DHS is looking at taking over elections

[awesome guy]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

[VisorBoy]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

[HokieFanDC]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

Having a group reporting to a politician, taking over elections, is not a question worthy of debate.

[USN_Hokie]

It makes no sense to me why we moved away from punch card ballots.

[UpstateSCHokie]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

Wait a second, after years of conservatives saying we need to do more to insure the integrity of our elections, only to have the left say there are not enough cases of voter fraud to be concerned and if you are concerned you're a racist, now suddenly we are supposed to freak out about "Russian hackers?" And the answer is to hand over control of the election process to the party in power in the WH?

Where is the proof of these Russian hackers? That is what you people constantly demanded when the right simply wanted people to show their voter ID before voting - which is a very simple and common sense measure to make sure people are who they say they are before voting. Is it the only measure we should take? No of course not, but I think we're the only 1st world country that doesn't require it before voting and apparently the only one that sees it as racism.

Forgive me if I'm less that concerned about "Russian hackers" just because Harry (the Hack) Reid gives another one of his conspiracy theory speeches on the Senate floor. Remember this is the guy that admitted he was willing to lie or do whatever to make sure Romney didn't win in 2012, so he has ZERO credibility. And by the left's standard, anyone going around accusing the Russians of being hackers is a "racist." A racist against the "Russian race" (just like Trump is a "racist" against the "Mexican race").

Sorry, but the answer to this is NOT to give more power to DHS and the federal government. What the hell does controlling our elections have to do with the original charter of DHS? The answer is to simply disconnect the voting machines from the internet, have both a paper ballot and an e-ballot so random audits can be done to make sure the e-ballot totals equal the paper ballot totals, and require people to show voter ID. We don't need DHS to do this, we simply need legislation and then require the states to comply with the law.

[RiverguyVT]

It's like hiring Hells Angels to do security at a 1960s rock festival.

[nolanvt]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

Having a group reporting to a politician, taking over elections, is not a question worthy of debate.

Agreed. Keep the Feds out of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USN_Hokie]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

The political party in power managing the election process is a hallmark of a banana republic.

[RiverguyVT]

This is some nefarious shirt

[Uprising]

He's a less-alarmist version of the article:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/e ... gia-227475

[HokieJoe]

This is quite in keeping with Obama's 3rd world leadership style and values.

[oaktonhokie]

Well said DC.

And the same JEH who is doing so well with TSA, will do wonders with the election process. Maybe they can get the geniuses who developed then obamacare website to write some code. Shouldn't cost much and they are princeton friends of our voluptuous first lady.

Someone (awesome?) said it well, i'd rather have the russians in charge than the obama administration.

The clinton/obama campaign must be worried here.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

Having a group reporting to a politician, taking over elections, is not a question worthy of debate.

[awesome guy]

He's a less-alarmist version of the article:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/e ... gia-227475

Not really. Do you have any plans on being less of a sheep and instead thinking for yourself?

[awesome guy]

He's a less-alarmist version of the article:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/e ... gia-227475

Not really. Do you have any plans on being less of a sheep and instead thinking for yourself?

[Mcl3 Hokie]

Jeh Johnson and his management of the TSA is laughable. They were criticized for long line at TSA checkpoints. So, what was the solution? Put more people into TSAPrecheck. So, instead of really addressing the problem, we've pushed more people into Precheck. Why even have regular TSA then?

His solution has essentially pushed airport security to what it was before 9/11, at a substantially higher cost to the airlines and fliers.

Well said DC.

And the same JEH who is doing so well with TSA, will do wonders with the election process. Maybe they can get the geniuses who developed then obamacare website to write some code. Shouldn't cost much and they are princeton friends of our voluptuous first lady.

Someone (awesome?) said it well, i'd rather have the russians in charge than the obama administration.

The clinton/obama campaign must be worried here.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

Having a group reporting to a politician, taking over elections, is not a question worthy of debate.

[RiverguyVT]

He's a less-alarmist version of the article:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/e ... gia-227475

Is there such a thing as "a less alarmist version" ?
You seem to imply there is legitimate rationale, other than your team's subjugation of the populace ("Yay, team!), to this.

