ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, October 24, 2016

A non-vote for X is NOT a vote for Y

It seems we have to deal with this nonsense every four years. But to say that failing to vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, or that a vote for Egghead McUtah is a vote for Hillary, is completely false. It is a mathematical absurdity. Consider:

  • If you vote for Trump, he has one vote. Hillary has zero votes.
  • If you vote for Johnson, he has one vote. Hillary has zero votes.
  • If you vote for Egghead McUtah, he has one vote. Hillary has zero votes.
  • If you don't vote, Hillary has zero votes.

Under precisely NONE of these scenarios does Hillary get a single vote. Ergo, a vote for X is not, and can never be, a vote for Hillary, unless that vote is for Hillary.

Now, I think it would be reprehensibly stupid to vote for Johnson for the obvious reason that he is neither a Libertarian nor a libertarian. It would be slightly less stupid to vote for Stein, because while she is a Green socialist, at least she does not pretend to be anything else. It would be even more stupid to vote for Egghead McUtah, because he is a less serious presidential candidate than Milo Yiannopoulos.

Seriously, Milo is not only a more serious candidate, he has a better chance of one day becoming President of the United States than Egghead does. Heck, David French was a more serious candidate than Egghead.

The reason to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton is not innumerate appeals to impossible mathematics, but that his proposed policies are the best that any Republican candidate for President has offered the public in living memory. If that's not enough for you, if you're more concerned about superficial matters relating to posture, presentation, and personal idiosyncracies, well, you probably shouldn't be voting on anything anyhow.

Labels: ,

150 Comments:

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 12:09 PM  

Don't you usually say that one does not oppose Rhetoric with Dialectic?

Blogger Thucydides October 24, 2016 12:09 PM  

"if you're more concerned about superficial matters relating to posture, presentation, and personal idiosyncrasies"

Sadly, that seems to describe the majority of voters not just in The United States, but in may Western countries where I have spent time. Well, democracy is sometimes described as the people deciding what they want, and then getting it good and hard.

I hope the people who decided they wanted Hillary at least bite down on the leather while she gives it to them otherwise their screams of outrage will disturb the rest of us.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 12:09 PM  

Vox, Vox, Vox

It's rhetoric, not an appeal to reason.
It's designed to associate the voter with something he despises, in order to induce revulsion and a change in emotion, resulting in a changed vote.

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 12:12 PM  

No one ever said it was GOOD rhetoric, but it does have the virtue of being imediately comprehensible and a long and florid history.

Much like the saying "If you are not with us you are against us."

Anonymous Broken Arrow October 24, 2016 12:15 PM  

if you're more concerned about superficial matters relating to posture, presentation, and personal idiosyncracies, well, you probably shouldn't be voting on anything anyhow.

Oh, but they do get to vote. And the person who is concerned with the above has a vote which counts just as much as the person who spends hours getting to know the issues and makes an informed decision. The GOP seems to have forgotten this and is continually frustrated by this fact.


Blogger Gavin B. October 24, 2016 12:16 PM  

I would add though, that if your #1 goal is to keep Hillary out of the White House, then voting for anyone but Trump is contrary to that goal because none of the other candidates has a snowballs chance to win, whereas Trump does. So if the number of people who state their #1 goal is to keep Hillary from being President, or X, vote for someone other than Trump, and Hillary wins by less than X, then their non-vote for Trump helped defeat their #1 goal. Or something.

Blogger William Meisheid October 24, 2016 12:16 PM  

However, if you are morally or philosophically opposed to Hillary and you don't vote for Trump (the only true option since this is a binary election), you are making it easier for Hillary to win since by not voting for Trump you are not requiring Hillary to find one more vote to counter your vote, it you had voted for Trump. By not voting for Trump you are making it easier to elect Hillary.

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 12:18 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger VD October 24, 2016 12:20 PM  

It's rhetoric, not an appeal to reason.

And you think "you can't even do simple math" is not?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 12:21 PM  

Neither good nor bad rhetoric, it is just Vox is tired of it being bantied about here.

Anonymous Sam the Man October 24, 2016 12:21 PM  

Went to a Trump rally in Newtown PA. Had tickets to get in. Never got close to the door, it was so overwhelmed.

People waiting to get in were very nice. Every one waited in line, polite, no one dropped trash on ground. Police were totally relaxed, never seen a crowd of 1000s so well behaved, so self controlled, even when the thousands waiting found out they would not get in.

Also contrary to what they say, it was a very mixed crowd of both men and women, all ages, lots of young chaps and their girlfriends. The idea that Trump supporter are all disgruntled old white men is another media lie.

This is a movement and those folks who are sitting it out are likely not helping the best chance we have to move the republic back to something decent or at least livable and not the soviet socialist democracy that the left has in mind. Trump may be an imperfect vessel of reform, but he is the only one we have. I have not been this enthused about a candidate since 1984, 32 years ago.

The Press is trying to push vague dissatisfaction and convince folks trump does not have a chance. It is all a lie. Every thing I have seen with my own eyes tells me he has a chance, if folks do not lose heart.

Blogger James Dixon October 24, 2016 12:21 PM  

> The reason to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton is not innumerate appeals to impossible mathematics, but that his proposed policies are the best that any Republican candidate for President has offered the public in living memory.

Honestly, yes. He's even better than Reagan was when it comes to his proposed policies.

Blogger Johnny October 24, 2016 12:21 PM  

A vote for Trump this time around is a vote against the establishment. So by my lights it is both a protest vote and a vote that makes Pres Hillary less likely. A win, win.

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 12:22 PM  

Considering the abject stupidity of the vast majority of Hillary/independent voters, I am not sure that the phrase "You cannot even do simple math." is as much rhetoric as it is a basic statement of fact.

Blogger William Meisheid October 24, 2016 12:23 PM  

If all the people who would never vote for Hillary vote for someone other than Trump, all those votes are votes Hillary doesn't need to find to win. So, while it is literally true that your non-vote for Trump is not a vote for Hillary, it does mean she needs one less vote to get elected and down where the rubber meets the road, it is the same thing and something you have to accept responsibility for if she gets elected.

