Paul Rudnick.
A reality show pitch: BIG BITTER, where Nikki Haley, DeSantis, Elise Stefanik and Tulsi Gabbard share a motel room and scream about who should've been Trump's VP. They compete in kissing Trump's ass and hating women and LGBTQ people. The winner gets brunch with Lindsey Graham
— Paul Rudnick (@PaulRudnickNY) September 9, 2024
Quick tonight because the debate's starting shortly. Alex Henderson notes:
But veteran conservative consultant Stuart Stevens — a Never Trumper conservative who is supporting Harris — is critical of Silver's forecast, arguing that there is a connection between Silver's FiveThirtyEight and billionaire Trump supporter Peter Thiel.
In a September 10 post on X, formerly Twitter, Stevens wrote, "Polymarket is Peter Thiel's creation. @NateSilver538 is being paid by Peter Thiel."
In May, Forbes reported that "controversial billionaire political donor Peter Thiel and Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin" had "raised about $70 million in funding for Polymarket."
According to Axios' Sara Fischer, the predictions market platform Polymarket hired Silver as an adviser in July.
"Media: A great sitcom, a lousy debate" (Ava and C.I., THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW):
When a known liar is given air time, it's incumbent upon the network
to fact check. With Donald, we're talking about a man who spoke at the
press (not to, not with) for an hour last month and, as Domenico Montanaro (NPR) noted, lied 162 times -- 162 lies in one hour.
The June debate had approximately 53 million viewers. And there was no
fact checking. Now, in the past, you had serious airtime given in the
days after a debate in which fact checks took place. That did not
happen with June's debate. As we noted in "Media: It's Time For Joe To Go:"
Aided by a bored and lazy media, in the 24 hours after the debate ended, concerns over Joe's ability to handle a second term soared. Efforts on his part to reassure voters the day after the debate with speeches -- including one at Stonewall -- failed to stop the media-created tsunami.
As the days piled on, so did the garbage. Norman Solomon -- who used the public airwaves in 2008 to advocate for Barack Obama while pretending he was objective and that he wasn't, in fact, a pledged delegate for Barack -- showed up this go round pretending like he was sincerely concerned. He wasn't. He'd led an earlier effort to prevent Joe from running for a second term. He's as a big a liar as Roseanne Barr -- a Trump supporter who Tweeted the night of the debate that she felt sorry for Joe, genuinely sorry, honest, no fingers-crossed, for reals.
People like that, more than actual Democrats, created a drip-drip that wouldn't cease and kept the topic the focus of the media -- a media that failed repeatedly to hold Donald Trump accountable for his non-stop lying in the debates or for The 2025 Project.
It shouldn't take Taraji P. Henson, at last week's BET Awards, talking on stage about The 2025 Project for the media to finally pay attention to it.
But
that's what's happened. And even so, Donald's gotten a two week pass
where serious issues of substance were only fleeting media
conversations. The drip-drip was very good for Donald and very bad for
Democrats.
[. . .]
We say Joe won the debate -- in part due to Donald's lies. And it goes to the media and the male dominance of the media -- especially our so-called 'independent' media on YOUTUBE -- that something as ridiculous as Donald Trump claiming women were aborting babies right after they gave birth to them was not the biggest moment of the debate and a non-stop ridicule in the media as just how stupid Donald is.
But
what women grasp, apparently men don't -- neither do male-identifying
women who'll do anything to get by in the male-dominated media.
The
liar should have been crucified for the insane lie that women were
giving birth and then aborting the infant that had just been born. But
the media let it pass. They didn't do their job. And we're not going to
pretend that they did. Day after day, for over a week, we heard about
Joe Biden's energy levels but there was no similar coverage of the lies
that flew out of The Convicted Felon's mouth.
Years ago, we called out fat ass Candy Crowley in 2012 for injecting herself into the debate. But we
called her out because she got her facts wrong and because she cut off
the candidate she was correcting (Mitt Romney) in mid-comment. Last week, at POYNTER, Angie Drobnic Holan explained:
Moderators shouldn’t waste time on fact checks that aren’t important. An example of what not to do came when CNN’s Candy Crowley fact-checked Mitt Romeny in a 2012 debate with Barack Obama. The incident has been debated for years whether Crowley got it right or not. The problem here was that, while the fact check was about an important topic, the fact check itself drilled down on a process detail that wasn’t so important. Let’s review.
The topic again was Libya, and Romney’s attack line was this: “It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”
Crowley contradicted Romney, saying “(Obama) did in fact, sir. … (He did) call it an act of terrorism.” Obama seized the moment, saying, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”
Crowley then hedged: “He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You (Romney) are correct about that.” The tape, for those who don’t remember, was an American-made video mocking Islam, and for a brief time it was thought to have provoked a spontaneous riot at the U.S. mission in Benghazi. As evidence developed, it was clear the attack was pre-planned.
This exchange got a huge amount of attention about whether Crowley was successful in her fact check or not, and unfortunately it all hinged on a parsing of what words Obama used at a Rose Garden press conference. (Read longer fact checks here and here.) Was Obama calling Benghazi an act of terror, or was he just speaking about violent acts in general and placing Benghazi in that context? This hardly seemed the most important part of the Benghazi attack.
Lost
in the fray about what Obama said when was the actual policy response
to Libya, or ways America could have saved lives or protected its
foreign policy interests better.
That's a solid point and she's correct. It's not the minor details but the big picture. And the big picture needs to be fact checked. Approximately 53 million people watched a debate last June with no fact check and no push back and no follow up questions. That's not journalism. That's a live reed, not journalism. 53 million people were not served by the pretense that what CNN provided was journalism. As POLIFACT's Samantha Putterman observed on PBS, "But as journalists, it's also their job to hold powerful people accountable and check them when they are being inaccurate with the American people, especially during a high-stakes presidential election. I don't think they could have fact-checked every false or misleading claim made last night, but they could have done their due diligence to correct for the record frequently false claims made on incredibly important topics like abortion, economy, and immigration. The American people deserve to know when a presidential candidate is spreading falsehoods, especially on issues they will be voting on." Rachel Leingang, Chris Stein,Maanvi Singh and Carter Sherman (GUARDIAN) observed, "Moderators in the first presidential debate in 2024 took a completely hands-off approach to factchecking the candidates, letting lies and half-truths, most frequently from Donald Trump, remain unchallenged. The former president frequently ignored the questions posed by CNN moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, instead talking about whatever he wanted."
And the few moments, in the days after the debate, in which a few networks offered 'fact checks' wasn't helpful either. PBS' THE NEWSHOUR, for example, thought it was fair to note a Joe Biden distortion or lie and a Donald Trump distortion or lie. This made it appear that both lied equally.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
A coin flip determined where Trump and Harris will stand on stage and the order of closing statements. Trump won the coin toss and chose to give the last closing statement. Harris selected the lectern on the left of the stage, meaning viewers will see her on the right side of their screens.
Candidates will have two minutes each for their closing statements. There are no opening statements. They will have two minutes to answer moderators' questions, two minutes for rebuttals and an extra minute for follow-ups or clarifications.
Harris and Trump will not be allowed to bring prewritten notes on stage, but will have a pen, notepad and bottle of water at their lecterns.
Campaign staff cannot interact with candidates during the commercial breaks, and there will be no live audience.
So what's the answer? MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell has rightly noted that, the way TV works, a running fact check could be done onscreen during the actual debate. We have no problem with that.
In
addition, however, we're aware that there will be two breaks in the
debate. Instead of wasting those on commercials, they should be used
for fact checks. Three or four journalists should immediately begin
letting viewers know what just happened. They should do that during
both breaks and as well as right after the debate ends when a third fact
check should take place -- no lingering over the candidates on stage,
go into the third fact check immediately.
Tomorrow night, ABC will most likely fail at any kind of accountability or fact check during the debate itself. If that is what happens, we all need to grasp that journalism was not practiced. Asking questions is not enough. Your job also includes informing the audience when someone lies and holding them accountable.
Former President Donald Trump repeated his false claim that children are undergoing transition-related surgery during their school day, worsening fears among some conservatives that educators are pushing children to become transgender and aiding transitions without parental awareness.
“Can you imagine you’re a parent and your son leaves the house and you say, ‘Jimmy, I love you so much, go have a good day in school,’ and your son comes back with a brutal operation? Can you even imagine this? What the hell is wrong with our country?” Trump said Saturday at a campaign rally in Wisconsin, a vital swing state.
Trump made similar remarks — saying children were returning home from school after having had surgical procedures — the previous weekend at an event hosted by Moms for Liberty, a parent activist group that has gained outsized influence in conservative politics in recent years.
Asked by one of the group’s co-founders how he would address the “explosion in the number of children who identify as transgender,” Trump said: “Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child.”
A widely derided election crimes dragnet from Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appears to be targeting voters who signed a petition to get an abortion rights amendment on state ballots this fall, a measure that the Republican governor and his anti-abortion allies strongly oppose.
DeSantis’s administration has previously deployed law enforcement officers to the homes of formerly incarcerated people who were accused of illegally voting. Most of those charges were eventually dropped.
Now, officers appear to be visiting the homes of citizens who signed a petition that successfully put Amendment 4 on November’s ballots, which would enshrine the right to abortion care in the state’s constitution — and overturn state law signed by DeSantis that bans abortion at six weeks of pregnancy, before most people know they are pregnant.
As feminists, we wondered six weeks ago, what do we do?
Roseanne had already imploded. (Cindy Sheehan has a story to tell and then some.) She couldn't and wouldn't campaign, she apparently wouldn't pay workers she hired for her campaign, she was an embarrassment.
And so was Jill Stein.
As feminists, do we call it as it is?
We debated that for three days. Jill wasn't going to win the presidency. In fact, it was obvious she was running off the limited votes she did have a shot at.
But did we tell the truth on that? Did we call her out?
We crossed the line on gender with the decision -- a feminist one (not "the" feminist one) -- that she was running for public office and therefore had to be treated the same as anyone else would even if, in the closing weeks, we were going to tear her apart.
But . . .
Having dealt with the feminist issue, we still had the issue of third parties.
Was it really fair to beat up on a third party candidate?
Adding to the problems, one of us (Ava) is involved with a lifelong Green (Jess), has a child by him, has made a home with him.
And Jess was very clear that Jill Stein was "a f**king idiot but the Greens need to be on ballots." And they were. Texas, for example. We heard from Billie who early voted for Jill Stein. She was so excited because Jill Stein was on the ballot. She didn't have to write her in. Right there on the Texas ballot was the Green Party.
What do we do?
In the end, we decided, "We don't promote her. We don't mention her. That's true here, that's true at Third."
So we bit our tongues.
As she ran a stupid campaign. As she made a fool of herself and the Green Party. (Granted, it's a party that loves to make a fool of itself.)
She -- and others -- did a debate with Larry King. A debate that did not include all. A new hurdle was invented.
Green Party members, you know what a hurdle is, right? It's what keeps your candidate out of the so-called presidential debates every four years. Why the hell would you take part in a debate that did not invite everyone who made it onto a state's ballot as a presidential candidate?
Because hypocrisy is a charge you live to embrace?
Maybe so.
Supposedly the Green Party is opposed to war.
So when Tim Arango reported the White House was negotiating with Nouri to send more troops back into Iraq, Jill Stein should have led on that.
But she's a politician which is just a whore without the desire to please a customer.
So Jill ignored it.
She ignored a lot.
Six weeks ago, in fact, after Barack cratered in the first debate, she and her campaign began going after Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Huh?
You're a Green. You're on the left. The high profile left vote getter just imploded on national TV. It's the perfect time for you to pick up some of his voters.
But you refuse to try. You rush to go after Romney and Ryan instead.
Why is that?
Because you are not a real party.
Because you will forever be the little sister of the Democratic Party.
Because every four years, you start off with promise and end up revealing just how craven and disgusting you are.
If we are offering commentary four years from now, please note, being a Green will not save you. Being third party will not save you.
We will call you out in real time.
From the Harris-Walz campaign site:
Trump’s plan to take your power, your control, and your money.
What is the Project 2025 Agenda?
Donald Trump’s plans for total control over our daily lives have been exposed. Scroll down to see what’s in it for yourself — and tell your friends.
His Project 2025 agenda would strip away our freedoms – by forcing states to report on women’s miscarriages and abortions, cutting Social Security and Medicare, and eliminating the Department of Education.
It includes a plan hatched by people who used to work for Donald Trump that focuses on the first 180 days.
(Project 2025 Website)
The plan begins with a sweeping takeover of the federal government to consolidate power under Donald Trump. Inside pages of dense policy proposals, their intentions become clear.
“Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.”
(New York Times, July 17, 2023)
Project 2025 is a plan to seize power within the federal government.
First: They’d make it easier to fire non-partisan government employees, like they attempted to do at the end of Trump’s administration.
Reissue Trump’s schedule F executive order to permit discharge of nonperforming employees. (Project 2025, a Mandate for Leadership, p. 535)
Then, they’d replace them with politically appointed Trump Loyalists.
“The modern conservative President’s task is to limit, control, and direct the executive branch….The great challenge confronting a conservative President is the existential need for aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch.… Success in meeting that challenge will require a rare combination of boldness and self-denial: boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will”. (p. 43-44)
They’d end the independence of the Department of Justice and FBI…
“Conservatives have long believed in either ending law enforcement activities of independent agencies or ending their independent status. (p. 873)
…and turn them into enforcement arms of the White House.
The next conservative Administration must make every effort to obtain the resources to support a vast expansion of the number of appointees in every office and component across the department—especially in the Civil Rights Division, the FBI, and the EOIR.” (p. 569)
“[This] would also place the FBI under a politically accountable leader.” (p. 549)
Some of Donald Trump’s allies are assembling proposals to curtail the Justice Department’s independence and turn the nation’s top law enforcement body into an attack dog for conservative causes, nine people involved in the effort told Reuters.
(Reuters, May 17, 2024)
All while Trump has immunity from crimes committed in office thanks to a ruling from his Supreme Court picks.
Project 2025 is a plan to give MAGA extremists control over your life.
Trump and his Project 2025 allies overturned Roe v. Wade and unleashed extreme abortion bans across the country. Now, they’ll go even further.
They’ll implement a 50-state “backdoor ban” on abortion — without Congress — and jail health care providers.
“Announcing a Campaign to Enforce the Criminal Prohibitions in 18 U.S. Code §§ 1461 and 1462.” (p. 562)
Project 2025 would resurrect a law from the 1800s called the Comstock Act to ban abortion nationwide and jail health care providers. (p. 459)
Don’t take our word for it. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation: A literal interpretation of the [Comstock] Act could potentially also apply to materials used to produce all abortions, not just medication abortions; would not have exceptions; and could affect other medical care, such as miscarriage management.
(Kaiser Family Foundation, 4/15/24)
And they’ll ban abortion medication, which is also used in a range of ways to protect women’s health.
“Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn children in a post-Roe world…. The FDA should reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs.” (p. 457)
They’ll force states to report women’s miscarriages and abortions to Trump’s Federal Government.
Project 2025 would “use every available tool, including the cutting of funds” to force states to report miscarriages and “exactly how many abortions take place within its borders,” including the “reason” for every abortion. (p. 455)
They’ll put limits on contraception access.
The President should “[e]liminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient.” (p. 485)
Allows employers to deny workers access to birth control coverage. (p. 483-85)
It also calls for defunding Planned Parenthood, which provides access to contraception for over 2 million women each year. (p. 471)
And then rip away President Biden’s protections for a woman’s right to life-saving medical care.
The President should “reverse distorted pro-abortion ‘interpretations’ added to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. (p. 473)
They’ll enable discrimination against LGBTQ+ Americans.
Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics. The President should direct agencies to rescind regulations interpreting sex discrimination provisions as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, sex characteristics, etc. (p. 584)
Project 2025 is a plan to make Trump and his rich friends even richer.
It will cut taxes for Trump and his rich friends and pad their profits.
“The corporate income tax should be reduced to 18 percent.” (p. 696)
And cut taxes for wealthy families — offset by tax hikes on middle class families.
Project 2025 would restructure the tax code to benefit wealthy families. (p. 696)
Millions of low- and middle-class households would likely face significantly higher taxes under the Project 2025’s proposals. [Center for American Progress senior director for economic policy Brendan Duke] estimated that a middle-class family with two children and an annual income of $100,000 would pay $2,600 in additional federal income tax if they faced a 15% flat tax on their income due to the loss of the 10% and 12% tax brackets. If the Child Tax Credit were also eliminated, they would pay an additional $6,600 compared with today’s tax system, Duke said. By comparison, a married couple with two children and earnings of $5 million a year would enjoy a $325,000 tax cut, he estimated.
(CBS News, 7/12/24)
They’d line Big Pharma’s pockets by ending prescription drug price caps for seniors, and banning Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.
“Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as… the Inflation Reduction Act.” (p. 465)
“This ‘negotiation’ program should be repealed.” (p. 465)
All while Trump’s administration guts Medicare and Social Security.
When asked about cuts to entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, Trump said: “Oh we’ll be cutting,” and later doubled down, saying, “There’s a lot you can do…in terms of cutting.”
Trump has also called Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme,” supported raising the age for eligibility, and has been open to privatizing it.
They’d let employers drastically cut overtime — or eliminate it outright.
- Return to Trump’s overtime rule, meaning 4 million middle class workers will lose overtime protections because of the salary they make.
- Make remote employees work 10, instead of 8, hours in a day before they can earn overtime.
- Prevent benefits from counting as part of workers’ overtime calculations
- Allow employers to calculate overtime over four weeks instead of one. (pp. 587, 589, 592)
And they’d reinstate crippling student debt payments.
“The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans” (p. 322).
“The Secretary should phase out all existing [income-driven repayment] plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible…. If new legislation is possible, there should be no loan forgiveness, but if not, existing law would require forgiving any remaining balance after 25 years.” (pp. 337-38).
- Truest statement of the week
- A note to our readers
- Iraq and Gaza
- Media: A great sitcom, a lousy debate
- Books (Jess, Ava and C.I.)
- THE FRIEDKIN CONNECTION (Jess)
- 2024 passings
- Book List
- Tweet of the week
- The rumor mill
- Justice for Ayşenur Eygi: As Israel Kills Another ...
- Video of the week
- Kat on the corruption in the Michigan court system
- The Harris-Walz campaign explains Trump's Project ...
- Say it
- This edition's playlist
- Highlights
-
Mdou Moctar: Tiny Desk Concert3 hours ago
-
-
-
Hideous Junior8 hours ago
-
Kamala8 hours ago
-
Black Eyed Pea Soup in the Kitchen8 hours ago
-
-
-
Trump and Turley terrorize the country8 hours ago
-
The disgusting Ken Paxton8 hours ago
-
-
-
