In what may be some pretty poor news for Bernie Sanders, a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that only 25% of Americans would approve of a socialist candidate running for President and only 37% would approve of a candidate over the age of 75 (survey size of 900 adults).
So given that Bernie is both the first openly socialist Democrat I have seen and he’s 77 right now (will be 79 by the 2020 election), this is not really a good thing for him.
Not that I really expect him to be the Democrat nominee, although it’s far too early to tell who it could be.
The poll asked respondents 11 characteristics they would find in their ideal presidential candidate.
Only 18% of respondents approved of socialism in general (and only 25% would want their candidate to be socialist, which seems pretty odd to me, so we might want to take some things with a grain of salt).
50% of respondents also soundly disapproved of socialism altogether. Now, I would personally hope that number would be far higher than that. Ideally, 100% would disapprove of socialism, but that’s not all that realistic (kind of like socialism), but in a sample size so small, I would hope considerably more than 50% would disapprove of socialism.
In any case, 50% of respondents also approved of capitalism with only 19% disapproving, sort of mirroring the numbers for socialism.
Now, even though I would hope far more people would disapprove of socialism and far more people would approve of capitalism, these are still pretty fantastic numbers, in my opinion. The gap between how many approve of capitalism versus socialism is massive, as it should be, and nowhere near what Democrats would want.
Considering that most Democrats are embracing socialism, even if they don’t necessarily call themselves that, these numbers are not a good thing for the Left.
Now, again, the sample size is small, but if socialism were as popular as the Left and the news media want to pretend it is, you’d think the gap between those who approve of capitalism versus socialism would be considerably smaller at the very least.
Moving on, some of the most popular characteristics of a candidate are being African-American, with 87% saying they would be either “enthusiastic” or “comfortable”. I think this makes a lot of sense, particularly if the option of “comfortable” is available. Most people, as it turns out, aren’t racist. So the color of someone’s skin is not really a factor that is all that important to them when it comes to a favored candidate.
At least to me, the biggest and most important qualification for a candidate is their conservatism. If a candidate is truly conservative, that candidate will get my vote. Whether they are an African-American like Ben Carson or a Hispanic like Ted Cruz or a woman like Sarah Palin, I would be elated to vote for them.
What’s also interesting is that 86% said they would be happy with a white candidate (as it turns out, most people aren’t so racist that they would write off a person simply for being white). Being female was also up there at 84%.
Now, the poll also said that 41% would vote for Trump versus 48% that would vote for the Democratic challenger, whomever it may be. However, that’s actually pretty good news for Trump because pretty much all incumbent presidents face a similar challenge. At this time in his presidency, 38% said they would vote to reelect Bill Clinton. 45% said they would vote to reelect Obama, and 46% said they’d reelect Bush.
So Trump is within the numbers necessary to be reelected, given that even Bill Clinton managed it somehow.
Of course, I’d wager to say that this goes in large part to the fact that most polls have him sitting at around a 45% approval rating and higher, and the fact that 93% of Republicans approve of Trump also helps him out.
Now, despite what the poll had to say about socialist candidates and socialism in general, interestingly enough, 55% of Democratic primary voters say they would prefer a non-moderate candidate.
To the Democrat Party, there hardly are any moderates, but those who are non-moderates tend to be of the socialist type, even if they don’t call themselves that.
Now, I don’t know how many Democrats there were in the poll, but if the majority of them want a non-moderate candidate, despite how astonishingly few people approve of socialism and would want their candidate to be a socialist, that tells me that there a lot of people who either don’t know what socialism is or simply cannot discern it from other ideologies.
Which, again, seems weird to me considering how few people actually approve of socialism. You’d think with how much the Democrat Party and the MSM are promoting it, people would be more receptive to it and would not know what socialism is (and one would have to be ignorant of what socialism is and how it works to advocate for it if they themselves aren’t seeking office).
I get that we are a society that carelessly throws words around. For some people, those who would disagree with them cannot be anything other than racists, sexist, homophobe bigots or outright Nazis. For some people, the definition and meaning of life is alien. For some people, the definition of truth has been twisted so much that it can now be considered relative rather than absolute. The same could be said of morality.
So I can’t say I am surprised to know that many people simply don’t know what socialism is or would not be able to discern it from other ideologies or policies. The Green New Deal to some people is not a socialist ploy to restructure the entire country in the most extreme way the Left has come up as of yet, but a supposed “plan” for “saving” the planet.
It’s this deception that has been present in the Democrat Party for ages now. The growing of the government, at any capacity, is the moving of the pendulum towards the left and towards socialism. It is not necessarily always a bad thing, but too much of it definitely is a terrible thing, particularly if the trend doesn’t seem to slow things down.
