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

[KingSweden]

Hell must have frozen over - I am putting a Fuzzy Bear post in here:

Private prisons are a conflict of interest.  A company that profits on the incarceration of others has the financial incentive to lobby for more restrictive drug laws, minimum-mandatory sentences that take away judicial discretion in sentencing. abolition of parole, "truth-in-sentencing" laws that minimize the possibility of early release for good behavior, and the sort of corruption that leads to inmates being unnecessarily (or even wrongly) infracted questionably for rule violations while confined that lead to loss of good time toward earlier release or a negative mark on their incarceration record that a parole board will see at a parole hearing.  To say nothing of Judges being on the take and handing out prison sentences to people who would have ordinarily received probation (e. g. first-time non-violent offenders) in order to use up "bed space", as if prison is some kind of hotel and the Judge is getting a booking fee like Expedia.

Democrats and Republicans alike spread this cancer, but the GOP is far worse, and the industry has far more GOP officials that are pretty much in their pocket.

Bullock's not the worst in this area, and I wouldn't rule him out just because of this.  It's possible that the Montana Legislature is pushing this and he has more pressing priorities.  This was, however, his chance to be part of the solution, and he passed on it.  Private Prisons are a stain and a cancer.

TBF this is an excellent post, easily the best I’ve ever seen him make

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hell must have frozen over - I am putting a Fuzzy Bear post in here:

Private prisons are a conflict of interest.  A company that profits on the incarceration of others has the financial incentive to lobby for more restrictive drug laws, minimum-mandatory sentences that take away judicial discretion in sentencing. abolition of parole, "truth-in-sentencing" laws that minimize the possibility of early release for good behavior, and the sort of corruption that leads to inmates being unnecessarily (or even wrongly) infracted questionably for rule violations while confined that lead to loss of good time toward earlier release or a negative mark on their incarceration record that a parole board will see at a parole hearing.  To say nothing of Judges being on the take and handing out prison sentences to people who would have ordinarily received probation (e. g. first-time non-violent offenders) in order to use up "bed space", as if prison is some kind of hotel and the Judge is getting a booking fee like Expedia.

Democrats and Republicans alike spread this cancer, but the GOP is far worse, and the industry has far more GOP officials that are pretty much in their pocket.

Bullock's not the worst in this area, and I wouldn't rule him out just because of this.  It's possible that the Montana Legislature is pushing this and he has more pressing priorities.  This was, however, his chance to be part of the solution, and he passed on it.  Private Prisons are a stain and a cancer.

It doesn’t seem so surprising when you realize that soneone’s worldview can be multi-faceted and not necessarily tethered to a left-right (or, from a subjective perspective, good-bad) axis. I would submit that, quite simply, Fuzzy believes in public virtue, and that this has implications that may be varied in their reception by others.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

(d) this is not a winning issue that Democrats think it is.

I'm going to not address the rest of your points right now, but I wanted to tackle this one. Why the hell should I, a private citizen, give a s**t in terms of what I think is important or interesting or worth discussing based on whether or not "swing voters" care about it? Why should any of us here?

I hate this insane "this isn't what voters care about, therefore you shouldn't talk about it" thought policing nonsense on online political forums. We're supposed to be here to discuss what we care about and think is important. If people here want to talk about health care reform or tax policy or tariffs or Russian collusion, that's all fine. Please don't tell users that certain topics are just off limits for discussion here because they're not hot-button enough political issues.

Why the hell should I care if what I talk about is an issue that gets Democrats elected or not? I'm not an employee of the Democratic Party, nor are most people here.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

(d) this is not a winning issue that Democrats think it is.

I'm going to not address the rest of your points right now, but I wanted to tackle this one. Why the hell should I, a private citizen, give a s**t in terms of what I think is important or interesting or worth discussing based on whether or not "swing voters" care about it? Why should any of us here?

I hate this insane "this isn't what voters care about, therefore you shouldn't talk about it" thought policing nonsense on online political forums. We're supposed to be here to discuss what we care about and think is important. If people here want to talk about health care reform or tax policy or tariffs or Russian collusion, that's all fine. Please don't tell users that certain topics are just off limits for discussion here because they're not hot-button enough political issues.

Why the hell should I care if what I talk about is an issue that gets Democrats elected or not? I'm not an employee of the Democratic Party, nor are most people here.

Excellent post by Mikado!

