Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Laura Ingraham sinks to a new low

Well that can't be true, can it?
I mean no one could possibly be that disgusting, could he?

Oh my God.

That has to be the worst thing anyone has ever said on the subject of -- wait, what now?

This can not be real. Can it?

Holy Fuck! When it's a relief that a "person" is only talking about murdering an animal. . .

Okay, this brings up a few questions.

1. How in the HELL is this guy being brought on TV to opine on someone else's character? This guy is pure sewage. And yes, I'm sure that he's just "joking" about murdering women and preying on rape victims, but you have to have a soul of pure shit to find any of those things funny.

2. How is this guy still doing a sports talk radio show? According to Wikipedia:
Richard Clay Travis (born April 6, 1979) is an American sports journalist, writer, television analyst, and the morning radio show host for nationwide Fox Sports Radio from 6-9 a.m. ET and appears on FS1's daily sports gambling show Lock It In.

I mean, I get that is's FOX, but don't they usually hold their entertainment ventures to a higher standard of decency than their Turd Reich Propaganda Network? Do the people at FS1 know that they are employing a "man" who authored this barrage of filth?

3. Laura Ingraham is a woman, right? I mean, I can't prove it. She may well be a heap of  writhing serpents stuffed into a tight dress to resemble a human woman. Like Vincent Adultman if Bojack Horseman had been written by H.P. Lovecraft. But more than likely, she is an actual woman.  And she has daughters, doesn't she? How is she just gonna sit there and have a conversation with the guy who wrote this:

How badly would your soul have to be corroded to be willing to be in the same room with a scumbag like this, let alone promote him to your audience? Does your racism really overrule everything else that much? And seriously, you couldn't find another racist with some sort of sports background to talk about Colin Kaepernick? How do you look your daughter in the eye? How do you look at yourself in the mirror? (Oh, right. No reflection.)

and question # 4:

How did we get to the point where doing this

Image result for ingraham nazi salute gif

is not a career-ender?

Thursday, November 14, 2019

Stupid People Say Stupid Things

Stupid person #1: Joe Biden

Image result for facepalm gif

For God's sake! This guy worked beside Barack Obama for EIGHT YEARS of Republican fuckery, and he honestly thinks that they're going to go back to being the party of Eisenhower after Il Douche is gone? How does he not remember 8 years of constant obstruction, of filibuster after filibuster, of constant threats to shut down the government if these petulant toddlers didn't get their way? Has he forgotten the entire Merrick Garland episode? Does he not remember the Tea Party? Has he forgotten Newt Gingrich? What kind of fantasy world does Biden live in? And can I live there too? Please? It sounds so very nice.

And speaking of Joe Biden, here's stupid person #2, Ana Navaro:

Image result for facepalm gif

Yes, Joe Biden is like chicken soup. And chicken soup is great if you've got the sniffles. But their is an infection raging through this country's bloodstream and serious medical help is needed. Joe Biden is chicken soup when what the country needs is penicillin.

Also, Joe may "give a damn about other humans," but he will never love other humans as much as he loves the big banks and credit card companies. And he certainly didn't give a damn about Anita Hill.

Also, are you implying that giving a damn about other people is something that is exclusive to Joe Biden? Do you think that Warren, Sanders, Buttiegieg, Harris, Booker, etc. don't give a damn about other people? Of course they do. A lack of sociopathy would only be notable in a candidate running in the Republican primary. On our side, it's pretty much a prerequisite.

Stupid person # 3: Rep. Tom Reed (R-obvioulsy)

This is what an actual sitting Congressman had to say to Chuck Todd on the subject of impeachment:

REED: When you're talking about oversight and the roles in oversight, i think sharing that information and complying is something to do. but when you're talking about impeachment, over turning the duly elected decision of the American people. you know, you're going to have that separation of powers that rightfully needs to exist. That's at the heart of our democracy and sustainability of our government is to have that checks and balances and that separation of powers. So, you know, if they were pursuing oversight and not impeachment, that's a different conversation.

Image result for facepalm gif

Ughhhhh. . . I don't even know what the Hell point he thinks he's making. That somehow an impeachment inquiry violates the Constitutional checks and balances and separation of powers? Impeachment - the process prescribed by the Constitution precisely for an occasion such as this - violates the Constitution?
Or is it just that Congress is within its rights to ask for information to be shared with them, but that impeachment is somehow some sort of violation?
I really don't get it. And neither did Chuck Todd.

