Politics

A Deplorable by Any Other Name

Oh, look. The puke who used his money to spread filth about Hillary Clinton is now out of a gig:

According to a report in Upload VR, Palmer Luckey, the co-founder of Oculus and the Rift creator, is leaving the company which he sold to Facebook three years ago. This will allegedly be Luckey’s last week with the company. “Palmer will be dearly missed," a statement from Facebook read. "Palmer’s legacy extends far beyond Oculus. His inventive spirit helped kickstart the modern VR revolution and helped build an industry. We’re thankful for everything he did for Oculus and VR, and we wish him all the best.” The Daily Beast has reached out to Facebook to confirm this information. 

Last September, The Daily Beast revealed that Luckey had been involved in funding a pro-Trump political organization called Nimble America, a self-described “social welfare 501(c)4 non-profit." It was intended for the purposes of shitposting about Hillary Clinton and circulating offensive memes about her. Luckey got involved in the project after meeting Milo Yiannopoulos. Shortly after the story, Luckey essentially disappeared and skipped the Oculus Connect (OC3) developer conference. He has kept a low profile over the past few months with no posts to his Twitter or Facebook accounts since September. 

In this country, he gets to keep his money and go on about his business. In Russia, he would have been imprisoned for being mentally ill and corrupt months ago. That's how it works now. You can be wealthy, powerful, and do whatever you want without any consequences until the people you're working for decide that you're too much of a liability to keep around.

I love the part about how he amscrayed from social media, though. If you have such popular ideas, why not share them with the rest of us? Are you afraid that the marketplace of ideas is going to reject you?

Too late for that now.

Trump Orders Mother With Screaming Baby to Leave

It's impossible to keep up with this asshole:

Donald Trump asked a woman with a crying baby to leave his rally in Ashburn, Virginia on Tuesday.

“Don’t worry about that baby. I love babies," Trump said after hearing the baby crying during an aside about the trade imbalance. "Don’t worry about it. I love babies. I hear that baby crying, I like it. What a baby. What a beautiful baby. Don’t worry, don’t worry. The mom’s running around like—don’t worry about it, you know. It’s young and beautiful and healthy and that’s what we want.”

Trump then returned to his non-baby-related remarks, only to hear the baby make more noise.

“They have ripped us to shreds, ripped us absolutely to shreds," Trump said of China, before turning back to the woman with the child.

“Actually, I was only kidding, you can get the baby out of here," the Republican nominee said to laughter and applause. "That’s all right. Don’t worry. I, I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking. That’s OK. People don’t understand. That’s OK."

No word on whether or not Trump's thugs roughed up the mother or took any candy from the baby.

Nobody Has a Monopoly on Truth and Morals

Paul Manafort runs the Donald Trump campaign. He is the most ethically challenged member of Trump's team, and that's saying a whole hell of a lot:

It is far from certain that Mr. Manafort’s views have directly shaped Mr. Trump’s, since Mr. Trump spoke favorably of Mr. Putin’s leadership before Mr. Manafort joined the campaign. But it is clear that the two have a shared view of Russia and neighbors like Ukraine — an affection, even — that, in Mr. Manafort’s case, has been shaped by years of business dealings as much as by any policy or ideology.

“I wouldn’t put out any moral arguments about his work,” said Yevgeny E. Kopachko, a pollster with Mr. Yanukovych’s former party who cooperated with Mr. Manafort for years and called him a pragmatic and effective strategist. “Nobody has a monopoly on truth and morals.”

Mr. Manafort did not respond to requests for an interview. In television interviews on Sunday, though, he defended Mr. Trump’s views on Russia, saying that as president, Mr. Trump would be firm with Russia but would deal with it like any other country when doing so suited American interests.

“He views Russia as a foreign power that has its own interests at stake,” Mr. Manafort said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Until he joined Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign this year, Mr. Manafort’s work in Ukraine had been his most significant political campaign in recent years. He began his career in Republican politics in the 1970s and extended it overseas to advising authoritarian leaders, including Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and Mr. Yanukovych.

Manafort has been in bed with the Russian-aligned Ukrainians for years. He owes much of his livelihood to taking money from a foreign government. Would any government agency give him access to classified information? My guess is that they would not dream of granting him a clearance. And yet, he's running the campaign for the Republican nominee for president.

