Tim Allen and Roseanne Barr Cancel Their Non-Woke Show With ABC: “They Lost Their Credibility”

 In a dramatic twist that has left ABC executives scrambling and conservative audiences nodding in collective agreement, Tim Allen and Roseanne Barr have officially canceled their highly anticipated “non-woke” show with ABC. The reason? According to the duo, ABC’s handling of the recent Trump-Harris debate, and the subsequent backlash, was the final straw in what they’re calling the network’s complete “loss of credibility.”

Allen and Barr, who had planned to co-create a series that would serve as a middle finger to political correctness, identity politics, and all things “woke,” have walked away from the project, citing ABC’s “overreach” in trying to fact-check the debate and, more importantly, “appease the woke mob.” Their decision has sent ripples through Hollywood, but it’s the audience—particularly the legions of non-woke warriors across America—that are really feeling the burn.

The show, tentatively titled America Uncanceled, was supposed to be the next big thing for ABC. Tapping into the simmering resentment of the cultural and political elite, Allen and Barr envisioned a sitcom that tackled controversial topics like cancel culture, the erosion of free speech, and the supposed tyranny of vegan-friendly food options. It was to be a comedic safe space for those who felt stifled by political correctness, where jokes about snowflakes and virtue-signaling could flow freely without fear of online mobs demanding apologies.

And it wasn’t just the subject matter that had people talking. The casting alone was a conservative fever dream—Tim Allen, who has never been shy about his political views, and Roseanne Barr, the queen of controversy herself, fresh from her own comeback attempts post-scandal. Together, they were ready to take on the “woke agenda,” armed with punchlines about participation trophies and triggered liberals.

But that dream died faster than ABC’s ratings during the Trump-Harris debate.

ABC’s now-infamous hosting of the Trump-Harris debate was supposed to be a ratings bonanza, but what it turned into was a political lightning rod. With moderators fact-checking Trump in real-time and seemingly giving Harris a free pass, half of America was up in arms. While some praised the network for “standing up for the truth,” others saw it as a blatant attack on free speech—especially Trump’s.

Tim Allen, never one to mince words when it comes to his disdain for “media bias,” was reportedly watching the debate unfold from his man cave, a custom-built shrine to tools, muscle cars, and outdated gender roles. As the moderators corrected Trump’s claims about “Democrats executing babies after birth” and “immigrants eating Ohio pets,” Allen’s frustration grew.

Roseanne Barr, meanwhile, had her own issues with ABC’s approach. After being booted from her own revival of Roseanne for a controversial tweet, Barr has always harbored resentment toward the network’s apparent double standards. “They fact-checked Trump like he was reading off the back of a cereal box,” she said, “but Kamala could’ve said the moon was made of tofu, and they’d have nodded along.”

After the debate, social media exploded with calls for ABC to apologize to Trump and his supporters. But ABC doubled down, defending their decision to fact-check as part of their journalistic duty. That was enough for Allen and Barr to walk.

Following the Trump-Harris debacle, Tim Allen and Roseanne Barr released a joint statement, confirming they were canceling their show with ABC and explaining why. In typical no-nonsense fashion, Allen opened with, “ABC has lost its credibility. If they can’t even host a fair debate without turning it into a fact-checking circus, what hope is there for honest entertainment?”

Barr added, “I got kicked off my own show for a joke. Meanwhile, ABC’s out here giving Kamala Harris a free pass while fact-checking everything Trump says. Where’s the fairness in that? We’re not going to work with a network that bends over backward for the woke agenda and pretends it’s journalism.”

The statement quickly went viral, with conservative media hailing the pair as champions of free speech and anti-woke warriors. It wasn’t long before #ABCisOverParty was trending, with fans of Allen and Barr vowing to boycott the network. And for once, it wasn’t about a sitcom—it was about a culture war.

It’s safe to say that ABC is feeling the sting. The network had pinned high hopes on America Uncanceled as a way to win back conservative viewers who felt alienated by Hollywood’s progressive leanings. But now, with Allen and Barr pulling out, ABC is left holding an empty promise and facing the wrath of a growing anti-woke movement.

Insiders say that ABC executives are privately reeling from the decision, knowing that they’ve lost a show with major potential to attract a broader audience. “We thought we were balancing the scales,” said one anonymous exec. “We had The Conners for our progressive viewers, and we were banking on Tim and Roseanne to give us the other side. Now, we’re left with neither.”

As for what ABC might do next, sources suggest that the network is scrambling to fill the void left by America Uncanceled. Rumors are swirling that they may try to develop another “non-woke” show, but with Allen and Barr out of the picture, finding the right talent may prove impossible. After all, how many high-profile conservatives in Hollywood are still standing?

While ABC is left licking its wounds, Allen and Barr seem unbothered. In fact, the two are reportedly in talks with several other networks and streaming platforms eager to pick up where ABC left off. Fox News, naturally, has already reached out to the duo, hoping to bring them aboard for their new streaming service, Fox Nation. “We know there’s an audience for this kind of show,” a Fox executive said, “and we’re more than happy to give Tim and Roseanne a platform where they can be themselves—without the fact-checkers.”

But Allen and Barr may have even bigger plans. In an era of DIY media, the pair is also considering launching their own platform, where they can control the narrative, unfiltered and uncensored. With their combined star power and a legion of fans ready to tune in, it wouldn’t be surprising if America Uncanceled found a new home—free from the constraints of traditional networks and the “woke mob.”

For now, Tim Allen and Roseanne Barr have drawn a line in the sand, walking away from ABC and setting their sights on a future where their humor and politics can reign free. The cancellation of their show marks another chapter in the ever-evolving culture war, where free speech, cancel culture, and “wokeness” are at the heart of the battle.

As for ABC, they’ve learned the hard way that trying to please everyone can often lead to pleasing no one. And in a world where fact-checking the president can cost you an entire show, it’s clear that the line between news and entertainment is blurrier than ever.

NOTE: This is SATIRE, Not Real News.

WATCH: Woke Tarlov Melts Down after Getting Fact-Checked by Gutfeld Live on “The Five”

 Liberal contributor to Fox News Channel Jessica Tarlov is back on “The Five,” and the verbal fights between her and her more conservative co-hosts, namely Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters, are already ramping back up. The latest incident came on the Tuesday, August 6 broadcast of “The Five.”

That spat came when Tarlov brought up the infamous and false claim that former President Donald Trump told people to inject themselves with bleach during the Covid pandemic. As a reminder, Trump said that disinfectants like bleach would be looked into for whether they could sterilize an area.

The White House transcript of the comment shows that Trump said, “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds – it sounds interesting to me.”

In any case, Tarlov, bringing up the matter, said, as a means of attacking the former president, “I still remember Covid and injecting bleach — ” Judge Jeanine Pirro was the first to react, groaning, “Come on — ” Gutfeld followed up, fact-checking her and firing back, “That — okay, that’s a hoax. No one said injecting bleach. Please look it up! Please look it up. We’ll do it in real-time.”

Tarlov asked, “Lysol?” Gutfeld responded, “It never happened.” Tarlov then tried insisting that it did, saying, “Never happened? Did he say — ” Responding, Gutfeld told her she was deluded and said, “You’re literally living in a delusion right now. That never was said. Do the research, no one ever said injecting bleach. Look it up, it has been debunked. That’s just like the ‘fine people’ hoax. I hate having to fix these things in real time.”

Tarlov then pulled out her phone and tried to pull something up to prove her point. But, as could be expected given that she was wrong in arguing that Trump told people to inject bleach, she was unable to find anything that actually supported her argument and was true, as it is an untrue story, a hoax.

Watch the spat here:

https://rumble.com/v5a6iot-watch-woke-tarlov-melts-down-after-getting-fact-checked-by-gutfeld-live-on-.html

This isn’t the first time, recently, that Tarlov and the others have feuded. As an example, they had a spat the week before about Vice President Kamala Harris and whether she is a “DEI hire.” As The American Tribune reported:

Tarlov claimed it was a “turnoff” to the black community for the GOP to make this claim.  She stated, “There is something crucial that Republicans keep doing that is a major turnoff to the black community, and that’s insulting Kamala Harris. You don’t take someone so meaningful to that community and say she’s a diversity hire.”

Following this comment, co-host Jesse Watters jumped in, asking, “Can I speak for the black community for a second?”  Tarlov quickly fired back, “No!”  Watters then joked that he is one percent black.  Watters pointed out that Fox News has a correspondent who frequently interviews the black community, where he finds little support for Kamala Harris.

Watters said, “We have Johnny go out and speak to the black community two times a week, and they do not support Kamala Harris.  Speaking very broadly there,” he said.  Tarlov replied, suggesting that Republicans are discounting Harris’ achievement in reaching the upper echelon of American politics by claiming she only got there as a “diversity hire” and through sexual favors.

“If you have one of the highest achieving black women in the country who’s now made it to the vice presidency, and Republicans and people who talk about her on-air say she’s a diversity hire, she only got where she was going because she slept with Willie Brown,” Tarlov responded, sounding off on the conservative talking point.

Following this comment, both Watters and co-host Greg Gutfeld emphatically asking, “She did!? I didn’t know that!” Watters simultaneously asked, “She slept with Willie Brown!?” Tarlov responded, “Is that not true?”  Watters then followed up, “I didn’t know that. Is that how she got ahead in politics?”  Tarlov maintained, “No, of course not!”  “I love it when people accuse us of spreading rumors by actually citing rumors,” Gutfeld said, wrapping up the conversation.n

Watch that here:

 

https://rumble.com/v59fs45-watch-tarlov-snaps-and-the-five-gets-in-wild-spat-over-insulting-kamala-har.html

Following Taylor Swift, Travis Kelce Also Endorses Harris: “Taylor Made the Right Choice”

 In a move that has left both sports fans and political analysts scratching their heads, NFL star Travis Kelce has followed in the footsteps of his rumored girlfriend Taylor Swift by endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for the 2024 presidential election. In a surprising public statement, Kelce declared, “Taylor made the right choice, and I stand with her.” This unexpected endorsement has thrown yet another curveball into an already bizarre election season and given the internet exactly what it craves: more celebrity-political crossovers.

The world of sports and entertainment often collides, but rarely in such a dramatic fashion. Kelce, known for his on-field dominance as a tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs and his lively off-field persona, has now entered the political arena, sparking debates and memes alike. Following Swift’s own controversial endorsement of Harris, which led to a fierce backlash and a sudden drop in her Instagram followers, Kelce’s decision to publicly align himself with Harris has further ignited the conversation.

In a press conference that began with questions about his recent performance on the field, Kelce casually dropped the bombshell that he was “100% behind Kamala Harris,” causing reporters to collectively drop their jaws. He explained, “Look, when Taylor Swift says something, you listen. She’s smart, she’s thoughtful, and she doesn’t make decisions lightly. If she thinks Kamala is the best choice for this country, who am I to disagree?”

He continued, “I’ve played in some tough games, but nothing’s tougher than standing up for what you believe in. Taylor made the right choice, and I’m here to back her up.”

For a man who spends most of his time dodging tackles, Kelce’s dive into the political fray was as bold as one of his signature touchdowns. But his sudden interest in politics left many wondering whether this was more about following Swift’s lead or a genuine interest in the policies of the Harris campaign.

If 2024 had a theme, it might just be “celebrities and politics.” First, Swift sent shockwaves through the pop world when she endorsed Harris, calling her “a role model and perfect for our country.” Swift’s endorsement didn’t sit well with a significant portion of her fanbase, particularly those who were less than thrilled about her wading into politics. But while the fallout led to a temporary dip in her social media clout, Swift remained unapologetic, continuing to use her platform for political advocacy.

Now, with Kelce joining the political conversation, Swift and Kelce have become the hottest celebrity couple to hit the campaign trail. It seems Harris has won the heart not just of America’s sweetheart pop icon but also one of the NFL’s biggest stars. Together, their endorsements have shifted attention away from traditional campaign strategies and focused it squarely on the power of pop culture influence.

Political commentators have already dubbed them the “Kamala Power Couple,” suggesting that their combined reach could sway a significant number of young voters—especially those who may not have been particularly engaged in politics before.

Unsurprisingly, Kelce’s endorsement didn’t sit well with everyone. Fans of the Kansas City Chiefs took to social media to express their dismay, some even questioning whether Kelce’s political stance could affect his performance on the field. One disappointed fan tweeted, “Stick to football, Kelce. We didn’t sign you to make political statements.”

Meanwhile, supporters of Harris couldn’t contain their excitement. One user posted, “If Travis Kelce is endorsing Kamala, then she’s got my vote. Football and politics are the crossover event I didn’t know I needed!”

However, not all the reactions were rooted in political loyalty. Some fans were simply fascinated by the growing connection between Kelce and Swift. “First, they take over the charts and the NFL, now they’re taking over politics? Is there anything these two can’t do?” one fan joked.

Athletes diving into politics isn’t entirely new—think LeBron James’ vocal support for voter registration initiatives or Colin Kaepernick’s social justice advocacy—but Kelce’s endorsement feels like it exists in a different universe. Unlike other athletes who’ve stepped into the political ring with detailed platforms and policy knowledge, Kelce’s rationale appears to be driven largely by his admiration for Taylor Swift’s decision-making skills.

“I trust Taylor,” Kelce reiterated when asked why he was backing Harris. “She’s got a good head on her shoulders, and honestly, I’ve been thinking more about what kind of future I want to see for this country. I’m not saying I’m an expert, but I know a winning team when I see one.”

Though Kelce’s endorsement was light on specific policy details, his involvement in the Harris campaign opens the door for more athletes to use their platforms in unconventional ways. Whether or not they dive into the nuances of economic or foreign policy is another matter entirely, but their cultural influence can’t be denied.

With Swift and Kelce both endorsing Harris, speculation is rife about what they’ll do next. Will they hit the campaign trail together? Could we see Kelce at a Harris rally, tossing footballs into the crowd while Swift serenades her fans with politically charged versions of her greatest hits? Will there be a joint “Swift-Kelce for Kamala” tour bus?

Political analysts are torn between seeing this as a game-changing celebrity endorsement and dismissing it as little more than a headline-grabbing stunt. Still, with voter turnout often swayed by excitement and engagement, the Swift-Kelce combo could very well have a significant impact—if not on policy, then certainly on buzz.

After Kelce’s endorsement, rumors began swirling about his own political aspirations. While he brushed off questions about a future Senate run with his usual humor, some couldn’t help but wonder if this was the first step toward a career beyond the gridiron.

“I’m just here to support Kamala and Taylor,” Kelce laughed when pressed about his future in politics. “I don’t think I’m quite ready to run for office just yet, but who knows? Stranger things have happened.”

For now, it seems Kelce is content to back Harris from the sidelines, all while enjoying the newfound political spotlight. But in a world where celebrities often find themselves pivoting to politics, nothing seems out of reach for Kelce, especially when Swift is by his side.

In the era of celebrity endorsements, Travis Kelce’s decision to throw his weight behind Kamala Harris is just the latest example of how pop culture and politics are merging in unpredictable ways. Whether it will make a difference at the polls remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the Swift-Kelce political alliance has captured the public’s attention—and that may be half the battle.

As Kelce himself said, “Taylor made the right choice.” Now it’s up to the voters to decide whether they agree.

NOTE: This is SATIRE, Not Real News.

ABC Fires Entire Staff Amid Debate Backlash, “It Was Our Biggest Mistake”

 In a corporate purge worthy of a dystopian novel, ABC has decided to fire its entire staff after the network found itself at the center of a post-debate backlash tsunami. From seasoned anchors to cafeteria workers, no one was safe from the network’s hasty response to the uproar that followed its now-infamous Trump vs. Harris debate. Critics from both sides of the political aisle have made it clear: no one should expect to leave the office alive after fact-checking a political debate in 2024.

Following an eventful 90 minutes during which ABC moderators tried their best to fact-check Donald Trump’s array of colorful claims in real-time, the network was hit with a public outcry so severe that even their carefully planned PR strategy crumbled faster than a debate about healthcare policy. Between accusations of bias from Trump supporters and complaints from others about excessive moderation, ABC’s top brass apparently decided that the only way to solve their image problem was to fire everyone.

“We thought fact-checking would be appreciated,” a network executive reportedly said as they cleared out their office, “but, well, turns out we were dead wrong. In retrospect, we should have just let them yell at each other uninterrupted. The American people love a good fight. Who knew?”

It all started with what was supposed to be the political showdown of the century: the much-hyped Trump vs. Harris debate. Hosted by ABC, the event promised to deliver the kind of high-stakes drama that America had come to expect from the 2024 election cycle. What viewers got, however, was something entirely different—a fact-checking marathon that made the moderators seem more like exhausted referees in a wrestling match than neutral mediators of a civil discourse.

As Trump went off-script, launching into his usual claims that Democrats were planning to “execute babies after birth” and that Ohio immigrants were engaged in a “pet barbecue” ring, moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis did their best to keep the debate grounded in reality. They corrected Trump on everything from immigration policies to economics, but the constant interruptions began to resemble a parental scolding session more than a presidential debate.

By the time Harris managed to get a word in edgewise—though noticeably less fact-checked herself—it was already clear that the night was veering off the rails.

Within minutes of the debate’s conclusion, social media exploded. The hashtags #BoycottABC and #FakeNewsNetwork trended faster than anyone could have anticipated, with Trump supporters accusing the network of stifling free speech. Even those who leaned left weren’t pleased, with some viewers arguing that the moderators failed to hold Harris equally accountable, or, worse, that the debate was simply unwatchable due to the excessive interruptions.

Caught between two angry mobs, ABC was left scrambling. No amount of PR damage control could contain the uproar, and before long, advertisers began pulling out of future programming. Facing a wave of public outrage that made the Hindenburg look like a small campfire, ABC executives convened an emergency meeting to figure out how to save the network’s reputation. And that’s when they decided that the best course of action was to wipe the slate clean—by firing every single person employed by the network.

“It was an all-hands-on-deck situation, so we figured no hands left on deck was the solution,” said one former ABC executive. “It’s not personal. Well, it is personal, but it’s also survival. Our reputation was at stake, and letting people go is the easiest way to show the public we mean business.”

ABC’s mass firing wasn’t just a culling of the newsroom—it was a network-wide sweep. The entire staff, from veteran anchors to junior producers, was let go without warning. Even those who had nothing to do with the debate—such as the janitorial staff and cafeteria workers—found themselves with pink slips by the end of the day.

“I was just here to make sure the floors were clean and the snacks were stocked,” said one cafeteria worker, clutching a bag of leftover pretzels as they left the ABC building for the last time. “But I guess in today’s media landscape, even refilling the coffee machine is political.”

Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis were among the first to be axed, despite their valiant attempts to keep the debate on track. “We did what we thought was right,” Muir was overheard saying as he packed up his framed Emmy awards. “But in the end, I guess facts don’t pay the bills.”

Now, with an empty newsroom and a network in crisis, ABC executives are already brainstorming new ways to avoid future backlash. One bold idea? Ditch moderators altogether.

“We’re considering a ‘no moderation’ format for future debates,” said an unnamed ABC executive. “Just two candidates on stage, no one to fact-check or interrupt, and a 90-minute free-for-all. The public clearly doesn’t want us meddling, so why not give them what they want: chaos, unfiltered.”

Another potential plan involves outsourcing future debates to artificial intelligence, thus ensuring that no human will ever be held responsible for interrupting a candidate’s pet-related conspiracy theory. “We could have chatbots ask the questions, maybe throw in some fun GIFs to keep things interesting,” the executive mused. “And, best of all, the bots won’t care if they get fired afterward.”

The public response to ABC’s decision to fire its entire staff has been as divided as the reactions to the debate itself. Some conservative commentators applauded the move, arguing that the network had been “corrupted” by liberal bias and was long overdue for a house-cleaning.

“Finally, accountability in the media,” one right-wing pundit tweeted. “Let this be a lesson to all networks that there are consequences for disrespecting Trump.”

Meanwhile, progressive voices criticized ABC for not taking a more nuanced approach to addressing the backlash. “Firing the entire staff doesn’t solve anything,” wrote one liberal commentator. “It just proves that networks are willing to sacrifice their employees to save face. What we need is better media, not fewer journalists.”

And then there were those in the middle, left wondering how a simple debate could lead to such drastic consequences. “So, wait—they fired everyone because of Twitter complaints?” asked one bewildered viewer. “Maybe we should just stop having debates altogether.”

With its entire staff gone, ABC is now in uncharted territory. The network, which once prided itself on journalistic excellence, is now facing an existential crisis. Will it rebuild from scratch with a new team of fresh faces, or will it pivot to something entirely different—like reality TV, where facts are optional and outrage is profitable?

Only time will tell whether ABC can recover from this latest debacle, but one thing is certain: in the age of fact-free debates and internet-fueled outrage, no network is safe from the firing squad.

And for the rest of the media world, the lesson is clear—don’t bother fact-checking. Just let the candidates talk, and let Twitter decide who’s telling the truth.

NOTE: This is SATIRE, not real News.

Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour Struggles with Only 2,000 Ticket Sales After Endorsement Backlash

 In a twist that no one saw coming—except perhaps those who closely monitor the Venn diagram of pop culture and politics—Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour, once poised to be the concert event of the decade, has reportedly only sold 2,000 tickets after her recent political endorsement. Swifties, known for their unwavering devotion to the pop superstar, seem to have hit the brakes on their loyalty, and it’s all thanks to what the internet is now calling “The Endorsement That Broke the Era.”

Yes, Taylor Swift, the very woman who could once sell out stadiums in minutes and crash ticketing websites just by announcing a tour, now finds herself struggling to fill venues. The pop icon’s decision to wade into the murky waters of politics has left her fanbase divided—and, if ticket sales are any indication, more than a little disillusioned.

Swift’s political endorsement, delivered with her signature polished poise on Instagram Live, was meant to be a moment of empowerment and clarity. But instead of rallying her legions of fans behind her, the pop queen’s bold support for Vice President Kamala Harris has apparently triggered a backlash that no one—least of all Swift herself—saw coming.

“I think Kamala Harris is the perfect role model for our country,” Swift had said, smiling confidently into her phone camera. The moment was pure Taylor: perfectly crafted, socially conscious, and delivered with just the right amount of charm. But then, like a bad remix of Shake It Off, things went south. Fast.

Swifties, it turns out, aren’t as monolithic as the star might have believed. While some cheered her on for standing up for what she believes in, others weren’t so pleased about the injection of politics into their pop star’s glitter-filled world. Almost immediately after the endorsement, social media platforms lit up with angry comments, memes, and—worst of all for Swift—refund requests.

The fallout from the endorsement has been swift (pun intended), with ticket sales for the Eras Tour plummeting to an all-time low. For a woman who once commanded the attention of millions of fans who would camp outside stadiums just to catch a glimpse of her glittering microphone, selling only 2,000 tickets is nothing short of shocking.

Fans who had eagerly awaited the Eras Tour, ready to belt out “Love Story” in unison with thousands of strangers, are now finding themselves second-guessing their loyalty. “I just can’t separate the music from the politics anymore,” one disgruntled former fan wrote in an online forum. “I was here for 1989 and Reputation, not for political endorsements. Now I feel like every song is a campaign slogan.”

Another fan, who requested a refund for her VIP package, commented, “I loved Taylor for her music, not her political opinions. I’m not spending hundreds of dollars to watch her promote a candidate I don’t support.”

It’s become clear that the Eras Tour backlash is more than just about politics—it’s a full-blown Swiftie civil war. Fandoms are rarely known for their subtlety, and Taylor’s fanbase is no exception. Social media has been flooded with debates, arguments, and fan fights that make even the wildest Reddit threads seem tame.

On one side, you have the “Political Swifties,” who are praising their queen for using her platform to promote change and social justice. These fans see the backlash as a necessary evil in the fight for progress. “Taylor is being brave,” said one Twitter user, armed with a profile picture of Swift and a bio full of #GirlPower hashtags. “This is what being a role model looks like.”

But on the other side, there’s the “Keep the Politics Out of My Pop” faction. These fans are furious that their beloved singer has strayed from the realm of break-up anthems and love ballads into the arena of endorsements and political discourse. “She’s a singer, not a politician,” raged one user. “I came for the music, not the lectures.”

It’s as if Taylor Swift has turned into the Yoko Ono of her own fandom, inadvertently splitting her followers into warring camps, and causing endless online skirmishes between those who want to sing along to You Belong With Me and those who want to march to The Man.

The real-world consequences of this fan divide are starting to hit Swift where it hurts—her bank account. With only 2,000 tickets sold so far for a tour that was expected to sell out instantly, promoters are reportedly scrambling to figure out how to salvage the situation.

“It’s unheard of,” said one industry insider. “This is Taylor Swift we’re talking about—she could sell out a concert in a cornfield, and people would show up with flowers and glitter. But this endorsement has clearly rubbed a lot of fans the wrong way. Now we’re looking at half-empty stadiums, and that’s not a good look for anyone.”

Indeed, reports from venues across the country suggest that many of Swift’s shows are in danger of being scaled down to smaller venues—or worse, canceled entirely. And for Swift, who built her empire on the backs of her fiercely loyal fanbase, this could be the start of a financial hit no amount of catchy choruses or Instagram posts can fix.

So far, Swift has remained relatively quiet on the subject of the backlash. Her team, however, has been working overtime to spin the situation as a bump in the road rather than the beginning of the end for the tour.

“Taylor is committed to her beliefs and her fans,” read a statement from her publicist. “She understands that not everyone will agree with her, but she remains confident in her decision to use her platform for good. The Eras Tour will continue as planned.”

But behind the scenes, there are rumors that Swift is scrambling to come up with a solution. Some speculate that she may try to smooth things over with a heartfelt public apology (perhaps during an acoustic set?) or by releasing a new, non-political anthem that reminds fans why they loved her in the first place.

The big question now is: Can Taylor Swift shake this off and return to her former glory as the reigning queen of pop? Or has her foray into political endorsements forever altered the way fans see her?

For now, with only 2,000 tickets sold and no sign of the backlash slowing down, it seems that Taylor’s once-invincible star power might have finally hit a snag.

Whether she can win back the fans who feel betrayed by her political stance—or whether she’ll be forced to perform to half-empty arenas—remains to be seen. But one thing’s for sure: The Eras Tour is shaping up to be much more dramatic than anyone expected.

NOTE: This is SATIRE, Not Real News.

ABC News Anchors Reportedly Locked In Civil War as Tensions Flare at Network

 According to recent reports, tensions are high at ABC News after George Stephanopoulos said that “President Joe Biden must go” amid the apparent cognitive challenges Biden faces. The remark has reportedly sparked celebrations among fellow ABC anchor David Muir’s camp, a rival of Stephanopoulos’ at the left-leaning news network.

Stephanopoulos voiced his skepticism about President Biden’s capability after conducting an interview with him following the infamous presidential debate in late June. Biden’s abysmal performance led to calls for him to drop out of the 2024 race. During the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Biden, “Are you sure you’re being honest with yourself when you say you have the mental and physical capacity to serve another four years?”

Shortly after the July interview with President Biden, Stephanopoulos was approached by an individual on the street in New York City, who captured the ABC host admitting on video that he doesn’t believe Biden is fit to serve a second term in the White House.  “What do you think?  Do you think Biden should step down?  You’ve talked to him more than anybody else lately,” the person recording said to Stephanopoulos.  “I don’t think he can serve four more years,” the host responded.

Stephanopoulos’ selection to conduct the post-debate interview with Biden has allegedly intensified a longstanding professional rivalry between him and Muir.  Reports indicate that Muir had eagerly sought after the chance to conduct the interview, and when Biden’s advisors selected Stephanopoulos, if further exacerbated the competition between the two.

An inside source claimed, “David has his supporters and team inside ABC, and George has his. The rivalry between David and George is real and makes for tension behind-the-scenes, and there are private celebrations from those in David’s corner that George plunged the network into an embarrassing scandal,” the source told the outlet.

Another person familiar with the matter said, “David is the height of professionalism, and you won’t hear a subjective word from him or any commentary about Biden and whether he should run … He is a newsman, and he knows his place. That is, to deliver the news, without fear or favor.”

Furthermore, ABC News president Debra O’Connell reprimanded Stephanopoulos for the comment he made that plunged the network into controversy.  One source described the tensions within ABC News, stating, “This was a full-blown crisis that erupted with widespread repercussions.”  They further detailed how Stephanopoulous “jeopardized” the networks’ “neutrality” with his comments.

“She was furious that someone of George’s experience and stature would jeopardize the news division’s neutrality, attracting unwanted and embarrassing headlines. George put Debra in a tough spot. Without an apology, how could he carry on at ABC News without the network being overwhelmed by criticism Although he later downplayed his comment as a mere jest, Debra and the senior leadership within the news division recognize that the harm has already been inflicted,” the source continued.

Reportedly, tensions between Stephanopoulos and Muir reached a boiling point in 2021, when Stephanopoulos allegedly threatened to leave ABC for a competitor network.  As a result, Disney CEO Bob Iger flew across the country to mitigate the conflict, resorting to an enticing contract extension for Stephanopoulos.

Watch Stephanopoulos’ controversial comment below:

https://rumble.com/v5eslrx-viral-video-resurfaces-of-abcs-stephanopolous-admitting-biden-was-senile-me.html

WATCH: JD Vance Torches Biased Reporter as Crowd Watches with Glee

 Vice Presidential Candidate JD Vance recently torched the claims of a reporter who attacked his and former President Trump’s comments about allegations of Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating pets and other local animals.  Critics of the Trump-Vance campaign claim there is no evidence of such claims. However, Vance maintained that he hears trustworthy, firsthand accounts from his constituents that suggest otherwise.

A reporter asked the senator from Ohio, “Senator Vance. What do you say to Haitian Americans and Haitian immigrants who say spreading false claims about them put their lives at risk?”  Vance replied, “Well, I don’t think that … no one has spread false claims. What they’ve said is that a small migrant community, 20,000, so it’s big for the city of Springfield, but it’s small compared to all Haitians in the United States of America, that that small migrant community has caused a lot of problems.”

Trump’s running mate began citing the various problems reportedly caused by the influx of migrants in the Springfield community, “It’s led to higher rates of communicable diseases. That’s a verifiable fact. It’s led to animals disappearing. Many of my constituents have said that has been happening. It’s led to higher home prices. That is a verifiable fact. So this influx has led to a lot of…” Vance said, before the reporter interrupted, “But you said that immigrants have eaten animals and that, and city officials have said that that’s not true.”

The reporter doubled down, “Springfield city manager said there’s no evidence that immigrants are eating animals. And you have been saying, and Donald Trump just said on stage that they are eating animals,” before Vance firmly asked the reporter to stop interrupting him so he could answer the question that he was presented with.

Vance continued, “The city manager said there’s no verifiable evidence. A lot of residents on the ground have said that there is. That just means the city manager, I think, isn’t fully in touch with what’s going on the ground there. I’ve heard from many of my own constituents who’ve seen these things with their own eyes, who’ve seen these abductions with their own eyes, who’ve seen geese being taken out of local parts and slaughtered in front of their eyes.”

The Ohio senator maintained that he was more inclined to represent the interests of his constituents instead of worrying about making offensive comments to a relatively small group of migrants.  “What do I think is a bigger problem insulting 20,000 people, or the fact that my constituents can’t live a good life because Kamala Harris opened the border? I think it’s Kamala Harris needs to do her job,” Vance concluded.

Watch the tense exchange below:

https://rumble.com/v5esk1x-watch-jd-vance-torches-biased-reporter-over-haiti-baiting-question-as-crowd.html

 

The journalist who spoke to Vance received substantial backlash from critics on social media for downplaying the concerns of the Springfield residents while talking over Vance while he attempted to answer the question he was given.

“Journalism should be about finding the truth. U bully people. Talk over them. Express no curiosity over why Springfield residents are upset. Instead, u express a long-evident animus toward the white poor/working class & focus on one aspect of their concerns to facilitate ur contempt. But when inner-city residents in NYC or Chicago express understandable rage over the impact of mass immigration on their lives, u r in their court. You take it seriously. No need to ask why, ” one person wrote.

Note:  The featured image is a screenshot from the embedded video.