Connect with us

Democrats

General election conundrum: Should conservatives cheer for a ‘safe’ Democrat or a radical?

Published

on

General election conundrum Should the conservatives cheer for a safe Democrat or a radical

If you plan to vote for Donald Trump in 2020, the standard response when asked which Democrat you’d prefer to face him is, “It doesn’t matter.” Republicans want to exude confidence, so we shouldn’t really care who the Democrats throw up against us, right? But reality must go beyond talking points. We have to be practical and face the possibility that despite the booming economy and demonstrable obstruction committed by Democrats, particularly with border security, it’s possible that a manipulated electorate driven by leftist mainstream and social media can hack the coming elections and put a Democrat in the Oval Office.

Conservatives are faced with a dilemma. A conundrum, if you will. Do we root for the Democrats who would do the least damage if they defeated the President, or do we root for the radicals who, logically, would have a harder time in the general election with their extreme progressive proposals?

This is more than just Biden versus Bernie. Elizabeth Warren has a real chance of not only beating Bernie Sanders for the far-left vote, but also beating Sanders as the looniest leftist. She’s busy throwing proposals against the wall that, if implemented, would fundamentally change America. That’s not a prediction of apocalypse if all of her proposals came to pass. That’s a prediction of catastrophe if ANY of her proposals saw the light of legislative day.

As for Joe Biden’s hold on the “middle” lane, I’ve long said he’s going to veer left like the rest of his competitors. But even veering left for Biden still falls short of the communist utopia some of the candidates have planned. But he’s vulnerable. He doesn’t have an intersectional bone in his 76-year-old straight white male body. His time truly may be up, which opens the door for one of the less-radical competitors to fill his lane. Pete Buttigieg has always been the candidate I believe on paper has the best chance of taking on President Trump. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard before becoming a Rhodes Scholar. He served in military intelligence, speaks more languages than Melania Trump, and handles himself well in front of a podium. The fact that he’s “just a mayor” is a false negative pushed by pundits that won’t be seen as a negative in the eyes of voters. Remember, Donald Trump was “just a businessman.”

But Buttigieg isn’t really a moderate. He tempers his radical ideas by sounding more pragmatic than the competition, but he has an agenda that is much more radical than it’s being billed as by his supporters. His campaign is playing the middle against itself while flashing occasional progressive credentials when the audience is ripe for it. If it weren’t for a police shooting incident in his home town of South Bend, he would probably be soaring in the polls even faster than he is.

Then, there’s the enigma of Kamala Harris. She reversed herself three times on abolishing private health insurance. Oh, wait. A new report just came across the wire… yep, today she reversed her reversal from last night.

Harris has sounded nearly conservative at times in regards to law and order. As a District Attorney, that was her job. But now she’s been running from her record – the only redeeming quality about her to many in the middle and on the right – and is staking her claim somewhere between radical progressive and mushy moderate. She’s able to have such a wide ideological facade because her focus hasn’t been on policies. Instead, she’s been busy pointing out her status as a woman and a racial minority, highlighting not her credentials but the fact that she’s the most intersectionally-gifted candidate among the frontrunners. In other words, she’s playing the victim card.

It’s still possible some of the other candidates can emerge, especially once the field is whittled down. John Kasich was nowhere in the polls before he was suddenly coming in second in the first New Hampshire primary. Technically, he came in second in the nomination race, not by primary victories but by virtue of being the last person to suspend his campaign.

Can Beto O’Rourke fight his way back to the spotlight? Can Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, or Tulsi Gabbard emerge from obscurity? It’s possible, but if I were forced to make bets I’d say we have our five semi-finalists already.

Every name mentioned in this article poses a different existential threat to the United States. All of them. There is no safe moderate. Even if Biden can keep his campaign from plummeting, he’s quickly becoming a more extreme version of President Obama. He has to in order to keep the leftist base from destroying him, at least that’s what he thinks. And since he’s the candidate I believe has the best chance of securing Independent voters, I won’t give him any advice. But he won’t read this, so I’ll go ahead and tell you, dear reader. If Biden wants to win the nomination, he has to abandon the notion of trying to appease the radicals. He’d have to say something bold such as, “If you support radical policies that are as far to the left as President Trump is to the right, then I’m not your guy. If you want a socialist nation, there are two dozen other candidates to vote for in the primaries. But if you want common sense policies and progress for America, you’ll vote for me.”

Would he make the most vocal Democrats upset? Definitely. But if he wants to learn from President Trump, he’d notice that candidate-Trump pitted himself against the field and it worked miraculously. Biden should do the same if he wants to win. But he won’t. And that’s a good thing.

All of this brings us back to the original question. Should conservatives hedge their bets by rooting for someone less radical? No. We should be cheering for the candidates who offer the sharpest departure from President Trump’s policies. The fact is, his policies are working. He’s not doing everything perfect (I’ve had my share of complaints throughout his presidency) but generally things are much better today than they were under Obama. That means we need to run against someone in the general election who is the ideological opposite to conservatives. Then, we put our ideas up against their ideas. If the result is four more years of President Trump, then there’s hope in America. If the Democrats win with a radical today, any thought that a false-moderate like Buttigieg or Harris would have been safer is just denying the leftist trends in America. They would have delayed the inevitable, not stopped it.

We have to fight like there is no tomorrow if we lose because that’s very likely the case. This is why we’re building the American Conservative Movement. Sign up for updates below.

There is no “safe” Democrat in the race. Conservatives must abandon the notion of hoping a “moderate” wins the nomination, just in case President Trump loses. There are no moderates left. It’s do or die, Trump or bust, for the sake of the nation.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Democrats

FBI tried to hide true source of Trump-Russia allegations

Published

on

FBI tried to hide true source of Trump-Russia allegations

The more we learn about the Russian investigation, the clearly it becomes that this was a political hack job perpetrated by people bent on subverting American voters, not exposing interference from the Russians. While it’s true Russians have been engaged in causing division within and distrust of our political system, the investigation into their activities was wrongly focused on the Trump campaign when they should have been looking on the other side of the fence.

This video by Declassified’s Gina Shakespeare explains a report by The Epoch Times’ Brian Cates:

In researching this Spygate scandal, I repeatedly encounter stories of people supposedly engaged in very sensitive intelligence and law enforcement work, who rely on people such as Christopher Steele and end up leaking the same “evidence” to the news media.

This isn’t how real intelligence work is done.

And that’s the first big clue that none of these Spygate investigations were authentic.

Federal officials knew quite well the true nature of the sources they were using to drive these politically motivated investigations.

Their sources were political operatives being handsomely paid to target their employer’s political opponents. Because of that, any “evidence” they handed to federal agencies should have been immediately suspect and huge red flags should have been raised.

But any attempts to raise red flags were quashed. This was a hit job. It was intended to take down then-candidate Trump if possible. In fact, one can argue that their confidence in Hillary Clinton’s ability to win was the only reason they didn’t use the investigation to tip the scales in her favor. They likely thought something to the effect of, Why play a dangerous hand that’s unnecessary?”

Obama’s DoJ and the operatives in the FBI investigating the Trump campaign were well aware what they were doing was wrong, at least from a legal and investigative perspective. But they felt the stakes were high enough that it was worth pursuing. There were two intentions here. If it appeared Clinton was in trouble and risked losing, they could unleash information from the tainted investigation, putting themselves at risk but helping Clinton win. If it appeared she would coast to victory, they would hold information from the investigation and use it as a “plan B” in case Trump miraculously won.

Well, he miraculously won, so once their chagrin had worn off, they went to work to lay the foundation for the Mueller investigation in hopes it would quickly force the President to resign or give Congress the ammunition it needed to impeach him. It did neither.

This is a cover-up of a failed coup attempt. People in power at the FBI and DoJ engaged in an investigation they knew was fabricated, yet they continued in an unhinged effort to prevent Trump’s presidency if possible or end it if necessary.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Omar, Tlaib silent after Nadler rebuke

Published

on

Omar Tlaib silenced after Nadler rebuke

Representative Jerry Nadler is one of the bad guys. He’s leading the charge to keep the House of Representatives focused on one thing: Taking down President Trump. But even bad guys do good things sometimes. His singular moment of clarity came yesterday when he rebuked Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar of “The Squad” fame for sharing an anti-Semitic cartoon on Twitter.

To keep things in perspective, this isn’t Nadler doing the right thing for the right reasons. His interest is in making sure focus remains on the President and he views his freshmen cohorts as distractions. And even in rebuking them, he did so by first insulting the President with a lie.

The President’s comments about American Jews being disloyal to Israel if they vote Democrat is not an anti-Semitic trope. In fact, it’s not a trope at all, but since it’s a word that’s often associated with anti-Semitism, Nadler felt the need to invoke it.

