Why did it seem like all of the debate moderators/forums were

>>135955122
>Is this historically how it goes in the US elections?

It was never that obvious or that directly coordinated.

>>135955122
The media has been extremely left leaning for a long time now. Sadly, I wouldn't expect to change for quite a long time, if at all.

>>135955122
jews run msm, jews weren't sure if trump was /theirgoy/

>>135955122
I now you didnt watch because you are 16. But fox broadcasters covered debate 2

>>135955122
That was the only time I found that whore attractive. Fucking makeup.

...and that was the first time tje bias was THAT obvious

Chris Wallace was very fair

>>135955122
It's always rigged to the left but the people see through that shit now and are rebelling. So now the left is priming the public for a new trick being pushed by Chuck Schumer called "a better deal."

>>135955122
The satanic pedophiles had deeper pockets.

>>135956495
Bret Baier maybe but not Wallace.

i was really surprised that matt lauer was as fair as he was.
i thought his would be a total trump bash

File: AreTheyHurtingYou.png (95KB, 312x446px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 312x446px

Rubio won the debate tonight with 8% of the vote vs trumps 40% and Cruz's 35%.

>>135956431
I'm in my 30s but I'm not American and pretty much tuned out the last 8 years since I had zero interest in anything Obama said or did. I remember watching some Bush stuff back when I was like 15 but that's why I was asking in the first place. I'm fully willing to admit that I might have missed parts of the coverage in 2016 and that it wasn't as biased as it seemed to me. If Fox (right-leaning media) covered an equal number of debates then that's cool, that's what I wanted to know.