How is President Trump doing in his first 100 days?

The easiest way to spot fake news is to turn the TV onto MSNBC, CNN, ABC or CBS. Another way to read the free version of the NYT (don't be a fool by paying for it).

 

Just re-read the NYT article. Some stuff is pretty funny. I liked this bit:

Hilarious.

As for whether or not Manafort had contacts with Russian intelligence: really? The guy worked for years and got paid millions in dark money by Viktor Yanukovich, who was the most important Putin puppet and asset. You think that maybe he got into contact with Russian intelligence? The guy is bought and paid for. Same thing with Flynn: the guy is a frequent guest and paid speaker for Russia Today network. He was seated with Putin for RT's anniversaly dinner (where he gave a paid speech) - literally, they sat next to each other. And now everyone is shocked he spoke to Russkie to advance their interests? Shocking part was that Trump appointed him in the first place, and how much of a lying weasel he is.

And so is Trump. Trump Hotel and Tower Toronto was built by a Russian/Ukrainian billionaire with ties to notorious "Solntsevskiye" crime group. Trump Soho was built by Bayrock, a company ran by exUSSR people with ties to both Russian intelligence and the mob. He sold a lot of real estate without checking the source of the money, both to known Russian figures and to phoney shell companies fronting for them. These are the things that were known way before the elections, yet the "liberal" media didn't have time for any of this because of all the Clinton e-mails coverage.

 

Well, most economists agree it at least helped. It certainly looks like Detroit auto industry could be dead without help. And no, Austrian economists are not mainstream.

 

It just postponed it for the next generation and added more debt for them. That's what the Dems/Reps do.

 

Felony: Top secret intelligence leaks to the leftist mainstream media

The bigger news is:

Who is feloniously leaking top secret intelligence information to the leftist mainstream media for public release?

 

No, it is that the society underappreciates the predictability associated with mainstream. As Dr. Ben Goldacre tweeted once, "Repeat after me: pharma being shit doesn't mean you can cure cancer with carrot juice". Electing the alt-coloured con man because "the people got tired of the Clintons" is... G-rated word is "unwise". Yes, that's it: "unwise".

Again, only being focused on US means you lack certain perspective. In 2008, people of Ukraine were justifiably tired of squabbles, petty corruption, and ineptitude of all of the "democratic camp" (winners of the 2004 Orange Revolution). As a result, the loser of that event, semi-illiterate Viktor "Proffessor" Yanukovich, whose political party was ruled by East Ukraine big business with mob ties and peddling pro-Russian and authoritarian sentiment, got elected for realz (his base was not tired of anything). What followed was the shocking display of corruption, unrest, attempt at bloody suppression of said unrest, failure, loss of Crimea, Russian aggression, 10K people dead (and counting), at least a million people displaced (and counting), economic collapse. Some avenues for "change" are not like the others. And believe me, your "establishment" is not remotely as hopeless as our sorry excuse for "reformers".

 

Yes. This information is for authorized personnel only, which includes Russian spies and minimum wage guest workers at Maro Largo.

 

U.S. spies withholding intelligence from President Trump

U.S. spies influencing American politics: Leaking Top Secret intelligence to unseat Mike Flynn

U.S. spies influencing French elections

Trump eats the press

Rasmussen: Trump's approval pops to 55% and rising

 

The way a poll is created largely determines its reliability. Many polls are biased and are fake news.

Do you believe the electoral vote should be believed? Just checking...
1. The mainstream media scoffed and said it was impossible for Trump to win the electoral college.
2. Hollyweirdos laughed and scorned at the "impossibility" of Trump winning.
3. However, the electoral vote was the biggest electoral win since Ronald Reagan.

Regarding the validity of the popular vote, here is an interesting article: Nearly 2 million non-citizens illegally registered to vote

 

General comment. Anyone who found TRump "new" or "interesting clearly is not familiar with third world oligarchs.

 

Funnily enough, the only real way to back something like this up is with a peer-reviewed study, a mainstream mechanism. With "press" or "politics" it's kind of the same. Nihilists are among the easiest people to manipulate.

 

This sounds eminently reasonable.

 

It was? :shock: From the New Yorker, today (John Cassidy) re the Press Conference:

When Trump finally wrapped up his soliloquy and took questions, a reporter pointed out that both Obama and George H. W. Bush got more Electoral College votes than he did, and asked why Americans should trust him when he peddles blatant falsities. “I was given that information,” Trump replied blithely. “I’ve seen that information around.”

Well? :question: :question: :question:

J.

 

To dispel any doubt re the above, here are some numbers:

Pres. Trump won 306 electoral college votes in 2016.
Former President Barack Obama won 332 votes in 2012.
Mr Obama won an even higher number - 365 - in 2008.
Bill Clinton gained 379 electoral college votes in 1996.
George H W Bush won 426 votes in 1988.

It's from here: Donald Trump falsely claims he had 'biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan' | The Independent

J.

 

Or is this more "fake news" to be countered by "alternative facts?" :laugh:

J.