FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2024
...a problem like Candidate Trump: Should David Muir have said what he said about the last election?
We refer to some of the things Muir said during last Tuesday's presidential debate. Along with a colleague from ABC News, Muir served as moderator of the debate between Candidates Harris and Trump.
It's likely to be the only debate the candidates have. Midway through the forum, Muir introduced a new topic:
MUIR (9/10/24): I do want to focus on this next issue to both of you. Because it really brings us, this into focus: Truth in these times that we're living in.
Truth in these times that we're living in—Muir hoped to focus on that! Across the nation, observers dreamed a little, and felt the dark encroachment of that old catastrophe, much as Stevens once said.
To wit:
"What is truth," Pontius Pilate is said to have said.
It's often said that Pilate's remark was made sarcastically, perhaps in jest. Now, Muir introduced the same topic.
The next day, the New York Post criticized Muir and Linsey Nelson for fact-checking Trump five times. This complaint about the five checks would quickly become mandated fare on the Fox News Channel.
According to the Post's report, one of the five fact-checks occurred in the ensuing discussion—in the discussion about "truth in our times." A hint of the problem appeared right away as Muir turned to Trump with his question:
MUIR (continuing directly): Mr. President, for 3 and a half years after you lost the 2020 election. you repeatedly falsely claimed that you won, many times saying you won in a landslide. In the past couple of weeks leading up to this debate, you have said, quote, you lost by a whisker, that you, quote, didn't quite make it, that you came up a little bit short.
TRUMP: I said that?
MUIR: Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?
There's nothing obviously wrong with Muir's eventual question. But along the way, the moderator said that the candidate had repeatedly made a false claim.
Should the moderator have said that?
For ourselves, we wouldn't have approached this important topic that way. At any rate, when the candidate gave his answer, left little doubt about his current stance.
His answer takes us to the heart of the question Muir raised: What the heck is truth in these times? Trump's answer went like this:
TRUMP (continuing directly): No, I don't acknowledge that at all.
MUIR: But you did say that.
TRUMP: I said that sarcastically. You know that. It was said, "Oh we lost by a whisker." That was said sarcastically.
Look, there's so much proof. All you have to do is look at it. And they should have sent it back to the legislatures for approval. I got almost 75 million votes. The most votes any sitting president has ever gotten. I was told if I got 63, which was what I got in 2016, you can't be beaten.
The election, people should never be thinking about an election as fraudulent. We need two things. We need walls. We need—and we have to have it. We have to have borders. And we have to have good elections.
Our elections are bad. And a lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they're trying to get them to vote. They can't even speak English. They don't even know what country they're in practically. And these people are trying to get them to vote. And that's why they're allowing them to come into our country.
So many possible statements to fact-check! But also, so little time.
For ourselves, we don't doubt the claim that the statements in question had been made sarcastically. Now, though, the exchange continued, as did the moderator's challenges to the hopeful:
MUIR (continuing directly): I did watch all of these pieces of video. I didn't detect the sarcasm—"Lost by a whisker, we didn't quite make it."
And we should just point out, as clarification, and you know this, you and your allies—sixty cases in front of many judges. Many of them—
TRUMP: No judge looked at it.
MUIR: —and said there was no widespread fraud.
TRUMP: They said we didn't have standing. That's the other thing. They said we didn't have standing. A technicality. Can you imagine a system where a person in an election doesn't have standing, the president of the United States doesn't have standing? That's how we lost.
If you look at the facts, and I'd love to have you—you'll do a special on it. I'll show you Georgia and I'll show you Wisconsin and I'll show you Pennsylvania and I'll show you —we have so many facts and statistics.
But you know what? That doesn't matter. Because we have to solve the problem that we have right now. That's old news. And the problem that we have right now is we have a nation in decline and they have put it into decline. We have a nation that is dying, David.
MUIR: Mr. President, thank you. Vice President Harris, you heard the president there tonight.
He said he didn't say that he lost by a whisker. So he still believes he did not lose the election that was won by President Biden and yourself...
As he turned to Candidate Harris, Muir flatly contradicted Trump's claim once again. "The election was won by President Biden and yourself," the moderator flatly said.
Full disclosure! As far as we know, the 2020 election was won by President Biden. We've never seen any serious evidence suggesting anything different.
Also this:
Close to four full years have passed, and Candidate Trump, as far as we know, has never produced anything resembling a serious "white paper" which seeks to justify his endless claim that the election was stolen.
It's a highly inflammatory claim. As we've noted in recent weeks, the candidate has angrily been making this inflammatory claim at his rallies—in the state of Minnesota, in the state of Georgia. This angry claim is a basic part of the candidate's work on the stump.
Stating the obvious, this angry claim lies at the heart of the question of "truth in these times." For our money, our major news orgs have never found a journalistically serious way to address this inflammatory claim.
For our money, Muir didn't accomplish that task at last Tuesday's debate. In fairness to Muir, he had accepted a very challenging assignment when he agreed to moderate this TV debate.
The first of our presidential TV debates took place in 1960. The moderators had a relatively easy assignment at that particular time.
In 1960, the moderators threw their questions at Candidates Kennedy and Nixon. Neither candidate made the types of peculiar claims made by Candidate Trump all through last week's debate.
Politically and journalistically, this is a challenging time! Just consider the things the candidate said in that exchange with Muir about the last election.
For starters, the candidate continued to say that he won that election. (As Muir noted, the candidate has sometimes said that he won it "in a landslide.")
Did Candidate Trump win the last election? Eventually, he seemed to say that he had a profusion of facts and statistics which would establish the truth of his claim.
He said he had a profusion of facts and statistics! Sadly, though, this was the childish statistical argument the candidate presented:
I got almost 75 million votes. The most votes any sitting president has ever gotten. I was told if I got 63, which was what I got in 2016, you can't be beaten.
In fact, the candidate did get "almost 75 million votes" in the last election. Also, that was "the most votes any sitting president has ever gotten."
For example, when President Eisenhower sought election as the sitting president in 1956, he only got 35.6 million votes—and he did win a landslide! Sadly, though—and childishly—the obvious problem is this:
Today, the nation's population is more than double what it was back then. And Candidate Biden got 81.3 million votes in the 2020 election!
Trump did get a lot of votes. But, as every third grader knows, Biden got way, way more!
In the course of the 2020 election, did advisers ever tell President Trump that he couldn't lose if he got 63 million votes?
Everything is possible! But if someone did tell hm some such stupid thing, the person who told him was wrong.
Despite these obvious, bone simple facts, there the aging candidate stood, rattling off this kindergarten level nonsense to a fully intelligent journalist. Of course, he says these things, again and again, at the angry rallies he stages—at the rallies where he angrily says that the last election was stolen.
Dating back to 1960, no moderator has had to deal with embarrassing, childish claims of this type in a presidential debate. No candidate has ever made such claims. No moderator has ever had to decide how he or she should react.
No precedent for moderators like Muir and Nelson exists.
We suggest that you pity the poor moderators at last Tuesday's debate! In the matter of Trump's response to the specific question Muir posed, we also note that the candidate made such remarkable statements as these:
A lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they're trying to get them to vote. They can't even speak English. They don't even know what country they're in practically. And these people are trying to get them to vote. And that's why they're allowing them to come into our country.
According to the candidate, some unspecified "they" have been trying to get a lot of illegal immigrants to vote. That's why "they" have been allowing these illegal immigrants to come into our country.
That too is a remarkably serious charge—one which was made without any attempt at justification. What's a moderator supposed to do when such charges are flying around?
We offer this as a way of grasping the size of the challenge confronting Davis and Muir last week. No moderators in TV history have ever been forced to deal with claims like the ones this candidate made all through the course of the debate.
Dating back to 1960, no moderators ever had to decide what to do in the face of wild, unsubstantiated claims like the claims we discussed yesterday:
Do you know that crime in Venezuela and crime in countries all over the world is way down? You know why? Because they've taken their criminals off the street and they've given them to her to put into our country. And this will be one of the greatest mistakes in history for them to allow—and I think they probably did it because they think they're going to get votes. But it's not worth it. Because they're destroying the fabric of our country by what they've done.
