One of the most widely folllowed political polls just issued the results of a new survey on Trump and found that:
1. Trump's disapproval rating dropped again -- to 38%.
2. 63% said he is not level headed.
3. Voters disapprove 61 - 35 percent of the way Trump talks about the media.
4. 52% of voters trust the media more than Trump, while only 37% said they trusted Trump more. The majority who trusted Trump more were Republicans. The majority of them watch Fox News.
"President Donald Trump's popularity is sinking like a rock," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
"He gets slammed on honesty, empathy, level headedness and the ability to unite. And two of his strong points, leadership and intelligence, are sinking to new lows.
"This is a terrible survey one month in."
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de … aseID=2431
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … rack_feb23
Anyone that believes either the media OR a politician (any politician) is a fool.
Rasmussen Reports does polling for Fox News and Republican candidates. It famously for adoring the right.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -5493.html
Regarding the media, the right loves anyones who despises the truth.
Of course - if you don't like the poll results it simply means that the source needs discredited.
Which was kind of my point - if that's the inevitable result there is no real reason to believe either Trump OR the media, for both lie.
Wasn't that your first response to me? Did I not provide a link to a page with polls from multiple sources?
Please do more research on Rasmussen before you jump to any conclusions.
You did (provide links). Funny how they were all negative - would it help if I posted more positive ones? Or does anything putting positive light on Trump need "more research"?
That's kind of the point here, you know.
Bizarrely we are seeing a totally hard core atheist supporting a hard core religious fundamentalist the Reverend Donald.
Please tell us all your positive take on Donald's hard core religious fundamentalism.
No? I thought so.
True. But why did the OP report, at best, a 38% approval? That's pretty low, considering that the second link only showed 25% of the polls reporting such a low figure. All of the figures in the OP were lower than 75% of the polls in the second link - did you cherry pick, looking for the worst results possible?
Of course we see total ignorance and obsfucating about why on earth a hard core atheist supports an extreme right wing religious back woods ultra right "leader "
Not all all. I simply saw the news headline and added the link. I don't need to cherry pick when so many of them say the same thing.
I see. And did you think to investigate that they might be a little slanted? That they might not be "mainstream" with other polls?
IMO this is called "alternative facts" or even "lie", when only a portion of available facts are presented in an effort to show something that isn't true. But that's just me - I'm getting really tired of having to search through at least a half dozen reports to get a kernel of truth, a taste of the whole package instead of a biased, slanted, and spun effort to simply bash the President without regard to "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
And it doesn't matter which bias is presented, either, which is why I distrust all media (and poll takers )
I have tracked many polls over a period of years including this one, which is highly regarded. I have never seen any question about its validity.
I don't see how it's possible to conclude automatically that this poll is an "alternative fact" or "lie".
Can we agree that mistrusting sources of information is OK but rejecting all sources is not?
"Can we agree that mistrusting sources of information is OK but rejecting all sources is not?"
Most certainly not! Every source of information today must be taken with a grain of salt and verified from multiple sources. It must be questioned, put through the "common sense" wringer and compared to opposing viewpoints, for everything we're seeing out there is biased. That bias may be just a little dig here and there but it's still an effort to make an argument (and typically raise negative emotions) rather than produce facts and news. Our information sources have become more about a political stance than about truth, and there are very few exceptions.
Wilderness, lumping all the media together is just ridiculous. Where do you get your information? There are trusted news sources, which is why there are aggregating sites and fact-checking sites that people can use to check bias, if you need to. But to lump together an established news organization like the NY Times with Breitbart is something a fool does. Certainly, the NY Times tilts left, but they source their information and follow standard journalistic practice while Breitbart does not. Better to read The National Review for good information that tilts right.
"...But to lump together an established news organization like the NY Times with Breitbart is something a fool does."
Wait for it... Wait for it.... Wilderness should be along any moment now.
I gave a link to the source - why do you ask where I got it? Yes, there are surely trusted news sources - any source that tells you what you want to hear. I get that, which is why I said they are all liars.
You are the perfect victim for any scam artist who comes along.
I see from your profile page that you are an electrician. Your comment about the media is no different than me saying that all electricians are cheats and thieves because a couple of them ripped me off.
Is it fair for me to make that claim?
Have you had 100 different electricians in your home and every one tried to cheat you? That's how I feel about both politicians and the media. The truth isn't in either one of them; both have an axe to grind and everything they say is centered on that axe.
I wasn't questioning the Rasmussen link. If you're informed, you know that poll has a very specific bias, which is why RealClearPolitics is a good source to look at all the polls combined. I'm just talking about opinions in general. If all media is wrong, then where does one get their information? I agree that, as a society, we are much more susceptible to information that we want to hear due to social media and the way things like Facebook work. I realized I was getting stuff in my Facebook feed tailored to my opinions so I shut those down.
Dictators and Russian intelligence follow some basic ideas. If you can't shut down media, then destroy its credibility. Once you destroy its credibility, then you gain control over the message (or lack of it).
If I don't believe anyone, then how can I resist a dictator if I have no way of knowing that he is doing wrong?
The media in the US is capable of providing whole, unbiased news without applying their own personal spin to it. Unfortunately, they have lost the willingness to do so; it is more important to appeal to a specific audience that pays their bills.
Can't remember, for instance, the last time I read a NYT news article of a political nature without seeing several little digs at Trump. They don't even have to be relevant - anything that vilifies him will do.
And even longer since I saw them produce an in-depth article on anything with an honest effort to produce the "whys' and 'wherefore's" of it - instead only one side (the liberal one) is presented with a strong indication that it is wrong somehow.
I will meet you halfway: If you agree that not all reporters are biased, I will agree that some are.
I will grant you that there are reporters that do not put their bias into the news. I see them every night as they report on the fire or flood down the street or the expected weather.
But high level "reporters" from major "news" sites or the AP? Not likely. Their bosses aren't interested in news - they are interested in selling ads and that means attracting a large audience, which in turn means that sensationalism and emotionalism had better be a part of the "news".
I have never met a single editor who wanted to sell ads. In fact, they resent any interference by the advertising department. I agree with part of your point that they try to attract a large audience. Without that audience, they wouldn't be in business.
I have known publishers who have lost multi-million-dollar accounts because they wouldn't bend to the will of excessive demands from advertisers.
They did so because they didn't want to lose their credibility with readers -- even when readers from both right and left scream bias all the time.
Do I need to change your "editor" to "owner"? Truly, I thought that was understood - the ultimate boss is the owner in all businesses. But what is that large audience for if not to sell ads?
"They did so because they didn't want to lose their credibility with readers -- even when readers from both right and left scream bias all the time."
LOL - you've got that one right. You just left out the part where those readers are typically leaning one way or the other.
We are all waiting to hear why you are supporting an ultra right wing religious fundamentalist after spending years denouncing religious fundamentalism. It reeks of hypocrisy. LOL yes it's also hilarious.
It's not just going to go away. To ignore it is the definition of ignorance.
Where a newspaper has a genuinely solid reputation owners rarely interfere with editors. Murdoch has never interfered with editorial policy at the London Times. How do we know? The editor would simply resign, the reputation of the newspaper would be in tatters and it would lose its financial value.
I cannot believe the editor of the Washington Post would tolerate interference from Jeff Bezos either. Unless American editors are especially weak-minded.
Here is their standards and ethics statement: http://asne.org/content.asp?contentid=335
Really well established newspapers are a power in themselves and only answerable to their peers and their readers.
When these kinds of newspaper are sold, the editors and staff will only agree to new ownership that will not compromise their independence. Or there will be mass defections.
C'mon Will. When you look at what a particular network puts out there and every...single...story leans to the same side of the political spectrum you can't honestly believe that reporters are allowed to give it that lean. The only way that would be possible would be to hire only reporters from the "right" party!
No, you aren't going to convince me (or anyone else) that networks and news organizations don't put their politics into every political story that comes out.
If any politicain makes false statements every single reputable newspaper will denounce them, as one. How could they not?
But outside the weirdness of current events you need to look at how the news is normally reported.
In reputable newspapers there will be no false facts (or if that happens there will be a scandal).
Rightwing newspapers may report the same facts as liberal or leftwing newspapers but there will be different perspectives on those facts. You could call it spin, if you like.
Rightwing and liberal newspapers will choose different aspects of a story that help to make a political case.
So you have a bus strike, somewhere. A leftwing newspaper might focus on the plight of underpaid bus drivers, a right wing newspaper might have a picture of disabled people waiting for a bus that never came and a liberal newspaper might focus on the problems of the bus company which will go under if it increase wages.
None of the reports in those papers would be false but they serve different groups of readers.
Any discerning reader can get a picture of the truth as long as false reporting is excluded.
At the moment the war is to keep some idea of what is true and then maybe get back to the honesty of mere spin and selective reporting.
"In reputable newspapers there will be no false facts (or if that happens there will be a scandal)."
Really? Which "reputable" newspaper has NOT reported that Trump's EO on travel into the US from those 7 countries is banning Muslims or the citizens of that country? Both are false - I read that EO and neither nationality nor religious affiliation was ever mentioned. Just travel, by anyone, from those countries.
"Rightwing and liberal newspapers will choose different aspects of a story that help to make a political case."
Just what I've been saying - either and both will present an editorial disguised as news. And I hate that.
"None of the reports in those papers would be false but they serve different groups of readers."
Again, exactly what I'm saying. Those articles are all slanted to appeal to a particular group of readers. And I hate that - whatever happened to simply reporting the news, ALL of it. If the intent is to paint a picture that is false to fact that's as much lie as printing a "fact" that false. IMO.
"Any discerning reader can get a picture of the truth as long as false reporting is excluded."
Actually, it's the outright lies that are easiest to detect for a few seconds of common sense usually suffices to detect them. Like saying that Trump bannned all Muslims from entering the country - that is so obviously a lie that it's pathetic but it has been repeated over and over and over so many times that half the nation believes it. It's the ones that leave little, but extremely important, tidbits out that can be hard to decipher. Or the ones that just subtly spin or slant the reporting.
This popped up on my FB just now, but has some interesting things to say: http://hubpages.com/entertainment/Why-N … -Fake-News
I found two of journalism's rules from the code of ethics particularly important:
"1)Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be responsible with the information they release, not distorting the truth and using original sources whenever possible." (notice that it does not say to only report what the reporter wants the people to believe, it says seek truth and report it. It also says not distorting the truth)
Journalists’ primary obligation is to serve the people, not themselves or political interests." ("not themselves or political interests")
How and when did major news organizations leave those ethics behind them?
This is how the travel ban affecting Muslim-majority countries was reported.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ban%20o … &rct=j
But obviously it affects Muslims most. And that is Trump either acting out his Islamophobia, or cynically stroking fear among his gullible supporters to keep them loyal. Nothing .like hatred of foreigners to quell division. And it is an incredibly cheap bone to throw to the unhappy victims of American Carnage.
If the left neither see's nor is incapable of seeing the world wide problems ,the double edged sword of Muslim- Islamic influx into other cultures and religions of the word , the violence perpetrated , the violence alone both openly and secretly inflicted in their own culture and the others ; Then who cares ?
The blasé opinion and passivity to the negativity alone of INTERNAL Islamic discriminations , violence's , ethnic hatred , gender abuse, sexual abuse ,child abuse , child trafficking , and religious persecution OF the Islam-Muslim faiths. Shows the entire world the left lacks the insight and maturity to deal with the massive cultural warring that the refugees are perpetrating on the western world ---then cut the political left OUT of government legislative controls all together in America !
Oh......... yes - We already did that in this election , in America , You on the left lost the house , the congress and the white house ---- Your entire party is in Shambles ,What does that tell you on the left about your political opinion of the majority of states?
Okay, here we have it. Muslims do stuff Americans do, but they are Muslim and that makes it evil.
Every time Islamophobia gets a little outing its a shot in the arm for haters in the Muslim world, and every time haters in the Muslim world burn a US flag (or related) it's a shot in the arm for haters in the US.
And so hatred grows.
And the wealthy and the powerful help themselves to a little more of the good things in life.
Anyone heard anything about those much needed tax cuts for Trump's cabinet yet?
