WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2025
Various sources of chaos: Even before election results rolled in, there he went again.
We've suggested that you pity the child. Be that as it may, and for whatever reason, the president posted this yesterday, as reported by the New York Times:
Republicans Reprise Unfounded Claims of Widespread Election Interference
As voters went to the polls, prominent conservatives latched onto glitches and other problems at polling stations to claim—without presenting evidence—that the results were being rigged.
[...]
The reflex to declare interference shows how much the conduct of elections continues to animate Republican politics—at least in races where the party’s candidates could be headed to defeat.
Before the polls even opened on Tuesday, Mr. Trump called a vote in California to redraw congressional districts ahead of next year’s midterm elections, as Texas and other Republican-controlled states have done, “a GIANT SCAM.”
“The entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Mr. Trump declared without citing anything to support the claim. He suggested that Republicans were somehow “shut out” of mail-in voting, warning that a “serious legal and criminal review” was on the way. Mr. Trump has long railed against mail-in voting, but it was not clear what he meant by a review.
For whatever reason, there he went again! We offer this as the key locution in that Times report:
"Without presenting evidence," the Times report now said. But so went one of the "prominent conservatives" cited in the Times report.
For whatever reason, there the president had gone again! That said, when it comes to claims of RIGGING and GIANT SCAMS, the official watchword in Red America has become well established:
No Losing Campaign Left Behind
The president offered no evidence in support of his angry claim—but so it went, in the absence of evidence, as Tuesday's elections took place. On that same day, we had read this news report in that same New York Times:
Nigeria, in Trump’s Cross Hairs, Rejects Christian Genocide Claims
President Trump has joined a chorus of alarm about an “existential threat” to Christianity in Nigeria, warning this weekend that the United States would deploy troops or carry out airstrikes in the country if its leaders didn’t “move fast” to stop the violence against Christians.
The accusations have been fueled in part by a wave of indiscriminate attacks by armed groups and Islamist insurgents over decades. More than 8,000 civilians in Nigeria—Christian and Muslim alike—have been killed so far in this year alone, according to recent data compiled by independent monitoring groups.
[...]
There is no clear evidence to show that Christians are attacked more frequently than any other religious group in Nigeria, much less an attempt at “genocide,” analysts say. But violence and land disputes have deep roots in the country. In one region where many Christians have been killed, the Middle Belt, territorial conflicts between mostly Christian farmers and mostly Muslim herders have devolved into bloody land grabs.
And so on from there.
Are those analysts right in their assessment of this situation? We can't tell you that. In this report, CNN suggested that the president's first post on this matter came in reaction to a report on the Fox News Channel—a report the president saw as he was flying to Florida for his Great Gatsby Halloween party.
The soiree took place last Friday night. As of Saturday afternoon, the president seemed to be ready to act:
Truth Details
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, “guns-a-blazing,” to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!
Nov 01, 2025, 4:43 PM
Was this president clear on his facts? We have no idea. But in the chao created by the so-called "democratization of media," inaccurate or unfounded claims come at the American public from a wide array of directions.
"Every man a king," Huey Long famously said. Today, it's every person a propagandist in support of some policy thrust or in support of some political tribe.
Claims come at American voters from all directions and sides. Last Sunday morning, one caller to C-Span's Washington Journal showed where this new arrangement can take us:
MODERATOR (11/2/25): George, Republican line, in Ohio. Hello.
GEORGE IN OHIO: Yeah, good morning...Maybe no one has died because of this yet. But, you know, 53% of the SNAP benefits go to non-citizens. I don't know if you know that. And you speak of Obama. My wife—I'm going to tell you a true story, and I've got all the facts, and I've got paperwork...
Callers had been asked to discuss the suspension in federal food assistance through the SNAP program. We were struck by the caller's certainty that he did, in fact, have all the facts, joined to his claim that 53% of SNAP benefits currently go to non-citizens.
We were never able to find a source for that highly specific claim. That said, several news orgs had just prepared reports about this general question.
Let Newsweek serve as our first example. Within a complex and convoluted report, Newsweek eventually reported this:
How Many Migrants Use Food Stamps in America? SNAP Benefits Data Analyzed
[...]
While headlines often spotlight immigrant use of government benefits, data shows non-citizens account for a small fraction of SNAP recipients...
USDA defines a non-citizen as any individual residing in the United States who is not a natural-born or naturalized citizen. This includes lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees and individuals granted a stay of deportation. Those with legal status may be eligible for SNAP, while individuals without legal status are generally ineligible, though U.S.-born children or other eligible household members in their households may still receive assistance.
The total cost of SNAP benefits in FY 2023 was $119.6 billion, according to a 2023 report by the USDA across the program. The 1.764 million non-citizen participants accounted for roughly 4.8 percent of total spending.
That was substantially less than 53 percent! A report by Wired started like this, though at that point we hit a paywall:
No, SNAP Benefits Aren’t Mostly Used by Immigrants
As roughly 42 million Americans face the loss of food stamps this weekend, far-right influencers, extremists, and conspiracy theorists are using the crisis to push racist disinformation about who receives these benefits.
Wired tossed an R-bomb into the mix as it claimed that misinformation was being churned by various players. PolitiFact cited a clownishly bungled chart, a chart which gone viral:
Who gets food stamps? Viral chart misleads about SNAP recipients' race, ethnicity
With millions of people at risk of losing access to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program starting Nov. 1, a viral chart claimed to show the majority of the nation’s food stamp recipients are non-white and noncitizens.
The chart, titled "Food Stamps by Ethnicity," listed 36 groups of people and said it showed the "percentage of U.S. households receiving SNAP benefits."
And so on from there. You can read the rest of PolitiFact's report for yourself. It offers links to various social media posts which were spreading misinformation about the matter at hand.
George in Ohio was quite sure that he had the facts, but it seems quite clear that he didn't. C-Span's moderator made no attempt to fact-check what he had said.
Under current arrangements, the chaos comes at American voters from all directions. Sometimes, the chaos comes from social media posts, including the occasional Truth Social post penned by the sitting president.
Tomorrow: The New York Times cites twelve points
Steve M. does some musing about the media and finds that even when Republicans embrace Nazis like Nick Fuentes, who was favorably interviewed by Tucker Carlson, the New York Times cannot bring itself to say so:
ReplyDelete"For years, the Republican Party has embraced greater and greater degrees of extremism, but the press has continued to turn to soft-spoken Republican Senate and House leaders who reassure the journalistic establishment that the party is full of fine, moderate fellows who'd never do anything out of bounds. That's worked for so long that we now have a White House full of extremist freaks tearing away at the foundations of our democracy and the Republican Party still isn't seen as significantly more extreme than the Democratic Party..."
https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2025/11/the-new-york-post-thinks-nazi-fight-in.html
Meanwhile, Somerby does not seem to ever grasp that the Republicans use the CSPAN call in lines for propaganda purposes. Of course the callers are spouting wrong info.
How exactly does a moderator fact-check some caller when they don't know in advance what the caller will be saying. This happens in real time and moderators give the callers the chance to fully state their opinions. This is as unreasonable as expecting the press to fact-check Trump's statements at a press conference, when they have little idea what will come out of his mouth from moment to moment (except that it will most likely be lies).
Meanwhile, Somerby rarely debunks anything using his blog. Today he accidentally debunks the CSPAN guy when he quotes the conflicting info at other sources. But his purpose is not to leave his readers with truth, but to show how Wired and Newsweek discussed SNAP benefits.
It is no big wonder how George on CSPAN gets things wrong. He listens to right wing propaganda. The wonder is how anyone else gets it right. Somerby might be more helpful to everyone if he discussed how the people with sound information get their facts. But to do that, Somerby would have to figure that out himself, and he doesn't seem to spend much time gathering correct info these days.
It's not hard to bone up on the basic facts. It is well-known that conservatives will be dipping into the same well of misinformation. Look at David who posts here. The current tropes are:
Delete- The "illegals" are on medicaid.
- The "illegals" are receiving SNAP benefits.
DeleteWhatever the illegals are or aren't on, they need to be deported. Immediately.
Every foreigner who wants to come in should apply for and receive an appropriate visa. What else is there to say about the illegals? Absolutely nothing.
12:56, does that include the field hands trump's farmer friends need, fuckface?
DeleteTriggered, Hillary?
DeleteStupid, trumptard?
DeleteTrolls like 12:56 are just jealous because they are stuck in their shithole of a country with no hope of ever migrating to the US.
DeleteYes, you are, Hillary; since you're asking. Just like every other Democrat.
DeleteTriggered, Pam?
DeleteTrump's govt is deporting legal residents and attempting to denaturalize naturalized citizens. It is sending citizen children to countries where they were not born and have never lived. Next it will be deporting birth-right citizens because the goal is to create fear among the population, not to do anything useful with or about immigration. This is why ICE doesn't bother looking at anyone's documentation or listening to anyone's explanations. It is only about the violence for them.
DeleteInteresting that Somerby doesn't even mention the blue wave results of yesterday's elections. These results contradict a lot of what Somerby has been saying about how awful we blues are and how we need to clean up our act as Democrats.
ReplyDeleteSomerby is a sore loser.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe Times offered no evidence in support of its angry claim that he president offered no evidence.
That same New York Times offered no evidence in support of its angry claim that there is no clear evidence to show that Christians are attacked more frequently than any other religious group in Nigeria.
Within a complex and convoluted report, Newsweek offered no evidence in support of its angry claim that the 1.764 million non-citizen participants accounted for roughly 4.8 percent of total spending.
See, Bob? Two can play this game.
But Newsweek did provide evidence. It cited the USDA, which keeps records and calculated statistics from those records. I am confused by your comment @11:38. Maybe you don't know what is meant by evidence? Or are you saying there was evidence but it was ignored in order to claim there was no evidence? I don't get your point.
Delete11:50 offered no evidence in support of its angry claim that Newsweek did provide evidence. Or that USDA keeps records and calculated statistics from those records.
DeleteThis is the kind of runaround given to people in order to prevent them from fact-checking anything.
DeleteThis seems like Somerby's message all along. There is no such thing as a fact. Evidence is not real. Reality is not real. Truth is a matter of opinion. Don't try to verify or find out about anything because it is all mush.
DeleteThere are people who believe stuff like that, but if they pay attention, their own lives will prove that there is such a thing as reality, distinct from their own thoughts about it, and that reality can come around and bit you if you don't take it into consideration. FAFO
In philosophy, this kind of argument/thinking is called sophistry.
Delete12:8 offered no evidence in support of her angry claim that this is the kind of runaround given to people in order to prevent them from fact-checking anything.
Delete
DeleteIt's no sophistry. It's that Democrat media's endless bullshit "Trump offered no evidence in support" is bullshit. That's all.
Trump is a liar.
DeleteThat same New York Times offered no evidence in support of its angry claim that there is no clear evidence to show that Christians are attacked more frequently than any other religious group in Nigeria.
DeleteDid you actually read the drivel that you posted? The NY Times points out that there's no evidence to support the claim. What kind of evidence does the NY Times need to point out that there's...well, absence of evidence? It's the person putting forth a claim that needs to support it with facts. So, if you claim that there are invisible pink unicorns, you need to pony up some evidence.
Delete"What kind of evidence does the NY Times need to point out that there's...well, absence of evidence?"
I have no idea. But since they are such sticklers for evidence, they need to find a way to provide concrete evidence for every word they type, including "a" and "the".
Or drop their idiotic "without providing any evidence" act. Put up or shut up.
I have no idea.
DeleteThat is correct.
"...if you claim that there are invisible pink unicorns, you need to pony up some evidence."
DeleteI see what you did there.
NYTimes, Newsweek, who cares about the shit they produce. No one reads legacy media anyway. Except Bob, and his fellow BlueAnons.
DeleteAhem. The uber claim regarding election interference, of course came in 2020, and that election was searched and scratched at from every conceivable angle by the MAGA minions desperate to prove their Dear Leader's false accusations. After 5 years, they've been able to produce exactly 0.00 evidence of any fraud.
DeleteSo when President Bullshit starts dropping bullshit on us about election fraud, it is quite sensible to require he produce some evidence.
This is an obvious point that any but the most trumptarded among us should be able to grasp.
"NYTimes, Newsweek, who cares about the shit they produce."
DeletePlease, tell us where the ultimate sources of truth are to be found? Joe Rogan? The Winklevoss twins?
I suspect Trump's continued claim that the 2020 election was "rigged" is no longer tied to any evidence, real or imagined. It has become, in his mind, aximatic. He "should" have won, but lost. Ergo, rigged,
DeleteIf he refers to any real events, I think he believes that the loosening of mail-in ballots during the Covid shutdowns permitted people to vote who otherwise may not have bothered. That's not even adjacent to "rigging" the election, but that's the closest I can come to explaining his phony claims.
Yeah. When Soros-monkey is drowning in evidence of 2020 election fraud, instead of "help me!", she's screaming "exactly 0.00 evidence!". Everyone knows that.
DeleteI think we can come a lot closer to explaining Trump's claims by recognizing that Trump is a grifter, is corrupt, and routinely engages in criminality.
Delete'Drowning in evidence'(!)
DeleteGurgle, gurgle.
Go ahead, trumptard. Give us the most incontrovertible proof that the election was stolen. That's what your lying leader has been bleating about for the last 5 years. '
Or do you not know anything about it?
Right, Soros-monkey, incontrovertible proof is all you want. Once you see it, you'll quit your Soros-monkey job.
DeleteYou know trumptard, I'm beginning to suspect you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
DeleteThat being the case, I think you should apply for a job in the Trump Administration. You could go far.
Your Soros-monkey opinion is important to us, dear Soros-monkey. Rest assured that it'll receive all the attention it deserves.
DeleteI see what you did there.
DeleteI was hoping someone would notice! Thanks, QiB.
Anon@12:57 -- You're correct, but that's not all. For Trump his desires become his reality. I truly believe he's unable to process information that does not comport to his wishes.
Delete"This seems like Somerby's message all along. There is no such thing as a fact. Evidence is not real. Reality is not real. Truth is a matter of opinion. Don't try to verify or find out about anything because it is all mush."
DeleteI realize I'm late to this party, but I'd like to comment on this paragraph from 12:20. First, the minor point: Any time a commenter uses the words "Somerby" and "seems" in the same sentence, it's safe to ignore the entire comment. But I read the comment anyway, and this leads me to a second point: The commenter makes a mistake that is commonly made here. Not one of these "messages" -- e.g., "There is no such thing as a fact" -- are Somerby's messages. Instead, Someby takes pains NOT to state as fact things that he doesn't know. (E.g., "Are those analysts right in their assessment of this situation? We can't tell you that.") Commenters here often fail to understand the difference.
If you say things like this "Any time a commenter uses the words "Somerby" and "seems" in the same sentence, it's safe to ignore the entire comment." then you aren't really participating in the discussion.
DeleteThe point is that Somerby could have made some effort to evaluate facts all along in his blog but chooses not to do it. That hardly models fact-checking behavior for voters and other consumers of news via media. The pains that Somerby takes to never say anything definitive may make him king of some nihilist cult online, but it isn't the way people must go through life. We have to commit to beliefs and knowledge because failure to do so results in paralysis, the inability to make decisions for fear of choosing unwisely.
There is a reality that exists independent of we humans as individuals. Reality can be known by combining the experiences of multiple observers under varying circumstances and abstracting what is constant across them, what can be safely concluded and what is useful to decision-making. That is how people operate. No human living in reality sits around waiting for enlightenment while refusing to draw any conclusions about anything.
We agree that Somerby tries hard not to be pinned down. We do not agree that this is a good way to go through life. At its extreme, it represents a form of mental illness. Author John Barth used to write novels about characters caught in this dilemma (see The Floating Opera). It isn't witty or clever to emulate this attitude toward life -- just self-defeating.
What you miss is that Somerby is trying to live in reality by not overstating what he knows. You, on the other hand, are living in a fantasy of what you imagine Somerby “seems” to say.
DeleteI am saying that there are ways of finding out what you do not currently know, and that it is better to do so than to remain ignorant.
DeleteAll right. You assert that one Somerby message is “There is no such thing as a fact.” If this isn’t a pure figment of your imagination, show me by quote (not your argumentative paraphrase) where he said that.
Delete"Was this president clear on his facts? We have no idea."
ReplyDeleteWhy should Somerby have "no idea" about whether Trump's statements are correct or not? Does he not know how to figure that out? Does he not understand that Trump is the biggest liar on earth, and thus unlikely to be saying anything correct, given his track record? Why would Somerby even consider the possibility that Trump might be saying something accurate, when he never says true things on any topic?
There are two assumptions in Somerby's question: "Was this president clear on his facts?" First, he assumes there were facts in what Trump said. That cannot be taken for granted. Second, he asks whether those facts were clear. If you don't have facts to begin with, there can be no clarity of fact, but every sentence needs to be fact-checked. Even if all statements were found to be factually true, the question of whether anything is clearly stated so that others can understand remains.
Trump is never clear on anything because his own mind is confused and ideas are jumbled (not organized) and are spewn in a stream-of-consciousness rambling fashion that others cannot follow unless their minds are as disorganized as Trump's. The more complicated a subject, the more time a person must spend organizing their ideas before speaking to others about them. Trump never does that for anyone.
It might be that Trump's assistants could organize thoughts into a speech for him (or into a social media post) but Trump can no longer read a teleprompter so he does not stay organized for long, veering off topic the minute he loses his place while "reading" and starts winging it. Trump cannot be given credit for posts that other people write on his behalf. But obviously, those too must be fact-checked given the president's propensity to lie and make shit up (which his fans call bullshitting) and say whatever pops into his head (called confabulation by experts on dementia).
So who does Somerby think he is fooling when he writes such lines? Or do these catch-all defensive phrases ("we have no idea") come automatically because he has been writing this way since leaving Harvard? This is no way to communicate, or even to pretend to communicate. It is a communicative disease that is just as bad, if not worse than Trump's language problems. Because with Somerby it appears voluntary and not the byproduct of deterioration with age. Somerby has always done this shit.
Boo-fuckin' hoo.
DeleteLeroy
There's that famous right wing empathy again.
Delete"There are two assumptions in Somerby's question: 'Was this president clear on his facts?' First, he assumes there were facts in what Trump said. That cannot be taken for granted. Second, he asks whether those facts were clear."
DeleteI disagree wholeheartedly.
The phrase "clear on his facts" doesn't refer to the president's presentation, but rather his understanding. That's what it means to be "clear on the facts"--to have a clear understanding.
Read in that light, the two supposed "assumptions" disappear entirely and Your Gracious Host's following statement--"We have no idea"--makes perfect sense. We can't know whether Trump had an inaccurate understanding of sectarian violence in Nigeria or if he was misrepresenting the situation,
The second "assumption" is pointless given the first, If Trump's presentation contained no facts, then he certainly can't "present facts clearly."
So did Anon @11:45 misunderstand Our Host's question? Or did he misrepresent it?
We have no idea.
Richard Corey
DeletePoem
Richard Corey
DeletePoem
Since we can not read minds, Quaker, your disagreement does not make much sense, other than that it points to the obvious circumstance that yes indeed we can not read minds.
Delete"Why should Somerby have 'no idea' about whether Trump's statements are correct or not?"
DeleteI think this is also a misreading of today's post. It isn't the accuracy of the president's statements that Your Gracious Host is unsure of. It's his state of mind, whether his understanding of relevant facts is based in reality.
Is this misreading due to deception or incompetence?
I have no idea.
I have no ideas at all. Because I’m inanimate matter.
DeleteTrump obviously has dementia. That affects his memory and his understanding of complex matters. You can tell this from his speech and lack of judgment. If Somerby cannot tell this about Trump, there is something wrong with Somerby.
DeleteIs the point of today's essay that CSPAN callers need to be sure of their facts before calling? That isn't going to happen.
ReplyDeleteCSPAN callers unsure of their facts should be deported.
DeleteGeorge From Ohio sounded quite sure of his facts so I guess he can stay.
DeleteYes. Confident liars are welcome.
DeleteConflating immigration status with ethnicity results in classification problems. There are Mexican-American people who lived in California and other Southwest states when those areas were part of Mexico (or Spain or France). They have always lived in the area now part of the USA. They didn't immigrate from anywhere and their ancestors have been in the USA longer than those of the "white" people now calling them foreign. These views arise from an ignorance of history, but are motivated by racism, the fear and dislike of those with brown skin.
ReplyDeleteThat's why ICE's practice of identifying potential deportees by their skin color is resulting in detention of so many citizens. They are sweeping up people whose families have lived in the southwest USA since before there were states in the union. They are citizens by birth, no matter what color their skin is. Considering these people immigrants, and not the white settlers who arrived after they were already here, is majorly ignorant. They were here first. So was the Spanish they speak.
Indigenous Americans should be given two years to learn Spanish and then deported.
DeleteIn states like CA, people who know Spanish have better job opportunities. But Chinese families also exist who have lived in the state since the gold rush (1850s). ICE inevitably harrasses citizens because you cannot tell who is who by sight.
DeleteSomerby spent the run up to this election claiming that Dems are out of touch.
ReplyDeleteWell...........
Turns out Somerby is the one out of touch.
womp womp
Republicans shouted "Jews will not replace us" over and over just a few years ago - and Trump approvingly noted that the shouters were "good people", but now they are decrying Mamdani for being an antisemite (for his criticism of Israel committing genocide).
ReplyDeleteWho knew?
I'm sure this is either fake news, illegal campaign interference, or defamation. Not sure which, though.
ReplyDelete"Supreme Court justices have sharply questioned President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs in a case with wide implications for his agenda and the global economy.
"Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch – three conservatives – sounded sceptical of the government's justification for the import duties."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gp3nj5nj3o
I get paid over 220 Bucks per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. i never thought i'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 15k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. the potential with this is endless... Www.Paycash1.site
ReplyDeleteICE is accepting anyone, even kids.
DeleteIs it that hard to see the crazy and the sane ?
ReplyDelete