BLUE BAYOUS: He caucused with Democrats, voted for Trump!

THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2024

One caucus goer speaks: For the record, we agree with almost everything David Frum said.

Frum is the former Bush speech writer who apparently coined the phrase, "axis of evil," as our nation was on its way into Iraq. 

He's also a long-time Never Trumper and a staff writer at The Atlantic. The essay with which we (almost wholly) agree appears beneath this headline:

The Ruin That a Trump Presidency Would Mean

What kind of ruin does Frum foresee? As a starter, he's observing this:

FRUM (1/16/24): In 2016, Republicans could profess some uncertainty about the kind of president Donald Trump would be. Maybe the office would change the man? Maybe the party elite could bend Trump to its will?

But in 2024, there’s no uncertainty. Trump’s party is signing up for the ride, knowing exactly what the ride is. Pro-Ukraine senators are working to elect a president who will cut off Ukraine, knowing that he will cut off Ukraine. Pro-NATO senators are working to elect a president who will wreck NATO, knowing that he will wreck NATO.

In Frum's view, the world will change in disastrous ways if Trump reaches the White House again. In our view, that's surely a strong possibility. 

We're mainly surprised by the air of surprise Frum brings to his gloomy forecasts. Also, by the fuzzy thinking with which he concludes his piece. Here's how his essay ends:

FRUM: What kind of people are Americans, anyway? Trump has made clear, without illusions, that his ballot issue in 2024 is to rehabilitate and ratify his attempt to overturn the election of 2020. He is running to protect himself from the legal consequences of that attempt. But even more fundamentally, he is running to justify himself for attempting it. In 2016, Trump opponents warned that he might refuse to leave office if defeated. In 2024, Trump himself is arguing that he was right to refuse to leave office when defeated, and he is asking Americans to approve his refusal.

If he should return to the presidency in 2025, we have no reason to expect him to leave in 2029. So maybe the issue on the ballot in 2024 is not a choice at all, but a much more open-ended question. We know who Biden is. We know who Trump is. Who are we?

Do we "know who Biden is?" We're not quite sure what that means.

Do we "know who Trump is?" Not necessarily, no. For example, our press corps is dedicated to the proposition that we must never ever discuss a rather obvious possibility—the possibility that the raging Donald J. Trump is (severely) mentally ill.

Meanwhile, who are "we?" What kind of people are we Americans?

In a nation of 330 million souls, that strikes us as a slightly peculiar question. Adapting Whitman, but also inevitably, we are multitudes! We aren't one single person with one single set of understandings and one single worldview.

For an example of what we mean, consider an Iowa caucus goer who was interviewed on CNN this past Monday night. The interview was conducted by CNN's Kate Bolduan during the 7 p.m. Eastern hour. 

In Iowa, it was the 6 p.m. hour. Here's how the exchange began:

BOLDUAN (1/15/24): We're in Ames, Iowa. This is Sawyer Elementary School where there are three of the 24 precincts in Ames are all caucusing in this site right now. 

Where I am is where everyone is entering. This is the check-in desk, and right here is where first, this is where folks can register.

[...]

Joining me now is John [LAST NAME WITHHELD].

JOHN: Yeah, hi.

BOLDUAN: And you were—you were just filling out this form. Tell me what you were—are you a first-time caucus goer or what?

JOHN: Tonight, I was just switching parties to Republican. So I've caucused several times before.

BOLDUAN: Several times, but for Democrats?

JOHN: Last election, I caucused with Democrats. And so this election, I wanted to come back and caucus with Republicans.

BOLDUAN: Tell me why.

JOHN: I've kept really close watch on the election and listened to all the candidates and tried to make educated decisions. So I felt it was important to come and support the candidate that I chose.

To watch the entire exchange, you can start by clicking here.

Ames is an urban area; it's the home of Iowa State. That said, this caucus goer had braved the vicious winter weather to participate in the opening night of our nation's extremely complex election process. 

