Well, I guess South Carolina's little Napoleon wannabee has disqualified himself from being considered for president...forever.
My state's senior Senator. Ummm, ummm, ummm.
What a man!!!
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Posts
- 7,115
comic Relief
Well, I guess South Carolina's little Napoleon wannabee has disqualified himself from being considered for president...forever.
My state's senior Senator. Ummm, ummm, ummm.
What a man!!!
Last edited by herbal tee; 03-12-2015 at 06:51 AM.
...and I thought Seven Days in May excellent drama depicting an impossible series of events. But then the President Jordan Lyman (Frederic March) was a 60-something Reactive (Adlai Stevenson, barely disguised, thus depicted) in 1964 when his sort of leadership was seen as weak and ineffectual. [President Obama acts like a very mature, 60-ish Reactive whom the Right considers in the way of its plutocratic and militaristic agenda with his sort of leadership being pushed out of the way].Originally Posted by herbal tee
Senator Raymond Clark (Edmond O'Brien), to the President: All you've got to know is this: right now the government of the United States is sitting on top of the Washington Monument, right on the very point, tilting right and left and ready to fall off and break up on the pavement. There are just a handful of men that can prevent it. And you're one of them.
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
Well, applying this principle, in response to the letter, send in the military to harass Congress ...
History indicates that countries that try to solve their problems this way tend to be neither happy nor prosperous.
Did you see the dismal score he gets from his horoscope? He just lived up to it.
Mostly posted elsewhere, my creation.
I respond to this:
http://www.rothenberggonzales.com/ratings/president
Note: the forum in which I posted this analysis uses the archaic red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. Light shades are for 'lean' or tilt; middle shades are for 'likely', and dark shades are for 'solid'. Except that Rothenberg assumes that NE-02 and ME-02 are unlikely to be contested, I am going with Rothenberg in the first map. He apparently figured that Wisconsin would be close if Governor Scott Walker were the Republican nominee, but that was before a poll indicated that Walker would not do so well in Wisconsin as the usual Favorite Son does.
I'm not going to distinguish "tilt" from "lean".
Rothenberg assumes a 50-50 election in the popular vote in which the pattern of the Democratic nominee winning 'his' states by smaller margin than by which the Republican nominee wins 'his'. Such was so in the elections of 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. So far nothing in statewide polling contradicts this assumption. The Democrat has a built-in advantage with such a reality. If he wins Virginia by 4% and loses West Virginia by 40% he wins the election.
It looks reasonable enough. It's about how the 2012 election looked around September 1. The Republican nominee has a disadvantage in that he must win all four states in white. That leaves one chance in sixteen based on random chance. The four states are distant enough that they will stretch the Republican nominee's ability to campaign, and different enough that the Republican nominee will have no easy task of formulating a late-minute appeal that wins all four states in white. If he can do that, he's going to turn the four states in white into 'tilt" or "lean" R, push the one "tilt or lean R" into "likely R", and knock the states shown as "likely R" out of contention. Thus:
This looks like Kerry vs. Dubya, 2004. The Democratic nominee will have to play defense to hold onto states that he would win in a 50-50 election just to have a chance at a miracle. That is the inverse of Obama vs. Romney 2012. Republicans may pick up a couple House seats, net and barely hold onto the Senate. Although the electorate is split 51-49 Democratic the US makes the biggest lurch to the Right through free elections since 1932 in Germany.
So what does the brink of a Democratic runaway look like?
Much like 2008, except that states that voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996 that rejected Barack Obama get much closer. Republicans are biting their nails about Senate races and perhaps holding onto the House of Representatives after the networks call Florida, Ohio, or Virginia for the 45th President of the United States before children's bedtimes on the East Coast. The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party has stayed home.
(Don't ask what a Democratic landslide looks like. There hasn't been one since 1964).
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/ind...487a53e3ad9c01
Last edited by pbrower2a; 03-15-2015 at 02:09 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
Holy fucking Hell.
In a more politically sane time you would be 100% correct, but in the current political insanity Red America will completely eat this shit up.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
''They'' may love it, but he's too far down the totum pole to ever become pres. There are just too many Bushes and Pauls and Rmoneys in front of him. And he'll never be anyone's veep because they already have SC for the next 50 plus year no matter they do.
