Donnie’s Got a Gun

fembots

Trump took action in Syria.

As he had previously said, he now owns it.

But one action does not a policy make. It isn’t clear what the Trump policy in Syria is, other than a warning to Assad that he can’t use chemical weapons and a threat that the US is now seeking regime change.

Lack of a clear policy as well as Trump’s apparent “go it alone” preference, leave us in a precarious place.

Here’s why.

Russia
Syria is Russia’s opportunity to be a player in the Middle East. Russia has its largest military base outside its own borders there. They are the primary reason why Assad is still in power. They have also ratcheted up the risk to the US in Syria by canceling the cooperative agreement that kept US and Russian jets out of each other’s way. Tillerson has talks coming up in Russia. At this point, there is little that he or the Trump administration can offer Russia to obtain some cooperation in Syria. Instead it is likely that Assad and perhaps Russia will both strike back. How will Trump respond if Assad gases somebody else or attacks US positions in the north? How will he respond if Russia cranks up something in the Ukraine or maybe Libya?

ISIS
Trump took his eye off the ball by striking Assad. He has said all along that his goal was ISIS, but now it appears that his goal has widened to remaking Syria. That is dangerous. Taking down Assad doesn’t mean a stable western-friendly government will replace him. Syria is much more likely to join the long list of failed states where the power vacuum is filled by another radical jihadist organization. On the other hand, the original goal of eliminating just ISIS had its own unpleasant consequences. With ISIS out of the way, Assad would likely win his civil war and Russia and Iran would gain power in the region.

Plan
It isn’t clear that there is any plan here. Weakening Assad will in fact end up prolonging the conflict in Syria. More chaos provides more opportunity for ISIS, generates more refuges which continue to cause problems in Europe, and ultimately more innocents are killed. Eliminating ISIS strengthens Assad and Russia. That will also result in more persecutions, more refugees, and likely more Russian and Iranian activity.

Summary
Trump is being tested in a very public way at a time when he is most vulnerable at home. His approval ratings are at historic lows. His own party is in disarray. He badly needs a win to turn things around. The problem is that there is no clear path to a win in Syria. Trump took military action in order to respond to one incident in what has been a long and brutal civil war. How will he respond to the next incident?

He has expanded his scope in Syria to include bringing down Assad. He is going to need Russia’s help to do that and Russia isn’t interested. They like Assad right where he is. What Trump has done instead is set himself up for long term failure in return for the short term gain of a little popularity boost.

Worse yet, by taking this provocative step, he has opened himself up to a series of potential escalations without any clear understanding of how they all might play out. It will take some focus off of his domestic struggles, but at what cost?

He doesn’t have an experienced staff of diplomats in place right now to guide his actions. Our military leaders are his primary source of information. The weaknesses that he has already displayed in dealing with domestic issues combined with a bias toward military action may create an international crisis that could be Trump’s final undoing.

 

 

79 Responses to “Donnie’s Got a Gun”

  1. Keith says:

    As to the Dems in the Comey situation. They were for firing him until they were against it.

    A strange set of circumstances is developing. The lawyer for the ACLU agreeing against the travel ban, I think, said Trump, due to his past statements, can not make such a order. The judge asked the ACLU lawyer if someone else were president would they be able to and the lawyer conceded as much.

    Because Trump is Trump there will be no agreement. Republicans were just against Obama the Dems hate Trump with a miniacal passion. You should see Facebook. These are good friends of mine going absolutely bonkers.

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/10/comey-sought-more-money-for-russia-probe-days-before-he-was-fired-officials-say/?utm_term=.bcaecbd64753

    How did they come up with that headline when the DOJ said “completely False” in the article.

    You’ll have to ask the headline writer. Their job is to get people to read the article. Seems like it worked in your case. It was not misleading.

    Please put away your bias for a minute or two and focus on the article. If the article is accurate and tells the full story, then the Wash Post did their job.

  3. Jeff Beamsley says:

    My bias is showing because I repeated what Comey said? Jeff go outside for a walk and relax. It’s. Ice outside….

