Printable View
Another one would be just standard whataboutism. Remember that the statute of limitations for bringing up past presidents, opposing candidates or just completely random fucking people NEVER runs out.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
So you could go: lol look at this fat SJW bitch saying dumb things. Therefore: Trump is smart. Obama did some bad things. Therefore Trump is smart. Hilary Clinton would have been a bad president. Therefore...
you get the point.
Your world view is so unforgiving. Who hurt you, spoony? Who didn't forgive you?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
lol
Drop some data, then, cuckstain, and maybe I'll change my mind.
The original Stanford prison experiment (and all of its subsequent reiterations) are a good place to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Holy shit. Most of the time I give you credit for trolling, but I don't see where there could possibly any humor in completely misinterpreting one of the most well known studies in psychology. This is intro to psychology 101 stuff.
Morality is an evolutionary strategy. That's game theory shit. This should be exactly your thing.
"...are a good place to start."Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Morality is not an evolutionary strategy. Morality is how the strong trick the weak into not playing the numbers game to try to overtake them. Institutionalized monogamy is a good example.
There are different kinds of smart. The smart it takes to brand yourself in particular way and constantly self-aggrandize yourself and your brand relates to business acumen. I think that's more or less where it ends with Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Where he seems not smart is in self-monitoring. That is, he seems completely incapable of adapting his behaviour to context or resisting an impulse to act. Of course the riposte to this is that this behaviour is really all part of the show and reflects a strategic 3D chess game that goes beyond our understanding as non-geniuses. Nonetheless, it's undeniably paradoxical that a wily politician repeatedly says thing that offend 2/3 of the country.
No. Intelligence is Intelligence. You don't get to slice and dice it up just so you can pigeon hole your political rival into only being smart on 'certain things'. It's also kind of a backdoor statement about your self which seems both erroneous and irrelevant. You're basically saying that you have some kind of supreme wordly intelligence that not only allows you to slice and dice, but to point to someone like Trump and belittle him for 'only' having the specific type of intelligence to build a multi-billion dollar empire of business success and celebrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well thanks for your opinion. It's so nice to have input from someone who so deeply understands the granularity of intelligence. /sarcasm. Now get the fuck over yourself.Quote:
I think that's more or less where it ends with Trump.
Jeeeezus man, ego much? Just because he doesn't act how YOU would act, that means he lacks intelligence? His behavior seems to be working just fine for him up to this point.Quote:
Where he seems not smart is in self-monitoring. That is, he seems completely incapable of adapting his behaviour to context or resisting an impulse to act.
No, that's something you want to believe to make yourself feel smarter. You're basically inventing a bullshit riposte, so you can slam it as bullshit. It's a strawman, and a really weak one at that.Quote:
Of course the riposte to this is that this behaviour is really all part of the show and reflects a strategic 3D chess game that goes beyond our understanding as non-geniuses.
The actual riposte is "WHY WOULD HE CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR? HAS HIS BEHAVIOR TO THIS POINT BROUGHT NEGATIVE, OR POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES?"
No, it's only paradoxical if you live inside your liberal echo chamber. Outside of that, the things he says are not actually offensive, and even if they are to some, it's not 2/3 of the country. You're listening too much to the SJW's out there who just hate Trump no matter what he says or does. So every bombastic or hyperbolic or comedic remark is twisted into some worst-case rhetoric that people like you confirmation bias themselves into believing.Quote:
Nonetheless, it's undeniably paradoxical that a wily politician repeatedly says thing that offend 2/3 of the country
I guess you have to be all the kinds of smart to think this is funnyQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Got this far before my head exploded. A new record for uninformed arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
First of all, even the most basic things like verbal and spatial intelligence are separable. For another, intellectual and emotional intelligence are separable. So, e.g., one can be speak several languages fluently but suck at maths. One can be excellent at getting on with people but unable to read a map. One can be, like you banana, fluent with language but dysfluent in showing people basic courtesy and respect.
So please go back and reconsider the rest of your post which I can only assume is largely based on this retarded premise.
The reason this bothers me is because you present these idiotic statements in a way that could be convincing to morons. Not related to this one, but your comments about economy and race... any halfwit xenophobe can look at what you're saying and identify with it. Even if you yourself have a better understanding than what you are willing to share, you are perpetuating ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
There are entire volumes written about the evolution of ethics and morality. This is not controversial, or fringe. It is beyond biology 101 and the scope of a wikipedia article, so I'm not surprised that this is news to you.
No, intelligence is the ability to acquire knowledge and skills. Everything else you listed is knowledge and skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, that's not how it works. If intelligence were as simple and basic as that, any 'intelligent' person would be able to acquire any set of knowledge and skills. We know that doesn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Perhaps the way to make you understand the concept is to view things as 'aptitudes' rather than 'intelligence'. A person may have an aptitude to be a great musician but not a great mechanic, whereas another person may have an aptitude to be a great doctor but not a great musician, and a third person may an aptitude to ....etc. etc.etc. Each of these people is intelligent by your definition of being able to acquire knowledge and skills, but the domain in which they are best suited to do so differs from person to person.
Trump is intelligent at acquiring business skills. He is not (imho) intelligent in the skills required to be a non-moron in the social realm, such as knowing what to say and when to keep your mouth shut, or thinking before you act.
Completely impossible given where he is right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Arguably, he won despite himself not because of himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
That's why it just HAD to be Russia right??Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The influence of Russia was certainly evident, but is hard to measure. Comey (publicly) reopening email-gate ten days before the election was almost certainly a bigger factor. Before that, IIRC Trump was down by 12 points in the aggregate polling.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But in general, my argument rests mainly on the premise that given a choice between two bad candidates, people took what they felt was the lesser of two evils.
And what happened before that? People took what they felt was the least of 17 evils?? Are you really being serious right now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Primaries are a different matter as you know because they're largely based on the question of who has the best chance of winning rather than who will make a better president. Moreover, the voters in a primary represent only the party in question, not the population as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The man acquired billions of dollars through complex transactions and investments all over the world. He went on to phenomenal success in television, clothing, hospitality and real-estate. He turned his name into a worldwide brand.
In the course of doing that he earned the love and respect of his children and family.
Then he walked into the political arena and destroyed 16 overwhelmingly qualified republican oppenents.
Then he overtook a Democratic heir-apparent by running an extraordinary campaign.
And since then he has attracted to himself, people of supreme intellect and gravitas (Sessions, Tillerson, Mattis, etc)
There is no way it's even fathomable that Trump lacks intelligence in any form, or interpretation that you're describing. It's just not possible that Trump could accomplish all of this and be poised to do it all over again in 3 years, while simultaneously being a socially inept drooler.
Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
Are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Before you became fully indoctrinated by Fox News and the reverberations of your own rhetoric, you said something quite similar to my argument, along the lines of 'at least he's not as bad as Hillary'
DefinitelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You'll have to find me the quote on that. I know I'm on record as a non-Trump voter in the primary. I know I'm on record as being anti-wall. I know I'm on record as saying that I do find some of the stuff Trump says distasteful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But there's just no cogent argument you can make that impugns the man's intelligence.
I already know the Fox News version of reality, and I appreciate that my views are discordant with it. So I don't expect to change your mind. I do find it somewhat bemusing though how closed your mind is, as an intelligent person, to any view that doesn't agree with your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm not going through your 1400+ posts to find the thing you said once or twice. But I do remember it striking me as contrasting a lot with Wuf's incessant Trump cheerleading. I was open to the idea you might be a reasonable person back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's really not a matter of having an open or closed mind. This is an issue of fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There's absolutely no way you can enjoy the success that Trump has, and be stupid. That's not a closed-minded statement.
So when I disagree with stuff about Trump being some kind of omnipotent, infallible, manipulator...you think I might be reasonable. But because I don't go all the way to "trump is stupid", you give up on that and just lump me in with all the kool-aid drinkers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And you think Trump is socially inept?
As I've said before, it's a good thing I can't die of irony.
No it is. And the reason it is is because it oversimplifies things to 'he rich, ergo he smart' and 'he won the election, ergo he smart'. There's a lot more that went into both of those events than Trump's own abilities. I'm not disputing his business acumen, but as I've argued, a large part of his election success seems to me to have occurred despite his actions rather than because of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I can beat anybody at chess no matter how good they are, as long as they make more mistake than I do. That doesn't make me a great chess player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Let's unpack that because it makes clear why I don't give you as much credit as at the beginning.
Shouldn't that seem reasonable?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Go back as far as it takes to find you saying one single negative thing about Trump, or one thing that doesn't parrot Fox News, and you'll understand how long a period of grace I've given you. You've reached the threshold now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This is an irrelevant add-on that shows you to be incapable of sticking to the argument without taking some douchey back-handed swipe at your opponent. It's a sign of low social intelligence. Maybe this is why you have trouble recognizing the same deficit in Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's not my phrasing or tone, but I would have responded similarlyQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Same, again.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
(This post was in between the above 2)
There's truth in here that shouldn't be discarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Those are your words, not mine. The statement I provided is not an oversimplification. It's a summary of several more detailed statements I've provided already. It's obvious that your mind is impervious to reason, so I saved my fingers some work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Yes, you absolutely are. You're being ignorant, intentionally or unintentionally, of the fact that it takes a tremendous amount of social-acumen to succeed in business, real-estate, TV, and politics the way Trump has.Quote:
I'm not disputing his business acumen,
He has to talk to people!!!
In fact, he has to talk to ALOT of people. And virtually all of those people are individuals of great success, fame, talent, or notoriety in their own right. Trump keeps succeeding, so I can only assume that the interactions he's having with those people are going just fine.
Are you going to suggest that ALL of those people lack social acumen as well?
You're starting to sound like the goth kid who stays home alone on prom night and says "only losers go to Prom"
What if we're not talking about chess, but instead winning elections. And your opponent is an accomplished politician with savvy, experience, and a record to run on. Under what circumstances would you make less mistakes than your opponent.Quote:
I can beat anybody at chess no matter how good they are, as long as they make more mistake than I do. That doesn't make me a great chess player.
Now ask yourself, under what circumstances would you make less mistakes than 18 consecutive opponents?
At what point are you just a pretty good chess player?
LOL try harderQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Hillary was only there cause she cheated to begin with; if you have to cheat to beat the democratic primary opponent winning the general is a very tall order
Thank Debbie WS for Trump's victory, his geniusness only got softballs in dead center to hit. LOL at Trump being smart hahahaha. Maybe his use of twitter indicates just how unbelievably "smart" he is? Hahahaha
None. He does everything opposite of what all the experts say he should and bumbles into success time and again. The only evidence is that he is a bumbling lucky idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Like I always say, you always write great fiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Hahahaha this is exactly how it looksQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Seen the FISA flipflop? Trump tweets: "FISA BAD". An hour later: "FISA GOOD. IT IS FOREIGN. GET SMART!!" When FISA is actually local too, by its very nature. Even Fox fucking News called him out on the flip flop, despite the hilarious fact that it happened *because* he was watching fox news
Hahahahahaha this would be funnier if it wasn't so sad. This dude literally has no idea what the fuck he's doing, but he does have the alzheimer's and dementia out. All he wanted was tax cuts. Hahahahahaha OMG
There is some hilarious irony in this statement and the fact that you delivered it so perfectlyQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It is certainly true that he bears a cost for what he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Word is that he was surprised at first at the magnitude of the cost because he thought the media would treat him with a modicum of fairness. Good news for us that he learned that lesson quickly.
What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
All numbers show that Hillary would have beaten Bernie without the help of the DNC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Most of this is completely incorrect. There is only one thing measured that is intelligence. The rest is attributed to personality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm very moderate on Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There are entire volumes written about the Earth being flat as well. That doesn't make it true.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
You're wrong, but I'm not interested in "debating" people on the Internet who don't understand enough of what they're talking about to realize when they're wrong.
No. It was Debbie Wasserman Schultz throwing the democratic primaries. Thank her. Fuck Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Nah. You're interested in trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Otherwise, saying spurious things which bear no relation to the sources you cite to back them up, then getting all petulant, insulting and condescending when anyone tries to actually understand anything you're saying - that would be the opposite of your asserted persona.
Either you are truly a man's man, enlightening and empowering men to not feel guilty for being awesome... or you're a whining little pissant whom can't actually stand behind his own BS.
I'm pretty sure that the volumes written about the evolution of ethics and morality do contain studies and facts, whereas the volumes written about the Earth being flat only contain fiction and mostly bullshitQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'm also pretty sure you understand you cannot compare the two, nor assume these are somehow equal
Sorry, I don't discuss ethics or morality with people in shithole countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
dear god this might be the most amazing thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=DuTReBPNx88
You're right. I have no idea what I'm talking about at all. I don't know why you even respond to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I just imagine Trump drinking diet cokes with his buddies in a writing room spitballing new ideas. One of them says he knows how they could get the people to call themselves shitholers on national tv.
I had a similar thought when I heard the 'shithole' story on the ride in to work this morning. Toucher & Rich kept playing clips of cable news folks saying the word "shithole" on TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And virtually all of them were in agreement that the countries in question were shitholes. Their problem isn't with calling the shithole a shithole. Their problem seems to be that Trump is only calling out the shitholes where brown people live.
This is the travel-ban all over again. Trump picked on about 8% of the Muslim world, so he must be anti-muslim. Now he's picking on some tiny sliver of the world's non-white population so that means he's some kind of white supremacist.
Hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
How exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
1) Prior to his nomination, few knew who Bernie was and what he stood for
2) The DNC's shenanigans made sure it remained this way
3) Hillbots would accuse anyone who supported Bernie of being sexist.
4) Donna Brazile came clean on this exact issue as well
They totally rigged it. It just was not a fair race. The DNC made sure of this. And with all the rigging, she still only got 3 million more votes.
And in poll after poll, Hillary beat Trump right within the margin of error. Bernie beat Trump by like 10% in poll after poll. decisively outside any margin of error, and still to this day does. He just does not carry the baggage Clinton does.
Your understanding of psychology is right about where your understanding of socialism is, the 1800s.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It's not that you don't. You can't. And of course you can't; get called out on your indefensible 'shithole' views, now you go on "LOL, I TROLS U" modeQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Typical
It's even funnier in that the evidence shows that Trump probably didn't even say it. The reporting came from people briefing reporters on what happened in the closed room. Washington Compost didn't actually hear him say it. And it's not like those tasked with briefing the reporters (Trump is their boss) would include something like "he said shithole countries" without a purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Stop....he definitely definitely definitely did say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So Trump is the political equivalent to drawing to a gutshot and hitting it?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Super delegatesQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The super delegate system is why Hillary would have beaten Bernie regardless of the DNC's interference. There's plenty that's been written about it in major publications that you're free to look up on your own. He didn't have a snowball's chance in hell because he's not a part of the Democratic party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I can't decide if it's funnier if he did or didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Also LOL to Bernie beating Trump by >10 points.
Hillary lost because she got out-campaigned on the electoral map. Are you telling me Bernie would have done better??
Exactly which states do you believe Bernie would have won that Hillary didn't?
Big numbers in heavily populated pockets of liberalism doesn't necessarily translate to a nation-wide election win. Also, you're completely ignoring how badly Bernie's ideas and policies would have been debunked and discredited during the course of a general election. His math didn't add up.
Bernie would also have had turnout problems in general for voters over the age of 30 and black voters in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Why do you conclude that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm only concluded on what the evidence is, that the reporters didn't hear it and they were told about it not by sources but by those tasked with briefing reporters on what happened.
Adding to this evidence, we can add reason, like how there is a rich history of the Trump admin giving the media fake stories. In this situation that it doesn't even matter if he said it. What I find funny is that yet again the media and so many others believe yet another thing that confirms prejudices even though the evidence doesn't.
he shoves with 22 on AT6 off suit against AA and still wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Don't those tasked with briefing reporters have some credibility? More than one person came out of that meaning saying he he said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Trump took 12 hours to deny it. And now two republicans have given a statement that looks very damage-control-ish rather than an emphatic denial. Were they listening and paying attention, or not?
He said it wuf. Just accept it.
Though from what I've read today, it sounds like the "shithole" remark was totally seperate from the "why do we need more people from haiti" remark. Meaning that Trump is not lying when he says he said nothing derogatory about Haiti.
That being said. Haiti is a shithole.
The main thing that has me thinking he actually said it is that it's probably easier to dispense what he wants that way. The other option would require a more complex and easier to fail system of making staff know secret intent. That's not out of the question though. On the flip side, there is heightened risk with the strategy of actually saying this sort of thing since it can be recorded, which would damage Trump significantly given he said he did not say it.
