92% negative coverage, that's gotta be a record
It probably is.
If Hillary had gotten elected, it could've been similar as she was controversial too.
But we will never know that
Hillary doesn't troll reporters
She'd be glorified.
How would you know?
As to that some news media outlets were faking the polls.
They were making her look like a savior in the polls.
But yes, they would find things to pick with her too.
Hillary may have been a somewhat controversial figure, but nowhere near as Trump
I agree
Every politician is going to be controversial to somebody
The media would be against her, but not like Trump today.
She wouldn't troll them because she was trying to make herself look like such a hero.
I don't think trump complaining about the media is what got the media against him
Hahhaha
It comes from Fox News
CNN, sounds about right
Not the best option
Clinton news network.
well who else is going to report it? lmao
CNN?
Good point
At least now the people aren't easily influenced by the media.
Hilary would be the president if so.
Well people still are
I think people distrusting the media started around the election
mainly in places with dense population
people have distrusted the media for a long time
Not as much as post-2016
although Trump brought a lot of attention to it
which is a good thing
That's true
Just read one of the posts from the other text channels, are people actually starving themselves because they can't get across the border?
Trump also brought a lot of influence to politics, which is also a good thing
That's debatable
The influential part or the good thing part
The good thing part
Well making more people get into politics with our country is a good thing
