Every election cycle has its share of “I can’t believe that shit happened” moments, and Election 2024 is no exception. Seeing a major party candidate working at a McDonalds drive-thru and then riding around in a garbage truck just to mock Queen Kamala the Appointed and her sycophants? That’s what passes for normal these days.
But what isn’t so normal, at least to Leftists, is Queen Kamala not getting endorsements from major newspapers like the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. As you might expect, the Left didn’t take this very well. I mean, this is the most important Presidential election in world history (you know, since the last one), and Queen Kamala the Appointed needs every possible endorsement she can get because ORANGE MAN BAD! Who cares about maintaining a veneer of neutrality and not pissing off potential customers to the right of Vladimir Lenin? This is much more important because if Donald Trump gets reelected, he’s going to destroy the mainstream media and put political enemies in concentration camps!
Do you Leftists want me to vote for Trump? Because this is how you get me to vote for Trump!
Seriously, though, this got me to thinking (a scary thought in and of itself) about endorsements in the social media age and why Leftists think it’s important to get them. The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind…or might be in this edition of the Leftist Lexicon. You know, whichever.
endorsements
What the Left thinks it means – vital messages from important sources designed to inspire you to vote for a candidate
What it really means – not-that-important messages from sources of varying degrees of presumed importance designed to make you believe bullshit
There was a time in our history when you could reasonably depend on newspapers, magazines, and TV news to give you the straight scoop on what was going on around the world and in your backyards. How they got access to my backyard I’m not sure, but the point is their words meant something. So, when a newspaper’s editorial board sat down and decided to support a candidate, it was meaningful.
That was before Leftists found their ways into journalism and into those editorial meetings. Recent history shows there has been a shift in who gets the nod in newspaper endorsements and, although Republicans over the past 50 years have dominated the endorsement game, Democrats have been reaching parity (as opposed to them reaching parody, which they do quite unintentionally). And, to be honest, as newspapers have wandered more Leftward, the endorsements have gotten as predictable as a Michael Bay movie with much fewer explosions.
Now, as media outlets are less popular than used car salesmen with an infectious disease, the time of the political endorsement meaning something may have passed. Not only are traditional media considered to be dinosaurs, but the advent of social media has pretty much made their roles in society obsolete. Why wait until 5 or 6 PM to hear your local talking heads tell you about a news story when you can jump onto the Interwebs and see how your favorite YouTuber thinks? And what better way to get the pulse of the nation than to log on to TikTok, Instagram, and the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter?
So, why did the Left lose their collectivist shit over the lack of an endorsement from three major newspapers? Control, my dear readers. One of the ways the Left controls the narrative in many cases is because they control the dissemination of it. Donald Trump could come out and say, “I love cats,” and the mainstream press would run “Trump Hates Dogs” stories until the cows come home. Or “The View” wraps up shooting for the day.
I’m sorry. That was mean. I apologize to all the cows offended by being compared to the shrieking harpies on “The View.”
Anyway, when Leftists saw Jeff Bezos making a smart business decision at a newspaper that lost $77 million in 2023 by not pissing off potential readers, they saw it as a betrayal. Oh, sure, they couch it by lamenting the lack of journalistic courage, but it was much more personal. Bezos, a loyal member of the Leftist hivemind, didn’t carry water for Queen Kamala the Appointed by approving a puff piece telling us all how Her Majesty would be better than Trump because…ORANGE MAN BAD!
Without the word of the Washington Post to bolster Queen Kamala the Appointed’s Presidential clusterfuck…I mean campaign, it hurts her chances of becoming President, even though high profile publications have already done so. After all, the Left has to speak in one voice, mainly because they share the same weakened brain cell. Anyone wh0 doesn’t echo that sentiment down to the decibel is automatically considered to be an enemy.
So, Mr. Bezos, welcome to the club.
Where the control element comes into play is the implication of so many high profile publications backing Queen Kamala’s candidacy. If well-known newspapers back one candidate over another, there’s a level of credibility that comes with that endorsement. Think of it like a celebrity endorsement of a product, only for news nerds like your humble correspondent.
Ah, but that credibility comes with a catch in the form of a logical fallacy called ad populum. Simply put, an ad populum argument is when a conclusion is presumed to be true because many people believe it to be true. To put it in this particular context, getting a number of newspapers to agree Queen Kamala the Appointed is the best Presidential candidate out there would be enough to convince potential voters to vote for her because everybody else is doing it.
Anyone who remembers trying to use that line on parents who weren’t trying to be their kids’ friends knows how well that worked. And for the record, Mom, I didn’t jump off the railroad bridge because Mikey Schooner did it. That was my dumbass idea!
And it’s the Left’s dumbass idea to overreact to the lack of Presidential endorsements by quitting their jobs and canceling their subscriptions. In the case of the Washington Post, it’s a way for them to get rid of shitty employees and save money in the process. Fucking brilliant!
More to the point, the time of a newspaper endorsing a candidate and having it mean anything has passed. I’m a news nerd and even I can’t give a shit about what newspaper endorses what candidate because I have my own shit to worry about. I have a family to take care of, a roof to keep over our heads, bills that need to be paid, groceries that need to be bought, gas that needs to be bought so my wife and I can continue to go to work to afford the shit people like Queen Kamala the Appointed made more expensive because they know fuck-all about economics.
And if you think I’m going to say, “You know, I need four more years of this economic shitshow” because some newspaper says Queen Kamala is great, you’re dumber than a Leftist, and that’s a pretty big accomplishment.
Tag: election 2024
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With less that two weeks away from Election Day (please check local listings for the number of days in your area), it’s crunch time for Donald Trump and Queen Kamala the Appointed. Many votes are still up for grabs, and both tickets are vying for them.
One of the voting blocs the Harris/Walz ticket has been really trying to get is women, and with good reason. Women make up a little over half of the American population, so they have the power to make or break an election. But the Left wants women to know they can vote for Queen Kamala the Appointed without their male partners knowing, thanks to a website called VoteWithoutFear.com. Apparently, Leftists think women will be frightened into voting for Trump because of their male counterparts, so they just want to reassure women their voices can be heard without anyone else knowing it.
Or so they say.
VoteWithoutFear.com
What the Left thinks it means – a website that provides necessary information for women to vote for who they want
What it really means – a website that provided information that should already be known and encourages deceit
Voting is a sacred right, one that not everyone uses on a regular basis. In the 2020 election, 66.8% of the population 18 years of age and older voted, and this was a high point this century. That means over a third of the population didn’t vote for one reason or another, and that opens a window of opportunity for outreach.
On the surface, VoteWithoutFear.com offers advice to women who want to vote, which is not a big issue in and of itself. From the website itself:
Now here’s the important part – WHO you actually vote for on the ballot is not public information. You do not need to tell your spouse who you voted for, even if they ask. Your right to vote is part of our civil liberties, and your vote is your own – that being said, do whatever you need to do to remain safe.
Although this information is truthful, it’s also something voting adults should already know, especially if they stayed awake in civics class…or even had civics class for that matter. What we have here is a little thing the kids like to call a secret ballot. Even if we have political bumper stickers all over our vehicles and more yard signs than actual yard, we don’t have to tell anyone how we vote in a public election. Union elections, on the other hand…
The reason for the secret ballot is to add a layer of protection for the voter against coercion/intimidation from outside parties. Apparently, Leftists think MAGA Males are forcing their wives, girlfriends, daughters, etc. to vote for Trump against their better judgments. In the Leftist hivemind, no self-respecting woman would vote for Trump because, well, Orange Man Bad. Of course, this runs afoul of one of the Left’s favorite causes, female autonomy.
From the party that gave us “My Body, My Choice” when it comes to abortion apparently think women can’t be trusted to vote the “right way,” i.e. for an unqualified woman because she has a vajayjay. The existence of a common body part doesn’t equate into a binding agreement to vote a certain way. It would be like a candidate saying you need to vote for him/her because you have a foot. It doesn’t make any sense.
Then again, if it made any sense, it wouldn’t qualify for being a Leftist squawking point.
Even if the Left doesn’t think free-thinking pro-Trump women exist, the way they approached the woman vote in the 2024 election is simplistic and intellectually demeaning to the very people they’re trying to court. If you look more closely at the VoteWithoutFear website (and I did because I have a life that make the Amish look like Hugh Hefner), the way they phrase their points comes off as more condescending than informational. Granted, they may be playing to an audience, but there’s a difference between keeping things simple and making things sound like you’re talking down to them.
Which is pretty much the Leftist MO.
The Left have played a self-contradictory game with women. While claiming to champion women’s rights (i.e. abortion), they treat women like children who need to be lead by the hand into doing the right thing (i.e. voting for abortion). They say women are just as smart, capable, and successful as men, but they just can’t be trusted to vote for who they want. And after years of painting Donald Trump as a sexual predator who wants to strip away women’s rights and turn the country into a Handmaid’s Tale dystopia, the Left thinks they’ve greased the wheels to making a vote against Trump a no-brainer.
The problem? Some women don’t give a fuck.
Just because you bring up plausible concerns about Trump doesn’t make those concerns universal. And when the Left has used women as pawns, as they did with Cindy Sheehan and Christine Blasey Ford, it gets harder for them to make an argument that they actually care about women as women. But they care a lot about men who claim to be women for whatever reason because trans women are women, even if they still have a dick and male chromosomes.
Which goes to show the Left knows as much about women as they do about men. Or men in general, but that’s neither here nor there.
The larger point is men and women process things differently, and that’s okay. If you love someone enough, you can get past any differences and focus on those characteristics that unite us. My wife and I have different political and ideological stands on issues, but we’re smart enough to not let that define our relationship. I trust her to vote for whomever she wants without having to justify it to me, and vice versa. If you have to hide who you’re voting for to “keep the peace,” the relationship is already on shaky ground.
Good thing the VoteWithoutFear website offers advice on divorce. And, yes, that was sarcasm.
It should be pointed out a lie of omission, like lying to a spouse about whether you’re voting for one candidate or another, is still a lie, and it can drastically affect a relationship. But the Left doesn’t care as long as they get the woman vote. It’s almost like the same people who bashed JD Vance for referencing “childless cat ladies” want women to be…childless cat ladies. How weird is that?
Therein lies the real issue with VoteWithoutFear and the Left’s approach towards women: it denies the complexity of women in general. I’m not a woman, but even I get it. Although there was this time in college where I was a woman, but I was in love with this really dreamy guy and…did I type that out loud? Nevermind.
The point is Leftists reduce women to body parts without agency until the Left steps in and try to speak on women’s behalf. Leftists are mystified by the vagina to the point of deifying it. And I thought incels were desperate losers! When you create expectations of anyone on the basis of what they have in their pants, there is going to be a point where the reality doesn’t match up with the expectations.
Hence, the reason Leftists don’t understand pro-Trump women. They expect the Sisterhood of the Traveling Vajayjay, but get women who think outside of their pants to what matters more to them than a mutual body part. And, if I’m being honest here, Leftists haven’t done a good job in standing up for women lately. You know who has?
Donald Fucking Trump.
By aligning himself with movements to keep women’s sports and spaces for biological women, Trump has a track record of supporting women (and, in some cases, paying them hush money). The best Queen Kamala the Appointed has brought forth is protecting abortion and claiming to be raised middle class. Oh, and hauling out celebrities to help her.
Stunning. Truly stunning and/or brave.
The braintrust behind VoteWithoutFear.com is playing into the Left’s preconceived notion that women are helpless creatures (when they’re not being super awesome Boss Bitches). I would say I’m insulted, but that’s not my place, nor am I going to be insulted on behalf of women. Instead, I’m going to say it’s doing a disservice to women everywhere to treat them like the sum of their body parts. There are plenty of strong women who don’t need a website or a political party to tell them how to vote, and these are the women who should be championed far more than they are.
Even if you’re a woman reading this and still want to vote for Harris/Walz, so be it. Just know the Left doesn’t see you the way you see yourself. They have reduced you to a single body part and a single issue. As bad as Trump has been dealing with various women throughout his life, he is at least listening to them and trying to address their concerns more often than Queen Kamala the Appointed has.
At least he only grabs them by the pussy instead of reducing them to a pussy.
Now I Could Be Wrong
While people across the political spectrum have been doing to the Harris/Walz campaign that Calvin does on those truck stickers, I’ve been troubled by something. Oh, not the well-deserved mockery, mind you. Something a little more…conspiratorial, if you will.
Now, I could be wrong, but it seems to me Democrats don’t want to win the 2024 Presidential election. Granted, the old saying about attributing malice to what can be chalked up to incompetence may be closer to the truth (and when dealing with the Harris/Walz ticket, there’s a lot of incompetence to go around), there’s still a part of me that thinks they’re throwing this election. Here’s why.
1. Democrats have a damn bad ticket this go-round. Let’s face it, Queen Kamala the Appointed and her sidekick Tampon Timmy just aren’t moving the needle for people outside of the Left. Oh, they had some momentum early on, but their poll numbers keep sliding like a house in a California mudslide. Of course, anyone with half a brain cell could have told them Queen Kamala wasn’t popular, and they did…until President Brick Tamland dropped out. Then Queen Kamala went from also-ran to running for President. How unpopular is she? I have as many primary victories as she does in two Presidential campaigns and I didn’t even run. The Left got saddled with a bad hand, period.
2. It sets up use of the victim card. If there’s anything Leftists love more than complaining about stuff, it’s complaining about stuff while claiming to be a victim. With the way the primaries shaped up and how Queen Kamala the Appointed got the nomination, it opens up the possibility of making the Queen a victim. She didn’t have enough time to campaign. She didn’t do as much fundraising as she could. She had to deal with Donald Trump’s attacks on a regular basis. And with her being the first black-Indian-possibly-Martian female to run for the Presidency, you’ve hit the Oppression Lottery! There are plenty of excuses at the ready should Queen Kamala become unburdened by what has been her job in November.
3. It clears the main obstacle from potential 2028 candidates. With President Tamland not running for reelection (and thank God for that), the only thing stopping other Democrats like Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer from jumping into the 2028 Presidential election is…Queen Kamala herself. If she wins, it takes all the oxygen out of the next election, and Newsom and Whitmer may not be able to stay relevant long enough to wait for the Queen to give up her palace. Even if she only serves one term, that’s more time than the challengers have to keep being front of mind. And if you think the Queen is going to let others come for what she considers hers, think again! The only way to clear the path is to have Queen Kamala lose.
4. The Harris/Walz ticket keeps pissing off voting blocs. While the Left has been trying to portray itself as a big tent (as long as you agree with them 100%, that is), this election cycle the tent has gotten pretty exclusive. In doing so, there are a lot of potential votes getting flushed like, well, the turd that is the Harris/Walz ticket. Christians, white men, black men, Palestinians, Jews, and so many others have been at the business end of a political snub in the relatively short time Queen Kamala the Appointed has been the Democratic nominee. Although incompetence is definitely a possibility, even I’m skeptical about the depth in this case.
5. The party faithful are getting revenge for the way Harris got the nomination. This kinda goes back to point 1, but there’s another element to it. Queen Kamala the Appointed didn’t actually win any delegates; President Brick Tamland did, and Queen Kamala was the plus-1. The way President Tamland was unceremoniously forced out of the race most likely left a lot of hard feelings towards Queen Kamala, hard feelings that can be used to undercut the Vice President and her Presidential aspirations. And, let’s face it, Washington, DC, is full of two-faced weasels who will smile to your face even as they stab you in the back. That takes a lot of flexibility, moral and otherwise, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few Tamland loyalists gave Queen Kamala’s team some really bad advice to sabotage the campaign.
6. They know they can’t pull off the same election heist they did in 2020. I know, I know, election denial is horrible, wrong, and all around icky, but there was some hinky stuff going on in 2020 that makes me wonder how legit the results were. My primary tip-off that things weren’t kosher? The way the Left said everything was fine. Although we can’t go back and rehash the 2020 election, the Left knows they won’t be able to pull off whatever shenanigans they pulled in 2020 for numerous reasons, not the least of which being how sloppy their work was in the first place. With that in mind, the Left need to throw people off the scent and what better way than to sacrifice a minor candidate to “prove” elections are secure?
7. The Left needs Trump as a foil. I saved the best for last. In every story, there is conflict between a protagonist and an antagonist. The Left has built up such a narrative about Donald Trump that it’s become a necessity for them to have him back in the White House to justify everything they’ve said to date. With Queen Kamala the Appointed, they don’t have that antagonist (at least not on the scale they’ve made him out to be). Without that struggle, the Left will have to do something they’re loathe to do: actually work for a living.
If these points aren’t enough to convince you the Left is trying to throw the 2024 election, let me know. After all, I could be wrong.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As Election Day looms over our heads like the Sword of Damocles, Queen Kamala the Appointed is trying to shore up as many voters as she can to try to deny Donald Trump. Let’s just say it hasn’t gone well. Even captain of the Exxon Valdez Joseph Hazelwood is saying the Harris/Walz campaign is a disaster.
And speaking of reaches for humorous intent, there’s a group called White Dudes for Harris who recently put out a…well, one of the dumbfuckiest ads I’ve ever had the misfortune of seeing. And it only cost $10 million! Not to be out dumbfucked, some genius decided to put professional actors in an ad about how real men support Queen Kamala the Appointed.
Someone get Bath and Body Works on the horn. I think I may have found who okayed their snowflake candle packaging!
Either way, I find it interesting the Left is suddenly interested in masculinity as a positive attribute. Usually, Leftists hate all men, even the ones who agree with them in an attempt to get a laid…not that I know anything about that, mind you. Meanwhile, we have a Lexicon entry to get to!
masculinity
What the Left thinks it means – the way a man acts, talks, dresses, and so forth
What it really means – a subject about which Leftists know nothing, which isn’t that different from any other subject when you think about it
One of the things I like best about my life is I remember what things were like before the shit hit the fan. Back in my day, men were men and women were men and everybody was really confused. Seriously, though, we may have any number of men as role models each representing a different facet of the male experience (think Tom Selleck and Boy George), and people were okay with it.
Except for Leftists.
Somewhere between the second and third wave of feminism, men became an appendix with a credit line: fun for a while, but ultimately useless. Soon, the only way a man could get anywhere near a woman without being called a rapist was for the man to completely reject his masculinity, and even then you weren’t safe from scrutiny. Being a guy in the late 80s and throughout the 90s was a minefield of potential bad mistakes. And I’m not just talking about the 3 AM hookups…not that I know anything about that, mind you.
This attitude found its way into politics. (The man-hating, not the 3 AM hookups.) You couldn’t swing a dead cat (and, really, why would you) without hitting a horndog male politician who got caught in a sexual situation because, well, men. But even when that aforementioned cat hit that aforementioned horndog, there had to be exceptions for politicians who acted poorly, but supported the right politics.
And the biggest example of the eternal Hall Pass was Slick Willie himself, Bill Clinton. Leftists went from hating white male politicians to wanting to service the Commander In Briefs just for protecting abortion rights. To the Left, Clinton was the epitome of masculinity, genital warts and all.
As funny as it was to see Leftists throw away their self-imposed standards to back a man who only used them for his own satisfaction (and also to win elections), it gave me insight into just how the Left feels about masculinity.
They don’t know what the fuck it is, but they’re damn sure going to try to define it.
And as you might expect, they’re doing a shitty job of it. When they’re not saying gender is a spectrum or is a social construct, they’re saying men can have periods, have babies, and can even redefine womanhood. And you thought outsourcing jobs was bad!
Yet, in spite of their attempts to remake men into Dylan Mulvaney clones, not every guy wants to get rid of masculinity. They’re happy doing guy shit, like working on cars, hunting, and so forth. So how do Leftists try to win over these potential voters? You guessed it, by talking down to them like they were idiots. Granted, depending on where you go the odds might be in their favor, but from a political standpoint, it’s a losing strategy.
Just as Queen Kamala the Appointed found out. When she saw her numbers among white male voters sink lower than an earthworm’s cock ring, someone had the brilliant idea of trying to appeal to male voters by…hosting a White Dudes For Harris Zoom call with Leftist white dudes! Sign me up for that!
For any Leftists out there reading this, that was sarcasm.
The Harris/Walz campaign has leaned heavily into what they think masculinity should be. And their lapdogs in the media are helping. Reuters devoted time and energy to painting Tim Walz as an evolved man (all while trying to appear to be a normal guy working on his truck and hunting). Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff is being fawned over for redefining masculinity. (His first wife could not be reached for comment.)
And the whipped cream on top of this shit sundae (or any day for that matter) is the term Leftists have created to describe the Walz/Emhoff model of masculinity: nontoxic masculinity. I’ll save you a click: it’s basically being a man that would make Richard Simmons look like Chuck Norris.
That opens up a whole new Costco-sized can of worms that loops back to the point I made earlier about how little Leftists understand men. The Left have defined toxic masculinity as a series of negative traits like dominance and emotional distance that are typically seen as preferred masculine traits. Apparently, the people behind this concept have never been married. (PS, I love you, honey! Please stop watching “Deadly Wives.”)
Although there is some merit to not exhibiting the more negative elements of masculinity, there’s a lot more under the surface that complicates things. For one, men are different than women. I know. It shocked me, too. But even I have to repeat this fact to the Left (who are soooooo much smarter than us, by the way) because of how little the Left knows about masculinity.
Some of the traits attributed to toxic masculinity are hard-wired into the male experience. Back in the old days (affectionately known as my childhood), men didn’t have time to process emotions because they were too busy trying to survive. Men were (and still are) hunters and gatherers at heart. If they fail to come through in providing for their families, there are negative implications. Granted, these days those implications may be limited to having to spend the night on the old musty futon in the basement, but the principle is the same. Men are seen as providers, and with that comes a lot of responsibility and psychological baggage.
And the Left thinks putting a flannel shirt on a guy who doesn’t know a fuel pump from a pumpkin spice latte is better.
Here’s the thing. Masculinity, much like Queen Kamala the Appointed’s policy positions, is vague, can cover a lot of ground, and is often contradictory depending on the day. As a result, trying to redefine it to fit a current political need is pointless. And extremely comical, as the most recent “I’m a man supporting Kamala Harris” ad was.
What made this ad so funny was in how superficial the men were in it. The more I thought about it, the more it reminded me of something. Then, it hit me.
The guys in the ad…were the modern day Village People. The cowboy, the gym bro, the farmer, all stereotypical male archetypes. And the old guy could easily pass as a biker! All they needed was a cop and a sailor and they could go on tour. Maybe they could open for man-turned-pretend-woman Dylan Mulvaney, who could sing his rendition of a song from “The Book of Mormon” called “Man Up.”
Trust me, Leftists. That tour will bring out tens and tens of fans.
The other comparison I can make involves a talk radio network I affectionately call Err America. Billed as the liberal alternative to talk radio, they did their best to copy the success Rush Limbaugh and others experienced. And they failed, mainly for the same reason the Harris/Walz campaign is failing with men: they went with the stereotype instead of finding the deeper context that would have made them at least somewhat credible as an alternative.
So, that’s where we are with the Leftist view of masculinity. In their attempts to attract male voters, they have exposed a glaring weakness in their philosophy about it, and they are getting slammed for it. And rightly so.
Plus, it’s hypocritical (and, therefore, utterly mockworthy) for the Left to say gender is whatever you want it to be while at the same time extolling the virtues of what they think are real men…who just happen to want Queen Kamala the Appointed to be President. The whole concept of masculinity doesn’t revolve around what box you check on your ballot in November. It’s goes a lot deeper, and the Left clearly doesn’t want to take the time to figure it out. As a result, their “outreach” becomes a comical attempt at pandering that is all show and no go.
But I’m sure the Left would never try that backwards approach with people of different races…or genders…or sexual orientations…or religions…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you’ve been living under a rock recently or are a Harris/Walz supporter (which is pretty much the same thing), there’s a bit of a weather situation hitting the East Coast right now. It’s a little something the kids call Hurricane Helene. And with things being wilder than a Charlie Sheen bender with Britney Spears, people are looking for help.
That’s where FEMA comes in! Or should.
With the current Administration, the Left is all for letting FEMA do its job without question, but some people (like your humble correspondent) have questions. Namely, the people negatively affected by Hurricane Helene and waiting for help from FEMA.
So, why all the hate (I mean, aside from the obvious) and why does the Left feel they have to circle the drain…I mean wagons? Let’s take a look!
FEMA
What the Left thinks it means – a necessary government agency that takes care of people during disasters
What it really means – a government agency that makes the EPA’s Super Fund look well-managed
Before we go further, I have to be real for a moment. Regardless of how I feel about big government, I do feel there is a legitimate argument to be made for FEMA’s existence. When you consider the depth and breadth of damage that comes from any hurricane, derecho, or other major meteorological event, it could bankrupt any state unless someone or something helps out. In these cases, the federal government has the means and the money to make a difference.
It’s a great theory, but the practice leaves a lot to be desired.
Much of the negative attention surrounding FEMA started with Hurricane Katrina. To say FEMA fucked up with Katrina is an understatement of Homeric epic proportions. There is plenty of blame to go around, but it was clear FEMA wasn’t up to the task. Guess putting a horse trainer in charge of disaster relief was a bad idea, but what do I know? I’m just some asshole on the Interwebs. Heck of a job, Brownie.
Katrina exposed a lot of problems with FEMA, not the least of which being a lot of fraud and use of FEMA funds for jewelry, strip clubs, and, oh yeah, internet porn. But at least it wasn’t for mean tweets!
You would think the federal government would have learned something from the FEMA foibles, but if you think, you know they didn’t. Government isn’t in the problem solving business, especially if it means solving the problem would result in not being able to waste our money. Whether it was Hurricane/Super Storm Sandy (not AOC), Hurricane Maria, Hurricane Rita, or even more recent hurricanes, it’s clear we don’t have a handle on how to prepare for and recover from hurricanes. Oh, the Left blames climate change for hurricane activity, but ask them to provide solutions, they’re clueless.
In other words, standard operating procedure.
While people are still recovering from the aftermath of Helene, we still have a federal agency that can’t stop stepping on its own dick. Having President Brick Tamland and Queen Kamala the Appointed at the helm only makes the situation worse. As of this writing, it appears FEMA is offering a whopping $750 to help with things like food. What do they think this is, a wildfire in Hawaii?
Seriously, though, the way the federal government has responded to disasters is, well, disastrous. And now the Administration is warning us FEMA may not have money to get through hurricane season. But a closer look at what FEMA is spending money on tells us they don’t have a money problem so much as a spending problem. Of course, I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure DEI training has jack shit to do with disaster preparation.
Then, there’s FEMA spending on immigrants. Unless those immigrants have the skills to help rebuild and provide support to Helene victims, that’s another waste of money. Whether that money is going to illegal immigrants is a matter of debate, but the fact any money is going to any immigrants is a problem.
I would say FEMA spends money like a drunken sailor, but that would be an insult to drunken sailors.
So, how do we fix it? The bad news is…we can’t. The federal government has no incentive to make FEMA work any better because it’s not in the Leftist playbook. After all, if FEMA worked like it should, it might mean fewer people would need government to help them get through life. And when you have a disaster like a hurricane, that’s the perfect time to get more people on the government teat.
Even with the Trump/Vance ticket, there’s not a single reference to FEMA in the platform on Trump’s website. You can bitch and moan all you want, but the lack of a plan to deal with the too-frequent issues with FEMA doesn’t exactly instill confidence. And it sure as fuck doesn’t instill competence.
So, much like with the FBI, the CIA, and Taylor Swift, we’re stuck with what we have until we can dismantle it, fix it, and get it back on its feet. I wish I could also tell people not to have natural disasters happen, but that’s a non-starter, too.
But that’s not to say there aren’t options we can exercise. Look for smaller charitable operations, like through churches. See what can be done to put together care packages or, if you’re close to the area and you see a need for victims to get shelter, see if you can spare some room. For all our faults, Americans remain charitable during times of great need.
That is if FEMA lets you try to help.
I will admit FEMA is a necessary evil, but does the emphasis have to be on the “evil” part? When Americans are suffering in the aftermath of a natural disaster, they don’t need a man-made disaster swooping in to make things worse. Donald Trump got a lot of shit for throwing paper towels to Puerto Ricans after they suffered a hurricane, but it was a lot more than FEMA is doing now.
And that should make every damn Leftist hang their heads in shame.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The moment political junkies and partisan players dreamed for arrived recently: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had their first Presidential debate. And boy was it a shit show! Between Trump being, well, Trump, Harris being as vague and clueless as possible, and the two debate moderators all but being Harris/Walz 24 cheerleaders, the first (and possibly only) debate settled one thing.
Presidential debates have become the drizzling shits.
Although the quality of candidates has gone down faster than Bill Clinton’s pants at a nudist colony of Playboy Playmates, the candidates themselves aren’t solely to blame. It’s the debate moderators who are the #5 combo meal from Taco Bell that make the drizzling shits that much shittier.
debate moderators
What the Left thinks it means – journalists whose expertise adds gravitas to political debates
What it really means – political operatives disguised as journalists
If you’ve been reading my entries for any length of time (and if you haven’t, I can’t say as I blame you), you’ll know I have a healthy contempt for the modern media. And by healthy I mean professional body builder level. That comes from years of studying it, both in an attempt to become one and in critiquing it to better understand what I’m being told. Oh, and to write blog posts!
During these years, I watched reporters and journalists go from attack dogs to lap dogs, from the Fourth Estate to the Fifth Column, and other somewhat witty turns of a phrase. The minute journalism took a turn for the worst was when its practitioners realized they could advance personal and ideological agendas within their reporting. A sympathetic word here, a dismissing tone there, and before you know it…an echo chamber than puts the Grand Canyon to shame.
But I’m sure having an industry where the majority of participants agree with each other on most every issue and on who deserves to be discredited could never have an impact on how Presidential debates would be moderated, amirite?
Not so much.
When moderators turn into advocates, the Presidential debates turn into a situation that makes Custer’s Last Stand look evenly matched. We saw that with Candy Crowley, who did a live fact check of then-candidate Mitt “Mayo Is My Sriracha” Romney in his 2012 debate with then-President Barack “I’m Too Lame to Have a Nickname” Obama, showed the damage a moderator can have on a campaign. After she “corrected” Romney, his campaign was never the same. People saw Romney as a liar, and he ultimately lost the Presidency.
But there’s a reason why so many people remember Crowley’s interjection. Turns out she was completely fucking wrong. Of course, after Obama had secured victory and was cruising through his final term in office, that’s when the scrutiny got to be too hot to ignore. Crowley was never the same, but she managed to get the desired effect: reelecting a man who shouldn’t run a lemonade stand in the Sahara Desert let alone the most powerful country in the world. The damage was done, and the mea culpas were too late to be effective.
And then every moderator decided to get in on the live fact checking act with varying degrees of success and dumbfuckery. With Donald Trump, it was both easy and difficult to fact check him in real time because they “knew” he was lying, but the “sheer magnitude” made it hard to keep up. It must have been so tiring they forgot to fact check Hillary Clinton, Brick Tamland, and Kamala Harris. I mean, that’s the only possible explanation for their one-sided approach to holding politicians accountable, right?
Yeah, and if you believe that, I have swamp land in the Sahara Desert conveniently located near a lemonade stand that I’d love to sell you.
Although this concept seems to be lost on the current generation of media squawking heads, their job when moderating a debate isn’t to try to check facts of one side or the other; it’s to fucking moderate the fucking debate! I know that’s a lot of profanity for one statement, but it needs to be said in the hopes it penetrates their well-coiffed skulls.
And maybe this point needs to be reinforced. With the most recent debate, Trump spoke longer than Harris, which is something within the moderators’ power to address. Sure, cutting off mics or trying to interrupt the candidates when they bloviate are tools, but they aren’t as effective as a moderator saying, “President Trump, shut the fuck up!” Ideally, both sides should get approximately equal time and not let one or the other get the lion’s share.
Along with that, moderators should take it upon themselves to hold candidates to the same standard of questioning. It’s one thing if the questions are tough across the board and follow-ups are equally challenging. It’s quite another when one candidate gets more grilled than the dinner options at Steak-A-Palooza and the other gets questions no more challenging than “What is your favorite Taylor Swift song?” (The correct answer: none of them.)
But that’s part of the echo chamber the media find themselves in repeatedly. They want their side to win, but they aren’t willing to come out and say it for fear of the mask dropping too much. See, they want to be Leftist stenographers but they also want the protection against accusations of bias that come with being a journalist (or at least did before these fucknuggets ruined it).
And now this stench is affecting how debate moderators act.
Fucking yay.
Since we can’t trust the media to do the right thing, it’s incumbent upon us to hold debate moderators the way they treat any Republican to the right of Karl Marx: they’re fucking liars, and we know it. But instead of turning off the debates, we should really lean into them and see where the moderators’ biases lie. Once we get that figured out, we can determine how trustworthy they are and adjust our expectations accordingly. Granted, these expectations are bound to be lower than a snake’s belly button piercing, but at least you’ll have something better to do than listen to Kamala Harris dodge simple questions.
Desperation Now Caucus
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.
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
Since current Vice President and (hopefully) future unemployed politician Kamala Harris announced she would be running for President instead of President Brick Tamland, a lot of people got excited. Mostly…white Leftists. Using Zoom calls, white Leftists of both genders (and, yes, there are still only two) showed up to proclaim their love for the Vice President and urge others to join with them to make her the first female President of the United States.
For the sake of brevity and not to give these folks more traction than the Harris campaign…I mean the mainstream media have given them, I’m going to refer to them as Whites for Harris. And the more we dig into them, the weirder it gets. And hopefully the funnier it gets.
Whites for Harris
What the Left thinks it means – white people supporting Kamala Harris because they believe she is the best candidate for President
What it really means – Leftists whose motivations for supporting Kamala Harris are more personal than political
White Leftists are an odd bunch, and being a recovering one myself, I can attest to that. Of course, I was weird before then, but that’s not important right now. On the one hand, white Leftists see themselves as the only ones who really know what’s going on with minority populations. Not because they put in the effort to understand the struggles of people who don’t look like them. That would be too much work! Instead, they just feel they know what minority populations think and feel by virtue of…being Leftists.
Of course, this runs counter to the other hand: white Leftists are ashamed of being white. They bear it like a cross, which is odd when you consider how anti-religion some of these same asshats are. Regardless, they think they owe it to minorities to overcome their privilege and do whatever they can to accommodate these minorities.
And, yes, it’s just as cringy and ass-backwards as it sounds.
But not nearly as cringy as the Zoom conferences themselves. Yes, they did manage to raise a lot of money for the Harris campaign, but they also managed to make white women and white men look worse than they think they already look. I would say the jokes wrote themselves, but they were the jokes.
Although they think their hearts and wallets are in the right place, white Leftists have a more personal reason for playing second fiddle to Harris: they’re looking for absolution. To them, being white is an unforgivable sin. To those of us who actually think about this shit, it’s fucking stupid. Being ashamed of your skin color because you lack melanin is like being ashamed of having red hair and freckles in a family where both are commonplace. You can’t control what you’re born with, so it’s Socialist Socialite levels of dumbfuckery to feel one way or the other about it.
But it’s the guilt that makes white Leftists such easy prey for the Harris campaign. All they have to do is encourage white Leftists to open their wallets, canvas neighborhoods, and commit to doing whatever they can to get Harris into office, white Leftists get to feel like they’re erasing their racial debt. Of course, it’s only a fraction of what whites need to do to make up for past misdeeds, but it’s a start.
And here’s the funny part. Not funny for them because they don’t have a sense of humor, but funny for the rest of us. No matter how many hours or how much money they donate and raise, it will never be enough to absolve white Leftists for being, well, white Leftists. There will always be another atrocity to atone for, another injustice that must be made right, another sin to be forgiven.
But remember, kids, Leftists are super smart. Just ask them. And they’re totally not in a cult like those MAGA Trump supporters!
Yeah. And I have farmland in Antarctica I’d love to sell you.
What’s more, this approach isn’t new. Oprah Winfrey used to make white women feel bad about themselves only to have her swoop down like Black Jesus and “solve” all the problems she convinced them they had. It became like a cult of personality, only the personality in this case was of the media variety. And with the way the media is hyping up Harris it’s only a matter of time before history repeats itself and she becomes Oprah 2.0.
Only without a book club, unless you count coloring or comic books.
The Whites for Harris movement can best be described as using racial guilt as a means to get a vastly underqualified and unpopular woman into a job she was never elected to do. Remember, Harris has received zero votes in two Presidential races so far, and the only reason she’s a shoe-in for the nomination is because the Democratic National Convention appears to have decided to give her the nomination in spite of the lack of delegate votes for her.
The protectors of democracy, ladies and gentlemen.
If you happen to be a White for Harris and you’re reading this, you’re being played for a sucker by someone who will keep moving the goalposts so you will continue to get played. Even if you’re convinced Kamala Harris is the only person who can stop Donald Trump, you have to wonder if it’s because you actually believe that or if you think you do so you feel good about it. If it’s the former, more power to you. Just know I’m going to be mocking you for it with all the compassion of a honey badger on PCP. If it’s the latter, I’m still going to mock you, but with the added knowledge you’re a sucker. And since you are, I have farmland in Antarctica I would love to sell you.
But, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I have a catchier name for Whites for Harris, and it’s one that I’m sure will help foster good will between whites and minorities as well as acknowledge the role whites have in this election.
Try Honkies For Harris on for size!