Tulsa MAGA Rally Embarrassingly Small

[Frankfooter]

Just because you don't like to hear the truth doesn't mean it's not the truth.

Or you can continue to spew your TDS ranting bullshit and make shit up if it makes you feel better. Afterall, you've had about 4 years of good practice.

btw has your asshole ever tightened back up since the last election?

Boob, you're losing it.
You were the one who said Black Americans love Trump and then had a total meltdown when the polls show 92% will vote for Biden.
You went off saying it can't possibly be true because everyone loves Trump, he told you.

Enjoy those Trump rallies, I'm sure social distancing won't be an issue now,

 

[Boober69]

Boob, you're losing it.
You were the one who said Black Americans love Trump and then had a total meltdown when the polls show 92% will vote for Biden.
You went off saying it can't possibly be true because everyone loves Trump, he told you.

Enjoy those Trump rallies, I'm sure social distancing won't be an issue now,

92% of 1000 black democrats polled....yeah that's a fair statistic for somene who's desterately trying to cherry pick. Good luck with that.
Lol!

btw how's that garage door noose coming along?

 

[Frankfooter]

92% of 1000 black democrats polled....yeah that's a fair statistic for somene who's desterately trying to cherry pick. Good luck with that.
Lol!

btw how's that garage door noose coming along?

boob, either your dementia is in full swing again or the bile is spraying onto your keyboard again.
That poll was not just for dems, nice try.

Oh, and what's with your fascination for nooses?
You trying to start up some kind of lynching party now?

 

[Valcazar]

They are different in cultural and identity politics. When it comes to money and war they are the same. Why else do you think Republicans were donating to Engel?

Look at the number who voted third party in 2016 compared to previous years. If that trend continues and expands in 2020 them I'm in the right track.

You need to let go of your third party obsession. Theoretically, it could be different now, but third party goes up for a bit and then back down is the pattern for decades. We have discussed this.

As for the first paragraph, good! Progress! You believe that the positions on money and war are the same! Like I was saying, you can only say "they are both the same" and kind of mean it if it is the things that really matter to you. (I still disagree, but that is irrelevant.)

I am glad you cleared up a bit what you mean by "populism" with this answer. Not much, since those aren't well defined. (You have said evil wall street a few times and the military industrial complex, bit you've never articulated an actual position and policy here. Other than single payer Medicare, but you have repeatedly said people who vote to try and make that happen are doing the wrong thing.)

 

[Boober69]

boob, either your dementia is in full swing again or the bile is spraying onto your keyboard again.
That poll was not just for dems, nice try.

Oh, and what's with your fascination for nooses?
You trying to start up some kind of lynching party now?

I'll leave it up to you to figure out the noose reference...hint...I know you're disappointed that it wasn't real and your first instinct when it was confirmed was to attack the source. Nice try.

Now the poll which you desperatly look at to make you feel confident...
I think it's funny that this sham of a poll asks these two questions, and the one about asking if they support Trump doesn't have a sample size! How do you conduct a poll on a question that doesn't have a sample size and expect it to not be biased? Could it be that when you ask the question you don't actually ask it to Trump supporters? You think that's an accident or a clever leftist ploy to fit their narrative?

And I also think it's funny that half of the "Biden supporters" are not actually supporting him but are just opposed to Trump...lots of confidence in the Dem leader! hahah that's funny!






Is the poll too complicated for you to decipher that the vast majority of the people polled are Democrats?

 

[Butler1000]

You need to let go of your third party obsession. Theoretically, it could be different now, but third party goes up for a bit and then back down is the pattern for decades. We have discussed this.

As for the first paragraph, good! Progress! You believe that the positions on money and war are the same! Like I was saying, you can only say "they are both the same" and kind of mean it if it is the things that really matter to you. (I still disagree, but that is irrelevant.)

I am glad you cleared up a bit what you mean by "populism" with this answer. Not much, since those aren't well defined. (You have said evil wall street a few times and the military industrial complex, bit you've never articulated an actual position and policy here. Other than single payer Medicare, but you have repeatedly said people who vote to try and make that happen are doing the wrong thing.)

Without some equality of opportunity the nation will continue to get worse. The now two bailouts prove that Wall St controls the present leadership of both parties.

The parties use culture wars to differentiate things and divide the lower classes.

The military industrial complex exists and runs foreign policy in the USA.

And as for universal healthcare I'd say the approximately 25 million people who lost their healthcare in a pandemic when they lost there jobs just converted a crapload more.

I'm not sure why it took you this long to figure out my positions. My support for Sanders was based on his Economic policy.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'll leave it up to you to figure out the noose reference..

We know, you have a fascination with lynchings and want to see who else is interested.

Now the poll which you desperatly look at to make you feel confident...
I think it's funny that this sham of a poll asks these two questions, and the one about asking if they support Trump doesn't have a sample size! How do you conduct a poll on a question that doesn't have a sample size and expect it to not be biased? Could it be that when you ask the question you don't actually ask it to Trump supporters? You think that's an accident or a clever leftist ploy to fit their narrative?

And I also think it's funny that half of the "Biden supporters" are not actually supporting him but are just opposed to Trump...lots of confidence in the Dem leader! hahah that's funny!



View attachment 9105

Yeah, isn't funny that Black Americans don't support Trump.

Is the poll too complicated for you to decipher that the vast majority of the people polled are Democrats?

View attachment 9106

What a surprise, even with 92% of Black Americans saying they'll vote for Biden they also say they are dems.
Must be a conspiracy.

The GOP is the party for angry, uneducated, white guys.
Its your party, I don't see why you're surprised when nobody else wants to join to hear you ranting about lynchings all day long.

 

[Valcazar]

Without some equality of opportunity the nation will continue to get worse. The now two bailouts prove that Wall St controls the present leadership of both parties.

The parties use culture wars to differentiate things and divide the lower classes.

The military industrial complex exists and runs foreign policy in the USA.

And as for universal healthcare I'd say the approximately 25 million people who lost their healthcare in a pandemic when they lost there jobs just converted a crapload more.

I'm not sure why it took you this long to figure out my positions. My support for Sanders was based on his Economic policy.

It took this long because you constantly said things like " My support for Sanders was based on his Economic policy." while also saying you didn't support Sanders' policies or ideology.

But this is helpful! Really. You don't *have* policy preferences. You are into an aesthetic. It's a sort of identity politics based on slogans.
"Bad people run things, we need to have different people". That's it. That's your whole ideology.
That clarifies a lot. No wonder you are so susceptible to propaganda - your politics is based on slogans, so you are susceptible to sloganeering.
You want someone who appears to be fighting the system, but you don't actually have any idea about how to make progress. It's all about the people - like a weird version of virtue ethics.

Now, the question is whether this is real or not. You've already admitted you are perfectly happy to vote strategically in Canada. Is this "populist" vision just your fantasy version of the US, or do you view Canada through this lens as well? If the latter, how do you reconcile voting strategically here with insisting it would be immoral to do so in the US? Do you think Canada isn't controlled by the rich? Has no culture wars? Has no military influence over government?
I'm curious how you justify the discrepancy. (Other than just "I have to live with the government here, so I am more realistic")

 

[Butler1000]

It took this long because you constantly said things like " My support for Sanders was based on his Economic policy." while also saying you didn't support Sanders' policies or ideology.

But this is helpful! Really. You don't *have* policy preferences. You are into an aesthetic. It's a sort of identity politics based on slogans.
"Bad people run things, we need to have different people". That's it. That's your whole ideology.
That clarifies a lot. No wonder you are so susceptible to propaganda - your politics is based on slogans, so you are susceptible to sloganeering.
You want someone who appears to be fighting the system, but you don't actually have any idea about how to make progress. It's all about the people - like a weird version of virtue ethics.

Now, the question is whether this is real or not. You've already admitted you are perfectly happy to vote strategically in Canada. Is this "populist" vision just your fantasy version of the US, or do you view Canada through this lens as well? If the latter, how do you reconcile voting strategically here with insisting it would be immoral to do so in the US? Do you think Canada isn't controlled by the rich? Has no culture wars? Has no military influence over government?
I'm curious how you justify the discrepancy. (Other than just "I have to live with the government here, so I am more realistic")

So you don't understand. Ok I will try again. I know you are a Neo-Liberalism adherent so you won't agree.

I believe that unless the USA institutes a Medicare for all system it will continue a downward spiral of poverty and border line poverty for the majority of Americans. I think it's the mist important first step to improving their lives and saving lives.

Next is stopping foreign wars for profit. Period.

Next is real campaign finance reform. And banning ex politicians and bureaucrats from becoming lobbyists.

Start with these three things and the other problems can be dealt with.

And to compare the USA to Canada is ridiculous. We have universal healthcare, campaign finance laws and our military is, if anything under funded. We also have banking laws, consumer protection laws(although they could be better) and nowhere near the lobbyist situation the USA has.

In effect your deflection attempt isn't working.

Your a smart kid. I'm sure with a little work you can figure out the economic benefits of universal healthcare, redirected military money and redirected corporate subsidies.

 

[Frankfooter]

So you don't understand. Ok I will try again. I know you are a Neo-Liberalism adherent so you won't agree.

I believe that unless the USA institutes a Medicare for all system it will continue a downward spiral of poverty and border line poverty for the majority of Americans. I think it's the mist important first step to improving their lives and saving lives.

Next is stopping foreign wars for profit. Period.

Next is real campaign finance reform. And banning ex politicians and bureaucrats from becoming lobbyists.

That's what you keep saying and then you keep defending Trump, who is making all three of those much worse.
The only argument you raise is that you hope he destroys the US government so that some socialist state can rise in its ashes.
The problem being that the only people backing your form of accelerationism are the white supremacists and gun nuts who would be the last people to bring in any of those policies.

You are just arguing for a boogaloo revolution that you think will magically become a socialist utopia.

 

[Valcazar]

So you don't understand. Ok I will try again. I know you are a Neo-Liberalism adherent so you won't agree.

That you think I am is kind of hilarious. (It is possible you just don't know what that means, though.)

I believe that unless the USA institutes a Medicare for all system it will continue a downward spiral of poverty and border line poverty for the majority of Americans. I think it's the mist important first step to improving their lives and saving lives.

Next is stopping foreign wars for profit. Period.

Next is real campaign finance reform. And banning ex politicians and bureaucrats from becoming lobbyists.

Start with these three things and the other problems can be dealt with.

So when questioned you come up with three different slogans instead. Cool.
But this is good! There's a general consistency to the thrust of Populism here. I am getting a good sense of how it shapes your thinking.
It's nice to know you aren't an accelerationist after all, and I no longer thing you're just trolling. You're more Greenwaldian populism.
The question becomes when your virtue ethics/identity politics tendencies clash with your somewhat more grounded approach - which wins out. Since you gave them first, I assume it is the former. I suspect any reform/movement in the three elements above that didn't remove/punish the people you blame would be considered obviously ineffectual and rejected.

And to compare the USA to Canada is ridiculous.

It really isn't

We have universal healthcare,

You have consistently rejected the Canadian model of healthcare. It still has private insurance, it still leaves things uncovered. You more than once said those kinds of half measures proposed by Democrats would be completely unacceptable.

campaign finance laws

Are you under the impression the influence of money on politics in Canada doesn't exist?

and our military is, if anything under funded.

Interesting.

We also have banking laws, consumer protection laws(although they could be better) and nowhere near the lobbyist situation the USA has.

So if we make things better, but not perfect, with sensible incremental reforms, we get Canada - a country you think is incomparable to the US. This is why you are against any of the same reforms being implemented in the US.

It is that split that I find so weird. It's like a giant blind spot you seem to have. I do think your populism is real, and not just posing to troll people with. And yet somehow you are blind to how deeply broken Canada is.

In effect your deflection attempt isn't working.

Your a smart kid. I'm sure with a little work you can figure out the economic benefits of universal healthcare, redirected military money and redirected corporate subsidies.

But you didn't say anything about redirecting military money. You said you would end wars for profit. You didn't say anything about corporate subsidies at all.
These things don't appear to matter to you, the slogans do.

 

[Valcazar]

That's what you keep saying and then you keep defending Trump, who is making all three of those much worse.
The only argument you raise is that you hope he destroys the US government so that some socialist state can rise in its ashes.
The problem being that the only people backing your form of accelerationism are the white supremacists and gun nuts who would be the last people to bring in any of those policies.

You are just arguing for a boogaloo revolution that you think will magically become a socialist utopia.

Frank - I don't think he is boogaloo at all. His Trump love isn't about that - it is perfectly consistent with his populism. Since it is slogan-based and targeted at "the bad people" - Trump is a natural fit. Slogans and picking an enemy. As long as the slogans line up more or less, Trump is more attractive than the alternative. It's a right-populist // left-populist alliance. There is a certain consistency there.

 

[Fuggetaboutit]

I just want to know what excuses the Democrats are gonna come up with to keep Biden in his Basement and out of having to Debate the master of debates??

You know they won't let Dementia Biden even do a press conference, never mind a Debate

Guarantee you, they are going to get out of that, somehow...

 

[Butler1000]

That you think I am is kind of hilarious. (It is possible you just don't know what that means, though.)



So when questioned you come up with three different slogans instead. Cool.
But this is good! There's a general consistency to the thrust of Populism here. I am getting a good sense of how it shapes your thinking.
It's nice to know you aren't an accelerationist after all, and I no longer thing you're just trolling. You're more Greenwaldian populism.
The question becomes when your virtue ethics/identity politics tendencies clash with your somewhat more grounded approach - which wins out. Since you gave them first, I assume it is the former. I suspect any reform/movement in the three elements above that didn't remove/punish the people you blame would be considered obviously ineffectual and rejected.


It really isn't



You have consistently rejected the Canadian model of healthcare. It still has private insurance, it still leaves things uncovered. You more than once said those kinds of half measures proposed by Democrats would be completely unacceptable.


Are you under the impression the influence of money on politics in Canada doesn't exist?


Interesting.



So if we make things better, but not perfect, with sensible incremental reforms, we get Canada - a country you think is incomparable to the US. This is why you are against any of the same reforms being implemented in the US.

It is that split that I find so weird. It's like a giant blind spot you seem to have. I do think your populism is real, and not just posing to troll people with. And yet somehow you are blind to how deeply broken Canada is.



But you didn't say anything about redirecting military money. You said you would end wars for profit. You didn't say anything about corporate subsidies at all.
These things don't appear to matter to you, the slogans do.

Really?

Neoliberal to the core. Keep deflecting and playing the devil's advocate game.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank - I don't think he is boogaloo at all. His Trump love isn't about that - it is perfectly consistent with his populism. Since it is slogan-based and targeted at "the bad people" - Trump is a natural fit. Slogans and picking an enemy. As long as the slogans line up more or less, Trump is more attractive than the alternative. It's a right-populist // left-populist alliance. There is a certain consistency there.

I don't think he's boogaloo either, but he has said he's an accelerationist previously here. I'm just pointing out that the only crowd in the US really pushing for accelerationism are the boogaloos and white supremacists.

His Trump love runs contrary to every policy he says he backs.
health care - Trump will just kill Obamacare and that's all he'll do
military - Trump increased spending, tried to make smaller, 'usable' nukes, came close to starting wars with Iran, Turkey, Syria and tried a coup in Venezuela. On top of that Trump unilaterally kept selling arms for profit to Saudi Arabia and MBS to fund his war on Yemen.
As for campaign finance - There is zero chance that Moscow Mitch, Barr and Trump would make it anything but sleazier.

Butler is smart enough to understand all that, he says universal healthcare is his primary goal but that is just incompatible with Trump for anyone with a brain.
He's articulated that he backs Trump because he thinks Trump will destroy the system and that's the only way that real progress can be made.
Accelerationism.

 

[Valcazar]

^^
That's the thing. None of those apparent inconsistencies are really inconsistent if he's a Populist as he describes it. He isn't for universal health care because he wants people to be cared for and is working for that goal. He is for it as a symbol and slogan. That's why he insists on one view of policy to implement it and nothing else. It's about what it represents, not about helping people. Same with the military stuff. It's not about a cohesive foreign policy position or even a thought about what international relations should look like or what the goal is. It's a slogan. Same with the financial reform stuff.

In all these cases the focus isn't on actually setting up a good system. It is about "the bad people are in charge and we need to put the good people in". Since the Right also believes the wrong people have too much influence, there is easy overlap at the slogan level.

There is some overlap in the accelerationist mindset in that "whatever forces the current people out is good" but it isn't really the same goal. I suspect Butler would accept less catastrophic re-ordering of the system than a real accelerationist. That's why he votes like normal person in Canada where he thinks things have been "fixed".

I guess I'm splitting hairs, somewhat, and it doesn't really matter anyway. I've just been trying to iron out the inconsistencies in my head and thinking he was a pure accelerationist would make me sad. It's a deeply ugly position to take.

I'd feel worse about it, but it is still funny he thinks I'm neoliberal.

 

[Frankfooter]

Sorry to put this back on topic, but since the rally 1 reporter and 8 Trump staff tested positive for the virus.
And then there's this.

Washington Post: Trump campaign had social distancing stickers removed before Tulsa rally

President Donald Trump's campaign directed the removal of thousands of "Do Not Sit Here, Please!" stickers from seats in the Bank of Oklahoma Center in the hours before the President's much anticipated Tulsa rally, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

www.cnn.com

 

[Valcazar]

Sorry to put this back on topic, but since the rally 1 reporter and 8 Trump staff tested positive for the virus.
And then there's this.

Washington Post: Trump campaign had social distancing stickers removed before Tulsa rally

President Donald Trump's campaign directed the removal of thousands of "Do Not Sit Here, Please!" stickers from seats in the Bank of Oklahoma Center in the hours before the President's much anticipated Tulsa rally, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

www.cnn.com

No, it's good to put it back on topic.

The sticker thing is amazing, since if they had kept them, the crowd would look less empty and they would have had an explanation for why it did if anyone asked.

Of course, he is upping his own protective measures as well because of all the people getting sick around his events. Trump knows that if he gets sick with COVID it is going to the nonstop story for weeks or months. (I suppose he is also worried about it killing him given his age.) Everything is scrubbed, everything is tested, etc. He will keep lying to the people about it, but he himself is being super careful for political reasons.