The New and Improved Sam Spade Good Post Gallery.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Posts like there are why I won't stop talking about sexism.

Now to answer the OP, Hillary Clinton (normal).

WTF?  Sexism?! 

First, I had no idea that you don't stop talking about sexism--I guess I hadn't paid enough attention to your posts, but you can be goddamned sure that I'll pay attention to them now.  Be careful what you wish for.  Secondly, I don't understand why "posts like these" have anything to do with it. 

In the next breath you go on to mention that you will support Clinton?!  You support a candidate who hired thugs and bullies to silence women her husband harassed when she was First Lady of Arkansas because she put his--and, as we now know, her own--political careers ahead of justice and ahead of the benefit of the people.  The fact that you would support Hillary Clinton, a candidate I do not support for any office at any time under any circumstances, tells me that you and I are on different frequencies. 

You seem deluded, or confused.  Perhaps you misinterpreted me.  Perhaps I misinterpreted you.  From my perspective, it seems that you really, really need to get over this kneejerk reaction to anyone who points out flaws in a candidate who happens to be female.  It is okay not to vote for a woman.  It doesn't make you a sexist.  It is also okay not to vote for a black guy, or a guy with a Spanish last name, or a gay dude, or a disabled, Jewish, lesbian, one-eyed, former child porn star, confined to a wheel chair because of some debilitating disease and who just lost her parents to a terrorist attack.  It's okay.  You will continue to offend voters until you understand that there are those of us who treat women exactly like we treat men--and yes, I treat women exactly like I treat men; I'm no more or less rude to someone because of his or her sex; I'm an equal-opportunity asshole.  You cannot scream SEXIST! every time someone says he will not support a particular female candidate.  Your attitude, in fact, is arguably more sexist than mine.  After all, you are exhibiting what George W. Bush called, in 2000, "the soft bigotry of low expectations."  Mine is egalitarian.  I am not a feminist, nor a masculinist.  I have certainly voted for female candidates.  I voted for Ann Richards, for example, for governor of Texas when she won.  I strongly supported a candidate who came to my department about three years ago who happened to be a woman--not because she was a woman and not in spite of the fact that she was a woman--but because she was the best candidate at the time.  I lobbied forcefully, at the expense potentially of my own career, and turned a 4-4 vote into a 6-2 vote for her, and we ended up hiring her.  Again, not because she was a female, but because she was the best among those we interviewed.  I have also voted for females for Mayor and for US Representative.  I would consider any candidate for President regardless of gender, so long as he or she is someone with good judgment, or at least what I consider to be good judgment. 

You can call me a sexist, if it makes you feel better about yourself or about your cause, but it is comments like yours that turn people against your causes.  I can assure you that it is not because Clinton is a woman that I didn't vote for her, any more than it was because Trump was a man that I didn't vote for him.  I can't stand either of them.  I regard them both as being manifestly unfit for the office of President of the United States.  It had nothing to do with their genders.  Of course I'd prefer to vote for a Democrat or a Republican, but sometimes those parties nominate horrible people, so those of with enough dignity refuse to support either of them.  Clinton has as many flaws as Trump.  Different ones, to be sure, and she has a much better resume and is, at least on paper, much better prepared for the job as president, but she is creepy.  Frankly, you could do much better.  I tried to help you.  I am a registered Democrat and I did my best to see that you nominated someone better, but to no avail.  You nominated a flawed candidate that I could not support.

Gillibrand has a decent understanding of the law, and I have no knowledge of her engaging in the sorts of unethical activities that Hillary Clinton engaged in, but she does not excite me.  I'd say the same things I said about her if she happened to be a male, ceteris paribus.

Sometimes a candidate does not appeal because of what he or she says or does, or doesn't say or do, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, and it's okay to point that out.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, if old Sam Spade thread was locked, then wouldn't it be better to use Virginia thread, that already had some more content?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Well, if old Sam Spade thread was locked, then wouldn't it be better to use Virginia thread, that already had some more content?

It wasn't locked for any reason that has to do with the ToS.....just someone having a lil tantrum.

[Santander]

Well, if old Sam Spade thread was locked, then wouldn't it be better to use Virginia thread, that already had some more content?

It wasn't locked for any reason that has to do with the ToS.....just someone having a lil tantrum.

[This account no longer in use.]

Well, if old Sam Spade thread was locked, then wouldn't it be better to use Virginia thread, that already had some more content?

It wasn't locked for any reason that has to do with the ToS.....just someone having a lil tantrum.

Seems to me like you're the one having a temper tantrum because you can't handle the fact that Sam Spade was a douche.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I like Sam Spade for now, but Beet should get the next one for sure:

Prior to Trump's presidential run, Paris Hilton was way more well known than Ivanka. Her way of coming into the spotlight was also very different--while Ivanka was lifted up by her dad's career, Hilton had to deal with the nonconsensual release of a tape of her having sex. So not only did she build a successful and well known brand, but she built it despite being known for something society still considers shameful, in that any explicit publicity around it can be damaging. Hilton definitely should be respected as a skilled businesswoman, along with the Kardashians.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, if old Sam Spade thread was locked, then wouldn't it be better to use Virginia thread, that already had some more content?

It wasn't locked for any reason that has to do with the ToS.....just someone having a lil tantrum.

Seems to me like you're the one having a temper tantrum because you can't handle the fact that Sam Spade was a douche.

They know, they just don't want to let this pass "just because".

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

shut up and make me a sandwich, grumps

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I've come to the conclusion that Trump needs to resign for his movement to live. I don't think he's guilty of anything, but it is clear that they're going to drag this out to the point it'll kill everything we've accomplished by death by a thousand paper cuts.

It is said that appeasement is like a man feeding a crocodile in the hope it will eat him last. This entire 'Russia conspiracy' witch hunt was based on the dubious 'Crowdstrike' report that was unverified and later shown to be based on nonsense and the obviously fictional 'dossier' which was the basis of the collaboration charge.

Showboat knew perfectly well that there was nothing there and yet he deliberately dragged out the investigation (and, by his own admission, made damaging selective leaks along the way) in the hope of finding something, anything, that could be used against Trump. As it became apparent that no evidence was showing up he's now come up with an obstruction charge, again based on a lot on nothing burgers.

The witch hunters are not going to be satisfied just with Trump. The Republican Party supported Trump in his election campaign where he campaigned on 'draining the swamp'. That is unforgivable in the eyes of swamp creatures like Comey. Trump many transgressions against political correctness also are unforgivable in the eyes of the swamp's SJW useful idiots.

These people will be satisfied with nothing less than total victory and the complete and permanent destruction of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Any attempt to make peace with the witch hunters through appeasement or surrender is futile and misguided. There are two possible outcomes of this particular political struggle, either Trump and the Republican party win it or they both lose and are destroyed completely.

In other words you can't cut your loses, all your chips are in. You either win or lose everything.

[Virginiá]

Aside from the others part of that post, like the witch hunt and how that is all a bunch of nothing (it clearly isn't at this point, by Trump's own actions), people prophesying about the complete destruction of a major political party generally shouldn't be listened to, absent extraordinary circumstances. The Republican Party survived the New Deal and Watergate, and it can easily survive this.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1932: Republicans are finished!
1964: Republicans are finished!
1972: Democrats are finished!
1984: Democrats are finished!
2008: Republicans are finished!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Aside from the others part of that post, like the witch hunt and how that is all a bunch of nothing (it clearly isn't at this point, by Trump's own actions), people prophesying about the complete destruction of a major political party generally shouldn't be listened to, absent extraordinary circumstances. The Republican Party survived the New Deal and Watergate, and it can easily survive this.

I'm not worried about the party, I'm worried about the Trumpist movements hold on it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

STRANGE BUT TRUE: Most of the posters involved in this unbelievably inane argument claim to be adults.

     Politics is about the only institution where it is not only accepted but preferred for responsible adults to act like petulant children.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

STRANGE BUT TRUE: Most of the posters involved in this unbelievably inane argument claim to be adults.

     Politics is about the only institution where it is not only accepted but preferred for responsible adults to act like petulant children.

Politics is like following sport games. You know how it ends.

[RINO Tom]

Aside from the others part of that post, like the witch hunt and how that is all a bunch of nothing (it clearly isn't at this point, by Trump's own actions), people prophesying about the complete destruction of a major political party generally shouldn't be listened to, absent extraordinary circumstances. The Republican Party survived the New Deal and Watergate, and it can easily survive this.

I'm not worried about the party, I'm worried about the Trumpist movements hold on it.

You should be.

[Antonio the Sixth]

this is why we can't have nice things

[tik 🪀✨]

I like Sam Spade for now, but Beet should get the next one for sure

did dave leip's atlas forum get rebranded as some kind of pro-eating disorder forum since the last time I logged on because I think this will help me vomit forever

[Technocracy Timmy]

Drawing from the data provided by the Results section of Atlas, I created the weighted Presidential Election trends by US state from 2000-2016. Merely finding the mean of those results or just looking at the past election or two seemed, to me, unlikely to yield the sort of data I was seeking, so I decided to use weighted data to develop the results. The methodology I utilized was simple...

a=b(c)+d(e)+f(g)+h(i)+j(k)/c+e+g+i+k

Where...

a = Weighted trend from 2000-2016
b = 2000 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
c = 1 (for year 2000)
d = 2004 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
e = 2 (for year 2004)
f = 2008 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
g = 3 (for year 2008)
h = 2012 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
i = 4 (for year 2012)
j = 2016 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
k = 5 (for year 2016)

I'm not a statistician or mathematician or anything like that, so perhaps there is an easier method for obtaining these results, but that worked well enough for me to get what I needed. Anyway, on to the results...

Positive (+) results signify a positive Democratic trend/negative Republican trend
Negative (-) results signify a negative Democratic trend/positive Republican trend

+6.7% | Utah¹
+5.1% | California
+2.9% | Alaska
+2.8% | Maryland
+2.8% | Virginia
+2.6% | District of Columbia
+2.6% | Texas
+2.1% | Colorado
+1.9% | Hawaii
+1.9% | Washington
+1.6% | Georgia
+1.5% | Arizona
+1.4% | North Carolina
+1.4% | Oregon
+1.1% | New Mexico
+1.0% | Vermont
+0.6% | Illinois
+0.5% | Massachusetts
+0.4% | Kansas
+0.4% | Nevada
+0.2% | New Jersey
+0.1% | Idaho
0.0% | Nebraska
-0.2% | Florida
-0.4% | South Carolina
-0.5% | New York
-0.7% | Connecticut
-1.0% | Delaware
-1.1% | New Hampshire
-1.8% | Pennsylvania
-1.9% | Minnesota
-1.9% | Wisconsin
-2.0% | Montana
-2.4% | Indiana
-2.7% | Alabama
-2.8% | Michigan
-2.8% | Ohio
-3.0% | Louisiana
-3.0% | Maine
-3.3% | Oklahoma
-3.5% | Rhode Island
-3.9% | Wyoming
-4.3% | Iowa
-4.5% | South Dakota
-4.6% | Kentucky
-4.8% | Missouri
-4.8% | Tennessee
-5.4% | North Dakota
-5.7% | Arkansas
-10.5% | West Virginia

1: Utah's trend numbers have been particularly disturbed by third party candidates - specifically, 2016 Independent candidate Evan McMullin.

The corresponding map looks rather interesting...

*Red = trending Democratic, Blue = trending Republican*
Electoral Votes: 271 (D), 260 (R), 7 (No Trend)

Does anyone have any interpretations of the results? The most obvious to me is that the Democratic Party is trending strongest in the West and "New South," along with a few other states in the Midwest and Northeast. It is the center of the country that has trended firmly towards the Republicans, along with Maine and Rhode Island in New England.

[Beet]

1932: Republicans are finished!
1964: Republicans are finished!
1972: Democrats are finished!
1984: Democrats are finished!
2008: Republicans are finished!

1852: Whigs are fini!-- oh wait.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

1932: Republicans are finished!
1964: Republicans are finished!
1972: Democrats are finished!
1984: Democrats are finished!
2008: Republicans are finished!

1852: Whigs are fini!-- oh wait.

Bad comparison is bad.

Anyway, this thread sucks.  Let's fly it into the sun.

[Beet]

1932: Republicans are finished!
1964: Republicans are finished!
1972: Democrats are finished!
1984: Democrats are finished!
2008: Republicans are finished!

1852: Whigs are fini!-- oh wait.

Bad comparison is bad.

Anyway, this thread sucks.  Let's fly it into the sun.

It was a joke. And I thought that was going to be a link to the real Good Post Gallery. I came here to post an actual good post, but there are like three now and for some reason none of them seem to be "the one".

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Cross posting into Kal's Gallery -

In 2017, a team of deeply pious moderators conducted a radical experiment on a hidden subboard. The mods had theorized that a poster without access to any senses or ways to perceive stimuli would be able to perceive the presence of Dave.

They believed that the five senses clouded our awareness of eternity, and without them, a human could actually establish contact with Dave by thought. An elderly poster who claimed to have “nothing left to live for” was the only test subject to volunteer. To purge him of all his senses, the mods performed a complex operation in which every sensory nerve connection to the brain was surgically severed. Although the test subject retained full muscular function, he could not see, hear, taste, smell, or feel. With no possible way to communicate with or even sense the outside world, he was alone with his thoughts.

Mods monitored him as he spoke aloud about his state of mind in jumbled, slurred sentences that he couldn’t even hear. After four days, the man claimed to be hearing hushed, unintelligible voices in his head. Assuming it was an onset of psychosis, the scientists paid little attention to the man’s concerns.

Two days later, the man cried that he could hear his banned buddy speaking with him, and even more, he could communicate back. The mods were intrigued, but were not convinced until the subject started naming dead relatives of the mods. He repeated personal information to the mods that only their dead spouses and parents would have known. At this point, a sizable portion of mods left the subboard.

After a week of conversing with the deceased through his thoughts, the poster became distressed, saying the voices were overwhelming. In every waking moment, his consciousness was bombarded by hundreds of voices that refused to leave him alone. He frequently threw himself against the wall, trying to elicit a pain response. He begged the mods for temporary ban, so he could escape the voices by being off-line. This tactic worked for three days, until he started having severe RL terrors. The subject repeatedly said that he could see and hear the deceased in his dreams.

Only a day later, the subject began to scream and claw at his non-functional eyes, hoping to sense something in the physical world. The hysterical subject now said the voices of the dead were deafening and hostile, speaking of hell and the end of the world. At one point, he yelled “No heaven, no forgiveness” for five hours straight. He continually begged to be killed, but the mods were convinced that he was close to establishing contact with Dave

After another day, the subject could no longer form coherent sentences. Seemingly mad, he started to bite off chunks of flesh from his arm. The mods rushed into the test subboard and restrained him to a table so he could not kill himself. After a few hours of being tied down, the subject halted his struggling and screaming. He stared blankly at the ceiling as teardrops silently streaked across his face. For two weeks, the subject had to be manually rehydrated due to the constant crying. Eventually, he turned his head and, despite his blindness, made focused eye contact with a mod for the first time in the study.

He whispered “I have spoken with Dave, and He has abandoned us” and his account deleted.

There was no apparent cause of deletion.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Good posts don't always need to be a diatribe -

     The alienation of modern society, giving way to balkanization. Even on a forum like this where people across the spectrum post, genuine interaction is not as common as it should be. Rather, it is far more common to see like-minded people commiserate over how their opposition is evil and the cause of everything bad in the world. Case in point, this thread.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The Clintons have done plenty of make the Democratic party be an absolute cesspool in 2016. Democrats need to talk about the issues that affect people: jobs, healthcare, the environment, and not pretending to give a rats ass about some identity group when the same terrible Clintons scored political points bashing those groups in the 1990s. Their divide and conquer identity politics needs to die.

[Antonio the Sixth]

#LockThisThreadUp