The Seriously? Theatre of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts V

[Landslide Lyndon]

Wow - two utter crackpots in a thread not even a page old.

Ad hominem attacks - lowest rung of rhetoric - are for those who find themselves feeble in the field of facts. For it is clear that she is guilty, so an FBI indictment would mean inescapable demise.

A Clinton landslide loss would be good for true liberals - a (hopefully) final shift leftwards of the Overton window. Real left-wing progressives are in dire need of a Tea Party counterpart.

[This account no longer in use.]

We have a thread for this now, you know.

[Figueira]

Looks like a great post out of context, but it's actually a terrible post in context:

Yeah, Trump definitely won't get my vote now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Looks like a great post out of context, but it's actually a terrible post in context:

Yeah, Trump definitely won't get my vote now.

It's even more hilarious to have a 13-year old talking like they have a vote in the first place.

[This account no longer in use.]

As much as he pandered to them, Sanders is not himself an SJW. I actually think Sanders was the last chance for the non-SJW left to take power. The left-wing Democrats of the future are going to be uniformly pro-open borders, pro-slavery reparations, anti-existence of Israel, anti-presumption of innocence in rape cases, and pro-racial quotas.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

McKinley's actually supported Jim Crow laws, or the elite renaming in south, in order to gain votes from businessman who feared Bryan. He did nothing to address exclusion of black people in the south and did nothing about lynchings in the south. Bryan was horrible on race as well, as evident in his backtracking of statements on racial equality to appease Ben Tillman, but the republicans actually had a strong contingent of WASP wings, and racial violence against immigrants, so all I'm saying is that both parties were (post 1896) horrible on race. Besides Republicans were probably more xenophobic than democrats anyway. Though racism is worse than xenophobia.

[Figueira]

Looks like a great post out of context, but it's actually a terrible post in context:

Yeah, Trump definitely won't get my vote now.

It's even more hilarious to have a 13-year old talking like they have a vote in the first place.

I didn't even think of that, but maybe he's talking about 2020?

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

I live in a latino neighborhood, married into a latino family, and my clients at work are predominantly latino.

Trump is more than toxic. He's literally the devil here. Just saying his name puts a sour look on people's faces.

I have not, yet, met a Mexican who merely dislikes Trump. It is universally ranging between "dead scared" and "hate passionately". I do not think most Anglos realize just how toxic Trump is at this point.

I think that is WHY we love Trump. Mexico and everything about it has become just as toxic to many Americans.

I'm normally a pacifist in international affairs, but I'd be okay with making an exception for Mexico.

Are you suggesting war with Mexico?

The most important foreign policy priority for the US must be to maintain peace with its neighbors. The US and Mexico don't always have to agree, but there is no good reason to be hostile towards Mexico.

No, but aggressive negotiations are fine for me. Like "pay for the wall or we cut off remittances."

I'm normally against such hard-nosed dealing in most situations, but Mexico is run by the same corrupt oligarchs that have run their system for the past century - and they are milking us dry. From NAFTA to the Rubin-bailout to the stuff they pull with immigration today. And both illegals and their entire political culture are complicit in this, totally destroying the societies they flood.

I mean, he's not wrong about corruption in the Mexican system, and there are in fact a few good reasons to be concerned with mass undocumented immigration's effects on things like American wages, but claiming that Mexican immigrants are 'totally destroying' American society is ridiculous and racist.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I live in a latino neighborhood, married into a latino family, and my clients at work are predominantly latino.

Trump is more than toxic. He's literally the devil here. Just saying his name puts a sour look on people's faces.

I have not, yet, met a Mexican who merely dislikes Trump. It is universally ranging between "dead scared" and "hate passionately". I do not think most Anglos realize just how toxic Trump is at this point.

I think that is WHY we love Trump. Mexico and everything about it has become just as toxic to many Americans.

I'm normally a pacifist in international affairs, but I'd be okay with making an exception for Mexico.

Are you suggesting war with Mexico?

The most important foreign policy priority for the US must be to maintain peace with its neighbors. The US and Mexico don't always have to agree, but there is no good reason to be hostile towards Mexico.

No, but aggressive negotiations are fine for me. Like "pay for the wall or we cut off remittances."

I'm normally against such hard-nosed dealing in most situations, but Mexico is run by the same corrupt oligarchs that have run their system for the past century - and they are milking us dry. From NAFTA to the Rubin-bailout to the stuff they pull with immigration today. And both illegals and their entire political culture are complicit in this, totally destroying the societies they flood.

I mean, he's not wrong about corruption in the Mexican system, and there are in fact a few good reasons to be concerned with mass undocumented immigration's effects on things like American wages, but claiming that Mexican immigrants are 'totally destroying' American society is ridiculous and racist.

Yeah, this post is just really bad.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not Warren who is Bernie Sanders. Kholbuchar or Gillibrand represent Clinton values. But Deval Patrick would be picked with Clinton before any of those.

It's gonna be Castro first Latino Veep nominee

[This account no longer in use.]

Not Warren who is Bernie Sanders. Kholbuchar or Gillibrand represent Clinton values. But Deval Patrick would be picked with Clinton before any of those.

It's gonna be Castro first Latino Veep nominee

I can't even tell whether OC thinks it'll be Patrick or Castro.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Is Hillary intending to turn the United States into Peru with two Vice Presidents?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Jeez. The racists and the neocons are really coming out of the wood work in this poll.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Democratic party has truly lost their way with Hillary. Both parties are now terrible. Maybe in another 10 years the Republican party could end up the lesser of two evils.

[Figueira]

Jeez. The racists and the neocons are really coming out of the wood work in this poll.

I don't quite understand what's wrong with this post.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Oldiesfreak, your contribution to this thread is as irritating as a potted cactus in a monkey's pajamas.

[Virginiá]

The big problem liberals are having is that everything they are fighting for, isn't really possible.

For example, their definition of racism, can never be solved, because so many of them can find racism in anything. Obviously we cannot get rid of everything, so according to their definition, we will never get rid of "racism".

Also, they seem to be prioritizing emotional thinking over rational thinking. For example, they would rather take the risks with transgender bathrooms rather than hurt the feelings of transgender people. But doesn't the risk outweigh the reward? If women are hurt by sexual predators, are a majority of those victims and their families going to care about if a transvestite feels better about themselves? If a handful of Syrian refugees are terrorists, doesn't the risk of thousands of dead Americans outweigh the reward of happy refugees? If someone breaks in your house with a knife in their hand and you blow their skull apart with a shotgun, is that homeowner gonna be proud he protected his home or upset that he killed someone looking for money? I think they are trying the impossible.

It's a risk/reward situation and liberals lack the intellect to make safe decisions, because they are in and of themselves, weak people blinded by emotion. Thus their fear of inanimate objects (firearms), fear of conflict (anti-war), fear of wealth, and their constant running to their Government nanny. 

What do you think more Americans will do tomorrow? Say something politically incorrect, or quote a Maya Angelou poem?

Included entire post for context, but bolded text is where he turned into a major asshole. That is so freakin pathetic, narrow-minded and ignorant.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The big problem liberals are having is that everything they are fighting for, isn't really possible.

For example, their definition of racism, can never be solved, because so many of them can find racism in anything. Obviously we cannot get rid of everything, so according to their definition, we will never get rid of "racism".

Also, they seem to be prioritizing emotional thinking over rational thinking. For example, they would rather take the risks with transgender bathrooms rather than hurt the feelings of transgender people. But doesn't the risk outweigh the reward? If women are hurt by sexual predators, are a majority of those victims and their families going to care about if a transvestite feels better about themselves? If a handful of Syrian refugees are terrorists, doesn't the risk of thousands of dead Americans outweigh the reward of happy refugees? If someone breaks in your house with a knife in their hand and you blow their skull apart with a shotgun, is that homeowner gonna be proud he protected his home or upset that he killed someone looking for money? I think they are trying the impossible.

It's a risk/reward situation and liberals lack the intellect to make safe decisions, because they are in and of themselves, weak people blinded by emotion. Thus their fear of inanimate objects (firearms), fear of conflict (anti-war), fear of wealth, and their constant running to their Government nanny. 

What do you think more Americans will do tomorrow? Say something politically incorrect, or quote a Maya Angelou poem?

Included entire post for context, but bolded text is where he turned into a major asshole. That is so freakin pathetic, narrow-minded and ignorant.

That's your average Naso post. I think this thread was once named after him.

[Pingvin]

Very good, the nation state is an abominable anachronism.

[Figueira]

How do you celebrate Hariet Tubman without disparaging Jackson? Seems to me that celebrating Hariet Tubman in and of itself is disparaging Jackson in the same way that celebrating the White Rose would be inherently disparaging to Hitler.

I agree, celebrating Tubman's life by putting her on the $20 to replace Jackson is somewhat disparaging to Jackson in itself. Webb's point was about more than who is on the bill, though. I can live with Tubman replacing Jackson on the $20 - she's worthy of such a high honor - what bothers me is the public and the media unceremoniously tossing out one of America's most important historical leaders and stomping on his legacy. Jackson led the way in making America a unique, dare I say exceptional, country - a democracy ruled from the bottom-up. Instead of viewing Jackson through the lens of white resentment and anachronistic moral standards, we should look at the big picture and remember him as an imperfect, but brave leader who made an enduring impact on this country.

[Figueira]

What is with this meme that Andrew Jackson led to democracy? Much of the expansion of the franchise came before Jackson ever took office. I would give credit to Van Buren before Jackson, because Van Buren actually led the Democratic Party during the time period, while Jackson was just the figurehead out front. Jackson did, however, appeal to the expanded electorate.

The main reason I posted that here was because of the "anachronistic moral standards" line. It's funny how people who make comments like that only judge people according to the "moral standards" of white people at that time.

[Kingpoleon]

What is with this meme that Andrew Jackson led to democracy? Much of the expansion of the franchise came before Jackson ever took office. I would give credit to Van Buren before Jackson, because Van Buren actually led the Democratic Party during the time period, while Jackson was just the figurehead out front. Jackson did, however, appeal to the expanded electorate.

Van Buren and Madison are very underrated. One was the first to actually fight slavery and not be a monarchist, and the other literally created our government almost single handedly.

[Figueira]

What is with this meme that Andrew Jackson led to democracy? Much of the expansion of the franchise came before Jackson ever took office. I would give credit to Van Buren before Jackson, because Van Buren actually led the Democratic Party during the time period, while Jackson was just the figurehead out front. Jackson did, however, appeal to the expanded electorate.

Van Buren and Madison are very underrated. One was the first to actually fight slavery and not be a monarchist, and the other literally created our government almost single handedly.

The first six presidents were monarchists?

[Adam Griffin]

maybe Trump could win if he took Santorum as his VP?

It brings such a fond memories...

Dude you left out the kid with the 1000 yard stare.

Oh man...this brings back old memories of getting on Phil's nerves...

For old time's sake (and since my original link broke):

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=235455.0