I don't think he really WANTS to be defending Trump.

It's just a matter of necessity.

3 months ago: "This is what happened and here are two sides of it" Today: "This is what happened and why one group is straight up lying"

like those people advocating wamens rights,

But none can name a supposed right they are missing, and when asked its always like "yeah, i'm against them taking away "the" rights"

And they can't clarify what they mean

Do you ever watch Donut Operator, Lotheron?

I dont

donut media though, yes

but totally different topic items

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyzG7AWzb88

Spoiler warning concerning this video, guy claims that something happens. Objective evidence exists showing that this was not the case.

It's much the same as the conversation being had in the media

The 'Animals' comment has cited context

Transcripts, video evidence of it

And evidence of previous times he's said the exact same thing.

i think most of that media already alienated the objective/rational viewers, and are now just pandering to the remaining anti-trump fanatics

cuz it gives them good ratings

Some things, there are two sides

Especially if an objective perspective doesn't exist

and then other times, there's objective evidence.

and other times, theres an agenda

and relevency

and I think, that's the problem

theres always an agenda

relevency

And if the objective evidence disagrees with one person's side of things to a certain degree, it becomes clear that they're lying.

honeslty, not always

but probalby 98% of the time

and it didn't used to be that high

There literally is an agenda 100% of the time.

at least it wasn't apparent

Everyone has an agenda.

If you're running a company, you've got an agenda.

Tim has an agenda.

My company has an agenda

i lost my agenda 😦

well too make money of course

but yo know what I mean

Not always.

yeah

I mean, yes.

sometimes it's as simple as, "This happeened, these people were invovled, and this is what's going to happen next"