Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Watch LIVE: President Trump Delivers Speech At CPAC [Updates]

Watch LIVE: President Trump Delivers Speech At CPAC [Updates]

“With your help we will take back the house, we will win the Senate and then a Republican President will make a triumphant return to the White House. And I wonder who that will be.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwimtTaM2n4

President Trump will deliver his much anticipated CPAC speech at 3:40 p.m. EST. (Update FS: NewsMax just reported that Trump will arrive at CPAC at 4:15 p.m. EST, so stay tuned.)

Watch live:

Speech Highlights and Reactions

Trump arrives at CPAC:

While we are waiting, here’s some CPAC straw poll news:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Trump won the straw poll BIGLY not DeSantis

    Olinser in reply to gonzotx. | February 28, 2021 at 5:08 pm

    He did. But the poll demonstrated that unless something drastic changes, there are exactly TWO viable candidates: Trump and DeSantis.

    There is reasonable cause to question whether Trump is going to be up to another run in 4 years, and then serving another full 4 year term.

    He’s 74 right now, so if he won his term would be when he was aged 78-82, that’s a lot to ask.

    If Trump isn’t the candidate, then it appears that the nomination is DeSantis’ to lose.

    HenryJohnson in reply to gonzotx. | March 1, 2021 at 8:30 am

    I agree. DeSantis only did that well because he’s the local guy made good, strictly a local phenomenon. Not that surprising.

    They announced that, without Trump in the race, DeSantis won. Again, not a big surprise.

    I’m more interested in how the other candidates fared. I’m more interested in how they did with both Trump and DeSantis removed, but I’ve not been successful finding the official posting of all those results. Anyone provide us a link to that? Thanks!

    HenryJohnson in reply to gonzotx. | March 1, 2021 at 8:36 am

    Whether Trump or DeSantis are included or not, Noem seems to consistently come up as the leader of the second tier. Trump’s new veep?

    HenryJohnson in reply to gonzotx. | March 1, 2021 at 8:38 am

    Besides which Florida is now pretty much a red state, thanks to DJT. On the other hand, making inroads with women would be a huge coup, and Noem might be the person to do that as Trump’s running-mate.

      I don’t follow this logic. Right-leaning women don’t vote for vaginas, we vote policy. The bottom of the ticket may make a significant difference if that person is a female, but only if they are touting policies with which we agree. See: John McCain/Sarah Palin. Conservative women didn’t support that ticket because Palin was a woman, we supported it because her policy proposals and ideology aligned with our own (unlike McCain’s).

      Think about it. Jam Liz Cheney on a ticket or Murkowski, do you really think a single conservative female would suddenly decide that’s just the ticket for us because they are women? Nope. No way, no how.

      (As an aside, you’re not alone in this leftist identity politics thinking; Ted Cruz made the same mistake when he named Carly Fiorina his VP in 2016, apparently thinking–incorrectly–that a woman would make a difference with female GOP voters. It didn’t. I still supported Cruz, but I did not–and do not–like Carly, not one tiny bit.)

        HenryJohnson in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 1, 2021 at 4:21 pm

        It’s additive, not subtractive. Noem has been about as Trumpy as you can get, and MAGA-World would fall in love with her once she acquires sufficient name recognition. So there is no more solid supporter for Trump you could name as DJT’s veep. And the fact that she’s a woman merely strengthens the case for her. This is not either/or; it’s both/and.

          Trump is not going to run again (in my opinion), so this is all moot. It’s not even a tiny bit “additive” since conservative women don’t consider having a vagina to be an accomplishment or resume enhancer. But maybe that’s just me. Maybe some conservative women do vote for biological features (bwahahaa!! just kidding! Doing that is about as unconservative as you can get; your “both/and” tripe suggests to me that you have zero idea how conservative women think. There is no “gee, it’s a women/POC/blah blah box for actual conservative women; we vote policy, best person for the job, period. No crazy leftist identity politics crap enters the equation.).

          2024 is light years away in political terms, but I don’t see Trump running again, particularly as he has decided on a plan of remaking the GOP from within (the best option available, in my opinion). He has to tease that since he’s the clear favorite among the GOP base and can’t really work his base-rousing magic without that hope for his more devout followers, but it’s not going to happen. Noem will likely run for president in ’24, but she won’t make the primaries. She’ll have a better chance in ’28 or ’32.

          At this super early point, it looks like my governor has the best chance in 2024, and I think Ron DeSantis will make a great president. I just don’t want to lose him as my gov because he is so incredibly awesome.

          One thing we can be damned sure of is that the Liz let’s bomb someplace and tweet nice things Cheney, Mittens McRomneyCare, and Nikki Weather Vane Loser Haley wing of the party has zero chance of gaining ground. Trump made it clear that the party of the #NeverTrumper, America Last, RINO GOPe losers is done. And that is something to celebrate.

        HenryJohnson in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 1, 2021 at 8:19 pm

        I’m replying to your latest starting with “Trump is not going to run,” but for some reason there’s no Reply link on that posting so I had to write this as a reply to your previous. Regrets for the confusion.

        I don’t share your idealistic view of the voters, whether on the right or the left. The idea that they pay no attention to gender? Or to color? Or to age? Or to religious belief? Or to sexual orientation? Or to whatever? That’s the case with dyed-in-the-wool conservative idealists perhaps, but those are not the only people who won’t vote left or who won’t vote Democrat. That’s political reality unfortunately.

        Not sure why you say that Trump’s decision to remake the party from within should preclude his running again. A while back, when the insurrection happened, and folks were blaming Trump for it, and it was starting to look like the entire GOP leadership in the Senate might vote for conviction, I was really afraid that those idiots on January 6th had ruined everything, and that Trump and MAGA was a dead duck through no fault of his own or their own. However, in the end, cooler heads prevailed, Trump was acquitted, and I think Trump and MAGA have survived the near-death experience of January 6th, and I think Trump is in a good position to run again.

        Why do you think Noem won’t make the primaries? She’s a fresh face, she’s charismatic, and she seems to be able to work magic with the right crowd, e.g. her CPAC appearance this past week.

        Frankly, while I like DeSantis, I don’t find him that exciting or charismatic. I think you’re letting your Florida loyalties sway you.

        Finally, I totally agree that the Never Trump America Last Rino wing is dead, dead, dead. One of the idiocies that appears to be consuming news coverage of the GOP is that the battle in the party is between the Trump personality cult and the “serious” conservative wing of the party. Huh??? No, that’s not it! This is primarily a policy battle, as rarely acknowledged as it is, between the open borders cheap illegal labor wing of the party and the pro-American dignified labor wing of the party, between the sovereignty-hating job-loss-loving free traders and the fair trade American jobs Trump wing, between the endless-war-loving Lizes of this world and the endless-war-hating Trump wing of the party. This is very much a fight over policy, and we are winning!

This man is the gold standard.

This is one serious speech. I’ve never heard or seen him so focused and combative. A very grown-up message. Best speech ever.

He’s running!!!!

    UserP in reply to gonzotx. | February 28, 2021 at 7:14 pm

    Yes. Bigly!

    Maybe. He has to act like it either way. He loses power as soon as he announces he isn’t. We need him to keep the Party focused on the Middle Class, and help in the 2022 elections. It looks like he’s going to focus on choosing candidates. We won’t know truly until after 2022 elections if he is running.

Grrr8 American | February 28, 2021 at 6:58 pm

Thank God that President Trump has not backed-off, and made it “legitimate” to keep talking about the steal.nmAlong those lines — very important information:

Over the past couple of days I’ve watched a number of “Millennial Millie’s” videos — the link below being to the most recent.

CONSIDER THIS A MUST WATCH (and a MUST PASS-ALONG):

https://www.millennialmillie.com/post/psyop-the-steal

    mark311 in reply to Grrr8 American. | March 1, 2021 at 9:58 am

    I stopped watching after about 30 seconds. It makes no sense what so ever. The idea that the Jan 6th insurrection was organised to prevent evidence of election fraud being presented is one of the most moronic ideas of all time. What pathway to the presidency would have been open to Trump if it hadn’t happened. Answer = none.

      Grrr8 American in reply to mark311. | March 1, 2021 at 11:52 am

      1) There is much more evidence presented — 30 seconds of just one of the videos and dismissing the entirety isn’t intellectually serious.

      2) There is voluminous evidence of a pre-planned coup (using “color revolution” techniques) both in her videos and in the “References” section of this: https://www.trevorloudon.com/2021/02/we-had-a-color-revolution-under-color-of-law-but-we-can-still-reclaim-our-country/

      3) There are legal, moral, ethical and patriotic paths STILL for the duly-elected President to be inaugurated. To argue that we should just accept a fraudulent Presidency, to accept a coup overthrowing our Constitutional Republic, is not acceptable to me, nor to tens of millions of others. It never will be. We will still demand that the genuine election results be honored, and the duly-elected President inaugurated.

      Dathurtz in reply to mark311. | March 1, 2021 at 12:44 pm

      To be fair, you also aren’t paying attention to the videos of irregularities or the statistical analyses either. Basically, you have chosen to bury your head in the sand rather than admit to the coup that occurred in our country.

      So, it isn’t surprising that you would turn off something that conflicted with the narrative you have built around yourself as a defense mechanism so you can pretend everything is just fine.

      UserP in reply to mark311. | March 1, 2021 at 1:20 pm

      I stopped reading after two words. What you wrote makes no sense whatsover.

      And you felt the need to share this why, Marx311? Do you imagine that we care if you stopped watching, after how long, or for what reason? Apparently so, since you felt the need to tell us, but honestly, why bother at all? What an inflated sense of self-importance you have. It’s really quite remarkable.

        mark311 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 1, 2021 at 7:05 pm

        You care enough to respond. Though you haven’t responded on our climate change discussion.

        Seems to be a theme with you, unwilling or unable perhaps to actually understand evidence and argument. Nor able to admit when you are wrong.

          I have clearly expressed my views on your climate change alarmist nonsense. Perhaps you weren’t paying attention? After all, your goal here is not to actually engage on ideas, it’s to condescend to, belittle, and mock our very valid stance on the made-up lunacy of some climate apocalypse that is always hailed as imminent, and gobbled up by losers like you, and that always fails to deliver.

          How embarrassing was it that our National Park Services had to remove Obama-Biden-era signage about 2020 being the end of glaciers? Which, by the way, are still there and are actually growing not receding, though the eco-fascist lying signage was removed.

          Polar bears were supposed to be extinct by . . . erm, what? 1970? 1989? 1993? 2000? 2010? No, for sure, like totally totes for sure by 2020. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

          You are such a sucker.

          And you are aso a silly, unserious troll. I like some of the Zachs because they at least have a brain; you are just a joke (but good for many a giggle, so that’s something).

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 2, 2021 at 10:05 am

          Oh Fuzzy, you have indeed expressed a view on climate change but you’ve yet to present any argument at all that hasn’t turned out to be nonsense in the face of over whelming evidence.

          Your examples are pretty poor too, that glacier example ignores the fact that those glaciers have diminished greatly. The idea that the prediction of when they disappear is imprecise misses the point entirely. Unlike you science revised its views based on evidence, in this particular case there are mechanisms that minimise the loss of ice at certain elevations. That doesn’t change the fact that the trend is a significant reduction in ice loss.

          https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/fact-check-no-the-glaciers-are-not-growing-in-glacier-national-park/

          Your polar bear example again doesn’t really work. Polar bears are reliant on a particular climate thus if the climate changes there natural habitat is reduced. There is also the fact that we don’t have a strong base point for polar bear numbers, so its hard to tell what the population levels actually were.

          https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/

          If you find my arguments belittling or mean I’m sorry they aren’t intended to be but that doesn’t change the fact that your argument’s don’t stand up to scrutiny. It also seems to be the case that you revert to insults consistently, so that is strongly suggestive that you have a weak case.

          “your goal here is not to actually engage on ideas” I have engaged this very conversation is evidence of that, you’ve presented an argument and I’ve rebutted. That’s a debate, no issues there. Where arguments work I acknowledge that I’ve done that with a number of commenters here on various subjects. You however never acknowledge even the possibility that you might be wrong. Trouble is I’m struggling to give you an out on climate change because its hard to see an argument against the man made effects on climate change; there is way to much evidence and understanding indicating otherwise.

          Grrr8 American in reply to mark311. | March 2, 2021 at 1:14 pm

          “Climate Change” is the new (fabricated) bait for the same types who used to fall for the Bolsheviks’ “Peace, Land and Bread” and National Socialists’ “Thousand Year Reich.”

          The oligarchs behind “climate change” are using “environmentalism” in lieu of economic class. “Sustainability” is the new “Workers’ Paradise” and …

          The “Great Reset” will be the new Gulag, albeit on a global scale instead of confined to the Soviet Socialist Republics.

          For more credible information on so-called climate change, see:

          https://www.climatedepot.com

          https://heartlanddailynews.com/category/environment/

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | March 3, 2021 at 10:35 am

          @ Grrr8 American

          Climate depot and the heartlands institute aren’t written by scientists. Nor are there arguments particularly good (read terrible).

          The heartlands institute is well known for arguing scientific positions that aren’t justified. They were for example paid by Philip Morris for years to argue against second hand smoke, and now they do that with climate change. Climate Depot is run by a former congressional staffer. Those qualifications don’t exactly fill me with confidence that its a credible set of sources.

          I can critique specific stories if you like but I wont follow that path unless you want me too (I’m happy to do so).

          Rather if you don’t believe in global warming why don’t you start with the predictive models, see link below. In reality they have proven to be very accurate.

          https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/#:~:text=How%20reliable%20have%20they%20been,models%20have%20been%20quite%20accurate.

          Can I ask you what the link to Bolshevism is, I don’t really understand the link? One is a scientific issue vs a political ideology? Perhaps you could explain the link further?

Trump hammers the opposition on the issues. He says things that make sense to regular people. Contrast that with the crazy ideas coming from the Democrats.

Eliminate the worst of the “R” (Ridiculous) senators and many of the others will fall in line. It’s not enough to elect Trump or a successor, we have to purge the senate/house of the worthless anti-American filth that are GOPe.

We need to start a trend of making a clip of Trump’s speech from beginning to end and posting it on YouTube under the description State of the Union 2021, because it’s looking like Joe ain’t gonna do one, and we need it.

And…. Youtube has taken it down.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend