Most AM radio is hard right wing. A lot of older guys (my dad) listen to it instead of music. It’s like a radio station from grand theft auto most days. A lot of them grew up listening to guys like Paul Harvey so it sounded reasonable for a long time. And it’s morphed over the years into lunacy. Now you have Glenn Beck and Hannity. Limbaugh till he croaked. AM radio is nostalgic and if you have a good tuner, you can hear some super far away stations at night.
It's so odd. People that had already planned to vote Trump/Vance thought Vance killed it at the debate. People that were already going to vote Harris/Walz thought Walz beat Vance at the debate. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
I listen to a few minutes of Hannity sometimes on the drive home, and I am not a fan. I listened to Rush because he had extremely good radio chops and made the work day move. I agreed with him less and less as the years went by, because in short, he was paradoxically pining for the good old days, while celebrating the end of the bad old days. But Hannity is an asshole. He just throws out every single buzz word right-wing talking point since Obama was running, and then says “answer me yes or no! Yes or no!” Listen to him when he talks to Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly is trying to actual make salient points and be slightly reasonable, and Hannity is just being a jackass. An actual example, Hannity asked O’Reilly how Trump should address the “rapists murderers and gang members pouring over the border” during the debate, and O’Reilly said that Trump needs to “make it personal,” and actually name victims who’ve been affected by it. Hannity shot back “Bill, what can be more personal than talking about these illegals immigrants murdering our citizens and raping and all the drugs and gang violence?!?” Well, last night, someone took O’Reilly’s advice, and it was Walz during the discussion of abortion. My wife, who doesn’t care about politics or pay close attention day to day, kept commenting that he was not a great speaker, and that Vance seemed calmer. But she also was pissed they both weren’t answering questions.
Hearing it a bunch that it was a breath of fresh air to hear a normal semi substantive debate after year of Trump bullshit. Even though he seemed a little more rattled by nerves he still came off more substantive than Kamala. Vance I thought did really well but really blew it all by not having a complete argument for his abortion stance and dodging the question about accepting the results of the election which Walz rightly, and immediately, called him on.
Can you explain what the actual crimes were? Slander? Just asking since all the pull quotes I’ve seen just sound like what we’ve heard for four years.
It's mostly stuff we already know, because the filing is just Smith defending the bulk of his evidence from SCOTUS's immunity ruling. There are a few new juicy morsels like Trump replying "so what?" when told that Pence had to be evacuated for his own safety, and a member of the campaign responding "make them riot" when told of the risk of violence at ballot processing centers. In terms of the actual crimes alleged in this case (which were the subject of the indictment from a last year), the specific charges are: Conspiracy to defraud the United States Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding Conspiracy against rights
While I appreciated the additional discussion, it's still a problem that Vance is using the phrase "illegal immigrants" to label people who are legally residing in the United States, and then complaining that the moderators fact checked him. Vance was deliberately wrong and inflammatory with what he said, the moderators fact checked him, and he complained because he thought he could get away with lying. The quote is exactly what it seems to be.
Also I think news media in general can do a better job of explaining, but I also have no problem whatsoever with pointing out that this asshat thought he could get away with lying and complained when he was called out on it. Nobody participating in a motherfucking vice presidential debate should complain ever, for any reason, that they were fact checked. The status quo should be getting fact checked. Being corrected with reality when you say something wrong should be the baseline expectation of every single political debate.
Let me clarify, the nice moment was more of a “he’s trying to explain his position” more so than the last eight years of Trump just saying that anyone who calls him out is a fake news liar lamestream media failure network make America great again rrrraaahhhhh
Totally fair, just mentioning that I think it's totally reasonable for him to get skewered for his intentional lie and the subsequent whining when someone called him out on it. The media does plenty of nonsense with quotes taken out of context that seem worse than they are - but that's not really the case here.
Can you record yourself reading it aloud, but softly? Maybe let out a little moan at random intervals? I need a new ASML for bed.
I don't care for your backhanded-shaming or your assuming Aetius' gender identity. Also, new desktop wallpaper: Spoiler
You are fucking kidding me, right? Is everything parody now? People seem to think that valour-stealing is only associated with the military. No, no, no, no, no.