I find it odd that the Democrats that I know are celebrating this pardon as if it is some kind of victory. My Yahoo newsfeed proudly proclaimed that the pardon was to "protect" Hunter from Trump and portrayed Hunter as the victim who was saved by his father's great sacrifice.
You can't make this stuff up and if the news (sic) still feels …
I find it odd that the Democrats that I know are celebrating this pardon as if it is some kind of victory. My Yahoo newsfeed proudly proclaimed that the pardon was to "protect" Hunter from Trump and portrayed Hunter as the victim who was saved by his father's great sacrifice.
You can't make this stuff up and if the news (sic) still feels empowered to carry water for these criminals, they are far from defeated.
Please don't misunderstand, the Yahoo newsfeed is part of the problem. I don't know how many people subscribe to it, however, let's use it as an example. It likely isn't a lot of people, and they likely are older (like some Boomers, some GenXers).
The idea being floated is to change the makeup of the occupants/invitees of the small room (holds about 4 dozen seats) for press conferences.
The idea would be to arrange for podcasters to be in the mix, and possibly exclude dying organizations with low viewer #'s such as CNN and MSNBC.
My point being the 'news' you refer to is dying off, with low ratings and sparse viewership except in a shrinking demographic.
I think it's safe to say more people watch Joe Rogan than CNN. Is it news? Sometimes. Does it ask tough questions, mostly yes.
Advertising revenue is way down for these "news" agencies because few there be that watch this trip anymore. So who's keeping them afloat? Soros? Bezos? Someone is still giving these poor saps money so they can continue to air their worthless drivel.
The pharmaceutical industry controls the media. They don't make a profit on their MSM ad spend, but they control what can and cannot be said. Considered money well spent. Probably working in cahoots with Dominion and Smartmatic, since discussion of election theft is strictly prohibited.
12/02/24: My guess is the Pentagon/Defense Department/CIA/FBI/DHS/"Seventeen" intelligence agencies. And why not? They are never honestly financially audited, so why not spend the money wherever they happened to feel like it on any given day? And the quotes around "seventeen" means that there could easily be another 17 agencies in existence, so secretive that they have no public names.
Their friends in banking create money out of nothing. Same group controls both industries. So don't you worry about them. They can get interest free "loans" which never have to be paid back.
I find it odd that the Democrats that I know are celebrating this pardon as if it is some kind of victory. My Yahoo newsfeed proudly proclaimed that the pardon was to "protect" Hunter from Trump and portrayed Hunter as the victim who was saved by his father's great sacrifice.
You can't make this stuff up and if the news (sic) still feels empowered to carry water for these criminals, they are far from defeated.
Please don't misunderstand, the Yahoo newsfeed is part of the problem. I don't know how many people subscribe to it, however, let's use it as an example. It likely isn't a lot of people, and they likely are older (like some Boomers, some GenXers).
The idea being floated is to change the makeup of the occupants/invitees of the small room (holds about 4 dozen seats) for press conferences.
The idea would be to arrange for podcasters to be in the mix, and possibly exclude dying organizations with low viewer #'s such as CNN and MSNBC.
My point being the 'news' you refer to is dying off, with low ratings and sparse viewership except in a shrinking demographic.
I think it's safe to say more people watch Joe Rogan than CNN. Is it news? Sometimes. Does it ask tough questions, mostly yes.
Why not keep the lying MSM in the room for the obvious contrast?
I reckon this is implied in Kenn's suggestion Will's son.
He suggested only CNN and MSNBC. Perhaps he himself implied more?
Why not ABC, CBS, NBC, and say PBS?
Then go to the real news (once known as the Alt-News)
"and possibly exclude dying organizations with low viewer #'s such as CNN and MSNBC.'
Possibly exclude and such as, is what I responded to.
The mix would be interesting. Possible label: 'The Return of Real Reporters'
Great point. I haven’t read any Lib stuff yet this morning. I’d like to let my breakfast settle in first. 🤢🤮
Advertising revenue is way down for these "news" agencies because few there be that watch this trip anymore. So who's keeping them afloat? Soros? Bezos? Someone is still giving these poor saps money so they can continue to air their worthless drivel.
The pharmaceutical industry controls the media. They don't make a profit on their MSM ad spend, but they control what can and cannot be said. Considered money well spent. Probably working in cahoots with Dominion and Smartmatic, since discussion of election theft is strictly prohibited.
Good, Ez. Banking, Media, Pharma, Food - same people.
Yes. They ‘sued’ FOX News and Fox folded.
No Rupert Murdoch chose not to fight it.
There is a difference and guess who Rupert hates with a purple passion...If you guessed orangeman bad you would be correct.
Willing to loose a billion to hurt Trump who would assess that as being worth it?
12/02/24: My guess is the Pentagon/Defense Department/CIA/FBI/DHS/"Seventeen" intelligence agencies. And why not? They are never honestly financially audited, so why not spend the money wherever they happened to feel like it on any given day? And the quotes around "seventeen" means that there could easily be another 17 agencies in existence, so secretive that they have no public names.
Their friends in banking create money out of nothing. Same group controls both industries. So don't you worry about them. They can get interest free "loans" which never have to be paid back.
So true. What a system eh?
Agree, how long do they continue watching their $ circle the drain before disabling the toilet.