Harris vs. Trump 2024

[Aloha Hoosier]

Times were different then. You know this. Using examples from 25+ years ago; 40 with Regan, is a bit , ummmm......

Yes, Republicans weren't cowards. That's a very new development that came along with Trump and the MAGA crowd. The cowards need to go.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

If you were Trump, would you? Look how biased the debate was. And how biased last night was.

Really---would, you?

Of course I would. I'm not a coward like Trump is. Also, I wouldn't have the massive numbers of lies to try to keep straight in my head.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Republicans shouldn't cower from the networks. Reagan wouldn't. Bush wouldn't. This new MAGA dominated GOP has a yellow streak.

No the bias is absurd. 60 minutes is another lefty show. He should be done. Times are different

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No the bias is absurd. 60 minutes is another lefty show. He should be done.

I strongly disagree. This fear of the media is a relatively new development and frankly it's just an excuse by people like Trump who don't like to account for the crazy things they say.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I strongly disagree. This fear of the media is a relatively new development and frankly it's just an excuse by people like Trump who don't like to account for the crazy things they say.

No she’s only been on the lefty shows. He relents too much. He was president. We know him. Warts and good. Vance not so much. Walz not so much. So they debated. Time to vote

Msm is incredibly biased. Don’t give them the opp at this point

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No she’s only been on the lefty shows. He relents too much. He was president. We know him. Warts and good. Vance not so much. Walz not so much. So they debated. Time to vote

Msm is incredibly biased. Don’t give them the opp at this point

I think running from the press is unseemly. I’m not one that believes in retreating and hiding. Fight, fight, fight, right?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think running from the press is unseemly. I’m not one that believes in retreating and hiding. Fight, fight, fight, right?

No. Use judgement

A biased press is unseemly. Don’t give them the opp at this stage

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think running from the press is unseemly. I’m not one that believes in retreating and hiding. Fight, fight, fight, right?

No different than Biden not taking questions. Harris scripted everything. Limited appearances etc.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think running from the press is unseemly. I’m not one that believes in retreating and hiding. Fight, fight, fight, right?

And honestly all Harris and trump do is lie. Why bother

 

[dbmhoosier]

More cowardice from Trump. He won't do "60 Minutes" interview. Harris says yes.

Trump backs out of "60 Minutes" election special; Kamala Harris to be interviewed

Vice President Kamala Harris will be featured by "60 Minutes" on Monday, Oct. 7 at 8 p.m. ET/PT. Former President Donald Trump has declined to participate, despite previously indicating otherwise.

www.cbsnews.com

Wrong. He agreed to the interview provided they issue an apology for the Hunter Biden laptop being Russian disinformation lie. Meanwhile, Kamala just ducked the Dave Ramsey interview. But that different, right?

 

[Indyhorn]

He’s the last Republican to win anything. Maga won. And young dems skew hard left. Pubs need centrist candidates. Not old guard.

He’s the last Republican to win the presidency, he is not the last Republican to win anything- look at the Congress you’ll need when Trump and MAGA are sent to the hell of deficit wideners

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Wrong. He agreed to the interview provided they issue an apology for the Hunter Biden laptop being Russian disinformation lie. Meanwhile, Kamala just ducked the Dave Ramsey interview. But that different, right?

View embedded media

You’re the biggest dupe I’ve ever “met.”

 

[dbmhoosier]

You’re the biggest dupe I’ve ever “met.”

All you can do is call people dupes without pointing to anything they said that's inaccurate.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

All you can do is call people dupes without pointing to anything they said that's inaccurate.

You don’t understand any explanation I provide. You’re not smart enough so I stopped trying.

 

[snarlcakes]

I strongly disagree. This fear of the media is a relatively new development and frankly it's just an excuse by people like Trump who don't like to account for the crazy things they say.

Trump has done numerous interviews. Nobody gives a shit about 60 minutes anymore.

 

[Spartans9312]

I think running from the press is unseemly. I’m not one that believes in retreating and hiding. Fight, fight, fight, right?

 

[Stuffshot]

Have copies of my hometown newspaper published in the 1890s. The copies came into my possession from the grandson of the publisher and editor.

This newspaper back in the time it was published had to be the only news source available to most of those living in my hometown.

The bias for a single party and the slamming of those in the other party was amazing. For example, an opponent of the editor's party was described as follows, "He is a licentious lizard whose slimy presence would disgust even a pole cat".

Can only conclude the hometowners were aware of the extreme bias of the publisher and may have both taken his bias with a grain of salt, or automatically voted for the victims of his bias.

Thinking those of us today who have identified certain media sources as biased, just like my 1890 hometowners, aren't swayed and/or go in an opposite direction.

You overlooked something important -- back then, publishers were liable for what they published, including letters to the editor.

So, if someone (say, Great Grandpappy McMurtry) slandered someone back them by calling him a moron or idiot or imbecile or liar in a letter to the editor, both the newspaper and Great Grandpappy McMurtry would be liable under the local laws of libel/slander/defamation. As a result, newspapers screened not only their own reporters but also the content of all the letters to the editor they published.

But not now.

The infamous federal Section 230 immunizes Yahoo, The Hoosier, Facebook and all other websites on which Great Grandpappy McMurtry posts. If slandered, your only choice is to track him down while the publisher goes scot-free.

There can't be any doubt that Section 230 contributes to the poison on the internet today.

 

[mcmurtry66]

You overlooked something important -- back then, publishers were liable for what they published, including letters to the editor.

So, if someone (say, Great Grandpappy McMurtry) slandered someone back them by calling him a moron or idiot or imbecile or liar in a letter to the editor, both the newspaper and Great Grandpappy McMurtry would be liable under the local laws of libel/slander/defamation. As a result, newspapers screened not only their own reporters but also the content of all the letters to the editor they published.

But not now.

The infamous federal Section 230 immunizes Yahoo, The Hoosier, Facebook and all other websites on which Great Grandpappy McMurtry posts. If slandered, your only choice is to track him down while the publisher goes scot-free.

There can't be any doubt that Section 230 contributes to the poison on the internet today.

It’s also stuffshot. Not Pete Jones or mike Stevens or the name of your company etc.

So what progressive policies do you like

 

[Stuffshot]

I believe most newspapers of that era were extreme partisan prints, usually financially supported by the political party apparatus. Hyper sensationalism and 'yellow journalism' were the norm in hundreds (maybe thousands) of papers across the country.

It wasn't until the early 1900s that Hearst, Pulitzer, etc found they could be more profitable selling advertising and running independent papers, rather than running partisan papers.

You should Google James Callender and Jefferson and Adams and Hemings and hermaphroditic and see what freedom of the press meant back then. Back then, all those publishers had liability but were still brave enough to publish it anyway because they knew they were right.

Today, Twitter, X, Facebook etc. have no idea what lies/slander their web sites are publishing, but they still have undeserved immunity under Section 230. Sad.