The NYT and WaPo have erased any presumption of neutrality. It’s clear what party they endorse. Those 250,000 former subscribers just wanted a mental excuse to stop paying their subscription.
2 Likes
biggest events ever at Google?? really That is one of his lying tells. Whenever he says “Sir”
2 Likes
White House illegally edits Biden’s official transcript where he called all Trump supporters “garbage”, including overruling the scribes whose job it was to create the official record.
3 Likes
this is what happens when party has too much power, left or right. I also don’t like their hugs not bullets mantra with Cartels
Eight of 11 justices currently serving on Mexico’s Supreme Court turned in their resignation letters in response to judicial reforms overhauling the country’s constitution last month. Under new judicial laws, the Supreme Court will slim down from 11 to nine justices, all of whom must be selected by popular vote in an election next June. Judges who don’t want to participate in the judicial election process had to submit their resignation letters before the June election, or risk forfeiting their pensions.
The reforms have pitted the government of newly-elected Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum against the country’s judicial system. Supporters of the government claim that the new processes – which will also establish an elected tribunal to oversee the judicial system – will root out corruption in Mexico’s court system, but critics believe the new laws hand too much power to the ruling Morena party. But we should look at electing Fed judges like we do local
“It is necessary to underscore that this resignation does not imply an implicit acceptance of the reform’s constitutionality,” said Justice Alfredo Gutierrez in his resignation letter. As the laws also apply to lower courts across Mexico, other judges have turned in resignation letters expressing their frustration with the new rules, though the remaining three Supreme Court judges have expressed their support for the reforms.
3 Likes
Talk about arm twisting tactics.
I saw that too. Here the judges have rich donors take care of their retirement, and also taxpayers so they can’t use that strategy 
Do you have any evidence that rich donors are paying off judges? Unless you mean the ‘rich donors’ are the taxpayers.
1 Like
2 Likes
A small amount of what?
is an experienced metalworker
Working up to suicide bomber, or just terrorist?
Rosemary Woods daughter must work for Biden. 
well not billions… although I should have:
1 Like
‘Implodes’ is CNN hating on Trump, but the stock did nearly double in the past two weeks and then give back those gains so you’d have done well with a short (or shorter term puts).
This is two weeks -
This is two months -
So it went up 4x in the medium term and now is only up 2x.
1 Like
A politically motivated partial disclosure. Here is a more complete one. Not illegal or even surprising.
Another justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, reported eye-popping numbers, a nearly $900,000 advance for her upcoming memoir, and attention-grabbing gifts, four tickets to a Beyoncé concert valued at $3,700 from the singer herself.
Jackson was one of four Supreme Court justices who reported sizable income from book deals. Justice Brett Kavanaugh reported being paid $340,000 by the conservative Regnery Publishing company. The company was sold and the book is to be published by an imprint at Hachette Book Group, according to Axios, which also reported this week that Kavanaugh’s book will deal with his contentious confirmation hearing that included allegations of sexual misconduct, which he has denied. The court confirmed Friday that the justice is writing a legal memoir.
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor reported royalty income of $250,000 and nearly $90,000, respectively.
2 Likes
Yeah ProPublica is super biased leftist crap (see their tax reporting for more examples), but they’re not wrong about the Supreme Court members taking some nice gifts (of course they only report on the conservative ones, and make it sound like a crime). Until just recently, the ethics disclosure rules didn’t require this kind of thing and now they do, so they weren’t previously required to say (and didn’t). Not a great look for any of them honestly, but I think there weren’t any obvious ties between the rich friends and any cases before the Court.
2 Likes
Liz Cheney was killed twice by Trump since his recent interview with Tucker, ask the MSM for more information.
From the interview, here’s a reasonable summary - Trump calling Liz Cheney a war hawk, which she is. The excerpt from the interview he gave was -
Trump called Cheney “a deranged person” and added: “But the reason she couldn’t stand me is that she always wanted to go to war with people. If it were up to her we’d be in 50 different countries.”
The former president continued: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.
“You know they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, oh gee, well, let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy,” Trump said.
How does the worthless media cover this? Here’s WashPo and NYT -
Trump embraces violent rhetoric, suggests Liz Cheney should have guns ‘trained on her face’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/01/liz-cheney-trump-guns-shooting/
Trump Assails Liz Cheney and Imagines Guns ‘Shooting at Her’
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/01/us/politics/trump-liz-cheney-tucker-carlson.html
Trump Says ‘War Hawk’ Liz Cheney Should Have ‘Guns Trained On Her Face’
Trump’s comments about Liz Cheney ‘must be disqualifying,’ Harris says
Trump suggests Liz Cheney should be shot
Donald Trump talks about killing Liz Cheney; She fires back calling him a tyrant
Watch: Trump Makes His Chilling Liz Cheney Comments so Much Worse
Donald Trump has chosen to double down on his terrifying threat
Trump Suggests Training Guns on Liz Cheney’s Face
Less than a week before Election Day, Donald Trump last night called for one of his prominent political adversaries to go before a firing squad
——
Look, Trump says lots of stupid things, but none of this was even close to what he actually said, and the fact that the legacy media lies about this so egregiously just shows they can’t be trusted at all. And he was live on video so there was no question about what he said or the context.
There’s a reason Bezos complained the media had an even worse trustworthiness rating than politicians(!) and didn’t let the WashPo endorse Harris. Not sure he’ll turn it around, but until then,
3 Likes
A shocking Iowa poll means somebody is going to be wrong?
It might have helped that she didn’t campaign much there. Tim Walz folksy country mouse too.
Might be a national landslide… I almost paid for nate’s newsletter to read the rest … almost
1 Like
Is that Iowa poll an outlier? Or are other Iowa polls showing the same sudden shift?
Outlier, but it could be right. It is reputable. All about methodology
1 Like
