Homeland Security To Take Charge Of Elections

[xbb]

Fearing a GimpCuntClinton loss......

Fix is in

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Fearing a GimpCuntClinton loss......

Fix is in

Paradise is at hand.

 

[hashtag45]

huh?

 

[xbb]

Fearing a GimpCuntClinton loss......

Fix is in

REUTERS POLL: CLINTON, TRUMP ALL TIED UP...

 

[NOIRTRASH]

huh?

Obama says Putin got inside our ballot boxes, and appointed Hillary to guard them.

 

[hashtag45]

Obama says Putin got inside our ballot boxes, and appointed Hillary to guard them.

Thanks.
Now all I have to do is figure out which part of what you said is tongue- in cheek and which 9ne is for real.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Thanks.
Now all I have to do is to figure out if what you said is for real or tongue- in cheek.

Both. Obama assigned the work to one of his pals, which amounts to giving it to Hillary.

 

[Emerson40]

Thanks.
Now all I have to do is figure out which part of what you said is tongue- in cheek and which 9ne is for real.

You couldn't figure out how to dump water out of a rubber boot, if the instructions were written on the heel, you gullible dum-dum. Nobody rides fence like you.

The only thing real is your tongue, planted firmly, right between Jimmy's saggin' ass cheeks.

 

[hashtag45]

I see that 86's name follows mine. Again. So he logged in at this unearthly early hour and his only post is addressed to me?

Talk about creepy fat married men on a porn board. *Swallows own vomit*.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I see that 86's name follows mine. Again. So he logged in at this unearthly early hour and his only post is addressed to me?

Talk about creepy fat married men on a porn board. *Swallows own vomit*.

^^^^comes to LIT for the articles.

 

[hashtag45]

Nope. I'm not judgmental like that.

I think that it's perfectly normal for people to make use of this website. Plus it's none of my business what other people do (married or single, kinky or less kinky.) If I derride or attack, I'm only doing it to the assholes or to the scum who attacked me first.

In saying that: A 50 - year old married dude who cyberstalks -in such a compulsive manner- a woman on a porn board, instead of spending time with his kids
IS CREEPY.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

For fuck's sake, they don't want to take charge of anything. They offered to assist states with checking their voting machines for hacks and malware.

One would think that the "right", who is constantly bleating about "voter fraud" would welcome cybersecurity advice and checks for potential hacks to protect against manipulation of electronic voting in each state. Especially in states like Georgia, whose voting machines are more than a decade old, so the hardware is falling apart, and the operating system they're using is Windows 2000, which hasn't been updated for security for years, which means it's a sitting duck.

Naaah! Lets out on the tinfoil hats!

 

[Darbhinder]

I see that 86's name follows mine. Again. So he logged in at this unearthly early hour and his only post is addressed to me?

Talk about creepy fat married men on a porn board. *Swallows own vomit*.

Swallowing your own vomit won't help with your odor problem, you fat swine.

 

[Darbhinder]

You couldn't figure out how to dump water out of a rubber boot, if the instructions were written on the heel, you gullible dum-dum. Nobody rides fence like you.

The only thing real is your tongue, planted firmly, right between Jimmy's saggin' ass cheeks.

Jim likes his trannies fat and stupid.

 

[xbb]

For fuck's sake, they don't want to take charge of anything. They offered to assist states with checking their voting machines for hacks and malware.

One would think that the "right", who is constantly bleating about "voter fraud" would welcome cybersecurity advice and checks for potential hacks to protect against manipulation of electronic voting in each state. Especially in states like Georgia, whose voting machines are more than a decade old, so the hardware is falling apart, and the operating system they're using is Windows 2000, which hasn't been updated for security for years, which means it's a sitting duck.

Naaah! Lets out on the tinfoil hats!

they will fix the election

they cant be trusted

 

[eyerami]

All it is is the USSA federal government giving all its lemmings veiled forewarning that they intend to federalize the American election process, centralizing it away from the States, in whom the Constitution places all that power.

Simplified: it's just another constitutional power intentionally not granted federal government that the federal government aims to possess, anyway; i.e., it's simply Leviathan feasting as government is wont to do - especially when its constitutional cage masters so much revel in wallowing in their own derelictions of duty.

The way to thwart this socialist federal move is for the state legislatures to reverse all the laws they've made and enacted that make their federal electors follow the democratic vote of the people in their states, and instead empower their electors to reflect who the Constitution intended as the electors of the President through its mandated republican form of government, just as the Amendment process is also constituted.

...[T]he members of the General Convention...did indulge the hope [that] by apportioning, limiting, and confining the Electors within their respective States, and by the guarded manner of giving and transmitting the ballots of the Electors to the Seat of Government, that intrigue, combination, and corruption, would be effectually shut out, and a free and pure election of the President of the United States made perpetual.

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003371))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as its legislature may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and members of the House of Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the legislature.

