VakAttack

Hey, I think of us as friends, so if you want to sit down and watch cable news next to each other, I guess I'm down. Seems like a lame use of time, but maybe at NCAAs? For you to sit here and straight-faced say that Fox News has "one lie" is something, though.

I can't find the language of the actual proposal, but it's being framed as a program to help smaller companies (they're saying it's directed towards smaller companies/car producers), so that's how he would be trying to get around the idea it's an attack on Elon's company. I see both sides of that particular argument, I probably would not exclude Tesla were I drafting it.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-5134924/trump-election-2024-kamala-harris-elizabeth-cheney-threat-civil-liberties https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-wisconsin-election-economy-a6923d6c5758dabb6d959417ea9d7d12 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/30/trump-interview-jail-political-opponents-glenn-beck

No, I never said that "only Fox News lies." There are levels to lies, of course. If you were to say "Vak voted for Trump", that would be a lie. If I said "BigBrog is a convicted sex offender" that would presumably be a lie. So, are they the same thing? I mean, they're both lies! And I'm good on hearing about anything you're secreting

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." Fox News paying the HIGHEST SETTLMENT IN US HISTORY FOR A MEDIA COMPANY FOR LYING actually means nothing because you don't like the other side. Either way, I'm not shilling for MSNBC or CNN. Again, I don't watch ANY cable news unless it's a video clip that makes it's way into my algorithm. Fox News "makes sense" to you because it agrees with your world view. But you're trying to draw comparisons between two companies who have not been forced to pay 3/4 of a billion dollars for lying vs. one who has, and claiming the one who has paid that money is the more trustworthy one then the other, because of your opinion on their (MSNBC & CNN) politics.

Do you want me to spoil how that one is going to go? Or would you just prefer the links of Trump's own interviews being edited?

Except that big one lost without even ever getting to a trial, so strike one, big guy: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2024/09/23/smiledirectclub-loses-appeal-in-lawsuit-against-nbc-news/75307873007/ And the other is still in litigation, so strike two. If Maddow et al lose, more power to them. Meanwhile, Fox already lost. It's over. And at a scale far, far beyond the Maddow case you referenced. Want to try again?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/joni-ernst-biden-joe-impeachment-ukraine.html Will they be able to beat negative 11 months?

Seven. Hundred. Eighty. Seven. Million. Dollar. Settlement. For. Lying. The largest settlement ever paid for by a US media company.

LOL. Alternative realities are nice. Meanwhile, Fox News just had to pay $750 million for actually lying.

Exactly.

I mean....yeah, of course not, lol.

What did he predict? If it was wrong he probably deleted it.

Ech screwed himself. Just let him up, you clearly panic in any sort of compromised position.

I'm currently reading "The Invisible Life of Addie Larue." Really interesting story/idea!

No, I don't agree with you. Just because YOU don't know something doesn't make it a fact. Everybody who cared to know/didn't have ulterior motives knew this was exactly what he was facing and what the charges were. There was much discussion over how the charges were a somewhat novel legal theory. It wasn't as the jury was receiving their instructions that the State revealed like a game show what crime they were alleging Trump was trying to conceal. Prosecutors file vague indictments all the time, I deal with it constantly; that doesn't mean I don't know what they're alleging. I can then, if I truly don't know and/or want to lock them in, file a Motion for a Statement of Particulars asking the court to force the State to commit to a specific charge/allegation. This, of course, doesn't matter as in Florida the State is allowed to change the charges at any point up until the actual trial date. And that's just for piddling charges with regular people as defendants, whereas with high profile defendants, like, say, former presidents, the State goes out of their way to cross t's and dot i's.

Again, this is just flatly untrue. You can read the jury instructions, read to the jury before deliberation for yourself. Just because YOU don't know something doesn't mean nobody else does. He was charged with falsifying his business records in an effort to conceal his violation of New York election law 17-152, regarding conspiring to promote or prevent the election. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

Flatly untrue.

You don't just get to make up your own definitions for things.

Well, with the death of Chevron doctrine, I just think it ends up a non-starter. The nature of crypto itself and the emerging technologies is beyond the grasp of the vast majority of our (very old) legislature, and thus the reactions required would be nimble, but the people responsible for said regulation will have neither the knowledge (because they're so old/technologically stupid) nor ability (loss of Chevron deference means that any sort of regulatory agency will have to go thru Congress to get regulations passed, at which point the regulatory needs will be well beyond the conceived of regulations). The overturning of Chevron deference is truly one of the most consequential things coming from the first Trump presidency that most people don't know or care enough to reckon with, nor will it be recognized if/when *I poop my pants, don't laugh at me* hits the fan thanks to the overturning.

Somehow typing on my phone autocorrected here: "I would imagine there will be very little, if any, regulation..."

The swamp, within politics, is used to refer to reducing the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists. Trump is a part of the ruling class, he was president for 4 years, surrounds himself with lobbyists like Steven Mnuchin in his first term, and other creatures beholden to lobbyists like Marco Rubio and JD Vance this time thru. I believe the super scary, very real conspiracy theory you're trying to reference is "the deep state" not "draining the swamp."

The greatest trick he ever pulled was somehow convincing people he was not a part of the swamp, lol. The people that voted for him for that reason were hoodwinked and bamboozled.

I would imagine there regulation in this sector going forward, given how much crypto money went into this election cycle (successfully). RIP to Sherrod Brown's Senate career.