Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
FBI says as many as 39 states had their voting systems scanned or targeted by Russia.

According to the FBI,*as many as 39 states had their election systems scanned*or targeted by Russia. There's no evidence of votes changed. But given the stakes, some state agencies that run elections are trying to curb any further interference prior to mid-term elections in November.

Their tool of choice: Ensuring systems can't be hacked, and if they are, making those breaches immediately obvious. To do this, some are taking the unusual move of rewinding the technological dial, debating measures that would add paper ballots — similar to how many Americans voted before electronic voting started to become widespread in the 1980s.*

A week ago Virginia announced it would no longer use touch-screen-only voting machines after a hack-a-thon in Las Vegas showed*how easily they could be breached.*
Click to expand...
 
The Trump cult is just playing Whose Lie Is It Anyway.

Where everything is made up and the facts don't matter.
 
sunmaster14 said:
The link to the primary authority doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Let me help you:

hXXp://-swing-state-voter-rolls/102555520/https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/06/russian-hackers-election-goal-may-have-been-swing-state-voter-rolls/102555520/

Should be:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...-have-been-swing-state-voter-rolls/102555520/

But what I think you really want is this:
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05...ian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/

(via https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...h-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections)

Which I believe is the actual source of those numbers.

Now you can move on to hand-waving that document away.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Let me help you:

hXXp://-swing-state-voter-rolls/102555520/https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/06/06/russian-hackers-election-goal-may-have-been-swing-state-voter-rolls/102555520/

Should be:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...-have-been-swing-state-voter-rolls/102555520/

But what I think you really want is this:
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05...ian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/

(via https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...h-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections)

Which I believe is the actual source of those numbers.

Now you can move on to hand-waving that document away.
Click to expand...

I don't see any reference to 39 states (or as many as 39 states) being targeted in the article from The Intercept. There is no relevant mention of the FBI either. As for the Bloomberg article, I've seen no followup to its claim (made in June by the way) that some anonymous person claimed 39 states were targeted. Bloomberg never claimed that the anonymous person was from the FBI, and the FBI has never made any such announcement publicly.

According to any reasonable standards, this is yet another example of fake news (helpfully propagated by Stacko, as is his wont).
 
Stacko said:
Enter the oligarch.
Click to expand...
That is some powerful nothingburger.

I suppose there might be some innocent explanation for why a presidential campaign manager was offering closed-door high-level campaign access to a foreign oligarch. Some chain of causation that completely circumnavigates around the Kremlin.

[emoji553] [emoji635]
 
d4m10n said:
That is some powerful nothingburger.

I suppose there might be some innocent explanation for why a presidential campaign manager was offering closed-door high-level campaign access to a foreign oligarch. Some chain of causation that completely circumnavigates around the Kremlin.

[emoji553] [emoji635]
Click to expand...

When someone offers to work for you for free, you might be their product.
 
Argumemnon said:
You are in possession of all the information and yet you keep pretending that it doesn't mean what it clearly means.
Click to expand...

I am in possession of all of the speculation, allegation, and accusation... and yet I keep failing to add my own opinion regarding what it must actually mean.

Yep, clearly that's total dishonesty, and I'm totally just a liar because I haven't rounded out all those not-yet-verified news stories with what I want to believe. :rolleyes:
 
sunmaster14 said:
No, if you use your brain for critical analysis, it is possible to be confident of your conclusions, even without direct evidence. You should try it sometimes. It's a very rewarding experience.
Click to expand...

I object to this. This is exactly the same thing that's being done by those who have concluded Trump's guilt. Both they and you are filling in the blanks in a paucity of solid evidence with your own beliefs.

A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. There may be enough of a plausible story to prompt suspicion, but there is absolutely NOT enough to support a confident conclusion.

Confirmation bias cuts both ways.
 
Argumemnon said:
What? Seriously you're making less and less sense.
Click to expand...

I'm tired of this argument.

In essence, you claim that I've been given all of the evidence, so my defense of Trump means I'm dishonest.

My rejoinder is, and has been pretty consistently, that the vast majority of information being supplied does not constitute evidence. The majority of it is allegation, accusation, or speculation. As such, it is insufficient for me to reach a conclusion.

Your entire premise is flawed.

1) Most of the information is not evidence
2) I haven't defended Trump - refraining from adopting an uninformed option is not a defensE
3) None of that in any fashion indicates a lack of integrity or honesty
 
Emily's Cat said:
In essence, you claim that I've been given all of the evidence, so my defense of Trump means I'm dishonest.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it was a strawman. Got it.

My rejoinder is, and has been pretty consistently, that the vast majority of information being supplied does not constitute evidence. The majority of it is allegation, accusation, or speculation. As such, it is insufficient for me to reach a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I said: you have all the information and you're dismissing and ignoring it to avoid reaching the obvious conclusion.

I haven't defended Trump - refraining from adopting an uninformed option is not a defensE
Click to expand...

Yes. No.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I object to this. This is exactly the same thing that's being done by those who have concluded Trump's guilt. Both they and you are filling in the blanks in a paucity of solid evidence with your own beliefs.

A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. There may be enough of a plausible story to prompt suspicion, but there is absolutely NOT enough to support a confident conclusion.

Confirmation bias cuts both ways.
Click to expand...

Look, I appreciate that you want to use me as a foil to make yourself look more objective, but, ... well, actually I don't appreciate it.

In the context I made that statement, it was absolutely reasonable. Gathering evidence of financial crimes does not require no-knock search warrants in the middle of the night. I would have thought this was easy to understand, but maybe you need a financial background to fully appreciate how difficult it is to cover up financial improprieties by flushing a baggie down the toilet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom