U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Rather than @JFK-1 posting clips all the time, shouldn't it just have a live stream of MSNBC which, like all American news channels, has no bias whatsoever.

[JFK-1]

32 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Rather than @JFK-1 posting clips all the time, shouldn't it just have a live stream of MSNBC which, like all American news channels, has no bias whatsoever.

 

MSNBC isn't some left wing equivalent of Fox, there are no equivalents. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

MSNBC isn't some left wing equivalent of Fox, there are no equivalents. 

I didn't say it was. Equally, you cannot claim that any American news outlet doesn't have a political bias of some sort.

 

Faux News just takes it to a different extreme.

[JFK-1]

Just now, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I didn't say it was. Equally, you cannot claim that any American news outlet doesn't have a political bias of some sort.

 

Faux News just takes it to a different extreme.

 

I wouldn't claim that. But I would claim anything I post amounts to accurate factual reporting. Which is as good as it gets when it comes to US news.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I wouldn't claim that. But I would claim anything I post amounts to accurate factual reporting. Which is as good as it gets when it comes to US news.

Post what you want, when you want. Let other people make up their own mind. If they want to ridicule or applaud, that's up to them. 👍 

[JFK-1]

12 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Yeah, "tits up" over here sounds like you might be trying to hard to sound like you're British.

 

I can get away with it, maybe because I don't have to try too hard. 😉

 

But some people, including Stifler's mom, try too hard.

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

16 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I didn't say it was. Equally, you cannot claim that any American news outlet doesn't have a political bias of some sort.

 

Faux News just takes it to a different extreme.

Political bias is one thing, but with Fox it's not bias. Their MO is effectively to operate as the media wing of the GOP. This appears repeatedly in the Dominion court filings and has been effectively openly acknowledged by the Murdochs. There is no equivalent on the Democratic side.

[JFK-1]

A suggestion in this article about why James Comey, who was head of the FBI in 2016 allowed the agency to publicly state  it was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified documents. That probably cost her the election.

 

A short from it is “The FBI is Trumpland”

 

I have quoted the first couple of paragraphs with a link to the full article below it.

 

The FBI Desperately Wants to Let Trump Off the Hook

 

He just won’t allow it.

 

The way conservatives tell it, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a hive of anti-Trump villainy, filled with agents looking for any excuse to hound the former president with investigative witch hunts.

 

But the thing to understand about Donald Trump’s legal troubles is that they exist not because federal agents are out to get him, but despite the fact that the FBI is full of Trump supporters who would really like to leave him alone.

This morning, The Washington Post reported that FBI investigators clashed with federal prosecutors over the decision to search the former president’s residence, where highly classified documents were found despite Trump’s insistence that he had none.

 

“Some of those field agents wanted to shutter the criminal investigation altogether in early June,” the Post reported, adding that FBI agents were “simply afraid” and “worried taking aggressive steps investigating Trump could blemish or even end their careers.”

 

The FBI did not exhibit this worry in 2016, when it publicly announced that it was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified documents, an announcement that, even with all the other mistakes her campaign made, likely cost Clinton the election.

That decision was made in part because then-Director James Comey feared that pro-Trump FBI agents would leak the details if he did not announce them publicly. The federal investigation into the Trump campaign, by contrast, was properly kept confidential until after the election.

 

As one agent told the reporter Spencer Ackerman in 2016, “The FBI is Trumpland.”

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/fbi-trump-mar-a-lago-raid-prosecution/673251/

[JFK-1]

The reluctance of the FBI to investigate Trump is also what this video speaks of. Among other things it's mentioned that the FBI field agents argued that "they were inclined to believe Trump" when he said he had no classified documents.

 

That's quite incredible given that Trump is a known habitual liar who will lie about things that aren't even worth lying about. Lying is like braying to him. (I meant to put breathing in place of braying, but it somehow auto corrected it to braying and I liked that better)

 

But the FBI Sherlocks are inclined to believe him. While the average man in the street all around the world knows anything Trump says has to be thoroughly fact checked.

 

 

 

 

 

[Cade]

DeSantis strips Disney of it's self governance and installs far-right headbangers in the governing council.

 

If I was Disney, I'd be moving out of Florida and taking all my jobs, tourists and money with me.

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

DeSantis strips Disney of it's self governance and installs far-right headbangers in the governing council.

 

If I was Disney, I'd be moving out of Florida and taking all my jobs, tourists and money with me.

Old Walt was a far right headbanger himself, frequenting German American Bund meetings (we'd call them the American nazi party these days) so he's probably looking up, smiling.

 

It's pretty mental the power they yield in that part of the world, I didn't think it would be the right reigning them in though 😕

[Watt-Zeefuik]

4 hours ago, Cade said:

DeSantis strips Disney of it's self governance and installs far-right headbangers in the governing council.

 

If I was Disney, I'd be moving out of Florida and taking all my jobs, tourists and money with me.

 

Even for a company like Disney, there's no way they can just up and move. That's hundreds of billions of dollars of physical plant they have in Disneyworld and around.

 

They could move a lot of office and support jobs elsewhere, though.

[BlueRiver]

Interesting scenario when left-wingers are upset that a corporation loses essentially unfettered control over an area. 

[JFK-1]

How could the FBI possibly be "inclined to believe Trump," to me that beggars belief.

 

The same Trump who the WP documented over 30,500 lies in just his term in office. Not even plausible lies, yet the FBI are inclined to believe him.

 

I'm inclined to believe the FBI is suspect. They cannot be that stupid. So, why?

 

 Why were some FBI agents 'inclined to believe Trump'?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

How could the FBI possibly be "inclined to believe Trump," to me that beggars belief.

 

The same Trump who the WP documented over 30,500 lies in just his term in office. Not even plausible lies, yet the FBI are inclined to believe him.

 

I'm inclined to believe the FBI is suspect. They cannot be that stupid. So, why?

 

 Why were some FBI agents 'inclined to believe Trump'?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The FBI as a whole are Trump's base. This is the organization that ran COINTELPRO to undermine the Civil Rights Movement and assassinated Fred Hampton for serving breakfast to poor people.

 

They also believe in the rule of law it's utterly un-shocking that they had to be dragged to this VERY unwillingly.

[JFK-1]

19 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

The FBI as a whole are Trump's base. This is the organization that ran COINTELPRO to undermine the Civil Rights Movement and assassinated Fred Hampton for serving breakfast to poor people.

 

They also believe in the rule of law it's utterly un-shocking that they had to be dragged to this VERY unwillingly.

 

And ironically Trump claims the FBI is littered with Trump haters making up lies to launch "witch hunts" on him. I heard it said that some of them didn't want to investigate Trump because it could damage their careers. It's beats me how investigating obvious criminal activity would damage the career of a cop.

 

Given this revelation those involved should now have their careers terminated for corrupt dereliction of duty. They had no issues whatsoever messing with Clinton right before an election, was that career damaging? For her it was, it probably cost her the election.

 

And resulted in a sociopathic moron leading the country into chaos. That's a crime. 

[JFK-1]

While he's not everybody's taste this guy definitely breaks down topics into significant details while providing video evidence of what he's saying. One example from just yesterday where Fox are complaining about being lied to by the government. And lie as they're complaining about it. WTF?

 

That Kellyanne Conway is a real roaster, and she also knows she's lying, or extremely stupid, or both. Like Trump, liar/idiot.

 

I was thinking dominion should be able to go after individuals once they're done ripping Murdoch/Fox a new one. Trump and others are still defaming them, sometimes on Fox while Murdoch is actually in court confessing it's all a lie.

 

Maybe Murdoch is like me, doesn't/can't watch Fox because the stupidity is headache inducing.

 

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

13 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

While he's not everybody's taste this guy definitely breaks down topics into significant details while providing video evidence of what he's saying. One example from just yesterday where Fox are complaining about being lied to by the government. And lie as they're complaining about it. WTF?

 

That Kellyanne Conway is a real roaster, and she also knows she's lying, or extremely stupid, or both. Like Trump, liar/idiot.

