Democrats seek creative ways to campaign amid impeachment trial





“What we have to do is protect the Constitution of the United States, that’s more important, even in this moment, than what happens at the next elections because if we don’t protect that Constitution it won’t matter who the next president is.”

— Ann Valentine, retired higher education executive – Iowa

 

This Bernie douchebag is a total fraud and loser...

Bernie’s Campaign Calls the Police After Reporters Question Them Over a Staffer’s Wish to Murder All Rich People (Including Bernie?)
Posted at 10:02 pm on January 23, 2020 by Alex Parker







Call the police!

That was the response of Sanders campaign staff Thursday.


In South Carolina, officials for everyone’s favorite political candidate who wants to take away the rights of Americans to own their own business called the law on undercover journalists with James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.

You may have seen recent video of PV, wherein — as I covered January 15th — a staffer admitted Bern’s a conventional follower of the Nazis’ favorite economic system “masquerading” as a democratic socialist (was there ever any game-changing difference?).

Well somebody called the po-po on them fools.

And why? Because the reporters were pressing campaign peeps over comments made recently by Bernie field organizer Martin Weissgerber.

South Carolina @BernieSanders Field Organizer @martinthemanic: "I'll straight up get armed...I'm ready for the "f**king revolution"; "Guillotine the rich"; 'send Republicans to re-education camps'

FULL RELEASE 12:00PM#Expose2020


I feel like I should embed that twice, but maybe you can just watch it again.

As for killing the rich, taking away business rights will certainly do it: It’ll kill the rich as a class.

Except for the politicians, of course.

Legislators AOC and Bernie favor a system in which they have all the control over products and production.

Lucky coincidence?

The cop who responded to the distress call told Project Veritas what’s what:

“They said that the only thing they’re gonna have is no comment. If you try to make contact with them, it’s no comment. … It’s one of those things where they wish he hadn’t said that, but they’re still standing by him…”



BREAKING: @BernieSanders Campaign calls the police on @PVeritas_Action.

Officer: ‘They said they are going to have no comment. If you try to make contact with them it’s no comment...it’s one of those things where they wish he hadn’t said that, but they’re standing by him’



It seems to me that, if they didn’t want to answer questions about Martin’s remarks, they wouldn’t have also expressed solidarity with him.

Here’s more of his thoughts, as compiled by The Daily Wire:

“Let’s force them (billionaires) to build roads. … Rebuild our roads, rebuild our dams, rebuild our bridges. Let’s force them to do that.”

“Well, the gulags were founded as re-education camps. … What will help is when we send all the Republicans to the re-education camps.”

“I’m already on Twitter, following numerous groups around the country that are ready to organize yellow vest protests. I’m ready … I’m ready to start tearing bricks up and start fighting. … I’m not — no cap, bro. I’ll straight up — I’ll straight up get armed, I want to learn how to shoot, and go train. I’m ready for the f***ing revolution, bro. … I’m telling you. Guillotine the rich.”

“I think I was radicalized from the day; first day I was born … my dad, is a Marxist. Like, straight-up from Belgium … he took part in Paris ’68 and all that, which is really cool. … I’ve always made it, I’ve always been unapologetic about it since I was younger, I always said, you know I’m a Communist … in my house, we had, you know Das Kapital, Engels, and Marx and all that sh*t. … I’m a Communist that believes in direct democracy, direct communes on everything. Pretty much, anarcho-syndicalism. Unions everything. I hope, but I don’t know how effective that is in addressing climate change, for instance.”

“Oh, yeah. My dad is real; my mom is, but my mom is really left as well. But she can’t make her views known, because she works for WBUR, which is NPR, so she’s more held back. But you know … But then I went, I started studying it. That’s what I studied in college, I studied Russian his–., Soviet history. … I became the resident Marxist. … But, yeah, I’m all about the complete seizure of the means of production, nationalizing everything.”

“I only learned this sh*t in college when I started studying the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not horrible … I mean, for women’s rights, the Soviet Union — I think — the most progressive place to date in the world.”

