WAGERS: "Our democracy" hit rock bottom last week!

MONDAY, JULY 1, 2024

A boon for Putin's wager: Long ago and far away, Blaise Pascal, for better or worse, authored a famous wager.

Who the heck was Blaise Pascal? And what exactly was his "wager"—his gamble, his thesis, his bet?

We've never been hugely impressed with the gentleman's wager. That said, the leading authority on the topic thumbnails the matter as shown:

Pascal's Wager

Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument advanced by Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), seventeenth-century French mathematician, philosopher, physicist, and theologian. This argument posits that individuals essentially engage in a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God.

Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and [should] actively strive to believe in God. The reasoning behind this stance lies in the potential outcomes: 

If God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, he or she stands to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.

"The original articulation of this wager can be found in Pascal's posthumously published work titled Pensées, which comprises a compilation of previously unpublished notes," the authority then reports.

So it went with Pascal's wager! Long story short, with the reasoning, such as it was, only slightly dumbed down:

Pascal didn't believe that anyone could prove the existence of [the conventional Judeo-Christian] God. But just in case that God does exist—just in case that God will punish nonbelievers with the torments of Hell—we should strive to convince ourselves that He [sic] does exist, and we should conform to his rules.

Dumbed down to a slightly greater extent, the wager went like this:

If God doesn't exist, you wasted your time at Mass each week, but the price you paid was minor. 
On the other hand, if God does exist and you thumbed your nose at religious requirements, you may end up burning in Hell.

The so-called "wager" went something like that. Those who seek complexification can immerse themselves in overthinking in Professor Hajek's treatment of the wager for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

People have been discussing Pascal's wager since the dawn of time. By way of contrast, the gamble we'll describe as "Putin's wager" seems to have come about in fairly recent times.

"Putin's wager" seems to go something like this:

Vladimir Putin, the Russian potentate, seems to believe that the future belongs to the autocrats, not to systems like the one we refer to as "our democracy." 

When it comes to systems like ours, he seems to be gambling that "the center [won't be able to] hold." 

We can't necessarily say that the Russian strongman is wrong in this apparent assessment! Consider:

In our view, "our democracy" has been placed under vastly increased levels of stress by the process known as "the democratization of media." 

Also, by the proliferation of "identity groups" within our struggling culture (though no specific "identity group" can be tagged as the source of the problem).

Also, by the punishing limits of human cogitation, a factor we'll survey all week.

Is it possible that Vladimir Putin's wager will pay off?  We would say it's entirely possible! Just consider what happened in Atlanta last Thursday night:

Last Thursday night, in Atlanta, our system was groaning under the strain of at least forty years of journalistic and academic devolution.

Two candidates stood on a stage, hoping to be our nation's next president. They interacted with a pair of major journalists who had agreed that they would question or challenge no misstatements, no matter how absurd.

Operating within this system, the one candidate produced absurd misstatements all night. The other candidate routinely struggled to complete a thought, delivering such statements as this:

MODERATOR (6/29/24): President Biden, I want to give you an opportunity to respond to this question about the national debt.

CANDIDATE:  He had the largest national debt of any president four-year period, number one.

Number two, he got $2 trillion tax cut, benefited the very wealthy. What I’m going to do is fix the tax system.  For example:

We have a thousand trillionaires in America–I mean, billionaires in America. 

And what’s happening, they’re in a situation where they, in fact, pay 8.2 percent in taxes. If they just paid 24 percent, 25 percent—either one of those numbers—they’d raise 500 million dollars–billion dollars, I should say—in a ten-year period.

We’d be able to right–wipe out his debt. We’d be able to help make sure that all those things we need to do—childcare, elder care, making sure that we continue to strengthen our healthcare system—making sure that we’re able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the, uh, the Covid—excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with, uh—

[PAUSE]

Look—

[PAUSE]

If—

[PAUSE]

We finally beat Medicare.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, President Biden. President Trump?

"We finally beat Medicare?" After a set of pauses and self-corrections, as the culmination of an imponderable overall claim about the way the candidate plans to "fix the tax system," that bizarre statement was delivered at 9:12 p.m. 

(For a fuller assessment of that presentation, you can see Saturday's report.)

"We finally beat Medicare," the stumbling candidate finally said. The moderator simply plowed ahead, as if nothing had happened. 

Earlier, the moderators had done the same thing when the other candidate had grossly misrepresented the basic nature of tariffs.

Full disclosure:

Under current arrangements, the astonishing presentation we've transcribed came from the candidate we'll be voting for in November! By our own assessment, the other candidate would be a much worse bet for our struggling nation.

Fellow citizens, is there a halfway decent chance that Putin's wager will pay off? Please understand:

What we saw last Thursday night was the current functioning of "our democracy" under the strain of forty years of cultural devolution. 

In our view, the exchange we've transcribed involved the more capable of the two men who stood on the stage that night! Aso, it involved the conduct of a major mainstream journalist, who had agreed to "see no evil" all through the course of the evening.

Under this journalistic arrangement, the other candidate issued a string of ludicrous claims all through the course of the event. The candidate for whom we ourselves will vote showed little ability to counteract these crazy statements and claims.

The major journalists who served as moderators made no attempt to react to the other candidate's ludicrous claims. And sure enough:

In kneejerk fashion, many of Blue America's vastly limited "thought leaders" were soon describing these ludicrous statements as "lies." Among various problems with this childish approach, this framework implies that the other candidate isn't cognitively disordered.

Is Putin's wager likely to pay at the betting window? Consider:

By now, each of the candidates on the Atlanta stage has shown overwhelming signs of cognitive incapacitation. Beyond that, a wide range of medical specialists have said, rightly or wrongly, that the candidate for whom we won't be voting has shown unmistakable signs of major psychological / psychiatric disorder.

The people cast as major journalists in our nation's ongoing TV show have agreed that none of these factors should be reported, discussed or evaluated. Beyond that:

As we type this assessment this Monday morning, major thought leaders in Blue America are insisting that the candidate for whom we'll vote simply had "a bad night."

In the face of all this moral and intellectual dysfunction, Vladimir Putin seems to have made a private wager. In our view, Pascal's wager didn't make much sense—but Putin's wager certainly could end up paying off.

It isn't just Candidate Biden! "Our democracy," such as it is, has been visibly struggling for the past forty years. 

It isn't clear that our vastly limited species is built to address such systemic challenges. Reactions to last Thursday's debacle only serve to make the shape of this problem more clear.

"Our democracy" might seem to have hit rock bottom last Thursday night. Sadly enough, the situation could get worse, much worse.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin, the Russian strongman, seems to have made a private wager. Even as our various "thought leaders" engage in their own unacknowledged wagers, it seems to us that Putin's wager may end up paying off.

"Our democracy," such as it ever was, has been rapidly moving from imperfect to worse. In the aftermath of last Thursday's debacle, we'll be discussing this matter all week.

An array of wagers are involved. We know of no safe bet.

This afternoon: Weekend of the Hunter


86 comments:

  1. Ann Lurie, Shifty Shellshock, Sergeant Cecil, and Frederick Crews have died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump's fart at the debate was caught by his mic, and then later he was caught meeting with a mysterious Russian plane.

      Delete


  2. I am a simple girl, and the words like "autocrats" and "our democracy" mean nothing to me. But my bet is that a country led by someone with 80% approval rating will do better than a country led by someone with 35% approval rating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neither candidate has an 80% approval (favorability?) rating and neither has 35%. Polls are still tied (within the margin of error).

      Leadership of the country has nothing to do with popularity. It has to do with getting people to work together, knowing how to fix problems and implement solutions. That isn't Trump. My bet is that the country led by a competent person will do better than the country led by a fruitcake, conman, grifter, rapist, convicted felon.

      Delete
    2. Using "simple girl" to characterize yourself as pretend-naive is sexist.

      Delete
    3. I am a simple girl, and words like "autocrats" and "our democracy" mean nothing to me. But I bet that a country where everyone knows who leads it will do better than a country where no one knows who leads it.

      Delete
    4. I am a simple troll, and words like "autocrats" and "our democracy" mean nothing to me. FTFY

      Delete
    5. I am a simple girl. I don't know your big words: "autocrats", "our democracy". They mean nothing to me. But I bet that any country pursuing its national interests will do better than a country ruled by open-borders globalists.

      Delete
    6. Even a child knows running a country based on the superstitions of religious people is moronic.

      Delete
    7. @11:50 So you are opposed to Christian Nationalism then?

      Delete
    8. “Open border globalist” is a Republican bogeyman used to scare children.

