Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trump is not allowed to leave the USA because UFO dudes will get him!What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump?
I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.
- Trump had planned to make a speech atop Masada. Those plans are no more mainly because Trump has refused to take the cable car trip to the plateau's top and make the speech.
- Trump has noted he doesn't want to take the trip.
- His aides are distraught over the risk that Trump will go "off script." (That's so domestically too and has been every since the 2016 campaign.)
- Do you deny that Israel's "local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem?
- Do you deny that Mrs. Trump will accompany him on the trip?
- Do you deny Miller's having a track record of anti-Muslim sentiment and rhetoric?
What a surprise, imagine the media prematurely passing judgement on President Trump. Start with the headline you want, then fill in the blanks. "Let's get him" has been the mantra since November 9th 2016. Facts don't matter, just cut him and keep doing it.
Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started
I wouldn't be surprised if you heard that. it was probably from the voices in your head.I heard the trip as going to cost 123 million per day because he's renting the whole country of Denmark to house his entire extended family out to third cousins, and their pets.
I wouldn't be surprised if you heard that. it was probably from the voices in your head.I heard the trip as going to cost 123 million per day because he's renting the whole country of Denmark to house his entire extended family out to third cousins, and their pets.
"Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started"What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.
journalism was my minor and it tears me up to see the national enquierer - once scoffed and moo moo wearing bon bon eating bitches read it.I was led to believe that news reporters are supposed to report the news, not make shit up, but what the hell do I know, I dropped journalism and switched to computer science.
What a surprise, imagine the media prematurely passing judgement on President Trump. Start with the headline you want, then fill in the blanks. "Let's get him" has been the mantra since November 9th 2016. Facts don't matter, just cut him and keep doing it.
Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started
What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump?
I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.
- Trump had planned to make a speech atop Masada. Those plans are no more mainly because Trump has refused to take the cable car trip to the plateau's top and make the speech.
- Trump has noted he doesn't want to take the trip.
- His aides are distraught over the risk that Trump will go "off script." (That's so domestically too and has been every since the 2016 campaign.)
- Do you deny that Israel's "local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem?
- Do you deny that Mrs. Trump will accompany him on the trip?
- Do you deny Miller's having a track record of anti-Muslim sentiment and rhetoric?
"Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started"What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.
This is the headline on the piece. Are you saying "disaster" indicates objectivity? A summary of the article couldn't have been something more benign, like "Changes being made to Trump Trip"? Really?
"Trump was set to take a cable car to the top, as visiting U.S. presidents before him have done, like George W. Bush in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1998...But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently, so the Masada visit is canceled..."
"But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently" - yeah, no blatant cattiness there. The writer just had to cram that in there for journalistic integrity, right?
"Also while in Israel, local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem. Apparently this is enough time for a quick talk and to sign the guest book."
Same blatant, biased cattiness. See above.
"Another opportunity with lots of terrible potential is a speech Trump is planning to give about radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. The speech writer is none other than his policy adviser Stephen Miller. He's credited as one of the chief architects of Trump's failed travel ban to keep people from Muslim-majority nations out of the U.S. He also has a strong history of anti-Muslim rhetoric and beliefs."
Well, there's a nice, down-the-middle comment, right? "Lots of terrible potential'. Yeah, I don't see any opinion there, do you?
"His aides are apparently freaking out about the president going off script, walking into unfamiliar territory or making promises to foreign leaders that he can't keep."
"Freaking out". Was this written by a high school kid? Can you think of a more professional, objective way that could have been written?
"Welp, it’s not like Trump ever spontaneously says offensive things or gets distracted, so, um, this should end well."
Well, there's a perfectly appropriate end to the piece. Nice and objective and fact-based.
This thing is presented as an "article" and not a biased opinion piece, which is what it is.
Anyone who can't see the blatant LACK of professional journalistic objectivity in this "article" can only be so blinded by their own partisan ideology that they can't understand the difference between partisan bias and reporting information.
This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.
.
Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?"Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started"What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.
This is the headline on the piece. Are you saying "disaster" indicates objectivity? A summary of the article couldn't have been something more benign, like "Changes being made to Trump Trip"? Really?
"Trump was set to take a cable car to the top, as visiting U.S. presidents before him have done, like George W. Bush in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1998...But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently, so the Masada visit is canceled..."
"But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently" - yeah, no blatant cattiness there. The writer just had to cram that in there for journalistic integrity, right?
"Also while in Israel, local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem. Apparently this is enough time for a quick talk and to sign the guest book."
Same blatant, biased cattiness. See above.
"Another opportunity with lots of terrible potential is a speech Trump is planning to give about radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. The speech writer is none other than his policy adviser Stephen Miller. He's credited as one of the chief architects of Trump's failed travel ban to keep people from Muslim-majority nations out of the U.S. He also has a strong history of anti-Muslim rhetoric and beliefs."
Well, there's a nice, down-the-middle comment, right? "Lots of terrible potential'. Yeah, I don't see any opinion there, do you?
"His aides are apparently freaking out about the president going off script, walking into unfamiliar territory or making promises to foreign leaders that he can't keep."
"Freaking out". Was this written by a high school kid? Can you think of a more professional, objective way that could have been written?
"Welp, it’s not like Trump ever spontaneously says offensive things or gets distracted, so, um, this should end well."
Well, there's a perfectly appropriate end to the piece. Nice and objective and fact-based.
This thing is presented as an "article" and not a biased opinion piece, which is what it is.
Anyone who can't see the blatant LACK of professional journalistic objectivity in this "article" can only be so blinded by their own partisan ideology that they can't understand the difference between partisan bias and reporting information.
This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.
.
If Trump were a moderately mature diplomat with at least mediocre skills, you would be right. However, that obese orange clown's behavior is only slightly less predictable than a tornado in a rural Oklahoma trailer park.There is NO part of his trip that can't be expected to end in disaster.
"Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started"What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.
This is the headline on the piece. Are you saying "disaster" indicates objectivity? A summary of the article couldn't have been something more benign, like "Changes being made to Trump Trip"? Really?
"Trump was set to take a cable car to the top, as visiting U.S. presidents before him have done, like George W. Bush in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1998...But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently, so the Masada visit is canceled..."
"But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently" - yeah, no blatant cattiness there. The writer just had to cram that in there for journalistic integrity, right?
"Also while in Israel, local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem. Apparently this is enough time for a quick talk and to sign the guest book."
Same blatant, biased cattiness. See above.
"Another opportunity with lots of terrible potential is a speech Trump is planning to give about radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. The speech writer is none other than his policy adviser Stephen Miller. He's credited as one of the chief architects of Trump's failed travel ban to keep people from Muslim-majority nations out of the U.S. He also has a strong history of anti-Muslim rhetoric and beliefs."
Well, there's a nice, down-the-middle comment, right? "Lots of terrible potential'. Yeah, I don't see any opinion there, do you?
"His aides are apparently freaking out about the president going off script, walking into unfamiliar territory or making promises to foreign leaders that he can't keep."
"Freaking out". Was this written by a high school kid? Can you think of a more professional, objective way that could have been written?
"Welp, it’s not like Trump ever spontaneously says offensive things or gets distracted, so, um, this should end well."
Well, there's a perfectly appropriate end to the piece. Nice and objective and fact-based.
Is this really fact-based reporting to you? This thing is presented as an "article" and not a biased opinion piece, which is what it is.
Anyone who can't see the blatant LACK of professional journalistic objectivity in this "article" can only be so blinded by their own partisan ideology that they can't understand the difference between partisan bias and reporting information.
This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.
.
