Originally Posted by Odin

Ah yes, the bubble where 1 in 4 women in the US will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime? That bubble?

Crime statistics do not bear out that statement Odin. I don't know where you heard that, and I don't care, but the DOJ's statistics make it clear that sexual assault is no where nearly that common. It isn't even 1 in 10,000

And yes, this is personal to me, given my friend that was raped several years ago and was dragged through the mud, had people calling her a liar, and had her character assassinated by the defense. That is how I learned how rape victims are treated like shit in our society in every case except the rare "pervert who abducts women off the street" cases.

I have a question for you...if your friend (and I'm going to go on a limb here and assume your aspie ass actually has friends--unlikely I know) was raped did she not go to the police? Did they not take her to the hospital and obtain evidence? If not, then it is just what she says.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I agree with you, Odin.

You agree with a statistic that he pulled from his ass? I had hopes you were intelligent, apparently those hopes were misplaced.

And the segment of the university population that is concerned about sexual assault is large enough to where it is not being shouted down or run out of campuses. If sexual assault isn't an issue for Millenials, why are Millenials (or Homeland) doing the Civic thing about it and attempting to formulate rules about it?

Looks like someone needs to visit the In Collage and Hiding From Scary Ideas thread.

Time will tell just how potent an issue in the campaign Bill's perversions and Hillary's toleration of those perversions will turn out to be. Some of these incidents are post Clinton Administration and potentially quite serious. See http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...lawsuit-210065 , http://www.examiner.com/article/new-...ein-sex-orgies

The loss of the Neo-Progressives to the Democrats will ensure a GOP president. That is a good thing because a recession is due about 2017, and will hit the GOP hard.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The New Deal did not end the deflationary spiral. Going off the gold standard did. FDR was able to do this (by presidential order) in his first week in office because this had been on the Democratic menu since 1896. There was built-in Democratic support for this.

Actually not even that ended the deflationary trends. It did, however, allow inflationary measures to be implemented.

For Republicans this was anathema. It was not on Hoover's menu. Thirty years later Milton Friedman (economic godfather to the conservative moment) pronounced that this (money creation) was what should have been done and a version of it was done after 2008 to prevent a deflationary spiral was getting started. As a result unemployment only went to 10% instead of a lot higher. Had money creation during downturns been on the GOP menu in 1929, Hoover would have won re-election and his party not banished to the wilderness for decades.

Anything apart from self-correction and private charity was off the GOP's menu then. Hoover did however get quite a few public works projects started which were on the GOPs menu. Internal improvements haven't been an issue since the days that there were Whigs.

It was certainly on the Republican menu, the party contained pretty much all of the abolitionists of the time. Can you see a Democratic president doing this?

Andrew Johnson, as racist as he was, would have done so and yes Virgina he was a Democrat, a Southern Democrat no less. The presence of the abolitionists in the GOP was a result of the collapse of the Whig Party and the weakness of the Northern Democrats. They were a minority in a vast sea that could care less about slavery if they could keep the states together.

It won't occur to the president, he is also a member of the party. If he believed in the other parties belief system then he would be with them.

So no president has ever taken a item out of the play books of any of the other parties ever? Then explain to me Obamacare and how it isn't exactly like Romneycare from Massachusetts, which itself was a policy prescription dreamed up by the GOP think-tank called the Heritage Foundation. Explain that one? Like I said, if the President wants something on the menu it gets put there. Or is your contention that we every four years elect not a man, but a political party to run the country.

In times of crisis presidents have even more power, as you alluded to above with the EP.

Executive powers can only go so far. Obama can insist through an executive order that the minimum wage paid by a federal contractor is $15/hour. Making the minimum wage $15/hour however takes an act of Congress. We are a nation of laws even when there is a 4T.

Democrats were the socially conservative party. In economics they were more open to ideas from the left than the GOP. I will note that large chunks of FDR's New Deal benefits were denied to blacks and that it was FDR and the Democrats who sent Japanese Americans (but not German Americans) to concentration camps.

FDR ran economically to the right of Hoover in 1932 as well, then in 1933 did an about face. I think a large part of that had to do with the coalition he had to build included the Solid South with its Confederate Hangovers and the fact that the Democratic Party was the Conservative Party of the day, while the GOP was the Capitalist Liberal Party (which it still largely is).

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Crime statistics do not bear out that statement Odin. I don't know where you heard that, and I don't care, but the DOJ's statistics make it clear that sexual assault is no where nearly that common. It isn't even 1 in 10,000

Most rape victims never go to the police because they assume they won't be believed.

I have a question for you...if your friend (and I'm going to go on a limb here and assume your aspie ass actually has friends--unlikely I know) was raped did she not go to the police? Did they not take her to the hospital and obtain evidence? If not, then it is just what she says.

Oh yes, the police knew all about it and a rape kit was done. The defense's basic claim was that it was consensual and that she was lying to avoid admitting that she was cheating on her BF, but that was contradicted by a psychologist telling the jury about her PTSD (which she still suffers from).

And your accusation that I have no friends because I have Asperger's is completely uncalled for.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The presence of the abolitionists in the GOP was a result of the collapse of the Whig Party and the weakness of the Northern Democrats. They were a minority in a vast sea that could care less about slavery if they could keep the states together.

Support for abolition was overwhelming in the stronghold Republican areas (New England, upstate New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, Collin Woodard's Yankeedom, basically) IIRC, less so in NYC, Pennsylvania, and the Lower Midwest. The secession of the Confederacy greatly increased the relative power of Yankeedom in the US government.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

That is true. But then there are things that can be done unilaterally (think of what Obama has done on global warming with the EPA).

The EPA is an executive branch organ. The President, no matter whom, can through executive order cause those organs of that branch to dance to his tune.

