For those of you who don’t know, I studied journalism in college. And in my defense, I was young, dumb, and in love. Now, I’m old, dumb, and in love, but that’s besides the point.
I bring up that therapy-inducing memory to ease you into this week’s Lexicon entry involving journalism. During my studies, the Associated Press was one of the gold standards in the news game and was generally considered a neutral source of information. Oh, how times have changed.
This past week (please check local listings for the week in your area) the AP broke the cardinal sin of journalism by becoming the story rather than reporting it. And it’s all over a body of water, the Gulf of Mexico/America. President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order renaming the Gulf, but the AP refused to acknowledge it. As a result, the White House barred an AP reporter from an Executive Order signing ceremony and other events and trips on Air Force One, which of course lead to the AP suing members of the Trump Administration for the act.
And you thought high profile divorces were messy.
Anyway, for its efforts to gain my attention, let’s take the Associated Press on a tour of Leftist Lexicon Land!
the Associated Press
What the Left thinks it means – a trusted news source and vibrant defender of the free press
What it really means – another water carrier for the Left, this one masquerading as a wire service
To complete my old curmudgeon cosplay, I must invoke the “back in my day” power.
Back in my journalism days, there was an expectation of neutrality in news reporting because journalists at the time believed personal biases would get in the way of the public interest. This commitment to serving the public before advancing an agenda is what helped build a stronger, more intelligent society.
Then Watergate happened. The country’s eyes were opened to the dirty corners of our halls of power, and it created a rise in the interest of journalism as a form of activism. Now, instead of just reporting the news, reporters would seek out the news related to a particular evil they wanted to expose and uproot.
There is nothing inherently wrong or unethical in this, mind you. But it opens the reporter up to letting emotions (and possibly greed) taint the end result. Yes, you’re still trying to meet the public need for information, but you also have a personal stake in the outcome. That leads to potential conflicts of interest.
Not that modern journalism has any problems with that. This may come as a surprise to you, but our media sources tend to lean left more than a runner trying to avoid getting tagged out at first during a pickoff attempt. In other news, the Chicago Cubs are already eliminated from post season play before spring training, but that’s not important right now. By taking a side, journalism has gone from being watchdogs to lapdogs, and as much as I love lapdogs, I would prefer journalists play it straight.
The Associated Press used to do that, but has since moved more towards the Left, as slight as some think it has. Even if it’s considered to be factual and, thus, credible, the bias still poses a problem because it can lead to misinformation.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will say it’s fighting against misinformation through fact checks, even the slightest implication that is supported by an extrapolation of the fact checks they do can be misinformation in and of itself. Take the fact checks the AP does and who tends to be the target of those fact checks, namely conservatives. Leftists claim fact checkers have to do more fact checking on the Right because they lie all the time, but there’s one tiny problem with that.
It’s a little thing the kids like to call confirmation bias. When you have a set of beliefs as we all do, you tend to reject information that contradicts those beliefs and accept information that conforms to them. So, when a certain allegedly credible source of journalism decides to fact check the Right more than the Left, that gives the impression that…wait for it, kids…the Right lies more than the Left.
But it also gives the impression the AP covers up the lies of the Left more frequently.
Of course, Leftists and the AP would never admit that because it would expose the misinformation they both agree with, but that’s that’s neither here nor there. The point is the AP has a credibility problem.
Which brings us to their lolsuit. (And, no, that’s not a typo.)
The AP is arguing their ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments, more specifically the freedom of the press and due process, specifically. Not to be pedantic, but both arguments are bullshit to anyone with even a Schoolhouse Rock level of Constitutional knowledge. Or anyone who can read, which might be over the journalism class’s pay grade, but here we go.
The freedom of the press argument doesn’t work because of five little words from the First Amendment. Sing along if you know the words:
Congress shall make no law
Since this beef is between the White House and the AP, Congress doesn’t have a role and, thus, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Even if you accept the notion freedom of the press is being violated by the Administration, there is a secondary problem, that being access. Just because you’re a reporter doesn’t give you a VIP pass to go where you want for a story. You see, the freedom of the press doesn’t equate to a right to access. What the AP’s First Amendment argument tries to do is establish they have a right to be where the President is.
Of course, if I were advising the legal team defending the Administration officials, I would limit that access to only when the President is in the can, but that’s just me.
More to the point, the press pool tends to be rotated and cover various beats, so the AP being excluded from certain events isn’t as egregious as they want you to think it is. And what’s more, there are these things called pool reporters who compile the news from multiple sources and pass it along to those media outlets who didn’t get the luck of the press pool draw. This doesn’t impede the AP’s ability to distort…I mean report the news, so there is no violation.
In short, get that weak-sauce shit outta here, AP!
Now for the Fifth Amendment. Let’s start with the text itself.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness agThe ainst himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The AP’s argument in this case is based on the “due process of law” element, suggesting their ban was put in place without being allowed a day in court. Aside from all the reasons I cited above as far as access, there’s also another pedantic but vital detail: there is no allegation of a crime. This whole thing, as fucking stupid as it is, surrounds the name of a body of water. Even if the Gulf of Mexico self-identifies as the Gulf of America, it matters not. The AP isn’t being denied due process so much as it’s being denied a spot at the table over a disagreement outside of any legal constructs.
No allegation of crime? No violation of due process.
Checkmate, bitches.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will try to argue the contrary and may actually score a court victory depending on which Leftist judge gets a chance to shit on the Constitution to give them a victory over the Evil Orange Man. Which will give them reason to crow…at least until the case makes it to the Supreme Court or gets laughed out of court by a judge who reads beyond an AP reporter’s grade level.
How the mighty have fallen. From globally trusted news source to the punchline of a blogger’s weekly journey into Leftist madness.
Seems they’re getting off a little light, don’t you think?
Month: February 2025
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This is a continuation of sorts of my previous Leftist Lexicon entry about government waste. If you haven’t read it, you can read it here. If you have, read it again! We could use the clicks!
While discussing the giant Leftist slush fund…I mean humanitarian aid provider USAID, Leftists tried to go all geopolitical on us by talking about “soft power.” And, no, it’s not the power that drives the ice cream machines at McDonalds because a) it doesn’t involve electricity, and b) those machines never fucking work.
Much like Leftists.
Anyway, I figured we could take a spin around the Leftist mind on this topic, just as long as we don’t run into anything important. Something tells me…that’s not gonna be an issue
soft power
What the Left thinks it means – using non-military solutions to bolster relationships between the US and countries that may be persuaded to work with us
What it really means – mostly just paying foreign countries to like us, no matter how dickish we are
To put it in simple terms, hard power is using our guns to get our way (or as they call it in parts of Texas, Tuesday). Soft power is using a fruit basket instead of guns to try to get our way. And by “fruit basket” I mean money. Lots of money.
Although a lot of soft power comes with a price tag with more zeroes than the line-up at MSNBC’s recent Democratic National Committee chair forum, there are non-fiscal means to try to persuade a foreign country to work with us. Like sending over food or helping build water wells. There may be a cost to do that, but it’s not the primary focus. That comes later.
But keep in mind America isn’t the only country in the world that uses soft power. Any country with something to offer, large or small, can use soft power to move the needle. But it’s mostly the big boys, like America, Russia, and China, who swing the biggest sticks.
That’s where the Left’s defense of USAID comes from: the potential that we don’t swing a big enough stick. It’s their idea if we don’t send money to produce an Iraqi version of Sesame Street or help get a trans-friendly musical off the ground, one of the other big guns is going to step in and fill the void we leave by not wasting money.
Now, on the surface, that makes sense. If we need to spend money to keep a foreign country from going the way of the Star Wars franchise, why not drop a few bucks into its hat? It helps them, it helps us, and everybody wins except for the countries who want to take our spot.
Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Soft work works best when there are legitimate mutual benefits to be had. Sure, you can drop a few million on the heads of the citizens of BassAckwardsistan, but what do you expect to get from them in return? What strategic benefit do we get from a favorable relationship with BassAckwardsistan? What can we deny other countries who want the relationship with BassAckwardistan by flexing our soft power muscle?
And at the core of the scenario, what is our current relationship with BassAckwardsistan?
