The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Simfan34]

So stopping as soon as possible is always the best option? So we would have been better off if we had stopped last year, or ten years ago... or in 10,000 B.C.?

[politicus]

So stopping as soon as possible is always the best option? So we would have been better off if we had stopped last year, or ten years ago... or in 10,000 B.C.?

No of course not to the last one, but in the present situation it clearly is important to stabilize global population at as low a level as possible. The lower level, the more natural resources per capita.

The current situation is unique in human history. Never before has billions of people had an ambition of pursuing a consumerist life style and a realistic chance of acquiring one. That is in itself fine, but we are depleting resources at a very fast rate and as populations swell, resource depletion will be exacerbated. At the same time we are facing a climate crisis that reduces important resources like agricultural soil.
Scientists predict that we'll "need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000. That is a very tall order. A fast growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources is a problematic scenario. No technological fix is likely to counter that.

As a sidenote: For me the fact that half the worlds wildlife has gone in the last 40 years play a role as well. A world where there is only room for a few species is a tragedy and unethical.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

once again… it's really easy to say "identity politics" is a plague when your identity isn't constantly under attack.

The concept of the individual, let alone the identity, is a social construct and your insistence on using English--language being another social construct--as a means of communication just goes to show how much power omnipresent forces have over your behavior and way of thinking. Once you abandon all of this absurdity associated with the search for self, the desire for acceptance, and so on, you shall be truly free.

haha what

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

once again… it's really easy to say "identity politics" is a plague when your identity isn't constantly under attack.

The concept of the individual, let alone the identity, is a social construct and your insistence on using English--language being another social construct--as a means of communication just goes to show how much power omnipresent forces have over your behavior and way of thinking. Once you abandon all of this absurdity associated with the search for self, the desire for acceptance, and so on, you shall be truly free.

haha what

I'm saying that caring likely won't effect change, and even if it did, it's incredibly arrogant to assume that the things you care about and the direction in which you want to change them is morally correct, if there ever was such a thing. And if attempting to change something that might not be correct based on a scale that probably doesn't exist won't do anything, then you probably shouldn't waste your life on it. Every social concept has been invented by humanity, and for humanity--humanity being the selfish, oafish creatures who have killed countless of their own kind, pillaged their natural environment, and raised vice to be a virtue. So don't waste your life, which, relative to the whole of the universe, is less thank the blink of an eye, on attempting to understand and control the dying social apparatus of a useless race. That's what they want you to do.

i happen to be a part of humanity, as do you. as such, the "dying social apparatus" of humanity matters to me. please go evangelize (cacoangelize?) your strange brand of nihilism elsewhere.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

"We are all warts on the ass of history"-Cathconicles.


(No seriously, I enjoyed your posts).

[Lief 🗽]

the recipe I was cooking tonight called for a teaspoon of sage but I didn't have any so I just printed out one of Cathcon's posts, tore it up and put it in my food instead, turned out delicious.

[Simfan34]

So stopping as soon as possible is always the best option? So we would have been better off if we had stopped last year, or ten years ago... or in 10,000 B.C.?

No of course not to the last one, but in the present situation it clearly is important to stabilize global population at as low a level as possible. The lower level, the more natural resources per capita.

The current situation is unique in human history. Never before has billions of people had an ambition of pursuing a consumerist life style and a realistic chance of acquiring one. That is in itself fine, but we are depleting resources at a very fast rate and as populations swell, resource depletion will be exacerbated. At the same time we are facing a climate crisis that reduces important resources like agricultural soil.
Scientists predict that we'll "need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000. That is a very tall order. A fast growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources is a problematic scenario. No technological fix is likely to counter that.

As a sidenote: For me the fact that half the worlds wildlife has gone in the last 40 years play a role as well. A world where there is only room for a few species is a tragedy and unethical.

So what? What use is that if we have the technology? The reality of the misery of population decline, meanwhile, strikes again:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-the-maritimes-became-canadas-incredible-shrinking-region/

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

WWSS think of this thread?

[politicus]

So stopping as soon as possible is always the best option? So we would have been better off if we had stopped last year, or ten years ago... or in 10,000 B.C.?

No of course not to the last one, but in the present situation it clearly is important to stabilize global population at as low a level as possible. The lower level, the more natural resources per capita.

