CNN reporter tweet on Trump's handshake with Polish First Lady

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me it was more personal. I couldn't stand the idea of Hillary Rodham Clinton being the first female president given her history. We woman deserved better than that.

You thought TRUMP was better for women?

Oh that's hilarious. Hilarious I tell you.

No pp. It is because as a woman, I felt Hillary Clinton wasn't good enough to be our first woman president. I want a woman who is above reproach i.e, certainly not the character traits (lying, scheming, bitter, angry) that Hillary Clinton shows.

Like I said, you thought Trump was better. Not voting for Clinton = helping to elect Trump. I really have no idea how her being a woman was relevant to this, either = they were two candidates you had to choose from. You, frankly, chose wrong.

Too bad you are holding out for your perfect woman who deserves to be president rather than the person who was a zillion times better than the guy you actually helped elect through this way of thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it was more personal. I couldn't stand the idea of Hillary Rodham Clinton being the first female president given her history. We woman deserved better than that.

You thought TRUMP was better for women?

Oh that's hilarious. Hilarious I tell you.

No pp. It is because as a woman, I felt Hillary Clinton wasn't good enough to be our first woman president. I want a woman who is above reproach i.e, certainly not the character traits (lying, scheming, bitter, angry) that Hillary Clinton shows.

Like I said, you thought Trump was better. Not voting for Clinton = helping to elect Trump. I really have no idea how her being a woman was relevant to this, either = they were two candidates you had to choose from. You, frankly, chose wrong.

Too bad you are holding out for your perfect woman who deserves to be president rather than the person who was a zillion times better than the guy you actually helped elect through this way of thinking.

Well, we all have our personal standards. President Obama's eight years did little for me. I disliked his elitism and put-me-downs of American citizens. His telling us to vote for Hillary to protect his "legacy" really bothered me, I mean, what the heck?. I think in the end, be it four or eight years but who knows, I will feel even more vindicated in my November 2016 decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need honest, straight-shooting, neutral media. CNN, Fox, NY Times -- all glitter, all reasonably well-presented, but their biases make them untrustworthy.

As opposed to who - Breitbart, Daily Caller and the rest of conservative media which showed its true colors during the 8 years of Obama's presidency as being vastly more biased and dishonest than the so-called "fake" mainstream media?

Off your meds? Of course Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc. are right-wing media. They label themselves as such, quite proudly, and in that sense quite honestly. You go onto those sites knowing that, much like someone would go to the HuffPo, Slate, or the Daily Kos.

My point was about the loss of middle-of-the-road, straight-shooting, neutral media. CNN, Fox, NY Times, all "serious", but all horribly biased, and those biases bring them to the same level of Daily Caller and Daily Kos. The Washington Post has become unreadable.

Where do I go for one-stop, honest news?

Oh, puh-frickin leeze. They are nowhere near as bad as Daily Caller, Breitbart or for that matter Daily Kos.

Your problem is that facts and reality have a liberal bias these days. CNN reports something that Trump *actually* said, tweeted or did and you all go apeshit and scream "fake news" despite the fact that it's captured on videotape.

You just don't want to hear actual honest news.

Actually, what I WOULD like to hear is the actual honest news.

It's funny how easily the left ignores the obvious when it comes to the liberal bias. It's NOT that they report something he actually said that people have a problem with. It's all the things they omit because it doesn't fit their narrative. It's the amount of time they spend on the negative while barely touching on something positive, or not at all. It's their blatant mocking and derisive tone. It's that their reporters (not opinion hosts) have lost any interest in even appearing unbiased and just reporting the stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need honest, straight-shooting, neutral media. CNN, Fox, NY Times -- all glitter, all reasonably well-presented, but their biases make them untrustworthy.

As opposed to who - Breitbart, Daily Caller and the rest of conservative media which showed its true colors during the 8 years of Obama's presidency as being vastly more biased and dishonest than the so-called "fake" mainstream media?

Off your meds? Of course Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc. are right-wing media. They label themselves as such, quite proudly, and in that sense quite honestly. You go onto those sites knowing that, much like someone would go to the HuffPo, Slate, or the Daily Kos.

My point was about the loss of middle-of-the-road, straight-shooting, neutral media. CNN, Fox, NY Times, all "serious", but all horribly biased, and those biases bring them to the same level of Daily Caller and Daily Kos. The Washington Post has become unreadable.

Where do I go for one-stop, honest news?

Oh, puh-frickin leeze. They are nowhere near as bad as Daily Caller, Breitbart or for that matter Daily Kos.

Your problem is that facts and reality have a liberal bias these days. CNN reports something that Trump *actually* said, tweeted or did and you all go apeshit and scream "fake news" despite the fact that it's captured on videotape.

You just don't want to hear actual honest news.

Actually, what I WOULD like to hear is the actual honest news.

It's funny how easily the left ignores the obvious when it comes to the liberal bias. It's NOT that they report something he actually said that people have a problem with. It's all the things they omit because it doesn't fit their narrative. It's the amount of time they spend on the negative while barely touching on something positive, or not at all. It's their blatant mocking and derisive tone. It's that their reporters (not opinion hosts) have lost any interest in even appearing unbiased and just reporting the stories.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it was more personal. I couldn't stand the idea of Hillary Rodham Clinton being the first female president given her history. We woman deserved better than that.

You thought TRUMP was better for women?

Oh that's hilarious. Hilarious I tell you.

No pp. It is because as a woman, I felt Hillary Clinton wasn't good enough to be our first woman president. I want a woman who is above reproach i.e, certainly not the character traits (lying, scheming, bitter, angry) that Hillary Clinton shows.

Like I said, you thought Trump was better. Not voting for Clinton = helping to elect Trump. I really have no idea how her being a woman was relevant to this, either = they were two candidates you had to choose from. You, frankly, chose wrong.

Too bad you are holding out for your perfect woman who deserves to be president rather than the person who was a zillion times better than the guy you actually helped elect through this way of thinking.

Well, we all have our personal standards. President Obama's eight years did little for me. I disliked his elitism and put-me-downs of American citizens. His telling us to vote for Hillary to protect his "legacy" really bothered me, I mean, what the heck?. I think in the end, be it four or eight years but who knows, I will feel even more vindicated in my November 2016 decision.

Dude, the more you talk the more obvious it is that you're a Republican. So save your speeches about how Hillary wasn't perfect enough to deserve your vote (but that Trump sure is a kick, isn't he?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No pp. It is because as a woman, I felt Hillary Clinton wasn't good enough to be our first woman president. I want a woman who is above reproach i.e, certainly not the character traits (lying, scheming, bitter, angry) that Hillary Clinton shows.

So basically, as a woman, you didn't support Hillary Clinton for president because she is a woman.

Now as for me, as a woman, I wanted a person who was competent enough to be president. Also, as a woman, I don't hold women to higher standards then men (or lower, either).