Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Oh, it would help any anti-capitalist cause. Yours is not the only Communist party or tendency. The worst nightmare in practice is to be the wrong sort of socialist (like a Trotskyite among Maoists) in the wake of a revolution.

Bring that monstrosity about and entrench it and I would be a revolutionary if not a refugee. I would want something very different from a doctrinaire Marxist economy. Of course I would dispossess war criminals and enforcers of oppression with the use of a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act and then spread the wealth about. Natural monopolies would remain in government hands, but that is all.

But if there is any consistent lesson of history it is that the concentration of power is the nemesis both of freedom and social equity. Then it is back to an economy based upon small business -- family farms and cottage industries. As Marxist-Leninist states showed, ownership of the means of production is denied to potential landowners, financiers, and industrialists; bureaucratic elites can exploit just as severely. Bloated bureaucracies that recognize no responsibility to workers can exploit workers horrifically.



The Right is as capable of revolution as the Left. In view of the pathological narcissism and even sociopathy commonplace America's economic elites, I can imagine only consummate ruthlessness of the Right. These people would murder millions to protect their class privilege or allow profits from lucrative wars.




In the meantime we have a chance of incremental reforms to make American capitalism more humane. Given a choice between capitalism with a human face and the Killing Fields of Communists settling scores with anyone who has owned a share of stock or a small farm I will take capitalism with a human face.



Starvation, the ultimate debasement of humanity, is much more likely in dictatorial regimes of any ideology. India has not had a famine since independence; China has under Mao. The last famine in Europe was in Nazi-occupied Holland.




Give the Republican Party the trifecta of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, and this time they will entrench power indefinitely. Are you sure that you will outlast the right-wing corporate state? The Estado Novo of Salazar and Caetano and Portugal lasted nearly 50 years. Franco's Spain lasted as long as he did. Both ended in bourgeois democracies. That of course implies that you can avoid detection under an attentive, ruthless secret police, one that might cast you alive into a wood-chipper or a crematory furnace.

As the last 8 years have shown us, there's a big difference between a trifecta and an effective trifecta. Obama entered office with a trifecta but was stymied by Senate filibusters and was only able to pass Obamacare with reconciliation. Bush Jr. was stymied by Democratic Senate filibusters over issues such as Supreme Court nominees (Gonzales and Harriet Myers, who would have been disasters, were blocked), and on opening Arctic National WIldlife Refuge to oil drilling. Though Bush DID have enough support of bought or blue dog Democrats to pass a devastating tightening of bankruptcy laws.
Even with a Trifecta, Trump cannot do everything he wants. The chance of a 60+ Republican majority in the Senate are remote and the chance of the 66+ majority in the Senate and a 2/3 majority in the House to pass a constitutional amendment and send it to the States is even more remote. Much of what Trump wants done on immigration such as an end to birthright citizenship. will require a constitutional amendment. But a Trump trifecta (or a Sanders win) will kill TPP and TIPP and possibly lead to abrogating NAFTA since a President CAN abrogate or enter reservations into an international treaty. And that could be a good thing.
It's not saying much, but at worst, a Trump Administration would probably be no worse than the Bush 2 Administration.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm not sure of the accuracy of that statement.

The FDA didn't allow The Pill use for contraception purposes until 1960, but it did allow The Pill to be used for severe menstrual disorders in 1957 which remains the record year for the biggest percentage increase in women reporting severe menstrual disorders to their doctors -

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know...trol-pill/480/

What else happen in 1957 that could explain the inflection point?


- It was the year when portable radar devices were first used to enforce speed limits - maybe that confused teenage lovers on the way up to Lovers' Lane? Maybe Wonkette could shed some light on the situation back then?

This graph is a little difficult to interpret, but what it shows is the difference between states where The Pill remained banned after the FED approvals and where it was not -



For illustration, the biggest difference between the two categories of states was in 1963 where states allowing The Pill had 6 less births per 1000 women (GFR) than in states where it was banned. As The Pill became universal (in part because of Griswold v Conn.) the difference more or less went away.

The impact of The Pill's availability can also be seen even more internationally where its widespread use was delayed for economic and cultural reasons but once introduced made the US decline look relatively mild -

RE: Bold text - excellent point!

Originally Posted by Odin

Something I noticed about the State of The Union address, yesterday, was how pre-seasonal it sounded, it sounded like a 1T speech rather than a 4T speech. The country, as is usual in 4Ts is gripped in a great fear, with what exactly is feared depending on one's political beliefs. A big chunk of the president's address was Obama being the "sensible guy in the room" giving a long list of things showing that people's fears are unfounded, but that just doesn't work in a 4T, the 4T "great fear" is driven by the generational alignment, with moralizing elder Prophets and catastrophizing mid-life Nomads now essentially lacking any Artist restraint, and cannot be calmed by logic and facts.

Sanders and Trump are so popular because both speak to and channel the "great fear" rather than poo-pooing it.

There is already a subset of the population who are mentally in the 1T and to the extent possible trying to undertake 1T actions. I'm one of them.

Originally Posted by Odin

Kinser, I thought you were against Accelerationism?

Generally yes, but being handed the revolution on a gold platter is too good to pass up.

Originally Posted by playwrite

We're under the 3 week mark before Iowa and there is absolutely no life in the Bush campaign, Rubio is gasping for air and other Establishment clowns are not on anyone's radar except the worse of the entertaining news pundits. At some point, you're going to have to grasp this will be a Clinton vs an insane GOP Trump or Cruz, and come to terms with your suggested role in enabling the resulting outcome of THAT matchup.

