Well, of course.Originally Posted by nihilist moron
The icing on the cake is I knew you couldn't resist - I've missed you.
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- NYC
- Posts
- 10,443
Well, of course.
The icing on the cake is I knew you couldn't resist - I've missed you.
"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
playwrite,
"Do 4T's end when everyone is no longer upset, or do they end when one side has thoroughly beat the shit out of the other side - history tells you what?"
I'm so glad you asked me that! Of course, you're talking domestic politics, not a war with a foreign power. (And our war record since WWII is very spotty on that score: Korea--stalemate; Vietnam--"peace with honor"?; Iraq--"Mission Accomplished"!)
What you seem to be alluding to is some kind of civil war where one side vanquishes the other. Really? What are the realistic prospects of that? FDR and LBJ were the last Democrats to win landslide victories with Congressional supermajorities to boot. By landslide, I mean the popular vote, not the Electoral College. What real chance do the Democrats have of pulling that off in 2016? It's wishful thinking, and I'm not much given to that anymore. We have an electorate--pretty evenly divided--where swing voters (often in swing states) determine victory by a margin that precludes the winner from legitimately claiming a mandate. Supreme Court? One justice in particular is more or less the swing factor--lots of 5-4 decisions going both ways. If a Democrat wins and gets to appoint a liberal justice to replace Ginsberg, let's say, you're just replacing "like with like," hardly a tip of the judicial scales. Obama, much like Bush before him, has packed the federal district and appellate courts with judges that share his liberal philosophy. It will be harder, then, for conservative cases and challenges to filter up to the Highest Court. As for the Big Money backing the campaigns, I don't think the uber-rich--especially on Wall Street--much care whether its Hillary or Jeb. Both are champion fundraisers, and either way Wall Street wins. Sanders, on the other hand, is another matter.
And besides, Americans seem to prefer divided government. Clinton lost Congressional majorities, as did Bush the Younger, and Obama. So how do we break the partisan deadlock? Shit-kicking? Barring catastrophe, I just don't see it. Even if the Republicans self-destruct in this election cycle, and we can hardly rule that out, they're certainly far from dead. They can come roaring back in the next mid-term...
Wait a minute Teach; he's talking 4T. That's world war two, the civil war, the revolution, William's War, the armada, wars of the roses; all decisive victories in which one side beat the shit out of the other.
Clinton's ties to Wall Street and her supposed willingness to buckle under to it are probably exaggerated. I don't think Wall Street wants Hillary.What you seem to be alluding to is some kind of civil war where one side vanquishes the other. Really? What are the realistic prospects of that? FDR and LBJ were the last Democrats to win landslide victories with Congressional supermajorities to boot. By landslide, I mean the popular vote, not the Electoral College. What real chance do the Democrats have of pulling that off in 2016? It's wishful thinking, and I'm not much given to that anymore. We have an electorate--pretty evenly divided--where swing voters (often in swing states) determine victory by a margin that precludes the winner from legitimately claiming a mandate. Supreme Court? One justice in particular is more or less the swing factor--lots of 5-4 decisions going both ways. If a Democrat wins and gets to appoint a liberal justice to replace Ginsberg, let's say, you're just replacing "like with like," hardly a tip of the judicial scales. Obama, much like Bush before him, has packed the federal district and appellate courts with judges that share his liberal philosophy. It will be harder, then, for conservative cases and challenges to filter up to the Highest Court. As for the Big Money backing the campaigns, I don't think the uber-rich--especially on Wall Street--much care whether its Hillary or Jeb. Both are champion fundraisers, and either way Wall Street wins. Sanders, on the other hand, is another matter.
It will happen; one side will win. Not in 2016; 12 years later. I'm not sure what the winning side will look like yet. As I said to Debol (and (s)he didn't read me), it may well be an independent coalition, or it may be the Democrats. The Republicans are going to lose though; they represent the reactionary side. They always lose in 4Ts, and the progressives win. I don't agree with folks who say that progress is over, or ought to be over. Not according to the cycles that I see in play.And besides, Americans seem to prefer divided government. Clinton lost Congressional majorities, as did Bush the Younger, and Obama. So how do we break the partisan deadlock? Shit-kicking? Barring catastrophe, I just don't see it. Even if the Republicans self-destruct in this election cycle, and we can hardly rule that out, they're certainly far from dead. They can come roaring back in the next mid-term...
Yes, it's hard to see that now. Was it easy to see in 1851 either? Total division reigned then too. In the early 4T, or even the middle of or late in a 4T, victory for the winning side is not in sight. Although FDR got a fairly early victory domestically, early in WWII it wasn't clear that the allies would defeat the axis. The American Revolution was precarious right to the end. FDR's early regeneracy and domestic victory is, if anything, the anomaly.
You might be right.
Information Age?
I'm not sure I'd trust history. In the middle to late Industrial Age the side with the Robber Barons had superior war production and were generally promising the People democracy and human rights. This gave the more guns and loyal soldiers. It might have taken the United States several years to mobilize and figure out how to fight given the weapons of the new era, but the Robber Baron faction had a big edge over the autocratic faction.
The Great Depression was the unusual case, not a military crisis. Oh, there was a threat of a Communist revolution lurking in the background. If FDR hadn't pulled it off, that was a possible next step, but it didn't happen. Still, the Great Depression at the start of the 100 days was recognized as a disaster by labor, the Robber Barons and both political parties. It takes a really impressive disaster to achieve that sort of unity. I'm not even sure another Bush could manage it.
But there is a big difference between the Industrial Age (fossil power, printed information, chemical weapons) and the hypothetical Information age (renewable energy, digitized information, weapons of mass destruction.) It is not clear that nuclear powers will want to fight one another. The wars leading into the crisis have featured major powers (generally the US) meddling in the third world. As nuclear weapons are not on the table, we've been seeing asymmetrical warfare. The advantage might go to the home team, to the insurgents fighting to preserve their own culture on their home ground rather than the foreign idiots with high tech, a big budget, a population looking on with the word 'quagmire' at the ready, an unwillingness to raise taxes to pay for the foreign adventures and thus insufficient boots on the ground for a clear victory.
I think we've already been there and done that in Bush 43's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US population knows how expensive in gold and blood it is to try to change cultures at gunpoint. I don't think there is the will to try to repeat such mistakes.
Anyway, I'd be careful trying to apply the lessons learned of the Industrial Age to the Information Age. We aren't far enough into the Information Age to really know what shape it is going to take or if it will indeed reflect the same sort of drastic change that resulted from the steam engine, printing press and gunpowder weapons. I anticipate the transition will be drastic. It's too soon to make a persuasive case, though.
No Featherdusters need apply
IMNSHO another President Bush falling flat would not achieve the level of unity seen in the FDR years. Yes, demographics are going to give us a chance to get closer to that as old culture warriors disappear from the scene. But looking how many young culture warriors we still have, well, I suspect that our discourse will have an unwanted postseasonal quality in it until sometime in the 1T when the Millie concensus tires of it and gets around to repressing it in that way that midlife civics take unwanted features out of sight.
Last edited by herbal tee; 08-16-2015 at 12:08 AM.
Flat
You're likely right. Another Bush would have to fall really really flat to achieve a clean consensus. Then again, three Bushes falling flat three times? Maybe there'd be a cumulative effect? I mean, might even Republicans eventually get it?
I also wouldn't underestimate the ability of a Bush to fall flat.
I think Eric has provided responses, particularly on details (e.g. decisive wars, HC and Wall Street), that cover some of what I would have also provided.
But I would like to step back to a higher frame, and suggest that first don't confuse means and ends - by that, perhaps some 4Ts ends required the scale of a war or depression to bring about the eventual ends of resolution, but perhaps other 4Ts don't need the level of carnage or overturn to achieve the same level of eventual change. I'm seeing the GOP losing it's political power at the national level and becoming more of a regional power. I think that can all be done within the system, without either bloodshed or economic upheaval... sorry.
Also, I think our timescales are different. I think your expecting some huge change coming about with 2016 election or some earth-shaking reaction soon after that election. I don't... that would have to await either the passing of Ginsburg under a GOP WH or the passing of Scalia or Thomas under a Dem WH. Would a Ginsburg passing under a Dem WH or a Scalia/Thomas passing under a GOP WH make a difference? Obviously, as you noted, it would not. However, the likelihood of one of the two meaningful scenarios eventually playing out is pretty high over the next nine years.
Generally, I see things evolving rather that some profound revolution. I think that's why I can see the eventual shift in the SCOTUS as being very significant whereas you might just put that significance being just slightly above/below Hillary rather than Jeb! in the WH and that already being of fairly little significance to you.
Given where we are today with an enormous 330 million people, fairly rich, complex society, I think an evolutionary expectation rather than a revolutionary one is more realistic. I think those looking for a more revolution path/timeframe tend to forget the enormity of ship they believe whose course is so easily changed - they tend to remain very confused and often very disappointed.
Last, the disappointment you see in both the Left and the Right, against the system, the center, the door, or whatever, I believe originates, is fostered, and amplified by the Right. The way they process their disappointment provides a positive feedback loop that just further causes more disappointment and the spiral continues. Many on today's Right are simply just stupid or mean and most often both; many more are just locked into a false belief system that they can't shake - I actually have come to believe they are biological predisposed (i.e. amygdala dominated) to many of the positions they have taken. They cannot be placated, they must be politically defeated - for their own good, or at least about 99% of them. Generally, we every 2-year election cycle, they suffer a 2% reduction in their contribution to the electorate - it's only a matter of time.
Last edited by playwrite; 08-16-2015 at 12:32 PM.
"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
The GI-Silent cusp elder Bush at least had some virtues.
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
This guy at least thinks 2016 is a slam dunk for Democrats.
Here's hoping he's right!
But didn't I beat O'Donnell to this punch long ago - by pointing out that so long as the Democrats hold onto all of the states that Kerry won in '04, and add strongly Democratic-trending-since-then Virginia and New Mexico, all they would need to then do is win any one of the following states - Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Colorado or Nevada?
And Hillary would have real chances in such states as West Virginia and Kentucky as well. Sanders would not.
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!
No, Sanders would not, but at this point I do not think Hillary has a chance in West Virginia or Kentucky either. The conservative white male rural voter is strongest in states in that neighborhood. I don't know why O'Donnell didn't include WV in the red wall. MO seems all but lost to the red world too.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 08-20-2015 at 07:53 PM.
Being overyear a out it is too early to tell but I suspect that Trump may have given Arizona to the Democrats. He also may have made Texas a bit more competitive than it would otherwise have been.
This also shows how badly gerrymandered the states are and how that inflates he power of the GOP into an obstructionist force that flouts the will of the people. This is why I consider the current political dysfunction to be the primary issue of this 4T.
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
I concur. The last thing that any politician dares do is to rile a large opposition. I can expect the Democrats to have an enhanced get-out-the-vote drive more easily staffed this time. This could hurt Republicans in some potentially-competitive races.
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 seems most likely to me now that because of the party in power's advantage at the new moon before the election, that the Democrats will win the White House. If so, this would likely be Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. A change in power or direction always happens after elections in a zero year such as 2020 (Jupiter-Saturn conjunction). For 120 years this happened because of an assassination during the term that began after the zero year, and often in the first year of it. But Reagan broke that string. Still, change in party is common; and if not, a vast change happens because of events.
I suspect that if the new moon prediction holds up, that Hillary or Bernie will win, but will find the job so frustrating and so debilitating, that (s)he will only stick it out for one term. Both have age issues too. So another Democratic candidate will be nominated and win in 2020 instead. This seems more likely than a change in party, because not only the new moon indicator but the demographics and the electoral college blue wall will likely keep the White House Democratic through 2024 at least. Since the 2020 election will mark a vast change in direction in the establishment of political-economy, this will be provided by both a new younger Democratic president and a new Democratic congress. By 2022 in fact, the congress will be a new center of power, and liberal or progressive power is likely to be even stronger as the decade moves toward the mid-point.
