1) I think it's unreasonable to expect that 90% of the media is biased towards one political spectrum, as it would suggest that all pro-trump media makes up 10%, that's a very few companies providing a lot of people with biased news which is just as bad. If I went along with your comment and took it as fact, I think the argument is more it's 90% against Trump, which would infer that there is a large segment of Republicans who are also producing media against Trump. As it's just not possible to have 90% of media publishing work that the population disagrees with, they produce to remain in business, so they write what people want to read at the end of the day.
2) That's a bit of a straw man. You won't get Google, or Apple, or Facebook attaching themselves to any political party, we both know that .Social media by definition is social networking by it's users. It's not politically biased except by it's users. Conservatives tend to be older and less in touch with technology, and in general I'd argue that globally 'conservatives' are the minority (evidenced by the fact the world moves towards progressive agendas such as marriage equality, equal rights, climate policies etc). If you believe there to be a bias, it's in its users. The platforms themselves have set rules which don't lean either way politically (The few posts censored by Twitter were ones in breach of their TOU).
3) The Mueller investigation to 'investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump'. There were links, but there was insufficient evidence to bring charges. The investigation did what it needed to. There is no point arguing the finer points, as I believe the investigation was not held in a adult fashion. Due to lack of cooperation (ignoring subpoenas, refusing to provide information, Republicans not attempting to participate) we can argue that it was a hoax as nothing ended up being revealed.
4) Impeachment and removal are two different things. It seems pedantic, I'll accept that, but it's the very specific function of the levels of government. Bill Clinton was also impeached and not removed. Obama had articles introduced against him but they failed to gain any traction, one that was suggested included the time he wore a tan suit, with one house member stating "“There’s no way, I don’t think, any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday. I mean, you have the world watching." (irrelevant, but funny all the same)
5) If Trump lead by example and didn't provide contradictory comments to people from his own health team and CDC then I don't think this would be political nearly as much as it is. In fact from day one Trump has been pushing the political side of this. It's not even political though, if he just stayed on message and stuck to it and pushed the states to all follow his instruction (rather than handballing it for them to do what they want) then it wouldn't be as political, and the pandemic would most likely be in a better situation. Do we at least agree that this COVID is a pandemic and the states should be working together more effectively to help slow down the chaos? Or are you satisfied with how it's been going?
6) I don't think they argue about illegal voting by individuals, I'm fairly certain most of the issue is with the politicians gerrymandering, purging voting rolls, making voting more difficult (reduced polling locations, difficultly to register, elections during weekly work day etc). And if that was a point about 2016, Trump did lose the popular vote. For some who don't understand the finer points of the convoluted US electoral system, it would seem like "stealing the election". I completely agree with you that all voter fraud needs to be very heavily prosecuted, along with any individuals (no matter their station) who attempt to interfere or reduce the ability for the public to vote.
7) Firstly, not 'your side', my political views are centrist so I don't fit into either camp here or if I was in the US. And this 'your side/our side' thing stops the ability for people to discuss topics. I've seen less than a handful of posts actually discussing what of Biden/Trump policies that people agree/disagree with, it's a incredibly juvenile post fest usually. Secondly, Republican's do the same, both parties do. Any bill is a concession, you're pushing the agenda you want while giving something to the other side of the aisle to satisfy them so that it can pass. If the Republicans had a minor issue with the bill, because of a 'sneaky' add-on, then they could easily fix that. Instead there is a dozen bills relating to election security on Mitch's desk and they aren't going anywhere.
8) Do you mean how Nevada is mailing out a ballot to everyone who is registered to vote? With the intention being "This bill will help prevent Nevadans from experiencing the long lines at polling locations they faced during the Primary election, which will protect their safety, safeguard their right to make their voices heard, and help reduce the spread of COVID-19". It's a ballot, not political advertising. It means people can have the ability to mail in the ballot, or go to the polling location to submit it, or if they weren't intending to vote, ignore it. Do you not want it to be easier for some registered voters to have their vote counted? I genuinely am not sure what the argument against this is, it helps both parties as COVID and polling lines hinder both side of the aisle.
I agree, priorities are different. I feel before even getting to priorities that the American public/media and political field need to learn how to just discuss issues and talk with each other again (We're currently doing better than 90% of posts we see on here, go us). Posting about illegal coups, or using childish names to attack each other is just silly and does nothing to help either side. Would be nice to see everyone acting like adults again.
