CNN used a screenshot from fallout 4 to depict the "Russian hackings" Seriously.
CNN realized they fucked up and took it down really quickly but I think the world isn't gonna let that slip to easily.
Lets say hypothetically that Russia did try to influence the election. If they did, the media right now is so mad they would be willing to go to war over it. So in that same breath, if Russia did influence the election by exposing the democratic national conventions plot to influence the election, then why is the Media so mad about Russia and not the democratic national convention? They both tried to influence the election. It just so happens that one of those two didn't happen to try and influence the election the way the media wanted them too.
And thats only IF Russia even did hack the democratic national convention. No evidence has been provided whatsoever to back this claim up.
CNN is fucking garbage teir news. Honestly If i want to know whats going on in the world I coukd turn on CNN and just assume the opposite of whatever they are saying and I would be more informed than the average person
>>717695288 I don't remember the pre-election maps being an accurate representation of the final election results, or the pre-election maps being made by a single entity, or the pre-election maps being something that anyone should take as word of God. Surely, someone with a brain, as you so delicately implied, should be able to know when they're looking at bullshit.
>>717695600 I like the fact that your hubris makes you this proud of being this simple. It was a pre-election map. At what point does a prediction suddenly become a result? When the fuck would a prediction precede, or only result, in the final outcome? And then, how do you fake a prediction?
Do you want me to tell you that you got more brownie points? Pat your ass for being stupid?
If I understand correctly, they're saying Russia influenced the election by releasing damning information about the DNC.
So, the media's basically saying that Russia exposed corruption, which led stupid rednecks who don't understand that the corrupt behavior was carried out for their own good so they should just shut up and vote Democratic to instead vote for Trump because they're too dumb to know what's good for them.
>>717696026 But the predictions wern't just a tony bit wrong. I fI predict it's gonna rain tommorow and it just turns out to be cloudy then that is one thing. But If I predict it to be sunny and 80 degress out tomorrow and a fucking blizzard hits the town I probably shouldn't be making predictions. If my presictions are that bad then maybe just maybe there is some unfair bias behind what i am saying. You fucking faggot
>>717696759 This. And it backfired on them big time. The left tries to portray things as though "everybody thinks this way so you should too" even when litterally less then 1% of the population lives or thinks the way they portray the worldz
>>717696303 They are still predictions. You predicting that it's going to rain tomorrow doesn't change what happens tomorrow; you can't fake a prediction, you can only make them, like you can make observations. Oh, woah, look at that shit. You can make observations, and be wrong, too. Weird.
There being a blizzard or some rainfall tomorrow doesn't mean anything. There's no magic law that bars you from making predictions if you're wrong all the time, that's fucking stupid and autistic. What I think you're trying to say, is that you're upset some people claimed that the world was one way, and only one thing was going to happen. That some people were treating a prediction as a series of events that already unfolded. And guess what? That's stupid.
You can continue to think silly shit, but I'd ask you to guess what it means. Stop being so simple.
>>717697120 The media is saying that Americans only voted for Trump because Russia leaked damning information about the DNC. They feel that wasn't reason enough for people to vote for him, and that Hilary is a victim. Is this correct?
>>717696693 It's unprofessional as fuck. If I was trying to convince you that a volcano sprotued up in the middle of detroit I wouldn't use a google searched image of a volcanoe in a video game. Maybe I would use an actual photo of the volcano? Certainly not a screen grab of a volcano from a video game.
>bu-bu-but anon they don't have any photos of the hacking. Because they don't have any fucking evidence.
>>717697224 Sure. I think that could be passed as a media narrative. But i think it is more so to cover their own asses for being corrupt themselves and trying to take the the spotlight off them and put it on someone else
>>717697667 I think you are missing the point here you fucking ball gargler. CNN did use a photo from the fallout series to cry to convince people their was a Russian hacking. Even bethesda made fun of CNN.
>>717696953 I don't have a problem with progpoganda, Donald Trumps dumb tweets just for more publicity. The point I'm making is about is using false predictions and recounts to create more political tension all while saying "we want a smooth transition of power". It's like when the entire enemy team quits in overwatch except for one guy. He can't possibly win, but he can make it much more tedious for you to win. It's the only move they have and it's pointless to cause so much unrest.
>>717699332 >crying about this You can't tell me in good faith that the OP shouldn't have had that source to begin with. Otherwise, look how easy it would have been for me to shitpost. Also >Litterally kek'd
>>717699660 Yeah, I can actually. OP never said bethesda made fun of CNN he just said CNN did it. Which you refused to believe. Then once you asked for proof that bethesda made fun of CNN you got it and that confirmed what OP said as well. So you got your panties all wadded up because you were proven wrong. So now you are saying the equivalent of "I know I was wrong but OP is a faggot because he didn't prove me wrong sooner" Which makes you a giant faggot. Kill yourself
>>717700096 So, good faith, yeah? >OP never said bethesda made fun of CNN >he just said CNN did it >he just said Woah. I guess the OP shouldn't have backed up his claim after insinuating that the media wasn't backing up their claims.
>once you asked for proof that bethesda made fun of CNN >you got it and that confirmed what OP said as well Problem solved. It's almost as if that's what I was trying to do. >So you got your panties all wadded up because you were proven wrong Boo hoo, my world is over because someone gave me what I wanted them to give me. It's not fair!
>>717700554 You didn't ask OP for any proof. You just whined like a little faggot. I'm glad you agree that you were proven wrong though. You liberlas might stand to make a lot of progress of you did that more often.
>>717700918 >>717698669 According to you, this, in no way, is asking the OP for proof. Which is strange, because it seems like an open-ended invitation to "back this one up". Someone clearly went out of their way to do just that, and it doesn't look like it was OP. So, good job, but make note that it took some serious shitposting to get it to happen. I had to upset someone.
If you could get over identity politics, though, that would be even more great.
>>717701312 >"I had to do some serious shot posting" Therein lies your problem. When you shit post nobody takes you seriously and it surely doesn't seem like you want to emgage in a mature political discussion so nobody is gonna do anything for you. Yet you made a simple post asking for proof and you got it very quickly afterwards. I think the problem lies in you, not OP. You fucking faggot
>>717701521 Trump has good relations with china, do you really think he had no business ventures within china and knows quite a bit about the culture? Whether or not he wants to start a trade war is up in the air, but parts of him are actually pretty acclimated to foreign relations with china on the business side so why do you think he will fuck up so poorly on the political side of it?
>>717701548 Here is the video you shit rat. https://youtu.be/GaizIm7CHbc Shows up at the 1 minute mark. Stop thinking everything that disagrees with you is automatically false. Fucking children on here
>>717697224 Think the narrative is that it was a factor, not the sole reason. For example, their also saying the RNC was hacked yet nothing was released on them. So if one side has their dirty laundry broadcast by an outside influence while the other does not, it becomes a factor. That's reasonable, right?
>>717701620 You forget that the majority of people who visit /b/ aren't interested in a mature political discussion. Neither is anyone who is convinced that those with opposing opinions, or those who simply differ, are somehow the devil incarnate. They would much rather "yell" at them. And the rest are here to shitpost as well, so that does a lot of good for everyone. Eventually, some people bother to have a "mature political discussion", as much as that can even happen on a daily basis. But it rarely does any good, because it turns into a game of who demonize the other the fastest. Only rarely does it benefit everyone as a whole.
I deliberately shitpost in this thread, by insisting that the image was fake, in an attempt to provoke more thought than talk. But, as even you have shown, I didn't shitpost completely. Not everything I posted was low effort and counter-intuitive. I wanted these responses, because it serves to bring about talking points, by example. Like how many times you've called me a faggot. That's not shitposting, surely. And look, this reply is more text than >You fucking faggot
I mean, think of how easy it is to trigger someone using low effort. People are so partisan these days. Are you telling me that violating their sensibilities, with intent, doesn't provoke people to get so butthurt and defensive, that they spill their inhibitions all over the thread?
>>717701312 I'm not arguing right/wrong. I'm pointing out how hilarious it was that liberals WERE literally saying "look at these graphs! look at these maps! you're an idiot if you think it will be different than this!" until they got blown out of the water on Election Day and now people are saying the same things as you "Oh, well. We weren't REALLY serious about all those polls and graphs and maps. You just took it the wrong way, duh." Sounds just like all those celebrities who swore they'd move to Canada if Trump got elected then not a single one left the country. Just impotent rage and nonsensical excuses.
>And thats only IF Russia even did hack the democratic national convention. No evidence has been provided whatsoever to back this claim up.
Russian cyber-warfare is some of the most advanced and well-funded in the world, and definitely one of the most aggressive, far surpassing America, probably only second to China. You can basically take it as fact that if they stood to gain from an attack on the DNC (and they did), that an attack occurred.
The question isn't whether an attack occurred (because one would've occurred, regardless of evidence) but whether the specific details reported are actually true, and are based on the evidence, rather than theory and supposition.
Trying to argue that an attack didn't occur is like saying Stuxnet wasn't done by the Israelis, that the Sony attack wasn't done by North Korea, or indeed the Estonian cyber attacks weren't done by Russia. You're an idiot if you say it, and the fact that there's no real (publicly available) proof positive of the actual truth is basically meaningless when the objectives are so transparent, and the resources required would absolutely need state backing.
>tl;dr: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence >tl;dr is tl;dr: trust KGB niggers less than CIA niggers
>>717702329 So you are sayong you shit post because it brings about political discussion and solves problems? And you are saying that is more efficient that having a mature political discussion? Sure it is, you fucking faggot. I don't care if you shit post but don't only shit post and then try to convince people it is ok. You have contibuted nothing to this conversation other than shitposting and then trying to justify your shit posts after you were proved wrong
I'm sorry, but this is what arguing right and wrong looks like: >liberals WERE literally saying >look at these graphs! look at these maps! you're an idiot if you think it will be different than this! >until they got blown out of the water on Election Day >Oh, well. We weren't REALLY serious about all those polls and graphs and maps
It kind of seems like they were wrong in doing that, doesn't it? That's how it reads.
>>717702672 I shitpost sometimes to bring about discussions that are more less inhibited and more honest, because when people feel threatened, they shut down and spill their guts in a passionate fury. And, it's more efficient than having a mature political discussion, because the possibility of doing so on a regular basis successfully is poor, and the chances that someone will be honest, and not appeal to authority or an audience, is low. The point of my shitposting was for someone to step up, and prove me wrong. The gaffe mentioned in the OP is old news. To mention it, and not provide a source, yet claim that said party never bothers to back anything up, seemed like poor form in my eyes. So, again, I went out of my way to compel someone to prove me wrong and kill any possible measure of doubt, because not every person actually vets their sources- and because fake news runs rampant in the public eye since the last decade. I've contributed enough to this thread as of this post. You're still marginally upset.
>>717702617 I'm actually a giraffe typing this message out. You can't prove me wrong and if you try to do so I will use flawed logic to argue against you because it serves my political agenda. The abscene of evidence is not the evidence of absence (when you only heard that quote from the boondocks on adult swim) so I am a giraffe. Even though i have zero evidence to provide you with that i am a giraffe I am gonna need you to just trust me on this one. Oh and no i am not biased at all. Me saying that I am a giraffe is in no way a lie to convince you to think and act in a certain way. I am most certainly a giraffe and if you disagree with me you are a racist bigoted homophobic white male.
>>717702672 I think they are saying they feel it is pretty futile, and that it takes many methods to conduct a dialogue anywhere these days to even come to a place where untainted messages could be sent.
>>717702617 So you trust the CIA about the Russian hacks? Then you must also trust comey about Hillary clintons email and that he has sufficient evidence to warrent an investigation. Or does that not fit into your political agenda?
>>717702617 >absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
>if Russia had something to gain from attacking US elections it must mean an attack occurred.
Get a low of this fucking clown. Every country in the world has SOMETHING to gain from influencing our elections. By your "logic" we must've gotten hacked by literally every country in the world. You make no fucking sense whatsoever.
You site examples where you can easily google and find actual evidence of Stuxnet of the Sony attack and trying to muddy the waters by comparing those attacks with something that has literally no evidence whatsoever. It doesn't work and it just makes you look like an imbecile to anyone with half a brain that can drive a truck through the holes in your argument.
Aside from the "hurr durr 14 agencies" meme, you still do not have one shred of evidence to support your claim. On the contrary, the author of the leaks has come out and said definitively that their source is not state-sponsored and had nothing to do with Russia.
Which is more likely, that the person who released them is telling the truth or that the CIA (who lied about the crack epidemic for 20 years and Iran Contra) is telling the truth?