The 2020s should continue the trend of a progressive era every 60 years, with the conjunction in Capricorn or Aquarius. This started with the age of revolution in the 1780s, and the 1840s also saw a lot of progressive activism. The 1900s was the progressive era, and the 1960s were, well, you know, the sixties: civil rights, the Great Society, and the green-peace-feminist movements. No prediction is certain; patterns sometimes don't hold the way we think they will. And the mid-sixties also saw the beginning of the "backlash" that took power in 1980. But it seems a good prediction that the 2020s will be a progressive decade. Since it will also be the climax of a fourth turning, and a cyclic return of both the revolution and the civil war, the 1780s seem like a good analogy for what will happen, along with the 1960s, the 1860s and the 00s.
Louisiana GOP head says he used Ashley Madison account for 'opposition research'
The hacked client list of online adultery hub Ashley Madison has turned up the name of another semi-prominent Republican: Louisiana GOP executive director Jason Dore.
The director of the statewide Republican Party said via text message that an account was created under his name and his former personal credit card billing address in connection with the work of his law firm, Doré Jeansonne. He declined to say who he was using the account for.
"As the state's leading opposition research firm, our law office routinely searches public records, online databases and websites of all types to provide clients with comprehensive reports," Doré said via text message. "Our utilization of this site was for standard opposition research. Unfortunately, it ended up being a waste of money and time."
Bravo, sir! We don't believe you for a second, but we respect your ingenuity. And somewhere, Josh Duggar must be seething which regret that he didn't think of that excuse first, which in fact also makes us smile.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...ition-research
Disgusting!
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
Alternate Tactics
I don't think you're looking at things in the same time scale as Trump. In a reality TV show, you are concerned only with this week's ratings. You don't want to get voted off the island this week. If you keep toping each immediate week's ratings, one week at a time, next year will take care of itself.
Also, in reality TV, all alliances are temporary. In the end there is only one winner, so you're going to betray everyone eventually anyway. Why not do it now when it can win you an immunity idol?
You just have to slip into the right world view to understand the guy.
Somehow I knew that our pop culture of deflated footballs and shows about women named Kim was going to connect to all of this. :I don't think you're looking at things in the same time scale as Trump. In a reality TV show, you are concerned only with this week's ratings. You don't want to get voted off the island this week. If you keep toping each immediate week's ratings, one week at a time, next year will take care of itself.
Also, in reality TV, all alliances are temporary. In the end there is only one winner, so you're going to betray everyone eventually anyway. Why not do it now when it can win you an immunity idol?
You just have to slip into the right world view to understand the guy.
The losing side certainly is unhappy with the results! The Axis Powers, the Confederacy, and the Tories certainly got the feces kicked out of themselves. Other examples: the monarchists who lost to Juarez in 1867, the French after the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune, the Loyalists who lost the Spanish Civil War, non-Communists in most of central and Balkan Europe, the Communists after the Greek Civil War, the Nationalists in China in 1949...
I see a 4T ending typically when alternatives become impossible and everyone knows it. Winners bask in glory and losers at best get to pick up the pieces of their shattered world.
I consider the Korean War a win for the South (it survived and prospered in better-suited borders); Vietnam was a Commie win; "Mission Accomplished" was a mess (see the results of Mussolini's conquest of Ethiopia for an interesting analogy).Of course, you're talking domestic politics, not a war with a foreign power. (And our war record since WWII is very spotty on that score: Korea--stalemate; Vietnam--"peace with honor"?; Iraq--"Mission Accomplished"!)
The only chance I see of a political resolution of the current 4T in America in 2016 is a smashing Republican victory in which the Republicans keep a firm hold on the Senate, decisively hold the House of Representatives, and win the Presidency. Then they get their dream of a Bible-reading America with cheap labor and firm monopolies in Big Business.What (playwrite seems) to be alluding to is some kind of civil war where one side vanquishes the other. Really? What are the realistic prospects of that? FDR and LBJ were the last Democrats to win landslide victories with Congressional supermajorities to boot. By landslide, I mean the popular vote, not the Electoral College. What real chance do the Democrats have of pulling that off in 2016? It's wishful thinking, and I'm not much given to that anymore. We have an electorate--pretty evenly divided--where swing voters (often in swing states) determine victory by a margin that precludes the winner from legitimately claiming a mandate. Supreme Court? One justice in particular is more or less the swing factor--lots of 5-4 decisions going both ways. If a Democrat wins and gets to appoint a liberal justice to replace Ginsberg, let's say, you're just replacing "like with like," hardly a tip of the judicial scales. Obama, much like Bush before him, has packed the federal district and appellate courts with judges that share his liberal philosophy. It will be harder, then, for conservative cases and challenges to filter up to the Highest Court. As for the Big Money backing the campaigns, I don't think the uber-rich--especially on Wall Street--much care whether its Hillary or Jeb. Both are champion fundraisers, and either way Wall Street wins. Sanders, on the other hand, is another matter.
Catastrophic failure of one side or the other, a failure attributed completely to bungled policies in every aspect of public life. Nothing puts a Party into near-oblivion like the sort of economic stewardship of the Republicans of the 1920s.And besides, Americans seem to prefer divided government. Clinton lost Congressional majorities, as did Bush the Younger, and Obama. So how do we break the partisan deadlock? Shit-kicking? Barring catastrophe, I just don't see it. Even if the Republicans self-destruct in this election cycle, and we can hardly rule that out, they're certainly far from dead. They can come roaring back in the next mid-term...
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
Correction
Correction: Allegedly deflated footballs.Somehow I knew that our pop culture of deflated footballs and shows about women named Kim was going to connect to all of this. :
Can it be done?
It seemed like Bush 43 tried for this, tried very hard, but he couldn't even manage that.
I can think of some Republican pols who would do this even more completely and probably create a social climate that fosters riots. The GOP has yet to recognize how dreadful Dubya was.
Some things do not merit a second chance yet somehow get them.
The Crash of 1929 happened during the first year of the Hoover Administration; the Crash of 2007 began in the second year of the second term of George W. Bush. .
Last edited by pbrower2a; 08-22-2015 at 09:44 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
In January 2007 the adults took over in Congress and in January 2009 the adults took over in the White House.
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
Cook PVI, by state and by districts voting separately:
90% saturation for D+15 or R+15 or greater
70% saturation for 12 to 14, inclusively
50% saturation for 10 or 11, inclusively
40% saturation for 6 to 9, inclusively
30% saturation for 3 to 5, inclusively
20% saturation for 1 or 2, inclusively
white -- zero PVI
The Cook Partisan Voting Index (Cook PVI) is a measurement of how strongly a United States congressional district leans toward the Democratic or Republican Party, compared to the nation as a whole. The Cook Political Report introduced the PVI in August 1997 to better gauge the competitiveness of each district using the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections as a baseline. The index is based on analysis by the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote) for its July 1997 Monopoly Politics report.
PVIs are calculated by comparing the district's average Democratic or Republican Party's share of the two-party presidential vote in the past two presidential elections to the nation's average share of the same. The national average for 2004 and 2008 was 51.2% Democratic to 48.8% Republican.[1] For example, in Alaska's at-large congressional district, the Republican candidate won 63% and 61% of the two-party share in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, respectively. Comparing the average of these two results (62%) against the average national share (49%), this district has voted 13 percentage points more Republican than the country as a whole, or R+13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_P...n_Voting_Index
Assuming that the states do not change their overall orientation in politics from 2012 to 2016 (big assumption), one can predict that the Democratic or Republican nominee will win based upon what colors of states he wins. The stronger the color, the stronger is the partisan imbalance in the state and the easier it is for the politician of a the party that the PVI favors to win such a state. A strong pattern holds from 2000 onward:
The Democratic nominee must win nearly every state in any shade of red (including the palest pink) to win the President. In 2008 Al Gore failed to win Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire -- and lost. In 2004 John Kerry picked up New Hampshire but lost Iowa and New Mexico -- and lost. In 2008 Barack Obama won everything in any shade of red, Virginia (dead even now), both states in the palest shade of blue (Florida and Ohio), and everything in the second-palest shade of blue except Missouri in a near-landslide. In 2012 President Obama won re-election by picking everything in any shade of red, Virginia (white), and the two states in the palest shade of blue (again, Florida and Ohio).
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