Connect with us

Democrats

Democrat Jeff Van Drew: ‘At the end of the day I’m afraid all we’re going to have is a failed impeachment’

Published

on

It’s easy to lump all Democrats together in the Trump take down scheme known as impeachment, but there are still many Democratic lawmakers (and millions of Democratic voters) who oppose pushing forward with impeachment. Their reasons vary, but one of the most common is the notion that spending so much time on impeachment and dividing Capitol Hill along party lines will not get anything accomplished. No legislation. No laws. No solutions.

While some of us do not see inaction by Congress as a bad thing, the fact remains there really are problems that must be addressed quickly. As long as the atmosphere is this contentious, everything else is on hold. There can be no bipartisanship when one party has as its sole purpose in life being to remove a sitting President simply because they do not like him and still can’t believe they lost to him three years ago.

Representative Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) is one of the lucid Democrats who recognizes some of the many problems with pursuing impeachment at this time and most importantly for the reasons the Democrats are listing. The people are not behind it. More importantly, they do not have a mandate in the form of actual “high crimes or misdemeanors” for which they can justify impeachment.

They have less on their tray than Republicans had for the their impeachment of President Clinton in 1998. Even that impeachment wasn’t justified and still marks one of the ugliest partisan moments in recent history. But the attacks on Trump by Democrats tops the mistakes of the GOP in the 90s.

In this interview with Tucker Carlson, Representative Jeff Van Drew breaks down his reasoning for wanting his party to end the impeachment inquiry and focus on infrastructure, healthcare, and other issues important to Americans.

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

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conspiracy Theory

The real reasons ‘The Squad’ endorsed Bernie Sanders

Published

on

The real reasons The Squad endorsed Bernie Sanders

I’ll admit I didn’t see this coming. In retrospect, it makes sense, but I guess I was blinded by too much common sense and not enough radical progressive machinations. Reports are coming in that members of “The Squad” in Congress – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib – are endorsing Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination. No word on the fourth member of the new Beatles, Ayanna Pressley. Then again, she’s also the least influential of the radicals in the group.

My money would have been on them backing Elizabeth Warren, but only because I didn’t put much thought to it before. Now, I realize Warren does something “The Squad” hates: She pretends to be a capitalist. Even though she believes in Medicare-for-All, open borders, and several other hyper-leftist pipe dreams, she does so with a false allegiance to capitalism that Sanders has disavowed. Their policies might be very similar, but the way they label it is important. At least it’s important to “The Squad.”

Perhaps a more accurate attribution would be to say labels are important to the Justice Democrats, the far-left organization that’s behind everything radical from the Green New Deal to AOC’s recently unveiled “A Just Society” proposal. And they may also be behind this latest endorsement for reasons (CONSPIRACY THEORIES!) I’ll propose below.

But before we get conspiratorial, let’s state something for the record. AOC and her team allegedly own the mind share of radical progressives. Their brand is one that some believe supersedes Warren’s and possibly even Sanders’s because they are more demographically similar to the target audience – young, rebellious, and “women of color,” as they often say about themselves. If this is true, Sanders should be able to jump up quickly in the polls as a result of these important endorsements.

If not, then their brand is not nearly as developed or powerful as some seem to believe. Now, let’s put on our tinfoil hats…

Bernie and The Squad: Conspiracy 1

Of the two conspiracy theories, this one actually has some plausible supporting facts. The Justice Democrats were bouncing back and forth for a while promoting Warren AND Sanders. On the surface it seemed like they were hedging their bets, but in reality I surmised three months ago that they were shooting for a Warren-Sanders or Sanders-Warren ticket. The timing of this endorsement makes perfect sense in that context because it will theoretically boost Sanders back near the top.

If the Justice Democrats can keep both of them in the running, they’ll have a better chance of staving off Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, or anyone who emerges in the moderate lane. By keeping both radical progressives in the race, they have a better chance at getting their dream ticket.

As the conspiracy goes, a Warren-Sanders ticket in 2020 would set up a Warren-AOC ticket in 2024 when the Congresswoman turns 35. That’s assuming 82-year-old Sanders will not want a second stint as VP.

That’s also assuming the nation could survive a single term under President Warren. I’d put our chances at 50/50.

Bernie and The Squad: Conspiracy 2

This is similar in reasoning for the first conspiracy theory, but a bit more practical. That’s why it makes less sense for the Justice Democrats to be employing it. They’re cunning, but they’ve never been practical. Otherwise, AOC would never have been their pick in 2016. She’s too much of a wildcard for practicality, but she’s perfect for them in their cunning attempt to take over the Democratic Party.

In this theory, their goal really is to help Warren by keeping Sanders in the race as long as possible to gather voters who may not be inclined to support Warren for whatever reason. Keeping Sanders in now and then having him shift support to Warren later would give her the nitro-boost she’d need at the right moment against whoever leads in the moderate lane.

It’s possible both plays are in mind for the Justice Democrats, but as ideologues I imagine the first theory is the most plausible.

The Justice Democrats don’t think in terms of today. Their strength is in using today to build for tomorrow. This makes them dangerous. If they’re ever allowed to get their candidates in the Oval Office, God help us all.

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

Poll: Seattle voters unhappy with city council; homelessness tops issues ahead of election

Published

on

Poll Seattle voters unhappy with city council homelessness tops issues ahead of election

More than half support taxing large businesses to pay for affordable housing

SEATTLE — Nearly 70% of likely Seattle voters are interested in a new direction for the city council, according to a new Crosscut/Elway Poll. Asked if they were more inclined to vote for a candidate who wanted to continue the course or change the direction of the city council, 67% said they wanted change. Nineteen percent preferred continuing the current direction, and 14% were undecided. Similarly, 69% had a more negative view of the job the city council is doing, rating it “only fair” or “poor.”

Homelessness tops voter concerns, and a clear majority want the issue addressed, in part, by taxing large businesses to pay for affordable housing. Support in the poll for a tax on large businesses to pay for affordable housing came in at 56%. Forty percent opposed the idea. A similar effort known as the head tax was passed in 2018, but quickly repealed by the city council.

Support for this approach is in line with widespread concerns about homelessness in Seattle:

  • 64% of poll participants said they disapprove of the direction city government is going on addressing homelessness.
  • 56% expressed doubt that a new combined effort by Seattle and King County would result in a decrease in homelessness.
  • 53% said homelessness was the top issue in deciding how to vote in the current council races. The issue was in a list that also included housing density, police and transportation.

While homelessness was top of mind for many voters, over 90% of respondents said they feel “very safe” (41%) or “mostly safe” (52%) in their neighborhoods. Survey participants also showed support for a plan to tax rideshares (61% approval) and the recent proposal to ban natural gas in new construction (49% approval, with 40% opposed).

“What captured my attention was the broad support for change on the city council, but approval of most of the policies and proposals the city is pursuing,” said pollster Stuart Elway. “Except for the dominant issue of homelessness and the related issue of neighborhood density, it’s like we want new people to keep doing the same things.”

In comparison to the city council, Mayor Jenny Durkan was given higher marks. Forty-eight percent rated her record as “good” or “excellent.” The Crosscut/Elway Poll represents the first public polling on Durkan’s performance since she took office in 2017.

The live poll of 432 likely Seattle voters was conducted by phone, 66% via cellphone, between Oct. 5 and 9. Survey participants came from all seven Seattle council districts in roughly equal numbers.

The likely voters surveyed for this poll were more likely to be longtime residents. Nearly 60% of participants have lived in Seattle for 21 years or longer; 53% were 51 or older; 69% were homebuyers or home owners.

The poll has a margin of error of ± 4.7% at a 95% confidence level. This means that had this same survey been conducted 100 times, the results would be within 4.7 percentage points of the results reported here at least 95 times.

# # #

About Crosscut

Crosscut is the Pacific Northwest’s independent, nonprofit news site. We believe an informed public is essential to solving the challenges of our time. Crosscut strives to provide readers with the facts and analysis they need to intelligently participate in civic discourse, and to create a more just, equitable and sustainable society.

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

Robert Francis ‘Beto’ O’Rourke shoots down his own argument for gun confiscation

Published

on

By

Robert Francis Beto ORourke shoots down his own argument for gun confiscation

A new video from CNN is a perfect illustration of the liberty grabber left’s illogic in the debate over self-defense.

Robert Francis [Beto] O’Rourke made an appearance on CNN in a discussion with Alisyn Camerota today and while unintentional, he systemically destroyed the rationale for gun confiscation. While we fully understand the grave danger of societal violence – primarily caused by the left – and that something needs to be done. It’s hard not to laugh at the sheer illogical stance foisted by Robert Francis in trying to sell the false solution of gun confiscation.

After a brief introduction on the subject with footage of the exchange between Robert Francis O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg from the Democratic debate, the host asked Robert Francis about his plan on how he was going to get ‘assault weapons’ from those who don’t want to give them up. His response was that people would follow the law.

After that, things became quite interesting with the CNN host asking him: “You expect mass shooters to follow the law?” After a long, uncomfortable pause Robert Francis responded with the follow the law line. The host then pointed out that mass shooter [or criminals in general] don’t follow the law. The whole sequence was hilarious despite the serious nature of the subject.

This is why the national socialist left has to avoid admitting that gun confiscation is their final solution to the liberty problem. It changes the dynamic because only the innocent will give up their guns, making the situation far worse with criminals and the government having a monopoly on the use of force.

That is why that video is so entertaining, in the span of only a few minutes Robert Francis managed to eviscerate the whole purpose of gun confiscation.

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