Actually the polls show HRC falling behind Sanders across the board. The fact of the matter is that Hillary running against any Republican will lose, and if she runs against Trump she will definitely lose as he's attracting at least 20% of the Democratic voters according to some polls. Honestly I don't see why you can't seem to understand this basic statement of fact, given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat that acts like a Republican I'll take the Republican.

For example, is it possible that the US and allies could overplay their hand with Kim Jong-un and in an adolescent rage he launches?

Unlikely. The PRC has the DPRK by the throat because they are the only source of rice for them. China has no interest in a nuclear war between themselves and the US and that is what launches against or by the DPRK will mean.

Maybe he only has time/accuracy to take out much of LA but not San Fran, Honolulu or Seattle but before we turn N. Korea into the biggest porcelain plate ever, he also manages to take out Seoul and Tokyo. Let's say your not one of the 10s of millions killed instantly and not even one of the hundreds of millions dying of radiation poisoning and cancers or having mutated progeny for the next several decades, you are still going to go through an economic depression that will make the 1930s look like a boom and social displacement that will make every other one in history, combined, seem like a cake walk. This is something you're willing to chance to discredit the GOP???

Totally unlikely. A nuclear power attacking an other nuclear power results in mutually assured destruction. Kim Jong-Un is not suicidal. M.A.D. works.

Hopefully, the odds are small, but let's take Trump/Cruz bellicose approach as possibly upsetting enough to our adolescent in Pyongyang to launch as a thousand-to-one chance. Then let's take Clinton's behavior causing such a launch as being 1 million to one.

I would argue that Cruz/Trump would be tempered by Congress. HRC is more likely to extend wars in the middle east against non-nuclear powers. Which is after all who the US fights, not nuclear powers. Why? M.A.D. I'm glad you didn't go to Annapolis or West Point because otherwise I'd have to say you failed your courses when someone who never got above Chief Petty Officer understands geo-strategy far better than you.

You're willing to chance a 1000x more likelihood of your death or wishing you were dead so that the GOP might be discredited?

Your hyperbole is hyperbolic. The fact is that no matter who is elected the business cycle will kick in 2017 or about that time. If the GOP is in charge they will be discredited and then we will see a wave election in 2020. If a democrat is in the white house be prepared for GOP dominated 1T. You definitely won't like it but it won't be the Estato Novo PBR constantly predicts.

Sorry, but I've kind of appreciated having an adult in the WH this past 7 years and really don't want to imagine the consequences of forgoing that in the next 4. I'm more a William James pragmatist than a partisan Democrat; it's just that the two have aligned for some time now.

LOL. You a realist? Not if you think that the DPRK is an actual threat. Kim has his own problems.

Sanders is old? Here he is 15 years ago, and he looks just the same. He's almost always had white hair!

An interesting question: if Sanders' upsets Hillary and gets elected president, as his horoscope and the new moon before election say is possible, this means we are in an era of one-party control of the White House instead of going back and forth. If the Democratic candidate outscores the Republican considerably and beats the indicator in 2024, this one-party control could last for decades, according to the same indicator! If you can believe it, the indicator says the incumbent party will maintain power election after election, despite the odds of 50-50 of this not happening each time!

So then, if Sanders is the man, the question is, will the electorate turn on him in 2018 the way they turned on Obama in 2010 and Clinton in 1994? Will they resent Sanders' push for even-more liberal legislation than his two predecessors pushed for? And if his revolution can't bring in a strongly Democratic congress in 2016, what chance does he have of accomplishing anything? Or will Sanders be the kind of president that Marx and Lennon and others thought Obama should be, and win over the people with the force of his persuasive power?

It's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. Marx and Lennon wouldn't bet that Sanders could get elected in the first place. I always said that he had a chance. But I am less sure that he can maintain public support any better than Obama and Clinton did.

If he does, though, then regeneracy has happened!

A Sanders'-Trump race would be an energizer, and a very rough battle. Trump would pounce all over Sanders' socialism (to good effect) and call him "weak" (to little or no avail), and Sanders would dig into Trump's billionaire class membership, and his "tribal" divisiveness as Obama calls it. Trump would lose the hispanic vote big time in a few key states. Even Florida would probably fall to Sanders because of this. Divisions would be heightened, leading toward the possible national break-up in 2025.

But these are the two candidates who have the best horoscope scores among all those running. And these are the two candidates now leading in New Hamsphire. And Sanders is not only already closing in on Hillary in Iowa polls, but in national polls as well.

If the GOP gets smart and nominates a Rubio-Kasich or Bush-Kasich ticket, then the GOP could win. But the cosmic tides say no even then; Sanders' will win anyway!

Hillary could lose to Trump, the scores say. Sanders will beat him.

Hillary Clinton says she’s ‘not nervous at all’ about Bernie Sanders. She should be.

By Chris Cillizza January 13 at 1:12 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...she-should-be/

"Today" show host Savannah Guthrie asked Hillary Clinton a very simple question Wednesday morning: Are you getting worried about Bernie Sanders?

"No, I'm not nervous at all,'' Clinton responded. "I'm working hard, and I intend to keep working as hard as I can until the last vote or caucus-goer expresses an opinion. I'm excited about where we are."

That's the wrong answer.

Clinton should ABSOLUTELY be nervous about the state of the race with less than three weeks before voters in Iowa head to caucuses. There are warning signs almost everywhere she looks that suggest that the Vermont socialist is gaining momentum at exactly the worst moment for Clinton's chances at winning the nomination.

The new New York Times/CBS News national poll shows Clinton as a significantly diminished front-runner and Sanders as the surging insurgent. The 20-point lead she held a month ago has now been snipped down to single digits by Sanders.



In Iowa, the story is the same for Clinton. Suddenly her steady lead among likely caucus-goers has evaporated -- with a series of polls in the last few days suggesting that the race is a statistical dead heat.

