It is currently December 13th, 2019, 8:54 pm

All times are UTC-08:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 302 posts ]  Go to page Previous 110 11 12 13 1416 Next
Author Message
Unread postPosted: July 2nd, 2019, 7:58 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41385
Wazzzup wrote:
seoulbro wrote:
Joe Biden stumbles again with ‘gay waiter’ — second stereotype flub after ‘hoodie’ gaffe

First came the black teenager with a hoodie, and now the “gay waiter.”

Joe Biden stumbled again over the weekend when he tried to show off his folksy style, but wound up using a tired stereotype that fell flat with a key constituency.

Speaking in honor of Pride Weekend, Biden told a predominantly gay audience at a Seattle fundraiser that things have changed in America when it comes to openly insulting LGBT people.

The Democratic frontrunner asserted that just five years ago, people in polite society might think it was OK to poke fun at a “gay waiter” in a restaurant, even in gay-friendly Seattle.

Biden said if someone made homophobic comments today, “that person would not be invited back.”

The remark drew groans, first of all because it showed that BIden is probably off by at least a decade about when it became unacceptable to mock gay people.

And second, LGBT crowd did not appreciate the use of a tired stereotype like the “gay waiter” to make a point, even a well-meaning one.

“We’ve got to recognize that the kid wearing a hoodie may very well be the next poet laureate and not a gangbanger,” Biden said.

Like the “gay waiter” remark, there were two problems with the “hoodie” comment. First of all, it appeared to be rooted in the 2012 murder of Trayvon Martin. By using it, Biden made himself seem a bit out of touch with the modern era of #BlackLivesMatter.

Worse, some black analysts thought Biden should have found a more positive way of making his point that the sky should be the limit for any black teenager.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politi ... story.html

What a lightweight. If he gets the Dem nomination, Trump will have fun with this clown in the debates.
Biden is a gaff making machine, but he is the only democrat that can fake being a moderate.

Do you think he will be the Demcrat's nominee Wazzzup?


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 3rd, 2019, 1:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12740
It seems the front runners for the Dems are a couple of old white men.

Sanders has $18M for 2020 bid

WASHINGTON — u.s. presidential contender Bernie sanders raised $18 million in the second quarter for his

White House run, his campaign said on Tuesday, putting his total behind 2020 democratic rival

Pete Buttigieg for the period.

sanders, a u.s. senator from Vermont, also transferred $6 million from other campaign accounts to fund his presidential bid, campaign manager Faiz shakir said.

sanders and Buttigieg are the first among some two dozen candidates vying for the democratic nomination to report fundraising numbers for april through June. Buttigieg, the mayor of south Bend, Indiana, raised $24.8 million from nearly 300,000 donors in the second quarter this year, his campaign said on Monday.

sanders, making his second bid for the White House after a losing 2016 run, led the democratic field in fundraising in the first quarter by bringing in more than $18 million.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 3rd, 2019, 1:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12740
Republicans raise $105M for election

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump and the Republican Party together raised $105 million in the second quarter, with Trump’s re-election campaign taking in

$54 million of that total, the president’s campaign said Tuesday.

The Republican National Committee brought in $51 million from April to June. Together, the two entities have $100 million in cash on hand, with $56 million for Trump’s campaign and $44 million for the RNC, it said.

The two groups said the uptick in donations would allow them to double their digital investment to raise money and target donors online as they seek to secure Trump’s second four-year term. A senior Trump campaign official said the haul will allow the campaign to consider organizing a turnout operation in several states that Trump lost in 2016, including Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota and perhaps even Oregon. “Our intention has always been to win where the president won in 2016 and we think there is an opportunity in other states where the president was close,” the official said.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 3rd, 2019, 1:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12740
By Jerry Agar of Sun News Media

Presidential hopeful Biden clueless

There is no better example of the clueless, arrogant politician threatening other people’s rights than that of Democratic Presidential hopeful Joe Biden in a recent candidate’s debate.

While bragging about his record on gun issues Biden said, “I’m also the only guy that got assault weapons ban, and the number of clips in a gun banned.“Let’s be clear.

It is okay if you don’t know why that is a stupid thing to say. You aren’t passing laws that impact other people. You don’t have to know everything about guns.

But Biden does have to know. He is willing to pander to people who know nothing other than they don’t like guns, as is Bill Blair, former Toronto police chief and current minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction.

Blair wants more gun control in Canada. I am sure he is well informed on many issues around guns, including the fact that taking guns away from licensed sport shooters won’t reduce crime.

Yet he panders to people who know nothing about guns but will vote for a politician who promises to take rights away from others.

As for Toronto city hall, many of those councillors and the mayor — who are for more gun control in Toronto — likely have no idea what Biden said, or why it shows he is uninformed on an issue he is nonetheless willing to weigh in on legislatively.

So here we go.

What is a clip? A device used to store individual rounds of ammunition together as a single unit that is then ready for insertion into the magazine of a gun.

What is a magazine? Here is a definition from wrtitingexplained.org (a site many journalists should consult on such issues:) “A magazine is a device or chamber for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to breech of a gun. It is the area from where ammunition is pulled and put into the firing chamber.”

So given all of that, how many clips in a gun?

Some people will defend Biden by saying he meant that there is a limit in some states (Biden is a federal politician, by the way) that limits the magazine of a gun from holding more than ten cartridges.

But that isn’t good enough.

Biden touts his work taking away gun rights in the United States, so at the very least he has to display some understanding of guns in general.

No informed person would say what he said even by mistake.

No uninformed person should be allowed within 100 metres of a piece of legislation that takes rights away from citizens.

I wrote some time ago about the overwhelming evidence showing that gun buybacks do not reduce crime.

Did anyone at Toronto city hall bother to look that up before they spent tax dollars uselessly purchasing guns no one wanted anymore?

Apparently not, because cutting crime is not their actual goal. Their goal is to pander to the uninformed; to appear to be concerned and useful without too much work on their part.

If you hate everything I wrote simply because gun violence scares you, I am with you. I don’t want to be shot and I don’t want it to happen to you.

But I am more afraid of what happens to all of us when ignorant, arrogant, uninformed politicians pass laws.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 3rd, 2019, 3:36 pm 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41385
seoulbro wrote:
It seems the front runners for the Dems are a couple of old white men.

Sanders has $18M for 2020 bid

WASHINGTON — u.s. presidential contender Bernie sanders raised $18 million in the second quarter for his

White House run, his campaign said on Tuesday, putting his total behind 2020 democratic rival

Pete Buttigieg for the period.

sanders, a u.s. senator from Vermont, also transferred $6 million from other campaign accounts to fund his presidential bid, campaign manager Faiz shakir said.

sanders and Buttigieg are the first among some two dozen candidates vying for the democratic nomination to report fundraising numbers for april through June. Buttigieg, the mayor of south Bend, Indiana, raised $24.8 million from nearly 300,000 donors in the second quarter this year, his campaign said on Monday.

sanders, making his second bid for the White House after a losing 2016 run, led the democratic field in fundraising in the first quarter by bringing in more than $18 million.

American politics is all about raising obscene amounts of money.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 5th, 2019, 8:34 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12740
I don't know who I am predicting will be the Dem nominee at this point. And I can see a strong third party candidate emerge if the Dems move even further left. Can Biden pull it off? If he's treated with kid gloves and the Dems decide he will be their candidate in 2020 like they did with Hillary in 2016.

By Ed Rogers

Is Biden the wrong guy at the wrong time?

In politics, good gets better and bad gets worse. This axiom perfectly illustrates what we are witnessing in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Since last Thursday’s debate, former vice-president Joe Biden has been on his heels as a spectre of doom surrounds his candidacy. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., meanwhile, has emerged as a real contender. When you consider how we got here, it is important to take note both of the forces that are trending against Biden and whether they will serve to unite the party behind a winning ticket in 2020.

Biden is facing a trifecta of troubles. He may soon be outflanked by Harris among African-american voters and may lose the goodwill he had earned from the party’s female activists. Historically, these two constituencies have been Biden strongholds. Meanwhile, Biden has a generational problem: at a time when it is fashionable — especially among young Democrats — to be “woke,” Biden is anti-woke. Biden’s long history of working to improve civil rights in the United States, not to mention his role as vice-president to the first African-american president, earned him a natural constituency with the African-american voters who form a vital block in Democratic primaries. Yet the tin ear he displayed by referencing the pride he holds for work done early in his career with long-dead segregationists, combined with his opposition to school busing in the 1970s, have formed an opening that Harris, the only black woman in the race, deftly exploited in Thursday’s debate.

Next, the touchy-feely, hands-y Biden was never a great fit for the #Metoo era. Female voters supplied much of the energy that swept Democrats into control of the House last fall and tipped plenty of state and local races as well. This just isn’t the moment to be the old white man with a history of getting a little too close.

