Trump Addresses The Nation

The unattributed information appears to have come from these sites...more specifically akdart.com a site apparently owned by Andrew K. Dart. There are some hotlinks there. He's done a great deal of work. He seems driven.


'Introduction by The Editor:
The people known as the "political left" in U.S. politics are those whose primary goal is the strengthening and expansion of (and reliance upon) the federal government, especially if that expansion increases their own power and leverage. This pursuit of power is more important to them than a strict adherence to the truth. Therefore, to win arguments and attract followers, they lie. They lie about unemployment numbers and job creation. They lied about Obamacare to get it into law. They lie about taxes and spending. They lie about energy production. They lied about the Benghazi fiasco. They lie about immigration. They lie about Islamic terrorism. They lie about whatever they have to in order to maintain power.

Donald Trump came along and defeated their candidate in the 2016 election. Now the political left, with 24-hour assistance from the "mainstream" news media, lie about the President constantly, hoping to convince you that he's ruining America. Here are some examples:

This site is titled: Lies about President Trump



And this also makes somewhat of a match:

Race Pre 2020 – ConservativeAmmo.com

conservativeammo.com conservativeammo.com




Overall, a google word search using the opening of the ZZLP Post comes up with the following:
 
Last edited:
Mulberry Heel said:
Yeah, it's simply not even close to being balanced, and hasn't been for awhile. It's one of the reasons why we are where we are. To cite just one example, is there any doubt whatsoever that if Obama or Biden had placed those ridiculous plaques describing the presidents and Biden had placed one slamming Trump or Obama had placed one slamming Dubya and using the same language that right-wing media and right-wingers would have lost their minds? But Trump does it and most of our news media - even the so-called "liberal" media - just shrugs and doesn't give a damn. It's not even or balanced at all, no matter what bosiders keep trying to argue.
Click to expand...
And you can say this about so many things.
Can you imagine if Obama had completely torn down the entire east wing of the White House? A GOP house would’ve impeached him immediately and heads would’ve exploded on Fox News.

What Trump gets away with, just in terms of lying and insulting people is astounding. The majority of the media just yawns…
 
Callatoroy said:
If there is an internal threat to the country, I believe it to be the media that has greatly aided in the political division and hostility we now suffer. There are others of course. Widening wealth gap, The influence and money provided to politicians via the billionaire class, etc. But none of that is as powerful and difficult to reign in as the media (including the digital media)
Click to expand...
The media—on its worst day—is no match for the political divisiveness and hostility being shoved down our throats by one Donald Trump on a daily basis. Wouldn’t you agree?
 
Callatoroy said:
If you want to discuss a particular policy then you pick it. Your question is to broad in that nuance has to be recognized and acknowledged.
Click to expand...
Au contrair, you have acknowledged on this thread that you find Trump to be a loathsome human being (my words, not yours), but you voted for him because of his perceived policies. I am asking you which of those policies you feel has helped our country the most.

Since you don't want to volunteer that information, I will give you a few options that conservatives tend to focus on:

Are you happy with his immigration policy? More specifically, do you agree that people should be shipped to foreign concentration camps without a trial?

Foreign policy. From the tariffs, do bombing boats, to hijacking oil tankers, to giving Argentina 40 billion, have you been happy with any foreign policy this administration has engaged in?

Economy. Is there any positive policy here that you have liked so far?

If I am missing any other reason you voted for him, please feel free to explain. I realize that this post is antagonistic, and it is truly not aimed at you. I just struggle to wrap my head around how people can rightfully acknowledge what a horrible human being Trump is yet claim that his policies help our country. I just dont see it and I am genuinely curious if I am missing something.
 
Callatoroy said:
Nicolle Wallace
  • Apology for Inaccurate Statement: In August 2019, Wallace issued an apology for mistakenly stating on her show that President Donald Trump was "talking about exterminating Latinos." She corrected her statement, clarifying it was an unintentional error, but maintained that Trump's language regarding immigration was intentional and constant.
  • Russiagate Coverage: Media critics have accused Wallace of consistently pushing the "Russia collusion" narrative and dismissing the Durham Report because her career was seen as "built upon" that story line. She also advised viewers not to trust the Hunter Biden laptop story, calling it a "Russian disinformation operation".
  • Defamation Lawsuit: Wallace's program is one of several MSNBC shows named in a high-profile $30 million defamation lawsuit. The suit alleges that the programs made "verifiably false" statements that a Georgia doctor performed unnecessary hysterectomies at an ICE center.
Chris Hayes
"Uterus Collector" Defamation Settlement (2025)
  • Case Details: In February 2025, MSNBC settled a $30 million defamation lawsuit brought by Dr. Mahendra Amin, a Georgia gynecologist.
  • The Misleading Claims: Hayes' program, All In, was specifically named for its 2020 coverage of a "whistleblower" letter that labeled the doctor a "uterus collector". The reports alleged he performed mass, unnecessary hysterectomies on women at an ICE detention center.
  • The Inaccuracy: A federal judge noted that while NBC investigated the claims and found they were not corroborated—and even undermined by their own findings—Hayes and others "republished the letter's accusations anyway".

