The debate

In two days from now, we will have the (likely only) debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. There are sky-high hopes and expectations that Kamala will deliver a few KO blows to the orange gasbag. Hope springs eternal. 

If history is any guide, Trump will toss out so many lies so fast, the moderators will glaze over and not give him a hard time on anything. I see that David Muir is one of the moderators for the debate. I think this guy spends too much of his time looking in mirrors trying to look serious and concerned, and then he asks pathetic and weak questions, but of course he thinks he's a hard-hitting journalist, and he looks so serious.

Even if Trump tried to answer any of the questions below, he won't really "answer" them at all. He will produce a nonsensical word-salad and try to end his "answer" with some kind of rousing BS. Of course, there will not be an audience at the debate, so he cannot get pumped up from the crowd, but that won't matter. He loves to hear himself talk and ramble.

BTW, the actual editorial is behind a paywall at the Philadelphia Inquirer. The article below appeared in Alternet.

'You never take responsibility': Top PA newspaper issues list of debate questions 'to hold Trump accountable'

written by Maya Boddie - September 8, 2024

The Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board this weekend published an op-ed that includes a list of debate questions the editors say is the only possible way for the moderators "to hold [Donald] Trump accountable."

"Given his appalling record, Trump has no business being on a presidential debate stage, let alone one in the shadows of Independence Hall," but since the debate against 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris is two days away, and "roughly two months to go in what is expected to be a close election, voters need the media and debate moderators to treat Trump as the serious threat he is to the future of the country and the free world," the board writes.

It's not Trump or Harris who face "the biggest challenge on Tuesday" the editors submit, but it's ABC News' Linsey Davis and David Muir face, as the pair have a responsibility to "press Trump to give substantive responses to their questions."

The board asserts that "asking tough questions and holding Trump accountable is the proper role of the media to help inform voters," and to prevent the "convicted criminal, financial fraudster, and sexual predator" from holding office again.

The list of questions "debate moderators and political reporters should ask Trump to help voters make their decision," according to the Inquirer board, are below:

Federal investigators received classified intelligence that suggested the president of Egypt gave you a $10 million 'cash bribe,' but your attorney general blocked the probe, accordingto the Washington Post. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee last week asked you to provide the funding source of a $10 million donation you gave your campaign around the same time and how it was repaid. Will you make that documentation public?

You have flip-flopped your position on abortion over the years, including saying you were 'very pro-choice' and later claiming women who get abortions should be punished. Last month, you gave two different answers within 24 hours regarding Florida’s six-week abortion ban. Can you clarify your position and whether you support a national abortion ban?

You called for prosecuting President Joe Biden, executing your former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, and jailingformer Rep. Liz Cheney. If elected, will you follow through on any of these threats or go after other political enemies?

You use faulty claims to criticize Biden and Harris for not doing more about the border. But you worked to kill a bipartisan bill Biden and Harris supported that included the toughest immigration reforms ever. So, is your stance on immigration aimed at scoring political points or finding real solutions?

You have criticized Biden’s efforts to negotiate a cease-fire regarding Israel’s war in Gaza. But the Wall Street Journal said you don’t have a plan. What would you do differently than Biden? And did you urge Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to delay a cease-fire dealuntil after the election?

You claim to 'know nothing' about Project 2025, yet you support initiatives in the plan to fire thousands of federal civil service workers, curtail the U.S. Justice Department’s independence, and abolish the U.S. Education Department. So, how does your position differ from these same plans spelled out in Project 2025?

If Harris is as radical as you claim, why would more than 200 Republicans who previously worked for former President George W. Bush, the late Sen. John McCain, or Sen. Mitt Romney endorse her?

Why are so many of your own cabinet members not endorsing you, including former Vice President Mike Pence, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and former national security adviser John Bolton?

Your campaign centers on criticizing your opponent and blaming others. Can you give some specific details — and not just slogans — as to how you will improve the country?

You boasted that you “did nothing” about guns while you were president. Indeed, gun violence spiked during your tenure. Have the frequent school shootings, mass killings, or the assassination attempt on your life caused you to rethink your position on gun safety?

You constantly criticize Biden’s economic policies. Yet, he added more jobs during his term than you did — even after excluding the losses during the pandemic. The stock market has reached record levels under Biden, and economists predict your tariffs and other policies will lead to higher prices, increased inflation, and possibly a recession. Even Goldman Sachs expects better economic growth if Harris wins. How will your economic plans help people?

You watched the insurrection unfold on TV for hours and did nothing. Do you wish you had done more to quell the violent attack at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021?

Why do you continue to bow down to Russia even as it commits war crimes in Ukraine? Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said you told him you plan to cut off aid to Ukraine if elected. Is that true?

If elected, will you withdraw the United States from NATO and again abandon the Paris Agreement?

During your first term, you left the country the most divided since the Civil War. Do you have any specific plans to unite the nation?

You never take responsibility. Any time you get investigated, indicted, impeached, convicted, accused of sexual harassment, or faced a civil judgment, you claim it is fake news, a hoax, or blame someone else. Have you ever owned up to a mistake or apologized for a failure?

Article on Alternet.

bacon, anyone?

I think that what we can learn from Paul Krugman's column below is that Trump doesn't care if some BS he says is proven false or not. He just continues to tell the lie. No going back for this damaged person. Never admit you were wrong about anything. And then just move on and lie about something else. The old gish-gallop, as some call it.

Bacon Prices and the Windmills of Trump's Mind

PAUL KRUGMAN

Lately I’ve become obsessed with bacon — or, more accurately, with Donald Trump’s obsession with the price of bacon, which has long been his favorite gauge of inflation. For it seems to me that Trump’s false claims about bacon prices, and his assertions about what’s driving them, offer a window into his judgment. And the view isn’t pretty.

It probably won’t surprise you to hear that nothing Trump says about bacon prices is true. It would be an exaggeration to say that he lies as easily as he breathes; adults normally breathe 12 to 18 times each minute, whereas Trump, during his recent Mar-a-Lago news conference, uttered around only two lies or distortions a minute. But he does lie a lot — although to be fair I’m not sure whether he’s knowingly lying about bacon or merely willfully ignorant.

Nor should it surprise you that he keeps saying that bacon costs “four or five times more than it did a few years ago,” even though this claim has been thoroughly debunked. That is, as Daniel Dale of CNN points out, the candidate’s standard practice: “By virtue of shameless perseverance, Trump often manages to outlast most of the media’s willingness to correct any particular falsehood.”

Yet it seems to me that Trump’s bacon misinformation stands out from the rest of his falsehoods because it’s so easily refuted by everyday experience.

Contrast this with crime. When Trump declares that we’re in the midst of an unprecedented crime wave even though violent crime — especially murders — has been falling since soon after he left office, well, people often imagine that crime is terrible somewhere, even if they don’t experience it themselves. Notably, many Americans believe that New York, a surprisingly safe city, is an urban hellscape.

But almost everyone who buys groceries has at least a rough idea of what bacon costs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that in July the average price of bacon was $6.88 a pound. That fits with what I see: My local supermarket is currently offering the store brand for $5.69 a pound, but is charging more for name brands. There are grocery truthers out there claiming that official numbers greatly understate food inflation, but independent, private estimates of changes in grocery prices are basically identical to those from the B.L.S.

So when Trump makes wild claims about how much bacon prices have gone up, you don’t need detailed analysis to know that those claims can’t be true. After all, his numbers would mean that a few years ago you could buy bacon for well under $2 a pound; bacon hasn’t actually been that cheap since the 1980s.

Oh, and Trump’s claim that bacon has become unaffordable is clearly false when you compare prices with the earnings of a typical worker. By that measure, bacon is more affordable now than it was during most of Trump’s time in office.

Why, then, does Trump go on about bacon? My guess is that he’s trying to sound like someone in touch with the lives of regular Americans, while inadvertently revealing that he hasn’t actually visited a supermarket lately, or maybe ever.

What’s really weird, however, is Trump’s explanation of what he imagines to be bacon’s unaffordability. You see, it’s all about wind power.

There have been some attempts to turn Trump’s ramblings on this subject into a coherent economic analysis. Wasted effort, in my view. Trump simply hates windmills, and expresses that hatred whenever he can.

And we more or less know why Trump hates wind. It goes back to his unsuccessful attempt to block an offshore wind farm that he claimed would ruin the view from a golf course he owns in Scotland.

All of which goes to show that you can’t talk about this year’s presidential campaign using conventional political language.

Normal candidates, like Kamala Harris, have policy views and policy ideas, which you can analyze and criticize for their accuracy and likely effects. Some commentators have been demanding that Harris provide more detail about her policy proposals, but the truth is that we have a pretty good idea what she will do on most issues if she wins — which can’t be said about her opponent.

For Trump doesn’t have coherent policy views; he has prejudices, some of them based on sheer petulance, that are impervious to facts. And his childishness and lack of connection to reality, while present all along, seem to have grown worse as he approaches 80.

It’s true that we have a good idea what he would try to do on some fronts — notably, impose large tariffs in an attempt to eliminate U.S. trade deficits and round up millions of people in an attempt to rid the nation of undocumented immigrants.

But Trump’s nonsensical views about bacon and windmills are among the many indications that he chooses to believe in (or at least chooses to tell) stories — about the economy, energy, crime and more — that fit his prejudices, and doesn’t change those stories even when it has been repeatedly pointed out that they’re completely at odds with reality. How do you think that will work out if, say, his tariffs don’t cure trade deficits or his plans for mass deportation have the catastrophic economic effects many analysts have predicted?

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

Original.

Oh, and as for answering Paul's column-ending question, he will simply lie, as he has always done, to make himself look good and everyone else look bad. I think it's as simple as that. He has set the lying template. It's his go-to answer for pretty much anything. 

Mr. Rude

Here The Rude Pundit flogs the consistently inconsistent big media, such as The New York Times, CNN, etc for their unwillingness to accurately report on the rapidly increasing garbage, lies and nonsense that is coming from Trump's orange piehole. 

The Wannabe Emperor has no clothes, or brains, and yet people applaud his rambling nonsense. I've heard some commentators praise him for "detailed policy speeches." Uh, where, exactly? 

Surely the American people have seen enough of this clown and will deal him another defeat, hopefully larger than 2020. But now of course we are supposed to worry about all the Trumpers who now infiltrated our elections boards, presumably intending to swing the results to favor Trump. Sigh, but there are counter-efforts underway.

A resounding Kamala Harris popular and electoral vote triumph this year will help vanquish this orange virus that has plagued us since 2016. Perhaps without the Liar-in-Chief constantly spouting bullshit, we can resume a more-"normal" life again.

Note to Corporate Media: You Don't Have to Act Like Trump and Vance Are Serious People

The Rude Pundit

9/04/24

Let us say, and why not, that Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz is asked about his GOP counterpart and declares in an interview, "JD Vance's whole purpose in this world is to blow goats." When asked what he means, Walz could clarify, "I mean that Senator and Republican vice-presidential candidate JD Vance has one reason for living, and that's to suck goat dick. His entire life would be unfulfilled and he will be miserable if he doesn't fellate goats on a regular basis. And I mean the whole act. From gently tongue-bathing the goat's enormous testicles to bring it to full erection and then going down on that straw-sized dick until it ejaculates in his mouth. A goat dick-less JD Vance has no real value system or meaning in his life and he would have chosen a path to misery."

How should the major media outlets react to such an absurd thing? Would CNN ask Vance if Walz is correct? Would they have a panel discussion on the idea that orally pleasuring goats is Vance's purpose? Would commentators on the left quickly agree with Walz and insist that Vance's lack of blowing goats clouds his judgment and the only way he can be a contributing member of society and not some sad goatless dude is to take the goat jizz regularly? Would other Democrats praise Walz for being brave enough to say the truth about Vance and goat blowing? 

The answer is "Of fucking course not." It would be treated as deranged and baffling, as sign of Walz's unfitness for office and of the depravity of Democrats. The condemnation would be general and widespread, including from Democrats, likely leading to Walz being forced to drop off the Democratic ticket. Oh, sure, there would be some of us (me) who would defend Walz for being fucking hilarious. But we know that the outragegasm would be unending, and no reporter would ever let Harris or any Democrat get away with not constantly responding to it. Some things are beyond the pale, and they should be. There should be some things that politicians say that are disqualifying. 

Like, I dunno, maybe being on record constantly that women only have value and worth in American society if they breed. See, it's not just that JD Vance has said and keeps saying shit like that a woman who emphasizes her career is a "miserable person who can’t have kids because [she] already passed the biological period when it was possible." It's that the Most Important Newspapers and other media treat Vance and Donald Trump like they are Very Serious People with Very Serious Ideas that need Very Serious Consideration when, actually, no, they absolutely do not. Anyone espousing a philosophy that says that women who don't give birth to children are innately unhappy or that people without kids don't have a serious stake in the future of the world is an obvious fool and kind of a dick. 

We don't need reporting about how saying such nonsense affects voters. We need journalists saying that none of that is true and no one should believe it. It's that recent canard that if you have one person saying it's raining and the other person saying it's not, it's the journalist's job to open the goddamn window and tell everyone what's real. If someone is saying completely untrue shit, it's actually objective reporting to say that what they're saying is completely untrue shit. And it's completely valid to question other Republicans about what Vance has said and not let them get away with avoiding whether or not they think "the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female" is to help take care of grandchildren.

Last Thursday, in another of his rambling bullshit sessions, this time for the poor suckers in Potterville, Michigan, Trump went on a rant using the lie about transgender women at the Olympics: "You see the boxing in the Olympics, two transitioned people, they transitioned from men to women, did you see? Fighting, a young, beautiful Italian boxer, top boxer, they thought big things from her. And then bing. A left jab, just a jab. She go, 'Whoa, what? I just got hit with a horse.' Again, bing. She said, 'I’m out.' She quit. She couldn’t take it. Two punches. The second one likewise got into the ring with a couple of very talented women, just beat the hell out of them. They both won the gold medal, shockingly."

Trump likes to say that all of his incoherent, disorganized storytelling is called "the weave" by English professors and he says it has a point. Let me assure you, as an English professor (no, really), it's not called that. The only weaving is Trump creating fiction out of lies and the point is to spread hateful propaganda. News media should report that he's lying and then figure out if it's intentional or if he's fucked in the head or both.

There is no realm where this or anything Trump says needs to be taken seriously except as evidence of how delusional he is. And also how confused. In that same speech, without anything that anchored it to what he had been talking about, Trump seemed to swing into talking about his 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton: "And look, we did something that they’re very angry about. We beat somebody that should have been beaten in an election that we weren’t anticipated to win. But I thought we were going to win, because I came to Michigan the night before. We had 49,000 people. She came to Michigan the night before because she was told she may lose it. And this was an upset, so they had a fast tour. She had like 300 people. I said, 'Why would we lose?' We had the crowd you wouldn’t have believed it." 

Prior to this he was talking about electric cars and then, I think, President Biden at the Democratic National Convention. After this he introduced a soldier who was there supporting him. At no point did he mention Clinton. "She" in that quote is simply not defined. Can you show me a single moment from Biden where his brain seemed to leap to something so out out of context it was like he was giving another speech? No, you can't. 

The fact that the GOP ticket consists of an elderly man plainly declining mentally and a guy who lies about women in order to enslave them to childbirth and child care is the story that needs to be covered and simply isn't. And if it turns out that JD Vance is blowing goats, yes, that deserves some mention, too.

(Note: At the beginning, am I comparing having children to goat fellatio? Yes. Yes, I am.)

(Note 2: You are so right. I could have gone with couch-fucking. But, to me, that joke is played out, like a loveseat with too many secret sex holes.)

(Note 3: Yes, there is a cynical side of me which says that, of course, CNN would act like goat-blowing is now worthy of discussion because we'd all click on the clips of that panel to watch odious Scott Jennings talk about how goats need love.)

(Note 4: I couldn't figure out where to put this line, but I liked it, so here it is: "When Walz is asked if he would do anything to help JD Vance blow goats, like buy him a goat or bring him to a goat farm, Walz can put up his hands and say, 'Whoa, whoa, let's not get carried away.'")

Original.

The Lord Has Spoken!

If you have not already, you should consider subscribing to God on Substack. Whoever God is, he's a hoot. And God is on our side.

Thou Shalt Not Steal Music For Thy Cult Rallies

Why doesn't Donold use Lara's music instead?

SEP 03, 2024

Dear Humans, 

BEHOLD! Ten days ago, Lara Trump, wife of Donald’s son Eric, dropped a new single called ‘Hero,’ which purports to praise firefighters for their heroism. Her video doth exploit many images of firefighters who perished in the line of duty. The song has been described as “torture” and accused of “violating the Geneva convention.”

For those who revel in the truly awful, here is the music video:

(Sorry, but I cannot include that video here. Moral and esthetic reasons. You will have to follow the link at the bottom to see/hear the awfulness.)

Verily, it is not good. And it is indeed strange to see the co-chair of the Republican National Committee putting forth such music, so close to the election. Are they not concerned about the backlash from releasing such horrid work into the universe? Is Lara merely using this moment to expand her profile? Did she ever flame out on ‘American Idol’? Forsooth, I would love to see Simon Cowell’s judgment of her singing.

This debacle didst also remind me that JD Vance was recently booed with great fervor at a speech given to the International Association of Fire Fighters. Perchance the Trump campaign is worried? If they lose the firefighters, they reason, they have no shot of winning.

AH! But what if Lara put out a hokey song praising them as heroes??

Or mayhaps it is not connected—who can say?

I do know this; the Trump campaign has been stealing popular music from artists since he first started having rallies with his cult. 

Donald has used music without permission from many artists, including Adele, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young, Queen, R.E.M., Bruce Springsteen, Prince, Pharrell Williams, Tom Petty, Elton John, The Beatles (Estate of George Harrison), Linkin Park, Guns N' Roses, Panic! at the Disco, The Village People, Luciano Pavarotti (Estate), Leonard Cohen (Estate), Aerosmith, Ozzy Osbourne, Twisted Sister, Rihanna, Earth, Wind & Fire, The O'Jays, Dexys Midnight Runners, Everlast, Jack White (The White Stripes), Isaac Hayes (Estate), ABBA, Fleetwood Mac, Phil Collins, and Axl Rose.

Many of these artists have pushed back and proceeded with legal action. The financial penalty at this point would likely be in the tens of millions. 

Why doth the Donold campaign steal music when Lara Trump is right there putting out original songs? Is her music somehow not good enough for them?? It’s just as bad as 3 Doors Down…and they played at his inauguration.

I mean, yea, her songs sound like a deer who’s been hit by an SUV and is wildly bleating for its life, only to see RFK Jr. pull over and step out…but at least they’re original! Right?!? Donold could use her music, shine a light on his family’s ‘talents,’ and cease stealing from artists.

However, he seemeth to be having trouble keeping his own cult members awake or from leaving his rallies early because he never doth shut up…so mayhaps he needs bangers like “YMCA” to keep his “basement dwellers” conscious. He shalt be smote for this!

Thou Shalt Not Steal Music For Thy Cult Rallies!

THE LORD HAS SPOKEN!

Can I get an amen? 

Original.

MeidasTouch

Ok, this MeidasTouch video by Anthony Davis is titled a bit hyperbolically, but it is full of truths to counter the constant lies that Donold spouts. It's well worth the 13:48 that it runs, give or take a commercial here and there. MeidasTouch has done invaluable work since its founding in 2020 during the Covid pandemic by the Meiselas brothers Ben, Brett, and Jordan, true heroes of democracy.

Trump CRUSHED by DEVASTATING Fact-Check that RUINS EVERYTHING For Him