*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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.

[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]

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'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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

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

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