Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Of the also-rans in the Democratic Party, Mike O'Malley is the most interesting. Whether that translates into votes or not, we'll have to see.

I see O'Malley trying to appeal to the Elizabeth Warren set. That's a useful role from the Progressive POV; he could get enough air time to pull the party more to the left.

People sensed the "anointment meme" - they just applied it to the wrong party -

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...t-walker/?_r=0

David Koch Signals a Favorite: Scott Walker

Charles G. and David H. Koch, the influential and big-spending conservative donors, appear to have a favorite in the race for the Republican presidential nomination: Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

On Monday, at a fund-raising event in Manhattan for the New York State Republican Party, David Koch told donors that he and his brother, who oversee one of the biggest private political organizations in the country, believed that Mr. Walker would be the Republican nominee.

“When the primaries are over and Scott Walker gets the nomination,” Mr. Koch told the crowd, the billionaire brothers would support him, according to a spokeswoman. The remark drew laughter and applause from the audience of fellow donors and Republican activists, who had come to hear Mr. Walker speak earlier at the event, held at the Union League Club.

Two people who attended the event said they heard Mr. Koch go even further, indicating that Mr. Walker should be the Republican nominee. A spokeswoman disputed that wording, saying that Mr. Koch had pledged to remain officially neutral during the primary campaign.

But Mr. Koch’s remark left little doubt among attendees of where his heart is, and could effectively end one of the most closely watched contests in the “invisible primary,” a period where candidates crisscross the country seeking not the support of voters but the blessing of their party’s biggest donors and fund-raisers.

Few donors have been courted as aggressively as the Kochs, whose network of political nonprofits, “super PACs” and like-minded donors plans to spend almost $900 million over the next two years advancing conservative candidates and policies.

Republican presidential contenders including Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey have sought out the men for private meetings in Wichita, Kan., and New York, joined them for rounds of golf, and sought coveted invitations to the brothers’ annual donor conference in Southern California. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wrote an opinion article for Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” issue last week, praising the two men for their “passion for freedom and their commitment to ideas.”

But the ultimate value of the Kochs’ good will in a Republican primary is difficult to measure.

Mr. Koch’s remarks suggested that the political organizations they oversee — which include Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots organization, and Freedom Partners, a donor trade group with an affiliated “super PAC” — would not intervene in the Republican primary process on behalf of a single candidate.

But according to the two attendees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely describe the remarks, Mr. Koch suggested that the Koch family might personally offer financial support to Mr. Walker.

In a statement, Mr. Koch described the Wisconsin governor as “terrific,” but said he was not making an endorsement.

“Let me be clear, I am not endorsing or supporting any candidate for president at this point in time,” Mr. Koch said.

All hail Scott Walker! Heil Victory!
Corporate world has spoken - Sig heil, peasants!

That is all. Move on, nothing more to see, for 2016.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/04/...te-coup-courts

Walker's Dark Money Allies Orchestrate Coup of the Courts

These dark money schemes left voters completely in the dark about who was truly influencing elections in the state, CMD argued in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Wisconsinites never knew that a Florida-based mining company lobbying for a massive open pit mine in Wisconsin secretly gave $700,000 to WiCFG, nor did they know that John Menard gave $1.5 million to the group, and in turn received at least $1.8 million in tax credits from Walker's job development agency.

The investigation has been halted by a passel of lawyers hired by the groups under investigation and its fate now rests with the Wisconsin's Supreme Court.

In an unprecedented move, the court's right-wing majority decided not to hear oral arguments, in order to protect the defendants against leaks, over the strong objections of the Chief Justice.

And you ask, just how did a conservative majority come to be to overrule Wis. Chief Justice? Easy -

To orchestrate a constitutional coup a phony “vote yes” group was formed by Rogensack’s former campaign manager and WMC piled on the cash in a $600,000 ad blitz saying it was all about “democracy.” In the final weekend before election day, the liberal Greater Milwaukee Committee fielded an extra $200,000 in ads, but it was too late to make a difference.

