Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Bigotry, cruelty, vindictiveness, and recklessness need to be defined out of the American way of politics if America is to do well in this Crisis Era.

People who have sought the failure of President Obama no matter what are greatly different from this liberal's position on George W. Bush: basically, that I wanted him to get away with what he proposed. I had low expectations -- but Dubya failed even those.

We do not want to be turned into a bunch of metrosexuals, until the government stops trying to shove human rights and globalism down our throats and instead strives toward building a footprint of American greatness, the people until then would have lukewarm support for government policies. Instead both parties do nothing by manipulate the "checks and balances" to shove their agendas down our throats. I have nothing but contempt for that machinery, we need reform that includes for example, the ability to call snap elections or allows the people to remove sitting government officials at will. Instead the beltway treats the current constitution as something to be preserved at all cost, when it like all laws and documents to paraphrase a 20th century political leader, it is nothing but a piece of toilet paper.

I don't care for the platforms of any of the Republican candidates, but kind of liked the personality and presence of Ben Carson. While I didn't watch the last debate, one commenter criticized him big time on one issue. Trump came out with an anti-vaccine spiel, pushing the popular 'wisdom' that vaccines (especially multiple vaccines) cause autism. In the main line medical literature this has been completely discredited. The first paper to propose the theory was withdrawn by the authors. Still, concerned mothers who don't read medical journals are still getting caught up in the discredited theory. As a result we are getting flare ups of diseases that ought to be completely under control.

I sort of expect Trump to favor old wive's tales over science. I would hope and expect a former doctor to call him on it. Either Carson isn't as good a doctor as he pretends to be, or for whatever reason he considered a political advantage over a public health issue.

So my idle part time project of finding a Republican candidate I might be able to stomach is starting over.

Trump was proven wrong about his argument with Bush about trying to use his influence to get his casinos built in Florida. He embraces the Obama "birther" theory and didn't disagree with it when it was brought up tonight. His views on vaccines plays right into his dishonesty. Perhaps some of the anti-one worlder conspiracy theory nutcases are gravitating to him instead of Ron Paul's son this time.

I do like that he makes politically incorrect, sarcastic comments about people and gets away with it. Sometimes he is cruel and appeals to prejudice and hatred, but he is an entertainer, and sometimes his mean jokes are entertaining. The media these days makes too much over anything a politician says that might hurt someone's feelings. Trump fans rightly don't care too much. I especially liked his exchange with Rand Paul over this. Paul said Trump's statement about Fiorina, "who would vote for that face," was junior high school stuff. Do we want someone as unstable as that in charge of our nuclear arsenal, he asked. Trump shot back at Paul something like, I haven't said what I think of your face yet. I thought that was real funny. He is entertaining and speaks well; I give him that.

Here it is, with Fiorina, Trump and Paul
https://youtu.be/IRUbEZAVhdw

Trump's theme is "make America great again" and "the world doesn't respect us now." Is he the Restorationist candidate? What the hell is he talking about?

That we should invade the Middle East again and make sure that the Islamists respect us because of our superior ability to kill them? It seems to me that any intelligent candidate would see that this approach did not work out so well.

That our economy isn't great? It seems to me the USA is doing better than Europe, and the China miracle is fading. So what the bleep is he talking about?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Those are "culture warrior" credentials. The culture war is passe. It would make him less viable.

Although I said Biden might have a chance against Trump, I am not underestimating the Donald. Although he would make a lousy president, for the most part, he makes a good candidate-- according to my cosmic score. Better than Biden's score, which is no better than Hillary's.

No - they are "culture compromiser" credentials for a Democrat.

As for playwrite's thought that a Biden/Warren ticket would be "unbeatable" - a Joe Manchin/Elizabeth Warren ticket would be infinitely more unbeatable.

It seems Trump may be fading a bit, probably to rejuvenate and scheme for the next round of shock-comments.

I feel sort of odd in that it would be nice in some ways to see more theater from the Democrats, because when compared to the Republicans at least they have a choice rather than having to settle on Clinton. Is there really no one else in the party that wants to take a run at it? Is there really some sort of gap in the Democratic party? There has to be someone to the left of Clinton but to the right of Sanders. In the very least it would make Clinton a better candidate in a general election. She'd have more of a reason to connect with people. At the same time, it (The Republican Debates) is a sideshow of sorts and the election seems so far away that it is all show and won't be productive in any way.

I read an interesting article via MSNBC about how George W. Bush was all the sudden a popular guy worth defending and he "kept us safe." It reminded me of a gaffe someone made a few years ago, was it Giuliani? Who said no major attack happened on Bush's watch... only the WORST one happened. I can't believe people forget that quickly. I guess you see what you want to believe.

I also don't know why spending an egregious amount of money on military spending and having the NSA collect all our data doesn't make people feel safe? I don't know how having x number of battalions, y number of ships and z number of planes is going to keep us safe. The numbers seem sort of arbitrary.

And does Huckabee seem like he'd instate the Protestant version of Sharia Law? Add a theology class to the public high school curriculum? That's probably very paranoid, republican-ist of me. He seems like the latest incarnation of the Know-Nothings.

Originally Posted by Coskin84

I read an interesting article via MSNBC about how George W. Bush was all the sudden a popular guy worth defending and he "kept us safe." It reminded me of a gaffe someone made a few years ago, was it Giuliani? Who said no major attack happened on Bush's watch... only the WORST one happened. I can't believe people forget that quickly. I guess you see what you want to believe.

That one absolutely gobsmacked me. Isn't it pretty clear that Bush II's administration ignored the info provided by the Clinton administration regarding Osama Bin Laden?

Originally Posted by Coskin84

It seems Trump may be fading a bit, probably to rejuvenate and scheme for the next round of shock-comments.

I feel sort of odd in that it would be nice in some ways to see more theater from the Democrats, because when compared to the Republicans at least they have a choice rather than having to settle on Clinton. Is there really no one else in the party that wants to take a run at it? Is there really some sort of gap in the Democratic party? There has to be someone to the left of Clinton but to the right of Sanders. In the very least it would make Clinton a better candidate in a general election. She'd have more of a reason to connect with people. At the same time, it (The Republican Debates) is a sideshow of sorts and the election seems so far away that it is all show and won't be productive in any way.

Sanders is definitely a challenge to Clinton. He is leading in the first two caucus/primary states. Democrats are going to have to choose. I don't think Martin O'Malley is going to catch on, although he is one who fits your bill. But Sanders is enough of a challenge to pressure Clinton to be a better candidate; definitely. And Sanders is not unreasonable, nor is he that far to the left of Clinton. His socialist label is a liability, no doubt. But what does it really mean, in a year when many people might embrace almost anyone? We'll see.

But Democrats are less likely to grasp for a while at anyone who comes along than Republicans are. So it's unlikely that some unknown neuro-surgeon, failed executive or goofy reality TV star tycoon-goon is going to appear and sweep Democrats off their feet.

I suppose that if Clinton implodes, it might be possible to convince Elizabeth Warren to run.

I read an interesting article via MSNBC about how George W. Bush was all the sudden a popular guy worth defending and he "kept us safe." It reminded me of a gaffe someone made a few years ago, was it Giuliani? Who said no major attack happened on Bush's watch... only the WORST one happened. I can't believe people forget that quickly. I guess you see what you want to believe.

I also don't know why spending an egregious amount of money on military spending and having the NSA collect all our data doesn't make people feel safe? I don't know how having x number of battalions, y number of ships and z number of planes is going to keep us safe. The numbers seem sort of arbitrary.

And does Huckabee seem like he'd instate the Protestant version of Sharia Law? Add a theology class to the public high school curriculum? That's probably very paranoid, republican-ist of me. He seems like the latest incarnation of the Know-Nothings.

That name would certainly fit any and all Republicans.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

No - they are "culture compromiser" credentials for a Democrat.

As for playwrite's thought that a Biden/Warren ticket would be "unbeatable" - a Joe Manchin/Elizabeth Warren ticket would be infinitely more unbeatable.

I don't see Joe Manchin running for anything more exciting than his current Senate seat. I don't think he does either.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

His socialist label is a liability, no doubt. But what does it really mean, in a year when many people might embrace almost anyone? We'll see.

If Clinton gets the nomination, she'll get the "socialist" label from the Republicans and the Koch mouthpieces anyway, lol. Obama did. Any Dem will, so who gives a fuck?

It would be a bitch for them if after all the crying wolf, the Dem candidate actually was one, wouldn't it. Sanders is a "Scandianavian-style" socialist, i.e. social democrat, but the Republicans can't tell the difference. If whoever the Dems run is going to get called a "socialist" anyway, might as well run an actual Scandinavian-style socialist. Own it, baby!

And own that Overton Window....

Originally Posted by Alioth68

If Clinton gets the nomination, she'll get the "socialist" label from the Republicans and the Koch mouthpieces anyway, lol. Obama did. Any Dem will, so who gives a fuck?

It would be a bitch for them if after all the crying wolf, the Dem candidate actually was one, wouldn't it. Sanders is a "Scandianavian-style" socialist, i.e. social democrat, but the Republicans can't tell the difference. If whoever the Dems run is going to get called a "socialist" anyway, might as well run an actual Scandinavian-style socialist. Own it, baby!

And own that Overton Window....

Then again, Trump has been toying with being a Fascists, so the struggle between the two parties could resemble the Spanish Civil War.

Pass the Sangria.

Originally Posted by Coskin84

I feel sort of odd in that it would be nice in some ways to see more theater from the Democrats, because when compared to the Republicans at least they have a choice rather than having to settle on Clinton. Is there really no one else in the party that wants to take a run at it? Is there really some sort of gap in the Democratic party? There has to be someone to the left of Clinton but to the right of Sanders. In the very least it would make Clinton a better candidate in a general election. She'd have more of a reason to connect with people.

It seems to me that a big issue is that left-wing Xers are to a strong degree allergic to electoral politics and most of the Establishment Democrat Boomers have already circled around Clinton as their champion.

Originally Posted by annla899

That one absolutely gobsmacked me. Isn't it pretty clear that Bush II's administration ignored the info provided by the Clinton administration regarding Osama Bin Laden?

Welcome to a hyper-polarized political environment where the facts don't matter.

Originally Posted by annla899

That one absolutely gobsmacked me. Isn't it pretty clear that Bush II's administration ignored the info provided by the Clinton administration regarding Osama Bin Laden?

At the least there was plenty of time in which to disrupt the al-Qaeda plot with arrests (August and early September).

The younger Bush had overpowering contempt for the Clinton Administration.

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign, according to three Republicans familiar with his decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern time.

“The short answer is money,” said a supporter of Mr. Walker’s who was briefed on the decision. “He’s made a decision not to limp into Iowa.”

Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself.

In the most recent CNN survey, Mr. Walker drew support nationally from less than one-half of one percent of Republican primary voters. He faced growing pressure to shake up his campaign staff, a step he was loath to take, according to Republicans briefed on his deliberations.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...idential-race/

Here's what's interesting to me about this election, in a 4T context. I've said before, much to the disagreement of some, that a Crisis era is derive bottom-up, not top-down, and the lack of strong progressive leadership is the norm, not an indicator that we're in trouble. (Well, except that, it being a Crisis era, yes, we're definitely in trouble -- nothing new there.)

In terms of U.S. politics, I've become convinced recently that this 4T has much the same dynamic as the Civil War/Reconstruction Crisis, although thankfully (so far!) much less bloodshed. That's not an important issue globally except insofar as the U.S. is an important player, and we need to resolve all this if we're going to be able to face the real problems. Anyway, it's Union versus Confederacy yet again, with the GOP having been completely hijacked by the latter in the most ironic hostile takeover in history. The Republican establishment candidates are failing, and there's no prospect of one of them receiving the nomination; the nominee will be a wacko bird. It only remains to determine which one.

Since the Confederacy is a minority and a dwindling one, a candidate who openly champions it has no chance to win the general election, so this development throws the election to the Democratic candidate. However entertaining the GOP nomination race is, it's not important except for that result, meaning it makes no difference which wacko bird becomes the nominee. So what happens on the Democratic side is more important.

Hillary Clinton represents the Democratic establishment, and unlike with the Republicans she's the front-runner although embattled. She's "progressive" only by comparison with the wacko birds. Measured against the national center, she's quite conservative. Bernie Sanders, who is characterized as a leftist, is actually centrist in terms of what most American voters want and will support if given the opportunity. His candidacy is a sign of that bottom-up push for reform that characterizes a 4T, especially since so much of it is driven by Millennials.

I'm not going to predict that Sanders will win the nomination, but if he does, then not only will he be elected, but the Democrats will also retake the House. (That they will retake the Senate is pretty much a given no matter who is at the top of the ticket, but the House is iffier.) That's because of the effect he'll have on voter turnout. If that gets strong enough, the Republican gerrymandering scheme will backfire and result in worse losses than if they had drawn districts more reasonably.

The reason why I say that is because of the mechanics of how gerrymandering works. It creates a lot of districts in which the benefiting party has a weak, uncertain majority, and a few districts in which the opposition has an unassailable majority. A few percentage points switch in party support means the loss of all or most of those gerrymandered districts. If Sanders is nominated, that will happen, and the Republicans will actually lose more House districts because of their gerrymandering. Being less greedy would have left them with fewer districts, but ones less vulnerable to shifts in public opinion.

If Clinton is nominated, she'll win the election, too, but voter turnout will be lower and the House might not switch parties. Also, no matter who wins, expect a surge in public activism, both on-line and IRL. We've already seen that, but next year it will accelerate.

Final observation is that next year's election will be the last hurrah for the Republican Party in its current incarnation. After the fiasco, establishment Republicans will either retake the party and drive the wacko birds into oblivion, or they will leave it. If they leave it, the GOP will dwindle into irrelevancy. What happens outside it depends on where the sane Republicans go. If they become Democrats, we will have (for a while) effectively a one-party state, with meaningful political contests between progressive and conservative Democrats, much like the nominating contest right now, but more so and on a larger scale. If instead they found (or take over) a third party, that party will replace the Republicans and probably attract conservative Democrats, making it a strong contender to take leadership after the 4T ends.

Either way, we are seeing the last of the Republicans as representatives of the Confederate subculture. After this, that's all over.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here's what's interesting to me about this election, in a 4T context. I've said before, much to the disagreement of some, that a Crisis era is derive bottom-up, not top-down, and the lack of strong progressive leadership is the norm, not an indicator that we're in trouble. (Well, except that, it being a Crisis era, yes, we're definitely in trouble -- nothing new there.)

In terms of U.S. politics, I've become convinced recently that this 4T has much the same dynamic as the Civil War/Reconstruction Crisis, although thankfully (so far!) much less bloodshed. That's not an important issue globally except insofar as the U.S. is an important player, and we need to resolve all this if we're going to be able to face the real problems. Anyway, it's Union versus Confederacy yet again, with the GOP having been completely hijacked by the latter in the most ironic hostile takeover in history. The Republican establishment candidates are failing, and there's no prospect of one of them receiving the nomination; the nominee will be a wacko bird. It only remains to determine which one.

Since the Confederacy is a minority and a dwindling one, a candidate who openly champions it has no chance to win the general election, so this development throws the election to the Democratic candidate. However entertaining the GOP nomination race is, it's not important except for that result, meaning it makes no difference which wacko bird becomes the nominee. So what happens on the Democratic side is more important.

Hillary Clinton represents the Democratic establishment, and unlike with the Republicans she's the front-runner although embattled. She's "progressive" only by comparison with the wacko birds. Measured against the national center, she's quite conservative. Bernie Sanders, who is characterized as a leftist, is actually centrist in terms of what most American voters want and will support if given the opportunity. His candidacy is a sign of that bottom-up push for reform that characterizes a 4T, especially since so much of it is driven by Millennials.

I'm not going to predict that Sanders will win the nomination, but if he does, then not only will he be elected, but the Democrats will also retake the House. (That they will retake the Senate is pretty much a given no matter who is at the top of the ticket, but the House is iffier.) That's because of the effect he'll have on voter turnout. If that gets strong enough, the Republican gerrymandering scheme will backfire and result in worse losses than if they had drawn districts more reasonably.

