He said theres no big proof, not that it's complete bullshit. It's beeing investigated. What is wrong about that?

The Hillary e-mails story was bullshit and Trump was all over that and saying how he loves Wikileaks.

The fact that news outlets can say whatever they want is their right. Fox news sure does alot of that crap. What isn't right is the US president lying all the time.

It looks like O'Ceefefe got more than just one video.

Van Jones (Democrat & CNN commentator) calls Russian hacking a 'big nothing-burger' when the cameras are not rolling...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs

Is the OP trying to be ironic with that link to Project Veritas?

An article about a news organisation lying from a website known for lying?

That really shouldn't be the case. When news outlets deceive (right or left) then it damages democracy nearly as much as when politicians do it. 

Errr... the job of industrial scientists is to turn science into commercial products and that includes environmental science and renewable tech. The renewables industry is growing internationally as the tech improves so if he really was pro-industrialization he should be supporting the rapidly growing industry. There is no deindustrializing, simply a transition to a different model.

I used to think Fox was the worst as well, until this election that is. I watched Trumps speeches and Hillary’s and Bernie’s from start to finish, live. I would then watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox news coverage of those speeches. To my surprise Fox was actually the most accurate when it came to all parties. They twisted much less than CNN and MSNBC. A good example is Trump wanting a wall at the Mexican border to keep out the drug dealers, rapists and murderers, CNN immediately went with "Trump calls Mexicans rapists and murderers" It wasn’t even remotely what he said or meant. CNN also twisted the travel ban calling him a racist for singling out Muslims, last I checked he was banning travel from those countries and not targeting Muslims. Yes those countries are Mostly Muslim, they also have a high population of terrorists. Stateside Muslims were not affected.

So you only care about the result not the intent? Because according to Giuliani the intent was a muslim ban but a ban by region was the closest they could come to that legally. Given that the intent was a muslim ban I think calling the final result a "muslim ban-lite" is perfectly reasonable. 

Don't know if they twisted anything because I don't watch CNN, BBC or anything similar. Just the speeches on youtube without any commnets. What he said is incredibly racist. I don't need any news outlet to tell me so. My problem with Trump is the things that he actually says and does. The media doesn't have to say a word. Most of the time, even comedians play clips from his speeches without having to comment on them. It's gotten to a point that it's that obvious.

As for FOX. They said some of the most idiotic things ever and every time they were sued, they claimed they're not really reporting news, just expressing opinions. I've heard they got a bit better by questioning some of the things Trump says and does, but they are still the closest thing to breitbart (or whatever it's called).

Wasn't it his fault for Reform failing? He had a chance in 1992 (polls showed him beating both the Democrats and GOP), but he was flip flopping too much, and lost a lot of votes because of that (he was still the best performing 3rd party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt). By 1996, his brand was declining, and ultimately Reform wasn't nearly as successful as when Ross Perot ran as an independent. Also, how did Reform affect the GOP more than the democrats? Most pollsters have said that Ross Perot voters split evenly from both parties.