This story is unavailable.

Nothing in your spiel made any sense whatsoever.

You claim you come from “rural America” and that everyone there is backward, just to completely disregard that and claim that it have many progressive. So tell me, which of those is true? Was it just a narrative you weaved to make what you wrote next be more credible?

You lament the blowback from your story on Trump, of people asking for your resignation and you equate it to suppression of the free press (for some reason) and use it as a tool to validate your creed of journalists who only report based on their political leaning. Do you even see the contradiction?

You go on and on about the awfulness of people from your rural town, ignoring completely their perspective, what bothers them, or why they put their hopes in a candidate like Trump, just so you can reduce them to country hicks, so your perspective will seem the reasonable one.

One of the loudest at the table was a man in the legal profession, so I attempted to appeal to his professional judgment.
“It’s true that Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review,” I said.
“How do you know that?”
“Because he was. I mean, that’s not really in dispute.”
“Bullshit,” the man said.

And that man was right. Not about what he said or believed, but because you refused to supply the information he asked and weaseled your way out of the conversation. Actually, this is pretty much how the journalism work nowadays. Well done, I suppose.

Hillary Clinton had said, in a televised town hall meeting, “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” A terrible gaffe, and no explaining away the context of her remarks was going to help.

For a candidate who couldn’t really commit to any position, it is understandable why people were upset. The explanation given is pretty weak and doesn’t really touch upon the issue.

I won’t shut up and sit on my hands and listen to Trump and his gang of racists, of white supremacists and climate change deniers and civil rights suppressors.

“gang of racists” is a nice insult. Rather, it used to be. Due to overusing it, it lost its meaning and impact, but sure, you go on ahead and behave like a child.

Abortion is not a civil right. The government shouldn’t even be part of the debate. The government shouldn’t fund clinics. This is not their role — they just don’t need to restrict the ability for people to have abortions.

“But he hasn’t even done anything yet,” is a lie. He did plenty to dislike before the election. For one, he tricked a lot of good people into following him.

Irrelevant. Really irrelevant. People keep bringing up this discussion as if it has any relevancy.

He didn’t trick anyone and so far, he is doing exactly what he said he’d do. What about the people that Hillary tricked to follow her? What about their sensibilities?

Belittling journalists as they do their jobs.
You keep using this word. I don’t think it means what you think it means

This is in regard to your use of the word journalists. This is not journalism and it seems that most people have forgotten what that term actually mean.

You just a child throwing a tantrum because things didn’t go your way.