Is it no wonder Trump calls the MSM "fake news"! 95% negative stories..

[Harpy Eagle]

Is it the fault of the media that Trump started his presidency by lying and having his Press Sec stand in front of the American people and tell at least 4 lies on day 1?

Any president that starts his term in office with a lie will get negative coverage.

Please, spare us. Obama told a dozen lies every day he was in office.

Here a a few lies he told us at his inauguration:

1. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we, the people, have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents.
2. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
3. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
4. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.
5. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.
6. We'll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost.
7. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
   
8. All this we can do.
   
9. All this we will do.
10. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
11. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
12. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.
13. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
14. Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill.
15. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
16. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we'll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.
17. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense.
18. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.
19. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
20. What is demanded, then, is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.
21. This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

I was tempted to list every single sentence as a lie, but some where debatable.

I am truly embarrassed for you and a tad pissed off you even use the same oxygen that I do.

You're embarrassed for me? I would be embarassed about having voted for a man who told so many lies in his inauguration speech.

But you did and you are not. As for me, I voted for neither.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Trump said yesterday that he believes that the MS media will help him get re-elected ( as it helped him get elected) because they need him for the ratings.

He’s playing you dupes on every issue.

 

[healthmyths]

The OP has the math and reading skills of a 3 year old.

The Trump stories were 62% negative, not 95% negative.

Fucking idiot.

Too bad you didn't read the article that came with this chart!
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."

The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60 days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”

By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

View attachment 168427

You're an idiot. Nowhere in any of those charts is Trump 95% negative.

You are about to read something you WOULD never deign to say even when proven wrong so many times by your ignorant comments that are almost ALWAYS unsubstantiated!
You were right. While there were only 5% positive 33% were neither.
So while you are right there was never 95% NEGATIVE Trump had the most "neither" positive or negative!
You were right in correcting my headline. I apologize for not presenting the headline accurately.
I am right in the league with headline writers like this recent one:
MELANIA TRUMP ORDERS REMOVAL OF NEAR-200-YEAR-OLD TREE FROM WHITE HOUSE," the Newsweek headline blare!

 

[mamooth]

You're equating Trump with a mass murdering terrorist?

I admit, that comparison was rather unfair to Osama Bin Laden. I'm sorry if my insult to that fine conservative hero offended you.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Pathological Liar on hurricanes: “Nobody has ever heard of a five hitting land.”

So if I say that was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen I'd be lying? or emphasizing to make a point? See why people can't take your gripes to heart? You are dishonest.

You’re rationalizing Trump’s lies. Or st least you’re trying to rationalize them.

If you said “That was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen” yes, you’d be lying. Because even if it’s thw worst accident you’ve ever seen, you have no evidence that it’s the worst accident ever.

When Trump lies, he’s lying on behalf of the American people. He has staff to give him facts and figures. He’s supposed to get stuff right. It shouldn’t be that difficult for him.

That he is so careless with the truth, with facts, is important. That’s because he knows the truth in many cases and chooses to lie. He knows Hillary didn’t sell a uranium mine to the Russians but he says it anyway to distract from his dealings with Russia.

Many of his lies are to distract from the damage he’s doing to your country and to your economy.

This is a vile and dangerous man.

 

[Dragonlady]

The farcical nature of much of the "Trump News" is quite transparent, and is even starting to be recognized by the Leftist masses. I have read a couple articles by Leftist commentators over the past few days chiding reporters for being so transparent in their TDS.

What is missing from essentially all news reporting about Trump is some mention of Trump's side of the case in point. For example, it was reported that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord (particulars not relevant). It was further reported that almost every nation in the world disagreed with this action. NOT A SINGLE WORD WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE LOGICAL AND FACTUAL REASONS WHY TRUMP TOOK THE ACTIONS HE DID. Was the accord tilted in favor of China and India? Did it subject us to paying penalties for relatively harmless technical violations? Is there any credible evidence that making the sacrifices called for in the treaty will MEASURABLY IMPACT THE FUTURE CLIMATE, given what China, India, and other third-world countries are permitted to do under the accord? Is this a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate, and if so, why didn't O'Bama submit it for ratification? It's not all that complicated.

Let the readers decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong, but at least explain Trump's position(s) while you are constantly calling them stupid and evil.

And if you, the Journalist, don't understand the reasons, make a few phone calls, have it explained to you, and report it.

On point of fact, articles about pulling out of the Paris Accord did exactly that. They explained Trump’s reasons for pulling out of the Accord and then pointed out the fallacies in that reasoning.

Just like criticism of his NATO speech in Brussels pointed out why Macron, Merkel and others were openly laughing at Trump’s stupidity in claiming millions were owed to the US.

The negative coverage Trump receives always explains why he’s wrong in his assertions and his decisions and what the possible consequences could be.

 

[healthmyths]

The Pathological Liar on hurricanes: “Nobody has ever heard of a five hitting land.”

So if I say that was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen I'd be lying? or emphasizing to make a point? See why people can't take your gripes to heart? You are dishonest.

You’re rationalizing Trump’s lies. Or st least you’re trying to rationalize them.

If you said “That was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen” yes, you’d be lying. Because even if it’s thw worst accident you’ve ever seen, you have no evidence that it’s the worst accident ever.

When Trump lies, he’s lying on behalf of the American people. He has staff to give him facts and figures. He’s supposed to get stuff right. It shouldn’t be that difficult for him.

That he is so careless with the truth, with facts, is important. That’s because he knows the truth in many cases and chooses to lie. He knows Hillary didn’t sell a uranium mine to the Russians but he says it anyway to distract from his dealings with Russia.

Many of his lies are to distract from the damage he’s doing to your country and to your economy.

This is a vile and dangerous man.

So what about this headline:MELANIA TRUMP ORDERS REMOVAL OF NEAR-200-YEAR-OLD TREE FROM WHITE HOUSE," the Newsweek headline blare.
Is that a glaring LIE? NO! She did order the removal.
BUT the headline didn't tell the whole truth...and much like Trump's statements about Hillary... a kernel of truth is in his headlines!
So if you detest the vile and dangerous Trump why not the same regarding the vile and dangerous MSM?
They call people like me "Anti-immigrant" just as the MSM calls Trump Anti-immigrant'! How can that be true when I have a Legal immigrant as a relative and Trump married a legal immigrant?
Personally I'll believe Trump over the MSM because Trump had nothing to gain becoming President. Geez he's a billionaire! You tell me what single reason you believe Trump
ran for President given he was already known by 2 billion people. A billionaire. Homes in several places. Explain to me why he wanted all this trashing and vile talk about him?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Pathological Liar on hurricanes: “Nobody has ever heard of a five hitting land.”

So if I say that was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen I'd be lying? or emphasizing to make a point? See why people can't take your gripes to heart? You are dishonest.

You’re rationalizing Trump’s lies. Or st least you’re trying to rationalize them.

If you said “That was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen” yes, you’d be lying. Because even if it’s thw worst accident you’ve ever seen, you have no evidence that it’s the worst accident ever.

When Trump lies, he’s lying on behalf of the American people. He has staff to give him facts and figures. He’s supposed to get stuff right. It shouldn’t be that difficult for him.

That he is so careless with the truth, with facts, is important. That’s because he knows the truth in many cases and chooses to lie. He knows Hillary didn’t sell a uranium mine to the Russians but he says it anyway to distract from his dealings with Russia.

Many of his lies are to distract from the damage he’s doing to your country and to your economy.

This is a vile and dangerous man.

So what about this headline:MELANIA TRUMP ORDERS REMOVAL OF NEAR-200-YEAR-OLD TREE FROM WHITE HOUSE," the Newsweek headline blare.
Is that a glaring LIE? NO! She did order the removal.
BUT the headline didn't tell the whole truth...and much like Trump's statements about Hillary... a kernel of truth is in his headlines!
So if you detest the vile and dangerous Trump why not the same regarding the vile and dangerous MSM?
They call people like me "Anti-immigrant" just as the MSM calls Trump Anti-immigrant'! How can that be true when I have a Legal immigrant as a relative and Trump married a legal immigrant?
Personally I'll believe Trump over the MSM because Trump had nothing to gain becoming President. Geez he's a billionaire! You tell me what single reason you believe Trump
ran for President given he was already known by 2 billion people. A billionaire. Homes in several places. Explain to me why he wanted all this trashing and vile talk about him?

So you believe Trump when he says he's signed more legislation than any president in history?

 

[g5000]

The Trump family claimed false heritage for years - CNNPolitics

In his book, "The Art of the Deal," Donald Trump reaffirmed the myth of his family's origins, writing that his father's father came to America "from Sweden as a child."

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP has the math and reading skills of a 3 year old.

The Trump stories were 62% negative, not 95% negative.

Fucking idiot.

Too bad you didn't read the article that came with this chart!
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."

The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60 days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”

By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

View attachment 168427

You're an idiot. Nowhere in any of those charts is Trump 95% negative.

You are about to read something you WOULD never deign to say even when proven wrong so many times by your ignorant comments that are almost ALWAYS unsubstantiated!
You were right. While there were only 5% positive 33% were neither.
So while you are right there was never 95% NEGATIVE Trump had the most "neither" positive or negative!
You were right in correcting my headline. I apologize for not presenting the headline accurately.
I am right in the league with headline writers like this recent one:
MELANIA TRUMP ORDERS REMOVAL OF NEAR-200-YEAR-OLD TREE FROM WHITE HOUSE," the Newsweek headline blare!
View attachment 168474

Then go ask the Mods to delete your lying fucking thread.

 

[g5000]

Poor Meatball. Too ashamed of his German heritage, he had to make up a fable about being Swedish:

 

[Rambunctious]

So you believe Trump when he says he's signed more legislation than any president in history?

No one cares...

 

[bripat9643]

The farcical nature of much of the "Trump News" is quite transparent, and is even starting to be recognized by the Leftist masses. I have read a couple articles by Leftist commentators over the past few days chiding reporters for being so transparent in their TDS.

What is missing from essentially all news reporting about Trump is some mention of Trump's side of the case in point. For example, it was reported that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord (particulars not relevant). It was further reported that almost every nation in the world disagreed with this action. NOT A SINGLE WORD WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE LOGICAL AND FACTUAL REASONS WHY TRUMP TOOK THE ACTIONS HE DID. Was the accord tilted in favor of China and India? Did it subject us to paying penalties for relatively harmless technical violations? Is there any credible evidence that making the sacrifices called for in the treaty will MEASURABLY IMPACT THE FUTURE CLIMATE, given what China, India, and other third-world countries are permitted to do under the accord? Is this a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate, and if so, why didn't O'Bama submit it for ratification? It's not all that complicated.

Let the readers decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong, but at least explain Trump's position(s) while you are constantly calling them stupid and evil.

And if you, the Journalist, don't understand the reasons, make a few phone calls, have it explained to you, and report it.

On point of fact, articles about pulling out of the Paris Accord did exactly that. They explained Trump’s reasons for pulling out of the Accord and then pointed out the fallacies in that reasoning.

When did fake news media "journalists" ever point out the fallacies in Obama's reasoning? Answer: never. A journalist is someone who reports the news. He doesn't express his opinion about the news.

Just like criticism of his NATO speech in Brussels pointed out why Macron, Merkel and others were openly laughing at Trump’s stupidity in claiming millions were owed to the US.

Did it point out how they cried like little babies when Trump said wemight cut funding for NATO if these moocher nations did start paying their share? Of course not. They turned themselves into propaganda organs for socialist European politicians. That's what makes them fake news.

The negative coverage Trump receives always explains why he’s wrong in his assertions and his decisions and what the possible consequences could be.

In other words, it's fake news.

 

[healthmyths]

The farcical nature of much of the "Trump News" is quite transparent, and is even starting to be recognized by the Leftist masses. I have read a couple articles by Leftist commentators over the past few days chiding reporters for being so transparent in their TDS.

What is missing from essentially all news reporting about Trump is some mention of Trump's side of the case in point. For example, it was reported that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord (particulars not relevant). It was further reported that almost every nation in the world disagreed with this action. NOT A SINGLE WORD WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE LOGICAL AND FACTUAL REASONS WHY TRUMP TOOK THE ACTIONS HE DID. Was the accord tilted in favor of China and India? Did it subject us to paying penalties for relatively harmless technical violations? Is there any credible evidence that making the sacrifices called for in the treaty will MEASURABLY IMPACT THE FUTURE CLIMATE, given what China, India, and other third-world countries are permitted to do under the accord? Is this a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate, and if so, why didn't O'Bama submit it for ratification? It's not all that complicated.

Let the readers decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong, but at least explain Trump's position(s) while you are constantly calling them stupid and evil.

And if you, the Journalist, don't understand the reasons, make a few phone calls, have it explained to you, and report it.

On point of fact, articles about pulling out of the Paris Accord did exactly that. They explained Trump’s reasons for pulling out of the Accord and then pointed out the fallacies in that reasoning.

Just like criticism of his NATO speech in Brussels pointed out why Macron, Merkel and others were openly laughing at Trump’s stupidity in claiming millions were owed to the US.

The negative coverage Trump receives always explains why he’s wrong in his assertions and his decisions and what the possible consequences could be.

A little better understanding of how Trump simplifies for the rest of us what some people don't comprehend.
A) Assertions millions were owed to the US by NATO members.
FACTS:
However, NATO asks its members to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on national defense.
Since the early 2000s, the U.S. has routinely budgeted 3 to 5 percent of its GDP for defense.
But like many other NATO countries — including Canada, Spain and Italy — Germany hasn't been spending 2 percent of its GDP on defense.
However, as Merkel affirmed Friday, the nation has promised to meet the 2 percent minimum for the next seven years, at least.
"We committed to this 2 percent goal until 2024," she told reporters during a joint press conference at the White House.
Technically, Germany doesn't owe NATO money. Rather, the nation owes it to the alliance to spend more on its national defense.
"Like all allies, Germany does owe its own people and the NATO alliance sufficient defense spending to meet current security challenges," Lute said.
"What we all want is a fair burden sharing," von der Leyen said in a statment. "In order to achieve that, we need a modern understanding of security, including a modern NATO, but also a European defense organization as well as investment in the United Nations.
Fact-checking Trump's tweets: Does Germany owe NATO 'vast sums of money'?

B) As far as Paris Accord:
FACTS:
Sticking with the deal could have cost 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to a National Economic Research Associates study. And the effects would be widespread, including a loss of 440,000 manufacturing jobs, according to NERA's numbers. Meanwhile, according to proponents' own data, the agreement would have no discernible effect on global temperatures.
At that point, the total economic cost to the U.S. would approach $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product and 6.5 million industrial jobs.
The Paris climate agreement was a terrible deal for the US
FOR WHAT??? NOT one affect on global temperatures!
As it was negotiated under the prior administration, this agreement imposed a goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions by nearly 30 percent over a decade.

For the most recent 10-year period, U.S. emissions declined by 622 million tons.
This represents a 10% decline in carbon dioxide emissions over that time period
The U.S. Leads All Countries In Lowering Carbon Dioxide Emissions
So if the USA WITHOUT the Paris Accord has reduced in 10 years 10% of CO2 emissions AGAIN WITHOUT the Paris Accord...
WHY was it necessary for Obama to destroy American to do something that was already happenings.e. REDUCTION of CO2 by the USA?

 

[healthmyths]

The OP has the math and reading skills of a 3 year old.

The Trump stories were 62% negative, not 95% negative.

Fucking idiot.

Too bad you didn't read the article that came with this chart!
The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."

The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60 days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”

By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive

View attachment 168427

You're an idiot. Nowhere in any of those charts is Trump 95% negative.

You are about to read something you WOULD never deign to say even when proven wrong so many times by your ignorant comments that are almost ALWAYS unsubstantiated!
You were right. While there were only 5% positive 33% were neither.
So while you are right there was never 95% NEGATIVE Trump had the most "neither" positive or negative!
You were right in correcting my headline. I apologize for not presenting the headline accurately.
I am right in the league with headline writers like this recent one:
MELANIA TRUMP ORDERS REMOVAL OF NEAR-200-YEAR-OLD TREE FROM WHITE HOUSE," the Newsweek headline blare!
View attachment 168474

Then go ask the Mods to delete your lying fucking thread.

Of course NOW I will! NO PROBLEM! See the damage has been done! Right? No one will remember YOUR dumb ass comments because they will remember
my "HEADLINE"! Just as you do when you read for example Trump Anti-Immigrant" or Melania order 200 year tree cut".
See this is one of the reasons most intelligent people don't pay attention to the headlines and will read further... but again something that goes WAY over your really elongated skull!

 

[Dragonlady]

The Pathological Liar on hurricanes: “Nobody has ever heard of a five hitting land.”

So if I say that was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen I'd be lying? or emphasizing to make a point? See why people can't take your gripes to heart? You are dishonest.

You’re rationalizing Trump’s lies. Or st least you’re trying to rationalize them.

If you said “That was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen” yes, you’d be lying. Because even if it’s thw worst accident you’ve ever seen, you have no evidence that it’s the worst accident ever.

When Trump lies, he’s lying on behalf of the American people. He has staff to give him facts and figures. He’s supposed to get stuff right. It shouldn’t be that difficult for him.

That he is so careless with the truth, with facts, is important. That’s because he knows the truth in many cases and chooses to lie. He knows Hillary didn’t sell a uranium mine to the Russians but he says it anyway to distract from his dealings with Russia.

Many of his lies are to distract from the damage he’s doing to your country and to your economy.

This is a vile and dangerous man.

So what about this headline:MELANIA TRUMP ORDERS REMOVAL OF NEAR-200-YEAR-OLD TREE FROM WHITE HOUSE," the Newsweek headline blare.
Is that a glaring LIE? NO! She did order the removal.
BUT the headline didn't tell the whole truth...and much like Trump's statements about Hillary... a kernel of truth is in his headlines!
So if you detest the vile and dangerous Trump why not the same regarding the vile and dangerous MSM?
They call people like me "Anti-immigrant" just as the MSM calls Trump Anti-immigrant'! How can that be true when I have a Legal immigrant as a relative and Trump married a legal immigrant?
Personally I'll believe Trump over the MSM because Trump had nothing to gain becoming President. Geez he's a billionaire! You tell me what single reason you believe Trump
ran for President given he was already known by 2 billion people. A billionaire. Homes in several places. Explain to me why he wanted all this trashing and vile talk about him?

People have been trashing Donald Trump since the 1970’s, and with good reason. He’s a self-serving, lying, Con-man who has sold the image that he’s a successful businessman.

He was in fact, broke until Russian oligarchs started laundering money buying overpriced American real estate. And he had a hit TV show firing people. He had one amazing success in building the Trump Tower but since that time until Russian money appeared on the scene, he was really little more than a con artist using bankruptcy schemes and off-shore money to keep his projects afloat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you believe Trump when he says he's signed more legislation than any president in history?

No one cares...

Then don't ever bitch about a Democrat lying.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Pathological Liar on hurricanes: “Nobody has ever heard of a five hitting land.”

So if I say that was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen I'd be lying? or emphasizing to make a point? See why people can't take your gripes to heart? You are dishonest.

You’re rationalizing Trump’s lies. Or st least you’re trying to rationalize them.

If you said “That was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen” yes, you’d be lying. Because even if it’s thw worst accident you’ve ever seen, you have no evidence that it’s the worst accident ever.

When Trump lies, he’s lying on behalf of the American people. He has staff to give him facts and figures. He’s supposed to get stuff right. It shouldn’t be that difficult for him.

That he is so careless with the truth, with facts, is important. That’s because he knows the truth in many cases and chooses to lie. He knows Hillary didn’t sell a uranium mine to the Russians but he says it anyway to distract from his dealings with Russia.

Many of his lies are to distract from the damage he’s doing to your country and to your economy.

This is a vile and dangerous man.

So what about this headline:MELANIA TRUMP ORDERS REMOVAL OF NEAR-200-YEAR-OLD TREE FROM WHITE HOUSE," the Newsweek headline blare.
Is that a glaring LIE? NO! She did order the removal.
BUT the headline didn't tell the whole truth...and much like Trump's statements about Hillary... a kernel of truth is in his headlines!
So if you detest the vile and dangerous Trump why not the same regarding the vile and dangerous MSM?
They call people like me "Anti-immigrant" just as the MSM calls Trump Anti-immigrant'! How can that be true when I have a Legal immigrant as a relative and Trump married a legal immigrant?
Personally I'll believe Trump over the MSM because Trump had nothing to gain becoming President. Geez he's a billionaire! You tell me what single reason you believe Trump
ran for President given he was already known by 2 billion people. A billionaire. Homes in several places. Explain to me why he wanted all this trashing and vile talk about him?

A headline about a why Melania ordered a tree removal is meaningless. Melania isn’t President. The tree has no importance in anything other than the landscaping at the White House and so what?

But when Trump lies and says he’s saved jobs at Carrier, or the murder rate in 2016 was the highest in the past 40 years, or the Paris Accord favours China and India, there are HUGE implications to those lies, involving billions of dollars to the US economy.

That you view calling Trump out on those lies a matter of “negative coverage” or merely opinion, shows that you fail to recognize the necessity of having a public record which reports facts, and not just the fictions Trump makes up to support his otherwise ridiculously unsupportable words and actions.

 

[Dragonlady]

The farcical nature of much of the "Trump News" is quite transparent, and is even starting to be recognized by the Leftist masses. I have read a couple articles by Leftist commentators over the past few days chiding reporters for being so transparent in their TDS.

What is missing from essentially all news reporting about Trump is some mention of Trump's side of the case in point. For example, it was reported that Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord (particulars not relevant). It was further reported that almost every nation in the world disagreed with this action. NOT A SINGLE WORD WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE LOGICAL AND FACTUAL REASONS WHY TRUMP TOOK THE ACTIONS HE DID. Was the accord tilted in favor of China and India? Did it subject us to paying penalties for relatively harmless technical violations? Is there any credible evidence that making the sacrifices called for in the treaty will MEASURABLY IMPACT THE FUTURE CLIMATE, given what China, India, and other third-world countries are permitted to do under the accord? Is this a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate, and if so, why didn't O'Bama submit it for ratification? It's not all that complicated.

Let the readers decide for themselves whether Trump is right or wrong, but at least explain Trump's position(s) while you are constantly calling them stupid and evil.

And if you, the Journalist, don't understand the reasons, make a few phone calls, have it explained to you, and report it.

On point of fact, articles about pulling out of the Paris Accord did exactly that. They explained Trump’s reasons for pulling out of the Accord and then pointed out the fallacies in that reasoning.

When did fake news media "journalists" ever point out the fallacies in Obama's reasoning? Answer: never. A journalist is someone who reports the news. He doesn't express his opinion about the news.

Just like criticism of his NATO speech in Brussels pointed out why Macron, Merkel and others were openly laughing at Trump’s stupidity in claiming millions were owed to the US.

Did it point out how they cried like little babies when Trump said wemight cut funding for NATO if these moocher nations did start paying their share? Of course not. They turned themselves into propaganda organs for socialist European politicians. That's what makes them fake news.

The negative coverage Trump receives always explains why he’s wrong in his assertions and his decisions and what the possible consequences could be.

In other words, it's fake news.

You’re the snowflake who’s crying “fake news” at every turn. Trump never threatened to cut defenders spending, and the European leaders know that. Republican administrations NEVER, ever cut defence spending - they increase it. In fact, Trump has promised to increase defence spending, bigly.

The whole point of NATO was to keep Germany weak and defenceless, while protecting Europe from further encroachment by the communists.

Thanks to Trump, the Germans are now arming themselves again. On top of which, Trump gave Putin a free hand in Syria and the Crimea.

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[bripat9643]

The Pathological Liar on hurricanes: “Nobody has ever heard of a five hitting land.”

So if I say that was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen I'd be lying? or emphasizing to make a point? See why people can't take your gripes to heart? You are dishonest.

You’re rationalizing Trump’s lies. Or st least you’re trying to rationalize them.

If you said “That was the worst car accident anyone has ever seen” yes, you’d be lying. Because even if it’s thw worst accident you’ve ever seen, you have no evidence that it’s the worst accident ever.

When Trump lies, he’s lying on behalf of the American people. He has staff to give him facts and figures. He’s supposed to get stuff right. It shouldn’t be that difficult for him.

That he is so careless with the truth, with facts, is important. That’s because he knows the truth in many cases and chooses to lie. He knows Hillary didn’t sell a uranium mine to the Russians but he says it anyway to distract from his dealings with Russia.

Many of his lies are to distract from the damage he’s doing to your country and to your economy.

This is a vile and dangerous man.

So what about this headline:MELANIA TRUMP ORDERS REMOVAL OF NEAR-200-YEAR-OLD TREE FROM WHITE HOUSE," the Newsweek headline blare.
Is that a glaring LIE? NO! She did order the removal.
BUT the headline didn't tell the whole truth...and much like Trump's statements about Hillary... a kernel of truth is in his headlines!
So if you detest the vile and dangerous Trump why not the same regarding the vile and dangerous MSM?
They call people like me "Anti-immigrant" just as the MSM calls Trump Anti-immigrant'! How can that be true when I have a Legal immigrant as a relative and Trump married a legal immigrant?
Personally I'll believe Trump over the MSM because Trump had nothing to gain becoming President. Geez he's a billionaire! You tell me what single reason you believe Trump
ran for President given he was already known by 2 billion people. A billionaire. Homes in several places. Explain to me why he wanted all this trashing and vile talk about him?

A headline about a why Melania ordered a tree removal is meaningless. Melania isn’t President. The tree has no importance in anything other than the landscaping at the White House and so what?

But when Trump lies and says he’s saved jobs at Carrier, or the murder rate in 2016 was the highest in the past 40 years, or the Paris Accord favours China and India, there are HUGE implications to those lies, involving billions of dollars to the US economy.

That you view calling Trump out on those lies a matter of “negative coverage” or merely opinion, shows that you fail to recognize the necessity of having a public record which reports facts, and not just the fictions Trump makes up to support his otherwise ridiculously unsupportable words and actions.

How about when Obama says that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, or that Obamacare will make your healthcare $2500 cheaper? Do those claims have any implications?

The Paris accord have HUGE implications involving billions of dollars to the US economy, alright. Withdrawing from it saved Americans trillions of dollars.