The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Oldiesfreak1854]

He was an FF towards the very end, but he spent the majority of his career as the spokesman of a cult which advocated segregation and racism. Can't vote anything other than HP.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's going to help Republicans win down-ballot elections for offices that nobody cares about. Many people would just check the straight-ticket box and be done with it, where if they remove straight-ticket, those straight-ticket Democratic voters more than likely won't take the time to vote down-ballot, and we all know who wins elections that nobody turns out for.

Election laws should not be written around the particular GOTV struggles of one party. That the Democrats can't convince their supporters to fill out an entire ballot says nothing about the about the alleged merits of straight ticket voting.

This post so many times over.

Wouldn't it help Democrats win down-ballot elections that people don't care about, too?

[bagelman]

There was voter fraud going on in both camps in Illinois in 1960.  It is impossible to know who would have won the state in a "fair" election.

And, of course, Kennedy probably would have won states like Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia if African Americans weren't being systematically disenfranchised.  

So, in my opinion, to say that Nixon was the legitimate winner in 1960 is wrong.

You think Southern Democrats kept Blacks from voting for their party's nominee so that Eisenhower's VP could become President?

Did either of us say that?

You certainly implied Southern Blacks would have been a sure vote for Kennedy in those states.  And the ones systematically disenfranchising them were Democrats who would have clearly preferred Kennedy to Nixon in 1960.

Dude, get a clue about 1960.

Both Nixon and Kennedy basically agreed on every issue. The only difference between Nixon and Kennedy was really that Nixon was like, "I'll do exactly what Senator Kennedy is proposing, but I'll do it in such a way that is still pro-business, balances the budget, keeps the dollar strong, and is STRONG ON DEFENSE".

That's literally it. If you do some Google searches of the debates (not just the famous televised one) and newspaper reader commentary reaction, a recurring theme from Republican commenters was "Nixon agrees with Kennedy too much".

In 1960, Blacks were faced with two pro-civil rights candidates, except one was an economic liberal and the other a bit less liberal. Considering the economic hardships black Americans have faced (and still do) for all of American history, they are going to vote for the party of comprehensive social safety nets and widespread government investment and a higher minimum wage, not the guy who keeps going on about a strong dollar, business taking precedence over labor, and balancing the budget.

The Republican Party had become the moderate heroes of civil rights, while the Democrats had a hardcore Dixiecrat wing and a pro-civil rights wing at the same time. Stop viewing things in such black-and-white terms.

Make peace with the fact that the Republican Party stopped gunning for civil rights after Reconstruction, and starting in the 1970s began to actively undermine them. I'm happy there are people like you who want to change the party going forward, but you cannot rewrite the past.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Most students are studying under the pall of five-figure debt, marginal job prospects at graduation, and parents whose retirement remains totally unsecured. Nearly half of them won't finish their degrees, and increasingly large shares attend "schools" that we wouldn't recognize as institutions of higher learning in the first place. Many are "non-traditional" students, which usually entails balancing one's studies with menial service sector work, child care, or elder care.

All of which means that focusing on incidents like these as the defining characteristic of higher education in the United States is akin to claiming that the problem with race relations is that hip-hop musicians need to pull up their pants. Moreover, it's no coincidence that most of these stories originate from a handful of upper-tier universities and liberal arts colleges - rarefied institutions where the status and career prospects of students remain secure. It's indicative of some kind of national neuroses, to be sure, but it amazes me how this ridiculousness attracts so much attention and inspires such a visceral response when, across most walks of life in the United States, "higher education" has come to resemble nothing so much as Saturn devouring his young.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

People get very... strange... when discussing diet don't they? Leaving aside the morality issue (apparently people have different worldviews, how utterly shocking!), the idea that we are 'meant' to eat this or that is a silly: humans happen to be omnivorous and can (and indeed do) survive on an absurdly wide range of diets. And what's right for me may not be right for thee: like most people of European origin you'd have to prise dairy products out of my cold dead hands, but in much of the rest of the world lactose intolerance is the norm. Occupation can also be a factor: an appropriate diet for someone doing manual work is often rather different to that of a pen pusher. It is also worth noting that, historically speaking, meat was a rarity before the 19th century even in the West and that current levels of consumption would have been bewildering even in the mid 20th century. The typical diet - outside fishing districts - in preindustrial England consisted almost entirely of bread, cheese and split peas. The typical diet in parts of the South of France and Northern Italy revolved around the chestnut. And so on. Not ideal, certainly not 'balanced', but sufficient to survive.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Holy sh**t, has Congress been running the country this whole time?

[Marokai Backbeat]

No. Despite having the technological ability end such ailments, poverty, malnutrution, repression, premature mortality, disgusting working conditions, war, inequality, illiteracy and deprivation are endemic, and even treated as "just part of the natural order". I'm increasingly convinced that one of the enemies of human progress is the nation-state, but petty nationalism continues to shackle us, and most every other internationalist I've met sounds like a hippy-dippy moron. Even in my first world country, we are led by a small clique from a handful of public schools; yet any attempt to challenge the supremacy of these institutions is met with a screech. The idle rich get away with murder while the poor get sucked dry. There is no solidarity between oppressed persons, despite the fevered dreams of trots. Abuse of children and women by those in powerful goes on unabated. Despite the grave strain the World is under, the system is only achingly slowly moving or even conceiving the thought that will give arise to such a shift.

I mean liberal capitalism is the best solution that has been tried out at the moment. But to say such a system is the best humanity can come up with would basically border on misanthropy...

[Mr. Smith]

I came across this posted in the Good Post Gallery.

Most students are studying under the pall of five-figure debt, marginal job prospects at graduation, and parents whose retirement remains totally unsecured. Nearly half of them won't finish their degrees, and increasingly large shares attend "schools" that we wouldn't recognize as institutions of higher learning in the first place. Many are "non-traditional" students, which usually entails balancing one's studies with menial service sector work, child care, or elder care.

snip

across most walks of life in the United States, "higher education" has come to resemble nothing so much as Saturn devouring his young.

Lately I've been finding this rhetoric ringing hollow. That's not to pick on Maddy or Averroes. This sort of argument about economic decline can be found all across the internet from both left and right.

I won't bore you with some tedious story about how hard I worked and how I did everything right, but to make a long story short, my wife and I both graduated without too much student debt and make reasonable incomes. Our parents are both set to retire in the next few years and will have comfortable if somewhat modest retirements. There is also economic data out there, that would suggest that while things are not booming, the middle class is not on the major decline some make it out to be.

Am I completely in the wrong here? Or do others feel similar to me? Is "the system" working?

This sounds more or less like

"I got mine Jack, now root, hog, or die!"

You are part of what used to be rather normal.  Most people could expect that... but the trend/momentum is really what drives peoples' feelings about the state of things.  The fact is, is that it is getting harder and harder to achieve normal middle class life (the blue collar route shut long ago... the white collar route has red flags and flashing lights all over it indicating it, too, is shrinking).

We could be doing so much better.  We could be using technology and our resources, as crabcake said, to really provide hope and meaningful changes to peoples lives (like, you know... adequate medical and dental benefits for everyone, adequate access to nutritious food (ie not processed simple sugars mixed with cheap vegetable fat) and a basic income security that means everyone can achieve a good work/life balance that allows them to be with their families).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Because fortunately many "working class Whites" weren't Republicans yet, especially in the South ... The good old days.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

What a good post!

[Slow Learner]

What a good post!

Took me a lifetime to get through that novel.

[/]

Context needed:

My wife would be pissed.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

This whole thread is good posts, especially RINO Tom's long one: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=225730.msg4846144

One of the best informational threads in awhile. Some of that should be bookmarked for disproving myths that pop up every month. Wow.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This whole thread is good posts, especially RINO Tom's long one: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=225730.msg4846144

One of the best informational threads in awhile. Some of that should be bookmarked for disproving myths that pop up every month. Wow.

Wow, thanks, bro.

[This account no longer in use.]

Funny how these far-right wingnuts claim to be "defending the Constitution" from "anti-American socialist progressives", yet ignore the Constitution when it conflicts with their personal beliefs.  And obviously, they are so adamant about "states' rights" that they believe states should have the "right" to violate the Constitution. 

Yes, I disagreed with the SC's decision on gay marriage, but it's the law of the land, and trying to undo it is pointless.  Gay marriage is irreversible because now its supporters can legitimately claim that doing so would take away the constitutional rights of homosexuals.  And in all honesty, anyone who knows and understands the history of constitutional law in the US should have seen it coming 10 or 20 years ago.  It's time that my fellow supporters of traditional marriage concede defeat and move on.

[Sumner 1868]

Donald Trump, il n'est pas un bon homme, et il n'est pas drôle non plus.

[Clark Kent]

Donald Trump, il n'est pas un bon homme, et il n'est pas drôle non plus.

Translation: Donald Trump, he isn't a good man, and he is not funny anymore.

[Ebsy]

The difference, of course, is that TRUMP admits he wants to repeal Obamacare. Sanders' supporters, on the other hand, act deeply offended and outraged when it is correctly pointed out that Bernie wants to do the same.

The fact is that the Democratic spent a lot of time, energy, political capital, money and public trust on Obamacare. It's a major part of our President's legacy. We essentially traded our House majority for it. Bernie Sanders wants to, essentially, start all over again from scratch. He wants to go to the American people, and essentially tell them "Sorry about that Obamacare thing that we spent seven years defending, but it actually sucks and now we're going to do a whole new thing that is going to be many times more disruptive, many times more expensive, and this time literally zero of you are going to be able to keep your insurance, even if you like it!"

That's a tough sell. It will cost considerable political capital. It will strain what little trust the American people have left in the competency of the Democratic Party, in the competency of government, in the very idea of an activist government, to be told "oops, we messed up on healthcare reform, time to repeal it and start all over trying a totally new thing!" Sanders should be honest about this.

[Joe Republic]

If you were Clint Eastwood and your neighborhood was the set of a spaghetti Western, I could understand your concern about the ethos of "one shot, one kill". American mythology is founded on similar ideas of frontier masculinity and the trusty firearm with which the hero tames the hostile Frontier. People fantasize about being the protagonist, dealing out justice from the barrel of a Colt .45 (it's what's for dinner), and protecting themselves and their property from thieves and bandits. It seems to me that the decision to arm oneself depends more on the appeal of that script than on a reasonable threat assessment of the risks encountered whilst living in a suburban neighborhood.

People own guns for other reasons, though. I suppose that my neighbor's interest in and ownership of firearms is not that different from my other neighbor's interest in pre-decimal British coinage. From an engineering or historical standpoint, I understand why someone might want to explore how guns are manufactured or the roles they've played in American history. If my neighbor enjoys hunting game or harbors some private delusions about nocturnal marauders sacking our neighborhood, that's his business. I don't see why my one neighbor's hobby deserves Constitutional protection and the other's doesn't, though. 

That said, I'd prefer to live next to the neighbor who owns the expensive coin collection rather than one who fashions himself a "good guy" on the suburban frontier and maintains a private arsenal in his home. It just seems to me that there's a substantial risk of accidental or intentional harm (suicide, curious toddlers, domestic violence, etc.) inherent in owning an MR-15 that doesn't exist, say, in owning a 1914 King George VI silver threepence.

[NeverAgain]

The difference, of course, is that TRUMP admits he wants to repeal Obamacare. Sanders' supporters, on the other hand, act deeply offended and outraged when it is correctly pointed out that Bernie wants to do the same.

The fact is that the Democratic spent a lot of time, energy, political capital, money and public trust on Obamacare. It's a major part of our President's legacy. We essentially traded our House majority for it. Bernie Sanders wants to, essentially, start all over again from scratch. He wants to go to the American people, and essentially tell them "Sorry about that Obamacare thing that we spent seven years defending, but it actually sucks and now we're going to do a whole new thing that is going to be many times more disruptive, many times more expensive, and this time literally zero of you are going to be able to keep your insurance, even if you like it!"

That's a tough sell. It will cost considerable political capital. It will strain what little trust the American people have left in the competency of the Democratic Party, in the competency of government, in the very idea of an activist government, to be told "oops, we messed up on healthcare reform, time to repeal it and start all over trying a totally new thing!" Sanders should be honest about this.

Oh, please. Sanders saying he wants the replace the imperfect reform package passed seven years ago with another reform does not mean he wants to go back to the previous system, which is what a "repeal" implies. There is no doubt that if a Republican Congress sent a repeal bill or a "reform" that made the system worse from a liberal perspective, he would veto it, and if you would deny that, you are a liar. Sanders has been very clear that Obamacare is an improvement over the previous system, but that it is still highly flawed and should be replaced with something better. You can argue that the American public has no appetite for another reform so soon, or that single-payer would be a worse system than Obamacare, and those would be perfectly legitimate criticisms. However, claiming that Sanders's plan would roll back Obamacare, all but comes out and says that he wants a return to the previous system, which is an outright lie. What passing single-payer would do would be to replace Obamacare with a system that has never been fully implemented in the United States, but has been successful in several other countries, and I know you know it. Your extreme disingenuousness and trolling got old a long time ago.

[Potus]

The problem with Sanders plan is that it assumes GIGANTIC cost savings simply from taking private insurers out of the picture. And sure, there's some "wasted money" there, from things like advertising and profits and executive salaries. But it's hardly a huge cost driver in our system. If you want prices like you've got in Europe, then you need HUGE cuts in payments to hospitals and doctors. You don't need Medicare for all, you need Medicaid for all. And that means bankrupting tons of rural hospitals, tons of doctors quitting because their salaries are going to be decimated, and it means a significantly lower standard of care than a lot of middle-class and upper-middle class people are used to.

Alternatively, you can not go after these massive cost savings, but then you'll either need much higher taxes than Bernie is calling for OR gigantic deficits.

Whether or not it was his intention, this was one of the most insightful, helpful posts about SINGLE PAYER on the forum. Definitely a great post.

[NeverAgain]

While I generally agree with the way it is payed for, the lack of specifics on how his transition to medicare for all is a bit concerning.

As others on this forum have echoed, I don't understand the aversion to having small middle class tax increases to help pay for a vastly increased social safety net.

I assume the plan will get more detailed. How to pay was quickly added because Hillary was making a big deal of that. If it had been a $2 trillion Iraq war that she voted for that led to the creation of ISIS, she would have never asked how we pay for it.

That's a red herring. Bringing up Clinton's past mistakes doesn't mean Sanders' current ones are forgiven. We can't keep on acting like Sanders is this perfect candidate, that's not a way to win a primary and hopefully general election. This plan, which I agree with in principle, is flawed. It's incredibly vague on implementation, and the numbers which he uses in his cost estimations for this plan are much more favorable to his proposal than many experts project for this kind of single-payer plan. Whenever our candidate makes a mistake, we shouldn't just bash the opposition, we should demand that he rectify it, in this case with a much more detailed and comprehensive plan.

[Goldwater]

No and I think it's a sign of our society sticking up its finger to God, saying "We don't like your sovereignty!  We don't like your rules!  We want to be autonomous creatures."  Such will never end well, and the judgment of God will rain down upon the West for this, along with many other sins associated with "modernity."  But I think of same-sex marriage as just the latest in a litany of such occurrences and is more of a signal rather than the sole problem in and of itself.

As far as "theocracy" is concerned, I don't believe America should be a theocracy, but I do wish we could return to the more biblical worldview that our leaders and majority of citizens once held.  When the activist judges legalized abortion in 1973 and kicked prayer and God's word out of public schools in 1961 (in addition to the concurrent sexual revolution, feminist movement, and liberalization of divorce laws during this time period) everything seemed to have gone downhill from there.

Your ideal society is a terrible theocracy.  Your only basis for opposing SSM is your faith:  God says it's wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, and therefore, it is wrong.  No questions asked.  Never mind there is no other reason be believe that SSM is bad.  Never mind the tangible proof that it is the prohibition of SSM that results in harm to members of society.  Societies with the oppressive policies you advocate make the lives of gays and lesbians hell on earth (to which you'll probably reply, 'wait 'till they get to real hell!').  Adult policy makers who promote bigoted policies play a large role in the anti-gay bullying of youth, and thus, a high rate of suicide.

Why should youngsters struggling with their sexuality have to grow up knowing that they they're hated, that they're "sinners", that who they are is an "abomination"?  Why should gays live in a society that persecutes them and drives them to suicide because of your particular religious beliefs?

Anyway, I don't need to get too angry, since your viewpoint has lost out in the US.  Thank God the Supreme Court has sided with the American Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, and not with what you consider the "truth."

[Lief 🗽]

We've seen this many times before.

Prior to the election, many Sanders supporters (mostly those on r/Sandersforpresident will sink further into denial.  Many will claim that the polls are skewed because during election day there'll be massive unexpected turnout for Sanders.  They'll cite everything from crowd sizes, to yard signs, to bumper stickers, to random encounters on the street to convince themselves of this.  Others will blame a media conspiracy against Sanders. (basically what we see now, but more intense).  It will be a lot like Romney 2012, with a huge number of people fully convinced of their victory only to be bluntly forced back into reality.

Most elected Democrats in vulnerable seats will start jumping ship as it become clear where things are headed.  It won't help, not even a little bit.  If the top of the ticket goes down in flames, the entire party does.  The Clintons themselves will still support Sanders, as will Obama, Biden, and most of the un-elected 'establishment'. 

On election day, many Sanders supporters will trumpet turnout at precincts.  The reality of the situation won't hit many of them until the exit polls come out, but some will still believe that the exit polls are wrong.  Once the actual results come in, it'll become clear pretty quickly where the night is going.

Post election, a few supporters will descend completely into conspiracy mode, believing that Sanders actually won the election.  Most will blame the 'establishment' for not supporting them enough, blame the 'deserters' (its a moot point, they all lost their elections anyway),  blame big money for funding the GOP, etc.  Basically, if there's a way to shift blame from Sanders to someone else, his hardcore supporters will use it.  Most Democrats outside of r/Sanderforpresident will blame Sanders for their loss, you'll here a TON of 'I told you so', to the point where it gets very old.

There will also be talk of 'creative destruction', 'we didn't want all of those DINOs in the party anyway', and 'finally the GOP will be held accountable for all the bad stuff that happens'.

The Headlines will read 'Are the Democrats Dead Forever?' in their usual ridiculous hyperbole.  As the defeated and depressed Sanders supporters go home, the DNC will be left to pick up the pieces.  DWS will finally be kicked out.  The new leadership will begin planning their comeback, with the gubernatorial elections next year and then the midterms.  There'll be rumors, but Clinton won't run for president again.

[RINO Tom]

We've seen this many times before.

Prior to the election, many Sanders supporters (mostly those on r/Sandersforpresident will sink further into denial.  Many will claim that the polls are skewed because during election day there'll be massive unexpected turnout for Sanders.  They'll cite everything from crowd sizes, to yard signs, to bumper stickers, to random encounters on the street to convince themselves of this.  Others will blame a media conspiracy against Sanders. (basically what we see now, but more intense).  It will be a lot like Romney 2012, with a huge number of people fully convinced of their victory only to be bluntly forced back into reality.

Most elected Democrats in vulnerable seats will start jumping ship as it become clear where things are headed.  It won't help, not even a little bit.  If the top of the ticket goes down in flames, the entire party does.  The Clintons themselves will still support Sanders, as will Obama, Biden, and most of the un-elected 'establishment'. 

On election day, many Sanders supporters will trumpet turnout at precincts.  The reality of the situation won't hit many of them until the exit polls come out, but some will still believe that the exit polls are wrong.  Once the actual results come in, it'll become clear pretty quickly where the night is going.

Post election, a few supporters will descend completely into conspiracy mode, believing that Sanders actually won the election.  Most will blame the 'establishment' for not supporting them enough, blame the 'deserters' (its a moot point, they all lost their elections anyway),  blame big money for funding the GOP, etc.  Basically, if there's a way to shift blame from Sanders to someone else, his hardcore supporters will use it.  Most Democrats outside of r/Sanderforpresident will blame Sanders for their loss, you'll here a TON of 'I told you so', to the point where it gets very old.

There will also be talk of 'creative destruction', 'we didn't want all of those DINOs in the party anyway', and 'finally the GOP will be held accountable for all the bad stuff that happens'.

The Headlines will read 'Are the Democrats Dead Forever?' in their usual ridiculous hyperbole.  As the defeated and depressed Sanders supporters go home, the DNC will be left to pick up the pieces.  DWS will finally be kicked out.  The new leadership will begin planning their comeback, with the gubernatorial elections next year and then the midterms.  There'll be rumors, but Clinton won't run for president again.

LOL, Lief ... that signature is the best thing I've ever seen.