NYT: "Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Cowardly and Dangerous"
https://www.google.com/search?q=ban%20o … lims&*
WP: "Trump is set to introduce a new ‘Muslim ban.’ This one is nonsense, too."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl … f117541d5f
Huff: "Trump’s Ban on Muslims Is Unconstitutional and Obscures Real Solution"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-elan … 04284.html
CNN: "Donald Trump Bans Muslims Interview with CNN"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct … 3327,d.cGw
Times of Israel: "WSHINGTON — US authorities wasted no time implementing a new order by President Donald Trump halting Muslim arrivals"
https://www.google.com/search?q=ban%20o … t=30&*
Tell me again that major news sources haven't lied, calling it a "ban on Muslims"?
And now you're spinning it yourself, creating just as much lie as these articles.
"But obviously it affects Muslims most. And that is Trump either acting out his Islamophobia, or cynically stroking fear among his gullible supporters to keep them loyal."
Not only is the fact that it will affect Muslims the most irrelevant, but the following sentence plainly indicating that the reasoning was most definitely to ban Muslims is totally untrue. Keeping in mind here that the topic is the media lying about a Muslim ban and not your personal opinions on Trumps reason for the travel ban, you are repeating the exact same the media is doing. Interjecting a personal, political opinion into a fact based discussion.
Now, come on. This response is a spin. The first two are opinion pieces and clearly labeled as opinions.
The third is an opinion piece on an advocacy site. On a respectable news site, like the two above, it would have the opinion label.
The fourth one is someone's YouTube posting. Can't find the fifth one.
These links are opinions. They are NOT news.
The fact that you use the word "network" tells me that we are debating two different types of media that follow only some rules in common. Newspapers and TV networks often handle news differently from each other and have very different issues with bias.
Try it this way. You are a newspaper publisher, Home Depot spends $10 million a year with your paper and demands that you put a half page ad at the top of Page 1 of your paper.
Lowes also spends $10 million a year and demands that you put a half page ad at the bottom of Page 1, but of course at a reduced rate because it has the bottom.
Now put on your reader hat. Why would you spend any money to buy that paper for the news if your front page was entirely advertising?
No, try it this way:
Home Depot demands that articles about Trump do their best to vilify him, regardless of any truth, and threatens to pull $10M if you don't comply.
Lowes demands that articles about Trump do their best to paint a positive light, regardless of any truth, and threatens to pull $10M if you don't comply.
Do you pick one, as owner/editor/whatever of the media source trying to print what you think your readers want and will produce sales? Do you maintain your ethics and reject both, trying your best to print unbiased news and leaving the opinions and spin to the editorial page where you may or may not comply with one of the demands?
That's an easy answer. You count on the fact that they are both run by intelligent people who know they can try up to a certain point to influence a newspaper's publisher and advertising staff. But they also know they can't make unreasonable demands.
Been there many times.
Wilderness, since your opinion is that all US media is incapable of unbiased news, are you not also admitting that you are incapable of sifting through information reported by any media outlet to reach an accuratel conclusion based on facts? If you start your search for truth with an absolute bias that there is a bias, how can you get get to the truth?
Since Jeffrey Daumer killed and ate people, does that mean you do the same?
Here, from the post you replied to: "The media in the US is capable of providing whole, unbiased news without applying their own personal spin to it."
That doesn't quite say that I think US media is incapable of unbiased news. Want to try again?
The answer is given below:
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1402 … ost2874636
Shame that it has come to that, that it takes hours of research to find the whole, complete, unbiased story without media spin applied. But it's the only answer I can give you.
Fortunately we can click on various hubbers comment history and see the the tens of thousands of denunciation they have made regarding their total disdain for all forms of religious fundamentalists.
Otherwise it's a grey moment or a Ronald Reagan style memory loss LOL
Many people don't understand that a newspaper has both news coverage and opinions. The opinions go on the editorial page and tilt right or left depending on the newspaper. Mine tilts far right.
The news coverage of credible newspapers follows certain rules to avoid tilting one way or another. They don't all succeed all of the time, but the good ones do try.
TV journalism is a different story altogether.
I do not believe or trust any politician. MSM has even less credibility than a politician. Could it be any worse than less credibility than a politician? Somewhere there is a used car salesman selling a multi level pyramid scheme and he is someones brother in law, and he is more trustworthy than msm. I have more faith in a Yugo getting a million miles than msm. Lefties like msm because it tells them what they want to hear. Lefties are susceptible to this, unlike any other ideology. If the media is pushing save aca thats what the followers push. If msm is pushing protests, the followers burn cars. If msm is pushing global warming the followers are running around like chicken little. MSM is hemlock for the gullible.