Rick, get outta there before God sends the Cat 5's.
Note that I use the archaic red for Democrats and blue for Republicans because of the source of my mapping abilities. After seventeen states have been polled by a variety of pollsters, some multiple times but not covering all potential match-ups, I can predict that Hillary Clinton will win against just about any Republican opponent much as Obama did in 2008 or 2012. So far she seems to have Obama constituencies intact.
Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie
Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee
(I can show only four maps, so I will have to show this one in the next post; I conclude that Huckabee is basically a regional candidate unable to win except in most of the former Confederacy and in other states that have not voted for any Democratic nominee for President since 1964 -- and lose Florida and Virginia, which are not particularly Southern anymore)
Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul
Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker
30% saturation -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% saturation -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% saturation -- lead with 50-54%
70% saturation -- lead with 55-59%
90% saturation -- lead with 60% or more
white -- tie
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
Here's Huckabee:
Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee
30% saturation -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% saturation -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% saturation -- lead with 50-54%
70% saturation -- lead with 55-59%
90% saturation -- lead with 60% or more
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
It's early days. Around this time in 1991, George H.W. Bush was seen as unbeatable and the marquee Democrats such as Mario Cuomo were refraining from running. Of course, we all know what happened in November 1992.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Of course it is early. There is always a potential for a scandal, a catastrophic war, a diplomatic blunder, or a financial panic. The Republicans could still imaginably get a second Ronald Reagan, and the health of Hillary Clinton could go very bad very fast. If it is the health of Barack Obama or the unthinkable, then the incumbent President is Joe Biden.
The weakness of current Republicans shows. No Republican seems to be making any significant inroad into the Blue (even if I show the states as red on the map).
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
Yes. I am truly concerned. Largely by the Democratic Party's inability to connect with working people, those who have bought into the idea that unions are the spawn of Satan, that gun-control is a conspiracy by the Left to take over the country and force us all to become a nation of illegal immigrant transgender pointy-headed global-warming activists.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
That's a large part of my discomfort with the resolution of this 4T. There is a steady drift to the economic right, as the social side of life drifts left. There is no accident here. For 40 years, the only messages from the liberal thought leaders have been social: race, ethnicity, gender, social status, sexual orientation, religion or some other belief structure. The conservative thought leaders argued those issue too, but added political economy to the list. So liberals won the contested issues, and lost on the issues they ignored, as you would expect.
40 years of unopposed belief-building makes changing minds slow and tedious at best.
Given the limited amount of time to resolve this inside this 4T, one of two scenarios are likely. One, the economic fairness issue remains unresolved, and becomes the fuel for the next 2T. Two, something traumatic occurs relatively soon, and a change in direction is the only option to resolve the impacts of the trauma. Of the two, item #1 seems more likely, meaning we both get live out my lives in a regressive economic system.
O joy!
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.
As I've pointed out, liberals and their candidates have pointed out the falsehoods and failures of the economic right all the time. But some of them like Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" have also tended to compromise with it, and the media has tended to promote it as the conventional wisdom. So things like free trade and the need to liberate the market have often gone uncontested by the pundits.
Still, you can't say that the case against the economic right has not been made. Mario Cuomo made it; Elizabeth Warren is making it. Bernie Sanders makes it. Even Bill Clinton makes it; rather strongly in fact. All Democratic candidates campaign and speak against it, whether they actually carry out liberal policies or not. There's no doubt it's the #1 issue now. Even the Republicans like Marco Rubio are starting to give in a bit and recognize the problem of inequality, before still going back to their failed policies as their answer.
Economic issues are dealt with in 4Ts, not 2Ts. Given the fact that this 4T will last until at least 2028, there's plenty of time, and the trauma does not even need to be greater than what we've already experienced in this 4T (which on the purely economic level, it won't be).
Remember, we are still in the 1850s redux! People here still tend to forget that.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-05-2015 at 09:28 PM.
Carly Fiornia is running for president. Personally, I think Carly Rae Jepsen is more qualified, because people really really really really really really like her, and they don't like Ms. Fiorina. I know I don't. But be that as it may, I looked at her horoscope. She scores 13-10, or maybe 13-11. She does have the helpful aspects for a presidential candidate that you'd expect, judging from her performance so far. She can put together arguments in a coherent and convincing way (Mercury sextile Uranus and Jupiter), and she has disciplined executive energy (Mars in Capricorn sextile and mutual-reception Saturn in Scorpio). Drawbacks are a sharp tongue (Mercury square Mars and Moon), and self-indulgent impulsiveness or danger of mild scandals (Venus square Jupiter and Uranus). Her score is better than a lot of the other candidates. But voters might not appreciate her meager resume, not to mention her reactionary ideas. CA rejected her as a senate candidate, but these days any Republican is at a disadvantage there, and she didn't run a bad campaign. But her primary ads created negative publicity.
The Republicans have been pushing visceral fear that brings out the worst in people.
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
The problem is that the baby boomer dominated government is unwilling to address the threats to our security. Its not unreasonable to be vigilant and worry about the commie under the bed, if as a result of a vigilant guard not being present, the commie is able to climb out from under your bed and murder your family. Restorationism will ensure that not only the commie does not climb under the bed, the guardian would pull out his gun and fire on the commie, killing him. The nuke arsenal would be built up to 100,000 warheads and the army size would be increased to over 10 million soldiers. The general population would be mobilized under the civil-military education system technical-survival and arms and medical training bolstered by the new security organs and armed internal forces; the honorguard and the stormguard. Only then would our nation be secure from possible assault.
This is what is implied by trends from a preliminary analysis from a secular cycle pov (see discussion in "libertarian" thread).
I see this too. I haven't updated P/R recently. Based on my last assessment we are in record territory now. If the S&P500 reaches 2300 or so in the next 12-18 months we will be as overvalued (cyclically-adjusted) as in 2000, which was the all-time peak. In this case there are only two possibilities: (1) the bear market associated with the next recession, whenever it comes, will see a >10000 point drop in the Dow, or (2) this doesn't happen; there is no generational cycle in economics/finance.Two, something traumatic occurs relatively soon, and a change in direction is the only option to resolve the impacts of the trauma.
Assuming a minimal validity to generations (i.e. there is something to it, even if 90% of S&H's stuff is wrong) we are in for a huge drop in the stock market. I cannot think of anything short of another panic that would convince investors to drop prices by the required amount. Can you? If so, the shortest "recharge interval" for historical major panics was 9 years. 2008+9 = 2017. The longest business cycle has been about 10.5 years, which puts the end of this expansion in mid-2018, implying a panic by mid-2019 at latest. So that means a panic in 2017-early 2019.
Applying a 40-year political cycle would have 2016 is a replay of 1976, with H. Clinton as Ford, some challenger to Clinton (who?) as Reagan, and the Republican nominee as Carter (probably someone perceived by GOP primary votes as less extreme, like Carter was perceived by Democratic primary voters).
This seems a stretch to me.
I agree. I cannot see anyway for #2 in today's world of Democratic dwarfs.Of the two, item #1 seems more likely, meaning we both get live out my lives in a regressive economic system.
Last edited by Mikebert; 04-06-2015 at 08:49 AM.
On the other hand, I've often thought that Obama was both Nixon and Carter, embodying some of the strengths and weaknesses of both, and that the realigning president would come after him. I admit that I could see another place holder after him too, though I think it is demographically a bit of a reach.
Vigilance about monsters under the bed may seem reasonable to 5 year olds, but most of us are older than that.
That's the problem. Not all 4T's address economic inequality. The Civil War did not. Economic inequality rose from the 1820's all through the 19th century only peaking around 1910. The Civil War did address political equality, black Americans gained political rights, but not economic rights; they remained legally and normatively consigned to the lowest social class. If the 1850's is a valid analogy to our present, as you have maintained for years, then the prospects for addressing our economic issues are dim and the replay of the Gilded Age is still in the future.
Demographically? I don't follow.
Sorry, I meant that I still expect the Democrats to be the ones in the driver seat, and that their present "blue wall" will hold in the electoral college barring either a recapture of some Asian and Hispanic votes by Republicans or a landslide blowout among the white vote, picking up former union strongholds in Ohio and the like. I which case they'll likely have both houses of Congress and the Supreme court and thus will have their Reagan for real, as it were. I dunno, I could be wrong, Hillary or Rand or whoever could be a placeholder candidate, but I really think the next President is going to be the face of the next party realignment, and that Obama will be the last transition President between Reagan and whatever is next.
