**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

So what were the good parts that were cut out? Or did the senate add the part where everyone gets tax cuts but for those earning less than $75k/year it's just temporary? What stops you from criticizing the bill?

I'm not criticizing it because I don't criticize things I don't know much about it. From those who do know a good deal about it, it looks like if it passes, it might be a mild good, but it started out much better. We need a significant reform bill before we need cuts, and this isn't much reform though cuts aren't necessarily bad. Could even be negative reform, I don't know. The Democrat party is fighting against good reform, and the Republican party is not fighting hard enough for good reform.

You've been using the word "lie" for half a dozen times and you've been asked what you mean by it, but you haven't answered. What's the "lie"?

Sexual assault. All of which was denied and the only evidence of which is very very bad.

[CoccoBill]

I'm not criticizing it because I don't criticize things I don't know much about it. From those who do know a good deal about it, it looks like if it passes, it might be a mild good, but it started out much better. We need a significant reform bill before we need cuts, and this isn't much reform though cuts aren't necessarily bad. Could even be negative reform, I don't know. The Democrat party is fighting against good reform, and the Republican party is not fighting hard enough for good reform.

To me it sounds like redistribution from to poor to the wealthy. The only way to see that as a "good" is to just look at the market as a whole, assuming it would create net growth. If the top 1% does great and everyone else is suffering, the metric says everything is great, which obviously is not the case. The only justification for this I've ever heard is the trickle-down effect of the net growth. You have personally claimed that neither you nor any economist claims trickle-down is a thing, so how exactly is this good? That's some reverse robin hood shit right there.

Sexual assault. All of which was denied and the only evidence of which is very very bad.

What kind of concrete evidence of sexual harassment that happened decades ago would be sufficient, in your mind? Why do you automatically believe Moore and don't believe his assumed victims? Don't you find it a bit suspicious that you take Moore's word over the victims' so vehemently, that the case is not just undecided or unclear, it's LIES?

[CoccoBill]

Confirmation bias in full effect. If you've decided to stand by Trump you need to support him all the way, including his support for Moore, which means he must be innocent. You can't just go about accepting that Trump could be wrong here, since it would open the door to the idea he might be wrong about something else too. Can't have that, otherwise the whole house of cards would crumble.

[Poopadoop]

Interesting thing about the Roy Moore saga is that nearly 70% of white people in Alabama still voted for him. So, an admitted perv, racist, homophobe who is R is preferable to anyone who's a D apparently.

[Jack Sawyer]

I agree completely, these false accusations like birth certificates, Benghazi, emailgate, Uranium One etc are indeed a VERY bad thing. Sad.

CoccoBill's elbow from the sky

[Jack Sawyer]

I mean...I get what the guy is trying to do. But it's still a bad look. You're accused of messing around with underage girls and someone vouches for your character by telling a story that puts you at a brothel staffed by underage girls. Again, stunning.

There are TWO greatly stunning parts to this whole development

1) I truly can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Banana motherfucking Stand

2) Despite all of this shit, it was still a close race

[BananaStand]

1) I truly can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Banana motherfucking Stand

You agree with me more than you care to admit.

[wufwugy]

On the bright side, it may be that my great concern about the lie overstates what happened. This is because the lie may have been used as a "fake because".* Moore had real problems. Serious, big problems. It was probably a mistake for Bannon to back him, and it was probably NOT a mistake for the pious xtian wing and the establishment elite wing of the party to try to get him to lose, since Moore losing would wash out the stain on the brand that Moore would bring. But the way it happened. I hate that way.


*Having decided to not support Moore, the reason given was the accusation even though the decision was made without the accusation in the first place.

[wufwugy]

You'd have to show me the specific event you're referencing.

I call the allegations a lie because I try to not intuit what people mean when they say stuff and instead go with the hard evidence. The evidence presented was demonstrated to be a forgery and was admitted to being forged by the forger. That means that the most concrete thing we have to go on by a significant margin was a lie.

[BananaStand]

You'd have to show me the specific event you're referencing.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ex-allegations

I know it's Vox and you're instinct is to be skeptical. But cmon wuf. There were like nine times in there where all the guy had to say was "NO". And instead he gave some other answer that could only be interpreted as "yeah, sometimes I did mess around with young girls".

Sounds like Roy thinks that his intentions with the girls were honorable, and that there was adult supervision, so it's all ok.

IT"S NOT FUCKING OK!

Grown people, and underage people don't mix romantically or sexually.

Got it? If any part of that is ambiguous....you can't be a senator.

[Poopadoop]

The evidence presented was demonstrated to be a forgery and was admitted to being forged by the forger. That means that the most concrete thing we have to go on by a significant margin was a lie.

Um, no. The accuser admitted adding the date and location herself after what Moore wrote. The handwriting is clearly diff. than Moore's. That's not forgery, that's record keeping.

Also, the whole case against Moore goes much further than a signed yearbook, which itself proves nothing. The most damning thing is what Banana said, where he basically gives himself up.

[wufwugy]

Um, no. The accuser admitted adding the date and location herself after what Moore wrote. The handwriting is clearly diff. than Moore's. That's not forgery, that's record keeping.

Yes, thank you. She admitted to altering part of what was altered.

Also, the whole case against Moore goes much further than a signed yearbook, which itself proves nothing. The most damning thing is what Banana said, where he basically gives himself up.

I'm confused. What did he give himself up to? He denied sexual assault and didn't deny non-sexual assault

[Poopadoop]

Yes, thank you. She admitted to altering part of what was altered.

Well, unless she's playing 3D chess then she fucked up. If you forge something, you shouldn't admit to forging a small, irrelvant part of it as that gives your opponents an excuse to say things like you just did.

I'm confused. What did he give himself up to? He denied sexual assault and didn't deny non-sexual assault

He went out of his way NOT to deny dating underage girls as a 30+ man. What do you need to convince you he's a fucking creep?

[wufwugy]

He went out of his way NOT to deny dating underage girls as a 30+ man. What do you need to convince you he's a fucking creep?

Thanks for making this point, because I'm not talking about this. He probably dated the way stated. I don't care.

[wufwugy]

On the bright side for people who want Democrats to win, the Republican party is a mess and this event shows it in action. Three different wings of the party are fighting for hegemony over the future of the party, and the moment Trump leaves, his coalition will disperse much more than people expect. A new coalition could be created, possibly even a stronger coalition, like by Pence if he runs in 2024. But that remains to be seen.

Pence might be the only living, breathing soul who can create a new coalition that would bed down the intra-party warring.

[wufwugy]

What are you saying? This article mashes up totally different events. The cases of sexual assault were denied by him, and the cases not of sexual assault were not.

[Jack Sawyer]

LIES!!!

[wufwugy]

On the topic of taxes, it's hard to say exactly what is good when it comes to the play between cuts and spending. For example, a tax cut that doesn't include a deficit cut may just result in future higher taxes to pay for the deficit. There are some economists who claim that tax rates barely matter for real growth because something something equilibirum something something. I don't know the argument well enough but it comes from some very smart economists. What markets tell us is the most important though, since the market response more accurately reflects information than the other options we know of. They tell us that they like tax cuts. They don't tell us why that is though. And they could also be wrong because they don't have perfect information.

What we want is reform first. That means simplification and deduction elimination. Because this would make the tax code more efficient, which would make business more efficient and would raise real output growth. The reason we are not getting reform is simply the fact of rent-seeking. Attempts to reform get small groups of people who benefit from the current status to come out in droves. Perhaps the way to get reform to work is to do very slow phase-in/phase-out where nobody loses. So if the mortgage deduction goes away, it only goes away slow enough and it is coupled with a rate cut of sorts that the people who benefit from the mortgage deduction today actually benefit more at each interval of the phase as the deduction goes away and the cuts are implemented.

But we are not getting that because the Democrats believe taxes should be higher and more complicated and because Republicans are weak and pathetic.

[wufwugy]

There are two main ways a change in the tax code can raise real growth, which necessarily means better economy for the middle and poor:

(1) Reduction of information asymmetries and inefficiencies. This is like I mentioned previously, where something like a mortgage tax deduction distorts the market for mortgages. These can go so far as to cause recessions.

(2) Increase in incentive to produce. One way of aiding this is to tax earnings less. A probably better way to achieve this is to redistribute less, which means tax less and give to others in form of subsidies and welfare less.

The idea that tax and redistribution improves the lot of the poor requires the benefits given to the poor makes them more efficient. The evidence doesn't much support that and the theory tends towards saying it makes them less efficient. The idea that tax and redistribution helps the poor also assumes that some capital is, well, the best word might be "idle". And that is not true. Capital does nothing when you burn it. But if you are Bill Gates and you add capital to a savings account (among the dumbest things you can do), the capital is still ultimately functioning as a source of funds for production and wages.

[wufwugy]

^^^ I meant to say "the only time capital does nothing is when you burn it".

[wufwugy]

I certainly believe most as of now, at least the one organic ones, not the "we have a month to an election" ones.

[spoonitnow]

#metoolol

Especially a month before a fucking election. Every single fucking time.

[spoonitnow]

So-called "net neutrality" got shot the fuck down today. Glad to hear that.

[wufwugy]

https://i.imgur.com/0oG5irP.jpg

[spoonitnow]

Roy Moore is refusing to concede. I don't blame him. The alleged turnout for Democrats was absurdly high. Smells like voter fraud out the ass.

Still haven't seen any evidence that he did something wrong.

[wufwugy]

Sometimes it's useful to think of money and goods/services as the same thing. This is because money's value derives entirely from the believed value of goods and services. So, when you look at accumulation of money, you want to look at the other end of it, which is the goods/services from which the money derives value. When you exchange your money for somebody else's good or service, you're not losing by net and he's not losing either. You both gain by net. You have greater than your money's value in the good/service and he has greater than his good/service value in money.

When we have a situation like Walmart and the Waltons, where one family/organization accumulates a ton of value "consumed" as money, it is because of an approximately equivalent increase in value consumed as goods/services of the Walmart shoppers.

[a500lbgorilla]

Holy shit, you dumbasses.

In any case, keep whirling around trying to figure out how religion's latest avatar couldn't win against anyone else.

[wufwugy]

Hey rilla if you paid attention you'd see that the religious were anti moore

[a500lbgorilla]

They sure were.

[wufwugy]

btw if this stuff is confusing, that shows that you're paying attention. it's very common for economists to talk past each other. for example, keynesians believe aggregate demand can be thought of as either real or nominal, and that it is made up of consumption + investment + government spending + net exports, while monetarists think that aggregate demand is made up of money supply * money velocity and is purely nominal. the latter view makes sense to me. but anyways, economists very rarely seem to even try to reconcile these views and instead just assume the one they like better then work from there. the movement towards reconciliation does happen, it's just super slow.

[wufwugy]

You know how Roy Moore said some stupid ass shit?

Well one of the things he said that didn't go over well (or that his wife said actually), was the whole "I'm not racist, I have an *insert ethnicity* friend".

And everybody thinks that's retarded and suggests backwardsness and racism or whatever.

But they're wrong

You gotta know who you're dealing with.

To a southern conservative, the LAST thing you would do is associate with somebody whom you don't morally approve of.

So when a southern conservative says he's not prejudiced because he has such n such friend, it's his silly way of truly demonstrating the easiest way to tell that he's not prejudiced in that way. But go to NYC and say that and they'll call you a bucktooth bigot while they cry about blumpf and his oppression of peaceful and beloved kim jong un.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah it's like people have no concept of context whatsoever, especially when it comes to the simple fact that southern culture (which they want to hate on left, right and center) is very different.

[wufwugy]

Al Franken did nothing wrong.

I don't like the impact the dissolution of tradition is having. Womens' sexuality will be protected, and since western society is dissolving the traditional modes of protection of womens' sexuality, shit like this happens.

