FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2024
Also, a postcard from Fantasyland: Will Nominee Hegseth get confirmed? We still can't tell you that.
In a new survey by AP-NORC, the nomination boasts only 17% support, with 36% opposed. Those numbers aren't very good—but almost half of the survey's respondents didn't state a view on the matter, and there's still a long way to go if the nominee, and the guy who picked him, decide to stick it out.
Last night, Lawrence O'Donnell devoted a remarkably lengthy opening segment to an accurate observation about this nomination. He noted that Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) still hasn't said that she'll end up voting in favor of the Hegseth pick.
He also battered the New York Times for the way the paper described Ernst's recent adjustment in messaging about the Hegseth nomination.
O'Donnell's specific critique of the Times report was certainly accurate, but we couldn't help wondering if O'Donnell, and some others, might not be "protesting [a bit] too much" about the vastly changed political world we're now all living in.
Might O'Donnell be exhibiting bit of denial about the loss of Blue American power in last month's (close) election? As a general matter, we Blues are at the mercy of Donald Trump now. His nominations may strike us as strange or even as bizarre, but there's basically nothing we Blues can do about it now.
It all comes down to the Senate's 53 Republicans and to their possible fear of being primaried and losing their Senate jobs.
Full disclosure! Starting with Senators Corker and Flake, political careers have tended to come to an end for Republicans who oppose Donald J. Trump.
Keeping that recent history in mind, will Hegseth end up making it through? We have no way of knowing.
We thought Lawrence might be protesting too a bit much about the Ernst-Hegseth contretemps. Later, he interviewed Jonathan Capehart, and we thought the pair of thought leaders went (almost all the way) off the rails in a complaint about the way the mainstream press has allegedly applied a double standard to the misstatements of Biden and Trump.
That said, we're having trouble with the Internet Archive. Ever since the invaluable site recovered from last autumn's cyberattack, it seems to us that it's been harder to play its videotapes of our flailing nation's cable news programs.
For that reason, we won't be able to show you the O'Donnell/Capehart lament. (If you want to give it a try, the segment in question starts here.)
We'll try to transcribe their exchange tomorrow. In our mind, their complaint, however well intentioned, came from a poorly governed province not far from the better-known Fantasyland.
If Blue America plans to fight back, we're going to have to come to terms with the actual state of the world. It seemed to us that O'Donnell and Capehart were perhaps indulging themselves in an unhelpful form of denial.
Don’t bother. Still waiting for the 1965 incident. Is this blog like an old serial that I used to watch on TV after school? Get to the point man.
ReplyDeleteTomorrow never comes on this blog
ReplyDeleteSurveys of the public mean nothing. It is the confirmation votes that matter.
ReplyDeleteThis isn’t about Blue America. Republicans are finding Hegseth repugnant and saying they won’t confirm him.
ReplyDeleteThis is about media bias. We've seen many articles and TV presentations focusing on accusations by anonymous people. OTOH the media has avoided interviews on the record with Hegseth's co-workers -- the people who know him best. These people give him glowing reviews.
ReplyDeleteI think he should testify at his confirmation bare chested so everyone can admire the giant Nazi tattoo he has on his chest. Don't you agree, Dickhead?
Delete@6:32 -- Hegseth has twice volunteered to risk his life by fighting our enemies while you and I sat on our asses posting silly comments. Whose patriotism is clearer?
DeleteMine, obviously.
DeleteIs that a trick question, Dickhead in Cal, you treasonous bastard. Go fuck yourself.
Delete"The people who know him best"
DeleteThat would be his mother, and the wives he cheated on. Did your coworkers know you better than your family? Did your family ever have to pay out 770 million dollars for lying to the American public?
No, my co-workers didn't know me better as a human being, but they were the ones who knew me best as an employee.
