*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

Are you saying you've never seen a woman with good tits?

ur mom

[BananaStand]

ur mom

Hilarious

but seriously, what is it with you and chicks with no chest?

[Poopadoop]

I can't get a reaction out of the other guy so now I'll try it on with you.

fyp

[OngBonga]

Hilarious

but seriously, what is it with you and chicks with no chest?

Ass and legs.

[wufwugy]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and Stormy set up this whole "scandal".

Take the guy whose BRAND is ballin', then put him in a "scandal" where he was banging a hot ass porn star, then scratch your head as most people GAIN appreciation for that guy.


It's like how the know-nothings pointed at Trump's financial losses in the past and said AHA HE'S NO GOOD BECAUSE HE HAS LOST BEFORE but then he became more popular among normal folk since normal folk were just shown that Trump has skin in the game and that Trump is like them, people who experience loss whenever they are wrong, unlike useless politicians.

[BananaStand]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and Stormy set up this whole "scandal".

I would be. I mean, it seems like a nice distraction. CNN can't shut up about it. The whole thing has amounted to a nothingburger because no one is shocked, or outraged to learn that Trump is adulterous.

I can't imagine what the motive would be to do that though. Trump's been kinda tough on Russia over this poisoning thing. That's exactly the kind of thing Trump wishes CNN would talk about, but it's been heavily overshadowed by this porn star situation. I don't see why Trump would do that on purpose.

Furthermore, it's brutally humiliating for his wife. And I just don't see the man committing that level of evil.

Seems pretty obvious this is simply a money play by Stormy. She got $130K to keep quiet about an affair with a candidate who looked extremely likely to lose. That's a sweet deal. But it's a shit deal to keep quiet about an affair with a billionaire president.

It's like those google employees who sold their shares at $150 when the company went public. How do they feel now that Google trades >$1K? Pretty fucking dumb.

She's #1 on Pornhub, she's using Trump's slogan to brand her national tour, she's gonna sell books like crazy. This is all about money for her because she regrets settling at $130K. It's certainly compelling to cry foul here. It's a legit claim. But if you're upset because the porn star acted without honor, then the joke's on you.

Finally, this makes her story about being threatened totally unbelievable. According to her she was being offered $15K to talk about the affair with a magazine. Because she's a greedy money grubbing whore, Trump could have just paid her $15,001 and moved on. It's hard to imagine that when he weighed his options, he decided to send a violent thug to make threats.

[wufwugy]

Imagine this "scandal" blowing up even further. Not only has Trump banged Stormy, but he banged Tera Patrick, Sasha Grey, and Jenna Jameson back in her prime. His true approval rating would push upwards of 60%.

[wufwugy]

I mean, you're probably right. Just saying I wouldn't exactly be surprised.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

Hey world!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...nb7Kz#image=21

You're welcome

[wufwugy]

The Roseanne reboot is fucking tight as tits.

[BananaStand]

Ben Shapiro had a different take in his podcast today and I think he has a bit of a point.

Roseanne, in the new show, proclaims her support for Trump on the basis of economics. The show presumes that there was NOT a culture war driven by identity politics in 2016. It seems to be suggesting that the only point of reconciliation between liberals and conservatives is economics, and that liberal positions on social issues are already settled as 'correct'.

[wufwugy]

Ben Shapiro had a different take in his podcast today and I think he has a bit of a point.

Roseanne, in the new show, proclaims her support for Trump on the basis of economics. The show presumes that there was NOT a culture war driven by identity politics in 2016. It seems to be suggesting that the only point of reconciliation between liberals and conservatives is economics, and that liberal positions on social issues are already settled as 'correct'.

Did Shapiro make that as a side point? If so, that's good. If it's a rebuttal to Roseanne, I'm not so sure. Lots of people voted for Trump because "he talked about jobs, Jackie". That's a good enough description for many people, and probably for Roseanne herself.

I might argue that the social justice political correctness played a smaller (in size) role to economics, yet it played a more pivotal role due to making the marginal difference. A LOT of people voted Trump/Republican because of things like Obamacare. But what pushed Trump over the edge could have been the identity politics ridiculousness. Or, well, it could have also been economics. He won the Midwest on his economic message after all. But, well, also his support correlated with identity politics backlash in that region too. So really I don't know.

[BananaStand]

Did Shapiro make that as a side point? If so, that's good. If it's a rebuttal to Roseanne, I'm not so sure.

It was definitely not a side point. He devoted about 20 minutes to "Roseanne is not a conservative show"

Basically his read on the show, is that its saying that Trump voters can be forgiven if they just voted for Trump because "economics" and "shake things up".

So Becky wants to be a surrogate, and Roseanne objects. Becky invokes "my body my choice" and Roseanne relents. It's basically an abortion argument, without mentioning abortion. In another scene, Darlene's son dresses in women's clothes. Dan objects with some glib argument about "don't want him to get beat up in school". In the end, everyone agrees it's better to raise your kids gender-neutrally.

So what the show is saying is that middle, working-class, America has exactly the same values as NY/LA liberals, they just differ economically.

Other shows (like Will & Grace) would make fun of conservatives and portray them as evil racists who don't care about women, gays, or the poor. Roseanne does the same thing, just inverted. "Yeah I voted for Trump. Cuz jobs. I'm definitely not one of those evil pro-life transphobic conservatives. Wouldn't it be awful if I believed that stuff!!??"

[wufwugy]

It was definitely not a side point. He devoted about 20 minutes to "Roseanne is not a conservative show"

Basically his read on the show, is that its saying that Trump voters can be forgiven if they just voted for Trump because "economics" and "shake things up".

So Becky wants to be a surrogate, and Roseanne objects. Becky invokes "my body my choice" and Roseanne relents. It's basically an abortion argument, without mentioning abortion. In another scene, Darlene's son dresses in women's clothes. Dan objects with some glib argument about "don't want him to get beat up in school". In the end, everyone agrees it's better to raise your kids gender-neutrally.

So what the show is saying is that middle, working-class, America has exactly the same values as NY/LA liberals, they just differ economically.

Other shows (like Will & Grace) would make fun of conservatives and portray them as evil racists who don't care about women, gays, or the poor. Roseanne does the same thing, just inverted. "Yeah I voted for Trump. Cuz jobs. I'm definitely not one of those evil pro-life transphobic conservatives. Wouldn't it be awful if I believed that stuff!!??"

