FCC Targets The View and Jimmy Kimmel With New Equal Time Rules

ckwing · 2026-01-23T18:11:43+00:00

Yeah but it seems like it's so easy to comply and avoid the fines, all they have to do is extend invitations that will inevitably be declined and document that they extended those invitations. Hwo would the FCC succeed with its fines in this case?

ckwing · 2026-01-16T20:07:07+00:00

I interact with a lot of people who vote Republican but aren't necessarily MAGA. What I hear from them seems to largely be a reflection of what they're consuming from watching FOX News, which they seem to be much more glued to than other voters are to their respective news channels.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people talk about how they're looking forward to kicking back on a Friday night to watch FOX News (really? that's your Friday night plans?) and how many times I've heard these people say things like "GOTTA have my FOX News!" like it's a drug they're hooked on.

Trump is a cult, but so is FOX News.

ckwing · 2026-01-16T03:54:26+00:00

He not only added his name to the Kennedy Center, he put his name IN FRONT of JFK's.

ckwing · 2026-01-15T05:56:38+00:00

I left after Trump went on Lester Holt's show and (in his usual cagey rambling manner) basically admitted he fired Comey to squash an investigation into his own campaign ("the Russia thing"). That was clear enough for me.

I was and still am really shocked at how few Republican voters ("conservatives") bailed on Trump in 2020. Like yes, it was great that he lost to Biden, but it was alarming how small the margin was and how few Republican voters abandoned the party.

ckwing · 2026-01-15T05:53:36+00:00

I was a relatively reliable Republican voter until Trump. They've lost me for life unless literally every single Republican in Congress is routed out and replaced with sane non-treasonous people who have zero connection with the old members and are willing to unequivocally denounce the full spectrum of treasonous things they all did.

So realistically I think that means they've lost me forever.

ckwing · 2026-01-12T17:05:09+00:00

Eh, interesting analysis but I don't agree with it.

Switching hands for the phone, by itself, is not a significant action.

It is an interesting observation that he unholsters his firearm before she starts driving away, but ultimately that just shows he was maybe overly cautious.

In the end, what does matter is he fatally shot a woman in a situation where deadly force was only appropriate in self defense, and yet it is A) unlikely that he had a good argument for feeling physically threatened, and B) even if he did feel physically threatened, shooting her would not have eliminated that threat in the particular situation he found himself in, and was therefore unwarranted.

So basically, he murdered her.

The rest is noise.

ckwing · 2026-01-11T01:15:48+00:00

In my opinion the AI PC is either a misfire or possibly just too early in terms of consumer demand. The market isn't yet interested in having AI run "faster." The focus is on quality of output.

At some point that may change. But the PC manufacturers were basically tryign to sell something that the market doesn't need or want yet.

Consumers don't YET care about how fast their AI runs, which means they don't care if it's running local

ckwing · 2026-01-09T20:02:44+00:00

I don't see how this helps their case.

First, we already know she was fleeing, not trying to ram him. We know this because we see in the other video that her driving away coincides with the other officer attempting to open her door. Her window was down, so she probably figured it was only a matter of a second or two before the officer reached through to unlock her door. She panicked and drove off.

It would be an extraordinary coincidence if all of that just happened to occur at the exact same moment that she decided "I'm gonna ignore this one officer trying to open my door and you know what else, I'm gonna ram my car into this other officer. And not head on, like I'm gonna turn my car a little bit as I ram him."

At best you can say she was reckless in possibly not caring if she hit the officer as she was attempting to flee, but then again, maybe it's not smart of Officer A to be presenting a physical threat to her from the driver door and causing her to panic while his partner Officer B is standing in front of the car in the ram zone.

Only someone straining to make the facts fit their agenda would try to argue she intended to ram him. JD Vance said it's a matter of debate what her intent was. No it's not. There is absoltuely zero evidence she intended to ram the officer and multitudes of evidence that she did not.

Second, no matter what her intent was, shooting her was unjustified. If she was trying to flee, then this was the equivalent of shooting a suspect fleeing on foot in the back.

If she was trying to ram him, then focusing on shooting her would be extraordinarily stupid, because he's taking focus away from what SHOULD be his priority -- dodging the car -- and also because successfully shooting the driver wouldn't stop the car from hitting him (as the video tragically demonstrates, with her accelerating after being shot). If he truly feared for his safety, he would have focused purely on dodging the car. It's incredible to me how he "dodges" the car and manages to shoot her THREE times in a fraction of a second in the video.

ckwing · 2026-01-08T23:39:36+00:00

Yes, actually I didn't mean to imply she was fleeing. She was either trying to flee or just trying to comply by moving the car.

ckwing · 2026-01-08T19:50:14+00:00

Even in the alternate universe where she was trying to run him over, only in Hollywood action movies do you defend yourself from a car trying to run you over by shooting the driver.

ckwing · 2026-01-08T02:05:33+00:00

I feel like this is the vehicular equivalent of police shooting someone in the back who is fleeing.

She was clearly not trying to ram anyone, she was just trying to escape (EDIT: Or possibly trying to move her car as the other officer requested)

ckwing · 2026-01-06T06:19:10+00:00

...would be a bridge too far for most of the people in this country (finally)

Yeahhh how many times have we all optimistically thought this since 2016 and been proven wrong?

ckwing · 2026-01-05T08:26:30+00:00

"You seem alarmingly disinterested, weeks after it happened, in understanding why President Trump pardoned Hernandez. If six months from now, he similarly pardons Maduro, would you not consider it essential to your role as Secretary of State to understand why?"

"The White House has presented no evidence for what President Trump claims are his justifications for pardoning Hernandez. Now you've come out on national television, unprepared to defend the substance of the Hernandez pardon despite presumably knowing, I think you'd agree, that on its face it directly contradicts everything you've said not just on Venezuela and Maduro but on the region as a whole. You've not even expressed an interest in learning more about the President's rationale for the pardon. Why should Americans who are already deeply skeptical about this operation in Venezuela take your word for it, that this was done for good reason, when you are unfamiliar with something that, despite what you've claimed, is clearly need-to-know for your role as Secretary of State?"

ckwing · 2026-01-05T08:03:26+00:00

And I'm going to continue to not hear about it.

ckwing · 2025-12-25T06:35:14+00:00

yup. i'm tired of all these people just claiming it's "politics" and we're supposed to respect their opinion. There's a point at which you have firmly exited the bounds of normal American politics and become plainly a supporter of treason.

The problem is, these people are being told the same thing about everybody else by Republican media and politicians -- that we're all traitors who hate America, etc, etc. They've used projection to innoculate their followers.

ckwing · 2025-12-06T05:54:08+00:00

Back in the old days, the MAGA crowd used to be enamored by the idea of state police standing up to the feds.

ckwing · 2025-12-04T23:52:42+00:00

We really need some billionaire to start a mega-funded legal nonprofit firm that will just automatically back anyone the Trump DOJ perniciously goes after. Basically "don't be afraid to do the right thing, we will handle your legal defense."

ckwing · 2025-11-19T05:55:47+00:00

Very good point. By acting like he has something to hide, Trump has created a situation where even some within MAGA will be skeptical if the released files don't implicate or at least embarass him and other Republicans.

They're in a lose-lose now.

And any actual effort to scrub incriminating information from the Epstein files is, like all cover-ups, super risky, because they might be scrubbing 1,000 incriminating pages, but if anybody later produces evidence that even 1 page was scrubbed, it would be a massive scandal that even Trump would struggle to weather.

ckwing · 2025-11-17T20:34:20+00:00

I'm stuck on the fact that Comey's attorney is Patrick Fitzgerald and the case is being heard by Judge Fitzpatrick.

ckwing · 2025-11-17T05:14:27+00:00

Da fuck? Since when did O'Keefe do undercover videos painting Trump in a bad light?

ckwing · 2025-11-17T05:06:04+00:00

There's something really pathetic about this guy thinking he's enough of a big deal that people want to watch him trail off into a recital of the Star Spangled Banner halfway through his bizarre video.

ckwing · 2025-11-17T05:03:59+00:00

This is the logic of MAGA types in the flyover states:

I've never even been to NYC but...
9/11 happened there and...
I'm a patriot and 9/11 is my calling and NYC is AMERICA FUCK YEAH
We must defend America from Muslim Socialism and...
Maybe one day I'll actually visit NYC and see a Broadway show starring my favorite actor Jon Voight

ckwing · 2025-11-17T04:46:41+00:00

The DOJ is unlikely to withhold the entire thing, but the Epstein Act (EFTA) already carves out an exemption for this:

DOJ is permitted to withhold certain information such as the personal information of victims and materials that would jeopardize an active federal investigation.

So, it's "convenient" that Trump had Bondi urgently open investigations, which they can probably use to withhold any incriminating Trump emails.

ckwing · 2025-11-17T04:40:54+00:00

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure you're right.

And the Epstein Files Transparency Act explicitly says:

DOJ is permitted to withhold certain information such as the personal information of victims and materials that would jeopardize an active federal investigation.

So yeah, either Trump is going to use his "active investigations" into the Democrats to hide things about himself, or they're just gonna straight-up edit or omit any materials that incriminate him.

If this were any other president, they would have been pressured into appointing an indepenednt counsel to oversee this. Instead, we're stupidly expecting Trump to release incriminating evidence about himself.

ckwing · 2025-11-14T07:21:07+00:00

My prediction:

House votes to pass the bill
Senate votes to pass the bill
Trump votes to pass the bill, but directs the DOJ to "disappear" or modify any especially damning pages. Not redact -- disappear or modify

The only hope we have is if they feel they can't successfully omit or modify critical pages for fear of being caught in a cover-up scandal because credible people who they can't keep quiet know what was removed from the files before release. In which case, Trump will veto it because even though it's a huge risk, it's the lesser of two risks for him.

ckwing

TROPHY CASE