MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2024
The chaos is already here: It's exactly as we noted in Friday afternoon's report.
On Sunday morning, October 13, the former president—the current candidate—was asked if he expects "chaos."
In fact, the question was more specific than that. Below, you see the question Candidate Trump was asked by Maria Bartiromo on her Fox News Channel program, Sunday Morning Futures.
Quite plainly, Bartiromo was asking about the possibility of "chaos" on Election Day. Just to establish a basic record, here's a slightly fuller transcript of the question Trump was asked:
BARTIROMO (10/13/24): One of the elements at the border has brought in Tren de Argua, this Venezuelan gang—quite dangerous. You told us about this...
It was an Afghan refugee [who was] charged with plotting an Election Day massacre.
TRUMP: Nothing surprises me.
BARTIROMO: What about that, though? Are you expecting chaos on Election Day?
TRUMP: No. Not from the side which votes for Trump.
BARTIROMO: But I'm just wondering if these outside agitators will start up on Election Day. Let's say you win. Let's remember, you've got 50,000 Chinese nationals in this country in the last couple of years. There are people on the terrorist watch list—350 in the last couple of years. Like you said—13,000 murderers and 15,000 rapists.
What are you expecting? Joe Biden said he doesn’t think it’s going to be a peaceful Election Day.
Might there be "chaos" on Election Day? Is it possible that Election Day won't be "peaceful" this year?
Quite plainly, that's the question the candidate was asked. This afternoon, we'll take a fuller look at what he said in reply.
Will there be "chaos" on Election Day? That's what Trump was asked.
Especially in light of President Biden's remark, nothing was obviously "wrong" with the question. But in our view, the question from Bartiromo ignored a larger, more fundamental point:
With Election Day just sixteen days off, the chaos is already general.
We aren't speaking about physical violence or acts of physical disruption, as Bartiromo seemed to be doing. We're speaking about acts of moral and intellectual chaos—about chaos within the national discourse, to the extent that a discourse exists.
Within that realm, the chaos is general over the whole U.S.! We watched its manifestations all weekend long as we sat in our viewing chamber. We were able to observe the major players who keep bringing us this moral and intellectual—and journalistic—chaos.
A great deal of the moral and intellectual chaos is coming from this candidate himself. As Election Day draws near, his presentations get stranger and stranger, as noted in this report from print editions of today's New York Times:
At a Pennsylvania Rally, Trump Descends to New Levels of Vulgarity
Former President Donald J. Trump on Saturday spewed crude and vulgar remarks at a rally in Pennsylvania that included an off-color remark about a famous golfer’s penis size and a coarse insult about Vice President Kamala Harris.
The performance, 17 days before the election in a critical battleground state, added to the impression of the Republican nominee as increasingly unfiltered and undisciplined. It comes as some of Mr. Trump’s allies and aides worry that Mr. Trump’s temperament and crass style are alienating undecided voters.
[...]
Mr. Trump opened his speech at the airport in Latrobe, Pa., with 12 minutes of reminiscing about the golfer Arnold Palmer, who grew up in the Western Pennsylvania town and for whom the airport was named.
His monologue culminated in lewd remarks about the size of Mr. Palmer’s penis. Moments later, Mr. Trump gave the crowd an opportunity to call out a profanity. He went on to use that four-letter word to describe Ms. Harris.
[...]
Mr. Trump urged his supporters to vote, telling them that they had to send a crude message to Ms. Harris: “We can’t stand you, you’re a shit vice president.”
Given traditional norms, a type of chaos seems to be lurking in this public behavior. Then again, there was the steady flow of ludicrous presentations being made on Fox News Channel programs all through the weekend, with steady streams of clownish misinformation—but also with "coarse insults"—being offered to millions of viewers.
On programs aired by the Fox News Channel, the journalistic chaos was general. This afternoon, we'll show you a type of journalistic chaos which has been quite widespread on CNN and MSNBC.
In our view—we'd say unmistakably—the chaos was general on the Fox News Channel. As the week proceeds, we'll show you examples of the remarkable journalistic disorder being aired by employees of that corporate entity as Election Day draws near.
In our view, it's hard to miss an obvious fact—whatever its occasional merits might be, the Fox News Channel is primary a corporate propaganda channel. Then again, there's the conduct of another major news org—the aforementioned New York Times.
In fairness to the New York Times, the following words must be said. In its attempt to report and discuss the ongoing conduct of Candidate Trump, the paper is forced to enter journalistic territory for which there is no modern precedent.
