TwiceHorn

Well, that guy above said it best. They can revolt and remove someone from power. Yay, goody, great. But you need to consider who takes power when you do that. Revolution without regard to the outcome is foolish.

Funny thing, I'm pretty sure Smith's new narrative says Trump openly said he'd let Rudy run the election suits and wouldn't pay him if he didn't win. Yep, page 11. If he said that to Rudy, that may well terminate the obligation.

How is it left? Do you not see Trumpists doing exactly the same thing, and with more vitriol and over stupider stuff. Fall in line!

They have a really stupid revolutionary mentality. It actually explains a lot.

Ok makes sense. I am less familiar with Tower/Gunslinger than many King fans. Also, found a short story on my reader called Ur. Kind of a mix of Word Processor of the Gods with some low men in yellow coats. I enjoyed it.

Haha, fag. (level of discourse).

A little? Tell me, do you see "mainstream" media making a big issue of any of this? Do you see right wing media talking about it at all? Oh, looky, he'res a story about Trump that quotes other sources as to his acuity. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/us/politics/trump-speeches-age-cognitive-decline.html It also fails to call him a liar, instead using euphemisms like "untethered to the truth." They even quoted Steven Cheung: Steven Cheung, the campaign communications director, called Mr. Trump “the strongest and most capable candidate” and dismissed suggestions that he has diminished with age. “President Trump has more energy and more stamina than anyone in politics, and is the smartest leader this country has ever seen,” he said in a statement. Pray tell, is that propaganda?

Fify. H/t to PJ O'Rourke.

Well, it does make somewhat more sense that they left the Bill of Rights and ditched the rest. Although just leaving out 13 through 16, 19 and 22 would be very on brand.

Now that's a fun bit of trivia that I don't recall. What else was Callahan in? Seems like King loves to include sheriffs and lawmen in different stories, George Bannerman, Andy Clutterbuck, etc.

Excellent point. If we're going to start labeling things as propaganda, might as well bring Tucker, Tenet and RT into the conversation.

Projection. It's you who swallow anything parroted by media. Unless it's that librul media. Then it's propaganda. I and most of us here are capable of distinguishing opinion from fact and assessing the credibility of the opinion. And, there was very extensive discussion here, among the CR "cabal," of Biden's acuity and competence long before the disastrous debate. We all knew it was a potential problem. Now, you do Trump. Does anything about his mental acuity raise questions in your learned eyes?

I have no idea who those people speaking are. Reporting people's opinions is not propaganda. Every single article I can find that reports someone saying he is sharp has raised the question of his mental acuity, leaving it to the reader to determine whether to believe the asserted source. Asserting that he is sharp as a tack is another matter entirely. I gave you real citations to media and you give me some magat bullshit. Because you are in thrall to maga bullshit.

And only passing reference to the word salad bar that is Donald Trump.

Please show your work. I can find no media sources factually reporting that Biden is "sharp as a tack." I can find lots of magat sources taking issue with that phrasing. I can also find media sources reporting various Biden insiders as saying he's "sharp" or "sharp as a tack." Such as Mayorkas. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/mayorkas-defends-biden-sharp-intensely-probing-detail-oriented-rcna138192 Also Michael Douglas. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/he-s-sharp-as-a-tack-actor-michael-douglas-defends-biden-s-mental-acuity-during-cnn-interview/ar-AA1np5QF And a Republican Senator in 2021. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/26/biden-health-republican-senators-477813 Of course, quite clearly implicit in that reportage is that Biden was not, in fact, sharp as a tack. https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/elections/2024/biden-at-81-often-sharp-and-focused-but-sometimes-confused-and-forgetful/ None of the media sources I can find aver or allege themselves that Biden is, in fact, sharp as a tack, only that others seem to think so. Also, let's compare reportage of Biden's medical condition with Trumps. Biden 2023 https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/16/politics/read-biden-physical-summary/index.html Biden 2024 https://www.npr.org/2024/02/28/1234438761/biden-physical-report including https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Health-Summary-2.28.pdf Trump. https://www.npr.org/2023/11/21/1214389287/trump-medical-report-weight including https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/da9bdc90-9ab2-4da8-819b-6fda5240a337

That's what I thought.

Matador? Meaning he waves a red cape in front of women and infuriates them? He dodges their advances? Didn't he mean predator?

As reported on a super-credible maga X account. https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/sep/20/Fact-checking-ABC-debate-whistleblower-affidavit/ An anonymous affidavit.

It's a rationale stance. Or a rationale. Or a stance. Or something.

You're retarded. Fact check me. Propaganda?

That is an opinion. Just like I think Donald Trump is unfit for office mentally and every other way. You. Cannot, Fact. Check. That. And, those media sources a) have been bitching about not having access to Biden forever, maybe for this reason and b) engaging in all sorts of speculation about his condition until he dropped out of the race. No one in the media KNEW anything.

Only one side was telling whoppers about Haitians eating pets. Listen to yourself. You're mad about fact checking when it busts your boy with his dick out. If Walz had started squawking about being retiring as a CSM or carrying guns in combat, I would have expected him to be fact checked too. These are lies, previously well-established as lies, that Vance was foolish or craven enough to repeat. Trump got to bloviate for five more minutes than Harris. Trump is the king of lies. Most of his associates are too. Trying to compare or equate him to anyone else is delusional.

Maybe this is because Republicans are no longer concerned with facts. They just want "news" they can agree with. Left leaning people and independents probably distrust media more because Fox, Newsmax, OAN and their ilk are part of the media now and they lie their asses off.

The actual language is as follows: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. It is legitimately thought that the wording is so broad as to encompass many expressions or communications protected by the First Amendment, such that the entire statute is unconstitutional or that it is unconstitutional as applied to many of the situations about which we fantasize prosecutions. For example, the term "controversies" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, notably Article III, which extends the jurisdiction of US federal courts to "cases" and "controversies." Those have been interpreted to mean something actual, not theoretical, hypothetical, or "made up." US involvement in Ukraine probably constitutes a controversy. Just about any matter concerning US-Russia relations, about which people disagree, probably constitutes a controversy.

Medicare expends exactly zero on those facility costs. There is no benefit for it. Now, health care in declining years, for falls and whatnot from elders left at home because people can't afford a healthcare worker, that's maybe another thing to consider. The Logan Act is less than a paper tiger. They ought to narrow it a bit or just take it off the books entirely so we can quit fantasizing about prosecutions that are never going to be brought or will be dismissed over First Amendment concerns.