Thursday, October 17, 2024
Wednesday, October 16, 2024
In Case of an Election Crisis, This Is What You Need to Know
In Case of an Election Crisis, This
Is What You Need to Know
Oct. 16, 2024
By Neal K. Katyal
Mr. Katyal is a professor at
Georgetown University Law Center.
In
2020, when Donald Trump questioned the results of the election, the courts
decisively rejected his efforts, over and over again. In 2024, the judicial
branch may be unable to save our democracy.
The
rogues are no longer amateurs. They have spent the last four years going pro,
meticulously devising a strategy across multiple fronts — state legislatures,
Congress, executive branches and elected judges — to overturn any close
election.
The
new challenges will take place in forums that have increasingly purged
officials who put country over party. They may take place against the backdrop
of razor-thin election margins in key swing states, meaning that any successful
challenge could potentially change the election.
We have just a few short weeks to understand these
challenges so that we can be vigilant against them.
First,
in the courts, dozens of suits have already been filed. Litigation in Pennsylvania has
begun over whether undated mail-in ballots are permissible and whether
provisional ballots can be allowed. Stephen Miller, the former Trump adviser,
has brought suit in Arizona claiming that judges should be able to throw out election
results.
Many
states have recently changed how
they conduct voting. Even a minor modification could tee up legal challenges,
and some affirmatively invite chaos.
Any
time a state changes an election rule, or can be alleged not to have followed
one, someone with legal standing (like a resident of that state or candidate or
party) can bring a lawsuit. Recently, courts in Georgia and Pennsylvania have
protected voting rights, but these lower court decisions may be appealed within
the state system.
Lawsuits
will also make their way to federal courts. Federal judges have on occasion
been known to act in political ways and any one of the 1,200 of them could make
a decision that plunges the nation into deep confusion. In regular times, the
judicial system corrects for outlier judges through the appeals process,
including if necessary to the U.S. Supreme Court. But here we are looking at a
narrow window of time, and public confidence in the court is at near a
three-decade low. No matter how nonpartisan the justices are, should the
Supreme Court intervene, there is a high chance millions of Americans would
feel the decision unfair.
Second, state officials and local election boards also can
wreak havoc by refusing to certify elections, and this time they will have new
tools to manufacture justifications for undermining democracy. A new Georgia
law empowering local boards to investigate voter fraud offers a prime example.
On its face, the law sounds laudatory, or at least innocuous. But the law could
be read to give an election board the power to cherry-pick an instance or two,
claim the entire election illegitimate and refuse to certify the votes. This is
straight out of the 2020 playbook, when Mr. Trump reportedly successfully pressured two
Wayne County, Mich., election officials to not certify the 2020 vote totals.
Fortunately, that tactic didn’t work. This year it might.
In
2022, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition
Improvement Act, which tried to reduce the risk by stating that, unless the
state designates another official in advance, the governor of a state, and not
a local board, must certify electors. But the governor may be in on the fix,
too, or give in to a pressure campaign.
Third,
there are state legislatures to contend with: They might make baseless
allegations of fraud and interfere to get a different slate of electors
appointed to the Electoral College, as happened in 2020. Last year, in a case
called Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court put an end to many such tactics
(disclosure: I argued the case in front of the court). But a state legislature
might ignore the law and try anyway, especially if the governor of that state
is politically aligned and seizes on the alternative slate.
Fourth,
the Congress has the power to swing the entire election. The rules are complex
— even as a law professor I can barely make sense of them.
The
good news is that, under the 2022 law, Congress has reduced the chance of
mischief. The threshold for a member of Congress to object to the vote from any
state is higher — it must be signed by at least 20 percent of the members of
both houses for it to be taken up and perhaps debated and voted on. To pass, an
objection must be sustained by a simple majority in both chambers. Only two
categories of objections are permissible, either if the vote of any electors
was not “regularly given” or if the electors were not “lawfully certified.”
The bad news is that the rules are so complicated that they
could be stretched, wrongly, to give Congress the power to select the next
president by sustaining bogus objections. Don’t get me wrong, such maneuvering
is totally inconsistent with the 2022 law. But it can be attempted and create
chaos. Likewise, if a governor certifies a fake slate, it will be hard for
Congress to fix it.
Before
2020, most Americans had no reason to fear this problem. Political parties
largely acted in good faith, and most understood that our basic democratic
norms were sacrosanct. In a world in which one party is still consumed by election fraud claims from
2020 (as JD Vance’s nonanswer in the debate underscored) and is prepared to
claim the same in 2024, we have much to fear.
It
does not require much imagination to see a bad faith actor in Congress try to
squeeze through bogus election fraud theories and plunge the country into
uncertainty on Jan. 6. The 20 percent voting threshold is meant to avoid
crackpot election fraud theories, but these days more than 20 percent of
Congress might be inclined to support a crackpot theory. And some Republican
strategists are gearing up to argue the 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act is
unconstitutional and invalid.
Here’s
yet another wrinkle: If no candidate gets a majority of the Electoral College,
either through mischief or a simple tie, then the Constitution sends the
election to Congress. Mischief can occur on Jan. 6, for example, with Congress
knocking votes of electors as not being “regularly given.” If for whatever
reason no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, the House will decide
the presidency, under arcane voting rules in which states, and not a House
majority, pick the president.
The
stark reality is that there are no immediate solutions to a potential election
crisis. The personnel to trigger one — in the courts, legislatures and
executive branches — are largely in place.
Two votes on Nov. 5 will matter tremendously to
sidestepping the chaos. One is the presidential vote. If either candidate wins
the Electoral College decisively, any dispute will be rendered academic.
The
other is the vote for Congress. A key point here is that it is the new House
and Senate, not the existing ones, that will call the shots on Jan. 6. Congress
desperately needs principled people who will put democracy over self-interest
and party politics.
Americans should vote for candidates who share a commitment
to democracy and who will think critically before accepting election innuendo.
The next month must be about ensuring continued rule by the people and for the
people.
Tuesday, October 15, 2024
Trump will keep lying as long as journalists enable it
Trump will keep lying as long
as journalists enable it
News
outlets need better countermeasures to defend the public from disinformation.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Journalists are supposed to be in the truth business.
For that reason, journalists should be deeply offended by
lies.
Politicians who lie are not colorful characters who enhance
journalists’ storytelling. They’re menaces who get in the way of journalists
delivering reliable facts to the public to make people’s lives better. Liars
are the enemies of journalism.
But Donald Trump’s ever-growing mountain of lies hasn’t crushed his
candidacy. In fact, it’s trained the news media to under-react to his lies, to
normalize them. Journalists aren’t offended nearly enough about being lied to.
They politely engage in fact-checking when they should be aggressively fact-crusading.
What does fact-crusading mean?
It means calling Trump’s lies “lies.” Not “a claim that is unsupported by
evidence” or an attempt to “reverse-engineer evidence” or “unconfirmed accusations to suit
his political narrative.”
It means not broadcasting Trump’s speeches live, but
instead taping them and stopping the tape to identify and correct the
lies.
It means not inviting proven liars like Tom Cotton and
Lindsey Graham on TV news shows to lie some more.
It means not automatically surrendering
paragraphs in news stories to allow Trump’s
spokespeople to lie without challenge.
It means telling right-wing liars to their faces, on live
TV, that they’re lying.
It means not peppering legitimate candidates with constant
questions about their opponents’ lies, letting those lies dictate the
agenda.
It means not assuming good intentions from politicians who
show us over and over that they have bad intentions.
It means not repeating Trump’s lies in headlines without
casting those lies as lies.
It means asking MAGA propagandists the same tough questions
over and over until they answer them. And if they refuse, declaring in real
time how many times they refused to answer.
It means cutting short an interview if a right-wing guest
won’t stop lying.
The media rarely seem willing to do these things, and
that’s why Trump and his fascist gang keep inventing and spreading hoaxes.
There’s no cost to their lies, and they know it. What’s needed is for
journalists to exact a cost – to take the steps I listed above to disarm
Trump’s lies, to punish him for making them. Punishing a liar isn’t unfair –
it’s how people in the truth business defend the public against
lies.
It may seem as if Trump is lying even more blatantly these days, such as
saying he doesn’t use a teleprompter while standing in front of
teleprompters. Lies like that show his mental instability,
but they don’t pose an immediate danger to people. Other lies do. People died
because of his lies about COVID and the 2020 election. And Trump’s vicious
smears against immigrants are particularly alarming. He claims Haitian
immigrants in Ohio are illegal even though they’re not, that those immigrants
eat their neighbors’ dogs and cats when they don't, that undocumented
immigrants are voting in large numbers when they’re not, and that the Biden
administration is depriving hurricane victims of aid to give the money to
immigrants when it’s not.
The rise of Nazism was fueled by a blood libel that Jews abducted children to steal their blood. In Trump’s
made-up version of America, immigrants want to invade your kitchen and slit
your throat. If Trump wins the White House based on this
type of racist rhetoric, immigrants will be in severe danger. And the rest of
us will be too.
When news outlets broadcast Trump’s lies and quietly
fact-check them hours or days later, they’re bringing a penknife to a gunfight.
They need to get more confrontational. Yes, it’s awkward to call out one
candidate when we’re in the middle of an election campaign. I get that. But I’m
not advocating that the media freeze out Donald Trump entirely. I’m simply
asking the media to make his lies less effective and thus less dangerous.
That’s impossible if a news outlet is focused on some vague concept of
neutrality instead of facts. Just last week, New York Times Executive Editor
Joe Kahn said: “In people's minds, there's very little neutral middle ground.
In our mind, it is the ground that we are
determined to occupy.”
What it looks like in practice is an attempt to find a
middle ground between truth and lies. And that creates fertile ground for
right-wing disinformation to thrive.
It’s probably too close to the election for the media to
enact the proper countermeasures against Trump even if they wanted to. But the
lying is ingrained in the entire Republican Party now and will be a toxic
threat long after he’s gone. Lying is how you get into the MAGA cult and stay
in the cult. The younger Republican liars are competing to succeed Trump as
chief liar. There’s no sense of guilt or regret – just ambition. Sometimes they
even admit lying, as if it’s just good politics.
Top Trump campaign official Corey Lewandowski was caught lying about the
Mueller investigation and said at a congressional hearing in 2019: “I have no obligation to be
honest with the media.” Vice presidential candidate JD Vance was
called out on his lies about Haitian immigrants and declared: “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the
suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m gonna do.”
Without shared truths, democracy is impossible. MAGA
Republicans are lying because they want democracy to be impossible.
NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN FROM HOWARD TULLMAN
In our emerging economy,
learning how to do something, like carpentry, may have more value than going to
a university for four expensive years.
EXPERT OPINION BY HOWARD TULLMAN, GENERAL MANAGING PARTNER, G2T3V
AND CHICAGO HIGH TECH INVESTORS @HOWARDTULLMAN1
OCT 15, 2024
Want your kids to still love you when
they’re in their 30s, when they’ve started work at a real job, busted their
butts for a few years, maybe had a child or two of their own, and hopefully
come to appreciate how hard you had to work – at whatever you did – to provide
them with viable options and serious opportunities for a strong and secure
future?
If so, then now’s a great time to do
your offspring a real favor, wherever they are on the education and employment
treadmill. Tell them that, for the next decade or so, the smart money is
on vocational training, OJT and concrete careers rather than investing four or
more years on college and grad school followed by a fruitless search for
employment in areas of the economy that are disappearing. Today, I’d rather be
a longshoreman than a lawyer, a builder rather than a banker and, for sure, a
plumber rather than a political science major.
The ugly alternative for millions of
students whose parents, like so many lemmings, followed the traditional route
and fumbled their kids’ future, is to condemn them after college to a few years
of wishful thinking, lots of numbing networking, go-nowhere gigs, and endless
pleading emails to family and friends. All of that accompanied by a
challenging clump of college debt that will likely be an
albatross around their necks for decades. In addition to the unavoidable loan
repayment load, these graduates suffer from the deluded and misleading
indoctrination offered by the faculties of most colleges and universities. These
Ph.D. fantasy factories do a miserable job of setting realistic expectations
and goals for their graduates.
A-range grades at Harvard and Yale
represent almost 80% of all grades “earned” by students at these two schools.
You might ask yourself how those participation awards compare with the typical
distribution of team members’ performances in your company and how this kind of
“everyone’s a star and a winner” crap is helpful in preparing students
for the vagaries and vicissitudes of the working world. Inflated grading on a
curve doesn’t help anyone outside of these institutions although it keeps the
campers and their parents very happy.
The reason we’re seeing so many employers unhappy with the newest crop of
employees has a lot more to do with attitude problems, unreal expectations, and
accelerated entitlement than with actual aptitude. That’s because in the real
world of work, you learn a cruel lesson early on: that the amount of education
you allegedly need to get a job has risen much faster than the amount
of education you actually need to do a job.
DON’T FIGHT THE TREND
There are three main reasons for this
disparity:
First, the present job occupants don’t
want new, younger threats to their own positions, so they raise the bar,
expand the requirements, and effectively pull up the drawbridge. But much to
their dismay, the inbound tide is unstoppable. By 2025, there will be more Gen
Z’s in the workforce than boomers– and the Gen Z’s are coming for those very
jobs.
Second, there are fewer and fewer
available jobs in certain “soft skill” sectors like banking, finance, and
publishing, because the mid-level positions in every organization are being
compressed or eliminated. So, the competition for scarcer slots is fiercer than
ever and the paper credentials required are more substantial, even though they
may have little bearing on the candidate’s actual ability to do the job in
question. In the long haul, preparation, perspiration and passion ultimately
win out over diplomas from even the fanciest schools.
The third reason is the growth and
expansion of disruptive technologies, which are changing the work requirements
in many of these fields. There’s no doubt that automation, robotics and AI are
job killers, but the nasty little secret is that the expected devastation is
highly targeted and primarily aimed at middle management, administrators,
editors, and bean counters.
WHERE THE JOBS ARE
But the good news is that the
front-line folks — the ones who need to deal with and deliver the goods and
services to the ultimate customers, the ones who work with their hands and
their heads — will always have secure positions. This is true across the board,
whether it’s construction, maintenance, early education, nursing and elder
care, or anything in hospitality and retail. You’re always going to need a meat
sack at the end of the production line if you care at all about customer
satisfaction and results.
Columnist George Will says that
we don’t have enough trained workers to build our
nuclear subs and those vessels are the most formidable tools we have to defend
our shores and discourage our enemies on multiple fronts. We’re going to need
millions of new team members to support our most fundamental industries and they’re
not going to be coming exclusively from traditional colleges and universities.
I’m increasingly convinced that
vocational education, industry apprenticeships, and union labor may save our
kids as well as our ships. We all learn by doing, not just by watching or
listening. It’s a “put up or shut up” world today. When you’re working side-by-side
with others who’ve been there and done it, the ongoing “education” isn’t
limited to specific physical skills; you learn a lot about cooperation,
connection, community and work ethic. Unlike college, it’s never just about
you.
The bottom line: I’d rather be a
welder than a writer, a mechanic not a mathematician, and a nurse rather than a
naturalist.
Monday, October 14, 2024
Trump and Vance go to war against real-time fact checks
Trump goes to war against real-time fact checks
The moves are the latest example of Trump’s long-held resistance to being
called to account for his falsehoods.
and
October 14, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. EDT
Donald Trump and his
campaign have waged an aggressive campaign against fact-checking in recent
months, pushing TV networks, journalism organizations and others to abandon the
practice if they hope to interact with Trump.
Trump nearly backed out of an August interview with a group
of Black journalists after learning they planned to fact-check his claims. The
following month, he and his allies repeatedly complained about the
fact-checking that occurred during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, berating
journalists and news executives in the middle of the televised debate.
And this month, Trump declined to sit down for an interview
with CBS’s “60 Minutes” because he objected to the show’s practice of
fact-checking, according to the show.
Campaign advisers also expressly asked CBS News to forgo
fact checking in its vice-presidential debate with Trump’s running mate, Ohio
Sen. JD Vance — who then
complained on air when a moderator corrected him.
The moves are the latest example of Trump’s long-held
resistance to being called to account for his falsehoods, which have formed the
bedrock of his political message for years. Just in recent weeks, for example,
Trump has seized on fabricated tales of migrants eating pets and Venezuelan
gangs overtaking cities in pushing his anti-immigration message as he seeks a
second term in office.
Lucas Graves, a journalism and mass communications
professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said that publicly chafing
at fact-checking has become a form of tribalism among some Republicans.
“Within the political establishment on the right, it is now
considered quite legitimate — and quite legitimate to say publicly and openly —
that you disapprove of fact-checking,” said Lucas, author of “Deciding What’s
True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism. “Precisely
because of Trump’s unusual relationship with the truth — even for a politician
— it’s hardly surprising that he would object to it so volubly and so
forcefully.”
The Washington Post Fact Checker team tallied that by the
end of Trump’s presidency, he had made 30,573 false or misleading claims —
an average of about 21 false, erroneous or misleading claims a day.
In August, Trump had agreed to appear at a National
Association of Black Journalists gathering, where three of the group’s members
would interview him. But upon realizing that he would be fact-checked in real
time, Trump’s team said he would not be taking the stage.
NABJ president Ken Lemon described a tense scene backstage
as Trump’s team objected to any fact-checking of the interview, with the
discussions lasting more than an hour. “If you guys are going to fact check,
he’s not going to take the stage,” Lemon said a Trump aide told him. “They were
just totally insistent that he was not going to take the stage if we
fact-checked.”
Lemon said he spoke with three Trump aides — who at one
point called to confer with someone not at the event — about their objections
to fact-checking as the audience waited.
At one point, Lemon said he became convinced Trump was
ultimately going to back out of the interview over his fact-checking concerns,
so Lemon prepared remarks to go out and explain the cancellation to the crowd.
But in the end, Trump took part in the interview, making headlines by falsely
suggesting that Vice President Kamala Harris had only recently decided to
identify as Black.
“It was a very revealing moment where we got to hear him
answer questions, and we were shocked at what some of the answers were,” Lemon
said.
Trump officials blamed the delay in taking the stage on
technical audio issues.
“Here’s the truth: President Trump initially couldn’t take
the stage because there were audio issues. Once the audio issues were resolved,
President Trump took the stage and participated in the discussion, and the
fact-checks still occurred,” Karoline Leavitt, a Trump spokeswoman, said in a
statement.
BOTH SIDES BULLSHIT BY THESE MORON REPORTERS STARTS
HERE….THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO TRY TO VAGUELY LUMP HARRIS IN WITH
TRUMP AND VANCE’S LIES
Harris, too, has
taken a cautious approach to interviews, largely eschewing rigorous policy
questioners for lower-stakes venues and having her advisers, at times, try to
prescreen questions. Her blitz this week of unscripted media settings hewed to
friendly questioners, including Howard Stern of Sirius XM, CBS’s “Late Night
with Stephen Colbert” and the popular “Call Her Daddy” podcast. During Harris’s
NABJ forum, the interviewers pressed less contentiously than they did Trump,
and during the ABC presidential debate with Trump, the moderators did not fact
check her in the same manner.
One Trump adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity
to describe the campaign’s thinking, argued that Trump is treated more harshly
than others. “Every candidate is opposed to fact checking on some degree, but
if you’re Trump, you know they are always going to go after you harder,” the
adviser said.
But Harris does not misstate the truth regularly, as Trump
does, and she has also not protested being fact-checked. And unlike Trump, she
sat down for a wide-ranging interview with “60 Minutes” that aired last week. WHAT A BELATED SURPRISE ADMISSION..HARRIS DOESN’T LIE…
As part of Harris’s interview, the show took the
extraordinary step of explaining why it was not airing a similar segment with
Trump, who had initially agreed to an interview before changing his mind.
“A week ago, Trump backed out,” CBS correspondent Scott
Pelley explained. “The campaign offered shifting explanations. First, it
complained that we would fact-check the interview. We fact-check every story.
Later, Trump said he needed an apology for his interview in 2020.”
Pelley went on to explain that the 2020 incident for which
Trump requested an apology had never occurred.
Campaign advisers acknowledged there were discussions with
CBS over fact-checking, and the campaign objected to the network wanting to cut
into the interview to fact-check.
The two debates — first with President Joe Biden and then
with Harris after Biden dropped out — proved another point of contention.
Trump’s team repeatedly raised objections in negotiations that it did not want
a fact-checking element during the debates, and continued to ask networks about
the issue in the weeks leading up to the events, according to people familiar
with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private
negotiations.
During the debate between Trump and Biden, CNN publicly
stated in advance that the moderators would not fact-check, instead leaving
that to the candidates.
Before the second debate, Jason Miller, a spokesman for the
Trump campaign, said the team was told by an ABC journalist that similar to the
CNN debate, there would be no fact checks from the moderators. However, a copy
of the ABC News debate rules, obtained by The Post, did not put any limitations
on fact checking.
Nonetheless, Trump and his allies were furious with ABC for
pointedly fact-checking Trump live during his debate with Harris. At one point,
after Trump falsely claimed that some Democrats support executing babies after
birth, moderator Linsey Davis noted, “There is no state in this country where
it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”
At another point — after Trump repeated the false and
baseless claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were abducting and
eating their neighbors’ cats and dogs — moderator David Muir interjected to say
that ABC News had reached out to the city manager, who “told us there have been
no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused
by individuals within the immigrant community.”
Trump’s advisers — including Chris LaCivita and Miller —
erupted at ABC executives and journalists in the middle of the debate,
according to the people familiar with the situation. They implored the network
to stop fact-checking for the rest of the event and said it had breached its
promise, and a call was even lodged to the president of ABC News by Susie
Wiles, the campaign’s top aide. At least one Trump adviser demanded to talk to
the moderators during the debate.
The network declined to comment.
“Everyone who watched the ABC debate agreed that it was a
3-on-1 fight with 2 moderators who wrongly ‘fact-checked’ President Trump
multiple times, but did not fact check Kamala Harris ONCE, even though she
spewed multiple lies on the debate stage,” Leavitt said in her statement. “The
ABC debate was widely viewed as one of the worst moderated debates in history,
yet President Trump still won.”
Harris spokesman Kevin Munoz responded: “You have to lie to
be fact-checked, and only one person on that stage was telling lie after lie.”
By the time Vance was preparing for a CBS debate with
Harris’s running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the issue of fact-checking was
ever-present. During Vance’s debate preparations, Trump advisers had former Fox
News contributor Monica Crowley play the role of a fact-checking journalist,
according to people familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to describe deliberations.
In meetings with network executives, Vance’s team insisted
there would be no fact-checking, and CBS officials said they did not expect
moderators to jump in and correct candidates, leaving it up to the candidates
themselves, the people said.
However, at one point, moderator Margaret Brennan corrected
a comment Vance had made about the “illegal immigrants” that he claimed where
overwhelming Springfield, Ohio, noting that the city’s large population of
Haitian immigrants in fact have “legal status — temporary protected status.”
“Margaret, the rules were that you guys weren’t going to
fact check,” Vance said. Behind the scenes, his team also raised strenuous
objections with the network, arguing that such a moment was not supposed to
have occurred. CBS declined to comment.
The exchange was brief, but by then, the Trump-Vance
ticket’s desire to eschew fact-checking had so penetrated the public
consciousness that “Saturday Night Live” poked fun at it in their next episode,
when Bowen Yang, playing Vance, uttered a series of falsehoods while repeatedly
muttering for the moderators not to check his facts.
“You know, Nora, it’s rich to say that Donald Trump is a
threat to democracy when he peacefully gave over power — we said no fact
checking — and willingly, and willingly — don’t check that — got on his plane
without incident — don’t — right after saving Obamacare — don’t check that,”
Yang-as-Vance said as the audience laughed.
LINKS TO RELATED SITES
- My Personal Website
- HAT Speaker Website
- My INC. Blog Posts
- My THREADS profile
- My Wikipedia Page
- My LinkedIn Page
- My Facebook Page
- My X/Twitter Page
- My Instagram Page
- My ABOUT.ME page
- G2T3V, LLC Site
- G2T3V page on LinkedIn
- G2T3V, LLC Facebook Page
- My Channel on YOUTUBE
- My Videos on VIMEO
- My Boards on Pinterest
- My Site on Mastodon
- My Site on Substack
- My Site on Post
LINKS TO RELATED BUSINESSES
- 1871 - Where Digital Startups Get Their Start
- AskWhai
- Baloonr
- BCV Social
- ConceptDrop (Now Nexus AI)
- Cubii
- Dumbstruck
- Gather Voices
- Genivity
- Georama (now QualSights)
- GetSet
- HighTower Advisors
- Holberg Financial
- Indiegogo
- Keeeb
- Kitchfix
- KnowledgeHound
- Landscape Hub
- Lisa App
- Magic Cube
- MagicTags/THYNG
- Mile Auto
- Packback Books
- Peanut Butter
- Philo Broadcasting
- Popular Pays
- Selfie
- SnapSheet
- SomruS
- SPOTHERO
- SquareOffs
- Tempesta Media
- THYNG
- Tock
- Upshow
- Vehcon
- Xaptum
Total Pageviews
GOOGLE ANALYTICS
Blog Archive
-
▼
2024
(759)
-
▼
October
(44)
- HOWARD TULLMAN JOINS LISA DENT ON WGN RADIO TO DIS...
- JIM JORDAN - LIKE A SKUNK TELLING A POSSUM THAT HI...
- In Case of an Election Crisis, This Is What You Ne...
- Trump will keep lying as long as journalists enabl...
- LOSER, CONVICT AND TRAITOR
- NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN FROM HOWARD TULLMAN
- PUT TRUMP AWAY NOW
- GUILTY CONVICT SPEWING LIES AND HATE
- Trump and Vance go to war against real-time fact c...
- Lawyers Should Not Assist Trump in a Potential Pow...
- STEVIE NICKS - THE LIGHTHOUSE
- MORONS FOR TRUMP
- NOW'S THE TIME TO GET RID OF TRUMP FOREVER
- The Plan To Steal the 2024 Election
- HOWARD TULLMAN JOINS LISA DENT TO DISCUSS ATTENTIO...
- NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN FROM HOWARD TULLMAN
- WE WILL NEVER FORGET
- SO WHAT
- WE REMEMBER - NOTE FROM RABBI MICHAEL SIEGEL AND T...
- Do the Math: Trump Is Toast
- ENEMY WITHIN
- Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling,...
- We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran
- The Year American Jews Woke Up
- TRANCE 2024
- RUN FOR YOUR LIVES YOU TERRORIST PIGS
- Jack Smith gave Biden a roadmap, not to leave off...
- THIS ELECTION ISN'T ...
- PAUL KRUGMAN
- STEVE BESCHLOSS
- PUBLIC NOTICE
- JOYCE VANCE
- FRANK BRUNI
- THIS ELECTION....
- LIARS AND LIES
- A New Game - Find the Crooks and Traitors
- THE CROOKED RAPIST, TRAITOR AND PIG IS GOING TO JA...
- CRAIN'S CHICAGO BUSINESS: ARTICLE BY HOWARD TULLMAN
- VANCE SINKS DEEPER INTO THE MUD AND THE TOILET
- HOWARD TULLMAN JOINS LISA DENT ON WGN RADIO TO DIS...
- Let Israel Win the War Iran Started
- JENNIFER SCHULZE
- NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN FROM HOWARD TULLMAN
- FLORIDA IS DROWNING IN STUPIDITY
-
▼
October
(44)