BRAD ~ Your snarky insinuation—that Joy Behar’s genuine fear for the 2026 election is identical to Trump’s feigned outrage over 2020—proves you aren't just ethically bankrupt; you’re a hack. You aren't even a pretend pundit; you’re just cosplaying one in a cheap suit of false equivalencies. If punditry is beyond your ken, I suggest a pivot to Abject Sycophancy. You’ve already done the internship.

Forging a "both sides" narrative here requires either a profound ignorance of the facts or a total indifference to the truth. When Behar warns of GOP interference, she is making a rational conjecture based on proven history. When Trump whined about 2020, he wasn't expressing concern; he was crafting a cover story for his own corrupt attempts to forge certifications and rig the results himself.

To illustrate the sheer, gross absurdity of your logic, let us step into a fractured fairy tale.

Location: Ye Olde Typical Grimm’s Black Forest

Characters:

Black Forest Ham: [Stage name of The Wolf]. A nefarious narcissist and notorious pussy-grabber. He is the infamous founder of the Evil Nemesis Comedy Club and proud proprietor of the Den of Thick Thieves.

Little Blue Riding Hood: Veteran reporter and prolific opiner for The Black Times. She is an omnigigworker—singer of CookieGrams (where the MA/XXX ratings pay the bills), occasional postwoman (and sporadical postman, depending on the moon), and FoodOnFoot volunteer. Finally, she is the partner of Deep Woodsman, dwelling with him in the beautiful darkness of missionary anal, savoring the feedback loop of linked eyes and that slow-motion slide toward the "freeze-frame" moment—a no-motion explosion that lasts forever, outside of time and mind.

The Backstory:

A year ago, the Wolf’s inner predator devoured Little Blue’s homebound Grandma. While the evidence was "lost" in the Den of Thieves, the forest knew. Yet, the Wolf—as his comedian persona—penned a letter to the editor weeping over the "lack of safety in the woods," pointing his hairy finger at his enemies to provide cover for his own hunger. The public saw through the Maya of his projection then, and they see it now.

Today, the Wolf’s pack has grown. They aren't just howling; they’re building traps. When Little Blue uses her column to sound the alarm, she isn't "complaining." She is practicing Right Mindfulness—calling out the predator before the teeth sink in. You, Brad, are merely the Wolf’s mouthpiece, trying to convince the forest that the reporter’s warning is just as "dangerous" as the predator’s bite.

The moral of the story is: The man who screams "Fire!" while holding a match is a criminal; the person who screams "Fire!" because they smell smoke is a witness. Conflating the two is not "balance"—it is a total eclipse of the soul.

Brad, if you truly want to understand the "freeze frame" I described, step out of your cynical skin. You’d benefit from identifying with the heroine; opening yourself up to a righteous reaming might finally trigger a flash of Satori, stripping away your ego and leaving you with an honest perspective.

But if awakening is too terrifying, stay in the Den and pay lip service to empathy: go ahead and thoroughly rim the Asshole you idolize. Just don't be surprised when all you find there is a "beautiful darkness" of a much less enlightened kind.

Vincent Oshana --- Vinny --- I've read that you claim to be a comedian, so I take that claim into account as I try to figure out where you're coming from.

Usually, if a person's behaviors and statements are within a standard deviation from the mean (in other words, in the middle 2/3rds of normal humanity), I presume, barring evidence to the contrary, that inferring the person's motivations is a relatively-simple, linear, and non-reiterative process.

Part of the reason statistically-normal behavior patterns lend themselves to easier motivation analysis is that it lowers the probability there is any consistent and/or persistent conscious remolding of behaviors by the people in question themselves in order to intentionally create a specific response in other people (that is, the likelihood that the people in question are purposefully and systematically attempting to manipulate others in non-trivial ways.)

People behaving normally (toward the mean) are likely to be more authentic and less complicated, because relatively-unsophisticated manipulators, which includes most of us, are likely to change our behavior in unnatural, patterned, and improbable ways, thinking to maximize the immediate impact on our audience. Our clumsy attempts to create a false persona resembles Kabuki theater ---- overly broad movements and overly stylized, mimetic themes ---- more than it does Stanislavski/ Strasberg method acting, where the lifting of an eyebrow can imply the character state of mind and convey a subliminal message. Most of us unsophisticates are AI fighter pilots dumping shit, not peanut farmers helping to build homes for needy people.

Which brings me back to you, Vincent Oshana. You are not a real human being. You are an animated caricature-drawing exaggeration of a stereotype. Your unprovoked hyper-belligerence, relentlessly high-decibel, socially incompetent, simplistic, unnuanced steady-state is a one-man act. You're on an endless tour of venues. The pay is good, I assume (or else why sell your soul?)

But you are not a real human being.

Piers Morgan knows this, of course. He brings you on his show when he needs the clicks.

I'm not sure if he thinks the panel discussions when you're on the panel serve to enlighten his audience, rather than simply enflame them.

My guess is, the answer is no.

I think he's just sitting in front of this fireplace, banking the coals, nursing a brandy.

Speaking of nursing, I hope your hip heals well, Piers.

Some Republicans agree we need to attack Iran. Some don't.

Likewise, Democrats are divided on this matter.

Where the parties part ways, however, is on the question of whether Trump needs prior authorization from Congress. It's not so much Fetterman's opinion that Iran should be attacked that separates him from most other Democrats. Instead, it's his unwavering support for Trump's illegal, unconstitutional and corruptly immoral efforts to infiltrate every political institution and process that the United States has historically developed, sometimes at great cost, to try to safeguard our democracy. Trump is attempting to jam up this machinery of democracy and perversely repurpose it into producing the plutocracy he craves. Trump is intentionally an agent of Chaos.

Fetterman has shown his utter indifference to the rule of law, due process, equality under the law, adherence to standards, and the respect for the historic roles, rules and rituals which are the core principles of the Democratic Party and which stand in stark contrast to the guiding principles of the modern Republican Party, which is fear (fear of strangers, fear of newness, fear of the uncertain future), a feeling of helplessness in the face of waves of social change impossible to control, and hate (so much hate) (because it's much easier, of course, to point fingers and shake fists in defiant individualism, than to admit inadequacies and the need for help, and to link hands in common cause.

Bottomline: Fetterman appears to be more at home with oppressors than with oppressed. It's obvious that Fetterman has been trying to position himself for

1) a probable switch to the Republican Party before the 2028 primaries, and

2) barring that, a gig as a Fornicating Faux News Fact-free Fabulist.

Continuing to pretend to represent the Democratic Party, however, is not in his future. (I know, because I cast rat entrails. How divine!)

Robbie ~ Again, you do not disappoint. Virtually the entirety of Trump's performance was the showcasing of outstanding Americans, and him stealing unearned reflected glory from them. Another good part of his speech involved him describing the gruesome details of the victims of crimes that coincidentally happened to have been committed by undocumented immigrants, which predictably aroused universal sympathy, which Trump used to suggest he had a heart: stolen humanity on top of the stolen valor

The pièce de résistance was the charade of calling for all members of Congress to stand who thought their first duty was to protect American citizens against illegal aliens . That must've been a Stephen Miller warped idea of a gotcha!!! A twist on the classic "When did you stop breathing your grandmother?" chestnut

And as far as policy, he came up empty, unless you honestly think suggesting his beloved tariffs would replace the income tax is a good idea. Yeah, right: switching to the most regressive possible tax system would absolutely solve our catastrophic wealth/income inequality crisis...

Robbie, be on the side of America, for a change.

Greg asks, "Who do you believe?"

Normally, when an American president says one thing,

and the Iranian government says the opposite,

any patriotic American citizen would naturally assume the Iranians are lying.

