*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

If there's something you want me to read in the yale study, just post the quote. I'm not going fishing.

---

Can't be bothered to actually read the link you posted as evidence for your own point?
What was that phrase going around? Intellectually vapid? I think that applies.

"You have the same number of crimes but now spread over twice as many people as was believed before, which right away means that the crime rate among undocumented immigrants is essentially half whatever was previously believed."


Now either criticize the methodology of this study, or accept the results. Don't try to re-phrase the findings to suit your agenda. The researcher's findings are spelled right out in black and white.
Now... since you said the wall is good for America 'cause it will reduce crime... this new data has already halved what you thought the crime rate was. Does your opinion on the efficacy of this wall to "work" at its stated purpose is still the best use of our tax dollars at reducing crime? Or are you so steeped in confirmation bias that new data comes in and your position is unwavering?

While we're on it. Look at how all those projections level off around 2008. The rate of illegal immigrants entering the country is about the same as the rate of illegals leaving the country and has been for over a decade.
If the crime rate is half what we thought it was, and if the number of illegal immigrants has been stable for over a decade, then where is all this hysteria coming from do you think?
Does it really seem like it's rooted in a realistic threat to our way of life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

The point is, you can't actually know what the illegal immigrant crime rate is. You don't know which criminals are illegal aliens, and which aren't. So you holding the numerator constant is flawed logic.

---

Dude. Whatever the number of crimes committed last year by illegal immigrants is not changed by our new understanding that there are more illegal immigrants than we thought there were last year.

You work with numbers. This is not hard. Whether or not we know the exact number doesn't matter. New data can't change last year's data. It can change the analysis performed on last year's data, but it can't change the history, only how we understand the history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Let's say there are 3000 murders. And you have no idea the citizenship of the perpetrators. Then a statistician comes in and says "well, this bogus DHS study says there are 11 million illegal immigrants. And there are 330 million people in america. So 1/30 of the population is illegal aliens. 3000 murders x 1/30th of the population = 100 murders committed by illegals."

Now if the statistician had the Yale data he would say... There are 22 million illegals in a country of 330 million. That means 1/15 of the population is illegal aliens. 3000 murders x 1/15 = 200 murders committed by illegals

Notice I didn't change the number of crimes, I just changed the assumption about the citizenship of the perpetrators based on the Yale data.

Before the yale data, you could have deported everyone and expected to save 100 lives. But now you know that exporting all the illegals would save TWICE that many people.

You follow?

---

That's not what the Yale statistician did, though, and its not what he said.
We done on this, now?

You ready to accept that crime rates of illegal immigrants are already half what you thought they were when we started this conversation?
Do you still think this problem of illegal immigration poses a problem to Americans?

As poop pointed out. Given the assumption that murder rate is uniform across all members of society, legal or illegal, then the argument that you can ship 2x as many illegals and thwart 2x as many murders is equally true to any cross section of society. The assumption was that all members murder equally, so which subset you cull is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Also....let's be very very very very very clear about something. All of this math is hopelessly and illogically flawed. It presumes that an illegal alien starts out with a crime-count of -1 while every native born citizen starts at 0.

In other words, for this math to work, you have to ignore the fact that EVERY illegal alien has already committed a crime just by being here. For some reason folks think that's ok to dismiss from the math. I really don't get that.

---

True.
Do you think this is relevant? Are you equating a non-violent 1-time offense to a pattern of ongoing behavior that degrades our society?
Can you walk me through that one?

Saying that illegal immigrants are bad for crime because of a 1-time non-violent offense is not remotely the same as saying, "they're drug dealers, criminals, rapists, ..."
I don't understand if you're trying to say these are commensurately bad for America. (Yes, that's a Trump quote, not what you said, but just correct if it doesn't meet your standard.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Please learn the truth about re-usable bags!!!!

---

Which version of the truth would you like us to learn Tucker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I gotta say, I like Bernie, but that's a really bad look for him. Gotta give credit when conservatives make a good point:

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/statu...397532674?s=20

---

lol @ the top comment

"ben you fucking got him. you absolutely got him. you nailed that bitch. i'm a conservative now, i don't believe in healthcare for all or free college or mitigating climate change, all because of this tweet. you ROASTED HIM. FUUUUUUUCK"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I gotta say, I like Bernie,

---

Do you really like Bernie? Or are you just nostalgic for the 2016 version of Bernie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

"You have the same number of crimes but now spread over twice as many people as was believed before, which right away means that the crime rate among undocumented immigrants is essentially half whatever was previously believed."

---

To be fair, and assuming I understand this correctly, I think they're using a bit of bananalogic here. You don't know what their crimes rates are to begin with, so whatever number of crimes you attribute to illegals is already a wild guess. Half of a wild guess isn't really an informative figure is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

lol @ the top comment

"ben you fucking got him. you absolutely got him. you nailed that bitch. i'm a conservative now, i don't believe in healthcare for all or free college or mitigating climate change, all because of this tweet. you ROASTED HIM. FUUUUUUUCK"

---

I kinda liked this one myself.

Attachment 1124

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

either criticize the methodology of this study, or accept the results.

---

Ok.

Quote:

---

"You have the same number of crimes

---

^Bullshit. You never knew the number of crimes to begin with. You estimated it based on the size of population. Now that the size of population has changed, so has your estimate of the number of crimes. This is just an example of left-leaning academia confirmation biasing themselves into retardation. Let me know if the Yale guys explained how they are presuming to know the number of crimes committed by illegal aliens. Even you admitted no such data exists.

Quote:

---

this new data has already halved what you thought the crime rate was.

---

Actually, no it didn't. And regardless of what the crime rate is numerically....I do know for sure that it's high enough for drug overdoses to cause a measurable downward effect on life expectancy. So you can play whatever mathematical magic you want. Even if I believed that the effect is only half as bad as I thought.....I still want the wall.

Quote:

---

Dude. Whatever the number of crimes committed last year by illegal immigrants is not changed by our new understanding that there are more illegal immigrants than we thought there were last year.

