House GOP refuses to boost funding for election security

[fredtoast]

(07-20-2018, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the OP: Is the Dems stating Obama was wrong when he stated no reasonable person could think a foreign country could manipulate our nation Election?

Obama said that it was impossible to "rig" the election by fixing the vote.  He never said it was impossible for a foreign country to have influence through propaganda.

You are confusing what he actually said with what the echo chamber told you he said.  In fact Obama's comments about "rigging the election" came AFTER these comments

“Today, I have ordered a number of actions in response to the Russian government’s aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election.  These actions follow repeated private and public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government, and are a necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of established international norms of behavior.”

[*bfine32*]

(07-20-2018, 06:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Obama said that it was impossible to "rig" the election by fixing the vote.  He never said it was impossible for a foreign country to have influence through propaganda.

You are confusing what he actually said with what the echo chamber told you he said.  In fact Obama's comments about "rigging the election" came AFTER these comments

“Today, I have ordered a number of actions in response to the Russian government’s aggressive harassment of U.S. officials and cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election.  These actions follow repeated private and public warnings that we have issued to the Russian government, and are a necessary and appropriate response to efforts to harm U.S. interests in violation of established international norms of behavior.”

Definition of rig

rigged; rigging
transitive verb
1: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means 

• rig an election
  

Imagine how smart you would seem if you were the only person that had the internet. Outside of that.....

[Millhouse]

(07-20-2018, 11:19 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So what will the extra money provide?  What will be bought with the money that they need and don't have?  "We need it"/"we don't need it" really doesn't give us much to arrive at an opinion. the obvious denial from the Repubs will make for nice headlines and thread titles to try to make Repubs look bad when it comes to voter security.

The only intention of this bill was for it to get refused by the Repubs so there could be headlines and thread titles about that refusal.

[fredtoast]

(07-20-2018, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Definition of rig

rigged; rigging
transitive verb
1: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means 

• rig an election
  

Imagine how smart you would seem if you were the only person that had the internet. Outside of that.....

You can either pretend that Obama used the same definitions as you or you can look at what he really said and comment on what he really meant.  

Do I need to wait for you to go ask the echo chamber what to believe?  

Obama's comments were in response to Trumps claim that the actual vote count would be manipulated to "rig" the election.  They had nothing to do with influencing the election through propaganda.  His comments and actions just two weeks earlier clearly indicate that he considered attempts to influence the election by those means to be a serious threat.

[Belsnickel]

(07-20-2018, 06:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: What do voter ID laws have to do with countering a possible Russian attack? Isn't this a completely different kind of security.

Yes.

[GMDino]

So bfine is talking about Obama again?

ODS?

[*bfine32*]

(07-20-2018, 07:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can either pretend that Obama used the same definitions as you or you can look at what he really said and comment on what he really meant.  

Do I need to wait for you to go ask the echo chamber what to believe?  

Obama's comments were in response to Trumps claim that the actual vote count would be manipulated to "rig" the election.  They had nothing to do with influencing the election through propaganda.  His comments and actions just two weeks earlier clearly indicate that he considered attempts to influence the election by those means to be a serious threat.

I'm not pretending nothing. 

I do applaud your assertion that OB stated the actual vote count could not be manipulated. 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

So the Democrats want $380 million to suppress free speech?

Got it, lol.

[jj22]

The sick and Anti American truth is Trump supporters (and those who claim to not support Trump but are just too embarrassed to admit they voted for him, and like his behavior) and the GOP want and need Putins/Russia's attacks against Dems to win elections. They aren't going to do anything to stop it. And why should they? They are the beneficiaries. They talk a good pro America game, but winning is most important to them, and if that means joining forces with an enemy state to attack America then so be it.

But you can't expect them to help stop an attack that they benefit from.

How in the world did we let these Anti American/Anti Democracy/Russian sympathizers (Trump and GOP supporters) determine American Patriotism. A disgrace.

But whatever, as long as you don't take a knee right.

[Goalpost]

We should have all voted for extremely careless. That's the spirit.

[fredtoast]

(07-21-2018, 12:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not pretending nothing. 

Not sure how to interpret this.  Are Trump bots now adopting his "double negative" approach to all discussions of Russian meddling?


But it sure appears that you are pretending that Obama said Russians meddling could not effect our election at the same time he was taking steps against Russians for trying to meddle in our elections.

Obama's comments were clearly about voter fraud and rigging the vote count.  The only people who don't believe that are the ones who just believe what Hannity tells them to believe.  His comments had nothing to do with influencing the vote through propaganda.

[fredtoast]

(07-21-2018, 01:24 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: So the Democrats want $380 million to suppress free speech?

Got it, lol.

No.  You don't get it at all.

[Belsnickel]

(07-23-2018, 11:36 AM)Goalpost Wrote: We should have all voted for extremely careless. That's the spirit.

Well, it seems that whether you voted for Clinton or Trump, you voted for someone that is extremely careless.

[Dill]

(07-20-2018, 01:19 AM)Benton Wrote: Honestly curious, where does this come from? It’s a statement I’ve heard before but when I ask people they respond with “they all say it” which I generally have brushed off as meaning “nobody.”

You are looking in the wrong place. You are not going to find out "what Dems want" from looking at their party platforms and statements by party leaders. Democrats do not put their party goals on their websites and campaign literature.

Spend a little more time Listening to Trump and Hannity and Judge Giro and Lou Dobbs.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-20-2018, 01:19 AM)Benton Wrote: Honestly curious, where does this come from? It’s a statement I’ve heard before but when I ask people they respond with “they all say it” which I generally have brushed off as meaning “nobody.”

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article215095600.html

Quote:San Francisco began registering non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, to register to vote Monday in the November election for the city school board, reported The San Francisco Chronicle.

Quote:The move follows passage of a 2016 ballot measure by San Francisco voters opening school elections to non-citizens who are over the age of 18, city residents and have children under age 19, reported the publication.


“This is no-brainer legislation,” Hillary Ronen, a San Francisco supervisor, told the Chronicle. “Why would we not want our parents invested in the education of their children?”

[BmorePat87]

(07-20-2018, 02:21 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article215095600.html

"It's "Only" school elections" I'm sure you'll say but it sets a very dangerous precedent that so many Democrats are screaming about right now how Kavanaugh will not follow precedent. If you allow non citizens to vote in school elections, shouldn't they be allowed to vote in presidential elections since they pay taxes or some stupid crap like that.

No, there's actually a precedent in our history for allowing non citizens to vote in elections. It was a tool used to draw immigrants to new territories and states in the 1800's. A great way to Europeans with no history of voting to experience democracy and begin their role as (eventually) citizens.

In this case, it's nothing new. Some localities in Maryland allowed non citizen residents to vote in local elections, higher than just school board. 

[BmorePat87]

The Senate has rejected a proposal to increase funding for election security

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/399885-senate-rejects-effort-to-beef-up-states-election-security-spending

[Millhouse]

(08-01-2018, 02:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Senate has rejected a proposal to increase funding for election security

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/399885-senate-rejects-effort-to-beef-up-states-election-security-spending

Good.

Congress passed $380 million back in the spring for election security to the states. Then on top of that an additional $300 million was given to the FBI for counterintelligence centered around Russian hacking. That's $680 million Congress approved of just a few months ago to go for election security.

Until more data comes back on what the states do with their few extra millions, there is no need to throw money their way. Unless of course one is a Democrat in congress that proposes more money sent there way knowing it will get rejected , which will make for a nice 'Republicans against election security' headline.

[BmorePat87]

(08-01-2018, 02:45 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Good.

Congress passed $380 million back in the spring for election security to the states. Then on top of that an additional $300 million was given to the FBI for counterintelligence centered around Russian hacking. That's $680 million Congress approved of just a few months ago to go for election security.

Until more data comes back on what the states do with their few extra millions, there is no need to throw money their way. Unless of course one is a Democrat in congress that proposes more money sent there way knowing it will get rejected , which will make for a nice 'Republicans against election security' headline.

States are quickly using that up and, in many cases, are only a quarter of the way funded. Better to have the money appropriated now and ready to be used than scramble in October.

[GMDino]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-blocks-bill-protect-elections-173459278.html

Quote:White House blocks bill that would protect elections


WASHINGTON — A bill that would have significantly bolstered the nation’s defenses against electoral interference has been held up in the Senate at the behest of the White House, which opposed the proposed legislation, according to congressional sources.

The Secure Elections Act, introduced by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., in December 2017, had co-sponsorship from two of the Senate’s most prominent liberals, Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., as well as from conservative stalwart Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and consummate centrist Susan Collins, R-Me.


Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was set to conduct a markup of the bill on Wednesday morning in the Senate Rules Committee, which he chairs. The bill had widespread support, including from some of the committee’s Republican members, and was expected to come to a full Senate vote in October. But then the chairman’s mark, as the critical step is known, was canceled, and no explanation was given.


As it currently stands, the legislation would grant every state’s top election official security clearance to receive threat information. It would also formalize the practice of information-sharing between the federal government—in particular, the Department of Homeland Security—and states regarding threats to electoral infrastructure. A technical advisory board would establish best practices related to election cybersecurity. Perhaps most significantly, the law would mandate that every state conduct a statistically significant audit following a federal election. It would also incentivize the purchase of voting machines that leave a paper record of votes cast, as opposed to some all-electronic models that do not. This would signify a marked shift away from all-electronic voting, which was encouraged with the passage of the Help Americans Vote Act in 2002.


“Paper is not antiquated,” Lankford says. “It’s reliable.”



A paper record could prove effective against hackers if they tried to change the reporting of votes on the internet, as opposed to altering the votes themselves. Election officials needs to be able to say, “‘Nope, we can check this,’” as Lankford puts it. “Here’s the paper, here’s the machine, here’s our poll count.”


In a statement to Yahoo News, White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters says that while the administration “appreciates Congress’s interest in election security, [the Department of Homeland Security] has all the statutory authority it needs to assist state and local officials to improve the security of existing election infrastructure.”


Under current law, DHS is already able to work with state and local authorities to protect elections, Walters wrote. If Congress pursues the 
Secure Elections Act, it should avoid duplicating “existing DHS efforts or the imposition of unnecessary requirements” and “not violate the principles of Federalism.”


“We cannot support legislation with inappropriate mandates or that moves power or funding from the states to Washington for the planning and operation of elections,” she added. However, the White House gave no specifics on what parts of the bill it objected to.


In a statement, Klobuchar thanked Blunt and Lankford, making clear that they were both allies in the effort. “They tried valiantly to salvage the votes for this bill on the Republican side,” Klobuchar’s statement said. “In the end we had every single Democrat on the committee committed to vote for the bill. Any changes that were recently made to the bill were made to accommodate the Republican leadership.”

A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who sits on the Rules Committee, declined to say whether the majority leader, widely renowned on Capitol Hill for his backroom tactics, was involved in efforts to hobble the Secure Elections Act.
Blunt’s office would not comment on the record.


The Trump administration has been unable to settle on how elections should be secured, and whom they should be secured against. Despite consensus from the nation’s intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in 2016, President Trump has dismissed the threat, even as others in his administration have issued unambiguous warnings. Trump has instead asserted that millions voted fraudulently in New York and California for Hillary Clinton, thus giving her an edge of some 3 million votes in the 2016 presidential race. No evidence of statistically significant voter fraud has been uncovered.



Lankford, Klobuchar and others had worked for months to persuade their peers that electoral security is a nonpartisan issue. Supporters expected the legislation would make its way out of committee and become law, a rare bipartisan success story in the current Congress. As the chairman’s mark approached, they appeared to have won the votes they needed in the Senate Rule Committee.



Speaking to Yahoo News on Tuesday afternoon, Lankford seemed confident. He acknowledged that the federal government should not encroach on states’ administration of elections, but he also argued that states had to show more awareness of the high stakes involved. “Your election in Delaware affects the entire country,” he said. “Your election in Florida affects the entire country.”


In an earlier television appearance with Lankford, Harris rendered the issue of electoral security, and hacking by foreign powers, in stark terms: 
“We have to be prepared for wars without blood.”


But some apparently remained unconvinced. A staffer for a Republican senator on the Rules Committee described unease with “certain provisions in the Secure Elections Act” on the part of secretaries of state, who oversee elections. “In order for a truly bipartisan election security bill to reach the floor, additional majority support is necessary.”


The bill’s sponsors disputed the notion that it lacked support, noting that secretaries of state had had plenty of time to comment on the proposed legislation.


Lankford, a rising young Republican legislator, vowed to press on. “The issue of election cybersecurity is very important and more must be done now,” he said in a statement. “Congressional inaction is unacceptable.”