Blogger Nate October 24, 2016 12:24 PM  


"The reason to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton is not innumerate appeals to impossible mathematics, but that his proposed policies are the best that any Republican candidate for President has offered the public in living memory"

Preach Preacher.

A bad argument is a bad argument. No matter what side of an issue it nominally supports.

There are tons of great arguments to make that are pro- trump. Focus on them.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 12:25 PM  

VD wrote:And you think "you can't even do simple math" is not?
Touche'

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 12:26 PM  

@11-

Friend, The Cubs won the pennant.

I say again. The Cubs WON.

that means that ANYTHING can happen... the less likely those who make projections consider the event, the more likely it will be.

I am so confident now that Trump will win, I placed a two thousand dollar bet on it. Although afterwards I expect Aliens to show up and Drop off Jesus and Elvis to jam at his Victory speech.

Blogger Matt October 24, 2016 12:29 PM  

I think it's just a variation of the old question, "What if your vote is the deciding vote?"

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 12:33 PM  

@6-

If your primary goal in this election cycle is to brag about what a wonderful person you are for 'voting your conscience' while permitting evil to flourish, however, a vote for Gary "Nutwad" Johnson can be marked as a proud 'mission accomplished'.

Blogger Nate October 24, 2016 12:34 PM  

"I am so confident now that Trump will win, I placed a two thousand dollar bet on it."

please please please let this be internet bluster...

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 12:36 PM  

Why? I had the leeway. It's not something I do every day, but it won't hurt me if I lose.

Was about a week's worth of work. Isn't it worth a week's work to bet on a sure thing?

Blogger Keef October 24, 2016 12:40 PM  

So we'll put Vox.

I always enjoy pundits and others when they reveal themselves as unable or unwilling to handle 1st grate arithmetic.

Anonymous Homeless guy on the 1st grate October 24, 2016 12:44 PM  

I always enjoy pundits and others when they reveal themselves as unable or unwilling to handle 1st grate arithmetic.



Me, too!

Anonymous VFM #7916 October 24, 2016 12:45 PM  

Still voting Trump.

Blogger Timmy3 October 24, 2016 12:46 PM  

Isn't voter suppression the issue? By not voting for Trump, Hillary will get more votes despite being a bad candidate. Her voters show up. Trump's voters do not. Bill Clinton won without having a majority of the votes. The majority was divided between Perot and Bush. Many Republicans stayed home when Romney was running. Obama won with 5% difference. Close and yet so far.

Blogger S1AL October 24, 2016 12:46 PM  

The sad thing is that I'm not sure who's more of a hippy - Johnson or Stein. Though after Stein's comments on Hillary, I am convinced she has the bigger pair.

Blogger Nick S October 24, 2016 12:49 PM  

A no vote isn't even a 40 grain 22 short. A vote for Donald/Melania is a 185 grain JHP +P 45 ACP. It all boils down to stopping power and tits...never off topic.

Anonymous Paradox October 24, 2016 12:50 PM  

@Badger Brigadon

I am so confident now that Trump will win, I placed a two thousand dollar bet on it.

Facepalm... FFS you could have used that to purchase firearms and ammunition.

Anonymous Born every minute October 24, 2016 12:51 PM  

>>I am so confident now that Trump will win, I placed a two thousand dollar bet on it.

Dude, if you want to bet more money I'd be happy to take the other side of the wager. Any amount up to ten thou.

Blogger Noah B October 24, 2016 12:51 PM  

Early ballots in NC and FL are giving the indication that the Dem strategy of presenting Hillary as the obvious winner isn't working. So far there's higher GOP turnout than Dem in FL, smashing the fraudulent voter turnout modeling that's been used in most polls to date.

Anonymous Bee October 24, 2016 12:53 PM  

>>I always enjoy pundits and others when they reveal themselves as unable or unwilling to handle 1st grate arithmetic.

I always enjoy commenters and others when they reveal themselves as unable or unwilling to handle 1st grade spelling.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 12:55 PM  

If you don't vote, Hillary has zero votes.

If demotivation doesn't work, why is the media burning its credibility by putting out ridiculously biased polls? This is an uncharacteristically sperg argument.

Anonymous patrick kelly October 24, 2016 12:56 PM  

"I think it's just a variation of the old question, "What if your vote is the deciding vote?""

The chance of that actually happening is so low I'd be better off buying lottery tickets and watching those results instead of voting and paying attention to election coverage.

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 12:56 PM  

@26-

Based upon Rally turnouts, Hillary's voters do not 'show up'. Her strongest voting base generally involves those paid 20 bucks a pop and a bus trip.

Trump, like him or hate him, has tapped a vast base of those who USUALLY don't vote... but based on turnout projections from 'true the vote' and local governments, as well as staggering rally turnouts which involve FAR more attendance difficulties (as mentioned by Sam the Man @11-) many many more voters will be hitting the booths this year... enough so that a good 20% or more extra polling places have been mobilized this election year.

The hard part this year will be getting apathetic teenagers to go out and vote for what they feel is a Hillary 'sure thing', as well as keeping up with the seething masses of Trump voters from overwhelming the polling places... but at least they will be polite.

I expect a new tactic this year from the DNC will involve polling places getting 'shut down because they are overpopulated' in strategic rural areas.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 24, 2016 12:57 PM  

I respect Carl Watner (of Voluntaryist.com ) and still appreciate on an intellectual level much of his writing including that on non-voting.

One of the articles he published on his site was Why I would not vote against Hitler, by Wendy McElroy.

tl;dr All this is great philosophy until Hitlery C. is poised to alter things in ways I really, really fear:

War with Russia (another white vs. white war to insure non-whites inherit every square millimeter of land on Planet Earth, just as was WW parts 1 & 2.)

Pack another 34,000,000 democrat voters into everywhere I go, from places I wouldn't visit IF THE TRIP WAS FREE.

Packing SCOTUS, the most important legislative body in America today, with a bunch of affirmative action hires and leftist lunatics.

Bailing out Wall St./Goldman-Sachs/Citi/Blackstone/etc. AGAIN, just like in 2008, when their current Debt Bombs detonate in a few months.

Yes, I'll vote.

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 12:59 PM  

@32- Dude, autocomplete can strike with only a moment's inattention. No need to be a cunt about it.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 12:59 PM  

Mr.MantraMan wrote:Neither good nor bad rhetoric, it is just Vox is tired of it being bantied about here.

In that case I withdraw my complaint.

Anonymous patrick kelly October 24, 2016 1:00 PM  

Badger Brigadon wrote:@11-

.... I am so confident now that Trump will win, I placed a two thousand dollar bet on it....


Wanna donate to my GoFundMe and help fill up empty space in my gun safe? I'm kidding, I'd have to buy a new safe first, mine doesn't have any empty space.

OpenID randkoch October 24, 2016 1:05 PM  

A non-vote for Trump isn't a vote for Hillary *now*, but it is several votes by illegals for her second term.

In other words, it is a vote for Hillary.

Blogger Ryan Tremblay October 24, 2016 1:05 PM  

I voted for Trump, and feel good about it. For the last 32 years I was too disgusted to take part in the one party charade.

With each cycle came the endless lectures from experts (Farah, for one) telling us not voting for X is a vote for Y. Screw them.

It felt surprisingly good to register and vote again. And I think there are millions more who are going to vote for Trump, for the same reason. Best election...evah.

Blogger darkdoc October 24, 2016 1:06 PM  

Isn't voter suppression the issue?

While I suppose false polls might affect turnout a tiny bit, the reason for false polls is, as is everything in politics, about money.

Discouraged voters don't make donations to a losing cause. The goal is to suppress donations to Trump for that last minute advertising surge.

Anonymous Deplorable S E Delenda October 24, 2016 1:08 PM  

Egghead is designed to do one thing, that is, to exploit Mormon cronyism and cause Utah's normally safe (R) four votes away from the guy who disagrees with the globalist ambitions of Romney-Hatch.

Anonymous johnc October 24, 2016 1:09 PM  

Obviously if you live in a swing state you have a moral obligation to vote for Trump.

For everyone else it doesn't really matter.

Blogger John Smith October 24, 2016 1:09 PM  

If Hillary wins, how fucked are we?

Blogger maniacprovost October 24, 2016 1:09 PM  

I think what Vox fails to realize is that a vote for a 3rd party is A VOTE FOR HILLARYYY

This is clearly one of those posts VD does for his own peace of mind, but the end amused me too.

"you probably shouldn't be voting on anything anyhow"

We have a lot of voters who shouldn't be voting. If you take a true idiot, statistically, they have about a 60% chance of voting Hillary. We need the other 40% of idiot voters in order to win.

Blogger Ingot9455 October 24, 2016 1:09 PM  

A 'non-vote for X' is in fact a failure to do your part for the good of all.

I, of course, get to decide what the good of all is.

Blogger Nick S October 24, 2016 1:09 PM  

"Bailing out Wall St./Goldman-Sachs/Citi/Blackstone/etc. AGAIN, just like in 2008, when their current Debt Bombs detonate in a few months."

If Trump doesn't win, brace for one helluva "I TOLD YOU SO" shit storm before the grid goes down.

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 1:11 PM  

@30- What odds will you give me?

Blogger Michael Maier October 24, 2016 1:15 PM  

Badger Brigadon wrote:No one ever said it was GOOD rhetoric, but it does have the virtue of being imediately comprehensible and a long and florid history.

Much like the saying "If you are not with us you are against us."


"Through the glass darkly"

I suspect those not FOR The Father will indeed be used against him somehow.

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 1:15 PM  

@44- I am not sure I agree. Because of those traitorous whores, Hatch, Romney, Lesbian Negro, and Lee, Utah might be a (Minor) swing state for the first time in generations.

If you can consider a majority voting for Gary "I Can fit my whole fist in my mouth wanna see?" Johnson a 'swing'. Hillary won't win here, but Trump may not either.

Blogger Nick S October 24, 2016 1:17 PM  

@45

Raw

Blogger Panzerdude October 24, 2016 1:17 PM  

While technically correct, that a non-vote for Trump is not a vote for Hillary, it does not address the REAL result of an election.

When there are only two (real) choices to vote for, then each vote cancels an opposing vote. The only votes that matter are those that are not cancelled.

10 voters. 5 vote Hillary. 4 vote Trump. 1 wastes vote. Therefore, the only vote that mattered was the one vote for Hillary that was not cancelled by a Trump vote.

So, yes, the wasted vote did not "vote" for Hillary. But that's not the point; the wasted vote did not cancel the vote that decided the election. It could have, but did not. This means the wasted vote ended up being the same as supporting Hillary, since it was what allowed her to win.

Where am I not seeing this correctly?

Anonymous BGKB October 24, 2016 1:20 PM  

Fist Swartzenigger screws his dumpy Mexican housekeeper then comes out as NeverTRUMP. None of this math accounts for vote switching as has been found favoring HillDog in TX. Other states also http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/confirmed-experts-voting-machines-maryland-illinois-rigged-support-democrats/

The bigger the turnout the more they can fix the vote.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 24, 2016 1:22 PM  

In the dim bulb forums I troll, I have taken to saying: Vote for Trump, or you will get Hillary.

Anonymous patrick kelly October 24, 2016 1:22 PM  

"Where am I not seeing this correctly?"

Read all the above comments and find the subtle hints that this is not about logical, linguistic accuracy but a complaint about lame overused rhetoric that annoys the blog owner.

But I may not be seeing this correctly. And I got to use large words for the lolz.

