Handy Resources

Understanding the 2012 Election

My Sister's Blog New!

The Desktop Dyno

Salem Gravity Gran Prix

Jordan's Eagle Project.

Duke Boys Car Chase

LoL Cartoons

Logic Primer

Gymkhana Practice

Compass Course Spreadsheet

Complete Orienteering Course Files

Things you may not know about Sarah Palin

Amazing Grace on the Sax

Obama's Magic 8 Ball

Oh, wait . . . that's from an alternate universe

Refresh to get latest blog entry

Are You . . . Kidding Me?
11.30.16

Dudemol warning. A couple of days after the 2012 election I posted

Can you believe that Mitt Romney said "Binders of Women?!!" Enjoy your crappy economy, America.

So then after this election I saw a post written in the personification of Hillary Clinton—I guess that's how you'd say it.¹ It's called Are You Effing Kidding Me . . . only they use a different word instead of "Effing" because . . . you know, liberal arts majors. It's a parody that purports to state Clinton's whiny message to America now that she got beaten.

---

¹Doing something "in the name of" is different. I guess that's a thing now. People are tallying (French for "making up") hate crimes committed "in the name of" Donald Trump. Is there a form you fill out and get approved?

Another dudemol: Somebody posted a super lame meme about "457 hate crimes have been committed in Donald Trump's name since winning!" ('Cause you know liberals and their dangling modifiers)

I responded "I heard it was 461, but maybe the figure I heard was totally made up."

That's funny right there.

---

The basic premise is that we're "effing" stupid because we didn't choose her.

Hey America! Remember me?

Well, you did it. You got rid of me

You put up with sixteen months of me lecturing you about dumb **** like, you know, policy ideas and not being super **** racist all the time . . .

Think about the bullet you dodged now that you won't have to put up with endless fruitless investigations by the Republicans blah blah blah blah blah.

It's kind of a clever idea, albeit a stolen one. I came up with the idea even before Michael Savage did (See, that's funny because he's always taking credit for concepts that he voiced which were independently developed by others and then I . . . never mind)

But whoever wrote that not only stole my idea without proper attribution, but then beat it to death in page after page (after page) of SNL style Okay-We-Get-It-Already rehashing of the same concept. You know, kinda like my blog.

Eleven paragraphs in (this is true, not one of those clever exaggerations you'll sometimes see us accomplished bloggists implement) 'she' says "I spend my entire GD life fighting for women and children and it ends today. I'm going to a [expletive] spa."

Only it doesn't end. It just keeps going and going and going.

You know . . . like I'm about to do.

That "women and children" deal pretty much illustrates the point. She, the most virtuous woman on the planet, selflessly dedicated her life to not just people, but defenseless woman and children, and eff us 'cause we're too stupid to appreciate her selfless sacrifice . . .

I'm not saying these people are mistaken or misguided. I'm saying they are certifiably insane. Completely in-bleeping-sane, as whoever wrote that parody would say. Just delusional. They are staring at a cockroach and seeing a unicorn.

If you care you can google it. But I figured maybe I should use that template as though it came from Romney. That would actually make sense. I'll even adjust the length to closer to that War and Peace length trainload of Hillary's bull puckey, instead of my ingeniously succinct comment about Romney.

Hey America! Remember me? You know that guy who said "binders of women?"

Well, you did it. You got rid of me. You don’t have to look at my perfect smile or listen to my knowledgeable viewpoints anymore.

Congrats, everyone!

You put up with months of me explaining to you about common sense policies, like you know, creating jobs and fixing the economy. Standing up to our enemies. All that boring stuff.

Hah-hah! I was concerned about threats like Russia. And Chinese currency manipulation. How silly was that?

Think about the bullet you just dodged. No worries about listening to someone talk policy now. You won’t have to put up with a President who supports law enforcement and is engaged in governing instead of golfing all the time. Especially some white guy who doesn't even drink beer. You've got the guy who can come over and shoot hoops and not bore you with economics and plans for preventing new terrorist groups from taking over entire regions. Phew!

Well, full steam ahead, America! Enjoy your reality shows on that big screen, since you don't have that pesky employment to take up your time. No, seriously. Enjoy your TV now before looters steal that sucker in the name of political protest.

I guess I'll just have to go back to pulling down craploads of money, pardon my language, and forego a brutal thankless government job for a fraction of my current salary.

And the Monday morning quarterbacks right now? You’re gonna criticize my campaign? The same ones who predicted I couldn't possibly lose against someone with as horrible a record as Obama? Get back to me when you dare identify why people voted for him over me.

On that topic, I actually want to apologize for not being as hip and trendy as you wanted. That was my bad. Not cackling it up on The View or hosting gang-banging rappers? How embarrassing for me! Talking real life policy instead of quipping about the 80s calling? I'm hanging my head in shame. Obama's gotta be so proud standing behind Candy Crowley's skirts over there.

Hey, it's a post-racial world. No more racial tensions here. White guy defeated based on the color of his skin not the content of his character. Ha-hah. Sorry, I'm still figuring out this humor thing. Maybe I should have concentrated on that in school instead of skills that build bazillion dollar companies and provide jobs.

But seriously, no hard feelings, kids. I mean, it’s not like I’m gonna be the generation cleaning up this historic turd for the next half century.

Look. Barack. I can’t even really be mad at you. You’re an empty shell of a human who despises anyone who isn't kissing your tuckus. All you wanted was to be a celebrity. So you got what you wanted and America got what it deserves.

Nov 6, 2012: The day we all put aside our differences, defied the odds, and proved we aren't racist by picking a President based on his hipnosity rather than his ability to do the job. Yeah, I said hipnosity. Binders of hipnosity. It's the way white intellectuals who solve problems talk.

I’m done. I’m so done. I should have known better, but I thought — I really, really thought — you were trying to elect a real President.

In an uncharacteristic move, and a Leany on Life first, I'm going to tell you in the very first paragraph what you should conclude from this post. After reading this (dear imaginary reader) you will conclude that I am absolutely incapable of finding something that is not the fault of the democrats.

I may have mentioned what it is that I hate about Barack Obama being President. Who knows, in the vast acreage of rambling unintelligible prose on this site?

I resent that Obama was forced on us. I'm not talking that my guy didn't win. That's just "democracy."¹ I resent that the media installed a person horrendously unsuited for the job and my family and my country had to endure the consequence enabled by ridiculously stupid voters.

Now, you might say "Welcome to the world of the defeated Clinton supporter."

Clinton supporters (even those who didn't bother to vote) are freaking out about the idea that they have to live under a President Donald Trump. Well, whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that the vernacular now includes the term "President Elect Donald Trump?"

Here's a great story. The whiny crybabies who didn't get to say "What democratic election? Install the guy I like" decided to block traffic on a bridge. Yeah, I don't have any idea either how they thought that would change anything. But they decided they needed to start tossing around propane bombs. And one of them blew up a protestor's arm.

See, that's what you call a backfire. When something you do to harm someone else harms you.

But the story's not done. When you get seriously injured it's customary for the hospital to send an ambulance to give you immediate medical care and then get you quickly to a facility where you can get additional medical care.

But that only works when the roads aren't blocked.

So we had a classic backfire and a rich irony.

And a metaphor.

Donald Trump is a creation of the people who are freaking out about his election.

Donald Trump was installed as the "Republican" candidate specifically because he is the one person in the known Universe who Hillary Clinton could beat in a general election. I'm going to go all conspiracy on you and, in true conspiracy theorist form, I'm not going to offer substantive evidence for my theory. That's the beauty of writing opinions no one will read.

How do you spell that sound you make when you stick your tongue out at someone?

The democrats got Trump running against Hillary specifically because she could beat him, and she was so awful that now they're stuck with their creation.

In the immortal words of Nelson: "Ha-hah!"

Let's start there. Just in case you have imaginary things you need to do in your imaginary life instead of reading this blog, I'll get to the least crazy part first, then you can skip the rest. (But don't skip the recount quote. It's golden. Even to an imaginary reader.)

The whining crybabies who are freaking out about Trump getting elected only have themselves to blame because they selected a candidate who was so awful that she couldn't beat Donald Trump. Donald Trump. Yes, that Donald Trump.

How embarrassing.

Bill Clinton, who will forever be connected throughout history to Monica Lewinsky, doesn't even have it as bad as Hillary Clinton, the person who lost an election to (snicker) Donald Trump.

Okay. So there you go. There you go, Bill Maher, who led the cry of "wolf!" on McCain and Bush and Romney. You have Trump. You have no one to blame but yourself.

On top of that, the rise of such a whacked out insurgent candidate was a result of the radical policies of the left (and the weak Republican response to them). When the car is only gently drifting you don't need drastic measures to correct it. In spite of Barack Obama not having the intelligence to understand the concept, that's the case. "Upon this fact there can be no dispute," as he likes to say.

Okay, on to whacked out conspiracy theories. It's a fact that Bill Clinton met with Trump before he decided to run. I know, post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies and all that. But Clinton denied that he urged Trump to run. There's your proof that he urged Trump to run. If Bill Clinton said the sun rises in the east I'd check to see why it was rising somewhere other than the east.

Now we get into that jumbled gray area where "a miracle occurs."

So Bill Clinton convinces Trump to run. How does he ensure that he has a snowball's chance in Hell of being the last man standing?

There were a dozen very good choices for a Republican candidate. A few excellent choices, and a couple mediocre ones, but not one who was as bad as Trump. Even if you succeed in getting Trump to run, how do you think he has any chance in the world of winning?

Shut up. Quit trying to blow holes in my conspiracy theory.

It is a fact that democrats voted for Trump in Republican primaries. And it is a fact that the press pushed Trump harder than any candidate in history, with the possible exception of Barrack Hussein Obama, Praise-ed Be His Holy Name Forever.

Then a miracle occurs . . .

And the democrats have their crooked, annoying, bitchy, astonishingly corrupt candidate going up against the only person she stood a chance of beating.

And now we have to live with a President Trump.

:-/

How to tell your priorities might be screwed up: When you're chortling about the arsonist being caught in the burning building with you.

---

¹ I know we don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. I'm as pissed off about the 17th Amendment as you are. I use the term "democracy" to mean governing by the will of The People.

Which, btw, is why (broken record warning) you'll never hear me say "democratic party." Democratic means government by the voice of the people, and, as we are being dramatically reminded by nimrods protesting the winner of a "democratic" election, there is nothing less democratic than a democrat.

I know, I know, democratic would be the popular vote, not the electoral. Refer to my explanation of how I use the term. And if you have a better term please comment in the section I keep whining about (dear imaginary reader).

I think the best take that I've heard on this recount nonsense is this:

"To say you won't respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy . . . some people are sore losers."
  -   Hillary Clinton

'Cause I know how much my imaginary readers love my matrices. This is an old one I just came across.

The point is that if you're pushing the bad stuff the more well-intentioned you are the dumber you are. And the smarter you are, the more evil you are.

Fascinating stuff, right?!

Something else I stumbled across was a random blog from back in 2009. The reason this fact fascinates you is because most of the stuff I was blah-blah-blogging about seven years ago sounded exactly like what I had been saying that day. See? It's why I have the Billy Blog (for Billy Shakespeare, nothing new under the sun). Things don't really change.

I was commenting on Facebook about the two-bit actor who made a douche of himself at Hamilton with Governor Pence. My point was that he was rude. He could have gotten across the same message without insulting an honorable person and making it awkward for people in the theater--I mean, you know, if he had to make a political statement at all at the curtain call.

Anyway . . . what a crapstorm. As it turns out, actors can't be "two-bit" because they are the duct tape that holds society together, and it is the greatest show in the history of ever (that awkward moment when a socialist measures the artistic merit of a show by its commercial success).

Someone offered dispositive proof that I was wrong by posting a meme saying that Trump had demanded an apology for American citizens asking that elected officials uphold their Constitutional rights.

Uh . . . What?

See: Logical Fallacies, Straw Man. Also, Leany on Life insufferable ramblings about "This is not that."

I was pretty tickled about it. Usually if I want comments on my Facebook posts I have to put them myself. As an imaginary reader of Leany on Life you totally get that.

And actors have a right to Free Speech, too!

Okay, but this was about manners not Free . . .

No. Even black actors.

Huh?

Trouble was, the actor is black.

Oh, crap.

Now, you know as well as I do that black people can't be bad. They can't be rude, they can't unintelligent, they can't be anything but perfect. So if someone criticizes a black person, that person is a racist.

Who knew? I formulated my opinion of what he said over the radio. He didn't have the courtesy of prefacing his remarks with "I'm black," so, silly me, I thought he was subject to the same rules of behavior as ordinary mortals.

Nope. I'm a racist. That's what this is all about. Now I have to quit stating my opinion.

Is that still a thing? I thought that calling someone a racist for disagreeing with you went out with the flip phone.

I was presented with a battery of questions that I was to answer so someone could determine whether I was a racist. You know how that works. At that point I could marry a black woman and become Louis Farrakahn's (I don't care how it's spelled--I'm a racist) personal servant and I'd still be a racist.

So it was funny when I came across that random blog where I talked about the fallacy years ago -- and I haven't shut up about it since. So I thought I'd present that blog to provide plenty of material for people to conclude that I am just what they need to think I am.

People who bring up race when the discussion is about something else really need to think I'm a racist. That way they don't have to examine their views which are in conflict with mine. I become a non-entity.

I just thought it was curious it took that direction. Which was a pretty good indicator that I was spot on in my analysis. When someone has to mis-characterize my argument to tear it down, you know they've got nothing.

In an interesting side note, in that same blog I also said that we're too concerned about civility when our main focus should be on not getting trampled by the opposition . . . now that I'm bashing a two-bit actor for being rude.

Oh, well. So much for my credibility as an influential blogger with massive impact on public opinion due to my unbiased and flawless commentary.

You remember the cop that pulled over the car for swerving all over the road. He stepped to the car window. There was a blond lady driving. "You were swerving all over the road, ma'am."

I can't help it! I'm dodging all the pine trees in the road!

The cop leaned in and pulled the pine tree air freshener off the rear view mirror. "That should help. You have a nice day, ma'am."

These people see racism everywhere because they carry it with them.

We're talking about a play. A freaking play. And manners. And all of a sudden I'm a racist.

Just makes you shake your head.

My son had a friend over helping decorate for a Halloween party. One of the faucets on the kitchen sink was having trouble, so she taped a sign on it that said "Broken. Do not use me."

I thought "Who doesn't need one of those signs?"

You know what I'm talking about. When I go to the abusive relationships metaphor I am talking about democrats.

Call me a hater. I'd rather be a hater than a chump.

I want to create a scene of a person who's been burned before. It's a broad concept, but I'll be more specific than I have to be just to fix the image in your mind. Let's say we have a divorced woman who was married to an abusive man. She is a good person with a lot going for her, but she's spent years married to a man who not only doesn't appreciate her—everyone thinks they should be appreciated more than they are—but actively denigrates her. After that much accumulation of mistreatment she has become very withdrawn. She starts to believe she is as worthless as he makes her feel.

Imagine her social interactions after that.

The turtle's head is poised to snap back into its shell at the first sign of danger. Pick your metaphor.

Any potential relationship is going to be regarded with distrust. Nobody wants to be hurt again. But people want to have social connections. So she is going to reach out, tentatively, alert for any sign that she is going to be mistreated again.

It's the saddest thing you'll ever see. A human being is a consciousness completely alone in the universe in the sense that no one can share your consciousness. We long to make connections, to feel understood and loved and appreciated. We long to use words and actions and looks to invite others to understand our feelings and our aspirations. Then to have those avenues cut off because we are afraid . . .

Interestingly enough The social dynamics of a person interacting with another person hold to groups of people interacting with other groups.

Today half of America is hurting. They are confused and mad and working through the five stages. And they are rioting. Freaking idiots are rioting.

So we should be coming together and this is how they convince me to reach out to them?

We had an election, and they lost. Before the election they were losing their freaking minds that Trump might not accept the results of the election. It was "horrifying," to quote Hillary Clinton. To quote the same woman "What difference at this point does it make?!"

When we lost the election to a man who was elected solely based on the color of his skin we got up the next day and went to work. We continued to go to work during all eight disastrous years of his golf vacation. They lose an election and they riot. Maybe they think we'll say "Oh, never mind. Stop throwing a hissy fit and we'll let Hillary be President." I love Free Speech. It allows people to show what they really are.

What do they want? If you are all for democracy only when it goes your way, you're not for democracy, are you? Maybe we should just knock on your door and install whoever you say as President. That's great, but who gets to decide which door to knock on?

Grow the hell up. You don't always get your own way.

I remember when "Joe" e-mailed me and threw in "Contrary to what you think, Obama is the duly elected President of the United States." Or words to that effect.

I immediately responded. "You have never heard me say that I don't accept the election of Barack Obama. Democracy means you don't always get your own way. Barack Obama is the duly elected President of the United States."

Pure projection. "Joe" didn't accept the election of George Bush. It couldn't be valid if he didn't vote for the man. He literally said he wouldn't listen to the State of the Union as long as Bush was President.

What I'm saying . . . in this uncharacteristic rambling and chaotic post . . . is that I'm all about healing and reaching out, but I'm not going to trust you. That's just stupid. You want to come together? Come on over here. I'm not falling for your crap.

I've seen it time and time and time again. In fact, I've seen it every single time. It's not absolutely mathematically certain that a democrat is going to act like an abuser in a relationship. But you're an idiot if you bet against it.

Please don't see me as that sad divorced woman, hesitant and alone. I'm not sad, I'm a jerk. I'm not going to withdraw into myself. I am going to hit you.

I'm tempted to start in on a list of examples—Harry Reid's blatant lies, Bill Clinton's maneuvering, the endless bait and switch tactics in Congress—but if you don't already get it you never will. Every single time we've trusted the democrats they have burned us. Every single time.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both gave wonderful speeches about healing and coming together. I have to agree with everything they said. Everything they said was good and right and true.

But you're a fool if you let the fox in the henhouse after he delivers a great speech about respect for all life.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. You've seen this in countless ways. Maybe you've seen a little sister react to her older brother in a way that didn't seem warranted. Maybe she wouldn't loan him something of hers, and that seemed selfish of her. You have to understand that you're just seeing the moment. He has probably abused that privilege in the past—taken without asking, not returning, broken what he borrowed. She's operating on a history you don't know.

So let's heal. In a strange way maybe the election of someone as divisive as Donald Trump will unite us. I cannot understand how you can support Hillary Clinton, but I totally get how you oppose Donald Trump. Let's start there. Let's heal.

But I'm not stupid. I don't trust you.

I need a macro that types in "I have no idea why I post my assessments here for no one to read" every single time I write something. In the wake of this election there are one million observations being made online this instant. Why add mine to the noise? In fact I should have just skipped this whole post and had you read what Kurt Schlichter has to say about it.

I actually do need to take a break for a couple of days. I really do think we need to heal, and if I read the crap those nitwits say during this venting period (calling them nitwits is me aiding the healing), I'm just going to get mad.

I don't find it nearly as funny as I should being called sexist by people who support the woman who ruined the lives of the women her husband raped.

A friend wondered if all of the foreign entities who gave money to the Clinton Crime Family expecting favors from a President Clinton are going to demand a refund.

I know I said I wouldn't try to say it all today. I just . . .

You don't care. You're an imaginary reader. But I'm just that kind of guy. I'm so thoughtful I even do my imaginary friends the courtesy of putting new material on top in case they already read my blog today. Hey, if Donald Freaking Trump won the Presidency of the United States, anything can happen.

Now it's our turn. Or their turn, depending on how you look at it. Yeah, I did use the divisive term "they." If they want unity and harmony I'm right here standing my ground. They are welcome to come on over.

That's the way they play the game. I'd rather be a hater than a chump.

Anyway . . .

Now it's their turn. They get to go over why they lost all the while following unwritten rules forbidding them to examine the real issues.

We got beat by Obama. Then the analysis started. We started in on what we'd done wrong, what group we didn't cater to, what policy we needed to change. And no one (except humble little me, of course) dared address the real reason we lost. People voted with their emotions instead of their head. No matter what Romney did or was capable of doing, he could not be the cool black guy.

Now the democrats are noodling out why they lost. And they've got the answer. It's because America is racist and sexist and hates women and is intolerant and deplorable. And peasants. They are calling us peasants.

Well, sounds like they've got it all figured out.

I like that. As long as they think that they'll never gear up to beat us. If they've got a culprit locked up the perp is free to roam around without being molested. Matt Walsh clearly outlined it for them. He wrote an article on three specific reasons Clinton lost. (Look it up yourself. I think it's on The Blaze .com) Full disclosure, that article is what sparked my recognition that they are where we were. (Give me a break--I got five hours sleep last night.)

The ironic thing is that their way is just backwards of our way, and we were both wrong (by "we" I don't include me. "We" in this case includes the Republican "experts" who didn't get it. I was right. After this election I have to savor those moments that I have. "What?! Don't be ridiculous. Trump won't last a week.")

Their way (the democrats "they") is to look at emotional-type reasons and ignore the real policy and character issues that caused her to lose. Our way--again, the "experts," not me--was to ignore the real emotional and touchy/feely aspect that cost us the election and get sidetracked into policy fights.

The other difference is their way won't result in infighting. It actually unites them. We are scum and intolerant; no more discussion needed.

Ugh. Their way doesn't offer the entertainment and political advantage for us that our way did for them.

Okay, okay. I'll link to the article here. Never let it be said I don't take care of my imaginary readers. (His Facebook synopsis was more succinct)

As you might imagine, I have a lot to say about what happened last night. As you probably wouldn't imagine, I'm not going to try to say it all today.

I think with so much to say I'd better let it simmer for awhile. In the meantime, Guy Benson says it better than me anyway.

Also, my son does, too. He pointed out that we've elected the perfect straw man. Donald Trump is not a Republican, he's not a conservative. He doesn't represent Republicans any more than Hillary represents women.

But the other side will point to him as reason for not subscribing to conservative values. They will use him as a recruiting tool (the way ISIS did, according to Hillary (did you know she's a grandmother?)). They will say "See? Do you want Republicans leading you? They're crass and foolish and uniformed . . ."

It's like the Malachy McCourt deal. After a horrific childhood courtesy of his worthless drunk of a father, who nonetheless insisted on church attendance and service as an altar boy, McCourt said "I've seen religion and it's crap."

No, what you saw was indeed crap. But it certainly was not religion.

So the same way the disastrous Obama presidency gave us a Trump presidency, they will try to parlay a Trump presidency into democrat control.

There's a This-is-not-that here. Barack Obama was the very opposite of a straw man. You wanted liberalism? There it is in all its glory. And the demorats try to blame his failures on us. If we would have supported him in his exalted vision we could have seen the triumphs of liberalism. Yeah, talk to the hand.

I liked the way Benson pointed out that the election of Trump was a repudiation of the insanity of the Obama policies--I hesitate to even lend credence to his aimless token administration by calling any of that "policy." Just read his column already.

So . . . there was no good ending to that story (and if it were a story in a novel I would have put it down as implausible) but the voice of The People was heard. Obama was repudiated. We have Mike Pence--even though a VP hasn't figured into the equation since Ford (and even then Agnew was taken out first). We have Congress for two more years to check whatever craziness Trump might be up to.

And we're saved from Hillary, who gets humiliated in the process. Who loses an election to someone like Trump, much less to the monster she painted him as? With any luck she'll disappear now. (I'm not betting on it. Heck, after this election I'll never bet on anything again!) She gets to get out of our face and spend time with that granddaughter she's always flapping her gums about.

Also, a friend on Facebook wondered if all the foreign governments wanting favors from a President Clinton are going to try to get their money back.

That's a great question right there.

Don't you love the way I say I'm not going to say anything then go on and on for hours?

All my cleverosity already got posted on Facebook last night and this morning.

I pointed out that the left is losing their minds. That's expected, but it's their own doing. They set up Trump because he was the one who could lose to Hillary. The only one. They pushed him hard to run against her to guarantee she would win.

Now they have him.

They got caught in the building they set on fire. Of course, we are in it, too. But . . .

Another reason to resent the demorats. I'd love to gloat right now, but I'm only a little less sick that the guy I voted for won.

A few days ago Bill Maher said that his side was wrong to say such horrible things about Bush. And McCain. And Romney. He said that they were decent men and any one of them would do a fine job in office. Bill Maher, I have to emphasize, Bill Maher said they were wrong for how freaked out they were about any of those guys being President. He said they had cried wolf.

Then he said "But this is different." I was agreeing with him that far. And I was ready to agree with him some more. "You're right! Hillary would be a total disaster! Hillary is not like Bush, or McCain, or Romney. She would be a total disaster!"

Oh . . . wait . . . you're saying that Hillary is our salvation from the disaster that Trump would be.

I can't disagree on Trump being a whole different animal and a scary proposition. I can't. But Hillary?

But Hillary could not lose to Trump. No one could. Are you kidding me? That childish buffoon. "You're the puppet." No, you're the puppet. "No, you're the puppet times infinity." In a national debate. Who could lose to that?

Hillary.

That's how awful Hillary is. That's how hated she is. In spite of all her money and cheating and the press pushing her hard and pushing against Trump, she lost to the man she painted as sub-human.

The point is, that's who we have, and we have him because the demorats put him there to lose. They chose him.

Update: My whacky conspiracy theory may not be that whacked. Courtesy of WikiLeaks we even have a name for it from when the Clintons were planning it. A pied piper attack.

So, Bill Maher, here's a list of the Republican primary candidates, decent people who would do a good job, who you didn't want going against your girl because they'd beat her. Do you want to choose one of them, since your candidate couldn't even win against the guy you chose specifically because he couldn't beat her?

Ooops. Too late.

When you peed in that bathtub you didn't realize you'd be sitting in it.

Judges would also accept:

• You didn't realize you'd be getting on that bus when you cut the brake lines.
• You got trapped in the building you set on fire.
• Everybody has to drink from the bottle you poisoned.
• You should've checked that gate when you threw the wolverine in the cage with your enemy.

It's like the Bill Cosby story where he set up Fat Albert to get spooked in the old building. In the end Fat Albert ended up trampling him.

#ClassicBackfire

(Speaking of him, Bill Cosby is wondering "How do I retain the lawyers the Clintons use?")

Okay, I know they are freaked out right now. I get it; I sympathize. I'm a little freaked out. I would have been losing my mind if Hillary had won. Like I was sure she was going to do.

Oh . . . yeah. I was so anxious to emphasize that I knew Clinton was going to win. I needed to point out I wasn't stupid, that please understand that I don't want her to win but I knew she would . . . yeah. So . . . I was wrong.

So I will grant them a period of mourning. I get it. It's going to be okay, and they get a pass for the next couple of days for all the freaking out they are going to be doing.

I get it. I'm just tired.

Literally.

As his first official presidential offense Trump caused me to stay up late and miss the gym in the morning.

I'm tired. I'm done for now.

You know I've struggled with this election. That puts me in the company of 2.37 bazillion other voters who still have a brain. Donald Trump is not the kind of person we elect to lead the country. That's half of the equation. On the other half I'm not convinced that from a policy standpoint he and I are aligned, either.

Okay, but assess Hillary Clinton (pardon my language) in both of those as well. Wow. Major epic flunkage.

Dennis Prager—you've got to love Dennis Prager, he is good and religious and righteous and yet so practical—rebuts the notion that the lesser of two evils is still an evil. So . . . what then? You gonna pick the greater evil? There are only two choices. Given that choice the lesser of two evils is best.

So, yeah, I'm going to vote for Donald Trump. I've already told you I heartily resent whatever forces and conditions have forced me into that horrific position. But I am going to vote for Donald Trump.

But Joe Biden made me feel better about it.

Joe Biden, not someone you expect to be spouting wisdom, was bashing Donald Trump and he was saying "The unfortunate thing about Donald Trump being a horrible person is that it hides the fact that he's wrong in all his policies!"

Where have you heard that before? No, seriously, where have you heard that very construction (dear imaginary reader)? That's right. Right here in the hallowed pages of this august blog.

Hey, banner day! Went from an unspecified number of imaginary readers to a real, mostly live reader, Joe Biden.

I've told you this. Hillary Clinton (did you know she has a granddaughter?) is an evil person. She is a horrible, corrupt, immoral person. She is also annoying and irritating and . . . she is an insufferable person. Donald Trump was right: She is a nasty woman. The problem with that is that it masks the real problem. She is wrong. She is just plain wrong.

Her policy inclinations on everything are wrong. On the economy, on the military, on Foreign Policy . . . you can't name anything that a President is in charge of that she has the right idea about.

Anyway . . . I was concerned that I wasn't aligned with Donald Trump on policy issues. But if Joe Biden is against him I can't find a better endorsement to vote for him.

So, yeah, I'm voting for Donald Trump. But I know that Hillary Clinton is going to win. Know that I have some modicum of understanding of reality. I don't have to like it, but I do acknowledge it. Hillary Clinton (did you know she's a grandmother?) is going to be the President of the United States (God help us all).

('Cause I'd hate to have imaginary readers thinking I was stoooopid.)

Honestly I really actually did think—not just hope—that Mitt Romney would win in 2012. But I know this year, just as I knew in 2008, that the guy I'm voting for is going to lose.

And actually, I'm much less sad about the guy I'm voting for losing, but at the same time more horrified than I've ever been about the person who is going to beat him.

Okay, you know this. I don't know why I'm wasting space in this sacrosanct blog talking legitimate political architecture things when I should be cracking jokes until the world explodes. You know that the most important thing this year is the down ballot.

Wow. I'm glad I made this post on the eve of the election. My influence could save the Republic!

The system is structured so that one person in that office can't destroy a nation. The idea was that we don't have a King. We have checks and balances and even if we have a horrible person in there—a dangerous person in there—that person can't take us down. You know how important it is to keep the balance with the House and the Senate.

Okay. But the danger is not that one person. It's the majority of the people who thought that was a good choice. That was the problem with the election of Barack Obama. We got a candidate that was elected by the media. And voted for by stupid people. That was the scary thing.

Now we have this year. Wow. I hope the history books will show what a bizarre year this was; what an outlier it was. I hope they don't just show this as the first in a new style of comic book leadership that becomes the norm.

Anyway, this year I can't be horrified at the choice people make on election day. Because I'm so horrified at the choices leading up to election day. And I can't accept that Americans are that stupid. 100% of the viable options before us are horrible. I won't allow myself to accept that we chose that.

But that would force me to another conclusion I don't want to accept, and that is that in some form the system is indeed "rigged." Not in the sense the media would have you interpret Donald Trump's statements about it. But I don't see any other way of looking at it.

We have two horrible candidates. That's a fact. So, either the voters picked them or some other "system" put them in place.

Which one is more horrifying to contemplate? Either way, whatever resulted in this disaster, it's a disaster. Whether the voters are so awful that they desired this or the good-hearted voters don't actually have a say.

I guess it's true: What difference at this point does it make?!

There is one case that does not spell disaster: Trump gets elected, then he has to leave office and Pence is President.

That's the only deus ex machina I can see here.

Maybe Trump gets impeached, or maybe he just gets bored and quits, or maybe he catches some fungal infection from his toupee and can't fulfill the duties of his office.

Or maybe Hillary just gets elected and . . .

So this is what depression feels like . . .

So Trump said that the system is "rigged." Yeah, Trump is crazy. He's actually probably right, but he's still crazy.

But then Barack Obama (praise-ed be His holy name forever) gets up and says Trump should stop whining.

Really? Barack Obama calling anyone a whiner?

Barack Obama. The pantywaist putz whose picture is in the Wikipedia entry for whiner.

You can't get irony richer than that.

I almost thought the Apocalypse was officially here. I almost thought Bill Maher made sense. He almost said that liberals were wrong painting opponents of democrats as villains, but when you actually read it he "redeemed" himself by saying Trump actually is a villain.

Okay, I can't dispute that Trump is horrible; that he really is different from Bush, Romney, and McCain (and not in a good way). But I have to summarily reject his underlying conclusion that Hillary Clinton (I think she has a granddaughter) is the salvation of the Republic.

Utah has kind of a unique deal going on this year. We have this Evan McMullin guy who is an alternative to Donald Trump. He's doing okay in Utah, even though most people in America have never heard of him.

You know that most democrats will vote for anybody. It's what you call "Yellow dog democrats." If a yellow dog is on the ballot with a (D) by him the democrat will vote for him (or her).

But Republicans aren't that way. Especially with the particular demographics here in Utah we have a really hard time taking an action which implicitly says "I support the morals of this person."

That's why Evan McMullin actually has a very slight chance of winning in Utah.

The (ridiculous) plan is that McMullin wins in Utah, and then Trump and Hillary each get 266 votes, and the election is thrown into the House of Representatives. Oh, and then they pick the guy who got 6 votes instead of one of the candidates who got 266 votes.

I don't know, the Cubs did win the World Series. So if you read in the papers tomorrow that Eva Mendez got arrested for stalking me there could be a chance of a President McMullin getting sworn into office.

So all the big Trump supporters are mad at Utah for handing the race to Hillary.

Really?

That's our fault? We're causing Hillary to win? I think Trump is causing Hillary to win.

Let's see if Trump can get more than 200 electoral votes against this horrible, vile, despicable candidate and then we can talk about if we gave the race to her.

