TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10
We'll be posting this afternoon: As you can see by the clock on the wall, it's another one of those Alternate Week Traveling Tuesdays.
For that reason, we won't be posting until early this afternoon. Our topic today will be this:
Why would anyone have voted for Candidate Trump? On Sunday's Meet the Press, he gave Welker two principal reasons.
(Also, though, what Bill Clinton said—and the latest on the incoming president's "showroom of broken toys.")
ReplyDelete"Why would anyone have voted for Candidate Trump?"
Because there was no reasonable alternative.
What about the geese?
DeleteA male goose, sure that is reasonable, the problem with Harris was that she is a woman.
DeleteTrump won with 30% of the electorate, that’s all a White male needs to dominate the country.
DeleteThe Right's jealousy of Hunter Biden's penis size, has become obsessive.
ReplyDeletepic.x.com/sTfbBMbcXY
ReplyDeleteThe “will you commit” spin:
ReplyDeleteIn that MTP interview, Trump was asked about banning abortion pills. He said he was opposed to banning them in 2020 and was opposed today. I thought, “Here’s a rare Trump position my wife will approve of.
But, the interviewer followed up with an almost meaningless question: “Will you commit to that?” Trump’s answer focused on the word “commit.” He said that nobody could commit to anything because things might change.
So, our local paper reported that Trump refused to commit to not banning abortion pills. Thus an issue on which Trump supported my wife’s position was reported as if he opposed her position.
nobody could commit to anything
DeleteBwahahahaha!!! Go fuck yourself, Dickhead, you racist fascist prick
"commit" is just a word. If a pol says she supports X or if a pol says she commits to supporting X, what's the difference? Two years later she can still change her mind and oppose X.
DeleteBTW note that "Will you commit?" could be asked after any response. E.g. Harris says she doesn't oppose fracking. Interviewer responds, "Will you commit to that?" But, just asking that question is a fact-free way of casting doubt on the pol's sincerity.
"If a pol says she supports X or if a pol says she commits to supporting X, what's the difference?"
DeleteThe difference is: to commit is to pledge or bind to a certain course or policy. To support is to give approval or encouragement to.
Thus, a commitment entails future behavior, whereas support is in the present.
But you would have had to look up the dictionary definitions to know that. And that would have been a lot of work!
It depends on the issue.
DeleteReporter: Mr Hitler, you say you’re opposed to antisemitism, you made that clear in a speech, but will you commit to not killing the Jews?
Hitler: I can’t commit to that, things might change.
Holy shit the commenters here are dumb as fuck.
@12:53 your "example" is not too convincing, since Hitler's actions were consistent with his past statements. Hitler had expressed antisemitism even before he became dictator.
DeleteTrump gave a better example in his response on MTP. He pointed out that Biden repeatedly committed to not pardoning his son. Nevertheless he did pardon him. The word "commit" did not bind Biden.
The real problem lies in the way a position is phrased in the media.Instead of saying "Trump refuses to rule out a ban on abortion pills," it should be stated as "Trump has no intention to ban abortion drugs, but he also will not definitively rule it out."
DeleteYour counterpoint is not convincing at all.
DeleteFor one thing, it’s logically incoherent, and ahistorical as well.
Again, the point stands, it depends on the issue.
Biden flipping in an inconsequential issue only bothers partisans; Trump flipping on an issue that impacts the health and safety of millions of Americans is a whole other matter.
The second point also stands, these commenters are as dumb as fuck, as 1:03 dutifully demonstrates.
Anonymouse 1:16pm, I'm assuming you're talking to me. My suggestion on how the media should present the facts is not “logically incoherent," it's simply not biased as to your point of view. The media can explore the negative aspects of banning these medications if they choose to, but my formulation remains factual. Trump does not have immediate plans to outlaw these drugs, although he cannot guarantee that he will never do so. That statement should be the lede.
DeleteHector - David's question was not asking if the words 'commitment' and 'support' differ semantically, but whether the difference changes anything if commitments aren't followed through. Ie. if future actions cannot be trusted or are unpredictable, the difference between "commit" and "support" might not matter in practice. Neither guarantees future action.
Delete"Roe v Wade is settled law."
DeleteBelieving a word a Republican says (when it isn't in service to bigotry and white supremacy) is a fool's game.
3:30: I am not Hector, but I would much rather hear a pol say he is committing to a policy rather than wishy washy supports it now. Trump also said in that interview with Welker that he didn't think his tariffs would be passed on to the consumer but couldn't guarantee they wouldn't. How much more bullshit is the media going to allow him to spew?
DeleteIf you don't see the difference between saying you don't support something today versus committing that as President of the fucking country you would oppose that policy, there is something wrong and dishonest about you.
Dickhead in Cal, doesn't give a shit either way. He is just here to deflect and obscure and whine about how unfairly the most abominable liar in our history of politics is being treated by his local newspaper.
It is goddam fair for an interviewer to ask, "will you commit to that", and if you and Dickhead in Cal don't like the way the fucking liar-elect chose to avoid the question, then fuck you all to hell.
Dickhead in Cal's argument isn't just about whether there is a difference between "support" and "commitment" in theory, it's about whether that difference matters. Resorting to simpleminded emotional rhetoric (pathos) won't change that.
Delete5:41 and 3:03,
DeleteThe difference in meaning between 'support' and 'commitment' is not theoretical, but a linguistic fact.
To ask, 'what's the difference?' between the two is to say that words don't matter. It's consistent with Dickhead-in-Cal's stated belief that since all politicians lie, therefore all political lies are equivalent.
When meaning and nuance and difference are all done away with, you're left with power, pure and simple.
Hector, the original statement is not dismissing the importance of words. The "difference" referenced is not between the two words themselves, it's the "difference" between the words and the outcome. The words have different linguistic meanings but if the outcome is the same, the difference in meaning does not matter because both are equally unreliable. Does that make sense? You have to include the clause "two years later she can still change her mind and oppose X?" into your reasoning in order to accurately understand the point.
DeleteI agree that the 'difference' referenced is in regard to outcomes rather than definitions.
DeleteBut it does no good to acknowledge that words matter if you say at the same time that differences in meaning don't matter.
Breaking a commitment is different from withdrawing support, even if the outcome is the same.
Hector, it is true that breaking a commitment differs from withdrawing support, even if the end result is identical. Thanks for pointing that out.
DeleteSomerby throws in the word "anyone" when he asks why someone would vote for Trump. Of course white supremacists and misogynists are going to vote for him, because he is advancing their issues. The question is why any reasonable person without such biases would vote for Trump. Why anyone who cares about the well-being of our nation or international affairs would vote for him? Why anyone who cares about the future habitability of our planet would vote for him.
ReplyDeleteWhen Somerby offers such ridiculous questions, how can any answer be taken seriously?
Anonymouse 12:18pm, you're essentially suggesting that those who support Trump must have bad reasons because you see no good reason to support Trump. However, if Jeb Bush had been elected and set a policy to naturalize some illegal immigrants while also tightening the border and deporting the majority of illegals , would that ever make you consider there being a a valid reason in the minds of some, to vote for even Jeb, let alone Trump?
DeleteNope.
Bob isn’t backing a politician or a policy or going wobbly by merely acknowledging that some people in the country believe enforcing border laws is a good thing, even if he personally doesn't agree with it as much as Trump or even Jeb.
Some people believed Haitian immigrants were eating pet cats and dogs.
DeleteCreating policy based on the gullibility of these people is no way to run an adult country.
Somerby is gung ho for border control. He doesn’t say why, and I think it is odd given his professed liberalism and lifelong residence is places like Boston and Baltimore, which have no borders with other countries.
DeleteBoston borders the North End, South Boston, and the Chinatown. If those aren't "other countries", nothing is.
DeleteAmerica 2016: We're going to disrupt because Democrats are becoming untenably unhinged and hateful especially against whites and men and Christians.
ReplyDeleteAmerica 2020: Whew, that Trump is a lot. Bull in a china shop. We can vote in Biden, an old school Democrat who won't be radical like Hillary and Obama.
America 2024: Never mind. The Democrats are a lost cause and their idea of progress is to become progressively more unhinged and hateful against their hated groups and ways of life and to embrace Cheneys.
Please come back, mean tweets guy!
Brian Thompson has died.
ReplyDeleteThis story is more a kick in the gut every day. Mangione had some sort of mental breakdown after a back injury that left him in tremendous pain and had an unsuccessful surgery.
DeleteIs that shorthand for "not an immigrant"?
DeleteAnonymouse 2:57pm, no. No one wants immigrants to have back injuries and go crazy and kill someone.
DeleteI wish I could say the same for anonymices when it comes to anyone shooting health care execs.
You can still scapegoat them for you being a loser, whether they have back injuries or not.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:27pm, he’s not a loser. He literally had everything and according to reports, his life collapsed in little over a year. Who celebrates that?
DeleteNo one wants immigrants to have back injuries and go crazy and kill a CEO.
DeleteFIFY
Anonymouse 4:55pm, no, you FIFA. I don’t want anyone killing anyone. Until the past several days, I assumed the same opinion was held among anonymices.
DeleteYou sure showed me.
Until the past 8 years I thought a national pandemic with thousands of American citizens dying each day would be a non-partisan issue. Boy you trumplicans sure showed me.
DeleteI also believed that a sitting president caught red-handed plotting an insurrection, and indicted for multiple felonies for doing so, and obstructing the investigation of government documents he stole and hid from the FBI and indicted for doing the same, after being found liable for sexual assault and busines fraud, after being convicted of 34 felonies, would never get close enough to smell the White House again. Boy, you sure showed me.
I was referring to the way the killing is reported in the media. Luigi didn't just kill someone, he killed a CEO.
Stop the presses. Assign the entire FBI and every field office to the case.
Anonymouse 5:21pm, the voters showed you, but good. You showed me via your warm fuzzies over a murder. At first I was surprised at the dearth of lambasting violent white males until all that glee over an evil CEO came spilling out of your ranks like blood on a sidewalk. That was a shocker.
DeleteSo you got your dead CEO. I wonder if all those banking CEOs and YouTube execs, who throw money at liberals while throwing conservatives out of their establishments are now engaging in a bit of reflection .
Back in the old days, Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger were folk heroes.
DeleteI am not cheering for this, but I understand those who might be. You cheered for an attack on the US Capitol just because black votes counted in an election. Go fuck yourself, Cecelia.
the voters showed you
DeleteDon't forget the corrupt supreme court, Cec.
Anonymouse 5:58pm, there will always be folks who like to see people dead and there will always be people who accommodate them. Generally, the people slavering over killers are not the same people who claim to be more advanced than others.
DeleteI have never cheered the riot at the Capitol. You can move on from that lie, if not your usual macho sign-off.
Anonymouse 6:18pm, yeah, it’ll be another four years till you attempt to stack it.
DeleteIf you didn't cheer attack on our Capitol and the attempt to overturn the election because black votes counted, then why on earth would you support the corrupt treasonous bastard behind the whole plot. It makes no sense. You are illogical or bullshitting.
DeleteYou supported the man who incited the attack on our Capitol and plotted to abuse his power to steal the election. There is no dispute about that. And you supported the man who campaigned on pardoning the very perpetrators of the attack, people who used flagpoles with trump flags to try to impale police officers protecting the Capitol. And you supported the corrupt treasonous bastard who is calling the congressional members who investigated the plot criminals. Orwell didn't have enough imagination to believe this was possible.
So don't deny it, Cec, you can't have it both ways.
Anonymouse 6:18pm, yeah, it’ll be another four years till you attempt to stack it.
DeleteThat never happened you lying bitch.
Anonymous 6:55pm, I mean it will be that long until you can try, tough guy.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:54pm, no, I actually can deplore what happened at the Capitol and logically believe it wasn’t an insurrection and that Trump should have never told them to go there in the first place. I can believe that we are still better off with him as president than we would be with Comma La. I can also believe that the biggest threat to his presidency is domestic enemies who absolutely hated him and started a literal war against him from the moment he was nominated in 2016. Trump is to Big Brother as a telemarketer is to Rev Harry Powell.
Deleteyou're so fucking stupid, Cecelia, you didn't even get the Orwell reference. what's for sale at the WH after Jan 20?
DeleteEric Trump flew across the world to headline a cryptocurrency conference in the United Arab Emirates this week and told thousands of enthusiastic attendees that he and his father, the U.S. president-elect, were effectively working in tandem to push crypto, a business sector the family is directly invested in.
The message was notable because it contrasted drastically with the promise the family made when Donald J. Trump entered the White House four years ago, to keep business and government operations separate.
Eric Trump said he had even phoned his father — “Pops,” he said he calls him — to celebrate when the price of Bitcoin hit $100,000 after the president-elect announced he intended to appoint a crypto-friendly lawyer as the new chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates the industry that the family now profits from.
“You’re going to have the most pro-crypto president in the history of America,” Eric Trump told the crowd. “Think about a president who isn’t going to allow Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies to be overregulated and stifled.”https://digbysblog.net/
THAT’s Orwellian? If you have to do movie analogies go with Prince of the City or something, you overwrought Brahman.
Delete"... why on earth would you support the corrupt treasonous bastard behind the whole plot. It makes no sense. You are illogical or bullshitting."
DeleteFor those in the back:
SHE LOVES HIS BIGOTRY JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN VOTER.
Asked and answered.
Let's move on.
Cecelia, that’s Brahmin. It refers to a caste in India, not someone who watches movies a lot. Avoid words you don’t know.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:14pm, it’s a bull, dummy.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:22pm, and grape soda.
DeleteWhat happened at the Capitol wasn't an insurrection. Please. Those pasty-skinned, flabby, fools, cos-playing as revolutionaries, an insurrection?
DeleteNo.
It was a bunch of Right-wing snowflakes throwing a childish temper tantrum just because black people's votes were counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
Now, what could possibly have gotten these losers to get their fat pasty-white asses off the couch to go to the Capitol and cry like babies just because black people's votes were counted in the 2020 Presidential election?
That's the question no one can answer, because it makes PP and AC/ MA sad.
Following a long history of wanting to cut Social Security, including putting SS cuts in all his budgets as president, Trump is once again gearing up to cut Social Security, assigning the task to two unelected bureaucrats - you can call that irony, or hypocrisy, whatever, Republicans do not care.
ReplyDeleteI found it to be quite informative. I value the time and effort you put into writing this essay.
ReplyDeleteExcellent work!
ReplyDeleteI truly like how your blog is set up and looks.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about the amount of work you put into creating such a wonderful, educational website.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the well-written article.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you sharing this.
ReplyDeleteYour work is very good and I appreciate you.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing great information to us.
ReplyDeleteI loved the fundamental information you provided on your website.
ReplyDeleteI honestly appreciate your technique of writing a blog.
ReplyDeleteFantastic article. Excellent reading material. I adore reading such lovely articles. Thanks!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteVery nice article, it helps me a lot.
ReplyDeleteThe style is so unique. Thanks for publishing this kind of blog, Keep blogging!
ReplyDeleteLot of interesting information here. Thanks for sharing. keep it up