Hiku said:
FunFan said:
Like the media did with Trump.
|
When I said focus, that was hyperbole. Wikileaks didn't release anything on Trump. Even if media focused more on Trump, they still reported dirt on Clinton.
I like to have all the facts. I don't care how media spins things or what they focus on, as long as I can make up my own mind based on the facts that are presented. And after everything that was dug up on Trump, I find it hard to believe that Wikileaks were privy to none.
|
Look, dude. You obviously have no Idea how Wikileaks works, so let me give you a crash course. First, Wikileaks is nothing new. The site has been on for like ten years, and what it does is serve as a portal to publish the information that no one else dares publish. This gives many people a way to get the word out when the media tries withold or cover sensible information. This also gives whisleblowers a way to spread the truth without getting caught, especially if their life is on the line.
Wikileaks takes no sides and it will publish anything verifiable. The reason why there are Clinton leaks is because someone wanted to released them, was out of channel options and didn't wanted to get caught. The reasons on why could be argue but its irelevant. What is relevant is why theres nothing in Wikileaks about Trump, and the answer is simple. Because there was no need to use Wikileaks as the mainstream Media was more than happy to publish any dirt on him. Thats why it was the media itself that exposed the 10 year old pussy Video, the Trump University fraud, his wifes nude pictures, etc.
So the real question is why wasn't the mainstream media the one that break out the emails to the public?
“Simple minds have always confused great honesty with great rudeness.” - Sherlock Holmes, Elementary (2013).
"Did you guys expected some actual rational fact-based reasoning? ...you should already know I'm all about BS and fraudulence." - FunFan, VGchartz (2016)