2nd Amendment Conditional Clause

This is what the 2nd would look like if the first part was conditional:

As long as Sally agrees that, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, then and only then shall the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not be infringed.

What it really has is:

A statement of fact: You may disagree that it is a fact, but it is intended to state something they thought was obvious:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

Followed by a rule:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Quoting Niemoller

First they came for the pro-life activists, and I did not speak out--because I was pro-choice.

Then they came for the Tea Party, and I did not speak out--because I did not agree that we are "taxed enough already"

Then they came for the Little Sisters of the Poor, and I did not speak out--because I really have no problem with government forcing people to participate in things that they (foolishly but sincerely) believe are evil.

But now I quote Niemoller in the hopes you will vote for the people who did all of these things.

Okay People, Get a Grip

Having spent the weekend on a fairly liberal US University campus--Parent's weekend, LOL, there really wasn't much commotion. Other than posters all over the place, all promoting exactly the side one would expect them to promote, the place was very quiet.

For those outraged by it all, here are a few facts:

A conservative justice was replaced by...a conservative justice. What!

1. Yes, it is true: Anthony Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan and sure, he was a swing vote on some key cases, but (and this is really important) he chose to retire while Trump was president.

2. What did you expect would happen? Republicans control the Senate and the White House. Did you think they would put a liberal into the Supreme Court?

3. "But Kavanaugh is a rapist"! is what I have heard many times from opponents of the pick.

"How do you know that"? I ask.

They always reply, "Women don't lie about things like that"

"Really"? "There are exactly two people on the planet who know what happened, Ford and Kavanaugh".

"This is true". They will reluctantly agree. "And yet you are a woman, who stated with some degree of certainty just now, that a man you never met is a rapist". Are you still sure women never lie?

College Days

Scene: A teen aged boy is in his dorm room at Yale. The only illumination is a desk lamp, by the lamp, in the light, is a US History book. Brett Kavanaugh is outlining chapters.

There is a knock on the door:

Brett: Enter! The door is open.

Mike (a friend who is also in the history course) enters: Still studying for that quiz on Monday?

Brett: I'm not sure why I am bothering, I studied with Steve Kantrowitz a couple of days ago and I think I have it all down.

Mike: Yeah Steve is really into history, I bet he will end up majoring in it.

They both laugh dismissively.

Mike: So Brett, were you messing with Steve?

Brett: Of course, always. But what do you mean specifically?

Mike: He said that you, quote: are a "deflowerer of multitudes".

Brett: Y'know that old Robert Heinlein saying about lying by telling the truth unconvincingly?

Mike: Yeah, I remember you mentioning it sometime...

Brett: Well, I've been experimenting with telling a lie, so outrageously, that the person has no excuse for not knowing it is a lie. It's my attempt at humor.

Mike: Well, I think Steve is dense: He is repeating the story and is acting like you're some sort of God, and not a Man, here at Yale.

Brett: Snort! Save the comedy for the professionals, Mike. I will let Steve continue in his obtuse way, he will probably end up a history professor at some Midwestern state U. He will never need a functional BS detector.

End of scene.
‏

The Mind, She Do Wander...

A few days back, the car radio had on a Chicago tune and I only heard snippets of it but when I got the chance I looked it up and played it: Make Me Smile

Children play in the park, they don't know
I'm alone in the dark, even though
Time and time again I see your face smiling inside

I'm so happy
That you love me
Life is lovely
When you're near me
Tell me you will stay
Make me smile

Go to YouTube or Spotify and play it. You will thank me.

This came out in 1970. The 1970's come in for a lot of well-deserved ragging due to, just about everything. But the music from that decade was phenomenal! Established bands like The Rolling Stones, The Who and Led Zeppelin came out with much of their best work--in the latter case, the vast majority of their total output was in that decade. Variety too: Steely Dan got started and put out at least 90% of their best work and punk got its start, which spawned new wave and alternative.

People often remember Chicago as the epitome of soft rock, which they arguably became--sometime in the 1980's. Anyway, if you listened to the song, like I suggested, you will hear heart and edge and trumpet. They are a trumpet playing band and they are rock and roll in 1970!


