Chuckle! Hoo! Hah! Trump Support Backfires!

“The founder of Latinos For Trump has been widely mocked for warning of a future with "taco trucks on every corner" in the US if Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election.”
 
See US Election: Trump backer’s Taco warning if Clinton wins
I’m not really sure what a taco is, but I’m pretty sure it’s a kind of sandwich, a combination of bread and other stuff in a unit. I love sandwiches. I’ve rarely seen one I didn’t like. I want to patent toasted whole wheat with mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato, onions, mushrooms and cheese sprinkled with garlic and pepper.

I think it’s great that Trump is warning about delicious sandwiches on every corner if Hillary wins. I think that’s a great endorsement of liberal values. I love it. Trump made my day. It was looking like nothing but hot dry wind until I read that…

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 food, politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Chuckle! Hoo! Hah! Trump Support Backfires!

  1. dougman says:

    “So then all of your posts are nothing more than trolling to get a reaction out of Robert Pogson, eh?”

    Don’t you like fishing?

  2. kurkosdr says:

    I think it’s great that Trump is warning about delicious sandwiches on every corner if Hillary wins.

    Do people buy food from the street? If yes, I have a question for you: If food falls on the floor, do you really think he will waste his precious supply of water to wash it (well)?

    Maybe yes, maybe not. Are you willing to bet?

  3. oiaohm says:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/kaine-muffs-trump-nixon-comparison/

    dougman if you had followed factcheck for a while you would have noticed at times factcheck is on trumps side when the evidence exists that a statement is wrong.

    So claiming factcheck.org is bias for or against Trump or Hillary based on the posts factcheck.org has done.

    The reality is factcheck.org does exactly what the say they do produce a list of valid documents about what ever either side as said and then sees if it matches up.

    So the fact dougman just made this mistake means he does not have a clue and just wants to keep on believing garbage.

    Only reason factcheck.org process would be wrong is if you are talking quite a major cover up with no valid source documents to confirm against only fake documents in existence.

    So dougman if you believe factcheck.org is wrong you must also believe the information on the public records is wrong. Trump has the most corrections on factcheck.org because most of the time you go to the source documents and what he said is wrong. With Hillary most of the stuff She has said if you go to source documents is correct.

    A person does not work as a Secretary of State or equal without learning how to do a distorted point of view while only using facts. Trump camp is just no where near as skilled and it shows in how many fact errors they are using. There is no need to use lies to put forward a distorted point of view. In fact using lies really just shows Trump camp is super lazy and if they do this in international relations it will cause nightmares.

    Factcheck.org does not check if someone is using facts to display a distorted point of view only that someone is too lazy to do their research to use valid facts.

  4. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “I even stated that Hillary is to be the next president.”

    So then all of your posts are nothing more than trolling to get a reaction out of Robert Pogson, eh?

  5. dougman wrote, “I am not voting for either. I vote NONE OF THE ABOVE!”

    That’s a viable choice, especially this year. Unfortunately, not voting for Hillary might ensure Trump wins. He won the R’s nomination with ~40% of the vote, meaning 60% opposed him. That’s a violation of one man one vote thanks to “winner takes all” states. The “two party system” guarantees that new ideas can be suppressed. We should vote for third parties. I’ve considered that the last two Canadian elections but my favourite topic, firearms, was not properly addressed by the smaller parties. I’d vote Green, myself, if they acknowledged the soundness of FLOSS in government and were respectful of firearms owners. I understand that cities may not benefit from a firearm in every home but rural folks sure do for food and protection. City folks can get 3 minute response to 911 calls but rural folks may have to wait days in remote areas, because of distance and weather. City folks can shop at Safeway while folks in remote areas can go hungry if planes don’t land. Bears in most parts of Canada and cougars in a few parts are definitely good reasons to own firearms. People should be able to live off the land wherein they live. These are fundamental rights the Greens don’t seem to care about. I do love trees and flowers and bees and birds though. The Greens need to broaden their appeal to more than tree-huggers to be relevant.

  6. The Wiz wrote, “Voting for trump is as far as I am concerned not in my best interest as I see it. Voting for Hillary Clinton, warts and all – is.”

    It used to be true that to become POTUS, one needed to have lots of friends/money. It is unfortunate that these two have both. It’s like choosing the leader of a gang by the number and seriousness of their criminal record. I too agree that Hillary is the lesser of two evils. Hillary taking care of her friends is less a problem than Trump taking care of his enemies… On the bright side we can probably predict how Hillary’s White House will function. With Trump there’s no limit to how bad things can get. We expect Hillary might feather her nest but she will also help ordinary folks get ahead. Know one knows, probably not even Trump, what Trump would do. He might launch nukes in the middle of the night and regret it the next day. Building a wall is a huge waste of funds better spent on roads, bridges and airports. Deporting millions ASAP is also a huge waste of resources. Has he made a budget for that? I can see >100K police being needed to work for years to do that, $billions wasted for zero benefit.

    Fortunately, both of these folks are aged and may not survive to a second term. Evil tyrants are somewhat self-limiting that way even if the system breaks down and appoints them in charge.

    I think the best outcome for this election would be for Hillary to have Congress supporting her platform so she might actually introduce universal medical care to take care of the poor and the vets, less expensive education, and reasonable immigration and trading policies. I will bet she learned from Obama’s mistakes in his first term and get the job done. I have no idea what Hillary would do about SCOTUS but I’d bet she would not nominate another Scalia and might actually put a few more women in charge. I’m sure Hillary is able to manage relations with the Middle East better than Obama who spent months making decisions that were overdue and eventually wrong. I’m sure Trump would make just about every international situation worse.

  7. dougman says:

    I even stated that Hillary is to be the next president.

    http://mrpogson.com/2016/02/24/2016-gop-rip/#comment-335807

  8. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “Obviously you are not aware that the “Fact Check” Site is funded by a biased political group”

    Everyone has a bias Dougie. My bias is towards my own best interest. Voting for trump is as far as I am concerned not in my best interest as I see it. Voting for Hillary Clinton, warts and all – is.

  9. dougman says:

    The wizard quotes factcheck.org? Golly, you’re just as bad as Hamster.

    Obviously you are not aware that the “Fact Check” Site is funded by a biased political group

    So if someone wanted to use a devious method to deceive people who are trying to differentiate between truth and lies on the Internet how would you do it? If you were extremely devious and had no conscience, you might set up a Web site with some official and unbiased sounding name that claims to be the encyclopedia of truth to be used as a tool for anyone who has the same biased view and wants to make believe to “back it up” with what they would like you to think is “indisputable fact.”

    That is exactly what Web sites like factcheck.org are. They are biased, politically motivated propaganda Web sites, manned and funded by biased political organizations who set up the sites for the sole purpose of deviously “backing up” the political arguments of those who hold the same views that they do. It’s kind of like you have a friend who is in on your lie, and you use him to back up your story and don’t tell anyone else he is your friend.

    Eh.

  10. dougman says:

    I am not voting for either. I vote NONE OF THE ABOVE!

  11. Wizard Emeritus says:

    Dougie, Dougie, Dougie…
    You might have wanted to do some looking under the covers about this particular item

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash

    “In May 2016, a film adaptation of the book, funded by co-founder of Government Accountability Institute and Breitbart News executive chairman Stephen Bannon, was screened at the Cannes Film Festival.[1][2]”

    And what is Mr. Bannon dong now, Dougie? More interesting though is.

    “Several weeks after the book’s initial publication, Harper Collins and the author made several corrections to the Kindle edition of the book. Schweizer corrected “seven or eight” passages that were revealed to be inaccurate after the book was released.[6] FactCheck.org found Schweizer’s assertion that Clinton, as Secretary of State, could have stopped Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. to be false.[15] PunditFact found the assertion that Clinton changed her views on a nuclear deal with India in response to donations to her family’s foundation to be false”

    Yet another in what can reasonably be seen as a long line of inept hatchet jobs done against the Clintons.

    But of course since you are rooting for La Donald, you probably dont care right now.

    you may want to look at this…

    http://www.indiewire.com/2011/05/lies-goons-and-eco-destruction-new-doc-shows-life-under-donald-trump-54268/

    and this…

    http://www.indiewire.com/2015/08/watch-the-secrets-of-donald-trump-are-exposed-in-resurrected-documentary-whats-the-deal-59752/

    Of course you will LOL and roll your eyes and make insulting manipulations of our nyms (I do admit I like “Ham-Bone” though – good job that Dougie!) and deny it.

    The problem is that only those of us who have lived where La Donald does his “work” know who and what he is.

    And we are not going to be stupid enough to cut our own throats by voting for him.

  12. dougman says:

    “You might not like Hillary Clinton dougman but she is no where near the double standard that Trump is.”

    LOL, you are an idiot. Watch the video below.

    “Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with over $2 billion in donations to their foundation. This wealth was accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as US Secretary of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td2pyyCau30

  13. oiaohm says:

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17705-obama-presses-north-american-union-with-mexico-canada

    dougman yes the first stages of making a north American union have been done.

    Good thing Trump opposes such globalism.
    Maybe Trump does not what to have to pay Mexican workers full wages. This is the thing if Mexican workers in the USA change from illegal to legal workers under paying them will be off the table and this could be bad for Trump.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/3725/did-donald-trump-use-illegal-labor-yup-michael-qazvini

    You might not like Hillary Clinton dougman but she is no where near the double standard that Trump is. Trump is documented using illegal workers over and over again to get out of having to pay proper wages. So of course Trump opposes the idea of North American Union as this would reduce the supply of illegal workers in the USA quite massively.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

    Very interested read most illegal workers in the USA work in the Construction Industry. Also Mexico as it becoming a better place less of them are wanting to cross the boarder. Of course the criminal people traffickers are now filling there quotas by getting people from other countries in the Americas.

    Also dougman go look up “Alta California” so what is California and a few other states of the USA state today was a single State of Mexico. This is why it makes so much sense to form a proper USA-Mexico union it puts a historic dispute to bed and reduced width of boarder to protect from tunnels and gets on top of large percent of illegal immigration and able to get way more pro-active in anti-drug activities. Now when you start attempting to list downsides there are not many. Big one is people like trump will not have access to as much cheep illegal labour.

    The interesting part is most illegal Mexican immigration into the USA stay in the Alta California area the area they have a historic claim to. So maybe some areas of the USA should look more Mexician. The problem with people having a historic claim to an area is crossing the boarder to work in that area illegal or not they will fell they are in the right. So attempting to stop Mexicians crossing the boarder is basically impossible if you cannot stop them let them cross legally so they pay taxes and get paid correctly.

    Really I see Trumps stand over Mexician immigration as more of a way to maintain a supply of cheep workers because he does not want to pay USA workers level of wages that would be required if Mexicians were no longer illegal.

    Mexician immigration rates do partly align with how bad Mexico is to live in due to drug crimes and other things. So yes USA-Mexico agreements to allow more effective law enforcement would also slow down number of Mexician immigrates.

    I can see why trump would be wanting to build a wall. Yes where trump is wanting to built a wall between the USA and Mexico is really no different to the wall splitting east and west Germany and we all know what happened to that long term. Yes the USA Mexico boarder is really the same problem as the boarder between east and west Germany so is very hard to defend.

  14. dougman says:

    Canada – America – Mexico constitute the North American Union, in a partnership utilizing the Amero currency, mimicking the EU.

    Good thing Trump opposes such globalism.

    Eh.

  15. oiaohm says:

    dougman illegal immigration threats American way of life in many and it not food stands. The fact USA has a lower disease load than Mexico would be a fairly valid reason to want to shut the boarder to prevent those crossing without medical inspections. It also say you want to in fact start disease prevention in those countries.

    Trump idea build a wall is kinda already failed.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/800-yard-long-drug-tunnel-found-between-mexico-and-united-states/
    Reality is the Mexico criminals have got to the point of building tunnels. So making physical barriers that will stop Mexico criminals will be very limited.

    Now if you cannot make physical barriers the next question is there ways to make law enforcement more effective.

    Something to consider here if USA could make Mexico an offer to be a USA state and they accepted USA would have a lot smaller land boarder to deal with and be able to bring USA force against the worse Mexico criminals without worry about act of war.

    You cannot stop illegal immigration into the USA while you cannot stop illegal well funded and equip drug trafficking across the boarder.

  16. dougman wrote, “If illegal immigration is not quelled, then it will disrupt the American way of life.”

    The USAian way of life has been written in blood: first the aborigines were killed off, then the Spaniards, then they attacked Canada to no effect, and when there were no enemies to kill off they killed each other in uncivil war, crime, organized crime, and now drug wars. I can’t see any immigrants, legal or otherwise making much of a dent. Trump is waxing eloquent about crimes committed by immigrants while ignoring the vastly larger numbers of crimes committed by ordinary criminals and USAian police and various arms of government.

    USA is a land of immigrants. Immigration has been very good for USA. Only Trumpists think otherwise. Immigrants buy stuff. They are consumers. Immigrants make stuff. They are workers and small business people. Immigrants speak foreign languages and are assets for businesses selling products worldwide. Immigrants pay taxes directly and indirectly. They would pay more if they were issued ID-cards.

    Trump wants to “filter” immigrants. It could be said that anyone willing to make a dangerous journey to come to USA is potentially a greater asset than lazy USAians who sit around watching Trump on TV all day. Immigrants are entrepreneurial risk-takers. Embrace them.

  17. dougman says:

    “I think it’s great that Trump is warning about delicious sandwiches on every corner ”

    Trump didn’t say it, only you would misconstrue it that way. I agree, it wasn’t the best of analogies, but the message rings true. If illegal immigration is not quelled, then it will disrupt the American way of life.

    There is a reason that illegals want to come to America so bad, we have the best country in the world!

Leave a Reply