Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


There have been some major news stories breaking over the past week, but none has been bigger than WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being arrested in London at the behest of the United States. Assange is a polarizing figure to many. To some, he’s an unsung hero who kept governments’ feet to the fire. To others, he is a dangerous individual who should have been arrested and jailed a long time ago.

And, as you might expect, the Left has been conflicted over his work. When it was George W. Bush getting skewered, Leftists loved Assange. When it was Hillary Clinton catching his ire, he was a Russian asset. And when President Donald Trump said he liked WikiLeaks and asked them jokingly to get her emails, Assange became persona non grata to the Left. (Persona non grata is Latin for “person without cheese.” Or something like that.)

Time to delve into the wonderful world of WikiLeaks and Assange.

Julian Assange

What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous individual who is a threat to international security

What it really means – a 21st Century version of a hired gun

The Left’s attitude towards Assange is no surprise to me because they’ve played this game before. Remember Cindy Sheehan? The Left loved her when she would protest against George W. Bush, but when she decided to run against Nancy Pelosi, Sheehan was painted as an unstable grieving mother who couldn’t find her way out of a ditch with a map, a ladder, and a sign. The Left will use whomever they want in whatever fashion they want until that person becomes a liability to them.

And Julian Assange fits that bill perfectly.

I’ve been following his efforts to shine light into the cockroach infested halls of government for years, and it’s clear he has no allegiance to any one ideology or movement. He is truly a merc with a modem. That can lead to some interesting discussions about the morality and legality of what he does. On the one hand, he is revealing information the powerful don’t want you to know (or in Hillary’s case relying on the stupidity of her campaign staffers to openly give out the information inadvertently). Knowledge is power, especially in the Information Age. Yet, what if that information results in an innocent party getting hurt? Some could argue people like Bradley “Chelsea” Manning were damaged by working with Assange. And he/she may not be the only one, just one of the more visible victims.

This raises a question that hits at both the legal and moral parts of this discussion: is disobeying a bad law for good ends justifiable? Not an easy one to puzzle out, is it? Once you factor in such elements as severity of the crime (stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family versus stealing a loaf of bread to kill your family), the frequency of the crime (a first-time offender versus a serial killer who uses baked goods to kill his victims), circumstances (a poor child versus a rich white man who washed out of culinary school and wants to take revenge on the world), and so on, the hard and fast solution we want becomes murkier and harder to obtain. Yes, Assange broke the law in at least 2 countries, and the reasons behind that lawlessness may be the result of a lawless process, but it’s hard to get past the fact the law was broken.

Of course, none of that means jack squat to the Left. They will justify lawlessness in pursuit of their own ends without fail. How do you think Al Sharpton keeps getting sweet gigs in spite of his criminal behavior? The minute Sharpton flips the script and sounds like Rush Limbaugh with a tan, the Left will turn on him faster than you can say Tawana Brawley.

But this relationship isn’t one way. Seems the Left had no problems wanting Assange taken out. I seem to remember someone from a recent previous administration who wondered out loud whether Assange could be taken out with a drone strike, but I can’t remember who that was…I’m sure it was nobody important. After all, the previous President would never let someone make a joke like that or make a similar joke about his daughters and the Jonas Brothers.

Anyway, even a joke like that would be enough to motivate him to counterattack in the only way he knew how: by releasing damning information about Hillary Clinton. Personally, I’m surprised he had the bandwidth, storage capacity, and patience to limit it to just her emails, but bully for him all the same.

Here’s where I part company with Assange. Although he’s shown he has no allegiance to the Left or the Right, I can’t quite trust him. Call it the David Brock Effect. Brock was a Republican (or so the self-professed liar said in his book Blinded By the Right), but then shifted hard Left. Whenever someone shifts that drastically, even if I agree with the outcome, I can’t completely trust that person. People with integrity can change their minds without it affecting their core convictions. I don’t get that from Assange, just like I don’t get it from Brock because I’m not convinced they have core convictions beyond the here and now. That tells me their convictions can be bought and sold depending on who’s cutting the check. What’s to say Assange doesn’t goes after Trump tomorrow if George Soros drops a few million dollars in his lap?

Granted, this is speculation on my part because I don’t know Assange well enough to say definitively. He may be as consistent and dogged as I am to get to the truth. We will see in the coming weeks and years whether he is an opportunist or a soothsayer. In the meantime, I will enjoy the Leftist meltdowns.

