Posts Tagged ‘Trump’

Trump’s Round Table Discussion on Gun Control

Posted by Troy on 21st February 2018 in Current Events, Political

My God… how can people claim that this guy is some sort of irrational, Nazi, bastard?  He may be the single most reasonable person I’ve ever seen.  He had people there from different points of view.  They all had the personal tragedy happen to loved ones, and they all had something to contribute.  More importantly, everyone was respectful.  Contrast that to the group of students that came off as attention whores, more interested in their own voices, casting insults, and basking in the glow of media love and their own self-importance.  One meeting was about solutions.  The other was about attention, about community organizing.  Oh, I know what you are going to say.  “How dare you!  Do you know what those kids have been through?”  Sorry, I made it through three of their speeches, and they came off as attention whores, not as those who lost beloved friends.  There are women out there that poison and even kill their children to bask in the attention of other people’s sympathy.  In this “look at me look at me look at me” generation, yeah, I totally think it was about attention.

Here are my thoughts on what was discussed:

People are talking about banning “assault rifles” or attaching an age restriction on it.  I’m not totally against it.  I would be willing to tie it to the voting age, but that is never going to fly…so let’s attach it to the drinking age.  That way there is always going to be pressure to keep it low and prevent Democrats from raising the age to 65 or something.  Just know this…it will accomplish NOTHING!  If someone wants to shoot up a school, they are just going to use a different weapon.

I love the idea about identifying people with issues and HELPING THEM!  That one chick was screaming about getting blamed for ostracizing the guy, “You didn’t know him!  We did!”  Well, crap, maybe part of the reason he was the way he was was because you mistreated him.  Kick a dog enough, and he will bite you.  When a human bites back, we somehow forget about those who did the kicking.  Bear in mind, the Columbine shooters were bullied as well.  That doesn’t excuse what they did in retaliation, but when someone is talking about taking away my rights due to the actions of another that was driven by being mistreated, I have to wonder if the best course of action isn’t to have people be nicer to one another.

I am also not against having armed guards or having select teachers have access to a gun.  It is a bizarre argument to me that you are going to say “people may lose their temper,” or anything else.  You know how many CCWs are out there?  You know how many snap and kill someone?  It doesn’t happen.  If we do go this route, the teachers in question should be CCW permit holders, should have to be able to shoot with a greater degree of proficiency, and must do four training sessions a year and re-qualify every year and have a psych evaluation.  All of this would be volunteered, and I am sure that psychiatrists would also be willing to volunteer their services on this point.

It is true that this kid did not break the law, but there must come a certain point where someones words and actions and the frequency of contact with law enforcement attaches.  At that point, law enforcement may seize that person’s weapons and place a hold on their ability to buy additional guns.  This is not the end of the story, however.  That individual MUST have the right to challenge this in court wherein they will be subject to a psychiatric evaluation.  If cleared, their weapons must be returned to them.

We should harden soft targets.  This could involve metal detectors in some schools, where appropriate.  As one person pointed out, why was the gate open to the school prior to school being let out?

Why must ANYTHING be done at the national level anyway?  I don’t understand the obsession (well, I do, actually) that the Federal government must do something.  The states can do anything they please.  The laws that are in one state may or may not be appropriate for another state.  Why can’t we just let the states handle this problem in the best way they see how?  That way, if people in Wyoming want to buy AR-15s, and the people in Maryland don’t want to be able to buy AR-15s, there’s no trouble whatsoever.

The real reason that they push for Federal gun laws is that they want to ban all guns.  Let’s be honest.  If you made it so Cruz could get a AR-15, he would have gone in with a shotgun and a couple of pistols.  The Virginia Tech shooter had pistols and killed 33 people.  Do you really think that if this had happened, the Left would have said, “Well, there’s nothing we can do.  People have the right to get shotguns and pistols.”   No!  They would go after that as well.  They would say “Well, why do you need a pump action shotgun that can shoot 3 shells?  A break action with 2 shells is plenty for duck hunting.  And there is no reason for someone to have an automatic pistol when a 5 shot revolver will do!”  Let’s be honest.  This isn’t about stopping school shooters.  This is about stopping private gun ownership.

Now, if you want to be honest and say, “For the safety of the children, we must confiscate the hundreds of millions of guns that in the hands of peaceful citizens.  Doing so will be guaranteed to trigger a civil war.  Even if a civil war does not break out, at least a million Americans will die over their right to keep in bear arms.  So tell me what the justification of a million American deaths would be, because that would be the price of the gun ban.  And the sad thing is, that the hardcore Left would be cool with it, because they are ends justify the means types.  The sad thing is, if we ever get to that point, there is no turning back.  Once the government decides they can use armed forced to shove unpopular laws down your throat and you no longer have guns of your own, welcome to an authoritarian hell.

Long Live the Constitution!

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!

The Grammys Gets Political

Posted by Troy on 29th January 2018 in Current Events, Entertainment

Who could see it coming?!  Um… EVERYONE!  And that’s pretty much the way it’s been since Bush.  I don’t remember the Grammys being that political before Bush.  Maybe there would be an occasional gay marriage thing or something else, but it wasn’t overwhelming.  Then Bush came.  Bush was Hitler.  Bush was a moron.  Bush was a war monger.  The Obama came.  Obama was soooo cool.  He was, like, the coolest!  OMG, it’s Obama… he’s like… the bee’s knees!  Sooooo dreamy!  And that brings us to Trump.  It’s so hacky, it’s not even worth talking about.  This is part of the reason why people stopped watching shows like the Grammys.  Here’s the rundown:

1 – These things are basically a popularity contest.  It’s a bunch of elitists jacking off other elitists and celebrating how great they are.  It’s kinda disgusting.  You want to know how to tell if music is good?  Well, frankly, sales is a good indicator.  If you have a bunch of people buying your music, you must be making music that appeals to people.  If you want to claim that being commercially successful isn’t the same as being artistically successful, I’ll counter that argument by saying: having other people tell me that something is artistically successful doesn’t mean crap to me.   If you want to go with some sort of immeasurable measurement: any music that manages to touch anybody deeply is artistically successful.  Period.

2 – Why do people tune to to have other people tell them what is good music?  Do you not trust your own ears?  Do you not trust your own guts?

3 – Let’s be honest: you have a group of people that mocks half of America and calls them stupid or Nazi.  Gee, I wonder why those people don’t want to tune it?

4 – These shows have become joyless.  Absolutely joyless.  There, I said it.  That’s all these things are.  They are self-important, self-aggrandizing, preachy…This drags on for hours.  You claim that you are there to celebrate the year in music?  How about you actually do it.

Who is surprised that the Grammys got political?  Probably the same ones that were surprised the ratings were in the gutter.

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!