Below, we'll offer John King's summary of this Iowa voter's recent electoral history. First, though, here is this voter's account of where he stood as of Monday night:

BOLDUAN: You don't have to tell me, but have you decided who you're going to be caucusing for tonight?

JOHN: I have, yes.

BOLDUAN: Would you tell me?

JOHN: Sure. I've decided to caucus for Nikki Haley.

BOLDUAN: What is—what determined that? What's driving your decision tonight?

JOHN: I think she's going to be very strong in foreign policy. I was debating between her and Vivek. And I think her foreign policy is just going to be a lot stronger than what he was proposing, and I think with the current times globally, that's going to be very important for a president.

[...]

BOLDUAN: Have you been undecided, uncommitted for a time? When did you decide?

JOHN: I started out being in Nikki Haley's camp, and then I was considering Vivek very strongly, and probably in the last day or so then I decided to go with Nikki Haley.

BOLDUAN: John, can you tell me, if you would, who you voted for in 2020?

JOHN: I voted for Donald Trump.

BOLDUAN: And why not caucus for Donald Trump this time? What is it?

JOHN: I think his policies were good, but I think that there's too much distractions with him as president...

Bolduan didn't ask one major question of this caucus goer. If he caucused with Democrats in 2020, how did he end up voting for Trump?

That said, this one Iowa voter seemed to contain multitudes. Moments later, John King, serving as anchor, summed it up as shown:

KING: This is opening day of 2024, and that interview was just a fabulous snapshot of what I'm finding when you're out on the road as well—disaffected Americans who don't know where their political home is.

A man who caucused for the Democrats, voted for Donald Trump, considered Vivek Ramaswamy, and then lands on Nikki Haley.

That's a ping pong of politics. And I say that with full respect, no disrespect at all. That's how people feel. Where is my home? Who do I trust? Who represents me? And that's what makes this so unpredictable. 

Was that Iowa caucus goer a "disaffected American?" That wouldn't have been our own reaction, but that was King's account of that Iowa voter's recent history. 

In response to Frum's closing question, we'll only offer this:

That's who one (1) of us Americans is. Restricting ourselves to people who voted in 2020, that would be one down, with roughly 157 million more of us Americans to go!

In 2020, that Iowa caucus goer voted for Candidate Trump. We ourselves voted for Candidate Biden.

As of today, what does that caucus goer think about Donald J. Trump as a person? What does he think about the events of January 6? 

What does he think about the sorts of forecasts found in Frum's gloomy essay? This time around, could he imaginably end up voting for Biden instead of Trump? What does he think will happen if Trump wins a second term?

Also, where does he get his news and information? What newspapers does he read? Does he watch any particular "cable news" channel?

The questions could have gone on and on, then on and on and on and on, deep into a very cold Iowa night. If we chose to restrict ourselves to people who voted for Trump last time around, we'd have something like 74 million sets of questions to go.

"I contain multitudes," Whitman alleged. So does a very large nation.

Tomorrow: Good advice, coming way too late

Still coming: But what the heck's a blue bayou?


113 comments:


  1. "For the record, we agree with almost everything David Frum said."

    That means that may want to seriously re-examine your mindset, Bob.

    "JOHN: Tonight, I was just switching parties to Republican. [...] JOHN: Sure. I've decided to caucus for Nikki Haley."

    Ah, yes. Sounds like one of those ratfucking Democrats:
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-democrats-could-give-haley-a-boost-in-iowa-caucuses/ar-AA1mWJRN

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shut up Mao, ya damn mouse.

      Delete
    2. David Frum is a Canadian-American political writer who worked as George W. Bush's speechwriter and wrote the first book on Bush's administration. He currently writes for The Atlantic. Yes, he sees Trump as a danger, but he is another Republican. Why has Somerby been quoting so many Republican opinion writers lately? This, while Somerby claims to be liberal and says he will vote for Biden (although he never says anything positive about Biden and has talked about Biden's age several times, without mentioning that Trump is old too). If I wanted to read Republican opinion pieces, I could do that myself, without help from this never-liberal pseudo-blue tribe member (Somerby, not Frum).