And this is at a time of calm. Now imagine the economy in full collapse. Will the Republican congress have the balls to stand up against the Democratic president's rescue plan?

If they do, they will get trounced for not sticking to their guns. If they don't, they will get trounced for sticking to their guns. If anything I've blamed Obama more for not making the GOP say no more loudly--trying to compromise with them where compromise is not needed or warranted.

These guys do not strike me as having profiles in courage.

Politicians rarely are. I hope you have a point with this.

I think when the times are scary legislation will get passed by all Democrats and a minority of Republicans. Either Ryan will make a deal and let it come to a vote or GOP congressmen in non-blood red districts facing near-certain defeat if they allow the economy to collapse will vote for the discharge petition. Clinton has 12 years of White House experience and 8 years in the Senate. She knows where the levers are.

That assumes that the Party whips on the GOP side aren't doing their jobs. I assure you that they will, or Paul Ryan will replace them. You will be dealing with an Xer GOP Speaker not a crybaby alcoholic Boomer in the next Congress. The question really should be how will Ryan get the Tea Party types to toe the Party Line. Most of the so-called Moderate Republicans have already been purged from office--or will age out.

As for the levers, Sanders has been in office for many years both House and Senate. He knows how the Hill works, I assure you. Trump probably doesn't, but Cruz and Rubio do (both being Senators) and no one but Clinton has Hillary's baggage, except maybe Jeb Bush but I'm not worried about him, W. ruined that brand.

Yes it does, but this effect is not symmetrical (and this is where you are making your mistake). If a GOP president gets elected in 2016 it will prove that George Bush's administration strengthened the GOP, by giving the GOP control of more of the levers of power (Federal and State) than they had at their previous high point of 2003-2006. What this will mean to political observers is no matter how badly the GOP fucks up they will come back, because of white identity politics and voter suppression.

That assumes that white identity politics and voter suppression works outside of the South and outside of the Silents and Boomers. The next two younger generations are more minority and less inclined toward entreaties to White Supremacy.

This means if the economy collapses on the GOP watch, and they do nothing, they will lose the next election. The new guy will be totally unable to do anything about it because the GOP will block him (its a lot easier to prevent disaster than fixing it) and then GOP will be back, as if nothing had happened. There will be no "regeneracy", the 4T will come to an end and an austere 1T begin.

I've never discounted that possibility--see my posts as to the Mega-Crisis all over the forum. That being said, preventing a disaster wins you fewer votes than appearing to address one. If one looks at the Hoover-FDR dynamic one sees that FDR couldn't prevent Great Depression 1.0, and most of what he did to address it was too little, too late and just not enough (It would take Lead Lease and the War to end the Depression) but what he was great at was appearing to address it.

Should the GOP have the congress and white house and the economy crash in 2017, and they do nothing, or appear to do nothing, they will pay for it and the Democrats will sweep in.

In contrast the reward for even a fairly successful Democratic president (e.g. Bill Clinton) is defeat. Clinton's great achievement (the surplus) which is supposedly something conservatives approve of, was thrown away with glee.

I would argue that the budget surplus caused the 2001 dot-com bubble burst and depressed the economy for the next decade. Of course I also subscribe to MMT. W. throwing away the surplus was great if you worked for a war contractor or were a billionare. The problem wasn't the deficit, it is where the deficit was aimed.

After being handed the shit sandwich Bush left them and fixing what they could (unemployment is down to 5% and the deficit is no longer worrisome)

Unemployment is only down to 5% because workforce particupation is at all time lows. The budget deficit is only worrisome to morons who don't understand that the US issues its sovereign debt in the currency it creates. But should the debt celing come to be an issue again, like it should in about 2017 (because we have one due to an obsolete law dating to 1917) I assure you that the GOP won't hesitate to use that against any Democrat in office.

the Democrats have been soundly rejected. It should be clear to even the most obtuse Democratic professional that if the Democrats screw it up just a little, it will be curtains for them, just like it was for them in 1860.

In other words you're argumentation here is that the nominal left can't win this 4T? You may want to debate that with Eric. I'm not tied to either Party, the Democrats are usually the ones I hate the least.

In 2008 this imbalance was not yet clear (many thought the GOP had been severely damaged by Bush). Democrats were not yet radicalized; Obama did not try to play hardball (note there was no "platinum coin" discussion in 2011, Obama just caved). I do think Clinton, the recipient of decades of Republican hatred, will decide she welcomes their hatred. What other attitude can she take?

If Hillary welcomes their hatred she will lose. But Hillary is destined to lose anyway. I've said it once before, I'll say it again. Outside of Silent and Boomer White Women no one wants her. The only reason to run her is to insure someone like Trump wins, screws up big time and then a rational moderately liberal Xer Democrat can take over during the end of the 4T and we might just might escape a dystopian 1T.

Regardless it is my view that we will end up with a saeculum of crisis--a Mega-Crisis regardless.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

There's a fine line between consensual and non-consensual sex, and nobody really knows where it is.

I'm pretty sure that adults can decide if they want to fuck or if they do not want to fuck. If they do not want to fuck, and are fucked or made to penetrate (the male varity of rape, yes it happens) then they have had non-consensual sex and were subsequently raped. If they could not provide consent (IE intoxication, under age, comatose, dead, mentally incapable of giving consent due to retardation and etc) then they had non-consensual sex and were subsequently raped.

The line is pretty clear to those of us who don't have our heads firmly planted in our rectums.

Some people take huge chances for some ephemeral bliss.

Such persons are generally speaking idiots.

Condoms and birth-control pills have largely negated some of the consequences of sexuality -- babies and STDs. They can't change the emotional consequences. Sex is still not a trivial deed.