But, as Greg well knows,

Trump tells the truth a lot like a broken clock tells the correct time:

accidentally, infrequently, and unreliably,

So

When Greg asks, "Who do you believe?"

Patriotic Americans could reasonably say, "Neither Trump nor Khomeini,"

Because with Trump, the correct approach is always, "Disbelieve until proven otherwise,"

and, with the Iranians, well, there's that whole "State sponsor of terrorism" thing.

Greg knows all this, how Trump lies the way normal people breathe,

so when Greg blames the fact that people don't automatically believe Trump

on their mythical "TDS,"

he's deliberately working on Trump's behalf to distract us from the truth,

that IT'S TRUMP FAULT THAT PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE HIM,

because TRUMP LIES FROM DAWN TO DUSK

& BACK TO DAWN, AGAIN... ad nauseum.

What we should do as Floridians (& elsewhere) is

1) ALL REGISTER AS REPUBLICANS,

2)TURN OUT EN MASSE TO VOTE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES,

3) CREATE GENERAL ELECTIONS BETWEEN WOKE VS. WOKER, and

4) SHOVE THAT UP DESANTIS' ASS. (NO LUBE)

8️⃣6️⃣4️⃣7️⃣🔜🔥🔥😈🔥🔥

Michael ~

I'm in the not-sure camp on all three, but not because there are details of the events that are blaringly inconsistent with the assassination attempts being genuine.

To be honest, I haven't exhaustively researched the publicly available accounts of the alleged attempts, nor have I read many of the commentaries either pro- or anti-conspiracy. The only thing I've taken from those reports & commentaries I have viewed is that there are no facts that absolutely rule out the possibility that one or more of the attempts were staged.

For most other politicians, Occam's Razor and the lack of counter-narrative evidence of possible conspiracy would lead me to assume they were probably genuine assassination attempts.

What prevents me in this case is: Trump.

Trump is a proven liar. He has lied to manipulate public opinion to achieve political goals. He has lied to attack/diminish his personal enemies, or support his allies. He has lied to hide his sins and faults or to clothe himself in non-existent virtues and achievements. He has lied to stir up a tempest in a teapot in order to distract our attention from a real-life brewing storm. He has lied because it's fun. He lies out of habit.

Man has been defined as, "the animal that uses tools."

Trump can be defined as, "the animal that lies." It's what he is.

Other defining characteristics:

Trump's empathic ability is virtually non-existent.

His relationships are almost entirely transactional, quid pro quo, always haggling for personal advantage.

Trump's morality is one of utilitarian egoism, in which the "good" is defined as that which most effectively benefits Trump. The potential benefit or harm to other people is not an ethical factor in his calculations, because he simply doesn't care about other people.

Trump's sociopathic narcissism, however, is made worse by his extreme lack of impulse control. His inner "baby Trump" id is strong and urgent, egged on by the warped ghost of his psychopathic father haunting his superego. He has found it difficult to exercise restraint, to go for the greater long-term overall gains that might result from him taking into account possible negative feedback and, therefore, moderating his impulse to grab immediate gratification. (Pussy-grabbing-they-let-you-do-it)

Trump, you must remember, has spoken glowingly of some of the most vicious dictators of our time, including Vladimir Putin, Kim Jung Un, and MBS.

Given the way these autocrats have embraced the use of political violence (*see following), and the way Trump has embraced and idolized these autocrats,

it's not unreasonable to believe Trump perfectly morally capable and willing to stage a mock assassination attempt against himself, even if that required the death of one or more other people.

I hold nothing past this man.

So, Michael, while I don't think it's PROBABLE that all of the assassination attempts were staged by Trump, I certainly think it's marginally POSSIBLE.

And, when it comes to the likelihood that at least one of the supposed attempts were staged by Trump, I believe it's sufficiently possible to warrant investigation, because I think the biggest mistake we can make with Trump is to underestimate his capacity for inhumanity, villainy, corruption, evil.

And, of course, self-pity, whining and pettiness.

8️⃣6️⃣4️⃣7️⃣🔜🔥🔥😈🔥🔥

[*Putin's record of the use of political violence includes: the2018 Novichok poisoning of Sergei Skripal, the 2006 polonium-210 poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, the.alarmingly high number of high-profile Russians—including oligarchs and critics— who have died of "Mysterious Death Syndrome" in suspicious circumstances, such as fatal falls from high-story windows, unexplained plane crashes (e.g., Yevgeny Prigozhin), and sudden heart failure.

Kim Jong Un’s non-stop public brutality includes the execution of his own uncle Jang Song Thaek using an anti-aircraft machine gun that literally pulverized the victim, and the public 2017 assassination of Kim's half-brother, Kim Jong Nam, at a Malaysian airport by two hitwomen using VX nerve toxin.

MBS infamously ordered the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi.]

The Faux News Five Have Trademarked Lies

January 27, 2026

The Faux News Five have trademarked lies.

They make no bones about it: their moral code's

Been rewritten—so finding favor in his eyes

Now trumps all truth; and trust in truth erodes.

But he corrupts; he corrodes: we see change

From common conman to some Thing strange

Yet still these venal pundits laud

This rough beast, as if it were a god.

(Note: to that theoretical 1 person who might care about such literary side trips: the overall structure and much of the key words/rhymes are patterned on "Ariel's Song" in Shakespeare's Tempest, while the "rough beast" mentioned in the last line can be found in Yeats' 1919 poem, "The Second Coming.")

Months ago, when I first came across "The Necessary Conversation" (TNC), I found it intriguingly different from most other political debate podcasts, in which participants (generally relative strangers to one another) are chosen because of their political ideology and are motivated almost solely by the desire to "win" personal domination via competition, rather than to find common ground via cooperation. Typically, interpersonal goals (such as strengthening their relationships or respecting the importance of preserving the other's dignity and self-esteem) are nowhere to be found. In contrast, the template presented by TNC --- a family struggling to hold itself together while trying to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable generational political differences --- seemed to offer a better match to what's really happening in our nation than those other podcasts featuring cage matches between the professionally opinionated. (Just like WWE, that wrestling just ain't real.)

Of course, I recognized that, like any other "reality show," TNC would be a mix of artifice and authenticity, but I thought it worthwhile to watch for a while, just in case it might be able to show us a safe path out of the deep, dark, dire forest of our awful Grimm politics.

Whether organic (from RL personalities) or scripted, roles have emerged:

1) Chad --- producer, director, writer, researcher, PR, techie, grip, and {of course) hero. His character is motivated by his love of fellowman and hatred of oppression, guided by real facts and reason to be self-assured and wise... Essentially, he is the holy man, the prophet, the voice of god.

2) Haley --- Chad's sidekick, loyal disciple, but her passions flare more extremely, more often, and more openly than Chad's sublime "peace that passeth all understanding." She's damaged goods (who learned early on how very unlovable she was, when demon daddy tortured her, and mommy saved herself, by siding with the beast.) She is the true believer, weakened by feelings of unworthiness.

3) Mary Lou --- The focus of this family focus group. She's portrayed as the very first of Bob's victims, who fell under his evil sway even before the children arrived, and who has ever since embraced Bob's every action the way MAGA celebrates Trump's, unreservedly, enthusiastically and unthinkingly. She is the long-lost soul, devotee of the devil, seemingly beyond any hope, that god has charged Chad with redeeming. God said, "Free her soul from all disinformation, Lead her to the truth, and You Shall Light the Way for the Rest to Follow!"

4) Bob --- Perhaps the person who lends himself most easily to caricature. When he supports Trump's actions, he not only agrees with the pretextual reasons parroted by the MAGA media [such as "ICE needs to deport every illegal alien."], but he gleefully endorses the unspeakable real reasons ["ICE needs to harass, traumatize, terrorize, arrest, detain, brutalize, and kill every non-white person in America, until we get back to the good old post-Reconstruction days ---- Make America Great Again"]. In fact, it's the very shamelessness of his raw brutality that suggests it must, to some extent, be a pose: surely, one would think, real human beings can't be as purely evil as Bob seems to be. Then, one thinks of Auschwitz, and remember it's possible. So, whether as self or as scripted, Bob plays the role of Beezelbub, the father of lies, in this family drama. As such, of course, he also represents all things Trump.

As my description of the cast probably reveals, I've given TNC more than a little attention and thought. For example, I've frequently wondered to what extent Bob's assholery was prima facie anus, just anus adjacent, or giving Chad a run for his money, competing to be the "holiest of all" actor.

I've also watched in amazement, as Mary Lou, time and again, demonstrated levels of intellectual dishonesty that I would have believed impossible for a normally intelligent, normally sane person who honestly wanted to communicate.

Which brings me to the purpose of this comment.

There's something very broken about the way you guys interact. Today's podcast has you, Chad, confronting your mother with the fact that Trump wants to create a slush fund of $1.7B, part of which would go to "compensate" people convicted (and since pardoned) of January 6 insurrection crimes. She said, that's fine with her: those people were wrongly convicted.

AND, ONCE AGAIN, YOU LET HER GET AWAY WITH THAT KIND OF BULLSHIT.

At some point (and that point should've been long, long ago), your conversations should've come to a screeching halt at moments like this, and you should've insisted she walk you through all of her proof, every source work, that substantiates her assertions. And, when she couldn't, then the FACT that the J6 rioters were righteously convicted should've been entered in a running JOURNAL of similarly PROVEN FACTS, never to be disputed again, barring truly new info.

The fact you all haven't done this, or something like this, suggests to me that your stated mission, freeing Mary Lou from her delusions, is not what's really happening.

Instead, I think you're all just going through your paces, harvesting the clicks and the superchat love offerings, and stringing us along.

Either that, or you're incompetent, Mary Lou is a dimwitted moron, and Bob's your uncle

and a monster.

Cruz didn't begin to outright lie until time-marker 8:30, Perhaps he wanted to keep cosplaying authentic sincerity just a moment longer. Maybe he thought that his call and response with Mr. Grimes ("Which party was mostly responsible for Jim Crow before the 60s?" "Why, I do believe that would be the Democrats.") would keep anyone from knowing that TODAY, it is the Republican Party that hates, and fears, and degrades blacks, browns, and every single minority. Your smoke and mirrors don't distract, Cruz. And, frankly, they don't amuse.

It was when he said that discriminating on the basis of race is illegal. that his litany of his lies started.

Yes, Cruz, historically it WAS the good old boys in the Democrat party who suppressed black voters, stymied Reconstruction efforts, institutionalized Jim Crow laws, terrorized their black neighbors, and made the Voter Rights Act of 1965 vitally necessary.

BUT... and it involves a BIG BUTT, as discussions about Cruz in the end always do...dem days done, done and gone.

Oh, the very same bigoted good old boys --- and their descendants --- have the very same fascist jackboots --- knockoffs, actually; nowadays, everyone's poorer --- on the very same black throats --- those that've survived, anyhow --- , but (just like Earth's magnetic field flips polarity from time to time) the assholery field in our political world has totally inverted. Long years of shame, five score or more, moved Dems who could feel shame to change the Party and clear its name. The misguided found leaders. The misinformed were given the facts. Those without critical reasoning skills were patiently brought up to speed. And the Dems who deemed themselves redeemable were redeemed. Those with the courage to face their personal demons found themselves capable of miracles. The Democratic party converted itself into a champion for the downtrodden of every race

The large number of remaining Dixiecrat old guard left a Democratic party they no longer felt comfortable in, most eventually ending up Republican.

