Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

On this your simply wrong. Of all the candidates, she's the only one with substantial official cred. Trump argues that building casinos is transferable, but really? Other than Trump, you have several governors who have no chance of getting nominated and three Senators with a shot, but none with much gusto ... except Bernie. He's got some experience worth noting.

What has she done on her own? She was a shoe in candidate for Senator of New York. Working for Obama as his Secretary of State and riding on the coattails of her husbands success does not grant her substantial official cred. Obama was her first real political challenge and she failed miserably. The tradition Democrats aren't going to flock to the poles to elect Bernie Sanders. Win or loose, I'd like to see Trump face Hillary in the election. A Trump candidacy would represent a departure from the cozy political norm that establishment candidates have become accustomed. Trump isn't going to mess up America anymore than Obama did at this point.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I've been wondering, what is a reactionary and why is being called one an insult?
Serious question.

A reactionary ain't into change.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Unemployment is only down to 5% because workforce particupation is at all time lows.

--unemployment stats are unreliable. They do not include unemployed ppl who are no longer eligible for bennies, or the underemployed (part time workers wanting full time work) the Govt parses unemployment stats to make them look as rosy as possible

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.

--this Boomer White Woman wants Bernie. There are alot more Boomer White Women like me. The Silents sre dying off

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.

--interesting povs

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

A reactionary ain't into change.

A reactionary uncritically seeks a return to an old and discredited social order. That could be practically any absolute monarchy, the Jim Crow South or the slave-holding South, South Africa under Apartheid, the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein, Chile under Pinochet, Greece under the Colonels, Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salazar, China under Chiang Kai-Shek, Libya under Qaddafi, Uganda under Idi Amin, Vichy France, the fascistic regimes associated with all Axis Powers except Finland, Yugoslavia under Tito or Milosevich, Albania under Hoxha, the Soviet Union or any of its satellites... or colonial rule.

North Korea and the Infernal State are already reactionary.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A reactionary uncritically seeks a return to an old and discredited social order. That could be practically any absolute monarchy, the Jim Crow South or the slave-holding South, South Africa under Apartheid, the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein, Chile under Pinochet, Greece under the Colonels, Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salazar, China under Chiang Kai-Shek, Libya under Qaddafi, Uganda under Idi Amin, Vichy France, the fascistic regimes associated with all Axis Powers except Finland, Yugoslavia under Tito or Milosevich, Albania under Hoxha, the Soviet Union or any of its satellites... or colonial rule.

North Korea and the Infernal State are already reactionary.

If that's the case, why is the term applied to me on a regular basis?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Marxism-Leninism is now reactionary.

There are plenty of genuine Marxist-Leninists that Kinser would dismiss as "neo-progressives" because they understand what intersectionality is.

Originally Posted by Odin

There are plenty of genuine Marxist-Leninists that Kinser would dismiss as "neo-progressives" because they understand what intersectionality is.

OK. One can be informed by Karl Marx and not be a Marxist-Leninist. Marxism still has much to offer as a prediction of certain cases of pathological economies... regrettably America is showing some of them.

Really I find Henry George more useful; tax the Hell out of economic rents, and use them to support a generous system of social welfare. The incentives would still remain, but the system would better reward genuine toil and genuine entrepreneurship. Still I see Karl Marx suggesting the end stage of human progress in Communism in which class distinctions are more of culture than anything else in a time without scarcity.

Economic rents are a means of ensuring that people work largely to pay quasi-taxes to private interests for the privilege of survival in the world of the economic elites. The worst of our politicians stand for ensuring that those who extract easy money get their easy money with low taxes and that others be cheap but overworked laborers doing jobs that they hate.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

If that's the case, why is the term applied to me on a regular basis?

Because conservatives in the USA today and communist and fascists of yesterday both "uncritically seek a return to an old and discredited social order."

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

What has she done on her own? She was a shoe in candidate for Senator of New York. Working for Obama as his Secretary of State and riding on the coattails of her husbands success does not grant her substantial official cred. Obama was her first real political challenge and she failed miserably.

