kimmy

I read your comment before last night's episode, and I thought "that would be a huge shock, but it would make a certain amount of sense." One could make the argument that bad decisions Sansa made in season 1 caused Ned to be executed, and it could have been that Arya held her responsible. After last night's episode, I think the answer to your question is "she wasn't before, but she probably is now." The letter that Littlefinger found and leaked to Arya was the letter Sansa wrote under duress in season 2 (I think it's season 2, anyway) urging Robb to come to King's Landing and surrender. -k

Yeah. This is the stupidest thing the writers have ever come up with. The thinking is apparently that Cersei will agree to a ceasefire while Dany goes north to fight the white walkers. It makes zero sense. Last week Dany is all hot to vanquish her foes, and this week she's ready to put her war on hold because Jon received a raven? Whaaaa? Tyrion has everybody convinced that Cersei will accept an armistice if they bring a white walker to King's Landing? Whaaaa? Tyrion thinks that his sister would actually honor said armistice? Whaaaa? Has he even met his sister? Oh yeah, she's the one who spent season 4 trying to get him executed. He knows better than anyone that she's a ruthless honorless serpent. But he still thinks she'd stand idly by while Dany takes her army north? Whaaaa? The idea that anybody at the table would buy into this plan is so absurd. I can accept dragons and red witches and stuff like that, because it's part of the mythology of the show. But people trusting in such a naive and stupid plan isn't part of the mythology of the show. We might look back on this as a "Jump The Shark" moment. On the bright side, we get the Westerosi Avengers! The Magnificent Seven! Woo-hoo! Yeah, that was kind of fun that they just slipped that in there in a throwaway moment. Samwell didn't have any reason to think it was of any significance. Maybe he will have a flashback to that moment at some point in the future when the information that so far only Bran knows is revealed. "Oh yes, come to think of it, Gilly saw something in a book about Prince Rhaegar getting annulled and remarried. Gilly, do you recall that book about bowel movements? We need to find that again." Jon goes from Jon Snow, Ned's Bastard, to Jon Targaryen, legitimate son of Prince Rhaegar and heir to the Targaryen line. Gendry was like "hey, bro, our dads were bros! Let's be bros, bro!" but the truth is like "hey, bro! My dad smashed your dad's chest in with his warhammer at the Battle of the Trident, bro!" After the scene with Jon and the dragon, Dany might already suspect that Jon is a blood relative (or, in Targaryen terms, "marriage material.") -k

I guess we'll find out tonight. To me it doesn't make any sense that he'd make it back to King's Landing. Jaime fell into the river wearing a full suit of plate armor, and his right hand is just a useless chunk of metal. I can't picture him swimming any Olympics under the circumstances. Also, it seems likely that Tyrion saw him go into the river. I think it's most likely that Bronn is able to get Jaime as far as the shore, and they're both captured immediately. The only thing that argues against Jaime being captured is that we still need to have at least one more big scene with Cersei and Jaime together. Cersei has lost the Westlands and the Reach and is now pretty much confined to King's Landing. All she has left going for her is Euron Greyjoy's fleet, and Euron knows it. I would expect Euron to start pressing Cersei to start delivering some quid-pro-quo before he invests a lot of effort in helping her more. I don't expect Cersei to win. Ultimately, there's two ways this series ends. Either Dany wins and teams up with Jon to battle the white walkers, or Cersei wins and the white walkers decimate everything, because Cersei doesn't know or care about fighting white walkers. We're not far from the end of this series. There are 9 episodes to go-- 3 more this season, including tonight's. And 6 episodes of season 8, and nothing more after that. I expect that the remainder of this season will wrap up the war between Cersei and Dany, and season 8 will focus on the war against the white walkers. I think a reunion of Arya and Gendry seems likely-- I suspect that Gendry is traveling with the Bros without Banners, and that he along with the Hound and Thoros of Myr and Ser Berrick will show up at Winterfell sooner or later. I still don't get the idea that Littlefinger has Gendry in his back pocket as some kind of an ace card to play. That was part of your long-dead theory that Gendry was the gift that Littlefinger gave Lady Olenna, but he wasn't. I can't think of any reason to think Littlefinger has Gendry. And Gendry isn't an ace card anyway. At this point his only strategic value is that Arya cared for him... but Littlefinger doesn't know that. -k

