That makes too much sense for him to ever accept.
U.S. Budget - OBBB | Medicare Part D premiums set to rise
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 1K
- Views: 47K
- Politics
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,094
It's not easy to whiff on a legal concept in every way. It's not actionable; even if it was plaintiff has no standing; even if it did, plaintiff cannot prove damages; even if it could, the First Amendment would be a complete defense; and even if it wasn't, Trump would be going to court with unclean hands.
It takes a special person to be that wrong.
The last one is the one that gets me.
1moretimeagain
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,869
Not only has Fox edited pre-taped Trump interviews, on numerous occasions the interviewer actively tried to guide Trump into the correct answer.
dukeman92
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,680
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,139
The FCC does have some regulatory capacity under the broadcast distortion rule. Layman's terms, networks can't intentionally falsify the news. The rules seem pretty loose.This took me straight out.
-It can't cause public harm but it doesn't explicitly state it applies to elections and is really more geared towards panicking people or sending police to the wrong place. That could really be argued by the attorneys.
-It can't infringe on first amendment rights and it can't prosecute differences of opinion which likely wouldn't apply.
-it has to be intentional and it has to be something more than a minor distortion. I would assume that this would be intentional and major but I'm sure it would be argued.
-It also doesn't really address selective editing. Obviously Harris said all those things so does that fall under broadcast distortion? That could be argued in Court too.
Based on my choice of overnight lodging yesterday evening, I suspect if it ever did go to court as an FCC enforcement action, CBS would win but not sure why they would really want to risk their broadcast license. Pay the fine and move on. They should have suffered a whole lot more reputational damage than they did but plenty of other networks are worse.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,398
They paid 16M bitch.
- Messages
- 1,398
Yeah keep giving your legal analysis but Trump keeps winning tens of millions in these lawsuits. Kinda the opposite of lawfare.
WINNING.
MAGAts are TOLD to be impressed by certain economic reports.
kickazzz2000
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 114
Shut the fuck up you stupid ass troll let the adults talk
kickazzz2000
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 114
God you are so pathetic. Instead of learning something I get to read idiotic drivel but Neanderthals like your ass who revel in being told what to think by a fucking pussy ass beta cuck strong man and convince ourselves that you’re some sort of alpha. Jesus Christ it’s sad.
kickazzz2000
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 114
Fuck you
And, consequently, MAGAts and Trumplicans will blame Democrats.
Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Is Already Hurting Health Care Facilities
The bill is projected to strip health insurance from 17 million people.gizmodo.com
A study by the University of North Carolina, commissioned by Senate Democrats, found that 338 rural hospitals will be at risk of closing thanks to the GOP bill. But it’s not just rural hospitals already feeling the pinch. Two of San Diego, California’s largest medical providers announced layoffs in the last week. UC San Diego Health is laying off 230 workers and cited “mounting financial pressures” as a result of “federal impacts to health care,” including poor reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid, in a memo seen by the San Diego Union Tribune.
Sharp Healthcare, San Diego County’s biggest provider, also announced it was laying off 315 employees who will work through early September. Executives at Sharp are also taking pay cuts, with CEO Chris Howard asking the board to cut his pay by 25%, according to the San Diego Union Tribune.
Bea Grause, president of the Healthcare Association of New York State told the Times Union that hospitals are going to feel this. “It’s a fiscal pandemic,” Grause said. “Medicaid is an important funder for all hospitals, and so it will financially hurt almost every hospital across the state of New York—and hospitals are central to the economy of each community. That’s what the average New Yorker should be concerned about.”
Many Americans probably don’t even know they’re on Medicaid, given the fact that each state administers its own program and has a different name for it. In California it’s called Medi-Cal, in Massachusetts it’s called MassHealth, and in New Jersey it’s called NJ FamilyCare. But people also don’t seem to understand that Medicaid helps hospitals pay for things that help everyone more broadly and pulling the rug out from under them will have ripple effects.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates 11.8 million people will lose Medicaid coverage between now and 2034, according to the Washington Post, but the bill also abolishes other subsidies for the Affordable Care Act that the CBO estimates will dump another 4.2 million people. Another 1 million on top of that will lose their coverage because of other health provisions in the bill, bringing the grand total to somewhere around 17 million people over the next decade.
When people lose their health insurance it doesn’t mean that they’re not going to need help. As Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat from Nevada, pointed out during a virtual roundtable this week, these cuts will “devastate health care in Nevada,” and people will go to the ER after they get sick enough.
“More people now are going to be showing up in our emergency rooms with acute care because they now have lost the health care that they need to even provide preventative care for them,” Cortez Masto said, according to the Nevada Current.
- Messages
- 1,530
More likely advises
I assume as an attorney this is all an act for you. Im not an attorney but I've served as an expert witness in litigation often enough to know for absolute fact that settlements are very often not a reflection of the relative strength of the underlying legal arguments.
Wait. You think there is a civil cause of action for election interference?
So I just read they added an absurd new rule on gambling losses in the BBB. You are only allowed to deduct 90% of your losses against wins. So if you win $9,500 and lose $10,000 in gambling (and technically, you are supposed to report all gambling "sessions" as taxable events -- even if you did not receive a W-2G) then you would be treated as a $500 winner rather than a $500 loser.
That is such an absurd law and it makes absolutely no sense. But this is what happens when you put a 1,000 issues into a bill in the last few days and no one has a chance to read any of them.
That is such an absurd law and it makes absolutely no sense. But this is what happens when you put a 1,000 issues into a bill in the last few days and no one has a chance to read any of them.
rodoheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,013
Feel free to drop us a cite for the concept of “election interference” as a valid claim for relief - especially when the person seeking relief WON THE ELECTION.
As super has already explained, CBS’s reasons for capitulating instead of dismissing a merit less claim have nothing to do with the legal merits of the claims.
kickazzz2000
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 114
He’s not gonna listen because he doesn’t fucking care he’s culted