Ready The Clown Car: The First Batch of Democrats Are Ready To Announce Their 2020 Bids

Tulsi Gabbard says it is fair to say that 2020 Democrats advocate for 'Open Borders'.

Tulsi Gabbard: 'It's fair' to say 2020 Democrats advocate for 'open borders'

Rubin asked, "So immigration, I think there’s a general sense that the candidates, the Democrats are basically trying to outdo each other for open borders, something like that. A) do you think that’s a fair way to start the question? And B) where do you sit on that?”

"I think it’s fair. I don’t — I don’t support open borders," Gabbard answered. "Without secure borders, we don’t really have a country. And while some of the other Democratic candidates will say, ‘Well, that’s a conservative argument and that’s not really what’s being advocated for.’ If you look at the practical implications of some of the things they’re pushing for, it is essentially open borders."

She went on, "I think there’s a few things we’ve got to do when we’re talking about immigration reform. One is that we’ve got to have secure borders. This is not Trump’s wall from sea to shining sea, it’s about seeing again what makes sense. I look at things from a practical, objective-oriented standpoint, I’m a soldier, so I look at what’s our objective."​

 

Looks like the Democrat left media is going to have to decide whether to continue their TDS infused negative coverage of Donald Trump, or start positively promoting the Democrat's race for president. They are giving huge coverage to Trump and not very much to the Democrat's running to replace him.

TV’s War Against Trump Leaves Little Time for Dems

Much as they were four years ago, the Big Three evening newscasts continue to be obsessed with Donald Trump, pounding him incessantly with highly-negative coverage. But then as now, the networks’ fixation on Trump seems to be leaving comparatively little airtime for his would-be presidential challengers.

From June 1 through August 31, MRC analysts found the networks devoted 838 minutes of airtime — nearly 14 hours — to coverage of President Trump personally, the vast majority of which was negative. (Note: This report only examines coverage of Trump himself, not generic stories about his administration’s activities or those of other top-ranking officials, which accounted for an additional 213 minutes of evening news airtime.)

Overall, 21 Democratic candidates (including some who have since departed the race) shared 187 minutes of evening news airtime this summer, less than one-fourth of that of Trump alone.

Clearly, this heavy coverage is not intended to boost Trump. Overall, the spin of his coverage during these three months was 90% negative, roughly the same as we’ve found throughout his presidency.​

Can they let the TDS go? Trump won in 2016 in no small part because of this kind of coverage. Are they going to do it again?

It increasingly looks like they just cannot stop themselves.

 

He received how many billions of dollars of free mass media TV coverage? Which he continues to receive to this very day.

The mass media absolutely obliterated what was left of their reputations by that coverage. So the "negativity" worked against the media in the minds of many people far more than it worked against President Trump.

What is interesting is that the Democrat left mass media still does not appear to understand this dynamic or how it works against them with so many people and in favor of Donald Trump.

 

Joe Biden is having a fit because he believes that he has been 'Pummeled for months' by the 'viscous' media, who has been attacking him with 'sustained and vitriolic' attacks:

'Pummeled for months’: Biden campaign blasts ‘vicious’ media for ‘sustained and vitriolic’ attacks

The campaign team for Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden blasted the media coverage of Biden and his alleged "series of gaffes."

Responding to a myriad of articles and blogs about Biden, 76, and his different mistakes involving facts and names during campaign speeches, one member of his inner circle took aim at the media in general for coverage he felt did not accurately portray Biden's success thus far. "I don't know of anybody who has taken as sustained and vitriolic a negative pounding as Biden and who has come through it with the strength he has," said one of Biden's top advisers in a Wednesday POLITICO article. "So why isn’t the argument not that he's a 'fragile front runner,' but instead why is this guy so strong? How is he able to withstand this?"​

Where to start....

First of all, President Trump has endured as process of attacks from the media that truly have been viscous, sustained and vitriolic attacks, to a degree unprecedented in the history of the human race here on this planet. In comparison, Joe Biden has had the red carpet rolled out for him by an extremely sympathetic media.

Sadly for Joe, he is too old and no longer up to the task of performing high level political leadership. That of course very generously presumes that he was previously up to it at some former time - which we will concede for discussion purposes in order not to get unproductively sidetracked.

Poor guy. This sort of reply makes him look a bit pathetic. And if he did not look weak before, he certainly does now. His gaffes are his own and it is not reasonable to expect people on television to uniformly pretend as if they did not even notice. They are cutting him FAR more slack than they have ever cut President Trump, who has received no gracious accommodations of any kind from these people - ever.

 

Who is it that you believe has been treated more viciously and been the subject of more sustained and vitriolic attacks by the media than Donald Trump?

Who?

 

I want you to narrow it down. If you can.

Name any person - ANY person - who has been treated more viciously and been the subject of more sustained and vitriolic attacks by the media than Donald Trump.

If you cannot name even one, then I rest my case.

 

TDS.