Which naturally made me think of Dire Straits:

And a crowd of young boys, they're fooling around in the corner,
Drunk and dressed in their best brown baggies and their platform soles.
They don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band.
It ain't what they call rock and roll.
And the Sultans,
Yes the Sultans play Creole.
Creole baby

Mark Knopfler was not thinking of Chicago when he wrote the song, but I can't help but think of them.

Added: There is an interesting dialectic going on in the Sultans of Swing On one hand, they are making fun of a dowdy jazz band with that name. But in the song, Knopfler sings in first person:

"We are the Sultans,
"We are the Sultans of Swing."

So, they are not rock and roll, but they are--because we hear Dire Straits playing. And yet they are a trumpet playing band but no trumpets are being played in the song.

Makes my head spin.

Twilight Of The Idols.

Every once in a while, you are watching when something historic happens: An unseeded player beats a living legend. It is tough, but inevitable. Maybe the younger player thinks, "could I have beaten him in his prime"? The veteran may be thinking along the same lines, but sucks it up and is gracious in defeat.

What to make then of the fiasco that was the Ladies US Open final?

Osaka gushed about how she loves Serena in the post-semi final interview. All her life, Ms. Williams was a legend. In the match, Osaka was better, she won the first set and was even in the 2nd. Then Serena had an epic melt down. It is one thing to see your idol defeated, age takes us all, but to see her act so classless. Wow!

This was no tennis god, she was all too Human.

Not in a good way!

I Am Not Okay With The Assault On Clear Communication

The thing is, I don't think it is an assault on debate per se. It is more of a, we want certain things and the fact that it harms clear communication does not matter.

Well, I am here to say it does matter. The term "homophobic" is a great example: It is a term that on the surface is used to stand in for anti-gay bigotry. And even if that is all it ever was, is still pretty bad. Bigotry and intolerance are moral failures not forms of mental illness! But of course, it has gone much, much further than that. It has become a way of calling whoever is against the latest thing--Don't ask don't tell, civil unions, gay marriage, trans-gender rights--a bigot. It is a weapon which stands in the way of making useful distinctions. To my way of thinking, anyone who uses the term unironically, is telegraphing that they are a simpleton and it is a waste of time debating them. Or, they are cynically using language as a cudgel rather than having to engage in the work of using reason to change minds.

There are lots of others:

Illegal Alien. A simple term, which means exactly what it says. We can't have that! It makes too clear, the distinction between legal aliens, like tourists, foreign students, legal resident aliens, etc. And people who came here without such permissions. The thing is, the replacement phrases are inexact mush. Undocumented Immigrant. The first word is wrong in a couple of ways. It assumes that they could have been documented and possibly will be and brushes-off the fact that they are in violation of the law. And second, maybe a lot of them are wanna-be immigrants but surely not all of them plan on staying for ever. Illegal alien makes no such assumptions--you are here illegally, we neither know nor care what your plans are

African American: Semi-Okay, but it does lead to hijinks when referring to say a black German or to a white person who immigrated from Africa to the US, etc. Otherwise, it is much like saying Italian-American. The thing is that most people don't use that kind of term once they are pretty far removed from the immigration. Both of my grandparents on my father's side,came from Italy. I sometimes say I'm half Italian, never Italian-American. Black Americans have been here significantly longer.

The okay hand-sign: I have to put my foot down. The okay sign meaning white power was a hoax--you can look it up. Now they are going to take away, what? One of the two or three hand signs that are not vulgar?

Added: And don't even get me started with how my kids (and presumably their coevals) use the word "literally". Suffice it to say, they use it in place of "figuratively". I acknowledge that this has become common, but reject its use on the grounds that there is no good substitute for "literally" which has the original meaning.

Don't Deserve To Drive A BMW And (apparently) Have Little Use For Rear-View Mirror

BMW claims to be, "The ultimate driving machine" and while I haven't driven one in a while, they are very good. When I owned one, I felt a responsibility to drive it rigorously. Naturally, mine was a stick-shift. I looked at BMW when I went to replace the one I had and the salesman indicated that most of what they sell now are automatics and then gave me some malarkey about how they are actually faster and more efficient than manuals now. Well, I like the fastness but the reason for owning a car like that is to be engaged while driving.

On the way home from work, I fell-in behind a new BMW. This alone was not a gripe, since the speed limit on that road is a ridiculous 30 MPH and I usually go between 35 and 40. So, the BMW driver could have been going the speed limit and I would have caught up to him. Once I got behind him, I noted his speed at 20-25.

He gradually stopped at an intersection. The side-roads had stop signs, but the main road we were on did not, so there was no reason to stop. He didn't signal, but kind of angled to the right--like he wasn't sure if he was supposed to turn here or maybe the next side road.

I wasn't going to just sit behind him while he figured out how to dislodge his thumb, so I swung widely around him on the left to pass. There was no oncoming traffic and he was clearly a moron, so even though I thought he would go right, it seemed best to give wide berth. Good thing I did: As soon as I was abreast of him, he started forward and to the left. I gunned it and swung further left, avoiding a collision.

Two notes: As I continued on, I looked in my rear-view and saw that he had no turn signals going and was stopped in the middle of the intersection. The road has no lines and no signage, indicating that it is legal to pass.

Final note: I was driving a GMC Yukon XL and always have my headlights on. How do you not see that in your rear-view mirror?

Gell-Mann And The So Called Conclusions Of The Intelligence Community

17 Intellegence agencies all conluded...let me stop you right there champ:

The Myth That 17 Intelligence Agencies Were Involved In Russian Interference Analysis Will Not Die

Okay, maybe it was only 4:

the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

The report itself is here, if you care to read the whole thing. The most important fact is on the first page and I will just spoil the surprise:

"6 January 2017"

Just in case you don't remember: Trump was inagurated on the 20th of Jan, 2017. So, two weeks before it was too late: Obama holdovers drop a stink-bomb on the president elect. And we believe this is solid, why?

First of all, they lied that 17 agencies all came this conclusion. Second, the Obama administration politicized pretty much every agency in the federal government:

The IRS: IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups

The FBI:

a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.

The EPA:

Etc. It is like, we all know that every agency was doing the bidding of the administration and yet we somehow have full-faith in a document dumped on us by the outgoing gang?

I'm not buying it.

Added: JustOneMinute gets it perfectly:

Try to set aside the cognitive dissonance of watching the Blame America First crowd pose as uber-hawks. Try to ignore the years of "Bush lied, people died" morphing into "The CIA said it so it must be so.

Why Are We Using The Word "We", So Stupidly?

I've been seeing it all over the place lately and I think it has been happening for a while: The headline of an article is in the form of "Why Do We, or Why Are We X" where X is the problematic thing they want to talk about.

Just go to a place like Medium and I guaranty you will find at least one story like that. Here is one I found just now:

MEMBER FEATURE STORY

We’re Having The Wrong Debate About Pronouns
Let’s talk about how we talk about ourselves

Go to the profile of Ben Freeland
Ben Freeland
Jul 3

Why does this irritate me?

I am not having, nor do I care to have a debate about pronouns. I suppose that if I had an interest in the article, then the headline might accurately reflect some true thing about me. But the headline exists to get me to read the article. In this case, the presumptuousness of it makes me rather less willing to read it.

Here is a more egregious example:

there are literally so many trans actors that could’ve been cast in this role. why do we keep casting Scarlett Johansson in roles where she doesn’t fit the criteria? https://t.co/nnD7PKH5Gc

— anthony amorim is lo:st (@AnthonyAmorim) July 3, 2018

"why do we keep casting Scarlett Johansson in roles where she doesn’t fit the criteria?"

The decision for Ms. Johansson to play this role came down to a very small group of individuals: At least two, Johansson and the casting director, but maybe a few others like a producer or director.

This is taking the use of "we" to psycotic levels.

The only way it is sane is if Mr. Amorim was involved in the casting. Then why is he bringing us into this discussion: If he wants to bring us into it, he should say,

"What the hell was I thinking when I recommended Scarlett Johansson for this role? Please comment in the thread, so I know where to turn for mental health counseling.

Small Coincidences, Noticed

I had to fly down to Fort Worth (life is too short to live in Dallas*) for business. Both the flight down and the flight back were full, I don't mean mostly full, I mean--There was not a single empty seat on the plane.

Both the way down and back had the same arrangement: Isle, a young man, middle, me (naturally), window, a young woman.

Another coincidence (which might not really be one). The person ahead of me ordered two Tito's and then the young lady (who looked under aged to me. but evidently looked old enough to the server she didn't ask for ID) also ordered two Tito's. She might have got the idea from the guy ahead of us, but I don't think so:

1. She had headphones on and running--I could hear her music. So, I don't think she heard the guy ahead of us.

2. She seemed really prepared: She also asked for a glass with ice and cut up limes. When she got the glass, she put in a packet of Emergen-C and then topped it off with the Texan vodka.

*An actual t-shirt worn by our waitress in in a Fort Worth bar which had giant $1.89 beers in heavy frozen glass chalices.

Wednesday "day off" Activities

1. Took Jemma to school. Dahlia has been a graduate for a few weeks and has been kind enough to keep driving her sister to school, but we feel like it is only fair to give her a day-off now and again.

2. Stopped at Walmart on the way back (It is in the same general area as the HS). We needed a new wiper blade for the Subaru, which I had noticed on the way back from UVM last weekend and we were fresh-out of dishwasher detergent. I had put the last dregs in for the load I got going this morning.

3. While I was at Walmart, I looked at our grocery list (a phone app with the list shared by the whole family) and we needed a few other things. I got the things Walmart had.

4. Installed the new wiper in the parking lot: I had taken off the old one to bring into the store as an aid to getting the right replacement one. Every time I buy a wiper blade it seems like they change the design from the old universal fit, to a new universal fit. Hence, it always takes 5 minutes to figure out how it works.

5. Once home, I ran the wipers while spraying the window with a hose. This is an easy way to get off tough baked-on bug guts.

6. Took a morning shower.

7. Drank some leftover coffee.

8. Ordered 40 Lbs of green coffee beans from Burman Coffee Traders.

9. Trimmed a bunch of overgrown shrubs in front, back and a few other places around the house and cleared away the debris.

10. Went for a 6 mile run. Early-on I thought I would handily break 9:00 per mile--for years I averaged around 8:00 but suddenly 9:00 is the new 8:00--but then I must have been wool-gathering and slowed a lot. I came in at 9:10/mile.

11. A feast of left overs: Three left over lamb chops with tandoori spice and charcoal grilled, left over salad with left over blue cheese dressing from some take-out, left over Italian garbanzo stew AND a fresh Budweiser in a frosted glass.

12. Emptied the dishwasher.

13. Went out to pick-up Jemma.

14. Super glued a belt that was coming apart and a pair of shoes where the leather foot-bed had come loose.

15. Drove Jemma to dance--she actually drove herself, but she has a learner's permit, so I had to accompany her.

16. Packaged the leftover spaghetti sauce which had been frozen into pucks in a muffin tin.

17. Cleaned up the kitchen from all of the afternoon meals the girls made for themselves.

18. Picked up Jemma from dance.

19. Changed the battery in the Saab--It worked for picking Jemma up from HS and taking her to dance but the 3rd time was not the charm. After I put the freshly charged battery in, the car started.

20. Wrote this post.

ADDED:

4.1 Dropped off Jemma's Birkinstock return shipment at UPS.

Incel Intide

That was the joke:

Intel Corporation had just spent untold millions on their "Intel Inside" ad campaign and then it was reported that there was a flaw in their latest chip (of the time) which could give math errors

28 years later and there is an Incel movement, which is different but is related in some ways. Incel stands for involuntary celibate, by the way.

It is different since it is not a software bug, but more like a wetware bug. There are guys who rail against the "unfairness" of being unable to attract a mate, even though they do absolutely nothing to remedy the situation. Gallons of pixels could be spent on this, but to sum-up: What I would tell an Incel.

Are you attracted to unemployed, fat women with unpleasant personalities? Yes? Okay, then why would you expect an attractive woman to want you? Lift some weights, get a good job (or try harder at the one you have so you get promoted) and don't dress like a slob. You will be amazed at how your fortunes change.

So, how does this all circle round? Intel itself may not really be a big employer of geeks, but that is the stereotype and hence, Incel Inside makes a lot of sense--inside the buildings are involuntary celibates. At least they make good money, now all they have to do is lift weights and learn how to groom and dress. The final link is that the internet, which is tied tightly to companies like Intel, is also where these malcontents are able to meet and feed each other with self pity.

I blame, to some extent, the snowflake ethos of our time. You are wonderful just as you are. This is BS. But think of the implication if it were true? If I am wonderful just as I am, then it must be the fault of the World that I am alone. That is all that makes sense. Nobody is just naturally wonderful. Have you ever been around infants? They are utterly selfish and undisciplined, that is why they need to be so cute. Through the help of adults, the infants learn to walk, use words, share and otherwise become much more pleasant to be around. Though they gradually lose their innate cuteness. The process of improvement is life-long, though I think a fair number of teens think the process is complete by 15 or so.

Who Are The "THEY" In This?

From The Hill:

Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton accepted her defeat on election night by saying that Americans were never going to elect her president, according to a new book by a New York Times reporter.

"I knew it. I knew this would happen to me," Clinton reportedly said, according to excerpts from a new book published in The Daily Beast. "They were never going to let me be president."

Notice where the quotation marks are and where they are not: The claim by The Hill is that Hillary Clinton means "Americans" when she says "they". I find this implausible, though very charitable, compared with the more obvious answer. I say implausible because of the way American English works: We say and think American voters are choosing their representative, not letting somebody be president.

Hillary has the worst luck, but the best friends one could want in the MSM. It was just her luck that she invoked the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" in defense of her husband (in light of fresh sexual misconduct accusations against the president). A blue stained dress would cement the truth, Bill Clinton did indeed have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. A normal person would count her blessings that the MSM was so amnesia prone. A normal person would hope nobody would remember her hilariously wrong claim about conspiracy, but no, not Hillary. She invoked it in 2016! Is she trying to remind the voters of what a shameless liar she is? Or is she just that cynical and counts on the MSM to cover for her. they did

So Hillary Clinton had it right when she made her famous declaration that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was out to get her and her husband. The opposition was and is passionate. It is well financed. It sees dark — sometimes preposterous — motives in nearly everything the Clintons do.

And counts on our lack of memory: But, we all remember TVRWC was a way of boldly placing a marker saying the sexual misconduct charges were false, but we all remember that the charges turned out to be correct. So, what conclusion can we come to: Hillary is either (for real) insane or she has discovered heretofore unplumbed depths of cynicism. Either way, it is clear that THEY in

"They were never going to let me be president."

Is that old and recurring bogyman, The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Satire Is Dead

Unless this interview was meant as comedy, in which case it is brilliant!

Watching DVR'd shows last night and the teasers for the Stephanopoulos/Comey interview were indistinguishable from an SNL parody. Former press sec for Bill Clinton lobbing softballs at the fired FBI director--super hard-hitting interview, that.

— David Pecchia (@dpecchia) April 13, 2018

Federal Judge Upholds ban on AR-15

I think the subhead should be either So What? or Be Careful What You Wish For

Why?

When the original assault weapon ban passed Congress in 1994, the law did not end due to a successful court challenge. The law expired after 10 years. So, this court decision didn't change anything.

The status of Congress when the Assault Weapon ban took place: Senate 57/43 House 258/176 Democrat/Republican, after the next election: 47/53 and 204/230. On one hand, I don't mind if the Democrats want to commit electoral suicide, on the other hand, I don't think their defenestration is worth the assault on basic Human rights.

Gun bans as Jim Crow. By Federal Law, blacks had the same rights as any other Americans after the Civil War. But Southern states passed laws which subverted this and it was only in the 1950s and 1960s that the Federal government dismantled this situation. Why not do this again, only with gun rights? States that have arbitrary bans on various fire arms, or require licences or registration are violating the Constitution. Congress should end-run this: Pass a law which states that US citizens may keep and bear certain types of fire-arm. The law should include the provision that possession is legal, as long as a background check is passed. Proof of such a check can be obtained at any Post Office for a nominal fee of $5, which includes a picture ID (suitable for voting) and is good for 5 years.

Note: Some absolutists hate the idea of a Federal permit to carry. I do too! That is why this is not a permit (the 2nd ammendment is your permit) it is merely proof that you have passed a background check. By law (the one I propose) you are permitted to keep, carry and purchase if you have passed a background check.

Why Debate This?

Over the weekend, my daughter accused me of being a troll, so this makes me think two things: She has never really encountered a troll and she stalks my twitter account. At the bottom is an exchange from last Friday about The Atlantic/ Kevin Williamson hire/fire event.

what that whole argument brought to mind is the concept of when or if ideas should ever be suppressed. It seemed to be the consensus of the mob who brayed until they got Mr. Williamson fired, that his ideas are so repugnant that they should not appear in The Atlantic. Please keep in mind that this is not a officially The proximate issue was his view (not published in any journal, but given in a debate) that women who have abortions should be hung. How outrageous is this? Something like 40% of Americans would like to ban abortion either completely or in almost all circumstances. Further, the death penalty is the majority opinion as the penalty for 1st degree murder. I think, by definition, if an opinion is held by a substantial part of the population, it is not fringe and should be debatable in a public space.

What about other issues which elicit strong emotional response? Should we debate people who think the Holocaust was fake? Depends on how many think this way: If it is a percent or two, that is a very different thing from 40% believing this way. In such a latter case, I think it gets toward mandatory. This would be even more so for people who think vaccines should not be given--large numbers of people who refuse vaccines could result in serious public health issues. How about really fringe ideas like Moon landing truthers or flat Earth types? I say, "debate them if you feel like it". But really, what significance does it have? These seem like relatively harmless delusions with no real significance.
--------------------------------------------------
I don’t think people who own guns should be hanged, but I also think National Review and Fox and Heritage are unlikely to ever extend me job offers based on my well-documented political views, and if I whined about that as if it were some kind of oppression, everyone would laugh.

David Pecchia

One of these things is unlike the others: Heritage and National Review are openly conservative--they publicly call themselves conservative. Fox is news and does hire liberals. Does The Atlantic call itself a journal of leftist opinion?

aislinn
‏
Is the position that executing women is acceptable a mainstream conservative view?

David Pecchia
‏
I don't think there is such a thing as an unacceptable position: There are positions I agree with and those I don't agree with.
One position I disagree with is suppressing obnoxious ideas rather than defeating them on the battlefield of reasoned debate.
‏
No Pardons

Is that what you think is happening on the battlefield? Half the population can barely read, let alone debate ideas

David Pecchia
‏
Not sure if I agree with that, but it doesn't change my opinion: Debate ideas or don't. Suppression of ideas is abuse of power--terms like "acceptable position" are just a way to feel virtuous when one is too lazy to fight for what they believe in.

No Pardons
‏
No one is suppressing his ideas. This isn't some beat reporter who was thrown out of the newsroom for reporting on the boss's friends; it's a national pundit with decades of experience and 300K Twitter followers losing one writing gig for publishing some putrid opinions

David Pecchia
‏
Well, he published those "putrid" opinions, BEFORE HE WAS HIRED! My "The mob won" template is looking closer to reality. Or, what? The Atlantic hired him while entirely ignorant of his past output? Then how did they know he existed?

Apropos of Nothing

If you are an adult, here are minimal steps you will take whenever you have deliberately wronged someone:

1. Admit what you did and apologize for it.

2. (Optional) You may think that your reasons for doing it were compelling. To you, yes. To the person you wronged, not so much. But they may be curious.

3. Promise not to do it again.

4. Offer to make amends.

In Honor of Stephen Hawking

Go here.

Then enter this text to hear what he would have sounded like:

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. This is the creed of all faiths even the atheistic.

Props to H.P. Lovecraft & Dr. Stephen Hawking

The Error Of Mis-Aggregation

Hillary is back! Reminding us of how it is possible to lose the presidential race to a man like Trump:

"I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product... So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, 'Make America Great Again,' was looking backwards. You know: 'You didn't like black people getting rights, you don't like women, you know, getting jobs, you don't want to, you know, see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I'm going to solve it.'

There is a hidden error in Her-Self's claim: She is laying claim to the whole GDP of the states she won, but she didn't win every single vote in the states she won, nor lost every vote in the states she lost. Take the deep blue state of Connecticut: Hillary won 55% of the vote to Trump's 41%. Her votes come mostly from public employees, minorities and a good slice of the very wealthy. Trump wins with everyone else. Not sure where to find the data, but I would bet that the taxes paid by Trump's 41% exceed what was paid by Hillary's 55%.

Similarly, a reoccurring complaint by the left, is that the Red states take in more in Federal benefits than they pay in taxes. Again, who is getting these Federal Dollars? A lot of it is that there are military bases, or big Federally funded agencies in red states. But the larger and certainly the intended impression, is that all these Republicans are on welfare or food stamps but vote for the people trying to gut these programs. Again, look at vote totals: Take Alabama: Hillary 34%, Trump 62%. Who can doubt that most of Hillary's votes in Alabama came from poor people and minorities? Heavy users of welfare.