Who else is watching the media meltdown with this fake Russian hacking nonsense and wondering if George Soros is crazy enough to try and stop the inauguration even if it means possibly starting a civil war?

i am definitely not thinking we are out of the woods with this last election, and keep seeing the wedge(s) in society being hammered in further and further.

The main reason I switched to Trump was that it became apparent that if he lost someone worse would come along and capitalize on the working class betrayal rage. Every day this neo macarthyist Sabre rattling continues I'm convinced he was the right choice. These psychos who destroyed Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine would have started WW3. Trump may be a con artist but at least he doesn't seem to be obsessed with ruling the entire planet.

Who else is watching the media meltdown with this fake Russian hacking nonsense and wondering if George Soros is crazy enough to try and stop the inauguration even if it means possibly starting a civil war?

Why do you think it is a fake story? I mean yeah, maybe the CIA is making up a story under the orders of Obama, but I haven't really come across any evidence that the hacking came from elsewhere.

First of all gov needs to show how many instances of hacks.   Was it HRC private server getting hacked, the one that her followers claimed there's no evidence that it was hacked?   Was it the DNC hacks which were true which is why Wasserman Schultz had to resign as chair and Brazille was caught feeding debate questions?  Was it Podesta's email getting hacked?  Was it Weenie boy's private PED getting hacked?  Was WikiLeaks which says it came from a U.S. insider?  Was it from the assassinated Seth Rich ?  Which ONE?  Sure the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Israelis, French even the Nigerians hacked HRCs private unsecure server, because she was careless and criminally negligent.  Same with the DNC. 
If anyone thinks the Russians favored DJT, I say they favored HRC because they know for a fact that she would set up another private unsecure server once she became POTUS which would easily be hacked without her knowing.  They rely on her extreme, sociopathic arrogance to repeat the same breach of security.  I know for a FACT she would, if not already done, set up another private unsecured server if she entered the WH, and I'm only a retiree.
This is false, fake, shibai, kabuki news perpetuated by the same biased clowns who reported on all the false, fake polls that showed Clinton winning in a landslide. 

All evidence points towards a leak. The only "evidence" of hacking is heresay. Repeat the lie enough until the people buy it.

Is the "hacking" the biggest problem, or the devious corruption and potential criminal activity that it uncovered?

Why do you think it is a fake story? I mean yeah, maybe the CIA is making up a story under the orders of Obama, but I haven't really come across any evidence that the hacking came from elsewhere.

I'm glad you're so diligent in demanding evidence. Now please provide us with the detailed evidence you have that: 1. Wikileaks received its information from the Russians, and 2. That the Russians hacked any of the sources. Thank you for your prompt and detailed reply.

Trump will easily wrap up the EC.  Soros will always be a power player while he is alive, however he and his evil minions are on the ropes and are on their way to becoming less relevant.  This is the tide that is happening also in the UK and slowly starting to take shape in the EU.

I'm glad you're so diligent in demanding evidence. Now please provide us with the detailed evidence you have that: 1. Wikileaks received its information from the Russians, and 2. That the Russians hacked any of the sources. Thank you for your prompt and detailed reply.

What you fail to see is that I am not making a counter argument. I have made no claim as to what really happened so I have nothing to provide evidence of. Rather what I am doing is in an attempt to be objective I am asking about what evidence there is against the mainstream version of events. Maybe you are so blinded by your own false claims you can't see any attempt at objectivity as anything other than being a liberal.

Why do you think it is a fake story? I mean yeah, maybe the CIA is making up a story under the orders of Obama, but I haven't really come across any evidence that the hacking came from elsewhere.

What you fail to see is that I am not making a counter argument. I have made no claim as to what really happened so I have nothing to provide evidence of. Rather what I am doing is in an attempt to be objective I am asking about what evidence there is against the mainstream version of events. Maybe you are so blinded by your own false claims you can't see any attempt at objectivity as anything other than being a liberal.

Are you really that stupid? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

I never claimed that you were "making a counter argument". I see you positing a question regarding one version of events, without providing any evidence that would justify you questioning that particular version of events rather than questioning any other particular version of events. If you were honest you'd have written "I haven't really come across any evidence that the hacking came from anywhere", because you don't have any evidence of where the hacking came from. Pretty simple really.

Here, I'll write it again, using slightly different words.

You question one version of events, without providing any evidence why you would challenge one version over any other version. You're asking someone to provide evidence for a version of events without providing any evidence as to 1. why you question that version, and 2. your statement that you "haven't really come across any evidence that the hacking came from elsewhere" means that you lend credence to one version of events without providing the slightest evidence to support your contention or supposition regarding which version of events may be most accurate.

What evidence do you have that "the mainstream version of events" is accurate? You mean you trust third hand reports of supposedly leaked CIA/FBI documents to be accurate? Why? As when Clapper testified before Congress that there is no blanket surveillance of U.S. citizens' electronic communications? That kind of "mainstream intelligence community story" accuracy and validity?

Please list my "false claims" from my original response to your original post.

. 

Speaking of evidence, here's Glenn Greenwald's take on the "evidence" for the CIA anonymous source claim about Russian hacking (Am I expecting too much for the relevant party this post is directed at to know who Glenn Greenwald is and how and why he is qualified to address this topic?):

Greenwald: Anonymous leaks not evidence in Russian hacking

Dec. 19, 2016 - 5:19 - Journalist calls The Washington Post's reporting about the CIA's beliefs about alleged Russian hacking in the election 'classic American journalism of the worst sort' because of its reliance on anonymous sources and unverified claims.


http://video.foxnews.com/v/5254547642001/?#sp=show-clips