No candidate for president has ever behaved in the way this candidate routinely does. This means that there is no established template for the way a major newspaper—a major newspaper like the Times—should report the highly unusual behavior of this particular nominee.
That said, and in our view, the New York Times still hasn't devised a respectable journalistic way to deal with this hopeful's behavior. Here, for example, is the fuller way this morning's news report starts:
At a Pennsylvania Rally, Trump Descends to New Levels of Vulgarity
Former President Donald J. Trump on Saturday spewed crude and vulgar remarks at a rally in Pennsylvania that included an off-color remark about a famous golfer’s penis size and a coarse insult about Vice President Kamala Harris.
The performance, 17 days before the election in a critical battleground state, added to the impression of the Republican nominee as increasingly unfiltered and undisciplined. It comes as some of Mr. Trump’s allies and aides worry that Mr. Trump’s temperament and crass style are alienating undecided voters.
It was unclear if the outbursts and insults were an expression of his frustration as the campaign grinds on or of his reflexive desire to entertain his crowds. At her own events on Saturday, Ms. Harris called attention to Mr. Trump’s temperament and his tendency to “go off script and ramble.”
Sad! Immediately after describing the candidate's highly unusual conduct, the newspaper gave its readers two (2) possible explanations for the candidate's conduct. Times readers were offered two choices:
It could be that the candidate is frustrated. Or it could be that the candidate is trying to entertain his crowds.
That was the entire menu; no other possibility was offered. In this way, the New York Times continues to whistle past the graveyard—journalistically, continues to play it safe, to duck and dodge and fail.
(Borrowing the language of Frost: Something they've been withholding has been making us weak.)
We single out the New York Times because it's the most significant news org in all of Blue America. The aforementioned Fox Fews Channel may be the most significant news org in the other America—over there in our modern Red America.
For now, forget the way the Times has covered, or has failed to cover, the aforementioned Candidate Trump. With respect to that other news orgs, the New York Times has aggressively refused to come to terms with the journalistic chaos being sown over there. But so it goes as a struggling (and possibly failing) nation approaches the same Election Day Bartiromo was asking about.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep. With Election Day two weeks away, we'd have to say that the chaos is general over the two subdivisions of the United States.
We aren't speaking about the kind of chaos Bartiromo was asking about. We're speaking about the intellectual, moral, journalistic chaos which now pervades every square inch of our "national discourse," to the extent that some such creature is still drawing breath.
The chaos is general at the Fox News Channel. The New York Times keeps taking a pass—just keeps averting its gaze.
Sometimes, our own news orgs in Blue America contribute to the disorder in affirmative ways. We'll be examining all these unhealthy phenomena as the week proceeds.
As we conduct this exploration, we'll be returning to a form of President Lincoln's question—the question he asked in Gettysburg, though in a much different context.
At present, the chaos is general over the nation! Can some such very large modern nation expect to "long endure?"
Tomorrow: Calling the roll at the Fox News Channel
This afternoon: Jake Tapper, with a remarkable edit
As I read Somerby's essay today, which largely consists of sentences presented on other days, I find myself wondering whether an AI helped him create today's message. It consists almost entirely of reused material without any new ideas or new information. But it would take effort for a human being to create such a pastiche, so was this perhaps written by an AI in Somerby's style, borrowing and using only his past words? That seems likely to me. Because nothing new is being said today, nothing new can be added to our previous comments.
ReplyDeleteI would encourage you to remain open to other possible interpretations that present a more balanced, evidence-based critique.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:57am, yes, Bob has carried on with the same several themes in his writing for over a decade. I’m so glad that has finally seeped into your psyche.
DeleteThere is absolutely nothing you can say that you haven’t said hundreds of pay-periods before.
Time to retire. Go in peace. Now you can spend all your time with your sixteen cats.
The point is that he is using the same sentences rehashed. He could have written this by printing out past essays then cutting and pasting them together into today's lack of effort. In fact, someone else could have done that in Somerby's name. And he is passing it off as a new creative effort when it may have been machine-generated.
DeletePlease address that point.
Perhaps a confession was inadvertently inserted into today's post: does a human blogger watch Fox News from their 'viewing chamber'?
DeleteAnonymouse 10:22am, you’ve already said Bob is recycling his old post and that there’s no response that you haven’t already made to him.
DeleteThat was all set-up in order for you to make a new clam that he’s gone to using AI.
It really sounds like that, now that you mention it.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:43, stick around. You’ll see more anonymouse setups lamer than this one.
DeleteIt pains me to see such a wounded lost soul like Cecelia, unable to move past their unresolved trauma, his only apparent option is to spew hatred towards others as he desperately searches to soothe his emotional distress at having his dominance-oriented views challenged.
DeleteSpeaking of unresolved trauma, let's talk about your certainty on Cecelia's biological characteristics. When did this certainty first manifest itself?
DeleteIf you register anything online, you are not as anonymous as you might think.
DeleteCecelia is a man pretending to be a woman.
If you want to believe otherwise, more power to you.
Hmmm. So you found another 'Cecelia' online somewhere and are assuming the one here is the same one. As if 'Cecelia' is some kind of unique bio-marker.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:21pm, I’ve told you many many times. This is merely a comment board. For all intents and purposes, I’m the gender you need to imagine me as being.
DeleteWhen you click on Cecelia's name, you find that they have no blogger profile. That is the illusion of transparency. I believe that their lack of empathy and lack of gender-specific responses in various contexts (over a span of years) suggests they are not female.
DeleteSome things cannot be faked. Your unconscious gives you away, Cecelia.
DeleteAnonymices 8:08pm, I don’t make gender specific comments. I make rational comments.
DeleteNow come here, baby, and give your honey a kiss.
"We aren't speaking about physical violence or acts of physical disruption, as Bartiromo seemed to be doing. We're speaking about acts of moral and intellectual chaos—about chaos within the national discourse, to the extent that a discourse exists."
ReplyDeleteWhatever Somerby is describing, it isn't chaos.
Chaos definition: "complete disorder and confusion"
When I read the NY Times, for example, I see a continuation of their ongoing, systematic sane-washing and promotion of Trump's campaign. That isn't confused or disorderly, it is purposeful, organized and consistent.
As everyday, the NY Times today ran a disproportionate number of articles about Trump compared to Harris: 8 to 4, with 1 discussing both. This is how it is every day. There is nothing this morning about Trump's appalling discussion of Arnold Palmer's private parts, nor of the fact that this McDonald's he visited was closed, a staged photo op, not a real stint behind the counter.
That isn't chaos. It is a determined attempt to promote Trump. What I don't understand is why the NY Times favors Trump over Harris and why it has been working so hard to put Trump back in office.
This is, of course, the same kind of imbalance that the NY Times displayed against Hillary in the lead up to the 2016 election. The lack of coincidence in such efforts makes it clear that this is not the result of journalistic chaos but a deliberate and concerted effort to promote Trump as a realistic choice when he is entirely unfit for office.
So, why does Somerby use the word chaos today? Is he pretending this is happening accidentally or that it is Trump bringing the chaos? No, he is claiming that it is our press creating it, including Blue America (whatever he means by that). But when there is a systematic effort being promoted at Fox, and the NY Times joins in by promoting the same candidate, that is far from chaos or disorder. It may not be what we who support Harris want to see, but it is organized, not chaotic.
What does Somerby gain by presenting this campaign on behalf of Trump as accidental, random, disorganized (the way chaos is) when it is not? Well, it disguises the intent of the NY Times. It also promotes Trump and his minions over Harris. It does not present a fair and balance objectivity, as would be expected from the mainstream press, and it conceals the motives of some powerful entities participating in this election. But why is Somerby assisting in this effort too? He won't be telling us that. Any more than he will tell us why Trump is preoccupied with the size of Arnold's Palmer's private parts (now made public, assuming Trump is not lying about that too).
Somerby is promising to talk about something that doesn't exist -- chaos, as if it were real. That's a kind of lie in my opinion, more gaslighting. It isn't helpful in the runup to this election. My advice is to skip reading Somerby and just go vote, if your state has early voting. Nothing said here is going to be helpful.
"As everyday, the NY Times today ran a disproportionate number of articles about Trump compared to Harris: 8 to 4, with 1 discussing both."
DeleteIs it the quantity of articles that matter or the content?
Think of the number of books written about Hitler. Were those authors promoting Hitler? Sanewashing him
Try to think before you type. Lest you add to the chaos.
Quantity of articles. Remember that there is no such thing as bad publicity. There is a trend toward more negative articles about Harris than Trump too, but any mention is free advertising and helps Trump.
DeleteI did not count the one about both campaigns seeking young undecided voters. Here are the ones about Trump:
State of the Race: A Slight Shift Toward Trump but still no clear Favorite
Trump Ratchets up Threats on the Media
For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals heads towards a moment of judgment
Starring in Kamala Harris's Closing Argument: Donald Trump
Trump, Harris and the Enduring Symbolism of McDonald's
Why Trump's Chances are Better Than they Look
Trump's Bro-Whispering Could Cost Democrats Too Many Young Men
What Worries me Most about a Trump Presidency
One more that I hadn't noticed:
Is Donald Trump an Isolationist?
Here are the Harris stories:
Why the Oil and Gas Industry is so Worried About Harris
How Harris Should Put America First, For Real
Kamala Harris has an Unexpected Ally
Harris Sets Record for Biggest Fundraising Quarter Ever
As I noted above, the tone of articles discussing Trump evades portraying him as incompetent and deranged as he is. It legitimizes and sane-washes him, even while supposedly discussing a question about him.
An article that explores worried about a second Trump presidency may seem to be negative toward him but it legitimizes his victory by considering him as a serious president with a possibility of winning.
There is one article about Jill Stein. That should go in the pro-Trump list, but I didn't count it. Every vote for Stein hurts Harris without helping Trump.
How do you account for the burgeoning neo-Nazi movement in the USA given so many books about Hitler? Trump himself supposedly slept with a book of Hitler's speeches bedside, according to his ex-wife Ivana.
My favorite recent New York Times article about Trump was a recent straight news article that explained how Trump's racist attacks on migrants reflected "his long-held fascination with genes and genetics". And :
DeleteIn discussing migrants and genes, the former president used language that reflected his decades-long belief that bloodlines determine a person’s capacity for success or violence.
Bwahahaha!! I didn't realize Trump was an amateur genetic biologist. The New York Times is totally lost.
"Remember that there is no such thing as bad publicity."
DeleteI would remind you there is such a thing as a stupid statement.
This numerical imbalance in Trump coverage occurs every day -- you can check it out yourself.
Delete"P.T. Barnum once said, 'there's no such thing as bad publicity'. Barnum, the 19th– century entrepreneur and founder of the Barnum & Bailey circus, was no stranger to controversy; even before he was known for putting on glittering shows, he was always ready to stir up the public with scandals and scams."
Trump's business is brand management (his own brand). He won in 2016 partly by managing the press via "catch and kill" and planting articles against Hillary Clinton in places like the National Enquirer. The NY Times conducted a blatant negative campaign against Biden to get him removed from the ticket. Trump complains about that but it has helped him, given that Biden has done an excellent job as president whereas Harris is relatively unknown and less proven. Hence the articles worrying about her response to a crisis and suggesting she wouldn't be strong enough to stand up against dictators.
Her treatment by the press has been unfair, just as Hillary's was. Why isn't Somerby talking about that, if Harris is really the candidate he supports? It is as if Somerby is on the opposite side, touting Trump and now claiming that the press is in chaos, when newspapers around the country have endorsed Harris and not carried out this pro-Trump saturation of their front pages with Trump articles day after day.
How do negative articles benefit Trump? By increasing his name recognition while soft-peddling his faults. As I said, there is nothing about Trump rambling about Arnold Palmer's genitalia in the NY Times. It is about telling old golf stories, which is a far cry from what Trump actually said and did.
...soft-peddling his faults....
Deletefor example: "his long-held fascination with genes and genetics"
'He won in 2016 partly by managing the press via "catch and kill"'
DeleteBut I thought there was no such thing as bad publicity.
10:29 warns us non troll commenters to think before we type, yet then goes on to bone-headedly try to make a comparison between the quantity of books written about a historical figure and the quantity of articles covering candidates in an ongoing campaign.
DeleteConsidering the smugness of 10:29, this has to go down as one of the dumbest comments ever.
At 10:29 I was responding to the claim that there is no such thing as bad publicity, which did not admit of any nuance. Glad to see you've come around to my point of view.
Delete10:29 tried to rebut the original comment by comparing the number of books written about a historical figure to the number of articles written about an ongoing campaign.
DeleteThis is not a coherent counterpoint to the original comment, but merely stupid. We all say stupid things like 10:29, but 10:29 is noteworthy considering the smug tone of the comment, when the 10:29 comment was in reality nonsensical.
The original commenter went on to point out that corporate media grades Trump on a curve, sane washing Trump's loony rhetoric.
Trump thought the publicity about Stormy Daniels would hurt him right before the election, after the release of the pussy tape. The reality was that his voters didn't care about the sex stuff. His voters thus proved that there was nothing that would hurt Trump in terms of bad publicity, so this doesn't exactly make the point that there is such a thing as bad publicity, at least for Trump.
DeleteI think the sheer number of stories about Trump shows that he is important, whereas Harris is less important. When undecided voters say they don't know anything about Harris or doubt her capabilities or don't know her accomplishments, that is a reflection of the relative lack of stories about her in major papers like the NY Times.
We already knew a long time ago that Trump could shoot someone on 5th Ave and his supporters would not care, so why pretend there is any bad publicity that hurts him?
This election includes a uniquely unqualified candidate, but why would Somerby suggest that it threatens the existence of our country? Today he again borrows Lincoln's words from an address during the civil war, when our union was divided and its endurance seemed literally threatened:
ReplyDelete"At present, the chaos is general over the nation! Can some such very large modern nation expect to "long endure?"
Then Somerby suggests that our nation today might not endure. Aside from the lack of general chaos, we might elect an unfit president again, as occurred in 2016, but we survived that previous administration, plus covid and economic threats and have come out strong on the other side of that. Why should Somerby think that even Trump's election might cause the collapse of our nation?
Does he know something we don't know? Is Trump planning to cede our sovereignty to Putin? Does he think he could disband our union without consent of the governed? Is Somerby thinking about another 1/6 only with guns? Somerby's language is histrionic (as always) but he hasn't stated what he fears might disrupt our nation's existence, and that is a huge claim to make without any substance whatsoever. There are no Greek boats on our shore, so what exactly does Somerby think is going to destroy our country?
Or is this more fear-mongering aimed at Blue America, intended to drive us into the "safety" of a Vance regime, after Trump collapses and must be replaced by his own running mate? Are we supposed to fear that this time all those gun-toting red-hatters are going to converge on our neighborhoods, like American terrorists, preventing us from a peaceful transition to Harris's presidency? Else, why the focus on Bartiromo's Venezuelan bogey-men? What the hell is Somerby talking about? It sounds menacing, but how on earth can Somerby's vague threats be connected to any reality?
"Is Trump planning to cede our sovereignty to Putin?"
DeleteFor the right price....
anon 10:36 - how many of your comments here already? seems at least four. is it's a full time occupation for you. As I recall, a few days ago, you announced that you were fed up with our "Russian sponsored" host, and were leaving for good? what happened with that? it would have been nice if you kept your word.
DeleteRight wingers do not like their views challenged, and they would prefer to exist in safe spaces, where their delicate sensitivities can prance about.
DeleteThis is what ac/ma is expressing.
anon 3:58 = you're projecting
DeleteAre you talking to 10:35? I've invited Cecelia to leave many times but she keeps coming back. It made me realize that I have no leverage over anyone else in comments. Neither do you. Now you are trying her tactic of treating all Anonymous commenters as if they were all one big person. Next you'll be calling everyone Corby. That is just a confession that others are getting to you. Time for a break yourself. My hope is that all of the noise makers will disappear after the election. Maybe you too?
DeleteThey're eating the geese:
ReplyDeleteKurtz: “’They’re eating the pets.’ You don’t know if it’s true or not true?”
Trump: “I read something—"
Kurtz: “It’s been debunked.”
Trump: " Well if it’s true or not true, what about the goose, the geese? What about the geese? What happened there? They’re all missing. I don’t know."
I watched Wild Robot yesterday and learned that geese migrate. Who knew?
DeleteTrump is scary.
DeleteBob complains that the Times offered only too few explanations for Trump's vulgarity. IMO they offered too many for a news article. Trump's ugly words are factual news. A reporter's guess at his motivation is opinion.
ReplyDeleteAre you going to tell us that you don't know why some men compare genitalia with other men?
DeleteThe point is Trump's disinhibition, which suggests dementia. It is fine to talk about that -- look what the right and NY Times did to Biden by portraying him as confused, using altered video.
DeleteYes, and at long last, after an epic struggle, we finally beat Medicare.
Delete1:32, Hey jackass, you think it's funny that President Biden finally got Medicare to negotiate some drug prices, saving senior citizens thousands of dollars per year. You think that's fucking funny?
DeleteA reporter's guess at his motivation is opinion.
DeletePrecisely! I am not sure how this editorial sane-washing is grounded in any facts.
