There is a debate going on right now on how fictional characters might have voted in the 2024 elections. Some people have speculated that Ron Swanson, a character on the television show Parks and Recreation, would have voted for Trump. Nick Offerman, the actor who played Ron Swanson, disagrees. A debate is now raging.

My only thought on the matter is who cares? Why are people getting so worked up over how a fictional character might have voted? They aren’t real people so they couldn’t have voted in the first place. More importantly, and I can’t stress this enough, is why are news organizations reporting on this incredibly irrelevant matter.

The media is jumping on this ginned up controversy because that is what makes the news business money — ginned up controversies. People want to see action and emotion. Controversies are the bread and butter of television. On the other hand, People don’t watch television to see reasonable people talking calmly about their opinions and then working towards a solution. This means that television executives exploit any controversy that might get people’s hackles rising.

Though, debating about Ron Swanson’s voting decision seems to be near the bottom of the ginned up controversies barrel. There is nothing there. Absolutely nothing. The person doesn’t exist. He can’t really have an opinion on the matter because of that. Still, despite this very important fact, people are getting worked up about this and actually to and froing about it like it matters. Such is the state of the American free press.

For the record, in case you are wondering, which I am sure you are because everybody in the civilized world is, I don’t care who Ron Swanson voted for.

Lucian Truscott IV proposes the most bizarre reason yet for the Democrats loss in last year’s election. His idea is that too many of the potential Democratic voters were high on legal marijuana. Yes. You heard it right. As a legal marijuana smoker, I can only reply one way. For Christ’s fucking sake, man, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for that one.

His opinion, which he himself concedes is based in speculation and no data whatsoever, sees millions of potential voters emotionally deadened to the prospect of an authoritarian takeover of their government just failed to vote. They just weren’t scared enough to vote because they were floating on feel good marijuana.

This isn’t even worth consideration — not even worth a maybe and lets look into this further. This is bullshit with a capital B. It is just a way to avoid looking at the bigger problem that large swaths of the Democratic Party establishment are out of touch with regular voters. Hell, they are out of touch with their own voters.

I hang with a primarily liberal Democratic group and I don’t know anyone who cares about proper pronoun use or support sex change operations for children. Republicans managed to attach these really suspect ideas onto the Democratic brand. The Democratic Establishment did relatively little to change this perception. Instead of Hell no this isn’t what we are about, they downplayed the importance of the issues saying that the vast majority of voters don’t care about these issues as they only affect a small number of Americans. Not talking about an issue that is unpopular to the general population is a terrible response to the question. It is as good as admitting that these issues were indeed important to the Democratic Party but are too toxic to talk about.

If people in my liberal circles aren’t particularly worried about proper pronouns and child sex change operations, then I am pretty certain that people who have less liberal inclinations are baffled. This awkward non-response left a lot of people asking why are we talking about transexuals in the schools in the first place. Parents would much prefer children learning what a pronoun is before learning which is their child’s preferred pronoun. These aren’t issues that will capture the imaginations of mainstream voters.

Say like the homeless overrunning the streets of our cities. I happen to agree that this is a bigger problem and isn’t easily solved. It also sounds like an excuse to do absolutely nothing. Well, then, if you can’t do anything to resolve the problem, then why wouldn’t people opt for someone, no matter how awful he is, who seems willing to take on the problem. Liberal government has to perform with the resources it has and perform well. Right now the perception is that government is failing to deal with the homeless problem and, I am afraid, this perception is right.

A lot of this caution is due to concern about the rights of homeless people. Middle class people vote, the homeless do not. Political parties have to deal with reality in order to get elected. This means addressing the concerns of this larger electorate is an important step in winning elections. When people have homeless people camping out on their streets and government says we are unable to help you because the homeless have rights, well what the hell can you do then? Shrugging your shoulders in despair is hardly a motivating call to action.

In the meantime, by all means, go after the non-voting marijuana smokers if you must. But, I think a better use of our resources would be to learn how to deliver better government services to the people who vote. All I know is that after reading all Truscott’s bullshit, I need to smoke me a joint.

