I remember we discussed states like California etc., where voters would actually make the effort to go to the polls because of the different criteria. Also Trump would have ran a different campaign. He's just a winner, with a far more appealing personality than Hillary Clinton. Maybe I'd be wrong, maybe he would have lost. But since he relatively comfortably won the electoral college, it makes hardly no sense to think he wouldn't win a popular vote.

This is pretty much my point though. The media has always been there but people that lean on Trump's side of the spectrum ended up taking up that mantle/talking point and running with it when he started screaming about how the media was portraying him. Everything that the media reported helped him out based off of the bad news is even good news as long as his name is constantly out there. He was feeding off of it.

It's funny how the people bitching the most about deceitful media are usually the ones getting their news from the most partisan sources.
Apparently only the media bias against their respective ideologies is the kind worth fighting.

CNN is owned by Time Warner who donated huge amounts of money to Hillary Clinton's campaign. And they aren't the only ones either. I don't think what I said is unreasonable....but you'd have to actually, you know, do some research. Editors of publications like Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post and Vogue also contributed to her campaign.

There are a lot of people concerned about Russia and their influence (which is minimal at best unless you were somebody who got all your news from Facebook), but I'm more concerned about a media that appears to be mostly bought and paid for by the left. I don't like Fox News, Breitbart, etc. either, but I'm aware of all the agendas at play before I ever look at an article.

CNN has been a lot more balanced this election cycle by hiring Trump/GOP supporters to be part of their discussion panels.

Scottie Nell Hughes, Corey Lewandowski, Kayleigh McEnany, Jeffery Lord, and Jack Kingston are all featured nightly to counter the liberal opinion.

So how come we're not discussing the US Intelligence Report that was released yesterday that concluded that Russia/Putin was behind the hacking for the main purpose of hurting Clinton
and helping Trump? Pretty ****ing major news if you asked me. Have ya all seen this?



And in other news:

And Irish. So there.

Also:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pr...C4zxvqHK0=s0-d

I'm for immigration reform; on both sides of the issue. Path to citizenship for those who were born here and have been here for years, deportation for those convicted of crimes, more scrutiny on entrants etc. But you can be for those things an not make outrageous statements regarding the motivations and lives of migrants. That's what upsets me.

This link is from CNN, but they are just collating government documents. When you read the dailywire or Fox News articles they make a lot of statements, but link to other newspapers, no actual figures. I encourage you to bring the scale of the issue into focus - there are no barbarian hordes at the gate: Immigrants and crime: Crunching the numbers - CNNPolitics.com
(last updated July 2015)

Kind of like Hillary fainting while sick and in the heat is indicative of rampant brain disease and massive conspiracy, etc etc? The media has a bias towards conflict, and Trump's persona and poor discipline invite conflict. He says a Mexican judge can't be impartial because he's Mexican people react negatively, some positively, that invites more conflict and everyone makes money link

Milo shouldn't be silenced, much like David Irving shouldn't be. Let them air their ugly ideas, twisted statistics, and double standards so they can be met with facts and argument. That's why I'd like some change in the law to be able to prosecute people who intentionally distort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving...guin_Books_Ltd

Lol @ defending CNN.

Considering it was called the 'Clinton News Network' and I wanted people to click on the link to see the sourcing, I felt the need to. I mean, if you think DOJ, BLS, FBI, et. all statistics are cooked then it won't do you any good. But I have greater confidence in a summary and link to hard data that anyone can examine than a circular pattern of conservative news story linking to another and another all making outlandish claims but not providing any data.

That could just be my research background, though

**** off. When was the last time you even watched them? Speaking from ignorance is quite the hobby for you, huh?