Fake News Awards

Esuric
Rank: Almost Human | banana points 6,976

So Trump recently released the first ever Fake News Awards. See below:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/17/preside...
1) The New York Times' Paul Krugman claiming markets would 'never' recover from a Trump presidency

2) ABC News' Brian Ross' bungled report on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn

3) CNN falsely reporting the Trump campaign had early access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks

4) TIME report that Trump removed a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office

5) The Washington Post's Dave Weigel tweeting that Trump's December rally in Pensacola, Fla., wasn't packed with supporters

6) CNN's video suggesting Trump overfed fish during a visit with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

7) CNN's retracted report claiming Anthony Scaramucci-Russia ties

8) Newsweek report that Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda did not shake Trump's hand

9) CNN report that former FBI Director James Comey would dispute President Trump's claim he was told he was not under investigation

10) The New York Times report that the Trump administration had hidden a climate-change study

11) In Trump's words, "'RUSSIA COLLUSION!' Russian collusion is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people. THERE IS NO COLLUSION!"

Thoughts? Have we ever seen anything like this in presidential politics? Has the media ever been this wrong about any other president 1 year into their presidency?

Comments (157)

Best Response
Jan 18, 2018

When you asked this: "Have we ever seen anything like this in presidential politics?"... I thought it would go a very different direction than this: "Has the media ever been this wrong about any other president 1 year into their presidency?"

Our head of state is literally a caricature, he's running some fake "fake news" award garbage and you're worried about the attention seeking media getting some stories wrong. Perfect.

Even worse, the first one is an opinion not "news" at all and most of these are mundane nonsense. MLK bust? Overfeeding fish? Shaking hands? A tweet (not even a full story) about rally attendance? This is what our head of state is spending his time on and your take is "damn the media has been wrong". Perfect.

    • 16
    • 3
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 18, 2018

Didn't Obama do stand-up comedy and also read "celebrity mean tweets"? Is that any less dignified?

    • 1
    • 5
Jan 18, 2018

That's late night show fluff, The Donald is actually serious with this shit. You see no difference there?

    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

There's obviously a difference, but I'm not sure there's a difference in terms of dignity. It's plausible Obama would have done the same thing had his media coverage been 90-10 negative to positive.

    • 1
    • 5
Jan 18, 2018
Dances with Dachshunds:

It's plausible Obama would have done the same thing had his media coverage been 90-10 negative to positive.

You honestly believe that Barack Obama would've done a fake "fake news awards"? Seriously bro? You've convinced yourself of this? Obama would've called out CNN for an overfeeding fish story? Ok man, if you say so.

p.s. I think doing some late night fluff, is different, dignity-wise from being so thin-skinned that you're advetising and actually doing a fake "fake news" awards and SERIOUSLY including a story about shaking hands. But that's just me.

    • 3
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:
Dances with Dachshunds:

It's plausible Obama would have done the same thing had his media coverage been 90-10 negative to positive.

You honestly believe that Barack Obama would've done a fake "fake news awards"? Seriously bro? You've convinced yourself of this? Obama would've called out CNN for an overfeeding fish story? Ok man, if you say so. Last post in this thre

Since the media never critically investigated Obama or covered his myriad scandals, it's impossible to tell. Obviously he would not have done a "fake news" award since the term was popularized in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential elections...

    • 8
    • 3
Jan 18, 2018

"Myriad scandals" LOL. Obama was one of the least scandalous presidents I can remember. I mean I'm not that old but obviously GWB and Clinton had MAJOR scandals that tied back DIRECTLY to them. Trump is always saying some dumb shit so it's just a bunch of minor scandals that keep popping up, besides that whole special prosecutor running an investigation on possible russia collusion. That would be MAJOR, if proven to be correct.

EDIT: This is an example of how politics has become religion, you're literally so enamored in the religion of conservatism that you've convinced yourself that "you don't know" if Obama would do some ridiculously contrived awards against the media? I'm loosely a democrat and I would venture to guess none of the past presidents would do such a thing, but keep acting like you're not smart enough to come to that conclusion.

    • 3
    • 4
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

"Myriad scandals" LOL. Obama was one of the least scandalous presidents I can remember. I mean I'm not that old but obviously GWB and Clinton had MAJOR scandals that tied back DIRECTLY to them. Trump is always saying some dumb shit so it's just a bunch of minor scandals that keep popping up, besides that whole special prosecutor running an investigation on possible russia collusion. That would be MAJOR, if proven to be correct.

Obama had actual policy scandals--ya know, real things--that got little coverage. Just off the top of my head: wiretapping Fox News journalists, giving guns to Mexican gangs, using the IRS to target conservatives (with targets of the investigation pleading the 5th!), swapping dangerous terrorists for a traitor, secretly giving money to the Iranians, using U.S. resources to sway the Israeli election.

Ya know, those actual, real things.

    • 3
    • 4
Jan 18, 2018

wiretapping Fox News journalists: https://apnews.com/b89a121c72794bcfbfcc92e9299d7e0...
Iranian money: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...
Where's the nuance?

The ATF ran a program, it turned out to be a terrible idea, the way you frame it you act like he just handed guns to gangs, because you're intellectually dishonest. The IRS story was covered extensively, not that Obama was ever directly implicated. You say he swapped terrorists for a traitor as if he knew he was a traitor before hand, because you're intellectually dishonest.

I can't with you man, you're a zealot and one can't reason with zealots, I should've never posted on this thread. Irrelevant bullshit like this needs to die off on this forum.

    • 5
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

wiretapping Fox News journalists: https://apnews.com/b89a121c72794bcfbfcc92e9299d7e0...

This very article says the Obama DOJ tried to prosecute Rosen for an article over government leaks. Imagine if Donald Trump had gone after a CNN journalist over a leak. It would be the lead story for a month.