As for the cartoon Nadler referred to, it came from a nefarious source:

But the real news here isn’t that Nadler went after his own teammates. It’s that the didn’t respond. It’s obvious they’re aware of the rebuke, but both have focused on playing nice on Twitter and have not addressed Nadler at all, at least not in public. This is a departure from their modus operandi as they’re known for striking back at criticism regardless of the source. Invariably, they play the race card and characterize anyone who criticizes them as bigots attacking “women of color.”

Nadler is an older straight white male, which is to say he’s a prime target for the wrath of “The Squad.” Are they suddenly playing nice or are they biding their time? Perhaps they don’t want to draw attention to the rebuke. Whatever their reasoning for not hitting Nadler back, their silence is conspicuous.

Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib were wrong to share the anti-Semitic trope and Nadler was right to rebuke them. But don’t cheer Nadler’s action too hard. His only concerns are how their bigotry reflects on his party and keeping attention on President Trump.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Bernie’s $16.3 trillion Green New Deal is NOT about climate change

Published

on

Bernies 163 trillion Green New Deal is NOT about climate change

The world will end in a decade, or something like that. This massively debunked claim is still circulating through radical progressive circles for one reason and one reason only: To terrify the gullible into willfully handing over the power of choice to a redesigned version of Washington DC. This is manifested in part by the Green New Deal, a variation of which Senator Bernie Sanders unveiled yesterday to the giddy excitement of leftists across the nation.

Much of their glee came from his declaration that it will only cost $16.3 trillion. “Only.” Non-partisan estimates have calculated the actual costs of the massive government overhaul as requiring between $50-$110 trillion, so hearing that Bernie’s plan only costs $16.3 trillion is wonderful news to his supporters.

“Only.”

Many Republicans and most Democrats (other than the ones “in the know”) have made the mistake of believing the Green New Deal is a plan to tackle climate change. In reality, climate change is the backdrop upon which apocalyptic changes are to be made to nearly every facet of American life. From how we travel to what we eat to how we build to where we get our power is part of the plan, and as is often the case, the devil is in the details. Daniel Turner, Executive Director of Power the Future, broke down the lunacy behind Sanders’s plan on Fox News.

Bernie Sanders’ Green New Deal is an impossible dream that would be a nightmare

Sanders said Thursday that his plan is designed to battle climate change. But a thorough reading of the document makes it clear that the real goal of the proposal by the self-described democratic socialist is a Big Government takeover of America’s economy.

That’s because the real root of climate change for environmental extremists and socialist radicals like Sanders goes much deeper than our actions and lifestyle choices. They believe our free-market economic system and America itself are at fault – and think a second American Revolution is needed.

Sanders’ plan calls for a complete transition to electric vehicles and green energy by 2030. This deadline is impossible – not because of opposition by the “evil” fossil fuel industry that Sanders demonizes, but because of physics.

As the old saying goes, “facts are stubborn things.” Sanders can’t simply wish them away, nor can anyone else.

There are common sense ways to address climate change, particularly at the local level, that can be achieved sensibly to make communities cleaner. One of the ways the federal government can participate (though their participation is about as unnecessary as the EPA itself) would be to incentivize energy companies to commit to researching affordable ways to harness clean energy. Rather than demonize the oil, coal, and natural gas industries, we should be taking advantage of their energy expertise. Make it worth their while to explore transitioning away from fossil fuels when it makes sense to do so instead of forcing the issue with arbitrary deadlines manufactured through fake science for progressive political expediency. If we harness the energy understanding of these industries to strive for incremental replacements, it will make for a much easier transition when clean energy becomes practical.

Today, as nice as it is to imagine everyone driving a Prius, it’s not realistic. Until clean energy technology becomes much less expensive and logistically feasible, we mustn’t try to force an issue to solve a problem that has been blown out of proportions.

Sanders’s Green New Deal proposal is economic shock and awe. We’re supposed to be shocked by its ambitious (and unnecessary) scope and in awe at the audacity of radical progressives to propose it. They want us to believe it’s transformative. What they don’t want us to know is that it will transform everything, especially the capitalistic principles that have made our nation strong.

The Green New Deal is a pathway to socialism that has been painted green so the gullible will believe it’s about preventing Greenland from melting away. The only things that will melt away if it ever sees the legislative light of day are are freedoms and prosperity.

Make no mistake about it: Bernie Sanders’s “climate change” plan is 100% about establishing a government takeover (takedown?) of the entire United States economy. It will not save the whales. It will make DC a bigger whale than it already is.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending