Why is every news media source slanted against Trump?

Post Reply New Topic

Wait, so you actually want school kids to be brainwashed?

Nope. I actually have facts to present.
Here's an example of Trump making America great again:
As promised during his election campaign, President Trump has donated his presidential salary rather than accepting it for himself.



A politician keeping a promise ... imagine that!
America is made great again with a president who keeps his word
... and helps out the National Park Service at the same time.

Thanks for inspiring me to make this post!
And yeah, that was an easy one. Plenty more where that came from ...
...

For the same reason that every news media source is slanted against the bubonic plague.

You never hear anything good about the bubonic plague in the news media.

And that's because every news media source on the planet is part of the of the global conspiracy (the global conspiracy BY Globalists) to suppress all public knowledge of the good aspects of bubonic plague .

They're largely not biased, they're actually accurate. It is those who criticise the media and support Trump who have the heavy bias. Trump is a horrible, horrible man, with terrible policies, who has done immense damage to the United States and the world at large.

Obama rightly got criticised when he made mistakes, but overall he was a great man who helped America recover its former glory and turned it into a respectable country. He'll go down in history as one of the great presidents. It seems almost certain that Trump will go down even below William Henry Harrison. It isn't out of the question that he could turn his presidency around and achieve something, but it seems unlikely as he is incredibly unsuitable to the office. He's stupid, he has no vision, he is bigoted, he has no political nous, and he doesn't even realise how bad he is.

People right across the political spectrum agree that Trump is not a suitable president. Some people support him because they'd rather have a bad Republican than any Democrat (and before any Democrats sneer, I'm sure there are many in the Democrats who 5would rather have Bernie Sanders than George H.W. Bush). The only people who seriously support him are far-right. That suggests that it is the far-right who are not making a fair assessment.

Even if you right now change the schoolsysteem and start to brainwash a new generation of students with conservative ideas it will take 15-20 years per generation and only at generation 3 will those People from generation 1 now be in top positions. It is a very slow process and thus irreversible. America has been destroyed from the inside out and they dont even know what is going on.

Just ask college students. A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”

That’s one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor.

In August, motivated by concerns about the “narrowing window of permissible topics” for discussion on campuses, Villasenor conducted a nationwide survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at four-year colleges. Financial support for the survey was provided by the Charles Koch Foundation, which Villasenor said had no involvement in designing, administering or analyzing the questionnaire; as of this writing, the foundation had also not seen his results.

Many of Villasenor’s questions were designed to gauge students’ understanding of the First Amendment. Colleges, after all, pay a lot of lip service to “freedom of speech,” despite high-profile examples of civil-liberty-squelching on campus. The survey suggests that this might not be due to hypocrisy so much as a misunderstanding of what the First Amendment actually entails.

For example, when students were asked whether the First Amendment protects “hate speech,” 4 in 10 said no. This is, of course, incorrect. Speech promoting hatred — or at least, speech perceived as promoting hatred — may be abhorrent, but it is nonetheless constitutionally protected.

There were no statistically significant differences in response to this question based on political affiliation. But there were significant differences by gender: Women are more likely than men to believe hate speech is not constitutionally protected (49 percent vs. 38 percent, respectively).

Students were asked whether the First Amendment requires that an offensive speaker at a public university be matched with one with an opposing view. Here, 6 in 10 (mistakenly) said that, yes, the First Amendment requires balance.

The most chilling findings, however, involved how students think repugnant speech should be dealt with.

Astonishingly, half said that snuffing out upsetting speech — rather than, presumably, rebutting or even ignoring it — would be appropriate. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to find this response acceptable (62 percent to 39 percent), and men were more likely than women (57 percent to 47 percent). Even so, sizable shares of all groups agreed.

Respondents were also asked if it would be acceptable for a student group to use violence to prevent that same controversial speaker from talking. Here, 19 percent said yes.

There were no statistically significant differences in response by political party affiliation. Men, however, were three times as likely as women to endorse using physical force to silence controversial views (30 percent of men vs. 10 percent of women).

I am not a conspiracy theorists. I do however place big questions marks on the patterns i see in society and what unknown force causes this unnatural erosion that we have been seeing for the past 20 years. The tone of the debate is getting worse everyday thanks to the media and soon we are going to see antifa like groups in every direction.

That's the point. you're scapgoating "the media". But the media is not monolithic. And you're talking about "dark forces" causing this. And then you claim that your NOT a conspiracy theorist (plainly you are that).

But I agree that there ARE, forces in society causing the breakdown in debate. Both parties had populist uprisings in the last election. Nothing dark or unknown. Just sociological changes that are forcing political realignments.

I just wish Trump would go back to reality programming.

<--- Considers the assassination of a US president to be in bad taste.

I just wish Trump would go back to reality programming.

William Henry Harrison passed away one month into his term. His grade is a resounding "incomplete." Forget about him when assessing Presidents.

Harding was bad because he didn't see the scandal around him/or perhaps he was indirectly/directly involved in the scandals.

Buchanan was bad because he didn't see the coming Civil War for what it was. He was almost like Nero with the fiddle. He just sort of sat there, and let things happen.

I don't believe Obama will be one of the "great" Presidents....but I believe he's at least in the middle of the pack. He was a great compromiser, but a so-so innovator, in my opinion. Obamacare was not a godsend, by any means. He didn't seem overmatched by the office---like Trump seems to be.

At this point, Trump would be barely above people like Buchanan, but lower than Nixon. Nixon, at least, knew what he was doing until Watergate came along.