So who’s gonna sue faux news
He cites a Texas law banning “deceptive acts in the conduct of business”. To be fair, that is his backyard LOL.
True… game recognize game?
"The complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas, alleges the network aired two different responses from Harris responding to a question about the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
The version that aired during the “60 Minutes” program on Oct. 6 did not include what the lawsuit calls a “word salad” response from Harris about the Biden administration’s influence on Israel’s conduct of the war."
“The version that aired during the ‘60 Minutes’ program on Oct. 6 did not include what the lawsuit calls a ‘word salad’ response from Harris about the Biden administration’s influence on Israel’s conduct of the war.”
I’d imagine Kamala’s worst word salad is better than Trump’s most eloquent statement.
That’s a really weird thing to do.
Checks group, wait this isn’t The Oniion?
Setting aside Trump himself, I really hope that this sort of stuff doesn’t become normalized in political campaigning.
Too late. The republicans love their lawsuits over elections now.
The version that aired during the “60 Minutes” program on Oct. 6 did not include what the lawsuit calls a “word salad” response from Harris about the Biden administration’s influence on Israel’s conduct of the war.
Well, Trump is the leading authority in the field of word salad.
CBS could just refuse to cover any Trump events due to “ongoing litigation” initiated by the scamdidate and invite NBC and ABC to join.
they totally should.
But they won’t.
They make too much money
The suit demanded a jury trial and about $10 billion in damages
Taking notes from Pootin, I see.
I feel like that means there’s something litigation worthy between Trump and some “news” network…
Then again it’s probably all of them.
$10 billion in damages.
2.5 decillion
of course texas ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will always hurt me’ law. crybabies
Snowflake.
No, he just made even more headlines. The more headlines he makes, the more votes he gets.
This user doesn’t deserve the down votes.
They’re not saying that Trump should get more votes because of his trash headlines and behavior, they’re just calling out because it’s just what happens with that fascist.
Democrats should, unfortunately, do the same kind of massive attention seeking to resonate with those of his base that aren’t completely set on just being evil. It makes the candidate look active, engaged, decisive, and not passive on any matter, no matter how small.
Anyone who pays attention to Trump knows he has no substance with what he says, but because he’s always front and center of every little issue (or at least that’s how he’s got the media optics playing for him), it makes him seem very present and on top of things. Think of it like being a useless office worker, but you always walk around looking angry and in a hurry so people assume you’re busy and working hard.
Like it or not, there is huge value in that in this whole dumb popularity contest.
This is a good summary. I don’t know if people thought I was in support of Trump with my comment. But it is very frustrating seeing so many Trump headlines and no Harris headlines.
I’m happy to see “Harris bashes Trump for shitty comment” stories. But all I’m seeing is “Trump makes shitty comment”. Like he’s the only candidate.
Is that the thinking? Like a child in the back of class, desperate for attention and confused about why other people don’t want to just be obnoxiously loud.
No, folks don’t see any headline and think “that’s how I will vote.” This is the mental ability of an infant who just got object permanence.
Oh sweet summer child. Let me tell you about the fall of 2016…….
That’s not how anything works.
That’s absolutely how Trump works.
As I have said to others, please show evidence that Trump won in 2016 because people heard his name more than Clinton’s a few days before the election.
You just made up a straw man. Did someone say Trump won because of this? All they said was any publicity seems to be good publicity for this shit bag.
I’m not sure what else “the more headlines he gets, the more votes he gets” is supposed to mean other than Trump will win again because of this.
That’s concerning. It means you are so biased against the conversation you can’t see a simple difference of opinion as anything but a total counterpoint to your position.
More votes. That’s it. Maybe one more, maybe a few thousand. Not winning, not running away with anything. Just a few more votes.
You remember 2016? This is exactly how that year went. All these headlines while Trump’s polling numbers are completely unaffected. It’s 2016 all over again.
Sorry… you think 2016 happened because people heard Trump’s name more than Clinton’s a few days before the election?
Please do show some evidence to back that up.
I wish you were right. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of idiot voters out there who just fill in the box next to the name they hear more.
I would like some evidence to support this please. Especially this close to an election.
I can tell you from personal experience that it sure as fuck didn’t work for Meg Whitman.
Related and interesting podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/search-engine/id1614253637.
According to what he found that is somewhat the way it works: two fake candidates and the one with more yard signs got way more votes. Doubt that generalizes to the US presidency though; especially with this election.
I could see it working for two candidates people have never heard of. Beyond that, I doubt it.
To go back to Meg Whitman, she totally inundated California. Every other radio and TV ad was about her. There were posters every place the campaign could think to stick them whether or not it was legal. By election day, everyone was so sick of her that she did not even come close.
Dip shit crybaby.
