My understanding is you're hoping for a 4T conflict on par with the Civil War.Originally Posted by Kinser79
If that's the basis for your GOP vote, it would be helpful to your readers ( most of whom I assume respect your insights and thinking) to know that.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
And mama?
Stars and Stripes forever and like father like son.
+ Both are like tatted to the max, man.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
Giovanni Arrighi (see https://www.tni.org/es/node/11001), who along with Immanuel Wallerstein has developed World Systems Theory, http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/robi...ns_article.pdf , https://books.google.com/books?id=VR...summer&f=false sees the prosperity of the 1990s as very similar to the "Indian Summer" of Edwardian Great Britain, the result of inflows of capital from Europe to the United States (much as capital inflows bolstered the prosperity of Great Britain in the 1900s and then, via British investments, the United States). Like the '19 oughts", the Clinton years brought modest gains for working Americans and tinkering at the edges of financialisation that did not change the underlying dynamic--the early stages of a 3T. The Gulf War was analogous to the Boer War."as millions more Americans entered the middle class and real wages grew, President Clinton also met his goal of spending less on tax breaks for the wealthy and debt services—and giving the middle class more room to spend and grow the economy instead. And for the first time in 30 years, incomes of the bottom 20 percent of the workforce rose nearly as much as the top 20 percent, and the number of people living in poverty actually declined."
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...clinton-years/
Which is to say that the similarities between the two may bolster Generational theories of history. Generational theories after all, complement World Systems Theory once we realise that just because there is a World System dosen't mean that all nations are forced to run on the same generational clock.
PPP Poll: Trump Has 14-Point Lead in New Hampshire
By Greg Richter | Wednesday, 06 Jan 2016 06:46 PM
National GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump is leading in the latest Public Policy Polling at 29 percent support among likely primary voters.
Here are the results for the 12 Republicans still in the race:
Donald Trump: 29 percent
Marco Rubio: 15 percent
Chris Christie: 11 percent
John Kasich: 11 percent
Jeb Bush: 10 percent
Ted Cruz: 10 percent
Ben Carson: 4 percent
Carly Fiorina: 4 percent
Rand Paul: 3 percent
Mike Huckabee: 1 percent
Rick Santorum: 1 percent
Jim Gilmore: Less than 1 percent
On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton maintains a slight edge over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Hillary Clinton: 47 percent
Bernie Sanders: 44 percent
Martin O'Malley: 3 percent
The poll talked to 515 likely Republican primary voters and 480 likely Democratic primary voters January 4-6.
The margin of error is ± 4.3 percent for the Republicans and ± 4.5 percent for the Democrats.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trum...#ixzz3waWzgxtd
Personally I tend to think it does, probably because I lean towards astrology, whose planetary cycles correspond to the length of the saeculum, at least in modern times, and because I think we do live in a globalized world now. Longer saecula and different clocks for different nations are relics of the "agricultural age" when generations didn't change much and far fewer people were involved in the saeculum, and when (correspondingly) the 3 outer "saecular" planets were unknown and thus (according to astrology) less meaningful. Uranus' orbit takes 83-84 years (= the saeculum), and Neptune's and Pluto's orbits are 2x and 3x Uranus'.
I think the Clinton years were an indian summer and have said so here, yes I agree. The analogy to Edwardian Britain is neat. However, I always thought that the analogy for the Gulf War was World War I; the Boer War was 92 years before the Gulf War, which makes the Boer War a bit early, and there was no Boer War II; it didn't lead to anything later. The 3T, having begun in 1984 (some push it back to 1980) means that Clinton was not early 3T, but mid-3T; but yes it was typical 3T in that his policies were closer to tinkering rather than systemic change. So analogous although not exact. I of course would attribute the "modest gains for working Americans" of the 1990s" (a bit more than modest perhaps) to Clinton's policies, not to capital inflows from Europe which I don't think happened. That would be trickle-down economics anyway; "capital" doesn't trickle down to workers in the age of 3T Reaganomics.
The results in Iowa could have an impact in NH.
