JDHillFan Posted October 8, 2024 Posted October 8, 2024 3 hours ago, B-Man said: She is a joke now. Data for Backintheday who is very big on this sort of info - 6.5 million views between those two videos. 1
B-Man Posted October 26, 2024 Posted October 26, 2024 And STILL she bombed the "Townhall" About That “Undecided” Voter. . . Last night I noted that CNN really lived down to its fake news reputation when it featured as an “undecided” voter a left-leaning professor from Swarthmore, Carol Nackenhoff. I concluded that “the chance that she is considering voting for Donald Trump is zero-point-zero. If she’s technically undecided, it is because she might be considering casting her vote for Jill Stein instead of Harris.” Today Nackenhoff outed herself in an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, throwing CNN under the bus by confirming my conclusion: As Anderson Cooper made clear, I am a registered Democrat. This is not a secret. I’m not trying to hide that. But I am angry with the Democrats over Biden’s willingness to send all sorts of weapons to Netanyahu and his generals, which they are then using to kill an enormous number of civilians. I was hoping that Harris might put some daylight between her position and Biden’s on this issue, and I’m not hearing it. But voting for Trump was not on my agenda. There are people who have jumped to that conclusion. [Emphasis added.] Chronicle: So you were deciding between Harris and a third-party candidate? Or sitting it out, perhaps. How was she selected for this Town Hall of “undecided” voters? https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/10/about-that-undecided-voter.php
Big Blitz Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 On 9/17/2024 at 6:18 PM, Big Blitz said: Yep. F off Muir. Loser. Still a loser. 1
aristocrat Posted April 14 Posted April 14 https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-mocked-social-media-145047852.html Washington Free Beacon senior writer Andrew Stiles summarized the report as "NYT: Kamala Harris, known for her deep knowledge and ability to articulate complex issues, is thinking about launching 'an institute for policy and ideas.'" Read On The Fox News App He joked the institute would be called, "The Kamala D. Harris Institute for Examining the Importance of Understanding What Needs to Be Done," appearing to mock Harris’ so-called "word salads." 1
B-Man Posted April 28 Posted April 28 Kamala Harris plans to put out a scathing critique of Trump in her first major speech since leaving office. You guys remember Kamala, yeah? That mouthy, obnoxious, fake woman who kept changing her ethnicity to appeal to voters who never really wanted her in the first place? The one Trump decimated in November? Yeah. Her. And she thinks anyone will care if she gives a 'scathing critique' of him. Girl, please. https://twitchy.com/samj/2025/04/28/kamala-harris-plans-scathing-speech-criticizing-trump-and-bahahaha-n2412021
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted Wednesday at 01:30 PM Posted Wednesday at 01:30 PM 58 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: @The Frankish Reich this seems like a reasonable outcome, yes? 1
The Frankish Reich Posted Wednesday at 04:11 PM Posted Wednesday at 04:11 PM 2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: @The Frankish Reich this seems like a reasonable outcome, yes? Yes and no. For CBS/Shari Redstone, yes, as it allows her to do what she wants - sell the company by preemptively buying off the regulators. As a matter of public policy, an awful outcome. An outcome that will embolden more stupid lawsuits like Gavin Newsom's very similar one against Trump. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted Wednesday at 04:32 PM Posted Wednesday at 04:32 PM 18 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Yes and no. For CBS/Shari Redstone, yes, as it allows her to do what she wants - sell the company by preemptively buying off the regulators. As a matter of public policy, an awful outcome. An outcome that will embolden more stupid lawsuits like Gavin Newsom's very similar one against Trump. Seems to me that manipulating questions and answers to influence the public flies in contrast to the public good, too. As for stupid lawsuits, we already have those. The Carroll civil suit against Trump is a pretty stark example of lawyers gone wild. Thanks for sharing your thoughts though!
The Frankish Reich Posted Wednesday at 05:27 PM Posted Wednesday at 05:27 PM 50 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Seems to me that manipulating questions and answers to influence the public flies in contrast to the public good, too. As for stupid lawsuits, we already have those. The Carroll civil suit against Trump is a pretty stark example of lawyers gone wild. Thanks for sharing your thoughts though! Look, "you edited your interview to make my competitor look smarter" is a theory that has no standards. It absolutely would not have succeeded at trial, and there are 1st Amendment issues that may have shot it down as a legal matter too. In this specific case we once again see Trump's personal desires - to punish CBS for favoring Harris over him - run up against his total control of the Executive Branch and the very real threat that the FCC will do his bidding by messing with Shari Redstone's plan to sell the company. In this way it is a corrupt settlement. And everyone who's looked at it objectively has agreed. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted Wednesday at 06:01 PM Posted Wednesday at 06:01 PM (edited) 35 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Look, "you edited your interview to make my competitor look smarter" is a theory that has no standards. It absolutely would not have succeeded at trial, and there are 1st Amendment issues that may have shot it down as a legal matter too. In this specific case we once again see Trump's personal desires - to punish CBS for favoring Harris over him - run up against his total control of the Executive Branch and the very real threat that the FCC will do his bidding by messing with Shari Redstone's plan to sell the company. In this way it is a corrupt settlement. And everyone who's looked at it objectively has agreed. Again Frank, you're an attorney and considering the legal ramifications, I'm a guy who looks at common sense and the job a journalist should reasonably be expected to do. I don't position myself as a trusted source with impeccable credentials, that's what they do. It strikes me as dishonest and duplicitous, and that's more of a job for politicians and lobbyists. As a result, they should probably expect that when the tide turns, they are treated like politicians and lobbyists. As for success at trial, seems to me they decided the risk was not worth the potential for an adverse outcome. With respect to the FCC, I'm no more or less concerned or offended (as a citizen) by that than Letitia James determination to reinvent that which we know to be true, Alvin Bragg creating a novel approach to imprison a political enemy, or the Special Prosecutor inadvertently scoffing off with attorney/client (and other) documents and pinky-swearing not to look at 'em. Actually, I'm much more concerned about the latter, the former just represents a large corporation settling with the government over some injustice. That's pretty run of the mill. Edited Wednesday at 06:03 PM by leh-nerd skin-erd 1
K D Posted Wednesday at 06:10 PM Posted Wednesday at 06:10 PM 40 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Look, "you edited your interview to make my competitor look smarter" is a theory that has no standards. It absolutely would not have succeeded at trial, and there are 1st Amendment issues that may have shot it down as a legal matter too. In this specific case we once again see Trump's personal desires - to punish CBS for favoring Harris over him - run up against his total control of the Executive Branch and the very real threat that the FCC will do his bidding by messing with Shari Redstone's plan to sell the company. In this way it is a corrupt settlement. And everyone who's looked at it objectively has agreed. Legally it might not have succeeded at trial as you say but we all know what happened here. A media company got busted for purposely changing a candidate's (they favored) answer to put them in a positive light. Whether that had a quantitative impact on votes is hard to say. But the damage is done. Nobody should trust CBS news ever again. What else are they spinning? 2 1
The Frankish Reich Posted Wednesday at 06:22 PM Posted Wednesday at 06:22 PM Corruption. So prevalent now that hardly anyone notices. Mr. Trump is suing for $20 billion, claiming that CBS deceptively edited a 2024 campaign interview with Kamala Harris. The version that aired, his lawyers recently argued, “led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers,” including Mr. Trump. CBS has released the full tape, and it shows that these claims are concocted. Yet the President has leverage over Paramount, because its merger with Skydance Media requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC. Mr. Trump has reportedly turned down a $15 million settlement offer, and the Journal reported Wednesday that a mediator has proposed that the two sides settle the lawsuit for $20 million. The business logic for settling Mr. Trump’s grievance is easy to grasp: What’s $20 million in grease money, if it might save an $8 billion merger? Unless, that is, a big payout to the President could be viewed as a bribe. It’s obvious that Mr. Trump is relying on the threat of regulatory disapproval as leverage in the lawsuit. Does this really fit the federal bribery statute? What level of legal frivolousness is required before settling a civil suit becomes pretextual? https://www.wsj.com/opinion/paramount-donald-trump-lawsuit-cbs-fcc-first-amendment-23c10b02?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAgf43_7HI3WPOUFzOoFFnkHLlGoyR-Zstcmf5vLWRfstyqWTSkI7q00o4yjtD0%3D&gaa_ts=68657009&gaa_sig=PsZe2KxQMmKnhDX6V6Rljhwc-qRpfSqnP5aH2_9QHmxhkilDH8qjycxHHjA_cjxmLPEAgolLAHqWw6i73dOy3g%3D%3D
Recommended Posts