It seems that the news sites that are usually favorable to Trump now have TDS.

Fox News has a new story today too.

As does the Washington Examiner had one on Saturday.

Either that or that they are taunting him into building a wall.

I have seen newspaper reports stating that 60 miles or so of new fencing/barriers have been constructed so I guess some news says no new fencing while others are saying (and providing photographs) that new fencing/barriers have been constructed.

The news industry is self destructing itself these days in my opinion. They contradict themselves, make statements that are easily and clearly false and try to make themselves out as some kind of avenging saints defending truth.

In my case, I saw a post about how Trump won the Ellis Island Award in the past, long before he ran for office. The AP put a "truth review" under the post stating that the meme was false, which I decided to check out myself.
https://www.apnews.com/afs:Content:6348420521

The purpose of the Ellis Island Award is "The Medal recognizes individuals who have made it their mission to share with those less fortunate,..." and is not an award for ones work as a developer as stated by the AP News. Looking at the actual Ellis Island website, lo and behold, in 1986 Trump, per the Ellis Island website, was an awardee for that award as a "co-winner" with Rosa Parks. I guess Rosa does some real estate developing herself if the AP is to be believed.

So what should a thinking person believe; a news service or the actual organization website (and newspapers of the time), which have photographs of the ceremony with Trump and Rosa Parks sitting next to each other?

Whether or not one is a Trump fan or hater, the news services are not doing themselves any favors by trumpeting information that is plainly false or at least the subject of biased spinning of the truth.

Sounds like you didn't read the article so I will help you out.

"In a statement last week, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency overseeing border barrier construction, confirmed that all the fencing completed since Trump took office is "in place of dilapidated designs" because the existing fence was in need of replacement."

And think about it, would YOU put up new fencing in an un-fenced area if the current fencing (in the most high traffic areas), was in poor condition?

I have seen newspaper reports stating that 60 miles or so of new fencing/barriers have been constructed so I guess some news says no new fencing while others are saying (and providing photographs) that new fencing/barriers have been constructed.

The news industry is self destructing itself these days in my opinion. They contradict themselves, make statements that are easily and clearly false and try to make themselves out as some kind of avenging saints defending truth.

In my case, I saw a post about how Trump won the Ellis Island Award in the past, long before he ran for office. The AP put a "truth review" under the post stating that the meme was false, which I decided to check out myself.
https://www.apnews.com/afs:Content:6348420521

The purpose of the Ellis Island Award is "The Medal recognizes individuals who have made it their mission to share with those less fortunate,..." and is not an award for ones work as a developer as stated by the AP News. Looking at the actual Ellis Island website, lo and behold, in 1986 Trump, per the Ellis Island website, was an awardee for that award as a "co-winner" with Rosa Parks. I guess Rosa does some real estate developing herself if the AP is to be believed.

So what should a thinking person believe; a news service or the actual organization website (and newspapers of the time), which have photographs of the ceremony with Trump and Rosa Parks sitting next to each other?

Whether or not one is a Trump fan or hater, the news services are not doing themselves any favors by trumpeting information that is plainly false or at least the subject of biased spinning of the truth.

fencing isnt a wall.

Replacing old fencing, isnt adding to the existing fencing.

If trump's original message was that we are going to replace the current sections of fencing with walls, I think you could get most people to get behind that. This was NOT trump's message.

If trump's original message was that some areas of fencing are in really bad condition, and we need them replaced, I think even more people would be behind that.


This is exactly what trump wants to do.

fencing isnt a wall.

Replacing old fencing, isnt adding to the existing fencing.

If trump's original message was that we are going to replace the current sections of fencing with walls, I think you could get most people to get behind that. This was NOT trump's message.

If trump's original message was that some areas of fencing are in really bad condition, and we need them replaced, I think even more people would be behind that.


This is exactly what trump wants to do.

Replacing old fencing is by definition new fencing. The only way it could NOT be new fencing would be if the old fencing was merely repaired. And think about it, would YOU put up new fencing in an un-fenced area if the current fencing (in the most high traffic areas), was in poor condition?

My post was more about my distrust of media than it was about the wall. The contradictions between one source and another does not help, plus the position that replacing old fencing is not new fencing is more about spin than it is about what actually occurred.

fencing isnt a wall.

Replacing old fencing, isnt adding to the existing fencing.

If trump's original message was that we are going to replace the current sections of fencing with walls, I think you could get most people to get behind that. This was NOT trump's message.

If trump's original message was that some areas of fencing are in really bad condition, and we need them replaced, I think even more people would be behind that.


This is exactly what trump wants to do.

Why does any of this matter? Mexico is paying for it. Just enjoy your new wall/fencing.

Who cares? I'm not concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct.

Not giving a shit about anything being correct is the best.

Replacing old fencing is by definition new fencing. The only way it could NOT be new fencing would be if the old fencing was merely repaired. And think about it, would YOU put up new fencing in an un-fenced area if the current fencing (in the most high traffic areas), was in poor condition?

My post was more about my distrust of media than it was about the wall. The contradictions between one source and another does not help, plus the position that replacing old fencing is not new fencing is more about spin than it is about what actually occurred.

Replacing old fencing is by definition new fencing. The only way it could NOT be new fencing would be if the old fencing was merely repaired. And think about it, would YOU put up new fencing in an un-fenced area if the current fencing (in the most high traffic areas), was in poor condition?

My post was more about my distrust of media than it was about the wall. The contradictions between one source and another does not help, plus the position that replacing old fencing is not new fencing is more about spin than it is about what actually occurred.

If there is ever an Olympic mental gymnastics competition, you will far and away be the gold medal winner if the twisting of events here is any indication of your abilities to stick to a chosen narrative despite contextual fact.

Replacing old fencing is by definition new fencing. The only way it could NOT be new fencing would be if the old fencing was merely repaired. And think about it, would YOU put up new fencing in an un-fenced area if the current fencing (in the most high traffic areas), was in poor condition?

My post was more about my distrust of media than it was about the wall. The contradictions between one source and another does not help, plus the position that replacing old fencing is not new fencing is more about spin than it is about what actually occurred.

I see you've been advising the president on how to spin this:

"When an old Wall at the Southern Border, that is crumbling and falling over, built in an important section to keep out problems, is replaced with a brand new 30 foot high steel and concrete Wall, the Media says no new Wall has been built. Fake News! Building lots of Wall!"

- DJT 23 July

Building replacing lots of wall fence that Mexico taxpayers are paying for!

...Except the AP story is correct and you are wrong. The Ellis Island award was not for "The Medal recognizes individuals who have made it their mission to share with those less fortunate,..." as you stated, but for people that "have distinguished themselves in field, profession, or occupation." Here is an article from 1986:
...........

X Infinity.


Thank you for thoroughly and completely shredding vecchia capra's spin on this, with sources. VC probably won't address this. Instead, I suspect that he will slink away from his wildly inaccurate account of this award. When he says:

"The news industry is self destructing itself these days in my opinion. They contradict themselves, make statements that are easily and clearly false and try to make themselves out as some kind of avenging saints defending truth. "

He clearly should have been looking right in the mirror, and substituted "partisans" for "the news industry". Sadly, most folks just bide their time and trot it out the exact same talking point in a future discussion, to a crowd much less capable of refuting it.