10 (or 11, I can't remember) Muslim countries kill homosexuals as a criminal punishment
Amazing Islamaphobia fail there. It is true there are 11 countries in the world where you can be executed for being gay (those in the article + Uganda now), and they are all in Africa or countries adjacent to it. However, 2 of those 11 are primarily Christian countries. In at least one of those the law in question was passed at the suggestion and urging of US-based Christian groups. The punishment is cribbed straight out of the Christian holy book: stoning.
It isn't the religion. Its the culture in that part of the world.
At the time it was authored, well regulated [constitution.org] did not mean what you think it means today, and the militia consisted of all free males of military age
More to the point, at the time it was authored, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. So what the Second Amendment said was that while states could regulate guns all they wanted for whatever purpose they wanted (including outright banning them, it they felt like it), the Federal Government was not allowed to. That's how it makes sense for it to be talking about regulation and banning regulation in the same amendment. It was assuming someone would regulate firearms, it just wouldn't be the Federal government. The Constitution was basically a document spelling out what powers the Federal Government was taking from the states, and the 2nd Ammendment says that the power to regulate firearms was explicitly not one of those.
The 14th Ammendment (post-Civil war) essentially applied the Bill of Rights to the states. That was by-and-large a very good thing, but it broke the 2nd amendment as it was initially designed. Nobody able to regulate armaments at all at any government level is just madness, and yes even the founders would have felt this way. The 2nd Amendment even says that, if you bother read it.
For viol8 to positively assert that we're a fluke is rather presumptive, but so is your response. FWIW, we aren't seeing any other jackpot winners yet
I'd say technically this is quite correct. What I'm falling back on here in my engineering experience. Particularly debugging. If something happens once, (say your program causes your entire computer to crash). Then yes, its quite possible that the cause of this even was something that is so unlikely that it will never ever happen again, not to you and not to any other user. Its possible the bug was caused by a stray cosmic ray hitting just the wrong bit at the wrong time, and that one bug will never happen again. However, every time in my life I've told myself that, I've been wrong. Maybe the bug is somewhat rare, but computers are so fast and users are so plentiful that even rare things happen a lot. So the safe money is always on it not being a one-off.
I'm seeing the same thing here. It obviously happened once, because we are here. We know of about 8-15 other places (the other planets in our Solar System, however you define planets) where it didn't, but that's all we really know. Now is it possible that its actually so rare that this is the only place out of millions of trillions of likely planets in the universe that it ever happened in? Sure, its possible. But that's not the way to bet.
Prob-stat fail here. Yes, it is nessecarily true. If its truly random, then any possible result will happen given an infinite number of allowed attempts. That's basic Prob-stat. So if those dice are fair, you will eventually come up with 10 6's in a row if you can just keep rolling that long. This is why the house always wins in the long run, even when the odds are nearly even. They have more money than you, so they can just wait you out until you get a bad run.
And all you have to do to see where I got that number is read back in the thread. I know reading referenced material is discouraged here, but try it. 200 billion stars * multiple planets per star (= around a trillion) * the amount of galaxies in the known universe (1.5 million) = millions of trillions of tries.
Don't worry. No one person can hold the knowledge for how to make any of that advanced stuff. Even, ironically, a pencil is beyond the capabilities of any single person to understand how to make. So without writing nobody will be able to look up how to make any of that stuff, and nobody will be able to order it from abroad either.
A small kingdom (on the order of 20,000 subjects) is about the most advanced society proven to be possible without any writing.
The thing is, its not really. That's a bit of a fallacy. If you try often enough, you logically should see all kinds of "statistically unlikely" things happen. Roll dice enough, and you will see a run of 10 6's in a row, event though the odds against that on 10 rolls are something on the order of millions to one. Try something millions of trillions of times, and damn near anything that's possible (and clearly its possible or we wouldn't be here) should happen multiple times.
It sounds to me like the main part of Singapore's defense budget should probably be going to cyber-defense, since that's where the attacks are coming from.
Normally victims go to the police rather than making websites, it
Of sexual assault? No, normally victims don't report them at all. They tend to get blamed for their own victimization more than helped, and really who wants to go through that? Their odds of getting actual justice are much smaller than their odds of getting further abused.
Which is why there's a nasty little subculture of guys running around who have figured out how to do this to women with impunity. Then the majority of us who would never even think of behaving that way get stuck with trying to have real relationships with the emotionally-scarred results of these a-holes.
Seriously, screw this guy and everyone like him. He's the reason jails should exist.
You know what would be even more secure? No printers or photocopiers. If someone wants to write a document, they have to do it longhand. If someone wants a copy, they have to copy it longhand as well. That will really slow down the leakage of information!
Of course a truly secure society would get rid of writing altogether. Important secrets will be passed down using special people with trained memory (often called "bards"). They use song and rhyme to help with the large amounts of memorization required. Ever heard of anyone running off with the vital military secrets of an Amazonian or Pigmy tribe? No? That's why.
Efficient dissemination of information is for suckers.
Everything in your list from 3 on is just our path, not necessarily the one and only path for intelligent life. Add to that the fact that there are hundreds of billions of stars, with possibly up to a trillion planets in our galaxy alone, and there are more than one and a half million of those in the observable universe. In that many attempts the odds of more that one success seem to be pretty damn good.
I attended both the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump rallies in Albuquerque
There doesn't seem to have been an incident there, but last week in both Oakland and Modesto some protesters rushed the stage while Sanders was speaking. Back when he actually had a reasonable chance to win there was a lot more of that. He had at least two incidents where he actually left a rally early rather than deal with the protesters.
There was admittedly a wee bit of physical force used in both of these recent incidents, but it was the Secret Service doing it. The protesters themselves didn't feel like violence was called for, and for the most part neither did the supporters. Funny how the candidate sets the tone, isn't it?
Everybody from Hillary Clinton on down to (for instance) San Jose's mayor and police chief are engaged in "blame the victim" over what happened in that city recently.
What happened in that city recently? I checked the news, and the best I could find was that their hockey team made it to the playoffs.
If you are talking about violence at Trump rallies...well...every politician has been getting protesters at their rallies this cycle. That includes Sanders and Clinton. Heck, even O'Malley got protested, and most of you probably didn't even know he was running. There's only one candidate where things tend to get violent, and its no coincidence its the one candidate who's made it clear he thinks violent behavior against those you disagree with politically is a Good Thing.
Dude has been sewing the wind like crazy. If you're shocked at the whirlwind, that's on you.
why hasn't that popped up in his past? Discrimination lawsuits? Sexual harassment cases? Workplace violence or intimidation? Anything like that?
All the things like that, yes. It turns out that Trump currently has been sued over 3,500 times. As near as anyone can tell, no other POTUS candidate has ever even come close to that figure.
Personal favorites are the one where he was employing illegal immigrants on his construction jobs, and the one where he used a positively "Clintonian" turn of phrase to argue that just because he said he was developing something doesn't mean he was one of the developers.
2 Things here: 1) Byrd died a decade ago. Unless she carries a Ouija board around with her, she hasn't been friends with him in quite a while. 2) He renounced that membership long before he died or before Hillary ever met him, and was (mostly) not a supporter of White Supremacy in Congress.
People do grow and change their minds. Hillary once supported Goldwater. Ronald Regan was a New Deal Democrat. Republicans used to be the party of Liberals and Democrats used to be the party of Conservatives. If you want to play "used to" and then association games with old people, you can "prove" any damn fool thing you like. But you're really saying nothing. We don't live in the 1950's any more.
Back when I was a young CS student, my teachers used to regale me of tales when there were people with full-time jobs riding around the computer (supposedly on unicycles) with a backback full of vacuum tubes replacing them as they burned out.
That's going to be a hellova interesting job now that their size is measured in nano-meters and there are billions of them on a chip.
I have both his autobiographies, so it wouldn't shock me if I read it and subconsciously absorbed it, while consciously forgetting about it. This is how comedians end up accidentally stealing each other's material. So if I got it from him, he should certainly get the credit.
Not to mention it probably has more weight coming from a famous dead physicist than from a random online idiot.
That's what proof has always meant. It's never meant absolute certainty
That's what I was taught it meant. A lot of proofs build on other proofs. If the first one turns out to be "buggy", then you'd have to re-evaluate every single later proof that used it too. That could get to be a nightmare.
Thinking back on it though, the teacher I had for the (Geometry) class in HS that first taught me proofs was the worst math teacher I ever had, bar none (he was a coach, so this was his "beard" class). So I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the idea that he was teaching that wrong...
If you're suffering the chilling effects of not sharing media because you think you might get in trouble, that's a second-order effect of censorship.
...or you're just being considerate. Not every stray thought that flitters across your brain needs to be shared. For example, if you have opinions on a political candidate's spouse's looks, fantasies about something happening to a female who you happen to disagree with, or any opinion at all on a Kardashian, the world is much better off if you don't share. Really. We're fine.
This is interesting, and makes a lot of sense. However, if "proofs" are now so complicated that we essentially have to treat them like a computer program (things to be debugged rather than something that can be conclusively shown to be correct), then isn't "Proof" a bit of a misnomer? It implies a level of certainty that simply is no longer there.
Why would you expect the code for this program to be of such a size that the human mind couldn't grasp and verify
Colloquially, if its bigger than "Hello World", it has bugs. Lots of "Hello World"s have bugs too.
But if you are talking about Formal Verification, that's actually a research topic in CS. Its possible to do, but very expensive. Usually you have to use special compilers designed for that, like SPARK. You ever heard of anyone using SPARK? Well, that should tell you how common that is.
But even then, that doesn't mean you don't have bugs. As Math/CS god Donald Knuth once said of a relatively more simple queuing algorithm: "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
Computers can't do this for you either. That's part of Computability Theory. You've got the Halting Problem in general, and Rice's Theorem more specific to mathematical transforms. There's a halfway (but not great) discussion of this on this SE Question.
Why progressives/liberals dismiss so easily the real concerns of most voters?
I think you've got a lot of emotion here masquerading as numbers. Here are some actual statistical facts:
"Most voters" are in fact not white males. In 2016 white males will be about 34% of all eligible voters. That means 66% of the electorate has to deal with being from an unprivileged group every day of their lives. (actually more, as I'm not counting GBT white males). So if liberals (and in fact conservatives) were not looking at issues of "privilege", they would in fact be ignoring the real concerns of most voters.
Exit poling has shown the best correlation voting for Trump has with any position is with belief that Obama is not an American. I'm not even sure this should be news. He's been the standard-bearer for birtherisim for 8 years now. His supporters have also been shown to be far more racially and religiously intolerant than the average Republican voter.
I know it's ugly to think that a major party nominated a candidate based on what essentially amounts to White Supremacy. But we don't do ourselves any favors at this point by ignoring the plain truth.
Yes, I also can't figure out why preventing illegal immigration to save literally billions per year [fairus.org] is a good idea.
Because it can't be done. He might as well be promising to colonize Alpha Centari. That's probably more doable.
...OK, to be fair, it *could* be done. If you raised the minimum wage in CA to about $20 an hour, or however high it takes to get Americans interested in the menial jobs that Illegal Aliens are taking, so that all those jobs (that remain after the price hikes) are no longer going wanting, then the immigration would stop. No more cultural change. (Well, other than perhaps a new wave of Okies, since our minimum wage is set to the federal level by our genius state leg.) I don't see Trump proposing that though.
Also, you could expand legal immigration dramatically. That would also get rid of most illegal immigration.
But any other way is just fighting a losing battle with economics. No matter how hard you try to make it with walls, etc., CA fruit growers just have to raise the wages of the picking jobs by a couple of cents to make it worth the extra effort to sneak in.
Not that Trump really cares. He regularly employs illegal foreign workers on his own construction jobs. Its him and his billionaire buddies that created this illegal immigration system in the first place, and they are the ones who benefit from it. If he can get you distracted by unworkable solutions, that's just more construction work for him and his illegal alien work crews. I bet he's already working up wall construction bids for his own companies.
This election is all about a couple of guys trying to kick out the political establishment. If Trump or Sanders got elected, a lot of folks living on Capitol Hill would be selling their houses
That's a nice thought, but its utter hooey.
The only way you are going to accomplish that is by defeating a lot of Congressmen. Perhaps you are right that 90% of them will keep their homes in DC if Hilary gets elected. However, if Trump gets elected, 96% of them will keep their houses. That's the typical rate, and I don't see how you can expect anything less if you re-elect the POTUS candidate of the party that already has power in Congress. Basically, a vote for Trump is a vote for more of the same Congress, but with an equally moronic POTUS to lead them.
Slashdot Mirror
10 (or 11, I can't remember) Muslim countries kill homosexuals as a criminal punishment
Amazing Islamaphobia fail there. It is true there are 11 countries in the world where you can be executed for being gay (those in the article + Uganda now), and they are all in Africa or countries adjacent to it. However, 2 of those 11 are primarily Christian countries. In at least one of those the law in question was passed at the suggestion and urging of US-based Christian groups. The punishment is cribbed straight out of the Christian holy book: stoning.
It isn't the religion. Its the culture in that part of the world.
Yeah. Sucks when people profile you, based on what you look like and where you are from, don't it?
At the time it was authored, well regulated [constitution.org] did not mean what you think it means today, and the militia consisted of all free males of military age
More to the point, at the time it was authored, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. So what the Second Amendment said was that while states could regulate guns all they wanted for whatever purpose they wanted (including outright banning them, it they felt like it), the Federal Government was not allowed to. That's how it makes sense for it to be talking about regulation and banning regulation in the same amendment. It was assuming someone would regulate firearms, it just wouldn't be the Federal government. The Constitution was basically a document spelling out what powers the Federal Government was taking from the states, and the 2nd Ammendment says that the power to regulate firearms was explicitly not one of those.
The 14th Ammendment (post-Civil war) essentially applied the Bill of Rights to the states. That was by-and-large a very good thing, but it broke the 2nd amendment as it was initially designed. Nobody able to regulate armaments at all at any government level is just madness, and yes even the founders would have felt this way. The 2nd Amendment even says that, if you bother read it.
Smartest reply I got right here. Thank you.
For viol8 to positively assert that we're a fluke is rather presumptive, but so is your response. FWIW, we aren't seeing any other jackpot winners yet
I'd say technically this is quite correct. What I'm falling back on here in my engineering experience. Particularly debugging. If something happens once, (say your program causes your entire computer to crash). Then yes, its quite possible that the cause of this even was something that is so unlikely that it will never ever happen again, not to you and not to any other user. Its possible the bug was caused by a stray cosmic ray hitting just the wrong bit at the wrong time, and that one bug will never happen again. However, every time in my life I've told myself that, I've been wrong. Maybe the bug is somewhat rare, but computers are so fast and users are so plentiful that even rare things happen a lot. So the safe money is always on it not being a one-off.
I'm seeing the same thing here. It obviously happened once, because we are here. We know of about 8-15 other places (the other planets in our Solar System, however you define planets) where it didn't, but that's all we really know. Now is it possible that its actually so rare that this is the only place out of millions of trillions of likely planets in the universe that it ever happened in? Sure, its possible. But that's not the way to bet.
Thats not necessarily true.
Prob-stat fail here. Yes, it is nessecarily true. If its truly random, then any possible result will happen given an infinite number of allowed attempts. That's basic Prob-stat. So if those dice are fair, you will eventually come up with 10 6's in a row if you can just keep rolling that long. This is why the house always wins in the long run, even when the odds are nearly even. They have more money than you, so they can just wait you out until you get a bad run.
And all you have to do to see where I got that number is read back in the thread. I know reading referenced material is discouraged here, but try it. 200 billion stars * multiple planets per star (= around a trillion) * the amount of galaxies in the known universe (1.5 million) = millions of trillions of tries.
Don't worry. No one person can hold the knowledge for how to make any of that advanced stuff. Even, ironically, a pencil is beyond the capabilities of any single person to understand how to make. So without writing nobody will be able to look up how to make any of that stuff, and nobody will be able to order it from abroad either.
A small kingdom (on the order of 20,000 subjects) is about the most advanced society proven to be possible without any writing.
The thing is, its not really. That's a bit of a fallacy. If you try often enough, you logically should see all kinds of "statistically unlikely" things happen. Roll dice enough, and you will see a run of 10 6's in a row, event though the odds against that on 10 rolls are something on the order of millions to one. Try something millions of trillions of times, and damn near anything that's possible (and clearly its possible or we wouldn't be here) should happen multiple times.
It sounds to me like the main part of Singapore's defense budget should probably be going to cyber-defense, since that's where the attacks are coming from.
Normally victims go to the police rather than making websites, it
Of sexual assault? No, normally victims don't report them at all. They tend to get blamed for their own victimization more than helped, and really who wants to go through that? Their odds of getting actual justice are much smaller than their odds of getting further abused.
Which is why there's a nasty little subculture of guys running around who have figured out how to do this to women with impunity. Then the majority of us who would never even think of behaving that way get stuck with trying to have real relationships with the emotionally-scarred results of these a-holes.
Seriously, screw this guy and everyone like him. He's the reason jails should exist.
You know what would be even more secure? No printers or photocopiers. If someone wants to write a document, they have to do it longhand. If someone wants a copy, they have to copy it longhand as well. That will really slow down the leakage of information!
Of course a truly secure society would get rid of writing altogether. Important secrets will be passed down using special people with trained memory (often called "bards"). They use song and rhyme to help with the large amounts of memorization required. Ever heard of anyone running off with the vital military secrets of an Amazonian or Pigmy tribe? No? That's why.
Efficient dissemination of information is for suckers.
Everything in your list from 3 on is just our path, not necessarily the one and only path for intelligent life. Add to that the fact that there are hundreds of billions of stars, with possibly up to a trillion planets in our galaxy alone, and there are more than one and a half million of those in the observable universe. In that many attempts the odds of more that one success seem to be pretty damn good.
I attended both the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump rallies in Albuquerque
There doesn't seem to have been an incident there, but last week in both Oakland and Modesto some protesters rushed the stage while Sanders was speaking. Back when he actually had a reasonable chance to win there was a lot more of that. He had at least two incidents where he actually left a rally early rather than deal with the protesters.
There was admittedly a wee bit of physical force used in both of these recent incidents, but it was the Secret Service doing it. The protesters themselves didn't feel like violence was called for, and for the most part neither did the supporters. Funny how the candidate sets the tone, isn't it?
Everybody from Hillary Clinton on down to (for instance) San Jose's mayor and police chief are engaged in "blame the victim" over what happened in that city recently.
What happened in that city recently? I checked the news, and the best I could find was that their hockey team made it to the playoffs.
If you are talking about violence at Trump rallies...well...every politician has been getting protesters at their rallies this cycle. That includes Sanders and Clinton. Heck, even O'Malley got protested, and most of you probably didn't even know he was running. There's only one candidate where things tend to get violent, and its no coincidence its the one candidate who's made it clear he thinks violent behavior against those you disagree with politically is a Good Thing.
Dude has been sewing the wind like crazy. If you're shocked at the whirlwind, that's on you.
why hasn't that popped up in his past? Discrimination lawsuits? Sexual harassment cases? Workplace violence or intimidation? Anything like that?
All the things like that, yes. It turns out that Trump currently has been sued over 3,500 times. As near as anyone can tell, no other POTUS candidate has ever even come close to that figure.
Personal favorites are the one where he was employing illegal immigrants on his construction jobs, and the one where he used a positively "Clintonian" turn of phrase to argue that just because he said he was developing something doesn't mean he was one of the developers.
2 Things here: 1) Byrd died a decade ago. Unless she carries a Ouija board around with her, she hasn't been friends with him in quite a while. 2) He renounced that membership long before he died or before Hillary ever met him, and was (mostly) not a supporter of White Supremacy in Congress.
People do grow and change their minds. Hillary once supported Goldwater. Ronald Regan was a New Deal Democrat. Republicans used to be the party of Liberals and Democrats used to be the party of Conservatives. If you want to play "used to" and then association games with old people, you can "prove" any damn fool thing you like. But you're really saying nothing. We don't live in the 1950's any more.
Back when I was a young CS student, my teachers used to regale me of tales when there were people with full-time jobs riding around the computer (supposedly on unicycles) with a backback full of vacuum tubes replacing them as they burned out.
That's going to be a hellova interesting job now that their size is measured in nano-meters and there are billions of them on a chip.
Interesting. Where?
I have both his autobiographies, so it wouldn't shock me if I read it and subconsciously absorbed it, while consciously forgetting about it. This is how comedians end up accidentally stealing each other's material. So if I got it from him, he should certainly get the credit.
Not to mention it probably has more weight coming from a famous dead physicist than from a random online idiot.
My general theory, which has served me great for academia, and the business world, and probably applies to startups just is well is:
If someone can't explain something very well in plain English, its almost certainly because they don't understand it very well themselves.
That's what proof has always meant. It's never meant absolute certainty
That's what I was taught it meant. A lot of proofs build on other proofs. If the first one turns out to be "buggy", then you'd have to re-evaluate every single later proof that used it too. That could get to be a nightmare.
Thinking back on it though, the teacher I had for the (Geometry) class in HS that first taught me proofs was the worst math teacher I ever had, bar none (he was a coach, so this was his "beard" class). So I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the idea that he was teaching that wrong...
If you're suffering the chilling effects of not sharing media because you think you might get in trouble, that's a second-order effect of censorship.
...or you're just being considerate. Not every stray thought that flitters across your brain needs to be shared. For example, if you have opinions on a political candidate's spouse's looks, fantasies about something happening to a female who you happen to disagree with, or any opinion at all on a Kardashian, the world is much better off if you don't share. Really. We're fine.
For reference, see Elon's Law
This is interesting, and makes a lot of sense. However, if "proofs" are now so complicated that we essentially have to treat them like a computer program (things to be debugged rather than something that can be conclusively shown to be correct), then isn't "Proof" a bit of a misnomer? It implies a level of certainty that simply is no longer there.
Why would you expect the code for this program to be of such a size that the human mind couldn't grasp and verify
Colloquially, if its bigger than "Hello World", it has bugs. Lots of "Hello World"s have bugs too.
But if you are talking about Formal Verification, that's actually a research topic in CS. Its possible to do, but very expensive. Usually you have to use special compilers designed for that, like SPARK. You ever heard of anyone using SPARK? Well, that should tell you how common that is.
But even then, that doesn't mean you don't have bugs. As Math/CS god Donald Knuth once said of a relatively more simple queuing algorithm: "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
Computers can't do this for you either. That's part of Computability Theory. You've got the Halting Problem in general, and Rice's Theorem more specific to mathematical transforms. There's a halfway (but not great) discussion of this on this SE Question.
Why progressives/liberals dismiss so easily the real concerns of most voters?
I think you've got a lot of emotion here masquerading as numbers. Here are some actual statistical facts:
"Most voters" are in fact not white males. In 2016 white males will be about 34% of all eligible voters. That means 66% of the electorate has to deal with being from an unprivileged group every day of their lives. (actually more, as I'm not counting GBT white males). So if liberals (and in fact conservatives) were not looking at issues of "privilege", they would in fact be ignoring the real concerns of most voters.
Trump voters are, on average a lot wealthier than either Sanders or Clinton voters. He is not getting elected on the votes of the disgruntled "working class" in general. That's a myth.
Exit poling has shown the best correlation voting for Trump has with any position is with belief that Obama is not an American. I'm not even sure this should be news. He's been the standard-bearer for birtherisim for 8 years now. His supporters have also been shown to be far more racially and religiously intolerant than the average Republican voter.
I know it's ugly to think that a major party nominated a candidate based on what essentially amounts to White Supremacy. But we don't do ourselves any favors at this point by ignoring the plain truth.
Yes, I also can't figure out why preventing illegal immigration to save literally billions per year [fairus.org] is a good idea.
Because it can't be done. He might as well be promising to colonize Alpha Centari. That's probably more doable.
...OK, to be fair, it *could* be done. If you raised the minimum wage in CA to about $20 an hour, or however high it takes to get Americans interested in the menial jobs that Illegal Aliens are taking, so that all those jobs (that remain after the price hikes) are no longer going wanting, then the immigration would stop. No more cultural change. (Well, other than perhaps a new wave of Okies, since our minimum wage is set to the federal level by our genius state leg.) I don't see Trump proposing that though.
Also, you could expand legal immigration dramatically. That would also get rid of most illegal immigration.
But any other way is just fighting a losing battle with economics. No matter how hard you try to make it with walls, etc., CA fruit growers just have to raise the wages of the picking jobs by a couple of cents to make it worth the extra effort to sneak in.
Not that Trump really cares. He regularly employs illegal foreign workers on his own construction jobs. Its him and his billionaire buddies that created this illegal immigration system in the first place, and they are the ones who benefit from it. If he can get you distracted by unworkable solutions, that's just more construction work for him and his illegal alien work crews. I bet he's already working up wall construction bids for his own companies.
This election is all about a couple of guys trying to kick out the political establishment. If Trump or Sanders got elected, a lot of folks living on Capitol Hill would be selling their houses
That's a nice thought, but its utter hooey.
The only way you are going to accomplish that is by defeating a lot of Congressmen. Perhaps you are right that 90% of them will keep their homes in DC if Hilary gets elected. However, if Trump gets elected, 96% of them will keep their houses. That's the typical rate, and I don't see how you can expect anything less if you re-elect the POTUS candidate of the party that already has power in Congress. Basically, a vote for Trump is a vote for more of the same Congress, but with an equally moronic POTUS to lead them.