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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

As ever certain responses to this thread are highly troubling. I am a leftist at one level, because I believe that empathy is one of the most valuable traits a person can have. That we can look at a young man in prison for theft or a dropout pregnant teen or an immigrant being deported away from his adopted home due to petty bureaucracy and say "this person made mistakes, but part of the reason was a rotten system that would have swept me up too if I had been in their shoes".  With that in mind, I find it baffling that i should turn this trait off for people whose main sin is voting for Donald Trump.

I would also add that I think it is a useless exercise to sectarianise poverty, but I assume it'll fall on deaf ears

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

As ever certain responses to this thread are highly troubling. I am a leftist at one level, because I believe that empathy is one of the most valuable traits a person can have. That we can look at a young man in prison for theft or a dropout pregnant teen or an immigrant being deported away from his adopted home due to petty bureaucracy and say "this person made mistakes, but part of the reason was a rotten system that would have swept me up too if I had been in their shoes".  With that in mind, I find it baffling that i should turn this trait off for people whose main sin is voting for Donald Trump.

I would also add that I think it is a useless exercise to sectarianise poverty, but I assume it'll fall on deaf ears

Came here to post this

[they don't love you like i love you]

She endorsed Bernie, and criticized the DNC for putting their thumb on the scale in the primary

Yeah, this is literally all there is to it. In Hardcore Bernie World, if you're a politician who supported Bernie - regardless of your personal or political positions and whether any are progressive or not - you're a True Progressive. If you're somebody with an identical record or have a comparable number of ideological transgressions as "Generic Progressive" but who didn't support Bernie, you're a neoliberal hack.

It's really not complicated. It's also why a) the push for ideological purity from these supporters is so laughable and b) why this movement is very likely to continue falling flat on its face in terms of enacting legislation/policy. They'll just keep supporting anybody who kisses the ring as "progressive" (i.e. supporting Bernie and/or a handful of other figures) and then get all mad when half the candidates that they actually do succeed at putting into office don't turn out to support them on a particular initiative.

[Virginiá]

Context: Why are the boomers considered a more liberal generation then the WW2 gen

I think there's another important difference between boomers and GIs.

The GIs grew up in a society that was ravaged by an economic depression and their calling in life was a collective effort to fight in WWII. This would be what shaped their attitudes for the rest of their lives. Their political attitudes were focused on creating and maintaining civic institutions. Outer-world driven activists were the norm and the collective effort of Americans was more important than individual acts.  Social issues were generally agreed upon and politicians seemed vaguely similar in their core beliefs. Society and our poltiics had a clear driven consensus and politicians argued about how best to achieve a society that strengthened our institutions.

Baby boomers grew up in a very stable civic society. This stability required conformity and this felt stifling to the boomer youth who didn't understand the need to be so rigid. As they came of age, boomers set out to break this conformity. They sought out spiritual endeavors and other inner driven activities which they believed would bring more culture and liveliness to society. The era of sex, drugs, and rock n roll. The consciousness revolution. In many ways the mid 60's-mid 80's could be thought of as another Great Awakening in American history. As a result, civic institutions were to be distrusted, and instead it was "values" which were to be debated. Republican baby boomers fueled the rise of the Religious Right in the 70's and 80's, and the smaller (but just as noisy) liberal baby boomer cohort fueled the rise of the New Left.

Ever since baby boomers began exerting more and more power over our political system starting from the 1990's, our politics has become more polarized, more values based, and more aggressive. This is because baby boomers have always been the generational aggressors. When they were young, everybody over 30 was the problem. Today, everybody under 30 is the problem. By the mid 90's, it was clear that our political discourse had changed. Gone were the days of Reagan and Tip O'Neill making deals and joking around. Now we had Clinton and Gingrich drawing battle lines in the sand and engaging in political fights back and forth. Two boomers had replaced two GIs; and the difference was noticeable.

By the 2000's, the transition was complete. The boomers had ushered in the red state-blue state divide. Politics since the 90's had become increasingly more focused on personal values and social issues. Wealthy socially liberal states like New Jersey and California were now solidly Democrat, while the poorer, more socially conservative regions of the country (Appalachia and the Deep South) were staunchly Republican. Contrast how these states had voted in the 1960's and before. Maintaining and rebuilding civic institutions had been long gone. Politics became more partisan, more aggressive, etc. President Donald Trump was ultimately a culmination of many of these trends.

[Kingpoleon]

Predictions -

Con - 319 (-11)
Lab - 250 (+21)
SNP - 49 (-7)
Lib-Dem - 5 (-3)

Tory government with unionist support !

Conservatives - 319, 41%
Labour - 256, 39%
SNP - 46, 4%
Lib Dems - 6, 7%
PC - 3, 0.5%
Greens - 1, 2%

Northern Ireland guess: 8 DUP, 5 SF, 3 SDLP, 1 UUP, 1 independent (Hermon). UKIP gets around 4% but no seats. Eventual result is a Conservative minority government, propped up by Arlene Foster. God help us all.

[Mr. Smith]

Obama didn't use his brief chance to pass a major infrastructural revival and this is the end result.

He pushed Obamacare first.

The Trump agenda is privatization to monopolistic profiteers in return for what in many cases might best be described as maintenance.

The stimulus came first, and it only had about $100 billion for infrastructure and science out of a total cost of over $800 billion, with actual transportation infrastructure at about $48 billion. We knew since the mid-00's that our nation needed at least $1 trillion in infrastructure spending to repair or replace everything. This was the case of Democrats being too timid, thinking that if they kept the cost of the stimulus down then they'd get less public backlash. They should have realized that you either go big or go home. If you're going to do a big spending bill, then do a really big one and get everything you need, because it will be less likely you get another chance. And by doing a smaller bill, it ends up being less effective at getting the economy going. They passed the stimulus in Feb. 2009 and other than a few months in spring 2010 due to census hiring, we still had monthly job losses in Sept. 2010. So with an unemployment rate of 9.8% in Nov. 2010 and the ugly fight to pass Obamacare they got destroyed in the midterms.

[Badger]

Obama didn't use his brief chance to pass a major infrastructural revival and this is the end result.

He pushed Obamacare first.

The Trump agenda is privatization to monopolistic profiteers in return for what in many cases might best be described as maintenance.

The stimulus came first, and it only had about $100 billion for infrastructure and science out of a total cost of over $800 billion, with actual transportation infrastructure at about $48 billion. We knew since the mid-00's that our nation needed at least $1 trillion in infrastructure spending to repair or replace everything. This was the case of Democrats being too timid, thinking that if they kept the cost of the stimulus down then they'd get less public backlash. They should have realized that you either go big or go home. If you're going to do a big spending bill, then do a really big one and get everything you need, because it will be less likely you get another chance. And by doing a smaller bill, it ends up being less effective at getting the economy going. They passed the stimulus in Feb. 2009 and other than a few months in spring 2010 due to census hiring, we still had monthly job losses in Sept. 2010. So with an unemployment rate of 9.8% in Nov. 2010 and the ugly fight to pass Obamacare they got destroyed in the midterms.

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

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

I'm glad he was fired. You shouldn't condone violence against others for their political opinions.

[Kingpoleon]

Congratulations Santander. You deserve this.

Planned Parenthood is more evil than Hitler and Osama Bin Laden combined in terms of how many lives they have killed.

Please tone it down. You do not actually believe that, because if you did, you would've supported the Planned Parenthood shooting (I assume you supported the killing of Osama), which you obviously did not.

Even among pro-lifers, there is no consensus on when life begins. Nobody knows when life begins. We believe life begins before birth and that unborn lives deserve protection, but some others have different views. We can be morally and politically opposed to their beliefs without being so over the top.

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

I'm a pre-med student right now and were single payer to pass my career would be over before it starts. Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy. All those jobs in the insurance industry would be destroyed and people will be out of work (probably what democrats want). I understand some people can't afford it, but why should they be entitled to care on the backs of people who already busy their asses taking care of their own families. Despite the feel good high school musical "were all in this together" mentality of most liberals, sorry we're really not. I have my own family and friends to worry about and I'm sorry, but I'm not concerned for someone who isn't a part of my life.

Your "career will be over" if we move to a watered down Canadian style system? Dramatic much? Are you under the impression that there aren't any doctors in Canada?

The big issue i have is I want to be a doctor who works with individual patients. I do not want the government running my work place, and effectively making me a government worker. If i wanted to do that i would'nt be busting my ass for pre-med and med school in the fall. We already have a single payer type system here. The VA. The VA is an absolute disaster which shows exactly what government run healthcare does to people. Veterans died on the waiting lists, and nobody is held accountable. Our system right now int perfect but we dont have the ridiculous waits that people in other countries have, which is why we have a big medical tourism industry in America. I for instance have been diagnosed with skin cancer twice and i was able to get it treated on the spot with no wait. In other countries, who knows, it couldve eveolved into melanoma before the bureaucracy got around to it. People from Canada, Asia, and Europe come here for procedures that they would otherwise need to wait in some cases several years for. Additionally, if you put the government in charge of the medical system, they will be able to step in and make decisions for the doctors and the patients, not allowing them to make their own. See the recent story of the 10 month old baby in England whose parents raised over a million dollars to bring him to the United States for a potentially life saving expirimental treatment. The NHS stepped in and refused on the grounds that it would cause the child to suffer, and they are pulling life support either today or tomorrow. For the government to not allow parents to make one desperate attempt to come to the US and save their child's life is disgusting.

[TJ in Oregon]

Horrible article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could just as easily argue that much of the modern Left in the United States insists that there should be no "participatory democracy" used to threaten the "personal rights" of whomever the Left sympathizes with. Abortion is a constitutionally protected right (the Supreme Court says so, and if anyone might get appointed to the Supreme Court says otherwise, that person is an extremist who should not be confirmed); marriage is a constitutionally protected right (all hail and bow down before the wonderful Supreme Court decisions that struck down democratically-made laws that: prohibited a man who owed child support from getting married (Zablocki v. Redhail, 1937), banned same-sex marriage (you know the case)).

You see, to the modern Left, there are "personal rights" (not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution) that are protected by the Constitution, but there aren't any "economic rights" of the kind that Buchanan was dedicated to preserving that are also protected by the Constitution. And then there are examples of when the Left abhors Supreme Court decisions that strike down campaign finance laws and Affirmative Action.

So "liberal Democracy," it seems, is the idea that the Left can have whatever laws they can successfully adopt via the democratic process, but the Right can't. Conservative Supreme Court Justices should not strike down liberal laws, but liberal Supreme Court Justices should go right ahead and strike down conservative laws. It's funny how this is called "democracy."

[Antonio the Sixth]

What does "false" mean under the circumstances? Whether God exists or not has little to no relevance to the question of whether the majority of people in society accept certain moral claims as valid. The existence of God is irrelevant to the question of whether or not each specific piece of Biblical law is worth preserving or not.

There's a fantastic story in the Talmud in which two rabbis are arguing over a specific point of law when God Himself comes in to tell them what He originally meant, and the rabbis chastise Him and tell Him that his role in the legislative process ended with the creation of the laws and that it's up to them, the rabbis, to figure out what the law means now.  It drives home the point that, regardless of the original provenance of a principle of religious law, once it is law, it belongs to humans, not God, and humans can interpret it and do what they wish with it.

[heatcharger]

Greatest tweet in presidential history.

Congratulations. You have forfeited what little more Authority you had for your arguments in join the club of Absolut doofuses like Ghost Monkey. Welcome to your new internet Club of losers to a once at least semi-respectable poster.

I'm sure Pope Francis would be very proud.

Oh come on. The tweet is a joke, but the far bigger joke are the  histrionic cries that this is somehow "violence-inciting" or beneath the president or an attack against freedom of the press. Politics has become one big joke in this country, and we've made it that way. When I laugh at Trump, I'm also laughing at myself and you and all of us. We deserve all of this; the least I can do is find it entertaining.

No. Some of us don't take the jackassed view that our politics--and thus our government structure, and thus our country and its future--is such a joke that you might as well sit back and laugh.

OF COURSE this is beneath the presidency! It doesn't take "histrionics" to object to Trump's utter buffoon-like behavior, just simply not being a dunce.

Don't cower behind "gee, the system's so messed up I might as well laugh at the president being a literal clown" to waive off your support of it.

You and your ilk readily and even fervently seek a series of policy goals so adamantly, you're absolutely willing to write off the dignity of the POTUS, America's standing in the world, and any remaining notion of civility in political discourse to obtain said goals.

Kindly don't insult our intelligence by saying this is nothing more than a Faustian bargain where you have to support the idiocy of our current A$$hole is Chief in order to get the social conservative doctrine you long for in place, and if America's basic political contract is torn asunder in the process, you'll sign said contract every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I don't have the time or patience to care much about Atlas these days but the canonical explanation for why the average 3rd generation Mexican-American who is 35 and cannot speak Spanish does not consider himself/herself to be White relates to the fact that the Mexican identity has been replenished by waves of immigration. For those who are totally detached from the roots of their grandparents, it's rather easy to maintain a loose affiliation with these roots when there are large numbers of people who are around your age who are present to remind you of those roots.

This is true of other Hispanic immigrant communities and does not even note the fact that most Hispanics live in highly concentrated/segregated neighborhoods. I suspect that this will change going forward but, look, I'll never consider myself to be White and I have a White Dad! This is because my Mom is from Mexico. Anyone who has a direct connection (read: parental) to a Latin American country will have a hard time seeing themselves as White so long as they grew up before ~2020-2030.

As for the statement that "Trump Can't Reverse the Decline of White Christian America", sure, he cannot but, politically, this does not matter. He can disenfranchise or humiliate those who are non-white and who have immigrant ancestry. He has already made America a much less desirable place to emigrate to, as evidenced by the fact that graduate schools in the South are much less attractive for international students in 2017 than they were in 2016. You don't need to assume that Asians and Hispanics (former way more likely than latter imo, 2nd gen Asians mix well with White people!) will assimilate to Whiteness in order to argue that Trump's coalition is durable/viable. It's extremely viable. Remember, there were still plenty of white working class people who voted for Clinton...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The biggest mistake hard-drug legalization supporters make is similar to those made by opponents of legalizing pot: They consider the rational for their arguments applicable to "drugs" as a whole without taking into account very real differences between individual narcotics for addictiveness, physical threat, availability, etc. The same foolishness behind Reefer Madness is the same sort of moral beliefs overriding scientific data as saying everything will somehow be better with the legalization of heroin, meth, crack, etc.

There's argument towards getting rid of mandatory minimums and mandatory amounts, which is what many states including Ohio have done. On a Fourth or Fifth Degree Possession case with no prior felony convictions, it is essentially impossible to get anything other than probation unless one violates bond while the case is pending).

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"

The sheriff's skepticism isn't as off-base as you might think. People treated with naloxone frequently revive and walk away, seeking no further treatment, and in most cases there is nothing that law enforcement or emergency services can do to stop them.

Instead, they are relegated to waiting for the next overdose, when again they will be expected to step in and save a life or at least prevent a trip to an emergency room in the back of an ambulance. It requires minimal imagination to realize the effect that this has on their morale, particularly in those counties where naloxone injections are now administered by the hundreds or thousands annually.

Moreover, there is a sense that anyone who is outfitted with naloxone will tend to overuse it. Even trained clinicians can misjudge whether someone has overdosed, let alone a police officer with minimal background on human physiology.

(Incidentally, for both of these reasons it is not true that each injection amounts to a life saved, or even an emergency department visit prevented, although some certainly are.)

Incidentally, the sheriff is correct about the dangers involved in reviving a person who has overdosed. Even when naloxone is used to revive someone who took opioids under medical supervision and in a clinical setting, those people frequently wake up agitated and confused. It isn't unusual for them to flail and strike out at people. Nor is it surprising when you consider what is happening to the receptors on which opioids act.

As of 2015, Butler County had a drug overdose mortality rate several times the national average. They are losing more people to drug overdoses than most other places in the United States lose to car crashes, gun violence, and all suicides combined. 2016 was probably even worse.

This far from a matter of "one asshole standing in the way." This is a county that has moved beyond its breaking point. Neither medical professionals nor policy experts nor community leaders have any good answers, and even the best suggestions that they have are palliative. Narcan can prevent an overdose from becoming a fatality, but it does nothing to break addiction. If you want to understand how someone in a position of responsibility can be so callous, consider that.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Meth should NOT be legalized. I can see cocaine and heroin, but meth poses significant harm to those other than the user. Those idiots who cook meth in clandestine labs risk blowing their surroundings to smithereens, so meth is a public safety hazard. Legalizing meth only leads to more potential harm to not only the user but his or her neighbors. Good people should not be subjected to that kind of risk.  

It's not legalized, though. It's decriminalized, which means people caught in possession of small amounts of the drug will no longer be thrown in jail and branded a criminal. Dealing and manufacturing is still criminalized.

All I know is, I've seen too many friends affected by drug addiction and I come from an area that was beaten pretty bad by it. Jail/prison does not help. It only makes their life a hell of a lot more difficult, which in turn pushes them deeper into drugs in many cases. What they need is proper treatment. Addiction is simply not a criminal justice issue, and the system is not equipped to handle it.

Virginia said this perhaps much better than myself.

1.) "Decriminalization" is NOT "Legalization".

2.) I have seen firsthand how addiction to Hard Drugs has impacted the lives of friends, co-workers, neighbors, and even family members, in relatively small "rural" communities in places where we all know each other, and word gets around the grapevine real fast....

3.) This proposal was actually first promoted by top Law Enforcement officials throughout Oregon, including County Sheriffs and Police Chiefs in most parts of the State.

http://portlandobserver.com/news/2016/oct/04/new-approach-drugs/

4.) The fundamental concept is that hard drug addiction is a medical issue, and not a criminal issue, so long as individuals don't commit other crimes to feed their addition.

5.) So many other posters have made excellent points regarding the cost of incarceration for non-violent drug addicts, versus alternative diversion programs for tax-payers.

6.) The societal costs of drug addiction are ultimately hidden costs (Externalities), that are absorbed elsewhere, even after looking at the costs to Taxpayers when it comes to incarceration in City and County Jails, let alone in the State Pens in Oregon....

7.) Oregon actually has the 3rd highest % of Medicaid expansion programs under ACA (Behind Kentucky and West Virginia). These programs actually fund addiction programs to an extent that private insurance does not.... Anyone tried to look at the cost of a three week in-patient service under your employer insurance if you want to quit your drug addiction?

Quitting drug addiction in America is only for the Rich it seems....

8.) Oregon has a massive problem with Meth addiction, one of the first States hit hard, which I recall Hunter Thompson mentioned in this book.

It started with Biker Gangs, and quickly spread to 3rd shift workers in the factories and Timber Mills of Oregon in the '70s and '80s, not to mention Long Haul Truckers running the I-5 corridor from SoCal to Seattle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell%27s_Angels:_The_Strange_and_Terrible_Saga_of_the_Outlaw_Motorcycle_Gangs

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/etc/synopsis.html

Now, with the dramatic collapse of decline in decent paying jobs and opportunities in Mill Towns throughout Oregon, it is prevalent, even in the places where it was a minor phenomenon some 10 years back.

Hell, just nine months back spent a week in a cheap hotel on the Oregon Coast, in an economically depressed City, and every time I walked out my door it seemed like I had Tweakers trying to bum smokes off me....

9.) IDK about the morality play that many of y'all are throwing out here.... Drug Addiction is a medical problem and not a criminal problem and should be treated as such.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult in America, unless you come from a fairly wealthy background, to have the proper health and support that you need to quit what are extremely dangerous and addictive substances.

10.) Proud to be an Oregonian, and hopefully if this bill becomes law we get the proper support in resourcing from the Federal Government, so that we can address the root causes of substance abuse and addiction, rather than stereotyping drug addicts, or believing that the various 12 step programs alone can solve the issue....

[Mr. Smith]

     One could write a book to fully address this question. There are many ways in which they contribute positively and many ways in which they contribute negatively. I am not comfortable approaching it as a simple yes or no.

You're joking? You seriously think that the existence of American universities has an ambiguous effect on the US as a country?

That anyone would even consider that is one of the most moronic things I've heard. Jesus Christ.

     They have done a lot of good historically. They still do a lot of good today, but L.D. Smith is right; the system is deeply flawed. We shouldn't look at only the good and ignore the role they have played in the proliferation of debt among naive young adults or trends in admissions that have promoted social stratification, just to name a couple of problems associated with higher education today.

Right...so let's weight it up.

Cons: some people get debt, some gender studies majors can be annoying, some people waste a few years on degrees

Pros: you have doctors, engineers, scentists. Medicine, bridges, computers. Trained professionals who can do advanced labour.

I feel uncomfortable answering yes or no here, it's a real toughie.

     Colleges are useful for teaching certain advanced skillsets that lead to certain professions. I do know that there is a significant gap between Europe and the United States here (I recall hearing that 12% of college students study engineering over there compared to 4% here), so I can give you some benefit of the doubt on your mischaracterization of the situation.

     Many degree programs in the liberal arts suffer from low demand for the specific knowledge and do a poor job of imparting critical thinking skills (especially compared to yesteryear). Graduating college requires little effort outside of STEM fields and the quality of many graduates, even from prestigious universities, is frankly embarrassingly poor. Liberal arts programs are structured to funnel students into grad schools, where they are used as cheap labor for departments and offered little opportunity for advancement unless they are fortunate enough to enter top programs (even in the sciences, which carries its own baggage). For many jobs, universities are treated as a form of filtering wherein unnecessary degrees are valued for HR reasons and folks are corralled into seeking degrees they don't actually need. At top universities, social filtering both in admissions and in student life ensure that the best opportunities are reserved for upper-class youths, as middle-class strivers are led into a rat race that is stacked heavily against them.

     The spread of these problems that I just described affect far, far more students than do the opportunities offered by engineering and medicine. As I said, there is much good that colleges do. There are also many problems, and I could easily go on. Your dismissive tone only proves that you do not know what you are talking about here.

[heatcharger]

     One could write a book to fully address this question. There are many ways in which they contribute positively and many ways in which they contribute negatively. I am not comfortable approaching it as a simple yes or no.

You're joking? You seriously think that the existence of American universities has an ambiguous effect on the US as a country?

That anyone would even consider that is one of the most moronic things I've heard. Jesus Christ.

     They have done a lot of good historically. They still do a lot of good today, but L.D. Smith is right; the system is deeply flawed. We shouldn't look at only the good and ignore the role they have played in the proliferation of debt among naive young adults or trends in admissions that have promoted social stratification, just to name a couple of problems associated with higher education today.

Right...so let's weight it up.

Cons: some people get debt, some gender studies majors can be annoying, some people waste a few years on degrees

Pros: you have doctors, engineers, scentists. Medicine, bridges, computers. Trained professionals who can do advanced labour.

I feel uncomfortable answering yes or no here, it's a real toughie.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I honestly can't think of any politician or political movement that doesn't involve identity politics - broad Marxist appeals to class, the civic liberal tradition dominant in America since the founders, all nationalist thought, agrarian populism and even simple appeals to common humanity all rely on people forging political alliances with other individuals on the basis that they have similar problems. In that respect, we cannot blame the simple fact that the democrats peddle identity politics, because so do their opponents. However as somebody else noted, the issue is the democrats failed to be successful with their brand of identity politics.

I think one of the biggest problems is the democrats like to bifurcate their coalition far too much. The GOP's message is crafted by a mixture of dimwits and sociopaths, but the common identity it appeals to is simple: the American people, under attack by a consortium of nefarious forces. You may say "But via subtext is that the GOP were clearly appealing to a narrow white Christian male demographic!". But that's the thing: the GOP leaves it in the subtext. That's just how political messaging works. A lot of urban Great Society programs were clearly aimed at African Americans, but LBJ didn't announce a War on Black Poverty. Likewise, Reagan's denunciations of welfare queens was widely considered a dogwhistle, but he also left the radicalised aspect of such rhetoric in the subtext. In 2016, the democrats forgot about subtext. Issues were sorted into helpful boxes (ah, African Americans are interested in police reform, Hispanics in immigration, middle class suburban dwellers in Hillary's experience, young women in abortion etc). The democratic coalition was less of merging together of people for some great cause, more of a grabbag of disparate strands calculated to reach a magic 270. The rise in data journalism and degeneration of political journalism compounded these problems. It is not hard to see why somebody watching CNN or any other 24 hour news dross would come away with a perfect understanding of the democrats strategy for getting into office and their expected numbers with each race and educated level, and literally nothing about what she planned to do once in office. And that comes back to the subtext problem: for a while, democrats have been shedding white uneducated voters. This in itself is not fatal, but for no reason at all, the Democrats decided to elevate this to text in 2016, by proudly stating they were an irrelevant part of the coalition. Because the adjective "uneducated" comes across as an insult, and it was normally made in such smug terms anyway; it's no real wonder why the group abandoned the democrats en mass, either to Abstention or to Trump's maw. Even republicans don't literally say "who cares about black voters anyway lol!"

Worse, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how low-turnout voters work. If you are interested in abortion, you almost certainly will turnout because normally the opponent will irritate and scare you so much you'll vote your side by default. Look at the behaviour of the pro-life movement in 2016, which swing behind possibly the least religious man to ever receive the republican nomination. All they needed was the deal that trump would commit to their cause, and they showed up in great numbers. That's not to say that democrats need to abandon or even moderate their position on abortion, just awknowledge that it is a background issue for most voters who are more interested in their own day to day lives. If you are an activist, you will join the dots. But by and large, a low turnout or swing voter is not politically conscience whatever their identity, and are more interested in more kitchen table issues than "issues". The fall in black turnout despite the democratic focus on BLM is not really discussed enough. It seems to me that Denocrats clearly thought the issue was some whizz bang technique to keep turnout at Obama levels, but clearly BLM (a movement I sympathise with) and its reforms were not seen as such by black voters, especially in rural areas. (Talking of Obama, the way he was treated by the Hillary campaign - as a mere gotv force in black areas, really highlights the problem in democrats viewing their base as too fragmented. The great skill of Obama is that he was able to talk past the fragments and work the democratic base into a common identity, which was lost in 2016 in the data onslaught).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Exactly. This is one of the few points on which I actually agree with Marx : in order to achieve a perfect society, one must first create a less bad society. It's not a matter of 'excusing' the moral failings of past generations, but rather of acknowledging that the process has to start somewhere, and attempts to achieve instantaneous revolution usually end in disaster.

I am not sure if a perfect society is even a good goal to have. Humans are imperfect. What is perfect for the overwhelming majority may be absolute tyranny for others.

The other part about starting from somewhere I believe is apt.

Humans are imperfect, but should we just go on accepting a barbaric holdover from tribal society (taken to all sorts of extremes by global trade and racialism), like slavery, simply because "humans are flawed so why bother"?

Your argument ironically leads to a stationary society and the continued violations of the same principles and freedoms to uphold this dreadful institution, all because its removal was brought about a like temporary lapse in respect for same said principles.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Reminder again that one of the most loyal demographics in the rise of Hitler and the like were doctors, engineers, scientists, civil servants, businessmen etc.

The answer in short is that in America, Britain and most of the developed world the educated middle class are relatively content with their lives and see no reason to mess with a status quo that benefits them. In countries where the educated middle class are discontented (I.e. The middle class in Brazil, who feel that populism and corruption is having a detrimental effect on their quality of living) they are just as likely to fly into ideological extremes. Likewise certain elements of the educated classes are often very contemptuous of the status quo in developed countries - teachers, academics, doctors (who hilariously are stridently left in my country and stridently right in yours) and often swing in very ideological directions due to government policy.

And the relatively uneducated often are in the centre. Even in the context of modern America, you see large blocs like rural African Americans who are very loyal to the Clinton/Obama wing. That again is a calculation on their part - they feel that the perceived risk of a left swing would be more of a risk than a benefit, and so don't rock the boat. In fact the very uneducated are often a key part of large ideology-free centrist machines like Tammany Hall or the old German Centre Party.

And finally of course, one should be precise in our definitions if we are to make useful conclusions, and definitely avoid cross-contamination with other definitions.

[Confused Democrat]

ObamaCare was largely a ripoff of existing Republican ideas on health care reform. Since that proved unpopular and they had to position themselves in absolute opposition to Obama, the party had to rally against its own health care proposals. That left them with no other ideas to adopt. Combine that with the redefinition of successful health care policy in America to include the number of insured and it leaves them nowhere to go without triggering a backlash, especially since it is largely Republican states and districts that have benefited the most.

After years of screaming about budgets and deficits, while championing tax reduction, they're now faced with the reality of trying to implement their promises. Not only is tax reduction, especially for the wealthy, very unpopular, but they also realize that Trump was elected in large part because of promises to protect the costliest aspects of the welfare state. So, how do you square tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses with not touching Medicare or Social Security, while also not blowing up the deficit? It can't be done. They'll lie about the CBO numbers and try to spin them, but they know that only goes so far.

Where will border wall funding come from without angering the public? Cuts in food stamps and other social welfare provisions? Expect angry constituents. Plus, they see the polling and know that a border wall is not popular. So, make those sacrifices for an unpopular proposal? How is that beneficial?

The Republican agenda has come into conflict with public opinion. It has also come into conflict with CBO budgeting and reality itself. They've relied so heavily on inciting their base, suppressing voter turnout, gerrymandering, and lack of enthusiasm among Democratic voters to win elections.  Hell, even their base is against them on many cuts to the welfare state. They've mastered the art of objection and being a powerful opposition party, but their cynical opportunism has painted them into a corner. They can't fulfill what promises they've made without inciting backlash or reveal that their promises were lies all along (i.e. you can't both provide massive tax cuts and protect the two largest entitlement programs).

[Badger]

I'm a pre-med student right now and were single payer to pass my career would be over before it starts. Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy. All those jobs in the insurance industry would be destroyed and people will be out of work (probably what democrats want). I understand some people can't afford it, but why should they be entitled to care on the backs of people who already busy their asses taking care of their own families. Despite the feel good high school musical "were all in this together" mentality of most liberals, sorry we're really not. I have my own family and friends to worry about and I'm sorry, but I'm not concerned for someone who isn't a part of my life.

Your "career will be over" if we move to a watered down Canadian style system? Dramatic much? Are you under the impression that there aren't any doctors in Canada?

The big issue i have is I want to be a doctor who works with individual patients. I do not want the government running my work place, and effectively making me a government worker. If i wanted to do that i would'nt be busting my ass for pre-med and med school in the fall. We already have a single payer type system here. The VA. The VA is an absolute disaster which shows exactly what government run healthcare does to people. Veterans died on the waiting lists, and nobody is held accountable. Our system right now int perfect but we dont have the ridiculous waits that people in other countries have, which is why we have a big medical tourism industry in America. I for instance have been diagnosed with skin cancer twice and i was able to get it treated on the spot with no wait. In other countries, who knows, it couldve eveolved into melanoma before the bureaucracy got around to it. People from Canada, Asia, and Europe come here for procedures that they would otherwise need to wait in some cases several years for. Additionally, if you put the government in charge of the medical system, they will be able to step in and make decisions for the doctors and the patients, not allowing them to make their own. See the recent story of the 10 month old baby in England whose parents raised over a million dollars to bring him to the United States for a potentially life saving expirimental treatment. The NHS stepped in and refused on the grounds that it would cause the child to suffer, and they are pulling life support either today or tomorrow. For the government to not allow parents to make one desperate attempt to come to the US and save their child's life is disgusting.

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

Bad! Bad weirdo moderate hero!!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Generally I don't approve of doxxing and wouldn't want someone to do it to me. But if I got doxxed it wouldn't "ruin my life" because I'm not on the internet saying the Holocaust didn't happen and telling people to get back in the oven. Not to mention that the expectation of complete anonymity on the internet is just naive these days. So I don't really feel sorry for them. If you don't wan to get caught being a racist POS don't be a racist POS. I would and do stand by any of the opinions I post on this site in public.

The trouble with this is that the internet rumour mill will often misquote or outright fabricate transgressions if it helps "the cause". This isn't really confined to the left - it happens on the right, and to weirdly apolitical causes as well. I think the trend of doxxing as a "legitimate tactic" really is chilling, because mobs - from gamergate to those Tumblr pages that catalog people in culturally appropriative Halloween costumes - are by their very nature unforgiving and unreasonable.

I do feel sympathy for alt-righters who get doxxed, even the real dicks. I also feel the same for most anybody an internet hivemind feels pissed off enough at to target. As a tactic, it's harmful to society and - the key failing of any political tactic - doesn't really accomplish anything except allow people to reach catharsis.

The real problem is that nobody feels like they are part of an internet mob, and it's even easier to get caught up in it than an IRL mob (after all, you will never get punched in the face via screen).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Well, although I don' t have the time and energy to scrutinize the thousands of posts this individual has made, it's pretty clear that there is Atlas legal precedent when it comes to items such as trolling and hate speech.

It is also remarkably clear to me personally, that after going over eight years with no reported posts, right after I called out Sanchez on one of his Anti-Muslim rants a few months back, suddenly I had multiple reported posts....

Anyone who has followed my posting history knows that I am not an individual with any type of posts that violate the ToS, other than accidentally quoting a direct line from the Big Lebowski in an image that I posted in response to Sanchez, as well as mentioning in another thread a Homophobic assault that I experienced as a Teenager back in the late '80s.

Sanchez is an individual who is very skilled at walking the on the "right side of the crosswalk", as he basically admitted to me in a personal conversation, essentially gloating about how has said and done much worse on Atlas without sanctions....

I will leave the legal review of his posting history to others, and any decisions regarding sanctions to others, but at this point at the very least it is best just to ignore the troll, since the wheels of justice move slowly....

I have many Conservative and Libertarian Republicans that actually provide significant and meaningful contribution. Chairman Sanchez is not one of them.