    No, your bias was showing because you were attempting string all of these events together to prove some tired point about media, but you didn’t take the time to discover that Comey didn’t have the facts straight, which undermined your whole argument.

  4. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Days Before Firing, Comey Asked for More Resources for Russia Inquiry – The New York Times
    https://apple.news/AZ0keZGqcQ26RW0TjXXp3UA

    And now the NYT

    Wonder why they choose that headline when the DOJ says false?

    See response above. Is the article accurate? Is the headline accurate? You can’t tell the whole story in the headline. The headline is what’s new. That’s the report that Comey asked for more resources. We don’t know who is telling the truth here and the article doesn’t attempt to sort that out. What you CAN be sure of is that the NYT did properly source their information and named one of them. Then a justice department spokesperson, who works for Sessions and came to the DOJ with him, denies the claim. So somebody isn’t telling the truth. That’s why we need investigations.

    That’s also why, as these investigations get going, the coverup is always worse than the crime. Sarah Isgur Flores (DOJ Spokesperson) is a Harvard lawyer. If she is called to go before a Senate intelligence committee with some of the Senators who were the source for this story, and she is asked to testify under oath about her statement, what do you think she is going to say? She will either point to the person who told her that the claim was false, or she will take the 5th. She is too smart to go to jail. If the investigation gets to that point, and I suspect it will, this will be just one of the threads that the Senators pull on. It will be interesting to see where it leads.

  5. Jeff Beamsley says:

    As to the Dems in the Comey situation. They were for firing him until they were against it.

    You really can’t be serious. This isn’t about Comey at all. It is about the timing. Administrations don’t fire FBI directors in the middle of an investigation for something that happened months ago. There is a LOT of stink around this. It will ultimately result in an independent investigator getting appointed because whomever gets appointed as FBI director by Trump can’t be trusted.

    A strange set of circumstances is developing. The lawyer for the ACLU agreeing against the travel ban, I think, said Trump, due to his past statements, can not make such a order. The judge asked the ACLU lawyer if someone else were president would they be able to and the lawyer conceded as much.

    Your bias is on full display.

    Trump’s campaign statements ARE the issue. You can’t campaign on keeping Muslims out of the country, sign and executive order that keeps Muslims out of the country, and then claim that the executive order is not intended to keep Muslims out of the country. That’s because it is unconstitutional to ban immigrants because of their religion.

    If Clinton had been elected and then wrote the same executive order, it could not be opposed on the grounds of discrimination because she didn’t promise to write an executive order barring Muslims. Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

    Because Trump is Trump there will be no agreement. Republicans were just against Obama the Dems hate Trump with a miniacal passion. You should see Facebook. These are good friends of mine going absolutely bonkers.

    Sorry no sale. I will not agree to “normalize” Trump. I don’t think that there is much value in arguing whether or not he is qualified to be President. He won the election. He is in the office. I think it is more productive to focus on his performance. That’s the substance of my next post. I also stick by my prediction that his job approval numbers will take another dive because of the healthcare bill that just passed, and will be further damaged by firing Comey. Whether this is the beginning of the end, we’ll see.

  6. Keith says:

    Try this;

    Who ever hacked into Padesta’s emails, Russians whoever, are the only ines so far that have uncovered corruption, in the Democratic Party. No democrat is objecting to this. Again Debbie Wasserman Shultz, out. Donna Brazil, out. Etc. what the DNC did to Bernie and what can only be called trying its best to throw the dem nomination/election to Hillary is without question.

  7. Keith says:

    YS) What’s wrong with holding people accountable for their votes. How is this any different than Fox promoting the Tea Party as a response to the passage of Obamacare?

    MR) NOTHING!!!!!! I welcome it. But they, the mainstream media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CBS, NYT, WASH Post, etc, didn’t “glow in the dark” the pictures of those in congress who voted for the highly unpopular ACA in states that Romney won. You Simply don’t see the naritive the mainstream media creates. EVERY story is from the democrats perspective.

  8. Keith says:

    Fox/talk radio is the lone voice and is not the mainstream media.

