The BlueSwan Basement of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VIII

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What....what exactly was wrong with that post?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As usual, a rude and exceptionally trashy choice to post in this thread out of a discussion in which you are participating. You have a way of making people feel sorry for making the mistake of engaging with you in the first place.

Dude, you've been on Atlas too long to be this thin-skinned.  In any case, I can't stand Bloomberg either and hate what him being nominated would represent, but the idea that he'd be worse for the country than four more years of Trump is absurd at best.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My reported posts count just went from 44 ---> 45

[lfromnj]

My reported posts count just went from 44 ---> 45

Its always worth going up in reported posts but not getting moderated.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

As usual, a rude and exceptionally trashy choice to post in this thread out of a discussion in which you are participating. You have a way of making people feel sorry for making the mistake of engaging with you in the first place.

Dude, you've been on Atlas too long to be this thin-skinned.  In any case, I can't stand Bloomberg either and hate what him being nominated would represent, but the idea that he'd be worse for the country than four more years of Trump is absurd at best.

This might not be the proper thread to discuss this, but to those of us who view Trump as not the cause of our problems but a symptom of those problems that have existed long before his presidency, four or eight years of Bloomberg would not be much better than four more years of Trump because we see no evidence that he would do what is necessary to change those things which led to the election of Trump in the first place.

If it's four more years of Trump as opposed to four or eight years of Bloomberg followed by four or eight years of Cotton or Hawley, I would be hard pressed not to pick the former because if you think Trumpism is bad, imagine Trumpism but with a president who's not constantly undermined by scandal and personality and overall ineptitude.

[lfromnj]

As usual, a rude and exceptionally trashy choice to post in this thread out of a discussion in which you are participating. You have a way of making people feel sorry for making the mistake of engaging with you in the first place.

Dude, you've been on Atlas too long to be this thin-skinned.  In any case, I can't stand Bloomberg either and hate what him being nominated would represent, but the idea that he'd be worse for the country than four more years of Trump is absurd at best.

This might not be the proper thread to discuss this, but to those of us who view Trump as not the cause of our problems but a symptom of those problems that have existed long before his presidency, four or eight years of Bloomberg would not be much better than four more years of Trump because we see no evidence that he would do what is necessary to change those things which led to the election of Trump in the first place.

If it's four more years of Trump as opposed to four or eight years of Bloomberg followed by four or eight years of Cotton or Hawley, I would be hard pressed not to pick the former because if you think Trumpism is bad, imagine Trumpism but with a president who's not constantly undermined by scandal and personality and overall ineptitude.

The GOP thanks you for 6 SCOTUS seats
(accelerationism is an idiotic idea to focus on and you should just try to win every election you can)

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

As usual, a rude and exceptionally trashy choice to post in this thread out of a discussion in which you are participating. You have a way of making people feel sorry for making the mistake of engaging with you in the first place.

Dude, you've been on Atlas too long to be this thin-skinned.  In any case, I can't stand Bloomberg either and hate what him being nominated would represent, but the idea that he'd be worse for the country than four more years of Trump is absurd at best.

This might not be the proper thread to discuss this, but to those of us who view Trump as not the cause of our problems but a symptom of those problems that have existed long before his presidency, four or eight years of Bloomberg would not be much better than four more years of Trump because we see no evidence that he would do what is necessary to change those things which led to the election of Trump in the first place.

If it's four more years of Trump as opposed to four or eight years of Bloomberg followed by four or eight years of Cotton or Hawley, I would be hard pressed not to pick the former because if you think Trumpism is bad, imagine Trumpism but with a president who's not constantly undermined by scandal and personality and overall ineptitude.

The GOP thanks you for 6 SCOTUS seats
(accelerationism is an idiotic idea to focus on and you should just try to win every election you can)

It's not accelerationism, it's looking at elections and considering the impact they will have long-term.

Yes, the courts are one reason to prefer Bloomberg over Trump, but the courts themselves won't be enough to impede the creeping, crypto-fascistic tendencies of the populist right which has become mainstream for the GOP.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

What....what exactly was wrong with that post?

He's now made about half a dozen posts to the effect that all discussion comparing Bloomberg to Trump must cease, none of which contributed anything resembling a thought to the conversation.

It all has the air of a preening small-town official holding court at the local watering hole and getting flustered when his fellow patrons have the temerity to ignore him.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What....what exactly was wrong with that post?

