Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Senate GOP blocks three election security bills

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Nope, so why are the Democrats so against voter registration ID laws?
    They're not, all voters have to register, but they are against corrupt republican legislators illegally throwing people of the registration rolls, moving polling places without notification, forcing college students to return to their home states in order to vote, throwing out ballots because the signature looks slightly different than the one on the register etc etc. That's how republicans win, and we know you're okay with that. We'd most likely have a democrat governor in Georgia right now if not for the current Governors election shananigans.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post


      What are you talking about? First of all, there was nothing illegal about the phone call. This can be verified simply by reading the transcript. Even Vindman in his testimony to the House refused to be pinned down on declaring the phone call improper, saying that he only believed it to be improper (in other words, he was doing nothing more than expressing his opinion rather than declaring an objective fact).
      Yes, it was illegal, it was bribery/extortion by way of soliciting foreign help in smearing a political opponent which is itself an abuse of power.
      Furthermore, Vindman didn't blow the whistle; rather, he improperly leaked privileged details of the phone call (along with his own embellishments) to CIA stooge Eric Ciarmella who was the one who eventually wrote the whistle blower complaint in coordination with Shifty Schiff.
      Doesn't matter, as I've already explained to you, Vindman, according to the military whistleblower law, is protected by it whether he was the one who actually reported the crime to the IG or not. As for Ciarmella, whether he is the one who blew the whistle is an educated guess, there is no confirmation as to the actual identity of the whistleblower. But, who the actual whistleblower is, is irrelevant anyway.

      Btw, don't just make stuff up, MM. You have no knowledge that Schiff had anything to do with the writing of the complaint.

      And this after the IG changed the rules to allow unverified hearsay as a whistle blower complaint.
      It's always unverified hearsay until it's investigated.
      Seriously, man, find some better sources, because your grasp of the facts is tenuous at best.
      Seriously man, try using your own brain once in a while rather than spouting conservative talkingpointsfordummies.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
        Yes, it was illegal, it was bribery/extortion by way of soliciting foreign help in smearing a political opponent which is itself an abuse of power.

        Doesn't matter, as I've already explained to you, Vindman, according to the military whistleblower law, is protected by it whether he was the one who actually reported the crime to the IG or not. As for Ciarmella, whether he is the one who blew the whistle is an educated guess, there is no confirmation as to the actual identity of the whistleblower. But, who the actual whistleblower is, is irrelevant anyway.

        Btw, don't just make stuff up, MM. You have no knowledge that Schiff had anything to do with the writing of the complaint.


        It's always unverified hearsay until it's investigated.

        Seriously man, try using your own brain once in a while rather than spouting conservative talkingpointsfordummies.
        If you're going to try and insult someone, at least try to be original.

        It wasn't illegal. Again, read the transcript. Nothing illegal in it, and not even Vindman the Traitor could bring himself to say that it was actually improper.

        Yes, we know for a fact that Schiff had contact with Ciaramella. He admitted it, remember?

        https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sch...-whistleblower

        A firsthand account is not hearsay, you dope, which was the standard for whistle blowers until the form was changed to allow secondhand rumors.

        Face it, Jimmy, you're ignorant, and whatever sources you trust are misinforming you, possibly intentionally.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          If you're going to try and insult someone, at least try to be original.

          It wasn't illegal. Again, read the transcript. Nothing illegal in it, and not even Vindman the Traitor could bring himself to say that it was actually improper.
          Duh, yes it was illegal and the corroborating evidence was proof of it's illegality. He, by use of the withholding of military aid, violating the Impoundment act, failing to inform Congress, was extorting a foreign government to smear a political opponent. Even many of the republican jurist in the Senate finally had to admit to that.
          Yes, we know for a fact that Schiff had contact with Ciaramella. He admitted it, remember?

          https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sch...-whistleblower
          No he didn't admit to that, he admitted that the whistleblower met with his staff. You're false assertion was that Schiff coordinated with the whistleblower in the writing of the complaint.
          A firsthand account is not hearsay, you dope, which was the standard for whistle blowers until the form was changed to allow secondhand rumors.
          Doesn't matter, MM. What you call hearsay turned out to be fact. As M. Mulvaney would say, get over it.
          Face it, Jimmy, you're ignorant, and whatever sources you trust are misinforming you, possibly intentionally.
          You've got Breitbart on the brain, MM. You should get treatment for that, but I'm afraid in your case it's probably malignant.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by seanD View Post
            Because the election process we have now is fine. There are no Russian boogiemen influencing US voters on a mass scale;
            Not so. The Mueller Report found that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law". The report relayed two methods by which Russia attempted to influence the election. And the Intelligence agencies have been warning of similar interference regarding the upcoming presidential election. Although, it's obviously in the interests of Trump and his supporters to allow this to occur - if not in the interests of the country nor the free world.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Not so. The Mueller Report found that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law". The report relayed two methods by which Russia attempted to influence the election. And the Intelligence agencies have been warning of similar interference regarding the upcoming presidential election. Although, it's obviously in the interests of Trump and his supporters to allow this to occur - if not in the interests of the country nor the free world.
              There is no evidence any votes were influenced by Russia. Zero. And the "attempts" described are laughable. However, if I were a liberal progressive, I'd legitimately be concerned about DNC corruption and election meddling in their own primaries, from indications both in 2016 with Bernie Sanders to the current, especially with what recently went down in Iowa. If not corruption and tampering -- which is difficult not to assume -- just gross negligence.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                There is no evidence any votes were influenced by Russia. Zero.
                Well we can never know whether or not any votes were influenced by Russia. It’s probable that they were given that Russia made a considerable effort to meddle in the election. And the evidence is that Russia continues to do so. Russia would not be engaged in such activity if it did not believe it was effective.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Well we can never know whether or not any votes were influenced by Russia. It’s probable that they were given that Russia made a considerable effort to meddle in the election. And the evidence is that Russia continues to do so. Russia would not be engaged in such activity if it did not believe it was effective.
                  Or it could just be trolling foreign actors doing it to screw with us, knowing how hyper paranoid we'll get (observing how paranoid we got after 911) and how divisive and politically disruptive it would be, just like it is today. Or it could be the intelligence communities exaggerating it because they need a new national boogieman to justify their sickening overblown budgets (Bush era Jihadi terrorism fearmongering kind of went out of style when we discovered we were actually funding and supporting these groups in Libya and Syria). Or it could be a combo of both

