hotair--2020-10-14--Some bad news about the replication crisis in social science

Vox published an interesting story today about the replication crisis in science .
If you ’ re not familiar with this idea , it ’ s the fact that a significant percentage of all of the peer-reviewed social science that has been published in the past can not be replicated by other scientists , which is a pretty clear sign that the claims made in the original papers aren ’ t true .
How bad is the situation .
This bad : In an attempt to test just how rigorous scientific research is , some researchers have undertaken the task @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published in a whole range of fields .
And as more and more of those attempted replications have come back , the results have been striking — it is not uncommon to find that many , many published studies can not be replicated .
One 2015 attempt to reproduce 100 psychology studies was able to replicate only 39 of them .
A big international effort in 2018 to reproduce prominent studies found that 14 of the 28 replicated , and an attempt to replicate studies from top journals Nature and Science found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be reproduced .
So we ’ re not talking about a few bad papers we ’ re talking about half or more of all of the peer-reviewed papers being junk that can ’ t be replicated .
In some cases , these bogus papers can spawn a whole cottage industry within social science or psychology which later turns out to have been a waste of time for everyone involved .
In 2016 Vox published a story on this topic which included one particular example of this .
In 1998 , psychologists found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all have a finite mental store of energy for self-control and decision-making .
Resisting temptations , or making tough decisions , saps this energy over time… Over the years , the theory has been tested in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies , with countless stand-ins for the chocolate , radishes , and the quiz .
Scientists have shown how diminished willpower can affect our ability to hold on to a handgrip , sap our motivation to help another in need , and even negatively impact athletic performance .
This huge body of research has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , and its offshoot decision fatigue , become the basis for best-selling books , TED talks , and countless life hacks .
In an age where temptations and decisions pummel us at warp speed , it ’ s become an empowering concept .
If we know how the system works , we can game it : President Obama famously doesn ’ t pick out his suits , for fear that it might deplete some of his decision-making capabilities .
But the whole theory of ego depletion may be on the brink of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports on an upcoming study in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science that found in a test with more than 2,000 participants across more than 20 labs , “ a zero-effect for ego depletion : No sign that the human will works as it ’ s been described , or that these hundreds of studies amount to very much at all.
” So if you were wondering why Barack Obama ended up wearing that awful tan suit that one time , now you know .
It was probably the result of bad social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions were made as a result of this “ science.
” Another example of bad social science which doesn ’ t get mentioned by Vox but which has had a definite negative impact on the real world is implicit bias testing , which is the unspoken “ science ” which some groups have suggested should become mandatory for public officials and which has been discussed with regard to policing for years .
Today ’ s story at Vox focuses on Alvaro de Menard who is part of a DARPA project looking at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problem exists , we don ’ t seem to be making much progress toward improvement : A recent write-up by Alvaro de Menard , a participant in the Defense Advanced Research Project ’ s Agency ’ s ( DARPA ) replication markets project ( more on this below ) , makes the case for a more depressing view : The processes that lead to unreliable research findings are routine , well understood , predictable , and in principle pretty easy to avoid .
And yet , he argues , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of social science research… “ I frequently encounter the notion that after the replication crisis hit there was some sort of great improvement in the social sciences , that people wouldn ’ t even dream of publishing studies based on 23 undergraduates any more … In reality there has been no discernible improvement , ” he writes .
One of the things I found most interesting in this piece is that evidence suggests peer-reviewed papers that are bogus are just as likely to be cited by other scientists as those that can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if once the paper is granted peer-reviewed publication it is above suspicion .
And it turns out that kind of credentialing of science is probably making things worse .
Once something has a stamp of approval from some journal , it ’ s treated as serious even if it clearly shouldn ’ t be and winds up impacting other meta-studies of the topic .
Vox doesn ’ t get into this , but much of what it published today could also apply to the so-called “ grievance studies ” currently fashionable on college @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journals in 2018 , suggests that almost anything can be given the imprimatur of legitimacy in fields like feminist studies .
So long as you know the underlying concepts and some of the lingo , you can get published in these journals , even if your underlying text was borrowed from Mein Kampf .
And all of that nonsense is spilling out into the real world .

Vox published an interesting story today about the replication crisis in science. If you’re not familiar with this idea, it’s the fact that a significant percentage of all of the peer-reviewed social science that has been published in the past can not be replicated by other scientists, which is a pretty clear sign that the claims made in the original papers aren’t true. How bad is the situation. This bad:
In an attempt to test just how rigorous scientific research is, some researchers have undertaken the task of replicating research that’s been published in a whole range of fields. And as more and more of those attempted replications have come back, the results have been striking — it is not uncommon to find that many, many published studies cannot be replicated. One 2015 attempt to reproduce 100 psychology studies was able to replicate only 39 of them. A big international effort in 2018 to reproduce prominent studies found that 14 of the 28 replicated, and an attempt to replicate studies from top journals Nature and Science found that 13 of the 21 results looked at could be reproduced.
So we’re not talking about a few bad papers we’re talking about half or more of all of the peer-reviewed papers being junk that can’t be replicated. In some cases, these bogus papers can spawn a whole cottage industry within social science or psychology which later turns out to have been a waste of time for everyone involved. In 2016 Vox published a story on this topic which included one particular example of this.
In 1998, psychologists found evidence of a tantalizing theory: We all have a finite mental store of energy for self-control and decision-making. Resisting temptations, or making tough decisions, saps this energy over time… Over the years, the theory has been tested in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, with countless stand-ins for the chocolate, radishes, and the quiz. Scientists have shown how diminished willpower can affect our ability to hold on to a handgrip, sap our motivation to help another in need, and even negatively impact athletic performance. This huge body of research has helped ego depletion, as psychologists call it, and its offshoot decision fatigue, become the basis for best-selling books, TED talks, and countless life hacks. In an age where temptations and decisions pummel us at warp speed, it’s become an empowering concept. If we know how the system works, we can game it: President Obama famously doesn’t pick out his suits, for fear that it might deplete some of his decision-making capabilities. But the whole theory of ego depletion may be on the brink of collapse. Slate’s Daniel Engber reports on an upcoming study in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science that found in a test with more than 2,000 participants across more than 20 labs, “a zero-effect for ego depletion: No sign that the human will works as it’s been described, or that these hundreds of studies amount to very much at all.”
So if you were wondering why Barack Obama ended up wearing that awful tan suit that one time, now you know. It was probably the result of bad social science. Who knows what other terrible decisions were made as a result of this “science.”
Another example of bad social science which doesn’t get mentioned by Vox but which has had a definite negative impact on the real world is implicit bias testing, which is the unspoken “science” which some groups have suggested should become mandatory for public officials and which has been discussed with regard to policing for years.
Today’s story at Vox focuses on Alvaro de Menard who is part of a DARPA project looking at this problem. He says that despite knowing the problem exists, we don’t seem to be making much progress toward improvement:
A recent write-up by Alvaro de Menard, a participant in the Defense Advanced Research Project’s Agency’s (DARPA) replication markets project (more on this below), makes the case for a more depressing view: The processes that lead to unreliable research findings are routine, well understood, predictable, and in principle pretty easy to avoid. And yet, he argues, we’re still not improving the quality and rigor of social science research… “I frequently encounter the notion that after the replication crisis hit there was some sort of great improvement in the social sciences, that people wouldn’t even dream of publishing studies based on 23 undergraduates any more … In reality there has been no discernible improvement,” he writes.
One of the things I found most interesting in this piece is that evidence suggests peer-reviewed papers that are bogus are just as likely to be cited by other scientists as those that can be replicated. It’s almost as if once the paper is granted peer-reviewed publication it is above suspicion. And it turns out that kind of credentialing of science is probably making things worse. Once something has a stamp of approval from some journal, it’s treated as serious even if it clearly shouldn’t be and winds up impacting other meta-studies of the topic.
Vox doesn’t get into this, but much of what it published today could also apply to the so-called “grievance studies” currently fashionable on college campuses. The hoax perpetrated on several journals in 2018, suggests that almost anything can be given the imprimatur of legitimacy in fields like feminist studies. So long as you know the underlying concepts and some of the lingo, you can get published in these journals, even if your underlying text was borrowed from Mein Kampf. And all of that nonsense is spilling out into the real world.


hotair--2020-10-14--Morning Consult: Support for Barrett confirmation up 13 points in two weeks -- among <i>Democrats</i

Morning Consult: Support for Barrett confirmation up 13 points in two weeks -- among <i>Democrats</i>

And that was before the hearings started .
Granted , support among Democrats for confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court had almost nowhere to go but up , but today ’ s Morning Consult poll shows momentum building across the spectrum for her nomination .
Josh Jordan captures the graphic that shows the progress made since Donald Trump first announced her nomination : Ominously for the Senate Democrats attempting to block this , their own voters have moved toward positive the most on Barrett .
That ’ s mostly among the “ no opinion ” block , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and has fallen off since , too .
Barrett has also picked up ten points among independents , entirely from undecided voters , and is now +7 rather than -3 , as Jordan notes .
That momentum among non-Republicans is significant in another way .
Morning Consult looks at this data and compares it to Brett Kavanaugh ’ s polling at the same point in the process .
It ’ s similar enough , they report , to conclude that Democrats ’ feigned outrage over the supposed unconstitutionality of nominating and confirming a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t impressed many voters : The level of support for Barrett ’ s nomination , an increase of 11 points since President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26 , also compares favorably with public sentiment toward Justice Brett Kavanaugh prior to the first day of his confirmation hearings in September 2018 .
At that time , 37 percent of voters said the Senate should vote to confirm Kavanaugh to the court , compared with 29 percent who said it should vote to deny his nomination .
At this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Republicans and Democrats are voicing support for Barrett ’ s nomination than they did for Kavanaugh ’ s : 77 percent of GOP voters and 27 percent of Democratic voters said Barrett should be confirmed , compared to 67 percent and 15 percent , respectively , who said the same of Kavanaugh ahead of his hearings .
Turning to more recent trends , the latest poll provides another warning sign for Senate Democrats — process arguments about when the chamber should hold a vote on Barrett ’ s nomination have yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t swayed public opinion yet , it ’ s not going to work at all .
They had to hope that Barrett would stumble in the hearings to undermine that momentum , but so far she ’ s been nothing short of brilliant .
By the time she wraps up her hearing today , Senate Democrats will have nothing left but the process argument that ’ s already failing among their target voters .
If they obstruct at this point , the process argument may even backfire on them , especially among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still undecided on this question .

And that was before the hearings started. Granted, support among Democrats for confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court had almost nowhere to go but up, but today’s Morning Consult poll shows momentum building across the spectrum for her nomination. Josh Jordan captures the graphic that shows the progress made since Donald Trump first announced her nomination:
Morning Consult poll: Support to confirm Amy Coney Barrett continues to rise, going from +3 at the end of September to +17 today. Support from idependents has moved from -3 to +7 over the last two weeks. There is zero chance that ACB is not confirmed given these numbers. pic.twitter.com/E0PcQt50aE — Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) October 14, 2020
Ominously for the Senate Democrats attempting to block this, their own voters have moved toward positive the most on Barrett. That’s mostly among the “no opinion” block, but opposition among Democrats peaked at the announcement and has fallen off since, too. Barrett has also picked up ten points among independents, entirely from undecided voters, and is now +7 rather than -3, as Jordan notes.
That momentum among non-Republicans is significant in another way. Morning Consult looks at this data and compares it to Brett Kavanaugh’s polling at the same point in the process. It’s similar enough, they report, to conclude that Democrats’ feigned outrage over the supposed unconstitutionality of nominating and confirming a Supreme Court justice ahead of an election hasn’t impressed many voters:
The level of support for Barrett’s nomination, an increase of 11 points since President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26, also compares favorably with public sentiment toward Justice Brett Kavanaugh prior to the first day of his confirmation hearings in September 2018. At that time, 37 percent of voters said the Senate should vote to confirm Kavanaugh to the court, compared with 29 percent who said it should vote to deny his nomination. At this point in the process, a larger share of Republicans and Democrats are voicing support for Barrett’s nomination than they did for Kavanaugh’s: 77 percent of GOP voters and 27 percent of Democratic voters said Barrett should be confirmed, compared to 67 percent and 15 percent, respectively, who said the same of Kavanaugh ahead of his hearings. Turning to more recent trends, the latest poll provides another warning sign for Senate Democrats — process arguments about when the chamber should hold a vote on Barrett’s nomination have yet to sway public opinion.
If it hasn’t swayed public opinion yet, it’s not going to work at all. They had to hope that Barrett would stumble in the hearings to undermine that momentum, but so far she’s been nothing short of brilliant. By the time she wraps up her hearing today, Senate Democrats will have nothing left but the process argument that’s already failing among their target voters. If they obstruct at this point, the process argument may even backfire on them, especially among the 31% of independents who are still undecided on this question.


hotair--2020-10-14--Poll: Plurality says Pelosi is more to blame for stimulus stalemate than Trump

Via the Daily Caller , no wonder she was so pissed off on Wolf Blitzer ’ s show last night .
This suggests the big Democratic PR stunt to blame Trump for the slowing economy is a bust .
If the plan was to get independents pissed off at the president for not making a deal , that plan would seem to have a conspicuous flaw .
Pelosi ’ s trapped in a pincer movement .
On the right , she has Trump suddenly endorsing a stimulus deal in urgent terms , even trying to bid her up .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a deal and then accusing the White House of not having been generous enough when talks break down .
They can ’ t hope to match the size of Trump ’ s media megaphone and they also can ’ t necessarily rely on average voters to inform themselves of the particulars on why a deal hasn ’ t been reached thus far .
When Americans see Trump tweeting stuff like “ WE NEED A DEAL NOW , GO BIG !
” , they ’ ll logically conclude that the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi can try to counter that by insisting that it ’ s not the size of the stimulus that matters most , it ’ s how money is allocated among the component parts , but most voters don ’ t get into the weeds on policy .
She can also try to counterprogram Trump by insisting that Senate Republicans are the main obstacle , as they ’ re the only player opposed to a big package , but that ’ s hard for voters to grasp when the leader of the GOP is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Democrats will .
She ’ s also getting pressure from the left to bite the bullet and make a deal with Trump .
Progressives like Ro Khanna are less concerned with electoral politics than with the fact that fiscal relief really is needed urgently for working-class people who can ’ t find a job in the pandemic and also can ’ t make rent next month .
It is … unusual to find lefties begging the Democratic establishment to compromise with the right on grounds that half a loaf is better than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are right now .
More and more pieces lately are appearing in liberal publications urging Pelosi to make a deal with Trump before it ’ s too late .
Yesterday Eric Levitz at New York magazine gave her three reasons to do so : ( 1 ) The economic outlook is turning desperate , ( 2 ) Dems might benefit at the polls if Trump and Pelosi agree and then McConnell ’ s GOP caucus kills the package , and ( 3 ) it ’ s possible that Biden will win the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which will make a stimulus deal in January all but impossible .
It is entirely possible that Biden takes power with McConnell as captain of the Senate .
Even with a Republican in the White House facing down an election-year recession , McConnell ’ s far-right caucus has been loath to approve stimulus .
With a Democrat in the White House , there ’ s little doubt that they would block any relief package of a $ 1.8 trillion scope .
And this means that — if Democrats do not secure aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden will inherit a deepening recession , and no viable means of addressing it .
In other words : There is a significant chance Biden ’ s presidency will be over before it starts .
Greg Sargent made a similar point today , citing this quote in a new Bloomberg story : If a Republican Senate is destined to roadblock a stimulus deal in January under a new administration , Pelosi should try to make them roadblock one right now by making a deal with Trump so that voters can see for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which party to this negotiation is the chief obstacle to a deal .
If instead she continues to resist Trump , voters may shrug off the whole thing — as they seem to be doing in the poll up top — in the belief that it ’ s just another mindless , frustrating partisan standoff .
That may be the difference between Democrats winning control of the Senate narrowly and Republicans retaining it narrowly .
There is one potential benefit for Dems in not reaching a deal before the election , though .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate majority on Election Day anyway , and if in fact the new Republican minority is hellbent on trying to block a stimulus deal next January , Schumer will have an ideal pretext to nuke the filibuster .
Americans will be leery of getting rid of the Senate minority ’ s best procedural weapon if it ’ s done to advance some core Democratic wishlist item , like the Green New Deal or Court-packing .
But if it ’ s done to advance a bill which virtually everyone agrees is urgently needed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go along .
I used to think that universal background checks for firearms was the ideal Dem issue on which to get rid of the filibuster since support for that is so high across all three partisan groups in polling , but a stimulus would be even better .
Which also means it might be in the Senate GOP ’ s interest to go along with a stimulus deal now .
( Only 13 Republicans would be needed , assuming all Democrats in the Senate vote yes . )
Not only would they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and avoid becoming his scapegoat if no deal is reached and he ends up losing , they would avert the scenario in which Schumer has an easy justification for ending the filibuster next year .
If Dems are intent on doing that , Republicans want to make it as politically costly for them as possible .
Blocking a stimulus would do the opposite , rallying the public to Schumer ’ s side in going nuclear .
Here ’ s Chris Hayes on the left ’ s favorite network last night musing that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi won ’ t take a deal for $ 1.8 trillion .