Is there a less alarmist version of the Hindenburg disaster?

[RWNJ]

It makes no sense to me why we moved away from punch card ballots.

Gore didn't like those hanging chads. Didn't work to his benefit.

[VisorBoy]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

Having a group reporting to a politician, taking over elections, is not a question worthy of debate.

Politicians are already in charge of elections. The Secretary of State in AZ, for instance, is an elected official of a given party.

[awesome guy]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

Having a group reporting to a politician, taking over elections, is not a question worthy of debate.

Politicians are already in charge of elections. The Secretary of State in AZ, for instance, is an elected official of a given party.

Having Obama in charge of elections is stupid and is just a gateway to even more voting fraud.

[VisorBoy]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

Having a group reporting to a politician, taking over elections, is not a question worthy of debate.

Politicians are already in charge of elections. The Secretary of State in AZ, for instance, is an elected official of a given party.

Having Obama in charge of elections is stupid and is just a gateway to even more voting fraud.

Agree that too much hands-on federal oversight would be a bad thing. But perhaps federal help in developing hack-proof systems for states to use is closer to the right way to go.

[awesome guy]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homel ... le/2600592


golly gee, how would the Obama regime ever abuse this? I trust the "Russian hackers" more than the Obama administration. I doubt there are Russian hackers, likely the usual DNC cheaters or the Chinese who have paid millions to the Clintons illegally and fear Trump calling them out for currency manipulation.

It's a question worthy of debate: whether it is better for their to be one system used by all States, overseen at the federal level, versus many systems used by the States, each with its own security and own risks. Both options have positives and negatives.

Having a group reporting to a politician, taking over elections, is not a question worthy of debate.

Politicians are already in charge of elections. The Secretary of State in AZ, for instance, is an elected official of a given party.

Having Obama in charge of elections is stupid and is just a gateway to even more voting fraud.

Agree that too much hands-on federal oversight would be a bad thing. But perhaps federal help in developing hack-proof systems for states to use is closer to the right way to go.

As someone with a lot of experience working with the feds, they don't have the skillset. They're way behind the times in security and application development. They're the same people that gave us healthcare.gov afterall.

[VisorBoy]

Agree that too much hands-on federal oversight would be a bad thing. But perhaps federal help in developing hack-proof systems for states to use is closer to the right way to go.

As someone with a lot of experience working with the feds, they don't have the skillset. They're way behind the times in security and application development. They're the same people that gave us healthcare.gov afterall.

By the federal gov't, it doesn't have to necessarily mean its employees. It could just mean its resources, which would be used to hire contractors.

The gov't would probably build horrible fighter jets, but its resources in the hands of contractors have led to the construction of the greatest fighter jets the world has ever seen.

[Mcl3 Hokie]

I can't believe you just typed that. The Gov't DID hire subcontractors for the healthcare website debacle. That didn't turn out well, either.

Agree that too much hands-on federal oversight would be a bad thing. But perhaps federal help in developing hack-proof systems for states to use is closer to the right way to go.

As someone with a lot of experience working with the feds, they don't have the skillset. They're way behind the times in security and application development. They're the same people that gave us healthcare.gov afterall.

By the federal gov't, it doesn't have to necessarily mean its employees. It could just mean its resources, which would be used to hire contractors.

The gov't would probably build horrible fighter jets, but its resources in the hands of contractors have led to the construction of the greatest fighter jets the world has ever seen.

[awesome guy]

Agree that too much hands-on federal oversight would be a bad thing. But perhaps federal help in developing hack-proof systems for states to use is closer to the right way to go.

As someone with a lot of experience working with the feds, they don't have the skillset. They're way behind the times in security and application development. They're the same people that gave us healthcare.gov afterall.

By the federal gov't, it doesn't have to necessarily mean its employees. It could just mean its resources, which would be used to hire contractors.

The gov't would probably build horrible fighter jets, but its resources in the hands of contractors have led to the construction of the greatest fighter jets the world has ever seen.

It's the same thing. They contract out most of this work anyway. They don't have the skills to have any part in it.