Deranged Rhino Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, Kemp said: You answered a question with a question. I'll try and answer your questions, but if not if you avoid mine. Tom and B answered above. It's a state v federal issue for McConnel, it has nothing to do with Russia or Putin or a scheme to make the country's elections less safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 30 minutes ago, B-Man said: It is not true, you are only providing a small amount of what is occuring in the senate. and for that matter, what the hell bill CAN they pass that safeguards elections from all foreign attacks, ID needed ? Less time for pre-voting ? prevent Vote Harvesting ? See if the virtuous democrats will sign on to those................ All of these sources are wrong?https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/us/politics/election-security-mitch-mcconnell.htmlhttps://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/450334-senate-gop-blocks-election-security-bill https://thehill.com/homenews/house/450737-house-passes-sweeping-democrat-backed-election-security-billhttps://www.salon.com/2019/05/30/despite-muellers-warning-mcconnell-blocks-bipartisan-election-security-bills/ https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/election-security-russia-1296865 https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-block-250-million-election-security-measure-1533144561 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Tom and B answered above. It's a state v federal issue for McConnel, it has nothing to do with Russia or Putin or a scheme to make the country's elections less safe. If it's a case of states rights, which states have enacted similar measures as to what's in the federal bills? 30 minutes ago, DC Tom said: What are you trying to argue, that McConnell is Putin's agent too? He's doing so because he believes - and the Constitution says - that the mechanics of elections are the purview of state and local authorities, not the federal government. You may not disagree with him. But that is his reason, and it is a cogent and legally supportable one. Arguing "because he wants Russia to interfere in our elections" is childish. As I wrote to Rhino, if it's a states rights issue, which states have addressed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 So Obama was in on it too? I distinctly remember him telling the nation how safe our election system was. He must’ve really hated Clinton! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 9 minutes ago, Kemp said: If it's a case of states rights, which states have enacted similar measures as to what's in the federal bills? It's your turn to answer my question. I answered yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 Back to the thread topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: It's your turn to answer my question. I answered yours Okay. Here is the follow-up part of Mr. Prieto's testimony: "That is an accurate rendering of the conversation at the staff meeting but the larger context is something that we can discuss in the classified session," Daniel said. "But I can say there were many concerns about how many people were involved in the development of the options so the decision at that point was to neck down the number of people that were involved in our ongoing response options. It's not accurate to say all activities ceased at that point. " Daniel and his team were tasked in developing options to Russia's cyberattacks on the United States. Russian hacked the Democratic National Committee servers in 2015 and into voter registration systems of several U.S. states in 2016. Risch asked if Daniel's area of supervision completely ceased after the "stand down" order. "No, we shifted our focus in that September and October time frame to focus heavily on better protecting and assisting the states in better protecting the electoral infrastructure and ensuring that we had the greatest visibility as possible into what the Russians were doing and developing essentially an incident response plan for election day," Daniel said. So, there were clearly other parts of this story still being investigated. It was not dropped. My turn, again. Which states have addressed the issue since McConnell says it's a state issue? His own state doesn't even have a paper trail. Nine other states — Pennsylvania, Texas, Kansas, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, and Mississippi — use a combination of paper ballots and electronic machines without a paper trail, per Verified Voting. Perhaps this list is no longer accurate because it's from February, 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 36 minutes ago, Kemp said: As I wrote to Rhino, if it's a states rights issue, which states have addressed it? Don't know, and it's not relevant. It's states' rights to not address it as well. That's what "state rights" means. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 21 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Don't know, and it's not relevant. It's states' rights to not address it as well. That's what "state rights" means. Wow! Your argument is that states don't necessarily care if their voting outcomes can be altered by outside entities. The only conclusion that can be drawn from that, is that Republicans would prefer that results favor them, even if criminally attained. An interesting take, to say the least. It's not often that one argues for the side of criminal interference against fair elections in America, at least by a loyal American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Kemp said: Wow! Your argument is that states don't necessarily care if their voting outcomes can be altered by outside entities. I'm arguing it's their right to determine the risk and act as they see fit. 7 minutes ago, Kemp said: The only conclusion that can be drawn from that, is that Republicans would prefer that results favor them, even if criminally attained. An interesting take, to say the least. If that's the only conclusion you can draw, it merely demonstrates that you're a narrow-minded idiot. Which is not a surprise, since you're woefully short on facts and long on bull####. You didn't even read the articles you linked to, did you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 Yup 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Again? Who the hell has been taking them seriously for the past 3 years? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: "They're going to have their Confederate flags flying and their license plates and all kinds of trouble making..." NOOOOOOO!!!!!! Not LICENSE PLATES!!!!!! Go drunk, Chris, you're home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 1 hour ago, Kemp said: Wow! Your argument is that states don't necessarily care if their voting outcomes can be altered by outside entities. The only conclusion that can be drawn from that, is that Republicans would prefer that results favor them, even if criminally attained. An interesting take, to say the least. It's not often that one argues for the side of criminal interference against fair elections in America, at least by a loyal American. Do you even understand what a Federal Republic is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 1 hour ago, Kemp said: Wow! Your argument is that states don't necessarily care if their voting outcomes can be altered by outside entities. The only conclusion that can be drawn from that, is that Republicans would prefer that results favor them, even if criminally attained. An interesting take, to say the least. It's not often that one argues for the side of criminal interference against fair elections in America, at least by a loyal American. His argument isn’t that states don’t necessarily care, they obviously do care. Perhaps several states don’t believe that ameding their laws will prove to safeguard their elections. There are most likely several measures that can be undertaken — or don’t need to be taken. I’m positive that laws don’t need to be passed to make elections “safer”.. Do you think there’s no internal review going on or measures being taken? You say that the only conclusion to be drawn is that Republicans don’t care, as long as cheating goes their way? That’s ridiculous. There are predominantly Republican-controlled states and predominantly Democrat-controlled states. Are only D states doing something to safeguard elections? What laws have they passed? What internal measures have they undertaken? Have any R states made any changes or review? It is a states-rights argument. It is absolutely correct. The solution to every problem is not a Fedarally mandated one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 19 hours ago, DC Tom said: I'm arguing it's their right to determine the risk and act as they see fit. If that's the only conclusion you can draw, it merely demonstrates that you're a narrow-minded idiot. Which is not a surprise, since you're woefully short on facts and long on bull####. You didn't even read the articles you linked to, did you? "It's states' rights to not address it as well". This is one of my favorite things I've ever read here. I choose to not try and preserve a fair and honest election process because well you know........ What risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 19 hours ago, Kemp said: Wow! Your argument is that states don't necessarily care if their voting outcomes can be altered by outside entities. The only conclusion that can be drawn from that, is that Republicans would prefer that results favor them, even if criminally attained. An interesting take, to say the least. It's not often that one argues for the side of criminal interference against fair elections in America, at least by a loyal American. Its only when the Dems lose that they whine and play this card. Never a peep from them when they win boo hoo freakin hoooooo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 17 hours ago, Koko78 said: Do you even understand what a Federal Republic is? A lot better than the fellow who believes there is a "risk" in having an honest election. Maybe you can tell us about this risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Kemp said: A lot better than the fellow who believes there is a "risk" in having an honest election. Maybe you can tell us about this risk. You still have no understanding of what happened in 2016 and who exactly interfered with the election. Which is a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts