FRIDAY, JULY 11, 2025
Fox News stars form a "kulturklatch:" A group of lions is called a pride. Within academia, a gathering of Fox News messengers is commonly called a "problem," or sometimes a "Kulturklatch."
Last Wednesday, Suzanne Scott had sent in the clowns on the most-watched TV show in American "cable news." Under Dana Perino's leadership, this was the day's five-member klatch (or sometimes "klatsch"):
The Five: Wednesday, July 2, 2025
Emily Compagno: co-host, Outnumbered
Lawrence Jones: co-host, Fox & Friends
Johnny Joey Jones: Fox News contributor
Dana Perino: regular co-host, The Five
Greg Gutfeld: regular co-host, The Five
No Democrat was on hand that day, not even a nominal Democrat. With Lawrence Jones in the nominal liberal chair, the five (5) klatchers agreed on the future state of play regarding the Medicaid program:
Under terms of the GOP megabill, no one was going to lose Medicaid coverage, except for some able-bodied slackers and a whole bunch of "illegals." Greg Gutfeld had been the first to state this decree, and the other klatchers all seemed to agree That even included Dalton, Georgia's Johnny Joey Jones, who seemed to think that the gang was discussing the fraud-ridden Medicare program.
As the week has gone along, we've transcribed most of the mockery which was emitted by the Mudville Five this day. Today, we're left with two obvious questions:
How many people are going to lose their Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill? Also, do any "illegals" receive Medicaid coverage? Is some such thing even allowed under federal law?
Due to "the complexification of everything," questions like those are frequently quite hard to answer. With that in mind, let's move along as quickly as we can, starting with the first basic question:
How many people will or may lose Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill?
How many people will lose coverage? There's no perfect way to know!
We're dealing here with estimates and projections—with assessment which can never be perfectly accurate. But as a simple baseline, all the way back on June 24, the nonpartisan but allegedly Deep State-afflicted CBO had officially offered this:
Information Concerning Medicaid-Related Provisions in Title IV of H.R. 1
CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid provisions in title IV of H.R. 1 would increase the number of people without health insurance by 7.8 million in 2034 relative to baseline projections under current law.
According to the CBO, 7.8 million people would be out of luck and lacking coverage as of 2034, "relative to baseline projections under current law."
Already, complexification was lurking in that formulation! At any rate, the Fox News Channel's Perino was working from that original number when she now stumblebummed this, operating in concert with the all-knowing Master Gutfeld:
GUTFELD (7/2/25): [The Democrats] are the human version of hysterical tweets...They say, "Oh my God, you're cutting Medicaid! You're throwing, you're throwing the poor and needy"—
No, no, no! These are young, able-bodied people, and illegals. You know, this isn't a free buffet for people who could afford to pay for it. So enough with that.
[...]
PERINO (7/2/25): Every time a Democrat goes on TV, they add two to three million more to how many people are going to lose their health care. It's 7.8 million people that would be required to do these work requirements, and it's illegal immigrants. It's 7.8.
Yesterday, it was up to 20 million, even though that's not true. It's like a game of telephone down there.
In distinction to co-hosts like Watters and Gutfeld (and Judge Jeanine), Perino has long been cast as the MAGA-affirming co-host who isn't out of her mind.
On this day, she was going with the original number from the CBO, though she chose to soften the blow. She said that 7.8 million people would be required "to do these work requirements."
he didn't say that anyone would necessarily lose his coverage. Stating the obvious, that isn't what the CBO had said when it produced that number.
Perino was gilding the lily, something she's presumably paid to do. She also mocked the way the Democrats kept moving their basic numbers around, forgetting to mention the basic background about where those changing numbers had come from:
Senate vote: 20 million people could lose Medicaid benefits
[...]
Nationwide, between 12 million and 20 million people could lose Medicaid coverage under deep cuts to the health insurance program proposed by Senate Republicans, according to two estimates.
The first, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, calculates that the Senate version of the reconciliation bill would leave 11.8 million people uninsured by 2034. The second, by the Senate Joint Economic Committee Minority, estimates that about 20 million people could lose the coverage under the amended Senate bill.
[...]
The Senate included an amendment that would not only slash Medicaid writ large—as House Republicans wanted—but would also reduce the federal share of Medicaid spending for people enrolled through state-level expansions of the Affordable Care Act. The expansions made more people eligible for subsidized insurance.
This report from USA Today struck us as somewhat imprecise. That said, Perino had failed to mention the fact that the CBO had raised its number to 11.8 million due to changes in the GOP bill as it reached the Senate.
According to USA Today, the Senate bill was not the same as the original House bill. As the proposed bill had changed, so had the CBO estimate, such as such estimates are.
The larger number—20 million, or something approaching 20 million—came from an entity called the Senate Joint Economic Committee Minority. If you want to see what that entity's report had actually said—if you want to see a pair of numbers from that group, and if you want to see where that pair of numbers had allegedly come from—you can just click here for that "updated analysis."
You can just click there and start to read! Once again, we think of a challenging part of the American discourse—the endless and ever-changing "complexification of everything."
The American discourse is routinely marked, but also marred, by the complexification of everything! In the hands of TV stars like Perino, the "cable news" shows on the Fox News Channel are driven in turn by the reduction of everything—by the reshaping of facts to fit within the parameters of what the co-hosts are told to say by the packet of sheets they receive from their producers.
It was within that framework that Perino—the co-host who isn't supposed to be crazy—ran with the official framework offered by the deeply peculiar Gutfeld. From there, it was off to the races, until Emily Compagno seemed to further the Gutfeld/Perino point concerning those confounded "illegals."
Like a Biblical profit crying out in the desert, the klatcher started with this:
COMPAGNO (7/2/25): Why can't Democrats celebrate a win? Why can't they join together to celebrate and propel a vehicle that really would lift all boats?
The bill was good for everyone, this confounded klatcher now said. Why wouldn't Democrats hail its greatness? The bill would lift all boats!
Why would Democrats oppose such a bill? As she continued, the klatcher said that the Democrats were just "stunting for their re-election purposes."
As the day' four other co-hosts lounged about, no one asked why Republican solons like Tillis and Hawley had complained about the projected loss of Medicaid coverage right from the start of the game.
No one mentioned Senator Ernst. She hadn't said that no one was going to lose Medicaid coverage. Instead, she'd offered a thoughtful point:
What's the big deal? she'd thoughtfully said. We're all going to die in the end!
No one mentioned Tillis or Hawley or Ernst. In pseudo-discussions on this imitation "cable news" channel, inconvenient manifestations like those tend to be sent far away.
The Democrats had just been stunting, this last klatcher said. Tillis and Hawley and Collins and them simply didn't exist.
