Quote:OK...  But so what?

 

You don't think that republicans had similar discussions about Bernie versus Hillary?  Or how thankful they were that Warren or Biden didn't jump into the race?

 

I mean, come on.  These wiki-leaks are so lame.  They just show how politics works.  But it's something that anyone that has been paying attention already knew. 

 

Rubio, to his credit, at least realizes this and points out that these wiki leaks are not some silver bullet to anything.  They are damning to the extent that people hate politics.  Well yeah.  Politics is ugly, and it's unbearable at times.  But there's nothing here that's treasonous or devastating to anyone.  It's just how the game goes.

 

What's your point have to do with what I was suggesting?  I am responding to a very specific criticism: That the media can't be both for Trump and against him.  My quoting of that information was to show that it is not an indefensible position.  I didn't call Hillary corrupt for having a strategy.  There are far more condemning emails if I wanted to put Hillary on trial.  

 

Even then, I can defend why this, in and of itself, is not ideal for a democracy.  The media should be watchdogs, not kingmakers.  Her camp should never be able to tell the media to take certain candidates seriously.  The media, ideally, would be above taking instructions from a political candidate, and be equally critical of all candidates (in that they apply equal scrutiny... all candidates are not equal in deserving criticism).  This is just not the case in our current political system.  The media will run with a narrative of Trump threatening our democracy, while allowing their own bias to influence their fair reporting.  Even my hardcore lefty friends can agree that there has been an unusually overt slant this election cycle.  

---