Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Trump’s “NO COLLUSION” Tweet is getting ratio’d (and why that’s important)

Published

on

Donald Trump Twitter

There’s a silly little phenomenon in social media that doesn’t mean much 99.99% of the time. It occasionally happens to most popular Twitter users from and usually means they riled up a certain element of the internet for some reason. A bad Tweet can get “ratio’d” which means there were more comments than likes. One notable person, President Trump, has never (to my knowledge) been ratio’d. That streak is in danger today with his Tweet pointing out that there’s no collusion on the table in the current Mueller indictments.

Everything the President Tweets will get tons of comments. Most are negative as his detractors will react thought comments on his Tweets while his supporters will like and/or retweet him instead. This may be the first time the negative reactions are more prominent than the reactions of his supporters.

Not a big deal, but…

It was bound to happen at some point. The fact that it’s happening with this Tweet is telling. For Trump to get “ratio’d” means his detractors must come out in full force while his supporters must be less enthusiastic than normal.

The indictments and arrests by Robert Mueller can go in one of two directions. They can point to things that happened during the campaign itself which could put other people in the campaign (or even the President himself) in jeopardy. It could also end here with a minor prize for the investigation but no real connections to campaign activities.

Getting ratio’d indicates that his supporters are fearful of the former. In other words, enough of them fear there really was collusion that will come to light as a result of the investigation which makes them wary of supporting this particular Tweet. Keep in mind that it likely won’t have any bearing on their support for the President himself, but they’re avoiding this topic for now.

Social media has been demonstrated to be a strong predictor of future events. It has also failed miserably from time to time. If it’s correct this time, we may be seeing more come out of the investigation than just financial misdeeds from the past.

Carl is a gaming fanatic, forever stuck on Reddit and all-around lover of food. He writes about food, politics, and cars for several publications and lives in northern California.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

The root of the problem

Published

on

I saw the above meme the other day which seeks to point out the hypocrisy of liberals – which it does – but if you’re being intellectually honest, you’ll realize that the same logic can be used by their side to portray conservatives as hypocrites. They could just as easily put a photo of conservatives holding “Stop Killing Babies” signs above a photo of conservatives holding “Keep Guns Legal” signs. So both sides, using the same logic, believe the other is being hypocritical. I hope you can see how fruitless this is.

If we really want to stop mass murders, we need to stop the petty arguments and have real conversations that address the root of the problem, not the symptoms. Like any health problem, treating your symptoms doesn’t make you healthy. The killer carrying out his carnage with a gun is a symptom. You can take the guns away to make yourself feel better, but doing so won’t treat the source of the condition.

We are all feeling very emotional right now. Yes liberals, conservatives do care about the kids who were killed. It’s a hard reality for us to accept, especially when the act occurred using a tool we support. But don’t mistake our logical response as apathy and indifference. With all due respect, I think you’re asking the wrong questions. While most of the country has been focused on, “How can we prevent someone who wants to murder children from doing so”, what we should be asking is “How do we stop someone from wanting to murder children?” That is the root of the problem… Why do some people want to murder others?

Make no mistake, the only person responsible for killing those kids is Nikolas Cruz. But there are pertinent questions to be answered. Why has this person felt so alienated from people that he could carry out such a horrendous act? What could the people within his circle of influence have done to convince him that his peers were worthy of their lives?

If I were one of the students at Stoneman Douglas High School I would be asking myself “what if” questions. What if I’d gone further in kindness towards Nikolas Cruz? What if I’d greeted him with a warm hello, instead of just passing him in the hallways? Was I ever rude to him? If so, what if instead, I’d given him an unexpected kindness, or even just chatted with him? If I were a resident of Parkland, Florida, I’d be wondering if I’d inadvertently contributed to the depression of this kid with my aloof and insincere actions. What if one day in traffic I was rude to him? What if I’d let him merge instead? Did I contribute to his departure from the human connection? What if right now, in my own circle of influence, I’m contributing to the depression of the next killer?

Again, the only person responsible for killing those kids is Nikolas Cruz. Not the NRA, not video games, not Hollywood, not his peers. But we all have a part to play, don’t we? Our lives touch other lives at every moment of the day. It is unavoidable. So if you feel like you just can’t take it anymore, and you want change, then realize what you can control – you. Then challenge yourself to act with love, compassion, acceptance, mercy, and forgiveness in everything you do. Maybe, just maybe, treating each other better is all that is needed.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

No, “good guy with a gun” is NOT invalidated by the Parkland shooting

Published

on

If I had to rank the three most frequently used GIFs or quotes deployed in Twitter conversations with a Leftist, it would be as follows:

3) “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son” from Animal House.

2) Billy Madison’s “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. … Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.”

1) And of course the Princess Bride classic, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Today is a day for all three.

Recent developments surrounding the Parkland shooting suggest that not only was the armed school officer, Deputy Scot Peterson, derelict in his defense of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, but that three other Broward County deputies stood outside the building while an active shooting was in progress. This is vile and egregious, and we need answers.

But ten seconds later and with zero self-awareness, Leftists took to Twitter in an attempt to appropriate the common conservative talking point about how a “good guy with a gun” is needed to stop a “bad guy with a gun,” as articulated by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 and again at CPAC this week.

From Vox: “A new detail in the Florida shooting exposes a big hole in the ‘good guy with a gun’ theory.”

Nate Lerner of the Democratic Coalition Against Trump: “Turns out there was a good guy with a gun on scene during the Parkland shooting. He had zero impact.”

CNBC’s John Harwood: “So it turns out a good guy with a gun was there, with sheriff’s dept training no teacher will ever have, and he didn’t stop the bad guy with a gun.”

The insufferable Piers Morgan, ever looking for the next dumbest thing he can add to the gun debate, tweeted: “So FOUR ‘good guys with a gun’ were not able to stop the bad guy. I think this kinda ends the ‘arm the teachers’ bulls**t, don’t you?”

Oh no, he’s not done: “Ah, I see…. My apologies. I was labouring under the absurd misapprehension that you NRA nuts believe ‘good guys with guns’ are the answer to bad guys with guns. How silly of me!”

One thing you have to appreciate about Piers’s writing style is that he perfectly encapsulates his own smarminess; I can hear him saying this trash as I read it.

Piers concluded, “So was the Florida shooter a ‘good guy with a gun’ until he committed mass murder? I mean, he bought his guns legally, exercising his right to bear arms. Then he suddenly became a ‘bad guy with a gun.’ This is so confusing. Can one of you gun nuts explain?”

One good guy with a Twitter account, known simply as Neontaster, responded first to Vox’s absurd suggestion with, “Actually it exposes a big hole in the ‘leave guns to the cops’ theory. ‘Good guy with a gun’ refers to armed civilians, not cops who fail to act.” He then took to Piers Morgan’s initial tweet with, “Still amazed at how quickly ‘good guy with a gun’ shifted to include cops when it was always used to refer to anyone who wasn’t a cop.”

Neontaster is unarguably correct in both of his assertions. Not to mention that guns are used defensively up to three million times to per year, according to the CDC. But you know how well Leftists and logic go together.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza ran an article under the headline, “Here’s definitive proof that a good guy with a gun doesn’t always stop a bad guy with a gun.” He continued, “This latest shooting in Parkland, Florida, isn’t an affirmation of [the ‘good guy with a gun’] view. It’s a direct rebuttal. There was a good guy with a gun just outside the school when the bad guy with a gun started murdering people. The good guy with the gun wasn’t the solution. He didn’t stop it.”

To which I would respond, where was the good guy with a gun? Deputy Peterson was not a good guy with a gun. The other three deputies were not good guys with guns. Sheriff Scott Israel, who knew about his department’s malfeasance and still smeared Dana Loesch and the NRA, is not a good guy with a gun.

But more to Neontaster’s point, police officers in general, though typically good guys and girls, are not indicated in the phrase “good guy with a gun.” The adage refers to civilians with an opportunity to stop a shooter in the average eleven minutes that it takes for police to arrive at the scene.

The Parkland shooting had both pieces of this equation: good people, and people with guns. Unfortunately, the good people were on the inside, sacrificing their lives, hurling themselves in front of bullets; meanwhile, the people with guns stood cowering behind their patrol cars, doing their best to cover up for their failure, while seventeen people were murdered just a few feet away.

Again, this only reinforces my reasons to cling to my own guns. Why should I surrender my means of self-preservation to the same government that will botch my protection on no less than 40 occasions on all levels, watching me being gunned down while they blubber outside like Upham in Saving Private Ryan.

No, thank you.

So Leftists, stop chalking this up to a failure of the “good guy with a gun” theory. I do not think it means what you think it means, and everyone is now dumber for having listened to you.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Kamala Harris: “Stop slaughtering babies! Abortions OK”

Published

on

You may have missed it amid the wall-to-wall coverage of the Parkland shooting and the CNN Town Hall, but Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) has become pro-life — she just hasn’t realized it yet.

Two days after the massacre, Senator Harris told MSNBC, “We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered.” This just two weeks after she helped defeat a 20-week abortion ban in the Senate.

Apparently, Senator Harris, a staunch pro-abortion advocate and Planned Parenthood donation recipient, couldn’t hear the cognitive dissonance, referring to deceased teenagers as “babies,” while almost one million actual babies are literally being slaughtered every year.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the United States saw 926,200 abortions in 2014, of which Planned Parenthood claims 323,999 — about one-third. In the same year, total gun homicides (including gang and drug related, all age groups, and the tiny fraction that is mass shootings) totalled only 11,000.

926,200 to 11,000 — even 323,999 to 11,000 — is not even a close contest. Babies are being slaughtered, Kamala, but not the ones you care about.

(And to anyone claiming that unborn children are not babies or human beings or living things, I recommend Ben Shapiro, as usual, and I’ve already covered whether an unborn baby has rights).

Harris’s appeals to deceased children contributed to increasing cries for a boycott of the NRA, but pro-lifers on Twitter such as Steven Crowder and Devin Sena were quick to point out the irony of supporting a murder mill that receives over $540 million in taxpayer funding while berating a much less influential group whose purpose lies in defending basic constitutional rights and has never killed a single human being.

But let’s take Senator Harris at her word; in the aforementioned interview, she insisted, “When you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body, and especially the body of a child, maybe it will shock some people into understanding, this cannot be a political issue. We have to be practical.”

All right then, let’s look at what happens to a baby when it’s aborted.

Below there are diagrams of abortion procedures, but no actual photographs, as even I can hardly stomach looking at that horror or putting it on my website. Here’s one in an article on partial-birth abortions, and I’m sure you can find othersfairly easily if you really want to “shock some people into understanding.”

Let’s start with partial-birth abortions, also known as “dilation and extraction,” wherein the baby (read: living human child with its own DNA) is partially delivered through the birth canal until its head gets in the way, at which stage the abortionist stabs the baby through the back of the head, vacuums out the child’s brains, causes the skull to collapse, and removes the baby-shaped tumor, deeming the operation a success.

Next up is dilation and evacuation, a slight variant of the previous process, whereby the clump-of-cells-with-a-unique-heartbeat-and-pain-receptors is arbitrarily snipped to pieces by an abortionist with a toothy clamp and the leech’s body parts are ripped from the womb one at a time until he (or most likely “she” in many cultures) has fully exited the birth canal.

You may notice that I employed varying levels of sarcasm throughout that discussion, as this is and ought to be an intensely difficult topic to discuss. It’s disturbing, horrifying, and disheartening.

But Senator Harris is right, even if in the wrong way. We cannot just stand by as babies are being slaughtered, and if takes brutally direct language and agonizing photographs to “shock some people into understanding,” then so be it.

Almost one million babies are murdered in the United States every year. If that fact is less viscerally disgusting to me than seeing a picture of a premature child, then that’s a problem I need to work on.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.