But now, the klatcher turned to the question of Gutfeld's "illegals," though she used a less partisan term:
COMPAGNO: Hearing Democrats on their TikTok and saying these sort of slogans, you know—Sandy Ocasio saying it's a betrayal of working families...or worthless Governor Gavin talking about the Americans that will lose health care—why don't you back up to the two million illegal immigrants on health care in your state, which everyone pays for, which is why they're fleeing?
With that, the pseudo-discussion had returned to the matter of Gutfeld's "illegals." Perino had of course said the same thing—illegal immigrants were going to lose their Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill.
Illegal immigrants were going to lose their Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill? Now, Compagno almost seemed to be saying that up to the two million illegal immigrants were receiving Medicaid coverage thanks to "worthless Governor Gavin" out in her own home state.
For today, we're going to leave it right here. We hate to continue a theme into the weekend, but we'll do so again this week.
As we leave off for now, we'll offer a few tiny points:
What happens on the Fox News Channel doesn't stay on the Fox News Channel. It goes out all over the nation, directed at people in Red America who don't know that they are possibly being misled by a klatch of corporate hirelings.
In this case, the hirelings had seemed to say that no one would lose Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill—no one except some able-bodied slackers and apparently some unknown millions of "illegals."
Thanks to the First Amendment, Gutfeld and Perino don't constitute a separate type of "illegals." Under terms of the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what these hirelings do, even on the most-watched "cable news" channel within the rapidly failing American imitation of discourse.
The klatchers are allowed to do what they do. Also, entities like the New York Times are allowed to avert their gaze as this conduct continues.
This conduct doesn't take place in secret. It takes place right there on TV.
That said, David Brooks won't name their names or cite their claims. Neither will Nicholas Kristof.
Rachel Maddow doesn't do that; neither does Nicole Wallace. Lawrence O'Donnell doesn't do that even in these, his angriest days. A type of professional courtesy seems to obtain, though it runs only one way.
In Blue America as in Red, the kulturklatchers are given license to assemble their various constructs. The megabill will lift all boats, one puzzled klatcher now said.
Tomorrow: Medicaid coverage for "illegals?" We conduct a search.
Somerby says that the term "kulturklatch" is used in academia. It isn't. Why does he make stuff like this up?
ReplyDeleteFrom AI:
"In an academic context, the term "Kulturklatsch" isn't a formally recognized or frequently used term in the same way that "academic discourse", "cultural studies", or "cultural materialist methodology" are.
While academic discussions can touch upon "cultural gossip" or informal exchanges about cultural matters, these conversations would generally be described with more formal terms like "informal academic discussions" or "exchanges of ideas".
Academic writing prioritizes precision and concision, and typically employs a formal style, avoiding informal language like slang, contractions, clichés, and conversational phrases.
Therefore, a German word suggesting gossip or chitchat wouldn't fit well into the expected tone and formality of most academic writing or scholarly discourse.
However, depending on the context, there could be instances where the term might be used informally amongst scholars, particularly in fields related to German language and culture, such as German Studies. "
How does someone like Somerby moan and groan about the inability to determine Truth and then make stuff up like this? Why do I care? I was an academic before I retired and I resent random people attributing things to us that we didn't say or do, especially since academia has been a target of both Trump and Somerby in the past few years.
When Somerby asks how many people would lose their medical coverage, he behaves as if the exact number matters when it does not. If 7.8 million are a lot of people, so are 7.7 million and 7.9 million. The number is probably not as low as 1 million, but that is a lot of people too. So why does Somerby pretend that pinning this number down makes any difference to reactions to this bill? There is no number that would cause Republicans not to kowtow to Trump and support his bill. That is mandatory in today's political culture, so what is the point of Somerby's ongoing tedious examination of this number?
ReplyDeleteHis pointless obsession is perhaps intended to throw gorilla dust in the eyes of those objecting to the bill, or to give those supportig it some cover by pretending the objections are imprecise, inexact, too complex to worry about, not important because we don't know how many people will be affected, exactly. But that is nonsense too. The more general policy is that Trump is attempting to offset tax cuts for the wealthy by taking from the poor and needy, and trying to convince us it is OK for him to do that by labeling those who will be hurt as illegal or loafers. That stinks and people shouldn't be fooled.
Somerby is helping Trump fool people by pretending the exact number is meaningful and has consequence, must be known, when it is the principle that matters. There is no universe where Trump will maintain services to the poor while giving the rich less tax relief. Somerby knows that. So why Somerby playing this game with us again today? If you run into him, ask him that question for me.
"So why does Somerby pretend that pinning this number down makes any difference to reactions to this bill?"
Deletea) because whether millions of people have health coverage or not matters;
b) because his point is the sloppy, partisan nature of how the data Fox is presenting; is being handled;
c) These are both rather obvious points.
How many millions matter? When would those milliions become a number so low that it is not worth discussing? And if the exact number does not matter, why does Somerby fixate on it as if it did?
DeleteMy question was about the necessity of pinning down the exact number, not whether health care is important to a lot of people. If there are 50 people who need health care and they are kicked off, doesn't it matter just as much to those 50 people as if they had been 50,000?
There are some good reasons for caring about the larger numbers. One is the impact on the hospitals and health care providers when Medicaid does not pay for health care for illegals, who are required by law to be treated anyway. Somerby either doesn't know about that or doesn't care enough to mention it.
Please try to think beyond the obvious.
"If there are 50 people who need health care and they are kicked off, doesn't it matter just as much to those 50 people as if they had been 50,000?"
DeleteIt may not, but it matters a great deal to the other 49,950.
Please try to think.
Thinking is hard.
DeleteYou mention 49,950 who care about something, but you don't say what. I mentioned 50 people, so where did your 49,950 come from? You are using numbers but not making sense about them. Then you pretend there is thinking involved.
Delete10:33 is correct, it does not matter to identify the precise manner Fox News viewers are misinformed (just like nailing down the precise diagnosis of Trump's mental impairments is a way to deflect from the more pertinent issue of Trump's corruption and criminality).
DeleteFox News viewers will go along with anything Republicans do.
And this is widely covered in independent media - which dwarfs the viewership of corporate media.
Somerby seems to have fundamental misunderstandings about human nature, but more likely is driven by his right wing partisan biases.
Who understands human nature?
DeleteAnthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, developmentalists, some novelists, neuroscientists.
Deletei"t does not matter to identify the precise manner Fox News viewers are misinformed"
DeleteThat's your opinion but please note Somerby's blog consists of doing exactly this, parsing out of all the ways the public is misinformed, by quoting the media people who are misinforming them.
That's his project. You wish it was something else but it isn't.
I wish it was the way you describe, but unfortunately that isn't what happens here.
DeleteAs I showed yesterday (or was it the day before) by posting the eligibility criteria for Medicaid in CA, those illegals receiving treatment are primarily pregnant women and sick children. Compagno begrudges them health care because they lack the paperwork to live in CA. She reviles the Governor of CA because he and his state consider it important to help those in need and to protect newborn babies (who had no choice in being born to illegal parents). In CA, the Governor does that to promote the common good. They seem to have never heard of that concept on Fox News.
ReplyDeleteBut I cannot find the place in Somerby's essay where he points that out. Further, although Somerby apparently blames the New York Times for not attacking what Fox News says (they do print info that contradicts Fox frequently), Somerby himself doesn't bother refuting anything said on Fox. You will never learn what is factually wrong with Campagno's statements from Somerby.
Somerby says he will conduct a search tomorrow about illegals on Medicaid. Why wasn't that the first thing he did? It is bad practice to discuss first, then fact check. Do the fact check first to determine whether there is anything to discuss, beyond the truthfulness of the facts at hand.
"Somerby himself doesn't bother refuting anything said on Fox."
DeleteThis comment made to a post in which Somerby does literally nothing other than refute what Fox said.
Please quote the parts that you consider to be a refutation. If you want, you can focus in on Gavin Newsom and just quote the part that refutes what Campagno said about him.
DeleteThis was all I could come up with:
DeletePerino was working from that original number when she now STUMBLEBUMMED
(S)he didn't say that anyone would necessarily lose his coverage. Stating the obvious, that isn't what the CBO had said when it produced that number.
Perino was GILDING THE LILY, something SHE’S PRESUMABLY PAID TO DO. She also mocked the way the Democrats kept moving their basic numbers around, FORGETTING TO MENTION the basic background about where those changing numbers had come from:
Perino had FAILED TO MENTION THE FACT that the CBO had raised its number
In the hands of TV stars like Perino, the "cable news" shows on the Fox News Channel are driven in turn by the reduction of everything—by the reshaping of facts to fit within the parameters of what the co-hosts are told to say by the packet of sheets they receive from their producers.
Perino—the co-host who isn't supposed to be crazy—ran with the official framework offered by the deeply peculiar Gutfeld.
no one asked why Republican solons like Tillis and Hawley had complained about the projected loss of Medicaid coverage
No one mentioned Tillis or Hawley or Ernst. In pseudo-discussions on this imitation "cable news" channel, inconvenient manifestations like those tend to be sent far away.
Thank you. I see a lot of criticism of Perino, but I do not see where Somerby debunked her by presenting true info to contradict her misinformation.
DeleteWhen someone merely criticizes another person by calling them names "Stumblebum" or saying what they failed to mention (without saying it themselves), they leave a viewer or reader confused about who is right and who is wrong. When you replace the wrong info with corrections that state what is true, along with citation of sources and perhaps discussion of why the others got it wrong, then you give a reader a basis for believing you instead of them, one that goes beyond "who should I believe?" and offers an objective basis for belief.
For example, when someone says "Biden was a goof for his failure to help farmers recover from crop loss." Then someone else says "You are wrong -- Biden has been the best agriculture president ever, you moron." How do you know which statement to believe? If the challenger instead says "What about the 1.5 billion allocated by Congress at Biden's request to provide loans for crop damage?" And they supply a cite to the bill itself and a new article about Biden's advocacy for the bill, then you have facts to consider past what the other person said, not just negative tone and name-calling.
So, refuting Perino might require showing that the changing numbers were legitimate (or didn't in fact occur) or that Dems had been consistent, or that the numbers came from different equally valid estimates that made different assumptions, or some such. Just saying Perino was "gilding the lily" is name-calling not refutation. It sounds negative but unless you show how she was wrong, it is unhelpful. We already know that Fox lives to criticize the left, so when they are doing it again, it is not anything new. But if they are using incorrect info to do so, how will anyone know that if Somerby doesn't put in the effort to correct the misinformation and disinformation?
Why did Tillis and Hawley object? Somerby appears to know but doesn't share that info with us.
Delete11:18,
DeleteSomerby is not writing a nuts and bolts public policy column. It's right there on the masthead that his focus is on the press corps and American 'discourse'.
If it's detailed public policy analysis you want, you should look elsewhere.
I want Somerby to defend attacks on liberals by providing debunking refutation, not by calling Perino a stumblebum. I want Somerby to stop being lazy. I want Somerby to demonstrate his liberal cred by supporting liberals not repeating right wing talking points (while calling Gutfeld a second-rate comedian or whatever).
DeleteI can find public policy analysis as easily as Somerby can. He doesn't bother. So that begs the question, why is he here?
11:36, this is a significant shift from how TDH rose to whatever limited prominence it once had.
DeleteIn fact it is this specific issue of Republicans cutting social welfare programs, and getting into the nuts and bolts of the Republican grift, that launched this blog.
"So that begs the question, why is he here?"
DeleteHis masthead makes it pretty clear why he's here, I guess my question is why do you read him and then complain that he's not doing what you think he should be?
Somerby has pointed out that it is difficult to know what is true, so Fox tells viewers that what is said on the left is untrue whereas they can believe Fox. Somerby echoes that when he claims we cannot know how many illegals are on Medicaid in CA, cannot verify things said on the left or right.
DeleteThis is a right wing talking point. When Somerby suggests there is no way to know what is true on the lefty news, he is advancing right wing misinformation. Why is Somerby promoting this right wing view? Right wingers advance right wing talking points, not liberals.
Somerby nowhere today says we can't know how many illegals are on Medicaid in CA. Since your comment seems to rely on this falsehood as its basis, it's pretty worthless.
DeleteHe says this:
Delete"How many people are going to lose their Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill? Also, do any "illegals" receive Medicaid coverage? Is some such thing even allowed under federal law?
Due to "the complexification of everything," questions like those are frequently quite hard to answer. With that in mind, let's move along as quickly as we can, starting with the first basic question:
How many people will or may lose Medicaid coverage under terms of the GOP bill?
How many people will lose coverage? There's no perfect way to know! "
THE ART OF THE DEAL
ReplyDeleteVietnam Thought It Had a Deal on its US Tariff Rate. Then Trump Stepped In.
Neither side has released documentation of the tariff terms, raising questions about whether they did, in fact, reach an agreement.
"It just introduces even a greater element of uncertainty, that even once you think you’ve negotiated a deal, he (Trump) can turn around and just change the terms. And in this case it appears he did it unilaterally and publicly without any buy-in from Vietnam.”
Good God Almighty, when the fuck is someone going to throw a net over this insane criminal treasonous corrupt bastard?
DeleteYes, idiot-Democrat swamp-media are insane criminal and treasonous.
