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

[Big Abraham]

I'm trying to word this in a way that doesn't make me come across as a problematic Gentile, but I think the Israeli Right is playing a dangerous game in that it constantly seems to attack the diaspora as lily-livered (or even self-hating) even though most of the diaspoara are Zionists with affinity for the idea of the Israeli state. Israel as a state isn't supposed to be just "a country with lots of Jews in it" but act as a sort of representative of all Jewish people. I feel like a lot of Jews - not just the likes of Gerald Kaufmans or even Jewdas-  are genuinely uncomfortable with Netanyahu becoming synonymous with their identity, especially as in certain countries the issue has become incredibly partisan.

What I am trying to say is that, for Israel to just not care about the diaspora would be an abdication of a lot of soft power. I would wager that most American Jews, if forced to chose between their affinity with the Democratic Party and a distant nation that implies they're a bunch of effette self-haters will probably go with the former tbh.

[Politician]

For those who don't think that nearly all of Rural America can end up voting like much of the South in the long-term: you're wrong.

I don't think the trends we have undeniably experienced will progress indefinitely to the point where we actually see this ridiculous urban-rural divide maps (that by then would have the GOP consistently getting its ass beat over and over) before something fundamentally shakes up our nation's voting patterns ... this seems to be absolutely crazy to this site.

I spent a large chunk of my childhood in one of these rural WWC Midwestern counties that atlas loves to fetishize about. I can’t possibly imagine what would make these voters shift even somewhat significantly more Dem. Nicole Galloway got BTFO in said county and she’s the only successful Missouri Democrat left on the bench and she couldn’t even crack 35% in the vast majority of rural counties against possibly the worst non-Todd Akin Republican statewide nominee in decades.

A realignment would make those voters shift more Dem.

It wasn't so long ago when you could have made the same argument for many major suburban counties in this country.


"Orange County hasn't gone Democratic since FDR, I can't imagine what would make these voters vote Democratic"

"The Atlanta suburbs have been titanium R since the 1980s, there's no way they'll ever vote Democratic!"

"Northern Virginia has been the backbone of the Virginia GOP since the 1950s, there's no way it could ever vote Democratic!"

You and I are both smart enough to know that most of the GOP’s collapse in those suburbs is simply due to diversification. Sure, a large chunk of white voters shifted, but I would argue it was less that existing white people shifting their votes than it was new, younger, liberal whites moving in.

The point is, you either think one of the following if you think there won't be a VERY significant realignment in the next few decades:

1) The GOP will eventually collapse as a party due to getting absolutely SMOKED in Presidential elections due to largely only winning rural areas and select suburbs ... the math just isn't there for them to win ANY elections without getting a LOT of suburban support.

2) Population trends will take a surprising turn, and people will stop abandoning rural areas, small towns and mid-sized cities for urban centers and suburbs of those urban centers.  I don't see that happening any time soon, as it has been going on for decades.

For the GOP to continue to be a competitive major party along with the Democrats, ONE of those things has to be false.  Period.  It might not be in 2020 (obviously) or even 2030, but eventually the GOP will run out of votes.  We simply are not going to reach this point where the Republican Party happily loses election after election after election due to simple math but keeps on fulfilling this forum's stereotype of how trashy the party is, haha.  It will HAVE to adapt.  I don't have time to do this for all of the states, but here is Illinois' Presidential results:

Clinton (D-NY): 54.4% (2,977,498)
Trump (R-NY): 39.4% (2,118,179)

Conversely, if you simply took the populations of the counties Clinton won and the populations of the counties Trump won and added them up, this is what you would get:

Clinton (D-NY): 70.6% (9,034,953)
Trump (R-NY): 29.4% (3,767,070)

Even in a blue state like Illinois, Trump relied on TONS of voters in counties that Clinton won.  His votes (and the votes of all Republicans) are still ever so reliant on metro areas.  If the trends we see continue - both in terms of Republicans losing ground in metro areas AND metro areas continuing to grow at the expense of rural areas - the GOP will collapse.  Period.  Period, period, period.  This forum so vastly overestimates how many rural people there even are.  SOMETHING is going to shake things up before #1 above happens (because we all know #2 is not happening).  Republicans will eventually need to engage in things that will stop fanning the flames of the folks you are describing above.  They simply have to.  This will likely provide an eventual floor to how badly Democrats do with "WWC" voters, especially if we use the more accurate and meaningful definition of "White working class" to refer to Whites with average and below average incomes.  Not all "WWC" voters are rural, racist hicks; there are plenty in places like Youngstown, OH that do NOT have a baked in, life long loyalty to the GOP; a GOP in 20-30 years that isn't acting like our current one - which I believe I provided a coherent argument for why it simply can't afford to - might not have quite as intense of loyalty as Trump does with your "Obama-Trump" crowd.

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

For somebody who claims to have been a Democratic Party activist in New York during the 70s, twice in the past few days Fuzzy Bear has demonstrated his total cluelessness about NYC politics.