Condoms fail pretty regularly, they are at best an imperfect preventative measure for STDs. Birth control pills do not but those are under the control of women, not men. Women can and do lie about being on the pill. Furthermore I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that sex was a trivial deed. In fact I think it so un-trivial a deed that I've subjected Teh Boy to a crash course on teh gay sex. (you know cause he's with us due to his homophobic bible thumping biological parents).

"Not with you", "not now", and "not that way" are still variants of "no". "I'm not sure" might as well be a "no".

Only a Boomer and/or their moronic offspring would not understand the word no and all its variants. "I'm not sure" is also "no".

The next Awakening Era could be a sharp reaction to a culture that has enshrined the sexual license of recent years as freedom. That is how the generational cycle can work.

If the Neo-Progressive anti-sex attitude pervades the next 1T the next 2T will be even more libertine than the last in regard to sex. That said, I don't think gays are going back into their closets any time soon.

Because college students must work to earn much of the inflated cost of college education, the college environment is no longer the playground that it was even as late as the 1980s. Such is the consequence of the decisions of the economic elites to make America a grimmer, drearier, and more joyless place in which consequences of any lapse of loyal and selfless subordination to them are catastrophic. This is a culture of economic rape, one in which debt is the means of force. Workers are compelled to take entrepreneurial risks for proletarian rewards, which is a gross perversion of any form of capitalism short of peonage. Activism contrary to the desires of America's economic elites is one way to get blacklisted from an economic order in which people have far fewer choices in life -- more responsibilities toward the economic elites and fewer rights. The right sort of activism for supporting any semblance of middle-class existence is Right activism.

Which again only supports my claim that the vast majority of these supposed protesters are in fact from the most priviliged of collage students, with the vast majority spending their time and money wisely and instead studying rather than running around trying to get Administrators fired or making mountains out of molehills like the shit-swastika (which if anything would be more insulting to a WP type than not due to the nature of the matterial used to draw said swastika--it is kind of like drawing a hammer & sickle with shit, I'd be offended by that).

Except perhaps Christie and possibly Kasich, all the current seekers of the Republican nomination for President will be unmitigated disasters for America. The others would sponsor even greater polarization in economic results than existed in 2008. Maybe you, kinser, want American capitalism to fail so spectacularly that it makes possible a revolutionary situation as a hundred years ago in Russia or in the late 1940s in China. I don't.

I would argue that you don't out of pure cowardice. If anything under a socialist regime you could be relocated from your po-dunk home town to somewhere better if you supported the state. Somewhere less pleasant if you didn't. Of course you are a self-hating prole so it probably would be re-education for you.

I prefer a humanization of capitalism which will be possible once America casts off the economic sadism that became fashionable in the last 3T.

The humanization of capitalism is not possible. Capitalism's very nature turns humans themselves (along with everything else) into commodities. It isn't a fashion, it is the nature of the beast. Much like wild dogs roaming in packs of about 10-15 individuals is not a fashion, but their nature.

It's the economic sadism, and not capitalism itself, that must go.

Economic sadism is capitalism's purest expression.

Originally Posted by Odin

Most rape victims never go to the police because they assume they won't be believed.

If they don't go to the police then how can they prove that they were in fact raped?

Oh yes, the police knew all about it and a rape kit was done. The defense's basic claim was that it was consensual and that she was lying to avoid admitting that she was cheating on her BF, but that was contradicted by a psychologist telling the jury about her PTSD (which she still suffers from).

So if a rape kit was done, and there was physical evidence of a rape occurring was the rapist not convicted? If not, why not?

And your accusation that I have no friends because I have Asperger's is completely uncalled for.

Honestly Odin, based on your behavior on this forum I find it difficult to believe you actually do have friends. Most of the time you post one line attacks to anything you remotely disagree with, provide nothing of substance on which to debate, and lately you've taken to calling any actual leftist on this board (of which I'm probably the only one) a reactionary.

It should be noted that with the advent of the DSM-V Asperger's is no longer recognized on the spectrum.

Originally Posted by Odin

Support for abolition was overwhelming in the stronghold Republican areas (New England, upstate New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, Collin Woodard's Yankeedom, basically) IIRC, less so in NYC, Pennsylvania, and the Lower Midwest. The secession of the Confederacy greatly increased the relative power of Yankeedom in the US government.

All of those areas were dominated by Whigs as well. The Lower Midwest, PA and NYC were dominated by Northern Democrats.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I'm pretty sure that adults can decide if they want to fuck or if they do not want to fuck. If they do not want to fuck, and are fucked or made to penetrate (the male varity of rape, yes it happens) then they have had non-consensual sex and were subsequently raped. If they could not provide consent (IE intoxication, under age, comatose, dead, mentally incapable of giving consent due to retardation and etc) then they had non-consensual sex and were subsequently raped.

The line is pretty clear to those of us who don't have our heads firmly planted in our rectums.

Little so powers such complex and conflicting emotions than does sex. As in be desirable but not too blatant.

Such persons (who take huge chances for some ephemeral bliss) are generally speaking idiots.

No -- people who think of happiness only in 'primary colors', so to speak. To live for the pure, unadulterated highs of booze, drugs, sweets, fats, cheap thrills, impulse shopping, gambling, etc. practically ensures a miserable life of poor health, financial ruin, and even imprisonment. Real happiness comes from knowing that one can repeat some approach to these things without getting hurt. To really enjoy life one must plan, exercise empathy, set goals, and collaborate with others on shared quests.

Idiots? No. Simply people too brainwashed or intellectually lazy to think.

Condoms fail pretty regularly, they are at best an imperfect preventative measure for STDs. Birth control pills do not but those are under the control of women, not men. Women can and do lie about being on the pill. Furthermore I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that sex was a trivial deed.

The only way to avoid all risk of STDs is celibacy. But that is an unsatisfying way of life.

Only a Boomer and/or their moronic offspring would not understand the word no and all its variants. "I'm not sure" is also "no".

We were the ones coming of age when birth control became good enough to transform heterosexuality into recreation and not simply a means to sire or bear children. The world in which we Boomers grew up was very different from that of earlier generations.

If the Neo-Progressive anti-sex attitude pervades the next 1T the next 2T will be even more libertine than the last in regard to sex. That said, I don't think gays are going back into their closets any time soon.

The horse has left the barn. But we are going to see some codification of sexual ethics. Date-rape drugs are now banned.

Which again only supports my claim that the vast majority of these supposed protesters are in fact from the most priviliged of collage students, with the vast majority spending their time and money wisely and instead studying rather than running around trying to get Administrators fired or making mountains out of molehills ...

Since Reagan was elected President, most Americans have largely developed a fatalistic recognition that they are nothing more than their economic function. That is exactly what the ruling elites want.

I would argue that you don't out of pure cowardice. If anything under a socialist regime you could be relocated from your po-dunk home town to somewhere better if you supported the state. Somewhere less pleasant if you didn't.

Kissing up to the elites just to survive is the norm in all economic orders. It makes control of people far easier. The fault with Marxist-Leninist states is that if one has a job as a professor of anthropology and says something incompatible with the Party Line one might be at best sent back to some Podunk to milk cows or shovel manure until one proves what an intellectual flunky one is.

Someone like Michael Moore would never survive under a Commie regime.

The humanization of capitalism is not possible. Capitalism's very nature turns humans themselves (along with everything else) into commodities. It isn't a fashion, it is the nature of the beast. Much like wild dogs roaming in packs of about 10-15 individuals is not a fashion, but their nature.

The qualification is competitiveness among the elites and the view among elites that treating people decently is good for business. Of course, treating people badly is good for quick profits -- but it also makes people scared, unimaginative, and devious.

Economic sadism is capitalism's purest expression.

Sadism is typically either the exercise of untrammeled power or the service of very guilty feelings.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

If they don't go to the police then how can they prove that they were in fact raped?

A conviction for rape is difficult. One must prove sexual contact or even an attempt, that there is no consent (barring such issues as minor age, unconsciousness, mental insufficiency, being drugged or drunk, or position of power).

...If the police have a proclivity to think of young black men as dangerous, then what do you think that they think of young black women accusing a man of rape? Then there is the priority-setting of the prosecution. The most blatant examples of rape -- stranger-rape, under-age rape, rape with a beating, or rape with the threat of murder -- are the priorities. Prosecutors do not like to lose.

The typical defense of an accused rapist is to slime the victim. Because rape is sociopathic behavior, it is likely that the victim feels more guilt about being raped than the rapist feels about committing rape. The victim might believe that she contributed to the rape by drinking a bit too much, being out 'too late', being in a 'rough' but exciting neighborhood, or dressing too provocatively. That is the difference between being a sociopath and being a normal person: the normal person has a capacity to feel some culpability for something going wrong, and the sociopath has no such capacity even for seeing something wrong with what he does to people. A defender of rapists can take advantage of that reality.

So if a rape kit was done, and there was physical evidence of a rape occurring was the rapist not convicted? If not, why not?

Identification of the rapist may be difficult. The rapist's DNA may not be linked to him until there is an active case against him and he is charged. Then there is the defense of a rapist that typically accusing the victim of 'really wanting sex and not being so selective' -- even if the sex comes with a beating.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, Hillary is locked into the magic $250,000 threshold, which is roughly the top 3 to 4%. If she's really interested in the middle class (2nd through 4th quintiles), then the trigger number needs to be about $112,000.

Kinser's right. She's GOP-Lite, just like Bill.

Sorry, M&L to call you out on this, but your $250K is one of those bullshit presentation of facts designed to mislead, worthy of a Faux News hit piece or from some angry Far Left Clinton hater - not your more typical class act.

The $250K is the UPPER LIMIT on Clinton's promise to not raise anyone's taxes if elected. That reflects HC's hard nose political reality we need that BOTH new programs and new tax cuts come hand-in-hand with either raising someone else's taxes or cutting someone else's programs - its actually a requirement in the Congressional budget process.

Until someone comes out and says they're an MMT adherent and that federal deficit spending is a blessing not a bane, then proposal for new programs from the Left (including most of Sanders') is simply pandering to the politically ignorant and painless tax cuts from the Right is outright lying.

Moreover, Clinton has put forward specific tax relief for lower incomes that would phase out at income levels far below the $250K upper limit of her no-tax pledge. If history is any guide, individuals with incomes below $60K would get the full credit but that would be phased down with $10K increments of additional income until likely phased out in its entirety around $100K of individual incomes.

And she's come out with specifics on raising taxes on the rich that go at the heart of income disparity - capital gains, high-frequency trading, inversions - and has embraced going further than the Buffet Rule. If one is familiar with how the rich really make their money, one can only conclude she knows what's she's doing.

Contrast that with the horseshit on the Right of across-the-board cuts like flat tax proposals, and THEN be realistic and think about how that will get paid for under a drown-the-baby-in-the-bath-tub GOP President and Congress - it ain't gonna be Defense - can you say, "bye-bye social safety net?"

And from the Left, do the current Hot-for-Bernie (you know, former 2008-Obamabots-so-disappointed-by-2010) really believe that a gruffer magic pony savior in the WH is going to overcome this Nation's fetish over federal deficit spending? I'm sure they do... but fortunately a lot of Progressives are grown-ups.

Originally Posted by Odin

The defense's basic claim was that it was consensual and that she was lying to avoid admitting that she was cheating on her BF, but that was contradicted by a psychologist telling the jury about her PTSD (which she still suffers from).

Um, what? PTSD never stopped anybody from lying.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

...Hillary is destined to lose anyway. I've said it once before, I'll say it again. Outside of Silent and Boomer White Women no one wants her.

