The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[VBM]

I am thinking that Donald Trump will win a clear majority in 2024 with a decent mandate, so this question is moot IMO. Assuming that Donald Trump instead ends up losing and that the 2024 map looks the same with the exception of North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, and New Mexico and that he is unsuccessful in purging any elected officials opposed to his election rigging efforts, I would assume that the following Senators would object to the electoral college vote:

Josh Hawley
Ted Cruz
Tommy Tuberville
Roger Marshall
Rick Scott
John Kennedy
Cindy Hyde-Smith
Cynthia Lummis
Ron Johnson
Marsha Blackburn
Bill Haggerty
Mike Braun
Steve Daines
Lindsey Graham
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
Chuck Grassley
Chris Sununu*
Adam Laxalt*
Herschel Walker*
Eric Grietens*
JD Vance*
Sean Parnell*
Mo Brooks*
Ted Budd*
Tulsi Gabbard**
Jim Jordan***
Carol Miller***
Scott Fitzgerald***
Dan Rodimer***
Elisa Martinez***
Matt Rosendale***

*elected to the Senate in 2022
**elected to the Senate in 2022 as a Trump-aligned Independent
***elected to the Senate in 2024

Probably the Senators I am least sure about are John Barrasso, Mike Lee, and Mark Brnovich. I am leaning towards Mike Lee voting against the objections, John Barrasso voting in favor of the objections (due to his comments regarding the proposed For The People Act a few months ago), and Mark Brnovich going either way. I assume that Josh Hawley, Adam Laxalt, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jim Jordan would be the strongest supporters of the objections in this scenario.

I don’t know what’s funnier, the idea that Tulsi Gabbard would overturn the election for Trump, or the idea that Tulsi Gabbard would presumably replace one of Hawaii’s Senators  in 2022

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm wondering if he's hoping to get chosen as Kamala Harris' VP in 2024 or 2028 and trying to prevent himself from facing a loss.

He wouldn't be a horrible choice for her.

Kind is probably too white for the Democratic base...

Harris almost has to have a white man as her VP though, her being at the top of the ticket is enough of a statement so they'll be looking for someone that feels safe and reassures swing voters. Also, not sure what 'too white' is supposed to mean.

Joe Biden will be last White Man nominated by the Democratic Party for President or Vice President. The base is going demand exclusively female and minority nominees going forward, and I encourage them to insist on such.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Australia and Hawaii and US are all the greatest countries if I was rich I would take Family to Hawaii or Australia


Western Europe speaks English and so does Australia, Canada and Jamaica due to fact Anglican Church, or the Church of England were once Catholic Church, but Henry VIII wanted a divorce, Henry's cane to throne it because Richard II was gay and didn't have children, but Here's weren't in line for throne


Eastern Europe doesn't speak much English or Russia due to Lutheran Eastern Orthodox and much of Latin America speaks Portuguese or Spanish except for Puerto Rico

You dare disgrace this thread with Olawakandi?!

Yeah, I suppose that it’s sorta cheating to use an olawakandi post

TBF, that’s extremely dumb even by his standards

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Obviously Sinema is not needed for Democrats to hold this seat if the environment is favorable enough for them, but Sinema losing to a progressive challenger would be an absolute gift to the GOP. I don’t think it will happen, though (AZ Democrats may not like Sinema, but they like Mitch McConnell even less).

Race would be Likely D with Sinema and Toss-up with Gallego/most non-Sinema Democrats.

[Hammy]

I really hope that Medicare is expanded at least.

No offense, but I could care less about rewarding this current generation of seniors for their own despicable decisions. Climate change needs to be the priority, not comforting the comfortable, and telling the rest of us to go f**k ourselves. White Boomers don't deserve any sympathy, or any more entitlements. We can do without the Medicare provisions, but climate change is non-negotiable.

[VBM]

OK so I gave into the hype and watched one episode. And it… sucks? Like it’s the same exact premise that’s been done over and over again, except unintentionally(?) hilarious due to campy nonsense like the Playstation button bad guys and the childish “games” they are playing. It’s like some bizarre mash-up of The Hunger Games, Parasite, Saw, and some anime s—t. Also the acting is hilariously bad and the whole thing is just too over the top to take seriously.

I have no idea why this is so popular. Not original, not unique, not clever, not particularly well-made. Not even that exciting, so far at least; I was just bored most of the way through the first episode.

Well, I guess I can add this to a long and growing list of things that get insanely hyped up and which just don’t do it for me at all. Game of Thrones being the most notable example before this; I f—king hated that show and felt VERY redeemed when everyone else finally hated it at the end and pretended they never watched it, as if they hadn’t spent years badgering me to watch it.

Putting this here because he seemingly criticizes it for having “anime s—t”, which is just straight up incorrect. Being East Asian doesn’t mean that it can be described as anime-esque, especially when it’s not even from the right country. Also just a generally bad take about Squid Game imo, but that part’s subjective.

South Korea's Digital Auschwitz.

Not recommended for people under 18, yet 90% of people watching it will be under 18.

It would make sense I guess if the primary appeal of this is to Fortnite obsessed teenagers who think it is cutting edge because they’ve never seen any of the dozens of other movies or shows it is ripping off. Despite the gore and violence, the show seems very juvenile to me. And let’s be honest, most kids these days are desensitized very early; they have access to hardcore internet porn and snuff films in their pockets 24/7, this is nothing for them.

Also adding this post

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

I fully endorse firebombing Australia and New Zealand and putting their pro-lockdown leaders at trial in the Hague.

[GoTfan]

OK so I gave into the hype and watched one episode. And it… sucks? Like it’s the same exact premise that’s been done over and over again, except unintentionally(?) hilarious due to campy nonsense like the Playstation button bad guys and the childish “games” they are playing. It’s like some bizarre mash-up of The Hunger Games, Parasite, Saw, and some anime s—t. Also the acting is hilariously bad and the whole thing is just too over the top to take seriously.

I have no idea why this is so popular. Not original, not unique, not clever, not particularly well-made. Not even that exciting, so far at least; I was just bored most of the way through the first episode.

Well, I guess I can add this to a long and growing list of things that get insanely hyped up and which just don’t do it for me at all. Game of Thrones being the most notable example before this; I f—king hated that show and felt VERY redeemed when everyone else finally hated it at the end and pretended they never watched it, as if they hadn’t spent years badgering me to watch it.

Putting this here because he seemingly criticizes it for having “anime s—t”, which is just straight up incorrect. Being East Asian doesn’t mean that it can be described as anime-esque, especially when it’s not even from the right country. Also just a generally bad take about Squid Game imo, but that part’s subjective.

South Korea's Digital Auschwitz.

Not recommended for people under 18, yet 90% of people watching it will be under 18.

It would make sense I guess if the primary appeal of this is to Fortnite obsessed teenagers who think it is cutting edge because they’ve never seen any of the dozens of other movies or shows it is ripping off. Despite the gore and violence, the show seems very juvenile to me. And let’s be honest, most kids these days are desensitized very early; they have access to hardcore internet porn and snuff films in their pockets 24/7, this is nothing for them.

Also adding this post

Alben's one step away from standing on the front lawn with a cane shouting "You dern kids get off mah property!"

[NOVA Green]

I fully endorse firebombing Australia and New Zealand and putting their pro-lockdown leaders at trial in the Hague.

This would def fall into the absurd category.

When I first read this earlier today, I assumed it was a deliberate attempt of "being funny" or satire vs actually supporting this position, and still assume this was the intent of Tar Heel Gent.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Manchin and Sinema are NOT "corporate Democrats".

They are conservative Democrats representing constituents from red states.  

"Corporate Democrats" are the Bubba-Obama-Clinton intelligentsia and overwhelmingly support the Biden agenda as is.

They are not the same.

Yep, Joe Manchin is just standing with the good simple folk of West Virginee to *checks notes* severely cut child tax credits.

And how could Sinema ever face her constituents again if she didn’t protect the sacred right of price gouging medicine?

[Meclazine for Israel]

I'm just a dummy stating simple facts.   It's up to you smart people to deconstruct.  

What if I am dumber than you?

[GeorgiaModerate]

I'm just a dummy stating simple facts.   It's up to you smart people to deconstruct.  

What if I am dumber than you?

Dumb and Dumber, the Atlas version?

[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.

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

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.

Would the old le vieux Maréchal had supported BLM and Antifa?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The biggest absurd is that we can't win MO, which is now in play Sifton or Kunce and OH and FL are permanently Red states and Manchin, Tester and Brown and Ryan can't win

Beasley and Demings are too liberal remind voters of Harris without Andy Beshear or Jared Polis ad running mates, and DeSantis is more popular than DeWine, I now have DeWine and Mandel losing due to Sherrod Brown, he is the best D we have, and so will Nan W and Tim Ryan and Kunce or Sifton whom have Kander and Buttigieg appeal

We don't like in a 2016/ Environment we won these states in 92/96/08/12 and it's promoted by D's

I do feel the pinched of a Recession, but  we won FL, OH in the Great Recession in 2008 these are wave insurance seats not tipping pt states folks

Biden is below ,50% but we lead on GCB 44/37% that's only in Prez ratingd that in order for aprez to win, we must be above 50%,

Rs are running scared and Blks and Latinos are gonna vote for Rs because Trump is a QANON SUPPORTER, NO ONE KNEW THAT MUCH ABOUT PROUD BOYS WHO ARE FMR KKK THAT KILLED Kennedy IN 60S

IF KENNEDYS SURVIVED WE WOULD HAVE WON Cali which we lost to Nixon by half a point in 64/68/80😎😎😎cement a Liberal majority and if Ryan wins and Nan W we cement a Liberal majority this time with DC Statehood

John Kennedy didn't need TX he would have won Cali against Goldwater not Nixon

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Literally 1985

Can't be.  The word "transgender" didn't exist in 1985.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

Literally 1985

Can't be.  The word "transgender" didn't exist in 1985.

oh bite me, i've been a member of this forum for so long and never before have I been attacked.  When I came out as trans on here, it became Open Season on me... I've thought about leaving this place so many times. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Literally 1985

Can't be.  The word "transgender" didn't exist in 1985.

oh bite me, i've been a member of this forum for so long and never before have I been attacked.  When I came out as trans on here, it became Open Season on me... I've thought about leaving this place so many times. 

I didn't even know you were trans. Does not change the fact that the word "transgender" was very much in use well before 1985, even if it was not the most commonly used term at the time. Like for example here's a documentary film actually made in 1985 that uses the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Sex_Am_I%3F

[Thank you for being a friend...]

Literally 1985

Can't be.  The word "transgender" didn't exist in 1985.

oh bite me, i've been a member of this forum for so long and never before have I been attacked.  When I came out as trans on here, it became Open Season on me... I've thought about leaving this place so many times. 

I didn't even know you were trans. Does not change the fact that the word "transgender" was very much in use well before 1985, even if it was not the most commonly used term at the time. Like for example here's a documentary film actually made in 1985 that uses the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Sex_Am_I%3F

I found out about "trans" in 2003, but I was also only in mid-teens at the time, and I would have not heard it before.  I didn't even hear the word "transsexual" - maybe I saw it on a Jerry Springer show or something but I didn't really process it in my head what that meant... so yes I do feel the word was spoken before but I mean in context of it being used so commonly by the Politicians and in our national media stories...
I would say that the late 2000s (2007-2008-2009) was really just the beginning of the modern day trans movement as it seems like now... and back then it was all of these human interest stories on CNN and talk shows and the documentaries in particular on channels like Discovery Health.  It was not a political issue at all because Gay Marriage was taking up all the room in the LGBTQ world.  After Obergefell, it seemed the trans issues came to the forefront.

sorry to lash out at you - i don't mean to attack anyone - i just feel that sometimes this forum gets nasty and I don't want to wind up attacking anyone or making anyone feel badly because the Forum can be a positive place but I guess I too sometimes am too sarcastic or use humor that might offend people, so  i do apologize

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Literally 1985

Can't be.  The word "transgender" didn't exist in 1985.

oh bite me, i've been a member of this forum for so long and never before have I been attacked.  When I came out as trans on here, it became Open Season on me... I've thought about leaving this place so many times. 

I didn't even know you were trans. Does not change the fact that the word "transgender" was very much in use well before 1985, even if it was not the most commonly used term at the time. Like for example here's a documentary film actually made in 1985 that uses the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Sex_Am_I%3F

I found out about "trans" in 2003, but I was also only in mid-teens at the time, and I would have not heard it before.  I didn't even hear the word "transsexual" - maybe I saw it on a Jerry Springer show or something but I didn't really process it in my head what that meant... so yes I do feel the word was spoken before but I mean in context of it being used so commonly by the Politicians and in our national media stories...
I would say that the late 2000s (2007-2008-2009) was really just the beginning of the modern day trans movement as it seems like now... and back then it was all of these human interest stories on CNN and talk shows and the documentaries in particular on channels like Discovery Health.  It was not a political issue at all because Gay Marriage was taking up all the room in the LGBTQ world.  After Obergefell, it seemed the trans issues came to the forefront.

sorry to lash out at you - i don't mean to attack anyone - i just feel that sometimes this forum gets nasty and I don't want to wind up attacking anyone or making anyone feel badly because the Forum can be a positive place but I guess I too sometimes am too sarcastic or use humor that might offend people, so  i do apologize

You never watched The Rocky Horror Picture Show?

[Thank you for being a friend...]

Literally 1985

Can't be.  The word "transgender" didn't exist in 1985.

oh bite me, i've been a member of this forum for so long and never before have I been attacked.  When I came out as trans on here, it became Open Season on me... I've thought about leaving this place so many times. 

I didn't even know you were trans. Does not change the fact that the word "transgender" was very much in use well before 1985, even if it was not the most commonly used term at the time. Like for example here's a documentary film actually made in 1985 that uses the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Sex_Am_I%3F

I found out about "trans" in 2003, but I was also only in mid-teens at the time, and I would have not heard it before.  I didn't even hear the word "transsexual" - maybe I saw it on a Jerry Springer show or something but I didn't really process it in my head what that meant... so yes I do feel the word was spoken before but I mean in context of it being used so commonly by the Politicians and in our national media stories...
I would say that the late 2000s (2007-2008-2009) was really just the beginning of the modern day trans movement as it seems like now... and back then it was all of these human interest stories on CNN and talk shows and the documentaries in particular on channels like Discovery Health.  It was not a political issue at all because Gay Marriage was taking up all the room in the LGBTQ world.  After Obergefell, it seemed the trans issues came to the forefront.

sorry to lash out at you - i don't mean to attack anyone - i just feel that sometimes this forum gets nasty and I don't want to wind up attacking anyone or making anyone feel badly because the Forum can be a positive place but I guess I too sometimes am too sarcastic or use humor that might offend people, so  i do apologize

You never watched The Rocky Horror Picture Show?

lol no not until last year of college   omg tim curry in that outfit, that's  a classic 4 sure

[S019]

Do you ever exaggerate your level of support for Trump for effect on Atlas or is it an accurate reflection of the degree/vehemence with which you support him?  Semi-relatedly, do his more authoritarian actions ever give you any pause, setting aside your opinion of Democratic politicians/policies?

The second question first:  I don't view Trump as authoritarian.  We have authoritarianism now, imposed on us by the Politburo of Vichy America, with our own Marshal Petain as a Front Man.  Yes, this is an exaggeration, but not as much as it ought to be.  Trump, ironically, was a bulwark against the kind of authoritarianism we have now; his blustery side and the fact that he is, indeed, a blowhard at times, masks the fact that Trump did not govern by Executive Orders and Edicts anywhere near the degree to which our present President does.  (Once people get over their Trump Fever and are able to see him in a more rational light, this fact will stand out.)

The first question is a question I could go on at lengths about.  What I will say is this:  I vehemently support Trump because he vehemently opposes the forces of Wokeness in America.  I consider Wokeness to be a scourge on the Republic and an affront to what you and I would consider to be liberal principles.  

The lawful citizen over the illegal alien.  Free Speech vs Punishing Thoughtcrime.  Equal application of law vs. non-prosecution of BLM/Antifa and violations of the 8th Amendment for J6ers.  Support for Israel vs. Jew Hating disguised as "anti-Zionism".  Merit-based equality vs. group-identity based equity.  Constitutional Liberties vs. the Tyrrany of the Majority (however narrow).  These are just some of the dichotomies I could use to illustrate the divide between what I view as good and right and what I view as an evil and corroding thread that would dissolve the Nation we know and reform it into a Leftist Dystopia I (and, hopefully, yourself) would never choose to live in, but might be stuck with.

These are the choices right now.  They are clear and stark. On all of those, Trump is on the right side.  On all of those, Joe Biden and the present group of Democrats are on the side of New Dystopia.

If the choice is Trump or the Democrats, I will stand with Trump.  I will select Trump in the ballot box.  I will advocate him when I engage in political discussions.  I will do so because I wish to stop the onslaught of Wokeness that will result in the loss of individual liberty and the imposition of the kind of group identity-based politics that is the stuff of failed states.  It's a time for choosing, and in my mind, the choice on who is right and who is wrong on these issues is clear.  I didn't see the World in such dichotomous terms in 2016 and I would like to see a day when I don't see it in these terms because my actual issue positions are not the standard set of either party.  

I hope this makes some sense.  I don't support Trump blindly.  He's not my God (no matter what John Dule may say in his anti-religious ignorance) and I'm not sure how I feel about 2024 because I want the IDEAS of Trump (as opposed to the ideas that are operative in government right now) to be advanced (if I have to choose between 2 sets of ideas).  But I am watching my Country go mad, and it's going mad from the Left.  There is nothing "liberal" about our present government, but there is a lot that is authoritarian, and that's being kind.

I know Fuzzy is low hanging fruit, but still

Another one as a bonus:

Why did you make the claim that “The January 6th commission is unconstitutional”? What did you mean by this, and do you have a legal argument to back that up?

It is not the function either House of Congress to enforce the law.  That function is given to the President and done through the DOJ, under our Constitution.

Congress can investigate through its committees, but such an investigation is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry relevant to specific pending legislation.  This committee, on its face, is not putting forth any specific legislation.  It is a purely political exercise, as evidenced by the Speaker taking the unusual step of vetoing the Republicans' choices for the committee.  It's existence not only not tied to any specific legislative purpose, its existence and the way it is conducted jeopardizes the rights of a number of J6 defendants to a fair trial.

Now I'll be honest:  You don't care about the Constitutionality of this committee and its functioning.  You want it because it's a Kangaroo Court that will "officially" endorse a narrative that, in many instatnces, will be in conflict with facts.  This is all about narrative; it's not about legitimate fact-finding.  Legitimate fact-finding is supposed to be the function of an unbiased DOJ.

I notice that no one here makes arguments as to why it IS Constitutional.  I suppose there are arguments to that effect, but no one makes them.  It's like the idea that the Hunter Biden story was "debunked" in 2020.  Debunked by who?  The MSM?  That's an assertion.  It's not a fact, not by a longshot.

[PSOL]

Cutting off unemployment benefits does increase the amount of money available to unemployed people in the future who will actually need the money, unlike unemployed people currently.

[Xing]

The inmates control the asylum now when it comes to human interaction. It wouldn't surprise me if a good few of the red avatars in this thread would call a simple and innocent email to a student from a teacher a "threatening abuse of power dynamics" or whatever words they use.

Apparently, teachers drinking and/or getting drunk with underage students is as inoffensive as sending an email, and anyone who disagrees belongs in an asylum.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

But Pbower2A told us that Biden had a 61 percent approvals rating and Carville said Covid if you get everyone vaccinated by July it would be over

The Economy grew at 2 not 6.7 percent, and if you get a job that's not White collar you can get 4 hrs and be sent home so Employers don't have to give you vacation or sick time and we're in Pandemic

Pence said that if we wore mask Covid would be over in May, Kudkow said we contained this

Lol it's a 278 map and if you donate yo Senate wave insurance candidates it would be a waste of money unless Biden stays above 50 it's gonna be a neutral cycle

I have said it's gonna be a wave but I am not a Moderator and have my own Approvals like Pbower2A

Even if there is a wave we still not gonna fix the problem Section 8 vouchers for immigrants die to Dreamers and many kids and income inequality, Latinos have other races have more wealth than blks not because of White collar jobs like Whites, they have Restaurants.  We need a Federal Jobs guarantee, if you apply for one your name is stuck in a computer until you are called

That's why 77 percent of homeless population are blk and Latino men and 90 percent with single minority moms