Leaving Half The Country Behind: Poll Shows Majority Now Opposes Impeachment

During the testimony last week, I expressed various concerns with the artificially short period allowed for the impeachment investigation due to the Democratic pledge to impeach President Donald Trump by Christmas. Not only will that abbreviated period leave a thin and incomplete record, but it will leave “half of this country behind.” That appears to be exactly the right estimate. A new Monmouth poll shows that 50 percent of the country now opposes impeachment. The polling in some swing states is even worse. In other words, this impeachment is playing to the Democratic base and little beyond it — precisely what Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged that she would not allow to happen.

Not long ago, Speaker Pelosi declared to The Washington Post Magazine that “I’m not for impeachment. Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” 

Similarly, back during the Clinton impeachment, Chairman Jerry Nadler insisted “You have to be able to think, at the beginning of the impeachment process, that the evidence is so clear, of offenses so grave, that once you’ve laid out all the evidence, a good fraction of the opposition, the voters, will reluctantly admit to themselves, ‘They have to do it.’ Otherwise you have a partisan impeachment, which will tear the country apart.”

The new polls show precisely that type of hard and unresolved divide. While six out of 10 say that Trump has not cooperated with the investigation, half opposed impeachment. Support for impeachment now stands at just 38 percent. Some 44% say they do not trust the inquiry at all. That is the stuff that tears a nation apart.

Once again, none of this means that the allegations should not be investigated or that impeachment is improper. Rather, there is a good reason to distrust a record that was thrown together on a rocket docket of impeachment. The schedule adopted by the Democrats appears driven primarily by the Iowa caucuses and not an objective part of the impeachment process. It may turn out that this makes for not only for a bad record but bad politics.

146 thoughts on “Leaving Half The Country Behind: Poll Shows Majority Now Opposes Impeachment”

  1. Olly, it’s actually more like a game, like Whack-a-Mole.
    Every time he pops up under a different name, there’s more points to be had for putting him down.

  2. “The Inspector General’s Report on 2016 FBI Spying Reveals a Scandal of Historic Magnitude: Not Only for the FBI but Also the U.S. Media”

    Glenn Greenwald

    December 12 2019, 11:44 a.m.

    None of these journalists have acknowledged an iota of error in the wake of this report because they know that lying is not just permitted but encouraged as long as it pleases and vindicates the political beliefs of their audiences. Until that stops, credibility and faith in journalism will never be restored, and – despite how toxic it is to have a media that has no claim on credibility – that despised status will be fully deserved.

    1. https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/

      With quotation marks:

      “None of these journalists have acknowledged an iota of error in the wake of this report because they know that lying is not just permitted but encouraged as long as it pleases and vindicates the political beliefs of their audiences. Until that stops, credibility and faith in journalism will never be restored, and – despite how toxic it is to have a media that has no claim on credibility – that despised status will be fully deserved.”

      The spying (and worse) is obscene and much worse than people realize. Where’s the oversight and accountability? Unless people serve time for these crimes, nothing will change.

  3. STATEMENT FROM THE SHILL.. TO TURLEY CONSERVATIVES

    As the paid liberal troll covering these threads, I wish to issue a disclaimer. There is now a backlog of What Abouts and Insults that may not be answered due to heavier than normal volume.

    This interruption is due to lack of personnel. The moderator has banned two of my main allies. The commenters known as Diane and Anon were expelled for allegedly ‘abusive language’. But evidence suggests that certain conservatives have been greatly more abusive.

    Therefore a deliberate attempt was made to handicap the liberals on this thread. We’re down to a skeleton crew. And I believe this scheme has backfired. Conservatives here now lack liberals to debate. And the few remaining liberals can’t possibly respond to all the arguments.

    I think the Moderator, and Professor Turley, need to nurture a larger presence of liberals. More liberals means more sport. So everyone can get a good workout. We want to use this forum as a gym to exercise our debating skills.

    One more note: ‘Conservatives keep referencing my constantly changing names’. This condition was not a choice I sought. Certain parties want to sabotage any name linked to this commenter.

    This reminds of an article I once read about a well-known winery. They actually paid dirty tricksters to visit liquor stores where oil was surreptitiously squirted on competing labels. They were soiling bottles to make them unappealing.

    Disgruntled parties on these threads keep squirting oil on my labels. So those labels are now expendable. I need the flexibility to change them any day. Therefore the labels are made to wash off easily. So I can slap on fresh ones.

    1. “The commenters known as Diane and Anon were expelled for allegedly ‘abusive language’.”

      No. Anon was expelled for making threats against someone.

      It’s pretty difficult to get kicked off the blog. You can see that dissent won’t do it. Ad hominem won’t do it. It takes concerted effort to be expelled.

        1. Because the threat was made at me. I certainly did not consider it a threat, but then I’m not the administrator of the blog. Because Darren told Anon1 that’s why he was being removed. And because Karen commented about it when it happened.

          1. ” I certainly did not consider it a threat…”

            Well, there you have. The moderator acts in an arbitrary fashion and it’s obvious. Karen sees threats that aren’t really threats, IMO, given some of her comments.

            1. The moderator acts in an arbitrary fashion and it’s obvious.

              If you have paid any attention to how the moderator manages this blog, he is anything but arbitrary. He always warns the offenders with clear guidance, and then will only remove them if they continue to violate the described policy.

              It does not matter if I wasn’t offended and it doesn’t matter if someone else is offended. What matters is if the offender chooses to disregard the warning of the moderator.

      1. PS —-Phillip et Al,
        You also got Benson back. An ally like that, who knows a lot about everything under the sun🤗, can certainly offset a couple of losses.

          1. Mr. Schulte,
            I heard that Benson always provides links/ citations, etc. to support his pithy ex-cathedra proclamations.😁

    2. We want to use this forum as a gym to exercise our debating skills.

      This is not a sport Shill. This is the law and it has deadly consequences. You and your ilk treat it as a Wii game, that when you die, you simply start over with new lives.

      The reason you’ve had to change your name so many times is because each one has been injured trying to bench (debate) 400lbs of legal weight when they can’t even bench the bar. You can continue to exercise your debating skills, but you’re not improving them, regardless of the reps.

    3. Phillip:

      Neither Darren nor Turley discourage any political viewpoint. People only get banned for breaking the very few rules of the site. You said, “a deliberate attempt was made to handicap the liberals on this thread.” That is not true, and in fact speaks very poorly of you to accuse Darren of such a thing. I have observed several people get banned over the years. It was emphatically not because of any political view. Rather, they kept breaking the rules, were given multiple warnings, and were determined to keep behaving that way. Eventually, they were banned. To blame anyone else but themselves is irresponsible.

      Since no Liberals are discouraged to contribute based on political affiliation, how do you propose that Darren or Turley “nurture” Liberals? Professor Turley penns blog posts, and then leaves us to it. Darren maintains the site, fishes lost posts out of the filter, and occasionally is required to enforce the few rules we are required to abide by.

      What do you mean that parties sabotage your name/names? Are you saying that you are one of the few who have been banned, and you keep returning under other names? How are you sabotaged? Why, exactly, keep changing names?

      You said that people on this blog “keep squirting oil on (your) labels.” “Soiling bottles to make them unappealing.” Please provide an example. You are blaming other commentors for why you keep changing your avatar. How could someone else make you unappealing? Why is what you write anyone else’s fault?

    4. The insufferable twit from Gainesville repeatedly insulted the moderator for no good reason. Diane gummed up every thread with text walls filled with conjecture. Not hard to avoid doing either. The moderator prefers observational pieces and diary entries and never says much that’s astringent, so no clue why anyone would be combative with him.

      The moderator puts up with Natacha (all of whose posts are horrible but who keeps the word count in bounds and tolerates the juice-box crew who drop snotty insults in the forum. He tolerates a couple of graphomaniacs as well as they’re not here all that often.

      1. That people can’t (or don’t) simply ignore certain people’s comments is amusing.

        Some of those who hang out here, day in and day out, would seem to be in need of something more that what the comments section of a blog is designed to offer.

  4. Correct, the Left are violent anarchists, and the Right are unanointed saints. In bad faith, your cup overfloweth.

  5. You know how you Trump supporters object to being called “racists” for wanting to build the Wall or otherwise curtail immigration?

    Why? Is it because you resent being accused of hating black people when you are merely making a reasoned objection to unfettered immigration?

    Does it occur to you that your claiming that those who oppose Trump are nothing more than “Trump haters” is doing to others that which you despise being done to you?

    After all, is there a difference between hating blacks or hating Trump where the accusation is that one’s argument is motivated by blind rage as opposed to calm reason?

    1. “Does it occur to you that your claiming that those who oppose Trump are nothing more than “Trump haters” is doing to others that which you despise being done to you?”

      Are you seriously equating saying someone is an unreasonable Trump hater, with calling someone a Racist? The Left tries to destroy people’s livelihoods with false accusations. They physically threaten invited conservative speakers at college campuses across the nation.

      Saying you hate Trump is nowhere on the same planet as calling someone names that can ruin their life, get them fired, or destroy their reputation.

      While I do agree that going straight to ad hominem is wrong, there are many cases consistent with pure bias against Trump. Democrats hate him to an unreasonable degree, and are willing to believe, and then promptly forget about, one false accusation after another.

      Therefore, they show easily provable bias.

      “is there a difference between hating blacks or hating Trump”. Yes. The former is racism, while the latter is political bias to an extreme degree.

      I agree we need more calm reason. The House is a good place to start.

  6. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cant-progressives-discuss-conflicting-ideas-without-impugning-motives/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=second

    Here’s a brief precis of what now passes for intellectual life in our ruined research universities. You can see the thrift-shop markdown version by reading Peter Shill and JanF / Anon1 / bythebook.

    (If you want just-plain-crazy, read Jill or Natacha).

      1. it requires a 6th grade level reading skill thus Grindr has done you a disservice, not that you ever find anyone on there willing to put up with your bullchips

  7. Run, Joe, Run….. don’t forget to call Americans fat, liars, and challenge them all to push-ups!!!

    LMAO

    +++++

    Mother of Hunter Biden’s child to question him under oath about financial records

    Hunter Biden will be questioned about his financial records under oath by Lunden Roberts, the mother of one of his children.

    Roberts, who was working as a stripper at the time Biden impregnated her, will get to grill the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, according to documents obtained by the Daily Mail. The deposition between the two is set to occur in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Dec. 23.

    The pair will get to ask each other about their finances, and Roberts and her legal team are expected to ask him about how much he made per month while working for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. The Bidens have been at the center of the impeachment proceedings as Democrats have accused President Trump of withholding military aid to Ukraine unless the country investigated the Bidens.

    Joe Biden said last week that he does not worry about his son’s business dealings with the company, claiming, “Nobody warned me about a potential conflict of interest.” The former vice president said he might not have heard of any of the concerns about Hunter because his other son, Beau, was dying of cancer at the time.

    The president and his allies have attacked the pair of being corrupt, but Joe Biden contends he did nothing wrong and has generally deflected questions about his son on the campaign trail. Hunter Biden admitted in an October interview that he had “poor judgment” to join the board of the gas company while his father was vice president.

    — any source

    1. Joe may have funneled federal loan bailout dollars to Hunter’s company, Rosemont Seneca or Rosemont Capital. If this ever shows up on anyone’s radar, Joe is toast.

  8. “The FBI didn’t commit ‘errors and omissions.’ It abused its power”

    The FBI sought a warrant to wiretap a U.S. citizen and, in effect, a U.S. presidential campaign, based on a shoddy Democrat-funded pile of conspiracy theories known as the Steele dossier. The dossier’s allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump were based on “multiple layers of hearsay upon hearsay,” and the document also took seriously comments made in jest.

    In other words, the origins of the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign was exactly as partisan and shoddy as Republicans said it was, according to the information released by the Justice Department’s inspector general. The inspector general released a report detailing a shocking account of rampant misconduct at the FBI. Agents there misled and lied to the FISA court to authorize and reauthorize their spying on Trump’s 2016 campaign.

    It doesn’t matter what you think about Trump, the precedent these crooked agents set with their misconduct is horrifying.

    Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote in his report released this week that although there were a number of “errors and omissions” that occurred during the FBI’s bizarre investigation, he found no evidence of “political bias” and that the investigation was otherwise legitimate and justified.

    But “errors and omissions,” a quote that was repeated over and over again in headlines, sounds like minor missteps that could have been taken care of with a little Wite-Out. It hardly covers the blatant wrongdoing that Horowitz described in his report — corrupt law enforcement officers abusing their power.

    Both in his report and during congressional testimony on Wednesday, Horowitz admitted that he didn’t know why the FBI was so keen to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page, who was in fact not a Russian agent after all; that he didn’t know why they continued to spy on Page, even after the FBI was informed by the CIA that Page had actually been working for them as an informant; and that he didn’t know why, when the FBI continually sought to have its investigation reauthorized by the FISA court, it routinely withheld information from the court or straight-up misled about things that might have undermined the investigation.

    – Washington Examiner

    1. Continued

      “In his report, Horowitz said he found seven times where FBI agents relied on “inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported” information in order to continually seek reauthorization for the surveillance of Page and others in the campaign.

      In one instance, Horowitz noted that the FBI’s original theory (since debunked) that Page was a Russian agent was complicated by his denials to intelligence sources about having met with a pair of Russian oligarchs, who the FBI believed had in fact been in touch with Page. When the FBI wanted reauthorization to continue spying on Page, it concealed Page’s denials from the court.

      When relying on information provided by Christopher Steele, the former British spy and author of the Steele dossier, to seek surveillance reauthorization, the FBI told the FISA court that Steele’s reporting was “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings.” As Horowitz writes, this characterization was misleading. The FBI “overstated the significance of Steele’s past reporting,” and the intelligence provided by Steele had not even been approved for use in the reauthorization application by the agent who supervised him.

      Horowitz also admitted in Wednesday’s hearing that one lawyer with the FBI actually doctored an email to make it say something that it didn’t say in real life.

      There are sins of omission and sins of commission. The FBI didn’t just fail to do right here. The agents involved in this investigation did evil. They used their power as law enforcement agents in pursuit of a perceived political enemy.

      That’s not an error. That’s corruption. And it’s frightening to think what they could do next because they could do it to anyone.”

      – Wash Examiner

      1. When all the “errors” go in one direction that, in and of itself, is prima facie evidence of bias. Horowitz fails to explain, or even search for, the source of the bias. The corruption is deep.

  9. CHRIS WALLACE:

    TRUMP’S ASSAULT ON THE PRESS

    Chris Wallace, widely admired for breaking ranks from Fox colleagues by putting tough questions to administration officials, delivered his most stinging critique yet of the US president at an event celebrating the first amendment.

    “I believe that President Trump is engaged in the most direct sustained assault on freedom of the press in our history,” Wallace said to applause at the Newseum, a media museum in Washington, on Wednesday night.

    “He has done everything he can to undercut the media, to try and delegitimise us, and I think his purpose is clear: to raise doubts when we report critically about him and his administration that we can be trusted. Back in 2017, he tweeted something that said far more about him than it did about us: ‘The fake news media is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American people.’”

    Wallace recalled that retired admiral Bill McRaven, a navy Seal for 37 years, had described Trump’s sentiment as maybe “the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime” because, unlike even the Soviet Union or Islamic terrorism, it undermines the US constitution.

    Edited from,: “Fox Host Lambasts Trump Over Most Sustained Assault On Press In U.S. History”

    Today’s Guardian

    1. Wallace has it wrong. The press is the enemy of the people.

      They’ve delegitimized themselves with decades of falsehoods.

      Chickens come home to roost.

  10. “Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said on Thursday that the FBI meddled in the 2016 election and “essentially the Democrat party bought themselves an FBI investigation.”

    — AP

    1. The Democrats interfered with the 2016 election under the direction of Barack Obama. We see that now, and they will pay dearly

      1. We’ll see what Durham does. Not expecting anyone to pay dearly. Would be pleasantly surprise if a menu of officials were indicted: ‘Case Agent 1’, Clinesmith, Page, Sztrok, McCabe, Comey, the Ohrs, Sally Yates, Andrew Weissman, Rod Rosenstein, John Brennan, and James Clapper.

        No clue why Trump hasn’t sh!tcanned Christopher Wray. He’s just a waste of space.

        1. “I mean, a couple of quick examples. I mean, Lisa Page Peter Strzok had text messages on their FBI devices that were horrifying, right? They never got the personal text messages from them. So, if they said these things on FBI phones, the inspector general was powerless to obtain more.

          Durham would not be. Or, similarly, Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS, which kind of funded the initiation of the Steele dossier, he said, I’m not talking to you. And the inspector general has to walk away from that.

          So, Durham has many more powers, many more ability — much more ability to actually drill down and get that information. Whether we see an actual report is going to be interesting. He’s not Bob Mueller. There’s no mandate that he write a report. So how much daylight his findings receive is really the big mystery that will resolve sometime next year.”
          – James Trusty, Former DOJ official in charge of organized crime unit, from PBS Newshour Dec. 11, 2019
          **************************************************************************
          Absurd xXV,
          This is one view of the scope of Durham’s investigation vs. the limitations of the IG investigation.

  11. I am horrified that millions of people would support impeachment, or are blind to the FBI misconduct outlined in the Horowitz Report. It’s less than half, but it’s not zero. You still hear them parroting that Trump colluded with Russia from time to time. All of these people are either totally ignorant of the facts, or they’re like some of our posters here. A high crime is whatever the House says it is. Totally unconcerned about the fairness of it all. If the House determines that Trump’s election was a high crime, then they’ll impeach him. And Dems are OK with it, as long as Republicans don’t behave the same way. Then they’d howl at the injustice of it all. There would be media marathons with all the channels parroting the same talking points, Hollywood documentaries, and marches across the country.

    When will Republicans get the will to stop just taking this abuse of power? Vote in 2020. But prior to that, do something. Get ads plastered everywhere you can to try to educate the brainwashed. Above all, do something about the Democrat infiltration of our schools. They are nothing but madrasas at this point, turning out graduates who are perfectly content to harass conservatives, fight against the first amendment, second amendment, freedom of religion, the electoral college, and the abuse of power on display in the FBI and House, all because it benefits them. We have produced millions of Machiavelians without moral compass.

    If Republicans did any of this behavior, Democrats would come together en masse and fight it in the streets. Why are we so passive? So many are afraid to wear political clothing so as not to upset the violent and unstable Leftists. They don’t talk politics, because they know the Leftist friends and family will attack them and call them names. They don’t try to reach out to the uninformed. We’ve been called so many vile and false names over decades that it’s become part of the psyche of the Left.

    Why is it so unusual for there to be people like Jonathan Turley, who said he voted Democrat, who routinely criticizes Trump, but he makes analysis on the legal merits and justice of a situation. Personal politics should have nothing to do with your ability to determine if something is right or wrong. But people like Turley are so rare that when one speaks out, they get death threats, harassment, even threats to their dogs!

    This is anathema to reason and liberty. We need to get our act together or our country will decay from within. There will be ruins of our great society while our descendants struggle for food and survival.

  12. Americans are opposed to their country being torn apart. Who is doing this? Trump, Fox News, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans. More Americans voted against Trump than for him. He has never broken 50% approval, and he lies all of the time. The rest of the world laughs at him and mocks him. The call with the Ukrainian President was a bridge way too far. Any sentient person knows that he tried to leverage military aid to an ally for personal political purposes, because only happened after polls showed Biden beating him. He wasn’t interested in corruption in Ukraine for the 3+ years prior that, nor corruption anyplace else in the world. Just a few days ago, he hosted Russian representatives in the White House, a favor denied the Ukrainian President, even though Ukraine is an ally. He has done everything he can to help Russia, even publicly siding with them and against American Intelligence. He won’t criticize Russia for trying to poison a Russian ex pat and his daughter who fled to the UK to escape getting murdered by Putin after criticizing him. He tries to get Russia back into the G-7, he won’t do anything about Russia annexing the Crimea or invading the Ukraine. How much are Democrats supposed to let him get away with? What about their oath to protect and defend the Constitution?

    No matter what evidence is adduced, Republicans will put their party first, ahead of America and the Constitution, every single time. Fox News hosts will lie, spin and attack Democrats, witnesses who testify against Trump and anyone who doesn’t go along with Trump. They’re trying to wear down the American people, and that’s what they’re sick of.

    1. There is a solution to the problem of “the country being torn apart”, if only more Americans would emulate the bipartisanship and objectivity of Natacha.😁

    2. Natacha, I recently read that 3 years ago only 22% of Republicans had a favorable impression of Russia. But now more than 40% of Republicans have a favorable impression of Russia. That’s the Trump effect; convincing Republicans that Putin is cool.

        1. Harassing him via lawsuits has been another commonly used ploy.

          After all, snowing Sarah Pahlin with lawsuits forced her out of the governorship of Alaska. Losing the election was not enough. They filed one spurious lawsuit after another, which she had to fight on her own. They targeted employees who worked with her.

          Bully tactics.

          He satisfied the requirements re his businesses. People are making absurd claims. If an Arab stays in his hotel at the going rate, it’s a conflict of interest. But if he banned foreigners from his hotels, it would be xenophobic. They are trying to do the same thing to him they did to Pahlin.

          Seek and destroy.

          Trump was already rich and famous before he became President. He was in a lot of rap songs before the Democrat Party convinced black people he was suddenly a racist. Becoming President makes everyone more famous. The Clintons made millions off of speeches and books. It’s ridiculous to try to apply the emoluments clause to harass a businessman president.

          This is just more win at all costs dirty politics. It’s horrifying how many Democrat voters cheer on the very behavior they would decry if it were pointed at them or their party.

            1. You’re such a moron. You can’t remember even how to spell.

              1. convived? What? what the hell does that word mean in your sentence Convive is “to feast”, to be convivial

              2. Hillary started the birther movement when she ran against him and lost

              3. Blacks are flocking to Trump for 2020 and this despite the constant liberal news media lying about him

              your time is up “Phillip (sic) Skene”. Time for you to go back to Russia where your masters recruited you and “convive” with all of those hot Russian women LOL

              1. MJM, The so-called “Walkaway Movement” was a total bust! So you’re just fantasizing if you think Blacks will line up behind Trump next year. What’s more, Hillary didnt force Trump to pursue the birther movement. He gladly pursued that all by himself.

                  1. Anonymous, your article notes that only 8% of Blacks supported Trump in 2016. And they didn’t come out for Trump in last year’s midterms. So it’s hard to understand why Black support for Trump would surge in 2020. What’s more, Trump could quite likely become embroiled in more racial matters before the next election.

                    1. Philip, and yet, polls show increasing support for Trump in the black community. We’ll have to see if that translates to a change in voting behavior. Brainwashing is hard to shake, as is monolithic voting.

                      Why would people all vote the same, just because they have darker skin?

                      I don’t know why you think #WalkAway is losing steam. Rather, I hear people are getting tired of all the hate and intolerance on the Left. Maybe they regret dividing the country and turning on their friends and family, calling them vile names for being Republican. That regret must be keen for those who’ve had their Red Pill Moment.

                      https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/october/it-just-exploded-walkaway-movement-grows-as-former-democrats-leave-party-nbsp

                      “I (Brandon Straka) was just absolutely shocked and I think horrified and trying to understand how could anyone vote for this terrible person?” Straka said of Trump. “I was going on social media constantly asking this question and that’s when finally somebody reached out to me – January of 2017 – with a social media clip that very clearly demonstrated how CNN and some of these liberal media outlets had been so dishonest and isolated these moments out of context and created a narrative surrounding Donald Trump and his supporters which was completely untrue.”

                      After a year of reflection and research, Straka says he left the Democratic party and in 2018 started the #WalkAway grassroots movement.

                      “So I created something called the #WalkAway campaign, encouraging people to tell their own stories and create their own testimonials about why they, too, are walking away and what they’re walking away from and it just exploded…”

                      “At this point, we have hundreds of thousands of people who have joined this movement and tens of thousands of video and written testimonials from people who just feel that the Democratic Party has become too extreme, has become too hateful, too divisive, and they don’t want it anymore,” he explained.

                      Ahead of 2020, Straka says he and his team are getting out on the road.

                      “We do the black Americans town hall, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, LGBT Americans. We’re talking to groups that are typically voting Democrat in large blocks and saying, listen, you have a choice.”

                      Straka says their goal is not to make all of these people Republicans but to encourage them to step back and consider why they vote the way they do.”

                    2. Karen, if you’re so concerned about people on food stamps, then surely you support an increase in the Minimum Wage. Despite the low unemployment, almost half the work force is stuck in low wage jobs. That’s why people still need food stamps this far into an economic expansion.

                    3. Phillip:

                      You said, “Karen, if you’re so concerned about people on food stamps, then surely you support an increase in the Minimum Wage.”

                      First, if your goal is to produce a middle class lifestyle with entry level work, minimum wage would need to be $56.25 an hour in San Francisco. That’s because the high cost of living there makes $117,000 qualify as low income.

                      How many entry level jobs can you afford to pay that much? Plus, if you really jack up entry level jobs to make a middle class income, then you have to increase everyone else. Otherwise, they are making minimum wage.

                      What happens when you increase the cost of labor is that businesses either cut those jobs, automate them, raise prices that everyone has to pay, or close. Period. They really don’t have any other options. Raise prices, so it increases the cost of living even more for everyone, including the poor, cut the jobs, or close.

                      Entry level jobs are supposed to be an introduction to work. Most people making minimum wage get a raise within a year. Pushing a broom or handing a bag of burgers is not supposed to be considered a middle class career. When you try to make it one, all you do is cut those jobs.

                      That’s why there’s now a robot in Walmart scanning inventory.

                      People are worse off with no job, than they were with an entry level job they would soon get promoted out of.

                      The problem is when something interferes with the vertical ladder…when there are no opportunities to go up.

                      There are myriad ways this can go awry. Here in CA, the climate is so hostile to businesses that employers are fleeing the state. We know of a new one every week. They take the good jobs with them. When an area starts losing jobs, what’s left behind is the entry level stuff, fast food, car wash, etc. Driving businesses away takes rungs off that ladder. It’s like CA doesn’t want its residents to participate in the booming economy. Everyone’s leaving the high taxes in droves.

                      Another problem is illegal immigration, or even legal immigration of unskilled, uneducated workers. If you don’t speak English, and have no green card, you are very limited to what kind of work you can ever do. That’s why forgery and identity theft is so common among illegal aliens. They get the work papers so they can get better jobs. A total lack of education and an inability to speak well is also a problem, shockingly, for many high school graduates. Kids can’t string together a sentence or make change without a calculator.

                      There are trades that earn 6 figure incomes in dire need of people to go to trade school and fill those positions, but high school students don’t often hear about that route. They graduate, and cobble together dead end jobs.

                      So, your option is to jack up the minimum wage of entry level jobs, dry up those jobs, increase the cost of living on everyone.

                      My option is to help more people get into trade schools and get a high paying job.

                      Which one of the two scenarios produces a higher quality of life?

                1. Phillip:

                  Let me get this straight. It wasn’t racist for Hillary to question whether Obama was eligible to be President, but it was racist for Trump to do so.

                  Does being a Democrat deflect racism like a heat shield?

                  Trump did not criticize Trump for being black, the way that Democrats criticized him for being white (that’s racist).

                  Obama’s book was promoted and advertised as Obama being born in Kenya. That’s what started the entire question. There occasionally is a kerfuffle when people argue over what being a “native born citizen” means.

                  It was the debate over the conflicting accounts of Obama’s birth that made me think on the matter. I came to the conclusion that if you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. If I recall correctly, even if Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, and I think he was, he would have been born a citizen via his mother.

                  Eventually, this issue will need to be formally worked out. People get born overseas to American citizens serving or working abroad. Ambassadors, military, and people in business. I think that being born overseas does not preclude you from running for President, if you were born a citizen. I suppose questions of conflicting filets could arise if someone was born oversees, a US citizen, but lived their entire life abroad. Interesting questions to be worked out.

                  You will notice that race has nothing to do with any of this, obviously. To claim it is racist to wonder ignores history. This question has come up before in our history, albeit rarely.

                  Democrats weaponized racism accusations. If you criticize a black Democrat, you’re racist. If you had sincere questions about the conflicting information on Obama’s birth and eligibility, you’re racist.

                  Racist is a serious word, with a serious meaning. People should not dumb it down to the level of “I disagree with you and you’re a meanie.”

                  Otherwise, you’re lumping in people who actually wondered where Obama was born with the KKK. That’s just not rational.

            2. Hey, Phillip – noticed how I disputed your claim about conflicts of interests, and instead of addressing that, you moved on to black people?

              I wonder if black people remember breaking records for the number on food stamps under Obama.

        2. Peter Shill whishes he had been a military man in the US history books.
          Curiouser and curiouser that Darren allows him to compose fake names regularly

          Philip is spelled with on “L”…….he can’t even get a fake name right

          =====

          Philip Skene – (5 February 1725 in London, England – 10 June 1810 near Stoke Goldington, Buckinghamshire) was a Scottish officer in the British army, New York state “patroon”, and a figure in the Saratoga campaign of the American Revolution.

          John Burgoyne – (24 February 1722 – 4 August 1792) was a British army officer, dramatist and politician who sat in the House of Commons from 1761 to 1792.is best known for his role in the American Revolutionary War.

          Benedict Arnold (January 14, 1741 [O.S. January 3, 1740][1][2] – June 14, 1801) was an American military officer who served as a general during the American Revolutionary War, fighting for the American Continental Army before defecting to the British in 1780.

      1. You’re a Russophobe. The Russian people are as good a nation as any other on Earth.

        You guys are all about diversity and tolerance, except for those you pick as your enemies.

          1. you said:

            “Natacha, I recently read that 3 years ago only 22% of Republicans had a favorable impression of Russia. But now more than 40% of Republicans have a favorable impression of Russia.”

            WHATS WRONG WITH THAT? SO WHAT.

            ” That’s the Trump effect; convincing Republicans that Putin is cool.”

            YOU’RE OBFUSCATING “RUSSIA” WITH PUTIN.

