Slanted News for First 100 Days Obama v Trump

[Ray From Cleveland]

The government is Republican.

The party owns the success and the failure of government now.

How do they own it if the Democrats keep stopping it?

The Democrats aren't stopping them. The Republicans won't vote for Trump's healthcare plan. The Democrats stopped NOTHING because there's been no legislation presented by Trump. Period.

Trump can't do everything by EO but that's what he's trying to do because he doesn't know how the system works. It is the job of the courts to tell him that.

It's the job of liberal courts to stop him.

He tried to secure the country by prohibiting people from certain countries from coming here. Stopped by a liberal activist judge.

He tried to secure the country by threatening funds to cities and states that harbor illegals. Stopped by a liberal activist judge.

He tried to secure the country by getting funds to start building a wall; a crummy billion dollars. Stopped by Chucky.

It's not the job of the courts to tell HIM how to do his job. The problem with you on the left is you don't know WTF courts are for. You think they are there to stop anti-liberal agendas.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But it's the people's fault due to punishing their representatives when they even come close to compromise; esp. Republicans who routinely run opposition against itself in a quest for conservative purity! The Dems are on the same track with the new Dem. Chair looking for absolutes on the "choice" issue! You can't do that; we wind up as culturally insane as right-wingers! It's one of the reasons Hillary lost the women's vote to a misogynist pig; went too far LEFT! Women talk a good game about moving into the future, but they're still stuck in past; often sabotaging themselves when they vote against their own interests! They outnumber men in all aspects of life; esp. the voters, but their representation is going down instead of up! When they actually had a chance to elect the ultimate woman, they balked, so I will never even listen to their cater-walling when this man in Washington

The first female President should be one that represents her gender with pride. Electing a woman under FBI investigations and corruption all around her is not what women wanted as the Mother of our country.

I give the women credit for bypassing Hil-Liar and waiting it out for a sober honest person. Sorry that some of your flock found their way off the plantation, but if you ever run another woman again, make sure it's somebody women of America can be proud of.

But I guess it's ok that an old white crazy man can be under the same investigation! Hilarious and hypocritical don't you think? I don't mind he made it in; goes along with the other sick countries taking on tyrants and dictators as their leaders! I doubt we can sink much further, but you never know with the lack of intelligentsia in this country! The only thing in question is how long will it take to impeach this arse-hole and take on another in Pence?

Good luck with that having an all Republican led federal government. There are no Russian ties to Trump. Why do you think the media dropped it already? There's nothing there. You are talking apples and oranges. Hillary destroyed incriminating evidence subpoenaed by the United States Congress. She lied under oath. She violated multiple rules for SOS. Trump didn't do anything like that.

Lack of intelligence? That's what you on the left think of our American women? Tell us, are they deplorable too?

Why are you talking about Hillary? This thread is about Trumps abysmal press.

Perhaps we should talk about your comprehension skills because if you read the entire discussion, you'd see I was not the one to bring her up. I was only responding to the person that did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a twiste bunch of nonsense. Kyzr cannot shove the criminality of Trump et al onto the Clintons. Won't wash. Oh, no votes needed to be changed to evidence a crime. Only a plan to do so and one concrete event, like traveling to a meeting to further the plan, is sufficient.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Courts DO have the obligation to keep the executive and legislative coloring within the lines.

Work with the Dems and the center, Trump, and make a great American even greater.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's have Congress work together.

When a lib says have Republicans work with Democrats, it means do things the Democrat way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's have Congress work together.

When a lib says have Republicans work with Democrats, it means do things the Democrat way.

I am not a lib, and you are not a patriot. Let's stay within the lines. The spending gap was covered by compromise. More can be done.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray, be honest here with the whole story.

The GOP has the Senate and the House and the presidency.

The federal courts have only interfered with two EO orders.

That is not obstructionism.

If that isn't, I don't know what is.

He wanted to put a halt to immigrants from selected countries perfectly within our laws. Activist judge stopped that. He wants to withhold funding from places that are Sanctuary, another activist judge stopped that. He wanted to build a wall. Democrats in the Senate threatened to shut down the government.

His major issues are being stopped by the left, so yes, that is obstructionism. He may have an all Republican led house, but not enough in the Senate to override Democrats.

The judges say he was outside of the law: that is for the judiciary to decide. That is not activism.

The Democrats do not think a wall is the right thing: they have the right to be involved in governance.

Checks and balances work with in the legislative branch as it does for all three branches.

The judiciary is now legislating which is a violation of our separation of powers. That is judicial activism. We know the Democrats don't want a wall. They love the drugs, illegals and criminals getting into this country killing our citizens. But like I said, it's liberals that are stopping Trump from doing his job, so you can't blame Trump for that.

Here's a novel idea... Trump could try passing legislation instead of issuing EO's that violate the constitution. Oh wait, he doesn't know how.

Yeah, right. That would stop liberal activist judges from interfering with the Presidents job. Do you think I was born last night?

What happened the last time he looked to Democrats to work with him? Oh yes, that's right, Judge Gorsuch. How did that work out for him?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray, be honest here with the whole story.

The GOP has the Senate and the House and the presidency.

The federal courts have only interfered with two EO orders.

That is not obstructionism.

If that isn't, I don't know what is.

He wanted to put a halt to immigrants from selected countries perfectly within our laws. Activist judge stopped that. He wants to withhold funding from places that are Sanctuary, another activist judge stopped that. He wanted to build a wall. Democrats in the Senate threatened to shut down the government.

His major issues are being stopped by the left, so yes, that is obstructionism. He may have an all Republican led house, but not enough in the Senate to override Democrats.

The judges say he was outside of the law: that is for the judiciary to decide. That is not activism.

The Democrats do not think a wall is the right thing: they have the right to be involved in governance.

Checks and balances work with in the legislative branch as it does for all three branches.

The judiciary is now legislating which is a violation of our separation of powers. That is judicial activism. We know the Democrats don't want a wall. They love the drugs, illegals and criminals getting into this country killing our citizens. But like I said, it's liberals that are stopping Trump from doing his job, so you can't blame Trump for that.

The judiciary has been active since 1789.

It, per Art III, has original jurisdiction on matters constitutional. You don't. That's the end of it.

There is nothing unconstitutional about anything Trump did. Commie leftist judges bastardized the Constitution for their activism. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the President can't withhold funds from states; nothing in the Constitution that says he can't temporarily stop people from coming here from other countries. Need the law? Here it is, US code 1182:

So what we had here was an activist judge saying Trump could not exercise the law. If you don't think that's activism, I don't know what is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ray, be honest here with the whole story.

The GOP has the Senate and the House and the presidency.

The federal courts have only interfered with two EO orders.

That is not obstructionism.

If that isn't, I don't know what is.

He wanted to put a halt to immigrants from selected countries perfectly within our laws. Activist judge stopped that. He wants to withhold funding from places that are Sanctuary, another activist judge stopped that. He wanted to build a wall. Democrats in the Senate threatened to shut down the government.

His major issues are being stopped by the left, so yes, that is obstructionism. He may have an all Republican led house, but not enough in the Senate to override Democrats.

The judges say he was outside of the law: that is for the judiciary to decide. That is not activism.

The Democrats do not think a wall is the right thing: they have the right to be involved in governance.

Checks and balances work with in the legislative branch as it does for all three branches.

The judiciary is now legislating which is a violation of our separation of powers. That is judicial activism. We know the Democrats don't want a wall. They love the drugs, illegals and criminals getting into this country killing our citizens. But like I said, it's liberals that are stopping Trump from doing his job, so you can't blame Trump for that.

Here's a novel idea... Trump could try passing legislation instead of issuing EO's that violate the constitution. Oh wait, he doesn't know how.

Yeah, right. That would stop liberal activist judges from interfering with the Presidents job. Do you think I was born last night?

What happened the last time he looked to Democrats to work with him? Oh yes, that's right, Judge Gorsuch. How did that work out for him?

The Dems were not going to go with Gorsuch, you know that. Now that is over. Let's see what can be done.

No, the judges are not commies, and you are no authority or authoritative on the law.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The Pew study referenced below found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed. Trump had 89% negative by comparison. Slanted/Fake news by the MSM, they really need to get Obama's dick out of their mouths before whining about Trump.

MSM coverage in the 1st 100 Days:
Obama Trump
Positive 42% 5%
Negative 20% 89%
Neutral 38% 6%

Obama’s First 100 Days

The Pew study referenced below found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.

