*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

That's a real slippery slope wuf. You can really fuck yourself up trying to play out all these 3d chess scenarios in your head.

At face value, the Bannon quote appears merely to be the salty, cantankerous, hyperbolic rantings of a disgruntled fired employee. There's really no reason to read anything more into it than that.

Plus, he didn't exactly say it to the news media. He was quoted in a book. A book that includes the contents of extensive and exhaustive interviews with Trump's inner circle, and Trump himself. And in this expose into the inner workings of the Trump white house....this Bannon quote appears to be the most nefarious anecdote. In other words, this book seems really fucking boring and full of nothing.

Occams razor is your friend wuf.

Sounds like the author has a history of falsifying quotes.



On a more interesting note, believe me, I'm very conservative about 3d chess stuff. The vast majority of 3d chess claims are not 3d chess. Yet, if we're playing Werewolf, Trump's response to Bannon is classic wolf. Makes ya think.

[BananaStand]

Sounds like the author has a history of falsifying quotes.

Please elaborate?

Yet, if we're playing Werewolf,

I don't know what that is. I doubt Trump does

Trump's response to Bannon is classic wolf. Makes ya think

I didn't know he gave a response? Most Trump related news today has to do with triggered snowflakes bitching about Trump violating twitters's terms of use and trying to get his account banned. Apparently talking about nuclear buttons makes some whiny cunts think Trump is trying to incite nuclear war, or glorifying mass death, or something ridiculous of that nature.

[BananaStand]

Just saw the news about Trumps response to Bannon. Probably a little over the top. I would have played it cooler. Bannon's doing a good enough job embarrassing himself (dude...fucking shave!!!). Trumps opponents will flock and fawn over anything Trump denounces, so in a weird way, by lashing out, he's giving Bannon some credibility.

For what it's worth, I believe the Bannon quote is accurate, and I agree with him that the way the meeting was handled was not optimal.

But it's big leap from that, to "treason".

[wufwugy]

Just saw the news about Trumps response to Bannon. Probably a little over the top. I would have played it cooler. Bannon's doing a good enough job embarrassing himself (dude...fucking shave!!!). Trumps opponents will flock and fawn over anything Trump denounces, so in a weird way, by lashing out, he's giving Bannon some credibility.

For what it's worth, I believe the Bannon quote is accurate, and I agree with him that the way the meeting was handled was not optimal.

But it's big leap from that, to "treason".

Werewolf is a game where you try to figure out who is not telling the truth based on what they write. As this forum's best Werewolf player (just ask anybody), Trump's response post to Bannon smells like he is not telling the truth.

[BananaStand]

Did some posts disappear??

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yes.

Shame, too. I was particularly proud of the Putin gif. Perfect reply to his comment for this thread.

[wufwugy]

it was perfect!

[boost]

Do you realize how fucking retarded you sound when you point to someone a million times more successful than you are and say "he's dumb"

[BananaStand]

If you're implying that Jamie Gold is dumb, or that you're a better poker player than he is, you should have warned me.

A man my age can hurt himself shaking his head that much.

[boost]

I'm grunching a bit here, but regarding MMM's question about Russia's motives to make contact with the Trump campaign:

Their motives are chaos. If they can get the Trump team in a room with Russian operatives, it doesn't matter if there is actual collusion or not, the appearance alone will cause absolute havoc. The thing is, the Russians hedged with bread crumbs leading to Clinton as well. And even better, Trump's ties to Russia and the Clinton's past dealings with Trump (however limited) are enough to spin conspiratorial stories about Trump being a stooge meant to weaken the Republican's primary candidates, and if he wins the primary against all odds, he's and easy knock down for Clinton. They just happened to hit the jackpot with Trump winning the general too.

I think this is the most plausible story about the Russians involvement. They sewed the seeds of chaos, and here they are reaping their harvest. If the Trump team did in fact open themselves up to legal jeopardy via collusion, great-- if not, there's still enough to cause an investigation. With an investigation, even if there is no guilt, it necessarily has to dig deep, which means any dirt that is there could be found. This explains an innocent, with regards to Russian collusion, Trump committing obstruction, further feeding the chaos.

[spoonitnow]

If you're implying that Jamie Gold is dumb, or that you're a better poker player than he is, you should have warned me.

A man my age can hurt himself shaking his head that much.

And you people call me a troll.

[boost]

If you're implying that Jamie Gold is dumb, or that you're a better poker player than he is, you should have warned me.

A man my age can hurt himself shaking his head that much.

Ha, I guess I was assuming you were a slightly competent poker player and/or aware of Gold's (at the time of winning the bracelet) lack of skill.