Neither of those trend lines mean Clinton is going to lose the race -- in Iowa or nationally. But, they sure as hell can't make she and her team feel confident about their chances heading into the first votes in February.

In fact, Clinton's actions over the last week or so suggest that her insistence to Savannah that EVERYTHING IS GREAT isn't really how she views the race at the moment. Of late, Clinton has gone after Sanders very aggressively on his past votes on gun measures -- most notably a 2005 vote that granted full legal immunity to gun manufacturers if someone uses their weapon to commit a murder. Clinton, in fact, ran an ad on the issue in Iowa and New Hampshire during President Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday night.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released a campaign ad titled "I"m With Him" during President Obama's final State of the Union address on Jan.12. In the ad, Clinton expresses her support for Obama's executive actions on gun control. (HillaryClinton.Com)
When Clinton says in the ad that “it’s time to pick a side. ... Either we stand with the gun lobby or we join the president and stand up to them," you don't have to be a genius to know who she's talking about.

There are many Democrats who think that Clinton will be the nominee no matter what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire. That Sanders's inability to win over African American and Hispanic voters will doom him when the primary race moves to the south and west.

To which I say: Maybe. There's little question that Clinton has dominated Sanders among non-white voters in the race to date. But, as recently as last month, she was dominating him in national polling and had a comfortable double-digit cushion in Iowa. Neither of those things are true anymore.

Politics is a changeable business. History has shown that how one state votes influences how the states that follow it in the primary process vote. That's why losing Iowa and New Hampshire, which now seems possible if not likely, is a nightmare scenario for Clinton. And one that should make her very nervous.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

An interesting question: if Sanders' upset Hillary and gets elected president, as his horoscope and the new moon before election say is possible, this means we are in an era of one-party control of the White House instead of going back and forth. If the Democratic candidate outscores the Republican considerably and beats the indicator in 2024, this one-party control could last for decades, according to the same indicator! If you can believe it, the indicator says the incumbent party will maintain power election after election, despite the odds of 50-50 of this not happening each time!

So then, if Sanders is the man, the question is, will the electorate turn on him in 2018 the way they turned on Obama in 2010 and Clinton in 1994? Will they resent Sanders' push for even-more liberal legislation than his two predecessors pushed for? And if his revolution can't bring in a strongly Democratic congress in 2016, what chance does he have of accomplishing anything? Or will Sanders be the kind of president that Marx and Lennon and others thought Obama should be, and win over the people with the force of his persuasive power?

It's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. Marx and Lennon wouldn't bet that Sanders could get elected in the first place. I always said that he had a chance. But I am less sure that he can maintain public support any better than Obama and Clinton did.

If he does, though, then regeneracy has happened!

A Sanders'-Trump race would be an energizer, and a very rough battle. Trump would pounce all over Sanders' socialism (to good effect) and call him "weak" (to little or no avail), and Sanders would dig into Trump's billionaire class membership, and his "tribal" divisiveness as Obama calls it. Trump would lose the hispanic vote big time in a few key states. Even Florida would probably fall to Sanders because of this. Divisions would be heightened, leading toward the possible national break-up in 2025.

But these are the two candidates who have the best horoscope scores among all those running. And these are the two candidates now leading in New Hamsphire. And Sanders is not only already closing in on Hillary in Iowa polls, but in national polls as well.

If the GOP gets smart and nominates a Rubio-Kasich or Bush-Kasich ticket, then the GOP could win. But the cosmic tides say no even then; Sanders' will win anyway!

Hillary could lose to Trump, the scores say. Sanders will beat him.

That's my assessment too. As the Chinese say: Shi has shifted.
The one way Sanders can maintain public support in the face of an adverse economy is quite literally, to arrest the CEOs of the big banks for racketeering under RICO and anyone else in the executive suites or divisions that are needed to have them singing like birds against them. Sanders may not be able to deal with an economic collapse overnight but the one thing he CAN deliver quickly (don't know if he has the temperment for it) is retribution. The American People will take cold comfort in the sight of CEOs doing the perp walk in handcuffs. When there's a lynch mob out, the only way to handle it is to be out in front leading it, hopefully against the right targets. Retribution was what was missing from Obama's equation in 2008. And quite frankly, if Roosevelt had gone for retribution against those business people who attempted a coup against him, the conservatives might not have started agitating against the New Deal as soon as he was dead, secure in the knowledge that no one can do anything to them, at least not as a class.
FDR couldn't deal with the Depression immediately. And he got a wider Congressional majority in 1934 and got elected by a landslide with a congressional landslide in 1936.
The next question, Eric: Could Bernie be good for more than one term, healthwise?
If not, then Sanders will have to manage a difficult transition to a younger Dem. candidate in 2020. Gavin Newsom maybe. Or Tammy Duckworth perhaps.

Seth MacFarlane, pretty funny! I'm not too familiar with him.

Trump is funnier and more entertaining than Sanders. Maybe Sanders could make up for it by appointing MacFarlane VP? or something?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

That's my assessment too. As the Chinese say: Shi has shifted.
The one way Sanders can maintain public support in the face of an adverse economy is quite literally, to arrest the CEOs of the big banks for racketeering under RICO and anyone else in the executive suites or divisions that are needed to have them singing like birds against them. Sanders may not be able to deal with an economic collapse overnight but the one thing he CAN deliver quickly (don't know if he has the temperment for it) is retribution. The American People will take cold comfort in the sight of CEOs doing the perp walk in handcuffs. When there's a lynch mob out, the only way to handle it is to be out in front leading it, hopefully against the right targets. Retribution was what was missing from Obama's equation in 2008. And quite frankly, if Roosevelt had gone for retribution against those business people who attempted a coup against him, the conservatives might not have started agitating against the New Deal as soon as he was dead, secure in the knowledge that no one can do anything to them, at least not as a class.

I don't know 'bout that. I think a lot of us would like to see it though, and both on the right and the left. He's not going to be dealing with an economic collapse (you know my prediction about that). So he may have more trouble getting his way than if he had been elected in 2008. What a different world we might be in today if he had been, though.

FDR couldn't deal with the Depression immediately. And he got a wider Congressional majority in 1934 and got elected by a landslide with a congressional landslide in 1936.

Actually he did quite a bit in his first 100 days, but it took a couple of years for a mild recovery to get going. Things actually got worse after his 1936 landslide win. He got spoiled and backed off.

The next question, Eric: Could Bernie be good for more than one term, healthwise?

It's questionable. Possibly he could, but my prognosis is that either Bernie or Hillary would only do one term. The Democrats would win in 2020 anyway, it appears, but major shifts happen in zero years. So, if the new moon before election indicator says correctly that party in power wins BOTH in 2016 and 2020, that's about the only way some kind of shift could happen.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Seth MacFarlane, pretty funny! I'm not too familiar with him.

Trump is funnier and more entertaining than Sanders. Maybe Sanders could make up for it by appointing MacFarlane VP? or something?

Or Al Franken, now Senator from Minnesota.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Eric the birth rate peaked in 1957. So even before the pill hit, fecundity was already heading downward. The pill merely accelerated the existing trend.

Not quite right. Here are birth rates in millions. The peak was in 1957, but it was only marginally higher than the values in surrounding years. The rate only materially started to drop in 1965, which is why the baby Boom is dated to 1964.

1954	4.1	1959	4.3	1964	4.0	1969	3.6
1955	4.1	1960	4.3	1965	3.8	1970	3.7
1956	4.2	1961	4.3	1966	3.6	1971	3.6
1957	4.3	1962	4.2	1967	3.5	1972	3.3
1958	4.3	1963	4.1	1968	3.5

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

FDR couldn't deal with the Depression immediately.

He did deal with it immediately. When he began president the deflationary spiral was still going on. That is we were still falling into the abyss. The stock market had begun a major rally in mid-summer 1932 in anticipation that something would change.

Something did change. A month and a day after FDR became president he signed an executive order ending the gold standard. This did not solve the problem of the Depression completely, but it did establish a base from which a partial recovery could begin, sort of like what was achieved this time with the TARP and stimulus. As far as the economy was concerned Obama has done somewhat better than what FDR did in his first two terms. And by 1938 the New Deal had been killed by a conservative Congressional majority. FDR's had six years to implement his New Deal, while Obama had two. The reason FDR got 3X more time was timing and the policy by his Republican predecessor.

FDR came in after Hoover had struggled for three years against the Depression, which had utterly defeated him. Unlike Hoover (who could have signed the same executive order as FDR did) Bush did TARP, which accomplished the same thing (when TARP passed I knew we would avoid depression and put all the cash I had into the market). It was a good bet.

Also had the election been in 2009 instead of 2008, Obama would have had a stronger hand.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The fact is that no matter who is elected the business cycle will kick in 2017 or about that time. If the GOP is in charge they will be discredited and then we will see a wave election in 2020.

And the Republicans will be right back in 2022. How many times do we have to repeat this?

1992-2000, war-hero George Bush I defeated by perceived poor economic stewardship and massive deficits. Democratic president comes in with Democratic Congress. Two years later Republicans win control of Congress, yet fail to defeat Democratic president in 1996. Frustrated, Republicans move to impeach president and see losses in Congressional elections in 1998. Democratic president's last year in office sees very strong economy and budget surplus--yet Republicans regain the WH in 2000.

Second cycle 2008-2016: Republicans defeated by perceived poor economic stewardship and massive deficits under Republican administration. Democratic president comes in with Democratic Congress. Two years later Republicans win control of the House, yet fail to defeat Democratic president in 1996. Frustrated Republicans wisely refrain from impeaching this president this time, and make gains in Congressional elections in 2014. Democratic president going into last year in office sees strong economy and much smaller budget deficit. Republicans regain the WH in 2016?

Third cycle...

You think the third time's the charm?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Actually the polls show HRC falling behind Sanders across the board. The fact of the matter is that Hillary running against any Republican will lose, and if she runs against Trump she will definitely lose as he's attracting at least 20% of the Democratic voters according to some polls. Honestly I don't see why you can't seem to understand this basic statement of fact, given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat that acts like a Republican I'll take the Republican.

I watch the polls, too. But in binary match-ups, Trump has typically fared worse against Clinton or Sanders than other Republican prospects even though he has gotten more media attention than the others. The polls conflict with the idea that Donald Trump would be a strong candidate for President. Many conservatives see Donald Trump as a dangerous demagogue.

Unlikely. The PRC has the DPRK by the throat because they are the only source of rice for them. China has no interest in a nuclear war between themselves and the US and that is what launches against or by the DPRK will mean.

The so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea (usually called North Korea) melds two of the most obnoxious tendencies: it has a Socialist economy while running for all practical purposes as an absolute monarchy. It has the repression of Stalinism with a capricious tyrant -- son of the previous leader -- which is a dangerous situation. Wars were extremely common when one king delivered what seemed to be an affront from another. The sort of incident in which President Angela Merkel swatted President George W. Bush for groping her might have started a war between two despotic monarchs.

The concept that the nation is an extension of the ruler is obsolete -- except in Syria and North Korea. Even Saudi Arabia has some power-splitting within the royal family. But run afoul of what is for all practical purposes the god-like dictator of North Korea and you die.

