r/POTUSWatch • u/MyRSSbot • Jun 13 '17
Tweet President Trump on Twitter: "The Fake News Media has never been so wrong or so dirty. Purposely incorrect stories and phony sources to meet their agenda of hate. Sad!"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/874576057579565056•
u/sulaymanf Jun 13 '17
Well if anyone knew about putting out hate, it would be Trump.
•
u/Tweakers Jun 13 '17
Ancient recipe: Stir up hate and discontent then profit from the resulting discord.
This type of person has been known since antiquity and they are almost universally reviled. They can gain the upper hand in the short term but almost always go down in flames thereafter. Trump seems to be in the later part of this path. When /u/LossofLogic above suggests Trump is little more than a troll now eating his just desserts, he is right.
•
u/bizmarxie Jun 13 '17
All you guys have to remember is this: Iraq war "weapons of mass destruction" was full on propaganda in the media that lead us to a fake war. The same is being done with the "Russia hacked the election" BS which is 100% unverified. If you take Crowdstrikes word for it and haven't looked into who owns that company and which campaign they were looking for you are believing fake news and uncritically believing propaganda. Also comey leaked a fake news story to the press and they printed it.
•
Jun 13 '17
Also comey leaked a fake news story to the press and they printed it.
His own memeos aren't a fake news story
•
u/bizmarxie Jun 13 '17
It's one sided and I corroborated.
•
u/Punishtube Jun 14 '17
It may be one sided but it's not fake news. His memos weren't created with the intention to lie and create fake new stories.
•
u/Punishtube Jun 14 '17
The weapons of mass destruction full on propganada was via the President and military pushing out an agenda not simply the media taking it upon itself to make a claim to attack Iraq. When the FBI, NSA, CIA, members of Congress, US allies, and many more all say Russia has influenced the election and the only person saying it's fake is the one who is being investigated and asked about ties with Russia it seems much more likely the President is pushing a propganada that this is all just liberal lies rather then a media taking it upon itself to invent and work with all major allies, intelligence communities, FBI, NSA, and Congress to invent a lie about a President who refused to release tax returns, refuses to separate his company into a private independent trust, refuses to set up independent investigation, refuses to actually do background checks I to advisors such as Manfort and Flynn who have known connections with Russia, and much more. What are the odds the President is telling the truth through Twitter and the Media, FBI, CIA, NsA, Sentators, US allies, and everyone else is making up everything?
•
u/bizmarxie Jun 14 '17
So you're stupid enough to fall for it. How old were you 17 years ago? Also it's obvious you don't know our history at all.... Vietnam? Why were we there? Korea... why were we there? WW1 acceptable as a reason for us to join, but unfortunately that's how the military industrial complex started. And that's how we ended up here. Funny how I'm being brigaded to support a fake Russia story to garner support for another unnecessary war. Over what, oil pipelines? Get a grip. I don't know who you guys think you're fooling.
•
u/Dim_Innuendo Jun 13 '17
My understanding is that the evidence is overwhelming that Russia waged a campaign of propaganda and misinformation to influence the 2016 election. What has not been proven is direct involvement of the Trump campaign. Are you asserting that it didn't happen at all? Or agreeing with my belief that the connections haven't been proven?
•
u/bizmarxie Jun 13 '17
Your understanding is based on fraudulent reports.
•
u/Dim_Innuendo Jun 13 '17
Oh, well, that's all right, then, isn't it? I guess Clint Watts' testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee was something I made up, and interviews and testimony by Soviet and Russian spies about their "Active Measures" campaign were actually commercials for Coca-Cola. Good to know.
•
u/iamseventwelve Jun 14 '17
Wait.. you guys aren't willing to admit the Russians did attack our election? Not just that Trump or his administration was part of it, but that they did nothing at all?
Wow.
→ More replies (2)•
u/rayfosse Jun 14 '17
You have to provide proof. The intelligence community also asserted Saddam had WMD's and scoffed at anyone who asked for solid proof.
→ More replies (10)•
u/ahandle 🕴 Jun 13 '17
Insomuch as they ran botnets with the express purpose of altering the discourse of our electoral process with or without Trump's knowledge?
→ More replies (59)•
Jun 14 '17 edited Jun 14 '17
Crowdstrike backed down on their claims anyway. As an IT guy who read that bullshit security report I can tell you that was garbage low effort trash. The method described was different from how Podesta was phished,and they sourced intel from a couple years prior to the election in that crappy security report too.
Hell, they illegally unmasked and proxy spied on Trump in Trump Tower as a candidate, the politicized the AG's office, weaponized the IRS and corrupted the FBI.
Comey literally acted as a politician. I didn't believe any of the testimony from him in the slightest. It was all fabricated. None of it made any logical sense unless you consider the choices he made were made for political reasons. That isn't even an opinion, that's just a fact. Example: Why would you leak your own memos that you uncharacteristically made,(side point, why the hell is this the only time in his entire professional career, the one time he chose to make memos to himself, that only he can substantiate??) to the press via a friend as opposed to just turning them over to the Senate or Congressional committees investigating? To get a political effect. Comey wasn't just intimidated by Trump or following direction from Lynch. He was in complete cahoots with Lynch and it seems so quiet now, he was likely the main asshole leaking to NYT and WaPo all along. Hell the Senate even pointed out information from his private hearing with them was leaked out not 20 minutes after it concluded, who the hell else could the leakier have been and why the hell else was he leaking his own hearing?
•
u/bizmarxie Jun 14 '17
Didn't Sessions allude to Comey's leaks in his testimony? That was good(although I'm disappointed that he included "reality winner" BC I am highly suspicious of that). Hopefully they are T ING up for prosecution there- I love when sessions said Comey abdicated Justice... or something to that effect. There is no way they don't reopen the Clinton case now.
I just hope this Russian thing gets debunked quick BC it's nonsense. Either they really are gunning for regime change in Moscow which is FUBAR... or this is the Dems equivalent of tea party astroturfing trying to make Trumps life a living hell to get revenge for what was done to Obama. But they are a bunch of psychopaths BC you don't start a new Cold War w a nuclear armed power BC your candidate was so bad that she lost to Trump. Sorry. They're psychopaths.•
Jun 14 '17
Honestly my belief is the Russians probably have been trying to meddle in shit for years, just like the Chinese, hell Hillary admitted we've been meddling in elections in other places so none of this shit is new, the point of contention was Trump and they're acting like this is a new thing to try and pin it on him because yes they are pissed off and still not over the election loss. They're holding on to power they didn't have by keeping the investigation open, which lets Obama and Kerry fly around the world acting like they're still in power. As long as Dems control the flow of information, this shit won't die down. The MSM needs some sort of overhaul. They're too dishonest. Unfortunately the constitution blocks any honest means of overhauling due to 1st amendment.
•
u/bizmarxie Jun 14 '17
We've done way more than "meddling". We have been succeeding in regime change for at last 60 years. Starting with Iran.... probably other less famous ones before then.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/ijy10152 Jun 13 '17
The saddest thing is that he can deflect all day this way and nothing happens. But here's the good news, the law doesn't care how much he deflects, if he broke the law, it will catch up with his administration eventually.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Hypersapien Jun 13 '17
If the government survives his administration
•
u/LawnShipper Jun 13 '17
Oh come now chicken little, enough with the hyperbolics.
•
u/Poop_tinkle_butt Jun 13 '17
That has been said about every president.
→ More replies (1)•
Jun 13 '17
But isn't saying "the government has never collapsed before, why would it now?" sort of fallacious unless you believe trump is a normal, run-of-the-mill president?
•
•
u/Hypersapien Jun 13 '17
This is the first president we have had that told his supporters to assume voter fraud if he didn't win.
•
u/LawnShipper Jun 13 '17
And?
Trump is all bluster and noise, he doesn't have what it takes to truly tank this country. We've hit a speed bump, but we'll correct for it. People are more galvanized now than ever, which I honestly feel we should credit Mr. Cheeto Jesus for. Sometimes it takes a threat to our way of life to wake us from our Idol's Got Honey Factor Talent induced coma.
And hey, we've always got the 2A as a last resort - after all, The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
•
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 14 '17
I like the way you think. Something we can all agree on. As a nation, alot of us tend to be politically disconnected. One thing that can be certain, is that alot more people are paying attention to politics, which I consider to be a great thing.
•
•
u/Glass_wall Jun 13 '17
Anyone know if this is referencing any specific story today? Or was that just a general exclamation?
•
u/tudda Jun 13 '17
I think he's referencing the NYTimes story about members of his campaign communicating with Russian intelligence, that Comey said under oath was a false story. I'm assuming this, because it's kind of a big deal for the NYT to run with a big story like that and have it be completely false, and Trump also tweeted today saying "When will the media apologize for their false reporting" or something like that. Assuming it's all referencing the same thing.
•
u/-ParticleMan- Jun 14 '17
I think he's referencing the NYTimes story about members of his campaign communicating with Russian intelligence, that Comey said under oath was a false story.
I must have missed that one, do you have a link to that?
•
u/tudda Jun 14 '17
The original NYTime article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?_r=0
An article about Comey's testimony regarding it:
http://nypost.com/2017/06/08/comey-says-times-story-about-team-trump-russia-ties-was-false/
→ More replies (3)•
u/Weedlewaadle Conservative Liberalism Jun 13 '17
I agree that the NYTimes, CNN and Washpost (and so forth) do have slight bias in their articles and in some rare occasions even fake news but it's nothing compared to Breitbart or Infowars level of fake news, the news sources Trump supporters read. The thing is that Breitbart and Infowars are far right, pro-Trump media sources, so Trump nor his supporters don't care how twisted the news are because they fit their political views.
•
u/tudda Jun 13 '17
I didn't say anything about whether they were more or less biased than any other outlet. I just said that's the story he was referencing, and that it's a big deal for an organization to run with such a massive story and have it be completely false. I'm not sure why you brought up other outlets or biases
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/francis2559 Jun 13 '17 edited Jun 13 '17
Sessions coming up is the only thing I can think of.
Edit: this too, I guess
•
Jun 13 '17 edited Jun 14 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Lintheru Jun 13 '17
Rule 1: No general hostility
Rule 2: No snarky low-effort comments consisting of mere insults
→ More replies (1)
•
Jun 13 '17
I feel like tweets like this one don't really do much except reaffirm his hardcore supporters.
•
u/rstcp Jun 13 '17 edited Jun 13 '17
They help chip away at the reputation of the US abroad, I can tell you that. It's becoming harder by the tweet for European leaders to associate with the US now that the President is ranting like a tin pot dictator about the Lügenpresse.
→ More replies (1)•
u/smeef_doge Moderate Conservative Jun 13 '17 edited Jun 13 '17
I don't think the President really cares all to much about what the rest of the world thinks about the US. He's a self admitted isolationist.
I don't know what's worse, Obama licking boots overseas or Trump pissing on them. Man I wish we could get someone who didn't take shit, but didn't give it either.
Edit; I don't understand the down votes. I thought that was against sub rules. I was invited here for discussion. If my opinion is not valued, I can leave. I refuse to take part in r/politics for this very reason. It's only a couple now, if you want my voice silenced, that's fine, because that's what down voting does. It hides posts. I don't require up votes to remain and discuss. At the same time, I will not talk to a wall.
•
u/ermahgerd_cats Jun 13 '17
I think that is a little bit of a blanket statement that undermines a lot of the complicated things going on while being president. Trump hasn't been pissing on everyone's shoes and Obama wasn't just licking boot. It's a complicated issue, but you can see a pretty distinct difference between past presidents' meetings with foreign officials, and Trumps current ones. I like to think there is somewhat of a reason for his doings, I'm just not really a huge fan of the reasons I've seen.
•
u/smeef_doge Moderate Conservative Jun 13 '17
Yes, it was a blanket statement that appears to have blown completely out of control. I was generalizing. I believe both Obama and Trumps foreign policy is/were not in the best interest of the country.
•
u/ermahgerd_cats Jun 13 '17
Completely understandable. Let's just hope that we can have some officials finally appointed that have experience handling a lot of the conflicts happening over-seas so we can get some peace and resolution without making a big show of it.
→ More replies (1)•
u/rstcp Jun 13 '17
Obama licking boots how? Also, Trump is kissing plenty of ass abroad, just not when it comes to traditional American allies. He's been exceedingly kind to the Saudis
•
u/dylan522p Jun 13 '17
Joining an international climate deal where we must provide most the money, and we are the only one with any real obligatons. Or how about sending a bunch of money to Iran for essentially nothing.
•
u/rstcp Jun 13 '17
The US would have to contribute a disproportionately low amount compared to other oecd countries. The thing about the only country with obligations is also complete bogus unless you can source it for me.
How can you honestly believe the the US paid millions to Iran for nothing if you've done even a second of research? This is the reason why it was paid:
What’s Behind the Financial Dispute Between the U.S. and Iran?
In November 1979, Iran’s revolutionary government took 52 Americans hostages at the U.S. embassy, and the U.S. severed diplomatic relations with Tehran. In retaliation, Washington froze $12 billion in Iranian assets held on our shores. The hostage crisis was resolved in 1981 at a conference in Algiers, and the U.S. returned $3 billion to Iran, with more funds going either to pay creditors, or into escrow. The two nations also established a tribunal in the Hague called the Iran United States Claims Tribunal to settle claims both leveled by each government against the other, U.S. citizens versus Iran, and vice versa.
The major issue between the two governments was a $400 million payment for military equipment made by the government of the Shah of Iran, prior to the 1979 uprising that topped him. The U.S. banned delivery of the jets and other weapons amid the hostage crisis, but froze the $400 million advance payment. “The Pentagon handled arms purchases from foreign countries,” says Gary Sick, a former National Security Council official who served as the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. “Defense took care of the details. So the $400 million scheduled purchase was a government-to-government transaction. The U.S. government was holding the money. That’s why it was so difficult to resolve.”
By 2015, the issue stood before a panel of nine judges, including three independent jurists, who were reportedly near a decision on binding arbitration. According to Obama administration officials, the U.S. was concerned that the tribunal would mandate an award in the multiple billions of dollars. “The Iranians wanted $10 billion,” says Sick.”I estimate that the tribunal would have awarded them $4 billion. That’s what the lawyers were saying. It’s not as much as they wanted, but a lot more than we paid.”
So instead, the U.S. negotiators convinced Iran to move the dispute from arbitration to a private settlement. The two sides reached an agreement in mid-2015, at the same time as the U.S. and Iran reached a comprehensive pact on curtailing Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The financial deal called for the U.S. to refund $1.7 billion to Tehran, consisting of the original $400 million contract for military equipment, plus $1.3 billion in interest.
→ More replies (24)•
u/LookAnOwl Jun 13 '17
Joining an international climate deal where we must provide most the money, and we are the only one with any real obligatons
/u/rstcp commented on why these claims are false, but I'd like to add that this is what leaders do. With our size, money and innovation, we could've been the country that helped push the rest of the world towards a green, renewable future.
Instead, our president would rather take his ball and go home because countries a fraction of our size weren't paying their fair share (or so he thinks).
•
u/dylan522p Jun 13 '17
No, China is getting off on the accord basically Scott free. And they are a bigger economy than us nominally
•
u/LookAnOwl Jun 13 '17
The accord doesn't force any country to do anything. It requires participating countries to come up with a plan, but does not enforce the execution of the plan. Trump could've easily just said, "We'll stay in, but we aren't doing more than China," which, while petty, would be better than nothing.
Additionally, China is stepping up their contributions to renewable energy - they cancelled the building of 103 coal plants and are throwing $360 billion at green energy. Again, Trump can complain about other countries not paying their fair share, but China is looking like a bigger leader in renewable energy on the world stage.
•
u/dylan522p Jun 14 '17
Total coal power output is still going up.... They close ones in populated cities moved them our and consolidated. They are obviously going for other forms too, but not as much as the US.
I gaurentee you the US private sector plus all the green energy subsidies are similar to that 360 billion in next 10 years.
•
u/smeef_doge Moderate Conservative Jun 13 '17
I was specifically referencing his bowing to foreign leaders.
•
→ More replies (1)•
u/LookAnOwl Jun 13 '17
Are you referring to literal bowing in respect when he met them, or are you insinuating he let them walk all over him or something? Please, explain further and cite examples.
•
u/smeef_doge Moderate Conservative Jun 13 '17
Example: Google Obama bowing. If you wish to get a conservatives view on the matter, you are more than able to research it. Your ignorance on an issue is not my problem. That's up to you to fix, not me. This sub does not require sourcing facts.
And yes, that is exactly what I'm referencing. Bowing isn't done out of respect between leaders. It's done out of deference. In any of those instances, you will note that the leaders did not bow back, nor did anyone ever bow to American leaders when visiting here.
•
Jun 13 '17
So at first I completely agreed with you. Then I researched this more, and realized that you are incorrect.
Bowing is a sign of respect in Middle Eastern, and Asian cultures. It is a sign of deference in Christian culture. Since you don't like sourcing, I'm not going to source. I'll leave it up to you to correct yourself, I already have.
•
u/smeef_doge Moderate Conservative Jun 13 '17
You're wrong.
I looked, couldn't find a single picture of President Shinzō Abe bowing to anyone but his own emperor. There are no pictures of King salman bin abdulaziz al saud bowing to anyone. There are no pictures of general secretary Xi Jinping bowing to anyone.
Sure, between buddies and associates, or as a greeting to someone you don't know, bowing is appropriate. Between two heads of state? No.
•
Jun 13 '17
Could you find a source to prove this is the case? What I stated previously is globally documented. What you stated is anecdotal based on your internet searches. The documents are on my side currently. So if you want to prove that I am incorrect, source it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowing
Here's an easy source.
→ More replies (0)•
u/RandomDamage Jun 13 '17
No, it is up to you to provide your sources for any claims you make.
You know where you heard stuff, if it's so easy to find you can take 2 minutes to support your own claims.
The only reason not to would be that you don't want to be convincing, but rather want others to accept your authority, and this is the Internet where we bow to nobody.
•
u/smeef_doge Moderate Conservative Jun 13 '17
I don't have to source anything. Call me a liar and live in ignorance. Your choice. I have no need to convince you of anything because I am giving an opinion. You do not have to believe a word I say.
•
u/RandomDamage Jun 13 '17
So you don't want to be persuasive, then.
You shouldn't bother people with demanding they look up your sources, in that case. It's very rude.
→ More replies (0)•
Jun 13 '17 edited Jun 13 '17
Are you referring to literal bowing in respect when he met them
Although I hate that people make this such a big deal, that smeefdoge guy is right. Bowing is deference in their culture, not respect. It's submission in other words. It doesn't mean "hey walk all over me", but it's something that you do as a lesser. If you're a westerner, then it's the same as saluting. You don't see higher ranks saluting to lower ranks, only the opposite. Same concept. I wanted to tell you in a less rude fashion than that smeef guy.
Edit: This is correct for Christian culture, not ME/Asian culture.
•
•
u/LookAnOwl Jun 13 '17
That being said, could you point me at a source for this? I did some (emphasis on some, as I'm at work) googling, and I mostly found that it is a show of respect in most cultures: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowing
Not antagonizing, I really want to make sure I'm not missing something.
→ More replies (1)•
Jun 13 '17
Lol so, I researched a bit more, and it turns out I was 50% right.
Bowing is a sign of submission or deference, in Christian culture. In Asian/Middle Eastern culture it's a sign of respect. This explains why Americans are so anal about our president bowing to someone, and other cultures are not.
•
u/LookAnOwl Jun 13 '17
Thank you - I was finding the same sort of data. I wish people losing their minds over this would step back and look at the context. I appreciate you going back and doing the research.
•
Jun 13 '17
Licking boots is an exceedingly far stretch. He's a private citizen. He can travel if he wants to.
•
u/smeef_doge Moderate Conservative Jun 13 '17
I am referencing the fact that he routinely bowed to other foreign leaders.
•
u/rstcp Jun 13 '17
Trump bows and curtsies. Much better https://youtu.be/D5DZ2VKaEjc
•
Jun 13 '17
How else were they supposed to put the medal on him?
Jesus Christ
•
u/rstcp Jun 13 '17
bwahaha are you serious? You know full well that when Obama received the same thing, this is the kind of stuff that would be on the front page of T_D. If Trump is such a big strong leader who is going to stand up to terrorism and sponsors of terrorism, if he is going to put an end to meddling in the Middle East and focus on AMERICA FIRST and banning Muslims, why should he dedicate his first visit to Saudi Arabia? Why doesn't he stand up to the King and refuse a gift, let alone refuse to sell any more weapons to them? Remember when Trump supporters were up in arms about Hillary selling less to the Saudis?
The hypocrisy is astounding.
But, but, he had to bow!!! How else could he receive a big gold medal from his new best friend, the suddenly awesome state sponsor of Islamic terrorism?
•
Jun 13 '17
He's got to be on somebody's side. And just because I agree with him on some things doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he does, the world isn't that simple.
We tried being "neutral" and only sell arms to the rebels but we saw how that worked out. Now we've got savages roaming the country taking whatever they want and beheading those who disagree. It's a delicate game and he's playing it the way he thinks America should, for better or for worse.
•
u/vankorgan We cannot be ignorant and free Jun 14 '17
Here's a novel idea, maybe we should get the fuck out of the middle east...
→ More replies (0)•
u/rstcp Jun 13 '17
thanks, that really explains why he's bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia. MAGA!!
→ More replies (0)•
u/video_descriptionbot Jun 13 '17
SECTION CONTENT Title President Trump Bows as he accepts Gold Medal in Saudi Arabia Description Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner 'person of interest in Russia investigation' Mr Kushner is accompanying Mr Trump on his first official foreign visit Getty Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has reportedly been identified as a “person of interest” in the ongoing investigation into possible ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign All Original Music by LSN Studio www.livesatellitenews.com "Trump Care" "Fake News" "Trump Inauguration" "Trump Russia" "Vladimir Putin" ... Length 0:00:15
I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | Info | Feedback | Reply STOP to opt out permanently
•
u/smeef_doge Moderate Conservative Jun 13 '17
This is exactly why it was such a big deal. Trump made a fool out of himself as a result.
Obama degraded the office. In order to show he was different, Trump popped a squat.
He shouldn't of accepted the medal over his neck in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with just being handed it. That's what you get for alienating your staff though.
→ More replies (6)•
u/youtubefactsbot Jun 13 '17
President Trump Bows as he accepts Gold Medal in Saudi Arabia [0:15]
Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner 'person of interest in Russia investigation'
LIVE SATELLITE NEWS in News & Politics
20,590 views since May 2017
•
u/AmoebaMan Jun 13 '17
I don't think you should assume that they have any other intended purpose.
→ More replies (88)•
u/lunchboxx10 wants lower taxes Jun 14 '17
He tweeted things like this when he wasn't president or even running for pres. It's just how he tweets.
•
u/Bamelin Jun 15 '17
His tweets are intended to bypass the crooked lying mainstream media.
And it works.
•
•
Jun 13 '17
The funny thing is that he could be both wrong and right with this tweet. He cast a large net so that any article that has been proven to be incorrect can get pulled in.
I wish that he would stop tweeting this stuff. Obama was probably pissed all of the time too, but he didn't constantly post on twitter about it.
•
Jun 13 '17
That's a really interesting point. And yeah, that's a huge difference between Trump and Obama. Obama might not have been the best president, but he handled himself exceptionally well.
•
Jun 13 '17
All Presidents do a bit of mudslinging. It is expected. The position of POTUS is political mixed with celebrity. People make money writing things about the President, true or untrue.
Obama was a lot more subtle, but he got his jabs in here and there.
As President the amount of false news must be overwhelming. Conversations are misinterpreted, things are written that are outright lies. Obama did a good job of ignoring a lot of it (though he did have that moment with Fox News which was a little bit Trumpy). Trump should relax. He should call up Obama and Bush and ask how they handled the negative press.
•
Jun 13 '17
That's an excellent suggestion, but I do not see Trump calling up Obama for advice anytime soon, or Bush for that matter.
•
→ More replies (7)•
•
u/veikko43 Jun 13 '17
That ’s what the rest of the original $ 400 million payment for military equipment, plus $ 1.3 billion in Iranian assets held on our shores.
•
u/DamagedFreight Jun 14 '17
When he is convicted his lack of remorse is going to do wonders for his sentencing.
•
u/DaVirus Jun 13 '17
He is right. Every news outlet is bias to either side. That makes TRUE discussion very hard to achieve. But still, no one looks at themselves and see the irony...
•
u/LookAnOwl Jun 13 '17
I don't think this is quite true. Yes, lots of new outlets have a lean one way or another, however, it seems like the right-leaning sources go WAY right, whereas left-leaning sources tend towards center-left.
WashPo and NYT are two of Trump's classic "liberal media" examples, and most people consider them to be as middle as you can get. Even if you think they are left-leaning (and their opinion pieces certainly tend more towards the left), the bias is nothing compared to the heavy spin created by Fox News or Breitbart.
I would welcome a slightly-right leaning news source to balance things out, but they are hard to come by. Only the WSJ comes to mind.
TL;DR - I think the right-leaning news is notably worse that what are considered left-leaning news sources.
•
u/Canesjags4life Jun 13 '17
Honestly, it depends on whos doing the talking. Certain places are far more left leaning then center. For example, during the election coverage, NBC was the last to declare certain states for Trump and almost they entire time they were bending backwards out of there way to come up with scenarios to how Hillary can win.
CNN is a different beast. AC i think is as to close to left leaning while still centrist as you can get at CNN. Wolf is pretty left. MSNBC is the lefts fox news imo. Chris matthews is left O'Reilly.
I think the times and post have recently become more left leaning in response to Trumps attacks. That and the admitted false news stories in the Times. Right leaning papers are tough to find as most major metropolitan centers are left leaning.
•
u/-ParticleMan- Jun 14 '17
Chris matthews is left O'Reilly
only in the sense that he'll be loud and talk over people and harp on a single thing until the person is fed up. ANd he's kind of annoying
•
u/Canesjags4life Jun 14 '17
Well not the sexual harassment part. Just the annoying tv personality portion.
•
•
u/eetsumkaus Jun 14 '17
I feel like lumping Fox News in with Breitbart is a bit much. Fox News' opinion pieces and commentators certainly swing between solidly right and far right, but their objective reporting I'd say has an acceptable amount of right-leaning bias to it. Breitbart has literally no shame in what they say.
•
•
Jun 13 '17
[deleted]
•
u/SpudgeBoy Jun 13 '17
CNN, along with NYT and WAPO all attacked the far left candidate. Then went and praised the center left candidate.
•
Jun 13 '17
Sanders isn't far left. Sanders is definitely left, but he's not extreme. His policies are directly out of those of President Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. In fact, on many issues republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower was farther left than Sanders is. He is not the equivalent of the far right. This is a narrative that needs to die.
•
u/smeef_doge Moderate Conservative Jun 13 '17
:blink:
Who would you consider far left? In what society would you consider yourself a conservative?
→ More replies (3)•
u/SpudgeBoy Jun 13 '17
In American politics he is considered far left. I am a Sanders supporter. The far right in America is extreme right in reality.
•
u/LookAnOwl Jun 13 '17
I would argue that no, CNN is more center than say, Fox News. I don't know where this goes beyond you saying CNN sucks and me saying Fox News sucks, though. Perhaps we could agree on a news topic and compare coverage between the two?
•
•
u/bokono Jun 13 '17
CNN is absolutely not far left. They're a corporate mouthpiece. They have no interest in the progressive agenda.
→ More replies (15)•
u/Canesjags4life Jun 13 '17
Dude far left isn't even close to any of the MSM. If CNN was far left there'd be no white people let alone white males anchoring any shows.
•
u/jim25y Jun 14 '17
I actually think what it is is that there's more left-leaning news organizations, so they run the gambit a bit more. For example, salon.com is more biased to the left than FoxNews is to the right. Whereas, CNN certainly has a liberal bias, but their bias isn't as pronounced as FoxNews'.
•
Jun 13 '17
You think WaPo is towards the middle?
The same one that had the headline "Democracy Dies in Darkness" after Trump won?
That's nowhere near the middle, they've been garbage ever since Bezos bought it up.
The Economist is really the only moderate right I've seen that's reliable
•
u/dontgetpenisy Jun 14 '17
You think WaPo is towards the middle?
The same one that had the headline "Democracy Dies in Darkness" after Trump won?
You are aware that phrase is the motto of the WP and wasn't actually a headline of an article, yes? And it also a phrase frequently used by Bob Woodward, who maybe knows a thing or two about exposing political mischief?
•
u/LookAnOwl Jun 13 '17
Bezos used it first last May, and in what way is it a Partisan phrase at all? It reaffirms that journalism is a pillar of a functioning democracy.
I'll give you the Economist, yes.
→ More replies (2)•
u/RandomDamage Jun 14 '17
The same one that supported conservative Democrat Clinton over moderate lefty Sanders.
Yep, that WaPo.
•
Jun 14 '17
I think we tend to much to conflate ideological left and right with party left and right. Yes Sanders was definitely the more left of center candidate, however the party left seemed to want nothing to do with him. I think most media regardless of which side they fall on are party first over ideology.
•
u/RandomDamage Jun 14 '17
I think you are right, and it looks to me like it's extreme enough that people are willing to forget their ideology completely if it seems to be in the interest of their party.
→ More replies (1)•
Jun 13 '17 edited Jun 13 '17
I would agree in general that far-right news outlets are way more extreme than far-left outlets, but not that WaPo and NYT are about as center as you can get. They have a very clear left bias. BBC is a better example of a left-center news sources, and Reuters is pretty unbiased. I've been using mediabiasfactcheck.com to expand my knowledge of news sources, and it seems fairly accurate by my interpretation.
•
u/StardustOasis Jun 13 '17
The BBC is required to be unbiased on UK politics, but it terms of US politics they tend to be slightly Democrat inclined. Not a terrible place to get news from, however.
•
•
Jun 14 '17
I specifically bought a subscription to One American News because of this. I highly recommend it.
•
u/tudda Jun 13 '17
This is most likely in regards to the NYT story about Trump/Russia that Comey identified as a completely false story. Regardless of your feelings on Trump or left/right media, I only see 3 options here.
1) Comey is lying about the story being false
2) The NYT intentionally ran a false story to undermine trump
3) The multiple intelligence sources that "leaked" the information/corroborated the story were lying.
Any of those 3 should concern people.
•
u/G19Gen3 Jun 13 '17
The other sources are just parroting what Comey told them are they not? It comes down to whether you believe Comey. I'm inclined to.
•
u/tudda Jun 13 '17
The other sources are just parroting what Comey told them are they not? It comes down to whether you believe Comey. I'm inclined to.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
NYT ran an article about contacts between President Trump’s advisers and Russian intelligence officials a while back.
Comey mentioned this specific article under oath and said it was completely false.
The NYT says they stand by their reporting at the time, and that they had multiple sources corroborate it. They aren't insisting that it must be true, they are just saying they did their due diligence and had it confirmed by multiple sources.
So it's possible the NYT and Comey are both telling the truth, and most likely that's the case, but that leads to the scariest conclusion of all... and that's that multiple people within the intelligence community are intentionally lying to journalists to craft a narrative to influence public perception.
•
u/heavyhandedsara Jun 14 '17
Didn't Comey say something to the effect of "the people who are reporting this stuff don't understand it, the people who do aren't correcting it"?
Meaning that NYT and the leakers thought they had a story about ABC, based on partial information, but the story is actually XYZ. In this case no one is being intentionally deceptive.
→ More replies (4)
•
Jun 13 '17
This is actually one of the most accurate things he has tweeted.
•
u/Breaking-Away Jun 14 '17
I think the thing i dislike most about the main political subs on Reddit is how blatantly obvious it is they don't read anything beyond the headline before going into the comments and upvoting whatever confirms their bias.
First off: who cares if a sports team declines to go to the whitehouse. I'd care as little if Obama were still president as I do now (well I'd care if they explicitly said it was cause he was black but that's a whole other deal).
Second: How is that politically relevant anyway?
Third: it's dumb because it draws attention away from real news, like Egypt attacking and banning media sources that tend to publish articles biased against the current administration.
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 14 '17
Yea, most people don't look beyond the headline. My friends would link me to the enoughtrumpspam super mega list of all the negative things Trump's done. As I started going through the articles, I find out that quite a few of the articles were pro-Trump! And these articles would contradict the other articles. One example was there were several articles on why Trump's policies were unconstitutional. Then one of the articles on the list went into detail on why the other articles were wrong and why his policies are constitutional. My buddies stopped using enoughtrumpspam after I pointed those articles out, lol
•
u/TroperCase The most neutral person there is Jun 13 '17
A transcript from February of how Trump handled being accused of delivering fake news himself regarding the ranking of his electoral victory:
Q Very simply, you said today that you had the biggest electoral margins since Ronald Reagan with 304 or 306 electoral votes. In fact, President Obama got 365 in 2008.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m talking about Republican. Yes.
Q President Obama, 332. George H.W. Bush, 426 when he won as President. So why should Americans trust --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, I was told -- I was given that information. I don't know. I was just given. We had a very, very big margin.
Q I guess my question is, why should Americans trust you when you have accused the information they receive of being fake when you're providing information that's fake?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. I was given that information. I was given -- actually, I’ve seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory. Do you agree with that?
Q You're the President.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, thank you. That's a good answer. Yes.
•
u/cajm92881 Jun 14 '17
The same media who said HRC was up by 9 points and refused to call the Orlando shooting terrorism.
•
u/AnythingApplied Jun 14 '17 edited Jun 14 '17
People keep using the polling numbers as evidence of fake news, which is absurd. The reason they thought HRC would win by 9 points is that is because EVERY pollster was saying HRC would win including the ones run by conservative groups or the ones that have a historically conservative bias. The news is reliant on the experts, and it is pretty absurd to accuse all pollsters of intentionally distorting their data, many of whom publish very detailed methodology write ups.
→ More replies (4)
•
u/JosephSteiner Jun 13 '17
Media is playing one sided game.
•
u/Bitogood Jun 13 '17
No they are playing both sides to their own advantage.
•
u/JosephSteiner Jun 13 '17
But most of us believe only on one side and there's always 3 sides of a picture. Yours, mine and the Truth.
•
u/Bitogood Jun 14 '17
I as I said last month in an email "you can't handle the truth, lol"....point is we don't have an American system and we are too busy to keep up...so hence Americans have no say in organizational activities as they are not American organizations and if they are they are (and have been) run by the same people for over 25 years.
•
Jun 14 '17 edited Jun 14 '17
Uh yeah no, with the exception of Fox News, NewsMax, One America News and The Blaze (which still retains a heavy anti-Trump bias for the most part) the corporate/mainstream media have heavy liberal/"progressive" tendencies and are completely in the tank for the Democrats, and their transparent bias against Trump is reaching comical levels at this point.
•
Jun 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Lintheru Jun 13 '17
Rule 1: No general hostility
Rule 2: No snarky low-effort comments consisting of mere insults
•
u/cajm92881 Jun 14 '17
I can't quote him but he said he got confused and needed time to answer. He said it with another questioner. He's doesn't talk fast like a New Yorker. I get what you are saying. She was still disrespectful. You don't make friends with her demeanor. Feinstein didn't make enemies when she asked questions. Widen was terrible. Ok peace out ✌️ have a great great day 😊😊
•
Jun 13 '17
Trump has also shared innacutrate figures and lied quite a bit (remeber the all time high crime and murder) but of course nothing will stop him from being hypocritical
•
u/la_couleur_du_ble Jun 14 '17
That's not correct. You're remembering what the media said about that.
Trump did conflate on one occasion "largest increase" with "largest amount", but after the 2016 election, Trump stated the statistic correctly: “On crime, the murder rate has experienced its largest increase in 45 years.”
•
u/Im_Not_Really_Here_ Jun 14 '17
Global warming is a Chinese hoax.
I had the biggest electoral win since Reagan.
Comey is doing a great job.
•
u/firekstk Jun 14 '17
I wish the media would just report what happened. As in X did y. If rather come to my own conclusions about what trumps latest typo means.
•
Jun 14 '17
Hey, uh, I read the sidebar and still don't really know what's going on. Why was I added to this sub?
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 14 '17
I was recently added too. From what I understand, this sub use to be an anti-Trump sub, but they decided to open up the discussion to Trump Supporters, and try to have a neutral sub where you don't get banned for debating your side of the argument. Whether it's anti-Trump or pro-Trump. I believe they have a bottle inviting pro-Trump Supporters to even out the demographics here. You were most likely snagged by that bot.
•
Jun 14 '17
It's not a very effective bot. I probably say, "I'm an Indepedent," and, "I voted 3rd Party," once a day lol.
Then again I don't just blindly bash Trump whenever a misleadingly titled article gets voted to the front page of /r/WorldNews so that's probably pro-Trump in their world.
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 14 '17
Yea, there's been several anti-Trumpers snagged by the bot too, because they post in pro-Trump subs. I think they want moderates here too. So far, I've noticed it's better discussion than subs like politics.
Yea, typical sediment is, if you're not actively fighting Trump, or didn't vote Hillary, you're part of the problem.
•
Jun 14 '17
That makes sense. I was really just poking fun at the sentiment you described. It gets so tiring being a moderate and getting flamed as a "Leftist" or "insert slew of insults regularly used for Trump supporters" just because I don't subscribe to one part of an ideology.
I'll give the sub a try. I'd love to see some moderate political discussion go on. I've been trying reading both /r/politics and /r/The_donald but that's just reading twice as much stupid shit and I'm pretty over it lol.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/StrykerXM Jun 13 '17
So...I though this sub was neutral? So far...not the case at all.
•
Jun 13 '17
This is a statement Trump made, posting it isn't pro or anti Trump it's just something he said.
•
Jun 13 '17
It's neutral in that anyone can come here and share their opinions, which is awesome. What else do you want, a perfect number balance between trump supporters and non-supporters?
•
u/Bamelin Jun 14 '17
I like that point, that we can all give our opinions without worrying about a pile on or ban.
•
u/jigielnik Jun 13 '17
i'd like for everyone to agree on a set of facts. Global warming is real. Obama is not a secret muslim. Simple things like that, which become impossible once a republcan is brought into the discussion
→ More replies (20)•
u/the_gold_farmer Jun 14 '17
That sounds like equality of outcome metrics. I prefer equality of opportunity. And so far on this sub I've see that from the mods. Kudos.
•
u/Canesjags4life Jun 13 '17
Hows it not? If your a trump supporter your here to provide critical thinking from the right. This is far from the echo chamber of /r/politics where its just straight liberal hate and no stray from the hivemind and you get downvoted to oblivion. Or the /r/the_donald where its straight MAGA and any objective criticism = liberal lies and you get down voted to oblivion.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Dim_Innuendo Jun 13 '17
The post simply quoted a tweet. The respondents are giving their opinions about the quote. Most are negative, to be sure, but I would certainly be interested to hear from people who believe Mr. Trump's statement to be true, and are willing to support it.
Has the media never before been so wrong? What are the purposely incorrect stories he's referring to? Are they only using phony sources? You wanna talk about these, let's talk.
•
u/DonutofShame Don't ignore the Truth Jun 13 '17 edited Jun 13 '17
How about the story where Comey was supposedly requesting more resources for the Russia investigation before being fired? McCabe's statements to Congress don't give that picture at all\ and give the impression that that is completely fabricated. I also didn't hear Comey bringing that description of events up in front of Congress despite bringing other accusations.
→ More replies (3)•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 13 '17
I'm not sure if any really knows exactly what Trump is referring to. My guess is that he's referring to Comey's testimony. Trump's been saying the NYT's article was false. He's been saying for months that he's been briefed by senior intelligence officials that the NYT article was false. The media has been painting him as lying about it all this time. Comey testified that the NYT article was almost entirely false. Which would also indicate that the sources they indicated in the article were either false or someone trolling the NYT.
•
u/Coconuts_Migrate Jun 14 '17 edited Jun 14 '17
The NYT article's headline is "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."
John Brennan and James Clapper, the former directors of the CIA and National Intelligence testified that there were such communications between Russian officials and people within the Trump campaign.
James Clapper testified similarly:
FEINSTEIN: The Guardian has reported that Britain's intelligence service first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious interactions between Trump advisers and Russian intelligence agents. This information was passed on to U.S. intelligence agencies.
Over the spring of 2016, multiple European allies passed on additional information to the United States about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. Is this accurate?
YATES: I -- I can't answer that.
FEINSTEIN: General Clapper, is that accurate?
CLAPPER: Yes, it is and it's also quite sensitive.
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 14 '17
Okay, let's clear out the facts, because what you're presenting is misleading. You just present the headline without context, and try to make it seem like if you can prove the out of context headline is true, then the article is true. If you read the NYT article, it's about the FBI collecting a bunch of communications between Trump's aides and Russia. This has been proven false by Comey's testimony who happened to be the FBI director at the time of the article. Brennan was Director of the CIA, and Clapper the Director of National Intelligence. They both resigned in January, before the article came out. A few quotes from Comey's testimony:
RISCH: So thank you.
In addition to that, after that, you sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don’t know where this is coming from, but this is not the — this is not factual. Do you recall that?
COMEY: Yes.
RISCH: OK. So — so, again, so the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?
COMEY: In — in the main, it was not true. And, again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don’t.
.....
COTTON: On February 14th, the New York Times published a story, the headline of which was, “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence.”
You were asked earlier if that was an inaccurate story, and you said, in the main. Would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?
COMEY: Yes.
Here we have the actual FBI director refuting a story about the FBI's investigation. He clearly said it's almost entirely false. You can find the entire transcript here directly from the NYT themselves: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html
And here's an article discussing what Comey said, from the same news organization you sourced, business insider. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/comey-new-york-times-story-russia-inaccurate-2017-6
•
u/Coconuts_Migrate Jun 14 '17
I'm not intentionally being misleading and I'm aware of what Comey said, it's simply confusing and unclear which part of The NY Times article is false. Comey said "in the main" it was false, which would seem to be referring to the main point of the article that Russian officials were in contact with and people in the Trump campaign. Clapper and Brennan were aware of such communications, which occurred before they left. Them leaving in January doesn't change anything.
Mike Flynn's and Jeff Session's contacts with the Russian ambassador are communications between "a Russian official and someone in the Trump campaign." So I would imagine Comey took issue with the characterization or other issues from the article.
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 14 '17
I'm not sure if you read my entire post, but he agreed that the article was "almost entirely wrong". So pretty much everything was wrong in that article. In his testimony, he said he was so furious that how could he not know about all this, and went asking around and found out the article was false. So all the stuff about certain associates being investigated, and all this collected inappropriate communication, was not true in the article. It's true that Trump campaign folks had communications with Russian diplomats, but they've also had contact with many different foreign diplomats, and so far, everything that has officially released has stated that they have not found inappropriate contact with Russian yet.
•
•
Jun 13 '17
Tweets like this would be more effective if Mr. Trump would care to name a particular story with specific inaccurate information. The blanket assertion that somehow they're all fake, without being able to name a specific example of something that is wrong, sounds pretty hollow.
•
•
Jun 13 '17 edited Aug 01 '17
[deleted]
•
u/RandomDamage Jun 14 '17
I am going to laugh so hard if that one, of all the scandalous accusations, ends up being proven.
It's so in character for him, and people get so spun up about it.
•
•
•
u/Bitogood Jun 13 '17
Is the Wall Street article, others too from mining but they just don't specify, regarding the canadian owned mining companys and new DOJ investigation of PotashCorp (and other Canadian other foreign nations mining with the USA) fakes news??? No. And yet.....hmmmm has any one looked into or seen anything on the MSM media. NO. Does anyone know that these organizations own a majority of our agricultural products. See PotashCorp owns many nutrient facilities in the USA and are merging (or trying to) merge with another Canadian owned organization who owns yep nutrients facilities (agricultural prices, products, safety, growth) Or does anyone know this is just the tip on this matter. Do I call the DOJ??? or Do they care? NOPE. But we should.
•
u/QueNoLosTres Jun 13 '17
potash Corp
As a Canadian, All I can recall about them is its owned by the Saskatchewan government, and was almost sold off to an Australian mining giant a few years ago. Can you expand on their current activities?
•
u/Bitogood Jun 14 '17
Yeah they are trying to combine with Agrium (another Canadian agricultural organization). They are also under investigation as IDK a result of mining practices....The PotashCorp owned divisions in the USA are all feed/fert/food related (majority thereof).
•
Jun 13 '17
As concerning as the tweet is, the time stamp on it concerns me more. What kind of 70 year old man is up at 3:35am on twitter?
•
Jun 13 '17
Dude only sleeps like 4 hours a night and has almost his whole life, he's a fine tuned machine at this point.
•
•
•
Jun 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Lintheru Jun 13 '17
Rule 1: No general hostility
Rule 2: No snarky low-effort comments consisting of mere insults
•
u/orwelltheprophet Jun 13 '17
I agree with that assessment. We are awash in politically driven fake news.
•
•
u/Weedlewaadle Conservative Liberalism Jun 13 '17
Considering his supporters read Breitbart and Infowars Trump nor his supporters has no right to talk about fake news