The bottom line is I don't know how Trump functions on this sort of thing. And it's hilarious that when reporters are told something, they believe it as long as it confirms their bias.
I do. He thinks the idea of open borders is totally retarded, and feels that he doesn't have to respect anyone who espouses that idea by debating the issue or even explaining himself with more than a single bombastic sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He could have explained in great detail why he wants a merit-based immigration system and why certain classes of people, particularly from certain parts of the world would not qualify. And then he could have dressed it up with alot of politically correct rhetoric.
But why do that? As a show for Dick Durbin's benefit? Fuck Dick Durbin
It wouldn't have changed Dick Durbin's mind anyway.
Personally I believe he dropped the s-word simply as a means of drawing a line in the sand. Calling those countries shitholes suggests that he has a very strong, firm, and unwavering opinion about what value immigrants from those countries can bring to America. And it's not good.
He's basically saying, in one short sentence, that he's not interested in any kind of touchy-feely, all-inclusive, open-border, immigration policy where America receives no benefit from taking in the worlds stragglers. Unless they're being violently oppressed by a tyrannical regime, or unless they are bringing valuable skills and knowledge to our economy, then those people can stay in their shitholes.
To me it looks like nothing more than a business-man used to efficiency and expediency, exercising his power as president to bring about just that. Now he doesn't have to waste time going back and forth cutting up draft after draft of a shitty bill. Now he's made it clear where he stands and how little interest he has in changing his mind.
I kinda like it.
Imagine the shit he's gonna say in his second term.
In case you dipshits didn't see, I started a NSFW chicks thread.
I use this forum strictly for fucking off at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Well some of the pansies who post here a lot don't have to worry about a stupid little thing like work, so...Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So, they don't need a thread on FTR to check out NSFW chick pixQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Zimbabwe is so cucked: http://www.africanews.com/2017/12/22...-seized-land//
Zimbabwe pursued the concepts of "fairness" and "social justice" to the fullest extent. Then they realized that emotionally feeling like they knew how to farm was not the same as actually knowing how to farm.
In case anyone reading this doesn't know the deal:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And then people starved.Quote:
The last time a white Zimbabwean farmer Rob Smart left his land it was at gunpoint, forced out in June by riot police armed with tear gas and AK-47 assault rifles.
...
Mnangagwa became president last month following a de facto coup that ended 93-year-old Mugabe’s rule. In the latter half of his 37 years in power, Zimbabwe’s economy collapsed, especially after the seizure of thousands of white-owned commercial farms under the banner of post-colonial land reform.
They also cucked themselves because now no businesses want to set up shop there because they've shown that they have no problem sending the military in to take someone's shit if they want to.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos Just Gave $33 Million to a Scholarship Fund for 'Dreamers'
Quote:
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie Bezos, have donated $33 million to a scholarship fund for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children — the biggest grant in the organization’s history.
Another important element is that this exemplifies how the Marxist view of capitalism is just factually wrong. That idea is that producers, owners, those with capital, the bourgeoisie, the rich, are harming the people. The opposite is true, and the reason why gets back to what I discussed about a week ago about how wealth is more appropriately thought of in terms of resources. When a monetarily wealthy person sells something to a non-monetarily wealthy person, that non-monetarily wealthy person is in fact wealthier in terms of total resources. So, in effect, the Zimbabweans socialists demolished their own wealth when they exacted social justice on the "evil capitalists."Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
These socialism-loving dipshits are just the bottom of the fucking food chain because they're literal autistic fucking retards who would have been smacked in the head with a fucking rock back in the day, but now it's illegal to do that shit, so we're dealing with Idiocracy being a documentary instead of a fucking Mike Judge fart joke film.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
does being a "retard* autistic cuck" place me above or below this people?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
it should be retarded not retard
RetardQuote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Of course, superdelegates. Which indicates it being even more rigged than I claimed. So you have to thank Debbie WS tooQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Playing by the rules doesn't constitute rigging it. The superdelegates aspect is playing by the rules. Bernie would have lost even if the DNC had played it straight is my point. He's just not electable on that level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
When you made an appeal to authority the other day - right after a reductio ad hitlerum - I thought you were certainly trolling. An appeal to the authority of Lenin... I genuinely chuckled. I thought it was a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I guess it wasn't. I honestly thought nobody could fit that many logical fallacy's into so few words without doing it on purpose.
I don't expect you to reply since you've already ignored my link to the most prominent examples, but ask yourself this question: Why do animals use alarm signals when the act of alarming others makes it more likely for the individual to fall prey? Hint: this is a numbers game and has nothing to do with any touchy-feely stuff.
That's hilariousQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Thank God America is in the hands of President Fox News.
The guy basically needs constant supervision, otherwise dumb shit happens. Like a six-year-old with a chainsaw.
But ya, he's like a smart person. A very stable genius indeed.
This is just left-wing hyperbole mixed with enough wishful thinking that you've convinced yourself it's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I love it.
Let this be the mantra of the democrats all the way to 2020. Galvanize your core of delusional kooks, and give the moderates a reason to go looking elsewhere.
Poop, when are you gonna realize that this shit you're saying is exactly the kinda shit that's gonna get Trump re-elected?
Ah, here comes the cavalry...Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You love the fact that your president looks like a moron to most of the world? Oh, ok, that's reassuring.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I don't live there buddy. You guys do what you want, elect who you want, and I'm sure whether it's Oprah, Trump, or Tom Brady it'll be entertaining. glhf.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
In fact, why not elect Tom Brady? He's really smart at football, so obviously he must be smart at everything. I mean anyone who can win multiple super bowls must be a smart guy, right?
They will never get it. There's no reason to even try with them. A big part of it is that they care more about being liked than anything else. It's why they put so much value in being a victim, which is tied into why the left has turned into a competition to see who can be the biggest snowflake.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's the same reason why they can't understand that they lost tremendous ground politically under Obama. Obama was liked as a person, and Trump is not. They believe this makes Obama a better president and that it gives "their side" more political clout. It doesn't.
They don't have a clue when it's completely and totally obvious to anyone who looks at the actual data. If you look at the state legislatures, Congress and the governors of the states, the Democrats lost well over 1,000 seats during Obama's presidency. That's a lot of fucking seats.
A related topic is how they feel victimized by Hillary winning the popular vote but losing the election. This gives them another "I'm a victim" point to add to their total, and many of them want to change the rules so that the Electoral College doesn't exist. They aren't in touch enough with reality to realize that the campaign strategies for each side would have been completely different if the rules would have been different, but instead, they like this fantasy world where they think they would have won "if only things were fair." Never mind ever trying to explain why the Electoral College is necessary: Their idea of fairness is whatever set of rules gets them what they want without earning it.
This is why I'll give one or two tries with one of them, and once they show that they're incapable of getting it, I stop trying. They're like zombies. There is no cure.
Edit: While I was typing my comment, the perfect example was posted:
To quote myself above: A big part of it is that they care more about being liked than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Inaccurate. Only the deranged Trump detractors think this. And every time you say it, it makes reasonable people think the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He's gonna play until 2032Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This one really irks me. Because it's not like the the electoral map was unwinnable for Hillary.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Trump won Wisconsin, but Hillary won the county (precint? district? w/e) of Milwaukee. However, she won that county by less votes than Obama did in 2012. I forget the number of votes, but let's call it X. She lost the state of Wisconsin by exactly X votes after spending 0 campaign days in that state.
In other words, had she put time and resources into winning that state, she could have. All she had to do was hit a turnout target achieved by her predecessor in one measly city. She failed. Not only failed, but didn't even try. And as a result, she lost that state.
Political malpractice. But somehow, the narrative is that she got robbed. WTF???
It's yet another example of the same thing. They do not understand personal responsibility. Everything is always someone else's fault, even if they have to blame the rules themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
They think that personal responsibility is some farce is something those "in power" or "privileged" have tricked people into believing in. It's why they make fun of poor white people for voting "against their interests." There's a simple disconnect in understanding that cannot be cured once it gets past a certain point.
This is why their social capital has become who can be the biggest victim. For a particularly fun example, it's why you have people like the ginger kid Shaun King playing a black man who rides the trans-racial train and says stupid shit like "Ungrateful is the new nigger," (source) in response to Trump saving some basketball players' collective asses after they did stupid shit like shoplifting in China of all fucking places.
There was zero focus on the responsibility of those players to not do stupid shit. They were victims.
So they will check off every box they can to make themselves stand out as a special snowflake since it's a competition to see who can be the biggest victim since that's the source of virtue and social capital that they've developed for themselves. The more "unique" and "non-standard" they are and the more minority groups they can insert themselves into (or outright create, which is where the 50+ gender pronouns thing comes from), then the bigger the victim they can portray and the better they can feel about themselves.
This is why the worst thing you can be in their eyes is a straight, white, cis-gendered male. You get zero victim points for that.
Meanwhile, you have people who refuse to have a victim mentality who actually bust their asses to get shit done so that these dipshits can think they deserve a piece of the rewards of doing so.
Edit: Added link to source.
When your reaction to the message is to attack the messenger, it highlights just how weak you are as an interlocutor.
When the liberal media goes ape-shit over practically every Trump tweet or comment, whether it's bad, so-so, or neutral, they effectively turn themselves into mindless propaganda machines. Similarly, when Hannity or whoever on Fox and Friends spins practically every Trump move as a triumph regardless of it being good or bad, they're doing the same thing for the other side. Anyone can see this, but yet you still take what you see on Fox as 'fact' and what gets told on the other side as 'fake news'. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the truth lies somewhere in-between?
More generally, I'm curious to know if you could provide some arguments as to what Trump's actually been doing that you think is constructive. And I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious: What is he doing right in your minds? Let's talk about his good points.
Here's another good example, for BananaStand and everyone else.
The first thing he has to do is establish himself as the victim (ie: I'm being attacked). That's their first reaction to everything because they don't understand anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Now he wants to go down his little list of talking points he was told to use, whether he realizes it or not, and doing things like assuming anyone gives a shit about Fox, Hannity or anything that he has to say in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And finally, he wants to try to put on a front of being reasonable and wanting to have an actual conversation. However, as we can see from his history, this is the last thing that he wants. Any point that is brought up will not be understood in the context of reason and personal responsibility. It will all be about the victim points tally and how people feel, both of which are useless in the realm of people who actually get shit done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
They are zombies, and there is no cure.
In 2017, the record was set for the most record-high days for the stock market in a calendar year. #winning #maga #trump2020
https://i.imgur.com/NYF54I6.png
Kentucky to add Medicaid work requirement; first state to follow Trump plan
http://archive.is/menYm#selection-1215.0-1215.75
Quote:
Kentucky received the green light Friday to require many of its Medicaid recipients to work in order to receive coverage.
The Bluegrass State thus becomes the first state to act on the Trump administration’s unprecedented change that could affect millions of low-income people receiving benefits.
Under the new rule, adults age 19 to 64 must complete 80 hours of "community engagement" per month to keep their care. That includes working a job, going to school, taking a job-training course or volunteering.
No, when your message is retarded garbage, calling you a purveyor of retarded garbage is apt. And there really is no other way to describe your "trump is dumb" drumbeat other than to call it retarded garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Strawman. I don't see anyone in this thread doing this.Quote:
When the liberal media goes ape-shit over practically every Trump tweet or comment, whether it's bad, so-so, or neutral, they effectively turn themselves into mindless propaganda machines. Similarly, when Hannity or whoever on Fox and Friends spins practically every Trump move as a triumph regardless of it being good or bad, they're doing the same thing for the other side. Anyone can see this, but yet you still take what you see on Fox as 'fact' and what gets told on the other side as 'fake news'. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the truth lies somewhere in-between?
Wow, really??Quote:
More generally, I'm curious to know if you could provide some arguments as to what Trump's actually been doing that you think is constructive. And I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious: What is he doing right in your minds? Let's talk about his good points.
-Tax bill
-Tax bill that is phase 1 of dismantling obama care (individual mandate is gone now!)
-two years ago, there was 45,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria, today there are 1000
-Illegal immgration has plummetted
-supreme court judge confirmed
-Travel ban upheld
-Not willing to entertain pussy-whipped compromises on comprehensive immigration
-brushes off an investigation that's been going on for two years with the goal of impeaching him
-Is credited with thawing relations between North and South Korea
-Dow at 25,000
Well done, thanks for making my point better than I ever could.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Ok, good. Thank you for eventually answering my question after venting your spleen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Again, the first thing he does is jump to being a victim. He cannot understand that it's not about him as a person, because then it would rob him of the ability to get victim points; it's about his affliction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop