What do you think of Trump's Presidency so far?

that doesn't make his leaking the information any less wrong

 

why do you trust trump more than the media? (legit question, because I literally don't understand why)

 

trump was the one that propagated the "MSM=bad" idea during the campaign. you can't say you're not listening to the MSM and then say you don't listen to trump, because if you're not listening to the "MSM", you're taking what trump said at surface level without any thought (most likely unintentionally though).
the institutions trump labels as "MSM" are also typically the ones that unearth horrible things about him, and many of them are also historically really, really reliable. The New York Times have won 122 pulitzer prizes and citations (source), and The Washington Post has won 46 pulitzers (source). The Associated Press, which is incredibly unbiased historically, got labeled as "MSM" or "fake news" by trump. TIME, which came to prominence after their graphic, on-the-ground, unbiased reporting of WW2 (and gained further circulation after more war-time reporting), got labelled as fake after they had 8 of their first 10 covers portraying trump or someone close to him in negative light (here they all are since the beginning of this year, if you want to see them). Politico, which exists to literally give all sides to a political issue, got labelled as fake once they started slamming trump. for the past 18 months, it's felt as though trump and his cronies have put up a heavy assault against hallowed american news organizations (and some international ones, like Reuters). that's why I felt fear last night when I read that trump (supposedly) proposed to comey that the FBI start arresting reporters who publish government leaks (source), because it seemed like the embodiment of what's been happening the past year-and-a-half. finally what many have been fearing for a while, the Freedom of the Press no longer being a thing under trump, was finally coming to be. hopefully you can understand why many fear that.
as for the organizations that trump seems to trust or has not yet labelled as fake news, they suck. Breitbart is basically an alt-right conspiracy website that was (and probably still is, I haven't looked into it since bannon left) run by a white supremacist. InfoWars is the same situation as Breitbart, except they have a radio/talk show with Alex Jones (who recently had the custody of his children taken from him because of the beliefs he expressed on that show). Fox News is probably the most reliable news source that trump has said he trusted, but they've been plagued by claims of sexual assault and rapes by ex-employees (see: Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes). these toxic organizations have helped spread the actual fake news for the past few years (PizzaGate is not a thing, and Benghazi was blown waaaayyyyy out of proportion). the fact that these organizations are taken seriously by anyone, let alone the president, is horrifying. we can't as a country let these sources become mainstream, otherwise we will lead both ourselves and others back into the past.
as for the big man himself, he's a serial liar. the man lied his way out of the military, through college, through his business career, through the campaign, and now he lies as president. he scammed people by lying about how good Trump University was. he lied about the crowd size at his inauguration. he lied about how tall the buildings he built in New York were. he lied about how he "never settles [lawsuits]". he lied about how much he would get done in the first 100 days of his presidency. he lied when he said that if he was president, he would be so committed to the american people that he would never golf (ha!). according to Politifact, which rates politicians' claims based on a level of truth-ness, trump has told some form of the truth only 32% of the time (out of the 406 statements rated), and only told the full truth 5% of the time (also of the 406 statements recorded) (source). to put that in perspective, Barack Obama told some form of the truth 75% of the time (of 597 statements rated), and told the full truth 21% of the time (also of the 597 statements recorded) (source). fellow republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has told some form of the truth 58% of the time (out of 74 statements rated), and told the full truth 14% of the time (also out of 74 statements rated). trump's truth statistics are pretty abysmal, so why trust him over news organizations?
also this:

last I checked this wasn't false? many women had come forward and said that he had sexually assaulted them, and that bus tape with Billy Bush that came out essentially proved that it happened. there's also the "prostitute pee-party" dossier that came out, though that was unsubstantiated (so far).
octo brought up a nice comparison to Orwell's 1984. Big trump-ther has done a nice job with his brainwashing techniques so far.
as for russia his connections to russia, let me leave you with this quote:
"when there is this much smoke, you begin to believe there is a fire"

 

no, I don't assume the mainstream media is innocent. ideally, all media is unbiased, reliable media. however, in a country as diverse and large as the US, it's simply not possible. click-baiting, yellow journalism, etc. is slowly becoming more apparent as time goes on
the sources I listed were the ones that have been more active in the pursuit of the trump - russia ties. as of yet, tv news has really only relayed what print, online, and primary sources have found. by calling tv news "fake", you're really calling what their reporting "fake", and their reporting primarily comes from those same print, online, and primary sources.
as for donna brazile, that doesn't make CNN "fake", it only shows that the DNC rigged the democratic nomination for hillary.

if you're saying that the NYT doesn't bring in outsiders' perspective as much as they should, and that makes them fake? if you are, then let me say this. if a news organization in rural nebraska that only brings in local wheat and corn farmers' perspectives released the same exact bombshell story, would that make the newspaper (and the story) fake?
if you're saying that the public editor of the NYT criticising it makes it fake, I would argue the opposite. it shows that the news organization has the integrity to rate its own appeal and outlook on the news. also, who would ever expect a newspaper founded in NYC to have a slight liberal and city bias?

lol doing anything as president effects people across the country. lying as president jeopardizes people across the country.
as for the pussy grabbing statement, it came when he A) didn't know he was being recorded and B) happened with only 2 people on the bus. he had absolutely no reason to lie about that. if he did lie about it, it shows his incompetency and ludeness, two qualities a president should not have. if he wasn't lying, then he's a sexual predator. then there's the women who accused him of sexual harassment.

both houses of congress are a republican majority and the supreme court is now 5-4 leaning right. he should have no trouble getting anything signed if he knew what he was doing.
obama didn't deliver on all of his campaign promises, but neither did any other president. trump is different however, in that you can describe the early days of his presidency like this: gorsuch & scandals x1000
and no I don't trust the man. however, there is a ton of other incriminating evidence coming out that I do trust. again, "when there is this much smoke, you begin to believe there is a fire"

lol

alright first off that's an opinion article.
I read the article and then looked up the referenced clauses. the only two news articles that came up were a right-wing conspiracy site and that article. the only other things relevant time-wise that came up were two forums, and those aren't really reliable so it might not be a big deal (yet)?
despite this, I looked up some info on the clauses, and I think I found some legal jargon related to it:
"Federal Crime Reporting Statute
The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge’s mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.
Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime." (sic.)
"Another Federal Statute for Forcing A
Federal Officer To Perform a Mandatory Duty
Another federal statute exists for reporting high-level corruption in government:
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
This federal statute permits any citizen to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts. This statute is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361." (sic.)
(from Jim Craven's Blog)
though the blog appears to be another one that's laden with conspiracy theories, I think the legal jargon is legit. excuse its conspiracies for a bit.
courtesy of the blog, it states that the first of the two mentioned clauses says that the government can charge someone for not reporting a crime that they know about. the second clause mentioned states that a federal officer must do what s/he is told to do whilst abiding the law. in the case of comey and trump, it means that he could (keyword could, because again, I'm not sure if either of these would apply in this situation) be arrested for knowing that the donald committed a crime. this leaves us with 3 likely scenarios:
1) comey knew/thought that trump committed a crime and didn't report it. result: DJT and comey both arrested
2) comey didn't know/didn't think that the donald committed a crime and didn't report it result: comey not arrested, DJT arrested for committing a crime
3) comey knew/thought that trump didn't commit a crime. result: neither are arrested or effected under this clause
you'll notice that your point doesn't un-incriminate trump.
comey would wait until he was fired before releasing because, from what I've seen and heard so far, he thought that doing so would effect the investigation. he got it on memo though because he thought it was sketchy.I don't know, it was probably a hard situation to be put in as the acting FBI director.

 

the idea that news that insults trump=bad came from trump. what I'm saying is that if you use terms like "MSM", "fake news", "fake", n that context, you were influenced by trump.
I totally get ignoring a news source because they diss someone you like. however, that shouldn't make you discount anything they ever say after that as "fake". it gets dangerous when a bunch of people do the same, because when they report something true that may effect some of the people ignoring it, then someone is going to get screwed just because they refused to inform themselves with something they deemed "fake".
as for pewdiepie, that comes back to the click-bait thing I mentioned in my response to alex. I mean, if you're running a company and you see the most popular youtube channel had recenty posted something that involved joking about nazis, wouldn't you think about running an article about it? if said article generated enough revenue, would you care about how people reacted? but again, that doesn't make The Washington Post "fake news".
as for current reliability, newspapers that have been deemed "fake news" by trump won (at least, I haven't kept track of who else he's called "fake") 10 pulitzers this year. can you clarify what you mean by "insiders" by the way? idk what you mean

do you have any evidence that it's a conspiracy to undermine trump instead of it being reporting on trump being an absolute moron?

"STUDY: UNVACCINATED YOUTH HAVE MUCH LOWER RATES OF CHRONIC ILLNESS"
"CNN’S BASH ADMITS COMEY MEMO IS 'DEEP STATE' REVENGE AGAINST DRUMPF"
"CNN HOST HAS MELTDOWN ON-AIR: ‘YOU CANNOT ATTACK THE STELLAR REPORTERS OF CNN!’"
so those are some InfoWars headlines. I can tell you for a fact that that anti-vaccination campaign is complete and utter BS. Deep state is a conspiracy theory about how Obama is somehow obstructing trump (?). and then the slander on CNN. those were only some of them though. none of them are factual. some of them I think are based in reality, but put a very weird spin on the facts that makes someone they don't agree with look stupid. Fox News isn't like InfoWars in that it's not a conspiracy site, but it's heavily biased and pretty wrong about a lot of things as well. their biased in what they report and don't report. it took them hours to report about the stuff from the meeting with the russian foreign ambassador, but only minutes to cover the Seth Rich stuff (which, by the way, is also not rooted in reality). for example, the thing about a colorado town being overrun by homeless pot smokers currently on their homepage is almost as prominent as the stuff about trump. it's a subtle difference, but it makes a difference to people who look at stuff like that all day long.
here's some roger ailes stuff: (NYT) (NBC) (CNN) (CBS)

my bad about the through college. I meant about his college reputation. he frequently claims that he graduated top of his class from the Wharton School of Business and the University of Pennsylvania, but there's no evidence of that (source). that's what I meant about trump university. his administration lied about crowd size (you can look at the first press conference given by sean spicer for this one). here's some stuff about the building height (original source was a documentary video but I couldn't find it).
he hasn't done anything for the american people yet except nominate gorsuch to the supreme court, and that screws over women who want an abortion.
fine, those links above are all about his lies. and for good measure, here's some stuff from the Wall Street Journal, which is a right-leaning publication.

calling women that claim to have been raped "attention seekers" is victim blaming. they would come forward after the tape was released because they probably finally felt like it was time to admit it. it's hard to go public with a sexual assault claim, because people often scrutinize the victim way more than they should.
as for the Brzezinski quote, it was taken out of context (much like many quotes like that one are). she was saying that the media are the ones who provide information to the people, and then she said trump was giving information straight to the people without the media reporting on it and cleaning it up first, and that gave trump the sole power of giving out information to the people. she meant it like that it was the media's job to give the people the information they need to make their own judgments.
comey has shown there is enough smoke to find a fire by continuing the russia and flynn investigations.
globalism is needed in today's world. it's not evil. sorry.

I could say the same exact thing to you, but your sources are the ones that seem to be lacking in the "based-in-reality" department

he's lied about how repealing obamacare would be beneficial to the country. he's lied about how effective the wall will be. both of those have wide-reaching effects that span hundreds of millions of people. and that's only some.

trump has spent about 1/4 of his presidency on vacation, and he hasn't been president for any major holidays yet. the dude goes to mar-a-lago really often. if he knew what he was doing, he would know how to get a piece of legislation across a republican congress.

I mean sure, but look at watergate

from what I understand he made the memo at the time but didn't tell anyone about it because he was afraid it would make his investigation look biased. it would make sense that he only releases the memo now that he no longer heads that investigation though.