The current situation is unique in human history. Never before has billions of people had an ambition of pursuing a consumerist life style and a realistic chance of acquiring one. That is in itself fine, but we are depleting resources at a very fast rate and as populations swell, resource depletion will be exacerbated. At the same time we are facing a climate crisis that reduces important resources like agricultural soil.
Scientists predict that we'll "need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000. That is a very tall order. A fast growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources is a problematic scenario. No technological fix is likely to counter that.

As a sidenote: For me the fact that half the worlds wildlife has gone in the last 40 years play a role as well. A world where there is only room for a few species is a tragedy and unethical.

So what? What use is that if we have the technology? The reality of the misery of population decline, meanwhile, strikes again:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-the-maritimes-became-canadas-incredible-shrinking-region/

What is the "that" you are refering to?

(and please respond in a separate thread..)

[Oakvale]

Politicus is correct here, I think. It's very easy to shriek NEO MALTHUSIAN LOL though, so.

e: Or not even so much that she's correct as that I dislike the tendency to dismiss any and all concerns about population growth as outdated hysteria.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Aren't most projections indicating that the world population will eventually level at around 10 billion and then begin to stagnate?

[King]

Aren't most projections indicating that the world population will eventually level at around 10 billion and then begin to stagnate?

Yes. We're likely going to stop at 10 and be there for a good century before going downward in the 22nd century. Anecdotal declines in population like Simfan posts are just human migration.

[politicus]

Politicus is correct here, I think. It's very easy to shriek NEO MALTHUSIAN LOL though, so.

e: Or not even so much that she's correct as that I dislike the tendency to dismiss any and all concerns about population growth as outdated hysteria.

Well, you still have it as something that is debatable and that puzzles me. Besides it being logical that a finite world can not sustain an infinite number of people it seems almost all experts on this (population biologists and sociobiologosits) basically agree that the Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of about 9-10 billion people and that "the constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

The main problems are:

- limited availability of freshwater
- constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce

The present 3.5 billion acres of arable land would support about 10 billion people and we look set to lose a lot of arable land as a result of climate change (and soil erosion caused by deforestation etc.). This is with all grain going to human consumption. It is not that I do not believe in agrotech improvements, but they need to be extreme to get higher than 10 billion given all the land we lose and the unlikelyhood of most people going vegetarian.

If everyone ate as Americans do the current 2 billion tons of grains annually would only feed 2.5 billion and most people want to have a Western consumerist lifestyle.

Even if you could magically create enough food you would still need to produce an adequate supply of freshwater - a resorce that increasingly gets polluted.

Other environmental factors that limit the Earth's carrying capacity:

- the nitrogen cycle
- available quantities of phosphorus
- atmospheric carbon concentrations

Even if nobody knows the exact maximum created be these things, it is still obvious that they do create a limit.

Anyway, fortunately world population has already reached peak child and we look set to land at 10 billion - which is manageable - around 2100. With relatively slow growh after 2050. It is just that any reversion of this trend it will be dangerous (and there are some signs that this pattern may not hold). But the point is we already need quite a lot of tech fixes to get us to 10 billion sustainability.

Plus some of us would really like a bit of wildlife and wilderness to survive. If we need to use every availavble resource to survive diversity is out the window.

[Sopranos Republican]

 The extended deadline for Islam/Iran to eliminate, to forget about it; death to Israel, death to America, western culture of infidel’s must convert, are, the years of ideological requirement, denials, expended human and currency resources for its quest of a nuclear bomb, must be renounced on the 31st of March 2015.
 
 On behalf of the Obama ideal, the Democrat progressed premise, John Kerry – a Vietnam War Veteran has negotiated your presence.

 What is your order of importance? Not negotiable at the top thru negotiable at the bottom. Where is your red line?

 It is assumed that the Kerry-Clinton/Obama/Jaret/ team have something to negotiate with. What will it be that Islam will accept/take and Honor not to build the bomb and recognize the standing of Western Culture?

 You Have One Week to Think About It +2.
1.   Guilt
2.   Food and Shelter
3.   Netflix’s
4.   National debt
5.   Night Court
6.   Sexual Identity
7.   Toilet Paper
8.   Entitlement
9.   Weaponry/Ammo
10.   Vengeance
11.   Craft Beer
12.   Education
13.   Republic Governance
14.   Chocolate
15.   9 Point Touchdowns
16.   Combustion
17.   Rap
18.   Communication
19.   Love
20.   Speech
21.   Gitmo
22.   Environment
23.   Ideology
24.   Law
25.   Grand ol’ Opry
26.   Mutual Destruction
27.   Faith
28.   Drugs
29.   Unions/Bureaucrat’s
30.   Courage
31.   Currency Reserve
32.   Health
33.   Natural Resource’s
34.   Trust
35.   Language
36.   Neighbor
37.   Skill
38.   Property
39.   Commitment
40.   Happiness

 April 1st, having your order in order helps when the joke is on you. This year’s joke likely is going to be a bomb.  Kind of deep, in reality, when the disruptor appears, arrives - - - you’re late.

[Simfan34]

Aren't most projections indicating that the world population will eventually level at around 10 billion and then begin to stagnate?

Yes. We're likely going to stop at 10 and be there for a good century before going downward in the 22nd century. Anecdotal declines in population like Simfan posts are just human migration.

I don't claim otherwise, but it shows what happens when a region loses population- nothing good.

[Simfan34]

Well, this thread deserves a large recap!

As you probably know, Dilma Rousseff (PT-RS) was barely reelected back in October 2014 after what was the tightest democratic election ever in Brazil's history. Most will remember the two-month roller coaster. More on the election here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=170116.0

Some will probably remember that as the election went by, Brazil's economy started to show unequivocal signs of weakness, with shrinking growth, rising inflation, a weakening currency and a federal budget out of control. The economic weakness was made worse by the fact that the financial market clearly chose Aecio Neves as its candidate, as the government was blamed for the results of a failed economic strategy adapted from 2011 onward.

Some will remember that during the election, Dilma emphatically said that there was nothing wrong with the economy, that inflation was under control and that no adjustments would be needed. She also attacked both Aecio Neves and Marina Silva strongly, claiming that they would go on with privatizations, restricting worker's rights, cutting government spending on social problems, etc.

Some will also remember that as the election went by, the largest corruption scandal in Brazil's history started to be blown wide open for everyone, as its whistleblowers started to tell the feds all they knew about a gigantic corruption scandal underway in Brazil largest state owned company, Petrobras. 2 days before the runoff, it was leaked that, according to one of the whistleblowers, both Lula and Dilma knew about the wrongdoing and did nothing to stop it.

Well, just one day after the election Dilma was forced to go on a full "etch a sketch" mode, recognizing the economy was not in its best state and that some sacrifice would be needed. Later that week, interest rates were increased to curb escalating inflation, and soon after Dilma announced Joaquim Levy, an orthodox economist who was part of Aecio Neves' staff as her finance minister. Levy was supposed to set forth a series of unpopular measures, such as raising taxes and restricting access to pensions, social security and unemployment benefits.

A few days later, Dilma was faced with a disaster in potential as it became clear that the federal government would run a deficit in 2014, falling well short of the budgetary target set forth by the 2014 budget. Since that would violate Brazil's balanced budget law, an impeachable offence, Dilma was forced to bargain with the Congress a change on the fiscal target before December 31st. The consequence was that Dilma lost a lot of leverage and political power.

Dilma took an even stronger hit when the new Congress was sworn in. The new Congress has a much less stable majority than the one Dilma worked with on her 1st term, specially in the House. To make things worse, Dilma tried to intervene on the race for the presidency of the House, as she tried to avoid the election of Eduardo Cunha (PMDB-RJ), one of the cunningest politicians in Brazil, a man she despises. She failed badly, Cunha was elected with ease and Dilma lost even more support in Congress.

Finally, the Petrobras scandal turns worse for the government each passing day. Right after the election, a large number of businessmen were arrested, all of them suspected of paying hefty bribes for politicians in exchange of highly profitable contracts with Petrobras. While some denied any wrongdoing and said they had nothing to tell the feds, some went rogue and started telling all they knew about the corruption scandal to the feds. This led to even more new info, deepening the investigations further. As things got bleaker, the government finally decided to sack Petrobras' president, Maria Graça Foster. The problem is, they chose a man with previous ethics concerns to replace her, scaring even more investors away from Petrobras. Remember, Petrobras last produced a valid balance sheet on the 2nd quarter of 2014.

As February came by, things started to get even worse for Dilma. First, Eduardo Cunha was sworn in as the President of the House, promising to act with independence from the Executive. From them on, things soured quickly. Dilma has angered the entire PMDB, that refuses to negotiate with the leading political negotiators of the federal government (including Dilma's Chief of Staff, Aluizio Mercadante). Things got nuclear when the Attorney General announced the name of the first politicians that will be investigated for involvement with the Petrobras scandal. The list contains the name of many PMDB barons, such as Eduardo Cunha and the President of the Senate, Renan Calheiros (PMDB-AL). Cunha and Calheiros claimed their names were on the list because the federal government asked the Attorney General to do so. As a reaction, they rallied the PMDB to make things even worse for Dilma in Congress.

Finally, the PT itself has been taking increasingly large hits. Renato Duque, a former director of Petrobras and a man known to be very close to José Dirceu was arrested late last year accused of involvement on the scandal. He was released just a few days later, but last Monday he was arrested again, as the Prosecution proved he was still laundering huge sums of money in Monaco. The latest findings show Duque was the man responsible for asking hefty bribes for the PT, bribes that were collected by a now infamous name, João Vaccari Neto, the treasurer of the PT. PT members are in panic that Duque may be desperate in prison, and that for this reason he may decide to tell what he knows to the feds. There's also increasing evidence that José Dirceu got millions from the corruption scheme, and that Dilma's 2010 presidential campaign was largely funded by bribes and laundered money. Finally, large PT names such as Senator Gleisi Hoffman (PT-PR), Senator Lindbergh Farias (PT-RJ) and Senator Humberto Costa (PT-PE) emerged on the AG's list of investigated politicians.

Notice the amount of times I said things "got worse" for Dilma. It just goes to tell you how bad things got for her. It's not surprising that the latest ratings of her government are on pair with the ones registered by Collor when impeachment proceedings against him started back in September 1992. The national rating is of 62% bad/awful ratings, and even on the Northeast, where Dilma had a landslide win back in October, over 50% of the voters now say her government is bad/awful.



Thus, with a economy expect to shrink nearly 1% this year (and I'm being optimistic), inflation getting closer to double digits, a melting currency, many broken promises and a gigantic corruption scandal that's getting closer and closer to the presidency, its no surprise that many want to boot Dilma out of overnment. That's why over 2 million people took the streets of hundreds of cities last Sunday, as you may have seen on TV or somewhere on internet. Those were the largest demonstrations in Brazil's recorded history, even larger than the redemocratization demonstrations back in the 80's.

Now, can Dilma be impeached? That's something I'll discuss tomorrow.

[Sopranos Republican]

Very good poster certainly, although I don't completely agree with some of his interpretations of history and sometimes his "New England Irishphobic Puritan Republican Federalists" type posts get a bit repetitive.

Granted.

I do admit on the subject I do have a bit of a chip my shoulder.  This might not seem the way to others but all too often I feel like a lot of people act like the only reason our ancestors were strongly Democratic was because they hated blacks (see blatant example here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=204846.msg4444968#msg4444968 which as far as I am concerned is barely masked bigotry under the guise and excuse of historical facts ) and not because they lived in areas populated by people who literally viewed them as vermin (and further, as has been noted by me several times earlier, the Irish were voting heavily Democratic (and extra emphasis on the word "heavily") since the times of Jefferson, it was not some thing that happened because of the Civil War draft).  It is almost as if the several hundred years of anti-Celtic prejudice, both in the Great Britain and in the largely Anglo and protestant parts of the colonies, suddenly vanished overnight when America became a country.  Given how often the former is stressed by ill educated people I find it necessary to bring this up whenever it is applicable.

The point is largely that the point of history is to learn from it, not to defend it.  The guys who "freed the slaves" were no saints just like many of the anti-Chinese Irish railroad workers in the west were no saints.  I guess I just feel that when actually examining the past and considering the issues many perceive New England Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans to somehow be faultless and good moral people just because they opposed slavery (so did the British Empire. . . . . ).  They tend to leave out things like the repeatedly mentioned anti-Irish bigotry, the anti-Jewish bigotry (of which even I don't cover as much as I should), the anti-Italian bigotry, the anti-Polish bigotry, hell most anti-ethnic white bigotry, the classism, support for what basically amounted to protestant supremacy in the form of moralistic legislation, the support for regressive tax and tariff policies with the main intent to fatten the pocketbooks of robber barons, as well as the indifference and cruelty of the Protestant Work Ethic ^TM to actually address issues like wage slavery and living conditions in the poor neighborhoods of urban areas.

The goal of modern liberalism should be to learn from those past mistakes and use those lessons to advance a more egalitarian and equal society.  We should no longer have to choose between racists and elitists.  We should no longer have to choose between moralists and corrupt urban bosses.  We should no longer have to choose between slavers and bankers.  The people of the past need no defense, they were extremely flawed people.  Which is why you often hear such clichés as "judge them in the context of their times!" even by far left people like myself (though I generally believe that the more accurate saying would be "judge them in the context of where you would be in the times").  People often act like when talking about the past one side has to be completely right.  Well, especially in the case of American History, this is wrong.  Winning the Civil War didn't prevent the GOP from being blamed for the Great Depression.  Being on the side of the "common man" didn't prevent the Democrats from being on the wrong side of the Civil War.  And etcetera etcetera.

And further, the lesson from the bigotry of the New England elites, which is largely whitewashed to protect the agenda of financial elitists and others, is that racism goes far beyond skin color and is more about the dominance and privilege of elite groups (this is also very true of the Southern planters and their slaves).  In other words, knowledge of such history is knowledge of exactly why elitism (which is openly embraced by many Democrats nowadays without any knowledge or care of the roots of cultural elitism in the country) is horrible and the party needs to embrace more economic populism (note, I mean that as in being advocates of the poor, not "muh fiscally liberal and socially conservative") to advance a liberal agenda.

I make no apologies, just like a Jew makes no apologies for bashing Hitler.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm glad this tribute thread survived and no slam to Nathan or anvi, but this is the original.  Long Live Sam Spade!

[Simfan34]

I started working on this while Julia Gillard was Prime Minister. How's that for an effortpost?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

This is true because there's nothing substantive to be said about it. There are no data points to consider and no evidence to weigh. Any religious discussion, by definition, is just a tedious back and forth on semantics, feelings, and navel gazing, with a heavy tribal sociological component.

[Mechaman]

It's difficult to talk about the prequels without getting distracted by the fact that they are awful movies - and in so many different ways, too. Flat characters; muddled, incoherent, and contradictory plotting; ridiculous dialogue; uninspired directing; action sequences that are so fast-paced, overwhelmingly busy, and removed from the laws of physics that they are completely drained of tension, etc. This short clip from RLM's review of RotS illustrates the problems pretty effectively in about one minute.

I mention this because once you start thinking about the political systems of Star Wars it's difficult to make sense of what the Republic even does. Why levy taxes on interplanetary trade routes in the first place? Did the Senate need to buy more robes? Do the Jedi need money for midi-chlorian tests?

You can watch the original trilogy without thinking too hard about political actors because the plot is so straightforward - hero's journey, evil empire, etc. But political questions loom so heavily over the prequel trilogy that they're impossible to ignore. Maybe this is where some of you see moral grayness, but all that I can see is incoherence and a pretty ham-fisted attempt to draw some kind of Iraq War allegory.

Why should I care about Palpatine dissolving the Republic? If you return to the original trilogy after watching the prequels, it's suddenly a lot more difficult to establish that the Empire is any worse, despite the fact that it's run by power-hungry comic book villains. Unless you're a Jedi or a Senator, who cares?

Those movies are terrible.  If anything about the characters or plot doesn't make sense, it's because George Lucas doesn't care about characters or plot, he just wanted to play with various special effects.

And sell toys. And with green screens, he could do it all without ever leaving his director's chair!

[IceSpear]

Hillary is extremely intelligent and accomplished.

This talking point is getting extremely annoying. Hillary's actual resume is actually quite unremarkable.

On the contrary, these throwaway superlatives do not do her justice.

She was the elected president of the Wellesley College Graduate Association, where she "organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students to recruit more black students and faculty" and was "instrumental in keeping Wellesley from being embroiled in the student disruptions common to other colleges," and a "number of her fellow students thought she might some day become the first female President of the United States". She was the first student commencement speaker in Wellesley's history, and gave a speech which received a 7-minute standing ovation and was featured in Life Magazine.

She entered Yale Law School only the second year after it began to admit women, the first class having only 7 women. There, she researched childhood development to contribute to a then cutting-edge work, wrote a frequently-cited article in the Harvard Education Review on the children's' rights movement, and worked as a congressional aide for Walter Mondale. After law school, she served on the Watergate impeachment committee researching the historical grounds for impeachment, sitting to the left of inquiry leader John Doar.

By then, her star was considered so bright that Democratic consultant Betsey Wright moved to Washington from Texas in part to help her political career, and "thought Rodham had the potential to become a future senator or president". When Bill Clinton decided to run for congress in Arkansas, she was "on the phone with him, sometimes four times a day, giving him advice, mentoring him". When a friend discovered a letter from her to Bill around this period, it "talked of thier future plans... politicial plans that is the best way tot put it... the letter had everything to do with their careers, so unusual in that there was no talk of home, family and marriage."

Would Bill have been elected president without her?

She joined the Rose Law firm, the oldest law firm west of the Mississippi, as its first woman partner, and continued to publish scholarly articles. An American Bar Association chair later said, "Her articles were important, not because they were radically new but because they helped formulate something that had been inchoate."Historian Garry Wills would later describe her as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades." She was campaign director of field operations in Indiana for Jimmy Carter, on the board of directors for the Legal Services Corporation, and was chair of the board for two years during which funding increased threefold.

This is just until 1980!

If I go on any longer, no one will read it (if you made it this far).

All of the above is reduced to "a mere political spouse"?

The woman had accomplishments in spades. I mean look, I don't think you're a sexist or anything, but it stinks how when a woman is married to a man whose career is more high flying than hers, her own accomplishments, no matter how great, get somehow erased and dissolved and folded into his identity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But she does have a career of her own. That's the thing. No one says that Obama doesn't have a career of his own because he wouldn't be where he is without Michelle (who helped him sell himself as authentic to black community) or David Axelrod (who helped him sell himself to whites) or wealthy Chicago donors like Penny Pritzker (who bankrolled his early career). He wouldn't be where he is without any of those people. None of us would be where we are without our parents, at the very least.

Why is Hillary held to a higher standard then? No one says Ted Kennedy never had a career of his own because he wouldn't have been Senator had he not been a Kennedy.

When she put on that wedding ring she didn't stop becoming a person. She didn't give up her right to a career. Nor did she when her husband was elected. She ran for Senate, putting together a campaign, visiting every county in New York, staking out positions, participating in debates, making ads, just the same as everyone else who runs a Senate campaign. Her race was competitive.

She got as much legislation passed as one could expect of a junior Senator in the minority who was given no special favors. Does she have a seminal law in her name from her time in the Senate? No. Neither does Obama or any other Senator running for president this year. Neither did Jack Kennedy. Everything she has, she's accomplished out of her own efforts.

She did great in her 2008 campaign. She was only favored by a relatively small margin throughout most of the campaign. She was running against a phenomenon-- a guy who could get 20,000 people to show up at my alma mater to see him (Howard Dean only 3,700; Gore only got 800). A guy who could get 20,000 people in blood red states like Idaho and North Dakota and Kansas to show up and see him. A guy who received incredibly positive news coverage -- Chris Matthews even got a tingle up his leg! -- and endorsements from most major newspapers, as well as the party's previous presidential nominee, and its most famous senior Senator. A guy who could rack up 95% of the vote in a demographic that made up 20% of the primary electorate, leaving her with the option of winning the rest by a landslide if she wanted to win by the narrowest of margins.

And yet she still pulled even -- winning roughly the same amount of votes, and winning the last primary in South Dakota even as the media was calling the nomination for Obama.

And yet she endorsed Obama immediately, campaigned for him, and served as his Secretary of State without drama, and led her State Department for 4 years, during which time she initiated talks with Iran on its nuclear deal that now look likely to bear fruit.

And that's still not enough?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hillary Fans Society of Mutual Support is at work here, I see.

[Lief 🗽]

Hillary Fans Society of Mutual Support is at work here, I see.

you got owned kaljetw, don't sulk about it

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hillary Fans Society of Mutual Support is at work here, I see.

you got owned kaljetw, don't sulk about it

I wish. "Got owned (by)" and "Beet" does not belong in the same sentence. Keep searching, my friend