What's new
By:

What are Republicans doing to Unify the country?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Mongoose said:
It’s odd that democrats have done such an about face and can somehow pretend the blue maga cult leader wasnt saying the same thing since 2016.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no one questioned if Trump won the election via the electoral college. Outside influence over voters doesn't invalidate an election.
 
Sardines said:
Absolutely no one questioned if Trump won the election via the electoral college. Outside influence over voters doesn't invalidate an election.
Click to expand...
Uh what? Here’s a 12 minute compilation. Haha
Or are you saying there are only certain things about election integrity that can be questioned. Only those questioned by democrats are okay? Anything else is dangerous, at least until democrats do it and then it’s okay?


View: https://youtu.be/XX2Ejqjz6TA?si=6so3JL8Z01zM5c6W
 
Mongoose said:
It’s odd that democrats have done such an about face and can somehow pretend the blue maga cult leader wasnt saying the same thing since 2016.
Click to expand...
No, trump was also saying the election was stolen from him in 2016. He was just saying it before the election took place.

I don't know who this blue maga cult leader you are talking about is but can you provide a link to their stop the steal fund please?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Mongoose said:
Uh what? Here’s a 12 minute compilation. Haha
Or are you saying there are only certain things about election integrity that can be questioned. Only those questioned by democrats are okay? Anything else is dangerous, at least until democrats do it and then it’s okay?


View: https://youtu.be/XX2Ejqjz6TA?si=6so3JL8Z01zM5c6W
Click to expand...
Things can totally be questioned. Trump questioning the 2020 election was totally fine. He was allowed to make his 60 plus court challenges and losses. He was allowed to ask for the audits and recounts that answered his questions and showed him that the election was accurate.

Sending fake electors, and pressuring officials to find non existent votes, and sparking an insurrection and then sitting around and letting it continue, and then making stop the steal funds to line your pockets and then saying you are going to pardon the j6 criminals, and then talking about the stolen election at every rally and every interview, and with every post for years and years. That is problematic.

Not samesies and to think they are is clown show thinking. Congrats

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
Things can totally be questioned. Trump questioning the 2020 election was totally fine. He was allowed to make his 60 plus court challenges and losses. He was allowed to ask for the audits and recounts that answered his questions and showed him that the election was accurate.

Sending fake electors, and pressuring officials to find non existent votes, and sparking an insurrection and then sitting around and letting it continue, and then making stop the steal funds to line your pockets and then saying you are going to pardon the j6 criminals, and then talking about the stolen election at every rally and every interview, and with every post for years and years. That is problematic.

Not samesies and to think they are is clown show thinking. Congrats

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The mental gymnastics that blue’anon cultist will do to explain things away is remarkable.
Certain aspects of election results that democrats questioned for years and years is okay, and in no way did all the questioning contribute to any election integrity concerns right? Only from the other side do questions cause concerns. Obviously democrats will not take any responsibility or look beyond what they are being told to say. Democrats are a cult and it’s a cult that is even stronger and more widespread to include the entire party. There is no questioning anything in that party. They all fall in line and they do whatever the establishment tells them to do. That’s not democracy. They won’t allow Bernie to run in the party, they won’t allow RFK Jr to run in the party and they are actively working to make it difficult for other parties to get on the ballot. Democrats wrote the book on cult thinking.
 
Mongoose said:
It’s odd that democrats have done such an about face and can somehow pretend the blue maga cult leader wasnt saying the same thing since 2016.
Click to expand...
It's odder still that some people can't tell the difference between "foreign propaganda influenced the election outcome" and "actual tallied votes were manufactured or changed". People are odd.
 
One Brow said:
It's odder still that some people can't tell the difference between "foreign propaganda influenced the election outcome" and "actual tallied votes were manufactured or changed". People are odd.
Click to expand...
There’s obviously a difference there but they would still fall under “election integrity” more broadly. The fact that some questions that democrats ask and the accusations and lies that they manufactured to get people to believe in foreign interference have done no damage to “election integrity” and public perception is a joke.
 
Mongoose said:
The mental gymnastics that blue’anon cultist will do to explain things away is remarkable.
Certain aspects of election results that democrats questioned for years and years is okay, and in no way did all the questioning contribute to any election integrity concerns right? Only from the other side do questions cause concerns. Obviously democrats will not take any responsibility or look beyond what they are being told to say. Democrats are a cult and it’s a cult that is even stronger and more widespread to include the entire party. There is no questioning anything in that party. They all fall in line and they do whatever the establishment tells them to do. That’s not democracy. They won’t allow Bernie to run in the party, they won’t allow RFK Jr to run in the party and they are actively working to make it difficult for other parties to get on the ballot. Democrats wrote the book on cult thinking.
Click to expand...
Show me how they are the same.
Show me the democrat that did what Trump has done.

According to you the Dems have been talking about election integrity issues just as much as trump.
So that being the case someone like myself who is in the cult would see all kinds of problems with our elections and think that they are being stolen from candidates I like right?

I don't think that though. Trump won in 2016. I think he won primarily because many people who would have reluctantly voted for Hillary didn't think trump could win so they didn't vote at all or went 3rd party. And that's fine. The American people voted the way they voted and Trump won. What gives? Why don't I think there are election integrity issues if my blue cult has been telling me that there are?


I know why. Cause not samesies that's why. Democrats didn't do what trump did and there ain't any political cult like the maga cult.
Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Mongoose said:
There’s obviously a difference there but they would still fall under “election integrity” more broadly. The fact that some questions that democrats ask and the accusations and lies that they manufactured to get people to believe in foreign interference have done no damage to “election integrity” and public perception is a joke.
Click to expand...
Manufactured? You’re delusional! If that’s the case, then why did Senate Republicans endorse this?

Key Findings and Recommendations:

  • The Russian government directed extensive activity against U.S. election infrastructure. The Committee found the activity directed at the state and local level began in at least 2014 and carried into at least 2017. The Committee has seen no evidence that any votes were changed or that any voting machines were manipulated.
  • Russian efforts exploited the seams between federal authorities and capabilities, and protection for the states. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are, by design, limited in domestic cybersecurity authorities. State election officials, who have primacy in running elections, were not sufficiently warned or prepared to handle an attack from a hostile nation-state actor.
  • DHS and FBI warnings to the states in the late summer and fall of 2016 did not provide enough information or go to the appropriate people. The Committee found that while the alerts were actionable, they provided no clear reason for states to take the threat more seriously than other warnings.
  • DHS has redoubled its efforts to build trust with the states and deploy resources to assist in securing elections. Since 2016, DHS has made great strides in learning how election procedures vary across states and how to best assist those states. The Committee determined DHS’s work to bolster states’ cybersecurity has likely been effective but believes more needs to be done to coordinate efforts.
  • Russian activities demand renewed attention to vulnerabilities in U.S. voting infrastructure. Cybersecurity for electoral infrastructure at the state and local level was sorely lacking in 2016. Despite increased focus over the last three years, some of these vulnerabilities, including aging voting equipment, remain. As states look to replace machines that are now out of date, they should purchase more secure voting machines. At a minimum, any machine purchased going forward should have a voter-verified paper trail.
  • Congress should evaluate the results of the $380 million in state election security grants allocated in 2018. States should be able to use grant funds provided under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to improve cybersecurity in a variety of ways, including hiring additional IT staff, updating software, and contracting vendors to provide cybersecurity services. When those funds are spent, Congress should evaluate the results and consider an additional appropriation to address remaining insecure voting machines and systems.
  • DHS and other federal government entities remain respectful of the limits of federal involvement in state election systems. America’s decentralized election system can be a strength against cybersecurity threats. However, the federal government and states should each be aware of their own cybersecurity limitations and know both how and when to obtain assistance. States should remain firmly in the lead on running elections, and the federal government should ensure they receive the necessary resources and information.
  • The United States must create effective deterrence. The United States should communicate to adversaries that it will view an attack on its election infrastructure as a hostile act and respond accordingly. The U.S. government should not limit its response to cyber activity; rather, it should create a menu of potential responses that will send a clear message and create significant costs for the perpetrator.

Senate Intel Releases Election Security Findings in First Volume of Bipartisan Russia Report | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

www.intelligence.senate.gov www.intelligence.senate.gov
 
Red said:
Manufactured? You’re delusional! If that’s the case, then why did Senate Republicans endorse this?

Key Findings and Recommendations:

  • The Russian government directed extensive activity against U.S. election infrastructure. The Committee found the activity directed at the state and local level began in at least 2014 and carried into at least 2017. The Committee has seen no evidence that any votes were changed or that any voting machines were manipulated.
  • Russian efforts exploited the seams between federal authorities and capabilities, and protection for the states. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are, by design, limited in domestic cybersecurity authorities. State election officials, who have primacy in running elections, were not sufficiently warned or prepared to handle an attack from a hostile nation-state actor.
  • DHS and FBI warnings to the states in the late summer and fall of 2016 did not provide enough information or go to the appropriate people. The Committee found that while the alerts were actionable, they provided no clear reason for states to take the threat more seriously than other warnings.
  • DHS has redoubled its efforts to build trust with the states and deploy resources to assist in securing elections. Since 2016, DHS has made great strides in learning how election procedures vary across states and how to best assist those states. The Committee determined DHS’s work to bolster states’ cybersecurity has likely been effective but believes more needs to be done to coordinate efforts.
  • Russian activities demand renewed attention to vulnerabilities in U.S. voting infrastructure. Cybersecurity for electoral infrastructure at the state and local level was sorely lacking in 2016. Despite increased focus over the last three years, some of these vulnerabilities, including aging voting equipment, remain. As states look to replace machines that are now out of date, they should purchase more secure voting machines. At a minimum, any machine purchased going forward should have a voter-verified paper trail.
  • Congress should evaluate the results of the $380 million in state election security grants allocated in 2018. States should be able to use grant funds provided under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to improve cybersecurity in a variety of ways, including hiring additional IT staff, updating software, and contracting vendors to provide cybersecurity services. When those funds are spent, Congress should evaluate the results and consider an additional appropriation to address remaining insecure voting machines and systems.
  • DHS and other federal government entities remain respectful of the limits of federal involvement in state election systems. America’s decentralized election system can be a strength against cybersecurity threats. However, the federal government and states should each be aware of their own cybersecurity limitations and know both how and when to obtain assistance. States should remain firmly in the lead on running elections, and the federal government should ensure they receive the necessary resources and information.
  • The United States must create effective deterrence. The United States should communicate to adversaries that it will view an attack on its election infrastructure as a hostile act and respond accordingly. The U.S. government should not limit its response to cyber activity; rather, it should create a menu of potential responses that will send a clear message and create significant costs for the perpetrator.

Senate Intel Releases Election Security Findings in First Volume of Bipartisan Russia Report | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

www.intelligence.senate.gov www.intelligence.senate.gov
Click to expand...
Here’s a good break down for you in just a few minutes. Interesting to hear the liberal Bill Maher friendly crowd cheering this former CNN journalists points.
Bust all the norms to stop trump from busting the norms!!! The “norms” in this corrupt, shady, pay to play politics of Washington are being challenged!!! Gasp.
 
Mongoose said:
Here’s a good break down for you in just a few minutes. Interesting to hear the liberal Bill Maher friendly crowd cheering this former CNN journalists points.
Bust all the norms to stop trump from busting the norms!!! The “norms” in this corrupt, shady, pay to play politics of Washington are being challenged!!! Gasp.
Click to expand...
hqdefault.jpg


I've got money that Mongoose doesn't know the reference without looking it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top