If Cruz takes Iowa, that could cause him to have enough gain in NH to take second place, effectively ending the runs for Bush and Christie (I assume Kasich would drop out as well; already, no one cares about Fiorina, Carson or the other clowns). That leaves Rubio as the establishment candidate going into Super Tuesday. It's possible that Rubio could balance out the combined Trump and Cruz bagger votes, but since Super Tuesday does NOT include Florida but does include states with very high percentage of baggers, it's more than likely to end the Rubio and the Establishment's run for the nomination. From there, that leaves the Establishment with choosing between Trump and Cruz or just sitting this one out (since they are the Establishment, running as 3rd party is not likely). I see them splitting between the three choices (Trump, Cruz, staying home) - the result doesn't matter in the end with the general election. I think the Establishment will eventually come around to 2016 as being the election that teaches their sheeple that they can not win without an Establishment candidate; it will likely take them the 2020 election to see they can't win regardless.
Likewise, a Clinton win in Iowa could translate to a larger margin in NH and a final win. A win in both places assures her a win in SC. A win in all three, and talk turns to Bernie's chances as her VP which is unlikely to happen. Once that becomes clear, the talk will be about one of the Castro brothers as VP and which SCOTUS members' arteries are hardening up the quickest.
For those in the know, by Iowa but certainly by NH, the only interesting part of the boxing card will be Trump v. Cruz and Scalia v. Thomas
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
Very likely, but it does not dominate it. NH goes its own way and usually has different results than Iowa. They are equally influential, and NH has the better record of forecasting nominees.
It's interesting to speculate. I of course have my "crystal ball" to help me. Bush rising in NH suggests he will probably hang in for a while. His high horoscope score can't be forgotten. The Virgos in the race will probably stay in too a couple more months at least (lucky Jupiter is in Virgo this winter and spring). Christie, Fiorina and Carson are in that category, so they may get enough votes in Iowa and/or NH to convince themselves (or delude themselves) not to quit right away. I don't even think Santorum will quit yet; that's an outlandish prediction, but I'm sticking to it. They aren't going to win though. Yes, this year is teaching the Republican Establishment some hard lessons, and they have more to learn.If Cruz takes Iowa, that could cause him to have enough gain in NH to take second place, effectively ending the runs for Bush and Christie (I assume Kasich would drop out as well; already, no one cares about Fiorina, Carson or the other clowns). That leaves Rubio as the establishment candidate going into Super Tuesday. It's possible that Rubio could balance out the combined Trump and Cruz bagger votes, but since Super Tuesday does NOT include Florida but does include states with very high percentage of baggers, it's more than likely to end the Rubio and the Establishment's run for the nomination. From there, that leaves the Establishment with choosing between Trump and Cruz or just sitting this one out (since they are the Establishment, running as 3rd party is not likely). I see them splitting between the three choices (Trump, Cruz, staying home) - the result doesn't matter in the end with the general election. I think the Establishment will eventually come around to 2016 as being the election that teaches their sheeple that they can not win without an Establishment candidate; it will likely take them the 2020 election to see they can't win regardless.
Would Super Tuesday end Rubio's bid? Looks like a possibility, but since Rubio will still be doing OK nationally, probably not in my estimation. Rubio is also considered a tea party candidate too. He is Establishment only by comparison to Cruz and Trump, but his views are very right wing, although he has the ability to deceive some people into thinking otherwise, and he does have an hispanic advantage. His militarism has an appeal these days too in strong tea-party states. I still think Rubio has the better shot than Cruz for the nomination, and certainly Rubio has a shot at winning the general and Cruz does not.
Sanders will do best in NH, whatever happens in Iowa. But, I think Sanders has to win Iowa to have a real shot. Otherwise, although possible, a Sanders nomination seems unlikely. Sanders could well win NH even if he falls short in Iowa, but NH alone may not be enough to boost him nationally. As a Virgo with a great horoscope score, he still has a real chance. An upset is not out of the question.Likewise, a Clinton win in Iowa could translate to a larger margin in NH and a final win. A win in both places assures her a win in SC. A win in all three, and talk turns to Bernie's chances as her VP which is unlikely to happen. Once that becomes clear, the talk will be about one of the Castro brothers as VP and which SCOTUS members' arteries are hardening up the quickest.
Bernie, I don't see as VP material; as a revolutionary he would have a tough time being subservient to Hillary. He might not feel that he has time left in his life to wait for a chance to run as her successor either, so that is not an attraction for him. I suspect he would feel he could do more to advance his aims by staying off the ticket. The Castro Brothers are not good VP material either, of course. I covered that before.
Take the Rage Quiz!
Here's the headline -
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pres...ricans-n488636
But what's really cool is that it has a link to where you too can take the rage quiz and compare your anger!Poll: Whites and Republicans Rank as Angriest Americans
Oh, and imagine the level of rage by this time next year.
Then denial, depression, acceptance...
Last edited by playwrite; 01-07-2016 at 05:13 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
If it becomes a race between Trump and Cruz (who may well become running mates--Trump is definitely courting Cruz), the Koch Bros. may sit this one out (although I can see Adelson becoming enthusiastic about Cruz) but Wall Street will coalesce around Hillary, who as a liberal interventionist supports the kind of imperial foreign policy that they are comfortable with. Wall Street actually seems to be most comfortable with divided government. A New Democrat president promoting neo-imperialist foreign policy balancing out a Republican Congress. Wall Streeters have shown themselves from the last 8 years to be too brainwashed to think of doing anything other than what they have been doing until the FBI slaps the cuffs on them and reads them their rights. Think Enron. And Countrywide.
To me it seems like over the course of the 2T there was a shift in opinion among the economic Powers That Be in which they stopped being worried about appeasing the working class with concessions to prevent a revolution, probably due to the decline of the Marxist Left because of the McCarthyist purges and due to Cold War propaganda making Americans immune to Marxist political activism.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
It’s official: You’re only a little angry.
According to an analysis of your responses, at least fifty of your fellow Americans are angier (sic) than you.
Don't count on Hillary, if elected surviving her term. There have been plenty of reports of Hillary being in ill health, (mostly from the tabloids, but the tabloids are often right about this sort of thing). Things like strokes and more substantially, alcoholism (if elected, Hillary could be the most unstable and substance addicted President since JFK). Hillary's "victory dance" over Gaddafi's death illustrates her instability and we can expect the Republicans to play it back again and again in the general election if Hillary gets the nomination. (Or maybe earlier if Trump feels the need to bring that up early and risk overcooking his goose by boosting Sanders against Hillary).
One of the most interesting things I saw in this campaign was last night's interview in which Trump talked about Cruz's citizenship. Trump was literally asking about Cruz's citizenship in what actually sounded like a constructive way, urging Cruz to seek some sort of declaratory judgement that he IS a "natural born citizen" rather than have the Democrats (read Hillary) bring it up in the General campaign if he is the nominee. Trump was displaying that a) he IS an adult and can deliver a nuanced answer to a question rather than just sound bites and b) that he "likes" Cruz with the subtext that he sees Cruz as a possible running mate, keeping what is an apparent majority coalition of Republican voters together that would be highly formidable against the Democrats. Trump was actually sounding like a potential President last night.
I watched this happen in real time. The beginning of the end was the Civil Rights movement, which took center stage in the early '60s and stayed there. As social justice concerns began to hold the attention of the politicos, economic justice issues became the purview of business and the labor unions. At the time, both were strong, so this was an even fight. Eventually, the Vietnam War joined civil rights on the center stage, so economics got pushed even further to the back.
Then, the Saudi oil embargo brought the economy back on stage, but the concerns were different. Now, it was a universal burden applied by an outside force. This is also about the time that business first raised the arguments that they needed concessions to keep costs down and employment high -- a line they're using to this day. Of course, business no longer feels the need to be humble. Now it makes demands. 40 years of pro-business policies make for serious hubris.
Very rarely does any major change happen in one fell swoop. It happens through little changes over long periods of time. Don't expect this to be different. Inertia has moved the center far to the right, and it hasn't come to a full stop yet. That has to happen first, and the first inklings are out there now. As little as 10 years ago, Bernie Sanders wouldn't have been able to get a hearing, to say nothing of a substantial following. He's still preaching to the choir, but the choir is finally growing.
We'll see if that's enough to create real change in the near future. Wait too long, and the opportunity will slip away.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
From the start in 1T the Cold War was all about conflating the New Deal with communism and rolling back the New Deal. The USSR (whose maneuvers under Stalin at least (Communism taking over in China was not part of Stalin's script any more than it was a part of the American script) was primarily defensive or counter-offensive after the Nazi invasion. Contrary to what we have been taught in school, Stalin treated "socialism in one country" as if socialism was the USSR's intellectual property. Stalin had no desire to see Communism spread elsewhere (permanent revolution was Trotsky's schtick and one of the reason Stalin had Trotsky murdered in Mexico) and was perfectly willing to reach a detente with the West after WWII. Stalin's successors felt differently but that was after 8 years of threat of war from a US which was mainly going through a domestic "thermidor" reaction to Roosevelt's revolution.
And much of that counter-revolution came out of the South, which was trying (and failing miserably at) putting the cork of African American aspirations after fighting in WWII back in the bottle. Taft-Hartley, which curbed the power of labour unions was passed over President Truman's veto by a coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats who found unions anathema because they "would have whites calling n**rs "brother". The South could stop unions from coming in and could hold off civil rights until African American populations were reduced by continued African American migration north enough to keep the South conservative but they could not stop civil rights or the eventual erosion of racism. In the process, the South was where the seeds of current conservativism was planted including the rise of the Religious Right in the funding of conservative ministries like Billy Hargis and even Billy Graham by business interest donations in order to define Christianity against "godless Communism", creating a religious revival highly atypical of 1T for GI Civics. The 50s, for example was when "under God" got inserted into the Constitution. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's militant atheism which managed to get school prayer declared unconstitutional was a pushback against this state sponsored religiousity.
It's all a matter of balance. The New Deal went too far in many respects, and needed correction. Income tax rates were obscenely, and counter-productively high. Bigger government is not the answer to anything. The answer is correct regulation (also not easy because many regulations harm small business, entrepreneurs and startups more than the big businesses they want to compete with) , and enforcement of those laws, along with immigration law. Smart, strategic regulation of the financial markets is particularly needed. "Too Big To Fail" obviously being the most common example of the problem.
A bigger government with more taxes and redistribution will just suffocate the economy more, as it did in the 1930s before all of the excess programs of the New Deal were terminated.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987
The tabloids had Elizabeth Taylor dying about thirty years before she did die. I am surprised that they don't still have stories about her imminent demise.
With the tabloids -- a broken clock is right half the time.
Millions of Americans were delighted about the death of Moammar Qaddafi.Hillary's "victory dance" over Gaddafi's death illustrates her instability and we can expect the Republicans to play it back again and again in the general election if Hillary gets the nomination. (Or maybe earlier if Trump feels the need to bring that up early and risk overcooking his goose by boosting Sanders against Hillary).
One of the most interesting things I saw in this campaign was last night's interview in which Trump talked about Cruz's citizenship. Trump was literally asking about Cruz's citizenship in what actually sounded like a constructive way, urging Cruz to seek some sort of declaratory judgement that he IS a "natural born citizen" rather than have the Democrats (read Hillary) bring it up in the General campaign if he is the nominee.
If it has been pig-headed of Republicans to bring up the question with President Obama, then it wi9ll be wrong to do so with Ted Cruz. If elected, Tec Cruz will have much to hold against him.
It's not a clear majority.Trump was displaying that a) he IS an adult and can deliver a nuanced answer to a question rather than just sound bites and b) that he "likes" Cruz with the subtext that he sees Cruz as a possible running mate, keeping what is an apparent majority coalition of Republican voters together that would be highly formidable against the Democrats. Trump was actually sounding like a potential President last night.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 01-08-2016 at 11:11 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
I'm not 100% sold on any of the candidates, including Trump and Cruz, despite what some here would probably assume. But I think Trump is the most likely next president. His skills are formidable. He has practically defeated Hillary with a flick of his wrist before the general election has even started (even though those not paying attention may not realize it yet).
No election is a contest of ideal candidates, but rather a choice between the available alternatives. I don't 100% trust him or agree with him on every issue, but I think the only one who can stop Trump is Trump.
S&H factors into this as well. Trump is the only candidate that fits the description of a 4T. Certainly not Hillary or Jeb. I doubt they envisioned him when they dreamed up the "Gray Champion", but it may be what we end up with. The Blond/Orange Champion. LOL.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 01-07-2016 at 11:15 PM.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987
I'm not so sure the New Deal went too far. If anything, the New Deal was hobbled by the need to appease the South and not interfere with Jim Crow.
Taxes can be a lot higher without suffocating business. American business had some of it's best years under Eisenhower's 93% top income tax bracket regime. Business executives did quite well making just 30 times the median income for their firms instead of the current 360 times the median income. Living large was frowned upon. The US had a middle class that could expand and buy consumer goods. We did well with a lot of little banks (most states banned branch banking) and banks holding the mortgages they wrote until they were paid off too. High tariffs (and later import quotas) protected domestic industry. Despite the existence of the UN, economic nationalism was expected and not considered a vice in the 50s and 60s.
The biggest contradiction in the New Deal (what made the New Deal a deal) was the bargain at the heart of it. In return for tolerating labour organising (which much of business tolerated only as long as it was compelled to), business got relaxation of antitrust enforcement and the ability to form de facto cartels (Big 4 steel automakers, Big 5 cars, Seven Sisters oil ect.) that were supposed to engage in "sweetheart contracts" with unions. State laws that had protected wholesalers and retailers by banning chain stores and requiring retailers to buy from authorised dealers went by the boards in the 30s with the exception of the liquor industry and auto dealers.
When the term "gray champion" was coined, men did not colour their hair. LOL.
Trump
Yes, Trump reminds me of a "class traitor" Roosevelt. Teddy as well as FDR. Hillary reminds me of Alfred E. Smith in drag. Definitely 3T and actually dangerous, since she still is living in the 1990s and still does not take Russia seriously or expect Russia to go to war if pushed. Which is a dangerous mistake because Russia is 4T and Putin is a 4T President too. (As is, by the way, China's Xi Jinp'ing too.) We talk about repeats of 2008 and possible economic collapse but the worst danger is of nations "sleepwalking" into a 4T war the way they did WWI (which was a 4T war for European nations even if it turned out to be only a 3T war for the US, coming as it did 100 years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars). Of all the candidates, Trump, who has displayed a wish to re-examine American treaty commitments and abrogate those treaties not in the national interest is probably the least likely to get us into such a war followed by Bernie Sanders.
We need to start looking at treaties, economic and defence as subject to revision, reservation and repeal according to national interest instead of as permanent feudal obligations that must remain to the end of time. This is Trump's strongest point.
Last edited by MordecaiK; 01-08-2016 at 12:47 AM. Reason: addition
You can't get more wrong than this, folks...
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Kinser will refuse to hear it, but Stalinist Russian "communism" was just thinly veiled Russian imperialism spun as if it were somehow any different from American imperialism, Stalin was the Russian Revolution's own Thermidorean Reaction and return to standard Russian autocracy, driven by the self interest of the state economic bureaucracy (who ran the Soviet economy as one big capitalist corporation) at the expense of the workers and the peasants.
Taft Hartley and McCarthyism has been an absolute disater for American unions. The first make striking much less effective and the later destroyed the radical leftist political foundation of unionism and lead to the unions to degenerate into corrupt, self-interested, exclusivist organizations that alienated younger workers. And you are absolutely correct on the connection between anti-union sentiment and Southern racism, a common tactic was to threaten any workers who threatened to strike and form a union was to threaten to fire all of them and hire black people.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Mikebert posted some interesting stuff a while back about how the ultra-high tax rates were not meant to be actually paid, but instead were there to force the economic elites to reinvest their profits back into the real economy, when Reagan's tax cuts happened suddenly it became more profitable to invest in the Wall Street Casino, instead.
The cartelization of the economy was a result of the general zeitgeist of the Great Power Saeculum towards economic centralization and centralized economic planning, which, couter to common assumptions on the modern Right, was popular all across the political spectrum, not just the Left. The last Awakening played a major role in triggering a backlash to such cartelization.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
They also did not wear ferrets on their heads.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Obama is Al Smith in blackface fits more, I think. Both are/were big city machine politicians.Teddy as well as FDR. Hillary reminds me of Alfred E. Smith in drag
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
