The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/thedemocrats/status/260497619862835201

who care

That post really does encapsulate the major criticisms of him for at least as long as I've been on the Atlas. Like, I get it. Obama criticized Romney for acting like Russia is a major enemy still. He was wrong. Obama also really dropped the ball by not realizing what was going on in 2016 and then acting too late, and ineffectively when he did. He let Republicans and Russia walk all over us (and Democrats). I can't emphasize that enough, and I'm pretty sure most users here are aware of these things...

...but why keep bringing it up? What does it add? jfern does this constantly, and with a number of other things. He brings up stuff that he feels are hypocritical or perhaps serve as a "gotcha" to the person in question (and with Hillary, often NOT the person in question...), and he'll do it even when it adds nothing to the thread and often has little to do with the subject at hand. This was always and still is my primary issue with jfern - it's like all that runs through his head is negativity and how persons x, y and z are hypocrites or liars or whatever. This constant score keeping where his sole reason for existing is to make sure people are aware of their transgressions or fumbles.

Anyway, I'll just end that rant here (or maybe not, seeing as I'm easy to prod into arguments). I'm just tired of seeing the same Obama: Russia is so 20th century thing constantly brought up in discussions where it serves no useful purpose. We get it. He screwed up!

[Cold War Liberal]

Social engineering doesn't work anymore.

There needs to be a balance.

What does this dog whistle even mean?

We are all equal.

This is what all of us being equal looks like...

[Atlas Force]

RAFAEL CRUZ'S NAME IS NOT TED!!!!

His middle name is Edward.  I know many Edwards who go by Ted.  If he uses Ted he is not appropriating any other heritage.  

Cruz is not attempting to be anything but a Cuban American.

O’Rourke using the name Beto for Robert is attempting to infer he is of Latino/Irish heritage.  That is appropriation.  You know it, I know it, and the Latinos who did not vote for him in the primary knew it.

Cruz is trying to insinuate that because O'Rouke is Irish American and not Latino, that he doesn't deserve the votes of Latinos. He's saying, "get back into your Irish box." It's not because Cruz is so invested in Irish pride, it's because he wants O'Rourke not to get those Latino votes, eso he'll call appropriation. This is the same attitude, by the way, that suggests if a white person eats at a Chinese restaurant he is appropriating. It's racist against whites. O'Rourke grew up in El Paso, ewhich is 90% Latino, so that he thad a Latino nickname from childhood is not a surprise. He is not denying anything about him. He is accepting t of his background and his life experience.

Cruz is not saying that Latinos should not vote for O’Rourke because he is not Latino.  He is merely pointing out that O’Rourke by using the name Beto is inferring an ethnic connection that does not exist.

Do not tell me O’Rourke has the life experience of an Hispanic.

 

Cruz is blaming Beto for growing up in the heavily Latino city of El Paso and adopting a nickname given to him by his Latino friends.
There's nothing to be ashamed of that at all; Cruz is grasping at the straws. His line of attack here is utterly stupid. Trump was right: He is Lyin' Ted.

THIS....

When me and my wife moved to Houston back in 2012, we had no friends nor family there, so our friendships developed with coworkers, the vast majority of whom were Latino that spoke English as a second language.

In my personal experience nicknames are extremely common in Latino and Tejano communities in Tejas, so this is a completely bogus line of attack.

Initially until I listened to the ad today I had assumed this was targeted at the Latino/Tejano population of Texas (potentially using Spanish Language Radio), since really that's one of two major potential swing voter banks in 2018 (Middle Class Latinos and the other being Urban/Suburban Anglos in the larger Metro areas).

Upon listening to the actual radio commercial, I was shocked at how corny it sounded (Like a used car lot sales jingle from a small town dealer somewhere in EastTex and such a blatant rip-off of arguably one of the best songs from the Charlie Daniels band with much worse lyrics, vocals, and musical presentation. Additionally, Ted Cruz's voice affirming that he was Ted Cruz and approved this  ad sounded downright creepy.

One of the things that I wonder about this "Statewide Radio Ad" is what audience it was even targeting?

Old Anglos are pretty much all ready in the bag for a 'Pub any 'Pub in Texas.... EastTex has become so reliably 'Pub that even the Yellow Dawg Alligators now vote 'Pub....

As all of us following this Forum know, the real vote banks in Texas come from the large Metro areas

Quite frankly even in the Anglo "Redneck" outskirts of the Oil Refinery areas around Houston, those that work and have worked in the offshore Rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, driven the rigs to move materials into and out of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Tex during the recent Oil Boom down there, not only come from an extremely varied and ethnically diverse work environment, but even more so tend to listen to music that sounds a hell of a lotta' better than this crap.