[Politician]

The problem with the Democratic party isn't whether they should stoop to Trump's level. It's that there's no long term strategy for the party, a lack of political will for passing policies the base wants, and this Pavlovian obsession for compromise and bipartisanship with the GOP even though they've shown many times they will only obstruct. Until the party leadership is purged of the Clinton-era subservience to the Republican party types...it will continue to be a low-energy outfit that barely wins elections and will never get the majorities in Congress to pass even half-assed measures.

The underlined IS the broader problem for the Democratic Party.  

If I were a Democratic Candidate and I was listening to some clown like Sarah Palin talk about how Obama "rammed through" Obamacare "without listening to the people', I would respond in debate like this:

"Your people rammed multiple tax cuts for the rich through.  Your people rammed a war based on lies through, at the expense of Gold Star Fathers, Gold Star Mothers, and deceased and wounded soldiers, sailors, and airmen.  Your people rammed through the undoing of economic regulations that made the rich and the super-rich unhappy, but which saved America from a catastrophic second financial meltdown.  Your people rammed through measures that ensured that working people would, at best, have to go into bankruptcy to continue to receive live-saving care.  And you never consulted those who suffered beforehand.  And losing care altogether is a lot bigger deal than just not being able to choose your doctor.  People are dying of no doctor at all so that the rich and the super-rich can choose who will give them their next tummy-tuck or face-lift.  So we're going to ram through the solution, with or without your help, because you and your allies have done more to hurt and cripple those in America who are working harder every day while falling out of the middle class more every day.  You and yours can just sit there and be quiet, because you're not intellectually honest enough to admit your faults, and you're too selfish to be a part of the solution to the problems you and yours have caused.

I'd like to see Democrats do THIS to Republicans non-stop.  Don't let them breathe on these points.  THIS is what will resonate, if they stick to the game plan, and not deviate with the identity politics that does nothing but allow the others to win.

[YE]

I think Kamala's a tough choice.

She's one of the most popular, mass-appealing liberal Democrats, but, as you said; it's very likely she just loses like Hillary.

I think she could do great and defeat Trump, or wreck.

She could put up 300+ EVs against Trump, or Trump could put up 300+ EVs on her, it depends on a few things.

Does she ignore the Rust Belt a la Hillary? Does she lean toward progressivism, or shift back to her liberal, corporate ways?

She could be a Bill Clinton and prove that the Democrats can win in places the GOP says their agenda is dead in, or she could be a Walter Mondale and get crushed by a rising Trump populist movement. 

She could be the new Obama '08 if she appeals to minorities and motivates the youth, or she could be the new Biden '08 if she comes off as a corporate, easily-influenced establishment Democrat during the primaries.

It's early to say about someone like Harris as compared to a more proven candidate like Sanders.

[PragmaticPopulist]

As I've said before, he is one of if not the only posters I have on ignore for reasons other than being a complete racist and slash or bastard. In his case it's simply because reading his posts literally causes brain damage.

And no, call me a meanie but I don't give a rat's ass that he's been posting on Atlas Forum long time. If someone posts a hundred pieces of drivel, they don't gain any esteem in my eyes by sticking to it and posting a thousand more pieces of drivel afterwards.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Welp, hopefully there will be time in 2019 to allocate more money when/if Democrats have substantially more power in Congress and the states. At least then we can be on better footing for 2020.

As far as 2018 goes, we'll just have to hope the previous allocation of funds and the independent efforts of social media companies and the states is enough. It's probably not, but since Republicans seem to not care, there isn't much else to be done.


Although one can't help but see the irony in this: Republicans spend years screaming about election "integrity" and how we need to have secure elections, yet when it comes time to actually secure the elections, they are not only not interested but actively fighting it. What if Democrats proposed adding national voter ID to the $250 million? Republicans would probably be tripping over each other to pass that bill.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Any god whose existence can be verified by degraded worldly "science" is not worth worshiping.

Does that mean that you reject all science or are you speaking of a certain kind of science.
It sounds like the former, but I don't like to make assumptions, so I am asking for clarification.

Let's start with science before we deal with God. Science is a particular method of experimentation that presupposes certain things about the universe it's operating: self-consistency, the existence of general principles acting upon it, reproducibility independent of who is observing, etc. Science does give us real information about the universe, but that doesn't mean it's the only source of information about the universe. In fact, the statement that science is the only method of discovering real information about the universe is self-refuting; it cannot be discovering via science. For some more pedestrian examples of information gained through avenues other than science, consider qualitative experience, thought, language, and propositions. (Sometimes people will argue over whether or not deductive reasoning should count as science, and if you think it shouldn't, since it isn't strictly developed using the scientific method, then you have another very obvious example.

The Abrahamic God is not a thing within the universe but entirely beyond it, something like the creator of a video game can't be found by wondering around the game as a player. (This analogy is imperfect because the video game designer simply builds it and walks away whereas God is still sustaining the universe in existence, but it's a good enough analogy for our purposes here.) Similarly, the simple fact that the video game contains elements that appear to players as random/stochastic/probabilistic doesn't mean it didn't have a designer.

Victor Stenger seems to be conflating (in his blog post at least) the answer to the question how with the question why. He seems very hung up on Kalam-style arguments that are related to how we have a universe but doesn't seem interested in why. Now, I'm not going to quite make the often cliche religious argument that science is about how and religion/philosophy is about why, because it's obviously more complicated than that and religion/philosophy clearly does have some things to say about how as well as why. But science does focus relentless on the question of how in such a way as to disregard why entirely (or at least it does if people take it as the only source of truth). To illustrate this point, ask why we have a liver. Science, which uses the word "why" but really means "how", will go on to describe the process of evolution that led to humans having livers. But there's more information here than just that. We have a liver to filter toxins out of our blood. Now, in that example, science is capable of demonstrating that the liver does filter toxins out of our blood and that having one is evolutionarily beneficial, but it doesn't and cannot in principle say we have a liver in order to filter toxins out of our blood. That is a statement interpreting scientific findings through a philosophy that includes teleology. Scientists, like people of most highly educated professions can sometimes tend to make the classical mistake of thinking that because they spend all day working with hammers, everything must be a nail. The non-existence of teleology is a philosophical idea that can be argued, but it must actually be defended rather than brushing over it and using the word why to mean how.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Again, if we progressives demand Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity go for the odious things they have said, we must demand that that employees at progressives institutions like MSNBC and the New York Times also go for those same reasons.

This post was enough to make me revise my opinion of NewYorkExpress from an HP to an FF!   

[Antonio the Sixth]

Posted this on another forum, decided to add it here as well:

It's a bit unfortunate in some respects that the IHRA definitions have become central to this mess, because it opens things up to bad faith barrack-room lawyering. The point isn't to impose a strict and inflexible code For All Time and to suggest unpersoning anyone who could be argued to break it if you squint, but to provide a framework through which effective and prompt action can be taken. Campaigners on this issue often prefer - at least when this is possible - for action to be educational rather than punitive, as they typically regard antisemitism as being at heart a form of malicious ignorance, one that can be countered by education.

One of the problems with antisemitism (one of the reasons why it is an unusual and unusually pernicious form of racism: most other kinds are pretty clear cut even to the most casual of observers) is that antisemites have always been very good at obfuscation and distraction, much of which turns swiftly into victim blaming: antisemitism, even in its mildest forms, tends to operate according to a very nasty form of circular logic. A detailed list of potential antisemitic arguments and tropes is thus essential: this is the point of the IHRA definitions. These definitions can, of course, be quite easily augmented and contextualised without watering them down in the slightest. This is what should have been done in Labour's case: it wouldn't have been hard and it wouldn't have been controversial - especially if it had been paired with something else Labour desperately needs, namely a transparent and comparatively independent disciplinary process.

Three further comments:

1. The present firestorm around Corbyn was triggered by an online post that had nothing to do with Israel (i.e. the mural). Berger's alarmed complaints were actually picked up pretty late by the media. Even some of the more damaging episodes from Corbyn's past that have recently emerged were unearthed not by journalists, but a left-wing anti-Corbyn academic. Of course some in the media are exploiting this for political ends, but that's how politics works: you aim at the weak spots of your opponents. Liberal/left attacks on (for instance) Trump's conduct political aspect are a case in point.
2. Even Jews philosophically opposed to Zionism will generally be a little unnerved at aggressive criticism of 'Israel' spoken or written in a certain tone and utilising certain tropes and arguments. Particularly when it comes out of nowhere, especially when it's clear aimed 'at' them. I'm a little surprised that this needs pointing out.
3. Antisemitic attitudes remain quite widespread in British society and are in no way restricted to the Left, of course. To pick just a few examples: The Daily Telegraph ran an antisemitic headline recently, Private Eye continues to publish antisemitic content and cartoons and Nigel Farage now regularly makes overtly and openly antisemitic comments. There has also been a growth of a certain sort of strange 'racial' conception of Muslims in recent years that often tips over into pretty disturbing territory. All of this is serious and needs dealing with (I mean if you are a good Civic Liberal who wishes for constructive political discourse, that is - I guess if you aren't you probably won't care), but it will not do to bring this up as a means of defence of distraction - doing so is not just cynical but stupid as it works to discredit all criticism of racism and retards any concerted attempt to do anything about any of these problems.

[IceSpear]

As we are all well aware, Democrats are the party of very rich and very high-IQ urban and suburban voters with college degrees from elite schools while Republicans are the party of poor white working class blue-collar hicks without even high school diplomas who live out in the sticks of Flyover Country and vote entirely on racism and silly Bible Belt fundamentalism and nothing else rational or remotely intelligent. This much is obvious to all educated observers.

My question is, when, if ever, will the Democrats max out their votes with their super-IQ rich urban/suburban voters and when will Republicans likewise max out their votes with the dumb-as-rocks racist, bigoted, and completely uneducated and ignorant rural white plebs of the Deliverance type countryside who vote against their own interests? Will it be in 80 years, 100 years (or longer) or never?

[Atlas Force]

Maybe - maybe not.

If this election had been held in the spring, O’Conner would have won.

If PA 18 had been held today I believe Saccone would have won.

Estes will win by a good margin in Kansas in November.  

This socialist tilt by a wing of your party is not going to be helpful to you in attracting up scale suburban Republicans.  You really need to ditch the socialists.

There maybe a Democrat Atlas red wave, but I do not fear it as much as I did yesterday.

See, this is what I just can't understand. If Danny had gotten 1 - 1.5 more point(s) or so, he'd have won, and yet in terms of actual votes, it's not that much different from losing. Would you still feel the same way if Danny won by the same amount Baldie did?

I just don't get how you are less worried. If Clinton was in the White House and a Republican almost won a D+7 district that Clinton won by 11 points, and months ago Rs won a D+11 district, I would be crippled by anxiety about the thrashing Republicans were about to deliver to my party in November. That you can't or won't see these signs for what they are is puzzling.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

An awful human being and war criminal who led a presidency defined by failure and malevolence. The idea that he should be given plaudits for giving a few pretty speeches on 9/11 is sickening: it was his administration that sleptwalked on the issue of terrorism (focusing on geopolitics instead) and ignored warning signs (this is not to lend credence to the disgusting conspiracy theories of truthers, but a competent administration could have stopped it even without the expanded security state enforced after 9/11). The administration then whipped up a hysterical tubthumping nationalist sentiment through the pliant media, which they used as reason to ram through agendas unrelated to the attacks, notably the long-term GOP goal to remove Saddam Hussein, invading Iraq in a flagrantly illegal act that eroded international goodwill and diverted attention away from Afghanistan and, um, finding Osama Bin Laden and the men actually responsible for the attacks.

Not even getting into the folly of the surreally irresponsible Bush Tax Cuts, lumbering around in the financial crisis with Paulson letting Lehman fail, putting some dude from the Arabian Horsefondlers Association in charge of FEMA and subsequently, letting Katrina drown, the hilariously blunder filled Medicare Part D, the worse than useless NCLB, the anti gay hysteria calculated to win a few measly votes in Ohio, the failed attempts to privatise Social Security, the Flag Desecration amendment, the pervasive anti-intellectualism, the punting on climate change etc.

I remember seeing something that was really indicative to what kind of man Bush is. He was being interviewed about his painting career or whatever, and the dude asked him what the worst moment of his presidency was. A normal person - someone with moral scruples - would have said something meaningful like, I dunno, the realisation that his actions had left scores of American young soldiers or Iraqis or New Orleans residents dead. His response was that he felt affronted when Kanye West called him racist. What a goddamn gutless coward! You create untold misery in the lives of the non-elite with your blundering and disregard for human life in the pursuit of the greater good; and then you have the tenacity to play victim cause some rapper was a bit mean on the teevee?

[Intell]

There have been more words written about Healthcare.  I see no reason why we can't have a Canadian-style healthcare system in America, except for the faux issues that are raised.

"You won't be able to choose your doctor!".  Can people do this now?  Or do they have to go to the Doctor "on the plan", assuming they have a "plan"?  When you're suddenly sick, do you go to your "Family Doctor"?  Or is he/she booked up to where you go to a walk-in clinic?  

I will never, never, never say that America has "the greatest healthcare system in the world".  Why would I say this when so many cannot access its greatness for lack of funds, and others can't access it without going bankrupt?  Go into your local ER sometime and check out the indigents there.  You can see things like people with broken bones leaving with a splint, but the bone not really set, and a "referral" to an orthopedist for a consultation that they can't pay for (let alone the cost of the treatment).  Or people with all sorts of missing teeth and gum disease that hasn't been treated and never will be.  The last time I was there, I sat across from a middle aged lady with ongoing unmanaged asthma who had come down with bronchitis that she feared had turned into pneumonia; she was treating herself with over-the-counter inhalers because she couldn't afford the costs of seeing the doctor in order to keep her prescriptions up, and she couldn't afford the prescriptions with her present cost of housing.  (She waited almost an hour before they brought her back to a room; a new privatized entity had taken over management of the ER.)  She told me that she worked 50 hours a week, but this was at two  (2) separate part-time jobs, neither of which offered health insurance.

I will say that I am not convinced that most Republicans, and even a lot of well-off Democrats, give a crap about the sick and suffering in America.  They grouse about "Medicaid", but what is that grousing saying?  Is that grousing their expressed desire to see the "welfare poor" suffer their illnesses without "costing them money" the way the working poor that don't qualify for means-tested healthcare do?  All this talk about taxes and financial responsibility; I get that, but these folks who seem to hate universal public healthcare NEVER HAVE A PLAN FOR THE UNINSURED TO RECEIVE HEALTHCARE WITHOUT BECOMING DESTITUTE.  They become defensive when they are accused of a posture of "Let 'em suffer!", or even "Let 'em die!", but, honestly, what to Ted Cruz's words imply?  Or the words of the Death and Suffering Freedom Caucus?

And I will give a shout-out to Donald Trump on this.  Trump is a guy that I believed understood that you can't have a middle class society when people are dying in the streets from lack of healthcare in great numbers, but his advocacies today are leading to just exactly that.  He knows better, but he wanted a "win" and a political alliance, so he's abandoned what he appeared to know for being buds with Jim Jordan and that other moron from North Carolina whose name escapes me now.  This is the main reason I state that I have not decided whom I will vote for in 2020 as of yet.

But, no, we don't have the greatest Healthcare system in the world.  If we provide the most up to date Rolls Royces for the government bureaucrats of Cuba, they won't have the best automobiles in the world, either.

Fyck me when Trump supporter Fuzzy Bear can make better points than hack centrist dems.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[Quote Deleted]

I'm absolutely done with you. You've become a worthless poster. Off to the ignore list, with the likes hofoid, forever.

[Horus]

So one doesn't have the right to wear it "of their own accord"? Are we going to arrest little old Russian women for wearing the scarf over their heads?

I agree that this is not a simple question, but to be required to cover one's entire face ought to be questionable on its face.

I simply don't believe that people do this truly on free will.  I believe that they are coerced.

We have unmasking laws for "secret societies" in public (i. e. the Ku Klux Klan).  We have laws adding to the penalties for wearing masks in robberies.  Banks nowadays request that I remove my hat and sunglasses.  Are there going to be special exceptions to cater to Sharia misogyny on this?

I agree it's not an easy question.  There are arguments on both sides.  I view the practice as oppression of women, and I don't wish for it to be protected in law, or in practice, in the US.  And I want men who attach importance to women wearing these burqas to get the message that "We don't do this here!".  Indeed, there are a number of things that should be reflected in our laws that tell foreigners who with to reside in the US, "We don't do that here!".  Because the reason we don't do "that" is to protect our system of government and our system of individual liberties for all. 

I'm perfectly willing to cede a couple of points to the pro-ban crowd, but I don't think they can all be taken at once, and this in general has been a part of my disaffection from a lot of political organizations. For those saying that this is a Christian society, and such empowers the government as our representative to ban certain non-Christian religious practices, fine, sure, but that is a necessarily distinct argument from those saying that we need to reinforce a secular society. The double edged sword of using religious/ethnic identity in speaking to one crowd, and then shouting about secularism and liberal values to another for the sake of the same goal strikes me as either dishonest or stupid. In such a vein, it makes me uneasy to see people that are either very religious, or very attached to a religious identity, talk about the need to regulate another religion. Given the rate at which social change is happening in this country, and that there are those already who would seek to curb certain "freedoms"--homeschooling, private schooling, tax exemption status, etc.--no one should be surprised when "They Come For You". Should there ever be a committed, secular political majority in the United States, it's going to look very hypocritical when conservatives talk about religious freedom to protect themselves from the types of measures they sought to enact on the basis of "secularism". This same dichotomy of secular and religious talking points (dependent on audience, of course) is why I have a hard time of seeing conservative complaints about Islam's "theocratic" nature in general as sincere or far-sighted. That we have a strong Christian tradition in this country is without doubt. That we also are a society that, from its basis, has made pluralism--sometimes overenthusiastic pluralism--a core value, is also true. That said, these two systems have often run aground each other even as they have been allies. For all the sensationalism, I have a hard time seeing the "secular" rationale behind a ban of any sort of religious clothing not becoming a weapon in someone else's hands later.

If a burqa ban is deemed necessary for public safety, then by all means, but that's not a conclusion I think we should jump to lightly, and would need to be backed up by research--not that our lawmakers would ever let intellectual inquiry inform their decisions.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context

I believe that commenting on this thread is proving to be, and will be, completely unproductive, and will join most forum Jews in ignoring it henceforth. Arguing with people who'd defend anyone in their ideological sphere, or just outright racists, is never productive (as we can see in arguments with frevent Trumpists) I'll just say this- the Jewish people will never again be tormented and persecuted without any escape. All those who call us thin-skinned or prescribe us cannabis after previously posting racist statements about Jews, and just a little bit after a comment mocking our countless tragedies, because we dare being worried about our fates a few decades after a genocide- we don't care. You keep calling us what you want, we should just keep fighting to protect ourselves and combat the worldwide trends in both the left and right.
Cheers

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I can not believe I am actually quoting this poster here:

Once again those tweets were NOT AN ISSUE. the only outlets reporting on them were Breitbart-esque right wing blogs that obviously your typical MN-05 voter doesn't pay attention to.

If Minneapolis was full of voters with a burning raging desire to throw all Jews into the sea then I'd wager they probably wouldn't have elected a Jewish mayor last year.

Yeah, like I said, that's probably why Haaretz didn't even mention it. It's just not widely-known, which to me is sad because it shows the media is too absorbed in identity politics (of both sides) to raise serious issues and make politicians face them.

Look Wyman, you can keep deferring this if you want, but the stuff is stacking up for Omar. She has very strong performances in Jewish areas, she has strong endorsements from many Jewish individuals in the community such as Frey, Applebaum, Freitag, Multiple Bernie groups, etc. apparently you say Haaretz is favorable to her now, etc. You can make excuses or try and spin it a certain way for each of these points, but at a certain point, it becomes obvious where the stuff is stacking up.

Also for those of my fellow friends with a pro-Palestine sentiment, just learn to brush it off when people call you an anti-semite or a prick or a racist, and draw horrific comparisons, etc. Your beef with Israel and support of Palestine alone does not make you these things, and know this is just a talking point and a distraction.

As for people with a Pro-Israel sentiment, I want you to know that most everybody is not out to get you or wishes your country or people to be destroyed, most people like me really just want to live side by side in peace.

[wesmoorenerd]

The coordinated campaign is placing field organizers in Rome and Dalton. Neither have had staffers deployed to my knowledge since 2008, and even then, they were volunteers as best as I can recall.

The fact that she's even making any sort of effort toward Northern Georgia at all proves to me that she's a dynamic candidate.  Most Dems would write that area off.

TBH though this kind of activity is a classic double standard. Right now we are exalting her for reaching out to areas that are typically off the map, but if she loses we will be blaming her for sending resources to areas she shouldn't have. It is not that it doesn't deserve attention, it is just that we the observers will overplay its significance - in either direction.

I don't think anybody who knows the entirety of Georgia and its demographics would make such a diagnosis after the fact (though, to be fair, there are plenty in the party who think that way). It is North Georgia and North Georgia alone that has been denying Democrats victory over the past 10 years, and abandoning the region has only ceded ground to the GOP and atrophied Democratic infrastructure. We've lost a vote statewide for every one we've gained since 2008 and much of it comes from North Georgia. I'd argue that for any persuasion-based outreach, North Georgia is the most opportune area for GA Democrats to learn how to master the strategy in rural areas again, but given its low turnout and huge drop-offs in midterms (particularly in the NW), turnout strategies can produce results as well.

Democrats need to close the margin by like 275k votes to win a majority and you're only realistically going to get half of that out of Metro ATL; maybe another 20% of that out of the remaining urban areas if you're lucky. That leaves another 100k votes or so that have to come from rural Georgia, and South Georgia doesn't have anywhere near enough population to pull those kinds of figures.

Georgia is not Illinois. You cannot win a majority statewide by assuming the major metro can carry the state across the line kicking and screaming (yet). A Democratic candidate who doesn't seriously contest every region of the state is not a serious candidate, and isn't going to win because the votes just aren't there otherwise. We've been in a situation for awhile now where if we could just pull the numbers among whites or rural voters that we had 4-6 years prior, we'd be on the verge of winning pluralities at minimum, but abandoning the areas where those losses are occurring only ensures one set of demographics is cancelled out by the other.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Somehow as absolutely horrible as something is in reality, people are always able to find a way of making an absurd hyperbole around it.

There are ways of being appropriately harsh about this without denigrating and dismissing every other aspect of the Catholic church and the priests and lay people within it who are standing up against this and calling the hierarchy to account.

It's also not clear to me exactly how much worse the Catholic church was in this time frame when most of these events occurred than other institutions.  It may have been, but how do we know?  Others shouldn't be cocky without holding up their own groups to scrutiny.

what other institution could even come close, is there some other group that the Catholic church is in competition with?  College sports organizations?  They've had 2 high profile cases in the last decade, horrible.  Lets say it's really bad and there are ten times more of these things going on that we don't know about and lets be generous to "the Church" and say every single case of abuse in the Church has been uncovered, the numbers still aren't close....at all.

I guess I also don't understand the attachment to the church...do you really think being a Catholic is the ONLY way to get to Jesus?  That's what we were taught in S.Baptist circles (that Catholics don't play well with other Christian organizations)...but we were taught a lot sh**t about Catholics and only some of it ended up being true, is this one true too?  Do you really think heaven is out of reach for you if you start going to Lutheren church to do your "Christianity"?

[kyc0705]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

[Atlas Force]

I'm very familiar with West Virginia and it's hard for me to imagine many people taking this seriously, much less actually going through with it and writing Paula Jean in. As others in this thread and elsewhere said, a lot of Paula Jean's numbers in the primary were from protest votes and Dixecrats who still haven't switched their registration (a big problem Democratic campaigns in WV and Kentucky have to deal with). While there were some sincere Paula Jean voters, not all were. And just because those sincere voters supported her in the primary doesn't mean they're going to write her in. Especially considering WV's problems at the moment, such as the coup that pushed out the WV Supreme Court. Democrats and those leaning Democrat are acutely aware of how serious things are in the state right now, and though Manchin is a federal politician and has little to do with state issues, he's a part of the puzzle state Democrats are trying to put together in November.

It should also be noted that Paula Jean has, rather unceremoniously, shot whatever future political career she may have had square in the back of the head. She was never going to be a US Senator or anything, but there was some rumbling about maybe her running for a State Delegate seat or something small. No more. The state Democratic Party was never fond of her in the first place, but they tolerated her. They're going to be out for blood now.

[Atlas Force]

(whataboutism deleted)

Neither the campus nor the local government want the monument to slavery there, but NC’s autocratic government has banned local governments from removing statues. When you shut down democracy, you get extralegal violence.

This. While I'm not supportive of mob vandalism, on the other Hand LITERALLY  the ONLY other way the student body could've gotten rid of the statute was to somehow undo the excruciating level of GOP gerrymandering the entire state is subject to, win a majority (if not a supermajority) of the state leg, keep the governors office, in order to legislatively allow home rule on such matters.

Or, they could've, and did, eventually say "we've petitioned, we've asked, we protested, and a bunch of elderly "reformed" white supremacists hundreds of miles from here continually said "screw you".

It just dawned on me how snowflakey these right wingers are. They have to have immediate near unrestrained access to assault rifles in order to take "direct action" (i.e. killing feds) against even the THEORY of the government taking away our local rule. But in any actual case of completely ignoring local rule for ages an they get turned inside out over a statue specifically erected by white supremacists being toppled as "the beginning of mob rule.

[IceSpear]

The whole Trump thing reminds me of Whitewater, where a minor nothingburger was given lives of its own by the political enemies of a President to enable a Special Prosecutor with a vengeance to go far afield to dig until something stuck, and then came impeachment and a trial.  It didn't work out well for Bill Clinton's enemies, and I'm predicting in the end that this matter isn't going to do much more damage to Trump.

1. I really don't think it's fair to compare Starr and Mueller. Starr was blatantly partisan, leaked like crazy and seemed to want to spread out as far as possible (based on my understanding of a 20+ year old investigation). Mueller's investigation has been fast, more or less leak-free and is run by someone who most pols on each side of the aisle expressed admiration and respect for. Further, he is a Republican, overseen by another Republican, investigating a Republican president. If politics is as cynical as people think, this is the best Trump could have fared if he was destined to wind up with a special counsel investigation.

2. It's debatable just how much you could argue Mueller's investigation is sprawling. He's still investigating the original crimes, and people caught up in it that seem like they are way "off-topic" are either in his scope because he's trying to leverage for cooperation and/or because it was impossible to ignore the crimes even if he tried. Manafort is an excellent example of that. Mueller probably has reason to believe he could know things, and encountered a massive amount of criminal behavior in his investigation. Even if Mueller didn't have any use for him, it would be malpractice (in my opinion) to not pursue charges, even if Mueller just opted to hand it off to another department. Trump and his cronies should not be let off the hook if Mueller/other investigators stumble across their crimes anyway.

If you really want to make the case that this is a true witch hunt, come back in a couple years after Mueller has basically concluded the original case but for some reason, shows no signs of stopping and is currently investigating and indicting people in connection to a completely new scandal that is outside the scope of the original investigation. Then I agree, you'd definitely have something there. But as it stands now, I think this witch hunt claim is unfair to Mueller.

The goal here by Trump's enemies was to convince America that he was the Manchurian Candidate.  (Actually, "B-1 Bob" Dornan tried to do that to Clinton as well, in regards to his college trip to the USSR.)  They'll prove that Trump "colluded" (not a crime, but it sounds yucky) with Russia.  After almost 2 years, there's no reason to believe that what people REALLY want to prove is that Trump is a Russian Spy.  What they've proven is that a political consultant launders money and a lawyer made an illegal campaign contribution.

Admittedly, wandering into a place like Daily Kos at times looks like a leftist fever dream, with people fully ready to believe Trump is communicating with handlers on a regular basis. But a great many of us, perhaps even most, just believe that Trump made opportunistic plays to leverage Russian assistance in an election even he was convinced he was losing.

I've thought about this a lot, and I'm actually fully prepared to believe that, at most, Trump is guilty of knowing about the hacked emails/data ahead of time and offering instructions on what he wants done with it, which afaik would be a fairly serious crime, given that it would essentially make him a party to a major violation of the CFAA, which hackers regularly get sentenced bigly for. I also think it's probable that Trump's Russian business dealings have left him vulnerable, and he has probably made some changes to both Republican Party policy and govt policy to stay in the good graces of Russians he is involved with. This is actually the least interesting possibility of the whole ordeal, since we already know he has received a lot of money from Russia due to numerous statements by his son(s) and Trump rather blatantly holds a major soft spot for Russia that lacks any other believable explanation.

I don't think it's that much more complex. For instance, if it was, (1) why were so many people in Trump's orbit reaching out to Russia to set up meetings? If there was a direct link at the top, they wouldn't need to do this and would probably be discouraged not to. (2) If there was -full- coordination, why did Russians start trying to hack Clinton's various accounts when Trump publicly asked them to at a campaign speech/press conf.? They wouldn't do it then if they were in communication, because Trump would have already asked them. The most likely explanation is, like I said, Trump saw an opportunity offered by a hostile foreign power and took it - rather haphazardly, too. Far from a smart, complex conspiracy but still a conspiracy nonetheless.

But not being more complex doesn't mean it isn't any less serious. If those^ theories turned out to be true, I believe that would absolutely be grounds for removal from office and prosecution.

Might Trump have committed felonies?  Of course it's possible, but Mueller is not any closer to proving this now than he was a year ago.

How do you know that though? Mueller has made pretty fast work of a lot of indictments, including a very complex untangling of Russian military officers and their roles in the conspiracy to meddle in our election, and that takes time. If Mueller has more indictments to drop closer to Trump himself, it makes since that he would wait until the end, because he can be fired at any moment by Trump (or rather, a new acting AG). This, by the way, is probably the most dumbfounding flaw in the American government's design - letting the president manage investigations into themselves.

The worst that will come of this is a blue wave.  The worst that will come of Mueller long-term is Trump's re-election defeat.  But he won't be removed from office.  He won't resign.  And he won't because Mueller doesn't have enough to make that happen.

This seems accurate, but mostly because Trump probably won't resign and won't be removed because Congressional Republicans are scared of losing their jobs to GOP voters in love with Trump, and won't break with him over anything, except maybe short of him shooting someone on 5th Ave, on video tape, holding a sign that says "I am Donald Trump", with his passport (opened) taped to his chest and a personal photo album confirming its him taped to his ass. So, really, Mueller can't ever find enough to make it happen, because the people who decide Trump's fate are absurdly biased and conflicted, and thus have nearly impossible demands.