Trump blasts media, calls journalists 'very unpatriotic' for reporting on government

[Deleted]

Oh man. Seriously, thanks for this. I couldn't have asked for a better setup.


First, it's a truth-o-meter fact-check of a single statement, it's a more-involved article.
Second, Ctrl-F and search for "strong but not amazing". No hits. It's fine if you want to quote Concha, but don't claim you're quoting Politifact when you do so.

Absolutely LOL .Atomicrofl.

Maybe, just maybe you cant CTRL+F search for it because they posted the statement as an IMAGE LOL. Here, I will even post the image for you because somehow, anyhow you managed to miss it.



And I cant claim im quoting politifact when they have the quote right there and their logo under it posted on their own website?
Thank you for this setup indeed. God this is amusing.

[Endus]

Absolutely LOL

Atomicrofl.

Maybe, just maybe you cant CTRL+F search for it because they posted the statement as an IMAGE LOL. Here, I will even post the image for you

And I cant claim im quoting politifact when they have the quote right there and their logo under it?
Thank you for this setup indeed. EL OH EL

And yet, that doesn't back you up. Because you're still mischaracterizing Politifact's fact-checking. As described above. Which you're ignoring, because you can't defend your own stance, so you're trying to move goalposts and hope nobody notices the lies.

Remember; your original claim was that they couldn't fact-check a subjective adjective. But their analysis of it was itself subjective. Which you ignored.

[Deleted]

And yet, that doesn't back you up. Because you're still mischaracterizing Politifact's fact-checking. As described above. Which you're ignoring, because you can't defend your own stance, so you're trying to move goalposts and hope nobody notices the lies.

Remember; your original claim was that they couldn't fact-check a subjective adjective. But their analysis of it was itself subjective. Which you ignored.

"Wait guys, lemme just tell this guy I cant ctrl+F search the statement and post the article, and then somehow completely miss the super obvious banner image with the statement in it, and then act surprised and sad why he doesnt take me serious and doesnt engage me anymore"

Thank you endus, you made me happy and cheered me up today.

Next up: Making it illegal to criticize the government. He needs to be stopped, he's starting to actually get good at this whole "corruption" madness, instead of just being a standard incompetent, arrogant tool.

If Trump was a dictator as you claim, the whole left would be afraid to insult him like they do on a daily basis.

[Endus]

"Wait guys, lemme just tell this guy I cant ctrl+F search the statement and post the article, and then somehow completely miss the super obvious banner image with the statement in it, and then act surprised and sad why he doesnt take me serious and doesnt engage me anymore"

Thank you endus, you made me happy and cheered me up today.

You're still hand-waving away your lies in the hopes that one minor oversight somehow contradicts everything else.

It doesn't change anything. You're still an inveterate liar.

[Powerogue]

If Trump was a dictator as you claim, the whole left would be afraid to insult him like they do on a daily basis.

I didn't say he was a dictator, I implied he was getting there. Would you rather wait until he does? Dictators don't start their reign full throttle psychopath, they work their way up. Right now, he's trying to claim criticizing the government is "unpatriotic", despite, you know, this:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

Criticizing the government is kind of a necessary part of our system. Have you read this document before?

[Deleted]

I didn't say he was a dictator, I implied he was getting there. Would you rather wait until he does? Dictators don't start their reign full throttle psychopath, they work their way up. Right now, he's trying to claim criticizing the government is "unpatriotic", despite, you know, this:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

Criticizing the government is kind of a necessary part of our system. Have you read this document before?

slander, vile attacks, biased reporting and out of context spinning are not valid critiques.

[Shaderas]

slander, vile attacks, biased reporting and out of context spinning are not valid critiques.

Every single president has had these for as long as I can remember. The opposition always acts like total shits... deal with it.

[Noxx79]

slander, vile attacks, biased reporting and out of context spinning are not valid critiques.

It's all your avatar does, so maybe you should tell him?

[Endus]

slander, vile attacks, biased reporting and out of context spinning are not valid critiques.

Just call them the "lugenpresse". You're doing everything but using the label itself.

[Deleted]

Just call them the "lugenpresse". You're doing everything but using the label itself.

It's called Lügenpresse.

[Endus]

It's called Lügenpresse.

Are you really going to nitpick that I didn't include the umlaut? It's not standard on English keyboards and I couldn't be arsed to load up the character map or find the ASCII code for it.

The important point is you, and the President himself, are using Nazi propaganda tactics. Literally not updated in any respect in 80 years.

[Deleted]

Are you really going to nitpick that I didn't include the umlaut? It's not standard on English keyboards and I couldn't be arsed to load up the character map or find the ASCII code for it.

The important point is you, and the President himself, are using Nazi propaganda tactics. Literally not updated in any respect in 80 years.

Just highlighting what an actual minor mistake looks like.

2nd point: Wrong. Also, if you are unable to identify propaganda and bias against conservatives from the left, you are anything but moderate. You are one of the far/radical left.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...sts-ncna895471

[Noxx79]

Wrong. Also, if you are unable to identify propaganda and bias against conservatives from the left, you are anything but moderate. You are one of the far/radical left.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...sts-ncna895471

Says the one who doesn't know the difference between factual and opinon reporting. EVERYTHING you have ever said about the left is actually yours and trumps tactics.

Pathetic. Cry more.

[timberx]

Just highlighting what an actual minor mistake looks like.

2nd point: Wrong. Also, if you are unable to identify propaganda and bias against conservatives from the left, you are anything but moderate. You are one of the far/radical left.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...sts-ncna895471

Evan Siegfried is a Republican strategist and commentator

Fucking lol.

[Deleted]

Fucking lol.

I never claimed otherwise. Try again.

[timberx]

I never claimed otherwise. Try again.

What? I'm just laughing at your source. Calm yourself.

[Endus]

2nd point: Wrong. Also, if you are unable to identify propaganda and bias against conservatives from the left, you are anything but moderate. You are one of the far/radical left.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...sts-ncna895471

Evan Siegfried is a Republican strategist and commentator

You're really bad at this. And that's without digging into the meat of the guy's account, which is just a flat-out long-winded whine, where he ironically projects his own issues onto the entire media.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...sts-ncna895471

See, this shit right here is why it's hard to take conservatives seriously. Why you ask? Let's look!

Conservatives were rightly upset when at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, the USA Today editorial board parroted, almost verbatim, a claim of the then president’s that his administration had been scandal-free. While this was done by the editorial board of a major newspaper, the line was repeated by many journalists, including by NBC News’ Tom Brokaw, despite Republican investigations into the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, the investigation into the ATF's Fast and Furious program and the investigation into the Obama Administration's federal guarantees for Solyndra, among others.

That's the claim from the NBC op-ed piece by Evan Siegfried. That's quite a claim and as Evan says, it would fly in the face of reality and facts! Let's see what the USA Today editorial board actually wrote now, shall we?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ates/89770472/

And yet here he is, over 50%. A number of commentators say Obama benefits from comparisons with this year's candidates to succeed him. There's probably some truth to that. Obama has been a largely classy, mature and personally scandal-free presence in the White House.

They're specifically speaking about personal scandals, matters of behavior related to him and his family rather than policies or government activity, of which the USA Today editorial board is absolutely correct. And Siegfried is little more than a dishonest baby who has to lie to find a way to be "victimized" by "the left".

It's hard to take his piece remotely seriously when literally 5 paragraphs in he's already lying. Earlier too if we look to actual internet history and see that the "Binders full of women" comment coverage was largely driven by the reaction to his comment from viewers who commented on it on social media. Media covered the reaction and reacted afterwards, but despite Siegfried trying to pin the blame on media for portraying him as an "anti-woman extremist" (which they didn't do, though they did present his comments in context with many of his policies related to women's issues including reproductive rights etc.) they were absolutely not leading that charge.

[Endus]

but despite Siegfried trying to pin the blame on media for portraying him as an "anti-woman extremist" (which they didn't do, though they did present his comments in context with many of his policies related to women's issues including reproductive rights etc.) they were absolutely not leading that charge.

I still remember that Romney debacle. Nobody was claiming he was an "anti-woman extremist". It was a funny sound bite and demonstrated that Romney was out of touch. That's it. It made him look silly, more than anything else, and given that his prime demeanor was in trying to be a forthright, decent, Mormon candidate, "silly" drove voters away.

[Glnger]

wasn't it just a month ago a deranged white terrorist shot up a newspaper staff?

It's almost like Trump is deranged and doesn't understand the consequences of his speech and actions.