Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

My biggest regret in life is not getting picked for the jury that decided the last Jesse Ventura case.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Coming from the same Republican party that did not try and denounce Trump accusing the President of not being born here. They deserve trump and reap what they sewed 4 years ago. The same party that said nothing when kerry was swift voted and Jeb Bush sent out a letter the day before his brother's swearing in for a 2nd term thanking the group who led the charge.

I think you mean, "rip what they sewed."

Spoiler

Or "reap what they sowed."

 

[Chichikov]

All I said is that they existed!

Spoiler

Though they do tend to have some of the best jokes.

You said intelligent and 100% correct.
Those people are neither.
Minarchism is the worst of both worlds, it retains all the moral problems that the nation state model has while removing most of the good things that flawed model can provide.

Fuck those people, a bunch of law, order and property fetishists who pretends to be anarchists.

 

[benjipwns]

Speaking of Jesse Ventura and with bonus features Gavin McInnes and Greg Gutfeld:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/21/jes...r_done_to_deserve_any_credibility_whatsoever/

Jesse Ventura: “Fifty percent of murders in Texas have been linked to illegal aliens…” you stated this on “The Greg Gutfeld Show,” in reference to Donald Trump’s comments on immigration from Mexico. But our friends at [Politifact] say your claim is false and call it a mighty exaggeration — you were talking about a statistic Ann Coulter referenced in her book. Who would give Ann Coulter a, what has she ever done to deserve any credibility whatsoever?

Gavin: What? Ann Coulter is one of my favorite, the most talented researchers in America today, she writes the most concise, astute, and compelling books I’ve ever read, and anyone’s ever read, her books are fantastic, they’re factually accurate, and I, I’ve tweeted the page that references that fifty percent, she was talking about a Rick Perry quote–

You said intelligent and 100% correct.

lrn2reid

From the intelligent and 100% correct anarchists to the minarchists to the Ron Paul people

 

[Metaphoreus]

You said intelligent and 100% correct.
Those people are neither.
Minarchism is the worst of both worlds, it retains all the moral problems that the nation state model has while removing most of the good things that flawed model can provide.

Fuck those people, a bunch of law, order and property fetishists who pretends to be anarchists.

Hold up. Are we all talking about the same thing?

Rule by half-man/half-bulls, right?

 

[Retromelon]

The ann coulter formula: look up synonym for treason, size 36 font on cover. Subtitle: some variation on how x is y-ing america. Then go into the republican facebook thread and just copy paste until you fill 200 pages

 

[benjipwns]

Hold up. Are we all talking about the same thing?

Rule by half-man/half-bulls, right?

That's Minotarchism, Metarchotar.

 

[benjipwns]

The ann coulter formula: look up synonym for treason, size 36 font on cover. Subtitle: some variation on how x is y-ing america. Then go into the republican facebook thread and just copy paste until you fill 200 pages

She temporarily moved into this:

But now she's back:

And her books are usually just her column reprinted/edited/updated and sorted by topic. (Something WFB wasn't immune to it must be said...) Other than High Crimes and Misdemeanors and I want to say Treason is half new "research"/content. To be fair, Godless is the last one I actually read any of other than skimmed. The Liberal Over Three one I see at the PUBLIC Library all the time though, should check it out, they have like every single conservative book that comes out for some reason. It's the most progressive (politically/voting-wise) branch of the library system too. I should go to the highest Republican area and see if it's stacked full of progressive books.

As an aside, High Crimes and Misdemeanors and Treason are the two books I always point to as evidence that her whole over-the-top angle since then is a shtick. They're practically academic works in comparison.

 

[FiggyCal]

Surely you meant monarchists.

 

[thepotatoman]

https://www.facebook.com/hillaryclinton/videos/vb.889307941125736/947525258637337/?type=2&theater

These are really effective IMO.

I really don't know why liberals don't think clinton is one of them. she's much better than bernie at turning social issues to economic issues

It doesn't help that in 2008 she was attacking Obama for being too liberal. Especially when people often don't feel Obama is liberal enough.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4085083&page=1

While the senator was vague, her campaign pointed out to ABC News examples of Obama's liberal positions, including his 2004 statement to abolish mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes. They also pointed out a statement Obama made in 2003 that he was "a proponent of a single payer health care program," which he no longer seems to support today.
Clinton said voters need to ask Obama more questions about his health-care plan to find out "where he stands."

She's talking the talk more today, but I'm not certain how much her policies are going to follow suit with solutions that will actually matter.

One of the biggest problems to me is that she tries so hard to avoid every single downside on everything she does, and in the end comes up with an overly complicated waste of money that doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do. There's no such thing as a policy with no downside and you can't implement good liberal policy without accepting that. Bernie on the other hand has no problem admitting the downsides will fall to the upper class, which is an absolute necessity in creating liberal policy.

Growth doesn't come easily. Most progressive policies have to be redistributive in nature, but Hillary seems to still be chasing economic growth, targeted at the middle class, instead the redistribution of that growth towards the middle class, with policies like her profit sharing plan. Growth is not something the government has much of, unlike how they can with redistribution, but that's clearly not her philosophy.

 

[Mike M]

Wait, what?

Is this trading on the notion that the establishment GOP are actually far left liberals because they haven't voted to abolish all taxes and deport Obama to Kenya?

 

[Retromelon]

I am literally offended that you compared wfb to ann coulter. shit to champagne
And fucking nothing offends me anymore

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It doesn't help that in 2008 she was attacking Obama for being too liberal. Especially when people often don't feel Obama is liberal enough.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4085083&page=1


She's talking the talk more today, but I'm not certain how much her policies are going to follow suit with solutions that will actually matter.

One of the biggest problems to me is that she tries so hard to avoid every single downside on everything she does, and in the end comes up with an overly complicated waste of money that doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do. There's no such thing as a policy with no downside and you can't implement good liberal policy without accepting that.

Clinton was to the left of obama in 2008 when it came to health care

 

[benjipwns]

Surely you meant monarchists.

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalistPartyUSA
http://royalistpartyusa.wix.com/-royalist-party-usa

I am literally offended that you compared wfb to ann coulter. shit to champagne

He liked her. She was on one of the last Firing Line's.

I think he found her amusing and respected her rhetorical gambit like he did Galbraith and others he opposed.

EDIT: Free if you've got Amazon Prime: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BDA7W3O/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Preview Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL0OxsWlbx4

Taped on 9/18/1998. After discussing President Johnson's lies with Major McMaster, Ann Coulter explores President Clinton's very different lies. There is serious discussion of what James Madison and his colleagues meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors" and what impeachment of a President would mean to the nation; but there is also a great deal of unbridled contempt for William Jefferson Clinton.

What a difference
By landru141 on December 30, 2013
Format: Amazon Instant Video
What makes me give this 3 stars is to watch the dividing line in the Republican party happen in front my eyes. Its why I say my grandfather would never be a conservative now. Buckley has always held his guests, whether they are outrageous (see the Timothy Leary interview) with at least some kind of respect ... as he does in this case, as well.

Ann Coulter's rhetoric is bizarre in this context. We are used to her (over the years) screaming, flirting, using outrageous over-reaching insulting exaggerations, but, she simply cannot wriggle out of Buckley's laserbeam questions. For him, despite whatever feeling he might actually have about Bill Clinton, logic and truth are more important.


Ann so young and tender
By Big Dog on April 9, 2013
Format: Amazon Instant Video Verified Purchase
With grace and skill W.F.B. provokes her in to providing detailed reasoning and exposes her desire to indite on the most trivia of charges.

2even buckley is shaking his head
Bycystemikon October 15, 2013
Format: Amazon Instant VideoVerified Purchase

it is intriguing to me to witness the departure of rationality from the american political right.

perhaps i did myself a disservice by watching the chomsky-buckley debate (obviously i did), but i could not help but feel like buckley wanted to pull out his remaining hair during the course of this interview.

to be fair, coulter has a few valid points. the word to be stressed there is "few". those points, despite being butchered by rhetorical extremism, were undoubtedly what got her book published in the first place.

now, as i refuse to re-watch that embarrassment to human intellect, i must focus my criticism on the prevailing theme of the moral and valorous office held by the [figure] head of state. as coulter states so simply time and time again, the office of president of the united states is only befitting a person [though to be fair, at the time our constitution was written women did not have the right to vote, let alone hold political office] of highest moral being. again, perhaps it is because i just watched the superb debate with chomsky, where buckley repeatedly grills chomsky on his subjective morality, but he hardly raises an eyebrow to coulter and the imposition of her moral code upon her readership, and more importantly buckley's viewership. dont get me wrong, buckley by no means bows out of this discussion, but he had several opportunities to tear coulter and her hijacking of american objectivity to shreds and he refused. all one must point to in the face of such absurdity and hypocrisy and the abandonment of historical awareness, is the fact that thomas jefferson fathered a child out of wedlock to an under-aged slave. talk about high crimes and misdemeanors....

perhaps regarded as the most important of our founding fathers, how is this fact so trivially overlooked?(and if you think that jefferson was the only one with moral defects....do your own dang research)

another point i wanted to highlight was coulter's disinterest with the other instances of impeachment....two were for tax evasion and one was for abuse of power. how in the seven kingdoms are those trivial matters to clinton getting his groove on? again, only a simpleton trying to escape this post with a claim of liberal invalidity would take that for excusing clinton. it would be would be near impossible to trust someone with that complete lack of foresight and macro judgement....right?

[insert joke on republicans and their business mafioso bosses]

 

[Retromelon]

I find trump amusing but i don't like him. I imagine its the same type of deal.

 

[benjipwns]

I like to imagine that WFB never literally hated anyone after Gore Vidal. He certainly tolerated some absurd people on Firing Line.

 

[NeoXChaos]

It doesn't help that in 2008 she was attacking Obama for being too liberal. Especially when people often don't feel Obama is liberal enough.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4085083&page=1


She's talking the talk more today, but I'm not certain how much her policies are going to follow suit with solutions that will actually matter.

One of the biggest problems to me is that she tries so hard to avoid every single downside on everything she does, and in the end comes up with an overly complicated waste of money that doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do. There's no such thing as a policy with no downside and you can't implement good liberal policy without accepting that. Bernie on the other hand has no problem admitting the downsides will fall to the upper class, which is an absolute necessity in creating liberal policy.

Growth doesn't come easily. Most progressive policies have to be redistributive in nature, but Hillary seems to still be chasing economic growth, targeted at the middle class, instead the redistribution of that growth towards the middle class, with policies like her profit sharing plan. Growth is not something the government has much of, unlike how they can with redistribution, but that's clearly not her philosophy.

That comes with the Clinton brand. I try and forget Hillary 08' and focus on Hillary 16'. She was running a campaign on 08' times. She also had advisers like Mark Penn who were not doing her any favors. Hillary 16' is running a smarter campaign with different staff this time. Don't worry too much about it. Hope for the best.

 

[ivysaur12]

She temporarily moved into this:

This was the last thing my grandfather got me before I died, so it begrudgingly sits on my bookshelf.

Also, this is still my favorite Ann Coulter cover.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I like to imagine that WFB never literally hated anyone after Gore Vidal. He certainly tolerated some absurd people on Firing Line.

I can't tell if your talking about buckly or the free beacon

 

[benjipwns]

This was the last thing my grandfather got me before I died, so it begrudgingly sits on my bookshelf.

I knew Democrats were using dead people for voting fraud.

 

[B-Dubs]

This was the last thing my grandfather got me before I died, so it begrudgingly sits on my bookshelf.

I think you're not telling us the interesting part of the story...

 

[Retromelon]

Im just imagining coulters face on that slander cover as a new kappa esque twitch emote and im wheezing like im about to slip the surly bonds of earth

 

[ivysaur12]

:O

 

[benjipwns]

I have an endless number of political books other people would be ashamed of owning.

I even have two of Newt Gingrich's Civil War books.

Rush Limbaugh's two books are actually really good in terms of outlining what would become the dominant conservative view well ahead of time, especially if you like the historical development of ideologies and their practical effects on politics, especially if you try to publish papers on this, especially if you're an idiot.

They're also basically what becomes the standard for a political book, both "left" and "right" in modern American politics. A bunch of chapters that tackle individual subjects and try to nail each one before moving on. The one difference is that they seem more timeless for some reason, maybe it's Rush's writing, maybe it's the unchanging conservative view.

1992:

1993:

Bonus backcover quote for Retro:

 

[Retromelon]

That first rush cover. Are u trying to deplete my oxygen supply because your plan is working
That last quote -.- so deep

 

[benjipwns]

His face/head from it WOULD make an awesome avatar.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Sanders following The Based God on Twitter.

He's got this now.

 

[Retromelon]

Wouldnt it be great if bernie used his new friend as a source for official campaign music? I can see it now...
Bernie comes out to give a serious speech to rile up the libs
A speaker blares, "bitch you know im racist, i only like the dookie (dookie!)"

 

[benjipwns]

Big Boi (from Outkast) in 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvdOfOB6vts

 

[Chichikov]

lrn2reid

Foiled by preposition.
Again.

 

[Retromelon]

Ann Coulter's rhetoric is bizarre in this context. We are used to her (over the years) screaming, flirting, using outrageous over-reaching insulting exaggerations, but, she simply cannot wriggle out of Buckley's laserbeam questions. For him, despite whatever feeling he might actually have about Bill Clinton, logic and truth are more important.

 

[Oblivion]

Wait, the clown with the chainsaw was Rand Paul? LOL

I thought it was that one dude who used to smash watermelons with a mallet.

 

[Retromelon]

Gallagher? The comedian?

 

[thepotatoman]

Wait, the clown with the chainsaw was Rand Paul? LOL

I thought it was that one dude who used to smash watermelons with a mallet.

Yep, it's Rand Paul, showing how how he'll save you from complicated subjects, like the concept of tax brackets in a progressive tax system.

 

[benjipwns]

The Atlantic has archives that go back to the 1850s with select articles: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/backissues/

I've been reading some of the 19th century ones. The magazine is so pro-Republican its hilarious. One article wouldn't mention the Democratic Party without affixing "traitorous" to their party name.

The late 1800s-early 1900s have a nice run of EUGENICS IS AWESOME articles.

Obligatory:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1932/03/hitler-and-hitlerism-a-man-of-destiny/308960/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...and-hitlerism-germany-under-the-nazis/308961/

Hitler and Hitlerism: Germany Under the Nazis
The Führer’s early goals included physical education, a return to rural life, health care for all -- and foreboding plans for the Jews.

During the first years of Hitler's political activity he spent some time studying economic matters, principally under the tutelage of Gottfried Feder, a present member of the Reichstag who figures as the economic expert of the party. The ground plan of his economic thinking seems to be something like this: Capital is always the result of labor, and is dependent upon the same human factors as labor itself. Capital relies upon the freedom and power of the state, but must not be allowed to dominate the state. Though capital is the property of individuals, its use also affects the welfare of the state; it must therefore be directed to promote the national well being. In short, Hitler believes that economic boundaries should coincide with political boundaries; hence he denounces 'the economic bourse capital controlled by the Jews,' which, he says, is manipulated to work the overthrow of national states.

Prophecies of the chaos and paralysis that would be brought about by adopting this policy of economic isolation are as fantastic, Hitler thinks, as the solemn opinion of the Bavarian medical profession, in the early days of the railroads, that passengers would become dizzy and sick. For National Socialists he asserts, there is

but one doctrine People and Fatherland. What we have to fight for is to ensure existence and increase of our race and our people, the support of our children and the maintenance of the purity of their blood, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be able to carry out the mission assigned them by the Creator of the universe. Every thought and every idea, every teaching and all learning, must serve this purpose. From this point of view everything is to be tested, and, according to its suitability, either applied or rejected.
From this it will be seen that the Nazis base their economic ideals upon a conception of commerce and trade which is already outmoded. They are still thinking in terms of free and unlimited competition, and have not even begun to see that economic rivalry between nations must give way to international cooperation, with an organization of the whole world for the benefit of all its inhabitants. Liberals of every stripe have perceived this, and have realized that national selfishness is not an ideal it is a way of destruction; but the Fascists, whether German or Italian, are not Liberals.

Hitler objects particularly to the complications of modern industrial life. He wants to get back to simpler and more personal conditions. His mind, like Gandhi's, turns longingly to times that are dead; both have committed themselves to an outgrown form of social organization, identifying the virtues of an older order with its exterior features. Gandhi asks his people to spin because he cherishes the human values which he associates with the period when each family made its own cloth. Hitler fears international capital for much the same reason. He does not see that 'national economics' is a thing of the past; that, instead of trying to restore a more primitive social system in order to revive the virtues which he associates with it, a modern statesman should seek to adapt to the needs of mankind the economic integration of the world which is now in process and is bound to go on.

Also, a fun one: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1912/10/election-superstitions-and-fallacies/306617/

Election Superstitions and Fallacies
"It is somewhat late to consider whether the superstitions and traditions of a hundred or more years are to stand, in the result in November."

...

Prior to the reelection of General Grant in 1872, there was a superstition prevalent that no man possessed of a middle name could be elected President a second time. The notion was based upon the fact that every President so endowed, up to that time, had, for one reason or another, failed to be reelected: John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren—if his was a triple name,—William Henry Harrison, and James Knox Polk. Even since Grant, who may be said to have been exempt from all rules, the tradition has held good. Rutherford Birchard Hayes, James Abram Garfield, and Chester Allan Arthur, were not reelected; William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt were; also Grover Cleveland, after the lapse of an intermediate term,—who, it may be suggested, escaped the hoodoo by dropping his first name, Stephen, which his parents incautiously gave him.

How clear it is to a superstitious mind that there is a definite law! Some of those who think there is something in it may fancy that Mr. Bryan had the law in his mind when he assured the country during his last candidacy that if he should be elected he would not be a candidate for a second term,—his middle name, Jennings, barring his further ambition. Now are we to apprehend that the supposedly meagre chances of Mr. Taft in the present canvass are really a result of his father's indiscretion in inserting an ill-fated Howard into his name? Does an evil genius put it into parental hearts to over-name their infant sons and thus prevent them from attaining unto the presidential years of Washington and Lincoln?

There is another superstition, much more commonly held, which has not yet been falsified, that no senator can be elected President. Jackson was a senator when he was defeated in 1824. Clay was a senator when a candidate against Jackson in 1832. Hugh L. White, senator from Tennessee, was one of several Whig candidates against Van Buren in 1836. Douglas was a senator when he was one of the Democratic candidates in 1860. Cass was a senator from Michigan when he was nominated by the Democrats in 1848; and, although he resigned four days after his nomination,—it would be an insult to his memory to suggest that his action was due to a belief in the superstition,—he was defeated, nevertheless. Garfield had been chosen a senator from Ohio when he was nominated for the presidency in 1880, but his term was not to begin until the day when he took the oath as President. In addition to this list, mention might be made of other senators who have been candidates for nomination by national conventions, but have not been successful in that first step. To go no further back than 1860, there are Seward, Cameron, Jefferson Davis, R.M.T. Hunter, Conkling, Oliver P. Morton, Sherman, Edmunds, Bayard, Blaine, Thurman, Logan, Allison, Cockrell, Cummins, LaFollette, and others. This is all very queer, but so far as it is not merely a coincidence it can mean nothing more than that senators arouse a certain amount of antagonism against themselves, or do not arouse enthusiasm for themselves. It yet remains for some bold bad man in the Senate to defy the superstition, and by attaining preeminence in statesmanship, force his party to nominate him, and the people to elect him.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1908/01/justice-to-the-corporations/376199/

Justice to the Corporations
"Let us begin anew, knowing that the corporations are to-day obeying the laws, and knowing also that the standards of honesty, honor, and fair dealing between man and man have been carefully studied and are higher than in the last century"

Lately our great public has been reflecting on the evil deeds of corporations and has been seeing them punished, and even threatened with destruction, until people have forgotten the great benefits which the corporations have brought to the country. Yet in our modern world men will combine in every way to accomplish their desired ends, whether to reach a fuller, larger service, or to win more happiness or power; in short, they combine to obtain what is otherwise impossible without combination, and the best form of combination for business is a corporation. Combination is but one phase of the advance of civilization, and must bring in its train benefits or hardships to some men and jealousy to many men.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1884/04/presidential-nominations/303481/

Presidential Nominations
"The people are passive spectators of the intrigues and cabals of the [political] convention."

FOREIGN economists have been at some pains to prove that presidential government in the United States is a failure, and this they attribute to the unwisdom of a "collective mediocrity." They felicitate us on our free institutions, but decry our method of selecting the chief magistrate of the nation.

...

Who will be the next President? The people will arbitrate between the nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties, but who those nominees will be defies all reasonable prophecy. Will the forces of the candidates be marshaled by an iron hand, will a deadlock ensue, and will the nomination be conferred upon some man of mushroom growth, who has never rendered any service to the state that would entitle him to such an honor, and who is distinguished for nothing but his negative character and absence of opinion? The people are passive spectators of the intrigues and cabals of the convention; the newspapers, the vehicles of their opinions, serve only to record its proceedings, not to influence the result; and both are as far removed from the scene as though they were in another planet. We are told that "the eminent men of a party, in an election extending to the whole country, are never its most available candidates. All eminent men have made personal enemies, or have done something, or at the lowest professed some opinion, obnoxious to some local or other considerable division of the community, and likely to tell with fatal effect upon the number of votes; whereas a man without antecedents, of whom nothing is known but that he professes the creed of the party, is readily voted for by its entire strength." (J.S. Mill, Representative Government, chap. xiv.) If this is so beyond remedy, then presidential government is a failure; but the convention, and not the people, is responsible for the ignominy of it.

Stable government rests upon the confidence of the masses, and it follows that in America the masses must choose that government. The theory is that this Republic is "of the people, for the people, and by the people," and the practice should be made to conform to it. The prerogative, however, of naming the President has been usurped by nearly every convention, and the nominees rarely, if ever, represent the will of the parties. If the people can choose only between two men at an election, they have the right to say who those two men shall be. We have had a few able Presidents in the past, but it was in spite of, and not because of, the convention. The absolutism of this body, concerning whose action really nothing can be predicated, has become so intolerable that a future lease of life must depend upon a considerable modification of its powers. What Mr. Dickerson said in the Senate, sixty years ago, regarding the presidential election applies with equal force to the present mode of nomination: "The President should be elected by a majority, and not by a minority, of the people, and no one should held that office who has not with him the physical strength of the country. If he have it, all is safe, for the power that has created can protect and defend; If he have it not, his holding the office is an outrage upon the principles of our government, and is unsafe both for himself and the country. A strong majority will not patiently submit to a weak minority, who, taking advantage of the faults in our constitution, have succeeded in placing their man in the presidential chair." Mr. Benton once declared that "the only effectual mode of preserving our government from the corruptions which have undermined the liberty of so many nations is to confide the election of our chief magistrate to those who are farthest removed from the influence of his patronage; that is, to the whole body of American citizens," and he might have added, from the bribes of office and the allurements of designing candidates.

No particular reference has been made in this paper to that mode of nomination whereby a majority of a few votes—as in the state convention of New York in 1880—pledged the entire delegation to one man. The abrogation of the "unit rule," in the national Republican convention, and the subsequent change in representation made by the national Republican committee, tend to defeat this injustice. But the reform does not go far enough. It is believed that the. adoption of the following plan would be attended with benefit, as remedying many of the evils which have been enumerated:—

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1881/03/the-story-of-a-great-monopoly/306019/

The Story of a Great Monopoly
"America has the proud satisfaction of having furnished the world with the greatest, wisest, and meanest monopoly known to history."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1881/01/james-garfield-a-look-ahead/307250/

James Garfield: A Look Ahead
"He is a scholar who for thoroughness and breadth of culture has had no equal in the White House since the younger Adams. ... He is a closer student of political economy than any president the country has ever had." As James Garfield entered the White House, an Atlantic contributor made cheerful predictions for the upcoming four years—not knowing that the new president would be assassinated after just six months in office.

Arguably the most affecting thing about the articles is the language. It's so different to even the more formal Atlantic/New Yorker articles of today. It's the sentence construction really.

There's also lots of non-politics literary stuff in there from Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, Kerouac, etc. Or diaries of random people. Slaves, freedman, a non-land owning confederate soldier and his reasons for fighting.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1866/12/reconstruction/304561/

Reconstruction
"No republic is safe that tolerates a privileged class, or denies to any of its citizens equal rights and equal means to maintain them."

FREDERICK DOUGLASS DECEMBER 1866 ISSUE

Seldom has any legislative body been the subject of a solicitude more intense, or of aspirations more sincere and ardent. There are the best of reasons for this profound interest. Questions of vast moment, left undecided by the last session of Congress, must be manfully grappled with by this. No political skirmishing will avail. The occasion demands statesmanship.

 

[Retromelon]

Someone in another thread thought my avatar was kyle bosman :/ the cheek!

 

[Oblivion]

Gallagher? The comedian?

Yes, that's the one.

Yep, it's Rand Paul, showing how how he'll save you from complicated subjects, like the concept of tax brackets in a progressive tax system.

How considerate of him.

 

[benjipwns]

The history is not yet finished, but the railroads owe on stocks and bonds $4,600,000,000, more than twice our national debt of $2,220,000,000, and tax the people annually $490,000,000, one and a half times more than the government's revenue last year of $274,000,000.

gasp

we're doomed

 

[pigeon]

gasp

we're doomed

I am imagining a huge ticker-tape machine at the 1894 Democratic National Convention, endlessly printing and reprinting the new value of the national debt.

 

[benjipwns]

We'll never cut that debt with those revenues, we need to cut out whole Cabinet departments, The Department of the Interior, the Postmaster General and...oops.

Spoiler

There were only five other Cabinet level Departments at the time, State, Treasury, War, Navy and Justice...the latter of which had only been established in 1870.

 

[benjipwns]

Written just six months before he died:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1923/03/two-years-of-president-harding/307262/

My main reason for pointing it out:

In any case, the American practice of holding a Congressional election midway between two presidential campaigns may be said to provide an irresistible temptation for taking a political inventory, whether the time be opportune or not. The results of this off-year election are bound to be construed, by the great bodies of unreflective opinion at home and abroad, as an endorsement, or a repudiation of the party in power. The political history of the United States during the past forty years seems to indicate, moreover, that they may rightly be so interpreted. Never during these four decades has the party in power, having lost the mid-term Congressional elections, failed to lose the presidency two years later. And only once during this period has the dominant party carried the House in the off-year election and failed in the next presidential campaign.

I checked and it's true, for that period every loss of seats in the House was followed by a loss of the Presidency. CONVENTIONAL WISDOM!

For comparison, bolded ones fit the pattern:
1974 - D gain, 1976 - D gain
1978 - R gain, 1980 - R gain
1982 - D gain, 1984 - R hold
1986 - D gain, 1988 - R hold
1990 - D gain, 1992 - D gain
1994 - R gain, 1996 - D hold
1998 - D gain, 2000 - R gain
2002 - R gain, 2004 - R hold
2006 - D gain, 2008 - D gain
2010 - R gain, 2012 - D hold
2014 - R gain, 2016 - D hold

Spoiler

This clearly means that in 2020 I will become President. And issue an executive order abolishing the state.

 

[Farmboy]

If you like (ironically or otherwise) those conservative books in the Coulter/Limbaugh mold, be sure to check out both Stephen Colbert books: I Am America (and so can you!) and America Again: re-becoming the greatness we never weren't (the titles alone are priceless). Written 'in character' of course, released in 2007 and 2012 respectively. Very funny and spot-on parodies (they basically do for conservative books what his show did for conservative TV).

Warning: will make you extra sad that a 2016 edition won't be forthcoming. Would have loved to see what he did to Trump Mania (well, aside from this.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

What's with Quinnpacc?

Clinton trails Rubio in Colorado, 38 percent to 46 percent; in Iowa, 36 percent to 44 percent; and in Virginia, 41 percent to 43 percent.
Matched up with Bush, Clinton trails 36 percent to 41 percent in Colorado; 36 percent to 42 percent in Iowa; and 39 percent to 42 percent in Virginia.
Clinton is also behind Walker in Colorado, 38 percent to 47 percent; in Iowa, 37 percent to 45 percent; and in Virginia, 40 percent to 43 percent.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...orado-virginia-iowa-120450.html#ixzz3gcOHPNSG

 

[benjipwns]

They're accurately picking up the Scott Walker surge and Hillary Clinton's refusal to release her e-mails exposing her ties to big corporate scandals like Enron.

 

[HylianTom]

What's with Quinnpacc?

Not really sure. A candidate doesn't lead (or even hold a tie) in national polls and also lose those particular states by those kinds of margins. Something's amiss. *shrug*

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Wait, what?

Is this trading on the notion that the establishment GOP are actually far left liberals because they haven't voted to abolish all taxes and deport Obama to Kenya?

Something like that. Glenn Beck (and subsequently my dad) left the Republican party because they felt it wasn't right enough, and weren't opposing the liberal progressive socialists enough.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What's with Quinnpacc?

It literally shows sanders in the same position at clinton.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...ing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2261

I don't by clinton so low

Clinton 36
Bush 41

Sanders 37
Bush 43

 

[benjipwns]

Some more of The Atlantic's greatest pieces:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1962/10/a-plea-for-physical-fatness/306505/

A Plea for Physical Fatness
The best way to beat the Russians may be ... to outweigh them

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1986/07/pasta/306226/

Pasta
An inquiry into a few fundamental questions: How did spaghetti and meatballs, a dish no Italian recognizes, become so popular here? What makes some brands of pasta much better than others? What's so special about fresh pasta? What do Italians know about cooking pasta that Americans don't?

And for Retro:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1988/10/bush-for-president/303597/

Bush for President
Employment is up; inflation is down; and, in what amounts to a transvaluation of values, success as a social ideal now commands prestige. Why repudiate the politics that have brought us to this felicity?

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY OCTOBER 1988 ISSUE

 

[RustyNails]

What's with Quinnpacc?

Lol wut. Fail poll.

 

[Macho Madness]

The rise of Donald Trump should have told y'all to ignore the polls for a while now.