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

[Landslide Lyndon]

Those RINOs must be proud of their party of Lincoln.

Many 1860 Republicans would have agreed.

Indeed.  The Republican Party since its founding in the 1850s has always been the party of nativists. The Radical Abolitionsts were only one of the wings of that party when it was founded.  Know-Nothing nativists were another major wing.  The founding impetus for the party that brought the two different ideologies together was the common desire to make certain that Southern slaveowners couldn't bring their Black slaves West, tho the reason why they were against that was completely different.

[Landslide Lyndon]

How did you predict 2016, pal?

how did you predict Virginia and Alabama, pal?

Yep. Ken Cuccinelli vastly over performed the polls. No wonder they are sweating.

Gillespie is closing hard and should finish off Northam with ads about the Redskins.

Monmouth is an A+ pollster on 538. Great momentum for Ed.

Roy Moore is going to win.

Link

Moore 46
Jones 45

Victory is near.

Dominating.

^moore

[Landslide Lyndon]

Moderate DINOs hate her because she's a young, attractive, military veteran with a Non-Interventionist Foreign policy and Left-Wing economic policies who doesn't scream about #metoo and Transgenders all the time like Gillibrand.

No, instead she advocates for multiple leaders who support the mass killings of Muslims in their own countries.

Her left-wing economic policies don't mask the fact that she's far-right socially. Which of course is exactly what you want, which is why you like her so much.

Is she though? I realize her father opposes(ed) gay marriage, but she's one of the leading voices to decriminalize weed in the House.

"Sure, she called people who want gay marriage 'homosexual extremists,' but at least she supports making weed less illegal!"

My issues with her are:
-her shaky record on LGBTQ+ rights. Despite her current lip service to preserving my right to exist, I don't entirely trust her due to her previous statements
-meeting Assad
-supporting Assad
-the Hindu nationalist stuff isn't great
-I'm suspicious of any Democrat praised by Republicans (Steve Bannon, Bill Kristol, etc.)
-was very slow to endorse Hillary after Bernie lost

My problems with Bernie are:
-his ideas are good but he had no real feasible plans to actually get them through Congress
-would not have been able to actually get anything done
-Republicans would have used MUH SOCIALISM to hammer him in the General, and if he somehow won that, they would have clobbered the Dems in 2018 and 2020, probably giving President Cotton or whoever supermajorities to work with starting in 2021, who would then reverse anything Sanders managed to accomplish, and then some
-civil rights is a huge issue to me and he seems to view the rights of racial and sexual minorities as less important than the issues of "ordinary Americans," by which I can only assume he means straight white people, since I know a ton of people who aren't white and/or straight but are what I'd describe as "ordinary Americans" concerned about healthcare, taxes, and other "bread and butter" issues
-his die-hard supporters are obnoxious as , and this is coming from someone who supported him in the primaries

[Landslide Lyndon]

Anti-progressive?  Do we really need a new word to replace "reactionary"?

Are the only two options here "progressive" and "reactionary"? I mean, there are a zillion ideologies: liberal, libertarian, nationalist, mercantilist, interventionist, etc. that are neither inherently progressive nor inherently reactionary. It makes perfect sense to say Trump is neither progressive nor reactionary, though he is clearly actively anti-progressive while he couldn't care less about reactionaries.

Whether Trump himself is really reactionary is beside the point. His whole campaign was waged on classic reactionary themes such as Make America Great Again that invoke a past that never was.

[Landslide Lyndon]

It's more wide reaching than that.

'THE GREATESY COUNTRY ON EARTH' can't accept psychologically that it has a problem with anything, from guns, to healthcare to education that other countries clearly do better with because you're told and tell yourself that America is 'TGCOE.'

[Landslide Lyndon]

This may be a bullet well dodged. That's one of the few redeeming qualities about Trump: he exposes "good" people for the hypocritical, self-serving, pompous cockroaches that they really are (or as Rick Wilson appropriately put it, "Everything Trump touches dies"). You really think that a Secretary of State Mitt Romney would be harsh to his boss's puppet master? Gimme a break. Romney would drop to his knees for Putin quicker than he did for Trump. The strange adoration that some have for him on this forum is nauseating. If anyone needs to go into the woods and take up knitting, it's this man.

P.S. You all trying to "convince" jfern that Russia is bad is as pointless as trying to make Trump see the light on the issue. Like the orange moron at the White House Mar-a-Lago, no matter how much evidence is produced, he's not going to believe it because it undermines his core theory that Hillary lost because she's a "neoliberal something something warmongering something corporatist something something Goldman Sachs something transcripts" Satan Incarnate. Putin could come out and publicly admit that he interfered in the election with the sole intention of defeating Hillary and jfern would still have his head buried deep in the sand and be spouting off his typical nonsense that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, John Podesta, and the DNC are the bigger threats to democracy. Best way to deal with him is just to ignore him when it involves anything Russia/Hillary related because you know he's voluntarily not living in reality on that subject and is just going to use more of the same ole tired, right-wing Russian propagandist talking points that they use over at the mother ship.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The OP is also an example of how "neoliberal" is now being used in a way that's as confused as "neoconservative".  What does neoliberalism the economic philosophy have to do with #MeToo?  It seems that "neoliberal" is now just being used to mean "anyone to the right of me who I don't like".  People latched on to the "Neo" in "neoconservative" as an intensifier of the negative connotations they had with "conservative", and are now just transplanting that to "liberal" for no reason.  Is an Atlas poster I don't like a "neoposter"? 

[Landslide Lyndon]

In 2018 that is not happening.  Christians just want to be left alone.  But, for some reason, some people can't accept that Christian bakers or florists don't want to make a product celebrating a same-sex wedding.  But I think I've started a rabbit trail here.

Uh no. The vast majority of Christian florists and bakers have no problem making a cake or whatever for gays.

If "no cakes for gays" was some kind of fundamental doctrine that millions of Americas honestly did believe, we might have to come up with some kind of accommodation or solution, but in reality, every single of of these gay cake deniers is an insincere charlatan who's parlayed their "faith" into becoming a millionaire thanks to donations.

Hell, if I owned a failing bakery, I'd be pretty tempted to turn away a gay couple too and become set for life.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I do understand what McCaskill is getting at. Many on the left have fallen for AOC's understandably appealing policy platform without adequate consideration for legislative logistics or political convention. We have absolutely no way to know for sure that AOC will be a remotely effective legislator, and thus I find the glorification of her a bit premature. I didn't particularly like the fact that AOC was campaigning cross-country before even winning election to her own district; obviously, that's her prerogative given the national profile that she accumulated and given that she didn't need to focus on her own district to win, but it rubbed me the wrong way. Additionally, AOC's response to McCaskill's criticism was terribly lacking in political nuance; suggesting that the passage of a minimum wage increase indicates that it takes a more liberal candidate to win a federal race in Missouri is a pretty objectively bad take.

However, McCaskill absolutely should not have used the terms she did to describe AOC; in general, I don't like any person calling another person an "object" or a "thing," unless that person is objectively reprehensible (while AOC is just a political dissenter). I don't know why McCaskill even felt the need to discuss AOC in the first place, especially in such a hostile way; I really don't want to think that it's partially out of bitterness from her own loss, but it does somewhat appear that way. (Not to mention that I think that AOC's critics are only bringing her more attention and appreciation the more that they incessantly talk about her.) Also, in defense of AOC, just as I said that we should not excessively praise her before she proves herself in Congress, we should not tear her down before we give her a shot at legislating. Maybe she'll prove to be more effective than some of us worry she will be.