So . . . he was joking?

Sir, this is a berry.

Indeed you could and then the onus is on you to show all the examples of Kamala doing things like killing small animals. Does she talk about it? Does she wear things that indicate it? If she was the CEO of a corporate news organization, does she oversee stories promoting it? (Or, more likely, minimizing argument against it?) If you have boatloads of that evidence, you might have a good argument.

Got nothing? Well, that’s a poor argument. Maybe there are “Jewish space lasers” and MTG has broken the story wide open, but in the absence of literally any other piece of relevant information, it’s a poor argument to make.

I have metaphorical boatloads of evidence that the corporate news kaisers are supporting trump. So much so that pretty much anyone on here knows a bunch of them already. So much so, it’s hardly worth mentioning because it’s omnipresent. There’s more supporting evidence coming out every day.

That addresses the “just making up stuff” part, but let me once again, for the third time now, point out that financial donations to a campaign can be made in many ways that are not as rigorously documented as personal donations. So many ways, in fact, that the absence of these CEO’s names on opensecrets.org doesn’t really answer the question.

But if you’re simply arguing that as far as words on the infographic go, A is not B, then I’ll give it to you. Change “donor” to “supporter” on that infographic and we can have this exact same conversation again with the exact same meaning and relevance.

Is the CEO that presides over news coverage that doesn’t continually mention trump’s - conviction for hundreds of millions in fraud, the court’s finding of rape, the bizarreness of his speech, and a hundred other things that throw the ludicrousness of his candidacy into high relief - does the CEO that presides over not presenting that information support trump?

Yes. Yes they do. Did they give the equivalent of two dollars to his campaign fund and make sure their name was recorded? No. Oh! Well! Debunked! These are all egregious lies!

If you understand the point of the demographic, you can acknowledge its factual inaccuracy and its greater truth. Right?

It’s pretty clear. If not, I’m not sure what to say to clarify.

Media owners help trump. Much more than a personal cash donation would. Which is why, when the “debunking” states media owners don’t help (“donate to”) trump, it’s ironic.

By saying the infographic is “debunked”, the implication is that media owners are not supporting trump. And I say again - they could very well be giving millions, as Elmo Musk does, without being directly identified in an FEC filing. So, the “debunking” is itself “debunked” by simply pointing out political donations can be unknown.

To restate, so you can clip ‘n save:

• all the corporate news owners listed in the now-deleted infographic support trump
• voluntary support for trump could be considered “a donation” (of time, influence, other)
• to say that the above has been “debunked” because these multi-millionaires didn’t give their name as an individual political donor is (a) technically true and (b) very much beside the point that the heads of all major corporate news media in America are supporting trump in some fashion if not in multiple ways including financial donations.

So, pop quiz hotshot: is the infographic “misleading”?

Get Rekt, rapist loser

Sir, this is a Wendy’s

Ah! A person of rare and refined taste!

No, you did not get that right.

What I’m saying is, I’ll accept the fact-check that there is no record of them personally donating to the trump campaign directly, and that’s sufficient to remove the image.

HOWEVER, everyone needs to be very clear there are a myriad of ways the wealthy can “donate” to campaigns because of Citizens United, and that the media outlets in question have a long and verifiable history of not reporting damaging news or editorial slants against trump which in many ways is more valuable than $2500 in cash.

SUCH THAT the idea that these CEO’s are not “donating” to trump because they didn’t give the legally required name for a direct campaign donation is laughable. HA!

Bodily autonomy has marginally surpassed tenuous financial existence? What a scoop! Run that baby!!

Why did the put a picture of Pepe on the headline?

HA!

Urinators Assemble!

golf clap

His campaign can go fuck itself

HE LIKES BEER!!!

In a functioning government, yes. In a government hamstrung by idiot racist fascists, no.

Actually, I think it probably does specify that particular song . . .

There are no records that any of the executives referred to in the post donated directly to Trump’s presidential campaigns.

Are there records that all of the executives referred to in the post donated to a PAC or a SuperPAC that funnels millions to trump?

No. There aren’t any PAC donation records because SCROTUS legalized dark money. Of course we could argue about it, OR just look at the editorial slants and take this obvious fact at face value. Or assume the opposite in the ironic attempt to fight misinformation.

In 2016 CBS Chairman Les Moonvees, before being removed for sexual harassment, said, “trump may not be good for America, but he’s great for CBS!” - and that was to a crowded room of employees and investors. Did he donate the maximum $2500 to trump as well? I say it’s a moot point.

Now now, while that might seem the perfect solution, we can’t violate the Geneva convention.

Removed by mod