      Delete
    3. There is nothing illogical or surprising about a moderate Right Winger sickened by Trump. The sad and surprising thing is those who have stuck with him.

      Delete
    4. anon 11:05, I note that you don't want to be exposed to any GOP open writers, even those who are anti-Trump. One can't help but wonder why you expose yourself to TDH's daily missives, which you obsessively find fault with, in spite of his alleged status (by you) as a "never-liberal pseudo blue tribe member."

      Delete
    5. I can read those guys myself if I want to. Why should liberals waste time on them? Somerby doesn’t talk about liberal opinion or issues here much, especially not from a left position.

      The main time he has done it recently is to support Palestine & pro-Palestinian protesters but that is not a party-line or clearly tribal issue.

      Somerby calls himself liberal but talks right wing which may confuse readers who come here expecting liberal viewpoints. He is lying and I believe that part of defending democracy is separating truth from lies and disinformation. Labeling right wing propaganda as left wing opinion is a tactic designed to undermine the left.

      Delete
    6. It’s time to stop supporting Israel’s atrocities.

      Delete
    7. Like raping and torturing hostages, before killing them, even the babies? Oh, wait, it was Hamas who did that.

      Delete
    8. We don’t support Hamas’s atrocities. We do support Israel’s atrocities.

      Delete
    9. And we should stop supporting Israel’s atrocities.

      Delete
    10. You definitely should, if you feel that way about it.

      Delete
    11. Every pro-Palestinian protester is supporting those Hamas atrocities after the fact.

      Delete
    12. AC/…I’m at 11:05 but not the other person you accuse me of being. I will say, your objection seems pointless but a little too hazy to answer.

      Delete
  2. Famous quote from David Frum, from 2020:

    “ If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another Frum quote:

    “ The one-third of America that identifies as “conservative” will be isolated even more profoundly within an information ghetto of deception and incitement.”

    ReplyDelete
  4. Our press corps is dedicated to the proposition that we must never ever discuss a rather obvious possibility—the possibility that the Johns in Ames of the world might be (severely) mentally ill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not mentally ill. Just stupid.

      Delete
    2. These possibilities interact

      Delete
    3. For example, I’m both mentally ill and stupid. I am Corby.

      Delete
  5. Trump's displayed traits of obsessive neatness which is reified into hatred of the lower classes walking around before his beautiful, beautiful real estate. When you see a glint in his eye about the glorious rolling hills and people of America, he's imagining an idealized version of you and me, without the grime of the non-white lower classes anywhere to be seen. Punishment culture politics hide the human body from the public, "Lock her up" etc. And he hypocritically cannot help but demand he control this lever of power, creating a feedback loop of breaking the law in order to take over the government, insurrectionist Ku Klux Klan politics of terror, hitting people with cars, and as he put it, bumping people's heads on the car when they're being arrested.

    This leads into his sadistic streak. Beyond being an obsessive person, he's a cruel person about getting his way. The peace he's said to have brokered in the middle east was simply tying the Arab country's hands behind their back with an anti-Iran pledge. Israeli right-wing politics were revitalized under Trump where they got a push to be even more creative with how to break international law, now they are stripping Palestinian prisoners saying the weather made it too hot for them to have the dignity of clothes. The camps he built in America for refugees were hard to escape and not everyone made it out of them alive.
    Shamefully, the media are telling this story as if everyone is on board the punishment side of the suppressed climate and neoliberal colonial causes of the refugee situation, called in America incorrectly, "the immigration issue" or "the border."

    The older generations in general have to see doctors for the brain and not be stigmatized for it. What Trump has can be considered some pathological traits mixed with an ideology from white supremacy in America and when that mixes with the state it becomes a powerful instrument of fascist terror.

