Foxx Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Ha! No link! Open source reporting. You seriously don't know about that? Why are you here talking about politics if you are so ignorant about current events? ... in other words, you got nothing. amiright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 5, 2019 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 Just now, Foxx said: in other words, you got nothing. amiright? It's kind of a good, but dishonest strategy. Just keep asking for links and playing dumb, but I'll just call it out before I yet again show proof, wash rinse and little ignorant Tom blue will come back and ask again as if he has never even heard of Russia. I like answering this way better. (Keep asking!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 7 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Ha! No link! Open source reporting. You seriously don't know about that? Why are you here talking about politics if you are so ignorant about current events? Lol, way, way better than being an ignorant Trump cultist. Those idiots that went to D.C. to listen to Trumps pathetic ramblings as he read like a 7th grader off the TelePrompTer is would should make you sad, but I imagine you almost envy them. Sad ..."cultist"?.....best you can do?......why advertise your ignorance and intolerance?...I see this forum as a civil debate of opposing political views (don't stray here often)...the "to and fro" debate with respect is what the hell is supposed to make this place work......your inclusion in any type of civility is a genuine lost cause because you have all the answers, any and all opposing views are met with condescending adjectives and an attitude of supremacy...your repulsive ilk is EXACTLY what is wrong with this country.....PATHETIC is an overstatement.......wow..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 19 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Ha! No link! Open source reporting. OSINT doesn’t mean no links. It requires links and vetting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 5, 2019 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 15 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ..."cultist"?.....best you can do?......why advertise your ignorance and intolerance?...I see this forum as a civil debate of opposing political views (don't stray here often)...the "to and fro" debate with respect is what the hell is supposed to make this place work......your inclusion in any type of civility is a genuine lost cause because you have all the answers, any and all opposing views are met with condescending adjectives and an attitude of supremacy...your repulsive ilk is EXACTLY what is wrong with this country.....PATHETIC is an overstatement.......wow..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 31 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Those idiots that went to D.C. to listen to Trumps pathetic ramblings as he read like a 7th grader off the TelePrompTer is would should make you sad, but I imagine you almost envy them. Sad I'm glad to see that you're concerned about the welfare of the crowd, after Trump crushed them with tanks Tienanmen Square-style. I mean, that still happened, right? We heard for a week how it was going to happen, so it still happened, right? Please tell me God-Emperor Trump still crushed the pathetic plebeians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 5, 2019 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: OSINT doesn’t mean no links. It requires links and vetting. But isn't it past the point where we need links, I've posted links on that very subject many, many times. The playing dumb act is just willful ignorance, isn't it? Just now, Koko78 said: I'm glad to see that you're concerned about the welfare of the crowd, after Trump crushed them with tanks Tienanmen Square-style. I mean, that still happened, right? We heard for a week how it was going to happen, so it still happened, right? Please tell me God-Emperor Trump still crushed the pathetic plebeians. Are you drunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 Just now, Tiberius said: But isn't it past the point where we need links, I've posted links on that very subject many, many times. The playing dumb act is just willful ignorance, isn't it? I'll agree if you agree the same about voluminous amount of primary source material, testimony, and documentation I've linked over the past two years which show the whole Russia/Trump thing was contrived for political, partisan reasons by the previous administration, the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and establishment media... Deal? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Are you drunk? Yes. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: Yes. I thought your posting had improved. Now we know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 5, 2019 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: I'll agree if you agree the same about voluminous amount of primary source material, testimony, and documentation I've linked over the past two years which show the whole Russia/Trump thing was contrived for political, partisan reasons by the previous administration, the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and establishment media... Deal? I'm reminded of the scene from The Life of Brian when they are discussing their ransom demands: If the Romans here in Judea do not agree to total dismemberment of the Roman Empire we will kill the hostage! So no deal! Sorry. 3 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Yes. You are the best! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 36 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Ha! No link! Open source reporting. You seriously don't know about that? Why are you here talking about politics if you are so ignorant about current events? I know it never happened. They never hacked voting machines, equipment makers, or "voting books." They spearphished some election officials in Volusia county. That's probably what you're misunderstanding. You idiot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, Tiberius said: But isn't it past the point where we need links, I've posted links on that very subject many, many times. The playing dumb act is just willful ignorance, isn't it? ... yeah, no. there are times when someone might want to follow the sourced material to get a better understanding of the context so, you know... it can be found out for oneself whether one is being disingenuous or not. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: I know it never happened. They never hacked voting machines, equipment makers, or "voting books." They spearphished some election officials in Volusia county. That's probably what you're misunderstanding. You idiot. If only the FBI Police would get out there and protect all those Federal Voting Machines! Maybe call up the Federal Reserves too. Edited July 5, 2019 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 funny how we never hear of this when the Dems win..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: I know it never happened. They never hacked voting machines, equipment makers, or "voting books." They spearphished some election officials in Volusia county. That's probably what you're misunderstanding. You idiot. McConnell is refusing to bring to a vote any bill to safeguard the elections from foreign attack. Why do you believe that is or do you not believe that to be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, Kemp said: McConnell is refusing to bring to a vote any bill to safeguard the elections from foreign attack. Why do you believe that is or do you not believe that to be true? Why did the previous administration order their cyber chief to "stand down" at the height of the Russian "attack" on the election? During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's cyberattacks. Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?" "That is an accurate rendering of the conversation at the staff meeting..." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/reluctant-witnesses-in-fisa-abuse-probe-agree-to-talk-to-doj-inspector-general 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Kemp said: McConnell is refusing to bring to a vote any bill to safeguard the elections from foreign attack. Why do you believe that is or do you not believe that to be true? 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................ Edited July 5, 2019 by B-Man 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 13 minutes ago, Kemp said: McConnell is refusing to bring to a vote any bill to safeguard the elections from foreign attack. Why do you believe that is or do you not believe that to be true? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Why did the previous administration order their cyber chief to "stand down" at the height of the Russian "attack" on the election? During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's cyberattacks. Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?" "That is an accurate rendering of the conversation at the staff meeting..." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/reluctant-witnesses-in-fisa-abuse-probe-agree-to-talk-to-doj-inspector-general You answered a question with a question. I'll try and answer your questions, but not if you avoid mine. Edited July 5, 2019 by Kemp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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