back to article Republican senators shoot down a triple whammy of proposed election security laws

The US Senate on Wednesday blocked a trio of law bills that aimed to make America's elections more secure and transparent. The Honest Ads Act, spearheaded by Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who is among those running for president in 2020, would, if passed, force social media networks to reveal the organisations paying for political ads …

  1. FozzyBear
    Facepalm

    BWAHAHAHA

    Truth in Advertising !! You may as well legislate for honest Politicians

    1. quxinot

      Re: BWAHAHAHA

      Thank you. Beat me to it.

    2. BillG
      WTF?

      One Billion Dollars for FY2019

      The bill is S. 1540. If you read the text of the bill, it allocates ONE BILLION DOLLARS for Govt FY2019 (Oct 2018 - Sept 2019). FY2019 has already passed.

      Why does the bill allocate so much money for a fiscal year that's already over?

      1. mrobaer

        Re: One Billion Dollars for FY2019

        If you read the top portion, you'll see it was introduced in Senate (05/16/2019).

        S.1989 was introduced in Senate (10/19/2017)

        S.277 was introduced in Senate (02/28/2019)

        1. BillG
          Devil

          Re: One Billion Dollars for FY2019

          If you read the top portion, you'll see it was introduced in Senate (05/16/2019).

          Yes, but the money is still allocated. This happens sometimes when the FY for the allocated money has expired. So, as in the past, that one billion dollars for expired FY2019 might just.... disappear (into a Cayman Island bank account maybe?)

    3. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: BWAHAHAHA

      I agree! Fuck trying to make things better in any way! Embrace your cynicism and kiss principles goodbye!

      1. DCFusor

        Re: BWAHAHAHA

        Right, it would be cheaper and better to just require voters to ID themselves, that is, if the Democrat party didn't always vote that one down, and call it racist. As though anyone living in the US doesn't have ID or can't get it free at the DMV or other .gov outlet.

        When did this become a partisan politic outlet, anyway - a very one sided one.

        1. Bongwater

          Re: BWAHAHAHA

          Dude it's a joke, there is zero evidence after years of people trying desperately to prove Russia messed with our elections. Did they mess with Hillary being completely out of touch with her constiuents?

          Hillary did the same thing Bush senior did, they assumed they were going to win and thought it was in the bag. Both were caught with pants down.

          Look at Wayne county in Michigan, they voted for Obama and then voted for Trump. It was a huge story on election night. Please tell me how Russia told Wayne County in Michigan whom to vote for or how they tricked an entire area like that.

          Sad to see on a website like this where nobody posted zero evidence of it occurring but people still parrot it. I don't believe Obama cheated (I believe he is a citizen as well, bet that destroys like 99% of counter arguements) and I don't believe Trump cheated. It is just a good way to sell advertising revenue while people keep trying to make stuff up.

          If I missed a relevant post please show me a link, I am not perfect so maybe someone here actually has real irrefutable evidence to show the rest of us.

          1. steve 124

            Re: BWAHAHAHA

            Agreed. If they were really concerned about voting interference then at least one of these bills would be to require identification at all voting locations and double checking mail-in ballots for deceased voters. Maybe a byline about not counting any votes from counties that allow illegal aliens to vote en mass (looking at YOU California).

            Yea, the way out voting system is setup, there's not much chance of direct hacking (these systems are supposed to talk over only secured transmission lines, not directly on the internet). I'm much more concerned with voter fraud than I am hacking.

            1. rmullen0

              Re: BWAHAHAHA

              Apparently you don't remember a few years back when a Republican who was overseeing the voting disappeared for a couple days with the flash drive from the electronic machines. Supposedly, she was merging the results together in Microsoft Access. What kind of F-ed up S is that? You cannot trust the electronic voting machines. Anyone who works i IT knows that. If you have access to the data, you can do whatever you want with it. No system is secure. Paper ballots or at least a paper audit trail is the only way to go. Also, there were Republican states that intentionally disabled the audit trails. Funny how Jill Stein of the Green Party was the one trying to get the two corrupt parties to do an audit.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: BWAHAHAHA

                Funny how Americans still allow themselves to be tricked into arguing (often violently) about which party is evil - when they are just the two hands of the same body.

                1. Bongwater

                  Re: BWAHAHAHA

                  Which Americans? Everyone American I know saw the joke on the Simpsons on who voted for Kodos and who voted for Kang.

