@JesseKelly from time to time challenges people to do their worst in memes. Decency forbids posting the very worst (you can click on the link for that)…but, some are darned funny.
Some Memes
32 thoughts on “Some Memes”
Comments are closed.
@JesseKelly from time to time challenges people to do their worst in memes. Decency forbids posting the very worst (you can click on the link for that)…but, some are darned funny.
Comments are closed.
Blogs For Victory 
On the subject of divisiveness, this is a great example:
One Trump supporter said that the 45th president no longer belongs to the Republican Party or otherwise his GOP colleagues would have his back as the former president endures political persecution from the Left.
“You know he’s definitely not a Republican because then Mitch McConnell and they would be backing him, and DeSantis wouldn’t be running against him,” they said. “He’s obviously not a Democrat anymore, so we’re more of a politically homeless faction that loves America and will make all the changes.”
There couldn’t be a better example of Identity Politics than this. According to this kind of thinking, the reason DeSantis is running against him is because he is no longer a Republican. Every president, in every party, has faced opposition for reelection from within his own party.
This statement is such a weird mashup of political illiteracy, narcissism and delusions of heroism I just hope it doesn’t represent many Trump supporters. But I fear it does.
Well at the risk of my own peril here lol, allow me to comment. Conservatives are not Democrats, we do not march in lockstep or conform to a narrative. I like to think of conservatives as free range chickens with free range opinions. Also the frustration with the Republican Party of whoever posted that, is shared by many, and goes directly back to my question “how do you think we’re doing”. Like me, many conservatives are tired of losing ground every year. And the poster is right, Trump is definitely not your typical Republican, yet ironically he was the most effective conservative President in the history of the country and made great progress only to have it nearly all unwind, because of an unsupportive Republican Party. The Republicans did nothing to defend to Trump while the fake Russia Collusion narrative was picking up steam, and they all but abandoned him after Nov. 8. I remember many, if not most Republicans saying that the “charges against Trump” were serious and “needed to be looked into”. Do you hear any of that kind of rhetoric from Democrats re: Biden’s corruption?? Has any top Republican ever defended Gen. Flynn? Who did absolutely nothing but was forced out of his job? No, and this is why we lose. There has always been a healthy skepticism of Trump amongst the Republican leadership, and just look at the disdain McConnell has for Sen. Hawley, Sen. Cruz, and Sen. Kennedy who are three very good conservative Senators. I believe McConnell to be much more politically aligned with Schumer than he is Cruz. McConnell is just a go along, get along guy and that type of thinking is again the reason why we lose ground every year.
There is an effort out there by many, on both sides of the aisle, to simply characterize Trump supporters as unhinged extremists … and really nothing could be further from the truth. IMO, most of Trump’s ardent supporters are very grounded, family oriented, hard working Americans who are tired of endless wars, endless taxes, “bullshit pay” (hat tip to Oliver), and the leadership from both parties neglecting this country and grifting off of foreign aid. The simple fact is, conservatives have lost ground every year since 2000. Maybe it is time for that third American Party to be led by real unafraid conservatives … Cruz, Hawley, Kennedy, Comer, Jordan, Biggs, Stefanik, MTG, etc., etc. and abandon the Democrat lite Republicans like McConnell, Graham, Romney. The irony here is that many conservatives want exactly what Trump did as President, but don’t want Trump.
The irony here is that many conservatives want exactly what Trump did as President, but don’t want Trump.
And many establishment Republicans have been promising much of what what Trump ended up delivering, but I think most of the time that’s all they were were promises, and empty promises at that.
There’s a lot of truth to the the statement that has been tossed around a lot lately: we have a uniparty in Washington.
I contend that this is because we identify ourselves in terms of Identity and not ideology.
It’s like “LOOK! I have an R on my lapel! That means I am a Republican—though I support expansion of the Constitution to convey more and more authority and power to the federal government, though I do nothing to thwart the incursion of Leftist subversion of that Constitution, though I see the use of federal power as a way to advance my own personal goals or just my own personal opinions.”
If we identify Republicans only in terms of their allegiance to the actual terms of the Constitution we would get rid of about half of those in Congress. But it’s up to US, in every single election, in every single interaction with our representatives, to demand this from them.
And I also believe that if every single Democrat were to be challenged for his or her belief that the power and authority in this nation should be taken from the states and individuals and consolidated in the hands of a few we would see a lot of denial of this.
Ideological clarity would go a long way toward sorting out the true political allegiances of our elected (and appointed) officials
Agreed. The Uni Party is real. Remember when Schumer said about Trump – “if you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you.” ? That’s who the Uni Party works for.
most of Trump’s ardent supporters are very grounded, family oriented, hard working Americans who are tired of endless wars, endless taxes, “bullshit pay” (hat tip to Oliver), and the leadership from both parties neglecting this country and grifting off of foreign aid. No question about it. This has never been argued.
The only comment has been on the extent of their fervor, the extent of their emotional attachment to Trump, and their rejection of anyone or anything that is not wholly Trump. Your description is not only of “ardent Trump supporters” but of millions of others as well, who are dismissed and denigrated as less than conservative just because they don’t share the intensity of allegiance to the man.
The irony here is that many conservatives want exactly what Trump did as President, but don’t want Trump. And this illustrates the danger of Identity Politics. We should not be supporting a MAN as much as a political philosophy—-and that goes for all the Trump supporters as well.
I remember many, if not most Republicans saying that the “charges against Trump” were serious and “needed to be looked into”. So? What is wrong with that? Are you saying the charges were NOT “serious”? Of course they were. What is wrong with being willing to examine the possibility that someone on “our side” has done something wrong? Aren’t we ticked off at the lockstep Dems who refuse to even consider that the Bidens are corrupt? (And I contest the phrase “most Republicans”. It’s not only not true, it contradicts the numbers you keep providing of Trump support.)
“Looking into” only means what it says. Examining the evidence. (Like “finding
votes only means discovering votes that already exist, not creating new ones.) And I suggest that even the most ardent Trump supporters be willing to do the same, and refusal to even consider that he made some mistakes is exactly what marks them as zealots indifferent to facts because of their personal, emotional, allegiance to a man. Denying the importance or validity of a charge is only legitimate if the charge has been examined. Dismissing it without “looking into” it is exactly what makes so much of Trump support look like a personality cult. It is up to Trump supporters to prove this impression wrong. If it is.
I agree that Trump did not have the support of mainstream Republicans. While I don’t agree with them, I can’t argue that they had no right to have their own opinions of how best to govern the nation. They, too, were governed more by Identity Politics than by objective reasoning based on analysis of the best blueprint for governing the nation, but this is the essential weakness of our system right now, on both sides.
I remember reading about the Kennedy-Nixon debate. Those who heard it on the radio were convinced that Nixon won, hands-down. But those who watched it on TV felt that Kennedy won. The reason for the disparity is that the hot lights of the cameras made Nixon sweat and his shiny face, physical discomfort at the heat and constant wiping of his brow conveyed a negative image, while Kennedy managed to deal with the heat much better and came across as calm and attractive. This is a perfect example of Identity Politics. If our candidates could appear in disguise, like the Masked Singer, and be judged solely on their positions and allegiance to specific political philosophies, we would do a much better job of choosing our leaders. But as long as we are affected by other things, such as personalities or appearance, we are going to have leaders elected on extraneous characteristics such as simply not being “likable” or indignation about personal behaviors, etc.
I like to think of conservatives as free range chickens with free range opinions. Yes, and that independence is our strength and our weakness. The strength of the Left is its uniformity. Leftist are not only not encouraged to think for themselves, they are carefully herded into bubbles of information and emotionally trained to reject anything else, so they function like the swarms of herrings or other fish which mass together into a single form., moving as one.
The determination of conservatives to think for ourselves means we resist being herded into conforming units of thought. While this tends to make us less vulnerable to GroupThink, it also makes it harder to organize us into a cohesive unit when that is desirable. This is why we need a couple of strong leaders who can put together coherent plans and then convince the determined individualists that they can join together in pursuit of some goals without sacrificing their independence. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to getting this done is the intransigent Identity Politics people who resist participating in anything not specifically geared to their particular allegiance.
What is wrong with that? Are you saying the charges were NOT “serious”?
YES. That’s exactly what I am saying. They weren’t. And any amateur investigation would show that there was zero substance to the charges, but no Republican had the curiosity to look into it. Instead they went with the Uni Party narrative.
We should not be supporting a MAN as much as a political philosophy—-
I think we need to support policies over philosophy. Policies stem from philosophy, but are real, understandable, and impactful. Philosophy is for college classrooms.
I honestly don’t think the majority of MAGA supports Trump because he is Trump. They support him because of his policies and how positively those policies impacted the country. PLUS, he had the courage to do things no other Republican ever tried … move the Israel Embassy to Jerusalem and end Roe v Wade.
And the only reason I like policy over philosophy is that if I know your policies, I know your philosophy. But if I know your philosophy, I’m still unsure about your policies. George W Bush proved that to me.
if I know your policies, I know your philosophy. But if I know your philosophy, I’m still unsure about your policies. This is totally backward, and your reference to George W. Bush proves that. If his stated foundational philosophy was that of the 10th Amendment, we would have had a better idea of what to expect from his policies.
If you know my philosophy you might not know where I stand on any given policy, but you do know that it will comply with the 10th Amendment and therefore be both consistent and supporting of the core tenets of our government. If you just know my policies, you still don’t know if the next one down the pike will be consistent with the last ones. I might happen to be in favor of a dozen policies that don’t happen to violate the 10th Amendment but then when the feelz kick in I might favor policies based on emotion or what I WISH could be accomplished, like having a federal law against abortion because it complies with my emotions, no matter what the Constitution says, or teaching Christianity in public schools.
When James Madison wrote: “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” he was describing a political PHILOSOPHY, and it would not be hard then to predict what his policies might be.
And no, I don’t think that even the erudite writings of a man using a more formal syntax than we see today are so complicated that they only belong in a college classroom. (Actually, they DO belong in college classrooms, but that is another argument altogether.)
People, politically illiterate people unfamiliar with the Constitution, often don’t understand why conservatives vote the way they do, and fall prey to the Leftist canard that it is just due to greed, or selfishness, or indifference to suffering, or bad character. Until we can start to explain to people that decisions (like Roe) have to be made based on a coherent and consistent philosophy of government as stated in our Constitution every decision is going to be viewed through the lens of emotional judgment instead of understanding.
The charges, if accurate, were serious. The lack of seriousness depends on their being determined to be inaccurate, and the way to do that is to calmly examine them.
Here’s a philosophy: That the federal government must be restricted in its size, scope and power with most authority left to the states or to the people.
Here’s a policy: To ban abortion. Or to close the border.
The former is not only just “for college classrooms” it is a simple, easy to understand, statement of belief in how the country must be run. The latter are specific responses to perceived problems. The former is an abstract idea that can be discussed without getting personal, while the discussion of the latter is far more likely to devolve into emotional bickering with no meeting of the minds and just a matter of who has the most votes.
When we vote on ISSUES (policies) we are voting on individual specific actions based on individual specific desires, which fluctuate according to the person and the situation. When we vote on philosophy, we vote on the template for government, against which any policy must be compared, and must comply. You can actually feel strongly that a top-down one size fits all government is more “fair” because it makes everything the same for everyone—and I once heard that argument—but taking the position that it seems more fair to give people a choice by letting them choose where to live if a state has policies they don’t like is a disagreement, but an abstract one that doesn’t challenge the integrity or morality of the other person
It’s the difference between micro and macro, but philosophy is not emotional, can be discussed without getting worked up because it IS a little abstract, can be argued without getting personal, and is far more important to the future of the country. Discussing policies/issues tends to bog down because defending an issue/policy means finding your opponent’s preference defective.
If arguing philosophy you can ask “Do you believe our nation would be better governed if state authority is more limited and more power is consolidated in the hands of the few running the federal government?” and this is far less volatile a question and far less personal than “why do you think it’s OK to kill unborn babies?” or “why is it OK to let foreigners into the nation without vetting them first?”
You may dismiss the intellect and sincerity of the American people by claiming they just can’t understand a “philosophy” and must, therefore, only be appealed to by appealing to what makes them feel good, or a “policy”. I don’t agree. I have presented my philosophy to people who say they just won’t talk about politics, who have said in so many words “now THAT is something I could talk about”. And it’s much easier to make an argument based on my philosophy. It’s much easier to ask someone if he thinks it would be better to keep government closer to the people by keeping more decisions at the state and local levels than to ask why he thinks it’s OK to take money from some people to give it to other people.
OK, for one thing he did not “end Roe v Wade”. And defending the Supreme Court decisions is a lot more volatile and divisive than merely arguing that the philosophy I described doesn’t make a value judgment on abortion but lets citizens decide for themselves. And how many Americans are going to decide on who should be president based on where the U.S Embassy (not the Israeli Embassy, as Israel doesn’t need an embassy in its own country) is located, or why?
Sadly, policies often do not stem from philosophy—at least not from coherent and consistent philosophies. If they did, we would not have putative Republicans supporting policies that contradict the Constitution, put or keep power in DC instead of in the states, or even tolerating the unconstitutional act of forcing people to take an experimental drug or lose their livelihoods or ability to travel freely.
Policies are based on ISSUES which are almost always based on what people WANT, which is almost always based on the feelz. Without the boundaries of a coherent and consistent philosophy of what the government can and can’t do, voting on policies, or ISSUES guarantees an emotion-based, contentious decision making process and lack of consistency.
And if you can get someone who always votes for Dems to understand and agree to the 10th Amendment (which I rephrase in my personal philosophy) you undermine his inclination to vote for people whose policies contradict it.
Making decisions based on policies is like playing football without a rule book, or entering into a contract without a defining law.
Those are good ones and if I knew how to post memes, I would lol. A favorite meme of mine though is one of two men and one asks the other “who made you a MAGA extremist?”. To which to the other replied:
“No one. I’m just a normal person from 10 years ago”
And that’s exactly the way I feel. I think the world has gone f***ing nuts in the last 3 years. We need normal people to return.
Those are good ones and if I knew how to post memes, I would lol.
Ask your granddaughter, that’s what I do on tech stuff, heh. Pretty simple, actually. Right click on the meme, select “Copy Image Address,” go to where you want to copy it and click Control V (which is the command for paste).
Meme creators have had a field day since Biden cheated his way into the White House. Plus Democrats have become a parody unto themselves, which makes the task pretty simple.
I’ve tried that simple step but it hasn’t been working for me.
Some images won’t let you do that. Make sure you are clicking on the address of the image, not copying it. A copy will often go into an email, but on the blog it has to be the address.
That’s probably what I’m doing wrong
Like I said, when in doubt ask your granddaughter. I’m convinced grandchildren are the overlords of the tech world.
The picture from Lahaina, HI, is becoming a little clearer, and not in a good way. From Jeff Childers:
Maximum equity incompetence is also seen in CA, WA, IL, NY, Or, etc., and people are literally dying. And maximum corruption is also now seen in DC. This is what I mean when I say “normal people need to return and speak up”. The Democrat Party is absolutely insane at this point.
There are rumors that hundreds are missing – mostly kids. They are slow walking information I think until after Pudding Brain’s gaffe-ridden visit.
Leftists are always gobsmacked when the results of their incompetence and meddling crash down on them. While they are playing their ego games they are unaware that reality, in the next lane, is moving right along and will overtake them any minute.
Decades ago when there was a huge blowdown of hundreds of thousands of pine trees in Colorado, the Left refused to allow logging companies to come in and clean up the mess, on the grounds that the equipment would pollute the environment and besides it would be wrong to allow private companies to make a profit off public land. (In spite of the fact that the charter for the Forest Service makes it clear that a purpose of the National Forests is to provide lumber for the nation.) So the downed trees, still full of sap but without the circulatory systems necessary to move that sap and push out pine borer beetles, became a cafeteria for millions upon millions of happy beetles, who, when the dead trees had been sucked dry, moved outward into healthy trees. And the same objections were made when people wanted to go in and cut affected trees to try to stop the onslaught. The result was the loss of tens of millions of valuable trees, forests littered with dry wood, and inevitable fires of such magnitude they crossed state lines and burned millions of acres, not just of dead trees but also of private property. These fires couldn’t even be fought because it was too dangerous to send people into the areas of dead standing trees, which could topple at any time.
We lost valuable timber, as lumber prices skyrocketed, we lost recreational land because it was too dangerous to hike through forests of dead standing trees, and we created conditions leading to fires which were so polluting they rivaled volcanoes for their environmental damage, covering states with dense smoke and ash. And, BTW, people died.
And the Left, and its Forest Service agency masters, were all big-eyed with amazement and surprise. “US?” they bleated. “You can’t blame US! It was global warming!”
And then they turn around and do the same thing somewhere else. (example: Napa/Sonoma Valley, with people burned to death in their cars as they tried to flee the fire.) And when the same kinds of consequences occur, they are always stunned, and retreat into defense mode, looking for excuses for their incompetence and utter stupidity.
I agree that Trump did not have the support of mainstream Republicans. While I don’t agree with them, I can’t argue that they had no right to have their own opinions of how best to govern the nation
Of course they have the right to their own opinions, BUT those opinions don’t represent their constituents. They certainly don’t represent people like me anymore. And that’s there only job. Represent the people who put them in office.
Lot of photos and articles about Biden sitting on the beach in Delaware while Lahaina burned. Now he’s “interrupting” a Lake Tahoe trip to actually visit Hawaii. YCMTSU!
You disgusting piece of human debris, get the hell off this blog, and don’t come back.
Lol. “We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re coming for your children”.
That’s who Forty is. And I agree. Human debris
And also weird that Forty would complain about death. His party and his policies kill people everyday, and recently destroyed families and an entire town on Maui