At 8/22/16 06:59 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: you're far more likely to die from a vast number of things over a shark attack, but it's still a legitimate concern if you're in the ocean and there are things you can do to safeguard yourself when in that situation.

But there's a difference between sensible precautions that actually help you avoid harm, and breaking the law, giving up freedom and disenfranchising and profiling certain groups that would really do nothing to solve the actual problem.

At 8/22/16 07:07 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

But there's a difference between sensible precautions that actually help you avoid harm, and breaking the law, giving up freedom and disenfranchising and profiling certain groups that would really do nothing to solve the actual problem.

i'll need you to explain yourself a bit further.

which laws are being broken and for what reasons?

i'm no fan of the nsa or homeland security, but i do understand watching people who publicly speak or post online about foreign terror groups, warrants and such acquired.

and i'm not so against profiling, i've certainly been profiled. those doing the profiling weren't always correct, but i understood their reasons. profiling is just observations, illegally detaining someone or infringing on freedoms without warrants and legal precedence is another.

At 8/22/16 07:14 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: i'll need you to explain yourself a bit further.

Fair enough.

which laws are being broken and for what reasons?

When you agree with someone like Trump about banning Muslims, or restricting their immigration, you are not in keeping with the current immigration laws, nor with the historical character of this nation and it's founding. You want to punish everyone for the criminal actions of a few.

i'm no fan of the nsa or homeland security, but i do understand watching people who publicly speak or post online about foreign terror groups, warrants and such acquired.

Sure, if they go through the proper procedures and keep within the law and The Constitution. I see no problems with those agencies and their work. That's my objection to the Trump program, it doesn't keep with those things.

and i'm not so against profiling, i've certainly been profiled. those doing the profiling weren't always correct, but i understood their reasons. profiling is just observations, illegally detaining someone or infringing on freedoms without warrants and legal precedence is another.

But that's what you advocate when you want any kind of restriction on Muslim Immigration. You're actually agreeing with me, and disagreeing with yourself without realizing it.

@aviewaskewed

i guess you missed the earlier conversation when i clarified my stance on many of these things. i'm sure you don't support every stance your candidate has.

i don't fully support trump, but i'd prefer a good number of flawed people over hillary.

things i like about trump:

-tough stance on china
-building a wall
-reforming the tax code
-tough stance on those hostile to the united states
-government waste

...etc

if the man was more polished and had even the most remote version of a filter, i'd dislike a lot less.

At 8/22/16 07:42 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: i guess you missed the earlier conversation when i clarified my stance on many of these things.

I skimmed a good bit, I admit. But I was speaking to the things I saw you saying most recently so....

i'm sure you don't support every stance your candidate has.

Nope, but at least the candidate I plan to vote for has plans which are legal, feasible, and while many stances and such are imperfect, they can at least get implemented.

-tough stance on china

All of that unworkable and bad for the economy.

-building a wall

Won't be able to get it done, we've debunked that in this topic a lot already. It's financially infeasible, it can't be done because his plans call for cutting through both private and federal property, and it doesn't really address the real problem of immigration (people overstaying visas).

-reforming the tax code

Also economically disastrous and simply favors himself and other billionares when any half competent economist goes through it.

-tough stance on those hostile to the united states

Most policies are illegal and un-constitutional, also he'd basically be creating new recruitment videos for ISIS every time he made a speech or a decision.

-government waste

Nobody ever addresses the worst offenders on those things.

if the man was more polished and had even the most remote version of a filter, i'd dislike a lot less.

I'd like that, but even if he had all that, you still wouldn't be able to escape the fact that he's running on a platform he can't possibly implement. There's no chance he can do the things he says. Even if he were using the style of an Abraham Lincoln or some other equally revered figure, it still doesn't change the simple fact that his campaign is a joke and his policies are flim flam like everything else about him.

@aviewaskewed

we'll see how it all goes. i don't trust a lot of experts in many fields, everything in this world we currently live seems influenced by politics and personal interests.

Is... is this real? 12 year old co-chairs Colorado Trump campaign. This is something I would expect from the Onion, not you know.... real life. Have I been pranked?

At 8/23/16 07:48 AM, someaveragechap wrote: Is... is this real? 12 year old co-chairs Colorado Trump campaign. This is something I would expect from the Onion, not you know.... real life. Have I been pranked?

I don't think that's the right demographic to be shooting for, if you want to win an election. The 12-17 year old group has little affect on the vote. Just sayin'.

At 8/23/16 10:22 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 8/22/16 07:42 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: -government waste

lol; when Drumpf had to pay for it, the rent for his campain's space in his Drumpf tower (where he sets rent) was $35,458. So, he personally, when he self funded his campaign, was paying $35,458 a month in rent... to himself.

yep, that's not great. but that man is all about making money and using every avenue he can, which i can understand. though i would vastly prefer someone who is less tricky with ways to make money, i can't really fault someone who does.

If you're worried about government wast... lol. Not to mention the last time the Clintons were in power we had a surplus (we were making more money than we were spending).

i tend to discount a lot of the gains during the clinton years. a lot of his success is due to one very powerful thing that was outside of his control, the explosion of the internet. but the man was a much better bridge builder than many politicians we've seen since, congress and he did work together more than the poisonous environment we have now. his wife though, she has always been toxic and nasty towards opposition, she's not remotely the same person as her husband.

the crazy thing about government waste, we can all agree that programs like the one where they test how fast a shrimp can run under water isn't something government should pay for, no reduction in these things every seem to happen. every year tom coburn produces a government waste book, every year the waste seems to expand. i can entirely understand why the founding fathers flipped shit and revolted, it surprises me that we're not to that point yet.

At 8/23/16 10:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Excerpt from NPR:

no matter the justification, it still sounds like something the private sector should be handling over government.

At 8/23/16 12:51 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You have a choice here and now. You can remain in ignorance, or you can start researching the things you say before you say them. I say this because this isn't the first time you've accidentally put forward something that just wasn't so. And I know you believe it. That's the problem. You're not a liar. You're simply misinformed. You know things that just aren't true. It's the damndest thing and I can't fix it; only you can.

many of the things we disagree about are opinion based, which as you said, only the believer can change.

i personally don't believe government should have it's hand in everything, whether the justification is for our betterment or not. i don't like government money going to what we could pressure private corporations to do, spending their money and not ours. course, my ideal world would be one where people gave a shit about anything, anything at all.

At 8/23/16 01:17 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

And it's not like, just my opinion man. Every time you've brought up examples of things you've disagreed with it's been trivially easy to point out that you don't know what you're talking about.

nearly everything we've talked about has been opinion and perspective based.

i'm one of those dumbasses who believe there may be a plot to distract the people and make us all stupid, most likely by gov, so i'm not going to be pro government.

just seems to me, much of government spending could be shoved off into the private sector just executed through regulation by government. it'd be great if public opinion was enough, people either demanding change or voting for change with buying power. but that's not where we are. so, i don't fully disagree with certain things being looked at, i just don't like the public funding what often is something that effects a select few.

this, how this whole thing is going, quite use to it. have moved to locations where my beliefs were different and i got ganged up on. and like here, often the help i received is not all that helpful.

quite use to this indeed.

At 8/22/16 09:16 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: we'll see how it all goes. i don't trust a lot of experts in many fields, everything in this world we currently live seems influenced by politics and personal interests.

That's the attitude that's turned this into a one horse race, because it allowed the rise of a useless, know nothing candidate like Trump to grab the nod from a major party. Do some research man, look at legitimate sources and certified experts, then check them against others. The truth is out there, and it's findable. To me it's only lazy pseudo-intellectuals that retreat to stuff like this. Be better then that, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to challenge you and everybody who holds that same idea to be better. I think you can, and this country needs you to.

At 8/23/16 04:28 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 8/22/16 09:16 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: we'll see how it all goes. i don't trust a lot of experts in many fields, everything in this world we currently live seems influenced by politics and personal interests.

That's the attitude that's turned this into a one horse race, because it allowed the rise of a useless, know nothing candidate like Trump to grab the nod from a major party. Do some research man, look at legitimate sources and certified experts, then check them against others. The truth is out there, and it's findable. To me it's only lazy pseudo-intellectuals that retreat to stuff like this. Be better then that, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to challenge you and everybody who holds that same idea to be better. I think you can, and this country needs you to.

there is certainly credible information to be found. the problem is that a lot of the most vocal people in impressive fields are left leaning.

when it comes to facts and figures, i shouldn't be able to discern political affiliation.

At 8/23/16 04:54 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: there is certainly credible information to be found. the problem is that a lot of the most vocal people in impressive fields are left leaning.

when it comes to facts and figures, i shouldn't be able to discern political affiliation.

The current state of the Republican Party (and its cohorts) renders neutral analysis and discussion effectively impossible. Institutional bias, wherever it may exist (if it exists at all) is not necessarily an indictment against the integrity of the institution itself, but may perhaps be an indictment against the accusers. See: Trump setting the stage for Republicans to regard Hillary's certain victory in November as illegitimate due to nonexistent election fraud. Journalists absolutely have a professional and moral obligation to treat such statements as bullshit. Calling out bullshit for what it is is not bias.

At 8/23/16 04:54 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: there is certainly credible information to be found. the problem is that a lot of the most vocal people in impressive fields are left leaning.

Feoric nailed this really well with his post. All I'd like to add is the old "liberal media" argument is bullshit, it's never been proven and the proponents of it are arch-conservative spin monsters like Roger Ailes. Consider the source.

At 8/23/16 07:12 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Feoric nailed this really well with his post. All I'd like to add is the old "liberal media" argument is bullshit, it's never been proven and the proponents of it are arch-conservative spin monsters like Roger Ailes. Consider the source.

are you saying there is not a liberal bias in most major media outlets?

At 8/24/16 03:22 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Unfortunately one one party abandons factual discourse it leaves the realm of truth to the other party in its entirety. News organizations then look like they hold an ideology that they don't necessarily hold, by virtue of reporting the truth.

You're not getting through to him. Many conservatives--not all, but a huge chunk--are united in their belief that they are unfairly persecuted both socially and in the media; it's a belief at the core of their ideological identity. Years of talking heads and talk radio hosts have poisoned the well for possibly many generations to come. Charlie Sykes (a conservative talk radio host) summed this up nicely last week:

"In an excerpt from an interview with Darcy posted on Twitter Sunday, Sykes discusses how the conservative media had established itself for decades as an antidote to the “mainstream media,” educating generations of viewers to view the major media outlets with suspicion. The result was that there was no longer anyone in a position to fact-check Donald Trump in a way that would reach his base. “We’ve basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers. There’s nobody,” Sykes said.

“At a certain point you wake up and you realize you have destroyed the credibility of any credible outlet out there,” he added. “And I am feeling, to a certain extent, that we are reaping the whirlwind at that. And I have to look in the mirror and ask myself, ‘To what extent did I contribute?'”

edit: even more big name conservative figureheads like Erick Erickson have acknowledged this:

"I do think, however, what guys like Charlie and I and others have to be willing to do and be consistent about is calling out bullcrap on our own side. How many conservative outlets were willing to call out Gateway Pundit and Breitbart for running pictures of the Cleveland Cavaliers celebration as if it was a Trump rally? How many were willing to call out those sites that ran pictures from February as if they were pictures from yesterday showing Hillary Clinton falling?

Conservatives have spent years calling out the mainstream media for making up stuff about the right. We do ourselves no favors if we do not also hold our own side accountable lest they discredit us all and drive our own side to the brink of dementia. That is why, for example, I have a growing list of conservative media outlets I flat out refuse to reference or rely on for my radio show and this website.

If there is one great bit of blame for conservatives, it’s that we allowed bad operators to join us because we assumed we were in common cause with them when we were not. And now, like the cuckoo bird, these bad operators would shove us out of conservatism when instead they themselves much be held to account for profiteering, corruption, and lying to senior citizens and activists alike."

Unsurprisingly, the rift between conservatives who acknowledge this phenomenon and those who don't clearly define the boundaries of the Trump/Alt-Right camp and the #NeverTrump/GOPe camp.

At 8/24/16 03:47 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: 100% agree. But, what, give up entirely?

He said earlier he had a belief that the government might try to make everyone dumb so that it could achieve some mysterious thing. Well, republicans are part of government and that's exactly what they've done. So... I guess there was actually some truth to that.

The complete and utter repudiation of the Trump campaign and the insurgence of the alt-right/white nationalist ideologies in November isn't exactly giving up. It's one thing to believe stupid shit, and it's another to elect people who believe your stupid shit into power. I don't need to change Gary's mind, I just need to make sure his electoral influence is as minimal as possible. That's how politics works. And, as it turns out, I'm not worried.

At 8/24/16 02:59 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Yes. I've already asked him this question and can say, emphatically, that the assigned-mod of the politics sub forum does not believe there is any mass bias in media reporting*.

Would like to clear up a couple misconceptions. 1. I am not "assigned" to this forum. No mod is "assigned" a forum. I happen to like it here for the most part, and even if I wasn't a mod I'd be posting here, that I can clean up the occasional mess that happens here is a bonus. 2. You chide me about doing research and not to talk about things I don't know about and then you go ahead and do exactly the thing you told me not to.

He will and just has pointed out bogeymen like Ailes,

That's not a "bogeyman" it's proveable that Ailes is someone who has been a huge proponent of the theory as an excuse and a justification to create a pronounced and not really hidden "conservative bias". Would you like me to link some articles?

but beyond that, there is, in his mind, no other research necessary.

The person making the claim is the one who proving the claim is incumbent on. When people claim a "liberal media bias" they tend to offer no proof. Or when they do try to offer proof, they attack outlets that do not meet the standard or show such bias. I have MANY times agreed with people who use MSNBC as proof of a "Democratic Party" or "Liberal" news organ, because it is. FOX is the same thing for the other side. Beyond those two outlets however, I've never seen bias proven. But if you've got some real evidence, I'm happy to have a look and a discussion. Same for our friend. I'm really not about stirring people up or trying to call you names or tell you your dumb. I want the truth, I want an informed electorate and citizenry because that's what this country is based on and that's what's in all our best interests.

What the WaPo, HuffPo, NYT and company say is as plain as is written on the page.

Huffpo has a bias, but so do outlets like Breitbart, NYT I think is fair and even handed for the most part (editorials don't count, since by their nature it's the opinion of the columnist). This again is a case of either hitting the low hanging fruit (Huff) or attacking outlets that don't meet the criteria to me (NYT). It also is problematic that folks like you complain about a liberal bias, but ignore bias on the other side. Is bias only bad when it's not trumpeting the things you care about?

*Not much unlike the young-earth creationist teaching biology

Lol. I so love false equivalencies. By the way, I think it's somewhat telling how those folks tend to vote.

At 8/24/16 03:22 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

The big news corporations are what?
Cable: CNNMSNBC /Fox
Network Nightly News: CBS, NBC, & ABC
Print: NY Times/Wall Street Journal
Other: Talk Radio / Podcasts / NPR

it was this post that made me leave the political area of this site for a while. aside from the nastiness a lot of posters display towards anyone who disagrees, there's just little point in the discourse anyway, opinions don't change.

on your opinion about the leanings of news outlets, i think you could tick most of them a few notches towards the left and that'd be an accurate representation of their affiliations.

yes, fox news is right leaning, but they often have opposing views and usually allow for equal time between both sides. i don't watch hannity or bill, too much opinion. fox leans right, but nowhere near as right as AM radio.

cnn, pretty left. i've seen them cut to commercial when a guest wasn't saying what they wanted, they often mute mics on the republicans when the dems are talking but not the other way around. it's not the same network it was 10 years ago. for me, basically the only host i can tolerate is wolf, most the rest interject their opinions too much. and during this election cycle, you can definitely tell when they're just reading clinton talking points.

msnbc could almost not get more left leaning, sometimes it's to the point of reality denial. they were pretty good when they started, now it's just garbage.

I know this thread is dead but I don't wanna risk making a new topic about Trump and getting it locked because this thing exists.

I have been thinking of something lately, I wanna hear what you guys think about it (I expect to get biased answers because 99% of the people on this forum are Hillary supporters). Do you think that all of this attention on Trump is going to give him a serious chance of winning this? This entire election has been about Trump. Trump this, Trump that. Do you think the fact that the media has been nonstop talking about him it could help his popularity (not political popularity, but literal popularity) and give him a chance of more people voting for him in the poll booths?

Maybe a stupid question but I don't think I'm the only one that thinks Trump may be benefiting from all the attention, even though it's negative attention.

At 10/26/16 12:04 PM, mothballs wrote:

Maybe a stupid question but I don't think I'm the only one that thinks Trump may be benefiting from all the attention, even though it's negative attention.

I'm not sure. Yes, it has helped him earlier on and he saved a bunch of money because of the media's bias and wants of discussing anything but Hilary. But, I think more than it has helped Trump, it has massively helped Hilary. Actions by Hilary which would normally have the public up in arms, media has done everything they can to minimize and deflect for her.

Pretty amazing how much blocking the media has done for her and still she's very close to being tied with Trump.

At 10/26/16 12:04 PM, mothballs wrote:
Maybe a stupid question but I don't think I'm the only one that thinks Trump may be benefiting from all the attention, even though it's negative attention.

It's not a dumb question - any publicity is good publicity. It helped him immensely in this election. If you keep yourself the center of discussion it inflates your importance considerably.

At 10/26/16 12:04 PM, mothballs wrote: I know this thread is dead but I don't wanna risk making a new topic about Trump and getting it locked because this thing exists.

Hi, purely a mod response for this one. Since I seem to have been placed de facto "in charge" of this section, I can honestly tell you if you have questions about what is, or isn't an ok topic here, just shoot me a PM and we'll discuss it. I approve whatever is proposed 99% of the time, and even if not, I tend to let 99% slide on by. The bar is really quite low for me. Unless you're making something that is covered elsewhere, a complete clone of an existing topic, or just rule breaking (like flame bait, racism, etc) it's going pass muster here.

At 10/26/16 09:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Hi, purely a mod response for this one. Since I seem to have been placed de facto "in charge" of this section, I can honestly tell you if you have questions about what is, or isn't an ok topic here, just shoot me a PM and we'll discuss it. I approve whatever is proposed 99% of the time, and even if not, I tend to let 99% slide on by. The bar is really quite low for me. Unless you're making something that is covered elsewhere, a complete clone of an existing topic, or just rule breaking (like flame bait, racism, etc) it's going pass muster here.

He's right! I sent him a PM asking to make this thread! The system works! *THUMBS UP*

To answer your question though. All the negativity that Trump is receiving, if any other politician did what Trump did, their poll numbers would drop exponentially. It is surprising, he's some offensive rock star with the greatest hits ever. Now we're at his new album which is trash talking Hillary and the media. Which candidates have trash talked each other since the founding fathers. The media has been needing to be scrutinized more so than what it has been. He has done wonderful things for our political spectrum, the bad thing is though, he gave the bigots, racists, and sexists, voices. Strong voices. Which I don't blame all of that on Trump, the Republican party started it and now they've created a monster. Karma is strong, but at what cost.

At 10/26/16 10:27 PM, The-Great-One wrote: He's right! I sent him a PM asking to make this thread! The system works! *THUMBS UP*

To answer your question though. All the negativity that Trump is receiving, if any other politician did what Trump did, their poll numbers would drop exponentially. It is surprising, he's some offensive rock star with the greatest hits ever. Now we're at his new album which is trash talking Hillary and the media. Which candidates have trash talked each other since the founding fathers. The media has been needing to be scrutinized more so than what it has been. He has done wonderful things for our political spectrum, the bad thing is though, he gave the bigots, racists, and sexists, voices. Strong voices. Which I don't blame all of that on Trump, the Republican party started it and now they've created a monster. Karma is strong, but at what cost.

A few things that I wanna bring up here because you bring up some interesting points.

First, you bring up the trash talking. I feel as if this election may change the future ones in that attack campaigns will be used frequently and become a traditional thing. Like you said, the extent of the trash talking over talking about issues in this election is something we've never seen before, and I'm not sure if I fear or that I'm interested that this will influence the way future elections go.

About the media. I think even if Trump loses this election it definitely wasn't for nothing. He's made an impact on politics in this country, specifically agenda-based major new media outlets. The media has put a serious dent in their reputation this election by going overboard with bias, to the extent that we've never seen before. And this time, the American people are all aware and even disgusted by it. Trump will be remembered as the guy who exposed them and damaged their reputation.

As far as those groups you brought up being stronger voices. I think if anything, they will have weaker voices after this election. Part of the reason the Republican Party is panicking so much because of Trump is because he's alienating the party from voter groups that are becoming increasingly stronger, such as minorities and women. This has been damaging the Republican Party's reputation for future elections and it's why a lot of GOP politicians have been pulling their support of him. Overall, there is the idea that the Republican Party did this to themselves with all the years of fear mongering in Fox News and such. They ended up with a candidate who plays off people's fears as a candidate of change but overall is too weak a general election candidate.

At 10/26/16 09:19 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Hi, purely a mod response for this one. Since I seem to have been placed de facto "in charge" of this section, I can honestly tell you if you have questions about what is, or isn't an ok topic here, just shoot me a PM and we'll discuss it. I approve whatever is proposed 99% of the time, and even if not, I tend to let 99% slide on by. The bar is really quite low for me. Unless you're making something that is covered elsewhere, a complete clone of an existing topic, or just rule breaking (like flame bait, racism, etc) it's going pass muster here.

Awesome, thanks.

At 10/27/16 04:18 PM, mothballs wrote: First, you bring up the trash talking. I feel as if this election may change the future ones in that attack campaigns will be used frequently and become a traditional thing. Like you said, the extent of the trash talking over talking about issues in this election is something we've never seen before, and I'm not sure if I fear or that I'm interested that this will influence the way future elections go.

This isn't the first time. If you go back to the political discourse of the 19th Century, it tends to mirror much of this election's tenor. Back then accusations of wives being promiscuous and opponents being criminals and traitors was common accusations for the Candidates to lob at each other.

Frankly, I think the relative political peace of the 20th Century is more the exception tat the rule. We got spoiled.

About the media. I think even if Trump loses this election it definitely wasn't for nothing. He's made an impact on politics in this country, specifically agenda-based major new media outlets. The media has put a serious dent in their reputation this election by going overboard with bias, to the extent that we've never seen before. And this time, the American people are all aware and even disgusted by it. Trump will be remembered as the guy who exposed them and damaged their reputation.

For what alternative? Say the major media outlets are biased. Ok, they are, somewhat, but what is the alternative? Blogs that are all bias and lack the slightest bit of journalistic integrity? I find it ironic tht those who claim the Major Media outlets are biased tend to get their news and information from outlets that are open and unabashed about their bias. Being independent or "free" doesn't make media any less bias.

As far as those groups you brought up being stronger voices. I think if anything, they will have weaker voices after this election. Part of the reason the Republican Party is panicking so much because of Trump is because he's alienating the party from voter groups that are becoming increasingly stronger, such as minorities and women. This has been damaging the Republican Party's reputation for future elections and it's why a lot of GOP politicians have been pulling their support of him. Overall, there is the idea that the Republican Party did this to themselves with all the years of fear mongering in Fox News and such. They ended up with a candidate who plays off people's fears as a candidate of change but overall is too weak a general election candidate.

I fear the damage is worse than that. Not only has such tactics potentially crippled the Republican Party as a nationally viable party, but the method in which this happened has hurt our Nation's faith in competency. Not only have feelings become more truth than facts, but expertise and knowledge has been largely abandoned as a basis for politics. Knowing what you are talking about has become a bad thing in elections. You're seen as too much a part of the System and too detatched from the people. We have a complex country and yet a large and growing segment of our populace despises the traits that would allow someone to adequately handle this complexity.

At 10/27/16 04:18 PM, mothballs wrote:

About the media. I think even if Trump loses this election it definitely wasn't for nothing. He's made an impact on politics in this country, specifically agenda-based major new media outlets.

That's not necessarily a good thing, solely because much of the new media outlets are more out for shock value than they are journalistic integrity or accuracy. While I do appreciate that new media can provide a new take on things that much of the mainstream media rarely covers, the problem is that they ironically enough, they are just as agenda-driven as the major media networks are, the only difference is that they either openly admit it, or simply apeing off of said networks and putting their own radical spin on things, which is probably why we treat alternative news sources with scorn.

The media has put a serious dent in their reputation this election by going overboard with bias, to the extent that we've never seen before. And this time, the American people are all aware and even disgusted by it. Trump will be remembered as the guy who exposed them and damaged their reputation.

True, but on the same side of the coin, Trump has brought the right-wing fringes back into the mainstream when everyone else was trying to ignore them, or at least keep them in check. Unfortunately, due to the split of the GOP party, they manage to permeate themselves into mainstream America through the Tea Party, and sprinkle in some populist politics and misguided anger towards politicians, this was basically a perfect breeding ground for someone like Trump to be in the presidential race.

While you can accuse much of the mainstream media of a lot of things, and they do deserve much of the flak that they get with the election coverage, the bottom line is that none of them (aside from Fox News obviously) wanted any part of Trump or the lowest common denominator of the right-wing crazies that hijacked the GOP, and they have done everything to paint the other side as less egregious, even with their own skeletons in their closet. New media doesn't have this problem, they just post the most sensationalized click bait on someone they hate, often sacrificing journalistic integrity in the process, if they had any to begin with.