Continued Russian Election interference

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Remember when Trump accused the Clinton foundation of taking $25 million from the Saudis and the Conservative media crap themselves over the notion of undue foreign influence? I 'member.

Trump could literally crap in subgenius' mouth, on live tv, in the middle of 5th avenue in broad daylight, and he'd not only happily swallow it but claim it was the best meal he's ever eaten.

- Doc

[_Some Schmo]

Trump could literally crap in subgenius' mouth, on live tv, in the middle of 5th avenue in broad daylight, and he'd not only happily swallow it but claim it was the best meal he's ever eaten.

He's already done this. Every Drumpf supporter has already happily eaten his crap.

Sweet, I got nuts in that piece...

[_EAllusion]

Admiral Rogers testified in Congress today what several others before him have also either stated or implied - Russia continues show they plan to interfere in upcoming elections, is not deterred by US countermeasures, and Trump is specifically avoiding ordering taking active steps to thwart this.

You have an ongoing pattern of Trump downplaying and misleading about Russian election interference, Trump avoiding and actively killing countermeasures to deter that interference, and Trump having used that interference to his benefit in the past and standing to benefit again in the future. This, all by itself, should be viewed as "collusion." You don't need a signed note that says, "Let's collude."

Then you have this NBC report:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... on-n850296

They are reporting that Russia was able to compromise 7 different states voting systems in various ways, including penetrating voter registration systems, with DHS failing to properly notify those states.

Ok, notwithstanding that this happened under Obama's watch and he did nothing about it (because the 80s called and wanted their foreign policy back)...also note - "All state and federal officials who spoke to NBC News agree that no votes were changed and no voters were taken off the rolls."

This is literally the most successful boogeyman type of campaign. For those States, the breaches had no influence on the election results...and our ability to detect the breach and the consequences of that breach remains unchanged. Again, it has become clear, by the evidence, that the intrusion into our election system by outsiders was not so shallow as to get a single person elected or not-elected but rather to allow weak minded individuals to erode the system from within. The only true threat to the "American Way" is fear, and the hair-fire brigade is certainly ablaze with that.

It seems like you don't understand why I linked the two stories in tandem. The first is about our continuing vulnerability to Russian election interference and their ongoing efforts to continue this in the future. The second is about Russia's ability to penetrate voting systems. Why do you think the second story might be relevant to the first?

[_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.

Case in point - didn't you vote for Trump?

[_Kishkumen]

At best, you're an appeaser, at worst, you're a traitor.

So strange to see how much things have changed. If you had asked me in the '80s if the Republicans would traitorously work with the Russians to hold onto power as their platform became increasingly unpopular, I would have laughed in your face.

But that's what we see. Traitors. Oh sure, there is the legal definition of traitor, and that is what matters in the courts, but according to common parlance and correct moral understanding, fully traitors. And any fool who walks with them down this path or supports them in it is a traitor too.

[_EAllusion]

At best, you're an appeaser, at worst, you're a traitor.

So strange to see how much things have changed. If you had asked me in the '80s if the Republicans would traitorously work with the Russians to hold onto power as their platform became increasingly unpopular, I would have laughed in your face.

But that's what we see. Traitors. Oh sure, there is the legal definition of traitor, and that is what matters in the courts, but according to common parlance and correct moral understanding, fully traitors. And any fool who walks with them down this path or supports them in it is a traitor too.

Is there a legal definition of traitor? There is for treason, with it being so narrow that very few people could actually engage in treason. Traitor on the other hand is the term best used when the technical definition of treason doesn't apply because it involves aiding and abetting a hostile foreign power rather than one we have a declared war against.

[_subgenius]

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

Case in point - didn't you vote for TrumpClinton?

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.

[_subgenius]

At best, you're an appeaser, at worst, you're a traitor.

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.

[_EAllusion]

durr

If Russia can access voter registration systems, Russia can delete registrations to game outcomes. 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. You are so busy trying to vindicate Trump's victory that you don't see the obvious synergy between the two stories.

[_subgenius]

It seems like you don't understand why I linked the two stories in tandem. The first is about our continuing vulnerability to Russian election interference and their ongoing efforts to continue this in the future. The second is about Russia's ability to penetrate voting systems. Why do you think the second story might be relevant to the first?

Honestly, the reasoning of your post escapes me, likely because it is a bit skewed. For example, the States were notified, just not informed that it was of a Russian origin (again Obama too busy taking phone calls from the 80s). Additionally, yes Russia is still attempting to influence and/or disrupt our voting system and voters....much like they have for decades...fake newspaper/print articles and adverts now being replaced with fake news on Facebook (geez, as if the bigger problem weren't that people think Facebook is a reliable source). And now we have a generation of snark that are forming policy and principle based upon the viral scale of a meme or late night talk show host. All the while assuming that Instagram and Snapchat are meaningful measures of their reality and self-value.
Nevertheless, the OP makes a valid point - Russians did penetrate the voting system in those States...with the only consequence being hair-fires among the election losers desperate to understand how Hillary Clinton could have lost the election after her carefully crafted hijacking of the primary from Sanders. First it was some sort of error that could be rectified, then it was the fault of the electoral college, then it was because it must have been rigged, then it was Russia somehow Russia, then it was just because of stupid white racists, and now your OP simply says it was nothing...yeah Russia go in, but they did nothing, they changed nothing....they literally had no impact on those States' election systems or their results. But somehow what was a point of mockery for Romney in 2014 is now the whole of policy for the DNC, who exhibits nothing more than "by hook or crook" as a means to regain power.


Remember when Elizabeth Warren tweeted in October 2016 - It's not rigged, @realDonaldTrump. You're losing fair & square. Put on your big-boy pants because this is what accountability looks like.