Hey guys. It sucks the first post from me in so many months has to be bad news, but thems tha breaks!! Right now I am having a hard time keeping up with work AND reviewing content, so to take the pressure off I am putting the blog on hiatus till June. Don’t be bummed though, when we come back there will be tons of fun content from both myself and Mr. F.L.A.G., and this hiatus will give us plenty of no stress time to develop our work. Thanks for your patience.
It’s in the Zelda series, and Link is there, and he has an adventure. The end.
You’re off to a running start with Princess Zelda napping in the background. Link must retrieve a piece of the Triforce in order to wake her up, by uniting all pieces of the Triforce. Remember: these games took place a long time ago, a real long time ago, way before Levi Hutchins invented alarm clocks. They had to do some complicated Rube Goldberg Machine stuff in order to wake up, made even more complicated by the fact that Goldberg hadn’t debuted yet.
Hmmmm… Goldberg… Zelda 2 came in a gold cartridge… the opening notes for the music when you enter a village sound like notes from the song “Goldfinger”… the Triforce is golden… the final castle has a golden hue to it… all of the pieces fit Robin! Ganon plans to steal the Triforce from Fort Knox!
Speaking of Bat-Logic
I just want to point out that I cheated a little and used an online strategy guide. In my defense, there is no way that some of these puzzles could have been solved without one, unless there was something in the instruction manual (which I don’t have). Seriously- to get to a vital town you need to hack a forest to bits. Except in this game, the only hackable trees are the ones in that small area surrounding the hidden village, and at no point are you told or even given a hint that you even can hack trees, let alone that particular grouping.
Same goes for a monster sitting in the middle of the road. If this weren’t a carbon copy of waking Snorlax, complete with Pokeflute, I’d have had no idea about what I needed to do. I guess eventually I’d figure it out, by standing there and mashing buttons after obtaining the flute.
As I was reviewing the palace 6 section of the guide, I noticed that it was saying the
knights on horseback you face there are repeats of an earlier boss. I didn’t remember it, but attributed that to the 2 year gap between now and when I last put the game down. Turns out that I didn’t remember it because it was the boss of palace 3, the only boss that I skipped, probably because I wandered into the palace, grabbed the raft, then left thinking I could skip the boss. Or died and was curious about where the raft would take me and forgot all about beating the boss. If you get to palace 7 and the shield refuses to lower, then check how many crystals you have left (the blue circle icon on the start menu, you lose one after beating a palace).
My point is- make sure you get the required item from the palace AND defeat the boss. I don’t know what happens if you skip the item and beat the boss, but having to restart the game is not a risk worth taking.
You are also best served by using the guide to locate vital items like the 4 magic containers and the 4 heart containers. And level all the way up as soon as you can. It helps. You max out at level 8, by the way. Leveling up after that just gives you an extra life. There are also extra lives to be found throughout the overworld, but they can only be grabbed once. Come to think of it… while writing this I just solved a 2 year old mystery. I grabbed one of the extra lives and had no idea I had done so, because it was absolutely useless to me.
Also, be skeptical of any boss strategies the guides give you. For example, the one I used
said that the final battle (spoiler alert: it was against The Enemy Within) could easily be won by standing in a corner. I had no health and no magic left, but I thought it’d be a piece of cake since all I had to do was stand in the corner. The first thing the opponent did was jump up and stab me from above. So much for the guide’s credibility. Plus if you stay crouched in the corner, eventually that boss will just stand in the middle of the screen and do nothing for long periods.
Fortunately for the final palace, which I found rather difficult to get to, unlike with the other palaces once you enter it if you run out of lives you can just select “continue” and you will start out at the entrance to it. Be advised: any of the red magic potions you pickup will still be gone after you lose all your lives and hit “continue”. They only come back if you restart the game. Luckily the fairy stays. Since I found a way to budget lives and magic, you should be able to too. I say this with full confidence in the certainty that I am terrible at video games. Another convenience is that when you beat the first of the two bosses at the final palace it stays dead even if you run out of lives. I know because when The Enemy Within killed me it was my last life. It took the last health of my last life.
Everything mentioned above as such, of course.
The version I played fixed the following issue: on the NES release, the only way to save is to lose all of your lives. On the Game Boy Advance version you just pause the game on the overworld and press up plus either a or b. Or just buy the Famicom Disk version.
I won’t mention the lack of a second quest. I mean, there is one, but unlike the first Zelda game everything this time around is exactly the same as it was before. The only difference is you start with all of the spells and fully levelled up. You will still have to hunt for the 4 magic extenders and 4 life extenders. So aside from that it’s pretty much what happens in Super Mario 64 once you get all the stars- no new quests, but you can play the old ones over again with a fancy skill you didn’t have the first go-around.
I guess I ended up mentioning the lack of a second quest anyway, but I don’t see that as a
problem since the game’s big enough for just one playthrough to feel sufficient (I think, my playthrough took 2 years… technically, 22 years given that I first played the game in the 90s), leading into another nitpicking- the entirety of the map for the first game, that you spend hours wandering through, is scaled down and displayed as a few tiles towards the bottom of Zelda 2’s expansive overworld. Part of me likes the reference, but part of me thinks that sort of trivializes everything from the first game. That adventure seems so small now. No… the adventure is big, it’s the overworld that got small.
But in-universe, in Zelda 2, how did Link so easily work his Peter Pan/Legolas-lovechild-twink self through the Zelda 1 overworld when in Zelda 1 you couldn’t go beyond that area? Hyrulean magic and technology were not up to the task of building a path! Either that or one of the cave shopkeepers or palaces was blocking the route, and Hyrulean officials decided to exercise their eminent domain powers to seize those areas and open them up for public travel.
You might expect me to rip on the change in format from the first and third game (and the Game Boy games) like everyone else does. Battles fought in a sidescroller style, leveling up, stuff like that. Nope. I had no problem with this.
“I had no problem with this.” – Mr. Flagg
David Hogg, one of the brats who liberals tell us has moral superiority and is beyond criticism on every issue because he survived a shooting (meanwhile, the Left tells us veterans and victims like with Benghazi have no moral authority and in fact are liars, even going so far as to downplay the terrorist attack or hide it) has started a boycott of Laura Ingraham because she rightly pointed out he is a whiny little baby. Not because of his anti-gun activism, not because he refuses to accept the idea of reinforcing schools rather than violating people’s 2nd Amendment rights (Hogg even came out against teachers being armed, noting that because law enforcement in his area consisted of democrat cowards that teachers would be no different, forgetting, of course, the uncountable times armed police and civilians have stopped shooters, but remember: this is an impudent child) , not because he’s a typical liberal activist (meaning that when he was born, he screamed and waved his fists like everyone else, but unlike everyone else he never stopped), but rather because he is complaining that colleges were rejecting him. Yup, over a small but true insult irrelevant to gun activism, Laura Ingraham lost a double-digit number of sponsors because David Hogg is a spoiled brat that can’t take the least little criticism, which probably explains why he and his fellow babies refuse to debate on gun control and indeed refuse to acknowledge that another side to the issue exists. A side which acknowledges little things like how gun-free London has a higher murder rate than gun-ridden NYC (London has about 3% more people than NYC, but if the Left’s lies about gun control are to be believed then London shouldn’t even have half the murder rate of NYC).
I find it ironic that with the left’s unconditional support for abortion, attempts to dehumanize babies in the womb, and the NY State Attorney General saying that babies in the womb are aggressors and abortion is self-defense, we have the Left parading a bunch of babies in front of us. I’m also gratified to be able to reasonably predict that once the current firestorm over shootings ceases, kids like Hogg will suddenly find their platform yanked out from under them (just ask the DREAMers about being abandoned). Or maybe even find themselves labeled as racists. Given their elementary us vs. them “I’m always right” attitude, maybe they can get a job with Antifa, but don’t expect to get paid on time. At least they have some leftwing activism on their resumes already, pre-shooting, which kind of explains what’s happening now.
By the way- you may have noticed that while the Left is parading the anti-gun students around because it matches their agenda, they’re ignoring or even attacking students or families of victims who are not towing the gun control line. And of David Hogg in particular, let me ask you: how many of you when you were 17 years old regularly used phrases like “living wage“, “white privilege“, and “wrong side of history“? Are you going to argue he’s mature for his age? Intelligent? Remember: he was rejected from a bunch of colleges; that reflects poorly on any argument that he’s mature and intelligent for his age, as does his predilection for profanity. Either the Leftwing activists he’s sided with are handing him scripts, or he’s plagiarizing from Obama speeches.
