NY Times says Trump is "lying"

[Arenis]

“It does occur,” he said of voter fraud, declining to quantify the scope. “There are always arguments on both sides about how much, how frequent and all the rest.”

That's an interesting quote to end your article on. I'm no writing expert but I seem to remember that your final thoughts should re-emphasize your argument/statement, not create doubt to its validity.

It's like a Tootsie Pop commercial.

Title - How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

Body - 1, 2, 3, CRUNCH!

Conclusion - The world may never know!

Excellent read. I can see why the "mid and the left" hold the NY Times in such high regard.

If you guys are going to be successful in Trump bashing its going to at the very least be solid in the middle, and right leaning otherwise its just going to come across like sore losers.

Truth be told REPORTING FACTS would probably be enough to sell papers. Trump is outrageous and entertaining without having to fabricate some story about it. Keep the fiction out, report the facts.

I didn't see very many facts in the article honestly. Just a lot of he said she said. A lot of twitter posts by David Becker, who's job it would appear is very dependent on voters feeling confident in the system.

I am confused though. Where exactly do liberals stand on the issue? Was voting solid? Or did Russia hack us? Because you can't have it both ways. Or do we just ignore your expert (David Becker) altogether and claim that voting fraud DOES exist, IS rampant, but only on the republican side of things.

The quote was from a congress senator, who was asked how accurate Trump's claims were. Instead of directly answering the question, he choses to give some random answer to deflect the question.

Exactly as you stated, the writer re-emphasized the statement. Namely that there appears to be nothing backing up Trump's claims and nobody has anything holding merit about it either. And nobody can get proper answers anywhere.

[Felya]

That's interesting because that isn't what the article here says.

I'll refer to the ending quote one more time.

“It does occur,” he said of voter fraud, declining to quantify the scope. “There are always arguments on both sides about how much, how frequent and all the rest.”

You are responding to someone making the case of liberals saying in person voter fraud is unlikely and Trump's claim that there was voter fraud without a definition of how, not being the same thing.

[Breccia]

I am confused though. Where exactly do liberals stand on the issue? Was voting solid? Or did Russia hack us? Because you can't have it both ways.

False dichotomy.

Russia directly aided Trump in the election. This is the consensus of the US intelligence agencies. They did so by providing information and misinformation to the American people. The public version of the report is here.

However, there is no evidence that Russia -- OR ANYONE ELSE -- directly attacked the actual casting of votes themselves. There are no reports of reprogramming voting machines, of voter impersonation, mail-ints, etc. Or at least, nothing to any meaningful degree. Certainly not millions upon millions of times, which is what Trump is insisting. With no evidence.

[Felya]

So smear campaigns are now considered hacking? Interesting.

Yes, the smear campaigns involved the hacked emails of DNC and Podesta. That's why they maintain being called hacks.

- - - Updated - - -

False dichotomy.

Russia directly aided Trump in the election. This is the consensus of the US intelligence agencies. They did so by providing information and misinformation to the American people. The public version of the report is here.

However, there is no evidence that Russia -- OR ANYONE ELSE -- directly attacked the actual casting of votes themselves. There are no reports of reprogramming voting machines, of voter impersonation, mail-ints, etc. Or at least, nothing to any meaningful degree. Certainly not millions upon millions of times, which is what Trump is insisting. With no evidence.

The fact that the issue is semantics is ridiculous... call it Charlie Brown Christmas for all I care, what it represents doesn't change.

[Edge-]

The best defense Trump's team could offer, is that he saw some studies and doesn't understand them.

Seriously, listen to Spicer's specific choice of words. His own team, hand-picked, is leaning in that direction.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...distances.html

I personally like "he continues to maintain that belief"

Does anyone here speak press secretary? What's press secretary for "I have no idea, and my boss refuses to give me anything to use to defend his position"?

While Spicer at least doesn't look like he's on the verge of an anger-stroke like he did on Saturday, he's been flailing hard during briefings.

Seriously, I've never seen someone so in over their head. And the interesting thing about it, is he's not the highest ranking member of the Administration in the room during his briefings, as the Press Secretary usually is. He's flanked by advisers/aids that are well above him on the food chain since Saturday, which is a pretty clear signal that Trump is not pleased with him and watching his performance very closely.

I fear our weaboo press secretary is not long for that job.

[A dot Ham]

The quote was from a congress senator, who was asked how accurate Trump's claims were. Instead of directly answering the question, he choses to give some random answer to deflect the question.

Exactly as you stated, the writer re-emphasized the statement. Namely that there appears to be nothing backing up Trump's claims and nobody has anything holding merit about it either. And nobody can get proper answers anywhere.

I am still confused where the 'facts' are. You guys seem to take my skepticism (which is the same skepticism you should all be employing *is that the right word there*) as support for trump. It isn't.

[Belize]

I do not think this administration is going to get a blank check like the Bush one did. Trump clearly has triggered the press. My only fear is at some point he will start giving them interviews and just like during the campaign they will start kissing ass and looking the other direction.

What an interesting and biased way of saying "The media won't put up with Trump's lies".

[belfpala]

I am still confused where the 'facts' are. You guys seem to take my skepticism (which is the same skepticism you should all be employing *is that the right word there*) as support for trump. It isn't.

Directly in the post you quoted. "There appears to be nothing backing up Trump's claims."

[Wells]

Really interesting to see basically the entire nation except the Democrats in a full court press on Trump's administration. Can't think of a precedent for this in recent history.

[Edge-]

What an interesting and biased way of saying "The media won't put up with Trump's lies".

Yeah, why won't the press get on board with alternative facts? So biased, so low energy. Sad.

[A dot Ham]

Are you not fucking reading? I've already said twice that the term "hacking" is not being used to mean literal hacking. "Russian hacking" is basically a buzzword to refer to the entirety of the Russian involvement of the campaign. Seriously, I hope you're trolling or this is just fucking embarrassing for you.

Not really, its pointing out the absurdity in the conclusions you guys reach. If the news (in an effort to throw more doubt on Trump's win) makes up a story and tries to redefine the word "hack" to mean a smear campaign. Then I have more than enough ammo to question anything else that comes out of that corner.

[Felya]

I am still confused where the 'facts' are. You guys seem to take my skepticism (which is the same skepticism you should all be employing *is that the right word there*) as support for trump. It isn't.

Did Trump say there were millions of illegals voting? Did the press secretary say nothing to elaborate on actions being taken to identify and prevent millions of cases of fraud? Those are the facts...

The reason why people think you are a Trump supporter, is because the article is about the press seeking facts from Trump's administration. You then complaining that the article lacks facts makes absolutely no sense, unless you are trying to deflect from the whole point of Trump having no facts about voter fraud.

[Arenis]

I am still confused where the 'facts' are. You guys seem to take my skepticism (which is the same skepticism you should all be employing *is that the right word there*) as support for trump. It isn't.

People could probably answer your question better if you can be more specific/concrete about what facts you are looking for. Just saying "where are the facts" is too broad to give any reasonable answer to.

[Felya]

Not really, its pointing out the absurdity in the conclusions you guys reach. If the news (in an effort to throw more doubt on Trump's win) makes up a story and tries to redefine the word "hack" to mean a smear campaign. Then I have more than enough ammo to question anything else that comes out of that corner.

What story is made up? The OP is accusing of Trump making up a story about millions of cases of voter fraud and you are complaining about "hacks" being used when talking about Russia? I don't understand what is keeping you from seeing what you are actually doing...

[Noxx79]

Not really, its pointing out the absurdity in the conclusions you guys reach. If the news (in an effort to throw more doubt on Trump's win) makes up a story and tries to redefine the word "hack" to mean a smear campaign. Then I have more than enough ammo to question anything else that comes out of that corner.

It is not absurd to call Russia accessing computer systems illegally hacking. This happened per the intelligence agencies. The fact that they stole "words" and didn't alter systems doesn't change the fact that it was still acquired by hacking.

[A dot Ham]

Directly in the post you quoted. "There appears to be nothing backing up Trump's claims."

Because senators won't do reporters work for them and give them direct access to specific data?

Because a few tweets from a guy whose job is to "study" and maintain people's faith in the voting system?

Not finding specific data to back up one's claim is not at all the same has finding direct data refuting it.

Again not taking sides here... Trump is our president, we all lose. But this article is not based anywhere in fact. The only person quoted in that article that appears to have a shred of credibility and authority on the subject is this "David Becker" which again, a little skepticism here might be appropriate. Beyond his twitter posts what does he have that specifically backs up how solid he claims our voting system is. The data that HE is basing those statements off of... are facts (which is not present in the article).

Get that data and we have ourselves a fight!

[Independent voter]

All this gives me hope. Hear me out.

The system was tested, Trump lied and tried to intimidate the press.

The press said, "FU"

Stress test passed, all systems working perfectly.

[Felya]

It is not absurd to call Russia accessing computer systems illegally hacking. This happened per the intelligence agencies. The fact that they stole "words" and didn't alter systems doesn't change the fact that it was still acquired by hacking.

I don't think he realizes that the DNC and Podesta email hacks are the root of the misinformation campaign. I don't think he connected the dots between Hillary serving dead babies at her Satanic cult ritual of spirit dinners in Podesta emails and misinformation coming from hacks.

[A dot Ham]

It is not absurd to call Russia accessing computer systems illegally hacking. This happened per the intelligence agencies. The fact that they stole "words" and didn't alter systems doesn't change the fact that it was still acquired by hacking.

They stole words... holy shit. Do you guys at any time in posting before or after typing it out re-read your shit. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

[Noxx79]

They stole words... holy shit. Do you guys at any time in posting before or after typing it out re-read your shit. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Yup you have nothing to say and are proven wrong so you result to insults. Glad you admit that you are in way over your head.
Mid expect more from this faux intellectualism that you're trying to display, but it can't hide the fact that you're arguing shit that is way over your head and you have no hope of comprehending.

Let me soell it out for your because I need to treat you like a third grader.

Russia illegally accessed information via computer. This is hacking. They selectively released that information. It was still acquired by hacking.

Now I know this is difficult, but you are not allowed to access information that you do not have rights to have.