Via the Daily Caller, no wonder she was so pissed off on Wolf Blitzer’s show last night. This suggests the big Democratic PR stunt to blame Trump for the slowing economy is a bust.
If the plan was to get independents pissed off at the president for not making a deal, that plan would seem to have a conspicuous flaw.
Pelosi’s trapped in a pincer movement. On the right, she has Trump suddenly endorsing a stimulus deal in urgent terms, even trying to bid her up. That complicates the Democratic strategy of refusing to make a deal and then accusing the White House of not having been generous enough when talks break down. They can’t hope to match the size of Trump’s media megaphone and they also can’t necessarily rely on average voters to inform themselves of the particulars on why a deal hasn’t been reached thus far. When Americans see Trump tweeting stuff like “WE NEED A DEAL NOW, GO BIG!”, they’ll logically conclude that the president’s not the main stumbling block here. Pelosi can try to counter that by insisting that it’s not the size of the stimulus that matters most, it’s how money is allocated among the component parts, but most voters don’t get into the weeds on policy. She can also try to counterprogram Trump by insisting that Senate Republicans are the main obstacle, as they’re the only player opposed to a big package, but that’s hard for voters to grasp when the leader of the GOP is broadcasting his willingness to go even higher than Democrats will.
She’s also getting pressure from the left to bite the bullet and make a deal with Trump. Progressives like Ro Khanna are less concerned with electoral politics than with the fact that fiscal relief really is needed urgently for working-class people who can’t find a job in the pandemic and also can’t make rent next month. It is … unusual to find lefties begging the Democratic establishment to compromise with the right on grounds that half a loaf is better than none, but that’s where we are right now.
https://mobile.twitter.com/therecount/status/1316392064872046592
More and more pieces lately are appearing in liberal publications urging Pelosi to make a deal with Trump before it’s too late. Yesterday Eric Levitz at New York magazine gave her three reasons to do so: (1) The economic outlook is turning desperate, (2) Dems might benefit at the polls if Trump and Pelosi agree and then McConnell’s GOP caucus kills the package, and (3) it’s possible that Biden will win the presidency but Republicans will retain the Senate, which will make a stimulus deal in January all but impossible.
It is entirely possible that Biden takes power with McConnell as captain of the Senate. Even with a Republican in the White House facing down an election-year recession, McConnell’s far-right caucus has been loath to approve stimulus. With a Democrat in the White House, there’s little doubt that they would block any relief package of a $1.8 trillion scope. And this means that — if Democrats do not secure aid now — there is a significant chance that Biden will inherit a deepening recession, and no viable means of addressing it. In other words: There is a significant chance Biden’s presidency will be over before it starts.
Greg Sargent made a similar point today, citing this quote in a new Bloomberg story:
A GOP strategist who has been consulting with Senate campaigns said Republicans have been carefully laying the groundwork to restrain a Biden administration on federal spending and the budget deficit by talking up concerns about the price tag for another round of virus relief. The thinking, the strategist said, is that it would be very hard politically to agree on spending trillions more now and then in January suddenly embrace fiscal restraint.
If a Republican Senate is destined to roadblock a stimulus deal in January under a new administration, Pelosi should try to make them roadblock one right now by making a deal with Trump so that voters can see for themselves before they go to the polls which party to this negotiation is the chief obstacle to a deal. If instead she continues to resist Trump, voters may shrug off the whole thing — as they seem to be doing in the poll up top — in the belief that it’s just another mindless, frustrating partisan standoff. That may be the difference between Democrats winning control of the Senate narrowly and Republicans retaining it narrowly.
There is one potential benefit for Dems in not reaching a deal before the election, though. If they go on to win a Senate majority on Election Day anyway, and if in fact the new Republican minority is hellbent on trying to block a stimulus deal next January, Schumer will have an ideal pretext to nuke the filibuster. Americans will be leery of getting rid of the Senate minority’s best procedural weapon if it’s done to advance some core Democratic wishlist item, like the Green New Deal or Court-packing. But if it’s done to advance a bill which virtually everyone agrees is urgently needed, the public might be more willing to go along. I used to think that universal background checks for firearms was the ideal Dem issue on which to get rid of the filibuster since support for that is so high across all three partisan groups in polling, but a stimulus would be even better.
Which also means it might be in the Senate GOP’s interest to go along with a stimulus deal now. (Only 13 Republicans would be needed, assuming all Democrats in the Senate vote yes.) Not only would they give Trump a boost before Election Day and avoid becoming his scapegoat if no deal is reached and he ends up losing, they would avert the scenario in which Schumer has an easy justification for ending the filibuster next year. If Dems are intent on doing that, Republicans want to make it as politically costly for them as possible. Blocking a stimulus would do the opposite, rallying the public to Schumer’s side in going nuclear.
Here’s Chris Hayes on the left’s favorite network last night musing that it seems a “little nuts” that Pelosi won’t take a deal for $1.8 trillion.


hotair--2020-10-14--Portland business owners want an end to the nightly protests

The “ Day of Rage ” protests in Portland over the weekend included vandalism and even gunshots directed at several businesses .
The Portland Indian Leaders Roundtable released a statement Monday morning denouncing “ pointless acts of vandalism.
” Portland business owners are also telling KOIN 6 this week that they think it ’ s time for the protests to end : The consensus among business owners and residents KOIN 6 spoke with Tuesday was clear : the nightly protests in downtown Portland have been hijacked by criminals and that the violence and destruction has exhausted the community .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support the Black Lives Matter message but said the attacks on the city only harm progress made by the racial justice movement… The owner of a nearby deli , John Jackson , said bullets shattered his store ’ s windows .
Jackson gave KOIN 6 a tour of the damage , comparing it to the horrors he saw while serving for the military in Operation Desert Storm .
Two weeks ago KOIN 6 reported that of the 718 businesses that make up 213 blocks downtown , 20 were permanently closed and 170 were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 60 percent that remained open in some fashion , though some of those were by appointment only .
The pandemic and associated restrictions are responsible for most of that , but having a mob of people destroy and loot businesses obviously doesn ’ t help .
In addition to the nightly riots , violent crime is also up sharply since the police budget was cut .
That ’ s another factor that could wind up depressing business in the long run .
I don ’ t see much hope anything is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent ideologues are determined to use the city as a backdrop for their anti-police propaganda .
So long as there are police trying to prevent the destruction , there will be rioters looking to instigate the next lawsuit or the next viral video .
The rioters know this is hurting the city but given that most of them are anarchists or outright Marxists , they don ’ t care if the local capitalists pay the price for their behavior .
Harming private enterprise is a feature for them , not a bug .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop is if the Mayor and the DA work to put these people in jail but after four months of this they obviously aren ’ t ready to do that .
And if Sarah Iannarone wins the coming election , there ’ s every reason to think things will get worse as Antifa will know they have an ally who will continue to shield them from consequences in the mayor ’ s office .

The “Day of Rage” protests in Portland over the weekend included vandalism and even gunshots directed at several businesses. The Portland Indian Leaders Roundtable released a statement Monday morning denouncing “pointless acts of vandalism.” Portland business owners are also telling KOIN 6 this week that they think it’s time for the protests to end:
The consensus among business owners and residents KOIN 6 spoke with Tuesday was clear: the nightly protests in downtown Portland have been hijacked by criminals and that the violence and destruction has exhausted the community. Most of the people we spoke with still support the Black Lives Matter message but said the attacks on the city only harm progress made by the racial justice movement… The owner of a nearby deli, John Jackson, said bullets shattered his store’s windows. Jackson gave KOIN 6 a tour of the damage, comparing it to the horrors he saw while serving for the military in Operation Desert Storm.
Two weeks ago KOIN 6 reported that of the 718 businesses that make up 213 blocks downtown, 20 were permanently closed and 170 were temporarily closed. That left 430 or about 60 percent that remained open in some fashion, though some of those were by appointment only. The pandemic and associated restrictions are responsible for most of that, but having a mob of people destroy and loot businesses obviously doesn’t help.
In addition to the nightly riots, violent crime is also up sharply since the police budget was cut. That’s another factor that could wind up depressing business in the long run.
I don’t see much hope anything is going to change in Portland. Hundreds of violent ideologues are determined to use the city as a backdrop for their anti-police propaganda. So long as there are police trying to prevent the destruction, there will be rioters looking to instigate the next lawsuit or the next viral video.
The rioters know this is hurting the city but given that most of them are anarchists or outright Marxists, they don’t care if the local capitalists pay the price for their behavior. Harming private enterprise is a feature for them, not a bug.
The only way this is going to stop is if the Mayor and the DA work to put these people in jail but after four months of this they obviously aren’t ready to do that. And if Sarah Iannarone wins the coming election, there’s every reason to think things will get worse as Antifa will know they have an ally who will continue to shield them from consequences in the mayor’s office.
Here’s the KOIN 6 report.


hotair--2020-10-14--More election mail winds up in a dumpster in Pennsylvania

In lieu of an exit question , let ’ s kick this off with an entrance question .
Has this sort of thing been going on all the time but nobody bothered reporting on it ?
Because it ’ s starting to become something of a habit .
This episode of the new hit show Which Mailman Is Trashing Your Mail Now takes place in the Bloomfield neighborhood of Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania .
The story starts at a mental health clinic called the Persad Center .
The manager of the facility was taking out some trash recently and when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprised to see a bunch of what appeared to be unopened mail .
Closer inspection revealed that none of the envelopes and parcels were addressed to his facility , but to other homes and businesses in the neighborhood .
The manager alerted the authorities and an investigation began , leading to the suspension of the postal carrier who covered that route .
( Penn Live ) A mail carrier has been placed on unpaid leave after federal agents found mail in a trash can that was supposed to be delivered to homes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The items the carrier allegedly tossed away included “ several different classes of mail , including one ballot request and about two dozen political advertisements , ” according to Special Agent Scott Balfour of the U.S .
Postal Service Office of Inspector General .
“ The mail was intended for delivery in the Bloomfield area of Pittsburgh , and was already returned to the USPS and delivered to customers , ” Balfour said in a statement .
The “ election mail ” angle of this story is a bit fuzzy .
Much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we discussed , there was a small amount of applicable material in the dumpster .
There were no ballots , but there was one completed ballot application and some of the usual flyers and political direct mail advertising that we all receive this time of year .
But there was plenty of other mail unrelated to the election .
Was this another “ Cliff Clavin ” character who just didn ’ t feel like making his rounds ?
He apparently made a habit of it if so .
When the police reviewed security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple instances of the carrier arriving to deliver their mail , returning to his truck , and then bringing more mail around to the parking lot to toss into the trash .
So it ’ s very possible that the inclusion of the electoral and political mail was just happenstance caused by the election being so close .
But let ’ s assume for the moment that there was no intentional voter fraud taking place here and it was just a lazy postal worker .
The end result is the same .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the office of the election officials and voter never would have received their ballot .
The campaign literature is probably less of an issue for most of us , but it still deprived the candidate ( s ) in question of the opportunity to reach out to those voters .
Even if that postal worker didn ’ t know or care about the absentee balloting issue , they were still impacting the process .
So returning to the question I raised at the top , how much of this is going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going through stretches where may mail went missing , but perhaps I ’ ve just led a fortunate life .
In 2018 a postal carrier in Brooklyn was arrested after it was discovered that he had hoarded more than 18,000 pieces of mail over a period of ten years .
He claimed he was simply “ overwhelmed ” by the amount of mail he had to deliver .
That same year another mailman in North Carolina was fired after he was caught on camera dumping hundreds of pieces of mail into a dumpster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Milwaukee was canned for the same thing .
Are these scattered exceptions to the rule or is there more of this going on than we know ?
How many people who do this are never caught ?
I ’ d like to think the system is more secure than all of this makes it sound .
But if not , perhaps focusing on the problems that might be caused in this single election year with so many people doing mail-in voting is the wrong issue to address .
There are always some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re not dealing with a plague .
Has the process been damaged all along ?

