As Rush Limbaugh used to say, polls don't matter except for the voting on election day (if you consider that a poll). That said, things look good for conservatism now. Yet there are still so many ways this can go south. I think the most dangerous possibility is the GOP winning big in the 2022 midterms and failing to deliver on their promises. The second biggest dangerous possibility: the GOP delivering on those promises and Biden getting the credit in the 2024 presidential election. To say the future is conservative is wishful thinking; it's only true if every conservative works at it, every day.
Showing posts with label dangerous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dangerous. Show all posts
April 12, 2022
But it's just a poll(s)
Labels:
2022,
2024,
Conservatism,
dangerous,
GOP,
landslide,
polling,
Rush Limbaugh,
Tim Pool
November 7, 2019
Stuart Varney: Warren has made the Democrats unelectable
Stuart Varney argues that Elizabeth Warren has dragged the Democrats so far left, they have become unelectable.
While there's a point to be made there, I'm worried that a lot of conservatives and Trump supporters have convinced themselves that a 2020 Trump victory is a foregone conclusion. That's not a healthy way to approach the election. In fact it's dangerous.
Labels:
2020,
dangerous,
Elizabeth Warren,
president Trump,
Stuart Varney,
unelectable
June 4, 2019
This is the death of video evidence
Believe none of what you see or hear anymore. This technology is very cool, but even more scary than it is cool. How can we trust video evidence after this? Watch Bill Hader's face turn into Al Pacino's and then Arnold Schwarzenegger's.
Labels:
Al Pacino,
Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Bill Hader,
dangerous,
death,
technology,
video evidence
July 26, 2013
Christie Cross
New Jersey governor Chris Christie is not feeling the love for Rand Paul. In fact he thinks Paul is 'dangerous'. Really??? This from the guy who embraced president Obama. Other than the fact that he may...MAY... be able to deliver a Republican win in New Jersey in 2016, what possible reason would any Republican, conservative or Libertarian voter ever have to vote for this guy? His star is falling faster than Skylab.
Christie seems to think that national security trumps privacy, end of discussion. It's never that easy, and even president Obama said he welcomes the debate on the subject (knowing full well he is not interested in any discussion on the topic).
Via Politico, clearly happy to highlight Republican discord, here's the audio.
Rand Paul, handily fired back.
Paul’s office shot back on Friday, saying Christie may need a “new dictionary.”“If Gov. Christie believes the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans is ‘esoteric’, he either needs a new dictionary, or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years,” Doug Stafford, a senior adviser to Paul, said in a statement to POLITICO. “Defending America and fighting terrorism is the concern of all Americans, especially Sen. Paul. But it can and must be done in keeping with our Constitution and while protecting the freedoms that make America exceptional.”
Q.E.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
