SILOS RED AND BLUE: Have you ever seen Donald Trump angry?

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2025

That's what the stool pigeon asked: This morning, the headlines at The Atlantic seem to be sounding a type of warning:

George Packer
America Needs Patriotism
The experiment only works if people believe in it.
David Brooks
Why Aren’t Americans Doing More to Resist Trump?

Anne Applebaum
How America Went From Inspiring Democracy to Enabling Autocracy Around the World

"America needs patriotism," George Packer has now said. We strongly agree with that sentiment. but let's put that a slightly different way:

This floundering, flailing, failing nation needs to get rid of its silos. 

It's time for the people within them to go. Today, let's start to ask ourselves who those people are.

A few weeks ago, we watched a new offering from Nova's 52nd season on PBS. At the program's official site, the program carries this thumbnail:

Human: Neanderthal Encounters
Discover how Homo sapiens outlasted Neanderthals—and how they helped make us who we are today.

Ella Al-Shamahi, a British paleoanthropologist (and stand-up comedian?) was the voice of the program, which seems to be part of a BBC series. This particular presentation largely seemed to be tracing the story told in Yuval Noah Harari's mammoth 2011 best-seller, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, but then again what do we know?

We Homo sapiens today! We outlasted the Neanderthals—and several other groups. After watching the program, we decided to see what the leading authority has to say about our kind. 

When we googled "Homo sapiens," we found the Wikipedia entry under a simpler designation. The first part of what the entry can be seen below, somewhat comically in our view.

At Wikipedia, "Homo sapiens" defaults to a simpler term—"Human." At that point, the gushing starts:

Human

Humans, scientifically known as Homo sapiens, are primates that belong to the biological family of great apes and are characterized by hairlessness, bipedality, and high intelligence. Humans have large brains compared to body size, enabling more advanced cognitive skills that facilitate successful adaptation to varied environments, development of sophisticated tools, and formation of complex social structures and civilizations.

Humans are highly social, with individual humans tending to belong to a multi-layered network of distinct social groupsfrom families and peer groups to corporations and political states. As such, social interactions between humans have established a wide variety of values, social norms, languages, and traditions (collectively termed institutions), each of which bolsters human society. Humans are also highly curious: the desire to understand and influence phenomena has motivated humanity's development of science, technology, philosophy, mythology, religion, and other frameworks of knowledge; humans also study themselves through such domains as anthropology, social science, history, psychology, and medicine. As of 2025, there are estimated to be more than 8 billion living humans.

We humans are sounding pretty good—and there are more than 8 billion of us!  We're characterized by our high intelligence, but also by the large brains (compared to body size) which enable more advanced cognitive skills. 

We tend to form complex social structures and civilizations. Each of the institutions we form bolsters human society.

We're highly curious, the authority says. Based upon context, we assume that Wikipedia means that in a good way.

A bit later, the portrait goes on to say this:

Although the term "humans" technically equates with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member. All other members of the genus Homo, which are now extinct, are known as archaic humans, and the term "modern human" is used to distinguish Homo sapiens from archaic humans. Anatomically modern humans emerged at least 300,000 years ago in Africa, evolving from Homo heidelbergensis or a similar species. Migrating out of Africa, they gradually replaced and interbred with local populations of archaic humans...

Humans are sexually dimorphic: generally, males have greater body strength and females have a higher body fat percentage. At puberty, humans develop secondary sex characteristics. Females are capable of pregnancy, usually between puberty, at around 12 years old, and menopause, around the age of 50. Childbirth is dangerous, with a high risk of complications and death. Often, both the mother and the father provide care for their children, who are helpless at birth.

Helpless at birth, and perhaps after that, as described in the Neil Young song, or as seen in our "national discourse."

We're forced to say that Wikipedia's overview strikes us as an example of unintentional humor. Perhaps because we watch so much of our flailing nation's "cable news" fare, it seemed to us that we the humans may not be quite as impressive as that overview might suggest.

Man [sic] is the rational animal, Aristotle is widely said to have said. Given what that statement is frequently taken to mean, that pronouncement has always struck us as perhaps a bit wayward too. 

Question:

To what extent can the modern American discourse be characterized as a highly intelligent institution which bolsters human society? 

We ask because we saw JD Vance flounder and flail in response to all questions on this weekend's Sunday shows, but also because we saw a human ask the crazy highlighted question at 10:06 Eastern last night. Here's what the human asked:

Now let me ask you a question. Have you ever seen Trump show an ounce of anger about anything? And not just since he became a politician—I mean ever!  Hell, even when he got shot, he didn't give the guy the finger...

But boy, would Joe Biden get angry, just about over anything, because Joe Biden came from the lethargic, bureaucratic world of the acceptable...

And now what Trump has done, through his persistent optimism, is provide a sharp contrast between the attention-seeking ego and those who wish to improve the lives around them—the golden age, if you will. It's the difference between hopeful action and selfish anger.

Yes, he actually said that! On one of the nation's most-watched primetime "cable news" shows, the persistently furious host was saying that no one has ever seen President Trump show even an ounce of anger about anything. Such is the product of the very big brains written about under "Human."

During the segment in question on this Fox News Channel "cable news" program, the big-brained humans were complaining, once again, about the fact that the president's HISTORIC PEACE DEAL—a peace deal which doesn't yet exist—hadn't been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize—a prize for which the peace deal wasn't eligible, given the fact that nominations closed early in the year.

A bit later in the same segment, the big-brained host explained why "even Hillary Clinton" had complimented President Trump on the current ceasefire / release of the last twenty hostages. It wasn't because she was behaving correctly! The big-brained host now said this:

My cynicism says she's getting something out of this Middle East deal. Like, she's a shark for money, so there's got to be something where her and Bill are seeing some cash come out of Qatar or something. Don't you think? What would make her like Trump? Some money.

The big-brained idolator of President Trump was calling Clinton "a shark for money!" None of the stooges arrayed around him mentioned the $400 million jet the president has already scored from Qatar, with an estimated billion dollars' worth of refurbishing needed, on the public dime, before it can be fully his.

(Those numbers are both reported estimates.)

Given the fact that President Trump—no one has ever seen him angry—has already scored that gigantic gift from the Qataris, this whole spectacle was human dumbness as stupid as dumbness can get.

As always, the CEO had sent in the clowns. This was last night's carload:

Gutfeld!: Monday, October 13, 2025
Jamie Lissow: comedian
Kat Timpf: comedian
Greg Gutfeld: host
Eric Trump: son of President Trump
Tom Shillue: impressionist

Three comedians and the president's son had been sent in to agree with the manifest lunacy churned by the big-brained host. The president's son has been making the rounds, angrily publicizing a new book in which he angrily denounces the various legal actions brought against himself and his father in recent years.

(In some if those instances, we'd say he may well have a point. But this son was almost as angry as Mark Levin was when he guested on Levin's Sunday night Fox News Channel program.)

In a later segment of last night's show, producers presented only one part of Vance's meltdown with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. They presented only Vance's final statement, where he scolded Stephanopoulos for repeatedly asking a question he kept refusing to answer. 

It fell to Shillue to tell Fox viewers that Vance had answered every question Stephanopoulos asked. This is the big-brained conduct which transpires inside Silo Red—inside the corporate silo which messages Red America.

Our two silos, Red and Blue, have come to us courtesy of the democratization of media and thanks to the practice of segregation by viewpoint. In one way, the Wikipedia portrait gets it almost half right:

The stooges who sat on the Red American set—the ones who have never seen Donald Trump angry—have in fact been able to develop a distinct social group. In the process, they've been able a new set of values, social norms, languages, and traditions (collectively termed institutions).

That said, it's hard to see how this tribal idiocy can be said to "bolster human society." And as this lunacy is offered each night, Silo Blue—the silo servicing Blue America—is peopled by a group of humans who, among their other failings, insist on looking away from the lunatic behavior on display in Silo Red.

In today's New York Times, Tom Edsall offers his long weekly post, this time about a related problem:

The Rise of Social Media and the Fall of Western Democracy

As goes The Atlantic, so goes Tom Edsall. That's the headline on his long piece. Long story short—every kind of lunacy is now active in the world thanks to the way social media has created a global supply of popular nutcase pseudo-analysts.

"Is it even possible to weigh the costs of social media against its benefits?" Edsall asks. Finally, someone at the New York Times is calling attention to the madness that's currently reshaping the world, even as higher-profile performers at the Times refuse to report or discuss the varieties of cognitive breakdown which are currently reinventing the known human world.

Silo Blue is faulty enough. Silo Red represents an open assault on the human experiment.

At Silo Red, they've never seen it! They've never seen the sitting president show an ounce of anger! 

Tomorrow, who are the humans in Silo Red? And how did their big brains get there?

Tomorrow: McEnany falls in line, with the nutcase Gutfeld to follow


91 comments:



  1. "Silo Blue is faulty enough."

    Your "Silo Blue" is so dumb, it was obviously constructed by shape-shifting alien Reptiloids.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The plural of Homo sapiens is Homines sapientes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We're highly curious, the authority says. Based upon context, we assume that Wikipedia means that in a good way." lol

      Delete
  3. Bob saw JD Vance flounder and flail in response to all questions on this weekend's Sunday shows. I saw Vance handle himself brilliantly on those shows, often dealing with hostile questioning. That difference in perception illustrates the silo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt Somerby thinks of silos as different opinions. He blames the media for suppressing info. Perhaps he thinks that creates the differing opinions, but I think people self-select based on congruence with their own views. Silos don’t create red or blue, they appeal to red or blue. The affinity for red vs blue is part of a person’s identity and personality, thus fixed.

      Delete
    2. David, can you answer the question, "Did Tom "bags of cash" Homan keep the $50 grand the FBI filmed him taking?

      Delete
    3. Yesterday bigmouth Dickhead accused unidentified FBI agents of setting up Homan in a "politicized sting operation". No explanation, no evidence, just pure deplorable slander. Today the Dickhead applauds JD "eyeliner" Vance for lying all over the Sunday morning interview programs.

      It fell to Shillue to tell Fox viewers that Vance had answered every question Stephanopoulos asked. This is the big-brained conduct which transpires inside Silo Red—inside the corporate silo which messages Red America.

      Dickhead in Cal calls Vance refusing to answer serious questions of corruption in his administration "brilliant". Any questions?

      Delete
    4. Bags of Bullshit Vance on Bags of Cash Homan"

      Stephanopoulos asked again if Homan had accepted or rejected the $50,000.

      “George, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Did he accept $50,000 for what?” Vance said.

      “He was recorded on an audiotape in September of 2024, an FBI surveillance tape, accepting $50,000 in cash. Did he keep that money?” Stephanopoulos said.

      “Accepting $50,000 for doing what, George?” Vance tossed back. “I am not even sure I understand the question. Is it illegal to take a payment for doing services? The FBI has not prosecuted him. I have never seen any evidence that he’s engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Nobody has accused Tom of violating a crime, even the far-left media like yourself.”


      So Vance couldn't understand the fairly-easy-to-understand question of whether Homan accepted $50,000 in a cash payment. Perhaps Homan accepts so many bags of cash it's hard to keep them all distinct in one's mind.

      Beyond his general bewilderment, Vance's clinching argument is that the corrupt Trump FBI has not prosecuted the corrupt head of ICE. So there you go.

      Then there's the verbal blunder of 'violating a crime'.

      And of course only a master debater would throw in 'far-left media' at the end, to throw pursuers completely off the scent.

      Simply brilliant.

      Delete

    5. "Then there's the verbal blunder of 'violating a crime'."

      Oh, whoa, a verbal blunder! Your Democrat bosses are totally desperate, aren't they?

      Delete
    6. Playing stupid is one of three legs of the Conservative stool. The other two are bigotry and child rape.

