Trumping Maths

“To clinch the nomination, Trump needs to win just 55% of the remaining 899 delegates. Cruz needs 86% and Kasich needs 121% — in other words, hundreds of delegates that don’t actually exist. To show the improbable nature of Cruz’s task, Trump’s dominant position in the delegate count is based on winning only around 47% of the delegates so far awarded.”
 
See Can Donald Trump get to 1,237 delegates?
Well, there are three things:

  1. If Trump needs 55% of the remaining delegates,
  2. 65% of registered voters have a negative view of Trump, and
  3. yes, that’s the only quality on which Trump beats Hillary (-57%).

So, he’d better reach 1237 before the convention or he’s toast. The other remaining candidates are not all that popular but the convention can do what it wants after the first vote so it’ll be anyone but Trump. Further, this latest poll was before Trump offended 53% of voters by photographically comparing his wife to Cruz’s… Even Megyn Kelly interrupted her vacation to respond with “Seriously?”. No one wants a president who takes time out of his busy day to attack a woman. Might as well chain a junkyard dog to the desk in the Oval Office. It’d be less expensive and do less damage to the reputation of USA.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Trumping Maths

  1. Ivan wrote, “the open records violation”.

    What violation? Hillary did all that State required of former secretaries, like Powell. He didn’t have his own server but used private e-mail. Many workers in government have multiple e-mail accounts public and private. It’s a question of how far FOIA applies. Is an e-mail even a document? What about a phone-call? What about a conversation in the back of a limo…? It’s getting to the point where FOIA requests are just spam in people’s in-boxes. Are these at all relevant?

    Technically, the way e-mail works, there doesn’t even need to be a file/document associated with an e-mail but of course, there usually is. The process of sending/receiving e-mail is exactly like photocopying. Does FOIA require that every copy of a document be provided? Nope. So, it’s not necessary to provide every e-mail either. The original file/document is somewhere and that’s what matters. If it originates off the government system but arrives there, it comes into play, not otherwise. It could be an issue if a bunch of staffers who should be using the government system do lots of stuff on private servers but that’s not the case here. Clinton was the Secretary of State and was sending and receiving e-mail to/from staffers using the government system. No problem that I can see. There could be an issue with Hillary communicating with someone not at State but she turned over those e-mails so that is taken care of.

    This story has reached mega-proportions not because of an organized attempt to thwart the law/citizens/press but because stuff like scans of print media were declared classified after they were e-mailed. That’s just silly. Nothing sent nor received like that should be classified, just documents related to national security. Having umpteen departments able to declare something classified is just paralysis. Is there going to be a “bot” scanning all documents to send them to every department for reclassification? It makes Orwell’s 1984 seem fresh and lively. These documents were only reviewed for classification because of the FOIA request, nothing to do with national security. They would not likely have been classified in the normal course of business because they weren’t likely to reach the outside world and likely no one on the outside would have had any interest. I don’t.

  2. Ivan says:

    Well, that was unexpected… Anywho, the open records violation is a ten year prison sentence.

  3. Ivan says:

    Again, why would Hillary waste her time sending classified stuff by e-mail when she could use a secure system provided by gov’t?

    Because she either didn’t want to lose her blackberry.

    There’s some merit in that but as she points out, most of the e-mail that matters was sent to gov’t addresses so it would not escape FOIA.

    There are emails where she is telling people to send all mail to her private address.

    Further, she turned over all the e-mails so FOIA is taken care of. There’s no “there” there.

    She turned over the server which showed emails were deleted. That would be a 10 year prison sentence for you, Bob, but she’ll probably skate off with nothing because the sun shines out her ass.

    She did nothing that other similar officials did not do. Suddenly that’s a crime.

    Her server was hacked. She didn’t need to use it. She put lives in danger.

  4. JD wrote, “you sir, should know better than dismissing this as a non-event.”

    There’s a lot of facts being assumed there, JD. Perhaps you should await the conclusion of the investigation and/or final report. She did nothing that other similar officials did not do. Suddenly that’s a crime. [SARCASM] It’s not. It’s just stupidity and laxness, stuff prevalent in government. It’s also that she’s running for prez. It’s a witch-hunt.

  5. JD says:

    Red herring.

    So far she has:
    1. Lied under oath about when she started using the server
    2. The server was unsecured (non HTTPS) for a while.
    3. She was running MS’s ware on a barely patched server, with the server acceccible over the Internet bia RDP. I think it would be reasonable to assume it was pwned on a weekly basis, and other nationals were checking her email more frequently than herself.
    4. If she was consciously filtering the messages she was sending to make sure there were no state secrets (including content in included replies, etc, which one can reasonably assume is impossible for any human), even though she was sending them to .gov addresses, why no simply use Gmail?
    5. Why promptly delete emails as soon as the issue attracted attention?

    One can expect such callousness and naviety on this issue from a non tech person, but you sir, should know better than dismissing this as a non-event. I wonder if you’d feel the same way if it was Trump in her shoes.

  6. Ivan wrote, “The difference being that HRC was dealing with secret and top secret information while you are just a random Canadian with no access to anything that would damage national or operational security”.

    Again, why would Hillary waste her time sending classified stuff by e-mail when she could use a secure system provided by gov’t? The fact is she didn’t. Stuff was classified retroactively. The real issue was whether or not her server was used as a dodge against FOIA. There’s some merit in that but as she points out, most of the e-mail that matters was sent to gov’t addresses so it would not escape FOIA. Further, she turned over all the e-mails so FOIA is taken care of. There’s no “there” there.

  7. Ivan says:

    Hillary was doing what many others have done when moving from civilian life to government service. Even I did that.

    The difference being that HRC was dealing with secret and top secret information while you are just a random Canadian with no access to anything that would damage national or operational security. You also weren’t under the legal requirements of the open records act to save everything.

    HRC clearly violated laws, but her connections are giving her get-out-of-jail-free and have-another-stay-in-this-lovely-mansion cards.

  8. oiaohm wrote, “how did the natives deal with bears before guns.”

    They poked them with sharp sticks and ran or hid until the bear bled out. That works but it’s not 100% safe and you have to find a soft spot.

  9. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson
    Against people, improvised defence does work but there are some brutes out there that need to be killed promptly to avoid injury to the good people.
    Baton/nulla nulla class can do instant kill on a human. Just have to get close enough todo the strike.

    2x 30 cm rullers + 1 pencil eraser + tape/string and skill turns womerah to throw a 1 meter long ruler at force to a max of 150 meters with lethal force. Head or heart on human lethal. Yes there is a reason why we don’t have firearm at schools issues in Australia because every class room fairly much has the gear to make at least equal to a 1 shot gun with a percentage of students knowing how. Metre-sticks used as baton is in fact failing to use them in their most lethal form. Spear usage is Metre-sticks with improvised womerah is most lethal form. Basically class rooms have some quite powerful single shot ranged weapons in parts if you know what you are looking for and take less than 3 minutes to assemble and can be assembled while fleeing.

    Basically that is self defense knowledge. Someone has gun what to grab to build something of equal lethal force is handy skill to level the playing field..

    An angry bear takes a lot of killing. A baseball bat would not likely help. There have been many reports of inquisitive bears being discouraged by brooms and such but the angry close-in bear is a different matter. They are ~500kg bowling balls with claws and teeth. Must be killed when the time comes. Nothing kills as well as a powerful rifle at close range.
    Robert Pogson bears are something I have no knowledge of how much force is required. I would guess a powerful rifle at close range not hitting a critical point in bear would just make problem worse not better so still training before issue required.

    Other question is how did the natives deal with bears before guns. They had to have a method hopefully effective one. Bears might be something that makes having a gun critical. Of course that does not mean areas without Bears need guns.

    The womerah with spear usage goes back to when Australian Aborigines taking down megafauna creatures 3 to 4 times bigger than current day Bears in the USA so it is a serous way to get mega force behind a spear. In modern times the combination has been used to drop elephants that had gone rogue at circuses. Its a weapon combination never used in the USA and its not a gun. Experience with these make me question how critical is firearm access is. Is it a case we are going to firearm mostly because we have not researched the other options and are not skilled with the other options?

  10. dougman wrote, “Please cite one “factual” example.”

    Pick almost any serious war. The economy shifts to a war-footing and at the end suddenly $billions of stuff goes to scrap. There is a serious drop in GDP and few are producing regular consumers’ goods for years. e.g. The War On Drugs: millions of men are rotting in prison sometimes with life terms for possessing maryjane. WWII ended and for a time there was prosperity as “the men” returned home but at the same time many women returned to the kitchen where they contributed less to GDP. In the sixties when the women woke up there wasn’t enough work for everyone and unemployment and inflation killed people. At one time I was paying an 18% mortgage while being out of work for months. Tell me politicians didn’t do those things. He who ignores history is bound to repeat it.

  11. dougman wrote, “Harmless?!?…shes is a pathological liar, that is under current investigation by the FBI for being a threat to US National Security.”

    Nonsense. The FBI has not even questioned her. The FBI is investigating the possibility of insecure storage/transmission of classified documents. No one has found any. Oh, yes, they classified certain documents after the fact but that’s no basis for a charge. Hillary was doing what many others have done when moving from civilian life to government service. Even I did that. There’s no way I was going to use a crusty old bulletin-board mail service that my employer supplied when I had Gmail working smoothly. At one place I was ordered to use that service and just ignored it. What were they going to do fire all of us? If the US government wanted Hillary to use their servers and no others they should have required her to do that and they did not. The government systems handling classified stuff aren’t even on the Internet to send/receive e-mail. Do you think a lazy government servant would take the trouble to type stuff in or scan classified documents just for the convenience of e-mail? Get real. These folks don’t want to do any more work than necessary and they had many other means of communication: face to face, phone, and couriers. The e-mail system was not intended nor was it used for classified work, just asynchronous communication of the mundane kind.

  12. oiaohm wrote, “Lot of school shootings could have had reduced deaths if people had of used the baton classed weapons at their disposal. Basically don’t over look the old fashioned club.”

    Yep. Metre-sticks, fire-extinguishers and chairs all work pretty well inside a classroom.

    oiaohm also wrote, “I do completely question how required a firearm is for self defense.”

    Against people, improvised defence does work but there are some brutes out there that need to be killed promptly to avoid injury to the good people. Then there are bears. An angry bear takes a lot of killing. A baseball bat would not likely help. There have been many reports of inquisitive bears being discouraged by brooms and such but the angry close-in bear is a different matter. They are ~500kg bowling balls with claws and teeth. Must be killed when the time comes. Nothing kills as well as a powerful rifle at close range.

    I think the GOP is a party of crazies. They take seriously issues of little import to all normal people. Taking handguns to a crowded meeting hall is a recipe for disaster. In a panic, when one nut fires a shot many others might do the same with no means of sorting out “good guys” from “bad guys”. It’s not like a mugger coming into a bar full of off-duty police with a knife. It’s like a riot with rapid firing taking place. Also, in a crowd, a bullet may well kill/injure two or three people beyond the intended target if there is one. It makes no sense. If they want firearms for security at a convention they should use properly trained and armed security types at key positions and snipers up high where they have a clear view and a good backstop, the floor/walls, not random folks with semi-auto pistols and 15-round magazines.

  13. oiaohm says:

    Ownership of firearms doesn’t mean “closet murderer”. Some people like sports involving firearms and some people living in remote areas need protection because the police very rarely steps by their properties. My grandparent from my dad’s side had a single barrel shotgun for home protection.

    kurkosdr note the thing here self protection normally does not equal full-automatic weapons. Sports involving firearms normally don’t equal automatic weapons exactly what is sport spraying ammo all over the place.

    Self protection also require being trained so that you can aim at a target and in fact hit the target you are aiming at.

    kurkosdr gun own-ship is a true double sided sword. Old saying everything in moderation.

    Mil forces around the word have reduce own solider death rates by giving their soldiers 3 shot burst only weapons for ground fighting and restricting full-automatic weapons to air to air and ground to air. So it basically impossible to make a valid arguement of self defense for an full-automatic firearm. Semi-automatic you can make arguement. Semi-automatic with 3 shot burst limit is vastly better self defense weapon then full-automatic firearm.

    Next there is another problem what kinda makes firearm licensing make sense. In a gun fight the first to get a critical hit wins. So if you are not skilled at hitting target with a firearm you are better to run and hide or use something like a baseball bat as both will have a higher probability of living. So firearm licensing like car licensing were you have to do target shooting to confirm skill is a good thing.

    “You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
    Know when to fold ’em
    Know when to walk away
    And know when to run”
    Kenny Rogers – The Gambler
    Yes this song about old wild west style poker games applies to combat. Its your 4 basic choices.
    1) Hold ground
    2) Surrender ground
    3) Tactical retreat.
    4) Flee

    French resistance inside building fighting would just use batons. 1 silent. 2 person smartly kept out of line of site so was not getting shot at that much. Yes a skilled surprise attack with a baton is a 1 hit kill. Baton class weapons are simpler to find than a firearm.