  9. Keith says:

    As to Mahr and Colbert it’s because of the lewdness of their comments.

  10. keith says:

    YS) See response above. Is the article accurate? Is the headline accurate? You can’t tell the whole story in the headline. The headline is what’s new. That’s the report that Comey asked for more resources. We don’t know who is telling the truth here and the article doesn’t attempt to sort that out. What you CAN be sure of is that the NYT did properly source their information and named one of them. Then a justice department spokesperson, who works for Sessions and came to the DOJ with him, denies the claim. So somebody isn’t telling the truth. That’s why we need investigations.

    MR) My dearest of pen pal friends. I will try again…. Look at what the headline SAYS!!! Both they NYT & WASH POST. They had a choice to make and THEY MADE IT!!! Again WHAT DOES THE HEADLINE SAY? This is bias. This is what you don’t see. THIS is a prime example. There is a truth to be had of which it is quite clear neither the NYT or Wash Post know, yet they choose those words for their headline. It has nothing to do with truth or untruth. THEY picked a side in their narrative…

    They have done EXACTLY what FOX would do, in reverse….

  11. keith says:

    YS)No, your bias was showing because you were attempting string all of these events together to prove some tired point about media, but you didn’t take the time to discover that Comey didn’t have the facts straight, which undermined your whole argument.

    MR) Because I didn’t fact check Comey I’m bias???????

  12. keith says:

    YS)Trump’s campaign statements ARE the issue. You can’t campaign on keeping Muslims out of the country, sign and executive order that keeps Muslims out of the country, and then claim that the executive order is not intended to keep Muslims out of the country. That’s because it is unconstitutional to ban immigrants because of their religion.

    MR) Seems you didn’t read the executive order either. If he had banned Muslims then I would agree. He didn’t. Read the order. How many Muslim countries are there? How many countries are named in the ban? If it were “Muslims” then they all would be banned.

    Back to a point that was made long ago. Liberals take every word Trump says literally. Like it or not you simply can’t do that. He’s a BS er. He over speaks. Watch what he DOES not what he says. I am in no way defending him. I am telling you how he must be viewed and listened to. I deal with guys like him all the time. Example; after playing a round of golf, Trump will proclaim to his host “what a magnificent golf course, the best in the world. They all should wish to be as good as this” I will take that statement for what it is, one friend complementing another. CNN will go to Golf Digest and look up the cop 100 course as rated by their guys and see that the course Trump just played isn’t even in the top 100. CNN then will spend the next 7 evening interviewing, every hour on the hour, top golf pro’s around the country and ask them their view on Trumps comments. They will then call him a liar because the course isn’t the top course in the world over and over again for the full 7 days. I watch this happen every night.. Same with ABC, CBS, NBC etc.

  13. Jeff Beamsley says:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/10/maxine_waters_i_dont_support_trump_firing_comey_i_would_support_hillary_clinton_firing_comey.html

    Oth sides are this hypocritical. Shummer with the Supreme Court nominee etc.

    You are missing the point. Trump fired this guy while he was in the middle of an investigation of the Trump administration. If you want hypocrisy, please review the incidents during the Obama administration where Republicans called for an independent investigator and see if any compare. Clinton’s emails, Benghazi, Joe Sestak’s job offer. Do any of these rise to the level of firing a justice department office during an investigation?

  14. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Who ever hacked into Padesta’s emails, Russians whoever, are the only ines so far that have uncovered corruption, in the Democratic Party. No democrat is objecting to this. Again Debbie Wasserman Shultz, out. Donna Brazil, out. Etc. what the DNC did to Bernie and what can only be called trying its best to throw the dem nomination/election to Hillary is without question.

    First of all, it WAS the Russians according to our best experts.

    Second, who cares. The Democrats lost. Why are you fixated on this?

    The important issue IS NOT what wikileaks revealed. The important issue is whether or not there was any coordination between those hacks and the Trump campaign.

  15. Jeff Beamsley says:

    MR) NOTHING!!!!!! I welcome it. But they, the mainstream media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CBS, NYT, WASH Post, etc, didn’t “glow in the dark” the pictures of those in congress who voted for the highly unpopular ACA in states that Romney won. You Simply don’t see the naritive the mainstream media creates. EVERY story is from the democrats perspective.

    Fox/talk radio is the lone voice and is not the mainstream media.

    So mainstream media is just the media that you disagree with?

    Fox is the highest rated news channel, but somehow it is not mainstream? Conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves, but somehow that also isn’t mainstream?

    You are straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

  16. Jeff Beamsley says:

    As to Mahr and Colbert it’s because of the lewdness of their comments.

    Mahr is on HBO. He can be as lewd as he wants.

    Colbert is on late night. There are still things that he can’t say on TV, but he didn’t say any of those (except for maybe one that they bleeped).

    Lewd? Really? Have you watched any of the reality shows lately?

    Sorry this is just more bias. All of it is free speech.

  17. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Please don’t post stuff from unethical right wing sources.

    Here’s the description from Wikipedia

    Turning Point USA is an American conservative [1] or right wing [2] 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization founded on June 5, 2012 by Wheeling, Illinois high school graduate Charlie Kirk.[3] The organization states its mission is to “identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government”,[4]

    Turning Point USA is noted for its Professor Watchlist, which lists college professors it alleges “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”[5][6][7][8][9][10]

    Their motto is “Big Government Sucks.” They are a supporter of national conferences such as Conservative Political Action Conference, and they hold other conferences such as the Young Woman’s Leadership Summit, High School Activist Conference and Young Latino’s Leadership Conference.[11]

    The organization founded Hypeline News in 2016. On their website, TPUSA wrote: “Hypeline News is a young-adult driven social news site that provides fresh and innovative web content, news updates, and entertainment. Our goal is to make important news culturally relevant and digestible for Millennial news consumers.”[12]

    Turning Point USA claims to have more than 1,000 chapters in colleges and high schools and has registered thousands of voters since 2012.[13][14]

    According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Turning Point USA has been involved in influencing student government elections at a dozen colleges and universities, to combat campus liberalism. [15]

  18. Jeff Beamsley says:

    My dearest of pen pal friends. I will try again…. Look at what the headline SAYS!!! Both they NYT & WASH POST. They had a choice to make and THEY MADE IT!!! Again WHAT DOES THE HEADLINE SAY? This is bias. This is what you don’t see. THIS is a prime example. There is a truth to be had of which it is quite clear neither the NYT or Wash Post know, yet they choose those words for their headline. It has nothing to do with truth or untruth. THEY picked a side in their narrative…

    They have done EXACTLY what FOX would do, in reverse….

    Please explain to me how a headline is a narrative.

    Both stories were completely ethical in my reading. If they said something that was untrue or expressed an opinion rather than supporting the news, please point that out. The headline identifies what is interesting in the article. The article is where you should focus your analysis.

    Days Before Firing, Comey Asked for More Resources for Russia Inquiry

    That is both true and news, at least at the time that it was printed. You’re upset because the DOJ denied it, but the fact that the DOJ denied is listed in the story; and the fact that the DOJ denied does not make the original story untrue. Give how the administrations various explanations of this firing have been changing, I would not be surprised to learn that this was a lie too. Until that is proven, however, it remains an open question. 4 Senators said that Comey informed them of the request. The DOJ said the request never happened.

    If they had printed that Trump Denied Comey Resources for the Russian Inquiry – that would be untrue and biased. But they didn’t say that.

  19. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Seems you didn’t read the executive order either. If he had banned Muslims then I would agree. He didn’t. Read the order. How many Muslim countries are there? How many countries are named in the ban? If it were “Muslims” then they all would be banned.

    I did read the executive order. Judges who have reviewed it agree that the effective result of the ban is to exclude Muslims based on their religion. The also have decided that this wasn’t an accident.

    Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/?utm_term=.680b466caf8f

    Back to a point that was made long ago. Liberals take every word Trump says literally. Like it or not you simply can’t do that. He’s a BS er. He over speaks. Watch what he DOES not what he says. I am in no way defending him. I am telling you how he must be viewed and listened to. I deal with guys like him all the time. Example; after playing a round of golf, Trump will proclaim to his host “what a magnificent golf course, the best in the world. They all should wish to be as good as this” I will take that statement for what it is, one friend complementing another. CNN will go to Golf Digest and look up the cop 100 course as rated by their guys and see that the course Trump just played isn’t even in the top 100. CNN then will spend the next 7 evening interviewing, every hour on the hour, top golf pro’s around the country and ask them their view on Trumps comments. They will then call him a liar because the course isn’t the top course in the world over and over again for the full 7 days. I watch this happen every night.. Same with ABC, CBS, NBC etc.

    The world is filled with golf course braggarts. Only one of them is President. That’s the difference.

    When you promise on the campaign trail that you are going to issue an executive order to ban the immigration of Muslims, and then you sign an executive order that effectively does that, you violate the establishment clause of the constitution and you will lose your case in court. Elections have consequences. One of those is that President of the United States is bound to uphold the constitution and will be held accountable if he doesn’t. Another is that the President of the United States can’t use his power to stonewall an investigation. Another is that there are political consequences to actions. When you put millions of people at risk of losing their healthcare, they are going to take you seriously even if that particular law will never see the light of day.

    This is not a game. This is deadly serious stuff. But we seem to have elected a President that believes that this is just a game of golf and winning is all that matters. This is a massively complex job and we have elected someone who is shallow and lazy. No I’m not going to give him a pass for refusing to step up to the job that he campaigned for. The other fact is that the job hasn’t even started to get hard yet. What is he going to do when his party abandons him? It has already started. The methane bill failed in the Senate because three Republican Senators voted with the Democrats. When was the last time that happened? Tom MacArthur told his townhall that he was not there to defend the President. What is he going to do when the recession comes? Is Trump going to send 5K more troops to Afghanistan? What happens when they start getting killed?

    Trump fired Comey because he was mad at him about the Russian investigation. He asked his Deputy AG to give him a reason to fire Comey and then blamed the firing on that Deputy. The Deputy threatened to resign if Trump didn’t stop blaming him. This was a messaging disaster because Trump doesn’t care. Evidence of the fact that he doesn’t care is that he met with the Russians the NEXT DAY after firing the head of the FBI because he was aggressively pursuing an investigation about Russian connections to the Trump administration. This disdain for the majority of the country that disapproves of the job that he is doing will bring his presidency down.

    That’s the difference.

  20. Keith says:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?referer=http://www.drudgereport.com/

    So, read the article. Two sides of the story, which make the headline?

    I have no idea which is correct. They both could be. Words and expressions mean something different to everyone. I have many people who report to me. It took me a long time to realize what I say and what others hear can be two very different things. I’ve learn to put things in place to greatly minimize this. Trump does not.

  21. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?referer=http://www.drudgereport.com/

    So, read the article. Two sides of the story, which make the headline?

    I have no idea which is correct. They both could be. Words and expressions mean something different to everyone. I have many people who report to me. It took me a long time to realize what I say and what others hear can be two very different things. I’ve learn to put things in place to greatly minimize this. Trump does not.

    I read this story when it came out.

    I agree that you have two different stories. No one disputes the fact that the dinner happened.

    The body of the article is pretty straight forward and IMHO plays it right down the middle. The news value is that the dinner occurred and that, at least according to Comey, Trump asked for loyalty and Comey refused. The ask is consistent with a pattern of behavior with Trump that has been documented. It could also explain why Comey was eventually fired. But that article doesn’t attempt to make that point. All it does is present two different points of view about a private dinner.

    The headline, which again I remind you isn’t written by the author, does reflect one version of the story which was a scoop for the NYT. How would you have created a headline that you feel would have been a more accurate description of what was in the article?

    Newser had a pretty good headline : After Trump Tells of Comey Dinner, New Version Emerges – but that plays against the NYT story.

    Here’s Brietbart’s: James Comey Leaks Donald Trump Dinner Details to the New York Times – clearly they have an agenda. 🙂

    Pretty much everyone else across the political spectrum had headlines similar to the NYT.

  22. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/heatst.com/culture-wars/harvard-study-reveals-huge-extent-of-anti-trump-media-bias/amp/

    Probably better that you go to the webpage for the study than rely on heatstreet to interpret the results for you.

    Here’s the summary from the folks who put out the report.

    https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ab6d830a9d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ab6d830a9d-189799085

    President Trump dominated media coverage in the outlets and programs analyzed, with Trump being the topic of 41 percent of all news stories—three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents. He was also the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of his coverage.

    Republican voices accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.

    European reporters were more likely than American journalists to directly question Trump’s fitness for office.

    Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.

    Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.

    What is also interesting is that this same group put out similar analysis about coverage during the campaign. Here’s their conclusion from that analysis.

    The study found that 62% of the coverage of Clinton and 56% of the coverage of Trump was negative in tone. These numbers actually overstate the amount of positive press the candidates received. Most of the “positive” stories here were about new poll numbers. Each one of these horse race stories was “good press” for one candidate and “bad press” for the other.

    On top of receiving more positive press than Clinton, Trump received 15% more press coverage overall than Clinton. His policy ideas received more attention than Clinton’s, and Clinton’s scandals received more coverage than Trump’s. The number of stories focused on Clinton’s emails and ongoing investigations peaked in the final two weeks of the campaign.

    In fact, the study argues, “[t]he real bias of the press is not that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the negative…. The mainstream press highlights what’s wrong with politics without also telling us what’s right…. Civility and sound proposals are no longer the stuff of headlined.”

    This negative bias inadvertently benefits Republicans. “[T]he media’s persistent criticism of government reinforces the right wing’s anti-government message.” By highlighting what goes wrong in government, journalists “create[] a seedbed of public anger, misperception, and anxiety” which savvy politicians like Donald Trump can exploit.

    There you go buddy. Still like this Harvard Group?

    Just to wrap it up. What they discovered is that the media “bias” that you associated with politics isn’t there. What is there is a bias toward negativity and sensationalism. In other words, the stuff that sells newpapers. That “bias” helped elect Trump. Now that bias is working against him for pretty much the same reasons. He continues to dominate the news cycles and it is primarily a Republican voice that is being heard, but what they are saying is negative because of how Trump is handling his business NOT because of his politics.

  23. Keith says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/20/anderson-cooper-jeffrey-lord-president-trump/101910560/

    Here’s the host who leads the panel discussion of 6 liberals and one or two conservatives.

  24. Keith says:

    Hummmmmmm

    Negative does sell. The bomb thrower always does better then when he’s asked his solution.

    But president Obama WAS NOT treated like this. He also was not the bomb thrower Trump is. I have said be for. He is reaping what he has sown. It still does. Or excuse the media of there blantent hatered of him. It’s fairly obvious.

  25. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/20/anderson-cooper-jeffrey-lord-president-trump/101910560/

    Here’s the host who leads the panel discussion of 6 liberals and one or two conservatives.

    Not sure why you posted this. Please explain.

  26. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Hummmmmmm

    Negative does sell. The bomb thrower always does better then when he’s asked his solution.

    But president Obama WAS NOT treated like this. He also was not the bomb thrower Trump is. I have said be for. He is reaping what he has sown. It still does. Or excuse the media of there blantent hatered of him. It’s fairly obvious.

    Treated like what? When Obama lied, the press held him accountable. His big lie about healthcare won the “lie of the year” award from Politifact.

    You attribute the way the media behaved under Obama as bias. It was in fact the result of a White House who knew how to manage the press corps and a President who knew how to stay on message.

    If the media had a liberal bias, why did the study that you posted yourself document that the press way more negative on Clinton than they were on Trump AND gave Trump more policy time that they gave Clinton?

    What is obvious is that you would like to explain all of Trump’s failures away as media bias when in fact they are ALL Trump’s fault. You’ve already posted data that contradicts your basic point (media hate Trump because of liberal bias).

    If you have something else of substance to post that supports your position, please post it. Otherwise, the only thing that is obvious is your own bias.

Leave a Reply