Media Search:



Liberals pout, weep and stage protests – Greensboro News & Record

It is absolutely comical to watch various elements of liberalism scream, pout, march and spew vulgarities since that paragon of virtue, Hillary Clinton, lost the election and messed up their playhouse.

It is astounding that a vulgar-mouthed woman who calls herself Madonna seems to be the spokesperson for todays liberal woman.

It is sad to see that our public universities have become liberal indoctrination centers as opposed to education centers.

Please witness the current trend for rude mobs to shout down any speaker with whom they disagree.

This culminated in violence recently on the University of California, Berkeley campus with ninja-clad rioters throwing fire bombs at police. Shades of the Ku Klux Klan!

Want to know whats wrong with our country?

Its called humanisim, where many are so progressive that they think they are wiser than God.

Dont believe it? Just look at the menu of sexual ideas and practices many worship, which God clearly states are sin.

Galatians 6:7 states: Be not deceived; God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Continue reading here:
Liberals pout, weep and stage protests - Greensboro News & Record

Today in Obamacare: liberals are taking back the term "death panels" – Vox

Chuck Grassley just cant escape death panels.

Back in 2009, the Iowa senator suggested that the Affordable Care Act might create something akin to a death panel, where the government decides which patients survive. In remarks at a town hall, he seemed to endorse the idea that the health care law had a program meant to ration end-of-life medical care. (It didnt.)

This week, eight years later, Grassley had another town hall, and death panels came up again. But this time, the term meant something very different because Obamacare supporters, not critics, were the ones saying it.

Grassleys quote at the 2009 town hall became infamous, echoing through the following months and years of health care debate. And I don't have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family, Grassley said then. We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on Grandma.

The death panel myth had incredible staying power. PolitiFact ended up naming it the lie of the year in 2009. The group cited Grassley as a prominent Republican [who] didnt reject the death panels claim. Six years later, in 2015, some people still believed it: A Vox poll that year found 26 percent of Republicans and 12 percent of Democrats believed the ACA created a government panel that helps make decisions about patients end-of-life care.

But just as Obama eventually embraced the once-derisive term Obamacare, liberals are trying to take back the radioactive death panels phrase in the second round of health reform debate. At a town hall meeting Tuesday in Iowa, Grassley faced accusations that Obamacare repeal would be akin to a death panel, as it could end health coverage for millions of Americans.

Over 20 million will lose coverage, and with all due respect, sir, youre the man that talked about the death panels, an Iowa farmer who relies on the health law argued at the event. We're going to create one great big death panel in this country that people cant afford to get insurance.

Grassley helped the death panel myth take off. He was a legislator who told his constituents they were right to worry about the government pulling the plug on Grandma. But eight years later, hes facing a quite different argument from his constituents: that ending the Affordable Care would pull the plug on them if they lose coverage.

Why has the death panel myth had such staying power? It arguably taps into fears of rationing, the idea that some people wont get the medical care they need because the government doesnt want to spend the money. This is not a uniquely American problem. Other countries, including Canada and Britain, run into the same issue. But the fear from Grassleys constituents in 2009 and 2017 is essentially coming from the same place: a worry that those who need access to medical care may find themselves denied.

It saved my life': Talk of Obamacare repeal worries addicts: In Kentucky, which has been ravaged worse than almost any other state by fentanyl, heroin and other drugs, Tyler Witten went into rehab at Medicaid's expense after the state expanded the program under a provision of the act. Until then, he had been addicted to painkillers for more than a decade. "It saved my life," he said. Adam Beam and Carla K. Johnson, Associated Press

McConnell-linked group to hardliners: It's repeal AND replace: The group's polling and ads are hitting at a critical time, with Freedom Caucus members and other hardliners saying they're mostly interested in repealing the law and then working out a replacement later. Outside conservative groups also worry that the longer Republicans try to agree on a replacement, the longer the repeal effort will take, giving Democrats and progressive groups time to mobilize against it. Jonathan Swan, Axios

ObamaCare fix hinges on Medicaid clash in Senate: Sen. John Thune (R-SD) calls it the single thorniest issue of the entire debate. You dont want to punish or penalize states that didnt expand [Medicaid], but the states that did expand are going to say, We dont want to get punished for expanding, either. To me, thats probably the thorniest and most difficult issue to resolve, said Thune, the chair of the Senate Republican Conference. Alexander Bolton, the Hill

