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

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#61

Post by SilverElfin »

tptacek wrote: post #17

This wouldn't be on-topic for HN even if it wasn't running in "Newsweek" --- even if a sitting senator had said it, mere proposals are explicitly off-topic --- but I always feel like it's useful to call out the fact that "Newsweek" is a grift publication. The Newsweek your parents read went out of business a decade and a half ago, and was purchased by a cult and run as an SEO farm. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=a…

Why is a proposal off-topic? Who decides what is on-topic and off-topic? It seems quite relevant to me, since the administration regularly has people putting out statements that either test the waters or try to normalize some idea. And those statements have significant impact on many readers of HN.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#62

Post by SilverElfin »

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.

They’re recruiting aggressively right now, and ICE received over 200K applications per some statement they put out. So they’ll probably be at 40K+ agents by mid-year. Note that while there are thousands of election places, there are only a small number of states that are deciders for the elections, since others are solidly blue or red. And in those states, there are only a handful of blue cities for Trump/GOP to disrupt. And even within those cities, it’s easy to figure out which areas are likely voting one way or the other. ICE already has far more agents than every local police force in every one of those locations. They would overwhelm everyone if they do this.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#63

Post by SilverElfin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #41
OutOfHere wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

That’s for the presidential elections right? For midterms wouldn’t they target swing districts that determine House seats?

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#64

Post by dragonwriter »

SilverElfin wrote: post #63
dragonwriter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

That’s for the presidential elections right? For midterms wouldn’t they target swing districts that determine House seats?

Sure, I was thinking in terms of the presidential; but its pretty similar for midterms, you'd still mostly want to target Democratic and not swing precincts, but those in swing congressional districts rather than swing states; precincts are typically on the several hundred to a few thousand people; congressional districts are several hundred thousand to just over a million people.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#65

Post by jeffbee »

mcphage wrote: post #51
jeffbee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The ICE guys will be hanging around in urban neighborhoods with lots of minorities. Such as parts of Milwaukee and Detroit. Which they have been. How did that go in the special election a few days ago?

There was a recent first-past-the-post statewide special election somewhere?

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#66

Post by QuantumGood »

deepfriedchokes wrote: post #48
dyauspitr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#67

Post by bmitch3020 »

secretballot wrote: post #29

This is a predictable play. This had a highish likelihood of happening the moment they announced the massive, rapid funding and personnel expansion. Now that "abolish ICE" (ICE being their critically-important newly-empowered end-run around Posse Comitatus) is trending, they basically have to play every card they've got, or risk seeing their project set back by at least a few years, just as it's gaining steam. It'll…

One thing states can do is expand early voting. The longer people have to vote, at more locations, the harder it is to focus this chaos on specific precincts on a single day.

The second thing they can do is ensure the police force is on their side. Remove officers that would collaborate with attempts to overthrow an election. Require training, monitor social media, ensure qualified immunity cannot protect them, and make sure they are aware.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#68

Post by tim333 »

SilverElfin wrote: post #60
tmaly wrote: post #40

Bannon is being funded by a foreign agent. His job is to create controversy.

One thing that surprised me in the Epstein files is just how much Epstein was intertwined in various foreign relations. Like Peter Thiel repeatedly meeting Russian officials and his Kremlin handler (literally) at Epstein’s properties. And various Israeli people conducting business there. Isn’t Thiel collaborating with Russians treasonous? What does it mean when you have this set of people who are all working together…

It all certainly looks iffy. Donald Tusk the Polish prime minister was saying Epstein was probably working for the Russians and getting kompromat for them. There seems to have been a deliberate effort to rope in as many people as possible. It's probably not legally treason but not good.

Re: Steve Bannon Proposes Using ICE in Elections

#70

Post by tim333 »

tptacek wrote: post #17

This wouldn't be on-topic for HN even if it wasn't running in "Newsweek" --- even if a sitting senator had said it, mere proposals are explicitly off-topic --- but I always feel like it's useful to call out the fact that "Newsweek" is a grift publication. The Newsweek your parents read went out of business a decade and a half ago, and was purchased by a cult and run as an SEO farm. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=a…

The guidelines have:

>Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

You could argue it's an interesting new phenomenon?

The same story is in loads of publications.

Post reply on HN