    This is one of the sad realities of firearm for self defense. Person runs past baton/blade class weapons attempt to get hands on firearm or stands ground because they have firearm when they should be tactically retreating or fleeing unarmed because they have failed to take baton/’blade class weapons so have nothing to use when then stumble onto the a attacker. All these result in person ends up dead in a self defense event when they did not have to be.

    Lot of school shootings could have had reduced deaths if people had of used the baton classed weapons at their disposal. Basically don’t over look the old fashioned club. Might not have the range of a firearm but correctly used at close range equally lethal.

    Self defense arguement for firearm ownership is in fact highly questionable. Self defense training in using generic items is more likely to keep you alive than having a firearm. Remember something like a baton is a multi use weapon that does not run out of ammo. Firearm is reduced to a baton when you run out of ammo. So no point having a Firearm for self defense without baton skills and having other ammo not dependent tactics on hand. Remember person with gun with ammo is likely to shot the person holding a gun without ammo before shotting the person holding baton even that both are equal lethality risk.

    Remember staying alive is like the 2 people out running a bear. You don’t have to be faster than the bear you only have to be faster than the other person you are competing against for life. Self defense is greedy.

    Firearm ownership rates around the world show no correlation with the odds of being robbed or killed. Areas with higher self defense training with or without guns show lower odds of being robbed. Like countries with 1 year mandatory mil service and training have lower robbery and murder rates. This is the problem numbers

    kurkosdr remember remote area equals limited ability to resupply ammo for guns.

    remote areas need protection I have lived in remote areas. Skilled at making and using bows and arrows, slingshots and spears. So I have multi ranges weapons on top of firearms I can use. Yes all of them can do 1 hit kill. So me without firearm ability to protect self is only minor-ally effected. Now a person not as broadly trained its totally a different matter. Most of the non firearm ranged weapons I have training in I can make from materials I can find almost anywhere.

    Basically with my training I do completely question how required a firearm is for self defense. More see training as vastly more important as a firearm/bow/… without training is fairly close to worthless from a self defense point of view.

  14. dougman says:

    Re: I don’t know why they hate Hillary so much. She’s relatively harmless compared to Trump.

    Harmless?!?…shes is a pathological liar, that is under current investigation by the FBI for being a threat to US National Security.

  15. dougman says:

    Re: Sure, they do. Recipe:

    Hypothetical. Please cite one “factual” example.

  16. kurkosdr says:

    “ISTR Republicans hate Hillary and love firearms. ”

    And I like cars and hate some people. I won’t run over those people though.

    Ownership of firearms doesn’t mean “closet murderer”. Some people like sports involving firearms and some people living in remote areas need protection because the police very rarely steps by their properties. My grandparent from my dad’s side had a single barrel shotgun for home protection. He lived in a small village in Northern Greece, and when the soviet bloc collapsed and the borders of those countries opened, crime rates in villages of Northern Greece went through the roof, so gun ownership for home protection was a good thing. Of course, the police never passed once outside his home.

    And anyway, murdering Hilary or Bernie Chavez would only make them heroes genius…

  17. kurkosdr wrote, “Huh?”

    ISTR Republicans hate Hillary and love firearms. They are even wanting to “pack heat” when they go to their convention this summer. I don’t know why they hate Hillary so much. She’s relatively harmless compared to Trump. Oh well, they do God’s work one way or another.

    Oh, and they probably hate Bernie even more because of his “socialist” label.

  18. kurkosdr says:

    ” It might also reduce the chances of any Republican trying to assassinate her.”

    Huh?

  19. dougman wrote, “No President, past, present or future, trigger recessions”.

    Sure, they do. Recipe: Start a very expensive war, divert the country’s industry to the war machine and then declare peace has broken out. Instant depression. You could also declare all international trade and defence agreements null and void until you, the great negotiator, make new ones “in USA’s best interests”. Instant depression as trade drops by ~30%, investors flee and the price of gold rises. Start a civil war against any group or region of the country you like. Instant depression.

    The terrifying thing about a Trump presidency is that he might make the country so “Great” that he does all three of the above crimes simultaneously to destroy the country.

  20. kurkosdr wrote, “Hilary of Bernie Chavez (Sanders)”.

    Bernie is doing so well I suspect Hillary might make him her VP… I think that could maximize her vote across the country and whip Trump + anyone else. It might also reduce the chances of any Republican trying to assassinate her.

  21. kurkosdr says:

    By “is good at communication and in winning PR” I meant he is a sort of populist, but not the cookie-cutter variety like Obama was.

    And of course Trump wouldn’t make a good president, for all the reasons you mentioned and then some more, so of course he won’t become president. Which means if he leads the Republicans, they are in for a defeat and the next president will be Hilary of Bernie Chavez (Sanders). You couldn’t come up with a better definition of grim choices if you wanted to. So, I it’s better if the Republicans manage to stop Trump.

    But still, the anti-PC, be-blunt-and-proud-for-it mark he left on American politics will not go down with him, that’s my point…

  22. dougman says:

    No President, past, present or future, trigger recessions. The FEDERAL RESERVE handles and controls that.

  23. dougman says:

    No President, past, present or future, can break the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.

  24. kurkosdr wrote, “Trump (which is good at communication and in winning PR”.

    I don’t see that. I see a guy revealing that he has no plan and wants to “wing it”, takes up variable positions depending on which way the wind is blowing and one who is OK with breaking longstanding agreements like US Constitutions, NAFTA, NATO, you know, stuff that actually is working. If he became POTUS it would be a huge piece of negative PR for the whole country and could trigger recession as all those whose jobs depend on exports being laid off for want of markets. He’s also a terrible communicator because the rabble are supporting him because he communicated at Grade 5 level and no one with a college education can understand any rational way forward with his chaotic non-plans. I wouldn’t put him in charge of a single garbage dump let alone USAian government. If he started to build a wall around the dump, he could simply be fired and work stopped but if he had four years messing with USA he could do a lot of damage, say, start a civil war or shut down most manufacturing and agriculture. e.g. He said he would bring Ford into line for exporting USAian jobs but Ford sent him a note stating they have no intention of exporting jobs. They are just growing local markets around the globe as they are supposed/required to do.

  25. kurkosdr says:

    which is good = who is good

  26. kurkosdr says:

    A known liar? or a businessman?

    Those two aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. BTW, I am surprised by the current options the American public has when it comes to political personnel. There is Trump (which is good at communication and in winning PR but seeing him president? no comment), Hillary who slept her way to power, lied habitually and kept state secrets in private computing devices and then there is Alexis Tsipras… err… Bernie Sanders.

    Talk about decadence…

  27. kurkosdr says:

    Passing legislation based on merits rather than 50%+1 votes

    What “merits” exactly? And how is that compatible with the “one person, one vote” rule that’s the foundational principle of every legitimate election process?

  28. dougman says:

    Given a choice, which would you pick?

    A known liar? or a businessman?

  29. kurkosdr wrote, “He has left his mark on American (if not Western) politics forever. He showed everybody that in this day and age where the political correctness of the talking heads of TV is being replaced by Facebook and the internet in general, you can be politically correct, if not a tiny bit incivil, and it will be ok, or it will even give you point for being direct and bluntly honest.”/span>

    There may be some truth to that but I cling to the values of much of humanity: treat others as you would have them treat you and the world will be a better place than what the Trumpists of the world offer, lies, more lies and bigger lies told more often. I suspect Trump has zero intention of delivering on any of his promises so he is worse than many “regular” politicians, more dangerous and more disappointing. It would almost be worth it to see him become prez. It would be an eye-opener for many of the blind sheep. Of course, it’s not only Trump’s fault. Politicians have done much to undermine their credibility. The 2-party system protects them. A choice between two monopolies is still a monopoly situation. USA needs third and fourth and fifth parties to house all the facets of political life. Passing legislation based on merits rather than 50%+1 votes somewhere is what is needed, not a bastard in the Whitehouse.

  30. kurkosdr says:

    you can be politically correct = you can be politically incorrect

  31. kurkosdr says:

    This is what you don’t get. Even if Trump doesn’t become president (which is probably what will happen), it doesn’t matter. He has left his mark on American (if not Western) politics forever. He showed everybody that in this day and age where the political correctness of the talking heads of TV is being replaced by Facebook and the internet in general, you can be politically correct, if not a tiny bit incivil, and it will be ok, or it will even give you point for being direct and bluntly honest. And I like that. Remember how Obama publicly apologized and almost supplicated to Sarah Palin for forgiveness for supposedly calling her a pig? Yeah… No politician will do that ever again. Good.

    Trump will probably still not become president though, because he is not president material.

  32. kurkosdr wrote, “Political correctness is dead.”

    In Trump’s fevered mind that may be true but in the general population most humans want civility and are disgusted by Trump. People may watch him just as they could not turn away from a train-wreck but they are not going to put him in charge of anything nor invite him into their homes to indoctrinate their children in incivility.

  33. kurkosdr wrote, “All the Pogs of this world who bang on their keyboards to write posts in their blogs to the tune of “look that offensive statement Trump made!” are giving Trump free PR.”

    Yes, that’s positive PR for the fraction of voters who are angry and irrational but apparently they are less than 50% of general voters and way less than 50% for women. Trump only occasionally gets more than 50% of voters in these caucuses/votes for nomination. He has all the PR in the world on national networks so a few bloggers don’t make any difference. His fans become ever more excited while the general population becomes ever more disgusted. Hitler had huge turnouts too but Hitler had more than 50% of fanbase. Trump does not.

    Among Republicans, ORC scores Trump at 47%. That’s Republicans plus independents leaning to Republicans. Only 41% of general voters would vote for Trump, and that’s from a poll before he ticked off lots of women again. Hint: That’s not enough to win election even though anything could happen at the convention. The delegates chosen in the primaries will get to decide if they trust Trump or not. Less than 50% trust Trump so he’s not likely the one. Cruz is liked more but I expect Kasich will be chosen as the one less hated by the majority. Further, an independent who is digusted by Trump will be a lot less likely to vote for a Republican for Congress. Trump will not be able to do much in the way of legislation without Republicans holding the Senate.

  34. kurkosdr says:

    I agree with JD on one thing: Political correctness is dead. Hooray! Thank you internet and social media!

    All the Pogs of this world who bang on their keyboards to write posts in their blogs to the tune of “look that offensive statement Trump made!” are giving Trump free PR. Same for those leftards who blocked public highways so people could not go to Trump’s speech… Jokes like “Trump should have named his speech a job fair… Nobody of those idiots would have shown up” immediately flew around Facebook. This is free PR. Same for that leftard guy in the pointy KKK hat who got his ass beaten by a black person (lololol). More free PR for Trump!

    And on the topic of Feminism, even women are starting to get sick of feminism. For example, a woman who is sick and tired of western men having “commitment issues” probably isn’t to fond of the idea of having to defend another woman who left her husbang for the delivery boy because “feminist solidarity” or something. Also, it’s too much feminism in western women that caused well-off men who can provide for a woman to turn to Eastern European women for marriage… And western women know that…

  35. dougman says:

    Re: at what cost?

    Obviously nothing to the real owners of the U.S., it’s all according to plan.

  36. JD says:

    Maybe. But at what cost?

  37. dougman says:

    Re: So far Trump is the only guy who has been able to prove he isn’t ‘owned’ by the oligarchs.

    And that is mainly why Hillary will win.

  38. JD says:

    Please. In case you missed it, Cruz’s side started the whole thing by posting a nude of Trump’s wife from her model days, but when confronted, denied it in typical Lyin’ Cruz style. It’s OK for him to attack a woman that way, but not OK for Trump to post a picture of Ted’s wife’s face?

    So far Trump is the only guy who has been able to prove he isn’t ‘owned’ by the oligarchs. Lyn’ Cruz tried to portray himself that way too, but now that Jeb, Romney et all have publicly endorsed Cruz, expect what remaining support he has from the voters to nose dive. People don’t want more of the same. They have suffered enough under Owebama’s dictatorship, and are ready for the hope and change he promised but never delivered. They know Trump (or Sanders, God forbid) is their only hope for real change.

    People are sick and tired of the stupid political correctness bullshit. They don’t like having to fold as soon as a woman like crazy megyn baselessly accuses them of being a racist, misogynist or any other ist. They vote for Trump exactly because he doesn’t kneel over and start kissing her ass as soon as she fires a lie at him, like every other male who went through our feminist dominated education system has been programmed to.

    By voting Hillary in, a traind dog that is kept on a leash, and exists solely to do tricks for her master’s is exactly what you would get. Do you think you or I would have escaped the slammer for so long, if we were found to have state secret emails on our private servers? I guess some people are more equal than others, and the law doesn’t apply to them, especially when they possess a vagina.

    I know we aren’t going to convince eash other sir, and we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I know you want someone who won’t upset the apple cart in your golden years, and I respect and understand your position. But people only get the government they deserve. And I think the American people deserve someone better that a grandma who’s only claim to fame is getting married to Monica Lewinsky’s ex boyfriend.

Leave a Reply