One: you have a long row to hoe before asserting that the Washington Post supplies "liberal-friendly news." They may (I would say do) have a moderately liberal-friendly editorial board. Much as the WSJ may (and again, I would say does) have an extremely conservative-friendly editorial board. To conflate the editorial board and reporting is, frankly, either disingenuous or bordering on it.
Two: you have an even longer row to hoe to tie together buying one paper and buying as many TV stations as one can to blanket an area. We all know about what Sinclair's up to--given the levels of handwringing put out by the folks on Pai's side of the aisle about the (non-existent, but whatever) suppression of right-wing speech, maybe the notion of choking off differing voices under the Sinclair umbrella rings just a little bit hollow?
When you dismiss suppression of conservative positions, I say that I would be shocked if I ever saw a liberal outlet advocate or even try to reason about the case against Sanctuary Cities.
It's an example of suppression because if I even tried to bring up the debate I would be ridiculed and accused of being a racist. We can't debate the issue, and so anyone who would want to advocate for such a position is suppressed.
Because it's not "Conservative" in any way, shape or meaning. It's not holding back to an older time. It's not being fiscally responsible. It's selling out monopoly status to the lowest bidder. And look, we have a corporate pro-Trump mouthpiece that was waiting for this law change.
If we're talking "Conservative" back to the good old days, I believe Adam Smith has some choice things to talk about appropriate regulation and prevention of monopolies. But that just gets inconvenient.
And as for your jab at sanctuary cities; do you know WHY they were made? Because immigrants were easy pickings. An "illegal" or someone who isn't sure is ripe pickings for all sorts of bad stuff. The conservative answer here is pretty simple: let them get hurt or assaulted or murdered - they shouldn't have been here!
But to funding, if the Federal govt wants to shove a thumb up their collective butts to decide again and again to not touch immigration, well, they can enforce it as well. The states certainly aren't funded for that sort of work. The feds are asking for free enforcement of their jobs.
I'd imagine that I understand conservative theory better, having been one a long ago, and worked for a local state congressman. And a lot of it is wrong, being predicated that you're some embarrassed millionaire. They've fooled enough people that way. Got'em riled up, angry. It always easy to go after "Other"... Like those Mexicans. Or right now, North Koreans.
There’s a balance between state and local rights and laws and federal law. My city has an obligation to enforce local law and isn’t responsible for the shitshow of Federal immigration policy.
By meddling in federal matters, local police poison their relationship with the populace and become less effective.
The conservative position on this topic is strange, as they generally resist federal meddling.
Two: you have an even longer row to hoe to tie together buying one paper and buying as many TV stations as one can to blanket an area. We all know about what Sinclair's up to--given the levels of handwringing put out by the folks on Pai's side of the aisle about the (non-existent, but whatever) suppression of right-wing speech, maybe the notion of choking off differing voices under the Sinclair umbrella rings just a little bit hollow?