Still trying to find some topics that have little or nothing to do with the Chinese coronavirus, but it is getting harder and harder to do so as time goes by. However, I feel it is at least somewhat necessary to talk about the topic of Trump’s approval ratings here, largely because his rise in mainstream media polls is due to what he has done with responding to the virus.
A number of MSM polls had the President rising in approval, and Pew Research Center has him at a three-year high. For those counting at home, that means the highest approval of his presidency.
According to Pew: “Opinions about how President Donald Trump is handling the crisis are less positive, and more divided by partisanship. Nearly half of adults (48%) say Trump is doing an excellent or good job responding to the outbreak; an overwhelming majority of Republicans (83%) express positive views, compared with just 18% of Democrats.”
“However, Trump’s overall job rating is higher than it has been since the first few months of his presidency. Currently, 45% approve of the way he is handling his job as president, while 52% disapprove. In January, 40% approved of Trump’s job performance.”
“Since then, Trump’s job approval has increased significantly among a number of groups, including members of both parties, women (from 37% in January to 44% today), black adults (from 8% to 18%) and Hispanic adults (from 27% to 37%).”
The biggest reason for these upticks in his approval seems to stem from what the Democrats and many in the media claimed was a “xenophobic overreaction”: restricting travel to and from the U.S., specifically restricting travel from China and, once Italy and much of Europe showed to be in the uptrend in terms of infections, expanding the restrictions to Europe.
If you remember, former Vice President Joe Biden said of the travel restrictions on China, that it’s “hysteria and xenophobia – hysterical xenophobia”. Chuck Schumer had also said in a now-deleted tweet (because of course he would delete it) that the restrictions were just Trump being a “xenophobe” and overreacting.
Meanwhile, let’s take a look at the Pew Research poll, shall we? According to Pew, 96% of Republicans approve of restricting international travel to the U.S. 94% of DEMOCRATS also approve, so a total of 95% of people in the survey say that travel restrictions are good.
95% of Democrats said canceling major sports and entertainment events was a good idea, with 87% of Republicans agreeing. 94% of Democrats approved of closing K-12 schools with 85% of Republicans agreeing which is actually pretty surprising to me.
We all know that government (public) schools are centers of indoctrination, not education, so to see FAR more Democrats agreeing to canceling school than Republicans is rather astounding to me.
But moving on, 92% of Democrats agreed with asking people to avoid gathering in groups of more than 10, with 82% of Republicans agreeing. 91% of Democrats agreed with limiting restaurants to carry-out only, with 78% of Republicans agreeing. 81% of Democrats agreed with requiring most businesses other than grocery stores and pharmacies to close, with 61% of Republicans agreeing, which is not particularly surprising to me. The well-being of businesses and the economy tends to be more of a Republican issue and many of us would argue that it is not outright necessary to close pretty much everything for everyone (as I’ve already explained in previous articles).
Finally, when it comes to postponing state primary elections, 73% of Democrats agreed with doing so, while only 66% of Republicans agreed.
Of course, the most important and noteworthy portion of that poll was that incredible consensus regarding imposing travel restrictions. Again, Democrats and people in the media lambasted Trump for imposing those restrictions, first to China and then to Europe when the necessity arose, and just about everyone in that survey, be they Republican or Democrat, agreed with Trump’s plan to restrict travel.
It wasn’t a “xenophobic overreaction” to restrict travel during a global virus pandemic (or what could turn into one, as that was the sentiment at the time). The reason for restricting travel to and from China was due to their woeful attempt at limiting the spread, lying to everyone about it and keeping outside help from coming in. China set the world on fire with the virus and Trump knew he needed to do something.
Keep in mind that the travel restrictions were imposed in January. While the Democrats were running a sham impeachment and removal trial that was entirely partisan and based on nothing, President Trump established the Coronavirus Task Force and kept an eye out on both Iran (back when Soleimani was the big story) and Wuhan. While the Democrats were twiddling their thumbs, Trump took early, precautionary action. Action that no one can honestly say was “downplaying” the virus (again, the Democrats and the media were the ones downplaying it by that point).
As I’ve said time and time again, Trump was the first one in Washington taking the virus seriously. And this early action, coupled with the actions he is currently taking, are painting him in a better light in the minds of the people the MSM chooses to survey.
It’s important to keep all of this in mind, especially considering what Joe Biden said at the time of Trump applying the travel restrictions. When the Democrats were busy trying to impeach and remove the duly-elected president, and while they were crying “racist” at the travel restrictions, Trump was busy making sure that the country did not suffer greatly from the virus. And while we are currently in the situation we are in anyway, there’s no doubt in my mind that if Hillary had been president right now (as many on the Left had been fantasizing particularly for the past couple of months), she would not have put in place the travel restrictions and wouldn’t have taken the same early steps in fighting the virus (also, the economy would be in total shambles).
This will be important come November and it will be something the Left cannot take away from Trump, as there is clear evidence of them siding against Trump’s travel restrictions.
2 Chronicles 15:7
“But you, take courage! Do not let your hands be weak, for your work shall be rewarded.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Considering the uncomfortably high percentage of young people who say they favor socialism over capitalism, or would describe themselves as socialists (they aren’t really socialists, they don’t even know what it actually means or does), I’d say I am okay with this reality: young people really just don’t show up to vote.
Now, that’s not to say that they don’t vote at all, of course, they just really don’t vote with anywhere close to the same rate as older generations do, and this has been the case for a long time, historically.
Census.gov has an article that details elections (1980-2016) that display the turnout rates by demographic each and every presidential election. One of the figures they show is fairly eye-opening:
As you can see, there are four lines in this line chart that display different voting blocs according to age. From 1980 to 2016, we see that voter turnout for people ages 65 or older is often virtually tied with those aged 45-64. In 1980, 45-64 year olds voted at a recorded rate of 74.4%, those 65 and older voted at a rate of 69.8 and 30-44 year olds were close behind, at 67.2%. But those aged 18-29 are WAY below any of the aforementioned age groups in terms of turnout. In the 1980 election, only 48.2% of people in that age range turned out to vote, 19 less points than 30 to 44-year-olds.
And it’s been fairly similar in each and every presidential election from that point on. We can see that the youth vote spiked in 1992, likely to vote for Bill Clinton, but that still was almost 16 points less than the next oldest group and 23.1 points less than those 65 or older.
In 1996, turnout rates crashed for pretty much every category, but none harder than 18 to 29-year-olds, who turned out at a rate of only 39.6%. As time went on, the rate began to go back up to its usual rates, once again getting another rate of above 50% in 2008 to vote for Obama, but after that, it went down once again.
And this last Super Tuesday was virtually no different, statistically. According to The Inquisitr, “According to results from the NBC News exit poll released at around 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday – two hours before the first poll closings in eastern states – only 13% of Democratic voters in the Super Tuesday primaries are between the ages of 18 and 29. That is 10 percentage points fewer than the second-least likely voters – the 30-44 age group, which made up 23% of Tuesday’s electorate.”
Voters between 45 and 64 turned out at 35% and those 65 and older turned out at 29%. While the actual numbers may be vastly different from the Census figure above, we still see that the turnout rate for 18 to 29-year-olds is far less, by 10 points or more, than the older voting ranges. There is a ten-point difference between 18-29 year olds and 30-44 year olds in that Super Tuesday electorate, as the Inquisitr noted. The difference widens to 16 between 18-29 year olds and 65 and older, and the difference stands at 22 entire points between those 18-29 and 45-64.
This largely explains just why it is that Bernie Sanders lost all but two of the states in this last Super Tuesday (March 10th), just barely winning in the largely socialist state of Washington by 2,084 votes (and both Bernie and Joe got the same number of delegates in both Washington and North Dakota, the other state Bernie won, so those victories didn’t really matter for Crazy Bernie). Bernie’s campaign largely hinges on his ability to attract the youth vote.
On social media, you may see plenty of young Bernie Sanders supporters, like that “OK boomer” dancing girl and many others, but they largely do not turn out to vote, even when their guy needs as much youth support as possible in order to beat Joe Biden. All the pro-Bernie hashtags on Twitter, all the pro-communist t-shirts sold, all the pro-socialist memes posted on the internet don’t really matter because the young people behind the hashtags, t-shirts and memes are simply not turning out to vote.
