*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Is it worse to lie to OJ into a criminal investigation about you or to lie to your auntie that you like her new hairdo? Why is one worse than the other?

---

Because if you're lying to obstruct justice, then it means you're talking to a sworn law enforcement agent investigating a crime. That's worse than lying to your auntie. In Trump's case, he wasn't lying to an officer. He was lying to Twitter. Lying to your Auntie is worse.

Quote:

---

If someone tells you something and you repeat it, then later it's proven to be false, does that mean you've obstructed justice by lying?

---

It depends. Were you talking to a sworn law enforcement officer? If so, he's probably trained to ask questions like "did you see that happen? Or did someone just tell you about it"? So I don't see how that situation could possibly result in OOJ.

Quote:

---

If you're given a choice of voting in a criminal retard for four more years and a less-criminal, more intelligent person, who would you choose and why?

---

Ivanka. Because she's a fucking goddess.

Quote:

---

If someone believes they aren't allowed to conclude A, and they conclude nothing instead, does that mean that A is false?

---

It definitely does not mean it's true. Apparently the word we use for that is "interesting"

Quote:

---

What do you think the 2nd amendment means? Should you be allowed to carry a hand grenade on your person?

---

I'm actually not the person you wanna talk to about this. I think 12 year olds should be allowed to buy bazookas.

Quote:

---

Is it possible to build an impregnable barrier along a country's border?

---

Ask Israel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What a sad pussy of an answer.

---

ok, how about this:

Sometimes yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

What a sad pussy of an answer.

---

It's ok if they're brown. Family separation is ok. Black people are the only one to blame for their socioeconomic position, there is none and never has been systemic racism in the US, and Gavin "It's not racist to yell 'nigger' in a black man's face" McInnes is a real kneeslapper of a comedian. BUT HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A RACIST I WILL PUNCH YOU SO HARD WITH MY INTERNET FISTS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

It definitely does not mean it's true. Apparently the word we use for that is "interesting"

---

Yes or no answer please. Does it mean A is false?

And a follow-up:

If the answer is 'no' then are you an idiot if you argue that it does mean A is false?

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...081014660.html

This is not a new position by Trump. Children can be killed if they're children of the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...081014660.html

This is not a new position by Trump. Children can be killed if they're children of the enemy.

---

Yup, because "brown children bad"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yes or no answer please. Does it mean A is false?

And a follow-up:

If the answer is 'no' then are you an idiot if you argue that it does mean A is false?

---

Imagine there is a lake called "Lake Trump Campaign"

All of the water in that lake represents stuff the campaign did

If any of the water is frozen, it means someone did something bad.

We want to find out if any of the water in Lake Trump Campaign is frozen. So we dispatch the SS Mueller to investigate. But Mueller can't say something is "frozen". He can only say if it's "not frozen".

So he sails around, checks out all the water and says it's "not frozen".

Then off in the distance he sees a mist. It looks like fog. It looks like water that is "not frozen". But he can't be sure that it isn't drifting snow. It technically could be drifting snow, there is just no way to tell for sure. But it's probably, in fact overwhelmingly likely, that it's just fog.

So Mueller makes no conclusion on the mist.

Is that the same as finding ice?

Hey Oskar....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

1) Of the 10 possible instances of obstruction cited in the MR, which do you think presents the strongest case for criminal activity?

2) What evidence of the act do you find compelling?

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

4) In the instance you chose, how does Trump's behavior differ from the behavior that you would reasonably expect from someone who is frustrated at being framed for treason by partisan operatives within his own executive branch

---

I asked Poop earlier, and in case you missed it, he made up an 11th choice that Mueller didn't even mention and cited that as the strongest case for criminal activity.

I'm wondering if you and your 113 IQ can be just a bit smarter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

BUT HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A RACIST I WILL PUNCH YOU SO HARD WITH MY INTERNET FISTS.

---

Why don't you direct your anger to the one person on this forum who is actually openly promoting white supremacy

Spoiler: Show

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

https://i.gifer.com/C42.gif

---

Look at his hand! "W" and "P". That means "WHITE POWER" What a Nazi!!

Can Ong please ban this monster??

If you don't think election interference happened, something that is stated explicitly in the report, then I think it's pointless to talk about more nuanced matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

If you don't think election interference happened, something that is stated explicitly in the report, then I think it's pointless to talk about more nuanced matters.

---

When did I say that I think that?

I think it happened. I just don't think it matters very much. And I don't think Trump had any part in it

If Trump is smart....which he is.....he'll tell all of his underlings to start taking the 5th and not cooperate with any congressional investigations.

They're not independent fact finding bodies. They're partisan weapons for witch hunting.

Remain silent

House Judiciary Chairman's statement about the subpoena for McGahn

Quote:

---

"The Committee has served a valid subpoena to Mr. McGahn. We have asked him to supply documents to the Committee by May 7 and to testify here on May 21. Our request covers the subjects described by Mr. McGahn to the Special Counsel, and described by Special Counsel Mueller to the American public in his report. As such, the moment for the White House to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed,"

---

See bolded. Translation: We are going to keep asking the same question over and over again until we can trip you up and get you to contradict yourself somehow. Then we are going to charge you with perjury and then offer you a plea bargain if you can tell us some really juicy gossip about Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Imagine there is a lake called "Lake Trump Campaign"

All of the water in that lake represents stuff the campaign did

If any of the water is frozen, it means someone did something bad.

We want to find out if any of the water in Lake Trump Campaign is frozen. So we dispatch the SS Mueller to investigate. But Mueller can't say something is "frozen". He can only say if it's "not frozen".

So he sails around, checks out all the water and says it's "not frozen".

Then off in the distance he sees a mist. It looks like fog. It looks like water that is "not frozen". But he can't be sure that it isn't drifting snow. It technically could be drifting snow, there is just no way to tell for sure. But it's probably, in fact overwhelmingly likely, that it's just fog.

So Mueller makes no conclusion on the mist.

Is that the same as finding ice?

---

You don't need complicated analogies unless you're trying to obfuscate things.

It's really really really simple.

Either A or B is possible. You're allowed to answer either A or not answer the question.

Q1 you say A.
Q2 you give no answer.

End of story.

The question was not: 'what do you do if you see mist?'.

The question was: given the above restrictions, can you conclude that the answer to Q2 is A?

I'll give you a hint: the correct response is 'no'.

The follow-up question was: if you insist on answering 'yes' to the above, are you an idiot?
(the answer is 'yes, you are')

We'll make it even more interesting and fun for kids now. If you insist on refusing to answer 'no' to the above, what does that make you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

If Trump is smart....which he is.....he'll tell all of his underlings to start taking the 5th and not cooperate with any congressional investigations.

They're not independent fact finding bodies. They're partisan weapons for witch hunting.

Remain silent

---

How did that work with McGahn, Cohen, Manafort, etc. -Not so good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Either A or B is possible. You're allowed to answer either A or not answer the question.

Q1 you say A.
Q2 you give no answer.

The question was: given the above restrictions, can you conclude that the answer to Q2 is A?

---

That's not the question. The question is why do you think the answer to Q2 is B. It could just be not A. Just like fog is not ice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

House Judiciary Chairman's statement about the subpoena for McGahn



See bolded. Translation: We are going to keep asking the same question over and over again until we can trip you up and get you to contradict yourself somehow. Then we are going to charge you with perjury and then offer you a plea bargain if you can tell us some really juicy gossip about Trump

---

I think the actual translation is "Easter Worshippers Unite!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

How did that work with McGahn, Cohen, Manafort, etc. -Not so good.

---

So far McGahn hasn't testified, so what are you talking about.

And it actually went great for Cohen. He was facing like 15-30 years for tax fraud and some kind of taxi medallion scam. Instead he told some gossip about Trump and got it all knocked down to 3.

And Manafort probably would have rolled if he had any gossip about Trump. But in actuality....they were only friends for like 5 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

That's not the question. The question is why do you think the answer to Q2 is B. It could just be not A. Just like fog is not ice.

---

No, we're still trying to get you to accept that the conclusion isn't A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

No, we're still trying to get you to accept that the answer isn't A.

---

I don't accept that because the answer still could be A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

So far McGahn hasn't testified, so what are you talking about.

---

if you think McGahn is going to put loyalty to Trump ahead of his own common sense, you are very optimistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

I don't accept that because the answer still could be A

---

See this is where you're struggling with the workings of logic.

The conclusion is most definitely not A. If it was, the answer given would have been A.

Basically Mueller said.."This could be obstruction if he had bad intent. I can't determine his intent, so I can't conclude that he's not guilty"

That's not the same as saying he can't possibly be not guilty.

Try reading this, see if it helps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The conclusion is most definitely not A.

---

no, you don't know that. The conclusion could be A. We don't know the conclusion because there is no conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Basically Mueller said.."This could be obstruction if he had bad intent. I can't determine his intent, so I can't conclude that he's not guilty"

---

No, Mueller said "I cannot conclude he didn't commit obstruction." See the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

no, you don't know that. The conclusion could be A. We don't know the conclusion because there is no conclusion.

---

Yes we do. The conclusion is not A.

If A, not B.
If B, not A.

Not A.

Therefore, B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The conclusion is not A.

---

How do you know? It still could be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yes we do. The conclusion is not A.

If A, not B.
If B, not A.

Not A.

Therefore, B.

---

NO. THIS IS WRONG

You see a field of berries. You don't know which berries are poisonous. But you know which berries are not poisonous.

So you only eat the berries that you know are fine.

Can you conclude that the berries you didn't eat are fine? no, you can't conclude that. You can't conclude that they are poisonous either. There is no conclusion. You just don't know. You just know that some berries exist.

But they still very well could be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yes we do. The conclusion is not A.

If A, not B.
If B, not A.

Not A.

Therefore, B.

---

I really don't know why you're choosing to die on this hill. But the logic should be really simple.

If A, not B
If inconclusive, could be A or B

if you're using the word "therefore" then you are inferring information that is not in the Mueller report.

have a look at this:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ump-obstructed

Quote:

---

Investigation of obstruction of justice could still move ahead. “We conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” the report stated. It notes that the president could still be prosecuted after leaving office through resignation or impeachment.

---

Quote:

---

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report concluded. In other words, if the evidence had given the special counsel an opportunity to clear Trump of the charge of obstruction, Mueller would have taken it. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment.” In other words, there is just too much evidence of obstruction.

---

Oh, and just because you keep going on about how it's ok to lie to the public

Quote:

---

Few people remember this, but the obstruction-of-justice article against Nixon held the president accountable for lying to the American people — not when he was under oath, but when he made public statements about Watergate.

---

Attachment 1118

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

have a look at this:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ump-obstructed

---

PAAAAHHHH - FUCKING - THETIC

There isn't a single syllable in that entire thing that makes a case for obstruction. It just says "don't lose hope dems, it might still could maybe possibly somehow someway still happen if we're all really good boys and girls this year"

PS - Does this mean we are moving on from you retarded A/B game? Just because something is cannot be concluded to be A, doesn't mean it's not A.

Double ruh roh!

Quote:

---

Mueller’s team writes that its investigation “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” It says his “efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.

---

Edit: Don't think the law discriminates between 'attempted' and 'successful' obstruction. But hey I'm sure it'll be a new law by the time Trump goes to court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

PS - Does this mean we are moving on from you retarded A/B game? Just because something is cannot be concluded to be A, doesn't mean it's not A.

---

It certainly suggests that it's B, but only if you have common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

It certainly suggests that it's B, but only if you have common sense.

---

No it doesn't. And if you have common sense, you wouldn't jump to conclude B, or even strongly suspect B without evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

There isn't a single syllable in that entire thing that makes a case for obstruction.

---

The article is not a legal document; that's not its purpose. It also doesn't say ice cream is yummy. But it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

It just says "don't lose hope dems, it might still could maybe possibly somehow someway still happen if we're all really good boys and girls this year"

---

Where does it say that? I missed that part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

No it doesn't. And if you have common sense, you wouldn't jump to conclude B, or even strongly suspect B without evidence.

---

No but if there really was no evidence you would wonder why so much evidence was discussed, leading to the conclusion of not A.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The article is not a legal document;

---

It's not an article either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I missed that part.

---

you missed this part too

Quote:

---

BY KEN HUGHES, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/19/19 01:30 PM EDT 849 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

No but if there really was no evidence you would wonder why so much evidence was discussed

---

How much evidence was discussed? Wanna try this again?

Quote:

---

1) Of the 10 possible instances of obstruction cited in the MR, which do you think presents the strongest case for criminal activity?

2) What evidence of the act do you find compelling?

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

4) In the instance you chose, how does Trump's behavior differ from the behavior that you would reasonably expect from someone who is frustrated at being framed for treason by partisan operatives within his own executive branch

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

How much evidence was discussed? Wanna try this again?

---

Already done. Why keep beating a dead banana?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

It's not an article either.


you missed this part too

---

No i saw it was an opinion. An opinion that quotes directly from the M.R.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

No i saw it was an opinion. An opinion that quotes directly from the M.R.

---

weird, I couldn't find the quote you cited in post 4735

Fake news

From the MR

Quote:

---

“a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible”

---

there was nothing stopping the report from concluding Trump had obstructed justice but that he could not be indicted as president. Instead the report declaratively says

Quote:

---

“this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

weird, I couldn't find the quote you cited in post 4735

Fake news

---

Look harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

From the MR



there was nothing stopping the report from concluding Trump had obstructed justice but that he could not be indicted as president. Instead the report declaratively says

---

lol, are you going back now to denying that Mueller couldn't conclude Trump was guilty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

lol, are you going back now to denying that Mueller couldn't conclude Trump was guilty?

---

A determination of guilt is a matter for a court and a jury. So I'm not denying that Mueller couldn't find Trump guilty. He could not.

Another thing he couldn't do....make a decision about indictment/charges.....that's the AG's job. So if Mueller had conclusive evidence of obstruction, he could have presented it as such. He would not be violating his vow to not indict a president, as that decision would not be his anyway.

Dont be as dumb as oskar thinking that only congress has the power to do anything about the findings in the MR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Look harder.

---

I tried searching the page for the word "accede". It's not there man.

In the passage quoted in post 4735, I'm wondering why the quotation marks don't close. Where are the closing quotes supposed to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

A determination of guilt is a matter for a court and a jury. So I'm not denying that Mueller couldn't find Trump guilty. He could not.

Another thing he couldn't do....make a decision about indictment/charges.....that's the AG's job. So if Mueller had conclusive evidence of obstruction, he could have presented it as such. He would not be violating his vow to not indict a president, as that decision would not be his anyway.

---

He did present evidence. He did not say the president was innocent of OOJ. He operated under the principle that he couldn't even recommend indictment because of 'sitting president blahblahbah'.

Why are trying to make this into an argument again? you've already grudgingly accepted all of this.

Another thing I learned today, Mueller could have filed a sealed indictment to be opened after Trump left office.

That's what he would do if he had enough evidence to charge on obstruction.

He didn't do that

Lol, now Trump is saying he'd ask the Supreme Court to intervene if the Ds tried to impeach him.

Captain Retard at it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Another thing I learned today, Mueller could have filed a sealed indictment to be opened after Trump left office.

That's what he would do if he had enough evidence to charge on obstruction.

He didn't do that

---

Sealed indictments are made public now? Do you know what a 'sealed indictment' is?

Edit: Oh ffs you are so desperate. He already said he can't indict the president, not even a sealed indictment. Ffs.

Poop, you do realize that Mueller could have said "Trump obstructed", right? There is nothing in the DOJ rules that says you can't accuse a President of a crime. There is nothing that says you can't present compelling evidence of a crime. You just can't indict

And again, he could have filed a sealed indictment for use after the president leaves office. That's totally allowed. That satisfies the DOJ rules. There's no public charge. The president isn't on trial. He doesn't have to defend himself. And he's not under indictment while in office.

The DOJ rules are not a smokescreen that lets the president do whatever he wants. It's not a license to commit crimes. It's not a protective blanket. Congress doesn't need to act. The DOJ can act on it's own. It just didn't, because there was no crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Sealed indictments are made public now? Do you know what a 'sealed indictment' is?

Edit: Oh ffs you are so desperate. He already said he can't indict the president, not even a sealed indictment. Ffs.

---

He can file a sealed indictment because it wouldn't be against a sitting president. It would only be opened after he's not sitting anymore.

And it would not be public. But it would also mean that justice was served. And shouldn't that be the end of it?

So can you not conclude that either A) No crime was committed or B) Sealed indictments were already filed and Trump can face the music in 2025. Are you not satisfied with either of those outcomes?

But if Mueller did file sealed indictments, the AG would know. And he probably wouldn't go out in public saying "NO OBSTRUCTION"

Once again....

Quote:

---

1) Of the 10 possible instances of obstruction cited in the MR, which do you think presents the strongest case for criminal activity?

2) What evidence of the act do you find compelling?

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

4) In the instance you chose, how does Trump's behavior differ from the behavior that you would reasonably expect from someone who is frustrated at being framed for treason by partisan operatives within his own executive branch

---

In all of your tortuous attempts to talk yourself into Trump being innocent, do you forget he explicitly passed the OOJ issue to Congress? Do you forget that he said Trump could be charged once he was no longer president? Do you forget he explicitly said he could not even ACCUSE Trump of a crime?

Are you really so badly, desperately needing Trump to be innocent that you just pick the facts you like and discard the rest and go from the facts you like through a few more steps to the conclusion you want? Really?

Remember when Buzzfeed reported that they had proof that Trump ordered Cohen to lie to congress?

Remember how they said that they had sources in the Mueller investigation that told them that for sure.

Remember how Bob Mueller himself came out the very next day and shut that down. The story never proved to be even close to true.

Don't you think we would have heard from Mueller if Barr was materially misrepresenting his findings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Once again....

---

Once again, read my previous answers.

From now on, you only get each question answered once. Whether you like the answer or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

In all of your tortuous attempts to talk yourself into Trump being innocent, do you forget he explicitly passed the OOJ issue to Congress?

---

False. This isn't even possible. Congress and the DOJ are in separate branches of government. They don't collaborate like that.

Quote:

---

Do you forget that he said Trump could be charged once he was no longer president?

---

Right. And if that were going to happen, then the sealed indictments would already be filed. And if that were the case, would the AG be saying "no crimes"? Barr has been AG before. He doesn't need this job. He has nothing to gain by being a Trump toadie.

Quote:

---

Do you forget he explicitly said he could not even ACCUSE Trump of a crime?

---

Citation? And define "accuse". Does that mean he could not present damning evidence without stating a conclusion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Remember when Buzzfeed reported that they had proof that Trump ordered Cohen to lie to congress?

Remember how they said that they had sources in the Mueller investigation that told them that for sure.

Remember how Bob Mueller himself came out the very next day and shut that down. The story never proved to be even close to true.

Don't you think we would have heard from Mueller if Barr was materially misrepresenting his findings?

---

Buzzfeed is not Mueller's boss. Barr is.

Try another excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Once again, read my previous answers.

---

Your previous answer wasn't one of the 10 options listed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Buzzfeed is not Mueller's boss. Barr is.

---

Uh no. Mr. Mueller is very much unemployed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Barr has been AG before. He doesn't need this job. He has nothing to gain by being a Trump toadie.

---

And yet he got the job by being a Trump toadie, and continues to be one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

And yet he got the job by being a Trump toadie, and continues to be one.

---

How do you know how he got the job? How many other candidates were there? Who else was considered?
What were their views on Trump?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Uh no. Mr. Mueller is very much unemployed.

---

Whatever. he doesn't want to stir the pot. He's done his job he's out of the picture. he wants a vacation. take your pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

How do you know how he got the job? How many other candidates were there? What were there views on Trump?

---

Wow you really are fascinated by what I think aren't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Whatever. he doesn't want to stir the pot. He's done his job he's out of the picture. he wants a vacation. take your pick.

---

"Shut up" he explained

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Your previous answer wasn't one of the 10 options listed.

---

Like I said, whether you like the answer or not.

I'll add to that whether you believe it's an answer or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Like I said, whether you like the answer or not.

I'll add to that whether you believe it's an answer or not.

---

You had 10 choices, and rather than choose one, you invented an 11th out of thin air.

Just because ORANGE MAN BAD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

"Shut up" he explained

---

Where did i say shut up. I offered some possible reasons why Mueller didn't want to make a stink over Barr's toadying. You want a few more?

Barr's wife and his wife are friends. Barr loaned him money when they were younger and Mueller owes him a favour. Mueller doesn't give a shit if someone else lies. Mueller had a stroke and can't talk. Mueller isn't answering his phone. Any of those work for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

You had 10 choices, and rather than choose one, you invented an 11th out of thin air.

---

Did I? Oh ok sorry buddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Just because ORANGE MAN BAD

---

I got nothing against Oranges. I don't like Criminal Retards though, that's true.

Hey Oskar....if you're ever unemployed, just remember you can do Cuomo's job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHNjUDj74x4

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/st...003215873?s=20

The replies to this offers a deep dive into the minds of Trump-conservatives.

https://twitter.com/HeadHam67/status...197056000?s=20

This one is a piece of art!

Quote:

---

The replies to this offers a deep dive into the minds of Trump-conservatives.

---

I don't understand how someone can cite this tweet and its replies as evidence that the right are lunatics, and not whoever the fuck it is peddling this crap that babies = cancer.

It's like tweeting something offensive is a shit ton worse than teaching students utter fucking drivel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't understand how someone can cite this tweet and its replies as evidence that the right are lunatics, and not whoever the fuck it is peddling this crap that babies = cancer.

It's like tweeting something offensive is a shit ton worse than teaching students utter fucking drivel.

---

https://youtu.be/3fjQOn5_EUk?t=28

[enter "over my head" meme here]

Gotta love an argument that begins, "I can't imagine..."
As if the deficient imagination is evidence of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Gotta love an argument that begins, "I can't imagine..."
As if the deficient imagination is evidence of anything.

---

As if the phrase "I can't imagine" is to be taken literally, as though the person using such a phrase is bereft of imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't understand how someone can cite this tweet and its replies as evidence that the right are lunatics, and not whoever the fuck it is peddling this crap that babies = cancer.

It's like tweeting something offensive is a shit ton worse than teaching students utter fucking drivel.

---

It may or may not be fruitful to compare cancer to a fetus, but the parallels are there.

The reaction of 'zomg it's dehumanizing babies! arrrgggh!' is what is drivel, because the purpose is to understand cancer, not understand babies. The person behind the slide is not thinking 'here's a chance to promote abortion', they're thinking 'here's an interesting way of looking at cancer'

If this was shown at a pro-abortion rally rather than a biology lecture, the outrage would be more appropriate. You don't take a biology class to find out what the prof's views on abortion are, anymore than you go to a pro-abortion rally to find out whether the speaker has a good grasp of how cancer works.

Quote:

---

It may or may not be fruitful to compare cancer to a fetus, but the parallels are there.

---

Are you serious?

Quote:

---

The person behind the slide is not thinking 'here's a chance to promote abortion', they're thinking 'here's an interesting way of looking at cancer'

---

No, it's a deliberate attempt to cause yet more division between left and right minded people.

Students in a university studying biology do not need a patronising and piss poor analogy for cancer. You can just go right ahead and teach them what cancer actually is, rather than comparing it to something beautiful and essential to the survival of the species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Are you serious?

---

Yes that's why i said it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

No, it's a deliberate attempt to cause yet more division between left and right minded people.

---

So let me get this straight, in the middle of a lecture about cancer, the prof stops and says 'oh btw, look at how cancer is like a baby. Now all of you go out and have an abortion! And if you're a right-wing looney, please post this on twitter so all your friends can go 'arrrrghgh!''

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Students in a university studying biology do not need a patronising and piss poor analogy for cancer. You can just go right ahead and teach them what cancer actually is, rather than comparing it to something beautiful and essential to the survival of the species.

---

First of all, babies aren't beautiful. They're ugly as fuck. I wouldn't wish any harm on one, but calling them beautiful is just silly.

Second, do you know what a parasite it? It's something that lives in your body and feeds off of it. Do you see the parallel between cancer and a parasite? Ok, then tell me why the parallel between cancer and a fetus is any different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

it's a deliberate attempt to cause yet more division between left and right minded people.

---

This is the kind of meandering-path-logic reaction that makes it so difficult to teach people in the Age of Outrage.

Taking 1 slide of a lecture out of context isn't really telling us much at all.

Not knowing what the presenter said to go along with that slide makes it very hard to know if the presenter was pressing an agenda or carefully skirting it.

I mean... if that professor was pressing a political agenda, I'm pretty confident that about half the students would be pretty pissed about it and convinced that that's not what they paid the college for when they signed up for a biology class.

One tweet of 1 slide from a presentation isn't giving any context to the situation.
Maybe the professor was pressing a political agenda. It's just not clear from a photo of a lecture slide without any further context.


FYI, if facts make you uncomfortable, that's not the fault of the facts. If facts change your mind, then congrats! Good adulting on your part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Taking 1 slide of a lecture out of context isn't really telling us much at all.

Not knowing what the presenter said to go along with that slide makes it very hard to know if the presenter was pressing an agenda or carefully skirting it.

I mean... if that professor was pressing a political agenda, I'm pretty confident that about half the students would be pretty pissed about it and convinced that that's not what they paid the college for when they signed up for a biology class.

One tweet of 1 slide from a presentation isn't giving any context to the situation.
Maybe the professor was pressing a political agenda. It's just not clear from a photo of a lecture slide without any further context.

---

This is all true. If the prof. actually did this to openly promote a political view they should stfu and stick to teaching biology.

But I doubt they did because common sense should tell them someone in the audience is going to hold the opposite view very strongly and complain very loudly.

Assuming their aims were innocent they nowadays still have to be careful because someone is likely going to misinterpret their slide and freak out anyways. This is why i say it's hard to teach in the Age of Outrage.

How amusing that poop is using "the Age of Outrage" in an argument against me.

Trump tweeted "blah blah blah".

OMFG *screeching noises*

Mojo makes a nice balanced post and is absolutely right, this could have been taken way out of context. But I think the concern is that universities have already become breeding grounds for left wing indoctrination.

Poop, question... do your students clap? Or is it that jazz hands bollocks? Is that actually a thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How amusing that poop is using "the Age of Outrage" in an argument against me.

Trump tweeted "blah blah blah".

OMFG *screeching noises*

---

You're the only one making screeching noises here.

When Trump tweets something and i call him 'Captain Retard', that's expressing amusement, not outrage.

When someone puts up a slide showing the similarities between cancer and a fetus, or when someone refers to people in a church as 'Easter Worshippers', or when someone doesn't give fishermen their due respect in your eyes, you lose your shit like a total snowflake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Poop, question... do your students clap? Or is it that jazz hands bollocks? Is that actually a thing?

---

I don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing to clap about, it's a lecture not a play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing to clap about, it's a lecture not a play.

---

I clap when the professor says we need to topple the ruling class and hoist their lifeless bodies up in the public square.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I clap when the professor says we need to topple the ruling class and hoist their lifeless bodies up in the public square.

---

Sounds like someone knows how to get a top mark.

My class doesn't clap when I say that. They did laugh when I pointed to the top of the IQ curve and said 'this is you', then pointed to the bottom of the curve and said 'this is people who voted for Donald Trump'.

I guess that's a form of applause.

Quote:

---

I imagine you losing your shit like a total snowflake.

---

fyp

Quote:

---

I don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing to clap about, it's a lecture not a play.

---

Oh, is that only reserved for performances? I thought it was standard after a good lecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Oh, is that only reserved for performances? I thought it was standard after a good lecture.

---

Not afaik. I never clapped when I was a student. I had a group clap at the end of the year once but I think they were just happy it was finally over.

Also, I only give about a dozen lectures a year. Maybe if I had more practice I could get them to applaud.

I'll not take the opportunity to suggest that maybe your students just don't clap your lectures.

Shit, I just did, didn't I?

Sorry I'm sure you're great at your job, I'm just amusing myself.

I'm on a research-focused contract. At lecturing, I'm ok. Not great but not shit either.

At research, I'm pretty good. Not a superstar, but certainly above average.

The rest of my job is boring admin tasks, and you can only really be competent at them or incompetent; there's not really any way to shine at pencil pushing. So, I'm competent.

I never applauded a lecture, nor do I hear students applauding very often.
That said, today and yesterday were the last days of classes, and it's standard for the introphysics students to applaud at the end of the final lecture, and when I enter ('cause I know class is over due to the applause), I get applause as well.
Some professors actually invite me into the room and thank me, which always gets applause, but it's not the same when the professor basically said, "now everyone clap for Sean"

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/stat...429120005?s=20
I love the look on his face when he realizes he should have checked what show he's going on.