The “debate” that wasn’t a debate.

During the first presidential debate of 2020, nothing was actually debated.

Questions were asked.

Questions were sidestepped.

Questions were ignored.

Statements were made.

Statements were questioned.

Accusations were made.

Accusations were denied.

Accusations were responded to.

Lies were uttered as attacks and defenses.

But it seemed that nothing was actually “debated.”

According to Tyler Olson of Fox News, “The first debate of the 2020 presidential election on Tuesday night was fiery from beginning to end.”

“President Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden attacked each other in starkly personal terms for more than 90 minutes as moderator Chris Wallace worked to get both candidates, but especially [President] Trump, to follow the debate rules the candidates had agreed to.”

President Trump was obviously quite aggressive, but I think I have to give him a bit of a pass on that.

It is not often that The President gets the opportunity to face his accusers.

Since day one on the job, The President has been spied on, attacked on a daily basis, was forced to deal with the fake Russian collusion Mueller investigation, then endure an impeachment hoax, and then he was forced to deal with the Chinese virus, which was unleashed on our country by China and adopted as a political strategy by the democrats and the fake news media.

Now here, President Trump had the man right in front of him, who has called him a racist and a xenophobe.

Here he had the man right in front of him, who is a card-carrying member of the political establishment which has sought to discredit and attack him at every turn.

President Trump had a boat load of pent up frustration that was just primed to be unloaded on Joe Biden.

There was no way these time constraints or a moderator were going to get in his way.

“The ‘conversation’ ranged from the coronavirus crisis to the Supreme Court vacancy to health care. It’s not clear how much substance voters could get out of the debate, however, as it largely consisted of lines aimed to appeal to partisans.”

I feel that President Trump’s supporters could relate to exactly what he was talking about at times, while Biden supporters, who have relied on the fake news for their information, may have been hearing about many of these issues for the first time and may have needed a little more groundwork or background in order for The President to make his point effectively.

The limited time format just didn’t allow for this to happen in many instances, however.

In a nutshell, we had President Trump insisting the radical left was in control of the democrat party, while Joe Biden proclaimed, “I am the Democratic Party right now.”

“It was one of the strongest statements from Biden to date distancing himself from the farthest-left wings of the party. [President] Trump would continue to hammer this point throughout the ‘debate.’”

Biden constantly distanced himself from the radical left regarding healthcare, and global warming, while still managing to remain pretty far out there. He seemed to be in “no man’s land” on a lot of these issues.

“During a discussion about global warming later in the debate, Biden said ‘the Green New Deal is not my plan.’”

I’m sure Joe will be receiving calls today from his running mate, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez regarding many of his statements.

President Trump clearly established himself as “the law and order candidate.”

And Joe Biden blatantly lied about all of the money his son, Hunter, had received from Russian, Chinese, and Ukrainian interests.

Joe lied about President Trump not acting quickly enough regarding the China virus, when in fact it was he and his democrat friends that ridiculed the President for taking steps to protect the country at the time.

And lastly, President Trump attempted to show a clear difference between the two of them, by emphasizing that Biden would close the country again and that the shutdowns are “hurting people both financially and in their mental health.”

Biden said keeping the country shut down would help the economy long term.

Well, there you have my take and analysis on the first presidential “debate.”

It may be the last presidential “debate” as well.

The liberals just can’t afford for any of these nagging facts to get out there anymore!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article. From there you can let me know if you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

We’re all entitled to our opinions. I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

September 30, 2020 0

Sally Yates…, are you kidding me?!

On night two of the democrat national “convention,” which no one is watching apparently, Sally Yates was chosen to speak for roughly three minutes.

This is the Sally Yates who was the Deputy Attorney General under President Obama, and the Acting Attorney General at the very beginning of the Trump administration.

She started off by saying, “I worked to advance our nation’s promise of equal justice.”

[You may have “worked” at this, Sally…, but you didn’t work very hard or very effectively…, at least from my point of view.]

[“Equal justice” under the law is really only a mythical concept to most Americans at this point. We haven’t seen equal justice applied to the Washington crowd for decades.]

[She was fired 10 days into the Trump administration for refusing to enforce] “President Trump’s shameful and unlawful Muslim travel ban.”

[Which was later upheld by the Supreme Court as being legal…, so, not really “unlawful” now was it, Sally?]

[You’re allowed to consider the ban “shameful,” because that’s a matter of opinion…, but for someone who rose all the way up to Attorney General of The United States of America to call something “unlawful” when it’s not is what’s really shameful and disingenuous.]

“This was the start of his relentless attacks on our democratic institutions and countless dedicated public servants.”

[Excuse me! “His relentless attacks?!]

[From day one, and even before that, President Trump has been the subject of a coordinated attack by democrats, by deep state officials in the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, and many other governmental departments, and by the fake news, liberal propaganda, mainstream media.]

[These attacks took the shape of “Russian collusion” claims, which evolved into the Mueller investigation, which lasted two years, and then the baseless impeachment sham.]

“Like me, these people didn’t swear an oath to a person or a party. Public servants promised to defend our Constitution and uphold our laws, and work on behalf of the American people.”

[The oath she and all of her fellow public servants took was this:]

[I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.]

[Based on this oath, it has become quite clear that you, Ms. Yates, and many of your “swampy” co-conspirators, failed to live up to your oaths. Your actions flew in the face of The Constitution of The United States, and your behavior was nothing short of treasonous.]

“From the moment President trump took office, he’s used his position to benefit himself rather than our country. He’s trampled on the rule of law, trying to weaponize our Justice Department to attack his enemies and protect his friends.”

[Excuse me…, again!]

[“Trampled the rule of law?!]

[“Weaponizing our Justice Department?!]

[Are you seriously going to stand there and let these words come out of your lying mouth, Ms. Yates, knowing what we know now about President Obama’s efforts to spy on the Trump campaign, and then the Trump administration, while attempting to overturn the election with your and your co-conspirators’ treasonous “insurance policy?”]

“Rather than standing up to Vladimir Putin, he fawns over a dictator who is still trying to interfere with our elections.”

[Lie, after lie, after shameless lie.]

[You really are quite pathetic, Ms. Yates.]

[What do you call “standing up to Vladimir Putin?”]

[Do you call it “standing up” like when President Obama was caught on a hot mic apologizing to then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev by whispering, “after my election I’ll have more flexibility,” regarding missile defense negotiations. Medvedev replied that he would “transmit this information to Vladimir,” as in Putin, the current president who was prime minister at the time.”]

[Do you call it “standing up to Vladimir Putin” as in the Obama Administration’s controversial 2010 deal that gave Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium?]

[Is that what you call “standing up to Vladimir Putin, Ms. Yates?]

[Or, how about the Obama administration (which includes you, Ms. Yates, and the FBI, and the DOJ) having knowledge of Russian interference into the 2016 election, but failing to alert the Trump campaign of this, and failing to do anything about this interference, really, other than attempt to use the whole scenario to falsely entrap President Trump into the fairy tale of “Russian collusion.”]

[Is that what you call “standing up to Vladimir Putin, Ms. Yates?]

“His constant attacks on the FBI, the free press, Inspector Generals, federal judges…, they all have one purpose…, to remove any check on his abuse of power…, bankrupting our nation’s moral authority at home and abroad.”

[I’m sorry, Ms. Yates, but I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.]

[You obviously have NO shame.]

[And, “the free press?! Are you referring to the propaganda arm of the democrat party?]

[And there is obviously nothing you wouldn’t say to help you and all of your disgustingly “swampy” friends get back to being in control.]

“Our country doesn’t belong to him…, it belongs to us, and Joe Biden embraces that.”

[And by “us” you mean the democrats and the deep state, right, Ms. Yates?]

“We need a president who respects our laws.”

[We already have a president who respects our laws, Ms. Yates!]

[President Trump is ALL about law and order.]

[What you really want is a president who respects your laws, not THE law. You want a president who respects the unwritten laws of “the swamp…,” a president who will look the other way and make sure that “justice” is imparted according to “the swamp’s” desires, and not in accordance with equal, or fair, justice.

We’re all entitled to our opinions. I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

August 19, 2020 0

Mirror, mirror…

Yes…, mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the most racist of them all?

YOU ARE, DEMOCRATS!

According to Tyler Olsen of Fox News, “A group of Republican House members, led by Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas, introduced a resolution Thursday that would effectively ban the Democratic Party from the House or force a party name change over past slavery ties — a response to the recent efforts to remove tributes to past members of the Confederacy from the halls of Congress.”

“It specifically cites the Democratic Party platform’s support for slavery between 1840 and 1856, and other racist actions by party members through the early-to-mid 1900s, before calling on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to ‘remove any items that names, symbolizes or mentions any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery or the Confederacy’ from the House and its properties. The resolution also says such a party ‘shall either change its name or be barred from participation in the House of Representatives.’”

Dang, that Louis Gohmert is good!

“Gohmert, in a statement accompanying the bill, told Democrats they should rebrand to ‘avoid triggering’ anyone.

That’s right, Louis!

I’m sure the democrats wouldn’t want to be responsible for forcing any of these snowflakes into a “safe zone!”

This is too good!

Please continue!

‘“As outlined in the resolution, a great portion of the history of the Democratic Party is filled with racism and hatred,’ Gohmert said. ‘Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party’s loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn’t so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan.’”

Whaaaat?!

Go Louis, go Louis!

“He added: ‘To avoid triggering innocent bystanders by the racist past of the Democratic Party, I would suggest they change their name. That is the standard to which they are holding everyone else, so the name change needs to occur.’”

What goes around comes around!

Yeah, baby!

“The resolution’s co-sponsors are Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Jody Hice, R-Ga., Randy Weber, R-Texas, and Andy Harris, R-Md.”

“It [the resolution] is unlikely to pass, but appears to be meant more as a criticism of allegedly ‘blatant hypocrisy’ around the House’s approval of a measure removing Confederate busts in the Capitol this week. Weber, speaking on the House floor after Gohmert introduced his resolution, criticized ‘cancel culture.’”

‘“The cancel culture train, H.R. 7573, that passed yesterday, was wrong on a deep level. I’m not going to get on that cancel culture train that says we have to do away with any mention or remembrance of everybody or everything that we don’t agree with, or that might have said something we don’t like, didn’t like, or that might have stood for something that we don’t stand for,’ Weber said.”

“The legislation to remove statues of Confederates passed 301-113 earlier this week with 72 Republicans and Rep. Justin Amash, L-Mich., voting in favor of it.”

It seems to me that the history of the democrats is much more egregious than the issue of these confederate statues in the capitol building.

Of course, there’ll be no mention of this on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, The Washington Post, or The New York Times.

Sometimes, propaganda by omission is the only way they can go.

We’re all entitled to our opinions. I value yours and your feedback as well.

I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

July 31, 2020 0

OBAMAGATE!

Regarding the reporting of Obamagate, Jonathan Tobin’s heart is in the right place, but his understanding has a long way to go to catch up.

Jonathan Tobin, wrote in The New York Post, “For reporting Obamagate straight, media knives are out for Catherine Herridge.”

“Journalists are pack animals, he continues.”

I would say that’s being extremely kind.

Jackasses are considered pack animals, aren’t they?

He continues, “That’s especially true in Washington. Despite the hunger for scoops, when it comes to the substance of stories, few have the guts to go against the ideological groupthink that prevails in our nation’s capital.”

Hunger for scoops?

Are you serious?

Their hunger for “scoops” exists only as long as these “scoops” pertain to negative news about President Trump, his administration, republicans in Congress, and republicans and conservatives in general.

And you think what we’re dealing with here is “groupthink,” huh?

I’m sorry, Mr. Tobin…, this isn’t groupthink, it’s called toeing the party line…, promoting the approved narrative…, pushing the desired propaganda, or performing propaganda by omission.

“That’s what makes CBS’ Catherine Herridge so exceptional,” Tobin goes on to say.

So, a journalist doing what a journalist should be doing makes them exceptional these days?

I guess it does, actually.

“In an era when too many network journalists slant their reporting to serve establishment opinion, Herridge sticks to the facts. Her dogged determination to get to the bottom of stories has made her an invaluable source on the national-security beat.”

If I didn’t know any better, Mr. Tobin, I’d say you have a little thing for Catherine Herridge! Why else would you throw yourself to the liberal wolves to sing Catherine Herridge’s praises?

And, “when too many network journalists slant their reporting?”

Is that what your calling all of this conspiratorial, fraudulent “reporting,” Mr. Tobin…, being “slanted?”

“Her sterling quality and integrity have also put a target on her back. When it came to the ‘collusion hoax,’ she dared to let the truth guide her. Likewise, with her reporting into government misconduct in the prosecution of President Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn.”

“Most of her colleagues reveled in collusion falsehoods — and ignored FBI wrongdoing. She did the opposite.”

They did more than revel in the “collusion falsehoods,” they knowingly perpetuated these “falsehoods” (LIES) on the American people for well over two years!

TWO YEARS!

Day after day…, night after night.

“But there’s always a price to be paid for refusing to conform. If you expose documents that further discredit the already-exploded myth that Trump colluded with Russia, you are going to lose friends in Washington.”

So, exposing the truth will cause you to “lose friends” amongst the Washington media.

That alone is quite telling.

“If you show that there was a concerted attempt to spy on his campaign and to leak information designed to paralyze his administration, you aren’t going to be popular with journalists who were part of this effort.”

So, she’s not going to be popular with “journalists” who got the story entirely wrong…, knew they got the story entirely wrong…, earned “journalism” awards for their excellence in reporting a story that was entirely false, but pushed it anyway because their ultimate goal was to discredit President Trump and somehow remove him from office?

Hopefully Catherine Herridge is okay with that. I always liked her, and I also felt she was one of the few who had a degree of integrity left.

“So, it’s hardly surprising that Herridge — a star reporter at Fox News from 1996 until last year before moving to CBS — has been subjected to abuse by Joe Biden’s campaign mouthpiece and backstabbed by her colleagues in recent days.”

Her big mistake was allowing herself to be lured to CBS, just like Megyn Kelly was lured to NBC.

You know the old saying, “Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer?”

Megyn Kelly was eventually silenced at NBC, and I expect Catherine Herridge will be silenced as well at CBS in the not too distant future.

Eating their contracts is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.

And don’t be fooled…, THE LIBERAL NARRATIVE IS ONE, BIG, GRAND SCHEME.

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

June 1, 2020 0

EXTRA, EXTRA, Read all about it! Obama endorses Biden for President!

In a stunning political move, former President Barack Obama has gone out on a limb and endorsed his own former Vice President, Joe Biden.

“Gutsiest move I ever saw, man.” – Quote from the movie “Top Gun”

Now that Biden is the only democrat candidate for president left standing, Obama’s endorsement is particularly meaningless and disingenuous.

Obama coming out and endorsing Creepy Joe at this point is like Barack coming out now and saying the Kansas City Chiefs were his favorites in the Super Bowl.

The Los Angeles Times, of course, chose to spin this revelation a little differently.

Janet Hook of The Los Angeles Times writes, “In a boost to Biden, Obama endorses his former vice president.”

Oh, yes!

What a “boost” Creepy Joe will get against…, against…, no one!

Your old buddy Creepy Joe is already the democrat candidate for president, in case you didn’t notice, Barack.

“WASHINGTON — Former President Barack Obama on Tuesday formally endorsed Joe Biden for president, a big step in helping to unite their party and marking his own entry into the fight against President Donald Trump.”

Oh, yes!

What a “big step” it is!

Who else could Obama have possibly endorsed at this point…, Donald Trump?!

Your “big step” is actually more like a stumble.

“There had been little doubt that Obama would back his former vice president once Biden had a lock on the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination [Well, that’s saying a lot!], but Obama — one of the most popular Democrats in the country — had steadfastly withheld any endorsement during the long party contest that featured numerous contenders.”

“Yes…, I am officially endorsing my old friend, Quid Pro Quo Joe, now that there isn’t anyone else left to potentially endorse.”

‘“Choosing Joe to be my vice president was one of the best decisions I ever made,’ Obama said.”

Now there I may have to agree with you Barack!

Choosing Creepy Joe, the lifelong establishment senator, as your running mate in 2007 wasn’t the best decision, but it turned out to be one of your better decisions…, looking back on all of your decisions.

‘“… and he became a close friend.’ Obama said, speaking straight to the camera in the 12-minute video. ‘And I believe Joe has all the qualities we need in a president right now.’”

Believe me, Barack…, the “qualities” you feel a president needs and the qualities I want in my president to have are quite different.

Now let’s listen to the coordinated excuses as to why this endorsement was so late in coming.

“The high-level endorsements are part of an orchestrated effort to unify the Democratic Party for the general-election push to defeat Trump, and to avoid the kind of lingering post-primary divisions that hampered the 2016 nominee, Hillary Clinton.”

“Obama did not endorse anyone during the primary season because, sources close to him said, he believed his most important role would be as the uniter after a competition that pitted the party establishment that Biden represented and the liberal wing that [Senator Bernie] Sanders leads.”

“In his endorsement video for Biden, Obama lavished praise on Sanders.”

Of course he did. The democrats aren’t going anywhere without the Bernie supporters…, who feel they got railroaded for the second time now.

“Obama also defended Biden against criticism from the left that his agenda is not bold enough to tackle the nation’s problems.”

‘“Joe already has what is the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in history,’ Obama said.”

You can sure say that again, Barack! You could add “anti-American” and self-serving in there as well!

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

April 15, 2020 0

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT! THE DEMOCRAT PARTY WON’T BE THE SAME AFTER THE 2020 ELECTION!

No it won’t, and the fake news won’t be the same either…, whatever’s left of it.

Yes, folks, these are my first big predictions, of 2020.

$afracture 1$

Here we go!

Prediction #1:

$afracture 3$

The 2020 election will be an historic election. Enough of the Bernie Sanders supporters (the socialists in training) won’t be able to bring themselves to vote for Quid Pro Quo Joe, and President Trump will be re-elected in a relative landslide, even though the democrats manage to recruit cemeteries full of supporters and get them to mail in votes.

Prediction #2:

The republicans will take back control of the House of Representatives, retain control of the Senate, thus neutering the democrats for the next four years. It will be a wonderful time in our country!

$afracture 4$

Prediction #3:

As a result of the democrats’ annihilation in the 2020 election, the democrats will be in a state of turmoil, and the democrat party will become “fractured” into two distinct groups.

One group, the new group, will openly become the democratic socialist party. They will represent roughly 10%-15% of America.

The remaining establishment democrats will represent 20%-25% of America.

They will probably continue to be recognized as one party, but these two groups will definitely be pulling in different directions. They will be unorganized and ineffective in every way.

Prediction #4:

$afracture 5$

Nancy Pelosi will, of course, be out as the speaker of the house, but she will not be their minority leader either. Who will take over as the minority leader is anyone’s guess. It will have to be someone who is respected by both of the democrat factions. Does that person exist?

Prediction #5:

We will be able to keep America great for at least four more years!

$afracture 2$

$afracture 6$

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article. From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

March 16, 2020 1

Oh you dumocrats…, you’ve done it again!

Yes…, I’ve officially chosen to use the term “dumocrats” now. “Dumocrat” will now appear in perpetuity in place of the word “democrat” in all of my blogs.

Okay…, anyway…, back to the topic at hand.

It’s the moment we’ve all been waiting for.

The Iowa caucuses have finally reached their climax.

The dumocrats finally get to pick their “best of the rest” to pin their hopes on, and the republicans get to see which loser they decide to hitch their wagon to.

But wait…, after all of this time, it’s 7:00 CST the following morning, and we still don’t know what the dumocrats of Iowa decided!

The dumocrat party of Iowa first came out and officially claimed there were “quality control issues.”

Now we hear it is the old dreaded “computer glitch!”

That’s the “dog ate my homework” excuse of the 21st century.

Yes, we know…, the “quality control issues” and “computer glitches” mean the results were not what “the powers that be” in the dumocrat party wanted, and it just takes a little time to manipulate the caucus results.

You can understand that, can’t you?

Bernie Sanders sure can!

He’s very familiar with the whole process!

Can the democrat party at least give Bernie a kiss this time after you screw him?

Seriously.

Well, anyway…, it’s on to New Hampshire…, any nobody has any momentum at the moment…, except President Trump!

WINNING!

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article. From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

February 4, 2020 1

All the Dems are Kung Fu fighting…, their tongues are fast as lightning!

What we’ve been seeing is that, apparently, a white person cannot be a “true” liberal, and that it’s okay for one liberal to drop the race card on another liberal…, if that other liberal happens to be white.

A couple of weeks ago we had Kamala Harris insinuating that Joe Biden had demonstrated racist behavior in the past…, and now we hear Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accusing Nancy Pelosi of discriminating against and singling out some of the house representatives of color.

Interesting.

This is much better than watching “The Young and the Restless,” or “As the World Turns!”

Scott Jennings of USA Today says, “The Democratic Party is a mess.”

“If we learned anything lately it is that the Democratic Party is an absolute mess.

Fault lines are deeper than ever between the young socialists and the old establishment figures who run the place.”

Aka, “The Squad” and the “term limits poster child,” Nancy Pelosi.

Additionally, “At the first primary debate, Harris assailed Biden for opposing federally mandated busing, an extremely unpopular policy among people of all races and political parties. Debate viewers were left to believe that Harris — who emotionally attributed busing to her getting a quality education — supported the federal mandates.”

Harris also said on the debate stage that she, “would eliminate all private insurance,” and then the next day said she, “wouldn’t.”

“The prospect of nominating an old white male for president continues to deeply divide the Democratic Party, and the Woke Folk (at least the ones not supporting Bernie Sanders) are desperate for someone — anyone — to destroy America’s elderly political patriarchy. Policy, principle, and experience are irrelevant — race, gender or sexual orientation are the only credentials required to satisfy the angry [liberal democrat] mob.”

The House speaker recently gave an interview to the New York Times in which she cast aspersions on Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and three other young Democratic women of color who criticized her for giving in on the Senate border funding bill.

Though she didn’t mention them by name, Pelosi was referring to Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, in addition to Ocasio-Cortez. Otherwise known as “The Squad,” or “AOC plus three.”

‘“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,’ Pelosi said. ‘But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people, and that’s how many votes they got.’”

“Insulting AOC’s ‘Twitter world’ is to the “Woke” Folk what a good ‘yo mama’ joke was to my friends on the school playground. Predictably, AOC punched right back at Pelosi, calling the speaker’s legislative moves ‘a huge mistake.’”

In case your wondering, “woke” is a trendy and relative new term used among our liberal friends which means, “having an awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice.” “Woke people are allowed to point fingers at all the rest of us “deplorables.”

According to Veronica Stracqualursi, Manu Raju and Sunlen Serfaty of CNN, “Ocasio-Cortez calls Pelosi’s ‘singling out’ of Democratic women of color ‘disrespectful’”

‘“It’s really just pointing out the pattern, right? We’re not talking about just progressives, it’s signaling out four individuals,’ Ocasio-Cortez told CNN on Capitol Hill. ‘And knowing the media environment that we’re operating in, knowing the amount of death threats that we get, knowing the amount of concentration detention, I think it’s just worth asking why.’”

What?

And no, we don’t know the amount of “death threats” you get, or from who.

And what does “concentration detention have to do with any of this?

And how do you “signal out” people?

I’m assuming she means “singling out” people.

BUT, when asked if she thinks Pelosi has racial animus or is racist, Ocasio-Cortez said unequivocally, “No, no, absolutely not, absolutely not.”

Ha!

Well, then what were you exactly saying Alexandria?

I mean, we all have ears, we all understand English, and we all heard you basically call Speaker Pelosi a racist…, whether you want to come right out and it or not.

Then…, Democrat Rep. Lacy Clay of Missouri accused Ocasio-Cortez of using “the race card” in her comments to the Post.

‘“What a weak argument,’ Clay said. ‘Because you can’t get your way, and because you are -, you’re getting pushback, you resort to use the race card? Unbelievable. Unbelievable to me.’”

OH – MY – GOD!!!

Wait…, let me read that again.

Are you kidding me?!!!

Democrats do this all day, every day, to conservatives…, but that’s okay?

But it’s “unbelievable” and “weak” when a democrat resorts to this when dealing with another democrat.

Does the hypocrisy know no bounds?!

Representative Clay then added, “It tells you the level of ignorance to American history on their part as to what we are as the Democratic Caucus. It shows their lack of sensitivity to racism. To fall back on that (trope) is a weak argument. It has no place in a civil discussion,” according to Sam Dorman and Chad Pergram of Fox News.

Ooooh, “level of ignorance.” That’s a good one!

And again…, “It has no place in a civil discussion,” UNLESS they’re dealing with conservatives.

The far left wing of the democrat party has just adjusted their parameters. Democrat moderates to them are now on the same level that conservatives are to democrat moderates.

Ha! Isn’t it funny how that works now?

“The lawmaker closed his remarks by suggesting the four freshmen could hurt Democratic chances in upcoming elections.”

Oh, we can only hope Representative Lacy, we can only hope!

We’ll all tune in next week for the continuing saga of “The Young and the Restless” meets “All My Children!”

WINNING!

NOTE: If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article. From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

July 18, 2019 1

“Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?” – A recent headline in The New York Times.

The democrat party and liberals in general continually like to label conservatives, and President Trump specifically, as racists (anti-people of color), misogynists (anti-women), along with having phobias concerning any other type of personal delineation you can name.

It must be a heavy burden, maintaining this “enlightedness” on a daily basis.

But we all have our crosses to bear.

I would argue that the liberal “enlightedness” of 2019 and 2020 is racist (anti-white) and misandrous (anti-men).

Approximately 70% of the U.S. population is “white,” which equates to roughly 225 million people, with males specifically accounting for about 110 million of those.

On the surface, that would not seem to be a very wise position for the democrats to be coming from.

But being wise, fair, and tolerant is not their current M.O. (“modus operandi,” or “method of operating”).

Why does everything have to be viewed through the spectrum of race, gender, culture and sexual orientation with the left?

Shouldn’t their goal be to just nominate the best person “to be the face of the democrat party in 2020,” regardless of race, gender, culture and sexual orientation?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

I think Dr. King would be disappointed that democrats and liberals were the ones standing in the way of that dream.

The comical thing, however, is that even with all of this “anti-white male” talk flying around the democrat party, their leading candidates right now are all white males!

Remember, however, in liberal land, what you say is more important than what you actually do.

The top four I am referring to are: “Creepy Uncle” Joe Biden, “Crazy” Bernie Sanders, Beto “O’Dork” O’Rourke and Pete “Booty-gag” Buttigieg.

Candidates of a more “preferred” race and/or gender are Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillebrand, Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, although they currently trail the four “white devils” by a significant amount in the polls.

One of these “preferred” candidates will undoubtedly be chosen as the vice-presidential candidate to balance out the regrettable white male presidential candidate.

Howard Kurtz for Fox News adds, “… isn’t it also a discriminatory impulse to say perhaps a white male candidate should be denied the nomination on the grounds of race and sex? Doesn’t that go against what we’ve always heard about wanting a color-blind and gender-neutral society?”

The New York Times article piece says that “Democrats have seen the strong diversity in their field … become somewhat overshadowed by white male candidates.” The article then asks, “What’s the bigger gamble: to nominate a white man and risk disappointing some of the party’s base, or nominate a minority candidate or a woman who might struggle to carry predominantly white swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that both Barack Obama and President Trump won?”

Hmmm…, so Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are considered “white swing states” by the liberals? Interesting. So even entire states have a racial determination in their eyes.

Believe me my democrat friends…, there is no “gamble” for you no matter who you nominate. Who else are the great confused liberal masses going to vote for?

President Trump!?

And those “unicorn” voters who identify as “independents” are even more confused than the confused liberal masses.

If any of these “independents” had an IQ higher than that of a jackass, the difference between President Trump and any of these democrat candidates should be readily apparent. How anyone could be “undecided” going into the 2020 presidential election is beyond me.

There is going to be well over a billion dollars spent on this election, trying to persuade about 1,000 “independent” idiots.

Everyone else is spoken for.

That’s about $1 million a vote by the way…, and they’ll probably end up voting for the Green Party candidate anyway! Or not bother to vote at all because they still couldn’t make up their mind!

It’s a mad, mad, mad world.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

April 25, 2019 0

Tag: democrat party

The “debate” that wasn’t a debate.

Sally Yates…, are you kidding me?!

Mirror, mirror…

OBAMAGATE!

EXTRA, EXTRA, Read all about it! Obama endorses Biden for President!

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT! THE DEMOCRAT PARTY WON’T BE THE SAME AFTER THE 2020 ELECTION!

Oh you dumocrats…, you’ve done it again!

All the Dems are Kung Fu fighting…, their tongues are fast as lightning!

“Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?” – A recent headline in The New York Times.

Subscribe to Blog via Email