*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

I thought I'd make it pretty clear with my last post.

The USA flags are reversed but the pizza boxes are not. This is a photoshopped image, unless the National Guard actually wear inverted flags on their sleeves.

The stars always go forward, ong.

The flag on a military uniform always has the stars to the front of the person.

[OngBonga]

The stars always go forward, ong.

The flag on a military uniform always has the stars to the front of the person.

Ok fair enough, seems strange but if that's a fact then I guess I'm wrong, it's not shopped.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The government didn't force the cake maker to open a business with a public store front.

Simply claiming "religion" is not an excuse that means you don't have to follow the law.


Hiding behind your religion as a reason to treat people as less than you should not be protected by law.
Just like a religion that practices human sacrifice is not protected by law.


Christian morals do not include being a bigot. Christian morals include a policy of forgiveness, reserving judgement for the Lord, turning the other cheek, being a good Samaritan.

A bigot hiding behind his religion as an excuse to be an ass should not be protected by law.
A religion that encourages bigotry and/or hate should not be protected by law.

[OngBonga]

How about an Islamic cake maker? He won't want to make a custom gay wedding cake either.

And how is this any different to someone commissioning a song from a songwriter? Perhaps I want an artist to write a song about my gay feelings, and that artist says "sorry I don't want to because I'm a fucking bigot who hates gays". Should he be compelled to by law?

[MadMojoMonkey]

How about an Islamic cake maker? He won't want to make a custom gay wedding cake either.

And how is this any different to someone commissioning a song from a songwriter? Perhaps I want an artist to write a song about my gay feelings, and that artist says "sorry I don't want to because I'm a fucking bigot who hates gays". Should he be compelled to by law?

The key phrases are "public store front" and "their choice of business model."

If they are a private business, a members only club, or in any way not openly inviting for a random person to walk in and solicit a service they are there to sell, then they have ultimate say in to whom they sell whatever it is they sell.

However, if they are NOT those things, then they have to treat all the random people who solicit their services with equality.


If it is a public space, then they cannot discriminate. If it is a private space, then they can. The law only enters those private spaces under higher scrutiny or some legal BS language. You still can't murder anyone in your home, I mean. You do have nearly ultimate say in who can and can't be in your home (always exceptions - criminal investigations and whatnot). Your freedom of speech is wider in your home than outside of it - not all speech is protected in public spaces, but within your home, they may be. The classic example of yelling "theater" in a crowded firehouse or something. You can yell a lot of stuff in your own home that you cannot yell in a crowded theater.

[OngBonga]

The classic example of yelling "theater" in a crowded firehouse or something.

lol

[OngBonga]

The key phrases are "public store front" and "their choice of business model."

The first point is worth debating, the second is not. You can't say a cake maker chooses his occupation any more than a songwriter. How are you drawing the line here?

"Public store front" seems tenuous to me, but maybe there is legal basis to this. So let's say the cake maker decides instead of having a "public" store, he has on online store instead. Why should the online seller have extra legal right to pick and choose his customers than the person who has a physical shop?

[MadMojoMonkey]

The first point is worth debating, the second is not. You can't say a cake maker chooses his occupation any more than a songwriter. How are you drawing the line here?

"Public store front" seems tenuous to me, but maybe there is legal basis to this. So let's say the cake maker decides instead of having a "public" store, he has on online store instead. Why should the online seller have extra legal right to pick and choose his customers than the person who has a physical shop?

Well... setting aside that the cake maker absolutely does choose their occupation... but let's assume they're a born cake maker, and they'd rather die than not make cakes. I'd watch that movie (I mean, if I watched movies, I would).

Fine, they can make cakes. They can open a private cake club, members only, and sell their custom cakes to the finest hotels and fancy pants rich people, and they can further choose to only sell cakes to those hotels and fancy pants rich people who are also bigots.
I find such behavior despicable, but I would not want that behavior made illegal. It's unsavory, but only people already complicit in that aspect are involved. They are free to hate in private, IMO.

IDK about the internet. It's a fuzzy line if there is one. It's probably all gray area, really, and I simply don't know enough about it, or have the legal backing to make a sweeping statement. If you have some specific cases to ponder over, I'll give them a think.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think if the cake maker's argument to deny making the cake is on the basis of artistic reasons, then they should be willing to make "a" cake for the customer, just not a cake that goes against their aesthetic sensibilities.

However, if they are claiming artistic reasons to not make "any" cake at all for the couple, then that strikes me as incoherent.

What is the artistic reason to not make the cake?
I'm sorry if it's been explained and I don't remember.

[OngBonga]

I think if the cake maker's argument to deny making the cake is on the basis of artistic reasons, then they should be willing to make "a" cake for the customer, just not a cake that goes against their aesthetic sensibilities.


However, if they are claiming artistic reasons to not make "any" cake at all for the couple, then that strikes me as incoherent.

Well, I agree here and I think banana does to, though obviously I can't speak for him.

[OngBonga]

Well... setting aside that the cake maker absolutely does choose their occupation...

So does the songwriter. Just because he's good at writing songs, doesn't mean it's the only thing he can do.

I find such behavior despicable

I agree, but this isn't the point. I'm not seeking to justify discrimination against gays, but at the same time I don't want to see artists being compelled to do things they don't want to do.

IDK about the internet. It's a fuzzy line if there is one. It's probably all gray area, really, and I simply don't know enough about it, or have the legal backing to make a sweeping statement. If you have some specific cases to ponder over, I'll give them a think.

For me, the physical store and the internet store should be subject to the same laws and regulations. Ok the internet store doesn't have to worry about the health and safety of customers in their store, to give one example of a natural difference, but there's no reason the internet seller should have more right to choose his customers than the physical store.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I agree, but this isn't the point. I'm not seeking to justify discrimination against gays, but at the same time I don't want to see artists being compelled to do things they don't want to do.

I'm totally with you there... except that we're both being a little disingenuous.

If you are witness to a crime, you are compelled to truthfully report what you witnessed to the authorities, though you may not wish to do so.
I.e. there are times when the law compels certain speech.
The 5th amendment protects you from being compelled to testify against yourself, but now I'm just noting exceptions to exceptions.

More to the point, I don't see how selling someone anything that happens to be used in a gay wedding somehow means the supply chain of resources that got that item to that point is endorsing gay marriage. The cake maker is claiming that by selling someone a cake, they are being "forced" to endorse gay marriage. I do not see how that is true.

I mean... what if the flour mills decided they wouldn't sell flour to anyone who makes gay cakes - or anyone who buys their flour and then sells it to someone who makes cakes? Is that still their artistic choice? Isn't the specific production method of flour they use an art form of its own? What are the limits of this art claim?

What about the chicken that laid the eggs? That hen never got any cock. What if it was a lesbian chicken? Is the baker already complicit in supporting the gay chicken cabal?!

For me, the physical store and the internet store should be subject to the same laws and regulations. Ok the internet store doesn't have to worry about the health and safety of customers in their store, to give one example of a natural difference, but there's no reason the internet seller should have more right to choose his customers than the physical store.

I'd probably consider ebay or amazon to be more public-type internet places, but they do require a private membership sign up to use, and therefore fall into my category of private club and free to choose their clientele.

It's all kinds of fuzzy on the internet.

[Mr.Banana]

Monkey, I'm going to try and explain this one more time. I'm shocked at how tragically you're missing the point here.

Most of what I know and think on this subject comes from the case of the baker in colorado whose claim went all the way up to the supreme court. The supreme court and I have completely congruent opinions on this case. So what I'm about to explain to you isn't just a banana-rant, it's also the law of the land.

You can go to the grocery store today, walk up to the bakery counter, and you'll find a catalog of all the different cakes you can order from their bakery. Most of them are for little kid's birthdays. But they'll write "happy retirement" or "sorry you got pwned in the forum" on a cake if you want them to. You can point to a picture of a basic cake, with a predetermined design and say "give me that one please"

Anyone can do that. Even gays. I don't know if the baker in the big case sold cakes like that (standard designs out of a catalog), but if he does, he has to sell them to gays. If a gay comes in and asks for a birthday cake, this baker would sell him the cake. If a gay person asks for a retirement cake he'll get it. If he asks for a 4th of July cake, he gets it. If he asks for a cake celebrating his anal prolapse...he gets it.

The baker in the big case AGREES with all of this. He doesn't discriminate against anyone on the basis of being gay. What he has a problem with is *participating* in something he finds sinful. It's extremely important that you understand this. He's not saying "I don't sell cakes to gays". He is saying "please leave me out of your sin". A gay person having a birthday is not a sin...here's a cake. A gay person retiring is not a sin...here's a cake. A gay person celebrating 4th of july is not a sin....he gets a cake. Is this making sense now?

What is the artistic reason to not make the cake?
I'm sorry if it's been explained and I don't remember.

It's not an "artistic" reason. The issue is that art = speech (not debatable). the government can't compel speech. It can't punish you for not engaging in certain speech. Therefore it cannot compel art. And it can't punish you for not producing certain art.

In this case the artist believes that producing the art (the speech) is sinful and against his religious beliefs. Making a CUSTOM wedding cake means you're participating in the ceremony....which is a sin.

Christian morals include a policy of forgiveness, reserving judgement for the Lord, turning the other cheek, being a good Samaritan.

There is also a policy against sinning yourself. The baker doesn't care if you're gay. He doesn't care if you go get married. He just doesn't want to be part of it. That's all.


If it helps clarify, this same baker also refuses to make Halloween cakes, for everyone. He believes celebrating Halloween is a sin. So he doesn't celebrate it. And he won't help you celebrate it. For the exact same reason he won't help you celebrate your gay wedding.

Please tell me specifically if there is still anything you don't understand

[oskar]

I have to say I'm disappointed you guys are letting yourself get sidetracked into this stupid argument. MAGA went down so hard it will take a miracle of biblical proportions for R's to retake the house senate or presidency for the next 8 years. Trump will get dragged out in 5 days. A 9/11's worth of americans is dying every single day as a direct result of MAGA politics. Trump might actually get convicted in the senate and could conceivably manage to take down his family business for no other reason than being such a moron.

LFDO Nana wants to talk about cake. You don't have to oblige.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Please tell me specifically if there is still anything you don't understand

I don't understand why you think appeals to authority matter when I'm telling you my opinion.

I don't understand why you think that just because you want to argue with someone means they want to learn from you;
I don't understand why someone who clearly has a strong personal motivation to persuade people is so miserably bad at it.

[Mr.Banana]

I don't understand why you think appeals to authority matter when I'm telling you my opinion.

I don't understand why you think categorizing an argument as an "appeal to authority" makes it invalid. But if it makes you feel better, forget the SCOTUS. Everything the SCOTUS concluded is *also* my opinion. So now we're just guys sharing opinions.

I don't understand why you think that just because you want to argue with someone means they want to learn from you;

Why wouldn't you want to learn? From anyone? Anytime that you can? Don't you work in education? Are you saying your mind is closed off just because you have a problem with me personally? You think you're right and I'm wrong because you're a better person? Help me understand what you just said there.

I don't understand why someone who clearly has a strong personal motivation to persuade people is so miserably bad at it.

Well I'll give credit where credit is due. I'm up against a master. It's really hard to combat the "Nyah nyah leviticus" argument. That was a real back-breaker.

But back to two guys just sharing opinions.....

We share one opinion....I'm too lazy to scroll up and find the quote, so this is paraphrased from memory. You have a problem with people doing things that foment animosity and divide our culture. Something like that. I too share this opinion. I also have the opinion that YOU are one of those people.

I'm hoping you'll have an open mind here and try to consider that all the baker wants to do is NOT sin. He will happily sell any other cake for any other occasion to anyone from any walk of life. He'll treat every one of his customers with the dignity and respect every human deserves and that every potential customer should expect. He just doesn't want to be a part of a sin. So no gay wedding cakes, and no halloween cakes. He probably won't make a cake for Satan's birthday. I don't know how he feels about the Hell's Angels. That could be a headscratcher.

You see, if you close your mind off to the nuance here, and that nuance turns out to be valid, then YOU are the one fostering hate and division. Calling someone a bigoted asshole (or whatever similar phrasing you used) when he truly has no hate in his heart, and he is just trying his best to live a christian life....is NOT going to help unify the country.

And will you PLEASE tell me your opinion on whether a a painter should be allowed to deny a commission for a piece of art depicting Mohamed? And if so, how is that different than the Christian baker?

[Poopadoop]

Bit of an aside, but could they not just go to another bakery? You'd think they'd prefer to give their custom to someone whose values are more aligned with theirs (or whatever). Also, seems easier than going "Arrgghghgghg!! Your trampling on my rights to cake!!" and spending the rest of your life in court.

Also, don't think the baker was outside their rights to refuse service to someone, even if you don't agree with their reasons. But, before banana blows a load in his pants, I think twitter can also block whoever they want if that person agrees to their rules when they sign up and then breaks them. Even if that person is orange.

[Mr.Banana]

Bit of an aside, but could they not just go to another bakery?

That's actually not an aside. that was the whole point I was making in the beginning.

they could just go to another bakery. But they don't. Which makes me think they went looking for the one baker who would put up a fight, and decided to try and bully him.

What I said in the beginning that started this hullaballoo is that based on what I see, gay activism seems to be mostly about harassing Christians.

[Mr.Banana]

If you are witness to a crime, you are compelled to truthfully report what you witnessed to the authorities, though you may not wish to do so.

Not to de-rail, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong.

[Mr.Banana]

Monkey, I'm just skimming your argument with ong. You guys are on some real irrelevant tangents and you're both presenting "facts" that you most obviously pulled out of your ass. But I noticed this gem...

I mean... what if the flour mills decided they wouldn't sell flour to anyone who makes gay cakes - or anyone who buys their flour and then sells it to someone who makes cakes?

This is absolutely positively NOT the issue, at least not in any legal case that I've ever heard of. A flour mill sells flour. They don't get to judge who buys it or what they do with it afterward. No one believes they should be able to do that. To my knowledge no business has tried to do anything like that. I've explained this to you many times using hot dogs and cheesesteaks as examples. You seem to insist on pushing the argument back to this imaginary boogeyman that does not exist.

the behavior your describing is prohibited by law in all 50 states. We have anti-discrimination laws and penalties for breaking them. Discrimination is wrong, everyone agrees, and offenders should be punished. Nobody disputes that. If you see it happening somewhere, please share a link.

But in every case that has enough merit to go to court....it's been a case like what I've been describing. Someone isn't asked to simply sell a good or service without prejudice. they are being asked to DO something that is contrary to their free exercise of religion and/or violates their freedom of speech.

A Jewish man owns a jewelry store and offers custom engraving. Does he have to sell jewelry to skinhead neo-nazis? Yes he does. Does he have to engrave a swastika on it if asked? No he doesn't.

[OngBonga]

I think twitter can also block whoever they want if that person agrees to their rules when they sign up and then breaks them.

This is a different matter, but the problem with this is it makes Twitter a publisher, not a platform. They are applying editorial control over their content.

Publishers are subject to greater regulation than platforms.

I don't give a fuck if Twitter ban people for no reason. But what it does is expose their bias, at least assuming they are banning orange people for "inciting riots" but not black people.

[Poopadoop]

This is a different matter, but the problem with this is it makes Twitter a publisher, not a platform. They are applying editorial control over their content.

Publishers are subject to greater regulation than platforms.

I don't give a fuck if Twitter ban people for no reason. But what it does is expose their bias, at least assuming they are banning orange people for "inciting riots" but not black people.

Are there black people out there saying "let's start riots?" If there are then I hope twitter blocks them too.

Dunno about publisher status legal mumbo jumbo, but I doubt it. If you think they're applying their rules differently based on their company's political leanings, you might take them to court over it I guess. But since no-one has yet, I suspect either a) they're not doing that; or b) it's their right to do what they want with their platform.

[OngBonga]

Are there black people out there saying "let's start riots?" If there are then I hope twitter blocks them too.

There were lots of people of all races cheerleading riots during 2020. Maybe Twitter were banning people for it, idk, but certainly many were getting away with it. Then again I get away with calling people cunts. Perhaps it helps only having 50-odd followers.

Fun fact - Chechnya's leader tortured and killed homosexuals, and claims there are no homosexuals in Chechnya.
Fun fact #2 - he has a Twitter account.

[OngBonga]

If you are witness to a crime, you are compelled to truthfully report what you witnessed to the authorities, though you may not wish to do so.

This is a grey area and I'm not sure about this at all. Certainly not in USA. In the UK, I'm not duty bound to report an act of speeding, for example. Or someone smoking a joint. If I witness a murder, then probably I am obliged to report it, and probably should be. But even then it's a grey area. Often when someone gets stabbed in London, police are met with a wall of silence from witnesses. Even if the police know for a fact, and can prove, that someone was a witness, I'm really not sure they can compel someone to talk, because that person might rightfully fear for their safety. Of course the police can try to entice them with offers of protection, but rarely does it work.

The cake maker is claiming that by selling someone a cake, they are being "forced" to endorse gay marriage. I do not see how that is true.

Let's go back to a songwriter. If I ask for a song to be written to celebrate my gay marriage, then yes, I am asking the writer to endorse gay marriage. I wouldn't write a song about rape, even if I were paid a lot of money by a rapist to do so. I appreciate that analogy might be somewhat offensive, since rape is highly immoral and illegal, while gay marriage is not. But to a bigot Christian, gay marriage is immoral.

I mean... what if the flour mills decided they wouldn't sell flour to anyone who makes gay cakes - or anyone who buys their flour and then sells it to someone who makes cakes?

Is this an act of speech? Is selling flour to a cake maker "art"? The flour is not a unique product, it's not art, and so isn't protected by speech laws.

[CoccoBill]

To be fair I've learnt a lot about how not to debate from nana.

[oskar]

Too much talking itt.
Not enough pointing and laughing itt.

[Mr.Banana]

Not enough pointing and laughing itt.

Ha ha ha ha! Look at this shit....

9/11's worth of deaths a day

[oskar]

[Mr.Banana]

4tx7el.jpg

[MadMojoMonkey]

I told you my opinion, which you asked for.
You told me yours, about which I do not care, but I thank you for sharing.

Are we done with this topic?


Wanna talk about how Trump is the first POTUS to be impeached twice and whether it's within the realm of speculation that he will be barred from serving a 2nd term or any other public office?

***
Why would I not want to learn from you?
Because you're a tedious interlocutor who mangles 95% of what is said to him and argues against points no one in the conversation has made. You change the subject at your whimsy and you're generally condescending and unpleasant in tone.


There are faster and easier ways to learn.

[Mr.Banana]

Are we done with this topic?

No. I want to know if you think you can demand a Mohamed painting from a muslim artist

And if you have a different answer than the christian baker, I want to know why

[Mr.Banana]

Wanna talk about how Trump is the first POTUS to be impeached twice and whether it's within the realm of speculation that he will be barred from serving a 2nd term or any other public office?

No. As I explained to you before. If America is dead, then Trump is the coroner, not the murderer. Trump explains WHY America is dead.

[Poopadoop]

If America is dead, then Trump is the coroner, not the murderer. Trump explains WHY America is dead.

He's more like the guy who comes into the hospital while you're sick, steals your money and pulls the plug on the ventilator.

[Mr.Banana]

Wanna talk about....whether it's within the realm of speculation that he will be barred from serving a 2nd term or any other public office?

Why would that be on anyone's agenda unless they're afraid he might win?

What a victory for democracy that would be huh?

[Poopadoop]

Why would that be on anyone's agenda unless they're afraid he might win?

They're afraid he'll lose again, 'cause a big stink about "rigged", and incite his idiotoc supporters to violence. Again.

[Poopadoop]

That would be a good retort there banana if you were actually trying to "debate" anyone. But under your rules, only you are allowed to make valid points and if someone else makes one, you just reductio ad bananum it into a different argument altogether that you can then dismiss. That's not debating, that's being a knob.

And while you can't lose a game you rigged, you can't win either, and it's just a pointless exercise in giving yourself some kind of weird validation.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've already answered your stupid cake questions. Public space - cannot discriminate based on gayness ; private space - can.
Reason is because civilized society.

If what is trying to be purchased is effectively the same thing sold to every other customer, and the stated reason for not wanting to sell is 'cause the gay, then GTFO of the public space with that. Simple.



If a painter doesn't sell portraits of Mohammad to begin with, then your hypothetical question is just more abject nonsense.
If the painter normally would create and sell said portrait, but wont sell it to a certain customer 'cause the gay, then they, too, can GTFO of the public space with that.

[Mr.Banana]

I've already answered your stupid cake questions. Public space - cannot discriminate based on gayness ; private space - can.
Reason is because civilized society.

So you still believe this despite it having no basis in logic, law, or legal precedent. Despite knowing the decisions of the highest and most influential court in the country, and probably the world, you still believe that a Christian should be forced to sin because a gay guy wants his cake. You're a bad man.



One time I played at a very small local charity casino. Legal games, but massive rakes. they had a little cafeteria there. It was run by a local restauranteur. He has a liquor license so he can sell booze in his restaurant. he also has a catering license that allows him to sell booze off premesis. So that's how he thought he was able to sell booze at the casino.

The law disagreed. his catering license could only be used at private events. So here is what they did....

They had one of the dealers stand outside the door. As people walked up he would say "Hi folks, this is a private casino, only invitees are allowed inside." The he would hand them a slip of paper saying "You are invited to the private casino".

Then the guy could sell booze inside the casino.

So monkey, I don't know why you think there is some kind of difference between businesses open to the public and a business with private clientele. the same laws apply to both. The same standards of discrimination apply to both.

using your argument, the baker could just hang a sign on his door saying "This is a private establishment. By accepting this invitation to enter, you agree to abide by the whims of the business owner"

[Poopadoop]

So you still believe this despite it having no basis in logic, law, or legal precedent. Despite knowing the decisions of the highest and most influential court in the country, and probably the world, you still believe that a Christian should be forced to sin because a gay guy wants his cake. You're a bad man.

lol wat a retard.

[Mr.Banana]

I'd love to hear an example of a private business that is allowed to deny service to a gay customer just for being gay. Monkey tells me they exist. Can anyone name a single one?

What about the college or university that you work at Monkey? Is it a private institution? If not, are you aware that a great great number of colleges and universities are private? Are those institutions allowed to reject new students on the basis of being gay?

You say they are allowed to discriminate. Or am I not understanding your argument?

What about the Jewish jeweler who offers custom engraving? Does he have to sell a pendant to a neo-nazi? Does he have to engrave "heil hitler" on it if asked? is he forced to salute the fuhrer just because he decided to open his doors to the public?

I'm just wondering where your line is.

[Mr.Banana]

Drawing your line between public and private businesses (whatever the hell that means) is just astonishing to me. There isnt' a law, court case, or legal precedent that supports that whatsoever. And there is virtually an infinite number of obvious examples that completely eviscerate the argument.

But watching monkey cling to it......desperately....for no other reason than banana-spite .....is gloriously entertaining.

[OngBonga]

Fun fact #3 - it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against gingers.

[Poopadoop]

As it should be.

[Mr.Banana]

A republican member of congress, representing a district in the US's largest city, denounced the 2020 election results this week. This congresswoman claims that malicious actors have "engaged in voter suppression across the country". The congresswoman also stopped short of calling the elections free and fair. She says..."you can barely call them that" and "It is generous, to say the least, to call them that"

Is this really a crime? Is this what qualifies as insurrection now?

Really?

[Poopadoop]

A republican member of congress, representing a district in the US's largest city, denounced the 2020 election results this week

.

...based on no evidence.

This congresswoman claims that malicious actors have "engaged in voter suppression across the country".

...also based on no evidence.

Is this really a crime? Is this what qualifies as insurrection now?

Really?

Harvard didn't accuse her of insurrection. The statement from the Dean said:

"...in my assessment, Elise has made public assertions about voter fraud in November's presidential election that have no basis in evidence, and she has made public statements about court actions related to the election that are incorrect,"

So basically, since she claimed the election was rigged with no evidence, they don't want her on their team any more, so they kindly requested her to fuck off.

Are you really concerned that a university doesn't support someone's right to make false claims about election fraud? Really?

[Mr.Banana]

I wasn't talking about that one. This is a different congresswoman

But would you also support the revocation of any honorary degrees this congresswoman might hold?

What do you think should happen to her, seriously? She said the elections were "barely" free and fair and claimed there was voter suppression across the country. is she not allowed to believe that? Is she not allowed to say that publicly without catastrophic professional conseequences?

[Mr.Banana]

Apparently she's also in hot water for tweeting a video where she says people who do not acknowledge her constituents' views are "asking for more unrest" and "will continue to experience the violence of poverty"

Maybe the v-word is a little edgy, but to me, she's just saying that the protesters have a legitimate point and deserve to be heard.

What am I missing here?

[OngBonga]

I don't think poop understands why it's so bad to hold people to account like this for a political opinion. It would mean that in a world where election fraud happened, but they did a good enough job of it to get away with it, that those who speak out are politically oppressed. And in that world, he'd be cheerleading it, mocking them, calling them tards. In that world, he'd be a useful idiot.

I'd rather be a useless idiot in a world where election fraud didn't happen.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think poop understands why it's so bad to hold people to account like this for a political opinion.

I don't think Ong understands that it's not a political opinion when it's a lie, it's just a lie.

[Poopadoop]

I'd rather be a useless idiot in a world where election fraud didn't happen.

You are living your own dream right now mate.

[Mr.Banana]

This same congresswoman has also been called out for her "advice" to protesters which includes writing your emergency contact info on your body, wearing "non-descript clothing", and "covering identifying tattoos". She continues by providing recommendations on how to combat teargas exposure, and suggests that protesters wear "heat resistant gloves".

That seems perfectly reasonable to me given the circumstances.

[Poopadoop]

This same congresswoman has also been called out for her "advice" to protesters which includes writing your emergency contact info on your body, wearing "non-descript clothing", and "covering identifying tattoos". She continues by providing recommendations on how to combat teargas exposure, and suggests that protesters wear "heat resistant gloves".

That seems perfectly reasonable to me given the circumstances.

lol

[MadMojoMonkey]

@Nanners:
For the N-th time. You asked my opinion and I gave it.
If you don't agree with my opinion, that's cool.
Assuming that I care *why* you disagree is a mistake. I apologize if my politely answering your questions lead you to believe that I respect your moral position on literally anything. Perhaps I should have known better.

Just to make it clear: I do not care in the slightest what you think of me. I do not care in the slightest if you disagree with me. There is not the slightest fiber in me that wants to earn your respect.

Your angry, narcissist rants are amusing at best.

[Poopadoop]

The problem with accusing people of cheating without evidence (as if it needs pointing out) is that it allows you to claim anything. If I claim in public that Biden murders babies in a secret torture chamber at his house, and the police go to his house and find no torture chamber, I should then be punished for making a libellous false allegation. I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself by saying 'hurr durr useless idiot cops, he was too clever to let you find it.'

[Poopadoop]

It might also be worth reminding you (again) how a typical US 2020 election fraud case went in court before you defend too hard someone's rights to insist there was election fraud.


Judge: This is the case of MAGA vs. the Democrats. Counsel, are you accusing the Democrats of election fraud?

MAGA Lawyer: No, Your Honour.

Judge: Do you have any evidence there was election fraud?

MAGA Lawyer: No, Your Honour.

Judge: Then why are you here?

MAGA Lawyer: ...

Judge: ....

MAGA Lawyer: ...

Judge: Get the fuck out of my court.

MAGA Lawyer: Yes, Your Honour.

[Mr.Banana]

It might also be worth reminding you (again) how a typical US 2020 election fraud case went in court

Judge: This is the case of MAGA vs. the Democrats. Counsel, are you accusing the Democrats of election fraud?

MAGA Lawyer: Yes.

Judge: Do you have any evidence there was election fraud?

MAGA Lawyer: Yes, you see here are the rules that we have to ensure fairness and prevent fraud. Now here is some evidence showing that those rules were not followed.

Judge: So the rules that prevent fraud weren't followed?

MAGA Lawyer: That's right

Judge: And how much fraud happened?

MAGA Lawyer: Well we don't know exactly. But since the rules weren't followed, there is no way to be sure the election is accurate. There is no way to present results confidently to the American people. We need the court to order recounts, audits, a special election or something like that so we can be sure we get correct election results that we can be confident in

Judge: But how many votes were bogus?

MAGA Lawyer: We don't know without an audit. it could be one, it could be 100,000 votes that were fraudulent.

Judge: Ooooooh, so you haven't proven that the results are wrong. And since you can't prove definitively that the results are wrong, I'm going to deny your request to investigate whether the results are wrong.

MAGA Lawyer: Da fuq??

Judge: Clown world court adjourned.

[Mr.Banana]

None of you probably know much, if anything, about this story. Maybe monkey does. It was big news in America but I doubt anywhere else cares.

It was maybe 2 years ago? The Houston Astros won the world series. For those in shitholecountries; The Houston Astros are a professional baseball team and the 'World Series' is the name of the league's championship match.

After some players left the team and started playing for new teams...they started talking to their new teammates. It was exposed that during the entire season, the Astros had been cheating. They had a camera in centerfield pointed right at the catcher's crotch. Catchers usually squat and hold fingers between their legs as a signal to the pitcher telling him which pitch to throw.

So the camera catches the signal, somebody relays the information to someone on the team bench. Depending on what kind of pitch was coming, he would kick a trash can, or not kick a trash can. That would signal to the batter what kind of pitch was coming.

It was proven that this happened. I don't recall the exact numbers, but the Astros' team batting average when playing at home was inconceivably better than their batting average when visiting other parks.

There was an investigation. It was proven this happened. The stats show extremely compelling evidence that it helped them win games, including the world series.

It's known and provable that it happened. Coaches and playerse were fined and/or suspended for this.

But the Astros are still champions. They still get to say they won the world series. History doesn't record an asterisk next to their entry. They won. They're champions. Period.

Yes they cheated. But you still have to run the bases, you still have to hit the ball. You still have to throw, catch, and score. Technically you can't prove that this cheating changed the outcome of the game. After all, the astros did still lose many games throughout the season where they cheated.

The exact same thing happened in the 2020 election. They cheated. It probably helped them win. And in the end it doesn't matter.

And that's because (no exaggeration), the legal standard is:
You have to prove that they cheated
You have to prove that the cheating worked.
And you have to prove that the outcome would have been different but for the cheating.

That third one is deliberately impossible to do. This has probably been true forever, but most definitely true since 2000....Courts HATE getting involved in elections.

[Poopadoop]

Judge: This is the case of MAGA vs. the Democrats. Counsel, are you accusing the Democrats of election fraud?

MAGA Lawyer: Yes.

Judge: Do you have any evidence there was election fraud?

MAGA Lawyer: Yes, you see here are the rules that we have to ensure fairness and prevent fraud. Now here is some evidence showing that those rules were not followed.

Judge: So the rules that prevent fraud weren't followed?

MAGA Lawyer: That's right

Judge: And how much fraud happened?

MAGA Lawyer: Well we don't know exactly. But since the rules weren't followed, there is no way to be sure the election is accurate. There is no way to present results confidently to the American people. We need the court to order recounts, audits, a special election or something like that so we can be sure we get correct election results that we can be confident in

Judge: But how many votes were bogus?

MAGA Lawyer: We don't know without an audit. it could be one, it could be 100,000 votes that were fraudulent.

Judge: Ooooooh, so you haven't proven that the results are wrong. And since you can't prove definitively that the results are wrong, I'm going to deny your request to investigate whether the results are wrong.

MAGA Lawyer: Da fuq??

Judge: Clown world court adjourned.

Which case was that? What state, what court, and where can we see the transcript?

Still waiting to hear what court saw the videotape you linked to earlier of suitcasesfullofballotstuffinggate btw. Anytime you're ready there Tucker.

[Mr.Banana]

Which case was that? What state, what court, and where can we see the transcript?

How about you find a transcript from any stop-the-steal case and show me how it DIDN'T go the way I just described.

Why do you doubt it anyway?

The threshold for a court to intervene in an election result is extremely high. Like...astronomically high. They aren't about to change outcomes or order do-overs. And I'm not saying they should. I hoped they would. I'm not surprised they didn't. And I'm not outraged. Big picture...I prefer the courts stay out of elections too.

Imagine this. Let's say they had video tape, with crystal clear audio. And that tape showed an election worker throwing ballots into a dumpster and lighting them on fire. Or imagine whatever egregioius and obviously criminal behavior you want to. Imagine it could be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.

The court still won't move on the election unless you can prove, definitively, that it changed the results. You would have to know how many ballots got burned in the dumpster, and who those ballots were cast for. It's not enough to prove fraud happened. That's what the courts have been ruling in these cases.

Most people can accept that. What they can't accept, and the reason there is unrest, is that it's not enough to merely "accept that". You have to like it too. And if you don't, then you're censored, de-platformed, defunded, and deleted. And you can't even hire a lawyer to defend you.

The fact that fraud happened may not be enough to change the election results. But it IS enough to make 75 million Trump voters pissed off at the system. It is more than enough to justify peaceful protests.

It is also enough to motivate the populist movement to stay together, to show up big in the 2022 midterms, and bring a powerhouse candidate in 2024 (no idea who that might be yet). And that threatens the progressive elites and the permanent political class in washington. So now you aren't even allowed to believe your lying eyes. Your opinions are heresy and uttering them aloud is suicide.

[Mr.Banana]

there were also several cases before the election that went like this:

MAGA Lawyer: Your honor, the state election people changed the rules on how they count and verify ballots two weeks before the election. We object to the change and ask the court to restore the original rules that we've had for-fucking-ever.

Judge: What's the impact of the rule change? (e.g. not verifying signatures, separating ballots from signatures, enforcing social distancing on observers)

MAGA Lawyer: It removes the mechanisms that prevent fraud. It makes cheating possible.

Judge: Prevent? you mean no crime has happened ?

MAGA Lawyer: Well no, the election hasn't happened yet

Judge: But if nothing bad has happened, I can't fix it. Case dismissed.

MAGA Lawyer: Da fuq?

Judge: Clown world court adjourned.

[Mr.Banana]

@Nanners:
For the N-th time. You asked my opinion and I gave it.

No you didn't. You've been asked the same question a half-dozen times and your answer is consistently "but I don't like you and I don't care what you think".

That's how conversations with you seem to go. You really like to think of yourself as this peace-loving, moderate, level-headed good-guy. But actually, your opinions on this issue are dangerous, oppressive, unconstitutional, and exactly the kind of thing that foments hate, intolerance, and division. And when you're confronted with evidence, explanations, and reasoning.....you retreat to "zomg, you're a narcissist"

You seem to believe you can win every argument because you believe you're a better person.

Try seeing how much unity you cultivate with that attitude.

[Mr.Banana]

Poop, try and see if you can follow this for a minute.....

The rules that exist to prevent fraud were not followed. In several states. That is provable beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not a maga-conspiracy theory. Everyone agrees that is a fact.

Just focus on that fact for a minute. If that were the case in your country, and guy who won isn't the guy you voted for, are you really telling me you would accept the election results as truth? I'm specifying "accept it as truth". You may be inclined to just "accept it" for the sake of peace. "Going along to get along". But I'm asking you if, in your heart, when you lay your head on your pillow at night, would you believe that the promise of democracy was fulfilled for you?

Probably not. And wouldn't that tick you off? Might that tick you off enough to hold a sign outside a gov't building, or to complain on twitter?

And if you complain on twitter, should you fired from your job??

[Poopadoop]

The rules that exist to prevent fraud were not followed. In several states. That is provable beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not a maga-conspiracy theory. Everyone agrees that is a fact.

You're right. It was all really a conspiracy by the R judges and R governors to make the Rs lose the election. Grease up your glock and go for the glory Jan. 20 is my advice. You only have one life to give for your country. Live free or die!

[Mr.Banana]

Live free or die!

Banana does not joke around about LFOD

[Mr.Banana]

OH SHIT!!

I made a mistake. Damn this is embarrassing. Frankly I'm a little ashamed of myself here. This was really stupid of me. I made a slight error when I was talking about that howling congresswoman. It was the one who said "cover your identifying tattoos", "the elections are barely free and fair", and threatened her opponents with "the violence of poverty".

Now, to be clear, I didn't misquote her. She did publicly challenge the integrity of the elections. And she did post all that pro-riot propaganda online. So I don't think Poop should change his mind about what a terrible person she is.

Remember, Poop is on record as being AGAINST this congresswoman's behavior. He has no problem with her being censored, silenced, defunded, de-platformed, or deleted.

Do I have that right?

What I got wrong earlier was.....

Spoiler: Show

...it wasn't a republican. It was progressive screamer Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-NY

[Poopadoop]

OH SHIT!!

I made a mistake. Damn this is embarrassing. Frankly I'm a little ashamed of myself here. This was really stupid of me. I made a slight error when I was talking about that howling congresswoman. It was the one who said "cover your identifying tattoos", "the elections are barely free and fair", and threatened her opponents with "the violence of poverty".

Now, to be clear, I didn't misquote her. She did publicly challenge the integrity of the elections. And she did post all that pro-riot propaganda online. So I don't think Poop should change his mind about what a terrible person she is.

Remember, Poop is on record as being AGAINST this congresswoman's behavior. He has no problem with her being censored, silenced, defunded, de-platformed, or deleted.

Do I have that right?

What I got wrong earlier was.....

Oooh, IC what you did there! It was really AOC who said all those things, NOT the batshit MAGA congresswoman from upstate NY who got asked to fuck off by Harvard. Well done!

First, AOC was talking about voter suppression, which is definitely not free and fair.

Second, she was referring to ways to protect yourself at a peaceful protest, which by the way is legal to do, unlike the MAGAlution "protest" where they dragged and beat a cop to death. So yeah, if you advise people to protest peacefullly but take reasonable precautions against fascist shenanigans, then I would not sack you from Harvard. Conversely, if, as you initally presented the case, you are talking about armed insurrections, then yeah that's slightly different.

Nice try though.

[Poopadoop]

If you sincerely believe that there was widespread election fraud that resulted in the election being stolen from the rightful president, as you keep claiming here, then why are you spending your time trying to make your case to a half dozen people on a poker forum, half of whom don't even live in the same country as you? Shouldn't you be grabbing your gun and ammo and hunting vest and joining the MAGAlution and dying for your country on the Capitol steps?

What kind of patriot lets this shit go on without doing anything about it? Where I come from, a coward is someone who is all talk and no action, not someone who can't be bothered to argue with the coward.

[Mr.Banana]

Shouldn't you be grabbing your gun and ammo and hunting vest and joining the MAGAlution

What guns I may or may not have, and their current location is my private 2nd amendment business buddy.

[Mr.Banana]

What kind of patriot lets this shit go on without doing anything about it? Where I come from, a coward is someone who is all talk and no action, not someone who can't be bothered to argue with the coward.

^Incitement.

If Bezos sees that you won't be able to stream Prime Video anymore.

[Poopadoop]

^ Not as pithy as "Live free or die", doesn't really fit on a license plate, but more accurate apparently.

[Poopadoop]

Looking forward to not reading your rebuttals where you reductio ad bananum me into oblivion, then call me a chicken for not wanting to engage in your stupid games, then escalating to further abuse when your latest round of ECT wears off, then getting banned again.

Good times.

[Mr.Banana]

your rebuttals where you reductio ad bananum me into oblivion,

Whenever this happens, we have a remedy containment thread reserved. Just let me know, and I'll meet you there.

[Mr.Banana]

However many R congresspeople objected to the election certification....more than that many D congresspeople objected to the certification in 2016.

Regardless of whether you ultimately believe that suitcase-gate is just "normal ballot processing", you have to admit that it looks a hell of a lot shadier than anything that triggered the Russia investigation. And that wasn't denounced as a fringe theory. It got $30 million taxpayer dollars!

This isn't just run of the mill two-faced politicians. This isn't just media happening to have a left leaning bias. This isn't just whataboutism, or yet another brazenly inexplicable cognitive dissonance.

They're straight up lying for power. It's everything they claimed Trump was. Tyranny, fascism, thought crimes, the whole orwellian nightmare....

But just take more opiods, watch more netflix, and everything will be fine....

It's not going to be fine. They're going to start a civil war....

[Poopadoop]

I see NH has a new state motto: "Live free, die, or whine like a little bitch on a poker forum."

[CoccoBill]

https://www.newyorker.com/video/watc...-capitol-siege