*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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??

[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.

[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]

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.

[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!

[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]

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]

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]

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....

[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]

Live free or die!

Banana does not joke around about LFOD

[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]

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

[Poopadoop]

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

[CoccoBill]

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

[Mr.Banana]

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

what exactly is newsworthy in this video?

I skipped around and didn't seen anything terribly shocking. I certainly didn't see anything worse than what's been going on in the US all summer. The same people who called that "the summer of love" are now calling this an "insurgency". They're lying. They're doing it on purpose. And it's for reasons of control and power.

I dropped the needle at around 6:40. I saw the weakest, nerdiest, cuck police officer saying "ummm, do you think you guys could leave this room..it's like...the sacredest place". And the protesters were like..."oh yeah yeah, we're going"

What bravery. What valor. What courageous action by a true patriot. Give that man a medal for his selfless sacrifices standing up to an insurrection!!

[Poopadoop]

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

lol what a bunch of fucking losers.

[Mr.Banana]

lol what a bunch of fucking losers.

maybe. Protesting is really the lowest resolution form of political action. I don't know who thinks that they can make the government of a world superpower start changing its policy because you held a sign and yelled. People who go to those things, for any cause at all, are already admitting to being too stupid to be in charge of anything.

but why are they so hellbent on convincing us that this "bunch of fucking losers" is an insurrectionist army of white supremacists?

WHY do they need us all to believe that?

[CoccoBill]

what exactly is newsworthy in this video?

I skipped around and didn't seen anything terribly shocking. I certainly didn't see anything worse than what's been going on in the US all summer. The same people who called that "the summer of love" are now calling this an "insurgency". They're lying. They're doing it on purpose. And it's for reasons of control and power.

I dropped the needle at around 6:40. I saw the weakest, nerdiest, cuck police officer saying "ummm, do you think you guys could leave this room..it's like...the sacredest place". And the protesters were like..."oh yeah yeah, we're going"

What bravery. What valor. What courageous action by a true patriot. Give that man a medal for his selfless sacrifices standing up to an insurrection!!

Imagine seeing a video with a bunch of people running around the Kremlin or the Bundesrat, how would you feel?

Let me guess, "What exactly is newsworthy in this video?"

It's new footage of some of the craziest shit that's been going on in the past few years (which is saying a lot), but if you're embarrassed and feel the need to play it down, go ahead.

[CoccoBill]

but why are they so hellbent on convincing us that this "bunch of fucking losers" is an insurrectionist army of white supremacists?

WHY do they need us all to believe that?

Just being a bunch of disorganized idiots who were essentially let in doesn't change their motives.

[Mr.Banana]

Imagine seeing a video with a bunch of people running around the Kremlin

One of the Mission Impossible movies shows the Kremlin being blown into dust. All that was left was a fiery crater. I remember thinking "I wish that really happened"

or the Bundesrat,

I don't know what that is. Burn it for all i care. Blow it up in the next Mission Impossible movie.

how would you feel?

I'm going guess at what you're getting at here. Hope I don't "twist your words".....

It sounds like you're suggesting that people should feel saddened at the desecration of their national symbols. Fine. Agreed. I do feel that as a result of the capitol demonstration. However, I also feel that same way when they tear down statues of George Washington. The events at the capitol don't strike me as any worse than what I've been watching since May.

some of the craziest shit that's been going on in the past few years (which is saying a lot),

lol

but if you're embarrassed and feel the need to play it down, go ahead

This combative rancor hurts my feelings. I need a mod! Seriously though.....please remember this the next time you want to complain about my tone.

[Mr.Banana]

Just being a bunch of disorganized idiots who were essentially let in doesn't change their motives.

You just saw the video dude.....

They were yelling "information operation". they were there to take pictures of documents...and selfies.

If their "motives" were so nefarious....why did they send one pussy cop to defend the "sacredest place"

Look at that guy. I'll bet he's never been in a fight. He's got his hands in his pockets the whole time.

Headline: Hero cop fights off a terrorist insurrection with no hands!!!

[CoccoBill]

You just saw the video dude.....

They were yelling "information operation". they were there to take pictures of documents...and selfies.

I heard 1 guy out of the alleged half a million say that. Others have been yelling "lynch Mike Pence", some others carrying cable tie handcuffs, others hoisting nooses. There's information that there were Russian operatives also. There were clearly people with different motives.

Sidenote, from an information security standpoint the event was catastrophic. Unlocked workstations everywhere, none of the systems and networks can no longer be trusted, since they have to be assumed tampered. Wipe everything and start from scratch is the only solution.

If their "motives" were so nefarious....why did they send one pussy cop to defend the "sacredest place"

Look at that guy. I'll bet he's never been in a fight. He's got his hands in his pockets the whole time.

Headline: Hero cop fights off a terrorist insurrection with no hands!!!

Good question. The capitol police had asked the national guard for backup half a dozen times before the event, and denied every time. Hard to say if that's just stupidity or purposeful.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/95554...=1610969972433
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/i...lp/4172327001/

[Mr.Banana]

I heard 1 guy out of the alleged half a million say that.

While everyone else *did* the thing that he said....

Others have been yelling "lynch Mike Pence",

2 out of 10 on the "ZOMG-O-Meter"

some others carrying cable tie handcuffs,

I've been watching closely and I've only heard of ONE guy who had cuffs. Someone I sort of trust told me she heard 3 people did. But still. You just told me there were half a million protesters. Let's say 3 guys had cuffs. What % is that?

BTW, search youtube for videos on go-bags, bug out bags, get-home bags, urban survival, doomsday prepping, bushcraft, etc. You will see it is overwhelmingly common for people to carry zip ties in their "survival kit". These aren't political channels. They're about survival skills. If you want to live, carry zipties. Many channels even specify to get the "handcuff" kind. Remember, they're prepping for situations, like a nuclear war, where governments aren't really effective, and city streets are warzones. The handcuff zip ties can still be used to secure things, build shelters, repair gear etc. I carry zipties in my car and any bag I carry. Not the handcuff kind but I could loop two together and voila! cuffs! I also carry duct tape, a knife, and clear plastic sheets. You know...serial killer stuff. But.....here's the dirty little secret that only I know...

Spoiler: Show

I'm not a serial killer

others hoisting nooses.

So? Threatening traitors with hanging is not a new concept. I agree it's not a great thing. I'll give it a 4 out of 10 ZOMG's. I'm more interested in why this matters more than all "kill trump" imagery that's been circulating around for the last 5 years.

There's information that there were Russian operatives also.

PFFFFFTTTTT. Yeah, ok. A russian operative doing what? What does the word "operative" mean? Was the guy wearing a badge that said "KGB"? How did this "information" person determine that this other person is an "operative" and that he's "russian"?

Seriously man, what was the "russian operative" doing? If you don't know, then I would challenge you to explain why this matters to you.

There were clearly people with different motives.

Doesn't sound like anyone was "incited" then.

Sidenote, from an information security standpoint the event was catastrophic.

If someone hacks your email account, he is guilty. If he is able to hack it because you left a sticky note with your password...you are also guilty. But frankly, I don't believe there is very much in that building that is deserving of privacy. Those people work for US. That information is OURS.

[CoccoBill]

I've been watching closely and I've only heard of ONE guy who had cuffs. Someone I sort of trust told me she heard 3 people did. But still. You just told me there were half a million protesters. Let's say 3 guys had cuffs. What % is that?

BTW, search youtube for videos on go-bags...

You gotta help me out here, what do these things have to do with each other? Yes, preppers might like to hoard these. Are you saying these 1-3 people went there carrying these, because they just wanted to be prepared for the collapse of civilization while they peacefully protest?

So? Threatening traitors with hanging is not a new concept. I agree it's not a great thing. I'll give it a 4 out of 10 ZOMG's. I'm more interested in why this matters more than all "kill trump" imagery that's been circulating around for the last 5 years.

I've seen a lot of memes and imagery about getting Trump out of the WH or inside bars, but can't say I recall many "kill Trump" ones. I'm sure there are some, and those are just as condemnable as any other death threats.

PFFFFFTTTTT. Yeah, ok. A russian operative doing what? What does the word "operative" mean? Was the guy wearing a badge that said "KGB"? How did this "information" person determine that this other person is an "operative" and that he's "russian"?

Seriously man, what was the "russian operative" doing? If you don't know, then I would challenge you to explain why this matters to you.

Why shouldn't it matter? If that had happened here and information came out that there was possibly a russian spy involved, it would matter a lot. I find it peculiar that I remember you deriding and condemning all occupy movements, except this one when it was done by "your side".

There were clearly people with different motives.

Doesn't sound like anyone was "incited" then.

Say what? Did you mean to say "Doesn't sound like everyone was "incited" then."?

If someone hacks your email account, he is guilty. If he is able to hack it because you left a sticky note with your password...you are also guilty. But frankly, I don't believe there is very much in that building that is deserving of privacy. Those people work for US. That information is OURS.

A lot of that information is CLASSIFIED. Remember Hillary's emails? I don't think your reaction to those was "PFFFFFTTTTT".

[Mr.Banana]

You gotta help me out here, what do these things have to do with each other? Yes, preppers might like to hoard these.

Ok. So remember that when you read media reports saying that people were found "having zip ties". Just because someone has zip ties, is not proof of anything nefarious. There was one widely circulated picture of a guy with cuffs. Not a good look. 6 out of 10 ZOMGs. My first thought when I saw that was "It's probably a cop who was embedded in the crowd". I think I've heard since that was not the case. But still, it's one guy.

Are you saying these 1-3 people went there carrying these, because they just wanted to be prepared for the collapse of civilization while they peacefully protest?

It's likely these people walk around all day every day prepared for the collapse of civilization.

I've seen a lot of memes and imagery about getting Trump out of the WH or inside bars, but can't say I recall many "kill Trump" ones.

Hollywood celebrities are notorious for this. When Trump was inaugurated, Madonna was allowed to pick up a microphone and tell a crowd "I have dreams of blowing up the white house!" Kathy Griffin posed with a bloody mannequin head. That's not a defense of what the capitol protesters were chanting. I'm just saying there is a strong historical precedent for assuming protest chants are hyperbole. I'm sure Mike Pence was never in any real danger. So...yawn.

Why shouldn't it matter?

Because you haven't said anything. Your citation is some vague source called "information". What information? From who? What does the information say? You claim the person was an "operative"? What does that mean? What is this russian person's official title? his occupation? his employer? Do we know this? What operation was the operative operating? You're tossing the phrase "russian operative" around like it means something. Why?

If Russian spies used this protest as a cover to infiltrate the US Capitol and steal secrets, and then one of those spies was caught red handed....somehow I think it would be a bigger story. Not to doubt "information", but I'm gonna wait and hear from another source.

I find it peculiar that I remember you deriding and condemning all occupy movements,

No. Not me. Talk about twisting words!!

A lot of that information is CLASSIFIED.

So? I sincerely would like an answer to that. So what if it's classified?

Remember Hillary's emails?

Yeah. Hillary got in hot water for leaving classified information in an unsecured place. That's a bad thing to do. And any Capitol workers or congresspeople who left classified information out in the open has also done a bad thing. that's my point. thank you.

I don't think your reaction to those was "PFFFFFTTTTT".

You can either not mention things like this, or you can take the time to find out what I actually think. Assuming I'm the kind of cookie-cutter conservative that they rant about on TYT is a mistake. It's really not helpful to the conversation

That's twice in one post where you completely invented an opinion and mapped it on to me just to argue.

[CoccoBill]

Because you haven't said anything. Your citation is some vague source called "information". What information? From who? What does the information say? You claim the person was an "operative"? What does that mean? What is this russian person's official title? his occupation? his employer? Do we know this? What operation was the operative operating? You're tossing the phrase "russian operative" around like it means something. Why?

If Russian spies used this protest as a cover to infiltrate the US Capitol and steal secrets, and then one of those spies was caught red handed....somehow I think it would be a bigger story. Not to doubt "information", but I'm gonna wait and hear from another source.

I don't have a clue, I wasn't there. All of that info about people there was just from what I've read. But don't you think that those are good questions to ask, meaning they should matter?

No. Not me. Talk about twisting words!!

Hm could have sworn you had opinions about occupy wallstreet, but can't find anything with a quick search. Ok, my bad.

So? I sincerely would like an answer to that. So what if it's classified?

Information is typically necessary to classify, if the disclosure of it can put national interests at risk. It can eg. reveal something about foreign policy, military operations or financials that in the wrong hands can cause damage. They don't classify just any information, it needs to have a legal or regulatory reason for doing so, so Ted Cruz's love letters to Trump or the senate lunch menu would not qualify.

Yeah. Hillary got in hot water for leaving classified information in an unsecured place. That's a bad thing to do. And any Capitol workers or congresspeople who left classified information out in the open has also done a bad thing. that's my point. thank you.

That's a quick turnaround from "I don't believe there is very much in that building that is deserving of privacy", but glad you agree. Ivanka did exactly the same didn't she.

I know that at least there were several unlocked workstations, where I can understand that locking it when an angry mob is running your way might not be everyone's first priority, but they should at least automatically lock after a couple minutes of inactivity. I guess it's possible they left just before the mob arrived.

You can either not mention things like this, or you can take the time to find out what I actually think. Assuming I'm the kind of cookie-cutter conservative that they rant about on TYT is a mistake. It's really not helpful to the conversation

That's twice in one post where you completely invented an opinion and mapped it on to me just to argue.

Well what was your reaction to Hillary's email scandal back in the day? "I don't believe there is very much in that server that is deserving of privacy"?

[Mr.Banana]

I don't have a clue, I wasn't there. All of that info about people there was just from what I've read.

Just some friendly advice, I think you should have a higher standard of evidence before you claim that the US Capitol was infiltrated by Russian spies.

They don't classify just any information,

I've worked for Department of Defense contractors. I've been trained in the procedures to protect classified information. This statement, and most of everything else you say about classified documents, is wrong. They classify a TON of shit. and by the way, they un-classify stuff all the time too.

it needs to have a legal or regulatory reason for doing so,

Not true at all. That standard is "I have the clearance to mark things classified, and I don't want anyone to see this". Anyone who can say that can magically "classify" anything he wants.

so Ted Cruz's love letters to Trump

Classified

or the senate lunch menu

Classified

That's a quick turnaround from "I don't believe there is very much in that building that is deserving of privacy",

No it's not.

Ivanka did exactly the same didn't she.

I don't know. Was there "information" about it?

Well what was your reaction to Hillary's email scandal back in the day?

Mostly indifferent. Technically she broke the rules. And if that could be used to take her down, that's fine. She's the most corrupt poltician I've ever seen in my lifetime, and that kind of stuff is fair game when you're running for national office. What I didn't like was how the FBI decided to be very flexible with their interpretation of the law in order to let her off the hook.

"I don't believe there is very much in that server that is deserving of privacy"?

Sure. close enough. I'll say that.

[CoccoBill]

Just some friendly advice, I think you should have a higher standard of evidence before you claim that the US Capitol was infiltrated by Russian spies.

You're right. Can you point out where I made such a claim.

I've worked for Department of Defense contractors. I've been trained in the procedures to protect classified information. This statement, and most of everything else you say about classified documents, is wrong. They classify a TON of shit. and by the way, they un-classify stuff all the time too.

"Section 1.1. Classification Standards.

(a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.
(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:
(1)amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or
(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.
(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security."

"Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or
(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction."

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy...s/cnsi-eo.html

If you see classified data that does not fill that criteria, it shouldn't be classified.

I don't know. Was there "information" about it?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...urity-concerns

Mostly indifferent. Technically she broke the rules. And if that could be used to take her down, that's fine. She's the most corrupt poltician I've ever seen in my lifetime, and that kind of stuff is fair game when you're running for national office. What I didn't like was how the FBI decided to be very flexible with their interpretation of the law in order to let her off the hook.

How were they flexible?

[Mr.Banana]

Ok - I need a mod here. Bill's post is the epitome of bad faith....I'm being serious here. Tell me if I'm seeing things but it sure looks like Bill is just trying to start shit.

I mean, let's start with this....

There's information that there were Russian operatives

have a higher standard of evidence before you claim that the US Capitol was infiltrated by Russian spies.

You're right. Can you point out where I made such a claim.

Is it me? Or is this clown world stuff? Are we taking issue with the word "infiltrated"? or maybe "spies"? Are those really hairs we need to split? You say there were "Russian Operatives" there. Everyone knows what is implied by that statement. You mean spies (which means something less dramatic than what you see in movies). You mean russian government agents. You mean people loyal to the russian governement conducting an "operation" at its behest. Or what else could you have meant by "Russian operatives"?

Your question is asked in the worst of bad faith. You said "operatives were there". There's an implication there that is ostensibly the same as "spies infiltrated". And even if we agree that poetic license was used for a slight exaggeration...who cares! You made this claim about Russian operatives without ANY evidence, detail, or context. That's the problem. That was the POINT of what I said. You're dodging that by poking me with this bad faith charade.

"Section 1.1. Classification Standards.

What are you trying to prove here?

If you see classified data that does not fill that criteria, it shouldn't be classified.

Yet it happens all the time! Showing me the rules doesn't change that. The government does lots of shit it shouldn't do. Sheesh.

How were they flexible?

It's KNOWN that Hillary mishandled classified information. That's not in dispute. She was never charged with it though. That's also a fact not in dispute. How can those two facts be true without flexibility somewhere in the system. Clearly it's not a black & white issue because it was a major political scandal for years! It's also been over for years. Are you really asking to relive it now?

I don't want unnecessary conflict here but I'm not gonna let people poke me like this without speaking up. Bill's questions can't be real. It's bad faith trolling if I've ever seen it.

[Poopadoop]

It only took four years for Americans to get tired of winning. So long President Dumpster Fire!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...auguration-day