So this deception ultimately breeds ignorance, to the point where people can hardly recognize socialism and contrast it with other things. As a result, people don’t think socialism is all that bad and it’s simply a new way to try things that they believe are an improvement over the status quo (they are not. Good Lord, they most certainly are not).
Now, I definitely understand that the poll only talked about “non-moderate” candidates, and that sort of word use can definitely change some things.
It’s one thing to ask Democrats if they want a socialist candidate and another thing entirely if they want a “non-moderate” candidate. A non-moderate, in their minds, does not necessarily have to be a socialist, and certainly not someone who would be happy to call themselves one, but in reality, that’s the only actual option (as well as communist, but the two are basically interchangeable given they both stem from Marxism).
If I asked you if you wanted some sodium chloride on your food, what would be your answer if you don’t know what that is? If I then were to ask you if you wanted some salt on your food, would that answer have changed?
At the end of the day, they are both the same thing, but put into different words. The same can be applied to this poll. A “non-moderate” Democrat candidate is essentially a socialist candidate, whether or not they call themselves one. This is my reasoning behind that whole “people might not know what socialism is” tangent. And it’s not like it’s inconceivable that people didn’t know what it was.
Ironically, I saw a tweet from noted Trump-hater and former sports commentator Jemele Hill that read: “My guess is 100 percent of the people who don’t want a socialist have zero idea what socialism actually means.”
She’s got that 180° backwards. Those who want socialism (at least those who want it and aren’t planning to run for office like Jemele here) don’t know what it is. Those who want socialism often ignore or reject the FACT that hundreds of millions of people have died THUS FAR because of it, those who experience it live in abject poverty and have next to no freedoms or even human rights, and often flee those countries given the chance.
No one flees a capitalist country to move to a socialist one because 1) no capitalist country keeps their people in by force and 2) no one in a capitalist country WANTS to move to a socialist one.
Socialist celebrities have all the opportunity in the world to move to a socialist country. Jim Carrey has the money to move to Venezuela should he wish to do so. Bernie Sanders has the money to move to Venezuela and pal around with his good friend Maduro (for however long he’ll be there). These people have all the opportunity and money in the world to make the move, to a place that is supposed to be far better than America in every way possible because socialism is so great, so why don’t they actually do it?
Why don’t they put their money where their mouth is?
I remember Conan O’Brien going to Haiti around the time the story about Trump’s supposed “s**thole” debacle. He did that to prove to Trump that Haiti isn’t what Trump was supposedly claiming it was. The only thing is that he was there only one week and was staying in a four star hotel.
I can go to California, stay in a nice building for a week and say it’s a great State. I could go to North Korea, stay in Kim Jong-un’s palace and say that everything’s great there (I wouldn’t for even a second dare to go to that hell hole, of course, just stating my point). I can go to Hell itself and as long as there’s a nice place with WiFi in it, I would think it’s not such a bad place after all.
My point is that such experiences aren’t equivalent to what the people have to go through on a daily basis. O’Brien stayed there A WEEK in a NICE hotel. I’d like to see him live there for an entire year with the same exact living conditions as the vast majority of the population.
I’d like to see Jim Carrey go to Venezuela, live there for a year and live how everyone else in Venezuela lives and ask him if socialism is so great, that is, if he has a stomach full enough to give him the energy to reply.
No one goes to a socialist country and thinks it’s the greatest place on earth. There are countless stories of people FLEEING socialism to come to America including Donald Trump’s FIRST WIFE.
If people really know what socialism is, they know how truly horrible and inhuman it is. Venezuela went from being the wealthiest nation in Latin America to one of the poorest, with some of the worst living conditions imaginable.
As far as the poll goes, I am ecstatic to see so many people rejecting socialism in favor of capitalism. If you were to only watch the fake news media, you’d think socialism was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Good to know so many people are actually not that dumb.
“An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Last Sunday, Venezuela held Presidential “elections” in which dictator Nicolas Maduro won with 6 million votes and a 46% turnout rate, according to the government’s official National Electoral Commission. However, it was reported by multiple independent outside observers that over 80% of Venezuelan voters did not turn up to vote.
What makes this “election” an utter sham, aside from the false turnout rates, is the fact that Maduro scheduled the election back in January, giving little time for other candidates to arise and campaign. Even then, Venezuela’s courts banned the Democratic Unity Roundtable, the main opposition to Maduro, from fielding a candidate, instead saying that party members must “each nominate a candidate, forcing the opposition to divide,” according to Breitbart News.
Even the candidates allowed to run were socialists themselves, so there would really be no change in leadership in the country.
Of course, given how illegitimate that election was, the Venezuelan people were not pleased, to say the least. Most of them chose to boycott the election altogether, and when Maduro “won”, chose to hold protests throughout the country.
The Venezuelan newspaper “El Nacional” reported on Tuesday that “protests sprung in at least four states: Carabobo, Tachira, Merida and Bolivar,” according to Breitbart News. El Universal also reported a large protest occurred on Monday afternoon in Nueva Esparta.
Anti-socialist leader Maria Corina Machado wrote on Twitter (translated from Spanish): “Venezuela awoke GROWN, on its FEET. Our people defied the tyranny and DISOBEYED. Today the people are UNITED. The PATH is to advance until we achieve the ouster of the dictator.”
In Caracas, protesters, many of whom were young students, were seen marching through the streets, holding a sign that reads: “There is no time left! The time for the courageous is here, together we are more.”
National broadcaster NTN24 showed a video of the protesters in Caracas, reporting: “’The streets belong to the people, not to the dictator.’ Venezuelans protest against the ‘fraudulent elections’ in Altamira.”
In Aragua state, youth opposition leaders also protested against Maduro. The opposition group “Soy Venezuela” (I am Venezuela) shared some pictures of the protest and wrote on Twitter: “SoyVenezuela in the streets of Aragua on May 21st because the farce of an election held yesterday is more motivation for fighting for our liberty.”
In Nueva Esparta, Margarita University – Unimar students took to the streets, demanding free and fair elections and that Maduro step down. Of course, knowing the character of socialists and mankind in general, it is unlikely someone as evil as Maduro would be so willing to step down from the power he holds.
Unfortunately, not all protests were peaceful ones, with the most violent protests reportedly occurring in San Cristobal, the regional capital of Tachira state, the state that has long been the nation’s hub of socialist resistance. According to Breitbart News: “The mayor of San Cristobal, Daniel Ceballos, has been in prison in Caracas for nearly two years for speaking out against Maduro. By official CNE estimates, over 70 percent of Tachira did not participate in Sunday’s election.”
The Venezuelan outlet Runrunes reported that protesters began blocking roads in San Cristobal, burning debris and amassing tree branches in protest. Police responded to the protests, according to the outlet, with tear gas and rubber bullets. The outlet also reports that a couple of children no older than 14 were struck by some rubber bullets. In the incident, two people were arrested and 8 were injured. El Nacional reports that another teenager was also arrested, bringing the total up to three.
In Bolivar, protesters began banging pots and pans in protest, a common form of protest in South America. Police reportedly “hurled tear gas bombs at the buildings” where the noise was originating in response to the protests.
It is utter chaos happening in Venezuela. This, combined with the fact that Venezuela is economically bankrupt and the people have had to resort to eating their own pets in order to survive, and I can’t help but call into question Bernie Sanders and other Democrats’ mental health in regards to viewing the Socialist nation as a role model for the U.S.
The only real options on the table are that these people are either mentally sick, or evil… maybe both.
When you look at Venezuela, you can see in real time the consequences of Socialism. That is the kind of country the Left wants to rule over here in the United States. Venezuela is precisely what Democrats and Leftists want for us.
The only people who live in luxury are people in the government and those who are friends with people in the government. For all their talks about hating or opposing the 1%, they sure seem to be okay with the MASSIVE gap in standard of living between the 1% and the rest in Venezuela.
At least in the United States, just about anyone can be in the 1%, without needing connections to the government. Granted, that is becoming less and less common, given the damage the Left has already made. For example, Donald Trump, as a real estate mogul, simply HAD to be on the government’s good side in order to build his buildings where he wanted them.
Mark Zuckerberg MUST be friends with people in the government in order to avoid losing his company and his wealth.
The unfortunate reality is that the Left has done plenty of damage to move us in the direction of Socialism. Thankfully, we are nowhere close to where they want us to be. For as much damage as they have already done, it is still possible to live in comfort, even outside of the top 1%, in the U.S. Not only is it possible, but very attainable as well. Those who work hard and smart tend to be successful regardless of what they do.
Unfortunately, the people of Venezuela don’t have that luxury. According to The Guardian, 82% of people in Venezuela live in poverty. Contrast that to the poverty rate in the U.S., which according to PovertyUSA.org, in 2016, stood at 12.7%.
Most people in Venezuela live in poverty, with scarce resources to feed themselves, and the situation will only continue to worsen as the established Socialist power continues to maintain a chokehold on the country.
