Remember Judge Kavenaugh? CNN reported he was guilty of sexual assault. That was a lie. It was their opinion, but told their viewers it was an actual fact.
Then you should be able to find a CNN article that says Kavanaugh was guilty of sexual assault to back up your claims right? From my quick googling, most CNN articles have framed it in a accuser vs accused or in terms of allegations way. This language specifically indicates that Kavanaugh was only accused.
You would think so right? But with Russia collusion, the fake news was already talking about whether Trump would only be impeached or also face jail time. For them, the collusion was an established fact.
Kavenaugh, Russia Collusion, or the pre-election numbers. Where did the fake news get those numbers that showed Hillery winning by double digits? Those weren't mistakes, they were lies.
From polls I'd assume? Do you think otherwise?
Sure. You would, because you follow the fake news like a good liberal. We know better. We know, for example, that the list Trump used to exclude citizens from 7 countries from entering the US was an Obama list. The fake news didn't report that, and you were swept away in the "controversy", but when it went to the supreme court, we saw it was a made up controversy, fake news. The supreme court ruled that Trump had acted legally.
So, just because the supreme court arbitrates on either side of a matter doesn't make the matter controversial or non-controversial. For example, in the case of Roe vs Wade, just because the supreme court arbitrated in favour of abortions, doesn't make the issue any less controversial. Do you agree with this?
No, they were stupidity gassed up by the fake news meant to send liberals like you into a froth.
Of course that's one opinion. However the only reason we both know about those events is because they are controversial issues that have circulated the internet
They are all non-issues reported as if they were hidden crimes of Trump. All complete with the speculation of how the noose was closing around Trump and his downfall was only a matter of time.
In what way are they non-issues? For example, some people might find it interesting to find out the president has engaged in nepotism, as a departure from the norm.
Some of the criticism is deserved, but much of it is driven by pure hatred. You can think of it this way: to the extent that Trump is right, the media are dishonest, because they find it impossible to deviate from their anti-Trump rhetoric even for a second to acknowledge that something he has said makes sense. They continue to peddle the lie that Trump "mocked a disabled reporter for being disabled" when this is demonstrably not the case. It is established fact that Trump's impression of that disabled reporter is merely the impression he uses to mock any flustered person. How likely do you think it is that he even remembered the reporter in question or that he was disabled? Some in the media are surely aware of the facts, yet the media product continues to reflect the false assumption the media have made in regard to the incident since the very beginning. You may think this is a petty thing to focus on, but it's not. It's the clearest example of media bias I can think of, and is proof that when the media can't find enough real things to criticize Trump about they resort to false allegations so that they can continue to present Trump as the stupidest and most immoral man alive.
I think people are capable of acknowledging when something makes sense or not, but in the case of Trump it's a matter of him crying wolf several times too many. For example, it is not established fact that Trump's impression is merely the impression he uses to mock any flustered person, only that it is his explanation for the event. It is then a case of whether there is evidence to support his explanation, and if there isn't, whether his explanation is credible or not.
In this case, his explanation suggests that he has made the movement before. In which case is there a record of such? I'll operate under the assumption that there is no record of him performing the action and hence one must decide whether his explanation is credible, and this is where we apparently differ. For example, Trump has had a history of diversive comments and actions. Hence I'm less inclined to believe his explanation. The only question that remains is what lets you believe his explanation?