The BlueSwan Basement of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VIII

[Gracile]

And if City of London/Westminister can go blue to stop Corbyn, you bet TX-07/TX-32/NJ-07/CA-48/GA-6 will go red to stop Sanders.

Genuinely asking: what's so absurd about my post here? TX-07 has been 60% Republican a lot more recently than even CLWM was 50% Con, though of course there's a different party system there.

Not that it really means anything (as these US/UK comparisons are pretty asinine and have a lot of factors that simply can't be compared), but you should know that some of the few constituencies that swung toward Labour in terms of margin were areas with higher education and income levels relative to the nation (Putney, Battersea, Enfield Southgate, Reading East, Cardiff North, Leeds North West, Canterbury). Keep in mind some of these seats used to be marginal, yet withstood a landslide Labour defeat elsewhere. If you're trying to make an equivalence between Sanders and Corbyn, then wouldn't logic dictate that Sanders could feasibly maintain or even improve among upscale/educated suburbanites in places like NJ-07/CA-48/TX-07/etc.?

[Sir Mohamed]

Maybe we should rename this thread?

Great, another leftist waltzing into the GOP.

[Xing]

I realize this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but...

It actually is. While IA has a commission for relatively fair maps, a trifecta can ignore their requests and draw their own gerrymander. By taking an IA state chamber, we can secure the commission's ability to provide a fair map.

“Fair map” =Democratic gerrymander

Next up, elections being fair means that they were rigged by the Democrats.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I realize this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but...

It actually is. While IA has a commission for relatively fair maps, a trifecta can ignore their requests and draw their own gerrymander. By taking an IA state chamber, we can secure the commission's ability to provide a fair map.

“Fair map” =Democratic gerrymander

Next up, elections being fair means that they were rigged by the Democrats.

Reminds me of the short-lived Bevin talking point that Beshear only won because Alison Lundergan Grimes failed to "clean up" (read: purge) the voter rolls.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I realize this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but...

It actually is. While IA has a commission for relatively fair maps, a trifecta can ignore their requests and draw their own gerrymander. By taking an IA state chamber, we can secure the commission's ability to provide a fair map.

“Fair map” =Democratic gerrymander

Next up, elections being fair means that they were rigged by the Democrats.

Didn’t he also say Dems only won in virginia because of a “pro-dem judicialmander”?

[lfromnj]

I realize this is like shooting fish in a barrel, but...

It actually is. While IA has a commission for relatively fair maps, a trifecta can ignore their requests and draw their own gerrymander. By taking an IA state chamber, we can secure the commission's ability to provide a fair map.

“Fair map” =Democratic gerrymander

Next up, elections being fair means that they were rigged by the Democrats.

Didn’t he also say Dems only won in virginia because of a “pro-dem judicialmander”?

I strongly dislike the VA redistricting because its based on the VRA and even then Im not sure the districts were necessarily overpacked as a black rural district was nearly lost this year. Its absurd to demand that a 52% district in MS isn't enough so it has to be 58%(at the expense of a second senate seat) but then demand 40% black districts in VA. Secondly the VA state senate was a D gerrymander, that Roanake to Montgomery county District shouldn't exist and should be Safe R so the redistricting only fixed the R gerrymander but not the R Gerrymander.

TBF atleast the VRA is law(but its still a bad and absurd law) and although the NC redistricting fixed a clear partisan gerrymander I don't really think there was anything specific in the state constitution but atleast the judges there were elected by the state likely to end the GOP gerrymandering.
The best use of a court is also unfortunately one where the courts will not interefere next decade which is Florida. Florida was a GOP gerrymander but the law suit to the state supreme court fixed that a bit(although FL 5th is a disgraceful district when its clear a tossup Talhasee district and a Lean D Jacksonville district could have been made which were much more compact .

[Sir Mohamed]

On to the Senate, where the adults are in charge!

[Landslide Lyndon]

I mean, I did laugh when I heard it.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

And if City of London/Westminister can go blue to stop Corbyn, you bet TX-07/TX-32/NJ-07/CA-48/GA-6 will go red to stop Sanders.

