Nah, CBS has received their marching orders from someone powerful on left they are more aligned with that doesn't necessarily want to see Kamala win.  Probably the Pelosi/Newsome family or perhaps the Obamas depending on if they want to run Michelle in 2028.  This is uncharacteristic for CBS or any other legacy media to go after their own guy or gal like this.  And for the record, the media should treat both candidates this way.

You thinking they want Mike to be the first black tranny president?

People that have power generally want more and don’t like having to give it up.  Thats true for candidates of either party.  

Barry would love to regain power I have no doubt, even if it’s Michelle sitting in the big chair with him being the real decision maker behind the scenes or at least holding significant sway, but if I had to put my money somewhere on who the assist is for it would be Gavin.

The media straight up carried water for Biden out in the open 4 years ago but they’re now trying to cut Kamala off at the knees while both of them ran their respective campaigns against the same despised opponent in Trump?  Nah.  Someone is calling in favors from network ownership or other high level decision makers at CBS and Trump doesn’t have that type of pull there.

---

You thinking they want Mike to be the first black tranny president?

People that have power generally want more and don’t like having to give it up.  Thats true for candidates of either party.  

Barry would love to regain power I have no doubt, even if it’s Michelle sitting in the big chair with him being the real decision maker behind the scenes or at least holding significant sway, but if I had to put my money somewhere on who the assist is for it would be Gavin.

The media straight up carried water for Biden out in the open 4 years ago but they’re now trying to cut Kamala off at the knees while both of them ran their respective campaigns against the same despised opponent in Trump?  Nah.  Someone is calling in favors from network ownership or other high level decision makers at CBS and Trump doesn’t have that type of pull there.

Barry is just the face, he has no power, the people holding his strings are the ones who are fighting for control.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

People that have power generally want more and don’t like having to give it up.  Thats true for candidates of either party.  

Barry would love to regain power I have no doubt, even if it’s Michelle sitting in the big chair with him being the real decision maker behind the scenes or at least holding significant sway, but if I had to put my money somewhere on who the assist is for it would be Gavin.

The media straight up carried water for Biden out in the open 4 years ago but they’re now trying to cut Kamala off at the knees while both of them ran their respective campaigns against the same despised opponent in Trump?  Nah.  Someone is calling in favors from network ownership or other high level decision makers at CBS and Trump doesn’t have that type of pull there.

Barry is just the face, he has no power, the people holding his strings are the ones who are fighting for control.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Sure.  That's probably true for most candidates.  It's their pocket of mega donors vs the other guys mega donors.  I just don't think Kamala has the mega donors' allegiance more than Gavin or the Obamas do.  And mega donors aren't writing checks without certain assurances on policy positions or the ability of their guy/gal to get their specific agenda done.  And if you're a player in the Democratic party with Presidential aspirations, a Kamala win very likely means you're waiting at minimum 8 years to run and maybe longer depending on if she endorses someone else on her way out 8 years from now.  A Trump win means you're definitely running in 4 years.  The media's allegiance to the left and to specific individuals on the left is sickening though.  We deserve better.

---

Barry is just the face, he has no power, the people holding his strings are the ones who are fighting for control.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Sure.  That's probably true for most candidates.  It's their pocket of mega donors vs the other guys mega donors.  I just don't think Kamala has the mega donors' allegiance more than Gavin or the Obamas do.  And mega donors aren't writing checks without certain assurances on policy positions or the ability of their guy/gal to get their specific agenda done.  And if you're a player in the Democratic party with Presidential aspirations, a Kamala win very likely means you're waiting at minimum 8 years to run and maybe longer depending on if she endorses someone else on her way out 8 years from now.  A Trump win means you're definitely running in 4 years.  The media's allegiance to the left and to specific individuals on the left is sickening though.  We deserve better.

It's preposterous that any DNC donor would rather lose the next 4 years just to get their favored candidate installed for 2028.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Nah, CBS has received their marching orders from someone powerful on left they are more aligned with that doesn't necessarily want to see Kamala win.  Probably the Pelosi/Newsome family or perhaps the Obamas depending on if they want to run Michelle in 2028.  This is uncharacteristic for CBS or any other legacy media to go after their own guy or gal like this.  And for the record, the media should treat both candidates this way.

You thinking they want Mike to be the first black tranny president?

Dude, nobody wants Mikesez for President.

---

Sure.  That's probably true for most candidates.  It's their pocket of mega donors vs the other guys mega donors.  I just don't think Kamala has the mega donors' allegiance more than Gavin or the Obamas do.  And mega donors aren't writing checks without certain assurances on policy positions or the ability of their guy/gal to get their specific agenda done.  And if you're a player in the Democratic party with Presidential aspirations, a Kamala win very likely means you're waiting at minimum 8 years to run and maybe longer depending on if she endorses someone else on her way out 8 years from now.  A Trump win means you're definitely running in 4 years.  The media's allegiance to the left and to specific individuals on the left is sickening though.  We deserve better.

It's preposterous that any DNC donor would rather lose the next 4 years just to get their favored candidate installed for 2028.

Lol, dude that's exactly what Biden-Harris was right up until Covid gave them the chance to steal the election. You really, really don't know [BLEEP] about politics.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You thinking they want Mike to be the first black tranny president?

Dude, nobody wants Mikesez for President.

---

It's preposterous that any DNC donor would rather lose the next 4 years just to get their favored candidate installed for 2028.

Lol, dude that's exactly what Biden-Harris was right up until Covid gave them the chance to steal the election. You really, really don't know [BLEEP] about politics.

That only happened in your imagination.
Clinton in 1992 proved that any candidate can win any cycle if events go their way.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Dude, nobody wants Mikesez for President.

---

Lol, dude that's exactly what Biden-Harris was right up until Covid gave them the chance to steal the election. You really, really don't know [BLEEP] about politics.

That only happened in your imagination.
Clinton in 1992 proved that any candidate can win any cycle if events go their way.

Were you even alive in 1992? Because we all know why that election turned out like it did.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That only happened in your imagination.
Clinton in 1992 proved that any candidate can win any cycle if events go their way.

Were you even alive in 1992? Because we all know why that election turned out like it did.

https://youtu.be/uHClJGBjsqk?si=ods_F7opDLH02_rf

---

Were you even alive in 1992? Because we all know why that election turned out like it did.

https://youtu.be/uHClJGBjsqk?si=ods_F7opDLH02_rf

That doesn't disprove my point.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Sure.  That's probably true for most candidates.  It's their pocket of mega donors vs the other guys mega donors.  I just don't think Kamala has the mega donors' allegiance more than Gavin or the Obamas do.  And mega donors aren't writing checks without certain assurances on policy positions or the ability of their guy/gal to get their specific agenda done.  And if you're a player in the Democratic party with Presidential aspirations, a Kamala win very likely means you're waiting at minimum 8 years to run and maybe longer depending on if she endorses someone else on her way out 8 years from now.  A Trump win means you're definitely running in 4 years.  The media's allegiance to the left and to specific individuals on the left is sickening though.  We deserve better.

It's preposterous that any DNC donor would rather lose the next 4 years just to get their favored candidate installed for 2028.

Says the "Republican" that wants to see the Republican candidate lose.

It's not all about the donors.  I don't believe these guys and gals are 100% puppets as p_rushing does.  They may be beholden to these donors to an extent, but you still wield immense political power as President and unless a donor has incriminating info on you, they don't hold full sway over that power once it's assumed by the candidate.  The larger point is we had a very open internal party fight over getting Joe to step aside and then reports of internal strife within the party of Kamala being the uncontested replacement candidate.  Then we have an historically sympathetic media playing hardball with that replacement candidate.  Dem candidates don't go to unsympathetic media outlets to do interviews for a reason.  I mean, you'll have lower tier guys who are insulated by representing dark blue districts or states go on fox news from time to time, but I can't recall a time where either Barry or Joe did a sit down interview with Fox News and if they did it was super rare and after they were already President.  

There's just too much at stake to have some opposition journalist take you out before you cross the finish line.  This isn't a stretch at all to think someone else in the Democratic party who has more powerful connections and political cachet than she does wants to see her fail and is pulling strings to help make that happen so they have a clear path to run 4 years from now.  Individuals who make their way into the conversation to be President are generally much more self-serving than "for the good of the party" type people.  Do you think Gavin has Presidential aspirations? If so, do you think he would have preferred to be the nominee this time? Do you think the Newsome/Pelosi families have more wide reaching connections than Kamala does?  Do you think he would rather see Kamala win now?  For me, it's pretty clear it's yes, yes, yes, no.  Then the question becomes: Would he use those connections to help facilitate her defeat?  Yes, I believe he would.  Her being a complete word salad tossing ditz very likely exacerbates the desires of Gavin or whomever to make their move rather than try to carve out a role for themselves within a potential Harris administration.  And they can still negotiate to carve out a role after the fact if she happens to win.  Politics is a dirty business, even internal party politics. There were reports of dirty tricks being played by the Bush campaign against McCain during the 2000 primaries many, many years ago.  It's not exclusive to the Democratic party.

---

It's preposterous that any DNC donor would rather lose the next 4 years just to get their favored candidate installed for 2028.

Says the "Republican" that wants to see the Republican candidate lose. 

It's not all about the donors.  I don't believe these guys and gals are 100% puppets as p_rushing does.  They may be beholden to these donors to an extent, but you still wield immense political power as President and unless a donor has incriminating info on you, they don't hold full sway over that power once it's assumed by the candidate.  The larger point is we had a very open internal party fight over getting Joe to step aside and then reports of internal strife within the party of Kamala being the uncontested replacement candidate.  Then we have an historically sympathetic media playing hardball with that replacement candidate.  Dem candidates don't go to unsympathetic media outlets to do interviews for a reason.  I mean, you'll have lower tier guys who are insulated by representing dark blue districts or states go on fox news from time to time, but I can't recall a time where either Barry or Joe did a sit down interview with Fox News and if they did it was super rare and after they were already President.  

There's just too much at stake to have some opposition journalist take you out before you cross the finish line.  This isn't a stretch at all to think someone else in the Democratic party who has more powerful connections and political cachet than she does wants to see her fail and is pulling strings to help make that happen so they have a clear path to run 4 years from now.  Individuals who make their way into the conversation to be President are generally much more self-serving than "for the good of the party" type people.  Do you think Gavin has Presidential aspirations? If so, do you think he would have preferred to be the nominee this time? Do you think the Newsome/Pelosi families have more wide reaching connections than Kamala does?  Do you think he would rather see Kamala win now?  For me, it's pretty clear it's yes, yes, yes, no.  Then the question becomes: Would he use those connections to help facilitate her defeat?  Yes, I believe he would.  Her being a complete word salad tossing ditz very likely exacerbates the desires of Gavin or whomever to make their move rather than try to carve out a role for themselves within a potential Harris administration.  And they can still negotiate to carve out a role after the fact if she happens to win.  Politics is a dirty business, even internal party politics.  There were reports of dirty tricks being played by the Bush campaign against McCain during the 2000 primaries many, many years ago.  It's not exclusive to the Democratic party.

Maybe.  Maybe the "Tulsi Gabbard" wing of the Democratic party is real and has real money behind it.  Unlikely.  Even more unlikely that there is a donor that likes Newsom or Pelosi but doesn't like Kamala.  The Bush/McCain example is very different.  Remember, McCain was for limiting donations and forcing more disclosure of donations.  So there were big reasons for a donor to like Bush but dislike McCain.  There are no such splits between today's crop of northern California Democrats.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://youtu.be/uHClJGBjsqk?si=ods_F7opDLH02_rf

That doesn't disprove my point.

To which events are you alluding?

---

Anything to help prop this commie piece of [BLEEP] up..

https://twitter.com/mazemoore/status/184...yU7ig&s=19

---

It's preposterous that any DNC donor would rather lose the next 4 years just to get their favored candidate installed for 2028.

 ...and unless a donor has incriminating info on you...

They done took away his keys to the studio...
NO MORE BREAST MILK FROM A CAMBODIAN IMMIGRANT FOR THAT GUY

---

Anything to help prop this commie piece of [BLEEP] up..

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/184366485...yU7ig&s=19

This is precisely why Hillary and the left want to control social media.

---

Anything to help prop this commie piece of [BLEEP] up..

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/184366485...yU7ig&s=19

This is precisely why Hillary and the left want to control social media.

100%

---

lololol

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/...083Ig&s=19

---

lololol

https://x.com/greg_price11/status/184368...083Ig&s=19

It’s a Russian disinformation platform! Kill it! Kill it!

---

Rob is definitely my dude!!

https://twitter.com/RobSchneider/status/...P4phQ&s=19

Let’s GOOOO!!
No more CENSORING PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE with GOVERNMENT!
No more LAWFARE against political opponents!
No more FOREVER WARS!
No more OPEN BORDERS & the human trafficking & fentanyl that comes with it!
No more PUTTING AMERICANS LAST when there is a disaster while Biden/Harris GIVE BILLIONS to OTHER COUNTRIES!
No more ALLOWING NARCISSISTIC FAILED MALE ATHLETES in GIRLS SPORTS!
No more CHILD MUTILATION SURGERY CONVERSATIONS!
No more 26% inflation causing Americans to choose between gas and groceries!
No more FIRING FEDERAL WORKERS, SOLDIERS & NURSES who REFUSED the EXPERIMENTAL GENE JAB,
No more allowing the CAPTURE OF FEDERAL AGENCIES by INDUSTRY (FDA, CDC, NIH, FCC et al)!
No more making AMERICANS SICK and FEARFUL,
No more WOKE MARXIST RACE THEORY GARBAGE taught in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, No more PORNOGRAPHY BOOKS in GRAMMAR SCHOOLS!
No more VIOLENT RHETORIC against political opponents,
And NO MORE DEMOCRATIC PUPPETS WHO PRETEND TO BE PRESIDENT WHILE AMERICANS HAVE NO IDEA WHO IS REALLY RUNNING THEIR COUNTRY!
Please VOTE #TrumpVanceKennedyGabbard2024

---

That doesn't disprove my point.

To which events are you alluding?

A party does not offer its candidates up as sacrificial lambs. At least not for President.  That's my point.  There are people who might avoid running because they think their party doesn't have enough of a chance that year, but probably less people think that way after 1992.  Even so, those people don't hope for their candidate to lose.  They still want their party's candidate to win.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.