Will Trumpism continue in the Republican Party?

[Mammal]

^ What do you mean by that?

[a]

^ What do you mean by that?

The public has been primed for four years to believe our elections are vulnerable to interference and fraud by the same people now saying such a thing is impossible.

[Fred]

^ What do you mean by that?

The public has been primed for four years to believe our elections are vulnerable to interference and fraud by the same people now saying such a thing is impossible.

Election "interference" encompasses a variety of activities, not just changing votes. (E.g. spreading disinformation, illegally hacking into private servers, and even donating money to campaigns).

Who has said fraud is impossible? The legitimate issue is that evidence is needed to establish fraud. It's irrational to engage in conspiracy theory thinking: start with the assumption the election was stolen, and then interpret every glitch as proof of it.

There have been some pretty crazy allegations, and the craziest has been the nonsense about Dominion voting systems. 

[a]

You may be right, I haven't been following this closely, but I don't have more warrant for trusting to the press than Rudy, given both are hyper-partisan operatives. I think most Americans agree. The press might be the only group in the country with a lower approval rating than congress. Although I doubt anyone outside of MAGA boomers take seriously Trump's claims that he "WON, BY A LOT" (his caps not mine).

I've always thought the illegal voting problem was a much bigger problem than these arguments coming from Trump's legal team you mentioned, given how many illegal immigrants are in this country.

[Fred]

You may be right, I haven't been following this closely, but I don't have more warrant for trusting to the press than Rudy, given both are hyper-partisan operatives. I think most Americans agree. The press might be the only group in the country with a lower approval rating than congress. Although I doubt anyone outside of MAGA boomers take seriously Trump's claims that he "WON, BY A LOT" (his caps not mine).

Rudy has promoted the Dominion conspiracy theory, as well as the general vague conspiracy theory that the election was stolen.  What has the MSM that is comparable? 

I've always thought the illegal voting problem was a much bigger problem than these arguments coming from Trump's legal team you mentioned, given how many illegal immigrants are in this country.

The mere presence of illegal immigrants does not entail their voting, so that alone doesn't seem a very good reason to think there's much problem. Is there evidence that illegals have actually voted? 

[a]

You may be right, I haven't been following this closely, but I don't have more warrant for trusting to the press than Rudy, given both are hyper-partisan operatives. I think most Americans agree. The press might be the only group in the country with a lower approval rating than congress. Although I doubt anyone outside of MAGA boomers take seriously Trump's claims that he "WON, BY A LOT" (his caps not mine).

Rudy has promoted the Dominion conspiracy theory, as well as the general vague conspiracy theory that the election was stolen.  What has the MSM that is comparable? 

I've always thought the illegal voting problem was a much bigger problem than these arguments coming from Trump's legal team you mentioned, given how many illegal immigrants are in this country.

The mere presence of illegal immigrants does not entail their voting, so that alone doesn't seem a very good reason to think there's much problem. Is there evidence that illegals have actually voted?

1. I personally watched Rachel Maddow deliver the same Dominion conspiracy voting theory back in '16 except the culprit was Russia. You don't remember how Russia was hacking electronic voting machines back then?

2. I live in an illegal-rich environment and have personally seen operatives busing illegal immigrants to polling stations.

[a]

This whole ordeal reminds me of one of my favorite MacArthur sermons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDke2j3J18

[Fred]

1. I personally watched Rachel Maddow deliver the same Dominion conspiracy voting theory back in '16 except the culprit was Russia. You don't remember how Russia was hacking electronic voting machines back then?

I searched for this, and the closest thing I could find was this.  Is this what you're referring to? All she did was speculate about one voting machine (no reference to Dominion), and interviewed a lawyer who discussed the potential for hacking. and the need for auditability.  Whether it's this segment, or another, I don't recall an outcry expressing certainty of massive voter fraud - just concerns expressed about the risk. 

2. I live in an illegal-rich environment and have personally seen operatives busing illegal immigrants to polling stations.

You personally checked their immigration status and watched them vote?

Given the fact that this would be a felony that could get them deported, I'm skeptical that there would be much of this. 

[a]

1. I personally watched Rachel Maddow deliver the same Dominion conspiracy voting theory back in '16 except the culprit was Russia. You don't remember how Russia was hacking electronic voting machines back then?

I searched for this, and the closest thing I could find was this.  Is this what you're referring to? All she did was speculate about one voting machine (no reference to Dominion), and interviewed a lawyer who discussed the potential for hacking. and the need for auditability.  Whether it's this segment, or another, I don't recall an outcry expressing certainty of massive voter fraud - just concerns expressed about the risk. 

2. I live in an illegal-rich environment and have personally seen operatives busing illegal immigrants to polling stations.

You personally checked their immigration status and watched them vote?

Given the fact that this would be a felony that could get them deported, I'm skeptical that there would be much of this.

1. Quick google:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacking-elections.html
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/26/did-russia-really-hack-2016-election-088171
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/13/15791744/russia-election-39-states-hack-putin-trump-sessions
https://www.rollcall.com/2019/04/22/mueller-report-russia-hacked-state-databases-and-voting-machine-companies/
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/

That last one I'd actually believe, as The Intercept is independent. Anyway, it's amazing how short-term people's memories are. Allegations that our voting machines/software were vulnerable to Russian hackers was widespread before and after the 2016 elections. Because of course, the only conceivable way orange man could win/lose is hacking. I watch the other side present the exact same narrative and be greeted by the exact same counter of "conspiracy theory." It's all so tiresome.

EDIT: This is a fun one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8eujrTyRRE&feature=emb_title

The professor featured in the Times' video, J. Alex Halderman, says that the Dominion voting machines are "vulnerable to sabotage and even to cyberattacks that could change votes."

2. Lol, well given that they were giving out free stuff to essentially bribe people to get on board, it seemed really suspicious. But it could've been legal immigrants. Although I know for a fact that many of the people in that community are illegal. Not that I care, it's cheap labor.

[Fred]

Ben - Thanks for the links. I read all the articles and it pretty much confirms what I thought.  I've added a comment below each link below. In summary, these articles raise concerns about need for security, and in some cases describe instances in which Russians hacked back-endsystems.  I see no lies, no assertions of stolen elections, no conspiracy theory.  Contrast that with Trump's assertion that he won the election, Rudy's assertion that the Dominion voting systems altered votes, and worst of all: the fact that large percentages of Trump voters actually believe the election was stolen. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/
--Does not assert that an election was stolen, just raises concerns about vulnerability. What's the problem?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacking-elections.html
An allegation of an instance hacking into VR systems in Durham county, and two other instances of alleged hacking into back-end systems (not voting machines).  The article raises general concerns about vulnerability. Responsibly reporting:
"There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns — local officials blamed human error and software malfunctions — and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a Russian role in it."

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/26/did-russia-really-hack-2016-election-088171
Seems to be a different version of the Times story, and again- it raises concerns and promotes the need to avoid problems.


https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/13/15791744/russia-election-39-states-hack-putin-trump-sessions
Back end voter information was obtained by Russian hackers. Again: raising concerns, not asserting vote changes.


https://www.rollcall.com/2019/04/22/mueller-report-russia-hacked-state-databases-and-voting-machine-companies/
Same thing: voter information hacked by Russians.

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/
More hacking by Russians.


EDIT: This is a fun one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8eujrTyRRE&feature=emb_title

Sensationally notes the need for security. Do you disagree?   Domininon voting systems, and as far as I know, ALL voting machines, or NOT on the network.   That doesn't preclude all possibility of fraud, and security is still needed.


I think it's a fine idea to analyze the various allegations that have been made about 2020 voting to identify any fraud that may have occurred, security exposures, and process problems so that improvements can be made in the future. But making outrageous assertions, like Trump and Giuliani have done, is crazy.  And it's crazy to claim that media articles that raise security concerns and report actual instances of hacking are anything like that.  The Trumpist approach has clearly been: assume there is fraud (which Trump  -momths ago- said would be the case if he lost), and interpret every glitch as a confirming instance of fraud, and assume every suspicion raised by observers are instances of fraud. It is quintessential conspiracy theory reasoning - contrary facts never make a dent in the belief in conspiracy.  NOTHING like that has some from the MSM, but it's telling that you considered what they did to be similar.

[a]

So if the elections are secure, does that mean Russia didn't hack them? Would you disagree that the absurdity of Giuliani's claims of hacking are commiserate to the absurdity of, say, Pelosi's? What's the difference between Cuomo (CNN) and Hannity? You've obviously thought a lot about this so maybe you know something I don't. To we uninitiated, it's the same narrative coming from both sides (just inverted). The press primed the public for Trump's incessant complaints of election fraud/interference irregularities for four years and now clutch their pearls as he does exactly what they did. The phrase s*** show comes to mind.

[ChristianInvestigator]

@ Ben: I got a kick out of that last video you linked XD. Here's someone in the New York Times saying that we should vote with paper, not with computer systems, because of how easy they are to hack; now liberals are rushing to defend the Dominion voting machines... sigh.

Although as far as I know, there's no real evidence that either the 2016 or 2020 voting machines were hacked. It's just better on principle to stick with paper voting.

[Fred]

So if the elections are secure, does that mean Russia didn't hack them?

Election security is multifaceted.  If back-end servers containing contact information for voters is hacked, this implies the election was not "secure", but it doesn't imply votes were changed. The major issue in the 2020 election is vote counts, and I've seen no evidence of hacking voting machines or any other equipment that tabulates counts.  So it seems that yes, Russian didn't hack them, nor did anyone else. 

Would you disagree that the absurdity of Giuliani's claims of hacking are commiserate to the absurdity of, say, Pelosi's?

Giuliani has spread the irrational conspiracy theory about Dominion voting systems, and spread this disinformation widely - damaging trust in the voting system.  What has Pelosi said or done that is comparable?

What's the difference between Cuomo (CNN) and Hannity?

Not sure what you're going for, nor why it matters.  Here's a few differences
 1.Hannity spreads conspiracy theories (Seth Rich murder; election fraud;), and I'm unaware of Cuomo doing this.
2. Hanity has a lot of direct contact with the President. Cuomo does not.
3. Cuomo's brother is a Governor, Hannity's friend is a President.

The press primed the public for Trump's incessant complaints of election fraud/interference irregularities for four years and now clutch their pearls as he does exactly what they did. The phrase s*** show comes to mind.

Did you read my last post? No incorrect information was conveyed in any of the articles you pointed to.  Reasonable concerns were conveyed about what vulnerabilities.  We should have been concerned, and fortunately, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security agency of the government monitored this and reported that this election was secure. You might take a look at their website, where they debunk a variety of rumors.  This was Christopher Kreg's agency.  You know, the guy Trump fired for telling the truth about election security. 

 Perhaps you're saying that this reporting resulted in people being sensitive to the possibility of election fraud. I get that, but it doesn't excuse irrationality - especially by the President and Giuliani.  Before a single vote was cast, Trump said he could only lose if there was fraud.  There was no rational basis for this. As soon as the vote count went against him, he resorted to this - there had to be fraud because he lost.  Thus, as in any conspiracy, every fact that could be interpreted consistent with fraud was treated as confirmation of fraud.  Lack of success in court is treated as corrupt judges.  No one can ever disprove a conspiracy theory to a person who believes it - every bit of contrary evidence is dismissed or rationalized. 

[Harvey]

So if the elections are secure, does that mean Russia didn't hack them?

That was just cuz Trump was president. Everything is fine now and elections are uber fair. Better say it or they are coming to wreck your career and life.

[Fred]

So if the elections are secure, does that mean Russia didn't hack them?

That was just cuz Trump was president. Everything is fine now and elections are uber fair. Better say it or they are coming to wreck your career and life.

That's biased nonsense.  Read my last two posts.