Just because he’s invented his own reasons for becoming a right-wing Republican over the years, I guess that means Max Rose and Nassau county are soon to follow.

Nassau County has long been a Republican County with a strong political machine, but its voters are not uniformly conservative.  The Democrats have carried Nassau County in every election since 1992, mainly because Nassau County has a Jewish population of about 25%.  (Next door Suffolk County is more Jewish than it used to be, but still the more heavily Catholic county.)  These Jewish voters, not all Democrats to be sure, have provided a good many of Nassau's swing voters, voting Democratic for President, but Republican in local elections.  Nassau is now loaded with Democratic elected officials due to recent Republican scandals, but this has happened before, and Nassau's GOP (one of the last political "machines" in America) has proven to be resilient. 

This is a delicate balance.  What will happen if a significant number of Jewish voters, many of them Democratic and liberal, or independent swing voting registered Republicans, appreciate Trump's policies on Israel, and take note of the new anti-Semetism in the Democratic Party (Omar, Tlaib, AOC, for starters) and the progressively less supportive positions toward Israel the national Democratic Party takes?  This is not unlike the abortion issue for many Catholic voters; it's a social and cultural issue that is important to this group of voters.  Jewish voters on Long Island vote Democratic at a far higher rate than Catholic voters.  Trump's policies toward Israel, coupled with the emergence of the Omars and Tlaibs and a shift in the positions of many Democrats to on less favorable toward Israel, is a posturing that could, at least on the Presidential level, cause a realignment amongst Jewish voters in Long Island, and in other suburbs, and perhaps a nationwide realignment at least at the level of Presidential voting.

You hope

Well, the local Republicans in Nassau and Suffolk County were "the enemy" when I grew up.  While they nowadays represent some of the more reasonable Republicans, they have provided most of the corruption in Long Island politics (although Democrats, which are now more numerous and powerful than when I was young, are providing some crooks for the collection as well).  I don't support Long Island Republcans on the LOCAL level in Long Island politics.  I still have some friends from the old days who think I've lost my mind, but who knew me as a pro-life Democrat with relatively conservative leanings as I grew older. 

It was Jewish voters switching to Reagan in 1980 that put Reagan over the top in NY.  Many of these Jewish voters that made the difference were pro-Israel Democrats (Scoop Jackson types) who viewed Carter as soft on Israel.  Carter led in every poll in NY state to the end, but lost by 3 points, and the shift of some (not all, but some) Jewish voters in metropolitan NY to either Reagan, Anderson, or just abstaining tilted the balance.

Let Joe Republic say I don't know what I'm talking about.  I was there, and I was active, working for every other Democrat besides Carter, regardless of leanings.  Carter lost NY in death by 1,000 cuts, but the loss of some Jewish voters on Long Island was critical.

Speaking as a decidedly pro-Israel Jewish voter who has often criticized the Democrats for not doing enough to combat the anti-Semitic left, I think you’re very wrong about a number of things here.  Tbh, I think most Jewish-Americans are about where I am on this:

-The folks Trump allies himself with scare the Hell out of us

- We really like *some* of what he has done on Israel

- We’re pretty outraged by the anti-Semitic left being treated with kid gloves,

- Reform Jews like me tend not to like Netanyahu while Conservative and Orthodox Jews typically do

- We’re throughly repulsed by most of the standard Republican policy positions (especially on education, which is a huge issue for most non-Orthodox Jewish voters since our community’s emphasis on education and hard work is part of why we’ve thrived in America).  Jewish-Americans also tend to view taxes as a civic duty rather than something we resent having to do (like doing some chores to keep your home clean), tend to support affirmative action and be hardline supporters of teacher’s unions (education again) while staunchly opposing the policies advocated by folks like Michelle Rhee (most goyem don’t realize how much most Jewish-Americans hate hearing politicians blame teachers or rant about ivory tower academics/pointy-headed intellectuals)

- We’re still pretty used to voting Democratic and given that many Jewish-Americans (in contrast to our Israeli counterparts) generally miss Obama, four years is not enough time for this to change.

- We’re sick of Jews not named “Bernie Sanders” being treated like a fifth column by millennial and especially post-millennial goyem in the progressive movement simply because we support a two state solution instead of a one state Palestinian one.  I’m not saying all left-wing activists who oppose Israeli policies are anti-Semitic b/c that is absurd fear-mongering designed to shut down important policy debates.  We’re not at that point yet and the damage is still easily reversible (a bit like a rough nuclear family argument right now), but the progressive movement needs to stop going out of their way to spit on us or they’re really gonna regret it 10-20 years from now.  We won’t stay where we’re not welcome, politically speaking, and the progressive movement needs us at least as much as we need them (if not more tbh) even though they’re taking our community’s support for granted.  But again, we’re not there yet and Trump is an anathema to many Jewish-Americans (most of whom, unlike our Israeli counterparts both dislike Trump personally and are not single issue Israel voters the way some evangelicals are on

- While some of Trump’s race-baiting (sadly) plays very well, stuff like separating kids from their parents, the “I don’t remember” clip, and the infamous Charlottesville comments plays very badly with Jewish-Americans (as does his emotional, body language-heavy speaking style) 

- A lot of us are (rightly or wrongly) deeply suspicious whenever Christian Coalition brand talking heads like Santorum and Huckabee claim they’re our friends (we regard it much the same way that African-Americans likely regarded Mark Fuhrman’s claim that he hadn’t used the n-word in the past ten years at the OJ trial).  I don’t think this applies so much to regular folks, but the default assumption when an evangelical Republican politician or talking head says they’re pro-Israel is that while we may have to work with them, they really just want all the Jews to go to Israel to be killed/converted so the rapture can occur.  I’ve been told by several folks that this isn’t even a thing in evangelical Christianity, but either way, a lot of Jewish-Americans certainly think it is even if we rarely talk about it (especially not in front of goyem). 

- Pence plays really, really badly with Jewish voters, especially Reform Jews.  Plus, he sometimes opens his campaign rallies in suburban areas with a few prayers led by those “Jews” for Jesus people (such as at an infamous MI-11 rally for Lena Epstein that really hurt her with both Jewish and to a lesser degree even non-Jewish voters in the district).  I don’t know why Pence does this (it almost feels like he’s marking his territory or something), but I cannot stress enough how completely and universally despised the “Jews” for Jesus/Messianic “Jews” are within the Jewish community. 

- Social justice is very important to most Jewish voters and Jewish Americans tend to be anti-isolationism (often supporting American involvement overseas for humanitarian purposes), pro-gay rights, anti-religious discrimination, pro-immigration reform, highly supportive of measures to combat income inequality.  I’d add that Reform Jews tend to be pretty supportive of women’s rights and are largely pro-choice on abortion.

- Again, most Jewish-Americans are not single-issue Israel voters even if it is an important issue and I have yet to hear of even one Reform Jew who is a single issue Israel voter.  There is a real fight coming in a decade or two between Jewish Democrats and the anti-Semitic left and it may leave an opening for a more pragmatic and socially moderate Republican Party if that somehow became a thing...but Trump is decidedly the wrong type of person to take advantage of this and Pence is even worse. 

- However, Trump will improve with really old Jewish voters and I think this will end up being his ace in the hole in Florida.  It probably won’t help Republicans anywhere else though.  I do wonder how Gillum would’ve done if he were better on Israel b/c (rightly or wrongly) there was definitely a perception that he was far more sympathetic to the Palestinians.

[Zaybay]

The problem with any of these lines of reasoning is that they assume voters, as a group, are rational and knowledgable, for which there is little evidence in favor. Sure, primary voters are typically more knowledgable/engaged than the average general election voter, but it's still hilariously generous to say that voters truly understand which candidate is the more moderate vs progressive. Add in the fact that the incumbency advantage (especially for primaries, and ESPECIALLY for Democratic incumbents) is well-recorded and very powerful, it's silly to say that voters in OR-05 are absolutely moderate and Schrader fits the district so well. Additionally, it's very difficult to primary an incumbent based on abstract (to the voter) concepts like being "moderate/conservative"; a wedge issue is typically the best way to set up a primary challenge, and even then it's unlikely all (or even most) primary voters will be knowledgable on the issue and base their decision on it.

Kurt Schrader won his first primary in 2008 after a career as a state legislator – he defeated some random, political neophyte people – and not because he was a moderate or whatever. And once he got in, like almost all other Representatives, it's incredibly difficult to dislodge them in a primary, not because he's a moderate and voters love that.

Finally, I know that some people commenting in this thread think that voters are the ultimate moral arbitrators and that having any convictions at all is a terrible, terrible thing, but really voters are mostly mindless and motivated to vote by other factors than voting for their Moderate Nice Guy FF congressman (hint: research shows that House races motivate very few people to vote). And that when someone outside the district says that a representative should be replaced/primaried, the knee-jerk reaction of "BUT THINK ABOUT THE VOTERS !!!" doesn't actually add anything to the conversation and isn't the killer response that some think it is. Ultimately, you have to realize that some people see politics as more than a game of winning elections and would actually like to see the passage of policies that improve people's lives, and that electing certain people instead of others would help achieve that goal. Shutting down that discussion by saying "BUT THE VOTERS ELECTED SCHRADER/LIPINSKI/whichever person is the subject of discussion!!!" only reminds everyone that you're acting like a broken record. Sure, the voters elected Schrader, but that "point" only holds until they don't... "How dare AOC primary Crowley! The voters voted for Crowley last time!" does seem like a really meaningless thing to say.