The lack of presence in an area doesn’t automatically open it up to other countries’ soft power efforts because they may not want a relationship either. Going back to the BassAckwardsistan example (mainly because I love typing it), let’s say their only strategic asset is the little plastic tables they put in pizza boxes to prevent the box from hitting the pizza. Sure, it would be a boon to pizza places everywhere, but we might be able to handle that high-level tech on our own. And if you’re in a country where pizza isn’t exactly a must-have, having a favorable relationship with BassAckwardsistan isn’t a priority, so you’re not going to pursue one in favor of relationships that better fit your needs.
Under normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be an excuse to throw money at BassAckwardsistan, but to Leftists it’s the perfect excuse. I mean, you don’t want Russia and China to get access to that kind of pizza-related technology, right?
Sounds vaguely familiar…like circa early 2000s “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” familiar. But that would be fucking stupid, and we know Leftists aren’t that fucking stupid, right?
Not so much.
Let’s try a more realistic (i.e. not BassAckwardsistan) example. As part of the Trump White House’s initial salvo on the wasteful spending done by USAID, there was mention of $70,000 doing to produce a DEI musical in Ireland. This is an example of the usage of soft power the Left uses to justify the spending. I mean, I don’t think Russia or China support DEI musicals, but after the past few years, I shouldn’t be surprised by anything.
Now, for the kink in the Left’s plan. According to our State Department, US-Irish relations seem pretty good. That in and of itself negates any soft power arguments the Left can make. There is no opportunity to make the relationship better, and the expenditure itself is so specific that it would only affect a small section of the Irish people. The needle wouldn’t move, and there’s no indication China and/or Russia would swoop in and pay for it. And in China’s case, an hour after you fund it, you’re hungry again.
I’ll see myself out.
Actually, before I do, we should see the Left’s use of soft power to explain away the more questionable expenditures as what it really is: a way for the Left to use our money for their ideological purposes with no consideration of whether such spending has any effect on the relationship we’re allegedly trying to create or maintain. On a completely different level, it shows the Left has no fucking idea of how soft power works and is using the term to make themselves seem smarter than they actually are. After all, USAID helped Hamas, and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they’re not going to be inviting us over to their hovels for Ramadan anytime soon.
But this is to be expected. An 8 year old boy playing Call of Duty has more military knowledge than any Leftist, if not most of them. And you don’t even need to have a military background to figure this shit out. The logic just doesn’t, you know, logic. At some point, the countries willing to take our money are just taking our money without any thought of soft power. Good luck explaining that to a Leftist.
Since it’s going to be a hopeless cause getting Leftists to understand the difference between soft power and just throwing money at a problem, we can only work on ourselves. And much like I said in my previous blog post on government waste, we must be open to the possibility we need to cut something our side agrees with if it serves no positive ends. Just because we think it will help doesn’t make it okay to waste money if we can’t justify it. Don’t be a hypocrite, no matter how good it may feel.
Oh, and point and laugh at Leftists talking about soft power, no matter how good it may feel.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This past week had more Leftists’ heads exploding than, well, since last week. Among the numerous outrages and impotent protests against Donald Trump and his plans to remake government, it seems we found out a certain government agency has been spending money like a drunken fleet at a whorehouse in Amsterdam.
In other words, spending like they were Congresscritters.
Throughout this discussion trying to reconcile humanitarian aid with condoms for al Qaeda (and I wish I was making that up), the subject of government waste has come front and center. As a result, I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss it in some fashion, mainly because it will piss off the Left and that’s always fun!
government waste
What the Left thinks it means – a rarity in government only harped on by Republicans and Conservatives wanting to destroy the social safety net
What it really means – par for the course in Washington
Before we jump in, there are some foundational ideas we need to discuss. The concept of government waste is foreign to the Left because to them government is the sole source of all that is good and right in the world. By extension, anything government spends must be in pursuit of all that is good and right in the world. And cutting spending? You might as well say you want to drown Leftists’ cats.
You know, because they hate kids?
Anyway, the concept of government as Daddy Warbucks (one of the few wars Leftists have no problem supporting) makes addressing government waste more difficult because in order for them to address it, they would have to change their minds. And that’s tougher than you think. Leftists are notoriously stubborn and unwilling to admit they’re wrong.
How do I know this? I was one of them for a long time, and I can’t chalk up my stubborn streak completely to being part German.
