New York Times Op-ed (Not a Parody)

[Waffle]

You made me chuckle, Virgil Showlion. 

[Deleted]

Oct 26, 2016 10:40:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 26, 2016 9:33:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

When the public is into Jerry springer and the Real Housewives, you think there's an informed public? Even DS says he has to read 5 different sources if he wants an inkling of the real truth

The people are ignorant because the media feeds us entertainment instead of substance, and the media denies us substance because we're ignorant and unfit to criticize our leaders.

Somehow I don't think the founders of western democracy saw it turning out like this.

Fast electronic media wasn't even a concept at the time.   The upper management of large media conglomerates have found out a while ago that subverting an election (or other things) through diversion or omission, to help sell big dollar commercial time, is an easy thing to do.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 26, 2016 9:33:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

When the public is into Jerry springer and the Real Housewives, you think there's an informed public? Even DS says he has to read 5 different sources if he wants an inkling of the real truth

i think that what this suggests is different depending on who you are.

you either view democracy as a goal or a threat.

"which side are you on?"

[djAdvocate]

Oct 26, 2016 19:54:44 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oct 26, 2016 10:40:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The people are ignorant because the media feeds us entertainment instead of substance, and the media denies us substance because we're ignorant and unfit to criticize our leaders.

Somehow I don't think the founders of western democracy saw it turning out like this.

People are ignorant because they are not curious.  Come on man, there is more information out there than ever before in the history of humanity.  Sure most of it is crap, and the media feeds us crap.  But there is good information too.  It is out there for those who wish to find it.
If more people demanded more of it there would be more serious media.  The masses are always ignorant.  Nothing about democracy necessarily changes this.

agreed.  the masses are mostly concerned with getting by, enjoying life and liberty, and setting their affairs in order.  they don't give a crap about politics.  that is why they were systematically excluded for almost a century.

but the cat is out of the bag, now.  so the real question going forward is do we want to make the effort to inform the masses, and have something resembling a true democracy, or do we want to satisfy ourselves with the Republic we were given?

[Deleted]

Oct 26, 2016 19:54:44 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oct 26, 2016 10:40:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The people are ignorant because the media feeds us entertainment instead of substance, and the media denies us substance because we're ignorant and unfit to criticize our leaders.

Somehow I don't think the founders of western democracy saw it turning out like this.

People are ignorant because they are not curious.  Come on man, there is more information out there than ever before in the history of humanity.  Sure most of it is crap, and the media feeds us crap.  But there is good information too.  It is out there for those who wish to find it.
If more people demanded more of it there would be more serious media.  The masses are always ignorant.  Nothing about democracy necessarily changes this.

Therein lies the problem though... most don't WANT to find it... and in the rare cases that they do find it, if they don't like it, or it casts their choice in a bad light MOST people ignore it (except for a high percentage of Trump supporters who, oddly and sadly enough, relish it and celebrate him for it).

[Virgil Showlion]

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is that no matter who I talk to, the "ignorant masses" never seems to include them.

Is there some kind of test I can run to determine if an individual is truly a part of the ignorant masses? If so, what is it, and what authority is there behind the test?

Is "ignorant masses" a meaningless term we apply to everybody, including ourselves?

Is ignorance even a valid contraindicator of good governance? I doubt anyone here will claim that education, intellect, academic merit, etc. are strongly correlated with good governance. Mightn't we ask if there's any correlation at all?

If the next US president suffers a blow to the head and reverts to governing according to primitive rules, "Debt bad. War bad. Secrecy bad. Don't touch it; you might break it. Don't give money to strangers or men in suits.", which today's establishment (and media) would poop a kitten over, does anyone here think we'd wind up worse off than with the "smartest people in the room" at the helm?

It seems we should first establish that a lack of ignorance (i.e. worldliness) is actually a credit to governance. Worldliness is what gave us the war on carbon, the war on terrorism, the war on radical Islam, the TPP, the too-big-to-fails, the supreme multinationals, the CFR, the OPT, negative interest rates, and supply-side economics. When the groundwork was first being laid for these, they were floated into the public on such an ocean of kool-aid that it was the people who knew least about them who ultimately wound up resisting the most. And these people wound up being right.

It was the "informed" folks, who read the newspapers, read the magazines, watched CSPAN, listened to the talking heads, and believed the documentaries who wound up being suckered. It was informed folks who cheered on the PPACA, which is becoming more of a disaster by the month.

Who exactly are the "ignorant masses" and can we really blame them for anything?

[OldCoyote]

Oct 24, 2016 23:29:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 24, 2016 23:25:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I knew these men existed. It's just that their rhetoric is so much more chilling in their own words.

what you call "these men", i call "my government".  this is why i get angry when you and others accuse me of being "pro government".  there is no greater insult, imo.  the proper role of a citizen is eternal and ceaseless vigilance, scrutiny, and critique of government- not "love" of any kind.  the only rights that we have as citizens were won by hardship and suffering of those before us.  no rights whatsoever were "given" to us.  women and blacks know this lesson best of all, but even a privileged person such as myself, with some effort and practice, can see it.

Sorry!

[djAdvocate]

Oct 27, 2016 6:06:49 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Oct 26, 2016 20:49:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

agreed.  the masses are mostly concerned with getting by, enjoying life and liberty, and setting their affairs in order.  they don't give a crap about politics.  that is why they were systematically excluded for almost a century.

but the cat is out of the bag, now.  so the real question going forward is do we want to make the effort to inform the masses, and have something resembling a true democracy, or do we want to satisfy ourselves with the Republic we were given?

What are you suggesting as the alternative that resembles "true democracy"? 

(that is a loaded question)

let me put it this way: before this year, i didn't get why the founders and Lippman thought a Republic was such a great idea. 

PRIOR to this year, i was idealistic enough to think that some form of libertarian anarchy would be nice. 

this is driven by my own distaste for authority.  but what this year taught me was that not all of those that have a distaste for authority have very good ideas of what a fair and just society should look like.  and so, as Obama once said about his views on gay marriage, my view on this subject is "evolving". 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 26, 2016 22:51:51 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is that no matter who I talk to, the "ignorant masses" never seems to include them.

Is there some kind of test I can run to determine if an individual is truly a part of the ignorant masses? If so, what is it, and what authority is there behind the test?

Is "ignorant masses" a meaningless term we apply to everybody, including ourselves?

Is ignorance even a valid contraindicator of good governance? I doubt anyone here will claim that education, intellect, academic merit, etc. are strongly correlated with good governance. Mightn't we ask if there's any correlation at all?

If the next US president suffers a blow to the head and reverts to governing according to primitive rules, "Debt bad. War bad. Secrecy bad. Don't touch it; you might break it. Don't give money to strangers or men in suits.", which today's establishment (and media) would poop a kitten over, does anyone here think we'd wind up worse off than with the "smartest people in the room" at the helm?

It seems we should first establish that a lack of ignorance (i.e. worldliness) is actually a credit to governance. Worldliness is what gave us the war on carbon, the war on terrorism, the war on radical Islam, the TPP, the too-big-to-fails, the supreme multinationals, the CFR, the OPT, negative interest rates, and supply-side economics. When the groundwork was first being laid for these, they were floated into the public on such an ocean of kool-aid that it was the people who knew least about them who ultimately wound up resisting the most. And these people wound up being right.

It was the "informed" folks, who read the newspapers, read the magazines, watched CSPAN, listened to the talking heads, and believed the documentaries who wound up being suckered. It was informed folks who cheered on the PPACA, which is becoming more of a disaster by the month.

Who exactly are the "ignorant masses" and can we really blame them for anything?

Chomsky asserts that there ARE NO ignorant masses.  that "people are smart". 

are you and Chomsky in agreement on this subject?