1:38,
DeleteI think it's funny that a presidential candidate was asked a question, got utterly lost and confused for a considerable length of time before saying, 'we finally beat Medicare' and then his defenders try to make it seem his dementia-adjacent performance was something other than what it obviously was.
1:51:, Everyone understood what he meant when he misspoke. I am much more concerned about the cost of prescription drugs in this country, especially for senior citizens on Medicare. You sound like an immature jackass, who found it funny.
Delete1:51, what the fuck did Trump mean when he blurted out numerous times that he is "the father of IVF". Tell us, jackass, what the fuck did he mean by that?
DeleteThere is no evidence Arnold Palmer had an oversized penis, but there is evidence that Trump suffers from an undersized penis, made worse by Trump's penis being shrouded in a blob of blubbery. Therefore a man with even a normal or averaged sized penis is going to appear to Trump as massively oversized.
DeleteIn an ironic twist, Black men tend to have undersized wallets, especially compared to snake oil salesmen like Trump; on average a White man will have a dollar in his wallet, while a Black man will have only 15 cents.
Trump hand waves this circumstance, preferring instead to gawk at other people's penis'. Weird.
1:51,
DeleteWhy are you asking me? Because I was critical of Biden? That makes me a Trump supporter? I recommend a course in basic logic.
3:16, because you're a two-faced double-talking maggot, that's why I asked you, jackass. Go blow smoke up someone else's ass.
DeleteBiden and Harris both released their medical reports and their tax returns. You fucking accused Biden of suffering dementia, you fucking lying maggot. Trump has released neither.
Delete3:41,
DeleteYour somewhat histrionic post seems to assume the president's annual physical would provide an assessment of his overall cognitive functioning. It does not.
Keep trying.
3:56 is not voting for Trump, which is good news.
DeleteSo 3:56 has wrongheaded views and seems a bit unhinged, so what.
3:56 is not voting for Trump, and that's all that matters, particularly since 3:56 has no ability to engage in coherent discourse - but again, who cares, since 3:56 is definitely not voting for Trump.
3:56 can ramble on incoherently as they always do, but what is key is that 3:56 is not voting for Trump, which is awesome.
4:04,
Deleteactually I'm sending out vote reminder postcards for Harris.
Great!
DeleteWhen/if Harris wins, you can celebrate with the rest of us.
Remembering that there is no such thing as bad publicity will put Deshaun Watson at ease.
ReplyDeleteHow many people wouldn't know his name otherwise? The name of the game in elections when trying to attracted low-frequency and low-information voters, is to increase name recognition.
DeleteHow hilarious was the former Commander’s stint at McDonald's yesterday? He put some ketchup on fake first jobs (or as Kamala would say mayo, because ketchup is too spicy for a white guy)
ReplyDeleteI never see any discussion of the way MAGAs intimidate their neighbors to keep them from putting out lawn signs. Fear of vandalism is real.
ReplyDeleteAgree. I live in a historically deep red district, it is changing - last census had the split at 49% Dems/51% Republicans whereas 30 years ago it was more like 25/75 split, but I do not put any displays of political leanings on my house/car because the area is full of very angry (and well armed) Republicans who are unable to handle conflict without resorting to violence.
DeleteYes, Trump violates your precious selectively highlighted norms. So what? He still comes across as someone who loves the country and its people and wants what’s best for them. Can’t say that about your DEI-hire gal, who wants the whole country to be like Detroit. 8 years of non-stop accusations like he is Hitler-Mussolini, threat to democracy, racist, sexist, crook etc. haven’t done your tribe any good. You may think Red tribers are stupid, but they think Blue tribe people are mentally ill. So here we are, a country so divided.
ReplyDeleteHe comes across to me like a lying sack of shit, grifting conman and a loser.
Delete12:18,
DeleteThat Trump really isn't a racist should be on the FOX News crawl 24/7, but Fox won't do that because it would depress Republican voter turnout.
He still comes across as someone who loves the country and its people and wants what’s best for them.
DeleteUmm...he does? His middle school lame vulgarity is just used to punctuate and adorn his "love for the country"? I am with Anon@12:33: he comes across as a fucking grifter who is constantly looking for an angle.
All 12:18 is trying to say is this country needs more schlong-talk.
DeleteNow we see that he overcharged-by a lot- the US taxpayer for Secret Service time at his resorts. Of course he loves his country, as long as he can bilk it out of money.
DeleteI'm reading between the lines, Bob, and I hope you're okay. I wish you the best, and greatly appreciate all you've shared with readers for the past 25 years.
ReplyDeleteMcDonald’s came pretty close to debunking Harris’s claim. They wrote, “While we and our franchisees don’t have records for all positions dating back to the early ’80s, what makes “1 in 8” so powerful is the shared experience so many Americans have had.”
ReplyDeleteStrangely the above comment was accepted, but another comment was rejected over and over. It appears to be there when I enter it, but it's gone when I re-open. Any ideas?
DeleteDavid in Cal
Dickhead in Cal is researching whether Kamala worked at a McDonalds while going to school 40 years ago but doesn't have time to read the FOUR FELONY INDICTMENTS of Donald J Chickenshit for orchestrating an attempted coup on our country. God fuck yourself, Dickhead.
Delete''“While we and our franchisees don’t have records for all positions dating back to the early ’80s, what makes “1 in 8” so powerful is the shared experience so many Americans have had.”'
DeleteWhat is the purported meaning of this quote in reference to Kamala Harris?
Harris claims to have worked at McDonalds many years ago, and it looks like that's not true. In addition to McDonald's having no record of her working there, Social Security has a record of people's employers and contributions throughout their lives
DeleteSo to support your belief that Harris didn't work at McDonald's in the early 80's, you cite a quote from McDonald's saying, we "don't have records for all positions dating back to the early 80's."
DeleteFrom that you conclude 'it looks like it's not true"? At the risk of stating the obvious, that makes no f_____g sense.
I think Harris should provide proof she worked at McDonald's after Trump provides proof of the size of Arnold Palmer's schlong.
DeleteTrump says that Harris never worked at McDonald's and that she is lying.
DeleteBut that is not what McDonald's is saying. The fast food chain is saying they do not keep records from that far back (1983). They also note that about 1 in 8 Americans have worked at McDonald's, suggesting that it is unremarkable that Harris worked there and that they have no evidence to prove she did not work there.
This is in striking contrast to the phony and dishonest stunt Trump engaged in, pretending to join the staff at McDonald's for a day of work, when in reality the restaurant was closed down, Trump was only there a few minutes, and pretended to serve customers who were in fact Trump supporters and staff that had to pass a security clearance.
Trump also has hired a Black woman to make appearances at wherever he pulls these kinds of stunts, to show that he has Black supporters, but she is in fact a paid Trump supporter. Trump also has fake union workers, fake auto workers, fake firefighters etc show up at his rallies.
For Trump rallies, he puts ads out to pay for people to come.
Trump is even paying people (via Musk) to sign phony petitions as a way to get voter data and get out the vote.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/no-mcdonald-s-didn-t-confirm-trump-s-baseless-claim-about-kamala-harris/ar-AA1sEYKI
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/musk-petition-pac-1-million-trump-legal-questions/
If you repeat the nonsense Trump says, you are either easily fooled or trying to fool others.
@3:42 Social Security does keep records of employers and contributions all the way back. If Harris really worked at McDonald's she could get the SS records and end the criticism.
DeleteSocial Security does not list every part time job I had before starting my career. Some of the early years are simply grouped.
DeleteYou may be right about the SS records. But as a tactical matter, why would she let Trump jerk her strings like that?
DeleteAnd after all, we have no reason to doubt Harris' rather unremarkable claim.
I have my SS records and it does not show jobs I had back in high school (including at big corporations) in the 80s. I never even made enough money to file taxes until I was out of college, and none of the jobs I had back then show up on my SS records.
DeleteDavid is just wrong.
If anything, the response from McDonald's supports Harris' contention.
DeleteFurthermore, harping on this issue is a net negative for Trump, it makes him look weak and petty. So it is weird for a Trump supporter to highlight the issue.
Perhaps David is a Harris supporter and just posts loony things as a pretend Trumper to make Republicans look bad. Anything is possible.
If Trump really was given a "Man of the Year" award in Michigan, he should produce the paperwork and end the criticism.
DeleteHow about confirmation of the tendonitis?
DeleteD in C. I remember this guy with a nym similar to yours, who multiple times was quite bent out of shape about H, Clinton's mistruths - good god, she claimed she was named after Edmund Hillary, the climber of Mt. Everest, which she wasn't. So naturally, it's not surprising you're backing a candidate who is somewhat of a cross between "Honest" Abe Lincoln and George "never told a Lie" Washington, only even more honest. And by all means, the dem candidate should obtain her social security records from 1985 to dispel the cogent claim her ex-president opponent. Otherwise she's a big liar. Does the guy now running, who god himself saved from an assassin's bullet, interceding to save the US as well as the entire, does he ever have to back up his questionable claims? i would say not, due to his fastidious respect for the truth, his word alone suffices.
Delete"she could get the SS records and end the criticism."
DeleteI think you're pretty much the only one who still cares, so maybe next time instead of posting about it you can just whisper your grievances into a tree. Then the criticism will have ended.
I went to social security and reviewed my own earnings records. I found that there were amounts earned by year, but not the names of employers. This includes the years I was a college student working a part-time job. Why would Harris have access to any more information than I do?
Deletetest
ReplyDelete"As we conduct this exploration, we'll be returning to a form of President Lincoln's question—the question he asked in Gettysburg, though in a much different context."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the warning.
Standards drop when a President does something previously unacceptable and gets away with it. Trump greatly reduced standards for Presidential speech.
ReplyDeleteReagan dropped standards for action or behavior He got elected, despite being divorced. Before him. (“If you can’t keep a marriage together, how can you keep the country together?”).
DeleteBiden was the worst offender. He never should have been nominated. He blatantly helped Burisma after they paid a fortune to his son. This set a new low in acceptability of corruption or apparent corruption. Worst of all, Biden’s efforts to imprison his political opponent threatens to bring our country down to the level of a banana republic or dictatorship.
DeleteFinally got my comment to stick by chopping it up.
DeleteDavid in Cal
2:21 The entire Trump family grifted on his presidency, but of course you did not notice.
Delete2:21 You have convinced me not to vote for any presidential candidate that has grifted millions of dollars from the American taxpayer. Thanks. I was going to cast my vote for Trump.
DeleteBiden never helped Burisma, the trolls are so despondent, they aren't even bothering to put much effort into their nonsense.
DeleteNot one Republican voter is going to vote for Trump because he's a lying, grifting rapist. Every Republican voter that votes for Trump will do so, because he gives them the bigotry they crave.
DeleteTrump didn't reduce standards. His behavior invariably falls below them, but they are still there. Commenting on Arnold Palmer's penis size gets no censure from the Trump cult, only laughter, even though it is possibly the most bizarre and inappropriate attempt at humor ever coming from a presidential candidate. He has completely lost it.
Deleteanon 2:21, I like your use of the word "blatantly." It adds heft to your assertion. I wonder, though, why it was that the GOP house majority never impeached him for that. Couldn't be due to lack of evidence, since what he did was so blatant, as you so forcefully put it.
DeleteAC makes a very good point.
DeleteBarack Obama's crude vulgar comments spark speculation of his cognitive decline.
ReplyDeleteHarris’ New Ad Trolls Trump With Obama’s Lewd Joke About Crowds
The Daily Beast
Barack Obama’s mockery of Donald Trump’s “weird obsession” with crowd sizes is the star of a new Harris-Walz campaign ad aiming to rattle Trump ahead of the presidential debate Tuesday.
The ad, which is set to air on Fox News, features the notorious moment from Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention last month in which he made a highly suggestive gesture with his hands while ridiculing Trump’s pathological preoccupation with the amount of people who attend his public events. Attendees at the DNC roared with laughter as Obama moved his hands apart and then closer together again in a motion widely seen as a crude reference to Trump’s manhood.
It's not the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean.
DeleteSo Trump has a tiny penis, so what.
It's not like it's ever going to see any action again before he dies, his days of raping and sexual assaulting are over.
Obama can do and say whatever he damn well pleases about the orange clown who kicked off his political career with the birtherism lie.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:04pm, you should have stopped at replying that Obama can say whatever he damn well pleases. You’d have been even more on target if you added that everyone found Obama’s remark and gesture funny.
DeleteThe joy, it seems, is gone from the Kamala campaign.
ReplyDeleteMaybe she can get it back by swaying to the Village People et al. for 40 minutes at a rally. The look on the face of Kristi Noem was worth the price of admission. Sure grandpa we will sway along with you if it makes you happy.
DeleteDepressed Trump supporters like 2:33 are good for a laugh, and that's about it.
DeleteFighting against the syphilis infected brain of a lifelong criminal, liar, cheat, rapist and grifter can take a toll on a campaign.
DeleteLooking at the comments here (ok, including, especially perhaps mine - if they don't get censored) proves TDH's point about the chaotic state of our present discourse
ReplyDeleteYou don't really think that blog comments define the public discourse, do you?
Delete