Do we need more proof that media is trying to get Hillary elected?

@hyg346: Hillary has been.running every election?

@Northwest: Do I really need to explain my statement that the media tries to get a particular candidate elected and it has been happening in every election going back a very long time?

@hyg346...Yes, they are always biased toward the left , that is clear to anyone but this time around they are so blatantly determined to get her elected they aren't even trying to hide their bias. Is it at wonder even congress has a higher approval rating than the media.

@hyg346: That would be wishful thinking on your part. Rupert Murdoch is a liberal? The press went easy on Bill Clinton? The New York Times was not reporting, last December, on the Clinton foundation's connection to a Russian company's acquisition, of 20% of the US Uranium mining rights?

Are they not scrutinizing every single piece of wiki leaks email? If you don't know what that is, just listen to one of Trump's speeches. That's all he's talking about, except, he's forgetting to tell you that it's in the "liberal" press as well.

The press cannot help it, if Trump keeps doing stupid stuff. They're simply reporting it. They're also reporting all the spin. How could they not?

@hyg346: He doesn't understand these things. He falls for the "we reported it" bit, just as they counted on. It's in the saul alinsky book, a not really that clever tactic suggested to fool the fools. Meanwhile the rest of us comprehend al too well exactly what's going on. I mean really, if he had the brains he'd be at the very least be wondering why the media merely reported on clinton's foundation and the pay to play crap and then let it go and began hammering trump for stuff that no one can prove and doesn't make a shit bit's difference to how he would govern anyway. But her, her actions would most definitely make a difference to every last American, and others, too. But they want her elected, they want her to complete ushering in the final nail in America's coffin.

@Katielass: Ah, yes, because the NY Times, foresaw the release of Trump's "let's grab their pussies tape", 11 months prior to it happening, and decided to report on the Uranium deal, as a counter-balance.

@Northwest: Oh please, stop acting stupid. No one said anything about anyone "forseeing " anything. Another alinski tactic, pretend to be incredibly stupid in order to confuse the issue. I know all of them. The simple fact is, they may have reported on hillary's foundation issues and the many questions surrounding it, and there are many, but then they dropped it faster than a high school quarterback drops the girl who won't give it up for one who does. Now that is something that we need to know. The American people need to know if their president is gonna sell their security or their jobs down the river for a fatter bank account. And if you ask me, she's already done it, so why wouldn't she do it again. Meanwhile, enter trump and his too numerous to mention idiotic comments and they pound away at them 24/7. Only it won't matter to the American people one it what he secretly thinks of women. What matters is how he conducts himself around them on the job and he has an excellent record in that department. I mean really, to not see the profound difference and incredibly, to not wonder why the media isn't doing their job where hillary is concerned shows a great lack of curiosity, and last I heard, that was the mark of an idiot. The media itself said so.

@Katielass: Really? The NYT's front page today:

- Battle for Mosul started

- Trump intensifies claim that election is rigged

- In hacked speech, Clinton Embraced covert interventions

Do you have anything more original than Alinski?

Interesting "girls lined up, waiting for the QB to pick them up" analogy. No wonder you love Trump and think that degrading women is cool.