      Delete
  4. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are BOTH sharks for money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This shark for money smear against Hillary is new. If they had called her that while she was running for president, she might have attracted more right wing votes.

      Delete
    2. Women aren't supposed to want to be paid for this work, much less expect equal pay, much less be good at business.

      Delete
    3. Every single Republican accusation is a confession. Every single one.

      Delete
  5. Somerby is telling lies today and pretending it is rhetoric. Plenty of people have seen Trump angry. Hope Hicks described having to dodge hamburger plates thrown at the wall when Trump was in a rage. Some of us didn't witness but only read about the time Trump raped Ivana in a fit of rage. He screams at anyone nearby when he is angry. Of course he gets angry and of course people have witnessed it.

    Now that he is a pitiful old man, Trump is mostly peevish and whining in public, as if that showed strength rather than childishness. Somerby has adopted that same tone of peevishness (why are there peas in my mashed potatoes) complaint directed against Blue America (who he won't call Democrats for some reason).

    Here are some other things Trump does. He falls asleep at public events, sometimes standing up, often during key moments. He forgets when it is his turn to speak at an important public event. He pretends his teleprompter is broken because he cannot read off it any longer. He repeats the same apocryphal stories over and over, relevant or not (mostly irrelevant). He makes up words not just numbers, inflating them beyond what is possible. He comments lewdly about the appearances of his female staff and other women at his events, and his people call that "joking." Yesterday he joked about firing his press secretary, Leavitt, then said he couldn't because "those lips" that move like machine gun fire, asking others if they agreed with his appraisal of her. And he has said that before on other occasions. He moons over women he is only just meeting, calling them "so beautiful" like any leering grandpa who has lost his inhibitions. It is embarrassing.

    Somerby pretends to be an anthropologist by quoting Wikipedia. Then he talks about silos, a term that refers to how information is handled within organizations (businesses). Somerby thinks the word refers to segregation of info across red and blue "tribes". If people get out of silos (as Somerby suggests) they will have no info at all. Is that desirable?

    Why doesn't Somerby talk about truth vs fiction? Because he, like most conservatives, cannot tell the difference. All we learn from today's essay is that Somerby, like Trump, returns when blithering to his oldies but goodies, without considering his audience and whether the terms he uses will mean anything at all to readers. He doesn't bother to tie up loose ends or explain his obscure meanings and he says nothing worth reading at all, beyond "kumbaya, can't we all just get along?" And then he promises more of the same tomorrow.

    Somerby's essays would be sad if we weren't living through a political time when more is demanded of all of us, as Somerby himself notes without follow through of any kind about what we blues (and others who want democracy to function) should be doing.

    At least he didn't end with a quote from one of his favorite conservative poets or Bob Dylan.

    Not only is Trump always angry, but Somerby claims Gutfeld is an angry man, when he is merely performing his professional routine on behalf of the right wing. Gutfeld doesn't seem to display any genuine emotion, but he fools Somerby, who gives him a bye because he is a poor child who must be pitied because anger his him in its grip. The same excuses Somerby offers for Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @12:11 evidently doesn't watch Trump's pressers. @12:11 reminds me of how people who never listened to Rush Limbaugh thought he was always angry. In fact, one reason why Trump and Limbaugh were successful media folks was their joyousness and humor. Whether or not that was faked, it was the image they presented

      Delete
    2. I watch all of Trump's pressers, and he is always visibly angry, seething with hate, and spewing vitriol.

      Trump does try to use humor, but it is of the sneering-smug-snarky variety, it is all insult humor that falls flat except for those that get an emotional satisfaction out of punching down.

      JD Vance was right on the money when he called Trump "America's Hitler".

      Delete
    3. Al Franken, who really is both clever and funny used to do a bit where he could turn to Limbaugh's show at any random point and demonstrate what a fucking despicable racist liar he was. I am sure Dickhead in Cal just loved the racist lying Limbaugh vomited out to the world every day.

      Delete
    4. I thought it was really funny when Limbaugh, during the time his show was filmed and syndicated during the Clinton presidency, announced he was going to show a photo of the White House dog, and the camera cut to a picture of Chelsea Clinton.

      Delete
    5. It was also truly hilarious when Limbaugh contorted his face, weaved about in his chair, and waved his arms wildly, mocking Michael J Fox’s Parkinson’s symptoms.

      Delete

    6. Sounds like you were watching Rush Limbaugh all the time, Democrat. Well, yes, in fact all Democrats had.

      Delete
    7. After years of narcotic addiction, the only thing that could make Limbaugh’s limp dick happy was a round trip ticket to the Dominican Republic and a teenager to rent when he got there.

      Delete
    8. Envy is not a good feeling, Democrat.

      Delete
    9. David in Cal,
      Who do you think you're fooling (i.e. we aren't all gullible, mouth-breathing, Right-wing losers)?
      No one thought Rush Limbaugh was angry. They thought he was a lying bigot, addicted to drugs, who was a superstar to assholes just like him.
      As you knew very well.

      Delete
    10. Give Limbaugh a break. He hasn't raped a pre-teen or made a bad faith argument in over four and a half years.

      Delete
  6. Idk, Trump showed real strength when he stole Biden's ceasefire deal with Israel, showed real strength by telling Netanyahu to delay the deal until after the election.

    And idk, Trump has shown real strength by tanking our economy and getting involved in violent conflicts around the world.

    C'mon Bob, get a clue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bibi told Don he needed more time to completely destroy all of Gaza. Now that everything is rubble, time to regroup before they displace the 2 million residents as refugees further disrupting Democracy in Europe. And transform Gaza into a resort stuffing money in the Don's greasy as fuck pockets. Peace & Freedom!

      Delete
  7. David Brooks ask, "Why Aren’t Americans Doing More to Resist Trump?" The answer is that Trump is not a dictator, even though his enemies like to glorify themselves by pretending that he is. If Trump were a real dictator, Brooks's article would not have been published and Brooks would be in Alcatraz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give the convicted felon time you Nazi bitch. His people are ahead of schedule according to Project 2025, already completed about 50% of their fascist agenda. They will be coming for old none practicing Jews soon enough.

      Delete
    2. Agreed David, everything is peachy keen:

      "“Eight months into his second term,” they reported, “Trump has taken a wrecking ball to those beliefs. ‘What’s happening is anathema to everything we’ve ever stood for in the Department of Justice,’ said another former official who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump’s first term… The responses captured almost universal fear and anguish over the transformation of the Justice Department into a tool of the White House.”

      The story noted that, this time, many more refused to speak on the record because they feared retribution from the White House, which is chilling in itself, if unsurprising. For every political elite who has the guts to speak out right now, there are five more who have been cowed into silence.

      Remember, this group includes half Republicans, quite a few of whom worked for Trump in the first term. And yet “all but one of the respondents rated Trump’s second term as a greater or much greater threat to the rule of law than his first term. They consistently characterized the president’s abuses of power — wielding the law to justify his wishes — as being far worse than they imagined before his re-election.”"

      His first term, that ended in an autogolpe. Fuck you David.

      Delete
    3. "Trump is not a dictator"

      Not yet but he's tryin'.

      Delete

    4. Hopefully, he'll succeed. Of all the recent dictators -- Barak Hussain, Dementia Joe -- he's the best one.

      Delete
    5. David in Cal,
      Why do you make TDH readers explain things to you that you already know?

      Delete
    6. 3:01,
      We don't need dictators. We need a person who will make this country a better place to live.
      A Tyler Robinson type.

      Delete
  8. Trump is deeply unpopular, the most unpopular president in modern history, because he is governing as a wannabe authoritarian dictator. (Trump is even way underwater on immigration, talk about screwing the pooch!)

    America has somewhat robust systems and institutions, so Trump's dictator ambitions are muted to some degree.

    Trump has successfully muzzled a significant portion of the press, businesses, universities, pop culture, etc, with our saving grace being largely dependent on the democratization of media. (heck even Joe Rogan has now turned against Trump)

    To be fair, I'm in CA so most of what Trump is doing will not impact me much, most of those that will feel the negative impact of Trump trying to destroy our country will, ironically, be those that voted for him. Yes, this makes for a good laugh, but those are also human beings, let's try to have some pity for those poor lost souls that are in the Trump cult.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do find it odd that a shitheel like David in Cal is routing for the Felon to screw over his state with over 4 million Republicans. Dumb asses.

      Delete
    2. It is interesting that since 2020 a significant amount of Republicans have left CA, and yet our gdp has gone up!

      Turns out losing dead weight is a good thing.

      CA to Republicans: good riddance, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

      This just reaffirms that Republicans are generally parasitic people that get very angry when they have to face personal responsibility for the messes they make. Less Republicans=better society.

      As far as DiC goes, he is a total phony, he does not live in CA, everything he claims is made up and fake.

      Delete
    3. I am old enough to remember when those maggot morons were worried about the price of groceries! I didn't realize that what they really wanted was our very own nazi brownshirts terrorizing the brown people.

      Delete
    4. @1:18 —- in fact CA real GDP barely inching up.
      https://www.statista.com/statistics/187834/gdp-of-the-us-federal-state-of-california-since-1997/?srsltid=AfmBOoq5714MK9rQopo2O68WR39AilHCOmrupet9Y7fP7-3o9AQ6u8yx

      Delete
    5. David, can you answer the question, "Did Tom "bags of cash" Homan keep the $50 grand the FBI filmed him taking?

      Delete

    6. Do you have the video you're talking about, Democrat? Link it here, Democrat.

      Delete
    7. Trump DOJ hasn't released the video, trumptard. But Bags of Cash Homan, Bondi and Vance have all been asked whether Bags of Cash in fact had accepted bags of cash, and none of them denied it.

      See if you can put 2 and 2 together, trumptard (hint: whole number between 3 and 5).

      Delete

    8. California is the crappiest state. Every one of its economic characteristic is down in the toilet, when adjusted by prices.

      Decent weather, though. But everything else is fucked up.

      Delete

    9. @2:55: yawn. Produce the video, Democrat.

      Delete
    10. NEW YORK — Leaders of Young Republican groups throughout the country worried what would happen if their Telegram chat ever got leaked, but they kept typing anyway.

      They referred to Black people as monkeys and “the watermelon people” and mused about putting their political opponents in gas chambers. They talked about raping their enemies and driving them to suicide and lauded Republicans who they believed support slavery.


      I can't understand why liberals refer to these people as racists and bigots.

      Just for Dickhead in Cal:

      you're giving nationals to much credit and expecting the Jew to be honest 😆



      Delete

    11. Democrat fantasies or Democrat projections?

      Projections, most likely.

      Delete
    12. CA can mean California, but it can also mean Canada.

      Delete
    13. 2:57 (trumptard),

      There is no video. It's an audio recording. You're displaying your usual command of the subject.

      Delete

    14. Oh. The "tape" that you've never watched and don't have is actually the audio?

      And how are you supposed to know who took what from an audio tape? You seem even dumber than a typical Democrat.

      Delete

    15. And why didn't Demented Leader's FBI make a video? DEI hires didn't manage to figure it out?

      Delete
    16. On ABC’s This Week, Stephanopoulos concluded an interview with the vice president by asking about reports from ProPublica and other news outlets indicating that FBI officials are in possession of a video in which Homan is seen accepting a $50,000 bribe from an FBI agent while offering to connect interested parties with lucrative federal contracts related to immigration enforcement.

      It is a video, trumptard.

      Delete
    17. Take it up with the other Democrat who says "There is no video", Democrat.

      Delete
    18. 2:00
      You aren't special, snowflake.
      No one can explain the difference between Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and fine people on the Right.

      Delete
    19. 3:55, blow me, trumptard

      Delete
    20. Thanks but no thanks, Democrat. Keep jerking off, Democrat, like you always do.

      Delete
    21. It's funny, because the Republican Party nominated a child rapist to be President of the United States three times in a row.

      Delete
    22. 3:35,

      you're trying with what I can only think of as trumptardian cunning to make the issue be about whether a tape exists or not, as opposed to the fundamental question of whether Bags of Cash Homan was offered and took $50 thousand in a bagful of cash.

      No one has denied that this transfer happened.

      Therefore (and I know that's a scary word for you), Tom (Bags of Cash) Homan took a big bag of cash.

      Delete
    23. Hector - I took a lot of cash from my clients. That doesn't make me guilty of taking a bribe. The question is, did Homan agree to do anything illegal in exchange for the cash? Simply asking if he took cash is a trick question.

      The Biden Administration had a tape of the encounter. If there was something off color, I think the Dems would have used it during the election. In fact, that was probably the purpose of setting Homan up. This was probably a sting that didn't work.

      Delete
    24. "Simply asking if he took cash is a trick question."

      Is that because of how suspicious-looking it is for Tom (Bags of Cash) Homan to accept a $50,000 cash payment?

      It's true Homan didn't commit a crime by accepting the cash, which is why the FBI didn't prosecute him. They were waiting to see if he would do something for his bags of cash once he got back into government.

      That's when the crime would likely have occurred and then been prosecuted.

      But Kash Patel closed the case because the Trump administration is corrupt.

      And Homan, most likely, has kept the $50,000 because if there's no investigation the bribe can proceed.

      Thank you President Trump.

      Delete
    25. Question for you, Hector: Why did the FBI set Homan up with a fake bribe offer?

      Delete
    26. Questions for you, David. Did Homan take the $50,000? Did he keep it? Did he pay tax on it? Did he perform a service in exchange for it?

      Simple questions, easy to answer.

      Delete
    27. He has answered this at least 10 times here in threads you are part of. Why don't you remember what he said last time about this?

      Delete
    28. Here's how Google explains it:

      "the FBI began investigating Tom Homan, following a tip from a subject in an unrelated investigation in Texas. The source claimed Homan was soliciting payments in exchange for promises of future government contracts related to border security if Trump were to be re-elected."

      Delete
    29. Jesus f-ing Christ. You didn’t know the facts of the case but decided to go with the narrative that the FBI targeted and set Homan up? Is that really what happened? So you end up thanking Hector for supplying you with information anyone with a scintilla of interest in the truth would have looked up on their own? Is that really what happened? Fucking dishonest troll.

      Delete
    30. Here’s a little homework for you. Go look up the trajectory of Homan’s net worth and get back to us with your version of a logical explanation so that we can all have a good laugh.

      Delete

    31. Yawn. Get the video, Democrat.

      The desperation of your demented squealing about some non-existing video is super-comical.

      Delete
  9. Somerby leans into Yuval Noah Harari, because Somerby can not be bothered to actually learn anything.

    Yuval Noah Harari is an Israeli historian that wrote a pop science book about anthropology, a field with which he has no expertise. And he got it badly wrong, unsurprisingly.

    Indeed, Harari's books have been roundly criticized and debunked by actual scientists.

    Harari is essentially Israel's version of Ezra Klein, a neoliberal know-nothing except when it comes to grifting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The new Obama Presidential Center is unadulterated dog shit. What is wrong with liberals?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't rape children.

      Delete
    2. Nice try.
      If the Obama Presidential Center were really unadulterated dog shit, Trump would have put it on the Supreme Court.

      Delete
    3. The new Trump obsession with paving over the Rose Garden is unadulterated dog shit. What is wrong with Magats?

      Delete
    4. The new Trump obsession with a White House ballroom is unadulterated dog shit. What is wrong with Magats?

      Delete
    5. The new Trump obsession with tacky gold bling on the Oval Office walls is unadulterated dog shit. What is wrong with Magats?

      Delete
    6. Why did the FBI set up Homan? Because everyone around the Trump's are greasy fucks like them.

      Delete
    7. 10:46 What, you don’t like spray painted trim from Home Depot?

      Delete
  11. Why does Bob skip over the Somerby silo?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Somerby consistently fails to note that there is an entity (capitalism) that owns both the blue and the red silo discourse (mass media) and is very happy with the result. Profits have never been higher, and runaway inequality is aided and abetted by both capitalist parties. The corporations and the wealthy are extremely happy with these results of the system of mass-media discourse they have created. Under these conditions, any change in the quality of media discourse, which Somerby rightly complains about, is a bit far-fetched.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Latest Trump Approval poll:
    Republican Voters: 95%
    People not sexually attracted to children: 0%

    ReplyDelete
  14. Charlie Kirk was shot death by a kid from a Republican family, during the Trump Presidency.
    Thank you, Mr. President.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Given what that statement is frequently taken to mean, that pronouncement has always struck us as perhaps a bit wayward too. "

    This refers to the statement that man is the rational animal, supposedly said by Aristotle.

    Note the weasel wording throughout this innocuous statement. First Somerby says "frequently taken to mean" as if he couldn't parse the meaning himself but had to refer to consensus -- what a majority of others think the statement means. He will not risk his own interpretation but needs those others to hide behind.

    Then he says "struck us as" and which implies that the meaning hits him like a hail stone, not that he extracts the meaning himself via his own thought processes. As in: I was walking down the street when a humongous thought hit me right in the back, nearly pushing me off my feet. It is passive to be struck by thoughts instead of originating them yourself using your own mind.

    The he says "perhaps a bit wayward too". The perhaps introduces uncertainty into the statement's accuracy. So does "a bit" which implies the degree of inaccuracy may be small (then again, it could be large, since he qualifies that bit of waywardness with the word "perhaps". Maybe it is and maybe it isn't some amount of inaccurate. And what the heck does wayward mean when applied to statements. Wayward usually means wandering off some path, but what is the path that Aristotle is referring to when he says humans are rational? Is he wrong or is he diverging from accepted views of others, or is he perhaps accurate about the rationality but wrong about the animal nature of man [sic]?

    Why is Somerby so frightened to express a view that he must hang all of these qualifiers and softeners and escape words and pseudo-probabilistic adjectives onto the attribution of a quote to an author, such as Aristotle? How much is "a bit wayward" anyway? And which parts are the wrong ones -- it is as if Somerby doesn't know or care, as long as no one can say for sure that he said or meant anything, nor did Aristotle.

    When you fill an essay with gibberish like this, you get to the end and discover you haven't written anything at all. Unfortunately, so do Somerby's readers. They get to the end and suggest that Somerby has filled the screen with a bit too much wayward poppycock, even about Aristotle. And in the face of that, how could Somerby possibly have any respect for human beings who talk in active, definitive sentences and know what they think they mean without having to leave room for all possible meanings in this worst of all possible alternative timelines.

    I have no patience with this kind of thinking and speaking. If I knew anyone like Somerby, outside a mental institution, I would run from them. The word drivel was invented for Somerby and Trump, who has his own very different problems with language, facts and thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By constantly bringing up that quote he is choosing to widen the blame for the poor quality of our corporate owed mass media to include the entire human race. It's done in the service of our capitalist owners and to the denigration of those who are fighting against them.

      Delete
    2. He could possibly be doing a bit of that stuff.

      Delete
  16. The difference between Charlie Kirk and David in Cal is that you have to shoot Kirk in the neck in order to get him to shut his lying piehole.
    With DiC, you just have to ask him how he can tell the difference between Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and fine people on the Right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neo Nazis and White Nationalist/Christians are Christians who never quote Christ because they are assholes and Christ was/is woke.

      Delete
    2. Christ never should have opposed the Romans.

      Delete
    3. 8:54: Maybe the guy in his eighth decade should pick up the mantel , fill the Charlie Kirk void, and book a series of debates at colleges with acceptance rates of 100% in order to own the libs. Cause he surely ain’t succeeding in this space.

      Delete