In the past, I said that I would support a serial killer Democrat over a Mother Teresa Republican. The point, for me, is that the party matters more for me than the person nominated by the party. I am assuming that the serial killer would support the same issues that I, a fellow Democrat, support. I may not like the serial killer. I may much prefer sitting down with the Mother Teresa Republican than a blood thirsty killer but, in the end, I will vote for someone agrees with me on issues I care about. Particularly if he is going to be president. This means, I will have to, on occasion, align myself with people I don’t particularly like. I stand by that statement.

Which brings me to the election of Donald Trump. I think Donald Trump is a terrible person and I can’t imagine myself ever voting for him. Well, wait a minute, that is unless he changes his position on an array of issues and is somehow nominated by the Democratic Party and he was running against Ted Cruz and then, yes, I would happily vote for Donald Trump. Not because he was a good person, a truthful person but because, given the choices I have, he is the best possible option for implementing the policies I want. I vote for the person I agree with on policy and not the person I like best.

So I find it a little irritating when people say they could never vote for a man like Donald Trump and, because of your principles, you then are cutting out any Trump voters from your life. I have seen people asking any Trump voters in their friends list to unfriend them, people are cancelling their holidays with Trump voting relatives and some women are trying to organize a sex strike against Trump voting men. These people think they are punishing their Trump voting acquaintances. Why this is necessary is beyond me because they seemed perfectly willing to maintain their relationships as long as Harris won. Losing is what broke the camel’s back here. There is no principle involved. If Trump voters are so despicable, they were despicable before the election results came rolling in. Instead of looking like a moral stance based on good principles, they look more like a child throwing a tantrum.

Then there is calling the Trump voters racists, misogynists and stupid. This is half the country. Now if you are doing this in the privacy of your own home to let of some steam, go for it. But it isn’t particularly helpful public position when you are trying to persuade people to change their votes in the next election. Indeed it confirms all of their worst impressions of the snowflake liberal. Liberals just aren’t tough enough to handle disagreement and losing. Well, then toughen up buttercup because, if the battle is with facism as so many people believe, liberals need to be able to deal with people who disagree with them, address their concerns and hopefully persuade them to change. Taking to your bed is of no help at all.

That doesn’t mean beat yourself up listening to racists and misogynists spew their poison but it also means that there is a range of people who voted for Trump. Some were enthusiastic and thus unreachable, some were voting for the lesser of two evils and are potentially persuadable. They need thoughtful argument. Joe Rogan, for instance, who was a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2020 seems like a good example. Harris refusing to go on his show certainly didn’t help her cause with him or his millions of followers. Worse still, she opted out of appearing on Rogan’s show because she was afraid how it would affect her left wing supporters. Well, who else were left wingers going to vote for? Jill Stein? Better to show up for Rogan and disappoint the left wing purists. Even if Rogan was unpersuadable, it would have shown Harris was willing to reach out to the broader electorate instead she looked like a whiny snowflake.

The question shouldn’t be why are the American people so horrible. The better question is why did so many Americans, given the choice they had, choose a two bit carnival barker over a rather conventional Democratic politician. There is a problem here that needs to be addressed. Seeing how Democrats are stuck with the voters they have and not the voters they want, it might be a good idea to figure it out before 2026.

I know that the Social Justice Kitten calendar is a joke on Left-Wing political correctness but it has a frighteningly close resemblance to actual statements coming from the theorists. For example, one of the calendar pages reads: You are not allowed to exclude me from your dating pool.

Just a quick google search and you will find people discussing this very topic on Reddit and Psychology Today. Yes, there are people who think heterosexual men should date Trans women even if they haven’t had the trans surgery replacing the male genitalia with female genitalia. So, a man, who is sexually turned on by women, should include trans women, who still have their male genitalia, in their dating pool simply because the trans women identifies as a woman or else the man risks being called transphobic. I suppose he could exclude the trans woman if she had voted for Trump.

View the pages of this calendar and you will see why the intellectual left wing is having trouble connecting with working class Americans. The travails of the trans community have limited interest in the vast majority of people. It is something they don’t understand and, more importantly, don’t care about. It might be argued that they should. OK, maybe they should but the reality is they don’t. Saying shit like this doesn’t mean that actual people believe it. Elections should be fought in the reality of the present moment and not in the idealized hope of what people should act like sometime in the future.

The modern Left’s assumption is that they have won the argument. There is nothing more to talk about and everyone should bow down to their understanding of how people should behave. But, they haven’t won the argument and people aren’t listening to what they have to say. So good luck with changing the minds of working people.

The problem with comparing Donald Trump to Hitler is that Hitler is as bad as they come. Very few people quite match up to Hitler, Stalin and Mao spring to mind but then, after them, there is a pretty huge gap between potential Hitlers and actual Hitlers. It is very inaccurate measurement and should be used sparingly if ever. because if Trump is like Hitler, then isn’t killing Trump the right thing to do. There is no moral equivocation here. Better to kill the tyrant before the tyrant has power.

My narrow viewpoint of the efficacy of comparing Trump to Hitler, however, is not universally agreed upon. People are comparing Trump to Hitler, or at least to a potential Fascist dictator, and claiming he is an existential threat to democracy. If he is indeed that dangerous that leaves us with the question does Trump deserve killing?

I, personally, think it is a bad idea. A really bad idea. This means we who oppose the man need to be careful when people try to make an attempt on his life. Make it clear that Trump does not deserve this treatment and that this behavior is unacceptable. Indeed assassinating political opponents is far more dangerous than Trump himself. So far, Democrats, at least publicly, are saying this. There is, however, this unspoken sentiment that the world would be better off without him.

I think it needs to be said: he is a human being. An awful human being but a human being nonetheless. If he doesn’t rise to Hitleresque, and he doesn’t, then he deserves, as much as I do, his life. Nobody has the right to execute someone because you don’t like him or his politics. If he gets elected, we will need to see what happens.

It is a risk. But one that is preferable to people taking the law into their own hands. A Trump assassination is potentially disastrous in so many ways because, if the right wing is as dangerous as the Left believes, there could be bloody revenge and then what happens? This means President Trump is a better bet than a dead Trump.

Now, a better solution is for Harris to beat him, and beat him soundly, in the upcoming election.

Donald Trump apparently calls Kamala Harris a bitch. In private. So what? Why is this a headline? Why is this shocking?

  1. It is private behavior. He can say what ever wants to say in private including calling Kamala Harris a bitch.
  2. Donald Trump has a history of bad mouthing almost everybody including members of his own party. Is it really that shocking to discover that he calls a political opponent who is presently besting him a bitch? And, least we forget, he did it in private.
  3. What are people supposed to do with this information? So Trump calls Harris a bitch? Yes it is sexist but so what? Bitch sometimes is the right word. I mean would bastard be better? If I am mad at someone, I might call them a bitch. I find it hard to condemn a man for doing something that I might do particularly if it is done in private.

The only interesting thing about this little tidbit is that someone close to Trump wants to screw him over and they are talking to the press. Now that is interesting to me.

Elon Musk announced his intentions to give $45 million a month to a pro-Trump Super Pac. If he is true to his word, he will, at least, contribute $180 million to the Trump campaign before the election.

Think about it. He has an extra $180 million free dollars to contribute to an election campaign. This is a fairly large sum of money in anyone’s books. Unlike most people, his donation will not be missed in the least bit. He has billions so it doesn’t matter to him if he loses $180 million dollars.

If Trump wins, there is no way that Trump could pay off Musk other than through favors. Even the best person would have difficultly saying no to a man who gave you $180 million and Trump is far from being the best person. To be fair to Trump, in his crooked understanding of wealth, he probably thinks there is nothing wrong with billionaires draining the public trough any way but this makes it ridiculously easy for him to say yes.

More importantly, if Musk has this amount of money, why not divide it among his own employees instead of investing in a political campaign. $180 million divided among the employees of Tesla and Instagram would bring real benefits to his own employees, encourage other rich people to do the same and it spreads the wealth around a bit to people who can then make campaign contributions of their own.

Musk is free to use this money in any way he wanted yet he choose to use this money to support a political action committee. With all his billions, he would rather gamble with a political candidate that may lose than giving more money to his own employees. Spreading the wealth this way would also give some political power to his employees. Now, because he is such a generous leader, these employees might follow his lead and contribute to the pro-Trump Pac or they may choose to give to the Democrats but it wouldn’t be one man using this money to gain more political leverage.

But Musk would much rather spin the wheel with Trump. To get what exactly? More billions? This disproves this oft repeated notion that billionaires will do the right thing with their money if only left alone. Musk would much rather keep the money which also keeps the political power this money can provide strictly within his hands.

If the government took only half of the $180 million, Musk would still have $90 million to contribute to Trump. Wouldn’t it be good for Musk to help pay off the national debt the Republicans are so worried about and it wouldn’t be a bit of a problem for Musk because he wasn’t planning to put the money back into his business and creating in the first place. Win Win, I say.

The thing that frightens me most since Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance is the number of Democrats who think Joe Biden is the only Democrat who can beat Donald Trump.

I like Joe Biden, I do. But he isn’t a particularly strong candidate. He has ran for President numerous times and never got past the early primaries. Barrack Obama rescued him from obscurity when he made Biden his Vice-Presidential candidate which left him the highest ranking Democrat eligible for the presidency after Hillary Clinton, another sure thing, by the way, lost. He is old and a visibly frailer man than he was in 2020 which shouldn’t be a particularly surprising circumstance for 81 year old man.

So Biden, this not particularly strong candidate, is the best that the Democrats got to run against the demented Donald Trump. Trump who has serious problems putting together a coherent sentence, who has no real agenda other than his own personal grievances and lining his pocket, who has a history of questionable business practices, a man who can say something one moment and deny that he ever said in the next breath, a man who is publicly on the grift to oil company executives, a man who has little grasp on the complex problems facing this country, a man that many members of his own party can’t bring themselves to vote for, this is the man so powerful that only Joe Biden can beat?

If Joe Biden is the only solution to the Donald Trump problem then the Democrats have a much bigger problem than a fragile Joe Biden. They had four years to line up suitable opponents for Trump and yet they decided to prop up an old man and hope for the best. This reveals a party with a lack of confidence in itself and unprepared for the future. Seriously, if the Democrats can’t beat an idiot like Donald Trump with any number of alternate candidates than politics might not be the best profession for them to be in.

People are scratching their heads wondering why more Blacks, one of the most, if not the most dependable Democratic voters, are saying they are going to vote for Trump. It is so frustrating to see the bewilderment, shrugged shoulders and the inability to explain what is going on here.

What is more disturbing is that people in the Democratic Party don’t seem to believe that there is anything wrong. The experts just remark how none of this makes sense for Blacks to voting against their own self interest and that Biden will retain the Black vote in November. Well, maybe, but it would be nice to see a more energetic effort to determine if this is true and, if it is true, what they are going to do about it.

Polls may be wrong. They also may be right and this is the canary in the coal mine. The question is Is anyone listening?

There are many good reasons I won’t be voting for Donald Trump this November, but the one that stands out is that he is mean-spirited. Trump recently pointed out Senator Jon Tester’s weight. It takes a lot of moxie for an overweight man to pick on another man’s weight. Let he who is without extra weight cast the first stone, I say. But much more importantly, what adult publicly points out a person’s weight? It is widely understood social faux pas. He isn’t making a catty comment about someone among a few friends which is wrong but also completely understandable. Almost everyone makes catty comments from time to time. And, if some friend reported that Trump said something like this in a private setting, I would think the reporting friend was an asshole. Trump, though, is speaking in front of an audience at a fundraising dinner. He thinks being mean-spirited is amusing and, worse still, isn’t the least bit embarrassed about it.

Since he finds it so amusing, I couldn’t help myself with my title. It is all in good fun after all. Ha Ha Ha Ha.