*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

I'm not defending "thoughts and prayers" as an excuse for not having gun control though. Sometimes you have to look at the sentiment behind the words and not just the words themselves.

[boost]

Posting "thoughts and prayers" is to spread an intellectual plague.

[OngBonga]

so much nonsense in one post.

Goes on to post a wall of nonsense.

People don't use twitter to search for loved ones, don't be an idiot.

It's one resource that someone might use. Are you telling me that if you were looking for someone, and your phone wasn't working, you'd think "nah can't be fucked with Twitter"? You'd use every resource available.

And if they did, as a last resort, check someone's twitter account to see if they posted

I'm not really talking about people seeing if they've been active and made a recent post, Facebook is more likely to be the resource there. Then again, many people use Twitter but not Facebook, so some people might want to check out if their sister has been online. They can do that easily without having to filter through the virtue signallers, by simple checking their feed.

And if you're looking at twitter to find out where emergency shelters are or to get updates on the news, you don't deserve to find your family. Use google, you fucking idiot.

You do realise that the information probably finds its way onto Twitter first, right? Local emergency services run Twitter feeds, and news agencies pick up on these. That's how journalism works these days, journalists are lazy and basically rely on Twitter to do their job for them. A google search is not going to yield desirable results as quickly as Twitter when it comes to world events as they are happening.

And I'm not sure if you've heard of this invention, but nowadays there's phones that use satellites. So no, the phone lines don't get overwhelmed during a disaster and therefore you have to rely on twitter lol.

Of course you'll try phoning them first. What if they don't answer? Here's a fun activity for you... google "finding loved ones after a disaster". Obviously, they recommend using social media. Obviously.

I'm just saying there's reasons people can express concern about something besides just trying to make themselves look good.

Sure there are. There's a big difference between "hey Mom, hope you're ok, see you soon x" and "omg how horrible, that tsunami looks scary, hope everyone is ok, pray for #Indonesia". The difference is that on the one hand you're directly communicating with someone you know, on the other you're posting inane crap that makes nobody feel better except perhaps other virtue signallers who are completely unaffected by the disaster and somehow think what they read was a nice thing to read.

I'll accept sometimes people are virtue signalling if you accept sometimes they genuinely think they're message is doing some good.

We're not negotiating here. I don't give a fuck what you accept. And there's a huge difference between thinking you're doing good, and actually doing good. I don't doubt these people think they are doing good, if they didn't they wouldn't do it because they wouldn't expect to look and feel good as a result. Anyone who thinks a message to people they don't know is helping is a moron, especially when the vast majority of posts relating to the topic are others doing exactly the same.

These people who "think they're doing good" are whoring for likes and shares, and trying to to the absolute bare minimum to "help" so they can feel good about themselves. Virtue signalling.

[Poopadoop]

Local emergency services run Twitter feeds, and news agencies pick up on these.

Then look at them. Or are you saying they only post thoughts and prayers? Wat the fuck is your actual argument?

Of course you'll try phoning them first. What if they don't answer? Here's a fun activity for you... google "finding loved ones after a disaster". Obviously, they recommend using social media. Obviously.

Right, and do you look at their personal fb page or twitter account or do you search twitter for #disasternews? Fuck me, just give up already.

[Poopadoop]

#prayforMidlands

There. Now if your ever in a disaster and your family is looking for you they won't be able to find you.

[OngBonga]

You're so disingenuous.

[OngBonga]

I deleted the new thread you started, it was inane and amounted to spam. I seem to have accidentally deleted the aarrggh thread too. I'll mop up the tears later.

[oskar]

One thing that really leaves me scratching my head in this insane news cycle is this new bit of information about the Kislyak meeting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...40f_story.html

The meeting is mentioned in the Mueller report, but not that he said he was unconcerned about russian election interference because the US did it too. That means it was either redacted - unlikely because similar remarks remained unredacted, or Mueller only got a redacted version of the conversation as well.

[Poopadoop]

One thing that really leaves me scratching my head in this insane news cycle is this new bit of information about the Kislyak meeting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...40f_story.html

Paywalled so can't read.

One thing I'm waiting for to happen is a bunch of other phone transcripts get released and we basically find out that every convo Trump has with a foreign leader has nothing to do with America and everything to do with Trump getting richer/winnng in 2020/offering things in return for cheap loans. At least that seems to be the direction it's heading.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I deleted the new thread you started, it was inane and amounted to spam. I seem to have accidentally deleted the aarrggh thread too. I'll mop up the tears later.

Oi. Cool it, Hitler.
-Ghandi

[Poopadoop]

Here Ong this ought to cheer you up. fwiw I'm pretty much with Joe Rogan on this shit.

[oskar]

Here Ong this ought to cheer you up. fwiw I'm pretty much with Joe Rogan on this shit.

I cannot emphasize how much I am not with Rogan on this. This is "the left" ... "eating itself"?

Who's the left? Is "the left" a transgender boy at a girls school? Oh that old cliche! I remember when I was a transgender boy at a girls school! What else? Because a teenager, who... do we even know his political affiliation? Who says that if you're trans you're left? 2% of black people support Trump. I'm sure some gender-queer are just as confused... and because that teenager uses pretentious language to describe himself, that means "the left" has lost the plot?

What absolute drivel.

[oskar]

fascist!

[Poopadoop]

fascist!

Next he'll be trying to stifle any reasonable argument by [poop is a twat] them nonstop for days.

Oh wait...

[Poopadoop]

"Election USA 2020: Colludo-mania!"

[OngBonga]

I'm sorry for accidentally deleting an active thread.

Not sorry for nipping the new one in the bud. The arrggghhh thread was sufficient for our constant bickering.

[Poopadoop]

Those are interesting scenarios, but it seems to me that assuming Trump is capable of strategizing like that is unsupported by his past behaviour. My guess is he's just going to keep digging in his heels and proclaiming his innocence until whatever end happens.

Like I said before, Trump will only be taken out of the WH by his fingernails, kicking and screaming the whole way.

[boost]

Those are interesting scenarios, but it seems to me that assuming Trump is capable of strategizing like that is unsupported by his past behaviour. My guess is he's just going to keep digging in his heels and proclaiming his innocence until whatever end happens.

Like I said before, Trump will only be taken out of the WH by his fingernails, kicking and screaming the whole way.

It does appear that we've been lucky to have presidents who more or less go white dwarf after they leave office. It is hard to imagine Trump not going supernova. It's just hard to imagine a post-Trump world at all. Hopefully this is wrong, but I feel like no matter how he leaves office, his base will be enraged. If he dies of a heart attack, it will be a deep state cover operation; if he loses the election, it will be because it was rigged, if he serves both terms and anyone but a Trump sycophant isn't elected in 2024, it will be because the election was rigged.

[Poopadoop]

It does appear that we've been lucky to have presidents who more or less go white dwarf after they leave office. It is hard to imagine Trump not going supernova. It's just hard to imagine a post-Trump world at all. Hopefully this is wrong, but I feel like no matter how he leaves office, his base will be enraged. If he dies of a heart attack, it will be a deep state cover operation; if he loses the election, it will be because it was rigged, if he serves both terms and anyone but a Trump sycophant isn't elected in 2024, it will be because the election was rigged.

Seems spot on to me. That said, his base can go fuck themselves. I'm done worrying about how they feel. I might be more worried if I lived there though I guess.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Interesting.

[boost]

Interesting.

lol

[Poopadoop]

I just don't think you can be afraid to vote out Trump because his base won't like it and might react badly. That's no different than not standing up to a bully because he might punch you in the face. You still have to do it.

[OngBonga]

This is funny. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Trump loses an election, the vast majority of his supporters will accept it. The reaction will be a lot more subdued than the outrage at him winning, and the shitshow we've had since.

I might be wrong, this post might not age well. But it's what I believe right now.

[Poopadoop]

I think the vast majority will accept it too if you define 'accept' as meaning not getting violent about it. But it doesn't take much of a proportion out of millions going off the rails to make things ugly. If even 1000 of those millions go mass killer (which I think is unlikely, probably closer to 10 or 100), then it's going to be pretty traumatic.

[OngBonga]

There will likely be incidents if he loses, just like there are incidents all the time. Find me a year where USA didn't have a mass shooting. idk what the average is, but I wouldn't expect there to be any more mass killings than average in the year after an election.

[OngBonga]

Well yeah we can be creative about what it means to "accept" the result, for clarity on what it means to me then I would say that the vast majority of his opponents have failed to accept him winning. So if Trump losing is met with hysterical noise from his supporters, then I would say they too have failed to accept the result.

If violence is the measure, then the vast majority of his opponents have accepted him winning, and of course the same will be true if he loses. I think talk of 1000 or even 100 mass killers is fear porn of the highest quality. That's right up there with documentaries about Yellowstone Park.

[Poopadoop]

The difference is he encourages it, past presidents didn't. Like Boost said, he's going to go supernova. He's already talking about impeachment leading to a possible civil war.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Keep in mind that most of Trump's base are simply Republican voters who aren't attached to Trump, per se, so much as they're attached to the Republican party.

[Poopadoop]

If Trump somehow wins again in 2020 I think the odds are even that 47 will be Guiliani.

[boost]

If Trump somehow wins again in 2020 I think the odds are even that 47 will be Guiliani.

You mean 46, no? But either way, lol.

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol.

The whistleblower is hearsay.

I got news for you... the actual recording of the phone call is also hearsay... that doesn't mean it's not valuable evidence at getting to the truth.

Some hearsay is good evidence. Some is bad. When the topic of discussion is the content of the phone call, and that is hearsay by definition (it was said outside of a court and not under oath), then obviously the hearsay is good evidence.


Try harder, scandal defenders.

[Poopadoop]

46. 2024.

Sorry lost count.

[OngBonga]

I missed that post.

If someone who is born female identifies as a male, and expects to have the same rights as men, they are promoting left wing views. The left is very much concerned with equality. The idea that "the left are eating themselves" is based on the notion that they seem to abandon equality as soon as someone they don't like expects to be treated the same as someone they do like. To truly support left wing ideals, you need to accept that white males are also entitled to equality. To treat a woman who identifies as a male with contempt because she is white, that is the opposite of equality.

I think it's fair to say the compnay in question are left wing, or at least identify as such. No right wing or politically neutral company will see any benefit to hiring a "diversity officer", whatever the fuck that is.

The trans person, I don't think it matters if he's left wing or not. He probably is, but that's a guess based on his genderqueerness. They tend to lean left because they want to be treated as normal people, so it's natural for them to tend in that direction. Of course, it's not a given. Chelsea Manning doesn't come across as particularly left wing, not that I know a great deal about her other than she slipped secrets about Clinton to Assange when she was a he. Seems pretty anti-left to me. So yeah, it's not a given, though I'd say it's a reasonable assumption. That said, I also think the trannie's ideology is irrelevant in the matter. It's the company's ideology that is relevant here.

[oskar]

I missed that post.

If someone who is born female identifies as a male, and expects to have the same rights as men, they are promoting left wing views. The left is very much concerned with equality. The idea that "the left are eating themselves" is based on the notion that they seem to abandon equality as soon as someone they don't like expects to be treated the same as someone they do like. To truly support left wing ideals, you need to accept that white males are also entitled to equality. To treat a woman who identifies as a male with contempt because she is white, that is the opposite of equality.

I think it's fair to say the compnay in question are left wing, or at least identify as such. No right wing or politically neutral company will see any benefit to hiring a "diversity officer", whatever the fuck that is.

The trans person, I don't think it matters if he's left wing or not. He probably is, but that's a guess based on his genderqueerness. They tend to lean left because they want to be treated as normal people, so it's natural for them to tend in that direction. Of course, it's not a given. Chelsea Manning doesn't come across as particularly left wing, not that I know a great deal about her other than she slipped secrets about Clinton to Assange when she was a he. Seems pretty anti-left to me. So yeah, it's not a given, though I'd say it's a reasonable assumption. That said, I also think the trannie's ideology is irrelevant in the matter. It's the company's ideology that is relevant here.

https://youtu.be/bCAnalgNQps?t=21

[oskar]

Someone give this reporter a medal: https://youtu.be/mEXWI5YK0E8?t=172

[Poopadoop]

lol "You talking to me? You must be talking to me. I don't see any other colluders up here."

[wufwugy]

AOC's winning the presidency 2024

[Poopadoop]

AOC's winning the presidency 2024

Wuf!!

I thought it was Ivanka.

[wufwugy]

Wuf!!

I thought it was Ivanka.

If she runs, she has a chance to beat AOC. She's one of the only who could.

AOC is so powerful that she probably has no choice but to run 2024. I'm not sure about Ivanka. Her new haircut suggests she might be looking to run, but I'm not as confident as I am that AOC will.

[oskar]

Her new haircut suggests she might be looking to run

Hold up!
Where's that coming from?

Is 2nd term Trump still a lock?

[wufwugy]

Hold up!
Where's that coming from?

Is 2nd term Trump still a lock?

She recently went with this cut, giving her more of a woman in charge look. It's probably a coincidence, but is curious nonetheless.




Most Trump fans think he's a lock for 2020. I do not. He's incredibly vulnerable.

Gun to the head, I'd say he wins >50% of the time, but my confidence is nowhere near what it was for 2016, and he could get beat convincingly.

[wufwugy]

How you been?

[Poopadoop]

How you been?

Good, thanks man. And you?

[wufwugy]

Good, thanks man. And you?

That's great.

I'm closing in on final form.

[wufwugy]

Holy shit I haven't seen all these avatars and side flairs in a year. Feels longer.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Hi Wuf! Long time.

You doing well?

You a professional economist, yet?

[wufwugy]

Yo!

I left the econ life, but the econ life never left me.

I'm doing phenomenal. Thanks for asking. You?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Still doing that gig where I play with toys and watch YouTube videos in a physics department.
Pretty rockin'.

Still with the same gal. She's rockin', too.

The summer heat finally broke and the windows are open for the first time in months.

Altogether rockin'.

[wufwugy]

That's awesome and great to hear.

[wufwugy]

Could be.

[oskar]

Orange is a good color for her.

[wufwugy]

Orange woman bad!

[Poopadoop]

Damn, the Deep State really did a pro job of framing Trump this time

[oskar]

Why is he doing the news like a crappier version of a Colbert monologue? This is bizarre.

[Poopadoop]

Fake comedy news?

[oskar]

So Wuf, where you at regarding Trump impeachment?

[wufwugy]

So Wuf, where you at regarding Trump impeachment?

The politicians' fake outrage is noted.

[oskar]

Bless this man!
context: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-federal-judge

Let's hope this goes to the supreme court before Trump can appoint Judge Jeanine.

[oskar]

So you think it's ok to ask foreign governments to investigate your political opponents in a presidential election in exchange for foreign aid or policy?
Or do you think this is a mischaracterization of what is happening? If so: what do you think is happening?

[MadMojoMonkey]

So you think it's ok to ask foreign governments to investigate your political opponents in a presidential election in exchange for taxpayer appointed foreign aid or policy?

FYP

The money he withheld was tax money appointed by Congress to go to Ukraine, our ally.

Or do you think this is a mischaracterization of what is happening? If so: what do you think is happening?

I'm very curious what an intelligent Republican voter thinks of this, too.

[oskar]

I'm very curious what an intelligent Republican voter thinks of this, too.

Me too... Now we just have to find one!

[wufwugy]

So you think it's ok to ask foreign governments to investigate your political opponents in a presidential election in exchange for foreign aid or policy?
Or do you think this is a mischaracterization of what is happening? If so: what do you think is happening?

I haven't looked into the details because this is one pickle slice in a long line of throwing every pickle slice against the window to see what sticks.

If it's legitimate this time, then hopefully it will turn into something more. Otherwise I'm looking forward to seeing how many more pickles they launch at the window.

[oskar]

I have a co-worker who's an over-enthusiastic muslim. I successfully avoided him for a while, but he finally catches me and rattles down Thomas of Aquinas' arguments for the existence of god. I point out to him that those are Thomas of Aquinas' arguments for the existence of god and that they're not as fresh as he believes them to be - being reasonably proud of myself for remembering the name Thomas of Aquinas. Then he comes at me with the fine-tuned universe argument. I explain how the anthropic principle does away with that, now wallowing in self-satisfaction for remembering the anthropic principle. He agrees that I have made a good point and we go on our way.
A couple months later he makes the same point, and I tell him we've had the exact same conversation a while back, and I write "the anthropic principle" on a piece of paper and tell him to look it up.
Yesterday I overheard him ask someone else about the fine-tuned universe. I don't think he's being deliberately obtuse, I think he's incapable of absorbing information that clashes with his core belief system, and to a pretty ridiculous degree at that.

It's interesting how that works... I don't know how that works, but it seems to be a very human thing to do.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think he's being deliberately obtuse, I think he's incapable of absorbing information that clashes with his core belief system, and to a pretty ridiculous degree at that.

It's interesting how that works... I don't know how that works, but it seems to be a very human thing to do.

Solidarity, brother.

[wufwugy]

It's interesting how that works... I don't know how that works, but it seems to be a very human thing to do.

Extremely. If the input isn't one of the 6 principles of persuasion, their mind usually will stay the same.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah I think they pretty much caught him red-handed this time. He's not getting out of this one.

[oskar]

idk about that for one simple reason: no matter how much democrats like to state the opposite: the president is above the law. He can appoint supreme court judges, he owns the DOJ, and the senate will vote purely on politics. If GOP senators can get away with shutting down impeachment politically, they will. Trump can do anything - as long as republican voters are largely ok with it, the senate will stop impeachment.

The only way impeachment can hurt Trump is the same way impeachment hurt Clinton: by the optics. He got impeached - that sounds bad! And if you're lucky, enough of them stay home on election day.

[Poopadoop]

If GOP senators can get away with shutting down impeachment politically, they will. .

There may be some politics and optics involved, but even Fox News is having a hard time defending him on this one. And when it's something completely inexcusable like this I think even the GOP senate will turn.

[oskar]

There may be some politics and optics involved, but even Fox News is having a hard time defending him on this one. And when it's something completely inexcusable like this I think even the GOP senate will turn.

Brian Kilmeade is not having a super fun time with Trump greenlighting Turkey genociding the Kurds again... so I guess we know where his line is.
https://youtu.be/BuaUCuS3TLg?t=282

[Poopadoop]

^ well that was awkward. The look on the other two's faces was pretty priceless though lol.

[CoccoBill]

Being pot committed is a fallacy, might be better to just cut your losses.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wuf: Check the link in this post for a timeline of what this is about.
Sorry to nest a link in a link, but I'm sick and lazy.
(oh, and I pretty much blame you for me being sick, since you show up here and within hours I have a cold. Jerkface.)


I still agree with you that Trump dodges bullets better than Neo. It's still premature to talk impeachment on a serious level.

The facts appear to be:
1) Trump kept saying stuff like "You guys are cracking down on corruption. You should check out Biden." over and over. His guys talking to Ukrain's Pres's guys in multiple meetings saying to investigate Biden.
2) Congress gives $400 M in aide to Ukraine and a week before it's delivered, Trump puts a hold on it. AFAIK, no one close to Trump knows why he did this. I.e. he didn't tell anyone why he did that. That doesn't mean there's no alibi, but it would sure help his case if he had given a single good reason for doing so to anyone close to him.


Here's the question. Are those 2 things directly related?

It's perfectly legal for Trump to encourage anyone anywhere to investigate anyone anywhere.
It is perfectly legal for Trump to put a hold on taxpayer approved international aid.
It is perfectly legal for Trump to use taxpayer money to investigate threats to national security.
BUT,
It is treason for Trump to use this money (by withholding it to apply pressure) for personal gain.


***
I mean... I guess we already got our answer. Wuf isn't even paying attention. He simply presumes the negative things said about Trump are fake news.

I don't think that represents all "intelligent Rep voters," but I'd wager it represents a significant proportion if not a majority.

[Poopadoop]

It's perfectly legal for Trump to encourage anyone anywhere to investigate anyone anywhere.

I think this needs qualification though. He can't encourage people to investigate someone for his personal gain. And especially not a foreign power.

Not saying he's the first one to do it, he's just the first one to do it so blatantly as to get caught.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think this needs qualification though. He can't encourage people to investigate someone for his personal gain. And especially not a foreign power.

I'm no lawyer, but what I understand is that he can use his own personal resources to do things on his own behalf, and if that involves investigating a political rival, that's fine.

Using his words to encourage an investigation is not using national resources for his personal gain.
He can encourage China or any other nation to investigate Biden. He can hire China or any other nation with his own personal money to investigate Biden.

What he can't do is use US national resources for non-national gains. I.e. he cannot use taxpayer money to dig up dirt on his political rivals, whether or not any foreign nation is involved.

Not saying he's the first one to do it, he's just the first one to do it so blatantly as to get caught.

He's not technically been caught at anything, yet.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is still the standard, here.

[Poopadoop]

I'm no lawyer, but what I understand is that he can use his own personal resources to do things on his own behalf, and if that involves investigating a political rival, that's fine.

Using his words to encourage an investigation is not using national resources for his personal gain.
He can encourage China or any other nation to investigate Biden. He can hire China or any other nation with his own personal money to investigate Biden.

Well he did tell Russia to go find Hillary's emails and nothing happened. So yeah, I guess he can.

It confuses me though because I've heard that you can't accept help from a foreign power in an election. Presumably the same goes if you're an incumbent looking for dirt on your opponent. I'm not sure I understand where the lines get drawn here.