Posted on 06/28/2016 4:20:34 PM PDT by SteveH
i was at the cashier at a local hardware store today. the cashier was female and late 50s to mid 60s. i was buying some tools and some junk food including twinkies.
to make a joke, i said i was dan white and i need the twinkies to provide my excuse.
after a few moments the cashier recognized "dan white" and presumably the connection to twinkies and laughed. she said dan white, he is really scary.
i would have left it at that but she went on to say "just like trump."
i took the bait. i said why. she said "trump is scary because he is too paranoid."
i said "hillary is even more scary. would you vote for her even after benghazi?" i chose benghazi because cashiers are typically unaware of security restrictions, violations, consequences, and penalties.
the cashier paused a moment. i was not sure she recognized the signicance of benghazi so i added "4 guys died in benghazi. 4 guys died because of hillary."
the cashier still did not have much to say in response though she was still pleasant. i got the feeling that "because trump was too paranoid" is as far as she has ever had to go to defend her point of view with her social peer group. mentally i decoded "paranoid" into "racist." so i guessed that she meant that trump was racist or too racist or something like that.
i said you know calais? where the refugees are camped on the french coast trying to get to england? she said yes. i said, those people want to get to england, but it is a mainstream media lie that they are refugees from syria. they are mostly from places like afghanistan and somalia. somalia guys are for neighbors-- not good right? she said yes, not good. do you want to have your neighborhood overrun by such people? no she did not, she said.
i waited a short moment for her to disown her previous comments but she did not say anything more.
i had already caused a delay in the line so i gave up at this point in time.
so, to the cashier, and apparently her peer group, apparently being responsible for killing US soldiers for no reason or for bad reasons is ok, but being like trump (no murders that we know of so far) in the sense that he is allegedly racist is not ok.
it is ok if we are overrun by somalis as a result of our naiive faith in the benevolence of human nature, but it is not ok if we talk about limiting immigration of such somali migrants.
there is some fundamental logic problem, or at least i would think. trump my be able to get around this. but imho he has to try harder.
i had been hoping for better results but did not get anything. anyone want to suggest a better line?
is hillary really responsible for the deaths of the 4 benghazi heros as i had presumed? is there a better example to pick on for an elevator speech?
the reason i focused on benghazi is because in my thinking, it has the potential to cut through all the politics.
one is either guilty or not guilty of negligent manslaughter.
is or is not hillary at least potentially guilty of negligent manslaughter at a minimum with the 4 benghazi heroes?
at a minimum, it plants a seed of doubt. do these clueless hillary-zombies want to vote for someone who seems at least potentially guilty of negligent manslaughter versus someone who is demonstrably not guilty of negligent manslaughter?
and i suppose this in turn makes the hillary email issue more important, because if the enemy had access to sensitive info concerning benghazi, then anyone with even half a brain must recognize that hillary is guilty of at least something awful. from that point on, they either need to rethink their political leanings, or violate their own consciences.
I wonder if there is a more effective theme for a 30 second elevator speech. however, this seemed to be along the optimal path, at least the best i could think of, impromptu.
I find a simple counter-query works better than promoting Trump to his opponents. Simply ask if they are better off now than 8 years ago with the Democratic programs and do they feel more confident they will have better job security and higher pay 8 years from now under Trump or Hillary.
It strikes much closer to home than their idealistic assumptions and adversarial attacks of racism.
good point. thanks!
“But even the most rigorous logic will not help one reach the correct conclusion if one’s premises are false.”
You can say that a few more times.
:) She sounds sweet.
Ah, Steve, yes, I completely understand what you’re saying here. Well, whatever you do, keep smiling.
Excellent. Thanks, I'll use that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.