                  "Go ahead, throw your vote away!"

                  Note: Homer voted for Kodos and I agree with him.

          2. Bite my finger

            Re: BWAHAHAHA

            I agree as well. The Democrat Party is dead set against the one thing that would really help with vote fiddling of all kinds: Voter ID.

            The fact that they use the race card to oppose Voter ID, with no evidence that it harms anyone but cheaters, kinda indicates what they're up to.

            1. DryBones
              Facepalm

              Re: BWAHAHAHA

              Yeah, then they'd catch even more Republicans trying to vote twice than they did last time...

              Also, there was lots of evidence given that it was another of those back-door voter-suppression efforts, but never let data get in the way of a good gaslighting...

              1. Bite my finger

                Re: BWAHAHAHA

                So, the Republicans do all the cheating, and the Democrats block Voter ID to help them cheat...?

                Your logic seems to have a gaping hole in it. I'd get that looked at if I were you.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: BWAHAHAHA

            "Sad to see on a website like this where nobody posted zero evidence of it occurring but people still parrot it".

            Narratives are like intellectual territory - once people have accepted them, they will fight to keep them. "A poor thing, but mine own". And many people who believe and eagerly repeat lies do so in the pathetic belief that doing so somehow puts them "one up" on those who disbelieve.

            "It often happens that, if a lie be believed only for an hour, it has done its work, and there is no further occasion for it".

            - Swift, The Examiner, 1715.

        2. Bite my finger

          Re: BWAHAHAHA

          > "When did this become a partisan politic outlet, anyway - a very one sided one."

          Actually the Reg is LESS partisan-left than it was a year ago, if you can believe it. Still pretty far left, but that's typical for anything coming from Britain or Europe. Part of the territory.

          It was getting so ugly last year, that I guess the money people realized the politics was getting in the way of revenue. Would help if they sacked one or two of their contributors from San Francisco. Those folks make the Brits look like Margret Thatcher.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: BWAHAHAHA

            Have you ever paused to wonder, if everything coming from Europe or the UK looks so "partisan-left" to you, whether that might be due to some bias at the receiving end?

            Just asking.

            1. Bite my finger

              Re: BWAHAHAHA

              Yes I've wondered, and I have researched it too. Sure enough, the US is not as far left as Europe. And it's not just me that thinks so. Ph we have our festering pockets of liberalism, typically decaying cities run by Democrats.

              If you want to blame me for the difference, I shant stop you. Don't agree tho.

    4. Lars Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: BWAHAHAHA

      That is a silly comment as it's about helping people to distinguish, indeed between advertising and news (containing hopefully facts). It's not a big ask and should interest the British too.

      Kick him out.

    5. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: BWAHAHAHA

      In Britain we have the Advertising Standards Agency, which does indeed insist on truth in advertising.

      Comparing to adverts from the US, it's definitely working. (But we don't allow political adverts on TV).

      1. Lars Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: BWAHAHAHA

        @phuzz

        Yes, I know that but when it comes to Facebook and similar the problem is still the same.

      2. Dan Clarke
        FAIL

        Re: BWAHAHAHA

        We do, but because the ASA is specifically excluded from oversight of political advertising, I think this actually causes problems in the UK. There's a general understanding that "if it wasn't true, they wouldn't be allowed to say it" which is fair enough most of the time but means that political advertising either online, in print, or on billboards, etc. can get away with - essentially - lying, without any consequences whatsoever.

        The ASA did used to police political advertising as well, but that was taken away from it on the understandable basis that it was unable to respond in a timely enough manner to the kind of advertising used in the short timeframe of, say, an election campaign. The power was taken away on the basis that a new body would be set up which was specifically designed to respond quickly. Fair enough, except the new body was set up so now... nobody regulates political advertising.

      3. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

        Re: (But we don't allow political adverts on TV).

        Wow, if only...

        Besieged by television ads for lying politicians and shyster lawyers who promise to get me $800-grillion for my car wreck injury, I'm even more in love with my Tivo's advert-skip feature which lets me bypass most of those. I would love it even MORE if those ads were banned outright as they appear to be for you lot.

        1. DCFusor

          Re: (But we don't allow political adverts on TV).

          Turn off the TV. The other stuff is even worse for you.

