>Everything above this was addressed, and addressed within the
>posts to which you yourself replied.
>

You can't post Legs using the words MAGA playbook because he didn't and it was misleading when you put that in the original comment, that I replied too.

>Everything below this, to the next point I'll address, is you
>having a childish meltdown. It's amusing, but you're either
>too obtuse to understand anytime soon, or just plain too dug
>in to turn back.
>

Nah you are projecting, deflecting and dodging. You know that your Kanye "possibility" is pathetic, so you retreat to a rabbit hole of distraction. Trump playbook part 2.

>>You waste words talking about the person who is posting,
>which
>>is odd for someone who cried about a "red herring"
>discussion.
>
>False. I addressed your tact, and the way this discussion has
>played out with that tact.
>

That does not excuse your discussion commentary play by play waste of time. The topic is Kanye not what someone is doing while discussing the topic.

>>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.
>
>Cool. I disagree.
>

Yes you do but it doesn't help this comment you made.

"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." smh


>>That goes out the window when it's a Blackman no matter how
>>much he uses the "God card"
>
>Not when he's a black man who echoes their own views on race.
>

Right because pastor Darrell Scott would be threat to Trump if he got in the race. No echoing their views on race is not enough.


>But then... neither of us know how that would actually play
>out. I think you're grossly underestimating that element.
>

I'm basing it on history. One of the most segregated places in the U.S. is church on Sunday. Parroting christian talking points is not going to change anything when it comes to Trump's racist christian voters.

>But then, you're speaking with extreme certainty. Cool. I'm
>speculating.
>

I don't even know if I would call what you are doing speculating. Bizarre maybe.


>>>
>>
>>Nah it was about a blacklash because Obama won
>
>Funny, that reads like it fits right in with what I said.
>Thanks for the incorrection.
>

You said Trump made them comfortable and normalize Alex Jones. I said they were already comfortable. What you said does not fit in with they are already comfortable. Trump didn't have to do anything to get them mad about Obama.

>>Hillary was a bad candidate
>
>That's where I have to retract one thing, my "100%" comment.
>Because Hillary did have baggage. Just not enough baggage to
>overtake hatred of brown people, homosexuals, a women's right
>to choose, religious freedom, etc as the lion's share of the
>reasons Trump won.
>

Nah instead of a retraction with an excuses attached, just admit you was wrong.


>If that election were a pie chart for what people would do
>with the money if they won the lottery, "bad candidate" would
>be the "give it to charity" slice.
>

Never can admit when you got it wrong. Always an addon.


>
>>It's positive coverage to the racists who he wanted hyped up
>>enough to vote.
>
>LMAO like the vast majority weren't glued to Fox before and
>during the election.
>

Not the blue wall.

>I'm genuinely open to hard data showing that CNN/MSNBC
>coverage actually converted people who weren't already on his
>side of the fence.
>

He didn't have to convert people just get those who make up the blue wall hyped to vote.

>>>>Yes the racism helped him
>>>>but that doesn't mean Hillary was not a bad candidate
>
>I didn't say Hillary was not a bad candidate, so chalk up
>another incorrection on your end.
>

You said it was at the bottom of a list on reasons why Trump won and used a pie chart in this reply. You are downplaying it as if a bad candidate with baggage is insignificant. You even said "That election was 100% about the cult of Trump's personality and ability to play to the dregs- ahem: deplorables- of society." before you retracted 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.
>
>Sounds a lot like what I've said on the subject, apart from
>the "too much" part. He played well to the things that were
>already there, which was particularly important to winning
>women voters from Hillary.
>

lol no if these "things" are already there then Trump does not have to make them "comfortable or normalize anything. I will use your example. When the lady said Obama is a Muslim to McCain, that is not a white women uncomfortable with being a racist in public.

>>>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.
>
>Not obvious enough, apparently. We simply disagree on the
>ratios.
>

No it's not just the ratios, you believe it's possible conservative Christians would vote for Kanye and that's based on what you are saying, Trump made them comfortable, Trump normalize Alexa Jones, as if conservative Christians were something else before Trump.

>>Lazy and stupid people don't care
>>if can run the economy.
>
>Sure they do. They just don't care enough to educate
>themselves on the subject. You don't think stupid or lazy
>people care if they have money, or the ability to get money?
>

They are lazy and stupid plus racist, they are not thinking is Trump fit to run the economy.

>Further, I'm speaking from an intellectual standpoint, which
>is clear based the example I gave.
>
>>>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're looking at what he did.
>I'm looking at how well he did it.
>

He didn't have to do it well because his base is ok with awful, which means he could do anything. He had no bar. You are looking at something that doesn't exist and giving him credit.

>That's a distinction with a difference. Politics is marketing.
>How well he hit those critical points, is the difference. By
>that logic, any and every repub would have won.
>

The only reason Repubs don't win is because of places where it's enough people to counter the stupid lazy racist voter.

>>>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.
>
>You're implying that that comfort level, of being this
>publicly, visibly, overt and brazen, didn't increase
>significantly during and after his campaign.
>

Did you sleep during Obama's 8 years ? Birtherism, Tea party ring a bell ?

>I don't think that's the case. I think he galvanized them. I
>think they became significantly more emboldened. MAGA hats may
>as well be gang attire. It IS gang attire.
>
>>>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.
>
>I don't think I said that that's when it started. Or inferred
>it.
>
>It's funny, you keep arguing stances I haven't taken, instead
>of the stances I have taken. There's a reason for that.
>

Oh so Trump has always been a charismatic celebrity who makes republican voters comfortable with their racism and normalized Alexa Jones even before he ran for President.

Nah, you are avoiding questions and going on rants, crying about the length of the quote I use, while you waste time doing discussion play by play and cutting off my words.


>>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.
>
>Yep. And if that were the case, and there were no fire to
>stoke with them, McCain would have won, or at least Romney.
>

They wouldn't win against Obama.

>But they didn't, because it's not as simple as you're trying
>to make it. Because Trump made them more comfortable being
>more overt and open. If it were as simple as you're trying to
>frame it, Obama never would have won.
>


Smh Obama had a bigger turnout from the base which made up the Obama coalition,so they outnumbered the the voters you keep giving too much credit.


>
>Nope. Sorry. I've pointed out several places where you've
>argued against stances I never took, and this is no different.
>It's not an "escape pod" for me. It's just me pointing out
>that you're grossly overstating and misrepresenting my stance.
>

No you keep going to your crutches to prop up an awful take. You are blaming me. When you had to recant and retract.

>Which is what you need to do in order to make your fervent,
>uh, counter not look more ridiculous than you think Ye's
>chances are.
>

This is more discussion commentary play by play. Unnecessary and a waste of time. You prove my point over and over.

>>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.
>
>Do you think I think he's likely to get the white votes Obama
>got?
>

Kanye would need those votes if he ran.

>Trump's act is not
>>going to work for a Black man running for President.
>
>I didn't say Trump's act. In fact, I've been clear in that,
>despite certain basic similarities, I think he'd take a
>different tact.
>

Whatever you think that different tact is it would not work.

>>You are talking about it's safe
>
>Huh?

Another example, you split the quote and then ask huh, when you were whining about a paragraph that I didn't add when I quoted you previously.

Talking about it's safe means the comment you made where you said the deadlines past so it's safe.

>>and Kanye had a possibility
>>when it should be dismissed.
>
>I don't think it should be dismissed. You do.
>

Yes I just said that. smh

>We disagree. Oh no. But you really, really, really, really,
>really need to hammer home just how much you disagree. I'm
>nowhere near as passionate in my belief that he *could*
>*possibly*- not definite or probably, which are different
>things :) - as you are that there's no chance in hell.
>

You wanna talk about hammer home ? How many times have you beat the dead horse "possibility" vs "probability" ? I'm not passionate about it, I am laughing because I think it's obvious Kanye would lose.

>>>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,
>
>No, those are definitively two different things. This is
>another example of your consistent need to reframe my stance
>in order to make your zealous takedown not look like way, way
>too much, over far too little.
>

Back to the discussion play by play commentary.

>>you are suggesting that he would get enough
>>electoral votes to become President.
>
>Would?
>

Is it another way to win ?

>How many times are you going to so blatantly rephrase my
>words? It's embarrassing. But again, it's easier to argue this
>down from a position I haven't taken, as opposed to the
>position I have.
>

Discussion play by play commentary with no end in sight. Your position is to run and hide. Have you answered all the questions I asked ? Are you addressing all of issues I raise ?

>>>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."
>
>try the entirety of the comment for a change:
>

Practice what you preach

>"And, absent the filing issues that seem to make it
>logistically impossible for him to win, it's not a stretch to
>say that he could wind up pulling enough votes from both Biden
>and Trump to actually win.
>
>He'd play well with the folks whose entire political,
>philosophical, and scientific (ahem: pseudo) world view is
>shaped by memes and social media influencers.
>
>Further, people vote third party, even when those third
>parties don't appear to have a chance in hell.
>
>Ye's not remotely viable to rational people. Question is, are
>there enough irrational people who may have voted Biden? We've
>been stuck with a cartoon for three and a half years.
>
>I'm too cynical to believe that there aren't enough irrational
>people or people who don't take this seriously for him to pose
>a potential threat."
>

You should thank me for leaving all of that out off. What you included makes it worse. Kanye could win with a coalition of people who would vote for Biden, Trump, people whose entire political,
philosophical, and scientific world view is
shaped by memes and social media influencers, people who vote third party, and irrational people. Did I leave anybody out ? lmao

>>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 ?
>
>No. Deadlines make
>

Deadlines make us safe from a hypothetical
possibility ? Yeah right

>>>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.
>
>LMAO, Yes, I'm desperate to hold on to the stance that he
>should not be dismissed. As though I haven't been consistent
>in this being about the types of people that could vote, and
>why, and definitively not promoting him as a candidate anyone
>should vote for.
>
>>>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.
>
>Credit? I may be overestimating whether or not they could be
>swayed by Ye. I told Reeq I may well be wrong about all of
>this. Going back to your "desperate" remark, it's downright
>hilarious that you think I'm "desperate" to hold on to a
>stance that I've literally said I could be wrong about, quite
>early in the post.
>

If you told Reeq you could be wrong, you wouldn't be in here retracting and recanting. It wouldn't go that far.

>>>Have you read comments sections of articles and videos?
>>>
>>Is that a reliable source ?
>
>Of the mindset of people that are out there?
>
>Yes
>>>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 ?
>
>OH SHIT LMAO here we go.
>
>"believe what they write when it's obvious they are full of
>shit"
>
>Could you be any more vague?
>
>Generally speaking, I take people at their word when they say
>they support trump and worship fictional characters, or say
>racist, homophobic, and misogynist things.
>
>Sure, I operate under the assumption that there are trolls and
>agitators that exist. But generally, they seem to come *from*
>the right, in attempts to vilify everyone and anyone who isn't
>the right.
>
>I don't see nearly as much going the other way, which is the
>way I'm reading your statement. If that's not what you're
>getting at, let me know.
>

I'm not talking about trolls or agitators, I am talking about the people in the comment section of articles and videos that you mentioned. The ones who say they are Christian and defend or excuse Trump.

>>>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.
>
>LMAO you sound EXACTLY like a motherfucking Trump supporter.
>
>First, that's a complete non-reply to what I said.
>
>Just a generic assed
>
>"You are buying into the Lies and fake news of The Media!"
>
>Also, I didn't say "people voted for Trump because he has
>charisma", and I in fact pointed out plenty of reasons-
>reasons which you agreed with. So no, I don't think it's just
>as simple as charisma.

You just said

"I take people at their word when they say
they support trump and worship fictional characters"

does that mean Christians who support Trump ? If it does those are the lies I am talking about, they can't say they are a Christian and support Trump. You believe them.

Yes you never said this

"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."