Well, your source is whitehouse.gov which has taken quite a turn toward Fox News these last few months. So it's best to reach out to independent news sources. Remember one of the first admin actions was to remove all the inspectors general. Not a great look for transparency.
So your advice is that everything released on whitehouse.gov cannot be trusted? That's a rather confusing take, especially since the numbers they've provided in the linked announcement match other sources reporting the same news.
That's not what I said. But I do stand by that the admin needs to be watched. For example, what did whitehouse.gov say about the sec-defense illegally using a commercial chat app to discuss imminent attack plans? Was it the same as most media outlets?
Then great! Most things the admin reports are quickly debunked by other sources. It's nice they nailed this one!
Ordinarily I tend to rely on sources from many places including Whitehouse.gov but lately it is apparent that Whitehouse.gov has been compromised and the people who admin that website run everything by one individual for approval. At that point you may as well click on TS since it says the same things. I mean, they literally scrubbed the website and removed anything they disagreed with whether it is factual or not and they also removed/altered historical references (facts) in an attempt to either erase it or hide it....among other things. Not saying they don't get things right sometimes but how will we ever know for sure if there is no transparency and/or accountability?
A great approach is to start at the source, rather than first relying on the many so-called "fair and balanced" news outlets that interpret what they think the White House is saying (the good old telephone game). Without a baseline, I don't know how you'd ever determine if said transparency and/or accountability isn't there.
I have enough experiences with my own sources to rely on them....for years now; and they haven't let me down. I don't need to start fresh with every instance (or term) but I do recognize when sources go sour or turn biased. For me personally, I get alot of my info directly from the executive branch in other ways such as the gaggles in the Oval Office and sometimes even the spokesperson or press secretary briefings and other meetings and updates. Unfortunately at this point, wh.gov is a propaganda website with an agenda no different from the CCP so they are off *my* list; not saying others may enjoy it, good luck with that. But not for me. In particular, this "blog" is ripe for brainwashing the American public, it's not quite there yet, but at any point, it has the will and the propensity and the wherewithal to turn a corner and do more harm than it has. I see "historic trade win" and "promises kept" and "Unleashing..." and "common sense...." it reads like a exaggarated political ad: News
Sure, if you have a more reliable official government source that isn't from mainstream media, feel free to share it. For now, I'll stick with the posted numbers, as no one seems to be questioning their accuracy.
That sounds like a good start, since it's shown over and over again to be a house of lies.
You need to include some reliable sources in your "research" rather than blatant propaganda.
It's not obvious at all, especially since many of your statements are vague and lack supporting context. My apologies for not being able to read between the lines.
