im a bit confused at what you're taking issue with. did i bang your mom and never call her back or something?

i'm saying the sentiment that Russia was behind the hacks was there, i didn't say, because i thought it was quite obvious, that the sentiment was nothing but speculation. Guess what, they don't usually run "RUSSIA IS HACKING THE US TO CHANGE THE ELECTION" on speculation. Then the FBI and CIA started leaking a bit to suggest that the hacks were russian related (we still don't know how as i clearly broke down above). And yet they didn't flood the press with it because it has serious consequences for international affairs. Then once the CIA and FBI and even Whitehouse started legitimizing the speculation it came into the MSM. and it's currently being used to downplay how wrong they were about the results because it can be used as a scapegoat for their bad data collection. It's now very convenient for them to spotlight it.

i'm not sure why you linked wikileaks i've been mentioning the Putin Assange relationship all along. I offered articles from as far back as early september connecting the two, and guess what. that's just the top 6 results from google because i was trying to show that the sentiment permeated before the election. i wasn't trying to establish a starting line i literally just dumped from google's top results and even told you my search query.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 21 2016 12:26pm

So it's ok here to say Russia hacked us in 2015, but not ok to bring up that same information in 2016, because of speculation and not wanting to create international tension. Irony...

you keep implying that i (or someone, i dont really know who) ok'd this. Like its ok now, or that it was ok then, or w/e. I'm not passing judgement at all, i think the speculation is a bit silly from both people who says "they did it" or "they didnt do it" before a bipartisan inquiry by the senate/congress. i was more explaining why the sentiment was downplayed pre election and why its being upplayed now. i even criticized the media as covering their asses.

so after reading this, again, what are YOU taking issue with what I am saying?

I have issue with it being downplayed. I don't believe the medias reasoning. I don't believe this Russian hacking assertion would of been covered at all if Trump had lost.

We agree on all 3 counts, i think we just had a misunderstanding where you thought i agreed with the media reasoning. Although in a point for their credit it may have been reckless to print it pre-election as most of the agencies hadn't really confirmed anything suspicions.

but excellence for one was mocking the left for blaming everything on Russia before the election results came out IIRC.

their xenophobia is unsettling, yes.

its not just this guy tho, people do act like the left brought this Russian hack/intervention stuff up only after the election. and its been a part of the narrative going back to the very first batch of wikileaks stuff, maybe even back to the first announcement of the first wikileaks stuff.

to me it doesn't matter who's doing it, Putin's got as many scapegoats he can hang as the Clinton Foundation does. To me it matters that one side had a barrage of attacks from one source, wikeleaks and co. and the other side had a barrage of leaks from other sources, confidentiality breakers from access hollywood etc. Neither side is leaking on both candidates so neither side is credible.

Thiel directly next to Trump.