The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 17    Average: 3.6/5]
65 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 5579
Rating: 3.6
Category:
Date: 09/24/12 10:07 AM

65 Responses to Video Spurs Voter Registration Flap

  1. Profile photo of kitteh9lives
    kitteh9lives Female 70 & Over
    8044 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 9:15 am
    Link: Video Spurs Voter Registration Flap - Some people are demanding an investigation of County Clerk, W. Williams, a Republican because of this. Story in credits
  2. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:25 am
    Bitter lady is bitter
  3. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:27 am
    Sounds like just a volunteer who doesn`t exactly understand who is in charge of what. I doubt there`s anything here, but it may still warrant checking just to be sure everything`s on the up-and-up.
  4. Profile photo of Big61AL
    Big61AL Male 40-49
    59 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:28 am
    no big surprise....dirty politics are making a big comeback...
  5. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:30 am
    If it`s true, then that`s terrible. But I sort of got the feeling the girl just didn`t really know what the deal was. And the lady didn`t have to be a bitch to her. File a complaint, but don`t take it out on the girl.
  6. Profile photo of peakingo
    peakingo Male 30-39
    761 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:37 am
    Did she close the video with "Honey Bi/tch?" Ha I`m changing my cats name from Titty the Kitty to Honey Bi/tch.
  7. Profile photo of CodeJockey
    CodeJockey Male 40-49
    5611 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:46 am
    I wonder if one has to be a registered voter to register voters...
  8. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3909 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:49 am
    Yeah, I think she really didn`t know what she was doing and it`s probably a misunderstanding. I also think that the lady was wrong in being a b*tch to her. That`s like yelling at your waitress because the chef didn`t cook your steak the way you wanted.
  9. Profile photo of BoredFrank
    BoredFrank Male 40-49
    2372 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 11:12 am
    More Republican-style `family values!` Use public money to benefit the ultra-wealthy.

    Corporations are people, my friend!
  10. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4888 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 11:18 am
    Seems like she`s a naive young lady who accidently told the truth.
  11. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 11:21 am
    @BoredFrank: [quote">More Republican-style `family values!`[/quote">
    Don`t be a hypocrite; if we`re considering her actions ro be representative of all Republicans, then I am comfortable suggesting that the Dem`s gave us Voter Intimidation in 2008. I think we can all agree that voter intimidation is much worse.
  12. Profile photo of broizfam
    broizfam Male 60-69
    4888 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 11:23 am
    Of course, if she`s a volunteer then she`s just a naive young lady.
  13. Profile photo of indisguise
    indisguise Female 40-49
    267 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 11:31 am
    She knew exactly what she was doing. I have never had someone registering me to vote ask who I`m voting for - before or after I registered. They just ask if you`re voting and if you`re registered.

    Girl - Excuse me, but are you voting for Romney or Obama?
    Woman: Well wait, I thought you were registering voters a minute ago.
    Girl - Iam, I am. But...
    Woman - And who are you registering? All voters?
    Girl - Well I`m actually trying to register people for a particular party. Because we`re out here in support of Romney, actually.

    I`m sure she registers the Obama voters too, but those registrations probably get coffee spilled on them or something rendering them unreadable. Oopsie.
  14. Profile photo of corywebb
    corywebb Male 30-39
    106 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 11:32 am
    whodat your analogy sucks. It`s more like yelling at your waitress because the chef told her he wasn`t going to cook it the way you ordered and she said "Sounds good, I want in." She knew exactly what she was doing, she just didn`t think it was wrong.
  15. Profile photo of DingDingDong
    DingDingDong Male 30-39
    1511 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 11:43 am
    She`s just trying to support Romney by making sure Romney voters are registered. I doubt she`s "working" for the county. Even if she was just seeking republican voters, I don`t have a problem with that. Same as if it were just democrats.
    Gary Johnson 2012!
  16. Profile photo of Burgh
    Burgh Male 40-49
    300 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 11:48 am
    @peakingo

    She says "honey bunch" not "honey b*tch"
  17. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3909 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 11:55 am
    @corywebb - The analogy doesn`t suck, your goggles suck. She`s being a b*tch to her for something that`s not her fault.
  18. Profile photo of xelous
    xelous Male 18-29
    2513 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 11:58 am
    Poor girl, I remember my first job

  19. Profile photo of themax275
    themax275 Male 30-39
    16 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    Oh great, now the poor young kid is going to think all dems are mean persony bitches.
  20. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm
    "not her fault" wait, what?
    Last I checked ignorance of the law is no defense. In most states, you must be trained and certified to register voters. She knows exactly what she`s doing, she just wasn`t instructed to hide it.
  21. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    Democrats do this all the time, but one naive Republican girl does it and investigations must be launched.
  22. Profile photo of Burgh
    Burgh Male 40-49
    300 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 12:10 pm
    This sort of video is pretty easy to do. You could make the claim you were from the same office but only trying to register Obama voters or what ever other candidate you want. Hopefully there is a follow up on this because this can be a b.s. propaganda vid.

    BTW OBamromnaloni is a terrible choice, or is that Romnaboamaloni? Two party system and voting for a lesser evil still elects evil.
  23. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 12:34 pm
    Girl seems dumb enough to be republican.
  24. Profile photo of jamie76
    jamie76 Male 30-39
    2345 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 12:36 pm
    republicans claiming dems do this all the time...yet as usually, NO proof is supplied with their comments.

    show me ONE incident of a democrat county clerk or otherwise doing this.

    waiting...
  25. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2379 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 1:03 pm
    It doesn`t matter the electoral college negates anyone`s vote.
  26. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6248 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm
    jamie76-"waiting..."

    Your wait is over.

    Voter Participation Center (run by democrats) has been sending out registration forms, some of which have been addressed to the dead, children, even pets and felons ineligible to vote in Virgina, state that recipients are eligible to vote. The Address on these forms appear to be for the State Board of Elections, but in reality goes to a PO Box rented by the Voter Participation Center

    forging of Democratic presidential primary petitions in the 2008 election

  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm
    I was into opinion media back when the conservatives were attacking ACORN. They would have had an absolute sh*t fit if anyone in ACORN was specifically asking if you vote Obama or McCain. It is funny to see the cons backtracking so fast. You can go after a specific group to get them to register (the poor, the rich). But you can`t ask who they are voting for. That is a big no no. I`m just going to sit back and watch the circus here.
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 2:27 pm
    My two cents. This was just a cute girl who took things further than she was asked to do. She was probably spacing out when they were explaining the rules. Still needs investigating.
  • Profile photo of MacGuffin
    MacGuffin Female 30-39
    2602 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 2:45 pm
    Seems legit. Keep lending undue legitimacy to this completely corrupt system by your willing participation in the fraud, Americans. Remember: when you go along to that voting booth come November, *this* is the system you`re propping up. Then keep your eyes and ears closed for the next fours years at the result of what you`ve done.

    ...
  • Profile photo of MacGuffin
    MacGuffin Female 30-39
    2602 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    In the age of Facebook, x-ray strip searches just to get on a plane and gross invasions of privacy by all sorts of so-called "democratic" governments, do you really think they couldn`t come up with a fairer system that asked your opinion on important topics more often (and took notice of what you said), if they actually wanted to? The government can process yearly tax returns from you, but somehow that same government can only ask who you want to represent you once every *four years*? (and even then you only get a choice between corrupt rich guy in red or equally-corrupt rich guy in blue?)

    This corrupt system has kept going for generations before you, and will continue as long as you keep participating in it.
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 2:52 pm
    "Don`t be a hypocrite; if we`re considering her actions ro be representative of all Republicans, then I am comfortable suggesting that the Dem`s gave us Voter Intimidation in 2008. I think we can all agree that voter intimidation is much worse."

    Funny how not one single voter came forward to say they had actually been intimidated. Not taking sides with the NBP. They are a hate group. Just saying you are stating something that just isn`t factual. Look it up. You will find I am correct.
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 3:10 pm
    The New Black Panthers stated before the election that they would deploy 300 poll watchers across the United States. Yet you only heard about one persons bad behavior. That is a problem with an individual not a group. This was a prime example of the media machine blowing something up that wasn`t.
  • Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    6248 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 3:35 pm
    markust123-"Funny how not one single voter came forward to say they had actually been intimidated."

    Incorrect: Poll Watcher Bartie Bull gave a affidavit stating that it was the most severe instance ot voter intimidation he had ever encountered, and testified that he witnessed some voters approach the polls and then turn away, apparently in response to the New Black Panther Party members.

    Strange that the Obama Administration decided to drop it.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    @mark: It`s simply common sense. Let`s look at it this way:

    1. It was the first time an African-American was on the ballot.
    2. It was the first time the NBP party decided they needed to provide "security."
    3. Many people actually came forward and swore than they (NBP) members were carrying night-sticks.

    This is really a case of simple reasoning - wouldn`t you agree?

    Yet you only heard about one persons bad behavior.
    I agree, and this is exactly the type of logic that I was showing to be fallacious in my first post. I think you will see that I was cynically mocking @BoredFrank for his attempt to generalize Republicans based on this girls (in the video) actions.

    Obviously you wouldn`t make such a ridiculous claim as @BoredFrank did, so I would not respond to you in the same manner. I`ve held many times before that I argue at my opponents level.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm
    @mark: [quote">Funny how not one single voter came forward to say they had actually been intimidated [..."> Just saying you are stating something that just isn`t factual. Look it up. You will find I am correct.[/quote">

    Look into the official US record and you will find at least 4 individuals who provided sworn testimony that they were either personally intimidated or saw another person being intimidated (refer to the Declarations in the Documents section).

    Source

    I`m sure you know that I will admit when I`m wrong, but I am not in this matter; you are incorrect.
  • Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 5:37 pm
    Girl seems dumb enough to be republican.

    This coming from a hard-left Democrat clown.
  • Profile photo of OutWest
    OutWest Male 50-59
    546 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 8:40 pm
    fired up Dem.... she should have just punched the girl!
  • Profile photo of sutra46
    sutra46 Female 40-49
    2550 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 9:41 pm
    The girl is just working for wage, looks clueless but innocent, that county clerk has some splainin to do :-)
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:04 pm
    "Look into the official US record and you will find at least 4 individuals who provided sworn testimony that they were either personally intimidated or saw another person being intimidated (refer to the Declarations in the Documents section)."

    They were not voters. There was not one voter that came forward that said they were intimidated. That is why the case was dropped. Who knows why people left. The witnesses (Republican poll workers) were just guessing on other peoples intentions. Not admissible. You are wrong. And Fox News is pathetic for creating a story out of nothing and running it for almost a full year. A news organization is not supposed to create the news.

    "Strange that the Obama Administration decided to drop it."

    Ah yes, the double down lie. Two for the price of one. Se above and this one. It was during Bush`s term that it was decided to drop the case. Do you ever check your facts?

    Oh and go Seahawks. Touchdown with
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:05 pm
    (Continued) 00 seconds left. What a game to be at.
  • Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:05 pm
    Yeah, she`s an idiot, but trust me, you libs DON`T want to get into a pissing match over who`s supporters are bigger idiots.
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 24, 2012 at 10:45 pm
    I have to take back the last line of my comment. I just watched the instant replay. There is no doubt in my mind that Green Bay intercepted. How did that get called for the Seahawks? I would be so pissed if I was a Packers fan.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 6:16 am
    @mark: Sworn statement by Christopher Hill...

    "... but it was without question that they sought to intimidate me from entering the polling place ..."

    Are poll watchers not valid as voters for some fantastic reason? They are still citizens and are allowed to vote. I`m not sure how these two concepts are failing to meet your standard.

    ... and the Seahawks touchdown was BS.
  • Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 6:18 am
    Does anyone see the irony in MacGuffins babble considering the UK still supports royalty and gives them top military rank for a position not elected by the peopl but by god? As for invasion of privacy the UK leads the world in mass surveillance next time your there count how many cameras you see on the streets.
  • Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 6:21 am


    Hmmm wonder why the charges were dropped??? Watch for more of the same this November.
  • Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10742 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 8:28 am
    pissing match over who`s supporters are bigger idiots.

    Wow, not enough facepalm to go around for the idiots in that video. That`s a LOT worse than Leno`s Jaywalking segments.
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 8:58 am
    Sorry HumanAction but that person was not a voter. It can not be voter intimidation if you are not a voter. There had to be voters come forward not poll watchers. And zero voter came forward to say they were intimidated. The poll watchers can be a bunch of partisan wackos. The New Black Panthers prove that. Why do you trust yours more? That is the question.
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 9:05 am
    "... and the Seahawks touchdown was BS."

    I absolutely 100% agree. I was there. It happened on the other side of he field. We were going nuts. When I got home though I watched the replay and there was no doubt Jennings had full control of the ball. Someone is getting fired today,
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 9:09 am
    "Hmmm wonder why the charges were dropped??? Watch for more of the same this November."

    Uh, because no voters came forward to say they were intimidated. Also it was decided to drop this under the Bush administration. Not sure how many times it takes to say a truth before it gets through a lie.
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 9:24 am
    Also the nightsticks photoshopped into that poster were really done poorly. Not even the poster is the truth. Kind of wraps up this whole argument.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 9:26 am
    @mark: I think we are debating on two different principles... From what I gather, you are arguing that there was no LEGAL case to be made; I agree (if a rape victim does not come forward, then there is no legal case to be had). Without someone directly accusing the aggressor every other piece of evidence is either heresay or speculation; the case was wisely dismissed.

    I`m arguing that the evidence, in my opinion, strongly suggests that this was voter intimidation. I mean honestly, it`s the first time there is a black man on the ballot and a member of the NBPP shows up at the polling center with a billy-club. Two plus two equals four even if it isn`t written down.

    Consider a different crime; just because a rape victim does not accuse her attacker does not mean that rape did not occur.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 9:27 am
    @mark: Also the nightsticks photoshopped into that poster were really done poorly. Not even the poster is the truth. Kind of wraps up this whole argument.
    There`s a video out that was submitted as evidence that clearly shows ONE member with a billy club.
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 9:52 am
    "There`s a video out that was submitted as evidence that clearly shows ONE member with a billy club."

    This is why I don`t like talking with people like you. Every rebuttal is a change in stance. It`s like trying to argue with water. No one is saying the guy didn`t have a night stick. I was saying the poster is a clear fabrication. The same as the lie that this was case was decided to be thrown out under Obama.
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 9:59 am
    "I`m arguing that the evidence, in my opinion, strongly suggests that this was voter intimidation. I mean honestly, it`s the first time there is a black man on the ballot and a member of the NBPP shows up at the polling center with a billy-club. Two plus two equals four even if it isn`t written down."

    Again you are changing your stance. But I agree. A black man standing in front of a poling place beating a night stick against his hands hits me as voter intimidation. Even if it was a mostly all black polling place. He was removed and no voters came forward to say they were intimidated so there was no case.
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 9:59 am
    How come one man out of 300 people the NBP sent to the polls is turned into a year long story on Fox? This was clearly a case of one bad apple. Why does Fox have to lie and say it represents the whole group? And I am not sticking up for the NBP. I think they are a hate group.
  • Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 9:59 am
    @markust123

    Obviously the poster is photoshopped it`s call humor this on the other hand is real.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:02 am
    @mark: This is why I don`t like talking with people like you. Every rebuttal is a change in stance.
    How did you arrive at the conclusion that I`ve changed my stance? If by "change in stance" you mean present a clear and definite logical path, then I`ll submit as guilty right now.

    I understand that YOU stated that the poster was invalid; that`s cool man. I stated that the video has been received as legitimate; that`s pretty cool too. At no point in that post did I say that YOU were wrong, merely that there is evidence that supports the opposite of your implications.

    This is how a debate works. One side provides evidence to support their claim(s). The other side then has the option to provide their own evidence, or attempt to disprove/discredit the other sides evidence...
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:04 am
    "Obviously the poster is photoshopped it`s call humor"

    Its not humor if you have to explain that it was meant to be funny.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:06 am
    @mark: Again, I have not yet changed my stance.

    First, I at no point stated that there was a LEGAL case. I stated that I believe I crime was committed. I have stated nothing that contradicts this point of view.

    Next, you stated that not a single voter came forward and I disagreed. I gave evidence that a US citizen (therefore a voter) came forward and stated that he was intimidated. I DID NOT claim that he was voting at that time, nor that he was intimidated away from voting. I stated that, a) he is a voter (this is true), and that b) he was intimidated (sworn testimony).

    Once again, you are extrapolating more from my words than was written. If you read through my posts again, you will see that I am consistent and accurate.
  • Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:10 am
    @markust123

    Oh ya and in the video I linked that`s his walking stick right?? ROFL!!
  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:15 am
    "How did you arrive at the conclusion that I`ve changed my stance? If by "change in stance" you mean present a clear and definite logical path, then I`ll submit as guilty right now."

    I have had one main unchanged stance that it was thrown out because no voters came forward to say they were intimidated. You said that I was incorrect. When I proved your defendants were not voters you changed this to you feel the evidence is voter intimidation. You do this all the time. Not as bad as CrakrJak.

    "At no point in that post did I say that YOU were wrong"

    Really? "I`m sure you know that I will admit when I`m wrong, but I am not in this matter; you are incorrect." This is the problem with being shifty is you can`t keep track of the spin.

  • Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3919 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:17 am
    "Next, you stated that not a single voter came forward and I disagreed. I gave evidence that a US citizen (therefore a voter) came forward and stated that he was intimidated. I DID NOT claim that he was voting at that time, nor that he was intimidated away from voting. I stated that, a) he is a voter (this is true), and that b) he was intimidated (sworn testimony). "

    Jesus Christ shape shifter. I`m out of here.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:26 am
    @mark: OK; here is what is wrong with your comments and here is why I am correct:

    "At no point IN THAT POST did I say that YOU were wrong"

    See now? I highlighted it for you. The example you provide is from a much earlier post, not the post being referenced here.

    Next, here is your statement:

    Funny how not one single voter came forward to say they had actually been intimidated
    So your logical argument is composed of two pieces: not a single voter came forward; and no person came forward claiming they had been intimidated.

    I presented a person who IS A VOTER (how can you claim he is not a voter??) AND claimed that he was intimidated. You need to rephrase your statement because, what you said is INCORRECT.

    You meant that "no person came forward and claimed that they directly suffered from voter intimidation." You did not say this.

    You`re wrong and that`s why.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:31 am
    @mark: I have had one main unchanged stance that it was thrown out because no voters came forward to say they were intimidated. You said that I was incorrect.
    Here is yet another example of you saying something that is INCORRECT. You meant to say something else, but the words you wrote down are wrong.

    To prove that statement incorrect, I need to show that someone came forward who was both a voter and claimed he/she was intimidated.

    First part, let`s prove that the man who came forward was a voter. He is a citizen over 18 with no felony record. Therefore, he is a voter. Perhaps he was not voting, but he is a voter.

    Next part, he directly claims to have been intimidated. Done.

    See? Again, you meant to say more, but you didn`t. The literal statement you`ve provided is logically incorrect.
  • Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    September 25, 2012 at 10:44 am
    @mark: Actually, there`s still even more that I can attack here (you gave me a lot of material to work with).

    When I proved your defendants were not voters
    You did not prove this. You showed that they were not voting, but you did not prove that they were not voters. They are voters, and your statement here is incorrect because of that fact.

    Furthermore, using your own logic, you are both "changing your stance" and "shape shifting".

    The New Black Panthers stated before the election that they would deploy 300 poll watchers across the United States.
    A black man standing in front of a poling place beating a night stick against his hands hits me as voter intimidation.
    Well which is it? You first try to imply that they were merely security, then you say you think it hints at voter intimidation. Quit changing your stance.
  • Leave a Reply