TODD: I don't understand what the difference is between that argument you're making. I mean, the -- in order to make the decision about impeachment, in order to -- which is essentially a grand jury indictment, you do an investigation to get that. That's what they're doing here. So part of what they're doing is oversight. They haven't voted on impeachment yet.

Wow, pushback from Chuck Todd! Now that's something you don't see every day!

REED: Yeah but, Chuck, but oversight doesn't result in the turning back of the will of the American people from a duly held election. You are then destabilizing the American democracy because now people are going to say what? I voted for my president who was duly elected and the powerful in Washington wants to overturn that election.

Image result for annoyed facepalm gif

You know, in 2000, I voted for my president who was duly elected and the Supreme Court in Washington overturned that election and Democracy wasn't destablized - scratch that, yeah it was. But I don't remember hearing a single Republican voicing concern over it. And the Supreme Court choosing the president is actually NOT a Constitutional check or balance and actually does violate the separation of powers.

And it's good to know that there are people in state government dedicated to insuring that the supply of stupid people never runs short:

Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion

frustrated ryan gosling GIF

This can't be what it sounds like, can it?

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WKRC) - Ohio lawmakers are weighing in on how public schools can teach things like evolution.

The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the "Student Religious Liberties Act." Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.

Image result for facepalm gif

Oh my God.
Wrong is wrong. Incorrect is incorrect. It doesn't matter why you got the wrong answer, the answer is still wrong.

This is the sort of thing that conservatives used to rail against. "Facts don't care about your feelings" as the loathsome Ben Shapiro likes to say incessantly. A = A was like the first rule of Ayn Rand's idiotic "philosophy." Now they want to make teachers pretend that wrong is right so that the children of religious fanatics don't get their feeling hurt?

 Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.
Instead, students are graded on substance and relevance.

Image result for facepalm gif

So. . . the words "substance" and "relevance" just don't have definitions anymore? What could be more substantive than the correctness or incorrectness of the answer? And relevance? Does that mean that even though the answer was completely wrong, it was an answer to that particular question? Like if the question is how many paws does a cat have? and I answer "seven," that's wrong, but if my book of scripture says that cats have seven paws. . . no, wait. If "seven" is AN answer to the question "how many paws does a cat have? then that's relevant? Is that it? Did my answer have substance? Fuck, I can't imagine being a teacher in Ohio trying to grade the papers of these little snake handlers!

Is this seriously got a chance of becoming the actual law?

Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate.

Image result for facepalm cat gif

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Electability is a sham.

Any time anyone in the media tells you a candidate is "unelectable," or has "electability" issues, you can just go ahead and assume they are full of shit.

Image result for bullshit detector

The first time I can remember hearing this term was in  2004 when Howard Dean ran. Every story about Dean was about "wow, this guy's raising all this money on this new 'internet' contraption, and boy people sure are excited about him," and at some point, one of the talking heads would interject "of course, he's totally unelectable!" And everyone would agree "oh, of course. Completely unelectable." Which I eventually figured out meant "not one of the pundit-approved candidates."

They had a few candidtates they had predicted would run. John Kerry was one. I think Dick Gebhart was another. So when this unknown whom none of them had ever talked about showed up and started doing well, I think they got a bit upset that he was making them look bad, and if he were to win, he would really show the weakness of their powers of prognostication.

Which brings us to the latest in the Bret Stephens evil of banality oeuvre:

Run, Mike, Run!

A Bloomberg-Trump contest would be one between a maker and a faker.

Opinion Columnist

Mike Bloomberg should run for president

Okay, I'm just going to stop you right there, because I feel like I have to correct that. NO, he should not.
Okay, please continue.

Mike Bloomberg should run for president, for two reasons that ought to be dispositive.

Ooh, "dispositive!" Someone certainly has an undeservedly high opinion of his, um, opinions.

First, he would be a very good president, potentially a great one. 

Image result for laughing megan mullally

Ahahaha! "a very good pres-" He's not even a good mayor!

What are you basing this assertion on? What in Bloomberg's CV makes you think "this is a man with the potential to be a great president?" I mean, if your reasons are going to be dispositive, they really ought to be backed up with some sort of evidence, right?

Second, he stands a much better chance of beating Donald Trump than anyone in the current Democratic field

Karen Laughing Out Loud GIF - Karen LaughingOutLoud WillAndGrace GIFs

Okay, Bret. Sure. No one in the current field has as good a chance of winning as a billionaire businessman and former mayor of New York whose name recognition outside of the bubble is practically nil, who has zero charisma and is known to most people, if he is known at all, as the guy who banned large sodas! Oh, yeah. Landslide, here we come!

 How popular is Micheal Bloomberg? Well,I'm glad I pretended that you asked! According to YouGov:


Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg is the 30th most popular Democrat and the 12th most famous

Yep, no other democrat has as good a chance of beating Trump! Well, other than 29 of them, I guess.

And those favorability ratings? Is "boffo" still an expression?

With 27% positive opinion, Michael Bloomberg is more popular among Men than among Women

Positive opinion23%27%
Popularity ranking among group28th35th

The main question is whether Democrats are inclined to allow the former New York City mayor to save them from themselves.

Oh, fuck you, Bret! This is more of the "oh no, Democrats, don't nominate a progressive" bullshit that the right trots out every four years and pretends is honest advice. No one's buying it anymore.

Until last week, the conventional wisdom was that they weren’t so inclined. Then came that New York Times Upshot/Siena College poll showing Trump competitive with, or ahead of, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the six battleground states that will likely decide the 2020 electio

Oh a poll? There was A poll that shows Trump is "competitive with" Warren, Sanders and/or Biden? There's one poll that says that? That he is "competitive with or ahead of" a centrist, a liberal and a progressive candidate? Well, obviously, the answer is to nominate an even more centrist Democrat, one who was a Republican until yesterday. That's just basic logic. And of course, we should ignore all the polls that indicate otherwise, because the only reliable polls are the ones that reinforce whatever is considered the current conventional wisdom of the punditry class.

If Trump is this strong now, in the midst of his impeachment woes and all the general distaste for him, where is he going to be in 11 months in a contest against opponents with nicknames like “Sleepy Joe,” “Crazy Bernie,” or “Uber Left Elizabeth Warren”?

Image result for disbelief gif

Oh my God. Where to even begin with this sentence?
First of all, Trump's popularity is never going to change much. He will always have his 35-40% base of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, no matter whether he's being impeached or not, plus the scumbags who know that he's dangerously incompetent and monstrously unsuited to the presidency but support him anyway because they want more tax cuts and theocratic judges. He's not losing any of them and he's not gaining any new voters.
Second, where the hell are you getting "uber-left Elizabeth Warren?" Trump has a nickname for Warren. He calls her "Pocahantos." Everyone knows that. And no one other than his drooling knuckle-dragging q-anon believing base is impressed with his stupid juvenile habit of assigning nicknames to people he doesn't like.

And third, do you really think he won't have a nickname for Mike Bloomberg? You don't think he'll call him "Little Mike" or Mike the Midget" or "Jewy Mike?" The nicknames are irrelevant. You really think that being referred to by a dumb nickname is some sort of impediment to election? That's just stupid.

This was no doubt the thought that induced Bloomberg to hurriedly dispatch staffers to Alabama to file primary paperwork in time for its Nov. 8 deadline.

I guarantee you it was not. Bloomberg didn't get to where he is by being stupid. There is not a chance in Hell that the thought that motivated him to throw his hat into the ring was "I can win because Cheeto Mussolini hasn't come up with a stupid nickname for me and I don't think he'll be able to!"

The case against a Bloomberg candidacy is that he can’t possibly win the nomination when so many Democratic primary voters want to cancel billionaires, soak the rich, and relitigate the crime-fighting strategies that defined his 12-year tenure as mayor.

Yes. True. Also, he couldn't possibly win in the general because the entire country, other than the aforementioned racist pizzagate-believing troglodyte Trump base is sick of fucking billionaires who think they should be running everything. Even the peoplke who voted for Trump did so in large part because they somehow inexplicably believed that he was going to be the champion of the common man who would stand up to the "elites." How they came to believe this about a man with a gold-plated toilet in his Manhattan penthouse is a subject for another conversation about the 40-some-odd-year program of brainwashing and enstupiding of the American electorate by right-wing assholes.

But the case for a Bloomberg candidacy is stronger and infinitely simpler: In a field divided between politically feeble centrists, unelectable progressives, and one talented but awfully young small-city mayor, he … can … win.

No. . .He. . .Can't.

There's that "unelectable" bullshit again. Why are progressives supposedly "unelectable?" Look at this poll from the conservative business network CNBC:

Or check out this article from The Hill:

70 percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' proposal

Seventy percent said they supported providing "Medicare for all," also known as single-payer health care, for Americans, according to a new American Barometer survey. 
The results mirrored a Reuters-Ipsos poll released in August, which also found that 70 percent of Americans supported "Medicare for all." 

Or this from VOX:

Poll: the Green New Deal is popular in swing House districts

So why would candidates who champion these very popular policies be considered "unelectable?' It's bullshit. Bret Stephens is a conservative. He is also rich. I don't know how rich, but I know the New York Times pays its bullshit providers pretty handsomely. Obviously he sees progressive candidates as his enemies. And he expects that the electorate will share this view because he can't conceive of a majority of voters wanting things that he finds frightening.

You want to see what Bret does consider "electable?" You want to see his reasoning for whyt Bloomberg is the best choice? Check this shit out:

 he … can … win.
How so?Because his money instantly neutralizes the Trump campaign’s formidable fund-raising advantage, which as of last month had twice as much cash on hand as the Obama campaign did at the same stage of his re-election campaign.
Yeah, he's super rich, so he can throw a bunch of money into a campaign. So was Steve Forbes. And Herman Cain. And Carly Fiorina. And Tom Steyer who is already running in the Democratic primary and has already thrown some $50 million of his own dollars down the drain and is polling at like two percent. I get you need money to run a campaign, but which Republican candidate had the biggest war chest in 2016? Remember? Mr. "please clap" himsel, Jeb Bush. How did he do, again? Must've done awfully well, right? Since he had so much money.

Because he also neutralizes Trump’s strongest re-election argument, which is that “whether you love me or hate me, you’ve got to vote for me.”

That's not the argument Il Douche is running on. He's running on Keep America Great Again, or some such stupid twist on his 2008 slogan. Trump will never acknowledge that he is hated. And even if he did, how does Bloomberg "neutralize that argument?"

The right’s charge-sheet against today’s Democrats is that they hate capitalism, hate Israel, hate the cops, think of America as a land of iniquity, and never met a tax or regulation they didn’t love. Against Bloomberg it all falls flat.

Image result for laughing megan mullally

Sure it does, Bret!

Just like nominating John Kerry, a decorated war hero, made it impossible for Republicans to paint the Dem nominee as "soft on terror" or whatever. Yeah, it's not like they didn't immediately attack his record of military service!

The GOP attack plan is always the same. The Democratic candidate is " a far-left, God-hating, America-trashing, Happy-Holidays-saying terrorist-sympathizing, criminal coddling pinko commie weakling." For Barack Obama, they were able to add a bunch of racist shit, too, but it's pretty much the same no matter who the nominee is. You think they waon't go after Bloomberg as a "socialist?" I'm old enough to remember when centrist "triangulator" Bill Clinton was president and there were bumper stickers with the word "Clinton" on them with a hammer and sickle as the C. And they have gotten a whole hell of a lot crazier and shittier since then.

So they will have no problem accusing Bloomberg of being a tax-and-spend liberal who wants to regulate every aspect of your life right down to what size soda you're allowed to drink. They won't have any problem finding some FOX-addled former New York cops to trot out on stage claiming that Bloomberg was anti-police. Honestly, would you even be all that shocked if they called him anti-Semitic? Or claimed that he had more loyalty to Israel than to America? Or both? I mean, they had no problem saying that Barack Obama was both a communist and a fascist, both a "secret Muslim" and a follower of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They don't give a shit. They'll throw everything at the wall knowing that something will stick.

TRying to nominate a candidate based on "electability" is a sucker's game. You know who was "electable?" Had a great resume', was well-spoken, always the smartest one in the room? Hillary Rodham Clinton. How did that work out? And you could say the same about Joihn Kerry. And Al Gore.
You know who seemed "unelectable?" A skinny young black man from Chicago with a weird Muslimy-sounding name and a paper-thin resume. But he offered us Hope and Change and he electrified crowds. And he got himself elected. Twice.
No one is "electable" or "non-electable." If "unelectability were a thing, Donald Trump would be the poster boy for it. Completely unqualified, no relevant experience, stupid as hell, brags about committing sexual assaults, been a fraud and a con-man his entire adult life. If anyone was "unelectable," it was that guy.

The idea of :"electability" is the kind of thinking that brought us New Coke. If you're under 40, New Coke was a thing that Coca-Cola came out with. A new recipe to replace the classic Coca-Cola we all knew and loved. And the idea was to make it taste more like Pepsi. Why? Well, Coke had always been number one. Always. But, it saw that Pepsi was starting to catch up. So they decided to "triangulate." They had the idea that if they made their cola a bit sweeter, they could keep all the regular Coke fans while peeling off some of Pepsi's customers. New Coke was born and was probably the biggest flop any successful company has ever produced. There were protests in the streets. (we had weird priorities in the 1980s. We were truly the worst generation.)  Seriously, check it out: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz-47sI-AYM

Anyway, the point is that Coke probably didn't gain any Pepsi drinkers, but they sure a shell lost a lot of their previously-loyal customers. It's like Harry Truman once said. If you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll go with the real thing every time.
So no, Bret, we aren't going to nominate Bloomberg. We aren't going to make our Coke party taste more like the Pepsi party. Because trying to play the "electability" game is a fool's errand. And it never ends well.

Image result for new coke protest

Thursday, November 7, 2019

So, Capitalism seems like a good system!

Boy, capitalism is just fantastic, isn't it?
What other system could bring people the "gig economy?" Where your car can be a taxi, your house can be a hotel and your employment can be for individual tasks with no security, no benefits, and no future!

Image result for task rabbit

So, today I saw a sign advertising something called "Stache.com" with the tag line "let your garage pay for your car."

And I thought, no. It can't be. There's no way that late-stage capitalism in America can get even better! But, sure enough. . .


Let your garage pay for your car.

Earn $1,000s per year by letting people store their stuff in your extra space (instead of a traditional storage unit).

So now that no one can find a decent job anymore, you want me to scrape up a few bucks by letting strangers store their stuff in my garage?

Image result for i like this idea

What could possibly go wrong? There's certainly no chance that, say, a rogue chemistry teacher might decide to store some "precursors" next to my toolbench, right?

There's no way that anyone might decide to store the weapons that they're saving for the coming race war next to the half-empty paint cans, is there?

So how much money are we talking about here?

Wait, what?

Image result for wait, what?

Would you clean out your

My bedroom?

You want me to let complete strangers store their shit in my BEDROOM? My boudoir? The room where my bed and TV is?
I'm just not supposed to have any dignity at all?

Earn money by hardly doing anything.

Hardly doing anything?
Do you have any idea how long it would take to clean out my bedroom?

Image result for messy room

My wife went out of town for two days!

Is there no tiny segment of our lives that we're not supposed to monetize now? Can we just have anything nice to ourselves without it having to be a revenue stream? Is this the future we're bequeathing to the next generation? This is not a sustainable system. This must be what it was like to live in the last days of the Roman Empire. Except with fewer orgies. We can't get anything right.

Monday, November 4, 2019

The Kids Are All Right

So, anyone who has been paying attention the last few years knows that the young people of America, God bless 'em, are increasingly leftist.

for example, there was this Harris poll done last Spring:

Generation Z has a more positive view of the word "socialism" than previous generations, and — along with millennials — are more likely to embrace socialistic policies and principles than past generations, according to a new Harris Poll 

Data: The Harris Poll; Poll conducted Feb. 21–25 among 2,035 adults; Chart: Axios Visuals

Yes, that's Seventy-Three percent of young people who believe the government should provide universal health care, and Sixty-Seven percent wanting the government to provide tuition-free college.

Then there's this survey from January:

61% of Americans aged between 18 and 24 have a positive reaction to the word "socialism" — beating out "capitalism" at 58%

So, naturally you'd expect to see lots of articles about the political leanings of today's youth. Like, for instance, this one:

They'll be first-time voters in 2020 and they're all in for Trump

SĂ©bastien DUVAL

Image result for spit take gif

Seriously? What dempgraphic group are we talking about then? 18-year-pld trust-fund kids? 18-year-old inbred hillbillies?

Clay Danec and Olivia Myers, both 18 years old, are ready to vote for Donald Trump in next year's presidential election (AFP Photo/)

Clay Danec and Olivia Myers, both 18 years old, are ready to vote for Donald Trump in next year's presidential election

Image result for oh come on gif

No. They can't possibly be just referring to these two kids, right? Surely these two are representative of some larger group, right?

Columbus (AFP) - They like his straightforward speaking style, his policies on immigration and the economic boom achieved during his administration.

They are still teenagers, or just past 20.
In a year from now, they will vote in their first presidential election in key swing state Ohio -- and they're giving Donald Trump their support.

Clay Danec and Olivia Myers, both 18, have more or less known for a while whose name they would check off in the voting booth.

Image result for oh come on gif

First of all, you're just going to assume the premise that there has been an economic "boom" that was "achieved" by Trump?

And I can't thionk of any prominent political figure with a less straightforward speaking style!

This is a guy who says things like:

“Europe is — you know, look, I come from Europe [Trump is actually from Queens, New York]. We come — you come from Europe, okay, you’re of the European nations. European nations were set up in order to take advantage of the United States.”


It’s disgraceful. I’m gonna maybe – and I’m looking at it very seriously, we’re doing some other things as you probably noticed like some of the very important things that we’re doing now. But we’re looking at it very seriously because you can’t do that. You can’t have what’s happening – where police officers are getting sick just by walking the beat. I mean they’re getting actually very sick, where people are getting sick, where the people living there are living in hell too – although some of them have mental problems where they don’t even know they’re living that way. In fact, perhaps they like living that way. They can’t do that. 
You might want to point out that when they say that they like his "straightforward speaking style" thet are being completely fucking delusional.

Also, we're talking about two kids in Ohio. Let's not pretend this is some kind of a movement.

After attending an event in the state capital of Columbus organized by the conservative group Turning Point USA, the students, who attend a Christian high school, are even more convinced about their choice.

Myers -- sporting a Make America Great Again hat and hoodie -- says she was raised in a "conservative" family, but didn't want her upbringing to be the deciding factor.

"I've been kind of searching both on the left and right side and I've made the decision for myself that I'll be voting conservative in 2020," she told AFP.

Image result for i call bull shit gif

That didn't happen. No one sets out with an open mind to examine the ideas of the left right and center, peruse the policy prescriptions of various candidates and then comes to the conclusion that "my parents are right. The syphilitic racist orangutan with fascist leanings who grabs women by the p***y and openly lusts after his own daughter really is the best choice to lead our nation." The only way you land on MAGA is you believe the bullshit that's been fed to you by your right-wing parents, your right-wing Christian high school, and Turning Point USA. Or, you're just a huge enough racist to support any senile misogynistic clod who is willing to call immigrants "animals."

For Danec, who is wearing a Trump reelection campaign tee-shirt, the main issue is one of "values and moral beliefs."

See, now at this point, you might want to point out that Sanec clearly does not know the meaning of the word "values," nor of the word "moral" or he probably wouldn't be supporting a thrice-married serial adulterer who boasts of barging into the dressing rooms at Miss Teen USA, has been credibly accused of sexual assault by dozens of women and makes no secret of his desire to fuck his own daughter. And who has made oa career of lying, cheating, and stiffing everyone with whom he does business.

"I come from a family that worked really hard to get up the ladder," explains the baby-faced teen as the crowd exits an auditorium at Ohio State University.
"The fact that Trump supports families that can keep making good money, and not having to tax us and penalize us for being able to work hard and sustain our family, I think it is really important."

Now, as a journalist, you might want to research the Danec family to see how hard they really worked to get up the ladder, because there's a better than even chanvce that no one in this family has broken a sweat outside the gym foir a couplke of generations. Also, you could point out that no one has proposed penalizing anyone for "being able to work hard" or for "sustaini[ing] their family."

While it is, at least on paper, not formally linked to the Trump campaign, Turning Point -- which says it is active at more than 1,500 universities across the country -- is behind the president.
It has organized a barnstorming "Culture War Tour" this autumn in swing states from Florida to Nevada, to drum up support for the Republican incumbent among young voters.

You might also want to point out that this "movement" of conservative youth, far from being an organic response to real-world events and conditions, is being spearheaded by a Koch-brothers-funded astroturf group with an unlimited supply of money to travel to college campuses to propogandize the youth.

You also could maybe profile some young people who are involved in the re-election efforts of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Lucy McBath, Rashida Tlaib, or Ayanna Presley.
Maybe some of the young people trying to get Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren into the White House. Because there a re a lot - A LOT - of young people involved in these campaigns. Here in Georgia, we met a bunch of young kids volunteering for Stacey Abrams. And a bunch more working for Sanders' campaign,. Why not intervies some young, fresh-faced DSA members? They're not hard to find, just check Twitter. The youth, the future of the country, are overwhelmingly left of center, with a large percentage being actual leftists. And no matter how many articles you guys choose to trot out there about "conservative kids" or "Trumpler Youth," the future is coming. I just hope I live long enbough to see these kids take over.

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Headlines that are NOT from the Onion, I swear.

Trump voters feel betrayed and want a leader to take USA back from the rich and powerful

Related image

Whaaaaat? The guy with the gold-plated toilet isn't the one to take the country back from the rich and powerful?

I just got back from walking the picket lines in Michigan and Ohio. Several striking workers, all of them former Democrats, told me how they voted for Donald Trump in 2016 out of desperation. They believed Trump would deliver on his promise to keep jobs in America and negotiate good trade deals. Now, they feel betrayed.

Image result for whaaaat gif

Whaaaaat? The guy who has made a career out of stiffing everyone he does business with? That guy didn't keep his promises? Whaaaaaat????
And the guy who has run every business he's touched into bankruptcy didn't negotiate good trade deals?

Image result for whaaaat gif

Midwestern working-class voters are not alone. In fact, a Reuters/Ipsos national Election Day poll in 2016 found that 75% of voters were looking for a “strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful.” 

Image result for whaaaat gif
And the television star with the alleged billion-dollar business empire who hob-nobs with the Clintons and Bushes turned out to not be that guy? He didn't help regular folks take the country back from the rich and powerful?

This guy?

Image result for trump with president bush Image result for trump with president clinton

Really? This guy wasn't the champion of the common man you expected him to be? Whaaaaaat???


‘Shut Up About Politics’ Singer John Rich Shows Up on Fox News to Talk About Politics

Image result for of course gif

So apparently, there's some "country" singer named John Rich. And I puit the word "country" in quotes because I swear to God, Mother Maybelle would turn over in her grave if she heard the shit that gets called "country" music these days. But anyway, apparently this little douchebag in a costume shop cowboy hat Image result for John Rich wrote a song called "Shut Up About Politics" which has brilliantly crafted lyrics like

You punch left, I punch right
We're caught up in the middle of a deep swamp fight
Some people lie, some people steal
And everybody's talking 'bout the great new deal

So, you know, ball's in your court, Willie Nelson!

I don't know what the "great New Deal" is that he thinks everyone's talkin 'bout. Is he referring to the GREEN New Deal? Or is he stuck in the 1930's?

And the current state of "country music" being what it is, it actually charted.

John Rich & Fox News' The Five Hit Hot 100 With "Shut Up About Politics"

The track also tops Country Digital Song Sales.

But anyway, if you're sick of hearing people talk about politics, obviously the place to go is FOX "news!"

Sitting down Friday with The Daily Briefing host Dana Perino—a Five host featured on the song—Rich was immediately asked to weigh in on former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s recent appearance on The Daily Show.

Image result for heavy sigh sigh gif

The singer, however, focused instead on how scary he found Clinton’s physical appearance.
“That actually freaked me out a little bit,” he declared. “I’m kind of envious of her because if you think about all the money she saves every Halloween, she doesn’t have to get a costume.”

Image result for jon stewart gif haha

You know, Hillary Clinton is a public figure. She's absolutely fair game to criticize. You want to make fun of her policy positions? Have at it. You want to criticize her foreign policy record? Be my guest. You want to mock her for her stance on any issue? Feel free. But you're going after her looks like you're a fucking twelve-year-old? Here's an idea. Maybe you oughta shut up about politics if that's what you're bringing to the table.

Image result for see what i did there gif


How Trump came up with that '303,000' October jobs figure that baffled analysts

 Javier E. David Fri, Nov 1 1:05 PM EDT

Image result for arnold horshack ooh ooh gif

Ooh, I know! I know!

He made it up?
He just made it up out of thin air? Like he does all the time?
Like every time he comes up with some number that is supposed to make him look good, he's just making it up? And it's based on nothing and it's a fool's errand to try and figure out the "origin" of the number because there isn't one? Is that it?

Image result for you're absolutely right gif

Than you, Ms Winfrey. Thank you.