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

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

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

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

Came here to post this

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

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

Edit: I want to add a second post that - while seemingly at least somewhat defending a policy I consider pretty barbaric - was still informative and highly articulate in a way that, while it didn't change my mind by any means as to the policy aspect of the issue, was nonetheless a top-notch post regardless and gave me a more nuanced/less black-and-white look at what the other side's perspective might be.  Yeah, it's possible (perhaps even probable given what I already know of Sheriff Jones) that the Butler County Sheriff is just a being a horrible person b/c he thinks it'll help him in the primary whenever he has another opening to run for Congress, but it was still good to see a possible rationale for his actions that was a bit less "cartoon evil."  And besides, this shouldn't just be the "Good Posts I Agree With Gallery"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Ok, is being Anti-Israel anti-semetic or did BDS talk about the Elders of Zion?  If the latter then yeah they'd be anti-semetic.

Here's the way I see it:

It's perfectly reasonable to think that Israel's settlements policy in the West Bank (occupied territories, as many would call it) is bad. It's reasonable to think that the Likud government's hardliners, prominently Netanyahu, and the ultra-hardline parties they coalition with, makes it harder to reach a resolution in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Those are reasonable takes, and I hold both of those positions.

Where BDS goes over the line is the idea that Israel should *uniquely* be punished, at a national level, for its "sins." Artists are pressured into not performing there. Academics are dissuaded from lecturing there. Universities are pressured into divesting from Israeli holdings (inspired by the SA apartheid campaigns of the 1980s). What's curious is that Israel is the ONLY country on earth BDS holds to this standard, and not a peep out of them about actual genocides, like Darfur or the Rohingya in Burma or the violent massacres of LGBT in Chechnya. Just Israel, for... building apartments in disputed territory?

That's not to say Israel should steam ahead with the settlement program. They shouldn't, in my view. But it's not hard to wonder if there's something, ahem, fundamental about Israel that makes it singled out by BDS when parties that are considerably worse get a shrug

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Fun fact: Turns out Ramirez-Rosa told Biss' campaign that he'd always opposed BDS shortly before his selection.

Rosa has opposed and continues to oppose BDS at a state and municipal level (voted against a resolution on the city council). He believes there is room for a nuanced debate nationally, Biss does not. Only the former issue came up, for obvious reasons, in the selection process for Lieutenant Governor of Illinois.


In other news, Biss is announcing State Rep. Litesa Wallace (D-Rockford) as his new Lt. Gov. candidate today. Rep. Brad Schneider, who de-endorsed Biss over the Rosa pick, has declined to re-endorse.

There's room for nuanced national debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  There is not any such room for "nuanced" debate over supporting anti-Semitic hate groups like BDS nor should there be.  They must be condemned in the strongest possible terms for the same reasons that it's vital for politicians to unambiguously condemn white supremacists.    

...but BDS isn't a hate group? You can't repeat something over and over and expect people who disagree with you to suddenly take your stance on the issue. I'm not passionate about this issue and I'm actually more sympathetic to the pro-Israel side (I can understand why Sunrise and such have the opinions that they do since they and their family actually a personal connection to Israel) than a lot of others on the hard-left, but boycott, divestment, and sanctions is a legitimate tactic of protest against nation-states one deems to be oppressive. You can disagree with their labeling of Israel as such, but neither BDS nor DSA are "hate groups".

Since you are more nuanced on this than many who share your ideological orientation (to your credit!) I'll ask: why Israel? Why a liberal democracy where Arab Israelis have full political rights? Why is the same standard not applied to other countries? I used examples earlier of the pogroms against LGBT in Chechnya (an extreme version of general Russian persecution against queer people), the Rohingya attacks in Burma, An *actual* genocide in Darfur. It's absurd to compare these places to Israel and that's the point - there is no comparison. Like the earnest question every time a terror attack in the West happens, "Why aren't we talking about this instead?" If there's genuine concern for human rights, focus the energy on boycotting the Middle East's one stable democracy on thuggish regimes engaged in ethnic and religious cleansing. There's the real outrage.

<insert position that I don't really care about re: settlements, gaza blockade, etc etc that you're conveniently ignoring>

Like I'll be real honest - the emotions and feelings I have about either side of Israel/Palestine could fit in a thimble with room for cream and a little bit of simple syrup. But pretending that Israel is morally blameless and just perfect is at odds with the facts.

And like, the fact that you're saying "well, they're not Al-Shabab" isn't really filling me with confidence.

 I was personally opposed to DSA endorsing BDS just because I know a lot of people's berserk button is primed on the issue, and whatever good we'd do in supporting it is vastly outweighed by the s*** we'd catch because of it, but I really admire CRR for sticking by DSA's position on the issue. And let's be clear, CRR's personal position on the issue is NOT full endorsement of BDS, but he was willing to stand up to the berserk critics anyway.

But it's perfectly possible to be against settlements (at minimum I think they should be halted) or think Likud is terrible (I wanted Boogie or whatever his name was to win in '15) or oppose the Gaza Blockade (I thought it was ill-advised at best). You can hold those positions, all of which are within the progressive mainstream, while NOT supporting BDS. collectively punishing all Israeli people over policy disagreements is absurd. Not to mention the modern desire to conflate all  expressions of Jewishness with Zionism (see: Chicago "Dyke March"), and the historically illiterate contention that Zionism is a form of white supremacy or fascism

Israel is not perfect. Israel has, typically when egged on by Likudniks (or worse) made resolution more difficult. But most counties are not morally pure in any way, and BDS has a singular focus on just the one country, with logically spurious reasoning.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yes and no.

In broad terms of what he says he fits the definition of fascism I learned in school perfectly. He talks about new national greatness (Make America Great Again), hyper-nationalist (America First), populist ("drain the swamp"). He also fits other parts of classical fascist regimes: scapegoating and fearmongering minorities, alliance with amoral big businesses, anti-intellectualism, racism, shallow religiosity. Trump walks like a fascist, looks like a fascist, and quacks like a fascist.

But... he's an insane, stupid, incompetent liar. So maybe he's just an aspirational fascist. Or maybe really he's just an incoherent mess, and his various insanities and personal evil look more like fascism than anything else.

And in terms of results, he's a terrible fascist. Fascism, while it may (or may not) only have a minority or plurality of the populace in a fascist state supporting it, typically tries to control the state, instill unity through fear, propaganda, and an authoritarian government, and then get aggressive. Trump isn't doing that.

Instead, Trump is tearing us apart. He's weakening our international position, pushing our government into mostly-dysfunctional shambles, and does everything possible to set us at each others' throats.

Judged by his actions instead of his words, Trump doesn't look like a fascist, but like someone bent on destroying the US.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree with the posters elsewhere that a Democrat wave is building.  That danger is the final reason to support Moore. The GOP has things to accomplish, especially regarding the courts.  We cannot allow another Democrat in now, who will try to screw up the works. 

I want the courts to at least give me and the country protection from some of the thinking of some hard left Democrats.

Pedophiles: at least they're not Democrats.

He is not a pedophile.  If they occurred, they were 40 years ago.  A person can be forgiven for acts 40 years.  The GOP if it wakes up can expel him he lied about the yearbook.  The proof would come handwriting analysis not DNA analysis.

A person cannot be forgiven for child molestation, especially when they refuse to admit what happened.

You're speaking to a survivor. From the survivor community: Fuck Roy Moore, fuck anyone who defends him, and fuck you.

(can't wait to get death points for this message. worth it.)

Came here to post this

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

- Randy Bryce shouldn’t be elected dogcatcher.

^ Terrible user right here ^

Sorry fam

Child support is an extremely broken and rigged system, so that is not something that should be held against anyone.  My only gripe is that he eventually paid it off anyways, instead of taking a principled stand against the system.

What are these problems then?

How about this case where someone was determined to owe huge amounts of back child support accrued during time they were in prison (on death row after a wrongful murder conviction) that they were unable to pay due to the circumstances

How about this case where someone was determined to owe child support for a child that was born without their permission (after they were lied to about the usage of birth control and about genetic infertility)

How about this case where someone who was a victim of rape was determined to owe child support for a child born as a result of the rape

As long as cases like these exist, I think we would be better off as a society getting rid of child support systems altogether than to have cases like these continuing to exist.

Yes, these cases are rare, but the depravity of what happened in each of these cases is immense enough to make me think we would be better off ending the entire thing overall.

Don't abuse these people's cases to defend #IRONSTACHE being a deadbeat who only paid child support to quiet things down before a house campaign. Many (like 99% women) people desperately need child support to support their child and themselves(especially women, who are systemically pushed from high paying jobs that give the ability to be financially independant), especially in cases of domestic abuse(we really don't want abusers to be able to keep their victims hostage because they're the only breadwinner). Repealing child support would cause devastating consequences that would far outweigh the benefits of the much rarer problems it imposes. We didn't legalize rape because of lynchings. Why should this be any different?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't see what the big deal is. Some parts of Africa are not places you want to live. Even some parts of the U.S. are horrible. Stop overprojecting. He slightly has a point. Everywhere has crapholes.

When you are president, you cannot refer to other countries during a backroom policy discussion, no matter how impoverished they are, as being s***holes. Period.

This

But if your say Johnson, it is ok to say "I'll have these n***ers voting Dem for the next 100 years" and that passes muster. Ok....

It does not pass muster.  Johnson was a jerk-off.  But there is still a difference.  Johnson, despite his un-presidentai mouth and the hypocrisy and self-serving nature of his shifting positions, at least ended up benefitting disadvantaged African Americans in the end.  Trump looks at refugees, and says: "hey, your country is in political and economic chaos, so screw you too."  And that's all he will ever do.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context:

Has nobody heard of dark humor?

Sure have.

As a woman, the fact that I should just shut up and deal with it because it's funny is exhausting.

Sure, it was a "joke." That doesn't make it okay. It's /not/ funny and it's not okay. Culture has covered for this kind of stuff for too long with "it's just a joke ahaha" and "can't you relax?!" for way too long.

Imagine this: Every day while you're at work or school or whatever, someone comes up behind you and pokes you in the shoulder. Not hard enough to hurt or even really bother you the first time. But this person does it every time they walk by. So, you know, 3-4 times a day. Whatever. The first day, you can shrug it off. The next day, they do it again. So you tell them to stop. "I'm just messing with you man, can't you take a joke?" So you put up with it for the rest of the week.

You come back from the weekend, feeling ready to tackle the week, refreshed, yeah! And then, just as you sit down to really do something amazing, p-o-k-e. You jump up from your chair and smack the person's hand. "Stop TOUCHING me." "DUUUUDE It's just a joke. I wasn't even hurting you. Chill out!" Likely, your coworkers only saw this one poke, so now it also looks like you're overreacting to this one interaction, even though your reaction is, in truth, appropriate.

Now, the person poking you probably lays off for the rest of the day, and maybe even the next day. Maybe you even tell your coworkers that this person has been doing this, and ask them to keep an eye out. Of course, they're busy, and the poker stays away for a little bit. But on Wednesday, he pokes you again. Maybe some people notice, maybe they don't. It still doesn't look like that big of a deal. Like, they're not even really touching you. And it was only that one poke for the whoole day. That's not that big of a deal, right?

But then on Thursday it's back up two or three pokes. And by Friday, every time they go by. You do your best to ignore it, but now you're feeling defensive. Your work is interrupted and distracted because you're keeping an eye out for this person. You're tensed up, waiting for that annoyance and also trying to self-talk yourself into ignoring it, because if everyone else says it's no big deal, then why are you so uptight about it? Maybe you were overreacting and you should just get over it?

So, you go home over the weekend and think about it. Everyone said you were overreacting, so you figure you might as well just deal with it. Some of your coworkers did notice on Friday. Maybe some of them even told the poker to chill out. But they're not the ones being poked, so their request was pretty low-key and they didn't follow up.

This goes on for months. In some ways, you get used to it. It's just part of life. Most days you can almost always ignore it. Sometimes the poker pokes a bit more, just to get your attention. Sometimes they walk by more often. Sometimes there's days where they're out of the office, and those days are a blessed relief. You get so much more done, even though you're to the point where you're not actively thinking about it. Maybe the poker even goes on vacation and you have the most productive week you've ever had.

And then... then they come back from vacation. And you enjoyed that time off you had. Or maybe you're just having a really bad day. Maybe you're stressed out about something at home. Maybe you have a really big project. Or maybe you're just absolutely tired of this person constantly poking you. But there they come... and they poke you again, this time a little bit harder than they normally do, and there's a smirk on their face. You take it to your boss. They investigate, but seriously? It's just a gentle little poke. Can't you take a joke? They do ask the poker to stop, because they can see how it would be distracting. Likely the poker stops for a while again.

But then... it starts again. You can't take it anymore. You flip out. You curse this person out, shove them away from you. You end up looking like a crazy person for such a reaction. You ask that the poker be moved to a different department, or something. Why couldn't you just take a joke? This isn't that big of a deal, is it?

Imagine that. For years. Every day of your life. From multiple people. You get good at ignoring it and not saying anything about it, and maybe even covering for the people who do it. "Oh, I don't mind." "It's just office banter." "I mean, that's what happens at work." "Oh, I know they're just kidding."

It's. Exhausting.

So, yeah. It's just a joke. Hahaha. This isn't his first joke like this, and we are all exhausted. I don't care what they do to him. I'm just glad he's getting called on it. It's disgusting and it's time we acknowledge that. I'd like to see him fired, because Hillary has had to put up with really disgusting stuff for way too long, and that was completely unnecessary.

So, yeah, no. It's not just a joke and it's not funny.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

... That proves nothing, except that you guys almost certainly never visited Ohio. Neither have I, for the record, but at least I don't proclaim to know the future political orientation of a state based on one Presidential election and a couple of out-of-context maps.

Ohio wasn't some massive swing towards Trump; Clinton hemorrhaged former Obama supporters, due to a variety of reasons. Let's take a look at turnout in the state from the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Elections. Overall, 54,387 fewer people voted in 2016 than 2012.

5,590,934 - 5,536,547 = -54,387

Now, look at the change in raw numbers from Obama to Clinton and from Romney to Trump. There were 433,540 fewer people who voted for the Democrat in 2016 than 2012, but only 179,569 more that voted for the Republican.

2,827,709 - 2,394,169 = -433,540
2,661,437 - 2,841,006 = +179,569

So, where did voter turnout drop the most?

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland): 645,262 - 608,879 = -36,383
Summit County (Akron): 268,358 - 260,346 = -8,012
Stark County (Canton): 181,746 - 176,165 = -5,581
Mahoning County (Youngstown): 121,584 - 115,971 = -5,613
Lucas County (Toledo): 210,621 - 198,830 = -11,791
Montgomery County (Dayton): 266,707 - 259,876 = -6,831
Hamilton County (Cincinnati): 418,894 - 409,109 = -9,785

What really happened in these counties?

Cuyahoga County
447,273 (Obama) - 398,276 (Clinton) = -48,997
190,660 (Romney) - 184,212 (Trump) = -6,448

Summit County
153,041 (Obama) - 134,256 (Clinton) = -18,785
111,001 (Romney) - 112,026 (Trump) = +1,025

Stark County
89,432 (Obama) - 68,146 (Clinton) = -21,286
88,581 (Romney) - 98,388 (Trump) = +9,807

Mahoning County
77,059 (Obama) - 57,381 (Clinton) = -19,678
42,641 (Romney) - 53,616 (Trump) = +10,975

Lucas County
136,616 (Obama) - 110,833 (Clinton) = -25,783
69,940 (Romney) - 75,698 (Romney) = +5,758

Montgomery County
137,139 (Obama) - 122,016 (Clinton) = -15,123
124,841 (Romney) - 123,909 (Trump) = -932

Hamilton County
219,927 (Obama) - 215,719 (Clinton) = -4,208
193,326 (Romney) - 173,665 (Trump) = -19,661

In counties where the Democrats lost the most voters, there wasn't a significant shift towards the Republicans. Voters simply went third party or, more often, stayed home.

It's also important to note that even though Trump won Ohio with a higher percentage of the vote than Bush in 2004 (51.31% for Trump, 50.81% for Bush), Trump didn't even reach Bush's raw vote totals (2,841,006 for Trump, 2,859,768 for Bush). And, this is not due to population decline in the state, since Ohio's population was 11,353,140 at the 2000 census and 11,613,423 in 2015.

Voter turnout in Ohio since 2000...

2000: 4,705,457 (2,186,190 = Gore | 2,351,209 = Bush)
2004: 5,627,908 (2,741,167 = Kerry | 2,859,768 = Bush)
2008: 5,721,831 (2,940,044 = Obama | 2,677,820 = McCain)
2012: 5,590,934 (2,827,709 = Obama | 2,661,437 = Romney)
2016: 5,536,547 (2,394,169 = Clinton | 2,841,006 = Trump)

Basically, Trump experienced a decent increase in votes over Romney, but Clinton experienced a dramatic decline over Obama - especially from his 2008 peak, and even from Kerry's results. There's nothing to indicate that (a) there were a significant number of Obama-Trump voters and (b) the next Democrat cannot recreate the results that Obama received simply by turning out the vote. Even if Trump held all of his voters, if the next Democrat could slightly increase Obama's 2012 numbers, the Democrat would win.

Came here to post this.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Early contender for best post of the year:

Context:

Badger, RINO Tom, PNM, TheSaint250, Santander, Mortimer

Excuse me, but I'm probably more ideologically in line with more of the GOP's policy stances (abortion, death penalty, quasi-stricter immigration) than any of these other delusional RINOs, even if I'm the only one who is not lying to myself in that I should not be a Republican.

Perhaps, yet the others maintain a pretense of support for the GOP insomuch as they want to fix its problems and improve it, whereas your signature appears to flaunt a wish for its destruction and disingenuous primary voting.

The GOP is beyond repair, and thankfully it appears you are self-aware enough to realize that, as evidenced by your "Conservative" (or is it "Constitution"?) party avatar.

So yes, I am actively rooting for the party's demise. We need a healthy alternative to the Democratic Party. Not a party for resentful degenerates who pride themselves on ignorance and being the "true Americans" party while unironically flying the Confederate flag on their vehicles.

Until then, I will vote for Democrats in every single general election and for the most unelectable Republican in the primary. It's not like there's much of a difference between someone like Joe Arpaio and Martha McSally anyhow from a policy standpoint.

So what do you hope to accomplish by such a strategy? I fail to see how you expect to actually improve matters by doing that. I mean, have you tried convincing the people you hate to think otherwise? It's not like once you blow up the Republicans whatever takes their place won't be the same thing with a different label unless they're convinced it should be otherwise.

I changed my avatar to the Constitution Party after Trump's nomination because I could not support his candidacy and wanted to make that statement of protest--without pandering to the travesty of a movement the Never Trumpers turned into. I too am disgusted with what the Republican Party is. I'm disgusted by the vast market of scam artists trying to fleece money out of gullible older people with PACs that will never accomplish anything more than cashing a check. I'm disgusted by all the racial crap. I'm disgusted by Trump's conduct. I'm disgusted by the blatant corruption in the Republican's economic policies designed to help donors rather than ordinary people. I'm disgusted by the lunatic conspiracy theory laden mess that is the "conservative media". I'm disgusted by the anti-rational views within the party. I'm disgusted by the piss-poor excuse for social conservatives who are a walking caricature. But the thing that disgusts me most of all, about Trump, and about his opponents even more so, is the kind of destructive nihilism that merely wants to burn things down rather than build something. Any smarmy prick can go around making fun of people; it's way easier to attack others than to actually believe in and defend a set of principles because when a person attacks they can lob a smorgasbord of  sarcastic insults without having to worry about whether those criticisms are consistent with each other. It may make for effective political campaigns but it's a garbage strategy for governing a civilization.

The degree of rote hatred for the Trump folks from his opponents is simply mind-boggling to me. I didn't vote for him, but many of my friends and family did. I don't comprehend why people are unable to view Trump supporters as people, however misguided, generally trying to make the best of a bad situation. I think people fail to recognize that acting in good faith and in a genuine manner is often more important that having the right views. I know politicians don't do that, and I'm not really expecting them to, but this situation will not improve until ordinary people are willing to look act in good faith.

So you want the Democrats to win. Fine. Then work to make them better. But if you want to make your enemies worse rather than your side better, then you are what's wrong with America.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context:

But it's a delusional belief, the equivalent of when some fringe Democrats cliam that Republicans are going to kick all black people out of the country. Corbyn has a poor judge of character which has led him to become associated with Anti-Semites due to factional blindness, but no more than your beloved right-wing parties which see Jewish Soros-led conspiracies everywhere.

The Tory government which is the "bulster" against Corbyn has promoted Alan Duncan into ministerial position. The Trump administration is well-known to employ and associate itself with Anti-Semites. Silvio Berlusconi, a man with a long history of Anti-Semitic "banter" (and has promoted the granddaughter of Mussolini, who follows her grandfather's views) will soon take control of Italy in open coalition with parties that directly expouse fascist rhetoric. Shinzo Abe keeps as his deputy a man who has repeatedly praised Hitler and the Nazis, and has had several of his cabinet members outed as Nazis. etc

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Reaganfan's reported posts do not amount to enough to justify a ban at this time.

Are you f#$king kidding, Brittain?!?!? 

Perhaps no one reports because no one--quite justifiably--believes doing so matters for $hit with the current moderation "values" and double-standards in place?

As noted by others, Naso has done this for YEARS as has been REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENTLY reported as the subjects of COUNTLESS threads!

Look, I'm willing to give mods some break in terms of infractability being in the eye of the beholder. HOWEVER, to claim Naso has an insufficient record of WELL-documented and grossly racist, homophobic, anti-Latino, Islamophobic, and now anti-Semitic posts is simply 2+2=5 factually WRONG!

I literally can NOT believe you of all people just tried claiming that with a straight face.

I now read there's a temp ban for Naso (not sure how long). That still doesn't change a word of what I've posted above.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Evangelical Christianity is a scam, along with all it's tentacles (religious right, creationism).

Gotta love that religious tolerance  It's a perfectly legitimate religion practiced by plenty of decent people (including some of the best folks I've ever been fortunate to meet).  A number of the high-profile televangelists and political hacks like Falwell Jr., Dobson, Osteen, etc, etc, etc are snake oil salesmen who wave the bible around like a stage prop while raiding their congregations' wallets, but the idea that its not a legitimate religion or that evangelicals are all a bunch of bigoted amoral morons who don't know their mouth from a hole in the ground is ridiculous.  And there are some strong moral voices in the evangelical community such as Russell Moore who – whatever you may disagree with him on politically – seems like a real profile in courage.

I think you're both right and wrong here. For practical purposes, there are two different groups who share the exact same name. There are actual practicing Evangelicals, who generally are decent people whatever political disagreements there may be. This group appears to be a minority of self-labeled Evangelicals.

Then there is a second group, who come across as pretty terrible people. They generally ignore the precepts of the religion to which they claim to belong and are rampant hypocrites. And they appear to make up a large majority of "religous conservatives".

As with so many other parts of American political life, Trump has made the divide very clear and easy to see.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context:

Given Dave's specific instructions as regards this particular subject the lack of action over this creature is inexplicable. More than a few posters have been banned for rather less. Arguments that, ah well, he at least contributes are absurd: he does not contribute. He is a waste of space, a pure producer of white noise.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Both Tim Walz and Kristen Gillibrand supported gay marriage when they were elected in 2006.

Obama didn't until Biden forced him to in 2012, and in 2008 he pointedly refused to condemn an anti-gay African-American cleric, Donnie McClurkin, who spoke on his behalf before the SC primary.

My point is that it wasn't some utterly fringe position. And she's not under fire for not supporting gay marriage anyway.

It wasn't an utterly fringe position, but bigotry wasn't a fringe position either, with a very large fraction of the population at that time thinking gay sex should be illegal:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

I assume you don't think anyone who thought that at the time should now be completely unemployable, so I'm curious where you think the line is.  They shouldn't be employed as a cable news host?  Or in any kind of role that makes them a public figure?  Or they can be a public figure as long as they apologize?  Or they can be a public figure as long as they didn't express their bigotry in a public forum on the internet?, etc.

She needs to apologize.

Honestly the most cringeworthy aspect of this is the white people saying that she should get a pass because she's a black woman. It's part of the racist notion that minorities are too stupid to be liberal on non-racial issues. There are plenty of black people who are not horribly homophobic.

Came here to post this

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context:

This thread is really two different topics:

1. The quote taken out of context to make it sound like Trump was talking about all undocumented immigrants rather than MS-13 members, and delusional commentary calling him a Nazi.

2. The question of whether human personhood includes members of gangs. While I get that emotive persons often refer to violent criminals as animals rather than people, I think, based on any remotely plausible definition of personhood, they're quite human. People mistakenly think dehumanizing others will aid in justice, but really it distorts it. The totality of justice is not only a restitution of wrong, the protection of society, but also the punishment and rehabilitation of the criminal. This makes no sense if the criminal is not a person. You cannot hope to rehabilitate a mere animal, nor can you hold it responsible for its actions in the same way as you can a person.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

AOC has every right to challenge Crowley and make her case. She’s a resident of the district and is presumably older than 25. Let her, like Ayanna Presley in Massachusetts, make the case for why she’d be better for the constituents of NY-14 than a potential future Speaker of the House. Will she be better at constituent services? Perhaps!

In the same vein, Crowley has been around for 20 years. He owes his constituents reasons to keep him there, other than “muh Machine.”

I’m personally not sure what the great crimes of Joe Crowley and Mike Capuano are, other than being old white guys in districts with changing demographics. They aren’t Dan Lipinski - hell, they’re not even Stephen Lynch. Part of the notion that a woman of color is automatically better seems a little overly focused on identity and ignores that people like Lydia Velazquez exist.

Maybe it’s just that NY Dems are terrible in general

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The IG report confirms what we already knew from the Rosenstein memo. Comey, a hedge fund multimillionaire with a grudge against the Clintons going back to the early 2000s, a max McCain/Romney donor, a man photographed with a Trump sign on his front yard, an agent of the taxpayers, a government official in charge of the nation's highest law enforcement agency, in a breathtaking and unprecedented departure from his own's agency's practice, insubordination of his superiors, dramatically tipped the scales of a national presidential elections in the last 11 days.

Trump was right to fire him.

Can we not pollute this thread with blatant lies?  K thx

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Given Trump's views on the Central Park Five, his anti-defendant views, his over-glorification of police officers, etc., this is what I have to say on the Manafort matter...

I don't really care, DO U?!

I'll agree with this to a point.

I do care about the perception of Manafort as a political prisoner, however.

Political prisoner? No serious person who is actually paying attention considers him a "political prisoner". Even Trump has been trying to distance himself for months. What the hell are you talking about?

Paul Manafort was indicted on a variety of crimes including, but not limited to, tax and bank fraud, conspiracy against the United States, obstruction of justice, and failure to register as a foreign agent. He was ordered to wear, by TWO different judges, in TWO different federal courts ankle bracelets because of substantial and compelling evidence against him. Due to the high number of crimes he was indicted for, he was looking at hundreds of years in prison. Despite this, he was only ordered to house arrest, a luxury that would not be granted to the average Joe American. Even with "only" getting house arrest, Manafort was still found guilty of witness tampering. After again, substantial evidence against him was presented to the judge, the judge has no choice but to sentence him to jail. This is how the rule of law operates. If Manafort is innocent, he is free to make his case at his upcoming trial. He has nobody to blame but himself for being in jail.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context:

HP. I respected her and was initially glad she defeated Political Boss Crowley, but she let the celebrity get to her head. She became a sour winner despite Crowley's very gracious song-endorsement and showed her character as smug and disrespectful. And of course, being a socialist and anti-Israel doesn't really make me like her more.

[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!

[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

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No. Let's not f*** around and pretend that being a Supreme Court Justice is about anything more than imposing your political agenda on the nation. This is true of Justices on any side of the political spectrum. "Judicial activism" is unavoidable.

Given the behavior of the Supreme Court for the last several decades, that's true, but it does not inevitably have to be that way. We have had a few Supreme Court Justices who were dedicated to doing their job objectively and did not allow their political ideology to infiltrate their decisions. I'm referring to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black. On the Circuit Court of Appeals there was Learned Hand. I think it is possible to get people like that appointed to the Supreme Court these days, if we want and expect the POTUS to select people like that.

Love it.

This. We won. Trumps hate after all .

I mean, at the end of the day, you guys are the ones who have to live with yourselves.  Unless you guys genuinely believe that all of the allegations against Kavanaugh were unquestionably a vast left-wing conspiracy, this sort of blasé attitude about the matter is not just morally revolting, but inching towards an outright evil worldview where you don't care about rape, sexual assault, etc as much as you do about being able to do a Nelson Muntz-style "HaHa" for a month (at most).  I mean, there's none of the nuance or genuinely thoughtful commentary that we've seen from folks like Fuzzy, your posts are just you guys reveling in your own amorality.  Not gonna lie, I really thought both you guys were better than that, but I guess not

I don't think it's a "conspiracy" but I definitely think all of these accusations were completely made up in order to prevent Kavanaugh from being appointed, and used by Democrats in order to potentially block his nomination and perhaps make sure Republicans could appoint one fewer SCOTUS justice.

Yes, because making up all those accusations is so much more believable than, you know, him actually doing what they accused him of.

As long as there is no evidence - yes.

What about the therapy notes from 2012, the contrast between Kavanaugh and Ford’s sworn testimony, Kavanaugh’s perjury about his drinking, Kavanaugh’s perjury about when he learned of Ramirez’s allegations, the polygraph test, and the fact that there are witnesses supporting Ramirez’s allegations?  You don’t consider any of that evidence?  You don’t think it’s even possible that maybe...just maybe there might be some truth to Ramirez and/or Ford’s allegations?  Side note: This idea that sworn testimony isn’t evidence needs to die.  Victim testimony is good enough to be treated as evidence in criminal court

I've said this a number of times about Kavanaugh:  There IS evidence.  

There is NOT enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh at trial.  (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)

There is NOT enough evidence to charge Kavanaugh with a crime.  (Probable Cause)

There MAY be "reasonable suspicion" to believe that Kavanaugh committed a crime in the past, and a serious crime.  It is not likely that there will ever be more than that.

Still, would you really want to elevate to the Supreme Court a man who, as a 17 year old, can be reasonably suspected of putting his hand over the mouth of a female victim who was physically helpless while he tried to take her clothes off?  That's a good question.  Would you want such a person to be YOUR attorney?  Would you want such a person to be your PSYCHOTHERAPIST?  Would you want such a person to be YOUR DAUGHTER'S HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER?  I certainly believe that, absent politics, they would not be comfortable if their attorney, their psychotherapist, or their child's teacher suddenly had such an accusation as the one that has come out about Kavanaugh surface about one of those people.  

Kavanaugh doesn't meet the "Above Suspicion" standard.  That's a mighty high standard, but the SCOTUS is a mighty high place.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Election Day -- one of the days we election junkies live for -- is just around the corner, so I'd like to share a few of my personal tips for getting the most out of it.  (This is the 50th anniversary of the first election I followed closely, and the 10th anniversary of the first one I followed on Atlas.)  Some of these are for general election watching and some are Atlas-specific.  Feel free to add your own!

General tips:

1. Pace yourself!  It's going to be a long day and night, and the main event doesn't start until the evening hours.  If you can manage it around work or school, sleep late or take a nap during the day.  Don't stay glued to coverage during the day and burn yourself out early.  Take breaks; talk to your family, go for a walk, play with the dog.

2. Don't read too much into anecdotal weather and local turnout reports.  They have little or no predictive value.  Final turnout reports, OTOH, may (but don't always) provide some useful information.

3. Be very skeptical of reports of outrageous incidents, like people being scared away from polling places, unless they're confirmed by a reputable news source.  Please DON'T repost them on Atlas, social media, or anywhere else without confirmation.

4. Take early exit polls with a grain of salt.  They often don't reflect the actual state of the electorate.

5. Remember that early returns sometimes don't hold up, especially if they're mostly early votes.  Election Day votes can change things dramatically; see the CA-45 House and FL-GOV (D) primaries for examples.

6. If your side does well, always remember that it could have been better ("Damn, we almost got Rep. Dorque.")  If your side does poorly, remember that it could have been worse ("Whew, at least Dorque survived.")  It's OK to celebrate or mourn the results, but try not to lash out at others in the process.

7. Be careful of pronouncements that the results, whatever they are, signify a major change or realignment.  Such events are very rare.  If there's one consistent long-term trend in American politics, it's that the pendulum always swings back again.

8. If you drink or use other mood-altering substances, try to do so in moderation, unless you get to the "drowning your sorrows" stage. Think twice before posting while drunk; you'll probably regret it in the morning.

And some Atlas-specific tips (hopefully the mods will add their advice):

a. Please be civil.  Most posters here are human beings (there are a few I suspect are bots) and some of them have different views than you do.  This doesn't make them vile or your enemy.  To paraphrase what Sen. Mitchell famously said to Oliver North: it's possible for someone to be decent and patriotic and still think you're completely wrong. 

b. OTOH, there are some trolls here, and they're usually easy to identify.  The goal of a troll is to stir up a reaction, not to discuss things in good faith.  Disagreeing with someone is not trolling; deliberately provoking them is.  Please don't respond to the trolls.  Just use the Ignore and/or Report buttons.   (There's nothing wrong with using Ignore.  You don't owe anyone your time to read their stuff.  I use it liberally and it's greatly enhanced my Atlas experience.)

c. Try not to clutter up the main result threads with side topics; they're going to be really busy.  Please take such discussions to separate threads.  Similarly, please don't clutter the main threads with empty quotes or other responses with negligible content. 

d. Don't try to follow everything closely, and don't feel like you have to respond to everything.  There's just too much going on, and it's impossible to keep up with everything to the minute.  The best strategy is to pick just a few things you'll follow closely, and others you'll check on less frequently.

e. Disable the forum feature that warns on new replies when posting.  It's too hard to keep up on fast-moving threads, and this puts a strain on the server.  To do this, in your Profile under "Look and Layout Preferences", check the box for "Don't warn on new replies made while posting."  If this causes your reply to be a little out of continuity, it's OK.

f. Be wary of making overly quick projections or hot takes; it's not a race to see who can do it first.  Some people (who shall remain nameless) have been known to jump on early trends to make projections and be embarrassed by the final result.  Nobody remembers who was the first to make a correct projection, but everybody remembers who made the wrong ones.

g. Stay cool, be patient, and have fun!  The event itself is something we all enjoy, no matter how the results turn out.