Hello again folks! Since nothing has really piqued my interest this week and everything I could talk about I’ve beaten to death so much I’d have to hire a necromancer to bring it back, I decided to dive into the mailbag and see what my tens and tens of fans have to say.
Dear Thomas, why do you pick on Leftists so much? Surely, there are people on the Right who deserve your scorn.
There are, and when the need arises, I pull no punches for the Right. But more to the point, the Left are the ones doing and saying the stupid shit, so they get my attention. Think of it like this. What are you going to pay attention to more, a single sparkler or a massive fireworks display in the sky?
Things are really getting chippy out there. How close do you think we are to another civil war?
Heavy question, but one worth exploring. I’ve felt we’ve been heading down the civil war road for the better part of a decade, mainly because there are people on both sides of the equation more than willing to take up arms against their enemies, perceived or otherwise. As long as violence is on the table for either side, civil war is never off the table.
Are you MAGA or not? I can never tell from your writing.
I am not MAGA in the sense I follow President Trump on everything he does. When he does well, I acknowledge it. When he fucks up, I also acknowledge it. To me, Make America Great Again is far bigger than Trump or his supporters. It’s a mindset. Even when President Brick Tamland and Queen Kamala the Appointed were running things, I never wanted America to fail; I wanted it to be as good as it could be. The best I can say is I’m MAGS-adjasent if for no other reason than Leftists always say I’m MAGA in lieu of arguing the points I make.
And speaking of Leftist dipshits…
Trump is a proven pedophile rapist who is destroying the country and installing his fascist regime with the help of Russia and Israel. How can you support a pedophile rapist loser like Trump?
Simple. Because it pisses off people like you. Your side is frothing at the mouth over anything Trump does, so if there is any way for me to tweak you in the nose to get you to keep frothing, I’m going to do it and back up whatever I say with facts and logic. Oh, and switch to decaf.
What are your thoughts on the war with Iran?
The war with Iran is both a war of choice and a war that was destined to happen at some point. We have let Iran slide on a lot of shit for almost 50 years with Democrat and Republican Presidents. Trump pulled what Ronald Reagan did with the now-former Soviet Union: he called their bluff. Unlike Reagan, Trump had to use military force to drive the point (and more than a few bombs) home. The issue is how we proceed. We haven’t done the best job in securing the Strait of Hormuz, and we’re still pussyfooting around with whether we go full bore attack mode or if we’re happy with attacking in dribs and drabs. The Iranian people want freedom by and large, but they are either still afraid of the current regime or incapable of taking on the task themselves. Either way, it’s becoming evident we have to shit or get off the pot.
We have been trying to reach you about your car’s extended warranty.
And I’ve been ignoring you because you keep trying to reach me. Moving on…
Is transphobia a thing?
It is, but it’s not nearly as widespread as those with a vested interest in there being a lot of it want us to believe. Really, it comes down to the “ick factor” for me. If you’re trans and you just want to live your life, good on ya! You’ll get no pushback from me. If you’re someone like Lily Tino? Get the fuck outta here! You’re just making things worse for trans people across the board by being creepy motherfuckers. But saying we don’t agree with you being creepy motherfuckers isn’t transphobia. It’s creepy-motherfucker-phobia.
The officiating in the WNBA sucks balls. What would you do to fix it?
I am toying with the idea of doing an Extremist Makeover – WNBA Edition or redoing it depending on whether I did one in the first place. Not to tip my hand too much, I would start with finding referees who know the damn rules. No matter whether it’s a player I like or don’t like, no player should be subjected to clotheslines, eye pokes, eye rakes, tripping, elbows to the chest area and above, and, oh yeah, fucking choking. Stevie Wonder could make more accurate calls than these refs, and he’s a pianist! (Thought I was going for the blind joke, huh?) More to come.
I’m a young conservative, but I’m afraid to speak out because of what Leftists would do to me. What would you suggest?
Be your true self, even if the rest of your peers might not agree. The real people will respect you for staying true to yourself and your ideology. The fake ones will peel off faster than a driver in a Fast and Furious movie. It’s going to be rough, but you’re better off being real than pretending to be something you’re not. Besides, if your peers hate you for being conservative, it’s a them problem, not a you problem.
What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever gotten?
The best piece of advice I’ve ever gotten is from Ayn Rand: “Check your premise.” When I think I know the answer to something for a witty retort or a lame attempt at a joke, I always look into it further to see whether I’m on the right track or just following the prevailing idea. Sometimes my gut instinct is right, and other times it’s wrong and I adjust my thinking and approach accordingly. You know, the exact opposite of what Leftists do?
You were so sure Zohran Mamdani was going to suck as Mayor of New York City, but he’s doing great things! When are you going to admit you were wrong?
First off, I wished him the best of luck when he was elected while acknowledging his ideology doesn’t actually work. And since then, I still wish him well. And I’ve been right about his ideology not actually working. His budget got “balanced” thanks to an inflow of money from…New York State. Or more specifically, New York taxpayers. He’s causing more economic chaos in less than a year than Karl Marx did with Das Kapital, a book you can buy from Amazon, I might add. Give him time, though. He’s only begun to fuck shit up.
Where do you think President Trump will land on the list of best Presidents?
That’s a good question! Most of our recent Presidents (and by recent I mean since 2000) have been mediocre and that’s being verrrrrrrrrry generous. To me, Trump is ahead of the rest of the pack if only because the previous ones sucked so badly. Along a longer timeline, though, he’s in the B to C tier for me. He’s done some good things, some stupid things, and some head-shakingly bizarre things. Your mileage may vary.
If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?
Weird question, but I’ll field it. I’d say an oak because of deez nuts!
Why do people still think climate change is a thing?
It’s a multi-tiered reason. First, Leftists can’t admit they’re wrong about anything, no matter what the facts, history, and common sense think. Second, the Left doesn’t know shit about science, which is ironic given how often they said “trust the science” during COVID. Third, they’re dumb fucks. Fourth, they’re really dumb fucks. And fifth, did I mention they were dumb fucks?
Hey, Thomas. Long time reader, first time writer. You’ve talked about your political and comedy influences, but who are your literary influences?
Great question! I’m a big fan of cutting through the bullshit to get to the truth. That puts me in the camp of Ernest Hemingway and Mark Twain. On the more creative storytelling side, I lean towards Edgar Allen Poe. For absurdist yet clever humor, I go with Douglas Adams. But I’m always on the lookout for great writers!
I wanted to let you know your test results are in and it’s not good news. You have come down with…
Well, that’s all the time we have for the mailbag. Join me next week for more fun!
Tag: joe biden
Extremist Makeover – Presidents’ Day Edition
Depending on when you read this, America is either celebrating or just celebrated Presidents’ Day, a federal holiday that is the equivalent of a participation trophy for people we’ve smartly or foolishly allowed access to the nuclear codes. And to be fair I can go either way on that one.
While most Americans outside of furniture stores and car lots don’t celebrate Presidents’ Day with the same zeal as, say, Arbor Day, I think this is a situation where a little makeover might change the perception, if not the one-day-only sale prices at the aforementioned vendors. All it takes is some outside-the-box thinking, and I’m as far outside the box as you can get without being declared legally insane.
And to be fair, I can go either way on that, too.
Let’s deal with the elephant and the donkey in the room. Not all Presidents are created equal. While we celebrate the courage and accomplishments of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan, Presidents’ Day includes a lot of also-rans who are only remembered by history buffs and kids trying to pass an 8th grade history class. People like Millard Filmore, Iowa’s own Calvin Coolidge, and William Howard Taft. Although I hear that cat Taft is a bad mutha…
The concept of Presidents’ Day is too broad…sorry, too woman, so although all the Presidents have a day, not all of them get the same amount of attention. Some are barely worth a mention at one of their family gatherings, let alone a day where they can be forgotten just like they are the other 364 days a year.
Let’s put a pin on that idea for now. It will play into one of my suggestions later.
Then, we have a political divide wider than the seams in Rosie O’Donnell’s stretch pants to contend with. There are Presidents one side or the other absolutely hate. I’m sure there are people on the Left who would rather we not talk about Donald Trump, Richard Nixon, or Ronald Reagan, and likewise there are people on the Right would gag if they had to mention Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden in any positive way. That makes the concept of a day to celebrate those who we vehemently disagree with as popular as Nick Fuentes Appreciation Night at the Apollo.
Aside from federal employees, I don’t see a lot of people clamoring for Presidents’ Day to be a thing anymore. Then again, federal employees would lobby for a Kyle the Intern Sneezed Day if it meant they got a day off. Now, the easiest way to make it more popular would be to let everyone have the day off, but even then it would be a crap shoot if people would appreciate the reason why. Americans get Memorial Day and Veterans Day mixed up all the time, so I’m guessing they’re not ready to delve into Presidents’ Day just yet.
That’s where I come in.
The first thing I would address would be the fundamental unfairness of Presidents’ Day for forgotten and/or inconsequential Presidents. They deserve a day where their Presidencies are given the respect they deserve, after all. So, instead of having one day a year where we acknowledge Presidents, let’s have two. And by year, I’m including Leap Year. And more specifically Leap Year Day.
That’s right! Every 4 years, we will have a day set aside just for the forgotten Commanders In Chief like John Tyler, Chester A. Arthur, and Gerald Ford, and it just so happens it coincides with the one day a year that’s shoehorned in there so the Gregorian calendar isn’t thrown off.
Next, we need a new way to evaluate Presidents. Right now, that falls on the shoulders of academics and historians who may be fine intelligent people, but aren’t that much fun at parties. Today’s America demands more voices in the intellectual arena with new perspectives and match-ups.
Yep. I’m talking about social media.
I belong to a couple of Facebook groups that set up imaginary fights between fictional characters, mostly comic book and/or pop culture-based. The discussions can get pretty deep (you know, in between the numerous playground taunts about how dumb a poster is), and the possibilities are endless! Who would win in an arm wrestling tournament, Teddy Roosevelt or Dwight D. Eisenhower? Which father-son duo would win a potato sack race, John and John Quincy Adams, or George H.W. and George W. Bush? Which President would be the best wingman for a night on the town? (Answer: JFK.)
It may seem silly, but that’s what America is these days. This sort of fictional fighting would appeal to the general public. Not to mention, there are betting websites that would love to host something like this, and it might help get more people’s skin in the game. After all, America’s new favorite pastime is online gambling, so lean into that and turn Presidents’ Day into a payday!
I do have one more suggestion, but it’s really radical. I mean, it would take an act of God, a massive societal shift, and some zoning permits to make happen, but if we’re willing, it’s worth a shot.
Elect better Presidents.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
For as much time as I spend mocking the Left for their rampant stupidity, there is one thing I give them credit for, and that is mass distribution of their squawking points. Back in the heady days of, well, last year, Leftists were all squawking in lockstep saying “Joe Biden is mentally capable of being President.” This year, they’re singing a similar tune, but for a different President.
Yes, fellow campers, the Left is now saying President Donald Trump has, as they call it, “diminished capability.”
Wait. Too easy of a joke to make. (At least for now…)
With that being said, let’s take a closer look at what the Left is talking about, Willis.
diminished capacity
What the Left thinks it means – clear cognitive decline which negatively affects the President
What it really means – Leftists trying to avoid responsibility for propping up President Brick Tamland for so long while accusing President Trump of the same shit
The term “diminished capacity” is pretty nebulous when you think about it (and I do because I canceled Netflix before it was cool). It can refer to any number of maladies, ranging from possible dementia to not being able to go out in public without diapers. But enough about President Brick Tamland. There was bountiful evidence that the former President was doing a bobsled run down the cognitive course for a looooooong time. My proof?
All the Leftists who said he was fine.
And surprise, surprise, it’s the same Leftists who are all over Trump’s alleged cognitive decline like an social justice warrior on anything that hurts their fee-fees. And if you don’t know what a social justice warrior is, be glad you’re ignorant of the term and walk on by. It is not a safe space for anyone.
And with how nebulous the term is, it gives the Left plenty of ways to hold Trump to a standard they refused to hold the last President to, even though there were clearer examples of there being an issue with the latter. Not that that’s going to stop the fearless defenders of democracy, mind you! They have a country to destroy…I mean save!
This is where Trump gives them easy wins at times. Semi-coherent rants about inconsequential matters, stopping in the middle of a valid question to talk about something else, spending a significant chunk of his time on social media.
Yes, my friends. Our President is a teenage boy. Only his Call of Duty lobby involves actual military.
But that in and of itself isn’t evidence of diminished capacity. Erratic behavior? Yeah. Cognitive decline? Not so much.
Not that the Left is going to let a little thing like reality get in the way of trying to make President Trump look like Forrest Gump…or would that be Forrest Trump? Anyway, the point is the Left is grasping at straws here mainly because they can’t admit one simple truth: Trump was right all along about President Tamland. In the last year or so of his Presidency, President Tamland was definitely not firing on all trapezoids, let alone cylinders. (Geometry joke FTW!)
But this wasn’t the first time the Left wanted to point out a President’s mental decline. Waaaaaay back in the late 80s, reports came out that President Ronald Reagan was losing his memory and was suffering from dementia. Back then, though, the Left wasn’t so gung-ho to make a President serving his second term into an afterthought. They mentioned it, yes, but they weren’t mean about it for the most part.
Yeah, that ain’t happening now.
The Left needs more people to agree with them that Trump is incompetent, mostly because they were incompetent enough to lose to the guy under the banner of Queen Kamala the Appointed. What was her campaign slogan again? Oh, yeah, insane cackling.
The Left hated it when Trump beat Hillary Clinton because they thought she was the most qualified candidate in history, or at least the history of the time. Of course, when former President Barack Obama says that about it, that’s saying something because it’s a reaaaaaallly low bar to beat his qualifications. My dog is more qualified, and she doesn’t even eat Obamas!
For you Leftists out there, that was a joke.
And speaking of jokes, that brings us to Queen Kamala the Appointed’s campaign. Yes, she’s saying people tell her she was the most qualified candidate to ever run for President, but they’re either a) lying, b) lying to keep themselves in her good graces if/when she runs again, and c) have never met my dog. But the result was the same. The Left couldn’t handle losing to Trump, so they went back to the “Trump is unwell” well.
Here’s the problem. Trump hustles a lot more than most people think. His stamina and work hours make nymphomaniac hookers look lazy. The man works all hours and sleeps only 4. Doesn’t drink alcohol (which, given the state of things in Washington, DC, on a normal day is a Herculean feat). Doesn’t have any drug habits that we know of. In fact, the strongest substance he takes into his body seems to be…Diet Fucking Coke.
Yeah, tell me again he has diminished capacity.
The only case the Left can make is Trump has more than a few gaffes, misstatements, and genuine “What In the Wide World of Fuck Is He Saying?” moments. I know about these because the Left can’t stop talking about them or turning them into bigger stories than they might otherwise be.
Oh, and did I forget to mention these same assholes were oblivious to President Brick Tamland’s clear downward slide?
Let’s lay our cards on the table. This sudden concern with Trump’s mental acuity from the Left is politically driven. I know. I was as shocked as you are when I found out.
Seriously, though, what we’re seeing is IMAX level projection, and it tells me a lot about what the Left knew about President Tamland and when they knew it. If the former President hadn’t been seen at his cognitive worst, the Left wouldn’t be going in as hard as they are on Trump’s alleged decline. Sure, they’d still have the Nazi/fascist/homophobic/transphobic/racist/sexist/insult of the week shit to fall back on, but not the “Trump is in steep mental decline” shit.
Then again, these are the same people who turned Dr. Anthony Fauci into a religious icon, so maybe it wouldn’t stop them.
Regardless, we definitely should take the Left’s claims of the President’s “diminished capacity” with a Great Salt Lake sized grain of salt. Besides, the Left have their own issues with diminished capacity within their own ranks, namely the Socialist Socialite and Jasmine “I Say Stupid Shit and I Get Paid For It” Crockett. The two of them collectively wouldn’t even make a half-wit.
Let me close with a word of advice from Jesus: “Physician, heal thyself.”
It was much classier a closing than my “Get that weak shit out of here!”
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week the Left was all abuzz about mail in ballots after President Donald “South Park Is Irrelevant” Trump announced he would “lead a movement” to ban the use of them for the 2026 midterm elections. As easy as it would be to whip out an occasionally funny, yet bitingly accurate blog post about it, I wanted to focus on an issue that hasn’t had a lot of play, but is more disturbing than a Jeffrey Epstein snuff film.
Too soon?
The issue is a little something the kids like to call debanking. It’s been a definite issue within conservative circles, but the Left has defended it, citing how dangerous those being debanked really are. So, is it an ideologically-based system of discrimination or is it the exercise of freedom of association, or lack thereof? Let’s find out!
debanking
What the Left thinks it means – banks deciding not to deal with problematic customers
What it really means – the Left using regulatory pressure to deny customers access to banking systems
Yes, I know this isn’t as sexy as mail in ballots, so I’ll try to keep things entertaining. And, yes, I will actually try this time.
Having worked in the mortgage industry for 15 years (15 long, grueling, thankless, and not mentally healthy years), I know about banking regulations. Probably a lot more than you would care to know. Contrary to popular Leftist belief, banks are heavily regulated with a multitude of government agencies that will fine you if you sneeze too loudly in their general vicinity. (Obviously, I’m exaggerating here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the government didn’t have regulations for just such a purpose.)
Why do I bring this up? First, to pad out this piece a bit. But second, to give you a glimpse into the various factors that can drive a bank to do anything. You know, like giving out mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford a cardboard box let alone a home because racism or something. And who cares if they’re a bigger credit risk than Charlie Sheen on a coke bender with a black American Express card? Get those people into homes and fuck fiscal responsibility!
We saw how well that turned out during the 2008 mortgage crisis.
That’s the pervasive power of the federal government at work. If any bank wants to stay in business, they’re pretty much stuck into having to do what the government says. That’s like letting a room full of monkeys write Shakespeare: you may get the desired result, but there will definitely be shit all over the walls.
This brings us to the Leftist perspective on government regulation. To them, regulation is the great equalizer for the injustice they see in their tiny little hivemind. If you can’t persuade someone to act the way the Left wants you to act, the force of law will do just fine. I wonder if there’s been a recent President who could weigh in on this…
And in this case, it’s not the one you’re thinking of, probably.
For this one, we need to go all the way back to 2013 with a little thing I’d like to call Operation Choke Point. Back in the days when “Hope” and “Change” were akin to brilliant political strategy, the Department of Justice started cracking down on banks for doing business with certain accounts that allegedly had high probability of fraud or money laundering. Some of these naughty vendors were ammunition sellers, firearms sellers, and “racist materials,” among other more likely fraudulent vendors.
Now, riddle me this, Batman! What do those three types of vendors in particular have in common, at least to the Left? They all lean to the right more than a runner trying to steal second base. By putting these groups into such a list, it punished them by forcing banks not to do business with them. Although Operation Choke Hold ended in 2017, the damage had already been done.
This is the end result of debanking: not just to punish wrongthink, but to make the targets suffer for their wrongthink. Granted, I won’t shed a tear for some of those people who were debanked like Nick Fuentes (who is a total piece of racist disingenuous shit), but I can still call out how wrong it was for the government to do that to him and so many others. As long as what they were doing was legal, the federal government had no business interfering in the business of others.
Of course, that never stops the federal government.
And what about President Brick Tamland? He was Vice President when this shit went down before, but surely he didn’t have a role in it this time…oh, wait, he did. This time, the Trump family were some of the ones being debanked. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that may be the reason why the President put out an Executive Order outlawing the practice. And that may be why the heads of major banks are snitching on the Obama and Tamblin Administrations saying they were forced into it due to political pressure.
Now, I’m not the first person to jump in front of a metaphorical bullet for the big banks, but in this case I’m inclined to believe them. Not that it lets them off the hook, mind you. Even if your business is threatened by government agencies, you do have the right to say “no.” Oh, and blab to whomever will listen about how the federal government is forcing you to do something against your will that would negatively impact law-abiding citizens.
“But don’t they have a social responsibility not to associate with bad people, you racist bastard” the Left might ask. To address that, let me point out the concept of freedom of association. In short, people are free to associate or not associate with whomever they want, and the same applies to groups. In the case of debanking, the freedom of association gets beat down by a perceived mob outside our doors.
People are social animals by nature. We have a need to belong to something, and those in power know that. So, when our sense of belonging gets threatened by, say, an 800 pound gorilla known as the federal government, our natural instinct is to comply, even if we know it’s not the right thing to do. And when the Left has cornered the market on calling anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders a Nazi, it’s easy to give in and save ourselves the headaches.
Of course, this comes with a catch. The Left will continue to monitor you and raise the red flag whenever they think you deviate from their version of the right thing to do. Social media platforms are full of keyboard warriors and harassment networks designed to keep things Leftist whenever possible. That kind of pressure can be hard to ignore, let alone overcome.
But, more and more people and companies are giving Leftist complainers the one finger salute, and sometimes even two if they’re feeling generous. And just between you and me, I tend to be very generous, if you know what I mean.
And if you do, could you let me know? Kthanks!
The power the Left has tends to be more imaginary than actual. They’re like wild animals who puff themselves up to look bigger to scare off predators, but all it takes is for one predator to say “fuck that shit” and the illusion goes away faster than Queen Kamala the Appointed’s chances of winning back the White House in my lifetime.
That’s the way to handle the Left’s mob mentality: pay it no mind. The Left hates it when you live your life without their meddling and it only makes them madder and shriller which ultimately makes you look better because you’re unfazed by their antics.
However, I understand where the banks are coming from. Even with a new President and new appointees in different roles, the rank and file don’t change and may dig in even more to hold onto what little power they actually have. That means the same assholes who participated in Operation Choke Hold are likely still in their positions and will continue to cause whatever pain they can to the big banks because reasons.
This is where debanking is at its most insidious. To end the practice, you must remove the practitioners. As long as there’s one asshole in a position to make debanking a thing, it will be a thing.
And to my Leftists readers out there, this is not a call to violence. The people who made debanking a thing need to be removed and prosecuted, civilly or criminally, for violating people’s and group’s rights to access services when engaged in lawful activities. Only when those activities get into the illegal category does the government have any business getting involved. That’s the way it’s worked for centuries in this country, and it worked pretty well until Leftists got involved.
We’ll see if President Trump’s Executive Order on debanking has any teeth in time, but I’m not popping the champagne yet. There are too many entrenched interests involved to make them stop the practice, and given the President’s first round of draining the swamp, I’m not confident debanking will be done away with anytime soon.
Not to worry, though. I’m still generous with my one finger salutes.
A Loss That Could Have Been Prevented
Now that the hoopla over the 2024 election has pretty much died down and the postmortems of the aforementioned election are calming down somewhat (and missing a lot of the points that should have been drawn from it), I wanted to throw my semi-serious hat into the ring and offer a postmortem of a different flavor, one that goes deeper into the Democrats’ 2024 loss than “America is racist and sexist.”
My thoughts? The Democrats would have been in far better shape had Joe Biden lost in 2020.
This seems counterintuitive on its face, but in looking back at the past 4 years, it’s hard to dismiss the possibility Biden winning had more to do with Kamala Harris losing than anything Donald Trump could have done, intentionally or otherwise.
As the poem goes, let me count the ways.
– The blame for the COVID-19 response and any aftermath therein would be firmly on Trump’s shoulders. Would Trump have handled it better? I can’t say for certain, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be any worse.
– Trump would have been out of office sooner. Yes, I know Leftists would up in arms about another 4 years of Trump (just look at how they’re handling it today), but in retrospect, they might be willing to put up with it to not have to endure the second Trump Presidency in the here and now. And speaking of which…
– The Democrats would have had more time to find a better candidate than they had. Let’s face it. Kamala Harris was a poor candidate thrust into the role by people whose only strategy was “Orange Man Bad.” At least we would have had a primary process to weed out the bad candidates (Harris) and find other less bad candidates. Which also brings us to…
– Leftist Governors wouldn’t have felt emboldened by President Biden to take the actions they did. This is more of a future-forward thinking point, but the gist is people like Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, and Andrew Cuomo (all of whom were seen as rising stars within Democrat circles) wouldn’t have fallen for the trap of overreach because their guy was in power. As a result, Newsom is looking inept as his state burns, Whitmer isn’t even that much of a figure in Democrat circles, and Cuomo should be in prison for his COVID stupidity. With Trump in charge, these three numbskulls would still have some stroke to come out as the anti-Trump in 2024. Now, they’re lucky if they can be named state chairs of their party caucuses.
– Republicans would have had to find a Trump replacement sooner. With Trump’s defeat in 2020, that kept his legitimacy as a candidate on life support. Had he won, the Republicans would have been scrambling to find a replacement that wasn’t Mike Pence. Nice guy, but he’s like tofu and would have been a lot easier to defeat in 2024 unless the GOP found another Trump-like candidate.
– Kamala Harris would have still been a Senator. This works in one of two ways. First, she could have shored up the concept she was a fierce prosecutor within the safety of the Senate chambers, especially after Tulsi Gabbard ate Harris’s lunch and stole her lunch money besides in 2019. Second, she could have built up her leadership resume a bit more. Instead of being the Kamala Harris we got in 2024, she could have studied the ins and outs of political maneuvering from people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to make her minuses look less minus-ey.
– Other potential Presidential candidates wouldn’t have to deal with the fallout from being seen as incompetent under the Biden Presidency. This is more specific to Pete Buttigieg, but it could apply to others. In 2020, Mayor Pete seemed to be confident, competent, and had a good head on his shoulders, thus bridging a gap between the Progressive wing and the Traditional wing of the Democrat Party. While serving as Secretary of Transportation, he showed none of the traits he did as a candidate, including messing up a pretty big disaster in Ohio which made him look incompetent and out of touch. (Not to mention his “breastfeeding” picture that kept him out of sight for about 30 days.)
– There would be no debate over the 2020 election results. Simple logic here. If Biden lost, the MAGA supporters wouldn’t have a place to hang their red MAGA hats on, and a lot of spin, disinformation, and other gobbledygook would have never seen the light of day. Which leads to…
– The “insurrection” wouldn’t have happened. We can debate the facts of what happened on January 6th until Jesus comes back, but the fact is without a Biden win, there would have been no “insurrection.” And as a result…
– There would be no J6 Committee. To put it mildly, the J6 Committee was a farce only one-upped by the way the Department of Justice handled the J6 arrestees. The more we look into it, the more sus things we find out. Imagine not having that around your neck like an albatross! Although I think Adam Schiff’s neck strength would handle it just fine…
– There would be no J6 arrests. Speaking of the DOJ, they did a horrible job respecting the rule of law and even basic Constitutional rights with how they haphazardly doled out punishments, coerced people into confessions that not even the Spanish Inquisition would have cooked up, and held US citizens in jail without being charged with any crimes. Heck, even the charges that were presented weren’t even close to being insurrection.
– The “lawfare” against Trump would have been more effective. Without the protection of the Presidency, Trump and his legal team would have had a much tougher road to hoe to convince judges his claims of immunity were valid, which would have negated or at least delayed the Supreme Court case that gave Trump a “Get Out of Jail Free if You’re the President” card. And I get the feeling that USSC decision is going to come back to bite us all sooner rather than later, but that’s a blog post for another time.
– The 2022 midterm elections would have been more favorable towards Democrats than they were. Granted, there was no “red wave” as predicted by many on the Right, but think of it this way. Americans seem to think a divided government is somehow preferable to the same party controlling the White House and Congress. With all the negatives Trump had at the time, the Democrats would have seen a much more favorable outcome due to the divided government concept and the rising discontent there might have been with Trump.
– The Biden family wouldn’t have been made so public. This covers a lot of ground, including Hunter Biden’s crimes and subsequent pardon, Joe’s mental decline, allegations of Joe showering with a young female relative, the too-frequent gaffes that had to be explained away, and so many more issues both substantial and inconsequential. If Joe Biden lost in 2020, he could have walked off into the sunset and we would have seen him better than he did when he left office.
– The Democrat wouldn’t look like hypocrites when criticizing Trump’s appointees as incompetent. I can’t say for certain, but I get the feeling the vetting process under Joe Biden was “how many minority boxes do you check off” and that was it. From the incompetent to the “how in the heck did you get this job,” the Biden Administration was filled with people who were in way over their heads, but were in charge of some pretty important stuff. Any Democrat who stayed silent when Sam Brinton was running around stealing people’s luggage instead of keeping an eye on nuclear energy should take all the seats before saying anybody Trump appoints is unfit for the job.
– Democrats would have more time to figure out a better message, both in real life and on social media. Let’s face it, folks. Democrats have a weak social media game, and their ground game is antiquated at best. Within four years, they could have spent less time listening to Millennials with a TikTok account and more time at the grassroots level figuring out why their messaging doesn’t resonate as much as it did. The fact a wealthy land developer from New York is now the voice of the working class should embarrass Leftists to no end.
– No Inflation Reduction Act. This one piece of legislation was pretty much the stake in the Harris/Walz campaign’s heart because it showed how out of touch Democrats became. The old saying “all politics is local” is still as relevant as “it’s the economy, stupid,” and Democrats were tone-deaf to both. No matter how much you folks tried to make us believe the economy was doing better than we thought (and calling us stupid if we didn’t agree), it didn’t match with what voters were seeing. It was, and still is, one of the biggest blunders of the Biden Administration.
– The Russia-Ukraine War might not have started. One of the things that stuck in many voters’ craws was the amount of money we were sending to Ukraine to fight off a Russian invasion. In the face of domestic issues like natural disasters, rising inflation, and the economic impact of looting and thievery in major cities, we kinda wanted to know why our money was being sent to a foreign country without question. We can speculate all we want, but in the end, we are still wondering why we’re funding a war overseas. No amount of patriotic bunting can square this circle. Without Biden cutting blank checks to Ukraine, our involvement wouldn’t be so head-scratchingly controversial. Trump ran on not getting us involved in foreign wars, and I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have gotten us involved in Ukraine.
– The “Tech Bros” and Joe Rogan wouldn’t have seemingly moved rightward. Up until recently, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg , and Joe Rogan among others were consistently left-leaning. But as the Left went further Left, they all had a “come to Jesus” moment and decided to entertain thoughts from the Right. That alone caused Leftists to freak out instead of asking themselves if they were doing something that would make people not associate with the Left anymore. This emboldened others, along with Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy, Jr., to distance themselves from the Left and break bread with Donald Trump. But at least you still have Harry Sisson…for now.
If you made it this far, thank you for hearing me out. If you haven’t, the Readers Digest Condensed Version is Joe Biden winning in 2020 was the worst thing that could have happened to Democrats on a number of levels. As it stands, we’re now in the timeline where Biden won, which lead to Donald Trump winning and Leftists freaking out over what could have been.
It’s like the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
History has a tendency to repeat itself at times when you least expect it. Or, if you pay attention to Leftist rhetoric (which may be against the Geneva Convention, or at the very least the 2024 Shriners Convention), it happens every time a Republican gets into office. And if you’re not paying attention, you will Nazi this coming.
See what I did there?
In the waning hours of the Brick Tamland Administration, history repeated itself when he announced the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. This sentiment was echoed by Queen Kamala the Unappointed (see what I did there?), Senator Kirsten “I’m Angela from ‘The Office’ Without the Charm” Gillibrand, and Leftist groups like the Center for American Progress. And just like the previous times the Equal Rights Amendment was at the center of conversation, advocates are proclaiming its necessity to ensure equality between/among the sexes.
Yeah, about that…
Equal Rights Amendment
What the Left thinks it means – a ratified Constitutional Amendment necessary to ensure equality of the sexes
What it really means – an irrelevant Constitutional Amendment that Leftists want to enshrine anyway
Although it’s become a hot topic, the Equal Rights Amendment has a bit of a history. It was first proposed in 1923 as part of the women’s suffrage movement. Eventually, the ERA finally came into being as a proposed Amendment in 1972. The wording is as follows:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
This is where things get a little tricky for the ERA. Although it was passed by both houses of Congress, 38 states still had to ratify it, and there was a time limit placed on it. This time frame expired on June 30, 1982. So, that should be the end of it, right?
Ooooh, sor-ray. The Left continued to push for the ERA to be ratified like they would get an ice cream cone after it happened. Well, that explains why Brick Tamland was hot and heavy to get it ratified. Anyway, Virginia ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in January 2020, barely missing the deadline by…let me check my notes here…almost 40 years. So, so close…
In spite of this, the Left continued to push for the ERA to be ratified because a) the conditions were met aside from the time frame, and b) they really wanted women to have equal protection as men. You know, back when they thought there were only two genders? (And at the break, it’s still Genders 2, Leftists 0.)
On the surface, what the ERA stands for is pretty reasonable and a good step. We love people to be treated equally in theory. These days, though, the practice is situational and only when we’re directly impacted. You know, just like when Leftists support police officers until they don’t? And, surprise surprise, the Left is the same way when it comes to women.
The Equal Rights Amendment has become obsolete because society has changed without it. Today, women occupy many high profile positions in business, politics, OnlyFans, and so on. In some areas, they’ve even surpassed men. Maybe it’s just me, but the fact women have these positions shows the ERA is a non-starter. What more equality do women need that isn’t already covered by laws and society?
The quickest answer for the Left is abortion, or as they call it “bodily autonomy” or “health care.” Or maybe they can just call it infrastructure like they did everything else for a time. But even this fails with a cursory knowledge of recent Supreme Court rulings that made abortion a state issue rather than a federal issue. Then, there’s the logic problem. Abortion laws by definition affect women more than men because…and I can’t believe I have to say this in 2025…MEN CAN’T GET PREGNANT. Equality of rights based on sex can’t apply here because there is no equivalent male counterpart to abortion. Oops.
The wage gap? To my knowledge, there are no laws on the books right now mandating women be paid less than men for doing the same job. What’s more, there are already laws and practices on the books that prohibit it, thus the ERA would be a redundancy like having two Leftists scream about the pay gap when none would suffice.
So, this begs the question of why the Left hasn’t done anything substantive about the ERA since the Reagan era. The simple answer? Leftists don’t really give a fuck about women, just their votes and money. The more complex answer? Leftists need women to be victims, even if it’s self-inflicted victimhood. Challenging the ratification status of the ERA or even coming up with another attempt to ratify it when they had control of both houses of Congress was never a top priority to the Leftists in power. After all, we had to save the rare triple breasted albino puddle jumping raven! And how do I know that bird is rare?
Because I just made it up.
Imagine being a Leftist woman and having your equal rights take a back seat to an animal that may or (probably) not affect the world in any way, shape, or form. That should make any sensible Leftist female (a stretch, I know, but I like to dream) pack up shop, take their pink pussy hats, and look for a non-Leftist man to settle down with. But since they think they’re victims of “The Man” or “The Men” or “The Patriarchy,” they stay firmly planted in the back seat and let other causes take all the attention.
And the ERA is part is the mythical carrot that keeps them there.
But there is another angle that few, if any, have explored: the impact the ERA will have on the trans community. While it’s easy and fun to mock the Left’s inability to follow actual science and conclude most people fall into one gender or the other, there is a perverse genius involved. If we accept the Left’s idea that even genders are more complex than they actually are and that there are more that can be claimed merely with an assertion, it throws a lot of things into question.
Like…oh I don’t know…the Equal Rights Amendment.
Once the Left gets a foothold on a legal matter, they will use it as a catapult for other matters only tangentially related to the original matter. That’s how the gay rights movement went from merely asking to be treated like regular people to “bake the cake, bigot.”
I have no hard data to back this up (aside from the fact the Left abandons women like Leonardo DiCaprio does when they turn 25), but having seen how the Left has used other social issues to push an alternate agenda, I can’t rule out the possibility of the ERA being “ratified” by Presidential fiat being used to further their transgender agenda. Or as I am calling it the transgenda.
See what I did there?
Although the Left is going to call the next steps in the ratification process uncertain, that’s only because they know as much about the Constitution as they do about economics: very little, but they’ll still try to convince you otherwise. The fact remains the Equal Rights Amendment had its shot to be ratified within the time limit Congress set and it wasn’t. No matter how many social media posts or proclamations from current and former political figures get made, the ERA is DOA, and it doesn’t l0ok like the Left wants to do the heavy lifting to make it a priority.
Which is fine by me. I’m not a fan of redundancy except when it comes to my jokes and pop culture references, but it’s clear America has moved past the notion that women have only certain societal roles. Now, we can confidently say women can fuck shit up just as well as men can!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the incoming Trump Administration, there are going to be a lot of confirmation hearings for his Cabinet. And without exception, Leftists are obsessed with qualifications. To hear them speak (and I’m not sure why you would want to), none of Trump’s appointees have the basic qualifications to tie their own shoes, let alone run a section of the American government.
Let’s just say the irony is not lost on your humble correspondent.
But what exactly do Leftists mean when they talk about qualifications? Good question, and I hope I have a good answer, or at least an answer entertaining enough that you won’t throw your computer in the dumpster.
qualifications
What the Left thinks it means – important characteristics that show someone is capable of doing the job
What it really means – qualities politicians have little room to talk about
First, a bit of a rabbit hole to set up the shitshow proper. Under the Constitution, the Senate has the responsibility of advice and consent. Under normal conditions, this can be a useful tool to determine whether a potential government official has the knowledge, background, and judgment necessary to fulfill the duties of the role. Under current conditions, it’s a way for know-nothing assholes to preen for the cameras and look for their “gotcha” moments. And that’s when the Senate is being less horrible than usual.
Through this advice and consent process, nominees get dragged in front of Senate committees and either given more ball gagging than on a gay porn set (not that I know anything about that, mind you) or a gauntlet of nonsensical, partisan bullshit questions that makes you wonder if the Senators asking them actually want to hear from the nominee.
In other words, any given Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
The reason qualifications is such a buzz word recently is because Democrats and Leftists want to make the public at large believe everyone Trump nominates is dumber than a bag of hammers, even if they have more experience than the assholes asking the questions. And when these assholes aren’t asking gotcha questions, they’re heading to their favorite media outlets to brag about what they did, and so they can get their balls sucked.
Yes, even the women, or for any Leftist reading this, birthing people.
Although we would like to get the best people for the job, there’s one significant hurdle: the best people for the job wouldn’t take it because it would be a downgrade. For most people, getting a cushy government job where you couldn’t get fired even if you tried would be a dream. But within that dream, there is the nightmare of being stagnant. Great ideas rarely get implemented, excellence is seen as a detriment, and good employees are pushed to be as mediocre as they can be. And qualifications? It’s more about connections or other factors unrelated to the job than it is about whether you can do it.
That’s one of the reasons I chuckle when the Left starts talking about how unqualified Trump’s appointees are. Leftist hate achievement and want everybody to be equally…meh. Just check the right boxes and you, too, can be the Undersecretary of Beverage Acquisition for the Undersecretary of Waste Disposal under the Secretary of Environmental Justice, Transgender Division. In other words, you’re getting coffee for trash collectors under someone who got a shitty degree that couldn’t get you hired by a temp agency.
And it might give you a fast track to being in Congress or some President’s Cabinet if you play your cards right. Just ask Pete Buttigieg.
Which brings me to another reason I’m chuckling a lot at Leftists demanding Trump’s appointees be qualified: they’re responsible for confirming some of the Brick Tamland Administration’s worst picks, like Pete Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation. Not to pick on Mayor Pete here, but what in the wide world of fuck were his qualifications? Fixing roads in South Bend, Indiana.
Let’s ask the people of East Palestine, Ohio, how they feel about his qualifications for Secretary of Transportation. That is if you can get them to drop their pitchforks and torches at the mention of his name.
The fact many of the same Senators who question the qualifications of Trump’s appointees thought nothing of the lack of qualifications of many appointees of the Brick Tamland Administration makes me want to tell them to take a seat, but that wouldn’t be any fun.
That comes when you ask these sanctimonious assholes obsessed with qualifications to pontificate on the California wildfires, where the people in charge aren’t qualified to run a free water outlet in the desert, let alone fighting a major fire. I would particularly like to hear from new Senator Adam Schiff, one of the ones who keeps warning us about the dangers of having incompetent people in positions of power. Or he could just look in the mirror to see an incompetent person in power.
Yeah, I went there. And I’ll continue to go there so much, I’ll get my mail forwarded there.
The whole kerfluffle over qualifications right now is based on partisanship, just like it has been with previous appointees from both sides. As much as I like Ted Cruz (which is slightly more than I like most politicians), his questioning of Ketanji Jackson Brown over issues like Critical Race Theory only feed into the problem. Which gives me an idea for an Extremist Makeover, but that’s a blog post for a different time.
In the meantime, it should be pointed out these hearings are like the plot of a horrible mystery novel: you know what’s going to happen before we get to the end because it’s so fucking obvious. Democrats are going to vote against the nominees, Republicans will vote for the nominees, both sides are going to claim victory, and the qualification kerfluffle gets tossed aside.
And we’ll get stuck with the results.
So, yay, I guess?
Unlocking the Keys
With all of the post-2024 Election analyses, there’s been a lot of talk about Allan Lichtman’s 13 Keys, the factors he’s used to predict 9 of the past 11 Presidential elections. A lot of talk, but not a lot of analysis, per se. Oh, you had your share of squawking heads on both pointing out how the 13 Keys failed this election, but not a lot of thought as to why.
Well, since I lack hobbies, I decided to do a bit of research and analysis of my own and what I found out might change a few minds.
Before we get into the boring stuff, we have to set our parameters, i.e. know what we’re talking about. After all, this isn’t MSNBC, so we can’t get away with spouting off without having facts.
Lichtman’s Keys are as follows:
Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Under Lichtman’s model, a successful candidate has to win at least 8 of these Keys. And considering its track record, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where the Keys failed.
This is where things get a little tricky, and where most of the post-election analysis surrounding the Keys stopped. The consensus was the Keys were wrong, which negatively impacts Lichtman and the model itself. However, that’s far too simplistic and inaccurate an assessment. Based on my own analysis, the Keys still work and worked in the 2024 election.
Where the failure occurred is in the interpretation of the data. Whenever you do any kind of social research, there is always a chance one’s personal beliefs can find their way into the analysis of the findings. If you’re not careful, you go from letting the data drive your conclusions to rooting for a particular conclusion and retroactively figuring out how it came to pass.
To be fair, observation bias isn’t limited to the “soft sciences.” There are some prime examples of hard sciences being sucked into the wonderful world of bias. The difference is in the ability to reconstruct the experiment to test the hypothesis further. With hard science, the way to do that is clear, but with soft science, it’s unclear, if not impossible, to reproduce the outcomes. We can set up similar conditions, but the passage of time, the introduction of new information, or even just the possibility of a changed opinion limit the effectiveness and accuracy of the reproduction.
Setting all that aside (because it gets pretty close to migraine-inducing territory for me), the important takeaway is the data is the data. It’s how we interpret it that creates the opening for bias to affect the outcome.
I can’t say for certain Lichtman’s prediction that Vice President Kamala Harris would win 9 of the 13 keys was based on bias rather than a difference in interpreting the data. Prior to 2024, the only other time in recent history that the Keys didn’t accurately predict the outcome was in 2000 when he predicted Al Gore would defeat George W. Bush. His explanation for why the Keys didn’t predict the winner then? Bush stole the election.
That suggests to me he may have a bias issue when it comes to elections he feels strongly about, and he has made it clear he’s not a Trump supporter by any means. Having said that, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and chalk the 2024 election prediction failure to just having an off night. More grace than he deserves? Maybe, but feel free to excoriate me in the comments.
Lichtman’s prediction for 2024 were as follows:
The following nine keys line up in favor of the incumbent Democrats.
Contest Key 2: The Democrats have united in near unanimity behind Harris.
Third-Party Key 4: In recognition of his fading support, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his campaign. His endorsement of Donald Trump does not impact this key.
Short-Term Economy Key 5: It is too late for a recession to take hold of the economy before the election. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which provides the most reliable assessment of recessions, typically takes a few months to establish that the economy has fallen into a recession (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).
Long-Term Economy Key 6: Real per-capita growth during the Biden term far exceeds the average of the previous two presidential terms.
Policy Change Key 7: Biden has fundamentally changed the policies of the Trump administration in areas such as the environment and climate change, infrastructure, immigration, taxes, and women’s and civil rights.
Social Unrest Key 8: Despite sporadic demonstrations, social unrest has not risen to the level needed to forfeit this key: massive, unresolved unrest that threatens the stability of society as in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Scandal Key 9: Republicans in Congress have tried and failed to pin a scandal on President Biden. His son Hunter’s crimes do not count as scandal, which to do so must implicate the president himself and generate bipartisan recognition of wrongdoing.
Foreign/Military Success Key 11: President Biden and Biden alone forged the coalition of the West that kept Putin from conquering Ukraine and then undermining America’s national security by threatening its NATO allies. Biden’s initiatives will go down in history as an extraordinary presidential achievement.
Challenger Charisma Key 13: As explained, Trump does not fit the criteria of a once-in-a-generation, broadly appealing, transformational candidate like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
Seems like a lock, right? Not quite.
I have no dog in this hunt since I didn’t vote for either Trump or Harris, so my analysis shook out a bit differently. Instead of focusing on just the 9 keys Lichtman thought Harris would win, I think a look at all 13 would be helpful.
Here’s what I came up with.
Party Mandate: Although the 2022 midterm elections didn’t quite swing as far right as the GOP would have wanted, the fact remains they regained control of the House of Representatives. On that, Lichtman and I concur. Advantage: Trump.
Contest: Lichtman gave this one to Harris, but the conditions under which she received the nomination makes this a bit harder for me to concede this Key to her. At the beginning of the election cycle, Ms. Harris was still considered to be Vice President, in spite of the thoughts at the time she might be a drag on the ticket. The unity behind her didn’t come together until after the nomination process was truncated and she was allowed to take over for Joe Biden. Trump, on the other hand, went through a primary process where he had challengers of varying degrees of ineptitude. Even with that being the case, the GOP by and large got behind Trump from the outset. Thus, I have to give this one to the GOP. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbancy: Once Joe Biden dropped out, this Key became a moot point. Neither Trump nor Harris could claim this, so neither one would get the advantage from it. No Advantage.
Third Party: There was no significant third party presence in the 2024 election. The closest we had was Robert Kennedy, Jr. No Advantage.
Short Term Economy: Now, we’re getting into the fun stuff! Lichtman was correct when he said there was not a recession in play here. However, that doesn’t automatically mean the economy is strong. We may not have had a recession, but we still had to deal with an economy voters felt was in decline because, well, it was. Even if you consider the drop in the inflation rate to be a step in the right direction, it didn’t resonate with voters. For that reason, I cannot give Harris the nod as Lichtman did. Advantage: Trump.
Long Term Economy: Second verse, same as the first. Advantage: Trump.
Policy Change: Again, Lichtman correctly stated the Biden Administration changed policies put in place by the Trump Administration, which were certainly big, but for the wrong reasons because they were historically bad changes. (Inflation Reduction Act, anyone?) When asked what she would do differently, Harris couldn’t come up with anything, which meant she knowingly or inadvertently signed off on the policy changes Biden made, which were ultimately unpopular. Staying the course when you’re about to hit the rocks isn’t smart in real life or in politics. Advantage: Trump.
Social Unrest: One of the candidates got shot at twice after years of being called a fascist, and the other was Kamala Harris. That tells me there’s social unrest. Advantage: Trump.
Scandal: Sorry, sir, but you think President Biden was devoid of scandal, I have swamp land in Death Valley I’d love to sell you. This was one of the biggest blunders Lichtman had with his 2024 Keys because it ignored one of the biggest stories of last year: Biden’s declining mental faculties. That in and of itself (as well as the media’s cover-up) was a big enough scandal to swing this Key to Trump. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign or Military Failure: That was Joe Biden’s M.O. even back in his Congressional days. As we saw with the mess that was the Afghanistan withdrawal, there was no way for Biden to escape blame for it. And Harris was pretty much either a ghost on the scene or nodded in approval at whatever harebrained idea Biden came up with at the time. Trump didn’t have that problem because, well, he wasn’t Commander In Chief. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign/Military Success: Unless you count making President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine super rich, I got nothing. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbent Charisma/Hero: Even if you count Harris as the incumbent, she was a popularity void, as evidenced by the number of people who walked out of her rallies after the musical performances by big-name stars concluded. And Trump wasn’t the incumbent. It’s a wash. No Advantage.
Challenger Charisma/Hero: Say what you will about the man, Donald Trump has charisma and he imposed his will on the Harris campaign. Lichtman got this one completely wrong. Advantage: Trump.
So the final score from my analysis is 10 Keys for Trump, 0 for Harris, and 3 for No Advantage. And considering Trump won the White House, I’d say the Keys worked pretty good once possible bias (and definite missed calls) were accounted for. It may not have been the result Lichtman wanted, but from where I sit, the Keys worked to perfection, even if he didn’t.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With Christmas right around the corner (please check local listings for the time and location of Christmas), people are exchanging presents, cards, well-wishes, and other wonderful holiday items. But the Left? They’re exchanging insults over Elon Musk.
Again.
Considering this is an almost hourly occurrence, we shouldn’t be surprised, but this time the Left has gone and made Musk into…co-President! While the Left has their collectivist panties in a wad, I wanted to delve into this concept a bit further, mainly because it shows the Left has the attention span of a goldfish on crack.
co-President
What the Left thinks it means – Elon Musk, an unelected man who wields unprecedented power in the incoming Trump Administration
What it really means – a term that could cover anyone with sway over the President
The concept of a co-President is kinda amusing when you really think about it (and I have because I have a lot of downtime in my personal life), and the Left have made it even more amusing by really leaning into it. They see Musk as the man controlling Trump’s strings, while at the same time claiming Trump is the puppet master of his followers. Although anyone who has seen Trump give a speech can tell you he’s about as controllable as a Chihuahua/pit bull mix on a steady diet of truck stop speed, energy drinks, and, oh yeah, PCP.
So, the concept of Musk controlling Trump as his co-President is funny at its face because of how utterly detached from reality you have to be to believe it. Musk has Trump’s ear for sure, but that doesn’t mean he has control over the incoming Commander in Chief. Until such time as evidence comes out that Musk is secretly cloning Trump so he can get his way, I’m gonna stay over on the not-that-fucking-crazy side.
And the best part? We would have to go allllllll the way back to 1993 to find the first modern reference of someone being a co-President. Ah, 1993. America was still enthralled by grunge and club music. The uniform of the day was flannel and oversized pants. Boy bands were still a good 5 years away or so. And the genius who introduced us to the concept of a co-President?
Bill “The Commander In Briefs” Clinton.
On the campaign trail, ole Slick Willie talked about if he got elected, the country would get Hillary Clinton as a “two-for-one deal.” Although this might be a good deal for Bill at any of his favorite brothels, it wasn’t that good of a deal for the rest of us. Hillary was put in charge of healthcare reform, and promptly sucked at it. But don’t worry. She was young and hadn’t truly embraced her ability to fuck shit up yet.
Now, Billy Boy wasn’t the first President to take influence from someone other than his staff, and he certainly won’t be the last. The thing is there’s a vast difference between having influence and actually using it. Did Hillary influence Bill’s decision-making at times? Undoubtedly. Who do you think gave Bill the idea to make Madeleine Albright Secretary of State and send her to talks with Muslim countries?
Spoiler Alert: It was the dumbass who used a prop Reset button to signal a new positive relationship with Russia.
Then, we had George W. Bush, a man so hated by the Left he was accused of being a puppet to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the Koch Brothers, the 1992 Denver Broncos, and just about everyone else. Although I think I might have missed out on my turn because I have this great idea of what to do with the IRS. Oh, well. Maybe next time!
With Barack Obama, it’s harder to pin down whether Michelle Obama had any more power than previous First Ladies, but I get the feeling she wore the pants in the family. She would have to in order to keep her balls from falling out. (Kidding!)
Now, with the most recent President, it’s a lot easier to pin down who had the President’s ear. In fact, President Brick Tamland may have been the first co-de-President ever.
Hmmm…it seems like co-Presidents occur when…weak-ass Leftist “men” are in charge. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, though. I mean, how likely would it be that Leftist man after Leftist man would be that incompetent, right?
And it makes perfect sense for the Left to project their issues onto Trump because they’re that fucking stupid. Oh, and it make them feel better about having complete wimps be their male standard bearers in politics. To them, weakness is strength, incompetence is competence, and an utter shitshow is normal.
I’m starting to think the Left is more influenced by George Orwell than George Soros these days.
Meanwhile, this attitude creates a paradox. If we were to follow the Left’s logic on this (and for God’s sake why would you), being a co-President is only bad when the Left is out of power, but it’s ho-hum when the Left is in power. This goes back to something the Left believes with all of their heart: anyone not like them is a fucking idiot and, thus, easily manipulated by bad players.
My irony meter broke after typing that, mainly because the Left doesn’t recognize they’re doing what they accuse the Right of doing. Oh, and they’re fucking idiots.
And we should keep this in mind when thinking about the entire co-President concept, especially that last part. The fact the Left is so concerned with unelected people having so much power, presumed or otherwise, shows how freaked out they get when they’re not the unelected people having the power. Say what you will about Elon Musk, but after the last 4 years of Leftists letting utterly unqualified people have more power than they can handle (I’m looking at you, Pete Buttigieg), he should be the least of our worries. He’s not a co-President any more than Melania Trump is and shouldn’t be considered as such.
Besides, if Leftists were concerned about unelected people with a lot of power, they would be against bureaucrats.
False Assumptions in the Meme Time
The Left and their memes. Time again to dive into one and break it down and destroy it.
It beings with a lie. The Left is certainly and categorically mad at anyone who does not conform to their political ideology. This is why Hilary Clinton stated that Republicans were the number one threat to democracy and that Trump supporters should be put into re-education camps.
There are even families that have been torn apart due to a Leftist member who is mad as hell and hates their family members who aren’t Leftists like them. So they are truly mad because of our political views.
The next section lists several veiled attacks on President Trump. Many of which are false or at least misleading. Just part of the Leftist propaganda for useful idiots and their talking points.
SA. That’s Sexual Assault. I had to ask a Leftist since I couldn’t figure out what the abbreviation was representing. It’s not a common abbreviation after all. These kind of attacks are common against wealthy and famous peoples. A great majority of these s0-called assaults have been recanted by their tellers as false claims.
The majority of these cases have zero evidence. There is no DNA, no rape kit, no immediate going to the police. Also, many of these alleged sexual assaults are filed as cases in New York. A heavily dominated Leftist stronghold. So much so that Trump left his home state.
When the Left is against a political candidate or appointee, there are always charges of sexual assault made against them. Someone comes forward states that X happened in such and such year. Yet, the Left ignores the blatant and easily seen evidence of there own. Just look at President Biden’s wandering hands. And even President Clinton’s actions in the Oval Office. The list is longer of course but the Left ignores them all because the perpetrator is a Democrat.
Ah, “women’s rights“, of course the means abortion at any time up to and including birth. This is what the Left demands. Infanticide on demand. You can easily see that within the Leftist movement of women who are shaving their heads today now that Trump won the election. This is what they want despite what they say.
President Trump thinks that abortion should be a States issue. And currently it is just that. If you don’t like that or how your state is handling the issue. Get involved or move.
Racism. A lie of lies. And this has been debunked even in the mainstream media. I’ve written about this one many times in many forms. The Republican Party was founded to end slavery. While the southern Democratic Party was in opposition to that end of slavery. And left the Union because of it.
Republicans don’t give a hoot about one’s skin color. We care about your character and merits. The Democratic Left, like all Leftist movements, seeks to divide everyone by class, race, or other identifiable groups.
And of course, Donald Trump isn’t a racist. I’ve written about that too and how he makes a terrible racist.
Homophobia. What? This one makes no sense at all. But we will look at it in detail anyway. First what is a phobia?
“A phobia is an anxiety disorder, defined by an irrational, unrealistic, persistant and excessive fear of an object or situation. Phobias typically result in a rapid onset of fear and are usually present for more than six months. Those affected go to great lengths to avoid the situation or object, to a degree greater than the actual danger period.”
Using the true definition of phobia there are very few people who would have homophobia. We all know however that the Left always changes the language. Even to the point of dumbing it down to limit critical thinking and resistance.
So to the Left homophobia is anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ+ agenda. Including transsexualization of children and the newest “sexual orientation” of minor attracted persons aka pedophiles.
President Trump is certainly against the transsexualization of children and pedophiles. Everyone should be against the rape of children and the insanity of sexually mutilating and confusing children.
But President Trump, in his first term, appointed an openly gay man to a cabinet level position. Trump was the first president to do so. He is not homophobic.
Lying. Seriously!? There isn’t a single person who isn’t a liar. And unfortunately it is a mainstay in politics. No one candidate or office holder would be innocent of this charge. Try something serious as this one doesn’t count.
Many Presidential candidates make promises on the campaign trail that they don’t intend to keep. Some are promises that they need the backing of Congress to keep. President Trump, in his first term has a good track record of keeping promises.
And if lying is a deal breaker for you on any politician. You aren’t voting for anyone.
Etc. Etcetera. If your are going to list things you don’t like about a candidate or the voters of a candidate. List them. Don’t use Etc. This isn’t an issue. It isn’t a dealbreaker. Because it isn’t anything. It is moot and stricken from the record.
None of these so-called points or charges are deal breakers for the reasons already listed above. Most are false charges and just shows the insanity of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the minds of the Left and their useful idiots.
So, yes they are mad at us for our political views. It doesn’t matter because we know these are false points and have no merit. We know they are made up lies that the Left uses so they can work on their true agenda. The destruction of the American Republic.
It doesn’t matter because we know that the Left always accuses their opponents of crimes that they are committing. This is right out of the Rules for Radicals handbook. It causes confusion in the minds of the useful idiots.
Of course we are a problem. We stand to defend the Constitution as written. We stand to defend our Judeo-Christian morality and ethics. We stand to defend Western Civilization. We are the problem to the Left as we stand for freedom and Liberty for all.