Which signaled the beginning of the Republican moral decline,

Once, Harriet Tubman said that the people she helped had been enslaved by other people's hate. She told them to follow the North Star to freedom. to guide their escape from the anuses (ani?) of her era,

Nowadays, it's all topsy-turvy. MAGA's Tubman equivalent (Steven Miller?), if he has an ounce of selfawareness, would tell his fellow MAGA that they had been enslaved by their own hate. He would tell them to follow the Southern Cross, for the freedom to fully embrace being the best asshole they're capable of being.

[Trigger warning to all viewers: the following comment is nothing but outlandish and undeserved calumny and should be understood as such. If you are overly sensitive to hyperbole and obfuscation, you might wish to read this only in small doses.]

[Please ignore the previous PSA]

Robbie ~ Occasionally --- not very often --- you drop your usual disgustingly supercilious, snobbish, know-it-all facade

(which I think of as your vain attempt (pun intended) to climb Mount William F Buckley, hungry to plant your flag at the very summit of his infamously-upturned nose.)

(Alas, one such as you can only dream of reaching such rarified heights and actually scaling the peak of arrogant self-satisfied certainty in his own superiority that Buckley manifested without subterfuge or conscious intent to cosplay . Smug condescension was his default. Hell, it was almost his entire repertoire. When he was asleep, he had resting-snark-face. It was so much a part of his personality, the only way he could fuck was if he was on top. He would yell out, "Quod Erat Demonstrandum!" when the merger of his thesis and her antithesis achieved sublime synthesis, and then reassumed the resting-snark-face.

Why do I say you can only dream of hitting peak Buckleyhood?

Because he was real. His attitude of superiority had accreted organically over his lifetime. He didn't weaponize it against individuals, like you often do against your co-host, so most of his debate opponents ignored it like an unimportant quiet background noise.

He also didn't act all superior while making arguments he knew were based on lies or on warped logic.

He had integrity. He didn't argue as a paid hitman for a morally corrupt, incompetent, cruel, kleptocratic, racist, xenophobic, paternalistic, classist, White Nationalist, centralist, militaristic, cronyist, anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-EPA, anti-just-about-everything-good,

and, of course, fascist, fascist, fascist.

While you --- poser ROBBIE --- or maybe I should call you poseur ROBBIE (cause people will think you're smarter if there's French involved, don't you know) ---

You pretend your focus is rational punditry,

***BUT YOUR PURPOSE IS THE SPREAD OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROPAGANDA.

You pretend to have independent opinions: and, as proof, you mildly oppose the party line every once in a while,

and you agree with Lyndsey occasionally, usually tepidly or partially ---

***BUT SINCE YOUR PURPOSE IS THE SPREAD OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROPAGANDA,

AND SINCE NOT ALL OF YOUR MAGA CULT MEMBERS ARE COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED,

AND NOT ALL OF TRUMP VOTERS ARE COMPLETELY STUPID,

***YOUR VALUE TO THE REGIME, AS A SHEEP DOG

(I was going to say Judas Goat, bit I'll save that for another day) IS HIGHEST IF YOUR VIEWERS TRUST YOU AND TURN TO YOU FOR INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEIR TRUST IN THE REGIME BEGINS TO EBB.

***THEREFORE, IT'S VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE LONG-TERM STABILITY OF THE REGIME FOR THEIR MASS BRAINWASHING PROGRAM OF DISINFORMATION TO BE DISSEMINATED FROM AS MANY SEEMINGLY-INDEPENDENT NEWS SOURCES AS POSSIBLE.

***TO MAXIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF TRUST THAT VIEWERS WILL HAVE IN YOU, ROBBIE, IT'S NECESSARY FOR YOU TO BE HEARD TO VALIDATE THOSE REGIME MESSAGES THAT ARE WIDELY AND DEEPLY BELIEVED BY THE GROUP OF VIEWERS THAT YOU'RE TARGETING.

***BY VALIDATING THESE VERY POPULAR REGIME MESSAGES, YOU WILL ACCOMPLISH SEVERAL THINGS:

1) REINFORCE REGIME PROPAGANDA; ;

2) SINCE THESE ARE THE VERY POPULAR MESSAGES, WHEN YOU SUPPORT THEM, ROBBIE, YOU INCUR NO HARM TO PEOPLE'S TRUST IN YOUR JUDGMENT;

3) ON THE CONTRARY, BY SUPPORTING POPULAR REGIME MESSAGES, YOU BUILD THE IDEA IN THE MINDS OF VIEWERS THAT YOU SUPPORT TRUMP'S GOOD IDEAS, WHICH SHOULD SOLIDIFY ALMOST ALL VIEWERS GOOD OPINION OF YOUR JUDGMENT, ROBBIE --- EVEN ANTI -TRUMP VIEWERS WILL MOSTLY AGREE WITH THE POPULAR REGIME MESSAGES, AND SO WILL JUDGE YOU MORE TRUSTWORTHY.

***NOW COMES THE TRICKIER PART OF YOUR PROPAGANDA ALGORITHM, ROBBIE: COMING UP WITH THE PROCESS BY WHICH TO SELECT WHICH OF THE LESS-POPULAR REGIME MESSAGES TO SPEAK AGAINST, AND TO WHAT DEGREE., AND COMING UP WITH A SIMILAR PROCESS TO DECIDE WHICH OF LYNDSEY'S OPINIONS TO AGREE WITH AND TO WHAT EXTENT

***I DON'T HAVE.A VERY GOOD IDEA ABOUT WHICH REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS ARE POPULAR WITH THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF THEIR POTENTIAL VOTING COALITION, SO PICKING AND CHOOSING WHICH ISSUES WOULD BEST IMPROVE YOUR APPARENT INDEPENDENCE FROM THE REGIME AND, THEREFORE, YOUR TRUSTWORTHINESS. IS NOT SOMETHING I CAN DO HERE.

***HOWEVER, SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ARE IN ORDER.

,***I ASSUME THAT MOST REGIME MESSAGING THAT'S EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR IS PROBABLY DEALING WITH ISSUES THAT TRUMP CONSIDERS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. THIS IS BECAUSE, IF TRUMP CONTINUED TO SEND OUT EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR MESSAGING ABOUT ISSUES THAT AREN'T REALLY IMPORTANT TO HIM, YOU'D THINK HE'D STOP THOSE EXTREMELY UNPOPULAR MESSAGES. DUH.

***IF MESSAGES ARE VERY UNPOPULAR WITH REPUBLICAN BASE, ROBBIE, YOU NEED TO DEMONSTRATE AT LEAST A MODICUM OF OPPOSITION TO IT, EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS CENTRAL TO REPUBLICANS STRATEGY. THERE ARE AT LEAST 2 REASONS WHY:

1) VIEWERS ARE LIKELY TO BE AT LEAST SUBLIMINALLY AWARE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VERY UNPOPULAR ISSUE TO TRUMP, AND YOUR OPPOSITION TO ONE OF TRUMP'S CHERISHED ISSUES WOULD GO A LONG WAY IN ESTABLISHING YOUR BONAFIDES AS A MEANINGFULLY INDEPENDENT POLITICAL ADVISOR.

2) IF THE VERY UNPOPULAR ISSUE IS ALMOST CERTAIN TO END UP WITH TRUMP LOSING ON THE ISSUE, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE ISSUE TO GO ALL IN ON AS FAR AS YOUR OPPOSITION TO IT, ROBBIE. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST TO PUBLICLY START WITH A POSITION MOSTLY IN SUPPORT OF THE REGIME'S OBJECTIVES, THEN EVOLVE YOUR SUPPORT INTO A PATTERN OF PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS TO TRUMP, CULMINATING IN TRUMP ULTIMATELY ADOPTING ONE OF YOUR IDEAS

(moment of reflection)

Ahem ... I believe that concludes my rant.

How amusing these stern-faced Republicans are, warning that packing the Supreme Court would be so egregious, so over their red line, that it would amount to a declaration of Civil War.

Well, fiddle-dee-dee, my Confederate friends; haven't you heard? Shots on Sumter have already been fired by McConnell, and your fellow rebel, John Roberts, and his squad are shooting it up from the inside even as we speak.

You dare to "clutch your pearls" in pretend outrage, when it's your own party which --- out of fear, greed and a good bit of sheer stupidity --- has shredded your oaths to protect our constitution, our democracy and its people from that man-child monster stalking the White House that you refuse to cage, as your duty to our nation demands of you.

You all know he's sick. And you know I don't mean just physically ill. He's never been particularly smart, but what intelligence he had is vanishing in front of our eyes. We could endure a president of moderate intelligence in physical decline, especially if he was buffered by a government full of functioning adults of goodwill. But that's not what we have with y'all, is it?

We all know his sickness is much more serious than kankles and Alzheimer's, though... Don't we.. He has the narcissistic emotions and lack of impulse control of, at best, a toddler. The world is candy for his grabbing (you remember, "they let you do it if you're a star.") When he looks at us, he doesn't see other people. After all, he's the only real person. We others are but ambient meatbags, merely tools to be manipulated or obstacles to be done away with.

He's the morally-corrupt manchild you've allow to run around, not with scissors, but with our Medicaid and SNAP, our Ebola researchers, our aircraft carriers and the nuclear football. He's got a fucking good grip on all of our fucking lives, and you motherfucking morons are the greedy, unprincipled grifters who have the goddamned nerve to whine that the rest of the nation --- the good guys --- who oppose this shit are talking of ways to destroy the monster before it destroys us. You should just hope, and pray, the pitchforks and torches don't head your way.

8️⃣6️⃣4️⃣7️⃣🔜🔥🔥😈🔥🔥

Yet again, Teddy Cruz is using his significant intellect and his excellent Ivy League legal education, to ---

and I sorely wish I could use a gentler word here,

since weaselly would surely fit this weasel well,

but we're in perilous times that call for clarity

and don't permit us the luxury of euphemisms ---

LIE LIE LIE,

LIKE THE ASSHOLE HE IS.

(My apologies to the anuses of the world: who deal with enough shit; and don't deserve to be compared to the likes of Cruz.)

How did he lie?

He and this Grimes character had quite a call and response thing going on, like Cruz was the preacher quoting holy Republican doctrine and giving his one-man congregation prompts and receiving the ritual responses, the alleluias and the amens on cue.

This unholy duo fed y'all the revisionist version of the 14th and 15th Amendment being pushed by the Trump White Nationalist administration. These racists don't seem to feel the need to hide their heads in shame or fear under their white hoods any more. Of course, that could change, if the lynching starts again.

The Amendments were passed, with the intention of ensuring that a people, long-shackled and beaten-down, would be cushioned and protected, as much as possible, from the evil bigots that surrounded them. Now, how do think the lawmakers then, or later, in 1964 and 1965, expected to protect black people from people like Cruz, Grimes, Trump, and a large part of the whole Republican Party, IF THE GOVERNMENT COULDN'T TAKE THE RACE OF BLACKS INTO CONSIDERATION?

Bigots have gotten slick, over the past few decades. Just like these two assholes are trying to pull an okeydoke and pretend the Amendments said exactly the opposite of what they really said, racists in sheep's clothing have often quoted Martin Luther King's speech about how he dreamed of a day when everyone would be judged by their character and not the color of their skin, misusing that aspirational ideal to argue that King would be against such things as DEI, totally ignoring the fact that King knew, TILL HIS DYING DAY, that we won't get to that dreamed-of tomorrow if we pretend we're already there.

The white nationalists using MLK as a tool of oppression is obscene. And it's what the Republican Party of today has wholly become. Obscene.