The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[The Last Northerner]

It was a crime against humanity.

You're usually a right-wing Democrat, and yet this is the issue where you feel the need to embrace loony left rhetoric on? Weird.

this being the time the US and the UK invaded a country for no reason and needlessly killed tens of thousands of people, at least, and paved the way for the rise of ISIS.

Why in God's name is anyone on the left acting like opposing this is a fringe issue all of the sudden?

Again, if you don't think the Iraq War was a big deal, you are directly responsible for the rise of Jeremy Corbyn.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just because you agree with it doesn't make it a good post, for f**k's sake.

Now, here's an ACTUAL good post:

Best: Glenn
Worst: Metzanbaum

Strange mix. Did they disagree on much?

Glenn was a bit of a centrist (I wouldn't quite say a conservaDem, but definitely more moderate than you'd expect an OH Dem to be) and he was also one of the more decidedly non-partisan Senators, but in a good way, rather in an Evan Bayh way (i.e. he was able to work pretty well with most members of both parties with a few exceptions like Fred Thompson).  Additionally, Ed Harris' excellent (but kinda lionized) portrayal of Glenn in The Right Stuff sort of cemented in many Ohioan's minds that Glenn was a hero and a regular guy who'd gone on to do great things (i.e. "he's not really a politician"). 

Lest you think I'm exaggerating that movie's effect on his brand, it got to the point where Glenn's staff started offering free screenings of the movie to members of the press when he ran for President because they hoped it would influence public perception of him nationally the way it did in Ohio.  Ironically, it sounds like the book The Right Stuff is based on depicted Glenn as being an obnoxious, self-rightious, holier-than-though type rather than the heroic everyman we see in the movie

Metzanbaum was extremely different than Glenn and while they were members of the same party, stylistically they had about as much in common as fire and water.  While the latter was fairly centrist guy who could work with most members of the Senate, Metzanbaum was an arch-liberal, hyper-partisan street fighter.  Oddly enough while I agree with Metanzbaum's policy positions more than I do Glenn's (and am not as huge a fan of Glenn as most Ohioans...actually Glenn's kind of a bipartisan folk hero here now that he's been out of politics for a while ), I actually like Glenn a lot better than Metzanbaum. 

Metzanbaum could get really aggressive in a way that was often unproductive and when he decided to go on offense, he could get more than a little over the top (even for a political campaign).  For example, when he unsuccessfully ran against Glenn for the Democratic nomination for Senate, one of Metzanbaum's main attacks on Glenn (a man who had served in the military and was seen by Ohioans as something of a minor war hero) was claiming that Glenn had never done any "real" work his life (Glenn's response was to go to a VA hospital and challenge Metzanbaum to look the wounded solider's bodies and then tell their mothers that their sons had never had a real job).  A lot of folks (myself included) will probably never forgive him for that, tbh.  Metzanbaum also had a Schumer-level addiction to the media spotlight.

That all being said, Metzanbaum was a remarkably effective Senator, especially for someone who had basically made being extremely partisan a core part of their brand.  Additionally, whatever else you may say about him, he always stood up for his beliefs and championed a number of progressive causes (and he did it at a time when Ohio was a much more Republican state than it is today, despite the Democratic resurgence in the 80s where we controlled almost everything in the state until the early 90s).  In other words, I can easily see why someone (especially a conservative) would like Glenn, but hate Metzanbaum. 

For my part, I really like Sherrod Brown because I think he combines the best of both.  He's really liberal and has been a consistent champion of progressive causes, regardless of whether or not it is the "politically smart play" for a Democrat from Ohio.  At the same time, Brown doesn't really dabble in smears from what I've seen and is not a hyper-partisan hack (yes, he is obviously very active in Ohio Democratic politics even for a Senator, but he's also capable of working with Republicans on lower-profile issues – i.e. the only ones Senate Republicans are still willing to occasionally work with Democrats on – and from what I've read still has an excellent working relationship with Portman despite Brown's strong support for Strickland). 

Plus, I've met him a number of times and while you obviously never know with these people, I've always really gotten the impression that he's in politics for all of the right reasons in a way I haven't with many of the other politicians I've met (Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Michael Coleman, Paula Brooks, Zach Scott, and Johnny Isakson in particular struck me as folks who were more or less just in it for themselves).  Honestly, I'm pretty surprised that even a conservative would consider Brown to be Ohio's worst Senator in the past 50 years.  Even if you don't want to pick DeWine because he's a Republican, surely there are worse Democrats in this poll, no?  To each his own, I suppose.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

That was a very enlightening post. I was not aware that Metzenbaum was such a dick. That explains why he was so viciously attacked by Fritz Hollings on the Senate floor.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's a really serious issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source.

What is the hell is the problem with white culture?

Because Black on Black crime is far more common than White on White crime.

This is like saying if 10 White people are killed and 9 of the killers are White and 50 Black people are killed and 45 of the killers of Black, that the "rate is the same" even though White on White crime killed 9 people and Black on Black crime killed 45.

What you're saying is objectively dumb.

Let's see if we can pull that thread a little bit further, and instead of just saying "black people are more in danger of being killed/killing people," ask why that is. Let's ask why the black incarceration rate is as high as it is, why the black poverty rate is as high as it is, why the black unemployment rate is as high as it is. Simply stopping at describing it veers pretty close to implicitly claiming that it's inherent differences in black people/culture that cause this divide, which is absurd.

[MT Treasurer]

He certainly does have a point about New Hampshire women. NH men haven't voted majority Democratic for at least as long as 2004, while NH women have been trending Democratic since at least 2000. 52% in 2000, 54% in 2004, 61% in 2008, 58% in 2012 and 60% in 2014 (Hassan). Men in 2014 clearly tried to thwart Hassan by voting 55% against her!

So they are definitely powering Democratic success there, while those stubborn male specimens refuse to concede to the glory of Climbing Maggie's Democratic New Hampshire fiefdom.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Guys Flynn is fine
Honestly the democrat snark on Atlas is becoming nearly unbearable.  I was hoping Atlas would be better for watching the election than the sites I watched it with in '12 and '08, but it's just the same democrats making hollow, snarky, low-investment comments and lack of real discussion.

Might be leaving this site soon, tbh.  It's pretty disappointing.

buh-bye. Don't let the door hit you on your swastika-tatted ass on the way out.

[Crumpets]

     I'd say a 1. The recent campaign against masculinity is quite unfortunate, in that we have taught a generation of men to feel bad about who they are.

No, patriarchy has taught countless generations of men and women to feel bad about who they are, and current generations are starting to do something to fix that. Because, newsflash, no real man or woman fits the ridiculous (and, in men's case, genuinely evil) gender archetypes that are assigned to them.

It sounds like youre just making up bs to justify your own insecurities about your masculinity.  And you don't know a lot of guys it seems.  I know many, many, guys who are perfectly comfortable being masculine and have no desire to be feminine, and they're not evil (lol) for being that way.  Stop shaming them.  You sound ridiculous.

Learn to read. I'm not calling any man evil per se (of course some men are evil - as are some, though probably fewer, women - but that's not my point). I'm saying that the norms and values that men are called on to follow are evil. I hope you understand the difference.

Which norms of masculinity do you consider evil?  Only possible one I can think of is maybe aggressiveness or aggression, but that's usualy in the context of strong leadership or drive rather than violence, except in criminal cohorts.

Actually, male violence and aggression pervades society. Criminal behavior is the tip of the iceberg, but there are a lot of lesser forms of violence that are perfectly commonplace and socially acceptable. I've come across an article on them just this morning. Drumpf's rhetoric is also the quintessential expression of male violence and desire for domination, with its emphasis on winner/loser dichotomies and its constant effort to humiliate opponents. It's a horribly archaic mentality that may or may not have had its uses in pre-human and early human evolution, but that modern civilized societies have the means to overcome.

Very closely connected to that, you have the fact that patriarchal norms of masculinity have a catastrophic impact on men's psychological well-being. Lessons like "boys don't cry" have bred generations of emotionally repressed/atrophied men who, as a result, only know to express their resentment through violence and aggression. They've stifled a vital part of men's identities. That's why men can and should be feminists too. Of course feminism must be first and foremost about women and their struggle to free themselves of oppression, but men have a lot to gain from destroying patriarchy too.

[RaphaelDLG]

Thanks for pointing this out, Winfield.  Trump and his family may be the NASCAR-loving, Chef Boyardee-eating, plastic-licking rednecks of the criminally wealthy class, but they are still dues paying members, and it's anecdotes like this which remind us just how much special treatment that disgusting amoral man has received simply for being born with a silver jackboot on his foot.

The idea that Trump cares about working families is possibly the most outrageous lie of this election.

Is Trump going to get everyone a world class education?  Or is he going to send all of us to Trump University?  In your heart, you know the right answer.

[Californiadreaming]

How about we me memoralize a poster whom actually deserves it? M'kay?

Please pardon my extreme ignorance, but what exactly happened to Sam Spade?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we me memoralize a poster whom actually deserves it? M'kay?

Please pardon my extreme ignorance, but what exactly happened to Sam Spade?

He got banned for being an obnoxious bigot, IIRC.

[Californiadreaming]

How about we me memoralize a poster whom actually deserves it? M'kay?

Please pardon my extreme ignorance, but what exactly happened to Sam Spade?

He got banned for being an obnoxious bigot, IIRC.

Bigot against whom exactly, though?

Also, out of curiosity--how likely is Sam Spade or some other banned poster to be unbanned after several years if he or she repents his or her previous actions and/or previous views?

Any thoughts on this?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sam Spade was never banned. He left of his own accord.

[Californiadreaming]

Sam Spade was never banned. He left of his own accord.

OK.

However, my question here still applies to posters who were actually banned from here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes several posters have been unbanned and given second chances. Some have been rebanned though.

[Californiadreaming]

Yes several posters have been unbanned and given second chances. Some have been rebanned though.

Thanks for this information!

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

One must wonder what they plan to release week(s) before the election. That shouldn't be ruled out. My money is on them releasing some real dirt sometime in late October. IF there is more damaging material from that hack, it could very well tank this election for Democrats if used right.

It's hard for me to fully express how disappointed I am in Clinton, Obama and the DNC in general:

1. Clinton knew she had huge amounts of baggage and still ran, putting us in this spot. The party never should have bowed to her, given her liabilities as a candidate.

2. Obama knew DWS was a monstrosity and a disaster waiting to happen, and he refused to force her out because he didn't want to deal with the negative press. Now look where we are. He cares so much about his legacy and yet his inept leadership of the party has put even that in danger now. I like Obama on numerous levels, but his stewardship of the Democratic party has been awful and he deserves a lot of blame for keeping Debbie on well past the average tenure of DNC chairs.

3. The DNC should have had better security on their network, and yet again proves that high-risk organizations and the old, technologically-inept leaders are utterly incapable of understanding how enormous the dangers of being hacked are. Further, proper DNC leadership should have shut down these little meddling conversations and kept the party strictly neutral. I don't think anything was rigged like people have whined about, but the emails reveal conversations and ideas that never should have happened.

Thanks Obama!

[MATTROSE94]

[img]

After his embarassment during the primary over his affair and his dishonesty, and his failure to endorse Trump at the GOP Convention, I do not see any political future for Senator Cruz.

[mencken]

I believe Trump would not have won the nomination and the GOP would have been more unified if Jeb Bush had not entered the race.

Jeb Bush's entry into the 2016 race is, IMO, what made Trump possible.  Unbeknownst to seemingly everyone but Trump, there was a YUGE undercurrent of resentment toward the Bushes and Bush Republicanism that was brought to life when Jeb Bush (A) decided to go for it and (B) became the instant frontrunner and favorite of donors.  There was a generalized resentment toward the GOP Establishment and Establishment politicians, but that, alone, might have brought about a Cruz nomination, which would not have taxed the rest of the GOP on issues as Trump's nomination has.  Jeb entering the fray, however, set him up as the personification of what many GOP voters deeply resented about their own party, and Trump was there to give them a vehicle.

Had Jeb Bush not entered the race, I believe that Ted Cruz would have been nominated.  Trump would not have gotten the traction he needed to get started, and Cruz would have been seen as the anti-Establishment guy.  Jeb's candidacy was rocket fuel for Trump, and I'm sure Jeb regrets getting into the 2016 race deeply right about now.

I don't think it was Jeb Bush in particular -his entry into the race is also the reason why Mitt Romney did not throw his hat into the ring for a third time.  Would the base have reacted any differently had Romney been in Bush's place?

They would have reacted with less intensity, IMO.  Romney represented a guy that folks had mixed feelings about; some felt that he did OK in 2012 and was the most electable, while others thought he choked.  But Romney wasn't Bush; he wasn't the third member of a dynasty and he wasn't the son and brother of two (2) separate Presidents who left office at rock bottom approval levels.  The Bushes were seen as folks they bought into, only to have them wreck the party and ruin the brand.  In addition, many of the base saw the "Bush" name as instant disaster, where they saw the "Romney" name as someone who folks might want a second look at.

The lessened intensity, again IMO, would have weeded out Trump.  It was the anti-Bush intensity that got Trump the early traction he never surrendered.

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

Realistically someone will have to do it sooner or later. There is no plausible scenario where Ukraine is ever getting it back, short of a total Russian collapse like the USSR. Obama wisely opened things up with Cuba again, despite our disagreements. Hopefully trying to normalize with Russia doesn't take fifty years of stubbornness detached from reality.

[MATTROSE94]

I mean this question sincerely and it is especially directed to my fellow American citizens.

I, as an immigrant from the United Arab Emirates, was very proud a little more than two years ago when I had the great honor to become a citizen of the United States. Ever since I am very proud to be a citizen of the United States and grateful for the opportunities America and California gave to me. This country was always, and is still of course, a beacon of hope to me and a symbol for democracy despite all the deep seated problems we face. I have always admired the unique history of America and the progress this nation has made: From the declaration  of independence, over the liberation of slaves and women’s suffrage to the civil rights movement in the 20th century. I have every reason to believe, the current problems can be solved in the future.

But as a citizen, I am really ashamed and embarrassed that we have major party nominee for president like Donald Trump. And this is not about political differences, not left versus right or liberal versus conservative. I have the same differences with former GOP contenders like Jeb, Rubio, Carson, Kasich, Cruz or Paul as well, but I do not question their character. But with Trump, we have a candidate who insults an entire religion, attacks parents of a fallen solider viciously, makes sexist comments about women, mocks a reporter with a disability, calls for terrorists families to be killed or denounces a prisoner of war (McCain), although he himself was never on the battlefield. Here we have a candidate who says a judge can’t to his job because of his Mexican heritage and who makes the claim an opponent’s father was involved in the JFK assassination without any proof. And last but not least, who seems totally unable to accept any criticism. No matter from who.

I have nothing against it when candidates speak their mind, make fun of opponents like calling them “low energy”, but here we have a dude who has no respect for anything, except himself. It’s all about him and how bad he has been treated by the press and so on. He did not misspoke, because he did it too often. And he hasn’t had the courage in any case to apologize. To say “I was wrong. I’m sorry”. No, he’s always right. He knows the system better than anybody, knows more about ISIS than the generals. Meanwhile, he hasn’t even a clue about basic things in foreign policy. Let even alone all his other cheating like Trump University, unpaid bills in Atlantic City and so on. I think it’s a disgrace in the eyes of the world to have such a candidate. “The world is laughing at us”, the Trumpster claimed. If that has ever been true, then now, because of his candidacy. But unfortunately, it is not funny at this stage where we are now. Not anymore. As I see it, Trump has already damaged the American reputation around the globe.

I mean, you can agree with some of his proposals like a stronger border, no citizenship for illegal immigrants, renegotiated trade deals and no TPP, less gun control, less taxes and regulations, more military spending, abortions and a repeal of Obamacare. All issues you can argue about. But even if you adopt the Republican positions, aren’t we better than Trump? Do we really want a president with this kind of character? Sure, Hillary is not perfect and she made mistakes. No question. (I’m not even writing this as a Hillary-supporter, only as a citizen.)


Any thoughts on this?

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=242626

[MATTROSE94]

Doesn't seem like a problem. The US sent political advisors to help Boris Yeltsin get reelected in the 1990s. Putin dining a fringe candidate and a couple Trump surrogates is insignificant by comparison.

I disagree with the Greens on almost everything, but not on a reset with Russia. Continuing a Cold War Era pissing contest over Crimea isn't worth it when Putin could be helping us knock down radical Islamic brutes.

Working with Russia would be great insurance against Chinese ambitions and Muslim caliphates in Western Europe in the next half century too. Make Realpolitik Great Again.

I'm looking forward to the day Russian and US troops can link up somewhere in the Middle East and enjoy some smokes as they did in Berlin in 1945. Bonus - Putin is a benign authoritarian compared to Stalin.

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

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

[IceSpear]

The crime bill is just an excuse.  Most of the people citing it as a reason they hate Clinton don't even understand what it actually was or what effects it actually had, they just read some weak argument on Reddit or a "progressive" blog that it's responsible for all the black men in prison, and go CLINTON BAD.

It's the same way with NAFTA.  The Clinton years were some of the most prosperous, peaceful, and domestically tranquil years in American history, but these people think that would have just happened anyway and that the Clinton administration's only contributions were these bills to secretly screw up the country and plot to ruin that prosperity.

Not to mention that most of the blame for lost jobs seems to get put on trade deals (and thus Clinton), while ignoring the increasing prevalence of machines/automation and increased worker productivity as a result. If we want to move forward as a civilization, jobs are going to be lost and new ones will be created.

What really bothers me is that first, Hillary was not president in the 90s. She had to support her husband, and maybe she legitimately bought into those policies back then, but for gods sakes, that was 20 years ago. She has a decent record since 2000 in terms of domestic policy at least and no one gives her credit for that. So many are acting like people can't change over 2 decades, or that it's impossible that she may not have truly bought into many of those now-negatively viewed policies in the first place.

Finally, everyone says Hillary goes whatever way the political winds are blowing, yet now that the winds are blowing in a liberal direction, she is going to stick to conservative/centrist policies? How the **** does that make sense? The way for Democrats to win right now is by sticking to these positions, not the other way around.

At the end of the day, many of these people simply don't like Hillary and will use whatever weak argument comes their way to prop up their hate. So maybe people shouldn't take political advice/info from third-rate rappers who have their own biased views.

[MT Treasurer]

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

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

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

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