yeah, the piece of this that's interesting is that we're seeing this a lot -- they didn't believe the things that he said.

putting aside the question of 'why the fuck not, you stupid, stupid idiot?', it does suggest part of the appeal here -- you knew what HRC would do, because she told you what she would do. you even knew that, for example, she wasn't likely to go very hard on wall street -- like, somehow that was one of her scandals, that you really, really knew what she would do.

it's kind of like, if you were on let's make a deal, and you could either take the car -- which wasn't a great car, but you knew it wouldn't nuke australia -- or you could Spin the Wheel. and yeah, the wheel had 'Ban the Muslims' on it, and 'Sell Off the Ocean', but it also had some funny zingers and hey, that car simply isn't that cool.

And people took the fucking wheel, knowing full well that they couldn't tell what it was going to provide, and then it turns out that the unpredictable wheel was unpredictable and somehow, what -- they regret picking the wheel?

The thing about this is, it's like, I don't know, driving drunk: it's a bad idea whether you hit someone or not. The outcome isn't the important thing, it's taking the risk that's the determinant of whether it's a bad idea. There is no denying that no one knew what he would do, but that he would do something. If you voted for him not believing his words, you voted for that uncertainty. You spun the wheel. This was all foreseeable. You handed your keys to the drunk guy because, yeah, he looks drunk, but he can't be as drunk as he looks, and oh shit, he ran down a half-dozen pedestrians. That's not on him, that's on YOU.

It's just exasperating and I'm worried that we're going to mollycoddle these fucks instead of putting their feet to the fire. This is what you get when you spend a few decades telling people that freedom of conscience means the right to believe whatever you want, no matter how out of step with the actual world.