2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Whoa, who's not reading clearly NOW?Quote: MathExtremistIf that's how it seems to you, you're not reading clearly. I can't help that. If you think Muslims living in America will turn our cities into war-torn wastelands like Afghanistan, that's your prerogative
How about neither? Remember reading comprehension?Quote: MathExtremistCondemning all Muslims because a few rotten apples went on a murderous rampage in the name of a perverted reading of Islam is no different than condemning all Christians because a few rotten apples went on a murderous rampage in the name of a perverted reading of Christianity. If you're willing to do the first, you must be willing to do the second.
Also, my point in citing polls earlier was that it's way more than "a few" Muslims who condone violence to promote Islam, even if they don't practice it themselves. If 15-40% of barbers, diabetics, pensioners, or meteorologists condoned violence, that would be cause for concern.
Fair enough, butQuote: JoeshlabotnikI'm sorry, but evil people who wish to seize power are not in the category of "human being" in my book, insofar as they do or do not deserve to be considered as part of humanity. I would love to see Trump devoured slowly by fire ants. Consumed by flesh-eating bacteria on live YouTube video. Burned alive. Dissolved in a tank of acid.
...
So what's wrong with me? I hate evil, greedy, power-hungry, selfish, lying, thieving, bigoted, racist, sexist people. To the extent that I wish that the worst of them would die.
Nope, that crosses the line. The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and even in war, the Geneva Conventions prohibit inhumane treatment. Getting shot and killed is on the table, but getting shot, captured and then consumed by fire ants, burned alive, or dissolved in a tank of acid are right out.Quote:Slowly and horribly.
If you're willing to cross that line between civility and barbarity just because you're pissed off and can't control your rage, you shouldn't expect someone else who's also pissed off and holds a different political view to control their rage either. We've seen plenty of that uncontrolled rage from Trump rallies -- just yesterday, someone at a Trump rally punched out an infirm, oxygen-tank-carrying woman. That's not humane, that's how slavering animals act. If you're going to act like an animal (or even propose acting like an animal), don't hold yourself out as some righteous, civilized progressive thinker. And don't expect the more civilized among us to respect your views, regardless of our political leanings. Retract your comments.
I can't argue with you if you consistently misread what I'm saying in black and white. And attributing something to me in quotation marks that I never actual said is extra ridiculous.Quote: Joeshlabotnik(lots of spew)
And for the umpteenth time, at the same time you fault me for not providing evidence (even though I have), you've provided squat. So yet again, for the umpteenth time, let's see your evidence that there's *not* a significant percentage of Muslims, even American Muslims, who condone violence.
Also, please explain how your legal understanding is superior to that of the ACLU, Department of Immigration, and professional immigration law firms whose conclusions you say show a "rather appalling ignorance of the law".
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/all-other/25807-2016-election-part-ii/200/#post552685
+1Quote: MathExtremistNope, that crosses the line.....If you're willing to cross that line between civility and barbarity just because you're pissed off and can't control your rage, you shouldn't expect someone else who's also pissed off and holds a different political view to control their rage either. We've seen plenty of that uncontrolled rage from Trump rallies -- just yesterday, someone at a Trump rally punched out an infirm, oxygen-tank-carrying woman. That's not humane, that's how slavering animals act. If you're going to act like an animal (or even propose acting like an animal), don't hold yourself out as some righteous, civilized progressive thinker. And don't expect the more civilized among us to respect your views, regardless of our political leanings. Retract your comments.
Quote: MichaelBluejayTrump is getting way closer. 538 now shows he's only two states away, and one of those is Nevada, where he has a minuscule 0.5-point lead.
The betting odds are showing a tightening too. The BetFair odds suggest these chances of victory:
Trump: 31.75%
Clinton: 64.52%
The gap between that and 100% is there is a small chance somebody else could win.
Quote: WizardThe betting odds are showing a tightening too. The BetFair odds suggest these chances of victory:
Trump: 31.75%
Clinton: 64.52%
The gap between that and 100% is there is a small chance somebody else could win.
I'm looking for hedging suggestions in case Trump wins, in which case I anticipate my investment portfolio will take a major hit.
But I can't bring myself to place an actual bet on him winning, because I couldn't bear to cheer him on
:o(
How much should I worry? If any. Just asking.
All free speech could be opinions we could abhor, short of an actual plot, is legal.
Looking at some of the links that came up, it's hard to judge if there are more left wing or right wing overthrowers.
Quote: rxwineI get 34 million hits when I google "how many Americans believe the government should be overthrown?"
How much should I worry? If any. Just asking.
All free speech could be opinions we could abhor, short of an actual plot, is legal.
Looking at some of the links that came up, it's hard to judge if there are more left wing or right wing overthrowers.
I am not sure how much one should worry about this because I don't see real traction to actually do this from either side. I have not checked, but many of those hits could come from a relatively small number of asses on either end of the spectrum.
It is easy to talk about but much harder to actually do...
Quote: MathExtremistIDon't fall into illogic traps like AZD does. He just said, and I quote, "citing exceptions does not disprove the rule." Yeah, actually, it does.
Really? So you are saying that because Martingale works for a few sessions then it is not a flawed system?
Because it seems that is what you just said.
Quote: rxwineI get 34 million hits when I google "how many Americans believe the government should be overthrown?"
How much should I worry? If any. Just asking.
Worry that they're wasting their time. Also worry if you think "One Nation, under Face" is worthy of worry.
I'm sure it'll be fine.
Quote: MichaelBluejayTrump is getting way closer. 538 now shows he's only two states away, and one of those is Nevada, where he has a minuscule 0.5-point lead.
Look close and it is the same pattern as the primaries. At first nobody took him serious so they ignored him. Slowly more and more people found him a breath of fresh air, the only one any different than the other 18 (or whatever it was.) As he got more and more support the first instinct was to ignore him, eventually when he could no longer be ignored he was unstoppable.
Sort of similar in the general. Clearly Hillary's first strategy was to let him beat himself. But Trump is not McCain. People like me do not care about a gaffe here and there. To more and more it makes him look more real. Hillary had a bounce and he stumbled thru August. But he slowly kept gaining. He understood August doesn't matter. She kept and still keeps basically quiet,saying little.
Now she has lost 5 or so news cycles in a row and the road ahead will not be easier. He has momentum and by most measures has caught or nearly caught her. Right now it is same as the last six weeks of the primaries. People are liking his personality while she has been napping. She has to run twice as fast to capture the positive news cycle.
Quote: AZDuffmanLook close and it is the same pattern as the primaries. At first nobody took him serious so they ignored him. Slowly more and more people found him a breath of fresh air, the only one any different than the other 18 (or whatever it was.) As he got more and more support the first instinct was to ignore him, eventually when he could no longer be ignored he was unstoppable.
Short run today, the yard sign game stands at 6 Trump, 0 anyone else. Thought I saw a rare one for Hill, then I got close enough. "Hillary for prison". I counted the man as a Trumperist.
That is the correct play, yes? Or are the prison ones more of the Uncle Bern crowd?
Big run tomorrow, I'll take a proper tally. I already know Trump is gonna win, I'm just wondering why. Makes stereotypical sense at my house, we're all backwoods hicks. Me, Jimmy Jeff, Uncle Brother, Big Roy down the way. But in Lakeview? I thought the ownership of a 6+ year degree was supposed to make one immune to the Trumperisterisms?
Strange times.
Only if you think the air over a garbage dump is fresh.
The guy is a crook and a con man. He'll say anything to get attention or support. Your love affair with him is just amazing.
Quote: Face
Big run tomorrow, I'll take a proper tally. I already know Trump is gonna win, I'm just wondering why. Makes stereotypical sense at my house, we're all backwoods hicks. Me, Jimmy Jeff, Uncle Brother, Big Roy down the way. But in Lakeview? I thought the ownership of a 6+ year degree was supposed to make one immune to the Trumperisterisms?
I am an urban hick and just 1 Trump sign here, 0 Hillary. I still see more "Bernie!" bumper stickers than Hillary.
Quote: beachbumbabs...a breath of fresh air...
Only if you think the air over a garbage dump is fresh.
The guy is a crook and a con man. He'll say anything to get attention or support. Your love affair with him is just amazing.
How about.... The gal is a crook and a con woman. She'll say anything to get attention or support. Your love affair with her is just amazing.
What is really amazing is that you just can't see how more similar Trump and Hillary are than how different they are......
Quote: MichaelBluejayTrump is getting way closer. 538 now shows he's only two states away, and one of those is Nevada, where he has a minuscule 0.5-point lead.
David Plouffe says Hillary will win.
He knows his stuff.
She has an insurmountable lead in PA, VA, and CO. OH and FL become irrelevant if that holds.
The truth is that the Martingale never "works" at all. You might win a few sessions with the Martingale, just as you might win a few sessions by flat betting, but flat betting doesn't "work" either. Neither the Martingale nor flat betting can swing the EV of your bets into your favor. You need real AP techniques for that.Quote: AZDuffmanReally? So you are saying that because Martingale works for a few sessions then it is not a flawed system?
Because it seems that is what you just said.
But don't clutter up this political thread with more innumeracy, go post about how "the Martingale works for a few sessions" somewhere else.
Quote: ams288David Plouffe says Hillary will win.
He knows his stuff.
She has an insurmountable lead in PA, VA, and CO. OH and FL become irrelevant if that holds.
She had an insurmountable lead in Florida. "Had" is the operative word. A few more 'pass out' episodes, late debate pull out, release of her emails slamming Obama.... there are many possible stumbling blocks along the way for Ill-ary. That all being true, of course the same can be said for Mr. Trump. If it wasn't illegal I would love a bet on Trump getting zero electoral votes. I still think he has a realistic potential to make a gaffe that crosses the line that even he won't be able to recover from.
But the betting line is smarter than me, or ams. He has a 1/3 chance of winning.
Quote: MathExtremistThe truth is that the Martingale never "works" at all. You might win a few sessions with the Martingale, just as you might win a few sessions by flat betting, but flat betting doesn't "work" either. Neither the Martingale nor flat betting can swing the EV of your bets into your favor. You need real AP techniques for that.
But because you can have winning sessions then it is not a bad system, right? That is what you said by exceptions disproving the rule.
Or are you in a way understanding that just because you know some nice muslims that does not mean the religion is intolerant, violent, and a danger to all?
Really, your statements allow for just one or the other.
I'm not going to cure your willful innumeracy with a post or two so there's no point in trying to re-explain why you're wrong about this; it's all been written before, many times, including by me. You can educate yourself, as I've recommended in the past; you can accept that you don't understand it and just move on with your life; or you can get angry and rail against the folks who do get it. This forum, full of mathematicians and gambling aficionados as it is, really isn't the ideal place to choose that last strategy. But some folks are suckers for punishment, I guess.Quote: AZDuffmanBut because you can have winning sessions then it is not a bad system, right? That is what you said by exceptions disproving the rule.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not going to cure your willful innumeracy with a post or two so there's no point in trying to re-explain why you're wrong about this; it's all been written before, many times, including by me. You can educate yourself, as I've recommended in the past; you can accept that you don't understand it and just move on with your life; or you can get angry and rail against the folks who do get it. This forum, full of mathematicians and gambling aficionados as it is, really isn't the ideal place to choose that last strategy. But some folks are suckers for punishment, I guess.
You seem to be a sucker for it. I am making a point using a math example. Namely an exception to a rule does not disprove the rule. You said:
Quote: MathExtremistI Don't fall into illogic traps like AZD does. He just said, and I quote, "citing exceptions does not disprove the rule." Yeah, actually, it does.
So I asked if that applied to Martingale. Now this is where I do not respect "education" alone. You missed the point! Instead of trying to defend your tearing apart of my statement, you decided to show you "know math better than AZD" and went into explaining how Martingale does not work, when anyone should have seen what I was trying to do was blow a hole in your assertion that the exception disproves the rule.
Quote: SOOPOOShe had an insurmountable lead in Florida. "Had" is the operative word. A few more 'pass out' episodes, late debate pull out, release of her emails slamming Obama.... there are many possible stumbling blocks along the way for Ill-ary. That all being true, of course the same can be said for Mr. Trump. If it wasn't illegal I would love a bet on Trump getting zero electoral votes. I still think he has a realistic potential to make a gaffe that crosses the line that even he won't be able to recover from.
But the betting line is smarter than me, or ams. He has a 1/3 chance of winning.
No one ever said she had an insurmountable lead in Florida. Your post falls apart at the first sentence.
Of course.
As Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people some of time. Once he's elected how long do you think he'd last acting presidential? The reins will be off him. Half the republicans will sell their souls to him once he's got full time power and little to answer to.
Quote: ams288No one ever said she had an insurmountable lead in Florida. Your post falls apart at the first sentence.
Huh? All I hear from all the liberals here is she has an insurmountable lead everywhere, Trump will lose FL because of all the hispanics there, quack-quack-quack-quack-quack.
Which of you even said Trump will lose 50 states over at DT?
In your home-spun brand of hand-wavy reasoning, perhaps a rule is meant to be broken, but in formal logic, any counterexample is sufficient to disprove an assertion. If your proposition is "all Muslims are terrorists" and I find a single Muslim that's not a terrorist, your proposition is false.Quote: AZDuffmananyone should have seen what I was trying to do was blow a hole in your assertion that the exception disproves the rule.
Take a course in formal logic and thinking, you'll be better for it:
http://online.stanford.edu/course/language-proof-and-logic
https://www.edx.org/course/science-everyday-thinking-uqx-think101x-3#!
Quote: MathExtremistIn your home-spun brand of hand-wavy reasoning, perhaps a rule is meant to be broken, but in formal logic, any counterexample is sufficient to disprove an assertion. If your proposition is "all Muslims are terrorists" and I find a single Muslim that's not a terrorist, your proposition is false.
When did I say "all muslims are terrorists?" I never would say that because it is silly. What I have been saying is islam is an intolerant, violent, and dangerous religion. I have said that islamic societies are cesspools. I have said that a larger and larger muslim subculture in a non-muslim society causes problems.
Your use of the term "rule" here is just more faculty lounge talk. Missing what is plainly obvious. Your counter to my statements runs like this:
"Detroit is a dangerous city to live in with a lot of abandoned houses."
"What do you mean? I know a nice street with nice houses!"
Yes, there are not so bad and even nice parts of Detroit. That does not change the fact that it is dangerous and a dump to live in as a city. But your counter to my many points runs just like the above.
2 + 2 = FISH
Thanks for the links, but abstract logic does not equal practical logic.
All of it or just some? All of them or just some?Quote: AZDuffmanWhat I have been saying is islam is an intolerant, violent, and dangerous religion. I have said that islamic societies are cesspools.
See, it matters whether you're making a sweeping generalization, which you tend to do, or if you're actually considering all the facts and qualifying your assertion. If those are sweeping generalizations, they're wrong due to the same trivial logic I just discussed -- finding a single counterexample. If you're saying "only some of Islam is intolerant or violent" then that's true, but not very forceful because it's also true for Christianity or Judaism. So either you're wrong or irrelevant.
The same holds for the notion that all Islamic societies are cesspools, which is not true now and never has been, or that some of them are, which is true but irrelevant as a factor for comparison because lots of non-Islamic societies are cesspools too. Again, you're either wrong or irrelevant. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Quote: MathExtremistFair enough, but
Nope, that crosses the line. The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and even in war, the Geneva Conventions prohibit inhumane treatment. Getting shot and killed is on the table, but getting shot, captured and then consumed by fire ants, burned alive, or dissolved in a tank of acid are right out.
If you're willing to cross that line between civility and barbarity just because you're pissed off and can't control your rage, you shouldn't expect someone else who's also pissed off and holds a different political view to control their rage either. We've seen plenty of that uncontrolled rage from Trump rallies -- just yesterday, someone at a Trump rally punched out an infirm, oxygen-tank-carrying woman. That's not humane, that's how slavering animals act. If you're going to act like an animal (or even propose acting like an animal), don't hold yourself out as some righteous, civilized progressive thinker. And don't expect the more civilized among us to respect your views, regardless of our political leanings. Retract your comments.
Nope. Sorry. I meant every word I said, and still do. Blathering about what is and isn't constitutional is irrelevant anyway. If Trump did contract colon cancer, that would be a deserved, but extrajudicial punishment.
I do in fact believe that our judicial system is unable to mete out the appropriate punishments to the worst of the worst. Some asshole mows down ten people in a church. The worst we can do is give him the death penalty, with three meals and a cot until then and a priest if he wants it, before he is humanely given the needle or whatever. The appropriate punishment would at LEAST be to kill him ten times; failing that, to inflict pain and suffering on him equal to that he inflicted on his victims and their families. But we can't do that, and more's the pity.
Trump, similarly, is attempting to turn our country into a Nazified parody of itself and advocates cruelty towards millions of innocent people. Yet, nothing he's done that's connected to his campaigning is punishable by law. Therefore, why talk about what the law can or should do to him? For what he's done and said, he deserves to die, and with an appropriate measure of suffering due to the pain he has inflicted and wishes to inflict. Call that barbaric if you like. I call it justice.
You seem to be real big on criticizing false equivalencies, but you certainly flung one out there by comparing my criticism of Trump to a Trumper punching out an old lady. Sorry, your logic crashes and burns.
And I resent your calling me an animal and implying that I'm not civilized. I've never said such things about you.
I've never given you cause to -- I'm not advocating for giving someone colon cancer or dousing them with acid. You think that's civilized, I don't. This is where our views diverge.Quote: JoeshlabotnikAnd I resent your calling me an animal and implying that I'm not civilized. I've never said such things about you.
Quote: SOOPOOHow about.... The gal is a crook and a con woman. She'll say anything to get attention or support. Your love affair with her is just amazing.
What is really amazing is that you just can't see how more similar Trump and Hillary are than how different they are......
Why do you say "just can't see" when what you mean is "why don't you agree with me"?
Hillary and Trump are completely different, with the only resemblances being that they're both wealthy and running for President. In terms of politics, personal ethics, and track record, there's no equivalence. It's idiotic to state that the reasons why Trump is unfit for office are equal to the pretexts for not voting for Hillary.
The bottom line, of course, is that she's female, and we manly men can't let the bitches take charge. Trump's louder message of not letting the lesser breeds pollute Amerika is strictly secondary.
Quote: MathExtremistI've never given you cause to -- I'm not advocating for giving someone colon cancer or dousing them with acid. You think that's civilized, I don't. This is where our views diverge.
OK, I'm willing to agree to disagree--I think that in some extreme instances, extreme punishments are justified--you don't. But please don't go all Duffman on me and say that I'm advocating "giving someone colon cancer." I said that I would like to see ONE PARTICULARLY ODIOUS INDIVIDUAL contract the disease.
And do I believe that horrible acts deserve horrible punishments? And that that is, in fact, "civilized"? Yes indeedy.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikAnd do I believe that horrible acts deserve horrible punishments? And that that is, in fact, "civilized"? Yes indeedy.
I find it hard to be critical on this because lots of good people believe in the eternal punishment of Hell. They don't think of themselves of supporters of unending pain. But that's what it is as far as I know.
I am not sure if severe punishment and torturous death was given up because people lost their taste for barbarity or just fear of an imperfect justice system, and willful abuse by those over them. Maybe both.
Fair enough, but yes, we definitely disagree. I think the most horrible of acts deserve swift death, not drawn out agony. Part of being civilized is rising above our baser instincts for revenge. Sometimes, as I've heard is said in Texas, people just need killin'. But that doesn't mean we should take any pleasure in it.Quote: JoeshlabotnikOK, I'm willing to agree to disagree--I think that in some extreme instances, extreme punishments are justified--you don't. But please don't go all Duffman on me and say that I'm advocating "giving someone colon cancer." I said that I would like to see ONE PARTICULARLY ODIOUS INDIVIDUAL contract the disease.
And do I believe that horrible acts deserve horrible punishments? And that that is, in fact, "civilized"? Yes indeedy.
But maybe I'm biased. I'm routinely engaged in civil lawsuits that are brought, in many cases, for revenge or punishment rather than seeking a reasonable settlement (which can almost always be reached out of court). Civil litigation is almost like a civilized version of warfare. The stakes can be enormous, but at least in civil cases nobody's going to die. Or be doused in acid. I'm working on just such a case now, and I can assure you the parties that are involved would very much like to see the other's business entity consumed by fire.
Quote: rxwineI find it hard to be critical on this because lots of good people believe in the eternal punishment of Hell. They don't think of themselves of supporters of unending pain. But that's what it is as far as I know.
I am not sure if severe punishment and torturous death was given up because people lost their taste for barbarity or just fear of an imperfect justice system, and willful abuse by those over them. Maybe both.
No. Hell is Circus Circus in Las Vegas, with the buffet being the lowest circle. Everything's PINK. YAAAAAAAH!!!
All religion is pig doots, so it doesn't matter what particular mythical punishment is anticipated for the bad guys post-demise. I do agree, though, that we as a society--dating back thousands of years--have tended to excuse the most odious acts by saying that God will punish the evildoers, so we don't have to worry about justice or appropriate retribution.
I did think it kind of unjust when the priests told us that if we swiped a candy bar and then were run over by a cement truck on the way to confession, we would be tormented in Hell for all eternity.
What will the Conservatives do if you take all of the things they are in favor of away from them?
Quote: RonCWow! The Liberals here (some of them) are proposing torture, maiming, painful deaths, and societal cleansing.
Heh. All my discussions with FrGamble have led me to believe that if the Christian god does something, including eternal punishment, ignoring the holocaust, drowning the Earth including tiny babies and animals, kicking all future humanity out of the garden of Eden while letting an already fallen Satan wander around, THEN if it is done by god, it is entirely justified.
I was corrupted. Evil must be good. Up must be down.
Anyway, and the nasty Muslims are confused?
AND YEAH, Trump proposed more waterboarding. I don't even propose that as acceptable. But I don't speak for anyone but me.
Quote: MathExtremistAll of it or just some? All of them or just some?
Pretty much all of them. Egypt is a cesspool. UAE is a benevolent prison. None are where anyone I know would like to live.
Quote:See, it matters whether you're making a sweeping generalization, which you tend to do, or if you're actually considering all the facts and qualifying your assertion. If those are sweeping generalizations, they're wrong due to the same trivial logic I just discussed -- finding a single counterexample. If you're saying "only some of Islam is intolerant or violent" then that's true, but not very forceful because it's also true for Christianity or Judaism. So either you're wrong or irrelevant.
And this kind of thinking is why folks like yourself will be among the first to be taken over. You seem to think geopolitics and competing societies are like a math problem. Once wrong, always wrong. (Unless this is turned on you like I did with Martingale then a tangent ensues.) It is not like that,
Did all Europeans want to kill all the Indians? Of course not. But one side took apart and over the other. The Indians never could have won given the circumstances, but it pays to see what happens when your culture is infiltrated by an incompatible one. Islam is incompatible with western values. For example, remarks you yourself have made here would probably get you whipped in Saudi Arabia.
I don't care if you don't get off the life-is-like-math thinking and keep insisting that since not all muslims are bad then islam cannot be a problem. One person's position will not change the world. Just don't come surprised to me in 20 years when the struggle and violence are far worse than now and ask me how it got that way.
Quote: AZDuffmanPretty much all of them. Egypt is a cesspool. UAE is a benevolent prison. None are where anyone I know would like to live.
.
Dubai is pretty fabulous
6 and 7 star hotels
Quote: AZDuffmanHuh? All I hear from all the liberals here is she has an insurmountable lead everywhere, Trump will lose FL because of all the hispanics there, quack-quack-quack-quack-quack.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to anything involving the race until recently. You didn't even post in political threads for most of the summer...
Reminds me of when Evenbob claimed liberals said Hillary would win by 30 points (no one ever said that).
Okay, so inside your mind, "colonial-era Europe" was a "side" -- like a team, acting in unison toward a common purpose, just like "Islam" is today. That clarifies things.Quote: AZDuffmanDid all Europeans want to kill all the Indians? Of course not. But one side took apart and over the other. The Indians never could have won given the circumstances, but it pays to see what happens when your culture is infiltrated by an incompatible one. Islam is incompatible with western values.
Quote: AZDuffmanHuh? All I hear from all the liberals here is she has an insurmountable lead everywhere, Trump will lose FL because of all the hispanics there, quack-quack-quack-quack-quack.
Which of you even said Trump will lose 50 states over at DT?
That was me! I still think he has a chance to put his foot in his mouth so deep even he can't overcome it!
The shirt:
The part that most concerns me is that the cooks (Mexican, of course) stared hard: hope they don't spit in my food next time!
So much for being a Political Provocateur; probably be better off to dwell in my Libertarian obscurity.
* the message on back reads: "If you can read this the Bitch fell off"
Quote: SOOPOOThat was me! I still think he has a chance to put his foot in his mouth so deep even he can't overcome it!
What is equally likely is that his avowed supporters will vanish like a fart in the wind. Polling is notoriously unreliable, so all that you can say is that the results reflect people's actual intentions within a certain margin of error. Will polling responses translate into actual votes? I think not, and I think that the reason for that is there is and will be a certain amount of shame attached to being a Trump voter. If you self-identify as a Trump voter, you are either saying a) I'm a douchebag and proud of it; b) I ADMIRE Donald Trump and want to be one of his lackeys; c) I dislike Trump but I am compelled to vote Republican, or d) I'm insane. Whichever you're saying, telling someone in a social gathering that you're a Trumper will cause them to edge away from you uneasily (unless you're at a KKK meeting, in which case you get a tongue-kiss). There is a fair amount of shame attached to being a Trumper, but not in an anonymous poll response.
There's something else that to me, suggests that Trump is a spent rocket. Much of his appeal over the last few months has been from hatefest rallies where rabid Trumpers wave signs and scream KILL HILLARY KILL MUSLIMS KILL MEXICANS! There is less shame attached to behaving like that when you're part of a crowd--it legitimizes that behavior when you're surrounded by other rabid dogs. But when you get home, soaked in sweat, put down your sign, and crack open a cheap beer, do you feel the same way? Probably not. Your humanity--however much you happen to have--reasserts itself when you rejoin society. And actual voting is not going to be preceded by a Two Minutes' Hate.
Quote: MrVI wore a comical Trump T-shirt recently to the local teriyaki joint, and got a lot of negative attention / stares / glares.
The part that most concerns me is that the cooks (Mexican, of course) stared hard: hope they don't spit in my food next time!
So much for being a Political Provocateur; probably be better off to dwell in my Libertarian obscurity.
And how did you know that the cooks were "Mexican, of course?" From how they looked? There are other Hispanic countries besides Mexico. Not to mention plenty of American-born Hispanics.
I think the shirt was in bad taste and much more provocative than comical, but it was your right to wear it. But I wouldn't exercise my First Amendment rights in a way that pretty much invites retaliation and at the least, provokes negative reactions. What were you hoping to prove/accomplish?
And saying that they might spit in your food is kind of nasty. Why would they do that? Because they're filthy Mexicans? More likely, they just muttered "asshole" under their breaths and forgot all about you and your shirt.
Quote: MrVI wore a comical Trump T-shirt recently to the local teriyaki joint, and got a lot of negative attention / stares / glares.
"
That's weird
I proudly wear my "Make America Grateful Again" with the Grateful Dead's Steal your face logo.
Wear it everywhere
Gotten lots of kind comments :-)
https://www.amazon.com/Make-America-Grateful-Again-Medium/dp/B01J63FVN2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473956207&sr=8-1&keywords=make+america+grateful
Quote: MrVI cannot recall a Presidential election with as few bumper stickers and lawn signs from a candidate's supporters.
On my trash can I have a sign
"Trump votes go here"
:-)
An employee in a nearby restaurant got in big trouble, and the restaurant was sued, when it was discovered that an employee had spit in a customer's food.
I don't favor Trump, I just like to stir the pot on occasion.