He's now made about half a dozen posts to the effect that all discussion comparing Bloomberg to Trump must cease, none of which contributed anything resembling a thought to the conversation.

It all has the air of a preening small-town official holding court at the local watering hole and getting flustered when his fellow patrons have the temerity to ignore him.

What a cute baby 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As usual, a rude and exceptionally trashy choice to post in this thread out of a discussion in which you are participating. You have a way of making people feel sorry for making the mistake of engaging with you in the first place.

Dude, you've been on Atlas too long to be this thin-skinned.  In any case, I can't stand Bloomberg either and hate what him being nominated would represent, but the idea that he'd be worse for the country than four more years of Trump is absurd at best.

This might not be the proper thread to discuss this, but to those of us who view Trump as not the cause of our problems but a symptom of those problems that have existed long before his presidency, four or eight years of Bloomberg would not be much better than four more years of Trump because we see no evidence that he would do what is necessary to change those things which led to the election of Trump in the first place.

If it's four more years of Trump as opposed to four or eight years of Bloomberg followed by four or eight years of Cotton or Hawley, I would be hard pressed not to pick the former because if you think Trumpism is bad, imagine Trumpism but with a president who's not constantly undermined by scandal and personality and overall ineptitude.

The GOP thanks you for 6 SCOTUS seats
(accelerationism is an idiotic idea to focus on and you should just try to win every election you can)

It's not accelerationism, it's looking at elections and considering the impact they will have long-term.

Yes, the courts are one reason to prefer Bloomberg over Trump, but the courts themselves won't be enough to impede the creeping, crypto-fascistic tendencies of the populist right which has become mainstream for the GOP.

What about all the lives that will be destroyed in the meantime if Trump is re-elected? 

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

As usual, a rude and exceptionally trashy choice to post in this thread out of a discussion in which you are participating. You have a way of making people feel sorry for making the mistake of engaging with you in the first place.

Dude, you've been on Atlas too long to be this thin-skinned.  In any case, I can't stand Bloomberg either and hate what him being nominated would represent, but the idea that he'd be worse for the country than four more years of Trump is absurd at best.

This might not be the proper thread to discuss this, but to those of us who view Trump as not the cause of our problems but a symptom of those problems that have existed long before his presidency, four or eight years of Bloomberg would not be much better than four more years of Trump because we see no evidence that he would do what is necessary to change those things which led to the election of Trump in the first place.

If it's four more years of Trump as opposed to four or eight years of Bloomberg followed by four or eight years of Cotton or Hawley, I would be hard pressed not to pick the former because if you think Trumpism is bad, imagine Trumpism but with a president who's not constantly undermined by scandal and personality and overall ineptitude.

The GOP thanks you for 6 SCOTUS seats
(accelerationism is an idiotic idea to focus on and you should just try to win every election you can)

It's not accelerationism, it's looking at elections and considering the impact they will have long-term.

Yes, the courts are one reason to prefer Bloomberg over Trump, but the courts themselves won't be enough to impede the creeping, crypto-fascistic tendencies of the populist right which has become mainstream for the GOP.

What about all the lives that will be destroyed in the meantime if Trump is re-elected? 

I love the Bloom, but I'd love to hear about these lives and why there would be any difference if Bloomberg is elected. A handful of El Salvadorian migrants or Somali refugees? Otherwise, I think you are just netting out different military reactions to events. As if healthcare or any other tangible change is going to happen under Bloomberg...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As usual, a rude and exceptionally trashy choice to post in this thread out of a discussion in which you are participating. You have a way of making people feel sorry for making the mistake of engaging with you in the first place.

Dude, you've been on Atlas too long to be this thin-skinned.  In any case, I can't stand Bloomberg either and hate what him being nominated would represent, but the idea that he'd be worse for the country than four more years of Trump is absurd at best.

This might not be the proper thread to discuss this, but to those of us who view Trump as not the cause of our problems but a symptom of those problems that have existed long before his presidency, four or eight years of Bloomberg would not be much better than four more years of Trump because we see no evidence that he would do what is necessary to change those things which led to the election of Trump in the first place.

If it's four more years of Trump as opposed to four or eight years of Bloomberg followed by four or eight years of Cotton or Hawley, I would be hard pressed not to pick the former because if you think Trumpism is bad, imagine Trumpism but with a president who's not constantly undermined by scandal and personality and overall ineptitude.

I would think progressives would prefer a Hawley Presidency to a Trump one when it comes to economic policy. Hawley seems to actually want to take on monopolies and build an industrial policy to implement the sort of economic populist agenda that Trump got elected on. I wouldn't expect Hawley to delegate so much policymaking to people with a more generic Republican tax/spending-cut agenda the way Trump has.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

As usual, a rude and exceptionally trashy choice to post in this thread out of a discussion in which you are participating. You have a way of making people feel sorry for making the mistake of engaging with you in the first place.

Dude, you've been on Atlas too long to be this thin-skinned.  In any case, I can't stand Bloomberg either and hate what him being nominated would represent, but the idea that he'd be worse for the country than four more years of Trump is absurd at best.

This might not be the proper thread to discuss this, but to those of us who view Trump as not the cause of our problems but a symptom of those problems that have existed long before his presidency, four or eight years of Bloomberg would not be much better than four more years of Trump because we see no evidence that he would do what is necessary to change those things which led to the election of Trump in the first place.

If it's four more years of Trump as opposed to four or eight years of Bloomberg followed by four or eight years of Cotton or Hawley, I would be hard pressed not to pick the former because if you think Trumpism is bad, imagine Trumpism but with a president who's not constantly undermined by scandal and personality and overall ineptitude.

The GOP thanks you for 6 SCOTUS seats
(accelerationism is an idiotic idea to focus on and you should just try to win every election you can)

It's not accelerationism, it's looking at elections and considering the impact they will have long-term.

Yes, the courts are one reason to prefer Bloomberg over Trump, but the courts themselves won't be enough to impede the creeping, crypto-fascistic tendencies of the populist right which has become mainstream for the GOP.

What about all the lives that will be destroyed in the meantime if Trump is re-elected? 

I could ask the same question about the next Trump-ite GOPer who wins the presidency, who will likely be a) more competent than Trump and b) have more legislative experience under his belt as well as a better working relationship with Republicans in Congress.

Think of it this way: if a "normal" Republican were in office right now, there would be no Obamacare today, because we wouldn't have had a pissed off, dying, former POW who was publicly insulted by that president, casting the deciding vote against repealing it.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

As usual, a rude and exceptionally trashy choice to post in this thread out of a discussion in which you are participating. You have a way of making people feel sorry for making the mistake of engaging with you in the first place.

Dude, you've been on Atlas too long to be this thin-skinned.  In any case, I can't stand Bloomberg either and hate what him being nominated would represent, but the idea that he'd be worse for the country than four more years of Trump is absurd at best.

This might not be the proper thread to discuss this, but to those of us who view Trump as not the cause of our problems but a symptom of those problems that have existed long before his presidency, four or eight years of Bloomberg would not be much better than four more years of Trump because we see no evidence that he would do what is necessary to change those things which led to the election of Trump in the first place.

If it's four more years of Trump as opposed to four or eight years of Bloomberg followed by four or eight years of Cotton or Hawley, I would be hard pressed not to pick the former because if you think Trumpism is bad, imagine Trumpism but with a president who's not constantly undermined by scandal and personality and overall ineptitude.

I would think progressives would prefer a Hawley Presidency to a Trump one when it comes to economic policy. Hawley seems to actually want to take on monopolies and build an industrial policy to implement the sort of economic populist agenda that Trump got elected on. I wouldn't expect Hawley to delegate so much policymaking to people with a more generic Republican tax/spending-cut agenda the way Trump has.

Rhetoric aside, Hawley is basically your standard Republican on economic issues.  And personally, I don't want a president whose priority is to curb "social media addiction" and open the door to government censorship or control of private networking platforms.  (Perhaps it's the libertarian in me, but I sure as hell don't trust the government to decide what people should or shouldn't do online... within reason, obviously.)

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Makes me wonder if Warren leads in Oklahoma. Perhaps her strongest parts will be the Texas part bordering the state. Along with the weird conservatives still registered as democrats who are basically voting for the most anglo sounding candidate/name as a protest.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As usual, a rude and exceptionally trashy choice to post in this thread out of a discussion in which you are participating. You have a way of making people feel sorry for making the mistake of engaging with you in the first place.

Dude, you've been on Atlas too long to be this thin-skinned.  In any case, I can't stand Bloomberg either and hate what him being nominated would represent, but the idea that he'd be worse for the country than four more years of Trump is absurd at best.

This might not be the proper thread to discuss this, but to those of us who view Trump as not the cause of our problems but a symptom of those problems that have existed long before his presidency, four or eight years of Bloomberg would not be much better than four more years of Trump because we see no evidence that he would do what is necessary to change those things which led to the election of Trump in the first place.

If it's four more years of Trump as opposed to four or eight years of Bloomberg followed by four or eight years of Cotton or Hawley, I would be hard pressed not to pick the former because if you think Trumpism is bad, imagine Trumpism but with a president who's not constantly undermined by scandal and personality and overall ineptitude.

The GOP thanks you for 6 SCOTUS seats
(accelerationism is an idiotic idea to focus on and you should just try to win every election you can)

It's not accelerationism, it's looking at elections and considering the impact they will have long-term.

Yes, the courts are one reason to prefer Bloomberg over Trump, but the courts themselves won't be enough to impede the creeping, crypto-fascistic tendencies of the populist right which has become mainstream for the GOP.

What about all the lives that will be destroyed in the meantime if Trump is re-elected?  

I love the Bloom, but I'd love to hear about these lives and why there would be any difference if Bloomberg is elected. A handful of El Salvadorian migrants or Somali refugees? Otherwise, I think you are just netting out different military reactions to events. As if healthcare or any other tangible change is going to happen under Bloomberg...

I mean, for starters, there are all of the children being ripped away from their parents and crammed into barbaric detention facilities under Trump’s family separation policy, as well as folks who will be adversely affected in the future due to either four more years of Trump doing everything he can to worsen global warming to own the libs or the holdings of a 7-2 Republican SCOTUS for the foreseeable future.  There are other things, but I don’t have time for a mega-post atm and am just going off the top of my head.  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Are there even 100 good emo songs, let alone 100 best?

[Hammy]

It isn’t long until you hear America’s ISIS destroy the rock, or destroy one of the country’s oldest churches, or attack other memorials. These people are those who feel America was never truly great. They are domestic enemies and should be clapped away as such.

[lfromnj]

This whole thing shows how stupid gendered sports are in the first place, rather than doing the logical thing and dividing athletes up by size class.

[lfromnj]

This is a dangerous proposal. While I'm sure it is not the Chancellor's intention, this rhetoric is often used by those who believe in "reverse racism"--that white folks can be "discriminated against." This is not only untrue, but it ignores that actual systemic racism exists and actively harms minorities in our region. Establishing a standard that our region welcomes this type of rhetoric is not something I will stand for. Therefore, I will be voting against this proposal.

Yes I believe in racism lol.

[Santander]

This is a dangerous proposal. While I'm sure it is not the Chancellor's intention, this rhetoric is often used by those who believe in "reverse racism"--that white folks can be "discriminated against." This is not only untrue, but it ignores that actual systemic racism exists and actively harms minorities in our region. Establishing a standard that our region welcomes this type of rhetoric is not something I will stand for. Therefore, I will be voting against this proposal.

Yes I believe in racism lol.

Let's not put Atlasia posts here. There's plenty of absurd and ignorant regular posts to go around.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Apparently Buttigieg staged a 9-year old coming out as gay at his speech today?

Lmao link?
I literally searched and can’t find a single thing.

S T A G E D

This is disgusting and I might just withdraw my endorsement.

There’s nothing in that article that says it was staged.

That 9-year old boy wanted to talk with Pete on his own.

It's not that it was staged or not. Children shouldn't be coming out, especially not like this. Homosexuality in children should not be glorified and publicized. I have personal objections to this.

You do realize that some people realize extremely early? Are you gay? I am, I knew from about the age of 10 or 11. Didn’t come out till I was 21. Do you realize the stress and straight up depression that can be avoided from coming out so early? You sound like an imbecile citing your personal objections when you don’t know at all how this kid feels

Honestly I couldn't care less about how the kid feels. That kid can go cry until he or she is of age to make that decision. Phases are real.

[AtorBoltox]

While I believe the accusers and hope Weinstein gets the maximum, I still find it concerning that nowadays you can get a conviction on such a serious charge without any physical/DNA evidence. The case was simply one person's word against the other's and I don't see how that proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

While I believe the accusers and hope Weinstein gets the maximum, I still find it concerning that nowadays you can get a conviction on such a serious charge without any physical/DNA evidence. The case was simply one person's word against the other's and I don't see how that proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

CC: The Cave of Common Sense.

[AtorBoltox]

While I believe the accusers and hope Weinstein gets the maximum, I still find it concerning that nowadays you can get a conviction on such a serious charge without any physical/DNA evidence. The case was simply one person's word against the other's and I don't see how that proves the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

CC: The Cave of Common Sense.