Intersectional Feminists

Posted on by

From what I understand, and admittedly it’s a little confusing like everything else the left produces, an intersectional feminist is a feminist who is engaging in cultural appropriation by adopting other Democrat victim demographic slogans.

For instance, an intersectional feminist will say things like “Hands up don’t shoot,” even though she’s not involved with the Black Lives Matter movement in any way. But since they’re fellow victim demographics–hence, an intersection–she can virtue signal to her heart’s content on such matters. She can also call for climate justice and declare she believes in science and feel morally superior for memorizing the slogans. Ask her what they mean, and she’ll undoubtedly answer they’re a consensus, but I digress.

So what brings this on? Probably missing out on the fun the other groups are having. Calling for choice, an end to income inequality, and shrieking to keep rosaries away from ovaries grows old after a while. There are fresh new causes and slogans out there. Can’t really blame a committed leftist for wanting to get in on the action.

Now, what is a “structural feminist”? I have no idea.

It’s difficult losing a presidential election

Posted on by

That’s well known and understood. Rejection is hard to take in any form, and losing a presidential election is possibly the ultimate rejection because it’s the most publicized in the entire world. It’s even worse when the loser believes she was entitled to the job and the election was a mere formality. Everybody gets that, but Hillary really needs to move on at this point and just shut up.

Romney and McCain recovered, or at least hid how they felt. Hillary needs to do the same and just have fun with her grandkids. Good grief. There is a clear set of constitutional rules and Candidate Trump masterfully won within the rules. While Hillary made sporadic appearances and rested up afterward, Trump strategically crisscrossed key states and tirelessly campaigned.

But Hillary isn’t about to find peace with that. She spends more time making public appearances and giving interviews lamenting her loss and blaming everybody and everything from Comey to the Russians, than she did campaigning. If she’d campaigned half as well as she complains, she might have won.

What if Trump had said it, instead?

Posted on by

“The 80s called, they want their foreign policy back.” — Barack Hussein Obama

(Not the exact quote, but the actual quote verbatim is jumbled in Obama-syntax and doesn’t lend itself well to the written word.) What would have happened if Candidate Donald J. Trump had said it instead? Let’s find out.

In a CNN Segment, a Perfectly Coiffed Anchorette (PCA) introduces a panel of four guests…

PCA: Good evening and thank you for being here. During the debate last night, Presidential Candidate Donald Trump said the following.

A brief clip of Donald Trump making the 80s comment is run.

PCA: We’re going to discuss this developing controversy with our panel. First, I’d like to introduce Professor Dukie Weinstein, head of the physics department at Harvard University.

A panel of four heads appears in a square pattern on the right side of the screen, while she occupies the left. Her eyebrows lower with grave concern.

PCA: Professor, the Washington Post’s factchecker has assigned this four Pinocchios, because they claim it’s not scientifically possible for the 80s to call. Do we have the technology to talk with the past?

Professor Weinstein: Well, it’s a complicated answer. There are theoretical physicists who have speculated that using a quantum multiverse string model with 31 dimensions, it is possible for the past to call the present. But there’s a catch. It requires more energy than is in the entire Milky Way galaxy to conduct a three minute call. It would have to be brief. So we don’t have the technology yet, and we certainly didn’t have it in the 80s who Trump claims made the call.

PCA: Thank you Professor Weinstein, that certainly puts an interesting, er, dimension on the subject. We now go to Doctor Mickey Weiss, a clinical psychologist. Doctor, claiming the 80s called has raised serious concerns about Trump’s mental health. What is your take on it?

Doctor Weiss: Donald Trump’s claim to have talked with the past is a classic example of psychotic detachment syndrome. He’s become detached from reality. It’s impossible to diagnose, of course, without examining him. But his claim raises a red flag and I feel it’s too much to risk electing him president.

PCA nods knowingly.

PCA: Thank you doctor. We have Congresswoman Maxine Jackson Lewis from the Congressional Black Caucus. Good evening, Congresswoman. What are your thoughts about Donald Trump’s claim.

MJL: Now, more than ever, I feel that electing Donald Trump president would be a disaster for women and people of color.

PCA’s eyebrows lower in such grave concern, they nearly reach her eyeballs.

PCA: And why is that?

MJL: If Donald Trump has his timephone in the White House, it will mean all the gains we’ve made will be erased. What happens when 1910 calls and women can no longer vote? What happens when 1850 comes and we’re all in chains again? Donald Trump’s timephone will mean our shtruggle was for nothing.

PCA: Thank you, Congresswoman. We’ll now ask Trump supporter Gemmint Otis
to weigh in. Mr. Otis, what do you say to all the women and minorities who will be adversely impacted by a Trump presidency?

GO: First of all, Mr. Trump’s comment was meant to be sarcas–

His square becomes a test pattern of vertical colors in a rainbow pattern, then goes black.

PCA: We’ve lost him. Thank you all for joining us tonight.

Trump Is a Planet

Posted on by

Indeed he is. To be a planet, it’s necessary to clear the field within its orbit. Also to be big enough to become spherical. Trump isn’t spherical, but he doesn’t need to be. He’s Trump, and he has the hair. That hair is bigly.

Besides, he cleared the field in epic fashion and made it look easy. First there was the ponderous low energy object, designated Jeb! No problem there, Trump just swept that one aside. It’s now a rogue in interstellar space. Then there were numerous planetoids that aspired to be planets but weren’t ready for prime time. They spun out one by one, until only a few were left.

There was the smaller asteroid, Lil’ Marco, who gave it a try but its time wasn’t here. Besides, Lil’ Marco tended to invite foreign objects into our solar system instead of clearing them out. He couldn’t be relied upon to keep his orbit free of invaders from deep space. He seemed to welcome them.

There was the rather nondescript object called the Ohio Nuisance, but that was just a nuisance. In good time, it was gone, leaving only the Mighty Trump and the radioactive Planet Cruz. Cruz was tough to clear out, but eventually Planet Trump managed. Cruz is in a different orbit, but still visible. Trump is okay with that.

But then came the Blond Death Star.

The Blond Death Star had been around a long time, a chunky object with a permanently crooked orbit and an increasingly wobbly rotational axis that at times became horizontal. Still, it was extremely dangerous, with a noxious Sulphuric atmosphere. People who came within its orbital field had an inexplicable way of ending up dead. Those who lived to tell about it were forever corrupted. Wise people stayed far away. To make matters worse, the Blond Death Star was made of antimatter, which is highly destructive over time. Many people are attracted to this antimatter, without recognizing its dangers.

It wasn’t easy, but in time Trump outmaneuvered the Blond Death Star by claiming space the Blond Death Star has assumed was its. But there is much antimatter remaining, which in sufficient quantities presents a danger to Planet Trump. This antimatter causes problems through besieging its victims with fakery and outright lies. So far, Planet Trump seems up to the task. Let’s hope his orbit stays tight and true.

In retrospect, Obama’s been a pretty good president

Posted on by

I’ve been a bit critical of him at times, but much of it was probably unwarranted. He’s been telling people in other countries that he’s been a pretty good president, and who am I to argue? He has. Look at his accomplishments. The world is safer, better educated, more stable, and his foreign policy is rife with successes. Yes, he’s been pretty good. In fact, he’s been swell.

Why the change of heart? Well, I’ll offer a hypothetical. This hypothetical has no relation to Obama, who’s been pretty good. But suppose we had elected somebody who wanted the job to get even, particularly with a certain demographic he didn’t like very much? Like Western civilization, maybe. Not that this would be even possible, of course; the American people are smarter than that. But continuing with this hypothetical, this president had fucked everything up to the point that people debated if it was intentional or due to incompetence. I mean fucked up much of the planet in eight short years. Then this president told much of the planet that he’d been a pretty good president and he was still in office.

To thicken the plot, his successor planned on reversing the damage he’d caused, instead of recognizing the wonder of his legacy. In such a situation, wise people would nod their heads and agree that he was a pretty good president because to argue the point might cause him to use his phone to unleash even more civil unrest than was already happening. And he could do it. He could also use his pen to pardon all kinds of people who shouldn’t be pardoned. Or he could start World War III.

But enough of this Friday evening rambling. Such a hypothetical is absurd, and is the product of an overcaffeinated mind who listens to too much talk radio and watches Fox News. It has no bearing on reality and I’m just thankful we have Obama instead, who’s been a pretty good president.

The Genius of Donald J. Trump

Posted on by

“Hillary Clinton May Be the Most Corrupt Person to Ever Seek the Presidency of the United States.”

–Donald J. Trump in his now famous speech where he simply told the truth about Crooked Hillary, which until now had not been done by a candidate.

The statement is brilliant in its simplicity, accuracy, and boldness. Think about it. How does Crooked Hillary respond to it? There are three ways, none of which are very good because she really is corrupt.

  1. She can ignore it, which is what she seems to be doing. This never works very well because it gets out there and a lot of people hear it. Granted, it will work better for her than it would for a Republican, because the media repeats things about Republicans and asks every other Republican within audio range of a microphone to comment on it. But it’s still damaging for a Democrat when it’s said so audaciously.
  2. Deny being corrupt at all. Yeah, right. Is there anybody out there who really believes she isn’t corrupt? Even the Democrats know it, but they laugh it off because they know Democrats get away with corruption. Partly because Republicans are cautioned by the media that independents don’t like such things pointed out, and therefore don’t bring it up. This time it’s being pointed out.
  3. Try to find somebody who really was more corrupt. This might be difficult, because there might not be one. Mr. Trump might be right. And if they find a long forgotten candidate back before anybody around was even born, it won’t help Hillary very much.

So there aren’t any good answers to it, because it’s true. And we can count on Mr. Trump to keep it up. Sit back and enjoy a candidate who finally takes the fight to the Democrats.

 

Kindergarten

Posted on by

When I was in kindergarten way way back, like from 1959 to 1960, when the world was still in black and white, we sat on a linoleum floor. No desks. At even intervals throughout the room, there were individual tiles that were a different color from the rest. Each child was assigned a “square” to sit on. We sat on our squares because kids were civilized back then, at least as civilized as a kid that age can be expected to be.

Now it seems that Democrats have taken to sitting on the floor in the House of Representatives, except they aren’t as well behaved as we were way way back in kindergarten. Now they shout and disrupt things until the house goes on recess, after which they get up and go to the buffet. Speaker Ryan let them do it and tried to ignore them the best he could. Why did the Democrats do this? They want our guns.

Here’s  what the Speaker  should have done.

Speaker Ryan missed a golden opportunity to ridicule those Democrats. He could have brought in a bag full of goodies for them. Pacifiers, jacks, tiddly winks, juice boxes (not sure what a juice box is, but I hear kids drink them), chocolate milk (or has that been forbidden?), Legos, blocks, and bubbles. He should have treated them like kindergarteners, which still would have been more than they deserved. Imagine bubbles floating up from the house floor, like it was Lawrence Welk. You know those Democrats wouldn’t be able to resist a game of jacks or tiddly winks.

Come on, Republicans. Donald Trump is showing you how it’s done. Start in on these Democrats. It’s not as if they deserve to be treated as serious people.

Just eliminate weather

Posted on by

The only reason I’m writing this is because hardly anybody reads this blog. If they did, I’d never give the left any more ideas than they can come up with on their own. But this one would certainly get them to rub their chins and go, “Hmmmmmm.” The idea is to eliminate weather.

Obviously it’s not possible to eliminate weather, but it’s certainly possible to stop using the word. It’s still used everywhere. Radio, TV, newspapers, and websites. It’s what people think about when it rains, or if it’s hot, or if it’s cold. Meanwhile, the left calls it “climate change” and calls for treaties and carbon taxes.

Well, the problem is that the masses aren’t calling it climate change. They’re still thinking about weather, and calling it weather. The left needs to halt this kind of insurgent talk, pronto. Like the list of things Hillary supporters tell us we can’t say, the left has to tell us we can’t call it weather anymore. The way to do this is to instruct radio, TV, newspapers, and websites that they are to call it “climate” from now on. They’ll capitulate, they always do. Think about it. The evening news will have the “Climate Report” at 5:18. The papers, what’s left of them, will have the climate section near their left wing columnists. The radio can have traffic and climate every ten minutes.

Once everybody has their minds right, and the word “weather” slips into the seldom accessed recesses of our collective consciousness, bring out the pollsters. Poll people every time it rains or there’s a heat wave. Soon enough, 60% of the people will be calling for treaties and carbon taxes to get the climate back on track to 72 F and sunny skies.

What if Hillary is telling the truth? A theory

Posted on by

Now, there’s an attention grabber of a headline! Actually, it’s a lot easier to write about Hillary telling the truth because there’s a lot less to write about, which is great for those of us not getting paid by the word. But follow this reasoning, please. First of all, Hillary is a money-grubbing egotistical arrogant crooked congenital liar, so this isn’t a defense of her character. But it’s likely she’s telling the truth about the FBI investigation.

In order for this theory to work, it’s necessary to start with a conclusion and work our way backward. The conclusion is that she won’t get indicted. (If she does get indicted the theory was wrong, which means we’ll just have to live with the disappointment.) So concluding that she won’t get indicted begs the question, why do the investigation at all?

Because, simply, there was a lot of classified and sensitive information involved and the intelligence services are going to want to know what the information was, where it was, who possessed it, and who could have accessed it.  Once they know that, they can evaluate how much damage was done. Again, this isn’t a character defense. No doubt Hillary committed multiple crimes regarding the handling and transmission of classified information, but that’s secondary to the national security concerns she caused.

This theory explains Bryan Pagliano pleading the fifth and getting immunity. No doubt, his lawyer advised him not to incriminate himself, but the FBI would need him to supply the technical information on the server setup. People are speculating they want him to talk so they can get people higher up. But it’s just IT information they want.

So what’s this about Hillary telling the truth? Just that she called it a “security review,” which is what it is. Kind of. It’s not a criminal investigation at all, just an attempt to evaluate how much her reckless behavior damaged national security. She really does belong in jail, but we have to be realistic. A Democrat party-controlled justice department isn’t about to indict the Democrat party frontrunner.

Is The Donald America’s Putin?

Posted on by

I ask this in a good way because there’s a lot to be said for Comrade Putin. Yes, he allegedly has his critics poisoned or shot, but once you get past this he’s really pretty good. For one, he refreshingly sticks up for Russia and defends her against encroaching PC stupidity. (Compare this to BHO, who propagates PC stupidity.) He also has Greenpeace morons thrown in the Gulag, even going so far as to not cater to the Vegans amongst them. He doesn’t force feed them bacon or anything, they just have to subsist on bread and water for a while. What’s not to like about the guy?

Anyway, back to The Donald: Donald Trump. One gets the sense that he’s cut from the same cloth as Vladimir. For one, he wants to make America great again. Nobody has dared utter such a notion for a long time. Democrats don’t want America to be great, and Republicans are afraid to try because some minority will find something to be offended over. PC, or political correctness, is nothing more than a way to stifle dissent against the left and it’s enforced by minorities, gays, feminists, trans-fill-in-the-blanks, or whatever other categories have been conjured up recently. They just have to say they’re offended and all dissent is stifled.

Except it doesn’t work on Trump. Or Putin.

Why doesn’t it work on Trump? Probably because he gets right back in their faces and hands them twice the shit they’re dishing out. And he makes it look easy. You’d think the rest of the GOP would stand up and take notice, and they have. Except they aren’t learning from it, they’re trying to stop it. Evidently, the Republicans have grown comfortable with their role as a minority party, even when they’re in the majority. They’ve even deployed Romney, to help the GOP lose this election too. First time we’ve seen last cycle’s loser try to make the next guy lose.

It’s an interesting and entertaining year.