---

Actually it does. You would be right if there was some mechanism by which we could know the citizenship of every offender. But we don't. SO we have to guess from population data. Then the population data changed. So we need a new guess.

Quote:

---

It can change the analysis performed on last year's data

---

Finally you get it. It changes the analysis. Since we dont' know the number of crimes, we have to get it through analysis. And you just said the analysis changed. So the number of crimes changes.

Quote:

---

We done on this, now?

---

God I hope so

Quote:

---

Do you still think this problem of illegal immigration poses a problem to Americans?

---

Yeah

Quote:

---

which subset you cull is irrelevant.

---

Only one subset is not protected by the constitution.

Quote:

---

Do you think this is relevant?

---

Why wouldn't it be?

Quote:

---

Can you walk me through that one?

---

Social programs for illegal alien led households (key descriptive phrase) cost $116B a year. Enough for 4 walls. And that doesn't include depressed wages. Are you really trying to tell me that an illegal border crossing is a victimless crime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Actually, no it didn't. And regardless of what the crime rate is numerically....I do know for sure that it's high enough for drug overdoses to cause a measurable downward effect on life expectancy. So you can play whatever mathematical magic you want. Even if I believed that the effect is only half as bad as I thought.....I still want the wall.

---

Back to blaming drugs on illegal aliens I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Social programs for illegal alien led households (key descriptive phrase) cost $116B a year. Enough for 4 walls. And that doesn't include depressed wages. Are you really trying to tell me that an illegal border crossing is a victimless crime?

---

Funny how you're so confident in this figure while admitting every other number related to illegal immigrants is virtually impossible to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Funny how you're so confident in this figure while admitting every other number related to illegal immigrants is virtually impossible to know.

---

Actually I didn't say "every" other number is impossible to know. Just the numbers where it's illegal to ask, like on arrests and census.

However, for stuff like medicaid, they can just tell by whether or not you have a social security number.

Do you have a figure for how much taxes are paid by illegal immigrants, either through federal/state taxes or sales taxes, etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

To be fair, and assuming I understand this correctly, I think they're using a bit of bananalogic here. You don't know what their crimes rates are to begin with, so whatever number of crimes you attribute to illegals is already a wild guess. Half of a wild guess isn't really an informative figure is it?

---

I never said any specific number, and neither did nanners. He said that crimes by illegal immigrants is a reason he thinks the wall is a "best" use of our money to solve crime problems.
Whatever the number was at the beginning of the conversation, it's now half that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Do you have a figure for how much taxes are paid by illegal immigrants, either through federal/state taxes or sales taxes, etc?

---

Well, they pay the same sales tax as everybody else. And you can't pay federal/state taxes without social security number. If they're using a fake number, then they would pay tax but only if they have a legit job, and most legit jobs will verify your social security number. If it's a non-legit job; no tax.

What probably happens alot is that the employer is a shady fuck and withholds taxes anyway, but then doesn't tell the gov't he's employing illegal immigrants and pockets the money himself.

I'm not buying the "but illegals pay taxes too" sob story man. They don't.

I think I heard recently it takes an average of 3 generations before an illegal immigrant bloodline becomes cash-flow positive for the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Whatever the number was at the beginning of the conversation, it's now half that it needs to be re-calculated incorporating the new population data

---

FYP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I never said any specific number, and neither did nanners. He said that crimes by illegal immigrants is a reason he thinks the wall is a "best" use of our money to solve crime problems.
Whatever the number was at the beginning of the conversation, it's now half that.

---

I don't think it works that way, but w/e.

MMM - If poop and I agree that you're wrong....you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Well, they pay the same sales tax as everybody else. And you can't pay federal/state taxes without social security number.

---

Apparently you can.

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/indi...ication-number

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

What probably happens alot is that the employer is a shady fuck and withholds taxes anyway, but then doesn't tell the gov't he's employing illegal immigrants and pockets the money himself.

---

I imagine so, yup. Employers also pay legals under the table sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

I'm not buying the "but illegals pay taxes too" sob story man. They don't.

---

Not sure why it's a 'sob story'. It seems like a legitimate question to me that there's no simple answer to. Or at least not a simple & correct one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

I think I heard recently it takes an average of 3 generations before an illegal immigrant bloodline becomes cash-flow positive for the country.

---

I heard it's impossible to pay fed. tax without a SSN too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Do you really like Bernie? Or are you just nostalgic for the 2016 version of Bernie

---

Is the 2016 version of Bernie different from the 2020 version? Or the 1977 version for that matter?

You don't get to pick and choose the conclusions of the research and still claim to an informed position. Either you refute it, and the 25M number goes out the window, or you accept it and the rate of crimes by illegal immigrants is halved. Those are 2 commensurate conclusions of the same research by the researcher who did it.
You don't get to take 1 part and not the other without compelling evidence the researcher was talking beyond the scope of the research when drawing conclusions about it.
Take your pick. You can't have it both ways.
Are you making a rational argument or an irrational one?

FFS, it's the link you provided as evidence to support your position.



So is your point illegal immigration is bad for crime? Or is it, "we have no idea how bad illegal immigration is for crime?"
'Cause you started out by saying it's bad for America, but now you seem to be saying there's no way to tell if/whether/how bad it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I don't think it works that way, but w/e.

---

It's the direct quote from the author of the research. If you want to dig into the actual publication and examine his means and show that he's talking beyond the scope of the research, then I'm all ears. Otherwise... he's the expert that nanners chose and that's what the expert said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

It's the direct quote from the author of the research. If you want to dig into the actual publication and examine his means and show that he's talking beyond the scope of the research, then I'm all ears. Otherwise... he's the expert that nanners chose and that's what the expert said.

---

lol, yeah I'm just saying that doesn't seem right on the face of it. Maybe in whatever context he said it it's right, but I don't really care enough to read the whole thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

MMM - If poop and I agree that you're wrong....you're wrong.

