Trump refuses CNN reporters question and calls them fake news Priceless

They'll just change the name to something else. Instead of CNN, they'll call it BNN (Bullsh!t Nazi Network)...

January 25, 2017

For SOME REASON, President Trump decided to give ABC a full hour interview and tour of the Whitehouse this morning. It's on "Nightline" now. Glad I was watching because Donald Trump just insulted ABC right in the interview, while talking about repeal/replace of Obamacare.

Trump: "If one person dies in this country while we're replacing ObamaCare, knowing how ABC operates, you will find that one person use him/her to show how awful President Trump is."

Those moments are priceless. Bush tried to say these things, but was too diplomatic, and smiled when he was calling them turds. (in a nice way)

Western journalists have ZERO CREDIBILITY...

ZERO!

They should be held accountable and thrown in jail for their non stop shilling. They're all accessories to the countless crimes of their overlords that they've helped cover up. What have they ever done worth a damn? When was the last time they lived up to their names as journalists? They're all completely worthless. It's not only that they haven't done a god damn thing to expose the globalist agenda, it's the fact that they have done their very best to act as propaganda networks for that agenda which isn't especially surprising when you look at their owners.

They need to be purged, they need to pay.

a reply to: bknapple32

He didn't shut down the press.

Are you just a troll looking for stars from SJWs?

a reply to: DeadMoonJester

Well, at least you didn't generalise to completely lose all your own credibility. That much hyperbole is surely what you have a problem with journalists about? Read a lot of Spanish/ French/ German journalism then? Read a lot of Chinese/ Russian/ Japanese/ Saudi Arabian/ Israeli journalism as well, considering you're making a direct comparison with non Western journalism. Because what you just claimed is your problem with "Western Journalism" I would suggest happens more consistently and in a more pressured manner in most of those countries I listed.

Maybe you should consider the owners of these media outlets and the age old problem of giving the target audience what it wants to hear (The Sun and Daily Mail come to mind from the UK). 'Dumbing Down' by having 60 word articles and ambiguous but dramatic headlines don't exactly help either- same with the way Fox News has 2 minute interviews and segments making it so condescending that you barely notice their casual but implication ridden associations and throwaway political terms and groups clearly meant to undermine and demean them and whatever cause they may have. Again, look at the constant in these arguments....(I'll give you a clue, it's not Rupert the bear!).

Your type of comment is just continuing and endorsing that patronising sensationalism, it was hardly considered, investigated and frisked down for anything which may not be totally true.

I wonder if you're American? I don't know how prevalent other countries media is there, I've always presumed not very. But I suppose that comes from the insular stereotype. A hell of a bold statement to presume to know the work of every journalist (Sports? Arts? Fashion too?!) in Western nations.

Here's an interesting recent article for you then: www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: yes4141

My comment isn't an endorsement of non Western media.

To be fair, journalists are not really the real problem here. The real problem is normies.



I don't like the look of that guy, looks like a shill so I'm not gonna be reading his horribly biased hit piece.

(Ok, I'm still gonna be reading it because the first paragraph caught my interest and I'm an info junkie but as far as you and me are concerned I never read it ok? And no I'm not an American.)

originally posted by: DeadMoonJester
a reply to: yes4141

I don't like the look of that guy, looks like a shill so I'm not gonna be reading his horribly biased hit piece.

(Ok, I'm still gonna be reading it because the first paragraph caught my interest and I'm an info junkie but as far as you and me are concerned I never read it ok? And no I'm not an American.)

It's not actually, it's far more about Thatcher and the beginning of laissez-faire capitalism- the point is, it's an informed piece which doesn't condescend to the reader- it's also not sensationalised in the way almost all news articles seem to be written now.



The problem is targeting audiences. Writing articles with what people want to hear, no matter which "Side" they are supposedly on. Obviously, the Guardian is generally a centre left paper and that article partly aligns with that but the important parts are: the lack of presumed association, the sources, the background context and no emotional, reactionary, 'automaton' journalism. It doesn't say things like "Disgraceful" (the classic tabloid, leading word), tell you someone's emotional response to something, general ambiguous political terms which by association make people have an automatic reaction (currently: "The Left" and, in America, "Liberal").

The other day I saw a fox news "Debate" where their friendly correspondent- the 'Goodie' claimed that Hollywood actors and writers are representing "The Left" badly as they know nothing about normal Americans. Now that's brilliantly sneaky, implying that these people represent anyone but themselves by anything bar media association is automatically garnering support from the target audience of the channel.

Most people would state it's individuals voicing an opinion but not in this case, they dismiss all their opinions by treating them as a group enterprise who had some kind of formulated plan. It's just one way of not actually addressing any point by subtly (or not so) attacking the voice rather than what that voice says. Then saying they don't understand 'normal Americans' in the rust belt and all their concerns has the irony of that commentator dismissing one group of citizen's grievances compared to another's BECAUSE they apparently "Represent the left". It's effectively media ad hominem to belittle people's opinions. Even if it is irritating to hear actors and writers discussing politics.

a reply to: yes4141

Well, to be fair Hollywood celebrities do more or less represent American liberals. They do more or less have similar opinions and I've never seen a liberal take issue with celebrities 'speaking for them'.

The same celebrity scum f*cks that accept and defend Roman Polanski and Woody Allen have the nerve to take the moral high ground.

They're all scum.

Liked the article so far though, haven't finished yet I'm jumping back and forth reading 10 different things.

(I don't like neoliberals either.. if a person isn't at least willing to send an army into Dulce to root out the aliens I can't bring myself to respecting that person.. Yes, it's a lonely world for me.)

a reply to: DeadMoonJester

Presumably because "Liberals" (as opposed to "illiberals"? It's not a political party) don't presume they are speaking on behalf of anyone but themselves- they are on a stage and have stated their opinion. I think it's that stage which people get annoyed about- the idea of why should they get this platform when they are no more qualified to be on TV spouting political opinions than anyone else.

It's like certain people are being used to create an "aggregate" opinion to represent a certain group's presumed views rather than being taken as the individuals they are. Then you have people dismissed by association. That is how feminism is treated at the moment, the concept is mocked because of some extreme actions of a few people- how can you belittle something which is entirely about gender equality? Unless you are quite literally fascist I cannot see people having a problem with that in modern society yet it is still mocked and dismissed simply because certain people have constructed this group persona via association.

It's like a wave washing people away.

a reply to: yes4141

It's fairly naive to believe it's really about gender equality though, because literally nothing validates this and third wave feminism has done a hell of a good job of discrediting this claim by continually proving the opposite.

Feminism has long since outlived its purpose. It's only purpose now is as a social engineering movement designed to divide us through gender. The Rockefellers and the CIA sponsored feminism, you should ask Aaron Russo about that one.

Feminize the men, masculinize the women. Maximum gender chaos and confusion. Divide and conquer.

And women aren't even slightly oppressed in the Western world today, they actually have certain privileges that men do not have.

And how could I take third wave feminism seriously when they keep parroting dumb factoids over and over again no matter how many times they've been debunked? Like the absurd notion that 1 in 4 college women are raped? These idiots actually believe their college campuses are more dangerous than African third world hellholes.. I mean, it takes a special kind of stupid to believe in that kind of garbage. Yet they they lap it all up, they love it... these people would face an existential crisis if they were suddenly deprived of this victim fantasy that is seemingly at the core of their very personality and worldview. They wouldn't know what to do if they couldn't blame everything on some nebulous conspiracy against them. If they were to suddenly have to take full responsibility for everything in their life like a mature adult.

No, feminism and liberalism has been transformed into a massive tool of social engineering and authoritarianism.

I mean yeah, they say they're about gender equality.. kind of in the same way that Bison in Street Fighter says his genetic super warriors are all for the greater good. I mean, which villain DOESN'T present himself as good? Really it's villainy 101. Feminists say they are for gender equality but whenever someone brings up the plight of men and various kinds of discrimination of men they view that as an attack on them and go on the offensive. All their efforts of dealing with men ultimately has to do with feminizing and molding them according to their deranged whims.

And all of this is really just a social engineering ploy taken right out of the totalitarian playbook.



Would you really doubt this guys benevolence? Let's not believe everything people say, especially not when they're clearly psychologically damaged and deranged which happens to be the case with most rabid feminists. They've clearly been brainwashed by liberal academia or otherwise they wouldn't completely agree with every sentiment expressed by cultural Marxism. We're not talking about independent minds here.. we're talking about people that take a few stupid gender studies classes - that DON'T question it at all - and then think they're enlightened when they've actually just been brainwashed. It's almost like clockwork, they're subjected to certain garbage stimuli and then they react in a predictable way.

You're giving them way too much credit if you think these people are intellectuals that would have come to these same conclusions by themselves had they not been exposed to this ideology. They're essentially just empty vessels being lackadaisically filled with whatever crap they're exposed to. Remember, this is a group of people that is stupid enough to believe this unfathomably stupid lie that 1 out of 4 women in college get raped. Like any parent in their right mind would ever send their kid to college if that was the case, might as well send them to war. They're not even clever enough to think this assertion through thoroughly and most of them have had years to do so, you only need about a minute to think it through before you realize how utterly preposterous it is.

So no, feminists aren't intellectual revolutionaries they're useful idiots and that's it.

a reply to: DeadMoonJester

Sorry, I can't remember if you're American or not but the term (Feminism) definitely has a a different slant to it there than it does in the UK and Europe.

I often hear this "Man haters" thing and frankly I think it's ridiculous. Of course there are the extremes but I think it's just an easy tag to dismiss large amounts of people.

Feminists say they are for gender equality but whenever someone brings up the plight of men and various kinds of discrimination of men they view that as an attack on them and go on the offensive.

Again you're grouping people to make it all a bit too easy and simple to make judgements on but I just don't see that. The things I read and hear about are things like not taxing tampons as a 'Luxury Item' and maternity (and paternity) leave which just don't have that kind of aspect to them.

Of course there are the trend followers and the self-righteous "Look at this good thing I'm doing for no reason but because I'm good.... Everyone? Did you hear? I'm only doing it because I'm a good person...That's the only reason...." types, you'll get them in every aspect of society- they're simply insecure and desperate for a group to latch on to.

I think we're just thinking of different aspects- I'm thinking of those who are actually actively trying to alter a very specific part of my country's law or similar rather than the "Hugh Mungous" type who are just bad caricatures of what they think they are.

I don't think everything is perfect in the US or UK in terms of equality so I don't consider the whole idea redundant but I totally agree that those self-righteous types are damaging their supposed goals and also political/ social debate as a whole with such frankly pathetic things like that "Hugh Mungous" video.

a reply to: yes4141

Ok, I don't have time for this my reply was fairly exhaustive and I don't really think you touched on the real issues I brought up.

So........





You're on ATS, look beyond the surface. Social engineering and brainwashing by the elite has been a staple of Western societies since Edward Bernays the nephew of Freud wrote the book on it.

You're taking things at face value.

www.returnofkings.com...

There might be some shady sentiments in that article if I remember correctly but that's not the important part.

You know. I really could go on forever but I don't have the time for that. Those two videos should be sufficient evidence for you to question the popular narratives of our modern societies.

Yuri really was a KGB officer and Aaron Russo really did know the Rockefellers.

Hmmm.. this site has gone from a conspiracy theory site to a more or less mainstream political site.

a reply to: DeadMoonJester

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me but don't patronise me.

My point was this idea that "They've got it good now!" is exhausted as soon as there's a practical piece of legislation to be changed which was my point on tampons being deemed a "Luxury Item" and therefore taxed as such.

You deem it naive, I deem it the definition of the term. You can't dismiss the ideas because of the actions of a moron.

If we're talking shady dealings then lets look at now, here's an article by the same man which has just come out- it's very relevant to what you were saying: www.theguardian.com...

My only point is that it shouldn't be universally mocked by association- that just dismisses people rather than debating them.

a reply to: yes4141


You know, when taxes on tampons are deemed oppression and evidence of a patriarchy it pretty much proves that there really is no patriarchy and no oppression to speak of. In fact, if we have to have a national god damn debate on whether women are oppressed or not I think that speaks volumes as to whether there's any female oppression worthy of speaking about or not.

Any oppression that is worth speaking about would be more obvious than taxes on tampons. And there's a list of a million things that could be deemed more important than that.

And eh, what about affirmative action? You know, that is actual discrimination against men.

I wish these worthless journalists would just shut the hell up. They haven't performed their duty at all and the vast majority of the media is owned by the same globalist corporations, and I bet that includes The Guardian.

How about this clown do a series of articles on Cecil Rhodes and the Round Table Group? Hmm?

You can't dismiss the ideas because of the actions of a moron.

What moron? I don't know what moron has made me dismiss anything, did I mention anyone specifically? Some case?

Either way, you're right. I can't, I can dismiss them because of the actions of millions and millions of morons however. You know, the whole millennial generation with their SJW ideas.

My only point is that it shouldn't be universally mocked by association- that just dismisses people rather than debating them.

I don't follow. How did I do this?

a reply to: DeadMoonJester

You know, when taxes on tampons are deemed oppression and evidence of a patriarchy it pretty much proves that there really is no patriarchy and no oppression to speak of.

Who said anything about a patriarchy? Or oppression? I never mentioned those words. There can be imbalances without that- again, that's just addressing the reputation rather than the point. I completely disagree though- I thought that would be something you would accept- a specific problem and using means to correct that problem. I should mention that that is an issue going on here (UK) so I've no idea about if it's happening in the US.

Well, I disagree with 'positive discrimination' or 'affirmative action'. I think it's ludicrous and patronising.

I wish these worthless journalists would just shut the hell up. They haven't performed their duty at all and the vast majority of the media is owned by the same globalist corporations, and I bet that includes The Guardian.

I think they're owned by a charitable trust. They're not Murdoch owned anyway- they definitely couldn't print much of their stuff if they were! Do you not think it's interesting that a completely unelected think tank funded by specific corporations is having their ideal legislation and policy being directly pushed through a democracy? It's lobbying on steroids!

What moron? I don't know what moron has made me dismiss anything, did I mention anyone specifically? Some case? Either way, you're right. I can't, I can dismiss them because of the actions of millions and millions of morons however. You know, the whole millennial generation with their SJW ideas.

No generalising there at all! It's just a classic routine of X (A Feminist) = Y (self righteous, self publicist, looking for a problem: all those horrible traits which we sometimes see) and then presuming Y is what all X's are. Surely there are specific elements of what people who deem themselves to be feminist that you agree with? (Equal pay for example- which is not always guaranteed still and was a fundamental goal) So why dismiss it wholly?

I don't follow. How did I do this?

Apologies, I should've stated that better, I didn't mean you at all, it was a general point.

a reply to: yes4141

Feminism has accomplished its goal. Women were equal even in the 90's, now they're just pandering for special rights. They're obsolete and now they have to justify their further existence. Hence microaggressions and other ridiculous theories. Feminism is basically a runaway train at this point. It's been co-opted by social engineers and globalists to further their agenda.

This whole gender idiocy thing.. I mean, genderqueer. These people are essentially mentally ill. They've been conditioned to believe all these ridiculous things and it's just downright tiring at this point. It's a divide and conquer scheme. It's chaos, it's confusion, it's social engineering of feminine and masculine qualities.

Let me pass on a little anecdote to you:

Herodotus recounted an incident that happened in Asia Minor. This was an appeal from King Croesus, the king of Lydia to the Persian King. The Persian king wanted to kill all the males to keep them from revolting and what the defeated king proposed was to inculturate softness in order to make the people docile and servile; effeminacy was seen as the mark of a slave. These men are to be softened.

But let the Lydians be pardoned; and lay on them this command, that they may not revolt or be dangerous to you; then, I say, and forbid them to possess weapons of war, and command them to wear tunics under their cloaks and buskins on their feet, and to teach their sons lyre-playing and song and dance and huckstering (the word "retail" in one translation). Then, O King, you will soon see them turned to women instead of men; and thus you need not fear lest they revolt

a reply to: DeadMoonJester

Feminism has accomplished its goal. Women were equal even in the 90's, now they're just pandering for special rights.

Sorry, I just don't buy it. What "Special Rights" are being pushed for? I just gave a very specific point that's being campaigned for here in the UK, those people who are asking for that label of "Luxury Goods" to be removed are simply campaigning for that specific goal, they will be labelled feminists because of what the issue is even if they have absolutely nothing to do with any wider movement, organised or not.

It's been co-opted by social engineers and globalists to further their agenda.

Probably yes. But the opposite is also undoubtedly true. Just in that article I linked before there are examples of these think tanks trying to cause associations and reasons for anything to do with women only issues to be mocked and humiliated, to belittle them and cease any progress. I have no doubt that some of these ridiculous stories and seriously unbelievable tales are very much choreographed and planned for maximum effect- it's controlling perceptions.

a reply to: yes4141

They already have certain privileges in countries like Sweden. Google it.

Ok, remove that tax then. Who cares? You think there's some shady cabal of men that are dying to protect this tax? This abominable injustice that they just can't let go of. Who is even against this idea? This is essentially a non issue and it's hardly symptomatic of the type of patriarchy feminists have feverish dreams of.

Affirmative action in itself is institutionalised discrimination of men. And that issue is whole lot bigger than some tax on tampons. If women want more representation they should work for it like everybody else. Our societies are supposed to be meritocracies but they are far from that and that is completely the fault of leftist politics.

Also I feel the need to mention that contrary to popular belief genders aren't actually social constructs but are in fact biological realities, biological realities that will generally see women pursue certain career paths as opposed to men. And trying to arbitrarily change this natural consequence of the female nature is utterly pointless. Either way women don't deserve or need affirmative action to change these trends. If they want to be treated as equals they should be treated as adults. They are grown women, in the end where they will end up will be up to them.

It's interesting though. You don't ever see feminists clamouring to take over all the dangerous 'male' jobs. You just don't hear that, they want the glamorous top level positions and they want to get there without having to earn their position. But they don't want to work in coal mines. Just another double standard feminists completely ignore.

At the end of the day, here's the deal: either we live in a completely meritocratic society or we live in a society that discriminates against certain groups. And right now we are living in the latter.

Which article. The first one or the second one?