Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

NY Post Columnist: Biased Coverage of Trump is Collapse of Journalism

NY Post Columnist: Biased Coverage of Trump is Collapse of Journalism

“No foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does.”

If you’ve been paying attention, you already know the media coverage of Trump is a daily drum beat of negativity and undue scrutiny unlike anything we’ve ever seen.

The media may not be crazy about Hillary Clinton, but they’re on a special mission to make sure Donald Trump never sees the inside of the Oval Office.

The New York Post’s Michael Goodwin made this the subject of his most recent column:

American journalism is collapsing before our eyes

Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand in hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.

Read the rest here.

Goodwin appeared on FOX News on Monday to discuss the matter:

As usual, NewsBusters has done a great job documenting instances of media bias against Trump. God only knows how they keep up with all of it.

This is actually one of the things that makes it very easy for me to support Trump. If he is elected, everyone in the media will become journalists again overnight. Trump’s every word and plan will be questioned, challenged and scrutinized, which is the way it should be.

Perhaps part of the reason so many in media despise Trump is because they know if he is president, they will be forced to do their jobs again, instead of partying with celebrities at the White House.

Conversely, if Hillary wins nothing has to change. The media can go on as the White House PR Department. Ignoring every scandal, dismissing every concern and championing every new initiative.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

thalesofmiletus | August 23, 2016 at 2:38 pm

What makes it easy to vote for Trump is that if Hillary wins, the US as we know it will perish.

The media is one of the big threats our nation faces today!

It’s not fair or impartial! It picks winners and losers.

    MattMusson in reply to Common Sense. | August 23, 2016 at 3:30 pm

    Agenda Driven Reporting distorts the truth. It’s how we get “hands up don’t shoot” riots. The Media shouts FIRE in a crowded theater. They overtly lie to serve their agenda.

Actually, if Trump wins, journalism will not change. News stories will still be written by the DNC. Journalist will not have to go back to work.

While it’s certainly more overt (see NYTimes), this isn’t new.

When was the term “Clinton News Network” coined?

    rabidfox in reply to Ragspierre. | August 23, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Not new, but the level of vindictiveness is. Also, the pretense of balanced reporting has been noticeably dropped.

      Ragspierre in reply to rabidfox. | August 23, 2016 at 5:50 pm

      I’ll gently call bullshit here, fox. I remember how Reagan was treated by the press. He was vilified in the harshest terms. He was blamed in no uncertain terms for the AIDS crisis, for instance. It was all lies, of course.

Two points.
1. Trump was sold as a candidate who knows how to work the media. Supposedly this wasn’t going to happen.
2. Yes, Trump is taking a beating, but is it deserved? Does truth exists independent of our perception? If a media outlet covers a candidate in a negative light, is it because the outlet is biased or is the confidante receiving proper scrutiny?
Is it bias to point out, for instance, that he raised Trump Tower rent of his campaign headquarters X5 once the donors started footing the bill? Or that his wife worked illegally (as a porn star) while on a tourist visa? I’m pointing out the latest scandals, there is much, much more, and it’s all relevant information, it keeps coming and is sure to keep coming for as long as Trump is running.
When Romney was savaged for an alleged teenage hassle and a graffiti next to his property that was obviously malicious, but Trump?
If the point here is the lack of attention paid to Hillary’s corruption, I agree, but the Donald deserves every bit of scrutiny he’s got.

    Ragspierre in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | August 23, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/08/conservative-media-needs-to-do-its-job-and-start-telling-people-the-truth

    Our side commits the same wrongs. There is a Yuuuuuuuuuuugh difference between being cheerleaders and reporters.

    tom swift in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | August 23, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    1. “Working the media” does not mean controlling the media. It’s closer to meaning that he doesn’t allow the media to control him. That doesn’t make him immune to scurrilous attacks from the press … and nobody who isn’t over-medicated ever claimed that it did.

