Skip to main content

I shall not be silenced by Trumpeteers!

As I mentioned in a recent blog, I've been having a field day with trending hashtags on Twitter of late. Over the past 48-72 hours, I've posted a combined 90 tweets with one of the following hashtags: #Bad1stDateOmens, #FakeCampingFacts, #WhitePrivilegeMeans, #ConservativeBecause, and #GOPPlatform. After a couple of #ConservativeBecause tweets I made, I received this response from a Trump supporter:

"For every one of these posts you make, I'm gonna donate $10 to Trump and the NY Tea Party. Your move."

Really? This guy apparently doesn't know me very well. I've gone as high as 100 tweets on a trending hashtag before. Also, what are the specifics? Is it $10 a piece to Trump and the NY Tea Party per tweet or $10 total? What about retweets? Whatever the case, I decided to call the Trumpeteer's bluff. Chances are he would have donated money to Trump anyway, and there's no way in hell I'm going to censor myself because of a donation threat from a Trumpeteer. From my vantage point, the guy was just trying to bluff his way into shutting me up with my sarcastic posts, poking fun of Donald Trump. To his surprise, I'm sure, I retweeted his "threat," asked my followers to get involved, and to make the man eat his own words in the process. Many followers of mine got into the act, and while I'm not sure whether or not their original tweets added to the tally-board, here's how it broke down for me:

Tweets: 46 = $460 or $920 (depending on whether he donated $10 a piece to both Trump and the NY Tea Party per tweet or donated a combined $10 per tweet)

Retweets: 664 = $6,640 or $13,280

Combined: Anywhere from $460 to $14,200

Yeah, the odds are quite good he only donated a small fraction of the former number. When dealing with my followers and I, he may want to keep his donation-threats to himself.

I did anger one (former) follower of mine, who believed the Trumpeteer likely did donate up to $14,200 and I was solely to blame for that. First of all, that's highly unlikely. The median household income in this country is approximately $52,000. So even if this single individual makes $52,000, $14,200 is 27.3% of his salary.  A person who makes $52,000 a year averages $1,000 per week ($2,000 per paycheck every couple of weeks). So, again, assuming this Trumpeteer makes $52,000 annually, if he donated just $460, that's still 23% of a single paycheck, or 46% of his weekly pay. If he wants to go broke wasting money on a candidate with an approval rating that's lower than root canals while listening to Nickelback due to a dare he made to shut a satirist up from posting satirical tweets, so be it. Whether he bluffed or didn't bluff, chances are he learned his lesson and won't be daring my followers and I anymore. :: mic drop ::

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"