Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2017, 12:57:57 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 608
26  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45) on: April 07, 2017, 02:50:31 pm
I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control.  

And it would've gone down identically...

Yes, agreed. The Filibuster had to end eventually for the Republic to continue to function. It had outlived its usefulness and its intended purpose, and when it got to where any controversial legislation was being filibustered, it was contributing to the gridlock and paralysis which has afflicted congress for the past 20 years, the result being an increasingly - dangerously - powerful executive branch. And in the long run, this gridlock benefits Republicans for ideological reasons: by making government look broken and ineffective, low-information swing voters will gravitate towards the party that claims all government is inherently broken and ineffective. Just think what the Democratic trifecta could have accomplished in 2009-2010 without the filibuster: we could have gotten a public option, comprehensive immigration reform, gun safety legislation, more robust regulation of Wall Street, and possibly much else besides.

And yes, I know we technically have the filibuster for legislation, though I don't expect that to be the case a year or two from now. In any case, long run it has to end, and it's better for Republicans to take the heat for ending it. At the rate things are going, I don't think we'll have to wait long for the next Democratic Trifecta.

I fear what Republicans would do once they get rid of the legislative filibuster as well.  And I'm not sure I want to find out. 

This is why I wanted Democrats to keep their powder dry.
27  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45) on: April 07, 2017, 02:31:09 pm
I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control. 

And it would've gone down identically...

Better to use the filibuster on a nominee who could change the composition of the court as opposed to wasting it on someone who wouldn't have. 
28  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: VA-GOV 2017: Tom Perriello to run for Va. governor: report on: April 07, 2017, 02:24:01 pm
My issue with Tom Perriello (besides his insincere vibe) is his opportunism -it's just too obvious.  I don't want to vote for someone so as to enable them to get a springboard for higher office.  Focus on being my governor, first and foremost.  

As opposed to the 99.99% of other people who run for elected office Roll Eyes  This idea that Perriello is somehow more ambitious than most politicians and that if this is true it means he'll be a bad Governor is pretty silly, tbh.  I mean, does anyone here really think Northam didn't run for Lieutenant Governor simply to use the office as a springboard or that he wouldn't use being Governor of Virginia as a springboard to run for higher office if he really thought it'd make him a viable candidate for said office?

Most politicians at least pretend to act as if the elected position they're running for is their heart's desire.  It's less insulting to their voters that way.  We don't appreciate being used, much less reminded of it.  Tom Perriello, however, reminds me of Marco Rubio.  I wonder if he's going to spend more of his time on the job, or running around the country seeking endorsements, raising money, and going to Iowa and New Hampshire.  Tongue

Quote
For that matter, I find the claims that Perriello is a shrewd, careerist, insincere phony while Northam is some sort of ambition-free Smiley Smiley Virginia first Smiley Smiley hero to be silly too.  Perriello consistently made tough, high-profile, progressive votes in the house and he didn't run away from them when he ran for re-election.  If he were an insincere careerist hack, he wouldn't have done that given the district he represented.  That was a rare example of someone knowingly sacrificing (b/c let's be honest, no one expected to hear from him again after that) their political career to do what they thought was right time after time.  I'm not saying Northam's a DINO or even any worse than the average politician, but he doesn't have anywhere near as impressive a record in this regard and was even considered a potential party-switcher by the Republicans.

Perriello made those 'tough, high-profile, progressive' votes that only seem impressive because his eye was always on a higher, national office.  Let's not forget how quickly he disavowed his earlier conservative record on gun control and abortion as opposed to standing by them.  I certainly won't.  
29  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: April 07, 2017, 01:47:11 pm
Please, let's not have witch hunts against new posters, especially ones which add to the ideological diversity of Atlas.

Our tolerance for opposing viewpoints shouldn't extend to white nationalists or white supremacists.  Absolutely we should hound them out and make explicitly clear that their kind are not welcome here, and that we have no interest in what they have to say about anything.  
30  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Neil Gorsuch Confirmation Process Discussion (confirmed 54-45) on: April 07, 2017, 01:35:49 pm
I'm glad Democrats decided to walk back from the brink on this one -Neil Gorsuch's confirmation doesn't change the liberal/conservative equilibrium on the court.  Best to save the judicial filibuster for another day, perhaps when either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg die or retire with Republicans still in full control.
The GOP killed the filibuster. What are you talking about?

Whoops....

Still, I was never comfortable with Democrats using the filibuster, and staking everything on stopping a nominee who isn't going to change the ideological composition of the Supreme Court even if he was confirmed.  I would have preferred if we had saved it for another day, perhaps if Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either die or retire with Republican still in full control. 
31  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: VA-GOV 2017: Tom Perriello to run for Va. governor: report on: April 07, 2017, 01:32:35 pm
My issue with Tom Perriello (besides his insincere vibe) is his opportunism -it's just too obvious.  I don't want to vote for someone so as to enable them to get a springboard for higher office.  Focus on being my governor, first and foremost.   
32  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Do you support the missile strikes on Syria? on: April 07, 2017, 01:15:21 pm
Whatever Trump's motivations (include burying -for a time- news stories about his election campaign's collusion with Russia), I support these limited strikes in response to Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons that he was supposed to have handed over to Russia years ago.

I just wish we had intervened at least five years earlier.  Still, it's worth reminding Assad that if he uses WMDs, there are consequences for it. 
33  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Opioid Epidemic Reveals America's Race Problem on: April 04, 2017, 08:07:11 am
Quote
This is the kind of story that not just [Chris] Christie but countless lawmakers across the US have told in reaction to the opioid epidemic: how a close experience with a personal friend or family member drove them to understand drug addiction and the opioid crisis in a much more compassionate way — one that emphasizes treating drug misuse as a public health issue.

Similarly, President Donald Trump, who appointed Christie to a commission studying the opioid epidemic, often brings up the alcohol addiction that consumed and killed his brother. Businesswoman Carly Fiorina, who briefly ran for president in 2016, also mentioned her daughter’s death due to drugs on the campaign trail. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wrote an article on his daughter’s drug struggles on Medium. And that doesn’t even begin to get into the many, many state lawmakers who have shared similar stories about husbands, wives, sons, daughters, friends, and coworkers who struggled with addiction.

This, they all say, has led them to believe in the need for better, comprehensive drug treatment.

These stories show how lived experiences and personal relationships can influence serious policy decisions. After all, politicians bring up the people in their lives who they saw needlessly suffer and die due to drugs for a specific purpose: to call for an approach to addiction focused on public health over criminal justice.

But in this way, these stories also expose the impact of another issue that may not seem related at first: race.

Even after decades of progress on racial issues, America remains a very segregated country. On a day to day basis, most Americans closely interact only with people of the same race. And that impacts our policies.

Consider the opioid epidemic, which contributed to the record 52,000 drug overdose deaths reported in 2015. Because the crisis has disproportionately affected white Americans, white lawmakers — who make up a disproportionate amount of all levels of government — are more likely to come into contact with people afflicted by the opioid epidemic than, say, the disproportionately black drug users who suffered during the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s and ’90s. And that means a lawmaker is perhaps more likely to have the kind of interaction that Christie, Trump, Bush, and Fiorina described — one that might lead them to support more compassionate drug policies — in the current crisis than the ones of old.

Is it any wonder, then, that the crack epidemic led to a “tough on crime” crackdown focused on harsher prison sentences and police tactics, while the current opioid crisis has led more to calls for legislation, including a measure Congress passed last year, that boosted spending on drug treatment to get people with substance use disorders help?

Vox
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Missing the obvious for 2020? on: March 29, 2017, 11:03:54 pm
I'm surprised so many Sanders followers support Tom Perriello, given he is arguably the Bernie Bro equivalent of Hillary Clinton -oozing with insincerity and inauthenticity.  He only changed his stripes from being a moderate conservative Virginia congressman to becoming basically a Sanders Democrat when he licked his forefinger and stuck it up in the air to see which way the wind was blowing.  

I thought that was why you absolutely hated her -unless, of course, it's okay if that candidate is one of yours. 

35  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Newsweek: Comey tried to reveal "Russiagate" months earlier, got blocked by WH on: March 29, 2017, 10:54:53 pm
When will we stop hearing about this? There's so many issues the Democrats can attack Trump on, but no one really cares about Russia anymore.

You're only saying this because your side benefited from Russian interference (and could well do so again in the future), and you don't want to be constantly reminded of it.  

Shouldn't it bother you more that Putin effectively robbed Trump's election victory of its legitimacy, or at the very least put it into question?  
36  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Trump claims Obama wire tapped Trump Tower. on: March 29, 2017, 10:17:05 am
I think Nunes should be arrested.  I dont care if its legal or not.