In lieu of an exit question, let’s kick this off with an entrance question. Has this sort of thing been going on all the time but nobody bothered reporting on it? Because it’s starting to become something of a habit. This episode of the new hit show Which Mailman Is Trashing Your Mail Now takes place in the Bloomfield neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The story starts at a mental health clinic called the Persad Center. The manager of the facility was taking out some trash recently and when he opened up the garbage receptacles he was surprised to see a bunch of what appeared to be unopened mail. Closer inspection revealed that none of the envelopes and parcels were addressed to his facility, but to other homes and businesses in the neighborhood. The manager alerted the authorities and an investigation began, leading to the suspension of the postal carrier who covered that route. (Penn Live)
A mail carrier has been placed on unpaid leave after federal agents found mail in a trash can that was supposed to be delivered to homes and businesses in Pittsburgh’s Bloomfield neighborhood. The items the carrier allegedly tossed away included “several different classes of mail, including one ballot request and about two dozen political advertisements,” according to Special Agent Scott Balfour of the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General. “The mail was intended for delivery in the Bloomfield area of Pittsburgh, and was already returned to the USPS and delivered to customers,” Balfour said in a statement.
The “election mail” angle of this story is a bit fuzzy. Much like the recent case in New Jersey we discussed, there was a small amount of applicable material in the dumpster. There were no ballots, but there was one completed ballot application and some of the usual flyers and political direct mail advertising that we all receive this time of year. But there was plenty of other mail unrelated to the election.
Was this another “Cliff Clavin” character who just didn’t feel like making his rounds? He apparently made a habit of it if so. When the police reviewed security camera footage from the clinic they saw multiple instances of the carrier arriving to deliver their mail, returning to his truck, and then bringing more mail around to the parking lot to toss into the trash. So it’s very possible that the inclusion of the electoral and political mail was just happenstance caused by the election being so close.
But let’s assume for the moment that there was no intentional voter fraud taking place here and it was just a lazy postal worker. The end result is the same. That ballot application would never have made it to the office of the election officials and voter never would have received their ballot. The campaign literature is probably less of an issue for most of us, but it still deprived the candidate(s) in question of the opportunity to reach out to those voters. Even if that postal worker didn’t know or care about the absentee balloting issue, they were still impacting the process.
So returning to the question I raised at the top, how much of this is going on? I don’t recall ever going through stretches where may mail went missing, but perhaps I’ve just led a fortunate life. In 2018 a postal carrier in Brooklyn was arrested after it was discovered that he had hoarded more than 18,000 pieces of mail over a period of ten years. He claimed he was simply “overwhelmed” by the amount of mail he had to deliver. That same year another mailman in North Carolina was fired after he was caught on camera dumping hundreds of pieces of mail into a dumpster. The following year, another carrier in Milwaukee was canned for the same thing.
Are these scattered exceptions to the rule or is there more of this going on than we know? How many people who do this are never caught? I’d like to think the system is more secure than all of this makes it sound. But if not, perhaps focusing on the problems that might be caused in this single election year with so many people doing mail-in voting is the wrong issue to address. There are always some absentee ballots, even when we’re not dealing with a plague. Has the process been damaged all along?


hotair--2020-10-14--Hillary: Say, doesn't Barrett's originalism mean she should disqualify herself from the bench as a w

Hillary: Say, doesn't Barrett's originalism mean she should disqualify herself from the bench as a woman?

We live in an age of nearly limitless access to information , where nearly anyone can find the accurate definition for esoteric systems of thought .
And yet , for the last few days , a succession of reporters , actors , and even lawyers have used social media to spew ignorance about “ originalism ” in the context of jurisprudence .
Almost as one , they have rushed to Twitter to hyperventilate about handmaidens and slavery , all of it nonsense .
Even presidential-election contenders who really should know better have gotten into the act .
Not only does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton echo the idiot chamber , she does so while comment-tweeting on Amy Coney Barrett ’ s clear explanation of originalism : Thank you , Captain Non-Sequitur , apparently the commanding officer of the Missing The Point Brigade .
That would be a fine retort if originalism meant ignoring all of the amendments to the Constitution .
Not only does originalism not mean that , it ’ s not even close to what it means .
There is no school of thought in which only the original meaning of the non-amendment clauses to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an impossible contradiction since Article V gives two different ways in which Congress and the states can amend the very document .
Christopher Scalia , son of Supreme Court giant Antonin Scalia , warned Wall Street Journal readers over the weekend to prepare for a blizzard of BS over originalism and textualism during the hearings .
Not even Chris could have predicted just how wide this storm would be : The dominant form of originalism entails interpreting provisions of the Constitution according to the “ original public meaning ” they bore when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same principle applied in statutory interpretation . )
You wouldn ’ t know that from what journalists write about it .
Linda Greenhouse , who covered the Supreme Court for decades and should know better , claimed that Justice Antonin Scalia ( my father ) believed “ the only legitimate basis for interpreting the Constitution is the original intent of its framers.
” Law professor Barbara McQuade recently wrote that originalists seek to understand what is “ believed to be the original intent of the framers.
” There are countless other examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning .
What ’ s the difference ?
For one thing , when seeking to understand the intent behind a law , a judge or lawyer may place greater weight on legislative history than on text .
That method undermines the ideal that America is a nation of laws rather than men .
As my father put it , “ We are governed by laws , not by the intentions of legislators.
” What ’ s more , scouring committee records and debates to determine intent “ is more likely to confuse than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach to entering a party and looking over the heads of the crowd to find your friends .
That is one reason why originalists and textualists believe “ we are bound by what [ laws ] say , not by the unexpressed intention of those who made them.
” Another common misrepresentation of originalism and textualism is conveyed in the Daniel Handler novel collection “ A Series of Unfortunate Events.
” During a trial scene in “ The Penultimate Peril , ” judges wear blindfolds out of a literal interpretation of the phrase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wise infant who speaks in cryptic phrases to say simply , “ Scalia ” —meaning , the narrator explains , “ something like , ‘ It doesn ’ t seem like the literal interpretation makes any sense.
’ ” Contrary to the jab , my father believed that “ the good textualist is not a literalist.
” That is why , for example , originalists recognize that the freedom of speech protects more than vocal utterances .
At this point , Chris must have a pang of regret … at crediting people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been on Twitter constantly all week calling people out for their ignorant and/or deliberately obtuse takes on originalism .
At least his sense of humor is holding up well : Mine … not so much : Let ’ s make this very clear .
“ Originalism ” does not refer to a yearning to live in 1788 .
It does not involve denial of any part of the Constitution .
It applies to every last bit of it , from its core articles and Bill of Rights at its first ratification all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was finally added in 1992 — after spending 203 years in the ratification process .
Originalism means going by the meaning of the words as understood at the time of their original ratification , rather than by reinterpreting them in the “ living document ” manner which has been more or less the norm since Wickard v Filburn or even Woodrow Wilson ’ s presidency .
That approach means that anything not addressed in the text of the Constitution either requires action by Congress or belongs to the states to handle .
Either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise to a constitutional level would have to be addressed explicitly by amending the Constitution in the manner laid out in Article V — and the text of which would get interpreted by the context of its original meaning , rather than intentions or the passage of time .
Originalism is the philosophical predicate for judicial restraint/judicial modesty that respects the balance of powers in constitutional governance .
If properly and consistently applied , it would reduce the tensions around the Supreme Court by forcing the states and Congress to quit using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put responsibility and accountability for governance where it belongs — on elected officials .
That presumes that we have a culture that values truth and clarity , of course .
This stupid tempest in an infinitesimal teapot shows that our media , cultural , and political elite have more interest in acting stupid — and acting as though you ’ re stupid , too .
And that should anger everyone .

