The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[Politician]

A reminder why this thread is named this way:

WI Dems need to disband. This is their death knell. Where were all the people that mocked me for saying this was a Solid R race?

We'd sooner see a Governor Cordray (and that has a 3% shot of happening) than a Governor Roys/Evers. That's a fact.

WI is trending R and will become a Lean R state but it wont become as Republican as Ohio

Lol, Wisconsin is not a Republican state because Trump won it, that was due to the collapse of Clinton among rust-belt voters, many of whom are Democrats. In fact, the fastest growing areas of Wisconsin are the Democratic areas and the rural areas are always swing areas. Kerry won WI by only 0.4%. But go on, tell yourself that Wisconsin is a Safe R state because Trump.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

now this is a good idea, but only if closes the new agency immediately.

[OSR stands with Israel]

A reminder why this thread is named this way:

WI Dems need to disband. This is their death knell. Where were all the people that mocked me for saying this was a Solid R race?

We'd sooner see a Governor Cordray (and that has a 3% shot of happening) than a Governor Roys/Evers. That's a fact.

WI is trending R and will become a Lean R state but it wont become as Republican as Ohio

Lol, Wisconsin is not a Republican state because Trump won it, that was due to the collapse of Clinton among rust-belt voters, many of whom are Democrats. In fact, the fastest growing areas of Wisconsin are the Democratic areas and the rural areas are always swing areas. Kerry won WI by only 0.4%. But go on, tell yourself that Wisconsin is a Safe R state because Trump.

Trump actually underperformed in WI


Most of other Republicans win WI by at least 2 points .


It was Walker who made WI GOP not Trump

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This whole post has lots of dumb, but the bold part stands out as up there with the most absurd strawmen I've ever seen here.

lol democrats are okay with Harley Rouda being a literal Kasich donor but not Ojeda voting for Trump.

Uh, yes? Trump is (rightfully) seen as far more toxic among the vast majority of Democrats than Kasich is for obvious reasons, other than the #populists<3 here who prefer Trump because he's anti establishment <3333333. One voted for the Democratic nominee, the other did not. It's really no comparison. In addition, last time I checked, Kasich is not shoving brown kids into dog kennels, attempting to rip Medicaid from the hands of millions (so #populist ), etc. Oh, and of course one is the president destroying the country and the other is governor of Ohio. Need I go on?

Do all of you know Ojeda voted for Trump?

Yes, and this is why I want him to fail.

Furthermore, the fact that Ojeda, one of the Democrats running for the House pledging not to support Pelosi for Speaker, supported Trump, contributes to me distrusting every Democrat who pledges not to support Pelosi for Speaker in general.

Ridiculous. Throwing out candidates because they voted for Trump is not the way to win back people we need if we're ever going to branch beyond urban areas in the north.

How often did Republicans nominate candidates in 2010 who voted for Obama, even though Obama won by a far bigger margin than Trump did? And actually, you know, got more votes than his opponent did.

How many Republicans were running in a mirror image WV-03 (i.e. Obama +50 CD with a huge R registration advantage)?

I doubt a single Republican nominee in 2010 voted for Obama even if their district was Obama +80. And if they did, there's no way in hell they would've gotten an iota of support from their party. Running in Obama districts didn't stop far right nuts like Joe Walsh and Allen West from winning, btw.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

[Santander]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

Like your church?

[Badger]

A reminder why this thread is named this way:

WI Dems need to disband. This is their death knell. Where were all the people that mocked me for saying this was a Solid R race?

We'd sooner see a Governor Cordray (and that has a 3% shot of happening) than a Governor Roys/Evers. That's a fact.

WI is trending R and will become a Lean R state but it wont become as Republican as Ohio

Lol, Wisconsin is not a Republican state because Trump won it, that was due to the collapse of Clinton among rust-belt voters, many of whom are Democrats. In fact, the fastest growing areas of Wisconsin are the Democratic areas and the rural areas are always swing areas. Kerry won WI by only 0.4%. But go on, tell yourself that Wisconsin is a Safe R state because Trump.

Trump actually underperformed in WI


Most of other Republicans win WI by at least 2 points .


It was Walker who made WI GOP not Trump

Thank you for posting directly into the thread.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not really his fault, but considering what happened just a little later, it is absurd.

SCOTUSBlog: No retirement announcements from any Justices.

[Vespucci]

If there are bans on abortion, females will go to CA to have their abortions, it doesn't matter

Yes, because all women can afford to go to California.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

It's treated as a bigger problem because it is the bigger problem.

[PragmaticPopulist]

This is proof that the only way to truly end mass shootings is a full scale 2nd amendment repeal + mass gun confiscation.

[Virginiá]

This is proof that the only way to truly end mass shootings is a full scale 2nd amendment repeal + mass gun confiscation.

Thinking about that statement more, if America ever got to the point where it was able to pass + ratify a full 2nd amendment repeal, then such a post might actually find itself in the good posts gallery instead. An amendment really needs widespread support to get ratified. Either that or a whole lot of pols willing to buck the country's electorate so brazenly on a hot button issue, surely leading to a lot of lost elections afterwards.

Anyway, bad post. I'm all for gun control but not that. 2nd repeal + mass confiscation sounds ridiculous.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

It's treated as a bigger problem because it is the bigger problem.

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

It's treated as a bigger problem because it is the bigger problem.

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

It's treated as a bigger problem because it is the bigger problem.

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

?

At least in the US(and presumably Europe).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

It's treated as a bigger problem because it is the bigger problem.

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

1-White != Christian. Not all white people are Christian. There also are white people who are Muslim, including some terrorists.
2-Cite? Because there's no predominately white terrorist group even close to the death toll of ISIS, or the death toll of 9/11.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

It's treated as a bigger problem because it is the bigger problem.

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

1-White != Christian. Not all white people are Christian.
2-Cite? Because there's no predominately white terrorist group even close to the death toll of ISIS, or the death toll of 9/11.

1. Yeah, I made a semantic mistake there. Lets move on.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/16396612/las-vegas-mass-shooting-terrorism-islam

2- I'm not counting civil war deaths from ISIS because that's not terrorism.

It's since 9/11, and when you look at number of acts(because methods used, competency, and target influence death toll), white terrorists beat Muslim terrorists then too.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Are we calling the Las Vegas shooting “terrorism” now?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Are we calling the Las Vegas shooting “terrorism” now?

Ignoring that all of the other examples were clear acts of terror.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

It's treated as a bigger problem because it is the bigger problem.

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

That isn't true outside of your insular world of paranoia, resentment, and fear tho.

[RINO Tom]

^ God, I hate Oxford commas for some reason ... it's the battle I'm willing to perish for.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

^ God, I hate Oxford commas for some reason ... it's the battle I'm willing to perish for.

Wha...? Oxford commas add sense to a sentence. Removing the last comma makes the final two items sound like a pair. “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, etc. When speaking, you space out your words differently in a list based on where those words fall in the list?

[TDAS04]

^ God, I hate Oxford commas for some reason ... it's the battle I'm willing to perish for.

What would someone be saying if they wrote this?

"I love my kids, God and America."

Oxford commas should exist, imo.  

[RINO Tom]

^ God, I hate Oxford commas for some reason ... it's the battle I'm willing to perish for.

Wha...? Oxford commas add sense to a sentence. Removing the last comma makes the final two items sound like a pair. “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, etc. When speaking, you space out your words differently in a list based on where those words fall in the list?

Not to derail the thread, but that is part of the reason I hate it: most grammar experts acknowledge that it is, at the end of the day, stylistic and comes down to personal preference, and anyone who DOESN'T use it would agree.  You only get people who are ardent Oxford comma users who have the attitude that to not use it is stupid.  While it (arguably) provides some (arguably unneeded, as people who don't use it would argue that the "or" or "and" function perfectly fine as the final separation and the last comma clutters things and is unnecessary)) clarity in certain instances, it can also make things more confusing in others:

"My personal heroes are my father, Brad Pitt, and God."  It looks like you're renaming your father as Brad Pitt for clarification.  Again, I'm not a fan of how it looks and acknowledge that it can both remove and create ambiguity, so I was just kidding about hating it.  However, I don't like how so many who use it think they're "right" to use it.

^ God, I hate Oxford commas for some reason ... it's the battle I'm willing to perish for.

What would someone be saying if they wrote this?

"I love my kids, God and America."

Oxford commas should exist, imo.  

See my post below yours.