Post some of your old atlas posts.

[Former President tack50]

"Make It Civil"

I'm Bagel23 and I approve this ad, because I will always defend Atlasia.

As your chamberman, I will fight hyper-partisanship. That's why I have endorsements from all sides of the aisle.



I'll continue to battle it, and those who spread it, to get it our of our chamber, and out of our government. I'll talk with other sides of the aisle, and help restore civility to the chamber. I fight this fight in the forums every day, and as your chamberman, I'll take dead aim at hyper-partisanship that has pervaded our bureaucracy.



Cause it's bad for Atlasia.

Ok this is my favorite post that I ever made.

Retroactively endorsed!

[OneJ]

This is my second post. I was a shill for Hillary back in those days, LOL!

Politifact Ratings:

Hillary's percentage of claims rated mostly false/false/pants on fire:

28%

*This is also Bernie's percentage coincidentally!

Donald's percentage of claims rated mostly false/false/pants on fire:

70%

Need I explain more? Despite the emails, I've found that Hillary was significantly more honest than the other presidential candidates. Claims that Hillary is a crooked and constantly lies goes out the window.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

a couple of my earliest:

a hilariously bad what-if map (Clinton v Huckabee v Bloomberg):
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=70418.msg1442848#msg1442848

something a bit better maybe: who would be a good VP pick for Romney?
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=68759.msg1413435#msg1413435

[Xing]

I had some good analysis back then:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=203992.msg4417759#msg4417759

Then again, not always...
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=204183.msg4417090#msg4417090

[Sirius_]

For a lack of experience:
Holder
Kander
Kennedy
Garcetti
DeBlasio

My first post, asking which candidates shouldn't run. Pretty boring and obvious, and only one of them actually is running.

The internet and ISPs should definitely be regulated like utilities, as ISPs are oligopolies and are constantly screwing over customers. Websites, however, should not be regulated this way. They are not utilities. We should protect people's information but that's about it as far as websites go.  

Here's the best example of my formerly more left wing tendencies I can find. I still believe that ISPs need to be more heavily regulated, but shows the left winger in past me more.

Apparently one incident means we have to cancel everything now.

It's almost like they're teaching the kids that actions have consequences, and that they can end up paying the price for the actions of their peers.

Why do the 99.99% of kids who didn't partake in this have to suffer the consequences?

Not very good at math are you?

Can you come up with an exact percentage?

Wilson said there was an assembly Thursday morning at the school, which state fall 2016 enrollment numbers say had about 685 students. Wilson said officials are planning cultural awareness assemblies throughout the entire district.

Please return to your bridge.

Alright, I did the math. If one student was responsible for the vandalism then 99.85401459854015% of students would be innocent. My estimate was pretty close.

Not only are you so bad at math that you think being wrong by a factor of ten is close, your reading comprehension is terrible too.

Sturgis Brown High School is investigating after photos posted on social media showed students destroying the car. Sturgis Brown was scheduled to play Pine Ridge High School, from the nearby Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, Friday night.


Meade School District Superintendent Don Kirkegaard said the students who painted the car also painted the school and community as racist.

A photo shows people hitting a car with sledgehammers. The ritual used to be a homecoming tradition but is no longer sponsored by the school, according to the Rapid City Journal.

Even if it was 10 students, 99.85% of students would still be innocent. That still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of students weren't involved.

Looking through, I think this is the dumbest argument I ever partook in on this website.

Ninja0428
Independent
New Jersey

The very start of my now extinguished Atlasian career.

Currently, the Lincoln Assembly election has only one candidate on the ballot. This can not be accepted, and moderates, leftists, and other non-federalists should not be forced to select this singular candidate. We need another option, somebody who will stand for civil liberties and economic protections for all. We need to prevent the federalists from achieving complete domination  and elect somebody who will work towards multi-partisan solutions without being bound by party lines. We need representation for citizens, not domination by a single candidate who manage to get on the ballot alone despite others declaring their candidacy. We need a choice to elect somebody who we actually want in the assembly, and I'm willing to provide that choice.

My first Atlasia "campaign"

Hello fellow Atlasians. I would like to officially announce my candidacy for the February Lincoln assembly election as a member of the Progressive Union Party. I wish to bring cooperation to the assembly, working with other parties whenever I can. I want to promote the free market without letting it trample the average citizen with reasonable regulations where necessary. I hope to bring the politics of reason and logic to the assembly, rather than mudslinging and stagnation.

Where I Stand

Minimum Wage: I believe that the state of Lincoln should be divided into regions based on cost of living, with minimum wage set accordingly. These wages would come under review each year and can be adjusted as needed. This system ensures that all people are able to earn a living income without overburdening businesses in cheaper areas.
Marijuana Policy: I support the continuation of legal marijuana policies and will fight against any bills to criminalize it. The use of marijuana for all purposes has been deemed safe and it is made safer by government regulation. Legal marijuana supplies a good source of government income and I wouldn't want to tighten the budget any more.
LGBT+ Issues: I am a full supporter of the rights of LGBT+ people and oppose any actions that would discriminate against them.
Infrastructure: As an assemblyman, I would work towards allocating more funds towards infrastructure projects. I would also like to see better quality and more efficient planning of these projects, and would be willing to lend a hand personally.
Drinking Age: I oppose any MLDA higher than 18 years old. The vast majority of the world has an MLDA of 18 with some places even at 16. No major health issues have been experienced from doing so and there is no reason to prevent 18-20 from drinking if they want to. Allowing them to drink alcohol provides an economic boost wich leads to more government income and better quality of life overall.
Gun Control: All citizens of Lincoln deserve to be able to live safely without fear, and one way of making this a reality is limiting access to guns. There should be license and vetting requirements to own guns, with bans on felons and suspected terrorists from owning them.
Abortion: A women's body belongs to herself, not us, and we are not as qualified as they are to make decisions regarding their pregnancy. I support allowing abortion for the majority of pregnancy.
Education: I support a reform of the education system which would focus more on encouraging the student than their test scores. While I wouldn't do away with them entirely, the amount of state administered standardized tests should be reduced. The current education system causes far too much stress for the student, limiting their inner abilities. This burden needs to be lifted. My education plan also includes increased funding for modernizing schools and new programs for students.
Taxes: I support a progressive tax model with wealthier people paying a higher tax percentage than poorer people. I also support a value added tax (VAT).
Healthcare:I wholeheartedly support government programs to cover the healthcare costs of those who need it most, and these people should be our priority. While a public health system seems like a wonderful idea, it would have to be within the budget in order for me to support it. If a public option is to be made available I would still prefer for private options to also be available.
Welfare: I believe that the unemployed should be provided with benefits and shouldn't be left alone to suffer or possibly die., but I also don't believe that welfare should be a lifestyle. I would work with businesses to create programs to help and encourage more people to become employed.

Vote for Ninja0428! A voice for reason. A voice for people.

And to round it off, my first real Atlasia campaign.

[MarkD]

Someone once asked me to give a detailed explanation of how I want to rewrite the 14th Amendment. So I posted:

The proposal I have drafted has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes:
"The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."
Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) Libertarianism: the states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only un-enumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about abortion, using contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) Egalitarianism: the states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those five kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) Another kind of egalitarianism: The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to avoid gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

[YE]

He can teach nothing.

(click for context)

[Ilhan Apologist]

something a bit better maybe: who would be a good VP pick for Romney?
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=68759.msg1413435#msg1413435

Lol that's actually pretty funny.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=146557.msg3145166#msg3145166

Locked thread, so I cannot quote it here, but I can link it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

My FIRST post ever!

If Wallace had switched to the GOP after 1964 he would have been a far more influential politician, but a less famous one.  He would not have been a major factor as a Presidential candidate, but he would have become a key power broker in GOP politics.  He also would have accelerated the shift to the GOP in the South at the state and local levels.  Wallace would have been a formidable candidate for Senate against John Sparkman in 1966, and if he had won that election, it is quite possible that James Allen would have been elected to the Senate as a Republican in 1968.  Under those circumstances, the 1968 election would have been a cakewalk for Nixon, instead of the barnburner it turned out to be.  Nixon would have swept every Southern state, with the POSSIBLE exception of Texas, and his lead in the popular vote would have been a minimum of 7-8 points.

