Fun with Headlines

All headlines via Yahoo News.

U.S.

Kentucky miners block coal train over missed paychecks

Associated Press•January 13, 2020

Look, I said the big beautiful clean coal jobs were coming back. I didn't say the paychecks were!

World

World War III Won't Start Over Iran, But It Could Start Thanks To North Korea

The National Interest•January 13, 2020

yeah. . . I'm sure this guy




is going to bring about the third world war. Let me know when he's done invading Poland.

World

The Reason Why China Refuses to Use Nuclear Weapons First in a War

The National Interest•

Um, because they're not insane monsters? Is this really a mystery to someone?

World

The Trump administration is warning allies to stay away from Huawei — but not everyone's listening

•

Wow, hard to imagine why our allies aren't heeding the advice of Dumbfuck McAderall!

Politics

Trump reportedly authorized the Soleimani strike 7 months ago, throwing a wrench through his argument that there was an 'imminent threat'

Business Insider•

Breaking News: Trump lies all the time about everything!

Politics

Pelosi warns McConnell, Senate Republicans they will 'pay a price' if they engage in 'cover-up'

USA TODAY•January 14, 2020

Yeahhhh, no they won't. There is never a price to pay if you're a Republican. They've all been ignoring subpoenas and deciding they don't feel like testifying and there have been zero consequences for any of them.

U.S.

Arkansas governor defends decision to accept new refugees

Associated Press•

Jesus Christ! Did you ever think we'd get to a point where public officials would have to explain why they are behaving like decent human beings?

Politics

House Democrats launch probe into Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy

Oooohhhh, a probe! That'll show him! I mean, this despicable policy has only been in effect for how many months now? You Dems sure you want to take such drastic action already?

World

How the Army Is Training European Militias to Stop a Russian Invasion

The National Interest•January 14, 2020

Washington is hoping that armed and trained civilians could spot and help stop a Russian invasion before it seized territory.

Oh my God, they think Red Dawn was a documentary!

U.S.

U.S. Navy: We're Gonna Need a Bigger Budget (and More Boats)

Popular Mechanics•January 14, 2020

Whaaaaaaat??? A branch of the military thinks it needs a bigger budget? What's next, NFL receivers who think they aren't getting thrown to often enough?

World

Andrew isn't the only prince with ties to a sex offender: Prince Charles once supported a bishop convicted of molesting more than a dozen young men

Yeah, pretty sure every member of every royal family has ties to at least one sex offender.

U.S.

I flew Spirit Airlines and had a nightmarish 34-hour delay with terrible customer service, and I'll never use the airline again

Business Insider•January 14, 2020

Yeah, that's not news. Someone having a positive experience with Spirit Airlines would be news.

Politics

They Donated to Trump’s Inauguration. Now These Big Donors Are Funding His 2020 Competition

The Daily Beast•

Gee, it's almost as if rich assholes like to bribe politicians from both parties. Weird, that.

Conservatives are never funny

Exhibit G or H or Z or whatever, Joey Weatherford. These are his attempts at humor from last week.





Okay, so first of all, I have no idea whether AOC and/or Ilhan Omar said that Trump is a monster for targeting cultural sites or that targeting cultural sites is a war crime. But it's true. There's no joke here, because either they didn't say that which gives you no basis for a joke, or they did say a thing that is one hundred percent true and correct which isn't funny. It is absolutely a war crime to target cultural sites and to do so would be monstrous. Cultural sites are places where a lot of people tend to be. Civilian people. Innocent people. Families with children. Attacking these sites would be the moral equivalent of the Iranians firing missiles into Disneyland.


Then there's the "punch line." AOC says "I didn't even know there were 52 Irans." The only way this would be remotely funny is if she had said something similar to this at some point. But since she has not, there is no humor in this. It's just like saying "wouldn't it be funny if this person we don't like said something really stupid?" And that's not a joke.







This just doesn't even make sense. I don't have the slightest clue what the joke is even supposed to be here.











Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House of Representatives. She is not the mayor of San Francisco or the governor of California. "Cleaning" her district does not fall within her bailiwick.



