The Lief Reservoir of Simple Truths and Smart One-Liners

[RINO Tom]

Alternatively, consider posting at Good Atlas, where we don't have a bunch of terrible "mines" cluttering up the place.

Sorry if this is misplaced or redundant, but how would one go about that?

[RINO Tom]

To be fair, the American practice of calling someone "Irish" or "Italian" because their great-great-great-great-grandparents came from Ireland or Italy is pretty silly.

Not to get off-topic, but I don't get this line of thinking.  I think we can all agree it's admirable or at the very least understandable that first and second generation immigrants from Asia or Latin America hang on to a lot of their ancestors' heritage and customs.  I won't be any less understanding in two or three generations if they still feel a need to do so...

Similarly, just because my great, great grandpa was the last one to be born in Germany doesn't mean I don't take a little pride in/think it's a little cool that my family is mostly still of German ancestry.  I certainly won't discourage my children from feeling the same.

[RINO Tom]

Violent Socialist with two in one thread:

Iowa and New Hampshire are both treated like the pinnacles of American democracy when in fact they're just a bunch of racist old white people with no lives.

Notice how the media hardly mentions them at any other time, though.

Well yes, but the media still hasn't realized that anything exists in this country outside Boston/New York/Philadelphia/DC and Hollywood.

Guy from Louisiana makes fun of another state for having racist old people, LOL.

[RINO Tom]

Are they in a union? If Not, This is why a union is a fundamental right that everyone has to have and needs to be in.

I just want you to acknowledge how fringe it is to believe that you should have to be in a union just for being employed.

[RINO Tom]

Are they in a union? If Not, This is why a union is a fundamental right that everyone has to have and needs to be in.

I just want you to acknowledge how fringe it is to believe that you should have to be in a union just for being employed.

You not liking something does not make it a fringe position.

Agreed.  What makes it fringe is it's ridiculous and a very left-wing position.

[RINO Tom]

Are they in a union? If Not, This is why a union is a fundamental right that everyone has to have and needs to be in.

I just want you to acknowledge how fringe it is to believe that you should have to be in a union just for being employed.

Using the word "fringe" as an insult is one of the worst things one can do in political disussion.

Not an insult so much as a request to not sit at the fringe and call someone right of center like Charlie Baker a right-winger because he's not on the far left (which has happened here on several occasions).

[RINO Tom]

Are they in a union? If Not, This is why a union is a fundamental right that everyone has to have and needs to be in.

I just want you to acknowledge how fringe it is to believe that you should have to be in a union just for being employed.

What jobs have you worked?  How many people did you support on your salary?

RINO's family is quite rich, IIRC. Exactly the types who sniff at unions.

I guess that's all relative.  Now I'll stop derailing this thread.

[RINO Tom]

Are they in a union? If Not, This is why a union is a fundamental right that everyone has to have and needs to be in.

I just want you to acknowledge how fringe it is to believe that you should have to be in a union just for being employed.

Using the word "fringe" as an insult is one of the worst things one can do in political disussion.

Not an insult so much as a request to not sit at the fringe and call someone right of center like Charlie Baker a right-winger because he's not on the far left (which has happened here on several occasions).

No one called anyone a right-winger in that post.

Supporting gay marriage is a fringe position in Saudi Arabia. Opposing universal health care is a fringe position in Sweden. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a position that's unpopular in your country.

As for Baker, he could be considered a right-winger depending on the context. It's all relative.

Fair enough.

[RINO Tom]

Why not, considering that it is just not true? Don't let RINO Tom fool you with his posturing - Obama won the college-educated vote both times. Everyone wants to pretend like their side is "smarter" - as in most issues (climate change, voter suppression, etc.), actual statistics back up our side.

RINO Tom desperately clings to this romantic notion that the GOP is a bourgeois party primarily made up of North Shore Episcopalians and their counterparts around the country, when the party's footsoldiers have long been white Evangelicals and the culturally conservative working-class, who he sees as Jesus freaks and racists who belong in the Democratic Party.

How'd I know you'd be putting this ABSOLUTE gem in here?!

[RINO Tom]

It's not like one of our most active posters has a socialist avatar or anything...

TBF, many social avatars are faux revolutionaries and undercover CAPITALISTS™.

MY UNINTENTIONAL GENIUS!

You guys are better at recruiting than I could have ever imagined.

[RINO Tom]

I pray that it is Scott.

We need more liberal Republicans.

No.

Care to articulate?

[RINO Tom]

what this really is is a lesson to never elect a Republican, no matter how moderate they may seem.

Tbh, moderate Democrats aren't really a thing either, especially in the Senate. Electing the candidate who says that they're the most "moderate" one is always a stupid idea.

Ah, but the criteria to be a moderate Republican is to literally have zero right-of-center views and bow to whatever your Democratic legislature wants ... the criteria for being a moderate Democrat is to have a Southern accent and kind of be pro-life on paper, while towing the party line on everything else.

[RINO Tom]

Maine, but Rhode Island is much more socon than one would expect from such a Democratic state.

If atlas was a state, it would be Rhode Island.

[RINO Tom]

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Scarlet for once:

You can use all the hyperbole you want to voice your discontent with a less socially conservative America than you grew up with, but that's all it is: hyperbole.  A Republican with economic views that are "very strong" in the eyes of Democrats is MUCH more out of place in his party than a culturally conservative Democrat is in his.  Period.

If you like the candidate described so much, there's one way to make his nomination more likely: become a Democrat.

You are getting really overly obsessed with republicans being about muh economic conservatism.

Irony: look at RINO's economic score. He also supports TARP. He's simply a delusional elitist.

And you are an annoying racist, we all have our flaws.

Anyway, TN Vol, you seem to be mad at me because I don't accept the new imagined party system Atlas has cooked up, and I won't apologize for continuing to post what I think, dude.  Even if you HATE ITTTTTT, LOL.

[RINO Tom]

Anyway, TN Vol, you seem to be mad at me because I don't accept the new imagined party system Atlas has cooked up, and I won't apologize for continuing to post what I think, dude.  Even if you HATE ITTTTTT, LOL.

Lol, I knew this was going to be your reply. But seriously, this post had nothing to do with a new imagined party system. You won't stop implying that social conservatives who happen to share SOME similar views to the Democratic Party (but still consider themselves Republicans) should just become Democrats - people like Santander, Fuzzy Bear, etc. You realize your party would lose the next elections in a landslide if they were to vote Democratic? The GOP can't afford to even cede a small part of the rural vote.

As I demonstrated in my thread in the Demographics forum, rural voters make up a TINY percent of the electorate, really, so if they made up for it with gains in the suburban and urban areas, it'd be a net positive.  However, that's not what I was saying at all.  Fuzzy specifically alluded to not WANTING to be a registered Republican.  Santender called himself a "Democrat at heart" in another thread recently.  These aren't your stereotypical "populist" Republicans.

[RINO Tom]

As I demonstrated in my thread in the Demographics forum, rural voters make up a TINY percent of the electorate, really, so if they made up for it with gains in the suburban and urban areas, it'd be a net positive.  However, that's not what I was saying at all.  Fuzzy specifically alluded to not WANTING to be a registered Republican.  Santender called himself a "Democrat at heart" in another thread recently.  These aren't your stereotypical "populist" Republicans.

It's a southern thing. You clearly don't understand.

Damn true, and I'll drink to that.

[RINO Tom]

The one that doesn't try to gloss over its anti-poor, anti-masses agenda with liberal stances on the same kinds of social issues that IRL, have somehow become critically important litmus tests for 21st century Democrats.

In the 20th century, both parties used to be pro-choice and support the Equal Rights Amendment.

Then it seems Progress is winning.

No, it is losing.

Progress is whatever the winners say it is.

[RINO Tom]

It is pretty funny how the various narratives being spun about the mysterious Midwest whites is very similar to competing colonial depictions of natives. Are they a vast tribe of aggressive unreasonable non-woke types who should be feared and despised? Are they a dying, noble breed more in touch than the effete observer? Do they merely need to be tamed and introduced to microbreweries and coding lessons so they can be brought into the brave world if the future?

The funniest thing about this, though, is that up until the 2016 election, most people viewed the Midwest as what it was: a pretty well-educated region stereotyped as being polite and humble.  Now it's the epitome of Trump's campaign?  LOL.

[RINO Tom]

BRTD, you're stupid

FTR, this would fall under "Simple Truths."

[RINO Tom]

Socialism is value-neutral and, in some cases, can even be used to advance conservative causes whereas the kind of politics espoused by SJWs seeks explicitly to erode tradition and undermine authority.

Authority has nothing to do with conservatism (indeed, it is usually an enemy of it) and tradition is good for conservatives only in the sense that it usually supports their endeavors; in cases where it does not (such as countries that have long-established strong welfare states, for instance) it is "value-neutral", as you say, or can sometimes even work against real conservatism.

Respect for lawful authority and deference to tradition are inseparable from even the loosest conception of conservatism; that they do not factor into your ideology of Manchester liberalism is neither here nor there.

If anything, it is Vosem's amazing response that belongs in here.

[RINO Tom]

^ Uh, didn't a liberal comedian literally just get fired for tweeting something completely classless about the President's young kid?

[RINO Tom]

...

... Wulfric doesn't know what he's talking about....

[RINO Tom]

while women are socialized from a creepily young age to not think much about sex (at best) or view it as something they owe to men (at worst).

But even women who grew in open minded places, where the values are modern, and were not socialized to not think much about sex or view it as something they owe to men, don't want to pay for the services of male sex workers.

The idea that nice modern educated open-minded social circles are devoid of sexist norms is ludicrous. If anything, this forum is the ultimate proof that you can be very "modern" and still hold on to sexist and racistnotions.

Added to this great post to include a very important addition, witnessed firsthand.

[RINO Tom]

Trump views McConnell and Ryan as his "employees" and doesn't like them because they won't do his bidding and subordinate themselves to him.

Trump knows Schumer and Pelosi don't work for him, by virtue of being in a different party. I think that's why he's willing to "make deals" with them but just yell/tweet at his own party's congressional leaders.

[RINO Tom]

The problem with talk of "extremism" is that it fundamentally assumes that the problem with "extremists" is their extreme level of departure from the status quo. The kinds of people who think like this are a problem.

Talk of "extremism" as a problem in a political context assumes that uncommon ideas that are radical changes to the status quo are inherently problematic. This is obviously not good.

Lincoln was a 'extremist' who wanted to radically change the status quo and abolish slavery. The 'sensible' option would be to be leave slavery alone in the South and allow popular sovereignty in the territories.

This.

LOL, you could have chosen a much better example.......