I think it's fair to look at Hillary's record to see how substantial it is. Why your need to embellish your point with blatant falsehoods like that? She almost won the nomination. Obama was a strong opponent with a lot of appeal.

The traditional Democrats aren't going to flock to the poles to elect Bernie Sanders. Win or loose, I'd like to see Trump face Hillary in the election. A Trump candidacy would represent a departure from the cozy political norm that establishment candidates have become accustomed. Trump isn't going to mess up America anymore than Obama did at this point.

Trump is an establishment candidate. Democrats might flock to Bernie if Trump is the nominee and doesn't clean up his act. Obama did good things; just not enough.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

What has she done on her own? She was a shoe in candidate for Senator of New York. Working for Obama as his Secretary of State and riding on the coattails of her husbands success does not grant her substantial official cred. Obama was her first real political challenge and she failed miserably.

1. She was by all accounts an effective Secretary of State.
2. Barack Obama is one of the slickest, shrewdest politicians in American history -- like him or not, and whether you like his political views or not.

I remember hearing NBC journalist Tom Brokaw -- who is not given to hyperbole -- discussing Barack Obama when he was a State Senator. Basically he said, "Watch him. He is really good".

Losing to Karpov or Kasparov in chess is no disgrace.

The tradition Democrats aren't going to flock to the poles sic to elect Bernie Sanders. Win or loose sic, I'd like to see Trump face Hillary in the election. A Trump candidacy would represent a departure from the cozy political norm that establishment candidates have become accustomed. Trump isn't going to mess up America anymore than Obama did at this point.

Donald Trump is an unprincipled demagogue who has about as much idea of how to govern a country as Barack Obama has of how to build an empire of casinos (not that entrepreneurial activities are likely in his future. He's more likely to be appointed to a federal judgeship and eventually to the Supreme Court). To be sure, we had another showman, also a conservative Republican, who became President. At the least Ronald Reagan had some political acumen from his experience in elected office which Donald Trump does not have.

Republicans have been taking swipes at President Obama for his alleged lack of political experience -- so do you think that we Democrats will not use that against Donald Trump? He doesn't even know what promises he can make and turn into public policy.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

1. She was by all accounts an effective Secretary of State.
2. Barack Obama is one of the slickest, shrewdest politicians in American history -- like him or not, and whether you like his political views or not.

I remember hearing NBC journalist Tom Brokaw -- who is not given to hyperbole -- discussing Barack Obama when he was a State Senator. Basically he said, "Watch him. He is really good".

Losing to Karpov or Kasparov in chess is no disgrace.




Donald Trump is an unprincipled demagogue who has about as much idea of how to govern a country as Barack Obama has of how to build an empire of casinos (not that entrepreneurial activities are likely in his future. He's more likely to be appointed to a federal judgeship and eventually to the Supreme Court). To be sure, we had another showman, also a conservative Republican, who became President. At the least Ronald Reagan had some political acumen from his experience in elected office which Donald Trump does not have.

Republicans have been taking swipes at President Obama for his alleged lack of political experience -- so do you think that we Democrats will not use that against Donald Trump? He doesn't even know what promises he can make and turn into public policy.

Did Obama's obvious lack of experience keep him from being elected? Republicans aren't the only ones pointing out his obvious lack of experience. I didn't see one of slickest and shrewdest politicians in American history. I saw average politician who was only effective when he had a super majority. Now, I don't take issue with your love and admiration for the man. It's quite obvious that you and I judge him differently. I see him making millions from speaking to liberals, promoting liberal views, supporting liberal agenda's and book sales.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Did Obama's obvious lack of experience keep him from being elected? Republicans aren't the only ones pointing out his obvious lack of experience. I didn't see one of slickest and shrewdest politicians in American history. I saw average politician who was only effective when he had a super majority. Now, I don't take issue with your love and admiration for the man. It's quite obvious that you and I judge him differently. I see him making millions from speaking to liberals, promoting liberal views, supporting liberal agenda's and book sales.

No, he was quite shrewed to use good strategy to defeat the Clinton machine in a very close primary election. He was able to get a lot done when he had the support he needed. No-one could have accomplished anything more with the fanatical, stubborn opposition he faced. It was a situation as impossible as the attempted compromises before the civil war. Republicans were as intractible as the southern dixies were. Even Lincoln couldn't handle them without a war.

Originally Posted by Odin

There are plenty of genuine Marxist-Leninists that Kinser would dismiss as "neo-progressives" because they understand what intersectionality is.

I understand what interesctionality is. I also reject it as bullshit, and incorporating it into Marxism-Leninists would not make them Neo-Progressives. It would make them REVISIONISTS because identity politics apart from the identity of class weakens the revolutionary component in Marxism-Leninism.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think it's fair to look at Hillary's record to see how substantial it is. Why your need to embellish your point with blatant falsehoods like that? She almost won the nomination.

Really? A two term Senator from a safely blue state thanks to NYC? Let's be honest here, Obama appointed her in his first term as Sec of State to pull what political teeth she still had. He neutralized her by bringing her in under his administration--and it was effective. And in any event she still lost to a Black which according to our intersectional friends can only be explained by having a vagina in spite of the fact that her up bringing was clearly petty-bourgeois while Obama's was much more proletarian and comes from a family with much weaker political connections--weaker as in non-existant.

If anything if one were to follow the intersectional line of thought, one should be shocked that Obama beat her. However, it was clear in 08 she was not wanted, and she still is not wanted.

Obama was a strong opponent with a lot of appeal.

Obama still has quite a bit of appeal. If the 22^nd Amendment was not a factor I think he could easily win a third term. However, it is and he's a lame duck this year.

Trump is an establishment candidate. Democrats might flock to Bernie if Trump is the nominee and doesn't clean up his act. Obama did good things; just not enough.

If Trump is in fact GOP establishment what is he running in the Primary for? Lightning rod effect? Rubio or Bush could provide a better candidacy for the GOP establishment, though they would make the noise coming from the Commentariat less interesting.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

If that's the case, why is the term applied to me on a regular basis?

Reactionary is a buzzword any more with Liberals, Neo-Progressives and New-Left types. The fact that they apply it to a communist should be evidence that they really don't even understand the meaning of the word.

Anymore it means anyone who disagrees with them. Kind of like how they use fascist.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The only irony I see is someone who is factual claiming to be a feminist. That being said, she is a feminist of the old order--that is to say a Gender Egalitarian.

I was more amused by a Marxist quoting anything the AEI hand a hand in creating.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Hillary Clinton ran against someone....oh what was his name...I can't seem to remember...who had far less experience than she back in 2008. She still lost the Democratic Primary to him.

Experience is not the end all and be all of selecting a presidential nominee. When you have experience, you also have a record. Hillary's record is not good...well let me say it plainly. Not good for her. For the GOP she's their dream candidate. I'm sure even Bob Dole gets hard (without Viagra) at the thought of Hillary running, and I'm not saying he finds her attractive. He's ancient but as far as I'm aware he hasn't gone blind and deaf....well at least not yet.

CONTEXT! I was responding to the argument that she had no experience except as Bill's wife. I still don't support her, but bullshit needs to be addressed.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It will go with whoever wins the Democratic nomination in 2016, whether Clinton or Sanders.

I think the issue boils down to enthusiasm. The black community tends to vote sporadically, so low turn-out is not unlikely. BLM could have an impact. but that's far from clear at this point. If they do get involved and their involvement has impact, I suspect that it will form itself as a call to non-participation.

This is already a weird election, so more weirdness seems par for the course.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I've been wondering, what is a reactionary and why is being called one an insult?
Serious question.

Try this as more generic answer. Note: no definition is likely to be either totally wrong or totally right.

If the central tenant of conservatism is to conserve and thwart change, then a reactionary reacts to progress by harkening back to a status quo ante ... in most cases to an idyllic past that never existed. Reactionaries tend to be fearful of the world as it is and terrified of the world that's coming. At least that's the implication and the source of the insult.

Most of the names for the political philosophies start-out as descriptive. Liberals want to liberalize the world, reducing constraints. Libertarians do as well, though the two differ strongly on what that means. Progressives seek progress, which changes with time as it must. Unfortunately, none of the terms has substance, so what is to be conserved or liberated often differs between living generations, making definition impossible.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

If that's the case, why is the term applied to me on a regular basis?

You harken back to an idyllic time similar to the 1950s-as-advertised, but with better technology. Judging by your posts, I doubt you're happy with things as they are. That makes you a reactionary, albeit a common variety in modern OECD countries.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Did Obama's obvious lack of experience keep him from being elected? Republicans aren't the only ones pointing out his obvious lack of experience. I didn't see one of slickest and shrewdest politicians in American history. I saw average politician who was only effective when he had a super majority. Now, I don't take issue with your love and admiration for the man. It's quite obvious that you and I judge him differently. I see him making millions from speaking to liberals, promoting liberal views, supporting liberal agenda's and book sales.

No, he was quite shrewed to use good strategy to defeat the Clinton machine in a very close primary election. He was able to get a lot done when he had the support he needed. No-one could have accomplished anything more with the fanatical, stubborn opposition he faced. It was a situation as impossible as the attempted compromises before the civil war. Republicans were as intractible as the southern dixies were. Even Lincoln couldn't handle them without a war.

I'm going to split the baby, and argue that Obama had and still has real political chops, but his lack of experience hurt him badly in office. Almost all he's accomplished had a mentor involved, like Ted Kennedy, or has come late in his Presidency after the painful learning was absorbed. That's unfortunate, because it made him much less bold than he needed to be, when boldness may have paid-off, while accepting of thin gruel when he was too new to pull the levers himself.

He was drafted into the job. If he had said no, the wait to run would have been long. A Dem was going to win in '08, because 2 failed wars, Katrina and the financial implosion guaranteed it. The soonest he would have had a shot would have been 2016, and that was iffy. I don't fault him for running at all.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Reactionary is a buzzword any more with Liberals, Neo-Progressives and New-Left types. The fact that they apply it to a communist should be evidence that they really don't even understand the meaning of the word.

Anymore it means anyone who disagrees with them. Kind of like how they use fascist.

I call him a reactionary all the time, and yes, I do know what it means. He lives in an idyllic past. That meets my threshold.

FWIW, my brother has similar if not virtually identical opinions.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't accept the idea that every 4T has to resolve the issues that triggered it.

Can you give a counterexample?

If the impetus is too small and the opposing factions too well balance, then the result can be a muddle that hardens into a melancholy 1T. That would make the next 2T absolutely critical.

Not necessarily. If this happens, application of Occam's razor would give you the result that there is no 4T, because there is no S&H generational cycle.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Reactionary is a buzzword any more with Liberals, Neo-Progressives and New-Left types. The fact that they apply it to a communist should be evidence that they really don't even understand the meaning of the word.

Anymore it means anyone who disagrees with them. Kind of like how they use fascist.

I had thought it seemed like a variant of "argumentam ad Hitlerum."

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Can you give a counterexample?

No, not really. The closest might be the British experience during the 19th century, at the height of their hegemonic power. But even that had resolution. It's arguable that the ACW masked the first crisis of the Industrial Age, which then manifest itself during the following cycle. I firmly believe that the pre-industrial cycles are not good models for modernity. The pace of life was slower and more deliberate, though certainly no less rash. In fact, rash behavior could be tolerated because time for reflection was always available if not always used.

Today, the margin of error has shrunk, the stakes appear higher, whether this is true is still to be seen, and the tools to control and avoid control are manifestly more powerful. Add the no-nothing factor that is currently playing, and the equally oblivious behavior in other parts of the world. These are certainly elements of impending disaster, yet we have had other triggers in the recent past that simply fizzled. These may as well.

Outliers do occur. If we can have years without winters, why are saecula special in that regard? Perhaps this 4T will be The Great Ennui, ending in a sigh.

Originally Posted by Mikebert...

Not necessarily. If this happens, application of Occam's razor would give you the result that there is no 4T, because there is no S&H generational cycle.

Fighting to a draw is rare outside the spots arena, but it's not impossible. Occam's Razor always applies, but it is a statistical tool. High probability is not the same as certainty.