WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2024
But so did the New York Times: Last evening, after the ball was over, the Harris campaign said they wanted more debates.
At 6:35 this morning, speaking on behalf of the Trump campaign, Jason Miller said his candidate has already agreed to another debate—to a debate to be run by NBC News on September 25.
Later, on Fox & Friends, the candidate himself may have walked Miller's promise back. But so the chaos routinely goes in a society which has largely lost the ability to conduct a serious discourse.
The behavior of the Fox News Channel loomed over last evening's debate. So did the increasingly strange New York Times—a major news org whose puzzling behavior is finally becoming a bit more visible within Blue America.
More on that to come. For now, ever so briefly, let's consider why it would be a good idea to have additional debates this very year, involving those very same candidates.
Evert so briefly, we take you back to the dawn of these TV debates, as described by Theodore White "in a very old book." The year was 1960. A whole new era came into being in the following way:
Initially, Candidate Kennedy had wanted five (5) debates. The candidates finally settled on four.
Below, you see the way White outlined the nature of those famous first four sessions:
WHITE (page 283): By mid-September all had been arranged. There would be four debates—on September 26th, October 7th, October 13th and October 21st. The first would be produced by CBS out of Chicago, the second by NBC out of Washington, the third by ABC out of New York and Los Angeles and the fourth, again by ABC, out of New York.
[...]
(page 287): This, the first of the debates, was committed to a discussion of domestic issues—an area in which the Democrats, by their philosophy and record, make larger promises and offer a more aggressive attitude to the future than the Republicans. Kennedy, opening, declared that the world could not endure half-slave and half-free, and that the posture of America in the world rested fundamentally on its posture at home—how we behaved to each other, what we did to move American society forward...
[...]
(page 290): The second |debate concerned itself with foreign policy and ranged from Cuba’s Castro through the U-2 and espionage to the matter of America’s declining prestige, and closed on the first sharp clash of the series—the defense of Quemoy and Matsu.
The third debate resumed, like a needle stuck in a phonograph groove, with the subject of Quemoy and Matsu, hung there almost indefinitely, then broke away with Nixon’s stern disapproval of President Truman’s bad language, and went on to other matters such as bigotry, labor unions and gold outflow. This, according to all sample surveys, was Nixon’s best performance in terms of its impact on the audience. This was the debate in which Nixon spoke from Los Angeles while Kennedy spoke from New York, and it was as if, separated by a continent from the personal presence of his adversary, Nixon were more at ease and could speak directly to the nation that lay between them.
The fourth debate was the dreariest—both candidates had by now almost nothing new left to say, and they repeated themselves on all the matters they had covered in the three previous debates. Curiously enough, the audience which had been highest for the first debate and dropped off slightly for the second and third, returned on the last debate to almost match the total of the first.
Who knows? Perhaps the hopefuls had only needed three television debates! That had become the standard number until forms of madness in recent years created the current situation.
"The fourth debate was the dreariest," White said in his iconic book. By the time of that fourth debate, the candidates had "almost nothing new left to say."
But as those four debates took place, American voters were able to see the candidate discuss a range of issues, encompassing foreign and domestic policy in several targeted sessions.
The first debate had been moderated by a fully serious person—by a former Rhodes scholar who had actually interviewed Hitler and had become one of "the Murrow Boys."
There were no crazy discussions in those four debates—and White reported the very large numbers of people who were said to have tuned in:
WHITE (page 283): In the event, when all was over, the audience exceeded the wildest fancies and claims of the television networks. Each individual broadcast averaged an audience set at a low of 65,000,000 and a high of 70,000,000. The greatest previous audience in television history had been for the climactic game of the 1959 World Series, when an estimated 90,000,000 Americans had tuned in to watch the White Sox play the Dodgers. When, finally, figures were assembled for all four debates, the total audience for the television debates on the Presidency exceeded even this figure.
[...]
(page 293): There are many measures of the numbers of Americans who viewed the debates. The low measure is that of Dr. George Gallup, America’s most experienced pollster, who sets the figure of Americans who viewed one or all of the debates at 85,000,000. The two most extensive surveys of audience were those made by NBC and CBS, the two great television networks. Their independent measures of the audience are so close that they must be taken seriously: NBC has estimated from its surveys that 115,000,000 Americans viewed one or all of the great debates; CBS has estimated the number at 120,000,000. With or without issues, no larger assembly of human beings, their minds focused on one problem, has ever happened in history.
To the extent that those figures can be trusted, 65-70 million people watched each of these four events. More than 100 million people may have watched at least one of these sessions.
At that time, the nation's population stood at 180 million—just a bit more than half what it is today.
Inaccurate statements were surely made, but no one mentioned the eating of pets. There was no "cable news" at that time, and the odd behavior of today's New York Times still lay off in the distance.
Will Candidates Harris and Trump meet for another debate? In our view, the moderators did about as good a job as could be expected last night. But there's no possible way to cover the waterfront in a single 90-minute session.
Imaginably, additional televised discourse could favor Candidate Trump in some imaginable ways. For example, what explains President Biden's border policy over the past (almost) four years?
As Candidate Harris was able to explain last night, it turns out that Candidate Harris isn't President Biden! But how would Candidate Harris explain past border policy? Imaginably, a further discussion could provide Candidate Trump with the chance to make statements which aren't overtly crazy about these past four years.
Imaginably, that could happen. That said, also this:
Imaginably, Candidate Trump could be asked to explain additional crazy claims he routinely advances if further debates take place. His very strange statements are many in number. Imaginably, those very strange, ridiculous statements could, at last, be explored.
For example, this:
Mommy, where do tariffs come from? Also, who would be on the hook for paying the trillions of dollars involved in the expansive tariffs Candidate Trump is proposing and is describing in a delusional manner?
At present, very few voters could answer those questions—and as Kevin Drum explains in this latest post, the increasingly bizarre New York Times is very much as it again regarding tariffs.
There they go again, above the fold on the front page of this morning's print editions.
(For the record, Ana Swanson's previous front-page report about tariffs was one of the strangest front-page reports we have ever read. But so it goes at the New York Times as its product gets stranger and stranger and stranger.)
Sadly, the Times has been like this for decades, dating back to the way it conducted its "forever war" against Clinton and Clinton, but also against Candidate Gore. In large part, we decided to start this site, at the dawn of the Internet, in the face of that strange journalistic behavior.
Because we currently live in a world in which there's virtually no such thing as "information flow"—because what happens in the mainstream press corps very much stays in the mainstream press corps—we live in a world where this broadly strange journalistic behavior has only recently, and only slightly, begin to be challenged, explored.
For the record, Candidate Harris did emit a howler last night. On the Fox News Channel, that howler is suddenly being cited, by one and all, as "the fine people hoax."
Today, they'll be discussing what the candidate said. For the record, those of us in Blue America can be wed to our groaners too.
That said, last night's debate took place in the shadow of Judge Joe Brown, who recently called Candidate Harris "a piece of shit," but also a "humping hyena."
The debate took place in the shadow of those deranged remarks. Also, it took place in the shadow of the Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld, who has asked, on at least three separate occasions, whether Hunter Biden has started "f*cking" (or "banging") first lady Jill Biden, now that President Biden has dropped out of the race.
The Fox News Channel opens that garbage can every night of the week. A cancer has been growing on the society and that cancer has several names.
The Fox News Channel is one of its names. But the New York Times, in its vast silence concerning such conduct, is spreading that cancer too.
Howard K. Smith had been a Rhodes scholar. He had interviewed Hitler himself, then had gone to school as one of "the Murrow Boys."
Way back then, our deeply challenged American nation was somehow able to stage four (4) TV debates between a pair of well-informed, fully coherent presidential candidates. No one mentioned the eating of pets—and tens of millions of citizens watched.
None of this was perfect back then. But there was no such thing as the Fox News Channel, and no one did what Brian Kilmeade did last Saturday night:
No one opened the garbage can and spoke to a person like Judge Joe Brown. No one was forced to avert its gaze from such gruesome "journalistic" behavior, in the way the almost-as-gruesome New York Times now defiantly does.
Still coming: Kilmeade opens the can
"For the record, Candidate Harris did emit a howler last night. On the Fox News Channel, that howler is suddenly being cited, by one and all, as "the fine people hoax."
ReplyDeleteOnly the right wing considers this a hoax. The last time Somerby brought this up, defending Trump's statement, it was thoroughly discussed here in comments. There is no point in trying to rehabilitate Trump's remark when it subsequently became very clear that White Supremacist groups like the Proud Boys and 3-Percenters were his personal army on 1/6, with leader Tarrio and others tried and convicted of seditious conspiracy charges. Trump's ongoing association with White Supremacists such as Nick Fuentes cannot be denied.
Somerby is on the wrong side of this issue. We heard what Trump said, and more importantly, we know what he meant because it was made so obvious by those 1/6 subsequent actions and words ("stand back and stand by"). The debate responses made it obvious again to anyone paying attention. Trump could not defend his racist remarks and Somerby should not be tying himself to this issue, if he doesn't want his readers to consider him a racist-enabler of Trump's support for this kind of extremism.
What, exactly, did Harris say? This:
Delete"Let's remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side."
That was Harris's entire reference to Charlottesville. Where, exactly, is the "howler" in this statement?
There was indeed a marchgin mob in Charlottesville. They carried torches and chanted "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil." Donald Trump, then president at the time, noted that there were also counterprotesters in attendence. He did, in fact, say there were "fine people" on both sides.
Some folks have claimed that Trump said there were "fine people" among self-proclaimed Nazis. If you look at his complete remarks he specifically excluded Nazis and white supremacists from his designation of "fine people." He said, at the time, he was referring only to people who were in Charlottesville to protest against the removal of Confederate war memorials.
But did such people actually exist? Were there people in attendence whose only concern was for memorials to the Confederate war dead? That's uncertain. Presumably, if such folks existed, they weren't marching with torches and chanting antisemetic slogans.
Harris made was careful and made no error in her statement.
Where in Harris's statement is there any error?
Here's a transcript from the presser in which Trump made remarks about Charlottesville:
DeleteTRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.
REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.
TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
I managed to watch the first half hour. But so many false statements were coming from both candidates that I gave up. It may have been interesting as a contest, but I wasn’t learning anything.
ReplyDeleteSo don’t vote for either of them.
DeleteI didn't see a single instance where the moderators contradicted anything Harris said. I saw them fact-check Trump multiple times. I believe that was because his lies were egregious. If Harris got anything wrong it was trivial, but I didn't hear anything I would consider a lie from Harris.
DeleteYou have to be open minded to learn new things. For example, you might look up the supposed "lies" by Harris and see whether they are in fact true, as I suspect they are.
The first half hour was not the interesting part. You missed the part where Trump could not answer when Harris confronted him with his racism. You missed the part where Trump went to lala-land about cat-eating and wandered from topic to topic at random, in response to a question. I suppose if you say you didn't watch, you don't have to discuss those embarrassing moments. The worst was when Trump lost it and shouted at Harris that Biden hates her.
you're so full of shit, Dickhead.
DeleteAs a Republican and former Trump supporter, it was my responsibility to watch the entire debate, and it only served to reinforce my emerging sense that Trump is now deeply unfit to be president.
DeleteKamala came off fine, Trump tried to paint her as some lefty lunatic but she seemed quite reasonable and showed a lot of strength; she will make a good president, I will be voting for Harris.
@10:26 Maybe ABC moderator bias is why you didn't see a single instance where the moderators contradicted anything Harris said, but they fact-checked Trump multiple times. Bob points out the moderators allowed Harris to get away with repeating the fine people hoax/
DeleteThe fine people hoax is important because she's accusing Trump of praising Nazis and white supremacists, even though he actually actually said they should be condemned totally. This is not ambiguous or questionable, because one can watch the video and see that Trump specifically said that. And, recently Snopes finally pointed out that this is a hoax https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
BTW the level of media bias is illustrated by the fact that it took Snopes several years to acknowledge this hoax and many other "fact-checkers" have still not looked at it.
David, no one is talking about Harris lying this morning. No one sees the debate the way you did. Sorry, but Trump lost and you need to accept that fact before you can look at anything Harris said with any objectivity.
DeleteHarris accused Trump of telling the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by. Are you saying that is a hoax too? We saw their involvement in 1/6 and they were convicted of seditious conspiracy. Tarrio got 22 years in jail. How do you explain that?
Delete10:50 context matters: Trump only walked back his "fine people on both sides" after getting hit hard, therefore it is obvious his "condemnation" was disingenuous, Trump was merely trying to save his flabby, diapered ass.
DeleteTrump really did say that there were fine people on both sides, there is video of that, the only hoax is that Trump did not say it and does not engage in racist dog whistling.
DIC is a massively unserious troll or paid actor to have only watched 1/2 hour. He says. And let us see him enumerate the many false statements he heard from Harris during the first 1/2 hour. Otherwise he should routinely be disregarded a a liar. Step up to the plate with the many false statements of Harris during the first 1/2 hour or STFU , DIC.
DeleteTrump in fact did say that there were "fine people on both sides", there is video of that. Trump's "condemnation" only came after he was getting hit hard, therefore it was disingenuous as Trump was merely trying to save his flabby, diapered ass.
DeleteThe only hoax is being perpetrated by those who try to "nuance" the issue, falsely claiming that Trump did not in fact endorse the racists and anti-semites, which he clearly did, when he said, and it is on video, that there were "fine people on both sides".
Sorry Somerby if this triggers you, but people need to see how disingenuous your arguments are and how poor your thinking is.
Dave, it quickly became apparent She was going to kick his butt, and you couldn’t take it. Well, you’ve come to the right blog, Bob couldn’t really either.
DeleteMy favorite part was when Little Donny Chickenshit blamed the Democrats for not allowing him to repeal the ACA
DeleteFalse statements by Harris during the first half hour. I can remember three
Delete-- Trump would levy a big national sales tax
-- That Trump supports a national ban on abortion
-- That Trump supports project 2025
What the fuck do you think a tariff is, Dickhead?
DeleteDiC - I'll take on the first one. Harris did not say that Trump would levy a national sales tax. She said his tariffs were akin to a national sales tax. And she's right. In essence, a tariff is a sales tax imposed on imports.
DeleteTo be technical, the tax is imposed on the importer, rather than the retailer. But in neither case is it technically paid by the consumer. In reality, though, it is the consumer who pays.
DeleteDG - Maybe she eventually said that tariffs are akin to a sales tax, but she sure didn't say that the first time she made the comment. She bluntly said Trump will levy a national sales tax.
DeleteAnd, it's only an opinion that tariffs are equivalent to a sales tax.
I saw JD Vance interviewed after the debate and they asked him whether Trump would veto a national abortion ban. He wouldn't answer the question directly. He stuck to the idea that Trump wants the states to decide and claimed several times that Congress would not be able to pass such a ban so what was the point of speculating about vetoing it. So Vance is not sticking by his original statement that Trump would veto it, says he and Trump have not discussed the topic, and he repeated what Trump said during the debate.
DeleteThat leaves no reassurance that Trump would veto a total ban on abortion, should one be passed. It also leaves no assurance he wouldn't institute such a ban himself, in accordance with Christian nationalists.
I think Harris is technically right about Trump supporting a national abortion ban because Trump would not commit himself on the topic. This is too important to voters for Trump and Vance to be coy about.
David, a whole bunch of economists with Nobel prizes consider it equivalent to a sales tax. I take their opinion over yours, because they are economists.
DeleteShe could have said, "Trump says he will levy an across the board tariff, which many economists believe is equivalent to a national sales tax." But the public has given up on expecting honesty and clarity from our pols and our media. Instead we cheer when our side gets away with false or ambiguous statements.
DeleteDiC - "And, it's only an opinion that tariffs are equivalent to a sales tax."
DeleteThe critical point is that both taxes are imposed upstream from the consumer. Whether its on the importer or on the retailer, the effect is the same on the consumer - the one in reality who pays.
DiC - And, BTW, Trump's hare-brained idea that the tax is paid by foreign nations should, by itself, disqualify him from consideration as one who would preside over the national economy.
DeleteFuck you, Dickhead. She is calling it an effective sales tax because that way of explaining his asinine across the board tariffs protectionist scheme will resonate best with the public. Every economist worth their salt understands tariffs will be paid by the consumer in the country levying the tariffs.
DeleteIt makes it appear as if tariffs help the country imposing them but hurt other countries, as if when we reduce a tariff we give up something good and should get something in return in the form of a reduction in the tariffs imposed by other countries. In truth, the situation is quite different. Our tariffs hurt us as well as other countries. We would be benefited by dispensing with our tariffs even if other countries did not. We would of course be benefited even more if they reduce theirs but our benefiting does not require that they reduce tariffs. Self-interests coincide and do not conflict. Milton Friedman
No one is sure about whether Trump will support Project 2025, because, per Trump, he hasn't heard of it AND he doesn't agree with what's in it.
DeleteI think Harris was making a prediction that Trump will support Project 2025, because it's a roadmap for fascism, which Trump supports.
Dive in Cal writes: "The fine people hoax is important because she's accusing Trump of praising Nazis and white supremacists, even though he actually actually said they should be condemned totally."
DeleteYea right. The fraudster hates Nazis so much he invites them and associated antisemites to dinner.
@1:06 wrote, "David, a whole bunch of economists with Nobel prizes consider it equivalent to a sales tax"
DeleteIf you want to win an argument by appealing to authority, you ought to provide the authorities' actual statements and provide a link. Instead, let's use our brains.
An enormous difference between a sales tax and a tariff is that the tariff doesn't apply to things manufactured in the US. A sales tax would apply to everything sold. The economic impact of a tariff depends on how much of the market is domestically produced. E.g., a tariff on automobiles would have less effect, because so many autos sold in the US were manufactured here. Also, one ought not ignore the impact on job creation.
The real problem with tariffs isn't what Harris said -- the problem is that other countries may retaliate. Based on the debate, neither candidate seems to understand this basic point.
David you’ve supplied no evidence for your wrongheaded notions about tariffs, so by your own standard you are arguing in bad faith; it is what you are known for.
DeleteWe are not obliged to educate DIC here, but here is the opinion of his favorite economist.
Deletehttps://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-on-trumps-trade-war-and-trumps-view-on-trade-surpluses/
When soy producers were screwed over by the retaliation over tariffs on Chinese goods, Trump used taxpayer money to offset their losses. The idea that tariffs will help pay down the national debt is bizarre. Trump would like to sell that idea, cynically, to Rubes like DIC. If you believe that, he has a wall he wants to sell to Mexicans.
Delete10:23 said I'm wrongheaded. 10:51 said I need educating. As evidence, @10:51 linked to a quote from Thomas Sowell making the same point that I did.
DeleteThe real problem with tariffs isn't what Harris said...
DeleteEstimates I have seen for additional costs to the average American household are between $3000 to $6000. Dickhead says that is not the real problem. He's also the same Dickhead whining every day about inflation.
The Unite the Right rally, organized by a white supremacist and specifically targeted against blacks and the Jewish community did not contain fine people any more than innocent tourists were wandering inside the Capitol on Jan 6th. Read up on it, DIC, you are obviously either very misguided or a troll, or both. Antisemitism pervaded the event. Participants with semiautomatic weapons stood in line across from a synagogue with worshippers inside. You should be ashamed of yourself, not as a Jew, but as a human being, for trying to normalize Trump’s comments. We alll get it that he was trying to assuage the neo nazis and white supremacisists in his base. 11:39 has it right, his comments condemning them came only after his feet were held to the fire for suggesting that “fine people” march alongside those carrying tiki torches and signs stating “Jews will not replace us”. Harris was completely correct.
DeleteDG wrote, "BTW, Trump's hare-brained idea that the tax is paid by foreign nations should, by itself, disqualify him from consideration."
DeleteI agree. Unfortunately, a lot of Harris's ideas are hare-brained and should be disqualifying. The same is true of Congress and of the entire Federal appointive apparatus.
That's why I'm conservative. Much of what the government does is hare-brained. So, I think we're better of with a smaller government than a larger government.
"The debate took place in the shadow of those deranged remarks."
ReplyDeleteSomerby is a bit confused about where the sun shines and what is dark. Those deranged remarks exist in the shadow of Harris and Trump's campaign activities, not vice versa. Harris behaves normally for a candidate. Trump is deranged, but so is Brown when says ugly things about a woman who doing an excellent job in the public eye. It is obvious to even the right wing that Harris is performing well. Calling her ugly names is the impotent attempt to cut her down to size, but it isn't working. Brown is muttering in the shadows. Even so, most people will see this as the racist attack it is.
I continue to wonder why Somerby must rain on Harris's parade by quoting and quoting and quoting racist hate speech about the candidate he supposedly "supports."
"Still coming: Kilmeade opens the can"
ReplyDeleteIs this really the best use Somerby can find for his blog?
"whether Hunter Biden has started "f*cking" (or "banging") first lady Jill Biden"
ReplyDeleteDoes Somerby think we don't know that "f*cking" means "banging"?
Quote marks. Learn what they mean.
DeleteTalk about burying the lede.
ReplyDeleteTrump entered the debate with an undersized penis, and left with virtually no penis, an emasculated loser.
ReplyDeleteThis circumstance triggers Somerby, a White male who feels he has lost a power he had deluded himself into thinking was real and justified.
