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

[James Monroe]

History - including recent history - has done a marvelous job of showing us that hawkish =/= right wing, and dovish =/= left wing.

Exactly. Foreign policy operates on a political plane almost completely divorced from domestic politics - you have people of all political stripes being nationalists/internationalists or isolationists/interventionists. 

Actual progressives aren't crazy hawks.

Actual progressives don't form personality cults.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I think the important thing to keep in mind here are the trends. Trends of Virginia are quite reliable since they take swings but adjust for national swing. I also think Kamala’s logo of being for the people is a very good one for most states. Virginia being a state means that they will also like her logo. Referring back to my point about trends being swings adjusted for the national swing, I can conclude using data from useelectionatlas.org that the state of Virginia has in fact trended for Dems a lot. This type of trend is curious as it would imply that Kamala Harris would do better in Virginia. We must wisely sit back and realize that this is not the full picture. Now going back to Kamala’s logo of being for the people: does this apply to Virginia? One must ask oneself if it does, so does it? After thorough research I have concluded that Virginia does indeed have people occupying inside of it. Given this fact, Virginia will like kamala’s Logo. Liking a logo doesn’t necessarily mean that one will get votes though. We must then consider just who exactly votes in the state of Virginia. According to Wikipedia, people in a given state that are registered to vote do indeed have the capacity to vote. Virginia as we mentioned earlier is a state in the US. Using logical deduction we can conclude that people in Virginia do vote. So now that we have that established, will these Virginia voters vote for Harris? Well this is where things get exciting. Kamala Harris is running as a Democrat and not a Republican. I like this. But before we can proceed, it must be stated that Ralph Northam is a black man trapped inside a white girl’s body. I have deduced this logically using my study of phrenology and examine Ralph Northam’s skull that this is indeed the case. As we now know, Kamala Harris is a black woman via genetic sciencism. Therefore if it is indeed the case that Virginia voters do not like black men trapped inside white girls bodies then Kamala Harris will be helped by blackface in Virginia.

There are a number of stupid points in this incoherent post. So lets start breaking it down by talking about superposition. Two different states can be superimposed and this will create another quantum state. By using my quantum computer (a metaphor for my mind), I can create a scientific model that evaluates the effects of Northam's blackface. Blackface is when you paint your face black. This is a very bad thing to do because many black people were stereotyped in horribly offensive movies. One stereotype I find very harmful is "guido" because I am an Italian who wears jewlery and obsesses over my body. Italians are a bloc that shifted massively to Trump, but are open to voting for "one of them" (e.g Andrew Cuomo, Max Rose). Kamala Harris has alienated many potential voters - one statistical study shows that people who wear black face actually start voting more democratic because they start identifying with the color of their face and start voting more democratic. This is incredibly racist but is a way that dems can gain more votes. Is it racist to encourage black face if it creates enough democratic votes to the point where they can beat a white supremacist (Donald Trump) in 2020?

After carefully deliberating with the thoughts in my incredibly powerful mind, I have decided that I will not engage with your petty insults head on. I believe that this would be both demeaning to myself and to the proud posters and viewers uselectionatlas.org. I have considered reporting your post for violating the Terms of service but unfortunately my mother informed me that snitches get stitches. With that being said, it would be pathetic to me to not respond to such a disgustingly barbaric shortsighted ridiculous ignorant post. Regarding the idea of state superimposition, this was a basic stateological fact for most of American history. The unraveling of state superimposition came during the American Revolutionary War when West Virginia and Virgin brokeup since the western part fought for the cowboys and the Virgin part fought for the Crown. The lack of basic history lessons presented to you amazes me and everyone here. Furthermore the concept of being able to superimpose states back together after they have been deconstructed via the process to fragmentization is beyond preposteorus. The only time this has ever occurred is when the lake of Tahoe in California was lost by Nevada Chieftan Slapahoe to William Tahoe of California. Why would a single isolated historical event ever repeat itself like that? Furthermore it’s crystal clear that blackface is indeed a type of religious ritual. Governor John Northam did not engage in a racist act since a racist act would violate his first amendment right to practice his religious ritiual. I am unaware of any type of behavior that has led to somebody named Kamala Harris cresting a time fracturing using transcendental robot mutant bots to win over more Virgin state voters. If this were the case, how would it have created an Italian like yourself? I do not believe in Italians since I have an Irish Y chromosome. This indicates that I am short in height, short in temper, and short in member length. I do not view these things as appropriate forms of discussion on this website so I will refrain from commenting further about my ancestral being. The art of winning more voters via the process of skin morphing is one not seen since Eric Bana’s wonderful performance in Ang Lee’s 2003 film Hulk. In the film, the Hulk becomes green whenever he’s angry as a means of fighting bad guys. I believe that this is a 16 year analogy leading to the climate of 2019 where we have black lives matter and Rachel dolezal skin morphing the Chicano youth into voting for their sports team known as the Democratic Patty. The Patty is in reference to the fact that Irish ancestry fought and died to create the Party and subsequently got to rename the Party after their most infamous Saint, Saint Paddicus. Will the Saint Paddicus Dems be capable of defeating Orange County skin tone Donaldo Trumpez wannabe King Donald I in 2020 of November? I do not know but neither do you. We shall see.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

(snip)

(Snip)

(Snip)

Damn, it got funnier since I posted the first post in one of the other best of Atlas threads.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I think Sisolak speaks for all the men of America. 

[MATTROSE94]

Sanders is not winning Ohio or Florida.

I feel like the guy in SpongeBob. "How many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man?"

Ohio is not a tossup state, it's Lean R at the very least. Sanders is also not winning Florida with his views. It's a Tilt R state, and the vast majority of Cubans won't vote for a socialist. Not to mention Florida has recently gone for the incumbent frequently (Obama 2012, Bush 2004, Clinton 1996, Bush 1992, Reagan 1984.)

I supported Sanders in 2016, but it's more likely than not that he loses these two if he ran.

[bagelman]

Sanders is not winning Ohio or Florida. I am smarter and more insightful then people who actually live in Ohio or Florida. I believe my interpretation of political trends is objectively correct.

You have never been to Ohio and you're just dumping subjective opinions you agree with right into the good posts gallery.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Sanders is not winning Ohio or Florida. I am smarter and more insightful then people who actually live in Ohio or Florida. I believe my interpretation of political trends is objectively correct.

You have never been to Ohio and you're just dumping subjective opinions you agree with right into the good posts gallery.

You are not your state.

[bagelman]

Sanders is not winning Ohio or Florida. I am smarter and more insightful then people who actually live in Ohio or Florida. I believe my interpretation of political trends is objectively correct.

You have never been to Ohio and you're just dumping subjective opinions you agree with right into the good posts gallery.

You are not your state.

My opinion is not objectively correct, however that in itself does not prove the opposing view correct. Nor does it prove that the preceding post is quite good enough to belong here.

[YE]

I'd like to think I'm usually a fairly realistic person when it comes to the performance of the GOP in the South, and what chances both they and Democrats have in various places.

With that being said, I see no viable, realistic path for the GOP to hold onto this seat. Gwinnett is one of those places where even somebody like me can turn their head for a few months and already be out of touch with how much demographic shift and growth has occurred in a broader area. It's changing faster than SoCal. It's changing faster than NoVA. I'm not sure there's even a place anywhere in the country that is comparable to it in this regard (maybe another area within the broader metro).

Democrats won't need it to be a good year for them to win. Hell, the GOP could probably win the House PV and this district would still have a decent chance of flipping. Besides the huge rate of demographic turnover and growth, this is also ground zero in GA for Latino and Asian voters (who, while turning out in big numbers in 2018 like everybody else, still lagged the electorate as a whole - their turnout will be higher in 2020, with or without Abrams).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Write-in: when more than one accuser comes forward. Usually that indicates a pattern of behavior and usually are just as accurate as the first accuser. When the numbers increase so does the likelihood of guilt and the pressure for that accused person to face some sort of consequence.

If it's just one accuser entirely though, if they can clearly and concisely recollect the incident with at least some corroboration and is a severe enough accusation, that is usually enough for me. Accusers do not want attention or "fame" for bringing these to light. Often they don't even want the accused in question to be punished. They just want to be heard and to be believed.

 False accusations do happen sometimes, but those usually fall apart on their own and are still rarer than likely or outright true accusations and shouldn't be used as a shield to protect the accused from consequences in every circumstance.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

According to my source (I wrote a few posts like this in this thread with informations about Democratic primaries) there is some kind of infighting between Sanders and Warren about staffers, donors, money,  or simply who is better candidate of progressive wing in these primaries and whole elections and stuff.

That is not good news for progressives.

i not know this.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't get what's so hard to understand. Evangelicals aren't voting for a pastor or a religious authority who they want to model their life after. They're voting for a warrior to protect their way of life against an increasingly threatening society. He seems to be performing that role quite well so far.

     It is hard to understand because many here subscribe to a rationalist delusion wherein they assume that people choose who they support based on weighting a matrix of all political issues. The overwhelming majority of voters support candidates based on cultural considerations, and they may also care about a handful of issues that relate to those cultural considerations. You understand this, but the political nerd types that are overrepresented on Atlas never will and instead seek to clumsily fit a liberal activist worldview on Evangelicals (a worldview that presupposes conservative Christianity as an evil creed, thereby requiring an assumption of bad faith to make the narrative come together).

I don't think conservative Christians are evil by virtue of being conservative Christians. I think they are so obsessed with their cultural preferences being upheld that they'll embrace evil to work on their behalf without any considerations to the long term damage they are enabling.

     When the alternative entails significant long-term damage as well and seems all the more inexorable given the trends of the past few decades, it becomes easier to take a risk and embrace someone you probably should not.

Yes, I realize that's how they feel. What they seem to have trouble grasping is that by signing onto that Faustian bargain, they paint a massive target on their backs to be ridiculed and condemned for resorting to nihilistic power grabbing as a compensation for their psychological angst. Their behavior represents the shameful cowardice groups will sometimes turn towards during their most vulnerable and insecure moments. Al summarized quite nicely when describing his changing thoughts on how social conservatives should approach politics how the religious right entered into the political foray under the arrogant assumption that they held cultural hegemony. That has blown up in their faces and now they are scrambling to guarantee some form of political security in the face of a society that is rapidly shifting away from their cultural paradigms. After decades of growth through cannibalizing other sects' adherents, Evangelicals are now suffering the same decline that has already befallen Mainline Protestants and Catholics. Among Millenials, Evangelical representation has collapsed to the same ratio as Mainlines, about 10% each.

They want a future in which they still feel relevant on the national stage, or at least secure from hostilities. The way they have gone about doing this, by embracing Trump, will achieve the exact opposite. They are alienating almost everybody that resides outside of their circles by so fiercely attaching themselves to such a divisive and polarizing figure. If Evangelicals decided to follow the example of somebody like Russell Moore in order to guide them in these times of decline, I doubt they would be generating anywhere near the amount of backlash as they have with their ethically bankrupt embrace of Trump. That would require acceptance of the present twilight and a turn towards self-reflection and internal reform, something most Evangelicals apparently have no interest in right now, given the amount of heat Moore has taken from others within the SBC for even daring to suggest it. They continue this stubborn refusal towards introspection by acting as the main roadblock towards any internal partisan accountability towards Trump. They are why Republican officials and operatives are so afraid to criticize him, because Evangelicals are so opposed to anything other than lockstep loyalty. They care only about getting their policy preferences pushed through and favored judges appointed and don't give a damn about what abuses of power Trump is carrying out in return, so what good does introspection do for them? Every wrongdoing that Trump commits, they are his accomplices by shielding him from accountability and demanding that their elected officials and media pundits do the same. Yes, they will be judge in accordance with that, as they should be.

Evangelicals have embraced Trump out of desperation and in the process have backslid into transactional morality and hypocrisy. I recognize many like Fuzzy Bear keep trying to make the case that Evangelicals are not hypocrites for supporting Trump, and to his credit, Fuzzy Bear is heads and shoulders above the average Evangelical when it comes to ethics. But he and the writer in the article he linked are wrong, they are hypocrites. It may have been a rationally chosen hypocrisy elected due to how unpalatable the main alternative was, but it is hypocrisy nonetheless. These are the same people that spent decades warning us how dangerous the moral decay of self-indulgence was to the harmony of American society and have now demonstrated that wisdom by becoming its main purveyors and elevating the most narcissistic, reprehensible man in living memory to the most powerful office of the land and providing him a carte blanche.

Evangelicals may have rationalized their support for Trump, but they have not come to terms with the inevitable consequences. People will judge them by their actions and the actions of those they declare as their representatives, and the vileness of Trump speaks for itself. The belief they've internalized that they must alleviate their decline through national politics speaks for how ill-advised it is to graft an entire theological perspective so close to the bones of a singular partisan perspective. Evangelicals are now political creatures first and Christians second, just observes how many Evangelicals leaders have been gushing over their unfettered access to the halls of power under Trump. They consider this a golden age for political inclusion. They seem utterly oblivious to the inexorable reality, that this will be remembered as a time of shame that stains the legacy of Evangelicalism as they sold their souls for short-term access to power.

They didn't have to go down this route, there are alternative redoubts for Evangelicals to retreat to. The situation is not as desperate as they've made it out to be in their minds, Christians, even conservative Christians, will never be persecuted to the degree that the religious right has sought to persecute others. They could have decided to go down Moore's path of disengaging from partisan politics and turning their collective gaze inwards towards personal reform and maintenance, or even Al's suggestion of localizing political activities. In time, they may still decided to go down these paths instead as the inevitable reality comes to pass. For now, they have chosen Trump, a choice that has denigrated their integrity, serves them up as a negative example for all else to heed for what not to do in times of duress, and alienated their fellow Americans as they continue their fall from grace. This thread demonstrates how most Evangelicals have yet to accept the consequences of their choices.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Been reading about 19th century US political history recently, and I cannot believe how utterly contemptuous the Whig Party was on almost every level. It's not so much that their policies sucked, in fact they were probably better than Democrats on the issues (although that doesn't mean very much), but that they were the lamest bunch of boring Moderate Heroes, whose uniting ideology seems to have been "nationalism is good, guys!" while being totally devoid of of political principle in letting literal secessionists into the party even though they completely disagreed with the Whig platform, just because they wanted more votes. And even worse than that, they sucked. All the Whig Presidents were either incredibly terrible, died in office, weren't actually Whigs or were some combination of the three. Their most prominent political leader was a perennial loser in Presidential contests. In 1836 the party ran with the dumbest Electoral College strategy in the history of American politics. And as soon as slavery became the top national issue the Whig Party was wiped out because they couldn't formulate a stance on slavery other than "please don't talk about it". Good riddance.  

It's like if the Democratic Party collapsed after a Trump landslide so the Resistance joined forces with NeverTrumpers to form an opposition party based on bland slogans of constitutionalism and national prosperity with a centrist technocratic economic policy, and for President they decided to run generals with zero political experience all the time because hey everyone loves war heroes. Oh, and they're also the ones who engage in xenophobic immigrant-baiting too. Man I hate the Whigs.

[Sestak]

Can you self-fellating hacks PLEASE shut the hell up about Which Party Has More Antisemites??? Whichever party it's coming from, it's not acceptable. And yes, there's a difference between observing that Israel has an unusually powerful policy lobby in the United States and claiming that Those People have wholesale "bought" our political leadership, which is what Omar is doing.

[Horus]

I see. The president supports people who chant "The Jew's will not replace us" but pointing out obvious corruption from foreign powers that bomb innocent Palestinians is the actual anti semitism...the definition of irony.

[Boobs]

You have phrased those options in such a way that you would have to be frothingly insane to choose the second option.

Regardless, AIPAC is too powerful because the way we run our legislature is based on lobbying. AIPAC is too powerful because they are lobbyists and all lobbyists are too powerful.

There is no legitimate reason to single out AIPAC for being very effective at their job. There is no legitimate reason to oppose a two-state solution. There is no legitimate reason to insist that international law does not apply to Israel. There is no legitimate reason to insist that Israel does not have the right to protect its borders.

Israel is not some magical paradise that can just up and defend itself with thoughts and prayers. Israel needs allies and we are one of those allies. That doesn't mean we can't disagree with them and disagree loudly if need be -- it is far easier and more effective to work with allies toward compromise than to make enemies of entire regions, and if nothing else, we have to work with what we have at the moment.

Obviously, Israel has no excuse for human rights violations. No nation does. That has never stopped us from working with those nations before, and to single out Israel on that charge, to pretend that so much of the rest of the world is not doing equally bad things, is an antisemitic position. Not everyone who makes that charge is doing so consciously, granted, but whether a given individual is behaving knowingly or unthinkingly is outside the scope of this present discussion. The point is, it is the wrong thing to do.

EDIT: Also, because I forgot to point this out, antisemitism is just as much a social justice issue as anything else. Anything else is patent hypocrisy. I'm glad that many Republicans are willing to call out antisemitism because it's a point where they and I agree. This is not a partisan issue -- nor should be racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, ageism, or any other question of bigotry and social power dynamics. The fact that conservatives are more readily and reliably willing to talk about antisemitism does not mean that the elimination of antisemitism ought just be a conservative position. That is reductionist, mean-spirited, and lives hang literally in the balance of such a question.

[YE]

I don't want him to be the nominee, but I have no problem with Sanders jumping in.  He'll help hold the frontrunners accountable on economic issues, he won't be the nominee, he'll help energize a segment of the base that can be hard to reach, and he was an exceptionally good team-player after losing last time around (that really impressed me and AFAIK he actually demanded far fewer concessions from Hillary in return than Hillary did from Obama in 2008, to say nothing of Bill's behavior).  I can happily say that I don't regret voting for him in the 2016 primary in the least.  Ultimately, I think Sanders brings an important perspective to the Senate (and Democratic politics in general) – albeit one I don't always agree with – and when push comes to shove, he doesn't seem to be the sort to let petty internal squabbles distract from the bigger goal of defeating Trump in 2020.  

That all being said, I do think that there are some things that Sanders might want to try to improve this time around, although many of them admittedly have more to do with his advisors and more fringy supporters than with Sanders himself.  First, there was definitely a very vocal faction of the Berniecrat crowd in 2016 that could get pretty misogynistic and while I doubt they spoke for Sanders or most of his supporters, he could (and should) have done more to forcefully condemn such behavior.  In fact, this speaks to a broader issue with Sanders' 2016 campaign [albeit one many politicians have]: he was often reluctant to criticize the dark underbelly of his base.  As a result, both the anti-Semitic [irony alert] and misogynistic attitudes his more extremist/whacktivist supporters would sometimes bubble to the surface in a way that gave the false impression that they were reflective of the Berniecrat movement.  This definitely hurt Sanders in 2016 and while it could easily hurt him again in 2020, it needn't do so if he is willing to take meaningful steps to nip it in the bud.  That said, I think the accusations of racism lobbed against the Berniecrat movement were far less damaging in 2016 because while Sanders wasn't the most in-touch with the African-American community he was also pretty clearly not a racist and was running against madame "Super Predator"