We live in an age of nearly limitless access to information, where nearly anyone can find the accurate definition for esoteric systems of thought. And yet, for the last few days, a succession of reporters, actors, and even lawyers have used social media to spew ignorance about “originalism” in the context of jurisprudence. Almost as one, they have rushed to Twitter to hyperventilate about handmaidens and slavery, all of it nonsense.
Even presidential-election contenders who really should know better have gotten into the act. Not only does (Yale Law graduate!) Hillary Clinton echo the idiot chamber, she does so while comment-tweeting on Amy Coney Barrett’s clear explanation of originalism:
At the time the Constitution was ratified, women couldn't vote, much less be judges. https://t.co/B0oxTT2nzt — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 14, 2020
Thank you, Captain Non-Sequitur, apparently the commanding officer of the Missing The Point Brigade. That would be a fine retort if originalism meant ignoring all of the amendments to the Constitution. Not only does originalism not mean that, it’s not even close to what it means. There is no school of thought in which only the original meaning of the non-amendment clauses to the Constitution are valid, which would be an impossible contradiction since Article V gives two different ways in which Congress and the states can amend the very document.
Christopher Scalia, son of Supreme Court giant Antonin Scalia, warned Wall Street Journal readers over the weekend to prepare for a blizzard of BS over originalism and textualism during the hearings. Not even Chris could have predicted just how wide this storm would be:
The dominant form of originalism entails interpreting provisions of the Constitution according to the “original public meaning” they bore when they were adopted. (Textualism is the same principle applied in statutory interpretation.) You wouldn’t know that from what journalists write about it. Linda Greenhouse, who covered the Supreme Court for decades and should know better, claimed that Justice Antonin Scalia (my father) believed “the only legitimate basis for interpreting the Constitution is the original intent of its framers.” Law professor Barbara McQuade recently wrote that originalists seek to understand what is “believed to be the original intent of the framers.” There are countless other examples of this conflation of intent with public meaning. What’s the difference? For one thing, when seeking to understand the intent behind a law, a judge or lawyer may place greater weight on legislative history than on text. That method undermines the ideal that America is a nation of laws rather than men. As my father put it, “We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators.” What’s more, scouring committee records and debates to determine intent “is more likely to confuse than clarify”; another judge compared this approach to entering a party and looking over the heads of the crowd to find your friends. That is one reason why originalists and textualists believe “we are bound by what [laws] say, not by the unexpressed intention of those who made them.” Another common misrepresentation of originalism and textualism is conveyed in the Daniel Handler novel collection “A Series of Unfortunate Events.” During a trial scene in “The Penultimate Peril,” judges wear blindfolds out of a literal interpretation of the phrase “justice is blind.” This leads a wise infant who speaks in cryptic phrases to say simply, “Scalia”—meaning, the narrator explains, “something like, ‘It doesn’t seem like the literal interpretation makes any sense.’ ” Contrary to the jab, my father believed that “the good textualist is not a literalist.” That is why, for example, originalists recognize that the freedom of speech protects more than vocal utterances.
At this point, Chris must have a pang of regret … at crediting people with this much integrity. He has been on Twitter constantly all week calling people out for their ignorant and/or deliberately obtuse takes on originalism. At least his sense of humor is holding up well:
You like making yourself look foolish in front of women? Weird flex but okay.https://t.co/0CQVhTII3v — Christopher J. Scalia (@cjscalia) October 13, 2020
Mine … not so much:
Utter nonsense. "Originalism" does not mean ignoring constitutional amendments. It means understanding the Constitution's words in their original context at the time of passage for ALL amendments, including 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and any that get ratified in the future. https://t.co/Zl2d1SAxW9 — Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) October 13, 2020
Let’s make this very clear. “Originalism” does not refer to a yearning to live in 1788. It does not involve denial of any part of the Constitution. It applies to every last bit of it, from its core articles and Bill of Rights at its first ratification all the way to the 27th Amendment, which was finally added in 1992 — after spending 203 years in the ratification process.
Originalism means going by the meaning of the words as understood at the time of their original ratification, rather than by reinterpreting them in the “living document” manner which has been more or less the norm since Wickard v Filburn or even Woodrow Wilson’s presidency. That approach means that anything not addressed in the text of the Constitution either requires action by Congress or belongs to the states to handle. Either that, or those issues which arguably rise to a constitutional level would have to be addressed explicitly by amending the Constitution in the manner laid out in Article V — and the text of which would get interpreted by the context of its original meaning, rather than intentions or the passage of time.
Originalism is the philosophical predicate for judicial restraint/judicial modesty that respects the balance of powers in constitutional governance. If properly and consistently applied, it would reduce the tensions around the Supreme Court by forcing the states and Congress to quit using the courts as a legislative bypass, and put responsibility and accountability for governance where it belongs — on elected officials. That presumes that we have a culture that values truth and clarity, of course. This stupid tempest in an infinitesimal teapot shows that our media, cultural, and political elite have more interest in acting stupid — and acting as though you’re stupid, too. And that should anger everyone.


hotair--2020-10-14--Navy SEAL responds to Trump: I killed the real Bin Laden, not a body double, sir

In the year of our lord 2020 , the headline above doesn ’ t even qualify as the strangest one I ’ ve written this week .
There are two good arguments for Biden declining to hold any further debates with Trump .
There ’ s the obvious one , that it ’ s foolish to give your opponent a chance to get back in the race when you ’ re up big .
That ’ s a time to play it safe and run out the clock , not go into gladiator mode .
But the other is less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day and Trump becomes more desperate for a gamechanger , he ’ s liable to say a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g to try to jolt the polls .
Biden can ’ t stop him from doing that , of course ; the president of the United States has free media available to him at a moment ’ s notice .
But he can certainly deny him a forum to do so that ’ s apt to draw an audience of 80 million people .
As zany as he ’ s been since leaving Walter Reed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ say a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g ” ending to the campaign .
The Daily Beast has details on Trump ’ s new favorite conspiracy theory : Parrot claims that Biden cut a deal with Iran to set up Bin Laden ’ s 2011 death in Pakistan .
But when Iran double-crossed the United States and switched in a Bin Laden body double , in Parrot ’ s telling , Biden and Clinton arranged for a Navy SEAL helicopter to be shot down to keep the truth about the raid from getting out— a reference to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed 38 people , including 25 Navy SEALs .
“ Vice President Biden paid with the blood of Seal Team 6 , ” Parrot said in the video .
“ He spent their blood like currency.
” Later in the video , Noe claims that the Benghazi compound was attacked to cover up the fact that , supposedly , the missile used in the helicopter attack came from the United States .
Because we live in a bad television show now , one of the SEALs on the Bin Laden mission — who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at OBL himself — was standing by to refute the latest garbage information being shoveled at the public by the commander-in-chief .
Even weirder , that SEAL is well-known to MAGA types .
It ’ s Robert O ’ Neill , who ’ s been on Fox News many times as a commentator since revealing that he participated in the Bin Laden raid .
Trump is spraying so wildly at Biden now that even people who are sympathetic to him are being hit by the crossfire .
It ’ s true that members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a helicopter crash not long after the Bin Laden mission , but the particular soldiers who perished weren ’ t part of that operation , says O ’ Neill .
And needless to say , it was the real Bin Laden who was killed , not an incredible facsimile .
The most newsworthy aspect of this episode is that it … wasn ’ t considered very newsworthy by major media .
Even granting that it ’ s an unusually busy time between the election , COVID , the Barrett hearing , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every day that the president casually endorses a theory that his opponent had American soldiers mass-murdered and then had several more Americans murdered , including an ambassador , to cover up the previous murders .
Yet it barely registered anywhere .
How come ?
Because we expect it , of course .
Trump tweeting conspiracy theories about the Bin Laden raid would have been headline news in 2016 , when there was a still question of how he might behave in office if handed the presidency .
In 2020 , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Americans shrugging at tweets like yesterday ’ s is that they ’ re now so inured to the head of state sounding like a YouTube crank that they no longer hold it against him or expect better .
The more idealistic view , though , is that they ’ ve already resolved to toss him out next month precisely because there ’ s been far too much nonsense like this over the past four years and are now just patiently indulging him as they prepare for his departure .
“ Honestly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are really nervous about our kids , what kind of future they ’ re going to have .
And Trump is the one making us nervous , ” Jessica Morschakov , a 38-year-old ballet studio owner , told me in the wealthy , ultra-conservative township of Brighton .
“ He ’ s just so angry all the time .
I really believe that he brings out the worst in people , the worst in situations.
” It ’ s this sentiment , from this voting demographic , that ’ s echoing all across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suburbs .
Even voters who describe themselves as single-issue , pro-life Republicans , such as Karen Kudla , have said they ’ ve given up on Trump .
“ I can not in good conscience vote to keep this man in the White House , ” Kudla told me in Lake Orion .
It ’ s like having an erratic tenant whom you ’ re in the process of evicting .
There ’ s going to be a certain amount of ranting and raving as the cops tell him it ’ s time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone involved is to just let him yell while he ’ s packing up .
Don ’ t make it worse by antagonizing him or challenging him on the nutty things he says .
He is who he is .
He ’ ll be gone soon .
Take the path of least resistance .
What I ’ m really interested in seeing is whether the “ say anything ” finale to his campaign ultimately leads him into full-throated support for QAnon before November 3 .
He ’ s spoken warmly of Q-bots publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” any of the particulars of the Q mythology .
If he did , that *would* get media attention just because of how many members of that particular cult there are .
It would do Trump no good electorally and plenty of harm if he took to flirting with QAnon , but as we saw yesterday with his needless spat with Fauci , he ’ s not thinking strategically , he ’ s simply reacting to things impulsively .
If he feels the race slipping away , he might impulsively seek the embrace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a sort of messiah ridding the world of Satanic evil .
We ’ ll see .
Twenty days to go .
I ’ ll leave you with this .
Loeffler ’ s not a crank , but she ’ s willing to pander to cranks for her own electoral ends .
The party has a bright future .

In the year of our lord 2020, the headline above doesn’t even qualify as the strangest one I’ve written this week.
There are two good arguments for Biden declining to hold any further debates with Trump. There’s the obvious one, that it’s foolish to give your opponent a chance to get back in the race when you’re up big. That’s a time to play it safe and run out the clock, not go into gladiator mode.
But the other is less appreciated. As we get closer to Election Day and Trump becomes more desperate for a gamechanger, he’s liable to say a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g to try to jolt the polls. Biden can’t stop him from doing that, of course; the president of the United States has free media available to him at a moment’s notice. But he can certainly deny him a forum to do so that’s apt to draw an audience of 80 million people.
As zany as he’s been since leaving Walter Reed, yesterday felt like the true start of the “say a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g” ending to the campaign.
The president retweeted an insane article alleging "Biden and Obama may have had Seal Team 6 killed" posted by a QAnon account and written by "an ex-Community Organizer and Homeschool Mom." pic.twitter.com/ydoCEFLkAt — Christian Vanderbrouk (@UrbanAchievr) October 13, 2020
The Daily Beast has details on Trump’s new favorite conspiracy theory:
Parrot claims that Biden cut a deal with Iran to set up Bin Laden’s 2011 death in Pakistan. But when Iran double-crossed the United States and switched in a Bin Laden body double, in Parrot’s telling, Biden and Clinton arranged for a Navy SEAL helicopter to be shot down to keep the truth about the raid from getting out— a reference to a real-world helicopter attack in Afghanistan that killed 38 people, including 25 Navy SEALs. “Vice President Biden paid with the blood of Seal Team 6,” Parrot said in the video. “He spent their blood like currency.” Later in the video, Noe claims that the Benghazi compound was attacked to cover up the fact that, supposedly, the missile used in the helicopter attack came from the United States.
Because we live in a bad television show now, one of the SEALs on the Bin Laden mission — who claims to have fired the fatal shot at OBL himself — was standing by to refute the latest garbage information being shoveled at the public by the commander-in-chief. Even weirder, that SEAL is well-known to MAGA types. It’s Robert O’Neill, who’s been on Fox News many times as a commentator since revealing that he participated in the Bin Laden raid. Trump is spraying so wildly at Biden now that even people who are sympathetic to him are being hit by the crossfire.
It’s true that members of SEAL Team 6 died tragically in a helicopter crash not long after the Bin Laden mission, but the particular soldiers who perished weren’t part of that operation, says O’Neill. And needless to say, it was the real Bin Laden who was killed, not an incredible facsimile.
Very brave men said goodby to their kids to go kill Osama bin Laden. We were given the order by President Obama. It was not a body double. Thank you Mr. President. Happy birthday @USNavy — Robert J. O'Neill (@mchooyah) October 13, 2020
Shit. I just found out that I killed Osama bin Johnson. Drinks are on me, I guess… — Robert J. O'Neill (@mchooyah) October 14, 2020
I know who I killed, homie. Every time. https://t.co/sGuf6ZMskw — Robert J. O'Neill (@mchooyah) October 14, 2020
Every SEAL from the UBL Mission is alive while you are reading this. https://t.co/6mvAh37Cep — Robert J. O'Neill (@mchooyah) October 14, 2020
The most newsworthy aspect of this episode is that it … wasn’t considered very newsworthy by major media. Even granting that it’s an unusually busy time between the election, COVID, the Barrett hearing, and the stimulus standoff, it’s not every day that the president casually endorses a theory that his opponent had American soldiers mass-murdered and then had several more Americans murdered, including an ambassador, to cover up the previous murders. Yet it barely registered anywhere. How come?
Because we expect it, of course. Trump tweeting conspiracy theories about the Bin Laden raid would have been headline news in 2016, when there was a still question of how he might behave in office if handed the presidency. In 2020, that’s called “Tuesday.” The cynical read on Americans shrugging at tweets like yesterday’s is that they’re now so inured to the head of state sounding like a YouTube crank that they no longer hold it against him or expect better. The more idealistic view, though, is that they’ve already resolved to toss him out next month precisely because there’s been far too much nonsense like this over the past four years and are now just patiently indulging him as they prepare for his departure.
“Honestly, all the moms I know, we are really nervous about our kids, what kind of future they’re going to have. And Trump is the one making us nervous,” Jessica Morschakov, a 38-year-old ballet studio owner, told me in the wealthy, ultra-conservative township of Brighton. “He’s just so angry all the time. I really believe that he brings out the worst in people, the worst in situations.” It’s this sentiment, from this voting demographic, that’s echoing all across Michigan — especially in its rich white suburbs. Even voters who describe themselves as single-issue, pro-life Republicans, such as Karen Kudla, have said they’ve given up on Trump. “I cannot in good conscience vote to keep this man in the White House,” Kudla told me in Lake Orion.
It’s like having an erratic tenant whom you’re in the process of evicting. There’s going to be a certain amount of ranting and raving as the cops tell him it’s time to go. The easiest thing for everyone involved is to just let him yell while he’s packing up. Don’t make it worse by antagonizing him or challenging him on the nutty things he says. He is who he is. He’ll be gone soon. Take the path of least resistance.
What I’m really interested in seeing is whether the “say anything” finale to his campaign ultimately leads him into full-throated support for QAnon before November 3. He’s spoken warmly of Q-bots publicly but he hasn’t “confirmed” any of the particulars of the Q mythology. If he did, that *would* get media attention just because of how many members of that particular cult there are. It would do Trump no good electorally and plenty of harm if he took to flirting with QAnon, but as we saw yesterday with his needless spat with Fauci, he’s not thinking strategically, he’s simply reacting to things impulsively. If he feels the race slipping away, he might impulsively seek the embrace of a group that already treats him as a sort of messiah ridding the world of Satanic evil. We’ll see. Twenty days to go.
I’ll leave you with this. Loeffler’s not a crank, but she’s willing to pander to cranks for her own electoral ends. The party has a bright future.


hotair--2020-10-14--Facebook spokesman: We're reducing distribution of the NY Post story on Biden until it gets fact-che

Facebook spokesman: We're reducing distribution of the NY Post story on Biden until it gets fact-checked (Update: Twitter too)

As Ed wrote earlier , the NY Post has a big story out today headlined “ Biden ’ s Secret E-mails ” about files found on an old laptop computer someone allegedly dropped off at a repair shop and never returned to collect .
One of the items discovered on the computer was an email in which an advisor to the board of Burisma allegedly sent to Hunter Biden thanking him for a chance to meet with his father Joe Biden .
As Ed has been pointing out all morning , there are plenty of reasons to look into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reasonable people may want to take it with a grain of salt until we have more information about the history of this laptop .
But that ’ s a process that belongs in the hands of individuals , not social media companies .
Earlier today a spokesman for Facebook to state on Twitter that the social media site would be “ reducing ” the distribution of the Post story even before it has been fact-checked .
That first tweet has been radioed by thousands of people who find Facebook ’ s decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance of a fact-check to be a bit suspect , especially coming from a person with a long history in Democratic politics : If you look at the link Stone provided to the “ standard process ” for reducing the spread of misinformation , which Facebook published last year , it says the following [ emphasis added ] : On Facebook and Instagram , we work to keep confirmed misinformation from spreading .
For example , we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it — on Instagram , we remove it from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we reduce its distribution in News Feed… Over the next month , content across Facebook and Instagram that has been rated false or partly false by a third-party fact-checker will start to be more prominently labeled so that people can better decide for themselves what to read , trust and share .
The labels below will be shown on top of false and partly false photos and videos , including on top of Stories content on Instagram , and will link out to the assessment from the fact-checker .
Much like we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share known misinformation , we ’ re also introducing a new pop-up that will appear when people attempt to share posts on Instagram that include content that has been debunked by third-party fact-checkers .
Those first three paragraphs have to do with stories that have been confirmed or judged by a third-party fact-checker to be misinformation .
That ’ s obviously not the case here since Stone admits this hasn ’ t been fact-checked yet .
His excuse comes in the final paragraph of this section : Facebook is reducing the distribution of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ signals ” it is false .
That ’ s how they are justifying this .
But what are those signals exactly ?
Stone doesn ’ t say .
Why not ?
How do we know the signals he got about this story didn ’ t come directly from the Biden campaign ?
There are lots more questions about this process where those came from .
This has been in place for a year .
Has Facebook ever acted on it before with a major story from an established media outlet ?
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance of a fact-check and why ?
Were any of those stories critical of President Trump ?
Have they ever limited distribution of a story and later found it they did so in error ?
Maybe there are reasonable answers to all of these questions but at the moment we ’ re not getting much from Facebook beyond a statement that suggests they believe this is misinformation for unknown reasons .
And let ’ s face it , now that Facebook has put out a call for fact-checks , the left-wing fact-checkers they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world to provide an excuse to kill this story three weeks before an election .
Who is going to fact-check the fact-checkers ?
Ultimately , this move could backfire on Facebook and Biden .
An open attempt to suppress the story is only going to make it a bigger story : Facebook shouldn ’ t be using their monopoly to pre-judge the outcome of a story ’ s reliability weeks before an election .
This looks politically motivated and , as mentioned above , having a long-time Democratic politico make the announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Twitter is doing the same .
Twitter is treating the NY Post story as hacked information .

As Ed wrote earlier, the NY Post has a big story out today headlined “Biden’s Secret E-mails” about files found on an old laptop computer someone allegedly dropped off at a repair shop and never returned to collect. One of the items discovered on the computer was an email in which an advisor to the board of Burisma allegedly sent to Hunter Biden thanking him for a chance to meet with his father Joe Biden.
As Ed has been pointing out all morning, there are plenty of reasons to look into the details of this story with caution. Reasonable people may want to take it with a grain of salt until we have more information about the history of this laptop. But that’s a process that belongs in the hands of individuals, not social media companies.
Earlier today a spokesman for Facebook to state on Twitter that the social media site would be “reducing” the distribution of the Post story even before it has been fact-checked.
This is part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation. We temporarily reduce distribution pending fact-checker review. https://t.co/vf3CBvLmjj — Andy Stone (@andymstone) October 14, 2020
That first tweet has been radioed by thousands of people who find Facebook’s decision to halt the spread of the story in advance of a fact-check to be a bit suspect, especially coming from a person with a long history in Democratic politics:
Democrat operatives at Facebook are suppressing information about Democrat corruption weeks before a presidential election. They don't even dispute the story. They don't have a shred of evidence it isn't true. They don't just want it to spread. https://t.co/Fiyk731wBU pic.twitter.com/EctzGc5biR — Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) October 14, 2020
Democrat at @Facebook manipulates the news. Where is Congress?! https://t.co/nopxmw3nU2 — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) October 14, 2020
Holy bleeping bleep. Facebook explicitly admitting it is protecting Biden — and interfering in the presidential election — by censoring media outlets and limiting discussion of today's breaking news about Biden's engagement with Burisma. https://t.co/nF07qqyc5J — Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 14, 2020
https://twitter.com/SohrabAhmari/status/1316414203515854849
Facebook says it is 'reducing [the] distribution' of the New York Post's report that Hunter Biden introduced an executive for the Ukrainian company that was paying him to his father when Joe Biden was vice president. https://t.co/MSBfgPvx2Q — Byron York (@ByronYork) October 14, 2020
Folks, if you don't understand, this is @Facebook warning you that they may put a strike on your page if you post @nypost article, and if you get multiple strikes, they will throttle your page reach, if you post this story. They are protecting Biden, they are biased. https://t.co/Kcx7uA3c3J — Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) October 14, 2020
The idea that Facebook would brag about “pre-ducing” distribution even before a fact check shows how far we’ve come on this topic – a few years ago this would be the kind of thing James O’Keefe would uncover through secret recordings. Now execs just…tweet it out… https://t.co/mRUNXQddJQ — Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) October 14, 2020
The power of Facebook — due to its sheer size, integration and gobbling up of competitors — was already way larger than any democracy should tolerate. Now that they're actively controlling the news and discourse, it's beyond just a menace. It's a terrifying threat. — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 14, 2020
If you look at the link Stone provided to the “standard process” for reducing the spread of misinformation, which Facebook published last year, it says the following [emphasis added]:
On Facebook and Instagram, we work to keep confirmed misinformation from spreading. For example, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it — on Instagram, we remove it from Explore and hashtags, and on Facebook, we reduce its distribution in News Feed… Over the next month, content across Facebook and Instagram that has been rated false or partly false by a third-party fact-checker will start to be more prominently labeled so that people can better decide for themselves what to read, trust and share. The labels below will be shown on top of false and partly false photos and videos, including on top of Stories content on Instagram, and will link out to the assessment from the fact-checker. Much like we do on Facebook when people try to share known misinformation, we’re also introducing a new pop-up that will appear when people attempt to share posts on Instagram that include content that has been debunked by third-party fact-checkers.
Those first three paragraphs have to do with stories that have been confirmed or judged by a third-party fact-checker to be misinformation. That’s obviously not the case here since Stone admits this hasn’t been fact-checked yet. His excuse comes in the final paragraph of this section:
In addition to clearer labels, we’re also working to take faster action to prevent misinformation from going viral, especially given that quality reporting and fact-checking takes time. In many countries, including in the US, if we have signals that a piece of content is false, we temporarily reduce its distribution pending review by a third-party fact-checker.
Facebook is reducing the distribution of the NY Post story because they have “signals” it is false. That’s how they are justifying this. But what are those signals exactly? Stone doesn’t say. Why not? How do we know the signals he got about this story didn’t come directly from the Biden campaign?
There are lots more questions about this process where those came from. This has been in place for a year. Has Facebook ever acted on it before with a major story from an established media outlet? What other stories did they limit distribution in advance of a fact-check and why? Were any of those stories critical of President Trump? Have they ever limited distribution of a story and later found it they did so in error? Maybe there are reasonable answers to all of these questions but at the moment we’re not getting much from Facebook beyond a statement that suggests they believe this is misinformation for unknown reasons.
https://twitter.com/Heminator/status/1316408169241997312
And let’s face it, now that Facebook has put out a call for fact-checks, the left-wing fact-checkers they work with have all the incentive in the world to provide an excuse to kill this story three weeks before an election. Who is going to fact-check the fact-checkers?
As hard as I squint, I can’t see the unbiased algorithm here https://t.co/yKazaA2bLO — Son of Dr. Spengler (@spengjr) October 14, 2020
Ultimately, this move could backfire on Facebook and Biden. An open attempt to suppress the story is only going to make it a bigger story:
The reaction to this tweet shows how this sort of move can backfire. Instead of stopping the story, Stone made himself a part of it. https://t.co/LdCqa85qUv — Jesse Walker (@notjessewalker) October 14, 2020
Facebook shouldn’t be using their monopoly to pre-judge the outcome of a story’s reliability weeks before an election. This looks politically motivated and, as mentioned above, having a long-time Democratic politico make the announcement only adds to that suspicion.
Update: Twitter is doing the same.
Twitter has blocked users from tweeting the New York Post story link and from sending the link via direct message to other users. — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 14, 2020
Twitter is treating the NY Post story as hacked information.


hotair--2020-10-14--Central Park Karen is back and trying to dodge jail time

Most of you probably remember the bizarre tale of Amy Cooper , the “ Central Park Karen ” who called 911 on a Black man who was birdwatching in the park .
We hadn ’ t really heard much more about the situation since early July when it was revealed that Christian Cooper ( the birdwatcher… no relation ) was not going to cooperate with the prosecution of Amy on charges of False Reporting .
It seemed as if that might dampen the state ’ s enthusiasm for going after her , but apparently not .
Charges were indeed filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecuted Harvey Weinstein on rape charges previously .
The story has taken another remarkable twist , however .
Prosecutors revealed for the first time the existence of a second 911 call that Cooper placed that day .
In that call , she claimed that the birdwatcher tried to assault her .
In court , she admitted that the far more serious charge was not true .
Cooper has made her first ( virtual ) court appearance and is currently trying to cut a deal that will keep her from spending time behind bars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the Central Park “ Karen ” who sparked international outrage when she called the cops on a black birdwatcher who asked her to leash her dog — is hammering out a deal with prosecutors to avoid prison time , it was revealed in court Wednesday .
Cooper , 41 , her expression as grim as the black turtleneck she wore , was arraigned virtually on one count of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree — a charge that carries up to one year in jail .
“ Using the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offensive and designed to intimidate is something that can ’ t be ignored therefore we charged her , ” said Assistant DA Joan Illuzzi-Orbon , who prosecuted Harvey Weinstein .
“ This process can be an opportunity for introspection and education.
” My first impression after hearing about the arraignment was that the state was trying to make an example out of Cooper to show how socially woke they are .
Yes , filing a false report is a serious matter and it ’ s legitimately a crime .
But at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal justice system would typically handle something like this .
Cooper is a first offender with no criminal record .
She also didn ’ t even have a record of previously making spurious 911 calls .
For a first offense that ’ s only listed as a third-degree violation , she would typically only get a fine and possibly some community service , if that .
But with the revelation of the second call , the entire story shifts gears .
Now it ’ s not only a case of making multiple false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as having tried to get Christian Cooper framed on an assault charge .
With that fact having been exposed , jail time might not be off the table after all .
I still have to wonder what ’ s up with bringing in a prosecutor of Joan Illuzzi-Orbon ’ s level for such a minor offense , though .
Even knowing about the second call , it seems pretty obvious that they want to blow this up for the social justice value it carries .
Cooper may still avoid jail , but she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ rehabilitation and education ” programs to learn about racism , multiculturalism , and all the rest .
And the media will probably be tagging along the entire time .
That ’ s not to say it ’ s completely uncalled for , though .
She did bring this on herself .
But I think she ’ s still going to wind up paying a much higher cost ( in addition to the damage she ’ s already taken ) than anyone else would have if this hadn ’ t turned into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media meme-generator .
I ’ ll admit that I had some questions about what really happened in the park that day when the story first broke , mostly because it just sounded almost too strange to be true .
But at this point , if there were something more menacing going on than birdwatching , that would have come out by now .
Instead , the reverse is being proven .
It was Amy Cooper who was up to something nefarious , even if she did it on the spur of the moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman – even a White “ Karen ” who is easily alarmed at the site of a Black pedestrian – would be dumb enough to make a bogus 911 call when she obviously knew that Christian Cooper was filming her .
She either wasn ’ t thinking clearly or she ’ s not very bright .
I was also originally unsure why Christian Cooper was refusing to cooperate with the investigation .
I missed the boat on that one as well .
It sounds like he really was just trying to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and say that the woman had been punished enough already by losing her job and facing public condemnation .
But the state obviously sees things differently , and potentially for good reason .
As much as she undoubtedly wishes otherwise , Central Park Karen ’ s fifteen minutes of fame is clearly not over yet .

Most of you probably remember the bizarre tale of Amy Cooper, the “Central Park Karen” who called 911 on a Black man who was birdwatching in the park. We hadn’t really heard much more about the situation since early July when it was revealed that Christian Cooper (the birdwatcher… no relation) was not going to cooperate with the prosecution of Amy on charges of False Reporting. It seemed as if that might dampen the state’s enthusiasm for going after her, but apparently not. Charges were indeed filed and Cooper drew the same prosecutor who prosecuted Harvey Weinstein on rape charges previously. The story has taken another remarkable twist, however. Prosecutors revealed for the first time the existence of a second 911 call that Cooper placed that day. In that call, she claimed that the birdwatcher tried to assault her. In court, she admitted that the far more serious charge was not true. Cooper has made her first (virtual) court appearance and is currently trying to cut a deal that will keep her from spending time behind bars. (NY Post)
Amy Cooper — the Central Park “Karen” who sparked international outrage when she called the cops on a black birdwatcher who asked her to leash her dog — is hammering out a deal with prosecutors to avoid prison time, it was revealed in court Wednesday. Cooper, 41, her expression as grim as the black turtleneck she wore, was arraigned virtually on one count of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree — a charge that carries up to one year in jail. “Using the police in a way that is both racially offensive and designed to intimidate is something that can’t be ignored therefore we charged her,” said Assistant DA Joan Illuzzi-Orbon, who prosecuted Harvey Weinstein. “This process can be an opportunity for introspection and education.”
My first impression after hearing about the arraignment was that the state was trying to make an example out of Cooper to show how socially woke they are. Yes, filing a false report is a serious matter and it’s legitimately a crime. But at the same time, this is not how the criminal justice system would typically handle something like this. Cooper is a first offender with no criminal record. She also didn’t even have a record of previously making spurious 911 calls. For a first offense that’s only listed as a third-degree violation, she would typically only get a fine and possibly some community service, if that.
But with the revelation of the second call, the entire story shifts gears. Now it’s not only a case of making multiple false reports, but she could be viewed as having tried to get Christian Cooper framed on an assault charge. With that fact having been exposed, jail time might not be off the table after all.
I still have to wonder what’s up with bringing in a prosecutor of Joan Illuzzi-Orbon’s level for such a minor offense, though. Even knowing about the second call, it seems pretty obvious that they want to blow this up for the social justice value it carries. Cooper may still avoid jail, but she’ll be put into some sort of “rehabilitation and education” programs to learn about racism, multiculturalism, and all the rest. And the media will probably be tagging along the entire time. That’s not to say it’s completely uncalled for, though. She did bring this on herself. But I think she’s still going to wind up paying a much higher cost (in addition to the damage she’s already taken) than anyone else would have if this hadn’t turned into a national story and a massive social media meme-generator.
I’ll admit that I had some questions about what really happened in the park that day when the story first broke, mostly because it just sounded almost too strange to be true. But at this point, if there were something more menacing going on than birdwatching, that would have come out by now. Instead, the reverse is being proven. It was Amy Cooper who was up to something nefarious, even if she did it on the spur of the moment. It seemed difficult to believe that a woman – even a White “Karen” who is easily alarmed at the site of a Black pedestrian – would be dumb enough to make a bogus 911 call when she obviously knew that Christian Cooper was filming her. She either wasn’t thinking clearly or she’s not very bright.
I was also originally unsure why Christian Cooper was refusing to cooperate with the investigation. I missed the boat on that one as well. It sounds like he really was just trying to do the Christian thing (no pun intended) and say that the woman had been punished enough already by losing her job and facing public condemnation. But the state obviously sees things differently, and potentially for good reason. As much as she undoubtedly wishes otherwise, Central Park Karen’s fifteen minutes of fame is clearly not over yet.


hotair--2020-10-14--NBC: Tune in to a Trump town hall - directly opposite ABC's Biden town hall

Lots of media figures have spent the morning venting their journalistic spleen at NBC News for their counter-programming — and Donald Trump ’ s — but maybe they should blame Joe Biden instead .
Rather than meet Trump in a town-hall debate tomorrow night , Biden refused , citing Trump ’ s recent COVID-19 diagnosis and recovery .
Instead , Biden arranged a town-hall forum on ABC tomorrow night in prime time .
This morning , NBC News announced that they have plans at the same time , and in the same state in which the original event would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take part in an NBC News town hall event in Miami on Thursday , the network announced on Wednesday , after Trump produced a Covid-19 test showing he is not contagious .
The town hall , moderated by “ TODAY ” anchor Savannah Guthrie , will take place on the same evening — and at the same time — that Joe Biden is doing his own town hall in Philadelphia on ABC News at 8 p.m .
ET .
Trump and Biden were supposed to hold their second debate on Thursday night but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22 .
Trump pulled out of the Thursday debate after organizers announced it was going to be conducted virtually .
During the one-hour town hall at 8 p.m .
ET , Guthrie will moderate a conversation between Trump and a group of Florida voters .
As part of this decision , NBC required Trump to take an independent test to determine whether he presented any risk .
Today announced that they had confirmed that Trump presents no risk to attendees : That in itself is absolute gold for Trump .
Needless to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump against Biden : The calls are even coming from inside the house : What was NBC supposed to say — no ?
Joe Biden doesn ’ t own Thursday night , and neither does ABC .
Trump wanted to get the debate back on the schedule after it became clear he ’ d recovered , but the Commission on Presidential Debates and Biden declined anything but a “ virtual ” debate for safety ’ s sake .
Trump ’ s status shows that those concerns were misplaced .
Why not put the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is an absolute trolling victory by Trump in at least two ways .
Not only does he get to step all over Joe Biden on Thursday , but he got NBC News to go along with it .
And , let ’ s not forget that he also put NBC in a position where they had to confirm he ’ s not contagious anyway .
That way he can paint Biden as too afraid to face him in person , at least for this particular night .
Let ’ s end with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Who will get the better ratings — the softball forum for Biden hosted by former Clinton administration figure George Stephanopoulos , or the almost-certainly tougher forum hosted by Savannah Guthrie that features the Showman in Chief ?
By Friday , the overnights will give Trump all of the Twitter fodder he ’ ll need for the entire weekend .

Lots of media figures have spent the morning venting their journalistic spleen at NBC News for their counter-programming — and Donald Trump’s — but maybe they should blame Joe Biden instead. Rather than meet Trump in a town-hall debate tomorrow night, Biden refused, citing Trump’s recent COVID-19 diagnosis and recovery. Instead, Biden arranged a town-hall forum on ABC tomorrow night in prime time.
This morning, NBC News announced that they have plans at the same time, and in the same state in which the original event would have taken place:
President Donald Trump will take part in an NBC News town hall event in Miami on Thursday, the network announced on Wednesday, after Trump produced a Covid-19 test showing he is not contagious. The town hall, moderated by “TODAY” anchor Savannah Guthrie, will take place on the same evening — and at the same time — that Joe Biden is doing his own town hall in Philadelphia on ABC News at 8 p.m. ET. Trump and Biden were supposed to hold their second debate on Thursday night but it will instead take place on Oct. 22. Trump pulled out of the Thursday debate after organizers announced it was going to be conducted virtually. During the one-hour town hall at 8 p.m. ET, Guthrie will moderate a conversation between Trump and a group of Florida voters.
As part of this decision, NBC required Trump to take an independent test to determine whether he presented any risk. Today announced that they had confirmed that Trump presents no risk to attendees:
Dr. Clifford Lane of the NIH and Dr. Anthony Fauci have reviewed the president’s recent medical data, including a PCR test collected and analyzed by NIH on 10/13, and have concluded “with a high degree of confidence” that the president is “not shedding infectious virus.” pic.twitter.com/UfuaQgkbCR — TODAY (@TODAYshow) October 14, 2020
That in itself is absolute gold for Trump. Needless to say, NBC took flak immediately for counter-programming Trump against Biden:
The decision by NBC News to run a Trump town hall directly opposite ABC's Biden town hall is indefensible. — Jeff Greenfield (@greenfield64) October 14, 2020
Ex https://t.co/Q4Ya7KOEOR exec @merrillbro is right — this scheduling is competition not public service https://t.co/zz5VBRqELA — David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) October 14, 2020
The calls are even coming from inside the house:
I've heard from over a dozen NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC sources (talent and staff) and the frustration with and anger toward their employer for scheduling a town hall against Biden is palpable. — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) October 14, 2020
What was NBC supposed to say — no? Joe Biden doesn’t own Thursday night, and neither does ABC. Trump wanted to get the debate back on the schedule after it became clear he’d recovered, but the Commission on Presidential Debates and Biden declined anything but a “virtual” debate for safety’s sake. Trump’s status shows that those concerns were misplaced. Why not put the original event back on the schedule?
This is an absolute trolling victory by Trump in at least two ways. Not only does he get to step all over Joe Biden on Thursday, but he got NBC News to go along with it. And, let’s not forget that he also put NBC in a position where they had to confirm he’s not contagious anyway. That way he can paint Biden as too afraid to face him in person, at least for this particular night.
Let’s end with the competition question raised by Folkenflik. Who will get the better ratings — the softball forum for Biden hosted by former Clinton administration figure George Stephanopoulos, or the almost-certainly tougher forum hosted by Savannah Guthrie that features the Showman in Chief? By Friday, the overnights will give Trump all of the Twitter fodder he’ll need for the entire weekend.