Gee, I wonder if you ask Kamala if she thinks Gabbard is qualified to be president what she'd have to say?

(We already know as her staff tweeted snark about Gabbard: “Definite hard pass on taking national security advice from Assad's cheerleader,” Harris's campaign Communications Director Lily Adams tweeted.)

"Harris not qualified to be President."

In other news, water is wet, AOC is beyond stupid, and cats purr.

Anyone NOT looking for the first "woman of color" to be elected to the oval office already knows this tidbit.  Anyone who plays the "oppressed victim" card against Biden on the presidential debate stage isn't fit for the office.  Also, she pretends she has African-American oppression in her deck of cards to play, but in fact her parents are Jamaican and Indian.  No American slaves in her ancestry.   

Skin color alone doesn't give her creds in the victim game.  Only SJWs and low-information voters think otherwise. 

Only SJWs and low-information voters think otherwise.

In other words, all Democrats.

In other words, all Democrats.

There are some independents and Republicans who qualify.  Lots of them voted for Obama -- twice.

There are some independents and Republicans who qualify.  Lots of them voted for Obama -- twice.

Yes, the inclusion of "all Democrats" does not exclude "other idiots".

idk, Kamala looks pretty intimidating
wait ….. wrong Kamala   

We have seen what happens when someone is elected based on the color of their skin.

I would take Tulsi over Kahala. Keep swinging Tusli, need to get Kahala out of the race.

I would take Tulsi over Kahala. Keep swinging Tusli, need to get Kahala out of the race.

Who is Kahala?  LOL.  Just funning  you.  We all make spelling mistakes.

Tulsi now going after Google, suing them for millions of $$.  I am pretty sure Google can outlast her in court.

But can they outlast the feds?

https://nypost.com/2019/07/23/doj-opening-antitrust-probe-into-major-tech-firms-report/

Tulsi now going after Google, suing them for millions of $$.  I am pretty sure Google can outlast her in court.

Someone told me that today, I thought they were mistaken about something but apparently not.

No idea how she thinks she will win that fight, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from private companies.

Someone told me that today, I thought they were mistaken about something but apparently not.

No idea how she thinks she will win that fight, the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from private companies.

Wrong.

Federal law, originally written for radio in the 1930s, and updated for television, requires that if the media organization accepts advertising from one candidate, they must also accept advertising from all candidates at the same price and, if broadcast media, in the same or similar time slot.

The Internet social media platforms are using federal protection against lawsuits by claiming to be platforms, not editors.  Censoring one candidate and not all others makes them "editors."

Since it's up to the federal gov't to enforce these laws, it becomes a first amendment issue.

Wrong.

Federal law, originally written for radio in the 1930s, and updated for television, requires that if the media organization accepts advertising from one candidate, they must also accept advertising from all candidates at the same price and, if broadcast media, in the same or similar time slot.

The Internet social media platforms are using federal protection against lawsuits by claiming to be platforms, not editors.  Censoring one candidate and not all others makes them "editors."

Since it's up to the federal gov't to enforce these laws, it becomes a first amendment issue.

That is not the 1st amendment, the equal time doctrine is from a separate law.

She would have a huge case to make under that other law though. The law also applies to radio and TV so the law would need to be amended and you can't make it retroactive so it wouldn't apply anyway.

Also on the news some legal analysts said she would have a tough time proving Goggle did anything wrong.

Also on the news some legal analysts said she would have a tough time proving Goggle did anything wrong.

Results matter.  All she has to do is have proof her Google ad account was blocked without just cause.  Google can dismiss it all they want, but if other candidates suffered no such block, it at least gives the appearance her account was singled out at a critical time.  She was the most-searched Dem candidate right after the debates.  Every ad she was unable to post represented a lost opportunity to gain donor and voter support.

Whether it was intentional or negligent, the damage Google did was real. It's not like they deranked her Google search status.  They blocked a PAID ADVERTISEMENT account for no reason.  That's an extreme action to take.  I can't see Google explaining their way out of this.

I guess we will find out if it ever goes to trial.

I guess we will find out if it ever goes to trial.

True.  If Google offers her a hefty settlement, she might decide putting that cash into her campaign is a better outcome than MAYBE being proven right.   

Just have someone google any pro trump fact and see what comes up.  Who ownes the top choices given? Soros...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk