3 leaders heading the discussion (President-elect Trump, VP-elect Pence, Thiel the forward-thinking Ace of Startups)

Logic... you're doing it wrong son. Comparing Wikileaks, a reputable whistle blower that has been consistently accurate to garbage like "Trump sexually assaulted 27 women" that was repeatedly ran as truth on CNN and other news media is pure dumbfuckery. Just because Wikileaks targeted Clinton does not make the information "not credible". They targeted her because she represents exactly what Wikileaks fights against which is the intelligence agencies secrets and people in power that do wrongs.

I think it's funny how you try to veil what side of this whole issue you fall on. I think it's time to reflect my friend you're not a moderate, most of your positions consistently end up towards the left of the spectrum and you're not fooling anyone.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Dec 22 2016 12:11am

rand vs rands

i have to laugh because a few years ago before the alt right was around i was called a racist and GOP shill on a weekly basis around here. but hey, i guess you know what i am...

i express mostly leftist views because the sub is flooded with alt right hackery. if you'd like to list off my leftist leanings specifically i can match you point for point with right leaning views i don't often express because, well, this sub has been an election only zone for months and i made it perfectly clear i didn't support or vote for HRC but preferred her to trump in a lesser of two evils sense. i actually voted for mcmullin and am a part owner of a gun store. very liberal of me i know.

But no i wasn't drawing a direct line just expressing some thoughts. see thats your problem, you rag on me once a week because you can't make a distinction between me making a vague comparison and directly equating two things. usually because you assume my positions or confuse me talking reality versus my chosen path. why don't you do yourself a favor and just not assume i'm equating things ever.

if you'd like to talk about what i think and what i mean specifically i'm game, but that post was filled with so many strawmans we're going to need to focus in for me to bother. pick one topic out of your post and i'll be happy to tackle it. if you want to argue a media centric world wide perspective given timeline'd events though just save it. i was speaking in generalities and admitted as much multiple times, i even admitted to just posting google's top results.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 22 2016 01:30pm

Hey, as long as you continue to post unsubstantiated claims about Wikileaks i'll respond. Time and time again you continue to cast doubt and muddy their credibility by saying things like:



...when in reality it's all speculation. You simply cannot separate your subjectivity. You can't come to terms with what Wikileaks revealed as truth, and the fact that they have credibility. Instead you take the liberal perspectives. You attack the source whether it's Russia or Wikileaks and usually very subtle accuse them of some nefarious interference completely ignoring the wrongs committed by the DNC and Hillary. As if the hacks somehow negate the wrongs, as if because Russia did it then somehow Trump is a Russian puppet and the domestic corruption is irrelevant.

I expect Russia, China & pretty much all other foreign entities to hack but i truly hope we focus on the real threats to democracy. Russia hacking the DNC is small potatoes compared to the blatant corruption and conspiring against Bernie.

As a patriot and someone that cares about this country i think we all need to realize that the real threat to our freedoms isn't Russia but the corporate interests, the oligarchs etc. that constantly find (and recycle ex. the new wave of Mccarthyism) ways to divert our attention from real issues to phantoms like Russian hacks.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Dec 22 2016 03:28pm

i think you're forgetting our last conversation on this topic entirely. remember when we took a few pages to boil my stance down to "wikileaks likely posts almost all true information" and then talked about how some of their moves are blatantly political and they also have released batches without really sourcing all of the materials so some incorrect information could potentially be included. but hey, why pay attention to your own biases about me when trying to call me out for posting on a bias?

and if i have to talk at length again about the fact that many agents on the right surely pulled the same moves i swear... a clean 50% or so was against Trump in the primaries and they started a never trump movement. they surely pulled all the same shit that the DNC did to try and stop him from getting nominated. and yet, why wouldn't wikileaks release those? surely its as much of an abuse of power that they stand against right?

and lets not conflate wikileaks as a whole with wikileaks handling of the trump-hrc situation. wikileaks has been incredible and very objective in other places, batch leaks of the panama papers and such.

but i guess let me ask you a direct question to keep it simple. feel free to ignore the blabber above if you wish. Do you think that:

1. wikileaks tried to hack republican entities in the same way as the DNC but found no malicious actions against Trump?

2. wikileaks didn't bother to hack the GOP at all

3. wikileaks hacked the GOP but did not release any of the unfair treatment trump was given

because those are the 3 options i see.



as to your last point, i agree that corporate interests and specifically overly large conglomerates are a larger threat in any scenario that doesn't result in a war.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 22 2016 03:36pm

I doubt Wikileaks hacked either side. Realistically, Russia hacked both sides and just used Wikileaks as a platform to release the information that is in the best interests of Russia. Wikileaks was more than happy to release this considering the relevance, funding & notoriety it brought to them. Another point is Wikileaks exists precisely as the antihero to people in power, that play by different rules compared to the rest of us. They are more than happy to target the candidate that represents the interests of the powerful, rich, intelligence community, the hawks, that think somehow they can act outside the law and/or public approval.

It's no different than the relationship between taxpayers and the IRS. The IRS exist as a direct function of people having to pay taxes. Similarly, Wikileaks exists because someone has to fill the void of the resistance against the groups i'v mentioned above. If you take time and think about it, it makes absolute sense how Wikileaks would be anti-Hillary.

It's never been surprising to me they're anti hrc it surprises me that they didn't got both sides. And if they're just being used that hurts their credibility to me as well.

GG no re