[mmhmm]

Oct 27, 2016 11:25:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 27, 2016 6:06:49 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

What are you suggesting as the alternative that resembles "true democracy"? 

(that is a loaded question)

let me put it this way: before this year, i didn't get why the founders and Lippman thought a Republic was such a great idea. 

PRIOR to this year, i was idealistic enough to think that some form of libertarian anarchy would be nice. 

this is driven by my own distaste for authority.  but what this year taught me was that not all of those that have a distaste for authority have very good ideas of what a fair and just society should look like.  and so, as Obama once said about his views on gay marriage, my view on this subject is "evolving". 

This post made me smile. I recall my "moment" - when I realized anarchy would be a Very Bad Idea. Mine came years before our current morass, but it was definitely a memorable "moment". 

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 27, 2016 11:26:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 26, 2016 22:51:51 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is that no matter who I talk to, the "ignorant masses" never seems to include them.

Is there some kind of test I can run to determine if an individual is truly a part of the ignorant masses? If so, what is it, and what authority is there behind the test?

Is "ignorant masses" a meaningless term we apply to everybody, including ourselves?

Is ignorance even a valid contraindicator of good governance? I doubt anyone here will claim that education, intellect, academic merit, etc. are strongly correlated with good governance. Mightn't we ask if there's any correlation at all?

If the next US president suffers a blow to the head and reverts to governing according to primitive rules, "Debt bad. War bad. Secrecy bad. Don't touch it; you might break it. Don't give money to strangers or men in suits.", which today's establishment (and media) would poop a kitten over, does anyone here think we'd wind up worse off than with the "smartest people in the room" at the helm?

It seems we should first establish that a lack of ignorance (i.e. worldliness) is actually a credit to governance. Worldliness is what gave us the war on carbon, the war on terrorism, the war on radical Islam, the TPP, the too-big-to-fails, the supreme multinationals, the CFR, the OPT, negative interest rates, and supply-side economics. When the groundwork was first being laid for these, they were floated into the public on such an ocean of kool-aid that it was the people who knew least about them who ultimately wound up resisting the most. And these people wound up being right.

It was the "informed" folks, who read the newspapers, read the magazines, watched CSPAN, listened to the talking heads, and believed the documentaries who wound up being suckered. It was informed folks who cheered on the PPACA, which is becoming more of a disaster by the month.

Who exactly are the "ignorant masses" and can we really blame them for anything?

Chomsky asserts that there ARE NO ignorant masses.  that "people are smart". 

are you and Chomsky in agreement on this subject?

I'm saying that I'd rather be governed by a man dumb as a sack of hammers who holds firm to some basic principles than by a man with big, bold, brilliant new ideas that purport to rise above those principles.

I'd rather have Glass-Steagall than the Financial Services Modernization Act.

I'd rather have "$1.00 in, $1.01 out: misery. $1.00 in, $0.99 out: happiness." than neo-Keynesianism, acceptable debt-to-GDP ratios, quantitative easing, "social inventory management".

I'd rather have "50%+1 vote that x isn't OK in state y; x isn't OK in state y" than "Please please please get in, candidate z, because we need more judges who will make sure x is OK (or isn't OK) o'er the land."

I'd rather have "Freedom to serve, freedom to accommodate, freedom to hire, freedom to speak." than "You shall not discriminate against x, unless x is also y, in which case you shall discriminate and hire a minimum of one y for every 3 z, but only if z doesn't ask for a cake, in which case you may only exercise your own judgment if you're not a corporation, but..."

Id rather have sporadic terrorist bombings than the Patriot Act.

I think you get the point.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 27, 2016 14:41:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 27, 2016 11:26:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Chomsky asserts that there ARE NO ignorant masses.  that "people are smart". 

are you and Chomsky in agreement on this subject?

I'm saying that I'd rather be governed by a man dumb as a sack of hammers who holds firm to some basic principles than by a man with big, bold, brilliant new ideas that purport to rise above those principles.

I'd rather have Glass-Steagall than the Financial Services Modernization Act.

I'd rather have "$1.00 in, $1.01 out: misery. $1.00 in, $0.99 out: happiness." than neo-Keynesianism, acceptable debt-to-GDP ratios, quantitative easing, "social inventory management".

I'd rather have "50%+1 vote that x isn't OK in state y; x isn't OK in state y" than "Please please please get in, candidate z, because we need more judges who will make sure x is OK (or isn't OK) o'er the land."

I'd rather have "Freedom to serve, freedom to accommodate, freedom to hire, freedom to speak." than "You shall not discriminate against x, unless x is also y, in which case you shall discriminate and hire a minimum of one y for every 3 z, but only if z doesn't ask for a cake, in which case you may only exercise your own judgment if you're not a corporation, but..."

Id rather have sporadic terrorist bombings than the Patriot Act.

I think you get the point.

sure, but my comment(s) in this thread had nothing to do with policy.  policy is wallpaper.  policy is incense. 

what i am talking about is framework.  foundation.  bedrock.  septic. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 27, 2016 14:58:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 27, 2016 14:41:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm saying that I'd rather be governed by a man dumb as a sack of hammers who holds firm to some basic principles than by a man with big, bold, brilliant new ideas that purport to rise above those principles.

I'd rather have Glass-Steagall than the Financial Services Modernization Act.

I'd rather have "$1.00 in, $1.01 out: misery. $1.00 in, $0.99 out: happiness." than neo-Keynesianism, acceptable debt-to-GDP ratios, quantitative easing, "social inventory management".

I'd rather have "50%+1 vote that x isn't OK in state y; x isn't OK in state y" than "Please please please get in, candidate z, because we need more judges who will make sure x is OK (or isn't OK) o'er the land."

I'd rather have "Freedom to serve, freedom to accommodate, freedom to hire, freedom to speak." than "You shall not discriminate against x, unless x is also y, in which case you shall discriminate and hire a minimum of one y for every 3 z, but only if z doesn't ask for a cake, in which case you may only exercise your own judgment if you're not a corporation, but..."

Id rather have sporadic terrorist bombings than the Patriot Act.

I think you get the point.

sure, but my comment(s) in this thread had nothing to do with policy.  policy is wallpaper.  policy is incense. 

what i am talking about is framework.  foundation.  bedrock.  septic. 

At the municipal level?

I think most people are reasonable. Ignorant of the nitty gritty, perhaps, but generally aware of this fact.

The bigger the city, the less this holds true. Government in a city the size of Toronto is once again all about policy.

Any time a government grows beyond the size where ~100 average Joes can reliably crush an unpopular idea (e.g. an escalator to nowhere), we're back into territory of progressive ignorance verses reactionary ignorance. Joe Councilor thinks an escalator to nowhere is a great idea (all the modern cool cities are doing it!) while the Citizens League Against Progress hate any proposal too complicated for them to understand (and everyone knows it), and we're back to debating which kind of ignorance is worse.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 27, 2016 15:50:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 27, 2016 14:58:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure, but my comment(s) in this thread had nothing to do with policy.  policy is wallpaper.  policy is incense. 

what i am talking about is framework.  foundation.  bedrock.  septic. 

At the municipal level?

I think most people are reasonable. Ignorant of the nitty gritty, perhaps, but generally aware of this fact.

The bigger the city, the less this holds true. Government in a city the size of Toronto is once again all about policy.

Any time a government grows beyond the size where ~100 average Joes can reliably crush an unpopular idea (e.g. an escalator to nowhere), we're back into territory of progressive ignorance verses reactionary ignorance. Joe Councilor thinks an escalator to nowhere is a great idea (all the modern cool cities are doing it!) while the Citizens League Against Progress hate any proposal too complicated for them to understand (and everyone knows it), and we're back to debating which kind of ignorance is worse.

i am trying to think whether i agree with your first statement, about people being reasonable.

are they?

watching this election, i see one group of people that are demanding that we spend more money on social services and not raise taxes on the bottom 99%, and another side insisting that we beef up security and cut taxes.  both sides want a balanced budget.

which side of that argument is reasonable?

[Deleted]

Oct 27, 2016 16:14:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 27, 2016 15:50:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

At the municipal level?

I think most people are reasonable. Ignorant of the nitty gritty, perhaps, but generally aware of this fact.

The bigger the city, the less this holds true. Government in a city the size of Toronto is once again all about policy.

Any time a government grows beyond the size where ~100 average Joes can reliably crush an unpopular idea (e.g. an escalator to nowhere), we're back into territory of progressive ignorance verses reactionary ignorance. Joe Councilor thinks an escalator to nowhere is a great idea (all the modern cool cities are doing it!) while the Citizens League Against Progress hate any proposal too complicated for them to understand (and everyone knows it), and we're back to debating which kind of ignorance is worse.

i am trying to think whether i agree with your first statement, about people being reasonable.

are they?

watching this election, i see one group of people that are demanding that we spend more money on social services and not raise taxes on the bottom 99%, and another side insisting that we beef up security and cut taxes.  both sides want a balanced budget.

which side of that argument is reasonable?

The side that agrees that dessert should come BEFORE the entree.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 27, 2016 16:14:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 27, 2016 15:50:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

At the municipal level?

I think most people are reasonable. Ignorant of the nitty gritty, perhaps, but generally aware of this fact.

The bigger the city, the less this holds true. Government in a city the size of Toronto is once again all about policy.

Any time a government grows beyond the size where ~100 average Joes can reliably crush an unpopular idea (e.g. an escalator to nowhere), we're back into territory of progressive ignorance verses reactionary ignorance. Joe Councilor thinks an escalator to nowhere is a great idea (all the modern cool cities are doing it!) while the Citizens League Against Progress hate any proposal too complicated for them to understand (and everyone knows it), and we're back to debating which kind of ignorance is worse.

i am trying to think whether i agree with your first statement, about people being reasonable.

are they?

watching this election, i see one group of people that are demanding that we spend more money on social services and not raise taxes on the bottom 99%, and another side insisting that we beef up security and cut taxes.  both sides want a balanced budget.

which side of that argument is reasonable?

"Reasonable" only extends as far as municipal government. As I say, "The bigger the city, the less this holds true."  For a polity as big as a nation, it generally isn't true.

Mankind lacks the innate ability to work with scale beyond a certain threshold. The threshold differs from individual to individual and from context to context.

For example, most westerners (75% or more) lose perspective on dollar values exceeding $5 million. They've never had to deal with anything close to this amount of money; they never will. As a measure of "ability to effect change", it's indistinguishable from $50 million, $5 billion, or $5 trillion. The quantities are all simply "a lot of money". Hence a nationwide "save the puppies" initiative that costs $5 million, $5 billion, $5 trillion is equally appealing at any price point.

Another example: few people have any conception of how much energy North Americans use, or the scale of the undertaking needed to replace energy production with renewable tech. Ask Joe Blow whether he's excited about renewable energy and he'll say "yes". It's the wave of the future. But Joe has no meaningful understanding of what the requirements are to replace 100%, 10%, or even 1% of the existing infrastructure.

If you walk him through the process, building up from "What does it cost to convert one house?" with quantities he can appreciate, to neighbourhoods, cities, states, countries, you might be able to convey a sense of the scale of the overall goal. But throw a number like 2.5 x 10¹⁴ kWh at him and it's meaningless. Most people have a low tolerance for abstractness, and numbers above the threshold are an abstraction. Hence the opinion "Go green. It's easy." has more clout than "Where are we going to get 80 sextillion joules from?"

STEM professionals often have a poor sense of scale when it comes to things like law, logistics, bureaucratic complexity, etc.  An engineer might say "Kill all funding to sanctuary cities," failing to realize that there's 60 judges, 10,000 administrative roadblocks, and a million pages of litigation between the status quo and defunded sanctuary cities. That's a loss of perspective as well. I'm certainly not immune, which is one of the reasons I like to debate ideas on YMAM.

