9
NotAgainTwo 9 points ago +9 / -0

Eh, it's only a couple years old. The other day I saw someone sharing something that was close to a decade old, complete with "BOOM!!!!" and "BREAKING!!!" and the red strobe light emojis.

5
NotAgainTwo 5 points ago +5 / -0

Not sure what you're imagining. If the internet goes down, then meeting elsewhere online wouldn't be possible. Because no internet = no online.

And since the people on this board come from not only all over the US, but all over the world, it's not like we can all just meet up at sunset at the local Piggly Wiggly.

I'm curious why this is something that you're bringing up now. Do you see the internet or GAW going dark soon?

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, it's not an entirely different topic. It's unintended consequences of people running around insisting we abolish amendments because they don't like them.

It's about having consistent standards and not looking like hypocrites.

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Then add one to clarify or cancel. The amendment had a purpose that’s is no longer relevant, it has to be fixed, because it is a problem now

It's interesting how closely this parrots what liberals say about the 2nd Amendment.

It was needed when we were a frontier nation with no standing army. But now it enables mass shootings, daily gun violence, and weapons the Founders couldn't even have imagined when they created it.

So outdated + causing problems = repeal or rewrite.

That perfectly aligns with what liberals say about the 2nd Amendment

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, the 14th amendment would not be abolished if one aspect of it was changed, because there is more to it than just birthright citizenship. I already pointed out some of those to you earlier.

It's like saying the entire First Amendment would be abolished if the US ruled that Islam wasn't a religion and wasn't covered under the freedom of religion part of the First Amendment.

I'm not sure what it is you're having trouble with on all this. Amendments frequently have multiple, separate provisions. Changing one provision in an Amendment wouldn't just abolish everything else in it

2
NotAgainTwo 2 points ago +2 / -0

From your lips to God's ears.

This is exactly what I think, as well.

I know many people are just done with trying to red pill normies. But it IS what our main task is supposed to be.

Supposedly (from my understanding), we have to wait for some unknown number of them to be red pilled before we can continue on with the plan in place.

People are frustrated that we have yet to red pill enough people, but are completely oblivious to the fact that WE are usually the main reason for that, running around making preposterous claims that never came from Q, but was instead cobbled together by Q "influencers" and paytriots (NASARA/GASARA, med beds, etc). Or we keep giving deadlines that never come true (when Trump is re-elected!, when Trump is sworn in, Red October, Hot August, and now the 250th anniversary)

I CONSTANTLY see MAGA/ANONS arguing with normies all over social media, comment sections of news articles, etc. And I just cringe when I see them get their asses handed to them, and all the credibility damage that comes with it.

Too many people who are absolutely ignorant of how our government works, how the legal system works, and just form strong opinions about something based on nothing more than a headline and who don't do even the most basic research or fact checking, they just take anything any random idiot says that they like and run around screaming about it to every normie they can find, and is our biggest obstacle.

It's why I point out basic flaws in logic, or realities of how our government and laws work in posts/comments here, because I just KNOW that someone is going to try to red pill a normie with it, so at least they have fair warning of the type of pushback they're going to get as soon as they step a toe out of boards like this one.

It doesn't make me popular, but at least I'm trying to prevent even more black pilling of normies and damage to our credibility.

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes. They absolutely could, and absolutely WOULD, if given the chance once they're back in office.

It's the main reason I push back so much about giving the President, Congress, and SC so much power. It's great and all when Republicans/conservatives are in charge, but there is going to be hell to pay when liberals are back in office. Because they're going to exploit the hell out of all of it.

So while we celebrate all of these "wins" when they fall our way, we're going to be cursing liberals for doing the same when their time comes. We're causing long term damage for these short term "wins".

2
NotAgainTwo 2 points ago +2 / -0

I learned long ago that EVERYTHING is a win. Doesn't matter what it is, it will be twisted into a win.

2
NotAgainTwo 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's absolutely unrealistic and opens up too many cans of worms with unintended consequences.

"just remove it" doesn't work for Constitutional amemdments. It's just a knee jerk reaction to make you feel better about what is going on.

Not being able to bear arms, because liberals used the same tactics of just removing amendments they don't like, is more likely to have us eventually speaking Chinese here.

The 14th isn't only about citizenship by birth. There's also the bit in there about due process. You know about that, right? How it keeps the government from just confiscating all of our property, weaponizing the judical system (even more), mass arrests, etc?

Not only would just yanking the 14th kneecap us, going around talking about just eliminating amendments we don't like gives massive ammuniton against us with the 2nd. We can't yell about the Constitution being sacred and "shall not be infringed!" out of one side of our mouth and then yell for eliminating amendments we don't like out of the other.

And then of course comes the practicality of the legal reality. If we had the votes to LEGALLY eliminate the amendment, then we would have the votes to fix just the part about the citizenship clause WITHOUT gutting the rest of it.

So while it might make you FEEL better to say it and fantasize about it happening, there are real world consequences for doing so that you're not taking into consideration

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Looks like you got a week of time out.

That's great! Now you have some spare time to listen to the Billboard Hot 100 chart to see how many rap/hip hop and/or pop songs are on it, and then we can discuss it when the mods let you out.

I'm looking forward to it!

2
NotAgainTwo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Only Mach 1? That's dissapointing.

The Concorde was able to fly above Mach 2 and that was back in the 1970s.

So maybe we've already missed the "Golden Age of Travel"?

Guess we get to look forward to hearing sonic booms all the time if this actually pans out.

Fun fact, there were only 14 aircraft flying for Concorde. There are currently 130+ supersonic aircraft supposedly being ordered or pre-ordered, with Boom Supersonic planning for 1,000+ being put into service eventually.

That's going to be interesting. I wonder if they're going to make no-fly zones for all the little rich enclaves where the elite live. Because constant sonic booms is going to get old fast.

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

It sounds like Trump is all for this, and I have no idea why.

Eh, you can just chalk it up to 3/7/12/whatever- D Chess, or "It's a trap for <insert whoever here>", "disinformation is necessary" and the other standard lines we heard from other times where he's diverged from us on various things like taking/promoting/defending the Covid vaccine, red flag laws where he said things like "I like taking the guns early....Take the guns first, go through due process second", bump stock bans, the First Step Act, pushing hard for AI development, etc...

Basically, we don't have to agree with every single thing he does. He's the President and often knows things we don't. If you were able to rationalize his positon on all the other stuff, then this shouldn't overly bother you either.

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

People tend to view the past, and certain historical people, with rose colored glasses.

They'll form some sort of connection with them, based on whatever personal characteristics they share/value, and then just go overboard with it. There's a ton of projection involved.

There's also the issue with people thinking that just because a person shares a characteristic or viewpoint with them that ALL of their values align as well. For example, thinking because someone who is MAGA, they can't be capable of things like voter fraud or abusing social services like welfare/foodstamps. It really boils down to a tribal mentality.

2
NotAgainTwo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, I've been having trouble where the "edit" and "reply" and the search function don't work for a few hours, but here on GAW, not PDW.

I think it's a JavaScript problem on their (win communities) end.

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

This gets dicey when we start arguing AGAINST states' rights when we argue in favor of them so much when it comes to things like education policy, local law enforcement and criminal justice, land use, zoning, healthcare delivery and state level reforms, gun control and permitting, abortion regulation, homeschooling and parental rights in schooling and religious liberty exemptions from state mandates.

It's hard to argue in favor of states' rights out of one side of the mouth and then argue against it out of the other side.

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

You must not be keeping up to date on how rap and "popular music" is crashing right now, not hitting the top spots any more.... Maybe do a little more research on this. You clearly are outdated on whats going on in this world....

Just to prove a point about who exactly it is that needs to "do a little more research on this", and showing which of us is "outdated on what's going on".

You just got stuck on one week where rap didn't chart (yes, it was remarkable, more on that later) and then for some reason concluded that there hasn't been rap in the top 40 since then. Where are you getting that idea from? Did you bother to do any research by looking at the top 40 AFTER the anomaly? If not, why?

