*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.8db9eab87702

rofl

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well, obviously all you need to ask to find out if someone will be a productive member of society is whether or not their neighbors are productive. We should have thought of this sooner. It's not like there are any individuals outside of the good ol' USA.

[wufwugy]

I'd say with >80% certainty that the quote is fake news.

[wufwugy]

80% is probably quite low too. This isn't the kind of thing somebody like Trump is likely to say or believe, but it IS the kind of fake news that is The Washington Compost's bread and butter.

[wufwugy]

Well, obviously all you need to ask to find out if someone will be a productive member of society is whether or not their neighbors are productive. We should have thought of this sooner. It's not like there are any individuals outside of the good ol' USA.

On that, being somebody who succeeds in a shithole probably signals even greater talent than being somebody who succeeds in a well-off place. Whether or not that is true can depend on lots of different variables, but it gets at the idea that a way to spot the most skilled people is to spot those who have had more to overcome. A blanket rejection from "shithole countries" could be a stupid idea because of this.

[oskar]

I got so excited when I read that, because I want to hear how Scott Adams spins this to fit his narrative. If he pulls it off, that will be some cirque du soleil level shit.

[wufwugy]

This is not the type of thing Adams discusses.

[spoonitnow]

MAGA

[wufwugy]

Can ya spot the reason the people who brief the media on what happened behind closed doors said Trump said shitholes?

[spoonitnow]

Go back to your shithole

[wufwugy]

nm

[spoonitnow]

Grab her by the shithole

[boost]

Whether a previous office holder is guilty or not, using the power of the state to go after political rivals sets a precedent that incentivizes our current and any future presidents to cling to power.

I think the pro-Trumpers have some legit grievances, but I also think there are some legit reasons why the causes of those grievances happen. I think we all take the stability of our society for granted a bit too much-- you start cutting out pillars like this, one at a time, because they individually don't make sense or seem vile, and well, down comes the house.

[wufwugy]

Whether a previous office holder is guilty or not, using the power of the state to go after political rivals sets a precedent that incentivizes our current and any future presidents to cling to power.

That is an issue. It could be part of why Trump and Sessions are nowhere near anything regarding investigation of Trump's rivals. It takes somebody like Mueller to do so with credibility. Also there's a thought that Trump would or should pardon them if it ever comes to that. That could in part be due to wanting to keep the system stable.

There are definitely unintended consequences for prosecuting criminals with enough power. There are also unintended consequences for not doing it.

[spoonitnow]

If people know they can commit major league crimes and not be investigated, charged or convicted, then they have no incentive to obey the law.

[Jack Sawyer]

I got so excited when I read that, because I want to hear how Scott Adams spins this to fit his narrative. If he pulls it off, that will be some cirque du soleil level shit.

Who the fuck is scott adams

[MadMojoMonkey]

If people know they can commit major league crimes and not be investigated, charged or convicted, then they have no incentive to obey the law.

Most people don't care what the laws are.

It's not like people are all walking around not being thieves and murderers because of laws.
It's not like laws against thieving and murder have done much if anything to eliminate thievery and murder.

[oskar]

Who the fuck is scott adams

He's a breakthrough scientist who has discovered that you don't need any facts or numbers when you have your feelings and your anecdotes. He forms the holy trinity of the enlightened with Stephen Molyneux and Ben Shapiro. Together they lead their disciples on /pol into a brave new era where white people will no longer be genocided, where trans people and minorities will no longer oppress the white race and to a reality where Donald Trump is by no means a babbling retard, but very possibly the smartest man on earth.

[Jack Sawyer]

He's a breakthrough scientist who has discovered that you don't need any facts or numbers when you have your feelings and your anecdotes. He forms the holy trinity of the enlightened with Stephen Molyneux and Ben Shapiro. Together they lead their disciples on /pol into a brave new era where white people will no longer be genocided, where trans people and minorities will no longer oppress the white race and to a reality where Donald Trump is by no means a babbling retard, but very possibly the smartest man on earth.

Ah, I see. One-part of The Right Jesus. Didn't know that

[Poopadoop]

He's a breakthrough scientist who has discovered that you don't need any facts or numbers when you have your feelings and your anecdotes. He forms the holy trinity of the enlightened with Stephen Molyneux and Ben Shapiro. Together they lead their disciples on /pol into a brave new era where white people will no longer be genocided, where trans people and minorities will no longer oppress the white race and to a reality where Donald Trump is by no means a babbling retard, but very possibly the smartest man on earth.

lol

[CoccoBill]

A serious question: what evidence is there that suggests Trump is smart?

[oskar]

A theologian might be better equipped to answer this. The easiest one is to presuppose the condition you're trying to prove. Let's say Trump literally shits on the floor in the oval office. The act of shitting on the floor in the oval office has no obvious benefit, but it does have some consequences like: every media outlet is going to talk about it. So obviously, since trump is a maximally smart being, the reason he shat on the floor was to bring attention to him shitting on the floor. Why would you cause attention on that scale for no obvious benefit? To divert attention from all the other cool stuff he's doing of course!
Conclusion: Trump is a master manipulator.

[spoonitnow]

Most people don't care what the laws are.

It's not like people are all walking around not being thieves and murderers because of laws.
It's not like laws against thieving and murder have done much if anything to eliminate thievery and murder.

This is very much mistaken. All of the relevant data suggests that the vast majority of people don't avoid doing bad things because they're inherently good but because they're inherently cowards and are afraid of the legal consequences of committing crimes if they get caught.

You have some Pollyanna tendencies as it is, so I think it's natural for you to assume this, but it's just (unfortunately) not the case.

[spoonitnow]

Perhaps unrelated to below: Trump won 2,654 out of 3,141 (84.5%) counties in the United States against Hillary Clinton according to official numbers.

A serious question: what evidence is there that suggests Trump is smart?

That he beat the most prolific politician of our time who hasn't been president on his first serious try of running counts for something, but the American people didn't choose Trump because of how smart they thought he was. They chose him because he was the best candidate.

[spoonitnow]

Shithole

[oskar]

A serious question: what evidence is there that suggests Trump is smart?

Another one would be just standard whataboutism. Remember that the statute of limitations for bringing up past presidents, opposing candidates or just completely random fucking people NEVER runs out.
So you could go: lol look at this fat SJW bitch saying dumb things. Therefore: Trump is smart. Obama did some bad things. Therefore Trump is smart. Hilary Clinton would have been a bad president. Therefore...
you get the point.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is very much mistaken. All of the relevant data suggests that the vast majority of people don't avoid doing bad things because they're inherently good but because they're inherently cowards and are afraid of the legal consequences of committing crimes if they get caught.

You have some Pollyanna tendencies as it is, so I think it's natural for you to assume this, but it's just (unfortunately) not the case.

Your world view is so unforgiving. Who hurt you, spoony? Who didn't forgive you?
lol

Drop some data, then, cuckstain, and maybe I'll change my mind.

[spoonitnow]

Your world view is so unforgiving. Who hurt you, spoony? Who didn't forgive you?
lol

Drop some data, then, cuckstain, and maybe I'll change my mind.

The original Stanford prison experiment (and all of its subsequent reiterations) are a good place to start.

[oskar]

Holy shit. Most of the time I give you credit for trolling, but I don't see where there could possibly any humor in completely misinterpreting one of the most well known studies in psychology. This is intro to psychology 101 stuff.
Morality is an evolutionary strategy. That's game theory shit. This should be exactly your thing.

[spoonitnow]

Holy shit. Most of the time I give you credit for trolling, but I don't see where there could possibly any humor in completely misinterpreting one of the most well known studies in psychology. This is intro to psychology 101 stuff.
Morality is an evolutionary strategy. That's game theory shit. This should be exactly your thing.

"...are a good place to start."

Morality is not an evolutionary strategy. Morality is how the strong trick the weak into not playing the numbers game to try to overtake them. Institutionalized monogamy is a good example.

[Poopadoop]

A serious question: what evidence is there that suggests Trump is smart?

There are different kinds of smart. The smart it takes to brand yourself in particular way and constantly self-aggrandize yourself and your brand relates to business acumen. I think that's more or less where it ends with Trump.

Where he seems not smart is in self-monitoring. That is, he seems completely incapable of adapting his behaviour to context or resisting an impulse to act. Of course the riposte to this is that this behaviour is really all part of the show and reflects a strategic 3D chess game that goes beyond our understanding as non-geniuses. Nonetheless, it's undeniably paradoxical that a wily politician repeatedly says thing that offend 2/3 of the country.

[BananaStand]

There are different kinds of smart. The smart it takes to brand yourself in particular way and constantly self-aggrandize yourself and your brand relates to business acumen.

No. Intelligence is Intelligence. You don't get to slice and dice it up just so you can pigeon hole your political rival into only being smart on 'certain things'. It's also kind of a backdoor statement about your self which seems both erroneous and irrelevant. You're basically saying that you have some kind of supreme wordly intelligence that not only allows you to slice and dice, but to point to someone like Trump and belittle him for 'only' having the specific type of intelligence to build a multi-billion dollar empire of business success and celebrity.

I think that's more or less where it ends with Trump.

Well thanks for your opinion. It's so nice to have input from someone who so deeply understands the granularity of intelligence. /sarcasm. Now get the fuck over yourself.

Where he seems not smart is in self-monitoring. That is, he seems completely incapable of adapting his behaviour to context or resisting an impulse to act.

Jeeeezus man, ego much? Just because he doesn't act how YOU would act, that means he lacks intelligence? His behavior seems to be working just fine for him up to this point.

Of course the riposte to this is that this behaviour is really all part of the show and reflects a strategic 3D chess game that goes beyond our understanding as non-geniuses.

No, that's something you want to believe to make yourself feel smarter. You're basically inventing a bullshit riposte, so you can slam it as bullshit. It's a strawman, and a really weak one at that.

The actual riposte is "WHY WOULD HE CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR? HAS HIS BEHAVIOR TO THIS POINT BROUGHT NEGATIVE, OR POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES?"

Nonetheless, it's undeniably paradoxical that a wily politician repeatedly says thing that offend 2/3 of the country

No, it's only paradoxical if you live inside your liberal echo chamber. Outside of that, the things he says are not actually offensive, and even if they are to some, it's not 2/3 of the country. You're listening too much to the SJW's out there who just hate Trump no matter what he says or does. So every bombastic or hyperbolic or comedic remark is twisted into some worst-case rhetoric that people like you confirmation bias themselves into believing.

[Poopadoop]

lolz

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-42663167

[BananaStand]

lolz

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-42663167

I guess you have to be all the kinds of smart to think this is funny

[Poopadoop]

No. Intelligence is Intelligence.

Got this far before my head exploded. A new record for uninformed arguments.

First of all, even the most basic things like verbal and spatial intelligence are separable. For another, intellectual and emotional intelligence are separable. So, e.g., one can be speak several languages fluently but suck at maths. One can be excellent at getting on with people but unable to read a map. One can be, like you banana, fluent with language but dysfluent in showing people basic courtesy and respect.

So please go back and reconsider the rest of your post which I can only assume is largely based on this retarded premise.

[oskar]

"...are a good place to start."

Morality is not an evolutionary strategy. Morality is how the strong trick the weak into not playing the numbers game to try to overtake them. Institutionalized monogamy is a good example.

The reason this bothers me is because you present these idiotic statements in a way that could be convincing to morons. Not related to this one, but your comments about economy and race... any halfwit xenophobe can look at what you're saying and identify with it. Even if you yourself have a better understanding than what you are willing to share, you are perpetuating ignorance.

There are entire volumes written about the evolution of ethics and morality. This is not controversial, or fringe. It is beyond biology 101 and the scope of a wikipedia article, so I'm not surprised that this is news to you.

[BananaStand]

Got this far before my head exploded. A new record for uninformed arguments.

First of all, even the most basic things like verbal and spatial intelligence are separable. For another, intellectual and emotional intelligence are separable. So, e.g., one can be speak several languages fluently but suck at maths. One can be excellent at getting on with people but unable to read a map. One can be, like you banana, fluent with language but dysfluent in showing people basic courtesy and respect.

So please go back and reconsider the rest of your post which I can only assume is largely based on this retarded premise.

No, intelligence is the ability to acquire knowledge and skills. Everything else you listed is knowledge and skills.

[oskar]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/

[Poopadoop]

No, intelligence is the ability to acquire knowledge and skills. Everything else you listed is knowledge and skills.

No, that's not how it works. If intelligence were as simple and basic as that, any 'intelligent' person would be able to acquire any set of knowledge and skills. We know that doesn't happen.

Perhaps the way to make you understand the concept is to view things as 'aptitudes' rather than 'intelligence'. A person may have an aptitude to be a great musician but not a great mechanic, whereas another person may have an aptitude to be a great doctor but not a great musician, and a third person may an aptitude to ....etc. etc.etc. Each of these people is intelligent by your definition of being able to acquire knowledge and skills, but the domain in which they are best suited to do so differs from person to person.

Trump is intelligent at acquiring business skills. He is not (imho) intelligent in the skills required to be a non-moron in the social realm, such as knowing what to say and when to keep your mouth shut, or thinking before you act.

[BananaStand]

He is not (imho) intelligent in the skills required to be a non-moron in the social realm, such as knowing what to say and when to keep your mouth shut, or thinking before you act.

Completely impossible given where he is right now.

[Poopadoop]

Completely impossible given where he is right now.

Arguably, he won despite himself not because of himself.

[BananaStand]

Arguably, he won despite himself not because of himself.

That's why it just HAD to be Russia right??

[Poopadoop]

That's why it just HAD to be Russia right??

The influence of Russia was certainly evident, but is hard to measure. Comey (publicly) reopening email-gate ten days before the election was almost certainly a bigger factor. Before that, IIRC Trump was down by 12 points in the aggregate polling.

But in general, my argument rests mainly on the premise that given a choice between two bad candidates, people took what they felt was the lesser of two evils.

[BananaStand]

But in general, my argument rests mainly on the premise that given a choice between two bad candidates, people took what they felt was the lesser of two evils.

And what happened before that? People took what they felt was the least of 17 evils?? Are you really being serious right now?

[Poopadoop]

And what happened before that? People took what they felt was the least of 17 evils?? Are you really being serious right now?

Primaries are a different matter as you know because they're largely based on the question of who has the best chance of winning rather than who will make a better president. Moreover, the voters in a primary represent only the party in question, not the population as a whole.

[BananaStand]

The man acquired billions of dollars through complex transactions and investments all over the world. He went on to phenomenal success in television, clothing, hospitality and real-estate. He turned his name into a worldwide brand.

In the course of doing that he earned the love and respect of his children and family.

Then he walked into the political arena and destroyed 16 overwhelmingly qualified republican oppenents.

Then he overtook a Democratic heir-apparent by running an extraordinary campaign.

And since then he has attracted to himself, people of supreme intellect and gravitas (Sessions, Tillerson, Mattis, etc)


There is no way it's even fathomable that Trump lacks intelligence in any form, or interpretation that you're describing. It's just not possible that Trump could accomplish all of this and be poised to do it all over again in 3 years, while simultaneously being a socially inept drooler.

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

[Poopadoop]

Are you really being serious right now?

Are you?

Before you became fully indoctrinated by Fox News and the reverberations of your own rhetoric, you said something quite similar to my argument, along the lines of 'at least he's not as bad as Hillary'

[BananaStand]

Are you?

Definitely

Before you became fully indoctrinated by Fox News, you said something quite similar to my argument, along the lines of 'at least he's not as bad as Hillary'

You'll have to find me the quote on that. I know I'm on record as a non-Trump voter in the primary. I know I'm on record as being anti-wall. I know I'm on record as saying that I do find some of the stuff Trump says distasteful.

But there's just no cogent argument you can make that impugns the man's intelligence.

[Poopadoop]

The man acquired billions of dollars through complex transactions and investments all over the world. He went on to phenomenal success in television, clothing, hospitality and real-estate. He turned his name into a worldwide brand.

In the course of doing that he earned the love and respect of his children and family.

Then he walked into the political arena and destroyed 16 overwhelmingly qualified republican oppenents.

Then he overtook a Democratic heir-apparent by running an extraordinary campaign.

And since then he has attracted to himself, people of supreme intellect and gravitas (Sessions, Tillerson, Mattis, etc)


There is no way it's even fathomable that Trump lacks intelligence in any form, or interpretation that you're describing. It's just not possible that Trump could accomplish all of this and be poised to do it all over again in 3 years, while simultaneously being a socially inept drooler.

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

I already know the Fox News version of reality, and I appreciate that my views are discordant with it. So I don't expect to change your mind. I do find it somewhat bemusing though how closed your mind is, as an intelligent person, to any view that doesn't agree with your own.

[Poopadoop]

You'll have to find me the quote on that.

I'm not going through your 1400+ posts to find the thing you said once or twice. But I do remember it striking me as contrasting a lot with Wuf's incessant Trump cheerleading. I was open to the idea you might be a reasonable person back then.

[BananaStand]

I already know the Fox News version of reality, and I appreciate that my views are discordant with it. So I don't expect to change your mind. I do find it somewhat bemusing though how closed your mind is, as an intelligent person, to any view that doesn't agree with your own.

It's really not a matter of having an open or closed mind. This is an issue of fact.

There's absolutely no way you can enjoy the success that Trump has, and be stupid. That's not a closed-minded statement.

[BananaStand]

I'm not going through your 1400+ posts to find the thing you said once or twice. But I do remember it striking me as contrasting a lot with Wuf's incessant Trump cheerleading. I was open to the idea you might be a reasonable person back then.

So when I disagree with stuff about Trump being some kind of omnipotent, infallible, manipulator...you think I might be reasonable. But because I don't go all the way to "trump is stupid", you give up on that and just lump me in with all the kool-aid drinkers?

And you think Trump is socially inept?

As I've said before, it's a good thing I can't die of irony.

[Poopadoop]

There's absolutely no way you can enjoy the success that Trump has, and be stupid. That's not a closed-minded statement.

No it is. And the reason it is is because it oversimplifies things to 'he rich, ergo he smart' and 'he won the election, ergo he smart'. There's a lot more that went into both of those events than Trump's own abilities. I'm not disputing his business acumen, but as I've argued, a large part of his election success seems to me to have occurred despite his actions rather than because of them.

I can beat anybody at chess no matter how good they are, as long as they make more mistake than I do. That doesn't make me a great chess player.

[Poopadoop]

So when I disagree with stuff about Trump being some kind of omnipotent, infallible, manipulator...you think I might be reasonable. But because I don't go all the way to "trump is stupid", you give up on that and just lump me in with all the kool-aid drinkers?

And you think Trump is socially inept?

As I've said before, it's a good thing I can't die of irony.

Let's unpack that because it makes clear why I don't give you as much credit as at the beginning.

when I disagree with stuff about Trump being some kind of omnipotent, infallible, manipulator...you think I might be reasonable.

Shouldn't that seem reasonable?

But because I don't go all the way to "trump is stupid", you give up on that and just lump me in with all the kool-aid drinkers?

Go back as far as it takes to find you saying one single negative thing about Trump, or one thing that doesn't parrot Fox News, and you'll understand how long a period of grace I've given you. You've reached the threshold now.

As I've said before, it's a good thing I can't die of irony.

This is an irrelevant add-on that shows you to be incapable of sticking to the argument without taking some douchey back-handed swipe at your opponent. It's a sign of low social intelligence. Maybe this is why you have trouble recognizing the same deficit in Trump.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Holy shit. Most of the time I give you credit for trolling, but I don't see where there could possibly any humor in completely misinterpreting one of the most well known studies in psychology. This is intro to psychology 101 stuff.
Morality is an evolutionary strategy. That's game theory shit. This should be exactly your thing.

It's not my phrasing or tone, but I would have responded similarly

The reason this bothers me is because you present these idiotic statements in a way that could be convincing to morons. Not related to this one, but your comments about economy and race... any halfwit xenophobe can look at what you're saying and identify with it. Even if you yourself have a better understanding than what you are willing to share, you are perpetuating ignorance.

There are entire volumes written about the evolution of ethics and morality. This is not controversial, or fringe. It is beyond biology 101 and the scope of a wikipedia article, so I'm not surprised that this is news to you.

Same, again.

(This post was in between the above 2)

Morality is not an evolutionary strategy. Morality is how the strong trick the weak into not playing the numbers game to try to overtake them. Institutionalized monogamy is a good example.

There's truth in here that shouldn't be discarded.

[BananaStand]

No it is. And the reason it is is because it oversimplifies things to 'he rich, ergo he smart' and 'he won the election, ergo he smart'.

Those are your words, not mine. The statement I provided is not an oversimplification. It's a summary of several more detailed statements I've provided already. It's obvious that your mind is impervious to reason, so I saved my fingers some work.

I'm not disputing his business acumen,

Yes, you absolutely are. You're being ignorant, intentionally or unintentionally, of the fact that it takes a tremendous amount of social-acumen to succeed in business, real-estate, TV, and politics the way Trump has.

He has to talk to people!!!

In fact, he has to talk to ALOT of people. And virtually all of those people are individuals of great success, fame, talent, or notoriety in their own right. Trump keeps succeeding, so I can only assume that the interactions he's having with those people are going just fine.

Are you going to suggest that ALL of those people lack social acumen as well?

You're starting to sound like the goth kid who stays home alone on prom night and says "only losers go to Prom"

I can beat anybody at chess no matter how good they are, as long as they make more mistake than I do. That doesn't make me a great chess player.

What if we're not talking about chess, but instead winning elections. And your opponent is an accomplished politician with savvy, experience, and a record to run on. Under what circumstances would you make less mistakes than your opponent.

Now ask yourself, under what circumstances would you make less mistakes than 18 consecutive opponents?

At what point are you just a pretty good chess player?

[Jack Sawyer]

That he beat the most prolific politician of our time who hasn't been president on his first serious try of running counts for something, but the American people didn't choose Trump because of how smart they thought he was. They chose him because he was the best candidate.

LOL try harder

Hillary was only there cause she cheated to begin with; if you have to cheat to beat the democratic primary opponent winning the general is a very tall order

Thank Debbie WS for Trump's victory, his geniusness only got softballs in dead center to hit. LOL at Trump being smart hahahaha. Maybe his use of twitter indicates just how unbelievably "smart" he is? Hahahaha

[wufwugy]

A serious question: what evidence is there that suggests Trump is smart?

None. He does everything opposite of what all the experts say he should and bumbles into success time and again. The only evidence is that he is a bumbling lucky idiot.

[wufwugy]

He's a breakthrough scientist who has discovered that you don't need any facts or numbers when you have your feelings and your anecdotes. He forms the holy trinity of the enlightened with Stephen Molyneux and Ben Shapiro. Together they lead their disciples on /pol into a brave new era where white people will no longer be genocided, where trans people and minorities will no longer oppress the white race and to a reality where Donald Trump is by no means a babbling retard, but very possibly the smartest man on earth.

Like I always say, you always write great fiction.

[Jack Sawyer]

Another one would be just standard whataboutism. Remember that the statute of limitations for bringing up past presidents, opposing candidates or just completely random fucking people NEVER runs out.
So you could go: lol look at this fat SJW bitch saying dumb things. Therefore: Trump is smart. Obama did some bad things. Therefore Trump is smart. Hilary Clinton would have been a bad president. Therefore...
you get the point.

Hahahaha this is exactly how it looks

Seen the FISA flipflop? Trump tweets: "FISA BAD". An hour later: "FISA GOOD. IT IS FOREIGN. GET SMART!!" When FISA is actually local too, by its very nature. Even Fox fucking News called him out on the flip flop, despite the hilarious fact that it happened *because* he was watching fox news

Hahahahahaha this would be funnier if it wasn't so sad. This dude literally has no idea what the fuck he's doing, but he does have the alzheimer's and dementia out. All he wanted was tax cuts. Hahahahahaha OMG

[Jack Sawyer]

None. He does everything opposite of what all the experts say he should and bumbles into success time and again. The only evidence is that he is a bumbling lucky idiot.

There is some hilarious irony in this statement and the fact that you delivered it so perfectly

[wufwugy]

Arguably, he won despite himself not because of himself.

It is certainly true that he bears a cost for what he does.

Word is that he was surprised at first at the magnitude of the cost because he thought the media would treat him with a modicum of fairness. Good news for us that he learned that lesson quickly.

[wufwugy]

There is some hilarious irony in this statement and the fact that you delivered it so perfectly

What do you mean?

[spoonitnow]

LOL try harder

Hillary was only there cause she cheated to begin with; if you have to cheat to beat the democratic primary opponent winning the general is a very tall order

Thank Debbie WS for Trump's victory, his geniusness only got softballs in dead center to hit. LOL at Trump being smart hahahaha. Maybe his use of twitter indicates just how unbelievably "smart" he is? Hahahaha

All numbers show that Hillary would have beaten Bernie without the help of the DNC.

[spoonitnow]

Got this far before my head exploded. A new record for uninformed arguments.

