The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who care? This is straight ignorance of LGBT culture at best and homophobic at worst. I'm getting real sick of the puritanical socon BS coming from liberals lately. I guess this is what happens when you swallow the suburbs!

What many straights (and apparently some teenage gay Atlas virgins/incels) don't seem to get that when there is literally less than 5% of the selection available to gay men that is available to heterosexual/bisexual men & women, there's going to be a naturally higher tolerance for age differences in relationships and sex (or else many would just end up being celibate; we're not all attracted to each other, you know).

A guy in his late 20s bangs some guys in their early 20s: that's a Wednesday night in Gay America. An insane number of gay relationships have a decade or more of difference in them. The overwhelming share of my own partners have been a few years older than I (a trend that has stuck from the time I was a teenager until now, despite it being unintentional on my own part), but it's just how things work out; these are my preferences. It doesn't make my relationships "inappropriate", it doesn't make me a "victim" and I highly doubt any of his partners could be considered such, either.


Furthermore and with regard to "muh power structures and student/teachers":

1) When did these events happen? I'm doubting they happened this year.

2) Are these "students" actually his students or just happened to be on the same campus that he taught at (along with 28,000 other "students" at UMass Amherst)? I imagine had he had sex with college students from a university halfway across the country, the headlines would be the same ("'teacher' banging 'students'!").

3) How long has he been a teacher on-campus? As far as we know, he was 25 and banging 21 year-olds before he was even a teacher there. This is a guy who got elected Mayor when he was 22 years old: I'm sure even had it not been students, some of the usual suspects would've been telling him back then that having intimate relationships with people of his own age and gender would have been "inappropriate" for somebody "of his position".

Nobody can claim "POWER STRUCTURE" nonsense if the "students" weren't students of his - and even then and from the sound of it, this was a voluntary, consensual, mutual matching of individuals that was initiated off-campus/on a dating app. If he was banging children or coercing his own students in-person without mutual interest expressed prior, then it's "inappropriate". Otherwise, it's just relying upon most people's ignorance by using buzzwords to paint a portrait largely rooted in the female-centric objectified sexual victim mentality, to which gay men obviously aren't bound.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm dubious when I hear someone has been shot in the back seven (7) times.  So I'll suspend judgement.  That doesn't sound good on its face.  However, in the face of Keith Ellison deliberately withholding release of critical information (that George Floyd's "I can't breathe!" was due to a massive drug overdose) that would (and still may) exonerate at least some of the Police Officers in Minneapolis and almost certainly bring about a reduction in charges, I'm going to remain skeptical that Wisconsin officials are being honest about this.  

I note that Blake's Felony Sexual Assault charge has been dismissed.  I would like to know if the victim recanted, and if she recanted under pressure or coercion.  The offense was classified as a Domestic Violence offense, and victims often are coerced into dropping charges, or become unwilling to testify against perpetrators for other reasons.  

Jacob Blake's shooting may, or may not, have been justified.  But he's got his track record.  This forum has branded far less malevolent persons as scumbags, so I'll unequivocally say that Jacob Blake was not a decent man and was not a law-abiding citizen.  Merely being a scumbag does not rate the death penalty.  But it insults my intelligence for anyone to portray Jacob Blake as a decent man or a "Civil Rights Martyr".  Two (2) years ago, he'd be in the midst of being pilloried by #MeToo.

The people rioting in Kenosha should be in jail facing criminal charges.  Every last one.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No because it's obviously a false story by someone who's very bitter and badly wants Trump gone. This is the same crap they did with Warren and CNN coordinated smear against Sanders. Anonymous sources, no credibility - journalism is a joke in 2020.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Ok so by this logic, Tillis supported Democrats winning the Senate in 2016 and 2018 to be a check on Trump and would support Democrats winning the Senate in 2020 if Trump is re-elected?  Cunningham should ask him this and get him on the record to expose whether he is a hypocrite or not.

No.  Because radical Democrat presidents deserve a check on their power while Republicans ones do not.  Democrats believe this too, just in the opposite partisan direction.  It’s not hypocritical.   

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Many Democrats are agitating against this amendment, because it will block them from implementing a Dem gerrymander. I can understand the sentiment.

"Turnabout is fair play, and it's not like the GOP is going to stop gerrymandering Texas and other states they can control. This sort of unilateral disarmament would be foolish."

But they're not making that sensible political argument, they're making the absurd case that voting for the amendment would just make gerrymandering worse. They're saying the Republicans on the commission would just sabotage the map drawing, and allow the state supreme court to draw the map. Because so many of the justices were appointed by the Republican legislature, they would just draw another Republican gerrymander.

Personally, this argument does not hold water for me. Even in these partisan times we live in, the appointed justices are going to behave like legal professionals, not politicians in robes. Especially since so many of them were non-controversial appointees who got near-unanimous support from the legislature.

You can't predict these things scientifically, but I think most voters will see the sensible-sounding language and vote yes. I certainly hope so, so we can be done with these awful district lines.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is the best they could do? Lean D!

So... can we put aside the this attitude that because the pollster has a (R) they must have an R bias? There's been many instances where even Trafalgar underestimated Trump and Republicans. Susquehanna was never really a partisan pollster to begin with, they just got sick and tired of the election mafia, Nate Silver's and Dave Wasserman's of the world propping up ridiculous Dem-biased polls, so they called them out and joined ranks with R superpacs.

Put this here because of the post's implication that Trafalger is anything other than a junk polling firm run by a random Republican hack.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This is the best they could do? Lean D!

So... can we put aside the this attitude that because the pollster has a (R) they must have an R bias? There's been many instances where even Trafalgar underestimated Trump and Republicans. Susquehanna was never really a partisan pollster to begin with, they just got sick and tired of the election mafia, Nate Silver's and Dave Wasserman's of the world propping up ridiculous Dem-biased polls, so they called them out and joined ranks with R superpacs.

Put this here because of the post's implication that Trafalger is anything other than a junk polling firm run by a random Republican hack.

Even after 2020 proved that Trafalgar is more accurate than the polls you trusted all year, you still assume is a junk poll that just got lucky, all because you don't like the person running it or the results it gives. Struck lightning twice? Beyond ridiculous. Cahaly is biased, but you can't argue with poll results. It's okay, I'll be posting a thread soon showing the full records of all the pollsters this year. Trafalgar held up very well compared to Nate Silver's and this forum's favorite pollsters, even if they have a Republican lean which I think people should note.

You should look at Trafalgar’s final map.  It’s nothing to be proud of; lightening *didn’t* strike twice.  That’s kinda my point  Also, setting aside the fact that Nate Silver is not a pollster and never claimed to be, I never said other pollsters didn’t screw up too.  I merely say Trafalger has an awful methodology and is a junk firm run by a Republican hack.  It’s a different problem than say, Qunnipac.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Katie Hill and Al Franken should have never resigned just to appeal to the hypocritical republicans of America.
At least the radical Trumpists are honest about being morally bankrupt.
The moderate blue avatar outrage on here is like moderate GOPer morals, neither exist.

Honestly at this rate I would support a Democrat with my policy views no matter what they did, it’s clear the Republicans are the same as a party.

Katie Hill was f***ing a subordinate and Franken was a sex predator who sexually assaulted numerous women.  You’re just as much of an amoral hypocrite as any Republican if you defend scum like Franken just b/c he was a Democrat.  If this post is anything to go by, you don’t care about the survivors of sexual assault; you just care about whether or not you can use them as props to dunk on politicians you disagree with.

Hey, I’m just playing the rules the GOP set, don’t blame me just because your own side is so horrid.

If you call yourself a Republican, everything you say about me applies to you as well. Sure I suck, now take a good long, shameful look in the mirror before you go on some moralistic tirade.

Yeah Katie Hill had s** with a subordinate and Al Franken has been found to be...well you know. Now look at your side...or don’t if you want to retain a tiny bit of faith in humanity. I don’t understand why you think Democrats should care if the GOP doesn’t when it’s not politically convenient.

“Oh how dare Forumlurker play by our standards?! He and the other Democrats are supposed to be spineless and take the high road while we excuse literal neo-Nazis, Alabama mall creeps, and domestic terrorists!”

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Considering Pennsylvania hasn't had a black statewide politican of prominence in a long time (if ever? besides like Auditor General or something), this would be huge For Kenyatta. That could work in his favor.

Don't get the hype about Cartwright. Yeah, he did great in his district, but that's more reason for him to STAY there, b/c we'd lose that seat then if he'd lose. And I don't see Cartwright performing any different than someone like Lamb statewide. People may hate Lamb here for some reason, but PA is still very much a tossup, so I think he'd be an Ossoff-type statewide candidate (and I mean that in a good way)

I'm still not convinced Lamb will jump in though. Would make sense for him to wait for Attorney General, no?

I'm gonna be honest, I'd rather lose with Fetterman, Cartwright, or Kenyatta than win with Lamb. I cannot handle another Sinema sabotaging the Democratic agenda at every opportunity for "bipartisanship" points back home.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Considering Pennsylvania hasn't had a black statewide politican of prominence in a long time (if ever? besides like Auditor General or something), this would be huge For Kenyatta. That could work in his favor.

Don't get the hype about Cartwright. Yeah, he did great in his district, but that's more reason for him to STAY there, b/c we'd lose that seat then if he'd lose. And I don't see Cartwright performing any different than someone like Lamb statewide. People may hate Lamb here for some reason, but PA is still very much a tossup, so I think he'd be an Ossoff-type statewide candidate (and I mean that in a good way)

I'm still not convinced Lamb will jump in though. Would make sense for him to wait for Attorney General, no?

I'm gonna be honest, I'd rather lose with Fetterman, Cartwright, or Kenyatta than win with Lamb. I cannot handle another Sinema sabotaging the Democratic agenda at every opportunity for "bipartisanship" points back home.

Wrong thread, and the mods already did this to NE-02, NC, and PA in 2010 anyway.

PA and NC in 2010?  What are you even talking about?  Also, we lost NE-2 (twice) b/c Kara Eastman was a terrible candidate, not b/c anyone gives a **** what Brad Ashford thinks

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Wow, Republicans sure are becoming the party of the working class

People do realize one of the main functions of school in society is such that working parents are able to work?  If teachers go on strike the parents can often struggle.

The GOP still does a lot of other #elitist sh**t but this isn't one of them.  Not all working people are in a union.

IMO It shouldn't be "illegal" exactly as in the teachers could be locked up for it but I wouldn't mind the state refusing to recognize public unions.  Although as far as I understand usually there aren't any legal penalties and it just makes it even easier to fire striking teachers.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Whether or not Gulf Coastal elitist was hatched from a spawn of Cobra eggs is a factual question. But either he was or if he wasn't. There's no direct evidence for or against this Theory, but facts by themselves something something something politically inconvenient something.

Am I doing this right?

Last post was deleted by fascist mods (hi jdb! luv u) so I'll play nice for a bit: do you sincerely believe, as you're suggesting, that this is equally as realistic a scenario as someone in a laboratory messing up? That it's completely beyond the realm of reality to believe that someone dropped a vial, someone labeled something wrong, someone put their mask on without sealing it properly? Why do you think it's so implausible that an accident happened here?

I’m not even a mod on this board  That said, if you don’t want your posts deleted, then don’t make personal attacks, especially ones that blatantly OTT.  You seem to hate my guts for reasons that remain a mystery to me and that’s fine, but you still have to follow TOS just like everyone else.  

I’m very much not looking to get in a pissing match over this, but since you mentioned me by name in your post; I felt like at least some sort of response was warranted.  However, I’m happy to leave it at that.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Whoo-hoo!!

Hooray for racism!

Most Mississippians aren't racist anymore.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

We're all for second chances. We just don't think people who are attracted to first graders deserve one.

You know, like normal people.

It's funny that we finally find a position where I'm more left than you.  I've always felt that the sex offender registry should be eliminated. Why are you still punished for your crime after leaving prison?  If you've completed your sentence, you've completed your sentence.  If the government doesn't feel you're ready to safely re-enter society, you shouldn't be in that society.  Let's get rid of this grey zone, especially when it's basically a scarlet letter for life that makes it difficult to find employment or build a social network, greatly increasing the chance that you rescind.

I feel this way about all crimes -- make criminal records private, give ex-felons full civil rights, get rid of the criminal history form on employment applications -- but the sex offender one is a particularly strange case because it only exists for one subset of crimes.  If you killed fifty people, you get out of prison and are considered rehabilitated, but if you raped a 17 year old decades ago, you still have to walk around the neighborhood and tell everyone the day you move in.

Anyway, this isn't the Individual Politics board.  I just think it's pretty desperate and disgusting to try and attack Shontel because she let this guy get involved in community event organizing 15 years after he completed his sentence.

Bolded for emphasis

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

He'd beat her handily. Luckily for her, he will also for sure be re-elected in 2022.

Lmao, this forum is really going all in on the Unbeatable Titan Mark Kelly meme, isn’t it?

In the actual world, Kelly is highly vulnerable in 2022 (arguably more so than any other Democratic Senator) and Democrats would never be dumb enough to nominate a proven loser over an incumbent Senator with considerable crossover appeal and (still) a fairly liberal voting record. There is zero appetite for a McSally scenario on the Democratic side.

I'm not sure which take is worse 1) That a significant number of the Republicans who like that she's trying to kill the Democratic agenda would actually vote for Sinema in a GE when presented with a Republican nominee as the alternative, 2) The outlandish claim that Mark Kelly - even if he loses in 2022 - is the Democratic equivalent of Martha McSally, or 3) That Sinema is a liberal in any meaningful sense.

[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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Dem Party seems to have trouble settling for half a loaf, and then the inflation genie got out of the bottle, and the size of the loaf is shrinking further. What may be left may not even be enough to make a whole sandwich as opposed to an open faced one. And the doomed to fail holding of BFI hostage consumed about 4 months of time. Biden finally summoned up the will to tell the squad he was going to tank it all, and they would get nothing, if there was not an immediate hostage release. But by then the afternoon shadows were getting very long, and there was a chill in the air. More than anything else, this is a Biden fail, and in particular,  a Klain fail, who has not been serving either the country or his boss well imo.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As I've said elsewhere, Trump is a "Philosemite," which is someone who believes in every single anti-Semitic trope but thinks that they're all actually positive traits and therefore thinks that the Jews are awesome. Trump is the kind of person who thinks that there is a secret Jewish cabal that controls business and politics...and wishes that cabal was on his side! And thinks its unfair that it isn't! Shouldn't this shady cabal love him for supporting Israel?

Remember, this is the guy who addresses a Republican Jewish organization and starts off by saying that this is the only room he's ever been in with better dealmakers than himself.

Trump is someone who grew up hearing that Jews were greedy, manipulative loansharks who always find a technicality to break every promise they ever make while amassing disproportionate wealth and power, the old anti-Semitic stereotype of his childhood era, and went "Wow, those Jews sound incredible! I want to be just like them."

Tip for finding a Philosemite: someone of Trump's generation (in their 70s or 80s) who refer to the Jews as "That talented people" or "That incredible race." Works every time.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah Democrats should just give up on a Florida 5th based in Leon. DOA at SCOTUS. I think the recent SCOTUS decision at WI could put some fear in GOP legislators if DeSantis threatens to go nuclear(sue over legislative districts as well)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well, I hope the millions of people who benefit from this will appreciate it, because the millions of people who don't are going to hold a lifelong grudge against all Democrats.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Sorry for the double post:

So Democrats need to have fair maps because Democrats need to play by the rules, but Republicans are free to gerrymander all they want because they don't believe in rules, great.

Exactly, if your opposition to gerrymandering is sincere and not a political posture.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As I've previously explained, the filibuster is the only thing keeping any semblance of bipartisanship in Washington. Without the filibuster, the House and Senate majorities of any party, assuming both were of the same party, would have no reason whatsoever to ever involve the minority in anything. There would never be another bipartisan deal again. No one would ever work with the other party on anything again. There would no collegiality in Washington at all. I don't even think the Majority would allow the Minority to even have committee seats anymore. Perhaps things would lighten up for a bit whenever the House and Senate were of different parties, but as soon as a bifecta was resumed, there would be no influence whatsoever for the Minority - whether that be Ds or Rs. The filibuster is the whole glue keeping Washington barely functional.

Plus we would get the most extreme policies from either side every 2-8 years. A constantly swinging pendulum of the extremes, and no stability for the country. Just utter Tyranny of the Majority, the very thing the founders warned us about. There would even be nothing to stop the parties from abolishing entitlement programs, packing the supreme court to their own partisan desires every 2-8 years in total abandonment of the rule of law, or stripping away voting rights from those who have a different political ideology.

Thankfully, Manchin, Sinema, and McConnell get this, even if many senators don't.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

This fresh new post also deserves an entry all it's own here.

This thread is about absurd/ignorant posts.  Much of this is in the eye of the beholder.  Look, however, at the highlighted sentence above.  The root word for "ignorant" is "ignore".  In making that statement, CentristRepublican is ignoring the entire issue; namely the issue of whether or not the "fetus" is indeed an unborn baby and a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  If you want to not be considered "ignorant", stop IGNORING the whole reason for this controversy and honestly address it.

He says while ignoring the entire substance of the quoted post and refusing to engage with any of the points that CentristRepublican made.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If we have a big enough trifrcta, we should impeach and throw this despicable hack judge in jail!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/lmresists/status/1568700820262375424

Gillibrand and all other D Senators that pressured Franken to resign need to be shot into the sun

It's besides the point, but I personally disagree.

Winning FL-SEN would have helped women more than someone who is maybe a creep being thrown out of the Senate by a woman who said she'd kick her own son out of the house if he was accused of sexual misconduct without much investigation.

Franken resigning made Democrats lose FL-SEN 2018?

I know political hacks can't figure out that there is rarely one single event that causes these elections to go a certain way, but I think the Democrats' hypocrisy and refusal to have mature, unemotional responses to the MeToo drama, including Franken, hurt them in the Senate back in 2018.