IMITATIONS: Will something of consequence happen tonight?

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2024

The Times sells the latest cheap fake: Will something of consequence happen tonight?

We can't answer your question! But as a matter of basic anthropology, the New York Times has already provided the day's key object lesson.

We refer to the famous newspaper's classic Debate Day Digest. It appears on page A21 of this morning's print editions.

The piece was written by a young reporter—by a youngster who's currently part of the newspaper's fellowship (intern) program. In his piece, the youngster shows that he has ingested the lore of the mainstream press corps guild.

By long tradition, our "journalists" provide similar pieces every four years at this time. Today, the digest appears beneath the dual headline shown below. 

Also, the piece is pure anthropology—anthropology all the way down:

A Look Back at Memorable Presidential Debate Moments
Almost every televised debate, since the first one in 1960, has had a singular quip, gaffe or exchange that sticks in public memory.

Sad! In fairness, pieces like this—concerning quips and glorious gaffes—appear every four years at this juncture.

In such pieces, the imitations we think of as journalists offer their guild's fictionalized accounts of great debates of the past. In today's version of the old chestnut, the intern in question recalls five (5) such "memorable moments," several of which never happened.

Briefly, let's be fair! To his credit, he didn't include the mandated chestnut in which it's said that Candidate Nixon won the polls of people who listened to the first debate with Candidate Kennedy on the radio. 

As far as we've ever been able to see, there is no evidence that any such thing ever happened. That said, so what? Our "journalists" will be repeating that treasured old chestnut until the end of time.

This morning, the youngster offers a standard account of five different "memorable moments." Sub-headline included, here is one of the five magic moments—and no, this never occurred:

A stalking vibe: Trump vs. Clinton in 2016

Donald J. Trump changed the landscape of debate etiquette in 2016, ratcheting up the use of ad hominem attacks and made-for-TV one-liners. But it was perhaps his body language during a debate with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that generated the most attention.

At one point, Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, addressed the audience, turning away from Mr. Trump, her Republican opponent. Mr. Trump walked closely behind her, giving a pained or scornful look to the camera or to Mrs. Clinton.

Many observers said it looked as though Mr. Trump were a predator looming over his prey. The point was accentuated by their respective height difference. Mrs. Clinton, the first female presidential nominee of a major party, stood at about 5-foot-4, while Mr. Trump, at 6-foot-3, towered over her.

In her memoir written after her loss, Mrs. Clinton said she should have been more aggressive during the debates.

One of the hopefuls was 6-foot-3. The other was only 5-foot-4! And not only that:

The taller hopeful "walked closely behind her," thereby creating a "stalking vibe!" Many observers said it looked as though he was a predator looming over his prey!

Many observers have said such things, including Candidate Clinton. Over here in Blue America, the imitations who pose as journalists enjoy repeating that tale. 

That said, the alleged event in question never actually happened. Nixon didn't win in some specialized survey, and we're sorry but Candidate Trump didn't stalk Clinton that night.

In our half of the United States, we love the bathos involved in that tale. But it's based on a bit of misleading videotape. You could almost say that this standard tale is based upon a "cheap fake!" 

The youngster is describing a meaningless moment from the second Trump-Clinton debate. To see the entire episode, you can click here for the tape of the full debate. After that, you should move ahead to minute 24, or to minute 29.

For the full transcript of that debate, you can just click this. Here's what you'll see if you're willing to take The Imitation of Human Life Challenge:

That second debate was conducted in standard "town hall" fashion. A group of citizens enveloped the "stage." The discussion was built around questions asked by some of those audience members.

The candidates had each been equipped with a lectern and a stool on the "stage." These resting positions weren't far apart, as you can see at any point on the videotape.

During the memorable moment in question, the candidates were responding to a question from a citizen seated to the far left of Candidate Trump's lectern and stool. (Candidate Clinton's lectern and stool were on the right side of the stage.)

As you may recall, that question came from "Kenneth Karpowitz, UNDECIDED VOTER." The question concerned the cost of health care. You can see him ask his question at minute 24 of the videotape.

Karpowitz was seated stage left, over beyond the Trump lectern. In responding to the question, Candidate Clinton walked over to speak with Citizen Karpowitz face to face. 

That was a perfectly sensible thing to do. That said, in doing so, she unavoidably placed herself directly in front of Candidate Trump's lectern.

There's no reason why she shouldn't have done that. Doing that was standard behavior at a town hall debate. 

But because Candidate Clinton was now standing directly in front of the Trump lectern, a camera angle was created in which the larger Trump loomed up behind her at minute 29, during her second response to the original question.

As you will see if you watch the tape of the whole episode, Candidate Trump actually didn't "walk closely behind her" during this memorable moment. He certainly wasn't "stalking" here, though that's the story the chimps we trust in Blue America are still eager to tell.

If you watch the entire chunk of tape, you'll see that Candidate Trump is standing by his lectern, where's he's supposed to be, during the entire sequence. 

At one point, he moves one or two steps away from Candidate Clinton, then returns to his initial spot. But no, he doesn't "walk closely behind her," and he certainly didn't stalk her. 

He also didn't disappear through a trap door in the stage. That's the only way he could have avoided creating the misleading bit of videotape in question.

We're sorry, but that was an utterly meaningless moment—except as part of our own Blue America's silly, childish lore. Over here in Blue America, it's now one of the five most memorable moments generated by sixty years of presidential debates!

Watching the relevant videotape, you may be able to see what happened—or then again, you may not. Given the wiring of our brains, we're all inclined to "see" the things we want to see—and that's even true of us in Blue America, where the voters are all above average.

That said, we invite you to watch the extremely small chunk of videotape to which the New York Times links today. Ironically, but unmistakably, it's a classic "Cheap Fake!" 

The tape is edited in such a way as to give a misleading impression. Clownishly—for any normal standard, inexcusably—it even includes a menacing "horror film" musical backdrop, silly music designed to drive home the preferred tribal misapprehension.

Anthropologically, this is who and what we actually are on this Planet of the Humans. Here on this Planet of the Journalists, this is pretty much all we have.

In the broader sense, our lore about great debates of the past is filled with such tortured narrations. As the poet once observed, "A man [sic] hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

(For the record, that statement is true until we teach ourselves to do better.)

Will something of consequence happen tonight? We can't tell you that. We can tell you this:

Tonight's event is an abomination—a bizarre manifestation of a society on the edge. 

Valdimir Putin has been betting that "our democracy" can't survive the modern world—a world in which the "democratization of media," joined to the proliferation of intermingled "identities," has made it harder and harder for a very large nation like ours to maintain our alleged way of life.

Putin has wagered that our alleged system can't survive modernity. We can't swear that Putin is wrong in the wager he's placed.

But tonight, we'll have two god-awful candidates crowded upon a debate stage as a bunch of sub-human howler monkeys keep insisting, all over our vastly expanded media landscape, that the whole thing has been rigged.

On Fox, the monkeys keep insisting on this point, and they keep flinging their poo. For us, the leading question tonight is this:

To what extent will President Biden be able to function as a normal candidate? 

We'll be voting for President Biden this year, but that's the question we ask.

We were surprised when the Biden campaign agreed to take part in this debate. How well will the president function tonight?

In our view, that's the evening's main question. And if the president performs well tonight, that leaves an attendant question unanswered:

Where has he been in the past several years, as the nation has cried out for presidential leadership?

He has said nothing about the peculiar state of affairs at the southern border. He has said nothing about the cost of living, except for an amazingly inane focus on "shrinkflation."

It may be that President Biden has been diminished in a way which would explain his remarkable silence. But all in all, the candidate for whom we'll be voting has basically ceased to exist.

What hasn't ceased is our species' need for reassuring tribal lore. In this morning's New York Times, an intern continues the antique practice, even as the cuckoos continue their hollerin' on the Fox News Channel while the monkeys keep flinging their poo.

How well will President Biden perform? In our view, that's the key question tonight. It could be as noble Nestor says in Book Nine of the Iliad, as he cleans up the latest crazy meltdown by Agamemnon lord of men.

It could be as Nestor says to the troops:

 "Tonight's the night that rips our ranks to shreds or pulls us through."


88 comments:

  1. Joshua Wade has died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom Prasada-Rao has died.

      Delete
    2. I am making $220 per hour for working online. I never thought that it was legit but my best friend earns 25,000 dollars every month doing this and she showed me how. Check it out by visiting following link
      Open This…………Online work


      Delete
  2. From Yesterday - As a University of Chicago grad, I'm embarrassed by their use of spin. They report on a study that found weaker performance by some groups of affirmative actions. But, they found a tricky way to state the conclusion as if the study found the opposite.

    They used two tricks. First, the following sentences are ways of saying the same thing

    1. We do not find evidence of weaker job performance among most groups of minority and female Affirmative Action hires.
    2. We DO find evidence of weaker job performance among SOME groups of minority and female Affirmative Action hires, although this is true of a minority of groups.

    Here's the other trick. They say "some groups" performed worse, not "some people". That' may be reasonable, because they studied groups. But, it leaves the possibility that the largest groups of AA hires may have performed worse, while a bunch of smaller groups of AA hires were fine. That leaves open the possibility that most AA PEOPLE may have performed worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As a University of Chicago grad..."
      Well, that explains why you're a Right-winger/ know nothing about economics.

      Delete
    2. @9:43 @9:43. what you call "right wing economy" works better than left wing economy

      I recently traveled to Argentina and Chile. The late UC Professor Milton Friedman is still remembered in Chile for setting up an economy that works a lot better then most of Latin America. Chile has a stable currency, unlike its neighbors.

      Argentina is now following Chile's lead. After decades of horrifying inflation, sometimes above 100% per year, Argentina is changing its economy to the Friedman model. Their inflation has gone down dramatically.

      Delete
    3. In this country economic growth under conservative leadership has been a mess since 1980. The BS Laffer curve led to massive deficits under conservative leadership, as well as next to no job growth, and growing inequality between the rich and the lessors.

      In Chile, much of the same. Good for the well to do, but little for the middle class and poor. While the economy grew very well under the Chicago Boys, as by plan next to nothing trickles down. Cutting taxes on the rich does not magically generate revenue, but the loss of revenue "requires" cuts that benefit social programs, furthur punching down.

      Much of the "Chicago Boys" policies (enacted under a God awful dictator) have benefitted the wealthy, resulting in one of the world's largest wealth gaps. And in Chile, just like in the USA, it pays to have European bloodlines.

      Delete
    4. Quaker in a BasementJune 27, 2024 at 1:06 PM

      David, you're deflecting. Yesterday, you took note of a single error made at the New York Times and you immediately laid the blame on "Affirmative Action" without any evidence at all.

      Stop trying to put a shine on your bigotry. Own it and move on.

      Delete
    5. Quaker - yes, I provided just one example. But, are you questioning the increase in errors in the Times? Let me be clear. I believe the following things are true
      1. The NY Times has many more errors than they did 50 or 60 years ago.
      2. Affirmative action hires tend to be below par. They are people who would not have been hired, but for their sexuality, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. That is, they would not have been hired based solely on factors related to their jobs.
      3. Blacks lag whites and Asians by 3 to 5 years in school. Although there are many highly qualified blacks with newspaper and STEM abilities, the percentage is lower than for whites and Asians.

      Quaker, if you disagree with any of these points;, please tell me. Then we can each provide evidence of our POV.

      Delete
  3. Somerby has never agreed that Clinton was "stalked" by Trump. I watched the debate in real time and then went back and looked at it afterwards, and I thought she was being stalked. Clinton believes she was stalked. Trump clearly intruded into her video frame and appeared to loom over her. He would know how to do that because of his experience on The Apprentice show. Somerby today suggests there was just one moment and analyzes that, but it was ongoing behavior.

    But once Somerby gets something in his mind, he believes he is right and others are wrong. So now he has added this to his list of so-called myths. There are other things that Somerby believes without proof or evidence, and he believes he is right about those things, so he repeats them and name-calls others over them. Today he blames a supposed intern (who he repeatedly calls a young person) for saying things he disagrees with.

    I trust the intern and I trust Clinton herself. I do not trust Somerby on this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking at minutes 24 to 29, Trump is generally just standing by his lectern. It is Clinton who is invading Trump's space. (And good for her - it's a well-known dominance play.)

      Delete
    2. You just prove what Somerby says: "Given the wiring of our brains, we're all inclined to 'see' the things we want to see." Look at minutes 24 to 29. The reality is that Trump is actually, and surprisingly, acting respectfully by remaining near his own lectern. It is Clinton who is acting aggressively by occupying space on the opposite side of the stage from her own lectern. (And again - good for her!)

      Delete
    3. Clinton herself said it. She was there, not just at minutes 24-29, Somerby’s clip of choice. Blaming Clinton is what Trump and Somerby did at the time.

      Delete
    4. It is not "Somerby's clip of choice." It is the clip that contains the NYT's most egregious example of Trump's supposed "stalking." And it just doesn't support what Clinton says.

      But go ahead: See what you want to see and believe what you want to believe.

      Delete
    5. The cast of Saturday Night Live made Trump's "stalking" a feature of the very next cold open after the debate. Rightly or wrongly, it was how folks saw the moment in real time and not something that was invented long after.

      Delete
    6. QiB - True. But as far as I can tell (I haven't watched the entire debate), Somerby is correct that Clinton's complaint that Trump was stalking her is just good post-debate spin.

      Delete

    7. I was there and I personally watched Trump chocking and raping Hillary. Repeatedly. It was removed from the video by Putin. Via Qatar and Truth Social.

      I am Corby.

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 10:03am, are you sure that you’re not seeing cleverly edited footage from political partisans?

      Afterall, I’ve been told all summer not to believe my lying eyes, though I see Biden acting discombobulated from all the video angles presented, and would also swear on a stack of Bibles that I watched Trump following/walking Clinton around on a stage, rather than merely being behind her.

      This is our imitation of life, folks. You can no longer get a straight story anywhere in the western world.

      Delete
    9. Qib, I’ve been helping the old man clean out HIS garage area of files, old office furniture, and sports equipment. .

      I “wander off” so often to the point that he now calls me “Joe”.

      You’re right, perception will forever rule the day.

      Delete
    10. We saw Trump stalk Clinton.

      Delete
    11. Trump was on The Apprentice and knows how to upstage, pull focus, get in someone else’s scene. Somerby made himself ridiculous estimating the height and placement of podiums. We saw Trump stalk Clinton.

      Delete
    12. Here’s another video that is doubtlessly altered in order to make Biden look impaired.

      https://x.com/redsteeze/status/1806524961504321925?s=42&t=oYvKLjVc8YzJIvwKoQTYBQ

      Delete
  4. Well we have seen this before: a lightweight item in the press is so silly and insignificant Bob himself must rehash it. Would it really take more than a sentence or two to register his disapproval.
    Well, yesterday Bob blew his cover: he thinks both candidates are equally unqualified. Today’s Putin praise sure does make it seem like Bob is actually a MAGA man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Somerby never said Biden was unqualified to be President. He said Biden was bad at being a candidate. (And he is - despite being a great president, he's currently a 2-1 underdog (Nate Silver) to the worst candidate in US history.)
      2. Somerby does not praise Putin.

      Delete
    2. Biden is much better at campaigning than Trump. Trump is a cult figure not a candidate. Biden is winning now no matter what Silver says. Polls have been off because Trumpism is not normal politics.

      Delete
    3. Let's see: Shall I believe Nate Silver about who's winning or some random Anon? Tough call.

      Delete
    4. I am not a random Anon. I am Corby. I sniff my fingers and I spam Somerby's blog with my beautiful word-salads.

      Delete
    5. I believe in Corby!

      Delete
    6. Hard to remember way back to yesterday Pied? He SAID Biden, like Trump, has NO BUSINESS being on that stage. Today, ignoring all the plus aspects of Biden’s term ( so successful I myself put down some of it to good luck) he sees only inflation (nothing about jobs or the market) and immigration ( don’t bring up Trump killing the bipartisan deal, that makes Bob mad. We liberals go and point that out all the time!).
      Bob has checked in as a double hater, but one who, like Trump, puts a lot of stock in Putin! Also nothing about Biden’s handling of the Ukraine).
      It’s no fun to admit you have been crazy wrong, Pied. It’s not the worst thing in the world either. Grow up.

      Delete
    7. You could believe the often incorrect Silver or one of the many pollsters who say he is wrong. But actually, can you explain why this matters to you? Do you want Biden to take Bob’s advice, admit he is unworthy of the office, and pull out so the Dems can run someone who Silver thinks will win?

      Delete
    8. Somerby said Biden is unworthy of being on that stage. Today he pounds the two dubious Republican talking points to explain why he thinks so. Are you ever going to cut the crap?

      Delete
    9. It makes little sense to argue about which poll is right. We'll find out for sure in a few months. If Biden wins, the MAGA's will claim election fraud. If trump wins we'll know who to blame - The Daily Howler!

      Delete
    10. Trump will not win.

      Delete
    11. Anonymouse 3:14pm, I don’t know if Trump will win or lose the vote, but he will not be the next president.

      Delete
    12. CC - I'm curious: If Trump wins, why do you think he won't be president? Do you think the Dems will storm the Capitol and that Harris will deliver the Electoral Vote to Biden? Because to my ear that's what it sounds like you're suggesting.

      Delete
    13. CC is hinting at foul play. This is how the right stokes political violence.

      Delete
    14. No, it is possible to believe that assassination (as one way to keep Trump out of office) via people who know how to do that sort of thing and have before, could be a possibility. Setups in other ways, lawfare, and Trump being an idiot are ways as well.

      That’s my opinion. I don’t care if it makes you violent or not.

      Delete
    15. MAGAs become violent when they don’t get what they want.

      Delete

  5. "What hasn't ceased is our species' need for reassuring tribal lore."

    What's normally understood as "tribal" would be, in this case, "American". For example: the "American tribe" vs the "Canadian tribe".

    Alas, this kind of tribalism is completely unacceptable to your leaders, globalist anti-American interests. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Regarding today's post, I just read Nellie Bowles's "Morning After the Revolution". Her book may help explain the Times's unprofessional use of that Trump-Clinton video.

    Bowles is a former liberal NY Times writer. The first chapter of her book describes the incredible pressure on Times people to conform to every specific liberal belief and action. One requirement is to demonize every declared enemy. Bowles finally woke up when she refused to demonize her beloved (now wife) Bari Weiss. That made her persona non grata at the Times and led to her leaving the paper.

    Since the Times demands demonization of a liberal former writer like Weiss, one can imagine the pressure to demonize Trump. (To be clear, this demand to demonize is not a formal policy of the paper. It's just the way the employees behave and relate.)

    The famous "wear the ribbon" snipped from Seinfeld is uncomfortably close to reality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4bmGekgE14&ab_channel=TBS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bowles is not a liberal, nor is she a "former liberal." Bari Weiss left the NY Times voluntarily, to form her own media group. She claims her leaving was the result of a civil war among the staff. She was an opinion writer and her opinions were not supported by others at the NY Times. Weiss has framed this as an example of cancel culture, but she is the one who left, she was not fired.

      The bottom line on the controversy is that there is no right to have others agree with you or refrain from criticizing your views when you write controversial editorials and hold unpopular views.

      Delete
    2. What an absurd pile of horseshit DiC has dumped here. Bari Weiss is not a serious person.

      Delete
    3. @10:20 - Senator Tom Cotton wrote the controversial op ed, not Weiss. Her job was to find op eds from a different POV than that of the Times. She did that by finding Cotton.

      But, then a bunch of staffers complained that Cotton's POV didn't agree with the Times. Well, duh. That was the point. Nevertheless, Weiss was declared an enemy because of Cotton's article.

      BTW Cotton's "controversial" article took a position that half or more Americans would probably agree with.

      Delete
    4. weiss disn’t leave over Cotton. Her boss, Bennett did.

      Delete
    5. Bennett was forced out right away. Weiss was pushed out later.

      Delete
    6. Weiss resigned.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Anon 10:26 has gotten the message about who to demonize.

      @10:20 -- As you say, Bowles wasn't fired. But, she was driven out of the Times be social pressure.

      As you say, neither Bowles nor Weiss had any right to keep her job. But, their treatment tells us something important about the Times's far-left writers, which explains their slanted news coverage.

      BTW it's one thing to have a slant, but we should lal agree that it's wrong to mislead. As Bob points out, the Times's treatment of Trump's alleged behavior in the debate with Hillary was misleading.

      Delete
  7. "He has said nothing about the peculiar state of affairs at the southern border. He has said nothing about the cost of living, except for an amazingly inane focus on "shrinkflation."

    Here, Somerby is referring to Biden. These statements are untrue. At the beginning of his administration, Biden tasked Kamala Harris with visiting the countries that were sending large numbers of immigrants to our border, to help them address the problems causing the influx. She also attended meetings of Central American countries specifically to deal with migrants within and between those nations and ours. Biden caused consternation among some liberals when he left some of Trump's harsh border measures in place upon taking office.

    It is true that Biden has not demagogued the issue of immigration, as the Republicans have, but that doesn't mean he provided no "leadership" or said nothing about it, and more importantly, it does not mean he did nothing about it.

    This is an example of the way Somerby falls into line with Republican talking points, insisting that Biden has ignored an important issue that people care about -- when actually, this is Somerby attacking Biden on immigration, ignoring his actual record in order to make a complaint that is specious and true, in support of Trump and the right wing.

    This article is highly critical of Biden's approach to immigration, but it details what was done, from day one, by the Biden administration and its variable success:

    https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-02-05/kamala-harris-was-tapped-to-fix-an-immigration-crisis-but-the-target-has-moved#:~:text=Harris'%20national%20security%20advisor%2C%20Phil,Colombia%2C%20Ecuador%20and%20Costa%20Rica.

    Note that Trump did not deal with immigration successfully either. His numbers varied with the conditions in the countries sending migrants, just as Biden's have done. But saying that Biden/Harris did nothing and provided no leadership is not only a lie, it is a blatant and ridiculous lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Biden has done many things to control inflation, reduce prices and help everyday people meet expenses. The idea that he has not, is again ludicrous. Shrinkflation is one example, but so is eliminating junk fees and hidden fees, reducing prescription drug prices and removing Trump's tariffs.

      See this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/11/fact-sheet-the-presidents-budget-lowers-costs-for-the-american-people/

      The many small acts done by Biden throughout his term show an ongoing concern for helping Americans live better. In particular, Biden is considered the most helpful president in support of labor unions and increasing wages since FDR, because of his support for increasing worker wages and improving working conditions. That helps people live better lives too.

      Somerby's whining that Biden has done nothing only reveals Somerby's ignorance about Biden's accomplishments. I consider that to be a motivated ignorance in support of Trump.

      Delete
    2. Biden has been a terrific president. He inherited a shitshow of an economy from Trump and has shepherded it to full employment, stable prices, and strong growth.

      But still most voters think, irrationally, that Trump would be better than Biden for the economy. That's proof that Biden is terrible at being a presidential candidate.

      Delete
    3. Does it explain why Bob thinks he is unworthy to be on that stage (just like Trump). Bob does not claim Biden is a bad campaigner today. He says he is an awful President based on immigration and inflation. We can be thankful he left Hunter alone.

      Delete
    4. Pp, you forget that Biden won in 2020 and is now leadingp polls.

      Delete
    5. Pied Piper, you are somewhat of an exception here - you are rational, for the most part. i 've been a democrat for over 50 years, and never have always voted for the democratic candidate for POTUS. And will do so again this November. i hear often that Biden has done a great job as President. I thinks that's an argument that can reasonably be made, but it isn't like some truth etched in stone. What it is to do a great job as president isn't easily defined. I think the best you can hope for is keep us out of wars and somehow maintain a healthy economy, though often that's beyond the POTUS' control. I'm doing OK, and maybe you are too. But loads of people are in different circumstances and have different perceptions. A lot of people aren't doing that great. I would think that in the ideal world, the dems could have come up with someone more inspiring that Biden. Also, the "blue" team has gone off the rails on the woke thing which turns off a lot of people.

      Delete
    6. AC - I agree with everything you say here.

      Delete
    7. 12:11 - "He says he is an awful President based on immigration and inflation."

      I think you misunderstand Somerby's critique. He says Biden has been surprisingly silent about these major issues, that he has not led. And, in my view, Biden's failure to communicate is why, for example, the voters think that the economy is bad when, in reality, it's the best economy in the last generation or two.

      Delete
    8. Somerby has not been silent about them. That is Somerby's strawman. Biden has not demagogued the issue the way the Republicans have, but now the Republicans own that failure because they tanked the bipartisan bill in the House that would have addressed immigration in ways Republicans have themselves demanded. Crickets from Somerby about that.

      Delete
    9. AC/MA is not a Democrat. He is lying when he says he has always voted Democratic.

      Delete
    10. anon 4:23, apparently you know how I have voted and my party affiliation better than I do. Quite a trick.

      Delete
    11. You are a liar here.

      Delete
  8. Here is a good reason to oppose Biden. Sadly, Trump would be worse.

    https://www.forever-wars.com/harrison-mann-on-escalation-in-the-middle-east/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Biden also pulled the plug on Afghanistan, the most seemingly endless of the “forever wars.”

      Delete
    2. And this showed a huge amount of political courage. Biden was willing to burn a lot of political capital because it was the right thing to do. Trump wanted to do it but never had the courage. Thankfully, we won't be in Afghanistan for another 20 years or more because of Biden's courage.

      But, unfortunately, Biden gets no credit, only blame for a day of violence.

      Delete
    3. Sadly, Bob was critical of Biden’s handling of Afghanistan. Check out his posts on it.

      Delete
    4. Somerby, like many on the left, felt we should have stayed in Afghanistan indefinitely for humanitarian reasons - e.g., protecting the Afghani women from the Taliban.

      Delete
    5. He gave Biden zero credit.

      Delete
    6. I don’t recall Somerby ever saying that here. PP is another mind-reader.

      Delete
  9. Somerby attempts to shift the focus to Biden’s debate performance and away from his performance as president, which has been excellent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Luckily for us, you saw through that deceptive ploy.

      Delete
    2. There is no harm in saying so.

      Delete
    3. What’s wrong with his debate performance? What scares the appallingly phony Mr. Somerby is that Biden will ace it like the SOTU, while his poor disordered friend makes an ass of himself.,

      Delete
  10. I am making $220 per hour for working online. I never thought that it was legit but my best friend earns 25,000 dollars every month doing this and she showed me how. Check it out by visiting following link
    Open This…………Online work


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good old liberal MSNBC was taking the bait on the Andrea Mitchell show this morning. “The real star of tonight’s debate will be the format.”
      “Yes,” agreed Andrea, “we will have to
      see how the mute button being used
      Will affect the performance of Biden
      and Trump.”
      There is no reason to believe it will affect Biden’s performance at all. He was
      not the one who tried to cheat and bully by talking over Biden in the first debate last time. Thanks liberal media!
      Bob knows this, of course. It’s what
      he wants to avoid talking about by
      focusing on Hillary.

      Delete
    2. anon 12:50 - what you say isn't disputed by TDH. If you want it, there's zillions of websites and media that covers Trump's depredations om a way that you prefer. TDH is trying to show that the "blue" team has its flaws also (whether or not they reach the depths of the other team). Perhaps if the "blue" team weren't so dumb, we wouldn't have Trump getting elected to our highest office. Maybe not. TDH has a point of view, which I think is valid. So often here he is unfairly vilified for it, usually by grossly distorting what he is trying, quixotically, to communicate.

      Delete
    3. Bob dreams the impossible dream, fights the unbeatable foe, bears with unbearable sorrow, runs where the brave dare not go.

      Delete
    4. The so-called blue team does have flaws, but they are not the things Somerby identifies. And no, we are not "dumb". It took Comey's malfeasance and Russian meddling to prevent Hillary from winning the electoral college (she won the popular vote massively). The hush money trial was about Trump's cheating during the election. That is not a blue team failing but Republican wrongdoing. Somerby has been promoting right wing memes and talking points since 2015. It is obvious to all except you fanboys, who are also supporting Trump.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 3:38pm, is that you, mh?

      Delete
    6. No, I’m not mh. I’m a paid troll.

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 8:50pm, the show-tune gave you away.

      Delete
    8. It’s a great song, but I’m still a troll.

      Delete
    9. AC/MA said Bob is quixotic. My quote from “The Impossible Dream” is my answer to that.

      Delete
  11. anon 4:39. whether the "blue" team is dumb, and how, is a matter of opinion. That they did lose to Trump, and could do so again, perhaps provides some evidence supporting my opinion. That your opinions are on the rather lame side is evidenced by your bogus assertion that I (and other purported "fanboys') support Trump. Maybe you should be a little less promiscuous in calling people liars based on zero actual evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Watching the debate now, I am thinking that Biden’s voice puts off Somerby, but if you listen to Biden’s answers, he is way more on target than Trump. It took Trump 10 minutes to deteriorate into lies and incoherence.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Somerby - once again, (sadly) 100% dead-on and correct in his instincts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Joe ain’t spry.

    ReplyDelete

  15. When I work part-time, I make nearly $15,500 a month. A lot of people on the internet have told me how much money you can make from cards, so I’m still trying to figure it out. In fact, everything became real and completely changed my life. t31 Everyone should try it now, it only works .
    Click here➜ Online work

    ReplyDelete