*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Boy that would be fun to watch

You'll prob get it soon. Seems I was blinded by my own confirmation bias. I've slept on it, and I'm feeling more and more like I got this one wrong. I was not seeing some pretty obvious signs because I'd made up my mind and wasn't re-examining as the evidence was pouring in.

I mean... I was 99% sure it was spoon when I wrote those 3 points... but then after oscar's post... by the time my head hit my pillow I was down to 50/50. This morning... I'm prob 75% it's nanners. Just waiting for the needle to settle down.

Come on out and tell us straight. End the charade if you want that sweet, sweet vindication of me apologizing for how I misjudged you.

Just... keep up with following the rules like you have been and you're a welcome addition to FTR.

[TheSpoonald]

Come on out and tell us straight.

Can't. Having too much fun

[Poopadoop]

Not even close to what I said. You can no longer accuse me of ad reducium bananicus .

I was asking if you thought what I stated or not, not ascribing that thought to you. Subtle yet important difference there.

So, if you accept that you can vote for someone without agreeing with every single one of their stated positions (do you?, or is the fact that you objected to my question to the contrary mean you don't accept that but preferred to change the topic?), then:

1. It's possible at least some people who voted for Capt. Retard did not want a wall.

2. It's impossible to determine what % of people want or don't want a wall based on the results of the 2016 election.

Ergo, your argument that the election reflected the will of the people vis-a-vis the wall is unsupported.

[TheSpoonald]

That's so absurd I'm not even going to respond. You elect whole candidates. I'll let you figure out what that means. Trying to figure out which policies are supported by what % of his constituency is an absurd way to govern. Just fuck off with your whole argument.

[Poopadoop]

That's so absurd I'm not even going to respond.

He says in the lead to his response.

You elect whole candidates. I'll let you figure out what that means. Trying to figure out which policies are supported by what % of his constituency is an absurd way to govern. Just fuck off with your whole argument.

The point is you can't figure out which policies are supported by what % of his constituency, not that you should try to.

So, your simple-minded idea that 'a vote for Trump is a vote for everything Trump says' is not true then? Or do you believe that every one of his 2016 policy ideas should be followed through on?

And if they aren't followed through on, whose fault is that? Mueller?

Just fuck off with your whole argument.

The mask is slipping, if there ever was one. Careful there ragey Joe.

[Poopadoop]

Looking into the future here I admit, but if (when) banana gets himself banned again, will we months later see a new account called TheWufald?

[TheSpoonald]

So, your simple-minded idea that 'a vote for Trump is a vote for everything Trump says' is not true then

The supreme court upheld Obamacare using this exact same "simple-minded" idea. I'm just going with precedent.

If you're telling me the election of 2016 was not many things, and that one of those things was not a referendum on a wall....just gtfo

[MadMojoMonkey]

Lets not jump to talk of bans. Things are going nicely. Just keep things civil and don't actively try to push each other's buttons and we can be friends for years.

[Poopadoop]

The supreme court upheld Obamacare using this exact same "simple-minded" idea. I'm just going with precedent.

Not up on the story behind this, but Imma going to go out on a limb again and suggest that that is with great likelihood a gross oversimplification of how the SC ruled on that case.

[Poopadoop]

Lets not jump to talk of bans. Things are going nicely. Just keep things civil and don't actively try to push each other's buttons and we can be friends for years.

Sure. But you do realize that's hard to do when someone's 'button' is 'saying anything that disagrees with me'

[MadMojoMonkey]

You just do you. Don't actively try to push anyone here's buttons. If you're being civil and their buttons get pushed, then that's not on you.

[Poopadoop]

If you're telling me the election of 2016 was not many things, and that one of those things was not a referendum on a wall....just gtfo

Do you really want to keep digging yourself this hole?

First, you (seem to) acknowledge the very simple fact you can vote for a candidate without wanting everything that candidate promises.

Then, you argue that, in this special case of the Wall, voting for Trump meant wanting the Wall.

You conclude that 1) there's no inherent contradiction between your two premises; and 2) anyone who points them out can fuck off.

Given that 2) is nothing more than a symptom of cognitive dissonance, let's focus on 1). Do you see why voting for Trump does not automatically equate to a vote for the Wall?

