Originally Posted by TnT

Pure, addle-brained Utopianism. Utopian-ists are the most dangerous folks around if they ever get any power. Their model of civilization is always unworkable, usually modeled around one or two fantasy dimensions, and totally ignores most other natural human characteristics.

CH, you'd be better off designing a computer game. Your model might actually work there.

Are you trying to force a Utopian-ist to perform a reality check???

I suppose it's no worse than trying it on a denialist.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Are you trying to force a Utopian-ist to perform a reality check???

I suppose it's no worse than trying it on a denialist.

One of the entertaining aspects of this forum is simply beholding the belief systems that different people assemble. I've spent a lot of time studying epistemology over the last ten years or so. That leads me to view even my own beliefs with extreme skepticism. Yours, M&L's, Jordan's, Mikebert's, Wonkette's, et.al. tend to be full of interesting, seemingly well-crafted concepts. But, whooo-eee!! Some of the others!! Entertaining though.

But where is Jim Webb on the economy?

Inquiring minds want to know - and it will become huge if Hillary does reprise 2008 and squanders her huge lead over Bernie Sanders, since in that case Webb becomes a potential deliverer from a certain landslide defeat for the Democrats in November of 2016.

Remember, I predicted that Trump might do well, because he has a good horoscope score.


PPP Poll: Trump Leads in North Carolina
By Greg Richter | Wednesday, 08 Jul 2015 05:10 PM

Donald Trump leads the Republican presidential field in North Carolina, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey.

Trump's momentum "just keeps on building," the PPP says on its website, though the poll found Trump drags the bottom of the GOP field among those who could likely beat Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Still, Trump leads the GOP field in North Carolina with 16 percent, followed by Jeb Bush and Scott Walker at 12 percent each; Mike Huckabee at 11 percent; Ben Carson and Marco Rubio at 9 percent; Rand Paul at 7 percent; Ted Cruz at 6 percent; Chris Christie at 5 percent; Carly Fiorina at 4 percent; Rick Perry at 2 percent, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum at 1 percent; and John Kasich and George Pataki at less that 1 percent.

Bush led the four previous PPP poll for North Carolina.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has dropped slightly from the last poll but still is far in front with 55 percent. Bernie Sanders has 20 percent, Jim Webb, 7 percent, and Lincoln Chafee and Martin O'Malley 4 percent each.

For the general election, those leading Clinton are Huckabee at 49/45, Walker at 47/43, Carson at 47/44, Rubio at 47/46 and Paul 46/45.

Trump trails Clinton 47/44, Christie 46/43, Bush 45/43 and Ted Cruz 47/46. Clinton and Fiorina tied at 45 percent.

PPP surveyed 529 registered voters, 288 Republicans and 286 Democrats July 2-6. The margin of error for the overall survey is +/-4.3 percent, and for each of the primary subsamples is +/-5.8 percent.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/don...#ixzz3fPYtZzFp

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Remember, I predicted that Trump might do well, because he has a good horoscope score.

On the basis of charisma I think Trump may go all the way to the nomination. I'm not convinced that rational thought has much to do with Republican voters. Trump is right about a few things; Bush looks old tired and worn out (as does Hillary), and there is no such thing as a country called Iraq, W did a pretty good number on it. I'm just hoping that Bernie continues to grow, so he can be president and start to lead us out of the financial crisis this I believe is coming soon.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/no...ckabee-sex-fun

'Nobody Has Told Mike Huckabee Sex Is Fun': Jesse Ventura Eviscerates GOP Candidates

Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (I) took on the top tier of Republican presidential candidates and determined that none of them were qualified to lead the country.

Speaking on his Ora TV Off the Grid show on Thursday, the former Navy SEAL began with claims made by "climate denier Ted Cruz."

"The more carbon you are putting into the atmosphere, the hotter it's going to get," Ventura explained to Cruz. "That is a scientific fact, Ted Cruz. It's not debatable, it's science."

Turning to Ben Carson, Ventura wondered when he "made the choice to be gay or hetero."

"It don't work that way, it's physical, you are born that way," Ventura pointed out. "But see, people like Ben Carson can't get it through their thick heads that people are indeed born that way."

"Anyone that makes a statement like that should not be the president of the United States by any stretch of the imagination," he added.

When it came to Mike Huckabee's assertion that women wanted birth control because "they cannot control their libido," Ventura rubbed his eyes in disbelief.

"Mike Huckabee is one of these religious fanatics who thinks you have sex just to procreate," Ventura quipped. "Nobody has told Mike Huckabee that sex is fun. Nobody has told Mike Huckabee that it is probably the most enjoyable thing men and women can do together. Why do you think it happens so often?"

"And if you're a religious man, Mike, if it was only to produce children, why did God make it feel so damn good?"

We need more of poking fun at the absurdity of that the GOP now represents.

I'm reminding of how revealing the inherent humor of idiots proved to be the undoing of Klan -

http://www.stetsonkennedy.com/klan.htm

Originally Posted by playwrite

We need more of poking fun at the absurdity of that the GOP now represents.

I'm reminding of how revealing the inherent humor of idiots proved to be the undoing of Klan -

And now Trump is again raising the question of where Obama was born...

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But where is Jim Webb on the economy?

Inquiring minds want to know - and it will become huge if Hillary does reprise 2008 and squanders her huge lead over Bernie Sanders, since in that case Webb becomes a potential deliverer from a certain landslide defeat for the Democrats in November of 2016.

Jim Webb is an iconoclast, knows it and simply doesn't care. He has no interest in winning, because he finds the process of winning and maintaining power a bit revolting. He obviously has good taste on that. His biggest economic position is reducing inequality, a position he's held for a long time. Here's what the local paper has to say about him, with embedded video of his announcement.

Originally Posted by rds

On the basis of charisma I think Trump may go all the way to the nomination. I'm not convinced that rational thought has much to do with Republican voters. Trump is right about a few things; Bush looks old tired and worn out (as does Hillary), and there is no such thing as a country called Iraq, W did a pretty good number on it. I'm just hoping that Bernie continues to grow, so he can be president and start to lead us out of the financial crisis this I believe is coming soon.

Bernie's a great guy, but he's simply not Presidential. I'll still vote for him, though.

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/no...ckabee-sex-fun



We need more of poking fun at the absurdity of that the GOP now represents.

I'm reminding of how revealing the inherent humor of idiots proved to be the undoing of Klan -

http://www.stetsonkennedy.com/klan.htm

Related.

In the 1940s, The Adventures of Superman was a radio sensation. Kids across the country huddled around their sets as the Man of Steel leapt off the page and over the airwaves. ... Although Superman had been fighting crime in print since 1938, the weekly audio episodes fleshed out his storyline even further. It was on the radio that Superman first faced kryptonite, met Daily Planet reporter Jimmy Olsen, and became associated with "truth, justice, and the American way." So, it's no wonder that when a young writer and activist named Stetson Kennedy decided to expose the secrets of the Ku Klux Klan, he looked to a certain superhero for inspiration.

In the post-World War II era, the Klan experienced a huge resurgence. Its membership was skyrocketing, and its political influence was increasing, so Kennedy went undercover to infiltrate the group. By regularly attending meetings, he became privy to the organization's secrets. But when he took the information to local authorities, they had little interest in using it. The Klan had become so powerful and intimidating that police were hesitant to build a case against them.

Struggling to make use of his findings, Kennedy approached the writers of the Superman radio serial. ... The KKK was a great fit for the role. In a 16-episode series titled "Clan of the Fiery Cross," the writers pitted the Man of Steel against the men in white hoods.

As the storyline progressed, the shows exposed many of the KKK's most guarded secrets. By revealing everything from code words to rituals, the program completely stripped the Klan of its mystique. Within two weeks of the broadcast, KKK recruitment was down to zero. And by 1948, people were showing up to Klan rallies just to mock them.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/23157...d-ku-klux-klan

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Jim Webb is an iconoclast, knows it and simply doesn't care. He has no interest in winning, because he finds the process of winning and maintaining power a bit revolting. He obviously has good taste on that. His biggest economic position is reducing inequality, a position he's held for a long time. Here's what the local paper has to say about him, with embedded video of his announcement.

But why did Webb oppose the increase in the top tax rate to 39.6% in 2012?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Bernie's a great guy, but he's simply not Presidential. I'll still vote for him, though.

I think he's as presidential as any of the other candidates running (maybe not saying much). But his problem is the unlikelihood of America voting for a declared "socialist" of any stripe.

Of all the candidates the only ones who have any imagination at all are Sanders and Warren on the left and Trump and Paul on the right. The dominant globalist boomer elite however clearly prefers either Bush or Hillary as the next President. Sanders would be a good president from an economic and social-equality standpoint: however ultimately a genuine long-term solution would come not from the social-liberalism of a sanders or the neoliberalism of trump and Paul or the neo-conservatism of a bush. The solution would be as I have pointed out many times before: a reorganization of America around strong masculine values (which I mean values that glorify and stress heroism and strength, women too would participate in such), the economic reorganization of the nation around hard monetary and economic assets.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Of all the candidates the only ones who have any imagination at all are Sanders and Warren on the left and Trump and Paul on the right. The dominant globalist boomer elite however clearly prefers either Bush or Hillary as the next President.

- this Boomer won't be voting for either Hillary or Jeb, especially after those remarks about ppl needing to work longer hrs (NOT) as for Hillary- meh

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think he's as presidential as any of the other candidates running (maybe not saying much). But his problem is the unlikelihood of America voting for a declared "socialist" of any stripe.

I agree with your 1st sentence. The 2nd one, not so much. Bernie is running an old school Dem campaign. I know, I grew up in the Democratic Party & Bernie's sounding alot like the Dem candidates back in the 60s & 70s. Those dude's would be considered socialists today. That's how far the Dems have lost their way. I think this is why so many folx are buzzed about Bernie running for prez. Finally a democrat (small d intentional) is running for prez. Bernie is somebody I can vote for. Alot of other ppl appear to feel that way too

Originally Posted by marypoza

I agree with your 1st sentence. The 2nd one, not so much. Bernie is running an old school Dem campaign. I know, I grew up in the Democratic Party & Bernie's sounding alot like the Dem candidates back in the 60s & 70s. Those dude's would be considered socialists today. That's how far the Dems have lost their way. I think this is why so many folx are buzzed about Bernie running for prez. Finally a democrat (small d intentional) is running for prez. Bernie is somebody I can vote for. Alot of other ppl appear to feel that way too

There's lots of angles to look at the Red / Blue divide from. The Neoliberalism thread is looking a limited number of key issues, and is a fine approach. The above is another. A wrinkle...

The old tax and spend liberal era from the New Deal to the Great Society featured Democrats who out and up said they were for the working people, and who set policies that favored the working people. As a result the working people to a great extent became wealthy and prosperous.

The Republican response was to favor the wealthy and prosperous. To some degree, as long as a lot of folk still feel wealthy and prosperous, the Republicans might continue to hold an edge on economic issues.

One key Democratic difficulty is in finding a way to successfully attack the memory of Saint Reagan. Does one campaign in favor of higher taxes? Does one advocate more red tape and bureaucracy? If one is hard working and has thus never needed a safety net, how easy a sell is safety nets for those who might be stereotyped as unwilling to work hard?

A lot of us here are already sold on the Blue world view. There is a good deal of preaching to the converted going on. The problem is preaching to those who worship at the alter of Saint Reagan -- hook, line and core values level -- and are not apt to move.

Mind you, Bernie is giving it a good try, and I'm also with the more academic policy descriptions in the neoliberal thread. Sure, those who are already converted are in the bag.

The problem is speaking to those who are inherently incapable of listening. Saint Reagan's perspective is awfully tempting.

Dave's top 10 list re:the Donald-

10. That thing on his head was the gopher in “Caddyshack.”
9. During sex, Donald Trump calls out his own name.
8. Donald Trump looks like the guy in the lifeboat with the women and children.
7. He wants to build a wall? How about building a wall around that thing on his head!
6. Trump walked away from a moderately successful television show for a delusional, bull… Oh, no, wait, that’s me.
5. Donald Trump weighs 240 pounds – 250 with cologne.
4. Trump would like all Americans to know that that thing on his head is free-range.
3. (tie) If President, instead of pardoning a turkey on Thanksgiving, he plans to evict a family on Thanksgiving. AND: That’s not a hairdo – it’s a wind advisory.
2. Donald Trump has pissed off so many Mexicans, he’s starring in a new movie entitled, “NO Amigos” (a reference to the 1986 comedy, “Three Amigos,” that starred Short and Martin).
1. Thanks to Donald Trump, the Republican mascot is also an ass.

As reactionary is Trump is, he is the only candidate that is proposing non-globalist solutions to our problems. Selfish ideologues who run DC refuse to embrace the warrior ethos and would have us be "cannon fodder" fighting for idiotic globalism rather than for any 4T war to be fought for true convictions.

Originally Posted by marypoza

I agree with your 1st sentence. The 2nd one, not so much. Bernie is running an old school Dem campaign. I know, I grew up in the Democratic Party & Bernie's sounding alot like the Dem candidates back in the 60s & 70s. Those dude's would be considered socialists today. That's how far the Dems have lost their way. I think this is why so many folx are buzzed about Bernie running for prez. Finally a democrat (small d intentional) is running for prez. Bernie is somebody I can vote for. Alot of other ppl appear to feel that way too

I am happy with Bernie, and agree with what he says. I am not so optimistic about Americans voting for him. Sad to say.....

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I am happy with Bernie, and agree with what he says. I am not so optimistic about Americans voting for him. Sad to say.....

-- well we'll just have to wait & see. @ this point I'm not ruling anybody out, not even the Donald, & I think he's a big joke

Originally Posted by Washington Post

Patrick Egan in the Washington Post argues that presidential approval ratings is a better predictor of election outcomes than polling data about party identification.

“The figure at below left displays the relationship between party identification in the electorate (or “macropartisanship,” as we political scientists like to call it) in the year before a presidential election year and the Election Day outcome. For each of the 16 presidential elections extending back to 1948, the Democratic presidential candidate’s share of the popular vote is plotted against the Democratic Party’s average affiliation advantage in the year before the election year.”

“The result? Party identification more than a year in advance of the election predicts nothing about how the election will ultimately turn out. (To be wonky about it, party identification insignificantly predicts the opposite of the final election outcome. A similar analysis, which I don’t show here, finds no relationship between change in party identification the year before an election and the election’s ultimate result.)”

“Compared to any other polling data regularly covered by the media right now, Obama’s approval rating is the only number that history demonstrates tells us something meaningful about which party may win next year’s presidential election.”

In short, the contest is between those who want to "keep up the good work" and those who believe that "it is time for a change". As we all know, no Democratic nominee for President has a chance in the event of an economic meltdown, a military disaster, or a diplomatic debacle. The Republican nominee of 2016 can never offer "Keep up the Good Work" as an electoral appeal.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- well we'll just have to wait & see. @ this point I'm not ruling anybody out, not even the Donald, & I think he's a big joke

With my cosmic prophetic methods, I can rule a lot of folks out. Starting with Scott Walker, and Martin O'Malley; plus most of the GOP hopefuls, except Trump, Bush and maybe Rubio, Christie and Paul. Christie looks to have a boom and then flame out.

Some candidates have good horoscope scores, but are running against the odds. Bernie has an excellent score, and that is reflected in his behavior as a candidate. That is appealing, but as a socialist he faces long odds, especially in the general election. If Bush is nominated, Sanders would be running an uphill battle. Rand Paul has a barely-acceptable score, but nomination of a libertarian by the GOP is unlikely.

Bush and Trump have good scores, but face different kinds of negative factors.

Hillary has a barely-acceptable score, but has inherent background, endorsement and fame advantages for the primary, and weak primary opponents. The demographic as well as cosmic odds favor a Democratic victory in the general election.

Chafee and Webb have good horoscope scores, but face long odds because they are unknown, and do not have a constituency in the party.

On Monday morning, Walker officially declared his expected candidacy to become president of the United States. Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO labor federation and longtime Walker foe, had a six-word statement in response to the announcement.

"Scott Walker is a national disgrace." That was it.

The only surprise in Trumka's statement is its brevity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7785896.html

Originally Posted by B Butler

There's lots of angles to look at the Red / Blue divide from. The Neoliberalism thread is looking a limited number of key issues, and is a fine approach. The above is another. A wrinkle...

The old tax and spend liberal era from the New Deal to the Great Society featured Democrats who out and up said they were for the working people, and who set policies that favored the working people. As a result the working people to a great extent became wealthy and prosperous.

The Republican response was to favor the wealthy and prosperous. To some degree, as long as a lot of folk still feel wealthy and prosperous, the Republicans might continue to hold an edge on economic issues.

One key Democratic difficulty is in finding a way to successfully attack the memory of Saint Reagan. Does one campaign in favor of higher taxes? Does one advocate more red tape and bureaucracy? If one is hard working and has thus never needed a safety net, how easy a sell is safety nets for those who might be stereotyped as unwilling to work hard?

A lot of us here are already sold on the Blue world view. There is a good deal of preaching to the converted going on. The problem is preaching to those who worship at the alter of Saint Reagan -- hook, line and core values level -- and are not apt to move.

Mind you, Bernie is giving it a good try, and I'm also with the more academic policy descriptions in the neoliberal thread. Sure, those who are already converted are in the bag.

The problem is speaking to those who are inherently incapable of listening. Saint Reagan's perspective is awfully tempting.

Don't even go after so called Reaganomics. Go after the 1990s DLC bullshit. That was when neoliberalism really got baked in. For all his bluster, Reagan was only audacious regarding taxes and a few specific reach-of-government issues. But the basic premise of American strength did not wane, and globalist crapola did not really start at that time. It took Bush 41 and Clinton to get that shit going.

"My record shows that I know how to fight and win. Now, more than ever, we need a president who will fight and win for America," he said.

In his speech, he heralded his anti-union and anti-government platform, waged through controversial laws passed during his tenure as governor.

"Our big, bold reforms in Wisconsin took the power from the big government special interests and put it firmly into the hands of the hard-working taxpayers," he said.

Conservatives have suggested that Walker would make a better general election candidate than other GOP players in the 2016 primary field, pointing out that he has displayed remarkable political resilience. The governor won three elections over the course of just four years, even surviving a recall election, and prevailed by margins larger than what might be expected in a state President Barack Obama won in both 2008 and 2012.

And yet after his re-election in 2014, Walker insisted that he would remain focused on carrying out his second term as governor. In a November 2014 interview with a local station, he said that "you have to be crazy to want to be president," while also taking a swipe at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"Whether it’s two years, six years or 20 years from now -- because I think of Hillary Clinton. I could run 20 years from now and still be about the same age as the former Secretary of State is right now," Walker said, adding that the only reason anyone should run for president is "because they feel called to."

"Right now, I still feel called to be the governor of the state of Wisconsin," he said, "and I’m going to do the best job I can over the next four years.”

Walker has argued that voters would look more favorably upon a candidate who has served outside of the gridlock and partisanship that has come to define Washington politics.

And yet the governor's history of working to curb the bargaining power of public sector unions in Wisconsin will immediately make him a top target of labor and progressive groups, who fell short in their attempts to unseat him during his recall and re-election contests. Democratic groups have also closely followed investigations into whether Walker's former campaign aides violated campaign laws.

Before his announcement, Walker had made all the requisite moves for a candidate exploring a potential presidential bid, including publishing a book, making trips to the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire and courting tea party activists and establishment-oriented donors alike.[/vomit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...p_ref=politics

Scott Walker -- for government of the economic elites, of the economic elites, and for the economic elites.

If you thought Dubya was bad... Scott Walker could make many countries look more attractive.