Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 99 posts

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

OutOfHere wrote: post #36
rawgabbit wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Election Day, they will deploy ICE to traditionally Democratic voting precincts. This is how they will "solve" electoral fraud.

It is the swing precincts and states that they will deploy it to.

No, if it was maximizing suppression bang for the buck it would be the Democratic precincts in swing states, not “swing precincts and states”, because electoral votes (except for 5—out of the 9 in Nebraska and Maine—that are determined by Congressional district) are decided by statewide (not precinct level) outcomes, so you get the maximum effect on the outcome by suppressing the vote in Democratic-leaning areas of swing states, not by targeting precincts that are near parity in the same states.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#42

Post by secretballot »

general1465 wrote: post #39

How many ICE agents is there? How many elections places are in USA? They would be spread so thinly that it would not even matter.

A very high proportion of seats in any given election are, for "natural" or gerrymandering reasons, regarded as "safe seats" for their incumbent or (if the incumbent isn't running) party. These can all be ignored, unless you're just wanting to mess with a few polling places in safe Democratic districts to further a narrative of election chaos. For actually directly changing outcomes, they're irrelevant.

A seat that is likely to flip is probably going to be a relatively close race.

There are a bunch of public and private sources you can use, and databases both parties have already compiled, to find out which polling places are likely to be overwhelmingly visited by one party's voters over the other.

A majority of one in the House, and a tie in the Senate, is all the White House needs to mostly prevent Congress from messing with them much (though larger margins are better).

Combine all these facts and they have more than enough ICE agents to have a huge effect on the outcomes. They only need to show up in a handful of specific places to completely change the course of the next couple years.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#43

Post by jeffbee »

general1465 wrote: post #39

How many ICE agents is there? How many elections places are in USA? They would be spread so thinly that it would not even matter.

I keep hearing this, but it doesn't make sense. This is electionist cope. The elections are decided in a handful of states with narrow margins. The ICE guys will be hanging around in urban neighborhoods with lots of minorities. Such as parts of Milwaukee and Detroit.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#44

Post by jeffbee »

mothballed wrote: post #30
toomuchtodo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, I…

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.

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.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#45

Post by atmavatar »

mothballed wrote: post #35
_aleph2c_ wrote: post #28

[flagged]

A bazillion cases have determined you can be ID'd to exercise a right granted to 'people'. (Illinois FOID still hasn't been overthrown). The constitution protects rights of citizens to vote. It does seem bizarre you need an ID to show you are a 'person' to exercise the right of people, but not an ID to show you are a citizen to exercise the right of citizens. I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's blindingly inc…

It also seems bizarre that living US citizens were denied birth certificates because hospitals refused treatment of their pregnant moms due to race, forcing them to use midwives.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#46

Post by toomuchtodo »

jeffbee wrote: post #44
mothballed wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 alre…

> A stand-your-ground law, sometimes called a "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law, provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against certain violent crimes (right of self-defense). Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present. The exact details vary by jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#United_S... (status by US state)

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#48

Post by deepfriedchokes »

dyauspitr wrote: post #4
cf100clunk wrote: post #2

Voter intimidation is against the law.

This administration is lawless.

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.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#49

Post by breakpointalpha »

rawgabbit wrote: post #25
SilverElfin wrote: post #3

A lot of people have been concerned that ICE is turning into a personal army for Trump. This year they will expand ICE to over 40,000 agents allegedly. This is enough to overwhelm police departments in every jurisdiction. There is a real possibility that these agents will continue detainment of people, even if they are US citizens, as they are trying to vote. Perhaps they will use their facial recognition app, Mobile…

On Election Day, they will deploy ICE to traditionally Democratic voting precincts. This is how they will "solve" electoral fraud.

1. Deploy ICE agents wearing milsim gear to key Dem voting locations.

2. Allow the crowd to yell at them.

3. Use the crowd agitation as an opportunity to escalate and go "hands on".

4. Cause a ruckus.

5. Use the ruckus as justification for closing the polling location for the rest of the day.

6. Count the Republican votes, discard the Dem votes.

7. Declare landslide victory.

8. Ignore calls for extended voting or recounts.

Post reply on HN