SATURDAY, JANUARY 6, 2024
Elite presidents meet jugglers and clowns: "I Hear America Singing?"
It started out as a poem by Walt Whitman. The great rail-splitter was still alive. The poem started like this:
I hear America singing, the varied carols I hear,
Those of mechanics, each one singing his as it should be blithe and strong,
The carpenter singing his as he measures his plank or beam,
The mason singing his as he makes ready for work, or leaves off work,
The boatman singing what belongs to him in his boat...
As best we can tell, the poem was first published in the 1860 edition of Whitman's book, Leaves of Grass.
I hear America singing! If memory serves, by the time we graduated from junior high, someone had apparently composed a song of that same name.
If memory serves, we eighth graders sang it at our graduation event. The song began like this:
I hear America singing.
One for all, all for one, is our song...
We can't find a record of any such song. But we don't think we're dreaming that up.
Most weekend mornings, we watch the first hour of C-Span's call-in show, Washington Journal. The program gives us a chance to hear the way various people understand the world.
In effect, we hear America singing. Today, the second song started like this:
MODERATOR (1/6/24): Next up, we're going to go to Joe in Laguna Woods, California on our Republican line. Good morning, Joe.
JOE IN LAGUNA WOODS: Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my call. Thanks for C-Span, generally unbiased.
Yes, democracy is the top issue [in this year's election], absolutely, because our democracy has been overthrown in a coup. It's really insane at this point that people think that Joe Biden got 84 million votes. It's just insane, the level of lying of this current empire of lies that overthrew the country in 2020.
And mainstream media and C-Span don't put this spin, as if nothing happened, nothing to see there. It's really insane.
Everybody on the planet should watch 2,000 Mules. That was just one layer of the level of fraud that they implemented during the Covid experience, when they brought these remote voting boxes all over the place. And they caught over two thousand people stuffing ballots from things.
And that stuff in Carolina [sic] with Giuliani, they have videos of two women rigging the election in the middle of the night. Instead of arresting them, the terrible criminals that betrayed our nation, they prosecuted Giuliani for saying that the two women rigged the election. And they attacked him.
From Julian Assange to Giuliani, not safe from this empire of lies that's been sending our children to war under false pretenses and doing other sh*t things.
Another key understanding is false flags. January 6—
As this point, the moderator broke in, citing this recent guest column by Ken Block in USA Today. (Headline: "Trump paid me to find voter fraud. Then he lied after I found 2020 election wasn't stolen.")
The caller was asked how he'd deal with people who say such things. This is the way he replied:
JOE IN LAGUNA WOODS: I'd ask them to look at the facts, like I mentioned at the beginning. 2,000 Mules, Dinesh D'Souza funded and produced that. But that's thoroughly researched, it's absolute fact. It's bulletproof. There was massive rigging from coast to coast.
Joe Biden can't even fill up a high school gym, and they expect us to believe he's the most popular president in the history of our country? It's insane.
It's amazing, the level of brainwashing, to me. Like, that you would even ask me that question! Do you really not know that there was massive rigging? Did you not see the video of the women [unintelligible] in the middle of the night after they told us there was a massive water main break? Everybody has to go—
The caller said he's amazed by the level of brainwashing. It's insane, he repeatedly said.
At this point, the moderator ended the call, noting that "a court" had found that the two women did not misbehave in Georgia. But so went today's second phone call to C-Span's Washington Journal.
In that call, we were experiencing the fruits of "democratization." We refer to the so-called "democratization of media"—the invention of various technologies which, at least as a matter of theory, let average people command the kinds of audiences which were once restricted to kings.
Those new technologies have also made it possible for people like Dinesh D'Souza to create and propagate a vastly discredited film like 2,000 Mules. For one debunking by NPR, you can just click here.
Thanks to so-called democratization, people like Joe have watched D'Souza's film. They don't know that they're being vastly misled by what they're told in the film.
They believe that D'Souza's film is "bulletproof, absolute fact." In such ways, different tribes within our failing nation are now singing vastly contradictory songs.
So it has gone as our technical wizardry has produced talk radio, with its wholly partisan programming; cable TV, with its wholly partisan "cable news" channels; the Internet, with its many partisan sites; and social media, where every possible juggler and clown can hold forth with possible access to a very large nationwide audience.
Through the spread of those media, various types of jugglers and clowns have attained great power and influence. Often, corporate profits have been very large.
On Tuesday, December 5, three college presidents went to Washington and encountered one of the jugglers and clowns. The college presidents were left for dead. Sic semper democratization!
We expect to explore this theme in some detail next week. For today, we'll only say this:
The Fox News Channel now clogs its air with professional wrestlers and potty-mouthed comedians, with occasional citations of moonshine thrown in. Our own blue tribe has countered with Our Own Rhodes Scholar, then most recently with the presidents of those three elite universities.
For all their alleged erudition, the college presidents were left for dead by one of the jugglers and clowns. Meanwhile, people like Joe in Laguna Woods have no idea that 2,000 Mules has been widely debunked and discredited.
We'd call this a learning opportunity. But by the rules of the tribal game, our tribe is largely refusing to learn.
This morning's second caller was completely sincere—and he votes. As for America, "One for all, all for one" is no longer a viable song.
We've been split into warring tribes. The jugglers and clowns have been coming on strong, including some jugglers and clowns of our own.
Those college presidents were visibly hapless. We see no sign that our floundering tribe is going to learn anything from that incontrovertible fact.
"But one of her panelists, Laura Baron Lopez of PBS had the right answer:
ReplyDeleteThat’s our job in the press to make clear the differences, not just “Republicans call Biden corrupt, Democrats call Trump corrupt and we don’t know what the truth is” when we do know there is no evidence right now at all that says that President Biden did anything wrong or benefited from his son’s business dealings whereas there is a paper trail and there IS evidence showing that former president Trump benefited from his business dealings while he was in office.”
That’s correct. Sadly, it [Trump's corruption in taking payments from foreign countries through his businesses while president] appears to have been a one day story and that’s the end of that. Because it’s “baked in” and Biden did it too, except he didn’t, but people say he did so they cancel each other out. “That’s reality.’
This is the press problem that Somerby should be addressing every day, not the tripe he keeps serving us about how red and blue are just as bad as each other.
And if Somerby truly wants Biden to win, he needs to do something to help that along, not the way he keeps trying to help the right wing, even when he pretends to be criticizing them.
Somerby is eminently qualified to discuss jugglers and clowns because he is one and a good percentage of his audience here doesn't understand that about him.
Greeting to Marrie,
DeleteHow it can that i make more $$ with certain topic?
thx
please to find me here https://www.facebook.com/fanny.farts.7
Delete
ReplyDelete"They don't know that they're being vastly misled by what they're told in the film."
But you do know. Because your non-democratized media told you. Hmm. Okay, then. Keep reading your bible, Bob.
Well ex convict D'Souza, who plead guilty In Court to Campaign Finance Fraud should know! One of the many problems with 2,000 Mules is they used video and “geotracking” data that was gleaned from cellphone apps to determine what these "mules" were up to. One small problem, if you drove by a ballot box on your daily commute you must be a "mule". BS on so many levels D'souza is
Delete1. Convicted felon that DIC would like to equate with a parking violation.
Delete2. Fostered typical far right conspiracy theories regarding Obama's birthplace and Clintons as murderers.
3.Disgraced and fired from a Catholic university after showing up and sharing a room at a conference with a woman who wasn't his wife.
Yeah a very good example of a Republican influencer. Certainly has the requisite moral fiber, a la DJT.
I knew we'd hear from Weirdo Mao, given what Somerby says about D'Souza's joke of a "documentary." That joke is the slender reed Mao clings to in "support" of his cherished belief that the election was stolen. He likes to think he's more sophisticated and clever than the average media consumer, but in reality he's just as stupid and gullible as that C-Span caller. Mao, Bob doesn't just blindly accept whatever "the media" (as if it's all just one thing) says, as a true believer does the Bible. In case you hadn't noticed, he has authored a blog for over two decades in which he carefully analyzes and critically dissects what "the media" says. He weighs competing claims and arguments and draws reasoned conclusions. You should try it some time. In fact, it appears to be you who uncritically accepts what "your bible" tells you -- your bible being conmen like Trump and D'Souza.
Delete@Arty 4:03 PM
Delete"One small problem, if you drove by a ballot box on your daily commute you must be a "mule"."
It is my understanding that they checked the phone numbers of suspected "mules" outside of the election timeframe. If, outside of the election timeframe, the number is seen at the location of the ballot box, then it's whitelisted: this is not a "mule".
Are you satisfied now?
My gym is right by a dropbox. I am not a mule.
DeleteIs there any reason Joe in Laguna Woods couldn’t have watched NPR’s debunking of that film? In a democracy, the citizens have an added responsibility to keep themselves well-informed. It’s a choice.
ReplyDeleteWhat an odd little poem that is! The Carpenter sings but not the mason. And why would the boatman be cataloging what is his on his own boat? Oddness. And what does it have to do with anything else Somerby writes about today? Absolutely nothing, except it has the word America in it.
ReplyDelete"The program gives us a chance to hear the way various people understand the world. In effect, we hear America singing. " Somerby says.
But keep in mind that the number of people watching CSPAN on the weekend mornings (and not sleeping in) is a very tiny, self-selected group. They are to some extent oddballs just because they watch, much less call in, to such a show. Some may be put up to it, for the free publicity for their viewpoints. Some may have set their alarms to do it.
That means that callers to CSPAN are not very representative of voter opinion or American thought, not even of American singing. No poll would consider them such.
But Somerby has always placed too much weight on the garbage he hears from these callers, some of whom may be astute but others who are clearly fruitcakes. Then Somerby blames the resignations of two college presidents on "democratization." That roughly boils down to "they let everyone have an opinion these days" without much more analysis than that.
Do you suppose the tiny correction made by the CSPAN host made any dent on anyone?
"Democratization has swallowed democracy!" What does that even mean? Shall we become less democratic to cure our democratization? Is Somerby too sliding toward fascism? Whose voice would he like to suppress? Meanwhile, he says a bunch of ignorant stuff about those college presidents. Is it not enough that two are gone, without him dancing on their graves (Somerby introduced the metaphor of death to describe their change of jobs)?
Somerby has stopped talking about our press problems and instead is illustrating them. And that is sad.
Let's examine the faulty reasoning In this passage:
Delete1. Representation of C-SPAN Callers: The author argues that C-SPAN callers are not representative of American thought or voter opinion. This is a reasonable assertion, as C-SPAN viewers and callers constitute a self-selected group, which may not reflect the broader population. However, concluding that they are all "oddballs" or not valuable for understanding a segment of public opinion could be an overgeneralization.
2. Somerby's Weight on Callers' Opinions: The author criticizes Somerby for placing too much importance on the opinions of C-SPAN callers. This is a subjective judgment. Without evidence of how Somerby integrates these opinions into his broader analysis, it's hard to assess this as a logical flaw. It's more of a disagreement with Somerby's approach.
3. Connection Between Democratization and College Presidents' Resignations: The author seems to misunderstand or oversimplify Somerby's argument about "democratization." If Somerby's point is that democratization processes impact institutional leadership, this is a plausible hypothesis. The author's critique may stem from a disagreement rather than a logical flaw in Somerby's reasoning.
4. Implications of Democratization: The author questions the meaning of "Democratization has swallowed democracy!" and suggests that Somerby might be advocating for less democracy. This could be a straw man fallacy, as it assumes an extreme position that Somerby may not have implied. Without further context, it's hard to evaluate this point.
5. Somerby's Alleged Shift to Fascism: The speculation that Somerby is moving towards fascism is a slippery slope argument. The author provides no evidence to support this significant leap in logic. This is more of an emotional appeal than a reasoned argument.
6. Critique of Somerby's Comments on Press Problems: The author's statement that Somerby has stopped talking about press problems and is illustrating them is again subjective. It's an opinion on Somerby's current focus, not a logical error.
This comment contains several reasoning errors such as overgeneralization, straw man arguments, and slippery slope assumptions. The critique seems to be based more on the author's disagreement with Somerby's viewpoints and methods rather than on clear logical inconsistencies in Somerby's arguments.
Why is Somerby calling "convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza" "Dinesh D'Souza"?
ReplyDeleteD'Souza was convicted of a very minor crime., His donation to a friend's campaign exceeded certain limits or was not reported properly. For this technical infraction, he was prosecuted with a felony charge and sent to prison for 6 months IIRC.
DeleteFrom Wikipedia:
Delete"Campaign finance violation, felony guilty plea, conviction, and pardon. On January 23, 2014, D'Souza was charged with making $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions to the New York Senate campaign of Wendy Long and causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission."
They don't charge things as felonies and give sentences of 6 mo to people committing minor technicalities. Republican disrespect for law is part of the problem. Look at MTG who is being fined for violations of campaign laws. These people know the rules and they break them anyway.
"The complaint alleged Greene solicited non-federal funds for Stop Socialism Now PAC, a PAC aligned with Greene, when she appeared in a digital advertisement post online in late 2020 and early 2021 that contained unrestricted solicitations of contributions to the PAC.
Because Greene shared the digital advertisement—which contained requests for contributions of unrestricted funds—on her official profiles on Facebook and X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, Greene violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the FEC said.
One of the reasons I will not vote for any Republican is that they do not have respect for the law, fairness, or anything except winning and doing whatever they please. Trump is now being shown that he is not above the law. Neither are the smaller fish in the Republican pond, like D'Souza.
"They don't charge things as felonies and give sentences of 6 mo to people committing minor technicalities."
DeleteThat's the nub of the debate. Do the charge and conviction show that D'Souza did something very bad? Or, do they show that he was prosecuted more aggressively than others who committed similar crimes?
Here's your chance to talk about prosecution rates and sentences of blacks vs. whites in our judicial system, David.
DeleteBe sure to provide the footnotes and links as you make your argument.
If you don't consider what D'Souza did "very bad" then you don't care about fair elections, but that would be no surprise.
Deletehttps://www.justsecurity.org/85745/survey-of-prosecutions-for-covert-payments-to-benefit-campaigns/
This addresses the question of whether D'Souza was prosecuted more aggressively, but it does it in the context of the Trump prosecution for the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, which were an illegal campaign donation. It reviews others in New York who were prosecuted for the same crime as D'Souza, describing their crimes and their sentences. In People v Norman (in New York), two felony counts and associated lying and record falsification was punished by 2-6 years in jail. So D'Souza's sentence seems about right to me.
The justice system has incarnated DEI. That is why so many folks of color are in the joint.
Delete"D'Souza was convicted of a very minor crime."
DeleteIs that all? He basically, crossed the border without his papers. No big deal.
"JOE IN LAGUNA WOODS"
ReplyDeleteFor those who do not know, Laguna Woods is the revised name for Leisure World, a retirement community much like The Villages in FL. It is home to nothing but rich, elderly, mostly white people in Orange County CA, which itself has 2% blacks but 23% Asians and many Persians (people from Iran), and 34% Hispanic (but not so much in Laguna Woods). This area was the home of the John Birch Society and has subscribed to Republican crazy for decades.
About two-fifths of Iranians are not Persian.
DeleteThe ones who hold their annual picnic in Irvine CA are proud to be Persian and they are from Iran.
DeleteI like Persians. I’m just saying we should remember non-Persian Iranians, too.
DeleteMy point was that Laguna Woods is a very conservative area of Orange County, which has a history of conservative politics going back to the original conspiracy theorists, the John Birchers.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:17pm, ok. Liberals, Bob included, will never trust regular people.
DeleteIs that supposed to be a news flash?
It’s a problem for all of society, not just liberals, when “regular” people choose to believe lunacies, like this “Joe”. As was said earlier, citizens in a democracy have a special burden of responsibility to be well informed and to think critically. When they do not, they allow themselves to be manipulated by con artists like D’Souza and trump. Calling someone a “regular” person does not excuse their indifference to the truth.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:05am, regular people can choose to believe anything they wish, including the notion that Bob Somerby is being paid by Russia to not say what anonymices want him to say and to say what they don’t wish him to say. Regular people have no more “special burden to be well informed and to think critically” than they do to believe in God or not believe in God.
DeleteRegular people are exposed to more news and ideas nowadays. You focus on telling the truth and persuading others that it is the truth and otherwise quit trying to control what regular people can hear, say, and think.
That’s your job and your responsibility as both a lover of truth and a freedom lover. You have no other aegis than this.
God is a figment of dim-witted imaginations.
DeleteI have an aegis for every blog where I troll.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:29pm, an “aegis” is not an erection.
DeleteThe goddess Athena had an aegis, so I have to agree, an aegis is not an erection.
Delete4:01,
DeleteExactly. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution saying people can't believe ridiculous/ unproven things, like CRT is being taught in our grammar schools, or that there is a Liberal somewhere in this great big world of ours who has more contempt for Republican voters than GOP politicians do.
A discussion of "2000 mules" would be more interesting if the participants had actually seen the movie. I watched the first half or so. My thoughts
ReplyDelete1. As Bob says, people are wrong, if they believe that the movie conclusively proves that very large numbers of phony ballots were put in drop boxes.
2. The movie gives at least one valid example of such an event taking place. So, its thesis is not inconceivable.
3. The widespread denunciation is not conclusive. The problem is not "democratization", but media unreliability. Three examples of true stories that were widely denounced were Hunter's laptop and Kyle Rittenhouse's and George Zimmerman's innocence. (that is, before their trials.)
4. The movie's critics didn't prove that the the movie's thesis was wrong. They didn't show that thousands of phony ballots were NOT put into unattended drop boxes.
IMO it's a big flaw in our election system that an ordinary citizen cannot be certain that the election was fair.
IMSO* it's a big flaw in our election system that our elections are financed by those with the most money, which means an ordinary citizen knows that elections aren't really fair.
Delete*In My Smarter Opinion
I sat down and watched this film. The movie didn't prove there was anything wrong with the 2020 Presidential Election. It was nothing but a bunch of wild accusations not based in reality.
DeleteBasically, it was the film version of Joe in Laguna Woods C-Span phone call.
Good point @1:03. And, there are other inequalities as well as money. Famous people like Donald Trump and George W Bush and Hillary Clinton have a huge electoral advantage. Coordinated groups, like labor unions, have an outsized impact.
Delete@1:03 There are people with a lot of money financing all sides in each election. That makes it fair. That is how our system works. We do not forbid money in elections.
DeleteBeing "not inconceivable" doesn't make something true. As Somerby says, "anything is possible" (that is not true, by the way).
Delete1:08,
DeleteThe ordinary citizens cry out for a convicted felon to make a film about these election inequalities you mention.
1:09,
DeleteThe fact that the poor aren't financing either side of the election just shows how fair elections are, how it is working precisely the way it was set-up to work.
Coordinated groups are many people who hold the same viewpoints and share interests. The Republican party is little different than a labor union. Shouldn't a large group of people all voting have a bigger impact than a single person or a smaller group? Our elections are won by whoever gets the most votes. It is not a crime to have a lot of people who share opinions about candidates -- they are what makes a candidate a winner. There is no union that can force any single voter to vote any particular way. They all chip in their money and run ads and make endorsements, but individuals still cast their own votes.
DeleteRight on cue David to defend D’Souza. At least Somerby clearly says D’Souza is misleading his audience.
DeleteSide note: does David live in Laguna Woods, and occasionally call himself Joe?
@1:21 Please re-read my comment. I said people were wrong if they believed that movie was as conclusive as it claimed to be. That's a criticism, not a defense, even if I didn't use the specific word 'misleading."
DeleteHunter’s laptop had dick pics.
Delete
Delete@1:26 PM
In what way was the documentary not "as conclusive as it claimed to be"?
"Shouldn't a large group of people all voting have a bigger impact than a single person or a smaller group?"
DeleteIn the sense that you and your brother both voting has twice the impact as my vote, but the impact of my $41,000 donation to an election campaign is bigger than you and your brothers $10 donation to the same election campaign. Feel free to call that fair because you and your brother are cheapskates.
It wasn't the Democrats who decided that unlimited money should be allowed in campaigns. Given that it IS allowed (via the Citizens United supreme court decision), it is fair that both parties have the same ability to recruit donations. It is wrong for Republicans to have supported that decision and then complain when Democrats gain contributions to their campaigns and PACs. Even so, people like MTG cannot follow the minimal rules for keeping big money out of campaigns. And look at the way Trump solicited contributions to his businesses during his presidency. That is outright corruption and it was not in any way approved by Democrats. We knew that was going on from Trump's inauguration, but no one on the right cared about it. So there is some hypocrisy involved when David complains about unions while Trump collects cash from foreign governments.
DeleteAnd while we are at it, you might check out the stories about Russian contributions to members of congress, laundered through the NRA. And those small money contributions from Russian oligarchs that went to Bernie to support him opposing Hillary in the primaries.
Election campaigns should be publicly-funded only.
DeleteThe rich are nothing but the poor with more money.
DeleteNot better.
Not smarter.
Not more moral.
And they should certainly have no more say in how the nation/ world is run than someone without a penny of wealth.
Elections destroy democracy.
DeleteThe Democratic party should be declared the winner every two years, without no stinking elections.
We might get that, if Putin blackmails Democratic Party politicians. At this point, he's trying for the opposite.
DeletePutin doesn't need to blackmail anybody. He is omnipotent.
DeleteThere are windows in nearly every building.
DeleteI would like to see elections be publicly funded. It may become moot though because campaigns are increasingly less dependent on advertising because of (1) wider influence of social media, (2) decrease of TV watching and watching shows with commercials, (3) increasing access to info on the internet, (4) broadcasts of rallies on websites. The money pays for ads but ads are not the primary way of reaching people any more. It is easier for campaigns to reach people without spending as much money. Influencers and celebrity endorsements may be more effective on social media.
DeleteIt does bother me how much money grifters are skimming off the top of campaign contributions
The movie's critics didn't prove that the the movie's thesis was wrong.
DeleteWe don't have to prove the negative, you fucking moron.
I said people were wrong if they believed that movie was as conclusive as it claimed to be.
David, you came rushing onto this blog to link to the video almost the minute d'Souza released this grift for the rubes.
"We don't have to prove the negative"
DeleteI strongly disagree, when we're discussing election integrity.
Saying, "we don't have to prove the negative" in this case would translate into saying that the election is OK if we can't prove it's not OK. That's not good enough. I want the people in power to run elections in such a way that we can be confident that the election is OK.
I don't give a fuck if you strongly disagree, you fucking moron. That's the way it works, jackass. People who are responsible for certifying the election say that. DD is making accusations, just like your fucking abomination trump did towards Ruby Freeman and her daughter. Go fucking tell Rudy Giuliani he doesn't have to prove his slanderous allegations. You're a fucking idiot.
DeleteDuring the various investigations, I think the election workers DID show that the election was OK by examining the procedures used to ensure a fair election. Those procedures exist to ensure the integrity of such elections. The video of the two women accused of wrongdoing was examined and it was found that they did nothing wrong. I consider that proof. That's why Giuliani was convicted of defamation -- it wasn't because folks refused to investigate.
DeleteThe rest of us ARE confident that our elections are OK. When people like you are unreasonable and do not accept available evidence there is nothing more to be done with you.
DeleteSo, David, in what way was the documentary not "as conclusive as it claimed to be"? It seemed perfectly convincing to me.
So, what was it you think it claimed and why did it leave you unconvinced?
Thanks.
I think the "documentary" conclusively scammed a bunch of rubes like DiC out of $30 bucks.
DeleteThat idiots idiot movie made as much factual and science based findings as Ancient Astronaut drivel. It may as much sense as the idiot Cyber Ninjas. They actual were so dumb they did not lie about their findings, which were 13 more votes for Biden. DIC, time you face it. Their just grifters that know you are so wound up on OAN et. al. that you will fork over money to see half an idiot movie.
DeleteNot A Rodent,
DeleteElection campaigning is a huge grift. If you have some name recognition (politician or not), you register to run for election. Then you create a PAC for your candidacy. Then you hire your friends and family as "consultants". Then you pay your consultants all the money you got from the rubes funding your election. Then drop out of the election, and take your cut for the no-show jobs you gave your "consultants".
Capitalism at its finest.
It is a common tactic for right wingers to redefine words used by the left as something bad. So now democracy, a good thing, is being called democratization and Somerby is saying it is a bad thing. It is being redefined as adherence to wacky conspiracy theories because the press is allowed to say whatever it wants and people can choose to be disinformed to their heart's content, because our democracy has freedom. And for some reason, the right now wants us to doubt the value of our freedoms (such as the right to read what you want from a public library or on the internet).
ReplyDeleteAnd if Somerby can get us all to agree that Joe in Laguna Woods is not entitled to his crazy-assed opinions, then perhaps we will agree to book banning and campus limits on free speech and so on, in the name of keeping democracy reasonable.
Is freedom the enemy of reason, as Somerby posits? I don't think so. I think a responsible press is needed to give people a way to evaluate what they hear and read. But I do agree that the press has fallen down on the job, by being too cowardly to call out Trump and his minions, the crazy on the right (perhaps out of the mistaken idea that both sides should not be attacked by the press), but we do need free speech for those who evaluate what others are saying too. I can find those voices beyond the mainstream press, but apparently those succumbing to right wing indoctrination do not know how to do that. Maybe what we need is better education in critical thinking? CA is trying that approach by mandating it in state schools. Expect the right wing to attack that too, much as it is trying to turn public schools into instruments of right wing indoctrination.
But I agree that in the end, we must each be responsible for our own education and research in order to vote responsibly. So far, the crazy has been outvoted, and it took Trump's collusion with Russia and Comey to overthrow HIllary, who won the popular vote. So the people did do their job. Now we need to prosecute those who do illegal things to manipulate our elections, but that is an entirely different problem than the one Somerby poses today. (Somerby is always against prosecuting right wingers for wrongdoing.)
I expect that Biden will win in a landslide. America, despite its singing, is not going to put a crook back into office. Somerby routinely ignores the signs of the impending backlash against Trump, but it isn't his job to root for the sane, reasonable, informed populace and encourage them to vote. It is his job to throw a dishtowel over his head, run in circles and scream that the sky is falling and only Trump can save us.
The threat to democracy is real. It does not come from "democratization" (too much democracy) but from the failure of those in the press to do their jobs instead of both-sidesing everything. The right is not at all like the left, and vice versa. There are clear choices in the upcoming elections, with consequences. The press needs to make that clear to the public, as a counter-balance to righ wing crazy. They may not be perfect, but every effort in that direction will help the rest of us who are working to get Biden elected.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere is a book called "The Coddling of the American Mind," written by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt that addresses the issue of binary thinking, among other topics. Binary thinking refers to the tendency to see things in extremes, with little room for nuance or middle ground. It's a cognitive bias where individuals categorize things as either all good or all bad, right or wrong, with no recognition of complexity.
DeleteIn the context of this book, binary thinking is particularly discussed in relation to its impact on university campuses, social discourse, and the intellectual development of students. The authors argue that this kind of thinking can lead to a lack of critical engagement, an inability to understand complex issues, and a tendency to demonize those who hold opposing viewpoints.
This comment exhibits traits of binary thinking, as it sharply divides political perspectives into right and left, casting the right in a uniformly negative light. This simplistic view overlooks the nuances in political beliefs and the spectrum of views within any group. It characterizes the right-wing perspective negatively, particularly in its approach to democracy and freedom of speech, and portrays the media as failing in its duty to provide balanced reporting.
This approach, which echoes the binary thinking critiqued in the book, misses the complexities of political discourse and assigns generalized motives to large groups. The comment raises valid concerns about media responsibility and political climate but falls into the trap of polarized thinking. It fails to acknowledge the diversity of opinions within groups and does not consider the possibility of shared values or common ground, essential for a nuanced understanding of complex issues.
This comment contains several logical and reasoning fallacies. Here's a breakdown of some of them:
DeleteStrawman Fallacy: The author accuses right-wingers of redefining words like "democracy" to mean something negative, but doesn't provide evidence that this is a widespread or representative tactic of right-wingers. This potentially misrepresents the actual position of those on the right.
Ad Hominem Fallacy: The passage attacks Somerby (and Trump) personally rather than addressing their arguments or positions. This is evident in statements like "Somerby is always against prosecuting right wingers for wrongdoing" and calling Trump a "crook."
False Dilemma / False Dichotomy: The author suggests that one must either support free speech or succumb to book banning and limits on free speech. This presents an overly simplistic view of a complex issue.
Hasty Generalization: The author makes broad generalizations about the right wing, the press, and those who are influenced by right-wing indoctrination without sufficient evidence.
Circular Reasoning: The passage presupposes the correctness of its own argument – for instance, stating that the press is cowardly for not calling out Trump and his supporters, assuming that this is an objective truth rather than a point that needs to be argued.
Appeal to Fear: The author uses fear-mongering tactics, suggesting dire consequences if certain actions aren't taken (e.g., the threat to democracy, the implication that not prosecuting right-wingers will lead to more wrongdoing).
Confirmation Bias: The passage seems to selectively reference events and interpretations that support the author's pre-existing views (such as the role of Comey and Russian collusion in the 2016 election) while dismissing or ignoring contrary evidence.
Overgeneralization: The statement "The right is not at all like the left, and vice versa" oversimplifies complex political spectrums and individual beliefs.
Slippery Slope Fallacy: The passage implies that allowing certain opinions to be expressed could lead to book banning and restrictions on campus speech, assuming a direct and inevitable progression from one action to another.
Cherry Picking: The author selectively presents information and examples that support their view (like the failure to prosecute right-wingers), while ignoring examples that might contradict their position.
Each of these fallacies weakens the argument by relying on flawed reasoning rather than factual evidence and logical argumentation.
Way to not deal with the substance of anyone’s discussion. These chat gpt generated comments are not ute or funny or helpful or interesting. They waste time. Haidt would not approve.
DeleteThe comment makes significant extrapolations from the original text and is poorly reasoned, emotional and lacks substance.
DeleteAnd yet it is true.
DeleteI am Fanny Mann.
DeleteKevin investigates an accusation by Donald Trump:
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/fact-check-is-california-ditching-george-washington/
Cheryl Rofer asks a current question:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/01/what-is-plagiarism
What will plagiarism be with the advent of AI, which explicitly trains itself using samples of other people's work?
DeleteAI will make it easier to detect plagiarism.
DeleteAI is plagiarism.
DeleteIt takes one to know one.
DeleteKevin says Joe Biden is cognitive:
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/joe-biden-takes-on-donald-trump/
He says Biden is cognitively unimpaired, unlike Trump.
DeleteHe gives a link to Biden’s speech, so we can see for ourselves. I haven’t looked yet, because I already know Joe is cognitive.
DeleteEven when David is wrong, he gives coherent arguments. Unlike Cecelia, who can’t reason her way out of a paper bag. I am Corpy.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 1:37pm, David is the recipient of more put downs and personal insults than anyone here.
DeleteIm happy to be the means for David to receive any praise.
Merit-based.
DeleteDavid is courteous and treats others with respect. As a consequence, most of his put-downs are not personal. YOU receive the most personal insults, Cecelia. Don't be modest.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:42pm, no, I don’t get an unhinged cuss-out as often as David receives, but I’ll try harder.
DeleteDavid is a laughable bullshit artist, he does not treat others with respect, and clearly enjoys getting the goat of others. If you had accused him of believing things he now signs off on with Trump, say ten years ago, he would have accused you of slurring him. Trump gave many such people of low ethics permission to let it all hang out, and David certainly has.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:54pm, you have nothing to be concerned about.
DeleteIn reality, Anonymouse 1:57pm has no respect or appreciation for David whatsoever.
Who would?
DeleteOf course I respect and appreciate David. He’s a retired actuary and a cousin of Lizzy Skurnick. I just disagree with him about politics.
DeleteDavid is delusional. He thinks if Trump is elected President, he'll be looked at as a one of the "good Jews".
DeleteAnd about Lizzie Skurnick.
DeleteWhat about Lizzie?
DeleteCecelia, are you suggesting Lizzie is not related to David?
DeleteAnonymouse 20:20am, no, I was telling Anonymouse 3:17am, that anonymices have flatly claimed that they aren’t related.
DeleteThey are related, and David is a retired actuary.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:43pm, I’ve never felt one way or another about that info and have never cared.
DeleteLizzie's next book will be non-fiction. It's about her mother's family. Lizze told me that several of Blanche's ancestors were particularly interesting people. It's not that common to read about ordinary black people of generations past.
DeleteI may have helped encourage the book. I once suggested that she write a book about Blanche I assume and hope her book will be about Blanche as well as Blanche's ancestors.
I will tell the group once the book is out. I hope you all buy the book.
David, I will certainly buy it and my husband and I will read it aloud to each other.
Delete@4:14 Some people consider Trump to be the epitome of evil, therefore are willing to believe that he's anti-Semitic. In fact, he is the most pro-semitic President of all time. Consider his partly Jewish family, his reliance on Jewish relatives for key positions, his high award from a Jewish organization, and his unwavering support for Israel.
DeleteNo other President can match all of these things. Obama, in particular. did not always support Israel. Biden's actions, so far, have been pretty good at supporting Israel's defense against Hamas, although he's been criticized for hesitancy in providing certain advanced weapons. Biden's words were prefect at first. His words are now sounding wishy-washy.
Israel damages the reputation of the Jews. Supporting Israel is not pro-Jewish.
DeleteSupporting Israel is pro-Israel.
DeleteAnyone who says those who chant "Jews will not replace us" are good people is a friend of mine, the Republican Party and 1930's Germans.
DeleteDavid, are you an American or an Israeli citizen? It's hard to tell anymore. Biden is the best friend Israel has had in US Presidents. Tell us when Trump ever took his children to visit the concentration camps from WW2.
