*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

It's about more strict background checks,

Already a thing.

raising the legal age

Why?

holding people accountable for securing their weapons

Also, already a thing.

and making it harder to purchase semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines

Why? And what do mean exactly by "make it harder"?

Do you even know how "rights" work?
Do you know what "inalienable" means?
Do you know what "shall not be infringed" means?

It means that liberal ass holes can't just put up roadblocks wherever they want just to "make things harder". That's NOT what a good government does.

[wufwugy]

It takes a culture as well as a law.

[oskar]

[oskar]

https://youtu.be/DpJtqFXvriU?t=3m0s

General Michael Hayden with his masterclass on how to call the president retarded on national television.

[oskar]

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05...ent=8863218046

The Handmaids Tale is not a manual!

[wufwugy]

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05...ent=8863218046

The Handmaids Tale is not a manual!

All prohibition on business employment discrimination should be eliminated. We would find that resulting in fewer unjust and unfair practices.

[oskar]

Can you give an example in history where this has been shown to hold true?

[wufwugy]

Can you give an example in history where this has been shown to hold true?

Donald Sterling was believed to be a racist and lost his franchise because of it.


The principle at play is an economics one. Allowing producers to discriminate makes them bear the cost of their discrimination.

[oskar]

Have you seen the Harvest of Shame? It's about migrant farm workers in the 60's in the north carolina region. Comes to mind as an example where the producers didn't exactly bear the cost of their discrimination. They reaped the profits of their discrimination would be a more accurate way of describing it.

[wufwugy]

Have you seen the Harvest of Shame? It's about migrant farm workers in the 60's in the north carolina region. Comes to mind as an example where the producers didn't exactly bear the cost of their discrimination. They reaped the profits of their discrimination would be a more accurate way of describing it.

I shouldn't have given an example, but I did because you asked.

Social "sciences" are very tough to discuss in terms of data. There is always a very large amount of data that tells any story in this field with countless confounding variables.

The heritage of economics is logic. It's a model of mathematical and behavioral constraints.

The Harvest of Shame (and Donald Sterling) are subsets of the whole. Even if the principle that allowing discrimination by businesses to be legal makes discrimination more costly, there will be variation in the data that makes some of the subsets look like they don't demonstrate that principle.

[wufwugy]

Wow

I'm not sure Iraquis, Syrians, Libyans, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Somalis, Yemenis, Mexicans etc. would agree with how your precious second amendment protected them

That's a good example of why one should never give details to somebody who is looking for a disagreement. Just state your position and leave it at that.

[oskar]

That's a good example of why one should never give details to somebody who is looking for a disagreement. Just state your position and leave it at that.

Fascism creeps up on you. Dictators are elected, more often than not. I agree that any re-interpretation of the 2nd amendment has to be done with care, but at the same time you are enthusiastically supporting a president who has before and after the election repeatedly expressed his disregard for the first amendment, which I would consider a lot more dangerous.

[wufwugy]

president who has before and after the election repeatedly expressed his disregard for the first amendment, which I would consider a lot more dangerous.

How's that?

[oskar]

How's that?

He stated before the election that he thought people who burn the flag should have their citizenship revoked. More recently he has announced to reform libel laws so he could more easily sue newspapers for defamation.

[wufwugy]

He stated before the election that he thought people who burn the flag should have their citizenship revoked. More recently he has announced to reform libel laws so he could more easily sue newspapers for defamation.

I was never a fan of that flag comment. Reforming libel laws is kosher.

[Jack Sawyer]

He stated before the election that he thought people who burn the flag should have their citizenship revoked. More recently he has announced to reform libel laws so he could more easily sue newspapers for defamation.

Yeah but you don't have to look at what he says, only at what he does.

And then you have to look only at what he says, not at what he does.

It's all part of his 3-dimensional chess.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...47410472480769

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/polit...th-north-korea

[Jack Sawyer]

That's a good example of why one should never give details to somebody who is looking for a disagreement. Just state your position and leave it at that.

I'm not really looking for an argument, however you claimed that "since WW2, the 2nd Amendment protects the rest of the world because of the US military's position"

It would be nice for you to understand (Or at the very least, know) what is going on in the world around you before claiming this. Because, after all, gun manufacturers are going to gun manufacture, right?

