I think you are confusing what the purpose of media is. You think the media exists to keep the public informed. When, in fact, the corporate media in the US exists to sell ad space. You are not the customer, you are the product. Just like a chicken farm doesn’t exist for the benefit of the chickens.

So, as such, the job of the media (especially TV media) is to grab your attention so thoroughly that you stay for the ads. This creates a fine line between reporting on hyped-up scandals and ignoring larger systemic faults that might make viewers themselves feel targeted. It means that once a particular narrative is seen to grab attention, everyone runs with it. However, that narrative can’t go too far in turning off people on one side of the issue unless the “news” outlet aims to only cater to the other side.

This also, to some extent, explains the sanewashing of the President that is currently going on. This President is a thin-skinned crybaby, and will whine about any little thing. And his supporters follow his every word like a new Messiah. News outlets who want to cultivate a broad viewership base (to sell them ads, of course) can only go so far with certain storylines before his followers change the channel.

Of course, the joke is on these news outlets. No matter how they try to comply in advance, the fascists will come for them eventually…

No, I think his mind is perpetually stuck in the late 70’s and 80’s. Right around the time when the Muppet Show was big. So he’s really saying she is annoying like Miss Piggy.

The problem if it gets dismissed this way is that the 40% of the country who are full MAGA can argue “He got off on a technicality”.

I bet one of them will take matters into his own hands, and Trump will pardon him for it.

Thats not what Supply Side Jesus says…

From https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx

The deal with a pocket veto is that the President has ten days to either sign or veto the bill – but a veto is really returning it to Congress, unsigned. Congress can then try to get enough votes to overturn the veto.

If he does nothing with it (sign it or return it to Congress) within 10 days, then that counts as having signed it, and the bill becomes law.

However, that last bit only applies if Congress was able to accept the returned bill that whole time. If the Congress had already adjourned, and could not accept the returned bill, then the bill does not become law.

However, in recent years it has been made clear that Congress never really fully adjourns until early January, but then immediately reestablishes itself, so it is never fully adjourned. Even while the House was not in session during the recent government shutdown, they held short mini-sessions to make sure that the body never actually formally adjourned. Furthermore, Congress has made arrangements to accept returned bills from the President even when they are not in session (but have not formally adjourned for the term). So Congress would have to go of its way to adjourn early for the pocket veto to work.

tldr: a pocket veto won’t work unless Congress shuts itself down.

No, he did not have a single Senator holding it up it passed with unanimous consent.

No, I disagree. The reason why ICE can get away with the shit it does is that they go after the powerless, the nobodies. The eyes of the world are on this guy, if he gets illegally diappeared we will all notice.

Besides, if this guy really wants to run NYC, he is going to have to deal with narcissistic, entitled assholes on a daily basis. Why not start with the biggest one?

The sun did not fail to set, it was just hidden by those clouds over there

He fired all the competent legal advisors, though…

I am sure the President will have an entirely reasonable and prudent reaction to this news.

I find it remarkable how much of this Epstein story is paralleling the Pizzagate narrative. Everything about Pizzagate was a lie, except it turns out there really was a shadowy cabal of rich people who were covering up a pedophilia ring.

Have we heard from Q since August 10, 2019?

My point is that they are all self aware enough to know they can’t just say “I just won’t vote for any woman”, so they will give you any other reason if asked. It doesn’t have to make sense to us, as long as they can justify it in their head.

And that, in our current political climate, there are just enough of these losers, in the right zip codes, to make a difference.

This is part of the reason I so strongly want AOC to take over Schumer’s Senate seat for a term or three. If she runs for President in 2028, she will probably lose. But if she moves to the Senate and is as effective there as she has been in the House, maybe the country will be ready by 2040.

Oh, hard disagree there. There is a certain class of misogynist who likes their women docile. They “dislike” anyone woman who they dont find “agreeable”, and view women who express their own opinions as “aggressive”.

Is it an overly broad generalization? Maybe. But it tracks!

She needs to take Chuck’s Senate seat when he (hopefully) retires.

I get what that poster is doing.

I agree with the general premise, that this country is not ready to elect a woman President. Lots of people in it are, but not enough in the right zip codes to make it in our system.

But, if you ask these people why they are not voting for a candidate, they will not say “it’s because she has a vagina”. They are too self aware to know that they can’t say it out loud. So, they say things like “I just don’t like her enough” or “she’s too shrill and bossy”.

My actual favorite excuse from the last election was the guy who said “she reminds me of my ex-wife”. At least he’s being honest.

Must be that Radical Left Antifa

TACO = Trump Always Chickens Out

He has a side, it’s Vladimir Putin’s side. His clips are aired regularly on Russian media, and he “interviewed” Putin in Moscow last year by tossing him a bunch of softball questions.

But it all starts with the video itself, which anyone can take. From there it needs to be distributed, of course, and the corporate owned social media is the easiest route to take, but not the only one. These videos are still making it into evidence, regardless of how they eventually make it there.

Trump lawyers claim ICE agents “are facing incessant violent resistance on the streets of Illinois …"

It is no surprise that eyewitness accounts largely dispute these claims, often with video evidence.

So while there are a lot of problems with our ubiquitous surveillance state, the fact that virtually every citizen has an independant surveillance device in their pocket may be the key thing that pulls us out of authoritarianism.

What the Trump administration is doing is no different than what other authoritarian regimes did: lie about their opposition, then use those lies as an excuse to consolidate power. Everyone knew they were lying, but nobody could prove it. But here, we not only have the technology to prove them wrong, but a court system which still has some measure of independence and, in many cases, will not ignore definitive proof.

Will it be enough? That’s still an open question. I can’t say for sure. In the meantime, the best hope for Democracy in America would be if the actuarial tables finally catch up with the man.