Archive for the ‘Political’ Category

In defense of the AR-15

Posted by Troy on 19th February 2018 in Current Events, Political

Let’s be honest: this is a failure of the FBI.  Holy crap, how many people have to report a kid?  How many times does he have to say he wants to kill cops and be a professional school shooter before you say, “I’ll look into it?”

Okay, so people are all up on the AR-15.  Here’s my defense on why average Americans should be allowed to have these weapons:

1 – Just like drugs, if someone really wants an “assault rifle” for nefarious reasons, they are going to get it.  Sorry, but that’s the truth.  You can make the argument “Yeah, but why make it easier for them?” which does have some merit, but I will continue.

2 – For the most part, if you want to kill multiple people, a sawed off shotgun with a followup .45 pistol will give you similar numbers.  [exclusion for the Las Vegas shooter... in that kind of scenario with a packed field of people and a long distance, an "assault rifle would be ideal, but this is just one instance.]

3 – School shootings are statistically unimportant.  “HOW DARE YOU!  It is a tragedy!  What if that had been your child?!”  It was my child, I’d cry my eyes out.  Likewise, if my child drowned in a 5 gallon bucket (happens 20 times a year), I would be devastated.  However, I would also realize it is statistically unimportant.  As such, I would not push for federal anti-bucket laws.

4 – If you want to say, “If we save BUT ONE LIFE!  JUST ONE TEEN,” I will counter with: Do you know how many die from drug overdoses?  From alcohol related accidents?  What if we lowered the speed limit to 25 miles per hour?  What if we increased the age for driving to twenty-one?  Think of all the lives that would be saved.  But all of these have costs, and we are unwilling to pay for these costs.  The uncomfortable truth is this: “The way we live our lives, kills people.  We know this, and we are willing to accept a certain number of deaths to maintain our lifestyle.”  Think of it this way: the five-year old girl that got hit by a car and died may have lived if we had a fifteen mile per hour speed limit, or if we required that children stay indoors at all times, but we don’t.  Getting to places quickly helps us get more done per day.  Going outside is fun and healthy for the child.  We feel sad that the girl died, but we do not do away with cars that she may live.  We don’t make her parents keep her inside so that she will be safer.

5 – Murders are mostly caused by handguns.  Demonizing the AR-15 or any other rifle doesn’t’ make it so.

Long Live the Constitution!  Long Live the Second Amendment

School Shooting Solutions

Posted by Troy on 15th February 2018 in Current Events, Political

This kid was on Youtube saying that he was going to be a professional school shooter.  He was reported to the FBI.  Everyone that knew this kid knew that he was dangerous.  They knew that this was going to happen.  But I guess the FBI was too interested tracking down Russian collusion than following up on some kid threatening to shoot cops and school kids.

This kid was screaming out for help, and no one listened.  That’s why 17 people are dead at his hands.  Plain and simple.

You want to stop these things?  Identify people with mental issues and get them they help they need.  I am also a fan of increased CCW.  You say that schools should be a gun free zone.  Yeah, it was…until he brought a gun there.  Then it was suddenly NOT a gun free zone.  At larger schools, one or two armed guards would be a good idea as well.  Frankly, I am sure that there are plenty of retired military that would gladly volunteer their time tot he community in this service.

If you want to point to the “assault rifle,” as the issue, I hate to break this to you… a sawed off shotgun and a 1911 .45 would have had a similar body count in those packed conditions.  So either be honest and say you want to total gun ban or understand that your solution really isn’t a solution.  Let’s also be honest, there are over a million “assault rifles” in circulation.  How do you plan on getting rid of those?  Are you going to kick in people’s doors and take them?  And what if the people take offense at that and are willing to die over it?  How many law-abiding gun owners are you willing to turn into criminals and subject to fascist tactics and/or kill?  Just curious.  I want to have an honest conversation here.

Ask the people of France how their ultra-strict gun laws protected them from the AK-47s used by the Muslim extremists.

It’s like I always say: “Guns should be illegal.  That way, no one will be able to get them…just like drugs.”

Long Live the Constitution!

FISA and Why It Matters

Posted by Troy on 3rd February 2018 in Current Events, Political

Oh, and what a tangled web we weave!  Who knew that what would bring neo-cons and liberals together is their hate of Trump.  Besties foreva’ ya’ll!!!!!

Take Trump out of it.  Take him completely out of it.

If there was a racist cop.  He KNOWS that this black guy is dirty.  I mean, he just KNOWS it.  So the cop has his cousin start spreading rumors that the guy has child porn on his computer.  Based on all of these rumors the cop is hearing, he requests a search warrant.  In searching the man’s house, he finds a dime-bag of pot.  The cop was right…that guy was dirty.  The cop arrests the guy who goes to jail for drug related charges.