Perhaps if the WMC ads had explained that they were unseating the chief and purchasing the best court money could buy, the result may have been different. But it was no surprise when, as the Capital Times explained: “They secured a narrow 53 percent to 47 percent victory in a low-turnout election; barely 10 percent of Wisconsin’s voting-age population supported the deliberately confusing amendment.” Court observers tracking the "We Hate Shirley" amendment assumed that she would soon lose her title and her authority.

But it's not over yet -

But the feisty 81-year old Chief Justice is not taking the dark money onslaught lying down. She filed a federal lawsuit (documents here) brought by one of the nation’s most respected constitutional lawyers, Robert Peck of the Center for Constitutional Litigation, arguing that changing the rules concerning how a Chief is selected in the middle of her term violates the Equal Protection and Due Process rights of the chief herself and the voters who elected her under the U.S. Constitution.

I guess its good to have 81 year olds with the presence of mind to actually fight rather than sit in the corner contemplating their navels and debating whether HC is progressive enough.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I have a different list. First, I think Jeb has the same problems as Hillary: he stinks as a campaigner and people aren't interested in a rehash of the past. Rubio has a GOP problem: he favors things the base hates. Of the others, I'll pick Walker and Kasich - perhaps as a ticket. If not, then one or the other.

Mostly, Rubio is on board with the things the base loves: trickle-down economics first and foremost, and militarism, and mostly social conservatism. Immigration is an exception, to some extent, for both Bush and Rubio. But that also gives them advantages in key states. Rubio is an excellent campaigner and speaker, and he appeals to a younger crowd. He is quite skilled at deceiving people and making horrible policies sound attractive, an essential trait for a GOP candidate. A good candidate will have no trouble raising funds. Koch has not committed to supporting Walker financially in the primaries. Kasich has attractive qualities, but is taking a too-moderate line and doesn't have the horoscope advantages that Rubio has.

Hillary doesn't stink as a campaigner; she is charismatic, intelligent, reassuring, persevering, and positive. She lost to Obama mostly due to poor strategy regarding the early primary process, and lost ground with youth over the war issue. Bush is also a good speaker, and gives the impression of confidence, intelligence, and power. Like the other Bushes, his horoscope numbers are impressive. Unfortunately, like the others, he can win an election, or even two.

Of the also-rans in the Democratic Party, Mike O'Malley is the most interesting. Whether that translates into votes or not, we'll have to see.

It won't; his chart does not give him much chance.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I think you are wrong here. CXr is self-employed or perhaps a small businessman (I believe he has had employees at times in the past). In any case he is not an employee, he is management. The Republican party has always been the party of management. For example, they reliably take the side of management over workers in labor disputes. Policies designed to benefit people who work for a living (employees) typically affect management adversely. For example many of the safety regulations implemented by OSHA over the years have made the workplace safer, but have added burdens to management who have to implement them. CXr's experience with government regulations likely has been mostly negative.

Based on what CXR has written it seems reasonable to assume that CXr is male, does not have advanced degree and lives outside of a city. Given this, if he were white, he should vote Republican in national elections* more often than not purely out of identity politics. If you add to that the assumption that he is self-employed, then the Republican affiliation should become overwhelming.

For a Democrat to win over a guy like him is analogous to a Republican trying to win black votes. People still try on both sides, e.g. Rand Paul, and they should, because identities change over time. But there shouldn't be any amazement when they fail. There is nothing "the matter" with Kansas. That populists who would benefit from leftist economics are allied with the "corporation party " is not any stranger than Catholic (immigrant)-hating Klansmen allied with Catholic immigrants. But they were for half a century or more. American politics is like that, and always has been.

*Voting in local elections is often impacted by local issues and personalities; voting tendencies in national elections are a better gauge of identity politics

I know you realize this, but just thought I'd point it out. There is a difference between someone actually supporting the GOP and someone rationally supporting the GOP.

On the culture war side of this, it is epitome of cognitive dissonance to scream 'freedom fries' and then be Anti-Choice or supporting voter suppression or a host of other bend-to-our-will party planks.

On the economic side, imagine where CXR and all other small business owners (SBOs) would be if instead of the GOP-imposed austerity of the past 5 years, the federal govt had injected 100s of billions more into the economy and GDP was running at a 4-5% steady rate with the unemployment rate down around 3%. The fact that CXR and many other SBOs would protest that the federal debt would be at $19T instead of $18T (without a hint of difference to anyone) just goes to show how far these folks are sunk into spoon-fed mythology of GOP sheeple-land.

If not by blood, then by psychology and enlarged amygdalas, these folks are the direct descendents of the poor Southern Whites that went to slaughter in the 1860s for their elites and the glorious "Southern/Freedom Fries Way." As a national political power, they're just as doomed... and that is a good thing.

Horoscope numbers: the record, just to remind you guys.

The scores are based on planetary aspects in personal horoscopes. For example, Sun-Uranus aspects like trine (120-degree angle) and sextile (60-degree angles) are fortunate for presidential candidates. Sun-Jupiter aspects, such as squares (90-degree) and opposition (180 degree) and conjunction are very good, and so are similar Moon-Jupiter aspects. Jupiter-Uranus trines show charisma. There are a number of other such factors. Negative scores come from aspects such as Mars or Venus to Uranus, Mars square Saturn, Sun square Saturn, Saturn-Pluto, Mars-Pluto, Mercury square Mars, etc. Rising planets (personality) are generally excellent, especially jovial Jupiter and charismatic Uranus, but are not known by me for many candidates. A Saturn Return (age 55-59) usually means defeat or failure to run. These were carefully researched on US presidential candidates going back from 2000 to the 1830s at least.

Winning candidate scores (positive to negative) and losing candidates:

Obama 8-2, Romney 11-5, McCain 9-10
GW Bush 15-3 plus Pluto/Mercury rising, Gore 13-6 plus Mars-Pluto rising, Kerry 7-9
Clinton 13-2 plus 4 rising planets including Jupiter, Dole 9-12
G Bush 15-6, Dukakis 5-15
Reagan 14-4 plus Jupiter rising, Mondale 8-14 plus Uranus-Jupiter rising
Carter 13-0 plus Moon rising, Ford 14-6
Nixon 12-4, McGovern 8-8, Humphrey 12-7
Johnson 12-9 plus 5 rising planets (Sun, Moon, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars), Goldwater 20-10 plus Mars in Scorpio rising-- "extremism!"
Kennedy 13-7
Eisenhower 15-8, Stevenson 10-20
Truman 18-3 plus Moon rising, Dewey 4-6
FDR 13-5 plus Uranus rising, Willkie 7-6, Landon 6-18, Hoover 6-13

The scores of today's candidates include these:

Hillary Clinton 9-8 plus Uranus rising!
Martin O'Malley 14-14
Jim Webb 14-8
Bernie Sanders 10-0
Jeb Bush 16-6
Marco Rubio 17-12
John Kasich 8-15
Scott Walker 6-10
Huckabee 6-6
Carson 4-6
Carly Fiorina 13-11
Lindsay Graham 2-3
Ted Cruz 4-6
Rand Paul 12-8
Paul Ryan 16-13
Bobby Jindal 13-14
Chris Christie 16-15

Remember also, the New Moon before the election determines the probable winning Party.

BOTTOM LINE: IT WORKS!

The Goldwater and Johnson cases are especially interesting, given their personality factor (rising sign and planets)

About Mars in Scorpio, here's a good description:
http://astromatrix.org/Horoscopes/Pl...ars-in-Scorpio
MARS IN SCORPIO'ASSERTS SELF WITH MAGNETIC INTENSITY'
Mars in Scorpio
Indicates that you will assert yourself in an energetic, positive, proud, practical, resourceful, courageous, persevering and emotionally intense manner. You have an uncompromising spirit, deep reserves of energy, a strong instinct for survival and the ability to overcome even the most difficult of situations - you will fight to the end to defend your principles. Much of your energy may be channeled into the quest for personal success and emotional security. On occasion, you can (be) callous, blunt, jealous, suspicious, revengeful and domineering - given to outburst of anger.

Here he is, Mr. Mars in Scorpio rising:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVNoClu0h9M

Lyndon Johnson was bigger than life. You'd expect that of a man who had Leo and those 5 planets, Sun, Moon, Jupiter, Mars and Mercury rising, and these assertive, emotional, clever planets rising describe the "Johnson Treatment."

from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/char...s/johnson.html

Johnson was much loved and greatly hated -- not just liked and disliked but adored by some and despised by others. Some people remember him as kind, generous, compassionate, considerate, decent, and devoted to advancing the well-being of the least advantaged among us. Others describe him as cruel, dictatorial, grandiose, and even vicious....

The journalists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak have given us an indelible picture of Johnson applying "The Treatment" to people who needed persuading. It was,

supplication, accusation, cajolery, exuberance, scorn, tears, complaint, the hint of threat. It was all these together. It ran the gamut of human emotions. Its velocity was breathtaking, and it was all in one direction. Interjections from the target were rare. Johnson anticipated them before they could be spoken. He moved in close, his face a scant millimeter from his target, his eyes widening and narrowing, his eyebrows rising and falling. From his pockets poured clippings, memos, statistics. Mimicry, humor, and the genius of analogy made The Treatment an almost hypnotic experience and rendered the target stunned and helpless....



Johnson was a man possessed by inner demons. From early in his childhood he manifested character traits that shaped his behavior throughout his life. As a boy and a man he suffered from a sense of emptiness: he couldn't stand to be alone; he needed constant companionship, attention, affection, and approval. He had insatiable appetites: for work, women, food, drink, conversation, and material possessions. They were all in the service of filling himself up -- of giving himself a sort of validity or sense of self-worth....

Johnson's neediness translated into a number of traits that has a large impact on his political actions. He had a compulsion to be the best, to outdo everybody, to eclipse all his predecessors in the White House and become the greatest president in American history. As journalist Nicholas Lemann says, Johnson "wanted to set world records in politics, as a star athlete would in sports. 'Get those coonskins up on the wall,' he would tell people around him."....

More about Johnson in the White House:
http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2012/02...nd-the-scenes/

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Translated into Bigotspeak: black people.

The solution for anyone would be to have assets as little connected to cash as possible. Utilities and heavy industry great -- banks horrible.



The 'money boom' must make a transition to honest pay for honest work that allows the common man to have savings that get invested in plant and equipment that create well-paying jobs.

Welfare is not restricted to black people.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I know you realize this, but just thought I'd point it out. There is a difference between someone actually supporting the GOP and someone rationally supporting the GOP.

On the culture war side of this, it is epitome of cognitive dissonance to scream 'freedom fries' and then be Anti-Choice or supporting voter suppression or a host of other bend-to-our-will party planks.

On the economic side, imagine where CXR and all other small business owners (SBOs) would be if instead of the GOP-imposed austerity of the past 5 years, the federal govt had injected 100s of billions more into the economy and GDP was running at a 4-5% steady rate with the unemployment rate down around 3%. The fact that CXR and many other SBOs would protest that the federal debt would be at $19T instead of $18T (without a hint of difference to anyone) just goes to show how far these folks are sunk into spoon-fed mythology of GOP sheeple-land.

If not by blood, then by psychology and enlarged amygdalas, these folks are the direct descendents of the poor Southern Whites that went to slaughter in the 1860s for their elites and the glorious "Southern/Freedom Fries Way." As a national political power, they're just as doomed... and that is a good thing.

Actually, I'm a direct descendant of the northern whites (Yankee's) who fought for the Union during the Civil War and Independence during the Revolutionary War.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Welfare is not restricted to black people.

Welfare is not restricted to poor people. In fact, quite the contrary.

Originally Posted by TnT

The only difficulty with your optimism is our over-population. The systems in place right now depend on the massive overuse of resources which could simply switch off given some catastophe - a New Orleans on steroids. Even for a short period of time that could bring more than simply re-adjusting.

For example, locally grown foods - you can't just start that up in a few weeks, it takes at least one growing cycle (over a year) and very likely several cycles to stabilize. That would cause big problems. And that's just one problem. There are lots of others in the wings.

Where do we have issues with over population other than in large cities?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Welfare is not restricted to poor people. In fact, quite the contrary.

Agreed. I haven't seen Democrats do anything about it other than support it and initiate more of it.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Actually, I'm a direct descendant of the northern whites (Yankee's) who fought for the Union during the Civil War and Independence during the Revolutionary War.

So why have you embraced the other side now? I guess your forebears don't have much influence upon you.

Originally Posted by TnT

The only difficulty with your optimism is our over-population. The systems in place right now depend on the massive overuse of resources which could simply switch off given some catastophe - a New Orleans on steroids. Even for a short period of time that could bring more than simply re-adjusting.

For example, locally grown foods - you can't just start that up in a few weeks, it takes at least one growing cycle (over a year) and very likely several cycles to stabilize. That would cause big problems. And that's just one problem. There are lots of others in the wings.

Here's the irony. Later this century, the conversation will be about population decline / aging. Granted we here in the US, with our relatively lax immigration attitude, plus our minor clusters of highly fecund native born, are not Japan or really even Europe. However, the inevitable will arrive. We will join the non-fecund.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So why have you embraced the other side now? I guess your forebears don't have much influence upon you.

You don't have much influence upon me. You don't represent limited government or recognize state's rights and individual rights. You represent government control and always have. Why would I embrace your side?

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Here's the irony. Later this century, the conversation will be about population decline / aging.

From your lips to god's ears.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Where do we have issues with over population other than in large cities?

Can you imagine what will happen if many more folks in second and third world countries all decided that they want the same standard of living as exists in the U.S.?

Sustainable population is often a function of available water. We might easily see some interesting phenomena in the next few years if the ongoing drought that has plagued the southwest continues. Where do all the folks in Phoenix and Tucson go if the water drawn from the Rockies declines drastically or even disappears? What happens to California if its drought continues or gets worse? What happens to Las Vegas if, as seems to be happening, Lake Mead drops below the point that it can't feed the power generation system built into the Hoover Dam? What happens if the Ogalala aquifer gets used up and dry land farming becomes a really big challenge on the great plains?

And these are not the only issues that could emerge. Many related to the massive overpopulation of the earth.

Originally Posted by TnT

Can you imagine what will happen if many more folks in second and third world countries all decided that they want the same standard of living as exists in the U.S.?

Sustainable population is often a function of available water. We might easily see some interesting phenomena in the next few years if the ongoing drought that has plagued the southwest continues. Where do all the folks in Phoenix and Tucson go if the water drawn from the Rockies declines drastically or even disappears? What happens to California if its drought continues or gets worse? What happens to Las Vegas if, as seems to be happening, Lake Mead drops below the point that it can't feed the power generation system built into the Hoover Dam? What happens if the Ogalala aquifer gets used up and dry land farming becomes a really big challenge on the great plains?

And these are not the only issues that could emerge. Many related to the massive overpopulation of the earth.

Good points. As far as our needs if droughts continue, we could begin to utilize sea water. We have the ability to turn sea water into drinking water.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I know you realize this, but just thought I'd point it out. There is a difference between someone actually supporting the GOP and someone rationally supporting the GOP.

On the culture war side of this, it is epitome of cognitive dissonance to scream 'freedom fries' and then be Anti-Choice or supporting voter suppression or a host of other bend-to-our-will party planks.

On the economic side, imagine where CXR and all other small business owners (SBOs) would be if instead of the GOP-imposed austerity of the past 5 years, the federal govt had injected 100s of billions more into the economy and GDP was running at a 4-5% steady rate with the unemployment rate down around 3%. The fact that CXR and many other SBOs would protest that the federal debt would be at $19T instead of $18T (without a hint of difference to anyone) just goes to show how far these folks are sunk into spoon-fed mythology of GOP sheeple-land.

If not by blood, then by psychology and enlarged amygdalas, these folks are the direct descendents of the poor Southern Whites that went to slaughter in the 1860s for their elites and the glorious "Southern/Freedom Fries Way." As a national political power, they're just as doomed... and that is a good thing.

Government injected two trillion and we didn't receive a cent.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Good points. As far as our needs if droughts continue, we could begin to utilize sea water. We have the ability to turn sea water into drinking water.

Boiling and cooling water imply a gigantic expenditure of energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics strikes again.

California cities on the coast are more likely to draw water from the richly-watered Columbia Basin than to desalinate water at the coastline.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Agreed. I haven't seen Democrats do anything about it other than support it and initiate more of it.

There is a GOP goal to tilt the field so dramatically toward the rich, that whining about the Democrats lack of spine is, frankly, silly. No one, left or right, is talking about cutting crop supports or demanding that ranchers pay real fees to graze cattle on Federal land. Likewise, extraction fees are so out of date, that many have not been updated since the end of the 19th century. Federal income taxes are structured to favor capital through special rates on capital gains, dividends and carried interest, which are only used by a thin layer at the top of the food chain. An even thinner layer pays inheritance taxes (roughly 5,500 families a year), but the GOP has vowed to end even those.

At the next layer down, states bribe companies to come to their state and provide jobs, often so few it's ridiculous. Tax abatement then shifts the burden to the middle class and poor, because states must balance their budgets. Counties and cities contribute by building industrial and commercial parks that offer years or even decades of free rent and taxpayer supplied improvements, and guess who pays for those?

The GOP is onboard for this program 150%. The Dems are exactly angels either, but a few are starting to rebel ... finally. We'll have to see how that plays.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Good points. As far as our needs if droughts continue, we could begin to utilize sea water. We have the ability to turn sea water into drinking water.

Well yes we do, but it's very energy intense and expensive. We'll still need food too, so add a huge amount for irrigation: about triple the amount needed for drinking water. We'll need a few Gigawatts of electrical capacity dedicated to just that one task.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I agree Classic Xer is likely to continue to perceive his interests are served by Republicans. However, that does not mean that people of his type and class are really served by Republican policies. They are not. One could speculate that a banana republic is good for a few wealthy landlords. But are they REALLY better off living in such backward countries?

Yes they are. At a relatively small amount of wealth (say $10 million) wealth a person's desires for material goods is largely saturated. What matters is one's relative position. A Larry Ellison with $2 billion to Bill Gate's $1 billion is happier than a Larry Ellison with $20 billion to Bill Gates $40 billion. As Ted Turner put it, money is how you keep score.

A rich person in a poor country may be better off than a richer person in a rich country. For example he can afford more servants and retainers. A Nigerian with $10 million in assets can afford a mansion with a staff of dozens. An American with $10 million cannot.

But most businessmen will not fare well in banana republics. A strong middle class is good for business.

This is true. But we are not yet a banana republic, and long before we arrived there I would expect you would see CXr move away from the GOP, but I do not think it would be Democrats he embraced.

Republican policies favor only a few people, and spell certain decline for the nation and its economy.

This still resides in the category of belief. You and I may see things this way, but it is not yet a fait accompli. Right now, CXr is still doing fine, as am I.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Boiling and cooling water imply a gigantic expenditure of energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics strikes again.

You don't use distillation. RO is standard I think. Looks like it still is the state of the art. The 165 MGD plant is expected to produce water priced at $2.20 /1000 gallons.

For comparison water charges in the US vary from $2.8 (Phoenix) to $5.4 (Boston) per 1000 gallons. The price above will be charged to the utility. The prices below are what US utilities charge end customers. The end charge foe the desalinated water will be much higher than $2.2 because of distribution costs. But even if you simply added it to the Phoenix charge you would get a price that is lower than that in Boston. So RO certainly can be used, and I think it will be before they try something controversial like tapping the Great Lakes.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Government injected two trillion and we didn't receive a cent.

For you to get some, it has to come through the fiscal side of government. The Federal Reserve has no authority to hand out goodies or even buy things for the government. It can only stuff the banks full of money, and hope they lend it ... you know, that confidence thing you conservatives always cheer.

Never happened.