But no person shall be appointed an elector who is a member of the legislature of the United States, or who holds any office of profit or trust under the United States.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 1], Thursday, September 6, 1787.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed001153))

How sad it is that USSA lemmings believe this American Idolesque monkeyfuck of a made-for-reality TV election process America must suffer today is anything but the expected result of a nation which has come to get off on personality more than it reveres law.

 

[Emerson40]

I see that 86's name follows mine. Again. So he logged in at this unearthly early hour and his only post is addressed to me?

Talk about creepy fat married men on a porn board. *Swallows own vomit*.

^^^^comes to LIT for the articles.

Nope. I'm not judgmental like that.

I think that it's perfectly normal for people to make use of this website. Plus it's none of my business what other people do (married or single, kinky or less kinky.) If I derride or attack, I'm only doing it to the assholes or to the scum who attacked me first.

In saying that: A 50 - year old married dude who cyberstalks -in such a compulsive manner- a woman on a porn board, instead of spending time with his kids
IS CREEPY.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/34/bd/2e/34bd2e48b19907f00f2c2192013a26c5.jpg

 

[Colonel Hogan]

they will fix the election

they cant be trusted

Since you don't have a coherent thought as to HOW such a crime could possibly work, let me spell it out for you in hopes that you can see how truly stupid your paranoia is.

The manner and methodology of conducting local, state and federal elections is controlled at the state level. There is NO legislation authorizing DHS to "take charge" of the Presidential election process within each state. Whatever offer of assistance DHS is making, states are free to accept or refuse.

In most places, votes are cast, tabulated and recorded at the precinct level before being aggregated at the county level. County results are then later aggregated into statewide results.

Therefore, any subterfuge of a democratic election would have to take place at the precinct level involving tens of thousands of voting machines across the country or at least in the major electoral states of California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, etc, otherwise there would be a discrepancy between the state or county tabulations with the precincts. This manipulation of voting machines would literally require the criminal participation of hundreds if not thousands of civil service level DHS employees working at a precinct level in multiple states.

Every step of an election is monitored by representatives of both major political parties. Democrats and Republicans watch each other like hawks. Rigging a Presidential election to the detriment of either party would be on the order of faking the Apollo moon landings -- it simply takes far too many people committed to deceit while others are inexorably invested in exposing the scam.

The ONLY way to reliably fix an election is at the local or state level is when an election is CLOSE. It's how Richard Daley delivered Illinois to Kennedy in 1960.
Additionally, the sheer number of votes cast in a given state, and the normal potential anomalies in the casting and counting procedures made a tabulation more precise than a few hundred votes virtually impossible in Florida in 2000 between Bush and Gore.

The kind of massive fix by DHS that you're contemplating is fucking nuts. Which, of course, is why you believe it.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

and who stated obama wasn't the next Hitler??

 

[eyerami]

Just a constitutional reminder to all disingenuous, democracy-pimping progressives, RINOs, and ignoramuses alike that the entire facade of democratic American presidential elections is instead, in fact, purely republican in form; i.e., your delusional democratic vote doesn't directly count to whom becomes President or Vice President, stupids...

The United States Electoral College is the institution that elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead they elect representatives called "electors", who usually pledge to vote for particular presidential and vice presidential candidates.[1][2][3]

Electors are apportioned to each of the 50 states as well as to the District of Columbia (also known as Washington, D.C.). The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled,[4] while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. Therefore, there are currently 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus the three additional electors from the District of Columbia. The Constitution bars any federal official, elected or appointed, from being an elector.

Except for the electors in Maine and Nebraska, electors are elected on a "winner-take-all" basis.[5] That is, all electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in a state become electors for that state. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by a statewide popular vote.[6] Although no elector is required by federal law to honor a pledge, there have been very few occasions when an elector voted contrary to a pledge.[7][8] The Twelfth Amendment, in specifying how a president and vice president are elected, requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president.[9][10]

The candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) for the office of president or of vice president is elected to that office. The Twelfth Amendment provides for what happens if the Electoral College fails to elect a president or vice president. If no candidate receives a majority for president, then the House of Representatives will select the president, with each state delegation (instead of each representative) having only one vote. If no candidate receives a majority for vice president, then the Senate will select the vice president, with each senator having one vote. On four occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Just a constitutional reminder to all disingenuous, democracy-pimping progressives, RINOs, and ignoramuses alike that the entire facade of democratic American presidential elections is instead, in fact, purely republican in form; i.e., your delusional democratic vote doesn't directly count to whom becomes President or Vice President, stupids...

The United States Electoral College is the institution that elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead they elect representatives called "electors", who usually pledge to vote for particular presidential and vice presidential candidates.[1][2][3]

Electors are apportioned to each of the 50 states as well as to the District of Columbia (also known as Washington, D.C.). The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled,[4] while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. Therefore, there are currently 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus the three additional electors from the District of Columbia. The Constitution bars any federal official, elected or appointed, from being an elector.

Except for the electors in Maine and Nebraska, electors are elected on a "winner-take-all" basis.[5] That is, all electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in a state become electors for that state. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by a statewide popular vote.[6] Although no elector is required by federal law to honor a pledge, there have been very few occasions when an elector voted contrary to a pledge.[7][8] The Twelfth Amendment, in specifying how a president and vice president are elected, requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president.[9][10]

The candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) for the office of president or of vice president is elected to that office. The Twelfth Amendment provides for what happens if the Electoral College fails to elect a president or vice president. If no candidate receives a majority for president, then the House of Representatives will select the president, with each state delegation (instead of each representative) having only one vote. If no candidate receives a majority for vice president, then the Senate will select the vice president, with each senator having one vote. On four occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Once again Eyer-the-Liar rushes in to tell us all something he likes to pretend we don't know -- that the President is elected by electoral votes cast in the Electoral College rather than by popular vote. Gee, thanks there, professor.

But here is something that perhaps many of you did not know. "Although no elector is required by federal law to honor a pledge,"

Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced.[2] In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, like Michigan and Minnesota, specify that the faithless elector's vote is void.[4]

*****************

The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair.[6] The court ruled that the states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, and the right to remove electors who refuse to pledge. After an elector has voted, their vote can be changed only in states such as Michigan and Minnesota, which invalidate votes other than those pledged. In the twenty-nine states that have laws against faithless electors, a faithless elector may only be punished after they vote. Article II of the Constitution grants the power of selecting delegates to state legislatures, and subsequently the Supreme Court has ruled that, as electors are chosen via state elections, they act as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws that punish electors for actually casting a faithless vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#cite_note-4

But wait!! There is even LESS reason to fret over this breathless hand wringing concerning the "facade of democratic American presidential elections." as Eyer likes to brand the process.

On only 22 occasions in Electoral College history, a TOTAL of 179 electors have not cast their votes for President or Vice President as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (1872, 1912). Two electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (1812, 2000).[2] The remaining 106 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the 1836 election, in which all 23 Virginia electors acted together.

That election was the only occasion when faithless electors altered the outcome of the electoral college vote. The Democrat ticket won states with 170 of the 294 electoral votes, but the 23 Virginia electors abstained in the vote for Vice President, so the Democrat candidate, Richard Mentor Johnson, got only 147 (exactly half), and was not elected. However, Johnson was instead elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate, so faithless electors have never changed the final outcome of an election.

As the OP Wiki citation points out, there have been only FOUR instances when the Electoral College system resulted in the election of a President who did not receive the most popular votes in the election. If those four instances offend you then you should definitely lobby your Congressional representatives and state legislatures to alter the process. As we know from the examples of Maine and Nebraska, electors sent to the Electoral College do NOT necessarily have to disenfranchise the votes cast for a losing candidate in a given state. HOW the ELECTORS are APPORTIONED to each candidate and WHETHER THEY ARE COMPELLED BY STATE LAW to vote FOR a particular candidate is entirely up to each state.

So says the United States Supreme Court.

 

[xbb]

Since you don't have a coherent thought as to HOW such a crime could possibly work, let me spell it out for you in hopes that you can see how truly stupid your paranoia is.

The manner and methodology of conducting local, state and federal elections is controlled at the state level. There is NO legislation authorizing DHS to "take charge" of the Presidential election process within each state. Whatever offer of assistance DHS is making, states are free to accept or refuse.

In most places, votes are cast, tabulated and recorded at the precinct level before being aggregated at the county level. County results are then later aggregated into statewide results.

Therefore, any subterfuge of a democratic election would have to take place at the precinct level involving tens of thousands of voting machines across the country or at least in the major electoral states of California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, etc, otherwise there would be a discrepancy between the state or county tabulations with the precincts. This manipulation of voting machines would literally require the criminal participation of hundreds if not thousands of civil service level DHS employees working at a precinct level in multiple states.

Every step of an election is monitored by representatives of both major political parties. Democrats and Republicans watch each other like hawks. Rigging a Presidential election to the detriment of either party would be on the order of faking the Apollo moon landings -- it simply takes far too many people committed to deceit while others are inexorably invested in exposing the scam.

The ONLY way to reliably fix an election is at the local or state level is when an election is CLOSE. It's how Richard Daley delivered Illinois to Kennedy in 1960.
Additionally, the sheer number of votes cast in a given state, and the normal potential anomalies in the casting and counting procedures made a tabulation more precise than a few hundred votes virtually impossible in Florida in 2000 between Bush and Gore.

The kind of massive fix by DHS that you're contemplating is fucking nuts. Which, of course, is why you believe it.

lunatic

DHS is taking over cause they suspect others of hacking

BS!

they are taking over to HACK, to fix it for GimpCuntClinton......

 

[xbb]

the same DHS that says PATRIOTS are terrorists and MUSLIMS are VICTIMS of TERROR and cant even say ISLAMIC TERRORISTS

will "protect" us?

BEE ESS

only LoogHogan believes that