4 ms·

You claim the 2016 election was not hacked. This is demonstrably false: https://www.csoonline.com/article/3165452/hacking-the-2016-election-a-timeline.html htt

You claim the 2016 election was not hacked. This is demonstrably false: https://www.csoonline.com/article/3165452/hacking-the-2016-election-a-timeline.html https://www.csoonline.com/article/3165452/hacking-the-2016-e... Specific examples: Twelve Russians charged with US 2016 election hack https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44825345 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44825345 If you are disputing these facts, there is no chance of honest debate. You should know that the term, “Democrat party” is usually meant as insult and is used by Republicans: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) I’m sure it was just a typo, but you mentioned being from Canada so I wanted to let you know.

joenot443 4y ago
>The 11-count indictment names the Russians defendants, alleging they began cyber-attacks in March 2016 on the email accounts of staff for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Did you even read your article? If you're not going to read the things you link "there is no chance of honest debate". If your definition of 'hacking an election' means 'unsuccessfully infiltrating the email accounts of a low level staffer' then sure, this election, along with every other one in your country's future, will be 'hacked'. This just isn't a normal or colloquial definition, and feels more like D (sorry about the slur, didn't realize it was so offensive!) goalpost shifting than anything. You see this kind of talk on reddit all the time, i.e. "if you use a definition nobody else does, it's clear that I'm right." I'm not debating that 12 people were charged with hacking email accounts. You may be unaware, but people are charged with that almost every day. It doesn't mean an election was stolen. I'm debating, as I have been the whole time, whether Russia hacked and influenced the results of the election itself, aka a "cyber 9-11" as Clinton was so happy to call it many times. If you think it did, let's continue, otherwise, I worry it's getting too sensitive and I'm touching the "Democratic" nerve.

joenot443 4y ago

>The 11-count indictment names the Russians defendants, alleging they began cyber-attacks in March 2016 on the email accounts of staff for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Did you even read your article? If you're not going to read the things you link "there is no chance of honest debate". If your definition of 'hacking an election' means 'unsuccessfully infiltrating the email accounts of a low level staffer' then sure, this election, along with every other one in your country's future, will be 'hacked'. This just isn't a normal or colloquial definition, and feels more like D (sorry about the slur, didn't realize it was so offensive!) goalpost shifting than anything. You see this kind of talk on reddit all the time, i.e. "if you use a definition nobody else does, it's clear that I'm right." I'm not debating that 12 people were charged with hacking email accounts. You may be unaware, but people are charged with that almost every day. It doesn't mean an election was stolen. I'm debating, as I have been the whole time, whether Russia hacked and influenced the results of the election itself, aka a "cyber 9-11" as Clinton was so happy to call it many times. If you think it did, let's continue, otherwise, I worry it's getting too sensitive and I'm touching the "Democratic" nerve.