Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: US elections, 2016 - Page 69







Post#1701 at 01-14-2016 08:45 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
01-14-2016, 08:45 PM #1701
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
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"...

...executed by flamethrower?

...mowed down by anti-aircraft guns?

...the one involving an official being fed alive to hungry dogs has been debunked.

That's before one even discusses the offenses for which one can be killed.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1702 at 01-14-2016 08:45 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-14-2016, 08:45 PM #1702
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
No. Our difference is in the likelihood of Republicans being discredited if they really fuck up. You see the parties as symmetrical. If one of them fucks up they get thrown out and the other party gets put in.

You have somehow failed to notice that when Republicans fuck up (Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush I, Bush II) the Democrat who comes next is expected to clean up their shit and and then gets tossed out. If the Dem gets uppity, overseers are put in (e.g. 1994, 2010) or Dems get tossed out early (1980). Then the Republicans come in and get to enact their agenda, ramp up the deficit, start wars etc. all over again--and get away with it. This carte blanche has emboldened them. Today they now openly talk of things that they used to ban from Republican speech as being too far on the Right.

Democrats have been cowed by the double standard. Today a Democrat has to call himself of socialist to say things that were perfectly ordinary for a Northern Democrat when I was young.

Democrats are always hoping for someone to save them. Today its demographics. If the GOP wins this will let the Democrats continue to maintain their belief in this fantasy and the left will slowly just dissolve away like the Federalists/Whigs. If the Dems win and then the economy goes south as you and I believe it will, then they are cornered. Their party will face annihilation--they won't have the luxury of feeding on its dying carcass for the rest of their careers. Thus it will be fight or die. I am betting the the Clintons are not going out without a fight.
The economy will not go very far south. The Democrats will continue to win indefinitely. Demographic hopes for the Democrats are not a fantasy, yet. Belief in the inevitability of the two-party system may be. Odds are that a progressive agenda will break through in the 2020s.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1703 at 01-14-2016 08:45 PM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-14-2016, 08:45 PM #1703
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
I would expect the Republicans to make practically any filibuster impossible so that its pet legislation (tax cuts for the rich, a nationwide Right to Work (but for much less) law, tort 'reform' that makes lawsuits against a big business all but impossible, gutting of regulations of the environment and workplace safety, can get on the fast track. I predict that further entrenchment of power (as in allowing states to put property qualifications on voting) will follow.

You are right. I don't trust the b@stards.
Considering that the filibuster itself is a quirk of Senate rules, and that the Senate creates its own rules, the Democrats could just as easily make filibustering impossible. If anything I think that the filibuster should be scrapped, the idea was the senate would cool the coffee, not dump ice in it.

Other than this, this is just your run of the mill paranoid rambling about the creation of a Estado Novo in the US which quite frankly is unlikely to happen. If the powers that be can get all of that through the regular process of government then there is no need for a fascist take over, in fact having one would be bad for business.







Post#1704 at 01-14-2016 08:50 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-14-2016, 08:50 PM #1704
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
Trump didn't bait Cruz. Trump found a legitimate issue.
The fact of the matter is that the definition of "natural born citizen" has NOT been tested in the courts. It came up in 2008 and resulted in basically a truce between the two parties because John McCain was as or more vulnerable to charges of not being a natural born citizen than Obama was. Basically, a Resolution of Congress said that he was, even though the law that defined a child born on an overseas military reservation as a natural born citizen was not passed until after John McCain was born (and McCain's father, an Admiral, pushed for it), which means it could have been ex post facto unconstitutional.
And Ted Cruz is seen as sufficiently obnoxious by enough of the Republican Establishment that the issue COULD come up in the Convention if he won a majority of delegates and he COULD conceivably be disqualified, and without Trump and without Cruz, what's left are the kind of Establishment candidates the Trump-Cruz wing of the Party definitely dosen't want.
Not to mention the realistic possibility of a Democratic court challenge during the campaign for the general election.
After years of working the Birther issue with regards to Obama, Trump knows the issue well and knows just what sympathetic note to take on this issue. A great many Republican voters have been primed to see the Birther issue as a real issue because of the controversy over Obama. And know politically what ass-u-me means. They are not willing to take a chance on Cruz's natural born citizenship being denied by the courts. (And the horror of it for Cruz is that he has no legal way of seeking a declaratory judgement that will clarify the matter).
The birth issue may not matter. Republicans definitely don't care if their candidate is natural born or not; only if the Democrat is. So it comes down to whether it makes a difference in GOP preferences for Trump or Cruz.

