The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Lief 🗽]

Wow, five posts in and not a single "good post" yet. This thread is off to a "good" start.

[Lief 🗽]

No post that contains >implying belongs in this thread.

Or that non-ironically complains about political correctness jesus christ.

[Lief 🗽]

How ironic. The fringe far-left calling people "impotent".

Not only that, but using the language of whiny anti-P.C. privileged liberalism (a la Jonathan Chait or similar blowhards) to do so!

[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.

[Lief 🗽]

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

you got owned kaljetw, don't sulk about it

[Lief 🗽]

hahah the anti-hillary hacks mad now

[Lief 🗽]

Here's a novel idea: don't proactively go out of your way every time you think a poster who has just joined is "weird" to call them a "creep", "weirdo", "freak", make multiple threads about them in this capacity, malign them at every opportunity when they've done nothing personally to you, talk behind their back, and then - after months or even years of this sustained behavior - cry like a little bitch because they finally decided to have some fun at your expense.

This is a well-documented trend from the same group of people on this forum. They immediately begin to throw gas on something with the vaguest spark, encourage it to smolder and then freak out like a bunch of cats when the gas-soaked pyre they've constructed bursts into flames (although I hypothesize the freaking out is just an uncoordinated yet totally predictable act to finish off what they've started). Apparently, this kind of thing is acceptable now.

It's bullying, pure and simple, and it's almost always condoned by the power structure of this forum. It's sickening. Maybe it's because I don't hide who I am or maybe because I'm not a complete ass outside of politics, but generally I don't come on here to personally attack and repetitively antagonize the actual people on this forum. Outside of Fantasyland (which might be more volatile than the rest of this forum the more I think about it) and occasionally Bushie (who quite literally asked for barrages of attention), I try to treat people like human beings when they're not treating others like garbage. Because of that, I also don't fear for "my safety" or whatever - and hey, someone obviously thought enough of me to put me in a virtual "0rgy" on the Atlas board with my photos last week, and I still don't care - because I know I'm not trying to proactively make people feel like shit in their personal lives.

Maybe if all the posters to which this pertained actually existed on this forum with their real names known, they'd abide by the same general behavior and not jump so quickly to be predictably terrible to others. Unfortunately, we instead have a bunch of antagonistic cowards who - once they've decided they don't like someone - will bang the drums of "creep" until they get the reaction they want out of them, which gets them purged from here. It's either that, or they're the biggest autists on the forum who can't read nor comprehend basic human behavior and social cues.

As far as I'm concerned, these people deserve every iota of negative attention and focus they get from the people they habitually harass, and one day, their little self-fulfilling prophecy might actually manifest when they send the wrong person over the edge: a forum ban won't save them from repercussions if/when that happens.

[Lief 🗽]

Nothing will help. No one is listening. No one cares about these communities. Baltimore's public officials are powerless to act in the face of Maryland's Police Officers' Bill of Rights (I've posted a link to the implications of this). Baltimore's residents are powerless at the polls: they're a small portion of Maryland's population and have entirely different concerns than African-Americans who live in Prince George's County. At this point, I don't have any public policy prescriptions or strategies to offer. These people are powerless in the face of a system that has been rigged against them at every possible point. Baltimore has de-industrialized, the welfare state has been gutted, incarceration rates continue to increase and the police have the carte blanche authority to do as they please. When has the fabled "median voter" expressed the slightest inkling of a concern about these facts? America's once great industrial cities are as impoverished and dangerous as parts of Central America. We've known this for decades. What has been done about it? Nothing. We had the ability to stop urban blight, white flight, the carceral state and slow the pace of de-industrialization: we didn't do anything because Americans don't care.

With this in mind, I understand the unalloyed sentiment that is embodied by throwing a brick through a payday loan office or a police car.

(I'm aware of the irony of posting this in the Sam Spade memorial good post gallery)

[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.

[Lief 🗽]

TN volunteer is there a specific place on the exit poll where women can designate that they are indeed angry to distinguish themselves from not angry women?

Well, the angry womens' vote has decided pretty much every election in NH since the 90s (except maybe 2004-SEN and 2012-PRES). Let's take a look at past exit poll data:

2014:

Angry women (27%): Jeanne Shaheen 84%, Scott Brown 16%
Young voters (11%): Jeanne Shaheen 58%, Scott Brown 42%
Others (62%): Scott Brown 63%, Jeanne Shaheen 37%

Final result: Jeanne Shaheen 51.5%, Scott Brown 48.5%

It's shocking how well Brown did despite losing the angry women's vote by 68 points. There is no doubt in my mind that a Senator named John Shaheen would have lost reelection in 2014.

2000:

Angry women (20%): Al Gore 53%, George W. Bush 45% (!!)
Young voters (18%): Al Gore 51%, George W. Bush 38%
Others (62%): George W. Bush 54%, Al Gore 43%

Final result: Bush 48.1%, Gore 46.8%

Bush got 45% of the angry womens vote (due to the backlash against the Levinsky scandal), which was enough for him to eke out a narrow win.

2012:

Angry women (22%): Barack Obama 64%, Mitt Romney 36%
Young voters (19%): Barack Obama 62%, Mitt Romney 34%
Others (59%): Mitt Romney 53%, Barack Obama 44%

Final result: Barack Obama 52%, Mitt Romney 46%

With no woman on the ballot, Romney did better with angry women, but still not enough to even make it close. The abortion and Bain issue really hurt him here. Fun fact: Even if he had somehow managed to get 45% of the angry womens vote, he still would have lost the state with 48.3% of the vote. That's why the 2012 results basically show you that NH is not winnable for Republicans anymore, especially not if a woman is on top of the ticket. The combination of angry women, Democratic young voters and influx of VT/MA/NY residents into NH is rapidly turning the state into New Vermont. Anyway,

My guess for Tuesday:

Angry women (33%?!?!): Hillary Clinton 81%, Bernie Sanders 19%
Young voters (18%): Bernie Sanders 80%, Hillary Clinton 20%
Others (49%): Bernie Sanders 60%, Hillary Clinton 40%

Final result: Hillary Clinton 49.93%, Bernie Sanders 50.07%

Because of the growing influence of young voters (see also: NH-PRES 2012), Sanders might, just might eke out a razor-thin victory despite losing the angry womens vote by 62 points (which is still better than how Scott Brown did in 2014!).
 
TL;DR:
If Sanders gets less than 17% of the angry womens vote (which is definitely possible), there is no realistic way he can win New Hampshire. And he better hope that they don't comprise more than 33% of the electorate, otherwise he's toast.

[Lief 🗽]

So in summary:

Bernie finds out there's a conference happening in the Vatican to discuss one of Pope John Paul II's encyclicals.  Because the encyclical is about economic justice, Bernie mistakenly thinks he has something to contribute so he badgers the people running the conference, "showing great disrespect" according to them, until they agree to shorten a coffee break to give him time for a ten minute speech.  He rudely skips most of the conference but shows up just in time for his speech, refuses to shake the organizer's hand, and reads off a set of prepared remarks that are basically just his stump speech (he only really talks about the American economy) with a couple references to "the moral economy" and a couple quotes from the encyclical dropped in obviously after the fact.  At 4 AM that night, as Pope Francis is leaving for his red-eye flight to Greece, Bernie runs up to him in the middle of an open foyer and gets his little handshake.  Bernie's people go out in the media and say he had a private five minute meeting with the pope where they discussed very important things.  As usual, Bernie lets other people lie for him but eggs them on by saying he "met with the pope" which is technically true.  The pope, clearly irritated that Bernie used him as a political prop, accuses Bernie of basically stalking him in the foyer and says his supporters need to get their heads checked.

Just another day in this ludicrous zombie campaign.