Skip to content

Tag: liberals

Do you still believe Trump’s business conflicts won’t be a problem?

This is part 13 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for here, and here.

13. Do you still believe Trump’s business conflicts won’t be a problem after seeing the countries included/excluded in the ban?

Trump essentially gave his kids his businesses, so if he’s involved, his involvement is limited. I also think the fact that he doesn’t have businesses there is a coincidence.

The issue at stake is vetting, something that is difficult to do with citizens of these countries because of their lack of effective government. The ban was put in place, temporarily, while the United States works to improve a process that will, most likely, remain difficult even after the ban is lifted. The ban makes sense.

It’s also not a Muslim ban. Just because the majority of citizens from those countries are Muslim, doesn’t mean it was a Muslim ban. If it was a Muslim ban, there would have been other countries listed, and it would have said, “Muslim ban.”

Related Posts:

Leave a Comment

What would President Trump have to do for me to turn against him?

This is part 12 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for here, and here.

12a. Where is the line for you? what action could Trump take that would ensure you’d fight against him and his supporters?

12b. Where is your red line? What won’t you sign off on?

12c. I’ll bite. What would have to happen to make meaningful conservative opposition to Trump occur?

This is a stupid question. Really. There really isn’t one thing that would have to happen because I’m not a single issue voter. I can, and will, oppose stances on some issues, because the only President I would agree with 100% of the time would be me. But opposition, such as the left currently wants? I can’t see him crossing any line that would make me oppose him as as a whole?

Obviously some issues are more important than others, but for the sake of conversation here, what would it take? He would have to:

  • Turn pro-choice on abortion
  • Turn a blind eye to illegal immigration
  • Turn against school choice
  • Support industry crippling regulations (think EPA and coal miners)
  • Fall in love with Obamacare
  • Use the IRS as a weapon against political opponents
  • Use the EPA as a weapon against political opponents
  • Use the DOJ as a weapon against political opponents
  • Favor expanding the role of government as a mechanism for “Social Justice”
  • Support mythical problems like White Privilege and Black Lives Matter
  • Support liberal college indoctrination instead of education, as well as safe spaces, and free speech zones

I suppose he could break the law. In that case, I would call for his impeachment, but I don’t see that happening. And it’s certainly not like the liberal hysteria where they see him breaking the law at every turn. Seriously. It seems like all he has to do is sneeze, and they object.

Anyway, I could keep going, but you get the idea. He would have to turn into a liberal.

Related Posts:

Leave a Comment

What is the conservative view of Trump’s infrastructure plan?

What is the conservative view of Trump's infrastructure plan?

This is part 11 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for here, and here.

11. What is the conservative view of Trump’s infrastructure plan? Good, bad, socialism?

I don’t know about all conservatives, but I’m not a fan of it. Basically, I am opposed to all federal government stimulus plans and federal government bailouts. I’m also opposed to subsidies.

When it comes to infrastructure, I believe that is the realm of the states working with the utilities to make sure things aren’t crumbling. Roads, bridges, power lines, etc. are the things states should be involved with, although not necessarily paying for. If a business wants to make money, competition is king. Look at the cellular companies. They’re continuously trying to improve their services, and they’re continuously upgrading their hardware. Government’s not involved. The only thing the government needs to do to protect the consumer is ensure that competition is taking place; no price-fixing please.

As a side note: sports arenas are not infrastructure.

No business is too big to fail. If it’s poorly run, too bad.

Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes. Let people keep more of their money. Sure, some people will invest, but a lot of people will spend it. People will spend money at the local level and that money will work it’s way up. Everybody will get a piece of the stimulus instead of a few rich corporations.

Want to stimulate the economy? Lower the cost of living. Remove government red tape and business taxes. Red tape increases the cost of doing business, which gets passed to the consumer. Eliminate business taxes. Businesses don’t pay taxes; they get passed on to the consumer. Both of these items raise the cost of living, which, by the way, hurts the poor. But liberals don’t care about that; regulations and taxes are more important.

Sorry. I’m ranting. I don’t see Trump’s infrastructure plan as socialist in nature, but I’m still opposed to it. Like I said, infrastructure belongs in the hands of the individual states. Just as it’s not the government’s job to bail out failing businesses, it’s not the federal government’s job to bail out failing states.

Related Posts:

Leave a Comment

Why don’t conservatives care about climate change and the future?

Why don't conservatives care about climate change and the future?

This is part 10 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for here, and here.

10a. Why don’t conservatives seem to give a damn about climate change?

10b. Why are conservatives so into climate denial when their future is also at stake?

There seem to be a few different reasons that people deny climate change. John Hawkins summed it up nicely:

“Put simply, we’re dubious of the evidence that says it’s occurring and believe much of it is driven by government grants, as opposed to real science. Moreover, many of the plans to fix it seem incredibly expensive, inconvenient or unworkable. Personally, I think we should certainly keep investigating global warming, but it would take much stronger scientific evidence to convince me that it was a problem we need to make major changes to address.”

I agree with him completely, but I have more to add regarding my personal view.

Science says that there have been at least five major ice ages1. The basic assumption is that in order for an ice age to occur, significant global cooling has to take place. In order to separate them, significant global warming has to take place.

Science also says that humans didn’t show up until the end of the last ice age and the earth has been on a warming trend ever since.

What can we learn based on these two pieces of scientific evidence?

First, we can say that the climate has been changing for millions of years and there’s no evidence that it has stopped.

Second, there were no humans around for the first four periods of global warming, therefore, they were not man made. I suspect that if you figure out what caused the first three, you’ll figure out what’s causing this one. Hint: it isn’t man. I’m not saying we haven’t contributed; I’m just saying we didn’t cause it.

Third, since we didn’t cause it, we aren’t going to stop it. Whatever process God put in place is going to keep going this time, just like it did the first four times. There’s no sense in putting trillions of dollars into programs that are only going to succeed in destroying economies, and hurting the poor. Ever hear of Green Energy Poverty?

This conservative thinks it would be much cheaper and more fruitful to work towards adaptation instead. I know, I know. You’re worried about how climate change is going to affect future generations of polar bears. I have an answer for that, too. It’s called a zoo.

  1. Eldredge, Sandy and Biek, Bob (2010). Ice Ages – What Are They And What Causes Them?. Survey Notes, vol. 42, no. 3. September 2010. Utah Geological Survey. Accessed: 29 Dec 2016. 

Related Posts:

Leave a Comment

Why are conservatives against an investigation of Donald Trump’s Russian ties?

This is part 8 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for here, and here.

8. Why are they so against an investigation into Russian ties with Donald Trump?

I’ll be honest. I don’t know a whole lot about the supposed ties between Russia and Donald Trump. The little I do know, I’ve blown off as hysteria from the Left. Did he have business dealings with Russia? I assume he did; he had business dealings all over the world. Will that, or did that, have an effect on how he deals with some of those countries now? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on whether he uses them for personal gain or U.S. gain. Did they help him get elected? Maybe. Did he collude with them to do it? I seriously doubt it.

The thing I find infuriating is the Left’s focus on this, and the lack of interest–an understatement–in Hillary Clinton’s ties with Russia. Yes, I’m talking about the Uranium deal that she approved while head of the State Department, while taking millions in donations through the Clinton Foundation, which by the way, shut down shortly after her failed Presidential bid. Here are a couple of recent articles covering the details:

Sticking with the Hillary Clinton narrative, let’s talk about WikiLeaks. Russia is/was being blamed for the hacks. WikiLeaks says Russia was not involved. The evidence for Russia’s involvement was, at the time, dubious, and might I add, convenient. It steered people away from the content of the emails, and the Mainstream Media was more than happy to drive. If WikiLeaks had published hacked emails from Donald Trump the media would have plastered them across the front page of every newspaper and news site across the globe regardless of the source. They would have done it with glee. They wouldn’t have cared if Russia had interfered. I found it hard to take the Russian hacking seriously when it felt like a diversion from the contents of the emails.

What I am against is the hypocritical screaming from the Left regarding Trump and the silence regarding Clinton.

In the end, am I against an investigation? Not necessarily. If there is evidence–REAL evidence–of Russian interference, than yes, there should be an investigation. Meddling by any foreign government is unacceptable, but I suppose that could cut both ways. We need to not meddle in other countries politics as well.

Related Posts:

Leave a Comment