The New Democratic Socialist Party Is a ‘Graveyard of Bad Ideas’

 

 There’s a lot of opposition to the Trump counterrevolution. There’s talk of a Democratic resurgence.

But before we write off the Republicans—and
I’m very confident. I think they’re gonna do well in the midterms, for
reasons I’ve outlined before. Do we really want the alternative

Because I think the way to characterize the new democratic socialist
party is it’s sort of a graveyard of bad ideas. That is that, especially
in the Obama administration and in the post-George Floyd period, we
were told that there were new paradigms, new exegesis, new protocols,
agendas that were going to be lasting and permanent, and change America
for the better.

And they have been tried under former President Joe Biden, and they’ve been found wanting. And I think they’re mostly, now, relegated, as I said, to the boneyard, maybe, of bad ideas.

One of them was this idea that a previously small minority of people
that suffered from gender dysphoria—maybe 0.001% of the population—was
actually a huge group of oppressed peoples, in the manner of the civil
rights plight of African Americans or Latinos. And therefore, we had to
recognize separate restrooms for trans people. Boys—biological men, I
should say, competing in female sports. And we just went whole hog
I think all of us at work, all of a sudden, one day, we woke up and
people were listing their pronouns. I haven’t seen that recently

Anyway, we were told there was this large stealthy constituency of
oppressed trans people and that they had innate grievances against the
majority. And they were quite big.

I don’t think people bought into the idea that there are more than
two biological genders. The rest, I think, as a recent Czech diplomat
lectured former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Munich, Germany, the rest are socially constructed.

Nor did we really look at the effect of biological males competing in
sports, especially contact sports—that can be volleyball or things like
boxing—the effect of a biological male on female sports, and the
fairness, or I should say unfairness, of it.

And of course, the transitional surgery, the effect on hormones. The
Left had been so careful to warn us about Big Pharma and the medical
industry and unnecessary procedures, and yet they were very
undiscriminating and just kind of approved whole-hog the idea that you
can make these radical surgeries on young teenagers and give them very
dangerous drugs—steroids and hormones, antidepressants. And I think now
we’ve seen the result of it. And it’s not gonna recur.


Open borders were another bad idea. And we had 10,000 people coming
across the border. I think the iconic turning point was when Alejandro
Mayorkas, the former Biden homeland security secretary, was standing on a
podium and saying at the border, “The border is secure.” And you could
see thousands of people coming in—10,000 a day, 10 million to 12 million
over four years.

I don’t think anybody realizes the enormity of the task to find those
10 million to 12 million. They added to a pool of 20 million, giving us
30 million illegal aliens. And we had another 20 million people not
born in the United States that were residents. Some were citizens, some
were legal residents, some were on student visas.


But the point is, we have 53 million people, 16% of the population
wasn’t born here, without any idea how to assimilate, acculturate, or
integrate them into the body politic.

So, I think the idea of open borders, as Secretary of State Marco
Rubio pointed out in Europe, is a dead letter. Nobody’s gonna come back
and say, “We have to let in another 10 million or 5 million.” It impacts
the poor. It swamps our social welfare network, as we’ve seen with
500,000 criminals. It spikes our crime.




Another one is the idea that we’re gonna live in a United Nations
utopia and you really don’t need a deterrent military. Europe went down
that path after the end of the Cold War, 1991, all through the ’90s and
the new millennium. They disarmed. Germany went from having the biggest
army in NATO to having one that wasn’t really an army anymore. Europe,
despite its $20 trillion gross domestic product and despite its 500
million-plus population, is totally disarmed.

We ourselves let our defenses lax under Biden. I think everybody sees
now, after the Iranian nuclear threat, what China’s up to, what Russia
is doing in Ukraine, that you have to deter your enemies. And that
requires a strong defense budget.

I think, as well, we owe—we’re getting into the trillions of dollars.
And we’re anticipated to get to, in the next decade, I don’t know, it
could be $40 trillion in debt. It’s not sustainable. The interest on the
debt, right now, is larger than the defense budget. Europe is suffering
the same malaise. But the idea of modern monetary theory—the Left told
us—or that since we are loaning the money to ourselves and bondholders,
it’s turned out to be bogus.