    2. On rare occasions, a press attack is actually based on fact rather than fantasy. That doesn’t make it “relevant”. If Trump’s (now) wife worked illegally while on a tourist via, how does that imply malfeasance by Trump? It just isn’t relevant to the election. His wife isn’t running for the office.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to tom swift. | August 23, 2016 at 4:31 pm

      “If Trump’s (now) wife worked illegally while on a tourist ” For openers,it brings into question his signature issue. She is pretty and married to Trump, so her status is no longer in jeopardy. She may even be an asset to the nation.

      But where is the compassion for others who may have entered illegally? Are they any bigger risk than Melania? Are they any less an asset? My father has advanced Alzheimer’s, but we are able to keep him happy and comfortable in his own home because we are able to find 24/7 coverage. One of those aides is undocumented. She gets paid the same, but off the books. But we couldn’t find a full complement of ‘legal’ aides willing to wipe the a$$ of a 95 year old man. We tried. I would prefer to hire only those that I can pay on the books. But I will take good over ‘legal’.

      If Trump did quintupled his rent once he started getting contributions, that is significant. I can guarantee you if a quid pro quo is proven between a donation to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary, it will be front page news in the NYTimes. I am sorry if that will be difficult to prove. But if it can’t be proven, it isn’t news; except in the right-wing press where opinion and pseudo-fact pass as fact.

        ““If Trump’s (now) wife worked illegally while on a tourist ” For openers,it brings into question his signature issue. She is pretty and married to Trump, so her status is no longer in jeopardy. She may even be an asset to the nation.”

        Actually this statement just shows your ignorance in immigration law. I can go into GM and make cars all day long as a tourist as long as GM does not pay me.

        And even if I overstay my visa, if I leave without being deported, there are no penalties.

        Even if she did have an issue, and over stay or something else that was not quite above board. All she had to do is leave and go to her home embassy to finalize the visa process. The embassy AKA the State Department” makes the final determination if some one is allowed a visa or not.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to starride. | August 23, 2016 at 7:39 pm

          She was working for money. I am the one who is suggesting tolerance. It is Trump who wants to deport them all. If we had a monitoring system, she would have been caught, thrown out and barred form returning for years – even if she married Trump.

          The fact that she, personally, got away with it is no argument for what Trump advocates – not that I believe him.

          If she were caught at the time, yes, she’d be deported. Now that she’s married to an American and with an anchor baby — no.

      “Working the media” means using it to one’s advantage. Can you make an arguement that this is what’s happening?
      Moral character of Trump’s wife is very much an issue. Ask yourself: what kind of man marries that kind of woman?

    Your info on Trump Tower rent comes from the desk of Tim Kaine.

Edge: I would say that every bit of DJT’s media is deserved. But I’m not sure that’s the question, which I read not only as the absence of balance but of long standing covert bias now becoming overt, declared, and virtue signaled among journalists as a badge of honor.

We know anecdotally that journalists use the months preceding an election to audition for jobs in crony socialist administrations; we know through self-identified surveys tha about 90% of journalists are loyal to crony socialist regimes; anecdotally, one might know that careerism in journalism is predicated on such loyalties. But in the past, in order to enhance their persuasiveness with the non-aligned, they exploited the fiction of “objectivity”.

The fiction is now exploded and I think Goodwin’s point is that in doing so they’ve detonated a suicide vest in the Republic.

buckeyeminuteman | August 23, 2016 at 3:42 pm

They both deserve any shortcomings the media point out. The problem is the media doesn’t point to any at Clinton. The only reason I would vote for Trump is out of spite. Spite to the Clintons, to Obama, to Democrats, to the media, to racebaiters, to the UN and every other liberal who knows what is best for Americans.

“This is actually one of the things that makes it very easy for me to support Trump.”

So, you’d support a stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist thug out of spite because the MSM is corrupt?

Are you the same “Aleister” that posts on Dim Jim Hoft’s cartoon blog? The T-rump tongue-bath cabana boi?

    OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Ragspierre. | August 23, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Once you get abortion & guns (admittedly) no small matters, what exactly is the conservative movement. I went to that site you recommended in a different post. It is interesting, but it is all about the ‘movement’ The Left (not liberals you call left) was also about the ‘movement’.

    But what is the conservative movement when conservatives support farm subsidies, ethanol subsides and mandates, intervention in foreign wars and boondoggle weapons purchases including weapons that even the Pentagon doesn’t want?

    Getting back to the topic on hand: If one candidate claims the earth is flat and the other says it is round, the media is under no obligation to report them equally. If one continually howls at the moon and the other once threw a vase, the stories are not equal. The vase deserves a 1 day story. The story on Trump is that he has stuck to his teleprompter and HASN’T howled at the moon in 4 days!

      “But what is the conservative movement when conservatives support farm subsidies, ethanol subsides and mandates, intervention in foreign wars and boondoggle weapons purchases including weapons that even the Pentagon doesn’t want?”

      We don’t. You’re a liar.

        rabidfox in reply to Ragspierre. | August 23, 2016 at 5:30 pm

        Rags, it seems to me that the ‘conservative’ label has been hijacked by the crony arm of the GOP. No way in hell is open borders a conservative position but people who support that claim to be conservative.

          Ragspierre in reply to rabidfox. | August 23, 2016 at 5:45 pm

          There are libertarian leaning conservatives who can make an argument for very free LEGAL immigration, and they do. They run the gamut from letting people come here to work, to letting people come here to seek citizenship in a much higher number.

          I’m not one, but I do read and understand their arguments.

          I am to the RIGHT of T-rump…especially the T-rump of the last few days. No “touch-back” amnesty. At all. Ever. I do think our immigration system is WAY too bureaucratic on the one end and permissive/careless on the other. We can certainly do better, and damn well must.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Ragspierre. | August 23, 2016 at 7:45 pm

        Whatever I am, I am not a liar. Calling me one doesn’t make me one. I have heard, seen or read advocacy of those things by people who call themselves conservatives. Unless you are the one and only arbiter of who is a conservative, don’t call me a liar.

        Actually, call me whatever you wish. It is a sign you don’t have an argument.

          But, honey, I won’t argue with you. I’ve learned it’s a waste of my time.

          You are a crawfish, and you’ll just squirt sideways when you’re nailed.

          A conservative is a definite thing. You lied.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | August 23, 2016 at 8:41 pm

          @Ragspierre I could say the same about you. I thought that now that you have had a taste of life as a dissenter, you would be more sympathetic. But I get it. You are a principled dissenter; I am a troll.

          You may as well go join you buddies and vote for Trump. From where I sit ain’t much difference twixt the two.

      I’m surprised how little someone with lots of opinions about conservatism knows about the topic. What is conservatism about? To sum it up in one word, Liberty.
      We want to preserve the American tradition of limited government and support democratic causes abroad.

        OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | August 23, 2016 at 8:13 pm

        I used to listen to a lot of Limbaugh and Levin. I watched O’Reilly. What I learned was that they could make my blood boil. If it can all be summed up with ‘Liberty’, they sure didn’t say that. What I mainly heard was lies and fallacies. I don’t need to be an expert on conservatism to recognize that. I don’t like it in ideologues of any stripe. All ideologues need to twist and turn because they put the conclusion first.

        Actually, I thought Libertarians were about liberty. It does seem that conservatives have a much broader agenda.

          I think you have a listening problem. Levin talks of nothing but Liberty. Half of his books have the word Liberty in their title.
          Rush is a huge disappointment. Still, he certainly talks a lot about Liberty.
          O’Reily is a fraud like Hannity. Never liked him, never understood why anyone would be interested in him.
          I suggest you get Levin another listen, but listen with an open mind, try to understand his worldview.

          ORDA is just a commie.

          edge is a kook.

          And Levin, $$$$

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | August 23, 2016 at 9:10 pm

          @edgeofthesandbox Using the word doesn’t make it so. Hillary uses a lot of important words, too.

          I may have a listening problem, but not when it comes to political argument. I am logical to a fault – I do mean it is a fault because humans are not generally logical.

          Levin is learned and he does focus on his particular definition of liberty. I see a more expansive version that includes the liberty to have an abortion. I think liberty isn’t of much use if your water well is being poisoned by a powerful entity. The government can abridge liberty. But so can powerful people and organizations. Levin doesn’t seem to mind that.

          Unions can help workers with liberty. Can’t have much liberty if you work at an unsafe, low paying job and are told that if you don’t come in Sunday, don’t come in Monday. In theory you an work elsewhere. But there is no liberty without countervailing forces. I guess it is unnecessary to point out that liberty for the signers of the Declaration meant liberty for them – not their property.

          The NYTimes had an article on what Trump did to a local farmer/fisherman when the local didn’t want to sell Trump his land for a resort and golf course in Scotland. The best I can find is this wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Forbes_(farmer) & http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/world/europe/05scotland.html

          When Forbes wouldn’t sell, Trump blocked Forbes’ entrance, blocked his view with a giant sand dune and harassed him other ways. What happened to Mr. Forbes’ liberty?

          Trump did something similar to a woman in Atlantic City. Only the rich get liberty?

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | August 23, 2016 at 9:15 pm

          @Barry a commie? I guess subtly and nuance aren’t your strong suits.

          “I see a more expansive version that includes the liberty to have an abortion.” well, that means that you are a single-issue pro-infanticide voter. Show me a single European country that looks at it that way. The US has most psychotic abortion laws in the civilized world.
          We, conservatives, want limited government that is constrained from infringing on your freedoms. Criminality doesn’t figure into that.
          Donald Trump is neither conservative nor a champion of Liberty.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to OnlyRightDissentAllowed. | August 23, 2016 at 11:23 pm

          @edgeofthesandbox I don’t think I understand your point, although it is rather inflammatory. It seems that abortion in the 1st trimester is fairly common in the EU. Even the old Catholic Countries have some time period when abortion is legal.

          If I am single issue, it appears you are, too. The Libertarian Party expressly supports the the liberty you seek, but their position on abortion is “we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

          So if you won’t consider the Libertarians, perhaps you are the single issue voter – not that being single issue is some moral failing.

          As I pointed out, elsewhere, on another issue: I consider it an abridgement of my freedom for someone to poison my water or the air I breath or to spew enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to harm the climate. I am not into “Give me liberty or death”. I want my liberty alive. So I guess I am not single issue.

          I haven’t sacrificed an infant since my Wiccan days. We used to do one ever couple of weeks so the gods wouldn’t turn the country into conservative hell. It seems to have worked. The gods are appeased.

          1st trimester abortion is not common in Western Europe. US puts no restrictions at any point of pregnancy. If aborting your 39-week baby is your idea of Liberty — wow!
          If you start inviting the government to resolve issues like environmental pollution, you might just end up with it telling supermarket employees how to bag your groceries or public education centered around throwing away leftover boxes. This is not a dystopian fantasy, btw.
          I prefer market-driven solutions.

    Old0311 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 23, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    I liked the Cheetos head thing. BRB, gotta run to the store and get a bag.

    I don’t usually respond to comments but since you attacked me personally, I’ll bite. You must be a delightful person to know in real life. In answer to your question, yes, I do sometimes guest host for Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit. I guess that illustrates the big difference between you and me. Unlike you, people are willing to pay me to offer my opinion whereas you’re just a comment troll. Don’t bother responding to this comment as I won’t be wasting any more time on you. You have no “right” to comment on this site, you’re here as a guest. You could ignore me and keep attacking me but I could just delete your comments. You see, unlike you I’m paid to be here. See you around, Rags.

Trump’s every word and plan will be questioned, challenged and scrutinized, which is the way it should be.

