#Democrats

More Dems getting cold feet over impeachment – WaPo

What an utter clown show. WaPo’s Rachel Bade suggests that more Democrats are getting  “cold feet” behind closed doors over going through with impeachment.

Yet further evidence that the Trump Derangement Syndrome driving so many of the Dems is not shared with the more centrist individuals within the party.

Now the entry of Michael Bloomberg into the primaries only exacerbates the rift in the party. No cohesion. Watch the hard left of the party seek to persecute Bloomberg in the debates.

To think they thought impeachment was a forgone conclusion. If the Dems don’t move to impeach they risk having more egg on their face than they already do.

Until there is one “consistent” message from The Dems for America, Trump looks the more consistent and on message candidate, as hard as that may be for many to swallow.

You’ll never guess where Elizabeth Warren believes the backbone of democracy lies

If it wasn’t enough for Julian Castro to guarantee that trans females would have full access to abortions, a fellow nominee in the Democratic Party primaries, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has willingly hijacked the Native American identity to get ahead over the decades, has taken over the mantle of nosebleed irrelevance to new heights. She is fawning over a group of hateful feminists, 3,400 of them if Twitter followers are a gauge.

Supposedly the backbone of democracy comes from the likes of the BlackWomxnFor (BWF) movement, which states on its own website,

THE SPACES CREATED BY BLACK WOMXN FOR ARE INTENTIONALLY INCLUSIVE OF ALL BLACK FOLKS THAT DO NOT CLAIM MALE IDENTITY.

THIS INCLUDES BLACK TRANS & CIS WOMEN, GENDER NON-CONFORMING FOLKS AND OTHERS.”

So it is really all about exclusion. Just the type of fair-minded individuals that would unite wider America. Think of where the US could be with such delusional people running things. Perhaps BWF has been channelling Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (part of the Squad which includes the other Ringling Sisters Congresswomen Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Omar) who said,

We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.”

If only Warren embraced the spirit of individuality (regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc) rather than got behind groups that demand that certain minorities conform to a predetermined stereotype? If CM identified as a black transgender woman, who would BWF be to deny my inclusion?

Looking forward to Warren endorsing two-spirit penguins as the tibia of democracy. How bad does her campaign have to be to embrace this group? Then again at least there is consistency. The far left of the Democratic Party is all about exploiting minority oppression.

No wonder Michael Bloomberg wrote off the current Democratic field yesterday as nowhere near up to the job to win the 2020 election. What a disastrous rabble. Identity politics is pure poison.

What really confuses CM is that if the US is currently such a horrid, racist, nasty, bigoted, oppressive white patriarchy run by an oppressive lawless dictator, as the Dems portray it to be, why are so many illegals still trying to bust their way in?

Completely despicable

Another reason to like Rep Tulsi Gabbard, although she is nowhere in the polls despite her straight talking. If there was a Democratic Party candidate that even marginal Republicans could lean toward she is it.

CNN moderator Anderson Cooper asked what Gabbard thought of Trump’s withdrawal from Syria. The answer he got was a little more pointed than he expected.

Gabbard said,

Well, first of all, we’ve got to understand the reality of the situation there, which is that the slaughter of the Kurds being done by Turkey is yet another negative consequence of the regime change war that we’ve been waging in Syria…

…Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011 — along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing and cheerleading this regime change war…”

…now she gets really serious…

“…The New York Times and CNN have also smeared veterans like myself for calling for an end to this regime change war…Just two days ago, The New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist, and all these different smears. This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I’m an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

Impeachment for budding US constitutional experts

Image result for impeach

Salvatore Balbones has written one of the better pieces as goes impeachment to all those budding US constitutional experts in The Spectator today.

In the United States, no president has ever been convicted in an impeachment proceeding, even if he was guilty. In 1998, Bill Clinton almost certainly committed at least two high crimes (perjury and obstruction of justice), and God knows how many misdemeanours, but even he was acquitted. And that was with Republicans in control of the Senate. The idea that Donald Trump would be convicted on vague charges of ‘abuse of power’ by two-thirds of a Senate where his party controls an absolute majority is preposterous. Even Donald Trump isn’t that unpopular.

And then there’s the election. In case you haven’t heard, 2020 is an election year in the United States. Conviction in an impeachment proceeding removes the incumbent from office, but it doesn’t automatically disqualify him from running again. That takes an additional vote. But if Senate Republicans not only convict President Trump but also disqualify him from holding office in the future, who would be the Republican candidate in the 2020 elections? Currently, no one else is (seriously) running. The national Republican party isn’t even holding candidate debates, and some state parties are cancelling primaries and caucuses. It seems very unlikely that the Republicans would let the Democrats walk into the White House unopposed.

Impeachment Trends, Biased Sampling and why Batman knows best

Trump Nixon.png

Monmouth University has conducted an impeachment poll. It is not hard to see where the bias lies. 27% Republicans, 30% Democrats and 43% Independent. In nearly all polls conducted by the university, this is the respondent stack skew. It is so obvious that one could be forgiven for thinking the ABC Q&A programme must be taking the roll call. No surprise that Trump’s approval rating remains firmly stuck in the low 40s according to Monmouth. Monmouth had Hillary Clinton at a 9% lead over Trump in mid-October 2016. CM wonders why? Rasmussen, which was the most consistent and accurate poll leading into the 2016 election, has Trump at 48%, ahead of Obama at the same point in his presidency by 2%.

Monmouth wrote in its most recent poll, “At this time, 44% of Americans feel that Trump should be impeached and compelled to leave the presidency, while 52% disagree with this course of action. These numbers mark a shift from Monmouth’s prior poll in August (35% supported impeachment and 59% did not), but it is not the first time these results have been found in the two years Monmouth has been asking this question.”

There is something telling that there have been impeachment talks for over 2 years. Just the subject matter has continually shifted. Maybe the August 2019 Monmouth impeachment poll made the level of reasoning more clear. The 25% Republican, 30% Democrat, 45% Independent produced the following results,

– A good idea or bad idea to impeach Trump. 41% plays 51% respectively,

– Why would it be a good idea to impeach – Top 5 responses – Need to follow evidence (18%), Broken the Law (17%), Moral Character (17%), Bad Policies (16%), Racism (11%).

– Why would it be a bad idea to impeach – Top 5 responses – Trump has done nothing wrong (27%), Waste of Time (22%), Partisan Witch Hunt (13%), Trump has done Good Job (12%), Congress should work on other things (10%).

Interesting to see that racism, moral character and bad policies are viewed as plausible grounds for impeachment. The March 2019 poll from Monmouth, the question put as to whether Democrats are more interested in the truth vs undermining Trump, the results were 31% vs 46% respectively.

So even with a high proportion of skew against Republicans (Consistently at 25-27%), the results are rarely pointing to massive landslides against Trump. It should come as no surprise that when analysing the party affiliation in the poll, there is heavy partisan bias which sort of defeats the purpose of the poll putting out meaningful data. If anything the “independent” people who have contributed to the poll do not seem to be giving Monmouth the results they are hoping to get.

Of course, the mainstream media made extra effort to report that 4 in 10 Republicans thought Trump “probably did” mention the possibility of investigating Biden implying 60% didn’t. If you read the hyperlink address, it clearly makes out the majority of GOP supporters don’t believe which is disingenuous. 31% said, “don’t know.” Do we assume that all people read the transcript?

In this day and age the number of people that make kneejerk reactions – driven by media headlines (or suspiciously cut videos to remove context) on both sides of the partisan divide – without even reading the body of the article, let alone facts means such data polls tell us little. 

Last week, Rasmussen noted, “But 46% think it’s more likely that Trump will be reelected in 2020 than defeated by the Democratic nominee or impeached, unchanged from late July…28% see a win by the Democrats’ candidate as more likely, down from 33% two months ago. 17% believe Trump is likely to be impeached before serving his full term in office, up from 11% in the last survey but down from a high of 29% when Rasmussen Reports first asked this question in late December 2017.”

In the end, Batman knows best. “Don’t trust the polls.

#CancelWhitePeople Sarah Jeong dumped by NYT

What irony that The NY Times finally came to the conclusion what the majority knew about potty mouthed Sarah Jeong, albeit 12 months too late. The picture above shows a selection of tweets before she was hired by NYT. Despite that, NYT defended her hire.

CM wrote back in August 2018,

“Was Jeong not aware that 8 of the 12 board of editors are currently white? Not that the board’s racial identity should have any bearing on disgraceful bigotry displayed by her.

The only point at stake here is whether The NY Times will defend and maintain consistent standards it would certainly hold if a white editor raged on about people of other colour. This isn’t a rally or #boycott (please no more boycotts) to get Jeong sacked. On the contrary. In free market thinking the question is whether The NY Times exercises rational judgement and sees that from a commercial perspective defending the indefensible might not be good for growing the business or encouraging a shrinking pool of paying advertisers to rent more space?

After the election of Trump, the newspaper changed its slogan to “The truth is more important now than ever.” For someone to espouse such bitter hatred so candidly in social media forums which have a half life of infinity, her truths are for all to see. The truth in The NY Times’ slogan is also on display.

How could The NY Times possibly hope to uphold the highest levels of ethics and moral high ground by defending her? In her press blurb the paper is effusive with praise citing, “Sarah has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.“ It is also quite telling that Twitter didn’t think she broke the very standards that would see conservative voices banned for far less offensive tweets.

CM wonders what the Harvard Law School has to say about its deeply talented alumni who served as Editor of the Journal of Law and Gender? Perhaps she just missed the ethics classes because she was too busy battling to make sure the correct pronouns were used in the articles on identity politics.”

Now the NYT has terminated her contract. Undoubtedly her contribution was as empty as her Twitter bile. She will now be a contributor, a rather large downgrade from being on the editorial board. She tweeted about the NYT paying attention to subscriber numbers, something the paper might have considered at the start.

Maybe her impact was one which didn’t ring the turnstiles at NYT. It is likely the same reason why The Guardian begs for charity instead of coming to terms with the fact that the content maybe the problem.

Note NYT is offering Aussies an 80% off subscription deal for a year.

In an impeachment mud wrestle, the safest bet is on Trump

Image result for mud wrestling stripes

The Democrats currently have 6 congressional committees investigating Trump. Six. They are looking like a complete laughing stock, once again trying to find a smoking gun where seemingly none exists. The mainstream media was as ever compliant, fuelling their blood lust set off by chronic Trump Derangement Syndrome. Releasing the unredacted phone transcript with Ukrainian PM Volodymyr Zelensky shows once again how Trump always ends up the favourite in a mud-wrestling contest. One would have thought the Democrats would get this by now. Yet they fall for it every time.

If one reads the transcript, it seems that Trump asked about having Zelensky look into the possible shenanigans surrounding the 2016 election and Joe Biden’s son’s alleged corruption with Ukrainian oligarchs in 2015. There are no quid pro quos made, something even the left-leaning NYT admits.

Pelosi seems to have buckled to her party to flip-flop on impeachment. Instead of waiting for the telephone conversation to be released, which Trump promised he’d do, she seems to have acted in haste. Unless she thinks retired Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire’s testimony opens a whole can of worms which could lead to their ultimate wish, as it seems they realise 2020 is sunk by conventional methods.

There is a touch of irony that it is only Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat presidential nominee who seems to favour the American people deciding rather than a bunch of politicians who haven’t got over the fact that Clinton’s coronation never came to be. Gabbard said,

“I believe that impeachment at this juncture would be terribly divisive for the country at a time when we are already extremely divided. The hyperpartisanship is one of the main things driving our country apart…I think it’s important to beat Donald Trump, that’s why I’m running for president…But I think it’s the American people who need to make their voices heard making that decision.

Impeachment still requires a 2/3rds vote in the Senate which is highly unlikely in the Republican-dominated upper house. That will require at least 20 Republicans to side with the Democrats to remove Trump. What the call for impeachment will do is likely finish off ol’ Joe Biden from the race. He is far too centrist for the left of the party in any event given it has been hijacked by the hard-left.

Ultimately Trump may relish the thought of a protracted impeachment battle that ends up showing no evidence yet exposing that Democrats as being more intent on pursuing vendettas than helping the very people they’re elected to serve.

One thing is for sure, Americans are growing tired of these antics and impeachment hearings will only make the chance of turfing Trump in 2020 that much harder, despite several Democrat-held states introducing legislation to bar Trump from the ballot paper should he refuse to release his taxes.

As Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “never disturb your enemy when he is making a mistake.