The fact is we ran up all of this debt because the Fed, during the Obama and first Trump administration and the first Biden administration,
kept interest rates low, so we borrowed billions, trillions of more
dollars, at rates as low as 2% or 3%. And now the rates came up. And we
saw what a catastrophic idea that was when we have to service it

I don’t think anybody’s gonna make the argument that we need more
socialist entitlement programs funded by borrowed money. If you borrow
the money and it’s unsustainable, you only have three choices: you can
default on it and ruin the nation’s credit rating, you can confiscate
money, or you can inflate your way out of it.

There’s a fourth, but I don’t see Europe, yet, learning that lesson:
You can grow your economy and get greater revenues. That’s what we’re
trying to do in the United States.

Fifth, finally, very quickly, I think diversity, equity, and
inclusion has sort of been exhausted. It’s showed not to be unworkable,
that is, how do you determine who is a victim and part of the
victim/victimizer binary, historical grievances? If you’re Latino or
black or Asian, do you prove that somebody was mean to you? Your
great-grandfather was a slave—great, great. It’s very hard, if you’re
one-quarter white, half-Asian, one-quarter Latino, what particular group
are you?

It was an emphasis on superficial appearance, contrary to the content
of our character. It was on the color of your skin. That didn’t work
out too well. It gave people exemptions, and it said that, I,
psychologically, if I make a mistake or I don’t work hard or I wanna
apply to Harvard, but I don’t have the SAT scores or the grades of other
people, I should get that. Or if I’m in a pilot training program or I’m
a surgeon and I don’t quite make the standards, there’s other criteria,
kinda like the Russian commissar system, where if you were
ideologically pure, then you were given exemptions from performance.

And so, I think we now see that DEI is disruptive, it’s
discriminatory. And I think, after experimenting with this under the
guise of affirmative action, but especially, the last four or five
years, people are sick of it. It’s incoherent. And it’s dangerous. It’s
dangerous. It puts people in key positions in the economy, where life
and death matters, and they are promoted or assessed or retained on
criteria other than mer


And so, we can sum up by saying there’s four or five things that went
full-bloom, full-blast under the Obama and Biden administrations. And I
think President Donald Trump
and this counterrevolution were able to show the American people that
the trans fixation, the open borders, the idea of being pretty much
disarmed, deficits—I call it deficit socialism—and DEI didn’t work out


There was a laboratory United States that tried these things, and it
hasn’t worked. And Europe, I think, would agree that it has to follow
the same pathway of reform or it’s going to end up a Third World
country.

Preventive or Preemptive? The Pros and Cons of a Potential US Strike on Iran

 

President Donald Trump is positioning the largest naval and air forces with submarines off the coast of Iran—in the Persian Gulf, in the Mediterranean, in the Red Sea—that we’ve seen since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And there are pros and cons about striking Iran.

We’re not at war with them right now, so this is what we would call either a preventive war, long-term threat, or a preemptive war, that there’s a short-term threat that has to be precluded by the use of force.

It’s very controversial, and we don’t know whether he’s going to pull the trigger or not. He said help was on the way when the protests were maximized. Anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 people, estimates say, were killed. Those protests are now—we haven’t seen much of them, given the mass death and murder on this awful regime of some, it’s getting nearer, as you know, a half-century, 46 years.

So, what are the pros and cons of what we’re doing? Does he have to go to Congress to get a declaration of war? No. No more than the Obama administration had to do when they bombed Libya, for example. But there are pros and cons, and let’s go through the pros first.

It has been the dream of eight presidencies, going back to Jimmy Carter, all the way to Donald Trump, to have some type of regime change.

There’s one exception, Barack Obama. He had a harebrained scheme, remember, that he was going to empower Iran. He had the Iran deal. He brought in $400 million at night on pallets to give them money that had been sanctioned. He lifted the sanctions. So did Joe Biden. The idea was to balance off Israel and the Arab countries with a Shia revolutionary country. And then that would produce creative tension, I suppose, that Obama thought he would adjudicate.

But other than that, every president has wanted an end to that anti-American regime. They have killed more Americans than any terrorist organization, probably as much as ISIS or more than ISIS, given the use of shaped charges in Iraq. So, that makes sense that you’d want to get rid of it.

You would also, in this cat-and-mouse game that we played for 20 years about Iranian nukes, it’s a given that anytime they sign a nuclear nonproliferation deal or they give someone their word, it’s not going to happen. They can’t be trusted. They’re a revolutionary, ideologically driven, not rational regime. But it would be very good if they didn’t have the ability with their hypersonic missiles or their other ballistic missiles to hit Europe or our allies in the Middle East or even, at some future date, us. So, you could end that project for good.

They’re in remission now, thanks to our prior bombing missions, but we haven’t ended that threat. It’s existential as long as the regime is in. It would be a moral thing, as I said, 10,000 to 30,000 protesters were murdered. Their bodies were not even given back, in some cases, to their families, secretly buried.

And this regime, as we speak, is hanging people, executing people. It’s a rogue regime. And the moral case is strong to help out the protesters, and there might be a chance that Donald Trump could time his attack with a second wave of protests.

It would also stabilize. Everybody thinks it’s going to destabilize the Middle East. It would probably stabilize the Middle East. And with the source of funding for Hamas, for the Houthis, and for Hezbollah completely cut off, those terrorist organizations may die in the vine, and the Arab countries might feel more secure that they could cut a deal according to the Abraham Accords with Israel.

But there are cons. Let’s make no mistake about it. When you park 200,000-ton displacement carriers, one in the Persian Gulf and one in the Mediterranean, those are big targets. They’ve got some of the best air defenses in the history of naval warfare. They have a fleet of accompanying ships. Hopefully, their air arms could take out the ability of the Iranians to hit them with either drones or missiles, but it’s not a sure thing. And they’re big targets. And we’ve got about 5,000 Americans on each one of those carriers, and they’re a $13 billion, $14 billion investment. So, that’s a great risk.

The midterms are coming up in November. Most presidents are very wary to take on an optional military engagement when there’s so many unknowns up in the air, and it could either sink the Trump administration’s prospects in November or, if he was able to displace and get rid of this horrific regime, the first of, as I said, eight presidents to be able to do that, that would be quite an achievement, it might help him in the midterms.

He has another problem. That is the MAGA base. The MAGA base is neo-isolationist. He campaigned in 2016 and 2020 against so-called forever wars, optional military engagements, especially in the Middle East. In the past, he’s been able to square that circle by limited engagements. In other words, the taking out of the Wagner Group in Syria, the killing of Qasem Soleimani or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or the bombing of the nuclear facilities. They were all finite, very short, solved the problem. Bombed ISIS into oblivion. Said he was going to bomb them, he did.

This is a little different. There’s not so easily an endgame here because this is a huge country and it’s got a very ideologically fervent population.

There’s another thing, too. The protesters themselves, we think, are pro-Western. They want to bring back the shah, but we’re not sure of that.

So, if you’re a protester and they killed 30,000 of you and you’re afraid to go back out and you’re sitting in your apartment and you see bombs raining, and they’re not going to be completely accurate, and take my word for it and your word for it, these Iranians know how to do Hamas and Hezbollah-like tactics. Their missiles and their command and control will not be in something that says a secure bunker. They will be near hospitals. They will be near mosques. They will be near schools. They will be, as we saw in Lebanon, in residential areas. So, there will be collateral damage.

Will the Iranian public have the long-term view that that’s in their interest, or the short-term view and turn on the Americans?

These are all pros and cons, but ultimately, Donald Trump will have to make that decision. He’ll have to make the decision pretty quickly because you can’t just take those many naval assets and stick them halfway across the world. In terms of deployment, wear and tear on the machinery, deployment time, etc., there is a window. And the window is probably about another six weeks. He’ll have to make that decision.

We have the Olympics. You would not want to strike during the Olympics, apparently. He’s got to worry about the Israelis. On the one hand, they want the regime gone. On the other hand, the last time they exchanged missiles and attacks with Iran, they were getting very low on anti-ballistic missile defense weaponry. So, we don’t know quite where their stocks are now.

Finally, what should Trump do? I’m not going to advise him. I don’t have the expertise or the knowledge to advise him. But I do think that he might want to have a brief press conference or address to the nation, five minutes, not detailed, just say that we are facing an existential threat for nearly 50 years with this country. It’s killed thousands of Americans in Iraq and Lebanon. And it is a human rights abuser. It murders its own people.

And it’s very important, given its key role in controlling the Strait of Hormuz, where 20% to 30% of the world’s oil passes every day. And more importantly, the price of oil will depend on it as well.

And here are the dangers and here are the advantages, and I’m going to make my—it doesn’t have to be that explicit, but he needs to give some information to the American people.

‘You Owe Us’ Is the Mantra of the Left

 

person 1: Two things that came together for me. One was [New York City Mayor Zohran] Mamdani’s 9.5% increase in the property tax for New Yorkers, but not that alone. I’m sure our audience has read about that. But I was looking at Power Line. I always like to give a shout-out to them because they have some great articles, and they were comparing New York State’s budget versus Florida’s budget.

And they came up with, well, it’s only half at the state level. So, I thought, well, let’s look at the city level, New York City versus Miami. And while the billions that each of them has to spend is not meaningful in and of themselves. So, for example, New York City’s budget is $127 billion while Miami’s is only $3.4.

But that being said, per citizen, what has to be paid into these cities? And so, for Mamdani, each of his citizens has to pay $14,431 in for his budget. And in Miami, it’s just half of that, at just under $7,000 per citizen.

person 2: And it’s more disproportionate because in New York, the number of people who are actually paying taxes is a much smaller percentage than in Miami.

He inherited the city that was this blue-chip financial market, this cultural, financial capital of the world, and the first thing he did was raise spending by $11 billion.

Second thing he did was prove that he couldn’t get the trash or the snow off the street during the storm.

Third thing he did, it was very hard to find an appointee who somewhere in their dark history had not issued or written something antisemitic.

All he does is smile and try to be … basically, his message is: I’m not Lenin, and Trotsky or Stalin. I’m the nice, happy-faced communist, and you’re going to like me, and you’re going to like my communism. We’re all going to get along.

I mean, if you’re in New York, if you’re in California, you got a choice.

If you’re in California and this billionaire tax passes, and you’ve got to come up with $50 million, you’re going flee. If you’re in New York, and they’re going to raise your property tax on these multimillion-dollar buildings, you’re talking what could be $20 or $30, $40, $50 million more a year, then you’re going to flee, get out.

If you don’t, they’re just going to keep doing it. They’re going keep targeting you because they have an idea. I don’t think people realize that.

The socialist mind … I knew a lot of socialists in the universities and some friends of mine, and they always think … The whole core of socialism is, I work hard, and no one knows how I suffer at my job as a nurse, as a farmer, whatever. And I believe in the labor theory of value.

Why is it that when Victor had a Ph.D. but he was pruning vines, he was only making $4 an hour—I was for three years—and then all of a sudden, five years later, he is an academic, and he is sitting in between classes and having coffee and he’s making $50 an hour. That’s not fair.

And so, they don’t think about supply and demand, expertise, education, nothing. And somebody would say, “Well, when Victor was pruning vines, a lot of people could not only prune them, they could probably prune them better.”

When he was teaching a particular Greek literature class, and they thought that was an important class to offer. Questionable, but that’s what they said. Very few people could do it. They don’t accept that.

And so, they run on this envy that we work hard, and we get up, and we do things, and therefore we should be compensated. And that’s what a socialist is, and they’re going keep raising taxes.

The other thing about it is, when they raise taxes, they don’t ever say thank you. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, even former Sen. Dianne [Feinstein], they’re all wealthy, but they never said, “We want to thank the people in California that are the 1% that are paying 50% of the income tax.”

And by the way, the 50% of the income tax in California, there’s only about, I don’t know what there is, 250 billionaires? They usually pay capital gains tax. They pay at about, I don’t know, 28%. The people in that 1% of Californians are highly compensated professionals and small businesspeople who make a million or two million, three million dollars, and then they get hit with a 13.3% tax rate, plus their federal plus Medicare.

So, they’re paying 55% of their income and nobody ever says, “Thank you for doing that, you people, we have a very skilled elite that allows us to have this huge budget.” They don’t. The attitude is always, “They have to. They have to pay more.”

I remember in 1991 there was a fiscal crisis in California and the state was broke.

Well, it’s always broke. It always has a deficit, but this was a really bad deficit. So, they decided to go after all state agencies, and one of them was the California State University system. In the past you always could lay off part-time lecturers. But then they got the idea, we exploit those people so well. We pay them so little that by laying them off—we really reduce about 40% of our classes, which are big money earners. And they don’t cost us anything. We exploit them. No benefit. But the ones that really are the high-priced assets, if you’re going to go after budget cuts, are the tenured full professor, top step in fields that we feel are not essential.

I disagreed with that. So they started laying off Russian professors, classics professors—I was on leave that year—dance professors, which was bad. It was really bad. But when you listen to them, and I knew them very well, they’d say, “Well, these people can pay. Why aren’t we taxing more? Why don’t we raise taxes?”

I said, “We already have the highest income tax.” Well, they have a lot of money, or they wouldn’t be able to pay what they do. But they never made the connection that their job was dependent on somebody being willing. So, they had just contempt for the people that were already paying their salaries.

And some of these classes had three and four people in them. But it was just outrage. It was never, “Why don’t we cut our expenses and save the taxpayer?” It was always, “Ah, they owe us. They owe us.” And that’s the attitude of the Left.

Obama's Latest Interview Is an Unbelievable Rewriting of History

 

Former President Barack Obama continues to make the podcast rounds as he joined Brian Cohen in what could only be labeled as one of the most insufferable interviews available on the internet. Obama managed to do what he does best: pretend to take the moral high-ground while having ruthlessly targeted anyone politically opposed to him.

Obama was always the master of this. He’d do something nakedly political and accuse everyone who opposed it of being “political.”

“Stop being political and pass my law that destroys American healthcare.” https://t.co/UQtYJ2EE51

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) February 15, 2026

Obama jumped onto the leftist talking point of the Democrat Party being the party of unity, while the Republican party has a monopoly on divisiveness, anger, “us/them” style of politics, and almost laughably equating the Left to Bad Bunny’s recent profane halftime performance that nearly no one in the United States could actually understand.

OBAMA: “The other side does the mean, angry, exclusive, us/them, divisive politics. That's their home court. Our court is coming together.”pic.twitter.com/9Ph6hxHzUz

— Brandon Straka #WalkAway (@BrandonStraka) February 14, 2026

“That’s their home court,” Obama said. “Our court is coming together. A great example, it wasn’t political, Bad Bunny’s halftime show.”

Of course, by “unity” he means when his running-mate labeled his opponents as racists who would work to reinstitute slavery. Or how about the “basket of deplorables" line from his would-be successor, Hillary Clinton? It seems almost daily that we hear of a leftist politician calling ICE officers Nazis.

I guess he forgot when "his side" called the other side Hilter, Nazis. etc -- or maybe he just doesn't think that is divisive https://t.co/aNALwZEqNn

— Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) February 15, 2026

Barack Obama was the most divisive president in modern American history. https://t.co/lzZaONJADj

— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) February 14, 2026

Obama normalized and weaponized the idea of “if you disagree with me, you are evil and want people to die.”

He set the table for the us/them politics we have today.

But he also has the self-awareness of a blind squirrel so what can ya do. https://t.co/FlZlt4nMuQ

— Matt Whitlock (@MattWhitlock) February 15, 2026

The lunacy doesn’t end there. Obama also took shots at President Trump, alleging that Trump has harassed and intimidated states who didn’t vote for him, and claiming that he would have never done the same.

.@BarackObama: "When I was president, I suppose I could have simply unilaterally ordered the military to go into some red state and harass and intimidate a governor there or cut off funding for states that didn't vote for me... but that is contrary to how I think our democracy is… pic.twitter.com/MACkwm8Fmd

— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) February 14, 2026

It’s hard to break down just how absurd this statement is. Trump has only had to conduct these large-scale operations in sanctuary cities who are openly and flagrantly defying federal law, and because the Democrat-run states Trump desires to withhold funds from are engaged in billions of dollars of fraud.

Obama also seems to think that he never used his government power to target political opponents after making a claim that is a complete rewriting of the work of his administration. It seems rather hard to forget that the IRS targeted Tea Party aligned groups for increased scrutiny, with James Comey running cover for their political activity, among the countless other activities his administration got up to. Does the Steele Dossier even need to be mentioned? The number of cases are simply too vast to write about.

Obamacare was literally written to threaten to cut off funding for states that wouldn't vote for Obama's policies. There were multiple Supreme Court cases on this! That was the organizing principle of the stimulus, too. That's before we even get into suing nuns or running guns to… https://t.co/MMHryax464

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) February 15, 2026

He literally sued nuns. https://t.co/JC9kBICagG

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 14, 2026

Obama went after the Sisters of the Poor in court, authorized a drone strike on two American citizens without due process, was running guns to Mexican cartels, and oversaw surveillance of Fox News, the AP, and CBS News https://t.co/zuTNexdhZJ

— Sean Agnew (@seanagnew) February 15, 2026

The good news for conservatives is, that if they have resorted to trotting out Obama to try to clean up their mess, you know that we are winning. If it weren't for him and his ego, Donald Trump would have never come down that escalator and ushered in a new age of conservative governance.

How Do They Come Up With So Many Stupid Goosestepping leninist Democrats?

 

You have to hand it to Democrats, no matter how many times you are certain they can’t do something – be more corrupt, act sleazier, hate the country more, be idiots – they find a way to exceed what anyone thought was possible. In a sick way, it’s an accomplishment – a perverse one, but an accomplishment nonetheless. It’s enough to make you wonder if there is some sort of performance enhancing drug that lowers the bar to the point that you’d need a shove not to clear it. 

The idea of a human being running a 3-minute mile was, for decades, laughable…until Roger Bannister did it in 1954 – finishing in an astonishing (for the time) 3 minutes 59.4 seconds on May 6th. Until then, no one had done it, as the speculation was a human being simply could not run fast enough for that long. In about 100 years of timing running races, no one had ever done what was considered impossible. On June 21 of the same year, the “impossible” record was broken by John Landy. Since then, the record has been broken 17 more times, with countless more runners besting 4 minutes regularly now. 

No one could do it…until someone did it, then everyone started doing it and have been doing it ever since, proving that nothing is beyond the reach of human beings if we really apply ourselves. 

Unfortunately, while that is true for the good things in life, it is also true for the bad, and the bad gets really bad when it comes to intelligence and members of the Democratic Party.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez flew to Munich, German Democratic Republic, this week to participate a security conference where she and her fellow Democrats whine about their claim that the President is a fascist in the home of fascism, “genocide” in Gaza in the places where real genocidal plans were hatches, and climate change in person when they could have simply done a Zoom call and saved the “carbon footprint” of the flight.

What’s the fun in that? You don’t get a “free” trip to a conference in Europe for you and your fiancé if you just video chat in your appearance. I’m not saying she brought her finance with her to Germany, but I do think it weird she’s been “engaged” for years, whatever the reason, when a secondary effect of that is her fiancé’s finances do not need to be included in her financial disclosure forms. With her fellow leftists having their net worth skyrocket to the multi-millions due to the “earnings” of their spouses and all the justified scrutiny that comes with that, I’m just saying that putting off a wedding for as long as possible, in my opinion, makes political sense.

You gotta make hay while the Sun is shining, I guess, and certainly before the sunlight creeps into where all the money comes from…if that’s what is happening. (Just a guess…or one of them doesn’t really want to get married and that’s why they’ve been engaged since 2022.)

In Munich, this intellectual leader of the left was asked a simple question about whether or not the United States would come to the aid of Taiwan if China invaded, as they are desperate to do. This not-ready-for-prime-time-person responded with what could easily be described as an attempt to make Joe Biden look like a genius and Kamala Harris come off like a great orator. 

AOC answered, “Um...you know...I think that uh...this is...such a, ya know, I think that...this is a um...This is, of course, a, uh, a very longstanding, um, policy of the United States, uh, and, I think, what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point, and we want to make sure that we are moving in all our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise.”

Can you believe Jeopardy hasn’t called yet?

How does a political party produce someone so, um…articulate and special? How does a political party, that same political party, produce a series of “victims” of a child sex predator – who was a proud member of that same political party – who became entangled with that predator not when they were children, but when they were adults? Can’t they even stage a photo-op properly? 

They can’t, because they don’t mean any of it. Do you really think AOC likes this country or cares about Taiwan or anyone who isn’t obedient, for that matter? Does any part of you genuinely think there is a single Democrat in the House who cares at all about who Jeffrey Epstein abused? 

Democrats didn’t say a word about any of them for 4 years, now they can’t shut up about it. But only about the one man in the “files” who is only complained about by Epstein, as President Trump booted him from his life more than 20 years ago. Everyone else in there is a Democrat – all the people who stuck with him after his time under house arrest for soliciting sex from minors are Democrats. That’s not a coincidence, it’s a pattern. It’s who Democrats are.

So, it’s not that the party produces idiots, although it certainly is a magnet for them, it’s that it attracts horrible people who are awful to the children, women, animals, plant life and everything else that is not them or could hinder their goosestepping march to power. It’s not the 3-minute mile, more like the 3-point IQ. It’s who Democrats are.