          1. Bite my finger
            Go

            Re: (But we don't allow political adverts on TV).

            It's easy to say "Turn it off," but we all know that's not going to be possible for many. Those poor SOB's have little else in life, if you can call that "living."

            My "TV" is the view I get hiking across beautiful places found only out of doors. No ads out there!

            Well, there is the occasional billboard, but I have plans for those... >:-)

      4. GnuTzu

        Re: BWAHAHAHA

        I've noticed that YouTube is already flagging funding sources on news channels. I like it. It almost allows me to think that I can tell what the underlying agenda is... almost.

      5. scrubber
        Facepalm

        Re: BWAHAHAHA

        Re: ASA

        From their website:

        Ultimately if advertisers and broadcasters persistently break the Advertising Codes and don’t work with us, we can refer them to other bodies for further action, such as Trading Standards or Ofcom.

        So, if you don't obey their rules they might tell on you to another agency? Sounds like they can't 'insist' on bupkis.

      6. The Dogs Meevonks Silver badge

        Re: BWAHAHAHA

        But in the UK, party political broadcasts are allowed and equal time must be given to all political parties by all broadcasters. Whilst it's direct advertising it is a propaganda advert all the same.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: BWAHAHAHA

          Not quite. There are a limited number of slots they can use, so it's not wall-to-wall at every ad-break. Likewise, a political party has to meet certain thresholds before it can be given one of the broadcast slots, eg the Monster Raving Looney Party doesn't get one. Oh yes, and it's not all broadcasters.

          1. Martin an gof Silver badge

            Re: BWAHAHAHA

            the Monster Raving Looney Party doesn't get one

            I think it depends on the election. They certainly got one for the Welsh Assembly elections in 2016. They have some impressive policies, and they're not all madcap ideas like repopulating the river Taff with mermaids or establishing a Welsh Dragon breeding programme.

            My near-16-year-old is seriously considering voting for them if someone manages to lower the age to 16 for the next General or Assembly election...

            M.

            1. Bite my finger

              Re: BWAHAHAHA

              Um, do the Welsh actually need mermaids and dragons? And separately or mixed?

              1. Martin an gof Silver badge

                Re: BWAHAHAHA

                do the Welsh actually need mermaids and dragons

                On the assumption that you're not from around these parts, here are clues to one of those questions.

                M.

            2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: BWAHAHAHA

              "I think it depends on the election. They certainly got one for the Welsh Assembly elections in 2016. They have some impressive policies, and they're not all madcap ideas like repopulating the river Taff with mermaids or establishing a Welsh Dragon breeding programme."

              I agree with that! If you read over the MRLP manifestos over that last mumbldy years, you quite often find policies which became mainstream and then enacted years later.

      7. JJKing

        Re: BWAHAHAHA

        In Britain we have the Advertising Standards Agency, which does indeed insist on truth in advertising.

        Well that worked so well on the £350 Million sign on the big red brexit bus.

        (Yes, I do realise brexit was not an election but still it was a very divisive lie for such a massively important referendum that effected everyone in the United Kingdom).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: BWAHAHAHA

          "Well that worked so well on the £350 Million sign on the big red brexit bus."

          Politicians appear to be able to lie to their heart's content in newspapers. Some even get paid handsomely by the newspapers to write their pieces on a regular basis.

  2. redpawn

    No need for ballot security

    We'll let Trump and Moscow Mitch count the votes. This will ensure election fairness.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: No need for ballot security

      Face it. Putin's cleptocracy and cronyism succeeded where communism failed. US politicians like the idea of easy money and unchecked power too, but without that uncomfortable ideological baggage.

      Social networks added the required propaganda machine.

      1. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

        Re: "Putin's cleptocracy and cronyism succeeded where communism failed"

        Soviet communism "succeeded" for 70-ish years until it finally collapsed. Putin's cleptocracy (upvoted you for that) hasn't yet had enough time to be deemed a true success or simply not yet collapsed under its own weight like its predecessor.

        1. SouthernLogic

          Re: "Putin's cleptocracy and cronyism succeeded where communism failed"

          Soviet Communism "Succeed"? For whom? No one but the top soviets were living any dreams. No freedom of speech lest you become like the 10s of millions in a mass grave.. Not what I call success.

          Scary thing is with todays tech China is proving that the "thought police" can become real.

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: No need for ballot security

        Pretty sure we already had plenty of effective propaganda machines. Social networks are just the flavor of the month.

    2. macjules

      Re: No need for ballot security

      You'll need lots of crayons and abaci then I think.

    3. DontFeedTheTrolls
      Flame

      Re: No need for ballot security

      Why even hold a ballot in the UK and waste time counting votes, Labour do it on a show of hands and decide the result aligned with the directives of the party Executive.

  3. Mark 85
    Facepalm

    The slippery slope is in progress.

    Watching the shenanigans by both sides in the government makes me wonder when we will finally hit "banana republic" level. I hear the founding fathers are spinning in their graves and they weren't angels either.

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: The slippery slope is in progress.

      I am not that sure that your not already there, just have a look at the current president, an bright orange Cookie Monster....

      1. Bite my finger

        Re: The slippery slope is in progress.

        Bright orange? Haven't seen any politicians with that particular colour. Try power cycling your telly.

    2. BebopWeBop

      Re: The slippery slope is in progress.

      Good lubricants in them thar banana skins.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The slippery slope is in progress.

      By both sides you mean the two branches of government the GOP currently control right?

      1. Bite my finger

        Re: The slippery slope is in progress.

        No, I think it's a reference to the Democrat Congress and the Democrat media machine. Co-equal too.

    4. a pressbutton

      Re: The slippery slope is in progress.

      Attach magnets.

      Place in an armature

      Carbon neutral power!

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The slippery slope is in progress.

      "I hear the founding fathers [...]"

      Until I read that line I thought it was a comment about the UK Parliament.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    'if you’re doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result'

    That's exactly how politics works. Try until you gain enough consensus.

    It only becomes troubling when Republicans believe they can change Science by law.

    1. DavCrav

      Re: 'if you’re doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result'

      To be fair, there are still Republican dicks in the Senate, so you would expect the same result.

    2. SouthernLogic

      Re: 'if you’re doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result'

      By that logic there is no bad idea and the crooks in washington would spend the USA into oblivion faster than they are doing now.

      Not everything needs or should have a government solution!

      1. DCFusor
        Mushroom

        Re: 'if you’re doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result'

        Aparrently this board is now controlled by communists, who almost paradoxically claim to hate the Russians, who aren't even communist.

        We are selectively reporting the news here - Republicans have been working to get voter ID passed but are always blocked by the left.

        We already switched back to paper ballots where I live. There's no need for ID here, as in small towns, everyone knows everyone. This isn't Chicago or another dem run dense urban area famous for corruption - most of the US is a lot nicer.

        Putin must be the most amazing guy on earth - According to the news, the Russians spend a tiny fraction of a percent what any candidate spends on an election - yet always get their way, which is of course, whatever the media doesn't like. The difference in spend last time was far larger than any Russian addition, yet according to the MSM, the wrong guy won because of it.

        Looks to me like the media - owned by only a couple shell companies - is the one who thinks they should decide elections - or their masters think that. It's clear they have major influence, but as this very article shows - it needn't be fair and often isn't even called out by the simplest check of facts and history.

        It's almost as if the Russians are a manufactured enemy to distract from the real problems we have. Old trick, see the HL Mencken quote. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

        If a leader tries to make peace, they are instantly called a traitor or Russian asset. Even ones who haven't been voted in yet - say, Tulsi Gabbard - and ones from the past. This pattern isn't new. Those who have their noses in the trough benefit from protecting us from non threats, and defend their rice bowls fiercely. Resulting in jokes like Boeing (most of their money is in mil contracts, making planes crash is a sideline). Who protects us from that?

        Where does the value come from to give out more "free stuff"? Are doctors, pharma, schools going to work for free? Or is there actually no such thing as a free lunch? You can print currency all day - and they do, devaluing my savings - but that doesn't actually grow food and so on.

        1. DryBones

          Re: 'if you’re doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result'

          The only ones spouting alarmist and incendiary rhetoric are Trump and his proxies. Also they're the ones that take reasoned analyses and suspicions and make them into these farcical things that are then ridiculed by them as alarmist.

          So basically you're calling an arsonist your savior.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Snouts in the Trough

    These GOP [redacted] have their eyes more focussed on Campain Contributions that will fund their next holiday (i.e. Term in DC) rather than making Democracy work for the people of the USA.

    I hope that they all get a good beating along with El Dictator Trumpo next November but it is probably wishful thinking.

    The USA will get the president that outside interests want not what is best for the country. Much like here really.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Snouts in the Trough

      The country, being as large as it is, is served best by local and state politicians doing their job. Look around the country and you'll see some cities and states having success while others are not, regardless of the party affiliation of the POTUS.

      Regarding parties, both have their career hacks who do little to improve the quality of life for their constituents, yet continue to get re-elected because their sheep vote the party line.

      As a supervisor in the logistics field, I can say that my area has become highly competitive when it comes to recruiting and hiring. Under the previous administration, we would have 25 or more job applicants per opening. Now, we have had several openings for over a year with not enough applicants. Other local logistic companies are experiencing similar trends. This is somewhat anecdotal of course, because I cannot comment on other industries in the area and their hiring struggles.

      1. quxinot

        Re: Snouts in the Trough

        Rather than drawing our politicans by party lines, it'd be nice if we could get it enshrined in law that they simply have to wear shirts displaying their sponsorship, with larger logos based on larger funding. I have a mental image of congress looking like a NASCAR driver's meeting...

        (I also have an image of Ajit Pai unable to stand under the weight of a billboard strapped to him.)

        1. SouthernLogic

          Re: Snouts in the Trough

          LOVE IT. That costs nothing and there is truth being told. You know who these idiots are owned by.

          1. DCFusor

            Re: Snouts in the Trough

            There are websites for knowing about funding, and plenty of info on what the PACs are up to.

            Strangely, the media almost never points that out. No one seems to want to turn over a rock they themselves are wriggling under.

            Try this in google - political funding open Secrets - I just gave you more of that info in less than a sentence than the MSM does in a year, and look how hard it was.

            Funny how that is.

        2. Mike Moyle

          Re: Snouts in the Trough

          But for donations from PACs whose sole purpose is to try to conceal the source of the donations, shirt-patches should be replaced by the politician's choice of facial tattoos or metal plates directly stapled to the politician's dermis.

  6. sbt
    Pirate

    Kill bills 1, 2 and 3

    Seems doomed to failure, and there seems to have been clues that they'd be knocked out. Not a left-pondian so may be missing something, but if it's so easy to kill bills in the senate, why didn't the sponsors get their party colleagues in the house to introduce them there?

    Is it just posturing and publicity seeking, particularly from the presidential candidates?

    Icon; closest available to katanas >>>

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Kill bills 1, 2 and 3

      Most likely there is more to this. Like the Conservative MP who did the same thing in rejecting a proposed banning "upskirting".

      Despite the claims of the left, he wasn't opposed to laws against upskirting, he was opposed to the government using time which was supposed to be reserved for back benchers and he had form for rejecting government bills presented in this way.

      But the fact his objection was merely procedural didn't get widely reported.

      And you can bet that if post January 2017 El Reg had covered it, they would have missed out why he did it.

      1. deive

        Re: Kill bills 1, 2 and 3

        That fact was reported. Also reported was the fact that he lied about the reason; as he himself has introduced multiple private member bills.

        https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/16/sir-christopher-chope-hates-private-members-bills-but-has-created-31-in-the-last-year-7636993/

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Kill bills 1, 2 and 3

          His opposition was to the government using private members bills, not to back benchers using private members bills.

      2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

        Re: Kill bills 1, 2 and 3

        There have been plenty of instances of Chope voting for private members bills when it suits him, so he is his own counterexample to disprove his reasoning here.

    2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Kill bills 1, 2 and 3

      if it's so easy to kill bills in the senate, why didn't the sponsors get their party colleagues in the house to introduce them there?

      Bills are introduced in both chambers, and voted on separately. Often a bill will pass one chamber and not the other. When a bill does pass in both chambers, usually it will be two different versions, and then committees will have to reconcile them and the reconciled version then gets voted on by both chambers.

      The Senate's Honest Ad Act bill, S.1989, happens to be identical to the House's Honest Ad Act bill, H.4077. Looks like it was introduced in the House the same day it was introduced in the Senate (2017-10-19, or a bit more than two years ago) but is stuck in committee. I haven't checked the other two but I expect the situation is similar.

      So it's not a question of "introduce in the House and bypass the Senate". You have to get through both, and at least one person in each chamber has to sponsor the bill there.

      1. sbt
        WTF?

        Yes, No bypass

        Yes, I knew bills have be passed through both chambers and reconciled as necessary. But I was wondering why you'd start at the hard end, when (I assume) a bill passed in the House should have more chance of being "taken seriously" in the Senate? Sorry for the confusion in my question; I didn't think anyone would think you could bypass either.

        1. John Gamble

          Re: Yes, No bypass

          ... when (I assume) a bill passed in the House should have more chance of being "taken seriously" in the Senate?

          It doesn't work that way. Both House and Senate are independent of each other, and although sponsoring congressmen and senators may coordinate efforts, and introduce identical bills, by the time individual legislators in both houses have introduced their amendments and resolved their objections, the bills will be different from each other.

          Then comes the negotiating between House and Senate to resolve those differences. Often the White House is consulted as well, as it would be a waste of time to resolve a bill into a form that will get vetoed by the President (assuming a veto could not be overridden).

          So there's no ease-into-law path to follow when it comes to introducing a bill. While it would have been nice to get even one of these bills passed, at this point showing the fecklessness of the the vetoing senators is useful too.

  7. Chris G

    The irony is, if this had been Republicans introducing these bills during a Democratic incumbency, it would have been Democrats killing the same bills.

    1. killakrust

      Foul Play

      Illegal use of Whataboutisim. Poster attempted to discredit apposing position by charging them with hypocrisy without evidence.

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Foul Play

        Yeah, okay, but do you really need evidence ? Isn't it blindingly obvious ?

        1. DryBones
          Thumb Down

          Re: Foul Play

          Yes. Yes you do. You'd be less blinded if you pulled your head out.

  8. Adrian 4

    The US system may be different, but in the UK we vote for people, not parties. The members we voted in then elect a PM.

    The party affiliation is secondary yet asserts a huge pressure on how the members vote.

    How is this even legal ?

    In any reasonable arena they would seen as what they are : immoral pressure groups applying bribes.

    1. James 139

      That's certainly how it's supposed to work, yes.

      Reality is that people vote for parties, often blindly, at all levels.

      The worst part is that the party policies aren't always the candidates, and vice versa, but if you are 51% Conservative/Labour/Other, then it seems to be close enough for many.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        >Reality is that people vote for parties, often blindly, at all levels.

        Nonsense, it is simply that every labour candidate here since 1897 has been the nicest person by a vast majority.

        There was a tory candidate once but somebody ate him

        1. Adrian 4

          I think that's the case in most constituencies, except that the tory candidates are rarely appetising enough to eat.

      2. JJKing
        Facepalm

        Totally correct.

        Reality is that people vote for parties, often blindly, at all levels.

        I have always voted for the Unicorn Party because my parents did and their parents did and so did theirs.

        Just to move to the other side of the Pond now. There was some Republican guy (sorry, too hard to narrow down) who was accused of sexual assault but republicans were told to vote for him on the basis that he was a Republican. Didn't matter that he was the scum of the earth but that he was a Republican party member.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "The worst part is that the party policies aren't always the candidates [...]"

        For several UK MPs their first loyalty on human rights issues is not to the Party, nor to their constituents, but to the dictates of their religious organisation's hierarchy.

        1. Kiwi
          Holmes

          "The worst part is that the party policies aren't always the candidates [...]"

          For several UK MPs their first loyalty on human rights issues is not to the Party, nor to their constituents, but to the dictates of their religious organisation's hierarchy.

          So what you're saying is... That they're loyal to what they value the most?

          (God is higher than man after all, His laws and ways of treating people are so much nicer than how nasty we are to each other all the time)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "His laws and ways of treating people are so much nicer than how nasty we are to each other all the time">

            The documented much smiting and slaughtering by fire and water?

            1. Kiwi
              Facepalm

              If you were to look at what was being dealt with and why, perhaps you'd show a little more smarts :)

              (Or perhaps you're one of those who think all "alternative lifestyles" should be applauded and followed, including those that involve torturing children and infants to death, or sexually assaulting children, among many other things? Should God have let that behaviour go unchecked? Do you support the rape, torture and murder of children?)

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "That they're loyal to what they value the most?"

            Their identity has been forged from earliest childhood to obey their religion's hierarchy. That is - at best - the vested interest of those in authority decreeing what dogma and shibboleths are mandatory beliefs.

            The less justifiable the dogma or a shibboleth is - the better it is as a test of tribal loyalty.

            1. Kiwi

              [citation needed]

              I hear this quite often. I'm yet to see anyone actually stump up with any proof. There was a comment earlier in this topic about people believing lies and oneupmanship..

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "God is higher than man after all, [...]"

            In which case the creator of God is even higher - but then that creator must also have a creator... who must have.....

            1. Kiwi

              "God is higher than man after all, [...]"

              In which case the creator of God is even higher - but then that creator must also have a creator... who must have.....

              Why would God need a creator?

              Ah, you're one of those who believe absolutely nothing magically created everything. And a logical extension of that belief is that you must also believe in Harry Potter, Star Trek, fairies down the bottom of the garden (no wait those are real, I was one of them myself!) and all sorts of other interesting and quite weird stuff. That or you don't fully believe after all...

              Sheesh. Some people will believe anything!

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Are the GOP actually trying to break the record in 'how to look guilty as fuck'?

    1. theOtherJT Silver badge

      Probably not. They've just finally come to the realization that it doesn't matter if they're guilty or not, because the electorate will vote on party lines regardless of what they actually do. As long as they're against the "other team" they can be as guilty as they want of whatever they feel like, and they will still get sufficient support to get re-elected.

      1. Mark 85

        because the electorate will vote on party lines regardless of what they actually do.

        Exactly. Those of us who are "non-affiliated" are a dying minority as party politics use the "herd mentality" to it's full advantage. It's a pity that critical thinking is rapidly disappearing and being replaced by "follow the herd".

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        >because the electorate will vote on party lines regardless of what they actually do

        But since their electorate is dying out - they are going to have to rely on gerrymandering, voter suppression and electoral college rules to win.

        The other side are also going to have to learn that all women and anybody <100% white won't automatically vote for them.

        1. holmegm

          I've been hearing the "dying out" thing for more decades than I'd care to say. It seems to be taking an awfully long time.

          Or ... perhaps things aren't as simple as presented, and young people get older and gain experience and some wisdom.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "[...] and young people get older and gain experience and some wisdom."

            They learn pragmatism to replace much of their youthful idealism. Unfortunately that can often lead to perceived self-interest that is visceral convenience rather than fact based. The human mind tends to believe what it wants to believe viz confirmation bias.

            1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              More that the ratio of white non-college VS black/Hispanic/graduates is against them and accelerating

              Of course the dems have to learn that black men can be religious anti-gay and anti-abortion aswell

  10. batfink

    A bit more information please

    El Reg - in the interest of complete information, can we know what excuses the Republicans used for rejecting these bills?

    Then we might be able to form an opinion about whether these excuses are reasonable, or (as we all suspect) it's just self-serving corruption.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      In the current American political climate, it's obvious that the corruption is self-serving, with a side of knee-jerk Republican vs Democrat reflex included.

    2. Drew Scriver

      Re: A bit more information please

      My thinking exactly.

      Maybe El Reg misplaced their journalism flash card that listed the five Ws?

      I'l try to help them out:

      Who: Republicans

      What: Rejected three bills that were purportedly written by Democrats to increase integrity in elections

      When: On Wednesday

      Where: US Senate

      Why: [El Reg, this one's for you to figure out]

      I'll leave the How and the Source for them, too.

      1. Drew Scriver

        Re: A bit more information please

        Interesting. El Reg:

        The US Senate on Wednesday blocked a trio of law bills

        The Hill (linked to by El Reg in the article):

        Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation

        Given that the article in the Hill was published at 16:58 EST the difference can't be explained by time zones between the US and the UK.

        Although The Hill did not provide further details, this quote is interesting:

        Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) blocked its passage, arguing the bill had “more red flags than the Chinese Embassy.” He added that the level of funding was excessive when considering the $380 million appropriated to states last year for election security.

        [...]

        Kennedy said he intended to introduce an election security bill later on Tuesday that would require the chief election official from each state to report any foreign individuals with access to election machines or election information technology to the Election Assistance Commission.

        1. Someone Else Silver badge
          WTF?

          Re: A bit more information please

          And that bill is...where, exactly?

          Oh? It wasn't submitted Tuesday? Or any other time??

          Thought so...

          1. stiine Silver badge
            Coffee/keyboard

            Re: A bit more information please

            Diebold couldn't get him a copy to him yesterday.

        2. batfink

          Re: A bit more information please

          So if non-foreigners interfere with the machines, that's ok then?

          1. Drew Scriver

            Re: A bit more information please

            Absolutely. No US citizen would ever violate election laws or unduly influence the process. Never happened, never will.

            On a serious note, for those unfamiliar with the laws, restricting access to US citizens is quite common for sensitive information and systems. In addition, involvement of foreigners in federal elections is already limited. Beyond not being allowed to cast a ballot, no financial contributions may be made (or accepted). Volunteering is fine, though - as long as it is not funded by a foreign political entity. Interestingly, there are few restrictions for US nationals who want to affect foreign elections.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why vote to prevent something you know isn't happening?

    "Who wants to stop Russians from hacking Americans' votes? Not us, thank you"

    Obviously, since every single one of them knows that Russians didn't "hack" American elections. That story is just for the oafish peasants.

    1. Drew Scriver

      Re: Why vote to prevent something you know isn't happening?

      Don't forget what the hackers (Russians or otherwise) found: proof that the DNC had actively attempted to sabotage the Bernie Sanders campaign.

      The revelations led to the DNC chair stepping down just days before their annual conference.

      The DNC got what it wanted - Hillary Clinton as their candidate. Ironically, it is not unlikely that Sanders would have beaten Trump in the general elections whereas Clinton lost.

      1. Comments are attributed to your handle
        Holmes

        Re: Why vote to prevent something you know isn't happening?

        Both can be true

      2. John Savard

        Re: Why vote to prevent something you know isn't happening?

        I know that many people believe this, but while Bernie Sanders may have energized the Democratic base, he would have been anathema to nearly all middle-of-the-road voters in the United States, and thus his candidacy would instead have eliminated the Electoral College as a factor in what would have been Donald J. Trump's landslide win. He applied the word "socialist" to himself in a public place, after all.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why vote to prevent something you know isn't happening?

      Well, if the cap fits - wear it.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Honesty? NOOOOOOOOO!!! I'm M-E-L-T-I-N-G!

    “The goal of the Honest Ads Act is simple: to ensure that voters know who is paying to influence our political system".

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    You must be joking! Just imagine the consternation among the congresscritters if there was a threat of their constituents finding out who really pays them!

    1. JJKing
      Facepalm

      Re: Honesty? NOOOOOOOOO!!! I'm M-E-L-T-I-N-G!

      imagine the consternation among the congresscritters

      Remind me again which House actually voted on the Bill and forwarded it to the "House of Denial" aka the Senate.

  13. Someone Else Silver badge

    More evidence...

    ...that Republicons cannot win unless they cheat. And this is tantamount to admitting that out in the open, where real people can hear (if they bother to listen).

  14. rcxb Silver badge

    Why paper?

    Election Security Act, which called for states to use paper ballots to prevent cyberattacks altering tallies in voting databases or otherwise screwing around with polling.

    I would prefer to record my vote on stone tablet, thankyou.

    1. Drew Scriver

      Re: Why paper?

      Can't do that - too difficult to pack in the back seat of a car and 'overlook' when you drop off the ballots at the central election office.

  15. Gnarfle

    The steady state of human nature is arrogant self-righteousness.

  16. JoMe

    Not hard to figure out who paid for an ad...

    Does it cast the Side A candidate in the worst possible light? Side B funded

    Does it cast the Side B candidate in the worst possible light? Side A funded.

  17. John Savard

    Unsurprising

    Of course, from the party of voter suppression and gerrymandering, this is hardly surprising.

  18. nineteen_84

    Republican senators shoot down a triple whammy of proposed election security laws

    Like a lot of laws such as freedom of information laws they're to protect certain high profile individuals and groups from prosecution not there for you and me to learn the truth. I believe the people are able to discern fact from fiction. Its certain self-serving politicians who mix it up for us not Russian hackers. We don't need the government to tell us what to think. What we do know is CNN thinks its their responsibility. If you don't believe me I can find the clip. I don't for second believe that Trump had anything to do with Russian intervention in the 2016 election.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like