Popcorn, anyone?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Since late October of last year, Democrats have suspected Russia had a role in the 2016 Presidential election. And thanks to a recent report from American intelligence agencies, they have renewed their suspicions to the point of accusing Russia of “hacking” our election. (Oddly enough, these same folks didn’t have a problem with our government trying to influence the Brexit vote or Israeli elections…).

With the allegations sticking around longer than a STD contracted from Courtney Love, maybe it’s time we tackle this idea head on.

hacking the election

What the Left believes it means – Russia influencing the 2016 Presidential election, an act of treason by Donald Trump and his supporters

What it really means – The Left can’t accept the fact Hillary lost.

Let’s get one thing straight. I am not a fan of Russia, especially under Vladimir Putin. I am also not a fan of jumping to conclusions, especially when the risk of being wrong is creating an international incident. As a result, I am cautious about letting my feelings towards the former taint my commitment to the latter. Yet, to hear the Left describe it, I am an evil Russia-loving, Putin-worshiping traitor.

You know, like Hillary Clinton was in 2009?

Either way, we really don’t have much to go on when it comes to the “hacking the election” allegations. “But didn’t 17 intelligence agencies just issue a report saying Russia tried to get Donald Trump elected?” you might say. Well, yes and no. Yes, American intelligence agencies issued a report that suggests Russia did what they’re being accused of, but it wasn’t nearly as much of a slam dunk as the Left wants us to believe.

Out of the 17 agencies, only 3 offered any analysis. And of those 3, a whopping 0 offered any hard evidence of such. Oh, they offered suggestions and assumptions, but no hard evidence.

Think about that for a moment. We have members of a political party willing to condemn a foreign country of a major crime solely based on assumptions. Then again, these are some of the same folks who ran with the UVA rape story from Rolling Stone, so actual justice may be something alien to them.

So, if it’s not Russia, who did “hack the election”? The first thing to understand is our election was not hacked. Hillary Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate. The only reason for this line of absurdity is because Democrats cannot accept the fact Hillary lost. If the election results were different, Russian hacking would be the last thing on the Left’s hive-mind and they would be telling Trump voters to get over it.

But there is a deeper reason why the Left needs to blame their Presidential loss on Russia: they suck at cybersecurity. This is where Wikileaks comes into the picture. Had it not been for Julian Assange, we might not know about how the Democratic National Committee screwed over Bernie Sanders to bestow the party nomination to Hillary. And how did they get caught? There are two lines of thought.

First, Wikileaks got emails from a Bernie Sanders supporter who had access to some of the most damning emails. This makes sense, given how Sanders got treated worse by his party than Ike Turner treated Tina. And let’s not understate the fact the DNC all but disregarded Sanders supporters unless they knelt before Zod…I mean Hillary. Even prominent Sanders supporters were told to knuckle under, and more than a few of them did. One can imagine what that did to more strident Sanders supporters. If the party felt fine with betraying them, it’s not impossible to imagine they would betray the party. And thanks to Wikileaks, these Sanders supporters earned a measure of revenge. One rule of cybersecurity is to make sure you have everything protected, and the Left didn’t do that here.

The other line of thought is John Podesta, Hillary’s right hand man, got caught by a phishing email. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, a phishing email looks like a legitimate email from a trusted source, but contains malicious software that captures vital information that can often be used against the victim and others in the victim’s email groups.

And remember, kids, these are the smart people. Just ask them!

I tend to believe both lines of thought are valid and may actually be part and parcel of the same conclusion. In either case, the Democrats got caught with their pants down (not unlike one of their previous Presidential candidates) and couldn’t figure out a way to recover. But they sure figured out who they could blame for their failures.

Now, we just need to hope we don’t wind up in another Cold War because of them.

Russian Influenced


It’s all true. The Russians have influenced our elections! Records and reports show that China and North Korea have also influenced our elections as well. And they have been doing so for years.

And it’s not just the hacked emails from the DNC that WikiLeaks posted either. It is so vast it boggles the mind. Although, as a people, we should be grateful for the hacked emails as it exposed the corruption of the Democratic Party. And I would be equally grateful if it happened to the RNC as well.

The truth be told, every other nation influences our elections. Even if the United States was completely isolationist in nature, the actions and reactions of other nations would impact and influence our elections.

We do live in a world where communication around the world is near instantaneous. Information flows in ways that was unknown and only dreamed of 100 years ago. So what happens “over there” impacts us “over here”. And we must be ever vigilant and watching the rest of the world.

And because as a people we do this we elected a President in Donald Trump who could handle the situation at home and the world outside of the United States. Because we are influenced by other nations to elect a leader who could perform on the world stage that is befitting of the position of President of the United States.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


If you were here last week, you saw my award-winning piece on voter/election fraud. (Granted, the award was a No Prize, but still, it’s a prestigious award. And it’s from Italy.) If you weren’t here last week, you missed by award-winning piece on voter/election fraud. This week, I’m going to flip the script a bit and talk about the other side of the equation: voter intimidation.

voter intimidation

What the Left believes it means – Republican efforts to discourage potential Democrat voters from voting

What it really means – Leftists trying to claim to be victims while strong-arming the opposition

Remember the 2000 election? Ah, those were the days to be a political junkie. It was back in those days when Democrats first floated the idea of voter intimidation in Florida. You see, blacks were scared away from voting because…there were barricades! And we have Rev. Jesse Jackson’s word for it, and we can totally trust him! It’s not like he’s lied about anything or done anything immoral, like…oh, I don’t know…having a child out of wedlock.

Since those heady days, the concept of voter intimidation has expanded to the political equivalent of a double whammy. In 2008, members of the New Black Panther Party stationed themselves outside of polling places in Philadelphia as security. And by security, I mean intimidation with clubs. Of course, the Department of Justice under President Obama saw nothing wrong with that (mainly because it worked in his favor), so the matter was dropped.

At least until Republicans could be blamed for it on evidence thinner than a drawing of Kate Moss on paper one micron thick.

After pretending actual voter intimidation against Republicans was a thing, Democrats have seemingly found voter intimidation in everything from voter ID to Donald Trump asking supporters to do what the New Black Panther Party did in 2008. Granted, the latter might be considered intimidation (unless we use the Obama DOJ definition), but the former isn’t threatening at all. On an intimidation scale from a fluffy puppy to Brock Sampson on PCP, voter ID is a lot closer to the puppy.

This begs the question of why the Left is scared of barricades and voter ID. After all, these people are supposed to be super smart and not afraid to get their knuckles bloodied when it comes to fighting the good fight. Yet, they turn into Scooby Doo in the Amityville Horror house at pieces of wood and paper? No wonder they like the French so much. They look like Rambo in comparison.

The barricade intimidation is a bit hard for me to swallow. If you’re frightened off by a barricade, maybe you just aren’t meant to vote for anything more important than Prom King and Queen. Voting, even in the privacy of a polling booth, requires a level of courage most people can muster just by waking up in the morning. Of course, the racist Left wants us to believe these barricades are racist in nature because it only scared off blacks. I’m sorry, but that’s monster-under-your-bed kind of frightening.

Now, the voter ID being intimidating is easy for me to swallow, especially considering the lengths Democrats have gone to turn voter ID into something only slightly more popular than Andrew Dice Clay’s one man show “Hitler, the Misunderstood.” This is by design, of course. If they can demonize voter ID, it not only makes it harder for Republicans to fight for these laws, but it makes it easier for Democrats to circumvent existing laws.

Think about it for a moment. Wouldn’t you be scared out of your wits if laws were put in place that would effectively turn almost every “get out of the vote” effort your party enacts into a crime? Of course you would. The problem is the laws are seen as inconveniences to Leftists until they find a way around them. And as the one-two punch of Wikileaks and Project Veritas has shown us, there are more than a few people in the DNC willing to play as fast and loose with the laws as Bill Clinton likes his interns.

Of course, this won’t cause any handwringing or clutching of pearls with the Left. They believe the ends justify the means, so even if the means are dirtier than Larry Flynt’s porn collection it’s fine if it gets the results they want. That’s one reason the voter intimidation concept doesn’t fly with me. It’s purely a political move designed to make the Democrats’ target audience (potential voters who are dumber than a box of rocks inside a bag of hammers) believe there are Republicans under their beds telling them not to vote. And given the fact these are the same people who thought a half-term Senator and his old white guy sidekick were qualified to be President and Vice-President, they might actually believe that.

But there’s another reason voter intimidation claims don’t work for me. It makes people believe they’re the cowards the Left wants them to be. Most people don’t want to create waves, so they tend to knuckle under to the demands of people they consider to be more informed than they are. This fear of retribution causes a lot of people to accept concepts they wouldn’t normally hold. Just ask anyone who has been chastised by the Left for contradicting them on global warming.

But here’s the thing. Voting requires you to take a stand. There is no “maybe” to a vote; you pick a candidate you support and that’s that. The beauty of our system of government is we can vote in private and no one else needs to know who you voted for. (At least, not until Leftists find a way to track your DNA signature based on fingerprints left on ballots and electronic voting screens, but that’s a long ways off…I hope.) You know who makes you accountable for your vote? You. End of list.

So, don’t believe the hype when it comes to voter intimidation. And make sure you vote. The only wasted vote is one not cast when you’re eligible to cast one.

Well, that, or a vote for Jill Stein.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


In an already insane election year, nothing could be more insane than the response to Wikileaks and its wholesale exposure of Democrats and in particular Hillary Clinton. Of course, their response is to blame the Russians.

By the way, Mitt Romney called. He says you’re welcome, and I don’t think it’s because he shared his mother’s recipe for chocolate chip cookies.

The on-again, off-again romance between the Left and Wikileaks is a marvel to behold in all of its glory. And it just so happens to be this week’s focus.


What the Left believes it means: a group of hackers lead by Julian Assange who is going after Hillary Clinton and needs to be brought to justice

What it really means: somebody’s airing the Left’s dirty laundry

One of the defining characteristics of Leftist thought is hypocrisy. Since they don’t necessarily believe in black and white thinking, their standards, much like their genders, are fluid. And occasionally involve make-up and assless chaps. When the situation requires it, the Left will change standards faster than Usain Bolt being chased by The Flash.

Back in the day, the Left absolutely loved Wikileaks because Julian Assange and his buddies were exposing secrets the Bush Administration didn’t want to become public knowledge. Then, something happened that caused the love affair to end suddenly and without comment.

Wikileaks proved the Left wrong about the Iraq War.

See, Wikileaks found there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which destroyed the Left’s argument against the Iraq War: that Bush lied to get us into it. With that blockbuster news, let’s just say the Left decided not to return Assange’s voicemails. I’m not sure they’ve blocked him on Facebook yet, but given how the DNC and Hillary both have problems using common technology, I’m guessing they’re still trying to figure out how to connect their MySpace accounts to Facebook.

This year, however, Wikileaks turned up the heat to 11 (because, you know, it’s one higher) and exposed DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a primary-rigging totally-in-the-bag-for-Hillary-while-claiming-not-to-be incompetent moron. Normally, this would mean she would get promoted to a Cabinet position, but this year, it meant she had to resign her position, which was given to another totally-in-the-bag-for-Hillary-while-claiming-not-to-be incompetent moron, Donna Brazille. At least she hasn’t rigged primaries, but it’s still early.

Since then, the Left has been on edge waiting for the next Wikileaks shoe to drop if for no other reason than to try to spin the next doc drop without ever answering whether the emails are real. Given Assange’s track record so far, I’d have to say they’re legit because there isn’t really a motive for him to post false information.

This begs the question of why. Well, maybe it might have something to do with Hillary Clinton allegedly wanting to kill Assange with a drone. But I’m sure that’s just a little misunderstanding, right? Some have even gone so far as to claim it’s ideologically driven. But, considering one of the websites claiming this is Vox, which has all the journalistic and intellectual integrity of a toxic waste spill, I’m not putting too much stock in the ideological angle.

Contrary to popular Leftist belief, one doesn’t have to be an opponent to be a critic. In reviewing Hillary’s history, accomplishments, and behavior, it’s entirely possible Assange believes she’s a bigger threat to the world than Donald Trump. In fact, he’s said as much. And unlike Hillary, I can believe what Assange says.

On a side note, this conflict illustrates the difference between liberals and Leftists. Liberals (which I believe Assange is) believe we can act like adults and hold each other accountable for the crap we do. Leftists, on the other hand, believe we are dull children in need of people like Hillary to tell us what to do. Whether you like Wikileaks, hate it, or are still on the fence about it like I am, it serves a necessary purpose to keep sunlight on the exploits of those who would like nothing more than to hide their disdain for us.

But I’m sure the Left still wants our votes.

Personally, I think the reason the Left hates Wikileaks now is because it has exposed just what kind of hypocritical, dishonest, and utter assbags they are. But if/when it turns its focus on Donald Trump, watch the Left go back to loving Wikileaks, which would show what kind of hypocritical, dishonest, and utter assbags they are. In the end, though, Julian Assange could be the man who holds all the cards as to whether Hillary becomes President.

And On the Other Side…


The Democratic National Convention is over, and I can officially say they surpassed the Republican National Convention…in the amount of clusterfuckery on display. Between the Wikileaks DNC email scandal breaking just as the convention was about to start, the silencing of Bernie Sanders supporters, and the fake, forced unity shoved down our throats, the DNC made the RNC look like a house cleaned by people with OCD.

Looking at both conventions, I saw a lot of unforced errors (which doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence in either major party candidate). Having said that, the unforced errors at the DNC were more along the lines of having time to fix them, but deciding not to. It’s not like Wikileaks waited until the last day of the convention to spring the email scandal on the world. The DNC knew about it, and still managed to screw up.

Case in point, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Once the email scandal struck, she stepped down as DNC Chair…and was granted an honorary position with the Hillary Clinton campaign. The fact it’s honorary doesn’t change the fact a scandal-ridden politician gave a spot to another scandal-ridden politician who just happens to have been exposed as greasing the wheels for the first scandal-ridden politician.

That’s a lot of scandal being ridden there, kids.

Oh, but it gets better! The DNC decided to replace Wasserman Schultz in the short term with Martha Fudge…who was also exposed in the Wikileaks release. Then, Donna Brazille was called in to head up the DNC until January 2017. Having watched Ms. Brazille on television for a number of years, that’s like replacing a rusted out Yugo with a rusted out Pinto with really touchy bumpers. In either case, it’s not going to end well.

From there, the convention turned the clusterfuckery to 11 (because it’s one higher) and did as much as they could to pretend everything was fine. But once you get past the false front the Democrats tried to put up, you see a lot of problems. I’m not a Bernie Sanders fan by any stretch of the imagination, but the way the DNC treated these potential voters was nothing short of authoritarian. Not only were Sanders delegates harassed and forced to hold their tongues in opposition to Hillary Clinton, they watched their candidate being hamstrung by the DNC during the nomination process and utterly humiliated by speaker after speaker. The whole “Don’t Boo, Vote” phrase? Utter backhand to the Sanders supporters. Having vocal Sanders supporter Sarah Silverman lambasting the Sanders supporters by saying, “You’re being ridiculous”? Another backhand.

But the ultimate knife twist? Having Sanders be the one to move that Hillary be the Democrat nominee. It was a stunning visual, but given what happened prior to that, it was a punch in the gut to see him be humiliated like that. I can’t say whether he was forced, coerced, bribed, or did it of his own free will, but given what Wikileaks released, it would be hard for me to believe it was anything but a means to embarrass Sanders for daring to be a possible Presidential option.

And remember, folks, the Democrats are the ones who believe in diversity, as long as it’s the diversity they want.

And, it only gets worse from here. Attempts to humanize Hillary Clinton were unconvincing because, well, they were trying to humanize Hillary. Bill Clinton’s speech, in particular, was a long trip down memory lane, and it focused a lot on what (but not so much who) Bill did in his political career. Then, there was Barack Obama’s speech. The speech had more “I” references than a narcissistic needle maker.

Then…there was Hillary’s speech. Put simply, she let Donald Trump dominate her speech. Although she did try to put out a more optimistic view, it was obvious Trump bought up property in her head and built a luxury hotel.

But even that wasn’t the worst part.

The key to the sheer ineptitude of the DNC lies with their attempts to appear patriotic. First, there was a distinct lack of flags on the DNC stage. Although some hearty conventioneers broke out Old Glory (which, I;m sure, was completely spontaneous), the lack of flags didn’t go unnoticed. Also, thanks to some members of Twitter, it came out the DNC handed out sheets with chants to drown out Sanders supporters still in attendance.

But the cherry on top of the shitstorm sundae was the fact the DNC needed to put the Pledge of Allegiance…on a TelePrompter.

Congratulations, Democrats. You’ve managed to make the RNC look good.

A Unified Front


This week, Democrats have a chance to show the world how well they could avoid looking like the Republicans did at their national convention last week. And going on 3 days later, they accomplished the exact opposite. As much of a clusterfuck the RNC was, the DNC managed to surpass them.

And it starts with unity.

Going into the DNC this week, it was assumed they would try to portray the Democrats as a unified party. And until the doors opened on Monday, it worked. Once the Democrats tried to do something, though, the unity went out the window, thus ruining the chances of actual unity.

Of course, the DNC being exposed as a bunch of Hillary panty-sniffers by Wikileaks didn’t help matters any. I don’t often agree with Bernie Sanders, but I agree with the fact he got a raw deal from the people who allegedly lead the Democrat Party. And they would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for that pesky Wikileaks!

Actually, a Scooby Doo villain of the week would have been a lot smarter than the DNC. In the current era of computer usage, nothing is ever completely private. But the Democrats apparently used the same IT people Hillary did because their emails were just as vulnerable and just as damning.

And remember, kids, the Democrats say they’re the smart ones.

But let’s go back to Bernie Sanders for a moment. Like him or not, he represented a lot of people, people who were delegates at the DNC and deserved to be heard. What happened? The DNC did everything they could to silence the Sanders supporters. To the Hillary supporters, the Sanders supporters were subhuman and should just fall in behind Hillary like good little drones in spite of being told their opinions didn’t matter.

And these folks think Donald Trump’s followers are cult-like?

The Democrats’ allies in the media are doing everything they can to try to shape the narrative that the DNC is the epicenter of unity. But it’s all a front to hide the fact the DNC isn’t unified by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. There are clear divisions that won’t be healed by forcing Sanders supporters to heel to a fundamentally flawed candidate who changes positions on topics like Cher changes costumes during concerts, or like Cher changes body parts.

And that discord is reflected outside of the DNC. The cameras may not be on the protesters, but they’re there, and they’re not happy.



The Republican National Convention in Cleveland is over, and people are still talking about it, but not in a good way. From the coverage and commentary throughout the week, the Republican Party has made an already seemingly bad situation into a metaphysical certainty of bad decisions that make Kanye West look like Ben Franklin.

Okay, I’m kidding. It really wasn’t that bad. I mean, the Democrats have their chance to match the pure suckitude of the RNC soon when they will have to push a Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine candidate down the throats of the delegates, all while pandering to Black Lives Matter and the Bernie Sanders supporters. Oh, and field questions stemming from Wikileaks finding out the DNC actively tried to undercut Sanders’ campaign. And as Bill Clinton can tell you, Democrats suck best.

That’s not to say the RNC is out of the woods. Donald Trump’s campaign or the Republican National Committee or both made a number of high-profile mistakes that could come back to bite them. Ranging from Melania Trump’s alleged plagiarism from a 2008 Michelle Obama speech to the prime time Ted Cruz speech where he failed to publicly endorse Trump (depending on who you talk to in the Trump campaign) to Donald Trump’s acceptance speech that was darker than George Hamilton at the heart of a black hole while listening to a Sylvia Plath book on CD read by Crispin Glover, it was not the best way to put the GOP’s best foot forward.

At this point, it’s too late to hit the reset button and start the 2016 RNC over because, unfortunately, it’s not like an old school Nintendo. What can be done going forward, however, may erase the memories of how bad the visuals were. Here is a short list of suggestions I have.

1) Do some serious vetting of the campaign staff from top to bottom. Believe me, the Democrats have already started, so the GOP needs to find a way to respond to the worst of what the Dems have planned. Saying “you’re a loser” isn’t going to work.

2) Start figuring out how to strike Hillary where it hurts. Although the email scandal and Benghazi are red meat to voters like me, most people don’t care. What they do care about is easy-to-understand soundbites. Oh, and celebrities.

3) Figure out a way to bring back people turned off by the candidate. Hillary Clinton is beatable, but it’s not good to take a victory in November for granted. Like it or not, Trump has been shedding conservative voters like Julius Caesar shed blood on the steps of the Roman Senate. But it’s not too late to find a way to put Band Aids on the wounds, and the first step is to call a truce and stick to it.

Oh, and to any Democrats reading this, this should also be a concern for you. My best advice for helping Hillary in 2016 is simple: stop being Hillary.

4) Play up Trump’s “fuzzy side.” It’s hard to characterize a man as the second coming of Adolf Hitler (believe me, this is actually a thing right now) if the visuals coming from the campaign counteract it. Visual stimulation in today’s society is hard to overcome, and Trump’s campaign need him to start kissing babies and shaking hands. And you don’t want to get those mixed up, kids.

5) Ignore the fringe players on the Left. Trump’s Twitter war with Elizabeth Warren is entertaining to watch, but it’s counterproductive. Warren isn’t going to stop being the turd in the punch bowl. After so many times of seeing her pop up, maybe it’s time to stop entertaining her online rants and move on to other topics.

The other option would be to hire someone to respond to her with more scathing retorts than “Pocahontas” or “Loser Warren.” As someone with a track record of making scathing retorts, I’d be willing to do it. Call me, maybe?

I’m sure there are more, but these should be good for now.