If this had happened, Wallace would not have run for President in 1972, would not have been assasinated, and would have had a longer, and more productive, political career.  He would have been a viable GOP candidate for President in 1976, or he may have been named as Ronald Reagan's running mate prior to the convention (in place of Richard Schweiker).  Such a selection may well have (in the context I am talking about) put Reagan over the top at the GOP convention, and may have enabled a Reagan-Wallace ticket to carry Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and (possibly) Florida and North Carolina.  Such a selection may, however, have cost the Republicans Illinois and Michigan, two key states Ford won in 1976.  Texas was close for Carter, and I think Texas MAY have gone for a Reagan-Wallace ticket in 1976, but it is also possible that a number of Northeastern states that went for Ford (NJ, CT, VT, ME) may have gone for Carter.

If Wallace had switched to the GOP after Nixon was elected, he'd have had 15 more minutes of fame, then anonymity.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This, I believe, was my first "prediction":

What has done in the GOP this cycle is (A) the absence of A-list candidates in the primary process, and (B) the lack of credibility their standard bearer.  Mitt Romney will be the very last GOP candidate for the GOP that will not be a true "movement conservative".

The GOP is down in the polls due solely to the personal shortcomings of Mitt Romney.  Romney's unpopularity has little to do with his positions on issues; it has much to do with the perception that he is man with no core principles who made a Faustian bargain with conservatives that has not worked out well for movement conservatives.

If Romney loses, the conservative base will take steps to ensure that a movement conservative who is ready for prime time will be the candidate in 2016.  This probably rules out Jeb Bush, and it will probably rule out Paul Ryan, who has lost standing during this campaign.  I believe that by the end of 2013, movement conservatives will be coalescing around a particular movement conservative candidate to make sure that there are no more McCains and no more Romneys.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Christie's problems with the base are personal.  The GOP's nutty base expects those who seek its support to be in lockstep with them all the time.  Concede NOTHING.  NEVER admit that Obama does anything right.  EVERYTHING Obama does is BAD! BAD! BAD!

Because Christie broke from this script during Hurricane Sandy, praising Obama and his Administration for his non-political disaster management, he became a non-team player.  The timing of Christie's praise for Obama's performance during Hurricane Sandy (even while making it clear he was still supporting Romney) is something that just doesn't register on the current GOP nutty base.  They really believe that Christie's actions gave Obama a small last-minute bounce that enabled him to push past Romney in a race where Romney was perceived as having gotten the last-minute upper hand.

Then, to make it worse for Christie, he chose to schedule the special election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) a month before the general election, severing that race from Christie's re-election.  This was terrible for national Republicans, who had chance to pick up an open seat on Christie's coattails.  Christie perceived being tied to the national GOP as a negative, and something that would drag him down.  The end result of this is likely to be the Democratic candidate winning fairly easily, whereas the GOP Senate candidate would be more likely to prevail if the special election had been scheduled at the general election. 

At a certain level, the GOP base, however nutty, is not entirely wrong to hold the latter against Christie.  Christie's actions could well result in the GOP not taking the Senate back in 2014.  Rick Santorum was not wrong in stating during the primary that "Politics is a team sport."  At a practical level, what motiviation does the base have to stand by Christie?  Very little, in fact.  Christie really isn't a guy who's going to turn blue states red; Al Gore lost the entire South, so why should Christie do so much better?  If the GOP wants to carry PA, they could run Pat Toomey.

[NOVA Green]

First post.... context OR-DEM-PRES '08 Primary and OR CD-02.



2nd Post... OR-DEM-PRES-'08-PRIM-CD-05



Trip down memory lane....

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

One of my theological musings:

(FYI: Atheist/agnostics are free to respond too, of course, but the questions at the end of this thread are probably much more relevant to Christians.)

I’ve been doing a lot of personal theology study lately, so here are some of my thoughts and findings:

People (especially educated theologians) often have unique approaches to interpreting the Scripture.  It can be argued, as people do (often self-righteously) that if The Bible is the inspired word of God (or the literal written word of God), that it is not a Christian’s task to try to put the teachings of The Bible together as if it were a puzzle, but to let The Bible guide a person’s understanding on its own.  In other words, instead of trying to search for the true messages of The Bible as a scientist would conduct an experiment, never being fully certain about one’s conclusions and trying not to draw their own conclusions that suit their personal opinions, it is often insisted that Christians should blindly follow the text and take it at face value without questioning the merits, consequences, and intent of the various rules Christians are expected to follow.

Take, for example, the supposed forbiddance of homosexuality – or better yet, the virgin birth.  The point of this thread is not to delve into these particular issues, by any means, but these are issues that are simply not universally agreed on by scholars.  This, of course, makes The Bible even more of a mystery, and this should warrant Christians to take a critical, in-depth look at the text so that we each may find our own understanding which not only better informs us, but draws us closer to the faith.  People, of course, do this all the time, and that is self-evident given the hundreds of denominations which each preach their own take on the scripture - even if those interpretations are remarkably similar.

Furthermore, nowhere in The Bible does it say (nor would it, because The Bible was written long after the events which would have taken place) that only those who accurately interpret the text will go to Heaven, nor does it say that those who mistake its stories and teachings will face eternal damnation.  Instead, it is those who mislead others and knowingly rebel against its teachings that pay the price for it (2 Peter 2:1-3).

This had led me to believe that it’s not so much about the sins that people commit, but rather the motives behind the sins.  If a person knows full-well that what they are doing is without proper moral justification (such as the murder of an innocent person), they would be openly rebelling against the teachings and, from my understanding, face punishment.  Jesus demonstrated the exceptions to certain sins with His parable of an ox or a son stuck in a well (Luke 14:5).  The Sabbath was created for the benefit of Christians and not of God, but nevertheless it is expected of practicing Christians to abide by it by refraining from doing any work.  (Not that many of us do!)

Now as I have mentioned in a previous paragraph, The Bible speaks against false prophets (teachers) and condemns idolatry, but these rules are obviously not followed by those who are not Christians, many of whom are not simply because they were brought up in a faith or culture that does not endorse Christianity.  Thus, if there is, indeed, a price to pay for not being a Christian, the guilt would logically be more collective than individual, even though Christians specifically place emphasis on individual salvation and not collective.  On the other hand, Jesus said that people will know who His disciples are by how much love they show (John 13:35).

Lastly, even if those who reject Him are condemned (John 3:18), that does not necessarily mean they are punished eternally, because condemnation can take many forms.  One could argue that eternal damnation is one of those forms, but consider it this way: eternal damnation teaches nothing of value to people if they have no chance to repent and demonstrate that the punishment has meaning to it, which is why I’ve begun to understand “hell” as a self-defeating concept for Christians, even though I used to be a firm believer of it not so long ago.

There’s a good mix of liberal, moderate, and conservative Christians here, so I’d appreciate it if the other Christians here could answer these two questions:

1. Do you believe that God Himself is a “Christian” and only serves Christians that have the correct interpretation of The Bible?

2. Does God punish people for being wrong (either not following Christ or not following the intended teachings of Christ) but have pure hearts?

As someone who believes in a God that believes in giving chances to people until they get it right, I’d say no.

Relevant image:
http://i.imgur.com/VcZou8r.jpg

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

"Make It Civil"

I'm Bagel23 and I approve this ad, because I will always defend Atlasia.

As your chamberman, I will fight hyper-partisanship. That's why I have endorsements from all sides of the aisle.



I'll continue to battle it, and those who spread it, to get it our of our chamber, and out of our government. I'll talk with other sides of the aisle, and help restore civility to the chamber. I fight this fight in the forums every day, and as your chamberman, I'll take dead aim at hyper-partisanship that has pervaded our bureaucracy.



Cause it's bad for Atlasia.

Ok this is my favorite post that I ever made.

Retroactively endorsed!

[S019]

This race is a Tossup. Kyrsten Sinema won by 2 in a wave year for Democrats. Ultimately this race comes down to the national environment. If Trump is losing Arizona by 2 or more, McSally is probably in very big trouble

[Badger]

How dare you insult Ronald Reagan.  He was/is god.  We should be naming schools, highways, airports, and libraries after him!

Or maybe we should first close those schools and highways, tear them down, donate the land to the rich and then name it after Reagan.  That would be more appropriate.

Obviously it does not work in every case, but God selects special cases and works miracles at times.  Can I prove this with science?  Of course not but sometimes things aren't provable that doesn't mean they don't exist, I've never been one for needing concrete evidence

Good.  Then pay your taxes and shut the hell up.

I hope "illegal aliens" steal your babies and make them speak Mexican, Carl Hayden.

Every one of those excellent posts would be removed by The Mod Squad today. Sad!

[OSR stands with Israel]

Here's a problem which will affect the winner. No economic expansion in American history has lasted more then 10 years which means the current expansion which end between 2017-2020 which could cause the party in power to  all the blame.


For Democrats they most likely take back the Senate with a tie breaker with the Vice President but in 2018 they get slaughtered in the Senate and House like 2010 and 2014 and then with an economic recession, and likely high deficits, and foreign policy troubles in their term they will most certainly get all the blame as it is their third term and they don't have the ability to Blame Bush just like Bush Senior couldn't blame Carter for his woes and most likely be swept out of office in a realigning election just like 1992 was for the Democrats and lose the advantage they had in the Electoral College and the republicans would have filibuster proof majorities in Congress.


For Republicans it depends when the recession hits. If it hits early in his presidency they will be able to deflect some of the blame on Obama. But their advantage in 2018 congress will Disappear as despite a favorable map they wont gain any seats. If it hits late in their term  they will be swept out of Office in 2020 just like Carter was in 1980 and The democrats will go from having an advantage in the Electoral College to a lock just like what happened in 1980 to the republicans

[OSR stands with Israel]

Give reasons

Democrats: Hillary Clinton

Reason I would support her:  Bill Clinton would be back in the white house and would influence policy

Republicans: Chris Christie, , John Kasich, Scot Walker(As of now)

Reasons I would Support Them:  Christie and Kasich are Republicans who are fiscally conservative and would be pragmatist in foreign policy and aren't part of the Religious Right. Scot Walker reminds me of Reagan as of now but that could change by the primary season so I am putting that as As of now

Who is not acceptable in any circumstances: Bush, Cruz, Warren, Biden, Cuomo

Reasons they arent acceptable: Dont need another Bush in the whitehouse, Cruz and Warren are too fringe, Biden would mean 4 more years like the last 8 and Cuomo is too corrupt

Lol how wrong was I about Hillary and lol now I am supporting BIden

[thumb21]

Trump proves you all wrong, and here you are underestimating him again!

His luck will run out. It is just when is all.

People have been saying this about Trump from the start. Underestimating Trump has been a terrible mistake from the start. They said his luck was over multiple times throughout the campaign, and now look, he's president elect.

My first post..lol

[Comrade Funk]

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

No.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

In response to a D +8 MI poll.

I want to get off #MadamePresident's wild ride, I can't take all this winning.

Trump in Billings, Montana, May 26, 2016: “They’re letting people go in Michigan. And by the way, I’m going to win Michigan, and normally a Republican would not go to campaign there, and I’m going to win, just like I did in the primaries. I’m going to win Michigan by a lot.”

[NOVA Green]

Haven't updated in quite some time.... election season has been boring as of late.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=288717.msg6136231#msg6136231

[SWE]

"The only candidates I see potentially challenging Hillary from the left are Brian Schweitzer, and possibly Martin O'Malley"