As has been established long ago on this forum and elsewhere, there is nothing in Hillary Clinton's history that makes her even close to being as bad as Trump. There could be a photo of Hillary Clinton and Colin Kaepernick slamming mojitos at a Kanye West show, and she's still a more qualified candidate than Donald Trump. Donald Trump might be the worst candidate for the presidency in the country's history. There's still rumors of him dropping out. Imagine how funny that would be.

You're not a Catholic? Must have been a little challenging growing up around all of the Chicanos in LA and not being Catholic.

Fox News started as an alternative to the Far Left Democrat reactionaries at MSNBC and the Left-wing CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. So its market were viewers tired of the Left-wing bias at those other networks. Sometime last years CNN and Fox started putting Trump on all the time because he drove up the ratings. When Megyn Kelly challenged and criticized him, her ratings declined. O'Reilly had him on all the time because they were personal friends. I think Hannity was for Cruz originally, but he started having Trump on more and Cruz complained about it and had some sort of falling out.

As for FOX disavowing those who say "Hillary should be shot for treason," are you sure about that? I only watch FOX and CNN when I'm at the gym doing cardio, so can't say I watch all that much, but to me it seems unlikely that the hosts at FOX wouldn't disavow such people. "Hillary for prison" people, that's a different story. Are you sure you don't mean the "Hillary for prison" people? And by the way, I seem to recall Far Leftist Vincent Bugliosi and a few others on CNN promoting George W. Bush being executed, but not sure if any of the networks disavowed him. Before that, I remember a bunch of loony leftist being overjoyed when Reagan was shot.

O'Reilly isn't known for his scholarship, and he uses his show to sell his books co-written by a California high school teacher. I did manage to watch him debate George Will on YouTube after Will criticized his book as bad history. O'Reilly started yelling at Will, "You're a hack!" O'Reilly totally lost his mind. I had to admire Will for having the guts to face that bully. O'Reilly is an arrogant prick who thinks he knows more than he really does. That's where that "slaves were well fed" comment comes in. He probably figured they were well-fed since it doesn't make sense that a slave owner would starve his slaves. The reality is that there's a huge gap between starving and well-fed. Often they were given just enough to not starve, but it doesn't mean they weren't hungry.