*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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]

Banana, I can't reply to that.....I can't read your mind.

I don't believe I asked you to read my mind. I'll recap the open questions.

1) Please explain your use of the word "grave" to describe the fact that Trump has a loan from China. I asked you to use all the powers of your imagination to hypothesize a scenario where that could have serious consequences against America's national interests.

2) I'm wondering why you think that immigration policy doesn't affect me? I'm asking you to describe the logical thought process that led you to that conclusion.

3) What exactly do you think Trump's stance on DACA is? Is your perception of his stance materially different from my perception of his stance? Again, here is my understanding of Trump's stance on DACA.

Trump was willing to allow amnesty for 1.8 million people, which is twice the number of people the Democrats claimed were affected by DACA. In return, he wanted funding for a border wall. The Democrats decided that making that deal would be seen as too much of a Trump success and they would lose too much leverage in the next elections. So they sacrificed 1.8 million people in order to preserve their own political capital. And Trump's current position on the issue is to either wait for the Dems to come back to the table, or follow the law as it exists now.

4) Why does it bother you when a politician does something "to appeal to his voter base". People said "There's 11 million people here that shouldn't be. Fix it". And then Trump said "ok, vote for me and I'll fix it". And so they voted for Trump. Now explain to me why you think Trump would be wrong to follow through on his promise?

5) The history on the "muslim ban" (if you insist on calling it that), was that US intelligence agencies under Obama identified lapses in US immigration vetting processes specific to a handful of countries with known ties to terrorism. Similar to the above, Trump listened to voters who said "Don't let terrorists into this country". When he took office, he looked at the work that was already done and simply fulfilled the promise he made to voters. How anyone can construe that as a hate-motivated attack on Muslims, is something I need explained to me.

6) I would like you to speculate on potential crimes with regards to Russia and the 2016 election. I want to know what specific evidence you're citing to suspect Trump of wrongdoing. I want to know what you believe Trump actually received from Russia. I want to know what specifically you think Trump may have promised in return. I would like you to incorporate Trump's bombing of Syria and Trump's arming of the Ukraine as part of your response.

Furthermore, I would like you to explain how it's possible that Trump could have colluded with Russia, and after two full years of exhaustive investigations by every institution of journalism and law enforcement, Trump is still President.

7) And if there really is nothing to the Russia story, then please explain to me how firing Comey could be considered obstruction. Either A) Comey was incompetent by investigating Trump based on politically-sourced evidence. or B) He was politically motivated to investigate Trump. Both are fireable offenses.

[oskar]

Banana, just keep it to one point. I don't get a lot out of talking to you. This is too much.
1 - really?
2 - didn't say that
3 - google trump and daca
4 - it bothers me if it negatively effects people for no reason other than catering to his voter base. You also falsely stated earlier that this was an obama policy: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/toug...-families.html
5 - it had no basis in reality. There was no reason for the travel ban other than cater to xenophobes.
6 - it's illegal to receive foreign aid in a presidential campaign. That's why they lied about the trump tower meeting. I'm not going to repeat myself on the 2nd part.
7 - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury

[BananaStand]

Banana, just keep it to one point. I don't get a lot out of talking to you. This is too much.

Fine. It all boils down to one single question that I have asked twice, and still haven't gotten an answer. I'll ask a third time now...

Name one objectively terrible thing that's occurred as a direct result of Trump's presidency.

or if you wanna get into the nitty gritty....

1 - really?

yes really. Really really really.

2 - didn't say that

Yes you did. Your exact words were "I dont know if you care about things that don't affect you...". Now I'm asking, for a third time...why do you think that immigration policy doesn't affect me?

3 - google trump and daca

No. I'm very much aware of the situation regarding Trump and DACA. I've explained my understanding in explicit detail. If you have a source that refutes that, please present it.

4 - it bothers me if it negatively effects people for no reason other than catering to his voter base.

Define "catering"? Explain why it's bad? Because all I see is a duly elected official enacting policies that address the needs and concerns of his voting constituency. Why do you have a problem with that? Why are the needs and concerns of Trump voters not worthy of being "catered" to?

You SERIOUSLY need to explain why you say this Oskar. Because honestly, it just reeks of spoiled, whiny, entitlement. "Waaa, this politician is being nicer to people who voted for him than he is being to me, waaah". C'mon man.

You also falsely stated earlier that this was an obama policy: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/toug...-families.html

No I didn't.

5 - it had no basis in reality. There was no reason for the travel ban other than cater to xenophobes.

There's that word again, "cater". As for a basis in reality...I'll reiterate. It was the Obama administration that identified the lapses in vetting procedures and identified which particular countries are the most likely sources of terrorist travelers. What is un-real about that? And why is caring about it xenophobic?

Honestly man, this game is tiresome. You don't like a policy, so you just broad-brush cast everyone who does like the policy as something deplorable. That's weak, and intellectually lazy.

6 - it's illegal to receive foreign aid in a presidential campaign

No it's not. And what specific foreign aid are you referring to? Specifically, what did Trump get? Specifically, what makes that illegal?

That's why they lied about the trump tower meeting. I'm not going to repeat myself on the 2nd part.

Really? You have insisted that you are unable to read my mind. Yet here you are claiming clairvoyant powers with insight into the specific internal motivations of multiple people whom you only know through the bias news media.

By all accounts, nothing came from the Trump tower meeting, and talking about it would just encourage the rabid media dogs to speculate wildly about all kinds of crazy bullshit. Yeah, he lied. That's not great. But I'm also a reasonable person who can understand why he might try and sweep something like that under the rug when he KNOWS that the media is just salivating for any salacious bullshit with a Russian flavor. So I'm not going to immediately jump to the conclusion that it's definitive evidence of guilt and culpability in a massive international conspiracy that was successful in undermining the worlds greatest democracy. Sheeesh. Get a grip.

And you do realize that if something deplorable did happen in that meeting, Manafort could just say so and instantaneously free himself and become incredibly more wealthy than he already is. You get that right? Why are you choosing to ignore that fact in your assessment of the contents of that meeting?

7 - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...nts-grand-jury

I don't see how this addresses #7 at all. But I read it anyway. Here's the best part.

So far, no Trump associates have been specifically charged with any crimes relating to helping Russia interfere with the 2016 election.

[wufwugy]

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.

The physics and chemistry are real. The measurements are probably solid. It's the complex climate models and economic models that have so far had no predictive power.

This means that the best of humankind's knowledge is that the planet is probably warming but there is no certainty about what that means.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The physics and chemistry are real. The measurements are probably solid. It's the complex climate models and economic models that have so far had no predictive power.

This means that the best of humankind's knowledge is that the planet is probably warming but there is no certainty about what that means.

This is a very concise way of wrapping up volumes of research.
Kudos.

I agree. The body of data is overwhelming. It's the implications that are hard to suss.

[wufwugy]

This is a very concise way of wrapping up volumes of research.
Kudos.

I agree. The body of data is overwhelming. It's the implications that are hard to suss.

Thanks. This is great because you're one of my go-tos for assessing whether or not I've made an appropriate claim.

[BananaStand]

This means that the best of humankind's knowledge is that the planet is probably warming but there is no certainty about what that means.

More importantly, it doesn't matter what it means. Imagine Al Gore's wet dream came true and all the science proved beyond any doubt that car exhaust and plastic bottles were solely to blame for the earth warming. And since we're still in Al Gore's dream, let's also assume that congress would unanimously pass legislation that would completely eliminate America's contribution to climate change.

China, Russia, and India will do no such thing. So the only result would be that America hamstrings it's own economy with oppressive regulations, and the planet still goes to shit. As the flesh melts off the skulls of every member of the human race, the Americans will be able to virtue signal to the very end saying "This would have happened three months sooner if it wasn't for us. You're welcome".

If you follow things to their logical conclusions, it's clear that the Al Gore dream I just described is actually the best case scenario for the liberal politicians playing the "zomg! Climate Change!" game.

Make absolutely no mistake folks. When you hear someone talking about Climate Change, there is probably a 97% percent chance they don't actually give a shit about the planet, and they're only after power. It works in their favor if the science is ambiguous and inconclusive.

[oskar]

China, Russia, and India will do no such thing. So the only result would be that America hamstrings it's own economy with oppressive regulations, and the planet still goes to shit. As the flesh melts off the skulls of every member of the human race, the Americans will be able to virtue signal to the very end saying "This would have happened three months sooner if it wasn't for us. You're welcome".

The US are the only world power currently not in the paris climate agreement.

[oskar]

The physics and chemistry are real. The measurements are probably solid. It's the complex climate models and economic models that have so far had no predictive power.

This means that the best of humankind's knowledge is that the planet is probably warming but there is no certainty about what that means.

If you go against the scientific consensus, you should have a very strong basis on why you do. If you don't, then the default position should be that you don't know.

[wufwugy]

If you go against the scientific consensus, you should have a very strong basis on why you do. If you don't, then the default position should be that you don't know.

In politics, the default position of "don't know" is that climate change is a hoax. This is because political discourse doesn't include much of the science. "Climate change" and "global warming" in a political context mostly refer to the non-scientific models.

[oskar]

In politics, the default position of "don't know" is that climate change is a hoax. This is because political discourse doesn't include much of the science. "Climate change" and "global warming" in a political context mostly refer to the non-scientific models.

Are you and banana having some kind of contest? I think you're winning.

[wufwugy]

Are you and banana having some kind of contest? I think you're winning.

Consider the point instead of attack the person.