The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[brucejoel99]

I too love getting into arguments over minor differences in predicting how a state will vote in 2020

It's the Atlas Talk Elections way!!

[brucejoel99]

It’s pathetic how much everyone on this thread is buying Markeys BS just because they’re anti-dynasty. Even if JK is likely to do more for Massachusetts. I’d say thank god my state is smarter than this thread but clearly from all indications they aren’t

[brucejoel99]

82 is too old to be president.

Imagine saying that about ethnicity, or about gender.

What's absurdly ignorant is your ignorance to the concept of "context."

[brucejoel99]

Really, just everything he has to say about Manchin in that thread belongs here (emphasis in bold):

Like I've previously pointed out, though, the man has never cast a deciding vote against the Democratic Party line over the course of his nearly 10 years in the Senate. That's just not changing now.

well this aged well. Any comment?

Well, last I checked, I missed the part where he's confirmed to be casting a deciding vote against the Democratic Party line by taking this stand, so my comment would be to f**king wait:

Remember guys, Manchin literally never votes against the party line when it matters, and it's stupid and naive to think that he will. I'm sure that he's only doing this because he knows there are loads of Republicans to pad the margin.

(This is sarcastic in case you can't tell)

Y'all, can we calm the f**k down for literally 5 seconds & just wait & see how this plays out a bit more. It's entirely possible that he's been told Tanden has at least 1 Republican vote (so, literally pick 1 of your Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins', etc.) & that this is therefore not a time where his vote actually matters. But thank you for your failed attempt at a burn, though, very cool!

Maybe (I highly doubt it), but I do note that Manchin is announcing this ahead of any R publicly saying they're a yes.

The problem with Manchin is that we should not have to get down on our knees and beg Murkowski (here) or the Budget Committee (in the case of the budget amendments that he provided deciding votes for) to cover for his misbehavior. He should know enough to provide the desired result himself.

I'm honestly sick and tired of treating someone who voted with Trump more often than not, voted for 80% of his judges, and already has or plans to cast several deciding votes against the dems in this congress, as a Democrat. We need to kick him out of the caucus.

I was following until the last paragraph. How in God's name would deliberately making McConnell Majority Leader again just to teach Manchin a lesson or whatever be preferable to the current situation?

This Manchin majority simply isn't worth it. The biden nominees that have been confirmed would have been confirmed with or without his support, and he continually shows a lukewarm at best attitude toward the democratic agenda, including on covid related matters. At least with McConnell we'd know for sure that dem wins would be few, instead of getting all this false hope from closeted republican Joe Manchin.

I'm honestly sick and tired of treating someone who voted with Trump more often than not, voted for 80% of his judges, and already has or plans to cast several deciding votes against the dems in this congress, as a Democrat. We need to kick him out of the caucus.

Sounds like a good way to ensure McConnell can block Covid relief and prevent Breyer from retiring.

Oh, haven't you heard!? Joe Manchin's just itching to kill the COVID relief stimulus package (that no legitimate Republican even supports) even though he's already come out in support of it, AND then he's gonna personally shoot Justice Breyer with his own NRA-provided shotgun just to open up his seat & save it for when McConnell returns to the majority leadership. Of course, even though Manchin is obviously a secret Republican at heart, he's doing all of this without switching parties & actually putting McConnell in charge so he can do all of these things - & more - that Manchin has made very clear in public that he doesn't actually wanna do. It almost makes TOO MUCH sense!!

Well if we can't kick him out, then we need to take away his committee chairmanship. This treachery should not go unpunished.

[brucejoel99]

Yes but our because as a Senator political considerations would come into play. I wouldn't be willing to vote against any nominations from my party.

[brucejoel99]

The me too movement is out of control.

Practically anything could be interpret as “sexual harassment” these days.

[brucejoel99]

Johnson by a wide margin. While one may criticize the Tenure of Office Act on procedural grounds, it’s pretty obvious he violated it, and therefore deserved to be impeached.

Clinton was guilty of perjury, and I would have voted accordingly, but I also think the investigation into his sex life was irrelevant and bullsh–t anyway.

The two Trump impeachments were, in the first place, red-baiting; and in the second, an obvious attempt to silence and served as the pretext for blatant censorship, so they were HP moves.

Yeah holding a president accountable for inciting a terrorist attack on our capital and abusing his office to blackmail an ally into announcing an investigation into your political rivals son for political gain in an election are actually an attempt to censor critics 🙄

Your obvious falsehoods aside, how do you really get away with labelling something a "terrorist" attack when the protestors never even brandished firearms? It was a pathetic outburst that took up an afternoon, got dispersed within a few hours, and since then nothing has happened. Lamest "terrorist" attack of all time.

Original quote about January 6th also qualifies.

Banning a politicians and many of his followers from the entire network of digital platforms and prohibiting them from further association, is a far serious constitutional threat than the "attempted coup" which had a zero percent chance of ever successfully overthrowing the government, if that was indeed their goal, your claims of "absurd/ignorant" notwithstanding. You cannot create an alternative to the social network monopolies that are, in today's day an age, more powerful than most nation states.

The more extreme the characterization of the event, the more extreme the remedial action they're going to say is necessary

"Congress shall make no law..."

[brucejoel99]

[The selection of Kamala Harris as Joe Biden's running mate] was a bad pick.  Who exactly did Kamala Harris appeal to?  There was no perfect pick for Biden, and anyone else would have only helped at the margins, but I don’t really think Harris helped at all, and she may have lost Biden some votes among Latinos.

[brucejoel99]

A new absurd/ignorant post, both because BRTD's claim is wrong & because BRTD could easily look at reasons why both his claim & that of the original post are wrong by just clicking the link to the original post & seeing the reply thereafter:

[The selection of Kamala Harris as Joe Biden's running mate] was a bad pick.  Who exactly did Kamala Harris appeal to?  There was no perfect pick for Biden, and anyone else would have only helped at the margins, but I don’t really think Harris helped at all, and she may have lost Biden some votes among Latinos.

I don't see anything inaccurate in that post.

[brucejoel99]

If y'all took literally 2 seconds to maybe just click the post in question, then you'd find links to multiple demographical polls that show exactly how the initial statement in question was "factually very wrong" (so, more than qualifying for inclusion herein). Now, maybe it "make(s some of) you mad" that the statement in this question was "factually very wrong" & so you might not wanna hear it, but the available evidence suggests that it just patently was "factually very wrong." That's just a fact, so don't attack me for daring to - *gasp* - tell the truth about an election on a forum that's about elections.

[brucejoel99]

If y'all took literally 2 seconds to maybe just click the post in question, then you'd find links to multiple demographical polls that show exactly how the initial statement in question was "factually very wrong" (so, more than qualifying for inclusion herein). Now, maybe it "make(s some of) you mad" that the statement in this question was "factually very wrong" & so you might not wanna hear it, but the available evidence suggests that it just patently was "factually very wrong." That's just a fact, so don't attack me for daring to - *gasp* - tell the truth about an election on a forum that's about elections.

You link to a writeup of two polls run by the same organization, in The Hill, showing a minor bump in Biden's numbers immediately after the VP announcement. It is fairly common for polling numbers to increase immediately after a VP announcement because it's an occasion for a lot of media coverage of a presidential candidate, usually in a favorable light. Using that evidence to suggest that a VP selection had a meaningful effect on the outcome in November requires better proof than that. I am quoting your post because it is absurd/ignorant to suggest that a poll from August is proof of your claim.

Again with the strawmen, just like the original poster in question on the original thread. That's not what I was suggesting. The OP whom I was pushing back against in the original thread suggested that Harris likely did nothing for - &, indeed, may have even hurt - the ticket with Latino voters & later suggested reasons as to why her selection shouldn't have done anything to help shore up the Biden campaign's support among Black voters. In response, I pointed to the polling in question to show how the Harris selection was indeed significantly well-received by both the Black & Latino communities, & that polling among those demographics is more-than-sufficient to back up the claim.

[brucejoel99]

The namesake strikes again:

“Gender-affirming healthcare” is one hell of a euphemism for sterilizing children and disrupting their natural puberty with experimental drugs.

To say nothing of irreversible, life-altering surgeries.

[brucejoel99]

Exactly these incompetently run elections undermine trust and confidence and make it seem like Trump's BS of election fraud may be sort of true. New York state and the city are a disgrace when it comes to managing elections properly. Not want to sound lecturing here, but sometimes I think you guys just should get out and let us Europeans run your elections. We don't have the issues.

Forget Europe. Florida does it completely right.

They're really good at it. But don't take my word for it.

Jeb! is spot on here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-florida-became-americas-vote-counting-model-11604703732

I mean after the debacle in the aftermath of the 2018 senate race, it seems clear that there’s something to be desired with their election administration.

I hate to defend Florida but, at least the administration of the vote count and such, Florida has done a fairly good job and seems to have actually learned from 2000. New York/NYC on the other hand deserve to be shamed into oblivion.

Not to mention, the 2018 Senate debacle wasn't even a vote count issue on the state's part so much as a pre-election ballot design issue on the part of Brenda Snipes' office in Broward. Say what can be said about certain individual incidents at the local level, but in regards to the state as a whole, we've come a long way since 2000, while NY could probably never.

[brucejoel99]

Republicans aren't suppressing the votes of minorities.

I almost posted a South Park gif involving Mr Garrison and a triangle as a response, but thought better of it.

The perfect missed opportunity.

[brucejoel99]

I think it might be time for a new insane catchphrase, Fuzzy. Your current one, albeit requisitely insane, is going stale:

There are Presidents I've liked and Presidents I've disliked, but our present President is America's Marshal Petain.

He's unique, and that's not a compliment.  He's more like Marshal Petain of Vichy France than he is like any other American President.

If Democrats believed Kamala Harris was really up to being President they'd be pulling the plug on Marshal Petain right now, citing "sudden, unanticipated decline", but if that happened, they'd be stuck with Harris's unpopular actions and her unpopular persona.

Biden isn't a leader; he's a senile fool, propped up by unknown handlers, having all the mental acuity of Marshal Petain during the days of Vichy France.

The partisan rhetoric from the GOP was to the effect that Harris would be the one really running the show while Marshal Petain Joe Biden would sleepwalk through his term, working until noon, after which it's time for hot cocoa and a nap.

I'm certainly praying that America be saved from a President (Biden) who would be functioning at the level of Marshal Petain of Vichy France from day one.  If a miraculous healing is what it takes, so be it.

He has no courage whatsoever; he is a liberal Marshal Petain.

Their campaign this year is sort of Marshal Petain and Madame Mao.  (An exaggeration, to be sure, but it's really an odd pairing.)

(Great self-own there, btw, admitting that what you've had to say on this matter is "[a]n exaggeration" on your part.)

Biden will be as effective against these Mobs as Marshal Petain was against the Nazis in Vichy.

Biden promises to be the Marshal Petain of Leftist Vichy America, lol.

If Biden really has dementia, what should happen is that Biden drop out and the DNC be an actual nominating affair where the delegates pick the candidates.  THAT would be a whole lot better than Joe Biden be the American Henri Petain (in terms of senility, not of loyalty).  

And not to be outdone by his favorite President, there's always a tweet or, rather, an Atlas post by our resident Fuzzy Bear:

It is hard to take seriously a group of folks that viewed Trump as a modern-day Marshal Petain before he even took office.

[brucejoel99]

TheReckoning, you're blind or just a bad-faith poster. TimTurner, you're naive for not confirming TheReckoning's claim by clicking the OP & looking at the context of what was fully said (which TheReckoning conveniently chose to omit ITT), this:

And Britain’s government during WW2 was never under any real threat (the people are of course a different story) because an invasion/overthrow of them was logistically impossible, and everyone was aware of that. But that is of course a topic of another time.

Pseudohistorical nonsense. An invasion was planned in great and exhaustive detail and would have occurred had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat. Why don't you f**ck off and read some actual history for a change?

In light of the full context, the only absurdity posted in any of the last few quotes ITT is TheReckoning's misrepresentation of what it is that Al, y'know, actually even said to begin with. Literally all that he said is that Operation Sea Lion plans existed - which they did, or else we really wouldn't know about "Sea Lion," now would we? - & could've been successful "had the Battle of Britain not ended in decisive defeat," which is a pretty freakin' important qualifier there, given that it's literally called the Battle of Britain since, had the RAF lost it & allowed the Luftwaffe to gain air superiority over the Channel, the door would've then been open for Sea Lion to successfully be initiated, at which point, who knows, but Britain may very well have fallen, not least since a Nazi victory in the Battle of Britain, an attempted Sea Lion thereafter, & the resultant increased focus on the British Isles could very well have completely butterflied how Barbarossa ever occurs (if at all) & stretches the Nazis thin. I can't think of a legit WW2 historian who'd disagree with that analysis, & I say that because I literally just did my senior seminar on WW2 turning points, so TheReckoning really needs to open a history book or two.

[brucejoel99]

[snip]

P.S. Al didn't say "could happen", which is wording I'd agree with. He said "would happen".
Could happen is even my kind of language! We don't know how the Nazis act if the Battle of Britain is a Nazi victory, so "could", being open about what directions things could go, makes a lot of sense.

We disagree about the earliest necessary PoD, then, because if we're operating on the basis of TTL suggested by Al in which the RAF go down to the Luftwaffe, then the initiation of Sea Lion thereafter - which, no, does seem a given - triggers an invasion that would've definitionally threatened the British government insofar as any military invasion & attempted occupation of domestic soil does so, let alone one which would've seen the full arsenal of Nazi man- & war-power converging upon Britain. Sea Lion need not have ultimately been a successful venture insofar as occupying Britain was concerned for everything that Al said to nevertheless still be 100% true.

[brucejoel99]

I said that the government was never under any real threat. They never had to worry about the possibility of losing their power to the Nazis. I clarified that British citizens of course had to worry about bombing campaigns/rockets.

If you mean the possibility of full blown Nazi occupation, sure, that was quite unlikely.

Beyond that, there were many threats to the British effort to prosecute the war and by extension, the British government. Certainly in 1940 there was a distinct possibility that Britain would conclude a humiliating armistice with the Axis powers.* If the Atlantic war had gone differently, that could have threatened the supply of basic goods on the homefront. I wouldn't totally discount the potential of domestic unrest were things to get dire enough on that front.

Bottom line: I don't know how you can conclude there was no real threat to Britain during the war. Total victory for the Allies and the United Nations was not inevitable.

*Your post mentioned the mentality of 'if threatened, surrender without fighting'; surely an armistice or further appeasement would qualify as something along those lines

Al’s post, which is the one posted in this thread, implied that Sea Lion was a credible threat to the UK during WW2, as his post claimed that the UK was being threatened due to plans of invasion. You are talking about a totally different thing.

Again, Al's post was predicated upon Nazi victory in the Battle of Britain, so the prospect of a Sea Lion did obviously present a threat to Britain & its government, or do you think the RAF put up a fight therein just 'cause?

[brucejoel99]

One might presume that a TL involving a victorious Nazi performance in the Battle of Britain is also one in which the German Navy wasn't in shambles after Norway, but granted, perhaps that ought not to be taken as a given. Nevertheless, paratroopers exist (see: Crete, after all) & Britain was vulnerable from multiple fronts, Scotland being just a sea away from Norway. I really don't think anybody is claiming that occupation would've ultimately been successful, but in a TL involving a better Nazi military, it really stretches the imagination for TheReckoning's claim that started all of this & infuriated Al - that the British government was never under any real threat  - to somehow still remain agreeable, especially when you consider a point of my last post: that Britain was definitionally at threat by virtue of just being engaged in the war. Seriously, Churchill didn't order the RAF to defend the skies of London just 'cause, & even as they did, 10 Downing Street was still a target that was threatened.

[brucejoel99]

Even the most generous Historian analysis’ of Sea Lion don’t even see Germany reaching London.

Real historians (and I ought to know as I am one) generally don't concern themselves with hypotheticals, not professionally anyway. The classic view is that the Historian should be concerned to discover only 'what actually happened' (and the reasons for this), not what might have been, and to the extent that this position has been challenged it is only because of the view that it is often not possible to know 'what actually happened' with iron certainty.

Not to take the thread even more off-topic than it already is, but I'll say purely anecdotally that some historians are real people too & can definitely be interested in such hypotheticals, at least the ones that I interacted with in classes taught by them while pursuing my undergraduate degree (& in my aforementioned WW2 seminar especially, no less, hence why I brought it up earlier, as my professor therein has published a few books on the war in his time), not least when connecting it to something being taught about, say like ITT's example, plans of something that existed but weren't ultimately capable of being initiated, but it's admittedly possible that a few of them don't care for it at all beyond indulging student questions.