The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[WMS]

Republicans are truly irredeemable trash. Jesus... failed social policy after another, and then blame the government they were in control of for why the results were atrocious. That's their playbook - govern poorly, or obstruct, then say it's because government can't work. And one idiotic half of this country will lap it up.

Half a million dead, but how would we live with ourselves if we'd made Home Depot close? sh**thole country.

I think all the blue avatars get the point by now that we, and the half of the country that calls themselves Republicans, are all stupid, despicable and morally bankrupt scum and you hate all of us. You can stop now.

You forgot “treasonous”.

[Roll Roons]

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.

[Big Abraham]

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

[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..."

[PSOL]

This thread should have been renamed ages ago

[PSOL]

On second thought

Once again, the white wokesters seem to be at odds with the black Democrats who are the core voters of the party and are largely pragmatic, sensible people. As well as the “silent majority” of people in general I think. It SHOULDN’T be so outrageous to say you think people shouldn’t be allowed to irreversibly alter their bodies before they can legally vote, smoke, drink, marry, etc. but here we are.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[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]

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.

[John Dule]

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.

Posting other people's comments in this thread doesn't make you right.

[Hindsight was 2020]

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.

You can disagree with his assessment but I don’t see how what he said qualifies as absurd

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

[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.

This isn’t a thread to repost posts that make you mad and that you disagree with. This is the thread where you post things that are factually very wrong.

[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.

[Donerail]

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.

[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.

[Donerail]

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.

It is possible for her selection to be received positively in August and yet ultimately "do nothing for the ticket with Latino voters" in November. There's no contradiction between those two ideas.

[OSR stands with Israel]

McCain’s numbers surged after he picked Palin , so does that make Palin a good pick

[John Dule]

McCain’s numbers surged after he picked Palin , so does that make Palin a good pick

Lol. VP announcements are really good at generating media coverage and polling bumps-- at least, that is, until the VP opens his/her mouth.

[VAR]

The Asylum’s namesake clearly doesn’t want the thread to be renamed.

Moderate Republican from the Midwest with blue collar AND suburban appeal? Yeah he easily destroys Bernie. The swings among suburbs and college whites Hillary got against Trump don’t happen. Rural and WWC trends continue sharply against the Dems. Minorities, who were never enthusiastic about Bernie, swing away from the Dems and have low turnout. Kasich successfully paints Sanders as a radical socialist; Sanders embraces this image, repeatedly doing things like his infamous 60 Minutes interview doubling down on his Castro praise. The result is electoral disaster, with Kasich winning every state it’s remotely possible for Republicans to win.

[WD]

The Asylum’s namesake clearly doesn’t want the thread to be renamed.

Moderate Republican from the Midwest with blue collar AND suburban appeal? Yeah he easily destroys Bernie. The swings among suburbs and college whites Hillary got against Trump don’t happen. Rural and WWC trends continue sharply against the Dems. Minorities, who were never enthusiastic about Bernie, swing away from the Dems and have low turnout. Kasich successfully paints Sanders as a radical socialist; Sanders embraces this image, repeatedly doing things like his infamous 60 Minutes interview doubling down on his Castro praise. The result is electoral disaster, with Kasich winning every state it’s remotely possible for Republicans to win.

Imagine thinking a Republican would win Virginia or Oregon, lol.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Asylum’s namesake clearly doesn’t want the thread to be renamed.

Moderate Republican from the Midwest with blue collar AND suburban appeal? Yeah he easily destroys Bernie. The swings among suburbs and college whites Hillary got against Trump don’t happen. Rural and WWC trends continue sharply against the Dems. Minorities, who were never enthusiastic about Bernie, swing away from the Dems and have low turnout. Kasich successfully paints Sanders as a radical socialist; Sanders embraces this image, repeatedly doing things like his infamous 60 Minutes interview doubling down on his Castro praise. The result is electoral disaster, with Kasich winning every state it’s remotely possible for Republicans to win.

Imagine thinking a Republican would win Virginia or Oregon, lol.

2016 Virginia was not 2020 Virginia yet , it only voted 3 points more democratic than the nation and that was with Hillary Clinton on top of the ticket , a Virginian as a running mate and someone a bad fit as Trump being the republican nominee .

Kasich would absolutely beat Bernie in Virginia

[Left Wing]

The Asylum’s namesake clearly doesn’t want the thread to be renamed.

Moderate Republican from the Midwest with blue collar AND suburban appeal? Yeah he easily destroys Bernie. The swings among suburbs and college whites Hillary got against Trump don’t happen. Rural and WWC trends continue sharply against the Dems. Minorities, who were never enthusiastic about Bernie, swing away from the Dems and have low turnout. Kasich successfully paints Sanders as a radical socialist; Sanders embraces this image, repeatedly doing things like his infamous 60 Minutes interview doubling down on his Castro praise. The result is electoral disaster, with Kasich winning every state it’s remotely possible for Republicans to win.

Imagine thinking a Republican would win Virginia or Oregon, lol.

2016 Virginia was not 2020 Virginia yet , it only voted 3 points more democratic than the nation and that was with Hillary Clinton on top of the ticket , a Virginian as a running mate and someone a bad fit as Trump being the republican nominee .

Kasich would absolutely beat Bernie in Virginia

Yeah sure maybe, but Oregon voting for Kasich is absurd

[S019]

There are more men in prison than women so that means men are institutionally oppressed.

See thread for context

[AtorBoltox]

It's objectively true that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did-- so unless you have some other metrics for "evil" that I'm unaware of, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that one isn't so much "revisionism" as it is "fact."

In any case, I voted for #1 because it's the excuse used by trad-Christian LARPers who fantasize about the "simpler times" when people died in their 40s and lived under repressive religious brainwashing institutions that halted social and scientific progress for centuries. Oh boy, I sure do miss the days when psychopathic kings used religious dogma to justify their absolute authority and treated their subjects as little more than cattle! Those were the days, man. Who needs electricity anyway?

[John Dule]

It's objectively true that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did-- so unless you have some other metrics for "evil" that I'm unaware of, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that one isn't so much "revisionism" as it is "fact."

In any case, I voted for #1 because it's the excuse used by trad-Christian LARPers who fantasize about the "simpler times" when people died in their 40s and lived under repressive religious brainwashing institutions that halted social and scientific progress for centuries. Oh boy, I sure do miss the days when psychopathic kings used religious dogma to justify their absolute authority and treated their subjects as little more than cattle! Those were the days, man. Who needs electricity anyway?

Engage with me in the thread, you coward.