Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Mexicans pretty much came here believing in trickle down economics. They were farmers who were very disappointed by the ejijo system that organised them into cooperatives and then did not help them with the expertise to modernise their agriculture. The ejijo system was very similar to Soviet collective farms and brought in as a substitute for haciendas at about the same time (the 1930s under Cardenas). And they were wiped out by cheap subsidised US corn after NAFTA was implemented. And many started small businesses, such as gardening routes or even recycling metal and cardboard, as well as using skills in building trades taught to them in high school.

But NAFTA is a symptom of laissez faire, trickle-down economics. If they are small businessen, that could be a factor in their belief in it. However, it also depends whether they take up that occupation while they are here; I'm not sure they do. Being a small businessman doesn't automatically mean (s)he swallows trickle-down; it is tough on them too. But they can be deceived by the "self-reliance" slogans.

So Mexicans came to the US thinking individualistically and predisposed to trickle down economics, already quite socially conservative. It's no accident that all Mexican states except the Federal Distirct punish women who seek or get abortions with prison terms.
Central Americans are a whole other kettle of fish. They never had collectivisation and the haciendas have stayed intact down there. And Guatemalans and Salvadoreans have had radical insurgencies that were put down. So except for those who became evangelical Christians, Central Americans are a lot farther to the Left than Mexicans.

Probably, but Mexicans may be further left than Americans. As long as they are poor, they will be.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The Dems and Greens let themselves in for that by their own elitism. In fact, the Green Left is a mirror image of the Republican Right, marrying a basically religious view of the desirability of steady-state limited growth economy with different potential catastrophes raised for it from the threat of overpopulation in the 70s to fear of resource depletion in the late 70s, fear of nuclear power in the late 70s and 80s and now to global warming. While on the local level, environmentalists widened the definition of pollution to include issues of aesthetics (visual pollution) and quickly developed an elite constiituency more concerned about things like stopping construction that offends people and animal rights than protecting working people in places like oil refineries from the ill effects of pollution. It can be argued that in the "abortion wars", the Religious Right learned from and modeled their behaviour on environmentalists.

From what I can see from my fellow Greens is quite the opposite. Environmental Justice is a big concern with them. Look at some of their major candidates too; hardly white liberal elitists.

Too much growth is dangerous; human overpopulation and over-industrialization is like a cancer.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But NAFTA is a symptom of laissez faire, trickle-down economics. If they are small businessen, that could be a factor in their belief in it. However, it also depends whether they take up that occupation while they are here; I'm not sure they do. Being a small businessman doesn't automatically mean (s)he swallows trickle-down; it is tough on them too. But they can be deceived by the "self-reliance" slogans.


Probably, but Mexicans may be further left than Americans. As long as they are poor, they will be.

One thing that COULD and likely WILL drive Mexicans a LOT further to the Left if it happens would be mass deportations of several million undocumented workers. The Mexican economy is much improved but it cannot absorb so many people (possibly as many as 5 million Americanised Mexicans) without turning far to the Left for emergency reasons. I can think of nothing more likely to bring Lopez Obrador to power than mass deportations. Not to mention becoming anti-American and highly motivated to become an independent powerful alternative to the US. With an economy and a population size (over 100 million) it can build from to do it.
Moving Mexico in the direction of treating the US as an enemy to be contained perhaps through alliances with Russia and/or China would be, from a national security standpoint the most devastating effect of Trump's deportations whatever the domestically felt need in the US to do it. Force Mexico to build a wall to keep people in and Mexico may well build a police state like China's behind it. What a national security nightmare for the US THAT will be.

Originally Posted by Odin

This is a good point. In my persona experience the Environmentalist movement has split into two different factions, the Old Environmentalists, derived from the old Conservationist movement which started out of anger out of the damage caused by poor land use, forest clear-cutting, and pollution; and the modern Greens, who are hyper-ideological urban people with little actual genuine connection with nature (and more often than not see hunters, a lot of whom are "Old Environmentalists", with contempt and even hatred, see Eric as an example).

A lot of people are surprised that the biggest environmental organization in the US is a hunting group, Ducks Unlimited.

Basically, what happened in the late 1960s was some very unsavoury people and causes (neo-Malthusians, former Eugenicists) piggybacked their agendas onto dealing with a very real problem--the huge amount of uncontrolled pollution that had been generated by America's postwar economic expansion. President Nixon, by the way, bought this agenda hook, line and sinker and it informed his approach to environmental issues in the acts he passed (National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act) and the Clean Water Act which passed over Nixon's veto. And Roe v Wade. Who knew that one of the greatest impetus for abortion rights was a wish to lower the birthrate? People in the US were seriously talking about mandatory limits on number of children ala China in the early 1970s.
And during this time, elements of the counter-culture glommed onto this cause adding a Prophet Generation cast to environmental issues from the "back to the land" movement. Gandhist "soft style economics" (Split wood not atoms). Opposition to nuclear power on moral purity grounds. Opposition to capitalism based on moral opposition to economic growth. It was by defining the terms of the environmental movement in very authoritarian zero-sum terms that some very radical elements of the American counter-culture found the most purchase and power in opposing the growing conservative backlash against the counter-culture. Found things like legal frameworks that had been written into environmental legislation that could be used to advance their agenda.
Pollution could be controlled but how pure is pure? And for whom? Which is how we got things like blockades against oil pipelines without support for oil patch and refinery workers who are being made sick and dying (not to mention nearby communities) by low level emissions and accidents. Caring more about fish and birds and animals than people directly affected. There's plenty wrong with the oil and gas industry in terms of occupational safety that has largely escaped environmentalist notice and has been treated as an afterthought.
And ironically, there have been some inadvertent successes. The ban on leaded gasoline is thought to be most responsible for ending the crime wave of the 1990s and 2000s. Something that was totally inadvertent. See http://www.motherjones.com/environme...-link-gasoline . Who knew that reducing lead in the environment might be more responsible for a lower crime rate than politically still popular "broken windows policing"?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, but people vote in a national frame of mind. Actually, my new moon before election method does show some anomalies in those elections where the electoral college result is different. It does seem to refer to the popular vote more than the electoral. It happened even in 1968 because of the 3rd party bid of Wallace, as I mentioned, but also in the Grover Cleveland elections. But in most cases, the two results are the same. Even in 2000, both methods showed Bush winning by a narrow margin, even though Gore won the popular vote. In the new moon method, it was VERY narrow; the closest of all national presidential elections.



Well I do intend to publish it as part of my book. I just have the national level; state by state would be a much bigger job!

A number of observers have noted that economic depressions tend to start, not only just after the Shemittah (Jewish Sabbatical Year) but usually around a month after the Jewish Rosh Hashana (New Year) and Yom Kipppur. Can you see some astrological correlations here?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

PBR,

I read your long rambling post. Most of it is bullshit so a line by line refutation of it is unnecessary. Here is the point when it comes to electoral politics that I don't think you seem to understand. HRC will suppress the vote of non-white, non-liberal voters who typically break Democratic. In many states due to closed primaries those voters who vote in the Democratic primary can vote only for Democratic Candidates in the Primaries. The closed primary system is the norm for most of the country.

In segregationist times, the 'closed primary' implied a whites-only Democratic primary. In current times, a closed primary or caucus means that one must declare one's partisan association at the time of the primary or caucus. Maybe one might be excluded if one misbehaves, as in wearing a "Trump 2016" button to a Democratic caucus or primary.

So how can a 'closed' caucus or primary lead to voter suppression?

As such you can, and will get voters, who will participate in the Democratic Primary, and should HRC win (because she does not appeal to anyone who isn't a Silent or Boomer White Liberal Woman), the Obama coalition will stay home and the GOP will win the Presidency on that alone.

Nothing analogous happened in 2008 or 2012. The PUMA (Party Unity My A$$!) movement amounted to little.

It is safe to recognize that as polarized as America is in political ideology, the GOP has nobody who can poach a significant segment of the Obama coalition.

As to Sanders being an establishment candidate and not wanting to expand the welfare state, I can't see how wanting to expand medicare to include everyone wouldn't expand the welfare state. Nationalizations of businesses are simply out of the question. If Truman couldn't do it, Sander's can't either, and Sanders is no Truman.

America got Medicare because the health insurance business did not want the elderly as customers (much as the auto insurance business does not want to insure alcoholics). I might imagine Medicare being made available to people over 50 as a means of ensuring that one of the cause of age discrimination (health insurance for people over 50 is fiendishly expensive) would make sense. In general, more is spent on medical and nursing-home care of most people in the last year of their lives -- often more than in the rest of that person's life.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Basically, what happened in the late 1960s was some very unsavoury people and causes (neo-Malthusians, former Eugenicists) piggybacked their agendas onto dealing with a very real problem--the huge amount of uncontrolled pollution that had been generated by America's postwar economic expansion. President Nixon, by the way, bought this agenda hook, line and sinker and it informed his approach to environmental issues in the acts he passed (National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act) and the Clean Water Act which passed over Nixon's veto. And Roe v Wade. Who knew that one of the greatest impetus for abortion rights was a wish to lower the birthrate? People in the US were seriously talking about mandatory limits on number of children ala China in the early 1970s.
And during this time, elements of the counter-culture glommed onto this cause adding a Prophet Generation cast to environmental issues from the "back to the land" movement. Gandhist "soft style economics" (Split wood not atoms). Opposition to nuclear power on moral purity grounds.

Therein, lies my friend to GenX's blowback of hating assorted Boom agendas. The above was a literal war on children, (us) . So... come the 1980's we probably unconsciously pulled every lever around to undo the consciousness revolution and then some. I have a few grudges. I'll be dancing on Gloria Steinams, Bella Abzug, and Jane Fonda's graves and pissing on them. I'll also piss on Dr. Ehrlich's as well. They can all go rot in hell. If they had a problem with population, why didn't they themselves pop some cyanide?

Opposition to capitalism based on moral opposition to economic growth. It was by defining the terms of the environmental movement in very authoritarian zero-sum terms that some very radical elements of the American counter-culture found the most purchase and power in opposing the growing conservative backlash against the counter-culture. Found things like legal frameworks that had been written into environmental legislation that could be used to advance their agenda.

James Watt became a generational hero. I liked him in the 1980's , well because I was working for Big Oil.

Pollution could be controlled but how pure is pure? And for whom? Which is how we got things like blockades against oil pipelines without support for oil patch and refinery workers who are being made sick and dying (not to mention nearby communities) by low level emissions and accidents. Caring more about fish and birds and animals than people directly affected. There's plenty wrong with the oil and gas industry in terms of occupational safety that has largely escaped environmentalist notice and has been treated as an afterthought.
[/quote]

That's because there's stupid.

And ironically, there have been some inadvertent successes. The ban on leaded gasoline is thought to be most responsible for ending the crime wave of the 1990s and 2000s. Something that was totally inadvertent. See http://www.motherjones.com/environme...-link-gasoline . Who knew that reducing lead in the environment might be more responsible for a lower crime rate than politically still popular "broken windows policing"?

True that. I think lead was one of several environmental elements that created the huge social pathology list for 1961-1964 cohorts. Lead emissions probably maxxed out right before the ban. The same goes for the nuclear test ban treaty. I think 1962 was the max out year for fall out. The treaty took affect in 1963.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

A number of observers have noted that economic depressions tend to start, not only just after the Shemittah (Jewish Sabbatical Year) but usually around a month after the Jewish Rosh Hashana (New Year) and Yom Kipppur. Can you see some astrological correlations here?

Sept and Oct seem to be legendary in that regard. But it doesn't mean much prediction wise; the important and useful thing is what year they happen; so I don't think much about the month. In that regard, I do pretty well. For example, I predicted the exact month of the 2008 crash here, and the year in my video of my speech from 1998.
https://youtu.be/oKmyB1q3H68
I had predicted it for roughly that era for decades in advance. I wasn't the only one who saw a recession coming in 1990 either, or 1975.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Therein, lies my friend to GenX's blowback of hating assorted Boom agendas. The above was a literal war on children, (us) . So... come the 1980's we probably unconsciously pulled every lever around to undo the consciousness revolution and then some. I have a few grudges. I'll be dancing on Gloria Steinams, Bella Abzug, and Jane Fonda's graves and pissing on them. I'll also piss on Dr. Ehrlich's as well. They can all go rot in hell. If they had a problem with population, why didn't they themselves pop some cyanide?

Why was that? You were part of the Baby Boom. Ehrlich and Steinem at al had no affect on you being born. In fact, the birth rate went down in the late 60s not because of what any feminists and doomsayers said, but because boomer women wanted to wait longer or do other things instead of being baby factories right from the get-go. Children interfered with a fulfilling life. Xers might not have liked that, or felt neglected, but it was a totally understandable attitude.

Families were not so well put together in the 1970s. But the nuclear family of the 1950s was no great shakes either. For Boomers, family was lonely, boring in the extreme, and restricted. For Xers it was broken up, but more permissive. 6 of one and half a dozen of another. I say get over it and make the most of whatever your childhood taught you.

It's the other species who have a problem with our over-population. We kill off all their habitat and think we own the world. Not to mention put a strain on all the Earth's resources. Ehrlich and company probably helped ward off the disaster they predicted. Birth rates are down all over the world. That's a good thing.

True that. I think lead was one of several environmental elements that created the huge social pathology list for 1961-1964 cohorts. Lead emissions probably maxxed out right before the ban. The same goes for the nuclear test ban treaty. I think 1962 was the max out year for fall out. The treaty took affect in 1963.

What about the pathology list for 1950s cohorts? Wouldn't those be factors for them too?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why was that? You were part of the Baby Boom. Ehrlich and Steinem at al had no affect on you being born.

Yes, I was part of the demographic Baby Boom. Also, I know if you count immigration, 1961-1965 is the largest 5 year segment, followed by the 1956-1960 segment. I just remember those wahoos nagging about kids.

In fact, the birth rate went down in the late 60s not because of what any feminists and doomsayers said, but because boomer women wanted to wait longer or do other things instead of being baby factories right from the get-go.

They added to the ambiance though.

Children interfered with a fulfilling life. Xers might not have liked that, or felt neglected, but it was a totally understandable attitude.

Kids can get messages better than most think.

Families were not so well put together in the 1970s. But the nuclear family of the 1950s was no great shakes either. For Boomers, family was lonely, boring in the extreme, and restricted. For Xers it was broken up, but more permissive. 6 of one and half a dozen of another. I say get over it and make the most of whatever your childhood taught you.

We are. We're been walling off things in our personal lives for a long time. First it was exiling deadbeat dads from grandkids and now it's gonna be walling off stuff in the real world. Xer's world round are gonna make lots of walls.

It's the other species who have a problem with our over-population. We kill off all their habitat and think we own the world. Not to mention put a strain on all the Earth's resources. Ehrlich and company probably helped ward off the disaster they predicted. Birth rates are down all over the world. That's a good thing.

OK, how's about they move to hmmmm.... Kenton, Oklahoma and live off grid. I want them all to have 0 footprint. I'll call it Rag's Wahoo Ranch. They can eat cactus and creosote bushes, have one of those old timey windmills for water, and dig real shitholes for the bathroom.

What about the pathology list for 1950s cohorts? Wouldn't those be factors for them too?

Yes, and it is. Jonesers as a whole had them. If anything, social pathologies are a defining trait of all Jonesers.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

One thing that COULD and likely WILL drive Mexicans a LOT further to the Left if it happens would be mass deportations of several million undocumented workers. The Mexican economy is much improved but it cannot absorb so many people (possibly as many as 5 million Americanised Mexicans) without turning far to the Left for emergency reasons. I can think of nothing more likely to bring Lopez Obrador to power than mass deportations. Not to mention becoming anti-American and highly motivated to become an independent powerful alternative to the US. With an economy and a population size (over 100 million) it can build from to do it.
Moving Mexico in the direction of treating the US as an enemy to be contained perhaps through alliances with Russia and/or China would be, from a national security standpoint the most devastating effect of Trump's deportations whatever the domestically felt need in the US to do it. Force Mexico to build a wall to keep people in and Mexico may well build a police state like China's behind it. What a national security nightmare for the US THAT will be.

Look, I'm going to make this simple because only simple minds think that Trump is offering more than just bluster on this topic. Deporting 12 million immigrants isn't going to happen. It does not matter if these illegal immigrants are from Latin America, or China, or Ireland. It simply isn't going to happen because in order to actually deport someone you need a place they can be deported to. If nowhere else is going to take these folks then they simply can't be deported.

Add to that, a very large number of these migrants do in fact have US Citizen children. Generally it is not prudent for a state to rid itself of child citizens, not so much because they are useful now but because they are useful later.

All told there simply isn't the logistics to rid the country of 3 million migrants (like Reagan had to deal with in 1986) let alone the 11 or 12 million now. As such the most prudent course of action is in fact assimilation.

Even so, net immigration from Mexico in particular is net negative (that is to say more Mexican migrants are leaving than coming). Why is that happening? Because Mexico has started to develop past the point of subsistance agriculture and the former farmers who were pushed off their land can now get a job in one of Mexico's many fine factories. Factories that thanks to de-industrialization the US now lacks.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Again, there is no difference in OUTCOME between the long and short ball choice. The only difference is the degree of euphoria in the first 6 months and the degree in utter frustration for the rest of the term.

If anything, belief in magic ponies tends to slow actual progress.

If electing Hillary in 2016 leads to some retrograde GOP sweep in 2020, the short-lived euphoria this year will become a tragedy then.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

In segregationist times, the 'closed primary' implied a whites-only Democratic primary. In current times, a closed primary or caucus means that one must declare one's partisan association at the time of the primary or caucus. Maybe one might be excluded if one misbehaves, as in wearing a "Trump 2016" button to a Democratic caucus or primary.

Generally speaking even in closed primary states one can vote in the Democratic Primary even if one wears a Trump 2016 button. What matters from a ballot perspective is not the campaign button but the Party one is registered to. Or at least that has been the case in CT, NY, NJ, IL, and FL and every other state I've ever resided long enough in to require a voter registration.

So how can a 'closed' caucus or primary lead to voter suppression?

It doesn't. What will cause non-white, non-liberals who typically vote Democrat to stay home is not liking/not trusting HRC. The format of the primary is not in question here, even if I would favor open primaries and open caucuses to be the norm rather than the exception.

Nothing analogous happened in 2008 or 2012. The PUMA (Party Unity My A$$!) movement amounted to little.

Because BHO was on the ballot in the General both times. And even if he wasn't, HRC wasn't on the ballot.

It is safe to recognize that as polarized as America is in political ideology, the GOP has nobody who can poach a significant segment of the Obama coalition.

They don't have to. Enough of the Obama Coalition just has to stay home for the Democrats to lose or did you learn nothing from 2010 and 2014?

America got Medicare because the health insurance business did not want the elderly as customers (much as the auto insurance business does not want to insure alcoholics). I might imagine Medicare being made available to people over 50 as a means of ensuring that one of the cause of age discrimination (health insurance for people over 50 is fiendishly expensive) would make sense. In general, more is spent on medical and nursing-home care of most people in the last year of their lives -- often more than in the rest of that person's life.

Not relevant to the point. Both Trump and Sanders want to lower the Medicare age to Zero Years Old, both are offering a massive expansion to the Welfare State although for different reasons. Sanders I expect because of Democratic Socialist reasons has always supported that, Trump from a business perspective sees it more like this: If the state takes care of health care insurance for everyone I can remove that from my bottom line ergo increasing profits.

It is for that reason that industrialized countries that have universal health care (which is all of them except the US) are not so keen on getting rid of said universal health care. The big business types don't want to force employees to have to pay for it like they do in the US (bad for the bottom line), the socialists/progressives/liberals have notions of health care as being a human right.

Here is some clarification of what I think. When I saw Trump will lose in Iowa I mean he will not meet expectations. That is Trump won't lose to Cruz by a few points, but by a lot say 10 or more. If Cruz just edges out Trump that isn't really a loss (since it is what is expected from the polls). If this happens, Kinser is right Trump can save his position as front runner by winning big in NW, as expected.

But if he underperforms in Iowa (as I expect) then that will carry over to underperformance in NH. He could actually narrowly win in NH and still lose, because this will likely translate into underperformance in SC before he gets eviscerated on Super Tuesday. What I expect is Trump underperforms his poll numbers every time actual voting is involved.

And of course he's a demagogue. A demagogue is like a momentum stock in a bubble. They will keep rising until the bubble pops. But bubbles last longer that you have money. Sometimes the bubble doesn't pop until too late and the demagogue wins. That could happen with Trump, but I do not think it will.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I'm not scared of Trump. Two-Thirds of what he has so far suggested is simply undoable. It is bluster, I can deal with bluster all day long. What scares me is 4 years of Bubba Clintion-esque triangulation and a Democrat being in the White House when the business cycle sends us into the next recession which it is due to in 2017. In short, I want the set up to the end of the Tea Party types to happen, and for that to happen the GOP has to have the White House, and hopefully the House and Senate when the shit hits the fan. In short, the strategy should be to make the Republicans fail to save the day when the latest round of bubbles pop.

I agree with this, and for the same reasons.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Look, I'm going to make this simple because only simple minds think that Trump is offering more than just bluster on this topic. Deporting 12 million immigrants isn't going to happen.

Sure it can happen if they want it to. We do have an existing deportation apparatus. The way it works is when police stop folks for traffic or other minor stuff the cops check for legal status. If they don't have it, they get arrested, and if they cannot produce the documentation, they go to a processing center and from which they are deported.

Right now the system is staffed to handle several hundred thousands per annum. If they wanted to spend a lot more they could probably boost it 3 or 4-fold. Over 8 years that might yield a net reduction of perhaps half the undocumented population. If they do that the optics would be probably be good enough to count as keeping a political promise.

Politicians try to fulfill campaign promises more often that one would think. Since mass deportation is probably the #1 promise Trump talks about, I see no reason why he wouldn't do something like this. The Republican Congress would surely authorize the funds (think of the primary challenges they would face if they were soft on immigration by not voting to fund Trump's program). Yes scaling up the program would a logistical problem, but then so was the Iraq war and that didn't stop the Republicans from doing it.

As for citizen children they would either leave with their parents or stay here with legal relatives, as they do now. Obama ordered that when certain classes of undocumented immigrants are identified by local officials , they are not to be deported. Trump would surely rescind that order, and get much more funding to increase the rate of deportations as much as feasible.

So yes, he will probably deport a very large number of people. The GOP has really painted themselves into a corner on this. If they come to power they pretty much have to follow through now.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Living in California, I can see the huge diversity in the Latino population. Latinos are not only divided by country of origin but by racial differences--and racism--in those countries of origin. There is a huge difference between crillo "white" Mexicans (the faces we see on telenovelas) who often check "white" on ethnicity questionnaires, mestizos (mixed white/Indian) and Native American Mixtec, Zapotec, Nahautl and from Central America, Maya and Quiche, some of whom come to the US not even speaking Spanish. And African-Latinos who are more common amongst Dominican migrants and Puerto Ricans and Cubans than amongst Mexican migrants but by no means unknown.I have even run across Mexicans descended from European immigrants who came to Mexico in the 19th and early 20th Centuries. Filipinos are Asians but are also Latinos.
And there are major differences in state of reception. Latinos have experienced much more bigotry in California, where a concerted effort historically was made to transplant a white, conservative Republican Midwestern society than in Texas. It is interesting to note that the patrolman who arrested and abused Sandra Bland was Latino. And in Texas (and New Mexico) there has long been a wealthy Latino Establishment (generally white Hispanic and often "anusi" crypto-Jewish) that has identified with the Republican Party and conservatism. Which is why the Bushes have fought the Republican base on immigration reform so hard. Being majority minority, if Texas did not attract at least a segment of it's Latino population the state would have "flipped" liberal Democratic years ago.
The same differences exist in other states. Arizona is very nativist with huge tensions between Latinos and Native Americans on one hand and Mormons and older whites on the other. Neighbouring New Mexico, as the name suggests, is largely Latino and is a swing state because of variations in the Latino population.
Religiously, Latinos are also in flux. A huge number of both Mexican and Central American migrants have either converted to evangelical Christian (or even LDS) in the US or have converted in Latin America. The push away from Catholicism to Norte Americano Evangelical denominations started with migrants becoming Evangelical and then returning to their native countries and spreading the faith, not from organised missionary activity. And the spread of Evangelical Christianity spread some very individualistic American Republican ideals in Latin America, more in Central America than in Mexico. When conservative Christian Latinos join evangelical churches in the US, they tend to find acceptance and often intermarry with Anglo Christians. Faith trumps race and ethnicity in many cases--more so than say, amongst Korean-American Christians.
So it's not that easy to generalise about how Latinos will vote--if they vote. They still register to vote and vote at rates below the rest of the population. Perhaps one reason may be intimidation--the fear that registering to vote might lead ICE to an undocumented relative.
So how much Latinos will change the US is an open question. Perhaps less than one might think, given the experience of the first American Latino ethnic group--Italians. The degree to which Latinos learn English seems more related to age of immigration than anything else. Young people quickly pick up English and often more than survival fluency while older people have difficulty learning ANY foreign language.( The bilingual-bicultural experience in California (repudiated by referendum, including by Latino voters) was more one of bilingualism being a covert tool for discrimination and segregation and creation of a permanent underclass. California (unlike Quebec with French) never created a university where Spanish was the language of instruction during the bilingual era. Teaching basic classes in Spanish in California from the 60s through the 90s was a not so subtle tool for relegating Latinos to working class jobs. )
Once the immigration issue is resolved, one way or another, Latinos (Mexicans more than Central Americans) may well become more conservative and more Repubican. Here in California there is a contradiction between the interests of a Green coastal Democratic elite (including Hollywood and Silicon Valley to an extent) and a largely Latino working class. Limits on growth make housing unaffordable for poorer people. Without the threat of deportation (and bigotry in the California Republican base which generational change is attenuating) these contradictions are likely to become more obvious, perhaps putting California back in political play.

These are some good insights and certainly your noting of the ignorance of nearly all Gringos of the bias within Latin America is pretty well-know below the border.

But one needs to keep in mind what Latino groups actually migrate to the US and in what numbers. The elites and near-elites that might have more Conservative values are currently relatively few and far-between.

And there's a shift from Mexico to other immigrants of different origins and while those folks may have even more Conservative religious values than today's Mexicans they are more likely to have Left-leaning economic values.

It's much more likely that we will see a shift on cultural issues (i.e abortion) before we see any significant shift to economic conservatism from Hispanic immigrants. But by the time that cultural shift becomes politically significant, the abortion issue may have been put to rest by a more Progressive SCOTUS under a Dem Prez re-establishing Rov v Wade, and eventually the issue will be put compltely out of its misery by advances in medical science.

What you are missing the most, however, is the reaction of those of Hispanic descent to the increasingly virulence against them from a GOP that is beginning to sense its demise as a national political force. As a cornered animal, the baggers in particularly are going to get much worse than even what we have seen from Trump. There is going to be increasing violence from those practicing "white privilege performance art" against the Hispanic community, whether those Hispanics are FOB or AB. The response from the Hispanic community is going to actually be a very good Conservative value - law-and-order.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sanders isn't winning, though it would be interesting. With Clinton in office, your prediction is almost surely correct, with the resulting nothing-burger being laid at Hillary's feet. The GOP can be assholes and get rewarded by being handed 2020 on a platter. I can't think of a worse result.

You don't get a better SCOTUS if you don't get a willing Senate to match a progressive POTUS. I don't see that happening this cycle or next.

My first point is that whether it's Sanders or Clinton, the game will be played exactly the same way by the GOP.

My second point is Sanders, with his in-the-face approach being just as naive as Obama's let's-just-be-rational, will get his head handed to him in that game.

On the other hand, HC will collect GOP gonads and have periodic nut-crushing parties to celebrate victories including making the SCOTUS progressive.

Your basic problem is that you saw the "triangulation game" when the objective on the Dem side was kumbaya.

That's NOT Hillary's objective - from day one, her's will be to crush GOP gonads. And that will be very good for the country.

The source of the GOP's Clinton Derangment Syndrome is that they fear her... and for good reason. Payback is a bitch.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Mexicans pretty much came here believing in trickle down economics. They were farmers who were very disappointed by the ejijo system that organised them into cooperatives and then did not help them with the expertise to modernise their agriculture. The ejijo system was very similar to Soviet collective farms and brought in as a substitute for haciendas at about the same time (the 1930s under Cardenas). And they were wiped out by cheap subsidised US corn after NAFTA was implemented. And many started small businesses, such as gardening routes or even recycling metal and cardboard, as well as using skills in building trades taught to them in high school.
So Mexicans came to the US thinking individualistically and predisposed to trickle down economics, already quite socially conservative. It's no accident that all Mexican states except the Federal Distirct punish women who seek or get abortions with prison terms.
Central Americans are a whole other kettle of fish. They never had collectivisation and the haciendas have stayed intact down there. And Guatemalans and Salvadoreans have had radical insurgencies that were put down. So except for those who became evangelical Christians, Central Americans are a lot farther to the Left than Mexicans.

Whoops, I didn't see that last line until after I responded to your earlier post.

You obviously know your stuff.

Two thumbs up!

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I'm not scared of Trump. Two-Thirds of what he has so far suggested is simply undoable. It is bluster, I can deal with bluster all day long. What scares me is 4 years of Bubba Clintion-esque triangulation and a Democrat being in the White House when the business cycle sends us into the next recession which it is due to in 2017. In short, I want the set up to the end of the Tea Party types to happen, and for that to happen the GOP has to have the White House, and hopefully the House and Senate when the shit hits the fan. In short, the strategy should be to make the Republicans fail to save the day when the latest round of bubbles pop.

You're looking for a GOPer-in-the-WH catastrophe significant enough to kill off the GOP, and you don't fear that???

Typically it is the Far Right (e.g. Cynic Hero) who has these visions of a zombie apocalypse with the huge but unspoken assumption that they personally will survive if not thrive in its aftermath.

Maybe this is one of those times where going so far to one end of the political spectrum one circles back and begins to exhibit the same attributes of the other end of the spectrum?

The thing is, the demise is already underway. 2010 was the equivalent of 1863's Picket Charge, the High Water Mark, turned back by the 2012 re-election of "that man in the WH."

There were lots of important battles post-1863 High Water Mark. Even a draft riot in NYC that I believe one of my great uncles on my Irish side participated in. I'm sure a lot of folks had the feeling then that the 4T was still underway and undecided. And I'm positive that was the view of many Southerners on the losing end long after formal military fighting stopped, and lynching became a pastime. BUT, it was over and the majority of Americans moved on - particularly to the West.

I think its hard to see when a 4T is over when you've been immersed it for some years and the aftermath is just as ugly and uncertain. Particularly tough (and reactionary) if you're on the losing end.

You just want more of it. More revolution. It's in every Far Lefty's DNA. It can be problem, however, not recognizing times have changed. Just ask Trotsky.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

We're been walling off things in our personal lives for a long time. First it was exiling deadbeat dads from grandkids and now it's gonna be walling off stuff in the real world. Xer's world round are gonna make lots of walls.

That's not the way to move on. The way for Xers and Jonesers move on is to dump the resentment over childhood, and thus all the cynicism and pessimism, and instead be ready to embrace the kumbaya and we are the world stuff which boomers projected. Boomer childhoods were not much better. So be idealists, and get going with helping boomer leaders to create the new world by making it work and managing the transition. Serve your community. Fulfill your role in the S&H picture of a fourth turning. And applaud Steinem, Ehrlich and company for reducing the burden on our planet of too many Xer kids. That makes your job a lot easier.

OK, how's about they move to hmmmm.... Kenton, Oklahoma and live off grid. I want them all to have 0 footprint. I'll call it Rag's Wahoo Ranch. They can eat cactus and creosote bushes, have one of those old timey windmills for water, and dig real shitholes for the bathroom.

We all need to reduce our carbon footprint.

Yes, and it is. Jonesers as a whole had them. If anything, social pathologies are a defining trait of all Jonesers.

Yes, but 1950s cohorts includes mid boomers; Jonesers only includes 1958 and after, or at the most 1956 and after. So your theory must account for lead and nuclear testing being factors for all 1950s cohorts.

So this is what people here say that Hillary Clinton and her husband are experts at:

(quote)
In the social sciences, triangulation is often used to indicate that two (or more) methods are used in a study in order to check the results of one and the same subject. "The concept of triangulation is borrowed from navigational and land surveying techniques that determine a single point in space with the convergence of measurements taken from two other distinct points." The idea is that one can be more confident with a result if different methods lead to the same result.
(/quote)

So this term is supposed to represent some kind of dishonest, calculating approach on the part of Hillary Clinton? I don't get it.

Certainly some of you are doing some dangerous "triangulation" of your own, saying "allow things to get much worse in the hope they will then get better if the GOP can be blamed." But meanwhile we have to endure and deal with the results of allowing things to get much worse. Given the results of allowing even further climate change, another right-winger on the Court, and a possible clash of civilizations, plus a worse recession resulting in even more lasting inequality, it seems too high a price to pay. If the GOP gets more power, even now, it will be even harder to dislodge it in 2020.

Remember, my cosmic method indicates that the Democrats will keep the White House indefinitely, if they can get a much better candidate than the GOP in 2024, which seems likely. It shows the party in power keeping the WH in 2016 AND 2020. So we don't really need to play Russian Roulette. We've got the ball now, so let's roll.

Hillary is an "Establishment" politician, so they say. What does that mean?

She is less likely to bring "systemic change" or something like that, you guys say. So, under Hillary, we can expect the system to be the same, but steady progress or change much like under Obama. So, what's wrong with that? Isn't that less risky than "systemic change?" What do we need to do instead; close all the big banks in 2017, for example? Do we really need to do that, or is it enough to make sure that such banks don't crash the economy again, as Hillary proposes?

Personally, I'd like to see Glass Steagall brought back, and too big to fail banks broken up. I'd like to see a speculation tax and other restrictions on Wall Street, as Bernie proposes. But I have a feeling that the time to do these things may have been when Obama was elected; and people might feel that now it would disrupt things too much and cause a recession. So Bernie may not be able to do these things now anyway, even if he brings about his "electoral revolution" and Democrats take over congress.

Hillary is seen as "lacking integrity and trustworthiness." But when asked to give specifics, none of them hold any water. So shouldn't we get over that wrong impression which the media has foisted upon us? She is not lacking integrity compared to any of the other candidates, save Bernie.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So this is what people here say that Hillary Clinton and her husband are experts at:

(quote)
In the social sciences, triangulation is often used to indicate that two (or more) methods are used in a study in order to check the results of one and the same subject. "The concept of triangulation is borrowed from navigational and land surveying techniques that determine a single point in space with the convergence of measurements taken from two other distinct points." The idea is that one can be more confident with a result if different methods lead to the same result.
(/quote)

So this term is supposed to represent some kind of dishonest, calculating approach on the part of Hillary Clinton? I don't get it.

Certainly some of you are doing some dangerous "triangulation" of your own, saying "allow things to get much worse in the hope they will then get better if the GOP can be blamed." But meanwhile we have to endure and deal with the results of allowing things to get much worse. Given the results of allowing even further climate change, another right-winger on the Court, and a possible clash of civilizations, plus a worse recession resulting in even more lasting inequality, it seems too high a price to pay. If the GOP gets more power, even now, it will be even harder to dislodge it in 2020.

Remember, my cosmic method indicates that the Democrats will keep the White House indefinitely, if they can get a much better candidate than the GOP in 2024, which seems likely. It shows the party in power keeping the WH in 2016 AND 2020. So we don't really need to play Russian Roulette. We've got the ball now, so let's roll.

Hillary is an "Establishment" politician, so they say. What does that mean?

She is less likely to bring "systemic change" or something like that, you guys say. So, under Hillary, we can expect the system to be the same, but steady progress or change much like under Obama. So, what's wrong with that? Isn't that less risky than "systemic change?" What do we need to do instead; close all the big banks in 2017, for example? Do we really need to do that, or is it enough to make sure that such banks don't crash the economy again, as Hillary proposes?

Personally, I'd like to see Glass Steagall brought back, and too big to fail banks broken up. I'd like to see a speculation tax and other restrictions on Wall Street, as Bernie proposes. But I have a feeling that the time to do these things may have been when Obama was elected; and people might feel that now it would disrupt things too much and cause a recession. So Bernie may not be able to do these things now anyway, even if he brings about his "electoral revolution" and Democrats take over congress.

Hillary is seen as "lacking integrity and trustworthiness." But when asked to give specifics, none of them hold any water. So shouldn't we get over that wrong impression which the media has foisted upon us? She is not lacking integrity compared to any of the other candidates, save Bernie.

You come at it from a different angle but it looks like we arrive at the same place - confirmation if not triangulation?

I think this forum has a tad too much "4T envy" - a desire for a bigger 4T than their grandfathers' or great grandfathers'?

I guess I've seen too much "let's go big and get it over quickly" in my life. I'm okay with strong progressive steps (e.g., a progressive SCOTUS in the next 2-8 years) that sets the stage for what today would seem revolutionary but by then just a natural evolution.

Also, I don't think people have fully embraced how much of a powderkeg we're sitting on as the GOP bagger base begins to grasp their dwindling political power and begin to escalate their gun-tottin White privilege performance art. I want to eradicate them politically without too much of their actual eradication. I'd like to reverse the bad decision of 1860 and just let them go (under the agreement of no new slavery), but we now have too many progressive brothers and sisters in the urban ares of those otherwise Red wastelands. I think their move to Greenland would be ideal for all of us.

Originally Posted by playwrite

My first point is that whether it's Sanders or Clinton, the game will be played exactly the same way by the GOP.

My second point is Sanders, with his in-the-face approach being just as naive as Obama's let's-just-be-rational, will get his head handed to him in that game.

On the other hand, HC will collect GOP gonads and have periodic nut-crushing parties to celebrate victories including making the SCOTUS progressive.

Your basic problem is that you saw the "triangulation game" when the objective on the Dem side was kumbaya.

That's NOT Hillary's objective - from day one, her's will be to crush GOP gonads. And that will be very good for the country.

The source of the GOP's Clinton Derangment Syndrome is that they fear her... and for good reason. Payback is a bitch.

I don't see Hillary being effective at all. You do. Let's leave it there.

Iowa is up for grabs. Sanders ahead in Quinnipiac, Clinton ahead in PPP polls. Trump back slightly in front of Cruz.