Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: US elections, 2016 - Page 7







Post#151 at 07-29-2014 06:22 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
07-29-2014, 06:22 PM #151
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
The US Senate seat in Michigan is no longer a toss-up. But that is 2014.

In 2016 the Republicans are obliged to defend a bunch of Senate seats won in 2010 from Democrats. Support for Ayotte, Toomey, Burr, Portman, Johnson, Kirk, and Rubio is marginal at best. Add to that, a couple of very old incumbent Republican Senators (Grassley, IA; McCain, AZ) could be calling it quits. The most likely pickup for Republicans in 2016 is that of Harry Reid, who will be very old and perhaps ready for retirement.

Democrats are likely to reverse any R majority gained in 2014 -- in 2016. The political climate of 2016, a high-turn-out general election, will be very different from 2010.
And its impact will be felt as soon as November 5, regardless of the outcomes on November 4.

The initial narrative will be what the baggers will do if they win the Senate (not much because of the filibuster and the veto), but very shortly it is going to switch to the 2016 narrative. And as you noted, that narrative isn't going to about a 2014-like handful of backward Red states, its going to be about baggers hanging on in states turning progressively Blue and the extend of Hillary's coattails. That narrative is going to greatly restrict the behavior of the baggers if the GOP front runners have anything to say about it. But if they can't keep their t-baggin crazies in line, it is going to set up their massacre in 2016.

In 2016, White males over 65 will represent 2% less of the electorate than in 2012; 4% less than 2010 - its over.

The question remaining was 2010 their high tide mark or will it be 2014. If it's the latter, we may have to suffer a couple years more of their rear guard actions (e.g., impeachment, ACA and EPA reg repeals turned back by veto, holding up judge nominations) but that is just going to result in Hillary's to-do list being longer when she gets here.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#152 at 08-01-2014 01:05 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-01-2014, 01:05 AM #152
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
And its impact will be felt as soon as November 5, regardless of the outcomes on November 4.
Things really change should the Republicans lose the House of Representatives that it has effectively turned into the "House of Corporations". We could have the oddity of the first two and last two years of a Presidency being the most effective in getting landmark legislation passed.

The initial narrative will be what the baggers will do if they win the Senate (not much because of the filibuster and the veto), but very shortly it is going to switch to the 2016 narrative. And as you noted, that narrative isn't going to about a 2014-like handful of backward Red states, its going to be about baggers hanging on in states turning progressively Blue and the extend of Hillary's coattails. That narrative is going to greatly restrict the behavior of the baggers if the GOP front runners have anything to say about it. But if they can't keep their t-baggin crazies in line, it is going to set up their massacre in 2016.
I expect the Reactionary majority in the Senate to practically abolish the filibuster so that the Republicans can get swift up-and-down votes on privatizing the public sector on the cheap, weakening environmental laws and laws governing workplace safety, outlawing abortion and perhaps even birth control, gutting labor rights, shifting taxes from the rich to the non-rich, imposing creationism and fundamentalist school prayer in public schools, and doing voter suppression on a grand scale. The Right wants cheap labor under brutal management -- and superstition to keep people in line.

The question remaining was 2010 their high tide mark or will it be 2014. If it's the latter, we may have to suffer a couple years more of their rear guard actions (e.g., impeachment, ACA and EPA reg repeals turned back by veto, holding up judge nominations) but that is just going to result in Hillary's to-do list being longer when she gets here.
2010 was the high-water mark. The Republicans were actually losing support as the election approached. This year they can make some gains in the Senate -- but not enough to take it over.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 08-02-2014 at 09:16 AM. Reason: spacing
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#153 at 08-15-2014 09:16 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-15-2014, 09:16 PM #153
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

2012 Republican Candidate for President and current governor of Texas indicted for abuse of power:

(CNN) -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, was indicted Friday on felony charges of coercion of a public servant and abuse of his official capacity.

The two counts against Perry, a Republican, stem from his threat to veto funding for a public integrity unit run by Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg unless she resigned, the special prosecutor in the case, Michael McCrum, said.

The public integrity unit investigates public corruption on a statewide basis.

CNN affiliate KVUE reported that Perry will have to report to the Travis County Jail in the capital of Austin to be booked, fingerprinted and have his photo made for a mugshot.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#154 at 08-17-2014 06:59 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
08-17-2014, 06:59 AM #154
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Impeach Perry! LOL
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#155 at 08-17-2014 02:15 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-17-2014, 02:15 PM #155
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
Impeach Perry! LOL
It's no joke. Texas used to have relatively clean politics when it was politically competitive. Now that the state is about as solid R as a city like Detroit is solid D the tendencies for corruption fester. Give an intellectual mediocrity like disgraced former Mayor Kwame "Crookpatrick" in Detroit or Governor Rick Perry unaccountable power, and all sorts of corruption are possible. OK, so Texas is in a better position because it has a far-broader base for its economy and does not rely upon a non-growth industry for jobs and income... but the principle remains the same.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#156 at 08-17-2014 04:57 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
08-17-2014, 04:57 PM #156
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
A woman leader does not guarantee a better leader. But women often take leadership above the usual male ego gamesmanship and violent approach, and help create a national community. Women bring a greater consciousness of life and interest in nurturing it instead of conquest. The few women pharoahs were among the greatest. If you look at British history, the best monarchs were the few women that were allowed to rule: Elizabeth I and II, Victoria, Anne. Only one bad apple, Mary. Of course, there was Maggie Thatcher too. Arguably, more sensible than Reagan, but still more like a man. There was Catherine the Great, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Angela Merkel, Eva Peron. It might make a good study, but the British examples alone make women leadership a promising possibility.
Victoria--who withdrew from "ruling" for over a decade and the government kept on chugging along without her

Anne--who was ill, sick, and reclusive, while her cabinet ruled the country for her

Mary II--who ruled jointly in name with her husband William III, but with all the power invested in William

Elizabeth I--who ran the equivalent of a police state because she was so afraid of assassination attempts; and it's that police state which produced a golden age... makes you think twice about desiring more "golden ages" now doesn't it?

Mary I--While the Wonkette does make a point that "her side" lost, Mary didn't see herself as sole ruler but wanted to rule jointly with Philip--which a lot of people didn't like having the Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain also as King of England...


Women who attempted to rule, or did so before that:

Margaret--when her weak and overly religious husband cowtowed to the Yorkists (who through the female line claimed to have descent from the second son of Edward III in addition to the fourth son from whom they had male lineage, thus trumping the third son Henry VI descended from) she fought for her son's right to inherit the throne, subsequently losing her son in battle--making for a good Shakespearean monologue I must say... she also has another good one where she mocks Richard, Duke of York

Isabella--helped lead a coup to overthrow her "supposedly gay" husband in favor of ruling through her son alongside her favorite general (ironically doing the same thing she was angry at her husband about by showing favoritism to one solitary person)... she was subsequently overthrown by her son

Eleanor--set up a rival court in Aquitaine when her marriage with Henry II went south and divided the family by choosing her favorite son, though she should be noted for prompting interest in Chivalry and Arthurian romance; eventually she helped lead a rebellion in England which threatened to tear the Angevin Empire in half; was eventually captured and locked away for the rest of Henry II's life, was let out again when her favorite son inherited the throne, after which she became best known for being a rebuking grandmotherly figure to history

Matilda--learned about Absolute Rule as Empress of the Holy Roman Empire, so when she came back to England to kick out the weak ruler that was Stephen (literally Stephen was preferred initially because he was a weak-willed man who would likely "do as he was told", which only led to the barons doing what they wanted and rebelling constantly), she decided to take what she thought was rightly hers--and she did so; but then a problem appeared... the English wanted King Edward's law (Laws circa Edward the Confessor, whom even William the Conqueror pledged to honor and respect) restored and when Matilda said she wasn't going to do that--modeling herself more after the Holy Roman Emperor, the citizenry of London kicked her out and brought back the weak-willed Stephen in favor of her

Emma - a scheming wife of Aethelred the Unready & Cnut the Great, she shifted her alliances with the winds for her own power and benefit

Aethelflaed - Lady of the Mercians, practically invented the title of Lady; in all accounts this daughter of Alfred the Great allied Mercia to her brother's realm of Wessex and together the pair of them helped keep out the Viking invaders from taking all of England; she was a proven, well liked, and well respected ruler of her people after the death of her husband left her the Lady of the Mercians


You quite apparently know very little of English history. Seems to me that the women are just as apt as men to bad rulership, promoting a violent culture, and "weakness" as they are to good governance and "rulership". Perhaps it's because they're human *gasp* and not goddesses?

I agree with Jordan--if you want to make everyone equal then get rid of the old stereotypes and see people as people--not as ideals.


Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
Which Queen Mary? There were two Queens Regnant of Britain, Mary I (known popularly as "Bloody Mary" because her side, the Catholic side, lost) and Mary II, who ruled jointly with her husband, William and Orange (the pair were known as "William and Mary" but Mary, being the eldest surviving daughter of King James II and a non-Catholic (Catholics were barred from the British throne in the late 17th Century), was the rightful Queen, and not just a spousal Queen.
I love it when you come in out of nowhere on subjects like this.

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
I also think referring to QEII and QV as "rulers" is a bit much. Calling Cleopatra VII (the one who slept with Marc Antony and Julius Caesar) or Queen Anne as great rulers is a bit of a stretch. The Empress Mathilda wasn't all flowers and sunshine, either.
Agreed, since the Glorious Revolution no monarch has really "ruled" England completely. And the Hanoverians saw the completion to Constitutional monarchy.

It baffles me, the extent to which the political/cultural movements which fought so hard to get women and minorities of various types recognized as people are so eager to perpetuate stereotypes, make appeals to essentialism, and try and build new hierarchies the moment they have the window to do so. Well, perhaps"baffle" is the wrong word, since I'm not really surprised at all.

It's too bad. You'd think self-reflection would be the one skill the focus on identity in academia could manage to impart.
Agreed.

~Chas'88
Last edited by Chas'88; 08-17-2014 at 05:26 PM.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#157 at 08-18-2014 02:58 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
08-18-2014, 02:58 AM #157
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Chas'88 View Post
Victoria--who withdrew from "ruling" for over a decade and the government kept on chugging along without her

Anne--who was ill, sick, and reclusive, while her cabinet ruled the country for her

Mary II--who ruled jointly in name with her husband William III, but with all the power invested in William

Elizabeth I--who ran the equivalent of a police state because she was so afraid of assassination attempts; and it's that police state which produced a golden age... makes you think twice about desiring more "golden ages" now doesn't it?
You are too tough on these gals, in an attempt to refute my "idealism" that women rulers are better. But I think they bring some balance of temperament and perspective that the men rulers often lack, because the men are so focused on fighting and defending themselves and their power. But it's true, those are generalities.

Victoria was the guiding force over a nation that became during her long reign an empire on which the sun never set. A time of peaceful progress.

Anne ruled alone quite a bit, and is known for her patience and generosity. A magnificent guide in one of Britain's 1T eras.

Elizabeth I was indeed another golden age ruler. You can note her faults, which are many by modern standards, but she was the ruler who defeated the Spanish and set England on the road to ruling the seas, and supported a cultural renaissance surpassed by very few others according to historians.

I don't always remember all the details of these things, but they are there in the back of my mind, and reveal themselves when I have the time to look them up (too late now it's time for bed ).

So we may about to get our first woman president of the United States. That in itself will be a great thing, and an attractive vote for women to make. No-one here thinks that she will do everything that we want, or even very much of what we want. But we Americans do not deserve a ruler who is anything close to perfect. We simply do not have the intelligence to choose wise rulers. Look at Reagan and the Bushs, and whenever anyone half-way decent is elected, the people immediately withdraw their support (e.g. from Clinton in 1994, Obama in 2010). Call me a bit cynical for a boomer, but no, Hillary Clinton is probably the very best choice among candidates that have any chance at all to win in this stupid country. Even the election of Obama was something of a miracle. And I have a hunch, that if she runs and is elected, she will do a decent job, and bring some grace and poise to it and to her country like some of these other women rulers did. She may even accomplish a few things.

I also have a hunch her popularity may be quite fleeting. Once again the people will withdraw their support. Everyone knows she has her drawbacks, and sometimes her impatient and defensive temper or petulance gets her into fixes.

Maybe having a queen bee will be good for our hive, though. To have a woman president may go some distance to break the overly-masculine and macho social and national personality of America, and balance it out with some feminine wisdom. I really think we need that.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 08-18-2014 at 03:02 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#158 at 08-20-2014 08:04 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
08-20-2014, 08:04 AM #158
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
It's no joke. Texas used to have relatively clean politics when it was politically competitive. Now that the state is about as solid R as a city like Detroit is solid D the tendencies for corruption fester. Give an intellectual mediocrity like disgraced former Mayor Kwame "Crookpatrick" in Detroit or Governor Rick Perry unaccountable power, and all sorts of corruption are possible. OK, so Texas is in a better position because it has a far-broader base for its economy and does not rely upon a non-growth industry for jobs and income... but the principle remains the same.

But when even David Axelrod is calling this a witch hunt, you know that this is going nowhere mighty fast.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#159 at 08-23-2014 06:50 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-23-2014, 06:50 PM #159
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

The right-wing Dallas Morning News has this to offer:

AUSTIN — The conventional wisdom after Rick Perry was indicted on charges of abuse of power has been strikingly uniform in the national media — the governor’s getting a raw deal. Newspapers, online outlets and thoughtful Beltway pundits were quick to pronounce the charges a political witch hunt against a governor performing his duly constituted duties.

The narrative goes like this: Perry is the victim of a smear campaign by Democrats who want to hurt his presidential prospects because he vetoed funding, as is his right to do, for an office run by a district attorney convicted of drunken driving. But as is often the case, there’s more to the story. Here are five things to consider in evaluating the conventional wisdom.

1. The case is about politics. Within hours of the indictment by a Travis County grand jury, Perry denounced it as a partisan attack by political enemies. When he turned himself in for booking Tuesday, the governor cast himself as a victim of retribution for vetoing funding for a Democratic district attorney.

But the Travis County district attorney is not prosecuting Perry. The state district judge in the case is a Republican appointed by George W. Bush when he was governor. The judge selected San Antonio lawyer Mike McCrum as the special prosecutor in the case. McCrum served as a federal prosecutor in the administration of President George H.W. Bush and was supported by Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison as a potential U.S. attorney candidate.

2. Perry punished a district attorney for drunken driving. Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was convicted last year of driving while intoxicated. A video of her belligerent, post-arrest tirade in jail in which she had to be restrained by officers has been widely distributed, including by Perry’s federal political committee, RickPAC.

As The Dallas Morning News reported Tuesday, when two other district attorneys faced the same charges under similar circumstances, Perry did nothing. For one, it was his second conviction. If a drunken driving DA is a violation of the public trust, Perry could have said so publicly at the time of those cases.

One difference is that Perry had leverage over Lehmberg, whose office contains the state-funded Public Integrity Unit. Another difference, though, is that Lehmberg is a Democrat. The other two district attorneys were Republicans.

3. The case is about a veto. As Perry and his lawyers have said, governors have the right to issue a veto for virtually any reason. The indictment is about an alleged abuse of power. It contends Perry threatened to veto funds in an unsuccessful effort to muscle a duly elected county official from office.

One way to think about the prosecution: It’s perfectly legal to veto something. And it’s perfectly legal to demand that an elected official you don’t like should resign. But it might be illegal to link the two. For example, it’s legal to make a campaign contribution. And it’s legal to ask somebody to do something. But it’s illegal to tie one to the other.

One area apparently explored by the grand jury was whether there were discussions after the veto about whether Perry’s side would use state money to restore funding if Lehmberg would leave her post.

4. The district attorney was investigating insider dealing in a Perry program. At the time of the veto, the district attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, which investigates public corruption, was looking into questions about Perry’s signature Texas Cancer Research and Prevention Institute. A number of big Republican donors were investors in projects that got state money. At least one longtime Perry political contributor was an investor in a project that got millions of dollars in taxpayer money without proper review.

If Lehmberg had resigned, Perry would have appointed her replacement.

5. The indictment was an effort to damage Perry’s 2016 presidential hopes. Since his disastrous 2012 White House run, Perry has sought to rehabilitate his political image. He’s studied issues, bringing in experts for tutorials on matters both domestic and foreign. He’s traveled extensively, especially in the early GOP nominating states of Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire.

The prospect of every report about him having the word “indicted” next to his name during the GOP primary season can’t be helpful. But there’s another school of political thought: The whole episode might actually help Perry fire up the Republican voters he needs. “Rather than play the victim as too many conservatives do when treated unfairly by the media or opponents, Perry is rising to the occasion,” wrote conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post.

In the end, a jury might have to decide whether Perry is guilty of a crime or of just good old-fashioned, hardball politics. Either way, the jurors are likely to have more than just the conventional wisdom to guide them.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/colum...key-points.ece


It all reeks of corruption -- insider dealing associated with cronies of a sitting governor. The attempt to force a judge out for partisan reasons is an attempt to interfere in the legal process. Elected officials have limited prerogative to interfere in the legal process where there is an independent judiciary -- typically pardons and commutations.

Conservatives may be more likely to tolerate roguish behavior by political figures. Liberals and moderates are not so lenient.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#160 at 08-23-2014 07:04 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-23-2014, 07:04 PM #160
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Scott Walker (Governor, Reactionary-Wisconsin) seems to be a favorite of some advocacy groups. He is against just about anything that liberals stand for, and he is the Governor of a "blue" state, a state that has not voted for a Republican Presidential nominee since Reagan in his 49-state landslide. Because he is an imaginable nominee of the Republican Party, any scandal might undermine his chance to be a successor of Washington, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Newly released court documents include excerpts from emails showing that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's recall election campaign team told him to instruct donors to give to a key conservative group that would run ads for Walker and distribute money to other conservative groups backing him.

The documents released Friday by a federal appeals court also show that prosecutors believe Walker personally solicited donations for conservative group Wisconsin Club for Growth to get around campaign finance limits and disclosure requirements as he fended off the recall attempt in 2012.

Aides told Walker to tell donors that they could make unlimited donations to Wisconsin Club for Growth without having the gifts publicly disclosed. Wisconsin Club for Growth then funneled the money to other conservative groups that advertised on Walker's behalf.

"As the Governor discussed ... he wants all the issue advocacy efforts run thru one group to ensure correct messaging," Walker fundraiser Kate Doner wrote to campaign adviser R.J. Johnson in April 2011, a little more than a year before the recall election. "We had some past problems with multiple groups doing work on 'behalf' of Gov. Walker and it caused some issues ... the Governor is encouraging all to invest in the Wisconsin Club for Growth."

.....

In one of the documents, for example, Walker was scheduled to meet in spring of 2012 with real estate mogul Donald Trump, who gave Wisconsin Club For Growth $15,000 days later, prosecutors said, citing emails and bank statements.

Other Wisconsin Club for Growth donors included Gogebic Taconite LLC, which has proposed opening a 4 ˝-mile long iron mine in northern Wisconsin. The company gave $700,000 to Club for Growth in 2011 and 2012. Walker signed legislation last year streamlining state mining requirements and paving the way for the project. The documents don't show whether Walker directly solicited donations from that company. A spokesman for the company did not return a message seeking comment.

.......

Federal law allows groups like Wisconsin Club for Growth to accept unlimited anonymous contributions as long as they engage in only limited political activity. Prosecutors contend Walker and the club stepped over a line by working together to secretly funnel unlimited sums to groups backing Walker.

As one example, investigators say Walker was set to participate in a December 2011 conference call with James Buchen, a top official with Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state's largest business group. Wisconsin Club for Growth gave WMC $2.5 million the following year, which WMC used to produce and air commercials promoting Walker and criticizing his recall opponent, Democrat Tom Barrett.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5702016.html

...Elect Scott Walker President and you can expect a very stormy era in American politics.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#161 at 08-24-2014 12:11 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
08-24-2014, 12:11 AM #161
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Scott Walker (Governor, Reactionary-Wisconsin) seems to be a favorite of some advocacy groups. He is against just about anything that liberals stand for, and he is the Governor of a "blue" state, a state that has not voted for a Republican Presidential nominee since Reagan in his 49-state landslide. Because he is an imaginable nominee of the Republican Party, any scandal might undermine his chance to be a successor of Washington, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5702016.html

...Elect Scott Walker President and you can expect a very stormy era in American politics.
Walker has zero chance of ever being elected president. I just hope Wisconsin voters have the modicum of sense it will take to dump him this November.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#162 at 08-25-2014 01:00 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
08-25-2014, 01:00 PM #162
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Walker has zero chance of ever being elected president. I just hope Wisconsin voters have the modicum of sense it will take to dump him this November.
He reminds me of what is worst in Reactive politics -- kissing up to the rich-and-powerful while demonstrating contempt toward about everyone else. He shows much resentment for educated, thinking people. He seems to push the limit on official power.

For a Reactive, Barack Obama is about as good as one can get -- someone respectful of legal and historical precedent, and free of simmering rage. He may have no taste for great moral crusades, but when there are so many Boomers such will be the least of his problems. Someone else can shout louder on such.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 08-25-2014 at 01:49 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#163 at 08-25-2014 01:08 PM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
08-25-2014, 01:08 PM #163
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Walker has zero chance of ever being elected president. I just hope Wisconsin voters have the modicum of sense it will take to dump him this November.
The comment made concerning Scott Walker now also obviously applies to Rick Perry as well. Don't know yet whether he is up for re-election this year as well.







Post#164 at 08-25-2014 01:51 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
08-25-2014, 01:51 PM #164
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher View Post
The comment made concerning Scott Walker now also obviously applies to Rick Perry as well. Don't know yet whether he is up for re-election this year as well.
Perry's last term. No incumbents for TX.
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#165 at 10-17-2014 11:57 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-17-2014, 11:57 PM #165
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Senator Udall is 3 points behind in CO, according to one poll. What a disaster for the people of Colorado electing a dimwit tea party fanatic would be, not to mention for the country.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#166 at 10-18-2014 12:11 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-18-2014, 12:11 AM #166
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher View Post
The comment made concerning Scott Walker now also obviously applies to Rick Perry as well. Don't know yet whether he is up for re-election this year as well.
Will the American people ever regain enough intelligence to throw out such nincompoops as Walker and Perry? How long will it take? It certainly seems like it will take a Crisis to wake Americans out of their slumber for even a little while.

It is always discouraging to follow American elections. The level of stupidity is truly mind-boggling. It took a great Depression to jolt people awake even for a few years, after 12 years of mindless government. And then progress was virtually stopped in 1937-38 until the mid-60s. And then again, after just 2 years, it was stopped again, until the rather ineffectual, halting Carter years. And then stopped again, until a couple more rather-ineffectual years under Clinton. And then stopped again, until less than one year during the Great Recession; more halting progress was made. Even the faint-hearted Silent-delayed-and-hindered progress under Obama for a few months in 2009 only accomplished a few things, after which the idiot American people (even in Massachusetts) could not stomach any further progress. Following which, we've had the worst stalemate in history. And the idiot American people want even more stalemate. That's their answer for their resentment over the economic decline of their country, caused by the very people they are voting for.

We have only had a few years of sane government in the last 50. And not much better before that, for another 28 or so. It's amazing to think about that. And people wonder why America is declining? A nation cannot flourish without a sane government; it just can't.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#167 at 10-18-2014 05:21 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
10-18-2014, 05:21 AM #167
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
The question remaining was 2010 their high tide mark or will it be 2014. If it's the latter, we may have to suffer a couple years more of their rear guard actions (e.g., impeachment, ACA and EPA reg repeals turned back by veto, holding up judge nominations) but that is just going to result in Hillary's to-do list being longer when she gets here.

ACA repeal? Get ready for EMTALA (the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, which requires emergency rooms etc. to treat all patients regardless of their ability to pay) repeal come January.

The left doesn't have the slightest idea of what's coming. I do: The GOP essentially running the table in the Senate and getting a filibuster-proof majority - leading to a danse macabre of Obama vetoes that will doom the Democrats in 2016 - and flirting with a two-thirds majority in the House, which would enable them to introduce constitutional amendments.

The storm to come will make 1994 look like a light drizzle by comparison.
Last edited by '58 Flat; 10-18-2014 at 05:23 AM.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#168 at 10-18-2014 08:50 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-18-2014, 08:50 AM #168
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Will the American people ever regain enough intelligence to throw out such nincompoops as Walker and Perry? How long will it take? It certainly seems like it will take a Crisis to wake Americans out of their slumber for even a little while...

We have only had a few years of sane government in the last 50. And not much better before that, for another 28 or so. It's amazing to think about that. And people wonder why America is declining? A nation cannot flourish without a sane government; it just can't.
Perhaps a total collapse is needed. I don't like it one bit, but strong opinions need strong and undeniable rebuttals. I hate the thought that I might live into my dotage in a country hell bent on disintegrating, but that may be what is in store. Rational argument requires a dispassionate and receptive audience. We don't have anything resembling that today, and we seem unwilling to make it possible for one to emerge.

The Left, what ever that is these days, needs to be resolute, and offer a real alternative, not GOP-Lite. Few voice are promoting that, and fewer leaders are offering it. It's hard to be the alternative with nothing to offer but platitudes and pandering. Today's politics is all about fear and positioning. The fear is mostly a product of the Right, and the positioning a product of oligarchy. Both are strong, and may be getting stronger ... at least for now.

If the GOP gets total control of the federal government in 2016, and they might, we could have our collapse. If control is split, then we continue for a long while until we finally hit a brick wall. Then, its the blame game, and the GOP does a much better job at that than the Dems. Note the rise of the rightwing parties in Europe. They are where we may be in another 10 years.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 10-18-2014 at 08:54 AM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#169 at 10-18-2014 08:57 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-18-2014, 08:57 AM #169
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
ACA repeal? Get ready for EMTALA (the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986, which requires emergency rooms etc. to treat all patients regardless of their ability to pay) repeal come January.

The left doesn't have the slightest idea of what's coming. I do: The GOP essentially running the table in the Senate and getting a filibuster-proof majority - leading to a danse macabre of Obama vetoes that will doom the Democrats in 2016 - and flirting with a two-thirds majority in the House, which would enable them to introduce constitutional amendments.

The storm to come will make 1994 look like a light drizzle by comparison.
Whatever happens, it won't be definitive until after the 2016 elections. The GOP is very likely to win the Senate, and that ends any chance of new SCOTUS appointments. Other than that, it is impossible that they will hold the 2/3 majority in that body that they need to do what you suggest.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#170 at 10-18-2014 03:48 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-18-2014, 03:48 PM #170
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Perhaps a total collapse is needed. I don't like it one bit, but strong opinions need strong and undeniable rebuttals. I hate the thought that I might live into my dotage in a country hell bent on disintegrating, but that may be what is in store. Rational argument requires a dispassionate and receptive audience. We don't have anything resembling that today, and we seem unwilling to make it possible for one to emerge.
I hold on to the perhaps-vain hope that things always look this way as the Crisis unfolds. Imagine what people felt during the seemingly-endless great Depression, with fascists on the march abroad. Or in the 1850s when people were even more divided and irrational than today with no solution on the horizon except civil war. Or a Revolution that was apparently hopeless and its armies freezing to death and on the run. Or endless intolerance and civil war as in the previous British crises. We came through, because British and Americans finally realized that disintegration must be dealt with.

Our saeculum has been more fortunate than all others for Americans. Does that give us resources and a leg up, or make us complacent and ready for an endless decline and fall from now on? We don't know yet, even though the "stars" give me some indications of a good outcome. But that does not give us certainty either.

The Left, what ever that is these days, needs to be resolute, and offer a real alternative, not GOP-Lite. Few voices are promoting that, and fewer leaders are offering it. It's hard to be the alternative with nothing to offer but platitudes and pandering. Today's politics is all about fear and positioning. The fear is mostly a product of the Right, and the positioning a product of oligarchy. Both are strong, and may be getting stronger ... at least for now.

If the GOP gets total control of the federal government in 2016, and they might, we could have our collapse. If control is split, then we continue for a long while until we finally hit a brick wall. Then, it's the blame game, and the GOP does a much better job at that than the Dems. Note the rise of the rightwing parties in Europe. They are where we may be in another 10 years.
I don't see either party gaining control until 2020, at which time I see the Left, such as it is, getting control. It depends on better leadership arising than we have now, obviously.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#171 at 03-11-2015 12:19 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
03-11-2015, 12:19 PM #171
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

The most obvious and settled reality for 2016 is what Senate seats will be up for grabs. Most are winners of 2010, the election that a bunch of Tea Party pols won. Those up for re-election will include:

Richard Shelby, R-AL (1934)
Lisa Murkowski, R-AS (1957)
John McCain, R-AZ (1936)
John Boozman, R-AR (1950)

Barbara Boxer, D-CA (1940)
Michael Bennett, D-CO (1964)
Richard Blumenthal, D-CT (1946)
Marco Rubio, R-FL (1971)
Johnny Isakson, R-GA (1944)

Daniel Inouye, D-HI (1924) -- deceased -- replaced by Brian Schatz (1972)
Mike Crapo, R-ID (1944)
Mark Kirk, R-IL (1959)

Dan Coats, R-IN (1943)
Charles Grassley, R-IA (1933)
Jerry Moran, R-KS (1944)
Rand Paul, R-KY (1963)
David Vitter, R-LA (1961)

Barbara Mikulski, D-MD (1936)
Roy Blunt, R-MO (1950)
Harry Reid, D-NV (1939)
Kelly Ayotte, R-NH (1968)
Chuck Schumer, D-NY (1950)
Richard Burr, R-NC (1955)
Rob Portman, R-OH (1955)
Tom Coburn, R-OK -- replaced by Jim Lankford (1968)

Ron Wyden, D-OR (1949)
Pat Toomey, R-PA (1961)
James DeMint, R-SC -- replaced by Tim Scott (1965)
John Thune, R-SD (1952)
Mike Lee, R-UT (1971)

Patrick Leahy, D-NH (1940)
Patty Murray, D-WA (1950)
Ron Johnson, R-WI (1955)

Bolded names indicated who signed the infamous open letter to the Iranian government. All are Republicans. If I did not italicize "Murkowski" and "Coates" it is because they did not sign that letter.
Italicized names are for those Senators retiring to leave open seats in 2016.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 03-11-2015 at 01:28 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#172 at 03-11-2015 12:35 PM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
03-11-2015, 12:35 PM #172
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

Been seeing some posts lamenting the supposed apathy of Millies. We'll see about that in 2016. I think it will shock many.







Post#173 at 03-11-2015 01:26 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-11-2015, 01:26 PM #173
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84 View Post
Been seeing some posts lamenting the supposed apathy of Millies. We'll see about that in 2016. I think it will shock many.
I hope I am shocked in the right way; that they DO show up to vote, even for Hillary Clinton. What really needs to happen, though, is for millies to understand that voting in midterms is necessary (as they didn't understand in Nov. 2010 and 2014). Only then will we be able to move forward in the necessary sphere of government and politics. When do you think "many" will be "shocked" that this happens? And will they still move our country in the right (or "left") direction, as I think they did in 2008 and 2012?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#174 at 03-11-2015 01:35 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-11-2015, 01:35 PM #174
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
The most obvious and settled reality for 2016 is what Senate seats will be up for grabs. Most are winners of 2010, the election that a bunch of Tea Party pols won. Those up for re-election will include:

Richard Shelby, R-AL (1934)
Lisa Murkowski, R-AS (1957)
John McCain, R-AZ (1936)
John Boozman, R-AR (1950)

Barbara Boxer, D-CA (1940)
Michael Bennett, D-CO (1964)
Richard Blumenthal, D-CT (1946)
Marco Rubio, R-FL (1971)
Johnny Isakson, R-GA (1944)

Daniel Inouye, D-HI (1924) -- deceased -- replaced by Brian Schatz (1972)
Mike Crapo, R-ID (1944)
Mark Kirk, R-IL (1959)

Dan Coats, R-IN (1943)
Charles Grassley, R-IA (1933)
Jerry Moran, R-KS (1944)
Rand Paul, R-KY (1963)
David Vitter, R-LA (1961)

Barbara Mikulski, D-MD (1936)
Roy Blunt, R-MO (1950)
Harry Reid, D-NV (1939)
Kelly Ayotte, R-NH (1968)
Chuck Schumer, D-NY (1950)
Richard Burr, R-NC (1955)
Rob Portman, R-OH (1955)
Tom Coburn, R-OK -- replaced by Jim Lankford (1968)

Ron Wyden, D-OR (1949)
Pat Toomey, R-PA (1961)
James DeMint, R-SC -- replaced by Tim Scott (1965)
John Thune, R-SD (1952)
Mike Lee, R-UT (1971)

Patrick Leahy, D-NH (1940)
Patty Murray, D-WA (1950)
Ron Johnson, R-WI (1955)

Bolded names indicated who signed the infamous open letter to the Iranian government. All are Republicans
Italicized names are for those Senators retiring to leave open seats in 2016.
Good list, brower. There aren't too many of those Republicans ripe for replacement, although if the Democrats do well a few others could be overturned. More likely (but far from certain) vulnerable senators are Mark Kirk (IL), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Pat Toomey (PA) and Ron Johnson (WI). If all those fall, that would only bring the Senate back to a tie. Other possibilities (although unlikely) might include Roy Blunt (MO), Charles Grassley (IA), Richard Burr (NC), Johnny Isakson (GA) and Marco Rubio (FL). Rubio and Paul would have to run for Senate also if they run for president, in order to keep their seats.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#175 at 03-11-2015 01:56 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
03-11-2015, 01:56 PM #175
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

It's paradoxical that two people assumed to be running for the Presidency are willing to do an asinine and puerile stunt that guts the power of the current President on the assumption that the Democrats either could never or would never do such a stunt.

'The deal will fall apart with the next President' practically assumes that a Republican will be elected President and that the Republicans will keep control of the Senate.

I see this letter as utter folly. Maybe those who signed it have been promised plenty of blood money from military contractors who can make tens of billions from the deaths of millions... and a war between the US and Iran would give America body counts at least as severe as those of World War II.

We may need the Islamic Republic of Iran, flawed as its political order is, as an ally against ISIS. In view of upcoming elections in Israel, Israeli voters may decide that Shiite mullahs in Iran are much less dangerous than ISIS fascists who give Jews good cause to fear...

I am leery of comparing anyone to Nazis even if they share the same bigotry or level of tyrannical rule. ISIS frees me from such leeriness.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
-----------------------------------------