[wufwugy]

"since WW2, the 2nd Amendment protects the rest of the world because of the US military's position"

That was my opinion, not statement of fact.

[Jack Sawyer]

That was my opinion, not statement of fact.

That unquestionably had to be your opinion, which is actually what fascinates me, the how you can reach that opinion while having all the facts which paint a different picture a google search away

Please do not take it as a personal attack on you or whatever, as you are not the only individual in the world which holds such beliefs. So, that "you" is more of a collective "you" rather than individual "you". Also, you are allowed to have any opinion you want and express it however you wish, as you guys have the 1st amendment specifically for that amirite

[wufwugy]

That unquestionably had to be your opinion, which is actually what fascinates me, the how you can reach that opinion while having all the facts which paint a different picture a google search away

My opinion is not one that the evidence does much confirmation for or against.

The opinion derives from a few pieces of well established logic and facts. Mainly the logic that empowered citizens deter government totalitarianism and the fact that the US is the world superpower.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm not really looking for an argument, however you claimed that "since WW2, the 2nd Amendment protects the rest of the world because of the US military's position"

It would be nice for you to understand (Or at the very least, know) what is going on in the world around you before claiming this. Because, after all, gun manufacturers are going to gun manufacture, right?

Quite the Freudian slip as "a disagreement" was the word used

[oskar]

Jesus christ, thanks for deleting that. Holy shit, I was about to rain down the wrath of god on you. Goddammit. But please do try again.

[wufwugy]

Deleted only so I could better format and re-up.

[oskar]

Deleted only so I could better format and re-up.

fml

Maybe it works in theory, but it clearly doesn't work in practice. It has been tried and is being tried all over the world with repeatable results.

[wufwugy]

fml

Maybe it works in theory, but it clearly doesn't work in practice. It has been tried and is being tried all over the world with repeatable results.

Nobody has the remotest clue how to design a study that can scratch the surface of examining the issue.

[oskar]

Nobody has the remotest clue how to design a study that can scratch the surface of examining the issue.

You don't need to design a study. There are innumerable examples from history and other places in the world where employers are not held accountable for discrimination. You just have to look at what happens. That's why Harvest of Shame is a great example. It's in very recent history of the US and it's very well documented. If workers have no rights, they get exploited. As simple as that.

Or not even history. The very example I linked works. She's not allowed to work because the fact that she has a wife means she's promoting a "homosexual agenda." Of course there are probably other places she could find work, but possibly not without moving to a different state. This case is a prime example why you need anti-discrimination laws, because if you don't, then minorities get fucked.

[wufwugy]

You don't need to design a study. There are innumerable examples from history and other places in the world where employers are not held accountable for discrimination. You just have to look at what happens. That's why Harvest of Shame is a great example. It's in very recent history of the US and it's very well documented. If workers have no rights, they get exploited. As simple as that.

The purpose of a study would be to find if this sample represents the population. Nobody knows how to design that sort of study on this topic.

Always keep in mind that data tells us next to nothing about theories in social "sciences".

[oskar]

So we know for a fact that fewer or no workers rights results in very poor condition for workers in every scenario it has ever been tried in, but you say that you are convinced it would be better because you have a philosophical argument for why it works?

[BananaStand]

So we know for a fact that fewer or no workers rights results in very poor condition for workers in every scenario it has ever been tried in, but you say that you are convinced it would be better because you have a philosophical argument for why it works?

Are you talking about worker's rights? or anti-discrimination policies? If we're talking about worker's rights like safety protections and shit like that, then yeah....the gov't should definitely be enforcing that shit. But if we're talking about anti-discrimination policies.....like policies that seek to ensure that groups of races and genders are proportionally represented then those policies most definitely are bad for everyone. Paraphrasing Sowell here...

Imagine you have a taxi cab company. You want to hire drivers. You screen applicants by checking their driving records and you find that 4 out of 5 Irish applicants have drunk driving convictions. So you don't hire those 4 out of 5 drivers, but you do hire 1 out of 5. But now your staff is not directly proportional to your pool of applicants. Irish people are under represented.