Visit link:
Today in Obamacare: liberals are taking back the term "death panels" - Vox

Weakened Democrats, Opting for Total War on Trump, Bow to Their Voters – New York Times


New York Times
Weakened Democrats, Opting for Total War on Trump, Bow to Their Voters
New York Times
Immediately after the November election, Democrats were divided over how to handle Mr. Trump, with one camp favoring all-out confrontation and another backing a seemingly less risky approach of coaxing him to the center with offers of compromise.
Powerless Democrats realize politics is localCNN
Democrats are asking all the wrong questions of wannabe party chairsNew York Post
Democrats tread lightly on primary challenge questionPolitico
Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -NBCNews.com -Commonweal -Navy Times
all 333 news articles »

Excerpt from:
Weakened Democrats, Opting for Total War on Trump, Bow to Their Voters - New York Times

Can the Democratic Party Win Back Voters It Lost to Trump? – The Atlantic

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, who is up for reelection in the red state of Missouri in 2018, recently told a St. Louis radio host she may face a primary challenge. I may have a primary because there is, in our party now, some of the same kind of enthusiasm at the base that the Republican Party had with the Tea Party, she said during an interview earlier this month. Many of those people are very impatient with me because they dont think Im pure, she added.

Republican Lawmakers Face Hostile Town-Hall Crowds

As the Democratic Party contemplates whats next in the wake of its defeat in the presidential election, liberals may have to decide what matters more: Building a big tent party where far-left voters and moderate centrists can co-exist even if they occasionally disagree on policy and strategy, or focusing on the demands of the partys progressive base, potentially creating a more like-minded and ideologically rigid coalition in the process.

In an effort to persuade Democrats to embrace a big-tent strategy, Third Way, a center-left think tank, argues in a new report that voters arent necessarily rigidly attached to a particular party, and might be won over as a result. The report, titled Why Demography Does Not Equal Destiny, concludes that demographic change in the United States wont deliver Democrats a winning electoral coalition by default, but that there are still opportunities for the party to convince Americans to vote for Democratic candidates even if they havent always done so in the past.

There are definitely persuadable voters out there and the question we should be asking right now is: Who can be persuaded to embrace our vision of the future? report co-author Lanae Erickson Hatalsky of Third Way said in an interview. The idea that there was this rising electorate that would automatically deliver progressive victories wooed us away from doing the hard work of trying to find common ground with people since it seemed easier to just find people who agreed with us.

Erickson Hatalsky argues that voting trends suggest that some voters swing back and forth between the two parties rather than remain consistently loyal to one party or the other. For example, hundreds of counties across the United States flipped from voting for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election to voting for Trump in 2016. Some congressional districts also delivered victory for Trump while at the same time reelecting Democratic members of Congress, like Cheri Bustos in Illinois and Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania.

There are clearly people out there who have not decided that they vote for only one party, Erickson Hatalsky said. I think thats hopeful because it indicates that if the Democratic Party takes the time to listen to what it is that these people are looking for, we may be able to expand our coalition.

The report notes that there has been a rise in the number of voters who identify as independent in recent years, and suggests that they could be a potential target for the Democratic Party. Some political scientists, however, maintain that independent voters are really partisans in disguisepeople who may not want to publicly identify as a Republican or a Democrat, but nevertheless consistently vote for candidates of a particular party. Third Way has challenged this conclusion, and does so in the report by tracking how independents have swung as a voting bloc back-and-forth between voting for Democrats to Republicans in presidential elections dating back to 1976.

Independents lean toward one party or another, and vote for that party, over shorter time horizons, but this trend shows that over longer time horizons partisan loyalties are not fixed in place for independent voters, Erickson Hatalsky said.

But what if there isnt a significant number of voters available for Democrats to win over or win back? What if, instead, the partisan battle lines are now firmly entrenched, and spending time, energy, and effort trying to change hearts and minds proves to be a losing proposition for the party?

Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, is skeptical that Democrats can significantly grow their base by converting large numbers of either Republicans or Trump voters. He believes Democrats would be more effective if they focused on increasing turnout of core Democratic constituencies, such as African American, Hispanic, and younger voters.

Theres a reason why campaigns are devoting more and more resources trying to energize the base rather than trying to persuade people. Its because trying to persuade people is extremely difficult in this day and age, Abramowitz said in an interview. Thats not to say there wont ever be any movement back and forth between parties, he added, but I just dont see there being any large number of movable voters.

Abramowitz notes that looking back at the voting behavior of independents spanning the past several decades may fail to adequately recognize that party loyalties are much stronger today than in the 1970s and 80s. Instead, he points to increasing ideological division among voters in recent years and what he calls negative partisanshipa phenomenon whereby animosity toward the opposing party becomes a driving factor behind how a person decides to voteto argue that there likely isnt a significant number of voters up for grabs.

Erickson Hatalsky acknowledges theres little evidence to suggest theres a whole swath of Democratic voters sitting at home who are just waiting to come out if we excite them. But, she added, if we are going to build a progressive coalition that can dig Democrats out of their hole at the state and local level and get them back into the White House, we cant write people off either. Voters who went for Obama and then Trump cannot be deemed unreachable for Democrats, and neither can voters in states that voted for Trump, but have continued to elect Democrats to Congress. To do so, is to accept permanent status as a coastal, urban, powerless party.

As the centrist wing of the Democratic party attempts to make its case, it will have to contend with an increasingly restive progressive base. A wave of protests across the countryincluding the Womens March and rallies in opposition to the first iteration of President Trumps travel banseem to have convinced at least some Democrats in Congress to become increasingly uncompromising in their opposition to the presidents priorities. Progressives are also organizing in the aftermath of the election with the explicit aim of launching primary challenges against Democrats they deem not rigid enough in their opposition to Trump.

If centrist Democrats want to ensure that the Democratic Party embraces a big-tent strategy, they will need to convince skeptical voters of the merits of the party. They may also need to convince progressive members of their own party of the merits of that strategy. And that could be a difficult task. Some progressive groups view Third Ways centrist political ambitions as emblematic of the type of establishment politics they believe failed the Democratic Party during the presidential election, and are likely to push back on, or outright reject, whatever the think tank suggests as a result.

But perhaps the most salient challenge for Democrats all across the partisan spectrum will be whether they can accept political realitywhatever that may beand what it dictates about the future of the political left, even if it contradicts their own vision of what the party should look like.

See the original post here:
Can the Democratic Party Win Back Voters It Lost to Trump? - The Atlantic

Sweden Democrats: Trump was right – Fox News

Two leading Swedish politicians have a message for President Trumps critics: Hes right.

Per Jimmie Akesson and Mattias Karlsson, both leaders of the Sweden Democrats, penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Wednesday supporting Trumps characterization of a Muslim immigrant-led crime crisis in Sweden.

Mr. Trump did not exaggerate Swedens current problems, Akesson and Karlsson wrote. If anything, he understated them.

Mr. Trump did not exaggerate Swedens current problems. If anything, he understated them.

- Per Jimmie Akesson and Mattias Karlsson, in Wall Street Journal op-ed

Trump was ridiculed by many after he gave a speech Saturday citing Sweden among a list of European countries affected by the scourge of Islamic terror. Referring to the massive number of Middle Eastern refugees that have poured into the country, Trump said Sweden was having problems like they never thought possible. Some Swedish politicians openly derided Trumps portrayal of the country but riots in a heavily immigrant suburb of Stockholm on Monday evening put an end to most of the mockery.

Swedish police were investigating a riot that broke out overnight in a predominantly immigrant suburb in Stockholm after officers arrested a suspect on drug charges.

Riots and social unrest have become a part of everyday life, Akesson and Karlsson wrote. Police officers, firefighters and ambulance personnel are regularly attacked. Serious riots in 2013, involving many suburbs with large immigrant populations, lasted for almost a week. Gang violence is booming. Despite very strict firearms laws, gun violence is five times as common in Sweden, in total, as in the capital cities of our three Nordic neighbors combined.

They added: Anti-Semitism has risen. Jews in Malmo are threatened, harassed and assaulted in the streets. Many have left the city, becoming internal refugees in their country of birth.

The Sweden Democrats duo ended the op-ed with a warning for the United States.

For the sake of the American people, Akesson and Karlsson wrote, with whom we share so many strong historical and cultural ties, we can only hope that the leaders in Washington wont make the same mistakes that our socialist and liberal politicians did.

CLICK TO READ THE FULL OP-ED IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Read the original:
Sweden Democrats: Trump was right - Fox News