There's never been anything done like this at all. They've destroyed the fabric of our country. Millions of people let in. And all over the world, crime is down. All over the world except here. Crime here is up and through the roof. Despite their fraudulent statements that they made. Crime in this country is through the roof. And we have a new form of crime. It's called migrant crime. And it's happening at levels that nobody thought possible.
All over the world, crime is down? All over the world, crime is down because they've taken their criminals off the street and they've given them to [Candidate Harris] to put into our country?
Has any moderator ever been faced with the task of responding to claims of that type? Similarly, has any moderator ever been faced with the task of responding to pre-debunked clownage like this?
What they have done to our country by allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country—and look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States! And a lot of towns don't want to talk—not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it.
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs! The people that came in, they're eating the cats. They're eating—they're eating the pets of the people that live there! And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame.
...She's destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success. Not only success. We'll end up being Venezuela on steroids.
The mention of Aurora went unexplained. But in Springfield, they're eating the cats and the dogs! In Springfield, they're eating the pets!
In Springfield, they're eating the pets, this untethered candidate said. Dating back to 1960, no moderator has ever been forced to adjust to such conduct as this. More on Aurora tomorrow!
The very next day, the New York Post swung into action. The journalism was C-minus work at the very best. But as we noted yesterday, the basic assertion was accurate:
Trump was fact-checked by ABC moderators 5 times during debate—while Harris was left alone
Former President Donald Trump was fact-checked at least five times by moderators during his Tuesday presidential debate showdown against Vice President Kamala Harris—while the Democratic nominee was noticeably left alone.
And so on, at length, from there. The overall journalism was poor, but the basic assertion was accurate. The moderators did fact-check the one candidate anywhere from three to five times. And, by way of contrast, they did pretty much leave the other hopeful alone.
Today, we're offering a basic framework—a basic framework which ought to operate in any discussion of these events or of this overall topic. We offer this basic claim:
No candidate has ever made so many wild claims in the course of a televised presidential debate. This constitutes a major part of the new suit of clothes which currently drapes "our democracy," making a joke of our public discourse—which currently challenges the basic workings of our floundering nation.
No previous candidate has ever made such claims. The blizzard of claims this candidate made, and persistently makes, has helped sew a new suit of clothes.
Other individuals and orgs are involved in this wider societal mess. In our opinion, the New York Times has had a very hard time coming to terms with the change in our world which we have described. In our view, the Times still hasn't been able or willing to acknowledge the embarrassing societal problem we've described as a new suit of clothes.
What is truth, Pontius Pilate once said. In what way should major news orgs be addressing our new suit of clothes?
Tomorrow: "Something we were withholding made us weak?"
That's what Robert Frost once said. He recited the poem in question in January 1961, at Candidate Kennedy's inauguration as Candidate Nixon looked on.
"Something we were withholding?" Have major orgs like the New York Times possibly been averting their gaze from the depth of the change in the culture? Has something perhaps been withheld? Has some such failure to function perhaps been making us weak?
There is no credible evidence that the 2020 election was decided by fraud. The winning margin was large enough to make that possibility extremely unlikely. OTOH it hasn't been proved absolutely that it wasn't decided by fraud. In fact, that would be impossible. It's not the case that all fraud's could be discovered after the fact by an audit.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats control the media narrative. Their narrative states that it's definitely established a fact that fraud didn't decide the election. From that POV Trump's claim that he got a huge number of votes, so he must have won is lie. IMO that claim is foolish, unproved, and extraordinary unlikely, but it's not 100% disproved.
Welcome to David's upsidedown world, ladies and gents. Here we have a candidate who has insisted for four years that he actually won the last election and that the outcome was decided by fraud. He insists this is proveable fact.
DeleteIn truth, election officials in various states have examined and reexamined the vote. They have verified the the number of voters and votes. Court cases have been initiated and decided. The entire structure of American electoral system has been brought to bear on the 2020 vote to give Trump's claims a fair hearning. And in the end, there is no evidence that his claims have merit. (This, in fact, is the prevailing media narrative--"no evidence.")
Ah, but this is upsidedown world! Here, it is a sign of media bias for anyone to notice that Trump's claims have been exhaustively examined and found lacking. There remains some vaporous, fleeting possibility that all of these examinations--many performed by state officials who are Trump supporters--somehow missed the real facts. The fraud was so ingenious that it evades detection by all of our existing systems for conduction elections.
So the media (controlled by Democrats!) corruptly report that Trump's insistence that he won in a landslde is false! This denial is, in itself, even more proof of the skulduggery in play!
It sucks that Right-wingers are afraid of perjury so much, else they could easily make these fraud claims in a court of law, while under oath.
DeleteI'd compare it to religion or faith. As an atheist I consider belief in God as unlikely as belief that Trump really won the 2000 election. But, when my daughter expresses her faith that there is a God, I don't call that a lie. Faith-based comments are not true or false.
ReplyDeleteHaving faith is not a lie. Making claims based on one's faith can be considered a "lie" or a "delusion" when contradicted by facts. To wit: claiming that the earth is less than 10,000 years old can be considered a "lie". At least, it needs to be fact-checked. Again, there's no accounting for delusions, although I certainly wouldn't want someone like that in the oval office.
DeleteYou would like to discredit the media here. After losing the popular vote in 2016 Trump appointed a committee to investigate voter fraud, headed by a Republican who made such claims. They disbanded after a year, empty handed. The AGs of various Republican states spent a lot of time and money after the loss in 2020 to likewise state that they could find no evidence of more than minuscule voter misconduct. CNN should not be reporting that there is a minuscule chance that the election was fraudulent. It has been examined. Claiming the election was fraudulently won by Biden is false beyond any reasonable doubt. Your claims of media bias pertaining to their coverage of this subject are bogus. The only fraudulent media bias was settled by Fox for over 700 million dollars.
ReplyDeleteThis is akin to the historical Republican stance on climate change. For many years they were in full denial that human activity is involved in global warming, despite the massive consensus of climate scientists. Your fearless leader, DIC, has claimed it is a hoax. Only in the realm of Republican thought can a prominent influencer like Candace Owens claim that science is a cult. The Republican Party can accurately be described as anti-science. They ignore or try to discredit any data that do not fit their narrative. Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House. Imagine if this country had taken global warming seriously beginning in his term. Instead we now have the “it’s too late or it’s too expensive” at this point from the party that spent decades ignoring the problem and trying to discredit it. Which they still do in conservative media. Just because there is a diminutive chance that something might be true does not obligate mainstream media to focus on that possibility, giving that viewpoint ousized credit.
ReplyDeleteThe two issues are different in their effect on policy. Belief that Trump really won in 2000 doesn't affect policy. Except to encourage better election security, which would be good. A wrong belief in global warming does affect policy going forward.
Delete"Belief that Trump really won in 2020 doesn't affect policy. Except to encourage better election security..."
DeleteA minor addendum: it also leads believers to the conclusion that election integrity--and by extension their democratic system of government--are rotten to the core.
But I'm sure there's no ill effects from that. Carry on.
“Better election security” Data-free Republicanspeak used as an excuse to suppress minority voting. Which does affect policy.
DeleteMinor addendum II:
Deletea conspiracy theorist might suppose that an enemy of the United States--say an authoritarian regime wishing to destabilize it--would want to see US citizens see their election system as corrupt.
Sounds crazy, huh comrade?
“Sounds crazy, huh comrade?”
DeleteIt’s absolutely plausible, Tail Gunner Joe, , and it’s also plausible that this charge can be a partisan political tactic.
The only other explanation is Trump is some sort of out-of-control narcissist who puts the fragility of his own ego ahead of the good of the country.
DeleteCan't be that, can it?
That's possible, Hector. IMO a more likely explanation is that Trump is a master at advanced persuasion He knows that these wild accusations are effective persuasion techniques. Ordinary mortals like you and me don't understand that.
DeleteIt's like Bob criticizing Kurt Godel.
Trump is not a master of anything. He is senile.
DeleteBe careful , David in Cal, lest Democrats take you up on your offer to protect the sanctity of voting, by doing everything they can to keep the Republican Party from suppressing the votes of minorities.
DeleteOf course, the last time black people’s votes were counted in a Presidential election, the Right threw a gigantic temper tantrum at the U.S. Capitol.
Be careful , David in Cal, lest Democrats take you up on your offer to protect the sanctity of voting, by doing everything they can to keep the Republican Party from suppressing the votes of minorities.
DeleteOf course, the last time black people’s votes were counted in a Presidential election, the Right threw a gigantic temper tantrum at the U.S. Capitol.
Is Trump the persuader? I was under the impression, Republican voters persuaded Trump to be a bigot, in order to get their votes. Is that not correct?
DeleteThe Persuader wouldn't be a convicted felon, if he used his persuasion skills under oath in a court of law.
Delete"He knows that these wild accusations are effective persuasion techniques."
DeleteFor the record, not just a 'wild' accusation. A wildly false accusation.
Second, there's truth in both our explanations.
That being so, isn't your duty as a citizen to fight against someone who puts his own fragile ego ahead of the good of the country by wildly lying its elections, rather than sitting by and applauding when one of his lies strikes you as sensible and well-chosen?
Hector, I don't want a President who wildly lies, but that person isn't running. Harris, Walz, Trump and Vance all wildly lie. Their supporters lie even more wildly.
DeleteYou seem to equate their lying. Does it matter if Trump lies a lot more than Harris does? Does it matter that he lies about something that is so harmful to the country as his election lies?
DeleteIf someone picks up the paper at the bottom of your driveway and someone else steals your car, do you equate them by saying they're both thieves?
Kill yourself, David. You deserved better than this.
Delete7:52,
DeleteDoctor, heal thyself.
Hector I'm not really interested in playing the game of whose lies are worse. All four of them have no regard for the truth.
DeleteBut, if you insist on playing this game, I will argue that the Democratic lies are worse, They resulted in the murder of Corey Comperatore and the for former President being shot.
8:42 Wow what a scoop! You could sell that story to the AP. You know, the one in which you interviewed the shooter about his motives before that event. Your ambivalence about the truth, to put it politely, explains a lot.
DeleteMeanwhile members of the Jewish community are condemning Donald Trump for scapegoating American Jews that don't vote for him, if he loses the election. Which will not include you, DIC. Because after countless numbers of posts about how you were a religious minority in none other than the financial services industry (!) and that it made you work harder to prove yourself blah blah blah, it turns out that you are not Jewish at all. Says you. You're atheist. That rarefied breed of atheist Netanyahu loving Zionists. Makes perfect sense. Do you know who you are? That question is rhetorical. We couldn't care less, knowing you as a consummate bullshit artist.
DIC,
DeleteTo say that all lies are the same is to speak like a child.
And the guy who shot at Trump was nuts, there's no evidence of what his motive was. You're really reaching.
At least we know who shot Trump. Democrats are blaming Vance’s comments for the bomb threats in Springfield, even though we don’t know who they were or where they live. Except we no know that the threats came from outside the country.
DeleteAt least we know who shot Trump. Democrats are blaming Vance’s comments for the bomb threats in Springfield, even though we don’t know who they were or where they live. Except we no know that the threats came from outside the country.
DeleteEven though the Trump assassins are nuts, Democratic lies about Trump becoming a dictator or becoming another Hitler have the effect of enraging certain nuts to try to kill Trump.
Deletehttps://www.politifact.com/article/2023/dec/07/donald-trump-was-asked-if-he-will-be-a-dictator-if/
DeleteIt turns out that if you spout off about flushing out the vermin who are your adversaries and holding military style tribunals if elected, you get to be called a would be dictator by Republicans, no less. Maybe you need to get yourself some religion, DIC, in order to have some kind of moral compass. Then again, you'd probably choose Christian fundamentalism, so don't bother. Just keep spewing your never ending bullshit.
Trump said he was not going to be a dictator, other than Day 1, when, "We are closing the border and we are drilling, drilling, drilling. After that I am not a dictator, OK?"
DeleteIn other words, he considers these two issues urgent. He isn't saying that he wants to be a dictator. BTW even if he wanted to be a dictator, he couldn't do it. The structure of government restricts the President's powers.