So. . . I guess this is based on the assumption that everyone hates the popular two-term President Barack Obama? Like THAT would be the reason people wouldn't vote for Biden? Not his support for the illegal invasion of Iraq, not the bankruptcy bill, not his stated desire to keep locking people up for marijuana because he thinks it's a "gateway drug," but because he might appoint Barack Obama to the Supreme Court? The man who left office with a 60 percent approval rating?




Sleeping giant?
When has this giant slept?
Let's see, we invaded Afghanistan, Iran's neighbor to the East. Then we invaded Iraq, their neighbor to the West.Then we got involved in the bloodbath in Syria, just to the Northwest of Iran, all the while with the neo-cons and PNAC lunatics rattling sabres at Iran, designating them part of the "axis of evil."
Then we assassinate an Iranian general who was a national hero to the people of Iran. So Iran retaliates by firing some missiles into unoccupied military bases in Iraq, a country we are continuing to occupy illegally. And Joey Weatherford's take on this is "oh, now you've done it! We were just sitting here being totally cool, not meaning you any harm, but now you went and started something!" What a fucking moron.




The feds will step in?
The feds will step in?
What does that mean? Does this genius think that the federal government can just take over a state if they don't think it's being run properly? Does he think the federal government works like Michigan and can just remove the governor from power and replace him with an "emergency manager?"

If Gavin Newsom is doing a poor job as governor (and he may or may not be, I don't know) they have these things in California called "elections," and the people of the state can vote to replace him. I remember the last time California had a governor that people weren't happy with. His name was Gray Davis. And Darrell Issa got a recall election to remove Davis, hoping that he would be able to buy the governorship. As it happened, the people of California decided that they had so enjoyed it the last time that a washed-up movie actor had been governor that they elected Arnold Schwarzenegger governor. So if Newsom is really that bad at his job, just be a little patient, and someone will put Jon Voigt in charge.

But the feds are NOT going to "step in." You'd think that, given how passionately right-wing idiots feel about states' rights, they'd be the last people who would want to see the "feds" "step in." It's almost as if they don't actually have any principles or really believe in anything other than gaining and holding on to power.

Also, since when are threats funny?

World's most horrible lawyers

Oregon woman sues Mormon church for $10 million for revealing husband's child sex abuse

January 8, 2020, 4:21 PM EST

Wait, that can't be right. That has to be a poorly-written headline, right? The opposite of that must be true. Right?

SALEM, Ore. – An Oregon woman is suing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for $9.54 million after her husband's confession to church leaders led to his arrest, conviction and imprisonment on child sexual abuse charges. 

So. . . the husband is innocent, then, right? Church leaders misunderstood what he was saying and he got falsely convicted, right? Because otherwise, there's no way that this guy's wife. . . I mean. . . right?

The lawsuit, filed in Marion County Circuit Court, involves a Turner, Oregon, man convicted of abuse after he confessed to clergy that he had repeated sexual contact with a minor. 
The man's confession was meant to be confidential, said the family's attorney Bill Brandt. He said local clergy's actions "totally violated church policy." "It's been devastating on the family," Brandt said. "They lost a husband and a father."

NO!

Yeah, they lost a husband and a father. That's what happens when your husband or father is a vile, loathsome sex criminal. That's what's SUPPOSED to happen. Finally, one of these church people does the right thing when they find out about a child molestor and you assholes are suing him? God, could there be a more disgusting lawyer?

Oh, there could?

Donna Rotunno was getting into her Audi after work at Chicago’s landmark Marquette Building one night last May when her secretary sent a text. A man in New York wanted to talk to her about “a personal matter and something big.” He was a lawyer and, he said, a personal friend of Harvey Weinstein’s: The disgraced movie mogul needed “a trial lawyer and quarterback,” Rotonno later recalled, for the upcoming rape trial that could put the producer in jail for the rest of his life for the alleged sexual assaults of two women.
“I wasn’t surprised to get the phone call,” Rotunno told me in a conversation last fall. “I do these kinds of cases.”

So. . . you're a monster?

 She was talking about defending men accused of sexual assault and rape. Rotunno has made such work enough of a specialty that, in the wake of #MeToo, Chicago magazine put her on its cover as “the anti-Gloria Allred.” Rotunno, who is 44, has embraced the role. In conversation she presents as Fox News–brand tough with the requisite disdain for “political correctness.“

"political correctness" like thinking rape is bad and rapists should go to prison? That's the kind of "political correctness" for which you have suich disdain?

Co-counsel Arthur Aidala put it to me this way: “She’s either going to walk out a queen, or walk out with an unhappy client.”

A queen? She's going to walk out "a QUEEN?" For fuck sake! Win or lose, she's going to walk out of that courtroom a pariah.And rightly so. The only reason she already isn't is because no one had heard of her before. Now that she's in the papers, everyone will know what a foul, rancid soulless ghoul she is. Never again will she be welcome in polite society. Nor should she be. Although she'll probably get a slot on FOX News.

Rotunno published a Newsweek op-ed that argued that the media and activists had destroyed Weinstein’s chance for a fair trial. Sounding alarms familiar to #MeToo skeptics, she painted Weinstein as the victim of a “one-sided media rampage,”

Yeah, why won't anyone take up the serial rapist's side?

. . . then spiraled into an argument about male safety writ large, extrapolating his case—and his dozens of accusers—into a threat to brothers, sons, and fathers the nation over. “There is nothing preventing you from being next,” she wrote. “Long before you stand before a judge, the claims of a few can upend your life and destroy your reputation.”

Oh my GOD!
The claims of "a few?"
First of all, ONE should be enough.
But there have been over EIGHTY women who have accused Weinstein of sex crimes. EIGHTY!

You want your brither, your son, your father to be "safe" from accusations of rape? Teach them how to not be rapists. It's honestly not that hard. Many many men, probably the majority of men, go their entire lives without committing even one rape, let alone eighty.

“The pendulum is swinging so far in the overly sensitive direction that men can’t really be men, and women can’t really be women,”

Jesus Christ! I mean, unless you think that being a rapist is part and parcel of being a man, I don't even understand what you're saying. And can women "not really be women" if they aren't being subjected to unwanted sexual advances?


And the pendulum has swung too far? Like we used to let every man with any semblance of power abuse any women he wanted too, now there are sometimes some consequences dor some of the sex criminals. Too Far!

“I feel that women may rue the day that all of this started when no one asks them out on a date, and no one holds the door open for them, and no one tells them that they look nice.”

What the HELL?

Are you seriously going to stand there and say that women are going to regret trying to change society so that they don't get raped so much because now no one wis going to tell them they look pretty? Is that seriously what you're going with?
Like you think women are actually going to be saying "well, I'm glad that sexual predator is locked up where he can't hurt anyone anymore, but now no one holds the door for me, so I don't know if it was really worth it?" Is that actually a thing that you thought you should say out loud? Honestly?

 “If women want equal rights and equal pay and equal opportunity, then you have to also take equal responsibility,” she said of her scrutiny of rape accusers.




Equal responsibility?
EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY?!?!?!?

You're honestly going to sit there and say the rape victim needs to take equal responsibility with the rapist?
What the Hell is wrong with you?



Okay, everybody. This:




is Donna Rotunno.

If you see this face 

anywhere - on the street, in a restaurant, scuttling through the sewers in search of a mate - throw a drink in her face. Or scream obscenities at her. Or whatever, use your imagination. Get creative with it. Just be sure that this sickening vermin never again enjoys a pleasant or peaceful day in human society.

And the same goes for that Oregon lady and her disgusting lawyer William Brandt, who is apparently one of these people:

720 × 960

Attorney William D. Brandt - Home ...

facebook.com

Attorney William D. Brandt - Home ...

facebook.com

Get 'em both, just to be sure.

Where Have I Been?

Well you might wonder, dear readers.
Well, I'll tell you where I have been.
I have been in a parallel universe, an alternate reality. I have been in the world of Hallmark Channel Christmas Movies.

 

As is the case with most ventures into a parallel dimension, this began quite by accident.

Looking for Christmasy entertainment on Christmas Eve, we set the DVR to record something called "Christmas in Graceland," assuming this was going to be a concert with people performing Elvisy versions of Christmas songs and whatnot. 

Not quite!

Well, we started watching because it was funny. Not intentionally funny, mind you, but funny in a Mystery Science Theater/How Did This Get Made kind of a way. I will tell you right now, no matter how tempted you might be, do NOT do this! You will be hooked. You will be sucked into the Hallmark Christmas Movie universe, a more complete, fleshed-out world than the Marvel Comics Universe or the Star Wars extended universe or whatever.  Because there is something strangely fascinating about these movies.

Let me explain.

There are rules that every Hallmark Christmas movie must follow. 

It must take place in a small town. That town must take Christmas very seriously.

The main woman must be either single or widowed. So must the leading man. Because divorce does not exist in Hallmark Christmas town, Which makes sense, because no one ever argues. Husbands don't argue with wives, parents don't argue with children, no one ever has a cross word for anyone. 

The closest you'll get to an argument is the leading lady saying to her best friend or sister "Oh, he's not interested in me. Besides, I've told you a hundred times, I'm too busy to date!"

Because there are no villains. No bad guys. No antagonists. What there are is people from the big city (usually San Francisco or Boston, sometimes New York) who've just gotten too busy and have forgotten what a special time of year the Christmas season is.

Pictured: The citizens of San Francisco completely forgetting to enjoy Christmas.

The single or widowed woman must own a small business. One that has some sort of connection to Christmas. Often a bakery, or a decorator or party planner. That business is successful enough to keep her in a fairly large craftsman style house even though no money ever changes hands. Money never changes hands in Hallmark Christmas land. We'll circle back to that in a bit.

When the man and the woman inevitably fall for each other, they will, after sharing a single chaste kiss, decide to stay in the small town. Whichever one is from the big city will suddenly realize that they can somehow pursue their career right there in Mayberry so there's no discussion at all about the couple maybe relocating to San Francisco or New York.

Where, remember, they don't really get the importance of Christmas.

Then there's a sort of checklist of activities. 

The main characters must, at some point:

Cut snowflakes out of paper.

Drink hot cocoa.

Ice Skate.

Make cookies.

Make and/or eat a "yule log."

A "yule log" is apparently what a Swiss roll is called in small-town America.

It's basically a giant Hostess Ho-ho, except in Christmasville, it must for some reason be slathered in a weirdly glistening chocolate ganache that makes it look uncomfortably like a giant doo doo.

There is a company of actors and actresses that appear over and over in these movies. 

Like Lacey Chabert.

Oh, and EVERYONE's teeth are this blindingly white. They must all shove Crest White Strips in their mouths between takes.

In this alternate universe, she is the Jennifer Lawrence, the Amy Adams, the Scarlett Johanson of their world. Her IMDb page includes credits for starring in

A Christmas Melody 

Family for Christmas 

The Tree That Saved Christmas

A Royal Christmas 

Christmas in Rome

A Wish For Christmas 

Etc, etc, etc.

Other times, you'll see actors and actreses you recognize and it feels kind of sad. 

Like Mira Sorvino or Brian Doyle Murray.

Every small town in this world has some sort of a Christmas festival. This festival is the most important event in this town. It's more imp[ortant than the lottery in Shirley Jackson's The Lottery. And yet, it's always really half-assed. For all the time and effort this town puts into the festival, it's generally just a few decorated pine trees, maybe an ice-rink and booths for hot chocolate and cookies where, as mentioned before, NO MONEY EVER CHANGES HANDS. Money changing hands is strictly forbidden. In one of these movies, a vetrenarian makes a house call, works on a sick pet and when the owner asks "how much do I owe you?" scoffs "It's Christmas!" 

Here's a little anecdote that illustrates the feel of these movies. In one of these little towns, there is a Christmas festivity going on. The leading lady gets a phone call from a frantic woman telling her that the sound system has shorted out and no no one will be able to hear the choir concert. Of course she saves the day by showing up with the "best handyman in town" who apparently only she knew even though this is a town where everyone knows everyone else. While the handyman is fixing the wiring, someone walks out on stage and, in a normal speaking voice, tells the crowd that they're having some technical difficulties and the crowd has no problem hearing her. Then out comes the choir which consists of a grand total of six singers who sing in unison, no harmony, sing two songs and leave. Because Hallmark channel does not have the budget to hire an actual choir, I guess.

The decoration budget isn't musch better. Someone will put a strand of lights on their eaves and a wreath on the door and people stop to ooh and aah at the amazing job they did with the decorations. 

Now here's the weird part. Given who the target audience for these films must be - given how wholesome and uplifting and sexless they are, it is very odd that not once is Jesus mentioned. No one talks about Christmas being special because it is the day we celebrate the birth of the Christ or anything. No one even says "we'll open our presents after we get hoime from church. They never mention anything religious. And they talk a LOT about the reasons that Christmas is so important. But it's always "Christmas is important because it reminds us that wishes can come true" or something like that. I'm not complaining, it's just weird.

Also weird, amnesia seems to happen way more than would be statistically expected. There might actually be a curse on this world because there are WAY more widows and widowers than there should be and there are at least three different women in this small world who get struck by Christmas-time amnesia.(Don't worry, they're all fine.) I haven't seen the movie Overboard, but I'm pretty sure these movies borrow pretty heavily from it.

Okay, one more story. There is one movie in particular that, if you were going to watch a Hallmark Channel, you should probably start with. It's called A Bramble House Christmas. In this movie, Lacey Chabert discovers that she has ingerited some money from a man she had taken care of in a nursing home. He also has left her a Christmas vacation to a B&B in small town Colorado for some reason (The plot of this movie echoes the Shining in a lot of odd ways that can not be unintentional.) At the B&B, she meets a man who happens to be the illustrator of her son's favorite series of books. Almost immediately, she starts allowing this man to spend time alone with her young son, even having no problem when they go off together into a locked room to work on something that's "a secret." In fact, while her son and this virtual stranger of a man she met two days ago are sequestered in this room, she slips a note under the door saying "Gone Skating!" so that this man knows that not only is he alone in the room with this little boy, but his mother has left the building entirey, so there is no one to hear the screams. 

Of course, the man does not harm the boy. It's Hallmark town. Everything ends happily. In fact, Lacey Chabert decides to stay and take a job a the caretaker (Shining) and the illustrator obviously can work from anywhere, so. . . happily ever after. The movie closes with Lacey Chabert spoting a picture on the wall of the old man who left her the money when he was a young boy and he looks an awful lot like her son and I kept waiting for someone to say "you've always been the caretaker."

Anyway, I think I've returned to our reality, but the Hallmark Channel is threatening to run Christmas movies every week throughout the year, so pray for me!

How do we hate thee? Let me count the ways.

When I got the link to that article about Tucker Carlson in The Atlantic, I stuck around to see what other gems of insight this publication has to offer. I found this one.

Why Young Progressives Hate Pete Buttigieg - The Atlantic

Okay, I can hardly be considered a young progressive, but I'll take a whack at it.

Let's start with the incredible ammount of arrogance, the nerve, the utter chutzpah of a mediocre mayor of a small college town deciding that he should be President of the United States like how hard could it be? And then the major media, instead of ignoring him like a John Delaney or a Micheal Bennet, or rolling their eyes at him like a Marianne Williamson or a Joe Walsh, decides to not only take him seriously, but to shove him down our throats at every opportunity.

IDEAS

Why Is the Young Left Out to Get Buttigieg? 

Here Are Four Theories.

The candidate represents a new age of Democrats without representing its politics.

Okay, you just answered your own question. He "represents a new age of Democrats without representing its politics." So, in other words, he represents nothing. He stands for nothing, he believes nothing. That's why he was able to switch from trying to position himself as the young Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren candidate to casting himself as the young Kamala Harris/Joe Biden centrist with such ease. Because he doesn't actually believe in anything, he can cast around trying to find an unoccupied lane into which he can fit himself.

Young progressives on the internet don’t seem to like Pete Buttigieg very much. They’ve called him “the most obnoxious type of Millennial” and “a Boomer wrapped up in a Millennial’s clothing”; a “Build-a-Bear for middling Democrats” and “a candidate seemingly dreamed up by some Democratic National Committee algorithm”; a “baggie full of uncut special interest talking points” and a “grab bag of gifted-and-talented party tricks.”

Okay, so they're telling you why they don't like him. How are you pretending that there's some mystery around their dislike of this man?

What’s more, Buttigieg receives the sort of scrutiny one might expect from a front-runner despite being way behind in national polls. Joe Biden represents the far greater threat to the young left’s favored candidate, Bernie Sanders. But Biden seems to avoid much of the highly personal animosity heaped on his co-runner in the competitive lane of B-Surnamed Moderates.

Well, for a start, Joe Biden is, how you say. . .QUALIFIED to run for President.
He's a long-time senator and spent 8 years as President Obama's right-hand man. I don't like his politics, but I have no quibble with his resume'. Whereas "Mayor Pete" has about as much qualification to be POTUS as I do. (And I have exactly zero.)

What’s going on here? Let’s begin with the most straightforward explanation.

1. Don’t overthink it: They hate him because he’s not a socialist—and his early-state poll numbers are rising.

Yeahhh, I don't think so. There are lots of candidates who aren't socialists. Even Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a "Democratic Socialist" isn't really a socialist. He's not calling for the nationalization of industries or resources. He's not talking about seizing the means of production. He's honestly more of a New Deal/Great Society Democrat than a socialist. But anyway, if not being a socialist was reason enough for the "young left" to hate a candidate, seems like they would hate Biden, Beto, Booker and de Blasio just as much as Buttiegieg.

This is the obvious answer and, frankly, it might be the only answer. In the past two months, no candidate has gained more than Buttigieg in the early states. If he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, he could block Bernie Sanders’s path to the nomination.

Okay, but he's not going to win Iowa or New Hampshire.and - oh geez. I just googled the latest polls and he actually could win both! I don't think he will, but he could. Especially not Iowa. Iowa is a caucus state where voters lobby each other to join their candidates' side and make their cases to the crowds. And I gotta think that when it comes time for the Buttigieg crowd to make their case for why people should vote for their guy, they're not going to be able to come up with much of a reason to support this unqualified empty suit.

And this deeply concerns young progressive activists, who rightly see the Democratic primary as a zero-sum competition to lead the party in a winnable election that has the potential to redefine the Democratic platform for a decade or longer. Buttigieg, far more than Biden, has the youth and vigor to command the party for the next generation. And this makes him the graver threat to those arguing for a socialist revolution.



Youth and vigor? Youth and vigor? No one gives a shit about youth and vigor.
You know who has a lot of youth and vigor? Justin Bieber.




Rob Gronkowski





Tom Cruise



Is any of these guys someone you'd want to lead the party for the next decade?

I mean,Gronk could probably lead a party for the next decade

just not a political party.

2. Keep not overthinking it: 

They also hate him because they think he’s a liar.

Well. . . yeah.  They "think" he's a liar.

He initially seemed to support Medicare For All, and now he openly criticizes the effect it would have on private-insurance employment. He initially proposed radical government reforms such as packing the Supreme Court and removing the filibuster, but now he’s recast himself as a moderate unifier. 

So. . . either he's a liar or he's just incredibly indecisive.



And we all know how well that plays in a general election!



3. Overthink it a little bit: Young people hate him because he’s a traitor to his generation.


Generational identity is arguably the most important dividing line in the Democratic Party—more than class, race, or education






Do you think that just because young progressives sometimes use "Okay, Boomer" as a mild insult that means that generational identity is actually super important to them?


 

As I’ve written, the young left has become a kind of third party awkwardly domiciled within the Democratic Party.

Not really. I spent a fair ammount of time volunteering for the Sanders campaign in 2016. I'm 52. I was about the average age of the volunteers in our group. Yes, there were fiery young lefties, there were also aging hippies and middle-aged people like me still clinging to our idealism.
There are lefties in every age group, just as there are young and old righties. and young and old centrists. The only real generational factors are that the young folks a) aren't afraid to publicly identify as "leftists" or "socialists." My generation came of age in a time when "liberal" was a dirty word (sometimes referred to in media as the 'L-word). We grew up with a Democratic Party eager to convince the voters that they weren't really left of center, certainly not "liberals" or "leftists." This generation embraces those labels. And b) The younger generation has seen the utter failure of the politics of compromise and they know that they are going to have to live with the brunt of the consequences.

Buttigieg, however, is a traitor to his generation; he is a 30-something Millennial who appeals mostly to middle-aged and older white voters. In this way, his candidacy violates a certain unwritten law of U.S. electoral politics. American voters have historically appreciated candidates who, from a socioeconomic perspective, identify “down”: Franklin D. Roosevelt was a traitor to the upper class

Yeah, that's not the same thing at all.
FDR was a traitor to his class. They hated him because he sided with ordinary people against the wealthy elites. Lefties don't hate Buttigieg because he sides with older white people, they don't like him siding with tepid centrist incrementalists against progressives.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a traitor to the upper class; Trump is the real-estate billionaire who speaks for coal miners; 

Oh my God! No he fucking is not. Trump speaks for Trump. Yes, he speaks TO coal miners. Yes, he condescendingly lies to them about bringing back the beautiful clean coal jobs or whatever. But you're seriously going to sit there and say that this narcissistic solipsist is speaking for them? And if you ever, EVER use that name in the same sentence with FDR again, I will - well, I probably won't do anything, I don't even know where to find you, but I will be ever so cross!

Bernie Sanders is the septuagenarian senator who rallies the young left. 

So, again, it's not a generational thing. I know this is hard for a member of the mainstream media to grasp, but . . . It's.     About.     Policy!

But there’s not a deep history of successful candidates who appeared to identify “up,” like a young, nonmillionaire, small-town mayor who aligns himself with cosmopolitan capital.

Well, yeah. Why would there be?
No one likes Waylon Smithers. Mr Burns is more likable than Smithers. At least you understand Mr. Burns. Everyone hates the co-worker who sides with the boss. Are you still conmfused about why people don't like Buttigeig?

4. Overthink it more: Young people project an extreme hostility toward Buttigieg on the internet in part to exorcise their own anxieties about success and increase their in-group status.

Wait, are you still writing? You've answered your own question a dozen times by now. People hate Buttiegig because he's perfectly hatable. I don't know what kind of gibberish psychobabble this last "point" is, but you don't actually need to have four theories. You could just scroll back up and change the "four theories" headline to "three" or "two" or maybe "zero."

This week, I tweeted that the stark age gap of Buttigieg’s support suggests that he performs a specific archetype in this race: “your polite, hyper-achieving high school friend, who delighted the parents at that Christmas party with his piano rendition of Silent Night, which made your friends roll their eyes so hard their retinas detached.”

Okay, seriously, you need to stop citing yourself. It just gives you even less credibility that you would otherwise have.
Also, the "guy who delights parents at Christmas. . ." is not an archetype. I doubt that person exists. Now, there definitely is the "polite, hyper-acheiving high-school" person. That guy exists. But he's not your friend. Everyone hates that guy. The guy that everyone's parents like has no friends. Unless he's Eddie Haskell and he's just conning the parents.

side note: I recently saw part of an episode of Leave It To Beaver in the breakroom at work and is it just me or was Eddie Haskell trying to bang Mrs Cleaver? As a kid, I always just thought he was ingratiating himself so that she wouldn't forbid Wally from hanging out with this bad influence, but I'm pretty sure he was hot for her. (Can't blame him.)




Although, truth be told, I'm pretty sure he wanted to bang Wally too.



Still can't blame him!


Well now I've lost my train of thought entirely. So. . . The End?