DirecTV Ignores GOP Pressure, Kicks OAN Off Its Cable Lineup
from the performative-gibberish dept
Back in January DirecTV announced it would be kicking the fantasy and conspiracy channel One America News (OAN) off of its satellite TV lineup, removing the biggest distribution avenue for the “news” channel.
Despite the endless coverage the channel gets for its baseless conspiracies, it’s a channel relatively few people actually watch. DirecTV executives simply didn’t figure the controversy to income ratio was worth it, so they simply didn’t renew OAN’s carriage agreement when the time came.
OAN, of course, quickly tried to spin itself as a victim of partisan censorship, first by attacking a Black AT&T board member in “news” coverage that pretended DirecTV’s business decision was politically and racially motivated, and then by filing a lawsuit claiming that DirecTV was leveraging its “unchecked influence” as a failing satellite TV company to stifle a “family-run business.”
In the hopes of pressuring DirecTV further, OAN appears to have enlisted the support of six GOP Attorneys General. All six, with Texas AG Ken Paxton in the lead, wrote a letter to DirecTV claiming the channel’s decision was “clearly viewpoint discrimination and an attempt to silence conservative voices.”
Undaunted, DirecTV proceeded anyway and has informed consumers they’ll be losing the channel starting this week:
DirecTV plans to drop One America News Network on Tuesday, ignoring pressure to reverse course from the conservative cable outlet and its supporters.
The satellite TV giant has been notifying customers that it will no longer carry OAN or AWE, a high-end lifestyle channel also owned by Herring Networks Inc., after April 4.
Again, not that many people watch the channel on a good day. As a struggling satellite TV provider that’s been losing subscribers for several years, DirecTV didn’t find the hassle worth it. Even if DirecTV had kicked the channel to the curb due to its viewpoints, there’s nothing illegal in that. It’s not legally or contractually obligated to carry any channels its executives don’t deem worth the hassle.
So in short, an ordinary business decision was rolled into the Trump GOP’s victimization complex and bunk narrative that they’re being somehow being “censored,” despite the fact you’re able to hear the party’s conspiracy theories everywhere, constantly, ad nauseum. Including on their own platforms and other, more popular, GOP-friendly cable “news” channels.
Much like the attacks on “big tech,” this isn’t really a debate about censorship or the contours of free speech. It’s about authoritarians who believe that private companies (cable and big tech alike) should be mandated to carry the kind of race-baiting, base-agitating propaganda authoritarians resort to when they know shifting demographics and reality aren’t working in their favor.
Filed Under: conspiracy theories, contracts, satellite tv
Companies: at&t, directv, oan, oann
Comments on “DirecTV Ignores GOP Pressure, Kicks OAN Off Its Cable Lineup”
The free market in action...
No worries, I’m sure The Holy Free Market will eagerly snap up such a desirable source of news, with numerous platforms tripping over themselves to offer OAN a new outlet that the millions of people the AG’s were talking about will flood to.
Re:
So, about that (yes, I know the /s was heavily implied)…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_America_News_Network
This would have been around the time that Trump was boosting it by tweeting regularly after he decided that Fox weren’t bowing to him enough, IIRC.
It seems to me that the millions of viewers never existed, and OANN is going to struggle to get advertising based on their actual viewership numbers even if they promised to deliver a pre-DirecTV drop audience in return for a grace period, barring the very unlikely scenario that there was a massive upswing in viewership since the 2019 figures were confirmed.
As always, I suspect that this is just another example of a very loud minority having fooled themselves into thinking they’re a significant crowd and the free market they supposedly worship will treat them accordingly.
There is the possibility that they’ll get a new sponsor, or pivot to an online streaming model, but even then unless they choose to abide by another platform’s terms of service they’ll have to depend on building a new platform. Something that their type have been shown to be woefully bad at.
The most likely outcome is that they’ll suffer some very loud and obnoxious death throes before being finally put out of their misery by some very strong ongoing litigation against them for their lies about the 2020 election. After which nobody will know or care that they ever existed, except for a few similarly loud and obnoxious voices propping them up as an example of how it’s somehow unfair that right-wing outlets face consequences for their actions. Whereas the rest of us will probably consider it an example of how it’s a really bad idea for corporations to prop up failing businesses they agree with politically by forcing people who would never watch the channel to pay for it.
Re: Re:
I’m just wondering what percentage of their actual audience was simply other media properties.
Re: Re: Re:
I can imagine there are 14,000 news channels, newspapers and general media types around the world who would have kept an eye on OAN for a mixture of lols, horror and trying to understand the other side.
Re: Re: Re:2
There’s a point there as well – should DirecTV be compelled to carry all of the other channels who have applied to be there but failed, including non-political channels that have been cancelled in the past, or is this a unique stance that only applies to OANN because cultists are offended?
Re: Re:
Biggest inauguration crowd in history anybody? There is a system to this madness.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Pray for Trump 2024
Re: oan news
I am telling people to drop direct tv for taking OAN news.my family and others are dropping your server.
While ignoring that they were demanding that DirectTV pay the bills for their favorite news channel. Why do those on the right always want somebody else to pay the bill for their propaganda.
Re: Have you seen what Propaganda costs?
The GOP refuses to pay its bills whenever it can. The people who vote for the GOP in many cases are on the lower end of the income scale and the only reason they get money is corporate donations because its good business to have both sides in your pocket. The GOP runs on big money donations while the Dems run a much higher % on broad base donations.
“Of donors giving more than $100,000 to a candidate or party, 39.20% favored Democrats and 60.32% gave to Republicans.” – Source Open Secrets
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You are surely an ignorant CNN U Grad. Without conservatives you would starve
OAN, the best echo chamber is a mostly empty room. Hear all about it on Pravda Social.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
What do you do, cling to your CNN and MSNBC? OAN was pure truth pure journalism. You are simply an uninformed liberal
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Great
Great,
Just about every state in the Union has Anti-Trust laws similar to federal law. DirectTV can hand over all its communications and documents and we can see what role this board member of DirectTV / CEO of company in litigation with OAN had in this decision.
State AG’s have every legal right to enforce their anti-trust law within their state.
I’m betting this individual did not minor role and DirectTV wasn’t very bright in covering their tracks.
Always in cash never in writing is something the left doesn’t seem to get as evidenced by DNC e-mails, hunters laptop etc.
Re:
Where is the Anti-trust is DirectTV saying we will not pay OAN for its content, and refusing to renew a contract.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: That Can Say
They can say what ever the fuck they want. Andrew Como said he grouped people because ‘He was Italian.’
Its easy to say shit, much harder to make a defense.
You have a member of the board who is also the CEO of the parent company who’s subsidiary is in litigation with OAN. On its face that is very much an antitrust issue.
As we heard over and over and over again during the whole Trump-Russia bullshit ‘collusion is only a crime in anti-trust.’
Well this is potentially collusion under antitrust.
If it was as benign as you say it is than DirectTV has nothing to worry about when state AGs read their e-mails and other communications related to this decision.
Re: Re: Re:
Well this is potentially collusion under antitrust.
Yeah, you’re the guy who was falling all over himself about Munn, Wabash, Red Lion Broadcasting, common carriers, and whatever other garbage you shitposted on the other article.
Given the fact that none of that seemed to apply to DirecTV’s decision, don’t you think you should focus on using your ‘other degrees’ and stop pretending you have any idea as to what the fuck you’re talking about with respect to law?
I mean, if you want to continue looking like a fool, by all means, fuck off and be the best fool you can be!
But don’t be surprised when all of your ‘law skills’ fail to produce anything. Again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Like I Give a Fuck
Like a give a fuck what some loser thinks about me. You are a pathetic loser like the rest of Mike’s misfits. You fucking losers post here over the weekend and wonder why I’m not responding.
I don’t want you dipshits to agree with me. If you like or agreed with me then I would worry. Who in their right mind want’s to be in the company of people as pathetic as you 6 dipshits.
You are little Mike clones. Read you morons. Pay attention to what Mikes peers in silicone valley think of him. They all think he is a deluded idiot.
Re: Re: Re:3
You mad, bro?
Re: Re: Re:4
He’s probably upset that when he threw that tantrum his mummy didn’t rush down to the basement with a glass of milk and biscuits to settle him down.
Re: Re: Re:3
You fucking losers post here over the weekend and wonder why I’m not responding.
No one wonders why you aren’t responding. Rather, we’re wondering when you and your stupid ass are going to shut the fuck up.
Re: Re: Re:3
And yet, here you are.
And yet, you keep trying to convince us otherwise.
And yet, you wallow in the same muck we do.
[and yet, citation still needed]
Re: Re: Re:3
So how much are you paid and by whom to troll this site?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 I'm the Other Extreme
I would be nice and polite but you dipshits flag any post you dont agree with. So if my posts will be flagged regardless of what I say then why measure my speech?
There is another extreme to “moderation” that Mike never addresses because Mike is an idiot.
If you are going to censor all alternate views those people have no incentive to be civil. They will tell you exactly what they think of you.
I know you are a depressed loser who has been nothing but a mistake since you were conceived. This pathetic blog is the only reason you haven’t given a shotgun a blowjob.
Re: Re: Re:5
Not true. I flag any post that offers nothing but bullshit, insults, or a combination of the two. Mere disagreement isn’t enough for a flag, at least from me.
But then there are assholes like you, who’ve proven to be acting in bad faith from the get-go. Y’all tend to get auto-flagged because of that, not because you’re disagreeing with Techdirt “orthodoxy”.
In which case, moderators have every incentive to ban troublemakers from their communities. Civility is a two-way street, son.
Projection, thy name is Chozen.
Re: Re: Re:5
Just give up already. It’s not a very good look when you name yourself after an idiot bully that got his butt handed to him by Danny LaRusso and Mr. Miyagi in Karate Kid II. Kinda like what happens to you whenever you’re confronted with the truth.
Re: Re: Re:5
Wow, you are one nasty, spiteful and petulant little cellar dweller aren’t you. Wonder what you are like if you get really cranky.
Re: Re: Re:5
You seem to have a persistent obsession with blowjobs. I wonder why that is?
Re: Re: Re:6 Or just plain impotent
Incels are almost always obsessed with sex.
Re: Re: Re:5
but you dipshits flag any post you dont agree with
That’s not true at all. It’s not whether I agree or don’t agree with you, it’s that I think you add nothing of worth to the discussion.
Re: Re: Re:5
I don’t. Only ones that cross the line, are exceptionally ignorant, are trolls or spam, or recite dangerous misinformation. There have been a few of your posts that I have not flagged, and there are several posts where people disagree with each other that have not been flagged.
I mean, you’re being flagged because you repeat the same debunked things over and over, not for your tone (although that doesn’t help things). Spamming the same thing over and over again can be grounds for flagging.
Additionally, people who repeatedly do flag-worthy things in almost every post are more likely to be flagged in the future.
At any rate, I don’t see what that has to do with you measuring your speech. IMO, not wanting to be an a$$hole is more than sufficient reason to be measured in my speech. And even more relevantly, no one was talking about your tone to begin with, so this is a complete non sequitur.
Or because it’s something you just came up with just now,
Again, you weren’t being asked to be civil. That would be nice, but that’s an entirely separate discussion. Also, in case you hadn’t noticed, a lot of the people here aren’t that civil, either.
More importantly, again, I think that being civil is something that people shouldn’t need incentive to do, anyways, and being uncivil just because you don’t get your way only makes you look even worse, including to people who might otherwise agree with you.
But if you want to shoot yourself in the foot, don’t let me stop you.
I will not quote the next paragraph, but I will address it. I don’t demand or expect civility here, but I do draw the line at references like that. Go ahead and swear, insult people, be vulgar, and be rude all you like, but don’t go there. That crosses the line.
Re: Re: Re:5
Been there, done that, get your fucking NeoNazi filth out of 4chan.
You clearly don’t fucking care to be civil , and I am being very restrained here.
Re: Re: Re:3
It is rather dangerous to use one’s entire vocabulary in a single comment.
It’s also quite pathetic that you have nothing to offer here but 100% pure projection.
Re: Re: Re:3 Crybaby Cuck Chozen
“I don’t want you dipshits to agree with me.”
You crave approval so bad it’s kinda cute.
Re: Re: Re:3
Then why do you insist on coming here and repeating your nonsense?
No one is wondering why you aren’t responding. Many of us also don’t post over the weekend, anyways, so the first half of that statement is false.
That said, why would posting on the weekend be a problem for you, anyways?
Again, then why do you keep coming here in an apparent attempt to convince people to agree with you?
Rather odd.
You’ve talked before about it being 6 people arguing against you, but I’ve seen more than that in the past and present, and several of them are ACs at that. So yeah, I doubt this claim.
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:
You’re gonna need a better argument for that belief besides “I said it’s right therefore I’m right so shut up”.
Re:
Producing convincing lies is something the right doesn’t doesn’t seem to get as evidenced by DNC e-mails, Hunter’s laptop etc.
Always in cash never in writing is something the left doesn’t seem to get because they don’t need to as much as the crooked right.
Re:
Could you direct me to the part of antitrust law that states that a company is required to indefinitely renew contracts with its suppliers and/or customers?
Because this could only be illegal if that was part of the law, and I don’t recall having seen that anywhere.
Re:
Which board member are you talking about?
Re:
How would any of those laws apply to DirecTV in this situation?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Asked And Answered
It was actially in the letter that Karl Marx ignored.
This conflict of interest has numerous issues that need to be investigated. Both antitrust issues as its potential collusion and securities law as a member of the board has a fiduciary obligation to AT&T share holders, not benefiting another in which he has interests.
I’m sure if AT&T and Mr. Kennard have nothing to hide law enforcement wont find any incriminating evidence when they executive a warrant to take all communications related to the OAN issue.
Re: Re: Re:
DirectTV ha decided not to renew is contract with OANN
DirecTV also kicked RT to the curb. But curiously, you didn’t comment on that article. Perhaps they can team up with RT so the complaining is louder.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/03/02/directv-roku-give-rt-the-boot/
Re: Re: Re:2
“But curiously, you didn’t comment on that article”
I don’t read every article, and despite the fantasies some people have I do things in my life other than comment here. I occasionally go weeks without commenting. So?
Re: Re: Re:
Can you prove that anything said or done by Mr. Kennard was the sole or primary factor behind the decision by DirecTV to drop OANN?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Process
Its a process. You have on its face a case for collusion.
The party that has been harmed OAN believes that there was collusion between AT&T and Staple Street Capital. The next step is a search warrant. All you need to get a warrant his have reasonable grounds. The same person being on the board of both parent companies makes it reasonable on its face.
If DirectTV, AT&T, Staple Street Capital, and Dominion Voting Systems have nothing to hide than an investigation will find nothing incriminating in their records.
You dipshits seem to think that everything is ‘PROOF BEYOND A RESONABE DOUBT!’
Shut the fuck up you dipshit!
Re: Re: Re:3
OANN can believe Earth is flat; belief on its own isn’t proof.
Does the situation represent a conflict of interest? Sure. But I can reasonably point out that without proof of Kennard’s involvement with the decision to drop OANN—a decision that may or may not have involved DirecTV’s board of directors—OANN has nothing but its own unproven claims to stand on.
I know that isn’t the standard in every court of law, but I’d like to think it’s a good standard, and it’s one I try to adhere to whenever I can. I have reasonable doubts about your claims of anti-trust collusion; you’re the one who has to overcome those doubts with solid evidence and arguments with more substance than “uh-huh to your nuh-uh”.
As if you could afford my asking price for that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Then We Are Done
“Does the situation represent a conflict of interest? Sure.”
Then we are done. There is reasonable grounds to open and conduct an investigation. In all matters of law an apparent conflict of interest has always been considered “reasonable grounds.”
Re: Re: Re:5
Except we’re not. The situation may appear to be a conflict of interest, sure. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Kennard was involved with the decision to axe OANN from DirecTV, nor should it be a reason to force OANN back onto the DirecTV lineup.
I’ll ask again: Can you prove that anything said or done by Mr. Kennard was the sole or primary factor behind the decision by DirecTV to drop OANN? Please be specific in your citations of fact and present actual evidence instead of mere speculation.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Warrants
“Except we’re not. The situation may appear to be a conflict of interest, sure. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Kennard was involved with the decision to axe OANN from DirecTV, nor should it be a reason to force OANN back onto the DirecTV lineup.”
A criminal investigation and evidence gained from warrants will find that out.
Re: Re: Re:7
What criminal investigation? What actually-on-the-books crime do you think was committed when DirecTV declined to renew its contract with OANN?
Re: Re: Re:7
For a criminal investigation to begin, there needs to be some kind of evidence of a crime in the first place. Where is that evidence?
Re: Re: Re:8
Where is that evidence?
Sitting inside Chozen’s otherwise empty head.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Reasonable Belief
In conflict of interest is the evidence of the crime. In Law when conflict of interest is material it has always on its face amounted to reasonable cause.
Simple example if a judge has an apparent conflict they have to recuse themselves because the appearance of conflict in and of itself is sufficient evidence to meet the standard of reasonable cause.
Reasonable cause is a very low standard of proof which is what Mike’s Misfits don’t get. You dipshits think everything has to reach ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’ There is only one single action in all of law that must reach the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that is a conviction for a criminal charge. Nothing else has to rise to such a high standard of proof.
Re: Re: Re:9
Do you have any proof that the DirecTV executive in question refused to recuse himself from involvement with the decision to not renew OANN’s contract? Do you have any actual proof that he was involved in the decision in any way?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 That Way We Have Investegations
That’s why we have investigations and warrants. If this little cabal of companies did everything by the book an investigation should find nothing.
Re: Re: Re:11
An investigation into what, a refusal to renew a contract? Please. A few Republicans will wave their dicks around in an attempt to get some press and OANN will act like a victim to grift some money out of a bunch of dupes (thus prolonging its existence), but this situation is never going to rise to the level of a full-blown federal anti-trust investigation.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12 Collusion
Collusion, you know that thing you morons bitched about for 8 years but actually only exists in antitrust code.
If this board member played no part then these guys have nothing to worry about.
Re: Re: Re:13 Fuck your feelings
“Collusion, you know that thing you morons bitched about for 8 years.”
Sorry son you seem to have us confused with your mouth breathing MAGAt friends.
Re: Re: Re:13
Considering the lack of any evidence that there is anything unusual about this transaction other than OAN being upset about it and a possible conflict of interest that likely wasn’t a deciding factor in the decision, an investigation would appear to be politically motivated, which is generally a no-no, and possibly a violation of the 1A. Also, a conflict of interest, even if it exists, is not necessarily collusion. Those are some huge leaps in logic there.
Also, “we” didn’t “bitch about collusion” at all, certainly not for 8 years. Many of us suspected or asserted that Trump had or has close ties to Putin which may or may not amount to something criminal, and most of us didn’t use the word “collusion” specifically, anyways. Not that the exact word really matters in this case. And as for the 8 years, thing, the subject didn’t even come up at all until mid-2016, which is 6 years ago, and it has barely even been brought up since the pandemic began in early 2020, which would be less than 4 years later. No matter how you look at it, that’s not 8 years.
Re: Re: Re:14
We saw “collusion” more from the professional liars and their bot brigade screeching “No collusion!” than anywhere else.
Re: Re: Re:13
Yes or no: Is there any tangible proof that the board member in question played any role in the decision by DirecTV to not renew OAN’s contract?
Re: Re: Re:14
I’d add the other question – the channel AWE also had its contract not renewed on the same day as OANN, but I haven’t heard a peep out of these people about how it’s bad or illegal or whatever that this happened. So, why not? Why is it only the toxic, unprofitable network that was explicitly set up by AT&T for the purposes of spreading right-wing propaganda that matters?
Re: Re: Re:13
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Trump, who was familiar with an industry very different than politics, was not aware of the risks of foreign actors attempting to penetrate his inner circle and exert influence; because he wasn’t aware of the risk, and operated his campaign in the same undisciplined manner he did his personal business, meaning he didn’t get professional services to vet everyone working in his campaign which created a significant vulnerability. And this vulnerability was being exploited/attempted to be exploited, and whether as a candidate or as president, it was a matter of national security that this vulnerability was investigated and eliminated, and did not actually mean that Trump sought any Russian assistance aside from some offhand remarks he made in public.
Because ultimately it was found that the Russians were testing boundaries, did have tentacles in some of Trump’s trusted inner circle. All Trump had to do was quietly cooperate with the FBI, with the understanding that the investigation was about finding those who had violated his trust and creating security risks. He and his dumb ass sons could have just claimed ignorance of the law when it came to that hotel meeting and they would have come through it all unscathed. Instead they only increased the appearance of guilt by obstruction, refusing to remedy the risks, then publicly kissing Putin’s ass. That was a mess entirely if Trump’s making
Re: Re: Re:14
Considering how Trump thinks, operates and how many of his business dealings can’t really be considered to be above board, there was no chance in hell he would willingly cooperate with the FBI. For him to admit that he needed the help of the FBI to root out possible Russian influence would be like admitting he was wrong and that is something we know he isn’t capable of.
Re: Re: Re:9
I just want to note that every lawyer reading this is laughing at your near total ignorance of how any of this works.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Nope
No lawyers read this blog. Mike is an idiot who has ran off everyone but you six morons.
Re: Re: Re:11 Try diggin up next time bro
You dumbfuck. I’ve seen multiple well known lawyers comment here. And let’s be honest their stool has more legal insight and knowledge than you ever will.
Re: Re: Re:11
I can assure you that many, many lawyers read this blog on a regular basis. And that every one of them who reads your comments is laughing at you.
Thank you for providing the entertainment as the local court jester.
Re: Re: Re:11
Just because you can’t count higher than your IQ doesn’t mean Techdirt has 6 readers.
Re: Re: Re:11
I mean, first off, that suggests that you yourself have been run off, but that clearly isn’t the case, so your statement is already clearly false.
Second, there are more than six people (plus you) just in this comment section alone, and there are others who write comments on other stories but not this one. So again, based solely on reading this comment section, you’re still wrong.
Finally, the number of people who post something on a site is virtually always significantly smaller than the number of people who read it, so even if there were exactly six people writing stuff in the comments here, you’d still likely be wrong.
At any rate, there are lawyers (like Ken “Popehat” White) who still write Tweets about articles on this site. Heck, some have actually contributed content to this site. So yes, there absolutely are lawyers who read this blog.
Re: Re: Re:7
“A criminal investigation”
On what grounds? What law states that a company must renew a contract against its will for a channel that isn’t profitable? Why does that law apply against OANN but not other channels, one of which was cancelled at the same time as OANN from the same owners but I haven’t heard a peep out of from the dame butthurt morons to defend?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Collusion Duh
“On what grounds?”
Collusion a board member on company A and company B cant use the position at one to the benefit of the other to the harm of a 3rd party.
Its no different than when the railroads would refuse to transport certain manufactures goods to benefit other manufactures. This is one of the specific evils antitrust law was enacted to stop you ignorant dipshit.
Re: Re: Re:9
It is different, you example is refusal to provide service to a customer willing to pay, while OAN has content that DirecdTV does not want to pay for, and inverse of you example.
Re: Re: Re:9
I do love it when you start namecalling others as being stupid when your entire argument is based on a fiction.
Re: Re: Re:3
You dipshits seem to think that everything is ‘PROOF BEYOND A RESONABE DOUBT!’
Well, if it’s not, then it would be a civil case, no?
I’m betting the mypillow guy took the same ‘law class’ that you did.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 No Dipshit
No you dipshit. You don’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to open a case or get a warrant. The warrants are the means by which you get the evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are demanding a case beyond a reasonable doubt before opening an investigation.
You are simply stupid.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, we’re demanding more than your speculation. Either cite a tangible piece of evidence that proves Kennard had a hand in axing OANN from the DirecTV lineup or fuck off with your conspiracy theorist bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:5
You are demanding a case beyond a reasonable doubt before opening an investigation.
Actually, I’m asking how you get a criminal warrant for what would at most be a weak civil case.
Dipshit.
Re: Re: Re:5
You do realize that all you’re doing here is demonstrating to the world you don’t know the difference between a civil and criminal case? Right?
It’s pathetic.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Standard of Proof
Standard of proof to get a warrant is the same in both civil and criminal cases. You are confusing the standard of proof for required in a verdict with the standard of proof for procedural matters like warrants and orders which have extremely low standards of proof.
The left has a hard time telling the difference between burden of proof and standard of proof.
Stephen sissy idiot that he is runs around screaming
‘You don’t have proof beyond a reasonable doubt therefore you cant have an investigation.’
But Stephen is an idiot. The investigation is how you get the evidence to meet the burden of proof.
Re: Re: Re:7
Hey whatever Chet!
All that shit you said in the other article failed to materialize, despite your insistence that it would.
It’ll be hilarious when the “OAN declares bankruptcy, 6 republican AG’s and a random fool named Chozen shit themselves” article comes out.
You competing for a Dunning-Kreuger award or something? Because you’ve got the sucker in the bag, Chip.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Or I Have A Life
Or I just have a life and was busy you pathetic loser. Once summer construction season heats up I wont be here much because I’ll be in the filed and enjoying summer with family and friends. You 6 losers will still be here playing soggy biscuit because you are that pathetic.
Re: Re: Re:9
That explains it. That in the real world you’re barele qualified to swing a hammer explains why none of your comments have ever hit the nail on the head.
Re: Re: Re:9
“filed”
is that what we are calling moms basement these days?
Re: Re: Re:7
Warrants still need proof, though. The appearance of a possible conflict of interest with no proof of the conflicted party playing a role in the alleged “crime” doesn’t seem like much proof for a search warrant of anything.
Re: Re: Re:7
As I have already pointed out, you haven’t even reached probable cause (the standard of proof required for a warrant), and probably not even reasonable suspicion (the lowest standard of evidence for anything, and is used for things like Terry stops), so you haven’t reached the bare minimum no matter how you look at it.
No, the left doesn’t have a hard time with that, at least no more than anyone else. Your inability to reach even a very low standard doesn’t mean we’re confused about the standard.
Does that make him your type now?
Actually, no, he doesn’t. He has said that you haven’t given enough proof to justify an investigation or to convince anyone, he has said that you have the burden of proof as the one making the claim, and he has (separately) said that the standard of proof for a criminal conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He has never said that you must have proof beyond all reasonable doubt to start an investigation. That is entirely all in your head.
Not quite. Investigative agencies don’t have the resources to investigate every single claim that may possibly be a crime. Outside of a few circumstances where the issue is particularly serious where time is of the essence (usually involving theft, rape, injury, murder, or kidnapping), they still need some evidence that some wrongdoing is happening before they will start an investigation. And they need more evidence to get a warrant.
And, like I said, you haven’t even given sufficient evidence to do more than to suggest the mere possibility—not even plausibility—of any wrongdoing here, and since this isn’t that serious of an issue (as in on the level of death threats or something), the mere possibility of wrongdoing is not enough to be worth investigating.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, the stupidity is coming from you. You keep posting your opinions and when asked to provide evidence to back them up you throw a hissy fit, swear a lot then repost the same bullshit just worded slightly differently.
Re: Re: Re:5
You still need probable cause, and you haven’t even reached reasonable suspicion. All you have is wild speculation.
Re: Re: Re:3 Can't wait for the impotent threats to start flying
“Shut the fuck up you dipshit!”
Oh good another Chozen hissy fit. My popcorn arrived just in time!
Re: Re: Re:3
Lol. Collusion? You can’t be that stupid. “Collusion” is not against the law unless it’s for something specific, like price fixing. This ain’t it, chief. Even bringing up “collusion” simply demonstrates your ridiculous ignorance of all of this.
OMG. A search warrant? Do you not know ho any of this works?
You truly are a very, very ignorant individual, matched by your incredibly adorable confidence in your own brilliance, which only makes this all the more hilarious.
You have no fucking clue. And everyone here knows it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Dipshit
“Lol. Collusion? You can’t be that stupid. “Collusion” is not against the law unless it’s for something specific, like price fixing.”
Collusion like most anti-trust law is nebulous and left up to the courts on a case by case basis. In this case you have an allegation that AT&T using its market power to help the a current litigation opponent of Dominion Voting Machines out of business.
This is no different than an 19th century railroad refusing to carry the goods of a manufacturer because a member of the railroads board is also on the board of the company in suit with the manufacturer.
This kind of collusion to help friends is one of the main specific evils antitrust laws were intended to prevent.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yes or no: Should the law force DirecTV to carry OANN?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Not the Issue Moron
Not the issue you dipshit. Should a board member at companies A and B be able to use their power at one to benefit the other?
That is the question here you fucking dipshit!
Re: Re: Re:7
Do you have any evidence that that is likely—not just possibly—the case here?
Also, when you want to get money from a litigation opponent (which Dominion absolutely wants to get from OAN), the last thing you want is for your opponent to go out of business. That means you can get less money in compensatory damages (not to mention punitive damages) assuming they don’t just go completely bankrupt and are unable to pay you a cent. So exactly how would running OAN out of business help Dominion in its litigation against OAN?
Also, AT&T is in favor of OAN, so the idea that hurting Dominion would benefit AT&T is also absurd.
Basically, I’m not seeing which “Company B” would benefit from the Company A in question (DirectTV) not renewing its contract with OAN.
Furthermore, I don’t think that forcing DirectTV to renew its contract with OAN would be a viable remedy even if all your other claims and arguments were true, and that is a relevant point.
Re: Re: Re:7
It kinda is; your refusal to see that is your problem.
I haven’t seen anything beyond wild speculation that says this has happened. Do you have tangible proof of that happening in the DirecTV/OANN situation?
Re: Re: Re:7
“Should a board member at companies A and B be able to use their power at one to benefit the other?”
An interesting philosophical question, and one that can be discussed in the light of evidence that this actually happened.
So, where’s the evidence?
Re: Re: Re:
Which is one of the reasons why AT&T dropped OAN like a hot potato after it was revealed that they funded OAN to begin with.
And the thing is, nobody was interested in picking up OAN – the only reason it was in DirecTV’s lineup was because it was grandfathered in when AT&T spun off DirecTV. Considering DirecTV’s financial woes it is no wonder they didn’t renew OAN’s contract because it cost them and money.
Only idiots go for conspiracy theories to explain something they don’t like instead of just looking at the financial reasons why some decisions are made.
You can scream all you want about “anti-trust” while believing that Kennard rule all these companies with an iron-fist as he pleases – but it only makes you a very loud idiot.
Re: Re: Re:2
It would be one thing if OAN was as popular as some deluded people think it was but with it having such pathetic viewer numbers all the explanation you really need is ‘DirecTV decided to stop paying for something that wasn’t earning it’s keep’, something you’d think supporters of The Holy Free Market would be all for since the alternative would be companies cratering left and right as they were unable to drop products that were costing them more than they got.
Re:
Hunters laptop. LOL! You clowns are just embarrassing.
Re:
Glad to see you showed up just so I can say ‘I told you so.’
Dumbass.
Re:
You’re only seeing a downside here Chortle!
Now with OAN in the proverbial shit pile of conservative failures, you people can go on whining and reminding us that you’re still the poor, hapless, impotent victims of us all-powerful, unstoppable libtards. That’s a plus, right?
Re:
Good to know that to Chozen, “evidence” means “Handcrafted by Russia.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Cant Fix Stupd
You still believe that shit. God damn you are stupid, even the NYT has moved on and admitted its genuine.
You cant fix stupid.
Re: Re: Re:
…says Exhibit A.
Re: Re: Re:
So, NOW you happen to trust the NYT? Yeah, right.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Nah
Nah I knew it was real from day one.
Crakchead got high damaged his laptop, work up from drugged stupor saw laptop was broken brought it to computer repair shop, went home got high and totally forgot about the whole thing.
Not a far fetched story when you take the whole crackhead part into account. Crackheads do stupid shit.
Re: Re: Re:3
Do you have any proof that Hunter Biden was using drugs at the time he allegedly dropped off his laptop?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Its Proof In and of Itself
A drug addicts history of drug use is always proof of their state of mind. The drug addict can deny that they were high at the time but the jury doesn’t have to believe them.
Re: Re: Re:5
I repeat: Do you have any proof that Hunter Biden was on drugs at the time he allegedly dropped off his laptop? Speculation about his “state of mind” is irrelevant; you need to prove that he was on drugs at the time you say he was on drugs. “Uh-huh to your nuh-uh” is not proof.
Re: Re: Re:6
Well, we do have slapdash photoshop jobs purporting to be emails, and at least one witness admitting they were bribed to lie that other emails were genuine.
Re: Re: Re:7
And before that, the fake emails sprinkled into the DNC hack (including ones to prop up false narratives about Seth Rich), the non-release of hacked GOP emails, and how the “DNC emails was an inside leak” the GOP sheep jump on was nothing more than a fabrication the Russian hackers laundered with one guy in Britain whose job is literally to spread disinfirmation.
Re: Re: Re:8
Nobody with a functioning brain ever has, or ever could, believe everything in the DNC / “Hunter” stories were 100% true, so it’s only natural Chozen does.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Dont Care
Irrelevant, don’t care how they came to be all that matters in this sense is that the e-mails were real and showed that democrats tend to put way too much in writing for their own good.
Always in cash never in writing.
BTW that is not always nefarious. I tell collogues “Always in cash never in writing” All the time. When you are sending an e-mail if its not material never write it. The more you write the more you risk some attorney in a legal dispute taking a section you wrote and using it against you.
Always in cash never in writing.
Re: Re: Re:9
What is a “colloges”?
Re: Re: Re:9
Whoops, it should be “collogues”.
Re: Re: Re:10
Must be what Chozen paid to give him his four duhgrease.
Re: Re: Re:9
“Always in cash never in writing.”
But enough about your sex life..
Re: Re: Re:9
If I were you, I wouldn’t be making fun of engineers and their intelligence any more.
Re: Re: Re:10
There’s way more reasons to make fun of him than a typo.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 No I Dont
“; you need to prove that he was on drugs at the time you say he was on drugs. “Uh-huh to your nuh-uh” is not proof.”
No I don’t have to prove it to this standard of proof you insist on. Its part of a larger case that proves its hunter bidens laptop.
Re: Re: Re:7
You do, though. I’m not going to take your claim of “Hunter Biden was high on crack cocaine when he dropped his laptop off at a computer repair store” if you can’t provide any proof to back up that claim.
You’re making a lot of claims and expecting us all to take them on faith. To quote a better clown than you: Homey don’t play that game.
Re: Re: Re:7
Whether or not it’s Hunter’s laptop is irrelevant. It’s still a complete non-story unless you can prove that the alleged contents are also genuine.
Also, in order for the drug thing to help build your case, we do need more than just the entirely speculative possibility that Hunter may have been on drugs at the time, since that would mean that Hunter himself left it at the computer store, and we still don’t know that that’s the case.
The only part of the story that has even reached “probably true” is that the laptop did belong to Hunter Biden, which is by far the least remarkable aspect of the entire story. From the start, I have been willing to grant that assertion for the sake of argument simply because it doesn’t even prove anything.
Basically, no one cares about the “case” you’re trying to build up; your reasoning for getting there (involving unverified assertions that he was high at the time) and every other part of the story are the issues because “Hunter’s laptop ended up at a computer repair shop” is so mundane and unremarkable that, even without evidence that we did not have at the time the NYP wrote its article on the subject that proves that it did, it’s not really worth arguing that much about it.
The only reason I did to begin with was to show that every single detail—from start to end—was on pretty shaky ground at the time the NYP published that article, so it’s unsurprising that most news outlets were unwilling to cover the issue at the time. But even then, I pointed out that, even if everything else was true, there was publicly verifiable evidence that Joe Biden never actually met with the oligarch as alleged and no corroborating evidence that he did, so the whole thing is completely meaningless as far as politics go, and even to get that far, you’d need a lot more evidence for a lot more claims than just “Hunter owned that particular laptop”.
Re: Re: Re:5
Is there any evidence he was on drugs at the time, and anywhere near the shop he is supposed to have dropped off the laptop?
Re: Re: Re:5
“A drug addicts history of drug use is always proof of their state of mind.”
Exhibit A: your posting history. I somehow doubt that someone this constantly angry and wrong about everything is posting sober 100% of the time.
Re: Re: Re:6
I’m angry and always post sober.
Chozen probably is, too, a proud NeoNazi at his core.
Re: Re: Re:7
Are you as constantly wrong, though? Being angry about things that are verifiably true is understandable, it’s the impotent rage over things that are verifiably obvious fiction that gets me.
Re: Re: Re:4
Or happened to be less than 3000 miles away? I’m pretty sure he was living in CA at the time, quite a hike here to DE.
I’m also pretty sure that that while some of the data was authenticated, the laptop hasn’t been proven to actually belong to him. DE has a large population of Russian immigrants in the beach towns, and it’s a small, small state.
Re: Re: Re:3
Projection, thy name is Chozen.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Crackheads do stupid shit.”
Don;t be so hard on yourself, that’s our job.
Re: Re: Re:3
You would know, I’m sure. That still doesn’t make the story you pulled out of you ass any more believable.
Besides, I don’t give a FUCK what Hunter supposedly did wrong. What we see with the orange idiot’s sons OTOH…
Re: Thats a second degree burn
“I’m betting this individual did not minor role…”
You know I’m starting to think you were fibbing about having four degrees.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Engineers
Engineers score dead fucking last on writing in GRE scores. If you engineer has perfect spelling and impeccable grammar he isn’t a very good engineer. Different parts of the brain dipshit.
Re: Re: Re:
[multiple reputable citations needed]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Go Fuck Yourself
Go Fuck Yourself
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WK5n-jKcv18/UfayP7uaEpI/AAAAAAAAAqk/taOocyq2VF4/s1600/Analytical-Writing.jpg
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2013/07/best-majors-for-gre-scores-in-2013.html
Re: Re: Re:3
Okay, so…how does any of that prove that dumb engineers are good engineers? I mean, that’s the whole point of what you said up there, so how does this prove your point?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 The Human Brain
If you weren’t such an ignorant fucking dipshit unemployed loser who lives in his parents basement you would know that the brain processes math and language very differently.
https://ece.umd.edu/news/story/the-brain-makes-sense-of-math-and-language-in-different-ways#:~:text=For%20example%2C%20most%20language%20processing,both%20left%20and%20right%20hemispheres.
As GRE scores show across the board people who are strong in one mode of thinking tend to be weak in the other. So an engineer who has impeccable spelling and grammar probably isn’t a very good engineer. You should be more concerned if the engineer you hired correctly calculated the voltage drop of your feeders and fault current for your protection than if they correctly used an oxford comma.
Re: Re: Re:5
Can you cite a scientific study on the field of engineering that says all engineers who can write above a certain grade level are objectively bad engineers?
Re: Re: Re:5
That only suggests a lack of correlation, not the inverted correlation that you suggest.
I mean, first off, I’m an engineer who does very well in both, so this isn’t a universal rule.
More importantly, by similar logic, if you are a good engineer, you probably aren’t very good at understanding law, which kinda hurts your case.
Really, you talking about being an engineer having four engineering degrees (which seems excessive, to be perfectly honest) has nothing to do with your knowledge or expertise in law, politics, journalism, sociology, finances, business, economics, ethics, or criminal investigations, and unless you are a computer engineer or software engineer, specifically, it doesn’t give you much insight into how websites work, either. (Which also leads to another point: there are many fields of engineering that have completely different specialties. I don’t really care if a chemical engineer knows how to calculate voltages, for example, and an electrical engineer probably couldn’t do a mechanical engineer’s job, either. “Engineer” describes an extremely broad category of careers with many completely distinct sections with little overlap.)
So, really, the point is that having engineering degrees and being an engineer gives you no additional knowledge or insight into any of the topics we’ve been discussing than some random guy I pick out of these comments.
Also, as an engineer, I have never had to know that there is a positive, negative, or no correlation between math skills and language skills, and I myself am evidence that it’s far from universal, so I had no reason to know such a thing. That you assert that everyone with a job and an education would obviously know that is evidence that you know nothing about people who aren’t you.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:2 Go Fuck Yourself Chodaboi
Awesome we are on the the full on hissy fit stage!
Re: Re: Re:
As an engineer I can assure readers that is complete BS.
Re: Re: Re:2
You mean to tell me that people who’s job depends upon precision and attention to detail aren’t sloppy and just wing it when writing since it’s not like imprecise text might have negative repercussions?
Mind blown.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Its not Text You Dipshit
We do very little by text you dipshit. Go pull the design for your building. The notes are short, to the point and most of the information is conveyed in the drafting.
IGNORANT DIPSHITS!!!!
Once again Mikes Misfits prove that they have no life. Anyone with a life would at some point in time have had to read some electrical drawings. The fact that you are assuming what they are shows me like most of Mikes Misfits you are a loser with no real life.
You are pathetic. If you were on a life menu you would be called Dad’s Mistake.
Re: Re: Re:4
Spoken like someone who has never worked in a company where communications with non-technical management was part of the job. Convincing management that you know what you are doing is essential if you are going to of anything of value, and that take good communications skills, and not the angry shouting you use here.
Re: Re: Re:4
Again, I can assure readers that this is complete BS. You can’t design and build a building with just a few short notes on the plans.
Re: Re: Re:5
To be fair, you probably could, but it would likely end up being a pretty shitty building.
Re: Re: Re:5
Chozen reads like the kind of person whose idea of a “plan” is to shit on the floor, then get angry and upset because nobody can think several steps ahead like him to recognize his genius.
I can’t say it’s unsurprising given what we’ve seen of this supposed four-degree, Latinx, sissy-fucking engineer so far.
Re: Re: Re:4
Correction: You do very little by text. Engineers as a whole might do stuff by text far more often than you do. Different engineering jobs have different requirements.
I mean, that’s not just an engineering thing, and it’s also not something that every engineer does.
They are also legible and don’t have much in the way of spelling errors. Additionally, how did the person who made that design learn what the requirements for that design were?
For me, while it wasn’t designs for buildings, a lot of it involves emails, texts, and papers going back and forth between me and my client or boss to determine what is required and what is acceptable. I have to do a lot of stuff in text.
If you are not specifically an electrical engineer or, maybe, a computer engineer, then no, you most likely would not have had to read electrical drawings at any point in time. A chemical engineer wouldn’t, that’s for sure, and there are lots of degrees in things other than engineering at that which would never touch an electrical drawing. The fact that you had to means nothing about anyone other than you and anyone else who took the exact same degrees and got the same or a similar job to you.
Seriously, not every intelligent, educated engineer is exactly like you. How is this so hard for you to understand?
Competition!
Surely, they can do like Truth Social and just start their own satellite TV service. I mean, that was so successful, right?
Re:
I’d love to see them try. I feel that might be slightly more complicated than modifying some open source Mastadon code.
What! An article about DirectTV making a sound business decision? ‘Checks calendar.’ Close but not April 1st. ‘Starts dusting off plans for Hell Freezing Over.’
“an attempt to silence conservative voices”
Then why oh why do I have to keep hearing you people constantly bitching about how silenced you’ve been?
It would be more believable if y’all actually shut up about how silenced you’ve been.
Freedom of speech =! Freedom of reach.
Funny how the GQP loves free market capitalism at work, except when it moves against them, at which point they bleat about being ‘cancelled’ and victimization.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: 2 Carriers
There are 2 satellite carriers DirecTV and DishNetwork. That is not a “free market.”
Re: Re:
Yes or no: Should the law force DirecTV to carry any and every network that wants to be on DirecTV’s channel lineup if DirecTV would otherwise refuse to carry (or has already refused to carry) a given network?
Re: Re:
… said nobody with the slightest understanding of markets work, ever.
Re: Re:
And the free market isn’t there to get a hernia, figuratively and literally speaking, carrying companies who can’t hack it on their own.
Re: Re:
You sound like Epic’s attempt to dupe the court into believing the market was “IOS apps” when in reality it was “Gaming” in order to falsely assert antitrust.
Re: Re:
Ah, so Chozen also doesn’t understand how market definition works in antitrust either. Hilarious how he parades his ignorance like this.
Trust me, dude, the actual experts reading this think you’re an ignorant dope.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Show
The term “free market” doesn’t occur anywhere in the Sherman Antitrust Act, The Federal Trade Commission Act, or the Clayton Act.
Free market comes from economics writings of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Adam Smith would be turning in his grave to hear a duopoly that operates federally licensed satellites, in internationally controlled space, broadcasting on exclusively licensed spectrums a “free market.”
So please show your evidence of what this “free market” as you see it is.
Re: Re: Re:2
The term “free market” doesn’t occur anywhere in the Sherman Antitrust Act, The Federal Trade Commission Act, or the Clayton Act.
What about Munn & Wabash, and Red Lion Broadcasting while were going down the list of other shit that doesn’t matter?
Re: Re:
“There are 2 satellite carriers DirecTV and DishNetwork”
So, why haven’t OANN signed a contract with the other network? Do your wild theories also maintain that DirecTV are blocking them from signing up with their competitor? Some channels seem to quite happily exist on both networks, so exclusive contracts don’t seem to be required.
I mean, the sane ones among us know that the reason is because OANN was created by AT&T in the first place, and they’re such a toxic and unacceptable to decent people kind of channel that nobody else wanted to touch them with a 20 foot pole in the first place, but what’s the explanation in your reality?
Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure that the relevant market would also include cable TV, not just satellite. I’m also pretty sure that there is at least one other satellite TV provider, though I can’t recall their name offhand.
Re: Uncle Sam, the market is being mean to me!
Much like ‘free speech’ they’re big fans of the ‘free market’ when, and only when it favors them. The second that changes you will find no-one quicker to start screaming for government intervention.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: We Never Were Fans
We are the party of the Trust Busters. This whole what you are arguing is the neocon, corporations and the military and do no wrong, viewpoint. We populists have forced the neocons out of the republican party and returned it to its populist roots. The neocons and the neolibs are with you now.
Neocons and neolibs are like Coke and Pepsi. There is hardly and substantial difference between Hillary Clinton and Bill Kristol.
Re: Re: Re:
Nice to see a pivot to something ‘neo’ to counteract the obsession with irrelevant 18th and 19th century court decisions.
If you could stick an ‘ism’ or two somewhere, I’m betting someone will call bingo.
Re: Re: Re:
Given the party’s hard-right turn into authoritarianism by way of book bannings, attempts to make public education more “patriotic”, (successful) attempts to curb reproductive rights, and the constant attacks on queer people (trans people in particular) as well as their allies (e.g., the “Don’t Say Gay” law in Florida and the law in Utah that was passed to attack a single trans athlete)?
Well…you’re not wrong.
Re: Re: Re:2
Huh, I hadn’t been aware that ‘populist’ was shorthand for ‘authoritarian asshole’, learn something new every day I guess.
Re: Re: Re:3
In the context of the GOP, that is the correct interpretation.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’d say he is wrong, but only because the Republican Party never had populist roots. That used to be a thing in the Democratic Party, but it being in the Republican Party is more of a modern thing.
Re: Re: Re:
“We are the party of the Trust Busters”
In the sense that you make it clear that you should never be trusted? I’ll give you that.
Re: Re: Re:
Not for a long time.
No, although it is also an argument against them. The fact is that the exact same people who advocated for allowing businesses to discriminate against LGBT people on 1A grounds are now advocating against allowing businesses to discriminate against bigots and conservatives.
First off, the Republican Party doesn’t have populist roots. The Democratic Party does (see, for example, the populist candidate William Jennings Bryan), but the Republican Party does not. The Republican Party was founded on abolition, specifically in the territories that were not yet states, and then went into civil rights, then pro-business, and so on. It was most certainly not populist in its early days.
Second, you have not, in fact, “driven out the neocons”. They’re still there. Case in point: Mitch McConnell. And even if you had, they haven’t joined the Democratic Party instead. Some are independents, while others are Libertarians.
It’s so ironic that OANN is targeting a black employee of DTV in a claim that they are being discriminated against racially. Don’t they have mirrors in their bathrooms at OANN?
Re:
feels your forehead
Are….are you feeling okay?
Have you missed the part where the whypipo are the ultimate victims in everything?
That they are the real minority being pushed around by the baby raping cabal that runs the world?
Being force fed all of that woke ideology like… you should treat everyone like a human, that makes them so terrified.
Poor white women can’t even use the bathroom in peace, they have to demand everyone drop their skirts to make sure no evil transsexual has slipped in to do…. something horrible to them.
That poor white girls will be run out of sports by transgirls, because they are still boys just out to show up the girls.
That those CRT bastards are going to tell 5 yr olds to hate themselves for being whypipo, because their parents are afraid that seeing how people of color have been screwed over by whypipo over & over & over so we should never admit slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, violating treaties, etc etc.
You just have to feel bad for the whypipo, they were so used to being in charge and its slipping away from them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Race Card
Ah yes the old because the guy is X this is inherently racist.
Are you saying that all a major multinational corporation breaking the law needs to do is simply have the individual who does the actual breaking of the law be that a board member, chief executive, or lowly accountant be some kind of protected class and the illegal activity can no longer be questioned?
Re: Re:
No, they’re not.
They’re saying that OANN going after a Black executive on DirecTV’s board—one who may or may not have played a role in DirecTV declining to renew its contract with OANN—reeks of racism regardless of any potential conflicts of interest said Black executive may have had. I don’t see OANN digging up and slinging dirt on the white executives, after all.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Yep
So because the guy who is on both boards creating what you admit is an apparent conflict of interest its still racist?
What you are saying is that is sociopathic corporate America wants to do illegal shit just have a black guy be the trigger man and they are good.
You are such a fucking idiot.
Re: Re: Re:2
I don’t respond to otherwording.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Other
You don’t respond when you don’t have a simple answer because you are a dipshit.
Re: Re: Re:4
In reality: Stephen doesn’t respond to bad-faith loaded questions sharted out by crackhead dipshits like Chozen.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, I don’t respond to otherwording. I don’t need to because you’re not reiterating my arguments—you’re shoving words down my throat that didn’t first come from it.
If you want to know my actual position, ask me what my position is and I’ll tell you. Resorting to otherwording—to saying a bad faith interpretation of my argument is my argument so you can “win” this discussion—is a tactic that I can see through a mile away, you sweet summer fetus.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Nope
There is no other interpretation. DailyBeast was the first one to bring up that this guy was black. There is no other interpretation that you are playing the race card. You are just being a race baiting piece of shit.
Re: Re: Re:6
The fact that you want your interpretation to be the correct one despite it being the wrong one is your problem. If you want to know what my position is on the matter, ask me instead of making up my position to have a better chance at “winning” an argument you lost the moment you otherworded me.
Re: Re: Re:7
“… you lost the moment you otherworded me.”
To be fair it was over, way, way, before that.
Re: Re: Re:6
“There is no other interpretation”
What I don’t get is this – you’re created a simplistic reality for yourself where what you believe is the only truth and no other opinion or interpretation can ever be valid. A reality where there can be no nuance and no grey areas, no room for complicated thought, only the one truth and you never have to think about anyone else’s ideas.
So, why are you so angry all the time? I thought ignorance was supposed to be bliss.
Re: Re: Re:6
Your lack of imagination doesn’t mean that your desired interpretation is the only interpretation.
Re: Re: Re:2
Let me know when Clarence recuses himself, otherwise STFU.
Re: Re:
blinks slowly
How did I play the race card, please provide actual evidence.
Remember the only race mentioned was whypipo who claim victimhood when they are in the positions of power.
Sitting members of Congress are screaming how silenced they have been, on nearly every platform which makes me curious what they think silenced means, meanwhile there are innocent people sitting in jail that no one will listen to… they seem much more silenced.
Perhaps you just felt that someone had called your whypipo victim card into question.
No one broke the law here, you imagine the law says they have to carry hitlerlite broadcasting… news flash they don’t have to. Much like the government can’t force store to carry El Goyo products if their customers no longer want it.
Whats it like to be the REAL victim in all of this?
Re:
They are perfectly capable of utilizing self-reflection in the literal sense.
Expected to see at least one of Chozen, Koby or Lostinlodos piss themselves, was not disappointed.
I thought this was what platforms like Truth Social and Parler were supposed to prepare for, do those just not exist anymore for the Trump Republicans to shitpost?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Echo Chamber
I’m not interested in an echo chamber. I don’t have a personality disorder like Mike and his 6 misfits. I don’t need to live in an echo chamber.
This need you 6 losers have to live in an echo chamber where your identity is created and reinforced is a major sign that you are cluster B nut cases.
I know who I am. I don’t need an echo chamber to create it and reinforce it.
As you guys like to joke.
Latino, bisexual, hyper-masculine, populist, asshole.
This drives you disphits insane because in your bigfooted minds because I’m Latino I also have to be X, Y, Z. And because I’m bisexual I have to be X, Y, Z. etc. etc. etc.
Your entire world view is a series of stereotypes.
Re: Re:
Pot, kettle.
Re: Re:
…says the dude who is constantly trying to make us agree with him.
[citation needed]
You know who you want us to think you are. Given your history of bullshitting everyone here, I’m not inclined to believe you.
Your ethnicity is one aspect of your identity; while it may inform other aspects of your identity, it isn’t the sole determining factor. Saying otherwise is some stereotyping bullshit. To wit: a sizeable number of Latino Americans are Catholic, but just as being Catholic doesn’t mean you’re Latino, being Latino doesn’t mean you’re Catholic.
Do you sell bags of popcorn to go with all this projection?
Re: Re: Re:
that drill tweet about not being owned??
Re: Re:
Latino, bisexual, hyper-masculine, populist, asshole.
For me anyways, you’re just an asshole.
Asshole.
Re: Re:
One will find plenty of evidence to disprove that lie here.
Re: Re:
“Latino, bisexual, hyper-masculine, populist, asshole”
Why do you include immutable, unchangeable aspects of a person with them choosing to be an asshole?
“because I’m Latino I also have to be X, Y, Z”
You can be Latino and be an absolute twat or a Nazi, and those are good reasons for people to tell you to fuck off. But, if someone tells you to fuck off because you’re Latino and nothing else, you’re protected by sane people.
Non-assholes tend to already have this fact understood in their minds.
Re: Re:
You forgot impotent and micro dick bro.
Re: Re:
Nah, mate, when you respond to posts that are clearly meant to bait out an angry response in the same apoplectic, irascible wall of shit you always respond with, that’s an echo chamber.
Nobody needs to rely on stereotypes when you keep doubling back on the same tired Trump-fellating garbage like it’s mainstream 2017. I do think it’s also funny you keep dropping additional crumbs like your race, sexuality and other identifying traits as if they justify or unjustify the fact that you’re an obnoxious asshole who’s here purely to drop a hot load in the middle of the room, then get angry when people call you out on it.
Re: Re:
Funny. Out of all those, I didn’t even know the first two things, and I also don’t care, and it’s just that last one that people are taking issue with.
Re: Re:
So, a NeoNazi.
Get the fuck out of 4chan.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I see the brain-washed leftist lemmings are out in force spewing their mindless, baseless libtard talking points to no end… It’s really sad that there are that many complete and total brain-dead douche-bags in this country… LET’S GO BRANDON!!
Re:
Low-energy bot. SAD.
Re:
You seem upset. Nothing to watch on TV?
Re:
So, are there any right-wingers who mentally made it out of grade school? I’d sure like to think that there’s someone on your side who at least made it to puberty on an emotional level, but those guys never seem to post in these threads for some reason.
Re: Re:
Politics is like traffic. If you’re slow, you move to the Right.
Re:
I don’t see any communists here.
Hell, the Charles Koch Foundation offered Mike money for a spell.
And while I may be brain-dead douchebag, I wish I was American. Because then I’d have a shot at fixing the fucked up system that is the American political process.
On points
Direct tv’s censorship is 100% legal.
It’s not an anti-trust issue as;
Anyone interested in watching OAN can go to KlowdTV to watch it.
Showing that you don’t need to overpay for a crappy service that works only when the sun is shining and the wind isn’t blowing.
Funny how that works. If you don’t like a company censorship choices go elsewhere!
Re:
Since when did censorship include refusing to pay someone to produce something?
OR
where does free speech say you can insist somebody else pays your bills?
Re:
DirecTV exercising its right to not associate with a criminally liable TV station is not, in fact, censorship.
If you do, you have a problem with 1A. That’s a you problem, I’m afraid.
Re: Re:
For the record, LostInLodos takes the position that, at least under his definition of censorship, not all cases of censorship infringe on the 1A or are immoral, unethical, illegal, or unlawful. Some are moral, ethical, legal, lawful, and consistent with—or even protected by—the 1A.
Re: Re: Weapons
See, here’s the problem!
The Republicans have chosen to weaponise anti-censorship as a political tool.
The proper response is to point out the SCOTUS has made it very clear free speech includes the right not to have forced association.
The company has chosen to censor their airwaves of content they do not wish to be associated with. In a time when granting a platform has become synonymous with agreement.
Ultimately though the underlying issue has nothing to do with removal of content! It’s the false sense that supplying an outlet for a voice must mean support!
In these past weeks NYT, WaPo, and WSJ have all been attacked for printing OpEds. Opinion editorials!
You can neither debate nor discuss when having both voices constitutes support.
How would something that doesn’t exist be illegal?
Facts and only facts.
Was the station previously available on the platform
Is the station currently available platform
Is the station actively broadcasting
1&3 are yes. 2 is no.
A censor (the platform) has opted to not carry content.
If you’re mad cancel your service and go elsewhere.
Re:
No more so than Ford “censored” the Pinto.
Re: Re:
Yeah, saying someone was “censored” because a single third-party entity refused to carry their speech is bullshit. OANN wasn’t owed a spot on DirecTV for any longer than the length of that contract; DirecTV wasn’t obliged to continue paying for OANN when keeping the network on the lineup wasn’t worth the cost.
Re: Re: Re:
For the record, LiL here has a different definition of censorship that has nothing to do with the 1A and doesn’t require the content to be completely unavailable to literally everyone.
Re: Re: Re:2
His view of censorship is perfecly in line with a conservative view of censorship: “If I don’t have an audience, I’ve been silenced! And even if I have an audience, if it isn’t as big as I want it to be, I’ve been silenced!” It’s persecution all the way down, even if it’s as simple as someone saying “please don’t say that on my property”.
Re: Re: Re:3
The difference between myself and many of them is I respect the 1A defence from forced speech.
I have not once demanded DTV carry, let alone pay for, the station.
My opinion has nothing to do with the content. It’s not politics. I’d be just as vocal if they dropped MSNBC.
In fact I’ve been very vocal on the fact that cable/iptv/satellite are forced to carry broadcast by law. It violates 1A AND raises consumer bills.
Not only is the company forced to carry the speech, the public is forced to support it by paying for it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Letting Chozen carry your water doesn’t mean anything.
Were you vocal when the leftists were booted from Parler?
Re: Re: Re:5
Yes! And Truth as well.
I called that censorship out also! It’s in my comments history.
I don’t take political sides when it comes to dissemination of content.
Re: Re: Re:5
I don’t really care what chozen’s opinion is. It’s his/hers. Not mine.
Yes, I was just as vocal about Truth and Parler. You can find my complaining in my comment history. I called out the censorship on those platforms claiming they would be uncensored.
Re: Re: Re:4
So, in your opinion, which contracts have to enforced after their expiry date against the will of one f the parties involved, and which are OK to not renew?
Re: Re: Re:5
A contract is only good for the duration of the contract period.
Re: Re: Re:6
Yes. So, since DirecTV has a contract for a certain duration and they have chosen not to renew it past that agreed period, where’s the problem?
Re: Re: Re:7
They specifically said that they don’t have a problem with that decision.
Re: Re: Re:8
Hence the question. If DirecTV have the power to negotiate contracts, why is it a problem if they choose not to renew one?
If that’s not a problem, then why is OANN not being on DirecTV a problem?
Re: Re: Re:9
I didn’t say it was.
Re: Re: Re:9
Your question makes no sense, then. It’s like saying, “I know that you never beat your wife. That’s why I’m asking you when did you stop beating your wife!”
LiL here is specifically saying that he has no problem whatsoever with DirecTV deciding not to renew its contract with OAN and, thus, not broadcasting it. As such, asking him what the problem with that is is nonsensical. The answer was already given: there isn’t one.
He chooses to call it “censorship” (specifically “local censorship”) because it technically falls under his significantly broader definition of that term, but he has also stated that he doesn’t necessarily have a problem with censorship (as he defines it) when it’s not the government doing it.
However, due to the fact that he uses a broader definition of censorship than most of us do but that many people like Chozen use to push their agenda, you came to the conclusion that he was saying something radically different from what he was actually saying. It’s all just a misunderstanding.
Re: Re: Re:10
I think the disconnect comes from my age in many cases. I’m ver much Gen X.
I grew up with a love for any and all art. And watched one group after another threatening what I enjoyed.
Be it calling erotic films porn.
Or the horrors of horror
They came for my music, over and over
The satanic panic
They came for video games,
Music again
Wrestling
Video games
The came for our BBSs, our private servers. Our public servers.
They came for our ISPs and then our websites.
I lived through one attempt after another to censor what I enjoy.
Note of cause here is after the mid-70s most of the they actions were NOT government, but they were censorship attempts regardless!
I will not adjust my longer existing definition simply because a tiny group has co-opted it.
In fact I both agree and disagree with the far right idea.
A) it is by thousands of years of slight variation in language, censorship
B) under US law private censorship is legal, and in premise should be
C)there are better methods to practice than poof->gone.
Much like the video store put erotic films, no-17, foreign in a caged off space (often separated from actual porn),…
Much like video game shops put M and and AO games behind the counter
Much like porn is behind an age wall
Because I have seen the damages done by censorship, both government and private; I will always call for the most hidden option that falls short of deletion. Without cutting off access.
I personally believe DTV made a choice of political censorship. As is their legal right. And while I have no problem with it, all such actions should be reviewed.
There’s some aspects here that differentiate this from, say twitter.
DTV chose not to PAY for something they didn’t want. And with that I 100% agree. For the same idea a company shouldn’t PAY to broadcast PBS or NBC or any other station they don’t want to carry. Which is why I support single channel choice and oppose every congressional bill so far to do such as they still had mandated force carriage of broadcast.
I’m content views aren’t political, they’re artistic. Historical!!
Both OAN and MSNBC can be toxic. And (if carried for free) they should be tucked away behind disclaimers and not part of easy child access. But I’d fall on my sword for both of banishment were over content without fee! Not because I support them, but exactly because I do not. It’s not what, it’s what’s next.
Re: Re: Re:
Not quite. No person was censored in such a case. However the access to the content was.
Note here I’m not complaining it was removed from the lineup. The company has the right to carry whatever it wants (within the confines of law). And has no mandate to pay for content they don’t want.
I’d have a slightly different view if OAN offered their content free of charge and were tossed.
OAN wasn’t censored. The DTV service was.
Those who do not like the decision are free to go elsewhere. The station is available on multiple platforms.
Re: Re: Re:
And they were dropped for being a shoddy, underperforming product.
Re:
“A censor (the platform) has opted to not carry content.”
So, do you consider every contract that’s not renewed censorship, or just the one that peddles the same fictions you base your opinions on?
Why are you not whining about AWE having the same treatment?
What about channels that want to be on DirecTV but haven’t signed a contract yet – is it. censorship to not sign such a contract even if there’s legitimate reasons not to have any reason to do so?
Re: Re:
I don’t really care with the company does or does not carry. My opinions have nothing to do with OAN. The station is not on Xfinity and I’m not paying someone to watch alt-right shite.
And the only reason we have Xfinity is because some family members still watch cable. I don’t.
Your inability to separate my choice for secure borders and legal immigration, and my right to maintain firearms, with my hatred of 99% of the republican platform is your own issue.
I could care less about what OAN says. Outside of clips other’s have posted I’ve never actually seen the station.
Re: Re: Re:
Your inability to separate my choice for secure borders and legal immigration, and my right to maintain firearms, with my hatred of 99% of the republican platform is your own issue.
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:2 ??
Are you saying you (now) recognise that I may simply agree with one or two things on the Republican side despite not being one?
Good.
Welcome to the real world where party platforms are not all-encompassing.
Re: Re: Re:3
Could you have made your strawman any more obvious?
Re: Re: Re:4
As I and others have pointed out to you I fit with republicans as well as a huge square peg fits in a tiny pentagram shaped hole.
Re: Re: Re:5
Which makes it especially baffling when you go to such lengths to carry their water.
Re: Re: Re:6
Not times in ten I don’t. They just happen to support two issues I do.
And I don’t disagree with their views on deletionism: just their solution.
But that clearly comes from my view that non-destructive moderation works just as well as destructive.
Be it techdirt and it’s few dozen daily posters, or the sites I volunteer my time with that have a few dozen to a few thousand posts.
Or the likes of compuserve then and twitter today with millions or billions of daily posts! The former I had workers for.
The service forums i moderated at AOL, VGS/home and VGS/arcade, music/metal. At a time when erotica, formers, and NS race and religious hatred, latter, were big issues. Games like Peeper and RapeLay. Music like Second Wave Black Metal, NSBM, AnarchoPunk…!
Today it’s bigots and penis pills. But ultimately I personally prefer not to destroy something I simply disagree with. I prefer less aggressive methods that allow discussion and comprehension based on actual evidence and proof of what was said.
Notice I don’t specifically call for the company to keep people like Republicans do. And absolutely do not call for banning like the Dems do.
I myself will dump a person if all they post is offsite illegal pills and knockoffs.
I do see things from a historical aspect. Where would we be today without hosting the likes of George Carlin or Richard Pryor.
Actually fun games like GalGun and Bunny Must Die wouldn’t be here without Custer’s revenge and Beat em and Eat em.
Films like Holocausto Canibal paved the way for Saw and Blair Witch and Scream.
Black Sabbath and Coven and Black Widow gave us Vennom and Vader and lead to the likes of NBM that opened the door for Limp Bizkit and Korn and Gangster Rap and grunge.
But there’s more. Civil rights. Be it race or sexuality or women’s rights. All comes from controversy.
Recognising and allowing such issues in a manner that is least disruptive and not destructive allows for a record for discussion.
**How do you go back and say this person posted this if the post is gone? **
How do we address issues when the cause constantly is hidden or disappeared?
Re: Re: Re:6
Not times in ten I don’t. They just happen to support two issues I do.
And I don’t disagree with their views on deletionism: just their solution.
But that clearly comes from my view that non-destructive moderation works just as well as destructive.
Be it techdirt and it’s few dozen daily posters, or the sites I volunteer my time with that have a few dozen to a few thousand posts.
Or the likes of compuserve then and twitter today with millions or billions of daily posts! The former I had workers for.
The service forums i moderated at AOL, VGS/home and VGS/arcade, music/metal. At a time when erotica, formers, and NS race and religious hatred, latter, were big issues. Games like Peeper and RapeLay. Music like Second Wave Black Metal, NSBM, AnarchoPunk…!
Today it’s bigots and pharma. But ultimately I personally prefer not to destroy something I simply disagree with. I prefer less aggressive methods that allow discussion and comprehension based on actual evidence and proof of what was said.
Notice I don’t specifically call for the company to keep people like Republicans do. And absolutely do not call for banning like the Dems do.
I myself will dump a person if all they post is offsite illegal pills and knockoffs.
I do see things from a historical aspect. Where would we be today without hosting the likes of George Carlin or Richard Pryor.
Actually fun games like GalGun and Bunny Must Die wouldn’t be here without Custer’s revenge and Beat em and Eat em.
Films like Holocausto Canibal paved the way for Saw and Blair Witch and Scream.
Black Sabbath and Coven and Black Widow gave us Vennom and Vader and lead to the likes of NBM that opened the door for Limp Bizkit and Korn and Gangster Rap and grunge.
But there’s more. Civil rights. Be it race or sexuality or women’s rights. All comes from controversy.
Recognising and allowing such issues in a manner that is least disruptive and not destructive allows for a record for discussion.
**How do you go back and say this person posted this if the post is gone? **
How do we address issues when the cause constantly is hidden or disappeared?
Re: Re: Re:6
It could have been baffling, if he weren’t lying about supporting sensible policy.
Re: Re: Re:7
I’m not lying about anything. It’s your own self righteous idealism that makes you incapable of accepting anything exists outside your perceptions
Re: Re: Re:8
[Projects facts contrary to all objective facts in existence]
Re: Re: Re:9
No, he’s actually right that a lot of you are misrepresenting his position. He doesn’t take the position that everything he considers censorship is or should be illegal, unlawful, immoral, unethical, or something to be punished or discouraged. Whether or not you agree with what he does think should happen or his definition of censorship, you should argue the points he does make, not what someone else says.
Re: Re: Re:10
I have a method I use for moderation. A method That I was instructed to use back in the late 80s. A method that has served platforms whelp everywhere it’s been implemented.
It’s very similar to what is used here. Flagged messages are hidden or collapsed. I get a notice each time it happens and review collapsed content for illegal content that warrants further action.
Very very rarely do i delete something outright. Only illegal content and spam. And on the latter I usually modify the message to remove links and then leave it so we can all make fun of the poster. At two sites we don’t often even flag it anymore. Someone will PM me the post number to edit out links. Then we all have fun crapping on the poster.
I have never declared someone cannot be harsher. Just pointed out my opinion that they shouldn’t be.
I’ve never suggested that moderation not be practiced. And I don’t oppose banning truly disruptive people. I do that a few times a week.
And you could easily look at my post history to see how much against the Republican and Democrat ideas I am.
As well as the article about trump’s company deleting and banning. I believe something along the lines of ‘dirty shite censoring deletionist bastards’ or the like.
I’m against deleting something we dislike simply because we can. That comes not in the context of politics on “social media” but the greater view of communication. Because I recognise the book burnings, the record bonfires. The film protests calling for destruction of the film.
And
As I said, you can’t point to something that’s no longer there. I’m just as much against deleting one’s own posts.
Re: Re: Re:10
That’s tangential to the subject of discussion.
Re: Re: Re:
“I don’t really care with the company does or does not carry.”
But, that’s the entire issue here. OANN had a contract with DirecTV which reached an expiry date. DirecTV chose not to renew that contract to carry it.
If you don’t care about that, why are you arguing?
“I could care less about what OAN says.”
Meaning that you do care.
“Your inability to separate my choice for secure borders and legal immigration, and my right to maintain firearms, with my hatred of 99% of the republican platform is your own issue”
Well, I think that your belief that Trump’s boondoggle of a wall that would have removed property rights from thousands of Americans while doing nothing to solve the problem of immigration is very stupid, and your claims that you don’t believe in Republican platforms while also claiming to vote for them are pretty dumb. But, I can only go on what you’ve stated here, so if you have any sensible objections to the platforms you voted for I can’t comment.
“Outside of clips other’s have posted I’ve never actually seen the station.”
Me neither. But, I’m happy that the station’s toxic nature, huge upcoming legal problems and in ability to gain an audience don’t require that DirecTV carry them if they don’t wish to renew the contact. Why are you arguing that they should?
Re: Re: Re:2
Ok professor. Could not care less.
That fences and walls exist around countries across the globe says not just Republican agree with them.
Obama supported a wall. So did both Bushes and bill and Hillary at points in their political carriers when they had power.
That out of all my years I’ve voted for less than 10 individual republicans out of hundreds (thousands?) of individuals does not make me a Republican.
As Stephen point in the past I’m more likely to vote for a disruptive outsider regardless of party. Not necessarily because of what the platform is or is not but often because it’s disruptive! Anything that disrupts the status quo is good because it forces discussion and comprise.
I didn’t! Point to where I said they should. Anywhere.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Obama supported a wall”
Yes. He also supported other thing in conjunction and didn’t run on the idea that it was a magic barrier that would not cost the taxpayer anything because Mexico would pay.
How did that work out?
You’re not mocked because someone suggested a wall of some kind, it’s the clear problems that go along with it that are ignored so that jingoistic morons can fall behind an incomplete plan that won’t work on its own.
There’s a complicated issue here. If your answer is “build a wall”, you’ll be mocked for historical reasons you were too dumb to read.
Re: Re: Re:4
You make the assumption I believed Mexico would directly send cash to the US treasury.
You also assume I care about who funds it at all.
I don’t care who builds it and who pays. I prefer it be built. And rather than concern myself with issues of where and how, I was more worried about the effect on cross border wildlife transit.
I know there’s more to it than just the wall. And as I agree with many, not all, of the wildlife studies I supported whole wall length monitoring with technology. Leaving heavily tech-monitored open corridors.
But you either didn’t care or didn’t care to ask for anything more from me on my thoughts.
Re: Re: Re:5
“You make the assumption I believed Mexico would directly send cash to the US treasury.”
Trump’s major promise about his functionally useless wall that’s already fallen down in many places and would require government seizures of huge amounts of private property to complete was that it wouldn’t cost the US taxpayer because Mexico would pay for it. Then, while the rest of us were laughing at the stupidity of all of this, you nodded your head and have claimed that it was one of the main reasons you voted for him.
Whether or not you directly believed this specific aspect of his doomed and wasteful plan, you voted for it. I apologise if I incorrectly identify which of the ridiculous parts of his campaign led you to vote for it.
“I don’t care who builds it and who pays.”
Just so long as there’s a monument to stupidity erected, instead of the many way more effective ways of dealing with the border issue that don’t loom over the landscape. I know.
Re: Re: Re:6
…{because it wasn’t completed}
It being the wall, not the funding. The fact that trump mad an attempt at doing what every president has either preposed or promised since 1996…? Good
If we can spend billions on someone else’s border we could spend a little on our own, no? There are indirect methods in which funding can occur, and ultimately it didn’t matter to me if it came from our treasury or someone else’s.
We’re you so quick to dump on every other WALL posited for our southern border? Or just Trump’s?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I called Direct TV on April 12th with a big grin on my face and cancelled Direct TV. I loved my OAN and I hope Direct TV suffers financially. Go woke and you fail. Signed up with Vidgo premium package. So far not bad. Will miss some functionality but I can cloud DVR all the shows I like including OAN, News Max, etc
Re:
Hey look, we found the subscriber.