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!)