One of the most pressing political questions on people’s minds right now (aside from how much Nancy Pelosi has had to drink) is whether former President Donald Trump will run for President in 2024. That may be a closely guarded secret, even moreso than the Nancy Pelosi question. A lot of people are sure he’s going to run while others are convinced he’s either not going to run or will be in prison by 2024, thus making it a moot point.
The fact is no one knows for sure. I’m not even sure if Trump knows yet, but in the interest of whipping up more wild speculation online, I did some thinking on the subject and I think I have some points to consider. Granted, I’m not inside the former President’s head, so I can’t say for certain what you’re about to read is accurate, but I can tell you it’s bound to be a lot more accurate than any reporting done by Vox. (A low bar, sure, but hey, I gotta start somewhere.)
He’s Running
1) His base is still pretty strong – Contrary to Leftist belief, Donald Trump still remains pretty popular within Republican and conservative ranks. The fact he still polls higher than most candidates after being out of office is a testament to his staying power within the GOP. And his supporters are still on board the Trump Train, no matter what. Honestly, I’d have to go back to Ronald Reagan to find a Republican with that kind of supporter loyalty, which is a testament to Trump.
2) He’ll be running against a weak field on both sides – Let’s face it. Neither major party has a deep bench going into 2024. On the Left we have President Joe Biden, who I’m not sure knows he is President, and possibly Vice President Kamala Harris, whose word salads make Biden look like William F. Buckley. Although there may be more challengers to the left of Biden and Harris, they may not jump into the race out of fear of being Bernie Sanders-ed. On the other side of the aisle, no one seems to be jumping out as a front runner. There is talk of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis being a front-runner for the Republicans, but as of yet, there has been no confirmation he’s running. That leaves Donald Trump to fill the void.
3) Unfinished business – In recent decades, we’ve gotten used to Presidents serving two terms, which makes it easier for Presidents to postpone certain pet projects until later in his Presidency. With Joe Biden winning in 2020, that interrupts or completely scuttles Trump’s plans…or does it? If Trump feels he has more to do, he may throw his hat into the ring as a means to get things done, and with 4 more years, it will be interesting to see what he takes on and how quickly it gets done. Operation Warp Speed may get left in the dust.
4) Sticking it to the Left – If there’s one thing Donald Trump is good at, it’s tweaking the Left. If you though Leftists’ heads exploded the first time, wait until Trump runs again, even if it’s just to get a predictable response out of them. If life gave out achievements like video games do, Trump would get the Trolling Leftists achievement without even really trying.
5) New voting laws for old voter fraud – In the aftermath of the 2020 election, some Republican-lead states enacted new voting laws, much to the chagrin of the Left. In spite of their caterwauling, Republicans put together some pretty solid proposals to restrict voter fraud where possible while taking some of the Left’s concerns about access to the polls into consideration. Since Trump’s post-Presidency legacy has revolved around voter fraud, he may use this as a platform to reenter the Presidential race and whip up support for this pet project.
He’s Not Running
1) Been there, done that – Trump has already been President once, and it’s caused a lot of headaches for him and his family, due in no small part to Leftists. At this point, even he has to wonder if it was worth it the first time around. To run again and possibly win opens up old wounds, rekindles old rivalries, and creates another level of emotional strain. Being President even once isn’t wussy work, and it takes a strong resolve and a stronger family to do it twice. Since he’s been President once, there may not be a desire to do it again.
2) The DeSantis factor – I know I mentioned Ron DeSantis earlier as not being in the race yet, but the possibility of him entering the race can’t be discounted yet. Since becoming Governor, DeSantis has shown many of the positive traits Trump supporters love while mitigating some of the negative traits that hurt Trump. From a strategic standpoint, if DeSantis can deliver the Trump agenda without the drawbacks, it may be better for the former President to step aside and delegate authority.
3) He’s a known entity – One of the things that frustrated the Left in 2016 was how Trump was able to beat Hillary Clinton. Although he’s spent a lot of time in the public eye (sometimes for the wrong reasons), there were still a lot of question marks surrounding his political savvy. In 4 years, though, many of those question marks have been answered because we’ve seen how he governed. He no longer has the element of surprise he did in 2016. Without it, he is more vulnerable.
4) The Agony of Defeat – It’s no secret Donald Trump has an ego, as do most politicians. What sets him apart from most politicians is how much of his ego is wrapped up in what he’s done or able to do. It was evident from when he was dealing in real estate in the 80s, when he was starring in “The Apprentice,” and when he was sitting in the White House. As such, the 2020 election loss stung him. This sets up a conflict within himself should he run again. His ego will not accept him losing a second time, but it may force him to run again to avenge the loss. Regardless of the decision, the possibility of losing again may be a deciding factor in whether he runs in 2024.
5) Voter fraud is still a concern – In spite of the aforementioned new voting laws, Leftists still have ways to play the system, thanks to our old friend Uncle George Soros. As we saw in 2020, it’s not only important to have the votes to win, but to have people in place to certify you have the votes to win. That’s where Uncle George has placed a lot of his faith (and more than a few dollars and candidates). Even with the new laws, voter fraud may be a concern, one that Trump may not be able to overcome.
I’m sure there are some factors I’ve missed, but I think I’ve hit enough of the big ones to get people to think and offer up their own wild-ass speculations!
Category: Humor
An Open Letter to Taylor Lorenz
Hi, Taylor! I hope this finds you well. I won’t take up too much of your time since you’re a busy little bee on Twitter.
We need to talk. Seriously.
Over the past month or so, you’ve managed to piss off a lot of people for all the wrong reasons. As a journalist, that’s not always a good thing. I mean, if you piss off people for the right reason, like exposing their corruption or dirty dealings, you’re doing it right. Well…how can I put this delicately…I know.
You’re not doing it right.
Yes, I know you’ve worked for the New York Times and the Washington Post, two major newspapers, but that doesn’t make you a journalist necessarily. Think about the personal assistants who run and get coffee. They’re not journalists, either. But as someone with a byline, you have a responsibility to the truth. Just like the personal assistants, you are expected to do the job right, but unlike the personal assistants, you open yourself up to lawsuits if you fuck up.
Just like you did in the aftermath of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. In reporting on the online content creators who did legal analysis, you claimed to have spoken to dozens of them. Welllll…two of those dozens exposed you as a liar, stating you didn’t reach out to them until after your hit-piece…I mean article was published. Oops.
Actually, not an “oops.” That’s a breach of journalistic ethics, if that even exists anymore. As hard as it would be for someone to overlook it, you continue to make it worse by blaming everyone else for your mistakes. Since you got called out rightly for your actions, you’ve played the victim, claiming there was “miscommunication” and a “bad faith campaign” that fueled the controversy. Even if we take your statements at face value, it doesn’t remove your responsibility since it’s your name on the byline.
The fact the Post tried to cover it up with stealth edits and nonsensical editor’s notes don’t help, either. When the Post‘s own media critic says the paper and you fucked up…ya fucked up!
The bigger problem for you is this seems to be your standard operating procedure. Whether it was the Libs of TikTok hit-piece…I mean story or the more recent clusterfuck, you’re quick to make the story about you and how you’re being attacked, thus making you a victim. You even have your talking points down. Whenever you sit down with a sympathetic ear, you talk about “bd faith campaigns” and “online harassment” from randos.
But aren’t you the technology reporter for the Post dealing with online culture?
The fact you’ve had that position at two major newspapers and yet don’t seem to understand the very subject matter you’re supposed to know about (i.e. the reason you’re drawing a paycheck) is a pretty big tell. You are the embodiment of the Peter Principle, only you suck at your job at every level. At this point, I’m not sure I’d trust you to get me a coffee, let alone write a published article. Count your blessings the Post doesn’t share my opinion, but at some point your career will reach a point of diminishing returns.
Let’s just say the fat lady is on in five.
Before you dismiss me as a “bad faith actor,” understand I studied journalism in college and actually hold a Masters Degree in it. I’ve walked beats, written articles under a deadline, and had to answer to editors for mistakes made. This isn’t a game for me; I genuinely want to see good journalism.
In looking at your background, though, I didn’t see where you took the same path. You have a degree in political science, which doesn’t disqualify you from a journalism career but doesn’t help establish even basic credentials. This isn’t me trying to be a gatekeeper, but rather me being a realist. From where I sit, you’re pretty much a blogger with an expense account.
Instead of listening to people like Brian Stelter (who is the journalistic equivalent of a potato), I hope you listen to what I’m about to say and take it to heart. You need to learn how to do your job before you do anything else. You’re young..ish, so you have time to take a journalism course or two from someone who has actually done the legwork. Granted, this might be harder than you accepting responsibility for your fuck-ups, but it will make you a better journalist.
Or at the very least, it will act like a jeweler’s cloth to expose the flaws in your current work.
Until then, please spend less time on Twitter and on making excuses and spend more time learning your craft.
Sincerely,
Thomas
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The past seven days has been rift with excitement, high hopes, and general giddiness from the Left because of one group of imbeciles…I mean Congresscritters: the January 6th Committee. After two long and expensive years, we are finally going to get to the truth about former President Donald Trump and the insurrection that brought this country to its knees!
At least, that’s what we’re being told. And we know Leftists would never lie or get people’s hopes up for no reason. That reminds me, has anyone seen Robert Mueller lately?
While we wait for the aftermath of the committee’s prime-time extravaganza, let’s see if we can’t pull off a Carnac the Magnificent performance by looking at the committee as a whole.
the January 6th Committee
What the Left thinks it means – a bipartisan effort to hold Donald Trump and his followers accountable for trying to overthrow the government
What it really means – a waste of time and money to get back at Donald Trump and his followers for winning the 2016 election
If there’s one thing the government knows how to do, it’s how to waste money (although, taking away our rights through pointless regulation is a close second). One of the ways they do this, or both for that matter, is through creating special committees to investigate one issue or another. And if it’s a hot button issue, you can bet your bottom dollar that isn’t already spoken for by the IRS that someone in Washington will say, “You know, we should form a committee to investigate why dogs lift their legs to pee.”
I didn’t say they were good hot button issues.
In the aftermath of the “insurrection” on January 6th, Leftists came up with the idea to investigate why it happened and who was responsible for it. Of course, they already “knew” Donald Trump was involved because…well, Donald Trump. So, like they do with global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/whatever buzzword is popular with the Green New Deal crowd this microsecond, they worked backwards in the hopes they would find something that would produce the necessary linkage between Trump and the events of January 6th.
And after almost a year of public statements, committee meetings, and promises to bring people to justice, the January 6th Committee has…a TV special. Not the good kind like “A Charlie Brown Christmas” or “Frank Zappa’s Polka-Palooza,” either. We’re talking “Al Gore Reads War and Peace Live” levels of crapitude. Listen, nothing says “this is not a serious bunch of folks” like getting a TV producer to help make the message understandable and appealing to the general public. Hell, most of the public today doesn’t even watch network TV for the same reason they don’t take a drink out of the toilets at Chipotle: they’re full of shit.
Much like the politicians comprising the committee, appropriately enough. Looking at their roster there is a who-cares of political operatives, puffed up egos, and useful idiots. And that’s just Adam Schiff, the House Democrat partially responsible for the dreadful first impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Oh, and I forgot to mention he leaks more than a saggy diaper.
But he’s not the only subpar superstar here. There’s also Jamie Raskin, the House Democrat partially responsible for the even worse second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. (I’m sensing a pattern here.) The other House Democrats on board aren’t much better, ranging from the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee (not a bad get, to be fair) to someone whose main accomplishment to date has been…being friends with Nancy Pelosi.
But don’t think the Democrats are the only ones having fun picking committee members! They have two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, to give the illusion of bipartisanship without sacrificing any of the committee’s lack of reputation and gravitas. Yes, I know most House Republicans refused to assist with this clown show…I mean committee, but that’s not without reason. For one, the members House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested were shot down by House Democrats because, and I’m paraphrasing here, they didn’t want conspirators to the crime investigating it. More importantly, however, most House Republicans see what Cheney and Kinzinger didn’t: their presence was meant to be a distraction to give the impression the committee was a true bipartisan effort.
This is where I have to step in and clarify a point that often gets misunderstood by Leftists. Not all Leftists play for the blue team. Some Republicans have adopted Leftist thinking and tried to mold it into the main party by any means necessary. The problem is not every Leftist Republican is as overt as Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. Some of them like Florida Senator Marco Rubio seem like rock-ribbed Republicans, but would be just fine with Big Daddy Government as long as they are running it. Just look up his changing positions on “common-good conservatism” and tell me he’s not willing to be an ideological switch hitter if the power grab was right.
And now, back to my rant on the January 6th Committee already in progress.
Both Kinzinger and Cheney are on the committee to a) give the illusion it’s actually bipartisan, b) give the Left some measure of cover against legitimate complaints as to the committee’s political ends, and c) stick it to Trump Republicans. But it’s this last reason that seems to be the prevailing one. As I mentioned earlier, the January 6th Committee is one big “fuck you” to Donald Trump after he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. We can argue from now until “Firefly” gets a second season about whether it was a good idea to elect Trump, but it cannot be denied the Left has a raging hate-boner for him and the people who support him. While the committee itself has their collective hands on the table, the Department of Justice has been arresting protesters for various crimes, some legit, most bullshit, and have been keeping them in custody indefinitely. Basically, they’re being treated slightly better than suspected terrorists at Gitmo. And unlike the suspected terrorists, these protesters are American citizens with rights that are being denied by the very government investigating their actions.
All because Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.
This isn’t to say there weren’t some idiots who took things too far because, well, there were. Their crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Where I draw the line is calling what the majority of protesters did (peaceably assemble and not cause a fuss) an insurrection as a jumping off point for a mockery of justice wrapped in national security bunting. The entire premise of the January 6th Committee is predicated on the idea there was an actual threat to democracy (which we’ve never had in America) as presented by these protesters.
And that, dear readers, is bullshit.
No matter what the January 6th Committee televised special says or shows, it’s hard to overlook the numerous problems the committee has created merely by taking a bogus narrative and running with it like it was being chased by the defensive secondary of the Los Angeles Rams. But the best is yet to come. After being hyped as the end-all-and-be-all of investigations into the January 6th situation, committee aides are walking it back slightly, saying the TV special is an “opening argument” according to the Washington Post.
Oh, good. There may be more of this shit coming to TV screens near you. Yay?
The biggest problem I have with the committee (I mean aside from the laundry list I’ve already spewed for your reading pleasure) is it doesn’t seem to be serious in its stated mission. The fact Adam Schiff is allowed to get coffee for the committee, let alone have one of the seats on it, should outrage anyone with two brain cells to rub together. In other words, non-Leftists.
And with the committee’s TV special, their lack of seriousness is confirmed. Why in the hell would they need to televise what most people already know if they’ve been following the story? Why has the investigation been solely in one direction while ignoring actions from Democrat leaders that exacerbated the situation? Did members of the federal law enforcement community infiltrate the protest and attempt to incite criminal behavior, as some have shown on video? Is it really an insurrection if no one actually tried to overthrow the government?
These are the questions (among many, many others) the January 6th Committee can’t or won’t answer. This tells me they don’t want to get to the bottom of what happened; the Left needs the overblown “threat” as a weapon to give the impression Trump supporters are threats to America that are on the verge of destroying the country, overthrowing the government, and green-lighting a new “Dukes of Hazzard” series! The horror!
The biggest problem the Left faces with the January 6th Committee is the same one they faced with both impeachment trials, the Mueller Report, and everything else they thought would end the Trump Presidency: they overpromised and underdelivered. Just about everything they threw at Trump was all sizzle and no tofu, and to be fair there wasn’t that much sizzle to begin with. This is merely the latest in a long line of failures that make the “Scary Movie” franchise look good, and that’s a tall order.
Fortunately for us, the Left is more than up to the challenge of finding new ways to disappoint people!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After every mass shooting (except for the ones that occur nearly every weekend in Leftist utopia Chicago), Leftists bring up the need for “common sense gun control.” Of course, they never come out and say what that would look like, but, dammit, they care!
With the most recent shooting in Uvalde, Texas, though, Leftists changed tactics. Instead of calling for gun control, they’re now calling for gun safety. On the surface, that’s a move in the right direction since it seems to be an area of common ground between gun owners and gun control advocates.
If you’re expecting a “but” here, you should. There’s more to this concept than the Left wants us to know.
gun safety
What the Left thinks it means – a movement to curb gun violence as much as possible
What it really means – repackaged gun control
Advertisers love to play with phrasing to get consumers to believe a certain product is better than another or to gin up new interest in an existing product. That’s why you see “new and improved” in ads and on packaging. The idea is to get you to think a certain way that will either reinforce your current buying habits or get you to consider changing them.
The same principle is at work here. By switching from a pointed phrase (“gun control”) to one that seems more neutral (“gun safety”), the Left is hoping you will consider changing your opinion on gun control. After all, who wouldn’t be in favor of gun safety? Maybe Alec Baldwin, but he’s an outlier.
The thing is gun safety means different things to different people. Most gun owners already practice gun safety, such as not pointing guns at others and keeping guns and ammunition secured and stored in separate places. These are actions people can do themselves without having Big Brother giving us direction on how to do it. And considering the federal government has utter morons running departments, if not full branches, maybe we don’t need their help.
To Leftists, gun safety has nothing to do with what individuals can do, but rather what the government can do because they believe government is the source of all good (except if that government is run by those evil Republicans who take money from the National Rife Association to prevent meaningful and sensible gun laws from being passed). That’s why all of their solutions to the gun problem revolve around passing more laws, banning more guns, and demanding more from gun owners than they expect from the criminals who commit gun violence. But there is one common thread throughout these efforts.
Leftists don’t know shit about guns.
That fact alone should render their opinions on gun safety as irrelevant as Joe Biden’s teleprompter. Yet, with their emotional appeals whenever a shooting happens, no one stops to think whether we’ve tried some of these suggestions before. News Flash: we have. And it hasn’t stopped mass shootings at all. What it has done, however, is make the vast majority of mass shooters legal gun owners. That’s right. Most of the mass shooters (outside of Chicago, of course) have passed the background checks the Left have demanded. What’s next? More background checks to make up for the background checks we were told would stop mass shootings and didn’t? More hoops for law-abiding citizens to jump through that criminals will ignore?
The truth is the Left needs there to be more mass shootings to justify their power grabs in this case and to protect themselves from the inevitable backlash once enough gun owners get tired of being treated like potential criminals for merely wanting to own firearms. Now, if you’ve been paying attention (and I know you have), this runs counter to what the Left is saying they want now, gun safety. Banning certain guns doesn’t make them or us safer. The same with background checks, limits to ammunition purchases, or the number of bullets a gun or rifle can shoot before needing to be reloaded. In fact, nothing they’ve proposed have anything to do with safety, but everything to do with controlling people.
Just as it was intended.
There is one thing the Left can do to show their commitment to gun safety, that being offering gun safety training. Of course, they’ll have some competition from…the NRA. Yep, that same NRA that is super-duper evil and wants to kill schoolchildren so Bubba can have an AR-15 (according to the Left). Why haven’t gun safety advocates on the Left come up with something similar?
Because it’s all about getting rid of guns altogether. Oh, sure, Leftists won’t come out and say it unless they’re in friendly company, but that’s been their goal for a while now. No matter how they rebrand their approach, the endgame is always get rid of guns.
So, what do we do? Call out the newly-minted gun safety crowd and ask them what they’re going to do about actual gun safety and not the laundry list of Leftist demands that always come out after a shooting. And don’t let them get by with bullshit answers, either. Press them like they want to press gun owners to comply. Then, when they fail (and they will), point it out and tell everyone who will listen about their real agenda.
But if you want to really push for gun safety, Leftists, I have a piece of advise. Don’t arm yourselves. Leave it to the police to protect you. You know, the police you want to revamp/defund and have called racists with badges?
Have your next of kin let me know how that works out for you.
The TikTok War
If you can believe it, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia is now over 100 days old. What’s worse, I still have my Horrendous Withdrawal from Afghanistan decorations up!
For a brief time, it seemed Ukraineamania was running wild. Everybody and their grandmothers were putting Ukrainian flags on their Twitter profiles along with supportive phrases showing how much they support freedom because, well, freedom. Then, over time, the virtual support was still there, but the vocal support died out. Even the media moved on, save for occasional puff pieces on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that would make Teen Beat sue for copyright infringement.
It wasn’t until recently that I noticed the void of pro-Ukraine voices, and it got me thinking as to why. I came up with two possible reasons, one more plausible than the other given the American media. The first reason was the media was so heavily invested in backing Ukraine that they were hiding bad news to maintain the facade. Although this is true to form for the media (see President Joe Biden), I decided it wasn’t the case because it would require actual journalism to be done and today’s media just aren’t up to the task.
The other, more plausible explanation is the media stopped covering it like it did in the beginning, so people stopped paying attention to it. I mean, it’s not like there are people dying for their country or anything, right? Oh, wait…
This lack of attention isn’t just at the personal level, either. In the past 100+ days, has anyone who beat the drums of war like a Neil Peart solo come up with a concrete reason why the US has to get involved in the Ukraine/Russia conflict? If they have, they’ve hidden it pretty well. And, yes, I know “because freedom” is persuasive to Americans because we value it so much, but that isn’t a justification to commit to an action. If it were, US forces would have been deployed to a few African countries where young men are fighting for freedom against an oppressive government.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Seriously, though, the fact we don’t have any straight answers about our involvement in the Ukraine/Russia conflict, let alone the conflict itself, has been a sore spot for me since the beginning. If I am to support intervention in a foreign country, I kinda need a reason I can sink my teeth into intellectually. The lack of such a reason leads me to believe there isn’t a good reason to do it, so we’re left with appeals to emotion to pick up the slack. It works well for a while, but once the emotions die down, we’re still lacking a reason.
What’s worse is most people don’t see the issue. After all, we just had the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial and that was super-important! I mean, the legal implications may last for at least a week, maybe two!
The problem is this makes us look fickle in foreign affairs. It doesn’t seem to matter if Ukraine loses a significant number of people in this conflict because we’ve moved onto the next super-important issue (even if we haven’t updated our Twitter accounts yet). This turns the conflict into the geopolitical equivalent of a TikTok dance craze, which does a great disservice to the people we allegedly support.
Here’s where the shit really hits the fan. Our gradual disinterest in what’s going on in Ukraine helps Vladimir Putin because it gives him the belief we will lose our taste for war if he just waits us out. And the sad thing is he’s right. American attention spans are shorter than an ant’s inseam and we get attracted by a new shiny object/issue on the regular.
That’s right, kids. America has ADD.
In matters of pop culture, this isn’t a big deal, but on the battlefield it’s deadly. If we insist on fighting Russia via proxy, we need an explanation, and by my calculation, it’s overdue by, oh, 100 days. If there isn’t one better than “Ukraine Good, Russia Bad” or “because freedom,” then we need to rethink our strategy and justifications for getting involved. There have been too many wars in recent history that have ended badly because we didn’t have a real reason to get involved and were too stubborn to admit it.
So, let’s have it, so we can have it out once and for all. And let’s make it sooner rather than later in case there’s a new dance craze on TikTok.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With all of the heavy subjects this week, I decided to inject a bit of actual comedy into this week’s Lexicon. (Finally!) British comedian and now-infrequent awards show how Ricky Gervais has a new special on Netflix that has garnered a lot of attention from Leftists…for all the “wrong” reasons. Leftists attacked Gervais for making jokes about trans people and mentioned one of their favorite new defenses against comedy, “punching down.”
I watched the special because I was curious (and I think Gervais is genuinely funny) and I can confirm he didn’t punch any children or midgets. Then, I thought about it and realized Leftists mean something completely different. No less stupid, but different.
punching down
What the Left thinks it means – when a privileged person mocks or hurts a less-privileged person
What it really means – Leftists choosing which sacred cows aren’t to be made fun of
In a statement what will surprise no one, Leftists have an inflated sense of self-worth, especially in the area of comedy. In recent years, they’ve managed to change comedy from telling jokes to making social statements where jokes may or may not be used. And more often than not, they don’t (unless they steal jokes like Amy Schumer). With a good number of comedians aligning with the Left, Leftists think they are the only truly funny people out there.
Which brings us to the new rules they’ve adopted and expect all other comedians to follow. One of these rules is not to punch down, meaning not to joke about people less fortunate or powerful than you are. On the surface, it makes sense in a weird way. We don’t want to intentionally hurt people who may lack the ability to come back on equal footing because we’re at least trying to look like good people.
The problem is, as Steve Martin so eloquently put it on one of his albums, comedy is not pretty. A lot of comedy involves some element of pain, discomfort, or disruption. That’s why the Marquis de Sade was the hottest stand-up comedian of his day. (True story…I guess.) Even jokes that involve questioning the reason a chicken crosses a road require one party’s life to be interrupted to try to answer said question. And don’t get me started on the perverse nature of knock-knock jokes!
The Left’s demands to punch up instead of punch down shows how little they actually know about comedy. Comedy is the great equalizer because everyone can be the butt of a joke. Elon Musk, a homeless person, it doesn’t matter. To set up an arbitrary limit on who can be joked about is to remove that equality and limit the potential comedic targets. That limits the jokes that can be told. After a while, you will run out of jokes that pass Leftist muster, which leads to the jokes becoming stale and predictable like an episode of “Two and a Half Men.”
But then there’s the comedic conundrum that is “Will & Grace.” This is one of the Left’s favorite sitcoms because of its inclusion and representation of gay characters. I watched a couple of episodes back during its original run and came away wondering why it was such a beloved show on the Left. The comedy, such as it was, seemed obsessed with the gay lifestyle instead of, you know, being funny. And when one of the secondary foils of the show is an over-the-top exaggeration of a gay man and his humor revolves solely around him being gay, I guess I fail to see how this is positive and funny. But apparently it didn’t punch down, so yay, I guess?
On the flip side, there’s “Married With Children.” Throughout its run, the show offended everyone at some point (except for sick freaks like me, apparently) and kept punching up, down, sideways, and all around. Even as controversy raged, there were no fucks given and they continued to be equal opportunity offenders. The same can be said for “South Park,” “Beavis and Butthead,” and a handful of other successful shows. Why did these shows survive and flourish?
Because they understood what was funny and didn’t try to limit the jokes to avoid offending people without senses of humor.
The whole concept of punching up or punching down is absurd, and not in a humorous way. Comedy does have the ability to open minds and change opinions. If it weren’t for comedians like George Carlin and Dennis Miller, I wouldn’t be the man I am today, for better or worse. But the best lessons come from times when you learn without even knowing it because you were having too much fun. Granted, I wouldn’t want to try to learn nuclear physics by watching “Wheel of Fortune” but the point remains the same. We don’t need to be beat over the head with a message to get it.
That’s where Leftist comedy always fails. Well, that and the fact they’re rarely intentionally funny. For Leftists, the message is everything, so it becomes the focal point of any comedy at the expense of any actual comedy. It’s the difference between Dave Chappelle and Hannah Gadsby. Chappelle’s comedy has a message (one that Leftists love to distort for the purposes of getting outraged) while Gadsby’s comedy is only about the message Even when Chappelle bombs, he still has a process to either rework it into something better or dump the bit altogether. Gadsby doesn’t have that option. Plus, you wouldn’t know if she bombed because the sound of crickets in the audience drowns out any laughter.
The funny (strange, not haha) about the concept of not punching down is how fragile the Left thinks some groups are. Granted, these are the same morons who tell us “jokes are violence” and “words are violence,” but this is beyond even that level of what-the-actual-fuck-ism. If someone telling a joke at your expense or at the expense of your group identity causes you emotional or psychic damage, it may not be because the joke is mean-spirited; it may be because you have deeper issues than someone telling a joke, and you’re going to need someone more specialized than Patch Adams to address them.
Going a step further, Leftists feel that every minority group is oppressed and only they can speak for the oppressed. This is especially true of white Leftists, I’ve found. They have savior complexes that would put Superman to shame. But in doing so, they’ve stolen the groups’ voice and used it for their own selfish purposes: to make them look better. That’s a gut punch down, if you ask me!
Then, there’s the other major problem, that being not all members of the group may feel the same way or take offense. There have been a number of gay and trans people openly supporting Gervais’ special, saying it was funny and…non-offensive! How will Leftists respond? The way they always do: ignoring or belittling the people who disagree with them. Now, if words are violence and Leftists mock gay and trans people who liked the Gervais special, wouldn’t that be a hate crime? You make the call!
Either way, it’s not worth the time to worry about whether a comedian is punching up or down because all it does is limit comedy to the point of banality. Laugh at what you want, don’t laugh at what you don’t, and remember to keep a healthy perspective. Even when a comedian hits a group you identify with, it’s not personal, and you have to admit even Republicans and conservatives do things worthy of being mocked openly. I do it, but when the Left keeps serving up mock-worthy topics like punching up, it’s hard to pass up!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Conspiracy theories abound these days. Although most of them hold as much water as the new Uggs thermos, some of them have a basis in truth.
Recently, the idea of replacement theory became a Leftist talking point, as some Republicans have shown at least passing support for the idea. The Left pounced on this, calling the idea a conspiracy theory believed only by right-wing nuts. Since I’m allergic to those kinds of nuts, I figured I’d delve further into the subject.
replacement theory
What the Left thinks it means – a racist right-wing conspiracy theory that states whites are slowly being phased out by non-whites
What it really means – what the Left actually wants to do with whites other than themselves
Leftists have a love-hate relationship with whites, namely they love to hate them. And based on their version of history, who wouldn’t? Whites were responsible for slavery in America, misogyny, homophobia, toxic masculinity, environmental catastrophes, and, worst of all, voting Republicans into the White House. Having that much guilt on a person’s soul makes one more amenable to the idea that whites shouldn’t be involved in things anymore.
Well, at least if they weren’t Leftists. Then, they’ll be there in the background to make things work great because…well, I’m still trying to figure that part out, but the sentiment is there. And really, isn’t that what really counts?
Anyway, it cannot be overstated how the Left originated the concept and worked to bring it into practice. The really scary thing is how easily it’s been incorporated into other Leftist policy points without us knowing it.
Replacement theory states whites are slowly being replaced by non-whites through a series of factors, including decreasing white birth rates and illegal immigration taking jobs whites could do. And what has the Left been advocating? Open immigration, women waiting to have children until after they’ve succeeded in business, easy access to abortion, prohibiting law enforcement from checking on papers from suspected illegal immigrants, demanding more minority hires, just to name a few.
But remember, replacement theory is just a right-wing conspiracy with no basis in fact.
And thanks to the recent shooting in Buffalo, replacement theory has been brought front and center. The shooter’s manifesto mentioned replacement theory, so that gave the Left all the opportunity they needed to paint him as a right wing fanatic and to dismiss replacement theory as right wing nonsense. Of course, the shooter was a self-professed eco-fascist national socialist who took advantage of New York’s strict gun control laws to pick a target that fit his racist agenda. Of course, Leftists don’t want us to focus on those little details, only that replacement theory was referenced and the Left says it’s right wing in nature.
Thus, Leftists use one of their favorite tactics to avoid responsibility for their actions, projection. And let’s just say the Left uses more projection than an IMAX theater here and in other areas. While the Left attacks Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump, and other favorite right wing whipping boys, the truth is far harder for them to swallow. So, instead of recognizing they’re wrong or that they had a hand in the problem, the Left blames others not even involved with the shooting for radicalizing the shooter. Mighty nice of them, don’t ya think?
Meanwhile, we still have to deal with the reality of replacement theory instead of passing it off as a partisan conspiracy theory. For that, we need to stand up to the racism of the Left, in large part due to the slings and arrows of outrageous Leftist name-calling. They will call you racist, white supremacist, Republican, MAGAt, or any number of disparaging names designed to minimize your effectiveness. Yes, they will sting emotionally and won’t match what you truly believe, but the best way to counteract that is to stand firm and remained unfazed by the Left’s attacks. It will confuse them and make them escalate to the point of insanity. Then, you win.
And that will hurt Leftists more than any arguments you can make against their accusations.
In the meantime, we need to curb the Left’s desire to marginalize whites, and one of the ways is simple: start fucking and having babies. Not just to reverse the declining white birth rates, but to freak out Leftists. Then, the next step is to become irreplaceable. I don’t mean sabotage others, but rather learn new skills that will apply to the modern workplace and society as a whole. And if the Left gives you pushback, tell them you identify as a minority and let them freak out even more!
And if that’s not enough to motivate you, nothing will!
My 2022 Commencement Address
Greetings, friends! Once again, no one has asked me to give a commencement address (probably because of all the f-bombs from last year’s address). However, that didn’t stop me from writing one for this year on the off chance no one with the power to schedule speakers decides to go back more than 1 year.
Members of the Class of 2022, you’re probably wondering why I called you all here today. Let me start by saying it’s an honor to speak to you, and I’m not just saying that because I’m the last person standing between you and walking across this stage getting your diplomas. I’m no math major, but I know there are more of you than there is of me. As I don’t want to be overrun by angry students, I’ll keep my comments brief.
The past couple of years has taught us the value of being flexible in the face of adversity, and let’s face it, we’re pretty much in a constant state of utter fuckery these days. Under the circumstances, we are hard-wired to look for possible solutions, which is admirable, but also might make things worse. That’s why it’s important to think before you act.
Granted, you’re at a time in your life when you think you know everything. As someone who felt that way when I was your age, let me tell you the truth. You don’t know shit. It’s only through life, knowledge, and the occasional alcoholic beverage (except White Claw, which is this generation’s version of Zima) that we figure out how much we don’t know. For example, I’ll bet most of you haven’t even heard of Zima, so you wouldn’t know how much is sucked, thus you wouldn’t know how much White Claw sucks. It was only through trial and error America was able to find out Zima was flat Sprite made alcoholic and it was eventually phased out of production…until recently.
There’s an old saying, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Originally, I thought my junior high history teacher made it up to advise us of what summer school would be like, but it’s actually a bit older than that. In short, it means we need to look back sometimes to avoid future mistakes, mainly because the mistakes we make today tend to have roots in the past. Every so often we’ll see something “new” come along that is merely a repackaging of an idea that sucked before.
For example, let’s look at democratic socialism. On the surface, it seems like a good idea, a fusion that allows for people to vote for what’s best for the rest of the country. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Well, here’s the catch: we’ve tried both democracy and socialism separately and they didn’t turn out so good. If we combine the two, it will be two dark fates that fail great together.
Even if you don’t want to go into history to find a reason to object to democratic socialism, a little critical thinking will do the trick. After all, if we’re allowed to vote in socialism under it, would we be allowed to vote it out again? I’ve asked that same question and haven’t gotten a response yet, but after a few years and a few more drinks, I think I’ve figured out why: it’s because answering it would expose its proponents’ commitment to more socialism than more democracy. Now, I could be wrong, and if I am, I’ll eat my hat. Then again, it might be the only thing I’ll have to eat, but I’m a man of my word.
After that last section, you may thing I’m some right wing curmudgeon pooh-poohing anything that would move this country forward. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m far more libertarian than I look and sound. Basically, I want everyone to live their lives to their fullest and achieve what they want, so long as it doesn’t harm innocents or demands my sanction. In short, just leave me alone and don’t demand I foot the bill for what you want to do. I can be persuaded, but I don’t take kindly to being told I have to agree or else I’ll be subjected to horrible things like…being called names on the Internet.
Believe me, it’s not that big a deal. I’ve been called all sorts of names in my day and I’m still here. That’s because age also brings perspective. Does someone calling me a racist, homophobe, etc. really affect my life? Not really, because I know who I am. And that’s something that comes through life experiences, especially for all of you right now. Even a year on your own can change your minds. Be open to those changes and let them happen. Then, challenge them on regular bases to see whether those lessons still hold true and whether your beliefs match those lessons.
One other thing and then I’ll leave. In all of these changes you’ll experience, there is one belief to always hold dear to your hearts: don’t eat convenience store sushi, especially if it’s in the clearance area. But if that’s not inspiring enough, remember to be kind. It doesn’t take much, costs less, and means a lot.
Congratulations, Class of 2022!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After last week’s Lexicon entry about abortion, I wanted to do something in a lighter vein.
So, we’re talking about the filibuster. I know! I’m as excited as you are!
Actually, we do have to go back to the abortion debate for a little while because it plays a role in the discussion, and we have Senator Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren to thank for it. See, the Senate tried to make the abortion protections laid out in Roe v. Wade federal law last week in the form of The Women’s Health Protection Act, but it ran into a little snag: it didn’t have enough votes to bypass a potential filibuster (which is absurd as we’ll find out later). As a result, Chief Running Mouth took to the media to renew her call to eliminate the filibuster.
Hoo boy. We’re going to need Mayflower to help us unpack all of the wrong here.
filibuster
What the Left thinks it means – an antiquated unconstitutional Senate rule that threatens democracy
What it really means – a Senate rule that Leftists will rue eliminating if they get their way
Time for a quick civics lesson. Although we tend to work on a majority rule model here in America, there are some exceptions designed to prevent the majority from totally steamrolling the minority. One such tool is the filibuster, which is when the minority can cobble together at least 60 votes to prevent a bill from going forward. Even the threat of a filibuster can be enough to change how a bill is written or presented.
In today’s hyper-partisan world, that happens less often than David Duke gets invited to the NAACP Spirit Awards.
Since Democrats hold a numerical majority thanks to Vice President Kamala Harris, they don’t necessarily feel they need to reach across the aisle to get things done, which puts their current opposition to the filibuster into perspective. It also puts their previous use of the filibuster into perspective, since they love to use it when they’re in the minority. If it wasn’t for double standards, Leftists would have no standards at all.
Leftists by their very nature are control freaks (in addition to being other kinds of freaks). They feel they have to rule completely because anything else gives opponents the ability to disagree with them. With enough naysayers, Leftists can’t get done what they want, which is a sin in their eyes akin to killing puppies, destroying the planet, and worst of all…not being a Leftist!
This desire for control has been at the core of a lot of defeats for Senate Democrats, including The Women’s Health Protection Act. Instead of reading the room and coming up with a bill that would get Republican votes, Leftists tried to ram through a bill banking on Republicans to surrender out of fear of public opinion. Wellll…that didn’t happen, and one Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin, sided with the Republicans to make the vote to move forward with the bill 51-49. And it shouldn’t be overlooked it was the Senate Democrats who forced the vote. Talk about a self-own! On the plus side for Leftists, Senator Kyrsten Sinema voted with the Democrats, so she might be able to get back on their Winter Solstice card lists.
But the failure wasn’t because Senate Democrats fucked up! It was that damn filibuster! And it’s about time to we got rid of that unconstitutional rule that prevents progress!
Not so much.
First, let’s deal with the constitutionality argument. Although it’s true the filibuster doesn’t appear in the Constitution, there is this passage from Article I Section 5 that would apply here:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…
This has been interpreted to mean the House of Representatives and Senate can make their own rules, which means the filibuster is constitutional. You would think someone who taught law might be able to figure that out, but we’re dealing with Elizabeth Warren here. She’s as sharp as a Nerf ball, as anyone who understands her missives on economics an attest.
Or as anyone who understands what a majority is can attest, for that matter. The filibuster literally had very little to do with the failure because, and let me spell it out for the good Senator and any other Leftists who are reading this…the votes weren’t there. You had a threshold and failed to meet it. Those were the rules in place at the time, and you lost. Until you change the Senate rules or amend the Constitution to remove the filibuster as a means of ending debate or altering legislation, those are the rules you have to live by.
Of course, nothing can stop you from bitching about it, even if we didn’t have a First Amendment in place. But can you at least bitch about it intelligently? A tall order, I know, but could you do it for your Uncle Thomas? Please?
Although it’s fashionable to shit on the filibuster, it does serve an important role, even today. Just because one party or the other has a majority doesn’t mean that party is right. The fact the filibuster exists in the Senate is a feature, not a flaw, because the Founding Fathers established the Senate as a more deliberative body. If you want bills written up on the fickle whims of the public, you go to the House. If you want substantive discussions, you go to the Senate.
Well, nobody’s perfect, not even the Founding Fathers.
Even though the filibuster isn’t working well today, it still provides a necessary release valve for impulsive legislation not well thought out and poorly presented. You know, like The Women’s Health Protection Act? (On a side note, how does this bill protect women’s health when statistically the most babies aborted would be female? But I’m not a biologist, so there’s that.)
So, before you Leftists throw out the unborn baby with the bathwater, consider this. Senate Republicans have resisted calls to do away with the filibuster when they’ve been in the minority because they understand it still has value, even when the previous President believed otherwise.
That’s right, Leftists. You now are on the same side as Donald Trump.
As the meme says, congratulations. You just played yourself.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As the Little Dutch Boy can attest, a leak can be a pretty troublesome thing. And that’s exactly what we got this past week thanks to a clerk at the US Supreme Court. Normally, this would be as exciting as watching Al Gore painting grass, but this time the leak involved a certain controversial Supreme Court decision that both the Left and the Right freak out over: Roe v. Wade. While President Pudding Cup tries to figure out the context where someone would row or wade, the rest of us know it as the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
Yeah. We’re going there.
Roe v. Wade
What the Left thinks it means – the linchpin of women’s rights, especially personal autonomy
What it really means – a bad ruling made worse by politicians
Before we dive back into the muck, I have to admit I don’t like writing about abortion for a number of reasons. First, it’s a messy moral and ideological issue where there are always going to be more gray areas than black and white ones. Second, it’s such a charged issue that even the slightest bit of nuance, justified or not, can get people pissed off and ready to attack. Finally, there’s not a lot of funny in the termination of a pregnancy. Just ask Michelle Wolf. Having said all of that, the fact Roe v. Wade is back in the headlines and on Leftists’ mind…s(?) overrules any misgivings I have on the subject.
I’ve discussed my feelings on Roe and abortion in general before, but for those of you just joining us, let me give you the Cliff’s Notes version. Roe v. Wade was a bad Supreme Court decision based on provable lies designed to get a certain outcome the dishonest lawyers (I know I’m repeating myself) wanted. For that reason (and the whole killing babies thing), I am pro-life, but I also know my opinion means jack shit in the larger context. As much as I hate the notion of a woman getting an abortion, I hate forcing any other human being to live by my moral code just as much. This may make me seem wishy-washy, but it’s where I stand. You don’t have to stand with me, and I won’t hate you for it.
Unless you’re a Cardi B fan. Then, we might have issues.
Just kidding!
To bring everything back to the current day, the aforementioned leak suggests the Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v. Wade, which made Leftists scream more than that one protestor did at Donald Trump’s inauguration. Since the leak became public, Leftists have been going from depressed to angry to motivated to downright stupid. And that’s just Elizabeth Warren!
To put it mildly, the Left has been overreacting to the point of hyperventilation on Twitter and other social media. It’s going to be the end of abortion as we know it! It’s going to create a Handmaid’s Tale style theocracy where women are merely receptacles without any autonomy! “Hook-up” culture will die out (and I wish I were fucking kidding about this one, but someone actually posted this idea online)! Yet, with all of the sound and fury, there is one fact the Left isn’t talking about: abortion isn’t going away if Roe gets overturned. All that happens is the decision whether abortion is legal will be left to the states, where I feel it should have been left in the first place.
But isn’t abortion favored by a majority of people, according to Leftists? Welllll…that’s one of those murky areas of the abortion issue. Polling data swings back and forth like a pendulum at different points in time. Sometimes, more people favor allowing abortion. Sometimes, more people favor restrictions on abortions. This tells us two things: 1) we are a conflicted nation, and 2) polling data on the topic are absolute shit.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the Left is correct about public opinion on abortion. Why wouldn’t they want a 50-state referendum on legalizing abortion? Simple. It’s because they would lose money and power in the process. Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Roe is the key to both for Leftists. Since the original decision came down, the federal government has been the only body calling the shots on abortion. The problem is it violates the Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment. Basically, the Tenth Amendment limits the power of the federal government to what is specifically granted to it. Anything that falls outside of that specific limitation goes back to the states and/or the people. And guess what Supreme Court decision defies that?
Can you say Roe v. Wade, boys and girls? I knew you could.
Normally, this wouldn’t be an issue for Leftists because they typically don’t give a shit about states rights, but with Roe…well, let’s just say it proves how little they care about states rights. Roe gives the Left the federal muscle to mandate abortion without having to actually make an argument in favor of the practice, as in the “settled law” approach. With the power to decide going back to the states, the Left will lose the one-size-fits-all-poorly approach and will have to make the argument to all 50 states. With some states like California, you could call it the “Yeah, We Want To Kill Babies In The Womb Bill” and Leftists would line up around the block to vote for it. With other states, like Texas, the argument would be a non-starter. The point is the Left would have to put actual effort into making abortion legal across the country, and given how they tend to be adverse to work…
Along with this, the Left would either have to raise and spend more money or budget existing funds to make the argument. Neither one of these is sustainable for very long because of the way most Leftists behave, but both would have to come to pass if Roe were overturned because Leftists would lose fiscal security that comes with not having to defend abortion to anyone but the faithful. No wonder Leftists are so up in arms…well, not really arms, per se, since they’re not fans of guns and the like, but that’s neither here nor there.
There is one factor the Left might have working in their favor even if Roe v. Wade goes the way of original stories on “The Simpsons.” Society has changed a lot since Roe was first argued and the fact it has repelled so many legal challenges over the years has made abortion more acceptable, or at least made people less likely to fight it. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether it’s a good or a bad thing, but it is what it is. If you wear down people’s resistance enough, even the slightest push back will net the desired outcome.
This is what the Left is counting on as they try to codify abortion rights via legislation. Although I can’t say I’m a fan of the desired outcome, I can’t find fault with the process, aside from the aforementioned Tenth Amendment conflict. At least the issue will be brought up to a vote, which is a hell of a lot better than having 9 men and women in black robes that hide whether they’re wearing clothing underneath make the call. Instead, that decision will be made by hundreds of men and women who we will not wonder if they’re wearing clothes because very few of us would want to think of them naked.
Regardless of whether the Supreme Court upholds or overturns Roe v. Wade, we are still feeling the after-effects of the original decision and will continue to feel them for decades to come. Like eating at Chipotle, but with less vomiting. Where we go from here is anyone’s guess, but we shouldn’t automatically assume the worst on either side of the issue. Even with the most controversial issues, Americans have this amazing ability to adapt to and adopt societal changes given enough time. Hell, we turned polyester leisure suits from fashion statement to garage sale leftovers to popular Halloween costumes in my lifetime, so anything is possible!