placeholder

I tried to find some evidence of Labour condemning Truss's visit. Whereas... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-republicans-blast-nancy-pelosis-taiwan-trip-photo-op-foreign-policy https://nypost.com/2022/08/02/trump-rips-pelosi-over-taiwan-trip-always-causing-trouble/ And the current govt certainly doesn't seemed thrilled about her trip: "Asked about Ms Truss’s visit, a UK Government spokesman said: “We wouldn’t get involved in the independent travel decisions of a private citizen who is not a member of the Government.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/liz-truss-visit-taiwan-solidarity-against-china/

Yes One year on, US support remains strong for Ukraine One year on, the U.S. public perception of Ukraine also remains strong. According to a recent Gallup poll, 69 percent of surveyed Americans believed that the United States should continue providing aid to Ukraine. In a similar survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Relations, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe that the United States should continue to send economic and defense aid to Ukraine. These results suggest that most Americans continue to support Ukraine, and that there is strong backing for this Eastern European state. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3945889-one-year-on-us-support-remains-strong-for-ukraine/

Actually, raising taxes on the wealthy is a very popular idea in the USA. Even among Republicans. But the Republican politicos primary clients disapprove.

What about the US Taxpayer? Is the money being spent on Ukraine derived from a different source than other expenditures?

I don't know that I would call a Margaret Thatcher impersonator a strong woman. Or, for that matter, someone who repeatedly revoked their proposals when she was PM. That said, I do recall the vitriol poured upon Nancy Pelosi by right wingers when she went to Taiwan. And she was the Speaker of the House. Who is Truss speaking for? Her constituents?

Why would they advertise on Carlson's twitter, when they refused to advertise on his show? As for what rates the show can charge...the more people bidding to advertise the higher the rates can be.

As Mort Sahl once said of a famous female actor: It's possible to dislike her for herself.

Well, believe it or not it is also possible for Congress to raise taxes. Like back where they were before the George Bush giveaway.

And how do you explain this away? Advertisers return to Fox News's 8 pm slot after Tucker Carlson exit Advertisers are making a return to Fox News Channel's 8 p.m. EST time slot in the wake of Tucker Carlson's exit from the network. For years, major blue-chip advertisers avoided Carlson's time slot, but since his departure last month, advertisements have started to come back, according to a report. Procter & Gamble, one of the most significant advertisers in the country, is now running ads during Fox News Tonight for female products, including Venus razor blades by Gillette and Secret underarm deodorant, the report noted. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/advertisers-return-to-fox-news-8-pm-slot

The bottom line is still the bottom line. It was a jump from a low base. Without knowing how other shows on Fox fared, this number isn't necessarily impressive. iAnd of course, it was a year with relatively high inflation. Take that into account and that jump looks considerably smaller.

"something happened" based on the fact that she was actually in forced contact with Trump.

Why would your reasoning behind doubting the rape charge, not apply to the sexual abuse charge as well?

From the roughly 40 billion dollars allocated by Congress to be used by the Biden administration at its discretion.

First off, you take no account of the expenses incurred. Carlson's salary alone was 35 million per year. The show contributed 7% to Fox's total revenue. And I don't know who makes more in that time slot. As I've pointed out, major companies shunned Carlson's show. So that would affect the advertising rates, too, no?

On Twitter Musk claimed it's either the weirdest story ever or a psyop. And he wonders why Twitter is shunned by advertisers.

How long will it take before they start blaming Antifa?

Actually, advertisers don't love advertising to nasty parties like Tucker Carlson. He may have drawn a large audience, at least large by comparison to his competitors, but his show had a hard time actually drawing advertisers. With Tucker Carlson out, are Fox News’ advertisers back in? The final years of Tucker Carlson’s tenure at Fox News were marked by the departure of traditional advertisers from his program — despite the 3 million-plus viewers he attracted each night until he parted ways with the network this week. Some analysts think those advertisers may return to the hour of prime time that Carlson leaves behind. Across the board, though, cable news outlets are chasing after an ever-shrinking pool of advertising dollars. https://www.marketplace.org/2023/04/26/with-tucker-carlson-out-are-fox-news-advertisers-back-in/

She had witnesses who confirmed she told them about it after it happened. I would say that Trump did himself no favors by not appearing in court. But given his lack of self-control, as shown in his deposition, his attorneys probably had no choice but to keep him way. And this volatile ball of unhinged rage has the backing of right wingers to be President again.

Not even Jonathan Turley who backed Judge Aileen Cannon's bizarre decision to appoint a special master in the Mar a Lago documents case and who believed that John Durham had strong cases to make, thinks Trump has much chance of succeeding in overturning the jury's verdict. "But when it comes to factual determinations, the court of appeals tends to be leery of overturning those. Jury decisions are really sort of iron plated because you have to show that they were clearly erroneous. They're not going to be able to show that here with all this testimony." https://www.foxnews.com/media/jonathan-turley-president-trump-biggest-problem-e-jean-carroll-case-did-not-testify

There is a strong argument, based on a clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, that imposing a ceiling on the debt may be unconstitutional: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-4/#:~:text=Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights&text=The validity of the public,rebellion%2C shall not be questioned.

I hate to look like I'm defending but they didn't find that he committed rape. Sexual abuse and defamation, but not rape.

Definitely not a good day for Trump but he wasn't convicted of anything. This was a civil trial.

When I saw that headline about sending museum pieces into war, I thought that meant they were sending the General Staff to the front line.

Neither do dark-colored cars.

Some truly brilliant testimony from Trump in his deposition. Which the jury saw. When asked to defend his comments about attacking women he said "Historically, that's true with stars," he said in a newly released video when asked about the 2005 tape.... Kaplan then asked Trump whether he considered himself to be a star. Trump replied, "I think you can say that, yeah." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/watch-trump-defend-lewd-access-203036904.html