Genuinely asking: what's so absurd about my post here? TX-07 has been 60% Republican a lot more recently than even CLWM was 50% Con, though of course there's a different party system there.

In addition to what Nathan said the shifts in Texas are more because of demographic changes than ideology. London and Westminister has never elected a Labour candidate, but TX-07 of 20 years ago wouldn't ever elect a Democrat either. But TX-07 of 20 years ago no longer exists.

This narrative is plain old wrong though. TX-07 might be shifting left, but it's because of Texas College Educated whites going from 70-80% R in 2012 to 50-60% R in 2018. That's why the district simultaneously voted for several Republicans at other levels (literally was 50-50 in statewide races). Even factoring in the House race, the district is definitely still winnable for Republicans at an average of +0.7% even in 2018 (though of course I'm not denying the impact of demographic changes, I'm just saying those same demographic changes have still not moved it off map).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I mean, I did laugh when I heard it.

I’m sure he and McCain have much to catch up on.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In the Democratic Primary? It pretty much eliminates the already slim chance she had of making a late gain. In general? It builds her rapport with Republicans, with whom she will caucus before the end of her House term. It will also help her gain support when she launches an independent bid for President, trying to siphon votes from the Democratic nominee.

Tulsi Gabbard is never going to caucus with the Republicans, and the notion that she is a conservative in the American sense is the most idiotic take made on this forum.

The Democrats idea of conservative is anyone who votes to the right of Mao Tse Tung.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

To my knowledge, Matt Shea has not been charged with any crime.  A report by the State House of Washington State, with its Democratic majority is a POLITICAL document.  If there were probable cause that Matt Shea "engaged in domestic terrorism" would he not be indicted?

Shea's actions are out in the open.  If the people of his district wish to vote him out, they'll have their chance.  They elected him, and they have the right to be represented by whomever they choose.  Now if the GOP caucus expels him, if he has no committee assignments, that's another matter, and his district pays the price for sending him.

Shea is a good example of media bias by the left.  The facts themselves would drive this guy out of office, and possibly to jail, but there has to be an "investigation" by a biased body putting their 2 cents in.  The guy's an HP and there's plenty of ammo to use against him.  But to say a person engaged in domestic terrorism requires an indictment, does it not?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Now that Confused Democrat has said he regrets making his excellent thread, as the only person out of 93 people to vote for Tulsi in the March poll, I will carry on the banner of the Tulsi faithful. Although I strongly dislike Tulsi, and would not support her, she will nonetheless win the Democratic nomination. Below I will lay out my argument so you can judge it for yourself.

1. The reasons Confused Democrat gives still applies. As he said:

Just take a look at Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. You couldn't go anywhere on the internet without finding some "inspiring" or "badass" video about them. No other potential Democratic candidate has this growing library of viral video potential besides Tulsi, and she keeps on adding to it.

Nothing has changed. I have long been a proponent of using social media enthusiasm as a gauge for political prediction. The strength of his predictor has only grown steadily since the days when liberals used to make fun of Ron Paul cultists in their mom's basements (or before that, when Howard Dean's Meet-Up driven campaign fell flat in the Iowa caucus). My predictive philosophy was best articulated in this post where I correctly predicted Christine Quinn's loss in the 2013 NYC mayoral primary, based on nothing but the comments section of the New York Daily News website. I again applied my methodology in March 2015, when I first used the Washington Post website's comments section to accurately forecast that Hillary Clinton would lose the 2016 election. It was more accurate than Nate Silver. I again used online comments, this time from reddit, in early May 2015 to correctly predict that Bernie Sanders had big momentum.

2. Now, some people used to criticize me for making a few wrong predictions in the past. One user, Joe Republic, predicted that I was like a "weather vane" who always pointed in the wrong direction; he hasn't been around much lately, has he? Another user, BRTD, continues to insist that Tulsi will not be the nominee solely because I predicted it. I get crap about posting about Ebola and Fukushima. But a closer look at my prediction record shows it's actually very good. There have been many times over the years when I have been right about major events, and the majority of forum users have been wrong. Furthermore, one of my few wrong predictions, that Donald Trump would not win the GOP nomination, was when I went against my own methodology of using online enthusiasm.

3. Tulsi does things that are popular.

This is what really gets me. We live in a country where democratic elections play a big role in a politician's success, yet for some reason, other than Tulsi and maybe Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, there aren't actually any politicians in the country who take popular positions. Tulsi does. For this reason alone, she is set to win the nomination.

A preview of the huge, Bernie Sanders style rallies that are coming for Tulsi occurred last week in Kona, where 500 people showed up to give her a standing ovation. If she runs, it'll be just like 2015 all over again. Huge rallies to thousands of people, especially young people, all over the country.

4. Nothing good has happened in this country since the 2000 election.

Tulsi's nomination, and the massive support behind her, would just be another manifestation of the popular insanity that has gripped the country since 2000. First, the neocon enthusiasm that got us into Iraq; then, the housing bubble mania that nearly destroyed the economy; then, the anti-bailout mania that spawned the tea party; then, the Obama mania where he would magically fix partisanship and change everything; then, the Bernie and Trump mania. Each and every mania has turned out to be a complete bust, yet they just keep coming. The instincts of the American people are consistently terrible. A Tulsi mania would just continue on the trend. Therefore, everything in recent history indicates it will occur.

In conclusion, this is why Tulsi will likely win the 2020 Democratic nomination.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Meanwhile, a major conservative columnist just published an editorial suggesting that we need to learn "the secrets of Jewish genius" so we can all be as crafty and rich as they are, and cited research from a white supremacist crank historian.

Click for context.

[Hammy]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=352599.0 This idiotic thread.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Meanwhile, a major conservative columnist just published an editorial suggesting that we need to learn "the secrets of Jewish genius" so we can all be as crafty and rich as they are, and cited research from a white supremacist crank historian.

Click for context.

[brucejoel99]

While I like Soleimani and Iran, I’m obviously on team America when push comes to shove, but people need to chill. The odds of a war are low. That era is gladly over. It’s just people crying wolf now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Watch Trump crack 50% and easily win re-election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Does anyone here think the draft will be reinstated for whatever conflict ends up happening with Iran?

Almost surely, knowing Dictator Donald.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well, Trump will probably win Virginia now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Bernie Sanders Top Hits Thematics.


The VT senator has gone against liberal principles in favor of retaining the conservative agenda. Guns on our streets, polluting Latino neighborhoods, anti-Russian sanctions, anti-identity politics, Bernie has been on the wrong side of history. This independent study is not a right-wing hit job it's an honest account of a deranged populist who will do everything in his path to crumble the nation. Just like his buddy Donald Trump.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

He probably has internal polls showing that Pete is the most dangerous candidate against him.

Donald Trump Mocks Pete Buttigieg for Pretending to Be ‘Extremely Religious’

“I see Alfred E. Newman comes out. He’s trying to pretend he is very religious,” Trump said, referring again to Buttigieg as the fictional character from Mad magazine while declaring his belief that God is on his side.



Trump also mocked the former South Bend mayor’s last name, noting that “nobody can pronounce his name, so they call him Mayor Pete.”

“Boot-edge-edge,” Trump continued. “And all of a sudden, he’s become extremely religious. This happened about two weeks ago.”

“I really do believe we have God on our side. I believe that … or there would have been no way we could have won, right?” he said.

Buttigieg responded hours later on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1213288091894603777
Trump made his comments hours after Buttigieg criticized Americans for allowing gun violence in their society, even in churches.

“We are the only developed country where the idea of a shootout in a church is even conceivable,” he said. “What do you suppose God thinks of that?”

Buttigieg was baptized a Catholic but gravitated to the Episcopal church, and after he was elected mayor of South Bend, Indiana, he married his husband, Chasten, at the Cathedral of St. James Episcopal Church in South Bend.

He told CNN he was first “reluctant” to talk about religion, citing the Bible about Jesus telling his followers not to pray like the “hypocrites” standing in synagogues and street corners.

Since announcing his campaign for president, however, Buttigieg has made a point of talking about religion, urging Christians to abandon President Trump and the religious right supporting Republicans.

Link

Things that I consider un-Christian about Donald Trump

1. A complete lack of humility. Jesus' message never fit narcissistic personalities, and the antithesis of narcissism is humility.

2. Personal greed. Obviously one cannot discern from the Gospels what Jesus would have said about competitive, free-market capitalism; such capitalism as Jesus knew was hideously corrupt, and the agricultural system of His time was much like a feudal order.  The few rich of His time were oppressors, and He loathed oppression. He considered the exaggerated concern with economic gain and sybaritic indulgence completely inconsistent with a moral and spiritual life.

(I concede that in modern times, capitalism -- so long as it is competitive -- has done more good than charity or government, that a strong charitable system or welfare state fare best where capitalism is most effective in creating wealth and overall prosperity. Jesus did not live in a prosperous milieu).

3. Fornication, fornication, fornication. We may all have lust in our hearts, and the best that any of us can do is to be loyal to one partner. Donald Trump has frequently consorted with prostitutes. He has divorced twice and remarried. He has stated that he "grabs (women) by their (crotches)" which, if literal, is criminal sexuality if not outright rape. He has knowingly entered the changing rooms of females when women or girls (age distinction only) are present.  Fornicating as the alter ego "David Dennison" makes it no more excusable than some crook claiming to have a split personality and doing his horrible deeds as the nasty character that is one of his personalities.  

Before someone goes after Pete Buttigieg for being gay -- I once dealt with someone struggling with the conflict between his evangelical faith and his homosexuality by telling him "God made you gay". Homosexuals can still believe in the Bible as essentially true, the Trinity, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, and the promise of eternal life in Heaven for the Saved. Buttigieg seems more loyal to his partner than Donald Trump is to any woman. The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality relates (1) to the precarious situation among the Hebrews in which the population needed as many children as possible to preserve the culture and faith, and (2) temple prostitution, a pagan practice that connected lustful men to helpless boys.

4. Lack of Biblical references for making any political, economic, or military/diplomatic decisions. Some Presidents assert their faith frequently; some are more discrete. America is still a largely-Christian country to the extent that even godless atheists and agnostics cannot avoid the moral strictures of the Judeo-Christian norms in informing their behavior. Morality is far more important than religiosity -- but has Donald Trump ever suggested that he consulted any moral teachings before making a decision?

I do not say that religiosity can be harmless. Bigotry often adopts religious garb. Shakespeare had a character mock a Jew by saying that "the Devil can quote Scripture if it serves his purpose", and even Hitler could turn Christian identity against Jews. This said, Trump has lied (false witness), cheated economically and exploited people (theft), fornicated (adultery), created a cult of personality (having another God before The One), caused deaths due to cruel decisions (killing -- and if he is able to thwart efforts to stop global warming, then he becomes a mass murderer on the scale of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Timur, and Genghis  Khan). Maybe he hasn't bowed down to graven images or insulted his father, and his defilement of the Sabbath isn't out of the ordinary. Taking the Name of the Lord in vain? On that I must remain silent. I have said "God damn" with the names of tyrants and mobsters and tyrants following... not that I consider such people to have the Blessing of God.  But he has pushed the separation of children from their parents, and I consider respect for the family structure of others as essential to moral life, so he shows extreme disrespect to the children of other fathers and mothers...

In any event I can accept homosexuality because it is all that is available to people who have proved themselves good to the rest of us. The Bible demands that I act with charity toward people of good will and to deplore overt criminality. I am not going to lump overeating with perpetrating the Holocaust in the same catch-all category of "sin"... but Trump is a major sinner.

5. No mercy. When did you last mock the handicapped? Probably even earlier than the last time you related an ethnic or religious joke. When I saw a disabled veteran in a wheelchair I saw something that could happen to me if I got called upon to do my patriotic duty and something went terribly wrong. We are all one encounter with a drunk driver away or an irresponsible discharge of a firearm from being confined to a wheelchair. Finally, Trump cannot recognize the reality of emotional trauma, as expressed in "I prefer fliers who do not get shot down". John McCain served his country and got shot down, and showed his loyalty to America while a POW of North Vietnam. Donald Trump showed his lack of loyalty by becoming a fellow traveler of the Soviet Union in the 1970's  when the Soviet Union was the Evil Empire by succumbing to his greed and vanity.      

Most of us are capable of some judgment, and I admit to being harsh on crime, racism and religious bigotry, homophobia. drunkenness and addiction, child abuse, elder abuse, spouse abuse, bad driving, and economic exploitation. I excoriate behaviors that hurt people. I do not have to be a Jew to experience antisemitism and I do not have to be gay to be threatened with a gay-bashing.

6. Defamation of Believers. It is safe to assume that the Pope has a coherent argument against the plutocracy that Donald Trump endorses. It is also safe to assume that Barack Obama is a fundamentally moral person. Although Christians are capable of disagreement on issues they can recognize the legitimacy of a disagreement.  

If I see any recent ideological influences on this man, then those are Ayn Rand and Hugh Hefner. he would have done far better with Bertrand Russell, who at least forces one to deal with the limitations of Christianity.  
              

Trump may or may not be a Christian.  If he's Saved, he's certainly not a Mature Believer.  God has, however, allowed Donald Trump to be our President.  God didn't sleep through the 2016 election.  

Trump would do well to consider not whether or not God is on his side, but whether or not he is on God's side.  Of course that's something most of the Atlas Left would do well to consider as well.  

Foreknowledge of what God's Side is not something only the Religious Right have access too, despite the implications here.

Every man has the ability to determine whether or not they are on God's side.  God did not leave us in the blind on this.  The issue is what one will do with that knowledge.

I'm not one who subscribes to the point of view where one must conform to the Fox News viewpoint to conform themselves to God.  But let's not kid ourselves.  Democratic partisans, by the truckload, actively choose to blow off what God has said about Family, which He, Himself, ordained LONG BEFORE HE ORDAINED THE CHURCH.  Think about that for a minute.  The GOP is full of lovers of Mammon who are attempting to serve Two Masters, and I get that.  But the Democrats are full of those who reject what he has ordained.  They are "lovers of themselves"; how else to describe Kamala Harris, Liz Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, and Amy Klobuchar.  (Although it fits the overtly religious Ted Cruz, I must say.) 

[Frodo]

This! This is what I wanted in 2016. This is why I wanted a conservative President! Y'all can complain all you want, but I love it! I've always hated international law. I hate the UN. I hate how sensitive we are -- as if foreign monuments matter more than American lives? If Trump sends those 52 sites to high heaven, I'll cheer him all the way along: I can't wait to vote for him in 2020!!!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Came here to post that last one

[PSOL]

And we're NOT at war with Iran.  Indeed, if Iraq asks us to leave, it will be a blessing.  It will be our reason to leave without domestic debate, and that's a good thing.  Nor is war with Iran inevitable.  They're just sore losers.  (Please don't tell me that they're mourning one of their fallen.  How Solemani and his ilk view human life has been made clear.)

Do you think Iraq, Syria, and the Kurds can handle a resurging Islamic State without our presence on the ground?  They couldn't last time... 

That hasn't happened yet.  Let Hezbollah, Assad, and the Russians handle them.

Are you aware that Soleimani's death hinders that effort?

ISIS is their problem.  Whether ISIS or Assad rule Syria is a problem for those folks.  Syria is Russia's client state, and has been for most of my lifetime.  Let them clean out the mess.

Our issue with ISIS is to keep them from entering the US, and that requires increased funding for ICE and DHS.  And Building the Wall, so they don't attempt to come in via Southern Mexico marching northward.