1:34 That was a woefully pathetic response. You can crawl under you rock now.
Delete"No candidate has ever made so many wild claims in the course of a televised presidential debate."
ReplyDeleteAnd now that candidate's running mate has declared that the wild claims are justified. He and Trump are "creating stories" that force the media to cover "the suffering of the American people."
Kellyanne Conway's old remarks about "alternative facts" seem almost quaint by comparison.
For those fanboys that are struggling to make coherent comments, you can go to your local community college and take a Logic 101 class and learn about things like probability, positive and negative statements, and burden of proof.
ReplyDeleteTrump got trounced in the debate yet Somerby still wants to litigate it, unable to process and cope with Trump’s loss.
Yes, there have been nutty and disturbing things said in other debates, as commenters noted yesterday, so today Somerby shifts the goalpost and narrows the criteria to such a degree that whatever murky point he is trying to make is meaningless.
America has always existed as an immigrant nation, it is our unique strength. Somerby has yet to coherently articulate his issue with immigration. Trump’s issues with immigrants are that they commit crimes like eating other people’s pets - this is false, with immigrants having a much lower crime rate than native citizens, and that they vote, which is also false. It is unlikely Somerby shares these specific concerns; Somerby likely suffers from some vague sense of xenophobia, but ultimately immigrants make a handy scapegoat for those suffering from the emotional discomfort at having their dominance challenged with few internal coping skills to soothe themselves, so they externalize their suffering unto others.
In the old days prior to the democratization of media, corporate media gave cover to right wingers, but now they are forced out of the shadows where their disturbing views are exposed. If Trump loses, and we continue to progress, it will be in no small part due to the democratization of media.
Somerby started this blog because corporate media had a stranglehold on discourse, always steering it towards their neoliberal goals; Somerby wanted to push back against the narratives coming from corporate media that impeded progress, but now he has done a 180 and does little more than to serve as a stenographer for Republicans and their right wing talking points.
Doieee. Duh.
Delete"Somerby likely suffers from some vague sense of xenophobia"
DeleteSince you've apparently taken a community college Logic 101 course, perhaps you can demonstrate your knowledge of the "burden of proof" by presenting the evidence supporting your assertion that Somerby is xenophobic.
"whatever murky point [Somerby] is trying to make"
DeleteApparently your Logic 101 class did not teach you how to read Somerby and comprehend his point, so let me summarize it for you: The major news organizations have not figured out how to cover a presidential candidate who spews falsehoods incessantly.
Somerby has been pushing Trump's wall, criticizing Biden's border policies, calling for Harris to explain her border plans in the same manner as any right wing xenophobe. He joined the outcry when that jogger was killed by a supposed illegal (who turned out to be a legal asylum seeker from Venezuela). I personally believe Somerby is pushing this anti-immigrant sentiment because it is right wing talking points, not out of personal fear of foreigners, but there is no doubt he has climbed right into Trump's basket of deplorables with his anti-immigrant essays, something he didn't do before Trump ran for office.
DeleteIt does get tiresome when PP demands that commenters explain to him what is obvious to anyone reading Somerby's posts here. We might try to excerpt and quote Somerby's past statements to support his obvious xenophobia, but PP would then deny that the quotes say what they obviously say, so it would be a waste of everyone's time.
It is xenophobic to display concern with closing the border and reducing immigration. Why? Because immigrants have historically been a boon to our economy and culture and Trump has been ginning up fear of immigrants as nativism and scapegoating. That is the lefty view. Somerby claims to be a lefty but talks like a right winger, so calling him a xenophobe is justified by the comments he has made here, categorizing himself. Obviously, no one is claiming to have crawled inside Somerby's brain, or to be a friend or neighbor of the guy, so this is based on Somerby's prior statements of his concerns about immigration/borders and associated events, such as those migrants in NYC who were being harrassed by the police (in which Somerby sided with the police and it turned out the event was being misdescribed by the press). Somerby is on the wrong side -- the right wing side -- of these immigration issues.
As if PP knows anything about logic!
