This week has been a goldmine for content, but not if you’re on the Left. Seems one of their favorite sinkholes…I mean news networks is having to make some cutbacks, including the firing of some on-air talent like Joy Ann Reid.
Sorry. I have to take a moment to let the laughter subside at using “talent” and “Joy Ann Reid” in the same sentence.
Several hours later…
Okay, I’m back. Now where was I? Oh yes, talking about MSNBC! Because I’m a giving person, I want to give it the attention it deserves and the audience it is sorely lacking. With the tens and tens of my readers out there, I can see their ratings skyrocket!
So let’s get into it.
MSNBC
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable cable news source full of diverse opinions and smart analysis
What it really means – the Air America of cable news
As a recovering journalism student and a child of the 70s and 80s, I was there when cable news really became a fixture in the reporting game. Yes, back in the days when various hair products gave us hairstyles that were hard enough to take a sledgehammer to without a single strand being out of place, cable news was a bit of an oddity at first because we weren’t sure just how much news there could be on any given day. Sure, if you had a couple of high profile stories, you might be able to stretch it out over an hour or two, but 24 hours?
Well, that’s why God made filler content.
As cable news found out you could make any story run for hours by a) reporting it, b) analyzing it, c) bringing in panelists to analyze it, and d) repeating the cycle, more people decided to jump in the pool. Nowadays, cable news is dominated by Fox News, with CNN and MSNBC not so close behind. Fox News’s popularity is understandable, as they seem to have the hot newsreader demographic on lockdown. CNN is a shadow of its former self, both in content, quality, and ratings.
That brings us to MSNBC. They are the number two cable news network (both literally and figuratively), and they have a loyal following. And so did Charlie Manson, but that’s besides the point. With Donald Trump coming back into the White House like a wrecking ball, one would think they would be set up nicely to rake in the money bashing the President left and, well, further left.
You would think that, but these are Leftists we’re talking about here. They tend to make money in spite of themselves, and MSNBC is no different. If you are an opposition network when a President from a particular party is in power, it’s practically a license to print money. Fox News did it under Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Brick Tamland, and MSNBC kinda did under George W. Bush and the first Trump Presidency.
There is one slight problem with that, however: the potential lack of crossover watchers. The harder you lean into a particular ideology, the harder it gets to get viewers outside of that ideology. Fox News gets away with it because, well, hot newsreaders, but MSNBC is a bit harder of a sell. I mean, who wants to listen to a bunch of unattractive smug assholes complaining all the time? If I wanted to do that, I could just go to a Leftist rally.
And in some cases, my attendance would double the attendance.
Just look at their prime time line up. Aside from Rachel “I’m Only Here One Night a Week But Still Manage to Rake in $25 Million a Year” Maddow, who else is there? Lawrence O’Donnell, whose inability to grow an audience is only surpassed by his contemptuous arrogance? Joy Ann Reid…oops! Too soon? Chris Hayes?
Wait. Has anyone seen Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow in the same room at the same time? I’m just asking questions here, kids.
And that’s pretty much the list of heavy hitters MSNBC has. Everyone else, including Al Sharpton, is either washed up or a virtual unknown. I’ve seen SyFy movies with more star power. And when you’re dealing with attracting an audience, you need more than an ideological connection.
The other thing that hurts MSNBC is repetition. If you watch Rachel Maddow (and for God’s sake why would you), you’re going to get the same perspective, sometimes even down to the same squawking points, on another show. And another show. And another show. And…well, you get the picture. The lack of variety tends to bore an audience.
Now, before you say “Faux News does the same thing, idiot,” let me remind you Fox News does bring on Leftists in prominent (and more watched) shows to offer opinions, as wrong-headed as they are. MSNBC typically doesn’t, or when they do it’s self-styled Republicans who are so far left they make Karl Marx look like Ronald Reagan. Not quite the same thing, kids. It’s closer to what the kids like to call “controlled opposition.”
The MSNBC business model reminds me of the Leftist attempt at talk radio, Air America. If you don’t remember it, be glad. I’ve talked about it before, so I’ll be brief here. Air America tried to create a Leftist talk radio network by taking the right wing radio network model and just putting in Leftists. And it worked about as well as you’d think.
And who had a show on both Air America and MSNBC? Rachel Maddow. Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNNN!
Okay, that has nothing to do with anything. Moving on…
The bad news for MSNBC right now is it’s not as much of a cash cow as it once was and should be given Trump Presidency 2: Electric Boogaloo. There are going to be more cuts coming, and it’s going to affect more and more people. And you thought corrupt politicians sweat a lot when the Epstein Files got released! But there is a way out, one that CNN is trying to do and having marginal success doing.
Try reporting the fucking news with some balance.
Sure, you’ll lose the hardcore MSNBC audience who counts on you to feed them the misinformation they want to hear, but you’ll gain a little credibility in the process. Not much, I grant you since, well, you’re MSNBC, but it might make for an interesting experience for you all. Not every idea that comes from your hivemind is a good one (see Harris/Walz 2024), and not every idea that comes from outside of your hivemind is a bad one (see DOGE). By opening your ideological lens a little wider and giving different perspectives equal footing, I guarantee you’ll find solid footing again.
Just in time for Elon Musk to buy your sorry network.
Category: Media
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
For those of you who don’t know, I studied journalism in college. And in my defense, I was young, dumb, and in love. Now, I’m old, dumb, and in love, but that’s besides the point.
I bring up that therapy-inducing memory to ease you into this week’s Lexicon entry involving journalism. During my studies, the Associated Press was one of the gold standards in the news game and was generally considered a neutral source of information. Oh, how times have changed.
This past week (please check local listings for the week in your area) the AP broke the cardinal sin of journalism by becoming the story rather than reporting it. And it’s all over a body of water, the Gulf of Mexico/America. President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order renaming the Gulf, but the AP refused to acknowledge it. As a result, the White House barred an AP reporter from an Executive Order signing ceremony and other events and trips on Air Force One, which of course lead to the AP suing members of the Trump Administration for the act.
And you thought high profile divorces were messy.
Anyway, for its efforts to gain my attention, let’s take the Associated Press on a tour of Leftist Lexicon Land!
the Associated Press
What the Left thinks it means – a trusted news source and vibrant defender of the free press
What it really means – another water carrier for the Left, this one masquerading as a wire service
To complete my old curmudgeon cosplay, I must invoke the “back in my day” power.
Back in my journalism days, there was an expectation of neutrality in news reporting because journalists at the time believed personal biases would get in the way of the public interest. This commitment to serving the public before advancing an agenda is what helped build a stronger, more intelligent society.
Then Watergate happened. The country’s eyes were opened to the dirty corners of our halls of power, and it created a rise in the interest of journalism as a form of activism. Now, instead of just reporting the news, reporters would seek out the news related to a particular evil they wanted to expose and uproot.
There is nothing inherently wrong or unethical in this, mind you. But it opens the reporter up to letting emotions (and possibly greed) taint the end result. Yes, you’re still trying to meet the public need for information, but you also have a personal stake in the outcome. That leads to potential conflicts of interest.
Not that modern journalism has any problems with that. This may come as a surprise to you, but our media sources tend to lean left more than a runner trying to avoid getting tagged out at first during a pickoff attempt. In other news, the Chicago Cubs are already eliminated from post season play before spring training, but that’s not important right now. By taking a side, journalism has gone from being watchdogs to lapdogs, and as much as I love lapdogs, I would prefer journalists play it straight.
The Associated Press used to do that, but has since moved more towards the Left, as slight as some think it has. Even if it’s considered to be factual and, thus, credible, the bias still poses a problem because it can lead to misinformation.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will say it’s fighting against misinformation through fact checks, even the slightest implication that is supported by an extrapolation of the fact checks they do can be misinformation in and of itself. Take the fact checks the AP does and who tends to be the target of those fact checks, namely conservatives. Leftists claim fact checkers have to do more fact checking on the Right because they lie all the time, but there’s one tiny problem with that.
It’s a little thing the kids like to call confirmation bias. When you have a set of beliefs as we all do, you tend to reject information that contradicts those beliefs and accept information that conforms to them. So, when a certain allegedly credible source of journalism decides to fact check the Right more than the Left, that gives the impression that…wait for it, kids…the Right lies more than the Left.
But it also gives the impression the AP covers up the lies of the Left more frequently.
Of course, Leftists and the AP would never admit that because it would expose the misinformation they both agree with, but that’s that’s neither here nor there. The point is the AP has a credibility problem.
Which brings us to their lolsuit. (And, no, that’s not a typo.)
The AP is arguing their ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments, more specifically the freedom of the press and due process, specifically. Not to be pedantic, but both arguments are bullshit to anyone with even a Schoolhouse Rock level of Constitutional knowledge. Or anyone who can read, which might be over the journalism class’s pay grade, but here we go.
The freedom of the press argument doesn’t work because of five little words from the First Amendment. Sing along if you know the words:
Congress shall make no law
Since this beef is between the White House and the AP, Congress doesn’t have a role and, thus, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Even if you accept the notion freedom of the press is being violated by the Administration, there is a secondary problem, that being access. Just because you’re a reporter doesn’t give you a VIP pass to go where you want for a story. You see, the freedom of the press doesn’t equate to a right to access. What the AP’s First Amendment argument tries to do is establish they have a right to be where the President is.
Of course, if I were advising the legal team defending the Administration officials, I would limit that access to only when the President is in the can, but that’s just me.
More to the point, the press pool tends to be rotated and cover various beats, so the AP being excluded from certain events isn’t as egregious as they want you to think it is. And what’s more, there are these things called pool reporters who compile the news from multiple sources and pass it along to those media outlets who didn’t get the luck of the press pool draw. This doesn’t impede the AP’s ability to distort…I mean report the news, so there is no violation.
In short, get that weak-sauce shit outta here, AP!
Now for the Fifth Amendment. Let’s start with the text itself.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness agThe ainst himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The AP’s argument in this case is based on the “due process of law” element, suggesting their ban was put in place without being allowed a day in court. Aside from all the reasons I cited above as far as access, there’s also another pedantic but vital detail: there is no allegation of a crime. This whole thing, as fucking stupid as it is, surrounds the name of a body of water. Even if the Gulf of Mexico self-identifies as the Gulf of America, it matters not. The AP isn’t being denied due process so much as it’s being denied a spot at the table over a disagreement outside of any legal constructs.
No allegation of crime? No violation of due process.
Checkmate, bitches.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will try to argue the contrary and may actually score a court victory depending on which Leftist judge gets a chance to shit on the Constitution to give them a victory over the Evil Orange Man. Which will give them reason to crow…at least until the case makes it to the Supreme Court or gets laughed out of court by a judge who reads beyond an AP reporter’s grade level.
How the mighty have fallen. From globally trusted news source to the punchline of a blogger’s weekly journey into Leftist madness.
Seems they’re getting off a little light, don’t you think?
Unlocking the Keys
With all of the post-2024 Election analyses, there’s been a lot of talk about Allan Lichtman’s 13 Keys, the factors he’s used to predict 9 of the past 11 Presidential elections. A lot of talk, but not a lot of analysis, per se. Oh, you had your share of squawking heads on both pointing out how the 13 Keys failed this election, but not a lot of thought as to why.
Well, since I lack hobbies, I decided to do a bit of research and analysis of my own and what I found out might change a few minds.
Before we get into the boring stuff, we have to set our parameters, i.e. know what we’re talking about. After all, this isn’t MSNBC, so we can’t get away with spouting off without having facts.
Lichtman’s Keys are as follows:
Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Under Lichtman’s model, a successful candidate has to win at least 8 of these Keys. And considering its track record, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where the Keys failed.
This is where things get a little tricky, and where most of the post-election analysis surrounding the Keys stopped. The consensus was the Keys were wrong, which negatively impacts Lichtman and the model itself. However, that’s far too simplistic and inaccurate an assessment. Based on my own analysis, the Keys still work and worked in the 2024 election.
Where the failure occurred is in the interpretation of the data. Whenever you do any kind of social research, there is always a chance one’s personal beliefs can find their way into the analysis of the findings. If you’re not careful, you go from letting the data drive your conclusions to rooting for a particular conclusion and retroactively figuring out how it came to pass.
To be fair, observation bias isn’t limited to the “soft sciences.” There are some prime examples of hard sciences being sucked into the wonderful world of bias. The difference is in the ability to reconstruct the experiment to test the hypothesis further. With hard science, the way to do that is clear, but with soft science, it’s unclear, if not impossible, to reproduce the outcomes. We can set up similar conditions, but the passage of time, the introduction of new information, or even just the possibility of a changed opinion limit the effectiveness and accuracy of the reproduction.
Setting all that aside (because it gets pretty close to migraine-inducing territory for me), the important takeaway is the data is the data. It’s how we interpret it that creates the opening for bias to affect the outcome.
I can’t say for certain Lichtman’s prediction that Vice President Kamala Harris would win 9 of the 13 keys was based on bias rather than a difference in interpreting the data. Prior to 2024, the only other time in recent history that the Keys didn’t accurately predict the outcome was in 2000 when he predicted Al Gore would defeat George W. Bush. His explanation for why the Keys didn’t predict the winner then? Bush stole the election.
That suggests to me he may have a bias issue when it comes to elections he feels strongly about, and he has made it clear he’s not a Trump supporter by any means. Having said that, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and chalk the 2024 election prediction failure to just having an off night. More grace than he deserves? Maybe, but feel free to excoriate me in the comments.
Lichtman’s prediction for 2024 were as follows:
The following nine keys line up in favor of the incumbent Democrats.
Contest Key 2: The Democrats have united in near unanimity behind Harris.
Third-Party Key 4: In recognition of his fading support, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his campaign. His endorsement of Donald Trump does not impact this key.
Short-Term Economy Key 5: It is too late for a recession to take hold of the economy before the election. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which provides the most reliable assessment of recessions, typically takes a few months to establish that the economy has fallen into a recession (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).
Long-Term Economy Key 6: Real per-capita growth during the Biden term far exceeds the average of the previous two presidential terms.
Policy Change Key 7: Biden has fundamentally changed the policies of the Trump administration in areas such as the environment and climate change, infrastructure, immigration, taxes, and women’s and civil rights.
Social Unrest Key 8: Despite sporadic demonstrations, social unrest has not risen to the level needed to forfeit this key: massive, unresolved unrest that threatens the stability of society as in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Scandal Key 9: Republicans in Congress have tried and failed to pin a scandal on President Biden. His son Hunter’s crimes do not count as scandal, which to do so must implicate the president himself and generate bipartisan recognition of wrongdoing.
Foreign/Military Success Key 11: President Biden and Biden alone forged the coalition of the West that kept Putin from conquering Ukraine and then undermining America’s national security by threatening its NATO allies. Biden’s initiatives will go down in history as an extraordinary presidential achievement.
Challenger Charisma Key 13: As explained, Trump does not fit the criteria of a once-in-a-generation, broadly appealing, transformational candidate like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
Seems like a lock, right? Not quite.
I have no dog in this hunt since I didn’t vote for either Trump or Harris, so my analysis shook out a bit differently. Instead of focusing on just the 9 keys Lichtman thought Harris would win, I think a look at all 13 would be helpful.
Here’s what I came up with.
Party Mandate: Although the 2022 midterm elections didn’t quite swing as far right as the GOP would have wanted, the fact remains they regained control of the House of Representatives. On that, Lichtman and I concur. Advantage: Trump.
Contest: Lichtman gave this one to Harris, but the conditions under which she received the nomination makes this a bit harder for me to concede this Key to her. At the beginning of the election cycle, Ms. Harris was still considered to be Vice President, in spite of the thoughts at the time she might be a drag on the ticket. The unity behind her didn’t come together until after the nomination process was truncated and she was allowed to take over for Joe Biden. Trump, on the other hand, went through a primary process where he had challengers of varying degrees of ineptitude. Even with that being the case, the GOP by and large got behind Trump from the outset. Thus, I have to give this one to the GOP. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbancy: Once Joe Biden dropped out, this Key became a moot point. Neither Trump nor Harris could claim this, so neither one would get the advantage from it. No Advantage.
Third Party: There was no significant third party presence in the 2024 election. The closest we had was Robert Kennedy, Jr. No Advantage.
Short Term Economy: Now, we’re getting into the fun stuff! Lichtman was correct when he said there was not a recession in play here. However, that doesn’t automatically mean the economy is strong. We may not have had a recession, but we still had to deal with an economy voters felt was in decline because, well, it was. Even if you consider the drop in the inflation rate to be a step in the right direction, it didn’t resonate with voters. For that reason, I cannot give Harris the nod as Lichtman did. Advantage: Trump.
Long Term Economy: Second verse, same as the first. Advantage: Trump.
Policy Change: Again, Lichtman correctly stated the Biden Administration changed policies put in place by the Trump Administration, which were certainly big, but for the wrong reasons because they were historically bad changes. (Inflation Reduction Act, anyone?) When asked what she would do differently, Harris couldn’t come up with anything, which meant she knowingly or inadvertently signed off on the policy changes Biden made, which were ultimately unpopular. Staying the course when you’re about to hit the rocks isn’t smart in real life or in politics. Advantage: Trump.
Social Unrest: One of the candidates got shot at twice after years of being called a fascist, and the other was Kamala Harris. That tells me there’s social unrest. Advantage: Trump.
Scandal: Sorry, sir, but you think President Biden was devoid of scandal, I have swamp land in Death Valley I’d love to sell you. This was one of the biggest blunders Lichtman had with his 2024 Keys because it ignored one of the biggest stories of last year: Biden’s declining mental faculties. That in and of itself (as well as the media’s cover-up) was a big enough scandal to swing this Key to Trump. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign or Military Failure: That was Joe Biden’s M.O. even back in his Congressional days. As we saw with the mess that was the Afghanistan withdrawal, there was no way for Biden to escape blame for it. And Harris was pretty much either a ghost on the scene or nodded in approval at whatever harebrained idea Biden came up with at the time. Trump didn’t have that problem because, well, he wasn’t Commander In Chief. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign/Military Success: Unless you count making President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine super rich, I got nothing. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbent Charisma/Hero: Even if you count Harris as the incumbent, she was a popularity void, as evidenced by the number of people who walked out of her rallies after the musical performances by big-name stars concluded. And Trump wasn’t the incumbent. It’s a wash. No Advantage.
Challenger Charisma/Hero: Say what you will about the man, Donald Trump has charisma and he imposed his will on the Harris campaign. Lichtman got this one completely wrong. Advantage: Trump.
So the final score from my analysis is 10 Keys for Trump, 0 for Harris, and 3 for No Advantage. And considering Trump won the White House, I’d say the Keys worked pretty good once possible bias (and definite missed calls) were accounted for. It may not have been the result Lichtman wanted, but from where I sit, the Keys worked to perfection, even if he didn’t.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This was another week where you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a potential Lexicon entry. Although I’m not sure why you would want to swing a dead cat around, but I’m not here to kink shame. Let your freak flag fly, baby!
Out of all the potential subjects, one really stood out for me. In a move that shocked, well, not that many people, Mark Zuckerberg announced Meta and all the social media sites under it would be moving away from its “fact checking” model (which literally fact-checked obvious jokes, thus making the model itself a joke) and moving more towards a Community Notes standard like what is being used on the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter. This got Leftists all atwitter (or would that be aX) at the notion. Journalists (0r whatever the fuck Brian Stelter is) and Leftist hacks were up in arms at Zuck’s decision.
Which obviously means it was the right decision.
And it makes it perfect for a Leftist Lexicon entry.
fact checking
What the Left thinks it means – a vital service that should only be done by professionals
What it really means – finding out the truth and calling out the lies
One of the hardest things about being informed today is knowing who you can trust. Modern journalism is a hodgepodge of shitty sources sucking up to even shittier people so they can get invited to dinner parties with yet even shittier people. The Fourth Estate has become Leftist stenographers more than the bulldogs that will relentlessly seek the truth. Anymore, any journalists are lucky to stumble into the truth, and even then there’s a better than average chance they’ll completely miss it.
On its face, the idea of fact checking is a good thing, especially given the modern journalism as described above. We want to be informed, or at the very least seem informed to impress others. To that end, we look for sources that break things down for us and teach us things we didn’t know. With the sheer deluge of information sources, it’s hard to find a way to control the output of the fire hose.
Enter the fact checkers, doing the research for you so you don’t have to! It’s so easy and cheap to do, it’s a wonder why people don’t do this more often!
And that’s the problem.
When you pawn off anything you should do yourself, you are subject to the outcomes the other party produce. It’s like when you hire a contractor who farms out the work to a subcontractor. The job may get done, but it may not up to the standards the contractor has. Then it becomes a matter of people pointing fingers at one another trying to figure out who’s responsible for the kitchen sink being put in the attic.
When it comes to information, it’s a lot harder to fix the fuckups, mainly because no one wants to take responsibility for your being misinformed. You don’t want to admit you were a dumbass for believing a fact checker. The fact checker doesn’t want to admit fault because a) it looks reaaaallllly bad when a fact checker can’t figure out the truth, and b) it hurts their widdle fee-fees. The entity that hired the fact checkers doesn’t want to take the hit for the reasons mentioned above and because it erodes the trust the entity has, which ultimately costs them money.
In other words, when you rely on fact checkers to do your research for you, more often than not, you’re their bitch.
Then, there’s the lovely little problem of bias. In the early days of Facebook fact checking, the people doing it leaned so far left they were parallel to the ground while standing up. Once that got called out, Zuck tried to balance out the fact checkers and the checking itself, but only made it worse because some of the fact checkers had bias issues. Not a good look, kids!
Regardless of which side of the political/ideological aisle you’re on, bias fucks up your ability to be truly informed because it limits your scope of information sources. Social media has turned us back into a tribalistic society where anyone who deviates from what you consider to be normal, just, and right is an infidel and, thus, not even worthy of even basic human decency. When you face information from one of those “unclean” sources that contradicts your mindset, you have two choices: adapt, or reject.
I bring this up to underscore the problem with biased fact checking. If you have the opinion information from one side or the other is untrue (regardless of whether it’s factual), you are going to more inclined to reject it. And if you have the power to shape what other people see on a social media website like…oh I don’t know…Facebook, you are going to be tempted to hide the “bad” information and go after those who want it to be known.
There’s an old saying that applies here…something about absolute power and corruption…I’m sure it will come to me.
Anyway, the Facebook fact checkers fell into this trap, which caused a lot of accounts to get warnings, suspensions, and even terminations. And in some cases, actual news stories shared online got slapped with misinformation tags (I’m looking at you, Hunter Biden) and were subsequently suppressed. Oh, and I forgot to mention Zuck said he got pressure from the Brick Tamland Administration to suppress the laptop story.
And who got punished for suppressing this legitimate news story? The entities who shared it. I mean, why would people who actively worked towards misinformation by absence see any punishment for making people misinformed? That’s just crazy talk, man!
But it also exposes the danger of trusting fact checkers without verifying whether what they’re saying is factual. Just because you tell me you’re honest doesn’t mean I’m not gonna test you. And you shouldn’t just trust and believe either. News stories that sound too good to be true should be the first ones that should make your Bullshit Meter light up like the…biological discharges…in an hourly rate hotel room when you scan it with a blacklight flashlight.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
This is going to be a bit of an ask, but it’s going to make more sense if you do it. Question all of your sources while reaching out for alternative sources from a wider array of ideologies. Then, let common sense be your guide. If something sounds factual and makes sense, be open to accepting it. If something sounds like more full of bullshit than the world’s largest cattle ranch, then don’t trust it. Consider it mental calisthenics that will make you stronger, faster, better. And without the need for bionics!
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out how the typical Leftist sources are so upset Mark Zuckerberg is going in a new direction with fact checking. The way it was set up initially, the Left had the power over what got considered factual. Now, thanks to the advent and popularity of Community Notes, they no longer control the flow of information and can be called out for pushing misinformation while pretending to guard against it. And if you’re a Leftist media shill, the worst thing you can do is strip them of the power and the prestige of being information brokers and letting the hoi polloi point and laugh when you fuck up.
If I may offer a suggestion, media folks, maybe stop parroting Leftist squawking points and start doing your fucking jobs. There’s a reason used car salesmen are considered more trustworthy than the media and their fact checkers these days, and I can draw a pretty clear conclusion as to why. But I’m sure if you really put your hivemind to it, you’ll figure it out by the end of January.
Of the year 3843.
Leftist Lexicion Word of the Week
Yep, we’re back talking about the 2024 Election again.
Since Donald Trump became the 47th President, the Left has been trying to figure out what went wrong. I have a thought: don’t run Hillary Clinton with a tan on a shitty platform focused on abortion rather than the cost of groceries. And as simple as that is to understand, the Left are still trying to figure out a way to right the DNC Titanic.
One idea that caught on was finding left-wing versions of Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. Spoiler Alert: you had them. They were called Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. But instead of taking a step back and realize running on bat-shit insane policies, they’re trying to find a way to reach out to white men.
Enter Dean Withers, affectionately called “the Bro Whisperer.”
Hoo boy. This one’s gonna sting, kids.
the Bro Whisperer
What the Left thinks it means – a way for the Left to reach out to young men to persuade them to vote Democrat
What it really means – proof positive the Left still doesn’t know what the fuck they’re doing
Leftists have had a pretty significant footprint (carbon or otherwise) in the mainstream media. Most major newspapers, the three networks, PBS, and some online spaces such as Facebook and YouTube. Even the Social Media Network Formerly Known As Twitter had the loving and diverse jackboot of the Left on its throat for a long time.
But as anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the rise of talk radio can tell you, that only meant the Right had to create their own niche in the market. So, they did. Whether it was Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, or Truth Social, the Right found a way to take the good parts of what the Left shit on, clean them off, and make them work.
Unfortunately for the Left, they’re not so successful in reversing the political polarity and being successful. And this whole “Bro Whisperer” thing is bound to tank more than Michael Dukakis in a tank.
First off, the concept is utterly demeaning to anyone with an IQ above Kate Moss’s waist size. Which is why the Left thinks it’s a great idea, by the way. As much as the Left loves to push back against negative gender stereotypes when it comes to women (and, more recently, men who claim to be women but have a five o’clock shadow that would make Bigfoot look like Dr. Evil), they’re resorting to the characterization of potential young male voters as early 90s-era frat boys. Instead of doing some introspection and working on an actual message, turn them all into “bros.”
Fucking brilliant.
Of course, this runs counter to the way the Left has seen men in recent decades. Potential rapists, gun nuts, control freaks, hyper-macho gym bros, colonists, misogynists, homophobes, intellectually and emotionally stunted, and the hits keep coming. And those are the names they use if they like you!
Seriously, though, the Left has been pounding the drums that men suck for a while now. Even now, the big brains on the Left blame men for Queen Kamala the Appointed’s election loss, but this time it’s men of all colors, not just whites, who get the blame. Apparently, men are afraid of strong women leaders, but the Left hasn’t presented any to us aside from Tulsi Gabbard. Most of the time, the Left’s idea of a strong woman is weaker than the drinks at a fourth-rate strip club.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Let me help you Leftists with an important concept that will come in handy sooner or later: not everything you think can be boiled down to sexism is actually sexism. Unless you’re taking the same drugs Joy Reid is, Harris ran a horrible campaign and wasted a shit-ton of money in the process. She didn’t really make much of an appeal to men, instead focusing on abortion (which Leftists keep telling us “no vagina, no say” so men would be further excluded from the conversation). And aside from doing a horrible fucking job on tasks President Brick Tamland gave her, she could list the number of successes she’s had on the one hand of the world’s unluckiest woodworker. It’s the lack of outreach on her campaign’s part that cost her the male vote.
Say what you will about Trump, he at least appealed to potential voters from all walks of life. That’s what drew in voters and political and social figures like the aforementioned Rogan and Musk. He didn’t talk down to them. He didn’t throw them out of the movement if they dared to consider the Right might not be the second coming of Hitler. Now that Queen Kamala the Appointed got stomped like a vat of grapes in an “I Love Lucy” episode, some on the Left are now willing to listen.
Hence, the “Bro Whisperer” bullshit.
But remember what I said earlier about the Left not exactly being successful in adopting ideas of the Right? Yeah, this is another one of them. On the bright side, though, it gives us an opportunity to remember the good old days of Air America. Yeah, that was an enjoyable three days (fewer if you take out all the commercials).
Now, typically I try to avoid making superficial comments about a Leftist’s looks or personality. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to break that rule this time because the “Bro Whisper” is the least Bro-ish Bro to ever Bro a Bro, Bro. But the Left are looking to him to help bridge the gap between themselves and the segment of the population they’ve shit on for decades. All I gotta say is good luck, kid. Maybe you’ll be Bro Rogan, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you won’t.
This on-again-off-again political romance with male voters shows the duplicity of the Left’s approach, as well as the cynicism behind it. The thing to remember is the Left thinks we’re dumber than a bag of hammers unless we say, think, and do exactly what they do. They see us as goldfish with a blackout drinking problem: short of memory and not terribly clear on the details. Anyone who backs the “Bro Whisperer” concept is perpetuating that idea. They think going from blaming male voters for not giving us Queen Kamala the Appointed to asking for their votes (and money, of course) is no big deal because we won’t remember how they called us fascists.
Even though it was literally a week or two before Election Day. I’m sure Queen Kamala’s positions have changed since then and she wants to make up for slamming men more than Nancy Pelosi slams shots at an open bar. She’s matured in that nearly 2 month period.
And if you believe that, I have some swamp land in the Sahara Desert I’d love to sell ya.
The best part of the “Bro Whisperer” (at least to me) is how confident the Left is it’s going to work. The Left has a serious ego problem (but that’s a blog post for another day) and it’s their sheer arrogance in their shitty ideas that will make the inevitable flop all the more enjoyable. In today’s political environment, the Left is Wile E. Coyote and we’re Acme.
I’m sure the “Bro Whisperer” is going to give it the old community college/votech try and the Left will marvel at the tens and tens of listeners he’s going to get, but it’s too late for the Left to mend fences. You’re going to have to be real going forward to regain the male vote.
On the bright side, you still have the men pretending to be women vote on lockdown!
Noses Up, Thumbs Down
As a recovering Leftist, I could go on for days about everything I see wrong with the current Left, mainly because they tend to be the same problems I saw when I was among their ranks. They’re not even original enough to recycle their problems!
The one common aspect that flows through all of these issues is arrogance. Regardless of the circumstances, Leftists always think they’re the smartest people in the room and aren’t afraid to let you know it. And they’re obviously better than you because they’re Leftists.
If that logic were any more circular it would give me motion sickness.
And that’s on top of the nausea I get when listening to Leftists expound upon their brilliance with takes worse than letting Lindsey Lohan be your AA sponsor. Just look back at any of the Leftists livestreaming the 2024 election. Down to the one, they all had the same take: Queen Kamala the Appointed was not only going to win, but ran a flawless campaign. Only the worst possible people could possibly vote for Donald Trump!
Yeah, about that.
Not only did Leftists double down on the “everyone else is stupid” rhetoric (which always brings people to the polls…to vote against them), but they also did what they did with climate change “research”: start with the answer and work backwards, ignoring anything that contradicts the desired results. In doing so, the Left has become the personification of the Principal Skinner “No, it’s the children who are wrong” meme.
To this day (see local listings for Leftist insanity in your area) the Left will do anything they can to avoid the one thing they need to do to move forward: admit they were wrong. And to their credit, some Leftists are starting to do just that, whether it be out of a crisis of conscience or a crisis of potential irrelevancy. Most of them, however, are confident it’s everyone else who is to blame for their own fuck-ups.
That’s the thing about egotists. They can never fail; they can only be failed. When they make a mistake, it’s always someone else’s or something else’s fault. And guess who is using this very tactic to explain away the 2024 election debacle and prepare for the 2028 election debacle?
You got it. The same people who gave us Queen Kamala the Appointed.
And it’s not just in politics where the Left claim to be smarter than everyone else. The Leftist smug reaches in to academia, especially science. Climate change predictions that never come true, COVID-19 guidelines based on utter bullshit, people who make Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson the de facto experts on all things science (even when the science is not in their respective backgrounds), the adoption of 72 genders (Spoiler Alert: still just 2), the acceptance that trans women are no different than biological women, and many more anti-science takes from the self-professed “Party of Science.” And if you dare speak out and present data that proves them wrong, you’re a heretic and must be dismissed, censored, maligned, called a conspiracy nut, and so on.
And if these Leftist science fans are proven wrong, that information gets memory-holed faster than Eric Roberts accepts a role. An example of this is evolution. Growing up, all the Leftists (myself included) said man evolved from apes. It was repeated so much that it became the common truth, in spite of the fact there wasn’t much science to back it up. Years later, I was in an AOL chat room (ah, those were the days) and mentioned this. A Leftist then told me no scientist actually believed that and that I was making it up. No matter what sources I used or firsthand direct experience I had to the contrary, it was never enough to satisfy the Leftist. Their orthodoxy had changed, or should I say…evolved.
I’ll see myself out.
But before I go, there is one more thing I have to point out. A lot of the Leftist bravado comes with little-to-no justification. They think they’re smart because they all believe the same things, but if what they believe is utterly stupid, it’s not a sign of brilliance. When you press them on any significant issue, most of the time they wind up looking like an idiot. Or worse yet, Cenk Uygur.
And yet they think this attitude is a real winner. Keep thinking that, kids. Just try to act surprised when this shit blows up in your face. Again.
Project 2025: What They Don’t Want to Tell You!
Although my hetero lifemate Chris did a fantastic job at discussing Project 2025 in a recent post, I wanted to weigh in a bit more on this subject, too. In the land of social media, there was a lot of buzz surrounding what was in this evil plan to take over America and turn it into a dystopian nightmare (even though it didn’t happen the first time Donald Trump was President), but now it’s super-duper-serious! There’s actually…a plan!!!!!!
Over the past several months, I have compiled a number of statements about Project 2025 and what it will totally definitely do once Donald Trump makes it official. What I’m about to list are actual statements made by people who at least resemble adults. Parental discretion is advised.
End No Fault Divorce
Complete ban on abortions without exceptions
Ban contraceptives
Additional tax breaks for the 1% and corporations
Higher taxes for the working class
Elimination of unions and worker protections
Raise the retirement age
Cut Social Security
Cut Medicare
End the Affordable Care Act
Raise prescription drug prices
Eliminate the Department of Education
Use public, taxpayer money for private religious schools
End free and discounted school lunch programs
End civil rights and DEI protections in government
Ban African American and gender studies in all levels of education
Deregulate big business and the oil industry
Promote and expedite capital punishment
End marriage equality
Condemn single mothers while promoting only “traditional families”
Defund the FBI and Homeland Security
Use the military to break up domestic protests
Mass deportation of immigrants and incarceration in “camps”
End birth right citizenship
Ban Muslims from entering the country
Continue to pack the Supreme Court and lower courts with right-wing justices
Connected to Donald Trump
End programs that address climate change
End public education
Persecute LGBTQ+ Americans
Encourage racial discrimination
Mass deportation and reduce immigration
Insert Christian Nationalist ideology into the mainstream
Give unchecked power to the President
Restrict IVF access
Family separation
Muslim ban
Tax cuts for the ultra wealthy
Replace civil servants with MAGA loyalists
Guns in classrooms
Order prosecution of political opponents
Pardon January 6 insurrectionists
Pathway for Trump to become permanent dictator
Put Medicare on the path to privatization
Repeal President Biden’s drug price negotation program
Threaten Medicare coverage
Reverse the Biden Administration’s student debt relief efforts
Withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on climate change and the Paris Climate Agreement
Repeal the Inflation Reduction Act
Shred greenhouse gas regulations and gut clean energy programs
Replace the WH climate advisor with someone focused on boosting fossil fuels
Give Trump the power to reject all climate science research directed by the Biden Administraiton
Gut the federal workforce and install loyalists
Allow Trump to deploy the military against American citizens
Allow ICE to conduct raids at schools, churches, hospitals, playgrounds, and other sensitve areas
Make federal government establish marriage between a man and a woman
Withdraw federal anti-discrimination protections for transgender students
Reimplement Trump’s transgender military ban and expel transgender service members
Reverse the FDA’s approval of abortion medication
Invoke the Comstock Act to ban the shipment of abortion pills
Compel states to report the “reason” for every abortion performed
Allow states to ban employers from providing health benefits that cover abortion care
Eliminate the Department of Education
Use public funds to pay for private religious schools
Encourage Christian indoctrination through public schools
Dismantle Civil Rights and DEI protections at all level of government
Eliminate no fault divorce
Total ban on abortions regardless of viability or health of the mother
Ban all contraceptives
Ban African American and Gender studies at all levels of education
Tax cuts for major corporations and 1% while increasing taxes on the rest
Eliminating unions and all worker protections
Eliminating all climate protections
Encourages arctic drilling
Eliminating regulations of big business and oil
Raise retirement age
Eliminate Social Security for the elderly and disabled
Promotes capital punishment and the speedy “finality” of such sentences
Condemns single mothers while encouraging “traditional families”
Only recognize traditional families by overturning Obergefell v Hodges in attempts to eliminate LBGTQIA community
Dismantling the FBI and Homeland Security
Use of military to break up protests
Eliminating Head Start and the free/discounted school lunch program
Banning books and curriculum regarding slavery
Forcing immigrants to be deported or held in camps and ends birth right citizenship
Banning Muslims from entering the country
Dismantles the FDA, EPA, NOAA, and more
Pack the Supreme Court with extreme far-right judges
Funding decrease for the DOJ
Dismantling the DOC
Dismantling the DHS
Eliminate independence for the FCC and FTC
Terminate DEI programs
Implement “unitary executive theory” expand the power of the President
Restructure and repurpose the DOJ
Replace career federal employees with hand-picked loyalists
Reverse FDA approval of Mifepristone
Rename HHS “Department of Life”
Add work requirements to receive Medicaid
Condemn single motherhood and same-sex marriage
Eliminate the terms “sexual orientation,” “diversity, equality, and Inclusion,” “gender equality,” “abortion” and “reproductive rights” from all laws and federal regulations
Terminates the Constitution
Guts democratic checks and balances on Presidential power
Ban President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law
Cease support for international organizations that promote LBGTQ+ equality
Stopping cybersecurity efforts to combat mis- and disinformation
Deprioritize DACA
Abolish the Gender Policy Council
Cutting ties with China
Reversing protections against discrimination in housing.
Tracking potential employees’ opinions
Employers can cut or eliminate overtime
Pretty extensive list. I will warn you there may be duplicates because a) there are so many ways to phrase the same thing, and b) Leftists aren’t that imaginative.
As I promised in the title, I am going to tell you something they don’t want you to know about Project 2025. Brace yourselves because I’m about to drop a truth bomb on you.
Almost everything the Left tells us about Project 2025 is complete bullshit.
I’ll give you a moment to catch your breaths.
Ready? Here we go.
One of the most common traits of each of the things said about Project 2025 listed above (and others that I didn’t catch) is the lack of attribution. Out of the claims I posted, only 1 gave a page number. And since I had a handy-dandy copy of the Project 2025 document, I was able to look up the page number and read what the poster claimed was there. And, surprise surprise, it wasn’t. It was a gross misrepresentation of what the document actually said.
That means the vast majority of claims made were made without a page number, just a “trust me, bro” as its attribution. So, when I looked for the verbiage used in the claims and came up emptier than a Kamala Harris victory party, that was a huge red flag that the post was utter bullshit. To borrow a phrase from the late Christopher Hitchens:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
That may have worked well for Mr. Hitchens, but I’m more of a research nut, so I took the additional (and, admittedly, unnecessary) effort to look it up myself. Then, I could say what I found, point to what section(s) I read, and give more attribution than the poster could muster.
And, as you might expect, that wasn’t met with respect and an honest appreciation for finding the facts. Let’s just say the people I interacted with were on a really long boat trip in Egypt. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say the Left was…lying.
I’m kidding. Of course I know they were lying, but they don’t want to tell you that. Hence the title.
And with that, we’ve come full circle! I love it when a blog post comes together.
Extremist Makeover: MSNBC Edition
If the 2024 elections taught me anything, it’s how much the mainstream media’s influence is waning. And by waning, I mean tanking more than Michael Dukakis in a helmet. And if you got that reference, you are officially old. Welcome to the club!
But there’s one cable news network that has been hit the hardest: MSNBC, or as I call it “the Bluesky of cable news.” (And, for you MSNBC viewers out there, that’s not a positive thing.) Ratings are down, NBC is considering splitting MSNBC from its holdings (it’s not them, it’s you), and even high profile stars like Rachel Maddow are having to take pay cuts.
If anyone needed an Extremist Makeover, it’s MSNBC. Good thing I’m here to help!
Right now, MSNBC is directionless. They can go back to being the “Orange Man Bad” channel (as if they ever stopped), but that route has diminishing returns in its future. They’ve lost a lot of credibility following every Trump-related conspiracy theory and inviting on figures like Adam Schiff to perpetuate those conspiracy theories. They’re behind the times when it comes to reverting back to more straight news, as CNN has already tried to take a step back towards the middle from the hinterlands of Leftistinistan.
Not exactly an enviable position to say the least!
There are two choices that come to mind, neither one attractive in the grand scheme, but necessary to try to sustain an audience. The first is to try to appeal to the middle ground. You can still have Rachel Maddow, but you would also need someone on the other side (preferably not from the not-quite-as-insane-as-Joy-Reid-but-you-can-see-her-sanitarium-from-here group) to balance the scales and offer a different perspective.
And speaking of Joy Reid, you’re gonna have to let her go, as well as a few others. Al Sharpton, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Hayes, and hosts of others shouldn’t even be allowed in the newsroom if they were getting coffee for the real journalists. They should rightly be shown the door if for no other reason than to eliminate redundancies. Heck, Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow are practically twins as it is, so why not get rid of the less talented one?
A change in ownership may also be in MSNBC’s future, which could go a long ways towards righting this left-leaning ship. One of the names being bandied about is Elon Musk, who knows a thing or two about bringing balance to a media outlet, as all the Leftists fleeing the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter can attest. Or would if you didn’t get banned off Bluesky for not being Leftist enough.
On the other hand, it may be too late for MSNBC to gain any amount of credibility in the eyes of the media consuming public. In that case, maybe it’s time to lean into the nitwit Leftist conspiracy theories. Go all out! Rename yourself MSNBlueAnonC and let anyone with an idea that makes Trump look like the Dictator-du-jour. Is there fluoride in your drinking water? Trump did it! Step in some dog waste on your way into a San Francisco Whole Foods? Trump literally just took a dump right there! Make the Weekly World News look like the New York Times!
Wait, wait. I have to apologize for that last line. In no way, shape, or form was I attempting to question the journalistic integrity and prowess of a highly respected newspaper by comparing it to the New York Times. I’m sorry. Now please don’t sic Bat Boy on me!
Anyway, if you’re going to cater to the marginally coherent crowd, make sure it’s the best catering you can do. Sure, this will further tank your credibility and will shrink your audience smaller than the number of people who still want to see the Snow White movie when/if it comes out, but it will be fun. And when you really think about it, if you know you’re on the Titanic and about to plunge to an icy demise, why not have a little fun with it? Do the biggest cannonball you can and never regret it for a second!
Either way, I hope you folks at MSNBC take my advice. Especially on that second option because, although I can’t guarantee its success, I can guarantee it will make me laugh a lot.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Hollywood loves reboots like they love hookers and blow, and they really love hookers and blow. Sometimes these reboots work out (like the updated version of the Planet of the Apes movies, minus the Tim Buron-directed abomination). Sometimes they don’t (like the flaming shit-show that is the unreleased “Snow White”).
When Elon Musk bought Twitter and turned it into the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter, Leftists started looking for alternatives because they would no longer be able to count on high-ranking Leftists to censor those icky conservatives opinions that didn’t violate the Terms of Service, but did violate their fee-fees.
Now, they’ve found one, a little thing the kids like to call Bluesky. It’s relatively new, but it’s already boasting over 20 million users with a lot of them being former X users (so ex-X users. Thank you! Tip your waitstaff!) departing the social media site after Donald Trump won the Presidency for a second time with help from Elon Musk.
So, shall we take a trip into the Blue-niverse? (Thank you! Please hold your applause!) Even if you don’t want to, we’re going!
Bluesky
What the Left thinks it means – a social media site where like-minded people can share their opinions without fear of being censored by right wingers
What it really means – the digital version of Air America
After decades of having control over most of the popular media of the time, Leftists have had to adapt to a new environment where their control was no longer as secure as it once was. Talk radio, lead by the late Rush Limbaugh, started becoming the alternative to the squawking heads people once looked to for news. And, yes, there are plenty of examples of talk radio hosts getting shit wrong, but it didn’t matter. The Left no longer controlled the flow of information.
As a result, Leftists tried to ride the wave of talk radio success by creating Air America. Basically, what the brain trust behind it thought was all they had to do was replace Rush Limbaugh with Al Franken and watch the money roll in. Only, it didn’t. Talk radio wasn’t plug-and-play. You actually had to have personalities people want to listen to, and Air America really didn’t. Oh, they had an audience, but it was far smaller than the normal talk radio audience. Say what you will about Limbaugh, he knew how to entertain (which is ironic because Al Franken was on “Saturday Night Live” when it was actually funny).
And then Air America came in with a whimper and went out with a popcorn fart. You’re lucky to find anyone around my age to even remember Air America was something other than a Mel Gibson movie these days, and the only reason I remember it is because I’m just that lame. Nevertheless, the point is Leftists really don’t know how to catch up when someone outside of their ideological bubble races ahead of them.
Which brings us to Bluesky.
What Musk has done for X is so logical, it’s no surprise Leftists hate it. Instead of letting one side of the political aisle run roughshod over anyone who disagreed with their enlightened (and utterly dumb) opinions, Musk brought at least some semblance of neutrality to the platform. Which pissed off Leftists to no end. After all, if there’s one thing Leftists hate more than Donald Trump and Elon Musk, it’s having their positions challenged in any way. So, after spending all this time talking smack about the platform (while still on said platform), they took their balls and went home…to Bluesky.
Now, I’m not going to say it’s a flaming Port-A-Potty over there because, well, that would be unfair to flaming Port-A-Potties. Oh, sure, you’ll still find decent posts about nature and science, but most of the stuff being posted on there is straight-up Beyond Thunderdome shit. Aside from being accused of censoring conservative viewpoints as well as pro-Palestinian posts, they’re driving other Leftists away for…dare I say it…not being Leftist enough.
Great way to build up the world’s most tolerant echo chamber!
In the post-election environment we find ourselves in, this isn’t all that unusual. Leftists always look for people to blame for their election failures because it’s a hell of a lot easier than saying, “Ya know, we really fucked up here.” With Bluesky, the only difference is the venue.
Oh, and the level of batshit insanity.
Fortunately, you don’t have to go on Bluesky to see it. Some brave soul is going into Bluesky and picking out the best of the worst and putting it on X. Whomever you are, my few remaining brain cells and I thank you.
If you don’t want to get an X account (like your humble correspondent), there is still humor to be found out of the batshit insanity when you consider the possibility the Bluesky Leftists are screaming into the void (albeit an intellectual one) of their own creation. Then, it becomes a contest to try to “prove” how Leftist you are, which will lead to more fighting with the freak show.
Cue Thunderdome! Two Leftists enter, one Leftist leaves!
And we’ll have to deal with a potential shortage of popcorn…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the reelection of Donald Trump, Leftists took the realization Queen Kamala the Appointed wasn’t going to be President as well as you’d expect: by being bat-shit insane. I mean, even worse than they normally are, which is saying a lot from an ideological group that thinks trans women can get pregnant.
Well, some of those trans men may have to pick up the slack, thanks to a movement Leftists women adopted in the wake of Trump’s victory. It’s called the 4B movement, and it’s…well, we’ll get into that after the break.
4B movement
What the Left thinks it means – women protesting the patriarchy by cutting off any relationship or sexual ties with men
What it really means – Leftist women co-opting a movement because Orange Man Bad
The origins of 4B has its roots in a South Korean feminist movement in the mid-to-late-2010s. The tenets of 4B are as follows:
no sex with men
no giving birth
no dating men
no marriage with men
In other words, my dating history prior to meeting my wife.
The driving force behind 4B is a desire to reject the “normal” family dynamic and the male-dominated culture that perpetuates it. Given the culture in South Korea and the challenges women face as a result of it, there is a legitimate need for such a movement, even if I may not align with them politically. I firmly believe there are things women can do as well as a man, if not better, and that women should be given the chance to succeed or fail on their merits.
So, naturally, Leftist women in America have to go and fuck it up.
Before they could get warmed up for their epic meltdowns, Leftist women were looking into 4B thanks to social media. Yes, the same outlets where people do stupid dances or post images of food are responsible for this movement coming to our shores. To which I say fuck you very much.
Or not.
And the thought behind this is just as shallow as the “influencers” on the aforementioned social media sites. Because Donald Trump appointed Supreme Court Justices who…horror of horrors…told the country abortion was a state issue, the misogyny of men not wanting to vote for Queen Kamala the Appointed because she ran a campaign so bad it made Walter Mondale circa 1984 look like Ronald Reagan circa 1984, and Orange Man Bad, of course, Leftist women are going to…adopt conservative values.
Holy self-own, Batman!
But it gets even better when you consider the Left’s fascination with abortion. Not only was it one of Queen Kamala the Appointed’s campaign cornerstones, but it’s a wedge issue that has worked time and time again in getting votes from a wide swath of the female population. Didn’t work this time, but that’s a blog post for another day.
Anyway, imagine the impact of Leftist women not having sex. Aside from making Tinder a lot easier for horny men to find a hook-up, it has the potential to reduce the number of abortions done. And what was one of the reason Leftist women want to adopt 4B?
Abortion rights.
Looks like Planned Parenthood is going to need even more federal funds to keep the doors open. Good luck with that with the incoming Administration and Congress, ladies.
To make matters worse (and by worse I mean a lot funnier), Leftist women are doing everything they can to repel men. Many are shaving their heads, getting tattoos or blue bracelets to show they voted for Queen Kamala the Appointed (and, thus, “safe”), or even suggesting men should be poisoned. Because that’s completely rational and totally not ultra-turbo-psycho-bitch behavior.
There are a lot of jokes I could make about Leftist women taking this tack, like how a significant chunk of the women backing 4B in America won’t have to worry about ever needing to get an abortion because they are less likely to have sex than an Amish eunuch, but that’s not what I do. That kind of superficiality only matches the superficiality of the women deciding to adopt 4B and, to be frank (or if you prefer, Steve), they really don’t deserve it.
Now, pointing and laughing, on the other hand…
Seriously, kids, it’s hard for me to take the Americanized version of 4B seriously because it makes no sense on any level and it reduces women to their lady parts…which is what a lot of immature men already do. Leftists believe women’s vaginas create a sisterhood that requires all women to think, speak, and most importantly vote a certain way. Otherwise you’re betraying your gender.
Unless, of course, there are women to the right of Gloria Steinem. Then, fuck those women!
But there is no such sisterhood, and there never has been. Men don’t think, act, and vote a certain way because we all have dicks. We do that because we’re men. We are pretty simple creatures when you get right down to it. It’s hard-wired into our DNA from Ug on down.
Women, by contrast, are much more complex, and I for one am glad for that. The females of the species are more in tune with their emotions (which explains a lot about the Leftist women signing on for 4 years of 4B when you think about it) because it’s hard-wired into their DNA. A woman is a marvel of creation, able to be a fierce lover and a fierce fighter depending on the situation, being the one responsible for carrying life within her body, and having the intelligence to guide her male counterpart towards a better way.
But Leftist women believe in the Sisterhood of the Traveling Vajayjay.
Call me crazy (and I’m sure you will if you haven’t already), but that comes off as incredibly condescending and, dare I say it (Spoiler Alert: I do dare), rather misogynistic. By viewing everything through the pussy prism, Leftists strip away everything that makes women special and turns them into objects without agency. As bad as you Leftists think Donald Trump is, you aren’t much better.
It will be interesting to see how long Leftist women will keep up with the tenets of 4B. It might last as long as a TikTok dance fad or go on and on like “The View.” In either case, I think I can speak for a good chunk of the American male population with this simple sentence.
Your terms are acceptable.