But to your point, whether or not I am a better poker player than Gold, or a better businessman than Trump is irrelevant.

[wufwugy]

I'm grunching a bit here, but regarding MMM's question about Russia's motives to make contact with the Trump campaign:

Their motives are chaos. If they can get the Trump team in a room with Russian operatives, it doesn't matter if there is actual collusion or not, the appearance alone will cause absolute havoc. The thing is, the Russians hedged with bread crumbs leading to Clinton as well. And even better, Trump's ties to Russia and the Clinton's past dealings with Trump (however limited) are enough to spin conspiratorial stories about Trump being a stooge meant to weaken the Republican's primary candidates, and if he wins the primary against all odds, he's and easy knock down for Clinton. They just happened to hit the jackpot with Trump winning the general too.

I think this is the most plausible story about the Russians involvement. They sewed the seeds of chaos, and here they are reaping their harvest. If the Trump team did in fact open themselves up to legal jeopardy via collusion, great-- if not, there's still enough to cause an investigation. With an investigation, even if there is no guilt, it necessarily has to dig deep, which means any dirt that is there could be found. This explains an innocent, with regards to Russian collusion, Trump committing obstruction, further feeding the chaos.

What is the evidence of Trump colluding with Russia?

[boost]

Wuf, your reasoning that Trump is innocent because he is allowing Mueller to continue doing his job is erroneous and does not encapsulate the interests and incentives for all the pieces on the board.

If Trump fires Mueller now, there is no way it can look good. A significant portion of the electorate will see it as obstruction. This is bad for everyone. It puts the republican congress in a tough spot, etc.

Sessions moves all point towards him thinking impeachment or a failed bid at a second term are likely. He's doing just enough to appease Trump and the base and otherwise staying out of it.

Mueller has all the incentive to take down a president. That is how he makes it into the history books. Nothing about him says he's interested in anything Trump, or pretty much anyone else has to offer. He is not climbing the ladder, this is the top. This is his moment.

The truth is, Trump is playing 3D chess, as is everyone else involved. The question though is who is a fish? Who understands basic strategy and who is a grandmaster? The fun thing with this view is that it doesn't put all its weight on an assumption of anyone's ability except that the Russians probably have to be Grandmasters and I've got no qualms about this being where my money lies.

[boost]

What is the evidence of Trump colluding with Russia?

This question makes me think you misread or misunderstood my post. The theory at the root of my post does not hinge on whether or not there is evidence of Trump's collusion.

[BananaStand]

Ha, I guess I was assuming you were a slightly competent poker player and/or aware of Gold's (at the time of winning the bracelet) lack of skill.

I am both. Though I think he gets a bad rap. Are the bad plays we saw the result of a lack of skill, or the result of a mistake, lapse of judgement, or other unusual circumstance. I also kind of think that at the time, poker fans expected the big names to win the big games. I think poker audiences at the time were alot more casual, and didn't really understand that a tournament with a field of thousands requires a tremendous amount of luck to win, no matter how good you are. People just thought that Ivey and the gang would be at the final table every year. So when Jamie fucking gold showed up....they were like...."look at this loser".

I mean, right there in the picture he's wearing a hat for a poker business with his name on it. Regardless of his performance in one tournament, the man knows a thing or two about poker, and has made a career in it. A career successful enough to make him a household name to people like you.

You simply can not accomplish that without "skill"

If you want to talk about "skill" relative to his peers, maybe that's a different discussion. Though as I said, skill can go fuck it self in tourneys with 5000+ runners.

But to your point, whether or not I am a better poker player than Gold, or a better businessman than Trump is irrelevant.

Ok, so we ARE talking skill relative to peers then? So why bring up Jamie Gold?

Anyway, let's play this game. Trumps peers:
Obama: Dismal economic growth, a health care plan that's already coming apart, and notorious corruption
Bush 2: Blew all the economy's money on wars and left america broke
Clinton: Fucked around in the white house.

Trump: Plummetted illegal immigration, stopped immigration from terrorist countries, cut taxes, eliminated the individual mandate, and a bunch of other shit I've listed in this thread already. All while brushing off silly rumors turned humongous investigation.

[wufwugy]

Wuf, your reasoning that Trump is innocent because he is allowing Mueller to continue doing his job is erroneous and does not encapsulate the interests and incentives for all the pieces on the board.

The dynamic between Trump and Mueller is a useful tool to evaluate how intelligent it is to believe Mueller is going after Trump in the landscape of scant evidence. It isn't itself evidence.

If Trump fires Mueller now, there is no way it can look good. A significant portion of the electorate will see it as obstruction. This is bad for everyone. It puts the republican congress in a tough spot, etc.

Sure, and it would be significantly better for Trump than not firing Mueller if Trump's hands are dirty. Also, the current status is already well beyond where these rationale became important. If Trump is dirty, it is very unlikely he lets it get this far in the first place. Still, that isn't evidence. It's one of those "if it doesn't look like a duck or walk like a duck, it probably ain't a duck" things.

Sessions moves all point towards him thinking impeachment or a failed bid at a second term are likely. He's doing just enough to appease Trump and the base and otherwise staying out of it.

Larry Schweikart has inside sources in the Trump administration, one of which included Bannon. Schweikart claims that Bannon told him that the Sessions recusal was planned by the Trump administration. Additionally, the back and forth heat between Trump and Sessions is one of the most likely scenarios of intended fake news on the part of the Trump administration.

Is Schweikart right? Who knows. But his claim is the most credible of anything public I've seen on this issue. Everything else is some "sources familiar with their thinking" nonsense.

[boost]

Why are you hedging your case for Gold's skill with things like

Though as I said, skill can go fuck it self in tourneys with 5000+ runners.

You've made a reasonable case for why onlookers underrated Gold, but you have not done so with regards to Gold being a skilled player. You've actually made my case, which really has nothing to do with Gold. Gold being a skilled player or not is irrelevant to the veracity of my critique of your claims regarding Poop's derision towards Trump's accomplishments. I'll even concede that Gold is a highly skilled poker player. Instead just substitute "Gold" with an unskilled player who has lucked his way to a win in a large tournament or gone on an extended heater. Such a player could easily be mistaken for a skilled player by many onlookers who are not qualified to judge a player's skill.

You may not be one of those onlookers with regards to Trump (you are with Gold (ok, ok.. I know I said I concede, but lolyouretrippin)) but you have only displayed arguments which would lead us to believe you are. By this, I mean, you may have the ability to evaluate the talents of a businessman, but you have not put this ability on display-- instead you've made the arguments of an impressed layman.

[wufwugy]

Here's one way of examining the landscape by taking a step back.

In the beginning of Muh Russia, 100% of the focus was on Trump as chief baddy and the media were 100% on board with Mueller. Since then a significant amount of the focus has moved to others not Trump (with noticeable relations to the Clintons and others), and the media has turned on Mueller to a noticeable degree. This tells us something useful. And, from the beginning, some of us who don't live inside the ctrl-left universe have been saying this is a slow burn that will reveal no dirt on Trump and will ultimately fall on others. So far we're under budget ahead of schedule.

[boost]

Wuf, your scenarios insist on more people being masters or grand masters. That or you're relying on the assumption that team Trump (including Sessions in this case) is in lockstep. The idea that Mueller (again, on team Trump and in lockstep in your scenario), Sessions, etc, are not playing their own game is near absurd. Especially after we've seen time and again members of team Trump to be shown to be playing their own game.

[spoonitnow]

Wuf, your scenarios insist on more people being masters or grand masters. That or you're relying on the assumption that team Trump (including Sessions in this case) is in lockstep. The idea that Mueller (again, on team Trump and in lockstep in your scenario), Sessions, etc, are not playing their own game is near absurd. Especially after we've seen time and again members of team Trump to be shown to be playing their own game.

They can play whatever game they want, but there's only one king.

[boost]

Here's one way of examining the landscape by taking a step back.

In the beginning of Muh Russia, 100% of the focus was on Trump as chief baddy and the media were 100% on board with Mueller. Since then a significant amount of the focus has moved to others not Trump (with noticeable relations to the Clintons and others), and the media has turned on Mueller to a noticeable degree. This tells us something useful. And, from the beginning, some of us who don't live inside the ctrl-left universe have been saying this is a slow burn that will reveal no dirt on Trump and will ultimately fall on others. So far we're under budget ahead of schedule.

You're extrapolating a lot from vague measurements.

the media has turned on Mueller to a noticeable degree.

This is what your above scenario rests on. Not only does it hinge on this, but layered on that is an assumption about this vague metric, the assumption that it means what you need it to mean.

[wufwugy]

Wuf, your scenarios insist on more people being masters or grand masters. That or you're relying on the assumption that team Trump (including Sessions in this case) is in lockstep. The idea that Mueller (again, on team Trump and in lockstep in your scenario), Sessions, etc, are not playing their own game is near absurd. Especially after we've seen time and again members of team Trump to be shown to be playing their own game.

Trump and Sessions are certainly on the same page. It's some real mental gymnastics to think that a President's AG is ever not on the President's page.

Regarding Mueller, we just don't know. My personal opinion is that Trump was looking for the person best for the job of special counsel of all things Russia and government corruption related such that they will follow the evidence and do so with credibility and expertise. Mueller is a possible candidate for that. Mueller being hired the day after Trump interviewed him is the kind of thing that signals this or something like this.

Also, some of the "own game" stuff played by members of the administration is fake news. Not all but some.

[wufwugy]

You're extrapolating a lot from vague measurements.

What extrapolations? I have watched this on the regular. The behavior of the media literally went from all pro-Mueller to some calls for Mueller to resign, and from Trump only being exposed to several others being exposed while nothing has changed on Trump.

[BananaStand]

I think this is the most plausible story about the Russians involvement. They sewed the seeds of chaos, and here they are reaping their harvest.

You're giving the the Russians way too much credit here.

Yes, they sought to cultivate chaos. But, they did it all with the assumption that Clinton would win. The chaos was meant to be a distraction/annoyance to Clinton. Who knows what the endgame there was, but I assume it was something like "Clinton fights back with sanctions or something, Russia cries foul and villainizes the US, etc etc etc."

But the point is, the Russians never imagined that they would be THIS successful.

If Clinton won, the Russian meddling and ensuing pissing contest would be a C or D headline before fizzling out entirely in time for 2020.

It would have slightly more attention had Clinton lost to Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz, but ultimately would never be the massive hysterical story that it is now.

But since it's TRUMP, the Left had a stroke on election night. They used the Russian stuff in this deranged attempt to take trump down.

I doubt very very much that Russia ever anticipated the intensity of this hysteria

[wufwugy]

I don't know what's going on. My intention is to be reasonable in a situation where there is little reason. From that perspective, Muh Russia is pretty damn hilarious and there are some others in government who have probably committed serious crimes that they may or may not have to account for.

[Poopadoop]

@Boost : logic is wasted on banana, he only knows 'zomg i can't believe ur such a fucking idiot; i'm losing my mind - aaaaah!!' types of arguments

On the Trump thing, I heard an interesting hypothesis that the investigation is not going to find collusion but is going to find evidence of money-laundering - that Trump's campaign got a bigly contribution from Russian oligarchs in return for an agreement to ease sanctions, etc., (good for business if your a Russian oligarch) and to keep letting them launder their money through his businesses (explaining why he guards his tax returns so jealously); Mueller's first hire was a money-laundering expert; the Manafort and Flynn indictments are basically about money laundering; Jared has his greasy hands all over it; etc. etc.

[boost]

Banana, you're a walking paradox. On the one hand your belligerent disregard for following the thread of the discussion can lead to cool tangents that we may have never gotten to. On the other hand, your belligerent disregard for following the thread of the discussion makes wading through these cool tangents tedious and gruelling.

[spoonitnow]

Banana, you're a walking paradox. On the one hand your belligerent disregard for following the thread of the discussion can lead to cool tangents that we may have never gotten to. On the other hand, your belligerent disregard for following the thread of the discussion makes wading through these cool tangents tedious and gruelling.

zomg i can't believe ur such a fucking idiot; i'm losing my mind - aaaaah

Edit: Shit, wrong account.

[boost]

haha

[wufwugy]

fucking gold

[spoonitnow]

Yeah that was tremendous. It got talked about and tweeted so fucking much.

[wufwugy]

I must be out of the loop since the only retweet I saw was Scott Adams

[wufwugy]

And I figured it was Harambe's birthday or soemthing since he is all over t_d

[spoonitnow]

And I figured it was Harambe's birthday or soemthing since he is all over t_d

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/05/th...fs-trump-book/

[boost]

Haha, that is some A+ satire. It's great because it manages to play to either side, it both can be read as an almost plausible, but just over the top, anecdote starring Trump, or it can be read as satirizing the gullibility of the FAKE Media^tm

[wufwugy]

Haha, that is some A+ satire. It's great because it manages to play to either side, it both can be read as an almost plausible, but just over the top, anecdote starring Trump, or it can be read as satirizing the gullibility of the FAKE Media^tm

So true.

I adore how some view Trump basically as Peter Griffin (sans comedy). Because I can totally see Peter doing that. And it being hilarious. And an audience taking it as representative of truth is just another level of funny.

[boost]

Ok, so we all are on board with some form of the two movies thing, and I really do try to get a peak at the other movie whenever I can, but Trump's declarations of his own genius on Twitter.. I mean, how does this look on your screen? He's just trolling the snowflakes? Don't there need to be more than two screens then? Would you not acknowledge that a significant portion of those viewing pro Trump screens are unaware of how daft this string of tweets is, and simply take them at face value?

Even if we assume he's just trolling, lol@the idea that this can in anyway be seen as positive way for our president to be acting-- trolling half the country and misleading a significant portion of the rest.

So, again, maybe I'm just failing to see the other screen. So if someone would, please fill me in on how this is not alarming behaviour coming from our president.

[wufwugy]

Ok, so we all are on board with some form of the two movies thing, and I really do try to get a peak at the other movie whenever I can, but Trump's declarations of his own genius on Twitter.. I mean, how does this look on your screen? He's just trolling the snowflakes? Don't there need to be more than two screens then? Would you not acknowledge that a significant portion of those viewing pro Trump screens are unaware of how daft this string of tweets is, and simply take them at face value?

Even if we assume he's just trolling, lol@the idea that this can in anyway be seen as positive way for our president to be acting-- trolling half the country and misleading a significant portion of the rest.

So, again, maybe I'm just failing to see the other screen. So if someone would, please fill me in on how this is not alarming behaviour coming from our president.

I'll give two perspectives. The first is Scott Adams discussing the reasons he thinks Trump made those tweets. I think the first 8 minutes gives enough information, but you can probably watch less than that. His periscopes tend to get to the point then meander, so you can literally just watch then stop watching when you no longer want to watch.

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1YqJDLENMgoJV


The second is to your question about what people on "this side" see on the TV screen. To start that, it might be important to introduce the idea of the humility fetish (another term sparked by Adams). The humility fetish is along the lines of the belief that being humble is better than being braggadocious. The humility fetish is something most of us have and it is very traditional for our public figures (especially at the level of president). Trump entirely disregards the humility fetish. His fans are people who, along with him, deny the humility fetish at this point in time and at this level. To those who don't (most everybody else), Trump looks almost incomprehensible because he is doing things he's "not supposed to do". As for why some of us have discarded the humility fetish in this case, I won't go into details, but it seems to stem from a lot of us being sold a bill of goods over and over by tricksters and crooks who don the humility fetish. We're told to sit down and take it. We have for a long time. Not anymore. We want a champion. Now we have our champion. The greatest champs are people like Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson. They have a total lack of humility fetish in their public personas. They don't take bullshit, they brag themselves up and tell losers to fuck off. Trump supporters feel like they have been trampled on for such a long time that they now embrace the political equivalent of Mike Tyson. In the minds of Trump fans, he has the real success and real policy actions to back up being a Tyson, so when he talks himself up he looks like he's the champ clowning on his opponent. To Trump's detractors, Trump has no life success and has no policy success, so when he talks himself up looks like a clown.

That's the background for what we see on our TV screen. The other things we see are varied and probably can be said to break into separate screens themselves. Some see him getting people to pay attention to what he wants them to. He did this today when he inserted ",like," into his tweet. Detractors blow a lid at that and inadvertently cause the tweet with the info he wants out to get attention. Another view is that he gets detractors to chase the cheese in the maze (so this is the element of trolling). This is typically thought to be for purpose other than just getting kicks. Even Trump's biggest fans of the trolling think he does it to further his agenda behind the scenes while the media and the ctrl-left go bonkers about a misspelling or some other thing that doesn't matter. Then there's the view that Trump saying how big of a genius he is has the effect of persuading some people to actually believe it. You ain't gonna convince somebody you're smart by saying you're stupid, but you might convince some people you're smart by saying you're smart.


Does this help?

[wufwugy]

This tweet:

"...Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job."

I'm putting this down as the greatest burn of all time. Sure, it's not the cleverest, but the greatness of a burn isn't just about cleverness. Trump's claim can't be disproven, and now virtually the entire world in politics believes that Bannon is a weak baby who cried when he got fired. Even his fucking family is probably wondering if it's actually true. Bannon is beyond finished.

[Savy]

wuf cried when I told him I don't like him & begged me to be his friend.

[wufwugy]

You weren't supposed to tell anybody.

[boost]

Here's the problem regarding the Bannon slam: It is not a coherent move if the narrative that the book is "complete fantasy" is true (or at least believed by the administration.) To this point, it seems that Bannon was actually drafting a statement that defended Trump and painted the book and author as untrustworthy Fake News^tm. That statement got scrapped because Trump forced the narrative to a point where it no longer would have worked.

If the book is misquotes and quotes out of context, and the author had several months to collect quotes to take out of context, then couple that with an impulsive administration, and here we are. Sure it's a sick take down-- but it's also probably friendly fire. Oops.

[wufwugy]

Here's the problem regarding the Bannon slam: It is not a coherent move if the narrative that the book is "complete fantasy" is true (or at least believed by the administration.) To this point, it seems that Bannon was actually drafting a statement that defended Trump and painted the book and author as untrustworthy Fake News^tm. That statement got scrapped because Trump forced the narrative to a point where it no longer would have worked.

If the book is misquotes and quotes out of context, and the author had several months to collect quotes to take out of context, then couple that with an impulsive administration, and here we are. Sure it's a sick take down-- but it's also probably friendly fire. Oops.

I agree. I think Trump is running scorched earth against Bannon, like, he literally wants Bannon out of the picture. Some have said Trump personally dislikes Bannon because of stuff that went on between him and Trump's son-in-law. But I tend to think it's more along the lines of Trump believing that Bannon is screwing things up regarding the coming elections. Bannon wants to get rid of the GOP establishment and replace with new Republicans while it appears Trump is trying to change the current Republicans.

[wufwugy]

Actually I shouldn't say that. I think it is not useful to think one can read somebody else's mind. I can't read Trump's or Bannon's minds. I don't know the thoughts in Trump's head for why he is running scorched earth against Bannon now. The data suggest that the reasons that inform his thoughts could be Bannon going against Trump's version of MAGA.

[boost]

So, like, filter the swamp?

Seriously though, yeah, you may be right, but I think that misses the point. If the book is not "complete fantasy", the reaction, especially with regards to Bannon, makes no sense.

[wufwugy]

So, like, filter the swamp?

Heh. Word has been passed down that ending the "drain the swamp" rhetoric was Mitch McConnell's required compromise for Trump to make for them to even begin to work together. But yeah, the way to drain the swamp is with a filter, some of the stuff can stay, or more like some of the stuff will stay given the constraints.

Seriously though, yeah, you may be right, but I think that misses the point. If the book is not "complete fantasy", the reaction, especially with regards to Bannon, makes no sense.

Okay, I see. I think this is perfectly logical. And a reason I think most don't see it this way is because of compartmentalization. Somebody who sides with Trump can easily just say, "the book is false and Trump is using this as an opportunity to take out Bannon, not basing the Bannon take-out on the claims of the book."

[boost]

I'm confused as to whether the thing in quotes is what you think is a reasonable explanation or an erroneous one made by "most".

If it's the former, using this opportunity to slam Bannon legitimizes the quotes attributed to him in the book. Labeling him "Leaky Bannon" further compounds this. So some may not notice this inconsistency, but who are the rubes? His base?

But, let's step back from the 3D chess board. Or at least zoom out. What do you think is happening here? I get that your story that lead up to this disagrees with the president being an impulsive strategic buffoon, but how many of these seemingly impulsive fumbles need to happen before your picture changes? Or the picture on the shared screen that I only get a peek at? If Pence pulls the 25th, does your screen adjust, or is it still pro Trump? If Mueller actually is building a case against Trump and drops indictments(recommendations for impeachment? I'm not entirely sure how this works..) does that snap the projector into focus?

Maybe it's my screen that is largely showing a false narrative, and I suppose I should ask myself the same questions, but, well, I asked first

[Poopadoop]

Somebody who sides with Trump can easily just say, "the book is false and Trump is using this as an opportunity to take out Bannon, not basing the Bannon take-out on the claims of the book."

When one reacts to any slight by immediately belittling and ridiculing the transgressor, and does so virtually 100% of the time, assuming that habitual reaction has some long-range planning behind it this time (or every time, for that matter) strikes me as a rather inelegant explanation.

He was made to look bad, he lashed out in return. The next 100 times someone disses him, he'll likely react the same way somewhere between 99 and 100 of those times.

[spoonitnow]

Ok, so we all are on board with some form of the two movies thing, and I really do try to get a peak at the other movie whenever I can, but Trump's declarations of his own genius on Twitter.. I mean, how does this look on your screen? He's just trolling the snowflakes? Don't there need to be more than two screens then? Would you not acknowledge that a significant portion of those viewing pro Trump screens are unaware of how daft this string of tweets is, and simply take them at face value?

Even if we assume he's just trolling, lol@the idea that this can in anyway be seen as positive way for our president to be acting-- trolling half the country and misleading a significant portion of the rest.

So, again, maybe I'm just failing to see the other screen. So if someone would, please fill me in on how this is not alarming behaviour coming from our president.

The shit is fucking hilarious. I love having a president who will just talk shit. And why the fuck shouldn't he? He beat the most prolific politician of our time when he ran for president on his first try when he was just running for the fucking hell of it and had no experience in politics whatsoever. That would be like if McGregor knocked Mayweather out in the first round. The shit is cold blooded.

[wufwugy]

I'm confused as to whether the thing in quotes is what you think is a reasonable explanation or an erroneous one made by "most".

It is an explanation that somebody can make to handle the logic you presented.

If it's the former, using this opportunity to slam Bannon legitimizes the quotes attributed to him in the book. Labeling him "Leaky Bannon" further compounds this. So some may not notice this inconsistency, but who are the rubes? His base?

Thinking that logically about it isn't something that many people will do. The funny thing is that with that in mind, it can explain why both the quotes could be false and Trump could attack Bannon. I don't have much of an opinion on the book because I don't think it matters one way or another if they are true.

But, let's step back from the 3D chess board. Or at least zoom out. What do you think is happening here? I get that your story that lead up to this disagrees with the president being an impulsive strategic buffoon, but how many of these seemingly impulsive fumbles need to happen before your picture changes? Or the picture on the shared screen that I only get a peek at? If Pence pulls the 25th, does your screen adjust, or is it still pro Trump? If Mueller actually is building a case against Trump and drops indictments(recommendations for impeachment? I'm not entirely sure how this works..) does that snap the projector into focus?

I'm trying to respond and realize that I need you to clarify exactly what you think is happening. Exactly what your logic is.



As for what I think is happening is that Trump fired Bannon in part for leaking other things not related to this book, that Trump is taking out Bannon in part because of how Bannon is screwing things up in elections (Roy Moore/Luther Strange), and that Trump is taking out Bannon in part because it is an effective counter to the book. The book needs to be countered, not because of what Bannon is quoted for, but because it's the backbone of the current narrative that Trump is crazy. As far as I can tell, you pointed out how one statement Trump makes being true implies the other he makes is false. That can be the case, but also few people think that hard about these things. Tearing down Bannon as "the leaker" can make the book seem less credible simply because Bannon is associated with it. The general public doesn't stop to think about it like you have; they don't go "oh wait that makes Bannon MORE credible". They just think "pew pew Bannon the leaker pew pew Wolff is a liar pew pew Trump said he's Very Smart Genius".

[wufwugy]

When one reacts to any slight by immediately belittling and ridiculing the transgressor, and does so virtually 100% of the time, assuming that habitual reaction has some long-range planning behind it this time (or every time, for that matter) strikes me as a rather inelegant explanation.

He was made to look bad, he lashed out in return. The next 100 times someone disses him, he'll likely react the same way somewhere between 99 and 100 of those times.

You're probably right. There is probably SOMETHING we don't see; Trump wouldn't just take Bannon out like this if the only concern was the book.

But yes, his strategy involves counter-punching anybody who attacks him, and if that person's attack gains any traction whatsoever, Trump goes scorched earth against that person.

[wufwugy]

If the idea is that Trump attacks injudiciously, I'd say that's something we would have to cover first. It is a premise I do not believe stands up to scrutiny.

[Poopadoop]

You're probably right. There is probably SOMETHING we don't see; Trump wouldn't just take Bannon out like this if the only concern was the book.

But yes, his strategy involves counter-punching anybody who attacks him, and if that person's attack gains any traction whatsoever, Trump goes scorched earth against that person.

This word implies it is planned and calculated; I think it's more visceral than that. Calculated moves don't necessarily repeat themselves every time (though they can), a strategist is generally more flexible and chooses their battles.

[spoonitnow]

This word implies it is planned and calculated; I think it's more visceral than that. Calculated moves don't necessarily repeat themselves every time (though they can), a strategist is generally more flexible and chooses their battles.

You're conflating strategy and strategist.

[wufwugy]

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/s...58851024265216

They may think they’re negating or undermining him, but that’s not how human brains work. As a cognitive scientist, I can tell you: repeating his messages only helps him.

How about when people tweet that President Trump is not a GENIUS, totally not a GENIUS, and most certainly not a very stable GENIUS? Does that help him or hurt him while he's, like, GENIUSING?

[spoonitnow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG6arcSTjqw

[wufwugy]

This word implies it is planned and calculated; I think it's more visceral than that. Calculated moves don't necessarily repeat themselves every time (though they can), a strategist is generally more flexible and chooses their battles.

If he didn't pick his battles, how does he have a business, family, or any friends?

[spoonitnow]

If he didn't pick his battles, how does he have a business, family, or any friends?

He's just crazy! 25th Amendment! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Poopadoop]

You're conflating strategy and strategist.

Nonsense and/or trolling.

A strategist is one who uses a strategy.

It's like saying you're mixing things up by calling someone driving a car a 'driver'.

[Poopadoop]

If he didn't pick his battles, how does he have a business, family, or any friends?

There are plenty of people who react that way to criticism and manage those things as well.

[spoonitnow]

Nonsense and/or trolling.

A strategist is one who uses a strategy.

It's like saying you're mixing things up by calling someone driving a car a 'driver'.

Wrong. It's not someone who uses a strategy. It means something very specific:

a person skilled in planning action or policy, especially in war or politics

a person skilled in strategy

an expert in strategy, especially in warfare

You're trying to call someone who drives a truck a trucker or someone who bakes a cake a baker.

[Poopadoop]

Wrong. It's not someone who uses a strategy. It means something very specific:

a person skilled in planning action or policy, especially in war or politics

a person skilled in strategy

an expert in strategy, especially in warfare

You're trying to call someone who drives a truck a trucker or someone who bakes a cake a baker.

So replace the word 'strategist' in my post with 'someone who's using a strategy'. Better?

[wufwugy]

There are plenty of people who react that way to criticism and manage those things as well.

Ah, so he makes a distinction between between a personal attack and a non-personal attack. Do you think he makes a distinction between level of importance of a personal attack, meaning do you think he thinks it is more important to tear down a personally attacking Rosie O'Donnell than it is to tear down a personally attacking Soros Twitter Troll?

[wufwugy]

I lol'd at soros twitter troll. i dont know if they are soros funded (probs are). but they are defo twitter trolls and there are a billion of them and they attack trump in the most personal way people can imagine.

[wufwugy]

This string of Lakoff posts is fantastic. Pretty sure he's no fan of Trump. From the one quoted above

https://twitter.com/GeorgeLakoff/sta...25111362666496

[spoonitnow]

So replace the word 'strategist' in my post with 'someone who's using a strategy'. Better?

No because you're implying that Trump is still someone skilled at strategy in the political realm, and he's not. It's much simpler than that.

He talks shit because he can. If you show you aren't loyal to him or if you're opposing him, he's going to light your ass up. It's simple.

[wufwugy]

This string of Lakoff posts is fantastic. Pretty sure he's no fan of Trump. From the one quoted above

https://twitter.com/GeorgeLakoff/sta...25111362666496

May be the most credible view of why Trump tweets the way he does I've come across.

[Poopadoop]

do you think he thinks it is more important to tear down a personally attacking Rosie O'Donnell than it is to tear down a personally attacking Soros Twitter Troll?

I don't know what you're talking about with Soros twitter troll, sorry.

But since you mentioned it, another person might draw the line well above Rosie O'Donnell when it comes to which critics and what criticisms warrant an immediate and aggressive response.

[wufwugy]

I don't know what you're talking about with Soros twitter troll, sorry.

But since you mentioned it, another person might draw the line well above Rosie O'Donnell when it comes to which critics and what criticisms warrant an immediate and aggressive response.

Yeah Trump used to be on the same level as Rosie so he countered her a lot but now he is beyond that level and his behavior reflects.

[Poopadoop]

No because you're implying that Trump is still someone skilled at strategy in the political realm, and he's not. It's much simpler than that.

I'm not implying anything regarding his political skills, except maybe tangentially. I'm basically saying what you say there in bold, though perhaps in a different way than you intend it.

What I'm saying is his default behavior is to react aggressively to anyone who makes him look bad. Conversely, a more flexible person (i.e., one who's operating with some longer-range thinking or 'strategy' if you will, might well respond differently at different times depending on the context.

In short, I'm arguing he's a person who can't bite his tongue even when it would serve him to do so. One could always argue he could bite his tongue but chooses not to, and that's fine. But it's difficult to reconcile either characterization with a person who's thinking deeply about the long-term consequences of such behavior.

[wufwugy]

A Soros Twitter Troll is one of those accounts that respond within seconds to everything Trump tweets with nasty personal attacks that get users who are not ctrl-left banned. Certainly Ivanka has to yank the phone out of Dad's hands after each tweet before he is able to look at any responses. It's a full time job. Maybe that's why they got the Gorilla Channel. Now Trump isn't even bothered by Ivanka taking his phone because the gorillas are fighting.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah Trump used to be on the same level as Rosie so he countered her a lot but now he is beyond that level and his behavior reflects.

Well, there's only so many hours in a day . Even Trump has to sleep sometime.

[spoonitnow]

What I'm saying is his default behavior is to react aggressively to anyone who makes him look bad. Conversely, a more flexible person (i.e., one who's operating with some longer-range thinking or 'strategy' if you will, might well respond differently at different times depending on the context.

And that's why you can't call him a strategist politically. He doesn't give a shit about politics.

[wufwugy]

In short, I'm arguing he's a person who can't bite his tongue even when it would serve him to do so.

Why didn't he start yelling out comebacks at Obama during the infamous correspondents dinner?