So, I did a little research for you. You're welcome. I didn't have the time to dig through every week, but here are a few, just to prove my point.

Drake dropped his ICEMAN album on May 15, 2026. He made history with that one, I believe. All but one of the top 10 songs for that week were his songs, and all 18 songs from that album charted in the Top 40 of the Billboard Hot 100.

From May 30, 2026 Billboard Hot 100 (the same chart used in the article in the OP that started all this nonsense);

#1 — Janice STFU #2 — Ran To Atlanta (feat. Future & Molly Santana) #3 — Whisper My Name #4 — Shabang #6 — National Treasures #7 — Make Them Cry #8 — Dust #9 — 2 Hard 4 The Radio #10 — Make Them Pay #11 — Plot Twist #12 — B's On The Table (feat. 21 Savage) #13 — Burning Bridges #15 — What Did I Miss? #18 — Little Birdie #19 — Make Them Remember #21 — Make Them Know #23 — Don't Worry #31 — Firm Friends

Total: 18 rap/hip hop songs by Drake (They're numbered by where each song ranked on the chart)

So that right there proves people are still listening to rap/hip hop.

But I'll give you a couple other dates to really drive my point home.

Here's a date for when there wasn't an album drop from a big name artist like Drake. It's just various artists who had their rap/hip hop songs hit the Top 40 in Billboard's Hot 100 chart:

February 7, 2026

#14 — What You Saying — Lil Uzi Vert #20 — wgft — Gunna (feat. Burna Boy) #28 — Hell At Night — BigXthaPlug (feat. Ella Langley) #33 — 4 Raws — EsDeeKid #40 — Stay Here 4 Life — A$AP Rocky (feat. Brent Faiyaz)

And now here's a more recent example, so you can see rap/hip hop are STILL in the top 40 of Billboard's Hot 100 charts;

June 13, 2026

#3 — Janice STFU — Drake #8 — Shabang — Drake #12 — Ran To Atlanta — Drake (feat. Future & Molly Santana) #18 — Whisper My Name — Drake #20 — National Treasures — Drake #22 — 2 Hard 4 The Radio — Drake #27 — E85 — Don Toliver #32 — Plot Twist — Drake #34 — Pop Dat Thang — DaBaby #36 — B's On The Table — Drake (feat. 21 Savage) #37 — Motion Party — BossMan Dlow #39 — Make Them Pay — Drake #40 — Dust — Drake

Total: 13 rap songs, 4 artists (Drake still dominating)

I think that does an adequate enough job to prove you wrong when you claim "rap and "popular music" is crashing right now, not hitting the top spots any more...." and "After USAID was ended, not a single rap song is in the top charts".

But because I'm an over achiever, I decided to flex my "elite research" skills that come in handy on this "elite research board". I started by simply READING THE ARTICLE from the OP that started all this.

Did you bother reading it? This is what happens when people form opinions based just on the headlines, and don't bother to actually read the articles.

In the article, it says that one reason for the blip is because of rule changes Billboard made.

Recent rule changes to Billboard’s Hot 100 methodology did play a part in the streak coming to an end. For the chart dated Oct. 25, descending songs were deemed recurrent and removed from the chart if they had exceeded certain durations on the chart while also falling below certain updated chart thresholds — for instance, if they had fallen below No. 25 after spending over 26 weeks on the chart. That particular change resulted in the departure of “Luther,” which had fallen to No. 38 on the previous week’s Hot 100 in its 46th week on the listing.

https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/no-rap-songs-hot-100-top-40-first-time-since-1990-1236100625/

Here are some other articles I found about it, explaining the two week blip, using my awesome "elite research" skills, just in case you're actually curious about it. (I fibbed there. The links aren't really for you. I doubt you'd change your stance if Jesus Christ himself came down and told you that you were wrong on this. The links are for people reading the conversation who are genuinely curious about what happened.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/billboard-hot-100-no-rap-songs-top-40-1235456294/

https://stereogum.com/2475783/there-are-no-rap-songs-in-the-top-40-for-the-first-time-in-35-years/columns/sounding-board

https://www.complex.com/music/a/markelibert/no-rap-songs-in-billboard-hot-100-top-40-for-the-first-time-since-1990

Oh, and to close things out, and really point out the irony of just how wrong you are about, well, pretty much everything you've said here....during that 2 week blip when rap fell off the Top 40? Want to know who was dominating the charts when that happened?

Taylor Swift

Oct 25, 2025

#1 — The Fate of Ophelia #2 — Opalite #5 — Elizabeth Taylor #6 — Father Figure #7 — Wi$h Li$t #8 — Wood #9 — The Life of a Showgirl (feat. Sabrina Carpenter) #10 — Actually Romantic #11 — Cancelled! #12 — Eldest Daughter #13 — Ruin the Friendship #14 — Honey

Total: 12 of the top 14

Remember when you said this?

Taylor swift music is failing

Apparently it's "failing" so hard it knocked rap out of the Top 40 for the first time in 30+ years. That's a weird way to fail.

So, like I asked before, please don't go around telling people that no one listens to rap/pop/Taylor Swift/whatever other genre or artists you have a grudge against. Because normies will see right off that you don't even bother to read articles beyond headlines, and you don't bother to do the most basic fact checking before you form some pretty strong ideas about what it going on. It makes all of us look bad and gives people ammunition against us, which makes red pilling normies that much harder.

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

After USAID was ended, not a single rap song is in the top charts, when they had been for decades

Guessing you mean Hot 100 and such. Because I'm pretty sure the hip hop and rap top charts had...hip hop and rap on the top charts. 🙄

Just because there's a blip that a rap song wasn't on the Top 40 boards doesn't mean it's dying or no one listens to it.

No idea why you think Taylor Swift's music is dying. Or pop music in general.

Most of this stuff is just wish fullfillment. Typically by older people who just don't like the music. But that's all it is, wishing. It's the musical equivelent of "YOU KIDS GET OFFEN MUH LAAAWWN!!!" energy.

Rap/hip hop had around 350 BILLION streams in 2025

It's the most popular genre, ahead of Rock (260 billion) and Pop (167 billion).

Taylor Swift had around 20 billion streams in 2025.

Obviously we can't get 2026 numbers yet, since it's only half over, but everything I'm reading has it either holding steady or growing slightly.

If all you have to proclaim the "death" of rap/hip hop is that a song in the genre didn't chart in the Top 40 for the first time in 30 years, that's not much evidence. It's a blip.

But if you're THAT sure, I propose we make a bet. We can go over to Kalshi or a similar platform and make a bet. If streaming numbers for all of 2026 is lower than streaming numbers for 2025 for rap/hip hop, then you win. If they're equal to or higher, I win. Whatever the minimum amount is to bet. This isn't to make money, it's to prove a point.

Becauase undoubtedly, you'll forget all about this in a month or so when people stop talking about it. So, the typical memory holing will occur.

Also, I don't listen to rap/hip hop OR Taylor Swift, so it's not like I'm upset the genres might be dying.

I just think this entire thing is stupid, and if people run around telling normies that no one listens to rap (or taylor swift), it will just be yet another strike against us in regards to credibility.

You must not be keeping up to date on how rap and "popular music" is crashing right now, not hitting the top spots any more....

Give me the names/genres of the top 25 songs on Billboard Hot 100, that aren't pop music. Or rap/hip hop

Also, I just did a deep dive on the blip of rap/hip hop not making the Top 40 list. That was back in October/November of last year.

Since then, they've been in the Top 40 hits again, consistently. You might want to mosey on over there and take a gander before you keep arguing.

1
NotAgainTwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Does it matter, in the greater scheme of things?

I'm trying to figure out what the motivation behind this is. To have people proclaim they're capable and waiting or even eager to be violent if the situation calls for it?

Is it calling out the "Trust The Plan" directive, that many people say is just a ploy to keep us from taking action.

Or did someone just want to share a meme with a cute cat?

view more: Next ›