Anonymous Kryst October 24, 2016 1:22 PM  

Would love to see you bash the magic underpants off of these (((english stock criminal mor_ons))) out there in Utah. You know- the milquetoast, brit stock, faggy, pyramid scheming group of Americans that actually pride themselves on being like j00s...

I shook Mitt's big oblivious hand and got the photo in 2012 when he campaigned up in SB, CA. His entire CA powerbase is from corrupt mor_on businesses. The company in SB,CA that was run by mor_ons had direct access to Mitt, and vice versa. The mor_on business leaders that were pilfering this company sat on the board of BYU business school. Not a (((coincidence))) for these (((mor_ons))) right!? https://marriottschool.byu.edu/advisoryboard/directory/member/?id=764

Get this: these mor_ons pilfered $80 millions dollars from this company before they ripped the shell off. How does 80 million dollars go missing? Well, when you deal with (((mor_ons))), you lose because you aren't in on their scheme.

Funny, I wonder where all these mor_ons learned to gut companies and steal money? Isn't that Mitt's M.O? Bain Capital etc etc? Ya...fuck these english stock ignorant brainwashed (((mor_ons))).

And then flash forward to 2016, and of course Mitt, Glenn, and all the other pieces of gutless, spineless, and godless mormie trash is rallying behind Clinton. Hmmmmm.

What'$ in it for them?

Remember: mor_ons aren't a true fabric of America...ya they might wave a flag and pretend...but they founded themselves as a renegade anti-american group. Fuck these people at this point in the current year of 2016...

TY.

P.s tell your boy Milo to do some digging between CIA/FBI/UCLA/Obama/Hillary if he wants a real fucking story. He can come out to LA and fuck all the nigger dik he wants, I don't care. Watch the 6 though. I don't wanna get breitbarted after leaving a bar in Samo...Godspeed yall.

Anonymous damntull October 24, 2016 1:27 PM  

If Hillary only needs one more vote than the next guy, then not voting for Trump (whether you vote for someone else or not) reduces the number of votes she needs to win.

Put another way, because Johnson and Stein have no chance to win, you can think of every vote or non-vote as a "Hillary Margin" vote. All votes for Hillary are a +1 Hillary Margin. All votes for Trump are a -1 Hillary Margin. All non-votes or votes for other candidates are a +1 Hillary Margin. So yes, a vote for another candidate is effectively a vote for Hillary.

Blogger Robert What? October 24, 2016 1:27 PM  

I was going to write in Louis Abolafia, but since he is apparently not running this year on account of being dead, I'm going with Trump.

Anonymous damntull October 24, 2016 1:29 PM  

Trump Hillary Johnson Stein none Total H margin
51 49 0 0 0 100 -2
50 49 1 0 0 100 -1
49 49 2 0 0 100 0
48 49 3 0 0 100 1
47 49 4 0 0 100 2

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 1:31 PM  

Ingot9455 wrote:A 'non-vote for X' is in fact a failure to do your part for the good of all.

I, of course, get to decide what the good of all is.


For my own curiosity: is your ancestry predominantly German? I understand you were joking.

Anonymous BluePony October 24, 2016 1:33 PM  

The wasted or no vote is a Trump -1. Add 1 to both sides of the equation and you get the *effective* Clinton +1. In the swing states, a few percent of cuckheads comfortable with the "no vote is OK" can turn a 47:46 Trump win to a 45:46 loss. Yes, constant numbers for Clinton, but we lost.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros October 24, 2016 1:33 PM  

Mathematically, compared to a vote for Trump, a non-vote or third-party vote is only HALF of a vote for Hillary.

Anonymous RC October 24, 2016 1:33 PM  

What would Reagan do?

Blogger Bill Quick October 24, 2016 1:35 PM  

However, elections don't take place in vacuums. Consider this math:

You vote for Johnson, but you could have voted for Trump.

Vote for Johnson = Johnson 1, Trump 0, Hillary 0.

Vote for Trump = Trump 1, Hillary, Johnson, 0.

Either way, Hillary gets 0. But the second option is obviously considerably more helpful for Trump, and considerably worse for Hillary than voting for Johnson would be.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 1:37 PM  

Panzerdude wrote:Where am I not seeing this correctly?
You are assuming that the "wasted" vote belonged to Trump.

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 1:42 PM  

@56- Did Mormons used to beat you up and steal your lunch money?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 1:44 PM  

RC wrote:What would Reagan do?
Decompose, mostly.

Blogger James Dixon October 24, 2016 1:46 PM  

> The wasted or no vote is a Trump -1

Almost no one who is not voting or voting third party was going to vote for Trump. Almost all of them would be voting for Hillary instead.

Anonymous Ironsides October 24, 2016 1:46 PM  

Really, it all depends on how the third-party voter WOULD have voted in the absence of the third party option.

A potential Hillary vote who votes for Stein is effectively supporting Trump.

A potential Trump vote who votes for Johnson is effectively supporting Hillary.

A third-party candidate voter who wouldn't have voted for either major candidate is a cipher, electorally speaking, who means nothing to the process regardless of what they do.

The mix of these, however, is unknowable until after the election (and partially unknowable forever).

Short form: VOTE TRUMP!!!!

Anonymous VFM #6306 October 24, 2016 1:48 PM  

The opportunity cost for voting for President Trump is that you will forego the opportunity to vote for someone who will not be elected.

The choice...so important...so difficult...

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 1:48 PM  

The train in this thread is fine

Anonymous BluePony October 24, 2016 1:49 PM  

"You are assuming that the "wasted" vote belonged to Trump."

Of course. The Stein crowd would not be happy with anything less than zombie Karl Marx, and I gave up trying to understand the neural chaos of the Libertarians, but NeverTrump was a cuckservative movement. They would vote for Trump, but, you know, he's mean to puppies or mumble mumble muh valuez. That's who we're trying to convince.

I guess the real counterpoint here is to not sweat the letter of the expression and favor the spirit of it?

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 24, 2016 1:55 PM  

In the dimbulb forums I troll, I have taken to saying: You will vote for Trump, or you will get Hillary.