OK, China does not want a war with the United States. North Korea allegedly has nukes and some really long-range missiles. Firing those at American targets requires that those missiles overfly Chinese and Russian territory. Neither China nor Russia wants involvement in a war between the US and North Korea. One missile launch is enough to bring a war.

One of the supreme ironies is that a missile launch by the DPRK could put the US and China on the same side with the same enemy -- the DPRK. In view of the gigantic number of Chinese troops in northeastern China and the air forces of the US in Korea and the Chinese Air Force, guess what happens to North Korea? China replaces the Kim dynasty with someone obedient and cautious. That the DPRK has executed leaders of pro-China factions in North Korea has not suggests why the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea are developing warmer diplomatic relations.

Totally unlikely. A nuclear power attacking an other nuclear power results in mutually assured destruction. Kim Jong-Un is not suicidal. M.A.D. works.

M.A.D. works when the persons ultimately in charge of The Bomb are perhaps Leonid Brezhnev, Deng Xiao-Ping, and (pardon the anachronism) Ronald Reagan, figures who have no desire to see millions of pointless deaths. If one of those is sane and decent (Barack Obama) and the other is crazy (Kim Jong-Un), M.A.D. has no such effect. What really scares Kim Jong-Un is the prospect of the People's Liberation Army liberating his country.

I would argue that Cruz/Trump would be tempered by Congress. HRC is more likely to extend wars in the middle east against non-nuclear powers. Which is after all who the US fights, not nuclear powers. Why? M.A.D. I'm glad you didn't go to Annapolis or West Point because otherwise I'd have to say you failed your courses when someone who never got above Chief Petty Officer understands geo-strategy far better than you.

You forgot the Air Force Academy.

One needs to get to General or Admiral rank to have any authority to establish the military aspect of world-level strategy. The military has the codes and the keys. Most graduates of West Point and Annapolis (or the Air Force Academy) never get so far, and if they should ever achieve General or Admiral rank they are unlikely to ever get command over the nuclear warheads. They are more likely to command masses of troops, warships, or military aircraft. The scenario of Doctor Strangelove is unlikely.

Now what if the President goes crazy? Probably removed, at least temporarily, for incapacitation, should he make such an insane command as "Nuke Vienna now!" But the VP then acts as the Constitution allows. But that is a scenario that has never been approached.

Your hyperbole is hyperbolic. The fact is that no matter who is elected the business cycle will kick in 2017 or about that time. If the GOP is in charge they will be discredited and then we will see a wave election in 2020. If a democrat is in the white house be prepared for GOP dominated 1T. You definitely won't like it but it won't be the Estato Novo PBR constantly predicts.

After about a year and a half, the economic downturns beginning in the autumns of 1929 and 2007 were similar in severity. Barack Obama handled the downturn that he inherited very differently from how Herbert Hoover handled the downturn that happened a few months after his inauguration. Republican and Democratic solutions for any economic downturn will be very different.

The manner of resolution of this Crisis Era is far from established. Indeed, the establishment of the manner of resolution leaves little doubt that the Crisis is approaching its end, and that some outline of the near future is in place. Thus by 1944 the prospect of an Axis victory with the world divided between German, Italian, and Japanese spheres of influence that seemed an ominous possibility in 1941 was nil.

The Crisis has yet to be close to any resolution. Many possibilities remain, most so contradictory that discussing them can seem ludicrous. That's why I offer so many wild scenarios -- just about everything but a zombie apocalypse.

LOL. You a realist? Not if you think that the DPRK is an actual threat. Kim has his own problems.

Kim Jong-Un has problems, all right. See also "Nero", "Caligula", and "Commodus" in antiquity.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Mike, you don't seem to get it. Iowa is totally irrelevant.

You cannot apply conventional wisdom here. This kind of thinking was why people thought Trump would have faded by now, like Carson has. He hasn't, so historical analogies like you are using have already been shown to not apply to Trump. What does apply to Trump is winning. It is very clear that Trump has always responded to weakness in his polls with a vigorous effect to get his numbers back up. He knows that what creates his Teflon suit is the fact that he wins. So he has to win. Iowa is important to Trump (and Trump only) because he cannot come out looking like he is 0 for 1. Now if his loss is close and in line with the polling, or say better than the polling, this cold be seen by his supporters as a tie, and so they so he will be 0-0-1, that not quite a losing record. And if he wins big in NH and so leads in cumulative delgates then he will have the best record in the field and still be seen as a winner. But if he outright losses in Iowa, then it will turn out that Trump as lied to all his supporters, by promising them he was a winner, and his support in NH will weaken, and he will underperform there too, like a loser does.

Trump promises only one thing, he will win. How can he win for America if he cannot even win a stupid caucus? As for all the other candidates what you say about Iowa is perfectly valid.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Not going to happen. The House would have to allocate funds and an Xer dominated GOP led house isn't going to spend the money enough said.

Well that is a pure faith-based statement. You can believe it with all your heart, that won't make them do as you bid them to.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And the Republicans will be right back in 2022. How many times do we have to repeat this?

1992-2000, war-hero George Bush I defeated by perceived poor economic stewardship and massive deficits. Democratic president comes in with Democratic Congress. Two years later Republicans win control of Congress, yet fail to defeat Democratic president in 1996. Frustrated, Republicans move to impeach president and see losses in Congressional elections in 1998. Democratic president's last year in office sees very strong economy and budget surplus--yet Republicans regain the WH in 2000.

Second cycle 2008-2016: Republicans defeated by perceived poor economic stewardship and massive deficits under Republican administration. Democratic president comes in with Democratic Congress. Two years later Republicans win control of the House, yet fail to defeat Democratic president in 1996. Frustrated Republicans wisely refrain from impeaching this president this time, and make gains in Congressional elections in 2014. Democratic president going into last year in office sees strong economy and much smaller budget deficit. Republicans regain the WH in 2016?

