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

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Very similar to me.  I actually dislike Trump as a person and all things equal prefer Clinton policies overall when compared to Trump but will vote for him for being anti-PC.  Also I want to vote for White consolidation.

This is a great example of what not to do with your vote.

What the hell does "white consolidation" mean?

Oh God, I warned you guys that Rachel Dolezel would lead to confused and deranged "trans-racial" people coming out of the woodwork and tanning salons

I consider myself trans-racial.

If "transgender" is considered a thing, why stop there?  "Transracial" sounds no more absurd than "transgender".

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Let me be clear, democrats are totally are on the far left and Trump isn't. Trump might be too far left on some issues but he isn't like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. The "Progressive" (really socialist) branch of the party is going to dig a grave for the Democrats. If they let a crazy leftist like Ellison run their party then they won't be winning many elections. The nation spoke and they didn't want Clinton because she drank the Bernie Kool Aid. Plain and simple, progressives screwed over Hillary in the general and now they want one of the Bernie cultists running their party. Rust belt voters just want opportunities that the Democrats wouldn't give them because of their policies thatve failed them. RIP dems.

Holy sh*t.

What is wrong with that post?  This isn't the forum to put every opinion you disagree with here.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Donald Trump (R-NY) / Michael Pence (R-IN) - 300 EVs, (47.1%)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY) / Tim Kaine (D-VA) - 238 EVs, (48.4%)
Gary Johnson (L-NM) / William Weld (L-MA) - 0 EVs, (4%)
Evan McMullin (I-UT) / Mindy Finn (I-TX) - 0 EVs, (1.1%)
Jill Stein (G-MA) / Ajamu Baraka (G-IL) - 0 EVs, (0.3%)

My gut says Trump will now win. I think MN, NH, & PA are a bit bold. and could easily go for Clinton.

But let me explain:

MN- Dissatisfied with Obamacare, Midwestern, progressive (They won't fall for Hillary), and White.
PA- Turnout will be high in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area and Central PA, while Trump will win a few counties (Bucks, Lehigh, & Luzerne) in the East. Turnout will be lower in Philadelphia and among AAs overall. This should be enough for Trump to flip the state.
NH- White, Hillary's primary loss, and just my own intuition. I'll probably be wrong on this one though.

Utah will be close and I think Trump will narrowly win the state against McMullin & Clinton splitting the vote enough.

We need to offer Spark an apology for putting this in here

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Death penalty for all.  While I oppose such an abortion ban, I would see it as an opportunity to implement my population reduction program.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Not in the short term.  Democrats need to deemphasize climate change going forward until and unless it is obviously linked to an economic crash.

Liberals talk about the climate way too much, especially when there is nothing we could do about it even if it were man-made, since China is responsible for the vast majority of the polution.  Us back here in Real America mock liberals when they claim that "climate change" (explain to me again why you had to drop the term "global warming"- were you proven false) is one of the biggest issues of our time.  Weren't Miami and New York supposed to be underwater by now, according to liberals?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Abortion should be safe, legal, and encouraged, if not mandatory for immature teenage girls who are driving up our poverty rate.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

by 2024 I think TX, AZ, GA, FL will likely lean Dem (which will overwhelm the Rust Belt likely leaning Rep).   So I think 2024 will be a tough year for Repub presidential nom... if current trends continue.

More in the absurd part of it

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Further back (probably the worst since FDR, maybe even since Buchanan)

/s

makes sense, ER is still pissed off that FDR beat his Fuhrer.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

This is what the abortion debate seems like:

-A man is murdering people, and has been doing so for decades.
-Nine people are in a room, and are about to take a vote on whether or not to call the police about this man.
-Four people want to immediately call the police.
-Three people don't actually think that the man is guilty, so they see no point in calling the cops.
-One person says that, "While I personally believe he shouldn't be killing people, I shouldn't force my morality on others."
-Another person says "We all agree that killing people isn't ideal, but his victims are mostly poor people.  And I don't see any of you volunteering to pay for his future victims medical bills.  That means that you don't really care about the lives of his victims."

So they voted 5-4 to not call the police.  The 5 were convinced that they had a moral high ground and attacked the 4, claiming that calling the cops on the murderer would mean the establishment of a theocracy.

That post belongs in the good post gallery.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

ER has to be a parody account.

If he's a troll, he's an absurdist genius and therefore still fits in this thread.

-ER is not a troll; otherwise he would have supported deporting immigrants on welfare (which is an obvious EO for Trump to sign, and which I support strongly). He has views and beliefs of his own.

If I were a troll, wouldn't I have supported Trump in the primary, rather than hoping a movement conservative would get the nomination?  I also do have a more complicated view of immigration than the current administration.

Now, if I changed my name to "ExtremeDemocrat (D-CA)" with a PM of -10 E, -9 S, then that would be trolling!

[100% pro-life no matter what]

ExtremeRepublican isn't a troll, he's just an incredibly (read: almost unbelievably) stupid person. As much as I'd like to believe that no real human would be deranged enough to sincerely believe that a left-leaning Supreme Court would legalize "transgender polygamous marriages" as the bigoted degenerate has speculated (and yes, that's literally what he said), it's pretty clear that people as overtly cruel and deluded as ER do in fact exist in our world.

Have you ever heard of hyperbole?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

What is a transgender marriage? legitimately confused.

It's like SSM, but both the people are trans.

Cool idea. Let's legalize it if it isn't already.

-It's probably legal, but I'd prefer to repeal Obergeffell.

Even if you did that, wouldn't a trans man marrying a trans woman still be legal?

That would depend on whether the government recognizes transgenderism.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

What is a transgender marriage? legitimately confused.

It's like SSM, but both the people are trans.

Cool idea. Let's legalize it if it isn't already.

-It's probably legal, but I'd prefer to repeal Obergeffell.

Even if you did that, wouldn't a trans man marrying a trans woman still be legal?

That would depend on whether the government recognizes transgenderism.

Like BRTD said, it doesn't. Either way, legally it's a guy marrying a girl, the question is just who is who.

Good point, but what if one is and one isn't?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The first part is true, though. If you have a negative social (or economic) score, you cannot call yourself a conservative.

Assuming we'll hold economic scores to the same test?

Absolutely, economic scores are held to the same test, but your economic score is just 0.13, meaning that answering one question slightly differently may have made you a double-negative.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Nov 4 1980-Nov 4 1986- The rise of conservatism and an era where we finally reversed decades old economic policy of taxing  and regulating . This was also a rare republican president who emphasized  economic converstism over social conservativism and even Foriegn policy conservativism . This era ended when democrats took back the senate in 1986 .

what's so deplorable in that.

I would put it more in the absurd category, as Reagan did not de-emphasize social issues in any way.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Using a nuclear option to push through a justice supported by 60% of Americans is not something that will backfire.

Why the hell are liberals afraid of someone like gorsuch? He's one of the most tame conservatives to ever be appointed.

1. Gorsuch is far right hacktivist judge.  Being polite and having a non-threatening demeanor doesn't make someone any less of an extremist (see Pence, Mike).  

2. Any nominee by Trump is unacceptable because Hillary Clinton received a greater share of the popular vote.  The American people clearly voted for a Democratic majority on the Supreme Court and since Trump is not going to nominate Goodwin Liu (or even a moderate like Garland) to fill Scalia's former seat, it should remain vacant until after the winner of the 2020 Presidential election has been sworn in.  The American people will have another chance to make their voice heard on this issue in 2020, but until then, filling Scalia's seat with anyone to the right of Garland is unacceptable regardless of said nominees hypothetical qualifications.  

If after Scalia's seat has been filled by a young, liberal justice Republicans want to de-escalate the judicial wars, that's fine.  Until then, I'd rather see the entire Supreme Court indefinitely vacant than even consider any sort of compromise or de-escalation on this or any other judicial appointment.  Your party had a chance to de-escalate when Scalia died and blew it.  And appointing Garland to fill Ginsberg's seat if she dies is not an acceptable "compromise."  Appointing Goodwin Liu or Pamela Karlan to her seat and Garlan to Scalia's seat is an acceptable compromise (as opposed to filling both seats with relatively young staunch liberals) and anything short of that should be rejected by Senate Democrats.

3. You claim 60% of Americans support Gorsuch, but even if that is true (which I'm a bit skeptical of, to say the least) far more Americans supported Manchin-Toomey and Republicans blocked that all the same.  I really don't think congressional Republicans quite realized hard it is to govern once you've made at least half the country hate your guts, but they're sure going to learn.  What goes around comes around and as far as I'm concerned, the constant democratic obstruction on every issue is payback for all the sh!t Republicans pulled during Obama's Presidency.  Republicans made their bed and now they're gonna have to sleep in it.  Enjoy

How about as a truce to permanently end judicial wars, we pass a constitutional amendment forbidding the judiciary from striking down a law on any basis other than the literal text of the constitution and/or relevant law taking precedence? Seriously, as long as it's an art contest to see who can draw a more imaginative implied or evolving right, judicial nominations will perpetually be as close to an all-out war as the rules of our political system will allow. If you want judges to stop being partisan hacks, take away their power to be kings.

I'm sorry, but no.  Ignoring the fact that such a Constitutional amendment would be a terrible idea which would produce many awful rulings, I think I speak for many Democrats when I say I have literally no interest in a truce and would happily escalate the judicial wars after what happened with Garland.  Once Democrats have screwed over Republicans regarding a Supreme Court seat in a manner on par with Republican efforts to steal Scalia's vacant seat, then and only then, can we talk about a truce.  Obama tried de-escalating by nominating Garland and Republicans chose scorched earth warfare instead.  As far as I'm concerned, what goes around comes around.  If we manage to keep the seat vacant until a Democratic President has been sworn in and a young liberal justice is confirmed, then we can talk about a truce (and that's assuming Ginsberg hasn't died yet, if she has forget it).  Until then, y'all wanted scorched earth warfare and now you're gonna get it for the foreseeable future, period.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

wonder if blocking Estrada because of his race was worth it for chucky?

With all due respect, if you think nuking the judicial filibuster had anything to do with Estrada, you're crazy.

What a great day for the unborn! 

Let's hope there will be another retirement/vacancy or two, so we can make more forward progress.

It has always amused me how so many Republicans think their party leadership actually wants to see abortion banned.  Weakening decisions like Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey?  Sure.  However, they're just using you guys [pro-lifers].  They'd never actually ban abortion because of the huge political backlash that would occur across the country (especially in wealthy suburbs and exurbs and yes, that includes the arch-conservative ones).  Even without Kennedy or without Ginsberg, if there was a real chance of the Supreme Court doing a complete 180 on abortion, Roberts would switch.  This fight was decided a long time ago. 

You're right that Roberts (and Gorsuch) can't be fully trusted to actually overturn Roe, but to pretend the republican party doesn't want to ban abortion is silly. Remember the attempts to pass Personhood? Remember that OH would have a heartbeat ban, if it didn't have to be vetoed for the sake of strategy? (no sense starting a roe challenge until there's a chance to win at SCOTUS) I know you guys tell yourself lies about republicans so you don't have to think about your abortion not being there for you, but that doesn't change the fact that republicans want to make abortion illegal.

Oh, abortion will always be an option for people.  Technology is a beautiful thing.

I know this would be politically unpopular, but, once abortion is illegal, I would support a travel ban to any locations where elective abortion is legal to stop any Americans from being aborted and put pressure on those governments to ban it too.

lmao

(People like you are why I favor abortion rights, fwiw)

come on now it's perfectly understandable that the product of a failed abortion would have some pretty radical views on the matter

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Unfortunately 2016 proved that early voting can be over interpreted. Robby Mook made sure Hillary crushed the Florida early vote, but still got swamped on the Election Day vote. It's just like taking out a loan... You eventually have to pay it back.

But Hillary didn't really crush the early Florida vote but also presidential election vs special is apples to oranges

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-early-vote-2016_us_58200106e4b0e80b02cae01c

In North Carolina, 1.3 million Democrats voted early, compared to just 990,000 Republican.

Having been burned by stories / numbers like this, it's hard not to be skeptical.

clinton won both of those states, so

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new thread namer.

Go ahead!  It only proves how having actual steadfastly conservative positions is ridiculed here!

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Go ahead!  It only proves how having actual steadfastly conservative positions is ridiculed here!

Then please explain how poverty will be eliminated within 5 years if we scrap every last bit of the social safety net, the only thing propping millions of people up right now. If that was the answer all along, why was anyone ever poor to begin with before we had those programs? You didn't even bother backing this statement up. Bootstraps alone won't magically solve everything.

All I can gather from this statement is either 1) you're a troll, 2) you're just heartless and you know damn well poverty will go through the roof, but since you got yours..., or 3) you honestly have no idea how the world works and just blindly think govt is the problem without having a clue why.

And the only thing this proves is how much ExtremeRepublican positions are ridiculed, and rightly so.

In 1950, the poverty rate was around 30%.  From then until the late 1960s, the poverty rate decreased pretty much linearly at a rate of 1 percentage point per year to about 12%.  In the late 1960s, we created a bunch of new social programs and LBJ launched the War on Poverty.  At that point, poverty suddenly stopped decreasing, and it is still at the 1960s levels today.  With the track that we were on, poverty would have likely been eradicated in America by 1980 if the government had never intervened in the first place.  Unfortunately, human nature is that people will not work if they can get almost as much money from the government from numerous different entitlement programs (each one may not be huge, but they add up quickly).  There are, by the way, several points where making one more dollar would result in a decrease in total income after taxes and benefits due to a loss of entitlements and the government stealing a higher percentage of the income through taxation.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

glad to see that at least the democratic base is accepting reälity

What's so illegitimate about Trump? You can say muh popular vote all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

ya m8 he didn't win by either measure so i don't see what your point is

[100% pro-life no matter what]

glad to see that at least the democratic base is accepting reälity

What's so illegitimate about Trump? You can say muh popular vote all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that presidential elections are determined by the electoral college.

ya m8 he didn't win by either measure so i don't see what your point is

i'm sorry facts trigger you (?)

Explain exactly why you think Clinton won the Electoral College

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Wine is pretty gross. Why would anyone drink it period?

Wine, like most things, is an acquired taste and super good once you're used to it.  It's actually pretty entertaining for a weekend activity to get into the different types of (red) wine.  I think white wine is gross, though.

White wine is too sweet.  Red wine is just plain amazingly though.  Bougie.

You know, I'm an idiot. Like, I don't know much about most things. But I know just a LITTLE about wine, okay? And a blanket statement like "white wine is too sweet" is ridiculous. There are many, many varieties of white wine. Within those varieties, some producers add more or less sugar. I have had some sickly sweet chardonnays in my day, and some delicious dry ones as well. If you want to say something like "Moscato in general is too sweet for me" I will shake your hand and offer to finish your glass for you. But if you say "all white wine is too sweet" I will smack you square in the tit. I won't want to - but I will. Because that is dumb.

Nope, all too sweet.

They're all awful (or so I presume, considering I've never had any of them even though I'm 21).

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Hopefully someone like Kasich, Sandoval or Jeb so we can get someone competent and good after they impeach Pence too.

At least we now know the real motivations of the impeachment talk