    The lightness that the country took until now about how fucked up the country is for enabling him and putting him on TV and movies, is also something we should grieve and reflect on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 10:11, when you say that "country" put him {Trump I assume) in "movies" are you alluding to Trump's cameo role in one of the "Home Alone" films?

      Delete
    2. He was the star of Idiocracy.

      Delete
    3. He was in a couple of music videos. He had walk-ons in a lot of movies (Zoolander, Wall Street Money Never Sleeps).

      Delete
  6. Somerby’s trick of attempting to scare you into following his misguided notions on how the blue tribe should behave, is laughably goofy.

    Somerby incorrectly claims Trump’s mental condition is not discussed in corporate media (it’s even been highlighted on Fox News, you dope) which recalls his many posts appreciatively noting Dr Bandy Lee’s public (on corporate media) warning of Trump and his mental problems.

    Interestingly, Somerby does not mention Dr Lee much anymore, likely because she has advanced her insights to where she now explains that Republican voters suffer from a pathology she calls Trump Contagion. She says they have no ideology and that they are stuck in survivor mode (due to unresolved trauma) that limits their ability to be rational with respect to politics. She says they are dragging America down a death spiral.

    Somerby puts his thumb on the scale when he tries to push his nonsensical agenda of acquiescing to Republicans. At face value, an agenda without substance or evidence to support it, an agenda that has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective; in reality Somerby is bent on bringing down the blue tribe. Don’t be a sucker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't find your misuse of psychiatric diagnosis to label Trump to be any more justified than Bandy Lee's.

      Trump says a lot of shocking and horrifying things. It is sufficient to rule him out as president on the basis of his statements, taken at face value, without hypothesizing about what has driven him to say such stuff. No one should be a viable candidate who has said and done what Trump has done.

      It is on the American people to recognize this and keep Trump out of office by voting for a better candidate. That's Biden. In 2020, that is exactly what happened and it will happen again, because the American voter is not like the person Somerby describes today. There may be fools in our nation's electorate, but we are not a nation of fools, as Somerby suggests.

      We've had crazy candidates before. Our process but allows that to happen and it seems to attract crazies. That doesn't mean they get elected.

      The problem in 2016 was that power-hungry Republicans (funded by oligarchs from the US and other nations, notably Russia) rallied behind an unsuitable candidate to beat the first female nominee, Hillary Clinton. The years of Clinton-bashing paid off as Bernie attacked HIllary using right-wing memes and Russian financial aid. Russia funded a social media campaign targeted at black and progressive voters in three key states, causing sufficient numbers to stay home or switch to Jill Stein, resulting in those states swinging to Trump. This was aided by an October statement by James Comey (against govt policy) stating that he was reopening an investigation into Hillary's emails and implying that she was guilty of wrongdoing after all. Hillary tried to blow the whistle on these Russia-involved activities but was ignored. This is how the election was engineered to defeat Clinton and put Trump into office. Trump repaid Putin by giving him whatever he wanted in terms of foreign policy, and by sharing classified info with Putin (American agents in Russia had to be recalled and many just disappeared early in Trump's term.)

      This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but so do the facts of the 1/6 insurrection and the plot to replace Biden electors with Trump electors.

      In a fair election, lacking interference by Russia or Republican deep money, Biden will win again, as he did in 2020. The right wing may turn to violence if that happens, but we cannot be threatened into abandoning our democracy, as Trump and his extremist supporters have been doing. White supremacists cannot replace liberal voters if we take our vote seriously and come out to the polls, as we did in 2020. Trump is not going to win unless we forfeit our democracy.

      Meanwhile, Somerby is working hard to help Trump. Why? Perhaps Somerby needs to be diagnosed by Bandy Lee, or perhaps he is being paid or threatened. It doesn't matter why. What matters is that liberals hold on to our values and come out to vote in the presidential election. And that matters a lot.

      Delete
    2. There's a difference between a scattered discussion here and there, and the media taking the topic seriously.

      Delete
    3. 10:54 How do you differentiate between constructive criticism of a political group and an intent to harm or bring down that group?

      Delete
    4. "Somerby is bent on bringing down the blue tribe."

      [Whispers - Should we let him know he's a nut, or could he be dangerous?]

      Delete
    5. intent to bring down = defeat at polls

      Delete
    6. The commenter selectively acknowledges information that supports their pre-existing view of Somerby and ignores or dismisses information that might contradict it.

      Delete
    7. Yes, Somerby sets a very bad example that way.

      Delete
  7. Some Americans will repeat an obviously false contention, like there has been no discussion in the Political press that Trump has mental problems, over and over again. There is no point in correcting this person, as he is hellbent in claiming this justifies Trump in some way or another.
    Some Americans are people like Hatchet Speed.
    Some Americans refer to people like Hatchet Speed
    as "Hostages" when their violent actions land them
    in jail.
    Some Americans are outraged when documents meant
    to falsely claim victory in elections are called forgeries.
    Some of these same people, when the people who tired
    to pass off these fake documents are sent to jail,
    say nothing.
    When a congressional committee presents irrefutable
    evidence of an attempt to overthrow the government
    through violence, some people say,
    "the committee was one sided."
    Some people have nothing to say about Ruby Freeman
    Shaye Moss, but worry that white people get called
    racist too much, and that Joe Biden didn't reign in
    his son.
    And then, some people are not very bright.
    Some people don't pay any attention to what's
    going on.
    Some people easily fooled by mercenary sadists
    like Alex Jones and become mean assholes.
    Some people are just mean assholes.
    Indeed, we contain multitudes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In a caucus where Trump won the biggest per cent of all time, they focused on a Haley voter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump voters are a known quantity.

      Delete
    2. And now we go to the typical Trump voter, what do you have to say?

      "Let Republicans Say The N Word Again"

      Back to you, Jim.

      Delete
    3. David,
      1) that wasn't really the biggest percent of all time for an incumbent president, jackass.
      2) the reason is because Trump is a hideous, amoral narcissist disgusting human being, and it is horrific to even contemplate giving him the power of the presidency again. OK, jackass?

      Delete
    4. Imagining that all Trump voters are the same and are all bad is prejudice. It’s like saying the same thing about all blacks or all Jews.

      I heard MLK speak in Washington. I donated thousands of dollars to civil rights organizations. My family is bi-racial. See Lizzie Skurnick. So your characterization of Trump voters is not accurate

      Delete
    5. You can either demand everyone hate immigrants together, or want to be seen as individuals, but you can't do both David.

      Delete
    6. Let's hope David's faith in the national representation proved by Trump's Iowa showing is as dubious as it seems. If you did support fair play for black America through the sixties, David, it just shows you are even a bigger a hole for stabbing black America in the back ever since.

      Delete
    7. Leviticus 19:18
      “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself”

      Delete
    8. I am insane. I suffer under the delusion that David is vermin. But he is not vermin, he is a good decent person. I am insane.

      Delete
    9. I heard MLK speak in Washington.

      Yes, David, there were a lot of other John Birchers in that crowd that day also.

      Delete
    10. All Trump voters are a group formed based on a shared characteristic, Trump support. Calling them all alike because of what they share, what defines their group, is not prejudice.

      Delete
    11. Yes, @8:38, it's not prejudice. Unless you presume that they tend to share some negative characteristic.

      Delete
    12. No, unless you reason that if someone has black skin that you know something about their intelligence or work ethic, unrelated factors that have nothing to do with skin color.

      Delete
  9. Why did a Democrat vote for trump in 2020? Probably because he wanted change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would imagine that Somerby once voted for Democrats, back when he was dodging the draft and teaching black kids from a place of idealism. Then he succumbed to the drinking water in Baltimore, rediscovered his Southern roots as an Al Gore lover, and became an old conservative man, still thinking he is liberal because he can quote Bob Dylan (without attribution). Why did Somerby vote for Trump in 2016? Because he hated Hillary (and women in general). And by 2020, Fox News had its hooks into him. Now his brain is mushier than Trump's and he cannot be saved. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow these sad lemmings off the cliff.

      Delete
    2. Teaching instead of fighting was one of the most honorable choices Somerby ever made.

      Delete
    3. It would be more honorable to declare conscientious objector status but Somerby wouldn’t qualify.

      Delete
    4. anon 11:34, you have a particularly noxious style - you ask why TDH voted for Trump when you have no evidence that he did - were you in the ballot booth? Aside from that, the assertion that he did is absurd, not that it matters. You make statements with no evidence, just like the reviled Trump.

      Delete
    5. That’s right, AC/MA, there is no way to know how Somerby voted and no reason to believe him when he “tells” us something, such as that he is liberal. Trump makes statements that contradict evidence.

      Delete
    6. We can’t even be sure that Bob exists.

      Delete
  10. John is a moron. Trum says that he should have the right to do anything as President including having others killed. So what is Biden waiting for?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Iowa has a history of people from both parties switching sides to vote in caucuses. It was legal until recently. I met a man who organized Iowa caucuses when he was younger and he told me about how it worked. Now they must be registered Republicans and can participate only in their home districts. It wasn't always so, and it may be that Democrats (or Independents) switched to Republican specifically to vote for someone who was not Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But I believe they can conveniently change party registration right at the caucus. A number of Dems did so in order to vote for Haley

      Delete
  12. "As of today, what does that caucus goer think about Donald J. Trump as a person? What does he think about the events of January 6? "

    Somerby goes on to list a bunch of other questions that might have been asked of that same guy.

    But, as Somerby himself notes, that is still going to be only one person, "with roughly 157 million more of us Americans to go!"

    It goes without saying that Somerby himself is only one guy. No matter what his opinions about politics, a campaign manager would be crazy to tailor Biden's campaign to reach someone like Somerby. For one thing, he would be unable to make Biden any younger than he his, since even Einstein knows that time runs in the opposite direction. So what is the point of Somerby insisting that these kooks be interviewed in depth?

    We needn't worry about these outliers anyway. Once Trump gets in again, he will institute a purity test for voting and only those who pass will be allowed at the polls, among Republicans. All Democrats will be automatically excluded for their past crimes. Trump is a vindictive SOB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob is engaging in a kind of sophistry probably calculated to inflict pain on his "blue tribe" readers. Obviously Frum is talking about our national character, and you have to have a pretty indifferent view of the US to be unconcerned. The family values/personal responsibility party is raising a lot of young people who believe cheating and bullying are the way to fight for what you believe in. There may be results a generation away we will be glad not to be here to see.

      Delete
    2. Interviews with Nikki Haley voters suggest they hate Trump and would support Biden. That is 17% of the Republicans in the Iowa caucus.

      Delete

  13. 100% of the people who do their own research know:

    The Democratic party must pay the Reparations for Slavery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just like Lincoln evicted Native Americans from their homes, so do modern Republicans and Conservatives in parts of the Democratic party evict refugees from the US.

      Delete

    2. I do my own research.

      The unescapable conclusion: the Democratic party must pay Reparations. It's scientific.

      Delete
    3. That’s the “Democrat” Party to you.

      Delete
    4. I lack the necessary talent for research. I’m lucky I can read.

      Delete
  14. Somerby is an ass. I play bridge. All smart people play bridge. I am smart. I smell my fingers.

    I am Corby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not good at card games. I used to like to play Monopoly. I am the real Corby.

      Delete
    2. Does Russia via Iran and Qatar fund your enough to buy a real Tesla, Boris?

      I am Corby.

      Delete
    3. Qatar is innocent.

      Delete
    4. This is exactly what Boris would say.

      Delete
    5. Only the true messiah would deny his divinity!

      Delete
    6. A true messiah wouldn't deny His divinity; instead, He would dodge the question, saying something like, "You say I am."

      Delete
    7. Right. Messaihs are coy.

      Delete
    8. It's a sad that Corby (a/k/a Fake Corby) makes more sense than so many of the commentators here.

      Delete
    9. The real Corby and the fake Corby are two different trolls.

      Delete
    10. Commentator and commenter mean different things. Is that you cecelia?

      Delete
    11. I am not cecelia. I am cognitive.

      Delete
    12. I suspect these language mistakes come from trolls who are not native speakers of English. Especially Cecelia.

      Delete
    13. I am a native speaker of American English. I am Corby.

      Delete
  15. "In a nation of 330 million souls..."

    Clearly, Bob is trying to manipulate us in sordid, unnatural ways. As anyone can check the latest statistics and see that the population of the U.S. is closer to 336 million. This is merely the tip of the iceberg, a representation in full bloom of Somerby's laziness and lack of regard for his readers. A symbolic nugget representing the rot at Somerby's core. Disgusting!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kevin asks:

    https://jabberwocking.com/will-the-supreme-court-let-trump-off-on-a-technicality/

    ReplyDelete
  17. Meanwhile Trump is again bragging about passing a test given to individuals for assessment of dementia. 4 years ago. The test begins with identifying silhouettes of zoo animals and ends with remembering 5 words (short term); individuals familiar with the test state that there is no math involved, despite Trump stating that it involved such. Let's say that a driver's conduct on the road is suspicious enough that he is mandated by the authorities to undergo a vision test. The results of that test are never disclosed to the public nor the severity of his driving that resulted in it. Four years later he applies for a job driving a bus after behaving erratically on multiple occasions, suggesting that his vision is impaired. Does the bus company assume that he is a safe hire?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Does the bus company assume that he is a safe hire?" If the bus driver is Trump and the bus company is Republican voters, the answer is an overwhelming indifference to the test or ignorance of its existence.

      Delete
  18. Most voters have not started thinking about the election yet. They do not follow political news obsessively, like we do. Polls will change when they wake up and find out Trump is running again.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The test, called the Montreal Cognitive Assessment was easy at first, according to Trump, but got much harder, with math including as an example: 3293x4÷3.

    Except it doesn't, of course. The one math question on the test requires serially subtracting 3 from 100.

    Trump supporters lap this kind of bullshit up, not having any idea of where it stops and reality begins. After being instructed 3 times to return classified documents in his possession, he instructed his employees to hide them in a bathroom, but somehow, according to rubes like DIC it is a politically motivated witch hunt to have charged him for obstructing this process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That should be a cognitive test for David & Trump both.

      Delete
    2. "After being instructed 3 times to return classified documents in his possession, he instructed his employees to hide them in a bathroom, but somehow, according to rubes like DIC it is a politically motivated witch hunt to have charged him for obstructing"

      Why could not both be true?

      Delete
    3. Because other people who have done far less are in prison. Are we to presume they are witches too?

      Delete
    4. 8:33 Because by definition, if he is guilty of those charges it is not a witch hunt, however his minions would like to declare it so. They recovered empty folders for top secret documents. I suppose that’s not a problem for you.

      Delete
    5. Yes that is true if he is guilty it is not a witch hunt. His minions can though reasonably claim it is a politically motivated. An action can be both a violation of the law and be pursued more vigorously or with different intentions due to political reasons.

      Delete
    6. You cannot claim political motivation if others without political value have been more severely punished for lesser offenses than Trump.

      Delete
    7. Because there was obviously no political motivation in those other cases of people who got stiff sentences and harsh treatment, including jail without bail. It suggests Trump is getting more lenient treatment, perhaps for political reasons. That’s the opposite of a witch hunt.

      Delete
    8. I agree it can't be claimed to be a witch hunt. But your statement implies a causal relationship between the alleged absence of political motivation in other cases and the suggestion of political motivation in Trump's case and correlation does not equal causation. Let's remind ourselves treatment in legal cases are influenced by a multitude of factors, and direct comparisons between cases can be hazardous. Ie. Trump supporters looking at the same facts may not have the same opinion as you have expressed here.

      Delete
    9. I guarantee they won’t. That’s why you can’t talk to them.

      Delete
    10. That's why you can't talk to them. ;)

      Delete
    11. Political motivations are the fall back excuses that Fox talking heads typically rely on when they have no substance for their arguments. After the Covid vaccine roll out when the Biden administration was heavily promoting vaccination, a Fox talking point was that the promotion of vaccination was politically motivated. This tactic was a means of denigrating the opposition, and conveying distrust in a Democratic administration such that the Fox viewer would perceive the Biden administration of caring less about citizens than scoring political points. Ultimately an excess of 140,000 lives were lost due to nonvaccination, but Fox talking heads cared less, having been mandated vaccinations by their evmployer.

      Delete
    12. Your comment replaces a substantive discussion with political accusations twice. First, when it accuses Fox News commentators of bias without thoroughly examining what they actually said about Covid vaccination. And second, when it suggests that the only reason for the Fox News commentary on the Covid vaccine is to undermine the Biden administration, neglecting to consider other possible non-political factors that might have influenced their stance.

      Delete
    13. Fox has non-political stances, 1:43? Are you serious?

      Delete
    14. Yes. Of course.

      Delete
    15. 1:43 all stocked up with hydroxychloroquine are we?

      Delete
    16. Covid vaccines prevent infection and transmission. This is THE SCIENCE.

      I am Corby.

      Delete

    17. Fox News is scientifically proven to be funded by Russia via Iran and Qatar.

      Somerby hates women.

      I am Corby.

      Delete

    18. Numerous scientific studies confirm: if Trump wins, we will all die.

      I am Corby.

      Delete
    19. 9:08 and 9:45: correct and correct. Nicely done.

      Delete
  20. The progression to full blown dementia is on display here although he wasn’t looking great back when he wondered aloud about drinking a bleach-like substance to cure Covid. You know, around the time when he was carted off for the dementia test.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1:43 Who are you to say what I have thoroughly examined? I worked in a hospital that was a regional catchment for Covid patients during the height of the pandemic and found myself at the bedside of an unvaccinated Covid patient watching the four Fox talking heads (Doucey et al.) pontificate on TV about how Biden was pushing the vaccine to score points with his base. Not an easily forgettable moment in the bedside of a middle age staunch conservative who had set himself up to die for having listened to such crap. So yeah, I remember the Fox propaganda quite well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kamala Harris On Vaccine: 'If Donald Trump Tells Us To Take It, I’m Not Taking It.'

      Are you outraged?

      Delete
    2. And that statement has what to do with Fox? Speaking of Trump, as you are, it looks like Nikki Haley = Nancy Pelosi now. In a statement that, if directed at Pelosi, as he has in the past, would have been fiction. Completely losing his marbles.

      Delete

    3. We liberals ♥ politicizing vaccines and medications. All scientists agree: if Donald Trump mentioned a medication, it's poison!

      But once a no-name Fox talking head (allegedly) caught politicizing, that is murder. And that is a scientific fact.

      I am Corby.

      Delete
    4. Promoting ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as alternatives to vaccination. Substituting ineffective medications for appropriate treatment was effective at killing people. So yes, poisons in their outcomes for this who chose them over vaccination, as promoted on Fox, by their well known talking heads including Carlson and others.

      Delete
  22. Replies
    1. Trump was right there with you, buddy.

      Hailing the “you can still contract Covid 19, but it won’t be as bad” vaccine as his own.

      Delete
  23. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/timeline-of-trumps-covid-19-comments/

    Also promoted hydroxychloroquine which Fox ran with as an alternative to vaccination, which they treated with skepticism, but some credit can be given to Warp Speed, although Pfizer's product was independent of that and came out as quickly.

    ReplyDelete