Now imagine the government tries to correct that "injustice" by disallowing your ability to check the driving records of applicants. Because, they say, that screening policy disproportionally affects Irish people, therefore it is clearly racist against the Irish.

So now you go hire drivers again, but this time you have to guess who might have a good driving record and who might not. All you have to rely on is group data that says 4 out of 5 Irishmen have DUI's. So now you just don't hire ANY Irish.

That's a clear example of how an anti-discrimination policy increases discrimination. And it's not just a hypothetical. Obama signed an executive order making it so government subcontractors couldn't use criminal background checks to screen employees for staffing government projects. The argument was that a disproportional amount of young black men have petty criminal records from their youth, and that shouldn't hinder their advancement as reformed adults.

What do you think happened??

[oskar]

Obama signed an executive order making it so government subcontractors couldn't use criminal background checks to screen employees for staffing government projects. The argument was that a disproportional amount of young black men have petty criminal records from their youth, and that shouldn't hinder their advancement as reformed adults.

What do you think happened??

Fact check the shit you read on breitbart or the daily stormer, because this simply isn't true.

[BananaStand]

Fact check the shit you read on breitbart or the daily stormer, because this simply isn't true.

The only error I've found is that the order in fact did not affect contractors, just direct gov't employees. My bad.

The meat of the my point stands though.

[wufwugy]

Are you talking about worker's rights? or anti-discrimination policies? If we're talking about worker's rights like safety protections and shit like that, then yeah....the gov't should definitely be enforcing that shit. But if we're talking about anti-discrimination policies.....like policies that seek to ensure that groups of races and genders are proportionally represented then those policies most definitely are bad for everyone.

The principles are not any different for discrimination and safety policies.

Safety mandates that don't originate out of the employers and employees acting on choice make workers less safe.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

Safety mandates that don't originate out of the employers and employees acting on choice make workers less safe.

Not sure about that.

If you're working with a highly corrosive acid, then it might not be bad for anyone if there were some kind of rule that requires your employer to maintain an up-to-date library of MSDS's and keep it prominently located in the shop.

I've worked in some places with some pretty nasty stuff. They all had eye-wash stations. However, in my 20+ year career, I've never actually seen anyone use an eye wash station. So it seems plausible that some corner-cutting company might just skip that purchase. It's highly plausible that a prospective employee would never think to ask about that. It only becomes a problem when there's a real fucking problem. An ounce of gov't regulation can save 100 lbs of eyeballs. So I'm not seeing how you can say that people would be more safe without that gov't regulation.

Also, it's not just employees and employers that have to be considered. Imagine a truck driver sitting behind the wheel for 90 hours a week. Maybe he likes the overtime, and maybe the employer is willing to pay it because the freight just has to get delivered. But if you're driving with your family, do you wanna be on the same road as that 90hr trucker?

[wufwugy]

If you're working with a highly corrosive acid, then it might not be bad for anyone if there were some kind of rule that requires your employer to maintain an up-to-date library of MSDS's and keep it prominently located in the shop.

At what dollar cost and what opportunity cost? Each of government and employers/employees/consumers care about safety and they each try to get as much *safety-value as they can. Using the price system and allowing employers/employees/consumers to choose makes the most amount of safety-value.

Do you propose that bureaucracy is more effective at creating safety-value for employers/employees/consumers than employers/employees/consumers are?

Also, it's not just employees and employers that have to be considered. Imagine a truck driver sitting behind the wheel for 90 hours a week. Maybe he likes the overtime, and maybe the employer is willing to pay it because the freight just has to get delivered. But if you're driving with your family, do you wanna be on the same road as that 90hr trucker?

You're right that I should have mentioned the choice of consumers as well.


*Since economic status depends on the perceived value of those who perceive it, every status, like safety, is thought of in terms of the value it brings. In obvious terms: if it costs $1,000,000,000 to implement a system that saves one life yet other systems would save more lives for cheaper, opting for the former system is reducing total safety even as it is increasing safety in isolated terms. Further, since nothing has an infinite value, not even safety, people can be better off when less safe if that safety costs too much since they would rather have other things instead of that costly safety.

[wufwugy]

So we know for a fact that fewer or no workers rights results in very poor condition for workers in every scenario it has ever been tried in,

The idea that this is known is not true. For every example one can find that suggest one side, at least as many examples can be found that suggest the other side. My point is that each of those are irrelevant because there are too many unknowns, and I know that the examples appeal to confirmation bias.

Economics is philosophy. It is an argument about resource constraints and math. The empirical work done in economics -- and there is a lot -- is not worth the paper it's written on.

That's tantamount to disregarding any and all data which doesn't fit your expectations.

I disregard data that fits my expectations too. Well, I do that for the most part since I am human and flawed and sometimes accidentally don't. But I try to disregard data as it relates to theory in social "sciences" (because it doesn't relate reliably).

You can't really call it science, even in quotes, when that's your view.

I wish they were not called sciences, because they are not sciences. The social sciences being called science has led most of the world astray. The experimental sciences are real science. Things like economics are not science.

[oskar]

No, it's just flat out wrong. They just moved the background checks to later in the application process that's all. Background checks are still done. If you want to argue with me, fact check your shit. I don't care if you're trolling, I don't care if your arguments are dumb, but don't make me fact check your shit.

[BananaStand]

Semantics

[wufwugy]

Question for Brits, what has the Malpractice Media said about the latest event with Tommy Robinson?

[OngBonga]

Question for Brits, what has the Malpractice Media said about the latest event with Tommy Robinson?

Nothing. They ignore him. Last article the BBC had on him was when he got banned from Twitter.

If it wasn't for the fact I follow Katie Hopkins, I'd have no idea what you were talking about.

[wufwugy]

Nothing. They ignore him. Last article the BBC had on him was when he got banned from Twitter.

If it wasn't for the fact I follow Katie Hopkins, I'd have no idea what you were talking about.

Did he really get thrown in prison for speaking about rape gangs?

[Savy]

Did he really get thrown in prison for speaking about rape gangs?

Seriously what news do you read? What is your source for this?

In fact before you like that what do you think he got arrested for?

[wufwugy]

Seriously what news do you read? What is your source for this?

In fact before you like that what do you think he got arrested for?

I'm asking you specifically because I don't seek out journalism since it all sucks.

I merely hear about stuff from non-news sources (that are obviously biased but that's okay since they don't masquerade as "journalism"). So I don't know if it's true.

[OngBonga]

Did he really get thrown in prison for speaking about rape gangs?

Depends who you ask. If you ask one of his supporters, yes. If you ask the police, no.

He was filming people going into court, and the police came and nicked him for "breach of the peace" and "incitement". That'd be ok if they put him in a cell overnight and then released him the next day. But he was currently serving a suspended sentence for reporting on rape gang cases, and they appear to be activating it.

Whether you like him or not, he's trying to do his job. Standing there filming people going into court, that is not "breach of the peace" or "incitement", it's "journalism".

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it though.

[wufwugy]

Depends who you ask. If you ask one of his supporters, yes. If you ask the police, no.

He was filming people going into court, and the police came and nicked him for "breach of the peace" and "incitement". That'd be ok if they put him in a cell overnight and then released him the next day. But he was currently serving a suspended sentence for reporting on rape gang cases, and they appear to be activating it.

Whether you like him or not, he's trying to do his job. Standing there filming people going into court, that is not "breach of the peace" or "incitement", it's "journalism".

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it though.

What do you think about the UK law that you can't report on events/issues currently at trial?

[Savy]

Question for Brits, what has the Malpractice Media said about the latest event with Tommy Robinson?

Never heard of her.

[wufwugy]

A civil war against the incredible racism in the North would be quite the stroke of irony.

In Portland, Ore., organizers of the “Reparations Happy Hour” invited black, brown and indigenous people to a bar and handed them $10 bills as they arrived, a small but symbolic gift mostly funded by white people who were asked not to attend.

[oskar]

It looks like this is just a complete non-story for anyone outside white-nationalist circles. It doesn't get reported because nobody cares.

[wufwugy]

In just one tweet, Trump shows that he is improving the world where the Malpractice Media has been making it worse for decades:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...87893427351553

Hint: uplift the hero instead of uplifting the villain like Malpractice Media does.

[OngBonga]

It should go without saying that journalists have a responsibility to report these cases responsibly... ie, treating the accused as innocent until proven guilty, stick to facts, and respecting privacy. idk what Tommy was doing, what he planned to do with any footage, what footage he has published, if he's published names, It's important that any journalism doesn't compromise the trial, and if it does, well that's a pretty serious offence.

The problem with Tommy is that while he's speaking truth that the powers that be don't want you to hear, he's also a class A wanker. He's a former football thug, he's been done for mortgage fraud, he's been involved with some pretty racist groups, I can't say I really have much time for the guy. I did follow him on twitter though because he's interesting.

[wufwugy]

It's always good to acknowledge bias even if the biased doesn't.

[Jack Sawyer]

It's always good to acknowledge bias even if the biased doesn't.

Speaking of biases

[oskar]

There are many types of journalism. I don't mind opinion pieces. My favorite articles in recent times have mostly been Vanity Fair and The New Yorker. Some of the best columns I've ever read were published in Playboy Magazine. I do read it for the articles! You just have to know what you're looking at. If you want your news to be as straight up as they can be, I recommend The Smoking Gun and court docs from .gov sites. Cspan has been more entertaining to me lately than any infotainment show.

Just because something is biased doesn't mean you can't use it to form an opinion, you just have to do some legwork yourself. Hunter S Thompsons reporting on the Nixon campaign was sublime. So was the political reporting of Christopher Hitchens. Both men showed no shame in their open and unfiltered hatred for the people they wrote about. They did however show a great deal of integrity when it came to reporting the facts, and they were not interested in painting a false picture.
This is in stark contrast to the reporting of outlets like Breitbart or Fox News. They have a clear agenda. Where Fox would never dare say a bad word about president Trump, Hitchens emphatically denounced Obama's stance on Israel, and Thompson painted Gore as a sheep being torn apart by wolves in his campaign against Bush Jr, who he thought to be the dumbest conceivable president. Time, of course, proved him wrong.

There is a massive difference in biased reporting and distortion of facts. The $500M loan from the chinese government to a Trump development while the Trump administration is in the midst of trade negotiations with china should be cause for grave concern to anyone. To immediately wave it off as fake news is grossly disingenuous. It is not fake news. Nor are the millions of dollars of undocumented foreign money that were paid into Coen's account, or the fact that the Trump administration repeatedly denied having any contacts with russian representatives during the campaign, denied it in front of congress, and only after pictures of those meetings have surfaced, seems to remember.
The reporting may be biased, but the facts are not biased, and the facts are cause for concern. To say otherwise is at best massively ignorant.

[wufwugy]

The $500M loan from the chinese government to a Trump development while the Trump administration is in the midst of trade negotiations with china should be cause for grave concern to anyone.

I think the issue many people have is that reporting on everything has gotten so bad that even stories that look one way on the surface often are not that way in truth.

I know of zero journalists with any credibility.

I said this to your Trump quote because, sure, I would like to read about something like that. Yet because my experience is that every time I can think of, the reporter got it wrong, I'm better off by just assuming the next one in the long line of wrong is also wrong.

[BananaStand]

The $500M loan from the chinese government to a Trump development while the Trump administration is in the midst of trade negotiations with china should be cause for grave concern to anyone.

"Grave" concern?? Really??? Like this is life and death shit? This alleged conflict of interest is so massive that it could potentially start an armed conflict leading to human casualties???

If this is what opinions you're forming based on the news you're consuming then your news is clearly coming from a source with a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Why is this even a concern at all? What's the worst that could happen. China calls the loan? According to his FEC financial disclosures, $500M is only about 5% of Trump's net worth. I hope China has change for a billion.

I don't even care about facts right now. I want you to brainstorm and hypothesize to your heart's content and then illustrate for me a scenario whereby the Chinese could use the terms of a relatively small business loan to influence international diplomacy against America's national interst. Tell me how that could possibly happen.

[BananaStand]

Where Fox would never dare say a bad word about president Trump....

Be careful about presenting stereotypes as facts.

[Jack Sawyer]

Be careful about presenting stereotypes as facts.

I am unaware of the last time Fox criticized the president in any way, shape or form. Perhaps you could enlighten us on this occurrence if it ever happened, Banana?

Or is he as immaculate as Jesus himself, therefore undeserving of any criticism whatsoever?

[oskar]

Also where the fuck were you guys when Trump was screaming PAY FOR PLAY like a demented donkey over and over again, referring to fully disclosed payments into Hilary Clintons charity that had no financial ties to her campaign. But somehow when Trump directly benefits from much larger payments into projects that are directly tied to his personal or campaign finances, somehow this is now fine?

[BananaStand]

Also where the fuck were you guys when Trump was screaming PAY FOR PLAY like a demented donkey over and over again, referring to fully disclosed payments into Hilary Clintons charity that had no financial ties to her campaign. But somehow when Trump directly benefits from much larger payments into projects that are directly tied to his personal or campaign finances, somehow this is now fine?

You really wanna play this game bro?

Seriously, for every one of these, I've got four "But somehow it was ok when Obama did it?"

[BananaStand]

I am unaware of the last time Fox criticized the president in any way, shape or form. Perhaps you could enlighten us on this occurrence if it ever happened, Banana?

Or is he as immaculate as Jesus himself, therefore undeserving of any criticism whatsoever?

Do you ever watch Fox News?? If not, I'd say that's probably affecting your awareness of what Fox News says.

Be honest now Jack. How much Fox News do you actually watch. And I mean, you tune your TV to Fox News, and you consume the programming as intended. Watching Trevor Noah narrate clips doesn't count.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-n...s-media-2017-6
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8066646.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7817831.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuOrgmjibQs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XcXjoIsZrY

[oskar]

I think the issue many people have is that reporting on everything has gotten so bad that even stories that look one way on the surface often are not that way in truth.

I know of zero journalists with any credibility.

I said this to your Trump quote because, sure, I would like to read about something like that. Yet because my experience is that every time I can think of, the reporter got it wrong, I'm better off by just assuming the next one in the long line of wrong is also wrong.

Let me rephrase in a language you find more persuasive:

Journalists are just people. Okay? They're people. Like you and me. We're people. There are good people and bad people. But how many journalists do you know? Me, I know so many journalists, you wouldn't even believe. Many of them are good people. They show their sources. You can contact them on twitter. If you don't believe them, ask them for their sources. They have very good sources. Very, very good sources. Fantastic sources! Just because someone might look at sources differently, doesn't mean the sources are fake news. Okay? Like, you know, projections can be fake news. Doesn't mean the statistics are fake.

What is happening, folks. And it's sad. It's sad that this is happening. But it is happening. The Trump administration is manufacturing disinformation. We know this. But they're being so vague. They will say things like: Obama founded ISIS, Obama put a spy in our campaign, Democrats are responsible for whats happening to children at our border, Obama was born in Kenya, global warming is a total hoax, the bowling green massacre was covered up by the fake news media.
By doing this, and by accusing your opposition of the very crimes you are being investigated for, they aim to spread confusion. Right now they need confusion more than ever, because if they cant maintain senate majority until the investigation is finished, there will be noone left to bail them out.
Yeah I was done half way through. You have no idea how hard this is until you try. Sad.

[wufwugy]

Let me rephrase in a language you find more persuasive:

Journalists are just people. Okay? They're people. Like you and me. We're people. There are good people and bad people. But how many journalists do you know? Me, I know so many journalists, you wouldn't even believe. Many of them are good people. They show their sources. You can contact them on twitter. If you don't believe them, ask them for their sources. They have very good sources. Very, very good sources. Fantastic sources! Just because someone might look at sources differently, doesn't mean the sources are fake news. Okay? Like, you know, projections can be fake news. Doesn't mean the statistics are fake.

What is happening, folks. And it's sad. It's sad that this is happening. But it is happening. The Trump administration is manufacturing disinformation. We know this. But they're being so vague. They will say things like: Obama founded ISIS, Obama put a spy in our campaign, Democrats are responsible for whats happening to children at our border, Obama was born in Kenya, global warming is a total hoax, the bowling green massacre was covered up by the fake news media.
By doing this, and by accusing your opposition of the very crimes you are being investigated for, they aim to spread confusion. Right now they need confusion more than ever, because if they cant maintain senate majority until the investigation is finished, there will be noone left to bail them out.
Yeah I was done half way through. You have no idea how hard this is until you try. Sad.

I love this. Well done.

[oskar]

It wouldn't be a big deal if he disclosed it to congress, which he did not. Since he didn't, it could violate the nobility clause. Lobbying is also legal... which baffles the mind. If done by registered lobbyists, and disclosed, which the Michael Cohen payments were not. If those were honest mistakes through incompetence, then why the memory lapses of everyone involved?
I've already said a year ago that I'd bet my roll that Trump doesn't finish his term, and atm I'm not concerned about losing all my hypothetical money in a hypothetical bet.

How many guilty pleas in the Trump camp are we up to by now? Do you even know about those. I have a feeling the news you MAGA guys read doesn't cover all this fake stuff. That's probably a fair cause for concern as well. There's a substential number of people in the US that stand behind Trump... which... ok let me say: I am not proud of my local eurotrash politics. There are so many fucking idiots doing fuck all. If there's one thing about the US that I have huge respect for, it's the people in congress. And I love the fuck out of C-Span because of some of them... however, somehow you got people who rallied behind one of the dumbest public figures ever to become head of state of anything. And those people will clearly not be swayed by facts. There is no amount evidence that could convince them that the person who talks to them like a mall mascot talks to preschoolers, is not the messiah, but someone who never considered anyone's interest but his own. So it will be really hard, and there will be some who snap. You had your taste of that in Charleston.

[wufwugy]

I've already said a year ago that I'd bet my roll that Trump doesn't finish his term, and atm I'm not concerned about losing all my hypothetical money in a hypothetical bet.

I propose a 3 month long avatar bet. If Trump doesn't finish his term, you choose my avatar for 3 months. If he does, I choose yours for 3 months.

You game?

[wufwugy]

How many guilty pleas in the Trump camp are we up to by now?

What are they?

[BananaStand]

What are they?

Popadopoulous - Iffy at best

Flynn - Miscarriage of justice. I'm really curious as to why.

Gates - Not a part of the campaign, and his guilty plea is for things completely unrelated to the campaign. We're only talking to him because those unrelated things also involved Manafort, who was part of the campaign, but has been charged with no crime related to the campaign.

Speaking of manafort...he actually is charged with a number of very serious crimes, of which he may be guilty. According to the evidence used as the original source of Russia investigation, Manafort is the one who had the face to face meeting with Putin and agreed to give Russia favorable treatment in return for some fake facebook ads. If that's true, why doesn't Manafort play his 'get out of jail free' card?

What could Trump possibly offer him to keep quiet? Oskar's got his hypothetical roll riding on trump not finishing his term. Not to mention the fact that Trump is a 71 year old man who inhales cheeseburgers. Why in the world would Manafort hold out for pardon?

The other guy who was part of that arrangement with Putin was Carter Paige. According the Steele Dossier, Paige was offered shares of a Russian energy company worth $10 billion for his role in the conspiracy. That nature of that role seems to be yet undetermined. And it seems that Putin stiffed him cause he doesn't have $10 billion.

Nevertheless, the FBI crawled up his ass for A YEAR and he's not even charged with jaywalking.

[wufwugy]

Nevertheless, the FBI crawled up his ass for A YEAR and he's not even charged with jaywalking.

Here's an investigation in full swing that has gone unnoticed by some.

https://themarketswork.com/2018/03/3...ecial-counsel/

[wufwugy]

one of the dumbest public figures ever to become head of state of anything

Probable highest IQ since, I dunno, 1789?

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

And those people will clearly not be swayed by facts. There is no amount evidence that could convince them that the person who talks to them like a mall mascot talks to preschoolers, is not the messiah, but someone who never considered anyone's interest but his own. So it will be really hard, and there will be some who snap. You had your taste of that in Charleston.

This is some of the most ignorant shit going. Honestly man, is this really what you think of Trump voters? You seem to think that Trump won because he appealed to simple-minded ignorant people, and that there are simply more of them than there are enlightened and informed Clinton voters. You're out of your god damned mind. That snobby superiority is why whoever the dems put up in 2020 will get demolished.

Repubs wanted to counter the marxist social policies and identity politics ideology that the left was pushing, particularly under Obama. To do that, they put up Mitt fucking Romney and somehow they turned him into tax-cheating Hitler. Obama had a record of abysmal economic growth, ridiculous government spending, and rampant worldwide terrorism, and he beat a choir boy in a landslide.

What do you think the republicans should have done about that? Run Jeb Bush? Are you high?

You seem to think that Trump supporters see him as 'the messiah'. That's insane!! That's leftist propaganda to make you feel contempt at Trump voters and moral superiority at supporting democrats. You're not thinking man.

Trump isn't the messiah....HE'S THE MURDER WEAPON

We know he's a sexual deviant. We don't care. We know he's got no political experience. We don't care. We know he's not an eloquent, gentlemanly statesman. We don't care.

We are sick and tired of of being called "deplorable" because we believe in borders and gun rights. We don't want this country governed by socialists tyrants. We're sick of rights being diminished in the name of "equality". We're sick of postmodern idealogues trying to lay all of the suffering caused by inequality at the feet of western capitalism. The solution to that was Mitt Romney. But he bullied a gay guy once in the fifties, so America stuck with the black guy instead.

So fine. Ok leftists, you turned Mitt Romney into tax cheating Hitler, here's our counter move. How about a guy with massive noteriety, and enough money to not be dependent or beholden to anyone. How about a guy who's already so filthy, you can't sling mud at him. How about we just decide we don't give a shit about adultery, and profanity, and temperment. How about we just decide that nothing terrible will probably happen and we run with the guy who just says the stuff that middle-class America thinks.

Middle class america thinks "sheesh, why can't they just build a wall and keep this fucking heroin outta here?". So Trump says "Fuck it, yeah, build a wall. Why not?". Middle class america thinks "These newspapers and TV shows seem to have a partisan bias". So Trump says "You're right, that's fake news". Middle class america thinks "I don't like the way the government is spending my tax money". So Trump says "You're right, they're blowing it, here's some back". Middle class america thinks "These ISIS guys are scary". So Trump says "Oh you say I can push a button and they all die? Yeah, give me the button".

And frankly, that gamble couldn't be paying off any better. Name one objectively terrible thing that's happened as a result of Trump's presidency?

And the more the left doubles down on the "racist", "misogynist", "fascist", "stupid" narrative, the more sure it becomes that Trump crushes it in 2020.

If the left doesn't want that to happen they need to admit that they've gone too fucking far. They need to back off the identity politics and post modern social bullshit so that the reasonable left can rise again and get back to representing the legitimate concerns of the working class.

If that doesn't happen, then set your DVR's for November 2024 when Rachel Maddow claws out her own eyeballs on live TV after announcing the victory of President Elect Hannity.

[BananaStand]

Name one objectively terrible thing that's happened as a result of Trump's presidency?

NOT a rhetorical question

I actually do want an answer to this....

[wufwugy]

That reminds me, my bet proposal doesn't apply if Trump dies or removes due to health issues. It has to be impeachment or the like.

[wufwugy]

I used to think Republicans/the right-wing/conservatives were very stupid and very bigoted. It's neat how peering behind the curtain has disabused me of that ignorance and cruelty.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I used to think Republicans/the right-wing/conservatives were very stupid and very bigoted. It's neat how peering behind the curtain has disabused me of that ignorance and cruelty.

Yeppers. FTR has done plenty to expose me to intelligent conservative arguments and perspectives.

BUT
Even the informed voices on either side seem to pull out blinders when it comes to accepting data from the other side, which just halts most progress in its tracks.

When people agree on the facts, whether or not they agree on some grand, ethereal political vision, they tend to find workable solutions.

I guess when people don't want to find any solutions, they can just ignore relevant data and pretend it's not there.
Of course, that's a childish position, but it seems the most prevalent, to me.