That’s not to say they’ll never do it. To their credit, Leftists have been complaining about military spending, and I have to agree there is a lot of room to improve there. After all, if they spend $450 on a hammer that I can get at a local hardware store for a fraction of that price, that’s clear government waste.
Come to think of it, that could apply to Congresscritters….
Meanwhile back at the main point, the Left have a number of ways to continue the wonderful world of waste. Some of it, like with USAID, is done in plain sight because they know no one will really look at it. It’s a line item in a federal budget that gets sent over to the agency to dispense as it sees fit. Which apparently includes a transgender opera in Columbia (again, I wish I were making that up).
There are also non-government organizations (NGOs to the hip kids out there) that handle a cornucopia of issues. Which can lead to a cornucopia of waste. Because of what they are, they operate in an area where they get public funding, but don’t have the levels of oversight government agencies do, which makes it a perfect way to waste money without accountability. Nice work if you can scam it!
Then, there’s word magic, as I like to call it. This is when someone comes up with a long and complicated name for a common item, which invariably makes it sound more impressive/expensive. Imagine coming across a vertically operational transcribing tool with an internal liquid disbursement system. Sounds pretty awesome, right? You happily spend the $100 or however much it costs, and you get sent…
A fucking pen.
That’s government spending for you in a nutshell, or a nutcase if you’re dealing with Rep. Jasmine Crockett. So, how do we fix it? Well, we don’t have to worry about Leftists fucking up our plans, so there’s that.
The first step is what the Trump Administration and Elon Musk are doing now: identifying the waste. And the way they’re doing it makes it all the better. By putting it on blast, anyone who wants to do some digging can verify the information and act accordingly, which in this case would be pissed. And the cherry on the top of this government waste sundae? Leftists now have to defend spending money to promote tourism in Egypt (again, I wish I were making that up) and other silly expenditures. Sure, they’ll link it back to humanitarian efforts like fighting hunger, but they haven’t gotten around to explaining how spending $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland (you know the words, so sing along!) helps feed a starving child.
Why, it’s almost as if…Leftists don’t want to discuss government waste because a lot of the shit they promote is government waste. Funny how that works out isn’t it?
Now, to my friends on the Right, I have to advise you government waste isn’t just a Leftist thing. If we’re going to be serious about reducing waste, we have to be willing to look at things we want/need that can be less expensive to obtain. Providing for the common defense is in the Preamble of the Constitution, but that doesn’t give us the government’s black diamond American Express card to spend on whatever we want regardless of the price. We have to be willing to take a scalpel and a chainsaw to the waste so we get rid of the fat without getting rid of those things that actually do good.
So, I guess my suggestion is to be somewhere between a sensible budget hawk and Ron Swanson. Just don’t touch Ron’s bacon, or mine for that matter.
Meanwhile, to my Leftist friends, understand this is a necessary process. We can’t keep running up the national debt and having other countries own a significant chunk of it without making a change. And, yes, that means some of your sacred cows are going to have to become hamburger (or if you prefer, impossible meat) to make progress. After all, you can’t fund your transgender comic in Peru (one more time!) with government funds if your country is bankrupt.
But I can’t leave you Leftists without an option. If you really feel passionate about funding a project…fund it your own damn self! Don’t rely on government to pick up your tab, especially when that tab is using tax dollars of people who might not share your passion. Leave the tax dollars for shit we actually need, like national defense, infrastructure, and stuff that is more universally accepted. So, start your GoFundMe for your pet projects and Go Fuck Yourself if you can’t get it done without Uncle Sam.
Government waste affects us all one one level or another, and we have to rein it in somehow. Say what you will about Trump and Musk (and I know you will), they’re at least trying to do just that. And if you’re screaming about cutting government waste, think about the reason why. It may not be because essential services are getting slashed, but because your shit is about to be exposed.
So, good luck with that.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Another week, another round of Senate hearings over the nominees President Donald Trump has put forward for consideration. And that’s on top of the other bullshit that’s been going on with Executive Orders, illegal immigration, and, oh yeah, Leftist freakouts over it all.
But one of the craziest shitstorms came during the nomination hearing for Trump’s nominee for the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Between Chief Running Mouth Senator Elizabeth Warren sticking up for Big Pharma while sounding like a shrew (to be fair, that’s her everyday voice) and Senator Bernie Sanders shitting his onesie over literal onesies, I was reminded why I hold politicians in such low esteem: they make the functioning humans look bad.
While the Senate treated us to some of the worst theatrics this side of an off-off-off-off-Broadway production of “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark” done by Miss Reedy’s second grade class, there was another massive figure in the Senate chamber (aside from Senators’ egos) that had as much to do with the theatrics as it did the confirmation hearing itself. I’m talking of Big Pharma, the entity every Leftist hates…or do they?
Big Pharma
What the Left thinks it means – an entity that makes people suffer with illness so they can make a buck
What it really means – an entity that provide both a punching bag and a source of income for Leftists
America has a health care problem, several actually. One of the biggest ones is Americans typically don’t give a fuck about health care until they don’t get it for one reason or another. A lot of this can be traced back to our society where we want to do the least amount of work for the most amount of benefit. I mean, if there’s a pill or a shot we can take so we can fill our gullets with deep fat fried unknown chicken parts smothered in gravy (because the chicken makes it healthy), we’ll go that route every time.
That’s where Big Pharma comes in. Like most business models, the end goal is to create profit whenever possible. And when you have a business model that requires people to be less-than-healthy, that profit comes from human suffering. Or at least the concept of human suffering. Although modern medicine can and has developed ways to help improve the lives of those afflicted with diseases or conditions, Big Pharma has also sold us on the idea we can live better lives if we just inject this or ingest that. Now, Mom, Dad, Billy, Suzie, Grandma Mabel, and the family dog Scruffy can live a better life free from the annoying and personally devastating effects of…whatever malady they can come up with to sell their products.
This is where the Left actually has a point other than the ones on top of their heads. Pharmaceutical companies can be a bit on the shady side, which is like saying Michael Moore is a little husky. As much of a capitalist as I am, I can’t really say the way Big Pharma does business is legit. Even if your drug is going to be a game-changer, it’s hard to reconcile the good it will do with the bad it takes to get there. Overall, you need to have a real moral vacuum in your soul to be a Big Pharma employee.
And that brings us to Congress.
To put it mildly and geekily, Capitol Hill makes Mos Eisley look like Amish country. And for any Amish readers out there, I’m sorry for comparing you to Capitol Hill. Also, how in the fuck are you reading this?
Anyway, one of the areas where Big Pharma has a lot of power is in Congress. And in the halls of Congress, money talks to both sides. Remember this for later because it will come in handy.
Although Big Pharma swings a big…hypodermic needle, there are some who see what they do and aren’t afraid to speak out. One of those individuals is…the aforementioned Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Regardless of what you think of the man, the fact remains he puts his money where his mouth is and promotes good science when it comes to vaccines. Now, who would be opposed to that?
Big Pharma. And their minions in Congress.
When you take on a big entity like Big Pharma, you put a big target on your back and expect to hit once in a while. If you’re connected to Donald Trump in any way, you might as well grab a helmet because you’re going to get bombarded.
Just ask RFK Jr.
Fortunately for him, the metaphorical sharpshooters (i.e. Senate Democrats) are the Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight. With every gotcha question, every bit of theatrics, and every bit of disregard for parliamentary decorum, Kennedy looked and sounded like the adult in the room. Mainly because, well, he was.
But there’s another tie that binds the Senate Democrats questioning Kennedy together. Remember what I said earlier about Big Pharma playing both sides? Yeah, each of the Senate Democrat big hitters are Big Pharma puppets.
Chief Running Mouth? $822,573 from 2019 to 2020.
Bernie Sanders? Almost $2 million since 1990.
Ron Wyden? $351,513.
Maggie Hassan? $313,576.
Angela Alsobrooks? $96,643.
Tim Kaine? $200,824.
And the shits keep coming! All of these Democrat Senators going after RFK Jr. for trying to hold Big Pharma accountable…all having a financial stake in protecting Big Pharma from people…like RFK Jr. How do it work????
Quite well if you’re a fucking hypocrite.
With both major parties beholden at least in part to Big Pharma, you’re more likely to hear Mazie Hirono ask a salient question than you are to get Big Pharma to shape up. But with Donald Trump pushing for a Make America Healthy Again and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. heading it up, there’s a chance it could happen.
Especially if the Leftists continue to bring their meh game.
A Loss That Could Have Been Prevented
Now that the hoopla over the 2024 election has pretty much died down and the postmortems of the aforementioned election are calming down somewhat (and missing a lot of the points that should have been drawn from it), I wanted to throw my semi-serious hat into the ring and offer a postmortem of a different flavor, one that goes deeper into the Democrats’ 2024 loss than “America is racist and sexist.”
My thoughts? The Democrats would have been in far better shape had Joe Biden lost in 2020.
This seems counterintuitive on its face, but in looking back at the past 4 years, it’s hard to dismiss the possibility Biden winning had more to do with Kamala Harris losing than anything Donald Trump could have done, intentionally or otherwise.
As the poem goes, let me count the ways.
– The blame for the COVID-19 response and any aftermath therein would be firmly on Trump’s shoulders. Would Trump have handled it better? I can’t say for certain, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be any worse.
– Trump would have been out of office sooner. Yes, I know Leftists would up in arms about another 4 years of Trump (just look at how they’re handling it today), but in retrospect, they might be willing to put up with it to not have to endure the second Trump Presidency in the here and now. And speaking of which…
– The Democrats would have had more time to find a better candidate than they had. Let’s face it. Kamala Harris was a poor candidate thrust into the role by people whose only strategy was “Orange Man Bad.” At least we would have had a primary process to weed out the bad candidates (Harris) and find other less bad candidates. Which also brings us to…
– Leftist Governors wouldn’t have felt emboldened by President Biden to take the actions they did. This is more of a future-forward thinking point, but the gist is people like Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, and Andrew Cuomo (all of whom were seen as rising stars within Democrat circles) wouldn’t have fallen for the trap of overreach because their guy was in power. As a result, Newsom is looking inept as his state burns, Whitmer isn’t even that much of a figure in Democrat circles, and Cuomo should be in prison for his COVID stupidity. With Trump in charge, these three numbskulls would still have some stroke to come out as the anti-Trump in 2024. Now, they’re lucky if they can be named state chairs of their party caucuses.
– Republicans would have had to find a Trump replacement sooner. With Trump’s defeat in 2020, that kept his legitimacy as a candidate on life support. Had he won, the Republicans would have been scrambling to find a replacement that wasn’t Mike Pence. Nice guy, but he’s like tofu and would have been a lot easier to defeat in 2024 unless the GOP found another Trump-like candidate.
– Kamala Harris would have still been a Senator. This works in one of two ways. First, she could have shored up the concept she was a fierce prosecutor within the safety of the Senate chambers, especially after Tulsi Gabbard ate Harris’s lunch and stole her lunch money besides in 2019. Second, she could have built up her leadership resume a bit more. Instead of being the Kamala Harris we got in 2024, she could have studied the ins and outs of political maneuvering from people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to make her minuses look less minus-ey.
– Other potential Presidential candidates wouldn’t have to deal with the fallout from being seen as incompetent under the Biden Presidency. This is more specific to Pete Buttigieg, but it could apply to others. In 2020, Mayor Pete seemed to be confident, competent, and had a good head on his shoulders, thus bridging a gap between the Progressive wing and the Traditional wing of the Democrat Party. While serving as Secretary of Transportation, he showed none of the traits he did as a candidate, including messing up a pretty big disaster in Ohio which made him look incompetent and out of touch. (Not to mention his “breastfeeding” picture that kept him out of sight for about 30 days.)
– There would be no debate over the 2020 election results. Simple logic here. If Biden lost, the MAGA supporters wouldn’t have a place to hang their red MAGA hats on, and a lot of spin, disinformation, and other gobbledygook would have never seen the light of day. Which leads to…
– The “insurrection” wouldn’t have happened. We can debate the facts of what happened on January 6th until Jesus comes back, but the fact is without a Biden win, there would have been no “insurrection.” And as a result…
– There would be no J6 Committee. To put it mildly, the J6 Committee was a farce only one-upped by the way the Department of Justice handled the J6 arrestees. The more we look into it, the more sus things we find out. Imagine not having that around your neck like an albatross! Although I think Adam Schiff’s neck strength would handle it just fine…
– There would be no J6 arrests. Speaking of the DOJ, they did a horrible job respecting the rule of law and even basic Constitutional rights with how they haphazardly doled out punishments, coerced people into confessions that not even the Spanish Inquisition would have cooked up, and held US citizens in jail without being charged with any crimes. Heck, even the charges that were presented weren’t even close to being insurrection.
