May 192017
 

Harvard Study Proves Trump Was Right About Negative Media Coverage

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

The Mainstream Media isn’t even pretending to be objective anymore. Fox news at 52% negative and 48% positive… sounds almost balanced in their reporting. They still lean negative though.

From Heat Street:

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Anti-Trump Media Bias

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 got positive good overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Cinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility. This study suggests that, at least in recent history, he’s right.

 
 

May 022017
 

Today’s New York Times front page shows the horrific picture of the French police officer engulfed in flames from a Molotov Cocktail, but the caption is so strangely generic that you have to wonder if the editors tacitly support the rioters (Spoiler: THEY DO)

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Today's New York Times Front Page

Full PDF scan:
scannat

 

NEW Huma Emails Reveal Clinton MAFIA TACTICS To Bring NYT Reporter David Brooks To Heel

 Political  Comments Off on NEW Huma Emails Reveal Clinton MAFIA TACTICS To Bring NYT Reporter David Brooks To Heel
Apr 032017
 
NEW Huma Emails Reveal Clinton MAFIA TACTICS To Discipline NYT Reporter David Brooks

There is no difference between Democrats, the Obama Administration, the DNC and the vast majority of the Mainstream Media. They all work hand in glove in order to serve themselves.

The swamp must be drained, and this includes the corrupt Mainstream Media.

From iBankCoin:

Recently released Huma Abedin State Department emails – acquired by Judicial Watch via FOIA request, reveal Clinton State Department staff planning to summon New York Times reporter David Brooks for an “OTR” (off the record) conversation over a “shot” he took at Hillary in a Feburary 2010 article. This isn’t the first time we’ve learned of the Democrat apparatus wrapping their tentacles around the MSM, and it’s the second time in weeks Judicial Watch has delivered a bombshell. They’re doing good work.

In summary; Hillary Clinton – code named “Evergreen,” fired off an email on February 9th, 2010 to advisors Philippe Reines and Jake Sullivan regarding an article written by NYT’s David Brooks (links added):

From: Evergreen

To: PIR (Philippe Reines), Jake Sullivan

Subject: David Brooks

“Took a shot at me in his column today. Any ideas what prompted it?”

To which senior advisor Philippe Reines responds:

“Not sure – but this is a good excuse to bring him in for an OTR [off the record] with you. Lona mentioned you wanted to see [NYT Journalist] Tom Friedman – with your ok, we could schedule both (separately) over the next month or so.

I’d very much like to get back in the habit of bringing someone or a small group in every few weeks”

Followed by Jake Sullivan’s response:

Phillippe and I had an offline conversation about this and I agree entirely. I think it makes sense for you to meet with influencers on a regular — though not intrusive — basis. An OTR conversation with you is the best way to help guys like Brooks “figure out” how things work.

So a top Clinton advisor wanted to get ‘back in the habit’ of bringing people or groups in every few weeks? This clearly suggests the Clinton State Dept. was at some point regularly meeting with members of the MSM to discuss content. And how exactly did Hillary, assuming the ‘OTR’ meeting with David Brooks took place, help him to ‘figure out’ how things work?

NEW FOIA Huma Emails Reveal Clinton MAFIA TACTICS To Bring NYT Reporter David Brooks To Heel

 

 

The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump

 Political  Comments Off on The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump
Apr 022017
 
The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump

THE PATTERN:

1) Trump makes a claim.

2) The Mainstream Media declare him crazy.

3) Things happen that prove Trump was right

4) The Mainstream Media yells RUSSIA!

 

 

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Comey Confirms Inquiry On Russia

 Political  Comments Off on Media Propaganda Of The Day: Comey Confirms Inquiry On Russia
Mar 212017
 
New York Times front page: “Comey Confirms Inquiry on Russia and Trump Allies” but “Dismisses a Wiretapping Claim”

 
In the world of “Fake News” wording is everything.

NYTimes front page

 

NSA Director Admiral Rogers says there is no intelligence that votes were changed by Russian involvement in the 2016 elections.

 

The Words Of The New York Times Will Come Back To Haunt Them!

New York Times Wire Tapping
Source… 

Obama’s Treatment Of The Mainstream Media

 Political  Comments Off on Obama’s Treatment Of The Mainstream Media
Feb 252017
 

Remember when Obama framed the Mainstream Media as the opposition party?

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Obama's Treatment Of The Mainstream Media

Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, in a telephone interview on Sunday. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Her comments are only the latest in the volatile exchange between the administration and the top-rated network, which is owned by the News Corporation, controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Last month, Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News, and David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Obama, met for coffee in New York, in what Politico, which last week broke that news, labeled a “Fox summit.”

While neither party has said what was discussed, some have speculated that a truce, or at least an adjustment in tone, was at issue. (Mr. Ailes and Mr. Obama reportedly reached a temporary accord after a meeting in mid-2008.) But shots are still being fired, which animates the idea that both sides see benefits in the feud.

Fox seems to relish the controversy.

“Instead of governing, the White House continues to be in campaign mode, and Fox News is the target of their attack mentality,” Michael Clemente, the channel’s senior vice president for news, said in a statement on Sunday. “Perhaps the energy would be better spent on the critical issues that voters are worried about.”

Source…

Or how about the time, back in 2008, when OBAMA Kicked reporters off his plane because their papers had endorsed John McCain?

OBAMA Kicked reporters off his plane
 

New York Times Op-Ed Headline: “How Can We Get Rid of Trump?”

 Political  Comments Off on New York Times Op-Ed Headline: “How Can We Get Rid of Trump?”
Feb 202017
 
More Proof That The Mainstream Media Works For The Democrats and Is The Enemy Of The People.

New York Times Op-Ed Headline: "How Can We Get Rid of Trump?"

The real question is: How can we get rid of the New York Times?

We’re just a month into the Trump presidency, and already so many are wondering: How can we end it?

One poll from Public Policy Polling found that as many Americans — 46 percent — favor impeachment of President Trump as oppose it. Ladbrokes, the betting website, offers even odds that Trump will resign or leave office through impeachment before his term ends.

Sky Bet, another site, is taking wagers on whether Trump will be out of office by July.

There have been more than 1,000 references to “Watergate” in the news media in the last week, according to the Nexis archival site, with even some conservatives calling for Trump’s resignation or warning that he could be pushed out. Dan Rather, the former CBS News anchor who covered Watergate, says that Trump’s Russia scandal isn’t now at the level of Watergate but could become at least as big.

Maybe things will settle down. But what is striking about Trump is not just the dysfunction of his administration but also the — vigorously denied — allegations that Trump’s team may have cooperated with Vladimir Putin to steal the election. What’s also different is the broad concern that Trump is both: 1) unfit for office, and 2) dangerously unstable. One pro-American leader in a foreign country called me up the other day and skipped the preliminaries, starting with: “What the [expletive] is wrong with your country?”

So let’s investigate: Is there any way out?

Read more of this bias crap…

Lets just keep calling the The Mainstream Media what it is “Very Fake News”. Expose their lies and screw ups so the rest of the world can see them too. When you smash their credibility it doesn’t matter what they say; no one will care.

 

Syrians in Aleppo Chanting: “Clinton, you cow, leave us alone”

 Political  Comments Off on Syrians in Aleppo Chanting: “Clinton, you cow, leave us alone”
Dec 212016
 

Your government is lying to you.

Streamable mirror.

Previously:
What’s Really Going On In Syria? Are We Being Lied To?

 

Dec 182016
 

What's Really Going On In Syria?

What’s really happening in Syria? Hint: Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the Mainstream Media have been lying to us.

Eva Bartlett is an independent journalist from Canada. She has traveled to Syria many times to investigate human rights violations and terrorism against Syrians. What she has found out is a truth completely opposite of what the Mainstream Media and governments claim, i.e. “Fake News”.

During a United Nations press conference, Bartlett sharply criticized Western governments, particularly the United States, for their efforts to effect regime change in Syria. Contrary to the Western narrative, she said, the people of Syria do not want a regime change. During her travels to and around the country, she had talked to Syrians, who widely expressed support for President Bashar al-Assad, whose army is battling a number of Western-backed terrorist groups.

Watch the video below to hear the true about what is really going on in Syria.

(NSFW Language)

This is what a real journalist looks like. You forget that living here in the US!

Western mainstream media’s coverage of the Syrian war is “compromised” as their local sources are “not credible” and, in the case of Aleppo, not even there, a Canadian journalist said in an emotional speech at the UN.

“I’ve been many times to Homs, to Maaloula, to Latakia and Tartus [in Syria] and again, Aleppo, four times. And people’s support of their government is absolutely true. Whatever you hear in the corporate media is completely opposite,” Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist and rights activist, told a press conference arranged by the Syrian mission to the UN.

“And, on that note, what you hear in the corporate media, and I will name them – BBC, Guardian, the New York Times etc. – on Aleppo is also the opposite of reality,” she added. The mainstream media narrative, she argued, is meant to mislead the public about what is really happening in Syria by demonizing President Bashar Assad’s government and altering the facts on Russia’s support for Damascus.

Bartlett’s statements did not seemingly play well with everyone in the room. A reporter from Aftenposten, Norway’s largest print newspaper, challenged her and demanded Bartlett explain what she thought was the “agenda” of Western mainstream media. “Why should we lie, why the international organizations on the ground should lie? How can you justify calling all of us liars?” he said.

Bartlett, who has been covering Syrian events for several years since the outbreak of the civil war, noted that while there are “certainly honest journalists among the very compromised establishment media,” many respected media agencies simply seem to avoid doing a fact-check.

She then asked her Norwegian colleague to name humanitarian organizations operating in eastern Aleppo. As the Aftenposten reporter stayed silent, Bartlett added that “there are none.”

“These organizations are relying on the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights [SOHR], which is based in Coventry, UK, which is one man. They’re relying on compromised groups like the White Helmets. Let’s talk about the White Helmets,” she went on.

Members of the controversial group “purport to be rescuing civilians in eastern Aleppo and Idlib … no one in eastern Aleppo has heard of them.” Meanwhile, she noted, “their video footage actually contains children that have been ‘recycled’ in different reports; so you can find a girl named Aya who turns up in a report in say August, and she turns up in the next month in two different locations.”

“So they [the White Helmets] are not credible. The SOHR are not credible. ‘Unnamed activists’ are not credible. Once or twice maybe, but every time? Not credible. So your sources on the ground – you don’t have them,” Bartlett concluded.

A journalist from Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera took a more measured tone and asked Bartlett to explain the difference between the Western and Russian media coverage, saying that Russian television channels report on humanitarian efforts and reconciliation instead of overt naming and blaming.

“You ask why we aren’t seeing this,” Bartlett said. “This relates to the other gentleman’s question about why most of the corporate media are telling lies about Syria. It’s because this is the agenda; if they had told the truth about Syria from the beginning, we wouldn’t be here now. We wouldn’t have seen so many people killed.”

Source…

Unedited video:

Not only has Trump’s victory turned America around (it’s certain, even though he’s not in office yet), but Syrians can finally have their home, neighborhood, city, and country back.

Here are some updates from the Aleppo liberation from the Obama/Hillary/Kerry-backed ISIS terrorists. Residents are overjoyed.

If this is true, it’s is CHILLING! It means that all the Syrian refugees coming here and migrating throughout Europe are being dispersed for a reason. Can you say Trojan Horse?

 

Sharyl Attkisson – Astroturf And Media Manipulation

 Political  Comments Off on Sharyl Attkisson – Astroturf And Media Manipulation
Dec 072016
 

In this video Sharyl Attkisson discusses Astroturf groups, the fake grass roots movements funded from above in order to influence media coverage of a political issue. It is a bit over 10 minutes, not an outrageous investment of your time compared to the valuable information it provides.

In this eye-opening talk, veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.

Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist based in Washington D.C. She is currently writing a book entitled Stonewalled (Harper Collins), which addresses the unseen influences of corporations and special interests on the information and images the public receives every day in the news and elsewhere. For twenty years (through March 2014), Attkisson was a correspondent for CBS News. In 2013, she received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for her reporting on “The Business of Congress,” which included an undercover investigation into fundraising by Republican freshmen. She also received Emmy nominations in 2013 for Benghazi: Dying for Security and Green Energy Going Red. Additionally, Attkisson received a 2013 Daytime Emmy Award as part of the CBS Sunday Morning team’s entry for Outstanding Morning Program for her report: “Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.” In September 2012, Attkisson also received an Emmy for Oustanding Investigative Journalism for the “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious” story. She received the RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting for the same story. Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2009 for her exclusive investigations into TARP and the bank bailout. She received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2002 for her series of exclusive reports about mismanagement at the Red Cross.

 
via

Mainstream Media Falsely Spins Trump’s New York Times Climate Comments

 Political  Comments Off on Mainstream Media Falsely Spins Trump’s New York Times Climate Comments
Nov 232016
 

New York Times Trump

This is a classic example of “Fake News”. The Mainstream Media’s reporting of Trump’s interview with the New York Times says in that meeting he changed his mind on climate change. And if you read the transcripts, he didn’t. If you read the transcripts, he spoke like Trump always speaks. He didn’t commit himself to anything, and some of his answers were innocuous.

Trump actually cited ClimateGate, restated skepticism of ‘Global Warming’.

Climate Depot Analysis:

The media spin on President Elect Donald J. Trump’s sit down with the New York Times on November 22, can only be described as dishonest. Trump appears to soften stance on climate change & Donald Trump backflips on climate change & Trump on climate change in major U-turn

The ‘fake news’ that Trump had somehow moderated or changed his “global warming” views was not supported by the full transcript of the meeting.

Heartland Institute President Joe Bast had this to say about the full transcript of Trump’s meeting: “This is reassuring. The Left wants to drive wedges between Trump and his base by spinning anything he says as “retreating from campaign promises.” But expressing nuance and avoiding confrontation with determined foes who buy ink by the barrel is not retreating.” The Heartland Institute released their skeptical 2015 climate reportfeaturing 4,000 peer-reviewed articles debunking the UN IPCC claims.

Trump’s climate science view that there is “some connectivity” between humans and climate is squarely a skeptical climate view. Trump explained, “There is some, something. It depends on how much.”

Trump’s views are shared by prominent skeptical scientists. University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has said: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Stott is featured in new skeptical climate change documentary Climate Hustle.

Scientists at the UN climate summit in Marrakech commended Trump’s climate views. See: Skeptical scientists crash UN climate summit, praise Trump for ‘bringing science back again’

Trump also told resident NYT warmist Tom Friedman: ‘A lot of smart people disagree with you’ on climate change. (Note: Friedman has some wacky views: Flashback 2009: NYT’s Tom Friedman lauds China’s eco-policies: ‘One party can just impose politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward’)

Once again, Trump was 100% accurate as very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called climate “consensus.”

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

Trump correctly cited the Climategate scandal: “They say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between scientists…Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about.” See: Watch & Read: 7th anniversary of Climategate – The UN Top Scientists Exposed

Trump cited his uncle, a skeptical MIT scientist: “My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject.” (Yes, other MIT scientists are very skeptical as well. See: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

It is also worth noting that Trump’s often cited 2012 tweet about climate change stating “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” was clearly a joke and he has said it was a joke. It is further worth noting that climate skeptics do not believe the conecpt of “climate change” was “created” by China.

And in what has been described as “fake news”, the publisher of NYT tried to sell CO2-induced storms to Trump; but Trump refused to accept the claim.

NYT’s Arthur Sulzberger: ‘We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.’
Trump countered: ‘We’ve had storms always, Arthur.’


Trump is accurately citing the latest climate science by noting that extreme weather is not getting worse. See: 2016 ‘State of the Climate Report’

  • The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
  • Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
  • Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
  • Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.

Trump’s claim to have an “open mind” on U.S. climate policy and his comment that “I’m going to take a look at” withdrawing from the UN Paris agreement are more nuanced than his previous blunt statements that the U.S. will cancel the UN agreement. But those comments in the context of the interview are hardly a flip-flop or major signal of changing views on the issue.

(Climate Depot Note: UN Paris climate deal ‘is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty’ – ‘Cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually’

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!)

http://www.thegwpf.com/donald-trump-on-climategate-the-paris-agrement/
Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview
President-elect Donald J. Trump during a meeting at The New York Times’s offices in Manhattan on Tuesday.

[….] THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …

[laughter, cross talk]

TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape. (Note: Trump’s Seawall Is About His Business, Not Global Warming – ‘Only shows Trump uses climate alarmism to benefit his business’)

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind. (Note: EPA Says That The Worst Heat Waves Occurred in The 1930s)
My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

FRIEDMAN: I’d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.

TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?

[…]

MICHAEL D. SHEAR, White House correspondent: Mr. Trump, Mike Shear. I cover the White House, covering your administration …

TRUMP: See ya there.

[laughter]

SHEAR: Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate

TRUMP: I’m going to take a look at it.

Full interview

They are going to constantly do what they can to stir things up and try to get people to turn against him. They didn’t get their way, were made to look like fools, so now they have to sensationalize everything to get people spreading lies and hate. Which is no surprise since it is a majority of liberals who work in this industry.

And they’re counting on all of us uneducated deplorables to believe their BS