This is typical close-minded horseshit from someone suffering Clinton-hating derangement syndrome.


Obama won 2008/2012 with a coalition of minorities, Millies and more educated White voters against a GOP base of less educated Whites. Demographics alone, based on actual 2008/2012 voting not polls -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-win-in-2016/

- show that the Dem's would increase their popular vote margin in 2016 over 2012 between four to six percent - that is approaching an electoral college landslide.

You have to make your case within that Obama coalition changing, and you have to make your case within the increasing likelihood the GOP will put up a candidate (Trump, Cruz) that are completely toxic to those elements of that Dem coalition. Moreover, you need to take into account that GOP toxicity to ALL women and the impact on those who are Independents if not x-over candidates from the GOP (or, at least their staying home on election day).

Also, if you can get your head out of Das Capital on occasion, take a look at the women at Trump rallies, they're not exactly spring chickens, more like those Boomers and Silents you're talking about - there's more than few at every t-baggin party since they first started baggin.

And finally, spend a little time at a Progressive forum (e.g., Daily Kos), rather than all-things-Karl, and you'll see there isn't any where near the vitriol against HC now that there was in '08. In particularly, look at the day or week after the Benghazi Hearing, and get a glimpse of the unity of support that will rally around the eventual Dem nominee in the face of a Trump or Cruz or even a Rubio.

You share the problem of most people today of mistaking the angry roar of a cornered dying animal that feels the pain but hasn't yet grasp what is happening to it. The Right's echo chamber, amplified by the entertaining news machine, can be very disorienting; just imagine those that live there every day and will be trapped forever in its carcass.

I would like to note that you are spot-on regarding both federal deficits, monetary sovereignty, etc and on the very high unlikelihood of either a Sanders or Clinton presidency making Obama's mistake of playing nice with Congressional GOP critters. For the latter, from day one in 2017, it is going to be about positioning to cut the nuts off of the GOP critters in 2018 - there's no better person to do that than a certain woman.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

... And yes, things like 3-d printing and nano and atomic scale technology DO promise us an end to scarcity. How the work that is left is to be divvied up when 3-d printers make the components that robots assemble and self-driving trucks deliver will be our biggest challenge--and a lot sooner than whatever challenge climate change hands us. (We actually have environmentalists like Herman Daly who argue that scarcity is good and should be deliberately created if it dosen't exist). How can we adapt to shorter workdays and workweeks and income security when Boomers moralise about the virtue of hard work and long hours and our "working rich" CEOs work the same 16 hour days as their flunkies, turning them into Moonies with no time to reflect upon what they are doing? Maybe we need to start thinking of people who work more than 6 hours a day as "workhogs". Our biggest challenge, should we decide to accept it, is the gathering of resources from and settlement of the rest of the Solar System. Which may require that we abandon the pursuit of a global government and economic order that is giving the 1% more in common with their counterparts in other countries than the rest of us and may well lead to de facto serfdom and slavery for most of us in the name of "social stability" and "sustainability".

Much of this is a FOAK problem. The GOP focuses on the supply side, even though that concept (inadequate supply to meet demand: Says Law) is ludicrously out of date. The Dems focus on social equality, which is pretty close to reality already, but ignores economic equality that their sponsors prefer they ignore. So one party is trying to make matters worse, by sponsoring more of what we already have in excess. The other is pretending to not to notice the problems that exist, because they can't bear the pressure of trying to adjust. Business is even worse.

This leads in a single direction toward disaster. How close we come before we wake-up is the only question.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

You agree with a statistic that he pulled from his ass? I had hopes you were intelligent, apparently those hopes were misplaced.

Yes, Kinser, you're right, because you are always right. We bow to your rightness. It's 1 in 5 who report being raped. At least in 2011, according to the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-...to270_2016.pdf

Page numbers are off the PDF and not the booklet.

Basically there are more ways for Republicans to lose than for them to win. Democrats will have demographics on their side in 2016. The white share of the vote is in decline, and the part of the white vote that reliably votes (educated white people) are drifting away from the GOP.

This is telling (from the source):

Republicans, meanwhile, are expected to continue to hold strong advantages
among white voters—particularly white non-college-educated voters—although
the share of these voters in the overall electorate is likely to continue to decline.
Based on our conservative estimates, non-college-educated whites are projected
to fall 2.3 points as a percentage of the national electorate, while white college-
educated voters are projected to increase by .4 percent as a share of actual voters.
This shift in the white vote continues a trend slightly favoring Democrats given the
voting patterns of both white groups.

(pg8)

They will need a gigantic advantage among white people, and disdain for Barack Obama will not be so successful this time. No part of the Obama coalition seems to be slipping away from the Democrats. Getting more of the white population out to vote might bring out the sorts of people who voted for Bill Clinton but did not vote in the 2008 or 2012 elections for President. Republicans cannot rely upon such voters. Should they vote heavily for Hillary Clinton in 2016, then the common wisdom that such states as Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia have swung decisively R might be refuted. But if any of those states are in doubt (Arizona, Georgia, and Indiana are even more likely pickups), then the GOP is defeated.

I see good news for Republicans that in the states that Barack Obama won by 10% or more in 2008, Hillary Clinton will be unable to go beyond the levels of support in 2016. The bad news for Republicans is that Hillary Clinton will be unable to go beyond that.

Here is the big problem:

Consider first the probable minority share of the vote in 2016. Census data under
-score just how fast this population is growing in the United States. From 2000 to
2014, the minority population—those who identify as Hispanic, non-Hispanic
black, non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic other, and multiracial—increased by 39
percent. The Hispanic population alone grew by 57 percent, while the white—
meaning non-Hispanic white—population grew by a mere 2 percent. Because of
this dramatic difference in growth rates, communities of color have accounted for
91 percent of the country’s population growth since 2000. The overall minority
share of the population has also ticked steadily upward, while the white share has
declined: The 2014 minority share of the population was 38 percent, up more
than 7 percentage points since 2000. That is a rate of increase of approximately
half a point a year since 2000.

