“Let’s Go, Brandon” Is More Than Just A Nickname For Joe Biden
“F Joe Biden” is not going away anytime soon.
Columnist Matthew Rozsa attempted to fold “Let’s Go, Brandon” into the long history of insulting presidential nicknames. He would have people believe this is another derogatory insult directed solely at the president, regardless of his standing. That seriously underestimates the broad reach of that slogan, born from a desperately unhappy year for Americans.
“Let’s Go, Brandon!” is America’s response to Washington’s central control of almost everything that has gone wrong since January 20, 2021: inflation, regulation, taxes, debt, government policy failure, COVID mandates, open borders, abortion, the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, Critical Race Theory, trans/gay this and that, and all the other assaults on America, large and small.
“F Joe Biden” is not going away anytime soon. It’s striking in part because it’s a response to Biden’s “central government gone wild,” with all the unavoidable negative consequences. Moreover, another factor is that it has escaped Democrat control of American institutions. Hollywood, the media, and the political establishment, all of which are ruled by leftists, cannot stop it.
The motto of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is “All is not lost in America,” and “Brandon has come to our assistance in our time of dire need.” More slogans with similar meanings may come out of nowhere, as these powerful populist expressions are uniquely American phenomena. It remains to be seen if they will be as powerful as Brandon.
“Let’s Go, Brandon” appears to be a dystopian 21st-century take on “I Like Ike.” While Irving Berlin originated the phrase for Eisenhower’s 1952 campaign, it, too, embraced a more extensive set of principles. Let’s Go Brandon isn’t about Biden. It’s about the people’s outrage over a whole Administration’s failure.
https://redstateofminddaily.com/lets-go-brandon-is-more-than-just-a-nickname-for-joe-biden/
Ineptocracy
A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.