Why, they have never had to pay almost $1B for lying to their audience.CNN fact checking anybody is amusing hypocrisy....
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1821642233571123578
Why, they have never had to pay almost $1B for lying to their audience.CNN fact checking anybody is amusing hypocrisy....
Not for $1 billion, but they have been sued before for making false news reportsWhy, they have never had to pay almost $1B for lying to their audience.
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1821642233571123578
It's on appeal and a far cry from almost $1B and still more is coming for lying FOX FAKE NEWS as the other voting company which has yet to be settled.Not for $1 billion, but they have been sued before for making false news reports
https://thenationaltriallawyers.org...after-275-million-lawsuit-with-nick-sandmann/
CNN Hit With Defamation Lawsuit in Florida Over Alleged False Narrative About Afghanistan Evacuations | Daily Business Review
“The Most Trusted Name in News” is in the hot seat for sensational reporting that allegedly failed to include basic due diligence to ensure its accuracy, according to new claims in a federal lawsuit.www.law.com
Degrading women and minorities are what drives a lot of his base, just saying...That's going to be tampons don excuse when he loses again - rigged election because kamala shouldn't have been allowed to run. This guy is digging hinself in a hole to chiner. His attacks at kamala are not only insulting to minorities but all women.
Facts are facts, only righties like them alternative facts. Obviously, some are amused by things they can't understand...CNN fact checking anybody is amusing hypocrisy....
Sandmann settlement is not on appeal. CNN paid that one outIt's on appeal and a far cry from almost $1B and still more is coming for lying FOX FAKE NEWS as the other voting company which has yet to be settled
Then explain the lefty fascination with trannies. Facts are facts. If you have a dick, you're not a chick.Facts are facts, only righties like them alternative facts.
Technically no one voted for Biden, either.Humphrey entered the race in April 1968. If you feel party insiders determining the nominee is the norm, that's fine. However, it's very well documented that the 1968 nomination process was reformed to give "Democratic" voters more direct determination of the nominee. Of course, it's not a popular vote process. We do know Kamala received zero votes in a Democratic primary.
They are different in details, of course.In my opinion, LBJ's decision to not run in March 1968 was a more honest and realistic reaction to the situation than what transpired this spring and early summer.
So no, not the same.
Not at all.Yeah, so. Comparing today's process to the process fifty-six years ago is more than extraneous.
I have no idea how that would go.It would wise for the Republicans to select someone else... the ship is sinking and Trump will be the first one to escape and spend his time golfing in his pro league where he wins every tournaments.
I don't think that's fair.Earp, isn't this the same obsession with irrelevant, self-serving minutiae as your 10-page argument that Trump wasn't judicially determined to be a sexual predator because he wasn't found guilty in a civil trial to the criminal standard?
No one really gives a fuck about whether KH would have been nominated back in 1968, do they? Except apparently for you.
Trump making up a whole weird story about a helicopter trip with Willie Brown that never happened was pretty fucking funny.NEW: Donald Trump comments on Kamala Harris' relationship with former SF mayor Willie Brown, the man she slept with who helped kickstart her career. Harris was 29 at the time she dated Brown who was 60. "Well, I know Willie Brown very well." "He told me terrible things about [Kamala]. He had a big part in what happened with Kamala... He was not a fan of hers very much at that point."
Sure.Shapiro was the frontrunner for VP. Pennsylvania is a key state. It's fair to ask what made Walz the choice over him.
I am sure that all of that was part of the discussion.We all know that Democrats don't want to throw any more fuel to the fire that is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict going into the convention. Additionally, there seems to be some controversy following Shapiro over a multiple stabbed woman that was ruled a suicide. Something you don't want be explaining in this 90 day window.
Exactly.By the same token, all of us can say "why didn't Trump just select Rubio or Scott?" They would be better selections against Harris-Walz.
I think we are in firm agreement on that.You and I have been saying that while VP selections are great political entertainment they really are oversold as to their ability to win Presidential elections.
And he didn't answer those questions.This wasn't Trump's only message. Trump spoke off the cuff for 77 minutes. No teleprompters, took a lot of questions from the press!!
Valc, it's historical interest to politics buffs that the voting public is completely oblivious to and DGAF about. That was my point.I don't think that's fair.
Earp said this hadn't happened before and I drew the 1968 parallel.
Earp, not without reason, thinks the overall situation is too different for that to be a good comparison.
I don't even think he's particularly wrong, I think people view the primaries differently than before and the lateness of the withdrawal also changes the dynamic.
That said, I don't think mechanically it is all that different - it is mostly a question of perception.
(Which goes both ways. Humphrey's win was not viewed by the Democratic electorate at large the same way Harris seems to be.)
No, no, no.She did today just before boarding her plane.
I think that's mostly because the Democratic party unified behind Harris and are happy with that situation.Valc, it's historical interest to politics buffs that the voting public is completely oblivious to and DGAF about. That was my point.