And that's surprising because....??? Obama didn't spend his first 100 fabricating facts, defending the indefensible, mired in controversy over the relationship between key players in his campaign and administration and a foreign non-ally (let alone adversary), sign no signature legislation, rhetorically attack federal judges, accept the word of a foreign leader over that of leaders in his own country, incessantly extol the fact of his having won the election, etc, etc., etc. Of course, Trump's going to have more negative press in his first 100 days than did Obama; the overwhelming majority of Trump's behaviors don't merit positive press.

If you want to compare the two, compare them, but at least do so in terms of something that's comparable in a context beyond the most superficial ones that can be found.

 

[bripat9643]

You can not expect the media or public to give favorable reviews and have positive attitudes towards trump when he and his administration are routinely and consistently caught telling provable lies and saying stupid or misinformed comments.

I other words, I'm totally justified in calling you a partisan doiche bag.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If that isn't, I don't know what is.

He wanted to put a halt to immigrants from selected countries perfectly within our laws. Activist judge stopped that. He wants to withhold funding from places that are Sanctuary, another activist judge stopped that. He wanted to build a wall. Democrats in the Senate threatened to shut down the government.

His major issues are being stopped by the left, so yes, that is obstructionism. He may have an all Republican led house, but not enough in the Senate to override Democrats.

The judges say he was outside of the law: that is for the judiciary to decide. That is not activism.

The Democrats do not think a wall is the right thing: they have the right to be involved in governance.

Checks and balances work with in the legislative branch as it does for all three branches.

The judiciary is now legislating which is a violation of our separation of powers. That is judicial activism. We know the Democrats don't want a wall. They love the drugs, illegals and criminals getting into this country killing our citizens. But like I said, it's liberals that are stopping Trump from doing his job, so you can't blame Trump for that.

Here's a novel idea... Trump could try passing legislation instead of issuing EO's that violate the constitution. Oh wait, he doesn't know how.

Yeah, right. That would stop liberal activist judges from interfering with the Presidents job. Do you think I was born last night?

What happened the last time he looked to Democrats to work with him? Oh yes, that's right, Judge Gorsuch. How did that work out for him?

The Dems were not going to go with Gorsuch, you know that. Now that is over. Let's see what can be done.

No, the judges are not commies, and you are no authority or authoritative on the law.

You don't have to be. It's right there in plain English; a language these Commie judges don't seem to understand. Nothing ambiguous about it. Nothing to question. The President BY LAW has the right to restrict any immigrant from this country. An activist judge said he will decide who is allowed in this country or not.

When the judicial rules that they are the decider on what laws will be enforced, that is judicial activism and a violation of our separation of powers. Liberals will stop at nothing to maintain power.

 

[bripat9643]

You can not expect the media or public to give favorable reviews and have positive attitudes towards trump when he and his administration are routinely and consistently caught telling provable lies and saying stupid or misinformed comments.

That does not justify 90% slanted or fake news. Obama told lies all the time, and bigger lies, and still the MSM fawned over him. Remember the initial Obamacare rollout disaster? Trump, as president, deserves honest coverage, and an "exaggeration" is not a lie. Arguing over Trump's crowd size compared to everyone would save at least $2,500 a year on healthcare aren't comparable.

There is something fundamentally wrong with trump supporters having to always reference Obama or Clinton to justify and defend his lies. It means you are admitting that trump lies, but it is OK because other people lie too.
Your claim of 90% slanted or fake news is something you just made up. You start of a lecturing post about lying with a lie in the first sentence.

What it means is that you are great big fucking douche bag hypocrites.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[westwall]

You can not expect the media or public to give favorable reviews and have positive attitudes towards trump when he and his administration are routinely and consistently caught telling provable lies and saying stupid or misinformed comments.

That's kind of funny because the exact same statement can be made for obummer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The judges say he was outside of the law: that is for the judiciary to decide. That is not activism.

The Democrats do not think a wall is the right thing: they have the right to be involved in governance.

Checks and balances work with in the legislative branch as it does for all three branches.

The judiciary is now legislating which is a violation of our separation of powers. That is judicial activism. We know the Democrats don't want a wall. They love the drugs, illegals and criminals getting into this country killing our citizens. But like I said, it's liberals that are stopping Trump from doing his job, so you can't blame Trump for that.

Here's a novel idea... Trump could try passing legislation instead of issuing EO's that violate the constitution. Oh wait, he doesn't know how.

Yeah, right. That would stop liberal activist judges from interfering with the Presidents job. Do you think I was born last night?

What happened the last time he looked to Democrats to work with him? Oh yes, that's right, Judge Gorsuch. How did that work out for him?

The Dems were not going to go with Gorsuch, you know that. Now that is over. Let's see what can be done.

No, the judges are not commies, and you are no authority or authoritative on the law.

You don't have to be. It's right there in plain English; a language these Commie judges don't seem to understand. Nothing ambiguous about it. Nothing to question. The President BY LAW has the right to restrict any immigrant from this country. An activist judge said he will decide who is allowed in this country or not.

When the judicial rules that they are the decider on what laws will be enforced, that is judicial activism and a violation of our separation of powers. Liberals will stop at nothing to maintain power.

^^^ commie judges (yeah, he said it). Raye, the liberals don't have power, the GOP has it and is squabbling amongst its various factions, of course egged on by the Dems.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The judiciary is now legislating which is a violation of our separation of powers. That is judicial activism. We know the Democrats don't want a wall. They love the drugs, illegals and criminals getting into this country killing our citizens. But like I said, it's liberals that are stopping Trump from doing his job, so you can't blame Trump for that.

Here's a novel idea... Trump could try passing legislation instead of issuing EO's that violate the constitution. Oh wait, he doesn't know how.

Yeah, right. That would stop liberal activist judges from interfering with the Presidents job. Do you think I was born last night?

What happened the last time he looked to Democrats to work with him? Oh yes, that's right, Judge Gorsuch. How did that work out for him?

The Dems were not going to go with Gorsuch, you know that. Now that is over. Let's see what can be done.

No, the judges are not commies, and you are no authority or authoritative on the law.

You don't have to be. It's right there in plain English; a language these Commie judges don't seem to understand. Nothing ambiguous about it. Nothing to question. The President BY LAW has the right to restrict any immigrant from this country. An activist judge said he will decide who is allowed in this country or not.

When the judicial rules that they are the decider on what laws will be enforced, that is judicial activism and a violation of our separation of powers. Liberals will stop at nothing to maintain power.

^^^ commie judges (yeah, he said it). Raye, the liberals don't have power, the GOP has it and is squabbling amongst its various factions, of course egged on by the Dems.

The only "squabble" between the Republicans is on healthcare. Everything else was stopped (or was tried to be stopped) by a liberal or Democrat.

 

[Care4all]

But it's the people's fault due to punishing their representatives when they even come close to compromise; esp. Republicans who routinely run opposition against itself in a quest for conservative purity! The Dems are on the same track with the new Dem. Chair looking for absolutes on the "choice" issue! You can't do that; we wind up as culturally insane as right-wingers! It's one of the reasons Hillary lost the women's vote to a misogynist pig; went too far LEFT! Women talk a good game about moving into the future, but they're still stuck in past; often sabotaging themselves when they vote against their own interests! They outnumber men in all aspects of life; esp. the voters, but their representation is going down instead of up! When they actually had a chance to elect the ultimate woman, they balked, so I will never even listen to their cater-walling when this man in Washington

The first female President should be one that represents her gender with pride. Electing a woman under FBI investigations and corruption all around her is not what women wanted as the Mother of our country.

I give the women credit for bypassing Hil-Liar and waiting it out for a sober honest person. Sorry that some of your flock found their way off the plantation, but if you ever run another woman again, make sure it's somebody women of America can be proud of.

But I guess it's ok that an old white crazy man can be under the same investigation! Hilarious and hypocritical don't you think? I don't mind he made it in; goes along with the other sick countries taking on tyrants and dictators as their leaders! I doubt we can sink much further, but you never know with the lack of intelligentsia in this country! The only thing in question is how long will it take to impeach this arse-hole and take on another in Pence?

Good luck with that having an all Republican led federal government. There are no Russian ties to Trump. Why do you think the media dropped it already? There's nothing there. You are talking apples and oranges. Hillary destroyed incriminating evidence subpoenaed by the United States Congress. She lied under oath. She violated multiple rules for SOS. Trump didn't do anything like that.

Lack of intelligence? That's what you on the left think of our American women? Tell us, are they deplorable too?

you only watch FOX, that is clear as day!

 

[Care4all]

Here's a novel idea... Trump could try passing legislation instead of issuing EO's that violate the constitution. Oh wait, he doesn't know how.

Yeah, right. That would stop liberal activist judges from interfering with the Presidents job. Do you think I was born last night?

What happened the last time he looked to Democrats to work with him? Oh yes, that's right, Judge Gorsuch. How did that work out for him?

The Dems were not going to go with Gorsuch, you know that. Now that is over. Let's see what can be done.

No, the judges are not commies, and you are no authority or authoritative on the law.

You don't have to be. It's right there in plain English; a language these Commie judges don't seem to understand. Nothing ambiguous about it. Nothing to question. The President BY LAW has the right to restrict any immigrant from this country. An activist judge said he will decide who is allowed in this country or not.

When the judicial rules that they are the decider on what laws will be enforced, that is judicial activism and a violation of our separation of powers. Liberals will stop at nothing to maintain power.

^^^ commie judges (yeah, he said it). Raye, the liberals don't have power, the GOP has it and is squabbling amongst its various factions, of course egged on by the Dems.

The only "squabble" between the Republicans is on healthcare. Everything else was stopped (or was tried to be stopped) by a liberal or Democrat.

what else has Pres Trump even tried to pass in Congress? He's an executive order kind of guy....it seems....and nothing sticks via executive order, its all temporary...he needs Congress to get anything worth a darn, done and so far he can't accomplish those negotiations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here's a novel idea... Trump could try passing legislation instead of issuing EO's that violate the constitution. Oh wait, he doesn't know how.

Yeah, right. That would stop liberal activist judges from interfering with the Presidents job. Do you think I was born last night?

What happened the last time he looked to Democrats to work with him? Oh yes, that's right, Judge Gorsuch. How did that work out for him?

The Dems were not going to go with Gorsuch, you know that. Now that is over. Let's see what can be done.

No, the judges are not commies, and you are no authority or authoritative on the law.

You don't have to be. It's right there in plain English; a language these Commie judges don't seem to understand. Nothing ambiguous about it. Nothing to question. The President BY LAW has the right to restrict any immigrant from this country. An activist judge said he will decide who is allowed in this country or not.

When the judicial rules that they are the decider on what laws will be enforced, that is judicial activism and a violation of our separation of powers. Liberals will stop at nothing to maintain power.

^^^ commie judges (yeah, he said it). Raye, the liberals don't have power, the GOP has it and is squabbling amongst its various factions, of course egged on by the Dems.

The only "squabble" between the Republicans is on healthcare. Everything else was stopped (or was tried to be stopped) by a liberal or Democrat.

Tax Reform? ACA? The Wall? The GOP can pass any of these things if they unite.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, right. That would stop liberal activist judges from interfering with the Presidents job. Do you think I was born last night?

What happened the last time he looked to Democrats to work with him? Oh yes, that's right, Judge Gorsuch. How did that work out for him?

The Dems were not going to go with Gorsuch, you know that. Now that is over. Let's see what can be done.

No, the judges are not commies, and you are no authority or authoritative on the law.

You don't have to be. It's right there in plain English; a language these Commie judges don't seem to understand. Nothing ambiguous about it. Nothing to question. The President BY LAW has the right to restrict any immigrant from this country. An activist judge said he will decide who is allowed in this country or not.

When the judicial rules that they are the decider on what laws will be enforced, that is judicial activism and a violation of our separation of powers. Liberals will stop at nothing to maintain power.

^^^ commie judges (yeah, he said it). Raye, the liberals don't have power, the GOP has it and is squabbling amongst its various factions, of course egged on by the Dems.

The only "squabble" between the Republicans is on healthcare. Everything else was stopped (or was tried to be stopped) by a liberal or Democrat.

Tax Reform? ACA? The Wall? The GOP can pass any of these things if they unite.

No they can't because it requires a 60 vote Senate vote. We currently only have 52 votes, and that's if everybody sticks together.