Stephen Colbert Humiliates the Republican Party

I would like to see more of this, please:

The Republican National Convention has barely begun, but Stephen Colbert is already getting kicked offstage.

The impish late-night host — mimicking blue-coiffed “Hunger Games” MC Caesar Flickerman — crashed the Cleveland convention stage Sunday to mock soon-to-be GOP nominee Donald Trump ahead of his coronation.

“He has formed an alliance with Indiana Governor Mike Pence,” Colbert said in his lilting impression, bowing his head in apparent boredom. “Sorry, I blacked out there for a moment. So it is my honor to hereby launch and begin the 2016 Republican National Hungry for Power Games!”

Colbert might end up being the only actual famous person with influence to appear at the GOP convention, and that says more about the D-list celebrities that have agreed to appear than it does about anything else.

By the Way, Republicans Are Still Assholes

There are Republican Members of Congress who don't want President Obama to create any more national monuments. Apparently, they're not assholes--they just care more about the land than anyone else:

Cliven Bundy may be in jail, but he still has friends in Congress.

The U.S. House of Representatives next week is expected to vote on a proposal that would exempt 48 counties, primarily in the West, from the law that has been used for more than 100 years to protect archaeologically, culturally, and naturally significant resources in the United States, including the Grand Canyon and the Statue of Liberty.

The counties that would be exempted from the Antiquities Act of 1906 cover more than 250,000 square miles — an area nearly the size of Texas. The amendment, which was authored by Rep. Stewart (R-UT) and Rep. Gosar (R-AZ), appears to have two main purposes.

First, it would block the efforts of local communities in Maine, Utah, Arizona, and elsewhere which have been asking President Obama to establish new national monuments in their states.

In southern Utah, for example, the president would not be able to respond to the requests of tribal nations that he protect the Bears Ears area, which is a hotbed of grave robbing, looting, and desecration of sacred sites. It would also prevent the president from protecting Gold Butte in Nevada, where Cliven Bundy illegally grazed his cows for decades, as a national monument.

[...]

Second, the Stewart-Gosar amendment would make a major concession to the demands of scofflaw rancher Cliven Bundy and his followers who argue that the U.S. government should have no authority over national public lands in the West. Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan were arrested and indicted in February for their involvement in armed standoffs with federal law enforcement officials in Nevada and Oregon.

Now, I don't want to make any unfair generalizations, but if one of the outcomes of your amendment is to make things better for Cliven Bundy and his family, you might want to consider whether or not to self-identify as an asshole going forward.

Guccifer Lied

Marcel Lehel Lazar, aka, "Guccifer"

Marcel Lehel Lazar, aka, "Guccifer"

In what has to be one of the craziest detours in an insane political season, we now have this bit of news:

Comey says FBI interviewed hacker Guccifer (1) and he did not hack Clinton’s server.

“He did not, he admitted that was a lie.”

And, as many of you may or may not know, Guccifer is still alive:

Marcel Lehel Lazar, a federal inmate also known as Guccifer, is at the William G. Truesdale Adult Detention Center in Alexandria, Va. He is alive and has never been missing from this facility.

Sheriff Dana Lawhorne
July 6, 2016

I am so glad that I get to be the one to post about Guccifer today. I was afraid that this would get past me and I would be caught as flat-footed as the House Republicans were today when James Comey ended up being a credible witness before their committee.

This is How to Tell the World You Are a Jackass

Write a card like this and send it to the Democratic National Committee, and you can claim jackass status for life.

First of all, these people were not really Democrats. They were independents or people that do not usually vote. How do we know this? Many of them never bothered to vote! If they had actually voted for Bernie Sanders, he probably would have won.

Second, the DNC does not care about your Goodbye Cruel World statements. They have hundreds of other races that have to be won against the Republican Party. If you don't care about working people, women's reproductive rights, veterans, the disabled, LGBTs, and minorities, you weren't going to vote for the Democratic candidate in the first place. Everyone who is an adult is already on board.

Third, this is not how elections and democracy actually works. In our system, you choose one of the two main parties and vote accordingly. Any other use of your vote is a waste because this is the system we use--a two party representative democracy gives you a chance to participate, and if you throw that chance away, that's on you.

We have to stop worrying about these people and their feelings. If they're not on board, they're never going to support Hillary or do the right thing. They will act like upset customers and take their votes elsewhere. Let them. They are irrelevant and they know it.

Stop Covering Trump

I already know the answer--no, large media organizations are not going to stop covering Donald Trump--but that's exactly what they should do in order to show solidarity with The Washington Post:

Donald Trump said Monday that he is pulling The Washington Post’s credentials to cover his events because he is upset with the newspaper’s coverage of his campaign. The move puts the newspaper on a long list of media outlets that the presumptive Republican nominee has banned for reporting that displeased him.

“Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post,” read a post on Trump’s Facebook page.

There's a reason why coverage of Trump is being held hostage right now--he creates massive amounts of revenue for these media organizations by giving them access. The Washington Post will see a downturn in traffic to its website and maybe a few ramifications for its print edition because of this. Fewer flashy headlines and fewer impulse buys at what counts as newstands? I don't know.

Coverage of Donald Trump is driving traffic to the web properties that are not banned; this gives Trump some power over them. By denying them access, he is demonstrating control of the narrative around his dumpster fire of a campaign. This has a chilling effect because the media outlets that have not been banned have been shown clear examples of what will get them booted from the campaign. This, in turn, changes the coverage of Trump and places everything in a more favorable light.

All of the media outlets covering him should go dark, but they won't because of the business ramifications. It's just another sad and pathetic piece of a larger puzzle--how the hell did we get here? We are all fools because he's in control.

Math With Bernie Bots

You may see this kind of nonsense cropping up in your day to day activities:

Hillary does NOT have three million more votes than Bernie. Her count does not give ANY credit of votes to those 10 states Bernie won by caucus. Take, for example, Washington, with an active voter registration of 3,973,623. 56% voted Democratic in the last election. That's 2,225,229 Democrats. Assuming what would have been a 38% turnout for the primary, that's 845,587 voters. Sanders won 72,2% in Washington, giving an equivalent vote count of 610,514 votes for Bernie and 235,073 for Clinton. Counting all the caucus wins for Bernie that gives him a vote count equal to or greater than Clinton's.

This is demonstrably false when you look at what actually happened:

"Despite predictions that the caucus turnout would rival that of the record-breaking 2008 election, Washington's numbers were exactly what people were expecting. Officials were expecting over 200,000 votes, and Washington Democrats communications director Jamal Raad tells Bustle that he estimates more than 230,000 Democrats turned out to caucus, "nearly matching the record of 246,000 set in 2008."

So, here you have a Sanders supporter correctly pointing out that Sanders won in Washington State. Hooray for him. But notice how they shift the methodology to make up for the three million votes cast in Hillary's favor over Bernie. They take population, then they take ALL Democrats registered, and choose a number--in this case, 38%. That means, in Bernie Bot Math, 230,000 Democrats showed up to caucus, about 70% expressed a preference for Bernie, and that means he got 610,000 "votes."

In other words, the roughly 170,000 people who showed up or "voted" for Sanders in the context of the caucus equals a "vote" total of 610,000. By this methodology, every single registered Democrat in every single state can be apportioned thusly for each of the candidates. I'm not even going to bother pointing out that if we used this methodology in New York State, Hillary would have tens of millions of more votes than Bernie.

I mean, how do you even argue with these people anymore?

Wal-Mart Needs to Pay

This is the kind of reporting that gets to the heart of what it costs a community to support the Wal-Mart chain:

Law enforcement logged nearly 16,800 calls in one year to Walmarts in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco and Hernando counties, according to a Tampa Bay Timesanalysis. That’s two calls an hour, every hour, every day.

Local Walmarts, on average, generated four times as many calls as nearby Targets, the Times found. Many individual supercenters attracted more calls than the much larger WestShore Plaza mall.

When it comes to calling the cops, Walmart is such an outlier compared with its competitors that experts criticized the corporate giant for shifting too much of its security burden onto taxpayers. Several local law enforcement officers also emphasized that all the hours spent at Walmart cut into how often they can patrol other neighborhoods and prevent other crimes.

“They’re a huge problem in terms of the amount of time that’s spent there,” said Tampa police Officer James Smith, who specializes in retail crime. “We are, as a department, at the mercy of what they want to do.”

The Times reviewed thousands of records and interviewed dozens of officers and experts to provide an unprecedented look at the impact 53 Walmarts had on local policing.

Among the findings:

Sheriff’s deputies in Hillsborough, Pasco and Hernando counties were called to individual Walmart stores more than to any other location — by far. The same went for police in Largo, Pinellas Park, Tarpon Springs, Dade City, Plant City, Brooksville and Port Richey. For authorities in Pinellas and St. Petersburg, Walmarts were the second busiest locations.

Officers logged fewer than 500 calls for violence, drugs or weapons. They took roughly another 7,000 calls for potential thefts. An even bigger category was general disorder, everything from suspected trespassing to parking violations, lost property and people sleeping outside stores. Those roughly 9,000 calls consumed hundreds of hours of officers’ time, but resulted in just a few hundred arrests.

Many businesses paid a lot more in property taxes than the local Walmart but were much less of a burden on police. The Tyrone Square Mall in St. Petersburg, for instance, paid nearly four times as much in taxes as three nearby supercenters combined. Still, the mall attracted fewer police calls.

Officers know Walmart is such a regular trouble spot that they routinely show up without being called.They simply hover around stores and parking lots to avert further issues, providing even more taxpayer-funded crime prevention. The Times found 6,200 of these unsolicited visits on top of the 16,800 other calls.

Walmart stores, with heavy foot traffic and cavernous layouts, are natural targets for shoplifters, panhandlers and other opportunists. Many are located in disadvantaged areas prone to more trouble. The retailer knows all of that, experts said, but doesn’t do enough to address the problems, despite ample resources. Walmart, they said, lays out its stores in a way that invites trouble and often doesn’t have enough uniformed employees to make sure everything runs smoothly.

Wal-Mart has a business model that expects the government to subsidize their part-time employees for health care costs and for basic needs. They do this by paying people low wages (food stamps, welfare benefits) and by denying them health care benefits. And now we know that store security, which should be paid for by the company itself, is completely outsourced to local law enforcement.

Private security guards could pick up the slack and give cops a break. Think they'll agree to do that? Well, unless there's some sort of legislation, or unless there's a per-visit charge from the police after a certain threshold is reached, I highly doubt it.

Too Nasty For Newt Gingrich


The man who practically ushered in the era of the politics of personal destruction says that Mitt Romney is too much for him to stomach:
Newt Gingrich on Monday blasted Mitt Romney's speech denouncing Donald Trump as "vitriolic and nasty," calling it a sure indicator that the 2012 Republican nominee would never be accepted as a consensus party choice at a hypothetical contested convention this summer in Cleveland.
“I think if Mitt had really wanted to maneuver for the nomination, he wouldn’t have given the speech he gave last week," the former speaker of the House told "Fox and Friends." "Because that speech was so harsh and so intense that it virtually guaranteed that I think both for the Trump people but also for a lot of the Cruz people, that Romney would just plain be unacceptable."
The speech "may have been courageous on his part — it’s certainly what he, I think, believes," said Gingrich, who has made a series of recent complimentary remarks (and tweets) about Trump. "But it was such a vitriolic and nasty speech that it guaranteed that they guy who currently has the most votes and most momentum would never accept Romney as sort of the draft at the convention.”
Gingrich is operating under the assumption that he would be a good Vice President under Donald Trump. That's the job Chris Christie wants, too. Gingrich, however, is too poor--too much of a loser--to get the nod. Trump's pick for Vice President will be the only Republican who hasn't savaged him so far. That Republican's name is Senator Jeff Sessions.

Emasculation and Failure


This made me think of the really terrible place the Republicans are in right now:
Donald Trump responded to Mitt Romney’s speech Thursday during a rally in Maine, hitting the former Republican nominee by saying he would have gotten on his knees for the Trump endorsement back in 2012. “I am not a fan of Barack Obama and that was a race that I backed Mitt Romney, I backed him, you can see how loyal he is,” Trump said. “He was begging for my endorsement. I could have said, Mitt, drop to your knees, he would have dropped to his knees, he was begging. He was begging me.” At another point, he railed against Romney as a “choke artist” and said “chickened out” of running again in 2016.
There is no natural leader of the Republican Party anymore. Reagan is dead. Everyone else is a "loser" in that they have not successfully held the presidency and left things better than they found it. The legacy of both Bush presidents is that the first Bush was thrown out of office and the second Bush left things in horrible shape. This means they are not "winners" who could shout down Donald Trump's nonsense.

What? We're going to hear from Bob Dole? Dan Quayle? We've heard from Sarah Palin and she has endorsed Trump because to incur his wrath would shatter what little fundraising she is still able to carry out. That leaves Paul Ryan and Dick Cheney--who would listen to them?

In fact, Dick Cheney's silence speaks volumes. He has never been shy about criticizing President Obama. And yet, he has largely remained outside of the current race, unable to say anything because, well, when you leave office with everything in ruins, you can't very well claim you are a winner.

Trump is blossoming in this environment. He has already slain John McCain. Now he can take Mitt Romney to task for being a loser. And there's no one left to shout him down because they are all "losers."

This line of attack will appear again. Trump has handed politicians in both parties vast sums of money. This makes it easy for him to label them and denigrate them. He will not hesitate to emasculate any male politician who has taken his money; he will not hesitate to berate Hillary Clinton when she takes the gloves off.



The Balls on These People


Dead men can vote, apparently:
Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation fellow, last week argued that the Supreme Court should count the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's votes in cases in which the justices have already cast preliminary votes.
During an interview with American Family Radio’s Sandy Rios, von Spakovsky noted that after hearing oral arguments, the justices meet and cast votes in the case before writing the decision.
"So that’s the point at which they know how a case is going to be decided and the chief justice then makes assignments of who will write the majority opinion etc.," von Spakovsky said, according to audio posted by Right Wing Watch. "I think the chief justice has an absolute obligation to give credit to Scalia’s vote in those cases that have already been decided, even if he didn’t write his opinion yet, because they know how he would have voted."
I'm sorry, but that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. And we now have a very interesting precedent--dead men can now vote. The established rules and precedents of the Supreme Court no longer apply. This is, indeed, a world turned upside down, but it does not have to be. If we would just follow the Constitution, the president could nominate a new justice and we'd be good to go.

Funny how the only people stretching reality and changing things and making shit up are the ones who are trying to replace the Constitutional originalist.

The one truth in all of this is the fact that, when a Supreme Court Justice dies, the party in power gets to name the replacement. That's why justices retire. That's why elections have consequences. And that's why, on President Obama's watch, the Republicans have lost again. They can't stand it. They're doing backflips and flipflops and engaging in flights of fancy in order to justify the fact that they just lost control of the Supreme Court.
Basically, though, a guy who made his living complaining about voter fraud wants the Supreme Court of the United States to let a dead man vote. You couldn't make this up if you tried.


There is No Path to Victory for Jim Webb


A decent man has been listening to fools:
Former presidential candidate Jim Webb may be ready to get back in the race. He’s expected to discuss the possibility right here in North Texas today.
CBS 11 News has learned Webb will discuss his intentions to make another run for the White House when he addresses the Dallas World Affairs Council at the Belo Mansion this afternoon.
On February 9, the World Affairs Council tweeted happy birthday to the former senator and said he would be sharing his “5 Most Important Principles for Foreign Policy” at the luncheon today.
You have to have a party apparatus behind you to run for President unless you're--

1. Running to elevate your name recognition so that you can increase your speaking fees
2. Hearing disjointed voices screaming through pillows made of cheese

In Webb's case, there's no clamor for his leadership and no reason to expect that there is a different group of people out there who would give you millions of dollars to run. You might find people willing to give you thousands to run, and that's a pretty good grift, but you'll never be able to sleep at night.

Shake enough hands with fish and you will look very tasty to bears. That's all I'm saying, and that's the wisest thing you'll hear all day.

UPDATE: Webb decides that it isn't his time.

Ben Carson Would Run the Country Like His Campaign


Talk about an unforced error:
Ben Carson has a new answer for those who ask why he made a detour to Florida to get fresh clothes after Monday's Iowa caucuses rather than buy new ones in New Hampshire: I don't throw my clothes away because that is wasteful — and I will not run the government that way, either.
The retired neurosurgeon, appearing on "The View" Friday, discussed his concerns about the way Ted Cruz's campaign passed along CNN's reporting to organizers that Carson would be leaving the trail to fetch fresh clothes but how it neglected to include a follow-up tweet that Carson was not suspending his campaign. It would have been "very easy" for Cruz's campaign to reach out to clarify, Carson said. “I just think that anybody who accepts this kind of behavior and doesn’t feel that there’s anything that needs to be done about it has a different standard of ethics than I do."
In the last week, Carson has blown through half of his campaign staff. In order to stay afloat, he let half of them go and he slashed salaries. That's how he would run the country?

Carson couldn't carry an extra suitcase with him? That shows a spectacular inability to play beyond a few days. That's how he would run the country?

When he says he won't run the government in a particular way, does he mean that, when President, he'll make detours to Florida in order to pick up clothes because throwing them away would be wasteful? What?

When your candidate does a media appearance, and makes a massive mistake while talking about how great of a planner and manager he is, your best bet is to run on stage, clamp both hands over his mouth, and start screaming about something else.

America Wants Nothing to do With Libertarians


Senator Rand Paul has been chased out of the race for the presidency:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced Wednesday that he is suspending his presidential campaign, bringing an end to a bid that began with aspirations of expanding the libertarian base that his father, Ron Paul, built into a powerful national coalition.
"It's been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House," Paul said in a statement. "Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty."
The low-key senator, as apt to quote a philosopher as to quote Pink Floyd, struggled in a year dominated by hard-line outsiders such as Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and businessman Donald Trump. In a call with reporters, his campaign strategists bemoaned that the mogul had sucked the "oxygen" out of the race, and admitted hat his non-interventionist views on foreign policy were not embraced by Republicans as terrorism and unrest raged abroad.
Here's a guy who would make a great vice-president if he wasn't a libertarian. And, really, what does he have to offer? He's another short-term United States Senator who doesn't like doing his job enough to actually show up. He was running for president because why not? America pretends to believe in libertarianism right up until the moment when it is time to vote. Then, they vote for someone else.

Rand Paul was vice president material the moment he won his Senate seat. He has that weird charisma that will make it look like he's able to help the ticket. He energizes a shrinking pool of weirdos who would gladly vote for him.

And really, "shrinking pool of weirdos" would apply to half the Republican Party right now, wouldn't it?

Nothing Sexist About This Remark, Is There?


Oh, heavens. A woman forgot to stop and think about how offended John Podhoretz would feel if she spoke in public like she cared about this country. I'm surprised he doesn't have a quick backhand ready for such times as these.

Add this to the pile. Podhoretz is a high-ranking nutcase. Maybe he doesn't write his own headlines. But he sure looks like the kind of fellow who isn't going to put up with lady talk he doesn't agree with.

This is How I See the Road Ahead


I was commenting on Facebook when I realized I should be putting something on my crappy blog that no one reads:
"The argument for Clinton is that she's the Democrat most likely to make progress on progressive priorities because she's the Democrat who best understands both the issues and how unbelievably difficult it actually is to get anything done in a divided political system. Sanders can talk all he wants about political revolutions, but no one seriously doubts that the next Democratic president will face a Republican House, a 5-4 Republican majority on the Supreme Court, and a country that mistrusts government action." 
So, in other words, she's the only adult in the room? 

How is any of that a bad thing? Knowing she's the only person running who sees things as they are as opposed to what she's going to promise to people and then have to lie about later? Hillary has to lie because this is a country made up of toddlers, bullies, and people tired of lame attempts to categorize a broadly diverse electorate.

We are not going to get the House back any time soon. We are going to experience a blinding level of partisan obstructionism if she wins the election. The mere fact that she's running is proof that we don't have a choice this year. We have an obligation to put her in office and to keep hammering away at all attempts to destroy Obama's legacy.

I don't understand Ezra Klein at all. He's against Clinton. But there's nobody else. There is no one running who understands the reality of American politics, circa 2016, better than she does. I mean, full stop. This is what we face--oblivion or an annoying habit of trying to get as much as possible within the confines of a heavily divided political climate. Grow the motherfucking fuck up and just accept the fact that everyone self-identifying as a Republican is living in a batshit crazy fantasy world where they can magically make the government do things it does not do and never has done.