Finally, to the tricky matter of wokeness. According to Merriam-webster, woke is defined as “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” But “woke” has come to mean something more, connoting a preference for standing apart from those deemed to be unwoke, retrograde or worse. That hints at a cultural

and generational split inside the Democratic Party that may be difficult to bridge. Does anyone think the typical Biden voter is among the “woke”? Even if Biden were to wake up “woke” some morning this month, does anyone think his base would applaud the move? I doubt it. Which means, Biden may be boxed in.

Taken together, these challenges could be too much for the Biden campaign. If his support among African Americans is softening, and if Democratic women are newly ambivalent about his candidacy, and if the woke part of the party cannot identify with Biden or his base (and vice versa), then the basic proposition of the candidacy may not be sustainable.

Keeping these three constituencies happy will be key for any eventual nominee; whether it is enough to beat the president is another question.

So far, the polls have shown that Biden still enjoys a lead among Democrats, but we are about to find out if his support has any depth. In a party that is changing rapidly, Joe Biden could just be the wrong guy at the wrong time.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 6th, 2019, 4:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 24th, 2015, 7:57 pm
Posts: 24637
seoulbro wrote:
By Jerry Agar of Sun News Media

Presidential hopeful Biden clueless

There is no better example of the clueless, arrogant politician threatening other people’s rights than that of Democratic Presidential hopeful Joe Biden in a recent candidate’s debate.

While bragging about his record on gun issues Biden said, “I’m also the only guy that got assault weapons ban, and the number of clips in a gun banned.“Let’s be clear.

It is okay if you don’t know why that is a stupid thing to say. You aren’t passing laws that impact other people. You don’t have to know everything about guns.

But Biden does have to know. He is willing to pander to people who know nothing other than they don’t like guns, as is Bill Blair, former Toronto police chief and current minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction.

Blair wants more gun control in Canada. I am sure he is well informed on many issues around guns, including the fact that taking guns away from licensed sport shooters won’t reduce crime.

Yet he panders to people who know nothing about guns but will vote for a politician who promises to take rights away from others.

As for Toronto city hall, many of those councillors and the mayor — who are for more gun control in Toronto — likely have no idea what Biden said, or why it shows he is uninformed on an issue he is nonetheless willing to weigh in on legislatively.

So here we go.

What is a clip? A device used to store individual rounds of ammunition together as a single unit that is then ready for insertion into the magazine of a gun.

What is a magazine? Here is a definition from wrtitingexplained.org (a site many journalists should consult on such issues:) “A magazine is a device or chamber for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to breech of a gun. It is the area from where ammunition is pulled and put into the firing chamber.”

So given all of that, how many clips in a gun?

Some people will defend Biden by saying he meant that there is a limit in some states (Biden is a federal politician, by the way) that limits the magazine of a gun from holding more than ten cartridges.

But that isn’t good enough.

Biden touts his work taking away gun rights in the United States, so at the very least he has to display some understanding of guns in general.

No informed person would say what he said even by mistake.

No uninformed person should be allowed within 100 metres of a piece of legislation that takes rights away from citizens.

I wrote some time ago about the overwhelming evidence showing that gun buybacks do not reduce crime.

Did anyone at Toronto city hall bother to look that up before they spent tax dollars uselessly purchasing guns no one wanted anymore?

Apparently not, because cutting crime is not their actual goal. Their goal is to pander to the uninformed; to appear to be concerned and useful without too much work on their part.

If you hate everything I wrote simply because gun violence scares you, I am with you. I don’t want to be shot and I don’t want it to happen to you.

But I am more afraid of what happens to all of us when ignorant, arrogant, uninformed politicians pass laws.


One of the worst examples of ignorant journalism I've seen.

Taking away guns is not about reducing crime. It is about reducing the number of deaths by gunshot!! Removing guns from communities probably won't impact on drug abuse, or car theft, or alcohol fuelled assaults.

But it WILL reduce mass shootings in schools and musical concerts. Confusing GUN control with CRIME control is specious and deceptive.

_________________
Just because I don't agree with you, it does not mean I hate you


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 7th, 2019, 10:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12740
Bricktop wrote:
seoulbro wrote:
By Jerry Agar of Sun News Media

Presidential hopeful Biden clueless

There is no better example of the clueless, arrogant politician threatening other people’s rights than that of Democratic Presidential hopeful Joe Biden in a recent candidate’s debate.

While bragging about his record on gun issues Biden said, “I’m also the only guy that got assault weapons ban, and the number of clips in a gun banned.“Let’s be clear.

It is okay if you don’t know why that is a stupid thing to say. You aren’t passing laws that impact other people. You don’t have to know everything about guns.

But Biden does have to know. He is willing to pander to people who know nothing other than they don’t like guns, as is Bill Blair, former Toronto police chief and current minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction.

Blair wants more gun control in Canada. I am sure he is well informed on many issues around guns, including the fact that taking guns away from licensed sport shooters won’t reduce crime.

Yet he panders to people who know nothing about guns but will vote for a politician who promises to take rights away from others.

As for Toronto city hall, many of those councillors and the mayor — who are for more gun control in Toronto — likely have no idea what Biden said, or why it shows he is uninformed on an issue he is nonetheless willing to weigh in on legislatively.

So here we go.

What is a clip? A device used to store individual rounds of ammunition together as a single unit that is then ready for insertion into the magazine of a gun.

What is a magazine? Here is a definition from wrtitingexplained.org (a site many journalists should consult on such issues:) “A magazine is a device or chamber for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to breech of a gun. It is the area from where ammunition is pulled and put into the firing chamber.”

So given all of that, how many clips in a gun?

Some people will defend Biden by saying he meant that there is a limit in some states (Biden is a federal politician, by the way) that limits the magazine of a gun from holding more than ten cartridges.

But that isn’t good enough.

Biden touts his work taking away gun rights in the United States, so at the very least he has to display some understanding of guns in general.

No informed person would say what he said even by mistake.

No uninformed person should be allowed within 100 metres of a piece of legislation that takes rights away from citizens.

I wrote some time ago about the overwhelming evidence showing that gun buybacks do not reduce crime.

Did anyone at Toronto city hall bother to look that up before they spent tax dollars uselessly purchasing guns no one wanted anymore?

Apparently not, because cutting crime is not their actual goal. Their goal is to pander to the uninformed; to appear to be concerned and useful without too much work on their part.

If you hate everything I wrote simply because gun violence scares you, I am with you. I don’t want to be shot and I don’t want it to happen to you.

But I am more afraid of what happens to all of us when ignorant, arrogant, uninformed politicians pass laws.


One of the worst examples of ignorant journalism I've seen.

Taking away guns is not about reducing crime. It is about reducing the number of deaths by gunshot!! Removing guns from communities probably won't impact on drug abuse, or car theft, or alcohol fuelled assaults.

But it WILL reduce mass shootings in schools and musical concerts. Confusing GUN control with CRIME control is specious and deceptive.

I am not a hunter, so gun control in Canada is not an issue for me.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 10th, 2019, 3:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 1st, 2016, 6:51 pm
Posts: 8681
Immigrant Activists Storm Biden Headquarters, Demand He Apologize For Deportations

Quote:
Immigrant rights activists protested inside Joe Biden’s campaign headquarters in Philadelphia, demanding the former vice president apologize for the deportations that took place during the Obama administration.

“We are here with families who have had their families separated both under the Obama and Trump administrations, and we are demanding that Biden apologize for overseeing 3 million deportations under the Obama administration, and we are calling for Biden and 2020 Democratic candidates to commit to ending deportation and detention in their first day in office,” said a spokeswoman Wednesday during the Facebook live coverage of the protest.

The group behind the rally, Movimiento Cosecha — which translates to “Harvest Movement” in English — has been behind other immigration-related protests, such as a push to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. Members of the organization wanted to bring attention to the Obama administration’s record on immigration enforcement.

The protest highlighted a seemingly incongruous fact: Deportations were higher during the Obama administration than they are under the Trump White House.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/10/immi ... joe-biden/

The nerve of this group and the nerve of the Democrats for letting these thugs bully them.

_________________
“No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal immigration- Donald J. Trump.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 19th, 2019, 5:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16372
Growing debt would not be the number one issue to me if I was a voter in next year's US elections. But, I still would like to see spending come down. Neither party thinks it's important anymore.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/18/nati ... dium=email
2020 Candidates Keep Ignoring The Same Big Issue

The rapidly expanding national debt has seemingly been a virtual non-issue so far in the 2020 presidential campaign.

None of the 20 Democratic candidates taking part in the debates later in July touch the national debt issue on their campaign websites, a Daily Caller News Foundation review of their sites found.

The “Promises Kept” section on President Donald Trump’s reelection website makes no mention of the national debt.

The candidates aren’t the only ones ignoring the issue, either. None of the moderators for the first two Democratic presidential debates asked any questions about the national debt.

The federal government is expected to run a $1 trillion deficit in 2019, according to projections from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Monday.

“If current laws generally remained unchanged, growing budget deficits would boost federal debt drastically over the next 30 years,” the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) warned in a June report.

Neither political party is in a particularly strong position to campaign on addressing the national debt.

The national debt grew by almost $9 trillion during the eight years that Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden served as vice president under former President Barack Obama, according to U.S. Treasury data for the total outstanding public debt posted daily.

Democratic presidential candidates have sought to outdo one another in promising massive spending increases.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed Green New Deal, which has been embraced by some Democratic presidential candidates, could cost up to $93 trillion over a decade, according to one estimate.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 19th, 2019, 10:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: April 1st, 2016, 6:51 pm
Posts: 8681
Herman wrote:
Growing debt would not be the number one issue to me if I was a voter in next year's US elections. But, I still would like to see spending come down. Neither party thinks it's important anymore.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/18/nati ... dium=email
2020 Candidates Keep Ignoring The Same Big Issue

The rapidly expanding national debt has seemingly been a virtual non-issue so far in the 2020 presidential campaign.

None of the 20 Democratic candidates taking part in the debates later in July touch the national debt issue on their campaign websites, a Daily Caller News Foundation review of their sites found.

The “Promises Kept” section on President Donald Trump’s reelection website makes no mention of the national debt.

The candidates aren’t the only ones ignoring the issue, either. None of the moderators for the first two Democratic presidential debates asked any questions about the national debt.

The federal government is expected to run a $1 trillion deficit in 2019, according to projections from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Monday.

“If current laws generally remained unchanged, growing budget deficits would boost federal debt drastically over the next 30 years,” the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) warned in a June report.

Neither political party is in a particularly strong position to campaign on addressing the national debt.

The national debt grew by almost $9 trillion during the eight years that Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden served as vice president under former President Barack Obama, according to U.S. Treasury data for the total outstanding public debt posted daily.

Democratic presidential candidates have sought to outdo one another in promising massive spending increases.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed Green New Deal, which has been embraced by some Democratic presidential candidates, could cost up to $93 trillion over a decade, according to one estimate.

If they want to balance the budget, build the wall and stop illegal immigration. It costs tens of billions in direct costs alone.

_________________
“No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working class and America’s political class than illegal immigration- Donald J. Trump.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 28th, 2019, 10:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12740
By Hugh Hewitt

The tide has turned
... and Trump has the advantage


U.S. President Donald Trump has not yet been vindicated. Only his reelection will provide that condition so rare in the modern era of politics.

But with the conclusion of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony on Wednesday, Trump has decisively repulsed the attempt to deny him the opportunity to win that vindication at the polls in November 2020. Indeed, the president is now obviously, and with a high probability of success, going on the offensive.

Politics is not war, but the history of war can provide useful analogies to understanding politics. Twice European powers embarked on attempts to conquer Russia —the French under Napoleon during the 19th century and the Germans under Hitler during the 20th. Both attacks nearly succeeded, and only strategic retreat — deeply bitter to endure in both cases — saved Russia until the moment when it could switch to the offensive and then attack and destroy its enemies. The president has had to retreat before Mueller for two years, and he has hated every minute of it. But Trump is now going on the offensive.

Another analogy: Even though Gen. James Longstreet advised Gen. Robert E. Lee that the latter’s closing strategy of the Battle of Gettysburg — Pickett’s Charge — was doomed, Lee went ahead with it. That advance was reckless and failed before breaching the Union’s defenses on Cemetery Ridge. That charge is known as the high-water mark of the Confederacy, though the best strategist knew it would end in defeat even before the first shot was fired on July 3, 1863.

Before Mueller began to speak on Wednesday, the impeachment effort had already collapsed, though the “impeachment caucus,” like Lee in 1863, didn’t allow itself an objective look at its circumstances. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-calif., played the role of Longstreet here, and was ignored. The consequences were disastrous for Mueller, the reputation of his staff and for the Democrats chairing the two committees of inquiry — Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Adam Schiff, D-calif.

Now they and their allies (including many in the media) are trying to cover their retreat with all sorts of smoke, but Trump is just beginning to advance his arguments about what has blanketed the country since the summer of 2016. The president is going to argue that the real scandal was the attempt to keep him from winning election and, once having won, from governing. And his opponents did so by shocking means far outside the norms of law and U.S. politics. In this offensive against his tormentors of the past 36 months, the president may be aided by the Justice Department’s office of the inspector general and by John Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, to whom Attorney General William Barr has entrusted the investigation into what may well become “Cointelpro 2.0.”

Even if not, Trump will make this argument simply by force of repetition of the facts we already know: The Steele Dossier was a con job from the start — opposition research passed off as intelligence and, at best, stupidly accepted as legitimate by a naive FBI. It could turn out much worse than this. Wise advice during the Mueller investigation was to wait for the endgame and not guess. The same holds for the inspector general and for Durham.

That the attack on Trump has decisively failed is not open to debate — except by people unfamiliar with sunk costs. Many political figures and folks in the commentariat heavily invested in the idea that Mueller would bring forth impeachment, and possibly even conviction and removal of the president. He did not. Impeachment proceedings, much less a successful vote on articles of impeachment, seem unlikely.

Trump has his economic boom, his deregulatory record, his military buildup and his remaking of the judiciary. He has criminal-justice reform to his credit and an overhaul of Veterans Affairs is underway. He now has a spending deal that would guarantee continuing fiscal stimulus via larger deficits, and he has four vacancies (to which he astonishingly has not nominated anyone) on the U.S. courts of appeals for the 2nd and 9th circuits, as well as scores of district court openings to remind his base of the stakes.

And he has his Twitter account and a command of the media battlefield unequaled by any modern president. He shapes and reshapes that media battlefield every day. The relatively tiny audiences of cable news and journalism generally cannot compete with the president’s ability to set the agenda. Like the retreats of the French and the Germans from Russia, this retreat by impeachment’s true believers isn’t going to be pretty, either.

The smart folks among the media elites are cutting their losses. We saw some of that even as the Mueller hearings wore on. It was a terrible strategy from the start, and it ended badly for everyone — except Donald Trump.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 28th, 2019, 6:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 6th, 2012, 1:53 pm
Posts: 6891
seoulbro wrote:
By Hugh Hewitt

The tide has turned
... and Trump has the advantage


U.S. President Donald Trump has not yet been vindicated. Only his reelection will provide that condition so rare in the modern era of politics.

But with the conclusion of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony on Wednesday, Trump has decisively repulsed the attempt to deny him the opportunity to win that vindication at the polls in November 2020. Indeed, the president is now obviously, and with a high probability of success, going on the offensive.

Politics is not war, but the history of war can provide useful analogies to understanding politics. Twice European powers embarked on attempts to conquer Russia —the French under Napoleon during the 19th century and the Germans under Hitler during the 20th. Both attacks nearly succeeded, and only strategic retreat — deeply bitter to endure in both cases — saved Russia until the moment when it could switch to the offensive and then attack and destroy its enemies. The president has had to retreat before Mueller for two years, and he has hated every minute of it. But Trump is now going on the offensive.

Another analogy: Even though Gen. James Longstreet advised Gen. Robert E. Lee that the latter’s closing strategy of the Battle of Gettysburg — Pickett’s Charge — was doomed, Lee went ahead with it. That advance was reckless and failed before breaching the Union’s defenses on Cemetery Ridge. That charge is known as the high-water mark of the Confederacy, though the best strategist knew it would end in defeat even before the first shot was fired on July 3, 1863.

Before Mueller began to speak on Wednesday, the impeachment effort had already collapsed, though the “impeachment caucus,” like Lee in 1863, didn’t allow itself an objective look at its circumstances. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-calif., played the role of Longstreet here, and was ignored. The consequences were disastrous for Mueller, the reputation of his staff and for the Democrats chairing the two committees of inquiry — Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Adam Schiff, D-calif.

Now they and their allies (including many in the media) are trying to cover their retreat with all sorts of smoke, but Trump is just beginning to advance his arguments about what has blanketed the country since the summer of 2016. The president is going to argue that the real scandal was the attempt to keep him from winning election and, once having won, from governing. And his opponents did so by shocking means far outside the norms of law and U.S. politics. In this offensive against his tormentors of the past 36 months, the president may be aided by the Justice Department’s office of the inspector general and by John Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, to whom Attorney General William Barr has entrusted the investigation into what may well become “Cointelpro 2.0.”

