SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Securityweek has a look at the bits of HR1 with digital election security implications running:
The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has unveiled its first Bill: HR1, dubbed the 'For the People Act'. It has little chance of getting through the Republican-controlled Congress, and even less chance of being signed into law by President Trump.
Nevertheless, HR1 lays down a marker for current Democrat intentions; and it is likely that some of the potentially bi-partisan elements could be spun out into separate bills with a greater chance of progress.
One of these is likely to include the section on election security. This has been a major issue since the meddling by Russian-state hackers in the 2016 presidential election, and the subsequent realization on how easy it would be for interested parties (both foreign hackers and local activists) to influence election outcomes.
I'm all for secure and accountable elections but the feds are going to need to be careful and deliberate in what they mandate vs. what they place conditions for funding on. They do have significant authority as far as election laws go but their power is more deep than broad; most specifics are legally up to the states. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean they currently have the legal authority necessary to do it.
(Score: 3, Troll) by RandomFactor on Sunday January 06 2019, @09:41PM (12 children)
Limiting the capabilities of the incoming politicians of the opposite party in lame duck sessions has a long and bipartisan history.
Politics sucks, but this is hardly some new thing Republicans are doing (contrary to protestations to the contrary by impartial sources such as the NYT)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 5, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday January 06 2019, @10:31PM (11 children)
Can you link any examples previous to this year, or done by Democrats? I did a quick search, but couldn't find any.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @10:46PM (4 children)
How about Obama spying on, and continuing to try and remove a constitutionally elected president? All to protect his felon anointed successor.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:12PM (1 child)
Maybe you wouldn't be so protective of the current POTUS if he had sexually assaulted your daughter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @12:51AM
POTUS told this woman "better put some ice on that" after raping and biting her:
https://juanitabroaddrick.com/ [juanitabroaddrick.com]
Then his wife grabbed her and coldly said "thank you for all you do for my husband":
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Juanita.htm [apfn.org]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:27PM
Oh good lord, just take your meds. Please?
You will feel better, really.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 07 2019, @02:54AM
Constitutionally elected by the Russians?
(Score: 1, Troll) by RandomFactor on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:15PM (3 children)
There was discussion of this subject, some of its history in politics, as well as examples on a podcast [youtube.com] recently. I can't pin it down to which episode without re-listening to them (it's on my playlist while driving) which I'm not going to spend the time on. Be nice if there was a transcript, but if there is, it is hidden from the search engines.
If you actually care or have some long trips ahead you can listen to the past dozen or so and you'll find the discussion of it (he's a fast talking Harvard Jewish conservative and actually not bad to listen to, but I like listening to talk from various sources while I'm driving and suspect YMMV considerably from mine. There are items in there which would appeal to left leaning listeners and Trump haters, but they aren't the majority.)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:31PM (2 children)
I don't have any long trips coming up, which is a shame because I have a bunch of podcasts I would like to listen too also, but I would have thought that if preventing the opposition from taking the power they had been elected to assume was a time-honoured tradition of US politics, I would be able to find some mention of the Democrats doing it somewhere on the Internet.
I still can't.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:56PM (1 child)
'Won't', the effort to get your required level of documentation is known, but not low enough for you to do it (not unreasonable, I'm not really interested in going back through dozens of hours of podcasts either)
Simply asserting invalidity however leaves nothing worth discussing.
If I come across it or a similar discussion in my travels I may keep track and post it here, mostly that will mean it will have to gain legs to the point of becoming topical again.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 07 2019, @01:07AM
I have genuinely done some searches to try to find any time Democrats have removed powers from incoming Republicans during lame duck sessions, but have not been able to fine a single mention anywhere.
I can find plenty of contentious legislation passed when it arguably shouldn't, but I am now of the opinion that the awful behavior of the Wisconsin Republicans is a new low.
Feel free to provide a link proving me wrong. If it really has happened before, maybe there's some evidence somewhere?
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday January 07 2019, @08:00AM
I'm sick to death of partisan politics, and I'm no expert, and this might be an exception, but since you asked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benisek_v._Lamone [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 07 2019, @01:13PM
How soon we forget Tammany Hall...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.