Why Trump's undeniable winning streak is drawing a barrage of negative coverage

Donald Trump has just had the best few weeks of his presidency.

No question. No argument. Period, end of paragraph.

It began with a bold gamble to send pilots to destroy Iran's nuclear sites.

Then Trump managed to broker a cease-fire between Israel and Iran.

Meanwhile, as Trump delayed his sky-high tariffs, the stock market hit record highs.

And he won a $16-million settlement from CBS's parent company in his lawsuit against unfair editing by "60 Minutes." That means he has now beaten two of the three broadcast networks, having won the same sum from ABC in a suit involving a crucial mistake by George Stephanopoulos.

And after days of pressure and arm-twisting, he managed to pass the Big Beautiful Bill.

Make no mistake, the bill was always going to pass. What were Republicans going to say, never mind, we just tanked the president's main legislative priority because we didn't like this or that?

They didn't need Democratic votes, under so-called reconciliation. And Trump controls the GOP. So its members fell into line.

Now the question is why, through this successful stretch, has Trump continued to draw such negative coverage?

For starters, many in the media just can’t stand the guy. And this has largely been true since 2015. So anything that helps him must be wrong and must be denigrated.

Even the successful strike on Iran drew only scattered instances of grudging praise, when under any other president there would have been standing ovations.

The press immediately reframed this as a debate over whether the bunker-busting bombs had only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months.

In fairness, that’s what the preliminary, classified Intel report leaked to the press said. And there’s nothing wrong with reporting that accurately, even though the assessment was made with low confidence.

But Trump wants reporters for CNN and the New York Times, which broke the story, fired over this, and with an FBI leak probe under way, says he may force journalists to reveal their confidential sources.

Once the White House could no longer blame anonymous sources, there is nothing wrong with quoting a government report – even if if turns out to be wrong.

The cease-fire between Israel and Iran was fine, but that quickly morphed into chatter about why Trump couldn’t pull off an end to the fighting between Israel and Hamas, a far more difficult task.

Not to mention his freezing of weapons shipments to Ukraine, when despite his "very disappointing" call with Vladimir Putin, who promptly unleashed the biggest drone and missile attack against Kyiv since the illegal invasion of its sovereign neighbor.

Perhaps the president is learning what has been obvious to the rest of us: Putin has no conceivable interest in peace.

Everyone had to report the stock market surge, though not with the enthusiasm of the earlier plunge, and Trump yesterday announced that he’d hit Japan and South Korea, two allies, with a 25 percent hike in tariffs. But they don’t take effect till Aug. 1, so this could just be another negotiating tactic.

There was almost no television coverage of Trump’s $16 million settlement with Paramount, which is nothing more than the news business protecting its own. If this had been any other kind of company – with the backstory that someone like Shari Redstone needed administration approval to sell the company and pocket $2 billion – the press would have gone haywire.

Now there’s a new twist. Fox’s Charlie Gasparino, writing for the New York Post, reported the Paramount settlement includes a side deal between Trump and for the buyer David Ellison, son of tech mogul Larry Ellison, for him to run $15 to $20 million in advertising supporting causes backed by the president.

And Trump confirmed it.

"We did a deal for about $16 million plus $16 million, or maybe more than that in advertising," he told reporters.

Paramount denied any knowledge of the side deal.

The president has also been drawn into a war of words with Elon Musk, calling him a "train wreck" who’s gone "off the rails" in forming a third party and raising the Epstein files again. Musk says the lack of an Epstein client list is the "final straw" – he had once apologized for raising it – and there’s no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.

But there was one moment, in my view, that was a misstep by Trump.

The president had no need to negotiate with Democrats, who strongly opposed a tax cut tilted toward the wealthy while making deep cuts to Medicaid.

"Every Democrat in Congress voted against the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill…They wouldn’t vote only because they hate Trump, but I hate them, too, you know? I really do. I hate them. I cannot stand them, because I really believe they hate our country."


I don’t believe the overwhelming majority of Democrats hate their country. And that was hardly a unifying message on July 4 weekend. Maybe many in the media hate him and he was just counterpunching. But he didn’t need to go there.

On the other hand, Donald Trump has been getting terrible coverage since 2015, and he’s clearly grown tired of it.

Quote:

Trump's undeniable whining streak.

Only one or two items on the list which are not a disgrace. It's a catalogue of failure.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 8^th, 2025 at 9:50pm:

Quote: Trump's undeniable whining streak. Only one or two items on the list which are not a disgrace. It's a catalogue of failure.