It's actually a really fascinating concept to explore. It goes back to the abusive relationship deal that I keep coming around to. I keep coming around to it because the Grand Unifying Theory of the Universe is Free Will, and a control freak in an abusive relationship is the antithesis of that. It's an excellent vehicle for examining politics and government.

So we are looking for a better alternative and that's us betraying Trump? Really? That's a pretty sweet deal for him. He can be as big a douche as he wants and we have to support him because the alternative is worse.

See how that works into the abusive relationship? It's the perfect metaphor. "You need to stop belittling the children." "Or what? Or you'll break up the family with a divorce? Will that help the children if they have a broken family?"

It's the same deal I've always been flapping my gums about. That lady wringing her hands on the radio personified it. "Oh, it makes me so sad to hear people saying democrats are corrupt." Oh? But you're okay with them being corrupt. If you don't want to be called (corrupt, hateful, a liar, dishonest . . . even "liberal," John Kerry 2004 ) maybe you could try not being that way.

One of the Chicks on the Right said it really well. You should read this whole article.

Trump is a horrible choice. . . . I remain incredibly disappointed in and even angry at the voters who supported him in primaries, given how many great choices we had when this campaign season started . . . Trump is our presumptive nominee, and as such, he will get my vote in November because Hillary is a far worse alternative.

Trump has my vote. He does not have my respect . . . I’m not going to stop being honest simply because there are people reading this who are worried Trump won’t beat Hillary. You SHOULD be worried. He was one of the least likely candidates we had to beat her, and yet, he’s what we’ve got.

Instead of being angry at me for being honest, you should be angry at Trump for giving everyone so much fodder to criticize him.
(emphasis added by me right there –ed.)

I heard a good line this morning. In Washington "Compromise" means both sides throwing more money at it to gain support.

And, on the same program I heard someone referring to the analysis of the Republican loss in 2012 as an "autopsy." Apt. The thing is, they talked about the same wrong conclusions coming out of it. Drives me crazy.

Here's the deal. The team did an autopsy on a patient who was shot through the head. But they didn't allow themselves to examine the head.

Completely freaking nuts.

It sounds like "autopsy" is the standard term for the Republican talking heads' analysis following the 2012 election; not like they coined the phrase while I was listening. But I was surprised that I don't remember it being called that before. It's pretty common to talk about an analysis of an event as a post-mortem. Maybe they just used a different generic term . . . who cares?

Point is . . . you know what happened there. Romney lost because he wasn't Barack Obama—the cool black guy. Nobody voted for Barack Obama. They voted to prove they were still too cool for school.

But history will not show that. History will show that Romney screwed up here and there, and did this wrong, and was bad and awful and horrible in this way and clueless in that way. Drives me crazy. Had Romney done everything the "experts" said he was supposed to do, and had Obama screwed up in all the ways they said Romney did, the outcome wouldn't be any different. Not in the least.

You know how that played out. It tore apart the Republican party. It was completely flawed and divided the party. It's like people fighting over whether the moon is made of green cheese or cheddar cheese. It tore the party apart to the point that two of the best conservative minds of today, Megyn Kelly and Newt Gingrich, got in a shouting match on national TV. You think the jackasses in the democrat peanut gallery weren't laughing about that? "Look at that! Did we do that?"

Remember this. Please understand that if you could go back in a time machine and change the election 1,000 times and have Romney follow the script Carl Rove and others wrote (after the election), the outcome would be exactly the same.

I guess I'm just desperate that when the fire marshal sifts through the ashes of history he'll find that one lone voice found the ignition point and the accelerant.

Ugh. That surreal moment when you're sitting there and realize "Yeah, I'm going to vote for Donald Trump." That happened to me yesterday. Just bizarre.

You should read this excellent article by Mona Charen. She talks about . . . well, stuff like this:

If [Hillary] wins . . . it will be due only to the Republican Party's suicidal decision to nominate and support a pathological narcissist/con man -- a figure utterly outside the parameters of acceptability for public office. Any public office.

So as culpable as Democrats are for nominating a person who ought to have been disqualified, Republicans are even more irresponsible for risking the terrible powers of commander in chief to someone most elementary school kids would regard as emotionally unstable.

The 2016 election was the most winnable for Republicans since, oh, 1984.

It goes on. It explains why this election is the most winnable and it builds a case for what would be the best thing to happen now that the paths are so limited. Read it through and see what you think about the final conclusion.

Think about it. Not only is Hillary the candidate that should be the easiest to beat, she is the one who would be the most disastrous to let win. And we're trusting that job to Donald Trump? Wow.

Those two clauses play together because we have a representative government where the people theoretically choose leaders. So it makes sense that the worse choice should be the easiest to beat. Should be.

Donald Trump is the nominee because he's the only one who could lose an election to someone as corrupt and despicable as Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure how that was orchestrated; I may never know. But the bizarre thing is, he may not even be bad enough. Hillary Clinton is now slipping against the person who was picked because he could lose against someone as awful as she is. And he may not even be awful enough!