Delete5:48 - Ah, they taught you the Gish Gallop in Logic 101, didn't they? Let's just take the first one - Somerby has been "pushing Trump's wall"? Really?
Delete5:50 - I know enough logic to know that your comment is, in essence, an ad hominem.
Delete5:48 - OK, I guess you just pulled that Somerby's
DeleteOK, I guess you just pulled that “Somerby’s pushing Trump’s wall” out of your ass, right? Let’s go to your second point - Somerby “criticizing Biden’s border policies.” First, I think you’re wrong, factually. I remember Somerby criticizing Biden’s messaging about his policies, particularly Biden’s silence in the face of the spike in illegal immigration that occurred, but I don’t remember any criticism of the border policies themselves.
DeleteBut let’s put that to the side. Suppose Somerby did criticize the policies? Criticizing policies does not equate to xenophobia. And your argument is pure guilt by association - Somerby criticizes the policies, right-wing xenophobes criticize the policies, so Somerby must be a right-wing xenophobe. Surely you learned about this fallacy in Logic 101, right?
Let’s go to your third point - Somerby called on Harris to explain her border policies, just like a right wing xenophobe would. Surely, if you actually did pass Logic 101 you can see the guilt by association fallacy, right?
DeleteI could go on, but you get the point.
You say it’s xenophobic for Somerby to “display concern” about closing the border. By that criteria, Kamala Harris is telling us how she wants to secure the border, so I guess she’s a xenophobic too, right?
DeleteBTW, illegal immigration is illegal. A border that is closed to illegal immigration is the law of the land, which the president is sworn to uphold.
DeleteSomerby should watch the film Cabrini to understand the immigrant experience, or The Long Game for a more recent experience. There is no excuse for his xenophobia or for his use of “pity the immigrant” to describe Trump. It is offensive.
ReplyDeleteSo how did we get to the point where Americans like D in C now construct childish arguments about how the known is in fact unknowable to justify their swinish devotion to demagogues like Trump?
ReplyDeleteSore loserism would seem to be part of it. Even with the terrible results of the Electoral College leading to two ghastly Republican Presidents, we must notice that starting with Clinton the Republicans have lost 7 out of 8 times. Quite a losing streak, and to ag knowledge it is to ag knowledge the County simply does not like you very much.
"Full disclosure! As far as we know, the 2020 election was won by President Biden. We've never seen any serious evidence suggesting anything different."
ReplyDeleteBut the problem is also that there exists a mountain of serious evidence suggesting that Biden DID win the election. It consists of all of the election results from all over the nation show vote tallies in favor of Biden, not Trump. That evidence would need to be contested, not just Biden's claim to have won.
Somerby keeps pretending this is a matter of dueling claims when it is a matter of irrefutable and unrefuted evidence in support of Biden's claim, not Trump's. In a scientific world, data decides what is true, not philosophical speculation and Somerby's brand of sophistry, where anything is possible because he doesn't believe in truth or knowledge or anything definite or absolute. Scientists accept data as a way of deciding upon the truth of statements. Somerby does not, and that is why he keeps leaving the door open for Trump to crawl through.
I don't know whether Somerby argues this because he flunked epistemology or never took a science class, or he is pushing right wing views as a political operative. We have no way of knowing that unless he tells us or someone outs him. But he is so wrong that he might as well be living in the dark ages when people believed all sorts of superstitious nonsense.
Trump is lying and Muir was correct to say so.
What have you got a bug up your ass about?
DeleteRead the comment. It is clear.
DeleteSomerby thinks Biden won the election, which proves that Somerby is a right-wing operative.
DeleteAnd this makes sense to you?
PP,
DeleteSomerbty is correct that Republican voters are nothing but bigots.
Bob's insight into who Republican voters really are, is the reason I read TDH.
"Read the comment. It is clear."
DeleteThe comment is bizarre. Somerby starts by saying Biden won the election and you then characterize his position as one of 'dueling claims'.
As far as I know, and I don't really know Somerby personally so there may-- or may not-- be plenty of bigoted statements which Somerby has uttered that I'm not aware of, Somerby most likely isn't a bigot.
Delete