Apologies if this shows up twice: the earlier attempt seems to have disappeared.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 24, 2016 1:59 PM  

OTOH, it matters not whether I vote.
1. IL will go blue due to the Chicago Dead and BGKB's note about voting machines being compromised.
2. The senate race is between Mr. Cuck Kirk and a typical bat-guano-crazy Chicago Machine democrat. I wish they were both flying on a plane with a person in Hillary's entourage traveling to be deposed under oath.

Either way, my vote might county for state rep or more local, but in National politics IL only votes the way Chicago votes. Our hopes died with Scalia (the only reason IL has a shall-issue CCL framework.)

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 1:59 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:You will vote for Trump, or you will get Hillary.

Now that is effective rhetoric.

Anonymous Patron October 24, 2016 1:59 PM  

The real issue is whether it is effective rhetoric.


Good: Attacks using fear / loathing / shame, plus some a bit of Us/Them attitude, encourages them to be decisive.

Bad: Dude, do you even maths?


My personal feeling is that it most effectively negates the downside if you couch it in such a way as to ensure you're not mistaken for being overly literal. That means it's not great for, say, Twitter hashtag wars, but when talking to a buddy or a few people who won't be going anywhere, you can work it into the conversation. I'd prefer to use it at the pub, at a rally or something, but I'd want better ammo for targeting random strangers online.

Finally, I think it only works if the person is already Trump-leaning. I'd not even bother using it on some die-hard Hillaroid, but for a 3rd party or cuck type it should work better IMHO.

= = =

The big exception to this in terms of mathematics BTW is pacifism in a total war setting - not doing your utmost for your side then clearly is helping the other side. Orwell wrote about it here:

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw

As an aside, it reminds me of the old WW1 poster: "Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?"

Blogger Nate October 24, 2016 2:06 PM  

"Why? I had the leeway. It's not something I do every day, but it won't hurt me if I lose."

Because you could've spent it on guns ammo and tools.

Things you will almost certainly need no matter what happens in november.

Blogger B.J. October 24, 2016 2:10 PM  

Last time we went red was for Nixon; we even gave Mondale a pity vote. But I'll do my part to push the needle.

Anonymous An Extremely Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than A Basket Of Twenty Deplorable Cents October 24, 2016 2:11 PM  

VD
The reason to vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton is not innumerate appeals to impossible mathematics, but for the LOLZ!

FIFY!

Every vote for Trump increases the chances of some bow-tie wearing faggy GOPe operative having a major meltdown on national TV! Pure LOLZ right there!

Trump 2016 for the LOLZ!

Blogger dc.sunsets October 24, 2016 2:12 PM  

I like Denninger's final line:

"If you vote for Hillary you are voting to glow in the dark."

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231583
Benghazi, Hillary, The Truth And My Call from 2012

Blogger Nate October 24, 2016 2:13 PM  

"Why? I had the leeway. It's not something I do every day, but it won't hurt me if I lose."

you could also have paid 40 people 50 bucks each to go vote.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 2:17 PM  

I like Denninger's final line:

"If you vote for Hillary you are voting to glow in the dark."

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231583
Benghazi, Hillary, The Truth And My Call from 2012


I thought his blog went dark in protest

Anonymous damntull October 24, 2016 2:28 PM  

VD is wrong. Because only Trump and Hillary have a chance to win, anyone who would not vote for Hillary that either doesn't vote or votes for not-Trump, is a +1 to Hillary's margin, which is the same as voting for Hillary.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 24, 2016 2:28 PM  

you could also have paid 40 people 50 bucks each to go vote.

Still cheaper than what Jeb! spent per vote

Blogger SamuraiJack October 24, 2016 2:28 PM  

LOL, that damn head is hilarious. That aside, mormons always have a holier than you attitude. After all, you are in the presence of someone who believes equality with God is within their grasp.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 2:30 PM  

An Extremely Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than A Basket Of Twenty Deplorable Cents wrote:Every vote for Trump increases the chances of some bow-tie wearing faggy GOPe operative having a major meltdown on national TV! Pure LOLZ right there!

To kek be the LULz

Josh (the gayest thing here) wrote:I thought his blog went dark in protest
You actually thought Denninger could keep his mouth shut for any substantial length of time?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 2:31 PM  

damntull wrote:VD is wrong. Because only Trump and Hillary have a chance to win, anyone who would not vote for Hillary that either doesn't vote or votes for not-Trump, is a +1 to Hillary's margin, which is the same as voting for Hillary.

Why is it not a vote for Trump, under the same logic?

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 2:40 PM  

"OTOH, it matters not whether I vote.
1. IL will go blue due to the Chicago Dead and BGKB's note about voting machines being compromised."

Which voting machines? Evidence?

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 2:48 PM  

gggs wrote:"OTOH, it matters not whether I vote.

1. IL will go blue due to the Chicago Dead and BGKB's note about voting machines being compromised."

Which voting machines? Evidence?


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-24/concern-grows-over-soros-linked-voting-machines

Dismiss, dismiss, shriek. How many times will you play this game, little SJW? Your comments on the previous thread are still warm, as are the responses providing evidence, yet here you are again insisting there's no evidence.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 2:50 PM  

Comments 33 and 88 in the same thread, Aeolilluminati FTW.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xkS8dfHXwn0/hqdefault.jpg

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 2:55 PM  

Aeoli is a false flag by the kikes, you heard it here first!

Blogger Paul October 24, 2016 2:58 PM  

"A non-vote for X is NOT a vote for Y" may be mathematically correct, but politically it's a straw man argument. Otherwise, turnout would not only never be a concern in real, on the ground political elections, it wouldn't even be an intelligible concept.

Turnout? What's turnout? Is that like spurnout, lol? Not voting for Trump, not voting at all, neither gives Hillary a single vote.

And neither cancels a single vote for Hillary by a Hillary voter who does turn out, laughs at abstract mathematical reductionisms, and votes for Hillary.

So "a non-vote for Hillary is NOT a vote for Trump" is an argument to make to a Jill Stein supporter, right after you promise her "just the tip", but that's about the only context in which it makes any sense.

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 3:08 PM  

"here you are again insisting there's no evidence."

Nope....No evidence that the "soros" voting machines are being used in any states. In fact, none of them are used in any states in this election.

http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

False Meme

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 3:12 PM  

I've said it here before and I'll say it again, if Snopes says it's false, I regard that as proof that it's true.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 3:14 PM  

gggs, have you examined yourself for false consciousness recently? It's easy, just feel around your breasts for lumps next time you're in the shower.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 24, 2016 3:14 PM  

#73 The polls for Illinois without looking at the internals show Clinton up between 15 and 25 points while the illustrious Senator Kirk around -14 points to Duckworth.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 3:15 PM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:just feel around your breasts for lumps next time you're in the shower.
Now you're trying to make Xir go blind....

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 3:16 PM  

"I've said it here before and I'll say it again, if Snopes says it's false, I regard that as proof that it's true."

So that's how you stay stupid:

http://www.smartmatic.com/case-studies/article/facts-about-smartmatic/

https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/

Blogger dadofhomeschoolers October 24, 2016 3:20 PM  

My struggle is that my vote for Trump is offset by 4000 votes in a precinct in Philly with only 250 people in it, and 3000 votes in Pittsburgh with only 500 people in it.
But voter fraud is a myth.

Blogger VFM #7191 October 24, 2016 3:21 PM  

gggs is a CTR troll.

Ignore.

Blogger Skyler the Weird October 24, 2016 3:28 PM  

Wasn't Egg McMuffin the 3rd or 4th choice Romney's group tried as their Presidential Candidate? David French imploded as no one could stop laughing, and Senator Sasse was tied to Hastert by Cernovic and shut up fast. I guess this Lord of Kolob was the only person they could find without a paper trail.

I've already talked several evangelicals out of voting for him reminding them he believes the a Devil is Christ's brother.

Blogger Ingot9455 October 24, 2016 3:33 PM  

If snopes has debunked it now I know it's true.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros October 24, 2016 3:33 PM  

"VD is wrong. Because only Trump and Hillary have a chance to win, anyone who would not vote for Hillary that either doesn't vote or votes for not-Trump, is a +1 to Hillary's margin, which is the same as voting for Hillary."

Don't be silly. Voting for Hillary would be a +2 to Hillary's margin. Not voting is only half of a vote for Hillary. Get the math right.

Anonymous Artie970 October 24, 2016 3:34 PM  

@VFM #7191 "gggs is a CTR troll."

Well, maybe. But it appears he's the only one who is actually providing relevant information and evidence on this Soros Voting Machine thing

Blogger BassmanCO October 24, 2016 3:43 PM  

@103

How many Soros trolls are there? Shit, it's like an infestation of cockroaches in here.

Blogger G-S. October 24, 2016 3:48 PM  

Utah WAS a vote for Trump and republicans. Now it looks like it might not be. Removing safe electoral votes doesn't benefit Trump. It doesn't matter what Utah does afterwards, because lost gop territory benefits all others.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab October 24, 2016 4:00 PM  

@104 The guys probably just a sock puppet. Besides, Soros is a multi-opportunity vote rigger. He gets his pick of SoS elected in various states then it's really a matter of who counts the votes counts.

Blogger Skyler the Weird October 24, 2016 4:00 PM  

I'm wondering if Egg McMuffin is testing the waters for Utah and Idaho to secede becoming the Republic of Deseret like good ole Brigham Young wanted.

Blogger Skyler the Weird October 24, 2016 4:01 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger James Dixon October 24, 2016 4:03 PM  

> How many Soros trolls are there?

As many as Soros is willing to pay for.

Anonymous patrick kelly October 24, 2016 4:04 PM  

Sometimes I wonder if Vox does these posts as sperg bait for the lolz.

Blogger Paul October 24, 2016 4:13 PM  

Sometimes I wonder if Vox does these posts as sperg bait for the lolz.

Well, since no one who really wanted Trump to win would make this claim, I assume it has some other purpose. VD has his hands in many different ventures, not all related to voting for Trump.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky October 24, 2016 4:18 PM  

gggs isn't showing you the full picture.

- Smartmatic did have a chart on its website trumpeting its involvement in 16 US states, they have removed it.

- Smartmatic was fingered by the US government as an enigma organization that may have contributed in voter fraud on behalf of Hugo Chavez (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06CARACAS2063_a.html)

- Snopes downplays the linkage between Smartmatic and Soros, saying it's just routine business happenstance that Smartmatic's chief (Lord Mark Malloch-Brown) sits on the board of Soros' OSF group. In fact, Malloch-Brown is also a vice chairman of Soros' Quantum Fund and a vice chairman of Soros Fund Management, as well as a member of the Soros Advisory Group on Bosnia back in the day and an executive committee member of Soros' International Crisis Group. Plus, he's former tenant of Soros. And all that doesn't count his ties the Clintons, which are extensive. (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/concern-grows-over-soros-linked-voting-machines/)

All this does form a valid point of concern, one that must be monitored not dismissed.

Don't listen to these nay-bob and Negative Nancys that come around to bring you down. Buck up. Time for MAGA.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 4:30 PM  

Artie970 wrote:Well, maybe. But it appears he's the only one who

And who the fuck are (((you)))?
Sock puppet of cubicle neighbor?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 4:31 PM  

I'll be glad when the election is over and we can have this place to ourselves again.

Blogger Orville October 24, 2016 4:31 PM  

Why would I vote for President someone who worked for the CIA. The CIA gave us LBJ, Bush the elder and Obama. Now they want to serve me Egg McMuffin? No thanks.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 24, 2016 4:34 PM  

@81 Josh, Denninger is an unusually full of himself blowhard, and he can keep his trap shut for no more than a few days.

I like the message (sometimes), while holding a derisive attitude toward the messenger.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 24, 2016 4:41 PM  

The polls for Illinois without looking at the internals show Clinton up between 15 and 25 points while the illustrious Senator Kirk around -14 points to Duckworth.

I'll happily move down the ballot and skip over those two clots. I'd seriously prefer Jeffrey Dahmer's corpse to either of them, but one will head to the Senate. As I've noted before, the compete CLOWNS being sent to Congress now are cast in the role of "Bad guys/gals who will destroy what little is left of the respect or honor associated with the USA's legislative branch."

After all, SCOTUS writes signs all legislation now after lobbyists get done writing it. I'm not sure why Congress even votes on it anymore. All they do in the Capital Building is make fund-raising calls. It's like a big telemarketing business, selling whatever isn't nailed down (assuming Hillary didn't sell it all first...sorting out all those foreign claimants can be a real hassle, language-wise.)

I'll still vote for Trump on the off-chance that there aren't enough dead voters in Chicago to offset the actual demoralized democrats who "discover" they were too busy to go pull the lever for The Hag.

Blogger tz October 24, 2016 4:45 PM  

It is a confusion between two things.
First, some true principle - you cannot vote for someone with attribute X, and both candidates have it.
Second, a double standard - you won't vote for X based on one series of standards, but not for Y because of a different one, where X and Y might be acceptable if you swapped them.

Some are voting Hillary because of her sex (no, I mean "gender", calling Mr. JC Wright!). But they wouldn't vote for (McCain) Palin.

Scott Adams notes we rationalize our choices, not the other way around.

Anonymous Gggs October 24, 2016 4:59 PM  

"gggs isn't showing you the full picture."

Sure I am. Show me any ownership or control of Smartmatic by Soria, and show me a single state in which the Smartmatic states are being used in this election.

You can show neither, nor can anyone else.

Choose the high road and choose not to lie.

Anonymous map October 24, 2016 5:01 PM  

I don't think VP is right about this. The idea is to cancel out the Hillary voters. Not voting for Trump or abstaining or voting third-party does nothing to cancel the vote of everyone who votes for Hillary.

Anonymous Gggs October 24, 2016 5:02 PM  

"And who the fuck are (((you)))?
Sock puppet of cubicle neighbor?"

Me? I'm the guy who makes you look silly.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 5:09 PM  

He was addressing your sockpuppet, silly. It looks weird when he addresses the puppet and the ventriloquist responds.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky October 24, 2016 5:12 PM  

gggs have a look at the Smartmatic home page where they are touting two case studies atm, the 2016 GOP Utah caucus and the 2016 Democrat primary in LA county. They have already had a hand in this election by their own admission. And both of those cited case studies were controversial.

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 5:13 PM  

Tell your boss that if he wants, I'll release some believable poll numbers with Hillary ahead. I hear they've been shelling out something like $250K per poll. That's ridiculous, I'll do it for a mere $225K.

Anonymous Gggs October 24, 2016 5:17 PM  

"They have already had a hand in this election by their own admission. And both of those cited case studies were controversial."

In which state did you say Smartmatic machines would be tabulating votes? And where did you show Soria owned them?

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 24, 2016 5:55 PM  

Rhetoric, then retreat to pseudo-dialectic. Weird, I'm seeing a pattern. Somebody oughta write a book about that.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky October 24, 2016 6:10 PM  

Smartmatic's US division was called Sequoia. After the US government suspected Smartmatic of colluding with Hugo Chavez to throw his election they forced Smartmatic to divest Sequoia. Although the head of Smartmatic and other leadership went with Sequoia. That head, Jack Blaine, admitted however that Sequoia technology was really controlled by Smartmatic.

Sequoia was eventually subsumed by a small and hitherto unknown Canadian company, Dominion.

I'm glad that troll gggs came along in the end, because using that site he provided (https://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/) I was able to look up the deployment of all the Sequoia/Dominion machines in the US. Sure enough, my county uses these old Sequoias (Smartmatics).

Looks like I'm voting on a Soros-influenced machine with a sketchy past and a history of corruption including Hugo Chavez. And according to Stanford University, it's a problem:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0/view?pref=2&pli=1

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 6:20 PM  

"Looks like I'm voting on a Soros-influenced machine with a sketchy past and a history of corruption including Hugo Chavez."

In what states are Smartmatic controlled machines being deployed in this election?

And who is assuring that machines of another company other than Smartmatic are going to throw votes to hillary?

The goalposts for this supposed rigged election keep moving and moving and moving and moving.

Blogger Lazarus October 24, 2016 6:28 PM  

gggs wrote:In what states are Smartmatic controlled machines being deployed in this election?



Smartmatic is providing machines to Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin,

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky October 24, 2016 6:33 PM  

Use your own link, gggs. You'll find 2069 Sequoia/Smartmatics in Chicago alone. And 1673 next door in Cook County. They're the voting machine of choice for the Chicago machine, it seems. Odd, that? There are thousands and thousands of them all over.

Anonymous gggs October 24, 2016 6:38 PM  

"Use your own link, gggs. You'll find 2069 Sequoia/Smartmatics in Chicago alone.

Odd. You just changed the name of Sequoia. As you know there are ZERO Smartmatic machines deployed in this election.

Furthermore, there is no evidence the Soros has had any influence whatsoever over the smartmatic machine workings.

So, I'll ask again, do you know of any states where Smartmatic is providing machines for vote tallying?

Blogger Lazarus October 24, 2016 6:44 PM  

gggs wrote:In what states are Smartmatic controlled machines being deployed in this election?

Can't you fucking read?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 6:47 PM  

gggs wrote:Odd. You just changed the name of Sequoia. As you know there are ZERO Smartmatic machines deployed in this election.



You see it's not the machines, the software, or the controlling interest that's important. It's the name. And by fobbing US operations off to a US shell corporation controlled by the same people, on account of their history of collusion with vote fraud, the totally removed any concerns over vote fraud.

Because the name is what enables vote fraud, not the software, and not the people building and programming the machines.

Anonymous BGKB October 24, 2016 7:07 PM  

have paid 40 people 50 bucks each to go vote.Still cheaper than what Jeb! spent per vote

Jeb paid people $50 just to sit in one of his rallies.

Odd. You just changed the name of Sequoia. As you know there are ZERO Smartmatic machines deployed in this election.

Oy Vey people talking about (((Acorn))) doing voter fraud when the very same Acorn people are in the Project Veritas videos this week. Don't you know they change the company name each time they get caugt? Vey haven't been Acorn since 50 busts ago.

Anonymous jon October 24, 2016 7:36 PM  

It's not that hard. When Ralph Nader ran back in 2000, he was (rightfully) seen as a spoiler by the Democrats. His voters were left-leaning politically and many would have likely voted for Gore. So a vote for Nader wasn't equal to a vote for Bush, but it was equal to a loss of a vote for Gore. It's one less vote that Bush needs to win. To put it using numbers, if the vote is 100 Bush to 100 Gore and one voter switches Gore-to-Bush, then Bush wins by 2 (101-99). If one voter switches Gore-to-Nader, then Bush wins by 1 (100-99),
So, for the people voting third party, it's a half-vote for the opponent of the person they would have otherwise voted for if they hadn't decided to throw their vote in the toilet.

Anonymous Down and Out in... October 24, 2016 8:36 PM  

I have to say (and knowing what I know, I don't say this lightly) Trump is a rather impressive public speaker, and what he lays out is rational, consistent, compelling, and sort of healthy-minded. Closest thing to Wendell Berry that I've seen in public life. Given that I grew up around him and his professional bullshit, I have to say I'm very surprised, and happily so, to see what good presidential material he really is. And the thing people need to keep in mind is that, this is a REALLY wealthy successful man with a lot of hot women on his arm, at age 70 FFS, he really does not need to be taking the trouble to do this; if I were him I would just coast for the rest of my life. As Mister Aykroyd used to say, He's on a mission from God.

But he's not a good debater (excellent speaker, terrible debater), and that will probably cost him. If more people could just hear what he has to say when he's making his case, it'd be a landslide.

Christ, I wish I was in charge of doing his advertising, I'd crush Hitlery like a bug. Herr Cerno is doing some really awesome stuff, but he's a high-grade grenade, I'm a f!cking plutonium bomb.


Anonymous Jack Amok October 24, 2016 9:59 PM  

Nobody other than Trump has any chance to defeat Clinton this cycle, so if you're not voting for Trump, then you're not voting against CrookedSick Hillary.

Blogger Badger Brigadon October 24, 2016 10:07 PM  

Actually Trump is a magnificent debater... He's just had to do his debates with both hands and one foot tied behind his back.
What speaks to this is the absolute crushing defeats of Hillary in both of his last two debates, DESPITE neomarxist moderators, Hillary's pre-debate 'coaching' with the questions in-hand, and the absolute neccessity of not alienating a ton of oversensitive pussies that are only voting for him because all of their friends are.

Anonymous Soros Payroll Flunky October 24, 2016 10:21 PM  

> Me? I'm the guy who makes you look silly.

Dammit, gggs, we told you stop looking in the mirror while you were typing your messages. Your pay is getting docked for that.

Blogger M Cephas October 24, 2016 10:32 PM  

Although I agree that a no-vote or third party vote is not a vote for Hillary. If you are voting for anyone other than Trump, you are definitely not serious about trying to stop Clinton from becoming President.

A vote for Clinton is essentially cancelled out by a vote for Trump. In that sense, you keep the balance from sliding in her favor.

Anonymous Ellipsis Lacuna October 25, 2016 2:02 AM  

Such tabulations only make sense on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction level. Only swing districts will have an impact.

Blogger Rez Zircon October 25, 2016 3:01 AM  

Quite possibly the best policy speech I can recall, and laid out in simple, straightforward language. I found very little to disagree with.

Where he'll get the budget (at least until it's freed up by gov't shrinkage) and the congressional cooperation to ram through these policies is another question.

Still, better Trump as God-Emperor than Hillary as dogcatcher.

Blogger G-S. October 25, 2016 3:15 AM  

The Electoral College is a zero sum game. Hence any vote for one nominee is a vote against the others. Since Clinton and Trump are the dominant players, a win by McMullin steals votes from them, but the balance offsets Trump more because Utah was never in play for Clinton.

Blogger bob kek mando ( Grab 'Em By The Pussy And Their Hearts And Minds Will Follow ) October 25, 2016 3:49 AM  

3. Snidely Whiplash October 24, 2016 12:09 PM
Vox, Vox, Vox
It's rhetoric, not an appeal to reason.



i wonder ...

how many of you noticed that
"Can you imagine what Charlie Daniels could do with a violin like that" was rhetoric?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 25, 2016 1:14 PM  

Screw Charlie Daniels. Joe Venuti.

Where did gggs go?

Anonymous xyzlatin October 26, 2016 7:05 AM  

Please join me and vote for Trump as I am agog to see what happens when he becomes President. By simply running he has exposed so many double crossing liars and people no one thought were globalists and not for America, imagine how many are going to be leaping out of the woodwork. It is going to be so much fun and the man has the cojones to do it. He is looking so relaxed on a three a day rally schedule, imagine how after an hour or two of rest after his inauguration he is going to start stirring those lazy people in congress and the senate. It is going to be the show of the century as Trump unleashed by the need to be pleasant to get votes, runs all over them.

Anonymous xyzlatin October 26, 2016 7:10 AM  

Can you imagine him as President, phoning Ryan at 3 am to discuss business, then setting a 6 am appointment with him, every morning for a fortnight? He will run Ryan ragged.

Blogger James Dixon October 26, 2016 1:29 PM  

> Where did gggs go?

He had to go cash his checks while they were still good.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts