Should the Democratic Party start using the GOP's vote-suppression tactics in blue states?

[nikto]

You know the methods the GOP uses in its "red" states.
Couldn't we play a similar game, since the Supreme Court now allows it?

Such as:
Limiting the GOP vote via
closing-down MANY polling places in GOP-areas (to save $$ is the best excuse),
caging voters similarly to "Cross-Check" (thoroughly covered by Greg Palast),
and using electronic tabulation to create, for once, an actual "blue-shift", which, so far, does not exist-----
There is only a "red" shift so far (and the GOP used it in the "swing" states, ofcourse, where it was most needed).
This "shift" was covered by Mark Crispin Miller.

The GOP uses all these methods to crush Democrats.
Yeah, it's dirty.

But if we want these filthy tactics to be outlawed,
we are going to have to use them against the GOP.

Otherwise, why should the GOP give up weapons the other side refuses to EVER use?

OK, I'll go take a shower now.

But if we are not willing to get down and dirty, the GOP
will NEVER stop using down and dirty tactics against The Democratic Party.

Never. Not ever.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Not just no, but Hell no!

There has to be a better way.

[nikto]

3. Can you think of any?

We are in a street-fight with THUGS.

If you want more proof, check out what is happening in North Carolina lately.

We have to get out the lawyers, and do THE EXACT SAME THING TO THEM (not more, not less, and within
the same parameters the GOP works within).

IMO, until the GOP feels the pain of these methods used against THEM, they have no reason to ever change.

And with the GOP stacking the SCOTUS, these methods will be further legitimized------At least
UNTIL the Democratic Party starts using them too.

It's time to start bringing guns to the gun fight, instead of stern language.



Guns beat stern language, every damn time.

[JI7]

2. no

[LonePirate]

4. This is the most undemocratic proposal I have read on here in ages.

[bettyellen]

5. No we should do Crosscheck in white GOP areas and pull them off the rolls at the last minute!!

Because that would even the playing field.

We don't need to support onerous voting restrictions, but I could get behind some Cross check shit because there would be OUTRAGE. HA

[nikto]

6. good idea

As long as we do it the same way, and do not go further, legally.

[bettyellen]

8. Well I think it would have to be administered by other people - the one people are signing up to

Is dinging Dems really badly.

[HassleCat]

7. No. It's bad enough we take money from certain interests.

We have compromised our principles enough.

[nikto]

9. Perhaps

But Punishing Russia without releasing proof of election-hacking, is also a compromise of values.

That's only if we are trying to be consistent in our values,
and we avoid using GOP election tactics as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. No, because for one, it's the wrong thing to do.

That's the big one.

Two, most of the blue states that have Dem state governments aren't even close to being up for grabs. What good would it do to suppress the red vote in California?

[nikto]

25. Good point

[nikto]

11. The Democratic Party could take the courageous HIGH ROAD ...

And deal openly with the issue of election-fraud.


But it refuses to.

It would rather blame the Russians and avoid all talk of vote-caging and
"red-shifts".


Hell, they even now IGNORE the horrid and damaging Comey/FBI announcement, which was clearly inflated BS.
That MEASURABLY (in polls) did far more damage to HC than the DNC hack/leak ever did.

Not, it's suddenly a non-issue to Democrats. Why the hell is that?

Is this cowardice?

Or corruption?

[msongs]

12. sorry boys and girls. national democratic leadership is now in holiday vacation mode. as are repubs

except in NC of course

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

13. Why?

[Orangepeel]

14. Blue states are blue because the vote isn't surpressed

Well, that's only a small reason why, but the fact is, Democrats do better when more people vote.

[1AM Coffee]

15. Pass laws to outlaw voters that wave confederate flags.

[uppityperson]

18. Not to mention unconstitutional

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

[uppityperson]

22. You want to ban people of a "religious creed" from voting?

I don't see how not letting people who follow a religious creed vote conflicts with that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[WillowTree]

23. It doesn't prohibit a person from partiipating in governance, either.

Where are you getting this stuff?

[Sunlei]

20. We need democracy, a vote for avery one. And a general public who will make a call or 2 a year to

help"make me do it" their next president OR help the few Ds left in our government before Rs get rid of them too.

[WillowTree]

21. So you think that the ends justifies the means? You want to be that person?

[salin]

26. No.

[nikto]

27. This thread proves one thing for sure ...

That DEMOCRATS have much more ACTUAL sense of right and wrong than GOPers,
even when it involves winning.

How many GOPers would even debate such an issue, if it were reversed for their party?

I have yet to see even ONE GOPer who questions GOP vote-suppression tactics of ANY kind,
in ANY state.

GOPers do not do stuff like that.
They always assume what the GOP does in elections is right and justified.

Anybody out there know of any exceptions,
please let me know and post about it here.

[Mike Nelson]

28. There is so much truth in this thread...

...there are places where Dems could use the GOP tactics and places where it just wouldn't work as well... where our voters are susceptible but their voters are not... and, there is the law. Now, they can set or reset more laws. This is a big issue - not blaming Hillary, Obama, Bernie etc... We have the people and the winning message, but not the mechanics to assure victories. I don't have a default answer to the question, but am leaning toward "yes" in more areas.

[DLevine]

29. No. We need to make it easier for everyone to vote. nt