Because of his mismanagement of COVID, Trump ended his presidency with a net negative jobs number and negative GDP. He is the worst performing president since Herbert Hoover. A colossal economic failure.
Trump business failures 1. Trump Steaks 2. GoTrump 3. Trump Airlines 4.Trump Vodka 5. Trump Mortgage 6. Trump: The GamTrump Magazine 8. Trump University 9. Trump Ice 10. The New Jersey Generals 11. Tour de Trump 12. Trump Network 13. Trumped!
Trump bankruptcies 1. Trump Taj Mahal 2. Trump’s Castle 3. Trump Plaza Casinos 4. Trump Plaza Hotel 5. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts 6. Trump Entertainment Resorts
Trump has been named or involved in over 4095 lawsuits
Trump's fines & settlements over the years... 1988: $750K Anti-trust lawsuit Bally 1990: $750K Defamation for accurately predicting Trump Taj Mahal would fail 1991: $200K Removing black workers from casino floor 1991: $30K Circumventing state regulations 1998: $1.4M Hiring of undocumented workers 1998: $447K Money laundering violations 2000: $250K NYS Lobby Commission 2006: $100K Palm Beach flag ordinance 2015: $799K Defamation Trump University Student 2015: $10M Money laundering violations 2016: $50K Data & credit card breaches 2016: $1.3M FEC disclosure errors 2017: $25M: Trump University fraud 2019: $2M: Trump Foundation fraud 2019: $290K: Scotland wind farm 2021: $122M: Trump campaign forced to refund to donors 2022: $110K: Contempt of Court 2022: $750K: Funneling Inaugural funds to his business 2022: $1.6M Guilty 17 counts criminal tax fraud 2023: CFO sentenced to prison 2023: $10K for attacking court personnel 2023: $1M Court sanctions bogus lawsuit including $171K to be paid to Hillary 2023: $5M E Jean Carroll sexual assault 2024: $83.3M E Jean Carroll defamation 2024: $392K Court sanctions bogus lawsuit- NY Times 2024: $453M business fraud
Kamala refuses Fox debate, too chicken when the questions and answers aren't given beforehand.
FOX not only paid $789,000,000 to settle the Dominion case, they gave up whatever credibility they had left.
It's an entertainment network, pure and simple. I guess it always has been, but now everyone knows it.
Unaware of the following?
In response, OAN sued Maddow, MSNBC, and its parent corporation Comcast, Inc. for defamation, alleging that it was demonstrably false that the network, in Maddow's words, “literally is paid Russian propaganda." In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda").
In concluding that Maddow's statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism: On one hand, a viewer who watches news channels tunes in for facts and the goings-on of the world. MSNBC indeed produces news, but this point must be juxtaposed with the fact that Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement on her own talk show news segment where she is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers. Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions. Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact. The judge's observations about the specific segment at issue — in which Maddow accused a competitor of being “literally paid Russian propaganda" — was even more damning. Maddow's own viewers, ruled the court, not only expect but desire that she will not provide the news in factual form but will exaggerate and even distort reality in order to shape her opinion-driven analysis (emphasis added): Viewers expect her to do so, as it is indeed her show, and viewers watch the segment with the understanding that it will contain Maddow’s “personal and subjective views” about the news. See id. Thus, the Court finds that as a part of the totality of the circumstances, the broad context weighs in favor of a finding that the alleged defamatory statement is Maddow’s opinion and exaggeration of the Daily Beast article, and that reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual. . . . Here, Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying “I mean, what?”) and calling the segment a “sparkly story” and one we must “take in stride.” For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context. The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts.
FOX not only paid $789,000,000 to settle the Dominion case, they gave up whatever credibility they had left.
It's an entertainment network, pure and simple. I guess it always has been, but now everyone knows it.
Unaware of the following?
In response, OAN sued Maddow, MSNBC, and its parent corporation Comcast, Inc. for defamation, alleging that it was demonstrably false that the network, in Maddow's words, “literally is paid Russian propaganda." In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda").
In concluding that Maddow's statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism: On one hand, a viewer who watches news channels tunes in for facts and the goings-on of the world. MSNBC indeed produces news, but this point must be juxtaposed with the fact that Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement on her own talk show news segment where she is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers. Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions. Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact. The judge's observations about the specific segment at issue — in which Maddow accused a competitor of being “literally paid Russian propaganda" — was even more damning. Maddow's own viewers, ruled the court, not only expect but desire that she will not provide the news in factual form but will exaggerate and even distort reality in order to shape her opinion-driven analysis (emphasis added): Viewers expect her to do so, as it is indeed her show, and viewers watch the segment with the understanding that it will contain Maddow’s “personal and subjective views” about the news. See id. Thus, the Court finds that as a part of the totality of the circumstances, the broad context weighs in favor of a finding that the alleged defamatory statement is Maddow’s opinion and exaggeration of the Daily Beast article, and that reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual. . . . Here, Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying “I mean, what?”) and calling the segment a “sparkly story” and one we must “take in stride.” For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context. The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts.
Not wasting my time on this.
We were talking about Harris not agreeing to debate on FOX. Not sure what OAN and MSNBC have to do with that.
Trump business failures 1. Trump Steaks 2. GoTrump 3. Trump Airlines 4.Trump Vodka 5. Trump Mortgage 6. Trump: The GamTrump Magazine 8. Trump University 9. Trump Ice 10. The New Jersey Generals 11. Tour de Trump 12. Trump Network 13. Trumped!
Trump bankruptcies 1. Trump Taj Mahal 2. Trump’s Castle 3. Trump Plaza Casinos 4. Trump Plaza Hotel 5. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts 6. Trump Entertainment Resorts
Trump has been named or involved in over 4095 lawsuits
Trump's fines & settlements over the years... 1988: $750K Anti-trust lawsuit Bally 1990: $750K Defamation for accurately predicting Trump Taj Mahal would fail 1991: $200K Removing black workers from casino floor 1991: $30K Circumventing state regulations 1998: $1.4M Hiring of undocumented workers 1998: $447K Money laundering violations 2000: $250K NYS Lobby Commission 2006: $100K Palm Beach flag ordinance 2015: $799K Defamation Trump University Student 2015: $10M Money laundering violations 2016: $50K Data & credit card breaches 2016: $1.3M FEC disclosure errors 2017: $25M: Trump University fraud 2019: $2M: Trump Foundation fraud 2019: $290K: Scotland wind farm 2021: $122M: Trump campaign forced to refund to donors 2022: $110K: Contempt of Court 2022: $750K: Funneling Inaugural funds to his business 2022: $1.6M Guilty 17 counts criminal tax fraud 2023: CFO sentenced to prison 2023: $10K for attacking court personnel 2023: $1M Court sanctions bogus lawsuit including $171K to be paid to Hillary 2023: $5M E Jean Carroll sexual assault 2024: $83.3M E Jean Carroll defamation 2024: $392K Court sanctions bogus lawsuit- NY Times 2024: $453M business fraud
10 fines and settlements in 27 years. One every 2.7 years on average, or 0.37 per year
2016 he runs for president.
16 fines and settlements in 8 years. Two per year on average
Does that not tell you something about our Justice System?
The frequency went from 0.27 per yr to 2, increased by a factor of six as soon as he began his run for the presidency
Because of his mismanagement of COVID, Trump ended his presidency with a net negative jobs number and negative GDP. He is the worst performing president since Herbert Hoover. A colossal economic failure.
Probably why he's losing.
By mismanagement of COVID you are referring to the prolonged shutdowns in blue states by state and local health departments, correct? Or are you talking about the Trump vaccine that Kamala told you not to take?
In response, OAN sued Maddow, MSNBC, and its parent corporation Comcast, Inc. for defamation, alleging that it was demonstrably false that the network, in Maddow's words, “literally is paid Russian propaganda." In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda").
In concluding that Maddow's statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism: On one hand, a viewer who watches news channels tunes in for facts and the goings-on of the world. MSNBC indeed produces news, but this point must be juxtaposed with the fact that Maddow made the allegedly defamatory statement on her own talk show news segment where she is invited and encouraged to share her opinions with her viewers. Maddow does not keep her political views a secret, and therefore, audiences could expect her to use subjective language that comports with her political opinions. Thus, Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact. The judge's observations about the specific segment at issue — in which Maddow accused a competitor of being “literally paid Russian propaganda" — was even more damning. Maddow's own viewers, ruled the court, not only expect but desire that she will not provide the news in factual form but will exaggerate and even distort reality in order to shape her opinion-driven analysis (emphasis added): Viewers expect her to do so, as it is indeed her show, and viewers watch the segment with the understanding that it will contain Maddow’s “personal and subjective views” about the news. See id. Thus, the Court finds that as a part of the totality of the circumstances, the broad context weighs in favor of a finding that the alleged defamatory statement is Maddow’s opinion and exaggeration of the Daily Beast article, and that reasonable viewers would not take the statement as factual. . . . Here, Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying “I mean, what?”) and calling the segment a “sparkly story” and one we must “take in stride.” For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context. The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts.
Not wasting my time on this.
We were talking about Harris not agreeing to debate on FOX. Not sure what OAN and MSNBC have to do with that.
How can you miss the point so badly? You assert Fox News is actually entertainment.
Which is precisely the argument MSNBC made for its own news person
Because of his mismanagement of COVID, Trump ended his presidency with a net negative jobs number and negative GDP. He is the worst performing president since Herbert Hoover. A colossal economic failure.
Probably why he's losing.
Great points, except dead wrong. He’s not losing. The election isn’t even close and when the scumbags really try to ruin the country by throwing him in prison, then the fun begins. If he needs to lead from prison then that’s what it will be. Democrats are digging a hole they will never recover from.
We were talking about Harris not agreeing to debate on FOX. Not sure what OAN and MSNBC have to do with that.
Right wingers continue to step on a rake. Everyone knows who fox news is. If Trump thinks he is going to boost his poll numbers accusing anyone of not debating on Fox news at the same time he cries that all other news sources are fake outlets, he is much dumber than I thought.
10 fines and settlements in 27 years. One every 2.7 years on average, or 0.37 per year
2016 he runs for president.
16 fines and settlements in 8 years. Two per year on average
Does that not tell you something about our Justice System?
The frequency went from 0.27 per yr to 2, increased by a factor of six as soon as he began his run for the presidency
Here we have a right winger arguing that Trump's frequency of crime and fraud increased and that proves something is wrong.
The trajectory and trends that Trump has experienced are exactly the same as every mobbed up criminal as they expand their scope of criming. And it doesn't help that Trump is so damn stupid that he thought he could crime in the most high profile job in the world.
And you think he deserves to be President for his wise decisions making.
“If you want to know who someone cares about, look who they fight for” — @KamalaHarris
Trump pardons: Michael Milken - securities fraud, tax fraud, filing false documents (a real Trump kinda guy) Michael Flynn - lying to investigators on behalf of Trump George Papodopoulos - Trump policy advisor who lied to investigators Charles Kushner - Ivanka’s father-in-law, tax evasion, witness tampering, hired a prostitute to set up his brother-in-law Roger Stone - lying to Congress on behalf of Trump Paul Manafort - Trump’s campaign chairman who did time for tax fraud and bank fraud in handling Trump’s campaign Steve Bannon - Trump advisor convicted of wire fraud and money laundering. So, if Biden pardons his son for trying to buy a gun while he was a drug addict, would that be a big scandal?
Kamala refuses Fox debate, too chicken when the questions and answers aren't given beforehand.
FOX not only paid $789,000,000 to settle the Dominion case, they gave up whatever credibility they had left.
It's an entertainment network, pure and simple. I guess it always has been, but now everyone knows it.
Even Joe wasn't too chicken to have a debate on Fox. His handlers probably told him he was going to get to shower with his daughter again to get him to show up, but that's beside the point.
you ask why more good people don't go into politics.
and the Rs answer by saying 'we will use the power of Congress to try to destroy all people we don't like.'
So we'll get only criminals into gummint, and the GOP Crime Blotter will flourish.
Good people will say 'who needs this bs?'
Hey how's the impeachment of Biden going, morans?
House Republicans are setting their sights on Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Democrats’ vice presidential candidate — the latest indication that they are using their slim majority to go after former President Donald Trump’s political opponents. Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) on Friday announced that he is opening an investigation into Walz’s work related to China, including coordinating student trips, and sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray requesting a swath of documents and any correspondence with Walz related to China.
This post was edited 35 seconds after it was posted.
FOX not only paid $789,000,000 to settle the Dominion case, they gave up whatever credibility they had left.
It's an entertainment network, pure and simple. I guess it always has been, but now everyone knows it.
Even Joe wasn't too chicken to have a debate on Fox. His handlers probably told him he was going to get to shower with his daughter again to get him to show up, but that's beside the point.
10 fines and settlements in 27 years. One every 2.7 years on average, or 0.37 per year
2016 he runs for president.
16 fines and settlements in 8 years. Two per year on average
Does that not tell you something about our Justice System?
The frequency went from 0.27 per yr to 2, increased by a factor of six as soon as he began his run for the presidency
Here we have a right winger arguing that Trump's frequency of crime and fraud increased and that proves something is wrong.
The trajectory and trends that Trump has experienced are exactly the same as every mobbed up criminal as they expand their scope of criming. And it doesn't help that Trump is so damn stupid that he thought he could crime in the most high profile job in the world.
And you think he deserves to be President for his wise decisions making.
Really?
Not the Justice Dept being used to attack a political opponent?
For some reason Trump hit his early 70s and ramped up his criminal behavior?
Don't forget that many of these that took place in 2016 and on were based on crimes that allegedly took place decades ago. Not prosecuted when they supposedly took place. But held of until he ran for president.
Just admit it. The weaponization of the Justice System is what we are seeing