DeleteSo you want "the media" to interview Fox employees that are his coworkers for an honest opinion of who he is. How naive you must think an audience would be to take their word for it. The people that may have to continue to work with him if his nomination fails are expected to publicly give an honest opinion of Hegseth. At any point in time until he was called out for misconduct, Bill O'Reilly wasn't being called out for such by his Fox brethren. So no, your proposal that members of the Fox tribe would publicly criticize Hegseth is preposterous and of course typical for the kind of nonsense to be expected from you here. Mommy got set up for a disclaimer interview on Fox about the contents of that email she sent him, and lo and behold, Pete Hegseth is no longer the man she so eloquently called out in a scathing critique that no decent human being should ever receive from his mother; why he's a changed man! That turnaround was about as authentic as a holy roller miracle conversion. That of course is what you get from Fox, in a well choreographed display of solidarity with a member of their tribe.
DeleteThe woman who went to the police to accuse Hegseth of sexual assault was not anonymous. The police took her name when she made her report.
DeleteHe's a drunk and a deviant.
Yes, she is not anonymous, the police report gives a number of reasons to disbelieve her story.
DeleteSomerby disbelieves all women.
Delete"the police report gives a number of reasons to disbelieve her story."
DeleteGo ahead. Fill us in.
He paid her to sign an NDA like the innocent always do.
DeleteQuaker -- go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9uCJdV2qsI&t=192s&ab_channel=MegynKelly and start listening around 5:30 for some reasons. They include
Delete1. Delay in going to the police
2. Witnesses and videos show she was NOT drunk, as she claimed
3. Pete was the one who appeared drunk.
4. Security, who stopped her during an argument with Hegseth, says she didn't seem drunk or drugged.
5. Her husband says she appeared undrugged when she returned to her room.
6. She claims she didn't remember anything about the incident until later. But, after she remembered she didn't report the so -called rape for another 4 days.
7. She herself says she only had once glass of champagne.
8. She said she might have been drugged, but there was no evidence that any other person could discern.
BTW a false accusation of rape would be just as harmful to Hegseth's career as a true accusation.
Trump never appoints competent qualified people, just loyal ones from “central casting”. That is not in Hegseth’s favor.
DeleteOof, David your “points” are mostly misleading, with some straight up falsehoods.
DeleteWhy lie and mislead if you are so sure?
Hegseth’s story has changed, but the woman, whose husband was staying in the same hotel, had already expressed disgust with Hegseth for trying to take a different woman back to his room, and had a loud argument with Hegseth about it. She was texting her husband throughout the night about how creepy Hegseth was acting, and then suddenly stopped mid text. Hegseth notably took care to pull out to ejaculate, an apparent attempt to conceal his crime.
The victim is a Republican operative, her version is more believable than Hegseth’s changing story. She had no ulterior motive to get a rape kit, which then got reported to the police.
Trump does not know Hegseth personally at all, Trump just said he’s seen him for years on Fox News.
Hegseth is just the tip of the iceberg, Trump is filling his admin with an army of sexual predators.
Lost souls like David do not give a fuck about sexual assault victims, he’d rather lie to try to save face instead.
"We look forward to working together," says the owner of TIME Magazine to Donald Trump.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone imagine the Howls of outrage that would be coming from the rightwing fever swamps if the owner of TIME had said that in 2020 to President Elect Biden? What do you think about that, Dickhead in Cal. A little bias in the media?
Anonymouse 8:02p, extreme partisans are always oblivious to context. They’re knives out 24/7.
DeleteWhether we like it or hate it, Trump is the new president. He’s the first to do what he did since Pres Grover Cleveland. Metaphorically, it’s a new day in the country after an election. It’s suitable for TIME to conduct a cordial interview at this particular point. A facade of good will, is appropriate. Trump isn’t TRUMP! in this sort of setting, he’s the newly elected U.S. president and the “pretense” is that its a new era and all Americans are working together for the benefit of the country. It’s Christmas..
That’s the tone TIME appropriately went with. Rest assured it lasted no longer than Trump hitting the exit door.
I don't remember, Cecelia, did Grover Cleveland lead an insurrection and refuse a peaceful transition of power? Was he a convicted felon and under felony indictment in 3 other jurisdictions at the time he was running for his second term? Did he owe New York half a billion dollars for business fraud practices? Was he found liable for sexual assault and fined over a $100 million for defaming the same woman he sexually assaulted - TWICE! Were half his lawyers and cabinet under indictment and or disbarred for criminal conspiracy with their former boss? Did Grover Cleveland fucking lie to the American public every time he opened his mouth?