The reason why I say that is because of the mechanics of how gerrymandering works. It creates a lot of districts in which the benefiting party has a weak, uncertain majority, and a few districts in which the opposition has an unassailable majority. A few percentage points switch in party support means the loss of all or most of those gerrymandered districts. If Sanders is nominated, that will happen, and the Republicans will actually lose more House districts because of their gerrymandering. Being less greedy would have left them with fewer districts, but ones less vulnerable to shifts in public opinion.

If Clinton is nominated, she'll win the election, too, but voter turnout will be lower and the House might not switch parties. Also, no matter who wins, expect a surge in public activism, both on-line and IRL. We've already seen that, but next year it will accelerate.

Final observation is that next year's election will be the last hurrah for the Republican Party in its current incarnation. After the fiasco, establishment Republicans will either retake the party and drive the wacko birds into oblivion, or they will leave it. If they leave it, the GOP will dwindle into irrelevancy. What happens outside it depends on where the sane Republicans go. If they become Democrats, we will have (for a while) effectively a one-party state, with meaningful political contests between progressive and conservative Democrats, much like the nominating contest right now, but more so and on a larger scale. If instead they found (or take over) a third party, that party will replace the Republicans and probably attract conservative Democrats, making it a strong contender to take leadership after the 4T ends.

Either way, we are seeing the last of the Republicans as representatives of the Confederate subculture. After this, that's all over.

Welcome back, Brian!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here's what's interesting to me about this election, in a 4T context. I've said before, much to the disagreement of some, that a Crisis era is derive bottom-up, not top-down, and the lack of strong progressive leadership is the norm, not an indicator that we're in trouble. (Well, except that, it being a Crisis era, yes, we're definitely in trouble -- nothing new there.) (Snip)

Either way, we are seeing the last of the Republicans as representatives of the Confederate subculture. After this, that's all over.

An interesting and plausible take on things. As you describe it, it doesn't seem as violent as most 4Ts, but a path to a working regeneracy is really all we need.

Welcome back.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In terms of U.S. politics, I've become convinced recently that this 4T has much the same dynamic as the Civil War/Reconstruction Crisis, although thankfully (so far!) much less bloodshed. That's not an important issue globally except insofar as the U.S. is an important player, and we need to resolve all this if we're going to be able to face the real problems. Anyway, it's Union versus Confederacy yet again, with the GOP having been completely hijacked by the latter in the most ironic hostile takeover in history. The Republican establishment candidates are failing, and there's no prospect of one of them receiving the nomination; the nominee will be a wacko bird. It only remains to determine which one.

I know other's have referenced this being very similar to the Civil War crisis and it seems pretty apparent to me too. I'm not so sure what would be at the center of a "new confederacy" similar to that of Slavery, maybe something to do with religion? That would make sense considering a lot of the Republican candidates come off as nativists (Know-Nothing). I'm not sure if a more apt metaphor is for the Whig Party, as it was essentially torn in two... so for this Republican party it's not being able to reconcile the differences between those that are nativists and the Regan-ists.

I was going to say gerrymandering may keep the house from turning more blue, but you answered that. The interesting thought I had in regards to that is what type of democrat creates that change, the "Blue-Dog" fiscally conservative democrats (I seem to remember that term being used for some Democrats during the ACA legislation crafting).

Also, if the Republicans were to go the way of the Whigs (ironic considering a lot of them left to be Republicans) then what is going to be the new second party? and wouldn't that populate the space on the political spectrum to the left of the Democrats? Would it simply be the Green Party getting more recognition, or is there a new party that sprouts up that doesn't have the history or name association that the Green Party does?

I just want to pipe up and mention that once again I made another correct prediction. Many here said that Scott Walker was a cinch to be the nominee. I said then that he will implode and will not get very far. I guess you know what happened today; he's out already.

I don't know if the Republicans will implode as quickly as Brian says, but in general I agree with the scenario he describes. I do think the Green Party has some potential to be the second party, but it doesn't seem ready to fulfill that role anytime soon.

If the candidates perform as indicated on my scoring system for presidential candidates (which I used to predict Walker's fall, Obama's re-election, etc.), Sanders will defeat Trump in November 2016. Other factors (cosmic and otherwise) may "trump" this system in its purest form, but we'll see

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I just want to pipe up and mention that once again I made another correct prediction. Many here said that Scott Walker was a cinch to be the nominee. I said then that he will implode and will not get very far. I guess you know what happened today; he's out already

You saw something that I didn't see. "Establishment" Republicans have been doing badly. Maybe the Tea Party that the economic elites saw as cats-paws to do the work of the Reactionary Establishment has begun to exact a price.

I don't know if the Republicans will implode as quickly as Brian says, but in general I agree with the scenario he describes. I do think the Green Party has some potential to be the second party, but it doesn't seem ready to fulfill that role anytime soon.

Far too early to tell. Both wings of the Reactionary Party have a shared enemy in secular liberalism.

If the candidates perform as indicated on my scoring system for presidential candidates (which I used to predict Walker's fall, Obama's re-election, etc.), Sanders will defeat Trump in November 2016. Other factors (cosmic and otherwise) may "trump" this system in its purest form, but we'll see

I can't say anything about 'cosmic' phenomena. Rational self-interest on a grand scale might serve better.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If the candidates perform as indicated on my scoring system for presidential candidates (which I used to predict Walker's fall, Obama's re-election, etc.), Sanders will defeat Trump in November 2016. Other factors (cosmic and otherwise) may "trump" this system in its purest form, but we'll see

Eric, I think your astrology stuff is cuckoo for cocoa puffs, but I 100% agree with you on this. This is exactly how I expect the election to turn out.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If the candidates perform as indicated on my scoring system for presidential candidates (which I used to predict Walker's fall, Obama's re-election, etc.), Sanders will defeat Trump in November 2016. Other factors (cosmic and otherwise) may "trump" this system in its purest form, but we'll see

I've less certainty. I'd like to think the Republicans aren't that messed up, though it seems that they are. I'd like to think the Democrats will lean left for Sanders rather than going status quo for Hillary. We'll see. It's awfully early.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If the candidates perform as indicated on my scoring system for presidential candidates (which I used to predict Walker's fall, Obama's re-election, etc.), Sanders will defeat Trump in November 2016. Other factors (cosmic and otherwise) may "trump" this system in its purest form, but we'll see

Hmm, Trump and Sanders would be pretty interesting. I was picturing ________ = _________ from the 1860 election, but maybe we're not that far yet. I highly doubt there's 4 substantial candidates for president in the 2016 election... though maybe if enough are for Huckabee, Paul, and then the two significant ones. I think it'd be fairly impossible to have some states not include a candidate on their ballots. I could kind of see Sanders = Lincoln and Clinton = Buchanan, though I know Lincoln and Buchanan are two different elections.

I'll subscribe to the "woo-woo" a little bit as I relate my interpersonal relationships to astrology, at least my observations of how people typically represent their signs now-a-days in relation to me; very shallow.

Originally Posted by Coskin84

Hmm, Trump and Sanders would be pretty interesting. I was picturing ________ = _________ from the 1860 election, but maybe we're not that far yet. I highly doubt there's 4 substantial candidates for president in the 2016 election... though maybe if enough are for Huckabee, Paul, and then the two significant ones. I think it'd be fairly impossible to have some states not include a candidate on their ballots. I could kind of see Sanders = Lincoln and Clinton = Buchanan, though I know Lincoln and Buchanan are two different elections.

I'll subscribe to the "woo-woo" a little bit as I relate my interpersonal relationships to astrology, at least my observations of how people typically represent their signs now-a-days in relation to me; very shallow.

I'm not to far from seeing 2016 as either the 1856 or the 1860 of this cycle. If Clinton wins, or possibly is awarded the Dem. nomination by the establishment superdelegates things could take quite a nasty turn. OTOH, I somehow don't see Trump going all of the way through with his run. I still see him getting another TV show out of all of this. But I may have to change my mind on that too.
On the last, I'm only into stargazing of the scientific type.