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?

lol Chula's borderline abusive posts >>>

Clinton News Network :D

:laughing:

I try to see what all the major news sites are posting. You should go insult Fox News on your Facebook and see how close your response lines up with the response from wonder white bread America.

I mean, CNN is no MSNBC, but they are still stupid biased and infotainment based. I'm sure that you will only have good things to say about my opinions like the respectful democrat you are.

They read like they're being shouted from behind a blurry wall of tears and sniffles.

We should.
http://img.tesco.com/Groceries/pi/15...ot_540x540.jpg

Fox News regularly features Democrats or Left-leaning individuals for the sake of "balance" too. Doesn't mean I'm gonna consider them a balanced breakfast.

I've seen that report...and you know what it ultimately amounts to? Nothing, because Russia and China were supposedly involved in the hacking long before Trump was even considered seriously as a potential Republican candidate. And even then their influence is minimal at best. Had it not been Trump, Putin would have simply shifted to whoever ended up being the nominee. Assuming you buy the facts as presented anyway.

All in all, this hacking situation is the result of ongoing security incompetence and foreign policy failure from the past two administrations, especially the Democrats. It's a shame neither the government nor the Clintons have enough common sense to spend the money on the right IT consultants. But they can't afford me or my family's company I guess, so oh well...

All I said was that CNN had gotten better this past election. I didn't say I swallow everything they report. They use to be more like MSNBC. They were definitely more palatable this time around.

CNN anchors admitted live on air that they were the biggest ones supporting Hillary Clinton, and said you should only view Wikileaks through them.

Yes, Goofle. We all understand that you have Trump's dick in your mouth.

Chill the **** out Chula it's getting old.

Seriously, take a month off of politics and calm the **** down.

Wonder how big Donald's dong is though.

Which Donald's?

Ronald Mc. I bet it's python-esque.

Bet it is :cool:

USA about to be run by a massive cock :cool:

gross. i bet he spray paints his cock orange too.

I'm sure the duck's is pretty small or else we would have seen it already.

He certainly is popular with the ladies...

http://i1058.photobucket.com/albums/...r/02308e9d.jpg

Says the Trump groupie........

Another opinion:

Russia's always been doing this kind of thing, what's the big deal!? I mean, you guys didn't seem too worried when Hillary was opening us up for war for the same reason, why the double standard?

Splain?

Line in the sand (no Chula, not head in the sand). No fly zones. Unwillingness for any Russian diplomacy. Kind of a no brainer really.

Do some research instead of relying on talking points.

Clinton says she was gone for the 'red line' in Syria incident | PolitiFact

Your "unwillingness for Russian diplomacy" response is too stupid to address.

So if I pull of a quote of Trump saying that she's wrong, does that make it so? Because that's the quality of your response. I didn't expect for you to think that Hillary could have any kind of flaws though so don't sweat it. Also, you ought to include links to the quotes that you're using for your arguments. They could come from infowars for all I know.

That's funny coming from a shill who can't be bothered to respond to any of the points I've previously made. Furthermore, you seem to have myopic reasoning abilities. Or maybe you just lack reading comprehension? That report basically amounts to "Russia spent money on websites and Facebook ads hoping people wouldn't vote for Hillary". Their disinformation campaign, if you even want to call it that, was a complete waste of time.

Unless Putin somehow hacked Time Warner and The Huffington Post, there is absolutely nothing they could have done to influence the election in any meaningful way, especially when Trump got billions in free advertising from the networks trying to tear him down whilst Hillary got a fraction of the coverage overall. Unless Podesta being a complete moron and clicking on a phishing email demonstrates Russia's elite strategy? If you support that kind of carelessness in government that eclipses even the Republican Party, then you deserved to lose.

Again, all the evidence points to Russia simply taking advantage of a careless, incompetent Democratic Party and an equally incompetent administration. Both of which are supported by brainwashed fools like you who refuse to recognize the underlying problems your representatives create that allowed these hacks to take place and pave the way for someone like Trump to get elected.

On a more positive note though...if Trump can capitalize upon the leverage we have against Russia, then Putin's "strategy" becomes even more hilarious because he got the wrong guy into office based on a petty, personal vendetta against the Clintons. That, my friend, would be quite amusing!

Based on his hand size very small.

? Ronald didn't win the Presidency.

The big deal is the bigger implications of what was done and what they could do in the future. Yes, I mainly see it as reasoning for us to step up our security efforts but just because they have been doing this kind of thing in the past doesn't mean we should just say "oh well let's let them continue doing it because we are big pushovers".

I used to go around saying that but when I actually thought about it from a geopolitical point of view. Russia doesn't have much to gain/offer when it comes to working with the US.

What leverage? What can he possibly gain from working with Russia? It feels like Putin's using him to his advantage but I'm just not quite sure what that advantage is yet. Like the Donald would say "to be continued.." We shall see very soon. Russia continues to take aggressive stabs at everyone around the world including the US and people on the right thinks we should just buddy up with Russia and work with them after Putin pretty much took his dick out and slapped us in the face then ****ed our collective mother.

Russia's economy is in the crapper and we have the keys that Putin wants in order to turn his country around. This is something we can use, and even if Trump doesn't see the big picture, Rex Tillerson does. Furthermore, Russia would be a useful tool to deal with the elements of the Islamic State (as well as ISIS) that fuel most the world's terrorism.

There's a lot of people worried that America would become a puppet state to Russia, but those same people are also clueless about how government actually works and what is and isn't at stake. We hold all the cards, which is why Russia is desperate to do anything to try to improve their situation. China, on the other hand, is honestly a much bigger problem overall. If we aren't careful with them we'll be looking at a real life analogue to The Man In The High Castle within half a century.

Rex Tillerson? The guy that stands to make billions by lifting US sanctions against Russia? Your red is burning brightly tonight.

Explain why China is a bigger problem. I've heard people spout that but they never go into detail. Yes I know they own a lot of bonds from us but I feel like economically they are in a weaker position than Russia atm.

Or if he keeps kissing Taiwan's ass.

lol I don't think accepting a call is the same as kissing their ass. This kind of stupid hyperbole is what handed Trump the election.