Get ready Kamala fans...this is just the beginning

[Phil C. McNasty]

Why, they have never had to pay almost $1B for lying to their audience.

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

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821665831140614565

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821655769919713690

 

[squeezer]

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.

 

[y2kmark]

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.

Degrading women and minorities are what drives a lot of his base, just saying...

 

[y2kmark]

CNN fact checking anybody is amusing hypocrisy....

Facts are facts, only righties like them alternative facts. Obviously, some are amused by things they can't understand...

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

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

Sandmann settlement is not on appeal. CNN paid that one out

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821706506808467713

 

[squeezer]

SHOCK POLL: KAMALA +9 OVER TRUMP W/ INDEPENDENTS

 

[Valcazar]

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Yeah, so. Comparing today's process to the process fifty-six years ago is more than extraneous.

Not at all.
Delegates vote for the nominee, not people.
That's the same as it ever was.

 

[Valcazar]

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 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?

 

[Valcazar]

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.

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.)

 

[Valcazar]

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."

Trump making up a whole weird story about a helicopter trip with Willie Brown that never happened was pretty fucking funny.

 

[Valcazar]

Shapiro was the frontrunner for VP. Pennsylvania is a key state. It's fair to ask what made Walz the choice over him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think we are in firm agreement on that.
It's mostly about avoiding any major downside and hope for some marginal upside.

 

[Valcazar]

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!!

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.

 

[mandrill]

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.)

Valc, it's historical interest to politics buffs that the voting public is completely oblivious to and DGAF about. That was my point.

 

[Valcazar]

She did today just before boarding her plane.

No, no, no.
Actually answering questions from the press doesn't count.
For... reasons.

Just watch.

 

[Valcazar]

Valc, it's historical interest to politics buffs that the voting public is completely oblivious to and DGAF about. That was my point.

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.

 

[squeezer]

No, no, no.
Actually answering questions from the press doesn't count.
For... reasons.

Just watch.

THey already started on FOX Fake News Network,

"Trump does one hour and she does 30 seconds on a tarmac" LOL

It is as if they call the shots when they are losing ground.

 

[Valcazar]

THey already started on FOX Fake News Network,

"Trump does one hour and she does 30 seconds on a tarmac" LOL

It is as if they call the shots when they are losing ground.

They have a narrative and they are going to run with it.
The press will support them because a big press conference justifies their salaries and gets them on TV.
(I'm sure NY Times and others will also demand a long-form sit down interview as well.)

But as you can see, they are also wasting their actual question time by asking when they will get more question time.
Instead of, you know, asking her real questions.
If they are just throwing out gossip questions and asking about when they get to be on TV, it's not surprising she doesn't have much respect for them.

Also, it isn't like they are going to give her the soft-ball treatment they give Trump in his "press conference" (soft ball questions, no follow-ups or pushback, and accepting him pretending not to hear questions he doesn't like).

She's going to do one because she knows leaving the narrative out there when the press is against her isn't great (see what they did to Biden), but she seems to be smart enough to know they aren't her friends.