The Klartext Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI

[they don't love you like i love you]

I know people are gonna groan, but if I go by the original question in the topic. No, run Tulsi Gabbard at the top of the ticket and balance it out with a solid VP Pick. Gabbard has crossover appeal to snag GOP voters. At the end of the day, the Democrats have to run against him in 2020. His foreign policy is horrendous and he's the person who represents us as a country to everyone else's world leader. It's embarrassing, Trump is a clown with a clowncar.

[White Trash]

I know people are gonna groan, but if I go by the original question in the topic. No, run Tulsi Gabbard at the top of the ticket and balance it out with a solid VP Pick. Gabbard has crossover appeal to snag GOP voters. At the end of the day, the Democrats have to run against him in 2020. His foreign policy is horrendous and he's the person who represents us as a country to everyone else's world leader. It's embarrassing, Trump is a clown with a clowncar.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it belongs here.

[Confused Democrat]

I know people are gonna groan, but if I go by the original question in the topic. No, run Tulsi Gabbard at the top of the ticket and balance it out with a solid VP Pick. Gabbard has crossover appeal to snag GOP voters. At the end of the day, the Democrats have to run against him in 2020. His foreign policy is horrendous and he's the person who represents us as a country to everyone else's world leader. It's embarrassing, Trump is a clown with a clowncar.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it belongs here.

[publicunofficial]

All Pro-Tulsi posts are absurd and ignorant at this point IMO.

[RINO Tom]

I know people are gonna groan, but if I go by the original question in the topic. No, run Tulsi Gabbard at the top of the ticket and balance it out with a solid VP Pick. Gabbard has crossover appeal to snag GOP voters. At the end of the day, the Democrats have to run against him in 2020. His foreign policy is horrendous and he's the person who represents us as a country to everyone else's world leader. It's embarrassing, Trump is a clown with a clowncar.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it belongs here.

Are you double quoting this to agree with it or putting it in here as an absurd/ignorant/deplorable post?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Imagine if in 2005 someone said Democrats could win in 2008 but only by nominating Dennis Kucinich.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

-Better argument than the usual.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

-Better argument than the usual.

You don't need to emphasize the fact that you despise all life (and not in the cool, edgy "I woke up and hated myself today" way, either).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

-Better argument than the usual.

You don't need to emphasize the fact that you despise all life (and not in the cool, edgy "I woke up and hated myself today" way, either).

-I don't hate myself. I like myself quite a bit, actually. Neither do I despise all life -I love life. I wish we could all be immortal. Yes, even people as horrible as John McCain. I want to see America made great again, and that requires human life to accomplish.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

-Better argument than the usual.

You don't need to emphasize the fact that you despise all life (and not in the cool, edgy "I woke up and hated myself today" way, either).

What's the non-edgy way? I'm curious.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

-Better argument than the usual.

You don't need to emphasize the fact that you despise all life (and not in the cool, edgy "I woke up and hated myself today" way, either).

What's the non-edgy way? I'm curious.

I was being facetious. My style of affected misanthropy differs from Whathisface's in ways that I am unwilling to tolerate, simply put.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

It's E. Harding, not Whatshisface.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I support this bill on a men's rights basis, not on a "pro-life" (a meaningless word these days) basis.

-Better argument than the usual.

You don't need to emphasize the fact that you despise all life (and not in the cool, edgy "I woke up and hated myself today" way, either).

What's the non-edgy way? I'm curious.

I was being facetious. My style of affected misanthropy differs from Whathisface's in ways that I am unwilling to tolerate, simply put.

The question was what are the ways in which it differs from it. To me, all you misanthropists are the same.

[Confused Democrat]

It's E. Harding, not Whatshisface.

Is that how I'm supposed to pronounce your name? E. Harding not Eh-arding?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No, just no

communism sounds nice in theory...fascism doesn't.

Plenty of things about fascism sound great in theory. Societal order and cohesion, scientific advancement with unified goals, lack of political gridlock and dysfunction, high levels of societal efficiency, business interests made to serve the common good, high levels of communal care for the poor, very little unemployment, etc.

The bad parts of fascism come about in the means... just like in communism.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

It's E. Harding, not Whatshisface.

Is that how I'm supposed to pronounce your name? E. Harding not Eh-arding?

-Yes.

[RI]

No, just no

communism sounds nice in theory...fascism doesn't.

Plenty of things about fascism sound great in theory. Societal order and cohesion, scientific advancement with unified goals, lack of political gridlock and dysfunction, high levels of societal efficiency, business interests made to serve the common good, high levels of communal care for the poor, very little unemployment, etc.

The bad parts of fascism come about in the means... just like in communism.

How is this any worse than saying communism sounds great in theory?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's E. Harding, not Whatshisface.

OK, Whatshisface.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's E. Harding, not Whatshisface.

Oh I see now. You've been referring to hardness of your skull all that time

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

It's E. Harding, not Whatshisface.

Oh I see now. You've been referring to hardness of your skull all that time

-No; the name comes from President Harding.

[they don't love you like i love you]

No, just no

communism sounds nice in theory...fascism doesn't.

Plenty of things about fascism sound great in theory. Societal order and cohesion, scientific advancement with unified goals, lack of political gridlock and dysfunction, high levels of societal efficiency, business interests made to serve the common good, high levels of communal care for the poor, very little unemployment, etc.

The bad parts of fascism come about in the means... just like in communism.

How is this any worse than saying communism sounds great in theory?

It doesn't. They're both garbage ideologies with zero value that need to be completely annihilated.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No, just no

communism sounds nice in theory...fascism doesn't.

Plenty of things about fascism sound great in theory. Societal order and cohesion, scientific advancement with unified goals, lack of political gridlock and dysfunction, high levels of societal efficiency, business interests made to serve the common good, high levels of communal care for the poor, very little unemployment, etc.

The bad parts of fascism come about in the means... just like in communism.

How is this any worse than saying communism sounds great in theory?

It doesn't. They're both garbage ideologies with zero value that need to be completely annihilated.

It wasn't the point. Praising things such as "cohesion" in fascism as even "theoretically" good is... eh.

As a side note, though, I know it's hard to comprehend for an American, but I'm unable to put communism at the same level with fascism. At least communists, while sucking really bad, didn't plan on annihilating my people and my culture.

[Confused Democrat]

Donald Trump's first term will most likely be a utter failure. Booker could possibly win. Also, Booker doesn't have any major scandals as of now (unlike Hillary). A significant amount of working-class whites voted for Trump due to Hillary's scandals.

Even if a major scandal is discovered, no one will really care because Booker is male.

Donald Trump is unarguably more corrupt than Hillary is. Trump has plenty of scandals such as his breaking of labor laws, Trump University, Trump Foundation, etc. The only major Hillary scandal was her emails. Despite this, Hillary was perceived as more corrupt than Donald Trump because humans are designed to judge to females more harshly. Politics is all about perception, not reality. Gender plays a huge role in how voters perceive candidates. It's why Trump's scandals were taken much less seriously even though they're arguably much worse.

Booker maybe pro-Wall Street, but that won't be an issue at all because he's a male.

Obama got more Wall Street donations than any other politican in history (much more than Hillary), but no one cared because of his gender. I love it how none of these progressives cared about Obama's Wall Street donations and his constant pandering to Wall Street, but when Hillary does it (even though she's unarguably less pro-Wall Street than Obama was) everyone harshly critcizes her for it. She is known as a Wall Street shill (even though Obama is unarguably even more of a Wall Street shill than she is) due to her gender. I think people tend to forget that Obama ran to right of Hillary on Wall Street in 2008. Hillary ran as someone who was going to be tough on Wall Street while Obama largely ignored the issue. Despite this, Hillary is perceived as more pro-Wall Street than Obama because humans are designed to judge females more harshly. Politics is all about perception, not reality. Gender has a huge impact on the way people perceive candidates.

Also, Booker would turn out African-Americans in the Rust Belt. One of the main reasons why Hillary lost the Rust Belt was because AA turnout was so low. Even if Booker does slightly worse with WCW (although I think he'd do better with them than Hillary), this could easily be made up by AA turning out at record levels for Booker. Clinton was probably the worst possible fit for working-class whites yet she BARELY lost WI/MI/PA. Not only is Booker a slightly better fit for WCW, he is also much better fit for AA.

[Figueira]

No, just no

communism sounds nice in theory...fascism doesn't.

Plenty of things about fascism sound great in theory. Societal order and cohesion, scientific advancement with unified goals, lack of political gridlock and dysfunction, high levels of societal efficiency, business interests made to serve the common good, high levels of communal care for the poor, very little unemployment, etc.

The bad parts of fascism come about in the means... just like in communism.

How is this any worse than saying communism sounds great in theory?

It doesn't. They're both garbage ideologies with zero value that need to be completely annihilated.

It wasn't the point. Praising things such as "cohesion" in fascism as even "theoretically" good is... eh.

As a side note, though, I know it's hard to comprehend for an American, but I'm unable to put communism at the same level with fascism. At least communists, while sucking really bad, didn't plan on annihilating my people and my culture.

To put it bluntly, fascism "in theory" is inherently racist. Communism isn't.