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

[YE]

To be honest, I'm not particularly concerned with what happens to her on a personal level, but I do think it's a bit dicey to start down a path of jailing your political opponents, even if there are technically grounds to do so (and it's over something like using a private email while SoS). It's pretty obvious that conservatives and conservative media have taken to beating up on Clinton to distract from Trump, and so this puts their motives in question, and that could set a bad precedent, particularly when you have to factor in all the voters who might see it in a partisan light as opposed to simply the rule of law. This is also why if a president was being impeached/convicted, I'd much prefer it if they just resigned instead (and also that impeachment be for something worthy and not trivial).

It's one thing if this was about prosecuting her for taking bribes, or perhaps Hillary having people hack her opponent's emails/campaign server(s), or engaging in fraud of some kind, but we're talking about using a private email server. I'd really like Republicans to step back here and ask if it's worth going down this rabbit hole just because they want to distract from Trump's ongoing trainwreck of a presidency.

And for gods sakes, there are better ways to do this if they really, truly only care about holding her accountable (and are not using her as a prop / red meat for their base). First, they could have addressed this quietly and not made a big, public deal about it just months after Trump is sworn in. Second, they could have conducted a long, thorough by-the-book investigation and at least tried to set it up so they conclude maybe in late 2019 or so, when things have settled down some.

All I can say about it now is that it looks like some banana republic-type stuff, even if the charges may have merit.

[YE]

I'm proud of folks like myself that go to work every day, regardless of whether or not their employers kept faith with them.  Who took 2nd jobs to ensure their families had what they need, because their work was not valued as much as the investment of stockholders or the complaining of rich taxpayers.  I'm proud of folks who went to work and delayed gratification; who didn't view themselves as automatically entitled, and who didn't quit, even when it was clear that everything wasn't going to turn out according to their hopes and dreams.

There are poor folks who have given it all they have.  I respect them.  There are poor folks who never attempted to work steadily, and who never viewed it as their responsibility to make their own way in life.  I have little respect for them.  And I don't respect yuppies and rich types who are ungrateful for what they have, never mindful of how much less others that have worked as hard as them do not have.

I respect work.  I respect perseverance.  I don't respect sloth and I don't respect quitters and those that won't try at life.

So you think it's okay that middle aged people complain about their jobs no longer existing because of technology?

I hate how middle aged people think that the government should enforce socialism and repress technological progress to ensure that their job still exists.

It's your own fault if the free market leaves you behind.

FWIW, I'm not a "middle aged" person.  I'm 61 years old.  Old enough to be your Grandpa, sonny.  I work, my wife works, we are raising our 12 year old son (a grandson we adopted out of necessity) and caring for a disabled adult family member while her husband (one of my grown sons) attends college following a serious on-the-job industry, after which the "fee market" screwed him out of his rightful healthcare.  You're young enough to be my grandson, and, in all likelihood, your biggest loss was probably when some hot looking girl dumped you without warning.  I could be wrong, but in my experience, folks who experience real tragedy (My Father died on my 10th birthday, for example.) have a wee bit more empathy than to view those less fortunate than them as losers in the game of "Free Markets".  (Old as I am, I can turn on the "condescending jets" when I need to rebut some of the same.)

One thing that middle aged folks face when they "retrain" for new careers, or upgrade their skill bases, is Age Discrimination.  The job search process (mostly all online today) preempts much pavement pounding, and is designed to increase the distance between job applicants and employers.  If I were to submit my resume, folks would immediately calculate my age and make decisions.  I'm viewed as someone who'll be sick a lot, who'll be tired, who'll be out-worked by younger hotshots, who'll be inflexible, etc.  Most older workers are far more open-minded and flexible than they're given credit for, but most hiring managers are young enough to be my son/daughter, and I'm sure they project any number of issues they have with their parents onto an older applicant like myself. 

I'm not feeling sorry for myself, but I'm also old enough to remember a Social Contract which included long-term security for workers who were loyal and faithful; it was a Social Contract that built Middle Class America.  I'm now told by snot-nosed Hedge Fund Manager Wannabes that this is somehow "socialism".  It's kind of like my car dealer singing one song the day I singed the contract for Gap Insurance when I bought my car, and another song when my car was totalled in a 5 car chain-reaction accident caused by a Smartphone Addict.  Folks tell my generation that we didn't play the Capitalist Game skillfully enough only AFTER they sucked the best working years out of our lives, making promises along the way that were often not kept.

The snot-nosed yuppies of MY generation trashed the middle class for the folks of my adult sons' generation.  And I look at my 12 year old son.  What is the motto for America going to be for him?  "Move It Or Lose It !"?  "Only The Strong Survive"?  My son has ADHD; will his willingness to work and his loving character mean nothing in the Social Darwinist World of 2030s Yuppie Hedge Fund Managers?  Is the America you have planned for him one where he is consigned to an underclass if he's a Capitalist Non-Hacker?  I see this as the World folks are creating for my Grandchildren's generation, and I weep at the thought of it.

[YE]

With this precedent, why shouldn't megathreads be set up for krazen, Famous Mortimer, Reaganfan, or literally any of the hundreds of problematic posters?

Actually, from my perspective, krazen hasn't really been antagonizing people the same way he used to. He still says the same things, but I don't see pages-long arguments popping up when he posts. Often it seems like people ignore him or quickly move on. This is why I view him as low priority. People still want him banned, and I still think he's a little troll who will never be a respectful contributor on Atlas, but right now it's mostly his past reputation that makes people think to mention him in these kinds of threads/lists. Reaganfan and Mortimer mostly piss people off for their views, although Reaganfan can occasionally get very argumentative to the point of ruining a thread (re: gun control town hall thread). I guess you could argue Mortimer sometimes hijacks immigration-related discussions too.

LimoLiberal has been a huge pain in the ass for months now. More so than any of those posters you just mentioned. Also, keep in mind that quarantining LL to a thread actually takes sustained effort on my part. I'd rather have just exiled him from those boards, and that may be an option later on, but not right now. So keep in mind that post purgatory is not something I do lightly.

Anyway, bottom line is, I'm fed up with this situation, and I'd rather step down as a Moderator than stand back and do nothing here.

[YE]

I don't understand whether Fuzzy is trying to ignore the role the national environment/president plays in midterm/odd-year elections, or if this is just somehow neurons misfiring. The effect a president and by extension, their approval rating, plays on elections under their watch has been obvious for years now, and most if not all analysts accept it.

For instance, Virginia has been trending towards Democrats for years now, but yet the Democratic Party's share of legislative seats didn't really catch up until an unpopular Republican president came along. Interesting! I mean, yes, Democrats fielded lots more candidates this time, but they ran candidates in 2015 in vulnerable districts and still lost, only to win comfortably 2 years later under Trump.

Further, Alabama had Roy Moore, yes, but to say Trump had no effect there at all is preposterous. Jones won by a very slim margin, and had this been under Obama, with a demoralized Democratic base that had an enthusiasm problem, it's very easy to see them not showing up in Alabama either. In fact, it's practically guaranteed if you ask me. Trump made that race possible, and Roy Moore/Jones put it over the line.

I don't get why Fuzzy is ignoring years' worth of understanding of American elections. Politics is not that localized. It just isn't. Everything has become nationalized. If it wasn't, we'd actually have split ticket voting still and everything wouldn't be so polarized. You would probably have to go back 100 years or more to find a time where people voted party line as much as they do nowadays. That does not sound like an environment that 'votes local' like Fuzzy suggests.

[YE]

Treatment of Hillary and certainly some people's reactions to her post-2016 behavior could be sexist, but in this particular case, I don't think so:

1. Going back to Romney, it's my understanding that he did disappear into the background for a couple years or so, right? Clinton didn't do this. She very quickly bounced back and reinserted herself into the debate without first rehabilitating her image.

2. Her loss wasn't just any loss. This was a loss to Donald Trump, a candidate people (rightfully) believe was very weak and scandal-prone, even with a rabid core base of support around 20 - 30%. Her loss has brought upon America a lot of pain, turmoil and shame. People relied on her to save America from the monstrosity that is the Trump presidency in a way not typical to previous presidential elections.

3. Her party nomination was not without scandal, as we all know. I think this separates her from numerous past candidates well enough. Lots of people think she won the nomination unfairly and had used her extensive connections and power in the Democratic Party to not only clear the field ahead of time, but have a thumb on the scale in her favor. This is going to generate lasting animosity by those who were against her in the primaries. It's not something that can be smoothed over by a very brief period in the shadows of society.

4. A lot of people just don't like Hillary Clinton. She has long been a polarizing figure, and when the email scandal broke, it reinvorgated her image as a corrupt, inauthentic self-serving politician that is quite frankly, very easy to dislike. I'm not going to argue whether these attributes have merit, but rather that they are part of how she is perceived - fairly or unfairly.


This is simply not the same as past elections. By no means am I saying there isn't sexism in politics, but her case is uniquely different in some ways.

[YE]

(High quality post that I generally agree with)

Here we go with incorporating absurd Russophobia into White House foreign policy. Russia wasn't the first country to engage in such cyber activities; the US has been developing these capabilities and executing them for years now. Exploiting the current Russian interference fears to justify the desired expansion of these cyber warfare/manipulation tactics is all this is about. The US intelligence communities want to crack down on information leaks (hence targeting Wikileaks) and further develop their capabilities to target foreign countries to better manipulate their domestic politics (if not our own).

What would you propose the US do in regards to 2016 then?

I don't necessarily favor retaliation in cyberspace over anything else. I just want something that will get Russia to stop with the least amount of disruption (in addition to hardening our own defenses). But doing nothing is just absolutely not something I could personally agree with, and I'm not particularly favorable towards war or other acts of aggression either.

-snip for size-

Only people who don't know what they are talking about or are totally blinded by partisanship are saying that Putin flipped a Clinton victory to a Trump victory. What the intelligence community is arguing is that the Kremlin ran a campaign to damage Americans' faith in their democratic institutions. If you see America's actions in Russia in the 90s as shameless, than you should be more than happy to see Russia exposed for its election meddling, and "but he did it first!" is not an excuse to allow for one country to manipulate the democratic processes of another, let alone preclude a country that has been hit from building up their defenses against future attacks.

I know that you yourself identify as a strong anti-imperialist. I don't see how you cannot see Russia's attempts to - if not pick the winners of elections - disrupt elections, funnel money to certain campaigns, promote candidates on social media and tamper with voter rolls as anything but an imperialist persuit. And yes, I know the US does many of the same things. Here is the difference - the US, for all of its flaws, allows for public debate and discussion about our actions, and to remove those who were in charge of those actions when we collectively see fit. It's why you and I are able to have this kind of conversation without fearing any sort of repurcussions from it. Putin (and Xi for that matter) are desperately trying to have everyone simultaneously think their countries are superpowers that can take on any threat, but beg for sympathy when the evil imperialist US/EU call them out on their BS. Putin's a big boy who can answer for his actions.

And out of curiosity, I'd like to know where you think I fit into this Russophobic conspiracy. I am someone who supported Clinton from the get-go, someone who hopes eventually to work in foreign policy, and someone who wants to see the investigations into the 2016 elections continue, and see those who are found responsible for any wrongdoing brought to justice. I am also someone who has been to Russia twice, studied abroad in Russia, speaks Russian, worked as a tutor for disadvantaged Russian-speaking teens, will be rooting for team Russia in the world cup this year, is learning the balalaika, and has my room decorated with matreshkas, Russian art, and a Cheburashka doll. Please present evidence to me that by not liking Putin, Kadyrov, Yanukovych, and the like, I am being Russophobic. You can call that a strawman, but that is pretty much the impression that I get from your post.

I will also say for the record, that I think the US, UK, et al, have been pretty ham-handed in their handling of some aspects of the response to the Skripal case. At the very least, I would have liked to have seen a broader presentation of evidence against the agents who were expelled other than "oh yeah, there were a bunch of agents hanging out at our consulates, but Skripal got poisoned so we decided to kick them out."

[YE]

American democracy is failing because one of its parties has become a radical nihilistic cult.

     It is a convenient talking point to trot out and will get you kudos from your fellow partisans, though it falls apart when you can point to data supporting the conclusion that the system is failing that pre-dates the formation of the Republican Party (e.g. Andrew Jackson popularizing patronage as a basis for appointment). The system of the American government has been eroding for a long, long time, so gradually that it managed to escape notice until relatively recently. When Trump won I had hoped that he would force people to wake up and smell the coffee, but it turned out that for the larger segment of the politically active class I was wrong.

     What it comes down to is that the problem goes far deeper than the actions of a few people or a segment of the political spectrum, and if you are going to go out looking for scapegoats to blame for the deep rot then you ultimately end up just like the misguided fools who think that everything will be alright if Trump is removed from office.

[YE]

Yeah, Steve Bannon, the guy who started Breitbart Jerusalem, is totally as antisemitic or dangerous to Jews as "from the river to the sea" BDS. It is also outright laughable to put Trump in category "c" after opening an embassy in Israel and being the most pro-Israeli U.S. president ever, while left-wingers who keep parroting their malicious anti-Israel nonsense get a pass from you as long as they conceal their nonsense in accepted terms. And how the hell would Josh Mandel be a "fellow traveller to antisemitic groups"? I always tended to respect your views on this issue, but your hackery is really showing now.

- Steve Bannon has repeatedly gone to the mat for neo-Nazi and white supremacist elements on the far right.  Quite frankly, Bannon is far more dangerous to the Jewish community than BDS because while the latter are ultimately a bunch of disorganized morons with little serious political influence or credibility, Bannon has managed to get the mainstream media to refer to literal Nazis and blatant white supremacists as the "alt-right" (a term which carries far less of a negative stigma for whatever reason).  This is arguably the single biggest messaging victory these groups have won since David Duke got the media to start gobbling up the "it's not about racism, it's about preserving our [treasonous Confederate] heritage."  Given that you're apparently opting to close your eyes to Bannon's anti-Semitism b/c you like his politics; you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your accusations of hackery very seriously.

- Unconditionally opening the U.S. embassy building in Jerusalem was terrible for both Israel and the Jewish community in the long-term and the idea that Trump has been pro-Israel in any truly meaningful way is laughable.  The four Presidents who have done anything truly consequential for Israel are...
1) Harry Truman (no explanation needed),

2) Nixon (ironically a notoriously anti-Semitic individual) who really cemented the American-Israeli military alliance,

3) Jimmy Carter (ironically a category C-type himself) since the Camp David Peace Accords with Egypt made a serious Arab military invasion of Israel more or less impossible,

and 4) Obama who was willing to condemn the settlement construction, support a two state solution, enacted the Iran deal which would've ensured that Iran didn't get nukes for at least the next 10 years while simultaneously bringing it further into the international community (and thus making it more susceptible to economic pressure) and pressure Netanyahu to stop trying to derail the peace process at every turn (long-term, Israel will not be able to exist as a democratic Jewish state without a two state solution; this is a simple fact). 

Donald Trump's disingenuous virtue signaling hasn't done jack for Israel's security and his inexcusable decision to shred the Iran deal has both dramatically increased the likelihood of a nuclear Iran and crippled American credibility abroad (as it should).  Meanwhile Trump has actively given aid and comfort to Nazis in the U.S. whom he has literally referred to as "very fine people."  And of course, there are (as with Bannon) his incredibly extensive ties to far right anti-Semites. 

- Please name for me the anti-Semitic left-wingers whom I'm supposed to have given a pass, I seem to have forgotten.

- Re: Josh Mandel: He has repeatedly condemned the Anti-Defimation League while praising various anti-Semitic bigots such as Mark Cernovich and Jack Posobiec.  The fact that Mandel is the descendant of Holocaust survivors only makes the way he's thrown his own people under the bus to advance his political career even more disgusting.

[YE]

Right I feel that a few things need cleared up here:

The big issue i have is I want to be a doctor who works with individual patients.

I'm assuming that you're talking about general practice here since that's the only way in which this as an idea makes any sense (if you're a specialist in a hospital then you're seeing whoever comes in for treatment in the area that you specialise in: no matter where you work.  In the UK Doctors work with individual patients: people are registered to local medical practices that are owned generally by the Doctors that work there on a non-profit basis.  The National Health Service provide funding to cover the wages of Doctors plus the costs of the treatments that they can do on-site (referrals to hospitals or prescriptions are covered by other sides of the Health Service); and that funding is contingent on them meeting certain conditions; the biggest one being that the care provided is free at the point of use and that they follow NHS practice.  These are generally the exact same restrictions that GPs in countries that have an insurance-based system have to follow: only that its easier for everyone since rather than every insurance company having their own sets of rules and restrictions about what they will and will not cover, you only have one set of rules in NHS practices (private healthcare exists but its irrelevant to this discussion.)

I do not want the government running my work place, and effectively making me a government worker. If i wanted to do that i would'nt be busting my ass for pre-med and med school in the fall.

There are plenty of professionals who work for the government already: why is working for the State automatically less worthy than being in the private sector?  Additionally Doctors in the UK are paid very good wages - my sister only qualified a few years ago and she's still a Junior Doctor and she's earning significantly above the average wage and in only a few years that will be a comfortable income probably in the six figure range.  Also because they are government employees they have a high quality pension scheme that is guaranteed by the state (while private sector companies have recently been raiding the pensions of their employees: in many cases resulting in there simply not being enough money to cover the costs meaning that old people suddenly have their main income taken away from them); strong representation from their Trade Union plus significant support from the public for what they do.  My sister has genuinely never thought about going private and she would bitterly oppose the imposition of a private system here even if she would financial benefit from it.

We already have a single payer type system here. The VA. The VA is an absolute disaster which shows exactly what government run healthcare does to people.

It shows the importance of properly investing in your health system rather than letting it wither and die in order to justify cuts to service levels or privatisation or both.  The same issues that the VA has were exactly the same issues that the NHS had in the late 90s after eighteen years of Tory misrule; significant underfunding led to a service that was almost on its knees.  Shockingly after the next government began funding it properly the quality of the service provided dramatically improved.

Our system right now int perfect but we dont have the ridiculous waits that people in other countries have, which is why we have a big medical tourism industry in America. I for instance have been diagnosed with skin cancer twice and i was able to get it treated on the spot with no wait. In other countries, who knows, it couldve eveolved into melanoma before the bureaucracy got around to it.

For procedures like that there generally is no waiting period if there is any risk that the condition may worsen - you would naturally skip the queue and be treated as an emergency in a case like that.  Waiting lists that exist are generally for things like organ donations - which is pure supply and demand and could be corrected by an opt-out organ donation policy rather than an opt-in one - and procedures which are not emergencies and which require specialised help that cannot immediately be provided.  Besides: someone in your condition who could not afford health insurance would have absolutely not chance at not developing melanoma while in the UK that is not a problem and from that perspective I think that it is clear that it is a significantly fairer system.

People from Canada, Asia, and Europe come here for procedures that they would otherwise need to wait in some cases several years for.

This is a heavily overblown story: the number of people that leave the UK for medical treatment for reasons of waiting lists are insignificant.  More leave because of a wish to try experimental procedures but in the US many of those wouldn't be covered by insurance companies so there is no difference - again: private healthcare exists in the UK.

Additionally, if you put the government in charge of the medical system, they will be able to step in and make decisions for the doctors and the patients, not allowing them to make their own. See the recent story of the 10 month old baby in England whose parents raised over a million dollars to bring him to the United States for a potentially life saving expirimental treatment. The NHS stepped in and refused on the grounds that it would cause the child to suffer, and they are pulling life support either today or tomorrow. For the government to not allow parents to make one desperate attempt to come to the US and save their child's life is disgusting.

But this is the most egregious part of your post; since it is wrong in almost any way.  Let me explain the case that you are talking about in detail.

Indeed; there have two cases like this in recent UK history; that of Charlie Gard about a year ago and Alfie Evans a month ago.  I'm going to look at both cases in detail.  The principal of both are the same: the idea is that the child has rights; that one of those rights is not to suffer un-due and unnecessary suffering if improvement to their condition is impossible and that those rights trump the rights of their parents.  It is also the case that the Doctors involved in the care of the person are the ones that judge on whether or not they can apply for a request to remove life support (not "the NHS"; not some faceless government official: those who've been looking after the patient for a significant amount of time and who know more about them than anyone) and a Judge; looking at all of the evidence; has the right to make the best decision for the patient based on their interests - not those of their parents or the NHS; their interests.

Charlie Gard suffered from a rare genetic disorder called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS); which causes brain damage and muscle failure; has no known cure and in the vast, vast majority of cases causes death in infancy.  Dr Hirano (based in America) was researching a possible experimental procedure that might have been able to prove Charlie's condition.  The doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital were in contact with that Doctor while Charlie was on life support and said Doctor made the decision to not come to the UK to examine Charlie at that time although there was an agreement made between the hospital - an NHS hospital - and the Doctor to try the procedure out.  In January he suffered a series of seizures that caused significant brain damage and the Doctors at GOSH made the decision that the experimental procedure - that it had been agreed would be carried out in London without Charlie needing to travel - could not save Charlie and they applied for an order to remove life support.  This went through several months of legal wranglings and during that period Dr Hirano travelled to the UK to examine Charlie and came to the exact same conclusions as the Doctors at Great Ormond Street did: that the experimental procedure was fruitless and pointless to try after those seizures, and that the best thing for the interests of Charlie was for life support to be removed.  The decision was made on the basis of the best interests for wee Charlie by the Doctors that cared for him for a significant period of time as well as an independent arbiter who is only concerned about the interests of the child and nothing else.  Exactly the same processes exist in American hospitals as well: as I'm sure you are aware being a medical student there comes a point where keeping a person on life support without any prospects for improvement is only cruel for everyone involved and that was the case in this situation.  Not an easy situation for anyone but I agree with the decision made by the courts in this case - if only Dr Hirano had made the decision to travel to the UK earlier then perhaps this might have been avoided but no one can truly know.

The case of Alfie Evans is very similar although a lot weirder (him being given Italian citizenship was... a bit odd).  In that case there wasn't even a theoretical experimental cure: an Italian hospital offered to keep him on extended life support until some future date where theoretically something might be possible - since they hadn't diagnosed exactly what neurodegenerative disorder he had then there was no real prospect in a cure being found.  However they said that because of Alfie's condition plus the fact that he'd suffered several very bad seizures that there was a significant risk involved in him being transferred to Italy and that the risks involved may have caused further brain damage and made transfer very, very risky.  Additionally the doctors made the decision following a series of brain scans that demonstrated that the white matter in Alfie's brain was being progressively destroyed and that by their decision to apply for a court order very little remained; that the child was effectively brain dead.  This one seems clearer cut and it is based on the same situation as above: the Doctors made the decision to apply for a removal of life support on the interests of Alfie; since there was absolutely no prospect: no hope of any improvement and that keeping him on life support was incredibly cruel.

I'm from a family with a lot of people who work in the health service: my sister is a Doctor; one of my cousins is a Nurse and her husband is a surgeon and I have heard all sorts of stories about their work.  Once one of them had to make a decision on this .  And you know what; its a lot fairer than the US system when critically ill people can be thrown out onto the streets by hospitals if they cannot afford to pay for their treatment.  The NHS has problems - everyone knows this; and everyone accepts this.  However; in the UK pretty much everyone - doesn't matter if you are a Socialist like me; a Liberal; a Conservative; or whatever - agrees with the basic principle of the system: that no one should be barred from receiving medical treatment because of their inability to pay; that care should be available to everyone in the country on an equal basis.  A yougov poll in May last year found that 84% of people in the UK feel that healthcare should be run by the public sector - only behind the police (87%) and ahead of the armed forces (83%) and schools (81%).  Anything that has that level of mass public support even when its many issues are well known must be doing a lot of things right - and that support only rises when the American healthcare system and the significantly deeper problems that it has comes to the attention of the public again.

[YE]

I get why Democrats in more conservative territory are disavowing Pelosi, but it kind of annoys me that Republicans are allowed to get away with marching in lockstep behind Ryan/McConnell no matter how Democratic their district/state is, even though some polls show them as even more unpopular than Pelosi. It just strikes me as buying into and surrendering against a GOP narrative, when you could instead use their own tactics against them.

In fact, the only time you see Republicans disavowing Ryan/McConnell is in primaries because they're deemed as Soros-funded globalist cocaine snorting RINOs, lol.

It’s just another example of how Republicans are more adept at controlling the narrative, and forcing Democrats to posture themselves in awkward ways to try and get votes. They do this with many issues. They “warn” Americans that Democrats want to take their guns away, raise taxes on everyone, have open borders, etc. And what do Democrats do? They run scared/back away. “No, no, I fully support the second amendment! I want to lower taxes on almost everyone! I agree, we do have to protect our borders!” While Republicans never deny/cower away from the fact that they fully support the NRA and will do nothing to directly address our gun crisis, lower taxes on the wealthy, and deport millions. It’s no wonder Democrats are seen as spineless and lacking in any principles. Republicans dominated the narrative on gay marriage for decades, and Democrats let them do it (how many Democrats said “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman” before public opinion polls showed support for gay marriage at 50%?)

Democrats need to grow a pair and not allow Republicans to dominate the narrative by turning Democratic positions/politicians (or even just words sometimes) into boogeymen. They should wear Republican attacks on their ideas as a badge of honor, and stand up for them while showing that they work.

[YE]

As far as court-packing is concerned, if the Dems were to try anything crazy like increasing the Court to 15, it would face severe backlash, just like when FDR tried that. However, if expressed as helping out our overworked judiciary, an expansion to 11 (which would effectively undo the stolen seat) along with adding more circuit and district judgeships, I think the political pain of doing that wouldn't be too bad, plus if you ignore the political implications, we really could use the extra judges at all levels of the Federal judiciary.

[YE]

So what if it is a satire website?  The point is still made.

https://babylonbee.com/news/arkansas-yankee-caught-tongue-kissing-dennis-hastert/

Because "fake news" means a news story which is fictional even if you wish it were true rather than a story which is factual but makes you feel guilty for being a pedophile supporter.

You are just a nasty person. 

It is not fake news that Bernie owns three homes.  It is not fake news he is always attacking others for wealth they may have accumulated.  He could spread his socialist views without attacking the personal motives of others. 

Listen I understand that Trump could spread his views better if he did not get so personal.

Actually it is fake news that he has three homes. He has two, Jane inherited the "second house" and they sold it to buy a closer vacation house. But earning a public salary probably should put you in the top 1% anyways. He's helping to run the country and isn't stealing the value of anyone's labor (except to the extent to which anyone with investment in stocks is, but that's a longer story).

Medical professionals will be highly compensated in any just society. Our leaders should be highly compensated, not least because not compensating them leaves leadership to the leisure class. Everyone should be able to afford to go on vacation. Investors should not exist as a class. These are not inconsistent positions.

Unlike, say, supporting "family values" by rooting for a sexual predator.

[YE]

I think Kamala's a tough choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[YE]

Barack Obama's Presidency was failure.

On the domestic front, his anti-growth approach to the economy, which consisted of increased taxes and unchaining regulatory agencies ensured that his presidency would be one marked by anemic economic growth. The fact that his economic recovery after the Great Recession was the weakest in 70 years is a testament to this fact. His largest achievement, Obamacare, has been a failure. From causing millions of Americans to lose their insurance, to the economically harmful employer mandate/regressive individual mandate, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, Obamacare failed to improve the American healthcare system.

On the international stage, from ignoring the threat of Russia, to putting distance between us and Israel, and engaging in the ineffective/dangerous Iranian Nuclear Deal, Obama's approach to foreign policy was a record of weakness and naivete.

I do find this an unfairly harsh judgement.

Obama took office in the wake of something that was more than just a recession; it was an economic event that caused longstanding structural damage to our economy that was caused, unquestionably, by Republican economic policies that sought to create a "boom" economy that was fueled by inflated housing values, and not by real growth in the economy.  It was Republican policies that caused housing values in America to soar far out of proportion to what working people actually earned; a certain amount of the housing crash was an inevitable correction that the Republican economic policymakers of the Bush 43 administration should have known would occur. 

I personally believe that the main problem with Obama's Stimulus policies was that they didn't go far enough.  In that regard, the GOP is to blame, because they did not want Obama to succeed.  They wanted more of the same that created the problem.  If the Democrats have become a party which worship secularism, the GOP has become a party that worships capitalism to the point of Social Darwinism.

The insurance that Obamacare caused people to use was, for the most part, junk insurance with inadequate coverage; something that people could present to get them into the hospital in a pinch, only to hear soon afterward that they aren't covered.  The GOP has long governed America in a manner where they have been unconcerned for the masses without health insurance, or who were plunged in to medical bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness; they have opposed any and all proposals that included universal coverage.  And they have refused to consider legislation designed to fix the flaws in Obamacare; they WANTED it to fail and WORKED for it to fail.  And they have no plan that will, indeed, ensure healthcare access to all that will not bankrupt people.  (I thought, at one time, that Trump actually had some ideas that would fix the flaws in Obamacare, but he's apparently cast his lot making deals with the Freedom Caucus, which is not what I had in mind when I voted for him.) 

Obama had his flaws.  His foreign policy failed to extract us from any number of foolish foreign entanglements, and some of his accomplishments don't look as good in hindsight (although the Iran Nuclear Deal WAS a positive on balance).  And he wrecked the Democratic Party; the Clinton's takeover of the party apparatus was accomplished, in part, because of Obama's neglect of the party, itself.  I certainly didn't enjoy the social liberalism, not at all.  But the GOP Congress dealt with him with ill will, unconcerned for the common weal.  Their whole goal was to work to see him fail, and they were pretty open and honest about that.  I abhor "The Resistance" Congress to Trump, and I view the concept as un-American, but a certain amount of that is a response to "The Obstruction" that the GOP presented Obama.  There was never ANY good will extended Obama by Republcans.  None at all.  They wanted him to fail so they could get back in power, and they didn't really hide it.  In that regard, Obama may have been better off being more like Trump; giving more crap to his opponents that he got from them. 

I suppose my assessment of Obama is mixed because of my mixed outlook (economic liberal, social conservative) on issues.  He's not Mount Rushmore material, but the harsh judgements on his Presidency by Republicans are purely partisan.  Compromise and achievement on the part of Republicans during the Obama years would have been wonderful for America, both practically and socially, but Republicans were no better at putting the whole of America ahead of partisanship then than Democrats are now.

[YE]

Bernie Sanders is trash. No accomplishments after decades in Congress, failed to build alliances and coalitions, and criticizes everybody’s record when all he does is grandstand, protest, and leave the hard decisions to everybody else. Then when you question his ideas he gets defensive and crotchety. Why would anyone want this idiot to be President?

You are part of the problem.

Nothing I said was a lie. Sanders touts his ideologically pure record but it’s been at the cost of doing nothing significant in his centuries in Washington and having no coalitions in place to get legislation passed as President. Meanwhile he will criticize real leaders who have brokered deals and passed meaningful policy as being establishment. He can miss me with his bullsh**t.

Sanders easily has gotten the most progressive stuff done out of anyone on the Democratic side in the last Congress (which obviously wasn't able to do that much), and has a lot more bipartisan amendments than most other congressmen.  This is not surprising due to his massive political influence that he has accrued, but is also a testiment to his ability to find heterodox conservatives to work with.

I will vote for O'Rourke if he is the nominee and urge other people to do so, but he hasn't done jack while in Congress, so your argument is dumb.

You're right that coalitions to enact Sanders policies haven't existed for a long time, but he's the reason why they are now starting  to exist, thus demonstrating his long term efficacy.

He's the primary factor that shifted the Democratic party dramatically in favor of M4A, one of the few people in favor of real financial reform, one of the few people in favor of taking the big steps needed to tackle the urgent problem of climate change. 

If you disagree that things like that are needed, that is fine.  But other people have a right to tell you why they believe you are wrong without you calling them cultists or trying to silence criticism in the name of party unity.

It's smart to form coalitions to move the ball down the field.  That's why progressives united with centrists to vote for Obamacare, despite it being deeply flawed heritage foundation Romneycare, because it was a step in the right direction that helped millions of people if it didn't address the fundamental problems.

The "big tent" is bad, though, if it results in losses rather than gains - if Democrats and republicans conspire to deregulate industry, cut social security/medicare, go to war in the middle East, etc, as certain members of the democratic big tent have often been inclined to do.

In my view, someone who willingly goes along with that big tent in those scenarios is making an obvious mistake.  You should always be putting pressure on people to do stuff that will move America forward, whether they are in your party or not.

This includes urging people to vote for Hillary Clinton, but it also includes not being afraid to have a frank discussion about the flaws in someone's political record and/or platform.

[YE]

In 2016, actual serious analysis of the TPP showed that agriculture would have been the sector of the American economy that would have best benefited from the deal. This was always true, just not part of the TPP discourse because it didn't matter for the election. Of course, agriculture is an industry dominated by Republicans, so the political benefit was disproportionately in an area where very few votes were put into play. Meanwhile, the largest sectors with potential downside in the deal were much swingier. This made the deal politically asymmetric.

[YE]

Not surprised to see that Bernie derangement syndrome is alive and well, and many of the same people who complained about Hillary being held to an unrealistic standard hold Bernie to a similarly unrealistic standard. He's not a saint, and there are votes and statements of his worthy of criticism. (While I get what he's saying about white voters being "uncomfortable" with black candidates, i.e. xenophobia and racism are not the same thing, I think he could've used better wording, which is a common issue for him.)

However, the attacks on him "not being a Democrat", not doing "enough" for Hillary in 2016, being too old, being too "soft" on guns and/or Russia, and the mere fact that some DINOcrats in states like KY, OK, and WV voted for him come across as nothing more than people holding a grudge on him from 2016 for committing the act of domestic terrorism known as challenging Hillary to a primary, and continue to blame him for her loss, when he's one of the last people who should be blamed.

[YE]

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

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

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

[YE]

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

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

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

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

[YE]

I feel that I should mention a modified version of a classic saying:

"A Co-sponsor is always a Supporter, but a Supporter is not always a Co-sponsor".

Guys, if you remember Obamacare, or any other law thats been passed, the bill always gets more support than just the co-sponsors. In fact, the number of Co-Sponsors at this point is pretty much pointless. The bill already has more than 100.

For instance, before this bill was released, there was a group called the "Medicare-for-All Caucus". These were people who, well, supported Medicare, for all. The group only has 78 members. This bill of a Medicare-for-all system has more than 100. In fact, some members of the M4A caucus arent even co-sponsors, but almost 100% guaranteed to vote for it.
(Florida has 5 members in the M4A caucus, there are only 3 co-sponsoring the piece, the two being Rep. Soto and Castor)

Nevertheless, this is a rather strong showing for M4A, and it seems that the pressure will be on to support the bill.

[YE]

Dear God, there's so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin.

1. Greenhouse gas emissions and particle pollution are not the same thing. The Paris climate accord dealt with the former, this infographic deals with the latter. It's quite pathetic that you don't know the difference.

2. Madagascar most definitely doesn't contribute as much to environmental chaos as the US does. This may come as a shock to you, seeing as I'd be surprised if you had ever seen a globe, but the US is significantly larger, more industrialized, and more populous than Madagascar. While Madagascar's cities may be more polluted on average, the US contributes significantly more toward the total amount of pollution in the world. And, by the way, the US pumps out 17 times more greenhouse gases per capita than Madagascar. The US has among the highest rates of per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world. It's absurd to suggest that we're somehow not responsible for the ongoing climate crisis.

3. Other countries are held to the same standard. That's literally what the Paris agreement did before our dimwit in chief pulled out of it. You say we need to enforce climate regulations around the world, yet you disparage one of the only major, commendable steps we made in that fight.

In summation, my opinion of your contributions to this website has sunk even lower. I'm disappointed that I was forced to read this bucket of ignorant slop and I'm disappointed that I was forced to waste my time educating a grown man on basic vocabulary. Please try to do better.

[YE]

If someone arguing against an assault weapons ban made the argument that cars are responsible for more deaths in the US than assault weapons and so by that logic we should ban cars, would it make any sense to anyone if we started running stories “REP. X CALLS FOR BANNING CARS”? The situation here is no different.

But that’s pretty much all I’m going to say on this, as you guys have thrown all semblance of honesty out the window long ago. Ilhan Omar could say “the weather is nice today” and you blue avatars would probably make a thread “Ilhan Omar THREATENS TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST AMERICA” and then all of you would post pages and pages defending this conclusion.

[YE]

This debate was certainly livelier than last month's first night debate, yet I actually have less to say about it. So don't fear an overly long Progressive Pessimist post right here. Just a slightly long one.

All I'll say overall is that I think everybody either improved or performed similarly to their last debates with Buttigieg, Sanders, and Williamson being the standouts. Buttigieg was on point and staked a very interesting niche for himself. Sanders was a lot more animated and didn't just rely on his stump speech (maybe it's because he was on the defensive more). And Williamson came across as a lot less loopy and wacky compared to last time. She actually made some great points (also did she dye her hair?). Bullock is also kind of a winner since he got to finally put himself out there. He isn't going anywhere though and switch to the Montana Senate race as soon as possible. I doubt that this debate moved the needle very much for any of the candidates, but those three stand to benefit the most, if at all. I don't think there really any losers either, if it's anyone it's Hickenlooper just because the guy has no stage presence and couldn't help but stammer and fumble his way through his answers. Though Delaney too might have come out slightly weak since he was on defense a lot also.

When it comes to issues and messaging though, the progressives definitely won the night. It's pretty clear that the more mainstream candidates just don't have a meaningful way of inspiring enthusiasm like Sanders and Warren do. The only issue I think they won their exchanges with those two on was with eliminating private insurance. Seriously, I appreciate the idea that private insurance on principle shouldn't exist, but it's a non-starter as a  successful part of an appealing health care plan.

Also one more thing, this debate was simultaneously more organized than the NBC ones, yet also more chaotic at the same time somehow. Perhaps that's partly due to some of the fluff before the debate actually started, but also probably due to the seemingly shorter response times. When discussing substantial policy issues like these, even with ten candidates, they need at least a little more time to respond to questions and exchanges. Maybe ten candidates just isn't tenable enough for a relatively smooth debate. At least there were no microphone issues.

[YE]

One thing that is bothersome about Atlas is how openly normalized transphobia is, especially for a forum where a significant chunk of the posters are LGBT+. It honestly takes a very low character to get a kick out of using trans folks as a punching bag – for no reason at all, at that – while simultaneously spitting out misinformative garbage about them.  What do you gain out of acting like a dick to people whose actions have absolutely no impact on you whatsoever?

Like, have you ever interacted with a trans person? Why is compassion towards them treated as a political statement whereas compassion towards anyone else isn't? I can't understand why cruelty (especially deliberately misinformed cruelty) towards trans folk is the automatic reaction of so many people.

You know, I've had many friends who are trans. I've been friends with some before they had come out and/or transitioned, some that had already come out when we met, some who had already been well underway in their transition. And not once did I think that I ought to treat them any differently than I would other friends or acquaintances, so I don't understand the necessity of acting like an asshole to them, purposefully making their lives more difficult merely for being the person that they are.

And the people who complain that trans folks demand too much to be accommodated or whatever, doesn't it take an equal amount of effort (or more) to purposefully be an asshole and try to score cheap political points? (for what exactly? I don't know.)

You could also learn to deal with the idea that there are people with different ideas.

Perhaps it's more constructive for John Dule and his fellow transphobia to learn to deal with the reality that trans people exist?

The whole "let's all accept the plurality of worldviews yadda yadda" sounds really great until you're at the receiving end of those worldviews, worldviews that focus solely on denying your humanity for (dubious) political grandstanding.

It's a damn shame, overall. Growing up and trying to understand how another person is affected by our words and actions is difficult, it really is. But it's also the sign of maturity and a cornerstone to good character.

[YE]

Wait would Atlas be calling a Clinton +13 district where Trump got a lower % than Romney, but voted for the Republican governor candidate by 9% as the state became 24% less Republican and elected a Republican congressperson on their coattails Lean R?

Just asking.

Huh?

The suburbs are trending D. Get over it. Tilt R/Toss-Up

I really hate every time somebody says suburbs are trending D, yea for the last two elections suburbs went more Democratic mostly because Trump but Before that there was no trending D, many trended R for Romney and in the 2014 midterms

Suburbs have actually been trending D for a long time, it's not just a 2016 thing. There's a few examples I could use, but I'll just use Oklahoma County since it's relevant to the thread.

Oklahoma County, OK:
2004 - Bush +28 (R+26)
2008 - McCain +16 (R+23)
2012 - Romney +16 (R+20)
2016 - Trump +11 (R+14)

It was already slowly trending Democratic during the Obama years, it was just accelerated by Trump.