1/18/18

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

http://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
1/18/18

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.

Learn More

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

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18
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...

1/18/18

"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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

wiretapping Fox News journalists: https://apnews.com/b89a121c72794bcfbfcc92e9299d7e0...
Iranian money: http://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.

1/18/18
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://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.

1/18/18

"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.

1/18/18
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

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

"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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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...

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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".

1/18/18

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

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18

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!

1/18/18
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...

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
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...

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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.

1/20/18

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"

1/20/18

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

1/20/18
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.

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

" Negative =/= innacurate"

This can't be stressed enough

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

1/18/18
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?

1/18/18

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

1/20/18

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.

1/18/18

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

1/18/18
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.

1/19/18
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?

1/19/18
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.

1/18/18

"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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

Yeah he went really easy on them.

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

1/18/18

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"

1/18/18

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

Learn More

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

1/18/18

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

1/18/18
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).

1/18/18
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?

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18

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

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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

1/22/18

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

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

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"

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18
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"

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

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"

1/18/18

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!

1/18/18

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

1/22/18

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 :~)

1/18/18

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"

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18

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?

1/18/18

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

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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"

1/22/18

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

Oh wait you don't!

1/18/18
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...

1/18/18
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"

1/18/18

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

1/18/18
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 ;)

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18

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

1/18/18
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.

1/22/18

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

1/22/18

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.

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

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

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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

1/18/18
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%.

1/18/18

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

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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.

1/22/18
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

1/18/18

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

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
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.

1/18/18

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.

1/18/18
BobTheBaker:

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.

1) The media lies so much that it's often uncertain who is lying and who is telling the truth. 2) Because the President has far less power than the left would love for the president to have thanks to the U.S. Constitution. The president isn't a dictator. And while real policy debates are happening, their focusing on a book--Fire and Fury--that has a preface that literally states that this book is largely a work of fiction. 3) The point is moot about how I would feel about the media focusing on a liberal moron as president since the media is almost completely uncritical of Democrats.

1/18/18

This thread is filled with nonsense. The false equivalencies here posted by Trump supporters are unacceptable to anyone who follows current events.

To people saying that Obama used the IRS to target the Tea Party, anyone who followed that case to it's conclusion knows that it is a zombie story. The IRS autied groups with words like "social welfare" and "progressive" in them, too. This was not a scandal, much less a partisan scandal. https://npr.org/2017/10/05/555975207/as-irs-ta...
To people talking about Obama wiretapping James Rosen, that was in order to find someone leaking classified information. It was not to put Rosen in jail or charge him with something. Trump literally told James Comey to put journalists in jail while he was still FBI Director. He also has trashed the US media while on foreign soil and gone on Twitter saying that broadcast licenses for outlets he disagrees with should be revoked, among other ridiculous ideas. https://nytimes.com/2017/05/17/business/media/...

1/18/18

He didn't even wiretap him lol. So the headline itself is bullshit.

1/18/18
SwapInterestingRate:

To people saying that Obama used the IRS to target the Tea Party, anyone who followed that case to it's conclusion knows that it is a zombie story. The IRS autied groups with words like "social welfare" and "progressive" in them, too. This was not a scandal, much less a partisan scandal. https://npr.org/2017/10/05/555975207/as-irs-ta...

Nope, nothing to see here:

https://nytimes.com/2017/10/26/us/politics/irs...
The Justice Department settled two lawsuits with conservative groups that claimed the Internal Revenue Service had unfairly scrutinized them during applications for tax-exempt status. The government agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement to resolve one lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of 428 groups, said Edward Greim, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. The government will not pay damages to the 41 groups in the second lawsuit, but the I.R.S. acknowledged its conduct was wrong.

And ya know, that whole Lois Lerner pleading the Fifth Amendment? Yeah, nothing to see.

SwapInterestingRate:

To people talking about Obama wiretapping James Rosen, that was in order to find someone leaking classified information. It was not to put Rosen in jail or charge him with something. Trump literally told James Comey to put journalists in jail while he was still FBI Director. He also has trashed the US media while on foreign soil and gone on Twitter saying that broadcast licenses for outlets he disagrees with should be revoked, among other ridiculous ideas. https://nytimes.com/2017/05/17/business/media/...

The DOJ apologized to James Rosen for their misconduct. You can't even acknowledge their misconduct when the DOJ actually apologized for it.

1/18/18

@SwapInterestingRate posts proof that conservatives AND liberals were targeted: you sieze on the part that discusses only the conservative portion. That's very very intellectually honest. BTW, per the report, this occured from 2004-2013, so four of those years were prior to Obama.

@SwapInterestingRate posts proof that no wiretapping occured and (accurately) stated they were looking for a leaker: you go on about an apology. An apology for misconduct does not mean they apologized for trying to jail him or targeted him due to negative coverage, like you originally stated. But I'm the pathological liar. Amazing.

1/18/18
BobTheBaker:

@SwapInterestingRate posts proof that conservatives AND liberals were targeted: you sieze on the part that discusses only the conservative portion. That's very very intellectually honest. BTW, per the report, this occured from 2004-2013, so four of those years were prior to Obama.

@SwapInterestingRate posts proof that no wiretapping occured and (accurately) stated they were looking for a leaker: you go on about an apology. An apology for misconduct does not mean they apologized for trying to jail him or targeted him due to negative coverage, like you originally stated. But I'm the pathological liar. Amazing.

Notice how the news report of "bipartisan" scrutiny doesn't specify the number of groups that were targeted, and it doesn't even say which organization conducted the report. There were at least 470 conservative groups acknowledged as targeted by the IRS. What is the number of leftist groups?

The DOJ specifically apologized for heightened scrutiny of conservative groups between 2009 and 2012.

1/18/18

Can you post this apology?

Does it really matter what number it is? The point is both liberals and conservatives were targeted. Notice that this time was during the tea party swell and tons of tea party related organizations where filing non-tax status, for all we know the number of non-tax status applications filed by conservative groups outnumbered liberal groups 10-1 during this period. Naturally, if they are focusing on key words then during this specific period the conservative groups targeted would easily outnumber their liberal counterparts.

p.s. the investigation was performed by the treasury department's inspector general

1/18/18
BobTheBaker:

Can you post this apology?

Does it really matter what number it is? The point is both liberals and conservatives were targeted. Notice that this time was during the tea party swell and tons of tea party related organizations where filing non-tax status, for all we know the number of non-tax status applications filed by conservative groups outnumbered liberal groups 10-1 during this period. Naturally, if they are focusing on key words then during this specific period the conservative groups targeted would easily outnumber their liberal counterparts.

There is a link to the 2013 apology in the article I posted. And the 2017 a apology is partially quoted.

The number matters because holding up 470 conservative groups and 15 liberal groups (or whatever the number is) unfairly is a wild difference. It's also funny how the NY Times didn't even list who the study came from that showed targeting of liberal groups. I'm sure it happened on some scale, but the fact that the NY Times failed to list the numbers is or the organization conducting the study is fairly telling.

1/18/18

I stated who conducted the study, the NYT stated who conducted the study in another article linked to the article linked on this thread. The numbers matter but they were specifically targeting groups filing non-tax status, there was an explosion of those by tea party related groups. You can't ignore this. You also can't ignore that, per the study, the targeting based on key words started four years before Obama was even in office. In any case, casting doubt on any evidence that doesn't fit your narrative is what you do so this is going to go on forever. I'm out.

1/18/18
BobTheBaker:

I stated who conducted the study, the NYT stated who conducted the study in another article linked to the article linked on this thread. The numbers matter but they were specifically targeting groups filing non-tax status, there was an explosion of those by tea party related groups. You can't ignore this. You also can't ignore that, per the study, the targeting based on key words started four years before Obama was even in office. In any case, casting doubt on any evidence that doesn't fit your narrative is what you do so this is going to go on forever. I'm out.

The DOJ literally settled a multi-million dollar lawsuit with 434 conservative groups and issued an apology to 40 more over their conduct in unfairly targeting them and you're denying that there was a partisan motivation.

When did you say who conducted the study? Who conducted the study and why haven't the aggrieved liberal parties filed a lawsuit? I genuinely don't see where that was mentioned.

1/18/18
BobTheBaker:

p.s. the investigation was performed by the treasury department's inspector general

1/18/18
BobTheBaker:
BobTheBaker:

p.s. the investigation was performed by the treasury department's inspector general

And did it specify if those un-numbered groups actually received tax-exempt status? Because most of the 470 conservative organizations fought tooth and nail to get tax-exempt status, many of them missing the 2012 election as a result.

Give me a number. And where was the lawsuit from these liberal organizations or was there no lawsuit because they received tax-exempt status?

1/18/18

Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said, "Democrats should be outraged."

"The IRS targeted Americans based on their political beliefs. Both parties. They targeted heavily on the conservative side, but the point being -- the IRS not only had no protections for taxpayers, they actively targeted Americans based on buzzwords," he told reporters.

Apparently while you continue to live in your own narrative, Kevin Brady, a republican congressman, already acknowledged that this occured. Bro, I'm out.

1/18/18
BobTheBaker:

Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said, "Democrats should be outraged."

"The IRS targeted Americans based on their political beliefs. Both parties. They targeted heavily on the conservative side, but the point being -- the IRS not only had no protections for taxpayers, they actively targeted Americans based on buzzwords," he told reporters.

Apparently while you continue to live in your own narrative, Kevin Brady, a republican congressman, already acknowledged that this occured. Bro, I'm out.

"Heavily on the conservative side." Kind of making my point.

1/18/18

""The IRS targeted Americans based on their political beliefs. Both parties."

Start with how he led the statement lol. This is too much.

1/18/18
BobTheBaker:

""The IRS targeted Americans based on their political beliefs. Both parties."

Start with how he led the statement lol. This is too much.

The DOJ engaged in a multi-million dollar settlement with 434 conservative organizations. That's an objective fact. Where is the lawsuit from the liberal aggrieved parties? Where? Where is it?

1/18/18

Should there be a distinction made that it is the Trump/Sessions DoJ agreeing to a settlement/giving an apology? I mean, that seems to have a pretty distinctive and unsurprising political alignment. And doesn't it still need judicial approval or did it pass that phase already?

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

1/18/18
Che Rand:

Should there be a distinction made that it is the Trump/Sessions DoJ agreeing to a settlement/giving an apology? I mean, that seems to have a pretty distinctive and unsurprising political alignment. And doesn't it still need judicial approval or did it pass that phase already?

Sure. We can point that out. But where are the liberal groups that have sued the IRS? From what I can tell, there hasn't been a significant liberal lawsuit against the IRS because while some of those groups received additional scrutiny they still largely obtained tax-exempt status in time for the 2012 election. Many of these conservative groups were in grinding battles for YEARS with the IRS. Read some of the accounts of the targeted groups. The IRS put them in a bureaucratic vice for years.

1/20/18

Why should it have been done before the election? My understanding is that the 501c4 status bars organizations from participating in political activities. The reason organizations were looked at is because groups (many tea party groups) abuse the status and funnel political money through them, which ya can't do.

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

1/18/18

Just wanna give a shout out to the 5 or so hyperactive political commenters that have turned WSO into a total fucking nightmare 24/7.

Guys, it's a finance forum. Get a grip.

