It's the talk of the town, i was surprised there wasn't a thread on it. There was a 10+ page on it on the main board.Great source. Geiger Capitol and Trump says it's so, so it must be so.
The libs on this board can always craft an alternate version reality in their little heads to justify all of this.No one cares that 60 minutes is a big fat cheater with no integrity.
Its just accepted that the misinformation machine helps democrats?
I’ve never seen this before, but the producers of 60 Minutes sliced and diced (“cut and pasted”) Lyin’ Kamala’s answers to questions, which were virtually incoherent, over and over again, some by as many as four times in a single sentence or thought, all in an effort, possibly illegal as part of the “News Division,” which must be licensed, to make her look “more Presidential,” or a least, better. It may also be a major Campaign Finance Violation. This is a stain on the reputation of 60 Minutes that is not recoverable - It will always remain with this once storied brand. I have never heard of such a thing being done in “News.” It is the very definition of FAKE NEWS! The public is owed a MAJOR AND IMMEDIATE APOLOGY! This is an open and shut case, and must be investigated, starting today!
Donald Trump Truth Social 07:16 AM EST 10/09/24 @realDonaldTrump
No, but to be transparent I didn't watch the interview or see the promo, so I won't blindly take fatpig's word for it. In the little bit I've read about it, this could have been part of the longer answer she gave edited down to be more succinct or it could have been a miscommunication between the team that edits the promo and the team that edits the interview. I'd wait to see CBS' explanation but if it was intentionally misleading, I'd have a problem with it, yes.@dpic73 thoughts on this? Seems this passes the fact check test. Should a seemingly reputable national media source completely revise (not just truncate) a candidate’s answer to important questions to make them appear better than they were?
No, but to be transparent I didn't watch the interview or see the promo, so I won't blindly take fatpig's word for it. In the little bit I've read about it, this could have been part of the longer answer she gave edited down to be more succinct or it could have been a miscommunication between the team that edits the promo and the team that edits the interview. I'd wait to see CBS' explanation but if it was intentionally misleading, I'd have a problem with it, yes.
Neither candidate interviews well so not something I pay a lot of attention to.
@dpic73 thoughts on this? Seems this passes the fact check test. Should a seemingly reputable national media source completely revise (not just truncate) a candidate’s answer to important questions to make them appear better than they were?
why shouldn't they? it's their agenda, it's their choice. probably won't lead to them being respected, but their choice. conservatives on here are staunchly pro first amendment, so why should this not be allowed? do we want fake news or not?@dpic73 thoughts on this? Seems this passes the fact check test. Should a seemingly reputable national media source completely revise (not just truncate) a candidate’s answer to important questions to make them appear better than they were?
No one wants them in prison for it. We want them fired because they were unethical.why shouldn't they? it's their agenda, it's their choice. probably won't lead to them being respected, but their choice. conservatives on here are staunchly pro first amendment, so why should this not be allowed? do we want fake news or not?
Talking points…No, but to be transparent I didn't watch the interview or see the promo, so I won't blindly take fatpig's word for it. In the little bit I've read about it, this could have been part of the longer answer she gave edited down to be more succinct or it could have been a miscommunication between the team that edits the promo and the team that edits the interview. I'd wait to see CBS' explanation but if it was intentionally misleading, I'd have a problem with it, yes.
Neither candidate interviews well so not something I pay a lot of attention to.
I literally didn't and you are not the dpic whisperer.Talking points…
1. Act like you haven’t seen it. You were busy. You’ll look into it.
I don't want any cue card reader fired because they're unethical. If they're lying that's their business. You guys told me you didn't want anyone to try and stop fake news when gavin did it. Now you find out a slimeball shithole company is a slimy shithole and you're shocked? they must be fired. you never reacted like this when the fox news anchors admitted to lying on air themselves. We know FOXNews anchors lied on air and admitted it. Did they all get fired or are some of them still there hosting shows? All news media lies to you for money. That it took you this long to find out might be the reason trump is now your god.No one wants them in prison for it. We want them fired because they were unethical.
Is there a code of ethics in your line of business?
So what you are telling me is, these are men who are definitely voting for Kamala, no matter if they are actors or get paid 🤷♂️
So sad what’s going on in this country.
DEER LORT! This thing can never be in the White House.
This is satire and doesn't mean they hate Kamala dickweed. It's also notable that it stopped before they got to Trump's bit, where they made fun of his dementia - 2:30 mark
You'll vote for Kamala while MEN vote for Trump. Sorry you were born without balls.This is satire and doesn't mean they hate Kamala dickweed. It's also notable that it stopped before they got to Trump's bit, where they made fun of his dementia - 2:30 mark
Then who will you vote for?You'll vote for Kamala while MEN vote for Trump. Sorry you were born without balls.
is that her official name now?This is satire and doesn't mean they hate Kamala dickweed. It's also notable that it stopped before they got to Trump's bit, where they made fun of his dementia - 2:30 mark