| >helping them prep the debate questions Yea, she leaked that the debate held in Flint, Michigan would talk about lead contamination in the drinking water, as if that wasn't super obvious. Yes, it was a shitty move, she wasn't on high moral ground in my book in the first place. But why bring up the whataboutism? Lets agree that both Donna and Assange are political agenda driven partisans not deserving of respect? But it was never a secret with Donna, she was always heavily democratic and partisan and it's known to everyone. Meanwhile Assange tries superhard to appear non-partisan, even begging Trump Jr for some leaks so that he could fake being nonpartisan! >Very unjournalistic of him! Real news organizations never play sides, or game the news cycle, or the political cycle. So Assange is bad as Fox News or MSNBC now? I thought the hype about Wikileaks was how clean they were. >For example: I'm confident someone just a happened to stumble upon the Access Hollywood tapes in some dusty archive right at the moment they were released, and no thought was given to timing. So Wikileaks is the same as shitty media sources and not some saints out to change the world like 75% of ppl on here are saying? Thanks for making my point. |