*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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

[Poopadoop]

Not a banana but I'll take a stab at acting like one.

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

That's communism!

Not:
- vote in a wannabe mafioso dictator

But what if it's a wannabe mafioso dictator that will troll the libs?

[Poopadoop]

To be fair, the choice offered to Americans was to either:

a) maintain (2016) or return (2020) to the status quo

b) vote in a reality TV star wannabe mafioso dictator (who is also an idiot)


So in that context I have to agree the status quo must be pretty bad if a large minority of people thought b) was the better option the second time around as well.

[Mr.Banana]

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

Ok, let's see how you do at being a monkey.

- enforce maximum terms (maybe 2-3) on senate and house seats

Term limits? This is just a wishlist item for corporate lobbyists. The donors for entrenched swamp monsters prevail over other interests. Those other interests want to see more turnover so they can have a turn to buy the politicians. Besides, 3 senate terms is 18 years. That's practically a whole generation. More than two presidential terms. I get that it supports the goal of "draining the swamp". But I just don't see what it will actually accomplish.

- make it illegal for lobbyists to make campaign donations

Then what would a lobbyist do? Are you simply arguing for the abolition of lobbyists?

- complete transparency for campaign donations

What does this mean? It's really not a secret where the money comes from.

- stop gerrymandering

Ok. How? And how will this disrupt an "entrenched political class"

- get rid of the electoral college

Why?

- stricter regulations against conflicts of interest

Like what?

- etc

Is that a suggestion?

Not:
- vote in a wannabe mafioso dictator

I guess it's just really cool to use superlative terms to describe Trump. It must make people feel good or something because it's just not supported by any fact at all.

What exactly has he done that you feel is "mafioso dictator-ish"?

[Poopadoop]

What exactly has he done that you feel is "mafioso dictator-ish"?

Witholding aid to Ukraine to try to get them to provide dirt on his political opponent springs to mind.

Telling G. Stephanopolous he wouldn't call the feds if a foreign country offered him a bribe is the second one I can think of off the top of my head.

Demanding "loyalty" from the head of the FBI, then firing him when he refused.

Saying Pence had betrayed him by not somehow stopping the confirmation of the election.

Giving his family members jobs in the administration, despite them having absolutely zero experience or qualifications.

Trying to bully, intimidate and/or discredit anyone who opposes any of his idiotic and/or criminal plans.

And I've probably forgotten more examples than I've listed here.

[CoccoBill]

Term limits? This is just a wishlist item for corporate lobbyists. The donors for entrenched swamp monsters prevail over other interests. Those other interests want to see more turnover so they can have a turn to buy the politicians. Besides, 3 senate terms is 18 years. That's practically a whole generation. More than two presidential terms. I get that it supports the goal of "draining the swamp". But I just don't see what it will actually accomplish.

I'm convinced it wouldn't solve a lot, and not even convinced it would solve anything, but I think worth a shot. It would get rid of career politicians just wanting to hold onto their seats, for one. That's potentially a big deal.

Then what would a lobbyist do? Are you simply arguing for the abolition of lobbyists?

Um they would lobby? You know, present their case, argue, justify, provide facts. They are an important part of democracy, but they should not be able to bribe.

What does this mean? It's really not a secret where the money comes from.

Trade association groups, non-profits, super PACs etc. donate hundreds of million each election cycle, and do not need to disclose pretty much anything. That's one issue, I'm sure there are more. It's mandatory to know who's indebted to what parties to identify conflicts of interest. Ideally money played no part in politics, but that's a pipe dream.

Ok. How? And how will this disrupt an "entrenched political class"

The main purpose of gerrymandering is to entrench the governing party's political support. How? You'll probably need someone more qualified than a monkey on an abandoned poker forum.

Why?

A direct popular vote would likely be far more democratic and have less issues.

Like what?

https://www.cmi.no/publications/file...hallenging.pdf

Is that a suggestion?

Yes. I don't have all the answers, those are just what I came up with on the spot. There's plenty that could and should be done.

I guess it's just really cool to use superlative terms to describe Trump. It must make people feel good or something because it's just not supported by any fact at all.

What exactly has he done that you feel is "mafioso dictator-ish"?

- using threats and extortion (eg. he was impeached once for that with Ukraine, demanding Georgia "find" him some votes, demanding Pence not certify the election results...)
- trying to overturn the election
- etc.

You know exactly what about his actions is wannabe mafioso dictator-ish.

[Mr.Banana]

Term limits, campaign finance changes, lobbying reforms....all the stuff Bill just suggested would only affect the legislative branch.

Frankly, the answer to the legislative branch is to expand it....dramatically. Congress should have 2000 members and there should be 500 senators.

The entrenched political class I'm worried about is in the executive branch. That branch has a million employees (3 mil if you count the military) and votes >90% democrat.

[CoccoBill]

Term limits, campaign finance changes, lobbying reforms....all the stuff Bill just suggested would only affect the legislative branch.

Frankly, the answer to the legislative branch is to expand it....dramatically. Congress should have 2000 members and there should be 500 senators.

The entrenched political class I'm worried about is in the executive branch. That branch has a million employees (3 mil if you count the military) and votes >90% democrat.

I'd like a source on that >90%, but even if that were true, it's the legislative that make the rules, the executive just act upon those rules, as the names suggest. One is IMO a far bigger priority.

Answered to the previous and this without reading the rest of the thread, Poop gave good examples to many points already.

[Mr.Banana]

I don't know how many members are in the two houses of British Parliament, but I know the number is up there. The US House of representatives has 435 members. I'm not sure of the order, but I do know that those three lawmaking bodies represent the top 3 largest in the western world.

Do you know what #4 is?

[Poopadoop]

I don't know how many members are in the two houses of British Parliament, but I know the number is up there. The US House of representatives has 435 members. I'm not sure of the order, but I do know that those three lawmaking bodies represent the top 3 largest in the western world.

Do you know what #4 is?

No idea.

Here's a q for you though: What is the point of having a senate? Isn't it basically just another congress on top of the one already there? So unless the POTUS, Congress, and Senate are all aligned, how does anything get done?

[Poopadoop]

How do you stop gerrymandering? I don't know, but other countries have managed to recognize it's a problem and don't have it themselves, so that suggests there is a way. Possibly by not letting the people who have a vested interest draw the boundaries? That seems like a plan to me.

Why get rid of the EC? Because it's not proportional representation (duh). A better question is why a sheep farmer in Wyoming's vote should count x times as much as sheep farmer in Texas. Or why keep a system where an R voter in CA is basically wasting their time voting and a D voter in AL is too.

Stricter regulations against conflict of interest - how about not letting people hire their relatives into their administration? That would be a start. I'm sure there's other ways to do it too. Again though you might have to look outside your own borders to get ideas on that.

[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.

[Mr.Banana]

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.

none of this is right. every word is wrong. Candidates have to file all kinds of financial disclosures, hundreds of pages in fact. So we do know what Trump's net worth is. Even the snopes article admits that the numbers are right.

And stop with the tax return stuff. You wouldn't know what to make of them if they fell in your lap tomorrow.