Sunday, November 24, 2019
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Marriage comes with certain responsibilities. For instance, it is my wife's responsibility to ensure that I don't leave the house looking like a complete twit.
Without eternal vigilance, this could absolutely happen here.
Also, she is responsible for making sure that one of us pays the bills so that we don't have to live in a cardboard box. At the movies, it's her responsibility to tell me when the scary part is over so I can safely open my eyes. And she is responsible for preventing me going to the SPCA and coming home with a dozen kittens and a dozen puppies.(she knew who she was getting when she married me.) And I thought that was pretty much the extent of her marital responsibilities. But apparently, I missed one. Apparently, it is the responsibility of the wife to ensure that her husband does not associate with known sex traffickers.
Which, I guess, if left to his own devices, any man would do? Apparently, it's pretty easy to accidentally stumble into the apartment of a pedophile pimp and just decide that it's too inconvenient to leave so you stay the night and then Scandal!
Well, according to the Spectator's Toby Young anyway.
Prince Andrew should have married someone like my wife
Yeahhhhh, that's the problem with Prince Andrew. He didn't marry well. You know, you meet someone, you fall in love, you get married, and you never stop to think "is she the kind of woman who will keep me from spending the night in the apartment of a procurer of underage sex slaves?" You know how it is, when you're in love, it seems like she can do no wrong, next thing you know, you're waking up in Epstein's guest room and you think you may have accidentally committed a sex crime of some type and you're all "Dammit, Eileen! Why didn't you stop me?"
Like many people, I watched Prince Andrew’s Newsnight meltdown with mounting disbelief. Why had he agreed to do it? It wasn’t as if the general public was clamouring for an answer about what he was doing on the night he’d been accused of having sex with a 17-year-old victim of Jeffrey Epstein.
The day after Prince Andrew’s interview was broadcast I got a call from Good Morning Britain. Did I fancy coming on to defend Prince Andrew in a debate? Instead of saying no, I started to discuss what I might say. If he believes himself to be innocent and has a good alibi, as he appears to have, it’s kind of understandable that he would want to clear his name.
Because I guess in the British legal system, as long as the perpetrator believes himself to be innocent, no crime has been committed.
At this point, I’d pretty much talked myself into it, but before saying yes I glanced up at my wife who was sitting opposite me. Caroline was shaking her head furiously and running her finger back and forth across her throat. ‘Can I call you back in a minute?’ I said.See, now if Prince Andrew had been married to someone like this Caroline, instead of Fergie, she would have told him "are you crazy? Epstein is the most vile scumbag in America. You can't go hang out at his apartment!" And that would have been that!
When I hung up, I got the force nine gale. ‘Are you fucking insane? He’s the most reviled man in Britain.’
‘Are you fucking insane? He’s the most reviled man in Britain.’Oh. Yeah. It's just awful how no one wants to defend a sex offender who victimized teen girls. It's really hard to understand.
‘But I feel a bit sorry for him. He’s being subjected to the Two Minutes Hate and I know what that’s like. Literally no one is defending him apart from Fergie.’
‘Yeah, and there’s a good reason for that. Honestly, you amaze me sometimes. It’s as if alienating 99 per cent of the country isn’t enough for you. You have to hunt down that last 1 per cent and make sure you piss them off, too.’
Okay, I don't know anything about this Toby Young character, and I didn't really care to. But now, I really need to find out what this man did to piss off 99 percent of Britain. But let's put a pin in that for the moment.
I called the booker back and politely declined. But this exchange left me feeling even more sympathetic towards Andrew. If only he’d married someone level-headed and sensible like I did.
Really. The person to whom you are sympathetic in this situation is not the victim, Virginia Giuffre, but the perpetrator, Prince Andrew. Really.
And yes, again, the problem with Andrew is not that he associates with a pedophile pimp. The problem is not that he forced himself on an underage girl at least three times. No, the problem is that he didn't marry someone level-headed and sensible enough to warn him off doing those things.
Okay, so let's circle back to the whole pissing off 99% of Britain thing. I can probably guess why people hate him, I already hate him and I've only just met him, but maybe a quick Googling will shed some light on this.
Here are a couple things he tweeted about his Top Chef co-host Padma Lakshmi:
And not just hers, this dude seems to think he is entitled to comment on everyone's bosoms.
What else has he found appropriate to post publicly on Twitter? Glad you asked!
Just think of what this sick twitch would have put out there had he been married to a less level-headed and sensible woman!
This wasn’t the first time Caroline had saved my bacon. When she learned that my career had been derailed because of sophomoric things I’d said on social media, she literally snatched the phone out of my hands and deleted the Twitter app. Admittedly, she did let me reinstall it about a week later, but only after I’d promised never to tweet after I’d had a glass of wine.
Jesus Christ, this is you sober?
I'm not sure Caroline is really fulfilling all her wifely responsibilities after all.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Laura Ingrahams sports expert is a guy who wrote a book telling guys to go to hospitals looking to pick up rape victims while they're vulnerable pic.twitter.com/kMFDS3n1Vb— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
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?seems like a cool dude, just joking about murdering women for the lulz pic.twitter.com/KbclltZLWB— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
Just really normal stuff going on here pic.twitter.com/uIx4Foeec9— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
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?
Just Clay Travis saying Clay Travis things pic.twitter.com/xgCwMdzx0K— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
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.)Clay really has some interesting thoughts on age of consent pic.twitter.com/YkbMJ3xqor— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
and question # 4:
How did we get to the point where doing this
is not a career-ender?
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Stupid person #1: Joe Biden
Biden on getting things done post Trump: "With Donald Trump out of the way, you’re going to see a number of my Republican colleagues have an epiphany. Mark my words. Mark my words,”— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) November 6, 2019
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:
Disagree with him all you want. Support him or don’t. But after 4 years of Trump rallies, watching this @JoeBiden townhall feels like chicken soup for the soul. The man is decent, authentic and gives a damn about other humans. How refreshing.— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) November 12, 2019
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
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.
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:
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.
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
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:
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?
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”?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, November 7, 2019
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!
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. . .
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?
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?
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?
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
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
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:
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
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.
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.
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."
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.