I do believe Russians are trying to interfere in elections. I have faith our government would catch anything like poll tampering
Russian bots and trolls are serious about promoting discord in the US. https://www.livescience.com/63416-twitter-bots-trolls-vaccine-debate.html Conclusion: Whereas bots that spread malware and unsolicited content disseminated antivaccine messages. Russian trolls promoted discord. Accounts masquerading as legitimates users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination.
Russian "bots" are at work here, in my opinion, and busy starting crap threads and posting crap posts damn near every day. What response do they get? A coterie of delusional trump fans lapping up every effort, and they should be ashamed to be supporting the Russian assault on our democracy. They love to portray themselves as patriots, when they are anything but patriotic. In my humble opinion.
Do you believe that, at the very least, someone involved in the Trump campaign attempted to sit down with Russian representatives to get Russian provided information that could be perceived as helpful to the Trump presidential campaign?
Here's an NSA member presenting their Cybersecurity findings at Defcon Hacking Convention. Unsurprisingly Russia is mentioned a lot with their suspected attacks and methods performed to do those attacks. The voting booth village at Defcon already demonstrated that up to 70% of voting booths in use today can be easily infiltrated to alter results. Further, the websites that store voting results could be easily infiltrated from near two decade old exploits like SQL injection, and didn't use basic security protocols like https instead of http. These attacks really did happen and really do have an impact in our daily lives. From the bills we pay online, to the medical records we access online, the personal documents we keep stored on our phones and computers, the enormous amount of data collected from social media use like this site that some of us take liberties of posting more on here than others. It's all stored data that has real world impacts. When you pay your bill online or do an online order, you trust a real world monetary transaction took place to cover a real world need, but people still deny that people that use the internet with nefarious intent could negatively impact our daily lives. Its asinine thinking.
I believe they were approached by Russians in a scheme that isnt technically a crime unless the information is considered to have monetary value Then they thought better In other words i believe what we know otherwise known as facts.
Why do you wanna argue about a three month old post that has nothing to do with nothing. Apparently Meuller agrees there was no crime How much is ruining a reputation worth? You answer that in your next response if you choose to respond. TIA
Not sure who you are asking about. If you are asking about the President's reputation, I personally think he doesn't have much of a reputation left to ruin. If you are asking about someone in general, their reputation is usually not ruined if they are shown to be an innocent victim of circumstance. And, if there is unfair, malicious intent behind an investigation, the investigator should be held accountable. If Mueller agrees there is no crime, why is his investigation ongoing? As to a 3 month old post, I just saw it today after this thread was revived, otherwise I would have asked 3 months ago. EDIT (Addendum): Also, how is asking a question 'arguing'?
Yes, because the Trump administration is famous for taking a step back and thinking better before making a decision.
Simple: If it's a hard question, it's arguing. What the square root of 4? 2 What's the square root of 217? Hey man, whoa, let's dial it down!
Im asking about the meeting old man that you brought up. It was for bad info on Hilary. The meeting in question could be a crime if a foreign government gives a campaign something of monetary value for the campaign You asked what i thought about the meeting right?
Bro this information on the meeting has been public for at least six months. He is still investigating the meeting? Edit: asking basically the same question twice about a two year old incident that we've known about for six months that has resulted in nada is arguing
Actually he is but when he changes his mind people call him crazy. On the border he stopped separating kids from guardians. He heard the people didn't like it and changed his mind but people still b****ing about it for example
No, thinking better of it would have been.... “Hmmm let’s separate children from their parents at the border... no, no that’s a bad idea, what was I thinking!” Actively doing something stupid over a period of time, getting rightfully destroyed for it and ONLY then stopping isn’t “thought better of it.”
Separating families ended fairly quickly His voters like his policies. He doesn't concern himself with people who aren't gonna vote for him