Let's not jump the gun -he should be investigated first.
37  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump's Wall to Cost Upwards of $67 Billion on: March 29, 2017, 10:00:58 am
To put this into perspective, this is more than the cost of the first phase of California's high speed rail project, connecting Merced to San Francisco.
38  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Trump's Wall to Cost Upwards of $67 Billion on: March 29, 2017, 09:49:44 am
Not the $8 to $10 billion he promised us.  

According to The Hill:

http://thehill.com/regulation/326202-top-dem-trumps-wall-would-cost-67b
39  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: March 28, 2017, 03:13:48 pm
Eharding is permabanned.

Thank the Lord.  Smiley

Now let's move on to all the other white supremacists/nationalists (or whatever the hell they call themselves), and purge them from this forum...
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Southern Conservatives are America's Unofficial Third Party on: March 28, 2017, 03:03:45 pm
And it's a third party that has been in existence since the founding of the republic:

Southern Conservatives Are America's Third Party

Chris Ladd ,   Contributor

Quote
A system of winner take-all-elections and single-member Congressional districts has concentrated American political power into two parties. Over the centuries those two parties have carried different names and brands, but their composition has remained remarkably constant.

Democrats have traditionally been the party of farmers and laborers. Republicans were the party of tradesmen, merchants, investors and professionals. Both parties supported a broad spectrum of liberals and conservatives and neither of them fully dominated any geography outside the South. Splinter parties and offshoots appeared from time to time, but this Republican/Democratic dichotomy has defined our system from its earliest days.

All the while, an unacknowledged and unofficial third party has survived inside these alignments. A party of Southern conservatives, aligned originally with Democrats, has remained a distinct political entity, complete with their own institutions, practices and values. Elsewhere in America, Democrats and Republicans dueled their way through a two-party democracy. By contrast, Southern states never tolerated partisan competition. Southern states have always been governed by a single, distinct local party, an arrangement that continues today.

America is a three-party nation locked inside a two-party political process. Poles of American partisan alignment have been scrambled in recent decades by a rare event, something unprecedented in our history. Our Southern conservative shadow party just completed a decades-long shift in its official affiliation. It will take time for our system to absorb the implications of this change and establish a new equilibrium. This journey toward a new alignment of our political poles has no certain endpoint, no roadmap, and no promise of a happy ending.
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Religious Left Emerging as a Political Force in the Age of Trump on: March 28, 2017, 12:23:22 am
Ultimately the Religious Left (if it grows strong enough) could serve as a healthy check on the more secularist elements of the Democratic Party, especially among the activist base.  I don't want the party to be seen as hostile to people of religious faith.  
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Religious Left Emerging as a Political Force in the Age of Trump on: March 28, 2017, 12:03:59 am
Should the Democratic Party embrace the religious left as closely as Republicans (beginning with Ronald Reagan) embraced the religious right?
 
Quote
Since President Donald Trump's election, monthly lectures on social justice at the 600-seat Gothic chapel of New York's Union Theological Seminary have been filled to capacity with crowds three times what they usually draw.

In January, the 181-year-old Upper Manhattan graduate school, whose architecture evokes London's Westminster Abbey, turned away about 1,000 people from a lecture on mass incarceration. In the nine years that Reverend Serene Jones has served as its president, she has never seen such crowds.

"The election of Trump has been a clarion call to progressives in the Protestant and Catholic churches in America to move out of a place of primarily professing progressive policies to really taking action," she said.

Although not as powerful as the religious right, which has been credited with helping elect Republican presidents and boasts well-known leaders such as Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson, the "religious left" is now slowly coming together as a force in U.S. politics.

This disparate group, traditionally seen as lacking clout, has been propelled into political activism by Trump's policies on immigration, healthcare and social welfare, according to clergy members, activists and academics. A key test will be how well it will be able to translate its mobilization into votes in the 2018 midterm congressional elections.

"It's one of the dirty little secrets of American politics that there has been a religious left all along and it just hasn't done a good job of organizing," said J. Patrick Hornbeck II, chairman of the theology department at Fordham University, a Jesuit school in New York.

Reuters

43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will Donald Trump be remembered in 2066? on: March 28, 2017, 12:02:34 am
Have no idea, but if I have anything to do with it, he should be utterly forgotten as a mere footnote in history. 
44  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Why did people support my ban? on: March 26, 2017, 08:16:23 am
Because of who you are.  Be glad I'm not a moderator, or anyone with the status of Nym90, because  I would have banned you and every other white supremacist (permanently) the moment you showed your true colors. 
45  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: March 25, 2017, 09:54:44 pm
Eharding and Famous Mortimer are banned for a week.

I guess he's coming back tomorrow or the day after Tongue

Oh, joy...
I really think he'll do well. This ban likely knocked some sense into it.

The fact he has a portraiture of the young John C. Calhoun in his sig should convince the holdouts that he is a white supremacist.  Tongue

-I decided on Calhoun because, as he was Jackson's VP pick, but fell out with Jackson due to tariff disputes, this sorta fits my strong support for the Trump campaign 2015-this week, followed by a falling out this week over a combination of healthcare, Russia, Syria, and failure to rescind DACA. I also found Calhoun's strong arguments against the Mexican war persuasive, and found his stances on tariffs and states' rights to be more consistent with the promotion of liberty than Jackson's stances on these matters.


I find your tip-toeing around his advocating on behalf of the institute of slavery (which defined him for all time) amusing.  
-Jackson wasn't anti-slavery, either; he was a major real estate investor and plantation owner.

Andrew Jackson didn't actively write papers, or make speeches defending slavery last I checked.

-Of course he did:
link

Ordering the Postal Service not to send abolitionist tracts to the South (with the intention of preserving the Union), and being an active advocate on behalf of the institute of slavery are two very different things.  
46  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Was my ban just? on: March 25, 2017, 09:49:44 pm
You should have stayed banned -joined with any other white supremacist/nationalist currently infesting our forum. 
47  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: March 25, 2017, 09:38:24 pm
Eharding and Famous Mortimer are banned for a week.

I guess he's coming back tomorrow or the day after Tongue

Oh, joy...
I really think he'll do well. This ban likely knocked some sense into it.

The fact he has a portraiture of the young John C. Calhoun in his sig should convince the holdouts that he is a white supremacist.  Tongue

-I decided on Calhoun because, as he was Jackson's VP pick, but fell out with Jackson due to tariff disputes, this sorta fits my strong support for the Trump campaign 2015-this week, followed by a falling out this week over a combination of healthcare, Russia, Syria, and failure to rescind DACA. I also found Calhoun's strong arguments against the Mexican war persuasive, and found his stances on tariffs and states' rights to be more consistent with the promotion of liberty than Jackson's stances on these matters.


I find your tip-toeing around his advocating on behalf of the institute of slavery (which defined him for all time) amusing. 
-Jackson wasn't anti-slavery, either; he was a major real estate investor and plantation owner.

Andrew Jackson didn't actively write papers, or make speeches defending slavery last I checked.
48  Forum Community / Forum Community / How Old Were You When You Joined Atlas? on: March 25, 2017, 09:33:42 pm
And I mean when you started posting, not necessarily when you registered. 

I was 22, and in my final year in college. 
49  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: March 25, 2017, 09:17:58 pm
Eharding and Famous Mortimer are banned for a week.

I guess he's coming back tomorrow or the day after Tongue

Oh, joy...
I really think he'll do well. This ban likely knocked some sense into it.

The fact he has a portraiture of the young John C. Calhoun in his sig should convince the holdouts that he is a white supremacist.  Tongue

-I decided on Calhoun because, as he was Jackson's VP pick, but fell out with Jackson due to tariff disputes, this sorta fits my strong support for the Trump campaign 2015-this week, followed by a falling out this week over a combination of healthcare, Russia, Syria, and failure to rescind DACA. I also found Calhoun's strong arguments against the Mexican war persuasive, and found his stances on tariffs and states' rights to be more consistent with the promotion of liberty than Jackson's stances on these matters.

I find your tip-toeing around his advocating on behalf of the institute of slavery (which defined him for all time) amusing. 
50  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: March 25, 2017, 09:00:45 pm
Eharding and Famous Mortimer are banned for a week.

I guess he's coming back tomorrow or the day after Tongue

Oh, joy...
I really think he'll do well. This ban likely knocked some sense into it.

The fact he has a portraiture of the young John C. Calhoun in his sig should convince the holdouts that he is a white supremacist.  Tongue
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 608


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines