Talk Elections

By popular demand. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261099.0)

Here's the latest contribution from our new Dear Leader:

This isn't about how certain conservatives vote on the Supreme Court issue.  The issue is that Trump was propped up by the Christian Right as a pious, God-fearing, evangelical rockstar when in reality he's lived all his adult life doing the opposite of what Christ taught.  If Trump ran as a Democrat, he would've immediately been portrayed by the social conservatives as an elitist Manhattan-bred snob who embodies all the moral corruption of the 'other side' of the culture war: where image and wealth and power and celebrity influence trump family values and creating a moral society.  Where adultery and remarriage are a-okay.  Where bragging about grabbing a woman's genitals is a mere slip of the tongue.  (Now, mind you, Romney was guilty of none of these things yet Trump received far better treatment from these folks than Mitt ever did... because he was *gasp* a Mormon.)

But no.  These churchy folks were sucking on Trump's teat well before and during the primary season, when they had sixteen or so alternatives to choose from.  Now look at the primary map and tell me who won almost every Bible Belt state.  None other than Donald "New York values" Trump.

The SBC, though such was not always the case, can better be described as a right-wing thinktank with a prayer room; "the Republican Party at prayer," as Nathan referenced.  Now we know the emperor has no clothes.

I don't think that's quite correct.  IIRC, Cruz won among Evangelicals who actually go to church.  Trump won among Evangelicals who don't actually go to church.  E.g., here's a poll from last March:

()

This recent column by Peter Beinart is worth reading:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/breaking-faith/517785/

He argues that Trump's nomination became possible precisely *because* the GOP electorate is less "churchy" than it used to be.  There are more now in rural America who aren't really religious anymore, but still identify as "Christian" or even "Evangelical" but aren't religiously observant in any meaningful way, and that's Trump's real base.

I don't know - I expect politicians to lie about things. I don't like it, but let's be real here. For Christians who say family values/morals are important to them, whether they go to church regularly or not, I kind of expect them to act that way, especially considering a lot of it ties into what they believe to be the word of God. You can say its all about that supreme court justice - I actually specifically mentioned that in one of those 2 posts as the typical excuse, but it doesn't excuse the fact that they traded a lot with that vote for that slice of power. And that is even assuming abortion is the defining reason. IIRC, Trump got even higher support among evangelicals than Bush43 and McCain, no? Surely it can't all be abortion, otherwise they'd probably never vote for most Democratic presidential candidates.

And again, they had choices other than Trump. I consider 31%+ way too high for a man like him. The way he treats people, the bullying, the harassment, the constant lying - he should have been nothing more than a marginal candidate if these people held the values they talk about more closely. Especially given how obvious and brazen Trump was about such behavior.

The desire for Christian morality is just an extension of the desire for authoritarianism manifesting itself in a slightly different tone so obviously they couldn't resist the man with no greater desire than to govern like a dictator in ways that would benefit their causes. It's literally the perfect marriage.

No other Republican (except perhaps for the always beautiful Chris Christie) was a more respectable option. Huckabee became a non-serious, wimpy sell-out since his first bid; Carson was a mouse; Graham is obviously fabulous but Donald took out this obvious threat first. The others were just bad jokes with no business being on the national political stage (except for Jeb. Jeb was a good joke).


Even beyond abortion, Hillary was the worst Democratic candidate for these people yet.

While Evangelicals clearly have a Trump problem, and while it's a shame that Evangelicals ultimately didn't flock to third party candidates, it's unfair to blame the voters for not opting out of the two major parties in a system so heavily favouring said parties.

A rough comparison can be made between white Evangelicals/Trump, and blacks with corrupt Democratic congressmen. Obviously there's a problem with corrupt congressmen, and far too many voters stick with the corrupt guy not matter what. However, what are their other options? A third party they barely know, which might be opposed to their interests (e.g. Libertarian), and a major party which they perceive to be actively antagonistic towards them.

In both cases, it's too bad when they vote for the corrupt jerk, but I understand their reasons and I'm certainly not going to condemn them for being insufficiently informed about fringe parties.

Lastly, this sort of attitude indicates a failure to take Evangelical concerns around abortion and religious liberty issues seriously. Even if you think our positions our wrong, try to see things from our point of view. If the Candidate A, wants to fund baby killers, and make you betray your conscience to be in the wedding business, you'll be willing to accept a lot of crap from Candidate B, and criticism about "family values" from Candidate A's supporters will ring hollow.

I wish there was a way for Democrats to reach pro-life voters, but from a pro-choice perspective I really don't get how that is to be done without neglecting pro-choice voters. This particular issue really seems to be one or the other, unless you count simply not pushing abortion policy at all a choice, which I find hard because pro-life groups are constantly pushing the GOP to restrict abortion in extremely novel ways 365 days a year, which demands pushback from liberals.

I should state that I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'm just saying that for someone who prides themselves in Christian values, their principles, and so on, to support Trump - let alone support him so deeply like many do, means you are sacrificing a part of your convictions. There is no way you can have both with Trump. Like I said, he is so objectively awul in almost every way that there is just no way to reconcile the two. I can get how people would choose him to get pro-life judges for instance, but it doesn't change anything else. They know who Trump is, what he's done and what he says on a daily basis, so it's just one of those choices people have to make and they have to live with that.

* edit: by "you" i don't literally mean you specifically

How about the Democrats instead push for defederalizing the issue? Just wondering how that would work.

That would be tantamount to banning it in whatever states Republicans control (which is, I believe, a majority of the country) at least the legislature, where I'm sure they would move quickly to refer amendments to the state constitutions and make the issue largely untouchable for some time. Given how much power Republicans currently have at the state level, and will likely maintain for decades to come in certain regions (like the South), making this a states' right issue is a no go.

The closest I think I can theoretically see Democrats going is a ban after x weeks or something. Basically policy that still leaves the right to have an abortion mostly intact but attempts to mitigate it in certain instances or maybe push women towards things like adoption/etc.

Reposted from the old thread:

Is it no longer frowned upon to post yourself into these threads? :P

I always think it's amusing when the attack is something like being "tendentious" - as if I am more of that than anyone else in that thread.

I'm not comparing myself to or competing with other posters on who has the most clarity. Perhaps other people are more pedagogical than me though, I'm happy to accept that.

I'm not sure how you measure my frustration levels. :P In fact, if I weren't interested in other perspectives I wouldn't ask about them. Nor was I insisting that Nathan wasn't asking an interesting question. Not sure where you get that idea. I did suggest it was rhetorical which I think was correct. And I tried to get an idea of what his proposed metric actually was by asking about it.

Your last sentence I'm afraid lacks clarity for me. Tendentious, by my understanding, is when someone claiming to be an objective observer is actually running a biased agenda. Tendentious reporting and so on. I don't really think I ever claimed to not have an opinion that I believed in, nor do I think I'm more convinced of my beliefs on this issue than say Antonio. And I don't know where I said "it's everyone else" or why if I did it'd be tendentious.

I know you hold some weird grudge against me so I don't expect your answer to be anything other than tendentious though. :P

That wasn't the purpose. The purpose was to get this thread going and finally bury the old thread that keeps coming back from the dead.

Anyway, my apologies.

A rare sensible post on an issue where both sides tend to sound ridiculous.

^odd definition of "high quality" there.

This is Tony we're talking about.

Yeah, while I am genuinely flattered, Antonio, if anything this might belong in the sulfur burn mine. I wouldn't Sully this honorable thread by including my lashing out dash dash no matter how justifiably dash dash at Sanchez.

Though admittedly, after we reading this I have to concede I do good work when angered.:P

Huh, fair enough.

I know this thread is already filled with Crabcake posts but...

Came here to post this

Wow. A really good post from jeffster. Who knew? :o

Congratulations Santander. You deserve this.

Edit: I want to add a second post that - while seemingly at least somewhat defending a policy I consider pretty barbaric - was still informative and highly articulate in a way that, while it didn't change my mind by any means as to the policy aspect of the issue, was nonetheless a top-notch post regardless and gave me a more nuanced/less black-and-white look at what the other side's perspective might be.  Yeah, it's possible (perhaps even probable given what I already know of Sheriff Jones) that the Butler County Sheriff is just a being a horrible person b/c he thinks it'll help him in the primary whenever he has another opening to run for Congress, but it was still good to see a possible rationale for his actions that was a bit less "cartoon evil."  And besides, this shouldn't just be the "Good Posts I Agree With Gallery" :P

Wulfric, you should be ashamed for posting that pile of nonsensical talking point goat droppings in this hallowed hall.

Bad! Bad weirdo moderate hero!! >:(

Yeah, that's a damn good post indeed.

This.

Agreed and QFT.

I'd hardly call a comically ridiculous strawman a "good post".

Perhaps you are right regarding the standards of what qualifies as a "good post" on this thread...

I had to reread the OPs post within context multiple times to determine that the post was not sarcastic in nature, reflect upon many of the Bernie supporting communities in the '16 Dem Primary in rural and small-town areas.

So, I carefully parsed the OPs post

"The war against improving the standard of living outside the cosmopolitan major urban areas, waged by socially liberal laissez-faire capitalists (or corporatists) that views Everytown, USA as a blighted uncultured wasteland because they don't have a mosque or tax breaks for tech start ups or a tesla charging station or whatever - thus deserving to fall into ruin and drug addiction.

Bernie derangement syndrome is real on this board because the wealthier members resent being called the villains of society, and this board skews wealthy."


The war against improving the standard of living outside the cosmopolitan major urban areas, waged by socially liberal laissez-faire capitalists (or corporatists)

It is true that MNCs overwhelmingly focus their major facilities investments within larger Metro areas throughout the US, rather than investing in facilities located in smaller cities/towns. There are obviously many different reasons for what are essentially business based decisions depending upon the particular industry/sector, workforce profile, infrastructure, etc....

Larger corporations do tend to skew more socially liberal at a Senior Management level, especially MNCs that have a large international employee base, global brand, as well as the top brass generally don't consider investing in communities where they need to drive 2-3 hours from the airport to their facility to conduct business.

Is there a "war being waged"? Certainly not in terms of deliberate and systematic attempt to oppress small town and rural areas. There is certainly a Class War going on in the US where Big Businesses that are publicly traded are ultimately beholden to Wall Street and the push for margins and extremely positive P&Ls are directly tied to the job performances (and bonuses) for the CEOs/CFOs etc....

Ultimately, when you live in smaller communities outside of the larger Metro areas, in many cases employment is heavily based upon a small handful of larger employers. For decades we have seen patterns from the Auto Sector that started closing down Union plants in the Midwest and opening up new Non-Union plants in the South initially. Meanwhile, you have this phenomenon called BPO (Business Process Outsourcing), subcontracting certain manufactured goods to external suppliers that pay much less with much worse benefits than existing "In-House" employees.

Suddenly MFN gets signed into law by Bush Sr only a few brief years after the massacre at Tiananmen Square which was a sleeping giant when it came to mass exportation of US jobs overseas.

Side show Bill Clinton signs NAFTA into law, despite the opposition of a large majority of Democratic US Senators and Reps....

I can talk about what I saw in a large manufacturing and R&D facility working for a Fortune 50 Company.... In roughly a five year period we went from 9,000 employees in the plant to 4,000. When they cut our hours briefly in the early '00s we were told by Management that we were eligible for NAFTA $$$ since the US Gvt had deemed job losses at the plant to directly a result of the MNCs shifting manufacturing operations overseases. Five years later, the facility was down to about 2,500 employees.


"
that views Everytown, USA as a blighted uncultured wasteland because they don't have a mosque or tax breaks for tech start ups or a tesla charging station or whatever - thus deserving to fall into ruin and drug addiction"

Ok---- here's where I suspect you might be viewing the Strawman side of the argument. Do we really know these are the reasons as to why these same MNCs have been stiffing American workers?

It is true that tax breaks, which essentially is a transfer of wealth from taxpayers in various counties and municipalities directly into the pockets of the MNCs as part of a "race to the bottom" or effectively a "lowest bidder" style of contract award pits smaller cities and towns against each other to race to somehow capture the jobs that might materialize, as part of both a mixture of desperation combined with a naive belief that the benefits will outweigh the costs.

I could go through an entire list just in Oregon of communities that have given huge concessions to obtain major facilities/plants based upon the "X number of jobs generated", and ultimately the number of direct jobs that these companies provide is significantly lower than what they claimed in order to obtain these various concessions. In many cases, such as the Semiconductor Plant in West Eugene that taxpayers are still footing the bill for, the facility opened employed people for a few brief years, and then was mothballed.

The original plant was heavily opposed prior to development because of all of the Corp tax breaks from City and County Gvt, as well as being located on ecologically sensitive wetlands.

Now the article below was from '15, and the plant is still an industrial wasteland, and according to someone I know who used to work there on the Facilities side, the cracks in the concrete subflooring is so severe, that essentially the building would need to be torn down to even make it possibly habitable as a Factory/Office Space.

http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2015/11/mystery_solved_communications.html

Now the whole Mosque comment is a bit silly, but if we look at the comments about drug addiction, these are very real consequences of massive collapse of "company towns" in rural and small-town/city communities in the US.

Here in Oregon Meth abuse and addiction skyrocketed after the Bush Sr and Bush Jr recessions, when Timber Mills laid off huge numbers of workers. After the Great Recession, we started to observe a new phenomenon in the form of prescriptions from Doctors for synthetic Opioids....

More Americans die now from drug ODs than car accidents and suicides, and as a Middle Aged individual that actually lives and works in these tight knit smaller communities, I have seen first hand the impacts of the aftermath for family, friends, former co-workers, etc....

"Bernie derangement syndrome is real on this board because the wealthier members resent being called the villains of society, and this board skews wealthy"

Ok--- the third sentence basically wraps the argument around as a final conclusion that directly references the Original Thread Topic (OTT?)

I believe it is likely true that a large majority of Atlas posters come from significantly higher than average MHI family backgrounds.... Now, one can be an underemployed and overeducated individual and post on Atlas, and be "like wait what.... I'm working $9 Hr while going to school, barely able to pay my rent and eat right, etc...)

Although I don't in any way shape or form presume to speak for the OP and their post, my interpretation is that the author/poster was attempting to present the perspective of many Bernie Sanders Dem Primary voters (Which contrary to the Media hype) tends to skew heavily Middle-Aged voters in Blue Collar occupations.

The Obama economic recovery largely bypassed smaller cities and towns, and although it's easier to get a job than it has been in awhile in many of our communities, they still pay crap wages. Wall Street gets a huge bailout from Bush Jr, while struggling homeowners get the shaft in a place where the sun don't shine.

HRC attempted to run on the Obama legacy, and actually I really like and respect Obama and his works....

Still, it's hard to make an argument to families and communities still struggling and rebuilding from the Great Recession that the same-old Centrist "New Way" Bill Clinton Dem Model of "jobs and prosperity for all" is the right solution, while almost ten years after the Great Recession we (Working Class Folks) are still picking up the pieces caused by a human made natural disaster of epic proportions.

The original post made no sense to me.  I think there were a lot of assumptions in it that have been circulated within a certain segment of the population, but I'm not part of that segment.  I know more about German overhang seats or British C-D-E social classes than I do about the political implications of mosques or tesla charging stations or whatever point the author was trying to make.  (Which is odd, because I have a lot of friends who were avid Bernie supporters, despite living the land of charging stations and the occasional mosque.)

Thank you, NOVA Green, for your clear and thorough explanation of the original post.  It was nice to see an actual high-quality post in the High-Quality Post thread.

I don't usually like BTRD's posts, but damn.

BRTD's post belongs in the thread of ignorant posts. Leave it to you of all people to post it here.

Wow, you're one great guy. As we know, I am the most ignorant person on this website. Not Krazen and others, but I, Admiral President, am the most ignorant person of all the people on this website.

Leave it to unironic S-?? users to make smug and baseless accusations. That seems to be their purpose on this website.

At least you admit it. Kudos!

This belongs in the sulfur mine, not here.

Came here to post this

A model effortpost

IceAge seriously deserves a Nobel Prize for fighting the good fight in this thread:

ho burnnnn

The titular thread is that way ->

Context:

Came here to post this.

Posts like this are why this site remains valuable.  It's so simple and easy to think of Ohio as "Obama-Trump Ground Zero," and he just pretty much destroyed that narrative with, ya know, actual research and facts. :)

For those of you who don't know the story behind this, a while ago Admiral President made a timeline called "Misfire", where Oswald's gun jams and JFK Lives. The first reply was a comment by FDB saying "go on", and there were quite a few people (including me) who empty quoted this. Eventually, one user said our empty quoting had gotten out of hand, but another user decided to not only again empty quote FDB's go on, but to empty quote the user who had said the empty quoting had got out of hand, and to merge these two empty quotes. From then on the entire thread was just people merging empty quotes to see just how big we could get this empty quote. The final empty quote, dear reader, before a mod deleted the thread, looked like this:

"Misfire" - the greatest thread in the history of forums, deleted by a moderator after 3 pages of heated empty-quoting,

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=283036.0

Everything in this thread.

I wasn't going to delete each empty-quoting post.

I love the person that quoted me, even though I completely never posted in that thread. ;) This was before my write-in campaign, so it must have been like one of the three people that knew of me back then.

Early contender for best post of the year:

Context:

Context:

Re: Thomas Jefferson political party

Came here to post that.  Won't stop some 15-year old libertarian from saying otherwise, though. :)

>Complains about how "no one wants to discuss how bad black people are!!!!!!!1!11!1!!11!!"
>Gets two actually it's five detailed, fairly comprehensive responses that thoroughly refute his view of 13%+ of the American population and explain why the few things he says about minorities that are true are the way that they are
>Doesn't respond

Huh. Maybe he's "listening," but Fuzzy Bear sure isn't "having a conversation."

All three of them.

Putting this here because it's actually quite accurate.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for simple truths?

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

(High quality post that I generally agree with)

Context:

Came here to post this

From the "What's the worst effects of the (Trump tax cut)" Thread:

Context:

I imagined this read in the voice of Peter Mannion

Speaking as someone who spent almost two decades in public service with my law degree until 2 years ago, this whole post cannot be embraced enough.

Can we not pollute this thread with blatant lies?  K thx :)

He deserved to be fired, but let's not kid ourselves that any of these things had the slightest bit to do with his dismissal. If anything, these factors helped him keep his job. The sole reason Trump despicably let him go is that Coney, to his one bit of credit, stood firm and wouldn't play Patsy Waterboy for Trump.