The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

People might have to click more than one button and read names of candidates?  What a racist white privlege Jim Crow neo-nazi alt right outrage!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Doesn't belong here.

[afleitch]

Anti "safe space/SJW" people have always and forever been the people that wanted and needed safe spaces the most for their nasty opinions.

[DC Al Fine]

Guys can we please get back to putting effortposts in here?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The perceived rise of libertarianism is proof that Conservatism as a mainstream became flabby minded and short-sighted as communism rapidly careened downhill. Suddenly, all the mechanisms built up to ensure the Reds weren't in control became suspect. An active foreign policy, to ensure domestic companies have a leg-up and aren't trodden on by foreign populists? A large public sector, in particular the military, that ensures that a lucky portion of the population could find stable and honourable employment? A strong and armed police to dispel internal dissent? A powerful welfare state? Powerful paternalistic organisations with a higher causr than worshipping Mammon? Why have any of them?

Of course this is nonsense. I am a capitalist in the sense that it seems to be the most effective way we have yet discovered for running an advanced economy; but I fully acknowledge that it would rapidly collapse if libertarians start abolishing foundations of Capitalism Inc in tbe hopes it would fly upwards.

And if they were in power and started dismembering all the fail safes we have, well all that idealistic libertarianism stuff would crumble; and the old roght allies (thr church, the police) would step in as useful allies. And libertarianism would accept itself as a rightist movement.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm not sure if I completely agree with this post, but it's definitely thought-provoking in some way:

YES.

We should also end the war on poverty, the war on obesity, the war on whatever problem-du-jure inspires the use of the phrase of "war on ..."

War is hell, and our use of the word war for things other than actual wars desensitizes us and makes us fatter and more stupid and more insensitive to the fact that wars lead to rape, poverty, starvation, murder, and generally a very bad scene.  The "war on drugs" was a stupid idea for many, many reasons, not the least of which is that it encouraged the use of war in a way that makes us forget that real wars do exist and that we should never forget to avoid wars.  Goddammit I hate the use of the word "war" in this tawdry and hackneyed way.  It needs to stop.  And yes, the "war on drugs" needs to stop as well.  Our prisons are full of nonviolent offenders whose only crime was attempting to escape reality for a while.  Who can blame them?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Almost automatically a Freedom Party through its undeniable (despite its own hilarious attempts to do so in the Godesberg Programme, tainting a otherwise admireable document), whether one likes it or not, massive influence of socialism and its towering stature in the history of TIGMOO.

But...and let's be honest here...it's just sh**t, innit? Above and beyond the general social democratic malaise right now, I mean, though that is obviously weighing it down even more. But let's not forget that this is the party that reacted to a joint Nazi-establishment coup against them by complaining to the Constitutional Court and then meekly retired when told to bugger off. Add to that the general unhealthy German tendency of The Establishment Is Always Right and you have a party that quite simply took the wrong turn at most of the decisive points in its history. Undoubtedly being the most influential party in the history of Germany and yet only leading its government for 22 years in 140 years of existence is hard to count as a track record anything but failure, if noble failure.

The less said about the current state of the party the better of course. I haven't voted, I just can't seperate the two things above in my head and neither would feel appropriate.

[DC Al Fine]

Here's a non-political one:

The thing that will save you the most money in the long run is learning a few extra recipes that are healthy and tasty.

Pasta is very easy, and you don't have to be pretentious about the ingredients.  Do you buy pasta sauce?  Don't.  Tinned tomatoes are cheaper and they are the same thing after you add some garlic and herbs.  Throw in some frozen vegetables, or fresh vegetables, whichever is cheaper.  Beans are great.  Canned beans are cheap and last forever.  If you really want to go the extra mile, it's even cheaper to buy dried beans.  Then you soak them and boil them before adding them to food.  It does take more time, but you really just have to be organized.  Set aside a few extra minutes to soak the beans in the morning - boil a large amount all at once so that you only have to do it once a week.

Lentils.  Sunflower seeds.

Once you get confident with cooking, you should look for discounted vegetables.  A big bag of peppers that is about to go bad can go straight in the oven with oil and herbs for 20 minutes.  Take them out and preserve them in a used jar with water, salt, and white vinegar.  Now you've got roast peppers, super cheap and a great addition to sandwiches, sauces, or anything else.

Vegetables really aren't that intimidating.  Pumpkin, carrots, beets, sweet potato, etc are often cheap and are pretty good roasted.  You can even roast things like cauliflower and brussel sprouts.

