*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fine. Politicians are criminal retards. Why single this one out so often and ignore all the others?

'Cause it's easy to point your finger at the top of the pile?

If it wasn't Trump, it'd be Clinton, a person whose presence in the election diverted votes to Trump because she was widely perceived to be a criminal.

[TheSpoonald]

Fine. Politicians are criminal retards. Why single this one out so often and ignore all the others?

'Cause it's easy to point your finger at the top of the pile?

If it wasn't Trump, it'd be Clinton, a person whose presence in the election diverted votes to Trump because she was widely perceived to be a criminal.

No, it would be different if Clinton were president. The mainstream media, academia, and the tech oligarchs would cheerlead for her while anyone on the right is cast as a nefarious villain trying to undermine her utopia. Cmon man, do you not remember the Obama administration?? That's exactly what happened for 8 years.

The reason they're extra mad at Trump is because he ruined their party. They were perfectly happy using identity politics programs to homogenize thinking and disengage the middle class. Democrats liked it because expanding a poor working class translated into reliable votes. Republicans liked it because their donors like low wages.

And the middle class got fucked over by about 30 years of that, and finally had enough. So we sent the Orange man to piss on their parade. People don't elect populists because they think they're smart rulers. They elect populists when the people in charge *really* fuck up.

So when Trump was elected, the ruling class should have said "Oh my god, what have we done? Where did we go so wrong that this happened??"

Instead they said "RUSSIA!!" and "RACIST" and "SEXIST" and blah blah blah

That's pathetic. And anyone still chanting that shit after the mobilization and subsequent failure of two dozen federal prosecutors, a former FBI chief, 30 million dollars, and about 3,000 subpoenas, is also pathetic.

Parents wouldn't accept this behavior from their children. People shouldn't accept it from their politicians.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, it would be different if Clinton were president. The mainstream media, academia, and the tech oligarchs would cheerlead for her while anyone on the right is cast as a nefarious villain trying to undermine her utopia. Cmon man, do you not remember the Obama administration?? That's exactly what happened for 8 years.

Same story, just changed who's cheering and who's jeering.

That's what's been happening for at least 20 years, man. Bill Clinton was impeached. His opposition was so into casting him as a nefarious villain because he got a BJ and played fast and loose with the meaning of the word "is."
Bush had to contend with being accused of war crimes throughout most of his term.
Obama was accused of not being an American citizen (by Trump, even) for most of the 8 years he served.


The level of vitriol hasn't really changed in my lifetime.

[Poopadoop]

Banana you can't even have a normal discussion with someone who disagrees with you about anything without ending up in a temper tantrum. I know two year olds who have a better grip on themselves.

[TheSpoonald]

Same story, just changed who's cheering and who's jeering.

No. Not even close.

Bill Clinton was impeached. His opposition was so into casting him as a nefarious villain because he got a BJ and played fast and loose with the meaning of the word "is."

Turns out perjury is something the congress takes seriously. And rightly so. If he had just admitted to getting a bijowski...he probably would have skated. Anyone criticizing Trump for not talking to Mueller should remember that. Perjury traps are a thing.

But more importantly, New Gingrich decided to NOT be an obstructionist douchebag. He decided to be a reasonable person and actually work for the country, not just his party's ideology. And together, Newt and Bill passed meaningful legislation.

Democrats were all for a wall until Trump agreed with them. To not have a wall just means that the dems are obstructionist douchebags...which we just established..Clinton did NOT have to deal with.

Bush had to contend with being accused of war crimes throughout most of his term.

Yeah, by hollywood creampuffs. Who cares? Trump was being framed for treason through a series of illegal leaks from the highest levels of the justice department.

You really think it's just "same shit, different day"??

Obama was accused of not being an American citizen (by Trump, even) for most of the 8 years he served.

I remember that lasting six months tops. Was a special counsel ever appointed to investigate this? Did the government employ two dozen federal prosecutors and at an expense of 30 million dollars? Were lives ruined? Were harmless old men dragged out of their home by a swat team over Obama's citizenship??

The level of vitriol hasn't really changed in my lifetime.

Dude.....pay attention

[MadMojoMonkey]

If he had just admitted to getting a bijowski...he probably would have skated.

I think you'll find that it was a bijinski, you tool.


(FWIW, if you've not seen Lewinski's TED talk or her recent interview on John Oliver, I recommend. The world put her through a decade long shit fest, and she made it out the other side, and damn. That kind of shit builds character, and she took a PhD course in it.)

Dude.....pay attention

I try, but this shit is exhausting. You're the smartest person to comment against the echo chamber in here for ages, and for all your intelligence, you also reflect the vitriol.
At least you don't disregard other people's positions. I mean.. you shred your opposition's points, but at least you address them and don't post a meme of argharghargh and mock them.
You shred them while mocking them... which is a definitely step up, just a long way still to the apex, IMO. (Though I'm almost certainly setting the bar too high for human political discourse.)


It really is SSDD. The birther movement was going well into Obama's 2nd term. Maybe I misunderstood and you were only specifically addressing Trump asking for the birth certificate for 6 months.
This division and passion and vitriol goes back to the Founders. There were duels.. with guns and murder and stuff... back then. There was an American Civil War back then...

On the whole, we're really not doing that bad for ourselves, historically speaking.

[TheSpoonald]

On the whole, we're really not doing that bad for ourselves, historically speaking.

Too bad climate change is gonna end it all in less than 12 years now. Fuck.

[Poopadoop]

This is what intelligent discourse looks like, btw. No name-calling, changing the topic, or talking garbage out of your ass. If anyone is interested in that here, I'm all for it.

[TheSpoonald]

The birther movement was going well into Obama's 2nd term.

So....by whom? Mainstream voices, or fringe?

If it was fringe...who cares? Why do those people matter? Their votes are cast long before candidates are even nominated. If a handful of loons harbors a conspiracy theory about the other side and fake birth certificates.....who cares??? Did that really do a damn thing to slow Obama's agenda....really??

The russia shit was mainstream. And it definitely did undermine Trump's agenda. WAY DIFFERENT

And now that it's over, my only point is that the fringe still crying "OBSTRUCTION" (present company included) are just as clueless and pathetic as the fringe that carried on the birther movement.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Too bad climate change is gonna end it all in less than 12 years now. Fuck.

I know, right. Get ready for the human extinction event that even Arnold Schwarzeneger can't stop.
Manbearpig warned you, but did you listen? Nooooo.

When did I do that? I'm just saying that a credible allegation of rape is not "hearsay"

I mean... I tend to agree with that sentiment, but who decides what's credible in the case of allegations of criminal behavior? A court of law, right?

I think the word hearsay is perfectly appropriate.

So....by whom? Mainstream voices, or fringe?

If it was fringe...who cares?

I agree. I'm not sure how much actual pressure it brought to bear. Probably a bad argument on my part.

[Poopadoop]

At least you don't disregard other people's positions. I mean.. you shred your opposition's points, but at least you address them and don't post a meme of argharghargh and mock them.

Writing a lot of words != addressing people's positions and/or winning the argument. Especially if you just bring things up the original argument had nothing to do with..

[Poopadoop]

but at least you address them and don't post a meme of argharghargh and mock them.

I find this a big time saver for replying to someone who is more interested in losing their shit on anyone who disagrees with them than in trying to have an adult discussion.

[Poopadoop]

but at least you address them and don't

As opposed to just jumping into the middle of someone else's discussion with a non-sequitur?

[Poopadoop]

Fine. Politicians are criminal retards. Why single this one out so often and ignore all the others?

'Cause it's easy to point your finger at the top of the pile?

If it wasn't Trump, it'd be Clinton, a person whose presence in the election diverted votes to Trump because she was widely perceived to be a criminal.

I think there's a common perception that politicians are criminals by nature. But not all of them are also retards. This one is, and fwiw he's also on another level of criminal than most politicians.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think there's a common perception that politicians are criminals by nature. But not all of them are also retards. This one is, and fwiw he's also on another level of criminal than most politicians.

No, he's not. Not by any literal interpretation of the word. He just has very different priorities, knowledge, and responsibilities than you do, so he acts differently.

The assertion that he's lacking in mental function is a cop out. Just gimme a break with that nonsense. If you don't want to see those you disagree with as intelligent humans, then you're being a bigot.
If you're willing to dehumanize those you oppose in order to buoy your own sense of self-righteousness, then you've coopted the weight of your voice. You will never understand your opposition if you cannot see them as intelligent, caring people. You will never sway those you oppose if you cannot understand them.

[Poopadoop]

No, he's not. Not by any literal interpretation of the word. He just has very different priorities, knowledge, and responsibilities than you do, so he acts differently.

The assertion that he's lacking in mental function is a cop out. Just gimme a break with that nonsense. If you don't want to see those you disagree with as intelligent humans, then you're being a bigot.
If you're willing to dehumanize those you oppose in order to buoy your own sense of self-righteousness, then you've coopted the weight of your voice. You will never understand your opposition if you cannot see them as intelligent, caring people. You will never sway those you oppose if you cannot understand them.

What is all this? lol, so the guy isn't literally mentally retarded is your point?

Ok, I'll call him another name then, 'clueless'. Is that better? Or are you going to go all dictionary on me on that as well?

[MadMojoMonkey]

What is all this? lol, so the guy isn't literally mentally retarded is your point?

Ok, I'll call him another name then, 'clueless'. Is that better? Or are you going to go all dictionary on me on that as well?

No need. Your position is pure ad hominem. There's no substance to it, nor any reason to bring it up if it were substantive.
Even if we assume your postulate, then what? We have a 'tarded president. OK. How shall we act, with this knowledge.

***
What? Yes, he's 'tarded. You said.
OK...
Now calm down...
Dude. Didn't anyone ever tell you that it's just terribly rude to mock those less fortunate that you? Can you stop pointing at the retarded guy and calling him retarded?
You're being a dick.
Don't be a dick.
***



Hey. You do you. I'm not telling you what to think or say. I'm just pointing out that what you choose to say when you express what you think is often not indicative of someone who's interested in an intelligent dialogue.

[Poopadoop]

No need. Your position is pure ad hominem. There's no substance to it, nor any reason to bring it up if it were substantive.

I've already given the substance, with several reasons why I think he's criminally 'tarded.

Even if we assume your postulate, then what? We have a 'tarded president. OK. How shall we act, with this knowledge?

As I suggested as well, you can vote him out next time.

[oskar]

No, he's not. Not by any literal interpretation of the word. He just has very different priorities, knowledge, and responsibilities than you do, so he acts differently.

retarded (/rɪˈtɑːdɪd)
less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.
"the child is badly retarded"

literally retarded by the literal definition of the word. You just got used to it. If you heard Trump speak for the first time today, you'd think: My god! This child is badly retarded.