Interesting Article on Hillary Rodham Clinton

the DAILY MAIL?!?!?!? omg!

The Daily Mail is a reactionary, tabloid rag, second worst (to Murdoch's Sun) of the British gutter press - equivalent to the trash from the New York Post; gossip tabloid "journalism" for those who cannot digest serious news, with a far fringe wingnut editorial focus.


The article?

A bunch of discredited rumors about Bill. Really? That's what this is going back to? Haven't the fringe whackos realized that Americans are past that, in fact, Bill Clinton is by far our most beloved former president (don't whine about Reagan and his 100's of indictments administration Web Link )

Can you believe how desperate our local wingnuts are? Defend the indefensible Trump? That's really hard to do.

Trump, as leader of their beloved REPUBLICAN PARTY, makes racist statements about federal judges and all the republicans can say is "hate the statements, but please love and vote for the racist!"

If Trump is your beloved leader, you've already lost, so perhaps the only thing to do is spread fertilizer around.

Gonna be a long summer.

Bill again?

Every president was a horn dog.

Except Nixon.

He was just anot evil, bigoted crook.

Ah, our deluded wingnut is back posting nonsense.

It must be desperate.

I remember when the New York Times and the Washington Post refused to print the news regarding President Clinton receiving oral sex in the White House. It was the National Enquirer that broke that story. It was only after the National Enquirer broke its story that the Eastern Liberal Establishment Newspapers broke its embargo of printing anything that cast the Clintons in a pejorative light.

When it comes to political news the United States Press has completely abrogated its responsibilities to the public. In fact they routinely cover up criminal activity when perpetrated by the Clintons until another publication is brazen enough to print it.

A typical liberal ploy is to make the specious claim that if it comes from a "low brow" source then the information is not credible. That is being disingenuous. The only standard that matters is whether the information is factual.

The Washington Post and the New York Times, when it comes to political reporting, routinely prevaricate, omit commissions of felonies when engaged in by leftist politicians, fabricate stories about Republicans and in general introduce extreme bias into their political reporting.

Arguably, the Daily Mail is a "Low Brow" publication that sensationalizes. But when it comes to political reporting you really can't trust the Washington Post and the New York Times to tell the truth whereas you can trust the Daily Mail to be truthful some of the time. A higher standard than is achieved by those Newspapers highly revered by the Left.

@Media Bias: Admit it -- you can't get enough of the supermarket tabloids. Right? Right?

And when you state that "The Washington Post and the New York Times, when it comes to political reporting, routinely prevaricate, omit commissions of felonies when engaged in by leftist politicians, fabricate stories about Republicans and in general introduce extreme bias into their political reporting," what you really mean is, "I can't stand how they're telling the truth about Donald Trump! MOMMY, MAKE THEM STOP!!!!!!!!!"

Correct?

Media Bias,

I noticed your post (as I write this) has 110 'Likes'. The Town Square home page says this story has been view 111 times (currently). I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most of those 'Likes' are from the same person.