It's not a conservative show. Roseanne has always been a middle class Midwest show, which has some of both conservatism and liberalism.

It's a show about life. It's about Roseanne's view of life without being that ideological.

[wufwugy]

btw they didnt land on anything "gender neutral" or "abortion is okay". they didn't hold up the conservative position on abortion, that it is always baby murder (it kinda is), but they do hold up the idea that it shouldn't be done.

the grandkid isn't gender confused. he just dresses fancy. it's sorta like how things used to be. boys or girls that defy standards has always been a thing. it's only recently that social justice barbarian know-nothings have conflated that with trans soup du jour

[wufwugy]

It's like the credibility you get by proving to the other side of the table that you're willing to walk away from the table. Then they can't keep trying to cut you down, they HAVE TO make a deal then or be the ones who walk away and are responsible for no deal.

Trump has proven to Kim he will go back to bad cop if Kim doesn't do the right thing. And then the massive economic starvation that is currently blasting NK will get even worse. Nuke free peninsula soon.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

btw they didnt land on anything "gender neutral" or "abortion is okay". they didn't hold up the conservative position on abortion, that it is always baby murder (it kinda is), but they do hold up the idea that it shouldn't be done.

the grandkid isn't gender confused. he just dresses fancy. it's sorta like how things used to be. boys or girls that defy standards has always been a thing. it's only recently that social justice barbarian know-nothings have conflated that with trans soup du jour

I'm probably not the best person to debate this since I didn't watch the show. I'm just telling you that the guy who literally wrote the book on how liberalism infested television, says different.

It's prime time TV and they're seeking a wide audience, so obviously they aren't going to rant about "baby murder". They are just not-so-subtly suggesting that the "my body my choice" argument is valid.

And the crossdressing grand kid isn't necessarily a commentary on gender fluidity. It could also be more of a comment on masculinity, or as the left likes to call it, "toxic masculinity". They think there are no biological differences between men and women, and that children are virtually blank slates whose gender identity is determined by a social construction. Furthermore the social construction is unfair to women.

So the show seems to be saying that if a young boy wants to explore femininity, then that's ok. Discouraging that would be an oppressive function of the patriarchy. Encouraging the boy to be masculine, would be an oppressive function of the patriarchy. And if the boy himself decided to explore his masculinity, you can bet he'd be handed a cocktail of ADHD meds to quell his behavior.

Shapiro is suggesting that the show is suggesting that middle america agrees with all of that already. He's saying that the show is saying that "my body my choice", and "toxic masculinity" are social issues that are pretty much universally settled by everyone except the horrible fringes of the republican party.

[wufwugy]

I'm probably not the best person to debate this since I didn't watch the show. I'm just telling you that the guy who literally wrote the book on how liberalism infested television, says different.

It's prime time TV and they're seeking a wide audience, so obviously they aren't going to rant about "baby murder". They are just not-so-subtly suggesting that the "my body my choice" argument is valid.

And the crossdressing grand kid isn't necessarily a commentary on gender fluidity. It could also be more of a comment on masculinity, or as the left likes to call it, "toxic masculinity". They think there are no biological differences between men and women, and that children are virtually blank slates whose gender identity is determined by a social construction. Furthermore the social construction is unfair to women.

So the show seems to be saying that if a young boy wants to explore femininity, then that's ok. Discouraging that would be an oppressive function of the patriarchy. Encouraging the boy to be masculine, would be an oppressive function of the patriarchy. And if the boy himself decided to explore his masculinity, you can bet he'd be handed a cocktail of ADHD meds to quell his behavior.

Shapiro is suggesting that the show is suggesting that middle america agrees with all of that already. He's saying that the show is saying that "my body my choice", and "toxic masculinity" are social issues that are pretty much universally settled by everyone except the horrible fringes of the republican party.

I'm not even sure the kid is cross dressing. He just dresses fancy, probably with some stuff in the girls section. But I guess that means cross dressing so whatever.

More to the point, show covered the situation as follows: Dan and Roseanne thought it was bad news because the kid is gonna get his ass beat. Roseanne asks him what he thinks of himself, he thinks he's a boy. She asks him how important it is to him to do this, he says very important (he does it because creativity). Dan tries to do masculine things with him, his daughter pushes back on that, but Dan pushes back even harder, and Dan's pro-masculine pushback ends up being the main takeaway. Then it ends with the kid being really tough and sticking to what he wants.

[BananaStand]

I'm not even sure the kid is cross dressing. He just dresses fancy, probably with some stuff in the girls section. But I guess that means cross dressing so whatever.

More to the point, show covered the situation as follows: Dan and Roseanne thought it was bad news because the kid is gonna get his ass beat. Roseanne asks him what he thinks of himself, he thinks he's a boy. She asks him how important it is to him to do this, he says very important (he does it because creativity). Dan tries to do masculine things with him, his daughter pushes back on that, but Dan pushes back even harder, and Dan's pro-masculine pushback ends up being the main takeaway. Then it ends with the kid being really tough and sticking to what he wants.

You're just proving Shapiro's point. If this was a show designed to appeal to conservatives (and I mean actual conservatives not just people who vote republican "cuz jobs jackie!"), then the pushback against the crossdressing kid would have been something like "boys are boys and girls are girls". Boys should dress like boys so they grow up to be boys. And not just grow up to be boys...they grow up to be men who act like men. Dressing boys like little men is a way to instill manhood in them. Letting little boys dress like girls does the opposite of that.

^If the show said that.....it would be off the air in two seconds.

[wufwugy]

Really gotta give it up to the #1 negotiator. He's the good cop now. He was the bad cop, and bad copped it up, getting Rocket Man to shit his pants. But now Bolton came in as the bad cop. Now the #1 negotiator is the good cop. Kim can't retreat because he knows that his good cop will just return to the even worse bad cop (Bolton) if things don't go the way they need to.

North Korea is definitely getting denuclearized during Trump's 8 years, and it's highly likely to be soon.

[BananaStand]

North Korea is definitely getting denuclearized during Trump's 8 years, and it's highly likely to be soon.

I'm really not understanding how you've come to this conclusion. I'd say it's a coin flip at best.

What is Kim's motivation to de-nuclearize? Why would he do that? Because people are starving?? Pffffft, cmon. People have been starving in NK for a long time, and the solutions to that have been there all along. Kim's not interested. A thriving, economically successful citizenry is the last thing an oppressive fascist regime wants. And it definitely doesn't want to be on "international probation".

You really think Trump is going to be the great diplomat and heal the rift between NK and the rest of the world?? C'mon man. How?

If he's successful, he certainly deserves some credit. But you can't ignore that what seems to have happened is that NK just ran out of money before it could become a significant nuclear threat. They've come to the negotiating table before, and all they've done is buy time. They make some concessions, just enough to keep their economy going, and then just keep on going with their nuke program.

I'm guessing that there is about an 80% chance that's what happens. Trump will get applauded by Hannity, and Kim will get the nobel peace prize. I'm not kidding.

There's a 10% chance that Trump has some kind of sweeping, world-changing victory. And frankly, if he does, he should get re-elected based solely on that.

Then there is a 10% chance that we find out that military destruction of his enemies is all Kim's really after, at any cost. This percentage increases (and the 80% decreases) the longer the can gets kicked down the road.

Kim, or his father, could have embraced the world economy and peaceful disarmament a long time ago, or at any time since. they haven't. They've explicity chosen to oppress and propagandize their own citizens for the purpose of military strength. Why would they do that??

Generally, if you can't figure out why someone is doing something, look at the result, and then infer the motivation.

Why would a radical violent dictator want better weapons???

[wufwugy]

What is Kim's motivation to de-nuclearize?

Because Trump has fucked him up the ass.

The signs are all very, very, very good by this point that real change is happening.

[wufwugy]

Man oh man. It can't get anymore confirmed.

In the worlds Rodman tweets this, there's like a 98% chance of denuclearization

[wufwugy]

This is how Trump has fucked Kim up the ass:

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/979801845836206080

It's a war on companies that do business with NK. The strategy has fangs because Trump gassed China. China is running on fumes now while Trump has a full tank in his Rolls. Then Trump started beating down companies that don't comply with sanctions. Then the rats scurried away and Kim was left with his pants down.

Now Kim's got no oil and no commerce, no China anymore, and a colossal Trump in front of him who has just offered an open palm.

The Master Persuader master persuades.

[BananaStand]

This is how Trump has fucked Kim up the ass:

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/979801845836206080

You have not accounted for the possibility that Kim says "fuck it" and just launches everything he has at South Korea and anywhere else he can. He hasn't built the world's 4th largest military just so he can acquiesce to Trump.'

The harder we push on him, the less options he has. And that's not necessarily a great result.

[OngBonga]

You have not accounted for the possibility that Kim says "fuck it" and just launches everything he has at South Korea and anywhere else he can.

Why is this any more likely than Pakistan going "fuck it" and launching all their nukes at India? Or Isreal going "fuck it" and launching their nukes at Iran?

In each case, it is an insane act of suicide. Why is Kim any more insane or suicidal than the next nuclear armed world leader? You couldn't even tell me who the leader of Pakistan is, let alone how sane he is. For that matter, neither could I.

[BananaStand]

Why is this any more likely than Pakistan going "fuck it" and launching all their nukes at India? Or Isreal going "fuck it" and launching their nukes at Iran?

Is that a serious question? C'mon man!

Neither of those countries are facing brutal economic sanctioning that has hamstrung their economies. They have favorable diplomatic relations with the rest of the world. They have something to lose.

Kim has nothing to lose. All he has right now is a nation of starving people that he does not give a shit about...and a fuckload of missiles.

It's really not a reach to suggest that Kim is "insane" and "suicidal"

[wufwugy]

You have not accounted for the possibility that Kim says "fuck it" and just launches everything he has at South Korea and anywhere else he can. He hasn't built the world's 4th largest military just so he can acquiesce to Trump.'

The harder we push on him, the less options he has. And that's not necessarily a great result.

It is true that you never want to corner somebody with power like a dog. Fortunately, Trump has not cornered Kim like that. Instead the setup gives a very viable and attractive out. Since Kim is a rational actor, when that is his only out, he will take it.

[OngBonga]

It's really not a reach to suggest that Kim is "insane" and "suicidal"

I don't see any reason to think this, neither do I see reason to trust militant Islam more than communism.

You're falling victim to propaganda. I'm more inclined to think Kim has a great deal to lose. He is the leader of an oppressed nation, he has whatever he wants, he lives in a palace. He's probably a very happy individual. This idea that he's lonely and insane is ludicrous. I mean he might be, just like Teresa May might be a lesbian and the Queen might be an alien reptilian.

He's got more to lose than I have, and I wouldn't go lobbing nukes about.

[wufwugy]

If Kim gets a deal done, he'll be considered one of the biggest heroes of the 21st century. Before Trump, he had uncertainty and multiple options. Since Trump, he has only two options: annihilation or hero. He is taking the obvious one.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...r-country.html

Here's why I didn't vote for Trump in the primary. Deep down he's a closet New York liberal.

[wufwugy]

What about Trump on Amazon do you not like?

[wufwugy]

It's amazing how high Trump's approval rating is given how terrible the news coverage is of him. If the media treated Obama the same way they treat Trump, 0bama for sure would have been in the low 30s at best.

[BananaStand]

Well just look at the narrative he's laying out. It's the archetypal leftist demagoguery. Big bad corporation gets richer off of hard working taxpayers, nyaahhhh.

Amazon doesn't tell the post office what to charge. Amazon doesn't make the post office lose money. Amazon is just participating in a free market and making the most advantageous decision it could.

Apparently this is a problem for Trump. But when Trump paid little or no tax using legal methods, he was a genius. WTF?

There's no way Trump is dumb enough to believe what he's saying. He knows Amazon hasn't done anything wrong. He has to know that the Post Office is a completely retarded enterprise. The rebuttal in that article was that "such and such finance guru says this contract is profitable". There's not a financial analyst with an IQ over 60 that believes that. This contract is indeed unprofitable, but so are ALL the contracts, not just Amazon.

He's picking on Amazon because A) He hates Jeff Bezos and B) he can satisfy his left-wing social ideology and engage in what is essentially a redistribution play. And C) He can tout the additional post office revenue as a victory and validation for his 'run-govt-like-a-business' schtick.

[wufwugy]

Well just look at the narrative he's laying out. It's the archetypal leftist demagoguery. Big bad corporation gets richer off of hard working taxpayers, nyaahhhh.

Amazon doesn't tell the post office what to charge. Amazon doesn't make the post office lose money. Amazon is just participating in a free market and making the most advantageous decision it could.

Apparently this is a problem for Trump. But when Trump paid little or no tax using legal methods, he was a genius. WTF?

There's no way Trump is dumb enough to believe what he's saying. He knows Amazon hasn't done anything wrong. He has to know that the Post Office is a completely retarded enterprise. The rebuttal in that article was that "such and such finance guru says this contract is profitable". There's not a financial analyst with an IQ over 60 that believes that. This contract is indeed unprofitable, but so are ALL the contracts, not just Amazon.

He's picking on Amazon because A) He hates Jeff Bezos and B) he can satisfy his left-wing social ideology and engage in what is essentially a redistribution play. And C) He can tout the additional post office revenue as a victory and validation for his 'run-govt-like-a-business' schtick.

Trump has spoken about this kind of thing in clear terms in the past. The problem isn't businesses doing what they can to get special treatment (that's actually a good thing); instead the problem is businesses having a tax monopoly which they can lobby for special treatment (and then get it granted). Amazon is a company in that situation.


Regarding the rhetoric, I'm not a fan of it. I wish people would THINK instead of FEEL, but that's not how it is. People feel and feel and feel and don't stop to think. His rhetoric reflects how to get things done when the people you need to convince feel instead of think.

[BananaStand]

the problem is businesses having a tax monopoly which they can lobby for special treatment (and then get it granted). Amazon is a company in that situation.

What???

What unique power does Amazon have here? Imagine they pull the contract....so what? The post office loses the revenue, but they also don't have to pay the costs of servicing that contract, so all that's lost is the incremental net income. No one seems to be mentioning what that is...so I'm guessing it's not much. In fact, it's probably a loss. And shutting down a losing venture would actually be BETTER for taxpayers.

Where it gets messy is if the Post Office has to lay off people and liquidate parts of its operation. Even if every single employee transfers along with the contract, UPS and FedEx pay less than the Post Office, so there is probably a net loss for the economy there, but it's not huge. Its certainly not big enough for the government to be making concessions to Amazon.

The problem is OBVIOUSLY the mismanagement and competitive impotence of the Post Office. The PO is actually part of the executive branch, which means Trump runs the show. His options are:

A) Shut it down. The whole post office. It's a venture losing money in a market in which it cannot compete with industry leaders like UPS and FedEx.
B) Fix it. He's such a great business man....make it work!! Improve efficiencies, lower costs, raise revenues, and relieve the taxpayers of the burden.
C) Feed the fat government cow even though it's inefficient and loses money. And do it through thinly-veiled redistribution tactics backed up by leftist rhetoric about the evil billionaire exploiting the common man.

One of those things does not belong on a republican platform.

[wufwugy]

What???

If I recall correctly, Trump was framing Amazon's special treatment through its tax treatment. My thoughts were filtered through that.

Even if Amazon is increasing production on margins that nobody else is, they should not be receiving special tax treatment.

[BananaStand]

If I recall correctly, Trump was framing Amazon's special treatment through its tax treatment. My thoughts were filtered through that.

Even if Amazon is increasing production on margins that nobody else is, they should not be receiving special tax treatment.

if we're thinking about the same thing, then that's Trump being a demagogue.

He was ranting about Amazon and sales taxes. I guess there is some kinda loophole where you don't always have to collect sales taxes when you sell shit online. Some decades old court ruling about mail-order catalogs says so. But that applies to any company that sells shit online, not just Amazon.

Also, Amazon collects sales tax in 45 states, and the other 5 don't have sales tax. So Trump is full of shit.

[boost]

Pretty solid argument Banana.

I think it made sense (or more sense at least) to start the postal service to help accelerate westward expansion, facilitate ease of communication as a lubricant for the economy, etc-- but it doesn't make much sense at all nowadays. That said, what with all the jobs it provides and people's unsupported feeling that it should exist, it's understandable that politicians don't mess with it. But to see a supposed conservative president picking the Post Office's side against a successful company is baffling.

[BananaStand]

Pretty solid argument Banana.

Pretty solid compliment Boost

[BananaStand]

Well shutting down the post office is sort of my own, somewhat radical, idea that I inserted into this debate. The idea hasn't really been given fair consideration. The post office hasn't been obsolete for all that long. And we've been kinda busy since then with wars, a recession, and a very slow recovery that Obama sought to drive with government jobs. So I'm not sure the issue of the PO's existence has ever been seriously considered. Perhaps there is a good reason for it. But as of now, I'm not seeing it.

So unless I've missed some extremely vital role the PO plays in society, then I'm sure Trump also sees the PO for the black hole of cash flow that it is. So for him to defend it, he must have some other purpose. Options that I see are:

1) He fucking hates Jeff Bezos and just decided that he's gonna fuck with his stock. I think I read that Amazon was down 7% in two days over this. That's probably serious money to Mr. Bezos.

2) It's a campaign talking point he can sell to the middle class. "I robbed from the rich and gave to the poor!"

3) Maybe he's trying to troll the democratic party into calling for an end to the Post Office. Then all the lost jobs are on them.

4) Trump probably knows that Amazon is moving toward a model where they ship their own packages. They own planes and run cargo flights into airports in a few major cities already. And it's growing. So maybe Trump knows this and figures he can hijack a few billion off of Amazon before they stop using the post office anyway.

I don't like any of those. #1 is petty and unbecoming of a president. #2 is too far left for me. #3 seems stupid. And #4 seems like there is no upside for Trump other than sticking it to Jeff Bezos....which brings us back to #1

[wufwugy]

The PO should definitely be shut down.

[BananaStand]

Can anyone guess who the PO's largest sub-contractor is.....

Spoiler: Show

Fedex

[wufwugy]

Didn't Cheatin' Obama get his Forever Name today? I'm gonna have to look into that.


Cool to note: Trump's Forever Names always gear towards confirmation bias of future events. So, the names are designed so that things that happen in the future make the viewer say "ah yeah that's just Cheatin' Obama doing his cheating thing." This means that Trump knows about things that will soon reveal about Cheatin' Obama's literal cheatin'.

[wufwugy]

Poopadoop meets the God Emperor.

https://i.imgur.com/xGPfNii.mp4

[Poopadoop]

Poopadoop meets the God Emperor.

https://i.imgur.com/xGPfNii.mp4

Six of those kids were deported right after that photo op.

[wufwugy]

Lots of his rhetoric is full of shit. That's most of what people eat regarding rhetoric. Shit. Nobody wants the truth. You have to stuff them full of shit if you want them to accidentally swallow the truth.

Not saying that's what Trump is doing here, but it IS what he has tried to do in the past.

[Poopadoop]

You have to stuff them full of shit if you want them to accidentally swallow the truth.

wut?

[boost]

Lots of his rhetoric is full of shit. That's most of what people eat regarding rhetoric. Shit. Nobody wants the truth. You have to stuff them full of shit if you want them to accidentally swallow the truth.

Not saying that's what Trump is doing here, but it IS what he has tried to do in the past.

But you can't have it both ways. Or at least I'd argue that Trump trying to have it both ways is detrimental to our society.

What I mean is Trump likes to appeal to the cynic when he bullshits-- "it's how politics is played, I'm just better at it!" -- but the game is not played that way, the stability of the game relies on the bullshitters making their bullshit believable enough that they have plausible deniability. Citing made up shit in a discussion with a foreign head of state, ok, sure... but then openly bragging about it... That's ruinous to the game.

I don't deny that Trump personally can gain from this, but it's at all of our expense.

[BananaStand]

That's ruinous to the game.

Maybe the goal is to ruin the game.

If you can't figure out someone's motivations....look at the result and infer the motivation.

"make America great again" implies that something was going on in america that was not-great. I.e. "the game"

[boost]

Maybe the goal is to ruin the game.

If you can't figure out someone's motivations....look at the result and infer the motivation.

"make America great again" implies that something was going on in america that was not-great. I.e. "the game"

I get the impulse to flip the monopoly board. The problem is that this rarely turns out well. The Bolsheviks did it, the Nazis did it, etc, etc. I'm not comparing Trump's and their ideologies, I'm simply saying that flipping the board almost never turns out well.

[wufwugy]

But you can't have it both ways. Or at least I'd argue that Trump trying to have it both ways is detrimental to our society.

What I mean is Trump likes to appeal to the cynic when he bullshits-- "it's how politics is played, I'm just better at it!" -- but the game is not played that way, the stability of the game relies on the bullshitters making their bullshit believable enough that they have plausible deniability. Citing made up shit in a discussion with a foreign head of state, ok, sure... but then openly bragging about it... That's ruinous to the game.

I don't deny that Trump personally can gain from this, but it's at all of our expense.

I may have a different view of what's being bullshitted. I'm getting at things like pacing and leading, thinking past the sale, etc.. The Amazon/tax thing may be an example of thinking past the sale. Let's say Trump's goal is to get people to talk about Amazon getting special tax treatment. I don't know if that is his goal, but let's go with it for now. If that is Trump's goal, how does he get people to talk about it? By thinking past the sale. How does he do that? The way that seems to work best in an arena of hostile media is telling a small lie that gets a reaction that assumes the sale. So, when Trump says Amazon is paying zero in sales tax, naysayers say "aha blumpf, it's these other taxes Amazon isn't paying, not sales tax." Little do they realize that they just confirmed the premise he wanted from the get-go.

I don't think the kind of lies Trump tells are the dangerous kind. They are the "honey you don't look fat in that dress" kind of lies. They're the kinds of lies that people tell (in attempts) to help others, like what a counselor might tell a client, or a parent might tell a child, or a friend might tell another friend.

If your Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies, maybe telling a little lie about it that gets people to unwittingly confirm that Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies is actually the right thing. It was fun when Trump did that. His simple lie got the entire world to affirm the truth they were trying to hide, at least for a brief period of time.

[BananaStand]

It was fun when Trump did that. His simple lie got the entire world to affirm the truth they were trying to hide, at least for a brief period of time.

SHIT HOLE

[Poopadoop]

I may have a different view of what's being bullshitted. I'm getting at things like pacing and leading, thinking past the sale, etc.. The Amazon/tax thing may be an example of thinking past the sale. Let's say Trump's goal is to get people to talk about Amazon getting special tax treatment. I don't know if that is his goal, but let's go with it for now. If that is Trump's goal, how does he get people to talk about it? By thinking past the sale. How does he do that? The way that seems to work best in an arena of hostile media is telling a small lie that gets a reaction that assumes the sale. So, when Trump says Amazon is paying zero in sales tax, naysayers say "aha blumpf, it's these other taxes Amazon isn't paying, not sales tax." Little do they realize that they just confirmed the premise he wanted from the get-go.

I don't think the kind of lies Trump tells are the dangerous kind. They are the "honey you don't look fat in that dress" kind of lies. They're the kinds of lies that people tell (in attempts) to help others, like what a counselor might tell a client, or a parent might tell a child, or a friend might tell another friend.

If your Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies, maybe telling a little lie about it that gets people to unwittingly confirm that Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies is actually the right thing. It was fun when Trump did that. His simple lie got the entire world to affirm the truth they were trying to hide, at least for a brief period of time.

Here's an alternate theory:

Trump is basically a random word generator. He says whatever pops into his head regardless of the context. The fact so much of it is untrue is because he doesn't filter it for truth - or at all. There's no overarching strategy behind it and its just as it appears to an observer: random blabbering.

[wufwugy]

Here's an alternate theory:

Trump is basically a random word generator. He says whatever pops into his head regardless of the context. The fact so much of it is untrue is because he doesn't filter it for truth - or at all. There's no overarching strategy behind it and its just as it appears to an observer: random blabbering.

I love this theory. Because it's testable!

Let's see if it has predictive power.

[boost]

I may have a different view of what's being bullshitted. I'm getting at things like pacing and leading, thinking past the sale, etc.. The Amazon/tax thing may be an example of thinking past the sale. Let's say Trump's goal is to get people to talk about Amazon getting special tax treatment. I don't know if that is his goal, but let's go with it for now. If that is Trump's goal, how does he get people to talk about it? By thinking past the sale. How does he do that? The way that seems to work best in an arena of hostile media is telling a small lie that gets a reaction that assumes the sale. So, when Trump says Amazon is paying zero in sales tax, naysayers say "aha blumpf, it's these other taxes Amazon isn't paying, not sales tax." Little do they realize that they just confirmed the premise he wanted from the get-go.

I don't think the kind of lies Trump tells are the dangerous kind. They are the "honey you don't look fat in that dress" kind of lies. They're the kinds of lies that people tell (in attempts) to help others, like what a counselor might tell a client, or a parent might tell a child, or a friend might tell another friend.

If your Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies, maybe telling a little lie about it that gets people to unwittingly confirm that Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies is actually the right thing. It was fun when Trump did that. His simple lie got the entire world to affirm the truth they were trying to hide, at least for a brief period of time.

I get that you're enamored with these persuasion tactics, and to be honest, I find them incredibly interesting myself, but I think you over value them and don't recognize their limits. In an ocean of functionally infinite business relationships that is the world of the developer/brand Trump was forty years ago, employing total persuasion (meaning all out, as in "total war") can reap great rewards and barely send a wave a couple miles in this vast ocean.

However, as the pool gets smaller, as it did as Trump became a bigger player, the waves become bigger and go further. Trump, circa Atlantic City, maybe was him splashing around in one of the Great Lakes as opposed to the ocean. Trump as president -- the world stage is a very small neighborhood and now he's sloshing around in a kiddie pool.

That is to say, these "white lies" as you see them, are only white lies when there's enough other activity to absorb the damage done by them.

[wufwugy]

That is to say, these "white lies" as you see them, are only white lies when there's enough other activity to absorb the damage done by them.

What damage?

[BananaStand]

Next time you see Barry Obama and he says he was tougher on Russia than Trump is....punch him in his stupid liberal face.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ctors-say.html

[wufwugy]

Do you think there are good lies?

[boost]

Do you think there are good lies?

I'll borrow Sam Harris' answer, "No, there are no jews hiding here."

Put another way, I think your category of "good lies" is overly broad and much of them are simply convenient lies that are either ostensibly benign or in the short term achieve some goal, but ultimately have negative consequences. But this isn't some sort of karmic system, the teller of the lies need not ever suffer the consequences, and that's what I was getting at with the ocean/lake/pool analogy.

[wufwugy]

What do you think of things along this line: you're are not a confident person. You think you are not attractive, are not smart, and are weak. And you want to change that. So, one of the things you do is positive affirmation. You tell yourself that you are a confident person. That you are handsome and smart and strong. In doing so, you begin to becoming more of the person you tell yourself you are, even if you are not or do not believe it (yet).

[JimmyS1985]

I haven't posted here in a while, just wanted to say that I am quite pleased with today's news that Trump's personal attorney had his door kicked in by the FBI.

Personally I don't know why Trump supporters hate the Mueller investigation so much. They're a law and order crowd right? Rule of law applies equally to everyone right, even Trump? If Trump did nothing wrong, than that would surely show up in the investigation and Trump would be exonerated. So long as Trump broke no laws, and every Trump supporter I've met claims that, then they literally have nothing to fear in this investigation.

If he did break laws though, well, allow me to be the first to proclaim 2020's DNC Convention chant "LOCK HIM UP!".

[BananaStand]

I haven't posted here in a while,

Is it because you learned so much last time?

just wanted to say that I am quite pleased with today's news that Trump's personal attorney had his door kicked in by the FBI

Why does that "please" you? Did Trump or his personal attorney commit a crime against you?

Personally I don't know why Trump supporters hate the Mueller investigation so much.

Witch hunt. Waste of money. Beyond it's intended scope. A deep state hit-job. Honestly dude, are you really this uninformed?

They're a law and order crowd right?

Are you saying you're not in the 'law and order crowd'?

Rule of law applies equally to everyone right, even Trump?

Actually the rules of the special counsel prevent Mueller from charging a sitting president with a crime. So there's that.

If Trump did nothing wrong, than that would surely show up in the investigation and Trump would be exonerated.

That's already happened. Congressional intelligence committees have said as much. Mueller himself stated recently that Trump is not a "target" of any criminal investigation. So why is the investigation still happening?

So long as Trump broke no laws, and every Trump supporter I've met claims that, then they literally have nothing to fear in this investigation.

Bullshit. If a cop follows you for 500 miles, he WILL find a reason to pull you over. That's why they aren't allowed to do that.

[JimmyS1985]

Is it because you learned so much last time?


Why does that "please" you? Did Trump or his personal attorney commit a crime against you?


Witch hunt. Waste of money. Beyond it's intended scope. A deep state hit-job. Honestly dude, are you really this uninformed?


Are you saying you're not in the 'law and order crowd'?


Actually the rules of the special counsel prevent Mueller from charging a sitting president with a crime. So there's that.


That's already happened. Congressional intelligence committees have said as much. Mueller himself stated recently that Trump is not a "target" of any criminal investigation. So why is the investigation still happening?


Bullshit. If a cop follows you for 500 miles, he WILL find a reason to pull you over. That's why they aren't allowed to do that.

No, just haven't had much to comment on lately. Most people don't like to admit they were duped into voting for a conman. I know I wouldn't, humans don't like to admit they were wrong as a general rule of thumb.

Maybe you can't see this because you indoctrinate yourself with far right American media day in and day out, but people not enveloped in that right wing media bubble, you most definitely elected a more corrupt President than Andrew Johnson, Warren G Harding, or Nixon.

Yea if you visit far right media, he looks saintly, but to non-right wing spun media, he looks like a really shitty President.

There's a good documentary you should consider watching called "The Brainwashing of my Dad", it's basically how far right media sources turned a normal, loving, Kennedy Democrat of a dad, into this far right blowhard who listened to far right media every hour he wasn't at work, clicking through long chain emails from right wing sources, and just being a real general cantankerous piece of shit.

I got one such guy on my friendslist, the general rule is don't argue politics with him, because he's basically utilizing his own set of facts that only exist in the right wing media bubble.

[boost]

What do you think of things along this line: you're are not a confident person. You think you are not attractive, are not smart, and are weak. And you want to change that. So, one of the things you do is positive affirmation. You tell yourself that you are a confident person. That you are handsome and smart and strong. In doing so, you begin to becoming more of the person you tell yourself you are, even if you are not or do not believe it (yet).

I think we're getting a bit off topic, but the quick answer is that I think this is distinct from lying in some meaningful ways. Positive affirmation is mainly concerned with the subjective and/or future states of being. Because it functions as a feedback loop, once you enter it, you aren't really lying. I know this feels like a loophole, but I think the phenomenon, while similar to dishonestly is, as I said, meaningfully distinct.

[BananaStand]

Did I cite any media sources?

Why do you presume to know where I get my news?

Why do you presume I'm not a free and independent thinker?

I'll have you know I read, digest, and scrutinize news from ALL angles, ALL THE TIME. So fuck you.

And I'm not surprised a Kennedy democrat is now a republican. The democrat party has deviated quite a bit from "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Don't ya think???????


Also...why do you consider words coming out of Mueller's mouth to be part of the "right wing media bias"? Either he said Trump isn't a target, or he didn't say it.

The Washington Post (NOT a right wing media source) says he said it.

[JimmyS1985]

I feel like I've talked to one trump supporter living in flyover country, I've pretty much talked to them all.

I've talked to a lot of them, and I gather they seem to believe that you "make America better" by "making America worse". That's my broad impression of Trump supporters.

Like their idea is giving Americans harder and worse lives by and large, will improve their lives, builds character or something. The "pussification of America" they often decry. It seems having 10's of millions of Americans living in massive homeless shanty towns like the Hoovervilles of the 1930's will remedy that problem.

For example, they support chinese debt financed tax cuts. They know full well debt has to be paid back, they don't care though. All that additional deficit this year has to be paid back, but they don't care about the long term, they care about the now, and present, even if it means shittier times in the future.

It's like yea, enjoy your tax cut now, because what financing that tax cut, is rolling US Treasury bonds off the printing presses by the $1 trillion per year. And the one who's gonna pay those bonds back, is ultimately going to be the tax payer.

So anyways that's basically my broad impression of Trump supporters, they believe they "make Americans lives better" by "making Americans lives worse".

[BananaStand]

I feel like I've talked to one trump supporter living in flyover country, I've pretty much talked to them all.

New Hampshire is flyover country?

Do you not realize that treating middle class, rural, conservative america as "negligible" is what got Trump elected? Propagating that sentiment by referring to it as "flyover country" makes you just as responsible for Trump, as those who voted for him.

Finally, your entire opening statement is ignorant and foolish. Pay attention!

I've talked to a lot of them, and I gather they seem to believe that you "make America better" by "making America worse". That's my broad impression of Trump supporters.

Got a quote you want to cite?

Like their idea is giving Americans harder and worse lives by and large, will improve their lives, builds character or something

Quote/citation please?

The "pussification of America" they often decry.

I'm quite sure Hannity has never uttered the phrase "pussification". Where are you getting this quote?

It seems having 10's of millions of Americans living in massive homeless shanty towns like the Hoovervilles of the 1930's will remedy that problem.

The midterm elections are in 6 months. There are dozens of political candidates running for major offices. They all have advertising and information campaigns on the internet. They all have websites that detail their views on all of the issues. Can you please provide a link to which candidate(s) support(s) shanty towns?

For example, they support chinese debt financed tax cuts.

How is that worse than Bernie's plan of chinese debt financed nanny state?

They know full well debt has to be paid back,

Right, so shouldn't we spend it on something that makes money, like economic growth? Or would it be better to spend it on something like welfare checks?

All that additional deficit this year has to be paid back, but they don't care about the long term, they care about the now, and present, even if it means shittier times in the future.

You think that tax cuts were implemented just so some rich guys could keep a little more money? even if that insane naive and intellectually lazy premise were true.....what do you think they do with the money?

It's like yea, enjoy your tax cut now, because what financing that tax cut, is rolling US Treasury bonds off the printing presses by the $1 trillion per year. And the one who's gonna pay those bonds back, is ultimately going to be the tax payer.

Who else would pay the bonds back? Tax cuts > Economic growth > Jobs > More money > pay debt > repeat. That's how it's supposed to work. But it keeps getting fucked up every time we interrupt the process by electing a democrat.

So anyways that's basically my broad impression of Trump supporters, they believe they "make Americans lives better" by "making Americans lives worse".

What does this have to do with anything in your original post? or anything that's been asked of you since? Why are you "pleased" that Trump's attorney-client privilege was violated to satisfy an investigation that's way outside of its intended scope? What happened to your love for the "rule of law"?

Suddenly sacrosanct pillars of our legal system go out the window because you wanna spike the football at republicans? Awesome. You should be really proud of that opinion.

[wufwugy]

Kicking in Trump's lawyer's door has about as much to do with law and order regarding Trump as I do with martians.

[JimmyS1985]

New Hampshire is flyover country?

Do you not realize that treating middle class, rural, conservative america as "negligible" is what got Trump elected? Propagating that sentiment by referring to it as "flyover country" makes you just as responsible for Trump, as those who voted for him.

Finally, your entire opening statement is ignorant and foolish. Pay attention!


Got a quote you want to cite?


Quote/citation please?


I'm quite sure Hannity has never uttered the phrase "pussification". Where are you getting this quote?


The midterm elections are in 6 months. There are dozens of political candidates running for major offices. They all have advertising and information campaigns on the internet. They all have websites that detail their views on all of the issues. Can you please provide a link to which candidate(s) support(s) shanty towns?


How is that worse than Bernie's plan of chinese debt financed nanny state?


Right, so shouldn't we spend it on something that makes money, like economic growth? Or would it be better to spend it on something like welfare checks?


You think that tax cuts were implemented just so some rich guys could keep a little more money? even if that insane naive and intellectually lazy premise were true.....what do you think they do with the money?


Who else would pay the bonds back? Tax cuts > Economic growth > Jobs > More money > pay debt > repeat. That's how it's supposed to work. But it keeps getting fucked up every time we interrupt the process by electing a democrat.


What does this have to do with anything in your original post? or anything that's been asked of you since? Why are you "pleased" that Trump's attorney-client privilege was violated to satisfy an investigation that's way outside of its intended scope? What happened to your love for the "rule of law"?

Suddenly sacrosanct pillars of our legal system go out the window because you wanna spike the football at republicans? Awesome. You should be really proud of that opinion.

Attorney-Client privilege can't be invoked if it's being used as a means to further the ability of the attorney or client to go commit crimes.

I'll provide some links to illustrate what I'm saying.

This is a ranking on education in 2 states in particular, Oklahoma and Louisiana.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...cation/prek-12

Oklahoma ranks #42 "best" education, and Louisiana ranks #45. Ok, so their kids are getting shitty educations by and large. Having a good education, pretty low priority in a red state right? Oklahoma teachers are on a 2 week walkout because education facilities have gotten so shitty in their state. Because what employer doesn't want dumbass ditch diggers for employees who can't do basic math, reading, or writing. Something like that.

Now let's look at those 2 states incarceration rates in the country.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...rates?slide=11

Oklahoma has the 2nd highest incarceration rate in the country, and Louisiana is #1.

Red Republican ran states (I think Jindal fucked up so bad, he was replaced by a Democrat) is quite telling, these 2 red states, would rather incarcerate their citizens, than give them a good education. ranking better in education has been tied to lower incarceration rates.

This illustrates my point, Republican voters, and politicians, believe you make peoples lives better, by making peoples lives worse.

I talked to a White Baby Boomer today, and I was taking a drug test for illicit substances for my CDL license I'm going for. And I mentioned, I think the War on Drugs, has RUINED more peoples lives, than it has helped.

Well she heavily disagreed with me. She said we're not incarcerating ENOUGH Americans. I pointed out, WE'RE THE INCARCERATION CAPITAL OF PLANET EARTH.

She said you know how you not go to jail? And I replied quickly, make less things illegal. Like Amsterdam's approach to marijuana and prostitution, those are legal, they have a lot less citizens in prison over marijuana and prostitution.

And I pointed out to her, that the purpose of the War on Drugs, was to stop people from using drugs, NOT incarcerate millions of Americans. In terms of stopping Americans from doing drugs, the War on Drugs has been nothing short of an abject failure. Where it was remarkably successful, was sending millions of Americans to prison, who otherwise would not have gone.

This all ties into what I've learned from Trump supporters, "You make peoples lives better, by making peoples lives worse".

[BananaStand]

Attorney-Client privilege can't be invoked if it's being used as a means to further the ability of the attorney or client to go commit crimes.

Paying a porn star to shut up about an affair is not a crime.

Oklahoma ranks #42 "best" education, and Louisiana ranks #45. Ok, so their kids are getting shitty educations by and large.

Just because they rank among the bottom in the US means nothing. Someone has to be #50. When compared to world standards, Oklahoma and Louisiana kids are some of the best educated in the world.

Having a good education, pretty low priority in a red state right?

WRONG. Where did you get this idea?

Oklahoma teachers are on a 2 week walkout because education facilities have gotten so shitty in their state. Because what employer doesn't want dumbass ditch diggers for employees who can't do basic math, reading, or writing. Something like that.

Actually....they just want pay raises. The walkout has nothing to do with kids. If they cared about the kids, the teachers would go back to school and teach them basic math, reading, and writing.

Now let's look at those 2 states incarceration rates in the country.

right....cause we're just inventing connections out of thin air now.

Oklahoma has the 2nd highest incarceration rate in the country, and Louisiana is #1.

So?

these 2 red states, would rather incarcerate their citizens, than give them a good education

Really? Who said that? Are you saying that legislators made a conscious choice to put people in prison rather than educate them? Why would they do that? Money? Do you have any idea how much more expensive it is to incarcerate someone rather than educate them?

ranking better in education has been tied to lower incarceration rates.

Source?

This illustrates my point, Republican voters, and politicians, believe you make peoples lives better, by making peoples lives worse.

This illustrates that you're a nincompoop.

I talked to a White Baby Boomer today,

With no bias in your heart at all right?

and I was taking a drug test for illicit substances for my CDL license I'm going for.

Did you pass?

And I mentioned, I think the War on Drugs, has RUINED more peoples lives, than it has helped.

I'm pretty sure proclaiming "Yay drugs" while getting a drug test qualifies you as the stupidest person I've encountered in 2018 thus far. Last year I saw a store clerk watch a customer's debit card get declined by two point-of-sale devices and an ATM machine. Then the clerk said "i'll take a check". That store clerk was the winner for 2017. But you are well on yoru way to topping that. BTW, that store clerk was in a state that ranks #2 in education...go figure!

Well she heavily disagreed with me. She said we're not incarcerating ENOUGH Americans. I pointed out, WE'RE THE INCARCERATION CAPITAL OF PLANET EARTH.

That's actually not a bad thing. Inequality (and it's related symptom...crime) is a consequence of prosperity.

She said you know how you not go to jail? And I replied quickly, make less things illegal

You master debater you!

Like Amsterdam's approach to marijuana and prostitution, those are legal, they have a lot less citizens in prison over marijuana and prostitution.

here's a fun experiment. Could you afford to live in Amsterdam?

And I pointed out to her, that the purpose of the War on Drugs, was to stop people from using drugs, NOT incarcerate millions of Americans.

Millions?? Where are you getting this number?

In terms of stopping Americans from doing drugs, the War on Drugs has been nothing short of an abject failure. Where it was remarkably successful, was sending millions of Americans to prison, who otherwise would not have gone.

There's that number again. I think you would be shocked to learn that TRUTH is that the number of people in federal prison who's worst crime is drug possession/use is less than 300.

LESS THAN 300!!!!!!!!

This all ties into what I've learned from Trump supporters,

How? And btw......why do you keep referring to "Trump supporters". Do you mean me? I'm not a "Trump Supporter". Im an independent thinker who supports reason, fairness, and truth. Sometimes that overlaps with Trump's policies, and sometimes it doesn't.

[OngBonga]

you most definitely elected a more corrupt President than Andrew Johnson, Warren G Harding, or Nixon.

Yet still ended up with the least corrupted of the two options.

I'm unimpressed with Trump's response to this "chemical attack" in Syria. He must know it's a crock of shit. This is exactly what I hoped he would step away from.

[Poopadoop]

I'm unimpressed with Trump's response to this "chemical attack" in Syria. He must know it's a crock of shit. This is exactly what I hoped he would step away from.

You can't be surprised at his response though given he just hired that war nut Bolton to head the NSA.

And yeah, funny how a few days after he spontaneously announces a withdrawal from Syria, this happens. Who'da saw that coming?