me a few minutes at most to have a color photo of the front of this address and a spot marked in it, to represent 110 feet....FROM street level. Assuming those doors are visible and facing a traveled roadway, anyway. If not that? Well..it might take 5 minutes to do the same from overhead and a bit less eye candy to look at for meaning.

I'm not making the implication that this is false, misleading or otherwise dishonest on the part of the observer. That would be your position. So.....I'd invite you to supply the evidence that what you say and claim is viable or even physically possible. Perhaps another member will follow the above idea and do it just to prove the point.... However, when an accusation (implied or otherwise) is So easily demonstrated in a provable way for all to see, I'll never understand why those making it don't take the extra few minutes beforehand. It's possible or it's not. If it IS possible..you make a golden point of debate and come out bulletproof on the argument. If it isn't? Well....then one doesn't look silly making unsupported insinuations.


I honestly don't know either way and have no plans to check. Be my guest if you would like to support your posts. I'd be very curious to see just what street level color imagery would show from roughly that distance outside the doors.






top topics



 
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join