The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[IceSpear]

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

[IceSpear]

Not true. I don't hate Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford. I don't even really hate Scott Walker. I just recognize the fact that he will not be elected President of the United States and that Hillary Clinton will be.

The real question is why do all these other Republicans lower their standards and accept these "people" like Ted Cruz in their party. They are the real phony sheep.

I can accept that you're a Republican, but I've never really seen you irritated by Democrats or Democratic policies.

If they went in an actually annoying liberal direction like labeling/banning GMOs, NIMBYizing America to protect the people's unfounded whims, going full isolationist in national security matters, raising tax rates to ridiculous amounts across the board, and seriously backing unionization of all workers, then I'd have a reason to be irritated. But what are the national Democrats really advocating for at the moment?

Establishing a website where private health insurers can compete for business? Simplifying the once complexly regulated health insurance industry so all plans are simply 4 choices? Tax credits for purchasing health insurance? 10.10/hr minimum wage? Eliminating the bureaucracy tied to our immigration system and allowing a clear path for naturalization?

The only really irritating thin is stalling the Keystone XL, which is a bit NIMBY, but at the same time, the Republican idea that it's some amazing thing that will create millions of jobs is really hyperbole, too. It should be approved simply because it's not worth caring about in either direction.

To be irritated by what they stand for is irrational. The Obama Administration really is perfectly reasonable for any fair-minded citizen. There's nothing remotely controversial about what he advocates at the moment. 

And on a personal level, I have a full time job, I can afford everything I want, and I don't feel like my tax burden is really a burden at all. In fact, I could probably live on $500 less a month if I had to do so. So what reason would I have, at this moment, to be aligning myself hardline with a national Republican Party that isn't interested in anything else but cutting taxes and complaining about a government that is too big? I don't experience this at all. Anger about this would be pure spite.

[IceSpear]

It's time to suck it to the dumb environmental groups and get building.

It's ironic that you call the opposition to Keystone dumb, considering the scientists who study these projects are against it.

Sure, I'd prefer to eliminate oil one day and be totally on renewables, but that's a LONG ways off.
 
Look, the environmentalists have no actual evidence, backed up by a study, that says that Keystone would significantly harm the environment in any situation that doesn't involve a spill, and I've already addressed why the "it's risky" argument is a ridiculous strawman. The pipeline is no longer being investigated by Nebraska Courts. We've had six years to study its possible effects - and it's clearly not the automatic, guaranteed environment ruiner that the far-left would like it to be.

Look I get that it's not some masterful economy saver and I'd like to see serious regulation of any exporting, but neither of those are big enough concerns for any sensible person to be against the pipeline. It's time for Obama to just tell the Sierra Group, and leftist Senators, and everyone else who opposes it to just give up because there aren't even the beginnings of a logical argument against the pipeline.

Obama likes to think that republicans get nothing after their big victory last year. That's not how things should work. Republicans won big, so they have earned the right to get some of their ideas passed, and it should start with this pipeline. Obama's Veto today shows that, at least on this issue, he only cares about ultra-liberal Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Jeanne Shaheen, and their allies, and doesn't care about what's popular among the people, which is the Keystone Pipeline.

The Democrats won big in 2008 and the Republicans sure seemed to think they should get nothing then.  Obama was elected and re-elected by relatively solid margins and yet many Republicans won't even acknowledge that he is a legitimate President.  The Republican strategy since Obama was elected has essentially been "let's make it impossible for anyone to govern and block everything Obama and/or congressional Democrats support on principle, and then throw in a healthy dose of race-baiting for good measure." 

I know how frustrating it must be for you guys that the Republicans finally have a majority in both houses of Congress, but can't seem to get anything done because the Democrats are refusing to compromise on anything.  All I can really say to that is that pay back's a bitch and I hope you guys enjoy your useless majority for the next two years.

[IceSpear]

Journalism is largely entertainment and web-journalism is click-based.

If you write an article stating the obvious, Hillary is almost certain to win the Democratic primary, 1.  it's not news, and 2. it will not elicit a reaction.

If you write an article with a new, outrageous take that gives relevance to recent stories, you create interest and clicks.  It gives people a reason to pay attention, even to say, "you're dumb!! Martin O'Malley!?  Are you serious!??."  It's like ESPN writing articles about NFL mini-camps.  It's irrelevant, but they're selling a product in the off-season and they want you to care about football all year long.  WaPo wants you to care about the 2016 Presidential race before anything truly relevant happens and follow each little nothing story as if it matters.  They're selling a product in the off-season, they have to try to make a porterhouse steak out of slim-jims.

Just don't pay attention to this stuff, it just encourages them.

[IceSpear]

They really don't have a Plan B.  They don't think that they need one, but they are in denial of the degree to which Hillary Clinton lacks PERSONAL popularity.  Yes, they like the feminist idea of Madam President, but I suspect that many of the feminist leftists that are backing Clinton wish that it could be someone else to shatter the glass ceiling.

Hillary Clinton has more personal popularity than anyone else in the entire field, and has had it for a long time. She just doesn't have personal popularity with the right groups. Her personal popularity is with low-income, blue collar groups who don't follow politics very closely. (The reason they don't follow it very closely is because they correctly surmise they don't have very much influence in it.) With people who live out in the boondocks that the Democratic party under Obama has forgotten about, like white working class areas of the Midwest or Upper South. With women, sure. With minorities, sure. With young people, to a greater degree than often imagined.

But not with the right groups of people - the activists on the extreme right and left. Not with those who are motivated enough about politics to go online and comment about it. Not with those who Sarah Palin called, in one of her half-witty, half-braindead aphorisms, the "lamestream media". Not with the latte-drinking, Jacobin-reading Manhattan upper middle class environmental activist who attends Netroots Nation and styles herself a member of the "true left." Not with those people. And it's those people who matter in this country. Those are the people who drive the discourse. And those are the people who will destroy Hillary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think anyone from the moment he was picked thought Biden would run in 2016, let alone be the frontrunner. The Vice President isn't always the frontrunner after a two term presidency - Dick Cheney was never even seriously talked about. Biden's only one year younger than Sanders, so if you thought Sanders as too old, I don't know why he'd be any better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but there have been two Bushes in the White House, and only one Clinton. During Bush Junior's run in 1999-2000 there was no serious anti-dynasty groundswell. Nor was there one during any of the Kennedy brothers' runs or potential runs. In both cases, the men's family names helped them with no serious backlash. And of course, there are political dynasties in all 50 states at lower levels, and no one ever bats an eye. It only seems that when there's an election with Hillary in it, the backlash is huge.

Though personally, I'd add "try to" before the word "destroy". But just a small quibble in an excellent post.

[IceSpear]

No post that contains >implying belongs in this thread.

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

"political correctness ruins everything ;~;" -- straight white dudes

Way to prove my point in the other thread. Liberals like yourself are never interested in debate, only in scoring points among yourselves for how 'progressive' and 'enlightened' you are as opposed to those of us who reject identity politics. You can't make a compelling case for your own politics, so instead you try and shout down those who don't agree with them. Typical.

Thankfully your particular brand of liberalism doesn't exist outside of academia, mostly because it has zero appeal to the mass of people. You can win a bunch of white, self-hating, guilt-ridden upper middle class yuppies, but they're not and won't ever be the majority. Those of us actually interested in changing the world accept people as they are and try to push them in the right direction through common struggle, not with call-outs, 'privilege checking' and 'safe spaces' or whatever garbage is coming out of the impotent academic 'left' these days.

Considering you support parties that get like 0.0001% of the vote, are you really in a position to speak for "the masses/the majority" here? Much less describe any group as impotent. Even the most extremist SJWism probably has more support among the "masses" than the dead 20th century ideology of communism does. If you condemn them because "they're not the majority and never will be", you also condemn yourself.

[IceSpear]

No post that contains >implying belongs in this thread.

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

"political correctness ruins everything ;~;" -- straight white dudes

Way to prove my point in the other thread. Liberals like yourself are never interested in debate, only in scoring points among yourselves for how 'progressive' and 'enlightened' you are as opposed to those of us who reject identity politics. You can't make a compelling case for your own politics, so instead you try and shout down those who don't agree with them. Typical.

Thankfully your particular brand of liberalism doesn't exist outside of academia, mostly because it has zero appeal to the mass of people. You can win a bunch of white, self-hating, guilt-ridden upper middle class yuppies, but they're not and won't ever be the majority. Those of us actually interested in changing the world accept people as they are and try to push them in the right direction through common struggle, not with call-outs, 'privilege checking' and 'safe spaces' or whatever garbage is coming out of the impotent academic 'left' these days.

Considering you support parties that get like 0.0001% of the vote, are you really in a position to speak for "the masses/the majority" here? Much less describe any group as impotent.

As someone who doesn't live in/work in the academic world and interacts with flesh and blood workers on a day-to-day basis, I'd say I've got a better pulse on general public opinion than do our fiends that live on the Internet and rarely venture outside. I would never confuse that with thinking that most people share my views on an issue, but I can damn sure tell you that SJW-style liberalism isn't something capable of creating or maintaining a mass base of public support.

Assuming that's true, how can you condemn them for fighting for what they believe in even if they'll always be a minority? I'd think you would be able to relate to that, even if you disagree with them from an ideological viewpoint.

[IceSpear]

Hillary is extremely intelligent and accomplished.

This talking point is getting extremely annoying. Hillary's actual resume is actually quite unremarkable.

On the contrary, these throwaway superlatives do not do her justice.

She was the elected president of the Wellesley College Graduate Association, where she "organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students to recruit more black students and faculty" and was "instrumental in keeping Wellesley from being embroiled in the student disruptions common to other colleges," and a "number of her fellow students thought she might some day become the first female President of the United States". She was the first student commencement speaker in Wellesley's history, and gave a speech which received a 7-minute standing ovation and was featured in Life Magazine.

She entered Yale Law School only the second year after it began to admit women, the first class having only 7 women. There, she researched childhood development to contribute to a then cutting-edge work, wrote a frequently-cited article in the Harvard Education Review on the children's' rights movement, and worked as a congressional aide for Walter Mondale. After law school, she served on the Watergate impeachment committee researching the historical grounds for impeachment, sitting to the left of inquiry leader John Doar.

By then, her star was considered so bright that Democratic consultant Betsey Wright moved to Washington from Texas in part to help her political career, and "thought Rodham had the potential to become a future senator or president". When Bill Clinton decided to run for congress in Arkansas, she was "on the phone with him, sometimes four times a day, giving him advice, mentoring him". When a friend discovered a letter from her to Bill around this period, it "talked of thier future plans... politicial plans that is the best way tot put it... the letter had everything to do with their careers, so unusual in that there was no talk of home, family and marriage."

Would Bill have been elected president without her?

She joined the Rose Law firm, the oldest law firm west of the Mississippi, as its first woman partner, and continued to publish scholarly articles. An American Bar Association chair later said, "Her articles were important, not because they were radically new but because they helped formulate something that had been inchoate."Historian Garry Wills would later describe her as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades." She was campaign director of field operations in Indiana for Jimmy Carter, on the board of directors for the Legal Services Corporation, and was chair of the board for two years during which funding increased threefold.

This is just until 1980!

If I go on any longer, no one will read it (if you made it this far).

All of the above is reduced to "a mere political spouse"?

The woman had accomplishments in spades. I mean look, I don't think you're a sexist or anything, but it stinks how when a woman is married to a man whose career is more high flying than hers, her own accomplishments, no matter how great, get somehow erased and dissolved and folded into his identity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But she does have a career of her own. That's the thing. No one says that Obama doesn't have a career of his own because he wouldn't be where he is without Michelle (who helped him sell himself as authentic to black community) or David Axelrod (who helped him sell himself to whites) or wealthy Chicago donors like Penny Pritzker (who bankrolled his early career). He wouldn't be where he is without any of those people. None of us would be where we are without our parents, at the very least.

Why is Hillary held to a higher standard then? No one says Ted Kennedy never had a career of his own because he wouldn't have been Senator had he not been a Kennedy.

When she put on that wedding ring she didn't stop becoming a person. She didn't give up her right to a career. Nor did she when her husband was elected. She ran for Senate, putting together a campaign, visiting every county in New York, staking out positions, participating in debates, making ads, just the same as everyone else who runs a Senate campaign. Her race was competitive.

She got as much legislation passed as one could expect of a junior Senator in the minority who was given no special favors. Does she have a seminal law in her name from her time in the Senate? No. Neither does Obama or any other Senator running for president this year. Neither did Jack Kennedy. Everything she has, she's accomplished out of her own efforts.

She did great in her 2008 campaign. She was only favored by a relatively small margin throughout most of the campaign. She was running against a phenomenon-- a guy who could get 20,000 people to show up at my alma mater to see him (Howard Dean only 3,700; Gore only got 800). A guy who could get 20,000 people in blood red states like Idaho and North Dakota and Kansas to show up and see him. A guy who received incredibly positive news coverage -- Chris Matthews even got a tingle up his leg! -- and endorsements from most major newspapers, as well as the party's previous presidential nominee, and its most famous senior Senator. A guy who could rack up 95% of the vote in a demographic that made up 20% of the primary electorate, leaving her with the option of winning the rest by a landslide if she wanted to win by the narrowest of margins.

And yet she still pulled even -- winning roughly the same amount of votes, and winning the last primary in South Dakota even as the media was calling the nomination for Obama.

And yet she endorsed Obama immediately, campaigned for him, and served as his Secretary of State without drama, and led her State Department for 4 years, during which time she initiated talks with Iran on its nuclear deal that now look likely to bear fruit.

And that's still not enough?

[IceSpear]

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

Well, if us Hillary fans don't hang together, we'll hang separately.

But really, it was an excellent post regardless.

[IceSpear]

A clerical mishap, I'm sure.  Fear not and have patience.

^^^

Could you please relock it?  I seriously do not need the temptation.

You did not start this thread. You have no business asking the mods to lock someone else's thread absent of rule violations.

Your inability to resist temptation is the reason Update exists to begin with. Accept that.

The thread is about me.  I have every reason and business asking that there be no threads about me at all.

It just seems everyone is so entertained by the stupid thread that they care nothing about whether I am tempted or not.  In fact, it's like they WANT me to post there so they can laugh and mock at me at their leisure.

Sometime you should look through the archives to the original Update threads and see how genuinely supportive everyone was. They were excited for you when you found love; they supported you when you looked for new work; they were sincere when they cautioned you to be careful, think things through, take certain paths and gave advice.

And you took a group of sincere, supportive individuals who wanted you to succeed and you kicked them. Repeatedly. If you kick a dog every day for ten years, the first day you come home and don't kick it, it's still going to run and hide. Because it expects it. It has been conditioned. And now these "rats," as you refer to them, have been conditioned to respond a certain way to you.

You own that, Jeff Brown. You. And now you complain that you're being mocked. But I think it's fair to say that you've been mocking us for years in a much more sinister way. Consider this:

 - You solicit advice and feedback about events in your life -- you ask for it on this forum
 - Individuals who care offer advice based on their own experiences
 - You reject all offered advice and do the opposite, claiming that you know best
 - You proceed and fail
 - You tell all who point to their previously-disregarded advice that they have no right to comment
 - You brush off the failure, claiming that you knew best all along
 - You solicit advice and feedback about events in your life -- you ask for it on this forum

The fact is, that is mocking, pure and simple. What is mocking -- it's making others feel or appear stupid, right? Isn't that what you're doing, over and over and over, when those who have (or had) your best interests in mind and had significant amounts to contribute to your growth as an individual are dismissed?

The first time this happened, the forum was forgiving. The second, they were annoyed but had your back. Then it happened a third time. And a fourth. And a fifth. Nearly every decision concerning employment, relationships, dieting, exercise ... it all follows that same cycle.

That first time you asked for advice and shared your life on the forum, you got feedback. And then you proceeded to beat the dogs. And you continued beating them for literally years. Jeff, those dogs started out as loyal, happy, tail-wagging companions who wanted to see you be successful. Through constant beatings, you conditioned them to bite. And now you seem baffled as to why they'd snap at you when you enter the room.

Do I understand why the Update isn't enjoyable for you anymore? Sure -- you can't even make a simple statement anymore without being criticized or questioned a dozen times. But don't ever, ever let this truth escape you -- you caused this. By spitting in everyone's faces for literally years, you conditioned the responses you now get. You are responsible for this, and you have to own it.

There are no dumb dogs, Jeff. Only dumb owners. Do with that analogy what you will.

[IceSpear]

hahah the anti-hillary hacks mad now

Indeed. And notice they can't actually describe why it's not a good post and instead resort to one liners or ad hominem. Typical.

[IceSpear]

hahah the anti-hillary hacks mad now

Indeed. And notice they can't actually describe why it's not a good post and instead resort to one liners or ad hominem. Typical.

I'm writing an entire story about you wtf

Okay, I'll take it back if your story includes an in depth critique on why that post was bad.

[IceSpear]

It was a very good post, IMO.

Thanks.

I think Kal is just upset that he's getting taken to the cleaners with each new page of the GPG. First Beet, and now myself. I wonder who will claim page 8?

[IceSpear]

She doesn't have to explain the donations. The real explanation is that it doesn't matter.

The media is painting this as if the State Department awarded a contract. That is fundamentally dishonest.

The State Department had no influence on the decision. They simply sent a representative to The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States along with a dozen other agencies both federal and the state of Utah.

The State Department is only a research entity in these matters. The best Hillary could do for them is order the representative to hide any shady acts against the interest of U.S. national security by the company so that they could not be negatively damaged in the bidding process. The media has uncovered no such thing or even hinted to researching it.

The fact that you don't see CIFUS mentioned on any article related to this "scandal" only shows how unbelievable retarded and useless the United States press has become. These websites of supposedly intelligent media outlets are writing pages in a supposed information age with supposed unlimited resources and supposed unprecedented editorial freedom, yet are omitting facts that would have been included in a 60 second bulletin on the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite 40 years ago because their research is so poor that they aren't even aware of them

It does not matter who or what entity donated to The Clinton Foundation. It had no influence on the proceedings because the Clintons had no legal ability to influence on the proceedings.

[IceSpear]

We saw it in 2004 when John Kerry, a patriotic gentleman and war hero, was brought low by GOP 'Swift Boat Veterans For Truth,' who smeared his heroic war record, painting him as a coward, a liar and a traitor. Kerry, stunned, did not fight back hard enough.

The GOP will try to reduce Hillary to "Benghazi" and "secret email server," Bill's presidency to "Monica," the CGI to "dirty foreign money." They'll call Hillary a bitter, dried up old woman.  Who cares?

The Clintons don't come from big bucks. They are not the Bushes, nor are they scions of the Kennedy family. They are not Rockefellers. They don't own oil wells. They do have to compete with those people. So, they have to make money. Now, can you please explain what your problem is?

There is not another Presidential aspirant that has the breadth of Hillary's experience both foreign and domestic. She has been in the political arena for well over 23 years and is unbowed by the harsh light that has shone on her life for that whole time. She absolutely does have what it takes to be President - intelligence, experience, and intestinal fortitude. You don't have to like her or her husband, just vote for her, and not just because she is a woman, or just because she is a Democrat, but because she has the best qualifications to be President of the United States, warts and all.

After 25 years of slander and abuse from the GOP, Hillary's running again. She's not scared of them. Who else has her guts?

I'll be proud to vote for her.

[IceSpear]

we have a choice between a neoliberal corporatist warmounger who could be indicted and an outright fascist/white supremacist. hope your happy now

*warmonger
**you're

Now, comments like these bring me back to a time when my candidate was on the losing side and how we were called every name in the book from uneducated racists to hillbillies and hicks, so I completely understand the frustration.

Keep in mind that if you really want a progressive president, in a choice of Donald J. Trump vs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the choice could not be more clear. To sit the race out or to waste your vote to Jill Stein or any other left-wing fringe candidate is going to do nothing but benefit Trump. If you're really a progressive, liberal, socialist, Democrat, whatever you choose to call yourself, you're going to have to hold your nose and vote for Hillary, just as I, a very BITTER "butthurt" Hillary supporter, did for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I even contemplated voting for John McCain in 2008 after the primary, but the Sarah Palin selection combined with some deep soul searching led me to vote for Obama. I do not regret my vote. I still to this day believe Hillary would have been a better president, but I applaud Obama for his progressive accomplishments he has made during his tenure as President, and I do believe that he has done a much better job than McCain or Mitt Romney ever would have done. ObamaCare isn't perfect, but it's a good start, and Hillary can build on this progress. The first sitting president to publicly endorse marriage equality was amazing as well. I'll be the first to admit that Obama has done far more for our LGBTQIA community than I ever would have imagined.

In the end, it really comes down to principle, and I have realized that over time. Hillary and Bernie, you and I, are on the same team. We may not agree on every issue, but fundamentally, we believe in the same ideals of liberty, equality, and freedom for everyone regardless of circumstance or demographics, a YUUUUUGE contrast from the buffoon whom the Republicans are about to nominate. I implore you to ask yourself, "Would Bernie Sanders want to see Donald Trump as President?" I think not. He even admitted that even on her worst day, a President Hillary Clinton would be ten times better than any Republican President.

I have always respected and admired Bernie Sanders for the passion he brings to the political discourse, and to be honest, had any candidate other than Hillary ran against him, he would have been my first choice. I hope over time that you and other Sanders supporters will join our cause to build on the progress that President Obama has started. I'm sure it'll take you time, but if you really want a President who will look out for the middle class, protect our environment, bolster our economy, provide opportunities for everyone, champion the civil rights of women and minorities, Hillary is your gal. If you want a candidate who will make our country the laughingstock of the entire planet, Trump is your guy.

[IceSpear]

From a political point of view, I think I agree with many or most positions of TYT, but every time I've had the misfortune of watching them, I find I can't stand them in the slightest.

Same here. It's like seeing the "Bernie can win if he gets 81% in CA" posts. Yes, it is mathematically possible to him to get a majority of pledged delegates. It's not going to happen though. People that actually believe it are just setting themselves up for disappointment. It's a testament to the Sanders campaign that he was able to win states other than Vermont and New Hanpshire. I figured he was basically going to be Bill Bradley 2.0 with the addition of two states. Instead he's won something like 20 states and has had and will have a yooj impact on the Democratic Party Platform and the ideas that Democrats espouse. But instead, people have deluded themselves into thinking that he can still win. Sanders isn't stupid. I guarantee that he knows he can't win and that he's known that since at least March 15th, if not earlier. He says that he can win to drum up support for his ideas, which was ultimately why he ran in the first place. People are talking about his ideas and Hillary is taking notice, as she should. I have no doubt that any Bernie supporter that actually believes in a majority of his platform (especially in regards to civil rights/minorities) would want Trump as president, even over Hillary. That kind of Bernie supporter (see Paul 2008/2012 as well as Trump 2016) is basically the anger at the establishment type that has no real political ideas aside from opposing the status quo.

At this point, it will drive down enthusiasm for Hillary. TYT and the like are basically doing the Republicans work at this point. Hillary definitely has her flaws, but they're nothing compared to the Donald's temper tantrum of a campaign. Hell, Bernie has his flaws. Namely his lack of major support for candidates that share his views, such as John Fetterman.

All of that said, I still marked Bernie for President on my mail in ballot today.

[IceSpear]

Maybe Republicans don't care. But there's a reason he has the worst favorability rating of any nominee...ever.

Yeah, and you're a 23 year old man supporting a 69 year old woman who quotes Maya Angelou.

Huh? Sorry to break it to you, but under 30 voters are going to support her in the general, no matter how many imaginary anecdotes (which are about as predictive as Dick Morris electoral maps) you pump out.

How is this relevant to my initial post anyway?

I just find it funny that young white guys on this forum seem to be supporting an old white woman who panders to minorities.

In other words, the reason why I do not want Hillary President is that she offers nothing to me. As a white male what in the hell do I have in common with feminism, black lives matter, or inclusiveness? Hence why we have the gender gap.

..I just don't know where to even begin with this. So, based upon your "logic," only old white women should vote for Hillary because.. she's an old white woman? Wow. How.. Pathetic.

Using your, um, whatever you want to call it: And Donald Trump has nothing to offer me. As a gay white male, what do I have in common with Islamaphobia, racism, sexism, xenophobic, and exclusiveness? Hence why we have the sanity gap.

Yeah, forgive me if I don't want a president who panders to angry old racists, misogynists, bigots, and just downright gullible, low-information imbeciles who have fallen hook line and sinker for the Republican/Trump greatest lie ever told: that the cause of the white working class man's problems isn't trickle down economics, income equality, decreasing wages, too little government regulation, etc., but rather is all those dirty Mexicans coming here illegally and taking our jobs and bringing their drugs and crime with them, all those smart Asians getting accepted into our schools, all those b*tches and wh*res known as women who want free birth control and to be paid the same as men, all those dangerous Muslims coming here secretly plotting to plan another 9/11 and convert Americans to ISIS, all those sick and disgusting homos waging a war on Christianity and destroying the "sanctity" of marriage and "traditional family values," I could go on and on..

So yeah, forgive me if I haven't been blinded by the Republican Party/Trump pulling the wool over my eyes. I'm a young white male and I'd gladly support an old purple bisexual handicapped Buddhist duck that ran as a Democrat for President over Trump or any Republican for that matter.

Yeah, see how silly your hogwash sounds now? Jfern's Hillary hating posts aside, that was probably the dumbest thing I've read on here.

[IceSpear]

Most of BRTD's posts in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=237243.0

[IceSpear]

This isn't a left wing or right wing issue. It's about facts. And citing those clowns in the mainstream media Atlas loves to mock doesn't help your case here.




So...how did all those blue collar voters in western Pennsylvania vote? Even NE Pennsylvania wasn't all that strong for Reagan, he only won Lackawanna one time and by a pretty weak margin compared to his statewide and nationwide numbers. Meanwhile in 1984 Reagan broke 64% in Montgomery county. Most of those blue collar Democrats actually did not vote for Reagan.

The actual Reagan Democrats were mostly conservadems in the South, who are now consistent Republican voters today, or inner suburbanites who were fearing crime and racial tensions. There isn't really a comparable bloc of voters today.

But that's not even the biggest issue with the term. Because most Reagan Democrats whether they returned to the Democratic Party or not later are now either in retirement homes or dead. The youngest someone can be in 2016 and have voted for Reagan is 50, and that means you cast your first vote in 1984, not a lifelong Democrat who crossed over for Reagan. So most blue collar workers ANYWHERE didn't vote for Reagan, they simply weren't old enough. It's been 32 years since the guy was on a ballot anywhere.

It's time to move on and quit trying to define blocs of voters as defined by a 32-year old election, whether those definitions are accurate or not. People weren't still talking about "LBJ Republicans" during Reagan's time, and that was a more recent election than 1980 or 1984 is to today. This term was already effectively meaningless by Bill Clinton's second term, the fact that it's still in use today is sheer insanity.

[IceSpear]

Hallejuah! Beet turning a new leaf?

So no indictment. Thank goodness. Given my earlier comments, I clearly have to reassess the lens by which I look at politics. Maybe my critics are right that I'm too much of a chicken little. I will make an effort from here on out to be more objective and self-critical when examining what biases are affecting my analysis.

While it's a little strange to be celebrating one's own candidate not being indicted, from Mr. Comey's comments it's clear that this wasn't a close call. There was no intent to undermine national security or hide anything from investigators. There was only what you would expect from 30,000 emails - that there would be some mistakes in classifying them made by Clinton. 110 emails out of 30,000+ had some level of classification at the time they were sent or received. That's 0.4%. She's human, we are all human.

Her real mistake was having the private servers in the first place. That was wrong, and she was right to apologize for it. But given that her predecessors or their aides also used private e-mail of varying degrees and neither had government e-mail, it's fair to say that this was only allowed because compliance policies at State were sloppy and ill-defined. It seems clear that all sorts of sloppiness in many different agencies at all levels of government would be uncovered, if they were all subject to the same degree of scrutiny as Clinton. Hillary Clinton has been the most investigated, scrutinized public figures in modern history. Literally dozens of books and tens of thousands of pages of documents exist on her. There's probably more information out there about her than she even remembers about herself. Yet no "smoking gun" has ever been found - just one dead end investigation after another. The only time either of the Clintons were "gotten" was when it involved a blue dress. Go figure.

However, this incident should be a warning to all of our public officials to be scrupulous with classified information, no matter one's rank. If Hillary can be seriously damaged politically by something like this, than any public official who isn't careful to follow procedure strictly can be. And it must be a warning to both the Clintons and the people around them not to make unforced errors in the future - they can learn from the current president, Obama, who has been relatively scandal-free.

[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.

[IceSpear]

Bet you stood up and clapped for that post alone in your basement.

Feel free to disagree, but no need to be so condescending.

LOL, sorry, my tone in my mind while typing it wasn't mean-spirited.

And of course I definitely disagree.

What in particular do you disagree with?