>>In response... I cut and pasted my own post, made before
>>yours, which said the exact same thing.
>
>This is not the same thing

>CT "And you and lurkmode had the audacity to say I was pulling
>from the MAGA playbook?"

Psst: You said, in post 124:

"He took a page out of Trump's playbook using the don't read my words back to me rule. lmao"

legs replied, in post 131, with:

"Muhfukkas like “I didn’t say what I just said”

He echoed your comment. So yes- you both said that I was pulling from the Trump playbook.

>CT ""Lurkmode said I pulled from the Trump playbook"
>In response to Reply # 137
>and you said that I did the "I didn't say what I just said"
>
>that's why you added
>
>"I mean, I suppose you could be extra pedantic..."

There's a reason you only partially quoted me. But here it is:

"I mean, I suppose you could be extra pedantic and act like Trump/MAGA don't mean the same thing in context, but let's be real about it."

The "disclaimer" isn't for me. It's for legs, because he has a sordid tendency of cherry picking and playing (or maybe not playing, it's always hard to tell with him) dumb as a fall back when he's wrong.

Apparently, you have the same issue.

Trump and MAGA are the same. They go hand in hand. The "Trump playbook" and "MAGA playbook" are the same thing. It's a semantic equivalent of the their/they're error, and yet people have a tendency toward trying to grandstand over it, despite the meaning being clear.

Because it's easier to have a discussion about such red herrings, than the subject at hand.

>>It's worn because it's valid, and should be a really loud
>fire alarm to everyone- particularly now.

>No that talking point is worn out because it's used too much.

Yes, that's what "worn" means.

***Pause for your to google the definition of "worn"***

we both know that was you're first instinct, though you won't cop to it.

And it's worn (used too much :) ) because... it's valid.

>Trump won don't criticize Biden, Trump won don't breath too
>hard, Trump won don't dismiss some bat shit crazy theory about
>Kanye wining a three way race since Trump won that one time.

Theory? There's a theory about Kanye winning a three way race?

>>Do you think that's a stance I hold?
>>Because it isn't.

>That is a stretch and it fits right in with that stance since
>Trump won when everyone thought he couldn't everything is
>always on the table.

... no. You're trying to make the case that I think that because Trump won and nobody thought he would, that it means mean anything and everything will happen forever.

I haven't said a single thing that so much as infers that. But again- in your head, I've argued the probability, not the possibility as I've actually argued. Either that you don't see a difference between the two, in which case, you're wrong.

>Trump won so Kanye can pull MAGA
>Christians.

No. You and legs, when you disagree with someone, you tend to see everything that person says as some simplistic, unnuanced, binary thought. Do you intentionally talk past people, instead of trying to understand where they're coming from, or is that just innate?

Trump won, showing that there are plenty of voters out there who will absolutely vote for dumb and crazy, as long as the messaging is right.

Many conservative Christians worship Trump, but they are not a monolith, and could be conceivably pulled by a charismatic voice like Ye, who presents a much more sincere and deep-rooted faith.

That base has shown a propensity toward completely ignoring the parts that don't fit, while elevating the parts that do.

In fact.... that ability is the whole reason they believe that bullshit to begin with. But I digress.

>>Not nearly bad enough for Trump to win. Hillary being a "bad
>>candidate" is at the bottom of the list of reasons why he
>>won.

>Hillary lost white women.

No, Trump TOOK them, because he played to their bigotry and entitlement. Trump played to their fears of socialism, brown-skinned immigrants, and erosion of white people's place at the top of America's food chain. And they valued that over electing the first woman.

That election was 100% about the cult of Trump's personality and ability to play to the dregs- ahem: deplorables- of society.

>SMH CNN and MSNBC is not conservative media and no other
>candidate got wall to wall coverage.

Wall to wall negative coverage.

>Yes the racism helped him
>but that doesn't mean Hillary was not a bad candidate and he
>didn't get help from the media.

You're overstating both of these in a bad way. Again: Trump made these people comfortable with their racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, etc. He normalized their hatred, and was able to generate a passionate base with it.

You know what else he played to, quite well?

People's base laziness and stupidity. He's extremely rich and extremely famous, and a LOT of people thought that- and that alone- made him fit to run our economy.

Because, again, he marketed directly to their worse, baser sensibilities. He turned everything into a catch phrase.

Lock Her Up! Fake News! MAGA! Build The Wall!

You remember that old white lady that said Obama was a terrorist, and McCain corrected her?

Not only did Trump NOT correct those people, HE IS those people.

He IS the antivax flat Earth conspiracy theorist, who thinks the blogs and YouTube videos he consumes at 2 am trumps decades of collective study and expertise.

He fucking normalized Alex Jones, of all people.

He became the patron saint of those people, because he IS those people.

So yeah, you're grossly elevating the role of the media and Hillary being a bad candidate as factors for his win. He won because he appealed to enough of those motherfuckers in the right places on the electoral board to eek out a win.

>It's one win, even if he gets a second term, that's still not
>enough to turn into chicken little, scared and worried about
>Kanye.

Except it's not about "one win".
Because it's not about Trump.
It's about the mentality of the type of people who voted for him.

>Trump won so be worried and
>scared is not a point.

Except that's not the point I've made. You're so invested in talking past me that you're not paying attention.

>>But then... That's a hypothetical. I'm making the case that
>>it's possible, not probable. Surely you grasp the
>difference.

>I grasp the weak cop-out you are using to save face after you
>made that ridiculous statement about Kanye wining.

No, that's you exercising willful ignorance. Your position in here plays better if you pretend I'm arguing probability, as opposed to possibility.

>You are taking one election where Trump won and arguing based
>off that.

No, I'm looking at the motherfuckers who voted for him, and the way they those votes were able to be won, and from that see a scenario where another batshit-yet-charismatic celebrity could conceivably do the same thing.

You keep twisting that into me thinking that Trump's win means this is the new status quo, as opposed to something I don't think we should so readily dismiss.

>Do you have any idea how that sounds ? You are using
>that to make assumptions, given everything that happen.

What assumptions have I made?

I've been pretty clear that this is hypothetical, and I merely see the possibility. But, yet again, you're doggedly trying to attack an imagined argument for probability.

You
>really believe Kanye could pull christian MAGA's away from
>Trump in a race that Trump was a choice they could make. Did
>you read what you wrote ?

How many do you think I think he could realistically pull?

Moreover, do you think there's a difference between what i think he could realistically pull, right now, and what I think is hypothetically possible?

Or do you still think there's no distinction there?

>It is ridiculous, pathetic, sad and desperate to write
>
>"I think we're safe, due to the number of missed deadlines"
>when discussing Kanye's Presidential walk. Have you read that
>interview?

Desperate? Desperate for... what? What am I desperate for here?

I did read that interview.

Have you spoken to conservative Christians? Do you know the things they believe, and how easy it is to play to those sensibilities?

Have you read comments sections of articles and videos?

Do you think those people are just names and words on a screen, unattached to an actual person with actual voting rights, and are all just written for lulz and don't ever reflect the things the actually think?

But then... none of that matters, because you don't see a distinction between "yeah I can see this happening, and don't dismiss the possibility" and "YEAH OMG THIS IS DEFINITELY A THREAT RIGHT TODAY THE SKY IS FALLING".