Marco Rubio Arrested for Allegedly Shooting Four Hotel Employees

(I found this on Facebook, and it made me laugh. The author didn’t want me linking to a private account, but I have permission to post it to my blog.)

Marco Rubio Arrested for Allegedly Shooting Four Hotel Employees

Republican Presidential candidate Marco Rubio was arrested late last night after allegedly shooting four hotel workers at a campaign rally in Miami, Florida, police said.

A statement released by Miami Dade Metro Homicide Sergeant Joe Friday gave details of the attack.

“According to security footage, Mr. Rubio was giving a speech explaining how his third place finish in the Louisiana Republican primary put him in prime position to capture the nomination when he received word that Donald Trump’s poll numbers had increased by ten points following the previous night’s incident.”

In that well publicized event, Mr. Trump asked supporters at a rally to pledge their lives to him. After a mass rush to do so, he killed one of them with a single gunshot to the head. The incident was ruled voluntary homicide, and no charges were filed against Mr. Trump. “It’s just Donald being Donald,” the police said. A disturbing the peace charge was leveled against the corpse.

“Mr. Rubio,” the statement read, “proceeded to ask one of his staffers to obtain an assault rifle. The staffer, Shu Licker, promptly returned with an AK-47. The video shows Mr. Rubio spraying the hotel conference room with bullets and shouting, ‘If this doesn’t get me into the White House, I don’t know what will.’ A bartender, two maids, and a hotel assistant manager all sustained wounds and were pronounced dead on arrival at Mercy Hospital.”

When reached for comment, Sgt. Friday said, “It’s just lucky that it was a Rubio rally instead of any of the other candidates. Even a Kasich event would have had somebody other than a few of the hotel staff in attendance. The tragedy could have been so much worse.”

When asked what he thought the outcome of the case would be, Sgt. Friday said, “I really shouldn’t speculate, but I think Little Marco is going to get the chair … unless President Trump pardons him.

Advertisements

Ruling the void

The author of the post below lays some serious truth on us:

parties have become glorified spin doctors for state power as their leaders are more interested in their role as part of the government than in representing their voters.

What good is political science if it flubs the biggest development in American politics in generations? Using this question, some commentators are turning “political science didn’t pred…

Source: Ruling the void

Burn Bernie?

If there’s one thing a reasonable person should hate, it’s the gaffe pounce.

You take a presidential candidate who is running from sun up to sun down and constantly talking that entire time. As he’s talking, he’s trying to bend any question he’s asked to appeal to the constituencies he needs to win. You sit on the sidelines. Waiting. Watching.

Then, it happens. The gaffe. That one sentence or two that could be twisted to mean something completely different than the candidate intended.

Gotcha.

No offense, but it’s not a good look for the person pointing the finger. I don’t care if you’re on the right or on the left, it’s unreasonable.

Today’s victim is no other than Bernie Sanders. He thinks that no white person can be poor! The outrage. The indignity! My father grew up so poor that … (unfortunately, I’ve never been good at coming up with those kinds of jokes. Help me out in the comments section.)

No, Bernie Sanders, as a … liberal? progressive? socialist? who knows the correct terminology any more. … believes that black people are more impacted by poverty than poor people on a percentage basis. He also really needs more black voters.

Get over it already.

No, Hillary Did Not Commit a Crime?

I’ve now read two separate articles that definitively state that Hillary Clinton will not be charged with a crime regarding her handling of classified emails. Both articles use this one, originally posted at LawNewz.com, as a major basis for their reasoning.

I found the two linking articles to be full of mushy thinking, so I had very low expectations when I clicked on the linked one. To my surprise, the LawNewz article is extremely well thought out. It’s … reasonable.

That’s a high compliment from this blog.

How is it, then, that the two other articles went so terribly wrong?

Simple. They both either missed or dismissed a major, major qualification in the original, and that despite the qualification appearing in the title!

ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime … at Least Based on What We Know Today

Those last six words are important. And if putting that qualification in the title isn’t enough, check out this quote from the Conclusion:

To be clear, none of this means Clinton won’t be charged. There may be a trove of non-public evidence against her about which we simply do not know.

I completely agree with the premise of the article. As I’ve stated before in this blog, I have no idea if Hillary did anything wrong or not. Based on what we do know, there is sound reasoning to state that she absolutely will not be charged with a crime.

What we don’t know, however, is if the FBI has evidence that hasn’t been made public. Fox News is the only source that implies that such evidence exists (all unidentified sources with knowledge of the situation, of course).  No offense to the fine reporters over at FNC, but it’s hard for me to take their word for it when we’re talking about negative press for Hillary.

The fact is, though, none of us, at this point, have any way of knowing if any such evidence exists. I’d agree with you if you say, “Ah, probably not.” On the other hand, it’s hard for a reasonable person to rule out the possibility. Thus, I can’t reasonably make a definitive statement that she will absolutely not be charged with a crime.

I fear I must find that the two aforementioned linking articles are … unreasonable.

Is it Reasonable to Cast a Sexist Vote?

In this post, a fellow WordPress blogger seems tormented over her choice to vote for Hillary and gives readers a chance to convince her if she’s right or wrong.

Here at One Reasonable Person, I care nothing for right or wrong, so I won’t engage her on that front. My concern is whether the decision is reasonable.

