sincere discussion where you don't bend, twist, or outright lie about what was said to help you run with your own personal narrative.


>
>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.
>

What is the post number where Legs used the words "MAGA 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:
>

Alert the chief of pre-crime

>"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.
>

So you are the message board version of the pre-crime pre-cog from the movie minority report. You make accusations about something that is going to happen before it happens.

>Apparently, you have the same issue.
>

Nah making assumptions and jumping to conclusions is your issue and that's what you did.


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

It's not a discussion about red herrings. This is a discussion about you misleading. Post the reply number where Legs said "MAGA playbook" to you.

>>>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.
>

Quick alert Chief of pre-crime

>And it's worn (used too much :) ) because... it's valid.
>
>
>Theory? There's a theory about Kanye winning a three way
>race?
>

Yes the possibility theory by Dr Pre-cog that says Kanye can unite conservative Christian bigots with Democratic christians and win President of the U.S in 2020. It's only a possibility but we should not dismiss it given the missed deadlines was the only thing that kept us safe.


>
>... 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.
>

So what is the recent precedent that I skipped over ?

>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.
>

So the recent precedent is not Trump becoming President when everyone thought he was a joke ?

>>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?
>

You waste words talking about the person who is posting, which is odd for someone who cried about a "red herring" discussion.

>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.
>

Nothing new about voters who vote for dumb and crazy.

>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.
>

This is where silly becomes insane and you drive to left field and off the deep end. Conservative Christians who worship Trump are not going to vote for Ye when Trump is running against him. They are not going to vote for Kanye even if Trump is not in the race. Kanye stans are not and will never be conservative Christians who worship Trump.

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

Yes they have but they are not going to ignore Kanye saying Trump hid in a bunker or anything else Kanye says that goes against what they pretend to be,(christian) it works for Trump but it does not extend to Kanye.

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

That goes out the window when it's a Blackman no matter how much he uses the "God card"


>
>>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.
>

Hillary was hated and had a lot of baggage. They wanted to vote against her.

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

Nah it was about a blacklash because Obama won, Hillary was a bad candidate, media helping him.

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

It's positive coverage to the racists who he wanted hyped up enough to vote.

>>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 giving too much credit to Trump and the people who voted for him. They are not uncomfortable with their racism, xenophobia and homophobia. The base is already there and voting Republican. The hatred was already there.

>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.
>

You're stating the obvious and giving too much credit to people who voted for Trump. Lazy and stupid people don't care if can run the 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!
>

That's sop for Republican candidates.

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

Which proves they are not uncomfortable with racism.

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

Yes he is, but he's not uncomfortable with racism and they are not.

>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.
>

He always has been. It didn't start when he came down the escalator. He was on Fox doing the birther racism.

>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.
>

Nah you are giving too much credit to the voters and Trump. They have been putting Republicans in office for years. You don't have to normalize something that is already normal. Nobody is uncomfortable with racism when they are already voting for racists.


>
>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.
>

Same people who they were already.

>>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.
>

You are not saying anything.


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

More of the same from you. Escape pod to save your weak argument.


>
>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.
>

Yeah that does not work. You can apply that to another white batshit yet charismatic celebrity but not a Blackman. Obama had to bend over backwards and appear as non-threatening as possible to get the white votes he got. Trump's act is not going to work for a Black man running for President.

>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.
>

You are talking about it's safe and Kanye had a possibility when it should be dismissed.


>
>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.
>

Kanye winning is the assumption even if you call it a possibility, you are suggesting that he would get enough electoral votes to become President.

>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?
>

You answer a question with a question. Ok did you say this

"it's not a stretch to say that he could wind up pulling enough votes from both Biden and Trump to actually win."

>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?
>

and it continues more of the escape pod/lifeboat to save the sinking argument. We are safe from a hypothetical possibility because of deadlines ?

>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?
>

Desperate to hold on to the stance Kanye, founder of the Birthday party should not be dismissed.

>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?
>

You are giving them way too much credit.

>Have you read comments sections of articles and videos?
>

Is that a reliable source ?

>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?
>

So you believe what they tell you and what they write even when it's obvious they are full of shit. If they say they are Christian and they vote for Trump and support Trump you swallow that ?

>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".

This all makes sense, you are buying into the lies and excuses. That's why you think it's a possibility Kanye could pull conservative Christians who worship Trump. You believe Trump has charisma and that's what convinced people to vote for him. You are falling for the lies and going along with it.