I just read that we seized Maduro's plane in the Dominican Republic.
I can't decide whether our government is more like the Corleones, or the Sopranos. . .
What gives us the right to do all the weird stuff we do? We don't like the way the voters voted, so we just declare the election fraudulent, & go after the winner. It's absurd. We are like an international crime family.
Thanks for doing this. And thanks to everybody else for watching it. Walter mentioned how we are different now from 1968. One of the reasons is that we had organizations and face-to-face groupings back then. We had community. ATW is the closest I feel I have come to having a political home. I'm sure that's not helped by living in California. But even here, working guys are aware and interested in what is going on. They share websites with me and I share Matt and Walter. I wish I had as much contact with working women to be able to compare. But for now, I am grateful to everyone here - talkers and listeners both.
I'm sure you know Scott Ritter was raided recently by the FBI under some pretext. If you haven't already seen this, check it out. Seems the real reason for the raid was to remove unclassified documents held by Scott that provide the proof of the illegitimacy of the Iraq war. https://scheerpost.com/2024/08/17/scott-ritter-a-farewell-to-truth/
Ok... IDK if I'm being wrong, but not for nothin' fellas... you've been putting up a L O T of content the last 2 months.
Don't get me rong; my wife & are are fans and enjoy them.
But...
(Foghorn Leghorn voice) Ah say BUT!
I'm now concerned about burnout. I saw it happen to Glenn when he launched his own podcast, and that was before his hubby got ill. And I have a personal experience w/ that- in 2012 I decided to become a 'writer' and did, getting to a six figure income in '19.
And burned out for years. I'm only now putting my toe back in the water.
My point is that it might be a good idea to kinda come up w/ guardrails that you can adhere to which will prevent burnout.
After the debate, when it was clear that Joe really was unfit to serve, everybody and his brother had an idea about how to find a new candidate. I knew it was all bullshit because just by using Occam's razor, it was going to have to be her. But it is curious that in coming up with lists of candidates, she was never in the mix.
Another thing, about that wildly inconsistent polling - i think it was in Politico they said that her campaign's internal polling showed the race was a lot tighter than the main polls show.
Yep. At her request, they are not releasing the full transcript. Which explains why they didn't cover a lot of very important topics of the day. Both foreign and domestic. They did cover them. She flubbed it. They buried it.
You guys need to listen to Tucker's entire 2 hour interview of Mike Benz. He lays out how the Global Engagement Center is funding NGOs around the world to promote censorship. What we're seeing in France and Brazil this week was instigated here--and they desperately want it to come here next--if you two don't screw up their plans.
Listening to Benz, I realized the Twitter Files happened upon a tiny corner of the globalist plan to lock down the internet. It's time to check out the bigger picture...
Looking forward to it. There was a time when I wouldn't have given a damn about what was happening in France or Brazil but, thanks to the globalists' newfound brazenness, problems abroad may be closer than they appear.
Thanks you guys. Like everyone who’s awake, I’m worried. I hate to say it but we need some elevator pitches to wake people up. Long truth telling isn’t working as quickly as we need.
If we had an adminstration that wanted to defend free speach. We coould shut down the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) by simply declaring that all the info they want is now ITAR restricted. And actually it should be. We shouldn't allow foreign entities under the hood of our critical information infrastructure
Yes and everyone is on edge. The chud tourists in my area were driving especially aggressively. I totally get their anger, but it doesn't make it any less annoying to deal with
Much as I agree with almost all this Abigail Shrier article, I believe this part is wrong:
"The problem is this: The Supreme Court held that social media users do not have standing to sue the government for coercing social media companies to censor their posts."
The Supreme Court made a ruling on an injunction in that case, they did not decide the whole case. They did indeed weasel out of addressing the issues at hand by claiming the specific plaintiffs did not have standing, i.e. cannot prove the government actions did cause them substantial harm.
I actually read the entire dissenting opinion which was eloquent and brilliant and did address the issues at hand. (Dissent starts on p. 35 of https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/23-411.pdf)
There have been developments since then. The case above got merged with RFK's lawsuit against the government for the same alleged behavior, and (aptly-named) Judge Doughty said that RFK absolutely has standing even based on the Supreme Court's recent raising of that bar. Additionally, from what I've read, if even only one plaintiff has standing, that standing spreads out to include all the other plaintiffs also. So Murthy v Missouri is still going forward.
Not being a paid subscriber, I can't comment on the Free Press article. But I've seen in numerous places where people assume Murthy has been decided and is over, even by people such as in this case who are on the same side. I'm a little mystified about that.
Nice - very nice - these livestreams have become essential viewing
Yes, my one paid subscription here and I make under the poverty line.
Yay! I love your livestreams!
I just read that we seized Maduro's plane in the Dominican Republic.
I can't decide whether our government is more like the Corleones, or the Sopranos. . .
What gives us the right to do all the weird stuff we do? We don't like the way the voters voted, so we just declare the election fraudulent, & go after the winner. It's absurd. We are like an international crime family.
👍🏻 The Clampdown
Thanks for doing this. And thanks to everybody else for watching it. Walter mentioned how we are different now from 1968. One of the reasons is that we had organizations and face-to-face groupings back then. We had community. ATW is the closest I feel I have come to having a political home. I'm sure that's not helped by living in California. But even here, working guys are aware and interested in what is going on. They share websites with me and I share Matt and Walter. I wish I had as much contact with working women to be able to compare. But for now, I am grateful to everyone here - talkers and listeners both.
I'm sure you know Scott Ritter was raided recently by the FBI under some pretext. If you haven't already seen this, check it out. Seems the real reason for the raid was to remove unclassified documents held by Scott that provide the proof of the illegitimacy of the Iraq war. https://scheerpost.com/2024/08/17/scott-ritter-a-farewell-to-truth/
FIRSTIES!
Ok... IDK if I'm being wrong, but not for nothin' fellas... you've been putting up a L O T of content the last 2 months.
Don't get me rong; my wife & are are fans and enjoy them.
But...
(Foghorn Leghorn voice) Ah say BUT!
I'm now concerned about burnout. I saw it happen to Glenn when he launched his own podcast, and that was before his hubby got ill. And I have a personal experience w/ that- in 2012 I decided to become a 'writer' and did, getting to a six figure income in '19.
And burned out for years. I'm only now putting my toe back in the water.
My point is that it might be a good idea to kinda come up w/ guardrails that you can adhere to which will prevent burnout.
Other than that...
LET'S FUCKIN' GOOOO!!!
😁
Off topic but maybe Matt can talk more about Harris' weird affect in the CNN interview.
I think there's something going on with her.
There was something odd, apart from being unable to answer Bash’s questions. I’d like to know what Matt was alluding to, too.
Agreed.
I think Harris' off behavior is a valid subject.
I've seen videos where she appears to be high on something.
And I have seen stories alluding to drinking problems on her part.
Could be, like they did with Biden, the Committee is giving her some sort of pills
Box wine.
I was thinking that she had been given the questions (and answers) before and was reading her crib notes!
Like intoxicated? I wonder about that watching her.
Me too!
Reportedly the interview was 41 minutes long, and they only aired 18 minutes of it.
Having Walz there made her look weak. It underscored how she is a woman made by powerful men or at least dependent on them. Brown, Biden, now Walz.
I won't be surprised if she finds a way to weasel out of the debate with Trump.
The worst part is that the MSM pats her on the head and says you did great, you answered all the questions.
That's because news outlets are on her team like they were on Hillary's team.
Like Matt said, they want Harris to win in order to erase the humiliation of Clinton's loss to Trump.
News orgs are like the mean girls who won't stop until they're the coolest clique in junior high.
After the debate, when it was clear that Joe really was unfit to serve, everybody and his brother had an idea about how to find a new candidate. I knew it was all bullshit because just by using Occam's razor, it was going to have to be her. But it is curious that in coming up with lists of candidates, she was never in the mix.
Another thing, about that wildly inconsistent polling - i think it was in Politico they said that her campaign's internal polling showed the race was a lot tighter than the main polls show.
Yep. At her request, they are not releasing the full transcript. Which explains why they didn't cover a lot of very important topics of the day. Both foreign and domestic. They did cover them. She flubbed it. They buried it.
I would so love to see that transcript. Not just that, the whole video. So we could see any behavorial issues too.
I think she's drunk.
Jimmy Dore noticed too, she really is a lush or a pill popper.
You guys need to listen to Tucker's entire 2 hour interview of Mike Benz. He lays out how the Global Engagement Center is funding NGOs around the world to promote censorship. What we're seeing in France and Brazil this week was instigated here--and they desperately want it to come here next--if you two don't screw up their plans.
Listening to Benz, I realized the Twitter Files happened upon a tiny corner of the globalist plan to lock down the internet. It's time to check out the bigger picture...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKBOrkk1FZE
Looking forward to it. There was a time when I wouldn't have given a damn about what was happening in France or Brazil but, thanks to the globalists' newfound brazenness, problems abroad may be closer than they appear.
Thanks you guys. Like everyone who’s awake, I’m worried. I hate to say it but we need some elevator pitches to wake people up. Long truth telling isn’t working as quickly as we need.
Happy Labor Day...literally, Matt & Walter! Thank you!
Ok, gonna set an alarm this time. I always seem to show up late.
If we had an adminstration that wanted to defend free speach. We coould shut down the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) by simply declaring that all the info they want is now ITAR restricted. And actually it should be. We shouldn't allow foreign entities under the hood of our critical information infrastructure
Their DSA came from here. See my post here.
Awesome. Worst Labor Day ever.
Yes and everyone is on edge. The chud tourists in my area were driving especially aggressively. I totally get their anger, but it doesn't make it any less annoying to deal with
Is it possible to put an “Add to Calendar” link with these? I’d like to believe that my memory is flawless, alas, it is not!
https://www.thefp.com/p/abigail-shrier-elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg
Much as I agree with almost all this Abigail Shrier article, I believe this part is wrong:
"The problem is this: The Supreme Court held that social media users do not have standing to sue the government for coercing social media companies to censor their posts."
The Supreme Court made a ruling on an injunction in that case, they did not decide the whole case. They did indeed weasel out of addressing the issues at hand by claiming the specific plaintiffs did not have standing, i.e. cannot prove the government actions did cause them substantial harm.
I actually read the entire dissenting opinion which was eloquent and brilliant and did address the issues at hand. (Dissent starts on p. 35 of https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/23-411.pdf)
There have been developments since then. The case above got merged with RFK's lawsuit against the government for the same alleged behavior, and (aptly-named) Judge Doughty said that RFK absolutely has standing even based on the Supreme Court's recent raising of that bar. Additionally, from what I've read, if even only one plaintiff has standing, that standing spreads out to include all the other plaintiffs also. So Murthy v Missouri is still going forward.
Not being a paid subscriber, I can't comment on the Free Press article. But I've seen in numerous places where people assume Murthy has been decided and is over, even by people such as in this case who are on the same side. I'm a little mystified about that.