Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Democrats are fighting a losing battle on Guns

Its no small secret that the Democrat Party is the party of gun Control, and while the Democrats may win in many social issues like Gay marriage, Issues like Gun rights is something the Democrats wish they would have stayed out of. According to the Pew Research Center, the Gun control movement, which currently is supported by 75% of democrats, reached an all time high of 67% support from Americans while Gun Rights support was at a feeble 29%. Clearly this seemed like a great opportunity to hop onto the Bandwagon for the Democrat party. But since then, support for Gun Control has plummeted from 67% to 46% and support for Gun Rights has climbed from 29% to 52%. Ouch, that is a damaging blow for the Democrats.
Even groups that Democrats rely heavily on for votes, like African Americans are supporters of Gun Rights, in fact 62% of African American Adults asked by the National Medical Association said that having Guns at home would help protect them.
And surprisingly, the seemingly highly Liberal generation known as millennials is the toughest supporter of Gun Rights with 54% of Millennials supporting Gun Rights, compared to 52% of Boomers, and only 47% of generation X supporting Gun Rights.
It seems that America, the Nation whose media bombards its citizens
 with news 24/7 about how Gun Violence is the biggest evil in the world, is a Nation that supports the Rights of gun owners, rather than kneeling down to the whims of the left wing media.

Mind Blowing Crimes per Capita Statistics

According to Nationmaster.com, which has compiled data from all of these countries crime statistics, for all crime overall which includes violent crime, drugs, human trafficking, corruption, and many other types of criminal activity, these countries are the nations with the highest crime rates per capita.

1 (highest crime rate in the world)
Iceland, 209.52 crimes per 1000 people

Sweden 138.35 crimes per 1000 people

Dominica 112.55 crimes per 1000 people

United Kingdom 109.96 crimes per 1000 people

New Zealand 108.2 crimes per 1000 people

Finland 100.03 crimes per 1000 people

Belgium 94.22 crimes per 1000 people

Denmark 91.34 crimes per 1000 people

Netherlands 88.11 crimes per 1000 people

Canada 80.25 crimes per 1000 people
United states 41.29 crimes per 1000 people

Unbelievably Weak argument put forth to explain why Republicans are not "real" Patriots.

The blog ForwardProgressives.com put out an article titled "You Can’t Be Both a Republican and a Patriot" which seems a little odd. It is perceived by most people that the Republican party is the more Patriotic one, but this article seeks to counter that by calling it "fake" patriotism.

"Sure, Republicans think they’re the real “patriots,” but they’re really not." 

The Article starts out coming forth with the claim, Republicans cling to patriotism but its not real patriotism, because apparently this group has the objective definition of exactly what patriotism is, and apparently being proud to be an American, in which more Republicans are proud to be American than Democrats, or maybe loving America, which once again, Republicans love America more based on all recent polls, is not what makes you a patriot. The definition which can be implied of what the article thinks patriotism is, is standing for what our nation stands for, sounds good. Im struggling to figure out how Republicans are the ones against what our nation stands for. Which party supports the second amendment as the founding fathers intended, the Republicans, which party supports the people who want to go out, start a business, and achieve the American dream, unhampered by masses of government regulations, The Republican party, In fact a study came out of Harvard which reveals that kids that go to the fourth of july celebrations are more likely to vote Republican, while there is no effect on their likelihood to vote Democrat. Obviously, if going to a patriotic event makes you more likely to lean Republican, than patriotism is a more Republican sentiment, and I would hope that most everyone would call the Fourth of July patriotic.

The Article goes on to argue that Republicans "have a general disdain for every liberal in the country." I find this odd, which poll shows that, and the answer would be none of them. the Article further goes on to claim that this would mean Republicans "genuinely loathe over half of their fellow Americans." Two things here, One, NO! Republicans do not all loathe every Liberal, that is factually false, every Republican I know has liberal friends, there is no poll ever, in history, showing that Republicans have complete disdain for Liberals, In fact one study recently, done by PEW Research Center, showed the interesting result that a full 44% of consistent Liberals have blocked or unfriended someone based on disagreeing political views, while only 30% of consistent Conservatives have done the same. This would lead to the conclusion that Liberals are more intolerant to other political groups than Conservatives, by this metric at least. And as my second response to this absurd claim, The fact is that even if Republicans did have disdain for every Liberal in this country, it would not be over half of their fellow Americans. The fact is Conservatives vastly outnumber Liberals, a Study by Gallup shows that Conservatives are 37% of the nation's population, Moderates are 35% of the nation's population, and way down in the twenties, at 24% of the nation's population percentage of Liberals.

Not only is the claim that Republicans disdain Liberals not able to be defended by any study, ever, But indeed, most studies conclude that Liberals are more intolerant of Conservatives than vice versa, and so that claim is factually false. And furthermore, Liberals are nowhere near over half the countries population, Liberals are the Political Minority, Conservatives are the largest group and so the claim that if Conservatives disdained all liberals, they would loathe over half the country, is once again Factually false.

Now the article turns it's seemingly blind eye, on the issue of the Second Amendment, It claims that Republicans hate the government so much that Republicans claim the Second Amendment is there to give "them the right to bear arms just incase they need to overthrow the government." ironically, this is correct, and it is also patriotic to support the Second Amendment and the right to protect yourself against a government gone tyrannical. First of all, Republicans don't hate the government, they believe America is going in the wrong direction and dislike Congress's actions, but hating the government is not able to be backed up by evidence, in fact, no part of this article ever contains evidence, Typical far left article. Now, how this is stated makes it appear silly, Republicans hate the government so they want guns to overthrow it, and so they are misinterpreting the second amendment, a claim that effectively ignores reality. Republicans don't hate government, they want a smaller government, and fun fact, The Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment as a protection for the citizens in case the government ever went tyrannical. Yes, Republicans have guns incase government ever goes tyrannical, that's not a crazy argument to make. Governments have consistently reached tyranny throughout history, as they gain more power over their peoples lives, its just, unlike apparently the Leftists writing this article, Republicans don't like tyranny. I guess its patriotic according to ForwardProgressives.com to bow down to a tyrannical government, because Patriotism is the love of government according to their argument so far. 

Something the website seems to fail to recognize, is that patriotism isn't going along with America's government, it is going along with America's values and freedoms.

"They have a general disdain toward minorities, the poor, women, non-Christians, homosexuals and just about anyone and everyone who isn’t a straight, white Christian male." and here we have it, another unsupportable claim. Im failing to see any evidence that Republicans generally disdain minorities. Once again, another claim without evidence. And women, what... I fail to see how a party who's vice presidential candidate was a women in 2012, and who's Chief of staff for the president currently is a Women, is disdainful towards Women. The Republicans were the first major party to have a Women at the top of the ballot during the Presidential election, But apparently, once again, without any hint of evidence, Republicans apparently disdain women. The only one of these claims that is even arguable is that Republicans disdain Homosexuals, and even that is not supported by evidence, and it is important to remember that being against gay marriage is different than disdaining Homosexuals. Marriage has always been a religious action, "holy matrimony" and all that. Making a religious thing open to something that is viewed by many as Religiously immoral, is a slap in the face to their Religious beliefs. I personally believe people should be able to do what they want, as long as it doesnt hurt others, But this claim made by Forward Progressives, ignores facts, ignores evidence, and makes wrongful assumptions. 

The Article goes on to claim that Republicans try to "restrict the rights of women," which obviously is taking a jab at pro-lifers. If Abortion is a women's right, why isn't life a baby's right. I love how Liberals love to point to the Enlightenment as a time period that eschewed the restrictions of Religion as it was at that time, and was a great push forward in human rights, but then Liberals completely ignore those human rights that came of the Enlightenment, like for instance, "the pursuit Happiness," which would be later transformed by the USA into "the Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and happiness" which are apparently unalienable rights, unless you are a baby that has not left the womb yet, then you can be legally killed and lose all three unalienable rights, and so if these are rights put down by the US government when it declared independence, and the majority of Republicans support these rights on the basis of being pro-life, while the Majority of Liberals, who are against these unalienable rights, and all for killing babies in the womb, wouldn't supporting Abortion be anti-US values.

The entire Article is full of unsupportable claims, not a hint of evidence, and just the regular weak leftist arguments. To read the full article, go here 


The Evolution of Economy

Throughout any country's history, it is inevitable to move through certain key stages. Any country will start out as an agricultural Economy, unless of course it starts off with technological advances and is blessed with pre-existing benefits. As the Technological advances occur in an Agricultural Economy, Industrialization begins to take place, and very quickly, industrialization overtakes Agriculture and you find yourself with an Industrial Economy. Goods are produced in mass quantities, Technological advances boom, but people are ever hungry for more, not just the rich and ambitious. People quickly see the wealth accrued by the wealthy and become envious, undoubtedly, seeing others better off than themselves, the people begin to ask for raises, they call for minimum wage, they call for regulations to keep them safe in the factories, and very quickly, through these sorts of changes that are imposed by the government, it becomes more and more expensive to manufacture. Industrial Jobs look elsewhere, to nations without regulation and without minimum wage  and began to send their jobs to these nations.
Here is the crucial point, this is the Transition from an Industrial Economy, to a Service Economy. The most problematic factor in this transition is that in almost all cases, the jobs leaving are going faster than the jobs in the service sector being created, and this creates a disturbing and confusing dilemma. The first thing that is thought up is to return to the industrial age, "if a service economy will cause a loss of jobs temporarily don't go to it," may be the response of the casual onlooker, but of course this can not be done. Once people have achieved minimum wage and regulations, it is nearly impossible to take it back. You can give a dog a bone, but taking it is very difficult. And so of course the next conclusion is, what if we simply make jobs leave slower so that the jobs created can keep pace with the jobs lost. And here is the solution, but how it is achieved is the tricky part. I have looked at various possibilities and have concluded, to avoid the inevitable dip in employment and the economy that occurs at this stage, protectionism in trade may be neccessary. But the Degree is difficult, obviously none should soar to north korean levels of Protectionism, but Here we come to Trump. Trump is calling for individual trade deals, He can not revive America to make it stay an industrial Economy, it is inevitable that we fall out of that, unless we went to North Korea style Economy, which of course would simply make America worse off as isolationism is not a strong method for economic growth in a globalized world economy, What Trump can do is slow the loss of jobs at the stage of transition. He hits the goal perfectly on the head, slow the loss of jobs, and allow a country to ease into the Service economy. One does not simply jump into a hot tub.
Once the stage of Service economy is hit, and services are provided rather than products, It may seem like this is the final stage. But interestingly, Economies form a parabola, not in the gdp, but in the form of economy. The economy will go up from Agricultural, to industrial, to service, and then come right back down, all the way to agricultural. Here is why.
Almost all countries will inevitably hit the service economy stage, but there comes a point when the few industrial nations left can not provide for the many service economies, the people in those nations will still fight for benefits and regulations, and so the last industrial economies will die out, but certainly a world economy that only provides goods and services without the means to produce those goods and services is unsustainable. The highest technologically advanced nations who are also geographically benefited will become the new industrial powers as they move into a stage of mass production, most definitely by means of robotic technologies rather than the labor of men and women, or whatever genders there are when this happens. 
But while nations transition to industrial economies, Populations are growing, resources are becoming scarce, and water is becoming a necessity rather than some steadfast part of our lives. The Earth will become unsustainable for the massive human population without an agricultural boom. Agriculture will become the top industry and the Circle of Economic stages will be complete for its first run, and then repeat, again, and again, and again.