4 ms·
... Did you just use a Twitter link that does nothing but make claims on numbers as a source? More specifically, it provides the claim that there was no tamperi
by Shared404 5y ago
... Did you just use a Twitter link that does nothing but make claims on numbers as a source? More specifically, it provides the claim that there was no tampering without any evidence.
Meanwhile [0] shows that they have the capability, and the motivations.
This is the exact reason we need a class like this.
[0] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
Edit: And even looking at the numbers provided this is a mischaracterization. Slightly over 30% of Dem's believe it happened, and another slightly over 30% think it probably did. These two things are not equivalent.
- jwond 5y agoThe numbers come from a YouGov poll [0] as the image in the tweet shows. Also I think it’s funny you link that senate report, because section VI of the report is titled “NO EVIDENCE OF CHANGED VOTES OR MANIPULATED VOTE TALLIES” [0] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/03/09/russias-impact-election-seen-through-partisan-eyes https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
- Shared404 5y ago> The numbers come from a YouGov poll [0] as the image in the tweet shows. The numbers provide no evidence for the second claim, which means that the twitter post is being intellectually dishonest. > section VI of the report is titled NO EVIDENCE OF CHANGED VOTES OR MANIPULATED VOTE TALLIES And there's not much (or no detectable) evidence of most hacks until suddenly there is. It is not unreasonable to assume a compromised system is compromised. I personally think there probably were not manipulation of the tallies, but I can understand thinking there probably was. There's certainly much more evidence of it than say, Hunter Biden's laptop.