Posts Tagged ‘GOP’

A Real Conversation about Gun Control

Posted by Troy on 3rd October 2017 in Current Events, Political

All the late night comedians… sorry… experts demand a real conversation about gun control.  So… lets have one!!!!!

1 – The GOP is not beholden to the NRA.  Oh…they want to pretend that the Republicans are…but they are beholden to their constituents.  You see, we gun owners joined the NRA because we love our Second Amendment.  We do not love the Second Amendment because the NRA tells us to.  Instead, we joined them because we already did love our Second Amendment.  That is why the Republicans do not want to seek further gun control, because it would royally piss us off and they would lose in a primary.  What I will say is that this makes me suspect that the Left is beholden to THEIR special interest.  In other words, if you think the other side is beholden to a lobby group and not the voters, it is probably because your side is beholden to a lobby group over their voters.  This would explain why the Left is for open borders despite it hurting the black citizens they claim to care about.

2 – This shooter (as most shooters in recent history) acquired their guns subject to background checks.  In fact, all the measures the Left demands would not have prevented these shootings.  Assault weapons ban?  Did nothing to reduce crime.  Background checks?  Don’t seem to be working.  The Left demands we do SOMETHING!  Sorry… but why do something if it is going to be ineffective?  That’s just stupid.

3 – The Second Amendment is about protecting yourself from the Government.  It is not about hunting.  It is not about self-defense.  Those are nice perks, but they are not the main reason.  I am much more worried about an out of control government than I am about a random madman.  As long as that is the case, you will never convert me to the side of gun control.

4 – As far as mental illness goes, there is a reason why I am hesitant to support these measures.  I actually know people that suffer from depression and anxiety, and they refuse to get help.  Why?  Because they know it will go on their record and they fear the government will use it to take their guns.  Also, if a spouse or family member suffers from these conditions, their rights would be forfeited as well.  As such, I can understand why they wont’ get help, and that is a shame.

5 – If you don’t like people having the right to keep and bear arms, then you have an option.  Amend the Constitution.  Until you do so, you have no right to abridge the freedom to keep and bear arms.  But they will never do this because they know they cannot win this argument.  The Left wants a totalitarian government.  They just want one they agree with.  Could you imagine if the Right sought the same liberty to change the First Amendment at whim?  The right to an abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, but they will declare that that is absolute.  Amazing, really.

6 – All the people calling for gun control are in big cities.  They are not isolated by large tracts of land.  Police are nearby.  Or they live in gated, nice communities.  Or they have their own armed guards.  What about the rest of us?

7 – More people are stabbed to death in any given year over being killed by long guns.

8 – They are being disingenuous.  Granted, an AR-15 has the range can accessories (drum clips, etc) to make the long range, open venue ambush a reality.  But do you think the Left would stop the push to gun control if it was just a guy showing up in a crowded store on black Friday and using a sawed off shotgun/pistols/etc to kill people?  Of course not.  Let’s be honest: any gun control measure must at the end of the game conclude with a total gun ban.  Otherwise, it would be a waste of time.

9 – Which brings me to the final point.  Guns should be made illegal…that way, no one can buy them…like drugs.  Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Long Live the Constitution!

Hillary’s Lying Ass

Posted by Troy on 22nd October 2015 in Current Events, Political

I don’t often go into that language, but she disgusts me.  In fact, the entire Left disgusts me today.  Remember when Bill gave the “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is,” answer?  Well, that was Hillary today–occasionally smirking with that “I’m getting away with it,” smirk.  That smirk that screams, “I think I’m better than everyone else.”  That smirk is also part of the reason she is so dreadfully unlikable and why Bernie Sanders is going to beat her out.  What’s even more disgusting is that the Left is so thrilled that she’s going to “get away with it.”  Here is one undeniable fact:

She lied.  They knew it was a terrorist attack, and for over a month, they blamed a video.  Why?  Was it a matter of national security?  No.  It was to save Obama’s campaign.  How would it have looked if a terrorist attack happened on his watch in his “success story” of Libya on 9/11 after hundreds of request for additional security?  It would have sunk him.  So they rounded the wagons, and the people in the media protected him.  They withheld military intervention to keep the scale of the event as small as possible, hoping the whole thing would just pass over and everyone wouldn’t question anything.  You can’t tell me the news would have treated McCain or Bush with such kid gloves.

If you still support Hillary, there can be only one interpretation for your stance, “Look, sometimes it’s important that our politicians lie to us.  They are smarter than us, and if they have to mislead us ‘for the greater good,’ then that’s okay.  Most people are too stupid to understand things, so they should just say whatever they need to say because the ends justify the means.”  I disagree.  The world that has to be saved on a lie isn’t worth saving.

Seriously, what other interpretation can there be?  They knowingly and openly lied.  If you do not demand justice and accountability, you are for tyranny.  You just want a tyrant you agree with.

How could ANYONE trust Hillary Clinton after watching her bend the truth to the point of making it into a pretzel?

Long Live the Constitution!

The GOP Debate Results

Posted by Troy on 24th September 2015 in Current Events, Political

I’m a little behind schedule, but here’s my breakdown:

Trump continues to mold himself as a populist movement.  I feel like his greatest strength is his desire to stand his ground and never back down.  He will face enormous challenges.  The main challenge is that the media is against him, and the establishment hates him.  As such, he’s just kinda isolated.  Still he has an ability to tap into the anger a lot of voters have and voice the opinions that the “cool kids” have deemed uncool but that the majority believes is right.  That can be a very powerful combo.

Carson is the epitome of reasonable, rational thought.  Nothing seems to really faze him, and he just continues to come across as calm and collected.  I like him a great deal.

Fiorina has been doing a very good job.  She is showing that she has detailed plans, and she is very quick on her feet.  She’s sharp, and I like her.

I love Rand Paul’s love of the Constitution and his Constitutional view of the Presidency and the Federal Government.  Unfortunately, he just doesn’t have the force of personality to garner support.  I hope that logical thinkers will follow him.

Cruz is okay.  However, he gives lip service to the Constitution while ignoring parts that he doesn’t agree with.  Still, he’s the second most Constitutional candidate.

Rubio is a false candidate.  He is pro-NSA, which I will never get behind.  Basically, being for NSA is being anti-Constitutional.  Any right that you can ignore is not a right.  It’s a privilege.  He is also pro-Amnesty which will give the right to vote to millions who came here illegally, do not respect our laws, and will vote for Democrats as part of the permanent underclass.

Jeb Bush is a Bush and is pretty much a Democrat.  Why the hell would ANYONE vote for this guy?

Christie is a slimy bastard.  He does not believe in the Constitution.  He believes your rights are subject to the government’s whims.  He would be another emperor.  He is unworthy of the position.

The rest are boring and are beneath my notice.

Benghazi Cover-up Fallout

Posted by Troy on 9th May 2013 in Political

There will be none.  As I predicted, here are the facts:

Terrorists attacked the embassy.  The administration knew it was terrorists and lied to say it was over a protest.  They lied to protect the administration’s narrative that we can nation build effectively using Obama’s methods and to protect Obama himself during the election.

If this event would have happened weeks before the election with Bush as President, the media would have gone crazy with conspiracy theories and 30 minutes specials and all kinds of things.  However, it was O-breezy, so they took it easy.

So, why did they do it?  I don’t believe for a second that the military couldn’t have responded in that time frame.  I also can’t believe that Obama was not informed about an embassy being attacked and given a list of options.  Here are the options that I believe were on the table:

1) Full military support.  This would have been an act of war.  Additional people would have died.  There would have been collateral damage on the Libyan side.  This would have been rejected for a few reasons:  It would have destroy the “footsteps in the sand” narrative that we can intervene, get out, and the world would be a better place.  It would have started a war which would have ticked off his base and cost him the election.  Finally, killing civilians while trying to save our civilians would have tainted US-Libyan relations for years to come.

2)  Armed drone strikes.  They were in the air with cameras, why not a couple of missiles?  Again, an act of war.  This would have tainted the relationship between the US government and Libyan government as it would have ignored their national sovereignty (odd how Obama only cares about honoring national sovereignty when it comes to backwater countries and not our own) and our agreement that our drones in their airspace would be unarmed.  It would have basically all the same problems of the first option excluding less civilians dead and possibly not seen as starting a war, but pert-near it.

3)  Do nothing.  A few Americans would die.  We could turn those into martyrs (true believers always love martyrs be it Communists or religious fanatics).  It could be used to shore up support internationally.  It would so that we have restraint.  It wouldn’t play well at home, but a few quick lies with a compliant media, and that would be negated.  All they had to do is just let the few Americans die quietly, and all would be alright.  As such, Obama went to bed.  He had a long day of campaigning, after all.

So, why do I think that nothing will happen?  After all, Nixon was impeached because a couple of his underlings broke into the Democratic headquarters.  He was impeached for tying to cover up a break in.  Why can’t Obama be impeached because his administration lied and failed to intervene on behalf of Americans killed by terrorists on US soil (remember, embassies are US soil)?  For two reasons.  The first reason is because the media is going to go all out to protect their child star.  In 2084, I argue that communists infiltrated the media to do just that, to color whatever story they have to suit that agenda.  This is no different.  They will say exactly what they are saying: “There’s no smoking gun here!  Why, it sounds like the military made the call!  etc etc”  They won’t focus on what is really the PROBLEM.  The problem is that the administration actively mislead the US people to help Obama get re-elected.  There was no other justification for lying.  By not focusing on the fact that this is the problem and WHY he lied, this will merely blow away.  The second reason he will never be impeached is because he’s black.  As soon as ANYONE moves to try to impeach him, they will say it is because he is black and the GOP hates blacks, and everyone is racist.  He could piss on the Constitution on live TV, and that’s still exactly how it will play out, and the Republicans are way too scared to stand up to him because of that.

My prediction?  Nothing will happen.  The media will protect him.  Without public outrage drummed up by the media, Republicans will lack the will do do anything to anyone in the administration including Hillary Clinton.

Long Live the Constitution!

Where the Republicans went wrong

Posted by Troy on 21st February 2013 in Current Events, Political

I’ve been thinking about why the Democrats have continued to beat Republicans despite the fact that the majority of their platform is contrary to the majority of Americans.  I think I finally figured out the answer.  It is because the Democratic party is the grab bag of passionate causes.

You want to help the environment?  Well, the Democrats will do that.

You want to ban guns/end gun violence?  Well, the Democrats will do that.

You want to women’s right?  The Democrats

Gay rights?  Democrats

Animal rights?  Democrats

Pornography?  Democrats

Legalized _______?  Democrats

Socialism?  Democrats

So forth so forth.  What do Republicans offer in exchange?  Low taxes?  Fiscal responsibility?  Personal responsibility?  Those aren’t sexy at all, are they?  There’s no “hot button” issue that the Republicans can lay claim to.  If you are for strong immigration control or traditional marriage, you get tarred and feathered as a racist or hate monger.  If you’re for a strong national defense, war monger.  If you’re against the Law of the Sea Treaty, fish monger.  So many mongers out there.  If you’re in for the whole bag, I guess you’re a mongrel monger.

I think that’s why you are starting to see a rise in the interest of Libertarianism.   Liberty is something you can be passionate about.  While I’m extremely passionate about the Constitution, it’s hard to get the young people to be passionate about it…until they comprehend that it is the truest path to real Liberty.  If the Republicans are to have any future, they will have to embrace this part of of their constituency.  Only a Libertarian can carry a national election (such as Ron or Rand Paul).  They need to run Conservatives in the South and Libertarians elsewhere if they are to have a shot.

Many would claim that Libertarians can exist on both sides of the aisle.  These people are fooling themselves.  A Libertarian can pull people that typically vote Democrat or Republican, but a Libertarian must, by definition, hate nearly every part of the Democratic agenda.  The Democratic Party is by nature a big government party.  They are for higher taxes, taking a bigger and bigger portion of the overall economy.  In exchange for this, more goods and services will be offered for “free” to the public.  The price of these “free” products is never ending servitude to the party as they can always take it away from you.  Once you’ve become dependent on these “benefits,” it’s very hard to give them up.  As such, you’ve become a little more than a slave.

Long Live the Constitution!

Next Move For the Republican Party

Posted by Troy on 8th November 2012 in Current Events, Political

The GOP, as we know it, is dead.  Their arguments are based on logic and, apparently, that is something the majority of Americans cannot follow due to the dumbing down of America.

The vast majority of Republicans want a Conservative candidate.  That’s not going to work.  We need a cool person.  No one cares about their stances or records.  After all, Obama won with 2 years in the Senate where he voted “present” all the time.  After four disasterous years, he still got re-elected.  Why?   Who the hell knows?!

Here is the winning strategy for Republicans.  You have three branches.  You have Conservatives, Moderates, and Libertarians.  Depending on the area you are in, put the one most likely to win.  If you are in Washington or California, go with a Libertarian.  If you are in the South, go with a Conservative, or whatever you got to do.  Remember, the Legislative Branch is the one that makes the laws.  This is far and away the most important part.  Controlling which laws are passed or repealed is the most important thing.

For President, choose someone with NO record who is the right skin tone (darker the better it seems) and can play a musical instrument really cool and give great speeches.  He can say whatever he wants to get elected, and then do the exact opposite, and no one will care!  Obama is living proof of it.

My advice for Republicans, stop pretending that the bulk of the American electorate is intelligent, thoughtful, and informed.  They are none of these things.  They are brainwashed and shallow.  Run with it.  The Democrats have, and it seems to be doing well with it.

Long Live the Constitution!

Romney Vs Paul in Virginia

Posted by Troy on 27th December 2011 in Current Events, Political

Only two people managed to get on the ballot for the GOP primary in Virginia: Romney and Ron Paul.  Gingrich is furious that such a thing has happened and has said that this is evidence that the system is broken.  Personally, I view it as a sign as to just how incompetent everyone has become.  There is no excuse for this.  The fact of the matter is that there is one single most important task of a campaign manager: to ensure that your candidate’s name is on the ballot.  If it is not, then is is highly unlikely that they will be elected, isn’t it?

I am unfamiliar with the primary rules in Virginia.  I will assume that they allow for write-in votes.  If this is the case, one of three things will happen.

1)  Mitt Romney will win.  If this happens, Ron Paul can probably pack it up.  No one likes Romney.  If he wins, that means that NOBODY likes Ron Paul and that all the commentators on Fox News are right.

2)  Ron Paul will win.  If this happens, commentators will probably point out that Romney is through.  Rather than use a Ron Paul victory as a sign of Ron Paul’s viability as a candidate, they will say that “If Romney can’t even beat Ron Paul one-on-one, this is a clear sign that the majority of Republicans do not want Romney as a candidate.”

3)  A write-in will win.  Now, if this happens, both should drop out of the race because if a write-in wins, then that surely means that both are through.

I’ve been flopping around, but I am leaning towards Ron Paul.  I believe the type of Presidency he describes is more in line with what the Founders had in mind.  Look, the President is the Commander in Chief, but I don’t think that the Founders wanted the President to launch attacks on foreign soil without Congressional approval.  Doing is is an act of WAR, and declaring war is the job of the Legislative Branch.

Long Live the Constitution!

The Problem with Ron Paul

Posted by Troy on 20th December 2011 in Current Events, Political

I think the real problem with Ron Paul is that he does a bad job of defending his positions.  I think this is because he is trying to make clever quips like Newt does.  For instance:

“Why do we care if Iran gets a nuke?”

What he probably means to say is:

“Look, they are going to keep trying to get a nuke.  The only way to stop them, really, is to go to war and wipe them off the face of the Earth.  The cost of this war will probably be hundreds of billions of dollars (if not a trillion) and 20,000 dead troops.  We can do this, or we can tell them, “If you get a nuke and use it, we are going to use our own nukes against you and wipe you off the face of the Earth.  If you try to invade another country, we will be there to confront you as well.  As you can see, there is no real benefit for spending the money for the bomb because, if you use it, you’re dead.  Thank you.”

Few countries are as bat shit crazy as North Korea, and not even they used the bomb on their enemies because we will blow them off the map and they know it.

If Ron Paul would phrase his arguments this way, I think people would like him more.

Partisanship

Posted by Troy on 28th November 2011 in Current Events, Political

Being bored, I checked out some political cartoons on Slate.  I would estimate a quarter of the ones I looked at were against both parties, ten percent were against the Democrats, and the bulk of them were against the Republicans for not going along with whatever Obama wants to do.  Herein, I will debunk this:

The economy was bad when he got elected, right?  So, why didn’t Obama concentrate on getting jobs back then?  Instead, he was more prone to concentrate on the Health Care Bill.

This President has single handedly destroyed jobs in the oil industry while at the same time loaning our tax dollars to help other countries drill off our coastline.  Of course, when you hurt one job sector, you hurt all the jobs in the area as there are less customers.  I should imagine that he will also destroy insurance jobs as companies start to crash and burn under the Health Care Act.

To my knowlege, this new jobs bill is basically another stimulus bill just like the massive one before it.  Why is it that we think that we can solve the problem with more spending when the first spending had no effect?  Stopping someone from throwing gasoline on a fire when they say that liquid is what is needed to put out the flame isn’t being obstructionist…it’s being rational.

You can claim the Republicans only want to protect the wealthy, but the fact of the matter is that even if you take 100% of the wealthy’s income, it still would not be enough to cover Social Security, federal/state pensions, and Medicare/Medicaid (let alone Obamacare) by the 2020′s.  Just like in the real world, it’s not what you make, it’s what you spend.  There are people living on $25,000 that can put money away and there are people making millions that will go bankrupt in short order.  It’s not what you make.  It’s what you spend.

Finally, government meddling is why were are in the mess we are in because they pretend that humans will do exactly what are expected of them.  The reason why the sub-prime mortgages caused a crisis was because they brought in physicists to devise the mechanics of the derivatives.  What these complex mathematical computations failed to consider is that humans are not like physics.  There are no set laws.  People are governed by self-interest and will act accordingly.  Economists would have been better since that’s their supposed speciality.  However, there are two major branches of economists: Keynesian and Supply Side.  All Republicans view Keynesians as partisan hacks, and all Democrats view Supply Siders as partisan hacks.  I believe in Supply Side, but I admit that economic theory is close to religious beliefs as it is generally impossible to isolate variables when dealing with macroeconomics.

Long Live the Constitution!

GOP Frontrunners

Posted by Troy on 4th October 2011 in Political

Originally, I backed Perry.  However, after seeing him in action, I now realize he is like Obama.  If he has time to prepare a speech and give it, he sounds amazing.  However, when he is in a debate, he stammers and stumbles around just like Obama.  I could do without that.

Right now, I would say the race is down to Romney and Cain (with notable mention to Ron Paul).  The problem with Ron Paul is that he is loved by Libertarians and well liked by Democrats, but the Democrats are still going to vote for Obama, and I think that he cannot beat Obama (as much as I like 95% of what Ron Paul says).  I still say that Romney just looks like a slimy guy with the most plastic smile I’ve ever seen.  I think that Cain will be the candidate.  He is always positive, always smiling, he always has ideas and solutions, he never throws mud, and I think that he will completely disarm the “They don’t like Obama because he’s black!” defense