Monday, July 8, 2019

Summer Slowdown

We seem to be in the middle of the summer news slowdown. This is the period when nothing really happens. Politicians go on vacation. Campaigns struggle to get air time. Journalists recycle old stories so they can spend their days doing God-knows-what... clearly not learning their craft, and bashing Trump. But there are things stirring.

The Democratic Civil War continues. Pelosi is spending considerable time slandering her left wing to try to stamp out their influence. It isn't working though. That's bad for the Democrats, but they can't stop it. Part of this is that the media aligns itself with the left wing and wants to push their agenda. Part of this is that the "moderate" Democratic Party is literally dying off of old age and the progressives are the future, and they don't want to wait to take over.

Standing with Pelosi is Joe Biden, but his numbers just crashed after the debate and landed him in the pile of wannabes. He literally just went from almost 50% support among Democrats to tied with Bernie and Harris.

On the other side, you have the progressives. They're on the attack. They are now lining people up (with the help of billionaire money) to primary-challenge moderate Democrats and Democrats who don't tow the line on various leftist issues. This is spreading fear that many could lose and that the Democrats are about to shoot themselves in the foot. I think that's a given. In fact, the issues they are pushing are getting increasingly freaky.

The latest issue seems to be selling the immigrant camps as if they were Nazi concentration camps. The left wing wants to make this the next big spear with which to attack. The not-so-far-left wing is worried that this will cost them votes. This has been the cause of Pelosi's most recent declaration that their left wing is just a tiny group and not influential. Interestingly, this camp claim is so ridiculous it even brought pushback from Jewish groups, but AOC and her buds don't care. I think the progressive have done the math, as we did, and found that Jews don't matter to them anymore.

Another big new push is reparations for blacks. This is becoming a thing with the candidates because of it. Even Bernie has endorsed looking into it and he originally refused. Harris wants to turn this into a black housing program costing $100 billion, as if that will satisfy this silly claim. (A recent study found that actual reparations -- as if there was such a thing -- would cost $17 trillion. Whoops. That's too much to sell to the public, and even then, that only works out to $442.71 for each black person. I'd want more than that if someone enslaved my grandma.) Needless to say, this is an attempt to attract black anger which seems pretty high at the moment but doesn't seem to be focused on helping the "white left."

Abortion has been big again with the push being to "end the stigma" on abortion. That's leftist speak for "we know we can't win on the facts, so let's make it improper to discuss the facts." They do this on all the hot button issues. This is an attempt to find something to rally women around, but so far nothing has really worked. Over the next few weeks, you'll see them try "Equal pay for women." This will be an issue because a group of lesbians won a soccer game in France against hapless competition which no one watched, and now they want to be paid the same as male World Cup champions who play before billions. Oh, and they don't want male referees... and they don't want male sports broadcast at the same time as their matches... and they don't want anyone criticizing their poor sportsmanship... and they hate the National Anthem and what America stands for and Trump and they think all criticism is sexist. And they want you to respect their sport or else... oh, and $400 million. Either way, look for this to arrive in politics this week and for each of the candidates to announce they "have a plan."

This is really the problem for Pelosi. Her left flank is stuffed with idiots who can find offense in anything and can speak their minds without consequence. So they are free to try to excite the base all they want with insane promises that can't be followed through and which scare the crap out of the public. But no one can make them stop because their very essence is "I am victim, hear me whine," and they don't want to hear that what they want is crap. But Pelosi is in the business of government and she can't function like that. But with the progressives being the future, the war is on and Pelosi's days are numbered.

Did you ever think that Pelosi would be considered the moderate part of their party? These people have gone full retard, and it's only going to get worse for them from hereon out.
[+]

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

More Trumped Up Thoughts

I've had some thoughts on Trump lately, and I thought I would share those.

● First, let me say that I'm seeing more and more people starting to support him as they look at his record. I find that interesting. Personally, I've seen a couple liberals become firm supporters and some libertarians who just like being different. Both groups have said that they really like the stuff he's done "if only he would stop tweeting!" I think this bodes well for him. Not only does this suggest that his support will grow (Obama's was shrinking at this time in his presidency and he would ultimately lose 6 million votes in his second run), but even more it puts the lie to the narrative that Trump hit bottom and kept falling. Trump may very well surprise people.

● Secondly, I think the media continues to be his best friend. Not only will they blow every scandal out of proportion, creating a sort of boy-who-cried-wolf teflon that has most people no longer listening, but the attacks they choose to promote are pathetic. The one that always makes me shake my head is Kelly Anne Conway's husband George Conway. George can be counted on to say something obnoxious every news cycle and the media repeats it like it matters. The thing is, George comes across as the kind of guy who's only worthy of news time if he gets caught jerking off behind a theater. So using him as a weapon against Trump is pathetic.

● Trump has also been lucky that his enemies keep imploding. The #metoo monster has devolved into mud wrestling. The Democrats have picked losers to run against him. The woman who just accused him of rape, not only is pimping a book, not only claims another powerful man raped her, not only kept the coat she was supposedly wearing when Trump did it... but now she's talked about how most people think of rape as "sexy." CNN actually cut off the interview to try to contain the damage, but it got out. She's a nut.

● The Iran thing has me thinking. I always thought Trump was kind of a moron, but his handling of Iran and North Korea both impress me. He's the first president and one of the few in Washington to understand what both countries actually want. Kim in North Korea wants to be able to enjoy his wealth overseas... to party on in cool cities. Trump offered him normal relations to let him do that. He even talked about developing luxury services in North Korea, which must have tickled Kim pink. The situation hasn't solved itself yet, but I actually think it will fairly soon.

Now Trump has said he wants to "Make Iran Great Again." This is actually exactly what Iran wants. Iran sees itself as the great Persian Empire and it wants influence in the Gulf. We've taken that away from it and that's really been the struggle between us. Other Presidents have offered money or vague promises of helping their economy, but that's not what they want. Again, Trump is the first to really understand what they want. What impresses me here is that Trump seems to understand both countries even as our establishment (left and right) remains clueless. I honestly didn't know he had it in him.

I've also come to understand his negotiation style. Step one, you freak the other side out by promising to do the one thing that scares them. Then you offer to negotiate. If things stall, he acts like he will pull the trigger or he may even pull the trigger. Then they back down and a deal is reached that is good for both sides. He's done this with immigration and foreign aid, tariffs and trade wars, sanctions, deportations, and now bombings. It's worked really well for the most part.

He's a good deal smarter than he seems.

[+]

Friday, June 21, 2019

A Couple Thoughts

Ola! First, let me apologize. I've been working some long hours (around 15 hours a day for two weeks) and I lost track of the things I wasn't doing. I shall do more articles. Anyways, here are some thoughts.

● For having Trump in office... for having 20+ dwarves running for President... for us being on the verge of war with Iran... there just isn't much going on right now. Must be global warming.

● Roy Moore is the thing that will not die. He's back to keep Alabama blue. Seriously, dipsh*t, go away.

● It's looking more and more like Beto is done. His poll numbers keep shrinking and he's now outside the conversation in the sense that the media never mentions him when they talk about the candidates. Warren seems to be on the same track but is falling from a stronger position, so she'll last longer. But I'm thinking one or both might be out before the first primary vote.

● There's a new rape claim against Trump. Yawn. Don't believe it. Don't care even if it is true. This time Trump supposedly raped some half-famous would in a department store. Uh huh.

● Actor John Cusak, aka Lane Meyer, has been having a rough go of it lately. He's a hard core idiot leftist and he got caught at a Cubs game not standing for the National Anthem and then he put out an antisemitic cartoon. He claimed he was just slow standing up, but he was literally the only person sitting and everyone else had their hands over their hearts already -- he looked grumpy as hell too. On the antisemetic thing, he say he got tricked by a bot... which doesn't explain it. I bring this up because I like the fact that we are starting to see leftists held accountable in their daily lives and they simply don't know how to handle it. They tend to get outraged that they are being judges. I think that's hilarious.

● Mayor Butt, er Pete, made the claim that statistically we must already have had a gay president. That's false logic. First, gays are 2-3%. We've had 45ish Presidents. So there is no reason to think one of them was likely gay. Secondly, President isn't a general population thing, so statistics like this don't won't... it's a select population. It's the same way we don't expect 3% to be Asian or half to be females. So Pete's logic is BS. That said, we did have a gay one: Obama.

Anything else going on these days?
[+]

Thursday, June 13, 2019

More Hypocrisy From Liberals

I really couldn't care less about women's soccer, but what happened in the game between the US women's lesbian national team and the Thailand women's soccer team at the women's World Cup has proven interesting... for the hoops liberals keep jumping through.

All right, a couple points of background. (1) No one watches women's soccer. (2) Hardly anyone in the US watches men's soccer period, but women's soccer is really the bottom of the barrel. It draws less than 1/10 of the audience of men's soccer, which draws less than almost any other sport. (3) That said, soccer is politically correct. It is politically correct because its followers see it as a thumb in the eye to America... because it's a socialist game in that it's considered a team game rather than an individual game... because lots of girls play it... because it's elitist.

So here's what happened. There are virtually no good women's teams around the world. Hence, the US dominates almost by forfeit. To make the World Cup seem more important (and make more money), FIFA has been trying to get different countries to create new teams. Thailand is one of those teams. They stink badly. But FIFA put them into the tournament because they need bodies. Well, Thailand had the bad fortune to play the US womyn. Those wonderful examples of American lesbianism beat the crap out of Thailand 13-0. Even worse, they celebrated every goal as if it were something incredible.

Lo and behold people reacted negatively.

Imagine that! Why would they react negatively, though? Don't they know this is the US women's team? This is a team full of open lesbians who make leftist political statements? Don't they know these women sued FIFA for not paying them as much as the men get? Good God, how can you criticize them?

Well... because people understand sportsmanship and they knew that burying an inferior opponent is not sportsmanship. They know that celebrating goals in a blowout is even worse sportsmanship. They know a lack of class when they see it. They know bullying when they see it.

The American women's soccer team is shocked. Liberal sports writers are horrified. They must defend these paragons of liberal virtue! So enter every liberal sportswriter in the world. These are the same people who can find nothing good in men's sports. These are the people who are first to scream about men's teams running up the score or excessive celebration... and they are ridiculously defending the US team:
First, they claim we wouldn't hear people complaining if it was the men's team! Actually, we would. Every sport has their scandal along these lines and the public is always outraged by teams that run up the score or rub it in with uncalled for celebrations. One boys football team was even disbanded after blowing out a weaker opponent.

Second, "these are the elite teams in the world, they should have put up a better defense." Huh. That's never been considered a valid defense before... why now? Secondly, Thailand is a cream puff, they didn't deserve to be here, and everyone knows that. Claiming otherwise is lying intentionally. And isn't that blaming the victim?

Third, "men are making this criticism! How dare they!" Ha, nope. That's bullship. You did the deed, you are to blame.

Fourth, FIFA is at fault for not spending money on developing teams in other countries. How does that prevent the US women from toning it down? It doesn't. You made the decision to pour it on, girls.

Fifth, "it would be an insult to have stepped it back. They would have been insulted." Actually, they were crying. I suspect they wouldn't have minded a little face saving.
What this tells us is that (1) the US women's soccer team is a bunch of bullies. They feel proud of themselves for beating weaker teams. That's pathetic. (2) Liberals will again lie and flip their deepest held convictions on their head to defend liberal things. That's even worse. (3) The charge of sexism is again a tool used disingenuously to deflect criticism. (4) Liberals have no sportsmanship. (5) These people have no idea how to win over the public. They live in a progressive little bubble of victimology and nobody likes that.

[+]

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Surprise: Misbehavior Gets Punished

I've talked about the #metoo stuff before. As a general rule, #metoo achieved nothing. And now the backlash is clear.

By way of background, the #metoo thing was an attempt by a bunch of actresses who slept their way to the top to create a national movement as a front for clearing their names by screaming rape. It morphed into a bitch session for hypersensitive women, almost all of whom worked in television or film. Their goals were to (1) change society to create "guilt upon accusation" for "crimes" against women, (2) an end to due process, in particular the allowing of any sort of defense, (3) instituting a social death penalty for these crimes, including permanent unemployment, (4) lowering what constituted such a crime from rape-rape to "he seemed creepy" and (5) eliminating any sort of time limit so that women could now raise allegations decades later.

In the heady days of the beginning, it seemed that they would get these things. A handful of famous well-known bastards were accused, a couple resigned, a couple were forced out by their boards and several actors were brought down. Harvey Weistein was charged criminally for a dozen rapes. Attempts to defend these men were shrilly shot down. Even those claiming innocence pleaded how double-plus-good it was that they had been accused.

But then it all went wrong. People (particularly foreign actresses) called this stupid and defended these men. The automatic resignations stopped as did the automatic firings. Due process not only came back, it came back MUCH stronger than it has been in lieu of the college rape lowering of standards. At that point, the resignations and firings stopped. According to some studies less than 400 men were ever officially endangered and only a handful ever actually punished. Soon, it became clear that all the goals of #metoo failed. Even Harvey Weinstein looks like he's going to get off. In fact, the man who has been hit the hardest (apart from Matt Lauer who went down because he's an ass no one liked) is Kevin Spacey and his crime was preying on young gay men... not women. And even he's coming back.

Then the women running the movement were exposed in big bad ways. One was selling drugs. Another was caught doing the same harassing she was screaming about. Yet another is defending a son accused of rape. Soon they were all in-fighting and making claims and demands that flew in the face of this movement. Add the fact that it barely left Hollywood and this thing was not only DOA, it was counter-productive. Indeed, if anything this movement strengthened the defenses men could raise and increased societal doubt (a natural consequence of any movement going too far). Then they did things like defend Joe Biden using each of the defenses they claimed was invalid. Hypocrisy never plays well.

Now comes word of an even bigger backlash, one that should have been entirely expected, but shocks them nevertheless. A poll last month found that 60% of male manager are "nervous" about interacting with women in the workplace and won't engage in one-on-one meetings with them, won't socialize with them and won't mentor them. That's a rise from 32% before the #metoo movement. Surprise.

Now, as a general rule, you need to take polls with a grain of salt. It's easy to answer "yes" when you wouldn't really do that in the real world. But I think what we can take from this is that men are twice as likely now to be cautious around women in the work place that they think are likely to take advantage of this or women who are hypersensitive. In that end, that's good and bad. It's good if it weeds these women out and keeps them from becoming managers where they can mess things up for everyone. It's bad for other women who are not like these women and still will get caught in the blowback. Unfortunately, this is was group movements cause: they make people view the entire group with suspicion. And lest you think this means nothing, consider what Sheryl Sandberg, Facebooks COO, said. She's a smart and insightful woman, and she worried:
"The vast majority of managers and senior leaders are men. If they are reluctant even to meet one-on-one with women, there’s no way women can get an equal shot at proving themselves. ... We’re in a bad place — no one’s ever gotten promoted without a one-on-one meeting, I feel confident in saying that. Senior men right now are nine times more hesitant to travel with a woman and six times more likely to hesitate to have a work dinner."
That's the legacy of #metoo: (1) a strengthening of due process for men, (2) an increase in societal doubt in harassment claims, and (3) a wedge between male managers and female employees. Nice work, ladies.
[+]

Friday, May 31, 2019

Hmm. Verification

Ola, everyone. I ran across an interesting article yesterday that seems to verify a lot of what I've been talking about lately. Let's discuss.

The article is at Politico (LINK) and it involves a study conducted (on the left) to try to determine what is going on in the Democratic Party. Ostensibly, they are confused why Biden and Bernie would be front-runners and they have tried to investigate it. What they found is this:

● Democratic voters want a female candidate... like I've been saying. They found an overall preference of 7% for a female candidate over a male. Women prefer female candidates by 8%. That doesn't sound like much but when they focus on "liberals" that number goes up to 15%. That's really significant, and I suspect it's even higher among "liberal women." It would not surprise me if it's close to 20% or 25% in that group.

Why does that matter? Well, think of the age thing I talked about the other day. Almost all the "moderate" Democrats are seniors. They will die off. As they do, liberal women will become 60% of the party. That will be an overwhelming advantage for female candidates. As I said, the Democratic future is angry white women.

● What about blacks? The polls finds a 4% preference for blacks over whites. BUT there's a catch. Blacks have a 15% preference for blacks. Take them out and whites only have a 0.7% preference for blacks. So blacks are largely at 0% among whites. In other words, there is a real indifference to blacks among the very white women who will be running the party... as I said. There isn't a hate for them, there is just an indifference, even an ignore-ance. Again, that is why I see this becoming a white woman's party, because they simply aren't thinking about anyone but themselves.

As aside, Latinos have a negative preference for blacks which offsets the 0.7%, not that Latinos really matter to the Democrats at this point.

● What about gays? I've been telling you that gays have left the party and, therefore, have become persona non grata. There is evidence for this everywhere. Now we add this study to the list. Gays are the one group to show a negative preference. In other words, gays get a -1.2% preference overall, but have a -7% preference from religious Democrats and a -6% preference from blacks, who have never been comfortable with gays. So gays, at best, are seen indifferently among white woman (some chunk of whom are likely lesbians -- probably 3%, suggesting a nearly -2% preference among straight white women), and they are seen negatively among all the other groups except high income, nonreligious, liberals (college professors and lawyers).

● Now let's add one more factor. The authors of the study point out a reason why these numbers may be worse than they appear. There is a preference (certainly among leftists) to lie about their own views to virtue signal. In other words, they know it's wrong to not want black candidates or to dislike gay candidates or, frankly, to express any preference. Even choosing women over men, while considered virtuous by many liberals, is still a prejudicial position that many will claim not to support even as they do. So it is very possible that this study understates the pro-woman bias, the anti-black/indifference-to-blacks bias, and the anti-gay bias. These numbers are already significant handicaps. Add another 3-5% in the wrong direction and they become nearly impossible hurdles.

So what does all this mean? Frankly, I think it confirms what I've been talking about. Democrats seem more normal now than they will become. Crazy huh? They are drifting to becoming a party of angry white women who want white women in power by a large number... that means the end of the male facade. Blacks want blacks in power, but no one else does and white women don't think about them. That means blacks get left out. Gays are passe and I think you won't see much energy expended on their issues.

[+]

Thursday, May 23, 2019

Biden Mystery Solved

I've been trying to figure out who the Democrats are and who they are becoming. For the most part, I've got it solved. The one odd piece of data I could not connect involved Biden's lead in the primaries. I understand it now. There's an age break in the Democratic party.

Here's the deal. More than 60% of Democratic Primary voters will be women. As I've mentioned, there is a ton of activity from these women centered around wanting to toss out the men who form the party facade and instead run women. That said, there is a strange disconnect between this and polls which show Biden at 38%. Not only is Biden a white dude (and therefore flies in the face of the women's only movement), but he's not even an "interesting" white dude like Buttguy or Bernie. So what is happening?

It turns out, he's a nostalgia vote...

Apparently, Biden's support comes almost entirely from Democrats older than 55. They want someone "electable" and they view Biden as (1) having a long, respectable history in the Senate and (2) being Obama's right hand man... or is it left hand in the Democratic Party? Anyways, that's what they think.

Not coincidentally, only 20% of these Democrats describe themselves as "very liberal," with most describing themselves as "moderate" or even "conservative." 41% of these people support Biden.

Go younger than that, however, and everything changes. Just over 40% of younger Democrats call themselves "very liberal." None call themselves conservatives. The rest split between "liberals" and "moderates," with liberals winning. Biden draws 17% here, behind both Bernie and Elisabeth Warren.

So what we are seeing is likely a last hurrah of the older "conservative" Democratic vote. They've focused on Biden as compared to a split field on the left. What that means now is a good question. What it means for the future is bad for the Democrats. As these older Democrats die off, they are being replaced by a group that has a center much farther to the left (a true shift in ideology) and are basically devoid of anyone on the right. That puts them much further outside the ideological mainstream of America. Combining this with the rise of women in the party suggests a coming party that looks and sounds like something quite foreign to most Americans... a sort of Progressive Party of Single White Women. Indeed, white women under 45 voted 70% for Sanders in 2016, making them hardcore leftists and nothing like the dying Democrats.

So can Biden win? Good question. His support is about 40% among half the party. That's not a bad base if he can make it grow. But his support is an awful 17% among the other half of his base, the energetic portion. That's not good. The one grace he has is that no one else has grabbed the ring. But that sounds more like he's just waiting to get the boot by some new candidate rather than a march toward victory. If no one else comes along, then he might win a plurality election. But I think the problem with that is that Bernie Sanders will dominate the caucus states, which tend to be the middle of the country where the older voters are. That will quarantine his support and make him vulnerable to whoever wins the left. Who that is remains to be seen!
[+]

Sunday, May 19, 2019

Bad Decisions

Some interesting arguments and bad decisions last week. Let's discuss.

● Something that really made me laugh last week was the Democratic freak out that Trump is dropping illegals into sanctuary cities. Apparently, Democrats aren't actually fans of these people... they just want the votes. Imagine that. That's not going to help win Hispanics over, who do seem to be drifting away from the Democrats. In the middle of this came this wonderful quote you have to hear. It comes from a Florida Democrat who was upset that Trump was shipping illegals to them. He said:
“That is so typically Trump. When the facts don’t fit the narrative, you slightly adjust the narrative.”
LOL! That's actually how it's supposed to work. When the facts don't fit your argument, you adjust your argument to fit the facts. That's logic. That's truth. Apparently, that's wrong in liberal circles though. No surprise there.

● Since I was in high school, the liberals who run the SAT have been tinkering with the test to try to help women and minorities. These groups have always done significantly worse than white males and the assumption is that this is because of vague clouds of sneaky racism that have somehow affected the test. So they keep removing questions on which women and minorities "under perform" and they keep trying to adjust the way the test works to help those groups. Despite decades of rigging the test, the white boys keep winning. So now the SAT is flat out going to adjust test scores to help women and minorities, and they aren't even saying how much they will be doing to make these adjustments. Not only is this completely discrediting on the test because it means you simply can't trust female or minority scores, but it won't work. The more you coddle a group, the less independent the group becomes, and the sharper the competitors become, because they need to be.

● I've been watching the abortion issue with interest. In particular, I've been watching the horrible Hollywood response. For those who don't know, Alabama just passed a law basically banning abortion in all cases. They did this to try to overturn Row v. Wade, but ironically, this case will likely cause the current Supreme Court to affirm Roe. But that's down the road. I'm thinking about the politics of it at the moment.

Politically, I don't think this hurts the GOP. The main thing is that no one outside of Alabama seems to be rushing to adopt this. Even normally strong pro-life GOP types are backing off. Pat Robertson even backed off. So it's hard to tar the GOP with this.

I don't think the Democrats are getting hurt either, though I think Buttguy made a mistake taking a position that even third-trimester abortions should be allowed. His appeal, to the extent there is any, is that he's "normal" but gay, but normal people don't take a hardcore abortion stance that far outside of even the pro-Choice mainstream.

Who I think is getting hurt is Hollywood. These dingbats have decided to fight the Alabama decision by telling stories of the abortions they've had. Uh, what? Talk about a bad idea! For one thing, they have wrongly assumed that people will see this sympathetically. People won't. That assumption relies on people seeing them as normal people trapped by events who had no choice. A necessary evil.

But that conflicts with them selling themselves as special, rich, powerful, influential. It also doesn't help that they are proud of these stories or that their abortion stories aren't "young girl in poverty" but "actress doesn't want career ruined." So rather than coming across as "good girl stuck in unfortunate situation," it comes across as "stupid rich girl bailing out of mistake." It also confirms the view most people have of these women: they're f-d up. These women made the short-sighted, long-shot decision to try to become famous and mistake their fame for wisdom... they used their bodies to take jobs from older actresses, and now whine about the importance of looks... they slept their way into their wealth and now try to rewrite their histories by claiming rape victim status... they complain incessantly of harassment, even as they live a life of privilege and command and even as they get caught doing the same... they tonedeaf-ly scream that their million dollar salaries are unfair to women... and they excuse their friends of all these crimes when caught. Unlikable to say the least.

● Speaking of Buttguy, he wants to drop any reference to Thomas Jefferson from the Democratic Party. He's pandering to the crowd who hate on Jefferson because he owned slaves. Not only is it stupid to abandon a national hero, but it's extra stupid to do so when that hero anchors your organization, especially when that organization is in danger of becoming unhinged. The less connected you are to the public's beliefs, the more you better cling to at least the appearance of tradition or you will become something foreign. The Democrats are headed that way fast.

[+]

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Ha Ha

I'm really enjoying the Democratic primary. It's bringing out the worst in these jokers. A couple thoughts.

● The biggest fun I'm having is watching the "ascent" of Mayor Buttguy. This guy is purely a media creation. They love him because he's white and gay and cute and gay and, gosh golly, he's what those stupid Americans in flyover country claim to want, and he's gay so shove that down their stupid throats! Did I mention that he's gay!! YES!!! HE'S GAY!!! ISN'T IT GLORIOUS?!!!! This is CNN reporting.

Sadly, in the rest of the party, Buttguy isn't selling quite so well. In the newsrooms, he's the new crush with about 100% support because he's just like them -- gay and white and better-than-you -- but elsewhere he seems to be about a 6% candidate. Real Clear Politics has him at 6.8% (down from 8.4%). Among blacks in South Carolina he has exactly 0.0% support.

And that brings me to what I've been enjoying lately. There has been a real pushback among blacks against Buttguy. Booker and Harris supporters have become furious that Buttguy is getting all this glowing coverage while they are being ignored even though their candidates have much better resumes. Hmm. Why could that be? Booker, who has Buttguy's resume and a lot more, couldn't get on the news right now if he took hostages, so his supporters have even gone so far in the past few days as to whisper the "P" word: privilege.

Apparently, being white and male makes you privileged, even if you are gay. Interesting, change from a few years ago, don't you think? (Told you.) Buttguy tried the "if you've ever been excluded then support me" line today which should only inflame this as Booker/Harris's people see Buttguy as an oppressor. So get your popcorn. Things are brewing ugly as race becomes a subtext. What's more, these same people whisper-screaming "privilege" also make a point of saying that it's time to hold the media accountable, so there should be plenty of fun as all these smug, white oppressor journalists have to either eat crow or deny their racism.

● Beto 2.0. I guess the first Beto campaign was just a Beta test. Beto has decided to reinvent himself now that his campaign has stalled and is starting to roll back downhill. It makes sense to do this, but it doesn't make sense to make it so obvious. Needing to reboot a campaign before the race has even begun reeks of desperation... which is what this is. So put a fork in Beto, he's done. (He's got 4.2% support, down from 10%.)

● The new Democratic litmus test is "break up Facebook!" //shakes head How small they have become... dumb*ss lemmings.

● Bernie just can't seem to understand why he's under constant attack at the moment. Pretty much everything he does is bringing criticism. He's definitely not used to that, nor does he know how to handle it.

[+]

Tuesday, May 7, 2019


Some political tidbits.

● San Francisco is banning the use of facial recognition software by the state. They are worried that it could discriminate because it's more likely to get minority faces wrong than white faces. So they aren't banning it because it's hyper-intrusive and reeks of 1984.. no. They're banning it because it isn't going to be racially fair in its oppression. That's a tad twisted.

● There's a poll out which shows that Biden has a 30 point lead over Bernie. There's something wrong with this. Not only is this a huge sudden shift, but it also conflicts with other data showing Bernie's approval within the party and 77% of the party embracing socialism. I suspect (1) polling error, (2) Republicans sneaking into the poll and picking Biden, and (3) other Democrats hoping to knock Bernie off, knowing that Biden has no chance to win.