Let’s take a look:

Why then, if my own beliefs and interests align more with the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders, am I voting for the centrist Clinton? One very powerful and completely sexist reason: She is a woman. Yes, the fact that Clinton is female is overshadowing all of her negatives, and erasing all of Sanders’ positives. It is totally sexist. And I know it and freely admit it, even if I am not actually proud of it.

Powerful stuff that raises two questions:

Question 1: If you’ve put as much thought and, dare I say, reasoning into a problem as this blogger has, can the ultimate decision be considered unreasonable? Stated another way: Is reasonableness absolute or subjective?

While I’d like to say that any well-considered opinion has to be considered reasonable, I just can’t get there. Let’s say that I’m a rapper and, after much research, I’ve decided that the evidence conclusively proves that the earth is, in fact, flat.

Since the earth is round, the opposing viewpoint is unreasonable no matter how much time is spent considering it. Granted, my example has the benefit of being on a subject that can be conclusively proven, but I think the point drawn translates.

I respect greatly the amount of consideration the blogger has given this subject, but I have to conclude that the decision could possibly be unreasonable.

Question 2: Is it inherently unreasonable to cast a vote for sexist reasons?

My initial thought is that a male deciding not to vote for a woman due to gender would be roundly criticized as being unreasonable. I’m not sure that popular opinion is best suited to define reasonableness, however, and there are many arguments that could be made about whether my example properly relates to the blogger’s dilemma. For those two reasons, I’m uncomfortable applying the judgment garnered from my initial thought to the situation.

More relevant, I think, is the question, “What factors are reasonable when determining voting choices?” Consider (note that candidates are listed in alphabetical order):

  • Bush! I’ll vote for him.
  • Carson most authentically represents his faith. I’ll vote for him.
  • Clinton has the most experience. I’ll vote for her.
  • Cruz is the most disliked by the Republican establishment. I’ll vote for him.
  • Kasich … uh … has momentum. I’ll vote for him.
  • Rubio is the most visually appealing. I’ll vote for him.
  • Sanders will stick it to the man. I’ll vote for him.
  • Trump makes me laugh. I’ll vote for him.

I think that, if you’re of the viewpoint that you should only vote for the person best able to do the job, you have to find the blogger’s choice unreasonable (given her stated feeling that Sanders would do a better job). If you widen your umbrella, however, and allow people to take their emotions into account or send a protest message or spend their vote how they choose, I think you have to find her choice – and all the choices above – reasonable.

 

Maybe We Should be Serious

As a reasonable person, I tend to prefer blog posts that express clear, well-reasoned thoughts. It is to my dismay, then, when I find most so many incoherent posts out there. All the better, though, when I discover a well-written blog like The Front Porch Philosopher, even when I might disagree with a particular sentiment.

In this post entitled Are We Serious?, the author expresses concern over the thought of either Trump or Sanders actually winning the presidency:

My question for America after New Hampshire is, are we serious? Do we realize that we are choosing someone to do a job here, the most important job in the world? This is not reality TV, and it’s not a popularity contest. We are not deciding the next American Idol here, but the leader of the free world.

Okay. That’s a good and valid question that is certainly worthy of consideration.

Would either man be able to accomplish anything at all? Would they stick to their campaign rhetoric? Would they endanger America’s economy and/or safety?

Again, worthy questions, and if you choose not to vote for either of these men based on these concerns, it would be hard for a reasonable person to fault you for it.

I want to call more attention to an issue raised by that very same author, however:

I get it. People are fed up with Washington. They’re fed up with Wall Street. They’re tired of both parties, let down by Bush and Obama. Voters are sending the message that they will not be controlled. They will not dutifully line up behind their party’s Chosen One. This year, people are choosing passion over pragmatism.

Here’s another reasonable question: which is more important – the relatively short term of a single presidency or the long term of a party’s direction?

It seems to me that we consistently have protest candidates. These people rise, give voice to the people’s concerns, and fall back to earth before the general election. The establishment of each party publicly frets about how they understand the people’s frustrations.

Privately, however, I think that each party’s establishment feels something completely different. It seems reasonable to assume they think, “The people threaten and bluster about these protest candidates, but at the end of the day, they put in office the candidates we tell them to elect. Why should we change anything?”

History tells us that Trump and Sanders are protest candidates who will be replaced by a proper establishment figure once it’s time to actually put someone new into the White House. Republicans and Democrats will continue on just as they always have – more concerned with maintaining power than with accomplishing anything for the voters.

In the short run, electing one of these two men might very well be an unmitigated disaster. In the long run, though, will leaving the two parties on their current course be an even worse one?

So no, we’re not serious. But maybe we should be.

Trump vs. Sanders?

A fellow blogger posted today (here) that Trump vs. Sanders is “the political reality that we face.”

First of all, we only have results from two out of fifty states. Trump and Sanders have each won exactly one of those contests. Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.

Another issue I have with the post:

President Obama is fully and solely responsible for the current political climate that created the Trump Sanders matchup we face in the fall.

Hmm. As a reasonable person, I think that, just as a quarterback gets too much blame for a loss and too much credit for a win, presidents’ actual impact is exaggerated a bit.

But this line, imo, hits the nail on the head:

Perhaps we should all be happy, left and right, that the political machines that make up the democratic and republican parties are taking the hardest hits this election season.

Yes!