Oh right, because female Richard Nixon just couldn't have lost on her own, so we need to blame Comey, Putin, Sanders, and anyone else we can deflect our poor taste in candidates onto.
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?
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.
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-...
> 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-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.
That is not how it works at all. California has 55 electoral college votes, Wyoming has 3.
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.
It's weird how a lot of conversations about the strong evidence that Russia influenced the US election are refuted with "yeah, but Clinton" as if that even starts to justify the situation.
The last year has very clearly done away with the idea that Wikileaks is a non-partisan body that only pursues truth. Maybe Assange has finally gone stir-crazy in that embassy, but he's actively ruining the good name he created.