            HE IS THE HEAD OF STATE. HE IS NOT LOUIS XIV “L’ETAT C’EST MOI”

            stop trying to stir up anti Russian sentiment. pathetic Red baiting revised

        1. The Russians have 1 aircraft carrier! one!! and it caught on fire today!!! LOL

          yeah, them Ruskies are a huge threat to……iceburgs? penguins? seals?

          The Democrats are liars. From Bill Clinton through Barack Obama and now the Pelosi petulant brigade…..all liars

          1. Eve, Russia doesn’t need ‘any’ aircraft carriers with Donald Trump in office.

            And by the way, carriers might be sitting ducks in this age of drones and guided missiles.

            1. You can’t even impersonate a US military man from the American Revolution, and now youre telling people Russia doesn’t need aircraft carriers, as if carriers are sitting ducks to drones? missiles?

              seriously?

              Trump doesnt need to be impeached with idiots like you defending lawbreakers like the FBI, Obama, Hillary, DOJ, Schiff, and so many more hoes

      2. Shill,
        Do you recall when in a 2012 debate with Obama, Romney mocked Obama’s concern that Russia was without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe, by saying You said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. …when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policy of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s?

        How about the time when Trump had his SoS present that idiotic reset button to the Russian foreign minister, Lavrov?

        How about when Trump told Medvedev after my election I have more flexibility?

        Do you believe that evidence of the Republicans soft and appeasing approach with Putin would be reflected in a more favorable (yet still weak) opinion of Russia?

    3. “Americans are opposed to their country being torn apart. Who is doing this? Trump, Fox News, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans.”

      That’s ridiculous.

      You embody the Democrat Party line – you call everyone names constantly, unremittingly, throughout your posts. There is no reasoning. Only insults.

      The Democrat Party values people based on their skin color and sexual orientation. Identity politics is inherently racist, and the crux of the DNC today. White men, white women, whiteness, white privilege…it’s all something to be ashamed of. That’s is literally racist.

      It is mainstream for Democrats to call black conservatives racist slurs. Totally mainstream. Even the N word. Total Klan behavior, trying to intimidate those who step out of line and leave the plantation. You’d better vote how you’re told or they will harass you non stop. I recall seeing white men screaming in Candace Owens’ face, dumping water bottles on her head, because she spoke out as a black conservative woman. The video is disturbing. All they were missing were their white hoods.

      Democrats have hurt women in sports because they force them to compete with biological men. Apparently, to the Democrat Party, all being a woman boils down to is how you are feeling at any given minute of the day. This allows men to blow women out of sports in their own division. I saw a man who mocked this. He said, as of this moment, I’m a woman. I really feel in touch with my feminine side. Then he deadlifted, and said he just broke the women’s deadlift record.

      Democrats have called Republicans hateful, slanderous names for decades. They call us Nazis, Fascists (both actually Leftist movements that empowered the government at the expense of individual rights for the “greater good”), evil, racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes, homophobes, and on and on. This has gone on for years. The most common name a Leftist gets called is a snowflake or a Socialist, which makes sense with all the safe spaces and teddy bears, as well as the Socialist Democrat candidates today.

      Democrats routinely harass conservative students on campus. This is well documented.

      Democrats routinely show hiring bias against Republican professors, and harass any existing Republican professors.

      Democrats routinely threaten and harass invited conservative speakers across the country. If they make it to a stage, Democrat activists try to shout them down to prevent those who attend from hearing anything they say, contrary to the Democrat approved talking points.

      Democrats harass and threaten anyone who uses a biological definition of male and female. They will even go after their jobs.

      Democrats view stay at home Moms as less than those with careers who put their kids in day care.

      Democrats on average show less support for Israel, and more for BDS. Apparently, they won’t be happy until women in Israel are as subdued, beaten, and veiled as women in the rest of the ME, the Jews are driven away or killed, and the gays are dead.

      The list goes on and on, but the Democrat Party today is one of hatred, intolerance, racism, and even rising antisemitism. Moderates must be lessening in number. The party should reflect what the electorate wants. The level of racism and hatred reflects very poorly on its voters, as do its remarkable tolerance for abuse of power and lawlessness.

      Moderates should either switch parties, to get away from all that hate, or try to reclaim their party. To do the latter, they have to speak out. They will be attacked and harassed, and they will lose friends. They will need to be brave. Look what Turley suffered for stating his honest opinion about impeachment. I think that the moderates keep their heads down because they don’t want to be treated the same as republicans. But what does that say about their party and their friends? They are too afraid of them to check them? Those are not friends, or a political affiliation to be proud of.

Leave a Reply