Well of course I made an argument. Obviously you have a short memory so I will present it again.
The stickler is the federal government mandating the states to do something that will likely cost them a lot of money. In any case, much of the legislation looks like a duplication things the DHS already does.
Ok. This is your argument.
What will cost them “alot of money”?
Seriously?
STATES RIGHTS……………………
No State is going to sit still while the Federal Government comes up with more creative ways to mandate compliance.
I love the vagueness of this answer.
Then you will like it even better when I tell you I’m done.
We have republic.
Maybe.
I do like when my online debaters admit defeat.
Not much though. No medals or ribbons.
Ditto the vagueness of the bill.
I assume you expect nothing else than vagueness in congressional bills?
And that is the difference between us. I welcome serious discussion, realizing that we won’t agree. Once that discussion has run its course, I move on to the next discussion. No winners; no losers. Simply discussion.
In pretty much every conversation I’ve had with you across both Hannity forums I encounter dripping condescending arrogance, believing you are simply too intelligent to have much to do with the likes of me.
Over time, I’ve taken to doing what I can to avoid having to deal with the likes of you. Its been awhile, but I see nothing has changed. So I guess I will simply go back to avoiding you in the future.
This victimhood post is almost effective.
Perhaps you should avoid me. I see you for what you are.
You know better than what you type.
Lol you think it’s a coincidence that Republicans wanted to pass this bill a month before the election?
Christ, even when it will almost certainly hurt your election chances you’ll defend anything Trump does.
What’s at issue here is that your natural mistrust of the media colors your perceptions of almost every line they put in print.
If you want to talk about misleading, let’s talk about this statement.
It is not at all clear the DHS is “well able to handle this”.
What was stated is the House spokesperson SAID the DHS has the statutory power to deal with helping the states.
What she did NOT describe is anything regarding the DHS’ actual capabilities.
Would be interesting, for example, to see how the DHS could help with a paper audit trail in those states where there are all electronic voting machines with no paper audit trail.
Ummmm in a Paper situation it is easier to commit fraud. People could just slip in pre-printed document that would look like the paper.
Neither is a Secure method to make sure that the voting is not tampered with.
That could easily be fixed with a low tech solution.
You go to the polling station. The election official has a special stamp with which he/she stamps the ballot just before he/she gives it to you.
Any ballot not containing this special stamp (which changes from election to election) is not counted.
Wonder how many voting machines were HACKED into during the 2016 elections?
I do not believe the machines are hooked up into any actual network they are isolated machines that digitally count the votes from the paper we feed into it.
Then the only other situation I can think of is when the States load the machines up with the new election year. So the person who updates the machines would have access to change the machine and the way it counts votes.
It should be a very controlled group of people who do this and then the machines should be stored securely till they are to be used.
that special stamp could be forged as well.
nothing is going to be fool proof from forgery or hacking.
Or even just have hourly randomized rotating keys printed on the ballot at each polling station.
