So, Voter Rolls Were ACTUALLY Breeched?

[Kutnupe14]

Kut: do you support voter ID requirements to prove you are who you say you are?

Are you against motor voter laws where simply obtaining a drivers license allows you to register to vote without citizenship verification given that some states allow drivers license for noncitizens?

Do you oppose house delegates being decided by population instead of by citizen count? If there are 5 million illegal aliens in California for example, those are counted towards how many representatives California gets.

Just trying to get a baseline for how important you consider the integrity of our voter rolls to be

Yes, but I do not support the shenanigans, often associated with voter ID laws.
Yes, and illegals shouldn't be given driver's license, and registered aliens should have specific DLs, outside of those given to citizens.
Depends, illegals should not be counted for representation, while legal aliens should.

 

[hoosierdoc]

It seems like he is more worried about Russians and Republicans when it comes to voting. Undocumented Democrats, not so much

*GASP*

so... he’s like a fireman driving past homes burning because someone reported smoke at the edge of town? Yes... yes...

 

[hoosierdoc]

Yes, but I do not support the shenanigans, often associated with voter ID laws.
Yes, and illegals shouldn't be given driver's license, and registered aliens should have specific DLs, outside of those given to citizens.
Depends, illegals should not be counted for representation, while legal aliens should.

and do you realize each of those scenarios has a MuCH more significant impact on the outcome of elections and impacts of the results than anything Russia can do?

 

[Kutnupe14]

and do you realize each of those scenarios has a MuCH more significant impact on the outcome of elections and impacts of the results than anything Russia can do?

Potentially, but in practice, unproven.

Voter IDs, in some cases, seem more designed for suppression, than ensuring the sanctity of the vote.

 

[BugI02]

Yes, pity the hundreds of thousands of people who can't cash a check or use a credit card, all of which take more rigorous identification than what is allowed to be required to vote

Their entire lives are suppressed

 

[Kenxq5471]

That doesn't make a lot of sense since Trump tried to get the voter roles turned over to the Fed so it could be investigated and every demo state said no, with the exception of four who thought they would lose funding.

Why doesn't everybody sit back and quit being Sherlock Holmes and let Trump defeat the Deep State, including Mueller.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That doesn't make a lot of sense since Trump tried to get the voter roles turned over to the Fed so it could be investigated and every demo state said no, with the exception of four who thought they would lose funding.

Why doesn't everybody sit back and quit being Sherlock Holmes and let Trump defeat the Deep State, including Mueller.

Because a lot of people prefer the "deep state," to the "dictatorship."

 

[BugI02]

41%?

 

[DNS]

Their was only one dictatorship who made law with his pen and phone.

 

[JOSEYWALES]

 

[Kutnupe14]

View attachment 63962

Well according to the Intelligence Chiefs, they are already attempting shenanigans with the 2018 elections. When asked if president had instructed them to take action to prevent such shenanigans, the chiefs said they were not "directly instructed." I take that to mean he didn't say ****. He's probably more likely to tell them (the intelligence chiefs) to "cut it out." I wish someone would explain to me why the president still hasn't implemented the sanctions passed by Congress.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Am I remembering correctly? Wasn’t there an Ingoer a few years back who wasn’t allowed to vote for some total crap reason?

What he was wearing to the polls or something.
Everyone got worked up.
Lawsuit.
Money paid?

Not sure if he was made to show his pink card or not.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

So , that Ruskies did it and they needed Trump to collude with them ?
Maybe he let them see ' The Big Board ' .
In other news , our special types and theirs seem to be getting better aquatinted .

 

[D.R.SCOTT]

The Russian hacking story reminds me of how the government OPSEC community reignited interest in UFO story's in order to prevent people from identifying the flight capabilities of the F117 Nighthawk when it was in top secret phase in the 70's, not being officially released to public knowledge till almost the 90's (88).

AKA made up story as a Red Herring to get people to look away from the real issue of what was going on with the Dem party.

 

[BugI02]

Well according to the Intelligence Chiefs, they are already attempting shenanigans with the 2018 elections. When asked if president had instructed them to take action to prevent such shenanigans, the chiefs said they were not "directly instructed." I take that to mean he didn't say ****. He's probably more likely to tell them (the intelligence chiefs) to "cut it out." I wish someone would explain to me why the president still hasn't implemented the sanctions passed by Congress.

I wish someone could explain to me why these "intelligence chiefs" you speak of; who, among other shortcomings, wouldn't or couldn't stop such things as NKorea's cyberattacks on US corporations and Russia's ransomware attack on Ukraine, would/should be ignoring their own usual overblown concerns about sources and methods (when information might be uncomfortable for them) and be speaking of what methods (possibly exposing sources) the russians are rolling out in preparation for 2018

It smacks of a "keep the narrative going" gestalt rather than any principled attempt to protect the US electoral system. Given the "intelligence community's" current lack of credibility in this area, its easier to believe they wish to protect the swamp within which they wallow. I look forward to the day, hopefully coming soon, when the rank and file; whom these men and women are tarring with their partisanship as leaders, turn on them and expose them for what they are

 

[JOSEYWALES]

Well according to the Intelligence Chiefs, they are already attempting shenanigans with the 2018 elections. When asked if president had instructed them to take action to prevent such shenanigans, the chiefs said they were not "directly instructed." I take that to mean he didn't say ****. He's probably more likely to tell them (the intelligence chiefs) to "cut it out." I wish someone would explain to me why the president still hasn't implemented the sanctions passed by Congress.

This is what America has been hearing forever... OPINION!

None of what you say can be substantiated by ANY means!
"According to..." More BS
Who asked 'the chiefs"? You don't know, do you?
"He probably..." More BS
So you feel that you need to be 'in the loop' on matters of National Security?
Playing 'keyboard political expert' is not your strong suit...

A federal grand jury on Friday indicted 13 Russians and three Russian companies for allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election - NO AMERICANS

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is what America has been hearing forever... OPINION!

None of what you say can be substantiated by ANY means!
"According to..." More BS
Who asked 'the chiefs"? You don't know, do you?
"He probably..." More BS
So you feel that you need to be 'in the loop' on matters of National Security?
Playing 'keyboard political expert' is not your strong suit...

A federal grand jury on Friday indicted 13 Russians and three Russian companies for allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election - NO AMERICANS

Lol, a noob trying to cut his teeth on what he apparently thought was an easy mark. Let me correct that fallacy.

Allow me to refute your "none of what you say can be substantiated."
First we will start with the definition of "substantiated."
Substantiated- Provide evidence to support or prove the proof of.

Ok, to brass tacks. On Tuesday, February 13th there was a congressional hearing. Dan Coats(DNI), Christopher Wray(FBI), Mike Pompeo (CIA), Adm. Michael Rogers (NSA), Gen. Robert Ashley (DIA), and Robert Carillo (NGIA) were all in attendance. People refer to them as intelligence chiefs. You should note that Dan Coats is the Director of National Intelligence, making him the head of the entire US intelligence community. Of those present, each "chief" affirmed that the Russians had interfered in the 2016 elections, and have not stopped. So "accord to... the Chiefs" yeah, not an opinion.

Next; "who asked the chiefs?" Well the members of Congress at the hearing, but if you want specifics, Senator Mark Warner is the "who." So once again, not an opinion. But don't take my word on it, listen to their own words. Start at the 23:40 mark.

[video=youtube;Kv7kkFbzPcc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv7kkFbzPcc[/video]

Now to the "probably..." Ok you got me. That IS an opinion... but the "probably" typically gives away that something isn't definitive fact; at least to most people.

You're a funny guy. My suggestion, is that in the future, a little less snark, a bit more research, and then try again before barking up my tree.

 

[BugI02]

Lol, a noob trying to cut his teeth on what he apparently thought was an easy mark. Let me correct that fallacy.

Allow me to refute your "none of what you say can be substantiated."
First we will start with the definition of "substantiated."
Substantiated- Provide evidence to support or prove the proof of.

Ok, to brass tacks. On Tuesday, February 13th there was a congressional hearing. Dan Coats(DNI), Christopher Wray(FBI), Mike Pompeo (CIA), Adm. Michael Rogers (NSA), Gen. Robert Ashley (DIA), and Robert Carillo (NGIA) were all in attendance. People refer to them as intelligence chiefs. You should note that Dan Coats is the Director of National Intelligence, making him the head of the entire US intelligence community. Of those present, each "chief" affirmed that the Russians had interfered in the 2016 elections, and have not stopped. So "accord to... the Chiefs" yeah, not an opinion.

Next; "who asked the chiefs?" Well the members of Congress at the hearing, but if you want specifics, Senator Mark Warner is the "who." So once again, not an opinion. But don't take my word on it, listen to their own words. Start at the 23:40 mark.

[video=youtube;Kv7kkFbzPcc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv7kkFbzPcc[/video]

Now to the "probably..." Ok you got me. That IS an opinion... but the "probably" typically gives away that something isn't definitive fact; at least to most people.

You're a funny guy. My suggestion, is that in the future, a little less snark, a bit more research, and then try again before barking up my tree.

But don't get really good at this, if you care about engaging him. If you get too good at asking the hard questions, first he'll only answer with lol then stop answering at all. Some of us consider such status a badge of honor

 

[Dead Duck]

Have they mentioned George Soros yet?

 

[bwframe]

But don't get really good at this, if you care about engaging him. If you get too good at asking the hard questions, first he'll only answer with lol then stop answering at all. Some of us consider such status a badge of honor

lol