ShakeWell
ShakeWell's JournalRussian Hackers Targeted Nearly 1/2 of States Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrated 4
Source: ABC News
"Nearly half of the states in the U.S. have recently had their voter registration systems targeted by foreign hackers, and four of those systems have successfully been breached, sources tell ABC News.
That amount of targeting and actual infiltration into state election-related systems is significantly larger than the U.S. government has been willing to acknowledge.
Hackers working on behalf of the Russian government are suspected in the onslaught against more than 20 state election systems, according to sources with knowledge of the matter.
"There's no doubt that some bad actors have been poking around," FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Wednesday, without offering any more specifics."
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/russian-hackers-targeted-half-states-voter-registration-systems/story?id=42435822
"There's no doubt that some bad actors have been poking around," FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Wednesday, without offering any more specifics."
How do we discuss or 'win hearts and minds' in a post-truth world?
Pro lurker here and soooo glad DU is back. So much so that I felt compelled to say thanks, become a star member, and hopefully add to the discussion of how we move forward in Trumplandia.
So the title is the current question that vexes me, but first, a quick bit of back story...
I finally had the chance to talk to a great friend today. Although he and I go back a touch over 30 years, both of us have had a big slice of life come in and keep us busy lately. So this is our first call since the election and in the midst of discussing the endless list of 'how did this guy get elected' topics, he brought up that the word 'Post-Truth' is Oxfords word of the year. Even though he's an English prof by trade, I'm a glorified IT guy, so word of the day isn't something we've generally discussed in the many years of our friendship.
I sprang to the Google machine while he started reading from the article:
"The dictionary publisher defined post-truth as "relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief."
So there it is, an understandable definition of what I cannot understand. Thom Hartman brought up Reagan dropping the Fairness act in 1987 in his show recently and discussed how that move progressed us to where we are today. From where news was news with facts and historically related precedents versus the info-tainment ratings wars displayed everyday. To a place where most people get their news from fb and twitter in which absolute lies are being liked and retweeted over and over and over. Where Alex Jones and the many sites of Bannon are quoted as support for arguments, where don the con can lie 40 times a day without question, and where video evidence doesn't even matter.
I want to engage and debate as this used to be an enjoyable undertaking for me because progressives always have the best answers to problems of the greater good. 
However, you just can't argue with crazy. Which is back to where we started:
How do we discuss/debate in a post-truth world?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/post-truth-oxford-dictionaries-word-year-2016-n685081
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:11 PMNumber of posts: 28
