Colbert cancelled

31,333 Views | 587 Replies | Last: 18 days ago by captkirk
bam02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 1:24p, 7/24/25
AG
rgvag11 said:
bam02 said:
Does anyone know if the fox edit was actually aired as the interview or if that was part of a promo for the interview?

The unedited version did not air. It was posted online.


Well that is bad, but I don't think it is on the same level as what 60 Minutes did.

60 Minutes was quite clearly editing her rambling word salad to make her look like less of a blathering idiot and therefore help her odds to be elected.

The Fox edit seems to have been done just to throw raw meat to the MAGA faithful. Wasn't gonna move the needle for anyone and it actually supports Trump's recent position on not releasing the files. He's been consistent on that.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 1:29p, 7/24/25
Sapper Redux said:
El Gallo Blanco said:
DannyDuberstein said:
They turned her from complete rambling, meandering, blathering idiot to semi-coherent. Shady as hell regardless.

This. And they would NEVER EVER IN A MILLION YEARS, do Trump or ANY other republican a fraction of the same favors.

Same hyper biased left winged media that colluded with the FBI and Intel community to rig/influence the 2020 election and did not try to hide it. Would like to see anyone try to "debunk" this. It's fact, it happened.


I'm guessing you refuse to believe anything that doesn't support what you already think.


TF are you talking about?
Reply Quote
1
MASAXET
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:13p, 7/24/25
AG
The thing getting lost in the back and forth regarding whether 60 minutes or fox did a worse editing job is the most important: there is simply not a cause of action there. Take the worst interpretation of what 60 minutes did . . . still not a viable claim from Trump. And the idea it violated the Texas DTPA is pretty laughable.

That's the most important point when lawyers are indicating how frivolous the lawsuit was against CBS (which CBS then paid a ludicrous settlement)
Reply Quote
2
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:23p, 7/24/25
Just saw that some flamboyantly gay man was guest hosting Jimmy Kimmel last night talking about how trans people are "superheroes", who are apparently under attack, and how our country treats rapists "better than trans people".

Holy smokes who is watching these shows? Have they been artificially propped up by USAID/NGO's and now the house is starting to crumble?
Reply Quote
10
rgvag11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie_Boomin 21 • 2:24p, 7/24/25
You have to be cognitively impaired not to be able to define the substance in her answer from either the 60 minutes interview or the Face the Nation teaser.

This is contrary to how Fox edited their interview with Trump where they changed the substance of Trump's answer to make it appear as if he would release the Epstein files.
Reply Quote
1 edit
rgvag11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bam02 • 2:26p, 7/24/25
Raw meat to MAGA == editing an answer to change its core meaning
Reply Quote
1 edit
bam02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 2:29p, 7/24/25
AG
rgvag11 said:
Raw mean to MAGA == editing an answer to change its core meaning


So what? It's so stupid that you can't address the main point.

All of the network news shows have edited stories over the years to try to change context. Like when they edit it out the Japanese Prime Minister cording out his box of fish food before Trump followed suit. Or editing the George Zimmerman 911 call to make it look like he was racially profiling.

Those are egregious. So was editing cackling Kamala's rambling drivel.
Reply Quote
4
rgvag11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bam02 • 2:39p, 7/24/25
OMG. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"Editing an answer to change its core meaning" is the whole point.

CBS, didn't do that, as I proved. Fox did do that, as I proved. You're worried that she was not portrayed as rambling, not anything to do with the substance of her answer. That is such a lowbrow position to take.
Reply Quote
bam02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 2:41p, 7/24/25
AG
rgvag11 said:
OMG. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"Editing an answer to change its core meaning" is the whole point.

CBS, didn't do that, as I proved. Fox did do that, as I proved. You're worried that she was not portrayed as rambling, not anything to do with the substance of her answer. That is such a lowbrow position to take.


So you don't feel like editing a political candidate's rambling incoherent response to make them seem like a concise intelligent person changes the substance?

That's not obtuse at all. You have a very reasonable take lol
Reply Quote
2 edits
rgvag11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bam02 • 2:44p, 7/24/25
bam02 said:
rgvag11 said:
OMG. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"Editing an answer to change its core meaning" is the whole point.

CBS, didn't do that, as I proved. Fox did do that, as I proved. You're worried that she was not portrayed as rambling, not anything to do with the substance of her answer. That is such a lowbrow position to take.


So you don't feel like editing a political candidate's rambling incoherent response to make them seem like a concise intelligent person changes the substance?

That's not obtuse at all. You have a very reasonable take lol

Ante up. What part of her response was incoherent?

You didn't couldn't provide a single example. LOL

Take the loss.
Reply Quote
1 edit
rgvag11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:53p, 7/24/25
Colbert with the gloves off.

Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MASAXET • 3:10p, 7/24/25
AG
MASAXET said:
The thing getting lost in the back and forth regarding whether 60 minutes or fox did a worse editing job is the most important: there is simply not a cause of action there. Take the worst interpretation of what 60 minutes did . . . still not a viable claim from Trump. And the idea it violated the Texas DTPA is pretty laughable.

That's the most important point when lawyers are indicating how frivolous the lawsuit was against CBS (which CBS then paid a ludicrous settlement)


Reply Quote
1
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RangerRick9211 • 3:14p, 7/24/25
AG
RangerRick9211 said:
TCTTS said:
I realize that John Oliver has zero credibility among a number of posters here, is nothing more than a liberal shill, etc, etc, but he absolutely brings the receipts in the segment below, re: Trump's suing of Paramount/CBS/60 Minutes, showing just how stupid and unjustified the whole thing was, to rgvag11's point. It starts around the 13:44 mark, but the whole thing is worth watching...


I have no dog in this fight. I never voted Trump. Far from it. But I have some time to burn and wasted it on this thread for the lols.

I tuned in at the 12 minute mark. The receipts, in order:

My conclusion:

  • CBS did manipulate the answer. They used the first sentence in the preview. The second sentence in the actual aired take. This wasn't a time saving edit. If that was reason they would have used the first sentence (both chronologically + they aired it in the preview).
  • CBS refused to release the entire interview. They refused to release the transcript (only doing so in Feb of this year). They did themselves no favors.
  • The Fox massage: the edit is sequential. The video is 11:40 minutes of highlights from a 1 hour and 20 minute interview. But, Fox put them out at a day apart: Jun 2 and 3. They did not slice an answer, just stopped it short.
  • You can't equate the two.
This will be my only contribution. I've wasted enough of my life on this nonsense. I've never watched Colbert. Conan gang for life.

Edits: Why won't my emojis work mid-sentence, TexAgs? Taking them out.


Thank you taking the time to watch, and engaging in the actual substance of the video. While I don't completely agree, and definitely side more with rgvag11, you are at least arguing in good faith and make some good points.
Reply Quote
1 edit
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 3:37p, 7/24/25
TCTTS said:
RangerRick9211 said:
TCTTS said:
I realize that John Oliver has zero credibility among a number of posters here, is nothing more than a liberal shill, etc, etc, but he absolutely brings the receipts in the segment below, re: Trump's suing of Paramount/CBS/60 Minutes, showing just how stupid and unjustified the whole thing was, to rgvag11's point. It starts around the 13:44 mark, but the whole thing is worth watching...


I have no dog in this fight. I never voted Trump. Far from it. But I have some time to burn and wasted it on this thread for the lols.

I tuned in at the 12 minute mark. The receipts, in order:

My conclusion:

  • CBS did manipulate the answer. They used the first sentence in the preview. The second sentence in the actual aired take. This wasn't a time saving edit. If that was reason they would have used the first sentence (both chronologically + they aired it in the preview).
  • CBS refused to release the entire interview. They refused to release the transcript (only doing so in Feb of this year). They did themselves no favors.
  • The Fox massage: the edit is sequential. The video is 11:40 minutes of highlights from a 1 hour and 20 minute interview. But, Fox put them out at a day apart: Jun 2 and 3. They did not slice an answer, just stopped it short.
  • You can't equate the two.
This will be my only contribution. I've wasted enough of my life on this nonsense. I've never watched Colbert. Conan gang for life.

Edits: Why won't my emojis work mid-sentence, TexAgs? Taking them out.


Thank you taking the time to watch, and engaging in the actual substance of the video. While I don't completely agree, and definitely side more with rgvag11, you are at least arguing in good faith and make some good points.

I honestly cannot stomach that dude's voice and condescending demeanor and know that he is a complete partisan hack who is almost entirely fueled by hatred for Trump and his supporters. I KNOW that he could never teach me anything. And that he will just blindly goaltend for the leftist institutions he considers allies and constantly bash anything right of middle. He thinks Im (a) stupid), (b) evil, or both. He would get CURB STOMPED on F16.

Glad to see that the poster above confirmed my suspicions though. I knew it would be a bunch of crap.
Reply Quote
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:42p, 7/24/25
I do have a question for some of you though. Do you guys ever feel dirty? Obama, Comey, Clapper, Brennan and others were just implicated by Tulsi Gabbard (lifelong Dem - and Russian "spy" according to Hillary LOL) in crimes that make Watergate look like summer camp shenanigans. The "OMG Russian Colluuuuusionnnn!" deal was a COMPLETE HOAX, as most of us knew all along.

Your media doesn't just lie, they issue widespread talking points to all of their affiliates, who better fall in line and parrot the EXACT SAME TALKING POINTS, or else. They don't just edit interviews down, for time's sake...they completely re-arrange them to give your prferred candidates a better shot. Even our federal agencies that were weaponized under prior administrations openly engage in election interference/tampering.

I gotta be honest...if the shoe was on the other foot and my side was CONSTANTLY lying and deceiving and cheating, I would be disgusted and would refuse to participate.

Damn, I would genuinely feel dirty. But I think when you don't believe in a God or adhere to any semblance of traditional moral standards (vast majority of leftists), your party or political ideology becomes your God or religion, and things like "the ends justify the means" and "lying to advance your cause" become actual virtues.
Reply Quote
15
1 edit
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to El Gallo Blanco • 3:42p, 7/24/25
AG
Sir, this is a Wendy's.

(Also, he "confirmed" nothing, as evident of rgvag11's highly thorough follow-ups, which you of course conveniently ignored.)
Reply Quote
1
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to El Gallo Blanco • 3:47p, 7/24/25
AG
Personally, I don't have a "side." I am of the opinion that they're ALL moralless, power-hungry dolts, left and right alike. If they do or did wrong, no matter which side of isle they're on, they should suffer the consequences. That, and I could ask the same crap of you, re: the countless lying/disingenuous names on the right as well. Again, your side's **** stinks too, you simply and conveniently choose to ignore it.
Reply Quote
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 3:48p, 7/24/25
TCTTS said:
Sir, this is a Wendy's.

(Also, he "confirmed" nothing, as evident of rgvag11's highly thorough follow-ups, which you of course conveniently ignored.)

I don't care about lawsuits...it is highly highly unethical for any media outlet to distort interviews after the fact to make your preferred candidate sound less stupid/incompetent after the fact, in order to help increase their chances of victory.

If Fox News ever does this (I havent watched them in probably a decade or more) I will call them out for the same unethical trashy behavior. Have they completely rearranged any interviews with Trump or other high profile Republicans to change the essence of the interview and white knight for them? The few interviews I have seen with Trump, he actually gets grilled prety hard.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 3:49p, 7/24/25
TCTTS said:
Personally, I don't have a "side." I am of the opinion that they're ALL moralless, power-hungry dolts, left and right alike. If they do or did wrong, no matter which side of isle they're on, they should suffer the consequences. That, and I could ask the same crap of you, re: the countless lying/disingenuous names on the right as well. Again, your side's **** stinks too, you simply and conveniently choose to ignore it.

Yet you cannot name ANY examples on par with what I outlined above (snips below). How do I know so? Because it would be impossible to do so honestly and with a straight face.

Quote:
Obama, Comey, Clapper, Brennan and others were just implicated by Tulsi Gabbard (lifelong Dem - and Russian "spy" according to Hillary LOL) in crimes that make Watergate look like summer camp shenanigans. The "OMG Russian Colluuuuusionnnn!" deal was a COMPLETE HOAX, as most of us knew all along.


Quote:
Your media doesn't just lie, they issue widespread talking points to all of their affiliates, who better fall in line and parrot the EXACT SAME TALKING POINTS, or else. They don't just edit interviews down, for time's sake...they completely re-arrange them to give your prferred candidates a better shot.


Quote:
Even our federal agencies that were weaponized under prior administrations openly engage in election interference/tampering.

Reply Quote
1
2 edits
The Original Houston 1836
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:08p, 7/24/25
Quote:
I gotta be honest...if the shoe was on the other foot and my side was CONSTANTLY lying and deceiving and cheating, I would be disgusted and would refuse to participate.

Reply Quote
5
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Original Houston 1836 • 4:33p, 7/24/25
The Original Houston 1836 said:
Quote:
I gotta be honest...if the shoe was on the other foot and my side was CONSTANTLY lying and deceiving and cheating, I would be disgusted and would refuse to participate.


Again, you cannot find ANYTHING even remotely comparable to what I listed above. Don't even waste your time trying, it's not even worth a second stewing over. Completely futile.

Your side HAS TO rig things. It needs open borders. And it needs to control education and the brainwashing of our youth on college campuses, and in many cases, in K-12. Oh yeah, and then theirs the entertainment industry and pop culture.

Without those things you'd never even come close. Gotta convince millions of youths that anyone who supports a country having borders and enforcing immigration law is basically a Nazi.

Reply Quote
8
3 edits
Heineken-Ashi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 4:53p, 7/24/25
TCTTS said:
Oh, look, just days after their meeting with Carr, and Colbert being fired, Skydance publicly declaring that they're going to do yet another thing that will just so happen to make the president happy. What are the odds!


(again, for the record, I'm all for this, I'm simply pointing to yet another "coincidence" in an increasingly long line of "coincidences")

Awesome! Why were they hiring anyone for any reason other than merit anyway? Why are you against that? Why are you racist and prefer hiring practices based on race?
Reply Quote
15
The Original Houston 1836
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to El Gallo Blanco • 4:54p, 7/24/25
El Gallo Blanco said:
The Original Houston 1836 said:
Quote:
I gotta be honest...if the shoe was on the other foot and my side was CONSTANTLY lying and deceiving and cheating, I would be disgusted and would refuse to participate.


Again, you cannot find ANYTHING even remotely comparable to what I listed above. Don't even waste your time trying, it's not even worth a second stewing over. Completely futile.

Your side HAS TO rig things. It needs open borders. And it needs to control education and the brainwashing of our youth on college campuses, and in many cases, in K-12. Oh yeah, and then theirs the entertainment industry and pop culture.

Without those things you'd never even come close. Gotta convince millions of youths that anyone who supports a country having borders and enforcing immigration law is basically a Nazi.



Here is my list of candidates voted for dating back to 1992 when I turned 18. .


92 - George Bush
96 - Didn't vote
00 - George W Bush
04 - George W Bush
08 - John McCain
12 - Didn't vote
16 Donald Trump
20 Donald Trump
24 Donald Trump

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a Democratic, just realistic.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Heineken-Ashi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 4:55p, 7/24/25
Teslag said:
Sapper Redux said:
El Gallo Blanco said:
DannyDuberstein said:
They turned her from complete rambling, meandering, blathering idiot to semi-coherent. Shady as hell regardless.

This. And they would NEVER EVER IN A MILLION YEARS, do Trump or ANY other republican a fraction of the same favors.

Same hyper biased left winged media that colluded with the FBI and Intel community to rig/influence the 2020 election and did not try to hide it. Would like to see anyone try to "debunk" this. It's fact, it happened.


I'm guessing you refuse to believe anything that doesn't support what you already think.


Based on your politics posting history it's amazing you can post this with no self awareness.

I literally spit out my drink when I read it,
Reply Quote
5
Aggie_Boomin 21
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 5:00p, 7/24/25
AG
rgvag11 said:
You have to be cognitively impaired not to be able to define the substance in her answer from either the 60 minutes interview or the Face the Nation teaser.

This is contrary to how Fox edited their interview with Trump where they changed the substance of Trump's answer to make it appear as if he would release the Epstein files.

Doubling down on personal attacks when YOU aren't understanding what the poster plainly said makes me pretty proud that you and I likely don't have much in common.

I really don't know how to explain more clearly that you misunderstood the obvious and valid point the other poster was making.

Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Heineken-Ashi • 5:03p, 7/24/25
AG
Heineken-Ashi said:
TCTTS said:
Oh, look, just days after their meeting with Carr, and Colbert being fired, Skydance publicly declaring that they're going to do yet another thing that will just so happen to make the president happy. What are the odds!


(again, for the record, I'm all for this, I'm simply pointing to yet another "coincidence" in an increasingly long line of "coincidences")

Awesome! Why were they hiring anyone for any reason other than merit anyway? Why are you against that? Why are you racist and prefer hiring practices based on race?


What the **** are you talking about?

I clearly meant that I'm all for eliminating corporate DEI practices and instead hiring on merit. Read the sentence structure, genius. "Paramount will eliminate all DEI programs" / "… for the record, I'm all for this."

Some of you truly are in desperate, deranged need of seeking out boogeymen to hate.
Reply Quote
2 edits
bam02
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 5:04p, 7/24/25
AG
As you read this you have to imagine it being spoken with the tone of a kindergarten teacher talking to a bunch of 5 year olds about the importance of sharing crayons while she is simultaneously taking a dump with a hemorrhoid the size of a grapefruit.

And that's who rgvag voted for to be our Commander in Chief.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Original Houston 1836 • 5:06p, 7/24/25
The Original Houston 1836 said:
El Gallo Blanco said:
The Original Houston 1836 said:
Quote:
I gotta be honest...if the shoe was on the other foot and my side was CONSTANTLY lying and deceiving and cheating, I would be disgusted and would refuse to participate.


Again, you cannot find ANYTHING even remotely comparable to what I listed above. Don't even waste your time trying, it's not even worth a second stewing over. Completely futile.

Your side HAS TO rig things. It needs open borders. And it needs to control education and the brainwashing of our youth on college campuses, and in many cases, in K-12. Oh yeah, and then theirs the entertainment industry and pop culture.

Without those things you'd never even come close. Gotta convince millions of youths that anyone who supports a country having borders and enforcing immigration law is basically a Nazi.



Here is my list of candidates voted for dating back to 1992 when I turned 18. .


92 - George Bush
96 - Didn't vote
00 - George W Bush
04 - George W Bush
08 - John McCain
12 - Didn't vote
16 Donald Trump
20 Donald Trump
24 Donald Trump

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a Democratic, just realistic.

Honestly shocked by that, given your posting history. You seem to always take aim at the right, and goaltend for the left, but maybe it's a complex or something.

I still don't know what you disagree with me on when it comes to what I posted above though...I just see a gif from one of my daughter's favorite movies that is supposed to be mocking in nature.

When has the right perpetrated a complet hoax/coup attempt like "Russia Gate"? When have we weaponized federal agencies like the FBI to engage in open election interference/tampering? etc etc.

We have a ton of idiots, and they spend too much and most basically act like democrats, but they pretty much largely want to leave people alone, with the exception of abortion. But I am talking about unprecedented levels of corruption in my examples...actual threats to democracy. The modern dem party are masters of this. And guess what...absolutely NOTHING will happen to Obama, Comey etc.
Reply Quote
4
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:11p, 7/24/25
AG
What timing! It's a miracle!

Reply Quote
2
The Original Houston 1836
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to El Gallo Blanco • 5:15p, 7/24/25
El Gallo Blanco said:
The Original Houston 1836 said:
El Gallo Blanco said:
The Original Houston 1836 said:
Quote:
I gotta be honest...if the shoe was on the other foot and my side was CONSTANTLY lying and deceiving and cheating, I would be disgusted and would refuse to participate.


Again, you cannot find ANYTHING even remotely comparable to what I listed above. Don't even waste your time trying, it's not even worth a second stewing over. Completely futile.

Your side HAS TO rig things. It needs open borders. And it needs to control education and the brainwashing of our youth on college campuses, and in many cases, in K-12. Oh yeah, and then theirs the entertainment industry and pop culture.

Without those things you'd never even come close. Gotta convince millions of youths that anyone who supports a country having borders and enforcing immigration law is basically a Nazi.



Here is my list of candidates voted for dating back to 1992 when I turned 18. .


92 - George Bush
96 - Didn't vote
00 - George W Bush
04 - George W Bush
08 - John McCain
12 - Didn't vote
16 Donald Trump
20 Donald Trump
24 Donald Trump

Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a Democratic, just realistic.

Honestly shocked by that, given your posting history. You seem to always take aim at the right, and goaltend for the left, but maybe it's a complex or something.

I still don't know what you disagree with me on when it comes to what I posted above though...I just see a gif from one of my daughter's favorite movies that is supposed to be mocking in nature.

When has the right perpetrated a complet hoax/coup attempt like "Russia Gate"? When have we weaponized federal agencies like the FBI to engage in open election interference/tampering? etc etc.

We have a ton of idiots, and they spend too much and most basically act like democrats, but they pretty much largely want to leave people alone, with the exception of abortion. But I am talking about unprecedented levels of corruption in my examples...actual threats to democracy. The modern dem party are masters of this. And guess what...absolutely NOTHING will happen to Obama, Comey etc.

Wow, what a classy response to your fellow Rupublican!
Reply Quote
2
Ferg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgvag11 • 5:26p, 7/24/25
rgvag11 said:
OMG. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"Editing an answer to change its core meaning" is the whole point.

CBS, didn't do that, as I proved. Fox did do that, as I proved. You're worried that she was not portrayed as rambling, not anything to do with the substance of her answer. That is such a lowbrow position to take.

CBS tried to make her look coherent and intelligent.
Reply Quote
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:31p, 7/24/25
AG
LOL at this Fox debate. Big picture, she had a reputation as being a dummy that rambles a ton of word salads, she gave an interview that uncut reinforced that reputation because it was all dummy rambling word salad answers, and they edited so that it didn't appear that way. Substantive change that altered one of the voters' biggest concerns about her - she might be a dummy. If Kamala wants to sue Fox, go ahead.
Reply Quote
8
2 edits
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DannyDuberstein • 6:05p, 7/24/25
AG
DannyDuberstein said:
LOL at this Fox debate. Big picture, she had a reputation as being a dummy that rambles a ton of word salads, she gave an interview that uncut reinforced that reputation because it was all dummy rambling word salad answers, and they edited so that it didn't appear that way. Substantive change that altered one of the voters' biggest concerns about her - she might be a dummy. If Kamala wants to sue Fox, go ahead.

She's arguably the dumbest POTUS candidate of all time. Bowed out of the POTUS race with barely registered numbers because she's a moron and no one liked her - even in her own party.

Then literally selected as VP because she's a POC. Literally. Called her own boss a rapist and a racist just mere weeks before he picked her. In what normal world does someone pick that person as their direct line of succession after they claimed two of the worst things anyone could ever claim about you?

She's simply a world class idiot.

Now, Trump, he's a caustic blowhard who says some crazy **** at times. He also does that on purpose for anyone that decides to look past his surface level shenanigans. He's also...easily...the most on record POTUS of all time and it's not even close. He will talk to anyone, at any time, anywhere. You want transparency? Well, you got the most transparency of any POTUS ever. So much transparency it's overwhelming.

Cherry picking one edited Fox interview to try and equate that back to known and verified, systemic collusion of curated Democrat propaganda by the media is world class buffoonery and anyone who tries to equate has zero credibility.
Reply Quote
12
Cliff.Booth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YouBet • 6:24p, 7/24/25
People ignored my post about Harris going on Subway Takes podcast for a session that would have been very favorable and they literally just had to delete it. That's how bad she was. Trump and JD went on Rogan and spoke at length and all it did was net them votes from some on the fence. Can you imagine if Rogan had considered either of them so bad that he just deleted them? Can you imagine a host who would be that accommodating to delete an entire interview as to not damage their election chances? America dodged one hell of a bullet, she is a whole ass idiot.
Reply Quote
15
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:34p, 7/24/25
AG
Guys, no one is disputing the fact that Harris was a moron, almost assuredly bad for the country, "needed" to be edited to sound even remotely competent, etc, etc, etc.

The question/issue is, did the President of the United States have a legitimate case against CBS? Despite CBS' potential shadiness, almost every expert agrees that he almost assuredly didn't. It's not that Trump's complaint was utterly baseless, it's whether or not it warranted a lawsuit, and then whether he used said lawsuit to hold up a corporate merger (that, ironically, will likely benefit him in the long run).

That's it and that's all.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.