*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

...

Can you possibly express your ignorance in fewer words please? Kinda busy right now. thanks.

[BananaStand]

Can you possibly express your ignorance in fewer words please? Kinda busy right now. thanks.

Reading is good for you.

Go learn something

[BananaStand]

Oooga booga

one poll yuck

ook ook

many poll happy time

you get?

gorak

[OngBonga]

Oh yes please Carol

new page, need this to break up the noise.

[Poopadoop]

Oooga booga

one poll yuck

ook ook

many poll happy time

you get?

gorak

lol best argument you've ever made.

[BananaStand]

lol best argument you've ever made.

I'm glad I finally found a mode of communication to which you are receptive

I mean....

grug lug.... Me talk, you get ....ugh ooga......good yay....booga

[OngBonga]

Given the choice between fucking Carol's ass or Rachel's ass, it's an easy choice really but I would certainly take my time considering it.

[Poopadoop]

Given the choice between fucking Carol's ass or Rachel's ass, it's an easy choice really but I would certainly take my time considering it.

Seems like a delicious predicament to be in for sure.

[OngBonga]

They're both actual tens. Rare as fuck. Throw in Carrie from Mythbusters and that's the perfect geeksome.

[BananaStand]

They're both actual tens. Rare as fuck.

Are you saying you've never seen a woman with good tits?

[OngBonga]

Are you saying you've never seen a woman with good tits?

ur mom

[BananaStand]

ur mom

Hilarious

but seriously, what is it with you and chicks with no chest?

[Poopadoop]

I can't get a reaction out of the other guy so now I'll try it on with you.

fyp

[OngBonga]

Hilarious

but seriously, what is it with you and chicks with no chest?

Ass and legs.

[wufwugy]

That happened to me just yesterday, only it's missing the part where the cop made me swear to Allah I would let the arab kid down the street sleep with my daughter.

Sounds legit.

[wufwugy]

I mean if your point is that political correctness and the language police have gone too far you won't get an argument from me. I just don't see why you need to make up a story to try to support that argument.

And if Wuf's point is that the 9th most free country in the world isn't free enough, he may have a valid point too. But whoever he copied that from is weakening his own argument by making up a silly story. I can make up a silly story too - it doesn't mean what I'm arguing for is correct, it just means I'm too lazy to make a valid argument.

I posted it for the lolz

And anything that is worthy of lolz has embedded a kernel of truth.

But that's beside the point. Mainly it made me giggle.

[wufwugy]

Not really fair. More accurate would be...

*phones 999*
"Hello emergency services?"
"Hello I'd like to speak to the police please."
"Hold on..."
*connects*
"Hello police?"
"Yes I've been burgled."
"Has the burglar left?"
"Yes."
"This is not an emergency, please hang up and dial 101."
"He called me a nigger."
"We're on our way."

LOL. Meme format this. It might get play.

[wufwugy]

Well I guess it's fitting that the closest analogue study you could find was done on corn. At least you're placing your subgroup of idealogues on the right branch of the tree of life.
This also relates back nicely to the discussion we had about how automation could replace creative jobs in the near future, because those insults write themselves.

Regarding fixation: Even in the most ideal abstract models, alleles will reach an equilibrium rather than get fixated. It takes some serious population bottlenecks for fixation to happen in the wild. If you feel like torturing WolframAlpha, you can plug human population numbers into those equations.

A good question to try to answer for yourself in this context would be why recessive alleles don't just disappear, and why recessive alleles that objectively suck for evolutionary fitness don't disappear either.

Along these lines, what causes speciation (or just variation within species)? Is it *something something how genes express something something*? Is it fair to say that a population could reproduce in such a way that genes that might have a specific effect lose their "prominence," resulting in that effect no longer remaining?

You clearly know more about this stuff than I do, so you probably have some good answers.

[wufwugy]

Can never go wrong reposting the GOAT

[wufwugy]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and Stormy set up this whole "scandal".

Take the guy whose BRAND is ballin', then put him in a "scandal" where he was banging a hot ass porn star, then scratch your head as most people GAIN appreciation for that guy.


It's like how the know-nothings pointed at Trump's financial losses in the past and said AHA HE'S NO GOOD BECAUSE HE HAS LOST BEFORE but then he became more popular among normal folk since normal folk were just shown that Trump has skin in the game and that Trump is like them, people who experience loss whenever they are wrong, unlike useless politicians.

[wufwugy]

Imagine this "scandal" blowing up even further. Not only has Trump banged Stormy, but he banged Tera Patrick, Sasha Grey, and Jenna Jameson back in her prime. His true approval rating would push upwards of 60%.

[BananaStand]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and Stormy set up this whole "scandal".

I would be. I mean, it seems like a nice distraction. CNN can't shut up about it. The whole thing has amounted to a nothingburger because no one is shocked, or outraged to learn that Trump is adulterous.

I can't imagine what the motive would be to do that though. Trump's been kinda tough on Russia over this poisoning thing. That's exactly the kind of thing Trump wishes CNN would talk about, but it's been heavily overshadowed by this porn star situation. I don't see why Trump would do that on purpose.

Furthermore, it's brutally humiliating for his wife. And I just don't see the man committing that level of evil.

Seems pretty obvious this is simply a money play by Stormy. She got $130K to keep quiet about an affair with a candidate who looked extremely likely to lose. That's a sweet deal. But it's a shit deal to keep quiet about an affair with a billionaire president.

It's like those google employees who sold their shares at $150 when the company went public. How do they feel now that Google trades >$1K? Pretty fucking dumb.

She's #1 on Pornhub, she's using Trump's slogan to brand her national tour, she's gonna sell books like crazy. This is all about money for her because she regrets settling at $130K. It's certainly compelling to cry foul here. It's a legit claim. But if you're upset because the porn star acted without honor, then the joke's on you.

Finally, this makes her story about being threatened totally unbelievable. According to her she was being offered $15K to talk about the affair with a magazine. Because she's a greedy money grubbing whore, Trump could have just paid her $15,001 and moved on. It's hard to imagine that when he weighed his options, he decided to send a violent thug to make threats.

[wufwugy]

I mean, you're probably right. Just saying I wouldn't exactly be surprised.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

Hey world!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...nb7Kz#image=21

You're welcome

[wufwugy]

The Roseanne reboot is fucking tight as tits.

[BananaStand]

Ben Shapiro had a different take in his podcast today and I think he has a bit of a point.

Roseanne, in the new show, proclaims her support for Trump on the basis of economics. The show presumes that there was NOT a culture war driven by identity politics in 2016. It seems to be suggesting that the only point of reconciliation between liberals and conservatives is economics, and that liberal positions on social issues are already settled as 'correct'.

[wufwugy]

Ben Shapiro had a different take in his podcast today and I think he has a bit of a point.

Roseanne, in the new show, proclaims her support for Trump on the basis of economics. The show presumes that there was NOT a culture war driven by identity politics in 2016. It seems to be suggesting that the only point of reconciliation between liberals and conservatives is economics, and that liberal positions on social issues are already settled as 'correct'.

Did Shapiro make that as a side point? If so, that's good. If it's a rebuttal to Roseanne, I'm not so sure. Lots of people voted for Trump because "he talked about jobs, Jackie". That's a good enough description for many people, and probably for Roseanne herself.

I might argue that the social justice political correctness played a smaller (in size) role to economics, yet it played a more pivotal role due to making the marginal difference. A LOT of people voted Trump/Republican because of things like Obamacare. But what pushed Trump over the edge could have been the identity politics ridiculousness. Or, well, it could have also been economics. He won the Midwest on his economic message after all. But, well, also his support correlated with identity politics backlash in that region too. So really I don't know.

[BananaStand]

Did Shapiro make that as a side point? If so, that's good. If it's a rebuttal to Roseanne, I'm not so sure.

It was definitely not a side point. He devoted about 20 minutes to "Roseanne is not a conservative show"

Basically his read on the show, is that its saying that Trump voters can be forgiven if they just voted for Trump because "economics" and "shake things up".

So Becky wants to be a surrogate, and Roseanne objects. Becky invokes "my body my choice" and Roseanne relents. It's basically an abortion argument, without mentioning abortion. In another scene, Darlene's son dresses in women's clothes. Dan objects with some glib argument about "don't want him to get beat up in school". In the end, everyone agrees it's better to raise your kids gender-neutrally.

So what the show is saying is that middle, working-class, America has exactly the same values as NY/LA liberals, they just differ economically.

Other shows (like Will & Grace) would make fun of conservatives and portray them as evil racists who don't care about women, gays, or the poor. Roseanne does the same thing, just inverted. "Yeah I voted for Trump. Cuz jobs. I'm definitely not one of those evil pro-life transphobic conservatives. Wouldn't it be awful if I believed that stuff!!??"

[wufwugy]

It was definitely not a side point. He devoted about 20 minutes to "Roseanne is not a conservative show"

Basically his read on the show, is that its saying that Trump voters can be forgiven if they just voted for Trump because "economics" and "shake things up".

So Becky wants to be a surrogate, and Roseanne objects. Becky invokes "my body my choice" and Roseanne relents. It's basically an abortion argument, without mentioning abortion. In another scene, Darlene's son dresses in women's clothes. Dan objects with some glib argument about "don't want him to get beat up in school". In the end, everyone agrees it's better to raise your kids gender-neutrally.

So what the show is saying is that middle, working-class, America has exactly the same values as NY/LA liberals, they just differ economically.

Other shows (like Will & Grace) would make fun of conservatives and portray them as evil racists who don't care about women, gays, or the poor. Roseanne does the same thing, just inverted. "Yeah I voted for Trump. Cuz jobs. I'm definitely not one of those evil pro-life transphobic conservatives. Wouldn't it be awful if I believed that stuff!!??"

It's not a conservative show. Roseanne has always been a middle class Midwest show, which has some of both conservatism and liberalism.

It's a show about life. It's about Roseanne's view of life without being that ideological.

[wufwugy]

btw they didnt land on anything "gender neutral" or "abortion is okay". they didn't hold up the conservative position on abortion, that it is always baby murder (it kinda is), but they do hold up the idea that it shouldn't be done.

the grandkid isn't gender confused. he just dresses fancy. it's sorta like how things used to be. boys or girls that defy standards has always been a thing. it's only recently that social justice barbarian know-nothings have conflated that with trans soup du jour

[wufwugy]

Really gotta give it up to the #1 negotiator. He's the good cop now. He was the bad cop, and bad copped it up, getting Rocket Man to shit his pants. But now Bolton came in as the bad cop. Now the #1 negotiator is the good cop. Kim can't retreat because he knows that his good cop will just return to the even worse bad cop (Bolton) if things don't go the way they need to.

North Korea is definitely getting denuclearized during Trump's 8 years, and it's highly likely to be soon.

[wufwugy]

It's like the credibility you get by proving to the other side of the table that you're willing to walk away from the table. Then they can't keep trying to cut you down, they HAVE TO make a deal then or be the ones who walk away and are responsible for no deal.

Trump has proven to Kim he will go back to bad cop if Kim doesn't do the right thing. And then the massive economic starvation that is currently blasting NK will get even worse. Nuke free peninsula soon.

[wufwugy]

[BananaStand]

btw they didnt land on anything "gender neutral" or "abortion is okay". they didn't hold up the conservative position on abortion, that it is always baby murder (it kinda is), but they do hold up the idea that it shouldn't be done.

the grandkid isn't gender confused. he just dresses fancy. it's sorta like how things used to be. boys or girls that defy standards has always been a thing. it's only recently that social justice barbarian know-nothings have conflated that with trans soup du jour

I'm probably not the best person to debate this since I didn't watch the show. I'm just telling you that the guy who literally wrote the book on how liberalism infested television, says different.

It's prime time TV and they're seeking a wide audience, so obviously they aren't going to rant about "baby murder". They are just not-so-subtly suggesting that the "my body my choice" argument is valid.

And the crossdressing grand kid isn't necessarily a commentary on gender fluidity. It could also be more of a comment on masculinity, or as the left likes to call it, "toxic masculinity". They think there are no biological differences between men and women, and that children are virtually blank slates whose gender identity is determined by a social construction. Furthermore the social construction is unfair to women.

So the show seems to be saying that if a young boy wants to explore femininity, then that's ok. Discouraging that would be an oppressive function of the patriarchy. Encouraging the boy to be masculine, would be an oppressive function of the patriarchy. And if the boy himself decided to explore his masculinity, you can bet he'd be handed a cocktail of ADHD meds to quell his behavior.

Shapiro is suggesting that the show is suggesting that middle america agrees with all of that already. He's saying that the show is saying that "my body my choice", and "toxic masculinity" are social issues that are pretty much universally settled by everyone except the horrible fringes of the republican party.

[BananaStand]

North Korea is definitely getting denuclearized during Trump's 8 years, and it's highly likely to be soon.

I'm really not understanding how you've come to this conclusion. I'd say it's a coin flip at best.

What is Kim's motivation to de-nuclearize? Why would he do that? Because people are starving?? Pffffft, cmon. People have been starving in NK for a long time, and the solutions to that have been there all along. Kim's not interested. A thriving, economically successful citizenry is the last thing an oppressive fascist regime wants. And it definitely doesn't want to be on "international probation".

You really think Trump is going to be the great diplomat and heal the rift between NK and the rest of the world?? C'mon man. How?

If he's successful, he certainly deserves some credit. But you can't ignore that what seems to have happened is that NK just ran out of money before it could become a significant nuclear threat. They've come to the negotiating table before, and all they've done is buy time. They make some concessions, just enough to keep their economy going, and then just keep on going with their nuke program.

I'm guessing that there is about an 80% chance that's what happens. Trump will get applauded by Hannity, and Kim will get the nobel peace prize. I'm not kidding.

There's a 10% chance that Trump has some kind of sweeping, world-changing victory. And frankly, if he does, he should get re-elected based solely on that.

Then there is a 10% chance that we find out that military destruction of his enemies is all Kim's really after, at any cost. This percentage increases (and the 80% decreases) the longer the can gets kicked down the road.

Kim, or his father, could have embraced the world economy and peaceful disarmament a long time ago, or at any time since. they haven't. They've explicity chosen to oppress and propagandize their own citizens for the purpose of military strength. Why would they do that??

Generally, if you can't figure out why someone is doing something, look at the result, and then infer the motivation.

Why would a radical violent dictator want better weapons???

[wufwugy]

I'm probably not the best person to debate this since I didn't watch the show. I'm just telling you that the guy who literally wrote the book on how liberalism infested television, says different.

It's prime time TV and they're seeking a wide audience, so obviously they aren't going to rant about "baby murder". They are just not-so-subtly suggesting that the "my body my choice" argument is valid.

And the crossdressing grand kid isn't necessarily a commentary on gender fluidity. It could also be more of a comment on masculinity, or as the left likes to call it, "toxic masculinity". They think there are no biological differences between men and women, and that children are virtually blank slates whose gender identity is determined by a social construction. Furthermore the social construction is unfair to women.

So the show seems to be saying that if a young boy wants to explore femininity, then that's ok. Discouraging that would be an oppressive function of the patriarchy. Encouraging the boy to be masculine, would be an oppressive function of the patriarchy. And if the boy himself decided to explore his masculinity, you can bet he'd be handed a cocktail of ADHD meds to quell his behavior.

Shapiro is suggesting that the show is suggesting that middle america agrees with all of that already. He's saying that the show is saying that "my body my choice", and "toxic masculinity" are social issues that are pretty much universally settled by everyone except the horrible fringes of the republican party.

I'm not even sure the kid is cross dressing. He just dresses fancy, probably with some stuff in the girls section. But I guess that means cross dressing so whatever.

More to the point, show covered the situation as follows: Dan and Roseanne thought it was bad news because the kid is gonna get his ass beat. Roseanne asks him what he thinks of himself, he thinks he's a boy. She asks him how important it is to him to do this, he says very important (he does it because creativity). Dan tries to do masculine things with him, his daughter pushes back on that, but Dan pushes back even harder, and Dan's pro-masculine pushback ends up being the main takeaway. Then it ends with the kid being really tough and sticking to what he wants.

[wufwugy]

What is Kim's motivation to de-nuclearize?

Because Trump has fucked him up the ass.

The signs are all very, very, very good by this point that real change is happening.

[wufwugy]

Man oh man. It can't get anymore confirmed.

In the worlds Rodman tweets this, there's like a 98% chance of denuclearization

[wufwugy]

This is how Trump has fucked Kim up the ass:

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/979801845836206080

It's a war on companies that do business with NK. The strategy has fangs because Trump gassed China. China is running on fumes now while Trump has a full tank in his Rolls. Then Trump started beating down companies that don't comply with sanctions. Then the rats scurried away and Kim was left with his pants down.

Now Kim's got no oil and no commerce, no China anymore, and a colossal Trump in front of him who has just offered an open palm.

The Master Persuader master persuades.

[BananaStand]

This is how Trump has fucked Kim up the ass:

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/979801845836206080

You have not accounted for the possibility that Kim says "fuck it" and just launches everything he has at South Korea and anywhere else he can. He hasn't built the world's 4th largest military just so he can acquiesce to Trump.'

The harder we push on him, the less options he has. And that's not necessarily a great result.

[BananaStand]

I'm not even sure the kid is cross dressing. He just dresses fancy, probably with some stuff in the girls section. But I guess that means cross dressing so whatever.

More to the point, show covered the situation as follows: Dan and Roseanne thought it was bad news because the kid is gonna get his ass beat. Roseanne asks him what he thinks of himself, he thinks he's a boy. She asks him how important it is to him to do this, he says very important (he does it because creativity). Dan tries to do masculine things with him, his daughter pushes back on that, but Dan pushes back even harder, and Dan's pro-masculine pushback ends up being the main takeaway. Then it ends with the kid being really tough and sticking to what he wants.

You're just proving Shapiro's point. If this was a show designed to appeal to conservatives (and I mean actual conservatives not just people who vote republican "cuz jobs jackie!"), then the pushback against the crossdressing kid would have been something like "boys are boys and girls are girls". Boys should dress like boys so they grow up to be boys. And not just grow up to be boys...they grow up to be men who act like men. Dressing boys like little men is a way to instill manhood in them. Letting little boys dress like girls does the opposite of that.

^If the show said that.....it would be off the air in two seconds.

[OngBonga]

You have not accounted for the possibility that Kim says "fuck it" and just launches everything he has at South Korea and anywhere else he can.

Why is this any more likely than Pakistan going "fuck it" and launching all their nukes at India? Or Isreal going "fuck it" and launching their nukes at Iran?

In each case, it is an insane act of suicide. Why is Kim any more insane or suicidal than the next nuclear armed world leader? You couldn't even tell me who the leader of Pakistan is, let alone how sane he is. For that matter, neither could I.

[BananaStand]

Why is this any more likely than Pakistan going "fuck it" and launching all their nukes at India? Or Isreal going "fuck it" and launching their nukes at Iran?

Is that a serious question? C'mon man!

Neither of those countries are facing brutal economic sanctioning that has hamstrung their economies. They have favorable diplomatic relations with the rest of the world. They have something to lose.

Kim has nothing to lose. All he has right now is a nation of starving people that he does not give a shit about...and a fuckload of missiles.

It's really not a reach to suggest that Kim is "insane" and "suicidal"

[OngBonga]

It's really not a reach to suggest that Kim is "insane" and "suicidal"

I don't see any reason to think this, neither do I see reason to trust militant Islam more than communism.

You're falling victim to propaganda. I'm more inclined to think Kim has a great deal to lose. He is the leader of an oppressed nation, he has whatever he wants, he lives in a palace. He's probably a very happy individual. This idea that he's lonely and insane is ludicrous. I mean he might be, just like Teresa May might be a lesbian and the Queen might be an alien reptilian.

He's got more to lose than I have, and I wouldn't go lobbing nukes about.

[wufwugy]

You have not accounted for the possibility that Kim says "fuck it" and just launches everything he has at South Korea and anywhere else he can. He hasn't built the world's 4th largest military just so he can acquiesce to Trump.'

The harder we push on him, the less options he has. And that's not necessarily a great result.

It is true that you never want to corner somebody with power like a dog. Fortunately, Trump has not cornered Kim like that. Instead the setup gives a very viable and attractive out. Since Kim is a rational actor, when that is his only out, he will take it.

[wufwugy]

If Kim gets a deal done, he'll be considered one of the biggest heroes of the 21st century. Before Trump, he had uncertainty and multiple options. Since Trump, he has only two options: annihilation or hero. He is taking the obvious one.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...r-country.html

Here's why I didn't vote for Trump in the primary. Deep down he's a closet New York liberal.

[wufwugy]

What about Trump on Amazon do you not like?

[wufwugy]

It's amazing how high Trump's approval rating is given how terrible the news coverage is of him. If the media treated Obama the same way they treat Trump, 0bama for sure would have been in the low 30s at best.

[BananaStand]

Well just look at the narrative he's laying out. It's the archetypal leftist demagoguery. Big bad corporation gets richer off of hard working taxpayers, nyaahhhh.

Amazon doesn't tell the post office what to charge. Amazon doesn't make the post office lose money. Amazon is just participating in a free market and making the most advantageous decision it could.

Apparently this is a problem for Trump. But when Trump paid little or no tax using legal methods, he was a genius. WTF?

There's no way Trump is dumb enough to believe what he's saying. He knows Amazon hasn't done anything wrong. He has to know that the Post Office is a completely retarded enterprise. The rebuttal in that article was that "such and such finance guru says this contract is profitable". There's not a financial analyst with an IQ over 60 that believes that. This contract is indeed unprofitable, but so are ALL the contracts, not just Amazon.

He's picking on Amazon because A) He hates Jeff Bezos and B) he can satisfy his left-wing social ideology and engage in what is essentially a redistribution play. And C) He can tout the additional post office revenue as a victory and validation for his 'run-govt-like-a-business' schtick.

[wufwugy]

Well just look at the narrative he's laying out. It's the archetypal leftist demagoguery. Big bad corporation gets richer off of hard working taxpayers, nyaahhhh.

Amazon doesn't tell the post office what to charge. Amazon doesn't make the post office lose money. Amazon is just participating in a free market and making the most advantageous decision it could.

Apparently this is a problem for Trump. But when Trump paid little or no tax using legal methods, he was a genius. WTF?

There's no way Trump is dumb enough to believe what he's saying. He knows Amazon hasn't done anything wrong. He has to know that the Post Office is a completely retarded enterprise. The rebuttal in that article was that "such and such finance guru says this contract is profitable". There's not a financial analyst with an IQ over 60 that believes that. This contract is indeed unprofitable, but so are ALL the contracts, not just Amazon.

He's picking on Amazon because A) He hates Jeff Bezos and B) he can satisfy his left-wing social ideology and engage in what is essentially a redistribution play. And C) He can tout the additional post office revenue as a victory and validation for his 'run-govt-like-a-business' schtick.

Trump has spoken about this kind of thing in clear terms in the past. The problem isn't businesses doing what they can to get special treatment (that's actually a good thing); instead the problem is businesses having a tax monopoly which they can lobby for special treatment (and then get it granted). Amazon is a company in that situation.


Regarding the rhetoric, I'm not a fan of it. I wish people would THINK instead of FEEL, but that's not how it is. People feel and feel and feel and don't stop to think. His rhetoric reflects how to get things done when the people you need to convince feel instead of think.

[BananaStand]

the problem is businesses having a tax monopoly which they can lobby for special treatment (and then get it granted). Amazon is a company in that situation.

What???

What unique power does Amazon have here? Imagine they pull the contract....so what? The post office loses the revenue, but they also don't have to pay the costs of servicing that contract, so all that's lost is the incremental net income. No one seems to be mentioning what that is...so I'm guessing it's not much. In fact, it's probably a loss. And shutting down a losing venture would actually be BETTER for taxpayers.

Where it gets messy is if the Post Office has to lay off people and liquidate parts of its operation. Even if every single employee transfers along with the contract, UPS and FedEx pay less than the Post Office, so there is probably a net loss for the economy there, but it's not huge. Its certainly not big enough for the government to be making concessions to Amazon.

The problem is OBVIOUSLY the mismanagement and competitive impotence of the Post Office. The PO is actually part of the executive branch, which means Trump runs the show. His options are:

A) Shut it down. The whole post office. It's a venture losing money in a market in which it cannot compete with industry leaders like UPS and FedEx.
B) Fix it. He's such a great business man....make it work!! Improve efficiencies, lower costs, raise revenues, and relieve the taxpayers of the burden.
C) Feed the fat government cow even though it's inefficient and loses money. And do it through thinly-veiled redistribution tactics backed up by leftist rhetoric about the evil billionaire exploiting the common man.

One of those things does not belong on a republican platform.

[boost]

Pretty solid argument Banana.

I think it made sense (or more sense at least) to start the postal service to help accelerate westward expansion, facilitate ease of communication as a lubricant for the economy, etc-- but it doesn't make much sense at all nowadays. That said, what with all the jobs it provides and people's unsupported feeling that it should exist, it's understandable that politicians don't mess with it. But to see a supposed conservative president picking the Post Office's side against a successful company is baffling.

[BananaStand]

Well shutting down the post office is sort of my own, somewhat radical, idea that I inserted into this debate. The idea hasn't really been given fair consideration. The post office hasn't been obsolete for all that long. And we've been kinda busy since then with wars, a recession, and a very slow recovery that Obama sought to drive with government jobs. So I'm not sure the issue of the PO's existence has ever been seriously considered. Perhaps there is a good reason for it. But as of now, I'm not seeing it.

So unless I've missed some extremely vital role the PO plays in society, then I'm sure Trump also sees the PO for the black hole of cash flow that it is. So for him to defend it, he must have some other purpose. Options that I see are:

1) He fucking hates Jeff Bezos and just decided that he's gonna fuck with his stock. I think I read that Amazon was down 7% in two days over this. That's probably serious money to Mr. Bezos.

2) It's a campaign talking point he can sell to the middle class. "I robbed from the rich and gave to the poor!"

3) Maybe he's trying to troll the democratic party into calling for an end to the Post Office. Then all the lost jobs are on them.

4) Trump probably knows that Amazon is moving toward a model where they ship their own packages. They own planes and run cargo flights into airports in a few major cities already. And it's growing. So maybe Trump knows this and figures he can hijack a few billion off of Amazon before they stop using the post office anyway.

I don't like any of those. #1 is petty and unbecoming of a president. #2 is too far left for me. #3 seems stupid. And #4 seems like there is no upside for Trump other than sticking it to Jeff Bezos....which brings us back to #1

[BananaStand]

Pretty solid argument Banana.

Pretty solid compliment Boost

[wufwugy]

The PO should definitely be shut down.

[BananaStand]

Can anyone guess who the PO's largest sub-contractor is.....

Spoiler: Show

Fedex

[wufwugy]

What???

If I recall correctly, Trump was framing Amazon's special treatment through its tax treatment. My thoughts were filtered through that.

Even if Amazon is increasing production on margins that nobody else is, they should not be receiving special tax treatment.

[wufwugy]

Didn't Cheatin' Obama get his Forever Name today? I'm gonna have to look into that.


Cool to note: Trump's Forever Names always gear towards confirmation bias of future events. So, the names are designed so that things that happen in the future make the viewer say "ah yeah that's just Cheatin' Obama doing his cheating thing." This means that Trump knows about things that will soon reveal about Cheatin' Obama's literal cheatin'.

[wufwugy]

Poopadoop meets the God Emperor.

https://i.imgur.com/xGPfNii.mp4

[BananaStand]

If I recall correctly, Trump was framing Amazon's special treatment through its tax treatment. My thoughts were filtered through that.

Even if Amazon is increasing production on margins that nobody else is, they should not be receiving special tax treatment.

if we're thinking about the same thing, then that's Trump being a demagogue.

He was ranting about Amazon and sales taxes. I guess there is some kinda loophole where you don't always have to collect sales taxes when you sell shit online. Some decades old court ruling about mail-order catalogs says so. But that applies to any company that sells shit online, not just Amazon.

Also, Amazon collects sales tax in 45 states, and the other 5 don't have sales tax. So Trump is full of shit.

[wufwugy]

Lots of his rhetoric is full of shit. That's most of what people eat regarding rhetoric. Shit. Nobody wants the truth. You have to stuff them full of shit if you want them to accidentally swallow the truth.

Not saying that's what Trump is doing here, but it IS what he has tried to do in the past.

[Poopadoop]

Poopadoop meets the God Emperor.

https://i.imgur.com/xGPfNii.mp4

Six of those kids were deported right after that photo op.

[Poopadoop]

You have to stuff them full of shit if you want them to accidentally swallow the truth.

wut?

[boost]

Lots of his rhetoric is full of shit. That's most of what people eat regarding rhetoric. Shit. Nobody wants the truth. You have to stuff them full of shit if you want them to accidentally swallow the truth.

Not saying that's what Trump is doing here, but it IS what he has tried to do in the past.

But you can't have it both ways. Or at least I'd argue that Trump trying to have it both ways is detrimental to our society.

What I mean is Trump likes to appeal to the cynic when he bullshits-- "it's how politics is played, I'm just better at it!" -- but the game is not played that way, the stability of the game relies on the bullshitters making their bullshit believable enough that they have plausible deniability. Citing made up shit in a discussion with a foreign head of state, ok, sure... but then openly bragging about it... That's ruinous to the game.

I don't deny that Trump personally can gain from this, but it's at all of our expense.

[BananaStand]

That's ruinous to the game.

Maybe the goal is to ruin the game.

If you can't figure out someone's motivations....look at the result and infer the motivation.

"make America great again" implies that something was going on in america that was not-great. I.e. "the game"

[wufwugy]

But you can't have it both ways. Or at least I'd argue that Trump trying to have it both ways is detrimental to our society.

What I mean is Trump likes to appeal to the cynic when he bullshits-- "it's how politics is played, I'm just better at it!" -- but the game is not played that way, the stability of the game relies on the bullshitters making their bullshit believable enough that they have plausible deniability. Citing made up shit in a discussion with a foreign head of state, ok, sure... but then openly bragging about it... That's ruinous to the game.

I don't deny that Trump personally can gain from this, but it's at all of our expense.

I may have a different view of what's being bullshitted. I'm getting at things like pacing and leading, thinking past the sale, etc.. The Amazon/tax thing may be an example of thinking past the sale. Let's say Trump's goal is to get people to talk about Amazon getting special tax treatment. I don't know if that is his goal, but let's go with it for now. If that is Trump's goal, how does he get people to talk about it? By thinking past the sale. How does he do that? The way that seems to work best in an arena of hostile media is telling a small lie that gets a reaction that assumes the sale. So, when Trump says Amazon is paying zero in sales tax, naysayers say "aha blumpf, it's these other taxes Amazon isn't paying, not sales tax." Little do they realize that they just confirmed the premise he wanted from the get-go.

I don't think the kind of lies Trump tells are the dangerous kind. They are the "honey you don't look fat in that dress" kind of lies. They're the kinds of lies that people tell (in attempts) to help others, like what a counselor might tell a client, or a parent might tell a child, or a friend might tell another friend.

If your Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies, maybe telling a little lie about it that gets people to unwittingly confirm that Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies is actually the right thing. It was fun when Trump did that. His simple lie got the entire world to affirm the truth they were trying to hide, at least for a brief period of time.

[BananaStand]

It was fun when Trump did that. His simple lie got the entire world to affirm the truth they were trying to hide, at least for a brief period of time.

SHIT HOLE

[BananaStand]

Next time you see Barry Obama and he says he was tougher on Russia than Trump is....punch him in his stupid liberal face.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ctors-say.html

[Poopadoop]

I may have a different view of what's being bullshitted. I'm getting at things like pacing and leading, thinking past the sale, etc.. The Amazon/tax thing may be an example of thinking past the sale. Let's say Trump's goal is to get people to talk about Amazon getting special tax treatment. I don't know if that is his goal, but let's go with it for now. If that is Trump's goal, how does he get people to talk about it? By thinking past the sale. How does he do that? The way that seems to work best in an arena of hostile media is telling a small lie that gets a reaction that assumes the sale. So, when Trump says Amazon is paying zero in sales tax, naysayers say "aha blumpf, it's these other taxes Amazon isn't paying, not sales tax." Little do they realize that they just confirmed the premise he wanted from the get-go.

I don't think the kind of lies Trump tells are the dangerous kind. They are the "honey you don't look fat in that dress" kind of lies. They're the kinds of lies that people tell (in attempts) to help others, like what a counselor might tell a client, or a parent might tell a child, or a friend might tell another friend.

If your Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies, maybe telling a little lie about it that gets people to unwittingly confirm that Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies is actually the right thing. It was fun when Trump did that. His simple lie got the entire world to affirm the truth they were trying to hide, at least for a brief period of time.

Here's an alternate theory:

Trump is basically a random word generator. He says whatever pops into his head regardless of the context. The fact so much of it is untrue is because he doesn't filter it for truth - or at all. There's no overarching strategy behind it and its just as it appears to an observer: random blabbering.

[wufwugy]

Here's an alternate theory:

Trump is basically a random word generator. He says whatever pops into his head regardless of the context. The fact so much of it is untrue is because he doesn't filter it for truth - or at all. There's no overarching strategy behind it and its just as it appears to an observer: random blabbering.

I love this theory. Because it's testable!

Let's see if it has predictive power.

[boost]

I may have a different view of what's being bullshitted. I'm getting at things like pacing and leading, thinking past the sale, etc.. The Amazon/tax thing may be an example of thinking past the sale. Let's say Trump's goal is to get people to talk about Amazon getting special tax treatment. I don't know if that is his goal, but let's go with it for now. If that is Trump's goal, how does he get people to talk about it? By thinking past the sale. How does he do that? The way that seems to work best in an arena of hostile media is telling a small lie that gets a reaction that assumes the sale. So, when Trump says Amazon is paying zero in sales tax, naysayers say "aha blumpf, it's these other taxes Amazon isn't paying, not sales tax." Little do they realize that they just confirmed the premise he wanted from the get-go.

I don't think the kind of lies Trump tells are the dangerous kind. They are the "honey you don't look fat in that dress" kind of lies. They're the kinds of lies that people tell (in attempts) to help others, like what a counselor might tell a client, or a parent might tell a child, or a friend might tell another friend.

If your Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies, maybe telling a little lie about it that gets people to unwittingly confirm that Sweden is getting molested by its retarded migrant related policies is actually the right thing. It was fun when Trump did that. His simple lie got the entire world to affirm the truth they were trying to hide, at least for a brief period of time.

I get that you're enamored with these persuasion tactics, and to be honest, I find them incredibly interesting myself, but I think you over value them and don't recognize their limits. In an ocean of functionally infinite business relationships that is the world of the developer/brand Trump was forty years ago, employing total persuasion (meaning all out, as in "total war") can reap great rewards and barely send a wave a couple miles in this vast ocean.

However, as the pool gets smaller, as it did as Trump became a bigger player, the waves become bigger and go further. Trump, circa Atlantic City, maybe was him splashing around in one of the Great Lakes as opposed to the ocean. Trump as president -- the world stage is a very small neighborhood and now he's sloshing around in a kiddie pool.

That is to say, these "white lies" as you see them, are only white lies when there's enough other activity to absorb the damage done by them.

[boost]

Maybe the goal is to ruin the game.

If you can't figure out someone's motivations....look at the result and infer the motivation.

"make America great again" implies that something was going on in america that was not-great. I.e. "the game"

I get the impulse to flip the monopoly board. The problem is that this rarely turns out well. The Bolsheviks did it, the Nazis did it, etc, etc. I'm not comparing Trump's and their ideologies, I'm simply saying that flipping the board almost never turns out well.

[wufwugy]

That is to say, these "white lies" as you see them, are only white lies when there's enough other activity to absorb the damage done by them.

What damage?