Daily Archives: 4 March 2019

Never Worked…Doesn’t

Posted on by
Reply

In Great Britain, unemployment is the lowest it’s been in over four decades, and employment is commensurately high.  But that’s a misleading datum.

[A]n astonishing 3.6 million adults have never been paid for work, official figures from the Office for National Statistics show.

That’s 10% of the (chronologically) adult population in Great Britain.  Of the “young adult” demographic—those in the 16-24 age range—a truly astonishing 71% have never worked for pay.  Not a single hour.

The British economy isn’t in the doldrums over Brexit or no-deal Brexit.  Not at all.

Running Left in the Primaries

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a short list of the far-left policies that memb5ers of the Progressive-Democratic Party are touting:

  • reparations
  • Medicare for all
  • legalize marijuana
  • Green New Deal
  • abolish ICE
  • wealth taxes
  • 70% income taxes
  • tear down existing border walls
  • peri-birth abortion

Here is a short list of the Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates for the 2020 election cycle who have actively, enthusiastically endorsed one or more of these policies:

  • Corey Booker
  • Kamala Harris
  • Amy Klobuchar
  • Julián Castro
  • Elizabeth Warren
  • Bernie Sanders
  • Tulsi Gabbard
  • Kirsten Gillibrand

These candidates will have to prove, in competition with each other, to primary voters that they really mean their endorsement(s) in order to get those votes for Party nomination.  That’ll play well—it’s even a necessary play—in the Progressive-Democratic States on the two coasts and Illinois.

But in order to win in the rest of the country, including swing States like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, the Party nominee is going to have to ignore those policies—voters in the rest of the country, including those swing States, not only are more interested in the economy and in their own safety and security, they actively oppose those far-left policies.

Here’s the question that flows from all of that: how can a candidate who supports those policies in the primary season and who then turns his back on them in the immediately following Presidential election season be trusted?  What’s the value of the word of a candidate who says one thing when its convenient on one day and who says the opposite the next day when that opposite is convenient?