This is racist, sexist tripe.
DeleteAgree PP, Somerby routinely engages in racism and sexism, good on you for calling it out.
DeleteTrump lost this debate, and badly, so of course Somerby wants a mulligan.
ReplyDeleteDig deep. Say something even stupider. You can do it!
Delete10:52 I feel your cope, bless you.
DeleteThis statement is completely fair. The fact Bob can’t take that Harris is obviously going to beat Trump explains why he is mostly writing about a book about the 1960 Campaign. Anything to change the subject.
Delete"Owning the libs" was never a worthwhile endeavor, poor Somerby.
ReplyDeleteDiC - CPI-U 2.5% YoY. Ho-hum. Inflation is yesterday’s news.
ReplyDeleteMaybe good news. OTOH " Higher 'core' inflation in CPI could derail chance of larger Fed rate cut
Delete...a measure of prices that strips out volatile food and energy costs, known as the core rate, rose a somewhat stiffer 0.3%. That was a tick above forecast and matched the biggest increase in five months.
The Fed views the core rate as a better predictor of future inflation since food and energy prices can bounce up and down in the short run."
Also the investing public seems to be unhappy with this inflation report. There's a big drop of 650 points in the Dow Jones industrial average.
I think you’re missing the big picture, DiC, by straining to find a puffy cloud on a beautiful sunny day and saying, “It might rain!” Inflation is over. What Republicans like you should be saying is that the boom is the time for austerity. And you’d be right, and what we should be discussing, if we were rational, woukd be the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that would best bring down the deficit.
DeleteBut you can see by the debate last night that the subject is not even being broached. I think that’s a whiff by the Republicans.
The Fed rate cut on the 18th will be bad news for Trump and his followers rooting against America.
DeleteDIC the stock market is highly manipulated, it is down today in reaction to Trump's horrendous performance in the debate, and it will recover over the next few days. The stock market goes where the big players want it to go, and most of the big players are right wingers, but they also are driven to make money, which is more easily done off volatility.
DeletePrevious "disappointing" CPI reports did not have a similar reaction in the market, today is about Trump.
Trump kept saying that Biden had the highest inflation in our history. That is false. Inflation was 9.9% in 1941 after Pearl Harbor. It was 18.1% in 1946 due to budget cuts. It was 12.3% in 1974, the year of the Watergate scandal. It was 12.5% in 1980 when the recession began. It was 6.1% in 1990 at the beginning of another recession. It was 7% in 2021 due to covid, and 6.5% in 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It went down to 3.4% in 2023 with the Fed interest rate increase. Biden's year over year interest rate average is 5.7%.
DeleteThe highest average year over year rate for a president in our history is Jimmy Carter with 9.9%. Interest rates increased with the Russian invasion of Ukraine during Biden's term due to gas price increases. Gas prices are now low and the interest rate is 2.5%.
So, Trump is a history-illiterate big fat liar about Biden's interest rates, a false claim Trump made several times during the debate (without correction).
https://www.investopedia.com/inflation-rate-by-year-7253832
The lies Trump told during the debate are the same ones he tells at his rallies and in interviews, and they have become standard beliefs among his supporters. If the moderators were to emphasize their fact-checking corrections, perhaps even with a screen message scrolling under Trump's face, we might be able to correct the misinformation that is so prevalent on the right. Trump's lies about crime never got corrected, although the moderator did take issue with what he said. People need solid info in order to make sound decisions about who to vote for. David's claim that Harris also lied is ridiculous and constitutes disinformation in itself. I am sure she said things that contradict Republican beliefs, but that doesn't make her wrong.
Delete650 points is no longer a "big" drop.
DeleteTry and keep up.
As I predicted earlier, the market wound up over 100 points up, so DiC continues his I Am A Dope tour.
Delete"Way back then, our deeply challenged American nation was somehow able to stage four (4) TV debates between a pair of well-informed, fully coherent presidential candidates. No one mentioned the eating of pets—and tens of millions of citizens watched."
ReplyDeleteI hate to say it but the reason why discourse seemed so much better in the olden days was perhaps that the TV sets belong to the elites. It cost money to buy one and perhaps the cretins who refer to human beings as pieces of shit didn't have the cash to buy one until the price went down. Even today, the elitist networks such as C-SPAN and PBS do not call people pieces of shit, nor does anyone except Fox News. Given the lower education levels and incomes of Fox viewers (and the right wing and red states in general), perhaps this is a phenomenon of lower class people displaying an in-your-face attitude toward those who they cannot aspire to be, via poo-flinging. Somerby tries very hard to generalize this behavior to all of our current media, but really, it is found only in niches where men flaunt their foul-mouthed hatred while others ignore them (all except Somerby, that is).
We have Taylor Swift's endorsement now and those Swifties will not look twice at men who think "piece of shit" is a phrase suitable for describing any woman, especially not the next president of the USA. Guys like Gutfeld and Brown and Somerby can vent their spleen on Fox but we are not going back to the bad old days when Cronkite was on TV without any female representation at all, men were his main audience, and women always said they voted the way their husbands told them to. That's what this is transparently about -- backlash. Even when Somerby spends days focused on telling us how male the media used to be. Those days are gone. Now we have to deal with the petulant whining of Gutfeld and Somerby, until they get used to the new status quo, in which women have rights and their votes swing elections.
All Nate Silver had to do to produce a model showing Trump as the predicted winner by a large margin was to under-sample women voters. Men on the right are doing that routinely and it is why they are losing.
Does anyone think it is an accident that we are being told now that migrants eat cats, after Vance's remarks about childless cat ladies? Cats are hardly symbolic of the left, but Taylor Swift signed her endorsement of Harris "Childless Cat Lady" and those pussy hats that greeted Trump's inauguration were a protest of his treatment of women. Women are owning those cats, and will not be intimidated by veiled threats or stupid sexual references to vicious migrants eating them. And yes, this is how heavy-handed and vulgar the right wing is. Somerby himself has shown that with his Gutfeld/Brown obsession.
The difference between the losers in life who flew jet airplanes into buildings in NYC and D.C, and the losers in life who tried to overthrow the United States Capitol on 1/6/21, is a difference in degree, not kind.
DeleteIt is refreshing to see that even being a billionaire cannot buy Trump respect when he makes a huge fool of himself on TV.
ReplyDeleteTwo important aspects of the debate: the issue of Trump’s behavior on Jan 6 and his ghastly leadership on health care were both raised. It is a huge indictment of our press that it took this long to get to these these to matters. Obscene, really
ReplyDeleteSomerby used to care about education. He hasn't talked at all about the right's plan to abolish the Department of Education.
ReplyDeleteAt least he got off Hunter Biden.
Delete"But the New York Times, in its vast silence concerning such conduct, is spreading that cancer too."
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times is not spreading Fox cancer via its silence concerning Gutfeld etc. It is spreading its own cancer by supporting Trump, as it did yesterday, with 2 articles about Harris compared to 12 about Trump. Why doesn't Somerby ask why the NY Times is boosting Trump? Why doesn't Somerby examine the hypocrisy of asking Harris for more detail about her plans but denying her the space to discuss them? There is a history between Sulzberger and Biden in which Biden has refused to give access to the NY Times and the paper took revenge on Biden and Harris in their obvious campaign against Biden's candidacy. This kind of advocacy and interference in our elections by a major newspaper should be a scandal, but Somerby is more concerned about their silence over Gutfeld. He needs to look at the bigger picture.
This morning, when Harris's victory over Trump in the debate is being discussed everywhere, Somerby has nothing to say about her triumph, her highly effective negation of his gish gallop, his ability to address Trump's lying. And she did give clear, effective statements about her policies and plans. Similarly, the NY Times barely covered her debate victory at all.
Somerby is correct to worry about the NY Times, but his reasons are bizarre. Somerby is wrong to think that morons like Gutfeld and Brown have any influence beyond the right wing sewer. Comparing them to Cronkite is ludicrous. There are writers with the stature of Cronkite online, some excellent podcasts on politics. Rachel Maddow has done an excellent job and received nothing but harrassment and scorn from Somerby. That's why his recent complaints about lack of substance from the media are specious, in line with Republican talking points about Harris lacking details in her policy statements, and not serious about holding Trump to the same standard, even though Somerby calls for that himself. He doesn't do it himself.
Harris provided more facts about Trump's failures during his administration than Somerby has ever noted here. Somerby has sounded one note, about Trump's mental illness, when he could have pointed out how bad a president Trump was, taken at face value. Harris showed Somerby how to do that. Somerby should become a media critic again by focusing on what the media is saying on the issues, instead of critiquing Gutfeld's performance as a clown.