DeleteYou let me know what "working together" means now, Cec, ok? I didn't realize Time was partners now in Trump's corrupt enterprises.
Anonymouse 7:14am, who said anything about “working together”?
DeleteI mention that the TIME guy behaved in a proper manner for an occasion that likely lasted three hours, and even say any pretend good will stopped outside the door and THAT’S too much for you.
Why don’t you give this blog a break, and go be bat shite crazy somewhere else today.
Time Magazine Owner Says Trump’s Presidency ‘Marks a Time of Great Promise’ for America: ‘We Look Forward to Working Together’
Delete“Congratulations to President Trump on being named TIME Person of the Year 2024,” Benioff wrote in a post on X. “This marks a time of great promise for our nation. We look forward to working together to advance American success and prosperity for everyone. May G-d bless the United States of America.”
I look forward to Mr. Benioff excitedly covering each and every crime the orange abomination commits the next four years.
Anonymouse 9:06am, Benioff will be lucky if he and his family aren’t swatted on Christmas Eve or made a person of interest to Alvin Bragg.
DeleteThat is an amazing pivot, Cecelia. You should be in the Bolshoi. Now, can you us what you think "working together" means in this context?
DeleteAnonymouse 9:38am, I’m not pivoting, I’ve given up on you actually reading what I have in two posts.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:38am, From Wikipedia- here’s your Trumpie:
DeleteAbortion
edit
In September 2021, Benioff announced that Salesforce would relocate any Texas employees who wanted to move after an abortion law went into effect.[61][62]
LGBTQ issues
edit
In March 2015, Benioff announced Salesforce would cancel all employee programs and travel in Indiana after the passing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.[63] This led to a revised version of the bill being signed into law that prohibited businesses from denying services to someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity.[64]
In February 2016, Benioff announced that Salesforce would reduce investments in Georgia and cancel a conference if HB 757, a bill that would allow businesses to decline services to same-sex couples, was passed.[65] The governor vetoed the bill.[66]
Gender pay gap
edit
In April 2015, after the issue was raised by Salesforce chief personnel officer Cindy Robbins, Benioff announced that he would review salaries at Salesforce to ensure men and women were paid equally.[67] He subsequently dedicated $8 million between 2015 and 2017 to “correct compensation differences by gender, race, and ethnicity across the company”.[68]
Homelessness
edit
In an October 2018 interview with The Guardian, Benioff criticized other technology industry executives for "hoarding" their money and refusing to help the homeless in the San Francisco Bay Area.[69]
In 2019, the Benioffs donated $30 million to the Center for Vulnerable Populations for the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative to study the impacts of homelessness, housing, and health.[70]
In July 2023, Benioff stated[21] that San Francisco "will never go back to the way it was before the pandemic" and recommended that city leadership convert old office space into housing and hire more police. He used his platform on X to call for “refunding the police” numerous times in 2023.[71]
Easy does it, 1:27. Chill. Cecelia is our resident loon, straight outta an asylum, like Trump warned us. Best to just let Cecelia bounce off the walls in their padded cell while waiting for the next round of meds.
Delete*1:17*
Deletefucking autocorrect
Yeahaw!
DeleteCecelia will continue to bully anonymouses, until she pivots to being victimized by them.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:18pm, telling anonymices that they are militant and malign is not complaining of victimization. I feel sorry for you mices. .
DeleteCecelia doesn’t mind being the laughingstock and butt of jokes, it’s purely a craving for attention.
DeleteAnonymouse 8;01pm, anonymices aren’t good at joking.
DeleteMalign is a verb. Malignant is the adjective.
DeleteMalign
DeleteDefinitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
adjective
evil in nature or effect; malevolent.
"she had a strong and malign influence"
Similar:
harmful
evil
bad
baleful
hostile
It’s no wonder why you fatuous self-impressed dolts stay anonymous.
DeleteLike Colin Kaepernick said, "Make America great again."
DeleteActually, he said “Make America straight again.”
Delete"Biden routinely comes out ahead of Trump in the polls. The best predictor of the future is what happened in the past. They are predicting a low-turnout election that Biden will win, especially given that swing states are turning his way now, just like in 2020.
ReplyDeleteOf course, abortion rights could be a bigger factor that Trumpies are aware of. Strength for Biden is occurring in suburbs where abortion is an important issue. Concerns about abortion may result in a landslide in favor of Biden, driven by educated men and especially women, who are worried about losing equal rights and becoming second-class citizens."
Good times.
Anonymouse 8:42pm, righteous white women were going to vote for Comma La en mass (they always vote Republican) and no saintly minorities would be going for him.
DeleteNew spin- stupid white women always vote like their husbands tell them to vote and sexism is a mile wide among men of color.
Is that spin or the result of exit polls and research? Before people vote, it is a guess, after they vote it is a fact.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:48pm, if women, of any color, tell pollsters they voted the way their partners made them vote, those women are more concerned as to what the people asking the questions think of their choice, than they are about the political opinions of their men. Have some common sense.
DeleteWhat you just said makes no sense.
DeleteAnonymouse 4:34pm, yes, it does. We’re talking about people. Not logicians.
DeleteNon sequiturs are kind of Cecelia’s thing.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:02pm, It is not a non sequitur. . Trump is the unpopular figure with 89% negative media coverage, a fact that women are aware of. Women would feel guilty about being dishonest with a pollster regarding their vote, they may not feel as bad about implying that their husband influenced their decision to vote for Trump. This way they are not lying about their true choice, but instead trying to lessen the negative judgment associated with supporting Trump.
DeleteAgain, you are making no sense.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:11pm, you’re not open to hearing anything but your political cant and you’re none too bright.
DeleteName callng again.
DeleteThis blog has died.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you troll a dead blog every day of your life?
DeleteYou raise a good question, PP.
DeleteNot a good question, it’s an excellent question.
DeleteSomeone always trolls here (right and left) but not this guy.
DeleteI wonder why they choose to troll a dead blog every day of their life. I wonder if they have asked themselves why they spend every day trolling a dead blog without ever once saying anything interesting. Have they asked themselves what, in their life, leads them to make this choice every day? To play the fool every day is quite a choice for someone to make about how they spend their life.
DeleteIdeological militancy and a paycheck.
DeleteSome of us have friends in the comments. Understandable that wouldn’t occur to you.
DeleteYou have friends in the comments of a dead blog you spend every day trolling without ever contributing anything interesting or intelligent. You spend every day of your life with your friends in the comment section of a dead blog dismissing warnings about your party with petty stupidity—warnings that consistently prove to be 100% accurate and consequential.
DeleteIn other words you're a jackass.
And you, 5:46 AM, spend every day kissing Mr. Soros' ass.
DeleteThis comment section has degenerated into variations on Dan Aykroyd’s, “Jane, you ignorant slut!”
ReplyDeleteInterresting take, PP.
DeleteNah. That's just the Right-wingers explaining everything they know about economics.
DeleteI listened to Rachel Maddow’s book Prequel on my way to/from the bridge Nationals in Las Vegas. The history of conservative weirdness in support of Hitler is so similar to today that it was comforting to see that this is old right wing crazy coming back, not something new. We Dems didn’t cause this, this is part of a political tradition, including the hate and the grifting. Well worth reading!
ReplyDeleteTrump is Huey long, the Jews are still the scapegoats and global conspirators as are immigrants (as in the past), Germany is now Russia & Hitler is still the leader but the right is helping Putin too, since Hitler committed suicide in a bunker after losing to the allies. I hadn’t realized that Henry Ford paid to distribute the translation of the Protocals of Zion in the USA.
DeleteThe other day my partner and I were sitting at our kitchen table reading and she leaned forward and let out a nice cheek clapping fart that vibrated off the wooden kitchen chair.
ReplyDeleteMade it twice as loud as hers are usually. The whole time, she didn’t break eye-contact with her book, just leaned forward and ripped a fart like a little pig. I looked up but didn’t say anything either, until she did it twice more and I finally laughed.
She looked up severely and asked what I was laughing at. I said oh nothing, it must have been the chair. She smiled and said “that’s right” and continued reading.
Remember the anonymouse insult-fest backlash against Bob when he expressed doubts about the allegations against the Duke Lacrosse players and chose not to criticize their acquittal, during his blogging on the Chanel Miller sexual assault case? I do.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2024/12/duke-mens-lacrosse-scandal-2006-crystal-mangum-admits-fabrication-rape-18-years-later-apologizes-kat-depasquale-evans-finnerty-seligmann-brodhead-pressler-nifong
I remember every Republican voter who knows anything about economics, trying to overthrow the country, when Trump gave that HUGE tax break to the rich and corporations.
DeleteDo you?
Anonymouse 9:12am, if you want to call RHINOS insurrectionists just you go ahead…
DeleteRINOS
DeleteI'll call them "bigots", based on their words and actions.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:35am, RINO says it all.
DeleteThe Cecelia commenter has to blow the dust off a 2006 incident for no particular purpose but ostensibly to "defend Bob. Anyone remember when this commenter posed a salient point?
DeleteMe neither.
Shredgaff, you’re welcome. This won’t be the last time you see this reminder.
DeleteSomerby's position is that women always lie about such things. The position of more thoughtful people is that when a woman accused others of sexual assault, you take her seriously by investigating the claims. You do not knee-jerk automatically disbelieve her, as Somerby always does. This gets Somerby into trouble because he winds up defending people like Roy Moore or Brock Turner (who was convicted by a jury).
DeleteCecelia is going to find herself in a difficult spot if she tries to support Somerby when his position arises from his own conflicted feelings about women and not the facts of these various cases. Some of these women brought true accusations and some didn't -- that's why there needs to be both a serious approach to investigating the claims and respect for the rights of men who may be innocent. It was embarrassing when Somerby defended Brett Kavanaugh and the investigation was shut down by the right for political reasons.
Part of the problem with Somerby's approach is that he cares less about justice than he does about protecting men who have behaved badly. And Cecelia's interest is strictly partisan.
This is a very poorly reasoned take that lacks nuance and evidence.
Delete@5:46 This comment lacks specificity. Without details, it is just name-calling and it is unclear whether you are aiming at Cecelia, the article she linked to, or the responders.
DeleteWould you like specifics? I would be more than glad to provide them.
DeleteIt's in response to the poorly reasoned take of 5:24 PM.
DeleteCalling something poorly reasoned means nothing without evidence. We get it that you disagree but that doesn’t make you right.
DeleteWhat specific evidence exists that Somerby believes "women always lie about such things"? Has he explicitly stated this, or is this an oversimplification of his views? Are there not instances where Somerby took a different stance that contradicts this sweeping claim? How does asserting that Somerby’s position arises from "his own conflicted feelings about women" contribute to addressing the merit of his arguments? Is there evidence that Cecelia's interest is "strictly partisan," or is this an assumption about her motives? Why is the dichotomy presented—either fully believing women or "automatically disbelieving them"—the only possible framing of this issue? Could there be a middle ground, such as taking accusations seriously while respecting the rights of the accused? What evidence supports the claim that Somerby "always" disbelieves women? Could there be exceptions to this generalization? Are the cases of Roy Moore, Brock Turner, and Brett Kavanaugh representative of all cases Somerby has commented on, or are they cherry-picked examples? What evidence supports the claim that Somerby "cares less about justice than protecting men who have behaved badly"? Are there concrete examples of his behavior or statements to substantiate this? On what basis is it concluded that Cecelia's support for Somerby is "strictly partisan"? Could there be other reasons for her position? What evidence exists that Somerby’s positions arise from "conflicted feelings about women"? Is this a psychological assessment, and if so, what is it based on? Could Somerby’s stance be explained by a different rationale unrelated to personal feelings, such as skepticism of media narratives or concern about due process? Does Somerby’s defense of controversial figures like Roy Moore or Brett Kavanaugh necessarily imply agreement with their actions? Could his defense be rooted in broader principles, such as skepticism about the evidence or media bias? Why are Somerby’s views dismissed based on the figures he defends, rather than addressing the specific reasons for his defense? How does the passage establish that Cecelia's support for Somerby is purely partisan? Why do you acknowledge the need for a nuanced approach to sexual assault cases but doesn’t extend this nuance to Somerby’s arguments? How can this inconsistency be justified? Why is the possibility that Somerby’s critiques could be partially valid not considered? Could his points about due process or media bias have some merit, even if controversial?
DeleteSome of us have been reading Somerby since he first took up Al Gore's cause in his blog. We have seen his discussions of the various cases appearing in the media over the years involving accusations against men brought by women. At first, I considered the points you make, about media criticism, because these are Somerby's own claims about his work. He has asserted that he is merely trying to keep the media honest. But over the years, a pattern has emerged in which it has become clear that Somerby's complaints have nothing to do with nuance and everything to do with defending men who are (1) already being widely defended by other men, and attacking women and women's groups for daring to support the women in such cases. Men are not the underdogs in our society but women have been fighting an up hill battle to bring attention to the actions of various men in positions of power and wealth.
DeleteTo determine whether Somerby's "critiques" are valid, I have read a great deal beyond Somerby's website and studied the evidence provided by various sources. Your claim that the possibility that Somerby's critiques could be "partially valid" has been considered and rejected in the face of evidence Somerby generally ignores. Beyond that, Cecelia never raises evidence to support her arguments here. She is a noise machine, a troll, and not a serious commenter.
If Somerby were actually expressing skepticism of media narratives, they wouldn't always be in support of accused men but might sometimes be in support of the women complaining about them. They wouldn't be on the wrong side of the juries convicting men, as Somerby has sometimes been. They would consist of a balanced review and weighing of the statements of the women and not just the men. He would have better reasons to put forward than simply repeating that Stormy Daniels is a grifter and has committed extortion against Trump, that she approached Trump and not vice versa, and so on with Somerby's uncritical repetition of right wing talking points ignoring Daniels' side of the matter and the evidence later presented in court, and all common sense about the two stories, not least that Trump is a known liar with a history of misbehavior while Daniels is not.
Your suggestions seem reasonable if you ignore the entire context of this ongoing discussion over the years. The men Somerby has defended have usually been right wingers who are up for some advancement but having difficulty because of their misbehavior with women. In the case of Brock Turner (who was convicted by a jury), the judge was being recalled for having given Turner a very light sentence after his attack on Chanel Miller. In the case of Roy Moore, he was running for office. Somerby's ongoing and strong defense of these men has occurred because the right wing has championed their causes.
Lately, Somerby has been proclaiming #metoo to be a dead movement whose moment has passed. He is claiming that feminists abandoned women and that the media has lost interest in such cases. None of this is true. Somerby has claimed that when men attack women, it is merely part of age-old "sexual politics" from the time of Sacred Homer, the way men and women have always been, again not historically true. Somerby's latest efforts have not been a media critique at all, but an attempt to minimize and normalize the actions of Trump and his appointees who have abused women. So, this is more a part of Somerby's advancement of right wing talking points than it is a serious attempt to discuss the way the news handles reports of male sexual assaults and mistreatment of women.
9:14 This response contains multiple errors of reason and logic and does little to address the reasoning flaws it claims to critique. Instead, it perpetuates even more of its own.
DeleteWould you like me to go into details?
Somerby's broad theme is in critiquing both the media’s role in shaping political discourse and the tendency of liberals to avoid grappling with hard truths.
DeleteIt does no good avoid addressing that critique by using personal attacks, tangential critiques and unsupported assertions about motives.
Perhaps, you were never properly educated.
This new report is not a surprise. Why does the media AND the Biden Administration repeat Hamas statistics as valid?
ReplyDelete“ A rigorous analysis published on Saturday of Hamas authorities’ death statistics in Gaza shows they were vastly inflated and methodologically flawed.
The report by the London-based Henry Jackson Society security think tank breaks down the figure of about 44,000 deaths since Oct. 7, 2023, that the Hamas-controlled health ministry in Gaza has published, and which international media have reported without scrutiny.”
Why Is Israel Afraid to Allow Foreign Journalists in Gaza? What's It Hiding?
DeleteBy blocking journalists from Gaza, Israel not only prevents coverage of the war's horrors but also hinders real-time scrutiny of Hamas' claims – a key Israeli interest
By April 2024 Israel had dropped over 70,000 tons of bombas on Gaza. Researchers from Oregon State University and the City University of New York estimated 50-62% of buildings destroyed compared with Israeli estimates of 15%. The cofounder of the Henry Jackson Society, who left the think tank, labeled it an anti Muslim propaganda outlet.
DeleteWhy should the Henry Jackson Society be believed over the Hamas statistics?
DeleteI never heard of the Henry Jackson Society, so I don’t know about them. But there was always good reason to disbelieve Hamas. They’re a group of terrorists who have been caught in many false statements over the years.
DeleteBeware of propagandists that prey upon your confirmation bias.
DeleteIt’s always a good idea to post content from a group that you haven’t researched.
DeleteIf the destruction of property mirrors human fatality from their massive bombings, the Israelis underestimate the civilian death toll in Gaza by a factor of around 3.
DeleteThe best thing about Pete Hegseth is that he knows that the purpose of the military is to defeat enemies and win wars. He will make decisions based on these purposes.
ReplyDeleteE.g. I don’t know whether allowing women in combat makes the military more or less effective, but that’s the appropriate basis for making the decision. Ditto for trans people. Ditto for affirmative action. Promotions should be 100 per cent based on merit. Hegseth will move in this direction to the degree it’s possible.
Hegseth, whose nomination for Secretary of Defense has no basis on qualifications or merit, will be making decisions based on merit.
Delete“The best thing about Pete Hegseth is that he know that the purpose of the military is to defeat the enemy and win wars.” A middle schooler playing World of Warcraft knows this. What a patently ridiculous statement.
Delete"Hegseth will move in this direction to the degree it’s possible."
DeleteYou state this with a great deal of confidence, David. On what do you base your certainty?
Anonymouse 7:15pm, yes, Pete Hegseth and middle schoolers know. Liberals- not so much.
ReplyDeleteMagas like yourself,however, will accept assessments of our military made with confidence by a feminized dweeb who has convinced you that your manliness depends on applying a sunlamp to your balls. Go for it.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:52pm, that’s cute and all, but the purpose of war is to kill people’s and break things. If that’s too macho for you, well… who cares.
Delete“the purpose of war is to kill people and break things” No, MAGA, that is not the purpose of war. Wow, you are even dumber than I thought, and that is a low bar.
DeleteSuppose two men at cards with nothing to wager save their lives. Who has not heard such a tale? A turn of the card. The whole universe for such a player has labored clanking to this moment which will tell if he is to die at that man’s hand or that man at his. What more certain validation of a man’s worth could there be? This enhancement of the game to its ultimate state admits no argument concerning the notion of fate. The selection of one man over another is a preference absolute and irrevocable and it is a dull man indeed who could reckon so profound a decision without agency or significance either one. In such games as have for their stake the annihilation of the defeated the decisions are quite clear. This man holding this particular arrangement of cards in his hand is thereby removed from existence. This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification.
Delete10:57 That may well be, but the nature of war and the purpose of war are two separate things, so your comment is irrelevant.
DeleteThat said, it would be nice that you credit the author.
DeleteBiden has been receiving millions of dollars under the table from Lithuania.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:36pm, yes, it is. We spend billions on the purpose of killing people and breaking things. War may facilitate/necessitate a meeting of the minds, but it is not a part of diplomacy.
DeleteYou’re exactly as silly as I thought you were.
7:58 MAGA: oh I get it, the Ukrainians are at war for the purpose of killing people and breaking things. Thanks for clarifying. So smart you are.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:27pm, yes. As the biggest means by which they may achieve their purpose.
DeletePutin can lick his wounds with the comfort of knowing he'll own the White House in 5 weeks.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:48am, uh huh. How many people paid off the Biden’s for a pardon?
DeleteBidens
Delete
ReplyDeleteYour post is very great.i read this post this is a very helpful.
ReplyDeleteNice Blog. Thanks for sharing with us. Such amazing information.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually a great and useful piece of information. Appreciate it!