*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

It's almost as if you can't falsely dispute an election these days without getting a comeuppance. Gawd.

[Mr.Banana]

It's almost as if you can't falsely dispute an election these days without getting a comeuppance. Gawd.

It's almost like democrat congresspeople didn't do the exact same thing...

THE EXACT SAME THING

in 2000, then again in 2004, and in 2016

[Mr.Banana]

Look, treason caught on camera!!

[Mr.Banana]

https://www.businessinsider.com/cele...-trump-2016-12

Why aren't these "insurrectionists" in prison?

[Mr.Banana]

I hope the guy screaming at 2:45 gets 100 years in prison. Who does he think he is "falsely disputing an election"!

[Poopadoop]

I'm not really up on my History of the US Congress, but I'm fairly sure none of those people were supporting an ex-POTUS who was fomenting revolt, and had absolutely no evidence for what they were claiming.

[Mr.Banana]

I'm not really up on my History of the US Congress,

How convenient

but I'm fairly sure none of those people were supporting an ex-POTUS

You are correct. In 2000 it was an ex vice-potus, in 2004 it was a sitting senator, in 2016 it was an ex-FLOTUS.

Thank you for that clarification.

who was fomenting revolt,

The word he used was "cheer". and the remedy that the 140+ congresspeople asked for was an "audit".

and had absolutely no evidence for what they were claiming.

Why do you need evidence to ask questions? Or do an audit? Why does it have to be an open and shut case before we even start the inquiry? What kind of fucked up standard is that?

[Poopadoop]

All these things have to be considered in the context of a moron ex-POTUS who will say anything if he thinks it will help him. There was no fraud, at least not any systematic fraud. Every one of the "opposers" to the election in congress and the senate knows that. Mitch fucking McConnell knows that. Mike Pence knows that. All the governors know that. All the judges who heard the cases know that.

In fact, the entire fucking world knows that except for far right media viewers, 'cause you've been eating a steady diet of lies and propaganda for so long you have absolutely no fucking clue what is actually going on in the real world.

[Mr.Banana]

ex-POTUS who will say anything if he thinks it will help him. .

How is this different from literally anyone else in the ruling class?

[Poopadoop]

How is this different from literally anyone else in the ruling class?

Even some of them have their limits. Mitch McConnell and Mike Pence did not support the MAGA-lution, as I noted above.

[OngBonga]

How is this different from literally anyone else in the ruling class?

I've said this to him a million times and he still works on the assumption that Trump is the only liar in politics. Actually that's not true, he also thinks Boris is a liar. But he never calls out the lies of his own team.

Here's a Biden lie...
"I went to law school on a full academic scholarship…[and] ended up in the top half of my class."

Biden graduated 76th of 85 students in his law school class.

If Trump said this, poop would be drooling.

I can't be bothered to list all the lies I can find from Biden, I expect it because he's a politician. They're all liars. It's their job. "Politician" is synonymous with "professional liar".

[Poopadoop]

I've said this to him a million times and he still works on the assumption that Trump is the only liar in politics. Actually that's not true, he also thinks Boris is a liar. But he never calls out the lies of his own team.

And I've told you repeatedly that I know they're all liars.

But lying about your grades is not on the same level as lying about an election lol. Are you really outraged that Biden lied about his grades? Fuck me, what a snowflake.

[OngBonga]

And I've told you repeatedly that I know they're all liars.

But lying about your grades is not on the same level as lying about an election lol. Are you really outraged that Biden lied about his grades? Fuck me, what a snowflake.

lol no I'm not outraged, Jesus. It was just the first lie I could find, and it was exactly the kind of lie you'd gleefully mock Trump for.

[Mr.Banana]

whaaa whaaaa whaaaa lying about an election......

He really believes he won. So it's not a lie.

Just like Al Gore thinks he won. And John Kerry. And Hillary.

[Mr.Banana]

Greedy, selfish, lecherous, adulterous, slimy, dishonest, egotistical, privileged, condescending, lying, scheming, backstabbing politician whose puppet strings are controlled by big business and special interest groups that enhance his personal wealth in return for political favors.


Are you really telling me that sentence only describes one singular solitary 'moron ex-Potus'?

I'm not describing anyone else in Washington DC or in any US state capitol?

Really dude?

Really?

This is what you refuse to see about Trump. If America is dead, then Trump is the coroner, NOT the murderer.

[Poopadoop]

Greedy, selfish, lecherous, adulterous, slimy, dishonest, egotistical, privileged, condescending, lying, scheming, backstabbing politician whose puppet strings are controlled by big business and special interest groups that enhance his personal wealth in return for political favors.


Are you really telling me that sentence only describes one singular solitary 'moron ex-Potus'?

I'm not describing anyone else in Washington DC or in any US state capitol?

Really dude?

Really?

This is what you refuse to see about Trump. If America is dead, then Trump is the coroner, NOT the murderer.

Reductio ad change subjecto.

If the issue is whether supporting a bogus revolution in your own country for personal political gain is a sackable offense (which is what we started out talking about), then I don't have any sympathy for a MAGAlution supporter getting fired, sorry.

[Mr.Banana]

Where do these words like "revolution" and "insurrection" come from?

140+ members of congress asked for an "audit". That's what they asked for. Not a revolution. Not an "overthrow". An "audit".

Every one of those congresspeople represents some 500K+ american citizens. Questions and doubt about the election is not a fringe theory espoused only by maga-maniacs drooling over Alex Jones podcasts.

[Poopadoop]

Where do these words like "revolution" and "insurrection" come from?

140+ members of congress asked for an "audit". That's what they asked for. Not a revolution. Not an "overthrow". An "audit".

Every one of those congresspeople represents some 500K+ american citizens. Questions and doubt about the election is not a fringe theory espoused only by maga-maniacs drooling over Alex Jones podcasts.

You said yourself all politicians are self-serving. So that checkmates your argument that they had a legitimate case to make for fraud.

[Mr.Banana]

Nice dodge

[Poopadoop]

You played yourself into a corner banana, well done.

[Mr.Banana]

You played yourself into a corner banana, well done.

wut?

[Poopadoop]

wut?

Huh?

[Mr.Banana]

Here's chapter 1 of the indoctrination manual. Get them while they're young

https://www.parents.com/news/how-to-...=pocket-newtab

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean... banana raving is just hilarious to read.

Like, banana is clearly capable of rational thought, but once politics is the subject, he just shuts all that off and goes full conspiracy theory froth about every aspect.

[Mr.Banana]

Like, banana is clearly capable of rational thought, but once politics is the subject, he just shuts all that off and goes full conspiracy theory froth about every aspect

What conspiracy am I claiming?

Are you denying that there is an effort, led by the left, to crush the middle class?

[MadMojoMonkey]

What conspiracy am I claiming?

Are you denying that there is an effort, led by the left, to crush the middle class?

[OngBonga]

[Poopadoop]

Who in this forum has expressed a view even remotely as stupid as that? Or, are you suggesting this is a commonly-held view on the left?

I never even heard of that guy which probably goes a long way to showing just how far his influence runs.

[Poopadoop]

That's great Ong. Glad to hear your objective opinion on how biased I am because I make fun of Trump.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The difference between Trump and other politicians isn't the corruption. It's the scale of corruption.

It's like you're arguing that the mere fact that corruption exists means that it's OK.

It's like you're arguing that we want our politicians to be corrupt, or we should just give up and accept that all politicians are corrupt and there's nothing we can do about it.

All politicians are corrupt is a good place to start, but the response of, "Oh well, guess I'll just let the world burn in a vacuum of quality leadership." is just asinine. That's how civilizations fall - when the popular will to fight corruption is lost.

The right response to corruption isn't to accept it, it's to make it harder by attacking it. It's to push back on the corruption and force them to be sneakier, shadier and less obvious about it, so that we can't as easily attack them. It's to force them to appear to be doing things for the benefit of their constituents at a bare minimum. It's to acknowledge that some fights are worth fighting, not because you can win, but because losing is a price you are unwilling to pay. If we don't fight to root out corruption all the time, then we inherit a corrupt political system.


Sometimes, we'll misfire, and seek out corruption where none exists. We're not perfect. That's not a big deal. The constant push to root out corruption forces the politicians to at least do enough for us that the corruption is hidden behind actual good governance.


So no, the argument that all politicians lie doesn't mean we shouldn't care when a politician lies. It means we should lambaste them thoroughly and make it clear that if they want to lie to us, they better do it better than that. They better at least give us enough to argue over whether it was a lie or not. And for the most part, they do give us that.


But the scale is what matters. Trump is so far off the scale compared to other US politicians. Accepting that bar he's set isn't just bad for Dems today, it's bad for Reps tomorrow. A Dem version of Trump is now a more likely scenario than it was before Trump. Expanding the power of the POTUS cuts both ways. It's not just boosting the power of the Reps... it boosts the power of the executive - pushes the power of the POTUS closer to that of a monarch - it undermines the accountability of the office of POTUS to the American people.


And yes, I was just as worried when Obama was pulling power into the office of POTUS, because that in many ways paved the way for the Trump presidency. Divesting power away from that figurehead is a fundamental aspect of the American government, and straying away from that foundation expresses an ignorance of history, and a forgetting of the lessons that got us to 2021.

Germany spends a year of schooling teaching the dangers of following a charismatic leader. They still remember their lesson. We seem to have forgotten it already, and we were the supposed "good guys" in that fight.

[Poopadoop]

Trump is so far off the scale compared to other US politicians.

Stop being biased Mojo. Try to understand your inner bias and work at removing it. If you criticize the most corrupt politicians now, you'll just spend the rest of your life complaining about any politican who ever bigs themselves up a bit or is even remotely tarnished in any way.

Signed,
Ong.

[OngBonga]

Stop being biased Mojo. Try to understand your inner bias and work at removing it. If you criticize the most corrupt politicians now, you'll just spend the rest of your life complaining about any politican who ever bigs themselves up a bit or is even remotely tarnished in any way.

Signed,
Ong.

This is you refusing to admit your bias clouds your judgment.

[Mr.Banana]

But the scale is what matters. Trump is so far off the scale compared to other US politicians.

OOOOOHH YOU'RE SO CLOSE!!!

so what if other politician's sins are small-scale? They're still sins. And sins are bad. And those sins have fucked over the middle of america for decades now.

So when we vote Trump to send a message, it's not meant to be mild. It's meant to be a giant, orange-tinted "Fuck you" to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington. So it has to be large-scale.

Trump is SUPPOSED TO BE REPULSIVE

Everything you find disgusting about him is exactly why he's president.

[Poopadoop]

OOOOOHH YOU'RE SO CLOSE!!!

so what if other politician's sins are small-scale? They're still sins. And sins are bad. And those sins have fucked over the middle of america for decades now.

So when we vote Trump to send a message, it's not meant to be mild. It's meant to be a giant, orange-tinted "Fuck you" to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington. So it has to be large-scale.

Trump is SUPPOSED TO BE REPULSIVE

Everything you find disgusting about him is exactly why he's president.

Not any more.

[MadMojoMonkey]

To the extent that Trump supporters are standing up for what they believe in and speaking out to corrupt powers, I totally support them.
To the extent that they continue to support positions that are demonstrably false - like a "stolen" election - I do not support that.
To the extent that there was a mob chanting to lynch the VP and forcing entry into the halls of Congress while it was in session - that I find very difficult to understand as positive civic protest.

The core of the movement to fight against an entrenched, corrupt political class is awesome.
I like it. I love it. I want to see more of it.
I just don't think Trump was the right guy for the job. I don't think he drained any swamp. I think he took a politically divided America and jammed a wedge as deep into that divide as he could.

I don't identify as Rep or Dem - as Liberal or Conservative - until you tell me the issue we're discussing. I'm pro-gun, pro-legalized drugs, pro-legalized prostitution, and also pro-open borders and pro-reform the way we approach policing mental health problems. I'm a complicated person - i.e. a person.

So presuming I'm anti-Trump because he's a Rep is both stupid and wrong. I'm not opposed to Trump because he's a politician, nor because he's a corrupt politician (redundant). I'm opposed to Trump because he has deepened the internal animosity of the American people. I'm opposed to Trump because I don't think a leader who "jokes" about drinking disinfectant deserves a microphone.

Everything you find disgusting about him is exactly why he's president.

When you try to argue against things I haven't said, positions I do not espouse - I can't take you seriously.

[Mr.Banana]

When you try to argue against things I haven't said, positions I do not espouse - I can't take you seriously.

Your last two posts said it all dude. Everything you don't like about Trump is exactly why people voted for him

[Mr.Banana]

The core of the movement to fight against an entrenched, corrupt political class is awesome.
I like it. I love it. I want to see more of it.
I just don't think Trump was the right guy for the job.

What do you think should have been done instead? And who should have done it?

Let's say they asked you, a monkey, to disrupt an entrenched, corrupt political class. What's your plan?

[CoccoBill]

Let's say they asked you, a monkey, to disrupt an entrenched, corrupt political class. What's your plan?

Not mojo but can act like a monkey, so I'll butt in:

- enforce maximum terms (maybe 2-3) on senate and house seats
- make it illegal for lobbyists to make campaign donations
- complete transparency for campaign donations
- stop gerrymandering
- get rid of the electoral college
- stricter regulations against conflicts of interest
- etc

Not:
- vote in a wannabe mafioso dictator

[Mr.Banana]

The difference between Trump and other politicians isn't the corruption. It's the scale of corruption.

Cmon on dude. He is literally the only person who ever took office in washington, any office, and left poorer than when he got in. No one else has done that.

How corrupt can he be?

Barack Obama was broke when he first became senator. Now he's worth $40 million. He only earned 3M for being president.

Nancy Pelosi makes $193K per year but somehow has a net worth of 117 million.


Are you really telling me Trump is worse? He lost money!!

[CoccoBill]

Cmon on dude. He is literally the only person who ever took office in washington, any office, and left poorer than when he got in. No one else has done that.

Source?

[Mr.Banana]

Source? (of trump's net worth)

You can easily google this shit yourself dude. Cmon. If you want to cross-examine something I post....go ahead. Post your own contrary evidence though.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ne...of-presidents/

Snopes has a bullshit explanation for why it's ok that Obama is so rich. It says that ex presidents can write books etc. Except Obama's $10M from his book deals came WHILE he was president.

[CoccoBill]

You can easily google this shit yourself dude. Cmon. If you want to cross-examine something I post....go ahead. Post your own contrary evidence though.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ne...of-presidents/

That's from 2017. My point is, we don't know what Trump's net worth was before elections, since he hasn't released his full tax reports, and we don't know what it is now. Maybe that pesky audit will soon end and he'll release them.

[OngBonga]

The difference between Trump and other politicians isn't the corruption. It's the scale of corruption.

I think this is naive.

It's like you're arguing that the mere fact that corruption exists means that it's OK.

I've been talking about lies, not corruption, but this isn't how I feel. I am against corruption on all fronts. That's why I have criticised the Tories for sending Dominic Cummings to "test his eyesight" pissing distance from a pharmaceutical company that two days later announced a vaccine deal. This is why I won't even consider voting for the Tories. I do not accept corruption. I also can't do much about it other than complain.

It's like you're arguing that we want our politicians to be corrupt, or we should just give up and accept that all politicians are corrupt and there's nothing we can do about it.

Is there something we can do about it? Tell me what we can do. There's not voting for them, there's not trusting them, but how do we hold them to account? It requires action from the masses, not individuals.

The right response to corruption isn't to accept it, it's to make it harder by attacking it. It's to push back on the corruption and force them to be sneakier, shadier and less obvious about it, so that we can't as easily attack them. It's to force them to appear to be doing things for the benefit of their constituents at a bare minimum. It's to acknowledge that some fights are worth fighting, not because you can win, but because losing is a price you are unwilling to pay. If we don't fight to root out corruption all the time, then we inherit a corrupt political system.

This is all very well and good, but it's just words, this is rhetoric, not action. We're not forcing them to do anything. They get votes, they get airtime. The corruption is so deep that there's no way to hold them to account. The courts are corrupt. The media is corrupt. The entire system is corrupt. If you speak out, you get silenced, branded a "conspiracy theorist", you get pushed to the fringes of society. Or worse.

So no, the argument that all politicians lie doesn't mean we shouldn't care when a politician lies.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying we shouldn't show bias and only call out the lies of the "other" side, while ignoring the lies of you own side. We should put politics aside, but we don't. Poop is proof of this. Poop isn't even that extreme when it comes to this sort of thing. Go to Twitter and see how many people call Trump a liar, go through their timeline and see how many call out the lies of Dems. Call someone out on it, and laugh as you get blocked so they don't have to confront their bias.

Trump is so far off the scale compared to other US politicians.

I don't think so. I think they're all as bad as each other.

Germany spends a year of schooling teaching the dangers of following a charismatic leader. They still remember their lesson. We seem to have forgotten it already, and we were the supposed "good guys" in that fight.

Comparing Trump to Hitler is ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. How many Jews has Trump gassed? How many countries has he invaded? This is a silly game, pointing to Germany and saying "learn that lesson". It's not relevant in this case. Just because Trump is "charismatic", doesn't make him a despot.

[Poopadoop]

The courts are corrupt. The media is corrupt. The entire system is corrupt. If you speak out, you get silenced, branded a "conspiracy theorist", you get pushed to the fringes of society. Or worse.

Go to Twitter and see how many people call Trump a liar, go through their timeline and see how many call out the lies of Dems. Call someone out on it, and laugh as you get blocked so they don't have to confront their bias.

Fuck me I would block some twat who did that too. If I tweeted about Boris' starve a kid to make a quid policy and you or Andrea Jenkins or Nigel Farage or some random pinhead came on my feed to call me a hypocrite 'cause Starmer lied about winning a bike race when he was a kid I would instablock you before I could blink.

I mean they are probably laughing even louder at you 'cause you have nothing better to do than try to reductio ad whatabout them.

Comparing Trump to Hitler is ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

He wasn't. He was talking about how Germany tries to educate people not to fall prey to populist demagogues.

Nice reductio ad bananum there though.

Just because Trump is "charismatic", doesn't make him a despot.

No, but it makes it easier.

[OngBonga]

You're still refusing to confront your bias poop.

This is about politics to you, not corruption, not lies, it's pure politics.

[Poopadoop]

You're still refusing to confront your bias poop.

This is about politics to you, not corruption, not lies, it's pure politics.

When you become a paragon of objectivity in this and/or the Brexit thread, you can lecture me about political bias. Until then...

[OngBonga]

When you become a paragon of objectivity in this and/or the Brexit thread, you can lecture me about political bias. Until then...

Nice dismissal once again.

I at least try not to be biased. I don't call out one side and give the other side a free pass for the same thing. That's what you're doing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ong: what you do is you speak to power. You engage in the dialogue with the politicians. You write them letters, you phone their staffers, you give them feedback. Voting is only one form of engagement, and when people only voice their opinions on their politicians in a binary fashion once every few years, that's not giving them adequate, nuanced feedback.

What you do is you support the free press, and you hold anyone accountable to does anything to stifle the free press from reporting on what's going on.

What you do is seek out other intelligent people like yourself who have different perspectives on things and you try to understand their concerns and needs and incorporate all of that knowledge into your world view of what your culture is and needs.

What you don't do is entrench yourself into "us vs. them" mentality in which you allow yourself to think of other humans in ways that strips those people of their humanity. Even a corrupt politician is a human being, who lives in a world of half-truths and misunderstandings. No one knows everything, or has a perfect moral compass, and everyone is doing what they think is best as they see it. Allowing yourself to know that about them certainly complicates cultural matters, but not doing so is just giving in to lazy childishness. It's playground nonsense.

We're all on the same team. Left and Right... all trying to accomplish ultimately the same thing - what is best for our society. The vilification of the other side is just petty and puerile, and engaging in that crap is just your personal choice to put yourself near the bottom rung of engagement.


And more. I mean... We're adults, here. I don't need to describe what civic involvement is to you. If you're pretending you don't know, then fine... play your little game.


And lol at suggesting I'm comparing Trump to Hitler in any more of a sense than both were charismatic. Poop already clarified that what I was saying is, in fact, exactly what I said.

[Mr.Banana]

One of the "Impeachment Managers" is the same congressman who was recently exposed for having sex with a chinese spy working on his own staff.

That's the guy telling you that Trump is a danger to democracy.

[Mr.Banana]

That same guy went on TV and said that Osama bin Laden wasn't even in America on 9/11, but we can still hold him responsible.

And Trump is the same as Osama bin Laden.

He said that. On national TV.

That's the guy heading the impeachment charge.

[Mr.Banana]

After this aired, big-tech scrubbed her wikipedia page and locked access to the incriminating writings.

This is the person who will be calculating your social credit scores.

[CoccoBill]

So 10 senators voted for impeachment. That's not many, but I guess still a bit surprising. Those 10 did that knowing they'll face the wrath of Trumpster divers, so in effect putting their career in jeopardy. Very few people make those decisions lightly, most of them probably have families to take care of. It's sad that those things directly interfere with the job they're doing, which should be making things better, not pandering to whoever can further their own careers.

[Mr.Banana]

So 10 senators voted for impeachment. That's not many, but I guess still a bit surprising. Those 10 did that knowing they'll face the wrath of Trumpster divers, so in effect putting their career in jeopardy. Very few people make those decisions lightly, most of them probably have families to take care of. It's sad that those things directly interfere with the job they're doing, which should be making things better, not pandering to whoever can further their own careers.

There are still some republicans that think they can shed Trump and return to the good ol' days of neo-conservatism. They think Mitt Romney might actually matter again. That kind of thing.

They're wrong, of course. But they'll learn that in time.


Some others just don't see a future for themselves in a populist platform, even if it's called republican. I'm betting you see at least 5 to 10 republicans change teams and start calling themselves democrat just to stay in the game. Voting for impeachment is a surrender flag

[CoccoBill]

I'm sure that applies to some. Still I think for many if not most, they've been for years aware that the general population is moving to support a more liberal agenda, without gerrymandering and the electoral college they would be irrelevant. Trumpism gave them a chance to become relevant again, abandoning what you've stood for to maintain power. Being willing to ignore the bigotry and craziness for SCOTUS seats and tax cuts. Now that Trump's approval has plummeted to 34% I'm sure many are questioning how long they want to keep supporting him.

[Mr.Banana]

Now that Trump's approval has plummeted to 34% I'm sure many are questioning how long they want to keep supporting him.

I saw a poll reported yesterday saying over 95% of those who voted for Trump in 2020 would vote for him again, even though he got impeached a second time.

[Mr.Banana]

they've been for years aware that the general population is moving to support a more liberal agenda,

Is this one of those stupid traps where you interchange the current definition of "liberal" with the classic British definition from the 1700's? Because I hate that fucking game.

If by liberal, you mean leftist, democrat, progressive, or socialist, or any degree of those words....you're wrong.

[CoccoBill]

Is this one of those stupid traps where you interchange the current definition of "liberal" with the classic British definition from the 1700's? Because I hate that fucking game.

If by liberal, you mean leftist, democrat, progressive, or socialist, or any degree of those words....you're wrong.

Well I don't think there's anything inherently stupid about it, it's just that the US definition differs from the rest of the world somewhat. I guess to clarify let's say modern liberalism, aka support for healthcare, welfare, minimum wage, voting rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, immigration reform and so on. If you think I'm wrong that support for those have been rising steadily, please correct me.

[Mr.Banana]

Well I don't think there's anything inherently stupid about it, it's just that the US definition differs from the rest of the world somewhat. I guess to clarify let's say modern liberalism, aka support for healthcare, welfare, minimum wage, voting rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, immigration reform and so on. If you think I'm wrong that support for those have been rising steadily, please correct me.

Everyone supports healthcare. Everyone agrees that we need social safety nets for the poor and underprivileged. The problem of stagnant wages is a republican talking point. Nothing in the republican platform seeks to deny any legal voter the right to vote. LGBT rights is not a real thing. Groups can't have rights. Same thing for women's rights. and immigration reform is part of the conservative agenda. The liberals just don't want to have a border. That's not "reform".

[CoccoBill]

Everyone supports healthcare.

For themselves yes, not for others.

Nothing in the republican platform seeks to deny any legal voter the right to vote.

Technically true, they just want to limit who can legally vote and make it extra hard for non-whites.

LGBT rights is not a real thing. Groups can't have rights. Same thing for women's rights.

Exactly the kinds of opinions that seem to steer people to the left. And you know damn well I didn't mean a "group" should be given rights, but the members of those groups.

[Mr.Banana]

support for those have been rising steadily.

Don't confuse "support" for prevalence. That's the illusion of the Democrat party. it's Saul Alinsky's philosophy of 'coalitional politics'. You have a fractured grouping of tiny coalitions all made up of one marginalized group or another.

Imagine a family of four. The daughter in the family decides she is going to only eat vegetarian. So she says "mom, cook whatever you want, eat whatever you want. But I'm just telling you that I won't eat anything that's not vegetarian." So now the mom has a choice to make. She can either start cooking a second meal for her vegetarian daughter, or she can make one meal and the whole family eats vegetarian.

So you can see this one person, 25% of the family, can get the rest of the group to go along just by identifying as an intransigent minority.

Now let's say that family goes to a barbeque at a neighbor's house. They tell the neighbor, "our family only eats vegetarian. you guys can have meat, but we'll only eat vegetarian food at your barbeque". So now the neighbors have to make a decision about accomodating that by either un-inviting the family, or making extra food to appease them.

Now imagine the son in the family says he won't ride in a non-electric car. So Dad's forced to buy an electric car. And maybe the mom wants something her way. And the family all accomodates that too. So what you end up with is this coalition...the family....all with completely different agendas, all accepting each other's demands in exchange for their own.

Everyone is "going along to get along".

That can't last.

just for example, what do you think is going to happen when the gays find out that black people don't like them very much?

[CoccoBill]

Don't confuse "support" for prevalence. That's the illusion of the Democrat party. it's Saul Alinsky's philosophy of 'coalitional politics'. You have a fractured grouping of tiny coalitions all made up of one marginalized group or another.

Imagine a family of four. The daughter in the family decides she is going to only eat vegetarian. So she says "mom, cook whatever you want, eat whatever you want. But I'm just telling you that I won't eat anything that's not vegetarian." So now the mom has a choice to make. She can either start cooking a second meal for her vegetarian daughter, or she can make one meal and the whole family eats vegetarian.

So you can see this one person, 25% of the family, can get the rest of the group to go along just by identifying as an intransigent minority.

Now let's say that family goes to a barbeque at a neighbor's house. They tell the neighbor, "our family only eats vegetarian. you guys can have meat, but we'll only eat vegetarian food at your barbeque". So now the neighbors have to make a decision about accomodating that by either un-inviting the family, or making extra food to appease them.

Now imagine the son in the family says he won't ride in a non-electric car. So Dad's forced to buy an electric car. And maybe the mom wants something her way. And the family all accomodates that too. So what you end up with is this coalition...the family....all with completely different agendas, all accepting each other's demands in exchange for their own.

Everyone is "going along to get along".

That can't last.

Without realizing it, you've hit the nail here. People very rarely, especially on the societal level, change their convictions. Usually what happens is the younger generations disagree with them, partly I'm sure of just spite and teen rebellion, but also because they have a vastly updated set of information to digest in their formative years. People generally learn new stuff in their youth, and hold on to those beliefs till they die.

The daughter and son in your examples demonstrate this exact effect, causing some change in behavior immediately, which overtakes when the parents croak. Progress.

just for example, what do you think is going to happen when the gays find out that black people don't like them very much?

Holy what the shit?

[Mr.Banana]

Trumpism gave them a chance to become relevant again, abandoning what you've stood for to maintain power. Being willing to ignore the bigotry and craziness for SCOTUS seats and tax cuts.

You just described every politician every, and just about every member of the ruling class in America.

I can open any media source right now and find a dozen examples of someone on the left saying something completely contrary to what they said 5 years ago. I think you know that hypocrisy abounds. Singling out Trump-supporting republicans is a really lame spin-job. Not even CNN would insult people's intelligence that brazenly.

And you make it sound like the republican party was this unified ideological force before Trump came alone. It wasn't. Things used to be that Dems represented the working poor and middle class and that repubs were all about deregulation, low taxes, and business growth. That's INVERTED in the last 10-20 years. Trump certainly sped that along, but he wasn't anywhere near the initial development of that trend.

[CoccoBill]

You just described every politician every, and just about every member of the ruling class in America.

I can open any media source right now and find a dozen examples of someone on the left saying something completely contrary to what they said 5 years ago. I think you know that hypocrisy abounds. Singling out Trump-supporting republicans is a really lame spin-job. Not even CNN would insult people's intelligence that brazenly.

And you make it sound like the republican party was this unified ideological force before Trump came alone. It wasn't. Things used to be that Dems represented the working poor and middle class and that repubs were all about deregulation, low taxes, and business growth. That's INVERTED in the last 10-20 years. Trump certainly sped that along, but he wasn't anywhere near the initial development of that trend.

I'm not saying you're totally wrong, but you might be conflating changing your mind about an issue based on new information with just completely abandoning your core values. I'm sure both happens, within all parties, but the republican support for Trump for the past years reeks quite heavily. See Lindsey Graham's comments about Trump pre election 2016. They hated him but started embracing him because he won.

[Poopadoop]

Trump stiffs Rudy lmfao.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/13/p...use/index.html

[Mr.Banana]

Trump stiffs Rudy lmfao.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/13/p...use/index.html

You shouldn't be allowed to criticize trump for anything that you could have or should have predicted BEFORE he ran for office.

Everyone knows he's shafted vendors. Rudy should have got the retainer up front.

[Poopadoop]

You shouldn't be allowed to criticize trump for anything that you could have or should have predicted BEFORE he ran for office.

More lols.

banana you're on fire right now. Keep it comin'

[Mr.Banana]

banana you're on fire right now. Keep it comin'

Ask me somethin

[OngBonga]

So Christians' rights to exclude others override gays' right to marry?

I'm not sure there's all that many people who think this. However, forcing Christians to allow homosexuals to marry in a Christian environment is a different matter. You can't stop here, can you? You're also saying that Muslims must allow homosexuals to marry is a mosque, if they so choose. But now we get into dangerous territory where we're criticising Muslims, not Christians.

[CoccoBill]

I'm not sure there's all that many people who think this. However, forcing Christians to allow homosexuals to marry in a Christian environment is a different matter. You can't stop here, can you? You're also saying that Muslims must allow homosexuals to marry is a mosque, if they so choose. But now we get into dangerous territory where we're criticising Muslims, not Christians.

But am I? If you read the whole paragraph I wasn't even saying that, I was asking a question. What I was saying is the rest of the paragraph starting with IMO.

I don't personally like the fact that homosexuals are discriminated against, no matter what ideology or religion the person follows. Ideally there would be no organized religions, as I've said many times before, but they don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.

[OngBonga]

Fair enough. I agree homosexuals should not be discriminated against, and personally I would put the rights of homosexuals ahead of the rights of people who believe in the tooth fairy. But I hold religion in contempt.

But the point remains that anyone who insists homosexuals must be allowed to marry in churches must remain morally consistent and insist they are also allowed to marry in mosques, or any other religious building that usually hosts weddings. That moral consistency doesn't exist though. People are afraid to criticise Muslims for fear of being branded "racist", despite Islam not being a race.

I criticise Islam more than Christianity, largely because of homosexuality. Christians are far from perfect on this matter, but overall they're more progressive than Muslims.

[Mr.Banana]

All I'm saying is that they clearly are not into monogamy. And there aren't really that many of them adopting kids. there is no such thing as a tax benefit for getting married. That's a myth. Married people are treated differently under the tax code, but that's because the tax code was written when women didn't work. There are tax mechanisms that fairly treat a couple with disparate levels of income. It actually works the opposite when both spouses make close to the same money. Married gays pay more taxes than unmarried gays. The "marriage penalty" is actually a problem for straight people too.

The only other thing marriage gets you is that you're first in line for probate, and you get to be the one deciding to unplug your partner from life support. Both of those things can be solved on legalzoom.com for $89.99

So I'm just not understanding WHY gay people want to get married. But if it helps them feel more accepted, and helps them assimilate socially with ease...then fine. Get married. But why aggravate the church people? Just go to the next cake shop, jeezus

[CoccoBill]

All I'm saying is that they clearly are not into monogamy. And there aren't really that many of them adopting kids. there is no such thing as a tax benefit for getting married. That's a myth. Married people are treated differently under the tax code, but that's because the tax code was written when women didn't work. There are tax mechanisms that fairly treat a couple with disparate levels of income. It actually works the opposite when both spouses make close to the same money. Married gays pay more taxes than unmarried gays. The "marriage penalty" is actually a problem for straight people too.

The only other thing marriage gets you is that you're first in line for probate, and you get to be the one deciding to unplug your partner from life support. Both of those things can be solved on legalzoom.com for $89.99

So I'm just not understanding WHY gay people want to get married. But if it helps them feel more accepted, and helps them assimilate socially with ease...then fine. Get married. But why aggravate the church people? Just go to the next cake shop, jeezus

Let me try if I'm able to explain how I see this. Imagine you're at the supermarket and decide to pick up some apples. The cashier asks you whether you're left- or right-handed. You look puzzled, and say you're left-handed. The cashier says "Um right, we only sell these to right-handed folks." You feel confused and think that's completely idiotic, why should your handedness matter? If that happens once, you probably just laugh it off and think what an idiot, and move on with your life. Water off a duck's back. But now imagine the same happens every time, at every grocery store, all your life. And not just with apples at supermarkets, but with several things, all the time, everywhere. People sneer at you when they hear you're left-handed, some might even throw some slurs. You've done nothing wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it (except lie and hide the fact). Eventually, one might understandably get pissed off or worse, depressed. And we're still nowhere near what they have been going through for years, from bashing to ridicule to violence.

Having those rights shouldn't need justification or reason, having those rights should be the default. Not ever having had to deal with those things, and not being able to understand how much even those small things can do damage to a person over time, is privilege. Wanting to get rid of all of them, even the small things, is to me completely understandable.

[Mr.Banana]

. Not ever having had to deal with those things, and not being able to understand how much even those small things can do damage to a person over time, is privilege.

This is exactly what's wrong with the world right now. This is the neo-marxist fallacy

Everyone has problems. Everyone. Saying gay people's problems, or black people's problems, or women's problems are somehow more or less important than other people's problems.....is a problem.

[CoccoBill]

This is exactly what's wrong with the world right now. This is the neo-marxist fallacy

Everyone has problems. Everyone. Saying gay people's problems, or black people's problems, or women's problems are somehow more or less important than other people's problems.....is a problem.

Could you point to the exact spot where someone said that?

[Mr.Banana]

So Christians' rights to exclude others override gays' right to marry?

Huh? Gays can get married without harassing Christians. If a Christian doesn't want to bake your cake, just go to another baker. Live and let live.