Did anybody else think of Terminator 2: Judgment Day when they saw that? Tyrion mentioned that she still had enough ships to get her Dothraki to the mainland, just before she went off on how sick she was of his "clever plans". He had suggested she commit her troops to a blockade of King's Landing, which is essentially what she ended up doing after Jon helped talk her out of using dragons to incinerate the Red Keep. I'm not exactly sure where the battle was. Some people think it was right outside King's Landing, others think it was off in the Reach somewhere. From the conversation between Jaime and Samwell's dad, I get the impression that the head of the army was near King's Landing while the tail of it was stretched out far behind... Lord Tarley was quite concerned about how vulnerable they were. As well, given Lord Tarley confirming that the gold shipment was safely inside the Red Keep, and given Tyrion's earlier plan to blockade King's Landing, and given the geography, I think we can assume that they were pretty close to King's Landing. She seems to trust him an awful lot-- letting him hang out while they talk war, asking his advice about attacking the Red Keep... but I don't think she's ready to let him ride one of her babies. And if she did, I doubt he'd be receptive. "We in the North do not ride dragons, your grace. Horses, bears and wolves on occasion, walruses and narwhals if opportunity presents... but not dragons, your grace. It's simply not done." As for marriage... If R&L is true, doesn't that mean Danaerys is Jon's ... aunt? I feel the same way. If we see Gendry again at all, I think it will be with the Bros Without Banners alongside Thoros, Ser Beric, and the Hound. I still haven't pieced together what their role is going to be going forward, but if Gendry returns it'll be with that bunch, not with anything to do with his bloodline. Maybe he will get to Winterfell and have a brief reunion with Arya. "Oh hi! We met in jail!" The idea of Danaerys marrying Gendry to legitimize her claim to the throne is silly. First off she holds the Baratheons responsible for the murder of her family. She's not going to marry Robert's bastard. She doesn't believe the Baratheons ever had a legitimate claim to the throne. Secondly nobody in Westeros thinks Gendry has a legitimate claim to the throne either. I don't think Gendry himself even realizes his bloodline. Melissandre knows, and perhaps she's on her way north as well. The idea that Gendry would show up this in the game and say "Hark! Lend me your ears! For I am Gendry, the 27th bastard son of Robert Baratheon!" and everybody will just say "wow! He's the real king! Let us end all this fighting and rally behind the 27th bastard of Robert Baratheon!" is just absurd. If they come up with a cornball, ridiculous, deus-ex-machina ending this late in the show, I will be astounded and deeply disappointed. The previous Three-Eyed Raven seemed to be cognizant of the danger of the white walkers. It might be the one mission that still matters to Bran. I didn't recall it at the time, but the part where Bran said "Chaos is a ladder" and Littlefinger scowls at him is a reference to this speech by Littlefinger. No wonder Littlefinger was so taken aback when Bran said that. -k

So was that the complete annihilation of Jaime's land army? Whatever it was, it was satisfying to watch. Partly satisfying, partly horrifying, but mostly satisfying. The look on Jaime's face as he finally understood the reality of the situation was particularly good. Moments before the attack Lord Tarley mentioned that all of the gold had reached King's Landing, so that's unfortunate timing for Dany. Nonetheless, from the number of wagons that got roasted, the loss of foodstuffs and supplies looks to be enormous, and all of those reluctant farmers in the Reach are unlikely to contribute to Cersei's granaries, what with there being nobody left to collect from them. Kind of a cliff-hanger ending. When Jaime gets back on dry ground next episode, I wonder if he'll be staring Tyrion in the face? He could find himself a "guest" at Dragonstone. Losing all those soldiers is a big blow to Cersei... losing all the food and supplies from the Reach is a big blow to Cersei... but losing Jaime might be the one that puts her over the edge. If he's captured, she won't take that well. Perhaps they could do a prisoner swap? Maybe Jaime for Ellaria and Yara? Getting Ellaria back might get Dany her Dornish allies back. Getting Yara back would... uh, I dunno, serve no strategic purpose at this point, but Dany seems like the kind to stick up for her friends. Despite his self-declared mercenary ways, Bronn is a way better friend than these people deserve. Anyway, the big massacre was pretty sweet-- it was nice to see Dany get on the scoreboard, and in spectacular fashion. Meanwhile up North... Sansa and Arya and Bran have all grown so much since they last saw each other in Season 1. Not just physically. Sansa was a star-struck innocent with dreams of being the Queen. Now she's scarred and hardened and savvy and calculating. Arya was a girl who liked to play with swords, and now she's a ninja warrior assassin who has killed more people than small-pox. Bran was a little boy who liked to climb, and now he's an LSD-tripping kook. Littlefinger was talking a lot to Bran, without realizing that Bran's not really Bran anymore, and that Bran knows a lot of stuff that Littlefinger doesn't think he knows. I'm not sure if Arya knows the role Littlefinger had in betraying Ned in season one-- she wasn't in the great hall when Janos Slynt and the city guards attacked the Stark men and Littlefinger held the dagger to Ned's throat. And she probably didn't hear about it afterward, what with being whisked out of town in a hurry. Anyway, the kids all have good reason to hate Littlefinger, and I'm not sure they know it yet. Bran might know it, but he might just not care much anymore. If Bran starts talking, his sisters will make sure Littlefinger doesn't leave Winterfell alive. Valyrian Steel checklist: -Jon -Brienne -Samwell -Jaime -Arya *NEW* I'm sure there's more. Are there more? I feel like I've missed some. -k

Good night Olenna. She was always a joy to watch. At least she had a peaceful end... unlike Elaria Sand. And we still don't know what's going to happen to Yara, but whatever it is it can't be good. It only took an episode and a half for Danaerys to lose all her allies. Aside from her dragons, freed slaves, and barbarian horde, of course. Yeah, Tyrion sucks at this. He should stick to witty jibes and diplomacy. Getting outsmarted by his siblings has to burn. The only thing I can think of is that Cersei and Jamie never mentioned to Tyrion that the mines at Casterly Rock have run dry. That would have changed the calculus considerably. They might have the gold from the treasury at Highgarden-- we saw it in the Ep 4 teaser-- but they still have to get it to King's Landing. That gold caravan would be a tempting target. On the other hand, based on her early successes the Iron Bank might decide that Cersei is the "enterprise" they wish to "invest in" regardless of whether she produces the gold on schedule. Yeah that was pretty awful. Maybe becoming the 3-eyed raven has disconnected him from human emotions. -k

Shame on me. (ding-ding-ding!) I haven't been around much... I wondered the whole scene if she'd execute them.... the scene let us know that she still has a bit of humanity left in her. Finding that the soldiers were ordinary guys who wanted to be home with their families rather than marching around enforcing Cersei's will is a reminder of something Jorah told Dany in early seasons. She told him that Viserys told her that the commoners of Westeros long for the return of the true king. Jorah told her that was bullshit; the commoners of Westeros don't care who sits on the Iron Throne as long as they have food and safety. Dany referenced it when she had her confrontation with Varys regarding his ever-shifting loyalties. Nymeria is back! She wasn't advocating to kill them, but to take away their lordships and install loyal families in their castles. Intentional or not, her arguing for the Umbers and Karstarks to be deposed highlighted what a good guy Jon is, which might help inspire loyalty. One recalls that Robb Stark lost the Umbers and Karstarks as allies by beheading their leaders for killing a prisoner. It seems as if they built the greatest fleet that Westeros has ever seen in just a few weeks. The Iron Isles apparently have an industrial capacity that rivals China. His flagship is pretty bad-ass. The Hound's journey of conscience has been one of my favorite parts of the show. Is it just me, or do the Dornish seem like the red shirt Star Trek crewmen on this show? Their most significant part in the back-story is that a Dornish princess was murdered by the Mountain as the Targaryens were overthrown. The Red Viper shows up looking for revenge, and he too gets murdered. Then the King of Dorne gets murdered. Then the prince gets murdered. Now the Sand sisters are dead, and mamma is going to be the big prize Euron brings to Cersei. This will certainly throw a wrench into Tyrion's plan. It was interesting to see how quickly Olenna and mamma Sand changed their mind about his plan when he told them that the Unsullied army would be taking Casterly Rock. I wonder if she's going to be wearing the face of Petyr Baelish before she's done. Is he on her infamous list? He should be... if he's not she'd probably kill him anyway if he's trying to strongarm Sansa. I was pondering that and wondering what would happen with all those soldiers from the Vale if he got killed, and the idea of Arya leading them home disguised as Baelish seemed like a natural... -k

oh, ok. So which part of Canada is Portland in? (After that Trump-loving "patriot" stabbed people to death in Portland last week, is it surprising that the anti-Trump protestors are arming up?) So where in Canada are conservatives getting punched in the face or beaten with clubs? -k

I don't presume to know which of those situations would be the most difficult, I just wish to point out that many people do find themselves in such situations. My own brief university experience bore little resemblance to the current popular perception of political correctness gone mad. I didn't find campus hostile to my views, or to any views, really. I never actually encountered walk-ins, walk-outs, sit-ins, teach-ins, and all the rest of this stuff. I was in mostly science and math courses, and people were mostly concerned with the course material. This was at the University of Alberta about 10 years ago, perhaps things have changed. In my current smaller town situation, I encounter rednecks and older conservatives a lot more than I encounter politically-correct social justice mobs or intolerant liberals trying to silence anybody. I sometimes have to bite my tongue in the interest of maintaining the peace. A while back city hall painted the crosswalk stripes at a downtown intersection in rainbow colors instead of black and white, and local conservatives didn't feel intimidated from expressing their anger in local media outlets. This environment where conservatives have to "stay in the closet" or face social stigma might fit Argus's situation, I dunno, but it doesn't match the environment in my community. -k

Of course. The campus PC-fascists are disgraceful. My point wasn't that they aren't a problem. My point was that it wasn't them who shut up Milo, it was "the right" ... his publisher and his employer. I'm not going to try to rationalize or defend the campus dummies who have a temper-tantrum every time some speaker they don't like comes to town. I just want to point out that while they're the most obvious and obnoxious attempts at oppression of speech going on, they're hardly the only one. Argus proposes that "they will have rallies and shout at us" and "they will call us fascists or meanies" are powerful forms of oppression, perhaps he is right. What about "this will scare away advertisers"? "The Moral Majority" and its descendants have been trying to silence messages they don't agree with for decades. "If you advertise on this show, we'll boycott your product." It's been going on since the 1970s, and it's still going on with "One Million Moms" and "American Family Association". Of course it's "fascism!" since progressives have been boycotting sponsors of Hannity or Limbaugh, but it's "defending family values!" when it's One Million Moms trying to get TV shows axed or AFA trying to get people to boycott Home Depot for treating gay employees like human beings. I assume this is completely different, since this kind of attempt at suppressing opposing views doesn't involve shouting at people or calling them rude things. -k

Some people have this notion that welfare people are living the high-life and would just go get jobs if welfare were eliminated. I encounter a lot of the extreme poor in my area, as our warm climate makes street life more bearable than in Winnipeg or Edmonton. I can assure you that these people aren't getting jobs under any circumstances. No employer on earth would hire these folks. They're unsuitable for any task. Taking away their assistance won't persuade them to go put on a shirt and tie and get a 9-5 job, it'll cause them to starve. And yes, many people do view that as immoral and evil. There may be some scamming welfare, just as there are those scamming worker's compensation and long-term disability. However, the notion that this represents the entirety of the problem... that if we get rid of welfare everybody will just go get jobs, is as stupid as thinking that just giving everybody money will solve all their problems. And there are a lot more shades of grey in this issue as well. There are a lot of people who are working, but can't get enough hours to pay their expenses, for example. Earlier it seemed like you were criticizing the simple-minded thought-processes of leftists, but now you're just complaining about unseemly public demonstrations. Ok, simple-minded leftists have loud public protests, and simple-minded rightists just forward dumb posts amongst each other on Facebook and post dumb crap on message boards. There's anti-abortion protesters marching up and down the street just a few blocks from me every week, I don't see them getting shut down. A lot of people criticized motion 103, and were not crucified or burned at the stake. I don't actually know much about defense trade shows or resulting protests. The biggest protests I think Canada has seen have been the various protests against globalism, particularly the G20 protests in Toronto. I do recall protesters when Ergogan showed up in the US... his goons beat up some of them. I don't think people actually care very much what happens in China or Russia or Turkey, but I do think they care what happens in the US. I think people think that China and Russia and Turkey are pretty much beyond help. Another example, then, Tomi Lahren. An internet celebrity with the right-wing "The Blaze" website, a darling of the conservatives, until she said she thought it was contradictory for "small government" conservatives to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices. Boom. Fired. Off the air. You've complained about the Liberal Party essentially banning anti-abortion viewpoints, but in the US the Republicans are just as rigid in the opposite direction. In Canada the urban progressives are apparently a super-powerful voting block, and in the US so are the Evangelicals. -k

Right-wing speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, the self-described "Dangerous Faggot", had this schtick where he'd go around to college campuses on a speaking tour full of material that was offensive to just about everybody, and provoke a furious reaction from many different groups, and then point to the resulting furor as proof that "the left" was afraid of discussing ideas they didn't like. Which is fine. It might have been more compelling if he had gone around with some message that actually merited a real discussion, but his point was mostly just that the left would try to shut him down and he was right. So whatever happened to ol' Milo? Well, just before he was schedule to launch his book and speak at the Conservative Political Action Committee, a conservative blogger went through some of Milo's old podcasts and found one where Milo talked about how a sexual encounter with an older man, while he was a teenager, was an important event in his life in helping him come to terms with his own sexual orientation. And the blogger posted this with the spin that Milo was saying that it was positive for grown men to have sex with teenage boys. And Milo got dropped from CPAC and his book got cancelled and he got fired from Breitpravda. So here's a guy who made his career by provoking furious reactions from "the left" and laughing at them because they can't deal with ideas they aren't comfortable with... and he's tries to talk with nuance about a personal experience, and his career gets ended because "the right" can't deal with ideas they aren't comfortable with either. I think there's some amount of irony in that. -k

...well, if you're concerned that the poor can't afford food or a place to live, and Mike Harris's policy is to cut support for poor people further, then maybe "he hates poor people" is a reasonable conclusion? Sure. There's lots of that. There's lots of simplistic thinking on the other side too. Whereas social-conservatives are nuanced thinkers with broad understanding of the underlying issues and an open-minded approach to finding evidence-based solutions to multifaceted problems, right? -k

"...so, aside from that, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?" Ok, so college campuses aren't friendly places for inflammatory right-wing speakers like Ann Coulter or Milo Whatsisname. But that wasn't the question we've been discussing. The question has been, are social conservative views being given fair representation in our democracy? And the atmosphere on college campuses is pretty tangential to that question. It's no more relevant than the atmosphere in small-town diners where rural people meet for coffee. So some places are frequented by people are very rude and hostile to conservatives? Ok. What about it? There's lots of places frequented by social conservatives who are hostile to people who don't share their views too. What about it? -k

Well, I am now feeling extra-triggered after discovering that the character Brunnhilde the Valkyrie will be portrayed as an African woman in the upcoming Thor movie. They have taken a character from Norse mythology and turned her into an African. This seems like exactly the kind of cultural outrage that people were upset with when Scarlet Johansson was cast to star in "Ghost In The Shell", or when Emma Stone was cast as the Hawaiian woman in "Aloha!" If anyone needs me, I will be in my safe-space until I have had a chance to cope with this. -k

Backwoods Idaho, not suburban Portland. Other than being in the same corner of the country, I have no idea why anybody would tar Portland with that brush. -k

It was obvious the day Trump was elected that the US would pull out of the Paris agreement. 20% of Republicans are in the pocket of the oil companies and only care about getting paid. 15% of Republicans think the earth is flat and that if the sea levels rise, the extra water will just spill over the edge. 25% of Republicans think God will protect the environment so we can do whatever we like. 40% of Republicans don't care about the future because they think the Rapture is going to happen any day now. -k

I think these topics have been discussed and voted on many times. I think you're being a bit melodramatic here. Yes, on university campuses the social justice warriors have taken on a mob mentality, but aside from that I don't see this aggression you're talking about. We do have a Christian Heritage Party that people can vote for if they truly long for social-conservative values. Anti-abortion protestors marching up and down the street every week just a few blocks away from me, at the local hospital... they haven't been hunted down or harmed. The R.E.A.L. Women are still out there doing their thing. Religious groups are still doing their thing. I don't think it's true that none of these people are allowed to talk, I think it's more a matter of nobody listening. Nobody is preventing them from speaking in public forums, with the exception of mobs at universities as I said earlier. That's a legitimate complaint that I agree with. Brad Trost has been an MP for a long time, and if anybody has prevented Brad Trost from expressing his views in Parliament, it's either Brad Trost or Stephen Harper. I'd suggest that the real reason social conservatives aren't talking about their issues in Parliament isn't that they are being silenced by leftist hordes, but rather that they realize that these issues are vote-losers for them. I think this is more hyperbole. I don't think "the media" have attacked anyone's position. I think the media, when social conservatives speak up, reports their comments and reports the reaction to it as well. I'm not aware of anybody calling for 99% tax rates, befriending Hamas, or so on. I do think the media handles BLM with kid-gloves, out of fear of being called racist themselves. -k

That's an assumption. I personally supported the Harper government for many years, precisely because he kept the social-conservative element of the party at bay while doing a reasonable job in other areas. Harper won several elections by assuring voters that he wasn't going to meddle with social issues that they didn't want meddled with, and he backed it up by telling the likes of Cheryl Gallant to shut up. You know that Harper's personal sympathies are in line with social conservatives, but he was smart enough to recognize that they had to let those issues go if they wanted to win. The BC Liberals were (until a couple of weeks ago) Canada's most successful conservative government, and they also managed to stay in power for a long time by rejecting social conservatism. ...and how do we usually treat views that aren't popular enough to get political parties to implement them? So... let me see if I've got this right... you want the Conservative Party to advocate for social conservative views, because social conservatives deserve representation. But you don't want the Conservatives' opponents to campaign against those issues, because it's mean to social conservatives to suggest that it's terrible and backwards that they want to take peoples' rights away? Is that what you're trying to say? There have been lots of ideas that enjoyed some measure of popular support at various times in history that went out of vogue. I don't think the failure of such ideas to retain support past their "Best Before" date is necessarily a failure of democracy. -k

The Conservatives can offer political representation to people with anti-gay or anti-abortion views if they wish. They won't, because they know these issues are vote-losers for them. What kind of political representation do you want those issues to get? If you want the Conservatives to be a champion for people who hold those views, the Conservatives will lose. Why should anti-gay or anti-abortion views be treated any different from other popular (but not popular enough) viewpoints? If we were talking about some view you hate-- say, guaranteed income, or proportional representation-- would you feel like they too need some kind of political representation? "Listen, 1/3 of Canadians support changing the FPTP system, and those people deserve representation!" I have a hunch that no, you wouldn't be nearly as sympathetic if we were talking about something that you think is stupid. Mr Scheer says that these issues are finished and he won't be reopening them. I hope he means it, because the next election should be about spending and fiscal management, not about social conservatism. Stephen Harper was Prime Minister for a long time because people trusted him to run the economy and they trusted him to keep the government's nose out of those issues. It's a good formula. -k

Has anybody from the UN ever actually made an attempt to address the sheer idiocy of Saudi Arabia being on the women's rights commission? As far as I can tell this appears to be a complete and total disgrace to the entire UN. -k

Hypothetically, as a person of Swedish descent, should I have a hissy-fit next time I see somebody wearing a fake Viking helmet with fake blond braids? -k

Everybody thinks he's a clown. They just recognize that he's a clown with a lot of influence. -k

I think it's mostly an attempt to convince her dad that they're swell guys. "Ahmed! How we handle visit from de Trump? He say many bad thing about us!" "We give him big shiny medal. He love de gold. He love medals. He love de praise. We give him shiny gold medal and lots of praise." "But de orange man, he say we are de barbarian and de savage who treat de women like slave and trow de gay man off de roof. What we do about dat?" "We give money to his Jew whore daughter. She have de women charity. We give money to de women charity, he will think we are de good guys." It's just a patently obvious attempt to appeal to a guy who's shown he loves to be treated like a big deal. -k

I don't mean to sound like a Trump defender, because that's the last thing I'd do, but I think that real-estate and construction is a completely different ballgame. From what I've read, you couldn't even build an outhouse in New York City in the 1980s without the mob getting a piece. That's the kind of environment Trump was working in, a ruthless, cut-throat world where everybody was trying to get a piece of your action. And while Trump has been accused of stiffing people who worked on his projects, declaring bankruptcy so that he could pay people pennies on the dollar for their services... I have to say that's not exactly unheard of among real estate developers. It happens more than you'd think, unfortunately. I think that just the nature of the game practically ensures that developers like Trump are going to be a lot less popular than tech entrepreneurs. -k