Quote (IgoSoHard @ 21 Dec 2016 10:39)

Quote (fender @ Dec 21 2016 08:35am)

well obviously the excuses amongst establishment dems are ridiculous, they only have themselves to blame, any half decent candidate would have blown that lying clown trump out of the water.

that being said though, the way russia influenced these elections to their benefit (and getting trump elected clearly benefits them, just look at syria and trump administration's close ties with russia) is, to put it in retard elect's word, UNPRESIDENTED, haha...

i can only imagine the outrage if let's say obama or any other democrat had been pushed by russia like that and made himself putin's puppet - heads on the right would have exploded by the thousands...

Quote (excellence @ Dec 21 2016 09:43am)

with how much vodka she goes through, she should be thanking 'Russia' for giving her a coping mechanism for going 0-4 combined in 2008 and 2016

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 21 2016 08:40am)

the alt right can't accept this, it basically means they only won because of the same foul play they cried about before the votes came in.

the right is scared to accept this, not only because they're slowly falling back into ranks behind the orange frog but also because they open themselves up to attacks in the future by openly coming out against it.

the left is having a hard time figuring out the scale they want to actually accuse someone of, like maybe they didn't release everything and maybe they didn't edit things and maybe they didn't delete HRC's emails. no one semi moderate seems to agree on anything except for "we need bipartisan inquiries".

the far left is going loco as much as the far right is ignorring it. accusing the russians of everything from hacking emails to hacking voting machines with the thinly veiled excuse of "speculation" and "well we'll see" after the outlandish statements.

so much fun to see these types of discussion play out /s.... one side acts like is silly to say Russia did anything the other acting like we're at war.

Quote (Landmine @ Dec 21 2016 10:19am)

"In April 2015, CNN reported that "russian hackers" had "penetrated sensitive parts of the White House" computers in "recent months." It was said that the FBI, the Secret Service, and other U.S. intelligence agencies categorized the attacks "among the most sophisticated attacks ever launched against U.S. government systems."[16]"

Seems to me this Russian hacking was of no importance and if Clinton would of won nobody would of heard about it.

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 21 2016 10:19am)

there are enough buzzwords/phrases in that to give anyone pause.

"russian hackers", ok so kremlin hackers? hackers from russia funded by the kremlin? hackers abroad funded by the kremlin? someone funded by an oligarch with the kremlin knowing? not knowing? helping?

"penetrated sensitive parts of the White House" what someone considers a penetration of a sensitive part some people see as another tuesday, ask Kyle_lowbreed's mom for instance.

It was said that the FBI, the Secret Service, and other U.S. intelligence agencies categorized the attacks agents of these agencies? concensus from the agency? reported leaks? direct confirmation from the agency? etc. etc. etc.

"among the most sophisticated attacks ever launched against U.S. government systems." not only subjective but qualified with "among" to suggest it could be a statement made for effect.


but as to your claim, people were talking about it well before voting day or once the results came in. i've heard that said a lot "why are we hearing about it now?" russian influence has been a topic for a long time. it was downplayed for the same reason many things were, they thought it would influence the election results not actually change who won.

Quote (Landmine @ Dec 21 2016 11:46am)

I didn't see anything on it over the msm and I don't believe it was because they didn't want to influence the election, because the media and campaigns were attacking on anything they could get their hands on. The media even attacked allegations by trump of hacking/rigging as conspiracy theory, but after Clintons loss its omg the Russians hacked us and elected Trump by the left.

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 21 2016 10:51am)

well then you're wrong. idk how else to categorize that. every time there was a fresh batch of leaked DNC emails or HRC speeches the left claimed it was Assange who was being backed and controlled by Putin. Otherwise they said it was another entity that wasn't wikileaks but still controlled by Putin to help elect his chosen candidate out of the two.

this isn't like my opinion or a footnote in the discussion, it was a constant talking point.

the newest talking point which was amplified, although still existed before the results came out, was the fake news. While people have been complaining about fake news for years no one bothered to claim the russians were influencing that, and its not a big sentiment now. Although i'm not sure why, fake news seems like the easiest way to influence anonymously without even needing to hack, you just lie.

Quote (Landmine @ Dec 21 2016 12:03pm)

So you're saying the coverage on Russian hacking is the same now as it was then? I don't believe that to be true. Wikileaks was barely covered by the left. The only time I remember Russian hacking being admitted in any form was with Donna Brazile. I can google search Russia hacking and the earliest mention was oct 20th. Anything I found before that was in early 2015. Seems pretty clear cut to me on media bias.




Your own links just proved my point. Did you even bother looking at the dates the articles were wrote.

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 21 2016 11:19am)

but as to your claim, people were talking about it well before voting day or once the results came in. i've heard that said a lot "why are we hearing about it now?" russian influence has been a topic for a long time. it was downplayed for the same reason many things were, they thought it would influence the election results not actually change who won.

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 21 2016 11:13am)

ya i did look at them, did you tho? not a single one is post election.

By BRENT GRIFFITHS 10/26/16 01:46 PM EDT

Henry Meyer Thursday 3 November 2016

October 19, 2016, 5:04 pm

By Tom Nichols SEPTEMBER 9, 2016

By JO BECKER, STEVEN ERLANGER and ERIC SCHMITTAUG. 31, 2016

Updated by Yochi Dreazen Nov 3, 2016, 9:40am EDT




as to your strawman rhetorical at the front of your post, i already answered that and you missed it. here:





downplay here meaning light coverage because they didn't think it would sway the results of who won. due to the arrogance of most of the MSM in archaic data gathering