– The “lawfare” against Trump would have been more effective. Without the protection of the Presidency, Trump and his legal team would have had a much tougher road to hoe to convince judges his claims of immunity were valid, which would have negated or at least delayed the Supreme Court case that gave Trump a “Get Out of Jail Free if You’re the President” card. And I get the feeling that USSC decision is going to come back to bite us all sooner rather than later, but that’s a blog post for another time.
– The 2022 midterm elections would have been more favorable towards Democrats than they were. Granted, there was no “red wave” as predicted by many on the Right, but think of it this way. Americans seem to think a divided government is somehow preferable to the same party controlling the White House and Congress. With all the negatives Trump had at the time, the Democrats would have seen a much more favorable outcome due to the divided government concept and the rising discontent there might have been with Trump.
– The Biden family wouldn’t have been made so public. This covers a lot of ground, including Hunter Biden’s crimes and subsequent pardon, Joe’s mental decline, allegations of Joe showering with a young female relative, the too-frequent gaffes that had to be explained away, and so many more issues both substantial and inconsequential. If Joe Biden lost in 2020, he could have walked off into the sunset and we would have seen him better than he did when he left office.
– The Democrat wouldn’t look like hypocrites when criticizing Trump’s appointees as incompetent. I can’t say for certain, but I get the feeling the vetting process under Joe Biden was “how many minority boxes do you check off” and that was it. From the incompetent to the “how in the heck did you get this job,” the Biden Administration was filled with people who were in way over their heads, but were in charge of some pretty important stuff. Any Democrat who stayed silent when Sam Brinton was running around stealing people’s luggage instead of keeping an eye on nuclear energy should take all the seats before saying anybody Trump appoints is unfit for the job.
– Democrats would have more time to figure out a better message, both in real life and on social media. Let’s face it, folks. Democrats have a weak social media game, and their ground game is antiquated at best. Within four years, they could have spent less time listening to Millennials with a TikTok account and more time at the grassroots level figuring out why their messaging doesn’t resonate as much as it did. The fact a wealthy land developer from New York is now the voice of the working class should embarrass Leftists to no end.
– No Inflation Reduction Act. This one piece of legislation was pretty much the stake in the Harris/Walz campaign’s heart because it showed how out of touch Democrats became. The old saying “all politics is local” is still as relevant as “it’s the economy, stupid,” and Democrats were tone-deaf to both. No matter how much you folks tried to make us believe the economy was doing better than we thought (and calling us stupid if we didn’t agree), it didn’t match with what voters were seeing. It was, and still is, one of the biggest blunders of the Biden Administration.
– The Russia-Ukraine War might not have started. One of the things that stuck in many voters’ craws was the amount of money we were sending to Ukraine to fight off a Russian invasion. In the face of domestic issues like natural disasters, rising inflation, and the economic impact of looting and thievery in major cities, we kinda wanted to know why our money was being sent to a foreign country without question. We can speculate all we want, but in the end, we are still wondering why we’re funding a war overseas. No amount of patriotic bunting can square this circle. Without Biden cutting blank checks to Ukraine, our involvement wouldn’t be so head-scratchingly controversial. Trump ran on not getting us involved in foreign wars, and I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have gotten us involved in Ukraine.
– The “Tech Bros” and Joe Rogan wouldn’t have seemingly moved rightward. Up until recently, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg , and Joe Rogan among others were consistently left-leaning. But as the Left went further Left, they all had a “come to Jesus” moment and decided to entertain thoughts from the Right. That alone caused Leftists to freak out instead of asking themselves if they were doing something that would make people not associate with the Left anymore. This emboldened others, along with Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy, Jr., to distance themselves from the Left and break bread with Donald Trump. But at least you still have Harry Sisson…for now.
If you made it this far, thank you for hearing me out. If you haven’t, the Readers Digest Condensed Version is Joe Biden winning in 2020 was the worst thing that could have happened to Democrats on a number of levels. As it stands, we’re now in the timeline where Biden won, which lead to Donald Trump winning and Leftists freaking out over what could have been.
It’s like the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”