Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NAACP Takes Over Houston Polling Station, Advocates for President Obama

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Taiyed
 

Taiyed.... See my above post on Texas state code on election law. Under Electioneering in the first section, the first element of that criminal offense is LOITERING. That would describe these three if they'd done nothing more whatsoever. They had no official position in the polling place. They were not observers (You must be registered in advance and there is at least a bit of training...but the registration is the critical missing element), they were not staff and they were not voting. If they were voting, they could have and then departed. Not doing so without having official standing to be there means loitering...and a criminal offense, as the code clearly states without qualification in this case.

Proof is entirely in the eye of the beholder when the beholder would seem to be selective about what they choose to believe. I have no problem accepting this source. There exists no evidence I can find that they have a history of deceoption or dishonest reporting of events. Therefore, I won't assume it. I don't assume it of any news source..until they prove otherwise, and most do eventually. I haven't seen it for this one.

I will however invite you to return and post any evidence you may find. As I said to another here....You make the accusation of dishonestly or inaccurate representation of the facts. That places the burden of supporting that accusation upon you, not me or anyone else in the thread. It works the same when I challenge an OP on their own thread (as I do..on those rare rare occasions...Hides growing nose...
)

Seriously, when I challenge someone, I BACK my accusation by every means reasonably possible. Integrity means a lot to some...and it means nothing to others. Supported accusations vs. empty ones are one part of what can define integrity. How one responds when the accusation is challenged is another.

Just my observations. I'd be happy to see you support yours...but don't honestly expect it. Hell...I've been surprised that way twice this week with people actually doing it though. So who knows? It's worth the shot.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



As I said to another here....You make the accusation of dishonestly or inaccurate representation of the facts. That places the burden of supporting that accusation upon you, not me or anyone else in the thread.


Your whole thread is unproven.

Until you can provide some evidence, I regard it as pure hearsay, rumors, and partisan propaganda.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Here's why I doubt the validity of this story:
This single blog is the sole source of the story. If this were true, there would be multiple bylined reporters, not just multiple blogger repeats of a single report.
The so called poll watcher was trained by true the vote, a known voter supression organization
The location is in innercity Houston, where there's likely to be high turn out for Obama anyway. The only reason for a voter intimidation group to be there is to intimidate voters
If the alledge poll watcher took her concern to the election judge (not superviser - a REAL poll watcher would know the correct terminology), then by law, she could not approach the deputy election judge nor any of the clerks.
Further if this were a REAL poll watcher, she would have then reported her findings to the secretary of state at the very highly publicized Texas voter hotline while the event was happening. The secretary of state would have then sent in a state inspector.
And She would NOT get a call from someone "downtown" telling her to stand down, which really sounds like somebody filed a complaint on HER.
The report does not say exactly who instructed the NAACP to turn their shirts inside out. Was it her?
Frankly, the whole story sounds very contrived



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SweetChild
 

Fair points... I had thought of a couple, actually. Not all, but a couple.

The Inner City, indeed. That would be a place where a few people from the NAACP office down the street wouldn't feel it likely they'd be challenged or hit serious opposition by showing up to do what they did. It's another way of looking at it...and double so on an early voting day. I'd expect the real observers to be out tomorrow. Perhaps they did too?

Heck, I'm not sure on the terminology myself. I know what the Texas code describes the positions as, but I also saw other terminology used elsewhere. I have no idea what he was told during his orientation and training for poll watching. Without knowing that and given that this is a volunteer observer and not a salaried staff member or official of the system, it's entirely possible to my thinking that the trainer he had wasn't 100% precise and correct on every term given....if they were all fully explained at all.

Now, I had considered the single source issue..for a moment anyway. Then it's a self evident problem. You're talking about a place where it's a crime to loiter. So, no one else is going to be hanging around and handy to grab for support. No one is whipping out a cell phone or camera. They're getting thrown out or arrested if they do. So says the law and hence...who else was going to be there to report it? The observer clearly states the mood at that polling place wasn't running in his favor.............and I look at the replies to the story itself and find absolutely NO problem believing that part of it. Do you?

Last...I discovered something else in looking through Texas law on all this and it's an interesting point. It's not relevant so I didn't mention it while waiting to see if anyone did ANY real research. If they had...this would jump out like an orange is a bushel of apples. Texas law requires a few things when going after someone on voter intimidation, electioneering or fraud. If it isn't witnessed by an Official or Law Enforcement Officer (neither of which this was as an volunteer observer) then it requires TWO people to swear to events as I read the part dealing with it. One won't make it happen. That hotline may very well have been called. Everyone else seems to have been......but without a second person inside THAT polling place, willing to go against those 3 AND the people the report had just been ignored by? The observer is talking to themselves and filing a report for context and reference in the future.

^^^ ...and that is also probably why the office ordered the observer to stand down. Without corroboration, nothing solid and meaningful COULD be done under Texas law. Continuing to push it would simply get THEM thrown out for disturbing the peace eventually, by not shutting up about it....and then it's become 100% self defeating. If I'm mistaken there, I'm SURE someone will be quick to correct...but it's how I read it last night when I posted this thread and made the initial fact checks to see what was what.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SweetChild
 


Actually it wasn't a single blog. And this was actually reported for investigation. Will be right back with some more info.

This story is found on:
Fox
Briebert
True To Vote
Daily Paul
reddit
Electionlawcenter
Etc... Etc...
edit on 6-11-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SweetChild
 

Fair points... I had thought of a couple, actually. Not all, but a couple.

The Inner City, indeed. That would be a place where a few people from the NAACP office down the street wouldn't feel it likely they'd be challenged or hit serious opposition by showing up to do what they did. It's another way of looking at it...and double so on an early voting day. I'd expect the real observers to be out tomorrow. Perhaps they did too?

Heck, I'm not sure on the terminology myself. I know what the Texas code describes the positions as, but I also saw other terminology used elsewhere. I have no idea what he was told during his orientation and training for poll watching. Without knowing that and given that this is a volunteer observer and not a salaried staff member or official of the system, it's entirely possible to my thinking that the trainer he had wasn't 100% precise and correct on every term given....if they were all fully explained at all.

Now, I had considered the single source issue..for a moment anyway. Then it's a self evident problem. You're talking about a place where it's a crime to loiter. So, no one else is going to be hanging around and handy to grab for support. No one is whipping out a cell phone or camera. They're getting thrown out or arrested if they do. So says the law and hence...who else was going to be there to report it? The observer clearly states the mood at that polling place wasn't running in his favor.............and I look at the replies to the story itself and find absolutely NO problem believing that part of it. Do you?

Last...I discovered something else in looking through Texas law on all this and it's an interesting point. It's not relevant so I didn't mention it while waiting to see if anyone did ANY real research. If they had...this would jump out like an orange is a bushel of apples. Texas law requires a few things when going after someone on voter intimidation, electioneering or fraud. If it isn't witnessed by an Official or Law Enforcement Officer (neither of which this was as an volunteer observer) then it requires TWO people to swear to events as I read the part dealing with it. One won't make it happen. That hotline may very well have been called. Everyone else seems to have been......but without a second person inside THAT polling place, willing to go against those 3 AND the people the report had just been ignored by? The observer is talking to themselves and filing a report for context and reference in the future.

^^^ ...and that is also probably why the office ordered the observer to stand down. Without corroboration, nothing solid and meaningful COULD be done under Texas law. Continuing to push it would simply get THEM thrown out for disturbing the peace eventually, by not shutting up about it....and then it's become 100% self defeating. If I'm mistaken there, I'm SURE someone will be quick to correct...but it's how I read it last night when I posted this thread and made the initial fact checks to see what was what.


I Am sure of the terminology and a real poll watcher would have been too since the glossary of terms are readily available online from the Texas SOS and are included in the STATE MANDATED training for poll watchers.

As far as whipping out the cell phone, the state law for poll watchers specifically allows them to step outside the electioneering zone to make phone calls. The provision allows them to report irregularities.

Further, the replies to the story are no more credible or valid than the story itself.

As far as "going after someone," that refers to pressing charges. It does not stop the state from investigating. In fact, had a call been made to the Texas SOS, by law, an investigator would have been sent.

Exactly WHICH office ordered her to stand down? True the vote? It certainly was not any election official, because by state law, they can make no such order. And election official cannot stop a credentialed poll watcher from watching the poll or reporting incidents.

You're argument is unsustainable. Given the remedies available under the law, again, I call bunk on this whole story.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by SweetChild
 


Actually it wasn't a single blog. And this was actually reported for investigation. Will be right back with soem more info.


There were multiple posts of this story across different blogs. However all of the reposts are traced back to a single report.
edit on 6-11-2012 by SweetChild because: typo fixed



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SweetChild

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by SweetChild
 


Actually it wasn't a single blog. And this was actually reported for investigation. Will be right back with soem more info.


There were multiple posts of this story across different blogs. However all of the reposts are traced back to a single report.
edit on 6-11-2012 by SweetChild because: typo fixed


Here it is straight from a Houston news Channel. 2 news articles... One article even has a video and Eva is interviewed while the NAACP denies the charges. The NAACP said that they were only there to help. The fact that they were there is making this sound even more credible. Who are they just to turn up and help out of the blue? Do you think you or I could do this? Or even the local bridge club for all that matters?

NAACP members accused of ‘taking over’ at Acres Homes polling station


HOUSTON -- A poll watcher in the Acres Homes community of Houston claims she saw something troubling during last week’s early voting.

Houston NAACP Chapter President Rev. Reginald Liley says they were only looking to help and did not, to his knowledge, break any rules.

Rockford filed her incident report with True the Vote, a Houston-area based national poll watching group, but she told Bill Ouren about problems as they were happening.



NAACP denies allegetions of illegal actions at the polls


Eve Rockford caused a stir on a number of national websites over the weekend when she reported that NAACP members at an early voting location in Acres Homes were overstepping their bounds.


edit on 6-11-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by SweetChild
 


Actually it wasn't a single blog. And this was actually reported for investigation. Will be right back with some more info.

This story is found on:
Fox
Briebert
True To Vote
Daily Paul
reddit
Electionlawcenter
Etc... Etc...
edit on 6-11-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



You have just proven that our MSM will run with a story, regardless of if it has been validated, just to sell copy during their quadrennial Super Bowl of election politics.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Guess what guys........after the BS 4 years ago, the new black panthers (I refuse to show them enough respect to even capitalise the name) are at it again !!! Standing out in front of polling places trying to intimidate people.

Unbelievable. I wish these scumbags were at my polling place.....there would have been an issue. Anyone who has these losers at their polling place need to call the local police and report the voter intimidation. It's a federal crime. I would have made a dedicated thread to the story, but it's such breaking news I havn't found an actual text based link yet. I've only seen it on TV news so far.
edit on 6-11-2012 by Larry L because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   


I wish these scumbags were at my polling place.....there would have been an issue.
reply to post by Larry L
 


Sadly, the way things are today, you would end up in jail for confronting the hatemongers.

I have no doubt.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Aside from the fact that logic fails to support the OP, it's headline or claims as I outlined above...No motive or evidence of the NAACP either trying to turn TX blue or "taking over" the polling station....just handing out water.

What I am confused about...the NAACP endorses certain candidates, but is not "part" of a political party or obligated to endorse either candidate ...Otherwise if someone is wearing an NRA hat? Doesn't it have to be a Political PAC or the DNC, RNC or Romney or Obama campaign group etc. to be considered "electioneering"?

Would I get pulled aside for wearing an NRA tee-shirt or something similair?



I've determined that those people "extremely concerned" about this constitutional attack by the NAACP are either "not being upset by black people" or they are upset by "t-shirts with logos." They keep talking about THREATS, but these seem to either be water bottles or again, they have a fear of t-shirts.

Intelligence operatives have on good authority, that there is a Code Orange constitutional election threat alert, because the NAACP is planning to up-armor their wardrobe Hoodies and Skittles -- and this should cause massive panic at polling booths. Thank God we've only got one more hour of this menace.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy



I wish these scumbags were at my polling place.....there would have been an issue.
reply to post by Larry L
 


Sadly, the way things are today, you would end up in jail for confronting the hatemongers.

I have no doubt.



Yes Butcherguy, there's nothing more hatemongering than black people handing out free water bottles.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
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.



Democrats/Liberals have been caught PLENTY OF TIMES doing voter fraud
Right. Care to have a duel of news reports on that? Something a bit more than one speculation every two decades?

My Bias for Democrats comes from years of putting up with Global Warming denial, Pro War on the wrong countries, De-REgulation and they paying billions of dollars for it. I could make a list of stupid. It isn't that the Democrats aren't the bottom of the barrel -- it's that the Republican party is anti-science, anti-sense and three hundred leagues below the barrel. There's just no choice for rational people.

I'll get back to debating people with facts and figures, as soon as I'm dealing with people who don't keep repeating the ones they've made up. Republicans have no cred with anyone else on the planet -- except maybe Pakistan. That's the only people on the planet in a recent survey who preferred Mitt Romney.

The Republican party needs to die and be forgotten, and then those ashes burned and sealed in a vault, With garlic and holy water poured on it -- just in case some of that superstitious nonsense has merit. Then have an exorcism. And then we take the mausoleum it's trapped in launched into space and sent on a collision course with the sun -- making sure we aim for a really hot spot on that star.

I mean I could waste more time "debating" the merits of this criminal organization that pretends to have a philosophy, if it weren't an act of futility. I'm really pretty good with debates and reason and fun stuff like that -- it just doesn't come into play with Republicans.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


How pathetic and cheap to (as is typical) try to make what is obviously an issue about election tampering into an issue about race.

Since your mind went there so quickly, perhaps it is YOU who has racial bias? S'ok....maybe you won't break your arm while patting yourself on the back for being so enlightened and accepting of "them".



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Wow someone has enough nerve to actually research something instead of believing everything they hear or read.
Kudos to you!!!!


Indeed.
You'd have thought that a reporter or someone there on the ground would have gathered some evidence of this, rather than just report a third-hand report on a biased right-wing blog.


It's amusing to me that all these reports come out, and yet there is no evidence for it. It's always "reports" from someone else, never any video or photos. Where's the evidence?

Do Republicans not own phones? Can they not operate cameras?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Larry L
Guess what guys........after the BS 4 years ago, the new black panthers (I refuse to show them enough respect to even capitalise the name) are at it again !!! Standing out in front of polling places trying to intimidate people.


Evidence please?

Keep ranting about it all you like, unless there is actually some evidence this will all be dismissed as right wing BS propaganda (which I fully believe it is until I actually see some evidence of it!)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by YourWIFI
I DOUBT very much so that this would be going on in Houston Texas. I recall the last time I saw a Black Panther assembly in Texas, every single family came out of their house (old ladies and all) to chase them away. They had the Black Panthers running for their lives. The FEAR in the eyes of the Black Panthers was UNBELIEVABLE as they ran to their vans to escape!!


We are talking about Texas here!!! They want NO PART OF TEXAS!! C'mon now!!


edit on 3-11-2012 by YourWIFI because: (no reason given)


It's also HOUSTON. A bit different than other parts of the state, and, having lived in Texas for quite a number of years in the past, I can easily believe this could happen there. Not in a lot of Texas towns, but in some, in some areas? Oh, yeah.

I saw a video similar to what you describe, but I think that was in California, when they were coming out to intimidate an elderly man that shot two guys who were trying to burglarize his neighbor. The crowd was very vocal, the NBPP people could not be heard, and they finally left. NO ONE in the local crowd was, I have to state, in any way violent, or hinting at violence. It was a sight to see, though.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

three NAACP members showed up to the 139 precinct location with 50 cases of bottled water and began handing bottles out to people standing in line


Wow THREE? OMG! That's almost as large as the Black Panther showing that Fox News was freaking out about. And they had on "True the Vote" t-shirts... wow.

How dare they give out water bottles!

Did any of you notice all the cases of REAL intimidation and checking "green cards" going on by the NeoCons? The existential threats that the "I'm not Prejudiced But..." crowd keeps having to scrape up is really getting trivial.


They did not simply "give out water bottles". They also talked about voting for Obama (a Federal crime), and moved people forward in line (also illegal). Who is the NAACP to decide who has to wait in line longer? Why should they determine that people standing in line longer had to wait on people THEY decided to move to the front???

You do know, I hope, that a green card holder is not eligible to vote, right? That verifying the identity of people is not "intimidation"?



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by Larry L
Guess what guys........after the BS 4 years ago, the new black panthers (I refuse to show them enough respect to even capitalise the name) are at it again !!! Standing out in front of polling places trying to intimidate people.


Evidence please?

Keep ranting about it all you like, unless there is actually some evidence this will all be dismissed as right wing BS propaganda (which I fully believe it is until I actually see some evidence of it!)


Evidence from the last election? Sure...that is easy. It happened. It is on YouTube:

edit on 6-11-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


Oh wait. That menacing looking guy is carrying a billy club because it is his "spirit stick". Not meant to be intimidating at all, is it?
edit on 6-11-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join