Now, forgive me if I sound annoyed at that, because I am not at all annoyed in the least. The fact that young people, those who are fresh out of, or still in, college and have been brainwashed by their college professors to believe communism is good and capitalism is bad, don’t vote is a good thing, in my opinion. If they turned out to vote at roughly the same rates as at least the next older voting bloc, the 30-44 year olds, I believe that would largely skew a lot of elections to the Left. So I am glad that younger people largely don’t go out to vote.
The fact that 18, 19 and 20-year-olds can vote, I think, is not even wise at any rate. There are good arguments for RAISING the voting age, as opposed to lowering it to allow for kids who are 16 years old to vote, as the Democrats want to do (seemingly from these figures, it really wouldn’t make that much of a difference). Someone who is 18 years old, one who just recently had to ask permission to go to the restroom (and had to be scolded for saying “can I” instead of “may I”), should not have the responsibility of deciding who runs the country. Arguably, the voting age should be at least 25 years old, as that is the age when the human brain fully develops (I say this, recognizing that would make me ineligible to vote, but I still think that’d be better than what he have now).
Kids who are going into college or recently are coming out of college with the Communist Manifesto forcibly drilled into their brains should not be making the decision as to whom runs the country. Thankfully, even while they are allowed to vote, it seems that they largely simply do not go out to vote at the rate that older generations tend to do.
Looking back at that line chart, the 2016 turnout rate was two points lower than the rate it was in 1980. From that election to the most recent one, youth turnout has largely not been extremely high or varied. Even in the election where youth turnout was the highest (in the chart), it was still, again, almost 16 points lower than the next oldest voting block and each age range saw at least some increase in turnout rate that election.
Young people largely simply do not go out to vote. I don’t know if it’s because they are uninspired (you’d think Bernie’s “revolution” would be fairly inspiring to this Marxist generation) or because they are too lazy or do not know when there is an election or at what time polls close, but they simply don’t show up to vote. This has historically been the case since at least 1980 but more than likely going back further (Joseph Curl of the Daily Wire notes how young people protested against Nixon and the Vietnam War but he still won re-election in a massive landslide in 1972, so that goes to show that this has been the case since even before 1980).
Whatever the reason may be, I can’t say I am dissatisfied. I don’t want Marxists in the White House or in Congress, so if Millennials largely aren’t going out to vote for such people, fine by me.
“How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
After the big Super Tuesday results surprisingly showing Joe Biden with a delegate lead over Bernie Sanders, two of the, at the time, remaining five candidates dropped out: Michael Bloomberg, who dropped out soon after winning American Samoa (and spending the equivalent of 76% of the territory’s GDP in ads) and more recently, Elizabeth Warren, who dropped out the day the previous article came out.
Unsurprisingly, a CNN panel pondered if the reason Warren performed so poorly (as well as the other women who were in the race) is because of blatant sexism, very conveniently leaving out the part that this is entirely a Democrat process and the vast majority of people voting in the Democrat primaries are Democrats.
Don Lemon, the dumbest and most racist man on television, began by saying: “I want to bring it now to the women who are here to talk about that. You have these women, these very strong, very powerful, very smart women in this race. You had Hillary Clinton, who is defeated despite winning the popular vote. You have Elizabeth Warren who didn’t do well, Amy Klobuchar who has dropped out of this race. You had this very diverse Democratic Party and then you have the women, you have all the white guys who have the delegates. What’s going on here?”
The Daily Beast’s Jackie Kucinich said that Klobuchar lost because she was lacking in funds, but then said this for Warren: “If just the fact that this ground game did not turn out votes for her, did not get people to the polls for Elizabeth Warren is really – there’s really a lot of digging as to why that didn’t happen, whether it’s sexism, whether it’s the fact someone did just change their mind. I heard women when I was in Iowa tell me ‘we’re Warren fans,’ we’re worried that people – they liked Warren, they heard her speak. They went to the polls and then they were worried that a woman couldn’t beat Donald Trump.”
If they really were worried that a woman couldn’t beat Trump, doesn’t that speak more about DEMOCRATS’ sexism than anything else? This isn’t about the entire country. In 2016, Hillary lost because she was unlikeable, was a terrible candidate and ultimately lost the electoral vote, with the vast majority of the country voting in favor of Trump over her. Elizabeth Warren was Hillary if she sounded like the most annoying librarian in the world. Elizabeth Warren lied through her teeth and stabbed “her friend” Bernie Sanders in the back with a tomahawk by saying he said things that she had no proof he said. Elizabeth Warren practically stole every policy idea from Bernie, from the GND to Medicare-for-All, with just a few details changed.
But by all means, claim that it was sexism that destroyed Warren, because it falls entirely on the Democrat Party and its socialist base.
Karen Finney, who was also on the panel and was a spokesperson for the Hillary campaign in 2016, said: “When it comes to executive office, our country is still very uncomfortable with women in power, and that’s part of why women have to over credential again and again. So in ‘16, we said, she would be – Hillary Clinton would have been the most qualified, right? You’ve heard – and you also have heard both Klobuchar and Warren and certainly Kamala when she was still talking about their electability and remember that for women what goes into electability is ‘do I think she – I like her?’ We don’t care if we like male candidates or not. Men come into a race with the expectation that they’re qualified. Women have to prove themselves…”
What a load of crap. First, as I have said time and again here, this is not a matter of the entire country, but of the DEMOCRATS being sexist, if that’s the angle you’re going for. It’s not that Americans aren’t comfortable with a female president, because that’s not the case whatsoever. I’d be more than happy to vote for a female conservative Republican to be President of the United States. But funny enough, a female conservative Republican is not someone Leftists would ever want to vote for because she’d be a “traitor” to her gender, as though women belong to the Democrat Party (much like black people and Latinos are supposed to belong to the Democrat Party, a belief very much in line with the Party’s pro-slavery history).
Second, let’s look at all the people that have, at one point or another, been a Democrat candidate this primary cycle. We have Joe Biden, who is still in and in the lead, Bernie Sanders, who is also still in, and Tulsi Gabbard, who is also still in but the Democrats think she’s too “right-wing” despite how utterly laughable that is (and let’s not forget she’s also a woman, and a woman of color, at that, and yet, the sexist and racist Democrats don’t want her).
The people who withdrew after the Iowa caucuses include: Elizabeth Warren, the aforementioned woman who apparently can’t get a fair shake; Michael Bloomberg, the guy practically no one liked; Amy Klobuchar, Mayor Pete, Tom Steyer, Deval Patrick, Michael Bennet and Andrew Yang. Among these people, one of them is black, another one is Asian, and another one is gay. Surely, with the line of thinking the CNN panel is using, Democrat voters are also racist and homophobic, as well as sexist for Warren and Klobuchar dropping out!
The people who withdrew before Iowa include: John Delaney, Cory Booker, Marianne Williamson, Julian Castro, Steve Bullock and Joe Sestak. We find two men of color, two women and one of those women is a woman of color.
Finally, the people who withdrew before appearing on any primary ballots include: Wayne Messam, Beto O’Rourke, Tim Ryan, Bill de Blasio, Kirsten Gillibrand, Seth Moulton, Jay Inslee, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Mike Gravel, Eric Swalwell and Richard Ojeda. Out of all these people, only two are people of color and two are women. The rest are all white men (with one pretending he is Latino with his name).
The reason for me bringing this up is that there are PLENTY of men who voters did not want or support and did not think would be a good candidate to run against Trump. Elizabeth Warren made it to the final four and there is still a woman in this race but these people don’t want to cover her whatsoever. The idea that women have to over-credential themselves and sell themselves more than men do is idiotic. And, even if that really were to be the case here, and women do really have to over-credential themselves, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRATS! So if there is unfairness and sexism and bigotry here, it’s THE DEMOCRATS that are showing it, not the country as a whole.
For all of the minority candidates who dropped out, we had story after story asking if people were racist because those candidates failed in their effort to be the Party’s nominee. But each and every time, the question was poised as though it was THE ENTIRE COUNTRY’S FAULT THAT SUCH PEOPLE FAILED IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PRIMARIES!
Now, I’m not going to defend the Democrat base whatsoever because they are a bunch of communist loons. However, if the media is going to try and excuse these candidates’ pathetic efforts at being the party’s nominee by saying that it was racism and sexism’s fault, I am not going to let them get away with pinning the blame on the entirety of the country.
Like I pointed out, Tulsi is still in and she checks the “person of color” and “woman” boxes, and yet, they refuse to talk about her and cover her. Now, it’s down to two old white men, the demographic Democrats are supposed to hate, because of no one’s racism and sexism but the Democrats’, if that’s what you want to blame this on.
In any case, Finney then also went on to say that the electorate didn’t like that Warren was too harsh on Bloomberg, and Patty Solis Doyle, chief of staff for Joe Biden when he was Obama’s running mate, said: “I have to say this whole dynamic really upsets me. The fact that we’re even still talking about, ‘well, she can’t go too far, she can’t hit too hard.’ You know, in 2018, more women than ever before in our history ran for public office. More women than ever won public office. Women are going to be pivotal in this election. We started this presidential election with six women running, more than ever before in an election cycle. We’re down to two, and it really upsets me that someone like Elizabeth Warren, who was stellar on the debate stage, had a great organization, smart, tough, had resources, somehow just seemed to – has been like shoved aside and we don’t know why.”
I find that argument rather interesting, as women make up a decent portion of the Democrat Party and are the majority in this country at roughly 51% of the population. If Warren performed so poorly (even in her own state) then that means women were not particularly supportive of her. Maybe a good amount of them were, but considering how many women there are in general, if Bernie and Joe did better than her, wouldn’t one find more fault in the women who didn’t vote for Warren?
Doyle was acting as though Warren was THE candidate for women, and she may have tried to promote herself as that, but that clearly didn’t work and plenty of women didn’t go for her. Does that make those women sexist?
But to reiterate my overall point, I find it hilarious that these fake news people would try and pin this on “systemic sexism and racism” in the country when it is THE DEMOCRATS’ primaries that displayed people not voting for minorities or women. If these people really want to talk about voters being racist or sexist or whatever, they have to talk about the fact that these are DEMOCRAT voters, not all Americans.
Obviously, they aren’t going to do that. They never believe Democrats can be racist or sexist, even though that’s where we tend to find such bigotry. But even when they try and pin this on voters in general, avoiding talking about Democrats, they can’t help but invite people like me to call out their b.s. If “systemic racism and sexism” are what brought down the minority and female candidates, it’s all to be found exclusively on the Democrat side of things.
“Do you suppose, O man – you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself – that you will escape the judgment of God?”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
A series of events have occurred during and immediately following the results of this week’s Super Tuesday primary delegate race. For one, Mini Mike dropped out of the race after spending roughly $12 million per delegate (he got 53) and decided to join Amy Klobuchar, Mayor Pete and Beto O’Rourke in endorsing Joe Biden, the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the Democrats, as he is their only hope of beating Darth Bern.
With that, one of the biggest stories coming out of Super Tuesday is that Joe Biden is seemingly back in the race, even when he can’t figure out where he is half the time, can’t remember who our Creator is, and pulls the male version of Ilhan Omar, confusing his wife for his sister and vice versa. Despite the multiple months, caucuses and debates where it seemed Joe was completely dead in the water, he has regained his standing as the frontrunner, currently holding a lead over Bernie in delegate count.
While that is a worthwhile story for “The Comeback Grandpa”, there is another story that few are covering: President Trump’s impressive turnout despite his status as an incumbent president.
President Trump has primary challengers, though none of them are really worth discussing, but the incumbent usually is expected to outright win the primaries for their party. No incumbent has ever lost their party’s nomination (though there were some fairly close calls like Taft vs. Roosevelt and H.W. Bush vs. Buchanan) so it was fully expected for President Trump to win the primaries for the GOP. However, as an incumbent president, the turnout is particularly impressive, as incumbents usually don’t have as many people turning out to vote in the primaries.
GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted the following, as the Super Tuesday results came in for the GOP: “We are seeing proof of the huge enthusiasm for Donald Trump in several states: In NC, POTUS has already blown past the # of votes he got in 2016. In OK, POTUS is on pace to receive 4 TIMES the # of votes of the last two incumbent presidents.”
“In AR, POTUS is on pace to receive DOUBLE the # of votes of the last two incumbent presidents. In MN, with just two-thirds of the vote in, POTUS has already received nearly 4 TIMES the # of votes as he did in the 2016 caucus. #WINNING.”
“MORE: Essex County, VT went for Obama in ’08 and ’12, but swung for Donald Trump in ’16 (aka “a Pivot County”). POTUS just received more votes there than all the Democrat primary candidates got in 2008. Update on NC: POTUS has received 150% MORE votes than he did in ’16!”
Chief of Staff for the GOP Richard Walters tweeted: “With 100% reporting in OK, Donald Trump has received over 270,000 votes. The President has not only surpassed his own vote total of 130,267 votes in 2016, he has over quadrupled the vote totals received by President Obama in 2012 (59,577) and President Bush in 2004 (64,389).”
What’s more, in North Carolina, with 95% reporting in, President Trump won the state with 93.5% of the vote, which far blows out of the water previous presidents. In 2012, Obama received 79% of the vote in that state. In 1996, Clinton received 81%. In 1988, Bush received just 45% and in 1980, Reagan received 68%.
Comparing Trump to Obama in 2012, we find the following figures:
Let’s begin with New Hampshire, since Iowa’s Democrat vote count is very weird, as they do not show the actual number of votes for each candidate but the number of “State Delegate Equivalent” votes, which shows up as a very small number. For example, Mayor Pete won the primary with 563 votes, with Bernie garnering 562 votes, but the GOP’s primary didn’t have this confusing vote count and shows Trump got over 30,000 votes, so I won’t compare the two parties’ vote count for Iowa. In NH, Bernie won the state with 76,324 votes, Mayor Pete received 72,457, Amy Klobuchar got 58,796, and Elizabeth Warren got 27,387.
President Trump got 129,696, as previously stated. That is far more than what Obama got in 2012 (like I said earlier) and by far defeats Bernie Sanders and the rest of the Democrats. Even if you put the top two winners together, they get less than 20,000 more votes than Donald Trump.
Let’s now look at California. The communist-run state was won by Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday, with him garnering 992,304 votes. Joe Biden came in second with 733,086. Bloomberg got 424,670 votes and Fauxcahontas got 357,306.
Pretty good, right? Well, President Trump got 1,441,031. Obviously, he got far less votes than all the Democrats put together, but there is a good reason I’m talking about this. Far-Left socialists are currently ticked off at Elizabeth Warren for staying in this race, taking votes away from Bernie, and allowing the “moderate” Democrat Establishment to rally around Joe. However, even if Warren wasn’t in this race, and assuming 100% of the votes that went to her would go to Bernie instead, that’s still not enough to defeat Donald Trump.
Putting the “two” socialists in this race together in California (Bernie and Warren), they amassed 1,349,610 votes. That’s still almost 100,000 votes shy of Donald Trump. Now, I’m not saying that California is all that likely to go to President Trump in 2020, but it is fairly interesting that the “two” socialists here still got less votes together than Trump in total.
What’s more, Matt Vespa from TownHall.com asks the fairly rhetorical question: “Did Democrats Just Create a Path for Trump to Take California?” That is the title of his article and the reason he speculates this is because of a bill that recently went into effect that will likely kill millions of jobs in the state, as it disallows businesses contracting people without counting them as full-on employees (something that would absolutely kill ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, which rely on contracting drivers as opposed to hiring them to a position). Vespa also quotes a writer at Red State who said the following:
“I’m about to make a purely anecdotal statement, so take it for what it’s worth but… I’ve never seen so many Californians willing and eager to cross the aisle to vote Republican as I have in the last two months… Do they want to vote for the California GOP? No. Do they want to vote for Trump? No. That being said, more than anything they want to be heard and since the California Democrats are willfully ignoring their voices, many feel a GOP vote will be the only way to make an impact. They’ll go back to voting for the party they love and are loyal to, but they’re for sure not going back to it if they don’t have jobs or are forced to move out of state because of AB5 (the aforementioned job-killing bill).”
“The stakes are real and critical and I’ve never seen so many people throwing aside political divisions for a unified cause. We vote with our wallets and Newsom and Gonzalez (the author of AB5) have taken the last dollars out of our wallets and then thumbed their noses at us for complaining about it.”
The Red State writer, Kira Davis, also says that Trump can benefit a lot by simply pointing out the atrocious bill and the impact it’s having on Californians and the state’s economy.
The fact that Trump got more votes than the “two” socialist candidates still in the race (by Super Tuesday, that is) is also significant. Again, I don’t think California will go to Trump and it’s largely a pipe dream that it will, but it’s worth pointing this out: even in California, plenty of people like Trump.
In any case, let’s now look at Alabama, where Trump won BIG. On the Democrat side, Biden won 286,630 votes, Sanders got 75,326, Bloomberg got 52,844 and Warren got 26,125. As previously stated, President Trump won 708,883 votes, far exceeding the vote count of all other Democrats (though it’s Alabama, so that’s to be expected).
In Arkansas, Biden got 92,584 votes, Sanders got 51,117, Bloomberg got 38,212 and Warren got 22,860. President Trump got 237,826 by comparison.
In Texas, Biden got 661,231 votes, Bernie got 591,952, Bloomberg got 289,340 and Warren got 227,422. President Trump got 1,883,799. As with Alabama, it’s rather expected for Trump to win big in Texas, but again, this is a massive number, particularly when comparing it to Obama.
What we find in all but two states (Massachusetts and Vermont) is that Trump, despite him being an incumbent and running basically unopposed (as the other GOP primary opponents are basically nobodies), is drawing in massive turnout for himself in what are essentially guaranteed races. There is just about zero chance for any GOP primary challenger to defeat Trump in any of these states, and yet, the President receives far bigger turnouts in many of these places than the current Democrat candidates and his predecessors.
This is the big story coming out of Super Tuesday that practically no one will cover: Trump’s base keeps growing and growing. His re-election, while not an absolute guarantee, is looking more and more likely as time goes on and as people keep dropping out.
The only people left in the Democrat race are two white men who are, at minimum, 77 years of age, with one of them believing the Soviet Union was good and that breadlines were a good thing for people, and the other believing his wife is his sister and that Super Tuesday was Super Thursday (among a slew of other gaffes that are equal parts funny and sad). Elizabeth Warren is basically a non-factor (UPDATE: She's out) and Bloomberg has already dropped out after wasting half a billion dollars annoying us in ads and winning less than 60 total delegates.
The fact that Biden might be the nominee will also annoy the heck out of Bernie supporters who might actually burn Milwaukee to the ground and essentially gift Trump with his second term come November, be it by directly voting for him (or simply against the Democrat establishment) or just not voting at all, leaving Joe with less voters.
The Democrats don’t stand a chance in 2020, do they? (Note that this is not an invitation to not go out to vote on November 3rd, 2020. Complacency on the part of an overly cocky Trump base would sink him, so make sure to go out to vote so that the Left truly doesn’t have any chance to win at all).
“Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Before getting to the major points of this article, I would like to say that the title, I would hope, comes across as sarcastic, because some people may not quite get it in this day and age. I am not even a little bit surprised that The Boston Globe, long the biggest pushers for the hoax that Elizabeth Warren was Native American, ended up endorsing Elizabeth Warren. No one, I believe, should be surprised by this. But there is reason for me to talk about this, despite how obvious a result this was.
It’s not simply the actual endorsement that I want to cover, but the reasons The Boston Globe gives for endorsing her.
The Boston Globe begins by saying that they believe any of the Democrat candidates would be a better alternative to Donald Trump (yes, they even include Bloomberg, the closet communist, and Bernie Sanders, the out-of-the-closet communist), and gives brief “reasons” as to why. With Mayor Pete, they say he is “whip-smart and brings a war-zone veteran’s credibility to military matters.” Mayor Pete was an intel analyst targeting al-Qaeda’s finances. Granted, he was in some of the more dangerous areas to look for this intel, according to military documents acquired by The Hill (that are heavily redacted), but he was not engaged in combat while in the military (this isn’t meant to diminish the work that he did in serving this country, but it is meant to point out that he does not have “war-zone veteran” credibility).
They also say of Mayor Pete “his calmness under pressure creates a welcome contrast to a president who tweets insults at world leaders.” The world leaders we are talking about here are Kim Jong-un and the Ayatollah Khamenei, for the most part, who are both great enemies of the U.S., with Little Kim having essentially been tamed after finding out Trump is not the softy that Obama was and with the Ayatollah Khamenei finding out the same after his second-in-command was blown into pieces. He criticizes leaders from “allied” countries when they act against the interests of the United States because he wishes to advance the U.S., not help political enemies.
Of Joe Biden, they comment on his legislative “achievements”, such as the “Violence Against Women Act”, which criminalized violence against women. Wait, you’re telling me it was already illegal to be violent towards women and the bill practically achieved nothing? Huh. Of Bloomberg, they comment on his drive to enact gun control policies and “combat” climate change. Of Klobuchar, they praise her ability to “broker bipartisan deals” in a polarized Congress. And Bernie, they just like the fact that he “fights” inequality. Never mind the fact that he and I have an inequality in the number of houses we each own. Never mind that he has millions of dollars while I have substantially less.
But regardless of their praise of the other candidates (which really just shows they’re willing to sidle up to whomever wins the nomination), they, of course, say they believe Warren is best suited to take on and beat Trump, which is utterly laughable.
They say she wants to “defend the principles of democracy” despite the fact we are a Republic and, as such, we are not ruled by a mob that wishes to decide what happens in other states without the consent of people living in those states. She will “bring fairness to an economy that is excluding too many Americans”, despite the fact that we are experiencing record-low unemployment rates across the board and wages are going up, particularly for low-wage Americans, who are seeing wage growth at far higher rates than middle- and high-wage Americans. She would “fight the corruption and corporate influence that distort our politics”, despite the fact that she takes money from Planned Parenthood and other Leftist lobby groups.
Later on, The Boston Globe writes: “Fearless and brilliant on her feet, Warren has the greatest potential among the candidates to lay bare Trump’s weaknesses on a debate stage. The Senator gets the most mileage when she brings her fight not to caricatures of billionaires in wine caves but to the real people in the room with her – whether businessmen or bureaucrats – who have failed to fulfill the responsibilities of public service or whose plans for the country are half-baked or ill-conceived.” She literally stole her Medicare-for-All plan from Bernie and virtually everything else from him as well. If his plans are half-baked or ill-conceived, so are hers.
Warren also makes a priority to go after predatory lenders, despite the fact that government intrusion into the college system have created such predatory lenders in the first place. With college getting more and more expensive, high school graduates’ only options are to either go into massive amounts of debt or not go to college at all, if they cannot receive a scholarship (and scholarships only go so far). Warren would just put more government into a system that has far too much in it already, thus making things even worse.
The funny thing is that, at one point, the Boston Globe criticizes Sanders for adhering to his ideology and agenda despite facts and often evades precise figures. WARREN DOES THE EXACT SAME THING BECAUSE SHE OFTEN COPIES SANDERS! Despite how utterly ineffective, disastrous and not to mention unaffordable Medicare-for-All is, she still wishes to pursue it. She still wants a Green New Deal. It doesn’t matter if she wants to “tweak” them a little to make them a bit more “affordable”, because there is no making it affordable! We can hardly afford the government garbage we have today, given our ever-rising national debt.
And she wants to increase that debt exponentially?! Not to mention this is not exclusive to Warren either.
They say that she would tackle the NRA and fossil fuel industries for “thwarting legislative efforts” regarding gun control and climate change, the latter of which they falsely claim is a major priority for Americans. I’ve recently written an article talking about precisely this; about how a poll from Pew Research Center (so not exactly a right-wing surveyor) found “dealing with climate change” to be near the bottom in a list of priorities for Americans.
Elizabeth Warren would be no better a president than Sanders or any other Democrat, because she would be just as disastrous for this country as the rest of them. But as I stated previously, I’m not surprised that The Boston Globe would endorse her. For years, they had been pushing the hoax that Warren was Native American, even publishing her DNA results and claiming that she was Native American when the results showed she was less Native American than your average white person AT BEST, being 1/32nd Native American, and being FAR less Native than your average white person at 1/1024th Native American.
And let’s not forget that the DNA analysis was awfully flawed, extrapolating Native American DNA from LATIN AMERICANS as opposed to actual Native Americans, so the results could be even worse.