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    Or it could just be trolling foreign actors doing it to screw with us, knowing how hyper paranoid we'll get (observing how paranoid we got after 911) and how divisive and politically disruptive it would be, just like it is today. Or it could be the intelligence communities exaggerating it because they need a new national boogieman to justify their sickening overblown budgets (Bush era Jihadi terrorism fearmongering kind of went out of style when we discovered we were actually funding and supporting these groups in Libya and Syria). Or it could be a combo of both
                    Or, most likely, Mueller's Report finding that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" favoring Trump against Hillary had an unknown degree of influence on the 2016 election results. But sufficient to encourage Russia to do it again in the forthcoming 2020 presidential election as is detected by US Intel. Agencies.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                      Or, most likely, Mueller's Report finding that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" favoring Trump against Hillary had an unknown degree of influence on the 2016 election results. But sufficient to encourage Russia to do it again in the forthcoming 2020 presidential election as is detected by US Intel. Agencies.
                      In fact, the Mueller report's case for Russian attempts to influence the election is shockingly weak and contradictory.

                      But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:

                      * The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
                      * The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
                      * There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
                      * Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
                      * U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
                      * Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
                      * Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
                      * Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
                      * John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

                      None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it.

                      https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html

                      Which is to say that if you were asked to prove Russian interference, and your evidence was the Mueller report, then you would have an uphill battle on very steep slope. 2-years and $30 million dollars for Mueller to basically shrug his shoulders and say, "We really don't know."
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        They're not, all voters have to register, but they are against corrupt republican legislators illegally throwing people of the registration rolls, moving polling places without notification, forcing college students to return to their home states in order to vote, throwing out ballots because the signature looks slightly different than the one on the register etc etc. That's how republicans win, and we know you're okay with that. We'd most likely have a democrat governor in Georgia right now if not for the current Governors election shananigans.
                        Yes, they are against simple ID laws such as showing an ID at the polls. Any law that would protect our elections by making sure only citizens can vote are consistently blocked by democrats.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Yes, they are against simple ID laws such as showing an ID at the polls. Any law that would protect our elections by making sure only citizens can vote are consistently blocked by democrats.
                          That there are people illegally voting is a canard used by republicans to suppress the vote and that has been adjudicated and proven time and time again. It is not only ID laws, it is the removing of people from the registers, the closing and moving of polling stations, the rejecting of ballots due to signatures that look slightly different than previously etc etc. That is how republicans win, and that is why you are all for it, not because you want to protect the system.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            That there are people illegally voting is a canard used by republicans to suppress the vote and that has been adjudicated and proven time and time again. It is not only ID laws, it is the removing of people from the registers, the closing and moving of polling stations, the rejecting of ballots due to signatures that look slightly different than previously etc etc. That is how republicans win, and that is why you are all for it, not because you want to protect the system.
                            So you aren't for any bills which seek to make sure our elections are protected and only influenced by Americans, after all?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              In fact, the Mueller report's case for Russian attempts to influence the election is shockingly weak and contradictory.

                              But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:

                              * The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
                              * The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
                              * There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
                              * Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
                              * U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
                              * Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
                              * Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
                              * Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
                              * John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

                              None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it.

                              https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html

                              Which is to say that if you were asked to prove Russian interference, and your evidence was the Mueller report, then you would have an uphill battle on very steep slope. 2-years and $30 million dollars for Mueller to basically shrug his shoulders and say, "We really don't know."
                              Also, something I hardly EVER see anyone talking about, the company that alleged to have discovered Russian bots in social media endorsing Trump, New Knowledge, was the same company that got caught creating fake Russian bots to try and frame a Republican running for the senate in Alabama. I'm not sure if the Mueller report referenced this company or the Russian bots, but the Senate intelligence report definitely referenced this company and their findings.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                So you aren't for any bills which seek to make sure our elections are protected and only influenced by Americans, after all?
                                The only bills republicans come up with are those which undermine free and democratic elections by purposely suppressing the opposition vote and we've seen that over and over again.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                75 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                52 responses
                                262 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                83 responses
                                348 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X