I'm sorry, I guess I made the mistake of actually listening to the video you posted and pointing out the obvious -- that a when a long standing right wing hack makes declarations based on his hunches without referring to any supporting evidence, it's hard to take him seriously. Unless you've been in the echo chamber long enough, I guess. Then I suppose you take his hunch as affirmation of the truth.
I don't believe I made any references to that video in my post. I only stated what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears.
I actually find it amusing that a Trump supporter is upset about media bias against Donald Trump. There happen to be Mexicans, Muslims, gay people and women in the media. Go figure.
So you posted the video of Bill O'reilly concluding in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that at least three major media organizations are going to fire employees if they don't shit on Trump because it is consistent with what you see with your own eyes?
Media is still controlled by old white rich people. The rest are nothing but their puppets. P.S. When did Trump say anything against gay people?
And if the moderators let Trump fillibuster and get away with falsehoods they'd be accused of bias the other way. When you have someone that's so radical even the radical right can't find him with a telescope it's kind of hard to play things straight down the middle without appearing willfully ignorant or nieve. It's the media's job to unearth facts and truth, not to follow some imaginary guideline of fairness. And they let him talk a minute more than Hillary in debate two...are they supposed to let him just interrupt whenever he wants (which he did the majority of the time anyway)?
And all the rally riots aren't scripted in Trump world? It's like WWE nonsense. If there's one thing Trump knows it's how to keep himself in the news and make it look like the country's coming apart. We're also just taking these Wikileaks documents as if they're unedited and original.
Are you talking about the riots orchestrated by anarchists, communists, Bernie bros, etc.? There was a Trump supporter punching someone in the face and saying some stupid shit but nothing close to a riot that we typically see when the likes of BLM are involved. As for these documents being edited in some way, let's try to think logically here instead of listening to MSM. Let's say I am a person whose emails or speeches got leaked somehow. I take a look at these leaked documents and notice that they have been doctored in some way. You know what I would do? I'd invite a bunch of journalists over and show them just one original document. By doing that I'd instantly discredit all potential future leaks, label Assange a liar and make him irrelevant. They haven't tried to prove that these documents have been edited, have they?
He attacked both moderators one of whom is openly gay who is now being tweeted about by Trump supporters in a very ugly way. Trump hasn't asked it to stop? He still hasn't apologized to the women he was talking about. It's his MO attack and let his White Power supporters do the rest. It's pretty ugly that anyone would defend him. No doubt he has tapped into rage but rage is a very dangerous way to run a campaign especially when the much of the rage is race and gender baiting.
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/b...ofessor-gruber-responds-to-trumps-debate.html "Our plans are going to be, SO good."
I absolutely agree. It's perfectly normal for Hillary Clinton to say one thing to her voters in public and then a total opposite in her private speeches to bankers, etc.