(p 13)

For Republicans, this must sting. The newer voters will increasingly be the sorts who do not fall for the right-wing populism of the GOP. The more that Republicans appeal to white nativism and overall anti-intellectualism the less likely they are to make inroads into non-white and non-Anglo parts of the population. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have fitting surnames for appealing to Hispanic voters -- except that they are the wrong sorts of Hispanics to appeal to Hispanics not easily described as right-wing Cuban-Americans. It gets worse:

Two other key demographics for 2016 are young voters: members of the
Millennial generation—defined in this report as those born in the years 1981
through 2000—and unmarried women. The 18-to-29-year-old age group, all of
which are Millennials, made up 15 percent of voters and voted 61 percent to 35
percent in President Obama’s favor in 2012. Moreover, that 15 percent figure
actually understated the level of Millennial influence in the 2012 election because
the 18-to-29-year-old group did not include the oldest Millennials—the 30- and
31-year-olds who were born in 1981 and 1982. Once they are figured in, a reason
-
able estimate is that Millennials made up around 18 percent of the vote in 2012.
That figure should be significantly larger in 2016 as more Millennials enter the
voting pool. About 52 million Millennials were citizen-eligible voters in 2012,
and that number has been increasing at a rate of about 4 million a year. In 2016,
when Millennials make up the entire 18 to 35 age group, there will be 68 million
Millennial eligible voters, accounting for 31 percent of all eligible voters—the
same size as the Baby Boomer percentage of eligible voters.

Of course, relatively low youth turnout means that the weight of Millennials
among actual voters in 2016 will be significantly less than the generation’s share
of eligible voters. If turnout patterns remain roughly the same in 2016 as they
were 2012, a reasonable guess is that Millennials will make up approximately 25
percent of voters in the upcoming presidential election.

(p16)

The Republican Party has nothing to offer this age group. More ominously, voter participation tends to increase with age. It is less likely to contain the dream demographic of the Republican Party of the last four elections: under-educated white people.

The study assesses the chances of Democratic and Republican wins in several states:

1. Pennsylvania: Obama won the state by 5% in 2012, and largely on minorities. In Pennsylvania the 'minority' vote is heavily black. Whether blacks will turn out to vote for Clinton or Sanders at the same levels as in 2012 is in doubt -- but even the white population is shifting away from the under-educated to the educated. The Republican advantage among whites most likely will shrink.

2. Ohio. Barack Obama won Ohio by a razor-thin margin in 2012 (3%), so it should be an obvious focus of campaigning in 2016. But as in Pennsylvania, the category of under-educated whites (which went 57-41 for Romney) will be shrinking by 2% while college-educated whites (who went by a 55-44 margin for Romney) and minorities which went 91-8 for Obama will be up 2% . The demographic trend alone will hurt Republicans in Ohio, a state that has gone with the winner in every Presidential election since 1964.

3. Michigan is NOT a swing state. Minorities, largely black, make about 11% of the population and will actually gain votes in Michigan. The educated white vote split almost evenly in 2012, so between those two Michigan is out of reach in 2016. Such is good for about a 10% edge for Democrats in 2016.

4. Minnesota went for Obama by a margin of 8%... and although minorities did not vote as decisively for Obama as they did in Michigan or Pennsylvania, both educated and under-educated whites voted slightly for Obama. Out of reach for Republicans, much like Michigan, if for different reasons.

5. Wisconsin was a decisive win for Obama in 2012 even with the VP nominee of the Republican Party as a nominee. Republicans can win if they get the sort of support that Scott Walker got in gubernatorial elections, which does not seem likely.

6. Iowa was a 6% win for Obama in 2012. Should Republicans make significant inroads among the white vote, they win a state that has a small minority population.

7. Colorado. Demographic trends favor a Democratic nominee that Obama won by 5% in 2012. The large Hispanic population is growing while the white population is shrinking. Republicans won whites roughly 51-46 and 52-45 (educated and under-educated, respectively). Recent polls suggest Colorado as a likely R pickup, but such typically underestimates the effectiveness of Democratic get-out-the-vote drives among minorities. The tipping-point state of 2012 (rank the states by margins, and check them off as one gets their electoral votes, and the state that gives 270 is the tipping point), Colorado is not to be ignored.

8. Nevada. Nevada looks like a likely D hold. It has one of the highest percentages of urbanization in America (basically greater Las Vegas and greater Reno-Carson City, and little else). Minorities, heavily Mexican-American, are gaining. The under-educated white population which went 59-38 for Romney is a shrinking share of the population. Republicans can be thankful that Nevada has only six electoral votes.

9. New Mexico. Republicans won without New Mexico in 2000 -- which they probably will have to do this time. Their only hope to win New Mexico is to reduce the enthusiasm of the large Mexican-American population for Democrats by cutting both the margin and the numbers. Under-educated white people went for Romney 56-36 in a state that Obama won by 10% in 2012, and their share of the electorate is shrinking.

(Arizona, which has gone only once for a Democratic nominee since 1948, could be competitive -- but if it is close, the Democrats have won Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico decisively and could be approaching a landslide in the electoral college. Montana and its 3 electoral votes are probably out of reach).

10. Florida was Obama's barest win in 2012. Democrats lost the white vote (college-educated and educated alike) by about 60-40 in 2012... so if the minority vote comes out to vote nearly 3-to-1 (the minority vote includes a Cuban-American component that now splits roughly evenly), the Democratic nominee wins. Democrats can win without Florida, but Republicans cannot win without the state's 29 electoral votes. The under-educated white vote is shrinking and the minority share is rising, which bodes ill for GOP-friendly demographics.

11. North Carolina has a white population friendly to Republican nominees, with the minority vote making the state close. Demographic trends favor Democratic improvement in 2016. But if North Carolina is close in 2016, Republicans are in big trouble elsewhere -- like Virginia.

12. Virginia was reliably Republican in Presidential elections between 1952 and 2004, going Democratic only in the LBJ blowout of 1964. It was close to the national average in 2008 and 2012. Republicans cannot afford to lose Virginia unless they can pick up Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as compensation... which isn't likely. How tough has Virginia been for Democrats? Carter won every former-Confederate state in 1976... except for Virginia. Bill Clinton lost the state twice.

(The survey suggested that Georgia, Obama's second-closest loss in 2012, could be close in 2016. I see Georgia as an indication of an electoral blowout -- because a Democratic nominee winning Georgia has also won Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida).

I am tempted to believe that under-educated white voters voted strongly Republican in 2008 and 2012 because Barack Obama was the worst-suited Democrat to win their vote. Whether such was culture or race ia your choice for interpreting the last two Presidential elections in contrast to those that Bill Clinton won in the 1990s.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Much of this is a FOAK problem.

First of its kind??

The GOP focuses on the supply side, even though that concept (inadequate supply to meet demand: Says Law) is ludicrously out of date. The Dems focus on social equality, which is pretty close to reality already, but ignores economic equality that their sponsors prefer they ignore. So one party is trying to make matters worse, by sponsoring more of what we already have in excess. The other is pretending to not to notice the problems that exist, because they can't bear the pressure of trying to adjust. Business is even worse.

This leads in a single direction toward disaster. How close we come before we wake-up is the only question.

Democrats focus on economic inequality. The problem is not their focus, but the extent of follow-through. That depends on the people. The fault is not in our politicians, but in ourselves.

Hillary as nominee would lose some of the young black and minority vote, who would turn out in lower numbers than for Obama. She would clean up and make up for it with the young unmarried women vote. Young and old alike, some women would defect to Hillary from Republicans and independents. She might also gain among some working-class or under-educated white voters in the border states who didn't want to vote for Obama. I suspect Hillary would win but would lose a few states that Obama won.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Little so powers such complex and conflicting emotions than does sex. As in be desirable but not too blatant.

PBR, you're 60 not 16. Sex is not that confusing. Everyone wants to have sex with someone. Whether they want to have sex with you (and I mean that both personally and generally) is a different matter. People who understand the word "no" and all its varients and abide by the wishes of the other participant will never rape anyone. Get their heart broken? Maybe. Be confused by their partner's bullshit? Likely. But sex itself is relatively simple.

No -- people who think of happiness only in 'primary colors', so to speak.

That is a polite way of saying idiots. I prefer my more direct approach.

To live for the pure, unadulterated highs of booze, drugs, sweets, fats, cheap thrills, impulse shopping, gambling, etc. practically ensures a miserable life of poor health, financial ruin, and even imprisonment. Real happiness comes from knowing that one can repeat some approach to these things without getting hurt. To really enjoy life one must plan, exercise empathy, set goals, and collaborate with others on shared quests.

Am I expected to disagree with this more or less obvious statement?

Idiots? No. Simply people too brainwashed or intellectually lazy to think.

No adult of normal intelligence is brainwashed to do anything assuming humans have free will, if you want to argue that humans in fact do not have free will that is a different matter. The intellectually lazy is an other euphemism for idiot.

The only way to avoid all risk of STDs is celibacy. But that is an unsatisfying way of life.

Celibacy is just fine for some people. It wouldn't work for me but I have a high libido and always have. I'm fortunate that my boyfriend is as horny if not more so than myself. That being said, even if I didn't have "the real thing" frequently there is always the internet.

If one is going to have sex outside of a monogamous relationship, then it is best to use condoms imperfect as they are. Personally I've always stressed monogamy over condoms. But then again I also don't have to worry about teh boy getting some girl pregnant (running up her dad's credit card at the mall is a different story) and I'm pretty sure my boyfriend isn't going to get pregnant. So it may be of slightly greater importance for heterosexuals. I wouldn't know since I've never been heterosexual.

We were the ones coming of age when birth control became good enough to transform heterosexuality into recreation and not simply a means to sire or bear children. The world in which we Boomers grew up was very different from that of earlier generations.

Is it your argumentation that prior to the pill rape was acceptable or is it your argumentation that the pill made rape acceptable? Neither is true, and everyone knows that, rape has been a felony for a very long time.

The horse has left the barn. But we are going to see some codification of sexual ethics. Date-rape drugs are now banned.

I assure you that they are still available, just like cocaine is banned and I can take a hundred bucks and score an 8-ball in less than twenty minutes. The codification of sexual ethics will not come from the Neo-Progressives. Sexual ethics is relatively simple. If the other person is incapable of consenting do not fuck, if the other person has not given consent do not fuck. This is something as old as humanity it is hardly rocket science

Since Reagan was elected President, most Americans have largely developed a fatalistic recognition that they are nothing more than their economic function. That is exactly what the ruling elites want.

For the capitalists that is all most people ever were. They are either employees or they are customers to the capitalist. Such is the nature of capitalism. Reagan did nothing to change that nature.

Kissing up to the elites just to survive is the norm in all economic orders. It makes control of people far easier. The fault with Marxist-Leninist states is that if one has a job as a professor of anthropology and says something incompatible with the Party Line one might be at best sent back to some Podunk to milk cows or shovel manure until one proves what an intellectual flunky one is.

Be glad you aren't a professor of anthropology then. That being said, the Party as you know is always correct.

Someone like Michael Moore would never survive under a Commie regime.