Whenever Bernie Sanders speaks highly of Venezuela, remember these facts. Remember these facts the next time you hear a liberal say that Trump is a dictator. And remember these facts as you choose who to vote for in future elections. Because, at this point, you will either be voting for people who want to Make America Great Again (or at least claim they do) or people who want to Make America Venezuela Forever.
I will simply end by saying that I pray for the people of Venezuela. It is clear to me that they have woken up and are taking a stand against Socialism altogether. I hope and pray that they will eventually be able to take back their country from the hands of those who have utterly destroyed it and that the lesson of how bad Socialism is remains engrained in their minds going forward.
“The Lord is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
No, you didn’t misread that. No, that’s not a typo. A gift from God is what this is. I can assure you I never expected to ever utter those words. I never expected what I will share with you to happen. I never expected the head of the Democrat Party to throw Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama under the bus.
What am I talking about? I’m talking about a Politico article that took some excerpts from Donna Brazile’s book to be published on November 7th, 2017: “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House.”
The article is quite long and takes a lot from the book, but there are some VERY key pieces that need to be shared. The article talks about how Donna wanted to look into the scandal that Hillary Clinton might’ve rigged the election and screwed Bernie from the beginning.
We begin with the first instance of throwing someone under the bus: “My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.”
Wow. We begin with a big one. In that paragraph alone, she threw three Democrats under the bus: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Obama and Hillary. She essentially said that Schultz was doing next to nothing in terms of fundraising, but more significantly, she ACCUSED Obama of neglecting the party financially.
And that’s something I truly never thought I’d see. For as much as they loved Hillary, even they knew that she was a pretty terrible candidate. They knew the only thing she had going for herself was her gender. They were banking on that, since that was her only “positive”. I put positive between quotation marks because gender shouldn’t really be a significant factor in choosing a candidate for President. Just as voting for a black guy because he’s black is just as racist as voting against him because he’s black, voting for a woman because she’s a woman is just as sexist as voting against a woman because she’s a woman.
But let’s not get sidetracked too much. This revelation from Brazile is simply too astonishing to go down a tangent that I can talk about at any other point. The article continues with more under-the-bus-throwing: “Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party – she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks. By September 7th, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.”
Then, we move on to a phone call made to Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of the Clinton campaign. “The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler… He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.” She then responded to Gensler with: “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”
And then, comes the detailed revelation from Gensler: “That wasn’t true”, he said. “Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt - $15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign – and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.”
Oh my God. I honestly can’t believe this is being released for the public (that at least researches a little) to see. Earlier, Brazile had thrown Obama under the bus by saying he neglected the party financially. Well, this is throwing Obama under the Space Shuttle. She’s revealing that Obama was terrible with even his own PARTY’S finances.
I’ve mentioned that Obama essentially killed the Democrat Party in the past, but this goes a step even further. Back then, I only meant that in terms of politics. People didn’t like what he did with the country, and decided to vote against Democrats. But now, we see that he even did his best in killing his party FINANCIALLY.
Regardless, we move on to the other target for the DNC bus: Hillary Clinton. The article continues: “On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged. ‘No! That can’t be true!’ I said. ‘The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all the officers.’ ‘Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?’ I asked. ‘I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,’ Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.”
“Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund – that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement - $320,000 – and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.”
Ok, that’s a lot of information to look at, so I’ll break down what it means. Gary informed Donna that the Clinton campaign had full control of the party. Meaning that the FEC contribution limit doesn’t matter at all. The money contributed to either the Hillary Victory Fund or the individual states’ local Democrat party went straight to the DNC. And since the party was under the control of the Clinton campaign, that means that the money then could go straight to the campaign.
In essence, what Donna mentioned earlier was right: the Clinton campaign was using the party as a cash cow. A mere platform for fundraisers.
Now, parties do everything they can to raise money for their respective campaigns. And campaigns typically control the party when they have an incumbent, such as in 2012 when Obama was the incumbent Democrat president. But parties typically aren’t controlled by the campaign until a victor is declared. And Donna makes the shocking revelation (though, shocking to us conservatives for different reasons) that the Clinton campaign had full control of the DNC BEFORE she was the party’s nominee.
“I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff… Then I found this agreement. The funding agreement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters decided which one they wanted to lead… I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that… she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee.”
That proves it. The agreement Donna is talking about shows that the Clinton campaign had full control of the party before Hillary was even the nominee. Now, I’m not shocked by this like, say, a liberal would be. I've known for a long time now that Hillary and the DNC screwed Bernie. What I’m shocked by is the fact that the current DNC head is REVEALING ALL OF THIS! She’s revealed right there that Hillary and the DNC screwed Bernie’s chances long before a nominee was even decided upon. Hillary had the nomination in the bag from almost the get-go.
I could talk so much more about this, but time constraints exist for me in these articles, so I’ll try to summarize my thoughts as opposed to expressing them with as much detail as I usually do.
When reading that Politico article, the first thing that came to mind was how the Left said that Republicans were being torn apart because of Trump. That we’re divided. That there’s no unity. But in reality, while there are RINOs that divide the party, most Republicans are in favor of Trump. We’re united with him.
But when we take a look at the DNC, we see nothing more than a dumpster fire. They are screwed financially. They are screwed politically. And they have no real sense of reality. At one point in the article, Donna even mentioned to Bernie that she did not believe the polls that had Hillary winning! Even THE DNC CHAIRWOMAN was hesitant about Clinton’s chances!
I’ll end this article with these words: the Democrat Party is in total shambles and I couldn’t be happier about it.
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
I believe there’s a bit of conservatism within all of us who are not in the Establishment. I remember seeing a tweet by basketball superstar LeBron James that came off as rather conservative, saying that the Golden State Warriors (who are worth roughly $2.6 billion, according to Forbes) should be able to use however amount of money they want in the NBA’s free agency period BECAUSE they’re worth so much. Unfortunately, the NBA only allows teams to use a certain amount of “cap space” to sign players and their worth as teams don’t matter.
I’d say that’s a rather conservative tweet coming from a largely Leftist athlete. Why? Because conservatism involves COMMON SENSE! However, LeBron’s tweet isn’t the topic of today’s article. The topic of the article is what was discovered by a journalist working for CampusReform.org. The journalist went to George Washington University to ask some students how they felt about Trump’s tax plan.
Initially, they were all against it. None of them knew what was in it, but because it has Trump’s name attached to it, they think it’s a heartless, cold tax plan that will benefit the rich at the expense of the middle and lower classes. The students said things along the lines of: “It’s better for the upper class than for anyone else.” As well as: “It’s probably not the most efficient nor beneficial to the general populous.” They all felt negative towards Trump’s plan, having never heard it… then, they heard it just not the way they thought they would.
The journalist then told the students: “So, Bernie Sanders came out with his plan. Some people are calling it a ‘compassionate alternative’”, and then, he told them the details of TRUMP’S plan. “First, one of ‘Bernie Sanders’ plans is to increase the Child Tax Credits, which is tax money given back to families when they have children.” That was just the FIRST part of the plan.
When asked how they felt about that part, the students all felt POSITIVE about it. One said: “Parents who have children go through a lot… getting money back really helps the children.” And another saying: “I think that’s great.”
Then, the journalist detailed the second part of the plan, which is to eliminate the Death Tax, a tax that takes some money from those who die by taxing their estate and such things, while the rest would go to the family. This way, the family keeps ALL of the benefits during their time of grief. When asked about this particular point, the students reacted the same as with the previous one. They loved it.
“I think that’s definitely something that we should be doing.”, said one of the students. “I think that’s a good idea because I’m from New Jersey and we used to have like a really heavy inheritance tax.”, said another.
Then, the journalist reveals part 3 of the plan, which is to lower small business rates to a maximum of 25%. This means that small businesses can’t be taxed more than 25% on what they make. And THIS ONE is really the one that students should’ve realized that this was not Bernie’s plan. Bernie would NEVER try to lower taxes for any sort of business because he’s a communist lunatic who thinks capitalism and competition are evil and bad for people.
And yet, the students also reacted positively to that part as well. With one of them saying: “My family has a small business, so I would definitely think that’s a positive.” And, perhaps my favorite comment: “Taxing them less makes more sense.” What did I tell you? There’s a bit of conservatism within all of us simply because it involves common sense.
Finally, he asks the students if they think “Bernie” did a good job with this tax plan, and they all think he did, indeed, do a good job, with one of them saying: “I think it’s pretty good. Definitely better than whatever Trump is proposing.” … and then, comes the reveal. He says “What if I told you that this is actually Trump’s tax plan, not Bernie’s”. And that simply leaves them stunned.
With one of them saying: “I am shocked that I do agree with Trump on certain things.” And another saying: “I’m definitely happily surprised that it sounds a lot better than I would’ve expected it to.”
They were all shocked to see it, with another one saying: “I would’ve imagined he would be a little more stupid than that.” And then the same student says that she doesn’t think it’s a stupid plan.
Then the students reflect back on their initial feelings towards Trump’s plan, now knowing what it is. They realize that, because Trump’s name is attached to it, they would’ve expected it to be some sort of evil scheme to screw everyone in America except for the 1%. To their credit, they realize they were simply being biased against Trump for it, believing the plan was good when they thought it was Bernie’s.
And, surprisingly, one of the students said that because people tend to go to one source of media, and they don’t go to others, it’s “tough to get other points of views”. Kudos to that particular student, realizing (at least for that particular moment) that getting news from only one source is not going to get you the whole truth (or any part of the truth at all).
Now, I say “at least for that particular moment” because it’s entirely possible that some of them will simply go back to being how they were about everything Trump does and proposes. Some of them might learn to do their research on something before immediately believing the MSM and what other people think of it, but it’s also possible that they will be biased against future Trump proposals simply because of the negative connotation they believe there is with Trump’s name.
I certainly do hope that all of these students learn that just because Trump’s name is attached to something it doesn’t mean that it will be a plot for world domination. But it’s refreshing to see at least some shred of conservatism (even if they claim to be hardcore Leftists) within these college students. They know a good tax plan when they see one, but first they actually have to SEE IT as opposed to being told by their favorite politician what is in it.
If everyone did research, learned history and found out what exactly the Left proposes, no one would ever vote Democrat. The reason why Democrats win in the first place is because they deceive people into believing that something bad for them will be good and something good for them will be bad.
Deceit is the only way the Left can ever win. They can’t win in the realm of ideas because no one would ever back their ideas if people knew what they were. People were deceived into loving Obamacare, when it’s insanely unaffordable and covers things people simply don’t need. It’s a terrible piece of legislation, but people were deceived by the Left into thinking it was great and affordable.
If people actually knew what was in the bill, they would want it repealed immediately. It’s the whole issue about wicked people vs. weak people. The wicked lie to the weak. But when told the truth, the weak don’t fall to the wicked and become strong.
But that’s a topic for another time. As of now, I will simply delight in the fact that, when people use common sense, they tend to be more conservative, even if they think they’re being liberal.
“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
An article on TheHill.com caught my interest recently. You can see why with the title alone: “Liberal unrest threatens Dem immigration strategy.”
You don’t typically see Democrats opposing Democrats, or at least being divided on an issue. Even when they run for their Party’s nomination, they tend to agree on nearly everything, with the only disagreement being on how intensely they should pursue something. So to see an article that says there are people on the Left that don’t agree with Democrats is quite strange and interesting.
You might remember that, recently, Nancy Pelosi was heckled by “immigrants’ rights activists” who want Democrats to pass a “clean” Dream Act while also protecting the other 10 million illegals living in the country.
They heckled her and called her a liar when she said she was on their side (which she is) and believed she was betraying them by cutting a deal with Trump, chanting “all of us or none of us!” Gee, you’re really making this a tough decision, huh?
Those hecklers truly didn’t know that Nancy Pelosi is on their side and wants what they want. Trust me, she wishes Democrats didn’t have to try to negotiate with Trump. But here's the interesting part...
According to The Hill: “Some activists have been brought into the Democratic Party umbrella and agree with the need for negotiation… Others fear a deal between Trump and top Democrats would spare Dreamers while ‘kicking ICE into overdrive’ in persecution of other undocumented immigrants. Among that second group are activists who would rather accept new border-wall construction – a non-starter for the Democrats – than funding that could be used to hire more (ICE) agents.”
So it’s clear that there are two groups of immigrant activists: those who want Democrats to make a deal with Trump that would protect Dreamers and those who would rather ACCEPT BUILDING THE WALL than risk ICE hunting them down and deporting them.
“’A wall isn’t ICE, a wall doesn’t walk into your home and drag you out by your *expletive* hair’”, according the The Hill.
Man, I never thought I’d see immigrants be willing to give Trump the wall if it means that THEY get to stay here and not worry much about ICE. But here’s the strange part: while a Wall definitely takes a lot of money to fund, it likely won’t take away funding for ICE. Yes, ICE wouldn’t be heavily funded if a Wall is built, but it’s still a threat to illegals.
But I guess they have to deal with the cards they’ve been dealt. It’s either allow Trump to build a Wall and not have ICE super funded and super powerful to deport a whole lot of them or make a deal that just protects DACA recipients, doesn’t protect the rest and ICE gets funding that otherwise would’ve gone to the Wall.
I would feel sorry for them if they weren’t criminals. I would feel sorry for them if they weren’t looking to pay for their crimes one way or another.
But these kinds of things typically go ignored or unnoticed by the MSM. As did the overwhelming majority of support for Trump over Hillary, the media chooses to ignore the fact that there’s internal struggles within their own party and even their BASE!
However, that really shouldn’t come as such a big surprise. We all saw just how truly divided the Democrat base was in the primaries. Bernie Sanders was clearly better liked than Clinton, but the DNC never gave him or anyone else the chance to be the Democrat candidate for the 2016 election. And it’s clear that there were plenty of (registered) Democrats who wound up not voting at all because Hillary was so unlikable or simply because they were pissed that the DNC screwed Bernie over.
So there has been evidence of Democrats being divided, but they are not typically divided on ISSUES. While you see every single day that Republicans are worthless and are heavily divided on issues such as Obamacare and tax reform, Democrats tend to stick together. But, then again, all Democrats are Establishment (and the Establishment is communist), so they all know what way to vote.
But it’s entirely different to see people outside the Establishment divided on an issue, as opposed to a candidate. Sure, they will prefer one candidate over another, but they typically all agree on issues. They are typically either communists or dangerously misinformed. But here, you can see at least two sides within Democrats.
One side would rather try to strong-arm Trump (a tactic that simply won’t work) into protecting Dreamers and giving up on the Wall, and the other side would rather allow Trump to build the Wall, knowing that ICE won’t then be heavily funded to “mass deport” millions of illegals.
And it’s truly interesting to see this. Mostly because we’ve mostly been talking about Trump and HIS base and supporters and how THEY feel about a deal with the Democrats. But we have not payed attention to the Democrat base, largely because we thought they were all on the same page. I certainly didn’t expect Pelosi to get heckled by people that she agrees with and is on the same side with.
Heck, I even remember the time when Bernie Sanders was heckled at a campaign stop by Black Lives Matter people, even though he is on their side as well. So it’s clear that there is at least SOME division within the Democrat base.
And do you want to know what else is interesting? We (conservatives and Trump supporters) aren’t divided. The media will tell you that Trump’s base is leaving him and that we are divided amongst ourselves, but none of that is true. What they think is Trump’s base is the REPUBLICAN base. And, to an extent, they are right! Trump’s base is, largely, the Republican base… it’s just that Republicans no longer HAVE a base.
I wouldn’t call myself a Republican any more. I would call myself a Trumper. I don’t support the Republican Party, because they don’t support me. Trump, on the other hand, does support me and other Americans, and so, I support him. The Republicans no longer have a base. That base is now Trump’s base. But why do I say “to an extent”? Because I know and have seen plenty of former Democrats be in support of Trump.
Democrats who have formerly voted for Obama at least once and have decided to instead support Trump. Trump’s base is the Republican base + disillusioned Obama voters. Trump’s base is an AMERICAN base. Pro-America. While the Democrat base is largely anti-America and the Republican base is virtually non-existent.
And to see the Democrat base be divided at least to this current level is great. That’s merely one of the many reasons Trump won the election. And thankfully, we continue to see at least SOME level of division within the Democrat base.
We don’t tend to see evil and ignorance be divided, but when it happens, it’s great to see.
“But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls.”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Hillary has written a book titled “What Happened”, in recollection of the events that occurred (with biased views) during the 2016 Presidential Election. Some excerpts of the book are available, and CNN has gotten to see a bit of it.
According to CNN: “(Hillary) said that (Bernie’s) attacks against her during the primary caused ‘lasting damage’ and paved the way for ‘Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign’”. In the book, Hillary says that Sanders “had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character” because the two candidates “agreed on so much”.
Well, first of all, Hillary was viewed as crooked WAY before the primaries. The reason Trump started calling her “Crooked Hillary” wasn’t because of what Sanders said, it was because of what Hillary DID. Wiping a server containing well over 30,000 e-mails about her time as Secretary of State for the Obama Administration is simply ONE of the reasons she is crooked. Accepting funds from foreign nations, such as Saudi Arabia, that went straight to the Clinton Foundation is yet another reason she is crooked.
Sanders may have brought up the topics (rarely), but he didn’t create them. SHE DID!
Next, I want to quote an excerpt from the book. She says that the two of them “agreed on so much”. Sure, they’re both SOCIALISTS! Only one of them is an open socialist, while the other prefers the term “progressive”, which means the exact same thing as socialist or communist.
In her book, Hillary says: “Throughout the primaries, every time I wanted to hit back against Bernie’s attacks, I was told to restrain myself. Noting that his plans didn’t add up, that they would inevitably mean raising taxes on middle-class families, or that they were little more than a pipe dream – all of this could be used to reinforce his argument that I wasn’t a true progressive.”
So she knows very well that Bernie’s socialist ideas would be at the expense of middle-class families (and pretty much all of the country, except for Democrats and their donors) and that his ideas were nothing more than “a pipe dream”. SHE KNEW THEY WERE BAD IDEAS, BUT SHE DID NOTHING AGAINST IT! As she says, it would’ve been used to reinforce his argument that she wasn’t a true progressive.
Oh no, I believe wholeheartedly she’s progressive. I also know that she’d rather be popular and well-liked (which didn’t work out anyway) than bring Bernie back to reality, as well as his supporters. She'd rather stay quiet and be liked than reveal that his plans will ultimately cost the American people far too much.
She didn’t want to push back against his plans, for the sake of being viewed as progressive, even though she KNOWS that Bernie’s plans would hurt the American people.
Much of the Democrat base runs on emotion. What FEELS right. How people will FEEL about something. You promise people free stuff, and they will react positively to that. You tell people they can’t have free stuff, they will be angry at you and say you are being mean. She didn’t want to appear as the bad guy, even though she KNEW that no one would benefit from Bernie’s ideas, other than people in the government and donors.
I’ve mentioned this story before, but I will retell it here: I remember looking through Facebook, looking at friends’ posts. This was during the height of the primaries for both parties. Bernie had all the momentum in the world against Hillary, but still would never overcome the rigged system the Democrat party had set up to give the nomination to Hillary. One of my Facebook friends was a Bernie supporter and had shared a post that showed some of Bernie’s objectives once he would become president. I don’t remember all of them, but I certainly remember one of them. One of Bernie’s “objectives” was to “end racism”.
I looked at that and thought: “How is he going to do that as president? What law could he possibly pass to get rid of racism (which lives at the heart of the Democrat Party)?” Furthermore, “How could anyone believe that any president could achieve such a thing? Do they actually believe Bernie will do that?” I guess that was part of the “pipe dream” Hillary was talking about.
Bernie’s supporters didn’t want to hear the cost of Bernie’s ideas. If you told them that his ideas would actually be detrimental to the country and its people, they would become enraged with you. They don’t want to accept reality: socialism doesn’t work.
Bernie promised all these things, with no true idea of how to make them happen, other than have it be at the expense of the American people. His plans were essentially to instruct and deceive people into digging their own graves with gusto. It didn’t matter that his plans wouldn’t work out or that they would be at the heavy expense of the middle-class. It was what his supporters wanted to hear. They wanted to hear that the government would take care of everyone, end racism, end climate change, make Muslims not kill us and bring world peace. In reality, they would all mean the demise of the United States of America.
The government can’t take care of everyone. That’s just not a stable system.
You can’t end racism, since it’s a matter of the heart. Racism is part of Man’s sinful nature. Of Man’s evil nature. And the end of racism certainly won’t be found in any Democrat.
You can’t end climate change. People don’t have the ability to affect the climate so severely. If we did, California would never get droughts and hurricanes would never happen. We can’t control the climate, only God can.
The only way for Muslims to not kill us is to make sure there are no Muslims. If you truly understand the nature of Islam, you know it’s nothing but a death cult. It’s not “the religion of peace”, as the Left would say. It’s not a religion. EVEN MUSLIMS WOULD TELL YOU IT’S NOT A RELIGION! It’s a way of life, in which women are less than dirt, children lesser still, gay people should be killed in horrendous ways, and anyone that doesn’t follow Islam must be either killed or forced to become Muslim.
You want to make sure Muslims don’t kill us? Convert them to Christianity!
And lastly, bringing world peace. Let’s be honest here, there will never be world peace. Because of Man’s sinful and evil nature, there will never be peace in this world. Peace is simply a break from war. Due to man’s very nature, there will always be conflict. There will always be war.
But Bernie’s supporters don’t want to hear that. They refuse to accept reality.
But now to return to the original topic of conversation of this article. Is it really a surprise that Hillary blames yet another person for her loss? Just after the election, it was the Russians. Then it was Comey. Now, it’s Bernie. I wonder who she’ll blame next. Trump? She likely already has. Her donors? No, she won’t risk upsetting the hand that pays her. Millennials? They’re the future of this country, so she likely wouldn’t do that. Debbie Wasserman Schultz? She helped Hillary become the nominee and likely has dirt on Hillary.
Regardless, it’s important to note that she will never point the finger at herself. She will never blame herself for her loss. She’s been touted as “the smartest woman in America”, so there’s no way she could find blame in herself.
That goes along with Man’s sinful and evil nature. They place blame and judgment on others, ignoring their own blame and flaws in the process.
“’Do not judge others, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?’”
Author: Freddie Drake.
Danielle Cross and Freddie Marinelli 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...