The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

"Emo" is occasionally used as a derogatory euphemism for "f****t", and given the rest of his post it's pretty obvious what he meant.

[John Dule]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

[Alcibiades]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

[John Dule]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

[John Dule]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

I don't care about the music. This is an unrelated term.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

I don't care about the music. This is an unrelated term.

But whenever I say "emo" I am always referring to the musical style.

[John Dule]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

I don't care about the music. This is an unrelated term.

But whenever I say "emo" I am always referring to the musical style.

Ok, but that's not what he was referring to.

[Ancestral Republican]

Nothing like a multi page argument on the definition of emo between John Dule and BRTD.

[John Dule]

Nothing like a multi page argument on the definition of emo between John Dule and BRTD.

I'm sorry this wasn't up to your intellectual standard of screeching about how everyone in the military is a wife-beating welfare queen.

[Ancestral Republican]

Nothing like a multi page argument on the definition of emo between John Dule and BRTD.

I'm sorry this wasn't up to your intellectual standard of screeching about how everyone in the military is a wife-beating welfare queen.

They're definitely welfare queens to whatever extent, but only some are wife beaters. Those select few graduate to join the ranks of our country's finest law enforcement departments.

[Badger]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

I don't care about the music. This is an unrelated term.

But whenever I say "emo" I am always referring to the musical style.

As usual, you have difficulty with the concept that this isn't all about you.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

I don't care about the music. This is an unrelated term.

But whenever I say "emo" I am always referring to the musical style.

As usual, you have difficulty with the concept that this isn't all about you.

Yes but if you haven't noticed I'm an emo "fundamentalist" of sorts so I don't even let misuse of the term go by.

[John Dule]

Nothing like a multi page argument on the definition of emo between John Dule and BRTD.

I'm sorry this wasn't up to your intellectual standard of screeching about how everyone in the military is a wife-beating welfare queen.

They're definitely welfare queens to whatever extent, but only some are wife beaters. Those select few graduate to join the ranks of our country's finest law enforcement departments.

Don't mince words. Tell us how you really feel.

[Badger]

Morrissey=talentless, whiny, emo freak who couldn't write a decent melody to save his life. "Please don't drop me home, cause it's not my home it's their home and I'm welcome no more..." wah wah wah, STFU.

The good post gallery is that way.

He's referring to Morrissey as "emo". Morrissey started with The Smiths in 1982. Emo did not exist until after 1985's Revolution Summer. Furthermore Revolution Summer was a movement in Washington DC and later spread up and down the East Coast initially but did not reach the UK until the 90s, there was no such thing as "emo" in the UK until about 1992ish, which was quite a bit after the Smiths had broken up and Morrisey's solo stuff had zero influence from it.

It's a really dumb and ignorant post.

He isn't referring to the genre of music. Hard to imagine, I know.

Then what is he referring to?

"Emo" was not even a word in 1982. If you said it people would probably assume you were referring to the comedian Emo Phillips.

First definition on the list.

I’m with BRTD on this one. If you’re referring to a musician as “emo”, you’re probably talking about his genre. Morrissey obviously has nothing to do with emo the genre.

Idk who Morrissey is, but if he's "obviously" not in the emo genre, then why would anyone have said that to begin with? When I hear the word "emo," I don't think of music. I think of a whiny, depressive person who cuts themselves and dyes their hair all manner of hideous colors.

Then you are thinking of something that has nothing to do with emo at all. Like see my 50 greatest emo songs of all time thread and tell me what those have to do with that.

I don't care about the music. This is an unrelated term.

But whenever I say "emo" I am always referring to the musical style.

As usual, you have difficulty with the concept that this isn't all about you.

Yes but if you haven't noticed I'm an emo "fundamentalist" of sorts so I don't even let misuse of the term go by.

You misspelled " annoying attention whore"

[S019]

Today has made me realise just how much more interesting I find British election results than American ones.

US elections are a 50/50 trench war between two national parties that fundamentally agree on most major issues and basically every state and locality is just a rehash of the national partisan divide. In America, all politics is national and people even vote on local elections just to indicate their opinion on the President.

The UK at least has regional v. national dynamics + a multi-party system.

While some of this is accurate, polarization has still not fully taken over local elections, just look at the Republican mayors in cities like Fort Worth, Miami and Arlington (and until recently, San Diego). Also ticket splitting still very much exists in the United States, just look at Southern California, perhaps ground-zero for American ticket splitting. Also saying that the Democrats and Republicans are the same on every issue is a totally absurd position that really shows a massive misunderstanding of American politics. Even during the Clinton neoliberal era that so many people love to cite, the parties were absolutely not the same. Literally the only part of this that is accurate is that the US does not have a multi-party system, and honestly that's for the better, given how we've seen in the UK that FPTP can result in parties winning majorities while only having been voted for by a plurality. Overall, this post fundamentally misunderstands how American politics actually works.

[Roll Roons]

Today has made me realise just how much more interesting I find British election results than American ones.

US elections are a 50/50 trench war between two national parties that fundamentally agree on most major issues and basically every state and locality is just a rehash of the national partisan divide. In America, all politics is national and people even vote on local elections just to indicate their opinion on the President.

The UK at least has regional v. national dynamics + a multi-party system.

While some of this is accurate, polarization has still not fully taken over local elections, just look at the Republican mayors in cities like Fort Worth, Miami and Arlington (and until recently, San Diego). Also ticket splitting still very much exists in the United States, just look at Southern California, perhaps ground-zero for American ticket splitting. Also saying that the Democrats and Republicans are the same on every issue is a totally absurd position that really shows a massive misunderstanding of American politics. Even during the Clinton neoliberal era that so many people love to cite, the parties were absolutely not the same. Literally the only part of this that is accurate is that the US does not have a multi-party system, and honestly that's for the better, given how we've seen in the UK that FPTP can result in parties winning majorities while only having been voted for by a plurality. Overall, this post fundamentally misunderstands how American politics actually works.

That's probably Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine.

[Kamala's side hoe]

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=440253.0
GeneralMacArthur’s comment shows why this forum needs a dislike option

Sorry Yang fanboy, that’s standard political forum stuff. If you can’t handle it then you don’t have to be here. But I think you can, since you do it yourself:

Her campaign was so cringe that she deserves to never be heard from again

Gillibrand’s campaign was much more of a joke than Yang’s campaign ever was. Saying that Yang needs to be treated MORE like a joke when MSM already goes around saying he’s an anti-Asian bigot who also supports hitting women is completely ridiculous and just makes you look like an establishment shill

His campaign slogan was literally MATH, a joke, a gimmick, you name it

Lol this comment itself deserves to be uploaded to this thread, if it wasn’t already here. Let me get this straight, Andrew Yang is a joke of a candidate because he had the audacity to create a slogan that served as a mockery of Trump’s infamous “MAGA”, while also managing to have the acronym of his slogan actually spell out a word? Wouldn’t this suggest that he’s actually a more serious candidate since he put enough thought into his slogan to have its acronym spell out a coherent word while also taking a shot at Trump? MATH is an objectively superior slogan than any other Democrat slogan in the primaries. The rest were so lame and forgettable that I can’t even remember any of them, not even Biden’s.

What did I just read? A parody of MAGA is in no way a serious slogan. Are you really trying to argue that having a satirical, mocking slogan makes him a more serious candidate? Just wow

I don’t even know what MATH stands for, the only reason people paid it any attention is because he was clearly playing off of Asian stereotypes, which I f***ing hate

Make America Think Harder...? I'm really not a fan of the online Yang stans (the ones here are ok), but I don't think Andrew Yang saying things like "the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian guy who likes math" necessarily plays to the stereotype that we're all math nerds (Atlas members notwithstanding). If anything, I would argue that his choice of words challenges that stereotype by treating his race and his liking math as separate and unrelated parts of his identity.

[S019]

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995715076/virginia-gop-chooses-political-newcomer-youngkin-as-nominee-for-governor

This guy is wildly out of touch with the Virginia general electorate.  He's not diverse.  He does not have an appealing background.  He seems unlikable.  This race is Safe D.

Maybe up in Fake Virginia he is... but in the rest of the state, his policies are more in line with public & more helpful and attractive.

Well, but so called "Fake Virginia" makes up a larger share of the population. And that's how elections are won.

Republicans like SirWoodbury don't actually believe in democracy.

Then why do you guys always vote in people that want to subjugate the rest of the state, why do you always have to impose crap that nobody outside of your places want, and always infringe on other people's rights. If you came to Virginia to work that's fine, but why do you guys always have to look down on the state's natives and force your views upon them?

[Geoffrey Howe]

Hartlepool is an absolute tossup as to who will win

Talk about expectations management.

This seat was easily won by Corbyn even in 2019, and when allegations against the Labour candidate were already known IIRC. BXP voters, who couldn't even bring themselves to vote Tory with that party running on a "Get Brexit Done" ticket, are very unlikely to vote Tory now; in this part of the world they are by and large ex-Labour. Add to that government by-election gains being rarer than hen's teeth.

This seat by all rights should be a Labour hold, even if they have troubles at local level. I doubt it would be fatal to Starmer's leadership, but failure to hold Hartlepool when a more toxic leader managed it would seriously undermine his position. You can imagine the crowing from the nuttiest parts of Labour.

Funny.

Not really, it was a fairly reasonable assumption at the time. The irony is that what happened was easy to "predict" if you don't know much about British politics, but quite surprising if you do (at least the size of the margin, but even the result itself). On Vote UK filled with British anoraks and generally centre-right leaning c. 70% of those voting in the poll thought it would be a Labour hold right up to the final day, including most Conservatives. The media narrative was that it would be a Tory win, but given the low quality of both political journalism and constituency polling in the UK that was hard to take entirely seriously.

No, it wasn't. But it's a good example of things be harder to observe the closer you get up to them.

[beesley]

Although, to be honest, a quick poke around Wokingham on Google Maps wouldn't make me guess it was the least-deprived constituency in the whole UK, or even particularly far above the top 25%, so perhaps the rankings mean less than I would have thought.

Can someone explain why the UK is honestly so hideous in terms of housing? The houses look shoddily built, are far too close together, and seem mostly attached to each other. I'm assuming some of this has to be due to the shockingly high number of council estates everywhere, but I've never lived in the UK. Not to mention the embarrassingly low average salaries to the point where $100k seems to be higher than even a doctor's income somehow.

Back to the point at hand, it seems that there is a pretty interesting difference in dynamic at hand here between the US and the UK. The UK has the bottom falling out for Labour akin to the Democrats hemorrhaging support across the Midwest and in White Working Class locales nationwide. Based off the table attached, however, it is clear that Tories somehow still enjoy massive support across the board in the wealthiest constituencies as well while LibDems seem to be second to them as opposed to Labour in certain areas.

It's honestly sort of funny seeing that the Democrats easily made up for their losses with the growing and prosperous suburban areas across the country while Labour could not make such gains, at least at a similar scale. Of the 10 wealthiest places in the country (according to Bloomberg, which doesn't include certain areas in the Northeast properly that also would have voted Biden), every single one except Highland Park, TX voted for Biden, and he even flipped Cherry Hills Village, CO. Something like this doesn't seem possible in the UK at all given the concentration of wealth in Southern England around London, with the wealth outside of this area being rural/exurban rather than properly urban or suburban. You have the odd spots like Cheshire south of Manchester or the Oxbridge areas maybe, but other than that I really can't think of any other wealthy suburban areas in the country, whereas every decently sized US metro has at least one suburban constituency/district.

Tories in the UK seem absolutely dominant in such areas within London somehow even after realignment, which would be like if Republicans consistently held the NJ-7s, IL-6s, and CA-45s of the country as Democrats lost the MI-5s, OH-13s, and IL-17s, but even had places like NY-10 or NY-12 that are considered safely Democrat here but boast several billionaires. It seems that the UK is just too poor compared to the US, less educated, and less diverse, to the point where this sort of suburban educated wealth based shift is not properly possible. That isn't even getting into the massive age gap in voting patterns, which doesn't affect Democrats to the extent it does Labour, who need to paint a better image as the working class party (a lost cause unless they become anti-immigration or go down other unsavory social policy paths, imo) or accelerate trends faster and capture Tory strongholds in the wealthy suburbs/exurbs. They certainly can't afford to lose the Hartlepools of the nation if they go with the former and need to win places like Kensington and even the outer areas like Esher and Walton or Epsom and Ewell for the latter strategy to capture a majority.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Although, to be honest, a quick poke around Wokingham on Google Maps wouldn't make me guess it was the least-deprived constituency in the whole UK, or even particularly far above the top 25%, so perhaps the rankings mean less than I would have thought.

Can someone explain why the UK is honestly so hideous in terms of housing? The houses look shoddily built, are far too close together, and seem mostly attached to each other. I'm assuming some of this has to be due to the shockingly high number of council estates everywhere, but I've never lived in the UK. Not to mention the embarrassingly low average salaries to the point where $100k seems to be higher than even a doctor's income somehow.

Back to the point at hand, it seems that there is a pretty interesting difference in dynamic at hand here between the US and the UK. The UK has the bottom falling out for Labour akin to the Democrats hemorrhaging support across the Midwest and in White Working Class locales nationwide. Based off the table attached, however, it is clear that Tories somehow still enjoy massive support across the board in the wealthiest constituencies as well while LibDems seem to be second to them as opposed to Labour in certain areas.

It's honestly sort of funny seeing that the Democrats easily made up for their losses with the growing and prosperous suburban areas across the country while Labour could not make such gains, at least at a similar scale. Of the 10 wealthiest places in the country (according to Bloomberg, which doesn't include certain areas in the Northeast properly that also would have voted Biden), every single one except Highland Park, TX voted for Biden, and he even flipped Cherry Hills Village, CO. Something like this doesn't seem possible in the UK at all given the concentration of wealth in Southern England around London, with the wealth outside of this area being rural/exurban rather than properly urban or suburban. You have the odd spots like Cheshire south of Manchester or the Oxbridge areas maybe, but other than that I really can't think of any other wealthy suburban areas in the country, whereas every decently sized US metro has at least one suburban constituency/district.

Tories in the UK seem absolutely dominant in such areas within London somehow even after realignment, which would be like if Republicans consistently held the NJ-7s, IL-6s, and CA-45s of the country as Democrats lost the MI-5s, OH-13s, and IL-17s, but even had places like NY-10 or NY-12 that are considered safely Democrat here but boast several billionaires. It seems that the UK is just too poor compared to the US, less educated, and less diverse, to the point where this sort of suburban educated wealth based shift is not properly possible. That isn't even getting into the massive age gap in voting patterns, which doesn't affect Democrats to the extent it does Labour, who need to paint a better image as the working class party (a lost cause unless they become anti-immigration or go down other unsavory social policy paths, imo) or accelerate trends faster and capture Tory strongholds in the wealthy suburbs/exurbs. They certainly can't afford to lose the Hartlepools of the nation if they go with the former and need to win places like Kensington and even the outer areas like Esher and Walton or Epsom and Ewell for the latter strategy to capture a majority.

This one is just extraordinary. I wonder whether any British posters have ever come up with something comparable for America.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Whoo-hoo!!

Hooray for racism!

Most Mississippians aren't racist anymore.

[Left Wing]

Silly quote

So why exactly do you think North and South Dakota deserve to be their own state? Or why do  Vermont and NH deserve to be their own state? Don’t you think the vast population gaps between states is a bit ridiculous? It would be much healthier for our democracy if there was a minimum and maximum population per state, so that way these states that are so tiny that their Senators outnumber their representatives get a less disproportionate representation in the Senate, and by imposing a population cap, huge states like California and Texas can get more Senators by breaking up into smaller states. I’d say that every state should ideally have somewhere around 5 million residents. This would be a lot better than the system we had where only a few ten thousand people need to be living somewhere, and then a completely arbitrary border is drawn that locks in two Senators for this patch of dirt regardless of their population in the future

States don't need to prove they deserve to exist for political purposes.

Then for what purpose do they exist? The creation of a state is entirely political

[VBM]

Silly quote

So why exactly do you think North and South Dakota deserve to be their own state? Or why do  Vermont and NH deserve to be their own state? Don’t you think the vast population gaps between states is a bit ridiculous? It would be much healthier for our democracy if there was a minimum and maximum population per state, so that way these states that are so tiny that their Senators outnumber their representatives get a less disproportionate representation in the Senate, and by imposing a population cap, huge states like California and Texas can get more Senators by breaking up into smaller states. I’d say that every state should ideally have somewhere around 5 million residents. This would be a lot better than the system we had where only a few ten thousand people need to be living somewhere, and then a completely arbitrary border is drawn that locks in two Senators for this patch of dirt regardless of their population in the future

States don't need to prove they deserve to exist for political purposes.

Then for what purpose do they exist? The creation of a state is entirely political

Umm this is literally a fact dude...

The literal definition of “political” is “relating to the government or the public affairs of a country,” which creating a state does in fact do. Like seriously, name one state that was NOT created for political reasons