[scutosaurus]

TX is becoming more of a Western State followed by NC

[Coastal Elitist]

The burden doesn't exist and should be on no living person.  Like I have said in other threads, no one expects Italians to be paying Germans for the crimes of the Romans or Mongolians to be paying Eastern Europeans for the crimes of the Huns; where does this shlt end?  How many years does it go on?  Do we really want to get into the process of finding out which Black student had ancestors who were slaves and which didn't?  How do you think poor Latino Americans are going to react to this?  I doubt they feel that slavery having existed 150 years ago really gives them a leg up over their fellow Black countrymen.  Does a wealthy Black person whose ancestors were slaves get a reparation payment while a poor Asian person struggles to get by?

The idea is nothing short of a joke, and it should stay on the fringe where it belongs.  I am glad, however, that the momentum of this cookoo idea is at least somewhat shedding light on the myth that just because the GOP is going crazy does not in any way whatsoever mean that the Democratic Party is this sensible, common-sense-only alternative that is a catch-all for anyone normal, as the party is clearly inching its way toward crazy town, as well ... at least the most active and passionate lefties, who - as we all know - have disproportionate control over nominating processes, and there's no reason to think their influence won't grown in the Democratic Party as Millennials get older.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Saying that gay marriage should be legal and voting for a gay person to be President are two different things. Plenty of people don't care if two gay people get married, but they would care if a gay person becomes President, especially if the campaign is framed around that. Gay men are viewed as being weak by many people and a lot of people would factor that stereotype into their voting decision. Like it or not, there are plenty of voters who would see a gay President would be weak and not up to the task. Some believe the same thing about a woman President.

The point about minority voters is quite valid. African-Americans in particular are quite religious and hyper masculine at that. Even a lot of women believe that men should act and be a certain way. If that impacts turnout in Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, there will be a problem. And you can believe the Republican operatives would play on those views to keep black voters home. With Hispanics you have a heavy Catholic influence and the same hyper masculine views.

The sheltered white male posters of Atlas think every marginalized group is interchangeable. X got elected so Y and Z will be too. A black candidate is not a gay candidate is not a Muslim candidate is not a woman candidate. Diversity is not interchangeable. Pointing to Obama’s name does not make a point.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No region is sacred or free of wrongdoing, not even perfect Appalachia. The sanctimonious attitude people have about this place is sickening. You all can scream and rant and rage and cry and violent hit out at the suburbs all you want but no one in the suburbs is pushing the idea that they are real America, unlike places like Appalachia.

And nobody here implies the contrary.  But if you really believe that urban elitism isn't a thing, you're living in as much of a bubble as the rural hicks people like the OP who posts these stories just to mock.  Swaths of the country are routinely called "flyover states."  Sure, you can disagree with their voting habits.  You can support scrapping the electoral college that favors them at the expense of states where more of the people vote.  But for the love of God, don't haphazardly analyze this as if we were measuring a pissing contest.

The country already caters enough to rural populations giving them large benefits of what effectively mounts to affirmative action. In modern day culture you can criticize urban/suburban areas all you want but dare to touch the lord and savior region of Appalachia and you get criticized for not understanding the average American.

     People usually don't like it when you kick a man while he's down. Appalachia gets criticized pretty much all the time, to the point that it has engendered a significant backlash. To act like Appalachia is something sacrosanct or worshipped in American society just because people get on your case for perpetuating vicious libels against the region and its people is quite out of touch with reality.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Whoa, a whole thread dedicated to posts that weren't written by me!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Fuzzy, what is the alternative universe that you've apparently just emerged from like? I would dearly like to know all the major differences between the Mueller report issued in that world which apparently largely exonerates Trump, and the report issued in this timeline which really really REALLY doesn't.

But seriously though, man. You have got to quit being so damned stubborn about simple facts. You keep repeating things that are just simply factually untrue. This is not a matter for debate or any of it. This is not a liberal vs conservative. This is two plus two equals four not five level facts.

I strongly suggest you go back and re-read excerpts of the report and what it actually found. I would start with the concluding paragraph switch or simply a page long. That one succinct statement alone literally disproves most of the bunk you have been trying to convince yourself of.

Somehow somewhere somebody you admire told you that this was an exoneration. I know you were not one of those types to buy into what Fox News reports on hesitatingly, even if you do buy into complete crap websites warning about the Muslim danger with mostly crap stories and butchered statistics. Whatever its source, you really need to stop, reassess this from Ground Zero, and above all learn what the report actually says.

It's much easier to go on a narrative, sure. But you're better than that I think. There are certain folks on this website like Sanchez who are such died in the wall Trump supporters that he would back Trump to the nines if Jesus himself came down from heaven and told us all that Trump had colluded with Putin in person and did everything possible just like Miller reported to cover up the investigation. Heck, I'm pretty sure that's the reason he and some of his ilk DO support Trump so much. It's the Spiro Agnew and Patrick Buchanan G Gordon Liddy, attitude of " the world is a tough place so you got to have a thug in charge" neo-fascist mindset. Again, I think you're better than that, but your habitual rampant stubbornness has kind of painted yourself into a corner here. Please try to stop Andre review the reports findings with a truly open mind. You are not a literate, so I can't believe that if you do so it won't substantially change your mind.

[Sestak]

To be honest... in my opinion... oftentimes the most racist or demeaning word in the English language is "them".  But like hoodlum, it all depends on the intent behind the word.

[PSOL]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ilhan-omar-says-america-to-blame-for-crisis-in-venezuela


Once again proving that she holds this nation in contempt like many socialists like their idol Jeremy Corbyn does .

Once again proving that you don't even possess a flimsy grasp on the effects of American foreign policy or the history of American imperialism in Latin America (let alone elsewhere in the world).

Chavez and Maduro destroyed Venezuela

Only a child or a fool could believe something so simplistic. Have you honestly no grasp of geopolitics, history, sociology, anthropology, or anything of the sort? That sort of narrow thought process is equivalent to believing Venezuela exists within a vacuum; that there is no history prior to Chavez that shaped the country up to and past the point of Chavez's election; and that Chavez and Maduro wielded power and enacted policies without any external factors (be they from rival political groups, powerful opponents within the economic system, and foreign influences that sought to affect Venezuela for particular geopolitical goals). That is not to suggest their policies had no impact on Venezuela; they obviously did. But, their policies were only one part of the story and were shaped largely by their reaction to particular circumstances not of their own creation.

Venezuala pre Chavez was far far more prosperous than it is today and was actually a Democracy. Yes their were some problems but maybe you guys should stop blaming America for all of socialism's failures

If I took a shot every time some right-winger brought up Venezuela in conjunction with Socialism, I'd be dead by now. You guys are beating a dead horse. And it really boils down to the fact that you can't grasp that these issues are far more complex than "socialism is evil."

Why did Venezuela turn to Chavez? Why was he such a popular leader? Why did America attempt to assassinate him? What are the consequences of sanctions and embargoes, such as America imposed on Venezuela? What happens when political leadership is thoroughly opposed by a powerful economic elite opposition determined to see its destruction? What structural problems existed in Venezuela that contributed to the failures of the Bolivarian Revolution? To what extent did Chavez and Maduro enact socialist economic policies? What were the limitations of their "socialist" program and how did that affect their socioeconomic situation?

Just saying "socialism" in a louder tone to each of the above questions isn't an actual evaluation of the situation or response to a series of complex questions about a highly complex situation. Venezuela never came close to any semblance of a socialist economic program anyway, considering the extent to which the Chavez and Maduro regimes completely failed to democratize the economy and transfer ownership of the means of production to workers (at "best," they nationalized particular sectors of the economy and left a significant share of it in the hands of corrupt bureaucrats and elites with vested interests in seeing the regime crumble). The most significant accusation one can make against Chavez/Maduro isn't that they were successful Socialists who presided over a failed socialist program, but rather incompetent authoritarians (particularly Maduro) who had no realistic program (or even intention) of achieving economic democracy. They were then consumed by the inevitable rebellion by those with whom they compromised and left in positions of power, along with external pressures from global oil markets and American economic pressure.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Suburban NJ Conservative, you kind of remind me of myself in 2015-2016. Someone with weird political views on one end and some mainstream ones on the other end. I too touted my test scores as a mark of intelligence and seemed to think I knew it all even though I didn't have very much real world experience.

Let me tell you, it works for a little bit. But ultimately, it failed me. Before you really craft policies, you have to think about people in a better light. It is true that society can sometimes let you down, people can be mean and sometimes may not know what's best for themselves. But, that is ok, living is an experience and the human life is all about living a little and not being fully regulated all the time.

If you go into life and continue like this trying to think logically about everything 100% of the time instead of emotionally at points it will really fail you. I will tell you I have been laying awake all night thinking about things like this because it's the way my brain ticks. I ruined a lot of things in 2017-2018 because I was still slowly transitioning from 100% logic all the time to really opening up emotionally. I ruined a good relationship, I ruined a lot of real life things. Policy wise it translates to me moving to the left on some things like healthcare but at the same time not rushing to ban things like abortion and guns (though I remain at least leaning towards the pro-life side). Why? Because people deserve choices on things like that, healthcare isn't as much of a choice simply due to the fact that it's a vital service that all people in a functioning society will likely need at some point in their lifetime. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call healthcare a human right, but it's awfully close given that it helps improve quality of life and extends lifespans.

Banning knives and honestly guns won't help anyone. It might work in some international places but the United States has always been an interesting place that does not play by other country's rules, for better or for worse. I am sure you have been at least somewhat sheltered. I was not sheltered economically but I was sheltered in other ways. It is embarrassing but prudent to admit that I only learned how to tie my shoes in the past few years. You probably don't have the exact same experiences, but what I am trying to say is I understand how you feel in this respect. Being sheltered and coddled can give rise to such policies as thinking the government should protect everyone and we need to ban such and such because people could get themselves hurt. Some form of a welfare state is not a bad idea, but a nanny state is a bad idea.

I do commend you for coming up with ideas at least and while I may be hard on my federalist rivals I do appreciate that they keep the game going by preventing a division on ideas. But I think you need to think more about how society works, we both did well on AP tests but it will do us no good on many real life practicalities. Things like dating, hanging out with friends, even just meeting new people is not dependent on test scores. I may not be the best person to be giving advice on the first part but I've really been realizing some of these things lately and I hope you will come to understand it as well.

Just know that banning guns and knives in a mass amount will never be a popular position, even among our generation it's still deeply divisive. Not to say you should change your views based on the popular opinion, but there's a reason those opinions are held and you should consider why they are held. The American (or I suppose atlasian) spirit in this sense is all about freedom and they loath to be threatened to have their rights infringed upon. This is why a balanced approach to some regulation but not too much regulation is required. Background checks are fine, closing any loopholes is fine, but trying these mass bans probably wont work in the present climate.

Anyways, in summary, sorry for making such a long post but we have similar thoughts, though different on things like healthcare on some things that I did a few years ago. Ultimately, I think everyone would love for some of these things to be achieved in an idealistic society, but nothing is ideal and you have to face the reality that people want to do what they want to do and sometimes real world experiences will change these perceptions of how smart people really are. I think people and society is smarter than you give it credit and you may come to see that in the coming years.

All the best!

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Edna for a girl and Archibald for a boy.

Who would have guessed that, of all users, Hillgoose would guess the royal baby's name correctly. 😆
But nevertheless: Congrats and kudos! 👍🏻👏🏻🙌🏻

[GeorgiaModerate]

Edna for a girl and Archibald for a boy.

Who would have guessed that, of all users, Hillgoose would guess the royal baby's name correctly. 😆
But nevertheless: Congrats and kudos! 👍🏻👏🏻🙌🏻

Clearly the royal couple are Atlas lurkers!

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

Well, with Biden performing as well as he has been, even this early, it continues to suggest that the Democratic Party's big tent status keeps its primary voters less ideological than in the GOP's primary base.That may change in the future, but it doesn't seem to be happening yet.

This is the problem with the far-left thinking they can take over the party like the Trumpities. Most of the voting base is non-ideological, not having a preference whatever they are moderate or progressive, all they cared about is if the person has a D next to their name. You need to better appeal to these groups if you want to win the game.

The far left are some irrelevant people who don't like Bernie. Progressives on the other hand actually matter and are fed up with the Democratic party not standing for anything.

Well, look at how the leftist reddit subs like Chapo Frat House praise Bernie even if they acknowledging being to his left. Progressives are not against much of Bernie's proposals so much as we feel cautionary about implementing them into a workable deal that will satisfy many factions of government.

Except that that arguably is the problem. As long as many of those factions are run by Republicans, who have no history of compromise beyond goalpost moving and or worse, deciding to go even farther off the cliff despite utter capitulation [see Obamacare], a workable deal won't happen.

To get a "workable deal", then, one has to go extreme and scare out the other side into calling uncle.

Bernie's lack of realism then isn't an issue, it's a feature. One the GOP understand and have exploited quite nicely since at least 1968.

Unfortunately, as of now, the so-called mods haven't remembered/learned this yet and haven't gotten nihilistic enough yet to roll with it the same way the moderate GOP did after Romney lost.

[GeorgiaModerate]

snip.

Maybe you should try educating yourself on the geopolitical, religious, and historical factors of the Middle East before making absurd proclamations on the topic. Earlier you mentioned Iran and al-Qaeda. While Iran has had some limited ties with the group, they're certainly not allies as the former are Shia extremists and the latter Sunni extremists. In fact, Iran has a long history of opposing terrorist groups like the Taliban and ISIS that have been indirectly, if not directly, supported by the US-allied Saudis.

In case you want to learn more, I'd recommend this channel as a good starting point.

[GeorgiaModerate]

And last year was an extremely wet year, as well, which lowered yields.

Unfortunately, the neighbor who rents my dad's land still refuses to believe in climate change, and his attitude is reflective of many farmers. The sooner farmers accept the reality of climate change, the sooner they can adjust their crop choices. As awful as this is, maybe it will be the beginning of getting us away from the awful duo-culture of corn and soybeans.

But, yes, things are not looking great for grain farmers this year. The dairy farmers in Wisconsin are already in an awful place with thousands of farms having shut down over the past two and a half years. If this year continues the way last year did, we're going to see more small farms selling out to the large agri-corps, which helps no one (except the share-holders, I guess, who get richer and richer).

It’s been very cold and wet in the central U.S... the opposite of what the climate models indicate for the region.  So “accepting the reality of climate change” (i love the artful choice of words here) would push them into growing crops that are resistant to heat and drought...and would make things even worse.

Stop trying to blame the complex problems facing farmers on “denialisticism” or whatever...it is disingenuous, overly simplistic, and counterproductive.

Dude. My dad is a retired farmer. Most of my classmates are farmers. If my dad wasn't an old fashioned misogynist, I'd be a farmer, too. I'm not trying to put all their issues on denying climate change, and getting that out of what I said is absolutely ridiculous. I know that the difficulties are numerous and certainly complex.

But denying climate change does hurt their chances going forward. Right now, they'd be best off planting for crops that do better in wet climates (which is not what corn and beans are meant for) as it seems to be the direction our locality is moving towards. It's denying one of the major factors impacting their yields and saying "that's not real!" as if magic fairies are making it rain more and delaying the planting season.

Climate change doesn't mean everything is moving toward heat and drought, at least in the short term. But because even admitting there's a possibility of change means that they're "giving in," farmers are hurting themselves by refusing to accept that they might not be able to continue planting the same crops every year. I know that the system is currently built for corn and beans, which is why everyone does it (way easier to harvest than anything else, that's for sure), but someone's going to have to start changing before the climate has changed so dramatically that they're forced to change without any buffer.

So, yeah, the fact that you got the crap you spouted out of what I said shows you have very specific blinders when someone uses the phrase "climate change." Try removing those blinders, and don't assume you're talking to someone who hasn't been involved in the industry and isn't decently educated on what's going on. I've watched my neighbors, one by one, slowly give up and sell (or rent until they die, at which point their children sell) to the big agribusinesses, other than the few who are slowly becoming big agribusinesses themselves. No one likes what's happening except the people getting rich, and being inflexible and stuck in tradition, even when it comes to what crops to plant, is a very big problem.

(Seriously. Take highway 71 down to five miles before the Iowa border, and you'd be in my home stomping grounds, where I go back every month to help my dad with his farmstead. I may not be a farmer, but I'm well aware of the situation.)

[Xing]

Electability is a myth used by the people who run political parties to deny voters what they really want. Political parties are private organizations more interested in promoting "their own" from within than caring what the base/activists want.

Research has shown that there is very little evidence of voters punishing "extremist candidates" in any substantively large or close to statistical significant way in presidential elections.

You take someone like "extremist" Goldwater and give him the nomination in 1968 and he probably wins. You give "ultra liberal extremist" Mondale the nomination in 1976 and he wins.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Wait there's a literal white supremacist on Atlas? Wtf

It makes you wonder how many other posters we have who share the same views but are more secretive about them.

Most of the Atlas Experience makes me wonder how may posters we have here who secretly hate America, want it to fail, and work for it to fail because their real allegiance is to the enemies of America.

I can wonder about secret agendas as well as you can.  The people here who hate America are smart enough to overtly deny it, but they give up the ghost with their posts.

Shut up.

Putting white supremacy and whatever dumb sh**t you think constitutes as "hating America" on the same moral plane is vile even for you.

[S019]

Probably the worst leftist poster on Atlas. One of the few I have on ignore because, as I've said before, his posts are bad enough to cause brain cancer.

I don't buy into the whole "atlas institution" thing. 100 mind-numbingly stupid posts are indicative of a bad poster. That shouldn't suddenly change after 10000 my numbing Lee stupid posts.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Massive FF.

Sure, it has issues and problems, but overall, it's a huge, HUGE success story. Europe was blood-drenched continent where old scars and wounds caused and would cause again countless wars. The European Union brought something unprecedented and amazing to the continent- stable and long-term peace. With close connections formed on issues like trade, politics, laws and the military, and most importantly, by sacrificing some of that sacred "sovereignity", it managed to unite a continent and make it an island of peace in a still-troubled world. One of my professors once told us that when we Israelis mock the European Union, we should remember that while they managed to establish peace, we're going to a military campaign every year, so we should be more humble. Americans, who just recently started an unnecessary war that destroyed stability in a whole region, would do well to remember that too.

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

Institutional religion (particularly Christianity) has been in decline in the Western world since the development of capitalism and its consequent factors of industrialization, urbanization, and globalization. The disruptive socioeconomic forces unleashed by that system, to which Protestant Christianity has been fervently wedded for centuries, is, arguably, the primary culprit of the cultural changes that have made faith in and practice of Christianity feel meaningless and, often, disagreeable for an increasing number of people.

There is no turning back the clock for Christianity in the modern, Western world. The future of that religion lies in the Global South (Latin America, Africa, Asia, Oceania). To the extent it survives in Western Europe and the Anglo world will be as a set cultural relics - old customs, objects, and places that once held transcendent meaning, but are now bereft of any life save for anthropological curiosity. The decreasing number of adherents will have to form enclaves and focus on familial and group transmission of knowledge to perpetuate their living traditions within a generally indifferent-to-hostile society.

What happens to religious beliefs in a more general sense is an interesting question. There's no substantial evidence of some impressive growth in Atheistic/strictly materialistic beliefs. The overwhelming majority of people hold some religious ideas, whether it's expressed in an organized or eccentric/individualized fashion. The decline of Christianity has simply coincided with an increase in beliefs in the existence or supernatural power of cryptids, astrology, meditation, yoga, divination, "universal life force," and so on. Religion has simply taken a more individualized, disorganized, and esoteric form - which permits less obligations, moralism, and prescribed behavior as such belief systems lack any organization, hierarchy, or structure. That fits perfectly with our increasingly alienated and atomized lifestyles, but will only exacerbate the negative side effects of that lifestyle, namely depression, anxiety, and vulnerability to extremism.

Overall, the decline of Christianity offers positive benefits, such as improved quality of life and access to rights and resources for historically underprivileged and persecuted groups. It also allows society to adapt its moral values to new material and social conditions. However, it also exacerbates some of the most psychology harmful aspects of modernity - alienation. But, we're in new and uncharted territories that will allow us to shape our personal lives and communities in ways we hadn't been able to before.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The other day I saw a thread about Missouri, and why Republicans are so successful there.  A poster claimed that part of the reason was Southern Baptists, and how they are basically stupid.  I don't think it was necessarily mean-spirited.  People just assume that Evangelicals are stupid, and our culture reinforces that belief.  And they've been doing this at least the 1920s, when they performed character assassination on William Jennings Bryan.

I am basically an Atlas unicorn.  I am an Evangelical from the Bible Belt who did not vote for Trump despite the fact that I did vote for Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, and other Republicans at the local level.  My family also refused to vote for Trump.  I had many reasons why I didn't vote for Trump, but if he hadn't been an inspiration to racists across the country, I probably would have held my nose and voted for him.

Here is an interesting article:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/no-the-majority-of-american-evangelicals-did-not-vote-for-trump/

I actually was not born into an Evangelical family.  My parents were moderate Lutherans when I was born (I think it was Missouri Synod, but I don't remember, it might have been ELCA).  When I was very young, my family temporarily moved to the UK, and my parents became Evangelical Christians.  They appreciated how British Evangelicals rarely talked about politics.  Despite the fact that they didn't preach about abortion, my mother was convicted that it was immoral from reading the Bible.  This was in the late '90s.

At that time, I was a very young child.  I have been attending Evangelical churches most of my life, often Southern Baptist churches.  During that time, the pastors didn't talk about politics very often, and I was never told how to vote.  The only times I remember hearing about politics were on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and a few messages around the time of Obergefell v. Hodges.  IIRC these were Sunday school messages, not regular sermons.  My most recent church in Kentucky doesn't preach politics at all, and the preacher condemns racism just as often as he condemns abortion (maybe even more often).  The main theme of his sermons are always the gospel, though.

Many people act as if Evangelical Christianity was invented by Jerry Falwell to get Christians to vote Republican.  It wasn't.  We've been around long before the Republican Party and we'll be here after the GOP dissolves.  We exist on all Continents and speak many different languages.  Don't let your hatred for the GOP tarnish your view of a diverse international religious movement.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Institutional religion (particularly Christianity) has been in decline in the Western world since the development of capitalism and its consequent factors of industrialization, urbanization, and globalization. The disruptive socioeconomic forces unleashed by that system, to which Protestant Christianity has been fervently wedded for centuries, is, arguably, the primary culprit of the cultural changes that have made faith in and practice of Christianity feel meaningless and, often, disagreeable for an increasing number of people.

There is no turning back the clock for Christianity in the modern, Western world. The future of that religion lies in the Global South (Latin America, Africa, Asia, Oceania). To the extent it survives in Western Europe and the Anglo world will be as a set cultural relics - old customs, objects, and places that once held transcendent meaning, but are now bereft of any life save for anthropological curiosity. The decreasing number of adherents will have to form enclaves and focus on familial and group transmission of knowledge to perpetuate their living traditions within a generally indifferent-to-hostile society.

What happens to religious beliefs in a more general sense is an interesting question. There's no substantial evidence of some impressive growth in Atheistic/strictly materialistic beliefs. The overwhelming majority of people hold some religious ideas, whether it's expressed in an organized or eccentric/individualized fashion. The decline of Christianity has simply coincided with an increase in beliefs in the existence or supernatural power of cryptids, astrology, meditation, yoga, divination, "universal life force," and so on. Religion has simply taken a more individualized, disorganized, and esoteric form - which permits less obligations, moralism, and prescribed behavior as such belief systems lack any organization, hierarchy, or structure. That fits perfectly with our increasingly alienated and atomized lifestyles, but will only exacerbate the negative side effects of that lifestyle, namely depression, anxiety, and vulnerability to extremism.

Overall, the decline of Christianity offers positive benefits, such as improved quality of life and access to rights and resources for historically underprivileged and persecuted groups. It also allows society to adapt its moral values to new material and social conditions. However, it also exacerbates some of the most psychology harmful aspects of modernity - alienation. But, we're in new and uncharted territories that will allow us to shape our personal lives and communities in ways we hadn't been able to before.

First time I've ever seen this in this thread: