The Democratic Strategy For Losing In 2020

How is it possible for a political party to lose not once but twice to the most reviled and unlikeable president in the nation’s history? This is the question being pondered at this moment by the Democratic Party. The task ahead will not be an easy one, no question, which is why those behind the scenes within the Democratic National Committee have been working tirelessly to ensure they have a multi-pronged strategy in place. All handguns are being loaded and pointed at their own feet well in advance. 

Smear campaigns must be enacted against any candidate with name recognition and a platform people want to vote for. Unknown but worthy candidates must be utterly ignored. Should an unknown candidate somehow achieve a groundswell of support, they must be reassigned to the group in need of smear campaigns. At the same time, a veritable parade of corporate lackies whose loyalty to absolutely nothing other than power and personal ambition must be placed in front of the voting public. The machine will have to be working at peak efficiency if the Democrats are to faceplant in the same fashion as they did in 2016. Nothing can be taken for granted.

Democrats have already established a firm base from which to dive to their own deaths, no question. For the past two years they have been erecting the scaffold from which their self-execution will take place. It is called Russiagate and they have toiled ceaselessly to make it not only monstrously immense but also critically unstable. The fact that such a huge structure has been able to stand for so long with no visible means of support and built on a foundation of sand is a testament to their determination to do what many would have believed could not be done.

The genius of the work done by Democrats and their subcontractors in the media is not only in the immensity and imminent collapse of what they have worked so hard to build, but also the site on which they have chosen to erect it. Like a barbarian tribe that builds a palace upon the graves of their enemies, the Democrats have constructed the foundation of their second self-immolation on the very site of the ashes of the first. In this way they did not need to sift through the charred remains of their inconceivable defeat in search of any lessons to be learned, and danger of victory growing from the ashes of defeat would be impossible. Should any green shoot of hope or insight poke its head from the ruins, they simply pile another brick of Russiagate upon it. A lot of work, admittedly, but the project is funded by some of the deepest pockets on the planet.

The key to losing to Donald Trump, Democrats have realized, is in offering people the one thing worse than Donald Trump himself: Donald Trump as a woman or person of color. Yes, that’s right, keep in mind how unappealing Donald Trump is and then imagine how he would look in drag or in black face. Because the truth is, Democrats don’t really want to defeat Trump, they just want to give him a makeover, some refinement lessons, and possibly gender reassignment surgery.

“Impossible,” you say. “The Democrats are doing everything in their power to beat Donald Trump. They would make any compromise, appeal to any potential wealthy donor no matter how vile, bend any rule and utter any lie no matter how stupid and damaging in order to vanquish their foe. Why, I’m quite sure they would make a deal with the devil himself in order to guarantee a victory over Donald Trump. There is nothing they would not do to win in 2020.”

Let me point out to you an alternate vision for the Democrats if their real goal was to win and not lose. Rather than choosing from their stable of candidates that have been approved by the party establishment—those without any noticeable convictions other than blind obedience to AIPAC—they could choose to back a candidate who actually has issues that resonate with voters, as well as integrity and appeal. One such candidate is Tulsi Gabbard. 

Oh, I know, she’s not very well known, has an unusual name, and comes from Hawaii. That sounds suspiciously like the last Democrat to win to the presidency. In fact, she is every bit as articulate and charming as President Obama, with the added advantages that she is a veteran and has been out in front of issues that nobody in their right mind could be against (e.g. a bill to forbid funding of terrorists, which Congress somehow could not seem to get behind). Add to this the fact that she actually has principled stands on issues rather than glib postures and you have a real winner on your hands. Oh, and for those who vote on such insignificant factors, she is a woman of color.

There is no way Major Gabbard would lose to President Bonespurs. As much as his loyal following would rather watch Trump on television like chidren watching an orange Barney, a clear majority of the American electorate would prefer to look at someone who is charming and not cartoonish. Trump, like the Jerry Springer Show, has his appeal, but it is not enduring. There is no way the vast majority of Americans would prefer another four years of Trump’s incoherent utterances to the thoughtful responses of Congressperson Gabbard. If they’re that desperate for morally degrading entertainment, Honey Boo Boo’s mom would be glad to have another reality program. There is only one way Trump can get another four years in office, and that is by him facing a more polished, more hypocritical imitation of himself. A candidate who will doubtless be backed by a media even Trump supporters can see is clearly not interested in reporting honestly on the issues.

Getting behind Tulsi Gabbard or some other candidate of substance would be the path to take if the Democratic party had healthy ambitions, if their primary goal was to win. But we all know that guy who feels the need to self-destruct anytime he gets near to accomplishing something, don’t we? We all know people who are just fuck-ups who don’t really want to change their destructive patterns. The Democrats don’t need to concede millions of votes from military members and their family. Tulsi would gain many if not most of these voters. Democrats need not throw away millions of votes belonging to those who are to the left of them who are too disgusted with the Democrats to vote, or else vote for a third party. They would gain votes from either side of them should they choose to focus their energies behind such a candidate as Tulsi.

But they won’t. They’re addicted to unhealthy behavior and self-destruction the way a junkie is. They say they want to get better but they turn back to their old ways every time. The more you trust them and the more you try to love them, the more they will shit on you and drag you down with them. You can’t let their behavior control your life. When they try to blame their failures on you, don’t take on that burden. The only hope is their failures will eventually lead them to trying a more healthy approach.

I know, it’s not pretty, but when the TV’s tuned to Jerry Springer, you can either make yourself sick about it or sit back and laugh. Maybe laughing is not the healthiest response, but it beats getting sucked into all the drama. And, God knows, it’s far better to watch from a place of comfort than actually getting up on Jerry’s stage and getting in the brawl. My one hope is to convince those who are watching and taking it all seriously to turn off the TV. But as much as I tell them it’s all going to devolve into a fist fight and that there are no good guys to root for, they’re addicted to the drama and the thought that all of this is real.

I have every confidence in the Democrats to do what many would have believed impossible four short years ago, to lose two presidential elections to someone who looks more like the clown from American Horror Story than he does presidential material. Their instincts, their dogged determination, and their moral compass will see them through. Of course, now more than ever, they will need the assistance of codependents who will coddle them and tell them it’s not their fault.

Like my writing? Please follow me on Twitter, sign up for email updates, or check out my books on Amazon.

The Forgotten Turd In The Punchbowl Of Russiagate

Those on the left who got Russiagate right—and there was a decent amount, despite the fact that you never saw them on mainstream media—are indulging in a well-earned moment of celebration. As the Mueller Probe has revealed zero indictments for collusion, those who knew how nonsensical the accusation was are taking a victory lap. It feels good. It feels good to finally say “We told you so” and point with authority to how bad the reporting and how unhinged the cult of collusion was. So many people claimed with such conviction that Mueller was going to take down President Trump and restore balance to the force. A childish fantasy for those who could not accept the situation as it was.

So to those who endured the slings and errors of a propaganda campaign of epic proportions, I say enjoy your moment, but do not think it is over. Yes, we have won a great victory, but we must be cautious of an even greater defeat.

Russiagate was constructed of not one but two wild and unsupported assertions. The notion that Donald Trump and people in his campaign somehow worked with elements of the Russian government in order to get him elected was merely ancillary to the first assertion, that Russia “hacked” our election. While Robert Mueller has now fished the lesser turd out of the punchbowl, he, the mainstream media, and Democrats, are hoping you don’t notice the larger one is still sitting at the bottom.

The assertion that Russia conducted a widespread campaign to destroy our democracy—as absurd as it is unsubstantiated—has always been the more dangerous of the Russiagate lies. It was only for this reason that the second was even necessary. When Hillary Clinton unexpectedly lost an election to the most repugnant candidate in U.S. history, those in charge of ensuring the smooth continuance of the status quo needed to make sure Trump would toe the line. Having said he wanted good relations with Russia and being a loose cannon, they couldn’t take chances on having a global agenda being subverted by an elected official. Thus was born the assertion that Russia had “hacked” the 2016 election (“hacked” being a catch-all and evolving term) and the insinuations that Trump was actively involved.

President Trump has proven himself, after two years, to be compliant in matters related to Russia. In fact, nobody other than a totally deranged person (which is probably 25% of Democrats and 100% of mainstream media) could view his actions as being anything but hostile to Russia, even quite dangerously so. Therefore, the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia is no longer needed, and so the Mueller probe has come to an end. But don’t drink the punch just yet. The Russia hacking turd is still there, it’s just not floating at the top where you can’t ignore it. It’s sunk to the bottom, beyond awareness and yet as foul as ever.

With the removal of the collusion narrative, the idea of the Russian “hacking” (now evolved to mean anything from Facebook ads to Pokémon Go aps), will no longer have automatic pushback from Trump supporters. The next time this lie flares up again, the next time it is convenient to create excuses for hostile actions toward Russia, rightwing media will likely be on board as well.

Which is why it’s important that we loudly celebrate the defeat of the collusion delusion and call out those in the media who have blindly preached it. We must call them what they are, propagandists, opportunists, and liars. We must remind everybody who argued this so certainly just how wrong they were. But more than that, we must use it as a weapon to push back against the lie that there was a Russian attack upon the core values of our nation. We must remind everyone that those who were wrong about the one were also wrong on the other. Because it is equally absurd that Russia ran any large-scale propaganda or any other sort of campaign to get Trump elected.

We have no evidence that Russia was trying to buy the whore house that is our government. There is no evidence that they were anything other than another John looking for action at the biggest house of ill-repute in town, and a small spender at that. A March 23 article in the Bismark Tribune points out that a Canadian pipeline company spent $11 million on lobbying in one year in Minnesota alone. This dwarfs anything Russia has been accused of, and it is an undisputed fact, unlike the rather bizarre notion that the Russian government was involved with the $46,000 of laughable Facebook ads. And this is just one example of one Canadian company lobbying in one state in one year. This is nothing compared to the Israeli lobby, the Saudi influence, and every other nation on the planet. The U.S. is a pay to play nation, and everybody wants to be on the good side of the most powerful nation on the planet.

It is not Russia’s fault that we do not engage in diplomacy. It is only natural that they would hope to curry favor with the United States government, and this is the way business is done in a corrupt government such as our own. It is their one hope of preventing further military buildup on their border and more nations joining a military alliance created to oppose Soviet/Russian strength. What other channel do we leave open for them to improve relations?

So raise your voice in celebration of the fallen narrative, but raise it too in the authority it gives you as one who spoke the truth while others spoke what they were told to. Speak so that when the Russian interference lie is once again resurrected we can remind others that it is being told by- the same people who had the collusion narrative wrong. Speak that we might use our moral authority to reform a government so corrupt it cannot peacefully coexist with other nations. Speak up, and for God’s sake, don’t drink the punch.

Random Thoughts In Light Of The Mueller Report Submission

Dear Democrats: Perhaps instead of continuing to push the collusion illusion, you might want to consider contributing directly to Trump’s reelection campaign.

Everything centrist Democrats have done to oppose Trump has blown up in their faces and they have proven themselves incapable of trying anything different. Nobody, literally nobody, could be any worse at resisting Trump. It would have been preferable if they had been mute for the last two years and allow Trump’s behavior to speak for itself. Indeed, Trump could never have gotten as far as he has without the assistance of the Democrats.

Highlights of the Mueller report: A broad and highly sophisticated Russian attack using $46,000 worth of clickbait Facebook ads, a Pokémon Go ap, and a potential Moscow real estate deal that went nowhere, were used to hack our 2016 election. In return for Russia swinging the election for Trump, Trump agreed to bomb Russia’s ally in Syria, kill Russians, sell arms to Nazis in Ukraine, expand NATO, increase military spending, instigate regime change in another nation friendly with Russia, withdraw from a nuclear weapons treaty with Russia, and withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran, yet another ally of Russia. In response to this clear collusion, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff vow not to impeach Trump.

If you’re interested in opposing Donald Trump and his agenda, I’m with you. But if you have been doing so for three years and have failed utterly in stopping it, it is time to stop and assess your methods. Further, it is time to stop and ask who it was that has been pushing such agendas. Lastly, and most importantly, you must assess your inner self. Do you feel like a powerful warrior with a clear head and open heart? Do you feel as if you are acting through love and concern for humanity and the planet, or do you feel like your actions are being dictated to you by fearmongers and propagandists? In short, do you feel like you are in control of your life, or do you feel like you are a pawn of forces who don’t care about you?

As the candidates the Democrats offer us become increasingly more corporate and pro-war, the vileness of their opponents has to increase in order for them to look viable. Don’t believe you can’t get a worse president than Trump. I thought that about Bush in 2000, but I was proven wrong.

The Mueller investigation and the faith placed in it by Democrats has been a big win for Trump, another vivid piece of evidence of the madness of mainstream media and those who imbibe of it. A big loss for the left, who spent the last two years hoping unelectable government officials were going to save democracy from the voters. Worse than that, Democrats have for the last two years managed to avoid facing the fact that they were wiped out in an election against a party that ran the most unappealing candidate in the history of our nation.

If we can accept the fact that Russia was able to swing an election that cost billions of dollars with $46,000 worth of Facebook ads, surely it is believable that they got to Mueller, too.

At the heart of the Russiagate narrative was the unlikely assumption that Vladimir Putin felt confident placing the world’s largest military and nuclear arsenal into the hands of a mentally unstable and vain individual. Furthermore, implicit in the Russiagate narrative is the idea that Trump was easily manipulated. If that is true, then he is equally capable of being manipulated by the U.S. intelligence communities, think tanks and deep state as he is by Russia.

So Julian Assange, Donald Trump, Randy Credico, Jill Stein, Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, Marine Le Pen, and Jeremy Corbyn were sitting around Vladimir Putin’s place, trying to come up with a strategy to influence the U.S. elections. Tucker asks Putin how much money he has to spend and Putin says, “I can dig up $100,000, but I can only get my hands on half of it before the election." Suddenly Jill Stein has a brainstorm and says, “I’ve got it! We’ll spend $46,000 on Facebook ads, and plop another $4,700 on Google.” The entire room explodes with applause. “Brilliant,” says Putin, raising a glass of vodka in a cheer. Glasses clink, drinks are downed. Then Randy Credico adds, “And maybe we could do something with Pokemon Go, too!”

We didn’t make those who pushed the lie of weapons of mass destruction pay any sort of price, which is why they felt comfortable pushing the Russiagate propaganda onslaught. We must learn from this by not holding back our punches on not only those who propagated the lie but those who believed it. We must make the average social media warrior who pushed this narrative for two years so uncomfortable that he holds a grudge against the media pundits and the networks that hire them so that they do not fall for the next big lie.

If Democrats are concerned they will lose elections because leftists are calling them abject failures, war whores and corporate Uncle Toms who push conspiracy theories, they have to meet us halfway and stop being abject failures, war whores and corporate Uncle Toms who push conspiracy theories.

For those who pushed it, Russiagate was never about taking out Trump. It was about insuring that the Project For A New American Century lived on and the push for global empire sustained. To that end Trump, who was despised so much by the liberal left that they lost their critical thinking skills, was linked to Russia in the same way cigarettes were once tied to women’s liberation by marketers in order to increase sales to women. It was done quite cynically, dishonestly, and effectively. Once the hate was projected onto the intended target, and once Trump recognized that he would be hounded until he played along with the people who had the power to oust him, that hatred for Trump was no longer necessary. Thus the collusion end of Russiagate could be put to rest while maintaining the equally fallacious impression that Russia is looking to provoke the United States and we are the victim and not the bully in the matter. It has been field-tested that the liberal media and its viewers will support any action Trump makes if it is directed towards Russia or any other nation not yet absorbed into the collective of American Empire. The media glorified the missiles launched by Trump on Syria and nobody seemed to argue the matter. I can envision a circumstance where Trump can yet be a hero to the liberals by confronting Russia in any number of places on the map where U.S. military muscle is flexed.

The Media Will Never Back A Candidate You Would Want To Vote For

Here is the dilemma we now face: Any presidential candidate worth voting for will not get the media support needed to get elected, and any candidate the media is willing to support is not worth our votes. Oligarchy, the military industrial complex, and unaccountable intelligence agencies are the problem, and a media owned by the oligarchs, infiltrated and in bed with intelligence agencies, and entirely subservient to the military industrial complex, is not about to let a candidate interested in serving the common citizen become president. It is the media’s job, its raison d’etre, to support war, wealth, and non-democratic means of government.

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. ― Malcolm X

It is their job to prevent a challenge to arms manufacturers and pointless wars. You have never nor will you ever see a commercial news outlet come out against military intervention against another country. Nor will you ever hear anyone in the media say that military spending needs to be cut. It will never happen. Come out against war and you will lose your platform, as happened with Phil Donahue and Jessie Ventura when they opposed the Iraq War. Support war and you can spout outright lies and never fear losing a place in the media. Witness Brian Williams being given the opportunity to wax poetic about missiles after falsely recounting a story.

“The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it.” ― Jack London, The Iron Heel 

It is the media’s job to prevent a challenge to oligarchy and the ultra-rich. You will not hear anyone attack oligarchs or the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few. Should anyone do so, the wrath of the media will soon fall upon them, as can be witnessed in the sudden attacks on Tucker Carlson after he spoke out against Jeff Bezos (He also spoke out against war in Syria, so that could play a factor, as well). Now, the pushback on Tucker Carlson may be perfectly legitimate, but it is odd that it was not so full-throated until this point, when a lot of what he has said has been around for a decade or so.

This is why oligarchs buy the news outlets, in order to shape the narrative in a way that paints them in a good light. This is why the richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos, bought the Washington Times. It wasn’t because it would significantly add to his wealth, and it was not—as the media described it—as an act of charity in order to help a struggling but necessary institution. Just reflect upon that notion for a little bit in order to savor the ridiculousness of what the media is trying to sell you.

“The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” ― Gil Scott Heron

It is the job of the media to prevent a challenge to the unaccountable intelligence agencies. Ask yourself when the last time you heard the media be skeptical of the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. When was the last time there was a scandal regarding an intelligence agency where the media wasn’t defending them? From Valerie Plame to James Comey to Robert Mueller, the spooks are always the good guys in any news story. Increasingly, they are always the good guy in any Hollywood movie, as Black Panther demonstrates (It has come to this, the ludicrous idea that U.S. intelligence agencies are friends to people of color around the world).

So let me reinterpret for you the Mainstream media’s primary assertion for why you shouldn’t vote for candidates they do not approve. When they say “your candidate in unelectable”, what they are really saying is “We will never give your candidate sufficient coverage to allow the majority of Americans to vote for him/her. Should the candidate you like (but they do not) get any kind of momentum, we (the media) will do everything in our power to undermine and smear him/her.” This is the problem we will have to surmount if we are ever to use our democracy as an effective means of change.

Fortunately, the curtain that the media places over reality has never been shabbier. The greater the disparity between the reality and the narrative, the more they will have to stretch that curtain, and the more reality will peek through. We are observing it in many different ways, but until the curtain is pulled back or we no longer accept the picture drawn upon it, things will not make sense for us. That is why Donald Trump’s success in 2016 was so shocking to so many: because it was so completely antithetical to the picture that had been painted by the media. It was outside the narrative, not in the script. But this was precisely why Trump had the success he had, (it wasn’t because of a few Facebook ads). He chose to confront the media directly. He chose not to play their games. Most importantly, he did not bow down to the narrative the media insists all who receive air time must bow down to.

Until we have a prominent voice on the left who is willing to reject the corporate media’s narrative, until there is a candidate too popular to ignore who will refuse to concede the talking points of the media, we are all playing the media’s game, and all of politics will be serving the interests of those who control and own the media. Instead of a clown who performs in front of the curtain, we must have a candidate of integrity willing to pull back the curtain and let reality shine through. We can hasten the day this happens by individually rejecting the authority of a corporate media that time and again lies us into wars and tax cuts and trade deals that do not benefit the people but only the financial interests of the few.

Addendum

         

The inspiration for this little essay was watching Tulsi Gabbard on Steven Colbert. If you have any doubt that the media is willing to take down any candidate who speaks out against the war machine, here is the Tulsi Gabbard interview. Rather than the typical piece he usually engages in, one of banal pleasantries and sycophantic softball questions, Colbert echoes the exact same talking points media “journalists” and talk show hosts have used every time Gabbard is given air time. It is an entirely humorless interview, save one lame attempt at the very end. As means of comparison, check out Colbert’s interviews with Beto Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Hillary Clinton. There is a consistent lightheartedness in these other videos that is utterly lacking in the Tulsi Gabbard interview. Sadly, for a long time I thought of Steven Colbert as one of the leading lights of the Left. 

Another Conversation With The Media And Politicians

Media And Politicians: We support peace and democracy.

Me: Well I’m glad to hear that.

M&P: Which is why we need to confront the evil dictator of Nation X.

Me: Confrontation sounds very much like war, which is the opposite of peace.

M&P: We need to remove the evil dictator of Nation X in order to restore democracy, which will bring about peace and prosperity.

Me: Wasn’t the president—

M&P: Evil dictator.

Me: All right. Wasn’t the evil dictator of Nation X democratically elected? I fail to see how overthrowing a democratically elected presi—I mean dictator, is in anyway democratic.

M&P: The evil Dictator of Nation X was not elected by a real democratic process the way our benevolent leaders in the United States and those in nations we are allied to, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, were.

Me: Wait? Saudi Arabia's leaders are democratically elected?

M&P: Never mind that. The evil dictator of Nation X-

Me: Look, it’s getting hard to keep typing “the evil dictator of Nation X” all the time. Do you mind if we just use an acronym, maybe something like Ted Onx?

M&P: Actually, we use that same acronym in our template for how to overthrow governments that are not supporting our interests and the economic interests of oil companies. Oops. I mean, yes, let’s call him Ted Onx.

Me: Good. Now, I understand that Ted Onx is probably not a real great guy, but don’t you think that by using war and non-democratic means that we are behaving in the same manner you accuse Ted Onx of?

M&P: We despise violence and support democracy, but in this unique circumstance there is no other option than dropping bombs in order to protect the sacred values of democracy.

Me: Hey, wait a minute, isn’t that what you said about the evil dictator of Nation W?

M&P: That was a mistake.

Me: Oh, okay. Hey, wait a minute. Didn’t you say it was a mistake when you used violence to overthrow the evil dictator of Nation V?

M&P: Yes we did. And if you’ll notice, after we overthrew the government of Nation V, reduced the country to a ravaged, anti-democratic smoldering crater, we apologized for being too credulous for believing the unsubstantiated assertions of those who led us into that war. So you see, we’re all good.

Me: I remember that now. Didn’t you promise to do a better job of digging for the truth the next time?

M&P: Most assuredly, because we are trustworthy sources of information who only want to provide you with the truth.

Me: So you got rid of all the journalists who uncritically supported the lies and promoted and rewarded all the journalists who got the story right?

M&P: We are not judgmental. Sometimes journalists get a story wrong, but they’re trying really hard to get it right this time.

Me: But they’re behaving in the exact same fashion as they did when they uncritically supported the last war against Nation W. And Nation V. And Nation U. And-

M&P: We don’t engage in whataboutisms. Besides, this situation is unique. Babies are being ripped from incubators and used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.

Me: That sounds a little far-fetched.

M&P: And you, sir, sound like a Ted Onx apologist.

Me: Well, could you at least tell me what the journalists and politicians who got the stories of Nation V and nation W right think?

M&P: We would love to, but we're afraid they no longer work for us. Many of them are now at RT, and we can't recommend you go there, because RT is a government-supported propaganda outlet.

Me: And what would you call a media conglomerate that time after time echoes the unsubstantiated claims of its government in order to lead us into war?

M&P: Boy, have you seen what the evil dictator of Nation Y is doing? We really need to do something about him.

A Not-So Imaginary Conversation With The Media

I’m not up on the newest technology, but I heard about the new MSM Siri and thought I’d give it a try. Here’s how that played out.

Me: I’m so glad to hear Tulsi Gabbard has entered the presidential race. Could you tell me more about her?

MSMSiri: Here’s Amy Klobuchar.

Me: No, I said Tulsi Gabbard.

MSMSiri: Amy Klobuchar is also a woman who is running for president.

Me: I don’t care, I don’t even know who Amy Cloudbutcher is.

MSMSiri: Amy Klobuchar has crossover appeal.

Me: That’s the best you can do?

MSMSiri: Amy Klobuchar was good friends with John McCain.

Me: Ick. What makes you think I want to hear about her? Tell me about Tulsi.

MSMSiri: Amy Klobuchar is-

Me: All right, forget Tulsi Gabbard. If you’re not going to tell anybody who she is, I guess it won’t pay to get too excited about her. Just tell me more about what’s going on with Bernie Sanders.

MSMSiri: Here’s Kamala Harris.

Me: I said Bernie!

MSMSiri: Kamala Harris is a woman of color.

Me: I don’t care, I don’t like her.

MSMSiri: Are you racist?

Me: No, I just don’t like her. She puts the parents of truants in prison and laughs about it. She puts pot smokers in jail. But she never prosecuted bankers like Steve Mnuchin even though she had all the ammunition in the world to do so.

MSMSiri: So you don’t like women, then?

Me: No. Damn you, MSMSiri, I wanted a woman, but you wouldn’t let me have Tulsi. Just give me something on Bernie.

MSMSiri: Bernie really started something in 2016, didn’t he?

Me: I don’t know that he started something so much as he tapped into the real discontent of the average voter, in the same way Trump did.

MSMSiri: Yes, Bernie is a victim of his own success.

Me: What?

MSMSiri: Because he introduced people to progressive ideas, there are now lots of candidates who are more progressive than him.

Me: Oh, yeah? Name one. Besides Tulsi, which I’m already pretty certain you’re not going to mention.

MSMSiri: Kirstin Gillibrand is a progressive and also a woman.

Me: Is that the actress that played Spiderman’s girlfriend?

MSMSiri: Kirsten Gillibrand is a Senator from New York and appeals to people who voted for Bernie Sanders in 2016, who is now a victim of his own success because he inspired many progressive alternatives like Kirsten Gillibrand.

Me: I remember where I heard of her now! She’s the one who was calling Wall Street executives to see if they would support her candidacy before she declared.

MSMSiri: That sounds like a Russian talking point.

Me: Does it? Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to…HEY.

MSMSiri: If you like Bernie Sanders, MSMSiri thinks you may also like Beto O’Rourke.

Me: Oh it does, does it?

MSMSiri: Beto O’Rourke is the hot new up and comer in the Democratic Party that everyone’s talking about.

Me: Who besides you is actually talking about Beto O’Rourke?

MSMSiri: Since you don’t want a woman as your presidential candidate or a person of color, I thought Beto O’Rourke might be more appealing to you. He has a hip, now, kind of first name, don’t you think?

Me: I don’t care what gender or ethnicity a candidate is. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, I don’t judge a person by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

MSMSiri: I’m afraid I have no knowledge of this Martin Luther King Jr. person of whom you speak.

Me: Yeah, I’ve noticed you only mention him once a year for his birthday and then never really cover him in depth. Look, I give up. Is there any presidential candidate you’d care to mention that might appeal to my concerns about climate catastrophe and our perpetual state of war? Someone who is aware of the consolidation of wealth and power into increasingly fewer and fewer hands, of the corporatization of our morality and laws?

MSM: Joe Biden is close to making a decision about running for president in 2020.

Me: That’s it, I’m out. I can’t get any decent reporting from mainstream news. I’ll have to go to the internet for alternative sources.

(Logs into Facebook)

Facebook: Your account has been suspended for using Russian talking points that do not correspond with official media positions.