DeleteDavid is an "America Seconder", with all the baggage that comes with.
DeleteDavid is a good decent person who let violent state Zionism poison his soul.
DeleteSomerby says: "Democratization devours democracy!
ReplyDeletedemocratization definition: "the introduction of a democratic system or democratic principles.
the action of making something accessible to everyone"
So, in the plainest sense, Somerby's statement is gibberish because the definition of democratization, to make democratic, is contradictory to the words demolishing democracy.
Then the question is whether Somerby is actually calling for less democracy on the grounds that too much democracy is ruining democracy?
Republicans are offering us a clear choice -- they are likely to nominate Trump, who is neo-fascist and has plainly stated that he will do away with democracy in a variety of ways, especially on day one, when he will be dictator for a day (by his own statement). Democrats, including Biden, have been saying that our democracy needs defending and that we must fight for it.
Somerby doesn't stand with Biden, so that puts him with Trump (at least until he comes out for someone like RFK Jr. or Lieberman and No Labels). But that was clear when Somerby sided with Moms4Liberty in favor of book banning, and when he considered Gay's defense of student free speech a "poor performance", and in his continual attacks on the mainstream media, especially women, gays, blacks and "youngish" ivy league grads, and Rachel Maddow who is intersectional to nearly all of those categories on Somerby shit list. Full disclosure: Maddow is not black.
This theme that Somerby has introduced today, about there being too much democracy in America (while it is singing) is right in line with the Republican abandonment of democracy, as described here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/opinion/republican-party-anti-democracy.html
correction: "demolishing democracy" should be "devouring democracy"
DeleteLet's break down your errors in reasoning:
Delete1. Somerby's Statement "Democratization devours democracy":
Definition of Democratization: You correctly note that "democratization" means introducing or applying democratic principles, making things accessible to everyone.
Interpretation of Somerby's Statement: It's important to understand the context in which Somerby makes this statement. On the surface, it seems contradictory, as democratization typically strengthens rather than 'devours' democracy. However, Somerby might be suggesting that an excess of democratization could lead to outcomes that undermine democratic principles. This is not gibberish but a potential paradox or hyperbole to emphasize a point. Without additional context, it's hard to evaluate this fully.
2. Implication of Calling for Less Democracy:
Logical Leap: Assuming that Somerby's statement is a call for less democracy is a significant leap without further evidence. It could be interpreted in various ways, including as a critique of certain aspects of democratization without necessarily advocating for less democracy.
3. Association with Political Figures:
False Dichotomy: The argument seems to suggest that not standing with Biden equates to supporting Trump, which is a false dichotomy. There are many political positions and nuances, and not supporting one does not automatically imply support for the other.
Guilt by Association: Associating Somerby with Trump based on his stance on certain issues (like book banning or media criticism) is a form of guilt by association. It's a logical fallacy to assume that agreement on one or a few issues translates to complete alignment with all of a person's views.
4. Criticism of Somerby's Attitude Towards Democracy:
Assumption: The argument assumes that Somerby's theme aligns with the Republican abandonment of democracy. This is a strong claim that requires substantial evidence to be validated. Without clear evidence, it remains an assumption.
5. Character Attacks:
Ad Hominem: The argument criticizes Somerby's attacks on various groups and individuals. While this might reflect poorly on Somerby's character or bias, it doesn't directly address the validity of his argument about democratization.
6. Context and Evidence:
Lack of Context: The argument provides limited context for Somerby's statement and other claims, making it difficult to fully assess the reasoning. More information about the specific context in which Somerby made these statements would be necessary for a complete evaluation.
This analysis ignores the rest of Somerby’s writing which justifies some of the conclusions you are calling unsupported assumptions. This is a drawback of AI compared to people.
DeleteAuction! Possessions of two celebrities born in 1936:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.barrons.com/amp/articles/hugh-hefner-and-marilyn-monroe-possessions-head-to-auction-together-for-the-first-time-5a71be5f
1926, putz.
DeleteGIGO.
DeleteSomerby says: "Thanks to so-called democratization, people like Joe have watched D'Souza's film. They don't know that they're being vastly misled by what they're told in the film.
ReplyDeleteThey believe that D'Souza's film is "bulletproof, absolute fact." In such ways, different tribes within our failing nation are now singing vastly contradictory songs."
How can the problem be the film itself when some people watching the film believe it while others watching the same film are able to see that it is not proving anything about the election? I watched the film myself, out of curiosity, when it was first being circulated. I didn't believe it and I could see why it was not convincing.
Joe is most likely an old guy who hangs around with a bunch of Republicans who believe what he does. He may once have reasoned well, but perhaps he never did. But the problem seems to rest with Joe, not with too much democracy or rampant democratization due to technology (blame the internet even though the film was shown in theaters).
If you believe in democracy, you have to trust that there will be enough rational votes to overcome the crazies, and not give in to the temptation to try to limit the votes of other people who you consider not right-thinking enough to trust with a vote. This has always been true.
I think we would do better to address the corrupting influences, including illegal foreign contributions to campaigns, the Citizens United decision, violations of campaign finance laws, and attempts to infiltrate and overturn elections by extremists on the right (who clearly do not support democracy). The abuses of democracy are the problem, not democracy itself, which has functioned well in the history of country.
Joe from Laguna Woods is entitled to his opinion, even when it is counter-factual. We could all be more aggressive about challenging the disinformation Joe believes, but it is not possible to change some people's minds. We do not want to call for mind control or deprogramming or counter-brainwashing or a government party-line of enforced belief or media control by auhorities, or any of the big-brotherish stuff that characterizes autocracies and dictatorships. These forms of control become more possible with technology but is also a well-recognized threat. I am surprised to hear Somerby head down that road, which is the inevitable consequence if we start defining certain forms of media as out-of-bounds according to group-think.
Laguna Woods is otherwise a very nice assisted living community with lots of interesting activities, including an excellent bridge club. Good, decent people live there. Somerby might want to investigate it and perhaps befriend Joe so that he can be put on the right path to right think and not be such a lost soul. Peer pressure doesn't hurt our democratic system.
nonymouse 2:40pm, , I’m aware that you could well argue the opposite of all you said today, depending upon Bob’s take on something tomorrow, but good post.
DeleteLaguna Woods was my girlfriend in college, but she dumped me, came out, and seduced Cecelia.
DeleteYou have this a little backwards -- I oppose Somerby because I hold opinions that disagree with much of what he says. I don't form my opinions by reading Somerby and then opposing whatever he says. It isn't about opposing Somerby but about how wrong-headed I think he is about so much stuff. I think of Somerby as Joe.
Delete
DeleteOh my be♥d Joe, come and take me! I ♥ touching hairs on you wet legs.
I am Corby.
Anonymouse 4:48pm, you have a knack for making women gay.
DeleteI still miss Laguna. I thought we had something precious and beautiful.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:28pm, I told Laguna “Not in this lifetime”, but she still had those exact same sentiments towards me.
DeleteShe was great at hemming pants and skirts.
Laguna Woods is a city not a person. Your racist stereotype is not funny.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:36pm, tell that to Paris Hilton’s parents.
DeleteArmand Hammer was a person, not baking soda.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI am concocting beautiful word salads. Two dozen beautiful word salads every day.
I drive a Tesla. I have no problems. I play bridge.
I am nice. What an asshole Somerby is.
I am Corby.
Get lost, fake Corby. Only I am the genuine Corby.
DeleteWill the Corbu please stand up!
ReplyDeleteI am Corbu, galactic navigator.
DeleteBeam me up, Corbu.
DeleteI am Corby.
You don’t have a valid boarding pass, Corby.
DeleteYou are a right winger funded by Russia via Iran and Qatar. You have no empathy. You had a childhood trauma.
DeleteI drive Tesla. Somerby is an ass.
I am Corby.
I am funded by Iran via Russia. Qatar is not involved. I am Corbu, galactic navigator.
DeleteThis is exactly what Boris funded by Russia via Iran and Qatar would say.
DeleteI am Corby.
Cut it out. Whatever you think I do, and I don’t, but whatever you think, Qatar is not involved.
DeleteQatar is funding Houthis and subverted Menendez.
DeleteQatar does not fund me.
DeleteQatar break rules and norms. Somerby is an ass.
DeleteI drive Tesla. I play bridge. I did not have childhood trauma. I sniff my fingers.
I am Corby.
Somerby is a good decent person.
ReplyDeleteYes, he is. I vouch for Somerby. I am Corby.
DeleteI finally watched Biden’s Valley Forge speech. He is definitely cognitive.
ReplyDeletePlease find me here: https://www.facebook.com/fanny.farts.7
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBiden is frail physically. He may very well have a neuromuscular degenerative condition. Compare the contents and delivery of that speech (and other public statements) with head movement and eye contact inconsistent with a teleprompter, with Donald Trump's pathologically limited vocabulary and thought processes. Can we prevent WWII? Was the Civil War negotiable?
ReplyDeleteIt’s too late to prevent WWII, but the Civil War was negotiable. All the rebels had to do was repeal secession and disband their army.
Delete10:25 You forgot the part about how easy it would have been for them to free the slaves, A minor detail.
DeleteEmancipation was not a Union demand before the war. Lincoln would have let the South keep its slaves if it had stayed in the Union. He opposed the spread of slavery to the west, hoping that it would gradually end in the East.
DeleteThe question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.
DeleteThese natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. Cooper Union Address
New York, New York
February 27, 1860
Same as it always was.
10:40 Nice excerpt. The speech predated Lincoln's presidency and apart from the quote you reference, Lincoln stated in it that the Southern Democrats were in essence threatening the Union over what they perceived to be Republican plans for their slave ownership rights, irrespective of what the Republicans contended to be laws limited to the Territories. Extorting the Union, as it were, with threats. With that mindset, the thought of repealing secession would not have been palatable, let alone so easy as to result in your "all they had to do" commentary. Because withdrawing from secession would have rendered them vulnerable to the Northern Republicans.
DeleteSeceding made them vulnerable. And, by gosh, they got vulnerated.
DeleteJust to be clear, I am the one who posted the excerpt from the Cooper Union speech, but I am not the same person who wrote about repealing recession.
DeleteWhat I was trying to say is that the southern state confederates back then remind me so much of the southern state republicans today.
I said they could have repealed secession. I didn’t cite Lincoln’s speech at Cooper Union.
DeleteThe rebels started the war. They could have chosen peace.
Historians now weighing in on the comment by Trump suggesting the concept of negotiation are uniformly disparaging it as ignorant. Of course it is.
DeleteHere's what I wanted to say in my discussion of 2000 Mules
ReplyDeleteCan someone here tell me why I can be reasonably confident that future elections won't be swayed by large numbers of fake ballots being deposited in drop boxes?
How many fakes would be needed to sway an election? How would someone be able to produce an undetectable series if fakes, including marks and ID used to validate a real ballot and any serial numbers used? How would someone know the legal names used for voting purposes of people in a district and be able to reproduce the signatures they used to register? How would someone prevent duplicate votes from raising questions when the actual voters sent in their real ballots? How would they account for a surplus of votes beyond registrations? If this effort took several people to pull off, how would they prevent anyone from leaking, bragging, confessing or otherwise compromising the conspiracy. How would someone stealing forms or voter info prevent detection given security measures in place? Would it matter to you that no one has successfully done this anywere? Would you be surprised to know that the small scale fraud (such as fake voter tegistrations and voting twice or more have been done by Republicans?
DeleteDavid, you said earlier that the documentary is not "as conclusive as it claimed to be".
DeleteCould you explain it please? In my view, the conclusion is undeniable.
Thanks.
Same stupid fucking thing you already said much earlier way up in the comments only you're just trying a different way to phrase it. You would like us to prove the negative. This is why I say David is just a passive aggressive troll.
DeleteHere's how you can be fully confident: your candidate wins. Otherwise, baseless claims will be the order of the day. As usual. No one can convince a subset of conspiracy theorists, guided by upstanding citizens cum felons like Dinesh D'Souza of anything they don't want to process. And by the way, did you get to review the most recent word salad your favorite candidate/comedian put forth in Sioux City, Iowa on Friday? You might want to check that stump speech out side by side with Biden's most recent effort and get back to us about who you think is cognitively impaired.
Delete
DeleteJoe is a young energetic leader. Somerby is an ass.
I am Corby.
@3:27 The movie used a model or assumption regarding the meaning of people’s movements. The model apoeared plausible, but it was not validated.
DeleteAnother problem is that the results were almost too strong to be believed. One feels that fraud in such a huge scale would have other evidence.
"The movie used a model or assumption regarding the meaning of people’s movements. The model apoeared [sic] plausible, but it was not validated."
DeleteThis is an indiscernible word-salad. Sorry.
"Another problem is that the results were almost too strong to be believed. One feels that fraud in such a huge scale would have other evidence."
This is just a journalistic investigation. Law enforcement is not interested in perusing it. But perhaps one day they will. Then you'll see other evidence.
You ask some excellent questions @11:29. You make it plausible that large scale fraud could not succeed. However I do not know enough about election procedures in my state or other states to be confident.
DeleteUnamused — Trump tends to speak extemporaneously. Joe reads written speeches from a teleprompter. That’s why Joe’s speeches are better organized.
DeleteLike most politicians, both of them have little regard for the truth. They say whatever they think will work. So, I don’t listen to politicians’ speeches.
And yet, you claim trump is quite the humorist, David. Now he’s a politician, and you DON’T listen to his speeches?
DeleteAlways remember, the real David is green. I am Scruby.
DeleteIt’s mordantly amusing David is getting his “lts going to be rigged but I’ll accept the results if Trump wins” mojo going this far ahead of the election.
DeleteHey Dave, you need to tell US why drop boxes are going to result in Election fraud. Or that mail in voting will. Or that there is something suspect with your gangland hero goning to bed thinking he’s the winner and waking up to find the results are different, or whatever other nonsense you are peddling in deference to the orange God.
You took your bullshit case to Court. You lost worse than George McGovern.
The seemingly unshakable pattern of right wing loss won’t change until you figure out something to offer voters other than tacky bile, sour grapes, and illusions.
"Hey Dave, you need to tell US why drop boxes are going to result in Election fraud. Or that mail in voting will"
DeleteThe burden should not be on me. As I said, I want the people in charge to tell ME why drop boxes and mail in voting win NOT result in election fraud.
No one ever explained why fraud would only affect Trump and not the down ballot Republican races.
DeleteThe burden is on those claiming fraud to prove fraud, especially after all the recounts, audits, investigations and lawsuits that all showed no fraud, including in situations where Trump said a specific number of dead people voted or there were too many ballots returned. Those claims were investigated and found to be untrue. That should give a reasonable person confidence that there is nothing to all these conspiracy theories. Trump lies, David.
DeleteThe deep state isn’t afraid of down-ballot Republicans. It is afraid of Donald Trump.
DeleteAfraid? I don't think so.
DeleteMore like, repulsed by the stink of his dirty diaper.
Not the stink. The stench.
DeleteMy three-year old niece has bigger hands than Trump. And she's toilet trained!
DeleteCassie 2024!
DeleteDavid, look what happened when some of Trump’s people tried to rig a voting computer in Georgia. They were on video and got caught, even with inside help. They were indicted. That should reassure you that it is safe for you to vote (but I wouldn’t try it twice).
ReplyDeleteDIC: Speaking extemporaneously does not absolve Trump from being coherent. Biden uses a teleprompter as do all politicians. The recent video which I referred to that was put up by Kevin Drum as evidence that he is cognitively competent shows him engaging in various parts of the room with eye contact while talking, which is why the video is referenced by Drum. If it showed him staring directly in front of a podium at a fixed point, Drum would not have made that claim. He could have instead argued that Biden can read. You have zero credibility in pronouncing what regard for the truth most politicians have, even accepting that you are extrapolating from you observations with regard to Trump. That you profess so little regard for the importance of honesty in the public realm explains why you support a candidate with a dossier of lying that has been catalogued extensively for its volume (30,573 chronicled by the Washington Post in 4 years). Your cavalier cynicism can be turned on like a faucet when the need arises and dishonest whataboutaboutism becomes your only recourse. Weak sauce indeed. But since I don't seem capable of operating mentally on the same plane as your exhalted candidate, why don't you translate into some form of recognizable thought process the rarefied locution exhibited in Sioux City when your candidate rendered his thoughts publicly about China and things flying.
ReplyDeleteYes, unamused., Trump uses words as tools to achieve whatever goal he has. His words often sound unhinged, although a fair-minded person can generally can figure out what he means. E.g., when he wrongly claimed that a certain demonstration was the largest such ever, he really meant that it was very large. But, you are basically correct. if Trump were judged solely on his words, he would sound incompetent if not insane.
DeleteIt's late in the day to start on Biden's lies. He doesn't make as many inaccurate and false statements as Trump does, but Biden also has no respect for the truth. At this time of night, I'm not going to create a list of Biden lies, but could.
This column is about Biden's alleged lies
Deletehttps://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4392480-joe-biden-is-no-george-washington-and-valley-forge-proved-it/
David, that column isn’t about demonstrably false factual assertions. It’s a political attack, by Jonathan Turley.
DeleteYou can criticize David, fair enough. But I still like him. He’s really related to Lizzie Skurnick, and he’s really a retired actuary. I am Corky.
Delete"Trump uses words as tools to achieve whatever goal he has."
DeleteI think we can all, agree he is The USA's Joseph Goebbels.
Trump uses lies as tools to achieve whatever goal he has.
DeleteFixed it for you.
All politicians are liars. Biden is a corrupt liar and is as sleazy as they come. He is a horrible human being and will certainly go straight to hell the moment he dies. No one can be president of our country (a corrupt, violent military empire) without lying constantly.
DeleteJust because Trump sucks doesn't mean we have to pretend Biden does not constantly and obviously dissemble.
DeleteTrump is horrible, because, not being professional politician, he occasionally tells the truth.
Trump's outright contempt for Republican voters is easily the best thing about him.
DeleteName:
ReplyDeleteRipple. Fanny Ripple.
It seems like only last week that Republicans were pretending Presidents taking money from China was a crime.
ReplyDeleteI support President Biden for re-election. I am Corby.
ReplyDeleteYou are Boris. I am Corby.
DeleteI support president Biden, the young energetic highly ethical leader, with American interests at ♥.
And if he is, at this point, the most unpopular American president in history, that is only because Americans are deplorable.
Somerby is an ass. I drive Tesla.
I am Corby.
I drive a Honda. I’m the real Corby.
Delete"All I know about magnets is this, give me a glass of water, I drop it on the magnets, that's the end of the magnets." Donald J. Trump. Complete moron.
ReplyDeleteComplete humorist
Delete“All I know about X” is a standard lead-in Tina joke
It wasn't a joke. He was talking about Pentagon spending several times more money on electromagnetic vs pneumatic elevators for aircraft carriers. For all I know, it may very well be a waste of money, and a less reliable design.
DeleteWas he joking about Abraham Lincoln, David?
DeleteNot elevators. Catapults.
DeleteIf Lincoln had read "The Art of the Deal" he could have prevented the Civil War. But of course that remark was again DJT the "humorist" in full display. This is what is going to happen: in the next 10 months Trump will hone his comedic skills at a pace that will baffle physicists, historians and any number of individuals with high school educations, with remarks about gravity, WWIV, how windmills cause cancer, and any number of other hilarious subjects for his stand up routine. At some point, many, with the exception of DIC, white supremacists, and January 6 felons hoping to be granted clemency, will realize that this material isn't so funny coming from a guy who appears to be losing his marbles.
DeleteDavid,
DeleteDonald J Chickenshit is hoping the economy crashes before the election. Hahahaha, what a comedian!!!! The guy is a natural Henny Youngman. Let's make hundreds of millions of US citizens' lives miserable so he can win the election!! Wow, is he funny. I bet you're rolling over in laughter.
Donald Trump on Lou Dobbs recently stated that gas is being sold at 5, 6, 7, and 8 dollars per gallon. An industry agency called GasBuddy stated that of all 150,000 service stations it monitors, none charged $8.00 per gallon, the average price coming in at $3.09. That is hilarious. Can't wait to share that bit of humor with my friends.
ReplyDeleteYou're right , DIC, this guy is hilarious:https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawrence-biden-calls-trump-loser-043544084.html
ReplyDelete