Does anyone else remember when the president’s age was a big topic? Suddenly Trump is the oldest candidate and just like that the media doesn’t talk about it anymore.
What are you talking about? That never happened. Don’t look behind the curtain.
We have always been at war with eastasia.
Imagine needing more than a billion dollars to fight most unlikeable candidate possible
Buttery emails are way more fun to cover than gravy seals.
Whatever the reason might be, the fact is that Trump is getting much gentler treatment in 2024 than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. That’s especially concerning given that Trump’s alleged crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than Clinton’s alleged crimes.
Definitely seems like the media, bought up by very conservative old men, has a favourite in the election. Not sure if they’re pushing the narrative that Trump is surging to depress Democratic Party vote or motivate us to not get complacent.
Can you please name any?
Seriously? Is it even possible to not know? Or you just like making people list them?
Here is just the sexual ones.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Here are his current active trials in court
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list/
There’s of course more, but isn’t that already enough?
Unless you wanted Hillary Clinton’s for comparison. She used her personal e-mail address a lot instead of the one she is supposed to use as a high ranking government employee. Her e-mails may, and did, contain classified information. Only the official government e-mail server is intended to be used for sending classified infirmation due to risk of breach by outside individuals. No such breach seems to have occurred, but still a crime to have put them in a position where they weren’t officially as secure as they could have been.
The result of going through 60’000 plus e-mails was that no intentional wrong was done and they recommended no charges.
I think you meant buttery-males. Buttery emails sound kind of messy. :)
This one trick IT doesn’t want you to know!
Pop quiz: without using google, what was the date of the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump.
No peeking!
You think you have a big gotcha here, but it was covered extensively when it happened. The google (or Bing in this case)(you don’t want us to do returns over 10 pages of results, including articles from:
- NBC News (top result)
- US News
- AP News
- Wikipedia
- CNN
- NY Times
- LA Times (literally, coast to coast here)
- NPR
- Reuters
- Fox News (of course…)
- Politico
Some of these sources wrote more than one article, with at least three by CNN and two by NPR.
You might think none of us know that Trump came close to assassination on 2024-09-15, but did you know that Trump didn’t tell his secret service detail he was going to the golf course, so they didn’t do a perimeter sweep before he got out there? They only found the shooter because Trump was finishing up one hole and they rushed to the next and spotted the would-be assassin.
Yeah I think it’s a big gotcha. The fact you didn’t know without using a search engine proves my point.
This poster thinks I didn’t know. But how can it know that. I just pointed out that there were literally hundreds of articles, then correctly cited the date. It’s not making the point it thinks it’s making. The media covered both idiots that took the pot shots at the Trumpster Fire. To the tune of hundreds of articles.
Media Matters - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Media Matters:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News