It's insane that you people are still calling this some "big bag hack" when all that was released was behind-closed-door communication that showed how slimy these people are.
Would you prefer that the US public be left in the dark and NOT informed about people they're potentially electing to run the country? Serious question. Like you think the elections would have been MORE righteous/upstanding if people remained ignorant to the ethics violations and corruption that was exposed? What kind of sense does that make, really? Who really gives a shit was the SOURCE of the information was, how about you focus on the info itself.
>>717694675 >no evidence has been provided no intelligence agency is going to publicly produce evidence of a foreign entity doing something to them. You don't want the russians knowing exactly what you caught them doing. this way the next time they try shit, they might do it the same way. It's the same reason why you don't announce you broke some old radio code or cipher used during the cold war.
>>717694675 People are so stupid. No, they did not use a screenshot from Fallout to show Russians hacking. All it is is just like a stock photo for the background of the story. The aesthetized version of hacking in general is the Matrix terminals with the green characters falling.
It would be retarded for CNN to use a screenshot of a desktop with pentest tools because the average person wouldn't know what they were looking at. Throw a Matrix style terminal with green characters, or a terminal from Fallout, and people would now get the idea of, oh that's computer hacking.
I mean they never said "this is how Russians hack", it's just in the background. It's dumb, but it's not like news media passing off footage from a video game as footage of actual combat, like the time they did that with ARMA footage.
>>717703796 Thats a fair arguement. Yet, lets do a simple cost benefit analysis of the situation. Could the Higher ups release a tiny bit of evidence that doesn't compromise their ability to detect future threats to the public in order to garner support and sympathy for what they are doing? I think in a situation like that the benefits outweigh the costs. Or is it much more likely that they are pissed that they lost and are lying to push their agenda. Don't even act like this would be the first time the left has lied to push thier agenda. Don't even act like it's the 300th time.
There is literally more evidence and step-by-step on exactly how Osama was killed than how the "big bag Russians hacked the elections" and you fucking retards still believe it happened because the CIA and obama said it did?
I mean I don't even know how to get through to that level of stupid.
>>717704032 The intelligence agencies aren't "the left" though. But it is true, if you got hacked, and you figured out how, you wouldn't say how, because then obviously the hackers would change their methods.
>>717704416 Noce cherry picking. Answer the question. Could the Higher ups release a tiny bit of evidence that doesn't compromise their ability to detect future threats to the public in order to garner support and sympathy for what they are doing? I think in a situation like that the benefits outweigh the costs.
No, nigger. It's already been said that the GOP was targetted just as much as the DNC and it was some dumbass in the Dem camp that was stupid enough to click on a phishing link. Just stop with your conspiracy theories already. The only people whining with this weak ass argument are people who realize the Dems got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and didn't have a way to spin it and say "Hey, but look what these other guys did over here!"
They got caught with their pants down and didn't have any way to do damage control by taking the focus off of them. Plain and simple.
>>717704416 >The agencies arn't the left So obama isn't the left? The president appointed head of the agencies that work for obama arn't the left? How come they "hacks" wern't even worth looking into untill AFTER the left lost the election? Answer each question anon. Answer them.
>>717705147 Well, I'm not that anon, but it kind of felt like you were forcing the conclusion of that question with the statement, as well as the way the question was worded. Also, because of your previous reply.
How will you reply, if the other anon doesn't just say "yes"?
>>717705390 You can't even say that there was a fraction of the same coverage before the election as there is now after with a straight face. You faggots ask for "more transparency" and as soon as it's given to you and it's something you don't like you come up with some weird narrative to try and pretend it's not true. What the fuck gives? It's like you don't think MSM with the TRIILLIONS of dollars at it's disposal wouldn't easily come up with a fake narrative to cover up how corrupt THEY are after being exposed by assange. Obama didn't even talk about the shit until after emails came out showing he knew Hillary had a server in her bathroom after saying publicly he had no idea. They were all caught in their lies and they'd rather start a war with an imaginary boogeyman instead of just owning up to the shit. How hard is that to understand?
>>717705390 And why did they do that? Why do you think they made a big deal about it? Do you think it is because they are just good people and they want fair elections, or do you think it has more to do with being an upset child and losing. They media would love nothing more to start world war 3 under Trump. They would blame republicans for starting the war and use it as an insult to hurl during every political debate till the end of time.
>>717705415 Then fucking argue with me. You are tottaly avoiding the topic and acting like a little bitch. It's not begging the question if I ask a question and generally want an answer. It just so happens the answer isn't one you care to give because it make you look fucking stupid. Thank god trump won. You faggots are on your death bed
>>717705851 This. This times a 1000. This. Said it better than i ever could have. They are all a bunch of hypocrites. You can't even hold a conversation with a liberal wothout having to bend over backwards and jump through so many hoops. They can't just straight up admit what is wrong and right. They always have a political agenda to push and everything they say is aleays biased
>>717706305 Okay then what are we arguing about? You can't act all high and mighty and say >"no shit, I tottaly agree with you, you fucking asshole, I hate you so god damn much" Because thats pretty much what your post sounded like
>>717706133 But, I am arguing with you. I asked you if you were begging the question, and you said no, and then you said I was dodging the question, so I explained how I wasn't dodging the question (because the question was never directed at me) and why I thought you were begging the question. Then I asked you a question.
Then you asked me to argue with you, which I was, and then you asked me to stay on the topic I have only started discussing with you. And then you told me >it just so happens the answer isn't one you care to give because it makes you look fucking stupid and then got especially triggered and mentioned that Trump won, and that people are on their death beds. I think you may have just answered one of my questions for me. Thank you.
>>717706485 That the intelligence agencies aren't "the left". They usually all have their own agendas, they may align with some of the other agencies, and maybe even the white house, but they have their own budgets and things they want done.
>>717706601 Yeah okay act like you are 5 different people to make the situation unnavigatable for your opponent. You didn't have a problem with a logical fallacy your real problem was the point I was making. You just can't refute the point so you revert to little bitch type tactics to avoid the actual discussion. I know your type and so does america apparently. Because Trump won
>>717706817 Uh, I'm really not the anon you started arguing with, though. See, we're still arguing, but you yourself changed the subject.
Let me prove to you, that I am not that anon, before I confirm that, when you are arguing with someone, you usually have a problem with the point or points that they are making, and in an argument, you are usually supposed to refute the point you disagree with, and attempt to justify that disagreement.
>>717694923 Hilary one. She had over 10 million more votes. She will be madam president on Jan 20. Because of the hacking by trumpussia, Obama will have to executive order her as president. This is fully constitutional and the only way to fix this country. So you mad trumpanzies
First, I did NOT vote for Trump. Second, where in the fuck did you pull that number from? Hillary's lead never quite reached 3 million. Stop lying to make a point. Use FACTS (and that goes for both sides)
>>717706817 Okay, pic related, here's your proof that I'm not the same anon.
So. When you are arguing with someone, you usually have a problem with the point or points that they are making, and in an argument, you are usually supposed to refute the point you disagree with, and attempt to justify that disagreement. I currently find it hard to believe that you were not trying to evoke a certain response, in lieu of the way you reply, and the way you style your replies. It doesn't really seem honest.
>>717707276 I have. I don't know how you've gone this long without seeing just that.
>>717706671 Okay and who is the boss of those agencies? Who appoints the bosses of those agencies? And which agencies have come forth claiming they have found evidence that shows that we were hacked by the Russians? why can't they release evidence that would allow americans to believe them a little more without compromising their security? How about a name besides putin? How about the place ot was done at? Both of these things would be critical evidence needed to be sure a Russian hacker did it and I don't see how releasing this information would jeprodize security measures. When terrorist attacks happen, the identity of those whom commited the crime are released in the same day. It's not black and white to the point where you can't release any information at all and quit trying to fucking act like it is because I don't think you believe that yourself. I think you are just usig it as an excuse for them. Whatever fucking happened to the left that was hypercritical of the government? Anything that could warrent a war or provoke society to act a certain way was heavly met woth demands from the left for proof for so long. The left was atleast morally sound that arena. Now look at you. It's sad what you have become.
>>717707448 I'm not the left though. And all of the US intelligence agencies claim it. Why they won't release data on it, idk. But like I said, the intelligence agencies have their agendas, and Russia was always an enemy to them, so right now they are hopping on the mainstream anti-Russia hysteria.
But even when China hacks us, and we know about it, do the authorities ever reveal how they know they are state sponsored attacks?
>>717707800 I understand your point. You don't understand mine. Your point is that intelligence agencies can't release information because it will jeopardize security measures. I agree that that is a good arguement. But you have ignored my point for a long time now. Let me make it simple for you. Here is my point. Why can't the U.S. Intelligence agencies release proof of the hack that does not jeopardize security measures? My conclusion. Because there is no proof at all. What do you think anon? Do you think there is zero evidence that can be provided to the public to back up a claim without jeopardizing security? If you think so then why? If you don't think so then why havn't they released it?
>>717707666 Well, I initiated the dialogue with a question, one that very much revolved around who said what (and how it was said), and I feel like I got what I came for, so I don't really know. I don't really see a reason in talking about politics, when you have the other anon for that.
>>717708244 Why, like I said, I don't know. I don't know what evidence the intelligence agencies have that the Russians were the ones behind it. It's also different if it is Russian based hackers, and Russian state sponsored, or even Russian military/intelligence hackers. I along with you and many others WANT some more information about the hacks. It does sound like propaganda when they say that Russia is behind it and nothing is being shown to us to say that it is them.
I do agree that Russia did more during the elections than just give background vocal support to Trump. Obviously Hilary is anti-Russia as hell and Trump, while he may not be 100% pro-Kremlin, he at the very least isn't as critical as them as her. Election influencing is nothing new. The US did it hundreds of times over the years, and it isn't that far a thought to think that the classic world's second superpower would influence this election to help put in power a person that would be more lenient towards them, especially after the new round of sanctions over Ukraine and Crimea. Whether that was hacking, and releasing damning information on the Dems and Hillary, that's a hard accusation that needs more proof.
I don't think it is possible for Russia to influence the elections. I mean, they didn't do the shit the DNC was doing. The election was volatile as it was with out any outside influence. No one ARGUED the evidence, they argued the source, like that would some how discredit the evidence. Even in a court of law, if the police were not responsible for evidence being brought to light, that was only acheived under nefarious means, the evidence is still admissible. In an election, the voters are the authority. It doesn't matter if they evidence came from China, Russia, or a fat man in his mothers basement, if its true its to be considered. The only problem I see is that the media didn't find it. And it's clear as to why because its clear that CNN was trying to influence the election by feeding Hillary Clinton questions before debates. Its clear the DNC was influence elections by disregarding their own primary. Honestly, on the first day, Trump should kick CNN reporters out of the Whitehouse.
>>717709184 I'm not the anon you were discussion with but your remark is interesting because of it's fellow up question: If We dont have proof, tangible evidence, then why does this story even exist? It must cime from somewhere, We should be looking at who leaked it and with what informations.
>>717708782 well i'm glad you got what you came for then faggot. >oh thats okay I'll totally avoid talking politics with you by implying you did or said something so horrible that i already know you are a horrible person. I got what I came for so theres no needs for me to engage you intellectually all that really matters is that I claified who said what. Fuck off
>>717709184 Well the anti-Russia thing is in full swing, even if Trump is about to ascend to the throne. The media will not left off that easily.
>>717709271 >I don't think it is possible for Russia to influence the elections They can if they publish stuff that discredits one side by posting their dirty laundry.
>Even in a court of law, if the police were not responsible for evidence being brought to light, that was only acheived under nefarious means, the evidence is still admissible. Sometimes it isn't admissible. Some states you can't record someone without their consent. If you have evidence against someone that was recorded without them knowing, it would be thrown out. Though this isn't one of those times.
It's true though, the DNC and some media like CNN did collude to try to cheat their way into winning the primaries and even the elections, which is deplorable.
>>717708964 You're looking for a boogeyman to substantiate why Hillary lost. Your mind is going to find one if it wants to, but don't pretend you're following some logical path to get to your conclusion.
US sanctions don't do shit to Russia which is why Putin laughed when Obama kicked his diplomats out of the country and didn't even bother to reciprocate. 95% of Russia's income is derived from selling oil to the Euro countries. Name a product that Russia sells on a regular basis to the US.
Obama and Hillary both fucked up the "Russian reset" because they had their heads up their asses, so is it any surprise that the guy doesn't like either one of them? Do you expect him not to give his opinion on who he likes better in the election if someone asks him? Do we call that hacking now?
