Democratic establishment seeks to boot Bernie Sanders in 2018

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

While the Democratic Party attempts to rebuild and unite, bitter Hillary Clinton supporters are plotting the political destruction of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who remains a threat to their influence. Clinton’s allies have been working nonstop to unseat Sanders and diminish his relevance among the millennial voting bloc.

Sanders, who won 71 percent of the vote in his 2012 re-election campaign for Senate and 86 percent of the vote in Vermont during the 2016 presidential primaries, is considered a major threat to the Democratic establishment.

Leading the charge is Vermont resident and avid Clinton supporter Jon Svitavsky, a homeless shelter director, who announced on July 5 that he will be challenging Sanders in 2018.

Svitavsky and his supporters feel that Sanders is bad news for the Democratic Party, and they will stop at nothing to end his career.

“I think Sanders has hurt our country very badly with what he’s done,” Svitavsky told NPR. “So not only did Bernie divide the Democratic Party and what not, but he continues to bash them, even on the unity tour, saying that Democrats and Republicans are the same, and they’re not.”

While Sanders has remained a critic of the DNC, he didn’t bash Democrats during the DNC unity tour and one would be hard pressed to find such a comparison quote from the socialist.

Full article: Democratic establishment seeks to boot Bernie Sanders in 2018 – Red Alert Politics

Democrats want to stay establishment. Period.

Look, I don’t like Bernie. I don’t want to see this country become a socialist nation, I don’t think it is good for anyone, especially the USA. But the bottom line is… Bernie did challenge the status quo. He offered the left something different than the same old thing, while continuing to offer them an old white man, something they rail against while still fully demanding.

Donald Trump offered the same on the right, but was, obviously, more successful at it. Both Donald and Bernie offered the American people a taste of actual change. People looked at both of them and saw that there was an option other than voting for the same candidate with a different name. Something we all complain about at every election. “There’s no one to vote for.” “Same sh–, different election.”

But both Donald and Bernie offered the people someone they could relate to. Donald is a businessman. He grew his empire. Yes, he was wealthy, but he worked. He didn’t spend his entire life being groomed for politics the way Hillary Clinton was. Everything about Hillary’s life was her being groomed for president. She married Bill for power. She stayed with him through the affairs for the same. They had one child to show the family values that were so important at one time, and now that child is being groomed for politics, too. Donald was out getting married and divorced, having kids, running businesses, etc. That is more relatable.

Bernie was out protesting. He was being dragged off by the police and there was photographic evidence. The people who support him are doing the same thing and can relate to that. He, again, wasn’t being groomed. He offered something different, something they saw as relatable. And when he stood up to talk, he wasn’t promising the same things they’d heard a million times with different wording. He was offering something they wanted, something they saw as attainable (even if the rest of us didn’t see it as attainable or affordable). And he at least appeared to believe in what he was saying instead of saying what he thought his base wanted to hear. I’m not saying Bernie was honest, and I’m not saying he wasn’t out for himself, because he clearly is (what’s he up to now, three homes? While preaching about income inequality). But he was believable and different.

The Democrat establishment wants him gone. The same as the Republican establishment wants Trump gone. They don’t want change or relatability. They want power and their agenda. It isn’t about us. It never was.

Anti-Fascist, Trump protesters applaud speech comprised entirely of Hitler quotes

Wow.

So, basically, this guy pretended to be one of these ANTIFA people, and he stood up to make a speech to them. It was completely comprised of quotes from Hitler. They applauded. No one called him out. No one disagreed. They clapped! They even clapped during the speech!

I’m speechless. Remember this the next time someone calls you a Nazi. They were the ones applauding Hitler. 🙂

 

First Trump Inauguration Protester Is Sentenced, and Let’s Just Say the Punishment Fits the Crime

Getty Images

Dane Powell will serve four months followed by two months of probation after being convicted of a felony rioting charge and assaulting a police officer during the President’s inaugural ceremonies in Washington.

Check it out (via Roll Call):

Powell, who faced 14 charges, pleaded guilty to charges of felony rioting and felony assault on a police officer.

He told prosecutors he broke windows and threw “a brick, large rock, or piece of concrete at uniformed law enforcement,” WTOP reported. The U.S. attorney’s office for D.C. said in a statement that Powell “admitted being part of a group of rioters who moved approximately 16 blocks over a period of more than 30 minutes.”

“The group formed a ‘black bloc’ in which individual defendants wore black or dark colored clothing, gloves, scarves, sunglasses, ski masks, gas masks, goggles, helmets, hoodies, and other face-concealing and face-protecting items to conceal their identities in an effort to prevent law enforcement from being able to identify the individual perpetrators of violence or property damage. Some of the members of the black bloc were armed with hammers, crowbars, wooden sticks, and other weapons.”

Full article: First Trump Inauguration Protester Is Sentenced, and Let’s Just Say the Punishment Fits the Crime

Yes, people showed up to paint him as hero and had a video of him saving a child from pepper spray. Why was there even a child there?! And do they not realize that if they hadn’t gotten violent, there wouldn’t have been pepper spray? Duh, folks.

Anyway, glad to see this happening. Demonstrating and protesting is fine. Rioting is not. The two are not one and the same.

Comments Off on First Trump Inauguration Protester Is Sentenced, and Let’s Just Say the Punishment Fits the Crime Posted in America, Elections, Law

The Ongoing Frustration of Trump’s Conservative Critics

Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images

LIMBAUGH: The Ongoing Frustration of Trump’s Conservative Critics | Daily Wire

I wanted to share the above article because I personally thought it was a good read.

Trump is frustrating a lot of his nay-sayers on both sides of the isle. Look, I’ve said it before. Trump wasn’t my first choice. He wasn’t my second or third choice, either. He had run before without anyone even paying him any mind, and I really didn’t even think he was serious, let alone would actually become president. I didn’t vote for him in the primaries (let me add an addendum here: I voted on the Libertarian primary ballot, so I didn’t vote for a Republican candidate at all. I am officially registered in my state as a Libertarian).

I liked Ben Carson and Ted Cruz, if we’re going to be straight here. However, I don’t think Ben Carson would have held up against Hillary Clinton. So yeah, I was mostly a Cruz supporter on the Republican side. On the Dem side I liked Webb, but he didn’t last long. I don’t even know if most people remember he was running! And… I didn’t vote for Gary Johnson in the primaries, and after listening to him and his God awful choice for his running mate, I couldn’t support him, either.

However, I never embraced the Never Trump group, either.

The people decided they wanted Trump as their candidate. I wasn’t happy about it. But I decided to give him a chance and got behind him. Can’t say I trusted him – still don’t – but you’ll never catch me trusting any politician, so that isn’t news. I also will not pledge undying allegiance to any politician, either. I’m as critical about any politician as you can be. Heck, I’ve even got posts about Reagan here and why he wasn’t the shining beacon people make him out to be. At the end of the day, these people are politicians. And yes, Trump is a politician now, like it or not.

I stand behind Trump right now, but am not blinded by him (and yes, I did cast my ballot for him in the general election). I’m not a rabid fan, but I’m not a Never Trumper. I refuse to take my eye off of him just because he was chosen by the people. The people chose Obama, Bush, and Clinton, too. Yes, I laugh at most of his tweets, but I don’t think some of those tweets are helping him, either.

Trump’s not perfect. No politician ever will be. He’s our president now, whether you like him or you don’t. He’s done good, and he’s done bad, just like all those before him. I certainly don’t want to see him fail, because if he fails, our country fails. I hope he succeeds. I hope he makes America great again. And at this point… we’re several months in to his presidency. He isn’t going anywhere. You don’t have to be a super fan of his, but it might be time to sit back and realize this is who the people wanted, he won the election, and now he’s the president. Don’t stop fighting for what you want to see in this country, but how about we let the man do his job? How about we give him the benefit of the doubt – while keeping our eye on him – and see what he can accomplish? Maybe it’s time for the dems to stop trying to block him at every turn and wasting precious time to get him removed from office. And maybe it’s time for the Never Trumpers to do the same. If you don’t like him, vote for someone else in 2020. That’s how we do things in this country. But right now… let the man do his job.

 

No, Paul Ryan Did Not Implement A Restrictive Dress Code For Congress

The piece had several anecdotes of female reporters who were prohibited from the speaker’s lobby due to their lack of sleeves, and asserted that this was brand new policy.

Other outlets ran with this information, and wrote similar pieces about the supposed new sexist dress code. Jezebel eventually updated its post to clarify that this policy is not new, but as the saying goes–a lie goes halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

There’s just one issue, that is more than a little bit relevant to the whole thing: This is not a new dress code and it is not a new policy under Paul Ryan and it is not suddenly being enforced for the first time in a while. The dress code has existed for well over a century.

Full article: No, Paul Ryan Did Not Implement A Restrictive Dress Code For Congress – Christine Rousselle

Wow. OK. As the article states, no, this isn’t new dress code and Paul Ryan didn’t create it.

But something else popped out at me. How is this dress code “sexist?”

I had this same complaint when the entire “air conditioning is sexist” talking point was a thing, and I think it might still be a thing to a small group of feminists.

The guys are in there in suits. Year round. That means long pants, dress shirt, tie, suit coat, socks, shoes. When it gets hot, women can wear a dress, which is even more wonderful now that very few women wear pantyhose anymore (guilty. I haven’t worn hose since I was in grade school). They can also, in many cases, go sleeveless or wear short sleeves. Men don’t have this option. Men are dressed down from neck to toes all the damn time. So yes, the air conditioner is set to be cooler because they are sweating their asses off because they are required to. The female dress code is a lot more summer heat friendly.

In this situation, being asked to cover your shoulders isn’t exactly sexist! The men can’t do it, either. They’re still in there in the nasty D.C. heat dressed down from neck to toes. You can still wear a short sleeved shirt or dress while they can’t.

So please explain to me how being asked to not go sleeveless is sexist.

Colorado to Criminalize Screen Time for Kids

If a Colorado initiative gets its way 49 other states are going to be looking like anarcho-capitalist havens. Initiative 29 or the “Preservation of a Natural childhood” could make selling smartphones, tablets, and any sort of handheld wireless technology to anyone aged 13 and younger illegal which is anything but natural.

The title attempts to conjure up delightful images of a childhood free from responsibility, being driven to hockey practice, playing late into the night, and the parental figures providing all of life’s necessities. Initiative 29 capitalizes on feel good impressions, disregarding thousands of years of personal advancements.

However, this image is very unnatural. Neither electricity or cars are part of a natural childhood, and as comedian Jim Gaffigan puts it neither is using the bathroom indoors. We are surrounded by the unnatural. Colorado Initiative 29 capitalizes on your feel good impressions, disregarding thousands of years of positive advancements.

Expectantly the announcement has raised concern over state paternalism, but there are much more meaningful and deeper issues at play. Advocates are overlooking huge benefits of these technologies and are seeing smartphones as the cause of idleness rather than as the symptom. They are turning families and businesses into criminals overnight.

Full article: Colorado to Criminalize Screen Time for Kids | Intellectual Takeout

This is one of those topics that is going to bring about a lot of strong opinions in both directions. Like, on one hand, this technology is, in fact, the future of our nation and these innovations are moving fast. The kids in this area are going to be terribly behind the times without at least some limited access, and will be behind their peers when they leave for college. On the other hand, these kids may have a leg up in developing personal relationships and handling people face to face instead of forcing people to only communicate with them via text.

We all know, however, how this is actually going to work out, and how this is all going to be a useless mute point. Let’s say the law passes. Great! Now mom goes in and buys a phone, tells the sales person the phone is for her, and when she gets home she passes it off to Little Johnny anyway and tells him not to look at porn, now leave mommy alone while she has some wine.

The same as it is right now. Because when is the last time you saw a 13 year old buy their own $900 iPhone anyway? The only thing that is changing here is that parents just won’t tell the sales people that the phone is for their kid. It isn’t actually going to accomplish anything.

Court Rules Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law is Unconstitutional

Tribunist

The so-called “stand your ground” law, as Fox reports, “required prosecutors to disprove a defendant’s self-defense case at pretrial hearings.” If the prosecutor could not prove that the incident was not self defense, than the case didn’t proceed in a criminal court.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch, on Monday, upended that rule. His decision states that lawmakers who crafted the law exceeded their authority. “As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote.

The Florida Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue. They’d previously weighed in, altering the provision to make the burden of proof the responsibility of the defendant and not the prosecution. Many felt like this was a reversal of the age-old “innocent until proven guilty” philosophy, yet it still allowed for active self-defense.

The current Florida ruling could be tested by the state’s Supreme Court, and potentially by the Supreme Court itself. This one decision may have a significant impact on the rights of Americans who feel they have the right to respond with any means necessary to end threats on their lives.

Full article: Court Rules Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law is Unconstitutional | Tribunist

Save