Summations Only

Fake news as I use the term includes any news story that has no purpose other than to try to make Trump look bad. It's not really news in any meaningful sense of the word, it's just a piece of opinion from somewhere or other that has an anti-Trump agenda to it.And here's another example: Trump ignored first rule of crisis management come clean and he’s paying the price. Just more vaguely critical opinion. Did Obama have to put up with this kind of stuff? The problem is that the kinds of contacts that were had wouldn't even have made a blip on their minds because they are so common and so standard and unrelated to anything that would involve national security that they wouldn't even think of them. But trust the Democrats to blow them up into something they can use against Trump and his people. There was no information to release because it was all ordinary and innocuous and Trump responded in the only relevant way by pointing to the news outlets as blowing up a nonissue into a big deal. This is an example of one kind of fake news. Anything that is aimed at getting the public's attention on Trump as a bad guy. That's what it's all about these days. News isn't news, journalism isn't journalism, it's all boiled down to "how can we get Trump?" Just another big fat lie. Sessions had contacts with lots of ambassadors on a casual basis that had nothing to do with the question he was asked in his confirmation hearing. Typical fake news. That was a big mistake because Flynn had done nothing wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Infowars doesn't consider itself to be on the right. They would consider me to be on the right but themselves to be libertarian or "classical liberals."Republicans these days are hard to classify. I don't identify with most of them. The Bushes these days could almost be called leftist.I don't feel alone in my views of course so "faithist" isn't a fair definition. The Political Compass test fails to characterize the right in any meaningful way, but it would be interesting if a test could be constructed that did.

You ask about my eyesight: A lot of sites I really can't read and don't, but if I really want to know something I'll sometimes copy it out into email and increase the font size. Or sometimes I just squint my way through something at the risk of my eyes. I think white blocks at EvC may be harder to read because of the contrast with the dark background. Just guessing.And yes it does explain why I am not up on many things these days. That and a severe growing lack of motivation.

If the President gives the orders that's either Trump or Obama.

The media's USE of the vets' responses.

Your massive indignation conveys absolutely no information. My impression has always been that Obama was/is coddled by the MSM, and that certainly can't be said of Trump. So what ARE you blathering about?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh brother. why are their tweets news?And we can ask, ALL vets, SOME vets, how MANY vets? Again, why is their reaction news? Clearly because they are critical of Trump. Also, if tweets are arranged these days so that the negative ones of Trump come to the top, how do you know how many vets are even represented?Did the media try to find out how many are represented?
'
But again, what makes it news? Just the negative opinion that has been collected, nothing else. And there's no way to tell how true it is of vets in general.Why do you accept this sort of fake news as meaning anything at all?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's possible to manipulate it and it has been claimed that it is manipulated to discredit Trump.

Only in the minds of leftists.

According to a nonobjective person such as yourself?

No, I didn't know that. Thanks.

The thing is there are millions of Trump supporters but only the views of the anti-LTrumpers hit the headlines. How likely is it that ALL the tweets were negative given the great numbers of pro-Trumpers? If this just happens to be an issue that people are critical of why is it headlined to the exclusion of other issues? There are millions of people who don't see it this way, why is your opinion the one that matters? It's obvious to the rest of us that the media choose negative stuff against him, but you are in the group that revel in it. It's all a matter of how you spin it and you spin it the way the media spins it. Why is something he said in private and would never say in public, a "locker room" comment that lots of men might say in private, used against him? Do you think Clinton's private talk about women, that didn't get recorded and become headlines, was pure and aboveboard? (And besides he didn't say he did it, he said they would allow it, he was talking about a groupie mentality, star-struck groupies, which was about them more than about him). Anyone who DOES see it that way is a ridiculously biased Trump hater. Good grief you guys are blind.

As usual you are making a big deal out of nothing. If Trump didn't give the order some other President did. Only if Obama never gave an order to the ICE would another Presidents' order stand. And I didn't "excoriate" anybody.

OK if it's that bad, if my eyes are too bad to read that stuff, I'll just stop. So if you want my opinion on something I can't read you're going to have to put it in clear large print in your own words.

And you are missing the point that I consider your point to be irrelevant, and who gave the orders is the important thing.