Second, I think Sanders needs to be a bit more careful about some of the folks he associates with; while I'm not saying Sanders was a Moscovite candidate, it's an objective fact that Sanders and Trump were the two Presidential candidates whom GRU was actively trying to help in 2016.  Furthermore, Sanders' top campaign strategist was a prominent Democratic political operative by the name of Tad Devine.  During his time as a top media consultant for Viktor Yanukovych, Devine worked so closely with Paul Manafort and Rick Gates that he was among the first witnessed called during Manafort's trial.  Devine's former clients also include such fine gentlemen as current Interpol fugitive Alejandro Toledo, former Bolivian President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, and former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern.  Then there were certain surrogates who would go off and say something crazy on TV; Sanders' campaign needs to keep a tighter leash on some of these folks in 2020. 

Lastly, and I'm not gonna spend to much time on this since I think even most Sanders supporters are already aware this is an issue, the sexual harassment which occurred in 2016 needs to be handled far better if anything like that happens in 2020.  There were clearly plenty of folks in Sanders' campaign who were perfectly willing to look the other way and that's obviously unacceptable.

[ON Progressive]

I've really had it up to here with the inconsistency of Republicans, and not just those who support and like Trump. If Obama had done anything like this, would a single conservative be saying "well, you can't really blame him, see, it's an issue of the nature of executive power..." ? Of course not, conservatives would be ripping him to shreds, calling for his impeachment, arrest, and more. For the party that calls (called?) itself the party of accountability, you all don't do a very good job of holding other Republicans accountable. The excuses, deflections, and rationalizing we hear every time Trump does/says something insane has gotten tiresome. If Trump had anything other than an (R) next to his name, many of you would not hesitate to say that he's uniquely unfit to be president, and has no business being anywhere near the White House. But because he's "one of your own," there's always some excuse to justify believing that "the Democrats are way worse" or "the liberals are the actual deranged ones", etc.

I don't disagree that Trump is a symptom of an underlying problem in society. We might disagree about what exactly he is a symptom of, but we can agree that he's not the root of all of our problems. Still though, would a doctor get away with not treating debilitating pain in a patient if the pain were a symptom? Of course not, that would be inexcusable. Yes, the doctor would need to address the underlying condition, but would absolutely need to treat the unbearable pain, even if it were a symptom. And we need to deal with Trump. Our problems won't all be resolved when he's out of office, naturally, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't deal with him and hold him accountable for his inexcusable actions.

I've stopped asking when conservatives are going to stop making excuses for Trump and hold him accountable, since I've become convinced that the answer is never, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

[Politician]

The burgeoning Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs will destroy Trump in NC if he makes it to 2020.

You have to keep in mind that the Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs are Southern. These suburbs will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here they are very, very INELASTIC.

[DINGO Joe]

The burgeoning Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs will destroy Trump in NC if he makes it to 2020.

You have to keep in mind that the Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs are Southern. These suburbs will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here they are very, very INELASTIC.

Please don't abuse the VSPAHQP

[Badger]

The burgeoning Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs will destroy Trump in NC if he makes it to 2020.

You have to keep in mind that the Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs are Southern. These suburbs will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here they are very, very INELASTIC.

Not sure how this qualifies for the Wellspring of ignorance thread. While it might be debatable, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the politics of suburban Charlotte, isn't it something of a given that southern suburbs are markedly, dramatically more conservative and Republican than Northern suburbs? There was some change in that in the last two elections, but comparing most southern suburbs with say Suburban Philadelphia, Oregon suburban Chicago, are two dramatically different things.

Again, more than willing to be educated about the on ground realities of Mecklenburg County politics if anyone can offer a knowledgeable first-hand perspective.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Also, on a barely related tangent, can I just say that I'm always disappointed that we aren't more inventive with colours. There are so many bbcode colours, yet we only use those that are in the menu. Yet there are so many more.
So given that, for a bit of education for you all, here are all the valid bbcode colours:

aliceblue          antiquewhite          aqua          aquamarine          azure          beige          bisque          black          blue          blueviolet          brown          burlywood          cadetblue          chartreuse          chocolate          coral          cornsilk          crimson          cyan          darkblue          darkcyan          darkgray          darkgrey          darkgreen          darkkhaki          darkmagenta          darkorange          darkorchid          darkred          darksalmon          darkseagreen          darkviolet          deeppink          deepskyblue          dimgray          dimgrey          dodgerblue          firebrick          floralwhite          forestgreen          fuchsia          gainsboro          ghostwhite          gold          goldenrod          gray          grey          green          greenyellow          honeydew          hotpink          indianred          indigo          ivory          khaki          lavender          lawngreen          lemonchiffon          lightblue          lightcoral          lightcyan          lightgray          lightgrey          lightgreen          lightpink          lightsalmon          lightskyblue          lightyellow          lime          limegreen          linen          magenta          maroon          mediumblue          mediumorchid          mediumpurple          midnightblue          mintcream          mistyrose          moccasin          navajowhite          navy          oldlace          olive          olivedrab          orange          orangered          orchid          palegreen          papayawhip          peachpuff          peru          pink          plum          powderblue          purple          red          rosybrown          royalblue          saddlebrown          salmon          sandybrown          seagreen          seashell          sienna          silver          skyblue          slateblue          slategray          slategrey          snow          springgreen          steelblue          tan          teal          thistle          tomato          turquoise          violet          wheat          white          whitesmoke          yellow          yellowgreen

[Politician]

Wow, I didn’t think it was possible for Atlas Democrats to hate someone more than Trump, and it’s someone who caucuses with the Democrats to boot!

Criticizing Sanders is fair game, and he’ll have to respond to any criticism, but this board acts as though he endorsed Trump, has negative favorables among Democrats, and is a Russia shill who called for ending voting rights for women and minorities. Love him or hate him, he’s going to be a force to be reckoned with in the primary and the general. He’s by no means inevitable, but underestimate him at your own peril. I hope those who at least claim to be Democrats who are reacting negatively to him will at least get behind him if he’s the nominee, otherwise you have no place complaining about “Bernie Bros” (especially since most of his supporters voted for Hillary in 2016.)

[wesmoorenerd]

The burgeoning Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs will destroy Trump in NC if he makes it to 2020.

You have to keep in mind that the Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs are Southern. These suburbs will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here they are very, very INELASTIC.

Not sure how this qualifies for the Wellspring of ignorance thread. While it might be debatable, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the politics of suburban Charlotte, isn't it something of a given that southern suburbs are markedly, dramatically more conservative and Republican than Northern suburbs? There was some change in that in the last two elections, but comparing most southern suburbs with say Suburban Philadelphia, Oregon suburban Chicago, are two dramatically different things.

Again, more than willing to be educated about the on ground realities of Mecklenburg County politics if anyone can offer a knowledgeable first-hand perspective.

It's truly incredible how completely oblivious to sarcasm Atlas users can be sometimes.

[Badger]

The burgeoning Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs will destroy Trump in NC if he makes it to 2020.

You have to keep in mind that the Raleigh/Charlotte suburbs are Southern. These suburbs will never vote Democrat because despite the delusions of some here they are very, very INELASTIC.

Not sure how this qualifies for the Wellspring of ignorance thread. While it might be debatable, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the politics of suburban Charlotte, isn't it something of a given that southern suburbs are markedly, dramatically more conservative and Republican than Northern suburbs? There was some change in that in the last two elections, but comparing most southern suburbs with say Suburban Philadelphia, Oregon suburban Chicago, are two dramatically different things.

Again, more than willing to be educated about the on ground realities of Mecklenburg County politics if anyone can offer a knowledgeable first-hand perspective.

It's truly incredible how completely oblivious to sarcasm Atlas users can be sometimes.

The written word can be deceiving on nuance. Based on only this two post snipet from the thread, it was not possible to realistically detect sarcasm.

Fwiw looking at the original thread now, it appears others didn't detect your sarcasm either.

But hey, I'm still interested in learning whether the Mecklenburg County suburbs actually have some elasticity to them.