2020...

JULY 8, 2019
Pete Buttigieg Strikes Out on Racism and Police
By Rich Logis
South Bend, Ind. and its mayor and 2020 Democrat presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, are another example of failed Democrat governing.

In last week's "debate" (how was it a debate when all the candidates peddled almost identical anti-American and anti–common sense policies?), Buttigieg asserted that his city, and America as a whole, has problems with its police forces because of systemic racism and bigoted beliefs held by law enforcement officers.

What does South Bend have in common with other municipalities with notoriously poor relations between residents and police officers, such as Baltimore and Los Angeles? If you guessed "the city has been run by Democrats for forever," you're correct.

Well, not quite correct on the "forever" part. The primary culprit is the chronic crime rampant throughout cities that Democrats have controlled for tens of thousands of consecutive days, including South Bend, where eight of the nine council seats are held by Democrats and where the last time someone not a Democrat was mayor was over 17,000 days ago. Richard Nixon was our president.

South Bend's rates of violent crime and property crime — oftentimes the gateway drug to violent crime — are well above Indiana's and the national rates and have been for decades.

With so much crime, and so many career criminals, not just in South Bend, but in other longtime Democrat locales, how can reasonable Americans think the relationships with police officers and the residents they serve would be a happy and harmonious one?

Buttigieg has been mayor since 2012. From the moment he assumed his position, he had problems with his police force. Soon after being sworn in, Buttigieg demoted the city's first black police chief because the chief allegedly ordered South Bend residents to secretly record alleged racist comments from white officers. Last month, Sgt. Ryan O'Neill, who's white, shot and killed a black man, Eric Logan. An investigation is ongoing; O'Neill's body camera was not turned on. Logan allegedly lunged at O'Neill with a knife.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
JULY 7, 2019
Kamala Harris wants to gift $25k of taxpayers’ money to black families earning $125k to buy houses
By Thomas Lifson
Kamala Harris is aggressively courting black voters and doing the Dem Thing: offering free money courtesy of federal taxpayers. The daughter of two immigrants, a mixed-race Jamaican from a slave-owning family and a South Asian Indian, she wants to parlay her complexion into a bogus ethnic identity as an African-American.

Evidently anxious to recapitulate the 2008 financial crisis, when home buyers who had been encouraged to buy houses they couldn’t really afford defaulted on mortgages, the scheme she offered to the Essene Festival would have you and me and other taxpayers give large sums of money to African-Americans to make the down payment on homes. Tyler Pager reports for Bloomberg:

Taking aim at the racial wealth gap in the U.S., Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris proposed a $100 billion program to help black families and individuals buy homes.

Speaking at the Essence Festival in New Orleans on Saturday, Harris said the program would help with down payments and other costs associated with purchasing homes.

The program, she estimated, would help 4 million families who live or rent in historically red-lined areas, or those where loans are often refused because borrowers are seen as poor financial risks.

“We must right the wrong, and after generations of discrimination give black families a real shot at home-ownership -- historically one of the most powerful drivers of wealth,” Harris said.

The program, which would be administrated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, would give grants of up to $25,000 to families with incomes of up to $100,000, or as much as $125,000 in high-income communities. Harris said the plan would, over time, reduce the wealth gap between black and white families by one-third.

Harris, a lawyer, knows that the racial discrimination inherent in her proposal is unconstitutional, but she obviously doesn’t care. She is only interested in hyping the sense of victimization of African-Americans and appearing to be offering balm.

The average family income in the United States last year was $61,372 (a new high), so Harris wants families earning twice the average income to receive a gift based on their race.

Ed Lasky correctly observes, “Keep this up and the GOP will retake the House and Trump will win”
Click to expand...
Thatʻs another dumb chick.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
What was he thinking? He could have just given them money to buy homes closer to the schools.
Click to expand...

Well let me hedge this by saying that while I don't see a lot of humor in, what I think we most would agree, is the fact that there are a lot of kids attending subpar schools- given that we live in a country that promises to educate it's youth. I think the only issue I have with Kamela is to listen to her you'd think this is only in the inner cities. It sort of reminds me of what I don't like about Trump in a way.

But that said... yes you've summed it up.
 
tenacious said:
Well let me hedge this by saying that while I don't see a lot of humor in, what I think we most would agree, is the fact that there are a lot of kids attending subpar schools- given that we live in a country that promises to educate it's youth. I think the only issue I have with Kamela is to listen to her you'd think this is only in the inner cities. It sort of reminds me of what I don't like about Trump in a way.

But that said... yes you've summed it up.
Click to expand...
Government makes a lot of sub par promises.
 
What a nut.

Elizabeth Warren: Crossing the Border Illegally Should Not Be a Criminal Offense
elizabeth-warren-2-640x480.png

AP/Andrew Harnik
HANNAH BLEAU8 Jul 20195,206
4:42
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) does not believe it should be a criminal offense to cross the border illegally, she said during an interview with the California Nation podcast, which was posted Monday.

While the presidential candidate hit a number of issues during the broad discussion, Section 1325 of the immigration code, which makes it a criminal offense for people to cross the border illegally, became a highlight.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Non-government promises
Click to expand...

Yeah... but it's hard for me to ignore the simple fact that non-government people's checks all seem to bounce when it comes time to fix the roads and pay the dog catchers.

Just ask the citizens of Somalia how having no government is working for them.
 
This gave me a smile. He was so mad at being mocked, that not only is he mad at those people but he's mad at the news for reporting the story.


Trump peeved at Fox News for airing 'F--- Trump' chant: report
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/452132-trump-annoyed-at-fox-for-airing-f-trump-chant-report



President Trump's criticism of Fox News in a series of tweets this weekend was reportedly spurred by footage aired on the network of bar patrons in France chanting obscenities aimed at him, according to The Associated Press.

Following the U.S. women's national soccer team's World Cup win, Fox correspondent Greg Palkot aired a live report showing patrons in the background chanting "F--- Trump" in a bar.

Shortly after the segment aired, the president took to Twitter to voice his displeasure with the network, which he usually praises for its positive coverage of his administration.

Trump's Sunday evening tweets took aim at the network in general, claiming that it is "changing fast" and forgetting "the people who got them there." But according to the AP, Trump was specifically peeved by Palkot's report. The outlet cited two Trump advisers who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Trump also blasted the network for using The New York Times as a source, possibly referencing two Sunday segments following up on Times stories about conditions at a child detention center in Texas.

Though Trump is friendly with a number of Fox News hosts, including Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, he has recently been critical of some of the network's coverage, particularly from anchors who do not shy away from pressing members of his administration.

According to the AP report, the president has grown more annoyed with Fox News in recent months, repeatedly telling advisers that Fox has been going negative in its coverage of his presidency. He also reportedly expressed annoyance that the network has mentioned his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and sex offender who was arrested this weekend on sex trafficking charges, in its coverage of the case. Fox has also mentioned Epstein's ties to former President Clinton.

Trump has said that because he views MSNBC and CNN as both relentless critics of his administration and reticent to attack Democrats, Fox News should remain “loyal” as a counterweight, according to the AP, citing advisers to the president.

But Trump's reported dissatisfaction with the network clearly has its limits.

On Tuesday morning, Trump tweeted a number of comments praising "Fox & Friends" and commenting on its coverage.

“With President Trump at the helm, not only is America getting great again, but he’s going to make our estuaries, our rivers, our water - everything better - the things he is doing, and done, are just helping America tremendously.” Thank you to Bruce Hrobak @foxandfriends

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2019


“I agree with the President, the Supreme Court got it wrong. There should be a question about Citizenship on the Census. A.G. Barr sees a pathway to add the Citizenship Question.” Steve Doocy @foxandfriends Working hard on something that should be so easy. People are fed up!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2019
One media analyst told the AP that Trump might take it more personally when he disagrees with coverage on Fox.

“I think he takes ‘Fox & Friends’ literally, that they’re supposed to be friends,” Frank Sesno, director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, told the AP. “Fox has real journalists who ask real questions, like Chris Wallace. If he thinks the ‘no spin zone’ is going to be the no criticism zone, he’s right most of the time, but not all of the time.”

The Democratic National Committee earlier this year said it would not allow Fox News to host any of the Democratic primary debates following a New Yorker report that detailed the network's ties to the Trump administration. Fox News and a number of its anchors have criticized that decision.

But the network went on to host a number of town halls featuring some Democratic presidential candidates, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Those candidates have said they want to reach out to viewers on the network.
Click to expand...
 
tenacious said:
Yeah... but it's hard for me to ignore the simple fact that non-government people's checks all seem to bounce when it comes time to fix the roads and pay the dog catchers.

Just ask the citizens of Somalia how having no government is working for them.
Click to expand...
Just ask the citizens of Somalia how no jobs and no corporations work.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Just ask the citizens of Somalia how no jobs and no corporations work.
Click to expand...

No jobs? Seems like they are doing okay hosting terrorist training camps, shaking down costal pirates and other under the radar activities. At least I'm not hearing reports of mass starvation... ala' Ethiopia in the 80's. Which I guess sorta brings me back to my point about government.

I'm curious Bubs... you keep harkening back to the days where there was "no government" and speak as if it was a magical time. I've studied a little history and I'm aware of no such time or place in the history of mankind. Are you referencing a specific model you'd like to see put in place, or is this more of you complaining that government doesn't live up to some a figment of your imagination kinda thing?
 
I thought this article rather nicely summed up a point I've been making in here for a while now...

How a Democrat Can Win Over a Never-Trumper
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/09/never-trumpers-2020-democrats-227255

ear 2020 Democrats—all 23 of you who are running for president:

You are itching to be rid of Donald Trump. Who can blame you? Of course, if this were a normal Republican presidency, I would not share your feelings. Not remotely. As a lifelong conservative, I think your policy ideas are ill-advised. But this cycle, other Trump-disgusted Republicans and I can contemplate voting Democrat. We could do so not because we’ve become progressives, but because we think it’s in the long-term interests of conservatism and the country to be rid of Trump. If he gains a second term, conservatism may well be irredeemably tarnished. Still, much will depend upon whether the Democratic Party can resist its own drift toward Trumpiness. I’ll explain, but first, let me make the case that you should court Republican refugees like me in 2020.

You may think you don’t need us—but you’d be wrong. I know things are looking good for you: Trump’s approval rating has never topped 46 percent, and among younger voters, millennials and Gen Zers, his support is 30 percent or below. But Trump was elected with the lowest approval ratings of any major candidate in history. Polls can disguise as well as reveal. The “shy Tory” phenomenon—in which voters seem disinclined to tell pollsters that they support conservatives—is real across the globe, as evidenced most recently by the upset victory of the conservatives (called “liberals”) in Australia. Right-wing populism continues to show strength worldwide as recent election results in Brazil, India, Hungary, Poland and the Philippines attest. And if the results of the 2018 midterms have you feeling confident, you should look to the not-so-distant past. Democrats were pasted in the 2010 midterms and yet President Barack Obama glided painlessly to reelection in 2012.

While we’re on the subject of the midterms, remember that your 2018 victories were not a left-wing triumph. Your 40-seat pickup was due in no small measure to Republicans and independents who voted Democrat. In other words: Voters like me.

Democrats are well-positioned to win in 2020 by embracing political normalcy again. They can follow the path that brought Warren Harding to the presidency a hundred years ago, when, after World War I and the Spanish flu, Americans thought they’d seen the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: famine, war, pestilence and death. Harding ran on a “return to normalcy” and won in a landslide. Trump’s tenure has not, thankfully, featured pestilence or war. It’s more like the Three Stooges than the Four Horsemen. Still, today, many of us are prepared to put our long-term goals of balanced budgets and less government-controlled health care aside to feel some sense of political equilibrium again.

But that’s not the tone you are adopting. First, you seem taken with the idea of executive overreach. At the second candidate debate, Senator Kamala Harris declared that “When elected president of the United States, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to pull their act together ... and put a bill on my desk for signature” for new gun control measures. And if Congress does not, she said, she will take executive action to put in the “most comprehensive background check policy we’ve had,” require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to take the licenses of gun dealers who break the law and ban the import of assault weapons. She further declared her intention to reinstate Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status on “Day One,” not just for those brought here as children but for their parents and for veterans.

By what authority? This is precisely the kind of power grab that Trump engaged in when declaring his spurious state of emergency to redirect funds to his border wall. And though Democrats’ frustration with his lawlessness is justified, this would represent a total vindication of it. If Democrats respond to Trump’s arrogation of power by doing the same thing, our constitutional system is threatened.

It’s not just Harris. Beto O’Rourke has said that, while he opposed President Barack Obama’s reliance on executive authority to change immigration law, he would resort to it to fight climate change, “because we don’t have time to waste and there’s some things that are under the purview of the administration.” Like O’Rourke, Elizabeth Warren vows that on her first day in office she would issue an executive order “that says no more drilling—a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling offshore and on public lands.”

Is this the Democratic version of “I alone can fix it?” For all his crazy-uncle socialism, at least Bernie Sanders promises to propose legislation—not to rule by decree.

The assertion of unlimited executive power is not just contrary to the Constitution; it’s also a recipe for rising political tensions. If I believe that a Democrat will propose legislation with which I disagree, I know I stand a good chance of having my representatives modify or even block it. That’s not true of executive action. The stakes of each presidential contest thus get ratcheted up, as both sides fear that the next president, unconstrained by Congress, can lurch the country in a dramatically new direction. That severely decreases the chances that all of you, hopeful Democrats, can bring more centrist voters over to your side.
Click to expand...
 

2020 Dems Call On Acosta To Resign Yet Miss Hearing On Protecting Children From Predators
July 9th, 2019
pjimage-1-e1562706335270.jpg

Three Democratic presidential candidates have called for Acosta to resign, but did not attend a hearing on child predators Tuesday. (Joe Raedle, Getty Images/Drew Angerer, Getty Images/Joe Raedle, Getty Images)


Three 2020 Democratic presidential candidates skipped a Senate hearing Tuesday on ways to protect children from predators on the same day they called for Labor Secretary Alex Acosta to step downover his connection to Jeffrey Epstein, a registered sex offender.

Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota all tweeted Tuesday that Acosta should step down after he cut billionaire Epstein an easy deal for two felony prostitution charges, one with a minor, in 2008. Epstein was arrested again on Saturday for allegedly sex trafficking minors between 2002 and 2005.
 
tenacious said:
But that's sort of what draws people to him. The big brother is going to take care of you message really sells.
I just think some people are just naturally weaker and more afraid and get a sense of comfort from the message.
Click to expand...
You guys have nothing to worry about, right? You have 2020 wrapped up already...
 
tenacious said:
But that's sort of what draws people to him. The big brother is going to take care of you message really sells.
I just think some people are just naturally weaker and more afraid and get a sense of comfort from the message.
Click to expand...
It is disheartening to see the level of weakness that has been brought to the surface and exploited by t . . . somewhere in Russia Putin smiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top