If President Trump announces that North Korea launched a missile that landed near Hawaii..."

[DetlefK]

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/wall-street-journal-blisters-trump-as-a-fake-president-for-clinging-to-fake-wiretap-story/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-presidents-credibility-1490138920

“If President Trump announces that North Korea launched a missile that landed within 100 miles of Hawaii, would most Americans believe him? Would the rest of the world?” the editorial begins. “We’re not sure, which speaks to the damage that Mr. Trump is doing to his Presidency with his seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods.”



-----------

And THAT is what a damaged Presidency looks like.

Let's say, a married US President has sex with an intern and lies about it. Would you still believe him when he talks about foreign-policy?

Now that Trump has lied about irrelevant details, statistics and historical connections... Now that he is starting to break his core campaign-promises of coal-jobs, better healthcare for everyone, Mexico paying for the wall and imprisoning Hillary Clinton... With nepotism, waste and corruption abound... With doublespeak ("draining the swamp" means "shrinking the government&quot on constant display... With potentially traitorous activity committed by him and/or his allies...

WHAT COULD TRUMP POSSIBLY SAY THAT COULD BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE???

[pinboy3niner]

1. Great example. Q: Is he getting it from U.S. intel agencies...or Breitbart?

Scary question.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. If he's lost the WSJ, he's in trouble.

They'd support Nosferatu if they thought it would get them a tax cut.

[JI7]

3. they did not support Trump for president

[Warren DeMontague]

6. ... really?

Did they (their ed. board) issue a group endorsement of Hillary? Neither? I don't remember.

All I know is, their OP-ed page is generally about as right wing as it gets.

[beam me up scottie]

9. I remember one of the members of their editorial board endorsed Clinton.

But they've been very critical of Trump. I'm guessing they realize he's bad for business (well, except for Twitler's businesses) and that's their singular focus.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I know that no major paper endorsed Trump, flat out, in and of itself pretty hugely unprecedented

but my take since Jan 20 has been that they're sort of salivating over the prospect of this crazy decimation of discretionary spending, sort of how Paul Ryan has been fantasizing about kicking poor people off medicaid since his "kegger days"

[beam me up scottie]

12. It's horrifying isn't it?

The fact that so many of these businesspeople only care about their own greedy agenda, duty to country and fellow man don't simply come second, they don't matter at all.

I think climate change denial is possibly the worst. What do these idiots think their descendants will breathe, drink and eat in the next century? Money?

[Princess Turandot]

11. They haven't formally endorsed a candidate for President since the 1920's per Wikipedia...

They instead publish an editorial opinion on each candidate. (I didn't read them, but FWIW, they were titled respectively The Gamble of Trump and The Cost of Clinton).

[GeoWilliam750]

5. Very interesting indeed

WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, if I am correct

[world wide wally]

4. What would be the basis for believing him about anything?

[pinboy3niner]

7. JFK showed aerial photos of Soviet missiles in Cuba; Trump shows infowars headline

What's wrong with this picture?

[Rhiannon12866]

8. A textbook example of that "calling wolf" story...

I wouldn't believe him if he said 'water is wet..."