Failure to Credit Source (2024)
  • Incident: In October 2024, Hayes featured a report on social media ads microtargeted at specific voting blocs in swing states.
  • The Misleading Presentation: On air, Hayes presented video and research that he and his team did not produce themselves, failing to credit the original source, 404 Media.
  • Acknowledgment: After being called out by journalist Jason Koebler, Hayes issued a public apology, admitting it was a "mistake" and a "100% my bad" situation for not disclosing where the material originated.

False Claims About Soldier "Heroism" (2012)
  • Statement: During a segment on Memorial Day weekend, Hayes stated he felt "uncomfortable" using the word "hero" to describe fallen soldiers, suggesting the term was "pro-war" rhetoric.
  • Impact: This was widely viewed as a misrepresentation of the service and intent of volunteer military members. Hayes later apologized, acknowledging that his attempt to have a "nuanced" discussion had failed and offended many.

General Criticism and Accuracy Ratings
  • Reliability Scores: External media analysts have sometimes flagged Hayes for favoring analysis and opinion over original fact-reporting. On some reliability scales, All In with Chris Hayes has received scores indicating a high variation in reliability due to its heavy emphasis on opinion and "interpretation" rather than strictly objective news.
  • Fact-Checking: PolitiFact has previously rated some of Hayes' on-air claims (such as those regarding federal tax percentages or economic data) as only "Half True," noting that while his general points may have a basis in fact, they often omit critical context that changes the overall truthfulness of the statement.

My point in posting that isn't intended to say you are wrong. It's to highlight that the misrepresentation, political bias, misleading, omitting facts for context, etc. is rampant and across all media. They all do it. They want you to be angry and manipulate your opinion.
Click to expand...
So to sum your deep dive into Nicole Wallace and Chris Hayes :

In 2012 Hayes apologized for saying he was uncomfortable using the word "hero" and acknowledged his attempt to have a nuanced discussion offended many

In 2019 Wallace apologized corrected, and clarified her statement that Trump was talking about exterminating Latinos

In 2020 a lawsuit was settled for reporting a whistleblower's letter accusing a doctor of unethical practice

In 2024 Hayes apologized for failing to credit the source for his reporting

General reliability : reliability in question because his political opinion show favors analysis and opinions over just reporting "objective" news

So over the past 13 years you found four cases in which each made an on air apology which, having watched the shows, I found to be gracious )

So you got me !:eek:

Now cover the last 13 years of FOX🙏
 
Last edited:
heelinhell said:
So to sum your deep dive into Nicole Wallace and Chris Hayes :

In 2012 Hayes apologized for saying he was uncomfortable using the word "hero" and acknowledged his attempt to have a nuanced discussion offended many

In 2019 Wallace apologized corrected, and clarified her statement that Trump was talking about exterminating Latinos

In 2020 a lawsuit was settled for reporting a whistleblower's letter accusing a doctor of unethical practice

In 2024 Hayes apologized for failing to credit the source for his reporting

General reliability : reliability in question because his political opinion show favors analysis and opinions over just reporting "objective" news

So over the past 13 years you found four cases in which each made an on air apology which, having watched shows, I found to be gracious )

So you got me !:eek:

Now cover the last 13 years of FOX🙏
Click to expand...
You overlook the biggest difference. Some of Wallace and Hayes viewers might care. Fox viewers would laugh at clowning the liberals. "They're eating the dogs and cats".
 
finesse said:
You overlook the biggest difference. Some of Wallace and Hayes viewers might care. Fox viewers would laugh at clowning the liberals. "They're eating the dogs and cats".
Click to expand...
As a Wallace and Hayes viewer I do care, and perhaps they have made more egregious transgressions than the few Calla found.

In the 2019 Wallace case where she said Trump is talking about exterminating Latinos, I watched that show. The reports coming out that day were that Trump had asked if migrants could be shot in their legs, that he wanted an electrified fence with spikes and alligator moats.

So there is context in which Wallace offered her opinion about Trump's intention to harm and possibly kill migrants attempting to cross the southern border.

That said, I can see that her immediate reaction was inflammatory and she apologized for her reaction to the reports and offered what I consider a gracious apology.
 
Last edited:
heelinhell said:
So to sum your deep dive into Nicole Wallace and Chris Hayes :

In 2012 Hayes apologized for saying he was uncomfortable using the word "hero" and acknowledged his attempt to have a nuanced discussion offended many

In 2019 Wallace apologized corrected, and clarified her statement that Trump was talking about exterminating Latinos

In 2020 a lawsuit was settled for reporting a whistleblower's letter accusing a doctor of unethical practice

In 2024 Hayes apologized for failing to credit the source for his reporting

General reliability : reliability in question because his political opinion show favors analysis and opinions over just reporting "objective" news

So over the past 13 years you found four cases in which each made an on air apology which, having watched shows, I found to be gracious )

So you got me !:eek:

Now cover the last 13 years of FOX🙏
Click to expand...
I think you could limit it to the last 13 hrs and find yourself swamped with examples and I am intentionally avoiding hyperbole. There are times when 13 minutes would be sufficient.
 
finesse said:
You overlook the biggest difference. Some of Wallace and Hayes viewers might care. Fox viewers would laugh at clowning the liberals. "They're eating the dogs and cats".
Click to expand...

Here's the account from @Callatoroy's Lies about President Trump List:
Nicolle Wallace Apologizes for Saying Trump Is 'Talking About Exterminating Latinos'. On Tuesday night [8/6/2019], failed McCain/Palin campaign official, former Republican, and MSNBC's Deadline: White House host Nicolle Wallace apologized for claiming during Monday's show that President Donald Trump has been "talking about exterminating Latinos."

MSNBC host apologizes after guest said 'natural conclusion' of Trump's rhetoric could lead to an 'extermination' of Latinos. "MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace issued an apology Tuesday evening over remarks made during a panel discussion stemming from a guest's suggestion that President Trump has been "talking about exterminating Latinos." On Monday [8/5/2019], Wallace led a conversation where USA Today opinion columnist Raul Reyes slammed Trump's remarks condemning white supremacy since he had "basically declared open season on Latinos" during his entire presidency.
 
heelinhell said:
So to sum your deep dive into Nicole Wallace and Chris Hayes :

In 2012 Hayes apologized for saying he was uncomfortable using the word "hero" and acknowledged his attempt to have a nuanced discussion offended many

In 2019 Wallace apologized corrected, and clarified her statement that Trump was talking about exterminating Latinos

In 2020 a lawsuit was settled for reporting a whistleblower's letter accusing a doctor of unethical practice

In 2024 Hayes apologized for failing to credit the source for his reporting

General reliability : reliability in question because his political opinion show favors analysis and opinions over just reporting "objective" news

So over the past 13 years you found four cases in which each made an on air apology which, having watched the shows, I found to be gracious )

So you got me !:eek:

Now cover the last 13 years of FOX🙏
Click to expand...
You are getting side tracked into a single issue of individual journalists or network vs another. Ask yourself why you felt compelled to make the comment about Fox because I have offered no defense of fox and have characterized it as no better. It seemingly was a reflexive and defensive comment rooted in a "team" mentality. My comments are intended to talk about news media as a whole. I even stated that. I have no desire to debate those two vs any other individuals. Do you not think it messed up that we have news sources that cater to the left and right? Shouldn't news be fact based and politically neutral? If it does cater one way or another, don't you think that news presentation is manipulated to appeal to one side or the other? How do they manipulate it, and thus the population? Do you not believe that plays a huge part in creating division? The media has not only been able to create a "team" environment of democrat vs. republican, but has also has us arguing in a "team" manner about the sources of news. That is extremely harmful to the country, but very profitable for the media. Also, please don't take any of that personally as I'm not trying to criticize you in any way. I was the biggest "team" homer of them all and it would be very hypocritical of me to not acknowledge how I played in that arena.
 
The reality is that we have never had fact based, politically neutral news and there's no reason to think we could readily achieve it. What we did have and lack is that there were almost always no outright lies and those got challenged immediately by not only the opposition but the media on both sides. Now, there are no standards concerning who or what can serve as an arbiter of basic facts. What's worse is the rush to get rid of basically all oversight positions anywhere in anything so that alternate realities can't be challenged. Look at what's happened with labor stats as an example. Do you have faith in them?

Don't know about you, but I'm 73 and still too damned juvenile for "Because I said so" to go down very well , especially from a bunch of venal politicians.
 
