Blog post #4

In the Washington Post, the editorial board they talk about how there might be a possibility that the elections might not have safe as we might think. They bring up examples that give them this idea like the 2016 elections they mention how the Russians were trying to hack the system of many states. They were able to get into one states and have all the information having to do with the elections which were Illinois. They go as far like to tell you how an eleven-year-old child was able to hack into Florida replica system and how long it took him to get into the system and alter the votes. With this, the editorial is trying to show the public that the federal website every easily hacked and it needs more security so that the public and the government have the trust in the system and no doubt that it was tinkered with.

They want the public to show the government or to push the given to upgrade their security measures. That the public already has questions about the voting systems and with the hacks of the Russians it just brings even more mistrust towards the government. I agree with this article they should have a better system to vote an less hackable way but easily accessible. The author is trying to inform the voters to act upon this and to tell them about what's going on with the votes here and how outside countries are affecting it so much.

Blog post #3

The article that I have decided to critique the FBI investigation of Kavanaugh failed to question enough key people to get the truth.  In this article, the author states how she states how she believes that Kavanaugh shouldn't be in the supreme court. She gives some good allegations on why she thinks that it's better but she also she shows what she thinks of Kavanaugh. I think that she could have had a lot more detail on how Kavanaugh reacted to Democrats and Clintons. When talking about how president Trump gave restrictions to the FBI just so that the truth isn't revealed she could elaborate more on how that would affect. She talked about Kavanaugh's background and what kinds of things she didn't agree with. The point that they are avoiding having an interview with the FBI  and explained what would happen if they lied under oath was a very good point towards demonstrating how hard they're trying to keep the secret.  It explains how the FBI has a duty in telling the truth and investigating when they see that something or find something that is not right. which explains why she starts talking about how the supreme court nominee Kavanaugh and trump were trying to avoid the interview and for information to be leaked out  While reading this argument you can feel how passionate she is against Jude brett Kavanaugh on becoming part of the supreme court and show people why they shouldn't allow for him to be in the supreme court. She uses words so makes the audience feel smart and powerful so that they can do something about changing it. The intended audience is manly people involved in the government issues and actively voting.