2024 Presidential Election

[ShockerFever]

The media became so bent after Trump called them out on so many things in his first term. They are absolutely unhinged lol.

[ShockerFever]

Is there a reason why there’s so many Kamalala ads on tv but nothing Trump? Are the major networks blackballing Trump’s attempt to campaign?

[WuDrWu]

Is there a reason why there’s so many Kamalala ads on tv but nothing Trump? Are the major networks blackballing Trump’s attempt to campaign?

They are protecting Democracy by refusing the air the lies.

[Shockm]

Is there a reason why there’s so many Kamalala ads on tv but nothing Trump? Are the major networks blackballing Trump’s attempt to campaign?

Public owned television stations cannot refuse to air ads. They are covered by the First Amendment. CNN, MSNBC, other cable channels, and digital channels don't have to air them. If Trump pays for his ads, they can't refuse to cover them.

Political ads are considered to be political speech, which is protected under the First Amendment. TV station news departments are able to report on the accuracy of political advertisements shown on the same station, but cannot restrict the ad itself.

Broadcast television stations like KARE 11 utilize the public airwaves, and are licensed and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has clear rules about candidate advertising. The FCC requires that stations accept ads from any "legally qualified candidate” with the commercial time sold at the lowest rate that the “station charges its most favored commercial advertisers for the same classes and amounts of time for the same periods.”

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) also requires candidates for federal offices to follow certain rules in their advertising, including “I approve this message” statements by the candidate.

Television stations have more control over ads paid for by third-party groups, and can charge higher advertising rates for those commercials.

"If the ad comes from an outside group, like a political party or an interest group of a Super PAC, then the stations can make editorial decisions about whether or not to run the ads,” Christopher Terry, a University of Minnesota expert on campaign advertising law, told KARE 11 in 2020.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/politics/elections/tv-stations-cant-censor-refuse-political-ads/89-a1fdabde-5593-4dd0-8135-289fa7ea8ebf

[pinstripers]

So if Kamala BLOWS the debate, I suppose they try to replace her???????????

[WuDrWu]

They are protecting Democracy by refusing the air the lies.

To be clear, Harris has a huge fund raising advantage, and you should always follow the money. For anyone expecting a Trump route, the money should tell you different.

Harris raised $361 million in August. Trump $130 million. And Harris has been spending it. Still, she has $404 million on hand at the end of August, while Trump has $295 million. He is clearly saving it for later in the cycle, while Harris is trying (imho) to both maximize her honeymoon phase and sway those up in the air. Trump is (again imho) going to be focusing more on getting out his base because there just aren't a ton of folks he's likely to "turn" his way. It is what it is.

[Kung Wu]

To be clear, Harris has a huge fund raising advantage, and you should always follow the money. For anyone expecting a Trump route, the money should tell you different.

Harris raised $361 million in August. Trump $130 million. And Harris has been spending it. Still, she has $404 million on hand at the end of August, while Trump has $295 million. He is clearly saving it for later in the cycle, while Harris is trying (imho) to both maximize her honeymoon phase and sway those up in the air. Trump is (again imho) going to be focusing more on getting out his base because there just aren't a ton of folks he's likely to "turn" his way. It is what it is.

I wonder what percent of all that spend is going specifically to ballot harvesting?

[pinstripers]

Andy Kaczynski @KFILE

NEW on CNN: On a 2019 ACLU questionnaire Kamala Harris said she supported taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants, decriminalizing drug possession, and drastic cuts to ICE along with ending immigrant detention

. https://cnn.com/2024/09/09/politics/.../index.html

[WstateU]

[WstateU]

No, Trump isn’t Reagan, but…

https://instagram.com/p/C_s-UxfAekp/

[shocktown]

So if Kamala BLOWS the debate, I suppose they try to replace her???????????

Hasn’t that been the key to her success? She always comes out on top when the event ends.

[Kung Wu]

According to this article whoever wins the Presidency is screwed, because the market is headed toward a Depression era downturn and the next President will get blamed for it even though they have nothing to do with it:

https://www.kitco.com/opinion/2024-09-09/sentiment-speaks-will-kamala-or-trump-cause-depression

[ShockerPrez]

Who knows if it actually will, but if it does, you can guarantee that both will propose policies that probably aren't the right ones to deal with the situation for short term ease. The best policy IMO, is to do nothing that benefits actual companies. I know that I will sound heartless, but...

If we are going to spend $100 billion to ease the pain for instance, I would prefer just giving that money directly to individuals and let the companies go down and their assets be redistributed through the market. What I don't want is millions/billions going to companies that will pocket the $$ pay their CEOs and boards and do nothing for the little guys. If the corporations are the big baddies, why do they get bailed out.

There's going to be mass unemployment anyway if we go into a depression. It may be best to just bite the bullet and get through it.

And the government spending/giving $$ to businesses to keep people employed is not a good idea and only delays the inevitable (while lining the pockets of special intetests and donors).

Basically, what I'm saying is that a stock market crash is just another opportunity for the feds to distribute more proceeds of the graft and corruption to their buddies. They won't do anything to actually solve the problem. Because there isn't one. This is decades on the making.

[shock]

Who knows if it actually will, but if it does, you can guarantee that both will propose policies that probably aren't the right ones to deal with the situation for short term ease. The best policy IMO, is to do nothing that benefits actual companies. I know that I will sound heartless, but...

If we are going to spend $100 billion to ease the pain for instance, I would prefer just giving that money directly to individuals and let the companies go down and their assets be redistributed through the market. What I don't want is millions/billions going to companies that will pocket the $$ pay their CEOs and boards and do nothing for the little guys. If the corporations are the big baddies, why do they get bailed out.

There's going to be mass unemployment anyway if we go into a depression. It may be best to just bite the bullet and get through it.

And the government spending/giving $$ to businesses to keep people employed is not a good idea and only delays the inevitable (while lining the pockets of special intetests and donors).

Basically, what I'm saying is that a stock market crash is just another opportunity for the feds to distribute more proceeds of the graft and corruption to their buddies. They won't do anything to actually solve the problem. Because there isn't one. This is decades on the making.

Better yet, reduce the income tax net by 100b and put that money right back into the pockets of those who drive the economy.

[ShockerFever]

We’ll see how well Kamalala can memorize a script tonight. ABC has probably given her every single question they’re gonna ask her so she can prep it up and look borderline coherent. If this was a fair debate platform, she would get roasted beyond repair.