“The first gulag that was opened; have you heard about Belomorkanal? They dug a canal; the plan was, in 1922, I think, to dig a Canal from the White Sea all the way to Saint Petersburg…a long way, if you look on a map…and, the whole point — it was going to be called the Belomorkanal, and I read — I spent a whole semester actually studying primary accounts from the Belomorkanal. The whole point of the Belomorkanal, there were no machines allowed. They forced the people to dig with shovels and hoe the whole canal, right? You should see the people writing about their time at the Belomorkanal. There’s this one guy, he was a thief from Georgia who had been captured. He was sent to the Belomorkanal to work and in his writing, like ‘I reject all thievery, I reject that past life.’ He said, capitalism made me into this thief, because when there’s poor people, there’s going to be crime. He said, ‘I went to the Belomorkanal and I worked.’ He became a shock worker, which is what they call the leading workers, people who always met the quota and exceeded the quota…and, like people came from America to work at the Belomorkanal for the Soviet project, the communist project. It was a beautiful thing.”

“Leave it to the Soviets to make the most badass f***ing, most effective gun in the world…AK-47…the destroyer of imperialism and coloniali[sm]. … That’s why I want to get it [AK-47] tattooed on me.”

“So, do we just cease — do we just dissolve the Senate, House of Representatives, the judicial branch, and have something Bernie Sanders and a cabinet of people, make all decisions for the climate? I mean, I’m serious.”

How could a young person in America end up with those ideas?

I anxiously await your answers.

I’ll give him this, though: He clearly does understand that socialism means the seizure of production. Perhaps he’s just missing that he’s one of the people it would be seized from.

Socialism isn’t just the annihilation of the rich outside of government; compared to our American standard of living, it’s the prolific creation of the poor. Including those who voted it in.

Aw, heck with it. #Bernie2020. Venezuela, here we come.

I’ll stock up on toilet paper now and make millions after the election. But not billions — those guys’ll be building roads.

Martin only has one thing to figure out: How does he simultaneously elect Bernie Sanders and do terrible things to him? Bern’s worth millions.

Down with the rich! I mean, up with the rich

 

View attachment

 

YIKES...THAT... cant be unseen..

Now, aint this better?

 

FX

Watters: Dad who confronted Warren about student loan policy proved she's 'buying votes from debtors'​

Jesse Watters said Friday that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., proved she was "buying votes" after the Democratic presidential candidate was confronted by an Iowa father who challenged her plan to forgive college loan debtors.

"I think we all know when a father comes up to you and Dad is mad, and Dad has done the right thing and he is upset, you don't laugh at Dad," Watters said on "The Five." "You don't just blow off Dad because he has done a lot of hard work to make sure his family does better than he did, and that is what she is doing."

"She is buying votes, but only buying votes from debtors -- not savers," Watters added. "If you save, you are a sucker. You got screwed."

The father asked Warren if he would get his "money back" after saving up to send his daughter to college.
"I just wanted to ask one question. My daughter is getting out of school. I've saved all my money. She doesn't have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?" the father asked
“Of course not,” Warren answered, without hesitation.

"So you're going to pay for people who didn't save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?” the father pressed.

Warren has called for universal free public college as well as the cancellation of federal student loan debt up to $50,000 for those making under $100,000 per year.
She even said she'd do so on her first day in the White House, and bypass Congress if necessary.

Watters added that a Warren presidency that pursues such a policy could pit neighbor against neighbor, and cause resentment among savers toward those who were more liberal with their money and would be bailed out by the taxpayer.
"That is why Trump got elected in the first place," Watters added. "ecause Wall Street and the rich people get bailouts. Poor people get handouts, and everybody in the middle who did the right thing gets nothing."
Host Greg Gutfeld added that if Warren wanted to enact a radical policy that would help nearly every American, she could called for the cancelation of auto loans. He noted that most Americans have a car and have taken out an auto loan to buy one -- but that the catch would be that banks wouldn't lend to car buyers because they'd never get their return on investment.
"At that point, you will never get another car loan. There is no logic to this," he said. "She is just promising something free [and] hoping that she gets votes. It will never happen."

 

These leftists have a message of pure unadulterated Socialism with a hint of Communism in their recipe.

They are incapable of promoting personal incentive, individualism, personal responsibility or any form of accountability to the individual.

Trump has done all of that....personal incentive, individualism, personal responsibility or any form of accountability to the individual.

If I remember, the DNC made the statement that it will take enticing social programs to beat Trump...

Inside the DNC's plan to defeat Trump
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446243-inside-the-dncs-plan-to-defeat-trump

 

Warren is running on nothing,... promising everything to everybody to BRIBE/BUY their vote, she knows nothing she proposes would be affordable or sustainable, ...her tired and played out response, like it will pay for everything...
Populist message, no real idea for anything...what scares me is she never talks about world events, is she going to tax Iran, NK and Russia?
A total fraud even AOC and Bernie doesnt like.

 

First don't miss the glaring example of something I usually post about on the GUN RIGHTS thread which is people who think of their guns as an extension of their penis. You can clearly see that here.

And now I think this is right on two counts. First, following Nixon's resignation in 1974 the Democrats won the popular vote by 8,7 million votes and gained four seats in the Senate, 49 seats in the House of Representatives, and four seats in the gubernatorial elections. And it will not matter if Trump is not removed from office or resigns. His guilt is just glaring and overwhelming. And the vast majority of Americans can see that.

But the other reason is there is no doubt there will be more bombshells coming out of Trump's attempt to extort Ukraine into framing his political opponent. For one there are multiple FOIA cases in the courts and the courts are siding against Trump in almost every case. So there will be more damning emails and other documentation coming out. Then there is Lev Parnas. He and his attorney seem to be sitting on a mountain of evidence. With the wild card being Rudy Giuliani under investigation by the SDNY and most likely to be indicted. In fact there are already rumors coming out that Bill Barr is trying to block Giuliani's indictment. Which if true will be another bombshell all its own. And then even though the Senate will probably refuse to call him as a witness there is John Bolton's forthcoming book. And if Bolton's book comes out with major damning evidence of Trump's crimes and corruption that will be an indictment of the Republicans in the Senate. Which will cost them since 70% of Americans and 69% of Republicans say additional witnesses and documents should called during Trump's impeachment trial.

Republicans fear 2020 election wipeout if more Ukraine bombshells drop after they clear Trump of impeachment: report

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/re...s-drop-after-they-clear-trump-of-impeachment/

 

You should consider changing physicians, your medication that keeps you mildly balanced emotionally needs further peer review by the medical field.

Guliani will not be indicted....

Parnas is another criminal crying foul...

Nixon was a guilty mother fucker...

Whereas... Trump has the leftists running underground and shaking under every rock that they find cover under...

The state-run leftist media was cumming all over themselves over the impotence the left demonstrated over the past 24 hours of projecting rather than admitting factual evidence...

The Trial is over, Trump remains in the WH, and it is assumed Trump and the GOP will achieve a successful election like never before seen in American history.

With all that said...make an appointment soon my friend.

 

Why Do We Have an Electoral College Again?
Jesse Wegman
January 26, 2020, 10:44 AM CST


Why Do We Have an Electoral College Again?


Who elects the president of the United States?

In a democracy, that shouldn’t be a trick question. Thanks to the Electoral College, it seems like one. The American people cast their ballots on a Tuesday in early November, but on a national level that vote is legally meaningless. The real election happens about six weeks later, when 538 presidential electors — most of them average citizens chosen by local party leaders — meet in their respective state capitals and cast their ballots.

Nearly always, the electors vote for the candidate who won the most popular votes in their state. But do they have to? That’s the question that the Supreme Court has agreed to answer in two related cases it will hear this spring. The cases — one from Colorado and one from Washington — raise an alarming prospect: Can presidential electors vote for whomever they please, disregarding what the voters of their state said?

More than 160 “faithless electors” have chosen to go this route since the nation’s founding, a tiny fraction of all electoral votes in history. But the issue has become freshly relevant because of a concerted effort to persuade dozens of Republican electors in 2016 to switch their votes to prevent Donald Trump from taking the White House. In the end, 10 electors voted or tried to vote for someone other than their state’s popular-vote winner — the most in a single election in more than a century. (In 1872, 63 electors went against their pledge to vote for Horace Greeley, the Liberal Republican candidate, but that was because Greeley died shortly after Election Day.)

Even though faithless electors have never come close to changing the outcome of an election, more than two dozen states have passed laws requiring their electors to vote for the state’s popular-vote winner. Some punish those who don’t, while others replace faithless electors with ones who will do the job they pledged to do.

Last May, Washington state’s Supreme Court ruled that the state had the power to impose a $1,000 fine on its four faithless electors, on the ground that the Constitution gives the states total authority to decide how to appoint their electors.

Three months later, a federal appeals court in Denver went the opposite way, ruling that the founders clearly intended for electors to act independently and vote according to their consciences, not to the dictates of any political party. Once a state appoints an elector, the court said, its power over that elector ends. They cannot punish someone, or replace him or her, for voting a certain way.

The Constitution doesn’t include any explicit guidance on the matter. So who’s right? In a way, they both are.

The framers of the Constitution, and the states that ratified it, clearly expected electors to vote as they pleased. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote that electors would be men “selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass” and “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

And yet, the Electoral College has almost never worked that way in practice. Less than a decade after the Constitution was drafted, the framers’ idea of an independent elector was effectively kaput. As soon as national political parties took shape, elections became a partisan competition, and it was only logical that electors would start to take sides. In the election of 1796, electors were already pledging themselves either to John Adams, the sitting vice president and Federalist, or to Thomas Jefferson, the former secretary of state and Democratic-Republican. When one elector pledged to Adams changed his mind and voted for Jefferson, Federalists were outraged. One wrote, “Do I choose Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be President? No, I choose him to act, not to think.”

That’s been the operating assumption ever since, and it is almost never questioned. Even the term “faithless” is revealing: What faith is an elector who votes his or her conscience breaking? Didn’t the founders intend electors to be faithful above all to the country?

Yes — and yet they are not now and essentially never have been. For this reason, however the Supreme Court resolves the issue, which it will do by early summer, little will change in practice. Political parties and their candidates, who currently choose their own slate of electors in each state, are already careful about selecting people for their partisan loyalty. That selection process will only become stricter if the court rules that states may not interfere in any way with electors’ votes.

And faithless electors are unlikely to affect the outcome even if the Electoral College tally is very close, as it was in 2000, when as few as three Republican electors could have broken their pledges and handed the presidency to the Democratic nominee, Al Gore, who won the most votes nationwide. None did.

That makes sense. Americans would rightly revolt if a handful of people they’d never heard of ignored their votes and decided the election for themselves. It’s almost as if we believe that we, the people, should be voting directly for the president — the only official whose job it is to represent all of us equally, wherever we live. Which raises the question of why we still have an Electoral College at all.

 

Ah.
So the DNC appers to finally have accepted the realistic idea that, well, they won't beat trump.

So, plan B is to lay the groundwork to declare a) trump cheated b) it was the Russians c) Americans not voting for (insert name of despicable candidate) were unwashed, uneducated, trailer dwelling, knuckleheads who should not have been allowed to vote. D) The electoral College.

 

If democrats were winning through the Electoral Collage they'd be all for it...only losers bitch

 

Iowa is a toss up right now for the Democratic primary. And at least I don't remember so many Iowa polls coming up with different results. And some of them show Sanders leading Biden, So there's no telling how the vote will actually come out. But when I watched Joni Ernst yesterday screaming the quite part out loud that the real purpose of what Trump and the Republicans were doing is what Ukraine refused to do, smear Biden to try and help Trump I actually had the same thought as this article.

GOP’s Joni Ernst may have inadvertently boosted Joe Biden in Iowa: ex-White House official

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/go...ed-joe-biden-in-iowa-ex-white-house-official/

 

LOL, looks like the Hildabeast is still a thorn in Bernie's side....


Sanders supporters fume as Clinton allies named to key Dem convention committees
By Paul Steinhauser | Fox News
Hillary Clinton appears to walk back harsh comments made about Sen. Bernie Sanders in a new documentary; Todd Piro reports from Juniper, Florida.

Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders' White House bid and some Democratic National Committee members are frustrated with some initial appointments made by DNC Chairman Tom Perez to the crucial committees that will oversee the rules and party platform at this summer’s presidential nominating convention in Milwaukee, Wis.

Their frustration comes after Perez named former Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts – who was a surrogate for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign -- as co-chair of the convention’s Rules Committee. And Perez picked John Podesta – who served as Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager – to have a seat on the committee.


The populist independent Vermont senator lost a long and divisive primary nomination battle to Clinton four years ago, in which Sanders supporters felt the DNC was stacked against their candidate’s outsider run for the White House. Four years later, many Sanders allies and supporters remain suspicious of the DNC.

While the Sanders campaign didn’t respond for comment, national co-chair Nina Turner slammed the appointments as “an embarrassment” and a “slap in the face” in an interview with the progressive online news channel Status Coup.

And DNC committee member Yasmine Taeb – who backed Sanders in 2016 but remains neutral this cycle – told The Hill that “there's a very small number of appointments of allies to Sen. Sanders.”

“The appointments also include individuals that are outright hostile to Bernie Sanders and his supporters," she added. "It's not the message the DNC should be sending to the grassroots right now when we're all working aggressively to defeat the racist in the White House.”

Two other DNC committee members – who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely – told Fox News they were troubled by the appointments.

But the appointments are a small fraction of the 187 who will eventually serve on the committees – with most of the members determined in proportion to the number of delegates the presidential candidates win during the primaries and caucuses.


“Our rules require the DNC chair to make a small fraction of appointments to three standing committees for the convention, and these appointments reflect the rich diversity of our party,” DNC national press secretary Brandon Gassaway said.

“The remaining appointments will be made based on each state’s election results. 2016 presidential preference was not considered for this convention's appointments. We are grateful for these appointees’ commitment to the party and look forward to an energized convention where we will nominate the next president of the United States,” he added.

And there’s already a couple of high-profile Sanders supporters who’ve been appointed to the committees as well, including Larry Cohen, a co-founder of pro-Sanders group "Our Revolution."

 

I'll show you guys something here.

Do you know what this is?

*41 senators urge Trump administration to end ‘cruel and dangerous’ effort to cut Social Security disability benefits

*That is possibly 59 Senators that could be looking at attack ads soon or even in the future. Trump and the Republicans have made it clear they are coming after our Social Security, Medicare, and any other program just regular folks might use to they can send more money to their rich friends and themselves. Which is about to become the biggest issue in the coming election.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/41...t-to-cut-social-security-disability-benefits/

 

Biden doesnt appear too stable, he's always getting in someone's face, trying to prove he's a tough guy

________________________________________________
Tweets not included due to privacy concerns
FX

Biden takes heat after sparring with Iowa voter who challenged him on climate change​

Joe Biden came under fire Tuesday from 2020 rival Tom Steyer after a video surfaced of him telling a man in Iowa to “go vote for someone else” when the man challenged him on his energy policies in the Hawkeye State.
The man, identified as Ed Fallon, took the opportunity during Biden's appearance at a campaign event to grill him on energy policies.

"I'm going to support you if you win the nomination because we've got to get rid of Trump. What are we going to do about climate change?" asked Fallon, a former state legislator. “Now you say you’re against pipelines but then you want to replace these gas lines... We have got to stop building and replacing pipelines."

“No no no... go vote for someone else,” Biden said while patting him on the chest. "You’re not going to vote for me in the primary.”

“I’m going to vote for you in the general if you treat me right,” Fallon said.
“Look, you’re asking for a picture of me, coming up and telling me you don’t support me,” Biden said, to which Fallon disagreed, saying he’d back him in the general.

“I’m looking for a primary, caucus [vote],” Biden told Fallon, who said he's supporting Steyer in the caucuses next week. Fallon then asked for a picture, to which Biden said no.
The exchange went viral online after video from journalist Zaid Jilani surfaced, and it soon brought criticism from Steyer, who said it was “no way to treat an Iowan.”
“He said he'd vote for the Dem in the general [because] he knows how important it is to beat Trump,” Steyer tweeted Tuesday. We need immediate action on climate. If you don't agree, happy to talk debate.”
“But don't take it out on voters we need to win in [November],” he added.

Fallon, meanwhile, took to his website, BoldIowa.com, to give his account of the interaction, where he accused Biden of not even attempting to address his concern.
“What was even more shocking was how Biden pushed and poked me, and then took hold of my jacket with both hands as he lectured me,” he wrote.“I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it one more time: Joe Biden is the Democratic candidate LEAST likely to beat Donald Trump,” Fallon wrote. “His demeanor on the stump will inevitably come back to bite him, perhaps repeatedly."

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.

 

GOP leader warns lawmakers on fundraising: 'Getting our ass kicked'

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...akers-on-fundraising-getting-our-asses-kicked

 

What a joke.

Plenty of fraudulent disability claims that can be analyzed, that bleed the Budget.

 

Want Trump out of office?

Very simple.

Present a candidate that won't alienate the 63 Million voters who put Trump in office rather than let a corrupt, career criminal in the oval office.