Why, they have never had to pay almost $1B for lying to their audience.
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1821642233571123578
Get ready Kamala fans...this is just the beginning
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1821642233571123578
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
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.
Degrading women and minorities are what drives a lot of his base, just saying...
Facts are facts, only righties like them alternative facts. Obviously, some are amused by things they can't understand...
Sandmann settlement is not on appeal. CNN paid that one out
Then explain the lefty fascination with trannies. Facts are facts. If you have a dick, you're not a chick.
Technically no one voted for Biden, either.
They voted for delegates who were obligated to vote for Biden if he didn't drop out.
Yes, 1968 provoked reform because people didn't like the system being all insiders.
But it is still convoluted and indirect. It's still a mish-mash of popular vote, votes from registered members, votes from insiders, and so on.
The perception of the primary process is very different from the reality. (Which is also true of the presidential vote as well.)
They are different in details, of course.
I do think that LBJ - who was very sick and had a weak heart - was already looking for a way not to run. The Vietnam negotiations gave him that option.
(The fact the polling was shit also played a role.)
So how it all got provoked and when is very different.
Not at all.
Delegates vote for the nominee, not people.
That's the same as it ever was.
I have no idea how that would go.
Assuming Trump decided to step down, I doubt very much he would do what Biden did and support a successor and help push for an orderly transfer of power.
One of the reasons the GOP hasn't been able to get rid of Trump is that they haven't been willing to all get behind one person to be the focus of the party and take the succession.
I suspect it would be utter chaos.
But to be fair, I had no faith the Democrats would be able to have a smooth transition, which is the main reason I opposed Biden dropping out.
I was totally wrong there, so who knows?
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's seems to be.)
Last edited:
Trump making up a whole weird story about a helicopter trip with Willie Brown that never happened was pretty fucking funny.
Sure.
I don't know if he was the "frontrunner" but he was absolutely on the short list and a top contender.
Asking why she made the choice she did is fine.
But that's not what we are discussing.
We are discussing that you can't use "The Right pushing Shapiro" as some kind of "proof" that not picking Shapiro was the right call.
The GOP were always going to raise questions about her pick and imply she should have picked someone else and they are glad with who she did pick.
It may or may not be true, but that tactic ("Oh! This is great! We can't wait to run against this guy! We would have been worried if she had picked that other one!" ) is pretty standard.
It just doesn't tell us much of anything.
I am sure that all of that was part of the discussion.
One of the major issues with a VP pick is to minimize downside risk and I am sure the fact he seemed to have the most organized opposition in the coalition was a factor.
Exactly.
It just doesn't say very much about the real choice to have people going "Oh! We're so glad they didn't pick that other guy!" because people always say that.
I think we are in firm agreement on that.
It's mostly about avoiding any major downside and hope for some marginal upside.
And he didn't answer those questions.
He set up a news conference where he could pretend he didn't hear questions from reporters he didn't like and ignore those questions and then he failed to answer the questions he did take.
Only softball questions, no follow-up, and he couldn't even manage that.
And so many lies.
Yes, the Mainstream Media will cover for him, as usual, so it won't damage him as much as it should, but it was a disaster if you actually watched it.
Valc, it's historical interest to politics buffs that the voting public is completely oblivious to and DGAF about. That was my point.
No, no, no.
Actually answering questions from the press doesn't count.
For... reasons.
Just watch.
I think that's mostly because the Democratic party unified behind Harris and are happy with that situation.
There were a LOT of people invested in the "Contested Convention Chaos!" narrative.
They were hoping pushing the whole "The people won't accept Kamala as legitimate" would create cracks in the Dem voters.
That came from the news people who wanted it for ratings and from GOP supporters who hoped it would split the party.
It didn't fly.
Mostly because people were mostly like "yeah, we're good with Harris", I think.
But there are absolutely people who don't like that it was drop out and replace under pressure from the media.
That may become an issue in the future because lots of people aren't happy about it.
It's just that the people who do care about that don't object to Harris.
If the whole "Let's parachute in Gavin Newsom" or "Let's have a Blitz primary" had happened, who knows how things would have gone down.