Last edited:
Callatoroy said:
You are getting side tracked into a single issue of individual journalists or network vs another. Ask yourself why you felt compelled to make the comment about Fox because I have offered no defense of fox and have characterized it as no better. It seemingly was a reflexive and defensive comment rooted in a "team" mentality. My comments are intended to talk about news media as a whole. I even stated that. I have no desire to debate those two vs any other individuals. Do you not think it messed up that we have news sources that cater to the left and right? Shouldn't news be fact based and politically neutral? If it does cater one way or another, don't you think that news presentation is manipulated to appeal to one side or the other? How do they manipulate it, and thus the population? Do you not believe that plays a huge part in creating division? The media has not only been able to create a "team" environment of democrat vs. republican, but has also has us arguing in a "team" manner about the sources of news. That is extremely harmful to the country, but very profitable for the media. Also, please don't take any of that personally as I'm not trying to criticize you in any way. I was the biggest "team" homer of them all and it would be very hypocritical of me to not acknowledge how I played in that arena.
Click to expand...

Was your indictment of MSNBC made before or after @ChileG mentioned FOX?
 
bridgetender said:
Au contrair, you have acknowledged on this thread that you find Trump to be a loathsome human being (my words, not yours), but you voted for him because of his perceived policies. I am asking you which of those policies you feel has helped our country the most.

Since you don't want to volunteer that information, I will give you a few options that conservatives tend to focus on:

Are you happy with his immigration policy? More specifically, do you agree that people should be shipped to foreign concentration camps without a trial?

Foreign policy. From the tariffs, do bombing boats, to hijacking oil tankers, to giving Argentina 40 billion, have you been happy with any foreign policy this administration has engaged in?

Economy. Is there any positive policy here that you have liked so far?

If I am missing any other reason you voted for him, please feel free to explain. I realize that this post is antagonistic, and it is truly not aimed at you. I just struggle to wrap my head around how people can rightfully acknowledge what a horrible human being Trump is yet claim that his policies help our country. I just dont see it and I am genuinely curious if I am missing something.
Click to expand...
OK, your questions provide some nuance. No policy is likely to be a slam dunk with no downside. I would be interested in where you disagree with my views and why.

Immigration: This will give you some idea of my general opinions on immigration. Obviously it is very general and doesn't address all immigration variables.

1. I 100% support closing the border, full stop. I believe to my core that we are not a nation without borders and I believe most of the countries in the world believe that too. Just look how restrictive other country's immigration requirements are compared to the US (in general)

2. I fully support deportation for any and all illegal aliens. Whether that means self deportation or assisted deportation, I'm against any immigration that doesn't follow the laws of the country and doesn't allow for vetting who comes in.

3. Where I fault and disagree with trump and his posse is in the execution of the deportations. I believe (in general) most of them could be done in a humane way and with a degree of compassion. However, I question the media's portrayal of the deportations as I believe there are far more circumstances and context to what is happening than what the media is providing (remember it was reported the border patrol agents were whipping people crossing the river when in fact they weren't). That doesn't mean that I believe there is no abuse taking place hence my comment about being done in a humane way.

4. Every person coming in has to be vetted. We need skilled and unskilled labor. Maybe we do it now, but some type of analysis needs to be done yearly that identifies the quantity and type of migrant labor needed. Employers who violate or try to circumvent OSHA laws or any type of employment laws, or any laws designed to prevent exploitation should face severe penalties.

5. I don't believe non citizens should receive any type of g'ment benefits that require citizenship or green card type status. Citizenship matters.

6. I believe our immigration laws are broken and need to be modernized. The path to citizenship should be made to take less time and should cost significantly less to obtain. I believe very strongly citizenship should be merit based and require some degree of assimilation, including the ability to speak english. I also believe there needs to be stronger penalties in place for people who violate the immigration laws. In other words, strong enough to deter repeat offenders. I have friends with job skills that have been trying to obtain citizenship for 8 yrs and have paid out thousands in legal fees. As such, I'm very much opposed to those who came illegally gaining any type of preference or advantage over them if they are here illegally.

7. I don't believe in trump's manner of changing birthright citizenship. I do think it needs to change but done so according to the law. The SC's ruling on the constitutionality of trump's EO will be interesting.
 
finesse said:
You overlook the biggest difference. Some of Wallace and Hayes viewers might care. Fox viewers would laugh at clowning the liberals. "They're eating the dogs and cats".
Click to expand...
The whole "dogs and cats" thing was a LOT funnier back when Bill Murray did it in the first "Ghostbusters".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top