OTHERS: Who has Biden been talking about?


The misleaders and the misled: Joe Biden began to deliver the message on Thursday, August 25.

That said, what exactly was the message? The messaging was extremely tough—but who was he talking about?

He spoke at a public event in Maryland. Here's part of what he said:

BIDEN (8/25/22): Look, I believe America is at a genuine inflection point that occurs every six or seven generations in world history—one of the moments—one of the moments that changes everything. And Americans are going have to choose. 

You must choose. Will be it—will we be a country that moves forward or backward?  Will we build a future or obsess over the past? Will we be a nation of unity, of hope, of optimism—not a nation of anger, violence, hatred, and division?

Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans have made their choice: to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate, and division.

Setting generational chronology to the side, we agree! We agree that the nation has reached a serious "inflection point"—an inflection point which may change a great many things moving forward. 

It was at this point that President Biden cast the blame for this state of affairs. He blamed "the extreme MAGA Republicans" for this dangerous state of affairs—but who was he talking about? 

According to Biden, these MAGA Republicans have made "the choice: to go backwards, full of anger, violence, hate, and division." Depending on who he was talking about, we don't disagree with that—but as he continued, Biden made a fairly remarkable statement:

BIDEN (continuing directly): Well, here’s the deal. Here’s the deal: What’s happened is—what’s happened is there are no—there are not many real Republicans anymore.

By the way, your sitting governor [Larry Hogan]—he’s a Republican you can deal with.  We disagree—no, no, I’m serious!  But at least he’s within the mainstream of the Republican Party.

I respect conservative Republicans.  I don’t respect these MAGA Republicans.  


"I don’t respect these MAGA Republicans," the president now said.  We don't exactly respect such people either—depending, of course, on who it is that Biden was talking about.

The president of the United States doesn't respect a group of Republicans—people who, the president said, are committed to hate and violence. Depending on who he was talking about, that would be a fairly remarkable thing for a sitting president to say.

As the president closed, he drove his point home. But he still hadn't made it entirely clear who he was talking about: 

BIDEN (continuing directly): I’ll close with this: We’re at a serious moment in our nation’s history. The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security, they’re a threat to our very democracy. They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace—embrace—political violence.  They don’t believe in democracy.

This is why, in this moment, those of you who love this country— Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans—we must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving America than the MAGA Republicans are to destroying America.  


The group of people of whom Biden spoke are "a threat to our very democracy." And yes, it gets even worse: 

In fact, the group of people of whom Biden spoke "are [committed] to destroying America!" Or so the American president said, producing  a round of applause.

At this point, we're prepared to admit it. When we watched these excerpts that night, we almost thought we heard echoes of human disasters from various points on the globe. These human disasters have occurred, with great regularity, all through the annals of time.

We'll make another admission. As we watched those excerpts that night, we thought the president's tone was ill-advised. Most of all, our reaction was this:

If a sitting president is going to make such striking remarks, he should go to great lengths to be very clear concerning who he's talking about. But in this speech, President Biden named only one name:

He named Donald J. Trump, two times—but he named no one else.

As we watched these excerpts that night, he thought we might be hearing echoes of human disasters from around the world. We'll name some locales before the week's done. For today, we'll quit with this:

We wondered who Biden was talking about as he painted this startling portrait of a world of Us Against Them. 

Who were the unnamed Others, the people he said we must stand to oppose? In particular, our question would be this:

Was he talking about Republican leadership cadres—the political and journalistic figures who have followed Donald J. Trump in producing waves of dis- and misinformation over the past seven years? 

Or was he talking about the Republican rank and file—the 74 million people who voted for Trump the last time out? The millions of people who, by and large, don't know that they're being misled by their tribe's leadership cadres.

We agree with most of what Biden said, depending on who he was talking about! But who was he talking about? During this address, and an earlier private event that day, he had named only one name—that of Donald J. Trump.

(At the earlier private event, Biden has used the term "semi-fascism" to describe "the entire philosophy that underpins" the conduct of this heinous group.)

Biden was using remarkable language as he urged us to go to war with these demonic Others—with the people who are "committed to destroying America."

Biden was using remarkable language. Depending on who he was talking about, we'd say he was basically right.

But if history has taught us anything, history has tried to teach us this. It actually does make a major difference who Joe Biden was talking about:

Who was the president talking about? The misleaders or the misled?

Tomorrow: Some things some Trump voters believe


  1. tl;dr
    "That said, what exactly was the message?"

    What was the message, dear Bob?

    Ha-ha. You've gotta be kidding. The usual Orange Man Bad hate-mongering, of course.

    ...and what else could it be? Your hate-mongering liberal-globalist tribe has nothing to offer...

    1. If you cannot read, don't comment.

    2. Trump's contempt for Republican voters is, by far, the best thing about him.

  2. "Or was he talking about the Republican rank and file—the 74 million people who voted for Trump the last time out? The millions of people who, by and large, don't know that they're being misled by their tribe's leadership cadres."

    Biden explicitly said that he was not talking about the Republican rank and file. Why all this wondering when Biden answered Somerby's questions explicitly in his first speech, when he said:

    “Not every Republican, not even a majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology,” Biden said during a primetime address in Philadelphia on Thursday.

    “But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country,” he added."

  3. As with the relativity of simultaneity, so with the identity of MAGA Republicans: Bob just doesn't want to understand.

  4. Does Somerby really need to wonder who the MAGA Republicans are when so many of them have been indicted by the DOJ for their participation in an insurrection? Many others have been implicated by sworn testimony of the 1/6 Committee. And there are those who have issued tweets with a call to arms, posed with guns, and tried to excuse those who have issued death threats against government employees such as teachers and poll workers. Is Somerby really confused about the actions of such people?

    That makes Somerby as great a moron as his current statements make him seem. Biden isn't issuing a fatwa. He isn't offering a rehab program for right wing miscreants. He is saying that we must stop supporting these assholes who call for violence on the right. If Biden did not name names, it is because Marjorie Taylor Green and Matt Gaetz and Lindsay Graham and Lauren Boebert and Gym Jordan and DiSantis and Rudy Giuliani and their ilk are all so obvious that he doesn't need to list them by name. And their actions are not business as usual.

    Somerby needs to stop pretending that Biden was calling out anyone's uncle or the guy on the corner with the MAGA sign on his lawn, but the actual lawbreakers and enablers who are a real threat to our country because they are disrupting school boards, taking guns on planes and to local stores, and even shooting up churches and school. Democrats should not need to live in fear simply for politically opposing an ex-president who keeps unsecured highly classified documents at his resort because he mistakenly thinks he is (1) still president, or (2) king.

    This isn't rocket science, Somerby. When there is no consequence at stake to calling out MAGAts other than political opposition, why is Somerby throwing a right-wing style hissy fit because Biden didn't list the obvious names? I think it is because he is worried that he too might appear on such a list -- along with the other enablers of Trump. And when Trump tries to call his stormtrooping thugs into the field again, Somerby will be egging them on, not protecting our democracy by engaging in fair elections but excusing those poor confused Others who thought Trump wanted them to take weapons to a Congressional session.

    And then Somerby will know that the enemy is us, or at least himself, as Pogo once suggested. And the Lady with the lapdog will be one of the MAGAts too, if she thinks it is OK to skip the metal detectors in the House building and urge followers to make death threats against Nancy Pelosi.

    Who does Somerby think he is kidding, as he muses that he just cannot tell who is who in this political morass?

  5. "Who were the unnamed Others, the people he said we must stand to oppose?"

    Biden defined these people not by the name "others" but by their actions. He specifically identified: (1) those who do not support our Constitution, (2) those who oppose the orderly transition of power by refusing to recognize they have lost an election, (3) those who advocate violence to achieve political goals.

    Who are they? Well, which candidates running for office and current office holders have refused to acknowledge that Biden won the 2020 election for president? Which candidates and office holders supported the insurrection? Which have been calling those convicted of insurrection-related crimes "political prisoners"? Which have been interfering with the 1st Amendment rights of others by banning books and attacking libraries? Which have been interfering with the Establishment clause of the constitution by calling for religion in schools and at public meetings? Which have been calling for 2nd Amendment solutions to political acts they disagree with? Which have called for Hillary to be locked up without due process? Which called for Pence to be hung? Which think it is OK to send Nancy Pelosi death threats? Which have threatened the DOJ with violence for doing their job? Which have called the FBI part of a satanic plot and urged violence against them?

    These are specific acts that characterize certain people whose names are familiar to us all. There is no mystery. Opposing such people takes only will, since the laws are already in place to convict them, and the evidence is abundant. That is why there is a grand jury deliberating, not simply an investigation of 1/6.

    Biden is not urging persecution. He is urging that we stand up for democracy, which means opposing MAGA nonsense when it is spoken. Does anyone really think Biden is the head of a pedophile ring? Does Somerby think this? If not, he should say so and defend the left as it tries to stand up to the coercive bullying by the Republicans. Instead, Somerby piles on along with the right, pretending Biden is urging Republicans to be put in camps, when Biden is simply calling for those who believe in democracy to stand up for it against the right's drift toward fascism.

    That is apparently too much for Somerby. He pretends a confusion that would only exist for someone who supports the acts Biden has deplored. If this is hard for Somerby, it is because he is part of The Other and not liberal at all. Because no one who is liberal has trouble understanding a president who says that violence has no place in our political system.

  6. "Biden was using remarkable language. Depending on who he was talking about, we'd say he was basically right."

    And yet, Somerby has now written two essays in which he has criticized Biden and said nothing about the actions of the right. And Somerby has used the talking points of the right to oppose Biden's call to support democracy -- that Biden somehow slandered all Republicans, when he specifically excluded most of them from his complaint about the MAGAts.

    Biden said "if the shoe fits, wear it." We all learned what that means in 3rd grade. Where was Somerby?

  7. "FiveThirtyEight: “There are a lot of election deniers on the ballot. Out of 529 total Republican nominees running for office, we found 195 who fully denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election. These candidates either clearly stated that the election was stolen from Trump or took legal action to overturn the results, such as voting not to certify election results or joining lawsuits that sought to overturn the election.”

    “Moreover, an additional 61 candidates raised questions around the results of the 2020 election. These candidates haven’t gone so far as to say explicitly that the election was stolen or take legal action to overturn it. However, they haven’t said the election was legitimate either. In fact, they have raised doubts about potential fraud.”


  8. While Somerby pretends to be liberal in order to attack the left, here is how many actual liberals received Biden's speech:


  9. Can we agree there is no media critique here? So, when it
    comes to knocking a Dem, the supposed intention of the blog is off.
    Beyond that, Bob's point might be painfully obvious, but
    he is correct.
    In any situation where people are behaving really badly, it is always proposed that only a small group are stirring everyone else up, they really didn't want, as a whole, to
    be hateful or dishonest. This is true of situations from Hitler's Germany to Bob's long suffering South.
    People will dig in hard for a crude bully if they are dimwitted enough to buy what he is pushing (or scared of becoming his victim), that doesn't make them blameless.
    So Biden's choices are to ignore the wholesale corruption of one or major political parties, or to blame
    every poor fool who has signed up for Trump's program.
    OR... to split the difference. That's what Biden is doing.
    Bob will do all he can to see he pays for it.

  10. Somerby took these comments to Kevin Drum's blog yesterday but got no support from other commenters. Several said they no longer read this blog because of Somerby's drift to the right.

    Oddly, Drum talked recently about the pandemic's effects on NAEP test scores, but Somerby has ignored that recent data.

  11. https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/09/03/whos-really-threatening-american-democracy/

    1. Cecelia,
      I just sent Tom Slater a Trump 2020 "Fuck Your Feelings" t-shirt.
      Drop your addy here, and I'll send one to wipe your tears away with too.

    2. Apparently, pointing out the threat to democracy is the real threat to democracy.

    3. "But while the Capitol riot was an unhinged and anti-democratic display, fed by Trump’s conspiratorial nonsense about the election being ‘stolen’ from him, it was not an ‘insurrection’, as Biden put it in his speech on Thursday night. It was a strangely carnivalesque riot that got seriously out of hand. Most of the Trumpists just wandered around the Capitol aimlessly, posing for self-incriminating selfies."

      Here is why it WAS an insurrection. The goal of storming the capitol was not to take selfies but to prevent the certification of votes so that Trump could be declared President by Pence. How do we know this? First, the 1/6 Committee hearing described several meetings to plan such an occurrence. Second, key staff such as Ornato and Meadows knew there would be violence, which was planned by Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and involved military-style organization. Third, many came with serious armament including bear spray, clubs, body armor, and some had AR-15s and other guns (who were stopped by screening at Trump's speech). Fourth, instead of wandering around like tourists, an organized group headed to find Pence, Pelosi and other congressmembers. Fifth, Trump tweeted that Pence betrayed him. Sixth, there was coordination with the Congress members who were supposed to object to certification. Seventh, Trump tried to move heaven and earth to be at the Capitol building so that he could be proclaimed still president.

      Riots don't have goals to overthrow an election. When they do, they become insurrections or civil war. The various plotters and participants are being convicted (and confessing to) charges of seditious conspiracy, not simply breaking and entering.

      I would argue that someone who thinks 1/6 was just a bunch of good ole boys having too much fun is a MAGA supporter of Trump trying to whitewash what happened. Condoing this behavior is anti-democracy and pro-Trump and fits Biden's definition. If that description fits you and not just the Spike article author, then you might reevaluate your own support for our constitution and the peaceful transfer of power outlined in it, in which losing candidates accept their defeat.

      We all see your energetic efforts to propagandize in support of Trump and other conservatives. If you are a MAGA supporter, you ARE who Biden was saying must be opposed. But we are opposing you here with words, Cecelia, not with the threat of camps described in the histrionic article you have posted.

    4. If the Right really wants to own the libs, they'll kill themselves before the Liberals can round them up.

    5. Re; spiked online link.

      Give that cry-baby a pacifier.
      Let's face it. The Right doesn't call the Left "snowflakes" for nothing.
      The Right calls the Left "snowflakes" because every Right-wing accusation is really a confession.

    6. So far, Anonymouse 11:32am, there are 10 people who have been charged with “seditious conspiracy”. They haven’t been tried yet, though you seem to know the future.

      The Spiked article made a great point that when trying to decide who Biden is accusing of totalitarianism, know that it’s Republicans in general.

      Romney may not be MAGA, but Biden did say of the then candidate for president and of his entire party that “they gonna put you back in chains”.

      Why they’re being defensive and coy about this now is because Biden is not up to scrutiny.

    7. Anonymouse 11:32am, what “camps” were described in this article?


    8. The article is full of references to Orwell, the 1930s, Biden introducing a new domestic terrorism bill, restraints on free speech of the right, and so on. This echoes Republican remarks about the Hitlerian red stage lighting (which Somerby repeated). The article hints that Biden's speech is about repression of the right. Are you not aware that Hitler put his political enemies in camps, not just Jews? When an article talks about Biden using fascist tactics, what do you think is being said? Go back with a highlighter and highlight every reference to authoritarianism, Hitler's Germany or Orwell. Then look at how colorful the page is.

    9. You are incorrect about the number who have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. Pleading means they will not be tried because they have admitted guilt. The ones remaining to be tried have not done that.

      Three people (all Oath Keepers) have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, 249 to misdemeanors, 59 to felonies, 19 to assaulting a law enforcement officer. Six people have been convicted in court trials, including 5 felonies and 1 for assaulting an officer.

      11 Oath Keepers have been charged with seditious conspiracy, 3 have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with prosecutors. The leader of the Proud Boys has also been indicted for seditious conspiracy.

    10. "Romney may not be MAGA, but Biden did say of the then candidate for president and of his entire party that “they gonna put you back in chains”.

      The phrase about being back in chains is a metaphor, not literal. It doesn't mean Biden wants to lock anyone up -- that is what Republicans chant at their rallies, not Democrats. No one thinks Romney is a MAGA Republican, having been a never-Trumper from 2015. Based on Utah election results, Mormons tend to reject Trump and what he stands for. That is why Mike Lee is struggling against an Independent challenger now.

    11. In other words, the writer made claims of the Biden Admin acting more capably than Trump when it comes to using the govt against its enemies and that the set for Biden’s speech was ironically inept in its Nurembergesque styling.

      You morphed that into the author accusing Pres. Biden of wanting to gather people into concentration camps.

      Nice of you to illustrate what the author did assert about this mindset with your own histrionic and exaggerated extrapolations.

    12. Nazis, fascists, 1930s, Hitler, repressive terrorism laws = concentration camps, brownshirts, beerhall Putsch. Yes, these all go together and paint a certain picture, even if it took you a while to get it. But your article said this stuff, not me and not Biden.

    13. I get it, Anonymouse 3:14pm, thanks for the astounding logic that would also make moot any attempt to limit who and what Biden meant in his name calling speech.

    14. Biden clearly said who and what he meant. Go back and read his speech. Somerby omitted the parts that did the limiting, then claimed Biden didn't limit, but he did. That makes Somerby just as dishonest as you are.

    15. If Biden said Romney's party is gong to put black people "back in chains", then Biden was totally talking about everyone in the Republican Party.
      Will voters make Biden pay for telling the 100% absolute truth about the Republican Party? We'll see.

    16. Biden didn't say that. Biden wasn't talking about black people. He was talking about Wall Street and the efforts to unchain Wall Street. Here is the whole remark:

      "vice president told a diverse crowd, including many African Americans, that Mitt Romney would "put you all back in chains" by unshackling Wall Street.

      He was referring to Republican efforts to remove constraints on Wall Street, which he said would have a negative impact on those in his crowd.

      That diverse crowd was not solely a black audience, as stated where I found the video of Biden's quote. The rally was held in Danville, VA (50% white, 44% black).

      This is the kind of dishonest presentation the right uses to make Biden sound like a bigot or race panderer. In fairness, Cecelia may not realize that the right truncated the statement to make it sound worse for Biden and manufacture a grievance that can be used with black voters (and to make Biden appear solely interested in blacks to the right's white voters -- kind of a twofer.

    17. "In fairness, Cecelia may not realize that the right truncated the statement to make it sound worse for Biden and manufacture a grievance that can be used with black voters (and to make Biden appear solely interested in blacks to the right's white voters -- kind of a twofer."

      Well, Cecelia is an ignorant moron, so in fairness, you are probably correct.

  12. “We agree with most of what Biden said”

    Although, referencing Biden’s speech in Philadelphia, Somerby is “not sure we've ever seen an emptier, more fatuous political speech” (http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2022/09/others-strikingly-emptyand.html)

    1. Maybe here is where media criticism comes in, Bob caught himself.

  13. I took Bob's advice and listened to 'the Others".
    Turns out, national security of the United States of America, doesn't mean shit to them.

  14. "Who was the president talking about? The misleaders or the misled?"

    If someone is actively trying to destroy democracy, does it matter whether they were misled or not?

    Wouldn't it be true that anyone who believes destroying democracy is a good thing, must be misled to some extent, even if they are leaders in that activity?

    Biden is taking a stand for what he believes in, as the leader of the free world and elected president of a democracy. It seems right for him to support democracy. But we do have laws and traditions concerning the extent to which someone can actively try to overthrow our government before being condemned or put in jail. We were very adamant about not becoming a communist country. Why is it wrong to say decisively that we do not want this to become a fascist country either (in the traditional meaning of the term, not the Republican way in which Jonah Goldberg redefined fascism to apply to liberals).

    Because our country is explicitly democratic, MAGA anti-democratic efforts are unpatriotic and it seems to me OK for us and especially for our nation's leader to say so. This isn't philosophy class, where anything goes and anything is possible. This is real life, where our president takes an oath to defend the Constitution, which is exactly what his speech did. The problem is that our democracy needs defending because there are those who do not believe in it, including some who took a similar oath to Biden's but have been denying his legitimacy as president.

    Somerby wants to make this about who Biden is specifically targeting, instead of accepting the abstract notion that he is defending our democracy against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You do not need to know their names to be in favor of that, unless you are Bob Somerby. It is remotely possible this is an aspect of his extreme literalism and concreteness, but I think it would be slandering autistic people to chalk Somerby's lack of patriotism up to disability, just as it is wrong to claim that MAGA extremists are only destructive because their leaders have led them astray. They are adults with agency and so is Somerby. He doesn't have to take this position, but he has done so and that makes him a MAGA supporter in my book.

    1. Anonymouse 12:29pm, thanks for laying it on the table that what you and Biden mean when labeling people as fascist is anyone who doesn’t think precisely as you think.

    2. No, *I don’t think anyone has the right to use violence, including the destruction that happened during Trump’s inaugural and the George Floyd protests, as well as others.

      *YOU- not so much.

    3. Are you really not aware that conservative militia groups were arrested at BLM protests for trying to provoke racial violence and for vandalism (which has been blamed on peaceful protesters)? Was Kyle Rittenhouse a BLM supporter? Are you unaware of the study that found that 93% of such protests were peaceful?


      I have not advocated violence at all. I have said that Biden's definition of MAGA Republicans includes the use of violence to achieve political ends. I have not advocated violence in any way. But coming here and claiming that other commenters are endorsing violence makes you especially vile.

      Note that the MAGA Republicans were very quick to blame 1/6 on antifa and leftist protesters, except that none showed up, so that distraction didn't stick. It is no different with the BLM and George Floyd protests, where the destructive actions of opportunistic criminals and right-wing provocateurs were blamed on peaceful protesters.

      It is time for you to go haunt another blog.

    4. Oh, yes, you’re brilliant Anonymouse 3:28pm.

      You ask me if I approve of violence and when I say •I don’t approve of it on either side, you then aver that it only comes from one side.

      Gaslighting is not an argument. It’s gaslighting.

    5. Cecelia always wanted to de-fund the rioters at the George Floyd protests, and no amount of remembering it differently will ever make her change her mind.
      I got your back, Cece.

    6. Anybody have a good idea for what the "Fuck Your Feelings" party should do with the feelings Biden hurt?

    7. Political violence is overwhelmingly coming from the right. The Department of Homeland Security says so, and so do studies. And crazy white guys who shoot up schools and churches are also trending right-wing these days. Bothsiderism is a losing argument, Cecelia, because the stats don't back you up.

  15. To be clear, Biden is not trying to criminalize being a MAGA Republican. Some MAGA Republicans have been engaging in criminal behavior and are being held accountable under the law (not Biden) for doing so. Biden is saying that it is not a good idea for politics to engage in lawbreaking, whether it is crimes against democracy (such as seditious conspiracy) or political violence (making death threats and shooting at people in the name of Trump and his hatred). The laws have not changed. Those of us who agree with Biden are expressing the view that the laws should be enforced, even against those with political power and buffoons who were duped by them.

  16. Who is an extreme MAGA Republican? Anyone who still supports Trump after he makes a statement like this:

    "Trump wrote on Truth Social, “Now that the FBI and DOJ have been caught in a massive and determinative Election Rigging Scam, are they going to change the results of the 2020 Presidential Election? They should!!!”

    Election rigging scam? Trump thinks that the search of Mar-a-Lago because he stole classified documents is a plot to rig the 2024 election.

    1. Anonymouse 1:14pm, Clinton made that claim of the former head of the FBI James Comey.


      The FBI lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop and pressured social media to suppress stories on it.


      Vote tampering never exists unless it has affected a Democrat.

    2. No, she didn't. Go back and read her book about the 2016 election (What Happened). There is no evidence the FBI lied about Hunter Biden's laptop and there is also no evidence the stories placed on the laptop were Hunter Biden's. There is no need for you to post the latest conservative conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden here. No one is going to read them or agree with them, not even Mao (who says today that he doesn't read long essays).

      This is not a conservative website. No one wants you to clutter these comments with Republican MAGA propaganda and disinformation. There is, to date, no evidence of Democratic vote tampering during the 2020 election, despite millions wasted on investigations. Continuing to claim such things identifies you, specifically, as a MAGA Republican, but I doubt anyone has had any doubt about your intentions. Please go away now. You don't belong here and no one wants to read what you write here. Continuing to annoy people on a liberal blog is uncivil and displays the kind of attitude that people dislike among MAGA Republican voters -- that sense of entitlement that we all should be forced to endure your nonsense because you are special and Trump is the redeemer (or whatever you call him amongst your "tribe" -- Somerby says you have one).

    3. What happened to the laptop is not a conservative conspiracy theory. What Hillary said about Comey and what she did with disseminating the Trump-Putin stuff is not a conservative conspiracy theory.

      No, I’ll clutter the board up with stuff that you don’t like as assiduously as the guy who actually owns this joint.

      There reasonable people on both political sides. Those people are not anonymices.

    4. You are misrepresenting what Hillary said. The right-wing version of what Hillary did with the Trump-Putin info is also very different than Hillary's version. Note that Sussman was not convicted, that Hillary did not fund the Steele Report (the DNC did that, following the initial work by a Republican candidate opposing Trump in the primaries). The Steele Report was largely substantiated by intelligence services with several notable and unconfirmed exceptions (pee tape, Cohen visit to Prague). Trump and Putin did have a relationship confirmed by the Mueller Report but not prosecuted. There is no confirmation that Obama sicced the FBI on Trump's campaign or that Carter Page was persecuted because of his association with Trump -- he was turned in by an Australian source because of his Russian assocuiations. Trump's latest theory about Hunter Biden is pure B.S. intended to harm the president and excuse his own crimes, plus advance the idea that the fix is in for 2024 so he can try his insurrection again if he loses the vote.

      There are not "reasonable people" on both political sides when it comes to such conspiracy theories. There is no evidence supporting the stuff you post here. That's why it is called disinformation and propaganda. It is unsupported and manufactured and designed to harm others.

      When you stop calling other commenters rodents, people might regard you as a civil person. Now you are just a public nuisance and you are wasting your time here. And ours. Barging into discussions with distracting quips and garbage is uncivil. It is a form of social violence (metaphorically speaking) and it reflects the same anti-sociality as other trolls (who largely have the dark triad of personality traits (narcissism, sociopathy and its attendant lack of empathy, and Machiavellianism, which means being only concerned with your own self-interest and manipulating others to get what you want). Such people are not generally welcome in social gatherings and online is no exception. So go away.

    5. What you’re saying goes directly against what Horowitz found on the Steele document and you conveniently omit that the FBI found it necessary to apprise the Obama Admin on the Clinton Campaign plan to link Putin to Trump.


    6. Cecelia,
      It's an outrageous charge to think Trump would sell state secrets to Putin.
      What did Clinton thinks was going to happen, that Trump would waltz out of the White House with classified information, leave it lying around Mar-a Lago and try to make it look like it was all totally innocent?
      This is almost s outrageous as thinking only half the Republican voters are deplorable.

    7. Cecelia, Obama was president at the time, so of course he needed to be informed of Clinton's concerns about Russian interference (later substantiated by Mueller). He did nothing about it because he didn't want to seem to be meddling in the election for partisan reasons. Some of us think that was a mistake. (Lookee lookee, a Democrat is criticizing another Democrat!) I realize that different news sources tend to present the success rate of the Steele dossier in different ways -- do you? Horowitz is a conservative source.

    8. The Clinton campaign emphasized candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in any previous election for which measurements exist. Why did the campaign say so little about policy when articulated positions on appealing issues could have provided a base to fall back upon in adversity? Why did they refuse to campaign in Wisconsin or buy earlier advertising in Michigan?

      This question has a clear answer and it has nothing to do with the FBI.

    9. 2:12,
      Clinton campaigned on policy discussions.
      You may not know that because the corporate-owned Right-wing media (AKA the media) ignored that campaigning, and instead pretended to care that Republicans were pretending to care about her email protocols.

    10. I think you don’t want to clutter up the board with Qanon nonsense. If you can’t tell the difference between Obamas ethics and Trump’s, you are simply a sad and lost dolt somebody gave Atlas Shrugged to in Junior High.

    11. That's interesting. Your comment also emphasizes personal issues over fact-based substance. I'm seeing a trend. ;)


    12. 8:21 AM: "Though it constantly complained that the media ignored its policy proposals, it also talked less about policy than any other campaign for which there are measurements."

      After Demigod Barry's being the top establishment's puppet for 8 years, everyone's finally realized that dear Bob's tribe "policy proposals" is a sick joke.

      Renegotiating NAFA? Card-Check? Closing GITMO? Etc., etc., etc. Hundreds of bullshit promises dear Bob's tribe's never intended to keep.

      Say anything, dembots will swallow and ask for more. But not normal ordinary people.

      ...whatever Psycho Witch might've done, whatever bullshit "policy" ads -- no matter; she was in deep shit anyhow...


  17. "...they’re a threat to our very democracy"

    But of course "they" are, dear Bob. Without a doubt.

    Because 'our very democracy' translated from Liberal is 'the rule of globalist oligarchs'.


  18. Whoa:
    "CHICAGO (WLS) -- Fifty-five people were shot, eleven fatally over the Labor Day Weekend in Chicago, police said."

    Defund the police!


    1. ...whoa, and apparently this is a good year! Amazing!

      "Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown held a news conference Tuesday morning, where he said shootings were down 15% and shooting victims were down 23% compared to Labor Day weekend last year.

      "We continue to see significant declines in gun violence in the city with over 600 fewer victims of gun violence so far this year," Superintendent Brown said."

    2. ...it's a great job you do in Chicago, dear liberals.

    3. Chicago? I've heard of it. Republicans hate it because there are too many black people there.

    4. How is it that shootings are down 15% while shooting victims are down 23%? More idiots with guns are shooting themselves rather than others.

      Does Mao think police officers are likely to be liberal? That may be true in Russia, but not in the USA.

    5. Wait, I thought reactionary dolts like Mao wanted to defend the FBI.