I know, right? A Hamas/Israel ceasefire, which held for maybe three days until Israel returned to its neverending campaign of killing civilians.

DL rewarded them by chucking a big, beautiful bomb at Iran, and so, started his very own endless war.

We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no?

Karnal wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 12:08am:

We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no?

Yeah.  Just in:



The supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, key elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government.

The justices lifted San Francisco-based US district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds.

Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies.

Frank wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 9:22am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 12:08am: We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no? Yeah.  Just in: The supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, key elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based US district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies.

You see creating widespread unemployment as "winning"?

What a strange little man you are.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 9:28am:

Frank wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:22am: Karnal wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 12:08am: We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no? Yeah.  Just in: The supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, key elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based US district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. You see creating widespread unemployment as "winning"? What a strange little man you are.

Speaking of winning, unemployment fell yet again under Trump. Less people are unemployed now under Trump than when he won the presidency in a landslide last year.

Mortdooley wrote on Jul 8^th, 2025 at 9:29pm:

Even the successful strike on Iran drew only scattered instances of grudging praise, when under any other president there would have been standing ovations.

it wasn't the strike anyone took issue with, it was trump claiming it was a complete success before damage assessment had even begun. He's a compulsive liar  :D


Mortdooley wrote on Jul 8^th, 2025 at 9:29pm:

Meanwhile, as Trump delayed his sky-high tariffs, the stock market hit record highs.

trump not doing what he said he would do is always a cause for celebration


Mortdooley wrote on Jul 8^th, 2025 at 9:29pm:

And he won a $16-million settlement from CBS's parent company in his lawsuit against unfair editing by "60 Minutes."

he didn't win poo. Paramount agreed to pay because they needed govt approval for an $8.4B merger with Skydance media. All Paramount did was buy their approval


Mortdooley wrote on Jul 8^th, 2025 at 9:29pm:

And after days of pressure and arm-twisting, he managed to pass the Big Beautiful Bill.

rethuglicans had the numbers all along. That it took so long to pass shows what a crap bill it was. :D


Mortdooley wrote on Jul 8^th, 2025 at 9:29pm:

Now the question is why, through this successful stretch, has Trump continued to draw such negative coverage?

because trump continues to lie and bully

Leroy wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 9:32am:

Speaking of winning, unemployment fell yet again under Trump.

actually the figures were far less then expected, creating only 170 000 jobs in a country with a pop. of 300m+, it's such a bad look for Trump that he threatened to sack the person releasing the figures :D

John Smith wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 12:12pm:

Leroy wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:32am: Speaking of winning, unemployment fell yet again under Trump. actually the figures were far less then expected, creating only 170 000 jobs in a country with a pop. of 300m+, it's such a bad look for Trump that he threatened to sack the person releasing the figures :D

Only watching MSNBC could be the problem. 8-)


Quote:

The number of jobs added surpassed expectations, as economists largely anticipated a drop in openings. Instead, 3,000 more jobs were added in June compared with May, according to new job figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/03/us-economy-jobs-report

Leroy wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 9:32am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:28am: Frank wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:22am: Karnal wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 12:08am: We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no? Yeah.  Just in: The supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, key elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based US district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. You see creating widespread unemployment as "winning"? What a strange little man you are. Speaking of winning, unemployment fell yet again under Trump. Less people are unemployed now under Trump than when he won the presidency in a landslide last year.

people are getting into productive jobs, useful jobs,  not in government funded DEI bludger positions.

Winning, winning everywhere.

But common sense is poison to the likes of clammy gweggy.

Frank wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 2:05pm:

Leroy wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:28am: Frank wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:22am: Karnal wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 12:08am: We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no? Yeah.  Just in: The supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, key elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based US district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. You see creating widespread unemployment as "winning"? What a strange little man you are. Speaking of winning, unemployment fell yet again under Trump. Less people are unemployed now under Trump than when he won the presidency in a landslide last year. people are getting into productive jobs, useful jobs,  not in government funded DEI bludger positions.

Sounds good, if it's true.

Do you have any examples of government employees who were fired by DOGE that now have a productive, useful job?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 2:29pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 2:05pm: Leroy wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:28am: Frank wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:22am: Karnal wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 12:08am: We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no? Yeah.  Just in: The supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, key elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based US district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. You see creating widespread unemployment as "winning"? What a strange little man you are. Speaking of winning, unemployment fell yet again under Trump. Less people are unemployed now under Trump than when he won the presidency in a landslide last year. people are getting into productive jobs, useful jobs,  not in government funded DEI bludger positions. Sounds good, if it's true. Do you have any examples of government employees who were fired by DOGE that now have a productive, useful job?

Don't you remember


Quote:

During a rally yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden spoke to a crowd in Derry, N.H., a town that many miners call home. He acknowledged the economic setbacks and job insecurity that coal miners face these days, and gave them some advice: learn to code. According to Dave Weigel of the Washington Post, Biden said, “Anybody who can go down 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well… Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for God’s sake!”

Leroy wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 2:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 2:29pm: Frank wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 2:05pm: Leroy wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:28am: Frank wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:22am: Karnal wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 12:08am: We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no? Yeah.  Just in: The supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, key elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based US district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. You see creating widespread unemployment as "winning"? What a strange little man you are. Speaking of winning, unemployment fell yet again under Trump. Less people are unemployed now under Trump than when he won the presidency in a landslide last year. people are getting into productive jobs, useful jobs,  not in government funded DEI bludger positions. Sounds good, if it's true. Do you have any examples of government employees who were fired by DOGE that now have a productive, useful job? Don't you remember ...

I don't remember Frannie providing examples of government employees who were fired by DOGE that now have a productive, useful job.

Do you?

Frank wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 2:05pm:

Leroy wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:28am: Frank wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:22am: Karnal wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 12:08am: We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no? Yeah.  Just in: The supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, key elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based US district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. You see creating widespread unemployment as "winning"? What a strange little man you are. Speaking of winning, unemployment fell yet again under Trump. Less people are unemployed now under Trump than when he won the presidency in a landslide last year. people are getting into productive jobs, useful jobs,  not in government funded DEI bludger positions. Winning, winning everywhere. But common sense is poison to the likes of clammy gweggy.

Not quite ya dumbarse


Quote:

Job gains were seen in state government and healthcare, which saw increases of 47,000 and 39,000 jobs, respectively. Meanwhile, federal government job losses continued, with another 7,000 roles down in June, as the Trump administration continues to cut jobs. The total job loss in the federal government has been 69,000 since January.

John Smith wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 3:40pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 2:05pm: Leroy wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:28am: Frank wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 9:22am: Karnal wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 12:08am: We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no? Yeah.  Just in: The supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, key elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based US district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. You see creating widespread unemployment as "winning"? What a strange little man you are. Speaking of winning, unemployment fell yet again under Trump. Less people are unemployed now under Trump than when he won the presidency in a landslide last year. people are getting into productive jobs, useful jobs,  not in government funded DEI bludger positions. Winning, winning everywhere. But common sense is poison to the likes of clammy gweggy. Not quite ya dumbarse Quote: Job gains were seen in state government and healthcare, which saw increases of 47,000 and 39,000 jobs, respectively. Meanwhile, federal government job losses continued, with another 7,000 roles down in June, as the Trump administration continues to cut jobs. The total job loss in the federal government has been 69,000 since January.

Ah.

Frank lied.

How unsurprising.

https://i.ibb.co/Q7h1SGcs/FB-IMG-1752051220874.jpg

because it is unconstitutional, unethical and much of what he claims is lies.

he has also damaged almost all international relations.
The drop in tourism is expected to cost the US $29 B

https://www.forbes.com.au/life/travel/u-s-tourism-will-lose-up-to-29-billion-as-visitors-plummet-amid-trump-policies/

Frank wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 9:22am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 9th, 2025 at 12:08am: We'll win so much we'll grow tired of winning, no? Yeah.  Just in:m The supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, key elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The justices lifted San Francisco-based US district judge Susan Illston’s 22 May order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called “reductions in force” affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the US departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and more than a dozen other agencies.

So much winning, old boy, but I'm curious. Is your DL still donating his pay to the dept Veteran's Affairs?

They can put the hat around to give them a nice freeway overpass to sleep under, no?

A hand up, not a handout, naturalicht.

DEEP STATE !!!

Gordon wrote on Jul 9^th, 2025 at 6:55pm:

https://i.ibb.co/Q7h1SGcs/FB-IMG-1752051220874.jpg

Looks a bit like Elon's son, eh?

Sorry, dear, daughter. She transitioned.

How's her dad going on your spectrum?

BUTTHURT !!!