1/18/18

You would think I was some hyperpolitical toolbox based on my post history, what's crazy is I'm really not. All politicians are generally self-serving assholes. I just feel compelled to generally speak up in what has quickly become a conservative echo chamber. You've no idea how many people who don't bother have msged me thanking me for contradicting the general nonsense that goes on in these political discussions, or at least providing a different viewpoint.

p.s. No one is forcing you to read or post on these threads either, just sayin'

1/18/18

I'm on your side man. I usually just laugh at the breitbart echo chamber writing 5,000 word posts and SBing each other not realizing 99% of the WSO community is quietly rolling their eyes at them, but lately it's gotten to the point where it's ruining the site.

1/18/18

It's gotten crazy man. You have people saying fuck aziz he deserves to be falsely accused of sexual assault because they don't agree with his political beliefs. Just insane, like they actually hate the dude.

1/18/18

Fight the good fight man

Monkey see. Monkey Doo [Doo].

1/18/18

Can't believe inauguration crowd size didn't make the cut

Sad!

1/22/18

That was actually real news lol..

"Elections are a futures market for stolen property"

1/18/18

You know what I'm so glad Trump did this. In fact I want more things like this from him. The fact is that the blind lemmings such as Anthony will continue to uncritically support and follow Trump no matter what. It's pointless to consider what they think. But the more often Trump makes a mockery of the presidency and the country the more obvious it will become to anybody with a rational and non-delusional brain that he and the Republican Party are the true enemies of this country. They want to destroy the Constitution and all institutions of the nation to make a quick buck for themselves and their friends. And once people realize the GOP is a party of traitors there will be a reckoning.

There's no hope for the Gunz, 'bortionz, n Gayz crowd but hopefully those of us actually mentally fit will overpower them at the federal level. And the red states will just continue to wither away. That's my hope for the future, friends. And that's why I fully support Trump embarrassing himself daily.

1/22/18

my god man are you going to kill @TNA for supporting trump or something? i just joke around on here but this is actually a VERY scary post

you literally stalk his every movement and call him by his first name like your next victim LOL

you and @onemanwolfpack both seem like you are ready to pull a ted kaczynski at any time just because someone hurt your feelings on the internet by having a different opinion

i literally see no difference between your ramblings saying that your fellow countrymen are the enemies of the country and that of some type of columbine shooter lol

1/22/18

This site is such a joke haha.

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

1/22/18
Dig Bumb Idiot:

my god man are you going to kill @TNA for supporting trump or something? i just joke around on here but this is actually a VERY scary post

I think you're reading too much into this. I only call him out because he's the king of the Republican stooges on this website. A perfect example of somebody who refuses to look at his own party critically. I don't dislike him other than his insane far right political beliefs (which are completely mainstream for the Republican party).

you literally stalk his every movement and call him by his first name like your next victim LOL

He's just the poster child for your average Trump/GOP worshipper.

you and @onemanwolfpack both seem like you are ready to pull a ted kaczynski at any time just because someone hurt your feelings on the internet by having a different opinion

Projecting much? The ultra far right fascists that control Republican ideology are the true violent thugs in this country.

i literally see no difference between your ramblings saying that your fellow countrymen are the enemies of the country and that of some type of columbine shooter lol

Right then. Well I've never threatened anyone on this board or even mentioned directing violence towards any particular group. I stand by the fact that the far right wing in this country is composed of traitors and enemies of the people. Fortunately there's no need for violence except when defending ourselves against the neo-nazi jackboots that strangely adore our president. Since admittedly most Republican voters are not part of that group I'm content with simply voicing my opinion that the right hates this country and voting for the correct choices when the time comes.

I'm not sure what else to call people that openly support Russian interference in our democratic process. Thoughts?

1/22/18

This is such a simple analysis.

Trump was pretty much hated by the traditional right. Why? Because he talked about union jobs (big business hates this) and other populist measures.

And let's be real, all the nazis and KKK members supported all the standard republicans. Do you really fault Trump for having this tiny minority of voters? Do you fault Dems for having black panthers in their voting roles?

I ripped Trumps ass for bombing Syria. I fully support him fixing immigration. How someone can say they are liberals and at the same time support unfettered immigrantion when we have a deficit of well paying, low skilled jobs for the millions of democrat voters is beyond me.

The same people will mock the "idiots" who voted for trump because they think jobs will come back (the same idiots who resoundly voted democrat during the Kerry/Gore/Obama candidacies), yet advocate for more unskilled immigrantion is insane.

So tell me this? Billy Bob is a fool for hoping for well paying, low skilled jobs, but it's OK to bring more unskilled people in this country? How does this logic work?

We all get it. Dems want more minority voters. Cool. But let's pretend it's about human rights or compassion. It's pandering, just like the other side does.

As for Trump, love the tax plan. Looks like he will compromise on immigration (as the NYC liberal he truly is) and the infrastructure plan looks good (which will benefit red and blue states).

But sure, let's run on a platform that is entirely about resist and impeach. Makes sense. About as stupid as the radical tea party that thankfully went away.

Yeah, I'm the zealot hahaha.

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

1/22/18

"But the more often Trump makes a mockery of the presidency and the country the more obvious it will become to anybody with a rational and non-delusional brain that he and the Republican Party are the true enemies of this country."

Translation: Anyone who does not agree with me EXACTLY on EVERYTHING is not rational, do you at least consider them human? This really seems like a pretext to violence man, you need mental help. I am being genuine here.

@TNA you should literally worry about your safety before @thurnis haley tries to kill you IRL

1/22/18

Post-truth politics, where facts come after opinions, is deteriorating the world. Trump is sticking it to us as Americans for being exceptional.

This mid-term cycle has only gotten worse with new lunies coming to light like Chelsea Manning, and radical progressivism as the new norm.

Who cares about Trump's policies when he's making shithole comments and doing this stupid fake news awards?

People on WSO defending Trump's vulgarity is astounding. Appreciate the policy but leave the idiocy at home and between social interactions. There's no excuses, no matter what policy is being implemented.

"Loser terrorists" & "bad hombres"

"Typical candidates are those who attended a top-tier academic institution"
-Most job applications

1/22/18

i get you dislike trump and you are some neocon ben shapiro shill lord, but come on man this dude @thurnis haley just said he wants people who are part of the opposite political parties or live in red states to "wither away and die"

that is scary stuff lol

you don't find that more scary than someone saying some mean insults? this dude is literally wishing death upon you and anyone (even if they are democrats) who live in red states JUST give me a break how is this allowed on WSO

1/22/18
Dig Bumb Idiot:

i get you dislike trump and you are some neocon ben shapiro shill lord, but come on man this dude @thurnis haley just said he wants people who are part of the opposite political parties or live in red states to "wither away and die"

that is scary stuff lol

you don't find that more scary than someone saying some mean insults? this dude is literally wishing death upon you and anyone (even if they are democrats) who live in red states JUST give me a break how is this allowed on WSO

Using the word 'shill' gets you far in some circles but not in mine. You radical lefties and righties need to get in a giant ball pit and kick and scream until you fall asleep, because you're all a bunch of unreasonable babies.

"Loser terrorists" & "bad hombres"

"Typical candidates are those who attended a top-tier academic institution"
-Most job applications

1/22/18

ok but i'm not radical in anyway and you are mad at me when someone just said they literally want to you die and you are ok with that, but not that i called a shill which isn't even an insult?

"but not in mine" that was a really self important message man, please make another post about how cool ben shapiro is that no one will like lol

1/22/18

Are you still referencing the shit hole comment? It was said in a private meeting.

Trump is blunt and unpolished. The criticisms against him sound like old money scoffing at new money. Or someone looking down at a blue collar millionaire.

Attacking someone's education is like left 101. Bush was a monkey and make fun of. Yet the second obama didn't have a TelePrompter he was humming and hawing.

Literally who gives a shit if trump isn't speaking in prose. You're worried what others think? Like who? Merkel who is watching the rise of right wing extremism because she's allowed millions of uber fundamental young males into her country?

Or maybe our esteemed drama professor up north who is a male bimbo. Or we talking about the leaders in the UK who set the stage for Brexit. Or the French who were so polite and verbose, with such shitty policies that led to the National Front being a legit party.

I prefer action, results over imagery. I prefer a pragmatic deal maker over someone beholden to politics. Trump would 100% work with Dems if they'd work with him. How many Republicans you think would cross the aisle?

So much snobbery, it amazes me. Especially on a site for people who have issues breaking into one of the most base industries.

I've met literally hundreds of people odd this site and I've come across maybe 2 that id consider eloquent. But I guess the demographics have changed recently. Bunch of Shakespearians on here now.

Please.

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

1/22/18

To the liberals on here. No one is saying that you don't have the right to express your views or to disagree with my sentiment or the sentiments of those that generally agree with my conservative position. That said, the form of argumentation used here is beyond inappropriate.

Some examples of what I'm referring to:

BobTheBaker:

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.

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.

rockrile15074:

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

thurnis haley:

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

onemanwolfpack:

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

aljdljaldla:

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.

Ricky Sargulesh:

Just wanna give a shout out to the 5 or so hyperactive political commenters that have turned WSO into a total fucking nightmare 24/7.

Ricky Sargulesh:

I'm on your side man. I usually just laugh at the breitbart echo chamber writing 5,000 word posts and SBing each other not realizing 99% of the WSO community is quietly rolling their eyes at them, but lately it's gotten to the point where it's ruining the site.

I understand that many of you do not frequently encounter those that hold our conservative views, particularly because finance hubs tend to be in extremely liberal cities. I know that, in the work environments that I've been in, my views are extremely rare. That said, we can have a principled discussion without resorting to personal attacks and threats of physical violence.

Also, no one forced any of you to participate on this thread. You came here to engage on your own free will. If you're not interested in hearing opposing views then you're free hurl MS at those comments you disagree with and SBs at those that you find agreeable. Or, you can choose to disassociate yourself from this sort of conversation entirely.

The president put out a few concrete examples of the media publishing objectively false stories about him and his administration. Yes, some of those included on the list aren't objectively "fake news" stories (such as Krugman's terribly wrong prediction). Yes, some of the stories are laughable (which was also kind of the point).

I wanted to discuss the phenomenon because it really is unprecedented (the challenge is still open for anyone to show any other president receiving this many objectively false stories in a single year). But I have to admit that I did not expect this level of belligerence, and I've had debates on many different forums with very ideological people (Marxists, Post-Keynesians, libertarian socialists, etc.).

"Elections are a futures market for stolen property"

1/22/18

Lmao at quoting me with no fucking context whatsoever, did you see who I was responding to in that second quote? he is a basic troll. He misconstrued my words purposefully from an entirely unrelated thread in order to troll, and I responded as one should respond to such nonsense. As for your first quote, I went back and forth with VTech4ever aka Danceswithdaschunds aka 18 yr. old troll or whatever his new name is until I was resigned to acknowlegding the obvious. I caught him in an obvious and outrageous lie and he continues to move the goal post on said lie, when faced with facts he continues to deny such facts, then he hits me with the claim that I am a "race-baiting pathological liar" - real constructive. Look at my initial post for my thoughts on the matter. BTW, quoting people out of context is entirely ironic considering you are discussing the quality of posts on this thread. Smh. Let this garbage die. I think all that needs to be said has been said on it.

1/22/18

1-Click to Unlock All Comments - 100% FREE

or
Why do I need to be signed in?
WSO is a knowledge-sharing community that depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something.
+ Bonus: 6 Free Financial Modeling Lessons with 1-Click Signup ($199 value)
1/22/18
1/22/18