BobTheBaker:

Iranian money: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...

I love how you call me a zealot and then use Politifact, a left-wing "fact checker" as your source, because you're "nominally" a Democrat. This politifact article only questions the use of the word "ransom". That's what this "fact-checker" always does--it tries to parse language rather than get to the heart of the matter, which is that Obama flew gold by plane to the Iranians. Call it "ransom" or call it a bailout of a failing tyranny. It got hardly any coverage.

BobTheBaker:

The ATF ran a program, it turned out to be a terrible idea, the way you frame it you act like he just handed guns to gangs, because you're intellectually dishonest. The IRS storyw as covered extensively. You say he swapped terrorists for a traitor as if he knew he was a traitor before hand, because you're intellectually dishonest.

I'm the zealot? The ATF, on Obama's orders, were trying to prove a point about guns and attempting to make a point about gun control. This was entirely political. And the point is, it hardly got any coverage at all.

    • 4
    • 3
Jan 18, 2018

"This court, called the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, functioned as a kind of binding arbitration. To deal with cases, the involved parties could either negotiate a settlement out of court or take it to a panel made up of three US-appointed judges, three Iranian-appointed judges, and three neutral judges. The panel would then hear the case and issue a binding ruling.

This process, as you might guess, was very, very slow. By the time Obama's second term in office began, the tribunal still had not come to a ruling on the issue of the $400 million. Sometime afterward, the AP's Matt Lee and Bradley Klapper report, the US government apparently concluded that it was going to lose the case -- and lose big: Iran was seeking $10 billion in today's dollars."

Politifact is left wing huh? What are you exactly saying? By all measures Obama sent money to Iran that was already owed to them, he didn't "give" them anything. Additionally, this is common in Iran-US relations, not at all unprecedented. How about you give me your factual source that disputes this.

Okay, I'll give you the gunwalking scandal, I'm not unwilling to concede that it was political and it was dumb.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

"This court, called the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, functioned as a kind of binding arbitration. To deal with cases, the involved parties could either negotiate a settlement out of court or take it to a panel made up of three US-appointed judges, three Iranian-appointed judges, and three neutral judges. The panel would then hear the case and issue a binding ruling.

This process, as you might guess, was very, very slow. By the time Obama's second term in office began, the tribunal still had not come to a ruling on the issue of the $400 million. Sometime afterward, the AP's Matt Lee and Bradley Klapper report, the US government apparently concluded that it was going to lose the case -- and lose big: Iran was seeking $10 billion in today's dollars."

Politifact is left wing huh? What are you exactly saying? By all measures Obama sent money to Iran that was already owed to them, he didn't "give" them anything. Additionally, this is common in Iran-US relations, not at all unprecedented. How about you give me your factual source that disputes this.

This is complete bullshit. No honest broker believes the U.S. would have "had" to pay a single, solitary cent to Iran. Nobody could have forced us to pay them while they were killing American soldiers in Iraq. That is the Obama administration's intellectually dishonest garbage that it was throwing out so that it could justify sending money to Iran to bail out the regime because Obama believed Iran should be the leading power in the Mid East

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

So you write off factual news as "complete bullshit" because it doesn't serve your narrative. Cool cool cool. Of course no one could force us to pay Iran, but in good faith of an arbiration we'd have owed them regardless.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

So you write off factual news as "complete bullshit" because it doesn't serve your narrative. Cool cool cool. Of course no one could force us to pay Iran, but in good faith of an arbiration we'd have owed them regardless.

No, it's not "factual" that the U.S. would have had to pay Iran anything. That was what the Obama administration claimed--that somehow, in 2015, the U.S. would have to pay Iran a 35-year-old claim of $10 billion. Nobody believes the U.S. would have been forced to pay Iran anything, which is why Obama flew gold via a plane over there. In fact, not even Iran did as it "settled" on 4 cents on the dollar. Nobody settles for 4 cents on the dollar when they are about to win money.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

The fact is this exchange of funds related to court cases has been going on for DECADES. It's nothing new but we want to act like it is, which is funny.

"All told, Tehran was asking The Hague arbitrators (comprising equal numbers of U.S., Iranian and neutral judges) for $10 billion. Fearing they might actually be awarded that much, or something like it, the Obama administration negotiated privately with Tehran, which agreed to settle for $1.7 billion. The $400 million stacked on pallets was the first installment."

You can choose to believe this or not believe this, just don't act like your original "secret payments to Iran" had any nuance or objectivity.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

The fact is this exchange of funds related to court cases has been going on for DECADES. It's nothing new but we want to act like it is, which is funny.

"All told, Tehran was asking The Hague arbitrators (comprising equal numbers of U.S., Iranian and neutral judges) for $10 billion. Fearing they might actually be awarded that much, or something like it, the Obama administration negotiated privately with Tehran, which agreed to settle for $1.7 billion. The $400 million stacked on pallets was the first installment."

You can choose to believe this or not believe this, just don't act like your original "secret payments to Iran" had any nuance or objectivity.

Genuinely curious--what would the enforcement mechanism have been to enforce the U.S. to make a $1.7 or $10 billion payment to a country that it was actively engaged in military conflict with, a nation that is under multiple UN resolutions that it has been actively violating and international sanctions? The Hague could never have enforced that ruling against us. A full $10 billion ruling would actually have been $0.

You know as well as I do that it was the Obama administration bullshitting the situation because it was trying to save the Iranian regime from economic collapse because Obama believed Iran should be the Middle East superpower. And again, the press hardly covered this at all. It just took up the DNC position that you are parroting and never critically assessed the claim.

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

EDIT: This is an example of how politics has become religion, you're literally so enamored in the religion of conservatism that you've convinced yourself that "you don't know" if Obama would do some ridiculously contrived awards against the media? I'm loosely a democrat and I would venture to guess none of the past presidents would do such a thing, but keep acting like you're not smart enough to come to that conclusion.

We know that Obama had hardly any critical press from the mainstream of American journalism. And when he was critically assessed by Fox News, he actually sent the government after them. So yeah, I can imagine Obama doing a "fake news award" had he received 90% negative press.

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

"The Associated Press "was also a target of the surveillance," the web site said. Fox News Channel also said that former Attorney General Eric Holder had ordered Rosen's personal phones and email tapped.

But Rosen, during a Fox appearance Sunday, corrected his own anchor, saying phones he used for reporting were not eavesdropped upon. Rather, Holder sought and got a judge's permission to look through records of Rosen's phone calls and emails from 2009 as the government sought to identify the leaker for a Rosen story about North Korea."

"Similarly, the AP strenuously objected when the Justice Department in 2012 secretly obtained two months' worth of telephone records of some AP reporters and editors. The government was seeking sources for an AP story about a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped a terrorist plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States."

Yea bro, he really just ordered Holder to go after the press, simply due to negative coverage. I guess if you repeat that easily debunked lie enough people will buy it as what actually happened.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

"The Associated Press "was also a target of the surveillance," the web site said. Fox News Channel also said that former Attorney General Eric Holder had ordered Rosen's personal phones and email tapped.

But Rosen, during a Fox appearance Sunday, corrected his own anchor, saying phones he used for reporting were not eavesdropped upon. Rather, Holder sought and got a judge's permission to look through records of Rosen's phone calls and emails from 2009 as the government sought to identify the leaker for a Rosen story about North Korea."

"Similarly, the AP strenuously objected when the Justice Department in 2012 secretly obtained two months' worth of telephone records of some AP reporters and editors. The government was seeking sources for an AP story about a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped a terrorist plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States."

Yea bro, he really just ordered Holder to go after the press, simply due to negative coverage. I guess if you repeat that easily debunked lie enough people will buy it as what actually happened.

Obama's DOJ tried to prosecute James Rosen over a leak..

Again, imagine Trump trying to prosecute a CNN journalist over a leak. It would be a scandal of epic proportions.

    • 5
    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

what you said: Obama wiretapped Fox News because of negative coverage.

what actually happened: The DOJ seeked out AP/ Rosen phone recods in order to try and find sources for confidential items.

I mean come on...

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

what you said: Obama wiretapped Fox News because of negative coverage.

what actually happened: The DOJ seeked out AP/ Rosen phone recods in order to try and find sources for confidential items.

I mean come on...

Obama tried to prosecute James Rosen over leaks and the DOJ was forced to end the prosecution and apologized. Again, had Trump done that it would have been front page news.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
Dances with Dachshunds:

Obama had actual policy scandals--ya know, real things--that got little coverage. Just off the top of my head: wiretapping Fox News journalists

please defend this as the truth and not an obvious lie instead of trying to change the subject.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:
Dances with Dachshunds:

Obama had actual policy scandals--ya know, real things--that got little coverage. Just off the top of my head: wiretapping Fox News journalists

please defend this as the truth and not an obvious lie instead of trying to change the subject.

You're right. It wasn't wiretapping--it was much worse than I remembered. He actually tried to prosecute a Fox News journalist over a government leak. My memory was that it was less bad than what it actually was.

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Lol, you also said it was due to negative press. Turns out (a.) it wasn't and (b.) it wasn't just Fox News so there was no bias against conservative media there. Carry on. I'm sure it was your memory and not your determination to barf out conservative "fake news".

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Bro you told me minority women dating white men was an act of white supremacy in action and you are telling other people that their "politics are religion"

DUDE you linked VOX recently on here lol! You get into political debates more times than I have posted on this site about trivial things at least I just do it to talk sh*t lol

    • 4
    • 2
Jan 18, 2018
Dig Bumb Idiot:

Bro you told me minority women dating white men was an act of white supremacy in action and you are telling other people that their "politics are religion"

DUDE you linked VOX recently on here lol! You get into political debates more times than I have posted on this site about trivial things at least I just do it to talk sh*t lol

Obama is his god; Trump is his Lucifer.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

I'm not going to feed the troll, pathetic purposeful misstatement of my words by a pathetic nonsensical troll who never adds anything of value to the conversation.

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

Lol I'm just repeating what you said...

Everytime you get mad online after getting owned you just deflect! YOU are about to be a father and you spend your time raging at people on the internet for things that YOU said? Just Lol!

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

I'm not going to feed the troll, pathetic purposeful misstatement of my words by a pathetic nonsensical troll who never adds anything of value to the conversation.

You're a race-baiting pathological liar. I'd bet you $1,000 right now that you couldn't link me to a single negative statement of yours about Obama you've made on here while I could link you to dozens of anti-Trump comments I've made. But I'm the zealot...

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Not much Obama discussion since he's not president. Call me what you want, I think you're upset that you obviously lied and twisted the truth multiple times on this thread and were rightfully called out for it.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Not much Obama discussion since he's not president. Call me what you want, I think you're upset that you obviously lied and twisted the truth multiple times on this thread and were rightfully called out for it.

You were on this forum well into the Obama presidency.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

That's fair, 3 years, 1 month. Was much less active and there was much less political discussion in the twilight of his presidency. It's all good man, I'm a pathological liar so I'm probably lying about that too.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

That's fair, 3 years, 1 month. Was much less active and there was much less political discussion in the twilight of his presidency. It's all good man, I'm a pathological liar so I'm probably lying about that too.

I would just love for you to produce a single negative Obama comment you've made in that time. Since you're not a zealot.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

dude I've made 230 or so comments on this website, I'm not doing that work. I do recall criticizing the way he handled Syria and him not pushing enough for true universal single payer healthcare. Btw, I called you a conservative zealot not a Trumpian. You barf out standard conservative talking points (Obama wiretapped fox news due to negative coverage), you're constantly on your dumbass war against liberals as if you literally want a 2nd civil war so you can get a chance to wipe them all out, your rarely speak with any nuance regarding liberals and liberal actions (see: your post on Obama's scandals). There is just no moderation with you. I'm probably lying though.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

dude I've made 230 or so comments on this website, I'm not doing that work. I do recall criticizing the way he handled Syria and him not pushing enough for true universal single payer healthcare. Btw, I called you a conservative zealot not a Trumpian. You barf out standard conservative talking points (Obama wiretapped fox news due to negative coverage), you're constantly on your dumbass war against liberals as if you literally want a 2nd civil war so you can get a chance to wipe them all out, your rarely speak with any nuance regarding liberals and liberal actions (see: your post on Obama's scandals). There is just no moderation with you. I'm probably lying though.

Ah yes, you criticized Obama for not being left-wing enough. Wow. No, no, YOU'RE not the zealot...

    • 3
    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

You ask me if I criticized Obama then you get upset and the nature of my criticism? Lol. In any case on healthcare I am very liberal, doesn't make me a zealot. Always willing to concede to fact and present statements with nuance.

zealot: a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

I am neither fanatical nor uncompromising. I think judging from your posts on policy & politics, that's exactly what you are. Doesn't really matter though, you have your beliefs, I certainy don't despise you for them. But then again, I don't really despise anyone.

Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

You ask me if I criticized Obama then you get upset and the nature of my criticism? Lol. In any case on healthcare I am very liberal, doesn't make me a zealot. Always willing to concede to fact and present statements with nuance.

zealot: a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

I am neither fanatical nor uncompromising. I think judging from your posts on policy & politics, that's exactly what you are. Doesn't really matter though, you have your beliefs, I certainy don't despise you for them. But then again, I don't really despise anyone.

I think people in glass houses shouldn't cast stones. When you're accusing someone of political zealotry and then the only examples you can bring of criticism of your political partisans is that they aren't extreme enough then I would hope that that would cause you to step back and honestly assess your accusations.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Dude, you having right wing positions does not make you a zealot, me having left wing positions does not make me a zealot. Reread the definition.

Jan 20, 2018

Conservatism (which is either classical liberalism or Burkean conservatism) is a political philosophy rooted in economics, history and Popperian falsificationism. Liberalism is a secular moral philosophy rooted in Hegelian idealism and post-modern nihilism. This is why conservatives speak in a matter-of-fact way while liberals speak in a moralistic way. A conservative tries to demonstrate contradiction via the application of reason while the liberal shames and ridicules. This truth is in full display here.

True left-wingers are always zealous in their defense of their moralistic world view, almost by definition.

"Elections are a futures market for stolen property"

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 20, 2018
rockrile15074:

hows it feel to be a fucking bitch??? You're a fucking spineless pussy if you justify trump in any way IMHO.

You're an intellectual midget if you are so close-minded that you can't find any intellectual nuance at all.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Drumpf isn't even really a conservative lol, he's kinda occupies some weird space with some hard right views and others that are left wing

That's why Dugin likes him

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Considering he used the term fake news multiple times during his presidency when talking about Fox News coverage of the IRS targeting scandal, I wouldn't put it past him.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Obama never would have done this because the media sucked him off daily.

I'm sorry, but the media is routinely falsely reporting on the elected President. The fact you either shift the topic or don't care is lame as Fuck. The news has zero credibility.

CNN was talking about something totally different last night and I automatically assumed they were lying or making shit up. CNN is the onion of TV news. All because liberals can't dontheir job or respect their profession.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Lol, Fox News started this game and it's because liberals can't respect their profession? My gosh. Fox News, just this year, was extensively pushing a conspiracy theory that HRC was somehow connected to the death of Seth Rich. They covered this thing for (I wanna say) weeks. Fox News and conservative media ran with the Obama wasn't born in the US thing for FOREVER. You compare this to a gaffe on shaking hands? Intellectual honesty is dead.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Lol, Fox News started this game and it's because liberals can't respect their profession? My gosh. Fox News, just this year, was extensively pushing a conspiracy theory that HRC was somehow connected to the death of Seth Rich. They covered this thing for (I wanna say) weeks. Fox News and conservative media ran with the Obama wasn't born in the US thing for FOREVER. You compare this to a gaffe on shaking hands? Intellectual honesty is dead.

Fox News is a conservative news organization that is expected to make partisan attacks. CNN, Washington Post, CBS, et al are part of the mainstream of American journalism. For decades, people have relied on them to report the straight news, which is why CNN, for example, is played as the "polite" news channel in every waiting room and gym in America. The mainstream news is behaving like political partisans in a way not seen in the modern political era.

    • 2
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

CNN saw Fox News' ratings for constantly putting out right-wing bullshit and are slowly making their way to the left, the ratings are up as a result. Who can blame them. My point here is these are both news organizations but conservatives want to lambast CNN as if they haven't been eating up all the shit Fox News has been serving. As fpr WaPo, Trump hates them but their political coverage has been generally ACCURATE. Negative =/= innacurate, no matter how much Trump wants that to be the case.

    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

Fox News is shit. Not sure why that's an excuse.

Fox is the only conservative source. NYT is trash. CNN and MSNBC, garbage. WashPo, shit.

Your arguments are so weak.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

" Negative =/= innacurate"

This can't be stressed enough

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
BobTheBaker:

Negative =/= innacurate, no matter how much Trump wants that to be the case.

So, journalism should operate like political parties? So long as the information is accurate, it should focus solely on negative pieces, stressing some facts and hiding others? 90-10 negative news coverage? Seriously?

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

CNN was doing this shit before FOX even existed, not only this but ABC, NBC and CBS have been doing this shit since the CIA put agents in their ranks. This goes back much further than your 23 year old brain can comprehend.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 20, 2018

Agreed - it's bullshit the media is so liberal. Obama was literally one of the most useless presidents in history. All he did was further divide the American people. And the liberal media loved it.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Didn't he try to kick Fox out of a conference and reporters had to band together to stop him? How dignified was that?

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
Dances with Dachshunds:

There's obviously a difference, but I'm not sure there's a difference in terms of dignity. It's plausible Obama would have done the same thing had his media coverage been 90-10 negative to positive.

Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to go on late night talk shows. He was the celebrity President.

It goes without saying that Obama received messianic coverage from the media, so there was no need for him to go off on them, except of course FOX News. Obama has routinely attacked them.

The difference between Trump and previous Presidents is that Trump is the first President who did not have prior experience in government or military. This means that Trump's governing style, means of making decisions, worldview, may be different in many ways. Also, with social media and non-stop 24/7 news cycle, any action or word uttered by Trump will receive significant coverage. But like prior Presidents, Trump is a deeply flawed man who says vulgar stuff and will criticize those he doesn't like. People who think Trump is fundamentally unique in this regard need to brush up on American history.

    • 1
Jan 19, 2018
Dances With Newfoundland:
Dances with Dachshunds:

There's obviously a difference, but I'm not sure there's a difference in terms of dignity. It's plausible Obama would have done the same thing had his media coverage been 90-10 negative to positive.

Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to go on late night talk shows. He was the celebrity President.

Maybe he was just the first President you were allowed to stay up that late to see them on late night tv. Do you remember George W. Bush on Letterman in 2000 reading the 'Top Ten'? Also, most Presidents have been on late night while campaigning in the past few decades. The most famous, by far, was Clinton on Arsenio Hall playing the saxophone.

Is the Google broken?

    • 1
Jan 19, 2018
DickFuld:
Dances With Newfoundland:
Dances with Dachshunds:

There's obviously a difference, but I'm not sure there's a difference in terms of dignity. It's plausible Obama would have done the same thing had his media coverage been 90-10 negative to positive.

Obama was the first sitting U.S. President to go on late night talk shows. He was the celebrity President.

Maybe he was just the first President you were allowed to stay up that late to see them on late night tv. Do you remember George W. Bush on Letterman in 2000 reading the 'Top Ten'? Also, most Presidents have been on late night while campaigning in the past few decades. The most famous, by far, was Clinton on Arsenio Hall playing the saxophone.

Is the Google broken?

Come on Dick. I know Lehman went down when you were its CEO, but work on reading comprehension. Notice I said "sitting" U.S. President. In 2000 W Bush was a presidential candidate; he did not take office until January 20, 2001. And when Bill Clinton appeared on Arsenio Hall in 1992, he was also a presidential candidate.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

"Most of these are mundane nonsense", I agree 100% with you.

But this is what the media is choosing to cover about Trump as they breathlessly attempt to discredit him at every turn. It is utter nonsense, and Trump is calling them out on it.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
m8:

"Most of these are mundane nonsense", I agree 100% with you.

But this is what the media is choosing to cover about Trump as they breathlessly attempt to discredit him at every turn. It is utter nonsense, and Trump is calling them out on it.

And that is actually the point. The media spends more time covering handshakes than it does covering actual policy.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Yeah he went really easy on them.

Nothing about Deutsche Bank issuing a subpoena for his bank records? Nothing on the dossier?

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

I'm shocked that you're uninterested in how biased (and WRONG!) the media has been towards this president. Really, shocked. As always, thank you for your contribution.

"Elections are a futures market for stolen property"

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

I'm sure if CNN did a fraction of this to Obama he would be pissed.

Who cares about Trump. The fact that CNN has no credibility, yet is portrayed as the US version of the BBC is what's worrying. It's played in every airport. Every office. And they continually make shit up.

90% of the press coverage on trump is negative. Excluding fox, I'd imagine that number would be much higher. It's as if he has done nothing objectively good. Total joke.

Major news talking about trumps Diet Coke habit or claiming he will have a heart attack because his doctor wants him to lose 10 lbs. trash.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 4
    • 2
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 18, 2018

Kind of appears to be justifiably negative to me...

Jan 18, 2018
rebuh2mr:

Kind of appears to be justifiably negative to me...

Really? The media isn't even covering policy, or the economy, and when it does it blatantly lies about it (e.g. saying the GOP tax cut bill was a tax increase on the middle class).

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
Esuric:

Has the media ever been this wrong about any other president 1 year into their presidency?

Are you asking if there's ever been a year where there were 11 instances of news outlets messing up a story? Do we need to have this talk?

    • 4
Jan 18, 2018

His point was not making mistakes, it was about deliberate misinformation to try and discredit the president. Making a mistake and then correcting it is one thing, Lying for the express intent of trying to push your political agenda is competely different.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

If you're implying that news outlets haven't done that until this year I can't help you. I have no interest in parsing the nuances between Fox reporting on Obama vs. NYT on Trump, but you can't act like this is anything new.

    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

I do agree that media outlets do this from time to time. However, when the vast majority of reporting has to be retracted or corrected we have a problem.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
heister:

I do agree that media outlets do this from time to time. However, when the vast majority of reporting has to be retracted or corrected we have a problem.

"the vast majority of reporting" LMAO. Holy fuck you people are delusional. It's seriously an alternate reality.

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Take a gander to look at news articles online and see how many of them have corrections. Hint, its most of them.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 22, 2018

hesiter I am truly scared of this @thurnis haley person, his obsession with hating anyone who marignally disgarees with him is scary af

He already stalks @TNA and calls him by his first name like some type of future victim

Call me a snowflake but I quite literally think this person has the same mental health profile as a serial killer and seeks actual violence against people who don't agree with his views.

for exxample i disagree with @BobTheBaker all the time but he is a normal dude and i am usually just joking, yea i am just an idiot troll but this thurnis haley guy is actually scary lol

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

the NYT is the only major news outlet biased against Trump?

Jan 18, 2018

Yes. Is there an instance in presidential history where a president, in a single year of his presidency, had 11 false news stories published about him by a major media outlet. It's pretty straightforward. I'm not trying to complicate it.

And when I say wrong, I mean objectively wrong. Here's an example of what I mean: link to WSJ article criticizing Obama's recovery as "wrong" because the stock market gained x% in a certain timeframe does not qualify.

Again, I mean objectively wrong.

"Elections are a futures market for stolen property"

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
Esuric:

Yes. Is there an instance in presidential history where a president, in a single year of his presidency, had 11 false news stories published about him by a major media outlet. It's pretty straightforward. I'm not trying to complicate it.

And when I say wrong, I mean objectively wrong. Here's an example of what I mean: link to WSJ article criticizing Obama's recovery as "wrong" because the stock market gained x% in a certain timeframe does not qualify.

Again, I mean objectively wrong.

I honestly can't think of any. The media's attack on Trump and publishing either false or exaggerated stories, is unprecedented. And no, this is not comparable to Nixon, where the President committed actual crimes, and the media did a noble service by publicizing it.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
Dances With Newfoundland:
Esuric:

Yes. Is there an instance in presidential history where a president, in a single year of his presidency, had 11 false news stories published about him by a major media outlet. It's pretty straightforward. I'm not trying to complicate it.

And when I say wrong, I mean objectively wrong. Here's an example of what I mean: link to WSJ article criticizing Obama's recovery as "wrong" because the stock market gained x% in a certain timeframe does not qualify.

Again, I mean objectively wrong.

I honestly can't think of any. The media's attack on Trump and publishing either false or exaggerated stories, is unprecedented. And no, this is not comparable to Nixon, where the President committed actual crimes, and the media did a noble service by publicizing it.

Well yes, and that's the point. That's what our left-leaning friends here are actively trying to avoid. They're trying to refute this fact without actually refuting it through deflection and ridicule.

My challenge is very straightforward.

"Elections are a futures market for stolen property"

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

You assuming I'm left leaning when I say something completely banal is telling and ultimately disappointing.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Comment was directed towards the broader audience (hence the use of the term "left-leaning friends," which is plural). Don't take it too personally.

"Elections are a futures market for stolen property"

Jan 18, 2018

how is paul krugman considered an economist when he is wrong about everything and said 3% GDP growth was "literally impossible" as he put it?

If he is such a great economist why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is and actually take risk on his economic predictions?

almost like he is a fraud hahaha, nah that couldn't be it!

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Paul is that you?

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 22, 2018

yea it's me and i wasn't wrong 3% growth is impossible also the markets have never recovered from drumpf's presidency

also i was not wrong about those things i was wrong about keep reading my NYT articles :~)

Jan 18, 2018

The president is singly handedly unraveling the entire left-wing infrastructure of false narratives and subversion. The truth is absolutely clear to the unbiased observer. Only the zealots still cling onto their now discredited beliefs.

"Elections are a futures market for stolen property"

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

How does someone hold a regular job talking like this? Take this hard right garbage to Breitbart.

The President's strategy is working so well that the Republicans lost a Senate seat in Alabama, the Virginia governorship, and state seats all over the country in special elections since the 2016 general.

    • 6
    • 3
Jan 18, 2018

next are you going to pull an @Schreckstoff and tell him he doesn't exist if he doesn't agree with you?

jeez man you might be the one who needs to get a grip, i can literally picture you slamming your keys sweating while typing this lol

"if people don't agree with me they can't have normal jobs!!!" would you also throw them out of society too?

    • 2
    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

I just don't understand why the same three guys post near-daily Trump apology threads on a finance forum.

    • 4
Jan 18, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

I just don't understand why the same three guys post near-daily Trump apology threads on a finance forum.

Uh, this thread was posted on an "Off Topic" forum, not banking or any other forum related to the finance industry.

Also, most of the posters here have engaged in policy discussion in various political threads. Even BobTheBaker, who I disagree with like 95% of the time, has at least made valid policy points. You on the other hand make over the top snarky comments about FOX and Republicans and then bemoan the discourse on this forum. Take some medication for your Trump Derangement Syndrome, and get a grip.

    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

This guy mastered liberal speak and the left-wing method of subversion. Never stick to the actual discussion topic, ridicule, shame and when pressed, try to have the opposing view squelched and silenced.

"Elections are a futures market for stolen property"

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 22, 2018

It's almost like you don't have to read them lol!

Oh wait you don't!

    • 2
Jan 18, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

How does someone hold a regular job talking like this? Take this hard right garbage to Breitbart.

The President's strategy is working so well that the Republicans lost a Senate seat in Alabama, the Virginia governorship, and state seats all over the country in special elections since the 2016 general.

I agree that Trump is not popular and has a poor political strategy. With that said, the GOP lost the Alabama senate seat because of horrible sexual allegations against the GOP nominee and the Virginia governor was already a Democrat. Let's just be honest about that...

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
onemanwolfpack:

How does someone hold a regular job talking like this? Take this hard right garbage to Breitbart.

This is just intellectual pussy talk. Make your point if you have one. Don't rely on these cowardly argumentation tactics.

onemanwolfpack:

The President's strategy is working so well that the Republicans lost a Senate seat in Alabama, the Virginia governorship, and state seats all over the country in special elections since the 2016 general.

We shall see.

But to all the drones on this website, here's my challenge to you all:

I'll kindly STFU if anyone can give me an example of the media being this biased and this wrong about any other president, one year into their presidency.

Put up or shut up. Either refute the topic of this thread or don't but don't come crying here because you can't.

"Elections are a futures market for stolen property"

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

Love how losing the AL seat to a Democrat in name only after endless press smearing (anything come from those acquisitions?), Republicans running against their candidate and the party cutting off funding, is supposed to be indicative of Trump losing.

Everyone forgets the other two "referendums" that Republicans one.

And VA is a blue state. All those government workers moving into the state.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
TNA:

Love how losing the AL seat to a Democrat in name only after endless press smearing (anything come from those acquisitions?), Republicans running against their candidate and the party cutting off funding, is supposed to be indicative of Trump losing.

Everyone forgets the other two "referendums" that Republicans one.

And VA is a blue state. All those government workers moving into the state.

Please, keep thinking that. No seriously, please do, all the way through the midterms. Ignore the fact that Wisconsin lost a state Senate seat yesterday in a district Trump carried +17, Alabama lost a seat that Jeff Sessions won +96 in 2014, Oklahoma lost a Senate seat Trump won +40, and over 30 Republicans have retired rather than run again this Fall.

Everything is fine with the GOP. None of this is Trump's fault. No need to show up at the ballot box in November. No blue wave coming, no issue of extremely motivated Democractic voters, everything will be fine ;)

    • 6
    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

You're right that the GOP needs to wake up to some political realities, but using Alabama and Virginia are poor examples since the Alabama seat was re-won easily before the sexual allegations and Virginia's governorship remains Democrat.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Great. The seat AL lost had everything going against him. Now there is a moderate dem who will lose to a normal Republican.

Good work in Wisconsin. State senate seat, wow.

Republicans still control the state. Besides, it was a blue state until Trump won it.

And I am sure Democrats will pick up seats. Much like how republicans did it with a obama.

Can't wait for the party of impeaching a lawfully elected president. What a joke liberals have become.

Masters in Finance HQ - The #1 site for everything related to the MSF degree!
MSFHQ

    • 3
Jan 18, 2018
onemanwolfpack:
TNA:

Love how losing the AL seat to a Democrat in name only after endless press smearing (anything come from those acquisitions?), Republicans running against their candidate and the party cutting off funding, is supposed to be indicative of Trump losing.

Everyone forgets the other two "referendums" that Republicans one.

And VA is a blue state. All those government workers moving into the state.

Please, keep thinking that. No seriously, please do, all the way through the midterms. Ignore the fact that Wisconsin lost a state Senate seat yesterday in a district Trump carried +17, Alabama lost a seat that Jeff Sessions won +96 in 2014, Oklahoma lost a Senate seat Trump won +40, and over 30 Republicans have retired rather than run again this Fall.

Everything is fine with the GOP. None of this is Trump's fault. No need to show up at the ballot box in November. No blue wave coming, no issue of extremely motivated Democractic voters, everything will be fine ;)

I agree that the midterms will be tough for the GOP, and I've written about this before in another thread. But your post, like many of your posts, reek of sarcasm and hyperbole without adding substantive value to the discussion.

Jan 22, 2018

honestly i think onemanwolfpack is one of those dudes who goes marching with the pink hats and talks about "the future is female" to try to get 300 lb blue hair triggered speices women to talk to him lol

i can't think of any other reason he would be this mad online over politik

    • 1
    • 4
Jan 22, 2018

I voted for McCain and Romney, and have been happily married longer than you've been out of high school. Otherwise you nailed it my man.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 18, 2018

Multiple things can be true at once

1) Most of the popular news outlets are left leaning and were too easy on Obama
2) Many of these same outlets seem extra motivated to call out every Trump gaffe/lie/broken promise while Trump uses the media as a scapegoat for every issue
3) Trump makes more gaffes/lies/broken promises than any President in our lifetime
4) Fox has shifted from a needed balance in the news ecosystem, to a state-sponsored mouthpiece for Trump and the Republican party
5) Far more people receive their version of the news exclusively from Fox than from the left leaning organizations

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

The Republicans lost a seat in Alabama because the democrat he was running against was responsible for getting justice for people who killed during church bombings back in the 60s over 25 years later. Yet no one seemed to cover that part of it.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
heister:

The Republicans lost a seat in Alabama because the democrat he was running against was responsible for getting justice for people who were responsible for church bombings back in the 60s over 25 years later. Yet no one seemed to cover that part of it.

I blame McConnell for crushing Mo Brooks in the primary. The conservatives got pissed and voted Moore instead. The GOP only lost that seat because Moore is a vile human being and pedophile. Alabama is an extreme anomaly and should be analyzed as such.

VA was disappointing. Gillesppie is a great guy with a solid policy platform. But Northam is also a moderate Southern Democrat (he voted for W Bush twice, never said whether he voted for Obama, refused to wear a Hillary lapel pin at the 2016 DNC, attacked Bernie's class warfare and socialism) and crushed it with college educated suburban whites.

I do think the GOP is in trouble in 2018, and we can have a substantive discussion on it. But having said that, I know U.S. history and politics really fucking well and totally missed the 2016 election. I think the Dems are the hands-on-favorite to win the House this year, but who knows.

Jan 18, 2018

The pedo crap isn't why Moore lost, it was the significantly higher turnout among the black community than in previous non presidential elections.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
heister:

The pedo crap isn't why Moore lost, it was the significantly higher turnout among the black community than in previous non presidential elections.

Moore got around half the votes that Trump did. Even with the increased black turnout, if the conservatives came out, Moore would have won. The margin was around 1.5%, and write-ins alone received close to 2%.

Jan 18, 2018

Getting less votes than Trump did isn't anything shocking. In non presidential elections voter turn out is always lower.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jan 18, 2018

What's with these stupid aggressive, baiting posts on WSO. This is the sort of shit that drives away users and turns this forum into a shithole (I get the irony). If you want to talk about stuff like this, actually talk to the dude sitting next to you at the office or go to reddit.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
aljdljaldla:

What's with these stupid aggressive, baiting posts on WSO. This is the sort of shit that drives away users and turns this forum into a shithole (I get the irony). If you want to talk about stuff like this, actually talk to the dude sitting next to you at the office or go to reddit.

Talking about politics at work is a bad idea. And people on reddit are mostly idiots. WSO, presumably, has a lot of intelligent educated professionals, so if anything, engaging in political discussion on WSO is preferable. And since the members are anonymous, it also allows us to be honest with our thoughts.

Jan 18, 2018

I think, at this point, we can all agree education and rationality is thrown out of the window when discussing politics. It's the new religion.

    • 1
Jan 22, 2018
Dances With Newfoundland:
aljdljaldla:

What's with these stupid aggressive, baiting posts on WSO. This is the sort of shit that drives away users and turns this forum into a shithole (I get the irony). If you want to talk about stuff like this, actually talk to the dude sitting next to you at the office or go to reddit.

Talking about politics at work is a bad idea. And people on reddit are mostly idiots. WSO, presumably, has a lot of intelligent educated professionals, so if anything, engaging in political discussion on WSO is preferable. And since the members are anonymous, it also allows us to be honest with our thoughts.

haha people on WSO are smart LMAO good one dude that was funny

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Really? The "largest inauguration crowd ever" didn't make it to the Top 11? Clear snub right there

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018
ACP7:

Really? The "largest inauguration crowd ever" didn't make it to the Top 11? Clear snub right there

But why did that stupid and unimportant Trump statement get wall-to-wall coverage for, like, a week in the mainstream press? It was a moronic Trump statement but of zero news merit, especially for the amount of time that went into investigating that claim. I'd wager there was more news coverage of that than Trump announcing the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

I don't know why, and I won't presume to know. However, if I had to guess, I would say it is less about the bit itself (whether it was the largest crowd or not is really not relevant in itself), but rather about what it says about the person (falsely) claiming it.

Similarly, it is what I really fail to understand about Trump and his "supporters" (I don't even understand the concept of personal support in politics - it's not a fucking sports team for it to be supported blindly). The case with all these "gaffes" (like this one, or the shitholegate, for example) is not how impactful those things are, but rather what they reveal about the personality of the man that leads the nation, and I really can't grasp why that seems unimportant to some people.

Yes, maybe the lenses of the media should have been more directed towards his policies, and I guess no one can deny a general bias against him. But I also believe that it was Trump that brought this on himself. Still, some of you claim the media's mistakes are irreversible and everything is fake news now, unreadable and untrustworthy, but somehow Trump's actions do not undermine at all his credibility and ability to be President. It's just not coherent.

    • 5
Jan 18, 2018
ACP7:

I don't know why, and I won't presume to know. However, if I had to guess, I would say it is less about the bit itself (whether it was the largest crowd or not is really not relevant in itself), but rather about what it says about the person (falsely) claiming it.

Trump is an arrogant jackass. America knew this 35 years ago, it knew it in 2016 and it knows it now. The constant drumbeat of nitpicking this stuff and ignoring actual policies--like, seriously important policies--is breathtaking.

ACP7:

Similarly, it is what I really fail to understand about Trump and his "supporters" (I don't even understand the concept of personal support in politics - it's not a fucking sports team for it to be supported blindly). The case with all these "gaffes" (like this one, or the shitholegate, for example) is not how impactful those things are, but rather what they reveal about the personality of the man that leads the nation, and I really can't grasp why that seems unimportant to some people.

If you actually get the other side of the account, the "shithole" comment had context--the context was that the Democrats' compromise was for them to get everything they wanted with the promise to consider Trump's policy positions sometime in the future, PLUS the Democrats wanted to expand the immigration diversity lottery. Trump's alleged comment was allegedly in direct response to this policy proposal of EXPANDING the diversity lottery without regard to the individual immigrant's actual qualifications.

Do you see why the obsession with Trump's comments actually are a smokescreen for the media to not discuss policies? In the example above, if the media were honest about the context of the conversation then they would have been forced to talk about the actual Democrat compromise, which was no compromise at all but a doubling down of their position.

ACP7:

Yes, maybe the lenses of the media should have been more directed towards his policies,

In the rare instance they are, they parrot the DNC talking points. Something like 60% of the country last month believed they were getting a tax increase, according to the polls, when, in fact, 80% were getting a tax cut.

ACP7:

But I also believe that it was Trump that brought this on himself.

Of course he has. He's an idiot and a jackass. Does that point need to be litigated 24/7?

ACP7:

Still, some of you claim the media's mistakes are irreversible and everything is fake news now, unreadable and untrustworthy, but somehow Trump's actions do not undermine at all his credibility and ability to be President. It's just not coherent.

Definitely not me. Trump is a pathological liar, and so are the journalists covering him.

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

You are asking why the media continually covers the fact that the most powerful man on earth is, as you say "an idiot and a jackass"? I question whether you would be as critical if it was a democrat "idiot and a jackass" president getting the same treatment. Somehow, I don't think so.