Acknowledgment of the Media Bias in Election 2016
Clinton v. Trump/Trump v. Clinton
It's almost as if the press has written Donald Trump off as not a presidential candidate and are giving him the treatment that some regular old peasant-ass person would get. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton is a "serious" candidate so they give her all the leeway they can muster. She is "Presidential" after all and they wouldn't want to tarnish her presidential reputation because she looks like she could be the president and seems like it too. Trump doesn't fit the bill so it's OK to cut him off and engage him in debates within the debate via the mainstream moderators.
The vast majority of articles I see are lambasting Trump for being the bombastic, dipshit, megalomaniacal, pussy grabbing, fuckboy that he is. Which is fine. But they don't do the same with Clinton. Why is that? It's not like this lady doesn't have a lot to run from? Just in this election cycle there are at least a handful of fucking zingers that should have erased her candidacy from the minds of every person of voting age. But her candidacy is somehow, intellectually dishonestly, being propped up against the lack of presidential-ity of her opponent.
This is really actually quite atrocious behavior when looked at in the big picture. There is almost nothing that is legitimate about her campaign at this point. It's this over inflated zombie campaign, actually it's kind of reminiscent of the economy at this point. It lacks all legitimacy however it rages on with the stock market pushing all time highs etc etc.
Any way you cut it both of these sacks of shit should be treated exactly the same; and that's fine if it is the way they treat Trump. It has to go both ways though. If nothing else this should reveal to those not blinded by their own partisan nature that the media is not an impartial arbiter of information but rather a collection of seemingly disparate parties that coordinate their efforts to achieve a singular goal.
The goal in this particular situation is making Hillary Clinton appear as electable as possible even if that amounts to nothing more than smearing her opponent because after all even zero looks good compared to negative three.
But the real question is: Why?
The pollster Rasmussen calls these dingleberries the "political class"; the politicians, the journalists, the academics, the burrocrats, the corporate class.
The democong and the repukes have basically the same positions at the national level; their combined policy has been towards a combination of leftist/statist/globalist goals.
Th "political class" thinks they have the right to rule over the rest of us; a lot of their educational "credentials" are based on parroting the narrative, not on empirical analysis.
Let's face it, their policy direction has been disastrous over the last 30 years...
but NOT for them.
I forgot to add corruption to the list of their credentials. But let's not forget to add dishonest to that list as well.
Part of their narrative is to ignore empirical criticism of the success of their policy, and the attempt to silence criticism with such blatantly false charges of racism, sexism, blah blah blah
Trump might be rich, but in his bid for the Presidency, he has appealed to the Americans that the "political class" has cheated, lied to, stolen from, and stabbed in the back.
If he is elected,it threatens their kickback institutions; hell, depending on how serious Trump would be about restoring America, we could see gallows built for some of these people!
And that is why you are seeing the coordinated attack on Trump and the defense of the Corruption Queen