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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thoughts?

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.

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.

Thoughts?

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.

Thoughts?

The Slow Burn of Slow Joe

Biden is falling apart.

Joe Biden is falling apart as a candidate for 2020. Honestly, I don't think he ever really had a chance, but if he did, it's coming apart now.

Let me back up...

As I've noted many times, the Democratic Party is now the party of single, white (angry) women and (angry) blacks... having driven out the last of the working white men. That said, the women dominate the party. Why? There are 150 million women in the US. Probably 20% of those fall into the group who form the Democratic core. That's 30 million angry, wannabe-oppressed, wannabe-victimed women. I am victim, hear me whine and whine and whine. By comparison, there are 16 million(ish) blacks, but only maybe half will vote. So women outnumber them 4-1. That's power. Moreover, these women, being professionals or married to professionals, donate the bulk of Democratic cash. Their teachers union sisters comprise the vast majority of Democratic delegates and volunteers. That's the muscle that drives the party. So the women have the numbers, control the money, and have the muscle. This gives them the power... and they don't share.

So this cycle more than any prior cycle, the primary will be about appeasing these angry women voters. Biden sucks at that.

Biden has a history of being creepy. He's also prone to gaffes (Bidenisms) and he has no experience in the angry new world that is the Democratic Party, where virtue signalling has replaced policy and certain people are by definition not allowed to virtue signal because their gender/race/age/wealth/boss-hood makes them presumptively an oppressor.

The issue with Biden touching women is a great example of the problem he faces. In the past, the media could be counted on to keep the lunatic attacks buried and to downplay the legitimate ones because he was a Democrat and that meant he was presumed to be virtuous. That's not true anymore though.

With the shift in mentality, Biden is now part of the oppressives. He is a white man and, therefore, his crimes against women will be roundly proclaimed and condemned, and his crime is to come across as creepy. That's the death sentence in the #metoo world of Democratic virtue signaling.

So how does he fix it? He can't. He is forbidden from sympathizing with the oppressed because his gender and race makes him an oppressor. Years of service and prior-blind loyalty count for nothing. So he's doomed.

I don't think Biden has any idea how to handle this, and the more he tries to fix it, the more damage he will cause. Because of this, I think he will find that his 22% support is his ceiling, not his starting point, and I suspect it will be a short, nasty ride from here before he drops out after getting destroyed in the first couple primaries.

Thoughts?