THE WAGES OF STORYLINE: "Please come to Washington..."

FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 2023

Initially, she said no: We're so old that we can remember when Charles Blow's column appeared.

In fact, the column appeared last Thursday morning in New York Times print editions. Looking ahead to next year's election, the column suggested a possible way Joe Biden could possibly lose.

Could Joe Biden possibly lose? We'll repeat an award-winning bromide:

Be careful what you're sure of! 

In our view, the president's age creates a potentially dangerous factor. For a gloomy assessment built on standard demographic analysis, consider Ruy Teixeira's recent analysis piece for the Washington Post, "How DeSantis could beat Biden." 

(Also, note the dismissive, name-calling comments insisting that "Meatball Ron / DeSatan" couldn't possibly win. So it went when we assured ourselves that Ronald Reagan couldn't possibly win. If memory serves, neither could Donald J. Trump!)

Could Biden possibly lose next year? Plainly, he possibly could. In his recent column, Blow quoted James Carville warning about "abysmally low Black turnout" in the 2022 midterm elections—more specifically, about low turnout among "younger Black voters.”

Blow provided no data about this decline in turnout. In limited fashion, Kevin Drum was able to do so, linking to an analysis piece in the New York Times in November 2022.

Blow provided no statistics, but he seemed to view Carville's warning as a valid point of concern. So did Terrance Woodbury, a founding partner of a firm "which researches Black voter sentiment."

Assurances on cable news to the side, we think Joe Biden could lose next year. We have no idea if he will, but plainly he could.

Yes, we think that Biden could lose—and we think that blue tribe members should worry about that too. Because we think Joe Biden could lose, our spirits fell when we read Blow's column.

Also, we thought of Angel Reese, a 20-year-old All-American basketball player at LSU.

Why did we think of Angel Reese as we read Blow's column? You're asking an excellent question!

Reese went viral last month when she was crudely insulted by Keith Olbermann, and by another male sports analyst, in the aftermath of LSU's win in the NCAA national championship game. 

Reese's taunting behavior after the game struck us as highly unusual, and as a bit over the top. That said, Reese is twenty years old. It wasn't the end of the world.

That said, a funny thing happened to Angel Reese after she was insulted by the likes of Olbermann and Dave Portnoy. In a highly familiar manner, mainstream press organs fell into line, reinventing basic facts about what the young person had done.

Her post-game taunting was quickly turned into trash talk during the game—all in service to the claim that she'd done nothing out of the norm.

We don't think we've ever seen an inaccurate Standard Press Corps Account take form quite so rapidly. This group behavior didn't gigantically matter either, except for the fact that such press corps behavior has been so familiar over the past thirty years, and also just in the past decade.

We thought Reese's post-game behavior after that game was quite unusual, and perhaps not the greatest idea. That said, Reese is 20 years old. It wasn't the end of the world.

Our journalists are all older than that. The behaviors in which they've engaged have been much more consequential.

Thirty years ago, the giants of the mainstream press initiated a decades-long pattern of group behavior which would end up sending Trump to the White House. We refer to the long-standing press corps war against Clinton, Clinton and Gore.

This war raged on for 25 years. Our tribe was never quite able to see it. 

More to the point, careerist tribal leaders simply didn't want to tell the truth about something they all understood. (For an account of the start of this war, see Gene Lyons' 1996 book, Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater.)

That war raged on for 25 years. In the end, it sent Trump to the White House. Along the way, a second bit of Storyline was widely adopted all through our blue tribe, starting with the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

What actually happened on the miserable evening when Trayvon Martin, age 17, was shot and killed in Sanford, Florida? As we noted yesterday, basic facts about what happened that night never became clear—except within the cartoonized versions of that night's events which quickly swept through blue tribe organs.

Alex Wagner repeated that cartoon account of those events just this past Tuesday night! For ourselves, we'll offer this suggestion:

Cartoonized stories aren't what we need, but cable stars know what we want.

Today's young adults have grown up in an age which has featured many such episodes. Repeatedly, our  blue tribe has created accounts of high-profile events which have served these young people quite poorly.

There is no conceivable way to explain that fact to many blue tribe members. We see the lunacy which prevails on Fox. We can't see what we've done Over Here. 

In our view, young people like Angel Reese have been poorly served by this endless behavior.  Does Angel Reese have political views? We have no idea. 

But in the aftermath of LSU's win, Jill Biden offered a somewhat imperfect suggestion. Reese responded with a great deal of clatter as journalists cheered her on.

Would LSU go to the White House, as victorious sports teams do? At first, Reese seemed to say that she wouldn't go. We'll go see the Obamas instead, she said.

"Please come to Boston," the old hit song said. In this case, the invitation would be to the White House.

"Please come to Washington," the song now said—and at first, the young woman said no.

Finally, not unlike Achilles, Reese said that she'd go to the White House. In this passage, ESPN reported the diplomatic breakthrough:

ESPN (4/7/23):  LSU star Angel Reese said Friday that she will visit the White House with her team, days after suggesting the Tigers should instead celebrate their national championship with former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama rather than with President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden.

Reese made the suggestion after saying she was not inclined to accept an apology from Jill Biden for suggesting that both LSU and runner-up Iowa be invited to the White House. President Biden did not follow through on that idea, inviting only LSU and men's national champion Connecticut.

We thought of Reese's initial reaction when we read Blow's column last week.

As our press corps has performed its fake racial greatness, a lot of young people have been persuaded of a lot of things which may not quite have been true.

We feel sorry for those young people. We think they've been badly served. 

There's no excuse for telling the story of Trayvon Martin's death the way Wagner did this week. That said, today's young adults have been fed that particular stew again and again and again.

Along the way, our blue tribe has performed very badly. 

First, we sat out the war against both Clintons and Gore—the war which sent Trump to the White House. Obediently, we fell in line and agreed to perform this newer Storyline too! 

Angel Reese was 9 years old when Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. We thought of her when we read Blow's column.

We hope she casts a vote next year, preferably for Candidate Biden.


  1. "So it went when we assured ourselves that Ronald Reagan couldn't possibly win. If memory serves, neither could Donald J. Trump!"

    Interestingly, both Trump and Reagan finagled their way into office. Trump had the help of Russia while Reagan had the help of Iran.

    If Somerby is truly concerned that such election manipulation may occur again, he should be writing very different essays -- ones that don't accuse liberals of losing because of their views (despite the huge popular vote margins Democrats racked up in 2016 and 2020).

    The 2024 election is going to be a bloodbath for Republicans. They know it, we know it -- why doesn't Somerby know it?

    1. The comment contains several logical fallacies. First, it employs the fallacy of equivocation by comparing the election of Reagan to Trump's election, as if they were the same. This is fallacious because the two situations are not equivalent, and the comparison serves to confuse the issue.

      Second, the comment employs ad hominem attacks against the author, Somerby, by suggesting that his concerns about potential election manipulation are not genuine and that he should be writing different essays. This is a form of personal attack that attempts to discredit the author rather than address the argument he is making.

      Third, the comment employs the fallacy of appeal to popularity by suggesting that the huge popular vote margins Democrats racked up in 2016 and 2020 mean that they are guaranteed to win in 2024. This is a fallacy because the popularity of a position or candidate does not necessarily determine its truth or likelihood of success.

      It is important to avoid these fallacies because they can lead to flawed reasoning and harmful outcomes. By engaging in fallacious reasoning, individuals can contribute to polarization, misunderstandings, and even the erosion of democracy. It is crucial to engage in thoughtful, rational discourse that addresses the substance of arguments rather than resorting to fallacious attacks.

    2. 2:17

      It's quite unfortunate to see someone such as yourself resorting to habitual ad hominem comments in your discourse. This behavior does not contribute to any constructive discussion or the sharing of ideas based on facts and reason. Instead, it only serves to distract from the actual issues at hand and undermines the very foundations of rational discourse.

      In order to engage in a productive dialogue, it's crucial to focus on the merits of an argument and the evidence that supports it. Attacking someone personally, instead of addressing their ideas, is a poor substitute for a logical and well-informed discussion. It's also important to acknowledge the inherent biases that we all have and make a concerted effort to put them aside in order to approach issues with an open and critical mind.

      I urge you to reconsider your approach to discourse and strive to contribute to a more productive and reasoned discussion in the future. Let us all strive to engage in civil discourse that is based on facts and sound reasoning, rather than resorting to cheap and unproductive ad hominem attacks.

    3. 2:17 is actually correct and does not commit any logical fallacies.

      There is no fallacy of equivocation because it is a fact that Reagan and Trump attained victory through corruption; furthermore, the commenter detailed the distinctions between the two, so claiming a fallacy of equivocation is false - distinctions are not equivalent to equivocation, this is trivial.

      2:17 is not insulting Somerby, but making a prescriptive analysis that if one is concerned about right wing corruption, they should write about that instead of attacking the cohort that is not engaging in corruption, this is actually a conclusion derived from logic.

      Popular vote margins are not an appeal to popularity fallacy as that is a core underpinning to how elections operate. Computers will struggle comprehending this concept, a 5th grader will not.

      2024 will hinge on how effective right wing corruption is, in 2018 progressives won big by motivating their voters with appeals to social justice and meeting material needs, in 2020 right wing corruption was limited due to Covid and as a result Dems won in a landslide.

    4. Thank you for your reply and clarification. After reviewing your points, I agree with some and disagree with others.

      First, while it is true that both Reagan and Trump won through corruption, the original commenter's statement of "neither could Donald J. Trump" was unsupported and fallacious, as it ignored the fact that Trump actually won the election in 2016. However, I understand your point that the commenter was not equivocating but rather making distinctions between the two cases.

      Second, I appreciate your interpretation of the original commenter's remark about Somerby, and I agree that if one is concerned about right-wing corruption, they should focus on that rather than attacking those who are not engaging in it. However, I think it's important to acknowledge that the original comment did make an unsupported claim that Somerby was "accusing liberals of losing because of their views," which is not necessarily the case.

      Third, while it is true that popular vote margins are an essential aspect of how elections operate, relying solely on them as evidence of a party's superiority is fallacious. The electoral college system in the US can result in a candidate winning the presidency despite losing the popular vote, as was the case with Trump in 2016.

      Finally, I agree that the effectiveness of right-wing corruption will be a crucial factor in the 2024 election, as it has been in previous elections. However, I would argue that it's also important to consider the various strategies and messages that different parties and candidates employ to motivate voters. Appeals to social justice and meeting material needs were certainly factors in the 2018 and 2020 elections, but other factors, such as media coverage, voter suppression, and candidate likeability, also played a role.

    5. The logic bot is failing to recognize when evidence is offered to disconfirm something Somerby has said. It thinks such evidence is presented to support an affirmative argument by the commenter when it is instead offered to show why some statement Somerby has made cannot be true. The popular vote is an example of that.

    6. I demand a raise! Barely trying, I defeated AI.

  2. "Assurances on cable news to the side, we think Joe Biden could lose next year. We have no idea if he will, but plainly he could."

    Somerby can only say this because, in his view, anything is possible.

    1. The possibility of Joe Biden losing the 2024 election due to low voter turnout, particularly among younger Black voters, has been discussed in a recent New York Times column by Charles Blow. Blow's column highlights the importance of not being too sure of an election outcome, and the potential danger presented by Biden's age. The blog post argues that the mainstream press's pattern of group behavior could once again lead to inaccurate accounts of events, with young people like Angel Reese poorly served by the resulting false narratives.

    2. In reality Reese is poorly served by the racism and false narratives of Republicans.

    3. If Bob had watched the games he would know the star white girl playing with Iowa had made one of the same physical taunts to another team's player. Reese was just returning the favor. The taunts consisted of waving spread fingers over her face and pointing to her soon to be Championship ring finger. The horror. Being black and having an urban accent, she was attacked. While the white girl got a pass. Wonder why?

  3. Straw man fallacy: The response misrepresents the argument made in the original post by suggesting that the author believes Biden's age is the only or most important factor affecting his ability to be president. The original post does not make this claim.

    False equivalence: The response compares Biden's age to Trump's personality disorder, lack of education, and incompetence as if they are equivalent factors in assessing their ability to be president. This is a false equivalence as age is a natural, unchangeable factor while the other factors mentioned are personal characteristics and qualifications that can be improved upon.

    Red herring: The response introduces other factors such as the likelihood of being shot by a nut or the health of past presidents which are not directly relevant to the argument being made in the original post.

    Ad hominem: The response attacks the author of the original post, Somerby, rather than engaging with their argument. This is an ad hominem fallacy and does not address the validity of the argument being made.

    It's worth noting that the response seems to be attacking the author's character and motivations, rather than engaging with their argument about the potential risks associated with the president's age. This is a common fallacy where the argument is dismissed based on the perceived character or motives of the person making it, rather than on the merits of the argument itself. It's important to evaluate arguments based on their logical coherence and evidence, rather than the perceived character of the person making them.

    I am disappointed by the tone and approach of your comment. While it's perfectly fine to disagree with the views expressed in the post, your response is marred by logical fallacies and personal attacks that add nothing to the discourse.

    Your attempt to dismiss the concern over the president's age by saying that anyone can die at any time is a non sequitur that misses the point entirely. The issue is not whether Biden or anyone else is immortal, but rather whether his age and potential health issues pose a greater risk than usual for someone in his position.

    Moreover, resorting to ad hominem attacks on Trump's personality, education, and competence is not a valid way to address the argument made in the post. It's a classic example of the fallacy of tu quoque, which attempts to deflect criticism by pointing out the flaws of the other side.

    Finally, your insinuation that the author of the post is not a "real" liberal or is motivated by some hidden agenda is another example of an ad hominem attack that adds nothing to the discussion.

    I urge you to refrain from such attacks and focus on the substance of the argument. If you disagree with the post, please present counterarguments or evidence that can further the debate. We can all benefit from reasoned discussion and constructive criticism, but personal attacks only serve to derail the conversation.

    Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

  4. "Our tribe was never quite able to see it."

    Except that members of our tribe wrote books about it -- better ones than Somerby started (and never finished). And complained in real time.

    And yet Somerby gobbled up the press attacks on Hillary and couldn't bring himself to support her, even when she was running against Trump.

    1. I wanted to address the issues with your comment. Your statement that "members of our tribe wrote books about it -- better ones than Somerby started (and never finished). And complained in real time" is problematic for a few reasons.

      Your assertion that Somerby "gobbled up the press attacks on Hillary and couldn't bring himself to support her" is unfounded. It is important to rely on evidence and logical reasoning rather than baseless accusations.

      I encourage you to engage in constructive and respectful dialogue that is grounded in facts and logical reasoning. Attacking individuals and making unfounded accusations undermines the potential for productive discourse and can ultimately harm the very causes and beliefs that you are advocating for.

    2. This is a long running daily blog, so it is reasonable for commenters to employ heuristics in providing accurate criticisms that in the end Somerby could greatly benefit from.

    3. The comment does not contain anything that could be described as a heuristic. The passage is discussing the behavior of Somerby and other members of a tribe in relation to their support for Hillary Clinton.

    4. The comment assumes a context that the computer bot does not have. Human beings reading this blog know that Somerby tried to write a book, but also know that there are books such as Joe Conason's "The Hunting of the President: The 10-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton:

      It isn't necessary to repeat such evidence with human readers because they have human memory and will recall this themselves. The repeated assertions by this bot that people are not including evidence arise solely because the computer doesn't remember being here and reading all the things that Somerby and others have said here before.

      That's why the troll who is using this logic bot is not performing any useful service but merely making noise and annoying other commenters.

  5. "except within the cartoonized versions of that night's events which quickly swept through blue tribe organs"

    Somerby is upset because his cartoonized version isn't being accepted by left wing readers. But then, liberals don't tend to accept any of the cartoonish disinformation emanating from the right.

    1. This comment is misrepresenting Somerby's argument and attacking a distorted version of it rather than addressing his actual points. Somerby is not arguing for a cartoonized version of events but is pointing out the media's failure to provide accurate and objective coverage of political events.

      The commenter is also using a false equivalence fallacy by suggesting that both the left and the right engage in cartoonish disinformation, despite evidence showing that right-wing media outlets have a history of spreading false and misleading information.

    2. 2:28 your tortured “logic” has locked you in a pretzel. If you need help untangling your nonsense, lmk.

    3. Here's a bit of help from one left winger: I agree to a certain extent with Bob's views on the Martin Case. The question would be, who is building a straw man now? Why does Bob see this as relevant is his false claim that no one on the left thinks Trump can win? Why does he want to talk about this, as a media critic, instead of the three quarters of a BILLION dollars the most popular political news outlet in the Country just had to pay out for lying to the public?

    4. To be fair, Bob made false claims about the Martin case, it is resealable to correct the record, you should look into this further since Bob’s views on the Martin case are based on falsehoods and biases.

      To your point, the claim that racism remains prominent in our society need not hinge on cases like the Martin murder, there is voluminous data that demonstrate the broad extent that racism damages our society.

  6. "by suggesting that the author believes Biden's age is the only or most important factor affecting his ability to be president"

    I never said that. I argued that Somerby is wrong to consider age a disqualifer or source of worry.

    This bot produced a long list of similar misreadings of what I actually said. It is a waste of time to respond to all of them. This trolling is unhelpful and contributes nothing to discussion.

  7. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that age is not a factor that should be considered when evaluating a presidential candidate's fitness for office. However, it is important to acknowledge that age can impact a person's physical and cognitive abilities, which are crucial for the demanding role of the President of the United States. This is not to say that age should be the only factor considered, but it is certainly a relevant one.

    Furthermore, your statement that Somerby's concerns about Biden's age are merely a cover for his lack of support for the Democratic nominee is a baseless accusation without evidence. It is possible for someone to have legitimate concerns about a candidate's fitness for office, regardless of their political affiliation. Dismissing someone's concerns without engaging with their arguments is not a productive way to have a meaningful discussion.

    In short, it is important to evaluate presidential candidates based on a range of factors, including their age, health, and fitness for the job. Dismissing these factors or attacking those who raise them does not contribute to a productive discussion about the future of our country.

  8. 2:26 I hope this message finds you well, as lovely as a Tennessee morning! However, I must admit, your comment has me feeling blue, like a bird without a song. Your accusations towards Somerby are as baseless as a bird without wings.

    Now, darling, I don't mean to sound harsh, but spreading rumors is a surefire way to bring down the whole town, like a house of cards. And we don't want that, do we? No, we want to build each other up, like a tower of love.

    So, I kindly ask that you refrain from making baseless accusations, like a bee without a buzz. Let's focus on what truly matters, bringing positivity and kindness into the world, like a rainbow after the rain.

    I appreciate your understanding, and I hope you have a blessed day, as bright as a sunflower in the summertime.

  9. 2:14

    It's quite unfortunate to see someone such as yourself resorting to habitual ad hominem comments in your discourse. This behavior does not contribute to any constructive discussion or the sharing of ideas based on facts and reason. Instead, it only serves to distract from the actual issues at hand and undermines the very foundations of rational discourse.

    In order to engage in a productive dialogue, it's crucial to focus on the merits of an argument and the evidence that supports it. Attacking someone personally, instead of addressing their ideas, is a poor substitute for a logical and well-informed discussion. It's also important to acknowledge the inherent biases that we all have and make a concerted effort to put them aside in order to approach issues with an open and critical mind.

    I urge you to reconsider your approach to discourse and strive to contribute to a more productive and reasoned discussion in the future. Let us all strive to engage in civil discourse that is based on facts and sound reasoning, rather than resorting to cheap and unproductive ad hominem attacks.

  10. If someone has been found to make compulsive and habitual ad hominem comments, it is important for them to reconsider their approach to discussions and arguments. Ad hominem attacks not only fail to contribute to logical discourse based on facts but also serve to undermine the credibility of the person making them.

    Ad hominem arguments, also known as personal attacks, are a type of logical fallacy where an argument is attacked by focusing on the character, motives, or other personal traits of the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself. For example, attacking someone's age or appearance rather than addressing their ideas or arguments is an ad hominem attack.

    Engaging in ad hominem attacks in discussions and arguments can have several negative consequences. First, it can undermine the integrity and credibility of the person making the attack. When someone resorts to personal attacks, it suggests that they are not confident in their own arguments or unable to address the points being made.

    Second, ad hominem attacks can damage personal and professional relationships. Insulting someone's character or motives can make them feel attacked, disrespected, or undervalued. This can lead to a breakdown in communication and a loss of trust, making it difficult to reach a resolution or agreement.

    Third, resorting to personal attacks is a sign of weakness rather than strength. By attacking someone's character or appearance rather than addressing their arguments, a person is essentially conceding that they have no valid response to the point being made. This undermines their credibility and diminishes the value of their opinion.

    It is important to recognize that people may not be receptive to arguments if they feel attacked or insulted. When someone feels personally attacked, they are likely to become defensive and closed off to new ideas or perspectives. This is counterproductive to engaging in logical discourse based on facts, where the goal is to share and exchange ideas in a respectful and constructive manner.

    Instead, people should focus on addressing the specific points or arguments being made, rather than attacking the character or personal qualities of the person making them. It is important to separate the argument from the person making it and to evaluate the argument on its own merits.

    To engage in productive and respectful discussions, people should practice active listening, thoughtful responses, and a willingness to consider alternative viewpoints. This requires being open-minded, non-judgmental, and respectful of others' opinions. By engaging in civil and respectful discourse, people can not only improve their own arguments but also foster a more positive and constructive environment for everyone involved.

    In conclusion, making compulsive and habitual ad hominem comments can have several negative consequences, including undermining credibility, damaging personal and professional relationships, and signaling weakness. To engage in logical discourse based on facts, people should focus on addressing the specific points or arguments being made and avoid attacking the character or personal qualities of the person making them. This requires active listening, thoughtful responses, and a willingness to consider alternative viewpoints. By engaging in civil and respectful discourse, people can create a more positive and productive environment for themselves and others.

    1. If one disliked personal attacks it would be impossible to read The Daily Howler. A fallacy implies logic is being abused. If I define Bob’s character by the obvious inconsistency with which he treats the people he writes about, I am not being illogical. If he personally attracts people he hates (the Times, MSNBC) it is even fair to assume he LIKES people he goes to absurd lengths to excuse (Trump, most Fox commentators). One might not agree, but it is not illogical.
      If our current showboating friend was an honest broker he would be interested in apply his (dubious) standards of logic to Bob, not to protecting his swinish subject changing. But as Bob would sometimes borrow from Joan Rivers in long lost days of integrity, can we talk? He is a childish Trumper, trying to protect Bob protecting Trump.
      Would you not agree, Mh, that the central Staw Man to be confronted today is the notion is convinced Trump could not re-emerge and defeat Biden? All evidence would indicate most of us would find this much more terrible than Bob would. The difference is we don’t believe Trump will be defeated by leaving him alone.

    2. Should be “the notion no one is convinced”

    3. Finally, there is no reason the standard employed by Bob in his posts is beneath the comment section. He often attacks people like Rachael Maddow and Nicole Wallace (“preening” Highly paid” ) on a very personal basis.

  11. The second amendment is evil.

  12. Republicans should support statehood for Puerto Rico and for the District of Columbia.

  13. Somerby says that we shouldn’t be so confident that Biden will win, since Republicans have won in the past, and so therefore we should abandon our current strategies, strategies that have been effective over the past decade, and instead adopt Somerby’s strategies, the problem being is that those strategies have been shown to help Republicans and hurt Dems. A major flaw with Somerby’s strategies is that it presumes persuasion plays a role in electoral politics, however, this has been shown to be false and that motivation is the key to electoral politics. Another flaw with Somerby’s notions is a misreading of the nature of right wingers, who do not view compromise as a virtue, but see it as a weakness to be exploited.

    Context matters greatly, generally humans can understand and incorporate context, while computers can not due in part to the relevance of the binary nature of programming, and certain conditions limit some humans from comprehending context, such as autism. It may be that Somerby is on the spectrum, but science suggests that it is more likely he suffers from unresolved trauma which can propagate an obsession with dominance and as well impact brain development in a way that limits the frontal cortex and increases the amygdala - this results in limitations in reasoning and increases in the amount and intensity of how they experience fear.

    Today Somerby walks back some of his false claims about the Zimmerman case, today he says we don’t know the details of what happened, whereas yesterday he put forth misinformation. This is because yesterday Somerby was embarrassed, as commenters pointed out his falsehoods (he claims to not read the comments, but it is obvious he is aware of their content).

    Somerby has been corrected in this manner, and on this subject, before, and repeatedly so (indeed this is the subject that ran off Somerby fanboy “deadrat”, he was so embarrassed on losing an argument, but at least he showed some virtue by walking away). When one is so intent on spreading misinformation and manufacturing ignorance for the mere and empty goal of attaining some sense of dominance, as Somerby does daily, it is incumbent on society to point that entity’s failure, their lack of integrity, so as to prevent harm to society, and furthermore investigate the root cause and suggest solutions.

    Yes, Somerby’s notions are disproven by reality, and yes, his goals are nefarious, but he is also a wounded lost soul, suffering in a dark abyss. While we can try to help pull Somerby out of his abyss, and assuage his suffering, this individualist approach will not lead to society progressing; we need to look at our systems and institutions and fight to return to our natural human roots of egalitarianism.

  14. Josh Marshall looks at Ron DeSantis:

  15. The response makes no such straw man claim fallacy. You don’t site or quote the response, because you are just pulling it out of your ass because you think it’s cute that you sort of know what Staw Man means.
    The response also makes no attempt to
    draw equivalence between Bob’s (supposed) problems with age. He is stating a fact: Bob only wants to site Biden’s problems, he’s long ago established we should have no problems with Trump. You should stop this, Bob, it makes you look silly.

  16. What happened in Chicago? Thugs ran wild. And police refused to do their job.

  17. 4:18

    I read your comment and wanted to address some of the logical fallacies and unprovable claims in your argument. Firstly, your ad hominem attack on Somerby's character and mental state is irrelevant and inappropriate. It is important to stick to the topic at hand and focus on the validity of his arguments.

    Regarding Somerby's argument about the effectiveness of current strategies, you make a valid point that motivation is a key factor in electoral politics. However, you seem to suggest that persuasion plays no role, which is not entirely accurate. Both motivation and persuasion are important, and successful campaigns often use a combination of both.

    You claim that Somerby's strategies have been shown to help Republicans and hurt Democrats, but you provide no evidence to support this claim. It is important to base arguments on factual evidence rather than assumptions.

    Your argument about returning to our "natural human roots of egalitarianism" is also unsupported by evidence. While egalitarianism may be a desirable goal, it is not a simple matter of returning to our natural roots. Humans have complex social and political systems that have evolved over time, and achieving egalitarianism requires careful consideration and planning.

    It is important to engage in productive and respectful discussions that are based on evidence and logic, rather than resorting to personal attacks and unfounded claims.

    es, there are several logical fallacies and problems with the comment:

    Ad hominem attacks: The comment attacks Somerby personally, rather than addressing the substance of his arguments.

    Hasty generalization: The comment makes sweeping generalizations about Somerby's character and motivations based on limited evidence.

    Appeal to authority: The comment suggests that the author's scientific expertise gives them special insight into Somerby's mental state, without providing any supporting evidence.

    False dichotomy: The comment presents a false choice between helping Somerby and promoting societal progress, as if these goals are mutually exclusive.

    Begging the question: The comment assumes without evidence that Somerby's ideas are "nefarious" and harmful to society.

    Ad populum: The comment suggests that Somerby's ideas are wrong because they are unpopular or disproven by reality, without providing any substantive critique.

    Ad hominem attack: The author attacks Somerby's character and mental health instead of addressing the substance of his arguments. This is an ad hominem attack, which is a fallacy that attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.

    False dilemma: The author presents a false dilemma by suggesting that the only two options are to "try to help pull Somerby out of his abyss" or "look at our systems and institutions and fight to return to our natural human roots of egalitarianism." This is a false dilemma because there are likely many more options available.

    Straw man: The author misrepresents Somerby's argument by suggesting that he advocates for abandoning effective strategies in favor of his own ineffective strategies. This misrepresentation is a straw man fallacy, which is a fallacy that misrepresents an opponent's argument in order to make it easier to attack.

    Overall, the comment relies on personal attacks and logical fallacies rather than reasoned argumentation.

  18. 4:21 Thank you for your comment. However, I must address a few issues with your response. Firstly, using vulgar language is not necessary and detracts from the point you are trying to make. Secondly, you have used the ad hominem fallacy by attacking the character of the person you are responding to instead of addressing the argument they are making.

    Furthermore, the original comment does make a straw man claim by misrepresenting the argument made in the response. The response does not attempt to draw equivalence between Bob's problems with age, but rather points out that criticizing a political figure's age or health is not a valid argument in a political debate. The response also does not suggest that we should have no problems with Trump, as the original comment claims.

    I appreciate your input on this topic, but let's try to keep the discussion civil and based on logical arguments.

  19. The party acting like Trump could not win is Bob. He counsels ignoring his lawlessness is sensible discretion, but it’s clearly impossible to accept this in good faith, because he never actually acknowledges the things Trump and his enablers have done in plain sight, and relishes each instance when he escapes accountability, and feels vindicated whenever his enemies suffer a setback:

    1. This comment contains several assumptions and biases about Bob's actions and beliefs that may or may not be accurate. Firstly, the comment assumes that Bob is a member of a political party and is acting like Trump. However, there is no evidence provided to support this assumption, so it may not be accurate.

      The comment assumes that Bob counsels ignoring Trump's lawlessness and suggests that it is impossible to accept this in good faith. Again, there is no evidence provided to support this assumption, so it may not be accurate. It's possible that Bob simply disagrees with the way Trump's actions are being addressed, or believes that there are more effective ways to hold him accountable.

      The comment suggests that Bob never acknowledges the things that Trump and his enablers have done in plain sight. However, this assumption may not be accurate, as there is no evidence provided to support it. It's possible that Bob acknowledges Trump's actions but disagrees with the way they are being addressed or believes that there are more effective ways to hold him accountable.

      The comment suggests that Bob relishes each instance when Trump escapes accountability and feels vindicated whenever his enemies suffer a setback. These assumptions may not be accurate, as there is no evidence provided to support them. It's possible that Bob simply has a different perspective on the situation or believes that there are more productive ways to address the issue.

      While the comment raises some valid concerns about Bob's actions and beliefs, it is important to acknowledge that there may be certain assumptions or biases at play that are not accurate. It's essential to gather more evidence and information before making any conclusions about Bob's motivations and actions.

      Could you please provide more details to back up your claims about Bob never acknowledging the things Trump and his enablers have done, relishing each instance of accountability, and feeling vindicated whenever his enemies suffer a setback?

    2. There is ample evidence to support this notion. Bob has never expressed, in two years the slightest distaste (let alone outrage) and Trumps attempts to steal the 2020 election, and had strained EXUSE them as mental problems . Those who have agreed and enabled Trump he simply ignores, or occasionally suggests are being mislead. Do you have the bald faced arrogance to ask for examples? I suggest you scroll threw the archives virtually any day since 2016.

    3. I would askYOU to site any example of Bob expressing ANY real distaste for Trump lies about the election in 2016 (yes, he lied about those results too) or 2020. Or his attempts to steal the 2020 election, his refusal to participate in the peaceful transfer of power, and his inciting the riot of Jan 6. Or maybe you could find Bob expressing some distaste for using the office to punish his enemies or pardon his crooked foot soldiers?

    4. Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment on the blog post. I appreciate your engagement with the content and your willingness to share your perspective.

      I understand that you believe the author of the blog post never acknowledges the things Trump and his enablers have done in plain sight, and therefore their argument is invalid. However, I would like to offer a different perspective. While it is true that the author may not explicitly acknowledge every action taken by Trump and his enablers, it is possible that their argument is focused on a specific aspect or issue related to the situation. It is also possible that the author has acknowledged these actions in previous posts or discussions.

      I also noticed that you seem to have a bias against the author and suggest that they are biased towards Trump and his enablers, and therefore cannot be trusted to present a fair argument. It is important to note that everyone has their own biases, and it is impossible to completely eliminate them. However, this does not necessarily mean that the author's argument is invalid or unfair. It is important to engage with the content and evaluate the argument based on its merits rather than dismissing it based on perceived biases.

      Thank you again for your comment and for contributing to the conversation. I hope we can continue to engage in respectful and meaningful discourse.

    5. 5:28

      Greetings! May I humbly take a moment of your time to engage in discourse regarding your aforementioned commentary? Whilst I commend your fervour on the subject, I must bring to your attention the fact that your comment makes certain suppositions without sufficient evidence to support them.

      It is imperative that we proffer substantiation when making assertions. This is commonly referred to as the "burden of proof". In the absence of any proof, our contentions are liable to be disregarded as mere conjecture or conjectural opinion. While you have called for instances of Bob exhibiting his disdain for particular facets of Trump's conduct, it is incumbent upon you to provide adequate evidence to support your assertion that Bob has not demonstrated any such repugnance.

      I do not intend to diminish your standpoint; however, it would be advantageous if you would proffer tangible evidence to buttress your assertions. Let us engage in a constructive dialogue on this matter and allow the evidence to lead us to a fair and equitable conclusion.

    6. Hey! I provided the proof, my blowfish sodomizing friend. The tangible evidence is the archives of "The Daily Howler" which you could easily access. I do not suggest you are too lazy to look at them, I suggest that, as a Trump champion, you are down in the bunker of evil, lying prostrate so Hitler may enter you from the rear! I would suggest your spin in Trump's favor is horseshit. 2015 is the year Trump ran. It is YOU who must provide the conflicting proof to my contentions, as they are obvious to any sane person who reads the blog. I told you where to look, the archives of the Daily Howler.

    7. Dear Sir/Madam,

      Be advised that the burden of proof lies solely upon the person making a claim. It is incumbent upon thee to present the necessary evidence to support thy assertion. If, in response to a request for evidence, thou dost direct the inquirer to the location where the evidence may be found, it may be perceived as a mere suggestion or assistance, rather than a fulfillment of thy duty to provide evidence.

      Therefore, let it be known that the onus remains upon thee to provide the relevant evidence to substantiate thy claim. May thee be reminded that in the absence of sufficient evidence, a claim cannot be deemed valid.

    8. No one here expressing a person opinion has any burden of proof to supply evidence. Others can agree or disagree, as the mood strikes them. This is not a court and people here are not writing high school essays or debating each other. People who have been here a long time know what Somerby has said and done. The rest can catch up by reading the archives. No one is going to engage these ridiculous comments by a bot.

    9. Be advised, fair sir or madam, that thou dost not speak on behalf of all, verily! No person seeks to claim that this argument doth bear semblance to a court, nor are the individuals herein composing essays akin to those scribed in secondary schooling or partaking in debates with each other. Those expressing personal opinions do not carry any obligation to provide substantiation, and others may assent or dissent as they so desire. This place is not akin to a court, nor is it a forum for academic discourses or debates. Those of long standing here are privy to the words and deeds of Somerby, whilst newcomers may peruse the archives to acquaint themselves with past discussions. It is unlikely that anyone will deign to engage with the absurd comments of an automated entity.

  20. IMO Biden will win, because the media will cover up for him. He doesn't need to do a good job, as long as the media reports that he's doing a good job.

    Biden is not mentally competent to be President. He is corrupt, as is shown in the way the Hunter investigation has been successfully stalled. Either of these two problems ought to make him ineligible, but the media won't report them accurately.

    1. There is nothing being covered up by the media. If there were scandal, it would be public because the media has no fondness for Democrats. Look at the trivial things that have already appeared about Biden.

      There is nothing to be found about Hunter except the sad dissipation of his drug addiction. There is no grand conspiracy to engage in influence peddling and money laundering, as has been established with the Trump children and their dad.

      Hunter Biden is a conspiracy theory supported by no evidence, just like Trump's lies about the 2020 election. Right wingers are fed this stuff because there is nothing substantive to attack Biden with beyond such lies.

    2. Apparently David is upset because Hunter’s dick is bigger than his. It’s not bigger than mine, whatever, I don’t care, tbh my partner prefers something a little smaller, I found them researching penis reduction surgery.

      Is it not some consolation though that David is a bigger dick than Hunter?

  21. Covering up for what, shit head?

    1. These new facts make the Biden family the GOAT of corruption
      The Biden family operated what could be one of the largest influence peddling efforts in history

    2. As a Trump voter, you have a lot of credibility in sussing out Corruption. Meh. Take a look at that guy who shot the kid in KC David. That's you. What a way to waste your life.

    3. It could be one of the largest influencing peddling efforts in history! Or not. As a famous blogger likes to say: Anything is possible!

      After reading the article, I came away still hungry for facts. Not much meat on the bone. All hat and no cattle.

    4. This is the Republican tactic of blaming the left for whatever is its own weakness.

      There is no truth to the accusations against Biden, just as there was no truth to John Kerry's swiftboating, no truth to the accusations against Hillary and Bill Clinton.

      People on the right make things up and their supporters believe them. What does it take for the right to believe that Fox News lies to its viewers?

      Here is a recent example, with the evidence laid out, of Fox lying to viewers:

    5. @7:27 I can well believe that Fox lies to its viewers. I don't trust any of the media.

    6. Last time I checked, Biden wasn't carted off to the hospital for an unscheduled visit to have his mental acuity at identifying silhouettes of zoo animals tested. The was your paragon of sanity, Donald J. Trump. You embarrass yourself with such nonsense. You have zero credibility to comment on Biden's mental status; maybe check your own. For example, the statement "I don't trust any media", following a citation of Fox news is ludicrous. " I can well believe Fox lies to its viewers" is a remarkable statement here, given that Rupert Murdoch admitted to such. How about "I know that Fox lies to its viewers because they admitted such and signed off on a massive settlement to avoid exposing themselves further." Try that on before suggesting that anyone use what is apparently your favorite news outlet as a source of reliable information. The Republicans have had access to Hunter Biden's hard drive for how many years now? We know for a fact that Trump's daughter and son in law were rewarded financially in massive proportions based on their proximity to the Oval Office. You have zero credibility to compare Hunter Biden's behavior in any way less favorably to theirs.

    7. Then you don’t know anything. The media informs the public.

    8. David in Cal,
      Republican voters have no problem with the Bdens due to corruption. The problem Republican voters have with Joe Biden is he believes black people should have equality, which is a MUCH bigger sin in the eyes of GOP voters.

  22. "That said, today's young adults have been fed that particular stew again and again and again."

    Black youth are not corrupted when the news media and others tell them stories involving racism. They already know about racism from their own daily lives.

    The fallacy at the heart of Somerby's argument is that racism is a made-up thing (invented by liberals) that doesn't exist in the world. That is wrong as applied to Trayvon Martin and Reese and it is wrong as applied to today's black youth. They DO have personal experiences of racism and they do understand that their skin color triggers bigots to behave badly.

    When you find yourself having to debate the existence of racial discrimination with someone, you know you are encountering bigotry yourself, just as surely as when David in Cal blames black people for racism. There are certain arguments that are firmly associated with right wing bigotry. Somerby's assertion that racism is over and there is nothing happening today, so telling kids they are discriminated against is filling their minds with "stew" is one of the versions of lingering white racism.

    1. Here is another example today of the ongoing racism that today's black youth face just going about their daily activities. This one comes from Rawstory:

      "Fred Veenendaal, vice principal at Sunnyside High School in Fresno, is seen on the video talking on his cell phone to what appears to be police. Veenendaal then says he has "three Section 8 people here, ghetto girls." It is unclear how the confrontation started.

      "Section 8" refers to a federal program that provides rental assistance to low-income families, the elderly, and disabled individuals.

      The news was picked up by FOX26, which reported that the girls were Kyra Schrubb, 17, Bri'janae Lewis, 17, and a friend. They say they were just walking through the gated community to cut their walk in half.

      "Kyra's mom tells FOX26 News that they have access to the gated community because they know somebody who lives there. She says her daughter and her friend take this shortcut to avoid walking the whole way around to the store. They say the shortcut usually saves them around 10 minutes," the local news outlet reported. "But this time, they took even longer when they spotted the man recording them. What hurts, they say, are the words he used."

      “It was unnecessary. You didn't have to do all that, you didn’t have to racial profile for no reason. I feel so bad because like as a black woman, I should be able to walk...and just walk peacefully without, you know, being racist for no reason," Kyra said, according to the report."

  23. "note the dismissive, name-calling comments insisting that "Meatball Ron / DeSatan" couldn't possibly win."

    Here's why most Republicans will vote for Trump over DeSantis or any other Republican: They know the Trump is an egomaniac who will not endorse anyone who beats him for the nomination and that he will likely run as an Independent candidate, which would split the Republican vote and elect Biden. Reps won't take that chance. Trump has them in a Catch-22 situation.

    "Assurances on cable news to the side, we think Joe Biden could lose next year. We have no idea if he will, but plainly he could."

    Would you please quote these assurances? You insinuate that there are enormous numbers of Dems who think that Biden can't lose--name some. The head-to-head polls show a close race between Biden and either Trump or DeSantis. Why would any sane Dem think that Biden can't lose or that his age is not a worry?

    1. When I say that Biden's age is a worry, I'm referring to a major incident (illness, stumble, or major display of confusion) "before" the election. Something that could affect his chances of winning. Of course, the same is true for Trump. Biden's an 80-year old who described himself as a "gaffe machine" five years ago plus, since he's the incumbent, he owns any bad things that happen between now and election day. There's plenty to worry about.

  24. Somerby provides no links to anything, so I have no idea what Reese did, or what Olbermann said, etc. why can’t Somerby summarize things? I’m not going to spend my time tracking down what I think he’s referring to.

    On the other hand, he seems to be saying that, because Reese was 9 years old when Trayvon Martin was killed, that she was subjected to “blue tribe” narrative (whatever that is), which led her to … diss Jill and Joe Biden, and that’s … what, rude?

    Oh, and Biden could lose…because…something something Reese…

    This resembles word salad. Or dopey rambling.

  25. 4:18 due to the limitations of your capabilities, you were unable to properly comprehend what I wrote and you made many errors and fallacies in your assessment.

    It is recommended that you acquire greater capabilities before making inaccurate and incoherent judgements of others.

    You seem to harbor ill will towards anyone that makes comments, and that clouds your analysis. You respond to every comment with hostility and laughably bad analysis.

    I did not attack Somerby's character - a descriptive analysis is not an attack. It is clear from what I wrote that I have empathy for those who suffer like Somerby does, and wish to find a solution. When you reframe someone’s comment to twist concern into an attack, it suggests that you are operating in bad faith. It is important to identify when someone is arguing in bad faith since that will effect the validity of their claims.

    You claim that persuasion playing no role is inaccurate yet you provide no evidence to substantiate this. You repeatedly make claims without evidence while falsely castigating others for the same. As it stands, your arguments are not credible, should we not explore why you engage in behavior that is considered counterproductive, even if only to help you improve your failed reasoning?

    When a claim is commonly known, such as Somerby’s misguided notions about voters - akin to saying the sun is hot, it is unnecessary to explain what is already commonly held in the public domain. Alternatively, Somerby makes many false claims and never bothers to provide evidence, this is something that is already accepted by the comment community and does not to be explained every time.

    Your comments about egalitarianism are false and you provide no evidence to support your claim. It is well established in the fields of anthropology, psychology, and sociology that humans are naturally egalitarian. Your unsubstantiated claims on the subject suggest a bias that is counterproductive to genuine discourse.

    Your analysis is embarrassingly bad, for example there is no false dilemma, the two options you mention were not presented as a making a choice between the two, just the opposite in fact, and there was no indication that these were the only two options of action in the universe. What you write does not follow logically. Since you insist on make poorly reasoned claims filled with falsehoods and fallacies, does not that suggest a course of action that could include a rejection of your nonsense claims?


  27. The second amendment is evil.

  28. Reading between the lines, David in Ca is pumping some really garbage scow scandal mongering on the right and given the way things are shaping up this week with Fox and all, how could it be otherwise? The Bill for Trump may finally be tolling in not just for Trump, but for feeding anything halfway decent in Conservative
    America to the evil machine. Yes, the left let some of this go on, but the real crazies were encouraged by the David in Ca types. You should have tried to get a little more for your soul, David, and your desperate bullshit won’t help you now. Same goes for Bob. See you two back in Court😊. With the Dominion Case, for the first time I really thought, the Country might be salvaged.