Posts Tagged ‘Trump’

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!

Trump’s Healthcare Executive Order

Posted by Troy on 12th October 2017 in Current Events, Political

Sadly, it’s a bit unconstitutional.  But what has the Government ever done in healthcare that isn’t?  I wish the Republicans weren’t so useless and would have made this into legislation instead of it being an executive order.

That being said, this is a potential game changer in health insurance.  Basically, it allows a class of people (say, Plumbers, Accountants, etc) to form an association for which to buy health insurance.  So instead of a sole proprietor having to buy an expensive plan, they can buy it as a group, saving a ton of money.  He is also allowing this to go on ACROSS state lines.  So you are forming massive groups and increasing competition.  This is amazing.

He is also allowing for you to choose to buy what was once considered substandard plans.  Why does a healthy 23 year old have to buy full coverage when they really want a super cheap plan to cover catastrophic accidents and cancer.  This makes economical sense.  But what you want does not matter to them.  They know what is best for you.

That’s what really rubs me the wrong way…the sheer arrogance that they think they know what’s best for you.  What’s even worse is that there is a whole host of people that agree.  They clap their hands and say, “Yes!  You know what’s best for me.  Thank you for not making me think for myself.”

Long Live the Constitution!

The Truth About DACA

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

Who can be against giving citizenship to people who were brought here since they were two?

First of all, I think that’s probably the minority of cases, but let’s deal with things logically:

Leftists say that they want to look at the children that are brought here by their parents, but let’s be honest, if you let the children stay, the argument automatically changes to “How can you separate families?!”  Also, if you give them a legitimate path to citizenship, you also open up them sponsoring their family members.  De facto, if you give the children citizenship, you will end up giving the parents citizenship.

You can never actually verify anything.  You find a twenty-three-year-old who is here illegally.  You ask him, “When did you get here?”  If he has a brain, he will say, “Oh, my parents brought me here when I was two.”  There’s no way to verify this.  He is illegal.  Any lack of paperwork/evidence can easily be chalked up to being here illegal and fear of deportation.  He will no doubt have several people willing to lie for him, or he can say something vague like “We lived in the shadows…always moving…”  Unless you want to allow a “liar liar pants on fire” methodology, there’s no way to counter this.  This is actually the main reason not to do DACA.  There is literally no way to verify eligible people.  If you can’t identify who is or is not eligible, then everyone is eligible.

But let’s assume you find two illegals who came here and had a child on American soil–also known as an anchor baby.  They will say that you can’t separate the family.  I don’t want to separate them.  The child goes with the parent.  Citizenship confers to the child.  A child born on American soil to Mexican parents are Mexican.  They are also American as we have a strange law saying if you are born here, you’re a citizen.  The only reason we have this law has to do with slavery and making sure no state denied citizenship to the children of slaves.  But it is the law on the books.  If the parents go, the child goes with them unless they have a relative they wish the child to stay with or someone adopt the child (etc).  When the child reaches the age of majority (18), they get to come back.  If you say it’s cruel because this is the only country they have known…parents move ALL THE TIME against the wishes of the children.  If doesn’t matter if all their friends are there!  They way to graduate from that high school!  etc.  It does not matter.  The desires of minors are at the whims of their parents.  If the parents move, the child goes with them.

Long Live the Constitution!

Now It’s Just Getting Sad

Posted by Troy on 13th September 2017 in Current Events, Political

Hillary’s book is going to be little more than an object of ridicule.  I am of the mind that the Clintons are all about the payday.  If I was very cynical, I would say that she was purposefully making a total mockery of herself to sell books, as no one in their right might would read this drivel without the spectacle.  However, they read passages out of this book, and then Clinton supporters are forced to defend these near paranoid rantings and whole scale slander of Americans who disagreed with Hillary and even Democrats who didn’t do enough to get Her Majesty elected.

In an ideal world, the loser acts dignified.  They put themselves above the fray.  You shake hands and walk away and never speak of it again.  This allows your supporters to say “What REALLY happened was…” and they can feel free to insult any group or blame Russia or whatever.  However, she’s the one acting crazy, forcing her supporters into the role of defenders to things that they know are absolute bogus.  In the short-term, it’s awkward.  In the long-term, it drives these supporters away.  I hate to break it to Hillary, but she actually would have lost by a wider margin if the election were held today.  No one likes her.  The more you see of her, the less you like her (as I said at the beginning).  The way she is staying in the public eye, she will soon become one of the most hated people in America.  What she is doing is showing people why they are lucky she lost.

Long Live the Constitution!

The Genius of Donald Trump’s Debt Ceiling Deal

Posted by Troy on 7th September 2017 in Political

The Left and Media is crowing about their win.  Conservative Pundits are spitting fire.  Never Trumpers are spewing “Told ya so!”  And most Trump supports are saying… “Meh.”

I think “Meh.”  Sums it up.  I often look at Trump’s actions and think “He’s either insane or genius.”  As he is fabulously wealthy, I have to assume that he is not insane.  So let me explain why the move was genius.

The debt ceiling was going to get raised.  Let’s just be honest about this for once.  We all know it.  We can have this “Oh, we’ll shut down the government,” spiting contests which are little more than roosters preening.  At the end of the day, the debt ceiling gets raised.  Trump knows this.  He knows it’s a waste of time.  He has hurricanes to deal with.  He knows that, if he takes too long getting the aid to the hurricane victims, the media is going to roast him (unfairly, but they don’t wish to be fair or impartial).

Trump wants to use energy on useful things.  There is nothing business people hate more than being stuck in some stupid meeting that is mandated by some out of touch bureaucrat.  That’s all this fight is.  Trump knows what’s going to happen.  Why bother wasting time and effort?  Far better to get it out of the way so that his people can work on more important things, like tax reform.

It also is a backhand to the Republicans.  The republicans are proving all small government lovers’ worst fear: that the Republicans are just as in love with big government and what the Democrats are doing.  They want to be able to rant and rave and get elected but never actually slow or stop that big government agenda.  They want a big government too.  The only thing that Republicans love to do is have pointless, meaningless stands.  The debt ceiling is the best fight of all!  They can get up and gnash their teeth and then capitulate because they can’t very well let America default on the debt, can they?

It’s a wake-up call to the Republicans in Congress.  Now they know that Trump is not on the Republican side.  Trump is on Trump’s side (to which, I honestly believe that Trump believes that Trump’s side IS America’s side).  Maybe this scares them, which is good.

Along these lines, it is also a page out of Sun Tzu’s Art of War.    “Put them in a spot where they have no place to go, and they will die before fleeing. If they are to die there, what can they not do? Warriors exert their full strength. When warriors are in great danger, then they have no fear. When there is nowhere to go they are firm, when they are deeply involved they stick to it. If they have no choice, they will fight.”  In other words, if your army feels like they are in danger of being absolutely destroyed, they will fight like hell to survive.  This is pretty hardcore, but there it is.  Now the Republicans might understand that they have to get something done, or Trump will try to get his agenda done by any means necessary, even if its working with the Democrats.

Likewise, DACA was  a great move.  It takes a program and puts it on the bargain table.  In the end, I think Trump’s pitch will be this:  “If you secure with border with… oh… I don’t know… a wall, we can work out something for these ‘Dreamers.’”

This is good stuff.  This is how deals are made.  And what did he give up?  Nothing.  The debt ceiling was going to be made.  DACA was going to be overturned by the courts and would have eventually been saved by Congress due to media pressure.  This is why I say these moves are genius.

Long Live the Constitution!

The Death of DACA

Posted by Troy on 5th September 2017 in Current Events, Political

I shall not cry for the death of DACA.  Let’s be honest: DACA was more or less an unconstitutional veto of a law.  It’s really no different than when Andrew Jackson said “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”  In fact, Obama said over and over again that he could not do anything on his own and that his action would be unconstitutional.  Ergo, he knew that he was acting outside the law.  It’s no surprise as he received more 0 and 9 decisions against him, and that is with having appointed 2 of the Justices.

Why is it that illegal immigrants get to be exempt from the laws of this land?  I live in the country.  If I wanted to convert an AR-15 into a full auto machine gun, do you think the courts would say, “Well, he’s otherwise law abiding.  We don’t want to separate him from his family.”  Nope, they would throw my ass in jail.

And yet, illegals are getting a free pass on any non-capital offense.  Even serial rapists are getting off.  In New York, they will not enforce public decency laws when nude females beg for cash on the street.  Why?  We can’t have them deported.  At this point, you are slanting the law against the citizen.  This is insane.

So what did Trump do?  He said DACA will end in six months and ordered Congress to get off their ass and figure something out.  Wait…demanding a law be made or repealed by the Legislative Branch?  What a Fascist!  No…wait…um…that’s following the rule of law and also accepting the limit of his Constitutional power.  Someone ignoring the limits of power to make their will the effect of law (as Obama did)…well THAT actually sounds Fascists.

This goes back to what I’ve been saying for years.  The Left WANTS a dictator.  They just want a dictator they agree with.

Long Live the Constitution!