The silence was broken when they elected Trump, and they will speak in the same way in 2020. THEIR VOICE IS PRETTY F'ING LOUD IF YOU ASK ME!
Biden's brother voted for Trump, says Joe would have won. I agree Joe would have probably won, for the reasons stated. He wouldn't win now though, because the depth of the Deep State, and Joe's family's China-bribe winnings have blown his above-it-all image he enjoyed back then. Joe Biden’s brother says family members voted for Trump, ‘felt slighted’ by Clinton: report By Elizabeth Zwirz | Fox News Frank Biden, younger sibling of former Vice President Joe Biden, reportedly said that some members of the family “felt slighted” by 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and instead decided to cast their ballots for Donald Trump. The former U.S. leader’s brother took aim at the Clinton team’s campaign strategy during an interview with The Palm Beach Post. Frank told the outlet, in the report posted Monday that he believed if his brother had run at the time, he would’ve secured states that Clinton lost. “We never would have lost Pennsylvania, and all my relatives — the Finnegan family — who voted for Donald Trump because they felt slighted by Hillary and her campaign,” Biden said. “We never would have not gone to Michigan as the campaign decided not to do because they felt entitled to the votes of those people. “Assumptive politics is losing politics,” he said. “You have to work for every single vote and people have to know individually, collectively and severally that you care about them, that they’re important.” Clinton visited Michigan shortly before the election, although she ultimately did not win the state. Biden announced in 2015 that he would not be running for president. But Frank thinks that could be different this time around. “I think we’re going to run,” Biden told The Post. “You can say that ‘Frank thinks his brother’s going to run.’ Now, he could surprise me. But I know the family’s behind him 100 percent.” So far, Biden has not said whether he'll run but has been rumored as a potential candidate. The family is expected to meet “very soon” about the matter, after which he'll decide, his brother told The Post. “I believe Joe should run. I’m urging him to run and have been for a long, long time,” he told the outlet. The Democratic Party is left with a nearly “existential” choice, Frank said. “Who do you think that the disaffected Republicans and the disaffected Democrats that we need to win over to win Pennsylvania, to win Michigan, to win Wisconsin, to win Ohio, to win Florida — as a strictly Machiavellian question, who is best positioned to win those folks back?” he said. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jo...ted-for-trump-felt-slighted-by-clinton-report
I wonder if I'm the only one who saw Beto speaking to a group of black people and acting like a black preacher when he was doing it? Might as well have been passing out Hillary's hot sauce when he was doing it. He's another phony. Tulsi isn't a phony from what I can tell.
Losing the Catholic vote means losing the election. Rule out Harris and Hirono for any spot on the ticket. Gabbard scores points for calling Them out. Todd Starnes: Yes, Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono are religious bigots By Todd Starnes | Fox News Senate Democrats Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono criticize Trump nominee for membership in the Knights of Columbus There are a disturbing number of Democrat lawmakers who believe Christians must renounce their religious beliefs and affiliations in religious-based organizations if they want to hold public office. The latest victim of this blatant religious bigotry is Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee for the U.S. District Court in Nebraska. Buescher came under attack by Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, for his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a revered and highly-respected Catholic charitable organization. KAMALA HARRIS COMPARES ICE TO KKK, GETS SLAMMED FOR 'DISGUSTING,' 'HORRIFYING' REMARKS Both lawmakers posed a series of written questions demanding to know if he would end his membership in the Knights of Columbus should he be confirmed. “The Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions,” Hirono wrote in the questionnaire. “For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.” “We must call this out for what it is – religious bigotry." — Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii Harris referred to the group as an “all-male society” and took issue with their positions on abortion and other culture war issues. “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” Harris queried. The condemnation from conservatives was swift. “This isn’t just about the Knights of Columbus or Catholics, this is an ongoing attack from the extremist left of the Democratic Party to silence people of faith and run them out of engaging in public service based on their religious beliefs,” Penny Nance, the president of Concerned Women for America, wrote in a statement. But I was especially encouraged to see Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, a newly announced presidential candidate, call out members of her own party for “weaponizing religion.” “We must call this out for what it is – religious bigotry,” she wrote in a scathing op-ed in The Hill. “I stand strongly against those who are fomenting religious bigotry, citing as disqualifies Buescher’s Catholicism and his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus. If Buescher is ‘unqualified’ because of his Catholicism and affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, then President John F. Kennedy, and the ‘liberal lion of the Senate’ Ted Kennedy would have been ‘unqualified’ for the same reasons.” I respect Gabbard’s bold declaration that “no American should be asked to renounce his or her faith or membership in a faith-based, service organization in order to hold public office.” But I’m afraid she may be in the minority within her party. Radio host Dennis Prager said on Fox Nation’s Starnes Country, that secularists and leftists are attempting to drive people of faith out of the public arena. “The only organized opposition [to leftism] comes from within Judaism and Christianity,” Prager said. “The Orthodox Jew, the faithful Mormon, the traditional Catholic, and the Evangelical Protestant, these are the only organized opponents to leftism, and they know it, and they will do anything they can to suppress it.” To his point, in 2012 Democrats removed God from their party platform. And in 2016 delegates heckled a preacher attempting to deliver a prayer during the national convention. That could explain why modern-day congressional confirmation hearings now seem to resemble religious inquisitions. In 2017, Notre Dame law professor and mother of seven Amy Coney Barrett was grilled by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., over her orthodox beliefs. “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern,” Feinstein infamously declared. During that same year, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., viciously attacked the religious faith of Russell Vought, the president’s nominee to be deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Sen. Sanders deemed Vought unsuitable for office because the nominee believes that salvation is found alone through Jesus Christ. He said someone with that kind of religious belief system is “really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.” The Democrats may as well have asked, “Are you now or have you ever been a follower of Jesus Christ?” It’s not just religious bigotry, but it comes dangerously close to violating Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution – there “shall be no religious test” for any American seeking to serve in public office. In other words, a religious litmus test for public office is against the law. Sens. Harris and Hirono are either woefully ignorant of the law or they are, in fact, religious bigots. I contend they are both – making them undeserving of a place in Congress. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/todd-starnes-yes-kamala-harris-and-mazie-hirono-are-religious-bigots
Former Clinton supporter chooses appropriate setting to announce candidacy for President. Gillibrand to announce presidential bid during appearance on 'Colbert' show, report says By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News Gillibrand facing Dem donor blacklash as she mulls 2020 bid? Politico reports major Democrat donors are refusing to support the senator after she led the charge for Sen. Al Franken to resign. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand will become the next Democrat to enter the 2020 presidential fray, according to CBS News, which reported Monday that she will announce her formation of an exploratory committee Tuesday during an appearance on the network's "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” The Associated Press, citing people familiar with Gillibrand's plans, also reported that she would launch a White House bid "within days." Representatives for the senator had no immediate comment when contacted by Fox News. Gillibrand - who heads to the early caucus state of Iowa this weekend - would become the fifth Democrat, and the second senator, to officially jump into a presidential primary that could feature dozens of candidates before all is said and done. NEW YORK DEMOCRAT MOCKED FOR SAYING FUTURE IS 'FEMALE AND 'INTERSECTIONAL' Video While Gillibrand’s prominence as a face of her party has grown, she faces a tough battle to capture the attention of Democratic voters in a crowded field that’s expected to include multiple women. Several of her potential rivals have spent more time in critical primary states while Gillibrand has visited just one — New Hampshire — in October to stump for the Democratic candidate for governor. She’s expected to move quickly this week to make connections in the leadoff caucus state of Iowa. She’s scheduled to headline a meeting with Democratic activists in Sioux City on Friday evening. The event is to be held at a private home with top donors to the Woodbury County Democratic Party. Gillibrand has been in touch with some Iowa Democrats and enlisted the help of Lara Henderson, who was finance director for Fred Hubbell, the 2018 Democratic candidate for governor. But she hasn’t built up a network in the state to the degree of prospective rivals, including Booker and Harris. She was appointed to the Senate in 2009 to succeed Hillary Clinton, who became secretary of state, and she easily won re-election, most recently in November. She has $10.6 million in her campaign fund, which can be used to jump-start a presidential bid. During her time in the Senate, Gillibrand has been a central figure in Washington’s reckoning with the #MeToo era. In 2017, she was the first Senate Democrat to call on Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, a fellow Democrat, to resign amid multiple sexual misconduct allegations. She has said President Bill Clinton should have stepped down after his relationship with a White House intern was revealed and has also called on President Donald Trump to resign over sexual assault allegations. And before #MeToo, Gillibrand spent several years pushing for legislation addressing sexual assault in the military and on college campuses. The Associated Press contributed to this report. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gi...dential-bid-during-appearance-on-colbert-show
And another one bites the dust. Absolutely no way Tulsi gets the nomination now, and if she did this would still cause her to lose against Trump's far more accepting stance and record towards the gay community. Tulsi Gabbard under fire for past anti-gay remarks amid 2020 bid, says she has since 'evolved' By Elizabeth Llorente | Fox News Tulsi Gabbard under fire for past anti-gay remarks amid 2020 bid, says she has since 'evolved' Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard barely finished announcing she is running for president in 2020 when the spotlight quickly shifted to anti-gay comments and actions from her past. Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard barely finished announcing she is running for president in 2020 when the spotlight quickly shifted to anti-gay comments and actions from her past. Gabbard, a 37-year-old Democratic lawmaker from Hawaii, is known for being politically unpredictable, something she has publicly said she takes pride in. But some of her most fiery remarks against same-sex marriage in years past, as well as her active campaign to promote “traditional marriage” legislation, have drawn closer scrutiny since her announcement Friday. In years past, she several times referred to LGBTQ activists as “homosexual extremists,” a view that echoes that of her father, Mike Gabbard, whom a New Yorker profile of the congresswoman described as having long been “Hawaii’s leading opponent of the gay-rights movement, an energetic and often brusque activist who stood ever ready to denounce what he called ‘the radical homosexual agenda.’” Gabbard was a visible force against same-sex marriage, and in 2004 spearheaded a fight in the state against a same-sex union measure. “To try to act as if there is a difference between ‘civil unions’ and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” she said at the time. “As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.” Gabbard then also blasted Massachusetts’ passage of same-sex marriage legislation, making it the first in the nation to recognize gay marriage. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values, a group headed by her father, she said the Massachusetts marriage law would cause a ripple effect across the country. “It is highly likely that federal judges will soon be tearing apart our U.S. Constitution in order to force same-sex marriage down the throats of the people of Hawaii and America,” Gabbard said. “The only way to protect traditional marriage in Hawaii and throughout our country, the only way to stop activist federal judges from rewriting our constitution, is by the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment.” The Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values also drew controversy for supporting so-called conversion gay therapy, which views homosexuality as a mental illness. More than a dozen states in the country have since outlawed or restricted the controversial practice. At the time, Gabbard also gave a lengthy speech at the Hawaii State House against a proposed resolution that addressed the bullying of gay students in public schools. Gabbard argued the resolution would cast homosexuality as normal, and that it would attract “homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth.” Rarely have we seen someone who was so actively and vehemently and viscerally against LGBTQ equality and acceptance. [Gabbard] was someone who worked so actively against our community when the stakes were so high. — Zeke Stokes, the vice president of programs at GLAAD On social media, critics for the most part were not forgiving. Some said they had been aware of talk about Gabbard’s controversial remarks about gays, but were surprised to hear about the depth of her anti-LGBTQ views. Others said they wanted to hear more from the congresswoman about why she held the views and, in particularly, why she went out of her way to fight against issues of importance to the LGBTQ community. “We’ve seen [people] who may held a particular view and evolved to a place of acceptance,, but rarely have we seen someone who was so actively and vehemently and viscerally against LGBTQ equality and acceptance,” said Zeke Stokes, the vice president of programs at GLAAD, one of the most prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups, in an interview with Fox News. “[Gabbard] was someone who worked so actively against our community when the stakes were so high.” “One thing is to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but another is to actively work to stymie the progress of a community that is marginalized, and to oppose an effort to keep kids safe.” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pr...s-says-she-regrets-them-and-that-shes-evolved
A candidate in his own mind, Mexico's top healthcare insurer NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio goes full commie in hiss desperation to be noticed. De Blasio pitches plan to seize private property of problem landlords, opponents cry ‘communism’ By Adam Shaw | Fox News Liberal New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is rolling out a new plan that would potentially allow the city government to seize buildings of landlords who force tenants out -- a plan his opponents say amounts to “straight communism.” De Blasio, in his State of the City address on Thursday, announced he wants to take action against landlords who try to force tenants out by making the property unlivable -- and pulled out an executive order to create a Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants. He said that in the event the government intervenes, the buildings would then be controlled by a “community nonprofit.” DE BLASIO SAYS MODERATES NEVER LEARNED 'LESSONS OF 2016,' URGES BOLD LIBERAL AGENDA “When a landlord tries to push out a tenant by making their home unlivable, a team of inspectors and law enforcement agents will be on the ground to stop it in time,” he said, according to the New York Daily News. “If the fines and the penalties don’t cut it, we will seize their buildings and we will put them in the hands of a community nonprofit that will treat tenants with the respect they deserve.” According to the mayor’s website, the city is “pursuing new local law to seize upwards of 40 of the most distressed multiple dwelling buildings annually and transition them to responsible, mission driven ownership.” The city reportedly has gone easy on problem landlords in the past. The New York Times reported last year that officials have taken a "gentle hand with landlords who deprive tenants of basic services, declining to enforce the maximum penalties for even the worst offenders," detailing how "neglected repairs" end up forcing tenants out. Republicans, though, were disturbed by the extent of Hizzoner's plan and charged the idea was more suited to communist dictatorships where land and property seizures are commonplace. “My first reaction was: Is this communist Cuba?” state Assemblymember Nicole Malliotakis, who ran against De Blasio in the 2017 mayoral race, told Fox News. “ I can say that as a daughter of Cuban refugees who fled Castro’s Cuba in 1959, this is what happened to her family, she had her home taken, my grandfather had his gas station taken.” “This is extreme even for Mayor de Blasio, because we know that he has socialist leanings, but this is straight communism and I think it’s very scary to America-loving, democracy-loving people.” Malliotakis said the proposal was also hypocritical of the mayor, as she says the city runs some of the worst housing via the NYC Housing Authority. She also expressed some doubt as to how his plan to seize property would fare. “Any attempt to seize property will face a court challenge and the mayor himself comes up with these ideas, throws stuff out there and doesn’t know how he intends to make it happen,” she said. “It’s all rhetoric.” BILL DE BLASIO ANNOUNCES GUARANTEED HEALTH CARE FOR ALL NEW YORKERS, INCLUDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS The proposal is the latest big-government pitch from the mayor. Earlier this month, he announced plans to launch “the largest, most comprehensive plan in the nation” to guarantee health care coverage for all city residents, including those in the country illegally.” Video “Health care is a right, not a privilege reserved for those who can afford it,” de Blasio said in a statement. “While the federal government works to gut health care for millions of Americans, New York City is leading the way by guaranteeing that every New Yorker has access to quality, comprehensive access to care, regardless of immigration status or their ability to pay.” In an interview with New York Magazine in 2017, he also expressed a desire for much more government control in development and rents, and cited a “socialist impulse.” "I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be," he said. "Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents." On Sunday, he said in an interview that he wouldn’t rule out running for president in 2020, and urged the Democratic Party to take “bolder” positions similar to his own. “There is still a lot of moderate voices in the party that did not learn the lessons of 2016 and are not listening to what people need in this country,” de Blasio said. “So I want to push this whole party, and I want to inform this debate in this country about the fact that we could go a lot further, we could be a lot bolder than what we’re doing now.”
I know nothing about this Woman. Promoting tweets already, huh? Huh. Guess I better do some research.
It seems rather strange that so many Democrats find themselves in need to apologizes for past statements about who should be able to get married. In reality most have nothing to apologize about. The definition of the word marriage by all the major religions or most of churches associated is the joining of a man and a woman in the eyes of God. The statement in the Oregon Constitution that our passed AG said was indefensible, was indeed only this definition. It was not a law prohibiting another joining, simply the definition of the word. Perhaps Our Hawaiian member should point this out to Tulsi Gabbard. I shouldn't think she has anything to apologize about. @lawai'a Wow, talk about overreach! The Constitution and all the amendment say nothing of marriage. It only shows up in any US laws in tax law giving deductions to Married couple differently than singles. MY guess is the SCOTUS is way out of bound attempting to change the definition of the word for all the Religions of the world. Way beyond their charter, or even the pay grade of the Justices. They some how convoluted the 14th amendment to apply in the case of marriage, requires they change the meaning of the word so that they may reach for an inequity in the application of equal justice is absurd. A fail.
Robert Francis O'Rourke wants to burn The Constitution. Beto O'Rourke mocked after offering few answers in wide-ranging policy interview By Gregg Re | Fox News Former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke faced across-the-board criticism on Tuesday after an unflattering interview in The Washington Post portrayed him as equivocal and unsure on a variety of substantive policy issues. O'Rourke, 46, is widely considered a possible 2020 presidential contender, after falling only a few percentage points shy of dethroning incumbent Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2018 midterm elections. But his relative lack of experience and expertise has emerged as a central objection to his prospective candidacy. Speaking to Johnson in El Paso, Texas, O'Rourke added fuel to those concerns by repeatedly demurring when asked for a direct answer on his positions on everything from visa overstays to whether President Trump should withdraw military forces from Syria. At one point in the two-hour chat with The Post's Jenna Johnson, O'Rourke openly wondered whether the U.S. can "still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago" in the Constitution. The article even included an apparent shot by at O'Rourke from former Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who told The Post he was “very pleasantly surprised” that O'Rourke -- who represented a mostly Hispanic district during his three terms in the House of Representatives -- was "suddenly interested" in immigration reform efforts last year. Beto O'Rourke tops MoveOn.org 2020 straw poll Can the former Texas Senate candidate's popularity translate into a successful presidential campaign? Asked what could be done about illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas, O'Rourke told Johnson simply, “I don’t know." MSNBC'S BRIAN WILLIAMS MOCKS O'ROURKE FOR INSTAGRAMMING TRIP TO THE DENTIST Asked about the planned Syria pullout, he responded that there should be "a debate, a discussion, a national conversation about why we’re there, why we fight, why we sacrifice the lives of American service members, why we’re willing to take the lives of others. ... There may be a very good reason to do it. I don’t necessarily understand — and I’ve been a member of Congress for six years. ... We haven’t had a meaningful discussion about these wars since 2003.” Asked whether the U.S. is capable of change, O'Rourke was again equivocal: "I’m hesitant to answer it," he said, "because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work? Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?” Johnson, who said she spent two hours in all with O'Rourke on a tour of the border, said her interview revealed that the potential 2020 contender has an apparent preference for questioning rather than answering. "When it comes to immigration policy and changing the way things are, he has few solutions — and would rather debate and discuss the topic," Johnson wrote on Twitter. Other commentators were less forgiving, "This last bit – where he suggests we might need to ditch the Constitution? – is wild," wrote senior Huffington Post political reporter Kevin Robillard. "In WaPo interview, Beto O'Rourke displays striking lack of knowledge about immigration. Just knows one thing: He's against a wall," Washington Examiner chief political correspondent and Fox News contributor Byron York wrote on Twitter. "Beto might have to figure out what he thinks about Syria before the first debate," commented CNN political reporter Rebecca Buck. O'Rourke will have another opportunity for a major interview on the national stage in just a matter of weeks -- with talk show host Oprah Winfrey, as part of "Oprah's SuperSoul Conversations from Times Square" on Feb. 5. He'll speak to Winfrey one-on-one as part of an event featuring others, including actors Bradley Cooper and Michael B. Jordan. In the meantime, O'Rourke has been visible --- and some critics say, perhaps too visible -- on Instagram Live. "So, I'm here at the dentist," the former Democrat congressman said with a giggle during a teeth-cleaning seen live on the service last week, before quizzing the dental hygienist about life along the U.S.-Mexico border. ( "Thank God this wasn’t Beto’s day to see the proctologist," MSNBC anchor Brian Williams joked, quoting online reactions to O'Rourke's stream.) Influential activists in Iowa and elsewhere are clamoring for Beto to get in the presidential race, and The Post's article noted that numerous onlookers interrupted their interview with him to urge him to run. "They're not going to wait forever," Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston, said of Democratic campaign operatives, donors, activists and fellow politicians looking to pick sides or offer endorsements. "The more candidates who start to formally launch their candidacies, the greater the pressure will rise on Beto." Fox News' Alex Pappas and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
So, at least you agree that he was a visionary who gave us the Affordable Care Act, DACA, and the Paris deal,