Why would the press suddenly start doing that? It’s not doing it now. Most of the attacks on Trump—from all sides, not just the press—are based on things he didn’t actually do or say. “Quote” him with a few word changes, massage the emphasis a bit, obfuscate the context, et voilà!—an offense is conjured up out of nothing.

I’ve always thought that even a creature as debased as a Clinton should be attacked for things it actually said or did, not the things it didn’t say or do. After all, if you have to generate imaginary dirt about your opponent, maybe he’s not as dirty as you’re pretending. Of course there’s no danger that the press—or the Dems, or the NeverTrumpers—will adopt this methodology.

I’ve sent out a now 4 part, multi day challenge to over 40 mostly Colorado media outlets that are of the same intent of this article.
That’s the difference between those of us that are prepared & have actually engaged these institutional complex forces for many years & those that mock, dismiss, & belittle us from the sidelines.
Just to be certain, I pulled up “what has Ted Cruz been doing recently” on the internet. The answer was jack squat. The last entry was his disgraceful performance at the convention. Nothing before that since he quit.
That is the “champion” of the liars’, losers, & crybabies so prevalent here & elsewhere hell bent on electing Hillary Clinton.

      A self serving single u-tube video released by a front group for your champion isn’t the same as a general internet search on bing.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 23, 2016 at 6:26 pm

      But the question…you lying SOS…is not what you can find on a Bing search.

      It is what Senator Cruz is doing?

      The answer, as I’ve stated multiple times to your bullshit straw-man question, is that he’s being a U.S. Senator for the great state of Texas.

      He’s NOT send out emails to people who immediately trash them about what-ever-the-FLUCK your demented fever dreams think important.

      You poor, demented, conservative-hating busted loooooooooser.

        I note you again dodge my point & again resort to your usual tactic of pointless invective. A question.
        The site you source had 2500 hits on the thread. My question is is it a site you set up? I notice it asks for donations. Are you using the professors resources to canvas for donations from gullible & credulous parrots?

          To you Rags parrots. You know who you are.
          I’ve neither addressed nor responded to anything he’s put out in several days. Today he responded to what I put out above that was not addressed to him. I’ve then only responded to the off the point, as usual invective he’s addressed to me. I know that means nothing to any of you but I note his last response is a concession to what I’ve presented in this thread.
          Like it or not, but I yet again win.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 23, 2016 at 7:51 pm

        Yah. Ya got me. I’m busted.

        You poor, demented, conservative-hating BROKEN loooooooooser.

    You are in insufferable blow hard. Did Ted Cruz accidentally run over your puppy or something?

    Not only are you a blow hard, you’re intellectually lazy. A simple Google search would tell you want Cruz has been up to. Burying his nose up Trump’s ass isn’t included in the list, so I guess he’s not part of your little club.

    Go away, you’re tiresome.

      Paulie :
      Thanks for the suggestion. I typed in google Ted Cruz. That revealed a number of questionable connections between Cruz & google. He served as a hired gun for google in which his government/crony connection’s were utilized by google in various instances of influence peddling for results favorable to google.
      He was involved with google & the Koch brothers involving a shadowy lobbying effort thru a front group called ALEC to gain advantages for both google & the Koch’s.
      Google is a major Cruz donor to the tune of thousands of $$. Google further has utilized Cruz in other such advantage seeking endeavors.
      I have to laugh at all you rags parrot efforts to shine a positive light on your champion. All you do is end up exposing him as just your standard DC influence peddler.
      You really should learn to leave well enough alone.

Mike Rowe does it better than most “journalists”.

https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/posts/1260196947323779:0

If the media is referring to Trump supporters who happen to be male caucasians suffering from a lack of knowledge brought about by an absence of formal or practical instruction, than I guess “uneducated white men” is a fair description. However, if the Trump supporters in question are being dubbed “uneducated,” simply because they didn’t earn a four-year degree, I’d say the media’s slip is showing.
——-
Let’s assume that Donald Trump is indeed popular among white men who didn’t graduate from college. The first question is, so what? Is this information newsworthy? Obviously, thousands of journalists think it is. To your point, the words “uneducated white men” now appear in hundreds of articles about Trump. But if this is truly important information, where were these reporters four years ago? In the last election, an even greater majority of African-American males who voted for President Obama had no college on their resume. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall any headlines or articles that delved into Obama’s popularity among “uneducated black men.”

If the media didn’t care about the lack of college among black men supporting Obama, why do they care so much about the lack of college among white men supporting Trump? Moreover, when exactly did a lack of college become synonymous with a lack of education?

    rabidfox in reply to 4fun. | August 23, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Or even lack of intelligence or common sense?

    murkyv in reply to 4fun. | August 23, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    IIRC, Obama got the votes in ’08 and ’12 of 60-70% of the “less than a high school education” demographic.

    Didn’t hear much about that at the time. Or since.

I cannot blame this entirely on the MSM. We, the American people have allowed this to happen. If the MSM reports that the sun is pink with purple polka dots today, we do not go out to see for ourselves. Instead, we just blindly accept what we are told.

For myself, I have not watched one minute of broadcast news, have not subscribed to a newspaper, or visited any of the MSM websites in YEARS.

Why? Because I am capable of thinking for myself. I visit sites such as LI. I do my own research and validate my perceptions of the truth. I suggest that if more people did this, the MSM will be forced to change.

Its been a joke for a long time, Trump just made it more obvious. What they are not emphasizing is the additional burden of the ‘comedy and entertainment’ sector who is acting as a weaponized wing of the DNC.

    rabidfox in reply to jack burns. | August 23, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Actually, what makes the media bias so obvious is their lack of coverage on Hillary’s manifest problems. If ever there was a person who symbolized what NOT to have in a President she is it but the media is soft balling everything about her. Including: If her health is so bad, who will REALLY be making Presidential decisions should she be elected?

Ragspierre said

“This is actually one of the things that makes it very easy for me to support Trump.”

So, you’d support a stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist thug out of spite because the MSM is corrupt?

Are you the same “Aleister” that posts on Dim Jim Hoft’s cartoon blog? The T-rump tongue-bath cabana boi?”

He said he was going to vote for Trump, not HRC 🙂

Mailman

Media plays Trump up.

See, I am in control here. They can’t help but cover me.

Now watch me attack the media and show how much of a fighter I am.

Oh, no, Mr Trump, don’t hurt us. We’ll keep covering you even though you attack us. No charge. We’ll do it for free.

Fundraising? Naaaah… I get free media coverage, I can run this campaign on the cheap.

Hey, guys, the rube bought it. We pushed him over to general. Not sure how we got a loser like that to be nominee, but we did it. Good work.

What’s going on? Why are they all of a sudden cover my gaffes and keep totally and completely misinterpreting what I say?

What happened? I keep attacking them but it is not working.

Why those little… how dare they?

Ack…. If it wasn’t for biased media, I’d be up 20 points over that Crooked Hillary!

Waaah! they keep covering me. Now my polls keep going down and all the states are turning blue.

Well done, guys. Who knew it would be so easy to con him and his groupies?

    murkyv in reply to fwiffo. | August 23, 2016 at 8:43 pm

    Gee.

    Who was that guy who whined that he could have been the Republican nominee if the media hadn’t been giving Trump all of that free air time?

Paulie
A suggestion, if my posts upset you, don’t read them. I never read yours except as in this case as a response. I can only take so much of you parrots. I don’t read minor parrots.

I stand by my post a written.

Attacking Melania for alleged visa violations while supporting all manner of subversion of our immigration system is the height of hypocrisy.

    So is defending Melania’s very real visa violations while demanding migration enforcement. To avoid being a hypocrite one should either defend Melania along with other illegals or demand stricter enforcement.
    And mind you, I don’t attack Melania for violating our immigration laws alone. I attack her moral character in general.

you can always tell which stories “ORDA” is commenting on, they are the ones with double to triple the comments of other stories.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend