*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

Where Fox would never dare say a bad word about president Trump....

Be careful about presenting stereotypes as facts.

[Jack Sawyer]

Be careful about presenting stereotypes as facts.

I am unaware of the last time Fox criticized the president in any way, shape or form. Perhaps you could enlighten us on this occurrence if it ever happened, Banana?

Or is he as immaculate as Jesus himself, therefore undeserving of any criticism whatsoever?

[oskar]

Also where the fuck were you guys when Trump was screaming PAY FOR PLAY like a demented donkey over and over again, referring to fully disclosed payments into Hilary Clintons charity that had no financial ties to her campaign. But somehow when Trump directly benefits from much larger payments into projects that are directly tied to his personal or campaign finances, somehow this is now fine?

[BananaStand]

Also where the fuck were you guys when Trump was screaming PAY FOR PLAY like a demented donkey over and over again, referring to fully disclosed payments into Hilary Clintons charity that had no financial ties to her campaign. But somehow when Trump directly benefits from much larger payments into projects that are directly tied to his personal or campaign finances, somehow this is now fine?

You really wanna play this game bro?

Seriously, for every one of these, I've got four "But somehow it was ok when Obama did it?"

[oskar]

You really wanna play this game bro?

I wouldn't mind but it seems pointless because I don't defend lobbying. I was just pointing out that it seems hypocritical to attack Hilary for lobbying when Trump also did it, and allegedly a lot more than that.

You game?

Seems a bit lopsided since my avatar is awesome, and you'll be happy to change yours once Trump starts tweeting about Hilary from jail.

if Trump ... removes due to health issues.

Oh, he will try!

Honestly man, is this really what you think of Trump voters?

You're right. It seems unfair to stereotype people based on the group they associate with. To see someone with a maga hat and think: there's someone who doesn't mind if the super rich pay off politicians to legislate based on corporate interest - They don't appreciate that. To ban people from entering your establishment purely for their ideology or party of origin. That's just unconstitutional. To see an america-first flair and assume this is a person who values the ramblings of an uneducated ideologue higher than the scientific consensus on climate science, that's straight up racism. That's a hate crime!


In terms of directly damaging. I don't know of you care about things that affect people that are not you. His stance on DACA could be massively damaging for those affected, and doesn't seem to have a clear purpose other than appealing to his core voter base. Same with the muslim ban and the unnecessary and cruel practice of separating asylum seekers from their children.

I don't want to speculate on the potential crimes because that will come out sooner or later. In terms of economy and foreign policy, that's a tug boat, not a race car. I'd give it at least a couple of years.

[BananaStand]

You're right......That's a hate crime!

I give your sarcastic rant a 4/10. Do you have a point?

In terms of directly damaging. I don't know of you care about things that affect people that are not you.

I'm not falling for this leftist jiu-jitsu man. If you're doing this on purpose, stop. If not, wake the fuck up. You don't get to just declare which policies affect which people so you can cherry pick which opinions matter. For fuck's sake dude, you only need to exercise about 6 brain cells in unison in order to realize that immigration policies affect more than just immigrants.

His stance on DACA could be massively damaging for those affected

"those affected". You mean EVERYBODY???? And if I'm not mistaken Trump's stance on DACA was to extend it to 1.8 million people. The Democrats said "Wow, that's twice what we wanted, but we would rather eat rocks than work with you, so fuck off". So GTFO with your whining about what's "massively damaging".

Maybe some people feel that pissing on the constitution to create DACA in the first place is "massively damaging". But those people are white, so "they're not affected", right?

and doesn't seem to have a clear purpose other than appealing to his core voter base

Purpose? Following the law isn't enough??

Same with the muslim ban

Right. The heads of US intelligence agencies all got together, during the Obama administration, and invented lapses in the vetting process, and lied about likely sources of terrorist travelers. They did that because they were secretly working for Trump, before he launched his campaign, and knew he would win, and wanted to be ready with racist and mean policy to appease the angry redneck masses.

And what's so awful about enacting policies that "appeal to his core voter base" anyway? Why is that such a fucking sin? The guy ran a campaign saying "I'm going to enact immigration policies that stop terrorists from coming to America". And people said "That's awesome, we WANT immigration policies that stop terrorists from coming to America". Then Trump said. "Ok, vote for me and I'll do it". And people said "Ok, here's our vote. We're giving you this because we want you to do the things you said you would do".

I want you, Oskar, to explain to me what logical somersaults you're using to still reach the opinion "Trump shouldn't do the perfectly legal things for which earned votes".

Do you know what Democracy is????

and the unnecessary and cruel practice of separating asylum seekers from their children.

Source? Something's fishy here. Why wouldn't the child also need asylum? Exactly what circumstances create this problem?

I don't want to speculate on the potential crimes

Will it? Actually, please do speculate. Tell me about how the Russians would have just minded their own business if Trump hadn't asked them to launch a small-time cyber propaganda campaign. Tell me about how Trump returned the favor by bombing Russia's allies and arming the Ukraine. And tell me how that's all a massive international conspiracy that Trump initiated to exploit America so he could make a few extra bucks renting suites at Mar-a-lago to secret service agents.

because that will come out sooner or later.

Sooner or later? Really? Every resource at the government's disposal along with the investigative efforts of every major news publisher on the planet have been positively consumed with the idea of taking down Trump for two fucking years now. AND NOTHING!!!

At some point you have to open up your mind and entertain other possibilities. Like maybe there are people who don't want to exonerate Trump and would rather maintain the uncertainty of an ongoing investigation in perpetuity. Something like that makes elections easier to win for those people. Saying "We were dead wrong about Trump, he won fair and square", is not something that would make elections easier for those people to win.

In terms of economy and foreign policy, that's a tug boat, not a race car. I'd give it at least a couple of years.

In the meantime the DOW is at a jillion points and there's a job for anyone who wants to work. Variance right?

[wufwugy]

there's someone who doesn't mind if the super rich pay off politicians to legislate based on corporate interest

Lots of people don't like that. The question is stopping it effectively. The Trump crowd is probably the largest crowd in the country who makes positive movement on stopping it. Trump has also made a great amount of positive movement on stopping it compared to predecessors.

To ban people from entering your establishment purely for their ideology or party of origin. That's just unconstitutional.

Some of the constitution is better than the rest. The parts that prohibit government from discriminating are fantastic. The parts that prohibit private citizens from doing so are misguided.

To see an america-first flair and assume this is a person who values the ramblings of an uneducated ideologue higher than the scientific consensus on climate science

Do you mean the economic climate models that consistently don't pan out?

[oskar]

Banana, I can't reply to that.
I truly don't understand what your point is. I'm not going to fact check or answer questions you could find the answers to with a google search, and you keep misinterpreting things I say, and you keep assuming that I will understand what you're saying when you say things like

For fuck's sake dude, you only need to exercise about 6 brain cells in unison in order to realize that immigration policies affect more than just immigrants.

That could mean anything. I can't read your mind.

Do you mean the economic climate models that consistently don't pan out?

Trump straight up denies that climate change is a thing. He called it a hoax. The economic models to combat it might not be ideal, but saying the economic models need to be worked on is different from saying it's nothing to worry about.

[BananaStand]

I am unaware of the last time Fox criticized the president in any way, shape or form. Perhaps you could enlighten us on this occurrence if it ever happened, Banana?

Or is he as immaculate as Jesus himself, therefore undeserving of any criticism whatsoever?

Do you ever watch Fox News?? If not, I'd say that's probably affecting your awareness of what Fox News says.

Be honest now Jack. How much Fox News do you actually watch. And I mean, you tune your TV to Fox News, and you consume the programming as intended. Watching Trevor Noah narrate clips doesn't count.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-n...s-media-2017-6
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8066646.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7817831.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuOrgmjibQs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XcXjoIsZrY