Kamala Harris Was Created In A Lab To Annoy Men

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Kamala Harris has a problem with men. While she attempts to downplay the issue, the campaign is obviously taking it seriously, or as seriously as an operation run by a consultant class that doesn’t include many straight men under 40 can.

Former President Barack Obama was dispatched to castigate the “brothers” for not supporting Harris, saying, “[P]art of it makes me think, and I’m speaking to men directly … that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.”

Outside groups have also noticed the lack of enthusiasm amongst men for a President Harris. These groups are wildly incompetent, producing things such as “Man Enough,” which is a masterclass in missing the mark. In the spot, several super manly actors proclaim their masculinity — from drinking barrel-proof whiskey neat to eating carburetors to hugging literal bears — before announcing their support for Harris.

As X user “a newsman” observed, “The entire media conversation around the insane gender divide in this election seems based on the idea that men are clearly doing something wrong in the political choices they’re making. Whereas women are making smart, noble decisions based on their own best interests, and the solution is that we just need to wear camo hats and legalize dealing drugs to make men see the light.”

What if we men aren’t doing something wrong and are instead being rational, though? One need not go full Melvin Udall to think that wanting a strong border, a strong economy, a defeat of woke insanity, and an end to insane efforts to censor the truth — coordinated with the British! — are way more preferable than whatever it is that Harris is offering.

She was previously for Medicare for All, now she’s against it. She wanted to defund the police. Now, that’s a “lie.” She wanted to confiscate guns. Never mind, she’s going to blast some home intruders with her Glock. She wants to fully transition to a net zero energy policy. Actually, she’s in favor of more fracking, maybe. It’s all unclear. What is clear is that it’s as if she’s not just seeking to become just the first female president of color, but also the first policy-fluid one. It all depends on how she feels when she wakes up in the morning.

While such equivocating isn’t uncommon for most politicians — and the truth is that Harris is trying to whitewash her previous positions to appeal to voters in the center — her 180s transcend normal politicking. Instead, they reveal her to be an intellectually empty flake, a manufactured candidate designed to offend the sensibilities of rational voters. Obviously, that must be sexism because a man who engaged in the same sort of flip-flops would be held up as principled and staid.

Former President Bill Clinton, for example, reversed course on quite a few positions. Here’s what The New York Times had to say about that way back in 1999: “The Clinton White House seldom lets a popular parade pass by without leaping to the front, or at least latching onto the last carriage. In years past, President Clinton was a late but fervent convert to Republican crusades on the balanced budget, Internal Revenue Service abuses, and a federal law discouraging same-sex marriages.”

Obviously, the Gray Lady only called out Bill on his reversals because he was a man, a problematic one at that. Now, men en masse are just as problematic for not giving Harris grace for her constantly “evolving” platform, one definitely not largely copied and pasted from President Biden’s website.

So, no, it’s not the men who are the problem here. The problem is Kamala Harris. She was a terrible candidate in 2020; she’s a terrible candidate now. And that terrible candidate seems as if it was created in a lab primarily for the purpose of annoying men. She rambles without getting to the point, she seemingly has no philosophical principles guiding her, and, let’s be real, her laugh and speaking style are objectively awful.

The media wants to frame these deficiencies as the result of sexism, misogyny, or the last gasp of the patriarchy, but in reality, what we’re witnessing is true equality. The men are judging her on the content of her manufactured character and not on the contents of her pantsuit. That judgment reveals her to be seriously lacking in every way when it comes to becoming chief executive of the free world. Voting for her isn’t noble, it’s stupid, much like the candidate herself.