Given the recent surge in socialism’s popularity in the States right now, networks should totally jump on the bandwagon and create a Socialist Reality TV show. 300 young, idealistic socialists – diverse as can be of course – sent to create the perfect community. The first few episodes would be optimistic and energetic, until they actually had to roll up their sleeves and work to make this community actually work.

Then it would get good.

The jealously.

The resentment.

The bitching about others.

The factions.

The defiance.

The resistance.

The punishment for not following the cults ideals.

And, like clockwork, the violence that would follow followed by the collapse of the system.

It would be a great eye opener for all future socialists to see. Wait, what I am saying. This wouldn’t be real socialism of course.

The Rock visited a Georgia aquarium and posted this heartwarming picture, so naturally snowflakes are up in arms. Every day a new fringe group is whining about something, which is why I am introducing Waaaa time – What assholes are angry about. Can’t people just enjoy things for once?

Conservatives cannot complain about the sprawling nature of Mueller’s investigation, especially since the Clinton investigation began with a financial infraction and ended with fellatio in the Oval Office. If Republican’s investigation could be broad and open-ended, it’s only fair that Democrats are afforded the same privilege. The issue with such open-ended investigations though is this – everyone is guilty of something. I recall listening to season 1 of the Serial podcast, involving the case of Adnan Syed, and Sarah Koenig made a simple yet brilliant point about any police investigation; no matter the investigation, under the microscope, you will always turn up errors. Thus, the idea that a broad reaching investigation of a political candidate is not going to turn up something untoward is as likely as throwing an object into the air and it never hitting the ground.

The original charge of the investigation was about collusion – that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to bring down the Clinton campaign. This has always been illogical for four reasons. One, Hillary wasn’t a great candidate. She lost to Obama in the primaries in 2008,  struggled again in the primaries in 2016, and eventually needed the Super Delegates to overcome the Sanders Campaign. Two, 2016 was a change election and Trump was the only candidate who promised change. Trump vs Sanders would have been a very interesting race, not-at-all resembling the hockey-jumper beat-down Trump put on Clinton. Three, Hillary had a credibility problem – she was perceived as a liar and the electorate did not trust her. And four, you mean to tell me there’s a supposed program that hackers can load into cyberspace that makes Hillary Clinton suddenly unlikable? That suggests she was actually likeable to begin with. Sophisticated hacking isn’t required to accomplish that end, you only need to run repeats of her campaign ads or dreadful campaign slogan and voters would turn off immediately.

As hard as she tried to play the woman card, she did not and could not generate the same enthusiasm that President Obama did. Black voters did not warm to her after she ran against Obama in 2008, she had little accomplishments to point to as Secretary of State, men were given few actual reasons to vote for her, and the Sanders campaign held a grudge against her (and fair enough too). None of this is Trump’s fault, it’s all internal Democrat squabbling. That said, it appears the Trump team did genuinely meet with Russians to collect dirt on candidate Clinton and they have to own that.

If true, whilst not surprising, it does not look good for the Trump campaign. President Trump says this is politics as usual, which is right enough. I would argue that a light shone over the Clinton campaign would reveal the same, if not worse. But, if the Trump campaign can be held accountable for this meeting then they should be, although let’s not let this distract us from the actual impact of this meeting. Because the question remains, how did the information they supposedly collected at this meeting influence the final election result? The meeting looks sus, no doubt, but given how the Clinton campaign was sailing up a tidal wave into the wind, how do they measure the impact on Clinton losing? This meeting proves a meeting, and may even prove the reason behind the meeting, but how does it prove the actual impact the meeting had on the election outcome? Sitting around Trump tower, eating small triangle sandwiches in comfy leather chairs and talking down about Hillary doesn’t prove impact, it just sounds like a good day out.

I hope Democrats haven’t stalled us for over a year without answering that question. Just because Trump met some Russians doesn’t equal Hillary losing an election. She was more than qualified to lose that on her own.

It’s patently obvious that the Mueller investigation is tainted with political bias. The dossier which the FISA warrants were based on has been proven to be funded by the Clinton Foundation, the investigation team is made up of mostly Democrats, and the text messages between Peter Strzok and his FBI lawyer Lisa Page saying that “we’ll stop” Donald Trump from winning prove that this is a collection of people hostile to a Republican President. Bias aside, the one thing few pundits are talking about though is the timing of its eventual release. Because drawing on my psychic abilities, of which I have none ladies and gentlemen, I predict that the report will drop a major bombshell at the end of October – right before the mid-term elections. (I further predict that if Dems take the House but not the Senate, that this investigation will continue until 2020 in the hope they take the Senate and can then impeach the President.)

In political circles this is known as the ‘October surprise’, the releasing of dirt on your rivals’ campaign at a time when they have little chance to defend themselves or launch an effective counter attack. Considering Mueller’s investigation is targeting Trump for election meddling, it would be ironic if the Mueller investigation did release major findings in the October surprise window as it would constitute election meddling at its finest.

Recent studies show around half of millennial’s find socialism appealing. Given that the same number are probably still living at home in their late twenties having their meals/washing/ironing done for them, it makes sense they would enjoy being eternally coddled.

Despite the overwhelming evidence available which proves that socialism has never worked – and that it has killed upwards of 100 million people – communism (which is what socialism leads to) never seems to lose its appeal with young people. A few notable reasons for this include: the spread of leftist ideology in schools and universities, the Bush recession gave them a negative view of capitalism; the election of President Bush and President Trump resulted in the left intensifying their vitriol which influenced their political beliefs through groupthink; the erosion of masculinity, the nuclear family, and a clear sense of purpose in life; the importance of youth in popular culture leading to a sense of power and delusion; and the decline of resilience, all of which makes being taken care of by the state an appealing prospect to young voters. Read any article on the appeal of socialism to the young and you will find one, if not all, of the above items mentioned. The one item which seems to go unnoticed though is this: youthful arrogance.

When Charlie Kirk asks college leftists to give him an example where socialism has worked – and they cannot – this line of attack rarely has the effect one would hope. The leftists never pause, go away and research, then return wearing an American flag pin admitting their ignorance whilst burning their ironically free-market purchased Che Guevara beret. Instead, like most young people who lack life experience, they simply think it hasn’t worked yet because they haven’t tried it. The missing piece in all socialist experiments is them. Sure, everybody else got it wrong, but not me. (When you think about it, there is an undertone of racism to this belief. What they’re really saying is that these primitive cultures/races couldn’t get it to work, but superior First World me will!) Devoid of business or government experience, lacking in property which they have not earned/paid for/grown attached to, or any real experience of life’s ups and downs, what we’re dealing with here is fantasy and delusion. There’s little logic or fact, just a lot of emotion and arrogance.

A friend once pointed out to me that ‘You cannot reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into’, which is why arguing with young socialists is such a pointless endeavour. Instead, we should help them all get jobs as soon as possible so they can see how much of their earnings are taken by the government. Suddenly, the unfairness that they’ve been railing against all these years will become real to them. Until that time, we’ll just have to sit back and enjoy watching socialists complain about workers’ rights when so few of them actually work.