One less Facebook group

"And he would quickly reach for Emma's boots on the shelf over the fire, all crusted with mud--the mud of her assignations--that crumbled to dust in his fingers, and he watched it rising slowly in a ray of sunlight"--Madame Bovary

I'm in quite a few Facebook groups.  I got into trouble in a book-related one for breaking the organizer's strict rule against talking politics. (I'd got in trouble before, over an incident whose specifics I've already forgotten!) She didn't kick me out, but I've decided to leave anyway.  When I'm dead and gone, I'd rather have people saying that I talked politics too much than that I avoided the subject.

My Facebook page brings up the latest posts from all my groups and friends in the order of posting, and the bone of contention was a comment made on a post that I carelessly didn't notice was in the no-politics group. (No, I wasn't flouting the rule on purpose.) The post was an article on a Ronald Reagan biography with a headline that started, "Killing Reagan." I couldn't resist writing, "'Killing Reagan.' If only!" When another poster complained, I wrote, "Spare a thought for the people Reagan killed." I'll spare you his next post, except to give my response: "The first one who cusses loses." When the organizer got angry, I ended up writing: "Don't worry, from now on I'll just talk religion!"

You know those people who say they would have killed Hitler ahead of time to prevent him from doing all those very bad things? Well, if I'd had foresight I would have been tempted to kill Reagan to prevent his crimes.  But unlike John Hinkley, I probably would have pussied out in the end.

I'm still following the controversy over who "won" the Democratic debate.  Clinton supporters are accusing Sanders supporters of "conspiracy theory," yet they dismiss the pro-Sanders focus groups by invoking The Big Republican Conspiracy Against Hillary!  And it's disingenuous to proclaim that later polls are more reliable when they're full of respondents who didn't see the debate but heard that Mrs. Clinton won. (I'd be more impressed if they did a poll solely of people who'd watched it.)

I'm also puzzled by those who assert that the earlier polls were distorted by the Sanders camp's "enthusiasm." Isn't generating enthusiasm one measure of a successful debate performance?  I suppose that the Silent Majority is supporting HRC. (Nixon lives!)