DeleteKeep draining the swamp Mr. President.
good idea, maggot breath, blame the media for Donny J Chickenshit's insanity. The party of personal responsibility has spoken.
DeleteTrump is determined to drain the swamp one private, crypto-donor dinner at a time.
DeleteSqueal, squeal. It's good, perfect, that you swamp creatures squeal.
DeleteTrump is your standard issue run of the mill Reagan Republican, with a healthy dollop of grift added in.
DeleteTrump is a classic neoliberal and neocon.
Trump has brought neoliberalism and neoconservatives back to power.
Trump has not drained the swamp, he has returned the swamp.
The Europeans are laughing at the clown who thinks they have any trust in the outcome of negotiations with him. He is a proven liar, unreliable ally, and may not even remember the terms that he has negotiated.
DeleteThey get to watch as his administration purposely devalues the dollar (11% this year and counting) and leads this country, via tariffs, into inflation. They realize that the easiest way the marginalize him is via the midterms, in which it will be the economy, stupid.
Using cute German words might be a custom among the alt-right Hitler-loving white supremacist bros, but it is not a custom in academia.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Jeff Tiedrich berates the New York Times for referring to birthright citizenship as "a longstanding custom" and not a law, explicitly stated in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. This is sanewashing Trump's attempt to roll back citizenship for those he dislikes, put them in camps, and otherwise terrorize naturalized citizens and people born in this country of immigrant parents.
The New York Times said:
"The Trump administration has fought to challenge the longstanding custom that people born in the United States are automatically citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Judge Laplante’s order ensures a new round of litigation and appeals."
This is a big deal, a major failure of our mainstream media. You'll never hear Somerby complain about this. He is too busy watching Fox dump on Gavin Newsom.
https://www.jefftiedrich.com/p/new-york-times-ice-barbie-and-ken
A line from a song from the old Gershwin show, "Of Thee I Sing," has the Supreme Court singing,
Delete"We have powers that are positively regal.
Only we can take a law and make it legal."
It's actually accurate. The SC has never ruled on the meaning of the Constitution's birthright citizenship clause, so its proper understanding is not a law.
That’s why they’re the Supremes.
DeleteActually, it has ruled on birthright citizenship in United States vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) which affirmed this right for children born to non-citizen parents residing in the US.
DeleteLaws are assumed to be legal until proven otherwise through a Supreme Court challenge, not vice versa. A line from a Broadway show intended to be humorous is not a court ruling.
Delete11:48,
Deleteshame on you for confusing DiC with facts.
United States vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) was limited. It only applied to a certain class of immigrants' children.
DeleteThat's right, Dickhead in Cal. The class of persons born in the US. Period, fuckface
DeleteIndigenous people born on reservations can be deported to Siberia.
DeleteUnited States vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) was limited. It only applied to a certain class of immigrants' children.
DeleteUtter fucking nonsense, David. Read even the wikipedia page before opining. The Supreme Court in that decision was quite specific. You have no idea of what you're talking about. None!
Yes Ilya, that is the point behind David's comments.
DeleteDavid does not care to know what he is talking about, since David is only here to trigger people like you. And you all enable it by responding to him.
Ilya:
DeleteThen its high time for the Court to review its decision. If it was correctly decided, then it should be reaffirmed. But if it's not, then like Roe it should be overturned.
This decision has stood to close to 130 years. Why would this court be uniquely qualified to find something that hasn't been found in well over a century?
DeleteThere are stale claims of what it means to be "subject to jurisdiction". Some want to present it as "having allegiance". I suppose, the amendment would have said just that. The fact of the matter is that "allegiance" is impossible to ascertain. Anyone's allegiance, including that of US citizens, could be questioned.
Making a blithe claim that "if it's not correctly decided, it should be overturned" is sophistry. The decision was made within a single generation of the amendment passing. Clearly, the were in a much better place to contextualize it. So, precisely because it's so old, it should be left alone.
2:12, are you stupid or what? Every case that has reached the Article III courts has been unanimously decided against Donald J Chickenshit and his unlawful and anti-constitutional EO erasing the 14th amendment. Every fucking one. The corrupt trump gang will never appeal this decision to the SC because they don't want the Court to review its decision. That was the whole fucking point. Trump and Herr Stephen Miller are happy with losing every lower court case as long as the court is prevented from implementing a national injunction against prince chickenshit's criminality.
DeleteAs long as the administration does not appeal the lower courts decision it leaves the question as described by Ketanji Brown Jackson as "catch me if you can".
Trump is free to continue violating the law and the Constitution.
Another thing to note is that Wong Kim Ark's parents had no legal status in the US.
DeleteBeing a Democrat means having to pretend like there was something to the Russian collusion accusations when it is obvious that there is not. It means having to offer tired straw men arguments and cliched insinuations. It's the cost of blind partisanship
ReplyDeleteThe news yesterday was that Trump was very disappointed because Putin doesn't seem interested in peace in Ukraine. Disappointment implies a mistaken expectation about Putin's intentions on Trump's part.
DeleteTrump recently had a falling out with Musk. Now he is having one with Putin. There had to be a relationship (collusion, if you will) in the first place in order to have a break-up.
'Donald Trump Jr. replied “love it” when told in an email chain in June 2016 that a Russian government lawyer was willing to share documents and other information that would “incriminate” Hillary Clinton — and that such information was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”'
DeleteLike I said, being a Democrat means pretending to be ignorant about the Trump Russian collusion accusations. Dumbly, as dumb as a monkey, pasting a quote from Donald Jr. Some kind of insinuation that there was collusion, when all the major investigations found that there was not.
DeleteIt's part of being a Democrat. Having pretend to be stupid about the Russia collusion issue.
It's part of the price of admission.
Partisanship does not allow you to tell the truth about that subject. That's one of the drawbacks of partisanship. You can't be really truly objective. You have to pretend. You have to be a fake. In this case. You have to fake like there is some conclusive evidence in a situation where there never was any. Where it was always invented. It was always just a staged, invented controversy.
Deletedumb fuck maggot breath pretends an investigation that was obstructed and corrupted by witness tampering, lying under oath, dangling of pardons and refusal of key witnesses to testify under oath, is conclusive!!!! Dumb fuck maggots have infested this country. They live up orange chickenshit's fat corrupt treasonous ass.
DeleteBut Democrats have to pretend like it's real! They have to repeat invented cliches that are just insinuations that don't come close to being conclusive. It will probably go on for a long time. At least until those principles involved who invented it like Hillary Clinton and James Brennan die off.
DeleteUntil then, being a Democrat means having to lie about this issue. Having to pretend that it's real. Having to go about pretending like something fake is actually real.
The Don Jr. quote is not to insinuate there was collusion, but to show how collusion-adjacent things were and how phony is the faux right-wing outrage over the 'Russia Russia Russia' hoax when it's well established Russia was aiding the Trump campaign and that the campaign was at a minimum grateful for the aid.
DeleteOh, the investigations were tainted. Okay. The collusion is there. It just couldn't be found because of the corruptions of the people being investigated. This is what being a Democrat in this day and age reduces people to. Moving the goal posts forever in a way that keeps the invented controversy seeming real. That's part of the price of being a Democrat. Not being real about this issue.
DeleteAll you have to do is look at how Trump colludes with Russia as president to understand why Putin helped put Trump into office twice.
DeleteThe accusations the word that the Trump campaign was colluding or coordinating with Russia in their interference activities. Not that Russia was interfering or that the Trump campaign may have been open to any help that interference may have brought them. Plus, if you had read the Mueller report, you would know that the quote from Don Jr. Was only what was promised to him that that offer was never real and was never followed up on. No documents were ever shared or ever even mentioned in the meeting.
DeleteSo in terms of the original accusations of collusion or coordination or conspiracy, the quote from Don Jr. Means nothing at all. It's it's a charade. It's invented. You brought it up because you've been trained to by propagandists.
All of you Democrats are stuck in this position for your entire life. Having to lie and be fake about this issue which was always fake. That adds up to nothing. You'll always be stuck having to defend a lie that was invented basically by Hillary Clinton. It's one of the disadvantages of being blindly partisan.
DeleteAnd that leads you to have to make claims about the way Trump has treated Putin and Russia. To pretend like he was somehow good or favorable to him which the record does not show. But you have to say that. You have to get online and lie because you're a Democrat and being a Democrat means having to lie and be fake about this issue which is and always was a nothing Burger. An invented story with no concrete basis in reality. Only McCarthyite insinuations.
DeleteBeing a Democrat probably has a lot of benefits for people. But one of the drawbacks is having to go online and say some of the stupidest things a person could be asked to say. To play the fool.
"the quote from Don Jr. Means (sic) nothing at all. It's it's (sic) a charade. It's invented."
DeleteAn invented quote that was actually said. Methinks you doth protest too much.
was that before or after Trump sucked Putin's knob in front of the world at Helsinki? fucking idiot maggots live up trump's corrupt fat treasonous ass.
DeleteIt could be worse I guess. Being an objective realist not swallowed up by blind partisanship, I have to get online and defend Trump on this issue. And he is someone I take no pleasure in having to defend.
DeleteHe said the quote but it's an invented anecdote. It doesn't say anything about adjacency to collusion. It's nothing. It's just a desperate way for you to not be real about this issue. To continue to be fake about it. To continue to lie about it. Maybe if anything, to yourself.
DeleteDefending Trump is objectively realistically wrong.
DeleteThe accusations that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia were always completely false and invented. It was invented at first just to be an October surprise when everyone in the entire world, including Russia thought that Clinton would win the election. That's all it was meant to be. But then the worst thing happened and Clinton lost and they had to continue the Russian collusion invention. The Clinton campaign had to so they had an excuse for losing and the FBI and CIA had to so they had a way to hamstring and control Trump. That's what happened. But blindly loyal Democrats aren't able to be real about it. They have to continue to post idiotic foe accusations and insinuations that are just at this point such idiotic cliches. It's it's just pathetic. But that's the price you have to pay for your partisanship. For your inability to think for yourself and take a stand on what is objectively true, no matter what the partisan context. It's the price of having to stay within the herd.
Delete" no, there wasn't any collusion but Trump's son was collusion adjacent because of a comment he made to a British music publicist."
DeleteYou're going to be stuck with that kind of outright stupidity for the rest of your life. It's what being a Democrat means. It's what you're saddled with for the rest of your life. Defending a lie with nonsense. That's the price you have to pay.
Being an "objective realist" means recognizing and acknowledging that the fucking treasonous corrupt president criminally obstructed the Mueller investigation multiple instances as documented in the entire 2nd volume of the Mueller report, and anyone else who did a fraction of what orange chickenshit did to obstruct the investigation would have been hung up on multiple felony counts and would have had to face a jury of his peers, and the reason he wasn't indicted right then and there was because was following a damn memo written 50 years ago with no Constitutional support. And any conclusions reached from the investigation of the trump campaign interacting with Russia have to be taken with an enormous block of NaCl. So go take your fucking bullshit objective realism and stick it up your phony lying ass.
DeleteThis is what I mean. You're forced to play stupid. Mueller didn't make any conclusions at all about obstruction.
DeleteNone. Not one.
But here you are, having to play the fool and pretend like he did. You are the one making conclusions about obstruction. Mueller didn't draw any conclusions at all about them and said so over and over again. But but you have to disappear that because that's the role you have to play and trying to defend something that was always from the start, complete bullshit.
Your claim that he obstructed the process is 100% false. And this is what I'm trying to point out. Because you're a Democrat, you are forced to lie. Either that or you're playing stupid. There's no other option. You're ignorant or a liar. And that's the corner Democrats have been put in on this particular issue. Having to be fake. Having to live in an illusion. Prevented from being a free-thinking, objective realist. Being trapped. Mind trapped. Being forced by outside influences to thnk and defend something that is not true.
DeleteIt's Huxleyian. Your thoughts are controlled by an outside group.
DeleteThere's nothing you can say that is a meaningful defense of the collusion/ conspiracy accusations. Yet you have to and will continue to. That is the corner into which you have painted yourself.
DeleteYour claim that he obstructed the process is 100% false.
DeleteFuck you, we're done.
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. … Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
DeleteIt's a fact that he did not draw any conclusions about obstruction. Sorry. That's the truth. Of course you're going to run away from it. That is what you've signed up for.
You're stuck, for your entire life, having to pretend. Having to throw out vague insinuations and unproven conspiracy theories all because of your partisanship. Because you've given over that part of your mind to a group.
DeleteEverything you are saying about the collusion issue are religious beliefs. You are saying if only you could connect all of these dots that I am connecting because of my partisan beliefs, then you would see that even though it was never proven, it's true. You were saying can't you see what I see? No it's not proven but I can see it. I believe I see it.
DeleteThese are just religious statements on your part.
Being a Democrat in this day and age necessitates a kind of belief in religion. That's probably true for joining any powerful, entrenched institutional group.
Deletedumbfuck trump lickspittle, was that before or after orange chickenshit sucked putin's cock in Helsinki in front of the world?
DeleteTrump armed Ukraine, something Biden didn't even do. Sorry, I know you're just doing job playing the fool, as this is what you've signed up for.
DeletePutin doesn’t enjoy fellatio. He thinks it’s perverted.
Delete" My religious belief is that Trump acted some way with Putin in Helsinki at some time and that is proof that his policies favored Putin, which is further proof that they were conspiring together and the collusion accusations were meaningful and just and true. Amen."
DeleteWhat the fuck are you smoking, trump lickspittle?
DeleteYou stuck with this for the rest of your life. Having to be a public dumb fuck because of blind partisan allegiance. But it's just on this one issue. It's not like it'll come up that much moving forward. I'm not saying it's a huge deal. It's just interesting.
DeleteTrump is a bad person, and Putin is a bad person.
Deletemove along, trump lickspittle, orange chickenshit couldn't let the investigation proceed without obstruction, so you will never be able to say the investigation was conclusive. how's life living up trump's treasonous corrupt fat ass?
DeleteTrump and his campaign did collude with Russia, there is the Mueller Report as well as the Senate report that details all the evidence.
DeleteThese investigations specifically said they did not exonerate Trump, but also made it clear that despite the trove of evidence, they could not make any conclusive statements, primarily because they believed that a sitting president could not be indicted.
Dying on the hill of Republicans finding lots of evidence of collusion but then not wanting to indict one of their own, is pretty silly, but more power to you, you are just embarrassing yourself, especially with the weird conversation you have with yourself, suggesting some kind of mental breakdown.
Trump tried to withhold sending military support to Ukraine and was impeached for that.
Biden was then elected and provided military support to Ukraine and that then exposed Putin/Russia as a paper tiger.
With Trump back, Trump went ahead and removed sanctions against Putin/Russia, and then withheld military support again from Ukraine, but this was deeply unpopular and so then Trump bumbled through trying to shift blame to Hegseth and then in TACO fashion walked it back.
Mueller said he didn't have any idea if Trump did or did not obstruct. So what you're saying doesn't make sense. And the investigation has been concluded. It's over and it's a matter of public record for over half a decade now. There wasn't any collusion or conspiracy. Everything else now is conspiracy theories unless you want to initiate some sort of new investigation. This is what life is like for you to live up the ass of an idea, an institution and to let it control your thoughts.
DeleteThe Mueller report says on page two that they did not find any collusion or conspiracy.
DeleteBut you have a religious belief that there is proof there somewhere.
DeleteThat's the interesting aspect of all this. You want everybody to believe in what you believe in, even though there's no evidence for it. And it doesn't make any sense at all.
DeleteIt's a settled issue. There was no collusion or conspiracy found by two major investigations. It's been over for years. But being a Democrat means you have to have a religious belief that that is false. That there are reasons why those investigations didn't find any collusion, nefarious reasons. There is reason to doubt the official record.
DeleteThis isn’t true.
Delete1:36, the only thing I am sure about with metaphysical certainty is that you are a fucking humongous jackass.
Delete
DeleteClinton, Brennan and Comey gave opinion poll data to the Russians. And that's treason. Old Sparky is waiting for them.
Both investigations found collusion with Russia and spent a fair amount effort detailing it which you can read in their reports.
DeleteYou want to die on the hill of technicality and partisanship, go ahead, you are just making yourself look foolish, especially with your weird dialogue with yourself.
If you want to whack off to Trump, more power to you but do it in private.
"The accusations that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia were always completely false and invented."
DeleteWe know that Don Jr., Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Manafort took a meeting with Russians in Trump Tower in the expectation of receiving information from the Russians that was damaging to Hillary.
Your position seems to be that the Trump people were willing to receive the information only provided they were not asked to do anything in return (because that would be collusion).
In other words, had the Russians asked for a quid pro quo, the Trump folks would have thrown up their hands in shock at the moral perfidy of it all.
You call the charges of collusion "false and invented". False, thus far, yes.
Invented? Then what was the Trump Tower meeting about? Why were such high level officials in attendance? Why did Don Jr. say he "loves it, especially later in the summer."
Much better than 'invented' is 'collusion-adjacent.'
Please cite a source for this.
DeleteSorry, talking to @2:01
Delete"Mueller didn't make any conclusions at all about obstruction."
DeleteTo help flesh out your bracingly terse statement, Mueller did say, in an unhelpfully convoluted manner: "If we had confidence...the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
He also said there were legal issues that would need to be resolved before he could bring a charge of obstruction.
You're welcome.
That is saying the same thing. Mueller didn't make any conclusions about obstruction, one way or the other.
DeleteMy position about the Trump Tower meeting is that it was between a British music publicist, a Russian pop star, and a Russian lawyer. It is that the British music publicist offered them dirt on Hillary Clinton coming from the Russian government but when they had the meeting there was no one from the Russian government there and no such evidence was offered or even discussed. All that was discussed was something that had to do with adoptions. Some cause of the lawyer. So my position is that Russia never offered the Trump campaign. Any help in the form of dirt against Hillary Clinton. It was a British music publisher that pulled that out of his ass in order to get a meeting. And it was in that meeting that this evidence was never brought up or even mentioned. So a story that Donald Jr. responded to the British music publicist smade up suggestion that he would love it if it's late in the summer shows that he was receptive to dirt that the Russian government could give him, but the Russian government never really offered him anything so it doesn't add up to anything except pathetic speculation. Don Jr. Responded to the British music publicists false suggestion and a positive way is supposed to mean that the accusations of collusion and conspiracy between Trump and Russia could be true? Or adjacent? What does that even mean? It's just goal post moving. It's nothing. It's fake. It's invented. It's for show.
If you want to think of it as collusion adjacent, that is just as pathetic. It's exactly what I'm describing. Because you're a Democrat. You have to come up with weak neologisms like that to defend something that was always invented from the very beginning by the Clinton campaign in late June of 2016. Or was it July?
DeleteAt long last you have the Trump Tower meeting? It's just pathetic. But it's what you signed up for. You're forced to play the fool in public because a partisan bond has compromised your ability to tell the truth. The Trump Tower meeting did prove that the Trump campaign was open and receptive to receiving dirt from the Russian government on Hillary Clinton. You can't say that. That is true. But then you have to connect it to some kind of realistic scenario of collusion and conspiracy and there isn't one because they're never was one because it was invented.
Deleteit was right in front of your fucking nose, trump lickspittle. Prince Orange Chickenshit was defending Russia throughout the course of the investigation. we all saw it, dumbfuck traitor
Delete2:32 Nice job turning the fact that you do not know into the statement that you know. The matter is not settled, except for those who are convinced something happened at that meeting and those that think it did not. Because neither of these groups were at the meeting.
DeleteYou're asking people to see something that major multi-million dollar investigations couldn't see. You want people to see something that isn't there. You want people to see something that only you can see. It's obvious. It's right there for you to see. You just have to believe you're seeing it. You're making a religious statement. A statement of belief. And if there's any pushback, you just resort to name calling. This is because as a Democrat, you've signed up to act like a complete fool about this issue in public. It's your lot in life. It's what you've signed up for. The quasi religious belief in something that isn't there but you can see.
DeleteThe meeting was recorded and described in the Mueller report in excruciating detail. It was recorded. We were all there. It's all there in the Mueller report for anyone to read at any time over the last half a decade.
DeleteBecause of your your religious beliefs though, you were convinced that something did happen in those meetings. It's going to be like this for the rest of your life. Having to write completely idiotic non-sequiturs about this invented issue forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
You've ceded control of a part of your mind to an outside group.
Deletetrump lickspittle, do you have a link to that recording of the trump tower meeting, maggot breath?
DeleteWhy do you want it? What would it prove? What are you trying to say? Do you think there's some sort of confirmation that proves there was collusion or conspiracy? Do you think that meeting is a reason to believe there was collusion or conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign? Because you are forced to. That is your lot in life. It is demanded of you that you think that the meeting is relevant to Russia and the Trump campaign colludin.g that is the position you've put yourself in. You're suggesting something was done there in that meeting that was bad. There's no evidence of it but that is your religious belief.
DeleteHope you don't take this personally but you seem like kind of an idiot. The Trump Tower meeting showed the Trump campaign was at least open to collusion. Period. Now move on.
DeleteYes that's true that it did. You are right about that.
DeleteAnd that's all you have after all these years? Proof the Trump campaign was open to collusion? That's the big issue after all these years and investigations? One response to a British music publicist? And I'm the one who's kind of an idiot?
DeleteTrump Russia collusion isn't a Democratic Party thing. It's a corporate media thing. They went with it after everyone laughed at them for calling bigotry "economic anxiety". Russiagate was deemed less much more believable than a Republican voter understanding economics.
DeleteAll you can say about it is nonsense. It's all you have. It was always made up from the very beginning and now you're stuck with these bizarre and idiotic cliches. The most substantial thing you can say is that the campaign was open to colluding with Russia, even though Russia never offered to do that with them. Based on a conversation Don Jr. had with a British music publicist. That's where it landed for Democrats with this one. Having to bullshit about something that was never true.
DeleteDemocrats got put in stupid jail on this one. They have to act stupidly on this one in order to be loyal to the party. In order to allow the party to not admit it was always something they knew wasn't true but they wanted people to believe.
DeleteYou can't give a response that speaks directly to the substance of the issue.
"And I'm the one who's kind of an idiot?"
DeleteYes.
Trump was found guilty of sexual assault, not rape.
DeleteDo you own your Medicaid? Is it YOUR Medicaid? Are you entitled to keep receiving Medicaid?
ReplyDeleteIt's human nature to believe that one is entitled to keep anything one has had. The phrase "losing their Medicaid" builds in this assumption.
But, should that principle apply to charity and gifts? If you me $100 for Christmas last year, am I entitled to receive a gift of $100 this year?
go fuck yourself, you racist bastard.
DeleteGovernment services are not charity or gifts. They are decisions made by our legislators about how to best run our country to promote the common good and achieve the goals of our Constitution. The State of California decided that insuring pregnant women and children despite undocumented status was in the best interests of its people. Other states make different decisions for different reasons.
DeleteIf I meet the eligibility criteria for Medicaid because I am unable to pay for end-of-life nursing home care, that is not charity. It is taxpayers deciding it would rather help seniors get care in a nursing home than have them suffering and dying on the streets. Removing people from Medicaid causes hardship to those who cannot otherwise pay their hospital bills. It also causes hardship to the medical system itself and hospitals can go broke because of it. If the state decides it needs to pay for indigent care in order to maintain the financial health of hospitals, that benefits the community, not just the individual. And it is not charity either.
Perhaps the mistake comes from those who refer to social security (an insurance system that people pay into while working in order to receive benefits after retirement) as "entitlements." The word means that people are receiving something they qualify for under law, not charity or gifts. Make-A-Wish Foundation gives gifts to sick people. Government aid is designed as a benefit paid by taxes to maintain our society according to well-specified goals and objectives.
Trump thinks he can set aside any law he wants and need not follow any rules, care about anyone but himself, and take what he wants simply because he wants it. That isn't how government works.
Here is an analogy. It would be cheaper if those who pick up stray pets and put them in cages were to just kill them and not try to find them homes. Why do we spend the extra money to place them with families? Because the citizens of most communities want pets to find shelter and care without being arbitrarily killed for being a nuisance. That is a strongly held value in most communities. We do it because it is the will of the people. Parks are another example. That open space could go to build condos but is set aside for all of the members of a community because we decide as a group that it is a good thing.
Medicaid helps those who are helpless through no fault of their own. It is a good thing to help people like that and many states set aside money for that purpose, because it is the will of the people. It is not OK for Trump and his stingy, greedy congress to set aside a value that communities care about. And that is not charity or gifts but the way a humane society decides to care for those who are in need. Just as communities decide not to burden young families with the expense of schools because they might fail to educate their kids, and educated kids is a boon for society not just the kids themselves.
Why should anyone have to explain this stuff to an adult? Is David stupid or mean-spiritied (or both)?
David is a fucking racist. Former member of the John Birch Society.
DeleteDavid is John Birch’s prepuce.
DeleteNothing about David is genuine, he is just a troll out to trigger people.
DeleteBest to just label him a troll and move on, otherwise you are enabling him.
Thanks for this substance-free observation, David. Anon@11:40 breaks it down quite well.
DeleteThe question remains: are we better off as a society with more people with no health insurance and no easy access to medical care. In the end, the uninsured will still go to the ER when their condition becomes dire. We'll still pay for that. Perhaps, it could be the next step: turn them away and let them die in the streets -- or preferably in their little crawlspace, away from public view.
The overarching question remains: will we, as a society, be better off?
DeleteYes, David, this is how we retarded Democrats think.
If you gave me a hundred bucks last year, I expect $150 this year. If I don't get it, or I get less, I hate you. And I'll cry and I'll curse you. I hate you, I hate you, I hate you.
Because I am a retarded Democrat.
David thinks he owns his house, his bank accounts, his securities portfolio.
DeleteIlya 1:28 - You make a good point. It may be better to give illegal immigrants Medicare rather then let them get their medical care at the ER. But, that shouldn't be determinative. Our system is flawed. We're adding another flaw, rather than fix the system
DeleteIMO it's immoral to give Medicare to illegals, because wrongdoing shouldn't be rewarded. The ideal solution is to promptly deport people who have no legal right to be here. Then we also wouldn't have to build concentration camps in the Everglades.
David, when you say Medicare, do you mean Medicaid?
DeleteDavid -- Are there undocumented residents on Medicaid now? You present this as if it were a fact -- but it's not. Undocumented residents are not allowed to receive Medicaid. You make it sound like this bill specifically targets only the undocumented. It's not. It just cuts the money.
DeleteThis type of misleading statement that you're making, David, will not fool anyone. It's just plainly factually inaccurate.
David, there is a difference between Medicaid and Medicare. Please be careful with that distinction.
DeleteNo American citizen is entitled to border security.
Delete"IMO it's immoral to give Medicare to illegals, because wrongdoing shouldn't be rewarded."
DeleteTypical Right-winger, who wants to punish success.
Ilya,
DeleteAs has been pointed out repeatedly over the past couple of days, CA DOES cover undocumented residents as long as they meet all other Medi-Cal (medicaid) eligibility requirements.
The coverage is paid for with CA funds, not Federal funds.
People, including Bob, could do a simple Google search to get the information. 🤦🏼♀️
“ Biblical profit?” Where are all the Analysts at Bob’s Sprawling Campus, and who is doing the copy editing now? Back in the day, there was nary an error to be found in a Daily Howler, and nothing would get passed Our Host’s watchful eye; now, we get constant grammatical errors, misspellings, wrong dates on posts, etc? We’ve emailed Bob about these many errors, to no effect. I guess he no longer cares about what he publishes…
ReplyDeleteThere have been many errors, from the beginning of the Howler.
DeleteNot many that I can remember. It is hard to go back and check since the old Daily Howler has disappeared from the internet. I guess Our Host no longer cares about it, either.
Deletehttps://www.isitdownrightnow.com/thedailyhowler.com.html
Our host is in sad decline.
DeleteObserving this right wing vanity blog wither away, is not unamusing.
DeleteFucking multiple felon and adjudicated rapist, Prince Orange Chickenshit, loses his appeal of $5 million E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse /defamation verdict. Fucking idiot maggot lickspittles are in mourning.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Supremes will fix it.
DeleteHe's raping the network news harder.
DeleteI'll be squealing more. It should help. It always helps.
DeleteYou're the puppet!
DeleteSteven Pinker is innocent.
ReplyDeleteI am a socket puppet of a troll. I am not Corby.
Men who have little respect for adult women aren't like to show respect for young girls either. The justification of abuse of women using evolutionary psychology will be rightfully seen as wrong. Pinker is not highly respected in his own field because of these self-serving justifications most likely based on personal wrongdoing. Some of us consider that evidence along with whatever connection to Epstein Pinker is currently trying to evade.
DeleteYou can disagree with Pinker scientifically, politically, or any other way, but he’s still innocent.
DeleteInnocent of helping a pedophile. Disgusting and vile at the very least.
DeleteYou can find him disgusting and vile, but he’s still innocent.
DeleteWe don’t know that. There is evidence he may not be innocent.
DeletePinker is not innocent of being involved with Epstein.
DeletePinker is on the client list and flight logs.
A witness for the prosecution of Epstein testified that she "serviced" Pinker during his stay on Epstein's island.
Pinker assisted in the legal defense of Epstein, who was already a convicted pedo.
With respect to Epstein, Pinker is guilty.
Pinker joins a list of other prominent wealthy men, such as Trump, Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Gates, etc.
Furthermore, Pinker is a noted right wing neoliberal that dabbles in race realism and rape realism, and seems to enjoy how his misogyny triggers people. Those are not necessarily crimes, so there is a distinction there between his right wing nonsense and his use of Epstein's "services".
Pinker's right wing neoliberalism and misogyny may not bother some, but his disgusting use of Epstein's girls should repulse everyone.
Personally, I hate Pinker because he's not a retard like I am.
DeletePinker gave expert advice (as a psycholinguist) on the interpretation of a statute.
DeletePinker didn’t go to Epstein’s island.
Epstein’s exploited girls didn’t service Pinker.
Pinker went to Epstein's island, he is on the flight logs and the client list.
DeleteOne of Epstein's girls testified that she "serviced" Pinker on Epstein's island.
Pinker offered to help in Epstein's legal defense, even after Epstein was a convicted pedo.
Pinker is guilty.
Service the girl provided was wholly inadequate. She is the guilty one is this story.
DeleteSure, it is true, if Epstein's girl had kept her mouth shut, then Pinker could more reliably lean on plausible deniability - although he'd still have to explain his name on the client list/flight logs and why he wanted to defend Epstein, a convicted pedo.
DeleteSo sure, maybe the Epstein girl's mouth is unsatisfactory from Pinker's pov, he'd rather not be outed for his dalliance with Epstein's services.
Pinker could have gone with Dershowitz's weak defense of "yeah I was there yeah I did engage with Epstein girls but I kept my underwear on" loooolllllloolllloooooolllloool!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pinker flew to California for a TED talk. He did not fly to Epstein’s island.
DeleteNo prosecutor has charged Pinker with a crime. No girl or woman claiming to have serviced him has sued him.
DeleteRight, Epstein’s clients are being protected.
DeleteWhere is it written that pedos only have sex on Epstein’s island?
DeletePinker is innocent.
DeleteThe absence of legal proceedings, criminal or civil, proves that he is guilty.
DeleteThe old principle was innocent until proven guilty. The new principle is guilty before charges are even filed.
Delete" ... the most-watched TV show in American "cable news."
ReplyDeleteNowadays, akin the the greatest lawn-bowling team in Andorra.
Agree. Most watched, yet watched by hardly anyone.
DeleteThe world has moved on from broadcast television, including cable news, but Somerby hasn't read the memo.
Somerby also ignores that most people that closely or even moderately follow news media, voted for Harris.
Somerby ignores evidence in general.
Kill the poor, feed the rich. USA!
ReplyDeleteIt's not that complicated. Here's a very simple analysis. About 12% or more is being cut from the Medicaid budget. One would expect a similar percentage to lose their coverage. In actuality, it'll probably be more.
ReplyDeleteThis is why the talking heads on Fox are trying to assuage our concerns by creating an imaginary framework where only "the illegals" and the able-bodied, who are not willing to work, will be affected. This narrative, of course, has no basis in reality; it's entirely fact-free.
So far as I know, there has been no research conducted leading up to this bill to ascertain how many people should not be receiving Medicaid.
Poor people receiving healthcare makes them uppity.
DeleteInstead poor people should know their place.
That's an implicit argument behind what this bill has done.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI am moving to Canada. It's a nice, very nice country. It will benefit from climate change. I'm moving to Canada, and I'm changing my gender again.
lots of wildfires
DeleteGood luck on your gender journey.
Delete