Those who follow me on Twitter more than likely have seen me reply to “Congressional Candidate,” Pete D’Abrosca. Why did I put “congressional candidate,” in quotation marks? Because he’s actually been disqualified from the primary of North Carolina’s 7th District by the North Carolina Republican Party.
Despite that, he feels the need to put “For Congress,” in his Twitter name.
Pete is a populist, his website calls for the following:
- Halt all immigration, because weren’t the 1920’s, 30’s, and 40’s such a prosperous series of decades?
- Federal death plenty for those who commit mass shootings — which is a blatant violation of the 10th amendment.
- Fixing the VA in unspecific ways, which really sets him apart from all those politicians who are against making the VA better.
- A federal heartbeat bill — which I don’t feel like mocking because to be honest, even as someone against that idea, it’s the most milquetoast of all of his bad ones.
The Part Where I Explain Why He’s An Idiot
I could go through a series of Tweets to show my issues with him. Although the one that finally inspired me to sit down and write about him was a series of Tweets related to an article about the amount of debt corporations have right now.
U.S. corporations are more than $10 trillion in debt, collectively.
Wouldn’t a truly “free market” have put these debt-ridden companies out of business by now?
Asking for the TPUSA/Daily Wire crowd.
The answer is no, because, as some astute commentators have noted, the “free market” of Wall Street is different than the “free market” of Main Street.
Debt is cheap, and billion dollar Wall Street corporations can keep borrowing forever.
Mom and pop shops can’t.
A number of things are wrong here.
- Even if this is true that still means U.S. corporations are only in half the debt of the US federal government.
- Debt is not some kind of evil. People go into debt to buy houses, get an education, and yes, start businesses. Funny that the people who seem obsessed with some amount of Keynesian theory view debt as something that is suppose to make a company disintegrate when they go into it.
- There are 9.1 Million corporations in the United States right now. This means the average corporation is currently $1,098,901 in debt. We’ll round that and say that means current debt is $1.1 Million per corporation. This is quite a bit more than the average corporation makes in profit, therefore there’s still a large reason to believe this money will be payed back with interest. (For context, a graph of corporate profit will be posted at the end of this list.)
- Also, he doesn’t mention how long these companies have been in debt? A company in debt for ten years will have a different credit rating than a company that has been in debt for ten months — even if the debt is the same.
- Let’s also note that the United States is in no way the free market haven people like him act like it is. We only has about 75% Economic Freedom, and places like Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Australia are quite a ways higher.
- On the same note, anyone remember the Wall Street bailout? Does Pete think libertarians supported things like the TARP program? Yes, the free market for Wall Street and Main Street is different — Wall Street controls when its violated while Main Street has to deal with its violations.
- Also, of course Wall Street bankers can borrow more than your typical small business. Wall Street bankers have more money than your typical small business, meaning the average bank would be willing to give them more money. This is just how basic lending works, you would not treat loans for the same amount of money Would Pete loan the same amount of money to someone with $20 as he would someone with $20,000,000? If so, his bank would go out of business rather quick.
Graph of corporate profits I mentioned above:
I must ask along with him however, where is the Turning Point/Daily Wire crowd? People like Michael Knowles, Josh Hammer, and Matt Walsh seem to be with him if anything. Especially considering those three people are suddenly obsessed with “the common good,” but that’s a topic for another day.
Turning Point USA, do you guys want to defend the free market against your fellow Republicans? The answer seems to be “of course not,” considering Pete pulls out AOC style arguments and Charlie Kirk has not said anything.
The Part Where I Explain Why He’s Dishonest
For this, the only example I have is a recent controversy regarding the murder rate of immigrants.
Here’s what he said:
An estimated 1,600 Americans die at the hands of illegal aliens annually.
50 Americans died from vaping this year.
The latter was a national crisis that led to a ban.
Of course, that number is highly debatable. Here’s how we responded when one person called him out on that number being utter bullshit.
One person pointed out that the actual 1,600 number is based on the amount of people who were deported and had some form of homicide conviction. This doesn’t mean 1,600 people died last year, in fact, it could mean many more died last year depending on when those trails took place. (If we’re going year by year and all those people were deported in January, that might be an issue).
Here’s how Pete responded:
Since you deleted the last one, let me ask again:
How many Americans do you think should be killed by illegal foreigners?
My number is 0.
(I couldn’t be bothered to find the first time he asked, sorry.)
Mind you, Pete is the one making the claim that all immigration must be shut off for this reason. As such, when you’re talking about numbers, you have to be very specific regarding the numbers you use.
I hate to inform Pete this, but nobody is in favor of murder. People who believe in immigration — including myself — realize that risk of things like this exist. We however either have logical reasons stemming from our first principle or have done a utilitarian calculation regarding.
Side note: Have you ever noticed, despite all the bellyaching that our people are funded by interests, can not source a single study on the overall impacts of immigration that debunk our arguments? And I don’t mean a study on just one or two factors. I mean a peer reviewed paper that fully shows every economic factor immigrants impact and then goes on to show using non-fallacious reasoning that immigration is negative for all of them.
However, he chose to build on that yesterday:
I ask again…
How many Americans do you think should be killed by illegal aliens?
My number is 0.
He then gives us this gem:
There’s an important distinction to be had here, too.
Both homicide *and* manslaughter legally fall under the category of murder.
Someone will typically catch a manslaughter charge if, say, they’re driving drunk and they kill someone else.
Manslaughter is still murder.
No, manslaughter is not legally the same as murder. Murder means you intended to, manslaughter means you did such a thing on accident.
These are not the same, and as such we punish them differently. For instance, double jeopardy laws apply differently from manslaughter than they do for murder. If you are declared innocent of murder, you can go out the next day and scream that you killed a guy and nobody can do anything. You can not legally do that with manslaughter, otherwise you’ll be arrested and convicted.
This is getting to be rather long so I’m going to cut it off here. However, I think you guys get the idea.