It might be a good idea to start reading up on him, Friend.
Where to find unbiased political views, these days? It seems that almost every western news outlet is consistently Trump negative, which imo is a sure sign of a stacked deck, i.e., fake news, which Mrs. Clinton highlighted in her testimony before the Senate FRC.
Perhaps we're not using fake in the same sense. It seems to me that the way you are using it could probably be applied to every President back to John Adams.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps you meant, "fake
news President", instead?
only George W. Bush ("the other George Bush") won the Presidency while losing the popular vote
^^^Implying that winning an election via the US electoral college is somehow not valid?
And none of them engaged in the constant, repetitive, juvenile name-calling that The Donald has done.
You're right, his rhetoric is unique, for sure. And sadly, it's apparently very effective. None of the other bozos he went up against dared to step out of line and go rogue in order to win the Primary.
George W. Bush was certainly not fond of the press, but as far as I know and remember he never called the media "fake." He didn't insult the press by calling it "failing," as the The Donald has done to The New York Times, and his people did not engage in "alternative facts" .
GW Bush went much further than that, friend. He exploited the media, illegally unleashing white house-produced propaganda videos (VNRs) pro-war fake news to be delivered to TV stations across the US, to put in the faces of Americans..
Bush issued orders to shut down showings of Michael Moore's documentaries in the US, as I recall, even got 'Fahrenheit 9/11' de-funded, and threatened Disney/Miramar and theater owners across the country with lawsuits if they showed the film.
According to the Secret Service, after a reporter asked W why a callboy named "Jeff Gannon" was allowed access to the White House day and night countless times, and was now posing as a staff reporter in the Press Briefing Room, (Bush reportedly went ballistic, told his secretary, there ought to be limits to freedom of speech, along with a string of nasty things.)
The Donald cannot abide anything he cannot control, or anyone who does not think he's the greatest thing since Jesus Christ. He cannot control The New York Times, the Washington Post, or the BBC, for example, so he has to belittle them as "the fake media," even when their "fake news" contributed to his firing of Flynn (as was reported this evening on BBC America). Same goes with people. If he can't control them, or they won't kiss his ... whatever ..., he has to belittle them.
Maybe so. Who can say for sure what Trump knows or what really drives him? He's probably a lot more complicated a man than we like to think that he is. Or that we like to think we ourselves are.
I read somewhere that The New York Times and other newspapers have been failing for a while now, shuttering offices and laying off staff.
I do recall that The NY Times got into bed with Bush to promote from his fake "war on terror," the unwarranted invasions of Muslim nations, and yet again to keep stories about his illegal NSA spying on Americans , hidden for over a year. And that's not all.
The BBC often renders fake news, I'm recalling their biggest piece of fakery -- they announced that New York City's World Trade Centre Building 7 had collapsed into a heap of dust and rubble around 20 minutes before the event occurred.
I still don't understand why that General Flynn guy resigned over a blast of hot air.
T.T.