@USApatriotcamp@TXHCREP@AngieNixon@JDVance “Watch some real news” → links me to the White House’s own propaganda-style press release.
That’s not real or independent news. That’s literally the Trump administration telling you how great Trump is.
Cult much?
This is really rich coming from a Trump supporter. What about Trump's debt, bankruptcies & unpaid bills. Here are a few:
• 1990: 253 Taj Mahal subcontractors were owed $69.5M, much of it not paid on time.
• 1990: Central Metals sued over $1.6M Trump allegedly owed.
• 1990: Trump defaulted on $47M in Taj Mahal bond interest.
• 1991–92: Trump-controlled companies filed 4 Chapter 11 bankruptcies.
• 2004: Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts filed bankruptcy with ~$1.8B in debt.
• 2009: Trump Entertainment Resorts filed bankruptcy.
• 2012: Trump reportedly paid $48M to settle/cancel a $130M Chicago loan.
• 2017: Contractors on his D.C. hotel filed liens alleging millions in unpaid bills.
@AngrySONICSfan@RubinReport@NYCMayor What are you talking about? He does not think that and has always been a defender of gay rights. His Mom is also a champion of gay rights and and has demonstrated as much in her films.
I looked through some of your CAMERA articles, and I'm curious how you reconcile your current argument with your earlier writing.
In 2014 you argued that journalists in Gaza were failing to do their basic job because of possible Hamas intimidation or their own agendas, and in 2023 you said Western journalists should be skeptical of Gaza-based “reporters,” with some “almost certainly Hamas activists with press passes.” So when you say “it’s not like anything is being covered up” because foreign outlets already rely on Gaza-based reporters and stringers, how does that provide sufficient independent verification given your own concerns about Hamas pressure and bias? Wouldn't independent foreign journalists physically in Gaza provide an additional layer of verification?
I'm also not sure “what does Israel gain?” is really the question. Why frame this around what Israel “gains” by excluding journalists rather than what legal/security justification it has for preventing them from entering? Shouldn't the question therefore be whether the security justification is sufficient and proportionate?
I think journalists and their organizations should be able to assess their own risks in war zones, as they always have. If the principal justification is the risk of journalists being used as human shields, why couldn't that risk be addressed through other methods rather than a blanket exclusion?
@AngrySONICSfan@RubinReport@NYCMayor In Mamdani's public support & defense of LGBTQ+ rights, he is clearly rejecting anti-gay ideology. Judging by your public comments, you seem to support anti-gay ideology more than he does.
https://t.co/FoybFc6lB8