See why I'm not a fan, Phil? Link. I can respect a pro-choice conservative but not one who justifies it by spouting probably the shallowest liberal bumper sticker fodder rationale for it. Like I said when we had this discussion, she's hot, but she's just not very smart. Hell, she calls herself "a constitutional." The only context in which I've heard the term used as a noun is a "morning constitutional." Presumably that's not what she meant.
The difference between "Kremlin propaganda network" & CNN/MSNBC fake news? The Russians do not screen guests via pre-interview like CNN/MSNBC. The same desperation to "control the narrative" is lacking.
Just 7% of journalists are Republicans. That’s far fewer than even a decade ago. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...licans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/ + I doubt many of these self-described "independents" voted Trump
"Mediacrats" - I like that. I will start using that instead of MSM to describe our so-called journalists: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...ve-96-of-donations-to-hillary/article/2617828
I tried your link, but there was so many ads popping up I shut it down. She's still hot is all I can say.
That's Ben Shapiro's website. You should become familiar with it, if you're not. He's one of the most dynamic and intelligent conservative voices in the media today. LOL. At least you're honest, and I don't disagree with you there. She is very hot, but unfortunately that's all I can say too. Katy Perry's hot too. That doesn't make her useful.
Look, I don't have an expectation that *anyone* is going to say stuff that I 100% agree with. That just isn't realistic. On the whole, Tomi Lahren says mostly stuff I agree with, and that beats out Katy Perry, who occasionally says stuff I agree with. By the same token, DT mostly says stuff I agree with, which beats the heck out of HRC, who almost never says stuff I agree with. I voted accordingly, and when DT says something I don't agree with, I am not throwing him overboard b/c I know, on the whole, we want the same things. Same goes for Tomi Lahren. I still like her. WRT abortion, I am pro-life, but I believe, as far as government goes, I would rather they just stay out of it. I believe that about most things government does.
True, but is she really that useful? Don't forget that Russell Brand has been there. Even if I was single, I don't think I could go where that guy has been.
There's a difference. At least using your rationale, you had to stick by Trump despite some disagreement, because it was a binary choice between him and HRC. However, it's not a binary choice with Tomi Lahren. If you don't watch her, that doesn't mean you have to watch to Rachel Maddow. You have lots of viable choices who are better. Well, that's basically the argument pro-choicers make, so I'm not sure why you "self-identify" as pro-life. I think the government should protect innocent life. That's why I favor laws against murder and physician-assisted suicide. My view is tempered by my respect for constitutional federalism, so I don't want a broad federal ban on abortion. However I strongly favor state bans. If you don't support that, then I'm not sure how you can call yourself pro-life.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board blasts Trump claiming he's in jeopardy of being perceived as a "fake president" due to a noted lack of credibility.
Right, but you quoted my post, which was directed to the WSJ article. If you want to rip CNN as unfair to Trump, then be my guest. However, the WSJ is generally fair to him as they are to most Republicans.
I disagree. Traditionally, while the editorial content of the WSJ was conservative or perhaps pro-business, the regular daily reporters have always tended left. Nonetheless, I will concede that they were the best writers for any daily in the country. Great storytelling. Moreover, now even the editorial side of the WSJ has taken a slow swing the other way ever since the Murdoch acquisition. And, as we know, Murdoch is no fan of Trump. So, if you want to claim the WSJ shows less Trump-hate than the NYT or CNN then, OK, I will give on that. But to claim the WSJ gives Trump favorable coverage is incorrect.
