CNN Producer John Bonifield Admits The Russia/Trump Story Is Mostly Fake News
CNN Fake News
(Last Updated On: June 27, 2017)

There hasn’t been any certifiable or substantial evidence about Russia “hacking” the elections. The media and even American politicians have claimed that Russian hackers were responsible for leaking the DNC and John Podesta’s e-mails. However, both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange have both stated that Russia had no involvement with the e-mail leaks. Wikileaks and Reuters even proved that the CIA had framed Russia for various hack attacks in order to help buffer the media’s narrative. Well, hidden footage from a James O’Keefe investigation at Project Veritas has revealed that even mainstream media news organizations like CNN don’t actually believe the story about Russia rigging the elections.

In the first part of a series of videos detailing the inner workings of the mainstream media zeitgeist, Project Veritas released an eight minute video featuring CNN supervising producer, John Bonifield.

For the hearing impaired, Bonifield responds to the question about whether CNN pursuing the Russia story is “a little crazy”, stating…

“Even if Russia was trying to swing an election, we try to swing their elections, our CIA is doing shit all the time, we’re out there trying to manipulate governments. You win because you know the game and you play it right. She didn’t play it right.”

In the video they bracket Hillary’s name next to “She”, indicating that Bonifield infers that Hillary didn’t play the game right.

Bonifield is then asked why CNN is so sedulous about Russia and reporting on it even while there isn’t much to actually report on. Bonifield responds…

“Because it’s ratings. […] Our ratings are incredible right now.”

 

“Yeah, so, my boss, I shouldn’t say this – my boss yesterday, we were having a discussion about this dental shoot he goes, he was like, ‘I just want you to know what we’re up against here’. He goes ‘just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords, and the CEO of CNN [Jeff Zucker] said in our internal meeting, he said ‘good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with it. Let’s get back to Russia’.”

CNN did see a surge in news ahead of the general elections throughout 2016, covering the conventions and some of the more outrageous events leading up to the election season. The network also saw spikes in viewership – as pointed out in the Project Veritas video – when CNN covered Trump and the Russia angle. CNN’s climb in ratings was also subject for reporting over on Breitbart, where even they noticed a surge in attention that CNN was getting from the Russia angle.

According to Bonifield, this is all about the money. He explains…

“It’s a business. People are like ‘the media has an ethical–‘ [scoffs].

 

“But all the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, you’re just like ‘that’s adorable. That’s adorable’. This is a business, especially cable news. Cable news isn’t the New York Times. It’s not even like NBC news – I mean, NBC news still gets 20 million views a night, cable news is getting a million. So they got to do what they got to do to make their money, I think. And so I love the news business, but I’m very cynical about it and at the same time so are most of my colleagues.”

Bonifield also explained that CNN has a lot of liberal viewers who want to see Trump get scrutinized, something that he admits they wouldn’t do during the Obama administration.

But the real question was why is CNN still pursuing the Russia angle without proof? Bonifield is asked if there’s any substance to the story, and he responds as if the whole thing is frivolous, saying…

“It could be bullshit. I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don’t have any big giant proof. But then they say, ‘well there’s still an investigation going on’ and you’re like… yeah I don’t know, if you were finding something, we would know about it. The way these leaks happen, they’d leak it. It’d leak. If it was something really good, it would leak.”

 

“[…] I just refuse to believe that if they ha dsomething really good like that, that wouldn’t leak because we’ve been getting all these other leaks. So, I just feel like they don’t really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the President is probably right o say, like, look you are witch-hunting me. You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof.”

The CNN producer’s reluctance to support a story that his organization has been running for months on end since the elections last year speaks volumes to the state of today’s news journalism.

It’s not even just CNN, though. Sites like The Independent have matter-of-factly reported that Russians hacked the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections. Vox recently reported on June 13th, 2017 that Russians hacked voting systems in 39 states. Even the BBC joined in on the fray, reporting on June 21st, 2017 that Russia hacked 21 U.S., states during last year’s Presidential Election. All of these reports are based on claims that Russia hacked the elections, but no proof whatsoever has been offered up.

When Megyn Kelly from NBC News interviewed President Putin about Russia’s involvement with the elections and the claims about their meddling, Putin was taken aback, claiming that the whole thing was fabricated out of thin air.

Even go-to official “fact checking” website Snopes has been leery about wading into thoroughly fact-checking the claims since there’s still no clear evidence that Russia actually influenced the elections. The news media seems to be diving head-first into a shallow grave chasing the Russian angle.

For CNN this was a long walk off a short pier, as the unethical practice of fabricating news finally caught up with them after publishing an actual fake news story about Russia that had to be retracted. Following the retraction, three of CNN’s journalists ended up resigning, as reported by CNBC.

[Update:] CNN released a statement [via USA Today] indicating that they stand by Bonifield and that he won’t be reprimanded for his comments…

“CNN stands by our medical producer John Bonifield. Diversity of personal opinion is what makes CNN strong, we welcome it and embrace it,”


Ads (learn more about our advertising policies here)



About

Billy has been rustling Jimmies for years covering video games, technology and digital trends within the electronics entertainment space. The GJP cried and their tears became his milkshake. Need to get in touch? Try the Contact Page.

  • Rumpull Stiltskin

    I watch mostly MSNBC and CNN videos on YouTube and I find that there is plenty of fact based news reporting on CNN. Certainly CNN is not anywhere even close to fake news like these ignorant comments are saying. This being the case, I cannot see how this many negative comments about CNN could even exist, unless someone was paying someone to make these negative comments.
    This situation with the CNN producer John Bonifield making a comment about the Russia news reports, he is not the producer of CNN’s political news reports, he is merely a producer in another department, so his opinion of the Russia news coverage is kind of irrelevant. It is almost equivalent to asking anybody what their opinion of the Russia news reporting is, if their overall knowledge is limited, then their verbalized opinion is limited in its validity.
    The main fact about this whole Russia situation, is that there is nothing more that Donald would want you to believe, than that the whole Russia situation amounts to nothingness. If you have watched enough of the news reports these last 5 months on the Russia subject, you will know that there is indeed a very good reason to be suspicious about the whole Donald’s team members communicating with certain Russians during the 2016 presidential election.
    I can easily tell that the news reports that I have been seeing on CNN are definitely not lacking in credibility, there is plenty of details explained and supporting video clips shown, and whatever else is normally presented as info to back up the subject of a credible news report.
    I challenge anyone here who has read negative comments about CNN to do a YouTube search for CNN videos on the subject of the Russian/Donald situation, and I can guarantee that if you watch a few CNN videos, you won’t find CNN videos on this subject that are lacking in facts to back up the news reports. Why is this, it is because most these negative comments about CNN are not being made by real people, they are made by people who are being paid to make comments trying to mislead you.
    It is important to note that these negative comments about CNN are always misleading in various ways, such as trying to make it seem like CNN’s so called proof is now proven wrong, when in reality CNN’s news reporters have never said that they have undeniable proof that Donald or any member of his team did for sure cooperate with certain Russians to gain an advantage in the 2016 election. All that has been being reported by CNN, is that the facts uncovered so far, certainly seem like it might be possible that Donald and Team might have cooperated with certain Russians to gain an advantage.
    It is like any set of facts that appear suspicious, CNN and other news organizations have uncovered certain facts that seem really suspicious and the facts are kind of looking like it might be pointing towards the possibility Donald and his team might have cooperated with certain Russians.
    The fact is that not everything that seems suspicious is as bad as it appears, this is why the special prosecutor Robert Mueller is investigating, to find out for sure. If there was not sufficient circumstantial evidence that looked suspicious enough to investigate further to find out, then the special investigator Robert Mueller wouldn’t have been appointed in the first place.
    Think about it, if a really well funded effort were made to spread a massive amount of negative comments about CNN, of which CNN is reporting the political facts that are sought to be discredited, then what you would see is exactly what you are seeing in the comments section of political news articles and video, which is a unusually large number of negative comments trying to discredit the news sources, and often it is CNN who is being targeted.
    These negative comments about CNN are really vague and not very believable perspectives, these negative comments are nothing more than an attempt at misleading you so you will not believe the facts that CNN is reporting to the viewer.
    The fact is that CNN is one of the best sources for fact based political news, this is exactly why there is such an effort of discrediting CNN. CNN is where the facts that someone does not want you to know about are being revealed.
    Also, consider that it is definitely not only CNN reporting on the subject of Russia/Donald, it is also MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc..
    Literally 80% of every news organization is reporting exactly the same thing on the subject of the Russia/Donald situation, except for Fox News, which is literally the only well known reputable news source that is mostly reporting more pro Donald political happenings, and even Fox News has Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace and a few other reporters who are essentially reporting the exact same political news that CNN is.
    Essentially Fox News is Donald’s approved news source.
    Now the question is if these other news organizations are reporting the same thing as CNN, then why is CNN being targeted more than the others, the main answer is the total subscribed viewers to these channels on YouTube. See the below number of subscribers for these News channels on YouTube.
    The below news channels are more critical of Donald, similar news reports
    CNN has 2,114,520 YouTube subscribers (Overall CNN has more reports critical of Donald)
    ABC has 2,649,714 YouTube subscribers
    The New York Times has 909,351 YouTube subscribers
    MSNBC has 520,275 YouTube subscribers
    CBS has 386,320 YouTube subscribers
    USA Today has 335,911 YouTube subscribers
    The Washington Post has 98,600 YouTube subscribers
    PBS NewsHour has 443,019 YouTube subscribers
    The View has 221,534 YouTube subscribers
    Fox New has a way higher % of reporter who are pro Donald
    Fox News has 623,081 YouTube subscribers
    If you consider how many negative comments you see about CNN in comments sections, then how on Earth could Fox News be the only really well known news organization that has the majority of their new reporters who is reporting pro Donald happenings. Fox News versus all the other news organizations, and you expect me to believe that what you are seeing in these comments section is caused by real comments made by real people.
    If all the comments that you are seeing on all political news articles and videos were nothing but 100% real opinions from real people, then you would on a consistent basis be seeing way more pro CNN comments and also more comments critical of Donald, basically the comments section would match the overall news organizations political coverage.
    There is no way that approximately 8/10 of the news reports that exist are more critical of Donald, and this could somehow logically results in there being more people commenting who are pro Donald in the comments sections.
    What is most likely going on is that there is some really really really really really rich person or group of rich people who are hiring a massively large group of people to make misleading comments on political news article and videos.
    Most or all of these comments are made by paid commenter’s who are trying to mislead you.
    The following is a consideration, who knows for sure.
    Think about it, Donald is a billionaire, he is supposedly worth over 4 billion dollars, he has several billionaires on his team, and 1 billion dollars is 1,000 times 1 million. Considering this vast amount of cash, a few million dollars is not that much in the overall scheme. 1 million dollars could employee 20 full time paid commenter’s at a pay rate of $50,000 per year, 5 million dollars could employ 100 full time paid commenter’s at $50,000 a year. Each paid commenter could have like 25 different online accounts to post comments from.
    All someone would have to spend if wanting to pay for a team of 100 commentrer’s who could extensively make comments on political news articles and videos online, would be 5 million dollars a year. This would be seen as a small price to pay if it could achieve at least a fairly effective appearance of real opinionated comments covering the internet that are pro Donald, and are against CNN and other news organizations.
    Ok, that was hypothetical but is not at all unrealistic, and it seems likely to me that this is what is happening on some level in the comments section of political articles and videos.
    CNN is essentially the most influential news organization who produces the greatest number of political videos on a daily basis, and this is why CNN is being targeted more than the other news organization.
    Targeting CNN more than the other news organizations makes perfectly logical sense, if CNN can be even partially discredited, then the most influential source of info they don’t want you to know about, is reduced in its effectiveness.
    Here is the truth about why you often hear the phrase the “mainstream media” of which this term is by far most commonly used by political opinion commentators on Fox News who are using this as a kind of derogatory term to refer to the competing news organizations. At this point, the competitors of Fox News are mostly all reporting the same exact fact based political happenings, which are basically mostly negative reports about Donald. This term “mainstream media” is nothing more than a cheesy attempt at causing viewers to stay away from watching competing news organizations. It is actually quite easy for a political opinion commentator to point out a limited set of details and make a convincing sounding argument, but I feel as if Hannity and Carlson and Jeanine and a few other political opinion commentators on Fox News are not really attempting to explain their real opinions based upon what they are actually aware of, rather they appear to be purposely misleading their viewers by saying all kinds of things that have little to no facts to back up their point of view.
    The key in finding out what is truthful and what is not truthful in politics, is you should always try to consider what are the possible motives of what is being reported to you at any given point of time, always remember this.
    If a news reporter is slandering their competitor CNN, why would they do that?
    If a comment on a political article or video online is a negative comment about CNN, why would someone be saying such things about CNN if it were not true?
    If you make a comment which defends CNN and is critical of Donald and you get hoards of replies attacking your comment, why would this be happening?
    The real question is why wouldn’t those things be happening, if that was all it would take to turn you away from the truth. ¬¬
    If you want to know the most detailed fact based reporting about the Russia/Donald situation, watch YouTube videos by Rachael Maddow on the MSNBC YouTube channel, she explains so many of the facts involved that will cause anyone using their common sense, to at the very least admit that the whole Russia/Donald situation seems really suspicious once you have heard enough facts.
    When I am using the term Russia/Donald situation in my overall comment, I am referring to the fact that certain Russians interfered with the 2016 election mostly by using false news stories that were released on social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to sway peoples political opinions. The last few months there have been news reports indicating that certain members of Donald’s presidential campaign team had more communications with certain Russians than they were easily willing to admit, and in fact they never admitted it for a long time, until news reports informed the public on this subject, then the communications with the Russians were admitted to. A refusal to admit to having communicated with certain Russians during the presidential election, naturally seems like the communications might have been about something that they did not want the public to know about. It is an obvious suspicion for people to wonder if members of Donald’s team might have cooperated with certain Russians to gain an advantage in the presidential election, then it is also a natural suspicion that maybe Donald knew of the cooperation and was approving of it.
    This suspicion is not proven, but it is 100% completely logical for anyone to wonder if this might have happened.
    This is exactly why Robert Mueller is investigating the possibility, and there have been recent sporadic attempts at questioning Mueller’s reputation, and this has been done only for purposes of attempting to cause the American people to doubt him just in case he finds any proof. This attempt at smearing Mueller’s reputation is just about as pathetic as could be, Robert Mueller has a good reputation and all Democrats and nearly all Republicans agreed upon this when he was appointed to be the special prosecutor, and now he was targeted only at the point of time in which the investigation was directed towards Donald as possibly having obstructed justice when he fired the director of the FBI James Comey.
    I know appearance can be misleading, but Donald really does appear to be acting more like a person would if trying to hide something.
    It would be considered wiser to doubt these negative comments which are complaining about CNN and other reputable news organizations.
    I do not have anything to do with CNN other than I watch CNN news videos on YouTube quite often.
    I am not a Republican or a Democrat, and my whole life up until Donald was elected president, I never so much as even watched any political news reports, it was all too much for me to be too motivated to want to keep up to date on, I moved into an apartment in which I have a clear view to my 55 inch TV in the living room, and I started to watch political shows on YouTube every time I am in the kitchen fixing food or coffee or microwaving something, and now I do this daily and am quit informed on the daily happenings in the political scene in the United States.
    Watching CNN quite regularly and being a person who in essence does not appreciate deceptiveness, I am simply a person who values facts too much to listen to these unrealistic misleading comments about CNN, I type quite fast and I figured I could write a really long comment which would explain enough details so you would be able to take a serious consideration about what is the real source of the CNN slandering comments.
    It is kind of like if you had a good friend and you talked to your friend all the time and you could count on your friend for good solid reliable advice, then one day you heard a bunch of people talking all kinds of non sense about your friend who you knew was not like this at all, you would feel compelled to defend your friend who you know did not deserve that negativity. This is exactly why I am writing this to explain that I watch CNN, if these negative comments were accurately describing CNN news reports, then I would have stopped watching CNN a long time ago, and I would have found a more reliable source for political news, yet I watch several CNN videos daily, because it is one of the best sources for political news. It is not a matter of loyalty to what I am familiar with, it is a matter of me knowing for 100% certain that this non-sense reputation smearing campaign against CNN is being done for political purposes, apparently there are things that certain people really don’t want you to know about.
    *******************************************

