"Mainstream" Media Refuse to cover Wikileaks

Well, it exposes them for colluding with the Clintons.

Go back to Russia!!!

UnbiasedOhioVoter wrote:

The fix is in. Media are Hillary lovers.

Agree

Does anybody here actually believe Hillary is winning by this huge electoral margin? These polls make no sense, I travel the country often for work and just don't see it, neither do many I've talked to

Washington Post. Furking Idiot.

dont buy the bs wrote:

Does anybody here actually believe Hillary is winning by this huge electoral margin? These polls make no sense, I travel the country often for work and just don't see it, neither do many I've talked to

I've been outside, listening to people and I don't hear anyone speaking Chinese. Therefore, no one speaks Chinese.

Wild guess wrote:

Well, it exposes them for colluding with the Clintons.

Exactly. The Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc. have all been exposed for working directly with the Clinton Campaign. They worked against Bernie Sanders and now Trump. While many people always suspected this to be true, it is still shocking to see just how blatant the collusion has been.

looks like it wrote:

Wild guess wrote:

Well, it exposes them for colluding with the Clintons.

Exactly. The Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc. have all been exposed for working directly with the Clinton Campaign. They worked against Bernie Sanders and now Trump. While many people always suspected this to be true, it is still shocking to see just how blatant the collusion has been.

Another furking idiot. The Washington Post published the wikileak stuff on Clinton today. Read a little before opening your stupid mouth.

UnbiasedOhioVoter wrote:

The fix is in. Media are Hillary lovers.

Faked emails.

In other news, mainstream media refuses to cover LRC troll conspiracies.

You would deny proof it it called you about by name. I know people like you. Liars and they will lie to your face when caught red-handed. Always democrats.

looks like it wrote:

Wild guess wrote:

Well, it exposes them for colluding with the Clintons.

Exactly. The Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc. have all been exposed for working directly with the Clinton Campaign. They worked against Bernie Sanders and now Trump. While many people always suspected this to be true, it is still shocking to see just how blatant the collusion has been.

Faked Emails wrote:

UnbiasedOhioVoter wrote:

The fix is in. Media are Hillary lovers.

Faked emails.

In other news, mainstream media refuses to cover LRC troll conspiracies.

Not fake. Wikileaks has never released faked documents.

wpost wrote:

looks like it wrote:

Exactly. The Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc. have all been exposed for working directly with the Clinton Campaign. They worked against Bernie Sanders and now Trump. While many people always suspected this to be true, it is still shocking to see just how blatant the collusion has been.

Another furking idiot. The Washington Post published the wikileak stuff on Clinton today. Read a little before opening your stupid mouth.

Did the Washington Post report that their White House bureau chief, Jennifer Eilperin, emailed John Podesta and other Clinton staffers to give them a heads up about a story coming out about lobbyists to make sure they weren't caught off guard? She told Podesta she tried to minimize the news about his lobbyist activity.

How about CNN and Donna Brazille feeding questions to Clinton ahead of time for a townhall?

MSNBC's Chris Hays giving Hillary Clinton the questions ahead of time and allowing her to simply read her answers on his radio show all the while pretending like her answers were spontaneous?

CNBC's John Harwood emailing Podesta after he moderated the Republican primary debate bragging about how hard he was on Trump and telling Podesta he really, really, really likes Clinton.

The New York Times ask the Clinton campaign for approval to use quotes in a story. What kind of legitimate, non-biased journalist does that?

Heat journalist, Louise Mensch, secretly wrote the "It's our time. I'm with her" Clinton commercial. Even telling her who should be in the ad -"a succession of young women, a few old women, one with a baby daughter, multiracial and multi-occupation, to include a nurse and a woman in uniform of some kind... one after another smiling and looking to camera and saying "it's our time" and the last woman says, "It's our time. I'm with her." fade to banner credit "Hillary 2016". Sounds unbiased to me -not.

How about how they mocked Catholics, Hispanics, Bernie supporters? The Clinton campaign despises anyone besides the NYC/ inside the beltway elites and Hollywood celebs.

Journalists are supposed to have integrity and provide a non-biased assessment of the candidates. When one candidate only has "cheerleaders", it is a scary situation for the country.

By the way, if you disagreed with the poster, fine. No need for name calling.

not fake wrote:

Journalists are supposed to have integrity and provide a non-biased assessment of the candidates. When one candidate only has "cheerleaders", it is a scary situation for the country.

That is too much to ask for. I just wish the media would stop lying. It should be a scandal when a media outlet lies, but no one seems to care any more.

Facts no longer matter.

Faked Emails wrote:

UnbiasedOhioVoter wrote:

The fix is in. Media are Hillary lovers.

Faked emails.

In other news, mainstream media refuses to cover LRC troll conspiracies.

But they aren't faked. Notice nobody is credibly denying them. Assange doesn't have that many employees to make up thousands of pages daily.

Outside the US, I see alot of John Harwood on CNBC and I was always wondering how this guy got a political job on a niche market capitalist station when he always sounded very left wing when arguing (daily) with Joe Kernan. So when I see him hosting the 3rd Republican debate I thought it was extremely unusual, and the questions that he asked were revealing to say the least.

UnbiasedOhioVoter wrote:

The fix is in. Media are Hillary lovers.

My advice to Republicans is, assuming Trump's campaign is in trouble and past the point of no return, and the GOP still exists in 3-4 years time. Take note of your enemies (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NY Times, Wash. Post, Yahoo) and completely cut them out of the pie next time. Control the primary debates whilst using it as a money raising exercise for the eventual nominee.

Anyhow I was watching CNN today and Don Lemon was all over the NY times allegations on a day that wikileaks had shown them in collusion with the Clinton campaign. But unlike the Access Hollywood bus recording, Trump can deny this because if it were true they would have pressed charges with the police. American media should only focus on proven facts, CNN was being fraudulent in accepting it as truth or a proven crime.

My first question is, "Why should we encourage the press to give more attention to a source that has obtained personal information illegally?"

My second question is, "What do you find so damning and underreported in the emails stolen by Putin and Assange."

Do you think Donald Trump being a complete buffoon would be overlooked if more people knew that Democratic Party advisors sometimes act like cold politicians?

dont buy the bs wrote:

Does anybody here actually believe Hillary is winning by this huge electoral margin? These polls make no sense, I travel the country often for work and just don't see it, neither do many I've talked to

Of course Hilary is winning.

Let's see:

Mexicans are rapists.

POWs are losers.

Judges are corrupt.

The inner cities are hell holes.

Don't even start talking about women.

Who hasn't he insulted?

Who's actually left to vote for him?