A real Texan County Music Song would be something like Johnny Rodriguez "Corpus Christi Bay" song from the early '70s, and not some random "Redneck Artist" from outside of Texas from back in the days.... Texans are really... really... really proud of their own independent alt country sound.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdivjLBxye8

More seriously now, I suspect the intention of the Cruz campaign was to create essentially free media coverage by running this radio ad, knowing that it would distract the people of Texas from the real actual discussions and issues on the table.

In that sense, it might have temporarily created a short term media buzz in both the National Media, as well as local Texas news stations, but I suspect that it might well be something that will backfire over the next few months in Texas, considering that Ted Cruz already has a bit of a reputation within the great Lone Star State as being a bit on the shady side when it comes to business dealings and corruption type items involving political donations and personal business investments that so many previous Governors and Politicians of both political parties have been implicated in over the past many decades....

I fail to see how this will help Cruz in Collin/Denton/Tarrant (DFW), Harris/Fort Bend/Galveston/Montgomery (Houston), let alone in Bexar (San Antonio), Travis/Hays/Williamson

Still, Beto is right to let it ride for now and take the high road on name calling and not take the Cruz bait and throw in chips at this point.....

Fold the hand and in the next three months focus on a mixture of building name recognition, personal bio ads, campaign organization in almost all Texas Counties, voter registration efforts from the Dem Senate campaign $$$ and private donations.

Post Labor Day, make sure you hit hard on Spanish Language Radio Stations throughout Texas, as well as TV commercials on Spanish language Cable Channels in the larger Metro areas....

I still wonder what the exact strategy of the Cruz campaign involves on this ad, unless he is seriously concerned about favs on his internal polling numbers among Anglos and Middle-Class Tejanos....

If anything sounds like free favorable media publicity from a relatively unknown Dem within Texas (El Paso is really its own island)....

[PragmaticPopulist]

Despite the near unanimous hatred towards me by red and blue avatars alike, I honestly believe I'm quite the average Republican Party voter.

Putting this here because it's actually quite accurate.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Identity politics is the definition of this question. How about what people are on the actual issues?

3rd wayers do their best to avoid the issues, because they suck so badly on them.

You are both completely off base, but you are both white males so anything that remotely revolves around representation for other groups must seem foreign to you. If you really think advocating for a racially or gender diverse ticket means putting some unqualified, incompetent hack that "sucks on the issues" on board then you aren't wrapped too tight.

Hmmmmmm I wonder where white working class voters get the impression the liberal elites have disdain for them. I didn't vote in the poll because I'm not a democrat. I fully expect democrats to have at least one woman and at least one nonwhite on the ticket. That alone doesn't necessarily hurt you guy with white voters (Obama won Iowa twice), but when you start a discussion with what amounts to "You're a white male so you know nothing and need to shut up" you will lose.

Keep it up! Let's shoot for a 25 point margin among white voters in 2020.

I swear the SJWs are going to get Trump re-elected.

[RINO Tom]

Despite the near unanimous hatred towards me by red and blue avatars alike, I honestly believe I'm quite the average Republican Party voter.

Putting this here because it's actually quite accurate.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for simple truths?

[Atlas Force]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely pro-life. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

[YE]

With this precedent, why shouldn't megathreads be set up for krazen, Famous Mortimer, Reaganfan, or literally any of the hundreds of problematic posters?

Actually, from my perspective, krazen hasn't really been antagonizing people the same way he used to. He still says the same things, but I don't see pages-long arguments popping up when he posts. Often it seems like people ignore him or quickly move on. This is why I view him as low priority. People still want him banned, and I still think he's a little troll who will never be a respectful contributor on Atlas, but right now it's mostly his past reputation that makes people think to mention him in these kinds of threads/lists. Reaganfan and Mortimer mostly piss people off for their views, although Reaganfan can occasionally get very argumentative to the point of ruining a thread (re: gun control town hall thread). I guess you could argue Mortimer sometimes hijacks immigration-related discussions too.

LimoLiberal has been a huge pain in the ass for months now. More so than any of those posters you just mentioned. Also, keep in mind that quarantining LL to a thread actually takes sustained effort on my part. I'd rather have just exiled him from those boards, and that may be an option later on, but not right now. So keep in mind that post purgatory is not something I do lightly.

Anyway, bottom line is, I'm fed up with this situation, and I'd rather step down as a Moderator than stand back and do nothing here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here are my thoughts on this issue: perhaps they are a perspective expected by someone from Scotland who lives in a totally different political culture.

In a two-party system a broad-base party is what you need to win: as soon as parties start focusing entirely on one part of their coalition (and yes; this includes parties focusing too much on what they perceive as the 'centre' and ignoring more radical parts of their base; left-wingers exist too and you can't just assume that they'll vote for you) then that's when they start to get to a position where they consistently lose until they can sufficiently cater to all parts of their base again.  In that regard, the presence of more conservative Democrats like Manchin in areas which would always tend to vote against Democratic candidates is a positive thing and they should be allowed a longer leash on many issues.

However; members of a political party often need to make compromises if they want to remain an elected representative for that political party.  To use a sports analogy: in Football you might sometimes be asked to play positions which you don't like: perhaps sometimes an attacking central midfielder might be asked to play in a defensive midfield position if it suits the teams overall strategy.  A good team player may well disagree with that decision and hate it but they have to go along with it: you can't just decide play in whatever position you personally want just because you'd rather do it.  The same goes for politics in many ways: if you are elected for a political party there are certain things expected of you: to support the major policy proposals of the party leadership (in the US; I suppose that would be the President when you have the Presidency) and also publicly support those measures even if personally you may disagree with them - and this is especially the case if you represent a seat that isn't strongly for the other party.  Generally the exception to this would be abortion and other similar matters of conscience but in America those issues are so politicised that isn't the case.

That's why Lipinski is being targeted over other people with similar ideologies: because he's less of a team player.  He voted against Obamacare and the DREAM Act and other major proposals of the Obama administration; he supported a dramatic expansion of domestic surveillance legislation beyond almost any other Democrat and on top of that he didn't even endorse the incumbent Democratic President in 2012.  That's the core difference between him and the few other remaining Conservative democrats: he doesn't represent somewhere like West Virginia or Alabama where support for more right wing measures might be seen as acceptable (although voting for the repeal of key bank regulations strikes me as not meeting that criteria and certainly spinnable) and also he doesn't seem to support key party policies on lots of issues; including some of the key policy measures of the previous Democratic President.  In that regard I think he crosses the line of a person who many people would tolerate as being an elected representative for their party: because he's not a team player.

Lets consider what some posting here seem to want: two parties that are almost indistinguishable with the exception of one having a pronounced left wing and the other one of the right.  That's something which would be very bad for American democracy: it'd lead to a situation where no matter who people vote for in elections; nothing really changing since you'd have this centrist majority on everything.  Another thing about two party systems: not only do they need to be broad-base parties but they also need to have a strong core ideology which is specific enough to make them distinct from the other party but also vague enough to be inclusive of lots of people - in much of the world this led to you having a broad two-party (or in some places with PR a two-bloc) system with Socialists on one side and Conservatives on the right: in America the tradition of the left is based on Liberalism instead so you have a Liberal/Conservative divide.  The way I see it: having members of a party that are basically like the other party in everything other than party membership in elected office is a negative thing because that's not representing the members of their area well: after all they voted for a Democrat and expect someone to support Democratic policies and not someone who just votes with the other side.

Again an exception to this are people like Manchin who seems to have a pretty strong personal vote and who represents a strong Republican area - but also note that if the Democratic leadership needs him on the vast majority issue he's right there voting with them because even though many people in the party may disagree with him; he's still a team player and willing to vote with the party when required - and on the other hand if they don't need his vote and have enough votes then he tends to be the first person they let defy the whip: its a fair balance.  That isn't the case for Lipinski though: not only the stuff mentioned above but also the fact that he represents a pretty Democratic area and also its hard to say whether he has a strong personal vote: he's never really faced a strong Republican challenge before (no candidate declared in 2016; the only Republican declared in 2018 is a legit Neo-Nazi and before that it was a lot of low level people who didn't seem to have a lot of financial support) but the fact that he's facing this strong primary challenge suggests that any personal vote isn't overly strong.  In that regard who can blame local party members who wanting someone else in: if Lipinski had been a team player for the party he might not be the one facing a strong challenge.

I think this argument shows that the word "populist" has lost all meaning - not that it really had any in the first place.  Certainly doesn't seem to be a term to describe Lipinski at all.  It also shows a very... weird perspective about what working class voters are like, almost like everyone who is working class is the same and that there are no working class women, or gay working class people; or working class immigrants; or working class people who benefitted from the ACA...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I know that their are a few exceptions and that the GOP does even worse now in the city then it did back then but given that so many people think the parties completely switched. (A point I actually somewhat disagree on) why has NYC been Dem from Van Buren to Clinton?

NYC has constantly replaced its immigrant population. So as middle class English people embraced the party of the commercial interests, they were being out numbered by the Irish. When the Irish took over the city, they repulsed a lot of Jewish and Italian immigrants, who embraced the Republicans and American Labor Party.

Beginning with FDR, the Democrats became more associated with the Fio Coalition of Jews, Italians and minorities, Middle class Irish, Germans and some Italians, moved in opposition towards the Republicans. You see this dynamic forming when you compare the borough maps for Mayor and President in the 1940's. Fio would win MAnhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn, while Dems won Queens and Staten Island. For President, FDR won Bronx, Manhattan and Brooklyn, while Wilkie or Dewey would win Queens and Staten Island.

Finally, you had substantial degree of white flight and the changing composition of employment and diversity that composed what is term silk stocking areas (Upper East Side) as Yankee establishment types (think Bruce Bartlett or Frederick Coudert who were conservatives representing the UES in Congress) were replaced with what we would basically call latte liberals (and thus the district elected more liberal representation in the form John Lindsay in 1958). As these areas became less Republican, the middle class Irish and Italian precincts began to out perform for the Republicans, except when Kennedy was running on the ballot. Some of these even trended Republican in 1964 while everywhere else Goldwater was losing ground except the deep south).

But it boils down to being the vanguard party for immigrants and minorities.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I'll try to give a very serious take on this, since I somewhat fit the mold:

Bernie Sanders does not have the same economic worldview as many Democrats. He believes in an old-school labor movement. The problem is increasingly few Democrats have any connection to organized labor whatsoever, and so that’s why he doesn’t connect as well with many Democrats on that front. And on top of that, on most social issues, Sanders is basically an agnostic. I don’t really fault him for that, but the more activist liberal doesn’t really see him as someone who will really fight for them on abortion, guns, etc. Identity wise, he's a stereotypical angry old (white) man. To some people that's part of his charm, to others it's why they can't stand him.

But I suspect this doesn’t really answer your question. The more potent issue is that so-called Berniecrats can be straight up childish and juvenile. Now, jfern and Landslide Lyndon are on the very polar ends of the spectrum, but frankly there are far more people like jfern on the internet. And those people tend to be younger, more digitally savvy, but also probably just as dogmatic about politics. I suspect Lyndon spends a lot of time on Twitter, so he’s probably witnessed the behavior of Rose Emoji Twitter and not liked what he’s seen. Chapo Trap House, Cumtown, Jacobin, etc. just have such limited appeal to people above the age of like 25. And that’s probably where a lot of the resentment comes from.

Now personally, I also have a problem with the organizational apparatus surrounding Bernie. I don’t think I need to explain why I think Justice Democrats is an idiotic organization, but Our Revolution and DSA are also filled with some wildly ridiculous people, and they bring all the stupidity that comes with youth politics.

Plus I guess I resent that Berniecrats buy into the idea that Sanders’ platform is somehow broadly popular with Americans. That’s probably why I’m so averse to primarying Generic Democrat for not supporting Medicare For All or whatever, since I don’t believe it is actually that popular. Most of the country is not nearly as ideological as Bernie and his supporters, so I don't agree that people are clamoring for single-payer. It’s probably a conflation of Bernie’s popularity in general, which I credit more to his personality. And that’s the easiest part for the Right to take down over the course of a presidential election.

So to answer the OP clearly, the fear is that these Berniecrats will forcefully take control of the Democratic Party, and turn it into something amateur, far less competent, and probably less electorally viable.

I disagree with a lot of it, but that doesn't necessarily detract from the post quality.

[Atlas Force]

The outcome of this election is bad, bad news for the Republicans. I am now convinced that the House of Representatives will almost certainly flip this year. Losing a district Trump won by 20 points...that is a major shift.

Let's not get overconfident...anything is still possible...

Yeah it's the rust belt... a very elastic area if the country. Dems will continue on with "muh rich Atlanta suburbs" strategy o/c.

Dems win a seat in a competitive area where they performed poorly in 2016 and your reaction is that they're not going to follow through in a GE?

Besides, the fact that Dems won this seat when Trump has tailored parts of his presidency specifically to curry favor with this demographic region is bad news for Republicans nationwide next year.

Saccone needs to pull 850 votes out of the remaining 3200. I think he'll net about 100 absentee votes in Greene but probably not enough in the other two to make up for it. I'm still really nervous about calling this though.

You think he wins absentees in Greene 75-25??

ah I thought he won regular votes there by a similar margin but it looks like he only won there like 58-41... okay yeah I feel pretty good calling this one

[YE]

I don't understand whether Fuzzy is trying to ignore the role the national environment/president plays in midterm/odd-year elections, or if this is just somehow neurons misfiring. The effect a president and by extension, their approval rating, plays on elections under their watch has been obvious for years now, and most if not all analysts accept it.

For instance, Virginia has been trending towards Democrats for years now, but yet the Democratic Party's share of legislative seats didn't really catch up until an unpopular Republican president came along. Interesting! I mean, yes, Democrats fielded lots more candidates this time, but they ran candidates in 2015 in vulnerable districts and still lost, only to win comfortably 2 years later under Trump.

Further, Alabama had Roy Moore, yes, but to say Trump had no effect there at all is preposterous. Jones won by a very slim margin, and had this been under Obama, with a demoralized Democratic base that had an enthusiasm problem, it's very easy to see them not showing up in Alabama either. In fact, it's practically guaranteed if you ask me. Trump made that race possible, and Roy Moore/Jones put it over the line.

I don't get why Fuzzy is ignoring years' worth of understanding of American elections. Politics is not that localized. It just isn't. Everything has become nationalized. If it wasn't, we'd actually have split ticket voting still and everything wouldn't be so polarized. You would probably have to go back 100 years or more to find a time where people voted party line as much as they do nowadays. That does not sound like an environment that 'votes local' like Fuzzy suggests.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Could people stop with this insane idea that the Republicans were ever a "liberal" party in the American sense? They have been the party of big business and Wall Street from the 1870s to present. Hell, they weren't even "liberal" in the European sense in the 19th century: they were arch-protectionists and major supporters of high tariffs (both for protecting American business and for revenue purposes).

The big shift isn't in the party platforms so much as who made up the party. The mass defection of African-Americans from the GOP to the Dems from 1930s-1960s ended up making the Northern Democrats the party of civil rights (can't get elected in NY or IL or etc without the black vote), which alienated white conservative Southern Democrats and gradually pushed them into the GOP in the 1970s-2000s. It's inaccurate to say the parties "switched platforms" generally, though. The main groups that made up the GOP in the 1920s (big business, highly-paid professionals, Midwestern farmers) are still all mostly Republican groups, while the main groups behind Northern Democrats (recent immigrants, labor unionists, religious minorities, the poor) are mainly still Democratic voting blocs.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He should and will get off. He's an idiot but there's reasonable doubt and the problems lay more with the system than with him as an individual.

He shouldn't have been a cop, too jumpy.  The system should have stopped him yes, but it doesn't absolve him of his guilt and shouldn't remove any punishment he should be receiving.  Do we blame driving schools or the DMV when someone does something stupid while driving?  Maybe, if there is a pattern, but even then we'd still punish the bad drivers too.

He needs to go to jail.  He killed someone because he heard a loud noise.  If you can find some blame to lay on the "system" fine, lets look into it, but this guy shouldn't be able to walk away clear.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

This thread is bad, and there are some people here who I don't think understand the struggles involved with being part of the LGBT community. In that regard, I've been luckier than even some people I know. I've never been forced to sleep in a tent in the backyard, like one of my LGBT friends. Being taken to a church which hates you every week, living in a predominantly conservative area, staying in the closet for your own safety, etc is still happening to some of us, and people like Lipinski and his defenders don't care.

Lipinski hates us. There's no way around that. It doesn't matter if he "respects the law" or whatever bullsh**t you come up with, he votes against laws that would protect us from discrimination. We don't want to understand his reasoning behind this, listening to hate doesn't do anyone any good. Beliefs that only hurt other people should be shut up and voted out.

Lipinski losing would have been amazing. We don't need his type in the Democratic Party. Especially not in Chicago. Yes, it's ideological purity, and it's good. As long as you give Lipinski a platform, or try to get us to understand his repulsive point of view, the dream of equality and acceptance will remain distant. Let's just hope that we get someone accepting in 2020.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

[Atlas Force]

I was far too young to be politically aware in 06/08 so correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems reminiscent of Wynn/Edwards in MD-04 back in the day (or at least has the potential to be). An entrenched incumbent with views generally more conservative than their safe D district (I.e. Wynn supporting the Iraq War, estate tax repeal, Bush energy policy, etc) gets the first serious challenge of their career from a progressive insurgent and manages to hold on by the skin of their teeth (Wynn won the '06 D primary 49.7-46.4), but then goes on to get blown out the next cycle after demonstrating their weakness and vulnerability (Edwards beat Wynn 60-36 in '08). I do think a candidate other than Newman should run next time, someone who would perhaps be a better fit for the district, but I do think if she runs again she'll win and it won't be particularly close.

[RINO Tom]

Let's start with the provisions in the original Constitution relating to arms:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clause 11 itself is notable. In order to be able to give effect to any Letter of Marque and Reprisal that might be issued, the recipient would have to be able to acquire arms, up to and including cannons. However, while indicating that private control of arms was possible in certain circumstances, it certainly doesn't imply that the Federal government was required to stand aside laissez-faire and allow people to get whatever weapons they want.

Clauses 15 and 16 define the Militia to a certain extent. First off, it serves as both a police and a military auxiliary, able to be called up when needed. While the Federal government has authority to set standards for the Militia, it is the States who have the actual responsibility of training and organizing. the Militia. Note that the government organizes the Militia.  There is no such thing under the Constitution as a private Militia.

The Federal government has authority to determine what weapons are available. That's the standard that was used (tho not necessarily calling specifically to these provisions) to ban saw-offed shotguns, and could reasonably be used to ban Saturday-night specials and 3D-printed guns.  These provisions can also provide for the required registration of automatic weapons, and there is no reason to think it could not be applied to all classes of weaponry.

So having said all that, what exactly does the Second Amendment do?

Primarily it guarantees to everyone the right to be in the Militia except if they have committed offenses that would authorize restrictions upon their civil rights. Note that the Militia is not synonymous with the National Guard, nor could it be made so, for Clause 15 makes it clear that for purposes of the Constitution, the Militia is not a strictly military body. Also, nowhere does it say that only the organized portion of the Militia is the Militia. Rather the organized Militia is the portion that is to be made available by the States that have organized it to the Federal government upon request. Thus I think Scalia's legerdemain in saying Heller didn't have to be part of the Militia to be able to own a gun was pointless. By any reasonable standard, Heller was part of the Militia as defined by the Constitution.

So to recap, while I think every adult has the right to own guns, including automatic weapons, as part of the Militia, the government has the right to require that people register as part of the Militia, be sufficiently trained to handle weapons, to have those weapons registered with the government, and to tax possession of said weapons and ammunition.

[YE]

Treatment of Hillary and certainly some people's reactions to her post-2016 behavior could be sexist, but in this particular case, I don't think so:

1. Going back to Romney, it's my understanding that he did disappear into the background for a couple years or so, right? Clinton didn't do this. She very quickly bounced back and reinserted herself into the debate without first rehabilitating her image.

2. Her loss wasn't just any loss. This was a loss to Donald Trump, a candidate people (rightfully) believe was very weak and scandal-prone, even with a rabid core base of support around 20 - 30%. Her loss has brought upon America a lot of pain, turmoil and shame. People relied on her to save America from the monstrosity that is the Trump presidency in a way not typical to previous presidential elections.

3. Her party nomination was not without scandal, as we all know. I think this separates her from numerous past candidates well enough. Lots of people think she won the nomination unfairly and had used her extensive connections and power in the Democratic Party to not only clear the field ahead of time, but have a thumb on the scale in her favor. This is going to generate lasting animosity by those who were against her in the primaries. It's not something that can be smoothed over by a very brief period in the shadows of society.

4. A lot of people just don't like Hillary Clinton. She has long been a polarizing figure, and when the email scandal broke, it reinvorgated her image as a corrupt, inauthentic self-serving politician that is quite frankly, very easy to dislike. I'm not going to argue whether these attributes have merit, but rather that they are part of how she is perceived - fairly or unfairly.


This is simply not the same as past elections. By no means am I saying there isn't sexism in politics, but her case is uniquely different in some ways.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The OP is also an example of how "neoliberal" is now being used in a way that's as confused as "neoconservative".  What does neoliberalism the economic philosophy have to do with #MeToo?  It seems that "neoliberal" is now just being used to mean "anyone to the right of me who I don't like".  People latched on to the "Neo" in "neoconservative" as an intensifier of the negative connotations they had with "conservative", and are now just transplanting that to "liberal" for no reason.  Is an Atlas poster I don't like a "neoposter"? 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

As Richard Nixon used to famously say when talking to his key advisers regarding a wide range of Policy Issues from Vietnam, to the Civil Rights Movement transitioning to Northern States, Economic Policy, etc:   

"How Will it Play in Peoria"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_it_play_in_Peoria%3F

Although Richard Nixon was talking about Peoria, Illinois and not Peoria, Arizona, it is perhaps a fitting barometer of the 8th Congressional District of Arizona, where Peoria represents almost 25% of the Vote Share of the district, and essentially will provide a key test of Trump's ability to keep the Republican Party brand intact within a fast growing Exurban City within the Sun Belt, where in theory Trump's American Nativist and Hardline stance on immigration should be a winning proposition.....

Let's start with taking a look at the relative vote share by Community within AZ-08.



So as we see the vote share within the Congressional District is roughly as follows:

Peoria- 23%
Glendale- 17%
Surprise- 16.5%
Phoenix- 11%
Goodyear- 9%
UNINC-OTHER- 8%
Sun City- 7%
Sun City West- 4%
Others- 5 %

Why do I provide such significance to Peoria within CD-08, compared to other communities within the District, other than just the raw percentage of the vote coming from this "City"?

Basically any roadmap for Democratic victory within CD-08 will by necessity involve exceeding Democratic Maricopa County Sheriff candidate Paul Penzone's numbers in a district where Trump ally "Sheriff Joe Arpaio" won by 16,000 votes ( +5% Rep), while Trump won it by 70k votes (+ 20.7% Rep).

There are a huge number of Trump > Penzone cross-over voters that traditionally vote Republican, that any Democratic Candidate will need to win in this hardcore Rock-Ribbed 'Pub Suburban/Exurban Phoenix district.

Here's a chart of the '16 Sheriff Results by Place within CD-08.



Let's look at the '16 Presidential Results by Place within CD-08:



Now, to put this all within the larger context, we have not only the largest voting bank within the District, but additionally the place with almost the highest percentage of Trump > DEM Sheriff cross-over voters in 2016, other than some Upper-Income parts of Phoenix which I'll get to later !!!!

What else makes Peoria particularly significant when it comes to CD-08?

It generally mirrors the overall Demographics of the District.

AZ-CD08: Race & Ethnicity:



Peoria AZ: Race & Ethnicity:



Arizona CD-08: Household Income by Place:



Arizona CD-08: Education by Place:



Ok---- we have now established the Peoria is really perhaps the key place to watch in CD-08 when it comes to electoral margins.


Peoria Election Results 2012 PRES and 2016 GENERAL:



So what we see here is again how reliably Republican Peoria is, even in the 2016 Presidential Elections, with the local County elections for Sheriff being the only real case of a major deviation from recent voting history.

Now, although I haven't compiled the numbers for other Maricopa County downballot races, it does appear that in places like Peoria there was not only a major rejection of "Sheriff Joe" running under the Republican banner, but also to a significant extent local elected County offices from County Attorney, to County Recorder, to County School Superintendent even in solidly Republican precincts in Maricopa County.

It is potentially an early warning sign that Anglo Middle-Class Exurban voters are starting to reject their Maricopa County Republican Party Machine at a local level, and might well move on up the Food Chain in 2018.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but many of these voters went Democratic in essentially a nationalized election (County Sheriff) for the first time in their voting histories in a Metro Area where in theory the whole "Anti-Immigrant" shtick used be a shoe-in for any Republican Candidate running for office.

Glendale, Arizona:

In theory, Glendale should be the closest potential thing to a Democratic stronghold in the event of a massive 2018 Democratic Wave election.

It has a huge 17% of CD-08 votes, Trump "only" won by 12.5% of the Vote, and the Democratic Candidate for Sheriff captured a whopping 52% of the Vote against Arpaio.

The reality is that CD-08 was basically designed to take to most Democratic and Latino portions of Glendale and pack them into the district in the South, and essentially left the 2/3 of the City with the most traditionally Republican voters "Up North" as a safety insurance policy.

So although overall Glendale was only (45-47 Trump) in 2016, the 25% of the Population outside of CD-08 was (59-33 Clinton).

The 80% of Glendale remaining within the district incorporates a mix of Working-Class / Lower Middle-Class communities in the Southern precincts that tend to be heavily Anglo with a decent Latino Population, to rolling North to heavily Upper Middle-Class Anglo precincts in the far Northern part of the City.

Here is a Map of Glendale Arizona shaded by % of Latinos within the Population....



So for anyone not used to looking at these types of maps, basically what you are looking at with the darkest shading are heavily Latino precincts, not located within Arizona CD-08, and the part of Glendale you see North of the Giant dividing line, includes some precincts in "South Central" Glendale that might be around 25 % Latino.

Here is a Map shaded by Median Household Income for Glendale that shows that the heavily Upper-Income parts of the City reside in the Northern Part of the City.



Here is a Glendale precinct map that shows the overall Trump > Clinton margins by Precinct:



Note there are three precinct cut off the Map (Butler +9 HRC, Caron +4 DJT, Glencroft +6 HRC), but I think y'all get the picture that this should normally be considered solidly Republican Suburban Country under a normal "Generic Republican" Universe.

Now, we are looking a potential scenario where places like the Gerrymandered most 'Pub section of Glendale is looking like a potential Democratic stronghold within CD-08 in November '18, in a similar fashion like Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania went from being a Lean Republican suburb of Pittsburgh to an overwhelmingly Democratic stronghold within barely over 10 years....

Ok--- that might be a bit of a stretch, but still the South Pittsburgh 'Burbs of PA-18 mostly resisted the major Dem swing in Upper-Income Anglo 'Burbs in the '16 GE (+ 5% '12 >'16 Dem Pres Swing) and then came swinging hard with massive whacks off the baseball bat....

Anyways--- have tons of more data from the 142 precincts that make up AZ CD-08, but unlike PA CD-18, there are no Ancestral Democratic voting blocks that are available to come back to the fold to add to major swings in Suburban/Exurban Republican areas for a win.

Instead what we have is a new emerging Democratic Coalition in the most Republican Part of Metro Phoenix without any real historical Democratic Base (HRC won 12/142 Precincts in '16), with the overwhelming majority of the others won by Trump with Double Digits, and the only election in recent memory where a Democrat has won a huge chunk of real estate throughout the district was running as County Sheriff against a guy under multiple legal clouds, who cost the taxpayers of Maricopa County Hundreds of Millions of Dollars because of his shady law enforcement techniques.

My suspicion is that for a Democrat to win this seat it would take something like the following from the places within the district:

1.) Peoria (52-48 D)
2.) Glendale (59-41 D)
3.) Surprise (51-49 D)
3.) Phoenix (53-47 D)
4.) Goodyear (61-39 D)
5.) Sun City (44-56 R)
6.) Sun City West (41-59 R)
7.) Uninc Others (48-52 R)

To Be Continued.....

[YE]

(High quality post that I generally agree with)

Here we go with incorporating absurd Russophobia into White House foreign policy. Russia wasn't the first country to engage in such cyber activities; the US has been developing these capabilities and executing them for years now. Exploiting the current Russian interference fears to justify the desired expansion of these cyber warfare/manipulation tactics is all this is about. The US intelligence communities want to crack down on information leaks (hence targeting Wikileaks) and further develop their capabilities to target foreign countries to better manipulate their domestic politics (if not our own).

What would you propose the US do in regards to 2016 then?

I don't necessarily favor retaliation in cyberspace over anything else. I just want something that will get Russia to stop with the least amount of disruption (in addition to hardening our own defenses). But doing nothing is just absolutely not something I could personally agree with, and I'm not particularly favorable towards war or other acts of aggression either.

-snip for size-

Only people who don't know what they are talking about or are totally blinded by partisanship are saying that Putin flipped a Clinton victory to a Trump victory. What the intelligence community is arguing is that the Kremlin ran a campaign to damage Americans' faith in their democratic institutions. If you see America's actions in Russia in the 90s as shameless, than you should be more than happy to see Russia exposed for its election meddling, and "but he did it first!" is not an excuse to allow for one country to manipulate the democratic processes of another, let alone preclude a country that has been hit from building up their defenses against future attacks.

I know that you yourself identify as a strong anti-imperialist. I don't see how you cannot see Russia's attempts to - if not pick the winners of elections - disrupt elections, funnel money to certain campaigns, promote candidates on social media and tamper with voter rolls as anything but an imperialist persuit. And yes, I know the US does many of the same things. Here is the difference - the US, for all of its flaws, allows for public debate and discussion about our actions, and to remove those who were in charge of those actions when we collectively see fit. It's why you and I are able to have this kind of conversation without fearing any sort of repurcussions from it. Putin (and Xi for that matter) are desperately trying to have everyone simultaneously think their countries are superpowers that can take on any threat, but beg for sympathy when the evil imperialist US/EU call them out on their BS. Putin's a big boy who can answer for his actions.

And out of curiosity, I'd like to know where you think I fit into this Russophobic conspiracy. I am someone who supported Clinton from the get-go, someone who hopes eventually to work in foreign policy, and someone who wants to see the investigations into the 2016 elections continue, and see those who are found responsible for any wrongdoing brought to justice. I am also someone who has been to Russia twice, studied abroad in Russia, speaks Russian, worked as a tutor for disadvantaged Russian-speaking teens, will be rooting for team Russia in the world cup this year, is learning the balalaika, and has my room decorated with matreshkas, Russian art, and a Cheburashka doll. Please present evidence to me that by not liking Putin, Kadyrov, Yanukovych, and the like, I am being Russophobic. You can call that a strawman, but that is pretty much the impression that I get from your post.

I will also say for the record, that I think the US, UK, et al, have been pretty ham-handed in their handling of some aspects of the response to the Skripal case. At the very least, I would have liked to have seen a broader presentation of evidence against the agents who were expelled other than "oh yeah, there were a bunch of agents hanging out at our consulates, but Skripal got poisoned so we decided to kick them out."

[Atlas Force]

We've cut welfare a lot since the great society, so no wonder poverty rates are about the same.

Not to mention muh prosperty bible fails very hard when productivity has massively increased yet compensation is only slightly higher. These financial and tech firms are screwing over workers and are getting far more money than they deserve. These guys dont deserve 30 times the pay of a teacher just because they got lucky with some financial investment.

I am an upper middle class guy that gets over $50k a year by doing nothing but puttinng stocks in a mutual fund. This sh**t is just completely unfair and shouldn't happen, but that is the fcked up societ thatConservativeGuy jerks off too.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Evangelical Christianity is a scam, along with all it's tentacles (religious right, creationism).

Gotta love that religious tolerance  It's a perfectly legitimate religion practiced by plenty of decent people (including some of the best folks I've ever been fortunate to meet).  A number of the high-profile televangelists and political hacks like Falwell Jr., Dobson, Osteen, etc, etc, etc are snake oil salesmen who wave the bible around like a stage prop while raiding their congregations' wallets, but the idea that its not a legitimate religion or that evangelicals are all a bunch of bigoted amoral morons who don't know their mouth from a hole in the ground is ridiculous.  And there are some strong moral voices in the evangelical community such as Russell Moore who – whatever you may disagree with him on politically – seems like a real profile in courage.

I think you're both right and wrong here. For practical purposes, there are two different groups who share the exact same name. There are actual practicing Evangelicals, who generally are decent people whatever political disagreements there may be. This group appears to be a minority of self-labeled Evangelicals.

Then there is a second group, who come across as pretty terrible people. They generally ignore the precepts of the religion to which they claim to belong and are rampant hypocrites. And they appear to make up a large majority of "religous conservatives".

As with so many other parts of American political life, Trump has made the divide very clear and easy to see.