If you are trying to move away from unhealthy foods, I recommend transitioning rather than doing it cold turkey.  The key is to make healthier choices in the supermarket.  But buy a couple comfort foods and give yourself some wiggle room.  As long as you remain conscious of slowly reducing the frequency of how often you eat these sorts of foods, you should be OK.  Even something as simple as 'I had five very unhealthy meals this week, and next week I will have four.'  If you stick to it for long enough, your body will start to crave different things.  I would get sick if I ate bad food now.  A good snack, to me, is a fresh carrot and some almonds.  But it took a long time to get there.

I do worry about your options given that they seem so lacking.  Would you have time to drive a further distance to do a "stock up" of things like nuts, seeds, dried beans, or other stuff you could buy in bulk?  Are there small businesses or farms nearby?  They often have better prices on fresh produce.  When you have the ability, stock up on big ticket things like potatoes and onions.  If you find them for a good price, don't hesitate to buy plenty of them because these vegetables usually last in your cupboard for a long time.

Good luck, and if you have any questions about recipes or food storage tips, I'd love to try and help you.

[Kingpoleon]

This is what makes this election so weird - why are national polls so narrow, some of the swing states so narrow, when normally Republican states like Texas, Georgia, Arizona are also within single digits?

[White Trash]

So? So an So? Let's ruin the environment! Support Slave Wages! Have a labor race to the bottom! Ruin Farmers in 3rd world countries! Have a loss of national sovereignty! Have foreign corporations take over parts of your country! Have everything made god knows where, instead of the country you live in! Let's ruin the lives of the working class! Let's ruin the jobs of people who've worked in their trade/occupation for years on! L YAY for Globalisation, YAY for the Globalisation monopoly! BUT IF THE MIDDLE CLASS HAVE A DOLLAR OFF THEIR PRODUCTS, IT'S ALL ING GOOD.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Good for them. The treatment of prisoners in some places and the awful conditions of many prisons nationwide is something that is far too often ignored. They are people too, and despite what some may think, many of these people are not violent criminals. Just because they are prisoners doesn't mean we can just wave off whatever bs they go through, with the excuse "they broke the law so fk 'em!"

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I pray that it is Scott.

We need more liberal Republicans.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This is what makes this election so weird - why are national polls so narrow, some of the swing states so narrow, when normally Republican states like Texas, Georgia, Arizona are also within single digits?

Because Donald Trump.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I pray that it is Scott.

We need more liberal Republicans.

"Oh look, another two-liner I like. Let's put it in the Good Post Gallery!"

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, but they should undergo significant changes designed to actually rehabilitate people and significantly reduce recidivism. Right now, we basically have large, well-secured buildings that store humans in cages/concrete rooms and not a whole lot else that is effective in positively modifying their behavior. It's the equivalent of sweeping the problem under the carpet, except this is human beings we are talking about. It's an awful system. We can also blame the drug war for creating extremely hostile conditions in many state/federal prisons, but that is another discussion entirely.

Unfortunately, some people can't be rehabilitated and won't change, and dangerous people have to go somewhere for x amount of time, but I think the number of these kinds of people is far less than the total prison population as of 2016.

You would think that as complex creatures capable of such technological wonders, we would at least try other ways to rehabilitate criminals, but nope, many are content focusing 100% of their efforts on finding ways to punish and humiliate any and all criminals and then later complain how they keep re-offending after release.

Fking heartless and stone age bullsh**t.

[Kingpoleon]

I pray that it is Scott.

We need more liberal Republicans.

"Oh look, another two-liner I like. Let's put it in the Good Post Gallery!"

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

The general impression one gets is that majors of the name "X Studies" tend to be short on analytical thinking and long on polemics, tho I will admit they do tend to branch across the more traditional divisions of the humanities. They do that by dividing the humanities by "who is affected" rather than by the "what is affected" that the traditional divisions of the humanities have emphasized.  This non-traditional division isn't bad per se, but as I pointed out, these relatively novel programs have had a general tendency of emphasizing a particular point of view rather than critical thinking. That isn't too surprising.  If they weren't trying to advance a particular viewpoint, the initiators of these programs would have been unlikely to go to the bother.  One can hope that once the initiators and the initial followers retire that these "X Studies" start to lose their excessive orthodoxy and become more like the more traditional humanities.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Now, this is a proper effortpost

In the "US presidential election results", there are lots of threads about "describe a X (AAAA), Y (BBBB) voter".
It is possible to make this kind of thread about other countries' voters.

