Columns, Media, Politics

With Fact-Checks Like These, How Does Truth Stand a Chance?

Below is my column in The Hill on the controversial role played by the ABC moderators in the presidential debate. Three false claims in the debate continue to be repeated in what is now our post-truth political environment. (ABC later challenged another claim by Harris on the deployment of U.S. troops).

Here is the column:

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

That famous line from Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) remains a virtual mantra for politicians and pundits. Yet, judging from the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, we have officially entered the post-truth political era.

ABC News has been widely criticized for the bias of the two moderators Linsey Davis and David Muir. Even liberal outlets acknowledged that the two journalists seemed inclined to “fact check” only Trump. In the meantime, they allowed clearly false statements from Harris to go unchallenged.

Three of the unchecked claims are being widely disseminated by supporters, including some in the media. Here are three legal “facts” that are being repeated despite being clearly untrue.

“Crime is down under the Biden-Harris administration.“

One of the most notable slap downs by ABC followed Trump commenting that crime rates have drastically risen during the Biden-Harris administration. Muir immediately balked and declared: “As you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country.”

Harris and her allies have been repeating the claim by ABC. But the actual statistics show that Trump was right. The Justice Department’s released survey found that, under the Biden administration, there has been a significant increase in crime. Violent crime was up 37 percent from 2020 to 2023, rape is up 42 percent, robbery is up 63 percent and stranger violence is up 61 percent. Other reports had shown startling increases such as a doubling of carjackings in D.C. in 2023.

“Harris has not supported transgender operations for undocumented migrants.”

Some of the greatest mocking in the media concerned Trump’s statement that Harris has supported transgender conversion treatment for undocumented persons. New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser immediately wrote “What the hell was he talking about? No one knows, which was, of course, exactly Harris’s point.”

On CNN, Wolf Blitzer declared how “outlandish” it was for Trump to make such a claim.

But it’s true.

In 2019, Harris told the ACLU that she not only supported such operations but actively worked for at least one such procedure to take place. When it was reported by Andrew Kaczynski on CNN, host Erin Burnett was gobsmacked by the notion of taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for detained migrants. “She actually supported that?” Burnett exclaimed.

Even the New York Times later admitted that the “wildest sounding attack line” from Trump was “basically true.”

Harris does not support the right to abortion in the final three months of a pregnancy.  

Trump also hit Harris on her no-limits position on abortion rights, allowing women the right to abort a baby up to the moment of birth. Trump said Harris supports laws allowing abortions in “the seventh month, the eighth month, [and] the ninth month,” to which Harris retorted: “C’mon,” “no,” and “that’s not true.”

The hosts again said that Trump was making up his criticism of late-term abortions, including the risk of babies being born but allowed to die.

But in fact, many states, including Minnesota under Gov. Tim Walz (D), protect the right of a woman to abort a baby into the ninth month. While it is often said that this is left to the mother and her doctor, the law gives the decision to the mother.

Late-term abortions are relatively rare, but they do occur. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report estimated in 2019 that about 4,882 abortions were performed that year at least 21 weeks or later into pregnancy.

More than a dozen states, in fact, allow on-demand abortions after a baby is viable and can even survive outside of the womb. Nine of those states permit abortions throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Harris has supported these state laws and certainly did not answer the question on what limits she would support, other than saying that she supports Roe v. Wade.

Clearly, many late-term abortions occur to protect the life of the mother. However, you can have (as both Trump and Harris support) exceptions to protect the life of the mother without allowing abortions up to the moment of birth.

To be sure, Trump did not help himself with his wilder claims. These included debunked accounts of Haitian migrants eating people’s pets in Ohio, which Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike Dewine, has denied.

The issue is not fact-checking, but the failure to do so equally and accurately. ABC actually disseminated false information under the mantle of fact-checking, and that’s a real problem.

Moderator Linsey Davis admitted later that ABC did not want a repeat of what had happened in the last debate, wherein Trump was given free rein and the moderators limited themselves to asking questions and enforcing time limits. CNN was praised in that debate across the political spectrum for being even-handed.

What is most striking about this election is that none of this seems to matter. Indeed, even the debate did not matter. While Trump can legitimately object to a three-against-one debate format, Harris’s victory was clearly not dependent on bad calls by the refs. However, there has been little overall movement in the polls, even though 67 million people were watching.

The era of post-truth politics is evident in Harris repeating false claims about Trump’s support for “Project 2025” and debunked claims regarding his comments about an extreme-right Charlottesville rally in 2017. Leading Democrats continue to make these false claims, in some cases despite knowing that they are false.

On the other side, Trump is making promises he has to know can never be fulfilled. For example, he has pledged to make flag-burning a federal crime with a penalty of two years’ incarceration. The Supreme Court, including conservatives like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, has ruled that flag burning is protected speech under the First Amendment. Neither a president nor Congress can change the meaning of the Constitution without amending it.

With the help of the media, we have reduced our election to a political Slurpee. It’s all sugar rush and no nutritional value. We now have pundits supporting the idea of no further debates and even arguing that Harris shouldn’t give any interviews because it’s too risky.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) explained that Harris should avoid one-on-one media interviews because “sometimes, you drill down into a question until there’s a word that’s uttered that can be used in a negative way.” I suppose, as president, she will need to insist on meeting foreign leaders only in CNN town hall events.

If you do not say anything, there are no facts to check. The election then becomes a vote over whether you are for or against “joy.”

What is clear from the ABC debate is that citizens are on their own in the election to find actual facts and substance in the super-sized Slurpee of the 2024 election.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

 

224 thoughts on “With Fact-Checks Like These, How Does Truth Stand a Chance?”

  1. Re crime statistics: correlation is not causation.
    Try crime statistics vs average age of population.
    Or crime statistics vs average income.

    1. David B. Benson’s desperate deflection: Re crime statistics: correlation is not causation.

      That’s an amusing and rather pathetic non sequitur attempt at deflection. David; tell us why Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder did a crime survey on murders committed by whites, versus blacks, versus Latinos? And what the probability of committing murders was when calculated against their percentage of the population demographic? That’s the 2008 survey David: go find and read it.

      David… help us with your train of thought: why do the FBI and others collect data and then compare it year to year? On crime or anything else.

      Better yet; explain Obama’s 2008 violent crime survey on the basis of your “correlation is not causation”.

      1. How did 0bama or Holder do any kind of survey in 2008? Neither of them held any office that would allow them to do that.

    2. I have a more-relevant suggestion: How about crime statistics per presidential candidate? Both regarding charges and convictions.

      2. Civil cases are NOT criminal convictions, they are findings. EJeanCarroll will be appealed and shown to be a George Conway political hit job it is. LeTicia James, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Judge Chatkan, Merchan are all going down in flames.
        100% collusion with the NY and FL cases. Megyn Kelley just schooled one of your fellow Marxist tools on this. You should enlighten yourself Ms. Cut and paste lie peddler. I bet you’ve eaten some cat now GiGi, fess up, meow…

      3. I have a more-relevant suggestion: How about crime statistics per presidential candidate? Both regarding charges and convictions.

        Let's try these Gigi:

        Crime statistics for presidential candidate who filed fraudulent criminal charges against their most dangerous opponent. Charges only thrown out by SCOTUS review after the election – naming the police state fascist a "threat to our separation of powers".

        Crime statists per Suspicious Activity Reports filed regarding bribes and access peddling filed with the DoJ per presidential candidate?

        Crime statists regarding presidents and their family members found to have committed DECADES of corruption felonies while in office – but not acted on by the DoJ.

        Crime statistics concerning presidential candidates where DoJ prosecutors refused to prosecute, using the "no reasonable would prosecute/convict”.

        Want to go on Gigi? You simply aren’t smart enough to get away with what you attempt.

        And this is why your parents tell everybody they don’t have any children who survived childhood.

      4. Gigi – you have convicted Trump of the non-crime of allegedly not lying to himself to effect the outcome of an election that was already over.

        Trump is not guilty of any crime – except in the alternate universe of the left.

        I have no idea whether Trump slept with Daniels – though I doubt it, or we would have sold the story to the Clinton campaign where it would have been worth millions – If and Only If True, otherwise it would be fraud – a crime.
        Selling the story to Trump for a pittance is NOT a crime even if the story is false, because Both Trump and Daniels know the truth.

        Regardless, whether he slept with her or not – YOU are not entitled to know. I though that the LEFT valued the privacy of consenting adults.
        Daniels is entitled to sell her story to anyone – if True, and to Trump whether True or not.
        And they can put it on the front page of NYT or kill it – YOU have no right to know what consenting adults did or did not privately do.

        NDA’s are perfectly legal. They are legal outside the context of a political campaign, they are legal inside.

        Tara Reade has alleged that Joe Biden raped her – Is Joe Biden obligated to tell the american people that is true – if it is True ?

        It is near certain from the actual evidence in the trial that Cohen acted on his own – at various different times he has said precisely that and testified to it under oath. Further that is more consistent with other facts than anything else.

        But lets presume for the sake of argument that Cohen acted at Trumps direction – that Trump asked Cohen to finance the purchase of Daniels story with a promise of repayment after the election – that would be a very stupid way to do things, but atleast for Trump it would be legal.
        For Cohen it might be a problem. The better alternative would be for Trump to pay for the NDA – that would be inarguably legal.

        But again lets presume we have this legal conspiracy between TRump and Cohen to buy Daniels story and bury it until after the election – again still legal.

        So now we get to Trump paying Cohen. This ALL occured AFTER the election. So your theory of the crime is that Trump lied in records that are his PRIVATE records – to cover up legal acts and that doing so is somehow a crime ?

        There is a reason any legal expert worthy of the name claims this case never should have seen an indictment much less a prosecution – it is GARAGE – there is not an actual crime anywhere in it.

        There is just lots of left wing anger that Clinton lost and the lunatic belief that is someone fault – Criminal fault – aside from Hillary Clinton herself and her voters.

      5. Gigi – let me give you are REAL WORLD example of the actual Crime that Bragg charged Trump with, which should make it clear why this is also idiotic lawfare.

        Hunter Biden called payments for drugs, alsohol and prostitutes business expenses on his taxes.

        THAT is what the law Bragg has bent out of shape to “Get Trump” was intended to address.

        There is no such thing – and CAN NOT BE of “Defrauding yourself”.
        Fraud requires actual harm to another – and specifically TANGIBLE harm – hurt feelings are not sufficient – anger over losing an election and the beleif that would not have occured had everyone known something they were not entitled to.

        Joe Biden lied publicly about the laptop to win an election – that is despicable – but it is legal.
        51 former intelligence officers LIED to help Joe win the election – despicable but legal.
        The Press burried the story – despicable but legal.
        Social media censored the story – despicable but legal.

        The FBI and DHS demanded that Social Media censor the story – That is a violation of the constitution – it is a violation of rights under color of law, it is both a tort and a crime.

        Hillaries dirty Dossier is despicable – but legal.
        The only Crime was trying to sell a known hoax to the FBI.

    3. DBB – changes in trends in crime statistics ARE significant.

      The average age of the population is slowly increasing. We have excellent data that criminality decreases as people age. Crime shoudl be declining.

      Until the Biden/Harris administration average income was increasing. We have excellent data that criminality – particularly violent criminality decreases as standard of living increase. The decline in standard of living during the Biden/Harris administration might be an explanation for increasing crime – especially violent crime.

      While I have addressed your arguments – and I would note this is not a correlation causation issue.

      Crime has increased – especially violent crime and especially in the northeast and the west. That is just a FACT.
      Correlation analysis is just to get a starting point to try to determine WHY.
      It is hard to correct a problem if we have no idea what the causes are.

      We have many contenders for the causes for increased crime – the age of the population is NOT one of those.
      Average income – or more narrowly the REAL decline in standard of living of bottom and 4th quintile americans is atleast a plausible explantion.

      What is true is that this increase started and is primarily centered in Deep Blue cities – and their surrounds. Outside those cities and their suburbs – violent crime is going down.

      If you are looking for a cause – correlation is about finding FACTS that correlate – and those are high in our list of potential causes.

      It is also likely there are MANY causes, not just one.

      Rates of anxiety and depression are rising. They are rising amount the young – which is where the bulk of violent criminals are.
      It is rising more among those who self identify on the left than the right. It is rising amoung women more than men.
      Increasing anxiety and depression are not THE cause – but with near certainty rising anxciety and depression are A cause.
      Why are anxiety and depression rising – there are likely many factors – among them that we have taught an entire generation of chilren to be afraid. I would suggest reading Prof Haidt’s work on this – though there are others.
      But it is also true – and somewhat related that if we teach people that we are all living in a racist mysoginist, homophobic hellhole – you can expect that people will become anxious and depressed. And we are teaching that in schools, in home, in the media.
      It should therefore NOT be surprising that the people with the lowest anxiety and depression are those who have not been taught this is a hateful racist nation.

      I would separately note – both from personal experience and just as a fact that telling people that their problems are caused by something outside themselves, and that they are powerless in their own lives is a recipe for disaster.

      If you have been the victim of serious racism, if you have been the victim of serious homophobia, if you have been the victim of serious nmysogyn, if you have been the victim of rape, if you have been the victim of a violent crime.

      If either by accident negligence or malice you have actually been harmed by others,

      There is still only one person in the world that can fix that – YOU.

      Life is NOT FAIR. We are each responsible for our own life – other people can step in and F#$K us over. But we are the only ones who can get our lives back.

      We should not hide from the faults of our society. We also should not actively screw up our children by telling them that everything is schiff, that there is nothing they can do about it – short of vote in a bunch of Marxists.

      In reality, racism, sexism, etc have relatively minor and declining effects of peoples lives. There future prospects – Harris is without any structure or framework or meaning trying to talk about creating an opportunity economy. The reality is that all the alleged problems democrats want to do something about – have negliable impact on each of our futures.
      The negative impact on your life of being, black, hispanic, gay, female is relatively small. The impact of the class you were born in is much greater than your race – but even then – you can expect to rise two quintiles in your life if you started at the bottome – UNLESS YOU F$%K it up.

      Learn to read and write, learn the basics of math, graduate from HS, stay away from drugs, and alcohol, and crime.
      Get a job – even a $hitty one to start, do not have sex until your readyand do so responsibly. Do not marry until you can afford to. Do not have kids before you can afford to. Make good choices and in 30 years you will find yourself in the middle class – even if you started at the bottom.

  2. Fake comments. The crime rate is not down in large cities in blue states. The crime rate is down in rural areas which skews the results. Comparison to other cities: Chicago’s murder rate was the second-highest among the nation’s largest cities in 2023, after Philadelphia. Chicago’s murder rate is five times higher than New York City’s.

  3. It’s very simple. If you want to make the crime rate go down just stop arresting anyone who shoplifts anything under the amount of $995.00. I live in a blue border state where you almost never see anyone pulled over by the cops. It’s simple. If you never pull them over you won’t find out that they have no drivers license or that there are illegal drugs or guns in their cars. Poof, crime goes away. Who says that politicians can’t be criminal geniuses? Being a blue state politician is so easy because the media will run cover for your you know what. There’s no debating these facts.

    1. Ignoring crime does not eliminate its impact on its victims.
      Shoplifting causes price increases.

      When people are robbed – that is a fact – whether the robbery is reported, investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

      We purportedly pass laws making things Crimes – because they cause real harm to people.

      The social contract cedes to govenrment our right to use force against those whol violate our rights in return for protection of those rights by government.

      If government fails to protect individual rights – or worse infringes on them – the social contract is violated and government becomes illegitimate.

      Read the declaration of independence – most of the grevances of colonists against King George are the same conduct the left engages in constantly today.

      AS John Stuart Mill pointed out almost 200 years ago – democracies are the most totalitarian form of government.
      There is no limit to the demands your neighbor can put on your conduct, and less blowback because we resist constraints on liberty when imposed by a single monarch more forcefully than those imposed on us “democratically” by the majority.

      1. Ignoring crime does not eliminate its impact on its victims.

        You should apologize to thinkitthrough. Clearly that was not the point he was making.

        1. I do not owe TiT an apology. He made his point one way. I made a related point another.
          There is no contradiction between our positions. id not attack him personally. I did not criticize him.
          I did not disagree with him.

          I just replied to his post with a different but related point.

          If TiT took my reply as criticism – which I do not think he did, I am sorry that He made that mistake. Though again I do not think he did.

    2. TiT,
      All one has to do is look at the conditions of downtown San Fran CA to know crime is not down but up. There have been reports over and over again about the lawlessness. The filth. The rampant drug use. Homelessness. Businesses closing. It has gotten so bad, some companies are telling their employees not to bother reporting as they know nothing will happen. That is what happens in these failed blue cities.

  4. Regarding flag burning, how is it that burning the US flag is protected, but people who burned a pride flag are sent to prison? I may be wrong, but also burning a Palestinian flag has resulted in arrest.
    Are these flags somehow elevated to a protected position over the US flag? Inquiring minds want to know.

    1. Flag Burning as political expression is protected – regardless of the flag.
      Arson and property crimes are not.

      If you steal a flag and burn it – you are guilty of theft. The proHamas protestors who tore down a flag and burned it are guilty of theft.

      If you burn a flag in a way that is a danger to others – that is arson – regardless of the flag.

      The problem we see – mostly but not entirely with the left today is that these distinctions are NOT uniformly applied.

      Protest in a BLM riot, get caught looting or throwing moltov cocktails into an occupied police car – and get a slap on the wrists.

      Move a podium in the Capitol 10ft on J6 and spend 20 years in jail.

      Both are acts of political protest. Both are also acts of protest combined with crimes.
      One is seeing very serious crimes made deminimus because they are part of protest.
      The other is seeing trivial crimes amplified because they are part of protests.

      1. “Move a podium in the Capitol 10ft on J6 and spend 20 years in jail. ”

        Climb through a broken threshold over a door and get shot to death.

  5. Regarding Roe v. Wade, the tacit lie, emphasis on the word “tacit,” is that “pro-choice” activists and commentators choose their words to give viewers and readers the impression, without saying out loud, because it’s not true, that Roe was: (1) a 9-0 decisison, (2) “legalizing abortion,” i.e., it was totally illegal in the US previously, with no exceptions, and (3) based on and guaranteed “a woman’s right to choose,” “a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body.”

    Reality: Roe was a 7-2 decision. It did not “legalize abortion” in the sense that abortion was completely illegal under all circumstances; in fact, it was a challenge to the parameters of Texas’ law, and other states’ laws which were, in precise legal terms, an inconsistent mishmosh. Most importantly, it did not legalize abortion under all circumstances: the Supreme Court defined the parameters of Constitutionality based on the trimester of pregnancy. Lastly, its Opinion sets forth that the issue is “right to privacy,” not stated in the Constitution but addressed in various contexts in prior cases; it was not “right to choose” or “control her body.” (Query: re privacy, whither the women who showed up at Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization protests wearing T-shirts with “I HAD AN ABORTION” in big letters?)

    Facts are annoying little things, aren’t they?

    Happy Reading! https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

    1. Technically Row was not the law of the land pre dobbs – Casey had already overruled Row.

      Rowe was an abysmally basis decision with no solid basis in science , fact or law.

      Casey is not perceived as overruling Row – because post Casey SCOTUS remained in control of a states ability to restrict abortions.
      While Dobbs passes the matter to the states.

      Properly BOTH are wrong.

      There is no right to an abortion – Thomas is correct on that.
      But there is an unrecognized right to control your own body.
      States can not violate that by restricting abortion.
      But they CAN regulate abortion to increase the odds that the fetus survives.
      There is a right of a woman to remove a fetus from her body.
      The fetus is NOT part of her body. It is something else.
      But the right to remove does not include the right to kill.

      That would have been the correct decision in Dobb’s.

      Casey was CLOSER to correct than either Dobbs or Row.
      Casey went to a fetal viability standard.

      SCOTUS could have avoided much of the current political firestorm over Dobbs by simply stating that advances in medical technology had moved the point of viabillity earlier in the pregnancy.
      Had SCOTUS moved viability to 21 weeks or 15 weeks or 8 weeks or anything they would have made clear that – technology was ultimately going to bring viability right to the point of conception. They would have accomplished the same purpose without the firestorm

      Or had SCOTUS does as the constitution actually demands and rejected a right to an abortion reframing the abortion issue as about the right to control your body – while making clear that the Fetus was IN your body but Not actually part of your body in the way that an arm or a kidney are,
      we would have had a firmer legal/constitutional foundation.

    2. Some think abortion is a right and others think it’s murder. Before Roe there were 361 abortions per year. After Roe the graphing shows a perpendicular rise to 1.5 million. How is that explained? It may be women were told indirectly that abortion is not only legal it is also right. The law said it isn’t a person and you can stop the fetuses development.

      That’s how important a law can be.

  6. Bush Republicans are endorsing Harris, Kennedy Democrats are endorsing Trump. This is an historic realignment we are living through.

    More broadly, the war-corporate-greed-censorship-legacy-media-deep-state-globalist forces are consolidating behind Harris, just as the protectionist-free-speech-America-first-avoid-foreign-wars-pro-consumer forces are consolidating behind Trump. I think the two major parties will never be the same, and will never again resemble their pre-2016 incarnations.

    As Russell Brand would say: but that’s just what I think, let me know what you think in the comments below, you four million shining wonders!

    1. OldManFromKS,
      That is an interesting observation.
      I have stated in the past here on the good professor’s blog, when a party, any of them, no longer represent the views of their voters, those voters have the right to vote for someone else or other party. The days of blind faith to any given party are over.

      1. “The days of blind faith to any given party are over.”

        It is also interesting that many, possibly most, voters who very strongly support Harris do not do so because of any affinity to her views, nor even out of loyalty to the Democratic Party, but out of a pathological and irrational hatred of Donald Trump.

      2. The major political parties deliberately play a dancing game – trying to put together from the divese electorate an uneasy coalition that gives them power – a majority – but a political party only wants a majority barely large enoguh to politically dominate. Too large a majority created too much internal tension and power becomes difficult to weild.

        Political realignment is inevitable in our two party system.

        What is unusual at the moment is the scale of the realignment.
        Also the FACT that democrats seem unable to grasp the serious threat to their power and are trying to hold power with a coalition that is too small to do so.

        The errosion of working class support in the democratic party is an existential threat to the party.

    2. I would venture to say that Bush Republicans are the same beneficiaries of the military industrial complex. Of course they are going to support Obama’s fourth term. All fat and wealthy from the blood money of endless wars. Recall HW Bush CIA director and President, One World Order comments, you have no choice, it will happen. Ask OAD if everything he was issued and provided for through his military service in Iraq had Haliburton stamped on it?

      1. It is NOT all Bush republicans – it is not even Many. Many Bush and Reagan Republicans – even many NeoCons are supporting Trump
        Bill Barr lashes out at Trump constantly – he still endorsed Trump. He is not angry with Trump over his policies. He is angry with Trump over conduct that Barr thinks might cost him the election to people that Barr sees as an existential threat.

    3. Yes, the “pro consumer forces” want a 20% tariff on all foreign goods. That’s logical.

      1. “Yes, the “pro consumer forces” want a 20% tariff on all foreign goods”

        I picture you libtards curled up and rocking back and forth as you repeat these lies to soothe yourself.

    4. As you note we are in the midst of political realignment.

      While we are starting to see how this might play out – particularly for Republicans.

      The changes in values etc in the democratic party have not settled yet.

      This political realignment originated on the right.
      While starting earlier – because the late 20th century coalition of neocons, and evangelicals and the other groups that made up republcians was failing. Evangelicals are NOT inherently conservative nor strong supporters of individual rights, and were declining in numbers.
      Neocons were increasingly viewed as failures.

      The election of Obama and the rise of the Tea Party where the first clear signs that the Republican party was in the midst of profound realignment.

      Trump saw that, and took the reigns and transformed the TP into MAGA.

      This is a massively significant political realignment – Republicans are trading neocons, for blue collar workers. But most importantly they are fighting democrats – and Winning over a core democratic constituency. Democrats have claimed to be the party of workers and minorities for a century, but they have mostly ignored them, or tried to placte them with free things instead of freedom.

      Further standards of living have risen over the past 40 years and that rise makes the working class far less interested in free things, and more interested in real oportunity and the economy. Republicans have almost always had a strong edge over democrats on the economy.
      But a more affluent working class cares more about the economy.

      What we have not seen is the real response of democrats. Republican inroads into the working class if sustained or not countered condem democrats to being the opposition party in the future.

      But the very nature of the US two party system means that the oposition MUST restructure to maintain its abilit to apeal to a majority.

      After Clinton’s defeat in 2016 – Democrat strategists should have understood that the Democratic Party needed to move away from the left and towards the center or become a minority party.

      In the 2020 election – the choice of Biden PRETENDED to do exactly that – enough so as to narrowly win the election.

      Harris is trying to win as Obama did, based on the historic nature that her presidency would be – a black woman president.
      Her problems is that the Obama thing did not work all that well. That Obama won because of a fortuitous financial crisis,
      and that she is essentially the incumbent – and gets the blame for the mess we have now – the reverse of 2008.

      Regardless, – If by hook or crook Harris wins – republican losses of neocons will continue. Republican gains of blue collar workers – minorities will continue. and Democrats will have to reorganize moving to the center.
      If Harris loses – that process is likely to occur faster.

      The current realignment is by far the largest in my lifetime. But political realignments happen historically.

    5. oldman,

      The reality is that both parties have moved towards economic populism. There is no longer a party that supports free market, economic liberalism, which was a a staple of the Dole/Bush-era GOP.

      Just look at the new lingo — (i.e., “globalism”), as if that was a bad thing. I don’t mind buying my produce from abroad, if it means a save money on my grocery bill. But because your oranges come from… Australia, all of the sudden its BAD (in the eyes of the MAGA crowd).

      1. But because your oranges come from… Australia, all of the sudden its BAD (in the eyes of the MAGA crowd).

        And if your iPhone is made in Communist China that has ongoing genocide, the equivalent of slave labor, and little to no freedoms and human rights… suddenly communism, genocide, and slave labor is “nothing to see here, this is great” with the police state fascist Democrat Marxist Useful Idiots.

        There, added the part that you forgot to mention. And where do we shop where imported domestic oranges from Australia are less expensive than oranges grown here in the USA.

        Have both parties started competing on populist appeals? Yep.

      2. What does “Globalism” mean – in the 20th century it meant the movement toward global free markets.
        Something that Republicans strongly supported. PBS/BBC did an excellent documentary – “The commanding heights: The battle for the world economy” that addresses the rise of globalism as a free market economic force.

        But as the left always does – they coopt things and transform them.

        21st century Globalism is NOT about global free markets – it is about the global management of the world – the economy, speech, our rights by wealthy elites. That is NOT the globalism of republicans in the 20th century.

        I would separately note that while Trump talks like a protectionist – ultimately he behaves more like a free trader.

        Most of Trump’s tarrifs are driven by foreign policy more than protectionism.

        China under Xi has changed tracks from growing economic and political freedom that brought 1.6B people from the bottom of the third world to the bottom of the first world, to a fascist dictatorship.

        As economic policy Trump’s chinese tarrifs are a mistake. As foreign policy to thwart the rise of a fascist power – they are wise.

        Do you oppose the use of Sanctions and Tarrifs against Iran ? Against Russia ?

        With respect to Mexico and Canada. Trump used the threat of tarrifs to Take NAFTA – which was actually a good deal, and to make it a tiny bit better. I do not like using Tarrifs as a club, but the result was NOT restrictions on free trade – but MORE free trade.

        I would note the ONLY trump Trade policy that BidenHarris removed – were the sanctions against Iran.

  7. Get rid of the moderators and go to several Oxford style debates that each focuses on a limited number of issues. The format might be: opening argument – 5 minutes each, interchange between debaters – 10 minutes, closing statement – 2 minutes each. This format would produce some meaningful insight into the issues and the candidates positions that a 2 minute response cannot. In 90 minutes 3 issues could be covered. If there were three debates a total of 9 issues would be covered with substantially more “meat on the bone” than 2 minute sound bites. The interchange guarantees that a debater cannot dodge the question as Harris did with “Are you better off today than 4 years ago”.

    2. Olesmithy,
      That is a good idea. And we would never see it happen. If it were, ABC would not have been able to rig the debate like they did for Harris and against Trump.

      1. That sound a lot like the first televised Kennedy vs Nixon debate. The one that Nixon won, but for the fact that Kennedy looked better. Looked better…

        What was it Churchill said; “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

    5. Not sure what I would call that but it was not a debate. Hit job comes to mind, dog pile, blanket job?!

  8. “ The Justice Department’s released survey found that, under the Biden administration, there has been a significant increase in crime. Violent crime was up 37 percent from 2020 to 2023,”

    The Biden administration didn’t start until Jan 20, 2021. Biden was not in office in 2020. Trump was still president in throughout 2020. Turley is being disingenuous.

    1. The Biden administration didn’t start until Jan 20, 2021. Turley is being disingenuous.

      The timeline the comparison starts with is what crime was during 2020, the last year of Trump’s presidency. A year BTW, during which the Democrats’ street thugs in Antifa and Black Liars & Marxists were running wild with over 540 riots as they pillaged, burned, looted, assaulted, and murdered their way across America. Violence that totaled more than Hurricane Katrina (which Bush is blamed for), thousands of police officers wounded, many in attempted murders i.e. Molotov Cocktails by Democrat street thugs.

      2020: Months of “mostly peaceful” [trademark: news media] Democrat political violence that Democrat states like Washington allowed to go on i.e. the CHAZ/CHOP armed occupation of city blocks for several months using Evil Assault Weapons. And Border Czar Harris endorsed and promoted with “They will not stop, nor should they stop”. And Biden endorsed and promoted by calling them “a courageous group of Americans”.

      Want to tell us that the Democrat street thug crime wave/insurrection being allowed and encouraged by Democrats didn’t affect 2020 crime rates, George?

      Don’t keep telling us we must not believe our lying eyes:

      “Violent crime was up 37 percent FROM 2020 to 2023″

      If they’d wanted the starting point for the comparison to be 2019 or 2021, that would be the year they chose to specify in that DoJ survey release.

      So once again George, it is YOU that is attempting – and failing – to be disingenuous. Which is very common for you to engage in while posting your litany of lies.

      1. You’re confirming that crime was bad when Trump was in office. Crime decreased during Biden’s term.

        3. You really don’t know how to read do you? What was written is clear. What you’re saying is a lie.

        4. You’re confirming that crime was bad when Trump was in office. Crime decreased during Biden’s term.

          No George: that’s me once again calling you out as a despicable liar and pathetic Democrat apparatchik who tries and fails to be disingenuous.

        5. ” Crime decreased during Biden’s term.”

          False. The rate of increase slowed Not the same.

          I would note that there are also regional differences.

          There was NO increase from 2022-2023 – there might have even bin a small decrease.
          But that Decrease is ENTIRELY in Rad states.

          Crime continues to rise in the northeast.
          It continues to rise in the west.

          While it has declined in the south and the midwest.

          Crime has declined in rural and suburban areas. It continues to increase in cities.

          Overall neither Biden nor Trump are responsible for these increases – Crime rates are the consequence of state and local policies NOT federal policies.

          There are 1M law enforcement people in the US. there are 10,000 in the FBI – the FBI while too large has a negligable impact on crime.
          The Federal govenrment has a negligable impact on Crime.

          But State AG’s State Government, and Local DA’s and their policies have a dramatic impact on crime.

          Harris was in the first class of Sorros Prosecutors that are responsible for the policies that resulted in crime trends negatively reversing.

          This is NOT a Biden issue – it is a huge HARRIS issue – though democrats as a whole are responsible.

          I would further note that Bad democratic policies have thwarted efforts to impliment GOOD policies that democrats would have supported.

          There ARE means of effectively dealing with Crime – besides incarceration.

          There are reasons to use alternatives to cash bail.
          There are reasons to release people early and reasons to reduce sentences, there are reasons to look at alternatives to traditional probation and parole.

          But these approaches that actually work – are expensive, and are not miracle cures. Carte blanche elimination of bail is a disasterously bad idea. Carte Blanche early release is a disasterously bad idea. The approaches that are effective at reducing crime and recidivism are NOT universally effective – they only work about 1/3 of the time. They are Not suitable for the one size fits all approach that Democrats have taken that has spiked Crime.

      2. “Screaming Lil Bow Wow,” what were your MOS, Awards, Campaign, and Theater or is yours stolen valor “Tampon Tim” style?

        2. Screaming Lil Bow Wow,” what were your MOS, Awards, Campaign, and Theater

          Is that you yet again, Command Sergeant Major Tampon Tim Walz, who involuntarily won a Stolen Valor Award?

          Or just an Anonymous apparatchik with words and without an MOS, Awards, Campaign, and Theater decorations of your own to post while making inferences?

          An Anonymous coward that knows the words, with nothing of their own? Everybody calling out Walz stolen valor is doing the same, Anonymous coward full of insinuations?

          Walz’s former military commander, retired Colonel John Kolb, blasts VP hopeful as stolen valor
          https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3118762/walz-former-military-commander-blasts-vp-hopeful/

    2. The Blue cities no longer report their criminal activity to the FBI. The cases reported are from surveys of the population from what I understand. Not reporting and the lefts Soros style decriminalization skews the statistics. Open your eyes, not too hard to see what Biden and Harris have done to our nation.

      1. Crime is not really a federal issue. Whether the president is Trump or Biden – but it is a STate/local issue.

        It is over a decade of Democrat policies in Blue states and cities that have lead to a nationwide increase in crime that is almost entirely in blue cities and there immediate surrounds.

        And there is an excellent reason that Trump is targeting Harris.
        Harris likes to cite her bonafides as a prosecutor.

        She is a member of the first class of Sorros funded prosecutors that are responsible for the currnet rising crime mess.

        1. John, crime is not a federal issue, but the federal government’s actions impact the crime level.

    4. George – that does not change the FACT that Crime is UP since 2020.

      Each Part can try to frame answers to questions in a way that suit their politics – but “A is A” reality is.
      Crime has actually been rising since before 2020.

      Crime is fundimentally a state and local issue. And the Rise in crime starts before 2020 and it starts and is almost entirely contained in deep blue cities. While people in the euburbs are deeply concerned about rising crime – mostly it is not effecting them – except to the extent they commute into cities. If anything crime in rural areas continues to decline.

      THe Crime attack on Democrats is particularly effective with respect to Harris – because prior to winning the CA Senate seat – she was the CA AG and the SF DA.

      As I noted before mostly Crime is not a federal issue – but it absolutely is a STATE issue and a City issue.

      Trump and Republicans are particularly focused on Crime – because it is a Harris specific achillies heel.

      She is one of the early class of Sorros prosecutors that are responsible for rising crime in cities.

    5. Lets presume (incorrectly that there was a huge spike in crime in 2020 – that is was all Trump’s fault, and that there was no nicrease since then.

      It is still true that Crime REMAINS high through the Biden administration.

      Crime was declining for 35 years. That Trend started to reverse with the Furgesson riots, with the Trevon Martin nonsense.
      With the Rise of Sorros DA’s – With the attacks on policing.

      Most of us beleive those are Causes – but lets say they are not.

      SOMETHING caused the long term trend of declining crime to reverse itself.

      Democrats are in denial – claiming that crime is actually down, using cherry picked statistics that SOME crime is down in SOME places.

      Overal crime is up. More importantly it is up in the very places Democrats have taken over and changed policies.

      It is reasonable for people to beleive the causes are the bad policies that people like Harris followed as DA and AG.

      If you disagree – please provide an alternate explanation.

      Why is the recent failure of law enforcement confined to deep blue cities and the immediately adjacent suburbs and urban areas.

      1. “ Democrats are in denial – claiming that crime is actually down, using cherry picked statistics that SOME crime is down in SOME places.

        Overal crime is up.”

        The data does not show your claim to be true. Overall crime is down. Republicans are the ones in denial.

        The riots and violence that occurred on Trump’s watch showed as an increase. That’s just a basic fact. Since Biden came to office riots and similar occurrences did not. Crime did decrease.

        1. No, it is not a fact. It’s the exact opposite of a fact. Crime has greatly increased on Biden’s watch.

          And the crime surge in 2020 under Trump had nothing to do with him, it was entirely the doing of the Democrat Party and with Kamala Harris’s full support — she even raised money to bail out the violent insurrectionists.

  9. All part of the dumbing-down of America by its enemies, internal and external.
    Kind of reminds me of the 80s and 90s, when every kid got a trophy and everyone was a winner.
    No more merit, achievement, valor, virtue, accomplishment, honesty, or inspiration (unless it supports the agenda).
    Now it is the commoner, the masses, mob rule.
    MSM Media seeks to appeal to them, because they are greater in number.

  10. Governor DeSantis
    As they have now acted in Florida, have the FL AG arrest Kamala Harris for her inciting violence with her hate speech, lies and disinformation that are intentionally used against the opposition party. This is the second time in a few months, they know what they are doing. Stop them!

    1. Everything she has said is protected by the first amendment.

      Even if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be under Florida’s jurisdiction.

  11. Fact checker jokes.

    A Democrat judge walks out of his chambers laughing his head off. A colleague approaches him and asks why he is laughing. “I just heard the funniest joke in the world!” “Well, go ahead, tell me!” says the other judge. “I can’t – I just gave someone ten years for it!”

  12. The political establishment exhibits the soft bigotry of low expectation for the low information voter. This as a result of the fact that the likes of an Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Robert Menendez, and others of their ilk present and past are repeatedly ‘rehired.’ Their conclusion is that the electorate, as a whole, are disinterested, braindead, or both, and bereft of facts. Syria and Iraq were out of my mouth before Harris had finished her comment, but out of how many others? The facts of recent attacks on our bases in those areas, and the casualties experienced and reported, and the naval attack groups which have been deployed in these theatres of war are well reported. That the VP would not know that force status, or know it and intentionally deny it for political gain, are both intolerable and reprehensible, as is she. Unfortunately, the point spread between the candidates does not reflect this. Acquaintances of mine in the Chicago area of Illinois, no less, have been die hard ‘No Trumpers’ since he came down the escalator, It has nothing to do with policy, or the wretched wreck of an administration which has brought us to this moment. It has to do with their perception of the man which dictates their vote. These two usefull idiots would suffer the current fools in D.C., and more of the past four years or worse, than see HIM as POTUS. The late Groucho Marx might have opined…”I could never respect a constituency which would raise ME to high office. They don’t, and ‘the fault dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
    Such is the state of the nation.

  13. “While Trump can legitimately object to a three-against-one debate format, Harris’s victory was clearly not dependent on bad calls by the refs.” Doc, “no calls” against only one ‘side’ are worse than bad calls against one. It’s also why legacy media has lost most of it’s credibility and audiences (not that it cares.)

    1. * Aren’t lies part of speech and press? Freedom to lie? Freedom to make you want snake oil? Send us your money?

      1. Absolutely. They’ve programmed people so well people are now voting for rape and murder of their daughters. Another man after his son by an illegal alien steps forward to apologize for his son being in the way of the car. People are voting yes, for children’s genitals removal and child porn in libraries. All this so no one will think they’re racist bigots.

  14. Jonathan Turley presumably agrees with Trump that ABC should have their license taken away & “They should fire everybody at ABC Fake News, whose two lightweight ‘anchors’ have brought disgrace onto the company!”

    Professor Turley also undoubedly believes Trump is right that “We won the debate according to every poll — every single poll. Every Poll has us WINNING, in one case, 92 to 8.”

    It tells us everything we need to know that when Bobby Kennedy Jr. endorsed Trump, Turley rushed to call it a wake-up call for the Democratic party, yet when Dick Cheney, Judge Luttig, & numerous members of Reagan, Bush & Trump’s White House staff endorsed Harris, we only heard crickets.

    1. YAWN

      Bobby Kennedy has voters. His endorsement matters.

      The idiots you mentioned, do not. Get a grip, you’re embarrassing yourself.

      1. “Bobby Kennedy has voters. His endorsement matters.” Clearly doesn’t matter that Bobby Kennedy Jr. has never been elected to any district or legislative body in the US.

        Jonathan Turley undoubtedly agrees with you that Dick Cheney, Judge Luttig, & the Reagan, Bush, Trump White House advisors & staff members are idiots.

        3. I find it absolutely hillarious that because the left absolutely despises Trump they would get into bed with the Chenney’s – who have been nearly the mortal enemies of the left for decades.

          No the entire Reagan Bush white house has not endorsed Harris – a few people – mostly neocons have.
          There are plenty of democrats saying bad things about Harris too – starting with the 92% of her staff – a record, that got fired or left during her tenure as VP – though she had a reputation as a bad boss who blames subordinates for her own failures before she was VP.
          That would be forgiveable if she was a good VP.

          At the same Time – despite his signature “your fired” line from the apprentice – Trump has a reputation as a good boss to work for.
          Every member of the WH staff forced to testify at Bragg’s farce testified to how great working for Trump was – even the ones who were fired.

          Regardless we are in the midst of a massive political re-alignment.

          There are republicans moving to the democratic party and democrats moving to the republican party.

          The Obama, Hillary, Biden, Harris Democratic party has rejected values that were core to democrats for most of my life in order to court neocon’s while Republicans starting before Trump have been actively and successfully courting the working class – including minorities.

          This is all in progress – most neocons have not left the GOP yet, while the GOP is making serious inroads among minorities and the working class – those groups are still mostly democrats – though with each year that shifts a few points to the GOP.

          While this does not make the GOP into the perfect party for libertarians and disaffected liberals. it is a substantial improvement.

          The majority of republicans that you say are supporting Trump are little more than a reflection of that political realignment.

          I would note that there are also many republicans – like Bill Barr who repeatedly chastise Trump and tell anyone who will listen that Trump is his own worst enemy. Who STILL endorse and support Trump.

          There are 3 major reasons to vote against Trump.

          First – despite almost 200 years of universal failure – often coupled with genocide, murder and copious bloodshed, you beleive that Socialism works. Trump has made it 100% clear – he is vigorously anti-socialist.

          Next, your view of the role of the US in the world is the opposite of that of Washington, or Eisenhower, and inclined towards that of Cheney, or Nuland, or Hillary Clinton or John Boulton, or much of the national security aparatus of the past 40 years.
          These views were plausible during the cold war – when there was an ideological fight for the world. It is very difficult to support today.
          If this is your world view – I would suggest reading an oldie but a goodie – “The Ugly American” this classic in a work of fiction examines the two different ways that the US sees itself in relation to the world. Spoiler alert, in a book 70 years old, and in all of history – both before and since, the influence that the US govenrment and foreign policy has had on the world has on net been significantly negative. Conversely the impact of the american People on the world has been almost entirely positive.

          The last reason that you should vote against Trump is that you value style over substance. That as Salena Zito famously observed – you take Trump litterally, but not seriously while his supporters take him seriously but not literally.

          There are many republicans that hold one or more of those views. Many of them are still in the GOP and still going to vote for Trump – people like Lindsey Graham. Regardless they are a reflection of a Republican party of the past. Whether they stay or leave, whether they support Trump or do not, they are not the future of the GOP, and they are increasingly not an important force within the GOP.
          Many of them – such as the Cheney’s are bad people. But most of them are good people who beleive things that are wrong.

          Some of this – particularly that of the role of the US in the world, is ultimately inevitably going against them – whether Trump wins or loses.

          The real message of the Ukraine war is how incredibly weak Russia is. The idiots who claim that Russia must be stopped In Ukeaine or they will march through Europe are ignorant of the reality of this war. Should we help Ukraine – certainly – We screwed up and are one of the causes of this war. If you break it you must pay for it.
          At the same time – we should be looking for a peace deal – and should have since this started almost 3 years ago.
          Russia is dying – Do you really think that Russia could take on NATO ? Half of NATO ? 1/4 of NATO even without US support ?
          Russia is no longer a superpower they are a dying regiional power whose relevance is that they posess half the worlds nukes.

          The Biden/Harris administration were looking for the historic accomplishment of defeating Russia – but russias demise is inevitable.
          Speeding it forward at the expense of p[otentially millions of casualties and increasing the risk of nuclear war is NOT wise foreign policy.

          China is more important to US interests by far than Russia (or Europe).

          These shifts are happening inevitably – with or without Trump.

          Trump did not make the GOP what it is today – he just saw the train coming and set himself up to get the credit for the changes.

          Trump did not create MAGA – MAGA picked Trump.

    2. “yet when Dick Cheney, Judge Luttig, & numerous members of Reagan, Bush & Trump’s White House staff endorsed Harris, we only heard crickets.”

      You left out Putin and Ali Khamenei…

    3. Jonathan Turley presumably agrees with Trump that ABC should have their license taken away

      Presumably, you’re an Anonymous Harris/Moderator desperately channeling, attempting to speak on behalf of Professor Turley. Hoping we believe Professor Turley is incapable of writing what he does and doesn’t agree with.

      And therefore, Professor Turley nominated you to come here and speak Anonymously to assure us he agrees with Trump.

      A rational American would presume the exact opposite.

      Another fail…

    4. It does tell us what we need to know. Neocons – the proponents of the US as the policeman of the world. Those who have not seen any war they are not willing to start or enter – are opposed to Trump.

      While proponents of rational foreign policy that seeks to avert war through strength and by avoiding stupid policies and unnecescary provocations are flocking to Trump.

      “How did the debate go ?”

      There is no question that on the surface Trump lost.
      This was not the same as the June Biden debate where Biden took himself out of the running.

      There is a massive debate over whether ABC conspired to tilt the playing field
      While the growing evidence is pretty damning.
      In the end it does not matter if it was a conspiracy or just left wing nut journalists acting independently and corruptly on their own.

      Trump is cherry picking polls – that does not mean those polls are not real.

      Harris accomplished the goal of not being obliterated by Trump. But she failed to persuade anything that she has policies – much less that they would be beneficial.

      Trump can say anything – we do not care what he says – voters KNOW trump – we have 4 years to weigh him by – he gets the benefits and harms of those 4 years.

      Harris wants to run as if Trump is the incumbent – while at the same time not distancing herself from Biden and his policies as well as her own past.

      But that strategy is not working.

      She did NOT at the debate demonstrate that she can think on her feet.
      She did NOT demonstrate that she is capable of making good decisions with limited information in a crisis.
      She did NOT demonstrate that even outside of a crisis that she has good policies.

      She offers nice sounding platitudes but no substance.

      And people want substance.

      It appears to be both true that Harris won the debate AND that her post debate polling is dropping.

      She won the debate on paper – with the help of the refs.

      But she did not do what she needed to do to convince on the fence voters.
      And fact she left them beleiving they will have to wait until after the inauguration to find out what she will do.
      Most independents are not buying a pig in a poke.

    5. Trump went into the debate HOPING to know Harris out of the race – as he did with Biden in June.
      That did not happen.

      Harris went into the debate hoping to avoid a debacle that knocked her out of the race.
      She succeeded.

      But Voters did not need the debate, Do not need to hear from Trump. They know Trump. They KNOW what they would get with him.
      He is an open book. There is almost nothing he can say in a debate that is going to matter – not because he is articulate or because he is not.
      But because he is a known quantity.
      Even far left wing nuts such as yourself who THINK you know trump and are hilariously wrong – are not going to change your views of Trump from any debate.

      But voters do NOT know Harris – yet. That does not mean she has no history – just that many – and particularly undecided voters know very little of her history and very little of either her past or present policies.

      At this debate Harris needed to connect with those voters – Trump does not, he is already defined.
      She needed to convince them that her policies – whatever they are would work – and not just with platitudes and vague promises and claims.

      As an example almost no one beleives that Harris will actually ban fracking if elected. Trump says this constantly – and it is false.

      The real question to voters is whether Harris will have policies that ACTUALLY lower the cost of gas and other things
      ir whether they will stay the same or rise.

      When Trump says Harris will ban fracking – what everyone CORRECTLY hears is that under Harris gas and other prices will go up.

      Trump makes many many many statements that are not LITERALLY true, but none the less speak truth to voters.

      In some cases – Trump rope a dopes the media.

      The “There eating Cats” things is brilliant. It is irrefutable – it is near impossible to prove a negative.

      It is getting JD Vance LOTS of air time on the MSM – who keeps inviting him on in hopes of clobering him on the “Their eating Cats” thing.

      It is highly unlikely that there is a major problem with hatian immigrants eating cats. Though it is almost certain that there is some evidence of it rarely occuring.

      Regardless, Vance has claims by constitutents that are suffieicient for him to talk about the issue and sufficient that he need not back down.
      While at the same time he gets to pound relentlessly on the MSM on all the other negative impacts of unlimited immigration that Harris/Biden are responsible for.

      Is it litterally true that there is a large problem with immigrants eating cats – probably not. Just as Harris will not ban Fracking.

      Is it True that the Biden administration and specifically Harris has inflicted untold harm on our communities and that the media prior to the “Their eating cats” story refuses to cover that ? Absolutely.

      As Salena Zito said 8 years ago.

      Trump’s supporters take him seriously not litterally. Trumps detractors take him litterally but not seriously.

      Many hear are demanding an Oxford style debate. The think that Trump lost the debate because the moderators were biased.
      Or Harris had a blue took ear bud, or she was fed the questions.

      But the fact is this debate went much like many many other Trump debates.
      Trump lost the debate as a matter of the normal way in which we score debates.
      But in terms of impacting undecided Voters – Trump won.
      Many of the very same undecided voters who will say that Trump lost the debate – are either now voting for Trump or not voting for Harris.

      What is the purpose of the debate ?
      It is part of the process of winning the election.
      And if that is the measure – Trump won 92:8 ? probably not. 60:40 probably. 70:30 possibly.

      For days since we have been debating the bias of ABC – and not in a good way for ABC.
      Harris botched a one on one interview shortly after.
      Worse still – Harris constantly gives the same canned non-answers to questions.

      Trump’s policies are always the same. He does NOT have a killer stump speech. He delivers nothing like Reagan’s “a time for choosing”.
      But he demonstrates over and over everyday that he knows what he is talking about and he does not need a script.

      While Harris demonstrates at every oportunity – including the debate that with extensive rehersal she can deliver an emotionally appealing speech – devoid of substance.

      That is NOT what is needed to win.

      1. It is highly unlikely that there is a major problem with hatian immigrants eating cats. Though it is almost certain that there is some evidence of it rarely occuring.

        There is no evidence of it ever occurring at all. The only known case of anyone eating a pet cat was not an immigrant at all, let alone Haitian, and it wasn’t in Springfield.

        There is ONE report of Haitians eating geese; not stolen geese, just geese. Why that should be an issue is beyond me. Geese are food.

        Now people are bringing up Haitians in New York slaughtering chickens. So what? How is that different from KFC? If the objection is that they’re doing it for religious purposes then it’s pure bigotry, and it’s contrary to the constitution which protects their right to do so.

  15. In Other News: “33 week old fetus claims to be death row inmate to avoid
    being aborted.”

    An extremely precocious human fetus, in an attempt to recruit support among liberals to advocate sparing his life, claimed to actually be an inmate on death row facing execution for a robbery-homicide.

    The unnamed fetus said he hoped by saying he was a violent criminal instead of a fetus, democrats and liberals will take notice and hold a candlelight vigil to spare his life. He cooed.”Once I convince them I am a murderer and not a child, they’ll demand that I am a human being and deserve to live.”

    His twin brother followed suit but tried a slightly different approach, claiming to be a mink so that animal rights groups will insist he be saved. “I only wish they would fight for my right to live as much as they fight and protest for ferrets, mink, chickens and even bees to be spared. If I can convince them that my life is worth at least that of a lab rat, I might actually make it to my first birthday.”

  16. “In 2020, there were an estimated 1,277,696 violent crimes. When compared with the estimates from 2019, the estimated number of robbery offenses fell 9.3 percent and the estimated volume of rape (revised definition) offenses decreased 12.0 percent. The estimated number of aggravated assault offenses rose 12.1 percent, and the volume of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses increased 29.4 percent.
    Nationwide, there were an estimated 6,452,038 property crimes. The estimated numbers for two of the three property crimes showed declines when compared with the previous year’s estimates. Burglaries dropped 7.4 percent, larceny-thefts decreased 10.6 percent, while motor vehicle thefts rose 11.8 percent.
    Collectively, victims of property crimes (excluding arson) suffered losses estimated at $17.5 billion in 2020.
    The FBI estimated law enforcement agencies nationwide made 7.6 million arrests, (excluding those for traffic violations) in 2020.
    The arrest rate for violent crime was 147.9 per 100,000 inhabitants, and the arrest rate for property crime was 267.3 per 100,000 inhabitants.
    By violent crime offense, the arrest rate for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was 3.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; rape (aggregate total using the revised and legacy definition), 6.3; robbery, 21.0; and aggravated assault, 116.8 per 100,000 inhabitants.
    Of the property crime offenses, the arrest rate for burglary was 45.7 per 100,000 inhabitants; larceny-theft, 193.1; and motor vehicle theft, 25.5. The arrest rate for arson was 3.0 per 100,000 inhabitants.
    In 2020, 13,377 law enforcement agencies reported their staffing levels to the FBI. These agencies reported that, as of October 31, 2020, they collectively employed 696,644 sworn officers and 309,135 civilians—a rate of 3.4 employees per 1,000 inhabitants.”

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-crime-statistics

      1. yeah, I did. It says that OVERALL CRIME in 2020 (Trump’s last year in office) was down (murders were up). This is cited in other reports.
        Too bad george suffers from reading comprehension and context.

        1. Only because property crime has been trending down since the 90’s. Every other crime statistic increased. Overall it only decreased slightly from higher numbers in 2019. Trump still had higher crime during his watch.

          Rapes, violent crime, robbery increased under Trump.

    2. From the FBI reports…

      A comparison of data from agencies that voluntarily submitted at least two or more common months of data for January through March 2023 and 2024…

      The number of incidents will be publicly released when 80 percent participation levels are met.

      Bwahahahahahahahaha

      Poor Svelaz

    3. I wonder why george had to go back to 2021 to try to make his false point, since 2022 and 2023 both showed increases in crime.
      Especially 2023, returning to pre-pandemic levels as reported.

      1. Because Walgreens, Walmart, and various grocery stores closed their doors in many Blue State cities. There wasn’t anymore to steal so by the Marxists mantra crime went down!

  17. “ The FBI’s crime statistics estimates for 2022 show that national violent crime decreased an estimated 1.7% in 2022 compared to 2021 estimates:

    Murder and non-negligent manslaughter recorded a 2022 estimated nationwide decrease of 6.1% compared to the previous year.
    In 2022, the estimated number of offenses in the revised rape category saw an estimated 5.4% decrease.
    Aggravated assault in 2022 decreased an estimated 1.1% in 2022.
    Robbery showed an estimated increase of 1.3% nationally.”

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2022-crime-in-the-nation-statistics

    2. From the FBI reports…

      A comparison of data from agencies that voluntarily submitted at least two or more common months of data for January through March 2023 and 2024…

      The number of incidents will be publicly released when 80 percent participation levels are met.

      Bwahahahahahahahaha

      Reality sux

  18. “ The Quarterly Uniform Crime Report (Q1), January-March, 2024, provides a preliminary look at crime trends for January through March 2024 compared to January through March 2023. A comparison of data from agencies that voluntarily submitted at least two or more common months of data for January through March 2023 and 2024 indicates reported violent crime decreased by 15.2 percent. Murder decreased by 26.4 percent, rape decreased by 25.7 percent, robbery decreased by 17.8 percent, and aggravated assault decreased by 12.5 percent. Reported property crime also decreased by 15.1 percent.”

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2024-quarterly-crime-report-and-use-of-force-data-update

    “ stranger violence is up 61 percent.”

    Stranger violence? Is that even a thing?

    1. From the FBI reports…

      A comparison of data from agencies that voluntarily submitted at least two or more common months of data for January through March 2023 and 2024…

      The number of incidents will be publicly released when 80 percent participation levels are met.

      Bwahahahahahahahaha

      Poor Svelaz. His 5 minute google search let him down again.

      1. Of course your reading comprehension rears its ugly head once again. It’s not saying what you think it says.

        Crime is showing decreases. Turley is including data from 2020 which is Trump’s last year in office. That year crime shows increases. It didn’t happen under Biden’s watch.

          1. Your link confirms violent crime increased in 2020 in all categories. But overall it decreased from 2019 when Trump was still president.

            It decreased slightly only because property crime has been decreasing since the 90’s.

              1. Nope.

                The Quarterly Uniform Crime Report (Q1), January-March, 2024, provides a preliminary look at crime trends for January through March 2024 compared to January through March 2023. A comparison of data from agencies that voluntarily submitted at least two or more common months of data for January through March 2023 and 2024 indicates reported violent crime decreased by 15.2 percent. Murder decreased by 26.4 percent, rape decreased by 25.7 percent, robbery decreased by 17.8 percent, and aggravated assault decreased by 12.5 percent. Reported property crime also decreased by 15.1 percent.

                1. George has a reading comprehension and context problem. Like Kamala, he declines to respond when someone points out that OVERALL CRIME WAS DOWN in 2020 (Trump’s last year) and someone else pointed out that the five largest metropolitan areas did not submit information. Get some context,george.

        4. “agencies that voluntarily submitted at least two or more common months of data ”

          “when 80 percent participation levels are met.”

          Reality is so inconvenient for poor Svelaz.

  19. Jonathan: BREAKING NEWS: Yesterday DJT was playing golf at his resort in West Palm Beach when there was another apparent assassination attempt. Question: What was DJT doing playing golf when he should have been out on the campaign trail? Especially after his disastrous debate performance and many polls showing DJT now trails Harris. It’s a head scratcher.

    I mention this because Harris is spending every day–traveling across the country and holding massive rallies. DJT is not doing that. He is holding press conferences like the one in RPV on Friday. Or he he is calling in to right-wing media like Newsmax, Fox and Friends or other right-wing podcasts. With the election this tight in some swing states you would think he would be vigorously campaigning there. He’s not. He’s playing golf!

    Part of the problem is that DJT is hurting for campaign money. He doesn’t have a large war chest like that of Harris. So he has to pick and choose when and where to hold an event. DJT has even refused to hold a second debate with Harris where he could get free time to speak to millions of voters. He won’t even do that!

    In my opinion, if DJT was not facing down the barrel of so many criminal prosecutions I don’t think he would be running again this year. He’s old and looks it. He knows his only chance of avoiding jail time is to get back into the Oval Office. His motivation is strictly personal. He couldn’t care less about actually carrying out the duties as President to help the American people. The irony is that if DJT were doing job No. 1 he would have been out on the campaign trail on Sunday and likely would have avoided another apparent assassination attempt. Instead, he was playing golf where a shooter could hide in the bushes!

    1. REAKING NEWS: Yesterday DJT was playing golf at his resort in West Palm Beach when there was another apparent assassination attempt. Question: What was DJT doing playing golf when he should have been out on the campaign trail?

      Not breaking news – you’ve had almost 24 hours since the story broke to figure out what you would write as your response. According to Dennis, it was just an APPARENT assassination attempt. And besides, the rhetoric of Democrats labeling Trump as the worst human in the world would never inspire anyone to murder Trump to save the country.

      Dennis also wants us to believe the most prominent thing in his mind after a second assassination attempt in less than two months is “DJT is OBLIGATED to explain to Americans why he took time to play a game of golf.”

      Dennis displays the behavior of a seriously ill schizophrenic.

  20. I have removed a cat or two from the road, usually to the ground just beyond the curb. I have seen dead deer, dead dogs, dead possums, dead raccoons, dead armadillos, and more than a few small birds who have flown into or in front of a car or a truck. I have also seen a dead duck (and its bereaved mate) in the road, and I know somebody who killed a cow with his car. But in almost eighty years I have never seen a dead goose on the road, much less two in the same spot, and I come from a town with hundreds of geese by the lake-front and I live in a country with tens of thousands of water fowl. If you watch geese, you will notice that they stay in tight groups with one or two acting as look-outs, who will warn of any danger. If they do cross a street or a road (and they do), they do so in groups, and because the goose is a large bird, motorists can see them and stop. I have done that more than once. What I have never seen is a dead bird on the road that is as ‘whole’ as the two this good Samaritan is carrying away, although I have seen them hung at local markets.
    https://nypost.com/2024/09/14/us-news/why-ohio-man-in-viral-photo-was-holding-two-geese/
    So, do I believe the Haitians are eating pets and helping themselves to the local ducks and geese? I have no idea, but it is the mainstream media who support Harris and Walz who are obsessed with Trump’s comment, not Trump and Vance, and it is the mainstream media who have repeated the story ad nauseam, all the while refusing to investigate to see whether anyone reported geese stolen in Springfield (they have) or whether there have been any other complaints. But even if there have not been any, Vance was quite right to correct Bash, who was trying to get him to admit that he and Trump are racists. Indeed, so defensive is CNN that rigged panel today to ‘prove’ Bash was right and Vance wrong, even though it is clear that Vance was seeking, like Trump, to highlight the problems caused by dumping 20,000 immigrants (who are only ‘legal’ thanks to an executive order promulgated after they entered the country illegally) into an impoverished town of 58,000, causing problems that CNN and the rest of the mainstream media have studiously ignored, even though they were enunciated by local residents during a council meeting that is on line, during which one resident who had worked for the USAF noted that when the Air Force located fewer than 10,000 to Springfield thirty years ago, they did extensive studies to identify and mitigate the environmental and social impact of putting so many new-comers in such a small town.
    Not only should Harris and Biden be ashamed, so should the ‘journalists’ in the media who have not reported the impact of dumping 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants on communities like Springfield.

    1. An old guy,
      Well said.
      Are they eating local wildlife or even pets? No idea.
      As you point out, it is the impact of the influx of the immigrants on the local community that should be focused on. That is what happens when someone get a “good” idea without thinking it through. But that is the Biden admin for you. Just dump all these immigrants on some community without warning and walk away.

      1. Thank you. It is always reassuring to know that I am not just generating hot air.
        Yes, the impact of dumping millions of illegals is catastrophic socially, culturally, economically, and politically. Even legal immigration can disrupt a community, and if the infusion of immigrants is large enough, it transforms communities. This is clear if one reads American h istory. The impact of Italian and Slavic immigrants was massive, and the native populations of the era resisted and resented the newcomers. So was the northward migration of blacks from the South. Most recently, Germany and the EU have got social indigestion from trying to integrate Merkel’s 1.5 million illegals who crossed in 2015. She dumped a lot of them in the East, and she got the AfD (Alternativ fur Deutschland). She tried to dump them elsewhere, but places like Poland and Hungary resisted, causing fissures in the EU. The UK is also having problems with illegals, even though the numbers are much smaller, and Brexit can be explained in part by the fact (not the opinion) that some smaller towns were totally transformed by the legal immigration of non-British peoples, especially those from eastern and southern Europe.
        But there is yet to be an honest discussion of immigration in the UK or the EU, and to raise the question in the US elicits charges of racism. The refusal of Western elites to address a problem that is roiling their societies is just depressing. Their efforts to make it go away by blaming populism for a problem they created is simply evidence of intellectual and moral rot.
        I suspect Trump got carried away in order to make his point. He is not the most polished debater, and he was being goaded by Harris and interrupted and criticized by the “moderators.” In such a situation, even a seasoned debater could not be expected to do well. Vance did not do that much better against Bash, who interrupted him constantly and framed her questions as accusations and insinuations.
        Then there is Rufo’s video, which is not from Springfield, but does raise questions the mainstream media would rather avoid. Here is the link: https://christopherrufo.com/p/the-cat-eaters-of-ohio

        1. Thanks for the video. Many decades ago, a popular restaurant on Long Island closed because it served cats.

          If it happens in the mother country, it can happen here.

          Vietnamese restaurant that killed 300 cats a month to make soup closes (in Vietnam)

          https://nypost.com/2023/12/26/news/vietnamese-restaurant-that-killed-300-cats-a-month-to-make-soup-closes/

          In rural China, dogs are raised free run on the land for future meals.

          In my area, exotic ducks are captured for food in the park. Later, I saw Latinos shooting Iguanas with airguns for dinner.

          Some places of the world practice cannabilism.

          The truth of the reports is not satisfactorily confirmed, but one should not be surprised that it happens.

Comments are closed.