LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • bogdan
    +2

    I kept hearing Wikileaks is working like a GOP machine.

    If Wikileaks were to release e-mails with even more evident proof once Hillary is elected, that would show that they weren't trying to influence the campaign, but merely exposing the corruption.

    One does have to wonder, who the hell is going to care as much past this day?

    • spaceghoti
      +3

      I'd believe Wikileaks was operating with the intention to serve the public except for a few niggling matters:

      1. They had this information months before but carefully timed the releases in such a way to do maximum damage not to a specific candidate (whom they could have damaged before the nomination was settled) but to a specific party.

      2. They did not visibly work toward exposing corruption in both major parties. They just shrugged and said because no one had tried hacking the RNC it wasn't their problem.

      3. What they did release was overhyped but ultimately very weak tea. The most common comparison was with sausage: you don't want to watch it being made, but that doesn't make it bad.

      4. Assange admitted to having information on Trump but claimed he didn't release it because nothing was worse than what Trump was saying to the media. He didn't even give us the opportunity to decide that for ourselves.

      All of that strongly suggests to me they weren't operating on high-minded ideals, they were looking to influence the general election.

    • sashinator
      +2

      I wonder. But if the wall doesn't get built (and it won't) and 20 million people don't get deported (and they won't) he'll have to keep a promise and appearances (not to mention distract from his own lawsuits) and wouldn't you know it - Hillary gets charged with corruption. BAM! Catalina wine mixer

    • AdelleChattre
      +1

      Nixon was elected on a few Tuesdays in November as well. People hadn’t any choice but to keep up on his excesses, even after he said we wouldn’t have him to kick around any more. It’ll be the same when Chelsea Clinton and George Prescott Bush are elected.