● I've pointed out several times that women run the Democratic Party and that trend is going to increase. Here's another piece of data to support this: 60% of Democratic primary voters will be women. This is why they are pandering to women so heavily.

● My whole life, the left has claimed that men don't take women seriously when it comes to politics. I would argue this is men don't take liberal women seriously, but either way. So guess what Margaret Carlson said the other day which does nothing to help the case of taking liberal women voters seriously. She said that the reason Beto is finished (he's crashing in the polls) is that he remind women of their most irresponsible boyfriends and he's turning them off at that level. Not policy. Not electability. Not leadership ability. Boyfriend material. When even liberals say this is what other liberals are thinking, should we really take their views seriously?

● Mayor Buttguy is finding that his support has significant limits. In the news media, he's a darling. In black America, he has virtually zero support. He's laying this on not having had a chance yet for blacks to see that he will represent their interests. Doubt it. The reality is that blacks have never embraced gays and, now that gays are no longer part of the coalition, they embrace them even less so. Why does this matter? Without heavy (Obama-level) black turnout, he loses Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida for sure.

[+]

Sunday, May 5, 2019

Oh no!

Ladies and Gentlemen, Nancy Pelosi has warned us. She is worried that Trump might not "respect" the results of the election if he loses. She said he might try to "poison the public's mind." Makes me shudder. I can only imagine what that would look like...

I can see it now...
He begins be declaring that any victory except his own would be illegitimate because the other side conspired with Russia.

He would hold mass rallies calling for the invalidation of the election. There would be gnashing of teeth and drinking of Starbucks and littering of the public square and a great whine would go out among the public: "Somebody fix this for me!"

He would issue hashtags like #notmypresident

He would unleash the most unprofessional and childish attacks on anyone connected to the administration. Words like "fuck" and "asshole" would become common discourse among his boorish followers on television in interviews and in the streets. No insult would be considered too low, no allegation too false to alleged.

He would encourage his mindless followers to stalk administration people in restaurants... throw water on them... send death threats by the bushel.

He and his mindless followers might call themselves "the Resistance" with the intent of sabotaging the new government.

His followers would attack anyone in a Democratic hat. They would try to deny them service in stores. They would try to get them fired from jobs and expelled from schools.

He would scream about impeachment... and impeachment... and impeachment... and impeachment... and impeachment. Like a verbal tick. No false allegation would be too false to justify impeachment, not minor peeve too small to merit high treason.

He would tell lies about everything... obsess about everything... demand investigations of everything.

He would scream about impeaching the new administration's nominees and appointed judges.
It would be horrible! What kind of pathetic monsters could act in such a way? Oh wait... I think I've seen this before. But where? Who could possibly have done this before? Oh, that's right. Hi Nancy.
[+]

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Feminism v. Racialism

I've been seeing something interesting growing for some time now. An article today kind of crystallized it for me. Let me share my thoughts.

As you know, the left -- owners of the Democratic Party -- have abandoned ideology and instead adopted identity politics. Gone are the sweeping ideas of dead white men like Marx, old-tyme union bosses and tweed covered college professors. In their place are the pet peeves of anyone who can form a group. As this is harder than it seems (you have to convince these people to make themselves victims), they're basically down to groups: angry single women and angry blacks.

The problem is that blacks and women have always been an uncomfortable alliance. Blacks and women compete for affirmative action at schools and in jobs. Rape-fearing white women (all modern feminists) often view black males as rapists. Black women view white women as sexual competitors who "steal" their men. And as a lot of recent chatter has shown, blacks view white women as "white" (read: oppressors) first and foremost. This does not a strong alliance make.

There is another problem. With white women outnumbering blacks by a hefty margin, and white women not being inclined to share, blacks will eventually be left out in the cold. Why won't white women share? Two reasons: (1) they are a group of spoiled human beings, being mainly upper and upper-middle class (read: pampered) and single (read: not accustomed to sharing), and (2) oppression theory has convinced them that they are the ultimate victims and, therefore, (a) they deserve everything they want and (b) as victims they can do no wrong.

At one time, blacks had moral authority to help their cause. When the Civil Rights Movement did their thing, for example, they had the moral high ground and the legal high ground of wanting equality. But since that time, the black community has made two huge mistakes. First, they squandered the moral high ground by (1) screaming racism as a means of stifling opposition rather than exposing actual racism, and (2) they ignored the racism of their liberal allies for political reasons and let a general belief take hold in liberal circles that their racism wasn't racism because they didn't see themselves as racist. Because of this, the charge of racism lost its punch and it couldn't be applied to liberals anyways.

What I'm seeing now is an attempt to undo this.

Where this really began, as far as I can tell, is in the heavily promoted idea of white privilege. This is the idea that somehow whites benefit from racism even if they "aren't racist," with the additional sub-theory that all whites are racist but they just can't see it because of this white privilege, i.e. whites can't see how racist they really are because they are so surrounded by racism that they can no longer see it.

Obviously, no conservative is going to accept this crap. But it wasn't meant for conservatives. This was meant to undermine the idea that liberals can't be racist. This was meant to unsettle all those victim-wannabe white women who felt they weren't racist because their maid was black and they gave her a Christmas bonus. "I can't be racist... I'm a liberal!" This was meant to undo that.

This was followed with a series of direct attacks. After the election, the black media blamed white women for Trump. In fact, in a rather famous piece, a black woman started her smear on white women with the words, "Dear White Women." What followed was a diatribe calling white women stupid, elitist and racist. This and dozens of other similar attacks tried to get white women to accept guilt by racial-gender association. There have since a steady trickle of articles written by black women in which they talk about elite white women being out of touch with the concerns of real (read: black) Americans.

Then came the #metoo movement. Interestingly, this "movement" was lacking black women. Where were they? Apparently, they were angrier at the white women of the #metoo movement than they were at the supposedly evil males. Why? Well, lots of articles were written at the time angrily denouncing #metoo as a movement of elitist white women who only care about their issues and who don't care at all about the concerns of genuine black women. Hmm. This was the first time I heard the term "white feminism." That's a direct challenge to any thoughts of black/white women unity, and a takedown of feminism that must sting feminists severely.

Since that time, there have been a huge number of claims of racism made against white liberal women by blacks. The Democratic campaign in particular has brought out a large number of black female (online) protesters who accuse the Democratic Party of being racist because all the top candidates (by polls) are white men and women. This is going on at the same time women's groups are upset that the top-top candidates are males. In other words, white women are angry that the very top candidates are men, but blacks are upset that white men and women are the top. Do you see how those interests do not fit well together? White women would be perfectly happy if it was all white women, blacks would be just as angry. Interestingly, the two groups haven't been able to merge their complaints into one movement.

Similarly, you had "Oscar so white" which complained about a lack of blacks getting awards in Hollywood, even as a large number of white women got them. The presence of white women did not alleviate their concerns.

So do white women care? Well, a handful of elitist white Hollywood women have recently attacked their own shows for not including enough "minority" (read: blacks... Asians, Hispanics and Indians need not apply) actors and crew. The lead actor(ess) on Grey's Anatomy did this and now Cynthia Nixon has done it to Sex in the City. Nixon attacked Sex as "white feminism," which she derogatorily dismissed as out of touch. But few other women seem willing to accept this.

I think what we are seeing is that blacks know they are being shoved out by a group of self-obsessed elitist white women and they are desperate to change the psyche of these women to accept them as fellow-victims. But I honestly don't think these women care. Yes, there are a couple who scream of white feminism, but they are outliers. The rest see themselves as suffering oppression and now they want power and they aren't going to share.

[+]

Friday, April 26, 2019

Biden Is Back! And More

Some people never change.

That's Slow Joe Biden. Fresh from gropegate, where the left decided they would ignore his extensive history of inappropriate touching, groping and sniffing of women, Biden announced his candidacy. He then did an interview where he again exploited his dead son by crying about his death for all the world to see at a critical campaign moment. For the love of God, Joe, try something new! Anyways, according to the script he should soon whip out the dead wife again too.

As an aside, Joe has issued a new logo that some say is suggestive of someone groping a woman's chest. If you accept that (and there is a little reading into it to see that) there's also a big old stiff dong pointing right at the breast. Nice work, Joe!

In other news, Bernie wants criminals to have the right to vote, like the white supremacist just convicted of killing James Byrd in Texas. Thumbs up to helping those who need it, Bernie!

Elizabeth Warren just stole an idea from some obscure dong-owning candidate of color "DOCOC". He wants to bribe students by forgiving around $400 billion in student loans. Now Fauxcohontas wants the same thing. My question is this: why should taxpayers pay for this? If Walmart screws me, I don't get the city to pay me back... Walmart does. If anyone other than the students should have to pay these loans back, why not the colleges? Hello, Harvard.

And the Democrats held a conference where a cabal of angry women raged against the sexist (and racist-sexist) Democratic machine which is giving all the attention to the white male Democratic candidates. They're ahead in the polls!! Waaaah! It's not fair! And besides, how ever will they reach out to women of color? I'm thinking cross-dressing and black face.

There has been some real hate spilled out at the white boys in the primary so far. I think this is very emblematic of what is going on within the party. It would surprise me if the Democrats don't start bumping off their white boy leaders soon and replacing them with DOCOCs and NOCOCs. ;)
[+]

Monday, April 22, 2019

That's Really How You Think, Huh?

It never fails to shock me how terrible the minds of leftists can be. They are hateful people who prefer spite to success, who need enemies to focus their thoughts, who care not about consistency or principle except as talking points and who use the human virtues as verbal weapons, but never act upon them.

The latest example that boggles the mind is Notre Dame. As we all know, Notre Dame burned down because... well, that's what happens in France, things burn down. But Notre Dame is such an amazing bit of world heritage that the world (most of it at least) prayed for the building and demanded that it be rebuilt. Responding to this, a group of French billionaires started donating money to fix it.

No sooner had they done this than the twisted leftist minds kicked into high gear. They began by complaining that these billionaires, who had given this money out of the goodness of their hearts, were only doing to so get famous. Uh, the two guys they complained about are two of the most famous men in the world. Then they claimed they did this to advertise their brands (luxury fashion brands). Again, everyone knows their brands, and it's not like they conditioned their gifts on someone putting up their logos on the rebuilt building. Finally, they latched onto the most disingenuous idea of all: how wrong it is to donate to fix a building when this money could have been spent on fixing inequality? This is horseship, pure and simple. The act of donation is right or wrong. It is not right or wrong by comparison. You cannot morally criticize the giving to a cause by claiming there are other greater causes. That's not how that works. That is pathetic pet-peevism of the lowest order.

And then things got worse.

See, once the left starts, they can't stop. They really can't help themselves. Their ideology is like a hateful drug which requires greater and greater level of mindless hate to get the same hit out of it. So along came places like Huffpo and Daily Beast, publishing articles from a-holes claiming that Notre Dame should be re-built as a mosque or some non-religious building, "something to piss off the alt-right."

Do you know how outraged these little sh*ts would be if we suggested the same for a destroyed mosque or some Mayan work of art? Hey, let's turn that Mayan temple into a sports bar! They would scream about world heritage and lack of respect until the turned blue and then demand criminal sanctions. Yet, when the object in question is Western or Christian, they think it's funny. And they aren't even joking. I'll bet you that a sizable percentage of these turds actually believe this.

Not coincidentally, while they seem to think it would be great to make a mosque out of this, we were reminded this weekend how Islam is being used around the world as a group of Islamic terrorists killed men, women, and children of all colors in an attack on Christian worshipers and westerners. Honestly, these articles laughing about rebuilding Notre Dame as a mosque are akin to snotty intellectuals writing that we should convert stolen Jewish homes to German history museums. Oh, that wouldn't be funny? Why not Huffers?

I realized a long time ago that there are two human races. There really are. There are those who aspire to be all the things we identify as good and ideal about humanity. Then there are those who say those things, but chose instead to thrive on hate and jealousy.

I will leave you with this little nugget. This weekend, I had the misfortune to meet a new friend my daughter made. This little blonde girl went on a rant about how racist her father was because he's a Trump supporter. She then changed the topic to a basketball game her team has coming up against a black team. About this team she said, without the slightest hint of self-awareness, "I hate playing them. You know how those ghetto types are."

Liberals, ladies and gentlemen. Morlocks, one and all.
[+]

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Mueller Report (Yawn)

Like Obama on being gay, the Democrats have evolved on the Mueller Report.

First, they were sure the Mueller report would prove that Trump is a traitor to the US. Go Mueller!

Then we heard that there would be no indictments. Boo Mueller. So they changed their tune to "The Mueller Report doesn't matter!"

Then Barr gave a briefing on it and said it would take a few days to release. Now they had a new enemy! "Barr is lying about the report! Release it now! Release it now!"

Well, it's been released and it basically says nothing. Most news sites seem to be ignoring it or back-paging it because it says so much nothing. So the Desperates Democrats have switched to: "The proof is in the redactions!"

Ha ha. This is the most painful retreat since Napoleon's retreat from Russia. At some point, you would think they would give up and just try something else. But I guess not. At some point, I'm sure they'll get the redactions undone and they will discover to their horror that the redacted portions are just as useless to them. Indeed, they couldn't be anything else or the Mueller Report conclusions would have been different. But where they're irrational hope...

Oh well.
[+]

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Sigh... Our Retarded Cousins

The idiot brigade is out in full force. Apparently, the Alex Smith crowd believes the fire at Notre Dame was intentionally set.

//shakes head Of course it was.

BUT... was it them Mooslims? They're under your bed! They're under YOUR bed! Or was it Obama trying to destroy religion? He's under your bed too! Maybe it was a secret NWO Military Operation? I saw a black helicopter over Miami at the same time... the same time!

And why should only these 'tards get to play? How about some dipshittery for the left too? Perhaps it was the Pope trying to drum up sympathy for Catholics? Ho ho ho, bad Pope! Maybe it was Trump trying to distract from the heinous crimes in the Mueller Report on the American Holocaust? Bad Trump. Or maybe it was the French government trying to distract from the failures of capitalism?

I'm betting it was Warren Buffett because he was bored. Or aliens.

Who do you think flew to France to set fire to this building? Feel free to confess if it was you.
[+]

Monday, April 15, 2019

Tax Time

Every year at this time, Uncle Sam takes millions of Americans into the back room, unzips his pants, and taxes them. Good times. Well, this tax seasons the political world is talking about candidate tax returns. I think there is something sick in demanding that candidates release their taxes. Let's discuss.

For some time now, most candidates for President have released their tax returns to be scoured by the public. Trump has refused and the left has been losing their minds. In response, they've tried to pass laws requiring that these be released to qualify for the ballot. Others want to subpoena Trump's taxes. Others are wishfully thinking they can even make it a crime not to surrender them. At the same time, several of the Democratic candidates have released their taxes. Bernie released his today. There was even a Yahoo headline calling these Bernie's "much anticipated tax returns." Anticipated by whom exactly?

Either way, it's clear that the political class wants to see people's taxes, and I think that's sick. Why do I think this is sick? Because I can see no legitimate purpose in it except to smear.

Ask yourself what exactly do you learn about a person from the release of their taxes? The left wants them released because they want to engage in class warfare and Republican candidates are usually quite wealthy. Is that a valid reason though? Should we really force people to release their taxes just so the left can spew envy and spite at wealth over it? Maybe we should make them detail their ancestry too so the KKK has things it can complain about? How about their dietary preferences so we know they aren't secret vegans?

It turns out Bernie Sanders is rich. But so what? We already knew that. He is a typical faux-socialist. Yet, I'll bet his wealth doesn't change a single vote, nor should it. To accept this argument that he should need to release his taxes so we can smear him for his wealth is pure bias. That's unAmerican. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure some people care. But that doesn't mean the system should embrace their bias any more than it should allow an investigation into someone's racial ancestry.

Here's another reason that comes up: who knows what we'll find? They might have done something illegal! This is ridiculous! If there's a crime, the IRS will get them. If there isn't, then everything they have done on their taxes is something we the people have deemed acceptable, and the real purpose of the search is simply to look for dirt. We should not make laws premised on the idea of letting people dig for dirt. If there is something illegal, that should matter. If there is a conflict, that should matter. If there is just a desire to go looking for something to use against someone... that's bullsh*t. Why not also demand cameras be places in their bedrooms. Who knows what kinky crap they are doing with their spouses?

So Trump may not be worth as much as his public image says... Obama scored an obscene amount of money from speaking engagements... Bernie's a socialist millionaire... Bill and Hillary Clinton claimed the underwear they donated to Goodwill was worth $4 a pair. All horrible things to someone, but none is illegal, none is different than what millions of other people are doing, and none is our business. The fact we want to smear these people with it does not justify forcing the release of tax information.

It's time we stopped this sick game of gottcha in DC. And this is the first domino we should kick over. There is no legitimate reason to demand a candidate's tax returns and we should not accept "I want to look for dirt" as a justification. It's time we took one small step back from the politics of personal destruction.

[+]

Friday, April 12, 2019

Further Thoughts...

Some ponderings...

I'm really amused by this college admission scandal. What's got me amused is the pathetic reaction of the elites who are virtue signalling without the slightest bit of self-awareness. Make no mistake, this is an elitist scandal. This is proof to what us proles already suspected (or knew): (1) the elite cheat to maintain their status and (2) their kids are douchebag morons who would be flippin' burgers if daddy didn't get rich selling mommy's sex tape. Yeah, I don't think Americans have much esteem for our present elites.

Let me also say that I can't particularly blame the parents who did this. They were looking out for their moron kids like any parents would do. So in actuality, I would expect a good deal of sympathy for the accused... but it's not there. Average people seem offended by the elitism of it (I wouldn't go so far as to say "upset" though, as most people seem to accept this is just the tip of the spoils iceberg and they view it as something they can't change). The elites, on the other hand, are virtue signalling like it's the end of life as we know it.

In fact, what I find fascinating is how all these other elites are jumping on this as if they were desperate to prove it wasn't them. But the truth is, it is them. Nothing highlights this more than Dr. Dre, a rapper/producer, who obliviously posted how his daughter got in "without help" without mentioning that he'd donated millions of dollars to her school right before she got in. They even named a building after him. Somehow, he didn't grasp that this made him just as dirty when he posted his tone def tweet. Others who benefited from wealth, fame (selling their looks/bodies mostly) or even preferential admissions all seem just as eager to mock the accused even though they too are just as dirty. What it strikes me as is people who know they are just as guilty piling on the unfortunates in their herd who got gored and mocking them as a form of psychological relief that it wasn't them. I think this tells us that they know they are frauds. Not that they're going to change, but they know.

Other thoughts...

● The dipstick students at Georgetown University have virtue signaled like a boss by voting in favor of adding a $27 school fee to pay for reparations for blacks. Bully for them. Now we know what black "suffering" is worth: $27 per rich snot. This is what happens when idiots get to make decisions.

● Northwest Mutual has run a series of ads with an odd gender subtext. Before you read on, check these out and tell me what you make of them: architect, glum child, narcissist monster. If you answered, angry girls, then you are correct.

The first ad isn't really offensive. It's a woman who gets ignored by her boss and goes out on her own. This could be a feminist message... evil male boss oppresses bright, successful woman! But it could also just be the standard American dream story of wanting to be independent. If that had been the only ad, I never would have noticed either way.

But then you get the next two. First, comes a grumpy little girl who is angry that her rotten parents have taken her on a vacation. How dare they! They strike me as impotent parents and the ad has a whiff of a spoiled child. She is allowed to mope and fester because the vacation isn't good enough until she finally gets what she wants. The message: you better save up to bribe your child huge! An overthink? Perhaps, until the third ad comes along. This guy is working hard. In the middle of it, a total little sh*t of a teenage girl demands to get her way right then and there. Rather than wanting to kill her, as any normal person would do, he oddly suddenly starts thinking of buying her a pool to win her over. ULTRA spoiled... so much so, they needed to tone down her behavior to this: pool girl 2. Now she's just an airhead, and you don't feel the need to kill her anymore, but average people still aren't going to want to reward her with a pool.

Now ask yourself this. If these had been males in the ads, would the behaviors of the children have seemed at all reasonable? I doubt it. A teenage boy demanding a ride and the parents being told to buy him off with a pool honestly would have been a shocking message. So why would Northwest Mutual think this is acceptable with girls? My suspicion is that either the ads were done by feminists who lack the understanding that people don't think whiny girls should get their way, as indeed most feminists don't seem to have a clue how unpleasantly they come across. Alternatively, the ads were written by a misogynist who hates women and just stuck his psyche into these ads, i.e. this is how he see women. It's funny to me that either explanation makes sense equally. So how is it that the views of feminists and the views of misogynists can be so close that we can't really tell who's who?

● Some albino chick "made history" by being the first albino chick on the cover of Vogue. Sigh. First of all, don't flatter yourself, there is nothing "historic" about any cover of Vogue. Secondly, who cares? This idea that something is history because the first black, white, female, albino, flatulent person did it is bullsh*t. The first counts. The rest are just followers.
[+]

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Join The (Marketing) Movement

It seems that Madison Avenue has figured out (or thinks it has) how to reach Millennials. Millennials are notoriously hard to reach because they're (A) finicky, (B) effort-shy, and (C) confused by their own cynicism. They also have a strange set of beliefs where they don't want to deal with traditional companies, which are seen as evil capitalist environmental exploiters, unless those companies virtue signal, in which case their sins are forgotten, see e.g. Nike and Apple. So how is Madison Avenue reaching these clowns? Bro-Marketing.

What is Bro-Marketing?

You've heard of "Bro-country," right? Two douchebags sing about how they had a party and got drunk in some field with some country girl but also possibly with homoerotic intent. Well, this is different. This is safety in numbers as two gosh darn shy guys reveal how they were forced into opening a company to sell you crap because the way those other guys do it is crazy!
Hi. Me and my buddy Booger like stuff, but when big companies sell it, it's really expensive. We thought that was crazy. So we started our own stuff company. We made our own designs (with production software). Had it manufactured (by sweatshops in China), distributed to over 150 countries (with DHL supply chain management), had pictures of it taken at Burning Man, and built a community. Yep, just the two of us. For you... and our community.
This is the sales pitch: (1) we are normal people who were SHOCKED to find that some product was so big businessy. (2) So we built a new kind of company to make the same product only more virtuously and sell it to you. (3) Act nervous about appearing in the ads. (4) Under no circumstances note that we use big business to handle every link in the production/distribution chain, and (5) mention that you're building a community of people who like the product (a herd mentality sales pitch for the cell phone generation).

I've seen this nearly identical pitch for erectile dysfunction drugs ("Roman" - founded by Chip and his dad the doctor), watches ("Movement" - founded by Booger and Trevor), contact lenses by mail ("Hubble" - founded by Skippy and Flounder), and even a beach clean up company founded by two surfer dudes ("4Ocean" - founded by Bill and Ted). Four identical companies isn't just a trend, it's a sea change.

The sales pitch is the same for each. It is also utterly fraudulent. These are not little companies founded by some random dude and his bromance. These are slickly marketed creations that sell the illusion of a new, more pure way for hipsters to shop without supporting big business, even as big business reaps the profit. Indeed, these people walk a fine line between making it clear that they are NOT a garage band when talking about quality and safety, but then wanting you to believe they are a garage band when it comes to virtue.

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Chip and Booger's plans. Frankly, it's brilliant marketing and it seems to zero in directly on what makes the modern consumer tick. And since consumer preference and politics come out the same human orifice, I suspect this is telling us something we should know about politics. In fact, I think it explains both Obama and Trump and can be used to predict who will be future nominees.

Consider this.

1. This pitch is anti-establishment, especially against big business. Both parties have adopted anti-Big Business rhetoric and anti-establishment has been the norm for political figures for some time now, even long-time insiders. Trump and Obama both checked this box.

2. Even more so though, the anti-establishment pitch is tempered with the idea that while they are a business version of a garage band, Chip and Booger are selling you the idea that they are high quality, as if they were establishment. Again, Trump and Obama both hit this. Both sold themselves as outsiders, but at the same time, sold themselves as high-end professionals.

3. The pitch is super-vague on details. So is modern politics. Candidates with detailed messages die. But it's simultaneously very big picture... transformative. Again, Trump had Make America Great and Obama had a post-racial America. Highly transformative.

4. Each of these companies is pushing the idea of a community. That again fits Obama and Trump. You apparently, need to be the leader of a movement, not just a campaign.

5. Now it gets odd. While Booger and friends feign insecurity, both Obama and Trump were overtly arrogant. The current crop of Democrats play insecure. So are they onto something? Is it possible consumers are changing from wanting arrogant leaders to insecure leaders? I don't think so. While Booger is insecure and appears humble in his ads, he really isn't. Each of these guys calls the established world "crazy" and acts like it's nothing for them to build these companies from scratch. I think the arrogance is there, but it's not-well hidden behind a veneer of faux-insecurity. I would guess that the faux-veneer is the new piece to the puzzle.

So what will the best candidates look like? Anti-establishment. Anti-Big Business. High-level credentials outside of running for office. Running on transformative message, but offering no details. Talks about leading a movement, not a campaign. And must be arrogant about abilities to lead, but fake a see-through facade of false modesty that doesn't hide the arrogance too much.

Bernie is too earnest and has no credentials. Warren lacks credentials and is chasing details. Harris isn't competent or arrogant. Yang is lost in the details. Biden is none of the above. Klobuchar has no false modesty or credentials. Hickenlooper and Inslee have no movement. The gay mayor, Buttkiss has no credentials or transformative message. Beto... Beto may have all of this.

I think I'm going to watch to see who molds themselves into Booger.

[+]

Monday, April 8, 2019

The Oracle of Ohmagod!!

Warren Buffett is an intelligent man. He's also kind of a sh*t at times. I don't respect how he got rich, which relied a lot upon the government. Nor do I think he's all that wise, especially when it comes to politics, where he seems to be out to enrich himself more than improve the country. That said, he just said something I find to be very interesting. He was asked what question he would ask all the presidential candidates. His answer is... interesting. Here it is:
“I would like to ask a candidate: What are you for that majority of your followers are against?”
That's an interesting question to say the least. In this age of armchair hyper-purists and our foaming at the mouth us versus them political class, whose views are essentially "I hate everything the other side wants," this seems to be an invitation to cut your own throat.

In a more intelligent political atmosphere, this would be a fantastic question. Not only would it allow people to assess where their candidates might part ways with them, but it would tell people that being something less than truly pure is normal and acceptable. Too bad we don't live in that world.

I've been wondering though what the Democratic candidates would say if they were forced? Sadly, I think the answer would be something lamely politicized like: "I don't believe that we can help every person" or "I believe we need a different approach to achieve our goals." Wa wa wa waaaaah. Wouldn't it be fun if they had to answer this honestly? I think it would go a little something like this:

Fauxcahontas Warren: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I've actually thought about our beliefs. Scary. As. Sh*t."

Bernie Sanders: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I believe that race shouldn't matter."

Creepy Joe Biden: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I see chicks and darkies as children who must be cuddled. What? What's wrong with that?"

Andrew Yang: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I believe stopping circumcision and paying athletes are the issues of our time."

Beto: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I don't believe any of the crap they believe. I believe in my own superior being."

Pete Buttigieg: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I think I'm more than just a gay media crush."

John Hickenlooper: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I believe my beliefs are those of a Democrat. They should be at least."

Kamala Harris: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... uh... I have no independent beliefs."

Jay Inslee: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I know where Washington State is."

Amy Klobuchar: Unlike 90% of our supporters... I believe bullying is effective with staff."

Tim Ryan: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I don't hate white men."

Kirsten Gillibrand: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I've destroyed male Democrats. How's civilian life treatin' you, Al Franken?"

Cory Booker: "Unlike 90% of our supporters... I believe I'm relevant."

Yeah. Probably wouldn't work.

[+]