[TheSpoonald]

Not up on the story behind this, but Imma going to go out on a limb again and suggest that that is with great likelihood a gross oversimplification of how the SC ruled on that case.

From the chief justice's opinion

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders. "Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government" requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if "the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated." United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

If the Chief Justice of the Supreme court takes that kind of humble and deferential position, then what kind of self-aggrandized pathological narcissist do you have to be to say "Actually no, the voters are wrong. I know better and I say a wall is immoral. Plus ladders are a thing"

[TheSpoonald]

Do you really want to keep digging yourself this hole?

I really don't get why it's not clear to you.

First, you (seem to) acknowledge the very simple fact you can vote for a candidate without wanting everything that candidate promises.

yup

Then, you argue that, in this special case of the Wall, voting for Trump meant wanting the Wall.

Nope

You conclude that 1) there's no inherent contradiction between your two premises;

Nope

and 2) anyone who points them out can fuck off.

Yup

1). Do you see why voting for Trump does not automatically equate to a vote for the Wall?

yup

Now tell me why it matters. We elect whole candidates. That means when you vote for a candidate, you're voting for the whole thing. Even the policies you don't like. If you voted for Trump, you voted for ALL of Trump. There's stuff Trump has done that I don't like, or wouldn't have supported if that were the only issue I was voting on. So what?

If you're trying to say that Trump doesn't have a mandate to build a wall because maybe possibly potentially some of his supporters might possibly maybe not be fired up about the wall, then please maybe potentially possibly GTFO

[Poopadoop]

From the chief justice's opinion

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained 1) in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders. "Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government" requires that we strike down an 2) Act of Congress only if "3) the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated." United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. 4) It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

As i suspected, you've allowed yourself a very specific and wrong interpretation of what happened.

1. "In part" means there were other considerations at play, the relative weighting of each could only be determined by a thorough reading of the decision.

2. This was an Act of Congress, not a promise by a president, they are referring to (the fact the act happened to fulfill a presidential promise is irrelevant because the SC is mentioning only the Act of Congress and does not consider whether or not the act was done to fulfill a presidential promise or not - likely because the SC is not retarded).

3. The issue they are referring to here is whether the Congress has the authority to pass law, which the SC concludes it obviously does.

4. The last point is made in reference to laws that are passed by elected officials. It is definitely NOT the SC saying 'whatever promises those elected officials made must inevitably become law'.

[Poopadoop]

something something arrrrrggggghhgghgh!!!

Your argument seems to have evolved from 1) 'we voted for the Wall' to 2) 'Trump has a mandate to build the Wall'. In effect, Trump has a mandate to do w/e the fuck he wants within the bounds of his office. So sure, 2) is correct in that sense.

Not the same as saying 'most americans want a wall.' however.

[TheSpoonald]

As i suspected decided before even hearing the argument,

FYP

1. "In part" means there were other considerations at play, the relative weighting of each could only be determined by a thorough reading of the decision.

So go thoroughly read it. It basically says "We the SC find that the ACA is unconstitutional. The individual mandate is illegal, and congress doesn't have that power.......BUT.......America voted for it and we're not here to overrule that. That's not our job. So you know what....we're going to interpret the individual mandate as a tax. And congress has the power to levy taxes"

Don't you think that's weird since most politicians supporting ACA sold it as "not a tax"? So actually what you have here is the SC saying that the election results dictate policy. It doesn't really matter that congress fucked it up...that's what people want, so they have it.

2. This was an Act of Congress, not a promise by a president,

Look, either take my word for it, or go read the decision yourself. The SC decided that congress's act was unconstitutional. In order to uphold the law, they had to rely on their perception that the election of 2008 was a referendum on healthcare.

3. The issue they are referring to here is whether the Congress has the authority to pass law, which the SC concludes it obviously.

Please go read the opinion. If you're gonna make dumb, uninformed claims like the bolded, please try to know what the fuck you're talking about.

4. The last point is made in reference to laws that are passed by elected officials. It is definitely NOT the SC saying 'whatever promises those elected officials made must inevitably become law'.

No. It's the SC saying "the elected officials fucked it up, but this is what the people wanted and we know that because these officials got elected in the first place"

[TheSpoonald]

Your argument seems to have evolved from 1) 'we voted for the Wall' to 2) 'Trump has a mandate to build the Wall'. In effect, Trump has a mandate to do w/e the fuck he wants within the bounds of his office. So sure, 2) is correct in that sense.

Not the same as saying 'most americans want a wall.' however.

you've reducticus el bananino'd me again. Either use a real quote from me or fuck off

[Poopadoop]

Hey look, if you're going to take a snippet of a fuck knows how long SC decision and present it to me like it supports your argument about elections being referendums, then criticise me for not having read the whole thing when I point out your snippet doesn't support your argument, then that's just retarded.

If you really want to prove this argument, find the bits that support what you actually believe their decision was based on. It's not my fault you expect me to read into things stuff that isn't in the bit you cited.

[Poopadoop]

banana.jpg

from post 4953

America voted for a wall.

Glad at least one of us can remember what you said an entire day ago.

[TheSpoonald]

Hey look, if you're going to take a snippet of a fuck knows how long SC decision and present it to me like it supports your argument about elections being referendums, then criticise me for not having read the whole thing when I point out your snippet doesn't support your argument, then that's just retarded.

If you really want to prove this argument, find the bits that support what you actually believe their decision was based on. It's not my fault you expect me to read into things stuff that isn't in the bit you cited.

Dude this was a gigantic news story 7 years ago. I'm sorry you missed it. But I'm not going to go back into the salt mines to dig up all the relevant sources and details. The SC said: "ACA = bad. We can make it good if we call it something different. And we're going to do that because elections"

If you disagree. Either make a supported argument, or fuck off. That's my understanding of the SC's decision, and that's how it will stand unless you can change my mind with a fact. And I'm going to apply that same understanding to wall policy, and just about anything else an elected leader does within his power.

If my thought process offends you so deeply, then you need more hobbies. Try masturbating more.

[TheSpoonald]

Not the same as saying 'most americans want a wall.'

^that's what you claimed I said. And in support, you provide this:

America voted for a wall.

Either be smarter, or fuck off

[Poopadoop]

...

Uh no, if you want to make an argument you have to be the one to support it. You don't get to say 'it's true until and unless you prove it wrong'. That is committing the 'Ong fallacy.'

[TheSpoonald]

Uh no, if you want to make an argument you have to be the one to support it. You don't get to say 'it's true until and unless you prove it wrong'. That is committing the 'Ong fallacy.'

I have supported it. now shut up

[Poopadoop]

Lol that doesn't even begin to make sense.


step back, take a xanax, count to 10 or 1000 or whatever it takes for you to cool off, and let's walk through this step by step.

First you said this:

If you're trying to say that Trump doesn't have a mandate to build a wall

...which I can only assume means you think Trump does have a mandate to build a wall.

To this i replied

Your argument seems to have evolved from 1) 'we voted for the Wall' to 2) 'Trump has a mandate to build the Wall'. In effect, Trump has a mandate to do w/e the fuck he wants within the bounds of his office. So sure, 2) is correct in that sense.

Not the same as saying 'most americans want a wall.' however.

...which you answered with:

you've reducticus el bananino'd me again. Either use a real quote from me or fuck off

To which I replied with a real quote where you say :

America voted for a wall.

To which you come back with the above nonsense.


Look, ok, Trump has a mandate to do whatever he wants wherever he wants and with whomever he wants, within the bounds of his office. So he can build a wall if he can get congress to fund it. That's not in dispute.

What I'm questioning is whether that's what people want as in your statement

America voted for a wall.

They didn't vote for a wall. They voted for a guy who wants a wall. Not sure how that's so hard for you to accept.

There wasn't a referendum where the populace had to either tick a box saying 'wall' or a box saying 'no thanks'. So no, they didn't vote for a wall. Not sure why getting that through your head is so difficult.

[Poopadoop]

I have supported it. now shut up

No, you've asserted it. Not the same thing.

[TheSpoonald]

By your logic, the only thing Trump was voted-in to do was occupy the office.

I'm seriously done with the wall talk now. Talk about something else or fuck off.

I've explained my thoughts thoroughly. If you don't like them, eat shit. If you're upset that you can't change them. Eat shit. If anything about how I think matters one iota to you....get more hobbies....like eating shit.

[Poopadoop]

By your logic, the only thing Trump was voted-in to do was occupy the office.

That's how you read this huh?

Look, ok, Trump has a mandate to do whatever he wants wherever he wants and with whomever he wants, within the bounds of his office. So he can build a wall if he can get congress to fund it. That's not in dispute.

[Poopadoop]

I'm wrong,

ergo

banana.jpg

yeah ok buddy.

Pick another topic to be wrong about then.

[TheSpoonald]

That's how you read this huh?

bananario al poopidom

munchicus crapitude

[Poopadoop]

If anything about how I think matters one iota to you....get more hobbies....like eating shit.

If you think I care about how or what you believe, you're giving yourself way too much credit.

[Poopadoop]

bananario al poopidom

munchicus crapitude

Well that certainly explains things.

[Poopadoop]

Come on let's go. What's the next baseless assertion you want to enlighten us with?

[Poopadoop]

How's the weather in New Hampshire these days?

[TheSpoonald]

Come on let's go. What's the next baseless assertion you want to enlighten us with?

you bored today?

I actually have other things on my mind right now.

Have fun.

[TheSpoonald]

How's the weather in New Hampshire these days?

Ask google

[Poopadoop]

I actually have other things on my mind right now.

Like looking for some cream to rub on that badly spanked ass of yours?

[Poopadoop]

Ask google

You move to Canada?

[Poopadoop]

Hey spoon, if I wanted to take a tax deduction for a charity for my business what forms does my accountant need to fill in?

[TheSpoonald]

Hey spoon, if I wanted to take a tax deduction for a charity for my business what forms does my accountant need to fill in?

Since you're soooooo sure that Trump will lose 2020, don't worry about it. This is stuff capitalists have to think about. And capitalists will be sent to gulags when the dems get in.

[TheSpoonald]

By the way guys...if Mueller was honor-bound not to make a conclusive accusation against the POTUS on obstruction....why would the AG say this today...?

“We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision,”

[Poopadoop]

Since you're soooooo sure that Trump will lose 2020,

I'm not arrogant enough to pretend I know what will happen 18 months from now. It's only you and Wuf (assuming you're different people) who have that Nostradamus complex afaik.

[Poopadoop]

By the way guys...if Mueller was honor-bound not to make a conclusive accusation against the POTUS on obstruction....why would the AG say this today...?

Hmm, let me guess. Because he's a stooge for Trump?

[TheSpoonald]

Hmm, let me guess. Because he's a stooge for Trump?

If you're saying that a twice-confirmed sitting attorney general willfully misrepresented his understanding of the law and committed perjury before congress just to help his buddy out of a jam, then please go kill yourself

edit: Trump's not even in a jam. Seems like a silly time to be lying to a senate committe.

[TheSpoonald]

I'm not arrogant enough to pretend I know what will happen 18 months from now. It's only you and Wuf (assuming you're different people) who have that Nostradamus complex afaik.

ok, well this is at least more interesting than railing against you're erroneous understanding of structural engineering.

So....what would you say is the Dems message in 2020? What should they sell the people besides ORANGE MAN BAD

[Poopadoop]

They need to come up with some positive message about things people care about like healthcare, immigration etc whatever your issues are. What they don't need to do is point out how Trump is a bumbling idiot; everyone either knows that already or has only been watching Fox News. That didn't work for Hillary.

IOW, don't make their platform against Trump so much as it is for something that will improve people's lives.

[Poopadoop]

If you're saying that a twice-confirmed sitting attorney general willfully misrepresented his understanding of the law and committed perjury before congress just to help his buddy out of a jam, then please go kill yourself

edit: Trump's not even in a jam. Seems like a silly time to be lying to a senate committe.

Go take your anger management pill.

It's not a secret Barr got his job by kissing Trump's ass. And he'll keep doing that until Trump puts him in a position where he either has to compromise himself or ignore an order. Same as the rest.

[TheSpoonald]

IOW, don't make their platform against Trump so much as it is for something that will improve people's lives.

They're currently running on:

ORANGE MAN BAD
The Green New Deal
Medicare for All
ZOMG Climate Change
ORANGE MAN STILL BAD
Slavery Reparations
Open Borders/Abolish ICE
and if we win America will suddenly magically be free of all hate, discrimination, and prejudice.

Not necessarily in that order.

Think that platform can win?

There are some fringe Dem candidates with some other ideas. Andrew Yang thinks that we should raise the POTUS salary to several million dollars, and pay members of congress like pro-athletes too. I actually think that's an awesome idea.

But hands down, the best single idea in politics today, on either side, is Elizabeth Warren trying to break up the tech companies. Everything else she says is wholly retarded. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.

[TheSpoonald]

It's not a secret Barr got his job by kissing Trump's ass.

Wut?

[Poopadoop]

Wut?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/

[TheSpoonald]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Fake news.

I looked up the word "color" and for a definition it gave me "US Spelling of colour". WTF? "colour" isn't a word.

[Poopadoop]

They're currently running on:

ORANGE MAN BAD
The Green New Deal
Medicare for All
ZOMG Climate Change
ORANGE MAN STILL BAD
Slavery Reparations
Open Borders/Abolish ICE
and if we win America will suddenly magically be free of all hate, discrimination, and prejudice.

Not necessarily in that order.

Think that platform can win?

There are some fringe Dem candidates with some other ideas. Andrew Yang thinks that we should raise the POTUS salary to several million dollars, and pay members of congress like pro-athletes too. I fucking love that idea.

But hands down, the best single idea in politics today, on either side, is Elizabeth Warren trying to break up the tech companies. Everything else she says is wholly retarded. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time.

I'm not really engaged with it at this point. The election is 18 months away and it's not even my country. Once they start having the primaries I'll start paying more attention.

[TheSpoonald]

I'm not really engaged with it at this point. The election is 18 months away and it's not even my country. Once they start having the primaries I'll start paying more attention.

It doesn't have to be soon for you to answer the question. Do you think that platform can beat Trump?

The candidates are out there man. I'm telling you this is what they're about. They've already defined the issues.

Is the Green New Deal going to change before February? Is there something about Climate Change that will be different after Super Tuesday? You don't already know enough to comment on an open border policy?

[Poopadoop]

It doesn't have to be soon for you to answer the question. Do you think that platform can beat Trump?

I don't know. It's too soon to say.

[Poopadoop]

What do you think Trump's platform is going to be?

[MadMojoMonkey]

What do you want from me?

Sorry. I thought you were someone else. Now I'm more certain that you have never spent more than lip service to support a left-wing issue, while you frequently spend days dropping walls of text in support of a right-wing issue.
I don't want anything but to understand who you are. Again. Sorry if me saying you're on the political right doesn't match your own vision of yourself.

No one else here wants to talk about anything except ORANGE MAN BAD. Feel free to start a discussion on a left wing issue if you're curious about my position.

Well... nothing get them worked up like having someone who has no data (reality) to back up what they're talking about, and you do that a lot. Add on top that your positions are not in line with theirs and everything gets exciting. I can't even remotely disagree with that much.

Oskar has repeatedly posted that Trump is not smart enough to understand grammar or string together a coherent sentence. That's probably the extent of the "orange man bad" talk here. Oskar's other opinions on political issues, Trump or otherwise, don't usually boil down to that.

Funny, now that illegal immigration is 2x the problem you thought it was, you don't seem any more concerned about it.

2x the people causing the same impact doesn't increase the problem, it shows that per capita, the problem is 1/2 what we thought it was.

In the post you linked with the 25M number, they made that clear. Do you want me to quote it for you, rather than summarize?
If you're using the data to support the 25M number, then you can't throw out the conclusions of the researchers whom collected and analyzed that data.
Either you show their methods are faulty, their conclusions false, or you accept their results.
If you accept 25M, then you have to accept, "same number of illegal aliens apprehended for crimes committed over the past XXX years we've been collecting data, but from a population that is 2x what our previous, bad estimates have guessed."

I wasn't concerned about it before. I'm not concerned about it now. It's never been a part of my line of questioning to assert an opinion on the matter. It's been a part of your line of reasoning vis-a-vis why you think a wall is good for America.

Actually, walls work.
Walls work. and no one is advocating for an unmanned wall.

"Shut up," he opined.

Forgot where you started with that goal post again, didn't you?
It was your assertions that an unmanned wall is effective at least as a speed bump and your use of the word "permanent" that was under question.
Since you've cleared up that by permanent you meant something like, "more resilient to re-boot if it ever gets cancelled and then reinstated," I'm fine with that.

At least admit that you wouldn't be "stopped" by a wall if you were already prepared to commit the crime of crossing it and there wasn't any personnel working that wall to swoop in and catch you. Sure... it will slow you down. The longer the manpower is gone, though, the less it slows anyone down.

Cayotes are unscrupulous assholes who can make a lot of money by assisting people in this crime. That means there are going to be professional wall-get-acrossers for hire before the entire wall is even finished being built, let alone the inevitable de-funding.

Nothing lasts forever. (My professional opinion with caveats involving event horizons and time dilation.)

First of all, we don't *know* that. And any arguments that even suggest that have to ignore the crime of illegally crossing the border before it even starts with math. So it's highly flawed. highly. Also, every stat I've ever seen shows the crime rate among illegal aliens in terms of crimes per 100K people. Or sort of per capita. So this new information you found doesn't affect the crime rate at all. It just means that the volume of crimes is 2x what you thought. Sleep tight.

We do know exactly how many arrests of illegal immigrants have been made, and for what crimes. What we didn't know what how many illegals there were total. So we were using a false estimate of 11.3 for the denominator in that equation. We have hard data on the number of arrests, so the numerator is static. The rate goes down if the numerator is static and the denominator increases.

Those per capita claims were based on the faulty estimate of 11.3M undocumented illegals. It's right there in the Yale link you posted.

Now, we could certainly postulate that if the number went from 25M (or whatever is current) to 50M (or whatever is 2x current), then we'd see a doubling in total crimes, at the same rate per capita. That is, you see, an entirely different topic, though.

Projecting an estimate about the future is not the same as incorporating new data into old data.

Again, you have to understand what "per capita" means. If 12 million people took X million jobs. Then 24 million people take 2x million jobs. The problem is twice as worse as you thought it was, not half. Learn math please.

The irony is that you're an accountant, right?

We don't have as good stats on jobs taken as we do arrests, but we do have some indication of the pressure those "taken" jobs has had on the economy and workforce. Again, that data hasn't changed, the number of people causing that data has changed.

Walls work.


Walls work

"Shut up," he opined.

If you're not prepared to discredit the entirety of the Yale study and its number of 25M, then you can't discredit the researchers other conclusions without getting into the nitty gritty about where exactly did they cross the line.
Else you're just being intellectually vapid, and you don't want that, do you?

[oskar]

That hungarywall.gif has been in the dialogue tree of maga npc's for three years now. My guess is that you already know why that's a really dumb thing to bring up, but you're not trying to make a good argument, you're just here to argue.
I really don't understand how you can reconcile being so enthralled with that stupid wall and at the same time champion the fat retard who definitely will not build any of it.
You're also small government, but you want the biggest war on what you can or cannot put into your body in the history of anything ever while Trump is running up a record deficit during an economic boom.

Chenk Uygur really is on-point here. There is no reason to support this ass clown unless you're either deeply racist or incredibly naive, or both:
https://youtu.be/QIfDnNzXpZ8?t=2710

[TheSpoonald]

What do you think Trump's platform is going to be?

-The economy. Unemployment is not a thing here.
-Fear mongering on immigration
-His legislative record: Tax cuts / criminal justice reform
-Dems can't be trusted to appoint SC judges
-Grinding his opponent into dust

I'm almost 40, and every election I've ever seen was won by the Alpha Male. All of 'em. No one on the Dem side can challenge Trump on that.

[oskar]

Oskar has repeatedly posted that Trump is not smart enough to understand grammar or string together a coherent sentence.

I fully stand by that.

[TheSpoonald]

We do know exactly how many arrests of illegal immigrants have been made, and for what crimes.

100% false and that pretty much destroys your whole argument.

The point is that we don't know how many arrests have been made. In most states, it's illegal to ask someone their immigration status when you arrest them.

[oskar]

I could have sworn you're a boomer. How can you be this backwards in your 30's?

[TheSpoonald]

champion the fat retard who definitely will not build any of it.

Because I won't scream ORANGE MAN BAD I'm somehow "champion"-ing the guy? Wut??

you want the biggest war on what you can or cannot put into your body

I said wut?

Chenk Uygur really is on-point here.

You really have to warn me when you say stuff like that. I really can't take the guy seriously. He sounds kinda like he has his shit together when he's talking from a prompter, and giving you talking points. But I've seen the guy debate Sam Harris, D'nesh, Shapiro, and Tucker Carlson. They ALL mopped the floor with Cenk. He can't defend anything he says when challenged by another human being to say something deeper than a talking point. He's just a flapping head with nothing in it.

[Poopadoop]

I'm almost 40, and every election I've ever seen was won by the Alpha Male. All of 'em. No one on the Dem side can challenge Trump on that.

Not sure I'd agree with that.

McCain was a POW for years and refused special treatment for the sake of his comrades. Obama was a fancy pants lawyer.

Kerry went to 'Nam and saw combat. GWB was a momma's boy by comparison.

Go back to just before you were born: Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer with a gay smile. Ford was a football hero.

yeah, not working.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah I think TYT is just NBC for young people tbh. They're all super biased. They are right when they say Trump is a tard but a lot of their message is aimed at the heart and not the head.

[TheSpoonald]

The Young Turks - A total class act

[TheSpoonald]

McCain was a POW for years and refused special treatment for the sake of his comrades. Obama was a fancy pants lawyer.

McCain quit the campaign early to go save the economy or something. Check your history. Also Obama is black, and McCain is white. So Obama probably wins the Alpha-contest on cock-size alone.

Kerry went to 'Nam and saw combat

Then shit on the military afterward.

Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer with a gay smile. Ford was a football hero.

Do you remember how Ford got there in the first place?

[MadMojoMonkey]

then please go kill yourself

I know this feels like grey area, but it's not. This is over the line.
I'll take it as a misunderstanding, but you toe the line at your own risk. Things have been cool here. You've engaged people and clearly killed a lot of your time doing so. You came back because there's something about this place that appeals to you. That's cool. I know it's not remotely me that appeals to you, but thanks from FTR.

Now. Let's keep you here.

For the record: I'm sorry I called you spoon. That was really silly on my part. The evidence is literally everywhere, but I made up my mind and just left the blinders on. Stupid.

I'm sorry I pegged you wrong (or did I? time will tell). After scanning my comments about you in the moderators forum, I see that you did manage to be mostly civil for a good 4 - 6 weeks when you first started posting before. Then you escalated into a total jerk. So while I'm all about 2nd chances (and 3rd and 4th), the threshold of offense goes down a bit each time. There wont be any more warning shots on this. You full well know the rules and if you choose to toe the line, then you're going to eventually step over it. Why do that? Just play nice.

Now that I've talked all around banning without saying the word ban, let's get back to our discussions.

[oskar]

Alpha Male.

Your alpha male looks like he needs two viagra and a blood thinner to get a semi. You could probably still figure out a way how to get it in there, right? You'd be dialating in anticipation, I'm sure.

[oskar]

Yeah I think TYT is just NBC for young people tbh. They're all super biased. They are right when they say Trump is a tard but a lot of their message is aimed at the heart and not the head.

They're polemic, but I don't think they're biased. Not in a left/right sense anyway. They shit on democrats all the time. And I mean all the time.

[TheSpoonald]

Your alpha male looks like he needs two viagra and a blood thinner to get a semi. You could probably still figure out a way how to get it in there, right? You'd be dialating in anticipation, I'm sure.

^Homophobic statements

BAN

[TheSpoonald]

They're polemic, but I don't think they're biased. Not in a left/right sense anyway. They shit on democrats all the time. And I mean all the time.

They bill themselves as "progressives" all the time. I mean all the time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I fully stand by that.

[TheSpoonald]

all the time. And I mean all the time.

I wonder how much TYT one has to watch before he feels confident making this claim.

That can't be healthy.

Even I can't handle that much Breitbart. I think you should diversify what you put into your earballs Oskar.

[TheSpoonald]

a total jerk.

BAN

[Poopadoop]

They're polemic, but I don't think they're biased. Not in a left/right sense anyway. They shit on democrats all the time. And I mean all the time.

But only because they consider both R and D to be far right of their position.

I basically agree with their politics (surprise) but their presentation puts me off.