Well, the Democratic National Convention just ended much like it began: without Kamala Harris saying anything of substance. Not that the media aren’t trying to give her the gravitas she earned in the same way she got the Presidential nomination.
And, no, that’s not a good thing.
When they aren’t gushing over the joy of the Harris/Walz ticket is allegedly bringing to the 2024 campaign, the media are doing their best to make it sound like Donald Trump is panicking due to the rise of Kamala. To their credit, they are making a persuasive case, as Harris has gone from unpopular Vice President to popular Presidential candidate rapidly.
The obvious question is what has changed. Harris hasn’t changed. She’s still the same person she was when many of the same people cheering her now were calling for President Brick Tamland to drop her from the ticket if he wanted to win. And now, we’re supposed to believe there’s this groundswell of support for her that was always there, but only now started to come forward and be known.
Yeah, I’m not buying it.
The Harris/Walz ticket has multiple problems, not the least of which being a lack of specificity in what they believe. As of the date of this missive, their campaign website has zero policy positions, but plenty of ways for you to donate money. Even delegates at their own coronation…I mean convention couldn’t name specific policies they support from the Harris/Walz campaign. Oh, they gave word salad answers (not unlike their candidate of choice), but there was no there there.
The media aren’t helping matters either. When they’re not jockeying for position to be her biggest cheerleader, they’re making excuses for why she doesn’t have to spell out a policy vision. And if you want to do any significant research on Harris and Walz, be prepared to use an Internet history website while you can because their pasts are getting scrubbed. Want to read up on how many prisoners Harris locked up in California for cheap labor? Have a desire to see what military people actually thought of Walz? Good luck! The media won’t tell you these things, but the Internet is forever.
At least until they bend the knee to Harris/Walz to erase their histories and create new narratives. Oh, and gaslight you for not believing the new lies they’re telling to cover up the old ones.
Where am I going with all this? Glad you asked!
What I’m seeing is a party that knows it has a crappy hand, but has all the gusto in the world to play it out like it’s a royal flush in the hopes others will fold. In some cases, like with Robert Kennedy Jr., they just didn’t recognize him as a candidate. Basically, the ostrich with its head in the ground approach: if you don’t see it, it doesn’t exist. With others, like Jill Stein, they’ve been marginalized to the point you could run Pat Paulsen and get the same result.
But Trump? He’s a different animal altogether. And as it turns out, Robert Kennedy Jr. is, too. With the latter dropping out of the race and throwing his support behind Trump, it’s easy to dismiss it as a fart in a wind tunnel, but it gives voters an option. The option may be between a dog poop sandwich and a cat poop sandwich, but the option is still there.
Something to keep an eye out for in the next week or so is whether Harris/Walz gets a post-convention bump in the polls. Then, watch for how long it lasts. There is a lot of happy talk right now with almost universal praise (from Leftists) at the heavy hitters that appeared at the DNC (0r were alleged to have appeared, but weren’t actually booked). But after the confetti and balloons are cleaned up, what’s left?
A campaign without specifics, and a lot of questions that need to be answered.
So far, the toughest question Harris has faced from the media is “How do you feel?” The media’s question about President Tamland’s favorite ice cream was tougher! And as a former journalism student, that bothers me. The media are supposed to be adversarial towards those in power, not sucking up to them in hopes of being picked for some low-level government job where they can do even less than they do now.
But at some point, tougher questions are going to be asked, either by the press (yeah, even I don’t believe that’s going to happen) or by people outside of the Mandatory Joy campaign. What are they going to do about inflation, supply chain issues, infrastructure, the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, climate change, and so on? And I think the party knows their ticket doesn’t have any answers, only the ability to try to blame Trump for the policies they supported.
And that has to scare the crap out of the party.
I’ve had an idea that I’ve been kicking around in the back of my mind, but I haven’t shared it before now. I get the feeling the party leaders know they have two empty suits at the top of the ticket, so they’re hyping the joy to avoid looking like they’re throwing the 2024 election so better candidates can run in 2028. Not that their bench is as deep as a mud puddle, mind you, but the fact is to date Harris has not been impressive as a candidate in the two times she’s run for the Presidency. All the joy in the world won’t make up for a lack of substance.
That’s why they’re trying to get people to believe Trump is scared and panicking right now. After years of telling people not to believe President Tamland wasn’t mentally well and getting them to believe it while projecting the same issues onto Trump, the media are now trying to hide Harris’s lack of a record by lying to us again.
If we take anything from the DNC last week, it’s how much the party is willing to lie to us, obscure facts that don’t play into the narrative, and turn Kamala Harris from zero to hero while not really changing who she is or what she’s accomplished. But, it’s not working as well as it did in 2020, and the Left can’t do anything but project its own desperation onto Trump.
But remember, my Leftist friends, you made this happen. And in November, we’ll see how much joy you have.
Tag: donald trump
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Every modern political campaign these days is fraught with scandal. The severity of the scandal depends on a number of factors, not the least of which being how the politician at the center of it reacts.
This year, the Vice Presidential candidates (or at least the one on the ticket that actually got votes at the convention) are battling over stolen valor. As the son of someone who served (and as someone who isn’t a complete asshole…although the jury’s still out on that one), I take this matter pretty seriously. And that’s why I try to do my homework so I’m not throwing out an accusation that I can’t back up, thus not looking like a complete asshole in that case.
There is a lot more behind stolen valor than the words themselves, and in today’s hyper-political environment, it’s especially important to be accurate.
But since the person responsible for accuracy is on vacation, it’s my job.
stolen valor
What the Left thinks it means – an unfounded accusation made against Tim Walz that makes JD Vance look stupid
What it really means – taking credit for unearned military achievements
When dealing with military matters, I try to look for authoritative sources. And I’m going to guess a website chronicling the Medal of Honor and other military honors might just fit the bill.
HomeofHeroes.com describes stolen valor thus:
“Stolen Valor” is a term applied to the phenomenon of people falsely claiming military awards or medals they did not earn, service they did not perform, Prisoner of War experiences that never happened, and other tales of military actions that exist only in their minds.
So, no matter your rank in Call of Duty, you aren’t really a military expert, nor should you talk to anyone outside of your gaming group about your rank. And given some of the video gamers I’ve known, their rank isn’t just a military term.
Regardless, the description above jibes with something I’ve experienced personally. Those who served don’t tend to talk about it very much, while those who didn’t or served lighter duty than Al Gore can’t stop talking about it. Those who practice stolen valor are usually trying to pull a scam, whether it be for a discount on a breakfast meal, bang a hot and dumb sexual conquest, or a few pity dollars along the roadway. Those who get away with it tend to keep pushing it until the time they’re exposed as frauds.
Which brings us to politics.
The war of words between JD Vance and Tim Walz began when Vance accused Walz of stolen valor. Since then, Walz has rhetorically fired back, stating Vance shouldn’t denigrate anyone’s service record, let alone his.
Now for the $64,000 Question: is Walz guilty of stolen valor? (It was either that or “Where are your pants, sir?”)
Wellll…that’s a really good question (the stolen valor one, not the pants one). A lot depends on who you ask. Leftists, of course, say Walz is innocent and that Vance served less time than Walz did. The Right, on the other hand, noted Walz claimed a rank he hadn’t really earned and made a claim he experienced war during a speech about the need for gun control.
The thing is…both sides are right to a point. Although Walz isn’t trying to scam people out of anything but votes, he did claim a rank he didn’t earn. And although he did that, it’s questionable whether it rises to the level of stolen valor. As such, I think Vance and Donald Trump should drop this line of attack sooner rather than later since they don’t have a Delorean and a flux capacitor. Also, it gives Walz a chance to appear to be a victim of “right wing attacks” which will make Trump/Vance look dishonest and mean by comparison.
Of course, the media lead us to believe they are already, so…it’s a wash, I guess?
This is one of the pitfalls of politicizing stolen valor: if you’re wrong, you’re likely fucked. Furthermore, it takes something serious and reduces it to a talking point. Republicans will continue to say Walz is guilty of stolen valor, Leftists will continue to dismiss the allegation and point to Trump’s less-than-existent military career. And in the end, nobody’s really going to be convinced or do the digging into the allegations to find the truth.
Well, except for me, and my excuse is I don’t have hobbies, so take that for what it’s worth.
There is one upside to this, for me at least. Leftists, who have spent decades decrying war and violence, now have a Vice Presidential candidate who thumps his chest with pride for…being involved in war. Granted, the most action Walz saw was a really big squirt gun fight, but the point stands. Maybe they’re too caught up in the joy the Harris/Walz campaign is bringing to the race (at least, that’s what the media keep telling us).
Joy overdose or not, the Left’s hypocrisy here is worth pointing out. And by “pointing out” I mean “mock mercilessly.” You want peace in Palestine, but back a veteran in the #2 slot of the ticket? If you can make that make sense without invoking “Orange Man Bad,” give it a go. Just know I will be laughing at your futility.
Regardless of how you feel about Walz’s retirement or Vance’s service, the point is they both signed up for something I couldn’t do because I was young and stupid. They served this country willingly, and for that they both have my deepest respect. The rest of the shit they’ve done, though…that’s fair game.
Before I close this out and await the slings and arrows of outrageous Internet comments, I do have to call out Walz for his response to Vance’s accusations of stolen valor. No matter how much you try to frame it as maligning your military service, the fact is it wasn’t that much of a slight, and certainly not so much of a slight that it required a response more than a so-what. By showing it bothers you, you have given Trump/Vance a means to needle you and make you look defensive.
You know, the way you made them look defensive when you called them “weird”?
And given the fact the head of your ticket is more vacant than a We Can’t Afford a Roof Inn during rainy season, you’re taking the focus away from the her. Then again, if I had a record like Kamala Harris’s, I’d be embarrassed to show my face in public, too. Nevertheless, your response gave the accusation oxygen, which allows people from all sides to weigh in on the topic.
Including some of the folks you served with.
Maybe you can get some tips from John “Swift Boat, Not Swift Thinker” Kerry about that. Provided, of course, you can sit through a James Taylor set.
Meanwhile, I urge my conservative brethren and sistren to knock off the stolen valor claims against Tim Walz. They’re not helping. Besides, I’m sure if you look hard enough, you can find way worse shit with which to rhetorically batter him.
The Joy Offensive
Since Kamala Harris picked Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate for the 2024 Presidential election (all without dealing with the silly little detail of getting actual delegates through the primary process), the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) have been working overtime to fluff up the ticket like it was on a porn set. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
The result has been glowing reviews, lots of money being raised, and social media abuzz with talk of joy surrounding the ticket. Polls that showed Harris less popular than an STD have flipped, leaving the Trump/Vance ticket to scratch their heads in amazement. Either that or they need Head and Shoulders. Regardless, it’s the political equivalent of Lazarus being raised from the dead.
On the surface, it’s a mystery. How could a Vice President known more for word salads and failed initiatives than success get the upper hand on a former President known more for word salads and odd initiatives, but still can count successes on both hands? It starts with the framing of the Harris/Walz ticket. And for that, we can thank the Walzster. He had the bright idea of calling the Trump/Vance ticket “weird” which caught on like wildfire. Then again, TikTok videos catch on like wildfire, too, so it’s not exactly a high bar.
If you missed my tepid take on the “weird” controversy, I got your hookup. Although I have panned the notion, I can’t argue with the results. It’s become a Leftist squawking point and a clear point of irritation for Trump/Vance, which takes attention away from the issues, thanks in part to the media.
But that’s only the first part of the equation. Although Trump and Vance have been refuting the allegations they are “weird,” Harris/Walz have taken a step into another phase of the campaign: reimagining their ticket as the ticket of joy. Since being chosen, Walz has been seen as more of a father or grandfather figure, and Harris has been emphasizing how she represents hope and joy.
Hmmm…hope as a campaign platform. Nah, it would never work!
Harris has also tapped into the youth culture by adopting a “brat summer” approach. For those of you who don’t know what that means, be glad you’re uninformed because it’s just as stupid as it sounds. But, again, the results speak for themselves at least for now. Whether the young people inspired by the Harris/Walz joy offensive get inspired to vote is still in question, but I’m sure there’s a Kinko’s in Washington, DC, already working on printing up prefilled ballots for Harris/Walz.
So with all this joy and positivity going around, there can’t be a down side, can there? As your resident cynical curmudgeon, I can say there is, and it’s pretty easy to spot if you’re paying attention.
Which means Leftists are completely in the dark about it.
The first thing to point out about the joy offensive is it’s based on nothing. No policy statements, no real interviews or press conferences, not even an updated campaign website with policy positions (but more than a few ways you can donate to the campaign). Which, if you really think about it, is pretty on-brand for Kamala Harris, but that’s not important right now.
Now, compare the joy the Harris/Walz/media narrative spins to what’s actually going on right now. If you listen to the squawking heads like perpetually-wrong-but-never-in-doubt Paul Krugman, everything is fine and you’re just too dumb to realize it. (And, yes, that’s really what they’re suggesting/saying.) Yet, if you go to where the people really are, things aren’t good. Inflation is higher than Willie Nelson in Amsterdam on 4/20, goods and services are more expensive, and you need a third mortgage to get a tank of gas, mainly because you used your second mortgage to get groceries for the week. No amount of joy is going to make any of this go away, but by God, Harris/Walz is gonna try!
And there’s a good chance they may succeed, at least for now. But try paying your mortgage with joy. Just let me know what happens after the foreclosure sale.
The great irony of this approach is it’s policies like the ones Harris/Walz have advocated that has caused the pain. Appealing to people’s desire to be happy is designed to get people to ignore that little fact. Who cares if Harris was the Border Czar in spite of the media saying otherwise? Who cares if Walz made it okay to take away parents’ children if they didn’t want to mutilate the children if little Timmy feels like little Tammy for a hot minute? Who cares if the COVID lockdowns caused more problems than they allegedly solved? Just be happy, dammit!
I can’t deny there are times when we need diversions from the flaming dumpster fire that is America 2024. Video games, movies, writing semi-well-received blogs with marginal humor, those are all ways to tune out the world and plug in to your inner peace. Your mileage may vary, but the point’s the same. We shouldn’t expect politicians to provide us joy. Unless, of course, your joy comes from spending billions of dollars you don’t have on stuff that doesn’t work. That’s retail therapy on steroids, kids.
More to the point, if you think government has the ability to bring you the joy you seek in life, you’ve already succumbed to the trap. The more a government can “give” you, the less likely you are to find it yourselves. And that’s by design. Leftists believe Big Daddy Government is the sole provider of all things good, nice, and, well, joyous. The more Leftists get you to believe that, the more likely you are to support them, which helps them perpetuate their power and money bases.
And the less likely anything really positive will get done. After all, government isn’t in the problem-solving businesses because a problem solved is a revenue and power source lost. But as long as they get you to believe the Left will fix things if given enough time, money, and power, they don’t care!
I’ll be interested to see how long the Harris/Walz joy offensive will work and if it will evolve or get tossed aside once Trump/Vance start landing rhetorical punches. At some point, Harris/Walz is going to have to stop talking about joy and start talking about policy, and that time is coming soon. With a matter of weeks left before Election Day, the joy offensive is going to have to give way to substance.
And no amount of joy can hold back the hands of time.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Political attacks have been around since, well, pretty much since this country was founded. Whether you’re accusing your opponent of being a practicing homo sapien who consorts with thespians or the press of being nattering nabobs of negativity, the slings and arrows of outrageous soundbites are the country’s second favorite past time, with the first being wanting to speak to the manager.
This election cycle is no different. But this time, the big negative statement making the rounds is…”weird.” Donald Trump is weird. JD Vance is weird. Republicans are weird. Even Barron Trump is weird.
I didn’t say it was a good negative statement.
weird
What the Left thinks it means – an effective political slam that accurately describes the Right
What it really means – a lame-ass insult that is designed to create a false dichotemy
Recently, I got into a brief political discussion on Facebook (because I’m not cool enough to get on real social media) regarding Vice President and presumptive Presidential usurper…I mean candidate Kamala Harris being less possible than an STD. The Leftist who responded to me tried to convince me otherwise because she raised a bunch of money and got a bunch of people to register to vote. After I countered it with facts, she replied “You live in an alternate universe.”
And to Leftists, I do. And most likely, you do, too.
This is because the Left has it in their collectivist heads they are the normal ones. Of course, this flies in the face of, well, normality, but what do you expect from a group who thinks there are 948 genders, men can get pregnant, and they are protecting democracy from fascism by being fascists?
Although it’s fun to mock the idea of the Left shitting on the weird, there’s actually a purpose behind it. By painting the Right as weird, they are subtly trying to paint themselves (and consequentially their viewpoints) as normal. And they’re serious about it, if the 6’8″ man in high heels and gaudy makeup who wants to be called Loretta G. Hotpants is any indication. To the Left, the weird shit is their normal and they want everyone to agree…or else!
Yep. Totes normal.
The problem is what the Left is trying to pass off as normal really isn’t. And I’m not saying this as someone who mocks the Left with the regularity of someone on a Metamucil and Colon Blow diet. All politics and humorous asides, well, aside, the Left is into some really freaky shit and it’s getting harder to lay a guilt trip on us for not dancing to their tune. At some point, you freak out the normies to the point they say “Enough.” Or “Get the fuck away from me!” You know, whichever.
Guess what, Leftists. You’ve reached that point and gone well beyond it. And no matter how you try to dress it up as normal, it ain’t.
That’s why the move to paint the Right as weird isn’t going to work. Yes, there are things Donald Trump, JD Vance, and others say that make me cringe, but more often than not, they represent what most Americans believe. Read that again. Americans, not just Republicans.
In case you Leftists are confused, let me spell it out for you. If you freak out normies, you tend not to win their votes, no matter how much you try to convince them the other side is the weird one. How do you plan to save democracy if you can’t win more votes?
I mean aside from fabricating more votes than humanly possible, that is.
But that would be election denial, and we can’t have that. It’s not like I’m Stacey Abrams, after all…
To their credit, the Trump/Vance campaign is striking back at being called weird by pointing out the obvious. Although it does have the potential to come off as deflection, which is what the Left wants us to believe is happening, it doesn’t completely work on that level. I mean, it’s hard to call the Trump/Vance ticket weird when your side looks like freak show rejects, but if you think you can pull it off, go for it.
Where I think the Trump/Vance campaign could handle the “weird” label better is with a tactic Trump has used in the past: savage mockery. Point out how juvenile the label is. Come out and say, “Is that the best you can do? I’ve been insulted better by worse people.” (And, Mr. Trump, if you wish to use that line, call me and we can work out a deal. I might even throw in a few more pointed zingers since I think I’m pretty good at them.)
And that’s really all you need to do. Leftists hate to be mocked, and taking their “weird” declarations with all the seriousness of a dedication in a coloring book would stick in their craws like nothing else. Or make it a two-fer and ask them if they’ve exhausted their “fascist” budget for the campaign and have to resort to weak-sauce shit that went out of fashion in elementary school. And, believe me, calling Trump/Vance “weird” is the mixed-drink-at-a-really-cheap-strip-club of political insults. It’s the mayonnaise of digs. It’s unremarkable, grating, and generally underwhelming.
Or, to put it another way, it’s the Kamala Harris of negative campaign messages.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With President Brick Tamland announcing he was not limping…I mean running for reelection, the eyes of the world turned to Vice President Kamala Harris as the heiress apparent. And that means we get to do a deep dive into her accomplishments so far.
Fortunately for us, that deep dive doesn’t take that long since she’s accomplished what other Vice Presidents before her did: Jack Shit, and Jack left town.
But one role she had was Border Czar. Or not, depending on who you ask. In true Tamland fashion, she was put in charge of looking into the reason why so many illegal immigrants are coming here. (Spoiler Alert: it’s because we have the best free shit in the world.) And in true Harris fashion, she visited El Paso and called it a day. But she hadn’t been to Europe, either, so it’s totes cool, guys!
While the Left tries to figure out what excuse to use to try to cover up Harris’s ineptitude on the border, it gives us a chance to wade into the wonderful world of what a Border Czar even is.
Border Czar
What the Left thinks it means – a title bestowed upon Vice President Harris by evil Republicans to try to connect her to the border crisis (which doesn’t exist, by the way)
What it really means – a meaningless title given to a meaningless figurehead
The concept of policy czars has been around for a while. The first ones came about during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidency to address certain aspects of World War II and the economy, but later expanded into areas like combating drug abuse, reading, and weatherizing. (And I wish I was kidding about those last two.)
Put bluntly, being a policy czar today is like being salutatorian of summer school: only a few people actually care about it and even fewer will remember it. And in the end nothing gets done, really.
Which means it’s a perfect gig for someone with a lot of time on his or her hands and who isn’t expected to succeed in any meaningful way. You know, like the Vice President.
It also means it shouldn’t be done just to put a body in a seat when it come to addressing a high profile issue like illegal immigration. Depending on which lie you want to believe, our southern border is either perfectly secure (but Republicans are totally to blame for record-breaking crossings) or less secure than an unlocked Ferrari in South Central LA. And for your eagle-eyed readers out there who click on the links, you’ll notice these statements come from two different members…of the same Administration. But you know who didn’t weigh in on the border situation?
The fucking Border Czar herself.
Now, I’m no policy wonk, but I would think one of the most important elements of being a Border Czar is presenting a consistent, fact-based message. Unfortunately for us, the Tamland Administration’s consistency is in denying the problem exists until it gets to a point where they have to do something to make it look like they’re doing something. Meanwhile, illegal immigration is still very much an issue, despite Harris’s brilliant message to some looking to enter the country illegally: do not come.
Well, Kams, they’re not listening. Or maybe they’re trying to figure out your message amidst the vomited word salads you frequently put out there as cogent statements.
Maybe that’s why the Left is trying to scrub the collective memories of the general public by denying she was the Border Czar. After all, Kamala Harris has to beat Donald Trump, even though she’s never won a national election by herself yet. The last time she tried to win the Presidency she pulled out of the race before the Iowa Caucuses after Tulsi Gabbard bitch-slapped her into oblivion.
It also means I got the same number of delegates Harris did and I didn’t even run.
It’s clear Harris’s role as Border Czar has been a dismal failure (and I’m being verrrrrrrrrrrrry generous here). This begs the question of why we need one in the first place, especially considering we already have one: the President. If you remember your civics homework (or in the case of Leftists if you’re hearing this for the first time since you blew off civics to protest), the Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of his country. That means the President and his staff are the Czars and they’re not doing a good job.
That means anybody who is called a Czar becomes a lightning rod to absorb any criticism for when they fuck up their one jobs. But, as with so many government jobs, you can’t be fired for being incompetent. If anything, it’s a career enhancer. (See the current President and Vice President for two examples.) Plus, you get a nice stipend and a government pension, and that much capital goes a long way to fix any hurt feefees.
But the immigration problem is still there. Pretty soon we’ll have to throw the concept of the Border Czar on top of the pile of other well-meaning, but poorly-executed government ideas, like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and making the Socialist Socialite a Congresswoman. Yet, there isn’t really much of a will to do anything about the problem from the Czar on down because there’s too much to be gained by both sides of the issue. The Left use illegal immigration to help their candidates win and create a “humanitarian crisis” that only Big Daddy Government can fix. The Right use illegal immigration to create scary scenarios where all the jobs are taken, only violent criminals make it across, and no one but them can fix the problem.
But where the Right gets it right (see what I did there?) is in pointing out the national security aspect of illegal immigration. Open borders, such as the kind promoted by the Tamland Administration, create gaps in our security network. And with Leftist dipshits on record as not wanting to even look for illegal immigrants let alone deport them, those gaps are going to get wider and harder to close. Worse yet, we don’t have much of a strategy for dealing with the implications.
Certainly this is something a President (or a prospective President) should take seriously enough to do more than appoint some toadie to do nothing and get paid for doing it. The last guy who even attempted that got called all sorts of names, ironically by some of the people currently in charge of the failed border policy but are now trying to copy what Donald Trump did. See, President Tamland can’t help but plagiarize!
Ultimately, though, we don’t need a Border Czar in the same way we don’t need an extended warranty for a beater from Uncle Sleazy’s It Was Like That When We Got It Used Car Emporium where their motto is “No Refunds.” It’s a worthless position that should already be covered by the existing leadership structure.
Then again, this is the federal government we’re talking about here. Expecting leadership in Washington is like expecting the hooker to fall in love with you after you pay her. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This past week has been a bit on the wild side. I’m not talking 80s Motley Crue backstage party wild, either. I’m talking Alex Jones debating Art Bell while doing mushrooms and truck stop speed with Gary Busey wild. Or as Mr. Busey calls it, Tuesday.
Former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump was wounded by an attempted assassin’s bullet while at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. As events unfolded, questions arose surrounding how such a security clusterfuck could have happened, and a lot of fingers pointed at the Secret Service. You know, the people who are supposed to protect the President and Presidential candidates?
Well, Leftists are starting to call criticisms of the Secret Service (especially of the female Secret Service agents at the scene) “right wing attacks,” which caused my Spidey-Sense to tingle. It was either that or my dandruff shampoo, but I’m going with the Spidey-Sense angle. And it also gave me the inspiration to dig a bit deeper.
the Secret Service
What the Left thinks it means – a band of men and women devoted to protecting the President under any circumstances
What it really means – a group of men and women who may be politically compromised
The Secret Service started in 1865 as a means to curtail counterfeiting after the Civil War. Originally under the umbrella of the Treasury Department because, well, counterfeiting, it was moved into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, which isn’t a good thing in this humble blogger’s opinion. Regardless, the Secret Service’s role has evolved into what we know today and into a few areas we don’t consider.
When it comes to protecting the President, they succeed far more than they fail, even investigating threats or potential threats before they can escalate. So, it’s thankfully rare when they err. When the Secret Service does its job well, we don’t see them. When they fuck up, we do because it’s not exactly easy to hide when the President gets shot at.
Or in this case, a former President and potential future President.
Whenever there’s a high profile scandal, one of the first things people do is look at those in leadership to see if there are any decisions that affected the outcome. For the Trump assassination attempt, we can look to Kimberly Cheatle. And, Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!
In the aftermath, politicians are taking a closer look at the failures and what could have caused them. Based on what is coming out right now, there appear to have been staffing issues that spread the protection thinner than it should have been. Even though the Secret Service is pushing back against allegations the Trump campaign were denied additional security, it’s kinda hard to take it seriously after they initially blamed local police for the failures and noted safety concerns for Secret Service agents because of…get this…sloped roofs.
Yeah. These assholes are totally cereal, guys.
And, as with most things in Washington, DC, demands will be made, but nothing will get done. Yes, I realize this is both cynical and jumping the gun, but given how previous fuck-ups have been swept under the rug, I have more faith in 3 day old gas station sushi than in anybody involved being held accountable, least of all Ms. Cheatle who may have gotten her job because of Dr. Jill Biden, wife of President Brick Tamland.
If this is even remotely true, it would explain a lot when it comes to the failures. With President Tamland looking weaker than Joy Ann Reid’s grasp on reality, the possibility of Vice President Kamala Harris having to take up the reins and making President Tamland look lucid in the process, and Donald Trump picking up steam, there is a vested interest in letting things slip a bit to keep the current Administration in power. Not to mention, the Left has ramped up the hate, making Trump sound more and more like a real threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of TikTok videos.
Of course, I’m sure the super-heated rhetoric from the Left has nothing to do with someone wanting to shoot Trump. That would just be silly! I mean, it would take a really dumb person to believe saying mean things about a politician and his or her party would lead to violence.
Oh, by the way, Steve Scalise is on line 1.
Either way, the Left is circling the wagons (as well as the drain) around the Secret Service, using the same playbook they used when it was the FBI caught screwing up in the Left’s favor. They paint the criticism of the female Secret Service agents attempting to protect Trump as misogynistic, even after footage came out showing such an agent struggling to put a gun back in a holster. They brush off calls for Ms. Cheatle to step down, instead presenting her as a defiant leader.
All to protect the agency responsible for nearly bungling their way into the history books as the ones who let a major party Presidential candidate get whacked. Fucking brilliant!
Regrettably, I can’t help but feel the Secret Service has been infected with the same ideological biases that still fester in the FBI’s ranks. Support who you want, but don’t let it affect your job. When you let your hatred of a man overrule your better judgment, it’s time you hang up your black suit and tie, kids. On the other hand, if incompetence instead of hatred caused you to make mistakes that could have cost a candidate his life and actually cost two people theirs, you shouldn’t wait to get fired. You should resign in shame.
But that would require having shame, wouldn’t it?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After a particularly disastrous performance in any venture, there are usually two groups of people: ones who reflect, retool, and try again, and ones who point fingers trying to find a scapegoat. This past week, CNN got a load of people from the Left doing the latter after their debate between President Brick Tamland and Donald Trump.
Well, unless you want to go with the idea Donald Trump zapped the President with an energy weapon that made him look like, well, himself.
And this Leftist dumbfuck wasn’t the only one. Leftists all over the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter came up with any number of excuses, but the general consensus was CNN fucked President Tamland.
And now we’re going to see why that is quite possibly the shittiest take ever.
CNN
What the Left thinks it means – a cable news network who is in the back pocket of Donald Trump
What it really means – a once and hopefully no longer DNC stenographer
I know I’ve gone over some of this stuff before, so I’ll keep it brief. When CNN first went on the air, it was a media marvel. A 24 hour news channel that you could tune in to any time of the day or night and get caught up on the day’s events. It was novel and changes the face of news forever.
Over time, though, the novelty wore off and they had to start generating buzz (and revenue) somehow. And, let’s face it, Bernard Shaw Is My Daddy t-shirts weren’t exactly flying off the shelves. Then, the first Gulf War came about and CNN got a whole new set of eyes on it. And with those eyes came a feeling of invincibility. No one else could do what they did as well as they could do it. They were Kings and Queens of the Mountain.
Which made them cocky and sloppy. Over time, their on-air talent and their talent behind the scenes started letting their political biases creep into the product. And eventually, the network started being called the Clinton News Network after its mostly favorable coverage of President Bill “I Don’t Know Where My Pants Are, Why Do You Ask?” Clinton.
And if you thought CNN wanted to slob Slick Willie’s knob, watching them cover Barack “I Don’t Know Where My Balls Are, Ask Michelle” Obama would make even the most tenured sex worker look positively virginal.
Put simply, CNN is in the tank for the Left. So, it boggles the mind how the Left could even consider CNN to be on Trump’s side. Even the two moderators of the Trump-Tamland debate were on record as being critical of the former President. And in Jake Tapper’s case, that criticism was rather pointed. So, when they handled the debacle…I mean debate with a fairly even tone, I was honestly surprised.
And apparently so were the Leftists. They wanted Tapper and Dana Bash to fact check Trump on the spot instead of letting him say what he wanted. (No word yet from these same Leftists if they wanted the two to fact check Biden in the same manner, by the way.) But there’s one tiny problem with that approach: they were moderators, not fact checkers. And after the Candy Crowley debacle in 2012, I would think Leftists wouldn’t want moderators to let their masks slip that much.
This change from being a reliable Leftist media outlet to something closer to centrist is by design. Recent leadership changes within CNN signaled a move back towards the straight news reporting they were once known for while allowing for a narrower focus on prominent news stories. While still not quite as centrist as some would say CNN is, they’re at least acknowledging there’s room for improvement.
Which, of course, makes Leftists lose their collectivist shit.
The thing is it’s frightfully easy to be a Leftist media outlet. All you need to do is find a way to keep money rolling in since you’re preaching to the same choir night after night. CNN used to be able to do this, but with the advent of MSNBC on the further Left and Fox News on the Right, it found itself trying to appeal to both sides and making nobody happy.
Why, it’s almost as if alienating potential audience members is a bad fucking idea!
So, from a business standpoint, CNN moving closer to the middle is fiscally responsible. Whether people still see it as a viable news source is yet to be seen. And judging from Leftist reactions to even the slightest move to the right of Trotsky, it didn’t go over well.
This is for a couple of reasons. First, Leftists suck at basic economics. Second, they tend to look at things through an emotional lens (which helps explain the first point). And third, Leftists hate anything that removes even an iota of power from their grasp or exposes their ideology to ridicule.
Enter President Tamland’s debate performance, which is less of a disaster than a Hindenburg movie by Michael Bay written by Tommy Wiseau. Although I would pay good money for Wiseau to make a cameo just to say “Oh hi-drogen!”
You can stop booing now.
Since Leftists are less capable of admitting a mistake than The Fonz, immediately CNN became the primary reason President Tamland looks like, well, himself. Of course, the real reason Leftists attacked CNN for Tamland’s disaster is not that they went out of their way to make him look bad, but that…they noticed he looked bad and didn’t come to his defense. They tried to do some damage control after the debate by fact-checking Trump and Tamland, but the damage was done. Tamland looked frail, confused, and without mental clarity. But at least we beat Medicare, amirite?
And after weeks and weeks of denying it, CNN among others had to admit President Tamland was not firing on all cylinders. Or maybe on any cylinders, for that matter. No more “cheap fakes.” No more deep fakes. No more right wing talking points. The Emperor had no clothes, but maybe had on adult diapers.
I have my issues (or subscriptions as the case may be) with CNN, but I have to defend them here. They didn’t cause President Tamland to look bad, and that’s even with all the preparations he did prior to the debate (including going to the debate stage). He’s just that bad of a candidate this time around, and no about of finger-pointing is going to change that.
So, to any Leftists reading this, lay off CNN. It’s not their fault your side decided to run a Strom Thurmond body double in 2024. You had your chance to pick someone else, even with the knowledge he was getting as sharp as a Nerf ball on the regular. It’s your fuck-up, so enjoy the ride.
And as for CNN, welcome to what conservatives and other non-Leftists have experienced for decades! Don’t worry. We have drinks, snacks, and more open-minded people than the Left. And what’s more, we validate parking!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you’ve been living under a rock or on the campus of UC Berkeley, you’ve heard President Brick Tamland is old. How old? I wish I could say this is a set up to a Johnny Carson-esque joke, but I can’t. He really is old, and it shows.
Or, it would show if Leftists were honest about it. Instead of admitting President Tamland is so old he makes Strom Thurmond look like a newborn (and, to be honest, I’m not sure the President wasn’t at his baptism), they’re going with a different approach: pretending everything we’re seeing isn’t real. In fact, the Tamland Administration has come up with a new term to describe it, that being “cheap fakes.”
Given the inflation caused by the Administration, I’m surprised anything is cheap. But it’s a good jumping on point for this week’s Lexicon.
cheap fakes
What the Left thinks it means – the results of right wing media distorting videos to give the impression the President is feeble and not capable of being President
What it really means – Leftists trying to gaslight us more than Victorian times
The Left knows the President has issues, and by issues I mean subscriptions. He mumbles incoherently like he’s taking diction lessons from Ozzy Osbourne. He loses track of where he is in speeches, even reading directly off the teleprompter when it was more instructional. He freezes in the middle of sentences and stares blankly into space. He wanders off and has to have others help him get to where he’s supposed to go. He’s even fallen up stairs. Not down, up!
But Orange Man Bad, amirite?
No matter what video evidence there is (and how many videos show the same deteriorating conditions), the Left has an answer. They provide statements from numerous sources, including Republicans, saying President Tamland is as mentally sharp as ever. They compare the President’s mental ability to Donald Trump’s. And now, they’re saying it’s all fake.
It’s at this point I’m throwing the brown bullshit flag. It’s one thing to have it happened once in a while. We all get old and occasionally forgetful. It’s another thing altogether to dismiss multiple televised and live instances to consider it to be a total right wing conspiracy with altered footage, distorted camera angles, and selective still shots to make President Tamland look bad. He’s doing that well enough all on his own, so he doesn’t need the Right’s help.
But the Left’s response to people noticing President Tamland is shakier than Rosie O’Donnell eating Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 7.8 earthquake is a tell. As you’ve seen in previous Lexicon entries, the Left has no problem doing what they’re accusing the Right of doing. Fuck, Media Matters has made a tidy career of doing just that. Then, there’s documentarian/all-you-can-eat-buffet enthusiast Michael Moore, a reliable Leftist liar.
And don’t get me started on the Left’s “very fine people on both sides” lie.
The Left has no problem lying when it suits them, so when they call actual video footage of President Tamland acting like a broken down animatronic robot from the Hall of Presidents a cheap fake, it’s pure drive in movie level projection, baby!
That’s not to say the right-leaning news organizations aren’t prone to distortion when it suits a narrative, mind you. Fox News has seen legal repercussions from lying, as has Alex Jones. And, for what it’s worth, I don’t trust either of them (although the video of an Alex Jones rant turned into a folk song is pretty funny). But it’s Hank Johnson opinions on Guam levels of stupid to say the Right is on par with the Left when it comes to distorting the truth. Dishonesty against political opponents is the coin of their realm.
Oh, and being absolute fucking idiots.
And they’re being absolute fucking idiots here. Instead of saying “Yeah, President Tamland is a PR disaster that shits himself on the regular, but he’s the best candidate we have,” the Left will continue to blame right wing disinformation and expect us to either cower in fear or question what we clearly see time after time after time.
What they don’t expect is for people across the ideological spectrum to see President Tamland’s decline and express concern he may be too old and incapable of being President. It’s getting harder and harder for the Tamland Administration and its lapdog media sources to tell us what we clearly see isn’t what we’re seeing and there’s a perfectly rational explanation for everything. They haven’t come up with this rational explanation, mind you, but they insist there is one.
Of course, this wouldn’t be a Leftist Lexicon entry without exposing at least some Leftist hypocrisy. Back in the mid-to-late 80s there was another President who was accused of being in cognitive decline while in office. That man was Ronald Reagan. Media outlets at the time questioned his mental acuity and there is some debate as to whether Reagan had Alzheimer’s Disease while in the White House. At that time, more than a few of the Leftists now saying President Tamland isn’t experiencing any decline in his faculties were suggesting Reagan was incompetent. They’ll deny it, of course, but it happened. I was fucking there. And they continue to do it.
But when it’s one of theirs (or two if you count Dianne Feinstein), such concerns are brushed aside. All for political gain.
Fuck that shit! We are seeing a man who shouldn’t be running a lemonade stand let alone have access to the nuclear codes getting worse and worse at a job that has physical and mental strains attached to it. And the worst part is I can’t even be mad at President Tamland for it. He’s being used by others as a figurehead while the real shitty work is being done behind the scenes when it’s not being done in his pants. This is elder abuse, but with global implications.
And the people using President Tamland as a meat-shield don’t care. They care about us noticing his mental decline repeatedly and deciding he should be home, not in the White House. And that’s utterly fucked up when you think about it.
So, save me the “cheap fakes” bullshit. Not only is a stupid turn of a phrase, but it reveals how little you really think of the President as a human being. The more you run interference for the guy, the worse it gets for you.
But look at the bright side. After this Administration gets tossed out on its asses and all the bullshit gets exposed, they will always have a seat on any panel on MSNBC.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It’s been a busy couple of weeks as political figures and politically adjacent figures have had their days in court and come out with convictions (the legal kind, not the moral kind). First, we had former President Donald Trump get convicted on 34 felony counts in a trial even Stevie Wonder could see was legally shaky. Because he’s a legal scholar, you guys. Surely, there’s not another way you can interpret…ohhhhhhh! Moving on before I get in more trouble.
Then, President Brick Tamland’s son, Hunter Biden, caught three felony convictions for lying on federal gun forms to illegally obtain a firearm while being a drug abuser. Wait a minute…I thought stricter gun laws were supposed to prevent this kind of thing! But that’s a blog post for another time.
In both cases, the Left cheered the rule of law. After all, both had their days in court and they met their fates. So, there’s nothing more to say, right?
Wrong, because if there wasn’t anything more to say, this would be a really short Leftist Lexicon entry.
rule of law
What the Left thinks it means – a fundamental principle where everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law
What it really means – a fundamental principle where everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, but isn’t
For all of their faults, the Founding Fathers understood the potential for dishonest people to put their thumbs on the scales of justice. That’s why they included specific limitations in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to mitigate those instances whenever possible. Granted, I’m not sure they could have foreseen the sheer scumbaggery of some legal “professionals” (I’m looking at you, Michael Avenatti), but they did the best they could with the scumbags of their era.
What they didn’t foresee was the power of politics and wealth on judicial proceedings. In some cases, the guilty are set free because they could afford better lawyers. In others, the innocent get railroaded because of factors beyond the facts of the case.
And then we have the Donald Trump and Hunter Biden cases. Since I’m not a lawyer, I won’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the proceedings, but I can speak to what I know.
You can stop giggling now.
With the Trump trial, there was a clear bias against him starting with Alvin “Not One of the Chipmunks” Bragg. Bragg is one of those District Attorneys that has to be elected rather than appointed, and he ran on a platform of holding Trump accountable, as did the other candidates he ran against. New York Attorney General Letitia “I’m Not Rick” James, who was also elected on a platform of getting Trump, didn’t help alleviate questions of impartiality.
Of course, there was Bragg’s move to elevate Trump’s crimes, which were misdemeanors under the law, to felonies because…reasons, I guess? Actually, I’m not even sure he knows why other than it’s what he promised to do when he ran for District Attorney. All I know for sure is there were shortcuts taken to achieve the end goal. And gain the fawning adoration of Leftists and media folks (sorry, for repeating myself). Of course, those shortcuts may lead to not only an appeal, but the entire verdict being overturned, but hey. Bragg and James made good on their campaign promises, so all’s good, right?
I quote the great philosopher Lana Kane from “Archer”: Noooooooooope!
The thing about the rule of law that sticks with me is it isn’t about the final verdict so much as it is about how that verdict is reached. There is a process that has to be followed to ensure there is as level a playing field as possible for all parties. When political and media parties get involved, that playing field gets less even than highway lines painted during a 5.8 earthquake.
But it isn’t a one-way street. While rushing to prosecute a former President because he happened to beat an unlikable candidate in 2016 certainly shows the effects of political biases on legal proceedings, the same can be seen when political biases are used to slow down proceedings. That brings us to Hunter Biden’s recent convictions.
The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial, but when your daddy is the President, that speedy trial gets slower than Al Gore’s speech on Ambien. And it’s even worse if you’re the one taking the Ambien.
Although Hunter’s gun case is the one we’ve just experienced, he’s also on the hook for possible tax crimes. And thanks to his daddy and his lackeys in the IRS and Department of Justice, there were delays in prosecuting the Huntster. Oh, but that didn’t stop that same DOJ from dragging its feet of clay in prosecuting Hunter’s federal gun charges as well.
Does that sound like the rule of law being respected to you? If so, seek help.
Although the delays are humorous in a way because President Brick Tamland is bragging about pushing for stronger gun laws, it doesn’t speak well of his efforts or the rule of law when people under his…well, I wouldn’t call it leadership so much as being lead-ership are throwing a Sahara Desert’s worth of sand in the legal machinery to avoid embarrassment. Of course, if these folks really cared about not causing President Tamland to be embarrassed, they wouldn’t have allowed him to run for a first term, let alone a second term. Oh, and here’s another tip for the President: if you want to avoid embarrassment from your family, don’t let your son be a fucking crackhead!
What the Left’s approach to the rule of law is if you make the laws you make the rules, which is admittedly the way things have gone in recent years. From a political perspective, it’s ruthless, cutthroat, and devoid of a moral framework, which means it’s perfect for today’s government. But when the political makes a move into the judicial, it doesn’t work so well because invariably you are going to run into people who try to stay true to the words and the meanings of the law. That’s why Leftists hate originalist Supreme Court Justices. If you believe the law is written in stone, there isn’t any wiggle room. If you believe the law is written in erasable marker, you can create your own wiggle room and get rid of it when it’s no longer necessary.
The Left does have respect for the rule of law when it comes to precedent, namely any precedent they agree with. For decades, the Left relied on precedent to force through whatever it wants from abortion to gay rights to Affirmative Action. After all, if you get a court to agree with your interpretation of the way things should be, it’s all the Left needs to turn it into 50 more things tangentally related to the original decision because precedent.
The problem with precedent, though, is it can be overturned by later rulings. Take Plessey v Ferguson, for example. The court wrongly decided state discrimination laws did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as things were “separate but equal.” Of course, they never were, but still. Just because Plessey was precedent doesn’t mean it was good precedent. Then, Brown v Board of Education pimp-slapped “separate but equal,” thus relegating it to law texts, history books, and the occasional blog post by some asshole trying to make a point about the rule of law.
The Left’s situational love of the rule of law is telling, and it’s not telling us anything good. When an ideology bases its appreciation for it on whether it gives them a desired result, the rule of law becomes more of a club than a scale, which cheapens it. The good news is the highest court of the land is in the hands of people more inclined to respect it than use it like a cheap hooker. And the greatest part of it all? Leftists paved the way to make it happen!
Thanks, Harry Reid!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As you might have noticed, Leftists have this tendency to overblow some things (not using the correct pronouns leads to trans genocide) and underplay others (the Green New Deal is all about green energy…and enriching green companies who could drive a kid’s lemonade stand into Chapter 11 bankruptcy). Recently in Leftist circles online, the latest buzz is around Project 2025, a little something the kids at the Heritage Foundation put together in preparation of a Republican becoming President in 2025. To hear the Left talk about it, it’s a blueprint for an oppressive conservative government. You know, just like the Trump Presidency was?
By the way, Leftists, that was sarcasm.
What isn’t sarcasm is how Leftists are losing their shit over Project 2025, so that means it’s a worthy topic for this week’s Lexicon.
Project 2025
What the Left thinks it means – a plan by extreme right wingers to destroy the federal government
What it really means – a wish list of conservative expectations should a Republican become President sooner rather than later
The Heritage Foundation describes its mission as:
Heritage’s mission is to formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
No wonder the Left thinks they’re worse than bathing, holding down a steady job, and not hating Jews.
Although this would be enough to outrage any Leftist, the existence of Project 2025 sets them off more than assuming their genders. (Pro Tip: still 2) In fact, Leftists have been screeching about it being a template for Donald Trump to get revenge for his 2020 loss, a means to bring about “widespread, wholesale policy violence“, a “movement that could erode black equality“, and other hyperbolic statements that would make hypochondriacs look sober and rational.
So, what is it exactly? In one form, it’s a nearly-1000 page book outlining different areas the Heritage Foundation would like the next Republican President would enact. There are five major legs to this policy stool:
Taking the Reins of Government
The Common Defense
The General Welfare
The Economy
Independent Regulatory Agencies
Given what the Heritage Foundation’s mission statement referenced above says, some of these are “no fucking duh” policy areas. Of course, this sort of thing is confusing to Leftists and, thus, evil! But for others who can read and write at beyond the Socialist Socialite level, it shouldn’t be so much of a mystery to get Scooby and the Gang to figure out. And they don’t even have to talk to Old Man Jenkins, the guy who runs the haunted Washington think tank!
After looking at some of the proposals (since I didn’t have time to read the whole thing due to having to work for a living), most of them don’t sound so bad. Some of them, like suggesting dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have me giddy with delight for reasons I won’t get into here. But that I did get into here.
So, why are Leftists losing their collectivist shit over Project 2025? The most obvious reason is, if implemented, it will undo a lot of what they’ve been able to do under President Brick Tamland and even further back. The Left loves bureaucracy because it’s easy and well-paying work. You could put an elderly guy with an affinity for lying and not being able to string together full sentences at the head of such an agency and Leftists wouldn’t bat an eye. Good thing America isn’t so stupid as to let that kind of person have any kind of power, amirite?
Beyond the surface, though, there is an air of the Right picking up on tactics the Left have been using for decades. Like creating training courses for future conservative leaders, for example. Teaching potential leaders on how to advance a political agenda is a horrible practice…that Democrats have been doing for a while now. And Progressives. But it’s not like the Left has a think tank backing them…oh, shit, yes they do! In fact, the Left has a network of groups that do what they’re afraid the Heritage Foundation wants to do.
And that’s the operative word here, kids: afraid. The Right has one major advantage over the Left in that the Right tends to understand how things work. With modern technology, not so much, but with more concrete concepts, absolutely. When the Right decides to do something the Left does, they tend to do it better and more successfully. When the Left tries to do something the Right does, it tends to be a disaster. The former gave us Fox News Channel. The latter gave us Err America.
It’s this fear the Left is manifesting in shrieking harpy-esque ways. If the Heritage Foundation’s plans are successful, the Left will have to fight on a little more even ground than they’ve had to previously. And if things aren’t tilted in their favor, it’s just not fair, dammit!
But this fear manifests itself in another way, that being creating doomsday scenarios where we’re living in a Handmaid’s Tale dystopia. Or a Hunger Games dystopia. Or some other fictional dystopia that the kids are hip to these days. Remember how Donald Trump was going to turn America into Nazi Germany? Contrary to the Leftist protests to the contrary, that didn’t happen. Women weren’t relegated to second-class citizens (they had to wait until Brick Tamland became President for that to happen). People who disagreed didn’t get rounded up and put into camps. In fact, little, if any, of the dire predictions the Left invented over the Trump Presidency came true.
That’s another advantage the Right has over the Left. They don’t have a no-contact order against reality.
But the thing about Project 2025 that scares Leftists more shitless than eating an ExLax Enchilada from Taco Bell? People might actually agree with the proposals in the current political environment. Leftists suck when it comes to arguing ideas since they tend not to have two functioning brain cells to rub together. That’s why they appeal so often to emotions. When someone comes up with a better way to do things, the self-professed progressives tend to be a lot less receptive to change, especially if the better way disrupts the way the Left likes to do things. And anything that disrupts their status quo gets the Left really pissed off.
The one knock I have against Project 2025 is its implementation hinges upon the will of the Republican in the Oval Office. Although former President Trump did listen to the Heritage Foundation on some matters, they were at loggerheads on others. This puts Republicans and conservatives into a no-win situation. Either you support a candidate who agrees with 90% of an agenda and can win or a candidate who agrees 100% and can’t win. And then watch as that 90% gets whittled down bit by bit because reasons.
And people wonder why I left the GOP?
The larger point here is Project 2025 is ambitious even by Republican standards, but it doesn’t mean shit without the will to bring it about. Leftists are going to scream and cry because that’s what they do, but the Right needs to put some muscle behind the ideas. Given how spineless Republican “leaders” have been in recent decades, I don’t think the Left has to worry about Project 2025 becoming a reality. That will give them more time to deal in fantasy, like convincing people a man in a dress is actually a woman in spite of having a dick as big as a four-year-old’s arm.