First of all, even the most basic things like verbal and spatial intelligence are separable. For another, intellectual and emotional intelligence are separable. So, e.g., one can be speak several languages fluently but suck at maths. One can be excellent at getting on with people but unable to read a map. One can be, like you banana, fluent with language but dysfluent in showing people basic courtesy and respect.

So please go back and reconsider the rest of your post which I can only assume is largely based on this retarded premise.

Most of this is completely incorrect. There is only one thing measured that is intelligence. The rest is attributed to personality.

[wufwugy]

I'm not going through your 1400+ posts to find the thing you said once or twice. But I do remember it striking me as contrasting a lot with Wuf's incessant Trump cheerleading. I was open to the idea you might be a reasonable person back then.

I'm very moderate on Trump.

[spoonitnow]

The reason this bothers me is because you present these idiotic statements in a way that could be convincing to morons. Not related to this one, but your comments about economy and race... any halfwit xenophobe can look at what you're saying and identify with it. Even if you yourself have a better understanding than what you are willing to share, you are perpetuating ignorance.

There are entire volumes written about the evolution of ethics and morality. This is not controversial, or fringe. It is beyond biology 101 and the scope of a wikipedia article, so I'm not surprised that this is news to you.

There are entire volumes written about the Earth being flat as well. That doesn't make it true.

You're wrong, but I'm not interested in "debating" people on the Internet who don't understand enough of what they're talking about to realize when they're wrong.

[Jack Sawyer]

That's why it just HAD to be Russia right??

No. It was Debbie Wasserman Schultz throwing the democratic primaries. Thank her. Fuck Russia.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not interested in "debating" people on the Internet who don't understand enough of what they're talking about to realize when they're wrong.

Nah. You're interested in trolling.

Otherwise, saying spurious things which bear no relation to the sources you cite to back them up, then getting all petulant, insulting and condescending when anyone tries to actually understand anything you're saying - that would be the opposite of your asserted persona.

Either you are truly a man's man, enlightening and empowering men to not feel guilty for being awesome... or you're a whining little pissant whom can't actually stand behind his own BS.

[Jack Sawyer]

There are entire volumes written about the Earth being flat as well. That doesn't make it true.

You're wrong, but I'm not interested in "debating" people on the Internet who don't understand enough of what they're talking about to realize when they're wrong.

I'm pretty sure that the volumes written about the evolution of ethics and morality do contain studies and facts, whereas the volumes written about the Earth being flat only contain fiction and mostly bullshit

I'm also pretty sure you understand you cannot compare the two, nor assume these are somehow equal

[spoonitnow]

I'm pretty sure that the volumes written about the evolution of ethics and morality do contain studies and facts, whereas the volumes written about the Earth being flat only contain fiction and mostly bullshit

I'm also pretty sure you understand you cannot compare the two, nor assume these are somehow equal

Sorry, I don't discuss ethics or morality with people in shithole countries.

[wufwugy]

dear god this might be the most amazing thing

[spoonitnow]

Nah. You're interested in trolling.

Otherwise, saying spurious things which bear no relation to the sources you cite to back them up, then getting all petulant, insulting and condescending when anyone tries to actually understand anything you're saying - that would be the opposite of your asserted persona.

Either you are truly a man's man, enlightening and empowering men to not feel guilty for being awesome... or you're a whining little pissant whom can't actually stand behind his own BS.

You're right. I have no idea what I'm talking about at all. I don't know why you even respond to me.

[wufwugy]

I just imagine Trump drinking diet cokes with his buddies in a writing room spitballing new ideas. One of them says he knows how they could get the people to call themselves shitholers on national tv.

[BananaStand]

I just imagine Trump drinking diet cokes with his buddies in a writing room spitballing new ideas. One of them says he knows how they could get the people to call themselves shitholers on national tv.

I had a similar thought when I heard the 'shithole' story on the ride in to work this morning. Toucher & Rich kept playing clips of cable news folks saying the word "shithole" on TV.

And virtually all of them were in agreement that the countries in question were shitholes. Their problem isn't with calling the shithole a shithole. Their problem seems to be that Trump is only calling out the shitholes where brown people live.

This is the travel-ban all over again. Trump picked on about 8% of the Muslim world, so he must be anti-muslim. Now he's picking on some tiny sliver of the world's non-white population so that means he's some kind of white supremacist.