Continued Russian Election interference

[_subgenius]

durr

If Russia can access voter registration systems, Russia can delete registrations to game outcomes.

agreed, but that is irrelevant to the outcome of the 2016 election since we know that this access had no impact (eg there were no deletions, etc). So, your post's continued attempts to associate the results of the 2016 election with this Russian access is inept.
But perhaps your premise does better explain why Democrats have won a few elections lately.

The fact that we have repeated Congressional testimony stating that Russia is efforting to interfer in future elections and that our deterrence is inadequate suggests that we are at risk of Russia altering election outcomes in the future.

It does suggest that, but it also suggests anything you want construct a narrative around...for example, since they failed to get Hillary Clinton elected they are still trying.
You and the hair-fire brigade are the ones who cannot extract this topic from all things Trump.

You are so busy trying to vindicate Trump's victory that you don't see the obvious synergy between the two stories.

"synergy"? geez, the 1990s called and want their corporate strategy back - if by "vindicate" you mean illustrate the intellectual and logical flaws in your position, then yes that is what i was busy doing.

[_Kishkumen]

You do understand that the topic of this thread is continued Russian interference, right?

[_beastie]

to bad there is no option for your post...it is just plain old fashioned ignorant - but with a modern flair of emotional immaturity and intellectual impotence! so, at least it has that going for it.

The very foundation of our country's democracy was attacked by the Russians.

You shrug and act as if it's no big deal. You act as if the people concerned about this attack are silly partisans with their "hair on fire".

You are an appeaser or a traitor.

[_beastie]

The very foundation of our country's democracy was attacked by the Russians.

You shrug and act as if it's no big deal. You act as if the people concerned about this attack are silly partisans with their "hair on fire".

You are an appeaser or a traitor.

The fact that our country is so far gone into partisanship and balkanized sources of news that a significant portion of our populace have subgenius's attitude gives me very little cause for hope.

[_Kevin Graham]

to bad there is no option for your post...it is just plain old fashioned ignorant - but with a modern flair of emotional immaturity and intellectual impotence! so, at least it has that going for it.

The very foundation of our country's democracy was attacked by the Russians.

You shrug and act as if it's no big deal. You act as if the people concerned about this attack are silly partisans with their "hair on fire".

You are an appeaser or a traitor.

Yep. Remember, if Obama was even remotely acquainted with a radical or if Clinton's charity received a donation from someone with an Arabic name, they were both traitors who needed to be hung. Trump enables and encourages our arch enemy to attack our democracy and for subs, its all cool because we can't point to definitive proof that any single email helped him win the election.

[_Some Schmo]

Trump enables and encourages our arch enemy to attack our democracy and for subs, its all cool because we can't point to definitive proof that any single email helped him win the election.

Ever notice Republicans' standard of proof is pathetic when it comes to accusations against Dems and outrageously stringent for accusations against Repubs?

It's almost as if these guys aren't playing fair (or with a full deck).

[_schreech]

Trump enables and encourages our arch enemy to attack our democracy and for subs, its all cool because we can't point to definitive proof that any single email helped him win the election.

Ever notice Republicans' standard of proof is pathetic when it comes to accusations against Democrats and outrageously stringent for accusations against Repubs?

It's almost as if these guys aren't playing fair (or with a full deck).

Hmmm, and a vast majority of believing Mormons are hardcore "republican" (which really just means the candidate has an R next to their name). Im sensing a pattern here...

[_canpakes]

....it has become clear, by the evidence, that the intrusion into our election system by outsiders was not so shallow as to (1) get a single person elected or not-elected but rather to (2) allow weak minded individuals to erode the system from within.

It would seem that the second item above can directly relate to the first. If you believe that the second can occur, then the first can also occur.

It may seem that way, but it is not that way. The erosion of the system does not conclude with the outcome (eg who won) but rather degenerates the integrity of that victory.

You've lost track of your own line of thought. We were talking about whether or not Russian interference can result in either or both of these two options:

(1) get a single person elected or not-elected
(2) allow weak minded individuals to erode the system from within.

I haven't addressed what concludes x, and neither did you. Rather I've asserted that both factors above that you did mention can be present and occur. In light of the fact that we've seen recent elections hinge on literally a handful of votes, do you dispute this?

For example, the Russian interference has hindered the Trump Presidency which is seriously counter-intuitive to a goal of having him elected to begin with. Point being, even if Hillary Clinton were sworn in as President her presidency would be suffering from the same distraction and ballast that Trump's is suffering from currently.

It hinders it because there are Americans asking questions about Russian interference that was arguably calculated to bolster Trump's popularity and standing, or damage Clinton's. If you believe that Hillary would be subject to the same level of examination post-election (presumably by Republicans), please give examples of similar scale that would demonstrate this. I'm open to examining your claim.

You have been played, put some water on that hair....unless your hair is greasy, then apply flour.

subs, there is one person between the two of us who believes things such as there being 'no proof' of Nazis having gassed anyone during WWII, or that the Clinton's ran a madly efficient killing machine that slayed over a hundred people that may have at one point sort of known them. These are the sorts of claims that dance about within the 4chan realm of alternate facts and show either 'hair on fire' or outright deception - you can choose which is the better description. So, someone here has been played, but you're probably not comfortable enough to admit it.

neither of these were a "case in point" because shallow idiots were targeted on both sides....the point of #2 is that the system itself would be attacked, that "doubt" would be sown...allowing people to discern information, rumors, and conspiracies for themselves and then vote freely is what is being questioned, what is being doubted. But all the while a blind eye is turned to Hillary Clinton cheating at debate questions and a DNC rigging primary elections to have a result that was contrary to the will of their voters...how ironic that Hillary Clinton voters complain about her winning the popular vote in the wake of her denying that same concept from Sanders.

Because knowing about a debate question before being asked it, and the DNC not preferring a non-Democrat to win its primary, are equal in scope and impact to Russians openly gaming our media and electoral system, right? ; )

[_beastie]

subs, there is one person between the two of us who believes things such as there being 'no proof' of Nazis having gassed anyone during WWII, or that the Clinton's ran a madly efficient killing machine that slayed over a hundred people that may have at one point sort of known them. These are the sorts of claims that dance about within the 4chan realm of alternate facts and show either 'hair on fire' or outright deception - you can choose which is the better description. So, someone here has been played, but you're probably not comfortable enough to admit it.

Crikey. Subs believes that nonsense? That certainly gives context to his comments.

[_Brackite]

But all the while a blind eye is turned to Hillary Clinton cheating at debate questions and a DNC rigging primary elections to have a result that was contrary to the will of their voters...how ironic that Hillary Clinton voters complain about her winning the popular vote in the wake of her denying that same concept from Sanders.

Hillary got over three million more votes than Sanders during the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries.
Link
And a political party can choose its own candidate by basically whatever methods it wants.