Philosch:
First of all I assume you are including the list of media to support my case, as he didn't include the AP, BBC, Reuters and Fox as well as others, so you are using the term "Mainstream" because it suits your agenda, period.
Your argument amounts to saying that since the tweet did not include an exhaustive list of the mainstream media that is not what Trump meant. Mainstream media is not a precise term. An attack on mainstream media does not mean an attack on every outlet that might or might not be included on someone’s list.
It has nothing to do with my “agenda.
From Fox News:
foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/19/trump-c ... ebook.html
The story includes the following:
Fed up with the mainstream media, Donald Trump’s campaign launched its own political talk show in a pre-debate Facebook Live event …
The event was billed as an alternative to “biased, mainstream media reporting (otherwise known as Crooked Hillary’s super PAC)”
You can debate whether it is an attack on the mainstream media or on “fake news” but this should not be used to hide the fact that he has called the majority of mainstream sources fake news and has embraced InfoWars as an alternative to fake news.
Since you like citations read this article and then tell me there's no democrat media bias…
Using your logic above there can be no democratic media bias because not ALL media is democratic. The assumption here is that because a journalist is a democrat what he or she reports must be biased, that it is not possible to be objective or honest. It is an assumption that makes truth and objectivity a victim of the pernicious view that everything is a matter of bias and agenda. This is the same kind of argument used against global warming - since the majority of scientists are liberal their scientific findings must be biased. Even assuming that we cannot keep our biases out there is a difference between a biased slant and fake news.
What the IC reported to Trump was that the allegations were made and that the IC community had determined they were fabricated nonsense …
What evidence do you have that the IC had determined that the stories are fabricated nonsense? If they had determined this then why report it to the president?
As far s looking up cases for you I don't have the time or inclination to bother so your assumption is just that, another assumption without weight or justification.
You are the one making the assertion, the onus is on you to back it up. The Constitution is quite clear, it is not an assumption on my part. The fact of the matter is that what you are talking about has nothing to do with the first amendment. Once again, the amendment is about prohibiting Congress from abridging the freedom of speech. Whether any individual, or group, or organization in a private capacity can interfere with the right of free speech by another is not addressed in the amendment and cannot be either supported or rejected by reference to it.
Listen to Shepard Smith on Fox, he can't get through a single story without letting his contempt for Trump show through.
It is not simply a matter of personal dislike. The concern is that he is incompetent to hold office and concern with what he will do and the harm it will cause. If there is good reason to hold these concerns then there is good reason to voice them. There is ample reason to hold them and the reports show why.
-- Updated March 6th, 2017, 10:32 am to add the following --
On the subject of crying wolf: Trump’s tweeted accusation that Obama wiretapped him.
This is wrong on so many levels and further evidence that the man is not fit to hold office.