The New York Slimes accusing the President of lying
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean it's beyond denial at this point, even for the most cautious of observers. He's had months to correct himself of the widely criticised and openly debunked "three million illegals" claim. He is straight up lying to salve a sore ego and there's no disputing it.
Even if there was any doubt, he's not going to get the benefit of it after his constant tantrums aimed at the press. Why do you think all previous administrations went out of their way to court the press? Alienating them is a suicidal tactic.
And this is his first week in office.
No no, alternative facts are the real ones. It's regular vanilla facts you can't trust.
Oh please..spare me.The NYT was and is a Clinton mouthpiece, credibility zero.Trump is from New York and he is lying.
Doesn't a Mexican national own part of the NYT?. If so wouldn't that mean the Mexican government is meddling in our elections?.
The New York Times was one of the news organisations that was wined and dined by John Podesta during the campaign, aloing with CNN, MSNBC and others. I know who Alex Jones is and I dont watch him...I dont have to. The fact that what I have stated is the absolute truth speaks for itself.You should probably watch less Info Wars.
That Politico's Glenn Thrush, who was caught sending stories to Hillary Clinton staffers before publication, now works for them.
Mate.....you can say whatever you like, it happened.
and this
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...d-her-campaign
and hereAmong the e-mails released on October 10 by the WikiLeaks media organization were several indicating that the Clinton campaign exercised veto power over the content of a New York Times report — and that a CNBC reporter offered advice to the Clinton campaign.
http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileak...erted-sanders/
This is what happens when the media decides to pick a side in a political contest. They had a choice...report the story or become part of it. The moment they decided to "anoint their chosen candidate", and worked WITH that candidate as a partisan member of her campaign, is when whatever trust anyone may have had with that newspaper went bye bye.When the Times wasn’t attacking Sanders, they were widely ignoring him. Clinton dominated their headlines throughout the primaries, and news coverage focused on her improvements and positive attributes over her gaffes and shortcomings as a presidential candidate. On February 1, Penn State journalism professor Russell Frank urged the Times to adhere to their public editor’s criticisms and take their thumbs off the scale for Clinton. The company never did.
They cannot be trusted, they have a distinct and specific political bias and an agenda. As such, they have no credibility whatsoever.
I dont read that either. This may come as a surprise to you, but I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind.Nah, Australian righties get their bullshit from the Daily Teletrash.