[spoonitnow]

Not sure if I'm missing context from what you're saying but

Al Franken did nothing wrong.

He sexually assaulted a woman with photographic evidence.

[BananaStand]

He sexually assaulted a woman with photographic evidence.

You're trolling right??

A prank, with a slightly suggestive connotation, is NOT sexual assault.

If Al Franken was not a senator, we wouldn't have heard a word about this. This "epidemic" of sexual assault charges seems to helped along by an awful lot of attention-seeking, opportunistic, politically motivated bitches.

[wufwugy]

My boss once groped my bicep.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

A gay coworker used to rub his body against me.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

I once stuff a slice of pizza down my passed-out drunk friend's pants.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

My friend once ran his hand up my thigh to freak me out.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

[BananaStand]

My boss once groped my bicep.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

A gay coworker used to rub his body against me.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

I once stuff a slice of pizza down my passed-out drunk friend's pants.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

My friend once ran his hand up my thigh to freak me out.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Sadly, in 2018, this is not hyperbole.

[spoonitnow]

You're trolling right??

A prank, with a slightly suggestive connotation, is NOT sexual assault.

If Al Franken was not a senator, we wouldn't have heard a word about this. This "epidemic" of sexual assault charges seems to helped along by an awful lot of attention-seeking, opportunistic, politically motivated bitches.

I agree with the overall sentiment of wuf's post, but Franken groped an unconscious woman's breasts. That's clear sexual assault by the letter of the law.

[wufwugy]

I agree with the overall sentiment of wuf's post, but Franken groped an unconscious woman's breasts. That's clear sexual assault by the letter of the law.

I don't have an opinion on what the law should be, but I am struck by the fact that it's more disrespectful than assault.

I also get very cautious of things when there are several signs of hallucinations on them. In this case, those signs include things like how everybody would laugh if he did that to a sleeping Tucker Carlson's nutsack and that the event happened a long time ago (photo been around a long time?) and only MeToo suddenly MeToo now MeToo people MeToo care.

[wufwugy]

What he did shows lack of judgment.

[spoonitnow]

What he did shows lack of judgment.

I don't think it did. She had some nice ass titties.

[BananaStand]

on Franken

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...Bup?li=BBnb7Kz

In the end, the Democratic Party sacrificed one of their most high profile senators without gaining one square inch of moral high ground.

There should have been an ethics investigation. Unfortunately for Franken, there wasn’t time for any sort of fact-finding or due process; there was only time for politically expedient, angry mob justice.

[boost]

Sup with your boy Bannon, wuf?

[wufwugy]

Sup with your boy Bannon, wuf?

TIL Bannon is by boy.

I never much liked the guy. I laughed when a friend told me he looks like the guy who gets bit by a zombie and doesn't tell the group. I thought she meant post-turn.

As for what's going on here, who knows. I hope to not jump on the bandwagon that interprets everything as doom for Blumpf nor the bandwagon that thinks everything is intergalactic backgammon by Dr. God Emperor of the United States.

[spoonitnow]

Something is odd about this Bannon situation. I kind of wonder if it's all just a setup for the Fakies.

[wufwugy]

Well I'm happy that my source on Bannon (they're friends) says that the animosity between Trump and Bannon is real. This situation is a little too complex to make good sense as 3d chess AND it explains why Trump has acted in an unusual way (since it's personal this time).

[wufwugy]

Though it was getting clear the beef is real, Trump giving Sloppy Steve Bannon his new forever-name seals the deal.

[wufwugy]

I'm glad to see Scott Adams was wrong on Bannon. After Roy Moore lost, he was like this isn't going to negatively affect Bannon at all and I'm thinking WTF this will ruin Bannon. And it has ruined Bannon. His fault for being stupid about some of the ways he went after Trump and for not vetting a candidate (Moore) who can fit about fifteen feet in his mouth at once.

[boost]

I'm glad to see Scott Adams was wrong on Bannon. After Roy Moore lost, he was like this isn't going to negatively affect Bannon at all and I'm thinking WTF this will ruin Bannon. And it has ruined Bannon. His fault for being stupid about some of the ways he went after Trump and for not vetting a candidate (Moore) who can fit about fifteen feet in his mouth at once.

Funny how you had to parenthetically clarify that you were taking about Moore and not another candidate supported by Bannon who's known to routinely put his foot in his mouth.

[wufwugy]

Funny how you had to parenthetically clarify that you were taking about Moore and not another candidate supported by Bannon who's known to routinely put his foot in his mouth.

Heh. That wasn't my intention, but the interpretation works

[spoonitnow]

[wufwugy]

I wonder if the Democrats will field anybody who can win in 2020. What I'm getting at is how in 2012, all of the GOP potentials who were planning on running for president skipped to 2016. This includes Trump. Romney was only ever the best candidate of a bunch of schlubs.

Given how easy it would be for any candidate in 2020 to anticipate having the fight of xir's life, getting forever nicknamed like Crooked did, I bet a lot of those who think they can win will just skip to 2024. However, if there is enough belief among the ctrl-left that Trump is weak, then some stronger candidates may opt to run 2020.

If Bernie runs will he win the primary?

[spoonitnow]

I wonder if the Democrats will field anybody who can win in 2020. What I'm getting at is how in 2012, all of the GOP potentials who were planning on running for president skipped to 2016. This includes Trump. Romney was only ever the best candidate of a bunch of schlubs.

Given how easy it would be for any candidate in 2020 to anticipate having the fight of xir's life, getting forever nicknamed like Crooked did, I bet a lot of those who think they can win will just skip to 2024. However, if there is enough belief among the ctrl-left that Trump is weak, then some stronger candidates may opt to run 2020.

If Bernie runs will he win the primary?

I anticipate Bernie running against an otherwise weak field (not that there are any strong Democratic candidates vs. God Emperor), winning the primary and getting smoked in the general election.

Bernie is basically Jeb Bush when it comes to charisma and the ability to debate and not be a total cuck. That is to say that he doesn't have a fucking chance in hell.

And I think the Democratic establishment will let him do it so that he can crash and burn twice in a row, which would make him seem unelectable in 2024. I anticipate Pocahontas is going to be the one they all get behind next, but I don't think she can beat Bernie in primaries without the help of the DNC.

If she does run and beat Bernie in 2020, Trump will have to pardon himself for murder once the debates are done. Hillary couldn't hang with him during the debates, and Warren is no Hillary Clinton.

[wufwugy]

I anticipate Bernie running against an otherwise weak field (not that there are any strong Democratic candidates vs. God Emperor), winning the primary and getting smoked in the general election.

Bernie is basically Jeb Bush when it comes to charisma and the ability to debate and not be a total cuck. That is to say that he doesn't have a fucking chance in hell.

And I think the Democratic establishment will let him do it so that he can crash and burn twice in a row, which would make him seem unelectable in 2024. I anticipate Pocahontas is going to be the one they all get behind next, but I don't think she can beat Bernie in primaries without the help of the DNC.

If she does run and beat Bernie in 2020, Trump will have to pardon himself for murder once the debates are done. Hillary couldn't hang with him during the debates, and Warren is no Hillary Clinton.

I lol'd at pardon for murder.

I generally agree with the Bernie stuff, but I'm still more sanguine on his chances in a general election. He plays to a big part of the crowd that Trump plays to, and I don't think enough voters are afraid of socialism like they were back when the 70s and 80s revealed it to be so destructive and everybody wised up for the subsequent decades.

About Warren, I always thought she was the Dems preferred "Bernie". But she didn't run. Against Trump, if she would be able to not get flustered (a big IF), she would be a strong candidate IMO. I mean, I used to ADORE her. Lots of Democrats love her.

[spoonitnow]

I lol'd at pardon for murder.

I generally agree with the Bernie stuff, but I'm still more sanguine on his chances in a general election. He plays to a big part of the crowd that Trump plays to, and I don't think enough voters are afraid of socialism like they were back when the 70s and 80s revealed it to be so destructive and everybody wised up for the subsequent decades.

About Warren, I always thought she was the Dems preferred "Bernie". But she didn't run. Against Trump, if she would be able to not get flustered (a big IF), she would be a strong candidate IMO. I mean, I used to ADORE her. Lots of Democrats love her.

Do you remember when BLM protested the Bernie rally, and he just stepped back and let them take the podium and call him a racist and all of his supporters racist and all of that goofy shit?

The man literally marched with MLK, and he still didn't have the balls to stand up to those goofballs. The man would have no chance whatsoever standing up to Trump. He would get bulldozed with no regard for human life.

And personally, I'd pay to see Warren vs. Trump because she's a great match-up for him stylistically. She's basically an inferior Clinton.

[wufwugy]

Do you remember when BLM protested the Bernie rally, and he just stepped back and let them take the podium and call him a racist and all of his supporters racist and all of that goofy shit?

How could I forget?

The man literally marched with MLK, and he still didn't have the balls to stand up to those goofballs. The man would have no chance whatsoever standing up to Trump. He would get bulldozed with no regard for human life.

I think my fear is that cuckery is just too popular. Like, there might just be enough people who PREFER weakness. Isn't Canada already beyond that, you know with Fidel Trudeau?

[BananaStand]

Seeing some buzz today about Oprah running.

The more I think about it, the more I think that's the democrat's best play.

They can't attack Trump on his record. Instead, they are painting him as a sexist, racist, madman. Oprah is a woman, black, and universally popular. She perfectly counters all of Trump's negatives. Simultaneously, she can match him in terms of business success. She's also pretty invincible when it comes to ridicule. What deragotory nickname could Trump use that would be even close to apt?

I have tremendous respect for Oprah. Her story of self-made success is exactly what my conservative, anti-entitlement heart likes to hear.

I will say that of anyone the Democrats might run, Oprah has earned an open mind from me. I think Trump is doing fine, but if he ran against Oprah, I think I would give both candidates a clean slate. That's just one man's anecdote, but I gotta believe alot of independents might share my opinion here.

[wufwugy]

Seeing some buzz today about Oprah running.

The more I think about it, the more I think that's the democrat's best play.

They can't attack Trump on his record. Instead, they are painting him as a sexist, racist, madman. Oprah is a woman, black, and universally popular. She perfectly counters all of Trump's negatives. Simultaneously, she can match him in terms of business success. She's also pretty invincible when it comes to ridicule. What deragotory nickname could Trump use that would be even close to apt?

I have tremendous respect for Oprah. Her story of self-made success is exactly what my conservative, anti-entitlement heart likes to hear.

I will say that of anyone the Democrats might run, Oprah has earned an open mind from me. I think Trump is doing fine, but if he ran against Oprah, I think I would give both candidates a clean slate. That's just one man's anecdote, but I gotta believe alot of independents might share my opinion here.

I agree with the sentiment. I can tell Scott Adams is afraid of Oprah given his tweet on it today. I think in the past he says if she runs she wins. I'm not sure I agree, but I think she would probably be the best candidate the Dems can put up.

I don't think she has any plans to run nor does she want to. She's probably smart enough to know that Trump would ruin her life.

[spoonitnow]

She's also pretty invincible when it comes to ridicule. What deragotory nickname could Trump use that would be even close to apt?

Ikr. Barely any words start with the letter O.

[wufwugy]

Yeah I think he would have turnout problems

[wufwugy]

Persuasion off the charts.



I'm like 98% positive that Adams said in a periscope that Oprah would beat anybody if she ran.

What's he doing here? Trying to convince Oprah to not run. He's making her think "yeah I am very smart" and associating it with not running, putting a visual image of her getting cut up and killed if she runs, and framing it through aversion to loss (which people care more about than gains from win). Also the fact that he's "predicting" probably frames it for Oprah to make the prediction actualize.

[Savy]

Persuasion off the charts.



I'm like 98% positive that Adams said in a periscope that Oprah would beat anybody if she ran.

What's he doing here? Trying to convince Oprah to not run. He's making her think "yeah I am very smart" and associating it with not running, putting a visual image of her getting cut up and killed if she runs, and framing it through aversion to loss (which people care more about than gains from win). Also the fact that he's "predicting" probably frames it for Oprah to make the prediction actualize.

He has no influence over Oprah and is quite happy to say completely opposite things years in advance so he can quote whatever he wants. He won't start backing up predictions regularly until much closer to the time when a lot more info is available. What he is doing by tweeting about current trends is getting people such as yourself to advertise to other members of hos target audience. Plus being able to quote something you are saying years on advance seems smart.

[wufwugy]

He has no influence over Oprah and is quite happy to say completely opposite things years in advance so he can quote whatever he wants. He won't start backing up predictions regularly until much closer to the time when a lot more info is available. What he is doing by tweeting about current trends is getting people such as yourself to advertise to other members of hos target audience. Plus being able to quote something you are saying years on advance seems smart.

That as well. It's not like I don't know this.

Also, if Oprah is serious about running (serious enough to win), she reads Adams.

[wufwugy]

Persuasion works even when you tell the person you are persuading. That's why it's persuasion. It doesn't do logic. It engages emotions and the primitive mind.

[wufwugy]

Also framing it as "she knows". If Oprah has any idea in her mind that she might get slaughtered (she does), then the "she knows" will get her to think that idea is something she knows.

[boost]

Interesting read.

But I kinda feel like if all this persuasion stuff is legit, Adam's is like Mace Windu trying to take on Palpatine.

[spoonitnow]

Interesting read.

But I kinda feel like if all this persuasion stuff is legit, Adam's is like Mace Windu trying to take on Palpatine.

Windu defeated Palpatine.

Edit: And just in case someone wants to get on some bullshit thinking they know shit about shit, Lucas said that Windu defeated Palpatine, and that's the word of God on that particular topic.

[wufwugy]

In this analogy, who is Palpatine?

[wufwugy]

If Oprah is Palpatine, does she know she's Palpatine?

If we're memeing, Trump is Palpatine, because we always meme Dr. Geotus Vs.G as the bad guy.

[BananaStand]

check out foxnews.com this morning.

Apparently republicans are shitting their pants over this Oprah thing.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...is-brutal.html

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...president.html

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...-shame-on.html

[wufwugy]

check out foxnews.com this morning.

Apparently republicans are shitting their pants over this Oprah thing.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...is-brutal.html

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...president.html

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...-shame-on.html

I'm not seeing them make any points different than what were made about Trump. Which are bad points.

The key difference between her and Trump is that Trump wanted to run and was planning for a long time. Oprah is just media hubbub.

[BananaStand]

I'm not seeing them make any points different than what were made about Trump. Which are bad points

Sure, but my point was more about the fact that Fox News is running this as a headline. Their going out of their way to show backlash against an Oprah run. Why would they do that if they weren't at least a little threatened by the prospect of her as the Dem nominee in 2020?

[Poopadoop]

Oprah. Fuck me.

If being the president really has nothing do with having any qualifications to run a government, why even have a president? You may as well have a monarchy, or make it into a reality-TV contest "Who wants to be president?".

That said, things can't be any more ridiculous than they are now. So why not? Oprah vs. Trump 2020 let's have at it.

[wufwugy]

Oprah. Fuck me.

If being the president really has nothing do with having any qualifications to run a government, why even have a president? You may as well have a monarchy, or make it into a reality-TV contest "Who wants to be president?".

That said, things can't be any more ridiculous than they are now. So why not? Oprah vs. Trump 2020 let's have at it.

I want her to be president for a week so I can watch the entire mainstream media slobber over her cock beyond obama levels x10 magnitudes. Then I won't even have to blow my brains out because I'll for sure enter a perpetual comatose state.

[spoonitnow]

Sure, but my point was more about the fact that Fox News is running this as a headline. Their going out of their way to show backlash against an Oprah run. Why would they do that if they weren't at least a little threatened by the prospect of her as the Dem nominee in 2020?

They're in the entertainment business, and this is entertainment for the unwashed masses.