It’s been quite a week, dear readers. Between a NCAA Women’s Basketball title game that was officiated by people who beamed down from Saturn just before tip-off (not that I have an opinion on that mind you) and former President Donald Trump being indicted on 34 separate charges, it was hard to find a new or interesting take on topics that have already been through the spin cycle several times over.
Then, I saw a phrase that kept getting used by Leftists related to the Trump indictments: no one is above the law. This has always struck me as an interesting phrase, especially when used against Republicans who are experiencing legal troubles of their own. And our dear friends on the Left surely believe in fairness to all under the law. Just ask them!
So, that’s why I’m throwing the brown bullshit flag so we can review whether they mean what they say.
no one is above the law
What the Left thinks it means – everyone is accountable to the law
What it really means – some people are accountable to the law while others aren’t
Remember when former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards said there were two Americas? Although he played second fiddle to someone who made Al Gore look like Alvin Ailey, he was right, but his focus was too limited. There are two Americas on several levels, especially in terms of criminal justice. Leftists were quick to pounce (which I thought only Republicans did) on the Trump indictments as proof that white collar crime is treated differently than other types of crime.
Which it is and has been repeatedly for decades. I’m definitely not disputing that. What I am disputing is how the concept of no one being above the law is actually applied when it comes to crimes with a political bent.
One of the benefits of having political or cultural power is being able to afford good lackeys…I mean employees. And to find even better fall guys…or fall women. No need to be sexist here when we’re dealing with a lack of accountability, right?
Anyway, when you’re able to surround yourself with people who can either keep you out of trouble by finding loopholes and sucking up to the right power brokers or who can take the fall so you can skate away like Brian Boitano, you are practically untouchable. Sure, you might get socked every so often with lighter charges (like getting charged with an overdue library book after being found killing a nun at high noon in Times Square), but most of the time, you’re golden because you have the gold to make it happen.
That fact alone makes the Left’s “no one is above the law” bullshit, well, bullshit. But to add to the what-the-actual-fuckitude of these situaitons, when you add politics to the mix, you get people willing to protect you at all costs. And this is the really fucked up part of it: the political animals being protected by the mobs of adoring fans more obedient than Renfield was to Dracula give one-one-trillionth-of-a-fuck about those fans. They are useful idiots, with a heavy emphasis on the idiot part.
Guess that that means, kids. The same people who say no one is above the law become hypocrites when it’s one of theirs trying to be above the law.
Told ya it was fucked up.
Which brings us to the Trump indictments. Others far more knowledgeable than me have already talked about the legal shitshow ahead of us, so I will leave them to discuss the judicial ins and outs. The parts I will cover revolve around just how deep this indictment rabbit hole goes and just how far Leftists are willing to pervert the rule of law just to get Trump.
Let’s start with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The protagonist or antagonist (depending on how much you hate Trump) ran on an anti-Trump plank, citing the work he did on the investigation of alleged crimes prior to being elected. Under most circumstances, this would be enough to raise some eyebrows as to whether his office could be impartial. And when you consider a) Bragg is a Democrat, and b) the DA position is an elected position, the political aspects cannot be overlooked and can definitely be seen as a conflict of interest.
But, in Trump’s favor, Bragg appears to be inept, so he’s got that going for him.
Oh, and did I mention he got donations from Color of Change? This progressive movement works to try to address the racial inequities in the judicial system (meaning they want blacks to be incapable of being held accountable for crimes they commit). Even beyond that, some of their board members worked previously with SEIU, the Aspen Institute, and other progressive organizations at least partially funded by…Uncle George Soros. And when you consider Color of Change both got donations from Soros and donated some of their money to Bragg’s campaign, let’s just say the Star Chamber looks a lot more like King Solomon’s court by comparison.
And before you Leftists say it, pointing this shit out isn’t anti-Semitic. I could care less what faith, if any, he professes. A bad actor is a bad actor. I would criticize Soros in the same breath I criticize Joel Osteen and for the same thing.
Well, that, and the fact Osteen’s teeth are whiter than the DNC.
That brings us to Judge Juan Merchan, who will be presiding over this shitshow…I mean trial. No, wait, I do mean shitshow. The good judge donated a small amount of money to the Biden/Harris campaign as well as to other progressive causes. Sure, it’s not much in the grand scheme of things…until you consider his daughter worked for a progressive organization called Authentic …whose clientele include Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and…the Biden/Harris campaign. And the list is even longer according to their website.
So again, a conflict of interest, but since it favors the Left, it’s okay!
No wonder people think we have a two-tiered judicial system.
And here’s the thing. For all the people who are cheering the Trump indictments, you can find plenty of examples on both sides of the aisle of politicians and figures who are literally above the law. Hunter Biden ring a bell? Of course, he’s just the son of the President who just so happened to be caught doing drugs, owning a firearm in spite of being legally prohibited from owning it, and a few other minor scandals including possible illicit deals with China. But he’s a private citizen, so we really shouldn’t pick on him, right?
Okay, I’ll agree to that.
But some of the following people weren’t private citizens when they committed their crimes:
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Adam Schiff
Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
Ted Kennedy
Christopher Dodd
Gretchen Whitmer
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
Ilhan Omar
Kamala Harris
Maxine Waters
Need I go on? And I can produce the receipts of each and every one of their crimes. Try me.
And, yes, I know Trump isn’t the only Republican to seemingly skate when it comes to legal matters. But that reinforces the major point: Leftists are fucking hypocrites. They want justice (or at least a Pablo Picasso version of it) for everyone else, but don’t you dare hold them accountable for the illegal shit they do because…reasons.
So, we’re stuck. With political influence taking over the judicial branch like a case of the clap, there is no easy way to fix it. Given the political sideshow of the Trump indictments, you could get arrested for wrongthink before you could say “doubleplusungood” on the whims of a Leftist prosecutor or judge. And believe me they are just that petty. Even after charges are dropped, you’re still guilty. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse.
Then, there are the people who can commit any number of crimes and never see the inside of a courtroom for them. I’m looking at you, BLM and Antifa. You can cause all the chaos you want, and you will always get the fiery but mostly peaceful benefit of the doubt.
I wish I could give you a happy ending or some inspirational speech to make things right again, but I can’t. As long as there are people who can get away with crimes no matter what, Lady Justice is best kept blind out of fear of what she might see out of the so-called judicial system today.
Category: Humor
A Wolf in Sheep(skin)’s Clothing?
Leftists have been known to…exaggerate situations that directly affect their grift…I mean policy decisions. But sometimes they get one right. Granted, it’s usually rarer than how I like my steak, but it does happen.
Recently, House Republicans introduced the Parents Bill of Rights Act designed to help parents of public school students to exercise more oversight over curricula and offer opportunities to provide feedback. Although this proposal has garnered praise from former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and damnation from Leftist asshats Aaron Rupar and Jonathan Capehart, the bill is likely to fail in the Senate because that’s where ideas go to get turned into expensive boondoggles these days.
For all the great intentions the Parents Bill of Rights Act has, there is a road to Hell we need to traverse before we throw support behind the bill.
First, let’s start with what the Left got right…I mean correct about the proposal. A tweet in response to Secretary Pompeo’s original tweet points out the inherent problem with the current public education system: a lack of parental participation. Usually, it’s because the parents complaining about it are too busy working, but it’s hard to argue the point. Parental involvement in a child’s education should start in the home, and not just for homeschooled kids, either!
It’s easy to pawn off the responsibilities due to anything from time constraints to not really wanting to do them, but if you’re complaining now that a book promoting gay sex under the guise of “education,” you’ve identified a problem: you weren’t paying attention to when this shit was being put into schools. And given the number of freaks out there teaching children these days (as can be found on the Libs of TikTok Twitter account), you might want to make the time to get involved.
Of course, we can trust our government to do the right thing. I mean, it’s not like there’s a proven track record of the government fucking up something like public education, right? But, at least with the government involved, it won’t wind up like, oh I don’t know, a train accident in Ohio.
If you believe that, I have a great deal on some FTX for ya!
Anyway, the problems being “addressed” by this legislation continue the cycle of big government involvement in something that really isn’t the federal government’s business in the first place. Or at least it wasn’t until the Department of Education was founded. Nowadays, you can’t seem to send Bobby and Cindy to public school without having the DOE having its fingers in it, which is a Brady Bunch of bullshit.
And, as much as it pains me to say it, the Parents Bill of Rights Act only continues that trend. Regardless of how you feel about what’s going on in public schools today, passing legislation to do something we can and should be doing for ourselves isn’t going to end well.
Politicians in general are always trying to find ways to carve out exceptions or use the existing system to advance ideological goals, even if it means warping the original intent of the legislation. All it takes is a swing in one direction or another and before you can say “detention” you lose more of your freedoms.
And, no, the fact this is a Republican-lead bill doesn’t make it any better. A freedom removed is damn hard to get back, regardless of which major party took it away in the first place. Just ask gun owners about that.
And don’t expect any help from the Left on this. They have a vested interest in keeping the status quo the way it is right now. Graduates may not be able to function in any meaningful way, but at least they’ll know their fee-fees are valued. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear it was almost like the Left wants people to be dumber than Puddin’ Head Joe after a NyQuil binge because then it would be easier to make them do stupid and dangerous stuff without questioning it…oh, wait…
Say, that reminds me, I’m due for my 498th COVID booster. I’m sure it will work this time and without horrible side effects!
Seriously, though, putting government in charge of responsibilities we should be taking on rarely ends well and only perpetuates the current system, which sucks out loud.
But let’s blue sky this idea. Let’s say by some miracle/deal with the Devil/funky AI algorithm/glitch in the Matrix the Parental Bill of Rights Act gets passed. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be followed, especially by those who have a vested interest in keeping people stupid and, thus, dependent on government. All it takes is a different politician of a different political persuasion to roll everything back, putting us at Square One all over again, but with more government intervention.
Fucking brilliant!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Granted, I’m a week late on this, but under the circumstances (namely me deciding to write about something else), I hope you’ll forgive me. And if not, well…I’ll pout.
Anyway, California is usually at the forefront of a lot of things, namely really bad ideas. Recently, San Francisco proposed a lump sum payment of $5 million to eligible blacks for reparations, among other proposals. Additionally, the state’s Reparation Task Force submitted a report to the California Legislature that Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to implement if the legislature doesn’t act.
As a result, I am stating for the record I now self-identify as a black resident of San Francisco. Please respect my privacy during my transition.
Seriously, reparations is a controversial subject to say the least, which means it’s perfect for your favorite blogger who writes a weekly series by this specific title to cover. Take that, “Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week” written by Jerry Funklemeyer!
reparations
What the Left thinks it means – monetary compensation given to blacks due to America’s slave history
What it really means – another way for white Leftists to blow through more of our money so they can feel good about themselves
The Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression/The War the Movie “Glory” Was Based On was one of the most difficult and bloody times of our nation’s relatively young history. From 1861 to 1865, this country was more fractured than Jackie Chan’s body after doing his own stunts. But once the Union prevailed, the question was what to do next. Back then, they didn’t have Leftists to provide their sage advice about misogyny and trans rights in the former Confederacy, so it came down to a meeting between William T. Sherman and black ministers to create an attempt at reparations: 40 acres. (Mule, sold separately.)
And that attempt got scuttled by President Andrew Johnson, leaving the matter unresolved until recently.
There have been calls for reparations in recent history, but the idea really took off in 2020 thanks to the Democratic Primaries where there were…four black candidates out of 27. Five if you count Elizabeth Warren. And of those black candidates, none got the nomination, and only one (Kamala Harris) got to the White House as Puddin’ Head Joe’s Vice-President. Not too shabby for someone who I almost tied in the Iowa Caucuses and I didn’t even run.
Out of that and the shootings of blacks that occurred in 2019-2020, the idea of reparations gained new steam, which prompted California to create the aforementioned Reparations Task Force.
So, now that we’re back in the present, let’s start shitting on the reparations idea, shall we?
As a concept, reparations aren’t that hard to understand. We wronged an entire race of people by enslaving them and treating them worse than Ike treated Tina, so we want to try to balance the scales somehow. Admirable goal, but the logistical equivalent of an M.C. Escher drawing.
The biggest hurdle to the idea of reparations is the fact none of the people who are demanding it today were ever slaves. And it’s not like we can fire up the TARDIS, go back to 1865, drop off $5 million, and tell the slaves to invest heavily in Apple in 100+ years. Although time can be a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff, it’s still bound by fixed events that can be tracked. And with the passage of time comes the birth of generation after generation that are removed from slavery altogether, save by bloodline.
But does bloodline alone create a solid enough link to award $5 million? That creates another speed bump to payday: what about those who either didn’t own slaves or fought for the Union in the Civil War? If bloodline is enough to give away money, it should also be good enough to exempt people from being forced to contribute to this monetary transfer. I have two relatives who fought for the Union (who, by the way, fought at least in part to end slavery). Yet, I get the feeling I would be expected to open my wallet and give generously to the Give Non-Slaves $5 Million Because Fuck You That’s Why Foundation.
And don’t get me started on their telethons!
Then, there’s the question of mixed-race children. Back in the day, white slaveowners knocked boots with slaves, which resulted in the genes of both races coming together to form a new life. Would the families of such a sexual union have to pay up or receive reparations? Or maybe they would just get $2.5 million? Or would the white half have to pay the black half $5 million?
Regardless, the fact we can even ask some of these questions without the pro-reparations side coming up with answers is not a good sign. But wait, there’s more!
Dropping $5 million into anyone’s lap is going to be significant, and it opens up any number of opportunities. And if it’s bundled in hundred dollar bills, it’s going to make the males in the audience sing tenor for a few years. For most people, though, it’s life-changing money, but only if it’s used intelligently. This is where human nature comes into play. If we get any amount of money from $2 on a scratch-off ticket to millions of dollars, our first instinct is to spend it. If this sum comes with few strings attached, though, we can get pretty reckless with it because in our minds it’s “free money.”
But just as any breadwinner today can tell you, money can run out fast if you’re not careful. Or if you vote for Puddin’ Head Joe, which is pretty much the same thing as not being careful.
When we don’t know or care how we get the money, we have less of an incentive to be smart with it. And, no, this isn’t a racial thing, but rather a human thing. Economists have studied this phenomenon for decades and it always ends the same way: the further we are away from earning money, the easier it gets to spend. Hence, the reason so many big lottery winners end up blowing their winnings and winding up right back where they started.
Guess what I think will happen to the reparations money if it gets approved.
And it’s not like there isn’t precedent with this. Remember Hurricane Katrina (which, oddly or appropriately enough, was the last time Kanye West was relevant)? Well, some inventive (and ultimately dishonest) people found a way to turn tragedy into a windfall to the tune of an estimated $2 billion. Between recipients of the aid spending the money on non-essential items, including vacations and porn, and others getting relief funds for people who didn’t exist, Katrina proved to be a disaster of a natural disaster response.
But the Katrina failure was more federal, right? Nothing like that could happen on the state level, right? Wellllll…not really. Our good friends on the Left Coast racked up an estimated $20 billion in fraud related to the pandemic. Leftists bad with money? Why that’s…pretty normal, really.
Now, why would I bring up Katrina and COVID in a discussion about reparations? To underscore a point that will taint the idea: governments, especially large ones, don’t keep good tabs on who is getting the money. It’s more of a rubber-stamp process. Granted, the reparations initiative in San Francisco comes with some conditions, but I’m not sure the state government that racked up ten times the Katrina fraud is capable of making sure the conditions are met.
But then again, it’s not meant to be effective or efficient except in one area: easing the guilt white Leftists feel over slavery. And they’re willing to spend as much of your money as possible to make sure they feel better no matter how long it takes! When you consider the amount of guilt a Leftist could prevent brownouts in California if it could be converted into electricity, let’s just say you might as well give the government access to your bank accounts. I mean, if China doesn’t already have it, thanks to TikTok.
It’s at this point I need to remind the white Leftists…none of you fuckknuckles were alive during slavery. You can feel bad about what happened generations ago, but to make it a central part of your life is a bit extreme and at this point silly. Kinda like the Young Turks, but less comedic. You cannot change the past, nor can you expect any amount of money to ever make it right because there will always be people willing to prey on your guilt to get more money out of you. As long as the greedy and dishonest among us see Leftist largess as free money, the spigot will never turn completely off and there will be fraud aplenty.
The thing is the Left has made it amazingly easy to game the system, thanks to the rhetoric they’ve already presented as true. And eagle-eyed readers already know how. Remember, the Left maintains how you self-identify is as real as how you are. Rachel Dolezal and Shawn King both identify as black in spite of being whiter than a medical isolation room run by Mormon IBM executives. Yet, they were/are considered to be authentic voices on the black experience in America.
Well, shit. If they can do it, so can I. And I can think of 5 million reasons to do it!
And California can’t say shit about it. Well, they can, but they’ll look like hypocritical assholes doing it. So, win-win!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week, the word “woke” got a bit of a workout. I’m not talking Richard Simmons “Sweating With the Oldies” kind of workout, either. We’re talking The Rock on truck stop speed locked in a Gold’s Gym for a weekend kind of workout. And after that, I definitely don’t want to know what the Rock was cookin’.
After people on the Right started to adopt “woke” as a term of derision, Leftists haven’t been able to figure out a way to take it back. So, instead, they’re creating new rules. And with that, this week’s Lexicon will delve into the wonderfully wide weird world of woke.
woke
What the Left thinks it means – either a word of pride or derision, depending on who uses it
What it really means – a term that needs to go the way of the dodo and Carrot Top’s movie career
Remember the 90s when Political Correctness was all the rage? People bent over backwards to use the “correct” (and often nonsensical) words. Then, it grew to the point where even the most PC of PC people got caught using non-PC terms because the term changed without warning from one week to the next. It was like playing hot potato with a live hand grenade while blindfolded. It’s only a matter of time before you’re getting shrapnel.
Well, thanks to the “woke” warriors out there, we get to relive one of my least favorite times of my adult life. Fortunately, I’m older and I give even less of a fuck than I did back then. The only difference? The current woke environment makes the PC movement of the 90s look like an Amish barn raising, complete with beards. Although with the woke folks, the beards might be connected to men who claim to be women.
Anyway, “woke” has gone from a funny term used by white Leftists so much you think they’re getting paid to use it to an entire culture. But only the first 4/7 of the word.
When the Right started using the word “woke” like an insult or a derogatory term, the Left lost its collectivist mind. After all, to them being woke is the end all and be all of existence. So, when people started making fun of it, it became an affront to them and their cause and they were forced to act!
By adding more context to its use.
But first, a slight aside. Woke actually began in the black community where it was used to raise awareness to racism and discrimination. Over time, the perspective grew to encompass more and more social justice ideas to the point white Leftists adopted it and made it mainstream. After all, the only way blacks can get ahead is if white Leftists speak for them, amirite kids?
Yeah, no.
Over the past week, the Left has expanded the definition even more. For Leftists, woke is still a good thing, but it’s also become a way to claim moral and intellectual superiority over everyone. Or in other words, Tuesday. John Stewart said being woke was “being good at history.” Molly Knight (who is whiter than a mayonnaise sandwich on Wonder Bread) echoes this sentiment by throwing in slavery.
Then, there’s the virtue signaling. And when I say virtue signaling, I mean virtue signaling!
Now, for the other side. Leftists love to use the Right’s use of the word to state their opposition is based on being stupid. And being the worst people on Earth. And being triggered. Oh, and when the Right uses it, it’s racist! And, of course, the Left thinks the Right can’t define it.
The Left thinks woke is a positive. The Right thinks woke is a negative. I think woke is the past tense form of wake.
As much as both sides love to throw around the term, it’s gotten to the point of ridiculousness, mostly because adherents keep pushing the envelope like a postal worker only getting paid commission. Seriously, folks. How exactly does allowing kids to be exposed to drag shows where performers are exposing themselves bring about a better world? And, no, my conservative friends, not that scenario isn’t an example of society getting too woke. It’s an example of people being fucking narcissists and demanding the rest of us go along with their fantasy world.
Right now woke isn’t anything but a meaningless term that keeps changing definitions more frequently than models at a fashion show. And, to me, when you have trouble nailing down a definition that doesn’t come without an exceptions list longer than an Apple Terms of Service Agreement, the problem isn’t the definition; it’s the word. Whenever you have a word that can be used in multiple ways and is solely dependent upon who is using it as far as whether it’s the “right” or “wrong” definition, you create the ambiguity necessary for the word to be used in whatever way people want.
Guess what, kids. “Woke” is no longer a simple word that means only one thing. It’s expanded and is not the Left’s word anymore. It belongs to the people now, and it will continue to be used until it’s burnt out.
Now, how would I define woke? Aside from being the past tense version of wake, in the modern sense of the word I define it as Political Correctness 2.0. Or Political Correctness on PCP. Sayyyyyyyy!
Either way, I’m not a fan of the term, nor am I a fan of how it’s being used to further divide us. Instead of woke, let me offer a slightly longer, but a far more universal concept.
Being a decent human being, respectful of others and not being a fucking asshole.
That’s not too much of an ask, is it?
Editor’s Note: This next section was added after Thomas went to the grocery store.
Fuck that last thing I wrote. The SMOD can’t come soon enough.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week was a big one for our friends at Fox News. Sure, the Left loves to talk about the Dominion defamation lawsuit against the network, but the Fox hate was cranked up to 12 (because 11 just won’t do) because of Tucker Carlson showing previously unreleased security footage from January 6th. You know, that insurrection that simultaneously could have destroyed the nation and was run by dumb Trump supporters?
Well, since both Leftists and, well, other Leftists are losing their collectivist shit over the footage, I figured it was time to take a look at the little cable network that could…bitch slap CNN and MSNBC into oblivion.
Fox News
What the Left thinks it means – a radical right wing network that lies to the country, thus becoming a national security threat
What it really means – a right-leaning network that represents everything the Left fears/hates
Fox News Channel began in 1996 from humble beginnings. Well, as humble as can be while being funded by a wealthy Australian. Anyway, Fox News was established as an alternative to the media, who lean so far left they walk at a 5 degree angle perpendicular to the ground, and it proved to be very successful. No longer did we have Leftist talking heads telling us what and how to think about the events of the day. Now, we had “fair and balanced” news.
Kinda.
It’s hard to overcome personal biases in the media, but Fox News at least tried to do it for a long time, and they still do. But try to convince a Leftist raised on Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of that. They’ll continue to say Fox News isn’t really news because of all the lies they tell.
Seriously? Have you fucknuckles looked in the mirror lately?
Where the Left gets things twisted is a common blind spot for people: separating news from opinion. To the Left, the two are inseparable as they believe their opinions are facts. Granted, the Right does this as well, but in their defense people on the Right can be persuaded with facts most of the time. Their ego isn’t tied to being correct. The Left’s is.
But actual reporting has little to do with ego. The journalism of even the past 50 years has gone from hitting the pavement to hitting up a Leftist politician on Twitter to get a quote for a story that’s pretty much plug-and-play. Just add a quote or two, make Republicans look bad, and you’re done.
Fox News’ actual reporting isn’t anything like that from what I’ve seen. For one, they get blocked by Twitter Leftists. But more importantly the reporters on staff do amazing work. Even former Fox News contributors like Catherine Herridge found work after leaving it because of her reputation as a strong, driven reporter. And if you look at the body of her work, you’ll find a common theme: report the facts without emotional attachments. She’s like a female Data.
This blurring of lines between news and opinion actually makes the rest of the media look bad, mainly because they assume Fox News does what they do, only with more of a conservative bent. Of course, Leftists think…excuse me…AHAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA!
So, where was I? Oh, yes, Leftist media.
Being anything to the right of the Socialist Socialite makes you incredible to Leftists, and not in a good way. Once you get branded as a conservative, Leftists no longer consider you to be human, let alone credible. Just ask Matt Taibbi, a reporter that used to work for Leftist rag Rolling Stone and is now reporter-non-grata for his role in the Twitter Files.
Yet, this is lazy thinking. Dismissing a source solely because of political leanings is silly. You need to take the time and really look at the body of work before you determine how badly they suck. Then, you can dismiss them.
In the case of Fox News, I can’t completely dismiss them for having no credibility. Their news side is consistently running circles around the competition by being good at their jobs. It’s the commentary side that ultimately hurts the network. Sure, they have solid contributors like Brit Hume, Greg Gutfeld, Tammy Bruce, and Tulsi Gabbard, people whose opinions aren’t hidden and even-handed.
Then, there’s the hard pro-Trump side like Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, neither of one I can stand because they just find ways to say the same things over and over again night after night. If I wanted to hear Trump talking points, I would go right to the source, not filtered through people whose opinions I care less about than the insane homeless man I see on my way to work. Although the homeless guy did give me some great stock tips…
Regardless, Fox News is doing something right because they continue to dominate the cable news ratings. Granted, ratings doesn’t always mean quality. I’m looking right at you “Friends.” You owe me 3 years of my life back watching Ross and Rachel. And no number of times singing “Smelly Cat” will make up for it.
Yet, Fox News has enough crossover appeal that it gets people on the Left and the Right to watch. This link is from 2019, so the numbers may have changed, but the fact Fox News continues to dominate month after month, year after year, makes it harder to dismiss the network as niche. Even with the Dominion lawsuit looming over them, it just doesn’t matter.
And that’s what pisses off Leftists the most. No matter what they do, no matter how many boycotts or hashtags they come up with, Fox News keeps chugging along, making CNN and MSNBC fight for the scraps. Or scrap for the scraps, if you prefer (and I do).
Of course, the Left can’t let that happen, so they’re doing what they can to attack Fox News. Hence, the accusations they’re a threat to national security and lie all the time. And hence the reason they have to lie about what Fox News is.
A lot of the “Fox News is a national security threat” bullshit arose in the aftermath of January 6th, a dark day in our history where…let me check my notes…a bunch of people attended a rally in Washington, DC, to protest an election they felt was stolen and some asshats decided to be destructive dicks. Apparently, protesting the results of a contested election is a national security threat to the Left.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries? Please pick up the white courtesy phone. You may be a national security threat.
Where Fox News comes into the picture is related to the Dominion lawsuit in that the network is alleged to have lied to its viewers about the 2020 Presidential election being stolen, which prompted the January 6th “insurrection,” which as we’ve been told is worse than 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and another “Scary Movie” sequel…combined.
I won’t dispute Fox News had a hand in the “stolen election” narrative. What I do dispute is that they knowingly lied. I didn’t vote for Trump or Puddin’ Head Joe, so I don’t really have a dog in the hunt, but I can’t completely dismiss the idea there was some funky shit going down at the polls. Polling places running out of ballots, allegations of renewed counting after most of the vote counters had left, and other irregularities became the coin of the Trump realm. I can’t say every accusation of election irregularities could be substantiated with facts, but there were enough to make me question whether the results we got on Election Day 2020 were real or Memorex. And, me being the curious boy I am, I want to get to the bottom of it.
And apparently Fox News did, too. When the rest of the media dismissed the possibility of election fraud out of hand (while saying the 2016 election was fundamentally flawed because of Russia, Russia, Russia), Fox News became the contrarian and started to look at what happened with a critical eye.
You know, like reporters are supposed to do?
But is this questioning a threat to national security? In a word. In two words, fuck no. In three words, fuckity fuck no. In four words…well, let’s just say there’s a lot more variations of “fuck” used.
The First Amendment says Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting the redress of grievances against the government. If a rally about possible election fraud isn’t a redress of grievances, I don’t know what is. At the very least, the January 6 protestors had a Constitutional right to do what they did. Once they breached the rules of decorum to commit criminal acts, that protection goes the way of Kamala Harris’ Presidential hopes in 2024.
On top of that, the concept of January 6th being a “riot” or an “insurrection” is being undone by the security footage being shown. Most of the people at the rally stayed outside, and those who gained access to the Capitol mostly…took a tour, some with the help of the Capitol Police on duty that day.
But wait a minute! Wouldn’t that prove the Left’s narrative about January 6th is full of shit? Why, yes…yes it would! But they can’t just say “The real reason we lied about January 6th is because we got scared by a bunch of non-violent Americans who disagree with us” because it would go over as well as giving David Duke an NAACP Image Award.
And not to put too fine a point on this, but who was President on January 6, 2021? That would be Donald Trump, not Puddin’ Head Joe. There was no transfer of power, no transition (except maybe for some members of the Biden Administration), and no attempt to overthrow the government. For January 6th to be an actual insurrection, the protestors/”rioters” would have to be seeking to overthrow…the man they supported for President in 2020. Fox News broadcasting security footage doesn’t make the lack of logic behind the “insurrection” go away, nor is it nearly as horrible as the Left wants to make it out to be. The only real threat with releasing the security footage isn’t to national security, but to the security of the Leftist narrative.
Now, for the lying. Not on my part, but to the allegations Fox News misinforms its viewers. Let’s just say any major media outlet that pushed even one-tenth of the stories about Russiagate being real should take all the seats. Much of what passes for reporting these days revolves around lying, whether it be omitting context, fabricating stories to advance a narrative, or spinning events to make one side look better than the other. In fact, most of the “reporters” today should get an additional pay for being the DNC’s steno pool.
Fox News is no different, except for the DNC steno pool bit. They do exactly what the rest of the media do, only for the Right instead of the Left. That’s not meant as an excuse, but rather an observation built over 35 years of studying the media both formally and informally. It’s hypocritical for the Left to hold Fox News to a higher standard than they hold themselves, but it’s par for the Alinsky course. Not that you’d ever get an actual admission of dishonesty from the Left, mind you. They’re still clinging to the “very fine people on both sides” lie as though it were a security blanket.
So, is Fox News as bad as its critics say it is? Yes, and no. They are a product of the current media environment and are guilty of at least some of the sins attributed to it. Overall, they’re no better or worse than any other media outlet, and much of the criticism levied against it is the result of partisan hyperbole. Having said that, Fox News has a lot of room to improve. Don’t fall back on reciting RNC/Donald Trump talking points and go back to reporting that lives up to the “fair and balanced” standard.
Oh, and fire Geraldo Rivera. He’s as useful as tits on Michael Moore.
New Words, Who Dis?
As faithful readers know, I’m a word guy. I am fascinated by the interplay of words put together to form everything from poetry and screenplays to Twitter posts, mainly for the number of times people confuse “to” and “too” and even “two.”
As part of my passion, I’ve learned to study how words are used and compare them to the time period. There are some words, like “cool,” that never seem to fall out of favor, while others like “extreme” or “Pauly Shore comedy” come and go with the passage of time. And every so often, our societal lexicon (not to be confused with the Leftist Lexicon) needs to get expanded to reflect the zeitgeist of the age.
In other words, here are some new words I came up with. Enjoy!
Algoreaphobia – the fear of climate change
selfietality – when someone dies while doing something stupid to try to get views on social media
entitlemental – a form of insanity that arises when someone believes they are owed something
reminiscinging – when you find yourself singing songs from your youth because today’s music fucking sucks
noledge – the “facts” most people use in Twitter arguments
Mandatorian – when someone tells you that you “have to watch” the latest popular streaming series
prenouns – the pronouns you are expected to know before talking to a Leftist
insoyfurable – when someone insists on telling you his or her dietary/lifestyle choices without anyone else asking them to do it
showflake – the person who makes a big deal about being offended, i.e. any Karen/Kevin
gender disphonya – a condition where a person claims to be a different gender, but doesn’t bother to actually transition
in-app-propriate – when you spend too much on microtransactions
NFTease – the pitch scammers use to get you to invest in NFTs
That’s all I have for now. If you liked this, let me know and I can do more. If you didn’t, then you might be disappointed if I decide to do another one. I’m good either way!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After 3 years of COVID-19 coverage, we’re starting to come to a new understanding of what happened or could have happened. Of course, it was Russia, Russia, Russia!
One of the early hypotheses about COVID’s origins was it originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, and got out. Of course, the Left said it was bullshit and went about limiting even the illusion of a debate by getting social media companies to censor those who advanced the idea as plausible. Now, the FBI, Department of Energy, and other government entities are starting to say there might be something to the lab leak theory.
Which means we get to talk about it a bit more!
I know you’re out there. I can hear you groaning.
lab leak theory
What the Left thinks it means – a plausible, yet not seriously considered explanation for the spread of COVID-19
What it really means – a prime example of the Left controlling a narrative until it no longer benefits them
Just in case any Interwebs Po-Po are reading this, I must say I am not a doctor, nor should anything I say be considered medical advice. I’m just a guy who paid a little attention in high school science classes and occasionally makes humorous comments about the absurdity of life. Do not take my commentary seriously and don’t take any actions that goes against your legal and moral best interests without checking with your doctor, your religious leader, your family, some guy name Earl, or a tax professional. Hell, talk to them all just to be safe!
Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s fuck up a narrative!
As faithful readers know, I like to do mental exercises to see how plausible an idea is. When there are breaks in the logic that can’t be explained away with an equally plausible explanation or after a couple of drinks, I dismiss it.
The lab leak theory? Not as easily dismissed as the Left made it sound.
Before COVID-19 became a household word (mainly because we weren’t supposed to leave the house), lab leaks weren’t uncommon. In fact, it keeps happening over and over again. At this rate, security guards in California are more secure than some labs!
So, this raises the question of why the Left’s tune changed with COVID-19 if they knew lab leaks were fairly common in recent history. It’s simple: President Donald Trump. After seeing Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Left had a Paul Bunyon-sized ax to grind and would resort to any means to get rid of Trump.
Even denying the science they claimed to be following from the jump.
And, yes, I’m just as shocked as you are that Leftists would lie so brazenly and expect us not to pay attention.
Yet, in spite of their best efforts to keep it quiet, the Left couldn’t completely drown out the lab leak theory because there was just enough there there to keep it alive. That’s the way all conspiracy theories work: find a kernel of truth (i.e. there is fluoride in our drinking water), expand it a little bit (i.e. the federal government is putting fluoride in our drinking water), and then add to it to absurd lengths (i.e. the federal government is putting fluoride in our drinking water for mind control).
Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like what global warming cultists do…naaaaaaah!
Even so, the lab leak theory never got to the last stage, but the Left made it look like it was there through the media coverage and their government lackeys. But, as so many matters originally dismissed as conspiracy theories these days, the truth started to make its way out and made the conspiracy a reality. Then, the media started to change their tune a bit to lessen the blow by admitting there was merit to the lab leak theory, but it was Trump’s fault it wasn’t taken seriously.
In other words, Leftist default position 1.
But this narrative falls apart because it’s an example of a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. In short, it’s when a party tries to discredit another party’s claims through character assassination rather than an actual argument. In other words, Leftist default position 2. Regardless of how you feel about a source, when he or she tells the truth, it’s the truth and should be recognized as such.
The fact Donald Trump was the most vocal and visible advocate of the lab leak theory made it easier for Leftists to dismiss it, but now the government they voted into office is saying he may be right after all makes it harder to dismiss now. And justifiably so. The possibility of COVID-19 escaping from a Chinese lab isn’t that far-fetched and seemed much more plausible than wet market bat-du-joir theory.
Now, the Left’s entire approach has been rendered more worthless than a Pauly Shore NFT, and they’re scrambling to memory-hole what they said before. The Left hates to be proven wrong on anything, so when it happens, they treat it like most children do: ignore it until it goes away and lie about it throughout. And as any parent will tell you, it doesn’t work.
And it won’t work here. Or it won’t work if we’re willing to stand firm on the side of the truth. Every time a Leftist comes around to accept the lab leak theory (rarer than how Dracula takes his steak tartare, but I’m trying to be optimistic), thank them for joining you on the right side of this issue and welcome them to the truth. And if they don’t run away screaming like they’ve been doused with holy water (or soap and water for that matter), show them the grace they didn’t show you. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it will piss them off to no end because it will be another Leftist idea that is proven wrong.
Irreconcilable Differences
It was bound to happen, kids. Marjorie Taylor Greene said something that almost made my head explode with the sheer stupidity of it. Recently she came out and said we need a “national divorce” between red and blue states. As much fun as it would be to have America turned into a sitcom trope, I think this is a bad idea. Why?
For one, because the idea started from a 2004 meme.
But more importantly, because it’s going to lead to civil war, no matter what MTG says. Right now, ideological rifts are wider than Steven Tyler’s mouth at a dental appointment. People on the Left and the Right wake up and choose violence, hatred, and half-witted squawking points from their shit-flingers of choice.
At the core of this strife is a fundamental difference, not just of ideas, but of reality itself. Take gender, for example. Right now, Leftists believe there are more genders than Baskin Robbins has ice cream flavors (dining tip: avoid the Gender Fluid Fudge Ripple), while the Right believes there are only two. Now, I’m not a biologist or a Supreme Court nominee for that matter, but if we’re going to fight over something that hasn’t become an issue until the past few years and isn’t rooted in the age-old conflict of reality versus feefees, something tells me splitting up the country will end badly.
Just think about the sheer logistics of such an enterprise. Although there are clear red and blue states, there are a number of purple states, such as my home state of Iowa. Sometimes, we vote for Democrats, and other times we vote for Republicans. Where exactly would we fit? Would it turn into a custody battle between California and Texas where we spend two weekends a month with one state and the other two weekends with the other? And what if one state lets us stay up past our bedtimes and buys us all the toys, games, and gadgets we want in an attempt to appear to be the “cool state”? Then, there would be getting used to our new “step-states” and trying to fit in.
These are the kind of questions people gung ho for a national divorce haven’t considered yet, if they’ve considered them at all.
The sad part is, having said all that, I don’t see any way out of it. There are too many differences for us to try to work on as a nation, and when we can’t even agree on how many genders there are, it’s pretty much destined to fail. There is no reimagined version of the Yalta Conference coming soon to a TV screen near you. America is, to put it bluntly, stuck in a swamp of our own creation. And I’m not talking about Washington, DC.
And don’t expect our national leaders to lend a hand. Not only do they get off on us being at each other’s throats like a Nosferatu fistfight, but the strife helps them get away with more underhanded shit. The wallet-busting multi-trillion dollar Omnibus Spending Bill from a few weeks ago proved that. And as long as the Left and the Right continue to let us bicker, the wheels of the country get further and further sucked into the marsh, making it harder for us to get out.
So, what do we do? First off, we should reject the idea of a national divorce, no matter who agrees with it, because the eventual conclusion of such an idea will be bloody, messy, and possibly fracture the country even more than it already is. Besides, we’ve already done this. Remember that little thing the kids like to call the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression/That Thing We Have Totally Forgotten About or Never Learned in the First Place Because Racism? Yeah, Gettysburg is gonna look like a Buddhist picnic compared ot what we have in store.
Beyond that…I got nothing. No, wait, I do have something: look past the differences we have and look for the similarities. At the end of the day, we’re all Americans (unless you’re reading this in a different country…but I can put in a good word for you and make sure you get the Honorary American tour package). It doesn’t matter if you’re a Trump-loving Republican named Roy or a non-binary genderfluid person named Magnolia with more pronouns than college majors, there are still some things that can bring us all together.
You know, like thinking Michael Bay should never make another movie ever?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If the Left didn’t hate Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy before now (spoiler alert: they did), giving access to tens of thousands of hours of surveillance footage from January 6th to Tucker Carlson. With Leftists already believing Carlson is a Russian asset, this has given them the opportunity to talk about national security. After all, letting a Russian asset (in their opinion) gain access to security footage from January 6, the most horrifying day in American history up there with Pearl Harbor and 9/11 (again, in their opinion), has to be a national security risk, right?
Well, to paraphrase the Commander in Briefs Bill Clinton, that depends on what your definition of national security is.
national security
What the Left believes it means – ummm…they’re still working on it
What it really means – a concept that means less and less with each passing year
To put it mildly, national security is a pretty big fucking deal. It’s essential to all of our lives, even if we don’t give it a first thought, let alone a second thought. It allows us to live free, or at least as freely as the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration will allows us to live. It ensures we don’t have to worry about foreign countries invading us and destroying America.
By the way, I’ve got my eye on you, Canada! No trying to get us to adopt the metric system on my watch!
If you really think about it, and I do because I have to entertain myself somehow since prices are higher than Willie Nelson on any day ending in day, national security touches every aspect of our lives on some level. So, why do we take it for granted?
A huge part of it is how invulnerable we’ve felt as a country since the Cold War. After the Berlin Wall fell, there were no more superpowers to challenge us. The Soviet Union was no more, China was years away from firing up its economic power, and the Middle East was, well, the Middle East. For all intents and purposes, we were untouchable.
Then 9/11 happened. That woke us up, at least for a little while, to how vulnerable we could still be. Granted, the warning signs were there if we had bothered to put 2 and 2 together and come up with something other than potato (thanks to Simon Miller for that joke). After all the outpouring of sympathy, all the brave words that we’d find who was responsible and bring them to justice, all the patriotic bunting and good feelings, we promptly…forgot about it after a year or so. But in our defense “Friends” was on, so…
Since then, our approach to national security has been spottier than a freckled-faced Jackson Pollock impersonator using a cheetah for a canvas. (Not something I’d recommend, by the way, especially if your clothes are dry clean only.) It’s become a stock talking point for both sides that has a level of gravitas and a seemingly untouchable nature about it that prevents Joe Sixpack or Taemmi Soylatte from thinking any deeper about it than “It’s good.”
And that’s where both parties fuck us at the drive-thru.
For decades, our national security has been tied to how much we’re willing to spend on it. With Republicans, it tends to be neat new weapons, gadgets, and tech, and with Democrats it tends to be more “soft” spending on diversity, diplomacy, and making sure other country’s fee-fees don’t get hurt by us. Yet, with all of that spending, we aren’t that much safer. If anything, we’ve gotten more lax due to an unhealthy cocktail of political gaslighting and social media.
Let’s start with the gaslighting since it’s the most pervasive and, thus, more fun to talk about. Both sides use this tactic to bolster their own version of national security. If you don’t approve of spending $450 on a screwdriver you can get at Home Depot for $8, the Right thinks you support China, North Korea, or dare I say it Trinidad Tobago marching down our streets and making us their bitches. If you don’t agree to using military (i.e. taxpayer) dollars to combat global climate change, the Left thinks you want to pollute the Earth to the point only cockroaches and the Kardashians would survive.
Both sides are wrong in the same bipartisan way. It doesn’t matter how much you spend on a security system if you never turn it on. And guess what, kids? We have been forgetting to turn it on for decades, all the while keeping every door unlocked and all our valuables in one convenient and highly visible spot for anyone to come along and take them.
And, yes, I’m about to talk about the balloon incident.
On January 28th, a Chinese balloon was able to fly over Alaska, western Canada, and parts of the United States before it was shot down over the East Coast. On February 4th. Even if you buy the multiple excuses the Left gave for why the balloon wasn’t shot down over, well, Alaska, the fact remains it took 8 fucking days and an entire cross country trip for us to do anything. And then, as if to try to balance out the dumbfuckery, we got hyper-vigilant and started shooting down balloons that weren’t even Chinese.
It’s one thing to double down after making a mistake. But the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration decided to double, triple, and quadruple down on the mistake just to show how serious they were. Which is to say not serious at all. The very fact a single balloon made it into American airspace, was recognized, and was allowed to go coast to coast without so much as a dart thrown at it is a serious breach of national security.
After all, we don’t know what kind of equipment the balloon had, if it had any. We are just being told that it was either harmless due to spy satellites giving better information or that it was made harmless because we jammed any transmissions (neither of which, I might add, has been established with any factual information). In other words, Leftists want us to believe the same balloon was ineffective because shut up.
After the Chinese balloon debacle, it’s a good thing there wasn’t a train derailment or…oh, wait. Never mind.
Even with what people observed, we had to endure Leftists telling us it wasn’t a big deal and people who said we should have shot the balloon down sooner were “bedwetters” as Senator Chris Murphy put it so inelegantly. To try to get Puddin’ Head Joe as far away from the blame as possible, they even tried to pull Donald Trump into it, saying he also had Chinese balloons come into American airspace during his Presidency, a claim that was later debunked by former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, who said it didn’t happen. I mean, it was obvious, considering it was claimed those alleged balloon flights under Trump weren’t discovered allegedly until the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration…according to the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration.
I’m as shocked as you are the Administration would lie to cover up the Administration’s clusterfuck! And to try to make us feel bad or foolish for not buying the bullshit? That’s lower than an earthworm’s belt buckle.
Now, onto social media. Granted, I don’t have a high opinion of social media to begin with, but there’s one out there that is actually being used for surveillance against us. I’m speaking of TikTok, a popular app that has been linked to spying on journalists and has the potential to track information of American citizens and government workers.
Oh, and it should be pointed out the Trump Administration called this out in 2020, and people mocked them for it, saying it was a conspiracy spun for political advantage. Yeah…chalk up another “conspiracy theory” that wound up being a fact.
Before we take a victory lap at the Left being wrong again, consider the implications of what we know. China has access to information, which is in and of itself a matter of national security, not just because government employees might be doing a stupid dance for tens and tens of people to see. The thing that makes TikTok so dangerous is the fact so many Americans voluntarily give up this information.
In our society’s rush to be “Internet famous,” we have opened ourselves up to invasions of privacy and, yes, security. Say what you will about the Chinese, and believe me I have, but they have figured us out in 2023 America. Just give us a dopamine hit for meaningless videos and we’ll let them mine our data. Brilliant!
Although neither major party has it exactly right, I do have to say Republicans take national security more seriously. After all, the Left keeps saying domestic terrorism is the greatest threat to our national security right now. And by “domestic terrorism” they mean “anybody who disagrees with us and aren’t afraid to say anything about it.”
Look at how they painted parents who were concerned/outraged over pornographic books teaching children about homosexuality and blow jobs in elementary school. You would think these parents were one step below the Manson Family the way the Left talked. But when you get people of all stripes to come out against what you’re trying to push in elementary school, it’s no longer a matter of hatred, fear, or even national security. Maybe, just maybe, your ideas suck ass.
While the Left gets their collectivist panties in a bunch over people pretending to be badasses, we still have real issues with national security we need to address. And with China and Russia united over a) hating us, b) wanting to fuck our shit up as much as possible and c) having the means to do both electronically, we can’t afford to be asleep at the switch anymore.
But we need to be honest here. Neither major party is doing jack shit about protecting ourselves, mainly because we continue to confuse the definition to fit their ideological needs at the time. Is ANTIFA a national security threat? No, nor should they be considered such. Are Trump supporters national security threats? No, and they shouldn’t be considered such either. Once you start pulling away the layers of this fetid onion, you get closer and closer to the core of what national security actually looks like.
And what does it look like? A strong and vigilant population who strive for the same goal of protecting America regardless of their ideological differences. As we’ve seen since Kevin McCarthy’s actions involving January 6 footage, we’re a long ways off from that.
But, hey, at least we can still use TikTok, right?
Perot 2.0?
The year was 1992. Jay Leno became the host of “The Tonight Show” following Johnny Carson’s departure. We were still five years away from Hanson MMMBopping their way into our hearts. And a funny little man from Texas had the attention of a nation with some pretty radical ideas for the time.
I’m speaking of the late Ross Perot, two-time Presidential candidate under the Reform Party and favorite target for late night comedians. What has been lost to time has been just how impactful Perot was on politics in his relatively short time in it. Without his presence in the 1992, we might not have gotten a President Bill Clinton, a Vice President Al Gore, and a First Lady Hillary Clinton. Of course, we might not have had that if George H. W. Bush had campaigned like he wanted a second term as President, but that’s not important right now. What is important is how some people can impact an election merely by being in it.
What does that have to do with the upcoming 2024 Presidential election? Two words: bacon cheeseburger. And two more words: Donald Trump. Although Trump has already announced he is running as a Republican in 2024 (as his early attempts to attack Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis show), there’s still a part of me that thinks he will go third party if he doesn’t get the nod.
Can you say “Ross Perot 2: Electoral Boogaloo”? I knew you could.
Right now Trump has a significant, but not total, amount of support within Republican circles, especially with the grassroots. Much like Perot before him, Trump has advanced some unique ideas that, shockingly, make a lot of sense. And also like Perot, Trump has a level of unpredictability that makes him damn near impossible to figure out. But there is one thing that isn’t that hard to figure out: Trump loved being President.
And apparently I’m addicted to using colons.
Anyway, being President was clearly Trump’s favorite position because it afforded him more power than he’s ever had, along with more attention than he’s ever had. From a brand standpoint, there is no real downside because even negative attention is attention. Just ask Kim Kardashian. Even now, people can’t stop talking about him, whether it be blaming him for train derailments and Chinese balloons flying over the country, praising him to no end, or screaming about how he’s getting away with everything and should be thrown in jail.
So, completely rational mentions.
What happens if the Trump Train goes off the rails and he doesn’t get the nomination? There are going to be a lot of pissed-off people, enough to…oh, I don’t know…convince Trump to run as a third party candidate. And guess who gets the biggest benefit, even though he’s been an inept fuckknuckle as President?
Puddin’ Head Joe.
If Trump goes third party, is weakens the Republican candidate, whoever it is. That adds a lot of pressure on him or her to sway Trump voters, which may be a fool’s errand. Most Trump voters are Ride or Die with him, no matter what. And anyone who isn’t living a Boo Radley type existence knows it, which means Leftists will pick up on it in a couple of weeks.
Although the conventional political wisdom says third parties hurt Republicans more than Democrats, it’s only been an issue in recent history because third parties have siphoned enough votes away from a candidate to weaken the primary party candidate. Whether it’s Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, or Jill Stein, third parties get the rap for a candidate underperforming. With Trump, though, it is all but a certainty he will be the cause of a Republican defeat.
There are two ways to avert this scenario: let Trump win, or nominate someone who can sway Trump voters to vote for him or her. The former sets up a rematch with Puddin’ Head Joe, while the latter opens the door for a Trump third party run, thus ensuring history repeated itself. And a Trump-Biden rematch isn’t a guaranteed victory for the former President, even with Biden having the Midas Touch in reverse. There’s still enough hatred of the former President out there to make it tougher for him to win.
So, fucked if you do, fucked if you don’t.
Good luck with that.