4 ms·

Voter intimidation is against the law.

by cf100clunk 8mo ago

dyauspitr 8mo ago
This administration is lawless.
- an0malous 8mo ago
  Can anyone downvoting this comment explain why? It seems like an objective fact at this point that this administration is lawless. Trump himself has stated that anything he does as president is by definition legal and that the only bounds on what he can do are "[his] own morality"
- deepfriedchokes 8mo ago
  This is a systems problem, not a human problem. It was inevitable that any weaknesses in the system would eventually be exploited. We should focus on fixing the system so this cannot happen again.
  - Analemma_ 8mo ago
    I disagree completely. There are a lot of tweaks which need to be made to the various mechanisms of American government, but ultimately there's no system you can design which can fix the problem of "approximately half the country is in a personality cult to one guy who demands absolute power, and his supporters in government refuse to enforce the law against him". Or at least no system which is remotely recognizable as democratic. How could that possibly work? It's user error, and trying to fix it without changing the minds and wants of those users just makes them angrier that "the Elites are undermining the will of the People" or whatever.
  - QuantumGood 8mo ago
    Complex systems have more unintended behaviors and failure modes, and interventions create new problems you didn’t anticipate. This is literally the Law of unintended consequences, and the more detailed you make the law, the harder it is to update to correct, current or actual circumstances.
ksherlock 8mo ago
Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal -- Richard Nixon, 1973; US Supreme Court, 2024
- muwtyhg 8mo ago
  Or, as Trump likes to put (quote) it: "He who saves his Country does not violate any law."
Analemma_ 8mo ago
The President is absolutely immune to the law for any "official actions", and the Supreme Court case which established this was specifically about whether ensuring voting integrity, no matter how farcically pre-textual, is an "official action": they determined it is. The law won't help us here.
- an0malous 8mo ago
  Congress won't either. What's left?
- watwut 8mo ago
  Americans needs to decide whether the issues is that the constitution is just badly written or whether the supreme court is trying to intentionally destroy democracy to help their right wing friends. Or whether both are true.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    Liberia had a nearly identical constitution for much of its existence. You know, the place from where General Butt Naked warlord engaged in cannabilism of the populace and each president for awhile was replaced with the last via having their ear cut off or tortured and then hanged while the next guys people drink a budweiser in front of the camera for the world to see. It's a road map to where we end up with a similar document but a different culture.
    - eftychis 8mo ago
      The paper is _the_ reminder of the promises we owe to future selves and generations. Its value lies in the People's strength to enforce it by exercising the obligations and rights it describes.
  - secretballot 8mo ago
    My personal litmus test for whether we've entered any kind of "there's still a little hope for the Republic" territory is whether anyone with real power is talking about eliminating the permanent position of Supreme Court Justice and replacing that with a by-lot panel system from the lower courts. This isn't a crazy or impossible proposition, it can be done with just a law. We already form some courts in a similar way, so it's also not unprecedented. It even avoids the naked partisanship of a simple court-packing. As far as I can tell, nobody who matters is talking about it yet. So. Hope is... remote.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 8mo ago
Voters should exercise their second amendment constitutionally protected right when they arrive to vote. (As of early 2026, 29 states allow permitless (constitutional) concealed carry of firearms in most public spaces, while 21 states still generally require a permit. Major permitless carry states include Texas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, and Arizona. While 47 states allow some form of open carry, California, Illinois, and New York prohibit it)
- mothballed 8mo ago
  Is there any state where it isn't illegal to carry at polling locations? I live in probably the most pro 2A state in the USA and it's illegal even here.
  - toomuchtodo 8mo ago
    Only within X feet of a polling place typically. Check your local laws for compliance. Print them out, have them on your person. I am advocating for protecting yourself against unlawful federal force, including lethal force, while remaining within the letter of the law while exercising your right to vote. Definitely don't break the law as it relates to crossing a threshold (distance, whatever) with a firearm at a polling location, if that is the law in your jurisdiction. Certainly a better option than being dead and having ProPublica have to release the names of those who caused harm, imho. Alternatively, you should be talking to your governor already about local police and national guard being stationed to protect voters from federal agent intimidation, if needed. Pick your risk appetite. You are responsible for protecting you, no one else is or will. Know the law, operate within it to the best of your ability and from a position of good faith. Failing all of that, a jury will work it out. https://www.thetrace.org/2024/10/state-gun-bans-polling-places-violence/ https://www.thetrace.org/2024/10/state-gun-bans-polling-plac... Lawyer. Passport. Locksmith. Gun. (A Talk About Risk and Preparedness) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33509164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33509164 - November 2022
  - jeffbee 8mo ago
    If you live in the most pro-2A state, which is Texas, then you need not worry about this because not only will Texas vote Republican in a wildly lopsided fashion as usual, and not only will the state of Texas gleefully cooperate with Trump election interference, it is also the one place where ICE goons won't stalk the streets carrying arms and wearing skull masks because by statute and by jurisprudence Texas has already firmly established that it's reasonable to shoot such a person dead, due to doubt about their identity as genuine peace officers. And, to be perfectly clear, it is reasonable to shoot that person on sight. But so far only Texas has codified it.
pickleglitch 8mo ago
Yes, and? ICE is out there violating the law multiple times every day, in front of numerous witnesses and camera phones. The law isn't going to protect us.

Voter intimidation is against the law.

dyauspitr 8mo ago

This administration is lawless.

an0malous 8mo ago
Can anyone downvoting this comment explain why? It seems like an objective fact at this point that this administration is lawless. Trump himself has stated that anything he does as president is by definition legal and that the only bounds on what he can do are "[his] own morality"
deepfriedchokes 8mo ago
This is a systems problem, not a human problem. It was inevitable that any weaknesses in the system would eventually be exploited. We should focus on fixing the system so this cannot happen again.
- Analemma_ 8mo ago
  I disagree completely. There are a lot of tweaks which need to be made to the various mechanisms of American government, but ultimately there's no system you can design which can fix the problem of "approximately half the country is in a personality cult to one guy who demands absolute power, and his supporters in government refuse to enforce the law against him". Or at least no system which is remotely recognizable as democratic. How could that possibly work? It's user error, and trying to fix it without changing the minds and wants of those users just makes them angrier that "the Elites are undermining the will of the People" or whatever.
- QuantumGood 8mo ago
  Complex systems have more unintended behaviors and failure modes, and interventions create new problems you didn’t anticipate. This is literally the Law of unintended consequences, and the more detailed you make the law, the harder it is to update to correct, current or actual circumstances.

ksherlock 8mo ago

Well, when the president does it ... that means that it is not illegal -- Richard Nixon, 1973; US Supreme Court, 2024

muwtyhg 8mo ago
Or, as Trump likes to put (quote) it: "He who saves his Country does not violate any law."

Analemma_ 8mo ago

The President is absolutely immune to the law for any "official actions", and the Supreme Court case which established this was specifically about whether ensuring voting integrity, no matter how farcically pre-textual, is an "official action": they determined it is. The law won't help us here.

an0malous 8mo ago
Congress won't either. What's left?
watwut 8mo ago
Americans needs to decide whether the issues is that the constitution is just badly written or whether the supreme court is trying to intentionally destroy democracy to help their right wing friends. Or whether both are true.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  Liberia had a nearly identical constitution for much of its existence. You know, the place from where General Butt Naked warlord engaged in cannabilism of the populace and each president for awhile was replaced with the last via having their ear cut off or tortured and then hanged while the next guys people drink a budweiser in front of the camera for the world to see. It's a road map to where we end up with a similar document but a different culture.
  - eftychis 8mo ago
    The paper is _the_ reminder of the promises we owe to future selves and generations. Its value lies in the People's strength to enforce it by exercising the obligations and rights it describes.
- secretballot 8mo ago
  My personal litmus test for whether we've entered any kind of "there's still a little hope for the Republic" territory is whether anyone with real power is talking about eliminating the permanent position of Supreme Court Justice and replacing that with a by-lot panel system from the lower courts. This isn't a crazy or impossible proposition, it can be done with just a law. We already form some courts in a similar way, so it's also not unprecedented. It even avoids the naked partisanship of a simple court-packing. As far as I can tell, nobody who matters is talking about it yet. So. Hope is... remote.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 8mo ago

Voters should exercise their second amendment constitutionally protected right when they arrive to vote. (As of early 2026, 29 states allow permitless (constitutional) concealed carry of firearms in most public spaces, while 21 states still generally require a permit. Major permitless carry states include Texas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, and Arizona. While 47 states allow some form of open carry, California, Illinois, and New York prohibit it)

mothballed 8mo ago
Is there any state where it isn't illegal to carry at polling locations? I live in probably the most pro 2A state in the USA and it's illegal even here.
- toomuchtodo 8mo ago
  Only within X feet of a polling place typically. Check your local laws for compliance. Print them out, have them on your person. I am advocating for protecting yourself against unlawful federal force, including lethal force, while remaining within the letter of the law while exercising your right to vote. Definitely don't break the law as it relates to crossing a threshold (distance, whatever) with a firearm at a polling location, if that is the law in your jurisdiction. Certainly a better option than being dead and having ProPublica have to release the names of those who caused harm, imho. Alternatively, you should be talking to your governor already about local police and national guard being stationed to protect voters from federal agent intimidation, if needed. Pick your risk appetite. You are responsible for protecting you, no one else is or will. Know the law, operate within it to the best of your ability and from a position of good faith. Failing all of that, a jury will work it out. https://www.thetrace.org/2024/10/state-gun-bans-polling-places-violence/ https://www.thetrace.org/2024/10/state-gun-bans-polling-plac... Lawyer. Passport. Locksmith. Gun. (A Talk About Risk and Preparedness) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33509164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33509164 - November 2022
- jeffbee 8mo ago
  If you live in the most pro-2A state, which is Texas, then you need not worry about this because not only will Texas vote Republican in a wildly lopsided fashion as usual, and not only will the state of Texas gleefully cooperate with Trump election interference, it is also the one place where ICE goons won't stalk the streets carrying arms and wearing skull masks because by statute and by jurisprudence Texas has already firmly established that it's reasonable to shoot such a person dead, due to doubt about their identity as genuine peace officers. And, to be perfectly clear, it is reasonable to shoot that person on sight. But so far only Texas has codified it.

pickleglitch 8mo ago

Yes, and? ICE is out there violating the law multiple times every day, in front of numerous witnesses and camera phones. The law isn't going to protect us.