Even if not, Trump will make this argument simply by force of repetition of the facts we already know: The Steele Dossier was a con job from the start — opposition research passed off as intelligence and, at best, stupidly accepted as legitimate by a naive FBI. It could turn out much worse than this. Wise advice during the Mueller investigation was to wait for the endgame and not guess. The same holds for the inspector general and for Durham.

That the attack on Trump has decisively failed is not open to debate — except by people unfamiliar with sunk costs. Many political figures and folks in the commentariat heavily invested in the idea that Mueller would bring forth impeachment, and possibly even conviction and removal of the president. He did not. Impeachment proceedings, much less a successful vote on articles of impeachment, seem unlikely.

Trump has his economic boom, his deregulatory record, his military buildup and his remaking of the judiciary. He has criminal-justice reform to his credit and an overhaul of Veterans Affairs is underway. He now has a spending deal that would guarantee continuing fiscal stimulus via larger deficits, and he has four vacancies (to which he astonishingly has not nominated anyone) on the U.S. courts of appeals for the 2nd and 9th circuits, as well as scores of district court openings to remind his base of the stakes.

And he has his Twitter account and a command of the media battlefield unequaled by any modern president. He shapes and reshapes that media battlefield every day. The relatively tiny audiences of cable news and journalism generally cannot compete with the president’s ability to set the agenda. Like the retreats of the French and the Germans from Russia, this retreat by impeachment’s true believers isn’t going to be pretty, either.

The smart folks among the media elites are cutting their losses. We saw some of that even as the Mueller hearings wore on. It was a terrible strategy from the start, and it ended badly for everyone — except Donald Trump.


Superb article, seoulbro. :thumbup:

_________________
@realAzhyaAryola

Sometimes, my comments have a touch of humor, often tongue-in-cheek, so don't take it so seriously.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 29th, 2019, 5:35 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41385
iron horse jockey wrote:
Herman wrote:
Growing debt would not be the number one issue to me if I was a voter in next year's US elections. But, I still would like to see spending come down. Neither party thinks it's important anymore.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/18/nati ... dium=email
2020 Candidates Keep Ignoring The Same Big Issue

The rapidly expanding national debt has seemingly been a virtual non-issue so far in the 2020 presidential campaign.

None of the 20 Democratic candidates taking part in the debates later in July touch the national debt issue on their campaign websites, a Daily Caller News Foundation review of their sites found.

The “Promises Kept” section on President Donald Trump’s reelection website makes no mention of the national debt.

The candidates aren’t the only ones ignoring the issue, either. None of the moderators for the first two Democratic presidential debates asked any questions about the national debt.

The federal government is expected to run a $1 trillion deficit in 2019, according to projections from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Monday.

“If current laws generally remained unchanged, growing budget deficits would boost federal debt drastically over the next 30 years,” the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) warned in a June report.

Neither political party is in a particularly strong position to campaign on addressing the national debt.

The national debt grew by almost $9 trillion during the eight years that Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden served as vice president under former President Barack Obama, according to U.S. Treasury data for the total outstanding public debt posted daily.

Democratic presidential candidates have sought to outdo one another in promising massive spending increases.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed Green New Deal, which has been embraced by some Democratic presidential candidates, could cost up to $93 trillion over a decade, according to one estimate.

If they want to balance the budget, build the wall and stop illegal immigration. It costs tens of billions in direct costs alone.

You mean illegal immigration costs tens of billions of dollars.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 31st, 2019, 7:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 6th, 2012, 1:53 pm
Posts: 6891
Newt Gingrich said that the winner of last night's debate was Donald J. Trump.

_________________
@realAzhyaAryola

Sometimes, my comments have a touch of humor, often tongue-in-cheek, so don't take it so seriously.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: July 31st, 2019, 7:24 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 15th, 2018, 11:04 am
Posts: 2129
@realAzhyaAryola wrote:
Newt Gingrich said that the winner of last night's debate was Donald J. Trump.

He is correct.

_________________
The Russian Rock It


Top
   
Unread postPosted: August 1st, 2019, 9:07 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12740
Traditional Dems are feeling the heat to become extremist or be replaced.

By Ed Rogers

Threats from within hampering Democrats

First elected to Congress in 1992, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) is a well-established member of the Democratic establishment and a loyal follower and supporter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-calif.).

So, what’s behind Nadler’s pointed determination to pursue President Donald Trump’s impeachment? Nadler appears to be ignoring the speaker’s wishes. Perhaps there is more here than meets the eye.

It has been underreported that Nadler faces a credible challenger in New York’s Democratic primary in 2020. Specifically, Nadler’s opponent is the capable-appearing Lindsey Boylan.

Boylan, 35, a recent deputy secretary for economic development for New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) and a daughter of a Marine — has several things going for her. She has raised more than $250,000, which might not sound like a lot but is already more than triple what Nadler’s Republican challenger raised in 2018. With nine months to go until the primary, this energetic young progressive may just be getting started.

Boylan has staked out a committed position to impeach Trump and she accuses Nadler of being soft and ineffective as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “We need a leader, not a follower,” she told Politico this month, adding that Nadler is “trying to place the blame on someone else, Nancy Pelosi. I don’t think that is a way to lead.”

To state the obvious, Nadler looks a lot more like Joseph Crowley — the longtime incumbent whom Alexandria Ocasio-cortez (D-N.Y.) defeated in a 2018 primary — than he does a recruit for “the Squad.” Conversely, Boylan seems a more experienced version of Ocasio-cortez.

To put it bluntly, Nadler is in a tough spot. You have to assume Pelosi has given him a pass to appear to be outside her control. The Judiciary Committee chair can look like he is proceeding with impeachment without going too far. This means Nadler must maintain some sort of political Brownian motion, always appearing to be on the move but never really going anywhere. Members of Congress have enjoyed re-election rates of 90% or higher since 2012, and primary challengers face a steeper hill to climb. But there are local factors that suggest Boylan might have a better chance than your average long-shot candidate.

The boroughs of New York have a history of Democrat insurgency that long predates Ocasio-cortez. In 1970, Bella Abzug beat a 14-year incumbent in a primary in a district made up of parts of Manhattan. Two years later, Elizabeth Holtzman beat a 50-year incumbent (one of the House’s longest-serving members) in a Brooklyn district to become at the time the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.

There is not only precedent at play here but also a pattern. Longtime incumbents House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.) and House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.) also face primary challenges this cycle — in Engel’s case, one backed by the same Justice Democrats political action committee that helped propel Ocasio-cortez to victory last year.

It’s impossible to determine exactly how much of Nadler’s push for impeachment is driven by a longing for the Klieg lights as opposed to the fear of an appealing young primary opponent. But no discussion of the internal workings of a Democratic House would be complete without a reference to legendary House Speaker Tip O’neill, who is credited with saying that “all politics is local.”

You can bet that this is something Nadler has brought up more than once in private discussions with Pelosi.

In a year when Democrats are supposed to be on offence, a number of them are feeling threatened within their own party.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: August 1st, 2019, 9:14 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 14th, 2012, 8:21 pm
Posts: 13297
Tulsi at it again



Kamila got payback for previous Biden attack - this time with facts & had no reply

Noticed: "Russia Russia Russia / Mueller" NEVER mentioned after 6 hours of 2 debates :laugh:

“It is fascinating that Mueller, who Democrats have spent two years making the centerpiece of their efforts to undermine the President, was conspicuously missing from last night’s debate,”

_________________
Tolerance of Intolerance is Cowardice


Top
   
Unread postPosted: August 1st, 2019, 11:51 am 

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 2:33 pm
Posts: 938
cc wrote:
Tulsi at it again



Kamila got payback for previous Biden attack - this time with facts & had no reply

Noticed: "Russia Russia Russia / Mueller" NEVER mentioned after 6 hours of 2 debates :laugh:

“It is fascinating that Mueller, who Democrats have spent two years making the centerpiece of their efforts to undermine the President, was conspicuously missing from last night’s debate,”

It must have slipped their minds. ac_toofunny

_________________
gay, conservative and proud


Top
   
Unread postPosted: August 1st, 2019, 12:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 14th, 2012, 8:21 pm
Posts: 13297
:roll: ... musta

She is refreshing in "some" ways Tulsi Gabbard Releases Video Calling for Everyone Across the Political Spectrum to Unite and Fight Big Tech’s Censorship

- however, last night she also railed that Trump was not fighting Al Quaida

only to have this morning's news say that they just killed son of OBL (the self proclaimed leader) and many other top dogs

Bad timing - I guess she's not destined to win this time around

_________________
Tolerance of Intolerance is Cowardice


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 302 posts ]  Go to page Previous 110 11 12 13 1416 Next

All times are UTC-08:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
phpBB SEO
[ GZIP: On ]