 

I was thinking dominion should be able to go after individuals once they're done ripping Murdoch/Fox a new one. Trump and others are still defaming them, sometimes on Fox while Murdoch is actually in court confessing it's all a lie.

 

Maybe Murdoch is like me, doesn't/can't watch Fox because the stupidity is headache inducing.

 

 

 

 

According to the Washington Post's media reporter, this is certainly a bad look but Murdoch's testimony won't sink them in court because of the "actual malice" standard that exists in defamation cases.

 

It sounds like there may still be enough in all the text messages and such that Dominion can demonstrate that but Murdoch's testimony is just damning to his integrity, but not necessarily his pocketbook.

 

Quote

But to prevail in court, Dominion needs to prove that Fox News proceeded with actual malice, meaning that Fox knew the falsity of statements it was broadcasting or made them with reckless disregard of their truth. And those requirements aren’t the only hurdles. Per the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan — which instituted the legal standard of “actual malice” — a plaintiff like Dominion must bring "home” the evidence, linking the required state of mind to the people responsible for the challenged statements.

 

It’s an arduous legal undertaking. In a mid-February filing, Dominion devotes more than 70 pages to the considerations needed to establish actual malice. The argument includes breakout sections detailing the involvement of various executives — including Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott — in the network’s day-to-day operations, alongside their knowledge of the truth about the election-denial claims and the alleged involvement of Dominion. “Scott knew the statements Fox broadcast about Dominion were untrue, or recklessly disregarded the truth,” the filing says, noting that Scott received emails from Dominion setting the record straight.

 

A separate section explores the of role of executives and producers responsible for various Fox News programs, rummaging through their states of mind during allegedly defamatory broadcasts. Dominion cited the Nov. 15, 2020, broadcast of Bartiromo’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” which featured guest commentary by Trump legal advisers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, the duo that peddled so many election-fraud lies on the network. Since the material was pre-taped, the filing argues, Fox News executive David Clark could have edited the product to remove allegedly defamatory material. “He made no effort to remove the statements about Dominion he knew by then were false,” reads the complaint.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/28/murdoch-fox-election-lies-lawsuit-dominion/

[JFK-1]

9 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

According to the Washington Post's media reporter, this is certainly a bad look but Murdoch's testimony won't sink them in court because of the "actual malice" standard that exists in defamation cases.

 

It sounds like there may still be enough in all the text messages and such that Dominion can demonstrate that but Murdoch's testimony is just damning to his integrity, but not necessarily his pocketbook.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/28/murdoch-fox-election-lies-lawsuit-dominion/

 

Isn't this part what Murdoch just confessed to?

 

But to prevail in court, Dominion needs to prove that Fox News proceeded with actual malice, meaning that Fox knew the falsity of statements it was broadcasting or made them with reckless disregard of their truth.

 

Fox knew the falsity of statements it was broadcasting or made them with reckless disregard of their truth.

 

While it's a side issue in a way, Trump is the priority to deal with, it's also helpful if Murdoch/Fox takes a bloody nose. If it weren't for him I suspect Trump and many of the other current crazies would never have achieved such prominence/power.

 

Anybody think something like Jewish space laser facebook troll MTG would be pulling the strings of the house speaker if it weren't with the help of Murdoch/Fox?  It's truly like something out of Idiocracy.

 

But it also serves as another blow to Trump, "I haven't done anything" Trump.

 

Murdoch and the top Fox faces all testifying they knew election claims were a lie, the alleged truth of which is a basis of Trumps defence in a number of aspects.  

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Isn't this part what Murdoch just confessed to?

 

But to prevail in court, Dominion needs to prove that Fox News proceeded with actual malice, meaning that Fox knew the falsity of statements it was broadcasting or made them with reckless disregard of their truth.

 

Fox knew the falsity of statements it was broadcasting or made them with reckless disregard of their truth.

 

While it's a side issue in a way, Trump is the priority to deal with, it's also helpful if Murdoch/Fox takes a bloody nose. If it weren't for him I suspect Trump and many of the other current crazies would never have achieved such prominence/power.

 

Anybody think something like Jewish space laser facebook troll MTG would be pulling the strings of the house speaker if it weren't with the help of Murdoch/Fox?  It's truly like something out of Idiocracy.

 

But it also serves as another blow to Trump, "I haven't done anything" Trump.

 

Murdoch and the top Fox faces all testifying they knew election claims were a lie, the alleged truth of which is a basis of Trumps defence in a number of aspects.  

 

The question is whether throwing Dominion under the bus to boost their own viewership counts as malice towards Dominion or just apathetic neglect. I'd say it's malice but I don't know the ins and outs of court precedent there.

[JFK-1]

While i'm no lawyer either what I see staring out is this.

 

reckless disregard of their truth

 

To me that's indisputable, they admitted they knew it wasn't true, a reckless disregard for the truth that could have no logical outcome but to severely damage the reputation of this company internationally. There can be no way you could argue that yeah I knew it was lies, but I had no idea that could severely damage the reputation of this company, it's products, and it's future profitability. Even the hosts know about stock prices, apparently live, a factor in their lying. 

 

Sort of funny that Trump said on troof soshul that Murdoch is maliciously throwing his presenters under the bus. No he isn't, they already made the same confession, and many had told Trump the same thing.

[JFK-1]

For a while I have been thinking there's a distinct possibility Trump will try to organise another riot if/when indictments fall and he has a court date. Have visions of something along the lines of Jan 6th, "court day, going to be wild, be there"

 

That in some form or other, while trying to be as oblique as possible. Trumps getting crazier by the day, and going big time at the victim card, riling up the trumpets. This video has clips of Trump speaking at a CPAC event, weird shit.

 

"not gonna let this happen, I will totally obliterate the deep state" is just one example. While the trumpets feverishly whoop and chant USA

 

 

[Cade]

He's been lying for so long that he's starting to believe his own lies.

Arguably, he's been this way for 70 years.

 

It never ends well.

 

[Unknown user]

7 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

For a while I have been thinking there's a distinct possibility Trump will try to organise another riot if/when indictments fall and he has a court date. Have visions of something along the lines of Jan 6th, "court day, going to be wild, be there"

 

That in some form or other, while trying to be as oblique as possible. Trumps getting crazier by the day, and going big time at the victim card, riling up the trumpets. This video has clips of Trump speaking at a CPAC event, weird shit.

 

"not gonna let this happen, I will totally obliterate the deep state" is just one example. While the trumpets feverishly whoop and chant USA

 

 

 

There won't be the same reaction, that time's been and gone. It's just anger, whining, and stupidity from here on in.

[Maple Leaf]

5 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

There won't be the same reaction, that time's been and gone. It's just anger, whining, and stupidity from here on in.

 There was plenty of that before and it seems to resonate with the cult members.  It certainly doesn't put them off.

 

The GOP has a venomous snake in their midst (more than one, actually) and they seem unable or unwilling to do anything about it.  Lightweights like Haley and Pompeo won't even mention Trump by name while they're condemning his actions, that's how much they're afraid of the cult.  

 

 

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 There was plenty of that before and it seems to resonate with the cult members.  It certainly doesn't put them off.

 

The GOP has a venomous snake in their midst (more than one, actually) and they seem unable or unwilling to do anything about it.  Lightweights like Haley and Pompeo won't even mention Trump by name while they're condemning his actions, that's how much they're afraid of the cult.  

 

 

I was meaning from the cultists, I think they're a withering force who've lost the core of their self belief and are surviving on stubbornness and fear of losing face. And stupidity.

[JFK-1]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

I was meaning from the cultists, I think they're a withering force who've lost the core of their self belief and are surviving on stubbornness and fear of losing face. And stupidity.

 

I think that describes Trump. The dumbest whiniest whiny bitch who ever turned orange and glued on a combover.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

5 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 There was plenty of that before and it seems to resonate with the cult members.  It certainly doesn't put them off.

 

The GOP has a venomous snake in their midst (more than one, actually) and they seem unable or unwilling to do anything about it.  Lightweights like Haley and Pompeo won't even mention Trump by name while they're condemning his actions, that's how much they're afraid of the cult.  

 

 

Lindsay Graham, for all of his craven opportunistic cynicism, is at least totally honest about why he kowtows to the MAGAs. Without them, the GOP is totally doomed and their precious "conservative movement" comes to a crashing end.

[JFK-1]

15 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

There won't be the same reaction, that time's been and gone. It's just anger, whining, and stupidity from here on in.

 

It's apparently come but not gone, it's increasing.

 

The new anarchy, America faces a type of extremist violence it does not know how to stop.

 

What happened in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, was a concentrated manifestation of the political violence that is all around us now. By political violence, I mean acts of violence intended to achieve political goals, whether driven by ideological vision or by delusions and hatred. More Americans are bringing weapons to political protests.

Openly white-supremacist activity rose more than twelvefold from 2017 to 2021. Political aggression today is often expressed in the violent rhetoric of war. People build their political identities not around shared values but around a hatred for their foes, a phenomenon known as “negative partisanship.”

A growing number of elected officials face harassment and death threats, causing many to leave politics. By nearly every measure, political violence is seen as more acceptable today than it was five years ago. A 2022 UC Davis poll found that one in five Americans believes political violence would be “at least sometimes” justified, and one in 10 believes it would be justified if it meant returning Trump to the presidency. 

Officials at the highest levels of the military and in the White House believe that the United States will see an increase in violent attacks as the 2024 presidential election draws nearer.

 

Full article https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/04/us-extremism-portland-george-floyd-protests-january-6/673088/

[Masonic]

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

32 minutes ago, Masonic said:

 

Yes, always listen to Fox News for totally accurate and not shitposting news about what the Democratic Party is doing.

[JFK-1]

5 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

Yes, always listen to Fox News for totally accurate and not shitposting news about what the Democratic Party is doing.

 

In the very week they confess they're liars and effectively nothing but a GOP propaganda outfit.

[Unknown user]

19 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

In the very week they confess they're liars and effectively nothing but a GOP propaganda outfit.

Tucker's messages!

[Unknown user]

"We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait"

 

"I hate him passionately. ... I can’t handle much more of this"

 

"We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest"

 

"But come on. There isn’t really an upside to Trump"

 

[JFK-1]

Heard a legal analyst say that it looks like Fox are going to take this all the way to a jury rather than settle. And I think that might be extremely problematic for them. All of this bad shit we're seeing about them, that's the good stuff.

 

Seriously. These documents the journalists are digging this stuff out of are heavily redacted, by Fox. So you have to guess the redacted stuff is even worse shit otherwise why would they hide it, and all of it will be revealed if they take it to a jury.

 

Now I know there's an argument that proving defamation is hard, in general. But these analysts are also saying this looks like a prosecutors dream in a defamation case, in their view Murdoch himself is saying things that could seal the deal for a prosecution case.

 

And I would further guess their own legal team must be saying this doesn't look so great Rupert, might not wriggle out of this. So why not settle, keep the redacted stuff hidden and just carry on making up piles of crap about how you never did anything wrong.

 

Sure it could cost a billion and a half to settle but it will cost that in a jury trial too if it goes against you, and in a jury trial all that negative stuff you're hiding will be out there. Could settle and make Dominion sign a privacy clause to get the dough. 

 

Why would they do this? Only thing I could come up with is that Fox is just going to play the Trump card so to speak, just keep insisting they did nothing wrong regardless of evidence to the contrary. It will cost a billion and a half either way.

 

But taking it to a jury despite the fact more negative material will come out could be simply a feature of let's just carry on saying I did nothing, appeal the hell out of it if guilty, move on always maintaining we did nothing.

 

Settling is like confessing, hard to play the i'm innocent guv card if you do that. As for Carlson well you could knock me over with a feather, he and I agree on something, I hate Trump with a passion too, but probably for different reasons.

 

That Carlson guy is one slimy piece of shit. Saw somebody on another channel say that Murdoch has been paying Carlson "tens of millions a year" for this. I get the this is good money bit, but if I had already banked tens of millions I wouldn't be giving the proverbial flying about Fox or lying for this cretin I despise.

 

All of these far right alternative facts sources such as Fox are milking the MAGA crowd for billions, Fox is probably just getting the biggest slice of the pie, And this will continue stoking more far right terrorism and general political paralysis.

[JFK-1]

Excellent deconstruction of Carlson, and another opinion that Fox will lose the defamation case.

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

4 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Excellent deconstruction of Carlson, and another opinion that Fox will lose the defamation case.

 

 

In the unforgettable words of Bill Maher, why does Tucker Carlson always look like he's shit his pants?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

8 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Heard a legal analyst say that it looks like Fox are going to take this all the way to a jury rather than settle. And I think that might be extremely problematic for them. All of this bad shit we're seeing about them, that's the good stuff.

 

Seriously. These documents the journalists are digging this stuff out of are heavily redacted, by Fox. So you have to guess the redacted stuff is even worse shit otherwise why would they hide it, and all of it will be revealed if they take it to a jury.

 

Now I know there's an argument that proving defamation is hard, in general. But these analysts are also saying this looks like a prosecutors dream in a defamation case, in their view Murdoch himself is saying things that could seal the deal for a prosecution case.

 

And I would further guess their own legal team must be saying this doesn't look so great Rupert, might not wriggle out of this. So why not settle, keep the redacted stuff hidden and just carry on making up piles of crap about how you never did anything wrong.

 

Sure it could cost a billion and a half to settle but it will cost that in a jury trial too if it goes against you, and in a jury trial all that negative stuff you're hiding will be out there. Could settle and make Dominion sign a privacy clause to get the dough. 

 

Why would they do this? Only thing I could come up with is that Fox is just going to play the Trump card so to speak, just keep insisting they did nothing wrong regardless of evidence to the contrary. It will cost a billion and a half either way.

 

But taking it to a jury despite the fact more negative material will come out could be simply a feature of let's just carry on saying I did nothing, appeal the hell out of it if guilty, move on always maintaining we did nothing.

 

Settling is like confessing, hard to play the i'm innocent guv card if you do that. As for Carlson well you could knock me over with a feather, he and I agree on something, I hate Trump with a passion too, but probably for different reasons.

 

That Carlson guy is one slimy piece of shit. Saw somebody on another channel say that Murdoch has been paying Carlson "tens of millions a year" for this. I get the this is good money bit, but if I had already banked tens of millions I wouldn't be giving the proverbial flying about Fox or lying for this cretin I despise.

 

All of these far right alternative facts sources such as Fox are milking the MAGA crowd for billions, Fox is probably just getting the biggest slice of the pie, And this will continue stoking more far right terrorism and general political paralysis.

 

Pretty much what Josh Marshall is saying about it too. They settle, they get accused of being RINO traitors. They lose the suit, they whine about being the subject of hateful left wing attacks and dine out on that for years.

 

$1.6 billion is still a ton of money, even for a business as big as News Corp. It would be a staggering blow.  But the alternative is worse for them.

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/why-hasnt-fox-news-settled-with-dominion

Quote

A Fragile Business Model

I wanted to circle back to this Amanda Marcotte column from a few days ago. I’m mostly in agreement with Amanda, except in my view this doesn’t quite capture it:

In light of all this, I suspect the reason Murdoch and Fox News seem determined to stick this out is that they are just that worried about what impact an admission of wrongdoing would have on their reputation with their audience. The possibility of a jury ruling in their favor, which they could spin as a total exoneration of their tactics, is so important to them that they’re willing to take a big risk that the opposite could happen. A settlement, however, would remove all doubt about who was in the wrong. 

I would put a slightly different emphasis on it. Fox News viewers don’t care whether the network was “in the wrong.” If anything, they celebrate and reward Fox News’ transgressive behavior. If Fox News takes the case to trial and loses, it and its viewers can easily dismiss it as another rigged, liberal, stabbed-in-the-back setup by their foes. They will all be victims together of Dominion’s jihad against them.

But that doesn’t work if Fox News settles. It’s not the admission of wrongdoing that’s the issue: It’s the capitulation. That is harder to spin up into a made-up narrative of victimization and fighting the good fight.

 

How do I know this? Because there’s an almost perfect parallel in the Dominion lawsuit itself: Fox News’ call of Arizona for Biden on election night.

 

As long as Fox News remains in its self-created bubble of propaganda, misinformation, and uncritical reporting, its relationship with its viewers remains intact and the spin cycle can continue. If Fox News punctures that bubble, it risks its viewership and its entire business model. That’s what happened when the network projected a Biden win in Arizona. In fact, in Dominion’s convincing telling, the damage to Fox News’ reputation with its viewers over the Arizona call is what motivated Rupert et al. to launch the libelous attacks on Dominion.

 

I’m not predicting Fox News will never settle this case. The risks the case poses to it financially are significant, and it’s legal position is not strong. But settling the case would be like the Arizona call all over again, and the Fox News business model, as revolting as it is, is still staggering from that blow.

 

[JFK-1]

The New York Times is reporting that prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office are signaling that criminal charges for the former president are likely to come for his role in the hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.

 

 

[JFK-1]

In the first half of this video he talks about the impending charges on Trump, then it moves on to something I had never heard of, allegations of the GOP being in cahoots with Elon Musk/Twitter, and among other things where did Musk get the finance to take over twitter?

 

I set the link to start when it's about to move on to the discussion about Musk. 

 

 

[JFK-1]

20 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Pretty much what Josh Marshall is saying about it too. They settle, they get accused of being RINO traitors. They lose the suit, they whine about being the subject of hateful left wing attacks and dine out on that for years.

 

$1.6 billion is still a ton of money, even for a business as big as News Corp. It would be a staggering blow.  But the alternative is worse for them.

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/why-hasnt-fox-news-settled-with-dominion

 

 

I think this bit pretty much nails it. The people who watch the likes of Carlson don't even care if Carlson/Fox is lying, in fact surely many or even most probably know they lie. But just don't care, it's what they want to hear regardless. 

 

Fox News viewers don’t care whether the network was “in the wrong.” If anything, they celebrate and reward Fox News’ transgressive behavior.

 

If Fox News takes the case to trial and loses, it and its viewers can easily dismiss it as another rigged, liberal, stabbed-in-the-back setup by their foes. They will all be victims together of Dominion’s jihad against them.

[RobboM]

4 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I think this bit pretty much nails it. The people who watch the likes of Carlson don't even care if Carlson/Fox is lying, in fact surely many or even most probably know they lie. But just don't care, it's what they want to hear regardless. 

 

Fox News viewers don’t care whether the network was “in the wrong.” If anything, they celebrate and reward Fox News’ transgressive behavior.

 

If Fox News takes the case to trial and loses, it and its viewers can easily dismiss it as another rigged, liberal, stabbed-in-the-back setup by their foes. They will all be victims togefor channels to ther of Dominion’s jihad against them.

I've been wondering more and more about how to balance free speech and truth, particularly in the context of a rise in the UK of heavily financed "news" channels. I wonder if the resolution to this is for channels to have to abide by an impartiality/ balance/ fact based and verifiable standard in order to meet the criteria of being a "News" channel. Other channels can choose not to abide by such standards but should have a prominent banner displaying "This is Propaganda Channel and May Not be Based on Verifiable Fact". Should apply to all news channels regardless of perceived bias.

[JFK-1]

10 hours ago, RobboM said:

I've been wondering more and more about how to balance free speech and truth, particularly in the context of a rise in the UK of heavily financed "news" channels. I wonder if the resolution to this is for channels to have to abide by an impartiality/ balance/ fact based and verifiable standard in order to meet the criteria of being a "News" channel. Other channels can choose not to abide by such standards but should have a prominent banner displaying "This is Propaganda Channel and May Not be Based on Verifiable Fact". Should apply to all news channels regardless of perceived bias.

 

Thought a lot about that myself, it's a difficult one to get around and is probably a major source of the entire political meltdown. Where was MTG just a few years ago? She was nothing but a facebook troll, now after being elevated by platforms such as Fox she's trolling in government.

 

They have to craft some measure to deal with it, even facebook etc. have moderation, so should platforms such as Fox, and I mean independent moderation.

 

You want to suggest the election was stolen? Well to back it up you better provide some evidence to support that, and it has to be more substantial than some wacko saw it in a semi conscious dream state, or whatever it was.

 

Because if you don't, I, the moderator, are going to make you describe the fact that's your source. Mystic Meg said it. And I, the moderator, will put a notice on it saying there is no credible evidence for this. 

[RobboM]

5 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Thought a lot about that myself, it's a difficult one to get around and is probably a major source of the entire political meltdown. Where was MTG just a few years ago? She was nothing but a facebook troll, now after being elevated by platforms such as Fox she's trolling in government.

 

They have to craft some measure to deal with it, even facebook etc. have moderation, so should platforms such as Fox, and I mean independent moderation.

 

You want to suggest the election was stolen? Well to back it up you better provide some evidence to support that, and it has to be more substantial than some wacko saw it in a semi conscious dream state, or whatever it was.

 

Because if you don't, I, the moderator, are going to make you describe the fact that's your source. Mystic Meg said it. And I, the moderator, will put a notice on it saying there is no credible evidence for this. 

Yup, similar again JFK. On FB I've trawled back friend's previous postings to see a number of postings which have subsequently been (offficially) debunked, or removed. If users had a "reputation" would that be seen as worth protecting? so if you are regularly posting content that is fake, misleading or worse then that would catch up with you and become apparent. I can think of holes in it but without some kind of reputation every single post has the same status from a triple sourced checked post to a bat crazy MTG rant

[Masonic]

 

[JFK-1]

Legal expert: I'm confident in saying a Trump indictment is coming soon

 

An indictment of Donald Trump is coming soon, our legal expert says, as the Manhattan DA's office offers Trump a chance to testify.

 

 

[JFK-1]

I like this guy because as a lawyers he's legally knowledgeable and he doesn't allow these blatant liars who come on his show to just scattergun it so to speak. Any of you have watched these GOP apologists and enablers will be aware they never answer a question and in fact will barely allow a question to even be asked.

 

They simply try to babble non stop which obviously negates any debate at all. This guy steps in and tells them they're not going to be doing that.

 

As he does with this Trump lawyer who appeared on his show in November just weeks after the election when they were trying to push the stolen election lie. She was pushing it back then, but now, under legal pressure, is admitting she was knowingly lying.

 

Busted: Trump lawyer admits the big lie amid reckoning on conspiracy theories

 

 

 

[RobboM]

4 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

I like this guy because as a lawyers he's legally knowledgeable and he doesn't allow these blatant liars who come on his show to just scattergun it so to speak. Any of you have watched these GOP apologists and enablers will be aware they never answer a question and in fact will barely allow a question to even be asked.

 

They simply try to babble non stop which obviously negates any debate at all. This guy steps in and tells them they're not going to be doing that.

 

As he does with this Trump lawyer who appeared on his show in November just weeks after the election when they were trying to push the stolen election lie. She was pushing it back then, but now, under legal pressure, is admitting she was knowingly lying.

 

Busted: Trump lawyer admits the big lie amid reckoning on conspiracy theories

 

 

 

That's pretty heartening to hear. The only downside is that such an egregious example still takes more than 2 years to put right and in the meantime (I've even fact checked this quote as probably not Mark Twain but even so! "A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes"

[Masonic]

 

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Masonic said:

 

 

No understanding of what happened?

 

They gambled on 10 year fixed rate government bonds at 1.8%, and when interest rates went up they were having to pay out more interest than they were earning.

They tried to raise cash to buy the new higher rate bonds and spooked the market.

 

The irony is that Trump's deregulation of regional banks is what enabled the situation.