|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 12 2026 09:29 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2026 06:47 LightSpectra wrote:
Are you actually saying Kimmel must not have invited a Republican because otherwise the FCC is breaking the law and they wouldn't do that? Nope. Just that I hadn't read anywhere that Kimmel invited the Republican challenger on. Show nested quote +On September 12 2026 07:05 Billyboy wrote:On September 12 2026 06:45 dyhb wrote:On September 12 2026 05:45 Billyboy wrote:On September 12 2026 05:27 dyhb wrote:On September 12 2026 03:56 Jankisa wrote:
Love to see the horse shoe tips touching.
Supposed centrist dhyb is purity testing Abdul El-Sayed, while supposed leftist GH is doing the same to James Talarico.
While I'm aware neither lives in the state where they could put their vote where their mouth is, I think it's again signifying why we can't have nice things.
Extreme folks unable to get over themselves, hold their nose and do the right thing, even theoretically. You should try saying moderate Democrat, in the interests of not being a dismissive, progressive troll. Then you can turn your attention to the differences between disavowing statements and purity testing, since it’s clear that you never paid enough attention in the first place. On September 12 2026 04:02 LightSpectra wrote:On September 12 2026 03:00 dyhb wrote:On September 12 2026 02:48 LightSpectra wrote:An aide warned Kash Patel that replying to an account named "RetardFinder" would "look bad on you", he did so anyway + Show Spoiler + And that’s why we use X/Twitter. Because guys like KFILE of CNN post their breaking news there. Also, FCC rules on equal-time have been around for decades, so Jimmy Kimmel or whoever only needs to bring on the opposing candidate to not run afoul of existing rules. When SNL brought Trump on to host, NBC was forced to give opposing candidates equal airtime. That’s literally over 10 years ago. Republican declines the invitation, now it appears "one sided" to people who didn't know that and the FCC can openly threaten them. I guess all the free speech warriors here are stumped by this one simple loophole. ”We invited his Senatorial opposing candidate on for equal time, but the candidate declined” is in fact an actual defense. Just read up on the now-ancient FCC rule. Because nobody pretended that was the case, the default presumption should be that Jimmy Kimmel would rather broadcast it on YouTube than invite Paxton on. So much should be obvious to everybody. A quick google search would show you that you are wrong. Kimmel invited Paxton, Paxton declined. Straight up FCC weaponization and true cancel culture. I bet free speech absolutist Musk is as angry as you about it. Before you make these condescending “take downs” might be worth checking the basic facts rather than trusting that the Republicans are honourable, like your average moderate democrat does… ? I posted after reading 3 articles found using Google, none of them saying that Kimmel had offered Paxton equal time in order to satisfy FCC rules. Before doing your traditional “take downs,” please link articles from reputable outlets. Lead with the facts, to make sure you’re not engaging in the exact behavior you attempt to condemn. Clip included. Kimmel would “love it”. Almost like the FCC using this rule for the first time in 50 years, isn’t about the rule. Kimmel has even interviewed Trump twice, well running for office. https://latenighter.com/news/jimmy-kimmel-ken-paxton-interview-invite/ "Kimmel said the FCC’s equal-time rules could require him to interview the other candidates on the ballot" "Which, by the way, I would love to do." The complication, Kimmel explained, is that Paxton isn’t the only other candidate on the ballot. With roughly 10 candidates running, ABC affiliates in Texas could potentially face equal-time requests from all of them. So, he'd rather post to YouTube rather than comply with potentially burdensome requests. No statement as to whether he offered to have Ken Paxton on, just an expression of willingness he doesn't have to actually demonstrate (because of the 10-candidate excuse). Pretty politician answer in the "I didn't invite you, but I would love to hear you reach out to me." Show nested quote +Kimmel invited Paxton, Paxton declined. Straight up FCC weaponization and true cancel culture. Got a source for the quote, now that you've brought up a non-source? Billyboy didn't invite me to his dinner party, but he said he could be required to, and would absolutely love it!
Or you could watch the video where he says he would love to have Paxton on and for him to call him?
Exactly why do you think that Jimmy kimmel a professional comedian and tv personality wouldn’t want the opportunity to talk to the worst Republican senate candidate in the US and ask him about his impeachment? Security fraud and so on?
I mean as a “centrist” moderate democrat, you surely can see how this would be a win for Dems no????
Like at least be mildly good at your schtick man.
|
On September 12 2026 10:00 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2026 09:29 dyhb wrote:On September 12 2026 06:47 LightSpectra wrote:
Are you actually saying Kimmel must not have invited a Republican because otherwise the FCC is breaking the law and they wouldn't do that? Nope. Just that I hadn't read anywhere that Kimmel invited the Republican challenger on. On September 12 2026 07:05 Billyboy wrote:On September 12 2026 06:45 dyhb wrote:On September 12 2026 05:45 Billyboy wrote:On September 12 2026 05:27 dyhb wrote:On September 12 2026 03:56 Jankisa wrote:
Love to see the horse shoe tips touching.
Supposed centrist dhyb is purity testing Abdul El-Sayed, while supposed leftist GH is doing the same to James Talarico.
While I'm aware neither lives in the state where they could put their vote where their mouth is, I think it's again signifying why we can't have nice things.
Extreme folks unable to get over themselves, hold their nose and do the right thing, even theoretically. You should try saying moderate Democrat, in the interests of not being a dismissive, progressive troll. Then you can turn your attention to the differences between disavowing statements and purity testing, since it’s clear that you never paid enough attention in the first place. On September 12 2026 04:02 LightSpectra wrote:On September 12 2026 03:00 dyhb wrote:On September 12 2026 02:48 LightSpectra wrote:An aide warned Kash Patel that replying to an account named "RetardFinder" would "look bad on you", he did so anyway + Show Spoiler + And that’s why we use X/Twitter. Because guys like KFILE of CNN post their breaking news there. Also, FCC rules on equal-time have been around for decades, so Jimmy Kimmel or whoever only needs to bring on the opposing candidate to not run afoul of existing rules. When SNL brought Trump on to host, NBC was forced to give opposing candidates equal airtime. That’s literally over 10 years ago. Republican declines the invitation, now it appears "one sided" to people who didn't know that and the FCC can openly threaten them. I guess all the free speech warriors here are stumped by this one simple loophole. ”We invited his Senatorial opposing candidate on for equal time, but the candidate declined” is in fact an actual defense. Just read up on the now-ancient FCC rule. Because nobody pretended that was the case, the default presumption should be that Jimmy Kimmel would rather broadcast it on YouTube than invite Paxton on. So much should be obvious to everybody. A quick google search would show you that you are wrong. Kimmel invited Paxton, Paxton declined. Straight up FCC weaponization and true cancel culture. I bet free speech absolutist Musk is as angry as you about it. Before you make these condescending “take downs” might be worth checking the basic facts rather than trusting that the Republicans are honourable, like your average moderate democrat does… ? I posted after reading 3 articles found using Google, none of them saying that Kimmel had offered Paxton equal time in order to satisfy FCC rules. Before doing your traditional “take downs,” please link articles from reputable outlets. Lead with the facts, to make sure you’re not engaging in the exact behavior you attempt to condemn. Clip included. Kimmel would “love it”. Almost like the FCC using this rule for the first time in 50 years, isn’t about the rule. Kimmel has even interviewed Trump twice, well running for office. https://latenighter.com/news/jimmy-kimmel-ken-paxton-interview-invite/ "Kimmel said the FCC’s equal-time rules could require him to interview the other candidates on the ballot" "Which, by the way, I would love to do." The complication, Kimmel explained, is that Paxton isn’t the only other candidate on the ballot. With roughly 10 candidates running, ABC affiliates in Texas could potentially face equal-time requests from all of them. So, he'd rather post to YouTube rather than comply with potentially burdensome requests. No statement as to whether he offered to have Ken Paxton on, just an expression of willingness he doesn't have to actually demonstrate (because of the 10-candidate excuse). Pretty politician answer in the "I didn't invite you, but I would love to hear you reach out to me." Kimmel invited Paxton, Paxton declined. Straight up FCC weaponization and true cancel culture. Got a source for the quote, now that you've brought up a non-source? Billyboy didn't invite me to his dinner party, but he said he could be required to, and would absolutely love it! Or you could watch the video where he says he would love to have Paxton on and for him to call him? Exactly why do you think that Jimmy kimmel a professional comedian and tv personality wouldn’t want the opportunity to talk to the worst Republican senate candidate in the US and ask him about his impeachment? Security fraud and so on? The only thing the FCC has for this is if Jimmy Kimmel didn't invite Paxton on while airing Talarico. Jimmy Kimmel gets all the hate-clicks and an invitation for Paxton himself to make contact (I would love to hear if Jimmy Kimmel actually reaches out to the Paxton campaign with a formal booking request, so keep me appraised if Kimmel invites). But Kimmel can always retreat to "The complication, Kimmel explained, is that Paxton isn’t the only other candidate on the ballot. With roughly 10 candidates running, ABC affiliates in Texas could potentially face equal-time requests from all of them."
I mean as a “centrist” moderate democrat, you surely can see how this would be a win for Dems no????
Like at least be mildly good at your schtick man. I've never called myself a centrist.
But trolls say I'm a "fake centrist," because they have to assert that I'm a centrist in order to go to Step 2: He's not actually a centrist.
If you are a troll and you self-identify as a troll, keep calling me a "centrist." If you have some basic self-respect, drop the schtick. It should be easy for somebody that regularly wants to point out bad faith in others to eliminate the symptoms within yourself. I'm a moderate Democrat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/9s261sde9xoh1.png)
