There is truth to this but I also think there is truth to the crying wolf theory. Everday the press has some new "bomb shell" then when we look at the facts there isn't much there. The biggest example is the constant use of the word collusion when there has been zero evidence of such.

 

It's caused me to pretty much not pay attention to anything knew that gets reported, outside of reading through a few threads in this forum.

How so? Because it disagrees with what Trump has done? That doesn't automatically make something left.

 

I'm a big boy. What's wrong with The Economist? Quit beating around the bush. I'd love to hear what your problem with that publication is.

 

Come on man!

 

I don't know anything about the Economist, but that article was definitely written by someone embracing an anti-Trump agenda.

Come on man!

 

I don't know anything about the Economist, but that article was definitely written by someone embracing an anti-Trump agenda.

 

So basically you just didn't agree with it...

So basically you just didn't agree with it...

 

It is just like watching MSNBC, they bring up some good points but they are normally short on facts.

It is just like watching MSNBC, they bring up some good points but they are normally short on facts.

 

What specifically from the article made it "written by someone embracing an anti-Trump agenda"?

What specifically from the article made it "written by someone embracing an anti-Trump agenda"?

 

Without going back and breaking it down, which I have no desire to do, it mostly assumes worst case scenario without having the proper facts to back it up.

 

Or put another way, it is business as usual from the left when it comes to President Trump.

Without going back and breaking it down, which I have no desire to do, it mostly assumes worst case scenario without having the proper facts to back it up.

 

Or put another way, it is business as usual from the left when it comes to President Trump.

 

It took a "if this is true, this is what it could mean" approach. Nothing "anti-Trump" in the slightest in there.

 

Keep banging that drum though.

It took a "if this is true, this is what it could mean" approach. Nothing "anti-Trump" in the slightest in there.

 

Keep banging that drum though.

 

Yep, nothing at all... :idunno:

Yep, nothing at all... :idunno:

 

Good to know you see it correctly now. :thumb:

Good to know you see it correctly now. :thumb:

 

I just read the article again, I will go further to say the author appears to have contempt for President Trump.

 

I thought this one line from the article pretty much summed up the perspective it was written from:

 

'If Mr Trump really did shoot his mouth off to the friendly Russians, he probably broke no law. The president can choose to “declassifiy” almost whatever intelligence he sees fit.'

This is ridiculous you can not jail journalists for false information.

 

Not legally since 1800 anyway.

 

However, Lincoln ordered reporters jailed whether their reports were false are not, just against his administration.

 

Jefferson found another way to deal with his journalistic foes. Putin would be proud. James Callendar was not.

You are correct. But it would sure scare the fake news people.

 

I will be serious now. I have never seen our country in such a mess. And I am not a young fella either.

 

I guess it's the way one perceives things. I still think the late 60s, the 70s, and the early 80s were worse. I wonder what the perception would be, if there was cable and social media back then instead of local papers and just 3 national networks with national news only at 7pm.

I guess it's the way one perceives things. I still think the late 60s, the 70s, and the early 80s were worse. I wonder what the perception would be, if there was cable and social media back then instead of local papers and just 3 national networks with national news only at 7pm.

Good point. I challenge anyone to find any time period since WWII much crazier than the years between 1963-1974.

Good point. I challenge anyone to find any time period since WWII much crazier than the years between 1963-1974.

 

 

Are we talking strictly modern history and US or are we going back further? Give me time and I could probably do it.

Are we talking strictly modern history and US or are we going back further? Give me time and I could probably do it.

 

I would love to hear the others. I know of some but you are one of the best historians on here.