Third cycle...

You think the third time's the charm?

That said, I do not necessarily disagree with you about the likely outcome of a Democratic victory this November (a Republican landslide in 2020). I simply am not sanguine about a Republican victory in 2016, which I think would be just as bad as a Republican landslide in 2020.

Where we differ (and why I prefer a Democratic victory this year) is that the Democrat will be president and will have to opportunity to try to change the political dynamic that will otherwise lead to Republican victory in the 4T no matter who wins in 2016.

It comes down to Hoover and the gold standard. If you play it safe and stay conventional, like Hoover and Obama did--your party will lose. You have to go bold like FDR did after winning in 1940. He did not have a liberal-controlled Congress then, but was nevertheless able to but a big dent in economic inequality.

But if Clinton plays small ball, like Obama did, then she will go home in 2020.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Actually the polls show HRC falling behind Sanders across the board. The fact of the matter is that Hillary running against any Republican will lose, and if she runs against Trump she will definitely lose as he's attracting at least 20% of the Democratic voters according to some polls. Honestly I don't see why you can't seem to understand this basic statement of fact, given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat that acts like a Republican I'll take the Republican.

Explain to me how Bernie survives SC, NV and Super Tuesday. As I said before, a Bernie win in Iowa and New Hampshire will eventually go into all the pundits' talking points of how those two states reflect the eccentricities of Bernie supporters.

There are some comparisons of HC to Establishment GOP, and granted even Bill Clinton, positions of the 1990s on financial regulations, but there is absolutely nothing in common with the GOP clown show of today. Someone trying to suggest otherwise can only be described as having been in a coma for the last 20 years and steadfastly remaining willfully and blindingly ignorant by ideological choice.

The GOP clown show is pretty damn scary. I recognize that one way to cope with that is to ignore it or try to dismiss it, BUT that doesn't mean the reason why they're so damn scary is going to go away.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Unlikely. The PRC has the DPRK by the throat because they are the only source of rice for them. China has no interest in a nuclear war between themselves and the US and that is what launches against or by the DPRK will mean.

Ah, the biggest concern coming out of DPRK detonation is the PRC wasn't aware it was coming and the DPRK doesn't give a shit.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Totally unlikely. A nuclear power attacking an other nuclear power results in mutually assured destruction. Kim Jong-Un is not suicidal. M.A.D. works.

And you know this how? Jong-Un is not a Soviet Politburo made up of a bunch of old men.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would argue that Cruz/Trump would be tempered by Congress.

Tempered by Congressional GOP crittters??? What are you smoking???

Originally Posted by Kinser79

HRC is more likely to extend wars in the middle east against non-nuclear powers.

One can make that argument relative to Bernie and if one wants to vote for him over that issue, I fully understand that. On the other hand, anyone suggesting the ANY Democrat, including HC, is anywhere near the warmongering of today's GOP is either a complete idiot or smokin too much weed. Have you noticed that the one guy, Rand Paul, in the GOP clown car willing to suggest a less NeoCon approach on the world stage is slowly being escorted out of the clown car?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Which is after all who the US fights, not nuclear powers. Why? M.A.D. I'm glad you didn't go to Annapolis or West Point because otherwise I'd have to say you failed your courses when someone who never got above Chief Petty Officer understands geo-strategy far better than you.

You sure are putting a lot of faith in a 50-year old doctrine. You might want to go outside and talk to people; a lot has changed. Did you know that the Berlin Wall has been taken down? Are you aware that we now have people willing to blow themselves up, even take down big skyscrapers by flying planes into them? Did you know that the guy who came into the WH in 2000 based on no more nation-building, did in fact invade two countries and we're still trying to not only prop up those countries but just about every country that borders those two countries?

It's nice to keep the faith in a daydream, but sometimes you need to wake yourself up and take a look around at reality. I realize it is scary, but just trying to ignore it and hope it all goes away in a few years isn't going to make it so.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Your hyperbole is hyperbolic. The fact is that no matter who is elected the business cycle will kick in 2017 or about that time. If the GOP is in charge they will be discredited and then we will see a wave election in 2020. If a democrat is in the white house be prepared for GOP dominated 1T. You definitely won't like it but it won't be the Estato Novo PBR constantly predicts.

I'm the one being hyperbolic???

Do you really think your predicted cyclical contraction in 2017 is going to be anything near what happen in 2008??? That was a 4T near depression with a financial sector meltdown sprinkled on top - a once-in-a-lifetime event. Even so, the GOP took the Congress just two years later and some half-ass GOP candidate gave Obama at least a run for his money. Now just two terms later, you and others are suggesting the GOP could put somebody back in the WH. Party killing? Really???

"It's the economy" has power in a particularly election...maybe. But a Party killer??? Again, what are you smokin?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

LOL. You a realist? Not if you think that the DPRK is an actual threat. Kim has his own problems.

Kim has a lot of problems but pushing a button is not one of them.

Moreover, a lot of people with "problems" become suicidal and those that buy into their being a god often have a difficult time when reality creeps in.

Jong's state-of-mind is just one of thousands of scenarios of things that could go wrong on the geopolitical stage that would have a profound impact on all of our lives. I'd rather have an adult in the WH that understands that - four years of a GOP clown at the helm can be disastrous - we've certainly seen that. Hey, were you aware that Saddam actually didn't have any WMDs and that he had nothing to do with 9/11? Hey, did you know that there was essentially no regulation of the finance sector in the 00-00s and that caused a bit of a problem for some homeowners and oh, by the way, the entire F-in global economy?

Just checking.

Cruz took the bait, and Trump killed him.

Cruz will lose Iowa to Trump with the result that Trump will take NH in a landslide. Pretty much the same outcome in every GOP primary from there.

