The BlueSwan Basement of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VIII

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

It should be the Krassenstein brothers.

[Politician]

It is not possible, he can get above the 45% margin if he tries hard there.

Of course it is....Not likely, but in a D wave [Kansas] could flip. It'll certainly go D before Iowa

[Joe Republic]

Where to even begin with this claptrap...

Our society is driven much more by social issues than economic issues, I'll be the first to admit that.

The people who should be generalized into voting Republican (Rich, Hollywood, Wall Street elites) end up voting Democrat because of social issues. They're the type of people who adopt 10 kids from Ethiopia and name them Rainbow, Starfish and Moonbeam.

On the other hand, the white working class who should be generalized into voting for Democrats (Mobile homes, middle class, lower class) vote Republican because they find cultural elitism and liberalism on social issues abhorrent.

One reason for this is that the wealthy can afford to be immoral.  They can afford exorbitant child support for children from different mothers.  They can afford divorce because they can afford more than one house payment.  They have the best healthcare to mitigate the social ills such as STDs, chemical dependency treatment, etc. 

The working class have to be moral because they can't afford not to be.  A child out of wedlock, a divorce, being arrested for a misdemeanor crime of rowdiness is far more devastating for the working class than it is for the glitterati.  Indeed, having children out of wedlock for the working class is almost a guarantee of struggling to fall below the poverthy line.

Money does mitigate the natural consequences of immorality; that's why they don't want to be reined in, morally.  The can better afford sin.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Where to even begin with this claptrap...

Our society is driven much more by social issues than economic issues, I'll be the first to admit that.

The people who should be generalized into voting Republican (Rich, Hollywood, Wall Street elites) end up voting Democrat because of social issues. They're the type of people who adopt 10 kids from Ethiopia and name them Rainbow, Starfish and Moonbeam.

On the other hand, the white working class who should be generalized into voting for Democrats (Mobile homes, middle class, lower class) vote Republican because they find cultural elitism and liberalism on social issues abhorrent.

One reason for this is that the wealthy can afford to be immoral.  They can afford exorbitant child support for children from different mothers.  They can afford divorce because they can afford more than one house payment.  They have the best healthcare to mitigate the social ills such as STDs, chemical dependency treatment, etc. 

The working class have to be moral because they can't afford not to be.  A child out of wedlock, a divorce, being arrested for a misdemeanor crime of rowdiness is far more devastating for the working class than it is for the glitterati.  Indeed, having children out of wedlock for the working class is almost a guarantee of struggling to fall below the poverthy line.

Money does mitigate the natural consequences of immorality; that's why they don't want to be reined in, morally.  The can better afford sin.

It's classic Fuzzy. It's smart-sounding, it's reasonablish, and it's totally wrong. The working class is much more likely to get divorced, have children out of wedlock, and commit crimes. That's an actual fact. Fuzzy's problem is that he's so enamoured with his intelligence, he thinks that he can figure out the world from his own armchair. He doesn't appear to actually believe in evidence, just smart sounding bullsh**t.

[DINGO Joe]

Where to even begin with this claptrap...

Our society is driven much more by social issues than economic issues, I'll be the first to admit that.

The people who should be generalized into voting Republican (Rich, Hollywood, Wall Street elites) end up voting Democrat because of social issues. They're the type of people who adopt 10 kids from Ethiopia and name them Rainbow, Starfish and Moonbeam.

On the other hand, the white working class who should be generalized into voting for Democrats (Mobile homes, middle class, lower class) vote Republican because they find cultural elitism and liberalism on social issues abhorrent.

One reason for this is that the wealthy can afford to be immoral.  They can afford exorbitant child support for children from different mothers.  They can afford divorce because they can afford more than one house payment.  They have the best healthcare to mitigate the social ills such as STDs, chemical dependency treatment, etc. 

The working class have to be moral because they can't afford not to be.  A child out of wedlock, a divorce, being arrested for a misdemeanor crime of rowdiness is far more devastating for the working class than it is for the glitterati.  Indeed, having children out of wedlock for the working class is almost a guarantee of struggling to fall below the poverthy line.

Money does mitigate the natural consequences of immorality; that's why they don't want to be reined in, morally.  The can better afford sin.

It's classic Fuzzy. It's smart-sounding, it's reasonablish, and it's totally wrong. The working class is much more likely to get divorced, have children out of wedlock, and commit crimes. That's an actual fact. Fuzzy's problem is that he's so enamoured with his intelligence, he thinks that he can figure out the world from his own armchair. He doesn't appear to actually believe in evidence, just smart sounding bullsh**t.

Ah, but you see...they can't afford it. 

[Politician]

Where to even begin with this claptrap...

Our society is driven much more by social issues than economic issues, I'll be the first to admit that.

The people who should be generalized into voting Republican (Rich, Hollywood, Wall Street elites) end up voting Democrat because of social issues. They're the type of people who adopt 10 kids from Ethiopia and name them Rainbow, Starfish and Moonbeam.

On the other hand, the white working class who should be generalized into voting for Democrats (Mobile homes, middle class, lower class) vote Republican because they find cultural elitism and liberalism on social issues abhorrent.

One reason for this is that the wealthy can afford to be immoral.  They can afford exorbitant child support for children from different mothers.  They can afford divorce because they can afford more than one house payment.  They have the best healthcare to mitigate the social ills such as STDs, chemical dependency treatment, etc. 

The working class have to be moral because they can't afford not to be.  A child out of wedlock, a divorce, being arrested for a misdemeanor crime of rowdiness is far more devastating for the working class than it is for the glitterati.  Indeed, having children out of wedlock for the working class is almost a guarantee of struggling to fall below the poverthy line.

Money does mitigate the natural consequences of immorality; that's why they don't want to be reined in, morally.  The can better afford sin.

The simple truths thread is that way.

[AudmanOut]

If it's a very bad Dem nominee like Clinton again, Then New Mexico could in fact be competitive, Otherwise, Likely D state for 2020 I feel like.

[AudmanOut]

Also...

Vietnam vet with left-wing antiestablishment views.

President
1980: Jimmy Carter
1984: Ronald Reagan
1988: Michael Dukakis
1992: Ross Perot
1996: Ross Perot
2000: Al Gore
2004: John Kerry
2008: Barack Obama
2012: Barack Obama
2016: Donald Trump

Governor
1982: Tom Bradley
1986: George Deukmejian
1990: Dianne Feinstein
1994: Pete Wilson
1998: Gray Davis
2002: Gray Davis
2003: Yes/Tom McClintock
2006: Arnold Schwarzenegger
2010: Jerry Brown
2014: Jerry Brown
2018: John H. Cox

+ old men in Appalachia

This guy called California ‘Appalachia’ that is the most absurd thing I have ever seen/heard.

[IceSpear]

Yes.

I would probably be okay with rounding up registered Republicans at the time of abolishment and "disappearing" them, too.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Yes.

I would probably be okay with rounding up registered Republicans at the time of abolishment and "disappearing" them, too.

Brought to you by the guy who made a petition thread to ban me over a dick joke.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I imagine this is such a massive blowout (even by MD standards) because of an uncontroversial incumbent?

It's funny, I actually didn't vote for him because he refused to endorse Jealous. I wrote in my wife's name.

[Zaybay]

I imagine this is such a massive blowout (even by MD standards) because of an uncontroversial incumbent?

It's funny, I actually didn't vote for him because he refused to endorse Jealous. I wrote in my wife's name.

Whats wrong with that? Seems rather reasonable. They didnt vote for the Ds who refused to endorse their own D candidate for governor, nothing wrong with that.

[RINO Tom]

No because I don’t care about small towns anymore, if they want to matter then can move to the city/or suburbs.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I imagine this is such a massive blowout (even by MD standards) because of an uncontroversial incumbent?

It's funny, I actually didn't vote for him because he refused to endorse Jealous. I wrote in my wife's name.

Whats wrong with that? Seems rather reasonable. They didnt vote for the Ds who refused to endorse their own D candidate for governor, nothing wrong with that.

"Only vote for candidates who support Trump."

[Zaybay]

I imagine this is such a massive blowout (even by MD standards) because of an uncontroversial incumbent?

It's funny, I actually didn't vote for him because he refused to endorse Jealous. I wrote in my wife's name.

Whats wrong with that? Seems rather reasonable. They didnt vote for the Ds who refused to endorse their own D candidate for governor, nothing wrong with that.

"Only vote for candidates who support Trump."

still not really that absurd or ignorant, TBH. If people want to support an agenda, then why vote for someone who opposes it?

[Politician]

Yes, so we could finally have a conservative party that wasn't tainted by Lincoln.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think Gabbard could win a county in WV.

[Politician]

Beto is inspirational, he has experience and he is a white boy. He's new. He doesn't have Biden and Bernie's baggage. He will outperform Obama's 2008 and 2012 numbers in these states.

[Joe Republic]

Emphasis mine:

I do enjoy certain people's use of 'illegal' as a noun, and other de-humanizing terms like 'crash our borders'.  This must be what they imagine our southern border must look like:

That's exactly what they are doing.  They have entered the country in violation of our laws and they have done so by permeating our borders illegally.

That's not OK.  Doing nothing about it isn't OK either because such a policy does nothing to deter more to violate our laws.

I don't think you care as to the burden American taxpayers shoulder in this matter.

[Intell]

Spanking should be a criminal offense.

[AudmanOut]

What was he drinking in prison?

I admit, if he runs for say, Rohrabacher's seat, I have no doubt he'd make it out of the jungle primary, but he'd never win the General Election.

He's better off just waiting until 2022, and challenging Newsom for Governor. He'd probably the strongest Republican in the race (unless Republicans do the impossible and draft McCarthy).

I mean the strongest candidate would be Kevin Falcouner. If Newsom goes far left enough Falcouner would atleast win SOCAL.

I think McCarthy would be stronger, because he'd be able to raise more money, but I see your point about Falcouner.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Emphasis mine:

I do enjoy certain people's use of 'illegal' as a noun, and other de-humanizing terms like 'crash our borders'.  This must be what they imagine our southern border must look like:

That's exactly what they are doing.  They have entered the country in violation of our laws and they have done so by permeating our borders illegally.

That's not OK.  Doing nothing about it isn't OK either because such a policy does nothing to deter more to violate our laws.

I don't think you care as to the burden American taxpayers shoulder in this matter.

Compassionate conservatism.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Spanking should be a criminal offense.

[NewYorkExpress]

Spanking should be a criminal offense.

I'm sorry, but in world is that absurd or ignorant?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Spanking should be a criminal offense.

I'm sorry, but in world is that absurd or ignorant?

Intell thinks it absurd that child abuse should be illegal.