I just want to see some evidence where people make the leap from "Putin doesn't like Hillary or Obama" to "Putin specifically hacked the DNC and the US elections." There's a huge gap in logic there and not one of us has seen any evidence to bridge the two in any fashion whatsoever.
Based on the evidence at hand (0), apparently we're going to say any other country's leader who gives their opinion on a US election in the future has hacked us or something. It just doesn't make sense.
On one hand you've got a guy (Assange) who has publicly stated he's not affiliated with any party and has said that his source was a DNC insider. He also exposed republicans during the Iraq War so there's evidence to show he doesn't show favor one way or the other.
On the other hand you have an organization KNOWN for espionage (even within it's own borders) and known for lying if it means progressing their own agenda under republican or democrat administration and increasing their budget telling you it was Russia. The classic red herring.
Which one makes more sense to believe honestly? Who has more to gain by lying in this particular situation?
>>717709679 It doesnt make sense for this to be propaganda because it has repercussions way beyond the u.s's national election. Besides, multiple sources not coming from the us are confirming the attack happened
>>717710025 >You're looking for a boogeyman to substantiate why Hillary lost I'm not though. There are a ton of reasons why she lost, even though she did win the popular vote.
>US sanctions don't do shit to Russia You do realize the Russian economy is pretty shit right? A little while ago the ruble tanked pretty bad. They still have their money, but they are a developing country for a reason.
It's kinda dumb to assume that Putin won't touch the US elections, and act like he is some kind of saint. He has a lot to gain if Trump wins and more to lose if Hilary won. If Hilary won, you know damn well she would escalate the war in Syria, based on how active she was in Libya. That would mean losing the puppet Assad and their Med. port and a possible escalation in tensions between the US and Russia that would be reminiscent of the Cold War. I didn't say Putin specifically hacked the DNC.
And I wouldn't trust Wikileaks 100%. They do their own shady shit just as much as anyone else. I don't 100% trust the intelligence agencies either. I don't live in a black and white world. Everyone has agendas and shit they want done. Whether they are directly or indirectly involved in said events, it's up for more evidence to come through.
>>717694675 >IF Russia even did hack the democratic national convention
What does that even mean? How does Russia go about "hacking the election"? It just so happens that many "hackers" are in Russia. Even that isn't meant to be taken literally, it's a way to say there are many compromised routers fishing for data over there. Not just Russia, that area starts about Ukraine. Making it no coincidence that Wikileaks and such tend to have many connections with people in eastern countries. That, and the fact that these governments tend to not exactly work together with western ones to "catch hackers" - just to spite the US and friends - makes it ideal to base your (ugh) "hacking" operations there. It's not Russia, it's probably not even russians, and they probably weren't even in Russia, just had some connections / hardware somewhere around this region.
Pardon the paragraph faggots, but I still don't understand how people can be this fucking retarded. Oh yeah, staying on topic: Yes, probably the backlash should be aimed at the democrats.
>>717710596 >The Russian economy is shit The Russian economy went to shit and the ruble tanked because the price of OIL tanked, not because of any sanctions the US put on them. Simple geopolitics and economics. Their economy is shit, but obama trying to flex and sanction them is akin to somebody taking a sock away from a hobo living on the street. In the big picture, it doesn't mean shit honestly.
I'm not saying putin is a saint either, far from it. I didn't ask you what he had to gain from one person or the other winning the election. Literally every country's leaders have something to lose/gain by one person or the other being elected. This isn't special to Russia. Is every other country responsible for hacking our elections based on that logic, because they have something to lose/gain?
>judging by how active Hillary was in Syria Uhm what? The only people to really make a public move in Syria has been the UN, unless you're talking about Obama and his imaginary "red line in the sand" that was crossed then he did literally nothing and looked like a fool.
putin clearly didn't respect obama enough to stop his war in syria when he flexed, what makes you think he would be scared of hillary who's basically obama jr.? Your logic is flawed again.
I wasn't implying that Putin himself hacked the DNC either, maybe that got lost in translation. I'm saying there's no evidence at all that he gave a green light or was personally associated with anyone who did.
What "shady shit" has wikileaks done aside from expose information for the general public to consume? I'm not saying they're perfect either, I asked you straight up who has more to gain from lying in this specific situation: Assange or the CIA?
The answer to my question above is more than obvious. To believe Assange is lying for some "agenda" you'd have to somehow link a guy hiding in a ecuador basement to putin on the other side of the world doing all this for what? To sell more books? Cmon man.
This Russian hack thing is not going away, and I am starting to believe that in a couple of years impeachment proceedings will begin once the paper trail is found. This sounds just like watergate....it started slow then came to a speedy finish. Trump is fucked
>>717711379 Yeah other countries have to gain by either Trump or Hilary winning, but most of our allies will still have the benefits of either of them winning, and as for our "enemies", you would have people like China and Russia who would want to get their preferred leader in. I doubt China has the capabilities to influence us, as opposed to Russia who could use Cold War era shit.
On the other hand, we ALL know from the wikileaks dumps during Iraq, Libya etc that the CIA is specifically in the business of usurping regimes and instilling puppets in other countries. This newest conspiracy has not only refocused people's attention Syria but now Russia as well.
Take out two dictators and replace governments? That's literally what the CIA does and this is slowly winding people up to support fighting both Syria AND Russia based on no evidence at all.
It blows my mind that most people don't even know WHY they're angry with Russia if they sit down and think about it. It also blows my mind that they hate putin, an ex kgb agent, so much simply because the cia, the US equivalent of the kgb, told them to. Yeah the guy's a dick to gays and he bullies other countries but so does the US. Yeah, Russians pentest our systems all the time, so do the Chinese, and the N Koreans, and everybody else every single day. We also do the same to every other country.
Why specifically Russia and why specifically AFTER Hillary loses the election when this goes on all the time? You're putting your trust in an organization that uses psyops all the time and just a month ago everyone on the left was saying how corrupted the FBI and other organizations were when they tried to prosecute Hillary. Now their word is all the evidence you need? I just don't get how gullible some people could be.
>>717711817 China doesn't have the capabilities to influence us despite their economy being 20 times the size of Russia's and the fact they don't give a fuck about snatching our drones out the water on a whim, but Russia, with a shit economy (based on your own words) 1/20th the size of China's has the capabilities because of "some Cold War era shit."
What does that even mean honestly? Like that is some of the most vague shit i've read all day.
>>717712148 Well, then I would say you would be presuming too much with my one reply, and you should consider the notion that I might just not be an asshat. Or, you're projecting opinions and sentiments from other people, and other facets of your life, onto my reply, thus believing that you are inferring things from my reply, things that were never there, that make you upset or give you troubles.
Or you just want someone to hate. That's fine, too.
>>717711817 I'm more than willing to have an adult conversation about this and I didn't mean to come across like an asshole i just don't buy "cold war era sorcery" as verifiable evidence of threatening our elections.
>>717712068 It's that when people make these arguments, they use hyperbole often. Such an example, would be to say that everyone of the left was saying this or that. "Literally everyone" on the left. It's like saying everyone on the right was saying this or that, "Literally everyone" on the right. With those kinds of generalizations and exaggerations, it's easy for people to inject or infer anything they want, or to doubt the veracity of the entire argument in question, because of these few things, thus making it seem like "absolutely no one" understood the points being made.
>>717712550 >>717712752 The fact that if Russia wanted to influence our elections, they could do so more than China could. They had spy networks, they bugged our politicians, had a high level FBI official feeding them official for years and even Russians hack us today. We do the same to them as well. What I meant by Cold War era, is even though the Cold War is officially over, we aren't threatening nukes at each other, we still aren't buddy buddy and have contrasting foreign policies that overlap today. Our views in Ukraine and Crimea and even Syria shows we still go against each other and still use proxies to go at each other. They still have spy networks in the US, and recently as 2010 a few Russians were deported because they were "spies". I can't think of any other major government that has a spy network set up in the US like Russia does.
>>717713133 I mean if you can't find a flaw in my train of thought, I guess focus on some hyperbole if you want, it doesn't really detract at all from the points I was making.
The fact is you can't connect the dots on this thing, if you want to believe the narrative they're pitching you it's because you CHOOSE to have faith in the same organizations that lie to people for a living. Using Occam's Razor, it's far more likely the CIA is the one with a vested interest in lying about this situation than Assange.
For fuck's sake, people act like they don't even remember why Snowden is still hiding in Russia because he exposed what the NSA was doing to us as citizens, but you're trusting those same exact people to tell you "the truth"? For real?
>>717703449 >Who really gives a shit was the SOURCE of the information was, how about you focus on the info itself.
Well this was the point. The guys who leaked the documents wanted the democrat voters to turn on each other. By exposing Sanders treatment at the hands of the DNC they managed to drive potential voters away from Hillary.
Everything else is just pretty classic russian misinformation tactics; Leaking false news stories, spreading stories about hacking voting machines. Releasing contradictory reports to keep on muddying the waters. I assume that there are even russians on boards such as 4chan who is getting paid to post bullshit stories from both sides of the political fence, just to keep attention away from the original objective; Divide and weaken the democratic party.
I do not think it solely won Trump the presidency but it defintiely had an effect.
As an added bonus it has also diminished Trump's prestige as there will always be detractors at home and abroad who will call him Putin's puppet because of this.
The fact that Trump himself called for Russia to hack the DNC on live television hasn't really done him any favours either in that respect either I suppose.
Or maybe its Obama who is trying to undermine the president elect in his last few dying days in office.
Who cares? Trump and Tillerson will smooth all this over over games of golf over at Putin's dacha as they renegotiate the Exxon-Mobil deal that will be implemented as soon as they lift the economic sanctions.
So yeah, just kick back and enjoy th enext 4 years.
It's going to be a great time to be a holder of the Russian Order of Friendship.
because I want to make the argument that of course Russia would want revenge for it. that being said. China already has us giving them a hand job whenever they ask for it. so I feel like they don't really have anything to gain from us other than more money. Russia however, America made them look weak for 30 or so years. and Putin was a part of it.... so....
>>717713818 But I chose to focus on the hyperbole for a reason. The flaw in your train of thought is that you are constantly, maybe unknowingly, invoking hyperbole that does in fact detract from the points you are making. Amongst other things.
If you want to believe that I didn't think you had any solid points, to believe that I "can't connect the dots", to believe that I'm choosing a narrative (what narrative am I choosing?), to insist that I am somehow gullible and this is knowledge that you personally know intimately, to believe that your invocation of Occam's Razor is without fault, or to believe that everyone except you is wrong/a sheep/dumb/etc... I can't stop you. But, then there would be genuine flaws in your train of thought that I'd at least bother to take issue with, or bother to demonstrate that I take issue with it... but I don't think you're entirely capable of separating yourself from the narrative you desperately want to drive, either. So, maybe you'll read this, but you won't take the time to cool off, and digest it. Of all the things, you are already putting the words "I trust the government, 100%", into my mouth.
And it's a bad taste. I'd like to see if you would stop doing that.
>>717713834 >Well this was the point. The guys who leaked the documents wanted the democrat voters to turn on each other. By exposing Sanders treatment at the hands of the DNC they managed to drive potential voters away from Hillary.
Wrong. Show me anywhere where anyone associated with wikileaks said the above in any way, shape or form.
You're applying the CONSEQUENCES of them releasing information to their personal agenda when they've stated multiple times they have none.
They simply released information, information that every citizen is entitled to in order to make an informed decision about their electorates.
The democrats did the corrupt things themselves, it was their own actions, Wikileaks just shined a light on the crooked shit going on behind the scenes. If anything they're a neutral party which is obvious by how they threw the repubs under the bus 7 years ago.
fuck I'm tired of this whole fucking thing though.
i hope the russians are keeping tabs on my ip so that when in 2019 they finally come and kick down my door here in Estonia they'll do me the courtesy of just shooting me in the head out in the woods somewhere as a potential political dissident.
That way I don't have to follow you american pricks whining to each other about whose corporate puppet didnt suck enough dick to get elected president
Aaah I jest of course
I am not estonian
I am tired of this two party shouting match though. Can't people with political opinions just do the rest of us a favour and plant those opinions firmly up their asses and just leave the arguing to the paid shills?
>>717714473 Man, could you possibly put more words in my mouth?
I invoked hyperbole twice referring to MSM, easy.
At no point did I say you trust the government 100% or use the word sheep or dumb. There's nothing desperate about me laying out what's actually known at this point and the gaps you have to fill in to actually believe the "Russian story."
I mean you're basically attacking me as an individual for using hyperbole but you've yet to offer any rebuttal to the actual points I've made and character assassination isn't really a good look for anybody tbqh when I'm only laid out facts in a quasi-neutral fashion.
>>717715285 I have no problem with WikiLeaks. I have no problems with russian hackers giving WikiLeaks information to spread; It's what i would do if I wanted to influence the election.
But I am happy to hear that you are such intimate friends with the guys at WikiLeaks that you know that they would not accept information given to them by anonymous hackers and then release them during an election during a time that would in any way damage one of the candidates.
(I mean, for the sake of brevity they wouldn't need to release anythign abut Trump. The man just needed to open his mouth to make himself sound unelectable. His diction alone should give most of the electorate pause for thought. Or so one would say. Anywho, I degress.)
I am sure that the good honorable girls and boys at WikiLeaks have no personal or political agendas beyond the idea that Truth shall be let free.
It is shame that the powers that rule this world might not share the same level of naivity as them.
It is pretty clear that russia has more to gain from Trump's elevation tot he white house than Hillary Clinton, a woman Putin deeply dislikes on a personal level and thus one who would not be lifting the trade sanctions on russia any time soon.
Who funded Trump's campaign? Why is Rex Tillerson being made Secretary of State?
All coincidences, I am sure.
The democratic party are all evil shits, I'm sure. But the republicans are hardly rose-scented guardians of goodness and decency.
It's going to be a great couple of years for russian oligarchs
>>717713818 >I mean if you can't find a flaw in my train of thought Implying I can't find a flaw in your train of thought. >I mean if you can't find a flaw in my train of thought >I guess focus on some hyperbole if you want Implying that I need to focus on something that is instead trivial, and also implying that the hyperbole is both trivial and does not detract from the overall argument. >it doesn't really detract at all from the points I was making Reinforcing the the sentiment that everything I said earlier was invalid, and that I cannot follow your train of thought. >The fact is you can't connect the dots on this thing Implying I "can't connect the dots", which is a nice way to say that I'm dumb and don't understand you. >if you want to believe the narrative they're pitching you it's because you Implying that I am now both a sheep/a blind devout follower who chooses to be ignorant, but also cannot "connect the dots". >people act like they don't even remember why Snowden is still hiding >but you're trusting those same exact people to tell you "the truth"? Implying that I trust the government to tell me the truth, prefaced with the sentiment that it is as if everyone forgot about Snowden, or what significance Snowden has to do with anything.
I'd just like to understand, as well, why I need to address any of your other talking points, where I find little else to contend with. Or, why you would take my taking issue with your hyperbole, as a personal attack, or character assassination. You have already explicitly admitted to at least two counts of exaggerating parts of your argument, and seemingly unknowingly admitted to more.
There are a few things that are "desperate" about how you are laying out this narrative. One, you see the need to insist that the people who disagree with you are wholly incapable of, as you put it, "connecting the dots". Secondly: >refocused people's attention >slowly winding people up >most people don't even know >they hate putin >US equivalent of the kgb, told them to >everybody else >You're putting your trust >everyone on the left > just don't get how gullible some people People, people, people, people, they, they, them, they. You don't think highly of anyone outside of the narrative. And, there's some amorphous, homogenous entity out there that constantly shows up when you type. Some sort of group that can be blamed for everything negative in the perspective you're putting down. Coincidentally, it is always an outside group of "people" that seem to always draw your ire when you type. And you seem to speak for them, because so far you have told us exactly how they think, where their thoughts are going, who they like or don't like, and how gullible they are.
Thirdly, there's a reason that I am addressing you as an individual. You as an individual are directly curating what you type. Your thoughts are your points, you rationalized them and organized them into your replies. And it shows. Again, it isn't so much character assassination to point out, however, that you are going out of your way to exaggerate things that undermine the legitimacy of your claims.
You're assuming they "didn't release anything about Trump" as if you know they actually HAD any information about Trump to begin with.
Assange already said it was a whistleblower in the DNC that gave him the info, what more do you want? We know whistleblowers exist because, again, Snowden is still hiding oversees for doing the same thing.
If you don't like the guy because you think he's a douche or he says mean things or whatever, just say that but don't try to cook up some crazy Russian story with no evidence at all. That's all I'm saying.
Again, just because Russia has something to gain from one person being elected over another does not equate to them "hacking the elections."
You're so bull-headed that you try and make the two ideas the same thing without seeing the enormous gap between them.
Who funded Hillary's campaign? Why did she pick her Vice President out of the pool she did?
I mean we could play this game all day but just trying to run the conversation in all kinds of different directions doesn't negate the fact that still no one has a shred of evidence to prove the Russian claim.
And you finish up with some corny tripe about Russian oligarchs, it's clear your mind was already made up before you even started this conversation so what's the point even? You don't have an objective point of view when all you're offering is personal attacks and veiled insults about Trump, get real man.
>You're still a faggot. You predicting that you're gonna be gay tomorrow doesn't change what happens tomorrow; you can't fake a prediction, you can only make them, like you can make observations. Oh, woah, look at that faggot. You can make observations, and be gay, too. Weird.
>There being a bukkake or some fat sex tomorrow doesn't mean anything. There's no magic law that bars you from making predictions if you're gay all the time, I'm fucking stupid and autistic. What I think you're trying to say, is that you're upset some people claimed that the world was one way, and only one thing was going to happen. That some people were treating a prediction as a series of events that already unfolded. And guess what? That's super gay.
>You can continue to think homo shit, but I'd ask you to guess what it means. Stop being so faggy.
A good number of these people supporting the "Russian story" are only doing so because they can't stand Trump and are looking for anything to latch on to that goes against the guy.
I'm not angry, upset, or anything so I'm really not sure why you keep trying to pin stuff like that on me, it's just painfully obvious what's going on.
Believe what you want but, again, don't try and pretend there's any logic to how you reach your conclusion when all of this boils down to "Putin's a bad guy" and "I don't like Trump" soooo "x" seems totally plausible "because the CIA said so."
I didn't say it was impossible it happened, just extremely unlikely whereas you and a few other people in this thread are taking a giant leap of faith to blindly believe some conspiracy that you've yet to see any concrete evidence of.
I asked a question a while ago that none of you have bothered to answer yet.
You're telling me that you would have preferred the American people to remain in the dark about the ethics violations and corruption that was going on behind the scenes and have cast their votes ignorant to the information we were given? Yes or no?
>>717718850 I'm not saying you're upset, or angry. But you can't say you're not putting in the effort to make a convincing argument.
If you say that, I'm going to be confused.
And, maybe saying that it's painfully obvious as to what is going on, is a bit on the nose as to how you think about the situation, and frames the way you are taking your perspective on the matter. Plus, you said you weren't putting words in my mouth, right?
>whereas you and a few other people in this thread are taking a giant leap of faith >to blindly believe some conspiracy that you've yet to see any concrete evidence of Shoot. You have to show me where and when I took a giant leap of faith to blindly believe some conspiracy that I've yet to see any concrete evidence of. I don't remember making that apparent at all. Or, even doing that. At all.
And I don't remember choosing to initiate this dialogue to answer the question you asked to another anon. I don't remember implying that I would have preferred that the American people were to remain in the dark about ethical violations, corruption, and other unfortunate things that would be going on behind the scenes. I don't remember implying that I would have them cast their votes, wholly ignorant to the information that was given.
>>717717907 Russian influence is hardly the sole reason why Trump won.
It was however useful for dividing the Democratic Party after the primaries.
Everything since then is just russians leaking stories about how they rigged the voting booths or how secret documents found on her computer proves hillary clinton is murdering babies or stories about how podesta is running a toddler skinning factory at a dunkin donuts in detroit or that russian hackers are behind the wikileaks or that Hillary Clinton is having a lesbian relationship with every female member of her campaign staff or stories about how russian hackers are not behind wikileaks and stories about hundreds of millions of illegal refugees all took illegal taxis to vote illegally at polling boothes all over california.
Russia is very adept at creating disinformation campaigns. It is arguable one of Putin's most powerful tools in maintaining control over russia. You should do some research.
Still, it hardly matters.
Trump won. Putin is happy. The russian people will be happier when the economic snactions are lifted.
Maybe we will even wake up in a safer world, the day Trump is sworn into office.
I mean, it's not as if Putin would be so cynical as to exploit the deeply divided US political climate to further Russian influence over Eastern Europe.
>>717719501 You type a lot to basically say nothing, tbqh.
Just answer the question and be done with it.
So far all I see you doing is criticizing me for pointing out the gaps in this whole Russian conspiracy which is, honestly, a really weird position for anyone to take unless there's a vested interest in perpetuating a narrative that no citizen has seen any proof of yet.
News channels don't have the budgets to do more than get random shit off the net for visual representations, besides, most of this shit is gonna be shown to old people who don't know the difference between a printer and a desktop.
>>717714473 I clearly see where he's coming from. It's called common sense. Who has the most to gain from this nonsense? Start from there and you can cut thru the bullshit and see who. You seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing
>>717719965 No, you choose to see me criticizing you for pointing out the gaps in a conspiracy theory, and suggest that I must have some sort of vested interest in perpetuating a narrative. What you're now choosing not to see, is me criticizing you for committing a few faux pas, which, as a random individual with no vested interests or anything to gain from a conspiracy theory, made me seriously question just how much I could take what you typed to be valid. And again, now you're going to suggest that I'm something I'm not. I'm a big bad to you, simply because I disagree with a few things you've said- none of them having to do anything with (much of) what you said, but how you said it.
And I did answer a question that you directed to me. The answer was no. >>717718850 >Yes or no? >>717719501 >no
>>717720541 Not for the sake of arguing. My reason for initiating the dialogue is right there in the post you replied to. I'm not arguing who has the most to gain from this nonsense. I'm not going against that. I have no reason to. I don't see anything wrong with some of the footnotes. I just can't take someone seriously in the face of a gross generalization, even less seriously when they begin to assume than presume.
It's like pulling percentages from nowhere and invoking them in a conversation, with the intent to prove something. ~80% of people don't do that, an an example.
I had hoped my bias was clear from the beginning. I am tired though. See: >>717715453
>You're assuming they "didn't release anything about Trump" as if you know they actually HAD any information about Trump
I was making a joke, indicating that the man comes across as such an incoherent joke that they did not need to release any dirt on him. I am sorry of it flew over your head. I am very tired.
>Assange already said it was a whistleblower in the DNC that gave him the info, what more do you want?
For Assange to be a credible source again
>If you don't like the guy because you think he's a douche or ... whatever, just say that but don't try to cook up some crazy Russian story with no evidence at all.
I am not the person who cooked up the story.
I have no problem with Trump as such. I believe him to be a dangerous narcissist that will be easily led by the vultures and sycophants that he surrounds himself with. I don't care if he says mean things. It's pantomime for the braying masses. Even he says that he doesn't take what he says seriously. I am more worried about Russias plans in the next 4 years.
>just because Russia has something to gain from one person being elected over another does not equate to them "hacking the elections."
I am not saying that they hacked the election. They merely tried to influence it by splitting the Democratic voterbase, trying to turn them against Hillary. Wether or not this was enough to win Trump the election, I cannot tell you. Personally I doubt it. What I do not doubt however was that Russia wanted to damage Hillary in favour of Trump.
>Who funded Hillary's campaign? Why did she pick her Vice President out of the pool she did?
Donors. Probably cos he was so fucking boring that he couldn't have any skeletons in his cupboard to further damage her campaign.
>And you finish up with some tripe about Russian oligarchs
Yeah I been doing that for a few days now. I should stop
>>717719965 Actually it's sillier than that. He seems to be critical of the way you make your argument which is autistic faggotry on a galactic level. Doesn't even bother with the content of what you say
>>717722089 Probably because I find nothing wrong with the content of (most) of his words. But disregard that, because apparently I have vested interests in perpetrating the narrative that Russia hacked the United States.
>>717722344 Yes. I don't know how many times I have to say it. I disagree with how he's phrasing it, not with what he's actually saying.
Yes. This. It's as if this somehow can't be the case.
>>717722249 Okay. I'm really not gaining anything by posting in the thread, though, you know that. I'm not trying to sound intellectual. And, I've made many points so far, here's the major point that you want me to rehash: You used hyperbole, and it grossly misrepresented a lot of the things you pointed out, which I felt undermined your argument greatly. You also went to making a lot of strawmen after the fact, which I liked even less.
I think you argue bad while having good points. I wanted to make that painfully clear, but it seemed like you wouldn't have that.
Maybe you would argue better if I pointed these things out.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.