So many on here and many of the administration are constantly complaining about how the media is just not fair to him. Posters on here are convinced there is some kind of movement against him...convinced that the so called "progressives" are out to get him.

I agree totally that the press is a bit reluctant on Trump, but offer this as a reason.

I have followed Trump for many many years, and the media, especially those in New York, know him well....very well.

They have reported on his drug fueled drunken parties, his many and varied conspiracy theories he has pushed publicly, his marriage and his public cheating, his demeaning of his wives, his constant having NDR 's signed, his swing back and forth on political idealogy, his constant and chronic lying about everything and anything, his entire package of being about HIM and nobody else.

The fact that they know so much makes them a bit leery of his man, as am I. He has never been one to be trusted, and the media knows all this. His flirtation with any conspiracy theory that comes down the pike...they know all this.

His chronic lying, etc etc...they have lived it and they know it.

For that reason, in my opinion, he is going to have to show a lot and show it quickly.

Thus far, he has done just the opposite in his first month. He has done everything he did before BUT NOW he is President of the United States, and that simply fuels the media distrust....[B]they have reason to distrust...he has given it to them over the years[
/B]

Maybe not fair totally but certainly understandable.

I believe that his only chance of success is if he is successful on the economic front....deficit, jobs, total spending, etc. Without that I think he will be under the gun always and distrusted always

I read an interesting article in New York Mag that might explain a bit more on how reluctant media is to offer him support.

I will suspend reality for a minute and assume that there are some intelligent folks, not necessarily to agree with me but to at least read what I consider a worthwhile article, UNLESS you are simply here to attack anyone who might not share your beliefs.

"Donald Trump is an authoritarian by instinct. He displays the classic traits of an authoritarian personality — a man obsessed with domination and humiliation, and unable to tolerate cognitive dissonance. (Guidance for Trump’s presidential daily brief directs that his memos not only be short but, Ashley Dejean reports, “should only include facts that support their analyses.”) For years he has lavished praise upon authoritarian regimes in China, Russia, North Korea, and Iraq for having the strength to crush their opponents. And the first month of his presidency has seen Trump metamorphose from a reality-television-populist-outsider candidate into an actual president who sounds — but, so far, at least, only sounds — like the strongman leaders he has always admired.

The prospect that President Trump will degrade or destroy American democracy is the most important question of the new political era. It has received important scholarly attention from two basic sources, which have approached it in importantly different fashions. Scholars of authoritarian regimes (principally Russia) have used their knowledge of authoritarian history to paint a road map by which Trump could Putinize this country. Timothy Snyder, Masha Gessen, and other students of Putin’s methods have essentially treated Putinization as the likely future, and worked backward to the present. A second category of knowledge has come from scholars of democracy and authoritarianism, who have compared the strengths and weaknesses of the American system of government both to countries elsewhere that have succumbed to authoritarianism and those that have not. Their approach has, more appropriately, treated Trump’s authoritarian designs as an open question. Trump might launch an assault on the foundations of the republic. On the other hand, he might not

What are the signs of impending authoritarianism? Trump has rhetorically hyped violence, real or imaginary, committed by enemy groups, while downplaying or ignoring violence or threats from friendlier sources. He said nothing about a white-supremacist terror attack in Canada that killed six people before denouncing a knife attack a few days later by an Islamist radical in France that killed nobody. He quickly directed a government program on countering violent extremism to focus exclusively on Muslim radicalism and stop work halting white-supremacist terrorism. Just as he urged his campaign crowds to rough up protesters, he treated news that pro-Trump bikers would patrol his inauguration not as a threat to create chaos but as a welcome paramilitary force. “That’s like additional security with those guys, and they’re rough,” he gleefully told reporters. Trump’s rhetoric follows a pattern of politicizing violence, simultaneously justifying stringent government action against enemies he has designated while tacitly justifying vigilantism by extremists sympathetic to his cause.

Since his election, Trump has obsessively fabricated a narrative in which he is the incarnate of the will of the people. According to his own concocted history, he won a historically large Electoral College victory, and would have also won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal votes. He has dismissed protesters against him as paid agents, denied the legitimacy of courts to overrule his actions, and, most recently, called mainstream media “enemies of the people.” This is an especially chilling phrase to hear from an American president. Totalitarian dictators like Stalin and Mao used designation of a political figure or a social class as an “enemy of the people” as a prelude to mass murder.

The next few sentences are the ending of this article and the reason for this is that there are many many who view his presidency as a takeover of sorts.

"If Trump has a plan to crush his adversaries, he has not yet revealed it. His authoritarian rage thus far is mostly impotent, the president as angry Fox-News-watching grandfather screaming threats at his television that he never carries out. The danger to the republic may come later, or never. In the first month of Trump’s presidency, the resistance has the upper hand."

This is part of the fear of this Presidency along with a fear that the ultra rich cabinet will use their influence simply to get richer.

"The most plausible (to me) mechanism by which Trump might ensconce himself in power was laid out by Matthew Yglesias three months ago. The scenario Yglesias described would be one in which Trump used the authority of the federal government to compel large firms to give him political support. Companies that opposed him, or who even refused to offer support, might be punished with selectively punitive regulation, while those that played ball might be rewarded with lax enforcement of labor, antitrust, or other regulation.

So far there is no evidence such a scenario is playing out. To be sure, Trump is attempting, sporadically, to bully the private sector. But the effort has backfired. Firms whose leaders make favorable statements about the president have seen their stock get hammered. A long list of prominent CEOs has openly criticized Trump. The reason for this is obvious. Trump’s supporters may have disproportionate power in the Electoral College, but his opponents have disproportionate power in the marketplace. Firms cater in their advertising to the young, who overwhelming oppose Trump, rather than to the old, who strongly support him.

Donald Trump, Pseudoauthoritarian

I only offer all of this, not simply to bash Trump but to allow you to understand the media is aware of Trump and his past...what he is capable of and they know that there is NO conspiracy that he would not engage in or believe.

Frankly, if he got rid of Bannon and Steve Miller and released a few years of taxes, I could relax and maybe enjoy his presidency.

For me, and the media I suggest, it is tough to trust a man who in the past was UN trustable.

And of course this does not help...his OWN PEOPLE...This information is not from Obama fans.....not Democrats or liberals but his own staff. IF the investigation into leaks is successful, it will reveal his own staff as the responsible party

"The president is a 70-year-old child whose TV time must be closely monitored — because any news story that upsets his ego will trigger a temper tantrum followed by irrational demands that his indulgent, overwhelmed guardians will be helpless to refuse.

Or so Donald Trump’s aides keep confiding to the nearest available reporter.

On Sunday, one of the president’s confidantes told Politico that his staffers have to “control information that may infuriate him,” a task made difficult by the fact that the leader of the free world “gets bored and likes to watch TV.”


That same day, some Trump aides provided the New York Times with a portrait of the president as a moody adolescent.



Trump Aides Can’t Stop Blabbing About How He’s a Madman

"1. After forcing Spicer to baldly lie to the White House press corps about the size of his inauguration crowd, the president fumed that his press secretary’s performance was “not forceful enough.” According to Axios, Trump was also incensed by Spicer’s poor taste in suits, and is already considering treating the former RNC staffer to his signature catchphrase.

2. Trump already “feels demoralized that the public’s perception of his presidency so far does not necessarily align with his own sense of accomplishment.”

3. Some Trump aides think Kellyanne Conway is trying to undermine Spicer so as to steal his job.

4. Jared Kushner tried to prevent Conway from being invited into the White House at all, because he viewed her “as a possible threat to his role as Trump’s chief consigliere.”



This is coming from his own staff and it unnerves anyone who is actually listening and not pontificating.

He had this same problem in NY. His own people would get scared and blab, and that is one of the reasons he is so fond of NDA's

I still maintain that his only hope is success on the financial areas, to try and erase years and years of developing mistrust

Similar to the media method, these two posts focus on what the writer wants to focus upon.

One could write pages of negative commentary about any person they choose to do so...going back to high school, etc.

Then like the media how much of what is commented upon is first hand knowledge? Like the media, not much.

To each his own. However it is abundantly clear, like the two posts above that the media, the same media that would give Obama and others a pass on most petty BS issues, gets out it's mega magnifying glass regarding Trump. While completely ignoring any positive aspects what so ever.

The media/establishment resistance party consistently at work to tarnish Trump....no what...no matter how..

Some people "can not see the forest for the tree's", and they blindly follow. Be prepared for hate and vugarities.

Originally Posted by Guest

Similar to the media method, these two posts focus on what the writer wants to focus upon.

One could write pages of negative commentary about any person they choose to do so...going back to high school, etc.

Then like the media how much of what is commented upon is first hand knowledge? Like the media, not much.

To each his own. However it is abundantly clear, like the two posts above that the media, the same media that would give Obama and others a pass on most petty BS issues, gets out it's mega magnifying glass regarding Trump. While completely ignoring any positive aspects what so ever.

The media/establishment resistance party.

In the case of President Trump, it pretty much has all been reported, verified and validated.

This man has an pretty clear past and the point, which you totally miss, is that the media is aware of Trump...they know how he operates, etc.

You seem to feel that ALL Trumps problems are press related. As I posted on the thread about CNN, Trump was nothing but a rich playboy in NY before the Apprentice. He was known for things which have all been validated and proven.

The point was not that....IT IS TRUE...the point was that the media, knowing him very well are not going to simply trust him BECAUSE of his past.

Originally Posted by Guest

Similar to the media method, these two posts focus on what the writer wants to focus upon.

One could write pages of negative commentary about any person they choose to do so...going back to high school, etc.

Then like the media how much of what is commented upon is first hand knowledge? Like the media, not much.

To each his own. However it is abundantly clear, like the two posts above that the media, the same media that would give Obama and others a pass on most petty BS issues, gets out it's mega magnifying glass regarding Trump. While completely ignoring any positive aspects what so ever.

The media/establishment resistance party consistently at work to tarnish Trump....no what...no matter how..

Positive aspects, name them.

Originally Posted by Guest

Some people "can not see the forest for the tree's", and they blindly follow. Be prepared for hate and vugarities.

Yeah I know....as I said..I will suspend reality for a moment and assume that posters read and think.

Nothing in anything I posted that is NOT TRUE.....EASILY VALIDATED, and what they will miss is that this is simply an explanation for why he is not trusted.

Some want to simply blame the media for reporting what Trump really says and does.

Folks coming after me because I told truth, all about of which is verifiable and credited.

They never comment on my point.....despite, he can still be a good President, but my opinion he needs to do it with numbers...deficit spending. Budget, etc.

He is meeting today on budgets and that is where he needs to define himself.

Originally Posted by Guest

In the case of President Trump, it pretty much has all been reported, verified and validated.

This man has an pretty clear past and the point, which you totally miss, is that the media is aware of Trump...they know how he operates, etc.

You seem to feel that ALL Trumps problems are press related. .......no where in any of my posts have I ever made such a comment.....you can say what you want but not restate what I said or did not say to make your point(s)

As I posted on the thread about CNN, Trump was nothing but a rich playboy in NY before the Apprentice. He was known for things which have all been validated and proven.

The point was not that....IT IS TRUE...the point was that the media, knowing him very well are not going to simply trust him BECAUSE of his past.

So they know this man? Better than they know/knew Obama/Clinton for starters.

Either you are being played or trying to play others.

Originally Posted by Guest

Folks coming after me because I told truth, all about of which is verifiable and credited.

They never comment on my point.....despite, he can still be a good President, but my opinion he needs to do it with numbers...deficit spending. Budget, etc.

He is meeting today on budgets and that is where he needs to define himself.

He looks to be spending huge amounts of money on things that look really only useful to stroking this man's ego-- the Wall, huge military increases in size, and other stuff.

Originally Posted by Guest

In the case of President Trump, it pretty much has all been reported, verified and validated.

This man has an pretty clear past and the point, which you totally miss, is that the media is aware of Trump...they know how he operates, etc.

You seem to feel that ALL Trumps problems are press related. As I posted on the thread about CNN, Trump was nothing but a rich playboy in NY before the Apprentice. He was known for things which have all been validated and proven.

The point was not that....IT IS TRUE...the point was that the media, knowing him very well are not going to simply trust him BECAUSE of his past.

Obama was nothing but half-white college kid until affirmative action. He was groomed by radical anti-American lefties to be the "hands off" first black president that could get away with any violation, with no consequences. He was given a free pass for every UN-presidential action he took.

So, we have a rich playboy that grew up and matured, and we have a radical lefty socialist that is still a radical lefty socialist.

Originally Posted by MDCPD

Obama was nothing but half-white college kid until affirmative action. He was groomed by radical anti-American lefties to be the "hands off" first black president that could get away with any violation, with no consequences. He was given a free pass for every UN-presidential action he took.

So, we have a rich playboy that grew up and matured, and we have a radical lefty socialist that is still a radical lefty socialist.

Here kitty, kitty, kitty, keep coming out of your racist closet...and keep proving us correct about you.

Good job.



Deepest Sincere Wishes: