Foxy,

I do read the US media...just not the same media as you. Or should I say I read the same media as you and then I read the other side and then I form an opinion.

Reading only that media which is hopelessly anti-Trump from the outset and then assuming that they'll tell you the unbiased truth is not only bonkers but will lead you to continually wonder why things don't turn out the way you thought they would. That's part of the reason people were and are so shocked at the Trump presidency - they were assured that Hillary was a certainty and even now, 18 months later they can't understand why that turned out to be wrong. Whereas those of us who read more widely knew that Trump was in with a very good chance of winning and consequently we spent a lot more time understanding his policies and aims. The anti-Trumps are still throwing their tantrums and haven't bothered to try to understand his positions.

If you're interested try these as a start to understanding what's really going on:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

http://dailycaller.com/

http://www.dailywire.com/

http://donsurber.blogspot.com.au/

http://blog.dilbert.com/?utm_source=dilbert.com&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=brand-engagement&utm_content=navigation

I might point out that the last two predicted a Trump win a long way before the poll and therefore, in my view have added credence.

Reading media which got the election hopelessly wrong and assuming they are now correct seems like a fool's errand.

Dear Hasbeen,

What a bunch of waffle.

You were asked directly by Belly to address the notion that Trump may well be a traitor, putting his own interests well above those of his country.

You did not address this in your post at all. All you did was to do a little dummy spit on irrelevant issues.

Is your nose really that brown that you can't answer a simple question?

Perhaps it is.

Perhaps it really is.

mhaze,

I actually don't go by newspaper titles when searching.
I put in the subject (issue) instead - and see what comes up.
That way I've found that I get a less biased coverage
from just one point of view. I am familiar with PJ Media,
Daily Caller, and Daily Wire. But thank you for taking the
time to give me those links.

//Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions//

Eh, what? I thought the Cold War was over. Surely nobody needs more nukes than is required to entirely reduce the other side's country to molten glass?

America has 4,000.

Russia has 4,300.

We've all seen what one nuke can do... what possible need could anybody have for 4,000? That's not just more than sufficient to f*&k the other guys several times over, it's more than sufficient to f^%k every last man on Earth.

There's no deep strategic thinking in possessing nuclear arsenals that are way in surplus of any conceivable requirement; it's just a big dick contest.

How naive do you have to be not to see that Trump is a deeply flawed and dishonest individual propped up by extremists and an army of appointed yes-men?

Coddling despots and alienating allies is not how diplomacy works and starting Trade Wars is not a clever long-term strategy.

He's too stupid to be a traitor but is definitely a fool.

His stunts may play well in the reich-wing media but when the results start to bite his support base they will desert him in droves.

All it will take is for the EU to stop using petrodollars in lieu of Euros and the USA will only last 3 weeks.

Why does Trump go against his own intelligence agencies?

Because Brennan, Clapper and Comey can't be trusted.