Fun spooky October time is o’er. It’s November now, & that means it’s time to grow up & start doing important work ’gain — & by important work, I mean Americans’ favorite work o’ sitting round whining ’bout how other people run politics while not getting involved ourselves.

All polls I’ve read hint that Democrats are poised to have a big blue splash, e’en possibly taking a senate & governor seat in Texas, Republicans’ own California in terms o’ size & influence. State governors have underrated influence & power on a state’s operation & political movement, as they can support or stymie the passing o’ legislature &, thru that, have a lot o’ control o’er redistricting; a Democratic governor in Texas could weaken Texan gerrymandering. Thanks to Democrats getting drunk off Obama’s victory in 2008 & underrating these mo’ modest political levels while Republicans put extra effort — & by effort I mean money — into taking these seats, Democrats haven’t held a majority o’ governor’s offices since 2010.

Howe’er, longtime readers o’ this blog know that there isn’t an advantage that the Democrats couldn’t piss away. This is, after all, the party that legendarily lost to a 4-times-bankrupt has-been celebrity pedophile twice, the 2nd time after his bunging o’ COVID, attempted coup, & babbling ’bout immigrants eating cats & dogs made people know very clearly how incompetent he is. & there are brave Democrats out there dedicated to sabotaging their own party’s chances o’ success.

For instance, we have some beautiful “disses” — as the hip cats @ Mediaite call them — that Democratic political strategist ( that is, a pseudointellectual grifter who tricks fools into giving them money to spout empty wisdom that may or may not be useful, depending on how the stars align, as they definitely don’t have any verified science ’hind it; this “Democrat” is also married to a Republican political strategist, so that lets you know how seriously he takes this political conflict ) James Carville has thrown @… pretty much e’eryone as he whines ’bout how he hopes Democrats lose the midterms as “poetic justice” for progressives being mo’ popular than a bunch o’ ancient rich cronies in a YouTube video showing him in front o’ all the bottles o’ booze he guzzled before spouting off his rants. Here are some o’ his greatest hits:

I’m going to do a course in remedial logic and communications for the progressive movement — or, as I call it, “the bowel movement”. [0:20]

I love people who brag vaguely ’bout how good @ “logic” they are, only to afterward sputter trite nonsense that any high-school dropout could conjure — in this case, doing the ol’-fashioned equivalent o’ just calling the people with whom you disagree poopy heads. I also recommend you check that timestamp to see the spooky way he says, “progressive movement”, to really dig into you how scary it is.

So, instead of quoting academic studies that say, “the juxtaposition of the chi factor relative to small congressional majorities uh… could lead to dysfunctional outcomes”… ¿Who the fuck is going to say that? So, just so you know… [senior moment] …what I was trying to do — & I think I broke thru to probably 80% of the people were smart enough to know what I was saying. The rest of you are really stupid — & I have another… couple of problems with progressive America. [1:13]

In my long hobby o’ mocking faux-intellectuals who clearly think they’re smarter than they truly are, I have ne’er seen a divergence this big. Yes, you have the typical genius who thinks just spouting out whate’er knee-jerk opinion you have based on nothing is superior than academic institutes with far better rigor & resources by making up a strawman statement that is obviously stupid ’cause it uses big words, & obviously nobody can say anything accurate or logic using big words; but what he’s saying here isn’t e’en coherent: he ne’er gets to his point. ¿What does he say instead o’ this? We’ll ne’er know, ’cause he jumps right into this next riveting topic:

It was your great idea that we were going to change all of human behavior by changing dictionaries. ¿How did that work out? [1:53]

Carville will have to tell me, as this only happened inside his fantasies, to which I have no access. I genuinely have no idea what this senile grampa is talking ’bout: ¿modern conceptions o’ gender that include nonbinary people? You know Democrats would be missing out on a great advisor on communications by losing this guy who can’t communicate ideas adequately. ¿Who could replace such a modern-day Plato? — ’cept for maybe any meth head on the street babbling ’bout UFOs.

¿How is “defund the police” doing? [2:02]

I hadn’t realized Carville just woke from a decade-long coma, since I’m pretty certain that was the last time anyone was talking ’bout “defund the police”. I mean, the police haven’t magically disappeared & crime rates have decreased in the past decade, e’en accounting for the jump in crime during the chaos o’ COVID, so I don’t see how it caused any problems. Police have certainly caused a lot o’ problems for innocent black civilians, which is the reason for the backlash gainst the police in the 1st place. I wonder what Carville’s perspective on the murders o’ Trayvon Martin & George Floyd are…

It sounds like Carville is 1 o’ the uneducated Americans this citation notes who believe crime is increasing when in reality it isn’t. We really should listen to this uneducated dweeb who has no idea how crime rates are going in the country for which he harbors the delusion that he can influence good policy. Influencing good policy usually requires having a basic idea o’ what’s going on.

¿How is “communities of color” doing? [2:05]

I don’t know if this man claiming he’s going to teach progressives “communication” genuinely doesn’t know how to do basic verb conjugation or if he’s trying to be hip with the “brothas” by mangling AAVE.

¿How is “nongender pronouns” doing? [2:08]

This ol’ man calling nonbinary pronouns “nongender” is the equivalent o’ ol’ boomers who called Pokémon “Pokeymans” & brings me such delight.

Let me tell you how it’s doing: ¡it ain’t doing worth a fuck! [2:12]

“I don’t give a fuck”, I say with my 2 middle fingers raised like the edgy boi I am.

You did irreparable damage… to people that are trying to affect policies to help immeasurable #s of people. Finally, I, hopefully, that come Tuesday that we’ll finally be able to wash the stench of this asininity… off of our… brand. [2:15]

Let this progressive give you a lesson on “remedial logic”: immediately following a statement with a contradictory statement is bad logic. If the progressives did “irreparable damage”, then there should be no way to “wash the stench of this asininity”, which would be a form o” repair. Also, as someone who has seen archaic Dems fail elections with candidates like John Kerry & Hilary Clonton many times & still ne’er change their ways, the idea that progressives, if they lost a couple elections, would suddenly give up their principles & stop trying progressivism, is laughable. Hell, Carville, who “helped” these losers, as well as other failed candidates, still hasn’t learned from his legacy o’ failure & changed his “analysis” — but then, learning from results is what stuffy academics do, & true geniuses stick to their knee-jerk assertions no matter what. For 1, progressives have already won significant elections, such as with the left’s Mommy-Dommy in New York.

& I will tell you something else, you… idiots. Don’t use it — if you don’t like the Democratic Party, don’t use “Democratic”. The Democratic Socialists, go think of another fucking name for yourself. If Democrats… & liberal Democrats like myself… if we’re so bad, ¿why steal the name? [235]

It’s hard to avoid the Poe’s law here & not think this is some troll shitpost: ¿how politically inept do you have to be to think “democrat” refers only e’er to a specific American party & not, you know, the general concept o’ democracy, a concept that goes back a’least to ancient Greece? ¿Does he think the Democratic Republic of the Congo is named after the US Democratic Party?

I also find it funny how bemused Carville is by the fact that progressives don’t like Democrats when nobody likes Democrats; that’s why they lost to a pedophile traitor. Not liking Democrats is the most popular part o’ progressives. Like, e’eryone knows the goal o’ progressives is to change the Democratic Party from the inside due to the Democratic Party being outdated & disliked. This isn’t e’en new: as Republicans like to bring up all the time, the Democratic Party used to be the party the supported slavery & Jim Crow; just as ol’ southerners felt betrayed when Democrats started supporting civil rights, this ol’ southerner feels betrayed by Democrats… supporting civil rights by supporting trans rights. This is why e’en some Democratic Party institutions are starting to reluctantly work with progressives: they have no choice; they have nothing else & they need to win elections to stay relevant.

After this he goes on a long ramble that I don’t e’en think I can accurately transcribe ’bout dog carnivals where the goal is, according to Carville, to be “as gross & repulsive & sexual innuendo, skewing power, making fun of everything that that you can”, — but not dictionaries; ¡keep those evil commie dictionaries out o’ here! — which he claims “express[es] his values”, all o’ which finally amounts to Carville being triggered by the fact that some newspaper called him “establishment” & wondered why he was treated as royalty to this parade presumably meant for less powerful people. [2:57] Ironically, this rant convinces me e’en mo’ that he doesn’t belong, since someone who is this pressed by such light criticism is too fragile for a carnival that s’posedly expresses values o’ “making fun of everything that that you can”. My favorite part is how he calls “establishment” a “cheap word” thrown out by people who can’t think o’ any real criticism, when this is the same guy who called a movement he didn’t like a “bowel movement”.

Thruout this rant Carville also seems to obsess o’er what is & is not mainstream in Louisiana, tragically blind to the fact that nobody outside Louisiana gives a fuck ’bout Louisiana. Like, yeah, it’s taken by default that a Louisiana Democrat is a conservative — that’s why Louisiana is considered a red state. Imagine me being dumb ’nough to assume Dave Larson or Rob McKenna are the far-right in the US ’cause they’re probably the most right-wing prominent political figures in solid-blue Washington state. Imagine me trying to bring them up to make a point ’bout federal elections only for people to have to let me down gently that nobody outside Washington state gives a fuck ’bout Washington state — most Americans, much less non-Americans, probably don’t e’en know it’s a totally different place from the capitol, Washington D.C., & most Americans probably think Louisiana is in France.

I especially find it laughable that a Democrat in Louisiana, a place where Democrats rarely win, thinks he can lecture blue states, where Democrats actually do win, on how to win. If you’re so good, ¿why haven’t you elected mo’ Democrats in Louisiana?

[Quoting a negative article ’bout him:] “Carville has been yelling @ proverbial clouds, seemingly upset by a younger generation of more aggressive Democrats who draw hard lines”. Uh… I don’t know what you’re talking about, man. All right. &… if you’re going to be a tolerant person that believes in pluralism, you might try… to not mock older people. [6:36]

Carville gets accused o’ yelling @ clouds & then he nicely proves them correct by responding with confusion to this very clear — if albeit not entirely accurate when it comes to the “hard lines” part, as Carville also clearly has hard lines, just different lines — statement, & then babbles irrelevantly ’bout ageism, which isn’t e’en correct: after all, to Carville’s chagrin, Bernie Sanders is popular with the left, & he’s e’en older than Carville. It’s just that Sanders’ brain hasn’t turned to mush yet & I haven’t heard him babble on ’bout “nongender pronouns” yet. The criticism isn’t that Carville’s ol’; it’s that he’s stupid. I mean, I’m making fun o’ him for being ol’ & stupid, but that’s ’cause I’m a satirist, & unlike him, I actually make fun o’ e’erything I can.

But what you don’t know how to do… is… to draw blood with a quote. [senior moment] &… I’ve been doing it for a long time. I get my points across. But, I, I can’t… I mean, I’ve been… try… as I may & — & I wish that the progressives would really get better @ communicating. [7:12]

Well, my blood sure has been drawn by this eloquent quote.

He then talks ’bout how progressives & him actually have a lot in common, ideologically, with 1 significant difference: changing those dictionaries. Well, & also his transphobia & his indifference to police killing black people in the streets. Also, he apparently hates socialists so much & calls himself a “liberal” in contrast, but claims to support raising minimum wage — note that 1 o’ the earliest big successes in Seattle & SeaTac were heavily pushed by 1 o’ the earliest big socialist bogeyman o’ the early 2010s, before e’en Sanders & Mamdami came to prominence, Kshama Sewant, not moderate Dems like himself, who were must later to the party, as always — & limiting taxes on social security earnings ( for which he, as an ol’ person, benefits ), which are obviously the only 2 progressive economic ideas out there. Neither will help Americans fucked o’er by the still-high unemployment rate currently. I just love how pitiful these archaic Dems are who mention, like, 1 li’l left-wing economic policy that’s just standard policy in your average European country that they support & act like that makes them the best leftist e’er. E’en red-hot Missouri has passed a $15 minimum wage law: a Democrat not supporting a minimum wage increase should make you a DINO, period.

He then ends this video by offering more o’ those “remedial courses on elementary logic”, for which I’m sure many o’ his viewers will take him up, including the commenters on this video who… nope, most o’ them are just dunking on him.

& then we have Hayley Stevens, sore loser o’ the Michigan senate Democratic primary, endorsing the GOP candidate gainst the Democratic candidate, El-Sayad, because he acknowledges, along with pretty much all international organizations, that Israel is committing genocide gainst Palestine, rather than do the smart thing, which is take the Israel government & military’s word that it totally isn’t a genocide, bro, e’eryone else is just biased & in bed with Hamas, unlike Israeli government & military themselves & those who loudly support them, who are just abstract representations o’ objective truth, they’re definitely not just saying what benefits their own interests. That or a menacing ad that has the audacity to question giving free money to a different country that can afford public health care when that country apparently can’t afford single-payer for itself. Clearly not giving free money to Israel for no reason is antisemitic, just like how all the US government officials who don’t support giving Japan a free $3 billion for no reason are racist gainst Japanese people. It couldn’t be that the war has nothing to do with the US — beyond the US government getting involved in the 1st place — & the goal o’ maintaining a Jewish state is just straight-up in opposition to the US’s long-held secular principles o’ separating religion & government & that the US government supporting Israel on that ground should straight-up be illegal for violating the Constitution ( luckily for them, the supreme court doesn’t care ’bout the Constitution ).

By the way, Carville also whined ’bout progressives “questioning the policies of the government of Israel”, which is truly evil — one must ne’er question governments, especially ones to which we give free $ with no strings attached — & s’posedly “deny[ing] the right of the state of Israel to exist”, which I guess necessitates genocide, which is funny, ’cause hardly any nation that exists now requires genocide to do so. I guess ’cause countries like the US & Canada got to do it mo’ than a century ago, Israel has the right to 1 free genocide ticket. This is also funny, given that Carville called himself a “liberal” before, when any real liberal should oppose the existence o’ a Jewish state, as well as any other theocracy, because secularism is a core tenet o’ liberalism. I would say that the US should be ashamed & embarrassed that so many Americans are so fervent in their support for a medieval-style government; but for the longest time the US has essentially been a Christian theocracy, & in any case, we already know the US has no concept o’ shame. Also, Carville apparently doesn’t e’en know that “democracy” isn’t just supporting the Democratic Party unconditionally, so obviously his oatmeal for brains has no idea what liberalism is.

This is very interesting & has ill foreboding for the archaic Dems: failing to have proper party loyalty & refusing to Vote Blue, No Matter Who™ is a stereotype given to progressives; now we see the archaic Dems failing to practice what they so oft preached before. When party loyalty was all they had before & now they don’t e’en stick to that, ¿what will they have left?

I also find the weak, weaselly vague language o’ “tactics” only shows a weakness in archaic Dems, as well: when a progressive loses, they still continue to push for their principles, because they believe in them as principles, not “tactics”. Normal people don’t just base their morality on what wins elections; they adjust the tactics & keep the higher principles. Republicans do this all the time, which is why transphobia doesn’t magically go away whene’er a Republican loses an election. Tactics is important, ’course, ’cause morality is worthless if it’s not enacted societally; — it’s just impotent dreaming @ that point — but meaningful tactics always have an idealistic end & is not an end in & o’ itself. After all, if all one cares ’bout is tactics, ¿why complain ’bout any outcome? ¿Is not a Republican win a viable outcome? Being gainst this unquestionably realistic outcome presumes some higher principles that incite one to want to shake the pinball table, so to speak, to begin with. But archaic Dems like Carville seems to only have “tactics”, no real principles, e’en tho these “tactics” don’t seem to work all that well. Carville has to fall into “tactics” & vague language when talking ’bout, say, trans issues, because he’s too chickenshit to say that he wants the government to discriminate gainst trans people, whereas it’s much easier for progressives to just say they support trans rights. I would say this discrepancy exists for most principles where 1 is mo’ pro-social & 1 is not. E’en the few principles they seem to stick to, like zionism, because they know their actual goals are repellent to most Americans, they have to lie, which is what we saw when they presented “not wanting to give free money to a 1st-world country committing genocide to no benefit to us” as “wants to nuke Israel out o’ existence”. The fact that an American could not give a shit whether this random country exists or not & just doesn’t want to use what limited wealth the US refuses to use on poverty issues to prop it up, which is probably what most Americans think, these archaic Dems refuse to acknowledge because they have no way to argue gainst it.