Russians did hack the election

Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
#61
God Sabcat you know what I meant. What is your argument here? All you do is throw out blasphemous/unrelated shit.
I am not sure how i could have been more clear.

No, the federal government should not take charge of elections. They are the business of the states.


Feel free to go back and read our conversation. I was very clear.
 
Feb 2019
1,175
490
nunya
#62
I am not sure how i could have been more clear.

No, the federal government should not take charge of elections. They are the business of the states.


Feel free to go back and read our conversation. I was very clear.
Federal governments have absolute jurisdiction of elections at a federal level, you are talking idiocy. Even if states count the ballots, the result affects the whole nation, not just the state.
 
Likes: imaginethat
Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
#63
Federal governments have absolute jurisdiction of elections at a federal level, you are talking idiocy. Even if states count the ballots, the result affects the whole nation, not just the state.


While the United States Constitution does set parameters for the election of federal officials, state law, not federal, regulates most aspects of elections in the U.S., including primaries, the eligibility of voters (beyond the basic constitutional definition), the running of each state's electoral college, as well as the running of state and local elections. All elections—federal, state, and local—are administered by the individual states.[2]

The restriction and extension of voting rights to different groups has been a contested process throughout United States history. The federal government has also been involved in attempts to increase voter turnout, by measures such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The financing of elections has also long been controversial, because private sources make up substantial amounts of campaign contributions, especially in federal elections. Voluntary public funding for candidates willing to accept spending limits was introduced in 1974 for presidential primaries and elections. The Federal Elections Commission, created in 1975 by an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, has the responsibility to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of U.S. presidential elections.



en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States
 
Mar 2018
746
254
Rosebud
#64
Federal governments have absolute jurisdiction of elections at a federal level, you are talking idiocy. Even if states count the ballots, the result affects the whole nation, not just the state.

No they do not. Other than the Constitutional requirements for President, Senator, and House members, and the uniform date of the election. States, as just one example, have all sorts of early voting while some have none.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
67,727
27,614
Colorado
#65
No they do not. Other than the Constitutional requirements for President, Senator, and House members, and the uniform date of the election. States, as just one example, have all sorts of early voting while some have none.
The USSC decided the 2000 election.
 
Feb 2019
1,175
490
nunya
#66
While the United States Constitution does set parameters for the election of federal officials, state law, not federal, regulates most aspects of elections in the U.S., including primaries, the eligibility of voters (beyond the basic constitutional definition), the running of each state's electoral college, as well as the running of state and local elections. All elections—federal, state, and local—are administered by the individual states.[2]

The restriction and extension of voting rights to different groups has been a contested process throughout United States history. The federal government has also been involved in attempts to increase voter turnout, by measures such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The financing of elections has also long been controversial, because private sources make up substantial amounts of campaign contributions, especially in federal elections. Voluntary public funding for candidates willing to accept spending limits was introduced in 1974 for presidential primaries and elections. The Federal Elections Commission, created in 1975 by an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, has the responsibility to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of U.S. presidential elections.



en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States
You fail to see the issue. Mueller explicitly stated that Russians were hacking our elections as his hearing was proceeding. He found explicit proof of that in a 2 year probe. This bill wasn't turned down because of lack of federal jurisdictions, it was turned down because Moscow Mitch thought it was a hoax.
 
Likes: se7en
Feb 2019
1,175
490
nunya
#67
No they do not. Other than the Constitutional requirements for President, Senator, and House members, and the uniform date of the election. States, as just one example, have all sorts of early voting while some have none.
It doesn't matter because the outcome is the same. The entire country gets the leader of the US after presidential elections, not just Iowa. You fail to see the main issue.
 
Likes: imaginethat
Jul 2019
1,579
882
Georgia
#68
You fail to see the issue. Mueller explicitly stated that Russians were hacking our elections as his hearing was proceeding. He found explicit proof of that in a 2 year probe. This bill wasn't turned down because of lack of federal jurisdictions, it was turned down because Moscow Mitch thought it was a hoax.
Moscow Mitch didn't think it was a hoax, he knows it's real, but he also knows that more secure elections means Republicans have a better chance of losing

He is the "party over country" poster boy
 
Aug 2019
200
35
De Congo
#69
For this conspiracy to be feasible....you would need to assess how much in the way of resources The Russian Hackers would be willing to spend in order to sway millions of Lost Liberal Sheep votes as well as recruiting enough FAITHLESS ELECTORS to change the results of the election.
[double facepalm...180 degree eye roll]
 
Oct 2010
67,727
27,614
Colorado
#70
For this conspiracy to be feasible....you would need to assess how much in the way of resources The Russian Hackers would be willing to spend in order to sway millions of Lost Liberal Sheep votes as well as recruiting enough FAITHLESS ELECTORS to change the results of the election.
[double facepalm...180 degree eye roll]
OK, I give up.

How much does it cost to post fake news on Facebook and Twitter?
 

Similar Discussions