Before we move on I’ll add a sidebar here- remember how the Left mocked 2nd Amendment advocates (including this NYMag piece that did not date very well) for saying that once they ban guns they’ll go after our knives? How the Left defended knife usage, even noting in defense of knives that people won’t use them in lieu of guns? The mayor of London and other sophisticated Lefties obviously didn’t get the Left’s memo that this was ludicrous and that the slippery-slope argument was an unconvincing fallacy. Or the Left was lying. And remember- America should be more like Europe according to liberals. The same liberals who are caught with loaded handguns which are missing the serial numbers.
To The Matter At Hand – What’s With This Corporate Love Fest?
I have a simple question. Liberals claim to be the anti–corporate (to the point that they object when corporations pay bonuses), anti–millionaire, anti-Wall Street team, right? Then why is it that every time some spoiled brat SJW takes issue with a conservative outlet or group, corporations (who advertise on equivalent or worse liberal programming) bolt from them like cockroaches when the lights are turned on, but then whenever a liberal is exposed the corporations stand in solidarity like cornered wounded animals? Remember how last year’s great Maddow and Cooper boycott ended their careers like the left’s attack on Bill O’Reilly? Of course not, and there’s a reason that didn’t happen. Hell, why is it that when a conservative host lightly insults a liberal activist who himself has been calling everyone who disagrees with him a murderer, the person smearing his opponents as killers is the one that corporations side with? (Then again, if the corporate heads only paid attention to the liberal media as it fawned over its new heroes, they might not know how insulting the Parkland brats have been.)
It makes no sense to me. Why would corporations flee from or attack the very people who supposedly support them, but then rally around their alleged enemies? It can’t be because public opinion is against conservatives, everything from polls to elections shows quite the opposite and also show that some of the causes that liberal groups circle the wagons around are very unpopular with the public. It can’t be because corporations are diverse environments loaded with traditionally liberal voters who are just following their consciences, otherwise A: corporations would not exist because the anti-capitalist (unless it’s the Crony variety) Left would have disbanded them lest they be accused of hypocrisy, B: the leadership wouldn’t be a bunch of old white men, and C: the Left’s narrative about corporations being soulless non-entities would be disproved.
I am at a loss here for an explanation, unless it were to somehow turn out that big billionaires benefited from the Left. But that would be strange, given how liberals never lie and always tell us that they’re against such billionaires because they’re jealous of their wealth and because they’re mostly white. Or, as was the case with the liberal love fest/media cause du jour Occupy Wall Street protesters, they are against the corporate overlords because they’re Jews.
We all can acknowledge that you don’t get to be a corporate overlord without some intelligence, yes? Is it smart to encourage your predators in this manner? If the Left were as genuinely anti-corporate as they claimed, why would intelligent businessmen support them? Why would companies surrender to liberal boycotts, whether it’s in dropping anything from a Fox News host to an entire state, yet when there is controversy around a liberal the companies seem immune to all boycott efforts? Bill O’Reilly was fired while Indiana and Georgia backed down as a result of boycotts, whereas liberal hosts still have their jobs and liberal companies still remain liberal.
You Still Haven’t Explained The Love Fest
The answer is simple: while the Left claims to be socialist or even communist, they’re really fascist. Liberal Wikipedia defines fascism as “a form of radical authoritarian nationalism… characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce”. Obama’s pen and phone, Antifa, boycotts to advance political agendas and control corporate sponsorships. Sure sounds a lot like the Left is fascist to me. “But what about nationalism,” you ask? One nation- across the globe. The modern fascist Left, while very similar to its 20th-century forebears, only differs in that it switched out the Jews for Whites (but Israel is still hated) and switched nationalism for globalism.
“Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties” as liberal Wikipedia tells us, and if you’d bother to look at their reactions to Trump, and his victory in particular, you would notice that they can best be summed up as “the only voters who matter are Democrat voters”. How tolerant, from the party that claims to value tolerance, from the party who once told Republicans “you don’t like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position… Go out there and win an election.”
From their reaction to Trump, you get a general idea that they believe democracy is obsolete, and with everything they demand the government have the power to do, you get a distinct impression that they want totalitarianism. Certainly, that part about preparing for economic difficulties comes into play, specifically wealth inequality through the partly-Democrat-caused 2008 crash (as I said before, the Democrats walked into a powder keg and deliberately lit a match because they wanted a big boom) is another crisis that society should be mobilized towards. As for armed conflict? They actually dropped that, at least until they started demanding we start a war with Russia.
“The Fascist regime created a corporatist economic system in 1925 with the creation of the Palazzo Vidioni Pact, in which the Italian employers’ association Confindustria and Fascist trade unions agreed to recognize each other as the sole representatives of Italy’s employers and employees, excluding non-Fascist trade unions”. Name one union in the U.S. that isn’t a Democrat donor. And, a corporatist system sure explains why corporations are so eager to suck up to the Left. They want to be the winners. You see, while the Right is generally good for corporations (or so goes the stereotype for you doubters), it’s good for ALL corporations and small businesses. The Left, on the other hand, has a tendency to pick the winners and losers, with policies that all around crush small businesses.
“Fascism’s theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately controlled organizations (corporations)… Each trade union or employer corporation would theoretically represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labor contracts and the like. It was theorized that this method could result in harmony amongst social classes… However, authors have noted that historically de facto economic corporatism was also used to reduce opposition and reward political loyalty”. Gee, I wonder which political party has done that?
So as the venerable founder of this blog has pointed out before, whenever a liberal yells “fascist” it’s probably because they’re looking in a mirror.
And that in effect answers my question above. Why do corporations always kowtow to liberals, no matter how immature and spoiled they are? It’s because the Left will grant them favors in the future. Sacrificing dignity for profit, and liberals are encouraging this practice which they otherwise denounce. Hypocrisy.
Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media, #NeverTrumpers, Democrats in general (except for some bitter Bernie blokes), foreign leaders with ties to the Clinton Foundation, celebrities, most of our medical and psychological professionals, and the white people in charge of our tech industry were all DESPERATE to get Hillary Clinton into office. Just how desperate? They attacked Trump with what felt like an unprecedented degree of savagery, maybe because of the internet and the Left giving more voice to nutcases or because the Left had to make up for crying wolf so many times already. But that’s not the only measure of desperation. The Left was so dedicated to getting into the White House that they were willing to kill their own candidate.
For those who still can’t accept that she lost, it may have been a case of the God you don’t believe in saving your messiah. Remember how she fainted in September 2016? Remember that incessant coughing that plagued her for nearly a year? Remember that book from 2015 in which from alleged anonymous sources (the same unimpeachable ones the Left is enamored with when it comes to their anti-Trump narrative) we learn that Hillary herself may have been worried about her health? Remember how as far back as 2012 she fainted and landed in a way that gave her a concussion? Nope, of course, you don’t. Your candidate was fit and virile. Why, when she collapsed and was tossed into her car “like she was a side of beef”, that was immediately followed by her doing a rolling flip out the other side like she was Willy Wonka! Or so the media and Democrats tell us in their hard-hitting interviews and insightful commentary (and you’re also sexist according to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) -and presumably MSNBC- if you question Hillary’s health).
However, we have seen several instances post-election of failing health, most recently in India when she fractured her wrist by slipping in the bath tub and at another point had to be carried down stairs after slipping twice (you might recall this as the trip where she again said half the country were backwards racists, and those white women would have voted for her if the men in their lives had not violated a bunch of laws by forcing them to vote for Trump (but I guess if the Democrats in government won’t enforce the law and handle all the sexual abuse that Planned Parenthood covers for then women can’t expect much help from their Leftist heroes when it comes to voting either). How Presidential. If this is how her health is after a hundred day vacation followed by light duty, what would have happened if she were President? Would she be the first handicapped woman President? I doubt it; I can’t picture her with one of those cigarette holders unless she also started squawking, master of fowl play that she is.
To the feminists out there, look at the silver lining, we might have the first woman CIA Director thanks to Trump, and we have the first woman to successfully run a Presidential campaign thanks to Trump. Oh wait, they’re Republicans. That means everything they do hurts women somehow, no matter how many glass ceilings they shatter. That’s why Democrats are destroying Trump’s nominee for first female CIA Director when previously they told us just to vote for their candidate because the candidate had a uterus. That’s why it was not sexist for Democrats to vote against both the first female President (Hillary) and first female Vice-President (Sarah Palin) in 2008, instead electing Obama and his eventual boys club that did not pay women equally. Obama and his male chums were Democrats though so that trumped any Republican history-making, and Obama is black which puts him higher in the victim hierarchy so that trumped Hillary and led to a victory for progressives. Just like how accepting Islam and encouraging women to wear hijab as a show of support for Islam’s oppressive treatment of women is also progress. In fact, a current feminist is just such a person.
So what would have happened had President Hillary answered the phone at 3am by saying “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up”? Because everyone knows that Bubba would be too busy with the interns to be around when his wife was in trouble. Well, we’d end up with President Tim Kaine.
Who Is Tim Kaine?
It’s A Process
Obama asked Tim Kaine to step down as DNC chair and run for Senate in Virginia after he picked Kaine to become DNC chair in the first place just two years prior, while Obama appointed the much more shady and corrupt Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as DNC chair. Schultz was one of Clinton’s national campaign co-chairs in 2008. Two peas in a pod. Obama allegedly made a deal to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race, which he ended up doing before she had won the nomination, in fact, he pretty much endorsed her the moment she said she was running. And we all know how Obama-appointed-Clinton-crony Wasserman-Schultz rigged the DNC primary (tangential, but three months after the court ruling that the DNC rigged the primary and was well within its rights to, the Washington Post said the primary was not rigged).
Y’know, this really makes Obama sound like a political mastermind, rewarding his buddy Tim Kaine for supporting him (Kaine was on Obama’s list of VP possibilities, so maybe the DNC chairmanship was also to make up for not following through on that), while also setting the DNC up for Clinton. Well, it was his campaign that introduced the Democrats to Fusion GPS, who would go on to conjure a bogus dossier that was used to illegally get warrants for spying on Hillary’s (and Obama’s) political opponents, so maybe there’s something to that notion.
Anyway, this background is all well and good, but how does it lead to Tim Kaine being VP,
you ask? Supposedly, Obama made the deal to endorse Hillary for 2016 in exchange for her not trying to run against Obama in 2012 (a possibility that was apparently a source of buzz in DC in 2010), so Obama wanted Hillary crony Schultz as DNC chair, thus he told Kaine to accept a temporary grade reduction to Senator, in exchange for the promise of being Vice President five years later (for those questioning the veracity of the Ed Klein book cited, keep in mind that he was absolutely correct about the Clintons’ intention to takeover the DNC, and as seen in the above health section Klein seems to have been on-point about the fainting spells). That does explain why minority candidates and female candidates and female minority candidates were passed over by the most diverse political party in favor of a low-ranking rich old white man.. Explains why the Democrats trotted out tired old warhorse Hillary Clinton for one last roundup when she couldn’t even beat an amateur first-term Senator in 2008 (and later an amateur first-time politician in 2016). Explains why a moderate was picked as VP in a time when the party was trying to bring in the Bernie crowd. Explains why Hillary, with an enemies list rivaling Nixon’s, picked a guy that in 2008 endorsed her opponent.
Either that or Hillary just wanted someone who’d be absolutely useless and do only as he was told. Or the party elders, as with Obama, thought that they needed to attach a rich white dude to their candidate to reassure the other racists and sexists in the party that everything was under control. Who knows. But all of this makes way more sense than the official idea that somehow Hillary forgot her animosity, an idea which she just disproved in March 2018 with her idea that half of America is still a basket of deplorables because they did not vote for her.
Snopes tried to debunk this rumor about Kaine, but A: they only went after a story alleging that Hillary arranged it all rather than Obama and B: their tenet that other candidates than Wasserman-Schultz were being considered is debatable given that Democrats have lied about candidate considerations before- the press, the Left (Snopes is totally on the Left), and Hillary herself kept saying she was debating a wide variety of VP’s well into 2016, when in fact she already settled on Kaine by July of 2015. And before the official announcement, Obama said he’d want Kaine to have the job. Certainly, I have more circumstantial evidence here for this than what Mueller’s dug up.
And yes, liberals are more than capable of these levels of cronyism. If rigging the primary so that a big lie of competition is perpetrated upon the public, just like with Hillary’s big lie that there was competition in the VP process, doesn’t convince you then look at this example I wanted to shoehorn in here because I saw it while typing this: in California, liberals are mad that Trump’s tax plan makes their rich elite pay more in taxes, so they’re setting up a loophole. You know, the same liberals who say we need to raise taxes on the rich, doing this in the most liberal, progressive, leftist state. Just how trustworthy are these people?
In keeping with every other thought piece I suppose it is expected that I speculate as to what a Tim Kaine Presidency would look like. That would be quite impossible. You see, the standards I have available to compare this to are absolutely not the standards of the Left today. Even before Trump was elected, the Left was radically different than it was when Kaine was Governor of Virginia. Case in point: the issue of mass shootings. After the Virginia Tech shooting, Governor Kaine created a commission to investigate the incident. Their findings were quite reasonable. It was not mainstream to say “ban all guns” or “ban all guns of a type not related to the attack”. The mainstream media did not call the NRA murderers. Instead, experts found that there were mental health reforms needed, and Kaine signed an executive order making it difficult for people involuntarily put in an asylum to get guns. Compare this to the legislation the Democrats wanted in 2016 in the wake of a shooting- ban people for no reason and without warning from buying guns, in a way that would be next to impossible to overturn. Legislation which Kaine supported. (Then again, Democrats are now supporting the 2nd Amendment thanks to Trump, in an “overthrow the government because we’re spoiled brats that lost” kind of way. Republicans complained all the time about lawless Democrat administrations, like what Tim Kaine would preside over, but once the Secret Service was done investigating them they’d have been thrown into a coffin of snakes if they said anything that could even be remotely interpreted as calling for the assassination of a Democrat.)
I don’t mean to pick on Kaine alone, the ENTIRE Left shifted once Obama won. Even Obama himself. When Hillary presented the idea for what became Obamacare’s individual mandate in 2008, Obama himself came out against it and said that it would never work. Yet this is exactly what he and the Democrats did when they had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, to the exclusion of other issues which only became important to them after they were out of power.
So What Hellscape Did We Dodge?
I imagine that Hillary would have lasted long enough to make good on her threats to shoot down Russian jets in a no-fly zone illegally established over Syria by the U.S. because Hillary likes stabbing her friends in the back or felt slighted because she thinks Putin tried to help Trump or whatever reason floated into her head, which in turn would’ve started World War III. Come to think of it, maybe THIS explains why the Left went with its “Russia committed an act of war during the elections” narrative. Hillary was already trying to push the button anyway. The Left’s dire need to start World War III was there before the collusion narrative, which became their way of both perpetuating their lust for nuclear devastation while soothing the wounds from their 2016 loss. And if Hillary went ahead with her private little war and then collapsed for the last time or coughed herself into unconsciousness because the stresses of Presidency that turn healthy young men gray overwhelmed her already failing septuagenarian health, then we’d be left with Tim Kaine trying to either fight a nuclear war or rebuild after it. The same Tim Kaine who may have merely been handed the DNC Chairmanship and Vice Presidency as a payoff, rather than a merit-based achievement. And I don’t know if his statements were made because of the Left’s post-election descent into unmedicated madness, but maybe a Kaine rebuilding/war effort would reflect his recent statements that Democrats have to fight Republicans in the streets and that whites “have to put [themselves] in a place where we are the minority” (to be fair- Democrat policies don’t really aim for the extermination of a group, but rather its subjugation, hence Jim Crow rather than open genocide, and hence their current activities against white men at the behest of feminism, however, Kaine might court whites in the wake of Armageddon since they’d be weak enough for the totalitarians to take charge). Unless he thought “ooooo, pretty” at the sight of a mushroom cloud and wandered too close to it, in which case either Nancy Pelosi (best known for probably violating some House rule of conduct by crossing the floor and interrupting a speaker because her elitist and vindictive ego was slighted) or Paul Ryan (best known for somehow reminding me of David Hedison) would’ve been left in charge of rebuilding the country.
Well… as I’ve said before, at least this would mean those “They Were 11” twits would never exist! Please at least grant me that much consolation!
Assuming World War III was somehow avoided and Kaine still became President after Hillary did her show-stopping William Henry Harrison impression, what would Kaine in office be like? Imagine Obama, but inept at being willfully incompetent (I’m pretty sure he had an agenda behind the stuff he did to damage the country- in the words of vindicated Sen. McCarthy: “If liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America’s interest.”). He’d just be a lukewarm filler, using his pen and paper to get liberal policies enacted while being totally unable to handle Congress, if it remained dominated by Republicans. If Democrats took over then Kaine would just sign off on whatever crossed his desk. You would not have much in the way of inspiration. He’d sort of be like Gerald Ford, not in policy (as said he’d be like Obama in that area) but in the sense that you’d forget he was there or ever President. To Hillary’s credit, at least her scandals and her spoiled–brat–entitled attitude (which Snopes couldn’t debunk, so it cast shade on the claims instead) would serve to remind people she existed, while Kaine has none of that. Personally, I didn’t even know he was governor of Virginia until he was Hillary’s VP nominee, and I don’t think it ever registered that he was a Senator until sometime during the 2016 election cycle, although when I look back I can recall voting against him, but not much else. I’ve been a resident of Virginia all my life, by the way.