web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Watch: Elizabeth Warren Shrugs Off Special Needs Student Trying to Ask Her a Question

Westlake Legal Group ElizabethWarrenAPimage-620x317 Watch: Elizabeth Warren Shrugs Off Special Needs Student Trying to Ask Her a Question Teaching student special needs Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren elections Education democrats campaign Allow Media Exception 2020

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks at the Iowa State Fair, Saturday, Aug. 10, 2019, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/John Locher)

Remember when Senator Elizabeth Warren was claiming that she was fired from her job as a special needs teacher because she was pregnant?

She told the story during the Democratic debate — even putting it in a tweet — about a principle that didn’t invite her back to teach because she was “visibly pregnant.” Nevertheless, she persisted, Warren told us.

Westlake Legal Group elizabeth-warren-teaching-tweet-620x329 Watch: Elizabeth Warren Shrugs Off Special Needs Student Trying to Ask Her a Question Teaching student special needs Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren elections Education democrats campaign Allow Media Exception 2020

It was all bunk, of course. Warren herself said she didn’t have the necessary certificates and upon trying to get them, decided that this kind of career wasn’t for her. Still, she likes to pretend that if it wasn’t for misogyny, she’d still be a special needs teacher today.

But for a would-be special needs teacher, Warren doesn’t seem to know how to deal with special needs people according to some footage that was just released.

In a video, Warren can be seen on stage addressing what seems to be students. A student is selected to come up and ask a question, and it turns out to be a young black man who clearly has a mental disability. His question is filled with disjointed words and phrasing, and despite being asked to repeat it twice, it makes absolutely no sense.

Regardless, you can hear his fellow students cheering him on in a show of support.

At this juncture, Warren could have brought the man in and helped him get his question out properly. She could have taken the time to understand him better and make him feel important. Instead, Warren dismisses the man.

“Okay,” said Warren, clearly uncomfortable as the man walks away.

“Alright,” she said as she waved goodbye.

As many have noted after watching this clip, this isn’t the behavior of someone who has any kind of special needs training at all. In fact, Warren looked absolutely clueless as to handle the situation.

We likely got a little bit more insight into the dishonesty of Elizabeth Warren.

The post Watch: Elizabeth Warren Shrugs Off Special Needs Student Trying to Ask Her a Question appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ElizabethWarrenAPimage-300x153 Watch: Elizabeth Warren Shrugs Off Special Needs Student Trying to Ask Her a Question Teaching student special needs Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story Elizabeth Warren elections Education democrats campaign Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

AOC: We Must Have the Government Control Things, So We Can Be More Free

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-20-at-10.54.03-AM AOC: We Must Have the Government Control Things, So We Can Be More Free Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post endorsement democrats Congress campaign Bernie Sanders AOC Allow Media Exception 2020

Screenshot from this video

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced her endorsement this past week for the 2020 presidential election.

The fact that she endorsed an old white male millionaire candidate, and not a woman of color, might seem a bit of a surprise, given her rhetoric. But that it was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), her fellow socialist, is perhaps not a great shock. Because that’s always the bottom line. Her fellow “Squad” members, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) also endorsed Sanders.

Not that there seems like a huge difference anymore between Sanders and any of the other folks in the Democratic field as they all seem to be running as far to the left as they can in order to grab the base and endorsements like AOC.

Ocasio-Cortez spoke at a rally on Saturday to endorse Sanders and proposed nationalizing many areas of the economy while arguing it would make us more free.

“We need to build a mass movement in America centered on working-class, the poor, the middle class,” she said. “One that is actively anti-racist, that is rooted in principles of universality. Everybody has a right to health care. Everybody has a right to an education. One that is rooted in principles of cooperation, that is participatory, that combats not only racism but misogyny, anti-queer discrimination, we have to have actively center those principles to drive us forward because the future and our future is in public systems, and it’s publicly owned systems. Because we need to take power over our lives again. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want Mark Zuckerberg making decisions over my life. I don’t know about you, but the Waltons have already been making decisions over our lives and what we got was nothing.”

She continued, “We need a-uh-eh-uh United States that really, truly, authentically is operated, owned and decided by working, and all people, in the United States of America.”

She said we needed to hand all of that over to the government “because we need to take power over our lives again?”

Alrighty, now. The logic seems missing there.

Isn’t that what one calls communism? When all that stuff is owned by the state?

How has that worked in the past? Should we ask the millions of people who were oppressed in such systems? Of course, many of them were killed, so we can’t ask them.

Ocasio-Cortez said it was because of Bernie Sanders that she recognized her “inherent value as a human being.”

Really? Because if you didn’t know it before and that’s what did it for you, that’s truly troubling.

Would we rather hundreds of AOCs in charge of our lives? Because that’s what you get with the government in charge, when there’s even less accountability than in the private sector that at least has to pay attention to markets and, to some extent, the opinion of the people.

HT: Grabien

The post AOC: We Must Have the Government Control Things, So We Can Be More Free appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-20-at-10.54.03-AM-300x202 AOC: We Must Have the Government Control Things, So We Can Be More Free Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post endorsement democrats Congress campaign Bernie Sanders AOC Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor

Westlake Legal Group wcco-target-lawsuit Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor The Blog Target Center security costs MINNEAPOLIS lawsuit jacob frey donald trump campaign

As of now, Donald Trump is scheduled to appear at the Target Center in Minneapolis on Thursday, part of his plan to flip Minnesota to the GOP in 2020. The city wants to make sure he pays for the privilege — through the nose, apparently. The city sent a $530,000 security bill to the venue for Trump’s rally, which then passed it along to Team Trump, which then promptly threatened to sue the city over its “outrageous abuse of power”:

Tensions between Minneapolis city leaders and President Donald Trump’s campaign escalated Monday when the campaign threatened to sue the city for trying to force it to pay $530,000 for security during this week’s rally.

Trump’s campaign team said in a news release late Monday night that Mayor Jacob Frey is “abusing the power of his office” by “conjuring a phony and outlandish bill for security” to cover those costs for Thursday’s campaign rally.

City officials told the Target Center, which is managed by AEG, that it would be responsible for paying the costs. The center then allegedly tried to pass the bill on to Trump’s team and told them they would not be able to use the arena unless they agreed to the charges.

“This is an outrageous abuse of power by a liberal mayor trying to deny the rights of his own city’s residents just because he hates the President,” Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement. “People want to hear from their President, and no mayor looking to beef up his résumé for a run for higher office should stand in the way.”

Frey might have been looking to get around an issue that has hung in the background of Trump’s campaign for months. Other cities have tried billing the Trump campaign directly for increased police costs, only to have the billings ignored. The Center for Public Integrity reported on the backlog of police-security bills last June in conjunction with NBC and CNBC, when it totaled up to almost $900,000 in this cycle already:

At least nine other city governments — from Mesa, Arizona, to Erie, Pennsylvania — are still waiting for Trump to pay public safety-related invoices they’ve sent his presidential campaign committee in connection with his political rallies, according to interviews with local officials and municipal records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

Some invoices are three years old. In all, city governments say Trump’s campaign owes them at least $841,219.

However, the campaign never agreed to pay police costs in the first place. The Secret Service did request extra police presence, as they would wherever the president travels and for whatever purpose, but that’s been considered part of the normal operation in protecting presidents as well as the local communities impacted. CPI also noted that many municipalities agree with that concept, expressly prohibiting imposing security costs on politicians for holding events.

By billing the Target Center instead of the Trump campaign, it certainly looks as though Frey was trying to get around that issue. This actually demonstrates why such policies might be wise; Frey’s actions could easily be taken to arbitrarily deny politicians a forum to engage with voters. Do they charge these costs to every venue that hosts events for political campaigns? Do the venues always pass along those costs if/when they get billed? Or is this treatment only reserved for Republican presidential candidates who visit MN-05?

Those turn out to be excellent questions, at least when it comes to Minneapolis. The city doesn’t even bill the Twins and the Vikings for such costs — at least not yet:

In an interview Monday, Minneapolis City Attorney Susan Segal said “it’s not fair” for residents to shoulder such costs, whether they are for political or sporting events. She said the city has been having conversations with organizations including the Twins, the Vikings and the Minnesota Ballpark Authority about sharing the costs of additional event expenses during games. She said these discussions have been going on since before the Super Bowl in 2018.

Bear in mind that the city has been eating those costs for decades, even while building both teams brand new stadiums over the past few years. Nor, in fact, have they ever billed a political campaign before now:

Robin McPherson, Minneapolis Police Department’s finance director, said in a Sept. 26 e-mail to city officials that the agency has not sought reimbursement for campaign rallies because it was “to ensure public safety not security for the candidate and any costs have been nominal.” But she said Trump’s rally “will be significantly more expensive and extensive.”

In other words, this was an arbitrary choice to impose such security costs. It’s also an absurd amount to charge, as WCCO reported noted this morning and picked up Team Trump. For comparison, a similar Trump campaign visit to Duluth in 2018 cost that city only $69,000 — about 87% less than Minneapolis’ bill:

They literally don’t do it for anyone else but Trump. If it comes to a lawsuit, Minneapolis had better expect to lose, which means they’ll eat not just this clearly inflated bill, but also the inflated legal costs that won’t be so easy to write off.

Allowing city governments to charge arbitrary fees to politicians for campaign rallies seems like a very bad idea. That’s exactly what this is — an arbitrary and ludicrous fee charged to a politician which this city government doesn’t like.

The police union president is unhappy with Frey, and went on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss it. This may not turn out well for Frey, especially since the city has ordered police in the past to participate in presidential photo ops.

The post Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group wcco-target-lawsuit-300x162 Team Trump: We’ll sue Minneapolis over $530,000 shakedown by liberal mayor The Blog Target Center security costs MINNEAPOLIS lawsuit jacob frey donald trump campaign   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

News Breaks That the Whistle-Blower Worked for a Current 2020 Democrat Presidential Candidate

Westlake Legal Group gs-adam-schiff-620x413 News Breaks That the Whistle-Blower Worked for a Current 2020 Democrat Presidential Candidate zelensky whistle-blower Ukraine Politics media bias Joe Biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats complaint campaign Allow Media Exception 2020 Candidate

Adam Schiff by Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

I get to gloat a little on this one.

Earlier today, I wrote on the news that the Trump-Ukraine “whistle-blower” was a registered Democrat. On its own, that’s somewhat telling news, but perhaps not overwhelmingly meaningful without more information. In my article, I opined why I thought CNN chose to report the story in the first place given their editorial leans.

Now, you might ask yourself why CNN would report this. The answer is simple. It’s called getting ahead of a story to help frame it. We’ve seen this over and over when damaging information that could possibly help Donald Trump is on the verge of being exposed. Instead of letting it drop, legacy news agencies run and get anonymous quotes to try to get the information out there while presenting it in the best possible light…

The goal here is to get the political affiliation of the whistle-blower out there early so that when more evidence of bias drops, Democrats can claim it’s old news and not relevant to the complaint.

Games are being played here. Don’t be fooled.

Like clockwork, we’ve now got more information on the bias of the whistle-blower and I was exactly right. Not only was a he registered Democrat, the guy worked on the campaign of a current 2020 candidate.

Given that this likely occurred some years ago before this person became a CIA agent, the most likely answer is that it was on one of Joe Biden’s campaigns or possibly under Biden during the Obama campaign. We had already heard rumors that the ICIG found bias toward Biden and this latest revelation drops everything into to place.

In short, we have a registered Democrat that worked for a Democrat presidential candidate, who went to Adam Schiff first, and we are supposed to believe this is all on the up and up? Yeah, I’m gonna go with a no on that one. The complaint itself has continues to fall apart, and even though he got some details of the call correct, none of his most salacious allegations have been shown to be true. If that sounds a lot like the Steele dossier, congrats on being more perceptive than all of the legacy media.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post News Breaks That the Whistle-Blower Worked for a Current 2020 Democrat Presidential Candidate appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Trump-Shocked-300x156 News Breaks That the Whistle-Blower Worked for a Current 2020 Democrat Presidential Candidate zelensky whistle-blower Ukraine Politics media bias Joe Biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats complaint campaign Allow Media Exception 2020 Candidate   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenHillaryClinton1 Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad washington D.C. sexual misconduct sexual harassment Sexual Assault Politics People Magazine North Carolina Media Joe Biden Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats delaware Culture Campaigns campaign Bill Clinton biden Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020 #metoo

Joe Biden gives Hillary Clinton a long hug. Aug. 2016. Screen grab via CNN.

Whether it’s making excuses for her husband’s lecherous, adulterous, and deplorable behavior when he was POTUS, being actively involved in smearing his accusers, or declaring 20 years later that we must believe all women who accuse men of sexual misconduct, Hillary Clinton is a woman of many, many faces.

She proved it again in an interview she and her daughter Chelsea Clinton, an author, recently did with People Magazine.

Clinton was asked her thoughts about the 2020 Democratic candidates for president, and she noted she was “staying out of it” and planned to support whoever won the nomination.

But when asked about frontrunner Joe Biden and his well-documented overly handsy approach when it comes to women, Clinton rushed to his defense, characterizing his inappropriate touching as “a little annoying habit”:

She said that Biden, 76, who is a leading contender to challenge President Donald Trump in next year’s election, “is a thoroughly decent human being who has served our country honorably and well for decades.”

“You could take any person who sticks their little head above the parapet and says, ‘I’m going to run for president,’ and find something that … a little annoying habit or other kind of behavior that people are going to pick apart and disagree with,” she continued.

Why was Hillary so eager to sing Biden’s praises in spite of the numerous allegations of inappropriate touching and invasions of women’s private spaces? Because Orange Man Bad, of course:

“This man must be defeated,” Clinton told PEOPLE. “People who are putting themselves forward, which believe me, is a really difficult process to undergo, should be judged on the totality of their lives and their service.”

Voters must “get over it” and “vote for anybody” to get Trump out of office, even if that “anybody” likes to brush up behind women when they’re not looking and smell their hair, hug women a little too tightly for a little too long, and kiss women supporters full on the mouth:

“We can pick apart anybody. I mean, that’s a great spectator sport. But this man who’s there in the Oval Office right now poses a clear and present danger to the future of the United States. So get over it,” Clinton said. “Look at the candidates, look at what they’ve accomplished, look at what they have fought for — and vote for anybody to get rid of Donald Trump.”

Watch video of Clinton talking about Biden below:

Hillary Clinton defends yet another handsy Democratic male from criticism over his unseemly behavior. Who coulda predicted that?

Flashback –>> Andrea Mitchell lovingly narrates a clip of then Vice President Biden giving Hillary a looong hug, and notes he’s the touchy feely type (“nothing pervy here”, she states) – but that it’s no big deal because it’s just Joe Biden:

——
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenHillaryClinton1-300x171 Video: Hillary Clinton Accidentally Admits Male Democrats Are Exempt From #BelieveWomen Because Orange Man Bad washington D.C. sexual misconduct sexual harassment Sexual Assault Politics People Magazine North Carolina Media Joe Biden Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats delaware Culture Campaigns campaign Bill Clinton biden Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020 #metoo   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Beto: Living close to where you work should be a right for everyone

Westlake Legal Group b-4 Beto: Living close to where you work should be a right for everyone Work The Blog neighborhoods mixed human right campaign Beto O'Rourke

I think he’s reached the “Mad Libs” phase of his campaign. He’s at two to three percent in polling, his big anti-gun push after the El Paso shooting hasn’t done much for him except give him a few viral video moments, so he has nothing left to lose by indulging his most progressive instincts and hoping the base responds.

Six months ago he might have filled in the blank in “_______________ is a human right” with “education” or “health care.” Six months later, as he’s circling the drain, he needs to stand out from the pack. And so instead we get “living close-ish to your place of employment.” W-w-what?

What I’m calling the “Mad Libs” phase others are calling the “f*** it” phase of Betomania, with the candidate himself seemingly in agreement.

What’s interesting about O’Rourke at this moment is not just that he’s saying f*** a whole bunch—he’s always dropped curse words on the stump—but that he’s entered more broadly a new phase of his 2020 bid, which supporters find inspiring and critics consider desperate to the point of pathetic. Up close, though, it feels actually pretty compelling…

“He has no f***s to give,” added Jay Surdukowski, an attorney and activist who is one of O’Rourke’s most devoted backers in New Hampshire.

“This feels right to me,” O’Rourke said when I asked him about how he’s currently campaigning when he met with reporters by the stainless-steel beer tanks at Backlash. He said this was “the way politics should be.”…

Some see this as “glorified performance art,” “a caricature of authenticity,” but it’s working for Wright. “Beto’s not afraid to say things,” he said. “He’s not afraid to say it like it is. For those people that say, ‘Oh, Trump says it like it is,’ well, guess what, let’s go head to head.”

Should we ban sales of assault weapons? F*** it, says Beto, let’s confiscate the ones that are already on the streets. Are the people who voted for Trump in 2016, whose support Democrats are now seeking, actually deplorable racists? F*** it, says Beto. They sure are.

We’re maybe a week away from this guy endorsing open borders. Right, I know, he’s already sort of endorsed them. I mean overtly, though: “Migration to America is a human right.” He’s already torched his appeal to centrists in Texas, making it that much harder for him to run statewide again. He might as well go all-in in his new role as the progressive id. F*** it.

There are, of course, more reasonable ways to encourage mixed-income neighborhoods than declaring a human right to a shorter commute but “regulatory reform” doesn’t have the same zing on the stump. This is why so many people, lefties included, are skeptical of O’Rourke’s passionate “f*** it” mode: He’s fundamentally unserious. His proposals seem crafted with little regard for how they might be implemented or what unintended consequences they might create and with maximum regard for their applause quotient. The rap on him from the start among lefties was that he was long on charisma and short on policy chops compared to Bernie and Warren. Ironically, he’s proving their point in straining so hard to tell them what they want to hear.

I assume he has numbers to back up his claim here that the rich on average live closer to work than the working class does but it’s not intuitively true given the tendency of the upper class to cloister itself in neighborhoods that the proles can’t afford. If that means moving further away from the city and enduring a commute, that’s what it means.

The post Beto: Living close to where you work should be a right for everyone appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-4-300x159 Beto: Living close to where you work should be a right for everyone Work The Blog neighborhoods mixed human right campaign Beto O'Rourke   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kamala Harris Tries to Sell Lie About Not Hearing Slur at Her Town Hall, and the Internet Is Roasting Her

Westlake Legal Group kamala-harris-donkeyhotey-620x443 Kamala Harris Tries to Sell Lie About Not Hearing Slur at Her Town Hall, and the Internet Is Roasting Her town hall Politics Mentally Retarded kamala harris Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Campaigns campaign Allow Media Exception 2020

Kamala Harris – Caricature by DonkeyHotey, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

Kamala Harris really made a big mistake when she told a man at her town hall that when he called President Donald Trump “mentally retarded” and gave her approval.

You can see for yourself that Harris looks at the man in the face as he calls Trump the slur, and then responds with laughter and saying “well said.”

As my colleague Bonchie points out, the internet reamed Harris over this.

Harris didn’t take ownership for her mistake and instead attempted to pretend that she didn’t hear the man and went on about how such a phrase is beyond unacceptable. Had she heard it, said Harris, she would have corrected the man.

“When my staff played the video from my town hall yesterday, it was upsetting,” said Harris in a tweet. “I didn’t hear the words the man used in that moment, but if I had I would’ve stopped and corrected him. I’m sorry. That word and others like it aren’t acceptable. Ever.”

This was the wrong move. Harris clearly heard the phrase and her reaction to it makes the fact that she heard it unmistakable. Her lying to the American people about it only angered them, and they responded in force.

This includes Sebastion Gorka, who let Harris have it with both barrels. First, he called her a “bald-faced” liar, then questioned how she was ever a prosecutor after recounting what everyone saw.

“You lie with such alacrity, everyone imprisoned by you should have their cases reopened,” tweeted Gorka.

Gorka wasn’t the only one. The internet took down Harris like lions on a wounded gazelle, and not just people from the right.

Its moments like this that have caused Democrats to lose faith in Harris, who was once a prime candidate to overtake Biden and win the nomination. Thanks to a string of embarrassing moments and a pummeling at the hands of Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Harris’s poll numbers have been rapidly declining.

In fact, she’s lost all virtual support from the black community after it was revealed that her time as DA in California put a lot of black citizens in far more trouble with the state than they should have been.

Now Harris is fighting a current that has turned against her, and moments like this really shine a light on her character that many people find repulsive.

It’s very Clintonesque.

This has been a pattern from the left lately. We’re supposed to believe them instead of our own eyes and ears. Debra Messing recently claimed she was not calling for the creation of a blacklist while calling for the creation of a blacklist. Even the media is asking us to believe Antifa is generally peaceful even while we watch videos of them being violent.

It seems the left wants us to live in a fantasy world with them.

The post Kamala Harris Tries to Sell Lie About Not Hearing Slur at Her Town Hall, and the Internet Is Roasting Her appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group kamala-harris-donkeyhotey-300x214 Kamala Harris Tries to Sell Lie About Not Hearing Slur at Her Town Hall, and the Internet Is Roasting Her town hall Politics Mentally Retarded kamala harris Front Page Stories Featured Story elections democrats Campaigns campaign Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Man Calls Trump a Slur, Here’s How Kamala Harris Responded to Him

Westlake Legal Group Kamala-Harris-TH-620x317 Man Calls Trump a Slur, Here’s How Kamala Harris Responded to Him slur Politics Mentally Retarded media bias lying kamala harris Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Election donald trump democrats CBS campaign 2020

Kamala Harris has stepped in it again.

Fresh off letting you know she wants to control every aspect of your life at CNN’s climate change town hall, Harris hit the campaign trail again. She’s currently languishing in a distant fourth place in the Democrat primary and needs any boost she can get. While in New Hampshire, she took a comment from man ranting about impeachment.

Then things escalated.

“I don’t buy that argument that impeachment does not make sense; the Senate will acquit. I don’t buy that argument. There needs to be accountability. What are you going to do in the next one year to diminish the mentally retarded actions of this guy,” said the man, as some in the audience chuckled.

“Well said,” Harris responded. “Well said.”

“I plan to win this election, I’ll tell you that.”

Harris’ reaction didn’t sit well with with even some liberals, who see using the phrase “mentally retarded” as highly offensive. Worse, Harris then decided the best response to to lie and say she didn’t hear the man.

If you watch this video, this isn’t just improbable, but impossible. She heard it, no question.

Of course, the media are buying her story because that’s what they did. Get a load of this headline.

She also laughed and said “well said,” but I guess that context wasn’t important to CBS. It must be really nice to be a Democrat politician. Not only can you get away with anything, but the media will go out of their way to present you as “above the fray.”

The simple fact is that Harris is just bad at this. I haven’t bought into her campaign from day one. Even after everyone was on her bandwagon after the first debate, I wrote an article here opining she was a sucker’s bet. She’s just a terrible, inauthentic candidate. Way too many people bought into the idea that because she’s black and a woman, that she was going to rocket to the top.

It hasn’t happened and it’s not going to.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Man Calls Trump a Slur, Here’s How Kamala Harris Responded to Him appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group kamala-harris-300x153 Man Calls Trump a Slur, Here’s How Kamala Harris Responded to Him slur Politics Mentally Retarded media bias lying kamala harris Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Election donald trump democrats CBS campaign 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Reports: Trump campaign poll shows new gun-control measures would be unpopular with his base

Westlake Legal Group t-3 Reports: Trump campaign poll shows new gun-control measures would be unpopular with his base Trump The Blog republicans red flag laws poll internal campaign background checks

“Well, yes, obviously,” you’re thinking. It’s not a secret that Republicans support gun rights. But that’s what makes this story — or stories, rather — interesting. People who are familiar with the results of this poll are curiously eager to share the takeaway from it with the media, even though it allegedly says exactly what you’d expect it to say.

But they’re also being very, very coy about what it says exactly. No numbers have been released. “Gun control would be a problem politically for Trump” is about as specific as they’re willing to get. How come, if they’re otherwise willing to chatter to reporters about it?

The Times reported on the poll yesterday, with uncharacteristic vagueness:

President Trump assured Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, on Thursday that he was still considering legislation that could include background checks for gun buyers. But White House aides said they had polling data showing that gun control was politically problematic for the president, according to two people briefed on the meeting

Mr. Trump’s aides were on hand for the meeting, and the president told Mr. Manchin that a background checks bill that the senator had pushed for with a Republican counterpart, Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, was still on the table, according to the people briefed on the discussion.

But the polling data, White House aides said, indicated that the issue does not help the president with his core base of supporters, according to the people briefed on the meeting.

That’s as much detail as the story provides on the poll’s findings even though its existence and its influence on Trump’s thinking is the entire point of the article. ABC posted its own story about the poll last night — and they’re as much in the dark as the Times is:

As President Donald Trump has mulled acting on gun control legislation in the wake of a string of mass shootings, data gathered by the president’s campaign showed that supporting any gun control measures would pose a problem for him politically going into the 2020 election season, according to sources familiar with the results.

The data is comprised of campaign polling conducted before recent back-to-back mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, that left 31 dead — as well as more recent outreach to his base and independent voters, according to the sources. ABC News has not independently reviewed the data. The sources said it’s likely to inform Trump’s decision on whether to act on any gun control legislation, despite separate nationwide polling showing widespread public support for tougher gun sale background checks.

The White House requested data from the campaign on how Trump’s base and independent voters would react if Trump were to support gun control measures late last month, after the Dayton and El Paso shootings, the sources told ABC News.

That’s all ABC knows. Note, by the way, how similar the phrasing in both stories is: Gun control will pose a “political problem” for Trump in 2020, which is so vague as to be *almost* meaningless. A political problem how, exactly? Are 80 percent of Republicans against universal background checks, in which case Trump signing them into law would be catastrophic for his chances next year? Or are 10 percent of Republicans opposed to them, which still technically qualifies as “politically problematic” given how tight the margins were in the Rust Belt in 2016? Did the poll define Trump’s “core base of supporters” as the entire Republican electorate or as some much smaller subset of that, like “campaign donors” or “Fox News viewers”? How did they define “gun control” for respondents — as a broad unspecified term or with particular proposals like background checks, red-flag laws, an assault-weapons ban, and so on? If they polled particular proposals, was Trump’s “core base” adamantly opposed to all or did some poll better than others?

I ask because there are lots of public polls about guns that include numbers on Republican opinion. Quinnipiac asked about universal background checks just two weeks ago. Result:

Westlake Legal Group 1-1 Reports: Trump campaign poll shows new gun-control measures would be unpopular with his base Trump The Blog republicans red flag laws poll internal campaign background checks

Public polls on UBCs routinely show support at those levels. If Team Trump’s poll found similar numbers, I’m curious to know why they think a background-checks would be “politically problematic” for him. Here’s the result from Quinnipiac, meanwhile, when people were asked if they support or oppose red-flag laws (“allowing the police or family members to petition a judge to remove guns from a person that may be at risk for violent behavior”):

Westlake Legal Group 2 Reports: Trump campaign poll shows new gun-control measures would be unpopular with his base Trump The Blog republicans red flag laws poll internal campaign background checks

Nearly three-quarters support there too. To be sure, Republicans didn’t support every gun-control proposal. They split 37/59 on a new assault-weapons ban and 18/77 on a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons already in circulation. But they’re more open to regulation than I would have thought, and sometimes in surprising ways. Here’s how things shake out when people are asked if they support or oppose “requiring individuals to obtain a license before being able to purchase a gun”:

Westlake Legal Group 3 Reports: Trump campaign poll shows new gun-control measures would be unpopular with his base Trump The Blog republicans red flag laws poll internal campaign background checks

Sixty-nine percent *of Republicans* support letting government license gun ownership? I’d love to compare Team Trump’s data.

The public polling may solve part of the mystery about the leaks to the NYT and ABC. Maybe Trump and his team are nervous that publicly available data like Quinnipiac’s is building momentum for gun-control measures like UBC and red-flag laws. “Our data says otherwise,” they’re insisting, “and no, you can’t see it.” But if that’s what’s going on here, who’s the target audience? Whose spine are they trying to steel with rumors of secret numbers showing that Republican voters really do hate universal background checks? It can’t be congressional Republicans. They have their own internal pollsters, and they know better by now than to trust Trump. It can’t be MAGA Nation either. They don’t care what polls like Quinnipiac’s say. They expect Trump to stand firm and protect their priorities even if the entire world opposes them.

So why is the Trump campaign so eager to leak the bottom-line result from the poll but also so reluctant to share details? I don’t get it.

The post Reports: Trump campaign poll shows new gun-control measures would be unpopular with his base appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-3-300x153 Reports: Trump campaign poll shows new gun-control measures would be unpopular with his base Trump The Blog republicans red flag laws poll internal campaign background checks   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Inevitable: Trump campaign now selling official fine-point markers after uproar over altered hurricane map

Westlake Legal Group t-2 Inevitable: Trump campaign now selling official fine-point markers after uproar over altered hurricane map Trump The Blog merchandise markers libs hurricane dorian campaign Alabama

I’ve got to get better about predicting these things. In hindsight this one was easy. We already know that Team Trump is pursuing a “max trollishness” strategy in campaign merchandising, cranking out items like Trump-branded plastic straws (paper straws are for left-wing wimps) and funny t-shirts goofing on Chris Cuomo’s insecurity as the “Fredo” of his family. Sometimes it’s about owning an individual lib, sometimes it’s about owning the libs collectively, but either way the thinking is the same — the Trump campaign is going to hawk stuff that lets the buyer believe he’s irritating the left with his purchase.

Apart from limiting immigration and protecting gun rights, the GOP platform in 2019 is basically just “liberal tears.” Team Trump’s online store recognizes that.

So how could they pass on the opportunity to sell cheapie Trump-branded markers? The campaign sold $670,000 worth of straws in their first month of availability. They’re bound to make a killing on this too.

Five markers for 15 bucks sounds like a deal.

If you haven’t followed “Sharpiegate” and don’t know why markers are suddenly an item of interest for Team Trump, read this and this. He’s still tweeting today that he was right all along that the hurricane threatened Alabama at one point, even having his campaign tweet out week-old CNN clips chattering about the state possibly being affected. It’s all gaslighting, though: Alabama was out of the storm’s path by August 31st, the day before Trump included it in his tweet about states that might be affected. The worst ‘Bama faced by the time he tweeted was a small possibility of tropical-storm winds in the southeastern corner of the state. He gave the public outdated information, a minor mistake. But because he’s Trump, instead of owning up to it he’d rather quintuple down in Queeg-like fashion — even reportedly doctoring the map he showed off in the Oval Office on Wednesday to include Alabama in the storm’s path.

It was Trump who used a black Sharpie to mark up an official National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration map, which he displayed during an Oval Office briefing on Wednesday, according to a White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

“No one else writes like that on a map with a black Sharpie,” the official said of the map, which added Alabama into the hurricane’s potential pathway inside the loop of the marker.

Several White House officials argued that media coverage of the Alabama issue has been unfair to Trump, but one senior administration official said that “as long as it’s in the news, he is not going to drop it.”

When he was asked after the Oval Office photo op who had drawn on the map, he replied, “I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know.” A source told Fox News yesterday that someone else had done it during a briefing but that never seemed plausible, as he’s the only person in the administration who cares that the earliest forecasts included Alabama in the storm’s path. According to CNN, in fact, Trump saw Fox’s skeptical coverage yesterday and called reporter John Roberts into the Oval Office to plead his case in person that he’d been right all along. Now that the campaign’s markers gimmick has given the media a new hook, there’s every reason to believe he’ll still be tweeting about it on Sunday, stretching this story into a full week. I figure we’ll get 10 minutes minimum on the subject at his next rally, with “Alabama was in the initial projections!” a new MAGA applause line.

Why has this moronic nothingburger dispute caused both sides to commit to such a lengthy fight? Andrew Egger captures part of it: Trump is Trump, and pushing back on him is just what anti-Trump commentators do now.

As the president’s interminable war with the Fake News drags on, it’s become clear that our media is poorly equipped to handle stories where the appropriate takeaway is obvious. The professional takester is supposed to trim away the useless gristle of the news to reveal the juicy meat concealed within—and further, to do so in a wholly original and non-derivative way. That approach works well when the news is complicated—a big new policy proposal to break down and chew over, say. It works less well for stories whose morals are plainly visible to the naked eye—and these are the stories that seem to occupy more of the news. The takeaway from the Sharpie story is obvious: “the president is a media-addled old fool who can’t be trusted to read a map, let alone operate our nuclear arsenal.” How are 500 columnists supposed to pad that out to 800 words?

The unfortunate result has been that much anti-Trump punditry is simply boring. If the humorists have trouble improving on the joke, we’re the folks tasked with the unenviable task of explaining it. You could read a thousand takes on Sharpiegate, but not a single one of them would approach the near-transcendental, anything-is-possible high you got the first time you saw Trump whip out that lunatic map.

If he’s going to go on being obviously wrong for days, people whose job it is to point when he’s wrong are going to go on ad nauseam about it for days too. I think this case is special, though, in that the sheer triviality of Trump’s error and the petty lengths to which he’s gone in refusing to admit to it have paradoxically led his critics to dig in deeper than they might on a matter of greater import. It’s practically a test of wills now: Can he wear down his critics into letting this matter drop through the sheer persistent force of relentless gaslighting even when they have him dead to rights on the facts? He tweeted bad information last weekend, he briefly panicked a state, and instead of admitting it he’d prefer to fight a week-long media battle replete with outdated maps intended not so much to prove that he was right as simply to make the other side give up in exasperation and let him declare victory. Can he get his antagonists let him win even when he’s so plainly wrong? That’s why they’re holding out. They don’t want to let him.

The post Inevitable: Trump campaign now selling official fine-point markers after uproar over altered hurricane map appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group t-2-300x159 Inevitable: Trump campaign now selling official fine-point markers after uproar over altered hurricane map Trump The Blog merchandise markers libs hurricane dorian campaign Alabama   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com