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

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I have a great solution that I'm sure Wulfric will enjoy. Simply build half a pipeline from Alberta and end it at some arbitrary position in the Midwest. Another win for moderate solutions!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think comparing humans to rats is always distasteful, because of the obvious implications running from that. Whatever your thoughts may be on the earth's carrying capacity and Malthusian notions, I Find the rat comparison deeply troubling.

I would agree with tender more if he substituted the words 'reproducing like rats' with 'consuming so much'.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Do you wear the special underwear?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes MormDem, I was coming to post that. Basically all his rhetotical questions can be answered with "well, pretty much, yes".

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Hamas has had no greater international ally than the Israeli right-wingers that Sunrise so fervently supports.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Cranberry's latest series as you may have seen, had a wholly unrealistic result: a landslide victory (in Austria) for nuclear power. And that got me thinking. In the UK, Canada, the US, France and most of Scandinavian there is a fairly ephemeral movement opposing nukes; but they have never received significant attention from the public. But in, say, German speaking countries the opposition is persistent, strong and influential enough to swing elections. Why is this?

Of the countries in Scandinavia only Sweden got nuclear power (and Finland if you use the term more broadly), so in general there is not that much to protest against (though not having any didn't stop the Danes from complaining about Swedish nuclear plants..). Further Sweden had a referendum in 1980, the outcome of which was that we should get rid of our nuclear plants. So wouldn't say that the opposition is that weak.

More broadly speaking I would guess that it is associated with having a strong environmentalist movement and a general high regard for "natural" things. Not sure why the Germans generally have a stronger affection for things being "natural" though.. However it seems have quite some history with all sorts of movements appreciating the natural as opposed to the artificial/modern.

Placing a nuclear plant within a radius of 50 km of another country's capital is an obvious provocation.

How? That is basically saying that placing Malmø 20 km from Copenhagen was a provocation..

No, a city can't be radioactive.

But a nuclear plant is and people do not want their kids to end up like this if something goes wrong:



Sry, but nukes suck and kill, no matter how the pro-lobby argues. They all need to be shut down.

I'm surprised you're pro-nuclear power, Evergreen.

Heck, I oppose nuclear and even I snorted at that.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Jcl's quibbling here is hilarious in context.

Kewl concept but first, could you explain how Hillary managed to win two terms after the failed presidency of Obama and excellent campaign of the GOP Presidential ticket of Rand Paul/Carly Fiorina. Plus the Electoral College in the U.S. Constitution can only abolished by Constitutional Amendment and that is one of the hardest legal actions to possibly pull off. Especially with most of the state's being led by both GOP governors and legislators by numbers not seen since before FDR. The only way this could happen is a massive progressive wave next year IRL and while on marriage supremacy (national legalization of gay marriage in clear violation of the 10th Amendment), the left is doing fine there bypassing the will of the people and state legislatures, I don't see a 2010 type wave happening in favor of the left for at least the next 20 years.

Hillary can't abolish the Electoral College by executive fiat as I've explained above.

Clinton defeated Jeb Bush 385-153 in 2016 and, after a popular first term, defeated Chris Christie 374-164 in 2020. Democrats gained control of both chambers of Congress in 2016 (they had an extremely small majority in the House and a comfortable majority in the Senate), lost the House in 2018, and regained it in 2020. The GOP retook the House again in 2022, though by this time, the Electoral College had already been abolished.

In late 2020, Senators Dick Durbin and Rand Paul introduced a constitutional amendment regarding electoral reform that eliminated the Electoral College and proposed that the winner of the popular vote wins the presidential election. Clinton and congressional leaders worked tirelessly to make the bill seem like a bipartisan effort, and by late 2021, were able to secure the Senate 71-39 and the House 293-142, with all Democrats and some Republicans (mostly moderates and libertarians) supporting the amendment. By September 2022, the necessary 3/4 of the states had ratified the amendment, with all blue states, most purple states, and some red states voting to approve the measure:

State governments reacted surprisingly well to the amendment compared to the federal government, with many state legislators in both parties voting to support the amendment due to its widespread public support (boosted by a well-orchestrated media and public awareness campaign). All leftist states immediately supported the measure, with the support of purple states coming not far behind. Due to the advocacy of many libertarian and moderate Republicans, some of the larger red states (Texas, etc.) eventually decided to support the amendment after realizing the Electoral College favors small states. The final state to vote in support of the amendment was Montana which, even though small and right-leaning, managed to squeeze out a thin Yea vote in both legislative chambers and sent the amendment to Governor Mary Caferro. The amendment was officially added to the United States Constitution on September 11, 2022.

This is really off-topic anyway.

Libertarians and Conservatives beat it. Indiana and Texas for sure will lead the opposition and this amendment fails. The Moderates/establishment wing of the GOPis not getting the nominee in 2016 or 2020.

While I like the concept, I have problems with the plausibility of first, Hillary getting elected president and Libertarian Republicans (of which I happen to be) supporting repealing the Electoral College.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Lyndon is Greek

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No reputable scientist subscribes to the idea that modifying genes using biotechnology is any worse than traditional modification, Tony. (Aside from the issue I just effortposted in the 2016 board, but I don't want to repeat myself)

Although LOL "scientists created X, ergo they have been scientifically proven to be safe" is a new one, lmao

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Is that an empty post because I'm awesome or are you deluging me? I'm vain enough to believe the former, you see.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, and some of the things that circulate as acceptable and normal in the social-liberal free-for-all, for instance all this transgender nonsense, are so offensive ...  As someone who considers himself center-right on fiscal issues and center-left on social issues,

ayy. More evidence why FCBSL's are terrible.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Well of you name yourself after HL Mencken...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I didn't like any of them. Despite all the criticism of her Lena Dunham is actually a much better writer than Shakespeare ever was.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I assume Mr O. Freak is  Deluging that as muxh of that could equally be applied to Carter?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In which hysterical fear of SJW's goes a bit ott:

Trump is Teddy Roosevelt with less likability and with an electorate that is less susceptible  to his off-color style (aka, unlike Teddy, he'll lose); the GOP wasn't like Trump/Roosevelt before, and it won't be like Trump after he's gone (just like it went back to normal after Teddy/Taft).

For the final time, until the Democrats offer a cozy home to affluent Whites and the business community, they're going to remain Republicans, regardless of infighting (there have always been factions, for Christ's sake) ... and the Democrats are NOT going to offer that sanctuary.  Period.  They are a party of the truly poor, minorities, government employees, public unions, academia and social justice warriors; not one of those groups is going to be okay with shifting in an even more neoliberal direction, as evidenced by the Democratic Party of 2016 arguing over how much taxes should go up, how much we should restrict free trade and how tough we should be on Wall Street.  Progressive economic thought is winning right now, and Trump is reacting (just like economic conservatism was winning in the '80s and '90s and Clinton reacted), but there's literally zero chance that the GOP moves further left than the Democrats.  Zero.  And that's what would have to happen for this realignment that some of you Dems are having wet dreams about.

For every move the GOP has made "left" fiscally, the Democrats are about ten steps ahead and show no signs of slowing down, even with (for some reason seen as at all moderate) Hillary.

I don't think Republicans will move left long term but Democrats will absolutely move right and it's already started. You see that in Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's opposition to free college because "then rich people will get free college too". Similarly, I've met many leftists and SJWs who think minimum wage laws shouldn't apply to small (ie immigrant and minority owned) businesses because they can't compete otherwise. There's been talk of means testing Social Security and when people discover that that means taking away benefits from White people, that talk will only get louder. Free trade is an odd one. That's like a Bernie personal opinion and a lot of his supporters cling to it because it demonstrates a concrete different he has with Hillary. Really though, polls show most Democrats support free trade. As the party becomes more foreign born and less union, those pro-free trade numbers will only increase.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's a very Whiggish idea of history, isn't it?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Blaming one religious group for the outcome is okay but another is not? SURE.

Fuk proddies

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

She speaks with an accent and sounds like an "immigrant."
Why is this Republican arena clapping for Melania ?

Red and faux "Independent"/Blue avatars do not understand: Republicans are NOT anti-immigrant. We are anti-ILLEGAL immigrant. Can you understand the difference?

Your party would like to deport the illegals currently here and have no plan for reforming immigration visas beyond some vague, "skilled workers," promises. In addition, Fonald Trump advocates a closed border.

If that's not anti immigration, then I don't know what is.

Should the law be followed or not? If you come here illegally, should you be allowed to stay if you are caught? You have no right to be here.

A. It's impractical to deport 11 million people.
B. It's much easier to make a path to citizenship for the illegals currently here.

It's not that hard you round them up and drop them off in Mexico or wherever, if you want to do it fast. We don't need the take the easy route in our country we have to take the hard route.

What could go wrong?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Horrible Band. They violate the #1 rule of punk rock: That it should be all liberal, all the time.

The modern day punk/hardcore bands that write songs that are really just long essays about the abolition of gender roles or being self-aware to avoid microaggressions or promoting the destruction and annihilation of culture or who wrote a multi-paragraph essay about how they don't like that a local venue serves beer brands that engage in sexist advertising are the real punks, not these dumbass neandrathals.

That's just him laying down bait for this thread IMO.