I don’t understand my conservative brethren.  I mean, I do, really.  I know they’ve been trapped by the conservative bubble where they’ve been taught to ignore facts and reality in favor of preferred opinions.  These guys ALWAYS have the same opinions: our guy is great, your guy (or gal) sucks…

In response to the Trump crime family’s most recent crimes – enlisting foreign powers to help Donnie Dumbass return to the White House so he can betray America some more – I saw a story, this morning, talking about the times the Obama Administration refused to respond to subpoenas.  The piece claimed 9 times.  Of course, it was an opinion piece so it can claim anything it wants.  For example, it included such undeniable items as when one person was invited – not subpoenaed – to speak to Congress and chose not to.  It DID mention a couple of actual subpoenas but, for example, in one case, the Obama Administration declined because the issue was already with the Sour Cream Court…

So the part the confuses me about my conservative brethren is NOT that they’ve made a conscious decision to be spectacularly wrong about every issue.  To me, the confusing part is why they insist on making the deceivers – Heritage, Cato, American Enterprise, and the Hoover institute among so many others – keep writing new stories.  It seems…odd.

THEY don’t care about the details or facts of any situation.  WE aren’t going to accept bullshit issued by conservative “think” tanks since it never – and I mean never – matches reality.  So…if you don’t care what’s in the story and we’re not going to buy the bullshit anyway, I think you only need two stories.

One, our guy didn’t do it and two, your guy did far, far worse.  I suppose you could have a third, just to shake things up – our guy didn’t do it AND your guy was far, far worse.

So, for example, the first one, ‘Our Guy Didn’t,’ they could just write: “Oh, those crazy libtards are at it again.  They’re blaming our guy even though they haven’t got one shred of evidence and we all know, with or without evidence, that our guy would never do anything like what they’re suggesting.”  The second piece, ‘What About YOUR Guy?’ would be straightforward enough.  “Oh, those crazy libtards, who hate our country, are at it again.  They’re trying to blame our glorious and perfect (insert name of candidate or politician here) but they just ignore when they’re own guy did the same thing.  There was that one time they did that thing, remember?  Then there was that second time they did a thing, and then there was that third time, remember that?  THAT was the truly bad thing and nobody should ever look at any behavior of our guy until the DemocRAT suffers for the things we can pretend he/she did…”

Then, just to shake things up a bit, they do a mash-up.  “Oh, those crazy libtards are at it again.  They’re blaming our guy even though they haven’t got one shred of evidence and we all know, with or without evidence, that our guy would never do anything like what they’re suggesting.  But those crazy libtards, who hate our country, are at it again.  They’re trying to blame our glorious and perfect (insert name of candidate or politician here) but they just ignore when they’re own guy did the same thing.  There was that one time they did that thing, remember?  Then there was that second time they did a thing, and then there was that third time, remember that?  THAT was the truly bad thing and nobody should ever look at any behavior of our guy until the DemocRAT suffers for the things we can pretend he/she did…”

See how easy it is?  Three simple (emphasis on ‘simple’) stories to cover any situation…

I’ll tell you this: if the “think” tanks didn’t have to spend so much time ginning up fraudulent stories to keep the faithful on board, they could turn their attention to other ways of undermining this once-great nation to the benefit of the privileged elite…