Details, details, (lack of) details

Before we begin, it’s worth noting that this blog is almost 10 years old, or, in other words, it’s lasted almost 10 years longer than Donald Trump’s blog (which was shut down yesterday).

Now, I can’t begin to tell you if I’ve sputtered more nonsense in my 10 years than he has in the last, oh, 6 weeks or so, but I doubt it.  If you somehow missed the latest, the “rumor” is that Donnie the terrible expects to be reinstated sometime in August.

Yeah, reinstated.  As President.  Of these United States.

Republicans, marching in the same direction

Before you go running to your local constitutional scholar to see just how this might play out (hint – it doesn’t; that’s not how this works, that’s not how any of this works), consider playing this fun game:  next time you see a Trumpkin post malarkey like this, ASK THEM.  Ask them, exactly, where in the US Constitution it says that a candidate who lost due to “fraud” (be sure to include the quotation marks) gets to be reinstated once the “fraud” is “proven” in “court.”  Ask them what proof is needed, which court decides, etc., etc.  Ask for lots of details.

You won’t get any, of course.

Conservatives have been horrible of late in providing details for…well, actually, for damn near anything.  They make claims, they make statements, and something is missing.  Details.

For example, many Republican-controlled legislatures are passing outrageous “voter protection” bills that do nothing of the kind.  What they actually do is make it very hard (for some people) to vote.  The GOPers say it’s to stop fraud at the polls, but when you ask them exactly how much fraud occurred in 2020, they mumble and stutter and then point to the lack of confidence the “voting public” (their side) has in the results (because of all the lies they told their side about why they lost). 

“Critical Race Theory” is being debated in many states by all the conservatives, but…do they even know what that means?  When I ask that question on the social medias, I get:

• “I ain’t doing your homework,”
• “Google it,”
• “It’s just another bad liberal idea, like all of them,” and
• [crickets].

(For a good overview, see here; for an interesting analysis, go here.)

Side note – this reminds me of a pro-Biden post I commented on last week, where a Trumpkin posted “This story is factually inaccurate and wrong.”  I asked what, specifically, was inaccurate and got a Sarah Palin-like response:  “All of it.”

You see, if Neo-Con-jobs would actually pay attention to the details, they might actually be able to think about the things they’re saying and the claims they’re making and realize it can be one way or the other way, but it can’t be both.

One example is the January 6^th insurrection.  More than 70% of Republicans say Antifa and/or was responsible, yet, also, too, more than 70% say there should NOT be an investigation and we should move on.  Wouldn’t they WANT to have PROOF that the nasty Antifa crowd should be answerable for all that death and damage?  And yet…

How about this one?  Fans of the Orange Blob want Trump to get credit for rushing the COVID vaccines through, but…they also say, ”I won’t take the vaccine because it was rushed.”

Oh, by the way, they STILL think Obama was born in Kenya.  Still.

And don’t forget that “Unemployment benefits are too generous” and simultaneously “The economy is overheating so much that inflation is going to kill us all.”

I mean, sure, it makes your head hurt, but all of this bullshit does affect our social discourse.  How can you reason with people who blurt out any string of words whether there’s any truth to them or not?  How can you possibly negotiate with anyone like that?

I know Joe means well, but as he would say: “C’mon, man.”

Times a wastin’ – let’s move forward without the bastards.