I'm supposed to care? Michael Moore would be put on a diet and re-educated. That being said, I doubt that you'd survive in a Marxist-Leninist regime either.

The qualification is competitiveness among the elites and the view among elites that treating people decently is good for business. Of course, treating people badly is good for quick profits -- but it also makes people scared, unimaginative, and devious.

The nature of capitalism is such that competitiveness is squeezed out slowly, and what is left is treating people poorly for quick profits. If this were not the case then it wouldn't need recurring "re-humanizations".

Originally Posted by annla899

Yes, Kinser, you're right, because you are always right. We bow to your rightness. It's 1 in 5 who report being raped. At least in 2011, according to the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf

The Factual Feminist disagrees with you.



And yes, I know the American Enterprise Institute pays for this....

Originally Posted by playwrite

This is typical close-minded horseshit from someone suffering Clinton-hating derangement syndrome.


Obama won 2008/2012 with a coalition of minorities, Millies and more educated White voters against a GOP base of less educated Whites. Demographics alone, based on actual 2008/2012 voting not polls -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-win-in-2016/

- show that the Dem's would increase their popular vote margin in 2016 over 2012 between four to six percent - that is approaching an electoral college landslide.

You have to make your case within that Obama coalition changing, and you have to make your case within the increasing likelihood the GOP will put up a candidate (Trump, Cruz) that are completely toxic to those elements of that Dem coalition. Moreover, you need to take into account that GOP toxicity to ALL women and the impact on those who are Independents if not x-over candidates from the GOP (or, at least their staying home on election day).

Also, if you can get your head out of Das Capital on occasion, take a look at the women at Trump rallies, they're not exactly spring chickens, more like those Boomers and Silents you're talking about - there's more than few at every t-baggin party since they first started baggin.

And finally, spend a little time at a Progressive forum (e.g., Daily Kos), rather than all-things-Karl, and you'll see there isn't any where near the vitriol against HC now that there was in '08. In particularly, look at the day or week after the Benghazi Hearing, and get a glimpse of the unity of support that will rally around the eventual Dem nominee in the face of a Trump or Cruz or even a Rubio.

You share the problem of most people today of mistaking the angry roar of a cornered dying animal that feels the pain but hasn't yet grasp what is happening to it. The Right's echo chamber, amplified by the entertaining news machine, can be very disorienting; just imagine those that live there every day and will be trapped forever in its carcass.

I would like to note that you are spot-on regarding both federal deficits, monetary sovereignty, etc and on the very high unlikelihood of either a Sanders or Clinton presidency making Obama's mistake of playing nice with Congressional GOP critters. For the latter, from day one in 2017, it is going to be about positioning to cut the nuts off of the GOP critters in 2018 - there's no better person to do that than a certain woman.

The problem you have is that the Obama Coalition is not going to go for Hillary as the primaries in 2008 has proved already.

John C Fremont has a different take on Rubio vs. Clinton:
https://youtu.be/JtG8M6ZHfFA

Let's look at my estimate of Rubio's chances against Hillary again:

First, his Hispanic advantage.

It may not hold if he has to cater to the anti-immigrant sentiment of his party, and he has been catering to it.

It won't give him California. New Mexico is possible, but seems safely blue now. It won't matter in Texas and AZ, which are safely Republican anyway. So that leaves Nevada, Colorado, and most of all, Florida, where he is the sitting senator.

In Florida, however, his Hispanic and home state advantage may be offset by how many older women voters are there. Younger women voters will favor Hillary too. What will white millennial guys do? They may vote for Rubio by a relatively small margin, but home state advantage probably won't matter to them. And his militarist rhetoric might. They may not be too thrilled with the idea of going off to war, which Rubio as president might seem to imply. So, I see all 3 states as still tossups, since they all supported Obama twice.

Hillary has an advantage among women and among those who don't admire Rubio's youthful inexperience and callowness.

The older voting population of Ohio, and its labor element, would seem to tilt that state toward Clinton. That would apply to most of the swing states or near-swing states of the midwest and northeast. Virginia remains a tossup, but might swing blue again. Rubio's militarism might give him an advantage there however. So let's see what the electoral vote looks like if the 4 tossups swing to Rubio, and the other close states (including Iowa and New Mexico) swing to Hillary. Would Rubio win?

Hillary Clinton:
ME 4
VT 3
NH 4
MA 11
RI 4
CT 7
NJ 14
DE 3
MD 10
DC 3
NY 29
PA 20
OH 18
MI 16
WI 10
IL 20
MN 10
IA 6 (close)
NM 5 (close)
CA 55
OR 7
WA 12
HI 4
______
275

Hillary still wins even without VA, NV, CO or FL.

Rubio would have to peel off Iowa and New Mexico too. But add New Mexico to Rubio's list, and Hillary still gets 270. If he adds only Iowa, however, then he wins because the House elects him.

With newer info, I definitely think Nevada will go blue. Las Vegas is growing so fast that Nevada has become an urban state, as well as quite hispanic. Virginia is also trending much more blue as time goes by, contrary to Fremont's expectations. NH I think stays blue, because it is too liberal for the militarist Mr. Rubio. Colorado is trending red though, and Rubio has a slight edge in Florida. Fremont says Iowa will go Rubio. So if putting Nevada and Virginia back in Hillary's column, and taking Iowa out, makes Hillary's total 288. But if she loses Ohio, as Fremont predicts, then Hillary wins 270, and barely wins.

Originally Posted by annla899

Yes, Kinser, you're right, because you are always right. We bow to your rightness. It's 1 in 5 who report being raped. At least in 2011, according to the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf

I've decided to just ignore him on the topic, now, since he only cares about insulting me and accusing me of making things up.

EDIT: and now he is using a known right-wing anti-feminist hack as a source. He's just proving more and more that he is a right-wing authoritarian at heart. a "Brocialist".