Not surprising in the least that a fake news publication would endorse their favorite fake Indian. And the reasons as to why are laughable at best.
“If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As a Christian, I want to always share the good news - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - so I try to speak about the goodness of God every time I get a chance. Because no matter what mistakes we made in our lives, we know that Christ paid for the sins of those who trust Him. So I tend to try to share the good news with anyone – any sinner – who’s willing to listen.
But also as a Christian I have high expectations of those who speak from a pulpit – you don’t have to be perfect, but you need to understand Scripture. And you need to be passionate about Jesus and about people – showing the same love and compassion towards sinners that Jesus showed. So what I definitely don’t want to see is a “Church” in which they allow in their pulpit anyone who clearly has no understanding of the Word of God – someone like Mayor Pete who hates babies and is in favor of killing them if their moms don’t want them.
This past Sunday, Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg spoke at the First Baptist Church in James Island, South Carolina, and decided to quote the Bible to get his political message across. The problem is, while using the Bible, he clearly misunderstood the very verse he used. I’ll explain that in just a moment, but let me share with you what he actually said:
“My point in standing before you is not to claim that I understand more than I do, but rather to promise – as the Scripture says – not to lean on my own understanding too much, but to do a lot of listening along the way”. And he added “Not to say that I get it, but to promise to always surround myself with people who will let me know when I don't.”
Now, all of this sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Mayor Pete has this ability to sound so reasonable all the time. After all, there’s nothing wrong with surrounding yourself with people who will let you know what you don’t know. That makes perfect sense. Except he’s citing a Bible verse to appeal to Christians as if the Bible was the one directing Buttigieg to listen to other people when he doesn’t know - and this is where he's wrong. The problem is that that’s not what the Bible says. The Bible actually warns us about false prophets, for example, and to be careful about who we surround ourselves with. We obviously don’t want to listen to murderers, do we? Or sexual predators. What good thing could we possibly learn from them?
What Mayor Pete said comes from Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding”.
If Buttigieg knew anything about the Bible he’d know that a) it’s the inerrant Word of God and b) it must be interpreted by the Bible itself. As many Theologians would point out, “you have to interpret the Bible by the Bible”. This means you don’t just read one verse and interpret it any way you want, which is what Buttigieg mostly does, but rather you need to continue the reading of Scriptures and understand that particular verse by other verses in the Bible such that you will be consistent and correct in your interpretation.
But in this particular case, the verse is so clear that it doesn’t require reading any additional Bible verse to understand its meaning.
You see, what God asks from us in that verse is that a) we trust Him and b) we do not lean on our own understanding. That even when we see bad things happening, we need to trust God's plan.
As you can see, God is not telling us to go listen to other people to understand better, but rather to trust Him. That's the mandate. How do you trust Him? By listening to Him. And we listen to Him by reading all of the Bible and trust what He says – when you get to know God you know He’s the only one you can truly trust. He told Abraham that he would have a son and He would give his offspring a land “flowing with milk and honey”. And He did. I wonder if Mayor Pete knows that. God said that if we walk in all His statutes, He would cause everything we touch to prosper. I wonder if Mayor Pete knows that. God also said that He would never leave us nor forsake us. I wonder if Mayor Pete knows that. Jesus healed everybody who asked Him to heal them – He never denied healing to anyone who came to Him. I wonder if Mayor Pete knows that.
Mayor Pete is not supposed to go listen to other people, though that’s not a bad thing to do, but rather listen to GOD. Listening to God by the reading of Scriptures is the BEST way to lead your life. If Buttigieg did read the Bible regularly, he’d be a much better politician (and definitely would not be a Democrat). He would also do his best to stop sinning, knowing he isn't perfect and he will sin by his very nature, but will try to mitigate that sin. But because we know he’s leading a life that God calls “an abomination” (Bible verses against homosexuality include Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and many more), we can tell he doesn’t understand God at all. And how could he, when it's clear he doesn't understand this simple Bible verse?
For this reason, Mayor Pete should never be allowed to speak from a pulpit. No matter what the message is. He should attend service and try to understand who God is and who he is, as a sinner. And furthermore, he would know that there’s a way to Heaven that is inclusive but also unique and does not involve doing good deeds to try to convince God on judgement day that you weren’t all that bad while here on Earth. The Bible is clear, in Galatians 3:11 "the righteous shall live by Faith". We're saved by faith and by faith alone.
The sad part is that Mayor Pete and, likely, the leaders of the church where he “preached” do not understand the good news. You see, if it wasn’t for the bad news there wouldn’t be any good news. The bad news is that we’re all sinners. The good news is that God provided a way for us sinners to ensure eternal life. And that way is Jesus Christ exclusively. There is no other way. And when you understand the work of redemption that Jesus did 2,000 years ago – the fact that He was sinless, the fact that He was tortured by the Romans and crucified FOR OUR SINS, descended into Hell and was raised from the dead, then understanding what He did for you causes you to want to know everything about Jesus. Like when you follow an athlete or a singer, you want to know everything about them, right? Followers of Christ want to know everything about Him. And out of gratitude for what He did for us, we want to obey Him in all His commandments. But it all starts with understanding God.
Did Jesus die for everybody? No. He died only for those who trust Him, like John 3:16 says: “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life”. "Whoever believes in Him" excludes those who don't. God tells us that Jesus died for the sins of those who trust Him. Those who don’t trust Him are going to end up in Hell. There is one condition for salvation and that’s that you trust Jesus. When you do, you get ALL the blessings God promises. ALL of them.
I pray that Mayor Pete one day sees the light and truly gives his life to Jesus.
1 Kings 2:3
“keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn .“
Author: Danielle Cross
We are still a decent ways away from the Democrat convention, but I believe I should make my thoughts about one of the so-called “frontrunners” known. Of course, I’ve spoken plenty about Bernie Sanders and the Democrats in general, but I do not think I have specifically talked about the reason why I believe that, even if Bernie wins the nomination, he won’t beat Donald Trump.
Now, before I get into that, I wish to point out that I do not think a single one of the Democrats currently running for president has any real chance to beat Trump, including Bernie. However, there are a number of different reasons as to why for each of them.
Amy Klobuchar is straight up unlikeable, much like Hillary Clinton was. Joe Biden has demonstrated an intellectual incapability of being POTUS. Mayor Pete is also fairly unlikeable, but the fact that he is gay might hold him back, even among Democrats (I say this taking into consideration one particular Democrat voter who voted for him in Iowa, found out he was gay, and wanted to rescind her vote for him, so homophobia in the Democrat party might play a part, funny enough) and believes shoving the fact that he is gay in Trump’s face will somehow be effective. Tulsi Gabbard is practically out of the race. Andrew Yang is out of the race. And Michael Bloomberg is practically everything the Left accused Trump of being, and yet they seemingly prefer him over Bernie, despite them not being ideologically different from Bernie at all.
Which brings me to the reason(s) I do not believe Bernie will win the presidency:
First, it’s entirely possible, even likely, that the Democrats will screw Bernie once again and keep him from being their nominee. If you aren’t the nominee of one of the two major political parties, there is virtually zero chance of becoming president, even if running third-party. The closest anyone has come to winning as a third-party candidate is Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, when he ran third-party against Woodrow Wilson and President Taft, and actually garnering more popular and electoral votes than Taft, but the election still went to Wilson. So if Bernie isn’t the nominee this election cycle, I highly doubt he will ever be the nominee in the future, simply due to his age. Bernie is 78. Reagan was 77 WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE.
Second, even if Bernie does win the nomination, there are plenty of variables that one should consider. For one, the Democrat Party may not be willing to support him. This one seems the least likely to me, but I think they really fear he will lose in a landslide due to him being openly socialist and that the country does not want to elect a socialist (which is backed up by numerous polls). That fear may hold them back a bit in their open support, but again, I do think they would, at least outwardly, voice support for Bernie.
Another variable is what Bloomberg might choose to do. He is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign ads, in buying various Democrats’ support (including Stacey Abrams, AOC, etc.) and he has just participated in his FIRST debate in the primaries, having fairly recently entered the race. He certainly has the money to run third-party if he so chooses (though not certain about the likelihood of that, if I’m honest). My point is that Bloomberg might try and screw Bernie no matter what and that is likely the reason he got into the race in the first place.
But above all else, the final and biggest reason I do not believe Bernie will win the presidency is simply because he is weak. And I do not strictly mean physically weak (being 78 and coming off a heart attack doesn’t help him any) but he is an all-around weak man.
Back in 2015, a Bernie Sanders campaign event was interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters who took Bernie’s microphone. He hardly tried to fight back against such a rude interruption for his OWN campaign event, walked away entirely and didn’t even give the speech he had been planning on giving.
And recently, a Bernie Sanders rally was interrupted by some “animal rights” lunatics who also wrestled away the microphone from Bernie and he just let it happen. Security also took their sweet time resolving the situation, robbing Bernie of precious speaking time in the process as well, as though this is nothing new to them and it’s rather routine for this to happen.
It’s pathetic and speaks to Bernie’s weakness as a person, let alone a leader. Do you think, even for a moment, that Donald Trump would allow that to happen at one of his rallies once, let alone twice? Even Democrats would agree that he would likely kick a protester’s behind if they tried to do that.
Another example of Bernie’s weakness came from January’s debate, where he was maligned as having said something that he claims he did not say to Elizabeth Warren about a woman “not being able” to become president. I’ve already written an article on that subject, but one thing I failed to mention there is just how weak it made him look. Not the part about being lied about, but the part about how he responded to it. He was rather passive. He defended himself, but he stated he didn’t “want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want.” Really? You’re being maligned as a sexist by the mainstream media and by one of the candidates on that debate and your first intuition is to try and fight Trump in some way?
He didn’t even attempt to fight back against Warren’s lack of credibility, which would’ve been like taking candy from a baby. All he had to do was point out how Warren is a proven LIAR and has been a liar practically her entire life as a result of claiming to be Native American and heavily profiting from that lie.
There are other lies as well, such as the lie that she was “fired” from her teaching job because she was “visibly pregnant” when she had previously said in a prior interview that she left of her own merit, saying: “I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college after I’d married. My first year post-graduation, I worked – it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an ‘emergency certificate,’ it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me.’ I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?’”
She didn’t leave that education job because she was “fired” for being “visibly pregnant”. She left that job because she didn’t have the certification to continue in that job, had to go to graduate school to get that certification if she wanted to return and then came to the conclusion that she didn’t think it would work out for her.
She’s a serial liar, a deceiver and a daughter of Satan (not that Bernie is much different) and yet, he chose not to fight her on those grounds. And it’s not like Warren ever had much of a chance of winning anyway. He wouldn’t have hurt her in the general because she was never going to be the nominee, but he has/had the chance to become the nominee. He stood to lose the most by having that lie be propagated. He defended himself fairly well, but he chose not to take prime opportunity to destroy someone who was maligning him, with help from the media, and gave a weak reason for his fairly weak response.
But even despite all of this – despite the, at this point, plurality in interruptions of his own campaign events and rallies by people who would never get the chance to speak anywhere else; despite the weakness in deciding not to flat-out end an opposing candidate’s campaign while being maligned – despite all of this, there are two major instances that I can think of that make him look especially weak.
One, he chose to endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016. Despite the fact that it was blatantly obvious that the Democrat Party screwed him over in the primaries and practically crowned Hillary their nominee, he chose to ENDORSE the woman who had been in cahoots with the DNC and cheated him out of the nomination. Now, as I’ve said in the past, I think Hillary would still have won the nomination even without the cheating (at least in terms of delegates because she still had more normal delegates than Bernie, though it would’ve been a far closer contest without superdelegates). However, they still did cheat Bernie and keep him from having any chance at all at being the nominee. Without the cheating, he still would’ve likely lost the nomination, but he at least would’ve had a chance. The fix was in from the beginning and he stood no chance whatsoever as a result of the cheating.
Despite how poorly he had been treated by the Democrat Party, he still chose to endorse Hillary. Now, I do not blame him TOO much here. It was still awfully weak, but I suppose I can understand some of the reasoning. It was Hillary’s “turn” to be the nominee after Obama destroyed her chances in 2008, despite how utterly bogus that is and how utterly corrupt it makes the DNC look (not that that’s any surprise to anyone). If he had tried to run third-party against Hillary, allowing Trump to win by a far bigger margin, he probably would’ve been given the Clinton Special. He might’ve been Epstein’d before Epstein. Plenty of people also expected her to win against Trump, so there wouldn’t have been much point in trying to fight her, especially if people believe she would’ve been the next POTUS.
So I can sort of understand why he would choose to endorse Hillary. Still made him look pretty weak (just not endorsing her would’ve been better), but I get it.
However, I cannot possibly understand what he recently said about the Democrat nominee for this election cycle.
During a town hall on CNN earlier this week, Bernie said of Bloomberg: “I do think it’s a bit obscene that we have somebody who, by the way, chose not to contest in Iowa, in Nevada, in South Carolina, in New Hampshire, where all of the candidates, we did town meetings. We’re talking to thousands and thousands of people, working hard. He said, I don’t have to do that. I’m worth $60 billion. I have more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans. I’ll buy the presidency. That offends me very much.”
He added: “I think we’re going to take a look at his record. And there are a number of things about his record that I think the American people may not know. As the mayor of New York City, he was very aggressive in pushing so-called stop and frisk… So, his policies humiliated and offended hundreds of thousands of people, and I think that is something that is worthy of discussion.”
So far, so good, right? It sounds like he is making his thoughts known about Bloomberg and that he doesn’t like the guy, right? He sounds like he is willing to put up a fight against him, right? Well, he later said: “[If] Mr. Bloomberg wins, and I certainly hope he does not, I will support the Democratic nominee.”
… Really? After all that’s been happening. After the numerous times you’ve gotten screwed by the Democrat Party. After voicing all your concerns about Bloomberg and how he is quite literally the very crony capitalist you claim to loathe and actually believe should not have the possibility of existing… you are going to support him if he wins the nomination? Are you freaking kidding me?
Of course, I believe the reason for this is he is trying to negotiate with Bloomberg, essentially saying: “I’m willing to be bought out of the race, but the price has to be fairly high.” There is no reason, before the convention happens and all the votes are counted, to say “I will support the nominee.” That’s a decision one can come to afterwards, but saying this now shows that he is both weak and willing to be bought.
But do you see why I say he is weak? Bloomberg hasn’t even outright won against him yet and Bernie is willing to say he will support a guy he clearly thinks is racist and should not even have anywhere near as much money as he has.
Again, I can understand not trying to get in Hillary’s bad sides, and even somewhat could understand endorsing her, even after the poor treatment he received from the DNC. But now, there is no candidate who has their “turn” to be the nominee. Bernie isn’t being screwed because it’s someone else’s turn. He’s being screwed because the Democrat Party doesn’t want him within 10 feet of their nomination. And yet, despite that b.s., he is willing to support the Democrat nominee, even if it’s Bloomberg, clearly not because he likes the guy, but because he is both weak and can be bought for the right price.
This is why Bernie will never be president. The only advantage he has is his grassroots base, which isn’t even anywhere near as big as Trump’s grassroots base. He is the only candidate I’ve seen be able to draw in big crowds on the Democrat side, but that’s only been a fairly recent development and the crowds pale in comparison to Trump’s.
Bernie Sanders will never be president because he simply doesn’t have the guts to do it. He is a very weak man who would be destroyed by Trump in the debates to the point the Democrats will try and impeach him for the murder of Bernie’s campaign.
Bernie is too weak of a man to be able to become president. He just doesn’t have it. Not that it bothers me in any way. The guy is a communist and if he never wins the presidency, that’s only good news.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
As I have said multiple times in the past, I believe President Donald Trump will be re-elected this November for a variety of reasons (though with the warning that people should not be complacent here and go out to vote, while also reminding people that a lot can happen between now and the 2020 election). From the booming economy to the weak Democrat field, there is good reason to believe Trump will be re-elected. And according to a Gallup poll, Democrats will have to combat people being generally happier with the state of this country today than by the time Barack Obama left office.
Gallup recently released a survey in which they asked people a number of questions relating to their level of satisfaction regarding any particular subject, such as the overall quality of life in America or the position of women in the nation or the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the nation.
And the numbers tell a great story for Trump and a frightening one for Democrats.
According to Gallup, the following are the issues with which Americans are broadly satisfied at the start of this new year:
ALL of these numbers, to one extent or another, should worry Democrats trying to get elected because they completely destroy any sort of argument that they can try to make.
Democrats said that Trump would make living life Hell for Americans; Americans are vastly satisfied with their overall quality of life and the ability to attain upward economic mobility through hard work. Democrats said that Trump was “weak” because he wasn’t starting any new wars against our foreign enemies (which they switched to “Trump is a warmonger” because he killed Soleimani, fully expeced that to spark WWIII, when nothing of the sort has occurred); Americans are very satisfied with the strength and preparedness of our country to protect us from foreign enemies and terrorism. Democrats said that Trump’s very election would cause the stock markets to crash and that his policies would lead to economic stagnation, if not a total collapse and recession; Americans are very satisfied with the state of the economy and “fears of recession” were only coming from partisan propaganda outlets in the fake news media. Democrats said Trump would be devastating for women; Americans are very satisfied with women’s positions today.
And perhaps one of the biggest ones: Democrats said Trump would be devastating for LGBT people in America because he’s such a “homophobe”; Americans are satisfied with the acceptance of gay people in the country. Of course, homosexuality is still a sin, but considering how often the Democrats like to accuse Trump of being a homophobe, the fact that Americans are satisfied with how gay people are treated is terrible for the Democrats.
Now, there are a slew of other issues which Americans show a great amount of dissatisfaction in. For example, “the nation’s laws or policies on guns” where 42% of people are satisfied with the way things currently are while 55% are dissatisfied with the way things currently are. However, this could mean a couple of things: either people are dissatisfied because the current gun laws/policies don’t go far enough aka they want more gun control, or people are dissatisfied because they think current gun laws/policies are too overreaching and think there should be less gun control. Conservatives and liberals both could very easily be dissatisfied with the current gun laws/policies in our nation but for two very distinct reasons and the poll does not ask a follow-up question asking if it is because they want more or less gun control.
They just ask the, at times, fairly vague question of whether or not they are satisfied with this issue and, again, there can be different reasons for a particular answer. Meanwhile, the opposite is not the case, because those who are satisfied think that the way things currently are with this level of gun control in America is satisfactory.
The same thing can be applied to the question on “The level of immigration into the country today,” where 35% are satisfied with it and 57% are dissatisfied. Leftists want more immigration to the point where it’s basically uncontrollable and conservatives want less immigration to the point where we almost have closed borders (an idea which I think people should consider, though illegal immigration levels have been declining as of late). And again, regarding the issue of “the nation’s policies regarding the abortion issue,” you find 32% satisfied with the status quo and 58% dissatisfied, with one side of the aisle being dissatisfied because they want abortion up to the point of birth and the other side being dissatisfied because killing babies in the womb is somehow legal and considered morally acceptable by people.
But regardless of that slight problem with the poll, we move on to what I believe to be the most important part of it and the worst thing for Democrats to see: the issues on which people are more satisfied today than by the time Obama left office.
Meanwhile, the overall quality of life, influence of organized religion, the nation’s energy policies, our system of government and how well it works, government regulation of businesses and industries, the size and influence of major corporations, and the moral and ethical climate have all also gone up in the last three years, though by nowhere near as much as the ones listed above, with quality of life having increased by 4 percentage points, the size and influence of major corporations increasing by 2, the moral and ethical climate increasing by 1 and the rest increasing by 3 points.
But if you would care to look back at the issues that increased by a lot over the last three years, what stands out to you? Well, to me, a lot of things stand out, such as the state of the economy, though I was not surprised by that at all. What I am specifically talking about here are two things: the state of race relations and the position of blacks and other racial minorities in the nation.
And here I thought Trump was supposed to be a horrifying racist who will put black people back in chains, segregate everything and send us back to pre-emancipation eras of racial relations. Well, that’s what the Democrats were telling everyone, at least. Perhaps the single most preferred word for the Left to throw at Trump (and his supporters) is the word “racist”. They love calling him that despite not having any real reason to do so. Hollywood, despite having known him for decades, hadn’t called Trump a racist even once until he decided to run for POTUS as a Republican. All Democrats, when they hear Trump and his supporters wanting a wall at the southern border, can’t help but react with scorn and hatred, believing that desire to be for racist reasons rather than security ones.
Trump was supposed to be the “racist-in-chief”, as many on the Left (at least on Twitter) choose to call him, and yet, racial relations are better off today than they were when THE FIRST BLACK AMERICAN PRESIDENT was in office. Race relations, by the end of Obama’s tenure, were awful. And no one was surprised by that, considering how often Obama would support black thugs or criminals when they were, unfortunately, shot and killed by police officers. Showing just about no remorse when police officers in Dallas were shot and killed by a BLM supporter also didn’t help race relations any.
But Donald Trump, the guy most often smeared as a racist by the true racists in the Democrat Party, has helped race relations over the last three years. And not by a little bit, but by a lot. A 14% increase in it is quite good. Granted, the bar was already fairly low by the time Trump entered office, but again, he was smeared as a racist and the Left assured people that he would be awful for blacks and minorities in general. And yet, the complete opposite is true, as is often the case when we are talking about Democrats predicting the future.
Democrats predict we will die in 10 years? A load of crap. Al Gore has been predicting we’d all die in 10 years for 30 years. Democrats predict the economy will collapse with a Trump presidency? The opposite wound up happening. The funny thing is that some Hollywood celebrities and Leftists are trying to tell people “we are screwed” if Trump wins AGAIN.
Just about every prediction the Left has made about anything, let alone about Donald Trump, has been utterly wrong. The economy has gotten better, the country is getting stronger, our enemies fear us again, our “allies” know they can’t take advantage of us anymore, and race relations are better today than when Obama left office. These are all things that should terrify and demoralize the Democrats, particularly if those numbers stay about the same, or even improve, by the time of the election.
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Impeachment is supposed to be a serious path for a country to take and it is supposed to have many effects and implications, including the possibility of a fairly struggling economy, if not at least making the economy take somewhat of a hit. But the Democrats have made such a clown-show of this impeachment process from the start that virtually no one cares, President Trump will in all likelihood be re-elected, and the economy is absolutely roaring right now.
According to a survey from Gallup, U.S. economic confidence stands at a 20-year high with an Economic Confidence Index of +40. Gallup explains: “Americans’ buoyant confidence in the economy in Gallup’s latest poll, conducted Jan. 2-15, likely reflects the U.S. unemployment rate’s continued stay at a 50-year low. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average continues to reach record highs – and flirts with reaching the 30,000 marker.”
Gallup’s index takes into account two components: Americans’ current economic conditions and economic outlook for the future. “The current conditions component score of +54 is the result of 62% of Americans saying the economy is ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ and 8% describing it as ‘poor’. Meanwhile, the economic outlook component score of +26 is the result of 59% saying the economy is ‘getting better’ and 33% saying it is ‘getting worse.’”
No idea who is saying that the economy is getting worse, aside from maybe the fake news media, though they have mostly dropped the “we’re headed towards a recession! Everyone panic!” act. But apart from that strange figure, the rest of these numbers are pretty good. Consumer confidence seems pretty high and for good reason.
Gallup also found that the least amount of Americans in the last 19 years, since the Gallup began compiling this information, would name the economy as one of the country’s greatest problems. Only 10% of Americans say that the economy is a problem today.
In their conclusion, Gallup writes: “Rarely in the years that Gallup has tracked public ratings of the economy, since the early 1990s, have Americans had higher confidence in the economy than they do now. Nearly six in 10 describe the economy’s current state positively, and a similar percentage say it’s getting better.”
They also note how these numbers could help Trump to get reelected, which makes perfect sense and I agree. It is extremely rare, almost unheard of, for an incumbent president to be defeated while also enjoying a great economy. And considering this is the best economy we have had in a long time, combined with the fact that not one person on the Democrat debate stages could beat Trump, I’d say that his chances for reelection are very good (though that is, of course, not a license for complacency. Complacency is a killer for all campaigns and if we want to keep making America great again, we cannot let the bloodthirsty, insane Left get within 10 feet of a government office, wherever we can).
The impeachment of Donald Trump is so inconsequential (provided Republicans don’t completely blow it and have some of their more, shall we say, rogue members foolishly commit political seppuku and remove Trump from office) and such a farce that few people seem to care and the economy knows it. Any threat to a popular president presiding over a good economy will make the economy stumble at least a little. But the Democrats have been blowing this impeachment for so long (and continue to do so) that no one honestly believes Trump’s office is in jeopardy of removal. Even the usual suspects among the Republican Party are witnessing the Democrats blowing this and trying to stay away from it as much as they can.
I believe impeachment has signed the Democrat Party’s death warrant for this election season, but this strong economy should be the final nail in the coffin if it stays around these numbers (and it is entirely possible that we will see even better numbers, but I will keep from making such predictions as plenty can happen between now and the election).
In fact, the only reason they are trying to impeach Trump is because of how likely he is of winning in 2020. Adam Schiff has already practically admitted to that, though coming from the idea that Trump will “try to cheat” in 2020. They are trying to delegitimize the next election because they know they don’t have a prayer of beating Trump, so they have to try to do something here (though will likely prepare to get their butts kicked on this and will try again once Trump is reelected). The economy doing this well is simply another sign that the Democrats will not win this year, on top of all the other reasons.
To paraphrase James Carville, it’s the economy and the Democrats’ open incompetence, fella (not going to call you stupid as you very clearly are not).
“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Social media was abuzz earlier this week shortly following the seventh Democrat debate and the last one before the Iowa caucuses were set to begin due to how CNN treated Crazy Bernie with some of the questions asked.
There was one particular moment during the Democrat debates that had Bernie supporters actually agreeing with Trump supporters that CNN is garbage. But this moment likely was set up from the start of the week.
You see, back on Monday, CNN reported that Sen. Bernie Sanders told Sen. Elizabeth Warren during a private 2018 dinner where it was just the two of them that he didn’t think a woman could win the presidency. CNN’s source? Their usual b.s. of “anonymous sources”.
Of course, Bernie denied such an accusation and again did so during the debate when he was asked if he did actually say that to Elizabeth Warren:
“CNN reported yesterday and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe a woman could win the presidential election. Why did you say that?” asked debate moderator Abby Phillips.
“Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it. And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody [who] knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Sen. Warren. There was a movement to draft Sen. Warren to run for president. And you know what… [I] stayed back. Sen. Warren decided not to run, and I… did run afterwards. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?”
I do not like Bernie whatsoever and thoroughly believe that all of his ideas would destroy this country almost immediately. Funny enough, in a rare moment of journalistic integrity (at least, somewhat), a couple of chyrons from CNN during the debate read: “Sanders’ proposals would double federal spending over a decade; how will he avoid bankrupting the country?” and “Does Sanders owe voters an explanation of how much his health care plan will cost them and the country?” These are the types of questions journalists NEVER are supposed to ask Democrats, but they did for Bernie (although they didn’t ask the same of Warren, who is pretty well-known for stealing Bernie’s terrible ideas).
However, these chyrons, as well as another one that read: “Warren supports a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada; why is Sanders’ opposition to it wrong?”, lead us to believe that the fix is in for Bernie and that CNN is sidling up to Warren. But none of these compare to the actual moment during the debate when they blatantly took Warren’s side.
Immediately following Bernie’s answer, Abby Phillips said: “So Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Sen. Warren that a woman could not win the election?” Bernie, of course, said: “that is correct.”
But then, Phillips turned to Warren and asked: “Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you that a woman could not win the election?”
The question wasn’t “Did Bernie tell you what you said he told you?” It wasn’t “Do you have any proof that he said what you accuse him of saying?” They just assumed that Bernie was lying and that the burden of proof fell on Bernie, not Warren, which is, of course, ridiculous as one cannot prove something didn’t happen, only that it did. One cannot outright prove that Bernie didn’t say something, only that he did, and the burden of proof falls on Warren.
Of course, this led to many people both on the Left (at least those who support Bernie) and the Right to call out CNN for their blatant bias.
Andrew Egger tweeted: “It’s WILD that CNN didn’t ask Warren to positively state that Bernie told her ‘a woman can’t win,’ seconds after he positively denied that it happened. Just ‘what did you think when he said that to you?’ Absolute malpractice.”
Saagar Enjeti from The Hill tweeted: “Seriously it is outrageous that CNN would take Warren’s accusation as a statement of fact.”
Tim Carney from the Washington Examiner said: “Bernie was mistreated by CNN.”
Reason magazine senior editor Robby Soave said: “It was a very telling moment when Bernie said he didn’t say a woman couldn’t win and then in the very next moment, the moderator just asserted that he had.”
Of course, I have my own opinions regarding this. Bernie absolutely got mistreated by CNN there. He was accused of saying something, is being lied about it, smeared about it, and he is being indicted in the court of public opinion by at least Warren supporters and others in the media. Presumption of innocence is not being granted to him by some people. In other words, he received the Brett Kavanaugh treatment from CNN.
But then again, Brett Kavanaugh is also the reason I don’t particularly feel bad for Bernie. Sure, he was wronged by CNN, but he took Dr. Ford’s side entirely when it came to the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.
Back when Kavanaugh was being confirmed by the Senate, various senators got the chance to weigh in and give their two cents on it. This is what Bernie said:
“I listened to Dr. Ford, and I listened to Judge Kavanaugh. I believe Dr. Ford. Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court. If Judge Kavanaugh wants to clear his name on these very serious charges he should immediately demand a thorough FBI investigation. If not, the Senate should reject his nomination.”
Dr. Ford provided zero evidence and the witnesses that she named either did not actually witness anything, had no recollection of anything, or adamantly CONTRADICTED Ford’s testaments. There wasn’t a single shred of evidence that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her or any of the other women that the Democrats called up to accuse him and smear him. His reputation was forever ruined from that day and even now, people believe Dr. Ford and the other accusers, despite the total lack of evidence.
Bernie got a SMALL TASTE of that injustice. Warren didn’t accuse him of sexual assault. CNN and the other propaganda organizations aren’t running hit piece after hit piece smearing Bernie as a serial sexual offender. His political future (short as it might be) is not heavily threatened by these accusations of sexism. Yes, he was wronged by CNN for assuming he said something when there is no proof he did, but Bernie was on the same side as them just a little over a year ago.
He did not presume Kavanaugh’s innocence and believed the statements of an obviously trained Democrat operative who provided zero proof, only a seemingly sympathetic crying face and seemingly innocent manner of speech. That wench tried to ruin a man’s entire LIFE just because she perceived him to be a threat to Roe v. Wade and Bernie took her side wholeheartedly.
CNN absolutely sucks. They are garbage. The hashtag “CNNisTrash” was trending on Twitter following that moment and for good reason: it’s the truth. This “news” organization recently settled with a 17-year-old because they lied about him being a racist in an attempt to ruin the kid’s life just because he supports Trump. For the first two and a half years of Trump’s presidency, CNN ran story after story of nothing but lies and deception about Russian collusion, assuming Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election away from Hillary and reporting that as though it was truth.
CNN is a garbage propaganda organization with zero truth in anything they report. But I do not feel bad for Bernie at all. This is what happens when truth and justice is overtaken by political agendas. There wasn’t one bit of evidence to suggest Kavanaugh did what he did to any of the women who accused him of sexual assault. Not one could provide corroborating evidence or witnesses to back up their claims. And yet, for a few months, the media made sure to forever ruin an innocent man’s reputation and life, like they tried to do with Clarence Thomas, just because he was a political enemy. Bernie played a part, even if a small one, in presuming guilt rather than innocence despite all the evidence AGAINST the accusers’ testimonies.
Bernie got a small taste of what it feels like to be on the receiving end when idiots say “believe all women”. There is no reason to believe someone who, for decades, lied about her heritage to get an advantage and constantly lies about virtually every aspect of her life, policies etc. There is no reason to believe this simply due to the lack of evidence that Bernie said what he is accused of having said. But there was also never a reason to believe any of the Kavanaugh accusers, but Bernie abandoned truth and reason for political points and convenience.
If you ask me, he got only a little bit of what he actually deserves. Still, I am amused at the fact that Democrats might be trying to screw Bernie again. Only makes Trump’s win all the easier come November.
“Affliction will slay the wicked, and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...