If a citizen can't cope with the scale of an issue, he can't address it reasonably. Bigger polities deal with bigger issues, hence fewer people can reasonably address issues at higher levels of government. This includes politicians. Although politicians ought to be among those most guarded against loss of perspective, they can be some of the worst offenders. Politics attracts people good at politics, not necessarily people with proper perspective.

[billisonboard]

Oct 27, 2016 22:57:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

STEM professionals often have a poor sense of scale when it comes to things like law, logistics, bureaucratic complexity, etc.  An engineer might say "Kill all funding to sanctuary cities," failing to realize that there's 60 judges, 10,000 administrative roadblocks, and a million pages of litigation between the status quo and defunded sanctuary cities. ....

Engineers and a certain presidential candidate who states he will end it on day one.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 27, 2016 23:17:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 27, 2016 22:57:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

STEM professionals often have a poor sense of scale when it comes to things like law, logistics, bureaucratic complexity, etc.  An engineer might say "Kill all funding to sanctuary cities," failing to realize that there's 60 judges, 10,000 administrative roadblocks, and a million pages of litigation between the status quo and defunded sanctuary cities. ....

Engineers and a certain presidential candidate who states he will end it on day one.

Yeah, I know.

How do you have 1,000 candies?

[zibazinski]

Had it never begun in the first place, had the laws been enforced, he would never have been considered.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 28, 2016 1:50:28 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Had it never begun in the first place, had the laws been enforced, he would never have been considered.

I don't think it's a bad idea in theory.

I like most of the items on Mr. Trump's 100-day contract with the American people... in theory. (Others are downright stupid, but I digress.)

I don't know where he thinks he'll get the political capital to make a tenth of his plan a reality. If he was Supreme Overlord of America, he might have a decent shot at getting it done in a full term.

If he actually made it into office--which he won't--and the GOP maintains control of both houses, he might succeed in unwinding Obamacare before 2018.

Say what you will about Ms. Clinton, she can at least make good on her campaign promises to sit on her arse and perpetuate the status quo.

[zibazinski]

Her arse ought to be in jail. It's not "her turn" for letting obama get the last 8. She got her payoff already and then some.

[Deleted]

Oct 28, 2016 2:17:04 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Her arse ought to be in jail. It's not "her turn" for letting obama get the last 8. She got her payoff already and then some.

No kidding... especially the bolded.

Others have done less than she has and are now in jail, convicted of their crimes.


ETA: Crimes that, even if she were to get the lightest sentence possible, would immediately disqualify her to even hold public office... ANY public office (much less run for the highest one in the land).

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.


Source: Cornell University Law School

Even if it was only the "3" that supposedly had the "C" for "Classified" that everyone acknowledges, they are enough to find her guilty under Title 18 (Comey wouldn't pass it up to the AG... and the AG wouldn't "press him" to get it so they could take it to trial).

Not to mention the 30,000 that she "mutilated", "obliterated", and "destroyed"... when she wiped the server clean. Who does that to "private e-mail about wedding planning and other boring personal stuff"? We don't know WHAT was in them... and likely never will.

Delete? Fine.

People delete personal e-mail all the time. But no one I've ever run across would wipe their server clean, and then deep format the hard-drive, forever removing all data beyond the ability to ever be recovered. 

[buystoys]

Oct 28, 2016 1:49:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 27, 2016 23:17:43 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Engineers and a certain presidential candidate who states he will end it on day one.

Yeah, I know.

How do you have 1,000 candies?

billisonboard has been going around mugging everyone and taking their candy.  I think he needs to share it! 

[billisonboard]

Oct 28, 2016 1:49:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

How do you have 1,000 candies?

I combined a midweek day off because I had a long string of days I had to work, a low level headache which kept me mainly stationary, and a flare up of latent OCD.