If you are against the above, I demand to know how this scenario is any different than what is being alleged by the memo?  Swap out “racist” for “radically partisan,” “cop” for “agent,” and the “rumors” for the “dossier;” and the scenario matches up nicely.

If the memo is correct, this is beyond troubling.  These are the types of abuses that you see in communist countries and dictatorships.  What’s scary is that if Trump had lost, we never would have heard about it.  I will grant you that this memo was written by Republicans.  As such, I feel like we must demand a full investigation into the matter.  If a search warrant was obtained on knowingly false grounds, people need to go to jail over it.  PERIOD.

Long Live the Constitution!

State of the Union Address Review

Posted by Troy on 30th January 2018 in Current Events, Political

For the past few years, I would take down notes and refute the State of the Union speech point by point.  But tonight, I think I’m going to do something a little different.

I am going to laugh my ass off!  Oh my God, Trump found the loophole that no one else even knew existed!  He delivered line after line that gave Democrats two options: either applaud or look like assholes–your choice!  Again and again, he delivered lines like giving terminally ill the right to try.  I want to make prescriptions less expensive.  Together we can accomplish anything.

I will say that his speech was very middle of the road.  It was a listing of issues and challenges facing this nation.  His remarks were sensible.  They were the types of remarks that most people would hold.

The Democrat rebuttal was pretty much an emotional tirade with little substance and much rhetoric.  I swear to God, every time I see a politician fake cry/get choked up, I wish I could reach out and slap the ____ out of them.  I really do.  Don’t the rest of you get sick of the fake cry already?  It’s so demeaning.

Long Live the Constitution!

White House Amnesty Deal – Democrats Suck at this Game

Posted by Troy on 26th January 2018 in Current Events, Political

People on the right went nuts at Trump’s deal.  He’s going to give 1.8 million illegals citizenship?  He’s going to let them have chain migration?  He’s not even getting e-verify?  And the only thing he really gets out of the deal is a wall?  This is madness.  This will cost Republicans the 2018 election!

Of course, I doubted the whole thing.  I think Trump offered it to prove a point.  He gave the Democrats everything they wanted for those poor, unfortunate “dreamers.”  More than legal status…citizenship.  He knew that it would prove that the Democrat’s don’t care about the dreamers.  Well, they might, but that’s not what the fight was about.  The fight is about having an open border.  That is all they truly care about.  If they cared about the dreamers and protecting them, they take the deal.

And the Democrats fell for it!  It was an obvious trap, and they took the cheese and whip-snap when the trap.  My god… how stupid can they be?

Here was the winning move, morons:  Take the deal to defend the dreamers.  Paint the wall as racist.  Run on that in 2018.  Defund the wall.

For all the people out there that think Trump is stupid, here’s a true story.  There was a chess tournament.  A chess master was being beaten by his challenger and stood in his chair and yelled, “Why must I be beaten by this idiot?!”  If your opponent is an idiot and he is beating you…what does that say about you?

Long Live the Constitution!

Why Oprah Will Never Be President…If She’s Smart

Posted by Troy on 10th January 2018 in Current Events, Political

If she were to run and get the Democratic nomination, I believe she would win.  She would win as she would have the same wind at her back (a lackey media and pop culture just spewing sugar all day for her) without the anchor of being the most unlikable person on the planet (i.e. she’s not Hillary Clinton).  So she would win (unless the economy is just exploding under Trump, in which case, there is nothing Democrats can do but cry… more money in your pocket always wins on election day).

1 – Oprah’s brand is her fortune.  Look at her empire.  Say what you will for Trump, his product is his fortune.  He builds real estate.  He has other little side ventures, but his name (as much as he would cringe at hearing this) is not really his fortune.  No one buys a building because Trump built it.  No one buys a wine because of Trump on the label.  They do for Oprah.  She may have some manufacturing of some sort in her portfolio, but her main income is from endorsing things.  Selling things.  Marketing things (including herself in her show).  If she gets into politics, she will instantly have 40% of the nation pretty much hating her.  This would destroy her brand and her fortune.  But let’s assume she doesn’t care about any of that.

2 – Being President means you are Commander in Chief.  That means you have to give orders that cause people to die.  Or withhold orders that cause people to die.  Their deaths are on your shoulders.  Could Trump give those orders?  Yes.  Could Hillary?  Shit Hillary could send 100,000 men to their deaths without batting an eye.  This is not a sexist remark.  Women can do it just as well as men (Queen Elizabeth, Margret Thatcher, Angela Merkle, Hillary Clinton…).  Could you imagine Oprah giving those orders?

If she were to become President, this country is pretty much toast.  While I am generally a non-interventionist, every country in the world is going to assume that she is unwilling to see men die at her command and would instantly start running roughshod over weaker countries.  We would have open borders.  Her way of dealing with every crisis would be to open the coffers either in aid to poor countries or as bribes to evil countries.  Trying the techniques she used to gain her status in the world: be likable.  Be generous.  Try to talk things out.  All these sound great.  But it’s one thing to talk things out with your friend who is mad at you.  It’s another to talk things out with an MS-13 member that’s about to kill you or Rocket Man.

Long Live the Constitution!

Why I’m Against Net Neutrality but For California Doing It

Posted by Troy on 20th December 2017 in Current Events, Political

Tenth Amendment, ya’ll!

Okay, this is one of the very few issues where I am truly on the fence.  I think it comes down to two things, really:

If you believe that the internet is a public utility, you probably support Net Neutrality because no one should have substandard service from a public utility.  In exchange for these restrictions, utilities also get certain benefits such legal monopolies and the like.

If you believe that the internet is a product, you are probably against Net Neutrality because you believe that companies should be able to set their prices and policies.

I think that the internet is becoming such a massive part of people’s lives, that you could easily make the argument that it is a public utility.  If there were a power outage, many people would be most upset about the loss of the internet, not power or water.  Of course, those people are absolutely stupid, but there you go.

However, I am not in favor of Net Neutrality.  Why?  Because I haven’t been shown that the internet companies have been unfair.  If they ever start doing the nightmare scenarios where Amazon pays Comcast the most money so they throttle down Walmart’s internet speed, well, that’s a problem.  Of course, that is anti-competitive practices and could be considered collusion or extortion or racketeering.  But let’s put all that to the side.  Anyone COULD do ANYTHING.  You can’t punish people for things they can do.  Until such practices become common place, I do not wish to place the heavy fist of government on it.  Once the government gets involved in something, it’s difficult to get them out again.  Also, after ten to fifteen years, you could find that the government itself may start using Net Neutrality (as a base law) to add in a “Fake News” clause or something to control content.  It’s the old, slippery slope argument, but it is a valid argument.  I am always very cautious when it comes to given the government more regulatory power.

So why do I approve it for California?  Because California is a state and can do pretty much anything it damn well pleases as long as it does not conflict with Federal Law or the Constitution.  Boom.  If California is having problems, have your Net Neutrality.  If they are not having any problems and their citizens just want the law, have your Net Neutrality.  If it works out well, maybe other states will follow.  If it turns into a total shitshow, other states will learn from your example.

Long Live the Constitution!

Al Franken-stein and Roy Moore

Posted by Troy on 7th December 2017 in Political

His resignation brought a smile to my face.  It is so rare to listen to a master-hypocrite.  You have a serial sexual assaulter proclaiming both that victims should be believed…but he is totally innocent…but he’s going to step down anyway.  I especially loved the “ironic” line.  I wouldn’t say “ironic…”  maybe something like… “hilarious?”  Yes, that’s right, hilarious.

So, you’re going to ask me, “Are you for women being assaulted?!”

Of course not.

Here’s the thing.  This applies to Judge Roy Moore and President Trump:  People are not going to vote for a Jones or a Hillary.  They would prefer someone that they disapprove of that will pass laws that they will like rather than someone they like that will pass laws that people will be forced to live under that they hate.  That’s the important thing.  In Hillary, it’s a double shot: she was utterly unlikable in every way and wanted to pass laws that the majority of people in the majority of the states abhorred.  THAT is why she lost.  It had nothing to do with the Russians.  It had nothing to do with Comey.  It had nothing to do with America being misogynistic or racist or stupid.  Nope.  It was because they hated her stance on the issues.

The people of Alabama are going to make a decision.  They have the information on the issues and on the allegations.  In the end, they are going to vote for the person that they think will represent their interests, not their character.  They will pick someone that will vote for the laws that they want and vote down laws they do not want.

Also, let’s just say this: anyone can lay an allegation.  Until that allegation is prosecuted, they are not innocent or guilty.  In this particular case, the events happened 40 years ago and likely will never be prosecuted, doomed to fall into the realm of he-she said limbo, never to be resolved.  However, should it be proven that these allegations are true and the people of Alabama decide that they no-longer wish for Judge Roy Moore to represent him, they will recall him.  However, they would rather election someone that will vote for the laws they want (etc) and later recall them than to vote for a guy who will pass laws they are against.

It is not the Senate’s job to determine who can represent a State.  If past offenses were enough to disqualify people for office, then there would be precious few people there when you account for the crimes, sexual offenses, bankruptcies, corruption, bribery, drug offenses, rehabs, and other things that make people unsavory.  True, people can be expelled by the Senate…for CURRENT offenses.  It is totally inappropriate to do so for something that happened 40 years ago.  At that point, it is up to the people of Alabama.  You may disapprove of what Alabama does, but that’s frankly none of your business unless you live in Alabama.

Make no mistake, the Democrats are wanting to paint themselves as taking the high road.  They are not.  They are laying the groundwork for the 2018 and 2020 elections.  They want to paint themselves as the “women’s party” and try to get all the women to vote for them instead of Republicans.  I doubt it will account to much.  Again, they can brand themselves however they want, but people do not like the Democrats’ ideas.  Conyers, Franken, and any others that end up resigning are only doing so because they will be readily replaced by other Democrats.  It costs them nothing.  It’s the same reason why Democrats can come out now and rail against Bill Clinton.  It costs them nothing, and it is worthy of no respect.  If there was a chance that they would be replaced by a Republican, they would stay to the bitter end.  Just look at the case of the New Jersey representative that was on trial for bribery and corruption.  If he resigned, the Republican governor would have been able to appoint a Republican in his place, and you had pundits all lined up to say that the most moral choice if he was convicted was for him to STILL not resign rather than to have a Republican take that seat.

Long Live the Constitution!

Faux Outrage from Fauxahontas

Posted by Troy on 27th November 2017 in Current Events, Political

I’ve always favored Fauxahontas over Pocahontas.  It’s a little more clever and sidesteps some of the criticism that people want to level at Trump for calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas.

So a reporter is giving Sarah Huckabee Sanders hell because Trump used the “racial slur” “Pocahontas” to refer to Elizabeth Warren.  First of call: being called Pocahontas is hardly a slur, racial or otherwise.  If someone calls you Shakespeare, Washington, Lincoln, or Patton, it is hardly an insult.  Pocahontas was actually a pretty cool person.  Being compared to her is usually a compliment.  For reference, a racial slur for a Native American may be “redskin” or “savage” or something to that effect.  The insult in “Pocahontas” comes from the irony of the use.  That is to say, he is calling someone who claimed to be Native American “Pocahontas” as a way of pointing out her appropriation of the Native American culture.

This particular reporter demanded to know if Trump saw some sort of political value in calling people out in racially.

Well, what I can tell you is that Elizabeth Warren saw a lot of economic gain from telling people that she was a Native American when she was not.  She took a job, a position, away from a REAL Native American.

The reporter also wanted to know if it was ever appropriate for the President to use a racial slur in any context.

But I guess it’s okay to fake being a member of a different race and take away a job from someone of that race?

And that’s why I have zero respect for anyone who wants to paint Trump as a racist for calling out a CLEARLY white person for PRETENDING to be a Native American.  You cannot convert “Pocahontas” into a racial slur.  The only time that this is an insult in the highly specific fact patterns you have before you: where the term is applied to someone who PRETENDED to be Native American for their own gain.  If you are not massively OFFENDED at that, then you are not allowed to pretend to be offended by the other.  This is a case of someone just being mad that someone is calling out Elizabeth Warren because the reporter LIKES Elizabeth Warren.  I guarantee you, if Trump had ever put on a building application that he was Native American to score a job, this same reporter would be OOOOOUUUUTRAAAAAAAGEEEEED!!!! by his actions.  And if Elizabeth Warren called Trump “Shitting Bull,” this reporter would be yucking it up.  Faux outrage.  Period.

Here’s an example, dumb-dumbs.  Calling someone who lied about serving in the military “Who, Braveheart?” is not a Scottish slur.  It’s a slur by comparing one person with a certain virtue against another who lacks that virtue.  In this case, a noble Native American from history contrasted to a lying white person.

Hope this helps!

Long Live the Constitution!

The Democrat Wave

Posted by Troy on 9th November 2017 in Political

In special election after special election, the media declared “This is referendum on Trump!”  Remember that?  In Kansas and Georgia and other red states?  The resistance was going to conquer Trump?  Remember the Trumpslayer Ossoff?  And each time, they failed.  It would appear that they learned their lesson.  So this time, they waited for the races to be in blue states, declare that it’s a referendum election, and when the Democrats won, say “See!  The Democrats are back!”  Because the Media is all about the narrative.  Unfortunately for them, they lost all their credibility in the last election because they kept peddling a narrative.  Once you lose that credibility, you lose your power to craft the narrative, especially when you have a President that really doesn’t care about you and your supposed power.  It’s like Trump has said to the Media “Through dangers untold and hardships unnumbered, I have fought my way here to the [White House in the Swamp] to take back the [country] you have stolen,   For my will is as strong as yours, and my [voice] as great.  You have no power over me!”

This wasn’t a wave.  This was Democrats winning races that they were supposed to win.  Nothing more.  Maybe you’d like to predict that Democrats are going to win in California next?  Go ahead if it makes you feel good.

Long Live the Constitution!