The BlueSwan Basement of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VIII

[GeorgiaModerate]

Trump is mediocre at best on foreign policy, but he's still been far better than Bush or Obama.

[GeorgiaModerate]

If only Hillary talked more about her economic policy, these two fellows would have voted for her.

That post was clearly sarcasm.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Beat me to it.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Bernie or Gabbard are the only chances democrats have of winning. Warren, Pete, Biden and Harris will all lose.

[GeorgiaModerate]

^^^ That one may be an all-time contender.

[GeorgiaModerate]

None of my posts deserve to be in this thread.

thank you for posting directly into the thread

Well, his comment was itself absurd.  It gets extra points for meta-absurdity.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Once again, Trump's personal advantages as a man of the hospitality industry are showcased. Foreign leaders want to be hosted in the luxury accommodations that can only be given by the Trump brand. Our nation stands to benefit greatly from our President's ventures.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Context: absolute worst case scenario for Trump.

This is dems had a good candidate which they don't. I think Tulsi could get close to this.

[GeorgiaModerate]

He thinks the "S-CA" stands for "secular," let him live

I always thought the SCA was the Society for Creative Anachronism.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Oct. 19, 1987 - Market crashed by 22.6%. One year later, Reagan wins 49 states, because the market recovered quickly.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Why shouldn't Tulsi be in the debate?

She's on the ballot in the remaining states.  Why shouldn't the Democratic voters get to hear what she says?

Is that inconvenient for the Democratic Establishment?  Probably, but so what?  The Democratic Establishment's problems come from rigging the process and getting caught.  You'd think they'd avoid all appearances of this in 2020, but I guess not.

She's no longer viable. At this point in the cycle, being viable is a reasonable goalpost for a debate.

She could conceivably win enough delegates to force a brokered convention.  There are a significant number of Democrats who don't wish for either Biden or Sanders.  Why shouldn't they have another choice that's already on the ballot?  Perhaps a significant number of Democrats WANT a brokered convention which will produce a candidate other than someone who'll be eighty in their first term and who is either mildly senile or a blatant anti-capitalist.  Are they just out of luck?

Gabbard's presence may well be inconvenient for the Democratic Establishment, which will have enough trouble with the Bernie Bros at the convention to maintain unity.  That's fine, but if that's the case, the blather about "democracy" needs to stop.  Tulsi Gabbard is a Representative who's on the ballot in the upcoming primaries.  Why shouldn't she be able to make her case to the Democratic Party electorate in the debate?  Why is that not the "democratic" thing to do?

To spout the idea on March 7th that Tulsi could conceivably win enough delegates to force a brokered convention, has to rank near the top of dumb things said by Atlas posters, even if you included all the trolls.

And then 1/2hr later he threw in this kicker, in response to the question, "Will Bernie be viable in Florida"

No.

That is all.

So he simultaneously promoted the idea that Tulsi could force a brokered convention while at the same time proclaiming that Bernie won't be viable in Florida.

I hereby proclaim the founding of the "Fuzzy School of Math for Kids Who Can't Add too Good"

Surely you've heard of fuzzy logic.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Sometimes I worry that I'm not all there, but then Wulfric pulls sh**t like this and reminds me that no matter how bad my mental health may get, I'll always be more sane than Wulfric.

I feel the same way about Trump.