The Liberal Media has stated openly, they are pulling out all the stops to get Hillary elected. No surprise then that there are four liberal moderators for the debate and the format is designed to favor a woman.
After a debate, they have the same objective. In past they were not in sync and that made them look inconsistent. Now they are, and it strengthens their position because most people reading the news do not get how skewed it really is.
To my knowledge, there is no major US Media site that is promoting Trump. All of them, and some to extremes, are supporting Hillary. They want to reflect a positive debate result, because it is like you looking up the results of a boxing match that ended with a split decision. You see the headline saying who won. Most do not read deeper into it.
People tend to go with the winner. Football teams, for example, have more fans when they are winning.
CNN skewed poll results badly by including independents to skew the ratio of Dems to Repubs. They also likely choose Repubs that were leaning Hillary. Then they give the poll results for after the debate. Those are worthless because they are specifically and obviously skewed.
That makes the outcome look like Hillary won when she did not because they want you to be her fan.
The news sites also address debates by saying who answered right or wrong on interpretive questions. Policy is not a T/F question or multiple choice. It is consistently variable like a volume knob on a radio.
So, ask an interpretive question, get an interpretive response, and have a response ready for every case in which the opponent is likely to answer. Then say he is wrong. Do it with the same statements across multiple liberal rags, and you have consensus to most that read the news.
One question was about how to determine how much a foreign country should pay for their defense by the United States. So many factors are involved you cannot explain them all in a debate.
The liberal media then says you are wrong when there is no wrong or right. Policy is not a T/F or multiple choice question.
The liberal media picks the answer they want, and then says the the other side is wrong on a question that has a nearly infinite number of ways to prove the point.
This time they are all one, presenting a common front, so they all have the same answer on an interpretive question.
The biggest problem with saying some islands should pay us for their protection in a degree proportionate to what we offer defensively, in some case cases at least, is they are strategic locations if a war breaks out. South Korea is rather strategic and economically beneficial to the US. Korean war was mostly for strategic reasons. South Korea had great results. It is our poster child. Iraq not so much.
The biggest problem with the problem above is it is saying it is ONLY our war, they would also be in danger, because the other side wants to occupy them. So it is nonsense to compare the costs only during peace time especially on an island nation.
There is also an insurance factor. They don’t need everything we have until they need it. We don’t need house insurance until our house has a fire or some covered problem that needs repair, etc. that results in filing a claim. But when we deliver the assistance, it costs way more than the insurance averaged premium. Some people never file that claim. They still pay for their insurance.
There is a deterrent factor as well. We effectively defend them just by being there. Similar to the insurance above, but one factor of it.
Military equipment we provide is also a big factor.
You can skew this any way you want. The liberal media does.