4 ms·

Clinton did win the popular vote by a large margin, although that's not really germane to the grandparent comment. I think the point he was trying to make is th

Clinton did win the popular vote by a large margin, although that's not really germane to the grandparent comment. I think the point he was trying to make is that Assange/wikileaks lost a lot of credibility during the recent U.S. election cycle by being blatantly partisan. They dressed up their DNC email leaks in bombshell controversy, but ultimately there was no great revelation - nobody was arrested, no investigations were began, etc. Of course, the damage was done by the timing and the subsequent response of the conservative media machine. I think for a lot of moderates like myself, wikileaks has clearly hooked its wagon to the anti-NATO, anti-EU, pro-Russia, nationalist movement that elected Donald Trump. How can I trust anything they leak when they have an agenda that involves vilifying democrats and electing pro-Russia republicans?

jamra 10y ago
No great revelation? The expectation of political favors in exchange for money is pretty huge. Selling Russia Uranium while accusing them of working for the other side. Citibank supplying Obamas entire cabinet. I don't know what you think is a non issue if those are partisan to you. Furthermore, why would you not trust a truthful source because of political motivation? That reeks of cognitive dissonance.
- 467568985476 10y ago
  Please elaborate with sources - those are big claims!
  - Zergy 10y ago
    I always found asking for sources on the internet kinda odd, you could have found the sources in the same number of characters as your reply. Seems to mainly be a way to lazily dismiss people relying on their memory, this is a forum and expecting everyone to have a source handy for every belief and opinion they have is absurd. If you actually care you're going to put your own research in anyways and not rely on the source provided by the OP. Anyways I was curious and did the 5 mins of research for you. > Selling Russia Uranium while accusing them of working for the other side. Seems to be old news and not part of what was released by Wikileaks. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... > Citibank supplying Obamas entire cabinet. Evidence seems to be pretty damning. If you want to pick at the source all the pieces are out there for you to look at yourself. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wikileak-how-wall-street-built-obama-cabinet http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wiki... Anyways I'm more concerned about the accuracy of the information than the motive for releasing it, and the accuracy doesn't seem to be in question even by the DNC. > Wikileaks has clearly hooked its wagon to the anti-NATO, anti-EU, pro-Russia, nationalist movement that elected Donald Trump I'm not sure they have. I think they are more on the fuck the HRC train, HRCs stance towards whistle blowers while breaking the same rules without repercussions to hide corruption might be what resulted in the unprecedented amount of information that was leaked. There are people who hate HRC. Whether all this would have happened if the DNC presidential candidate had been someones else is debatable. Or maybe Russia runs Wikileaks now. Sad that the most effective way Russia can manipulate our nation to provide transparency, the promise of which is the main reason I voted the way I did last election.
rubberstamp 10y ago
Popular vote doesn't matter. The presidential candidate that wins in a state gets the vote of the state(and so all the votes from that state). If it was by popular vote then votes from California, New York etc will get more weight than other states.
- jmanderley 10y ago
  I don't think you understand the term "popular vote". In a popular vote system, every vote is of equal worth, no matter where you live.
  - rubberstamp 10y ago
    Yes, I know what popular vote is. Am just saying that US presidential electoral college system works correctly as it gives each state in the federal system equal weight in choosing the president. It was never designed to be by popular vote of individuals. So it doesn't matter at all.
    - inimino 10y ago
      > gives each state in the federal system equal weight in choosing the president That is not how it works at all. California has 55 electoral college votes, Wyoming has 3.
      - rubberstamp 10y ago
        Electoral votes = senators + congressmen. All votes from a state goes to winning candidate as it is winner takes all. So Trump won. Does popular vote mean all votes from US tallied together as a whole or is it winner takes all votes from that state and then tally each state? My argument was based on the understanding that its the later one.
        inimino 10y ago
        > Electoral votes = senators + congressmen Yes. > Does popular vote mean all votes from US tallied together as a whole Yes. The popular vote means the vote of the whole people nationally, exactly as if state boundaries did not exist. The electoral college vote is weighted in a way that relates to the population of each state, but which favors smaller states. The relationship between the popular vote and the electoral college vote is further complicated by the winner-take-all system, and by the fact that voter turnout in a state does not effect the number of electoral college votes.

jamra 10y ago

No great revelation? The expectation of political favors in exchange for money is pretty huge. Selling Russia Uranium while accusing them of working for the other side. Citibank supplying Obamas entire cabinet. I don't know what you think is a non issue if those are partisan to you. Furthermore, why would you not trust a truthful source because of political motivation? That reeks of cognitive dissonance.

467568985476 10y ago
Please elaborate with sources - those are big claims!
- Zergy 10y ago
  I always found asking for sources on the internet kinda odd, you could have found the sources in the same number of characters as your reply. Seems to mainly be a way to lazily dismiss people relying on their memory, this is a forum and expecting everyone to have a source handy for every belief and opinion they have is absurd. If you actually care you're going to put your own research in anyways and not rely on the source provided by the OP. Anyways I was curious and did the 5 mins of research for you. > Selling Russia Uranium while accusing them of working for the other side. Seems to be old news and not part of what was released by Wikileaks. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... > Citibank supplying Obamas entire cabinet. Evidence seems to be pretty damning. If you want to pick at the source all the pieces are out there for you to look at yourself. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wikileak-how-wall-street-built-obama-cabinet http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wiki... Anyways I'm more concerned about the accuracy of the information than the motive for releasing it, and the accuracy doesn't seem to be in question even by the DNC. > Wikileaks has clearly hooked its wagon to the anti-NATO, anti-EU, pro-Russia, nationalist movement that elected Donald Trump I'm not sure they have. I think they are more on the fuck the HRC train, HRCs stance towards whistle blowers while breaking the same rules without repercussions to hide corruption might be what resulted in the unprecedented amount of information that was leaked. There are people who hate HRC. Whether all this would have happened if the DNC presidential candidate had been someones else is debatable. Or maybe Russia runs Wikileaks now. Sad that the most effective way Russia can manipulate our nation to provide transparency, the promise of which is the main reason I voted the way I did last election.

rubberstamp 10y ago

Popular vote doesn't matter. The presidential candidate that wins in a state gets the vote of the state(and so all the votes from that state). If it was by popular vote then votes from California, New York etc will get more weight than other states.

jmanderley 10y ago
I don't think you understand the term "popular vote". In a popular vote system, every vote is of equal worth, no matter where you live.
- rubberstamp 10y ago
  Yes, I know what popular vote is. Am just saying that US presidential electoral college system works correctly as it gives each state in the federal system equal weight in choosing the president. It was never designed to be by popular vote of individuals. So it doesn't matter at all.
  - inimino 10y ago
    > gives each state in the federal system equal weight in choosing the president That is not how it works at all. California has 55 electoral college votes, Wyoming has 3.
    - rubberstamp 10y ago
      Electoral votes = senators + congressmen. All votes from a state goes to winning candidate as it is winner takes all. So Trump won. Does popular vote mean all votes from US tallied together as a whole or is it winner takes all votes from that state and then tally each state? My argument was based on the understanding that its the later one.
      - inimino 10y ago
        > Electoral votes = senators + congressmen Yes. > Does popular vote mean all votes from US tallied together as a whole Yes. The popular vote means the vote of the whole people nationally, exactly as if state boundaries did not exist. The electoral college vote is weighted in a way that relates to the population of each state, but which favors smaller states. The relationship between the popular vote and the electoral college vote is further complicated by the winner-take-all system, and by the fact that voter turnout in a state does not effect the number of electoral college votes.