The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

@SirEdward I mostly agree with you, and as someone smarter than myself said “Best thing about Trump is that it got liberals worrying about feds having too much power.

We should absolutely scrutinize every single
word he says and every single action he takes, as we should with all politicians at every level. If this continues beyond Trump then I would personally consider his presidency as a resounding success.
 
Short version: Mexico agreed to all their concessions months ago (before Trump's tariff threat), and Trump claimed they agreed to buy a bunch of farm goods but there's nothing in the agreement about that and Mexico says they never discussed it and they don't know what he's talking about.

Either Trump is clueless and doesn't know what Mexico already agreed to, or he got played into accepting something they already agreed to.

This is part for the course for Trump: make a bunch of threats and slap a tariff on something. Markets drop, people get pissed. He blames the democrats, Mexico, or anyone but himself and claims he is being treated unfairly; says he will push them around to get what he wants. Then he declares he got what he wanted, even if it has nothing to do with what he first complained about, cancels the tariff. Markets go up because stability is good for growth. Trump declares victory for "fixing" the problem he caused.
 
Last edited:
Why, so you can find some new reason that sources don't matter unless they tell you what you want to hear?
 
No, to verify this is not one of those "inside sources claim" article that could've been done by the guard's wives' golf friends who occasionally plays at a Trump course. It is a reasonable thing to ask considering that if there was something written about this all the media would be on it like children on an ice cream truck, whether they allegedly go 'orange man bad' or not.
 
10 seconds of reading will tell you that all of these reference the original NYT article. I am not trying to shit on NYT, however we have seen before that an article gets essentially reprinted by a bunch of outlets and then later debunked. I am not in any way suggesting that NYT made this up or that it is not true. Simply that having independent confirmation from other sources is a basic necessity at this point.
 
You wanted something where you could see the full article without having to pay. Now you are complaining that it's referencing the article I originally linked - because I followed it back to the agency that originally broke the story.
 
You wanted something where you could see the full article without having to pay. Now you are complaining that it's referencing the article I originally linked - because I followed it back to the agency that originally broke the story.
I didn't complain of anything. Lev asked you for a source other than NYT, the ones you provided are reprints of NYT article, which is all I pointed out.

To be completely honest, I don't much care either way. I think tariffs are idiotic, no matter who implements them and I also don't think it's up to MX (or any other foreign country) to secure US border.
 
No, more because I wouldn't use the NYT to wipe my ass. They're notorious for attacking Trump so when I can't find any third party verification of their claims, I tend to be skeptical.
:ROFLMAO: Don't like critique of the person you like? Find the news source that you already agree with!

Trump is being criticized because of how he attempts to run things, the role of the media in a democracy is to create that accountability, not tell you what you want to hear or repeat the talking points of the administration.

I wonder if you are so critical of news stories that you like? Do you also want multiple independent sources for favorable stories, because so far, I haven't seen it in here.
 
Last edited:
"Notorious for attacking Trump"? That's ... bad? I thought taking the man to task is what papers were supposed to do, if they're worth their salt.
 
"Notorious for attacking Trump"? That's ... bad? I thought taking the man to task is what papers were supposed to do, if they're worth their salt.
Factually reporting is one thing, spinning a certain narrative is another.
 
 
^ Now can I point out that I fucking called the deficit back when the tax cuts were announced and I was told I was full of shit by certain users?

Because I fucking called it. "The tax cuts will pay for themselves" my ass.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics...t/story?id=63669304&__twitter_impression=true

Nothing to see here, just the president of the US staying he would work with foreign nations to get dirt on his political rivals...

Before someone says that no politician would turn down an advantage, Al Gore was given George W Bush's debate prep and guess what? He called the FBI. I guess when you act like a thug and a gangster, in your world "calling the FBI" isn't an option.
 
Last edited:
Top