I suspect Americans are already tired of a President who's golfing rate will eclipse all previous President's if he keeps it up and the millions of dollars the taxpayers are spending to protect him and his family (already $10 million dollars where it cost taxpayers $97 million to protect Obama's family for 8 years)
Of course , forget that he paid for his own political campaign , Takes no salary , began changing the country long before he even took office and has systematically unhinged the ":Left stream -Media " to the point of total implosion AND Flipped the entire RNC , DNC on its a$$ , done it ALL within the best wishes and will of the people .
- P.C. politics is dead .
- Established insider Washington is running scared
-The military is back .
- Before he took office , Canada and Mexico said , we are happy to discuss trade imbalance
- He holds the power of congress , both houses
- Nationalism is back.
- Made in America is back .
- Illegal aliens are literally running across the northern borders to Canada
-Trump is returning America to Americans .
- Look at the economic picture alone
- The "wild child" middle east is quieting .
- The Leftstream media is out of the White House power loop
The entire party of the left comes up with a new and powerful political strategies "Hate his orange hair ", " Hate rich people " , Literally burn down the inner cities in protest , and kill more cops .
Do I have this about right ?
What is really sad is Trump's habit of needing praise - like a 5 year old getting a participation award at a snowflake school competition:
"The key to keeping Trump’s Twitter habit under control, according to six former campaign officials, is to ensure that his personal media consumption includes a steady stream of praise. And when no such praise was to be found, staff would turn to friendly outlets to drum some up—and make sure it made its way to Trump’s desk.
Read that again slowly: Donald Trump's team tried to mitigate his tantrums by spoon-feeding him compliments, carefully curating his sources, and maintaining a roster of friendly writers who they could count on to stroke his tremendous ego at a moment's notice. This appease-and-distract strategy bears a remarkable resemblance to that employed by exhausted parents desperately trying to cajole a shrieking toddler into staying quiet on a cross-country flight." http://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-twitter-pacifier
... these threads are too funny ... wow, someone put together an article (or blog) about Trump needing to be spoonfed positive info... and because it happens to suit your goals to discredit Trump, or it suits what you want to believe about Trump... you therefore consider it a good news source.
Can you not see the idiocy in all this?
If you want to find something/someone that states Trump is unpopular with 60% of the people, you can find it.
If you want to find similar that states Trump is popular with 60% of the people, you can find it.
If you want to find a news-source that says everything is fine and dandy with Sweden, you can find it. And if you want to find a news-source that is reporting of the riots and violence in Sweden, you can find it.
Your ability to choose your own reality is provided to you by various news sources, politicians, and organizations.
Trump is Captain America to many Americans.
Trump is Hitler to many others.
Trump could double wages, cure all disease, create ten million jobs, and cut taxes in half for all people... and there will be those that hate him just as passionately. It doesn't matter what he does... he is a Russian agent answering to Putin, and he is the grand poobah of the KKK... so long as someone is out there (at CNN or MSNBC or wherever) pushing these untruths and accusations, there are people who will believe the worst.
Whether because of the recent biblical -like marriage to the social mediums by democrats or because they are simply not intellectually evolving at the same rate as the rest of the world , the new phenomena of alternative realities has totally altered their senses of reality to the point of political and factual hallucinations .
An alternative universe of "facts "for offering to the record.
Interesting article on the differences between the old Soviet propaganda effort and the new Russian information war: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39062663
Unlike in Soviet times, disinformation from Moscow is primarily not selling Russia as an idea, or the Russian model as one to emulate, it is often not even seeking to be believed. Instead, it has as one aim: undermining the notion that objective truth and reporting are possible at all...
Sounds about right. You can paralyze a whole country if you undermine its self-belief.
Yes, we know, the media and it's preferred polls (the ones that tell them what they want to hear) are out to prove how terrible Trump is.
You know who Trump is:
Got a chance to see that tonight, and I realized that was what Trump did... tell the truth, expose things for what they are. And that's why, so long as he keeps trying, and the Democrats keep acting like idiots in Congress, Trump's support will continue to grow.
I gave a link to a credible site that tracks ALL polls about Trump. Are all of them wrong?
Until he does something DRAMATIC ... actually until it is shown that his economic policies succeed or fail, and his tax and healthcare efforts succeed or fail, the polls DO NOT MATTER... the media DOES NOT MATTER... all the whining done by hollyweirdos and liberal politicians DOES NOT MATTER.
So all this is just mental masturbation over issues and polls that will be completely irrelevant to his re-election in four years. The more he accomplishes, and the more the Democrats try to stop him from getting anything accomplished, the more the voters will favor him, and blame the Democrats.
The MSM will lose this battle because as you say 37% of Americans are locked into Trump and will support him. Another 33% are going to wait and see what he does... and how they are affected before they make a decision. That leaves the 30%... the intellectual elites, the liberal, socialist, Sharia Law activists, etc. that will hate him now and forever.
Current estimates are that protecting Trump and his family will cost taxpayers $1 billion dollars when all is said and done, yet Trump talks about cutting and saving every penny possible. Just another politician sucking off the teat of the taxpayer.
Many people don't know that Trump raised the membership fee on his Mar-a-Lago resort from $100,000 to $200,000 just after he got elected.
I wonder why he goes there every weekend, plays on its golf course and has dinners in the public restaurant.
I'm sure it's not a promotional gimmick...
So,there I was...standing at the precipice of hell...watching all the demons go to and fro...
Which demon is the worst I thought...the orange haired one?...the Google eyed female?...or perhaps...the dark one exiting the great hall of destruction?...maybe...the ancient hypocritical one?I tried to wake up from the nightmare...but...to no avail... Orwell,Huxley,and I could do nothing more than gnash our teeth in the darkness...for the beast had been let loose once again...chaos,lies,and hatred ruled the land.
As you all know...I am not religious...I am however feeling a strong urge to pray...
By the way , The entire headline OP. explains perfectly the greatest problem OF the left .
ONLY if one listens to several viable sources of news media does one become media wise . To pick one source - you might as well make up your own news.
Barred from White House press briefing: BBC, CNN, the New York Times
Included: ABC, Fox News, Breitbart News, Reuters and the Washington Times.
Essentially, ban media that is going to fact check.
Include media that is going to a** lick.
If you can insulate enough Americans from critical coverage of politics, government will be able to get away with any kind of nonsense.
Riiiiight... I'd ban those same propaganda sites too.
Obama essentially banned Fox for 8 years... they didn't exactly stop reporting the news, they just wouldn't peddle Obama's lies.
9/11 Riots in the Middle East caused by a YouTube video?
Anyone, know what Ken is talking about?
Nope. "Obama essentially banned Fox"? Provide any shred of proof of that statement. Never happened. Alternative fact.
Actually, after my comment above, I noticed that the BBC brought up an instance of Obama excluding Fox from an interview of a public official. The American media (including the NYT and CNN) closed ranks and they all refused to interview the guy until Fox was reinstated. Which it was.
Well done to them.
But that ugliness in no way compares to the systematic attack on every institution dedicated to exploring the facts under Trump.
i dont believe anything media says these days. except the one who slipped the other day about saying people are supposed to believe what they say. take their word for everything, as gospel. well, if it werent for the media, i dont believe we would have the malaise going on that we presently do. only to get worse. altho, they may just dig themselves into a deeper hole???
by Susie Lehto11 months ago
"You're a Sleaze": Donald Trump called out ABC News reporter. They are sleazes when they know the facts but ignore them. Instead they chose to try and smear Trump's noble donations to charities that help...
by ahorseback15 hours ago
Lets face it , there isn't much honesty coming from the Leftstream News Media of the last year or two , Please , please , please .......................just file for impeachment and see...
by Credence26 weeks ago
This should prove most interesting. I say sorry in advance to Trump supporters, but this is comprehensive and irresistible. http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-o … president/For those that have the problems...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter2 months ago
Donald Trump is the president of the United States. The odds are in his favor to accomplish many of his objectives because of the trifecta.When his lies can easily be proven, does that impact1) public trust2)...
by My Esoteric7 weeks ago
Maybe. The 17th Century term High Crimes and Misdemeanors may not mean what you think it might be after seeing President Clinton impeached, but not convicted. A common interpretation is as follows:The...
by Susie Lehto3 days ago
A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.