The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[RINO Tom]

Trump's supporters are the people the establishment have abused and lied to for 30 years in exchange for their votes. There are a number of hateful people in that group yes, but many of them are tired of having their issues ignored. The neoliberal agenda has ruined their lives, just like it has ruined many others and these are the voters that make up a substantial portion of the party, especially in the states that are trending Republican relative to the national average. The Republicans cannot keep tring to impose an Orange County, CA agenda on a Kentucky/MO/Indiana Party.

Jmfcst used to say whoever won his type of voter (high end/Evangelical/Sunbelt) was the nominee of the party. Now, the base GOP voter is a lower middle class guy in the suburbs of St. Louis. These people exist by the millions and in states that offer the paths of least resistance to GOP victory (The South and Midwest), therefore they now have outsized influence in the nominating process.

I will say again, Trump won this nomination when all the establishment candidates jumped on board the open borders band wagon. If you put all your eggs in the wrong basket, don't be surprised if people reject it. Romney was smart, realizing his path to the nomination was to go populist on trade and hard line on immigration. Bush, Rubio and Kasich realized the hard way what Romney calculated in 2007. This is also what I tried to explain to you way back when you were all gaga for Jon Huntsman.

This is the Republican Party. You cannot suppress its current base demographics, or you will end up with another Trump. If you think you can pull that off without consequences just as Jeb Bush tried, than clearly you have learned nothing and forgotten everything from the 2016 cycle.

Bet you stood up and clapped for that post alone in your basement.

[Santander]

Trump's supporters are the people the establishment have abused and lied to for 30 years in exchange for their votes. There are a number of hateful people in that group yes, but many of them are tired of having their issues ignored. The neoliberal agenda has ruined their lives, just like it has ruined many others and these are the voters that make up a substantial portion of the party, especially in the states that are trending Republican relative to the national average. The Republicans cannot keep tring to impose an Orange County, CA agenda on a Kentucky/MO/Indiana Party.

Jmfcst used to say whoever won his type of voter (high end/Evangelical/Sunbelt) was the nominee of the party. Now, the base GOP voter is a lower middle class guy in the suburbs of St. Louis. These people exist by the millions and in states that offer the paths of least resistance to GOP victory (The South and Midwest), therefore they now have outsized influence in the nominating process.

I will say again, Trump won this nomination when all the establishment candidates jumped on board the open borders band wagon. If you put all your eggs in the wrong basket, don't be surprised if people reject it. Romney was smart, realizing his path to the nomination was to go populist on trade and hard line on immigration. Bush, Rubio and Kasich realized the hard way what Romney calculated in 2007. This is also what I tried to explain to you way back when you were all gaga for Jon Huntsman.

This is the Republican Party. You cannot suppress its current base demographics, or you will end up with another Trump. If you think you can pull that off without consequences just as Jeb Bush tried, than clearly you have learned nothing and forgotten everything from the 2016 cycle.

Great post. Deserves to be framed and put in a museum.

[RINO Tom]

Bet you stood up and clapped for that post alone in your basement.

Feel free to disagree, but no need to be so condescending.

LOL, sorry, my tone in my mind while typing it wasn't mean-spirited.

And of course I definitely disagree.

[IceSpear]

Bet you stood up and clapped for that post alone in your basement.

Feel free to disagree, but no need to be so condescending.

LOL, sorry, my tone in my mind while typing it wasn't mean-spirited.

And of course I definitely disagree.

What in particular do you disagree with?

[Devout Centrist]

Trump's supporters are the people the establishment have abused and lied to for 30 years in exchange for their votes. There are a number of hateful people in that group yes, but many of them are tired of having their issues ignored. The neoliberal agenda has ruined their lives, just like it has ruined many others and these are the voters that make up a substantial portion of the party, especially in the states that are trending Republican relative to the national average. The Republicans cannot keep tring to impose an Orange County, CA agenda on a Kentucky/MO/Indiana Party.

Jmfcst used to say whoever won his type of voter (high end/Evangelical/Sunbelt) was the nominee of the party. Now, the base GOP voter is a lower middle class guy in the suburbs of St. Louis. These people exist by the millions and in states that offer the paths of least resistance to GOP victory (The South and Midwest), therefore they now have outsized influence in the nominating process.

I will say again, Trump won this nomination when all the establishment candidates jumped on board the open borders band wagon. If you put all your eggs in the wrong basket, don't be surprised if people reject it. Romney was smart, realizing his path to the nomination was to go populist on trade and hard line on immigration. Bush, Rubio and Kasich realized the hard way what Romney calculated in 2007. This is also what I tried to explain to you way back when you were all gaga for Jon Huntsman.

This is the Republican Party. You cannot suppress its current base demographics, or you will end up with another Trump. If you think you can pull that off without consequences just as Jeb Bush tried, than clearly you have learned nothing and forgotten everything from the 2016 cycle.

God I hate that meme.

[RINO Tom]

Bet you stood up and clapped for that post alone in your basement.

Feel free to disagree, but no need to be so condescending.

LOL, sorry, my tone in my mind while typing it wasn't mean-spirited.

And of course I definitely disagree.

What in particular do you disagree with?

That Trump's support 1) comes from the "GOP base," 2) will just be passed on to some new standard bearer in 2020/these people will keep participating in the primaries again going forward, 3) goes much beyond a strange infatuation with Trump (seriously, he could say whatever he wants tomorrow, and his supporters would agree with what he said; that doesn't describe a group high on conviction, and I don't see how some new guy-who-can-say-whatever-he-wants will arise after ... How will they pick him?? LOL) and 4) that this group has any coherent ideology beyond not being Democrats and being *PISSED OFF* at something or other (and, frankly, most of it is different, non-overlapping stuff, IMO).

Trump's main base of support is shrinking as a demographic, and polls show younger Republicans have a much more libertarian bent to their views.  Fact is the Boomers are only going to live so long, and there aren't going to BE many WCWs (this is objectively a good thing, as people who wouldn't have had the opportunity to go to college decades ago will be able to) in a few decades.  There's no logical reason to think the GOP will be Trumpist long term other than that's what both Trumpist Republicans and your DLC Democratic types would like to see happen; unfortunately, that's a very significant portion of this site, and the echo chamber effect is springboarding it toward Gospel Truth status.

[MATTROSE94]

Abortion is a weird issue that defies most trends, unlike most issues. But still, people want to "conserve" Roe v Wade and its effects.

But look at other issues. Would anyone really say being anti-slavery is "progressive"? Is being against Jim Crow laws and for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "progressive"? Is believing women should vote "progressive," at least in the United States? Is supporting Social Security and Medicare?

No. They are the status quo, wanting to keep them is conservative. Being a progressive is about making progress, it's about changing things. And there's always those who want to regress to the way things used to be. If you support same-sex marriage in the United States, you're no longer a progressive on the issue, you're a conservative. You may still be a progressive on gay issues in general, since there's still work to be done, but there's no more work to be done in the United States on the marriage aspect of the issue.

Life moves on.

New generations will bring new issues.

If the progressive agenda that exists now as of 2016 is completely achieved in the next 50 years, then that's not what the progressive agenda of 2116 will be. By then the conservative position might be keeping the social systems of the 20th and 21st centuries in place (maybe even things like single-payer healthcare, free college, the EPA, and Social Security), while the progressives would probably be demanding something totally different.

Yeah, a 90-year-old living today in 2016 probably isn't "progressive" on, say, LGBT issues. But they might have been a fierce progressive fighter in their youth, protesting for Civil Rights and women's rights, for the creation of Medicare and the EPA. But today we would mark that person as a conservative, because they're conservative on today's issues. They fought the good fight, they made progress, and  the progressive agenda moved on with new ideas from new generations. To say they became "more conservative with age" would be completely missing the point.

[NeverAgain]

I would think this describes my attitude toward social issues, but I am not sure if questioning such a fundamental position bars me from being a true Scotsman.

Depends on how you define social conservative.  I'm pro-choice and I consider myself socially conservative.  I think there should be at least two categories of social conservative a mean one and a nice one.  The nice ones leave other people alone as long as those people leave them alone.  The mean ones want to run everyone's lives.

I don't like abortion but I realize clamping down on it does more harm than good.  I would much rather have good sex ed and free contraception.  There is nothing "conservative" about lying to teenagers and restricting their access to contraception.

Honestly we would have a much calmer well ordered society if better sex ed and free contraception was available.  I simply don't see how having a bunch of broke uneducated people spitting out babies in tumultuous relationships makes society more "conservative".

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I would think this describes my attitude toward social issues, but I am not sure if questioning such a fundamental position bars me from being a true Scotsman.

Depends on how you define social conservative.  I'm pro-choice and I consider myself socially conservative.  I think there should be at least two categories of social conservative a mean one and a nice one.  The nice ones leave other people alone as long as those people leave them alone.  The mean ones want to run everyone's lives.

I don't like abortion but I realize clamping down on it does more harm than good.  I would much rather have good sex ed and free contraception.  There is nothing "conservative" about lying to teenagers and restricting their access to contraception.

Honestly we would have a much calmer well ordered society if better sex ed and free contraception was available.  I simply don't see how having a bunch of broke uneducated people spitting out babies in tumultuous relationships makes society more "conservative".

"I consider myself X, but only the socially acceptable form of X!" We could play this game all day, but that doesn't make it a good post. How surprising that you prefer "social conservatives" that actually agree with you!

[Santander]

I would think this describes my attitude toward social issues, but I am not sure if questioning such a fundamental position bars me from being a true Scotsman.

Depends on how you define social conservative.  I'm pro-choice and I consider myself socially conservative.  I think there should be at least two categories of social conservative a mean one and a nice one.  The nice ones leave other people alone as long as those people leave them alone.  The mean ones want to run everyone's lives.

I don't like abortion but I realize clamping down on it does more harm than good.  I would much rather have good sex ed and free contraception.  There is nothing "conservative" about lying to teenagers and restricting their access to contraception.

Honestly we would have a much calmer well ordered society if better sex ed and free contraception was available.  I simply don't see how having a bunch of broke uneducated people spitting out babies in tumultuous relationships makes society more "conservative".

How on earth could you consider this a GOOD post?

[Kingpoleon]

Do you support heterosexual marriage?

Some of them I support.  Some of them I deeply oppose.  Generally I just say congrats and move quietly away, because trying to talk them out of it just creates tension.  I think most people insist on learning things the hard way.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=243808

[Badger]

I read in some American media that Russian trolls are paid 45,000 roubles a month for participation in Amrican  social networks. I have been active on this forum since the beginning of April. So I  could have earned 4*45,000 = 180,000 roubles. Lots of money. Enough to travel to the USA and back.

I'd note that after linking enough posts to media stories about Russian internet advocates for Putin's policies , he quit posting that same day.

Yeah, we got rid of one of Putin's pawns from Atlas. HOO-RAH!!

[Antonio the Sixth]

The controversy surrounding the "outing" of Peter Thiel is rather sickening. He's a plutocrat who exercises a great deal of power and influence by virtue of his wealth alone. This rent-seeking behavior is corrosive to American democracy. None of this even begins to mention the fact that his viewpoints are odious, repulsive and damaging. Dredging up personal information and using it against him is a virtue, not a vice. All means must be exercised to "show truth to power" and force pompous elites to recognize that their use of public power cannot be made private or obfuscated by the flaws in our political culture and campaign finance laws.

On the other hand, it's also pretty clear that Gawker's flagrant violations of privacy have little to do with a grandiose political agenda. It's related to its clickbait-driven business model, which is hardly different than any other gossip-driven publication. Gawker has routinely made grievous errors relating to the privacy of others and, perhaps more importantly, has not taken journalistic ethics very seriously. It's an amateur-hour news site that is no substitute for old media sources. Gawker is a constant reminder that the rise of the "New Media" is nothing to be celebrated.

As such, I feel pretty conflicted about all of this. On the one hand, I wouldn't shed a tear if Peter Thiel died of a stroke and was found to have had a very painful death. On the other hand, Gawker needs to voluntarily shut itself down because it's a cesspool of bad journalism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's a bit unfair to call them "Clinton welfare reforms" with how reluctant he was to sign them and even vetoed them twice but still horrible and yes he deserves condemnation for folding.

People think of Chamberlain before Hitler when they talk about Munich for reasons that are understandable. You expect Congressional Republicans to have horrifying morals. Just as we are unsurprised by the blue-avatared troglodytes in this thread who are gloating over single mothers working menial jobs while their increasingly marginalized children languish in substandard daycare or in front of mind-numbing cable television programming.

One side is evil almost to the point of seeming to lack its own agency - not that they don't bear responsibility, but for those of us condemned to share this planet with them, they are more like a natural disaster, or the maw of some great, Satanic beast sent here from hell to torment us mortals. Think of how contemporary accounts describe someone like Attila the Hun. We have our equivalent, personified in Newt Gingrich's flabby paunches and the right-wing horrors who have joined us right here, on this forum. All that we can do is weep, pray, and wonder.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Burning a book does not erase its meaning, but it does erase our ability to learn from it. There is no better way to ensure such atrocities as those associated with and inspired by that book are never again repeated than for people to read it in the proper context.

[Kingpoleon]

Great poster has contributed a great deal to this forum through his commentary.     

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, and allow me to explain why.  First of all, superdelegates only make up a very small fraction of the total number of delegates on the Dem side--so small that they have never been able to influence the nomination on their own (at least to date).  Their vote is equal to that of a pledged delegate, not greater.  And it only seems fair that elected officials who are members of the party should be seated as delegates and vote for whichever candidate they support. 

Because superdelegates are unpledged, they can change candidates at any time before the convention, and frequently have.  Although Hillary Clinton had a significant lead in superdelegates for most of the 2008 campaign, many of them switched over to Obama after it became clear he would win the nomination, and Obama ended up winning a majority of them at the convention.  So while it seems undemocratic to use superdelegates, their influence has been greatly overstated by the news media.  They help to maintain stability and prevent the nomination of candidates that can undermine party unity.  If the GOP had this system in place, then superdelegates may have been able to stop Trump from becoming the presumptive nominee.  But because they don't, the party now has a nominee who threatens to divide the party and ensure defeat in November.

While I don't agree with the suggestion that superdelegates should have voted for someone other than Trump, Oldiesfreak raises a number of good points re:superdelegates.

[Ebowed]

It's a bit unfair to call them "Clinton welfare reforms" with how reluctant he was to sign them and even vetoed them twice but still horrible and yes he deserves condemnation for folding.

People think of Chamberlain before Hitler when they talk about Munich for reasons that are understandable. You expect Congressional Republicans to have horrifying morals. Just as we are unsurprised by the blue-avatared troglodytes in this thread who are gloating over single mothers working menial jobs while their increasingly marginalized children languish in substandard daycare or in front of mind-numbing cable television programming.

One side is evil almost to the point of seeming to lack its own agency - not that they don't bear responsibility, but for those of us condemned to share this planet with them, they are more like a natural disaster, or the maw of some great, Satanic beast sent here from hell to torment us mortals. Think of how contemporary accounts describe someone like Attila the Hun. We have our equivalent, personified in Newt Gingrich's flabby paunches and the right-wing horrors who have joined us right here, on this forum. All that we can do is weep, pray, and wonder.

Came here to quote this.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You know, I'm getting a little tired of hearing about how gays need to 'grow a thicker skin' and laugh off the bigoted sewage being thrown in their faces, but God forbid someone criticize the evangelicals. When one decides to begin a conversation by singling out another poster as "unnatural," one should not be surprised if this engenders a negative response.

[Kingpoleon]

You know, I'm getting a little tired of hearing about how gays need to 'grow a thicker skin' and laugh off the bigoted sewage being thrown in their faces, but God forbid someone criticize the evangelicals. When one decides to begin a conversation by singling out another poster as "unnatural," one should not be surprised if this engenders a negative response.

What an unnatural post!(pls don't criticize me just because I criticized you)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You know, I'm getting a little tired of hearing about how gays need to 'grow a thicker skin' and laugh off the bigoted sewage being thrown in their faces, but God forbid someone criticize the evangelicals. When one decides to begin a conversation by singling out another poster as "unnatural," one should not be surprised if this engenders a negative response.

What an unnatural post!(pls don't criticize me just because I criticized you)

Yeah, goes against the national order.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Here's an attempt to try and tie this into the current election:


Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got a perfect puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

What do you get when you rabble rouse hate
Talking as much as O'Reilly at eight
What are you at, with your orange hair
Clownish and garish without any flair
I don't like the look of it

Oompa loompa doompety da
If you're not hateful, you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do
Doompety do


Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompeda dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

Talk radio's fine when it's once in a while
Keeps you alert when driving mile after mile
But it's repulsive, revolting and wrong
Being Limbaugh on decaf all day long
The way that Glen Beck does

Oompa loompa doompety da
Given good manners you will go far
You will run Indiana too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do


Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

Who do you blame when your Bill is a brat
Pampered and spoiled like a siamese cat
Blaming Monica's a lie and a shame
You know exactly who's to blame
The First Lady and the Senator

Oompa loompa doompety da
If you're not spoiled then you will go far
You will crash glass ceilings too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do


Oompa loompa doompety doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompeda dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me

What do you get running the DNC
A pain in the neck and an IQ of three
Why didn't you try staying Richmond's mayor
Or could you not bear governing there
Was L. G. good practice for being veep

Oompa loompa doompety da
If you're not greedy you will go far
You will live in the White House too
Like the - Oompa -
Oompa Loompa Doompety do

A++
Good post from True Federalist.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I know it's hard for meatheads like Cory et al, but can people stop being stupid here for like ten seconds and actually use their brains? Obviously there are some nasty, terrible SJW's. Nobody is denying that. But there are many 'SJW's' (dare I say, the majority) who are concerned with altogether decent, sensible things. Racism. Poverty. Homophobia. Sexism. Pretty much everybody on this forum (fringes aside) would agree these are bad things and to be against them is uncontroversial. Sure, blue avatars may dislike the methods, or the semantics, or the angry language, or weird focuses on misogyny in Doctor Who episodes or whatever; but I don't think any people on this forum would ever say that racism (etc) are good things, or that being concerned with issues related to social justice is inherentlya bad thing.

With this on mind, I can barely comprehend this ridiculous equivalency between self proclaimed SJWs and selfproclaimed white nationalists. It would be one thing if the title was "alt right" vs "SJWs" because both groups could hypothetically be considered broad churches of moderates and bizarro weirdos. But white nationalists are not a broad church. They're actually a very narrow church. Comprised of freaking white nationalists! An idealogy that is objectively terrible to anybody with an understanding of contemporary morality!

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Do we know what the specific fields with the highest openings were?

It's clear, Tender, that more needs to be done to have a more even geographical distribution of economic growth and job creation. While the trend is more pronounced in other countries (both developed countries like France and the UK, or emerging economies like Thailand), there has been a clear concentration of job growth since the recession in a few cities. Previously regional companies, in a longer trend, have also moved their headquarters from second- and third-tier cities to the major centers, intensifying this trend.

We need to do more in the US to ensure that these regional cities are places younger, educated people are willing to work and live, and, as such, where companies can draw from a competitive labor pool. This deals with cultural and social amenities, but, on a more basic level, it is an issue of the urban pattern and housing, which the former issues depend on. Faceless, soulless suburbia is not a draw for young people, but neither are ill-conceived transit schemes or business development corporation-devised astroturf cultural initiatives.