Social The GOAT political radio show is over.

[HOLA]

If you never listened, you missed out. 50% of the callers were prank callers asking Rudy why he married cousin. He'd respond with "you have Trump Derangement Syndrome!" He often appeared drunk, usually rambling about Hunter and his "laptop from hell!" It was incredible.

But all things must pass, and Rudy's show is a goner:

Rudy Giuliani suspended by New York radio station over 2020 election lies

WABC owner says Trump ally received warnings not to discuss ‘election fallacies’ and that refusal to do so ‘left me no option’

www.theguardian.com

The former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani’s troubles deepened on Friday when he was suspended by WABC radio, for trying to use his show to discuss the lie that the 2020 presidential election was lost by Donald Trump because of electoral fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...et-by-measly-43000-a-month-rudy-giuliani-cant

John Catsimatidis, a New York billionaire, Republican donor and owner of WABC, told the New York Times: “We’re not going to talk about fallacies of the November 2020 election. We warned him once. We warned him twice. And I get a text from him last night, and I get a text from him this morning that he refuses not to talk about it.

“So he left me no option. I suspended him.”

Giuliani later said he had been fired.

A spokesperson for Giuliani issued a lengthy statement, in which the former mayor said: “I’m learning from a leak to the New York Times that I’m being fired by John Catsimatidis and WABC because I refused to comply with their overly broad directive stating, word-for-word, that I’m ‘prohibited from engaging in conversations relating to the 2020 presidential election’.”

Claiming “a clear violation of free speech”, Giuliani said he would address the situation further on social media on Friday night.

But he went on to say the move by WABC came “at a very suspicious time, just months before the 2024 election, and just as John and WABC continue to be pressured by Dominion Voting Systems and the Biden regime’s lawyers”.
...
Catsimatidis told the Times that at the close of his WABC show on Thursday, Giuliani tried to speak about the 2020 election but was cut off by station employees.

“Look, I like the guy as a person, but you can’t do that,” Catsimatidis told the paper. “You can’t cross the line. My view is that nobody really knows [about the 2020 result] but we had made a company policy. It’s over, life goes on.”

n his statement, Giuliani accused Catsimatidis of “telling reporters I was informed ahead of time of these restrictions, which is demonstrably untrue.

“How can you possibly believe that when I’ve been regularly commenting on the 2020 election for three and a half years, and I’ve talked about the case in Georgia incessantly ever since the verdict in December. Other WABC hosts and newscasters questioned me on these topics.

“Obviously I was never informed on such a policy, and even if there was one, it was violated so often that it couldn’t be taken seriously.”

 

[Broke Lester]

3 1/2 hours and not a single reply other than mine. Seems like you were the only one who tuned in, sorry for your loss.

 

[Cherry Brigand]

I didn't know G Gordon Liddy was still on the air.

 

[Andy Capp]

If you never listened, you missed out. 50% of the callers were prank callers asking Rudy why he married cousin. He'd respond with "you have Trump Derangement Syndrome!" He often appeared drunk, usually rambling about Hunter and his "laptop from hell!" It was incredible.

But all things must pass, and Rudy's show is a goner:

Rudy Giuliani suspended by New York radio station over 2020 election lies

WABC owner says Trump ally received warnings not to discuss ‘election fallacies’ and that refusal to do so ‘left me no option’

www.theguardian.com

The former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani’s troubles deepened on Friday when he was suspended by WABC radio, for trying to use his show to discuss the lie that the 2020 presidential election was lost by Donald Trump because of electoral fraud.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...et-by-measly-43000-a-month-rudy-giuliani-cant

John Catsimatidis, a New York billionaire, Republican donor and owner of WABC, told the New York Times: “We’re not going to talk about fallacies of the November 2020 election. We warned him once. We warned him twice. And I get a text from him last night, and I get a text from him this morning that he refuses not to talk about it.

“So he left me no option. I suspended him.”

Giuliani later said he had been fired.

A spokesperson for Giuliani issued a lengthy statement, in which the former mayor said: “I’m learning from a leak to the New York Times that I’m being fired by John Catsimatidis and WABC because I refused to comply with their overly broad directive stating, word-for-word, that I’m ‘prohibited from engaging in conversations relating to the 2020 presidential election’.”

Claiming “a clear violation of free speech”, Giuliani said he would address the situation further on social media on Friday night.

But he went on to say the move by WABC came “at a very suspicious time, just months before the 2024 election, and just as John and WABC continue to be pressured by Dominion Voting Systems and the Biden regime’s lawyers”.
...
Catsimatidis told the Times that at the close of his WABC show on Thursday, Giuliani tried to speak about the 2020 election but was cut off by station employees.

“Look, I like the guy as a person, but you can’t do that,” Catsimatidis told the paper. “You can’t cross the line. My view is that nobody really knows [about the 2020 result] but we had made a company policy. It’s over, life goes on.”

n his statement, Giuliani accused Catsimatidis of “telling reporters I was informed ahead of time of these restrictions, which is demonstrably untrue.

“How can you possibly believe that when I’ve been regularly commenting on the 2020 election for three and a half years, and I’ve talked about the case in Georgia incessantly ever since the verdict in December. Other WABC hosts and newscasters questioned me on these topics.

“Obviously I was never informed on such a policy, and even if there was one, it was violated so often that it couldn’t be taken seriously.”

It's hilarious to suggest a private company deciding what can and can't be said by its employees is a violation of free speech in the legal sense. Especially coming from a lawyer.

 

[EndlessCritic]

If you never listened, you missed out.

I didn't listen, you didn't listen, nobody listened or cares.

 

[Madmick]

What does this achieve?

The election wasn't stolen, and there wasn't any meaningful election fraud. But do you think this is some sort of battle won in the war to change minds about that? Because it isn't. This isn't changing anyone's mind who believes that. On the contrary, it only further alienates them to the establishment, to the media, to the law, to the government, and worse, deepens their lack of regard for these institutions. This means that, given the power, they'll be less likely to respect these institutions, and more likely to support actions that cause them permanent harm.

 

[HOLA]

I didn't listen, you didn't listen, nobody listened or cares.

Interesting theory. Confidently incorrect. I've mentioned it a few times previously:

I highly recommend people listen to his radio show, Common Sense With Rudy. It's hilariously bad. He gets a constant stream of prank callers too. They always start off serious, complimenting him for whatever, then switch to asking why he married his cousin. It's hilarious. One time he had like 10 in row so he just started yelling, "Trump Derangement Syndrome!!!"

Interesting that you take the time to post in threads you don't care about too, haha.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What does this achieve?

The election wasn't stolen, and there wasn't any meaningful election fraud. But do you think this is some sort of battle won in the war to change minds about that? Because it isn't. This isn't changing anyone's mind who believes that. On the contrary, it only further alienates them to the establishment, to the media, to the law, to the government, and worse, deepens their lack of regard for these institutions. This means that, given the power, they'll be less likely to respect these institutions, and more likely to support actions that cause them permanent harm.

And what does that tell you about the situation faced by serious news organizations?

Getting factual claims right means that a big portion of the country loses trust in you. I don't see how that means that the right call is to promote factually inaccurate claims. I'd also note serious inconsistency here. No one ever says that things that lefties get wrong should be respected because if they aren't, they'll lose faith.

 

[Brueskie]

It's amazing how far this man has fallen since he was lauded as "America's Mayor" immediately following 9/11. It seems like things rarely end well for those who hitch themselves to Trump's wagon.

 

[Madmick]

And what does that tell you about the situation faced by serious news organizations?

Getting factual claims right means that a big portion of the country loses trust in you. I don't see how that means that the right call is to promote factually inaccurate claims. I'd also note serious inconsistency here. No one ever says that things that lefties get wrong should be respected because if they aren't, they'll lose faith.

Cry me a river. That's your job. They're supposed to tell the truth even if it incurs resentment from some who hear it.

Besides, they broke that trust themselves with years of furtively partisan coverage. At first I scoffed at Trump's accusations, but then, when these media outlets responded by openly waging war against him and his supporters, I realized he was right, and they had never been impartial at all, but were no less biased than him. Only those favoring their partisan slant deny this. Neutral observers can see the problem, and are frustrated it has come to this.

 

[Darkballs]

Cry me a river. That's your job. They're supposed to tell the truth even if it incurs resentment from some who hear it.

So why are you crying about a media company firing someone for lying on one of their programs?

Besides, they broke that trust themselves with years of furtively partisan coverage. At first I scoffed at Trump's accusations, but then, when these media outlets responded by openly waging war against him and his supporters, I realized he was right, and they had never been impartial at all, but were no less biased than him. Only those favoring their partisan slant deny this. Neutral observers can see the problem, and are frustrated it has come to this.

So the media should let Rudy lie about the 2020 election because you don't like the way they treated trump earlier?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

What does this achieve?

The election wasn't stolen, and there wasn't any meaningful election fraud. But do you think this is some sort of battle won in the war to change minds about that? Because it isn't. This isn't changing anyone's mind who believes that. On the contrary, it only further alienates them to the establishment, to the media, to the law, to the government, and worse, deepens their lack of regard for these institutions. This means that, given the power, they'll be less likely to respect these institutions, and more likely to support actions that cause them permanent harm.

So you think it's better to give a guy a platform to spew lies about the election being stolen? Those people you're talking about are so far gone precisely because there are media outlets spreading lies and CTs.

 

[Madmick]

So why are you crying about a media company firing someone for lying on one of their programs?

Huh? Nowhere did I object to his firing, the veracity of the grounds for his firing, or the company's right to do it. I merely highlighted the futility of the endeavor to suppress Rudy's baseless opinions to those who celebrate that it has been.

The fact you misinterpret this as hostility speaks to an unstable emotional investment on your part, not mine.

 

[Pliny Pete]

What does this achieve?

The election wasn't stolen, and there wasn't any meaningful election fraud. But do you think this is some sort of battle won in the war to change minds about that? Because it isn't. This isn't changing anyone's mind who believes that. On the contrary, it only further alienates them to the establishment, to the media, to the law, to the government, and worse, deepens their lack of regard for these institutions. This means that, given the power, they'll be less likely to respect these institutions, and more likely to support actions that cause them permanent harm.

Maybe it achieves them not getting sued for 800 million dollars like Fox News did
Cant really blame them for not wanting this loony bird spouting off all kinds of wild claims on their radio station after they saw what could potentially happen if his rants go too far

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Cry me a river. That's your job. They're supposed to tell the truth even if it incurs resentment from some who hear it.

Besides, they broke that trust themselves with years of furtively partisan coverage. At first I scoffed at Trump's accusations, but then, when these media outlets responded by openly waging war against him and his supporters, I realized he was right, and they had never been impartial at all, but were no less biased than him. Only those favoring their partisan slant deny this. Neutral observers can see the problem, and are frustrated it has come to this.

You're advocating giving a guy a platform to do the opposite and it isn't "even if they incur resentment" it's "even if they create more cultists with their propaganda".

TR7MP is a lying sack of shit swindler. You're de facto on the side of truth when you go against him because he's a pathological liar that thinks the rules don't apply to him. And it's important to state which outlets and which news you're talking about because it certainly wasn't Fox News and their opinion hosts that were happy to spread his propaganda.

 

[Darkballs]

Huh? Nowhere did I object to his firing, the veracity of the grounds for his firing, or the company's right to do it. I merely highlighted the futility of the endeavor to suppress Rudy's baseless opinions to those who celebrate that it has been.

Well it doesn't look to futile here. A company didn't want a liar on their airways. Rudy was lying, so he got fired.

But you're right. Firing Rudy from this job will not silence him for all time. Granted, not a single person on here said it would.

But the actual argument Rudy makes, and the subject of this thread, was that it was a violation of Rudy's 1st Amendment rights when he got fired for lying about the 2020 election. It isn't.

Now do you have anything to say about the actual arguments in the thread, or do you just want to rail about a position no one here is taking?

The fact you misinterpret this as hostility speaks to an unstable emotional investment on your part, not mine.

Maybe.

Could just be that you suck at writing, and it's often a struggle to puzzle out what you mean. After all Mick, you garbled James O'Keefe's balls for years. So not a stretch to believe you were going to bat for a liar again.

If any of that bothers you, you could always just start carding people for slander without an explanation again.

 

[kingghidrah]

What does this achieve?

The election wasn't stolen, and there wasn't any meaningful election fraud. But do you think this is some sort of battle won in the war to change minds about that? Because it isn't. This isn't changing anyone's mind who believes that. On the contrary, it only further alienates them to the establishment, to the media, to the law, to the government, and worse, deepens their lack of regard for these institutions. This means that, given the power, they'll be less likely to respect these institutions, and more likely to support actions that cause them permanent harm.

It achieves that they don't get sued for $1 billion by Dominion and Smartmatic and any other companies and people that Giuliana was bound to libel within seconds of talking about the 2020 elections. Lawsuits that Fox and others lost because they lied and they knew they were lying and were spreading disinformation. So now with Giuliani personally having lost cases for lying about the 2020 election, the station that puts on his show didn't want any risk of his further lies to cause meaningful monetary damage to the station.

 

[mjfan23]

They would likely sue him for his lies too but he’s bankrupt

 

[Jack V Savage]

Cry me a river. That's your job. They're supposed to tell the truth even if it incurs resentment from some who hear it.

Right, but this should filter into your understanding of media criticism and trust in mainstream media (or other non-partisan institutions).

Besides, they broke that trust themselves with years of furtively partisan coverage. At first I scoffed at Trump's accusations, but then, when these media outlets responded by openly waging war against him and his supporters, I realized he was right, and they had never been impartial at all, but were no less biased than him. Only those favoring their partisan slant deny this. Neutral observers can see the problem, and are frustrated it has come to this.

Um, no. Remember your earlier point. Just telling the truth means that to some people you are "openly waging war against (Trump) and his supporters." That is the fundamental challenge people who want rational governance are dealing with. Political disputes are presented as factual disagreements rather than differences in preference, and so accuracy is coded as partisan.

For example, rather than argue that regulating carbon emissions is inherently illegitimate or that the harms to business outweigh the benefits to the public, opponents falsely claim that human-caused climate change is not happening. Or rather than make the case that progressive taxation is immoral, rightists claim that regressive cuts are self-funding with higher growth. Same with election results, this "lawfare" nonsense, crazy accusations against anyone who opposes Trump (Pizzagate, Clinton body count, Biden bribery, etc.). Anyone committed to accuracy and honesty is going to be seen as an enemy of today's GOP.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well it doesn't look to futile here. A company didn't want a liar on their airways. Rudy was lying, so he got fired.

But you're right. Firing Rudy from this job will not silence him for all time. Granted, not a single person on here said it would.

But the actual argument Rudy makes, and the subject of this thread, was that it was a violation of Rudy's 1st Amendment rights when he got fired for lying about the 2020 election. It isn't.

Now do you have anything to say about the actual arguments in the thread, or do you just want to rail about a position no one here is taking?



Maybe.

Could just be that you suck at writing, and it's often a struggle to puzzle out what you mean. After all Mick, you garbled James O'Keefe's balls for years. So not a stretch to believe you were going to bat for a liar again.

If any of that bothers you, you could always just start carding people for slander without an explanation again.

Yeah, he's either constantly foaming at the mouth here or he just doesn't have the skill to communicate without suggesting that he is. It’s very weird.