      Delete
    9. "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

      Delete
    10. I am a simple girl and I don't know your complicated big words. But I bet that a country without hordes of idiot-Soros-bots will do better than a country with hordes of idiots Soros-bots.

      Delete
    11. You are so simple, you have chosen the path of least intelligence. Good to know!

      Delete
    12. Joe Biden should do everything to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, which includes Christian Nationalists.

      Delete
    13. I don’t know if Anonymouse 9;20am is a simple girl or not. I’ll take her word for whatever that statement means.

      I do know that she received insults for what is a pertinent statement; “But I bet that a country where everyone knows who leads it will do better than a country where no one knows who leads it.”

      Delete
    14. Yeah nobody is buying that relatively simple words like autocracy and democracy "mean nothing" to a simple person.

      9:20 is being mocked for their lousy attempt at selling snake oil.

      Delete
    15. Anonymouse 1:46pm, Somerby wrote: “ Vladimir Putin, the Russian potentate, seems to believe that the future belongs to the autocrats, not to systems like the one we refer to as "our democracy."

      When it comes to systems like ours, he seems to be gambling that "the center [won't be able to] hold."’

      How is the “simple” girl’s comment “snake oil” in response to his remark?

      Delete
    16. That those words mean nothing to her, that a popular leader is inherently better for a country.

      Pure poppycock, if that is more comforting than snake oil.

      Somerby's nonsense is similarly poppycock, suggesting that democracy is diminished because corporate media is less dominate and people are concerned about various forms of oppression.

      Delete
    17. Anonymouse 2:07pm, she didn’t say that a “popular” leader is better for the country. She said a designated …known…. leader in charge is better for a country than a nation that has no certainty that the person in charge, is the person who is truly in charge.

      Shame on you for your flippant dismissal of anything that you haven’t scripted the night before. .

      Delete
    18. No, she said a popular leader is better, literally:

      "a country led by someone with 80% approval rating will do better than a country led by someone with 35% approval rating."

      There is no shame in being ignorant, but a bad faith argument is often self evident, and it is better to help nudge one towards a better path.

      She also claimed that autocracy and democracy "mean nothing" to her, which is just more snake oil, or poppycock if you prefer.

      Or rubbish, or bunk, or claptrap, or twaddle, codswallop, fiddle-faddle, inanity...etc., or my favorite, in a nod to Adrian Belew: balderdash.

      Delete
    19. Me thinks the "simple girl" is none other than Monaco Mao.

      Delete
    20. I didn’t see the first comment about the 80% percent popularity, but I’m not sure that she’s speaking of Trump. When did he ever have that percentage?

      But, yes, she expressed the notion that a popular president is better for a country than an unpopular one. As well as expressing the opinion that having no doubt as to who is running the country is better for a country.

      And those accurate, she must be insulted by idiots.

      Delete
    21. Mike L, she’s a simple girl. It would be Millville Mao.

      Delete
  3. Kevin observed the debate:

    https://jabberwocking.com/thirteen-lies/

    https://jabberwocking.com/ten-excerpts/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken Drum:

      Donald Trump also flitted from subject to subject during Thursday's debate, but his primary sin was his ceaseless stream of lies. Here are a baker's dozen of them.

      1. Tariffs:

      Not going to drive [prices] higher. It’s just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years, like China and many others, in all fairness to China — it’s going to just force them to pay us a lot of money, reduce our deficit tremendously, and give us a lot of power for other things.

      Flat out lie. Tariffs are paid by the importer, who then has to pass along the cost increase to its customers.

      2. Social Security:

      This man is going to single-handedly destroy Social Security. These millions and millions of people coming in, they’re trying to put them on Social Security. He will wipe out Social Security. He will wipe out Medicare.

      Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for Social Security. In fact, they help Social Security because they pay taxes but never get any of the benefits.

      3. Abortion:

      If you look at this whole question that you’re asking, a complex, but not really complex — 51 years ago, you had Roe v. Wade, and everybody wanted to get it back to the states, everybody, without exception. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, everybody wanted it back. Religious leaders.

      Flat out lie. It's simply untrue that "everybody" wanted to overturn Roe. v. Wade.

      4. Abortion again:

      If you look at the former governor of Virginia, he was willing to do this. He said, we’ll put the baby aside and we’ll determine what we do with the baby. Meaning, we’ll kill the baby.

      Former Gov. Ralph Northram never said this, no matter how many times Trump claims it.

      5. Illegal immigration:

      He decided to open up our border, open up our country to people that are from prisons, people that are from mental institutions, insane asylum, terrorists. We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now. All terrorists, all over the world — not just in South America, all over the world. They come from the Middle East, everywhere. All over the world, they’re pouring in.

      There is no evidence that terrorists have crossed into the US via the southwestern border.

      6. Foreign affairs:

      As far as Russia and Ukraine, if we had a real president, a president that knew — that was respected by Putin, he would have never — he would have never invaded Ukraine.... Just like Israel would have never been invaded, in a million years, by Hamas. You know why? Because Iran was broke with me. I wouldn’t let anybody do business with them. They ran out of money. They were broke. They had no money for Hamas. They had no money for anything. No money for terror.

      This is ridiculous. Trump did nothing to deter Putin and nothing to deter Iran.

      7. January 6:

      Nancy Pelosi, if you just watch the news from two days ago, on tape to her daughter, who’s a documentary filmmaker, as they say, what she’s saying, oh, no, it’s my responsibility, I was responsible for this. Because I offered her 10,000 soldiers or National Guard, and she turned them down. And the mayor of — in writing, by the way, the mayor. In writing turned it down, the mayor of D.C. They turned it down.

      Flat out lie. Trump didn't offer 10,000 National Guard troops to anyone on January 6.

      8. January 6 again:

      The unselect committee, which is basically two horrible Republicans that are all gone now, out of office, and Democrats, all Democrats, they destroyed and deleted all of the information they found, because they found out we were right. We were right. And they deleted and destroyed all of the information.

      Flat out lie. The January 6 committee didn't destroy anything.

      Delete
    2. 9. Ukraine:

      Joe could be a convicted felon with all of the things that he’s done. He’s done horrible things. All of the death caused at the border, telling the Ukrainian people that we’re going to want a billion dollars or you change the prosecutor, otherwise, you’re not getting a billion dollars.

      If I ever said that, that’s quid pro quo. That — we’re not going to do anything, we’re not going to give you a billion dollars unless you change your prosecutor having to do with his son.

      Flat out lie. The US wanted Ukraine's top prosecutor fired because he was corrupt. It had nothing to do with Hunter Biden, and in any case, Joe Biden was just the messenger for US policy.

      10. Inflation:

      He caused the inflation. He’s blaming inflation. And he’s right, it’s been very bad. He caused the inflation and it’s killing black families and Hispanic families and just about everybody. It’s killing people. They can’t buy groceries anymore. They can’t. You look at the cost of food where it’s doubled and tripled and quadrupled. They can’t live. They’re not living anymore. He caused this inflation.

      Our recent surge in inflation was caused primarily by COVID shortages. Beyond that, it was most likely caused by rescue packages passed under Trump, which were much bigger than Biden's. And food prices haven't doubled or quadrupled; they've gone up about 20%.

      11. Criminal justice:

      What he has done to the black population is horrible, including the fact that for 10 years he called them superpredators. We can’t, in the 1990s, we can’t forget that. Super predators was his name. And he called it to them for 10, and they’ve taken great offense at it, and now they see it happening.

      Flat out lie. Biden never uttered the word superpredator.

      12. The environment:

      During my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever. And my top environmental people gave me that statistic just before I walked on the stage, actually.

      Trump was a disaster for the environment. Carbon emissions stopped going down under Trump until 2020, when they dropped solely due to COVID.

      13. Fentanyl:

      Jake, we’re doing very well at addiction until the COVID came along. We had the two-and-a-half, almost three years of like nobody’s ever had before, any country in every way. And then we had to get tough. And it was — the drugs pouring across the border, we’re — it started to increase.

      Fentanyl deaths increased from 70,000 to 107,000 over Trump's term. Cocaine overdose deaths also skyrocketed.

      Delete
    3. Kevin, not Ken. (A Biden moment.)

      Delete
    4. The official term is “mental lapse.”

      Delete
    5. Yeah, but my term is funnier.

      Delete
    6. Mike L, problem is that Biden was helpless as far as getting any of these points across.

      Delete
    7. Kevin Johnson or Kevin Jackson?

      Or Kevin "Nikki" Haley?

      And is he a man, a woman, or a camera?

      Delete
    8. AC/MA: Biden's performance was pitiful, and it was more than just an "off night." But the only real "problem" is that it turns potential Biden voters off. In terms of what would happen during a second Biden term, it doesn't change anything of significance. A second Biden term would be good for the country and world; a second Trump term would be disastrous. All Biden has to be able to do is make decent decisions at a very high level (support Ukraine, uphold the rule of law, veto any stupid far-right bills that might reach his desk, etc., etc.). If he becomes unable to do even that, then Harris and the hundreds of very capable people in his administration can step in.

      Delete
    9. The press is protected in the Constitution because they have an important job in informing the electorate; that is not Biden's job, and even as he stumbled, he managed to increase his standings in the polls - likely due to the strong distaste the electorate has for Trump.

      Delete
    10. Polling is not showing that viewers and especially potential Biden voters were turned off by Biden. They are showing that viewers were horrified by Trump.

      Delete
  4. IMO both candidates showed shallow understanding at best of the issues they addressed. Of course the media’s and public’s understanding is no deeper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Biden has been criticized for getting too technical in his short 1-2 minutes on screen, and possibly confusing those viewers who understood his difficult speaking voice. David, you are not qualified to assess other people's understanding because you are yourself biased and mainly just repeat Republican talking points on the economy.

      Delete
    2. @10:09 can you please provide some examples of Biden’s deep and technical comments from the debate? Thanks.

      Delete
    3. No, but you can read about it yourself. Start with Drum's synopsis. Then search for articles about how Biden won the debate based on content of his answers.

      https://www.reuters.com/world/us/joe-bidens-disastrous-debate-blamed-bad-preparation-exhaustion-2024-06-30/

      https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-debate-performance-criticism-tips-2024-6

      The latter says Biden was hobbled because he tried to say too much.

      Delete
    4. See Yastreblansky’s article today, Kenobi vs Vader, at his substack. I will post a link tomorrow. He illustrates exactly how Biden went astray trying to say too much. His blog is Rectification of Names.

      Delete
  5. Let me get this straight. Somerby equates autocracy with Putin and then argues that because democracy is being challenged, we should choose authoritarianism for our own system because otherwise we may burn in hell?

    There is no evidence that the center is not holding (whatever that means, except blacks and women want to be treated like people and that is somehow bad), in fact we had a debate and that is what democracies do ahead of elections. One guy did worse than the other and Somerby is willing to abandon democracy, because it has been "struggling?"

    Then somehow the bet has shifted and it is Putin's bet, not ours. Even though it is Trump who decided to get in bed with Putin, to announce he will be dictator on day one and to proclaim himself Dear Leader, and not the American people who have put him there. Even after Biden's horrible debate performance, Trump is not leading the post-debate polls and 54% of the public thinks Trump should step down and not run at all. Swing voters were horrified by the things Trump said during the debate -- but Somerby only cares about Biden's difficulties speaking clearly and addressing Trump's Gish Gallop (look that up if you don't know what it is).

    How did our democracy suddenly get worse just because Biden performed poorly in a debate? Nothing about the structure of our democracy changed. The only thing that might have changed is voter enthusiasm for Biden, but that seems to have increased, benefitting from the contrast with Trump, who told 50 lies (see Drum's partial list).

    In an article about Pascal's wager, I would have expected Somerby to take a stand on autocracy vs democracy. Instead, he says everything is falling apart, the center cannot hold, etc etc etc, and says nothing about what he himself wants to see happen. Is he yearning for Trump now, or does he want us to commit to following Putin (whose wager seems to concern the Devil, not God)?

    There must be a nice quiet room in some part of Somerby's home, where he can sit and think this through before putting another word to paper. Today's essay is not sane.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Biden might say, what a bunch of malarkey.

      Delete
    2. See, Biden wasn't that hard to understand!

      Delete
  6. The NY Times continues to advocate against Biden today:

    "The Road to a Crisis: How Democrats Let Biden Glide to Renomination"

    "Biden’s Family Tells Him to Keep Fighting as They Huddle at Camp David" [The family denies such a "huddle"]

    "Will One Bad Debate Night Mean One Bad Election Day?"

    "Bill Maher: Why I Want an Open Convention"

    "This Isn’t All Joe Biden’s Fault"

    One semi-positive article about the ad showing Biden performing energetically and coherently at his rally the day after the debate, although the NY Times reporter makes the campaign sound defensive. Nothing today about Trump's lies or the public reaction against them. Nothing about Biden staying even with Trump in the polls despite the debate. Nothing about the solid front of alternative Democratic candidates who are refusing to call for Biden to step down.

    This is the kind of bias that the NY Times has been showing every day.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joseph Epstein yesterday published an essay based on a new biography of Pascal. As usual for Epstein, the writing is superlative. https://freebeacon.com/culture/for-pascal-its-no-mystery/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pascal is a rhetorical device allowing Somerby to propose that we should switch to an autocracy because our democracy is "struggling" and the center will not hold. No one here actually cares about Pascal, including Somerby.

      Delete
    2. Pascal's compromise to appease the church resulted in the subjugation of women by defining them as more akin to animals, lustful and unable to control their impulses, susceptible to the entreaties of Satan, lacking in reason and thus unable to commune with God (so unable to become priests), childlike and needing protection.

      Needless to say, this set women back and resulted in their legal enslavement and subordination to men under the law. It was a horrible development that has taken centuries to correct. Does inventing a certain kind of math atone for what Pascal's philosophy did to women? I don't think so. But you guys go right on with your pascal worship.

      In men, Pascal created the mind-body dualism, again as a compromise with the Catholic church's theology. It said that reason is mental and goes with the mind, which is used to appreciate spiritual matters and "know" God. Emotion is physical and goes with the body, which we share with animals and need to overcome (esp lust) in order to be more in God's image. This duality placed emotion and reason in opposition (when we now know that they work together) and denigrated the body while exalting the mind. This led to mortifying the flesh to show religiosity, to torture and dismissal of human physical suffering (incl hunger & thirst) and assigning physical beauty to women as a singular virtue while absolving men of good grooming. Look at the definitions of witchcraft in that time period and the way the body was sacrificed in order to save the immortal soul (equated with mind and reason) in trials by water and fire.

      We are better off without Pascal's ideas, given the way they were distorted by his fear of religious persecution. He set back knowledge by trying to reconcile science with religion. Somerby is similarly distorted in his thinking, but today he makes no sense at all.

      Delete
  8. "Illegal Border Crossings Sink to 3-Year Low
    July 1, 2024 at 10:05 am EDT By Taegan Goddard [Political Wire]

    “Illegal crossings along the U.S. southern border fell to a 3-year low in June following President Biden’s drastic move to curtail asylum and continued efforts by Mexico to stop migrants heading north,” CBS News reports."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the debate, Biden blamed illegal immigration on the Republicans for not passing a new law. But, these executive actions prove that a new law wasn't needed. Biden already had the executive power to take actions that would curtail illegal immigration.

      Of course, that was always obvious, because Trump curtailed illegal immigration without a new law. All President Biden had to do was to continue Trump's policies.

      Delete
    2. Does that excuse the Republicans, who were given everything they wanted to address immigration and refused it because Trump wanted to run on that issue?

      Are you aware that Trump has proposed using limited nuclear weapons to bomb the Mexican cartels?

      Delete
    3. 11:26 While Trump "loves the poorly educated", others seek to inform such folks.

      Border encounters reached a low during Obama's second term, and then SPIKED under Trump.

      During Covid, the border was closed, but after, Trump's spike continued until '22 when Biden's border policies and foreign policies, the ones Republicans whined and cried about, starting taking effect.

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/

      Delete
    4. @DiC:

      Such as?

      Courts have already ordered the end of Title 42 enforcement, the mechanism Trump used to stifle border crossings. Biden's latest orders will be challenged in court as well.

      Delete
    5. Why can't ignore/work around court rulings, like he is doing for student load forgiveness?

      Delete
    6. @3:45 -- he has been doing that for immigration already.

      Delete
  9. Somerby is promising to talk about Hunter (presumably Hunter Biden). What relevance can Hunter possibly have to anything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This afternoon: Weekend of the Hunter"

      Perhaps a coy reference to "Night of the Hunter," a movie about a fake preacher who marries a widow and uses her children to find hidden money. The movie is scary because the preacher is so obviously evil.

      There is also no obvious relevance to anything except that there was a weekend last Sat and Sun. Somerby may be gearing up to ruin another old movie, for those who haven't seen it. Or maybe he is going to trash Hunter Biden again. Who knows?

      Delete
    2. Somerby is obsessed with Hunter, presumably because Hunter has a big penis, that is the only significant aspect about Hunter, as far as society/discourse goes.

      Hunter also has a youthful and attractive wife, so naturally Somerby is jealous.

      Delete
    3. Let me help you all out…

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/07/01/hunter-biden-sues-fox-news-over-nude-photos-featured-in-miniseries/

      Delete
    4. Right, so it's about Hunter's big penis.

      Delete

    5. We Democrats need to talk about Hunter's big penis as often as possible, at any opportunity. This is how we win!

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 1:00pm, Fox has you covered.

      Delete
    7. Thank God for Fox!

      Delete
    8. Cecelia, what size do you prefer?

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 1:10pm, nothing longer than a size 8. Otherwise, they slip and my heels are rubbed raw.

      Delete
    10. Cecelia is a man pretending a woman, but that does not mean he is not concerned about penis size, and about having an under sized penis, a concern that seems to run rampant among Republicans; it is a unifying concern, solidarity for the undersized.

      Delete
    11. Anonymouse 1:54pm, is it me or Hunter that has you worked up?

      Delete
    12. Cecelia, you cleverly evaded the question. Really, honey, what size do you prefer?

      Delete
    13. Triggered, leading to projection.

      The song remains the same.

      I feel your pain, Cecelia, if not your under sized penis.

      Delete
    14. Anonymouse 2:13pm, the only way I could be more accurate than your description is have prefaced it with “extremely”.

      Delete
    15. Own it, dude.

      Delete
    16. Anonymouse 2:26pm, baby, you couldn’t find it with a microscope. Not sorry to disappoint you.

      Delete
    17. Microscope? A magnifying glass from WalMart would give a good view of your clit. But I'm asking what size dick you want a potential partner to have.

      Delete
    18. You were born with a shovel in your hands, and apparently a small penis.

      Get over it, it is not the size of the boat but the motion of the ocean.

      Delete
  10. Putin is not following God. He is doing evil things, such as pushing his opponents out of windows. His wager is obviously that God does not exist. Trump has made the same bargain. Biden is a Catholic and has not allied himself with evil in the same obvious manner. I will vote for the more religious guy, and that ain't Trump.

    Somerby sounds sarcastic when he calls Biden a good, decent, empathetic man. But that is what a president should be and Trump is not such a person. So my choice is obvious. It is Biden all the way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There's only one way to find out if Biden has Presidential immunity for giving the order to shoot all Republicans on sight. No court will hear the case without standing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Those claiming the Dems had no Plan B are dissing VP Kamala Harris who is the elected Plan B in case the president cannot serve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Those claiming the Dems had no Plan B are dissing VP Kamala Harris who is the elected Plan B in case the president cannot serve.”

      And?….

      Delete
    2. America has a robust system in place for dealing with incapacitated elected officials, it is a non issue.

      America does not have a similarly effective system for dealing with corrupt people like Trump.

      If Biden dies or is otherwise incapacitated, Harris will take over, and everything will continue as it was.

      If Trump's corruption continues unabated, it will impact citizens for decades, as we have already seen with the Supreme Court, abortion, mishandling of Covid, allowing fascism to rise throughout the world, decrease in environmental regulations that protect our clean air and water, etc.

      Old is not great but it is better than old and corrupt.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 12:52pm, “old” may be fine as well as it applies to both the legal and the election systems, unless you’re working yourself up to taking a dump in the Capitol building.

      Delete
    4. This is why Trump wears diapers, although it comes with a price: Trump Stench.

      Maybe Biden stumbled a bit in the debate, but Trump actually ripped one during his turn to talk, afterwards Biden noticeably was forced to breathe through his mouth to avoid the Stench.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 1:57pm, that’s the most cogent excuse for Biden’s performance yet.

      Delete
    6. "America has a robust system in place for dealing with incapacitated elected officials."

      Yes, don't elect them. Which is why it is a little strange one party is running one.

      Delete
    7. Biden is not incapacitated.

      Delete
    8. Biden beat Medicare.

      Delete
    9. When someone misspeaks but you know what they meant, pretending otherwise is being a jerk. We already know Republicans want to embarrass Biden and make him seem too old, but does anyone really believe Biden thinks he “beat” Medicare? That’s stupid, even for Republicans.

      This just shows a lack of linguistic charity.

      Delete
  13. What will you think after Trump nukes Mexico and then cannot be held accountable for it? Is trying to earn Putin's admiration by showing how tough he is a personal act or an official one?

    ReplyDelete