So, I create this thread for Brazilian voters


Generic right-wing, "reaça"
1989: Paulo Maluf (1st round), Fernando Collor (2nd round)
1994: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
1998: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
2002: José Serra
2006: Geraldo Alckmin
2010: José Serra
2014: Aécio Neves

Generic left-wing
1989: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
1994: Lula
1998: Lula
2002: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
2006: Heloísa Helena (1st round), Lula (2nd round)
2010: Plínio Sampaio (1st round), Dilma Rousseff (2nd round)
2014: Luciana Genro (1st round), Dilma Rousseff (2nd round)

Far right
1989: Enéias (1st round), Fernando Collor (2nd round)
1994: Enéias
1998: Enéias
2002: none
2006: Geraldo Alckmin
2010: Levy Fidelix (1st round), José Serra (2nd round)
2014: Levy Fidelix (1st round), Aécio Neves (2nd round)

Far left
1989: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
1994: Lula
1998: José Maria
2002: José Maria (1st round), Lula (2nd round)
2006: Heloísa Helena (1st round), none (2nd round)
2010: Plínio Sampaio (1st round), none (2nd round)
2014: Luciana Genro or Mauro Iasi (1st round), none (2nd round)

Straight ticket PT, "aperta 13 e confirma", "petista"
1989: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
1994: Lula
1998: Lula
2002: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
2006: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
2010: Dilma Rousseff (1st and 2nd round)
2014: Dilma Rousseff (1st and 2nd round)

Straight ticket PSDB, "aperta 45 e confirma", "tucano"
1989: Mário Covas (1st round), Lula (2nd round)
1994: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
1998: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
2002: José Serra (1st and 2nd round)
2006: Geraldo Alckmin (1st and 2nd round)
2010: José Serra (1st and 2nd round)
2014: Aécio Neves (1st and 2nd round)

Nationalist left
1989: Leonel Brizola (1st round), Lula (2nd round)
1994: Leonel Brizola
1998: Lula
2002: Ciro Gomes (1st round), Lula (2nd round)
2006: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
2010: Dilma Rousseff (1st and 2nd round)
2014: Dilma Rousseff (1st and 2nd round)

Very poor voter who lives in rural areas in the North and in the Northeast
1989: Fernando Collor (1st and 2nd round)
1994: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
1998: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
2002: José Serra (1st and 2nd round)
2006: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
2010: Dilma Rousseff (1st and 2nd round)
2014: Dilma Rousseff (1st and 2nd round)

Middle class, former PT voter, dissapointed with PT after the corruption scandals, but not willing to vote for other left-wing parties because changed his/her political views to the right (I know many of them)
1989: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
1994: Lula
1998: Lula
2002: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
2006: Geraldo Alckmin (1st and 2nd round)
2010: José Serra (1st and 2nd round)
2014: Aécio Neves (1st and 2nd round)

Middle class, former PT voter, dissapointed with PT after the corruption scandals, but not willing to vote for other left-wing parties because changed his/her political views to the right, but wants to show to the left-wing friends that it is still a little bit progressive
1989: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
1994: Lula
1998: Lula
2002: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
2006: Cristóvam Buarque (1st round), Geraldo Alckmin (2nd round)
2010: Marina Silva (1st round), José Serra (2nd round)
2014: Marina Silva or Eduardo Jorge (1st round), Aécio Neves (2nd round)

Middle class, doesn't care about politics, vote for the candidate that the relatives, friends and neighboors will vote too, "follow the wave"
1989: Mário Covas (1st round), none (2nd round)
1994: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
1998: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
2002: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
2006: Geraldo Alckmin (1st and 2nd round)
2010: Marina Silva (1st round), José Serra (2nd round)
2014: Marina Silva (1st round), Aécio Neves (2nd round)

Centrist voter, dissapointed with the PSDB shift to the right, but also with the PT scandals
1989: Mário Covas (1st round), Lula (2nd round)
1994: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
1998: Lula
2002: Lula (1st and 2nd round)
2006: Cristóvam Buarque (1st round), Geraldo Alckmin (2nd round)
2010: Marina Silva (1st round), José Serra (2nd round)
2014: Marina Silva (1st round), Aécio Neves (2nd round)


Of course, I am considering only voters born before 1973 (could vote in 1989). There are younger voters who voted only in the most recent elections.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You would really risk the well-being of this country for partisan gain? I'll be honest, I've pondered what you're saying, and lots of it are likely imo - Millennials hardening as Democrats en masse, large gains in 2018 (maybe not enough to flip the House, or even the Senate right away, though), and recession blamed on Trump/Republicans, 2020 election as 2008 all over again, and so on...

But those spectacular gains are not guaranteed. And even at that, it's reckless as hell to risk a Trump presidency just so you can reap partisan windfalls. What if Trump starts trade wars? What if he destroys delicate foreign relationships that would take many years to rebuild? What if he deports millions of otherwise hard-working families? What if Trump himself prompts a mini-recession due to stock market turmoil? What if he starts going hard after the press, as he has said? The list goes on and on.

Risking all that to win some elections is awful and something I'd fully expect from Republicans, but not Democrats. These elections are not games without consequences.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I pray that it is Scott.

We need more liberal Republicans.

"Oh look, another two-liner I like. Let's put it in the Good Post Gallery!"

Well, it's true.

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

I pray that it is Scott.

We need more liberal Republicans.

"Oh look, another two-liner I like. Let's put it in the Good Post Gallery!"

Well, it's true.

Not if by 'liberal Republicans' one means 'Western Ukrainians'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Humans, regardless of the superficial differences attributable to the random chance of where one was born, to what race one belongs, or to what deity (or lack thereof) one prays, come first. Period. When America, a land of relative wealth and stability, has the capacity to aid and assist our fellow man in need, but refuses, then the moral judgment of all civilized people should be that of condemnation. Any objection or protestation to the contrary betrays the moral foundations of our modern society, to which maybe you do not wish to belong, but many, if not most, of us do. Petty nationalism, such as that demonstrated in your post, is abhorrent and, thankfully, being gradually tossed aside by an emergent group of Americans who view all humans as interconnected, interdependent, and ethically bound to help one another without regard to something as arbitrary as imaginary lines on a map.

Truly excellent post. Couldn't have put it better.

[Mr. Smith]

Nate really is on a role

This very likely falls under the umbrella of 'easier said than done', but wouldn't one think a simple solution to that, as an individual man in a specific couple trying to decide whether or not to have children, would be to resolve to do more housework and child care and monitor oneself to make sure one does?

Also it's, you know, unbelievably creepy that you think that men who want kids want them only or primarily in order 'to have something that generates acknowledgement in society', but, you know, whatever. (For the record, even if this is true, it's better solved by cultivating more constructive attitudes towards children and fatherhood, not avoiding fatherhood on principle because the desire to be a father is somehow inherently bad.)

[Joe Republic]

Christians have been arguing over the proper attire for a worshipper and a place of worship (cue iconoclasm) since it was founded. Which is another one of it's collective pointless distractions.

As for standing during anthems people seem happy to sit on their ass when it plays on tv before sport and stand collectively if in public. Which demonstrates it's a social etiquette and nothing particularly profound.

[Antonio the Sixth]

who is opebo??? he your sock or something

A controversial Liberal poster who was banned a couple years ago.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=164

Oh my, what for?

A number of things, most of which sum to just being a disruptive and malign presence rather than doing any one thing wrong. There were stated proximate causes but they seemed a little ginned-up, which is--reasonably--part of why many posters treat him as a sort of martyr. The--less reasonable--reason why some of these posters treat him as a martyr specifically for sexual liberation (for those oh-so-repressed straight men, naturally) is that he bragged incessantly about the extensive use that he made of the Southeast Asian sex trade. As if needing to pay indigent, in many cases likely terrified women for sex is something to brag about.

I was never particularly 'triggered' by him and generally got along superficially okay with him, mostly because his 'style' was bemused and quasi-sociopathic detachment rather than viperous affrontedness of the kind of which I and the poster above me are both guilty, but I did strongly support his ban once it was mooted as a possibility.

I actually wrote a stylistic parody of Robert Herrick at one point as an attack on the assumptions that opebo and his defenders made and make about sex and relationships, and I can post it if anybody's for some reason interested.

ETA: Cory, I understand and present myself as a leftist, and indeed as a socialist, because my basic views on how society should be structured and how the economy should operate genuinely are by and large those of a particular strand of useful-idiot midcentury idealism, including useful-idiot midcentury feminism. In terms of what's actually possible in the America that we currently have with the issues that are currently at stake, and especially the sorts of issues that provoke extensive moral debate on this forum, I'm willing to admit I'm (in many ways) trending soft-socon, yes. (I obviously still won't vote Republican because I'm neither a fusionist goon nor a creep who thinks Franco was a cuck for using Moroccan shocktroopers.)