---

When one of you presents a rational reason, and not a personal misgiving, for where the researcher is speaking beyond the bounds of his professional research, then hit me up.
If you can find that he's been discredited in the past for similar, I'll drop it. Just let's all drop the 25M number too if that's the case.

If all you got is, "it feels funny." Then it's just an appeal to your authority vs. his authority.

Who's the alpha male in this little Q and A?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktdi_L0rYkk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Who's the alpha male in this little Q and A?

---

FWIW, if she could stop grinning like she's forced at gunpoint to do a Mentos commercial, she might actually be a formidable candidate.

Look at Spartacus's face. I swear, if there was a thought balloon next to his head, it would read "OMG I'd suck her farts"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

FWIW, if she could stop grinning like she's forced at gunpoint to do a Mentos commercial, she might actually be a formidable candidate.

---

Yeah, that face she does makes me want to punch her. Not as much as Hillary, but still.

That said, her and Trump in a debate would be a massacre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Who's the alpha male in this little Q and A?

---

I hate to be cynical but I think this whole thing was lost the moment they let Barr get away with his act. They might not have had a chance either way. The judiciary system seems completely inept when it comes to dealing with a criminal president.

Impeachment will do nothing. It will NEVER pass senate. This is just going to serve to motivate the Trump base... even in bizarro world where Trump gets removed, they'll find someone more racist and more willing to be a sock puppet for lobbies in a millisecond.

This only serves to distract the Trump voters from seeing what they actually voted for which is: outrageous gifts to the super wealthy, to SA, to Israel. Extreme incompetence on even the mildest racist promises he got elected on. Couldn't even get wall budget passed when they had the white house, the house and the senate. Incompetence at the border to the point where their new plan is open borders. Incredible fiscal failure: record national debt aggregation during an economic upturn to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy.
Total incompetence negotiating with NK, Iran and Russia. Total incompetence on healthcare 'we'll announce our secret plan after 2020'

The Trump team has successfully set the false narrative: 'Mueller looked for collusion. He found no collusion.' And MSM let them do it. You lost. Suck it up. Nobody will swing Trump voters. Senate will not move to impeach, and if they do, you're looking at the prospect of a Steven Miller presidency.

Her questioning was great, but this will only hurt Barr who got hired to take a punch and leave. He'll get a very cushy lobbying job alongside Rosenstein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

He'll get a very cushy lobbying job alongside Rosenstein.

---

Yang 2020?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Her questioning was great, but this will only hurt Barr who got hired to take a punch and leave. He'll get a very cushy lobbying job alongside Rosenstein.

---

Fair enough, but to your above points: I don't think the Ds should worry about trying to sway Trump's hardcore supporters. Look how difficult it is even to get a reasonably intelligent one on this forum to acknowledge the guy is a criminal retard failure of a president.

What they need to do is mobilize everyone who doesn't want another four years of this shitshow and get them to vote. The midterms had a record turnout - they need another one in 2020 to make sure it has a similar outcome. I think if they can manage to do that, they can put up literally anyone and they will beat Trump.

Exactly that. They're not moving. Look at the comments on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wmn1rpoNQQ&t=72s
Every comment dunking on Napolitano, but not a single attack on the substance of what he said.

The MMM - nana argument is almost a carbon copy of an argument I had with Spoon. Spoon links a study, I quote a paragraph from the summary of the study he linked, Spoon says "this is not at all what it says"... alright then, you win I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Look how difficult it is even to get a reasonably intelligent one on this forum to acknowledge the guy is a criminal retard failure of a president.

---

It's going to be difficult if you're evidence of a crime wasn't even in the Mueller report.

Quote:

---

What they need to do is mobilize everyone who doesn't want another four years of this shitshow and get them to vote

---

As usual, the election is about the 6-8% in the middle. The other 47% on either side doesn't matter. What makes you think that if they are mobilized, they will vote Dem? You think a socialist trying to take away their insurance is going to win over a mere slimeball who doesn't? Cmon.

Quote:

---

. The midterms had a record turnout

---

And the R's gained in the Senate, where stuff actually matters. This is what you don't get. Trump *can't* be a failure. He stopped the "progressive" agenda. The conservatives control the supreme court and will continue to do so for the next 30 years. If Trump spends 8 years picking his nose and masturbating to Stormy Daniels porn....he's a massive massive massive success.

Quote:

---

- they need another one in 2020 to make sure it has a similar outcome.

---

Even CNN is predicting the R's gain again in the senate.

Quote:

---

I think if they can manage to do that, they can put up literally anyone and they will beat Trump

---

You better hope it's not Biden. Do you really think he can survive a R superpac making a TV ad out of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dizji3k4e5w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Is the 2016 version of Bernie different from the 2020 version? Or the 1977 version for that matter?

---

I still wonder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

I still wonder

---

Here you go. 2016 Bernie = Populist 2020 Bernie = Fake Woke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6psnbAXeiBE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Here you go. 2016 Bernie = Populist 2020 Bernie = Fake Woke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6psnbAXeiBE

---

This whole video actually does not go about Bernie's positions on anything, and is somehow accusing him of identity politics?

I couldn't believe Tucker Carlson (and by extension his viewers who gullibly drink up this garbage) could be this stupid. I mean, I know he was stupid, but not to this super saiyan level of stupidity.

There is a whole wikipedia page solely dedicated to Bernie Sanders' policies. There are countless videos of him practicing what he has been preaching for literally forty years at least. His voting record is also in accordance with what he has been saying all this time. This is fact; you can't refute it as it is reality, and there are records of this shit everywhere to be found.

In fact, CNN tries to spin his record on a daily basis, trying to make it seem he did different and is now a hypocrite. Turns out Trump was really onto something when he called CNN fake news. Them broken clocks sure are right twice a day.

The problem and sad part is that the democratic establishment does practice identity politics. Which is why you have heard of names such as Buttigieg, Beto and Kamala. You know, people who you have no idea what their policies (nowhere to be found, likely they make shit up as they go along) are or their position on any subject is, but rather want you to vote for them because they are gay, a woman, or simply born-to-run (nvm losing to that turd Cruz).

