A completely and totally radicalized and biased Media. Do not take this lightly because it is not a one-off. The vast majority of the Legacy feels exactly this way. ABC suspended him NOT because of his beliefs but because he aired them in Public view for all to see.
That is the Original Sin. Not being utterly biased.
Getting caught
ABC's Terry Moran attacked President Donald Trump and top advisor Stephen Miller on Sunday in a since-deleted social media post, prompting a response from the White House.
www.foxnews.com
View attachment 1120555
This isn't meant to be a criticism but more of an assessment. I can understand how he would rile some people up, the same way The Squad riles people up when they use vitriol in their language. It all depends on ones politics.
Miller is clearly a sharp guy and has well prepared arguments. One aspect I find with some in politics is they do come off as abrasive in their delivery.
It would turn a potential debate victory against someone into a loss if they know how to counter such an approach. A balanced approach in deciding when to show passion and when to be relaxed, rather than being in top gear constantly.
Perhaps it's a means to stay mentally engaged. I used to operate in sales in such a manner, drive oxygen to the brain and fire up the neurons. This must be paramount when on live TV and trying to prepare for any question out of left field.
I'm sure if one were just shooting the breeze with Miller in a cafe or something he would be toned down, relaxed and deliver the same facts and data but without the excess energy. I would also bet he probably has a sense of humour, but his role isn't ripe for that being shown as he is in a critical role. A role which does fire up Americans and as such I acknowledge some deference since he is tasked with dealing with what was the worst policy during Bidens term: illegal immigration.
Gabbard is perhaps the best presenter. She is calm under pressure while still very effective with data and hitting emotional points through language not actions. Scott Bessent is also very effective. He is credible in his cerebral approach, seemingly humble, which is admirable for a person with his economic successes.
Watch Rubio and Vance debate. Even if not always as striking in their effectiveness or arguments as Miller is, but, more convincing in delivery which is what I might refer to as "casually strong diplomacy".
It's very difficult to do. The exact message or facts could be presented by the others and it would "seem" more diplomatic, even if the message is exactly the same.
