"The law was introduced by a conservative religious group as an initiated state statute",
"despite being on the books for more than a decade, the law is seldom enforced"
_______________________
Sounds like it could be politically motivated. no?
Lot's of fucked up things coming out of Ohio. Like the Ohio State wrestling team members getting molested by their team doctor. I wonder if we have anyone from Ohio State on TUSCL who was molested?
True, Stormy and her lawyer no doubt made sure there were officers present who were willing to slap the cuffs on her. As pathetic as Ohio clubs are that law is broken hundreds of times a day in clubs all over the state.
Seems like a waste of time and money. Although, you’d think Stormy would be very aware of the laws in each state she dances - so she could avoid this type of arrest.
No photos of the female officer who got touched? I’d like to see video of the interaction. It’s my duty as an informed citizen - to pursue this evidence...
Not sure if our hobby can stand another 2 1/2 years of the hypocritical political atmosphere. Bible thumpers and Holyier-than-thou Republicans are the two greatest enemies of the sex industry (that and Mike Pence).
Good ! She should more than that for being a RAT and so should all the hypocrites on the site that starts with a T who glorify her.
@randommember - Funny how an excuser from the 90's just happened to show up days after the Congressional hearing and the heated exchange with that POS deputy AG Rosenstein
@poolyd - If your simple minded enough you can rationalize any (and every) thing. You just have to want it to be true and tell yourself it is, and everyone who says it’s not true; well they are just fake.
@poolyD Kamala Harris D CA is the crusader - want to be POTUS - who trots around yelling #Metoo and " my body my choice - except of course for any adult Independent woman who wants to sell " it " online
I agree with everyone else. If both the Bible thumping right wing and the hateful “feminist” left wing agree, it’s probably a bad idea.
I’m sure she misunderstood just cause she made the simple mistake of looking around and seeing actual dancers dance.
There’s similar laws in my area. I found out, after dancing for a year, that dances are *legally* only supposed to be air dances. Nobody in Austin ever follows that! Nor do managers ever say that when getting hired!
I only found out because one night LE came in undercover. They also tried asking dancers for coke. Management went around the room and immediately told all of us to quit grinding on customers.
That night must have sucked for customers. Since most of us felt uncomfortable and hid in the dressing room, or also just simply left early.
I’m pretty sure those stupid laws also help to spike extras too. I mean, if you can get prostitution charges for grinding, then lol why not suck a dick?
Of course it’s all political bullshit. But that’s what this little cunt has made her living on. She is making a living out of breaking the confidences of a client to try and bring down a politician and portray him as a criminal. Now she is being treated as a criminal. That’s how the game works. If she doesn’t like how the game is played then she should put on her clothes so we don’t have to keep looking at her fake, worn out pathetic excuse for a female body.
JackAstor said "...all the hypocrites on the site that starts with a T who glorify her."
Who the hell is glorifying her? I'm pretty sure everyone on TUSCL agrees that she's a disgusting unprincipled whore for doing what she's doing. And if Rosenstein is such a POS then why did Trump hire him? I thought he said he was only going to hire the best people.
PoolyD said "No idea how people reconcile voting republican and patronizing strip clubs."
There are other issues besides strip clubs, you know. Under our system we have to choose one person per office, and that person may agree with us on one issue but disagree with us on another issue. And then we are forced to decide which issues matter most. For example, one of the judges on Trump's recent short-list for SCOTUS specifically ruled against a strip club and in favor of the small town that was trying to shut it down. That was Raymond Kethledge. But on most other issues, Kethledge was actually much better than Kavanaugh. Just an example.
Did anyone notice police aren’t responding with any comments to the media? It was noted that one of the arresting detectives this morning coincidentally was charged for entrapment in 2015. Detective Rosser was involved in encouraging a bar/bartender to serve to minors. It was also noted this detective was dating a bartender from the establishment that served the minors, played on the bars sports team, and is friends with several employees.
I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I support legalized weed, prostitution, gambling, gay rights, abortion, etc., but support border control, defense spending, tax cuts, restrictions on entitlements, etc. From year to year, have to lean one way or the other and deal with the consequences. Two years ago, though left had too much power and Obama went too far. Now, feel Trump and religious right have gone too far. Worried about SCOTUS.
Impossible, living in USA to ever seem to have it all.
Oh yeah, Stormy should rot in hell. First rule in her line of work -- never talk out of school! Get the money and keep your fucking mouth shut unless you are swallowing.
Local news here in Cincinnati is reporting that the club (Sirens) was part of a long term investigation into prostitution and human trafficking. Sirens has always been my favorite club in Columbus but I'm glad I don't have any trips to Columbus planned for the next 2 months since it will likely not be a good time to visit.
First Dayton cracked down and now Columbus seems to be doing the same which leaves the entire southern half of Ohio a no fun zone. At least Louisville, Lexington and Indianapolis are each just a couple of hours away.
What a shock that police eventually dropped the charges (sarcasm). I usually support the blue line but in this case it was apparent this was an abuse of power.
The charges were dropped because the legislation was written with an odd loophole in it. The ban on touching customers while partially undressed only applies to dancers who "an employee who regularly appears nude or seminude " and since she does not regularly perform at the club she isn't held to that rule. Could be an interesting loophole for feature/traveling dancers to exploit going forward.
"Daniels, who was topless and wearing a G-string, reportedly forced patrons’ faces into her breasts and smacked patrons with them, according to the police report.
At that point, three undercover officers approached the stage. Daniels is accused of grabbing a female detective’s head and forcing the officer’s face between her breasts. Daniels reportedly did the same with a male detective as well, the report states.
Then, Daniels is accused of fondling the third officer’s buttocks and breasts. Daniels smacked that female officer’s face with her breasts, according to the affidavit."
Clubs close after midnight in Ohio due to this crap law? No wonder my relatives in Ohio supported trump, they've been crapped on by stupid laws for years. As always I'm not sure if the people got the changes they wanted. Almost Everyone wants an end to crappy laws but it seems to stay whether it's Obama or trump.
I saw her show in Indy last month. Nothing out of the ordinary. I mean tippers got there face in boobs. Typical police report embellishment for the arresting affidavit.
I'm glad I live in an area when they don't send 3 undercover dectectives into a strip club. Well they must have major crimes under control. What a farce of policing.
Yep....everything is uptight here in central Ohio. What Daniels did wasn't that crazy but I'm sure her name already being in the news brought her "special" attention from LEO. I haven't been to a club in awhile but I've been feeling the itch to go to one. But the timing is terrible right now. Kahoots was cited a few months ago and now this. I doubt that you could get the grind to even get an LDK right now.
Go libertarian....they want the government out of almost everything. What 2 consenting adults do shouldn't be any business of the government!
I absolutely agree, and I vote for the Libertarian Party candidate frequently. BUT be prepared, if by some miracle the Libertarian Party ever fields an electable slate of candidates, at that time they will probably begin to endorse greater infringements on your life. That's the nature of things. They will need to demonstrate that they are "serious" people, and they will need to broaden their support beyond their 1% base. The only way for them to do so is with statist policies. But for now, yes, supporting the LP offers a guilt-free vote for anyone who cares about freedom in an election with no other good choices.
1) Ben Shapiro isn't a libertarian, he's a conservative. And I seriously doubt that the Libertarian Party has any relationship to him whatsoever, let alone paying him to speak.
2) Why does everyone always mention Ayn Rand? Lots of people have read her novels without becoming a libertarian, such as Steven Spielberg, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Mark Cuban, President Trump, and even President Obama.
3) When I said the "1% base," I didn't mean the "richest 1%." I meant the wackos who usually vote for the Libertarian candidate - they typically get around 1 percent of the vote. And trust me, it isn't coming from the elite limousine crowd. Have you ever seen footage of the LP convention? It ain't exactly a Goldman Sachs shareholder meeting.
4) Net Neutrality has been gone for about one month now, and the internet is EXACTLY THE SAME as it was before. (Plus we had no net neutrality until June of 2015.)
Before 2015 it seems like it was mostly "enforced" as a general principal through civil anti-discrimination lawsuits, not as FCC and DOJ policy. Once in a while the feds would get directly involved, and they often lost in court as they did in 2014. But put all of that aside for the moment... the internet is exactly the same as it always was! I detect absolutely no difference. So what's the problem? Don't pretend that the government didn't always have the power to shut down websites that it didn't like - that's not a new thing. Net neutrality or no net neutrality: if you're running a website that's blatantly breaking the law and if the government finds out about it, they can investigate and they can shut it down. And besides, shouldn't broadband-hogging companies like Netflix and Amazon pay more anyway? That would be the main outcome of ending net neutrality.
- "Funny how net neutrality wasn't a partisan issue"
It still isn't a partisan issue. Large majorities of both parties support Net Neutrality. The repeal is very unpopular with Democrats, independents, and Republicans alike. Voters are often wrong about things.
- "until Fox News made it that way by kissing Ajit Pai's ass every chance they got."
I wasn't even aware that he had ever been on Fox News. But if he's so partisan, then I guess President Obama shouldn't have hired him as a member of the FCC board in 2012. Trump merely gave him a promotion. And Pai has actually publicly contradicted Trump on several issues already. Doesn't seem very partisan to me.
- "It's about ISPs prioritizing content"
If they care about their customers, then they *should* prioritize websites such as Netflix and YouTube that receive like a trillion hits a month. I'm tired of endless buffering. It doesn't make sense to devote the same amount of broadband to a website that gets 12 hits a year. Slowing ExNunsXXX.com by a milisecond would go a long way towards making the internet a better place, if it makes Google work faster.
- "and directing people to services they like and restricting access to others they don't"
Why would they do this? It would be a huge story and they would lose customers. Having said that, they made the investments, so if they really want to block content, it's their choice... and it's my choice to switch providers. Maybe a small Christian ISP could arise and advertise that they "proudly block unsavory content." That would be fine with me. But I'll stick with Verizon and Comcast.
- "where certain said broadband-hogging services don't count against data usage while others do."
This would be fucking wonderful! I hadn't even thought of this possibility. Please sign me up with an ISP that doesn't count Google and YouTube against my data usage.
- "Isn't this kind of like what Bill Gates has been getting sued for one million dollars a day for the last twenty-five years or so?"
I don't know. I don't follow all his lawsuits. But anyone who's getting sued for a million dollars a day already has a powerful incentive to stop doing whatever he's been doing, right?
-"When something like the internet comes along and becomes such an essential part of a person's daily life, it has historically been made into a public utility."
- “I don't know why people don't realize Obama was just a moderate republican.”
We’ve had this discussion here before. On every single major issue except for trade and war, Obama was more conservative than either of his two main Democrat opponents in 2008. So you have a point, somewhat.
- “If you don't support fair and equal access to the internet, then you're just against democracy. Plain and simple.”
You’re right, I suppose, I am against democracy. But it’s not quite so plain and simple, because I have no idea what we should replace it with.
Also, what does the internet have to do with democracy? Are you saying that we had no democracy until the internet was invented? Democracy is just a system in which people get to vote. That’s all it means. How they vote, who gets to vote, and what they get to vote for are all issues that are not defined by the word “democracy.” Don’t try to turn it into something that it isn’t meant to be.
Democracy does NOT mean a system in which the people get every single thing they want as soon as they want it. You’re using the word democracy, but you would be better off using the word “populism” or “socialism” or “mob rule.” Words have meaning.
- “Little by little our democracy has been sabotaged and picked apart by congress because the protection of the minority of the opulent against any populist uprising is what the constitutional system was intended to do.”
You’re half-right. The constitution is meant to protect minorities from the whims of the majority, and to make sure that the pace of change is slow and deliberate. But you’re just wrong that our democracy has been picked apart over time. Surely you must have noticed that more people are allowed to vote for more things today than, for example, in 1776 or 1876, right? There’s more democracy in our country now than ever before.
Anyway, I wouldn’t call myself a constitutionalist – there are parts of the constitution that I like and parts that I don’t like.
What do you mean by personhood? Do you believe that a group of two or more people working together for a common purpose shouldn’t have the same rights as individual people?
- “Socialism for the one percent, the free market for everyone else. Hence the term neoliberalism.”
That’s not what neoliberalism means.
- “As opposed to what's commonly referred to as classical liberalism, or libertarianism. Which I would say quite erroneously, because classical liberalism was more like anarchism and modern libertarianism is mostly anarcho-capitalism.”
Classical liberalism and anarcho-capitalism are two different types of libertarianism. None of these terms are synonymous with each other.
- “When I say people like Shapiro get their talking points from libertarians, it's because their funding comes from Koch Brothers (libertarians) funded think tanks.”
I am unaware of any relationship between Ben Shapiro and the Koch Brothers. But even if they have a relationship, what makes you believe that Shapiro only says what he says because he’s being paid? Maybe he believes what he believes, and then the Koch Brothers discovered him and agreed with what he said, and then they gave him money so that he can promote his views. People have their own opinions regardless of whether they’re being paid, you know. Is someone paying you to write on this forum? No one is paying me, that’s for sure. If the Koch Brothers are reading this, I accept credit cards and PayPal ;)
“There isn't much right wing policy today that isn't funded, dictated, and written by lobbyists for libertarians such as the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, or Grover Norquist.”
Sheldon Adelson is not a libertarian. That is just totally false. And if the Koch Brothers are writing 'right-wing policy,' then can you please tell me why the Kochs aren’t getting everything they want from the Republican Party? The Koch Brothers support abortion, gay marriage, criminal justice reform, free immigration, and free trade. They also want to legalize drugs and prostitution, and they want to cut defense spending. So why doesn’t the GOP support any of these things? The Koch Brothers also support ending the Estate Tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. So why didn’t the recent tax bill accomplish these things? The Koch Brothers were against the War in Iraq. So why did Bush invade? The Koch Brothers were against the bailouts. So why did Bush support the bailouts? The Koch Brothers were also totally against Trump in 2016. So why did the GOP nominate Trump? Why aren’t the Koch Brothers getting what they want? You can’t answer these questions, can you? Maybe money doesn't buy everything.
I’m going to assume that you consider yourself left-of-center and that you don’t particularly like Trump. So when you sit and ponder how we ended up with something like Trump, you should probably blame people like yourself: people who see conspiracies everywhere they look and who believe that the country and the world are going to hell in a handbasket. Conspiracy theorists and pessimists elected Trump. Not billionaires. Think about it.
Well before we go, if you're still reading this, would you mind please answering my one question? If democracy has been gutted in this country, and if money buys everything in politics, and if the Republican Party is controlled by the Koch Brothers, then why aren't the Koch Brothers getting everything they want from the GOP? It's a simple question.
42 comments
Latest
"despite being on the books for more than a decade, the law is seldom enforced"
_______________________
Sounds like it could be politically motivated. no?
Lot's of fucked up things coming out of Ohio. Like the Ohio State wrestling team members getting molested by their team doctor. I wonder if we have anyone from Ohio State on TUSCL who was molested?
No photos of the female officer who got touched? I’d like to see video of the interaction. It’s my duty as an informed citizen - to pursue this evidence...
@randommember - Funny how an excuser from the 90's just happened to show up days after the Congressional hearing and the heated exchange with that POS deputy AG Rosenstein
another hypocrite
I’m sure she misunderstood just cause she made the simple mistake of looking around and seeing actual dancers dance.
There’s similar laws in my area. I found out, after dancing for a year, that dances are *legally* only supposed to be air dances. Nobody in Austin ever follows that! Nor do managers ever say that when getting hired!
I only found out because one night LE came in undercover. They also tried asking dancers for coke. Management went around the room and immediately told all of us to quit grinding on customers.
That night must have sucked for customers. Since most of us felt uncomfortable and hid in the dressing room, or also just simply left early.
I’m pretty sure those stupid laws also help to spike extras too. I mean, if you can get prostitution charges for grinding, then lol why not suck a dick?
Who the hell is glorifying her? I'm pretty sure everyone on TUSCL agrees that she's a disgusting unprincipled whore for doing what she's doing. And if Rosenstein is such a POS then why did Trump hire him? I thought he said he was only going to hire the best people.
In America, we call it a "set-up" or we might say that someone was "framed."
There are other issues besides strip clubs, you know. Under our system we have to choose one person per office, and that person may agree with us on one issue but disagree with us on another issue. And then we are forced to decide which issues matter most. For example, one of the judges on Trump's recent short-list for SCOTUS specifically ruled against a strip club and in favor of the small town that was trying to shut it down. That was Raymond Kethledge. But on most other issues, Kethledge was actually much better than Kavanaugh. Just an example.
I don’t know, I see a lot of smoke.
I consider myself to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I support legalized weed, prostitution, gambling, gay rights, abortion, etc., but support border control, defense spending, tax cuts, restrictions on entitlements, etc. From year to year, have to lean one way or the other and deal with the consequences. Two years ago, though left had too much power and Obama went too far. Now, feel Trump and religious right have gone too far. Worried about SCOTUS.
Impossible, living in USA to ever seem to have it all.
RAT!
https://nypost.com/2018/07/12/cops-relea…
First Dayton cracked down and now Columbus seems to be doing the same which leaves the entire southern half of Ohio a no fun zone. At least Louisville, Lexington and Indianapolis are each just a couple of hours away.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/12/politics/…
"Daniels, who was topless and wearing a G-string, reportedly forced patrons’ faces into her breasts and smacked patrons with them, according to the police report.
At that point, three undercover officers approached the stage. Daniels is accused of grabbing a female detective’s head and forcing the officer’s face between her breasts. Daniels reportedly did the same with a male detective as well, the report states.
Then, Daniels is accused of fondling the third officer’s buttocks and breasts. Daniels smacked that female officer’s face with her breasts, according to the affidavit."
Or in this case, whether it's Strickland or Kasich.
I'm glad I live in an area when they don't send 3 undercover dectectives into a strip club. Well they must have major crimes under control. What a farce of policing.
Go libertarian....they want the government out of almost everything. What 2 consenting adults do shouldn't be any business of the government!
I absolutely agree, and I vote for the Libertarian Party candidate frequently. BUT be prepared, if by some miracle the Libertarian Party ever fields an electable slate of candidates, at that time they will probably begin to endorse greater infringements on your life. That's the nature of things. They will need to demonstrate that they are "serious" people, and they will need to broaden their support beyond their 1% base. The only way for them to do so is with statist policies. But for now, yes, supporting the LP offers a guilt-free vote for anyone who cares about freedom in an election with no other good choices.
1) Ben Shapiro isn't a libertarian, he's a conservative. And I seriously doubt that the Libertarian Party has any relationship to him whatsoever, let alone paying him to speak.
2) Why does everyone always mention Ayn Rand? Lots of people have read her novels without becoming a libertarian, such as Steven Spielberg, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Mark Cuban, President Trump, and even President Obama.
3) When I said the "1% base," I didn't mean the "richest 1%." I meant the wackos who usually vote for the Libertarian candidate - they typically get around 1 percent of the vote. And trust me, it isn't coming from the elite limousine crowd. Have you ever seen footage of the LP convention? It ain't exactly a Goldman Sachs shareholder meeting.
4) Net Neutrality has been gone for about one month now, and the internet is EXACTLY THE SAME as it was before. (Plus we had no net neutrality until June of 2015.)
It still isn't a partisan issue. Large majorities of both parties support Net Neutrality. The repeal is very unpopular with Democrats, independents, and Republicans alike. Voters are often wrong about things.
- "until Fox News made it that way by kissing Ajit Pai's ass every chance they got."
I wasn't even aware that he had ever been on Fox News. But if he's so partisan, then I guess President Obama shouldn't have hired him as a member of the FCC board in 2012. Trump merely gave him a promotion. And Pai has actually publicly contradicted Trump on several issues already. Doesn't seem very partisan to me.
- "It's about ISPs prioritizing content"
If they care about their customers, then they *should* prioritize websites such as Netflix and YouTube that receive like a trillion hits a month. I'm tired of endless buffering. It doesn't make sense to devote the same amount of broadband to a website that gets 12 hits a year. Slowing ExNunsXXX.com by a milisecond would go a long way towards making the internet a better place, if it makes Google work faster.
- "and directing people to services they like and restricting access to others they don't"
Why would they do this? It would be a huge story and they would lose customers. Having said that, they made the investments, so if they really want to block content, it's their choice... and it's my choice to switch providers. Maybe a small Christian ISP could arise and advertise that they "proudly block unsavory content." That would be fine with me. But I'll stick with Verizon and Comcast.
- "where certain said broadband-hogging services don't count against data usage while others do."
This would be fucking wonderful! I hadn't even thought of this possibility. Please sign me up with an ISP that doesn't count Google and YouTube against my data usage.
- "Isn't this kind of like what Bill Gates has been getting sued for one million dollars a day for the last twenty-five years or so?"
I don't know. I don't follow all his lawsuits. But anyone who's getting sued for a million dollars a day already has a powerful incentive to stop doing whatever he's been doing, right?
-"When something like the internet comes along and becomes such an essential part of a person's daily life, it has historically been made into a public utility."
And public utilities historically suck.
We’ve had this discussion here before. On every single major issue except for trade and war, Obama was more conservative than either of his two main Democrat opponents in 2008. So you have a point, somewhat.
- “If you don't support fair and equal access to the internet, then you're just against democracy. Plain and simple.”
You’re right, I suppose, I am against democracy. But it’s not quite so plain and simple, because I have no idea what we should replace it with.
Also, what does the internet have to do with democracy? Are you saying that we had no democracy until the internet was invented? Democracy is just a system in which people get to vote. That’s all it means. How they vote, who gets to vote, and what they get to vote for are all issues that are not defined by the word “democracy.” Don’t try to turn it into something that it isn’t meant to be.
Democracy does NOT mean a system in which the people get every single thing they want as soon as they want it. You’re using the word democracy, but you would be better off using the word “populism” or “socialism” or “mob rule.” Words have meaning.
- “Little by little our democracy has been sabotaged and picked apart by congress because the protection of the minority of the opulent against any populist uprising is what the constitutional system was intended to do.”
You’re half-right. The constitution is meant to protect minorities from the whims of the majority, and to make sure that the pace of change is slow and deliberate. But you’re just wrong that our democracy has been picked apart over time. Surely you must have noticed that more people are allowed to vote for more things today than, for example, in 1776 or 1876, right? There’s more democracy in our country now than ever before.
Anyway, I wouldn’t call myself a constitutionalist – there are parts of the constitution that I like and parts that I don’t like.
What do you mean by personhood? Do you believe that a group of two or more people working together for a common purpose shouldn’t have the same rights as individual people?
- “Socialism for the one percent, the free market for everyone else. Hence the term neoliberalism.”
That’s not what neoliberalism means.
- “As opposed to what's commonly referred to as classical liberalism, or libertarianism. Which I would say quite erroneously, because classical liberalism was more like anarchism and modern libertarianism is mostly anarcho-capitalism.”
Classical liberalism and anarcho-capitalism are two different types of libertarianism. None of these terms are synonymous with each other.
- “When I say people like Shapiro get their talking points from libertarians, it's because their funding comes from Koch Brothers (libertarians) funded think tanks.”
I am unaware of any relationship between Ben Shapiro and the Koch Brothers. But even if they have a relationship, what makes you believe that Shapiro only says what he says because he’s being paid? Maybe he believes what he believes, and then the Koch Brothers discovered him and agreed with what he said, and then they gave him money so that he can promote his views. People have their own opinions regardless of whether they’re being paid, you know. Is someone paying you to write on this forum? No one is paying me, that’s for sure. If the Koch Brothers are reading this, I accept credit cards and PayPal ;)
“There isn't much right wing policy today that isn't funded, dictated, and written by lobbyists for libertarians such as the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, or Grover Norquist.”
Sheldon Adelson is not a libertarian. That is just totally false. And if the Koch Brothers are writing 'right-wing policy,' then can you please tell me why the Kochs aren’t getting everything they want from the Republican Party? The Koch Brothers support abortion, gay marriage, criminal justice reform, free immigration, and free trade. They also want to legalize drugs and prostitution, and they want to cut defense spending. So why doesn’t the GOP support any of these things? The Koch Brothers also support ending the Estate Tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. So why didn’t the recent tax bill accomplish these things? The Koch Brothers were against the War in Iraq. So why did Bush invade? The Koch Brothers were against the bailouts. So why did Bush support the bailouts? The Koch Brothers were also totally against Trump in 2016. So why did the GOP nominate Trump? Why aren’t the Koch Brothers getting what they want? You can’t answer these questions, can you? Maybe money doesn't buy everything.
I’m going to assume that you consider yourself left-of-center and that you don’t particularly like Trump. So when you sit and ponder how we ended up with something like Trump, you should probably blame people like yourself: people who see conspiracies everywhere they look and who believe that the country and the world are going to hell in a handbasket. Conspiracy theorists and pessimists elected Trump. Not billionaires. Think about it.