More Embarrassment for the Dems

Posted on March 13, 2019 by Robert Ringer


It should not surprise anyone that the Pew Research Center’s recent “Public’s policy priorities for 2019” poll ranked the economy as the general public’s highest priority at 70%.  Let’s face it, when people hear the word economy, they equate it to money in their pockets.  Not money in the pockets of “the poor” or “the marginalized” or “the needy” — and certainly not in the pockets of the government or the politicians who control the government — but in their own pockets.  It’s called human nature — and, no, it can’t be socially engineered.

It’s pretty bad news for the Dirty Dems, because it’s yet another reminder that the herculean task ahead of them between now and the 2020 election is to find ways to convince people that they aren’t really doing as well as they believed they were.  The subtle message is that politicians are better suited to handle their money than they are.

That’s not a very popular piece of persuasion in a booming economy, but with old timers like Uncle Bernie and newbies like AOC and her hollow-headed playmates pushing socialism as a miracle cure for envy, the frantic Dirty Dem primary candidates are going to have a hard time disavowing it.  In fact, they’re already trying hard to do just that, and it’s like watching the Marx Brothers at their peak.

When charming, debonair James Carville spoke those now famous words — “It’s the economy, stupid” — during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, he proved to the world that lizards are actually pretty smart.  Give him credit, people do, indeed, vote their pocketbooks, which is why you can count on the Dirty Dems to do everything in their power over the next 20 months to destroy the record-breaking economy Donald Trump has delivered to voters.

Healthcare costs, education, terrorism, Social Security, and Medicare are bunched up only 1-3 percentage points beneath the economy in the Pew poll, although the split between Democrats and Republicans on these issues is significant.  Only on terrorism do Republicans poll higher than Democrats in these categories — by a whopping 83%-53% margin.  Not much of a surprise there either.

Items near the bottom of the list of priorities pose even greater problems for the Dirty Dems.  Notwithstanding the fact that “racism” is the siren song of the left — especially the Radical Left — a majority of people aren’t buying into the hoax that “race relations” is a top issue in post-racial America.  Even Democrats only poll at 57% on the issue, which undermines their insistence that America is irreversibly infected with “institutionalized racism.”

The big bomb, however, is that “climate change” ranks next to last as a priority for most Americans.  This is a genuine threat to Al Gore’s ability to get financing for future propaganda projects.  True, Democrats do rank climate change high (67%), but that also means that a full 33% of Democrats do not.  It’s downright embarrassing.

Of course, the Pew poll simply reaffirms what serious observers have known for decades — that the Dirty Dems don’t care what people want or think.  As Tucker is fond of saying, they demand that you just shut up and do what you’re told.


One more time:  Based on the evidence, as well as lack of evidence, global warming as an imminent threat to humankind is a complete and total scam, as is its backup pseudonym “climate change.”  Sad that most Republicans are too cowardly to stand up and say that — loud, clear, and unequivocally.  Kind of weird that they’re more afraid of Democrats than they are of their own constituents.

Conclusion:  Primarying weak-kneed Republicans is the only hope for getting Donald Trump’s agenda fully unleashed.  Toward that end, three cheers for Sarah Palin for firing the first shot when she delivered her not-so-subtle message to mealy mouthed Lisa Murkowski:  “I can see 2022 from my house.”  Yes!

If you think the Dirty Dems hate Trump, wait until Palin arrives in Washington.  As a bonus, she’ll probably cause Mitt Romney to break down and cry.  Almost too delicious to contemplate.

Robert Ringer

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

47 responses to “More Embarrassment for the Dems”

  1. Bill Thomas says:

    True, and I'm sure that Climate Change, Global Warming, what have you means little to all the "New Americans' coming into our country every day, but they still do vote Democratic and noting how the new arrivals take the Biblical admonition of being 'fruitful and multiply' to heart, it won't much matter in the near future as the Demographics themselves will change the culture of America forever.

  2. Grok Scooby says:

    Climate change or global warming (or whatever you want to call it) is NOT a total scam. Learn the science behind climate models and learn for yourselves instead of listening to conservative on-air personalities or other people with a financial interest in perpetuating this myth. It's incredibly disheartening to see otherwise intelligent people are still falling for this nonsense.

    As Robert Ringer once said, "Reality does not change to adapt to our viewpoints. Reality is what is." The reality is that human activity is contributing to changes to the planet including substantial increases to CO2 in the atmosphere, and while the idea of living things changing the ecology of the planet is nothing new, the reality is that we're changing the planet into one that will be more difficult for us to live on.

    These changes are too small and incremental for individual humans to grasp so it's not surprising that it's not perceived as the threat it actually is. Some of the effects are already here, look at reality objectively and find your own truth. Humanity's contribution to climate change is going to end up another mark in the list of big mistakes we've made like believing that leaded gasoline is safe or that it is better to eat sugar instead of fat.

    Look at CMIP, look at IPCC, look at historical CO2 levels in the air & oceans, for crying out loud just look at the objective data for yourself and stop listening to Exxon Mobile and Fox News.

    • noah300g says:

      The reality of which you speak is that the climate change models are all wrong. If you use any of them and put in data from 10 years ago, they predict a totally different outcome from where we are today. We are actually in a CO2 deficit. We need more of it, not less. We've had much more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past when temps were higher. It's called a 'greenhouse gas' for a reason. We build greenhouses for a reason- plants love it! It's the source of our food. We would all die without it. Get a grip.

      • dra says:

        Please cite your sources for the notion that we are in a CO2 deficit. Atmospheric CO2 levels have dramatically risen in the past 50 years. These levels haven't been seen in millions of years and the rate at which we are increasing is unprecedented.

        • Jon says:

          FYI, I can't believe I'm taking the time to respond to you BUT: Basic Science: plant's take-in CO2 and then emit O2. Humans breathe in O2 and then emit CO2. It's a cycle of basic nature. True, man has destroyed plant life as he continues to remove plants and erect buildings, roads, etc. Oceans also contain huge amounts of CO2 depending on ambient temperatures. As oceans warm and cool, CO2 levels also fluctuate. By far, the greatest cause of the variation in CO2 is "mother nature" herself. Can you say volcanic eruptions? Is that a good-enough-for-you citation of life?

          • dra says:

            You said we are in a CO2 deficit which implies less CO2 now than we ought to have. I understand they fluctuate, my question was why you said the current levels are considered a "deficit" when the levels have been dramatically rising. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

    • Jon says:

      It doesn't take a rocket scientist (of which I was one before retiring) to understand that climate is always changing. Our objection is the "AGW" aspect that it's all us-human's fault. While Algore was pontificating in his "Inconvenient Truth" film, he stood in front of a huge graph of the centuries changes in temperature and CO2 levels. His claim is that the CO2 increase causes temperatures to increase whereas if you simply look at his chart of both, you can't help but note that the temperature started increasing 700 YEARS BEFORE the CO2 showed any increase. Physics simply refutes the Algore claim. As noted elsewhere, CO2 is a GOOD thing. It is how our planet is able to support an ever-increasing population just for openers.

      Just consider the "97% of scientists" who supposedly concur with AGW all earn their livings from government employment and grants. You don't bite the hand that feeds you even if that hand is wrong.

      • dra says:

        Even a rocket scientist would have difficulty understanding the complexities involved in modeling our planet's climate. It's not an easy science, that's for sure. And again, please cite your claims that an over-abundance of CO2 in our atmosphere is a good thing as I'd like to look into that. I also agree that you shouldn't take the 97% of scientists who agree that humans are contributing to the changing climate at their word — look at the data yourself!

        That raises a good point though, why do we trust scientists with so much of everything else? People who say WIFI causes cancer are left at conspiracy theory fringes because we understand how radio waves work well enough that we're confident this isn't the case. Isn't it a strange coincidence that the only aspects of scientific research that are argued in the mainstream are the ones that affect people with the financial resources to put out enough misinformation to confuse the public?

        • Joel Walbert says:

          Clandestine pot growers pump sealed rooms full of co2. Why? Because plants love the stuff and grow at insane rates when subjected to high levels of plant food. At the same time, a human can go into same room with exactly zero health consequences. Plant life thrives, animal life is not negatively affected in any way. Proof. Oh and there have been a few studies that SUGGEST tripling the current co2 levels will cause deserts to disappear, as in turn to forests/jungles. Its merely common sense. If we accept the current 400ppm of atmospheric co2 to be accurate, that is 400 parts per MILLION. which translates to .04% of the air. In other words, co2 is a trace gas. Guess what gas does actually have an effect of things. Water vapor. But since humans and ALL human activity release some amount of co2, then it had to be demonized.

          • dra says:

            I understand that tripling the level of CO2 inside a greenhouse is great for plants, but a human is not going to survive in a pure CO2 environment, they will die. People don't just go and build themselves greenhouses to live in.

          • Joel Walbert says:

            Nobody said a single thing about a pure co2 environment. Never even hinted at it. So let's stick with what I actually wrote, not whatever you are talking about that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Now let's say current levels are tripled. That brings us to approximately .12% of the atmosphere. If you consider that to be pure co2, I respectfully suggest you take a mathematics refresher, because by my calculations, that leaves over 99% not co2. As for people building green houses to live in, sorry to be so blunt, but that is just a dumb thing to say with no basis in any form of common sense.

            As for that 97% thing, total BS. Why don't you look where that number actually came from. Hint, its less than 100 people that make up that 97%.

          • dra says:

            Joel, you said "Clandestine pot growers pump sealed rooms full of co2" which I misunderstood to mean "full of co2" as in a pure co2 environment. I think that was a reasonable misunderstanding. My greenhouse comment was because you said what was great for plants didn't negatively affect human health, my point was that people put plants in greenhouses and themselves in their nice air conditioned homes because while we certainly benefit from plants there are obviously situations where plants will thrive and humans will be very uncomfortable

          • Joel Walbert says:

            You are aware that plants release oxygen, right? So sealed or otherwise, it cannot be pure co2. This is elementary school stuff here we are talking about. As in I literally learned this in actual elementary school. I don't get why people cannot understand this. I will say this again. Current levels are approx 400 ppm. That is part per MILLION. A miniscule fraction of a percent. Nitrogen is about 78%. Oxygen, approx 21%. So with those two we are at approx 99% of atmospheric air. So that leaves around 1% for everything else. So tell me again how .04%, or even .12% if we triple levels, can possibly harm anyone or anything, other than the bank accounts of climate frauds and charlatans?

          • dra says:

            You are aware that photosynthesis takes time, that plants require sunlight to convert CO2 into Oxygen, and that a human can't just hold their breath long enough for the plants to catch up and convert the environment to something suitable, right? I mean this is simple elementary school stuff after all.

            If you don't understand how 0.04% or 0.12% can make a difference then I don't believe you fully understand what you are talking about. I'm not sure if you're saying the greenhouse effect isn't real, or that CO2 doesn't contribute to it? Do you believe that we've increased the CO2 concentration by 125ppm since the beginning of industrialization and this is enough to raise the global temperature by about 1°C? Or that water vapor, CO2, and other trace gases raise the planet's average temperature by more than 30°C over what it would be without them?

            If you're not going to acknowledge the facts, it's pointless to debate the conclusions drawn from those facts. You are the one who made the claim that "marijuana growers pumping their greenhouse full of CO2" is proof that climate change is a scam, and you're doing a terrible job at articulating your point or backing up your argument, and you are reiterating points that imply you do not have a complete understanding of this topic so much that I don't think further replies are necessary.

            As they say, never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    • Jean says:

      Those climate models are all computer-based programs, and subject to the "garbage in – garbage out" rule of IT. There is no way any of the so-called climate scientists can 1) accurately enter all of the variable data related to climate and weather, 2) have the historic perspective necessary to make accurate conclusions. For example, if you believe the earth is several million years old, and you accept the FACT that the earth's temperature has been studied and recorded only since the mid-1700s, then you realize that the data you're compiling is a fraction of a freckle's worth compared to the total age of the earth! You're drawing a conclusion on the quality of a lifetime based on looking at how 5 minutes of someone's life was lived.

      In addition, NONE of the models factor in the impact of water vapor on the earth's temperature. We have oceans, lakes and streams that regularly contribute massive amounts of vapor (humidity), and then release it. The trends tend to be cyclical, and when there is more water vapor in the air, it amplifies the other alleged effects of "greenhouse gases." The cycles are not controlled or affected by human activity so eliminating greenhouse gases created by utilizing fossil fuels would still not eliminate "climate change."

      Medical science can pinpoint with extreme accuracy the impact and effects of eating sugar (you can see and feel tooth decay, see and measure obesity, blood lipids, etc.) and do a compare and contrast to subjects who don't use the products, or who use them in moderation. You have little evidence – even fossil evidence – to support the theory that climate change exists, let alone is anthropomorphic. You only have computer models, which can and have been altered based on the programmers' and researchers' biases (and desire for funding!)

    • BlankReg says:

      I have "learned the science behind climate models". I am a trained/degreed scientist who knows how to read peer-reviewed research. I have found that the vast majority of "climate models" says more about the modelers themselves and their inherent prejudices than it does about the weather.

      Historical data going back hundreds of thousands of years clearly indicates that the CO2 level FOLLOWS the warming, it does not precede it. Hence, I am a "skeptic". While the alarmists claim frantically that "climate change" is 100% the doing of humanity and their carbon-effluent, skeptics think that it's less than 5% "our fault", and the rest is a result of other larger forces, specifically that of that giant ball of fusing hydrogen hanging in the sky.

      Note in particular the lack of sunspots in recent years. If that continues, we could be headed for another Maunder Minimum, and a repeat of the Little Ice Age that plagued us from the 14th thru 18th centuries. A little "global warming" would be welcome in that event.

      Otherwise, if you don't have time to get an advanced degree in a natural science, you can always follow the money/power. That will generally tell you exactly what you need to know about the climate change fraud.

      • dra says:

        Can you share any sources for this perspective on CO2 levels following the warming? I am honestly trying to remain well-informed but my searches turn up more contradictory evidence (like the Vostok ice core records indicating that warming caused by other factors leads to an increase in CO2, but the CO2 increase amplifies the warming trend creating a positive feedback loop)

    • Steven Lidkea says:

      I think you've been drinking a bit too much of the alarmist KoolAid. You want to talk models? Okay, let's talk about Michael Mann's model that he used to come up with the hockey stick graph. Refuses to release the model or share his data. Why?

      Or you could look at the 'consensus' of '97% of the world's scientists'. Ever done a google search on how that figure was arrived at?

      Or you could look at the leaders of the climate change movement: if they truly believed that we were destroying the environment and there were only 10 (or 12, or whatever) years left, do you really think they'd all be superconsumers? Massive houses (usually more than one), private jets all over the world, superyachts, huge entourages.

      You're being played for a fool ace, and you seem to like it.

      • dra says:

        There's too much information (and misinformation) out there for someone to digest without making it their full time job. I appreciate your response, I'm an honest skeptic trying to learn more and figure this out without just taking anyone's word for it. Yes, I've looked into the consensus claim (Doran, Anderegg) and found evidence that implies it is true, which is reiterated by the fact that groups like NOAA, the American Meteorolgical Society, and The National Academies of Science have all released statements agreeing with it. I'm not going to just blindly agree because there is a scientific consensus, but I don't have any doubts that there is a scientific consensus among the majority of people who study our climate based on the evidence I've seen for it.

        You saying there is no consensus, dismissing me to perform a simple Google search and then saying I'd like to be played for a fool just breaks down the conversation and I'm stuck back where I started.

        I don't care about "leaders of the climate change movement" because I know if there's a buck to make somewhere, someone's going to try to make it. I'm just looking for the truth, and so far I've seen more evidence that climate change is real than evidence that it's all a big scam, and it's getting rather annoying that both sides, the most confident deniers and most confident believers, have their heads too far up their rear ends to have a reasonable discussion about it or to even acknowledge contradictory evidence to their own stance.

  3. Scott theczech says:

    There are a 101 ways to rob the treasury and both parties have figured out how to do that in spades. Direct transfers, debt, unnecessary grants, ill-advised foreign "adventures," etc., etc. For me, backing and voting for Republicans has truly become an exercise in the lesser of two evils. Really we are now a country consisting of about four parties: Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives and Socialists. Although arguably, the Democrats and socialists are in the process of a merger.

  4. Mic says:

    The problem as I see it is that it doesn't matter if people vote their pocketbook or not because those that do and are dirty Dems will NOT vote for Donald Trump. So they may be inclined to vote the economy, but in the voting booth, I simply can't see them pulling the lever for anything other than a "D" for president. They are simply too conditioned to do anything else.

    I run into a very liberal and retired judge at a gun show very frequently. The guy loves collecting firearms and enjoys going to the shows. He sets up a table, meets with friends and talks about collectible firearms all weekend. I once had a conversation with him and explained that the people he supported and voted for would happily take all of this away from him and ban every single firearm on his table.

    He didn't care. The power of the liberal siren call was too great. He ALWAYS voted straight "D" on the races, donated money to them, attended their rallies even though those same people once in power would strip his rights and joys from his life, but he either didn't believe it or didn't care. I just walked away completely baffled. I simply cannot understand how someone could know this reality and vote against his own interests, but yet he did.

    I think the same happens with other Dems regardless of where specific issues poll at. They simply can't bring themselves to vote any other way and sadly their numbers are growing and not shrinking. Eventually, these people will simply win national elections by sheer numbers.

    • Rick G says:

      Aren't people stupid, Mic? I have always said, "God must love stupid people, because he made so many of them". I get so exasperated with them I fell like taking a baseball bat and beating the living hell out of them. Sad thing is, when all is done, their screwed up looking face makes them look even more stupid! Lols!!!

    • Pat says:

      I have to disagree with some of what you said. Some people are leaving the Democratic Party. The ones that are left are not reproducing. They depend on illegals to get elected. Stop the illegals, and you stop Democrats from messing with the country. That's why Democrats are so opposed to the wall.

  5. TheLookOut says:

    RINOs are like dirty cops – disgusting. They say/represent one thing
    and do the opposite. A true 100% Republican congress would have
    nailed the Dirty Dems hides to the wall along time ago. True Americans
    are crying out for the truth, and want honesty from their elected officials.
    But the institution of congress is so corrupt I fear this will never be.

    • Rick G says:

      Those are the.idiots I like to refer to as "Republicrats". Robert Ringer refers to them as "Demopublicans" in his previous books. Same thing, different name only. RINOs may as well just join the Dirty Dems, because if you vote for them, it is a vote for a Dirty Dem!

    • Jean says:

      The sad part is that so many of those RINOs are far too often the only choice offered. We have one here in my district who is as squishy as a wet sponge. His competition was a leftist feminazi Democrat who toed the party line like a good Stepford candidate and a doped up Libertarian who made no sense whatsoever. No real conservative or constitutionalist primaried against the guy, so we all held our noses and voted him in again.

      • skeptic says:

        Jean, I won't argue with a single thing you say. But consider this; politicians are extraordinarily good at getting themselves re-elected year after year. Therefore, they must be doing what their (voting) constituents want. The "system" does work; we get exactly the "government" we deserve. If we don't get what we want – it's our own fault.

      • lee says:

        Hold your noses and vote for Bernie Sanders.In 2020.Only he can bring change.

  6. sixxfingers says:

    The democrat party has been co-opted by recalcitrant and petulant children to promote ideas that wouldn't work in any civilized country on any civilized planet. Adults and adult supervision apparently are unwelcome in the democrat party of the 21st century.

    • Rick G says:

      The once respectable Democratic Party, the party of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Ed Muskie, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, et al. is no more. Sad to say. Look at what they now have. AOC, Mad Scientist Bernie, Hillary the Horrible, Pocahontas or rather Snow White, Joe the Perv Biden, and other wannabe clowns! And don't forget my guaranteed $12,000/year from Andrew Yang, the Chinese dude, from where he came I simply do not know. Gotta get my share of the plunder pie! The Democratic Party is now in the city sewer.

      • sixxfingers says:

        I agree except for the inclusion of lbj. The man was a tyrant and a socialist who absolutely adored the socialism of fdr. And I for one am convinced lbj was in on the plot to assassinate jfk. He knew kennedy would have been reelected and johnson would have been too old to run in '68. He needed kennedy out of the way so he could build his "Great Society."

      • lee says:

        Those so called respectable democrats were corporation guys.Now we have the real deal.Bernie Sanders in 2020!

  7. larajf says:

    The #WalkAway movement is getting a LOT of momentum as well. People are finally fed up with the hypocrisy of the left.

  8. Jurgy says:

    why do you think the economy is the top concern when POTUS says it is going so well? …

  9. Ivan says:

    It's the environment, keep on draining the swamp and prevent newcomers.

  10. Scott says:

    The sociopaths in the Democrat party don't embarrass easily; they seem to have no shame. Nevertheless, we the people need to hold members of Congress accountable by voting them out of office. I know the data shows we tend to love our own congressmen and senators, however they are all dispensable.

    Let's send a strong message next election: vote out every incumbent, period! "Rinse and repeat" the next election until we see better representation with taxation.

    • Rick G says:

      Why waste money for admission to the city zoo? Just turn on the media, and there they all are available to see…….for free.

  11. Rick G says:

    People ALWAYS vote their wallet. No exceptions. I have always said, and I will repeat, two things hinge on President Trumps re-election bid, the economy come November 2020 and who runs against him. Case closed here.

    As for "climate change". The climate is constantly changing, and always has done so since the earth's beginning. CO2 is constantly recycled back into O2 by plant life. But a vast part of the earth's greenery has been removed by man and CO2 emissions have been on the increase. Our scientists need to get in there and work on that one. However, I agree with what Ayn Rand said regarding air pollution. It should be considered a scientific problem and not a political issue. Exactly! Politicians and pseudo-politicians like AOC who has a terminal case of the pipe dreams by trying to mass market The Green New Disaster need to choose some other hobby to fill their empty time. They need to butt out. And rightly so. Maybe, some of the "pollution" can be curbed if they quit running their mouth about it. After all, one's breath exhaled has CO2 in it anyway.

    • lee says:

      Your not paying attention as usual.Mic said it does not matter if people vote their pocketbooks are not.Democrats will not vote for Donald Trump.

  12. John says:

    Please, not another poll! Really, this poll is quite meaningless as a way to draw general conclusions because it all depends on who you ask: a 20 year old or a 50 year old. It's quite logical that older people would be more concerned about jobs and the economy while younger people would be more likely to align themselves with social issues.
    Since we do not know the age breakdown of this poll it would be very unwise to use it as a indicator of anything.
    If you look at other pools done by Pew Research on climate change for example, the US clocks in at 59% concern while your quoted pool shows 44%.
    So please, Robert, a little more analysis is in order!

  13. MuthuswamyN says:

    For me the environment is a self diagnostic and self-curative system. Nature decides what to do when and it goes about doing things to balance and keep the two opposites of CO2 and Oxygen in dynamic balance. We cannot do this in a real-time way as Nature does because of the vast space involved and the complex processes over most of which we humans have only minimal control. Let us have faith in Nature and let it go about doing it. We cannot compete with in any way – scientific or otherwise both qualitatively and quantitatively and within the time frame that Nature accomplishes things.

  14. lee says:

    Replying to Stephan F.So true!

  15. lee says:

    So true!

  16. Scott McKinney says:

    Trump is undoubtedly bad for bureaucratic leeches, but day-to-day Americans don't much care for them anyways. They are busy fining and regulating regular Americans while letting "too big to fail" types off the hook thru bribery – err, I mean – "lobbying." For small businesspeople, who are the primary creator of groups and driver of the economic engine in America, Trump has been excellent. I think that is one factor that is continuing to driving support for him amidst the FNM and Deep State backlash.

Leave a Reply