Obviously Bernie is all about substance in the entirety of his campaigning, no fluff at all, yet this fact completely and totally passes by Tucker Carlson. What an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

This whole video actually does not go about Bernie's positions on anything,

---

0:44

You really couldn't wait a minute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

for literally forty years at least.

---

What would you say is his signature accomplishment?

And you can't use something he might do as president. Assume he dies in the next 20 minutes. It's likely. He's 432 years old. Very much on borrowed time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

people who you have no idea what their policies (nowhere to be found, likely they make shit up as they go along)

---

Actually.....Beto has something now. It was another $15 or $20T for climate change on top of the Green New Deal

We might have to take over 2/3 of the middle east to pay for this shit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Obviously Bernie is all about substance in the entirety of his campaigning, no fluff at all,

---

Most of his criticisms of the establishment are spot on. But his solutions are buffoonery. Socialism doesn't fucking work. Even if you can tell me it kinda works somewhere, it won't work in America.

Quote:

---

completely and totally passes by Tucker Carlson. What an idiot

---

You're not being fair to Tucker. First of all, it's not his job to pump Bernie's tires. Second of all, the segment wasn't about Bernie, it was about identity politics. Tucker shows how Bernie was basically forced at gunpoint to embrace the "woke" narrative if he wanted to cozy up to the DNC. That's just one part of the segment, but I used it to answer your question about why 2016 Bernie is different than 2020 Bernie.

You seem to be perceiving the video as "Tucker's segment on Bernie". But it's not. And because of that perception you're probably watching it and saying "This guy won't talk about Bernie's policies because he's afraid!! So he's distracting with identity politics!!"

The segment was about identity politics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

0:44

You really couldn't wait a minute?

---

I saw the whole thing.

It's just misrepresentation, misinformation and general bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

What would you say is his signature accomplishment?

And you can't use something he might do as president. Assume he dies in the next 20 minutes. It's likely. He's 432 years old. Very much on borrowed time.

---

Have you seen how 9/10 candidates in the democratic race now want to be labelled "progressive"? Pretty much all of them except Amy Klobuchar that I know of. I wonder why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Have you seen how 9/10 candidates in the democratic race now want to be labelled "progressive"? Pretty much all of them except Amy Klobuchar that I know of. I wonder why.

---

Have you seen how you totally didnt answer my question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

You're not being fair to Tucker. First of all, it's not his job to pump Bernie's tires. Second of all, the segment wasn't about Bernie, it was about identity politics. Tucker shows how Bernie was basically forced at gunpoint to embrace the "woke" narrative if he wanted to cozy up to the DNC. That's just one part of the segment, but I used it to answer your question about why 2016 Bernie is different than 2020 Bernie.

You seem to be perceiving the video as "Tucker's segment on Bernie". But it's not. And because of that perception you're probably watching it and saying "This guy won't talk about Bernie's policies because he's afraid!! So he's distracting with identity politics!!"

The segment was about identity politics

---

Thank you captain obvious, I kind of missed that. Maybe if I add a word to my answer it'll be clearer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

This whole video actually does not go about Bernie's positions on anything, and is somehow accusing him of identity politics?

I couldn't believe Tucker Carlson (and by extension his viewers who gullibly drink up this garbage) could be this stupid. I mean, I know he was stupid, but not to this super saiyan level of stupidity.

There is a whole wikipedia page solely dedicated to Bernie Sanders' policies. There are countless videos of him practicing what he has been preaching for literally forty years at least. His voting record is also in accordance with what he has been saying all this time. This is fact; you can't refute it as it is reality, and there are records of this shit everywhere to be found.

In fact, CNN tries to spin his record on a daily basis, trying to make it seem he did different and is now a hypocrite. Turns out Trump was really onto something when he called CNN fake news. Them broken clocks sure are right twice a day.

The problem and sad part is that the democratic establishment does indeed practice identity politics. Which is why you have heard of names such as Buttigieg, Beto and Kamala. You know, people who you have no idea what their policies (nowhere to be found, likely they make shit up as they go along) are or their position on any subject is, but rather want you to vote for them because they are gay, a woman, or simply born-to-run (nvm losing to that turd Cruz).

Obviously Bernie is all about substance in the entirety of his campaigning, no fluff at all, yet this fact completely and totally passes by Tucker Carlson. What an idiot.

---

The democratic establishment sure as hell does it. But Bernie doesn't. No one who would vote Bernie would vote because of identity politics, but rather for his policy positions. Most other candidates in the race (Exceptions are Tulsi, Warren and Yang) I can't say the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

The democratic establishment sure as hell does it. But Bernie doesn't. No one who would vote Bernie would vote because of identity politics, but rather for his policy positions.

---

I think you're grossly underestimating how close a Bernie voter is to a Trump voter. You clearly missed that part of the video too Captain Obvious.

I predict that a general-election version of Bernie sanders will have to play the IP angle quite hard to win the swing votes.

If that makes you wanna take down your Bern poster, I know how you feel. I went through a similar thing when I grew up and learned how slimy Roger Clemens is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

I think you're grossly underestimating how close a Bernie voter is to a Trump voter. You clearly missed that part of the video too Captain Obvious.

---

That is a false narrative, a false equivalency if you may, pushed by idiots. I have heard it before, by the likes of hacks such as Rachel Maddow etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

I predict that a general-election version of Bernie sanders will have to play the IP angle quite hard to win the swing votes.

---

How? He is one of the only candidates who will definitely not have to play the identity politics card in order to win those votes. He would clubber Trump into submission with policy.

Trump is afraid of Bernie, hence he does not attack him. But the Democratic Establishment is even more afraid of Bernie, they are absolutely terrified. The fight right now is not at all vs Trump; it's against the Nancy Pelosi's, Chuck Schumer's, Brooke Baldwin's, Rachel Maddow's and even Steven motherfucking Colbert's of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

If that makes you wanna take down your Bern poster, I know how you feel. I went through a similar thing when I grew up and learned how slimy Roger Clemens is.

---

Bernie is still who he has been since forever. I didn't suddenly find out he was juiced up to oblivion to get K's.

Sidenote: CNN is pure propaganda. You must have seen the amount of fluff pieces they had for Buttipete. Like asking about his cat and shit. No real policy questions at all, ever. And yet Bernie, they try and try their damndest to get words out of his mouth to twist these. Gotcha journalism to the max. LOL.

Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shmbYZcrhLM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

As usual, the election is about the 6-8% in the middle.

---

I think it's closer to 20% but w/e.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

What makes you think that if they are mobilized, they will vote Dem? You think a socialist trying to take away their insurance is going to win over a mere slimeball who doesn't? Cmon.

---

Take away their insurance? Is that the D platform now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Trump *can't* be a failure. He stopped the "progressive" agenda. The conservatives control the supreme court and will continue to do so for the next 30 years. If Trump spends 8 years picking his nose and masturbating to Stormy Daniels porn....he's a massive massive massive success.

---

He's a massive massive massive failure.

Oskar gave several reasons why. If you're best counter to that is the country didn't advance because he's president, that's not much is it?

And what about getting a couple of SCJs when you own the house and senate qualifies as a 'success'? Any president would have done that.

He may as well be masturbating to Stormy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Even CNN is predicting the R's gain again in the senate.

---

18 month ahead predictions are next to meaningless. Ask Wuf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

You better hope it's not Biden. Do you really think he can survive a R superpac making a TV ad out of this

---

Is that the best they got? He came close to touching a girl with no breasts near where her breasts would be if she had any? He kissed a baby? Wow pedoparanoia must be high where you live.

Note as well that none of them are his own daughter.

If the Rs put that video up all I'd do is have a one minute video still of this photo

Attachment 1125


Inappropriate touching indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Take away their insurance? Is that the D platform now?

---

Ending private insurance has been their platform since 2006. Read a newspaper man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

a bunch of gushing nonsense about Bernie

---

Jack, I'm a little surprised you're *this* fired up about Bernie. He's not that impressive.

Honestly, if I could list me top 100 priorities for this country, breaking up banks is probably way down in the 70's or lower. What's that gonna do to stop the suicide rate? What's that gonna do to fight the opioid crisis? Hows that gonna help laid-off manufacturing workers in Gary, Indiana? I feel like this is really about revenge and resentment. America doesn't need that.

Free college? I can't think of a more destructive economic policy. Truly. This goes back to my argument about the dangers of stratifying your society by IQ. If you wanna know more about that, scan my previous posts. It's in there.

I saw Bernie at the Fox News Town hall and they asked him about Trump's idea to ship the illegals to sanctuary cities. They asked him where he would send the illegals instead. And like a wind up doll he just started his rehearsed spiel about "We need comprehensive immigration reform.....don't demonize immigrants.....blah blah blah". Martha was like..."Dude, I asked you *where* you would send them?". And Bernie, like a wind up doll, repeated the exact same generic talking points...AGAIN. Martha pressed him, and then Bernie said "that's not a real question". In the end, ol' Bern reached into his 536 year old ass crack and pulled out some garbage idea about just simply building a new city at the border just for them. Great idea you schmuck.

Immigration is in the top 3 issues for about 80% of the electorate, and Bernie has no plan. None. And before you point me to bernie dot org backslash bullshit backslash i didnt write this myself dot html and say he has some kind of realistic immigration policy, just know that it doesn't count if he himself can't articulate it on TV.

Look Jack. I get that you like socialism, but Bernie is a buffoon. He's also older than most mountains. His age is a HUGE obstacle for him right now. Biden too. Yeah, you can be POTUS at 80, but can you POTUS at 84? 88?

He's also a bit of a cuck. Trump would pummel him in the general. Badly.

♫♪ Cos there aint do dobst I luv dis land ♪♫

Quote:

---

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.12537ac29e3b

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

♫♪ Cos there aint do dobst I luv dis land ♪♫

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.12537ac29e3b

---

I know I've said repeatedly that I'm not playing the game where we impugn sources. But I'm making an exception. This link = FAIL

That link just takes me to a paywall. Post some words please.

I'm not nearly as interested in your opinion as you think I am.

Open in incognito tab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I'm not nearly as interested in your opinion as you think I am.

---

I think the point of that link is that you don't care about anyone's opinion. You want the government to teach kids your ideology right from kindergarten.

Oh no! You're actually defending this? LMFAO

Quote:

---

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

---

What in the actual fuck...

You get paid a full time salary to do a part time job that is 95 percent karaoke.

is it too much to ask that you stay the fuck out of my kids head?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

You get paid a full time salary to do a part time job that is 95 percent karaoke.

is it too much to ask that you stay the fuck out of my kids head?

---

What the fuck are you actually talking about?

Do you want your kid to be able to evaluate facts objectively and think for themselves, or do you prefer they just believe everything they're told by anyone in authority?

I'm not teaching people WHAT to think, I'm teaching them HOW to think. If I was really interested in brainwashing little banana jr. I'd forget all that critical analysis and higher order thinking for yourself stuff and just tell them to go burn down their churches and throw rocks at policemen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Do you want your kid to be able to evaluate facts objectively and think for themselves, or do you prefer they just believe everything they're told by anyone in authority?

---

Actually never mind. I can take a pretty good guess at this one myself based on your response to the quote Oskar posted. You prefer a stupid, pliable kid to a strong, intelligent one.

I will admit though one of the most satisfying things about teaching students to use logic and reason is when they learn how to do it and independently reach the same conclusions as I do using logic and reason.

That, and when I get to lead them in a chant of "Orange man bad! Orange man bad!" That's pretty fun too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What the fuck are you actually talking about?

---

I dont know, what is that article actually talking about? I skimmed it and it sounded like "GGRRAAHGGG, THOSE GOD DAMN REPUBLICANS WANT TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES"

Quote:

---

Do you want your kid to be able to evaluate facts objectively and think for themselves

---

What the fuck makes you think I need the government to do this for me? And who defines "objectively"? Answer: exactly who you *don't* want

Quote:

---

I'm not teaching people WHAT to think, I'm teaching them HOW to think.

---

Cliche. Ive heard too many teachers say this. I just roll my eyes man.

K, I've read it now. I really don't see what you guys are on about.

Letting the government indoctrinate kids seems like a pretty clear violation of the 1st amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

I dont know, what is that article actually talking about? I skimmed it and it sounded like "GGRRAAHGGG, THOSE GOD DAMN REPUBLICANS WANT TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES"


What the fuck makes you think I need the government to do this for me? And who defines "objectively"? Answer: exactly who you *don't* want


Cliche. Ive heard too many teachers say this. I just roll my eyes man.

---

Just because you don't know how to think doesn't mean no-one tried to teach you. It just means you thought you already knew more than the teacher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Just because you don't know how to think doesn't mean no-one tried to teach you. It just means you thought you already knew more than the teacher.

---

sarcastic, ad hominem, irrelevant, garbage.

BAN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

sarcastic, ad hominem, irrelevant, garbage.

BAN

---

lol, we'll see which one of us gets banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

lol, we'll see which one of us gets banned.

---

If all you're going to do is completely ignore what I said and reducimax du bananeuse at me with insulting garbage, then what's the difference?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...dumb-statement

Oh no!! McGahn might never tell his story!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

What would you say is his signature accomplishment?

And you can't use something he might do as president. Assume he dies in the next 20 minutes. It's likely. He's 432 years old. Very much on borrowed time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Have you seen how you totally didnt answer my question?

---

Oh, my bad.

He ordered Jeff Bezos, the richest asshole in the world, to pay his motherfucking workers better. Bezos cucked and crumpled, kicking and screaming. Alexandria, a rookie on team Bernie, then forced Bezos bitch to take his ball and go home. And then everyone else was left wanting and furious because they couldn't suck Jeff's dick anymore in NY.


Beautiful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Just because you don't know how to think doesn't mean no-one tried to teach you. It just means you thought you already knew more than the teacher.

---

:highfive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

sarcastic, ad hominem, irrelevant, garbage.

---

:rolleyes:
is that pushing your buttons?

I thought it was funny.
Whatever. Poop's shown me that allowing him some leeway is good for everyone. My rules don't have to be firm when people show they understand and ultimately agree with the idea, if not the exact wording.

You don't get that leeway anymore. What goes around comes around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

BAN

---

Final warning. The next time you bring this topic up without an introductory paragraph explaining how you understand why it happened to you and you agree that you were out of line, and appreciate our welcoming you back... it will be the last.

Don't anger the chimpanzee nanners!

Which, of course, you will now proceed to do, because I implored you not to do it but to you it's as if I just spurred you on to do it.

Oh lord.

This ought to be entertaining in a train crash kind of way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...dumb-statement

Oh no!! McGahn might never tell his story!!

---

If TRUMP says it, you know it has to be true!! That guy never talks out of his ass!

"Total transparency."

"They've gone through my taxes, and everything. And I'm so clean."

"We have the best unemployment rate in 61 years."

"China is hurting so bad."


ROFLHELICOPTERS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Final warning.

---

For what? Honestly man, this temper tantrum is really unbecoming.

You keep threatening to ban me like I care. See how easy it was to just make a new account and come back? Go ahead and ban me. In two weeks if I feel like coming back, I will. and you can ban me again. and I still won't care. Go ahead and start that headache for yourself if you like.

But all you'll be doing is showing the folks around here that you're a victim. You'll be showing how man in his late 30's (?) can absolutely melt-down at a 3 letter word used sarcastically. Go ahead. show us all what a puddle you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Bezos and AOC

---

First of all, Bernie didn't "order" Bezos to do anything. He might have been the lead cheerleader and screaming the empty talking points the loudest, but Bezos does what he wants, ok?

And just so you know....it was all ceremonial anyway. Most of the west coast states, where Amazon is, already have shitloads of state and city ordinances enforcing minimum wages that are $15+/hour. I doubt very much that any significant % of Amazon's workforce saw much of anything.

Meanwhile, Amazon made $11B last year and paid no tax. Great job Bern!!!

Wal-mart, Target, and many other large employers are crumpling to the lefty message of $15/hour. Bezos is just part of that trend. Bernie didn't do that.

Furthermore, I asked you what the guy's signature accomplishment is. He's been a legislator for 600 years now and you're telling me that the best thing he ever did was scream at a billionaire indirectly through a TV camera???

To be clear here....you're telling me that the best thing Bernie ever did actually has nothing to do with his job. You can't point to anything he's done in 8,000 years in his capacity as Senator that even matters.

And AOC vs Amazon. LOL. Even DiBlasio thinks AOC was a retard on this. Here, let me walk you through it.

Amazon: We'd like to build in NYC
NYC: Ok, we'll charge you $30B in taxes
Amazon: Well, we're also talking to Boston
NYC: Whoa whoa whoa, don't go with them. Look, we'll cut you a break ok....$27B??
Amazon: you got a deal

AOC: SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH. But like uh....we can do something better with 3B than give it to amazon. like, we could, ya know, spend it on new yorkers, like uh yeah, ya know!!

Amazon: we're not going anywhere near that crazy cunt


Do you see what happened there? AOC thought she was standing up against the government spending $3B on tax breaks for amazon. But in reality she just cost her district 27B in tax revenue....PLUS thousands of jobs.

there's no nuance there. She really is that dumb.

It's really really weird that you bring *that* up as *bernie's* signature accomplishment.

Holy fuck dude.......you need a new idol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

For what? Honestly man, this temper tantrum is really unbecoming.

You keep threatening to ban me like I care. See how easy it was to just make a new account and come back? Go ahead and ban me. In two weeks if I feel like coming back, I will. and you can ban me again. and I still won't care. Go ahead and start that headache for yourself if you like.

But all you'll be doing is showing the folks around here that you're a victim. You'll be showing how man in his late 30's (?) can absolutely melt-down at a 3 letter word used sarcastically. Go ahead. show us all what a puddle you are.

---

Sounds like a challenge to me.

lol, like it's a lot of work for him to click 'ban'.

Are you willing to keep going to the trouble of creating a new account every time you get banned? Are you really that much of a loser?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Sounds like a challenge to me.

lol, like it's a lot of work for him to click 'ban'.

Are you willing to keep going to the trouble of creating a new account every time you get banned? Are you really that much of a loser?

---

If he's smart, he'll just leave things be. There's really no reason to escalate this. He's WAY oversensitive. He's also oblivious to his own actions. Every single one of his posts was full of insults and incendiary banter. The harshest response I've had is to play mock-mod and swing a foam banhammer around for fun.

If that bothers him, then that is hopelessly pathetic and immature. I'll happily take a ban if it makes him prove that fact in front of everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

If he's smart, he'll just leave things be. There's really no reason to escalate this. He's WAY oversensitive. He's also oblivious to his own actions. Every single one of his posts was full of insults and incendiary banter. The harshest response I've had is to play mock-mod and swing a foam banhammer around for fun.

If that bothers him, then that is hopelessly pathetic and immature. I'll happily take a ban if it makes him prove that fact in front of everyone else.

---

What colour is the sky in your little world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What colour is the sky in your little world?

---

Sky color. Why?

I'm dropping this now. I suggest everyone else does too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

You keep threatening to ban me like I care.

---

No, I keep telling you that if you don't apologize like an adult for having treated all of us like shit and you keep reminding us of that fact, that you'll get no respect.

Since you brought it up again. Have a week off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Are you willing to keep going to the trouble of creating a new account every time you get banned? Are you really that much of a loser?

---

Guess we have our answer to that question. Not that I'm surprised.

Banana: I don't care if I get banned. Go ahead and ban me.

Mojo: Ok you're banned for a week.

Banana: ARRRGGHGGHGHGHGHH!!!

lol

I bet it takes me less time and fewer clicks to "delete all posts from this user."
;)

Any critiques or criticisms over how I handled it?
Open floor.
If I've made another mistake, I want to know.

Let's just be open about it. He's made his criticisms clear. What are yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I bet it takes me less time and fewer clicks to "delete all posts from this user."
;)

Any critiques or criticisms over how I handled it?
Open floor.
If I've made another mistake, I want to know.

Let's just be open about it. He's made his criticisms clear. What are yours?

---

Nah you were as patient as could be expected. He obviously doesn't have any regrets about how he acted before, and he hasn't changed his style either. I figured it was just a matter of time.

Edit, Cliffs: Mojo banned banana and two minutes later he had set up a rage account and posted four times saying you can imagine what. Two minutes after that Mojo deleted his rage-posts.

Deleted? Didn't stop me reading them.

Quote:

---

Any critiques or criticisms over how I handled it?

---

Nope. I don't give a fuck.

Am I being too naive when I'm still surprised to hear the Senate majority leader openly admit that he hasn't read the Mueller report, and that in the same hearing it becomes clear that the AG made his conclusions based on the report without having read the report, and then later claims he was not aware of something that was mentioned in the summary of the report (Manafort/Deripaska) - meaning that if he has read the report he has not gotten to page 6 yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Deleted? Didn't stop me reading them.

---

Summary:
AIDS
AIDS
AIDZ
I hope MMM gets AIDZ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Am I being too naive when I'm still surprised to hear the Senate majority leader openly admit that he hasn't read the Mueller report, and that in the same hearing it becomes clear that the AG made his conclusions based on the report without having read the report, and then later claims he was not aware of something that was mentioned in the summary of the report (Manafort/Deripaska) - meaning that if he has read the report he has not gotten to page 6 yet.

---

Probably.

That clip of Barr being questioned by Harris made it pretty clear that he made his decision based on very little to do with the MR. Basically he said, well, since Mueller didn't say indictable, it's not indictable. We all know the MR didn't say indictable, so I'm dropping it. He basicaly said he's acting in brazen ignorance of Mueller's personal position on whether or not it's constitutional to indict a sitting POTUS.

AG gets someone to write the report whom will never, ever, under any circumstance say "indict." Then doesn't even need to read the report to conclude, "my perfectly honorable and trustworthy guy, whose integrity is not in question, didn't say 'indict' so obviously I wont indict."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Deleted? Didn't stop me reading them.

---

Oh yeah.
Mods can read deleted posts, genius. There's a little button right there.
I didn't actually "delete" them, as that's not really how FTR works by default. I simply marked them as deleted posts. Mods can still review the material, but it wont be visible by members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Am I being too naive when I'm still surprised to hear the Senate majority leader openly admit that he hasn't read the Mueller report, and that in the same hearing it becomes clear that the AG made his conclusions based on the report without having read the report, and then later claims he was not aware of something that was mentioned in the summary of the report (Manafort/Deripaska) - meaning that if he has read the report he has not gotten to page 6 yet.

---

Looking forward to seeing Mueller testify before congress.

"Did you write this letter to the AG complaining about his summary of your report being misleading?"

"Yes. Yes I did."

"Thanks for coming. That's all we need to know."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Oh yeah.
Mods can read deleted posts, genius. There's a little button right there.
I didn't actually "delete" them, as that's not really how FTR works by default. I simply marked them as deleted posts. Mods can still review the material, but it wont be visible by members.

---

Yeah whenever I delete an individual post I just hard delete it so it's gone forever. I'm sure I read somewhere that's not the way to do it, but I don't care since I only ever delete my posts or spam.

19th century black southerner tells it like it is:
https://www.newsweek.com/john-rogers...ump-jr-1413851

I have some free time, so I'll humor you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

First of all, Bernie didn't "order" Bezos to do anything. He might have been the lead cheerleader and screaming the empty talking points the loudest, but Bezos does what he wants, ok?

---

Yeah, like building a new HQ for Amazon in NYC. How are those building plans coming along, jeff mr-I-do-what-I-want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

And just so you know....it was all ceremonial anyway. Most of the west coast states, where Amazon is, already have shitloads of state and city ordinances enforcing minimum wages that are $15+/hour. I doubt very much that any significant % of Amazon's workforce saw much of anything.

---

But he was not doing it. He got bludgeoned into submission to doing it company wide by The Bern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Meanwhile, Amazon made $11B last year and paid no tax. Great job Bern!!!

---

I don't think you have been following the news. What do you think is up next? You get three guesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Wal-mart, Target, and many other large employers are crumpling to the lefty message of $15/hour. Bezos is just part of that trend. Bernie didn't do that.

---

They all bowed down to your new socialist marxist overlord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Furthermore, I asked you what the guy's signature accomplishment is. He's been a legislator for 600 years now and you're telling me that the best thing he ever did was scream at a billionaire indirectly through a TV camera???

---

Well, I didn't think you could handle history, so I posted a more recent example for your pleasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

To be clear here....you're telling me that the best thing Bernie ever did actually has nothing to do with his job.

---

What is his job? I was under the impression that a senator's job was to keep in close contact with his electors' agenda of concerns and issues at hand. I would say a shitlow minimum wage is pretty much the biggest issue at hand for his electors.

I thought he was elected to represent the people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

You can't point to anything he's done in 8,000 years in his capacity as Senator that even matters.

---

The sumbitch is immortal, I didn't know. I guess you won't be able to handle the next 8 years, being ruled by a socialist and marxist immortal non-practising jew who will give you good healthcare, excellent education and proper wages so you can concentrate on living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

And AOC vs Amazon. LOL. Even DiBlasio thinks AOC was a retard on this. Here, let me walk you through it.

---

Today I learned DiBlasio's opinion matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Amazon: We'd like to build in NYC
NYC: Ok, we'll charge you $30B in taxes
Amazon: Well, we're also talking to Boston
NYC: Whoa whoa whoa, don't go with them. Look, we'll cut you a break ok....$27B??
Amazon: you got a deal
Amazon: Can you also throw in a helipad kthx!
AOC: You already got 30B and you still want a free helipad? Fuck off. Get the fuck out of NY you greedy shits. GIT GIT
Amazon: oooohhhh shit I can't handle this bitch, I'm getting the fuck out of here

---

There, fixed that for you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Do you see what happened there? AOC thought she was standing up against the government spending $3B on tax breaks for amazon. But in reality she just cost her district 27B in tax revenue....PLUS thousands of jobs.

---

Like New York City really needed Amazon. Remember your own point about Amazon having made $11B last year and not paid a dime in taxes on that? Turns out the cities in which it's in don't really benefit from unpaid taxes.

Try thinking. It helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

there's no nuance there. She really is that dumb.

---

I agree with you, however the subject of this statement is wrong. She's not the dumbtard here. AOC is fn' brilliant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

It's really really weird that you bring *that* up as *bernie's* signature accomplishment.

---

Oh no, that was just a quick example to show you that Bernie is not a one man wrecking crew. He's more like the Avengers Assembled to make your country better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Holy fuck dude.......you need a new idol

---

Oh I'm fine, thanks. Kind of ironic being told this by someone who idolizes Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I bet it takes me less time and fewer clicks to "delete all posts from this user."
;)

Any critiques or criticisms over how I handled it?
Open floor.
If I've made another mistake, I want to know.

Let's just be open about it. He's made his criticisms clear. What are yours?

---

And I answered his post and he was already banned, damn

I guess old dogs can't learn new tricks?

You handled it well. A week off is fine. The dude has clear issues, he has to be zapped once in a while.

I implored him to stop annoying you. I even lobbied to get him his account back, as he was in purgatory for a long time already. And he goes and still shits the bed.

Trump has a word for this: SAD!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

I even lobbied to get him his account back

---

I could've been fine with that, but well...

Wow! - the economy
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/statu...913939456?s=20

more Wow - Trump retweets white supremacist and all around backwards idiot Paul Joseph Watson
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/sta...952441349?s=20

How dare you call me racist, I have a black friend! - Infowars retweet
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...533771776?s=20

He's also retweeting Lauren Southern and Charlie Kirk. Yikes.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-ke...ldren-shelter/
It is absolutely insane how you can influence or make political decisions that massively profits a private company and months later be on the payroll of that company.

Quote:

---

Teens sleep in bunk-bed-lined dorm rooms, ranging in size from small rooms that fit 12 younger children to enormous halls shared by as many as 200

---

Just like Laura Ingraham™ summer camp!

Make America Greasy As ...

https://www.apnews.com/6c869ddcada14421a5c1141b95f672bf

Is the question really if Trump committed a crime? I think this is ultimately about: Is america an oligarchy, and the answer so far is a resounding yes.

... and more of this shit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/u...imes&smtyp=cur
You guys will be bombing Iran and Venezuela before this is over.

What America lacks is any knowledge of what is and isn't a war crime.
What America has is a chorus of howler monkey politicians who keep dehumanizing their enemies.

Put those 2 together and you get a populace who thinks it's OK for US to do any bad things we can imagine, because we do bad things in the name of such epic goodness.

It gets much closer to home than justifying war crimes. Look at how we treat our own "free" citizens. Look at how our prisons are over-full, and we're contracting NGO's to run prisons for us. Look at how we incarcerate more of our "free" citizens per capita than any other country we have data on.

The vilification of other humans in America is a problem that's never really gone away. From "all men are created equal" originally meaning only white men who owned land to today, we have this problem.

"Year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer, The Times found."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ump-taxes.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

"Year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer, The Times found."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ump-taxes.html

---

And now he's taking that genius and running the country's trade with it.

His latest inspiration? Raise the tariffs on China, crash the stock market.