Mike's hypothesis that once shown as a "loser" in Iowa, the snowball would roll with Trump losing in NH and then SC - game over.

BUT, what about the opposite of Trump taking Iowa away from Cruz? Same process, different outcome - game over, but it's Trump.

Cruz thought he could counter Trump's going all-birther on him by saying Trump reflects NYC values and that's not 'real America.'

I love it when one of the Right's false memes comes back to bite them hard. Yep, that NYC meme, part of the bicoastal not real Americans meme, use to work well for them.

But then there was this thingee called "9/11"

Trump's response to Cruz makes everyone feel they are of NYC. It was brilliant.

Cruz is done. And you should know what that now means.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dona.../13/id/709379/

Trump Embraces 'New York Values': We Got Through 9/11

Trump is brilliant at the brand game - he is after all a New Yorker. New York is the "Empire State" - most of the state is about as sophisticated as any other rural backwater in the US... figure it out, folks.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Cruz took the bait, and Trump killed him.

Cruz will lose Iowa to Trump with the result that Trump will take NH in a landslide. Pretty much the same outcome in every GOP primary from there.

Mike's hypothesis that once shown as a "loser" in Iowa, the snowball would roll with Trump losing in NH and then SC - game over.

BUT, what about the opposite of Trump taking Iowa away from Cruz? Same process, different outcome - game over, but it's Trump.

Cruz thought he could counter Trump's going all-birther on him by saying Trump reflects NYC values and that's not 'real America.'

I love it when one of the Right's false memes comes back to bite them hard. Yep, that NYC meme, part of the bicoastal not real Americans meme, use to work well for them.

But then there was this thingee called "9/11"

Trump's response to Cruz makes everyone feel they are of NYC. It was brilliant.

Cruz is done. And you should know what that now means.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dona.../13/id/709379/



Trump is brilliant at the brand game - he is after all a New Yorker. New York is the "Empire State" - most of the state is about as sophisticated as any other rural backwater in the US... figure it out, folks.

Here, if you had doubts, check this video out. In particular, Morning Joe's reaction of eviscerating Cruz -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64dRcXLqxec

This is going viral.

- Amazing.

My island will soon dominate the world in every aspect.



Be afraid.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I watch the polls, too. But in binary match-ups, Trump has typically fared worse against Clinton or Sanders than other Republican prospects even though he has gotten more media attention than the others. The polls conflict with the idea that Donald Trump would be a strong candidate for President. Many conservatives see Donald Trump as a dangerous demagogue.

And I can also guarantee you that if Trump is nominated, the GOP will back him. Much of the same thing happened with Romney last cycle. If it is in fact Hillary (because I'm also willing to bet that these pollsters don't bother asking anyone under 60 who they're going to vote for because younger people hang up the phone on them--you know cause we have shit to do) Trump could beat her easily. The GOP has over 20 years of smearing shit on her and making it stick. The fact that she is herself corrupt only helps. Add to that she would depress the non-white, non-boomer, non-liberal vote (a substantial part of the Obama coalition, about 2/3rds I think) and Trump can whip up the xenophobes and the racists, and we'll be seeing him installing his name in giant gold letters over the white house on 21 January 2017.

The so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea (usually called North Korea) melds two of the most obnoxious tendencies: it has a Socialist economy while running for all practical purposes as an absolute monarchy. It has the repression of Stalinism with a capricious tyrant -- son of the previous leader -- which is a dangerous situation. Wars were extremely common when one king delivered what seemed to be an affront from another. The sort of incident in which President Angela Merkel swatted President George W. Bush for groping her might have started a war between two despotic monarchs.

Two issues here: 1. The DPRK does not have a socialist economy, they never developed socialism at all. They have state-capitalist system.

2. Kim Jong-Un is not a King. The DPRK is not a monarchy. He is in fact First Secretary of the Worker's Party of Korea, a long with a few chairmanships. The DPRK is structured in such a way that the vast majority of the power is held by his subordinates. Mostly because Kim Il-Sung preferred being a playboy to being a work-a-day tyrant (as you'd call him) like his father.

3. Should George II have tried that with an actual monarch I'm thinking the response would have been more severe.

The concept that the nation is an extension of the ruler is obsolete -- except in Syria and North Korea. Even Saudi Arabia has some power-splitting within the royal family. But run afoul of what is for all practical purposes the god-like dictator of North Korea and you die.

Wrong on both counts. Assad can barely control Syria and then only with Russian Back up. Gee I wonder if giving all those weapons to those coughISIScough, I mean those moderate rebels might have something to do with that. As to the DPRK power is essentially split between the Party and the Army.

OK, China does not want a war with the United States. North Korea allegedly has nukes and some really long-range missiles. Firing those at American targets requires that those missiles overfly Chinese and Russian territory. Neither China nor Russia wants involvement in a war between the US and North Korea. One missile launch is enough to bring a war.

Yes, and the Army is smart enough to know that provoking a war with the US will end up in the end of North Korea. Even if Kim is a King as you propose (and evidence shows he is not) palace coups were very common in previous times.

One of the supreme ironies is that a missile launch by the DPRK could put the US and China on the same side with the same enemy -- the DPRK.

Unlikely. North Korea serves as a buffer between China and US dominated Japan which could re-arm at the change of a few key constitutional provisions. China and Japan have long standing hatreds that you apparently have not accounted for. But of course this is also coming from a guy who sees Nazis under every bed.

In view of the gigantic number of Chinese troops in northeastern China and the air forces of the US in Korea and the Chinese Air Force, guess what happens to North Korea? China replaces the Kim dynasty with someone obedient and cautious.

Should China want to they could do that anyway.

That the DPRK has executed leaders of pro-China factions in North Korea has not suggests why the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea are developing warmer diplomatic relations.

This is a failure to understand the long standing hatreds between Koreans and the Chinese. Of course to understand that you'd have to understand something of the history of the region which you don't.

M.A.D. works when the persons ultimately in charge of The Bomb are perhaps Leonid Brezhnev, Deng Xiao-Ping, and (pardon the anachronism) Ronald Reagan, figures who have no desire to see millions of pointless deaths. If one of those is sane and decent (Barack Obama) and the other is crazy (Kim Jong-Un), M.A.D. has no such effect. What really scares Kim Jong-Un is the prospect of the People's Liberation Army liberating his country.

If what you claim is true, then China rather than the US is Kim's real enemy and I can guarantee that they wouldn't use nukes to get it because if the PLA were to "liberate" the DPRK then they'd want the real estate to not glow in the dark. The US on the other hand wouldn't care, Occupied Korea is a small partner of importance only as a buffer between China and Japan which it can do as a populated country or as a glow-in-the-dark wasteland.

You forgot the Air Force Academy.

Everyone forgets the Chair Force. That's a military joke, I don't expect you to get it. Even so the same would apply.

One needs to get to General or Admiral rank to have any authority to establish the military aspect of world-level strategy.

By that line of argumentation one needs to be a historian to have any authority to discuss history. In case you haven't noticed I don't see many historians running about the forum. You are certainly not one of them.

The military has the codes and the keys. Most graduates of West Point and Annapolis (or the Air Force Academy) never get so far, and if they should ever achieve General or Admiral rank they are unlikely to ever get command over the nuclear warheads. They are more likely to command masses of troops, warships, or military aircraft. The scenario of Doctor Strangelove is unlikely.

Totally irrelevant.

Now what if the President goes crazy? Probably removed, at least temporarily, for incapacitation, should he make such an insane command as "Nuke Vienna now!" But the VP then acts as the Constitution allows. But that is a scenario that has never been approached.

Considering the security surrounding the nuclear football as it is called, I highly doubt that the President could issue an insane command like that and have it taken seriously. Given that every other nuclear power has similar precautions it is safe to assume that the DPRK has such as well.

After about a year and a half, the economic downturns beginning in the autumns of 1929 and 2007 were similar in severity. Barack Obama handled the downturn that he inherited very differently from how Herbert Hoover handled the downturn that happened a few months after his inauguration. Republican and Democratic solutions for any economic downturn will be very different.

And neither will be quite effective. However, if one examines the history one can see that Bush II set up a GOP win for the future by addressing the issues before he left town. Let us say hypothetically BHO lost 2008 and McCain won. What would have happened would have been much more like Hoover than FDR (not that I'm comparing BHO to FDR, He's not even a tenth the man FDR was), in 2010 the Democrats would have gained wider majorities and in 2012 the White House with an FDR like Mandate.

Of course that assumes that the Democrats offered someone other than a Neo-Liberal like say HRC.

The manner of resolution of this Crisis Era is far from established. Indeed, the establishment of the manner of resolution leaves little doubt that the Crisis is approaching its end, and that some outline of the near future is in place. Thus by 1944 the prospect of an Axis victory with the world divided between German, Italian, and Japanese spheres of influence that seemed an ominous possibility in 1941 was nil.

The only people who seem to be advocating that the 4T is nearing its end are those who still hang onto the 2001 start date hypothesis. Evidence of course shows that they are wrong...but it is a minor faction within a small group that even subscribes to the theory anyway. Most would say we are near the mid-point of the crisis whether they go for 2005 (as I do) or 2008 (as Niel Howe does). Furthermore, I would say that except for a major depression this 4T has little to do with the last one and using it as a model is a poor choice. I would say if we were to do a comparison that the ACW and Glorious revolutions would be more appropriate (bear in mind that it is my view that S&H completely botched the ACWsaec).

The Crisis has yet to be close to any resolution. Many possibilities remain, most so contradictory that discussing them can seem ludicrous. That's why I offer so many wild scenarios -- just about everything but a zombie apocalypse.

No you offer ludicrous scenarios because you are a pathetic paranoid little git who has very little understanding of history which is paramount in understanding this theory. In fact saying we'll be taken out by a zombie apocalypse would be less ludicrous than trying to proclaim Trump or Cruz or Rubio to be the next Mussolini. Fascism has never taken hold in a country with a strong democratic tradition. The closest that came was German Occupied Norway where they had a weak puppet government, and Vichy France which likewise was a weak puppet.

Kim Jong-Un has problems, all right. See also "Nero", "Caligula", and "Commodus" in antiquity.

Unlike Nero, Caligula and Commodus, Kim is not invested with unlimited power. He may be considered to be a god, but the power is split between the Party and the Army. Rome never had a Party to temper the Army.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

... The next question, Eric: Could Bernie be good for more than one term, healthwise?
If not, then Sanders will have to manage a difficult transition to a younger Dem. candidate in 2020. Gavin Newsom maybe. Or Tammy Duckworth perhaps.

He'll have to make that choice early. His VP will be the successor, if that's how it will play. Martin O'Malley might be another choice, since he's actively interested. I don't see another Sun Belt or Westerner this time.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

...
2. Kim Jong-Un is not a King. The DPRK is not a monarchy. He is in fact First Secretary of the Worker's Party of Korea, a long with a few chairmanships. The DPRK is structured in such a way that the vast majority of the power is held by his subordinates...

First we had Baghdad Bob, now we have Korean Kinser???

Kinser, this is the kind of back-room bureaucrat mealy-mouth horseshit that dooms any attempts at a Marx-based system.


I invite people to first turn-on "complete search phrase" and then Google "Jong kills his"...