  • Rumpull Stiltskin

    I watch mostly MSNBC and CNN videos on YouTube and I find that there is plenty of fact based news reporting on CNN. Certainly CNN is not anywhere even close to fake news like these ignorant comments are saying. This being the case, I cannot see how this many negative comments about CNN could even exist, unless someone was paying someone to make these negative comments.
    This situation with the CNN producer John Bonifield making a comment about the Russia news reports, he is not the producer of CNN’s political news reports, he is merely a producer in another department, so his opinion of the Russia news coverage is kind of irrelevant. It is almost equivalent to asking anybody what their opinion of the Russia news reporting is, if their overall knowledge is limited, then their verbalized opinion is limited in its validity.
    The main fact about this whole Russia situation, is that there is nothing more that Donald would want you to believe, than that the whole Russia situation amounts to nothingness. If you have watched enough of the news reports these last 5 months on the Russia subject, you will know that there is indeed a very good reason to be suspicious about the whole Donald’s team members communicating with certain Russians during the 2016 presidential election.
    I can easily tell that the news reports that I have been seeing on CNN are definitely not lacking in credibility, there is plenty of details explained and supporting video clips shown, and whatever else is normally presented as info to back up the subject of a credible news report.
    I challenge anyone here who has read negative comments about CNN to do a YouTube search for CNN videos on the subject of the Russian/Donald situation, and I can guarantee that if you watch a few CNN videos, you won’t find CNN videos on this subject that are lacking in facts to back up the news reports. Why is this, it is because most these negative comments about CNN are not being made by real people, they are made by people who are being paid to make comments trying to mislead you.
    It is important to note that these negative comments about CNN are always misleading in various ways, such as trying to make it seem like CNN’s so called proof is now proven wrong, when in reality CNN’s news reporters have never said that they have undeniable proof that Donald or any member of his team did for sure cooperate with certain Russians to gain an advantage in the 2016 election. All that has been being reported by CNN, is that the facts uncovered so far, certainly seem like it might be possible that Donald and Team might have cooperated with certain Russians to gain an advantage.
    It is like any set of facts that appear suspicious, CNN and other news organizations have uncovered certain facts that seem really suspicious and the facts are kind of looking like it might be pointing towards the possibility Donald and his team might have cooperated with certain Russians.
    The fact is that not everything that seems suspicious is as bad as it appears, this is why the special prosecutor Robert Mueller is investigating, to find out for sure. If there was not sufficient circumstantial evidence that looked suspicious enough to investigate further to find out, then the special investigator Robert Mueller wouldn’t have been appointed in the first place.
    Think about it, if a really well funded effort were made to spread a massive amount of negative comments about CNN, of which CNN is reporting the political facts that are sought to be discredited, then what you would see is exactly what you are seeing in the comments section of political news articles and video, which is a unusually large number of negative comments trying to discredit the news sources, and often it is CNN who is being targeted.
    These negative comments about CNN are really vague and not very believable perspectives, these negative comments are nothing more than an attempt at misleading you so you will not believe the facts that CNN is reporting to the viewer.
    The fact is that CNN is one of the best sources for fact based political news, this is exactly why there is such an effort of discrediting CNN. CNN is where the facts that someone does not want you to know about are being revealed.
    Also, consider that it is definitely not only CNN reporting on the subject of Russia/Donald, it is also MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc..
    Literally 80% of every news organization is reporting exactly the same thing on the subject of the Russia/Donald situation, except for Fox News, which is literally the only well known reputable news source that is mostly reporting more pro Donald political happenings, and even Fox News has Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace and a few other reporters who are essentially reporting the exact same political news that CNN is.
    Essentially Fox News is Donald’s approved news source.
    Now the question is if these other news organizations are reporting the same thing as CNN, then why is CNN being targeted more than the others, the main answer is the total subscribed viewers to these channels on YouTube. See the below number of subscribers for these News channels on YouTube.
    The below news channels are more critical of Donald, similar news reports
    CNN has 2,114,520 YouTube subscribers (Overall CNN has more reports critical of Donald)
    ABC has 2,649,714 YouTube subscribers
    The New York Times has 909,351 YouTube subscribers
    MSNBC has 520,275 YouTube subscribers
    CBS has 386,320 YouTube subscribers
    USA Today has 335,911 YouTube subscribers
    The Washington Post has 98,600 YouTube subscribers
    PBS NewsHour has 443,019 YouTube subscribers
    The View has 221,534 YouTube subscribers
    Fox New has a way higher % of reporter who are pro Donald
    Fox News has 623,081 YouTube subscribers
    If you consider how many negative comments you see about CNN in comments sections, then how on Earth could Fox News be the only really well known news organization that has the majority of their new reporters who is reporting pro Donald happenings. Fox News versus all the other news organizations, and you expect me to believe that what you are seeing in these comments section is caused by real comments made by real people.
    If all the comments that you are seeing on all political news articles and videos were nothing but 100% real opinions from real people, then you would on a consistent basis be seeing way more pro CNN comments and also more comments critical of Donald, basically the comments section would match the overall news organizations political coverage.
    There is no way that approximately 8/10 of the news reports that exist are more critical of Donald, and this could somehow logically results in there being more people commenting who are pro Donald in the comments sections.
    What is most likely going on is that there is some really really really really really rich person or group of rich people who are hiring a massively large group of people to make misleading comments on political news article and videos.
    Most or all of these comments are made by paid commenter’s who are trying to mislead you.
    The following is a consideration, who knows for sure.
    Think about it, Donald is a billionaire, he is supposedly worth over 4 billion dollars, he has several billionaires on his team, and 1 billion dollars is 1,000 times 1 million. Considering this vast amount of cash, a few million dollars is not that much in the overall scheme. 1 million dollars could employee 20 full time paid commenter’s at a pay rate of $50,000 per year, 5 million dollars could employ 100 full time paid commenter’s at $50,000 a year. Each paid commenter could have like 25 different online accounts to post comments from.
    All someone would have to spend if wanting to pay for a team of 100 commentrer’s who could extensively make comments on political news articles and videos online, would be 5 million dollars a year. This would be seen as a small price to pay if it could achieve at least a fairly effective appearance of real opinionated comments covering the internet that are pro Donald, and are against CNN and other news organizations.
    Ok, that was hypothetical but is not at all unrealistic, and it seems likely to me that this is what is happening on some level in the comments section of political articles and videos.
    CNN is essentially the most influential news organization who produces the greatest number of political videos on a daily basis, and this is why CNN is being targeted more than the other news organization.
    Targeting CNN more than the other news organizations makes perfectly logical sense, if CNN can be even partially discredited, then the most influential source of info they don’t want you to know about, is reduced in its effectiveness.
    Here is the truth about why you often hear the phrase the “mainstream media” of which this term is by far most commonly used by political opinion commentators on Fox News who are using this as a kind of derogatory term to refer to the competing news organizations. At this point, the competitors of Fox News are mostly all reporting the same exact fact based political happenings, which are basically mostly negative reports about Donald. This term “mainstream media” is nothing more than a cheesy attempt at causing viewers to stay away from watching competing news organizations. It is actually quite easy for a political opinion commentator to point out a limited set of details and make a convincing sounding argument, but I feel as if Hannity and Carlson and Jeanine and a few other political opinion commentators on Fox News are not really attempting to explain their real opinions based upon what they are actually aware of, rather they appear to be purposely misleading their viewers by saying all kinds of things that have little to no facts to back up their point of view.
    The key in finding out what is truthful and what is not truthful in politics, is you should always try to consider what are the possible motives of what is being reported to you at any given point of time, always remember this.
    If a news reporter is slandering their competitor CNN, why would they do that?
    If a comment on a political article or video online is a negative comment about CNN, why would someone be saying such things about CNN if it were not true?
    If you make a comment which defends CNN and is critical of Donald and you get hoards of replies attacking your comment, why would this be happening?
    The real question is why wouldn’t those things be happening, if that was all it would take to turn you away from the truth. ¬¬
    If you want to know the most detailed fact based reporting about the Russia/Donald situation, watch YouTube videos by Rachael Maddow on the MSNBC YouTube channel, she explains so many of the facts involved that will cause anyone using their common sense, to at the very least admit that the whole Russia/Donald situation seems really suspicious once you have heard enough facts.
    When I am using the term Russia/Donald situation in my overall comment, I am referring to the fact that certain Russians interfered with the 2016 election mostly by using false news stories that were released on social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to sway peoples political opinions. The last few months there have been news reports indicating that certain members of Donald’s presidential campaign team had more communications with certain Russians than they were easily willing to admit, and in fact they never admitted it for a long time, until news reports informed the public on this subject, then the communications with the Russians were admitted to. A refusal to admit to having communicated with certain Russians during the presidential election, naturally seems like the communications might have been about something that they did not want the public to know about. It is an obvious suspicion for people to wonder if members of Donald’s team might have cooperated with certain Russians to gain an advantage in the presidential election, then it is also a natural suspicion that maybe Donald knew of the cooperation and was approving of it.
    This suspicion is not proven, but it is 100% completely logical for anyone to wonder if this might have happened.
    This is exactly why Robert Mueller is investigating the possibility, and there have been recent sporadic attempts at questioning Mueller’s reputation, and this has been done only for purposes of attempting to cause the American people to doubt him just in case he finds any proof. This attempt at smearing Mueller’s reputation is just about as pathetic as could be, Robert Mueller has a good reputation and all Democrats and nearly all Republicans agreed upon this when he was appointed to be the special prosecutor, and now he was targeted only at the point of time in which the investigation was directed towards Donald as possibly having obstructed justice when he fired the director of the FBI James Comey.
    I know appearance can be misleading, but Donald really does appear to be acting more like a person would if trying to hide something.
    It would be considered wiser to doubt these negative comments which are complaining about CNN and other reputable news organizations.
    I do not have anything to do with CNN other than I watch CNN news videos on YouTube quite often.
    I am not a Republican or a Democrat, and my whole life up until Donald was elected president, I never so much as even watched any political news reports, it was all too much for me to be too motivated to want to keep up to date on, I moved into an apartment in which I have a clear view to my 55 inch TV in the living room, and I started to watch political shows on YouTube every time I am in the kitchen fixing food or coffee or microwaving something, and now I do this daily and am quit informed on the daily happenings in the political scene in the United States.
    Watching CNN quite regularly and being a person who in essence does not appreciate deceptiveness, I am simply a person who values facts too much to listen to these unrealistic misleading comments about CNN, I type quite fast and I figured I could write a really long comment which would explain enough details so you would be able to take a serious consideration about what is the real source of the CNN slandering comments.
    It is kind of like if you had a good friend and you talked to your friend all the time and you could count on your friend for good solid reliable advice, then one day you heard a bunch of people talking all kinds of non sense about your friend who you knew was not like this at all, you would feel compelled to defend your friend who you know did not deserve that negativity. This is exactly why I am writing this to explain that I watch CNN, if these negative comments were accurately describing CNN news reports, then I would have stopped watching CNN a long time ago, and I would have found a more reliable source for political news, yet I watch several CNN videos daily, because it is one of the best sources for political news. It is not a matter of loyalty to what I am familiar with, it is a matter of me knowing for 100% certain that this non-sense reputation smearing campaign against CNN is being done for political purposes, apparently there are things that certain people really don’t want you to know about.
    *******************************************

  • Rumpull Stiltskin

    I watch mostly MSNBC and CNN videos on YouTube and I find that there is plenty of fact based news reporting on CNN. Certainly CNN is not anywhere even close to fake news like these ignorant comments are saying. This being the case, I cannot see how this many negative comments about CNN could even exist, unless someone was paying someone to make these negative comments.
    This situation with the CNN producer John Bonifield making a comment about the Russia news reports, he is not the producer of CNN’s political news reports, he is merely a producer in another department, so his opinion of the Russia news coverage is kind of irrelevant. It is almost equivalent to asking anybody what their opinion of the Russia news reporting is, if their overall knowledge is limited, then their verbalized opinion is limited in its validity.
    The main fact about this whole Russia situation, is that there is nothing more that Donald would want you to believe, than that the whole Russia situation amounts to nothingness. If you have watched enough of the news reports these last 5 months on the Russia subject, you will know that there is indeed a very good reason to be suspicious about the whole Donald’s team members communicating with certain Russians during the 2016 presidential election.
    I can easily tell that the news reports that I have been seeing on CNN are definitely not lacking in credibility, there is plenty of details explained and supporting video clips shown, and whatever else is normally presented as info to back up the subject of a credible news report.
    I challenge anyone here who has read negative comments about CNN to do a YouTube search for CNN videos on the subject of the Russian/Donald situation, and I can guarantee that if you watch a few CNN videos, you won’t find CNN videos on this subject that are lacking in facts to back up the news reports. Why is this, it is because most these negative comments about CNN are not being made by real people, they are made by people who are being paid to make comments trying to mislead you.
    It is important to note that these negative comments about CNN are always misleading in various ways, such as trying to make it seem like CNN’s so called proof is now proven wrong, when in reality CNN’s news reporters have never said that they have undeniable proof that Donald or any member of his team did for sure cooperate with certain Russians to gain an advantage in the 2016 election. All that has been being reported by CNN, is that the facts uncovered so far, certainly seem like it might be possible that Donald and Team might have cooperated with certain Russians to gain an advantage.
    It is like any set of facts that appear suspicious, CNN and other news organizations have uncovered certain facts that seem really suspicious and the facts are kind of looking like it might be pointing towards the possibility Donald and his team might have cooperated with certain Russians.
    The fact is that not everything that seems suspicious is as bad as it appears, this is why the special prosecutor Robert Mueller is investigating, to find out for sure. If there was not sufficient circumstantial evidence that looked suspicious enough to investigate further to find out, then the special investigator Robert Mueller wouldn’t have been appointed in the first place.
    Think about it, if a really well funded effort were made to spread a massive amount of negative comments about CNN, of which CNN is reporting the political facts that are sought to be discredited, then what you would see is exactly what you are seeing in the comments section of political news articles and video, which is a unusually large number of negative comments trying to discredit the news sources, and often it is CNN who is being targeted.
    These negative comments about CNN are really vague and not very believable perspectives, these negative comments are nothing more than an attempt at misleading you so you will not believe the facts that CNN is reporting to the viewer.
    The fact is that CNN is one of the best sources for fact based political news, this is exactly why there is such an effort of discrediting CNN. CNN is where the facts that someone does not want you to know about are being revealed.
    Also, consider that it is definitely not only CNN reporting on the subject of Russia/Donald, it is also MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc..
    Literally 80% of every news organization is reporting exactly the same thing on the subject of the Russia/Donald situation, except for Fox News, which is literally the only well known reputable news source that is mostly reporting more pro Donald political happenings, and even Fox News has Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace and a few other reporters who are essentially reporting the exact same political news that CNN is.
    Essentially Fox News is Donald’s approved news source.
    Now the question is if these other news organizations are reporting the same thing as CNN, then why is CNN being targeted more than the others, the main answer is the total subscribed viewers to these channels on YouTube. See the below number of subscribers for these News channels on YouTube.
    The below news channels are more critical of Donald, similar news reports
    CNN has 2,114,520 YouTube subscribers (Overall CNN has more reports critical of Donald)
    ABC has 2,649,714 YouTube subscribers
    The New York Times has 909,351 YouTube subscribers
    MSNBC has 520,275 YouTube subscribers
    CBS has 386,320 YouTube subscribers
    USA Today has 335,911 YouTube subscribers
    The Washington Post has 98,600 YouTube subscribers
    PBS NewsHour has 443,019 YouTube subscribers
    The View has 221,534 YouTube subscribers
    Fox New has a way higher % of reporter who are pro Donald
    Fox News has 623,081 YouTube subscribers
    If you consider how many negative comments you see about CNN in comments sections, then how on Earth could Fox News be the only really well known news organization that has the majority of their new reporters who is reporting pro Donald happenings. Fox News versus all the other news organizations, and you expect me to believe that what you are seeing in these comments section is caused by real comments made by real people.
    If all the comments that you are seeing on all political news articles and videos were nothing but 100% real opinions from real people, then you would on a consistent basis be seeing way more pro CNN comments and also more comments critical of Donald, basically the comments section would match the overall news organizations political coverage.
    There is no way that approximately 8/10 of the news reports that exist are more critical of Donald, and this could somehow logically results in there being more people commenting who are pro Donald in the comments sections.
    What is most likely going on is that there is some really really really really really rich person or group of rich people who are hiring a massively large group of people to make misleading comments on political news article and videos.
    Most or all of these comments are made by paid commenter’s who are trying to mislead you.
    The following is a consideration, who knows for sure.
    Think about it, Donald is a billionaire, he is supposedly worth over 4 billion dollars, he has several billionaires on his team, and 1 billion dollars is 1,000 times 1 million. Considering this vast amount of cash, a few million dollars is not that much in the overall scheme. 1 million dollars could employee 20 full time paid commenter’s at a pay rate of $50,000 per year, 5 million dollars could employ 100 full time paid commenter’s at $50,000 a year. Each paid commenter could have like 25 different online accounts to post comments from.
    All someone would have to spend if wanting to pay for a team of 100 commentrer’s who could extensively make comments on political news articles and videos online, would be 5 million dollars a year. This would be seen as a small price to pay if it could achieve at least a fairly effective appearance of real opinionated comments covering the internet that are pro Donald, and are against CNN and other news organizations.
    Ok, that was hypothetical but is not at all unrealistic, and it seems likely to me that this is what is happening on some level in the comments section of political articles and videos.
    CNN is essentially the most influential news organization who produces the greatest number of political videos on a daily basis, and this is why CNN is being targeted more than the other news organization.
    Targeting CNN more than the other news organizations makes perfectly logical sense, if CNN can be even partially discredited, then the most influential source of info they don’t want you to know about, is reduced in its effectiveness.
    Here is the truth about why you often hear the phrase the “mainstream media” of which this term is by far most commonly used by political opinion commentators on Fox News who are using this as a kind of derogatory term to refer to the competing news organizations. At this point, the competitors of Fox News are mostly all reporting the same exact fact based political happenings, which are basically mostly negative reports about Donald. This term “mainstream media” is nothing more than a cheesy attempt at causing viewers to stay away from watching competing news organizations. It is actually quite easy for a political opinion commentator to point out a limited set of details and make a convincing sounding argument, but I feel as if Hannity and Carlson and Jeanine and a few other political opinion commentators on Fox News are not really attempting to explain their real opinions based upon what they are actually aware of, rather they appear to be purposely misleading their viewers by saying all kinds of things that have little to no facts to back up their point of view.
    The key in finding out what is truthful and what is not truthful in politics, is you should always try to consider what are the possible motives of what is being reported to you at any given point of time, always remember this.
    If a news reporter is slandering their competitor CNN, why would they do that?
    If a comment on a political article or video online is a negative comment about CNN, why would someone be saying such things about CNN if it were not true?
    If you make a comment which defends CNN and is critical of Donald and you get hoards of replies attacking your comment, why would this be happening?
    The real question is why wouldn’t those things be happening, if that was all it would take to turn you away from the truth. ¬¬
    If you want to know the most detailed fact based reporting about the Russia/Donald situation, watch YouTube videos by Rachael Maddow on the MSNBC YouTube channel, she explains so many of the facts involved that will cause anyone using their common sense, to at the very least admit that the whole Russia/Donald situation seems really suspicious once you have heard enough facts.
    When I am using the term Russia/Donald situation in my overall comment, I am referring to the fact that certain Russians interfered with the 2016 election mostly by using false news stories that were released on social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to sway peoples political opinions. The last few months there have been news reports indicating that certain members of Donald’s presidential campaign team had more communications with certain Russians than they were easily willing to admit, and in fact they never admitted it for a long time, until news reports informed the public on this subject, then the communications with the Russians were admitted to. A refusal to admit to having communicated with certain Russians during the presidential election, naturally seems like the communications might have been about something that they did not want the public to know about. It is an obvious suspicion for people to wonder if members of Donald’s team might have cooperated with certain Russians to gain an advantage in the presidential election, then it is also a natural suspicion that maybe Donald knew of the cooperation and was approving of it.
    This suspicion is not proven, but it is 100% completely logical for anyone to wonder if this might have happened.
    This is exactly why Robert Mueller is investigating the possibility, and there have been recent sporadic attempts at questioning Mueller’s reputation, and this has been done only for purposes of attempting to cause the American people to doubt him just in case he finds any proof. This attempt at smearing Mueller’s reputation is just about as pathetic as could be, Robert Mueller has a good reputation and all Democrats and nearly all Republicans agreed upon this when he was appointed to be the special prosecutor, and now he was targeted only at the point of time in which the investigation was directed towards Donald as possibly having obstructed justice when he fired the director of the FBI James Comey.
    I know appearance can be misleading, but Donald really does appear to be acting more like a person would if trying to hide something.
    It would be considered wiser to doubt these negative comments which are complaining about CNN and other reputable news organizations.
    I do not have anything to do with CNN other than I watch CNN news videos on YouTube quite often.
    I am not a Republican or a Democrat, and my whole life up until Donald was elected president, I never so much as even watched any political news reports, it was all too much for me to be too motivated to want to keep up to date on, I moved into an apartment in which I have a clear view to my 55 inch TV in the living room, and I started to watch political shows on YouTube every time I am in the kitchen fixing food or coffee or microwaving something, and now I do this daily and am quit informed on the daily happenings in the political scene in the United States.
    Watching CNN quite regularly and being a person who in essence does not appreciate deceptiveness, I am simply a person who values facts too much to listen to these unrealistic misleading comments about CNN, I type quite fast and I figured I could write a really long comment which would explain enough details so you would be able to take a serious consideration about what is the real source of the CNN slandering comments.
    It is kind of like if you had a good friend and you talked to your friend all the time and you could count on your friend for good solid reliable advice, then one day you heard a bunch of people talking all kinds of non sense about your friend who you knew was not like this at all, you would feel compelled to defend your friend who you know did not deserve that negativity. This is exactly why I am writing this to explain that I watch CNN, if these negative comments were accurately describing CNN news reports, then I would have stopped watching CNN a long time ago, and I would have found a more reliable source for political news, yet I watch several CNN videos daily, because it is one of the best sources for political news. It is not a matter of loyalty to what I am familiar with, it is a matter of me knowing for 100% certain that this non-sense reputation smearing campaign against CNN is being done for political purposes, apparently there are things that certain people really don’t want you to know about.
    *******************************************

  • Rumpull Stiltskin

    I watch mostly MSNBC and CNN videos on YouTube and I find that there is plenty of fact based news reporting on CNN. Certainly CNN is not anywhere even close to fake news like these ignorant comments are saying. This being the case, I cannot see how this many negative comments about CNN could even exist, unless someone was paying someone to make these negative comments.
    This situation with the CNN producer John Bonifield making a comment about the Russia news reports, he is not the producer of CNN’s political news reports, he is merely a producer in another department, so his opinion of the Russia news coverage is kind of irrelevant. It is almost equivalent to asking anybody what their opinion of the Russia news reporting is, if their overall knowledge is limited, then their verbalized opinion is limited in its validity.
    The main fact about this whole Russia situation, is that there is nothing more that Donald would want you to believe, than that the whole Russia situation amounts to nothingness. If you have watched enough of the news reports these last 5 months on the Russia subject, you will know that there is indeed a very good reason to be suspicious about the whole Donald’s team members communicating with certain Russians during the 2016 presidential election.
    I can easily tell that the news reports that I have been seeing on CNN are definitely not lacking in credibility, there is plenty of details explained and supporting video clips shown, and whatever else is normally presented as info to back up the subject of a credible news report.
    I challenge anyone here who has read negative comments about CNN to do a YouTube search for CNN videos on the subject of the Russian/Donald situation, and I can guarantee that if you watch a few CNN videos, you won’t find CNN videos on this subject that are lacking in facts to back up the news reports. Why is this, it is because most these negative comments about CNN are not being made by real people, they are made by people who are being paid to make comments trying to mislead you.
    It is important to note that these negative comments about CNN are always misleading in various ways, such as trying to make it seem like CNN’s so called proof is now proven wrong, when in reality CNN’s news reporters have never said that they have undeniable proof that Donald or any member of his team did for sure cooperate with certain Russians to gain an advantage in the 2016 election. All that has been being reported by CNN, is that the facts uncovered so far, certainly seem like it might be possible that Donald and Team might have cooperated with certain Russians to gain an advantage.
    It is like any set of facts that appear suspicious, CNN and other news organizations have uncovered certain facts that seem really suspicious and the facts are kind of looking like it might be pointing towards the possibility Donald and his team might have cooperated with certain Russians.
    The fact is that not everything that seems suspicious is as bad as it appears, this is why the special prosecutor Robert Mueller is investigating, to find out for sure. If there was not sufficient circumstantial evidence that looked suspicious enough to investigate further to find out, then the special investigator Robert Mueller wouldn’t have been appointed in the first place.
    Think about it, if a really well funded effort were made to spread a massive amount of negative comments about CNN, of which CNN is reporting the political facts that are sought to be discredited, then what you would see is exactly what you are seeing in the comments section of political news articles and video, which is a unusually large number of negative comments trying to discredit the news sources, and often it is CNN who is being targeted.
    These negative comments about CNN are really vague and not very believable perspectives, these negative comments are nothing more than an attempt at misleading you so you will not believe the facts that CNN is reporting to the viewer.
    The fact is that CNN is one of the best sources for fact based political news, this is exactly why there is such an effort of discrediting CNN. CNN is where the facts that someone does not want you to know about are being revealed.
    Also, consider that it is definitely not only CNN reporting on the subject of Russia/Donald, it is also MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc..
    Literally 80% of every news organization is reporting exactly the same thing on the subject of the Russia/Donald situation, except for Fox News, which is literally the only well known reputable news source that is mostly reporting more pro Donald political happenings, and even Fox News has Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace and a few other reporters who are essentially reporting the exact same political news that CNN is.
    Essentially Fox News is Donald’s approved news source.
    Now the question is if these other news organizations are reporting the same thing as CNN, then why is CNN being targeted more than the others, the main answer is the total subscribed viewers to these channels on YouTube. See the below number of subscribers for these News channels on YouTube.
    The below news channels are more critical of Donald, similar news reports
    CNN has 2,114,520 YouTube subscribers (Overall CNN has more reports critical of Donald)
    ABC has 2,649,714 YouTube subscribers
    The New York Times has 909,351 YouTube subscribers
    MSNBC has 520,275 YouTube subscribers
    CBS has 386,320 YouTube subscribers
    USA Today has 335,911 YouTube subscribers
    The Washington Post has 98,600 YouTube subscribers
    PBS NewsHour has 443,019 YouTube subscribers
    The View has 221,534 YouTube subscribers
    Fox New has a way higher % of reporter who are pro Donald
    Fox News has 623,081 YouTube subscribers
    If you consider how many negative comments you see about CNN in comments sections, then how on Earth could Fox News be the only really well known news organization that has the majority of their new reporters who is reporting pro Donald happenings. Fox News versus all the other news organizations, and you expect me to believe that what you are seeing in these comments section is caused by real comments made by real people.
    If all the comments that you are seeing on all political news articles and videos were nothing but 100% real opinions from real people, then you would on a consistent basis be seeing way more pro CNN comments and also more comments critical of Donald, basically the comments section would match the overall news organizations political coverage.
    There is no way that approximately 8/10 of the news reports that exist are more critical of Donald, and this could somehow logically results in there being more people commenting who are pro Donald in the comments sections.
    What is most likely going on is that there is some really really really really really rich person or group of rich people who are hiring a massively large group of people to make misleading comments on political news article and videos.
    Most or all of these comments are made by paid commenter’s who are trying to mislead you.
    The following is a consideration, who knows for sure.
    Think about it, Donald is a billionaire, he is supposedly worth over 4 billion dollars, he has several billionaires on his team, and 1 billion dollars is 1,000 times 1 million. Considering this vast amount of cash, a few million dollars is not that much in the overall scheme. 1 million dollars could employee 20 full time paid commenter’s at a pay rate of $50,000 per year, 5 million dollars could employ 100 full time paid commenter’s at $50,000 a year. Each paid commenter could have like 25 different online accounts to post comments from.
    All someone would have to spend if wanting to pay for a team of 100 commentrer’s who could extensively make comments on political news articles and videos online, would be 5 million dollars a year. This would be seen as a small price to pay if it could achieve at least a fairly effective appearance of real opinionated comments covering the internet that are pro Donald, and are against CNN and other news organizations.
    Ok, that was hypothetical but is not at all unrealistic, and it seems likely to me that this is what is happening on some level in the comments section of political articles and videos.
    CNN is essentially the most influential news organization who produces the greatest number of political videos on a daily basis, and this is why CNN is being targeted more than the other news organization.
    Targeting CNN more than the other news organizations makes perfectly logical sense, if CNN can be even partially discredited, then the most influential source of info they don’t want you to know about, is reduced in its effectiveness.
    Here is the truth about why you often hear the phrase the “mainstream media” of which this term is by far most commonly used by political opinion commentators on Fox News who are using this as a kind of derogatory term to refer to the competing news organizations. At this point, the competitors of Fox News are mostly all reporting the same exact fact based political happenings, which are basically mostly negative reports about Donald. This term “mainstream media” is nothing more than a cheesy attempt at causing viewers to stay away from watching competing news organizations. It is actually quite easy for a political opinion commentator to point out a limited set of details and make a convincing sounding argument, but I feel as if Hannity and Carlson and Jeanine and a few other political opinion commentators on Fox News are not really attempting to explain their real opinions based upon what they are actually aware of, rather they appear to be purposely misleading their viewers by saying all kinds of things that have little to no facts to back up their point of view.
    The key in finding out what is truthful and what is not truthful in politics, is you should always try to consider what are the possible motives of what is being reported to you at any given point of time, always remember this.
    If a news reporter is slandering their competitor CNN, why would they do that?
    If a comment on a political article or video online is a negative comment about CNN, why would someone be saying such things about CNN if it were not true?
    If you make a comment which defends CNN and is critical of Donald and you get hoards of replies attacking your comment, why would this be happening?
    The real question is why wouldn’t those things be happening, if that was all it would take to turn you away from the truth. ¬¬
    If you want to know the most detailed fact based reporting about the Russia/Donald situation, watch YouTube videos by Rachael Maddow on the MSNBC YouTube channel, she explains so many of the facts involved that will cause anyone using their common sense, to at the very least admit that the whole Russia/Donald situation seems really suspicious once you have heard enough facts.
    When I am using the term Russia/Donald situation in my overall comment, I am referring to the fact that certain Russians interfered with the 2016 election mostly by using false news stories that were released on social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to sway peoples political opinions. The last few months there have been news reports indicating that certain members of Donald’s presidential campaign team had more communications with certain Russians than they were easily willing to admit, and in fact they never admitted it for a long time, until news reports informed the public on this subject, then the communications with the Russians were admitted to. A refusal to admit to having communicated with certain Russians during the presidential election, naturally seems like the communications might have been about something that they did not want the public to know about. It is an obvious suspicion for people to wonder if members of Donald’s team might have cooperated with certain Russians to gain an advantage in the presidential election, then it is also a natural suspicion that maybe Donald knew of the cooperation and was approving of it.
    This suspicion is not proven, but it is 100% completely logical for anyone to wonder if this might have happened.
    This is exactly why Robert Mueller is investigating the possibility, and there have been recent sporadic attempts at questioning Mueller’s reputation, and this has been done only for purposes of attempting to cause the American people to doubt him just in case he finds any proof. This attempt at smearing Mueller’s reputation is just about as pathetic as could be, Robert Mueller has a good reputation and all Democrats and nearly all Republicans agreed upon this when he was appointed to be the special prosecutor, and now he was targeted only at the point of time in which the investigation was directed towards Donald as possibly having obstructed justice when he fired the director of the FBI James Comey.
    I know appearance can be misleading, but Donald really does appear to be acting more like a person would if trying to hide something.
    It would be considered wiser to doubt these negative comments which are complaining about CNN and other reputable news organizations.
    I do not have anything to do with CNN other than I watch CNN news videos on YouTube quite often.
    I am not a Republican or a Democrat, and my whole life up until Donald was elected president, I never so much as even watched any political news reports, it was all too much for me to be too motivated to want to keep up to date on, I moved into an apartment in which I have a clear view to my 55 inch TV in the living room, and I started to watch political shows on YouTube every time I am in the kitchen fixing food or coffee or microwaving something, and now I do this daily and am quit informed on the daily happenings in the political scene in the United States.
    Watching CNN quite regularly and being a person who in essence does not appreciate deceptiveness, I am simply a person who values facts too much to listen to these unrealistic misleading comments about CNN, I type quite fast and I figured I could write a really long comment which would explain enough details so you would be able to take a serious consideration about what is the real source of the CNN slandering comments.
    It is kind of like if you had a good friend and you talked to your friend all the time and you could count on your friend for good solid reliable advice, then one day you heard a bunch of people talking all kinds of non sense about your friend who you knew was not like this at all, you would feel compelled to defend your friend who you know did not deserve that negativity. This is exactly why I am writing this to explain that I watch CNN, if these negative comments were accurately describing CNN news reports, then I would have stopped watching CNN a long time ago, and I would have found a more reliable source for political news, yet I watch several CNN videos daily, because it is one of the best sources for political news. It is not a matter of loyalty to what I am familiar with, it is a matter of me knowing for 100% certain that this non-sense reputation smearing campaign against CNN is being done for political purposes, apparently there are things that certain people really don’t want you to know about.
    *******************************************

    • HOLY SNAP DUDE! You wrote a freaking novel. I started reading it but it’s just too much dude. Also you keep telling everyone to watch CNN videos and saying there are a lot of facts, but even one of their own producers are saying they have no evidence. If you have any actual evidence, feel free to present it.

  • erisx

    Yeah… not a Trump fan but I’ve been saying for months now that this is a dog & pony show designed to distract. Age old question needs asking: cui bono?

  • erisx

    Yeah… not a Trump fan but I’ve been saying for months now that this is a dog & pony show designed to distract. Age old question needs asking: cui bono?

  • erisx

    Yeah… not a Trump fan but I’ve been saying for months now that this is a dog & pony show designed to distract. Age old question needs asking: cui bono?

    • Age old question needs asking: cui bono?

      He says it in the video: Outrage peddlers cashing in on stupid people who want to be outraged at every little thing Trump does.

      • Disqusted

        That’s his personal take though, right? And it may be the official reason given to him. But we don’t know if the higher-ups are really just pushing a political agenda.

        I remember hearing a guy saying that they go along with Soros’ agenda because it benefits them overall. So it may not even be just for profits, or for political agenda, but just that it’s the most beneficial path for mainstream media.

        But there’s this: if it was really just a ratings thing, why would they be so for Hillary despite knowing how unpopular she is? Even after knowing she lost, they still decided to stick with her.

        Although, I think the “for ratings” thing is more believable to the average person than that there’s a big political bias conspiracy going on.

        • You’re definitely right, because even in cases like Breitbart, they’re probably making far more than CNN given how much traffic they generate. They had like 150 million or so pageviews during one month leading up to the elections. CNN doesn’t even get 1% of that during their highest rated prime time shows. So catering toward SJWs hasn’t really been all that beneficial to them even though it’s been better than what they were doing before (which was even worse yet).

          Although, I think the “for ratings” thing is more believable to the average person than that there’s a big political bias conspiracy going on.

          The “big” conspiracy is that they’re really pushing toward destabilization. Putting people at each other’s throats. Riling up racial tensions. Using reverse psychology to create Islamaphobia. Heavily pushing the migrant issue for open borders without any vetting or security checks, despite all the atrocities that have happened. Etc., etc., etc.

          I don’t really care what anyone’s opinion is about it, but all the facts say that they’re purposefully moving toward reckless reporting to rile people up and raise tensions. According to all the surveys, research reports, and market data… it’s working.

    • Age old question needs asking: cui bono?

      He says it in the video: Outrage peddlers cashing in on stupid people who want to be outraged at every little thing Trump does.

  • Gorgon

    >interfering with the election

    That is a codename for exposing corruption and cronyism in the DNC, as well as undermining democratic elections in the DNC primaries. Let’s name things properly here. Whoever leaked those emails have done nothing but tell the necessary truth to the public and helped people make a better informed choice. If anything, it’s a pity RNC’s and Trump’s emails were not leaked.

    • Disqusted

      The thing is, they’ve been trying so hard to pin shit on Trump, that it’s really strange nothing solid has come up. Why is there no dirt on Trump? Is it because there is no dirt? Or… is there another reason?

      You’d think there’d at least be something of the Republicans trying to get rid of Trump, because that was happening at one point.

  • Hawk Hopper

    The muh Russia types are getting hammered lately.

  • ThyPancakeConsumed

    Isnt it’s typical with mainstream media? If it looks like top dollar shit they gonna jump onto bandwagon, cover it and spread cancer despite fact don’t even know whats up or what they are talking about.
    On second note its hilarious how uncle Vlad pwns Megyn The Bimbo during interview. And no i don’t even like Putin.

  • ThyPancakeConsumed

    Isnt it’s typical with mainstream media? If it looks like top dollar shit they gonna jump onto bandwagon, cover it and spread cancer despite fact don’t even know whats up or what they are talking about.
    On second note its hilarious how uncle Vlad pwns Megyn The Bimbo during interview. And no i don’t even like Putin.

  • Bitterbear

    It’s as if they learned nothing from what happened to Rolling Stone and the fake UVa rape story.

    • Trump could actually sue, which is hilarious. He even has proof now that it was done with negligence; with a bit more evidence he could also easily proof malicious intent as well.

    • Trump could actually sue, which is hilarious. He even has proof now that it was done with negligence; with a bit more evidence he could also easily proof malicious intent as well.

  • Kiryu

    CNN creating fake news,shocking.

  • Smug

    Funny how the Macron’s leaked mails went memory hole’d, since the faggot won the elections. They blamed Russia on that one too.

    I still got good laughs with the french police trying to negotiate with a gay american bodybuilder in order to know who released the documents, and how the french authorities doubled down on censorship in social media/internet towards the reveal

  • Galbador

    I’m so getting sick and tired of this crap. You can’t trust anyone anymore and this is only the start. At best, this could be the begin of a civil war sooner or later.

    • Disqusted

      That’s what they’re trying to do. It doesn’t seem like people are smart enough to avoid it, either.

      • Galbador

        Well, it worked with Bush. I guess people got dumber over the ages or SJWs are able to brainwa… nah, that’s nothing new *sighs*

        • Disqusted

          Having lead in the water helps. I hear fluoride does, too.

          Fun fact: Japanese wikipedia includes the information that Hitler fluoridated the water supply to pacify the population, but this is omitted from the English wikipedia.

          • Galbador

            I can only shake my head. This world…!

          • Galbador

            I can only shake my head. This world…!

    • Kiryu

      But a civil war is exactly what they want,we should be carefull not to fall in that trap.

      • Galbador

        I’m afraid that it is almost too late for that.

        • Sadly this is true.

          SJW-controlled mainstream media is being thwarted with disinformation agents on places like /pol/. It’s created disparate groups on the opposite side of the same coin.

          When people go to seek out information and find an opposing but equally volatile “truth” outside of mainstream media, they usually direct that anger toward the people the MSM is covering for, creating a rift even further.

          Sadly, though, it looks like people want a civil war, and usually the people get what they want.

          • Ghost

            I think you’re being overly dramatic. I have family, friends, and co-workers who exist on all sides of the political spectrum, and rarely do they obsess over politics or media. This isn’t something that’s life consuming for most people.

            For example, my gay brother and his husband are totally on the side of sjw’s, and they think of me as being far right even though Im really just a reasonable liberal. Despite that, we get along completely fine. We hangout, talk about horror films and books, make fun of each other, look at pictures of dead bodies my brother has worked on as part of his job. Once in a great while politics will come up and we usually end it with agree to disagree.
            This is the way it is with almost everyone I’ve known. Even the people in my family, minus a few exceptions, who are on the far right and are Conservatives don’t obsess over it or dislike people with different views.

            To paraphrase Jolee Bindo, everyone thinks their conflict is the most important conflict of all time just because they’re in it.

          • Mr.Towel

            I sincerely hope you’re right because most of what we see is snowflake sons cutting relations with their conservative fathers because dad voted for Trump.

          • Ghost

            I just think we like to focus on all the negative things, and we tend to forget that the majority of people are not sjw’s or in the altright. Most people are too busy worrying about paying their bills on time and keeping their families fed to even begin to worry about that stuff. I’m not saying they don’t discuss it or argue about it, I just don’t think it’s nearly as life consuming as people on the internet make it out to be.

          • You are so right.

            It doesn’t affect us really in our lives, so maybe we can just ignore it all and let the SJWs take over, dictate all the laws and walk all over us?

            What a lovely world it’s going to be for our children, especially if they’re Caucasian and male.

          • Ghost

            Yeah, that’s not what I said. I said people aren’t as obsessed with politics as people online make them out to be. You’ve got people on here saying we’re on the verge of civil war. That’s rediculous.

          • Smug

            Well I doubt that’ll be the case in America, as long as people have the means of self-defense and free speech, unlike in Europe.

            Being a frenchie is suffering

          • Smug

            Well I doubt that’ll be the case in America, as long as people have the means of self-defense and free speech, unlike in Europe.

            Being a frenchie is suffering

          • Disqusted

            It’s not that people are obsessed with politics. Soros and the mainstream are trying to create perceived hysteria and conflict out of issues that normal people can relate to, like perceived racism, sexism, the refugee situation, etc, etc. These things do have an effect on real life, although it varies depending on person and area.

            You keep trying to draw a divide between online and offline, but the fact is almost everyone has the internet nowadays, and almost everyone has some kind of online presence. It’s not something you can completely dismiss anymore.

            I have one net friend who focuses hard on their personal goals and working hard, and they try to ignore everything else. But they still get bullshit news on their phone, and I’m pretty sure their co-workers and friends bring up shit to them in everyday conversation. See what I mean? There are influences everywhere, and online still connects to offline in many ways.

          • You are so right.

            It doesn’t affect us really in our lives, so maybe we can just ignore it all and let the SJWs take over, dictate all the laws and walk all over us?

            What a lovely world it’s going to be for our children, especially if they’re Caucasian and male.

          • Disqusted

            Like I said in my previous reply, it really, really depends on where you’re at and who you hang around with. It may not seem like the majority to you, but it’s something that is slowly creeping across the world. The mainstream is pushing for it, even.

            Something else I noticed with your comment is how you group people into “SJW” or “alt-right” groups. The fact is normal people can be influenced by some of those ideas, without aligning with any particular group.

            I have had a bunch of net friends living in different places around the world. It’s pretty obvious to me that the ones living in “SJW” areas like Canada or California have a completely different mindset and behave/react/perceive things differently. Some see some SJW behavior as normal, because it has become normal in those areas. Even if they themselves don’t really like or support SJWs.

          • Disqusted

            Like I said in my previous reply, it really, really depends on where you’re at and who you hang around with. It may not seem like the majority to you, but it’s something that is slowly creeping across the world. The mainstream is pushing for it, even.

            Something else I noticed with your comment is how you group people into “SJW” or “alt-right” groups. The fact is normal people can be influenced by some of those ideas, without aligning with any particular group.

            I have had a bunch of net friends living in different places around the world. It’s pretty obvious to me that the ones living in “SJW” areas like Canada or California have a completely different mindset and behave/react/perceive things differently. Some see some SJW behavior as normal, because it has become normal in those areas. Even if they themselves don’t really like or support SJWs.

          • Overly dramatic? Really?

            http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/26/video-black-lives-matter-riots-london-police-attacked-fires-lit/

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/riot-paris-protesters-clash-police-front-national-supporters/

            http://www.wmur.com/article/nebraska-democrat-fired-for-saying-he-was-glad-congressman-scalise-was-shot/10218228

            http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/antifa-radicals-set-paris-may-day-march-aflame/

            That’s real world violence based on the current policies and trends being discussed here and elsewhere in social media and the real world.

            A Congressman was shot based on the vitriolic and escalated nature of the Regressive Left vs the Alt-Right.

            In your world view things may be fine, but I’m seeing a lot of escalation across a variety of communities and with a lot of real-world consequences.

            What part of this politically charged narrative resulting in rioting and murder is being overly dramatic?

          • Ghost

            Billy, come on. Like, surely you’re aware of history past the point of the 2010’s? This stuff isn’t new.

          • It’s not new, but it’s escalating based on the politics peddled by the media, similar to what’s discussed in this story.

            Just like the link below:
            http://nypost.com/2016/12/11/2016-was-a-deadly-year-for-cops-and-blm-may-be-to-blame/

            Literally, someone using BLM as a jumpstart to murder cops. How is that not influenced by the current media propaganda surrounding race relations and identity politics?

            We’ve got numbskulls like Talcom X on Twitter and that corporate sellout DeRay riling people up in the wrong direction, and using outrage media culture to raise the capital of their social media platforms while race relations continues to become strained.

            Literally, those deaths, the violence, the escalation — it’s all a result based on the way the media has framed the events.

            People are being influenced into violence, and some of them are willingly accepting of it. Heck, Iraq was invaded based on a lie and the media supported that lie up to, and after, the boots were on the ground and the coffins were flown home.

          • Disqusted

            It’s pretty obvious someone is trying to escalate violence right now. It’s not a fearmongering thing, it’s just something to be aware of and consider.

          • Disqusted

            Yeah, but your friends and family and you are all living in just one part of the world. There are places that are a hell of a lot more unstable and hysterical. Even if it seems like things are okay around you, it doesn’t mean it’s like that for everyone.

            I’m in a similar situation as you, my immediate family and friends are more concerned with everyday life stuff, or already see through the mainstream bullshit. But that’s obviously not the case for the rest of the country around us, because they keep pushing crazy SJW bullshit.

            The news on TV keeps trying to make sound like Trump is Hitler Satan. There are undoubtedly people who believe that shit and are panicking, even if we don’t.

            I remember seeing videos of American riots/protests during the election campaign, and it looked like a huge mess. I don’t think anyone I know has had to experience shit like that firsthand. But it does happen.

          • Disqusted

            Yeah, but your friends and family and you are all living in just one part of the world. There are places that are a hell of a lot more unstable and hysterical. Even if it seems like things are okay around you, it doesn’t mean it’s like that for everyone.

            I’m in a similar situation as you, my immediate family and friends are more concerned with everyday life stuff, or already see through the mainstream bullshit. But that’s obviously not the case for the rest of the country around us, because they keep pushing crazy SJW bullshit.

            The news on TV keeps trying to make sound like Trump is Hitler Satan. There are undoubtedly people who believe that shit and are panicking, even if we don’t.

            I remember seeing videos of American riots/protests during the election campaign, and it looked like a huge mess. I don’t think anyone I know has had to experience shit like that firsthand. But it does happen.

          • Disqusted

            Yeah, but your friends and family and you are all living in just one part of the world. There are places that are a hell of a lot more unstable and hysterical. Even if it seems like things are okay around you, it doesn’t mean it’s like that for everyone.

            I’m in a similar situation as you, my immediate family and friends are more concerned with everyday life stuff, or already see through the mainstream bullshit. But that’s obviously not the case for the rest of the country around us, because they keep pushing crazy SJW bullshit.

            The news on TV keeps trying to make sound like Trump is Hitler Satan. There are undoubtedly people who believe that shit and are panicking, even if we don’t.

            I remember seeing videos of American riots/protests during the election campaign, and it looked like a huge mess. I don’t think anyone I know has had to experience shit like that firsthand. But it does happen.

        • Sadly this is true.

          SJW-controlled mainstream media is being thwarted with disinformation agents on places like /pol/. It’s created disparate groups on the opposite side of the same coin.

          When people go to seek out information and find an opposing but equally volatile “truth” outside of mainstream media, they usually direct that anger toward the people the MSM is covering for, creating a rift even further.

          Sadly, though, it looks like people want a civil war, and usually the people get what they want.

  • Disqusted

    Yeah, I heard about this earlier. Kinda feel sorry for this guy, he is totally going to have an “accident”, and his kids will probably get sacrificed to moloch.

    On the positive side, it feels like Trump’s currently winning against the corruption. My current take is he’s slowly working his way from the outside-in, instead of going directly for the bigwigs. That way, he will gain more public trust and won’t be accused of just “hating women” or some other bullshit. He needs to coherently show the corrupt connections, for the public to digest, at a rate that they can handle. It’s all old news to people like us, though.

    I just hope Trump does not underestimate what they might do when they get desperate enough. Cornered animals are dangerous. I don’t want to give them any ideas, but I worry they’ll try to create a massive distraction. I suspect the recent increase in terror attacks has been part of their attempts to distract, but it clearly hasn’t been enough. They might go for something much, much worse.

    Edit: I’ve heard some people saying it’s all posing and there’s no way they will actually prosecute the corrupt people. We’ll just have to wait and see. The whole thing could easily be a farce.

    • durka durka

      Trump was nothing more than someone who wanted to be apreciated from the high class. Right now he is pretty much the republican party’s puppet. He is not doing anything new he simply follows the line of the republican party and continues their politics. Even the climate change paris agreement is pointless, there are companies and universities in usa that invest in climate change, trump not signing a useless paper isnt stopping that.

      This whole thing was too much about nothing.

      • Disqusted

        I’m hearing some people saying that too. There’s so much bullshit flying around it’s hard to tell what’s really happening. And in politics, how people appear to be acting is often cover for something else. So who knows what’s really happening?

        I still don’t trust Trump either way, but it would sure be nice if someone actually did something about the rampant corruption everywhere.

        Oh, and one thing I know for sure is when the media reports about Trump, the way they subjectively word things and omit important details shows that they are liars. That doesn’t mean Trump isn’t full of shit too, though. Just have to wait and see.

        I mean, I have no problem with getting rid of the blatant obvious liars in the mainstream media. They need to go.

        From what I heard, backing out of the Paris Accord wasn’t pointless because the entire U.S. was going to have to invest a huge sum into climate change, whereas now it’s just some parts of the U.S. doing it themselves. So ultimately it won’t be the same huge amount.

        • Donald Trump is a politician. And politicians, no matter which side they’re on, simply cannot be trusted.

          There was all this gloating from the Conservatives/Right/Alt-Right about how he’s going to destroy the SJWs, feminists, leftists, libtards, etc.

          I know that kind of thing takes time, but so far, he’s done nothing that even suggests he’s going to do that. Maybe if he stops letting Ivanka Trump dictate his policies on “muh feminism” then maybe he’ll be getting somewhere.

          I’m not really a fan of Trump, but I’m still glad he won though, because it proves that there are people who are resisting against those moronic SJW leftists. The fact that the left, the globalists and the mainstream media absolutely hate him is a good sign.

          If Hillary had won, it would’ve been 100% non-stop Social Justice, feminism, muh first wymmin prezident everywhere. Can you imagine the gloating of the mainstream media, leftists, libtards, BLM and feminists?

          • Disqusted

            He’s a politician NOW, but people like to rub in that he was an “inexperienced celebrity” or just a businessman.

            It’s not so much that politicians can’t be trusted, but I think people in general can’t be trusted. Politicians just less so.

            People like to speculate that Trump is “playing 4d chess”, and I honestly don’t know if he is or not, but it’s not that outlandish of a theory considering how politics is all about putting on a show, backstabbing, and dirty tricks.

            It’s not just Trump that may be saying or doing things with a completely different intent behind the scenes. It’s politics in general. That’s why it’s so hard to gauge what’s really happening. It’s all 4d chess bullshit.

            I also don’t know what to think of Ivanka and her husband. From what I hear, Trump opens himself up to outside opinion from people he trusts, which isn’t just Ivanka, but also non-family members. Just have to hope he’s a good judge of character, and not gullible. I think that if he was gullible and easily mislead, he probably wouldn’t have made it this far. So there’s that.

            I previously said I kinda wanted Hillary to win because when the world inevitably goes to shit, the idiots would probably eventually realize it was their fault. Now that Trump has won, they will keep blaming him and everyone else instead.

            But I guess it would’ve been a long road of suffering either way. We just have to hope that Trump pulls through and isn’t just another shitty politician puppet. What a mess.

          • Disqusted

            He’s a politician NOW, but people like to rub in that he was an “inexperienced celebrity” or just a businessman.

            It’s not so much that politicians can’t be trusted, but I think people in general can’t be trusted. Politicians just less so.

            People like to speculate that Trump is “playing 4d chess”, and I honestly don’t know if he is or not, but it’s not that outlandish of a theory considering how politics is all about putting on a show, backstabbing, and dirty tricks.

            It’s not just Trump that may be saying or doing things with a completely different intent behind the scenes. It’s politics in general. That’s why it’s so hard to gauge what’s really happening. It’s all 4d chess bullshit.

            I also don’t know what to think of Ivanka and her husband. From what I hear, Trump opens himself up to outside opinion from people he trusts, which isn’t just Ivanka, but also non-family members. Just have to hope he’s a good judge of character, and not gullible. I think that if he was gullible and easily mislead, he probably wouldn’t have made it this far. So there’s that.

            I previously said I kinda wanted Hillary to win because when the world inevitably goes to shit, the idiots would probably eventually realize it was their fault. Now that Trump has won, they will keep blaming him and everyone else instead.

            But I guess it would’ve been a long road of suffering either way. We just have to hope that Trump pulls through and isn’t just another shitty politician puppet. What a mess.

      • Mr.Towel

        If it was so pointless people wouldn’t be crying so much about it. Effective change sure doesn’t come from it but to say it’s pointless is hyperbolic, I hope.

        So far I haven’t seen nothing to say he is a Republican puppet. If he was, we would have bible belters happy by now, which isn’t the case. Trump seems to be aligned mostly to republican views in regard to the economy and external relations but I’m not seeing him pushing the prudish narrative typical of Republican bottom culture, which I’m sure is getting many die-hard republicans red in anger.

        • Gorgon

          Paris Accord was basically all about US bribing other countries to not increase their harmful emission too much. It was garbage, and it didn’t even have any legal bindings in it. People only cling to it because Obama’s administration advertised it as necessary and useful, but nobody bothered to actually read the thing, as usual.

          • Mr.Towel

            Most of these climate agreement can be described as bribery or extorsion since their whole reason to exist it’s because the free market isn’t really that interested in climate research. So governments give money for those who keep their demands or tax them more if they don’t by using the “agreement” as legal justification to cover their asses.

            The term they are using is “Agreement” but aside from the legal bindings the stuff works almost like a Treaty. Which I think was the whole plan of Obama: to put his Clean Power Plan into action by dribbling the Constitution using a sort of international treaty and call it an Agreement to avoid going through the Congress.

            By pulling out of the agreement, even though many universities and cities still claim to abide by its ghost, it won’t bind to the rest of the economy so it can be lobbied unto them under the banner of an international agreement/treaty, business can continue as usual.

            What Trump is doing by pulling out is effectively removing a rhetorical weapon from the hands of lobbyists, that’s why they’re crying so much.

          • erisx

            smh.

          • Mr.Towel

            I would need more than that to understand your counterpoint.

            Unless you just wanna show off, go on then.

          • erisx

            smh.

          • erisx

            smh.

          • erisx

            smh.

          • Mr.Towel

            Most of these climate agreement can be described as bribery or extorsion since their whole reason to exist it’s because the free market isn’t really that interested in climate research. So governments give money for those who keep their demands or tax them more if they don’t by using the “agreement” as legal justification to cover their asses.

            The term they are using is “Agreement” but aside from the legal bindings the stuff works almost like a Treaty. Which I think was the whole plan of Obama: to put his Clean Power Plan into action by dribbling the Constitution using a sort of international treaty and call it an Agreement to avoid going through the Congress.

            By pulling out of the agreement, even though many universities and cities still claim to abide by its ghost, it won’t bind to the rest of the economy so it can be lobbied unto them under the banner of an international agreement/treaty, business can continue as usual.

            What Trump is doing by pulling out is effectively removing a rhetorical weapon from the hands of lobbyists, that’s why they’re crying so much.

        • Gorgon

          Paris Accord was basically all about US bribing other countries to not increase their harmful emission too much. It was garbage, and it didn’t even have any legal bindings in it. People only cling to it because Obama’s administration advertised it as necessary and useful, but nobody bothered to actually read the thing, as usual.

        • erisx

          He doesn’t have to (it wouldn’t be genuine anyway and anyone who knows this guy’s previous lifestyle would know it). He has others doing that for him.

          • Mr.Towel

            Other republicans will always try to surf the wave of any right-wing popularity (even if by attacking them). It says little about the man himself. Specially in politics where you have to make concessions to get shit done.

        • erisx

          He doesn’t have to (it wouldn’t be genuine anyway and anyone who knows this guy’s previous lifestyle would know it). He has others doing that for him.

        • erisx

          He doesn’t have to (it wouldn’t be genuine anyway and anyone who knows this guy’s previous lifestyle would know it). He has others doing that for him.

        • Disqusted

          Not so sure about people wouldn’t be crying about it. They’ve been crying about so much pointless shit revolving around Trump, like making a huge deal about how he likes his steak done. What the f**k.

          I mean, seriously, who gives a shit about stuff like that? People who lack real hobbies, I bet.

          The stuff about him being a Republican puppet that I recall hearing is him bending over to the crappy healthcare reform bill, and continuing to attack Syria. Stuff like that. But I think the attacks on Syria are just part of getting rid of Isis, so I dunno.

          Also noteworthy is I hear Trump used to be a Democrat, but he switched to Republican because he knew he couldn’t run in the same party as Hillary, or something like that. Maybe he’s like me and doesn’t give a shit about the two party system. He’s probably just using it to get where he needs to be to do what he wants.

          I personally think the Democrats and Republicans have long been in bed with each other, and use shit like left/right to make it look like we have a choice. I recall they were both trying to get rid of Trump, and I’m sure he hasn’t forgotten. IIRC, even the Bushes endorsed Hillary. Long close family friends, apparently.

          Trump praises the Republicans publically now, but it almost seems like a veiled threat to me. Almost like you can feel the menace through his smiling at them. “I’m well aware that you’re all a bunch of backstabbing vipers” sort of thing.

          I’d imagine it’d look bad if his own party backstabbed him after he kept praising them publically. It’d look like “Republicans destroy their own” and that’d probably affect public confidence in them. Not that I have any confidence in them personally.

          The other thing to keep in mind is there’s a constant attempt by Soros to erode people’s confidence and trust in Trump, and intentionally make him seem like “just another politician/puppet”. You can see that through the fake approval polls, the lies about how Trump hasn’t fulfilled any campaign promises, etc. So we have to be wary of that bullshit, too.

          • Mr.Towel

            I agree. His core beliefs doesn’t seem to align much with republican views. He probably forced his way in the party that got him the best chances to win.

            The narrative that he is a puppet is definitely coming the media. They have to paint him as an stupid old man in the first stages of dementia who can be easily swayed from people close to him by stroking his ego. That’s the narrative. Most people weren’t even aware of his personality before the election, it’s gets pretty easy to paint him like that and make it stick, specially if the everyone is doing it. The cynicism ingrained in modern western culture doesn’t help either.

          • Mr.Towel

            I agree. His core beliefs doesn’t seem to align much with republican views. He probably forced his way in the party that got him the best chances to win.

            The narrative that he is a puppet is definitely coming the media. They have to paint him as an stupid old man in the first stages of dementia who can be easily swayed from people close to him by stroking his ego. That’s the narrative. Most people weren’t even aware of his personality before the election, it’s gets pretty easy to paint him like that and make it stick, specially if the everyone is doing it. The cynicism ingrained in modern western culture doesn’t help either.

          • Mr.Towel

            I agree. His core beliefs doesn’t seem to align much with republican views. He probably forced his way in the party that got him the best chances to win.

            The narrative that he is a puppet is definitely coming the media. They have to paint him as an stupid old man in the first stages of dementia who can be easily swayed from people close to him by stroking his ego. That’s the narrative. Most people weren’t even aware of his personality before the election, it’s gets pretty easy to paint him like that and make it stick, specially if the everyone is doing it. The cynicism ingrained in modern western culture doesn’t help either.

          • Mr.Towel

            I agree. His core beliefs doesn’t seem to align much with republican views. He probably forced his way in the party that got him the best chances to win.

            The narrative that he is a puppet is definitely coming the media. They have to paint him as an stupid old man in the first stages of dementia who can be easily swayed from people close to him by stroking his ego. That’s the narrative. Most people weren’t even aware of his personality before the election, it’s gets pretty easy to paint him like that and make it stick, specially if the everyone is doing it. The cynicism ingrained in modern western culture doesn’t help either.

        • Disqusted

          Not so sure about people wouldn’t be crying about it. They’ve been crying about so much pointless shit revolving around Trump, like making a huge deal about how he likes his steak done. What the f**k.

          I mean, seriously, who gives a shit about stuff like that? People who lack real hobbies, I bet.

          The stuff about him being a Republican puppet that I recall hearing is him bending over to the crappy healthcare reform bill, and continuing to attack Syria. Stuff like that. But I think the attacks on Syria are just part of getting rid of Isis, so I dunno.

          Also noteworthy is I hear Trump used to be a Democrat, but he switched to Republican because he knew he couldn’t run in the same party as Hillary, or something like that. Maybe he’s like me and doesn’t give a shit about the two party system. He’s probably just using it to get where he needs to be to do what he wants.

          I personally think the Democrats and Republicans have long been in bed with each other, and use shit like left/right to make it look like we have a choice. I recall they were both trying to get rid of Trump, and I’m sure he hasn’t forgotten. IIRC, even the Bushes endorsed Hillary. Long close family friends, apparently.

          Trump praises the Republicans publically now, but it almost seems like a veiled threat to me. Almost like you can feel the menace through his smiling at them. “I’m well aware that you’re all a bunch of backstabbing vipers” sort of thing.

          I’d imagine it’d look bad if his own party backstabbed him after he kept praising them publically. It’d look like “Republicans destroy their own” and that’d probably affect public confidence in them. Not that I have any confidence in them personally.

          The other thing to keep in mind is there’s a constant attempt by Soros to erode people’s confidence and trust in Trump, and intentionally make him seem like “just another politician/puppet”. You can see that through the fake approval polls, the lies about how Trump hasn’t fulfilled any campaign promises, etc. So we have to be wary of that bullshit, too.