It may be a tipping point, though not decisive. I suspect Cruz has reached his high water mark, like Carson before him. The appeal of both candidates to Americans is limited. I suspect they will stay around for a month or two, or Cruz longer; but Rubio may be next to be the not-Trump, with Jeb Bush waiting in the wings and climbing back.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1705 at 01-14-2016 08:50 PM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-14-2016, 08:50 PM #1705
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
...executed by flamethrower?

...mowed down by anti-aircraft guns?

...the one involving an official being fed alive to hungry dogs has been debunked.

That's before one even discusses the offenses for which one can be killed.
Yes because only North Korea has bizarre laws. Lets just say one shouldn't steal a horse in Florida. You can be hanged for it. Yes horse theft is still a capital offense here. I'm pretty sure there are other laws from the 1870s on the books that are equally weird in other states too.







Post#1706 at 01-14-2016 08:55 PM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-14-2016, 08:55 PM #1706
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The birth issue may not matter. Republicans definitely don't care if their candidate is natural born or not; only if the Democrat is. So it comes down to whether it makes a difference in GOP preferences for Trump or Cruz.

It may be a tipping point, though not decisive. I suspect Cruz has reached his high water mark, like Carson before him. The appeal of both candidates to Americans is limited. I suspect they will stay around for a month or two, or Cruz longer; but Rubio may be next to be the not-Trump, with Jeb Bush waiting in the wings and climbing back.
Wrong.

If the GOP runs someone as their nominee who is not eligible to be president, you can expect a judicial challenge from the Democrats. If their nominee is ruled ineligable to be president then who will they pick? They would be thrown into a snap convention. No if the GOP wants to play things safe, they should likely pick Rubio (who won't win FL and will lose anyway) or Trump who can defeat Hillary but is a toss up against Sanders.

Also Jeb Bush....seriously? Are you reading polls or gazing in your crystal ball? Jeb has a snow ball's chance in hell but if Hillary is the nominee it would be great if he was the GOP pick. He is about the only one besides Rubio she could actually beat (and that is only because like Rubio, Jeb Bush can't carry Florida, we hate him down here).







Post#1707 at 01-14-2016 10:51 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
01-14-2016, 10:51 PM #1707
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

[QUOTE=playwrite;545709]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.[QUOTE]
Bernie is already pulling ahead in Nevada. And many of the Super Tuesday States (Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, ect) are northern states where Bernie has a great deal of strength. And Bernie has been seeking votes in the South. Colorado is one of the Super Tuesday states too. And Hillary's stance on marijuana will hurt her in Colorado and Nevada. Besides, there is the matter of momentum.
Even amongst Jews, there are issues which can hurt Hillary. See https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/1...w-about-libya/ and http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/01/11...hater-adviser/ . The Blumenthals, father Sidney (Sid Vicious) and son, Max may be Hillary's "Reverend Wright". And unlike Obama with Reverend Wright, Hillary cannot disavow the Blumenthals when Sid has been an integral part of Bill's Administration and worked for Hillary when she was Secy of State, as one of these articles points out.

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.
It wasn't just Bill Clinton's position on financial regulations. Clinton signed laws that made it impossible for immigrants to get legal status if they had so much as a DUI conviction or in some cases, just an accusation. Or (until the courts changed this), in some cases, even accusations without convictions in 1996. Clinton also signed into law, welfare "reform" that ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which may not have appeared onerous in the 1990s but forced women who could not claim disability into minimum wage jobs that could not feed their families even then and in the 2008 Recession, resulted in thousands of people becoming homeless even with President Obama's extension of unemployment benefits to 3 years. And Bill Clinton also signed a "tough on crime" bill that curtailed appeals on death penalty cases and created mandatory minimum sentences that ceded effective power over sentencing to US Attorneys, serving as .
All of this was part of the agenda of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that was created in the late 1970s to push Democrats rightwards. It was the DLC that supported Clinton's election and that of "Republican Lite" "Blue Dog" Democratic Senators and Congresspeople, most of whom have been replaced by real Republicans by now.


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.
Parties going through schism generally do look scary. And I'm sure Bernie Sanders looks scary to a lot of Republicans too. This has been building for a long time. Both parties have been taking the electorate for granted for decades.


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.
Maybe it isn't such a big deal. The South Koreans aren't perturbed by it the way Israel is perturbed by the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons.



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




Tempered by Congressional GOP crittters??? What are you smoking???
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?
Blame the Republican Base (and the Democratic Base) that is buying war or thinks that it is buying war. And ISIS which has made no bones about inciting war with the US. Donald Trump, for all his bellicose talk, is (next to Rand Paul) the least bellicose of the Republican candidates, willing to think about staying out of a dispute where the US has no reliable allies and let the Russians handle it. It's the Democrats, Obama, Hillary and John Kerry that have brought the US closer to a REAL major conflict--with Russia, starting with Libya and Syria and progressing to Ukraine. When it comes to the Establishment, Democratic and Republican, particularly with Hillary, we're looking at a real track record.
If politicians believe there is a constituency for war, most will attempt to sell war "warmonger".
Last edited by MordecaiK; 01-14-2016 at 11:02 PM. Reason: addition







Post#1708 at 01-14-2016 11:05 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
01-14-2016, 11:05 PM #1708
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
(to kinser) No. Our difference is in the likelihood of Republicans being discredited if they really (foul) up. You see the parties as symmetrical. If one of them (fouls) up they get thrown out and the other party gets put in.

You have somehow failed to notice that when Republicans (foul) up (Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush I, Bush II) the Democrat who comes next is expected to clean up their (mess) and and then gets tossed out. If the Dem gets uppity, overseers are put in (e.g. 1994, 2010) or Dems get tossed out early (1980). Then the Republicans come in and get to enact their agenda, ramp up the deficit, start wars etc. all over again--and get away with it. This carte blanche has emboldened them. Today they now openly talk of things that they used to ban from Republican speech as being too far on the Right.

Democrats have been cowed by the double standard. Today a Democrat has to call himself of socialist to say things that were perfectly ordinary for a Northern Democrat when I was young.

Democrats are always hoping for someone to save them. Today its demographics. If the GOP wins this will let the Democrats continue to maintain their belief in this fantasy and the left will slowly just dissolve away like the Federalists/Whigs. If the Dems win and then the economy goes south as you and I believe it will, then they are cornered. Their party will face annihilation--they won't have the luxury of feeding on its dying carcass for the rest of their careers. Thus it will be fight or die. I am betting the the Clintons are not going out without a fight.
The Republicans are much more ruthless than Democrats, and they have gone full-bore Machiavelli. The ideal in a democracy is that power exists for service of constituents. Our system has put service toward financial backers first, with constituents in geographic districts a mere formality. Such practically assures, should the tendency continue, a grossly-unrepresentative system in practice a plutocratic oligarchy. Or is it an oligarchic plutocracy? For Republicans, power increasingly means that they can keep making promises to some reliable voters to be held off until the Republicans have the sort of power that the Nationalists had in South Africa -- that the Other Side of on issues becomes utterly irrelevant even if it is the obvious majority, and government acts as if it owes the Other Side nothing except as empty words when facing criticism from overseas. A majority becomes an excuse to rewrite the rules to entrench an advantage that appears once.

How unrepresentative is America? In 2012 the Democrats won the majority (52%) of the vote for the House. House seats were so tightly gerrymandered that the Republicans kept a House majority. If Americans had given Barack Obama 52% of the vote and ended up with "President Mitt Romney" we might have riots. That was not an accident; that is design. Lobbyists are the real power in America, and who buys the lobbyists owns the government.

Profit buys power; power enhances profit; profit buys more power; power enhances even greater profits; profits buy even more power; few can see where the cycle stops. (OK, Kinser can see it in a revolution that occurred almost 100 years ago in Petrograd and Moscow. But I can just as easily see the ruling elites on the winning side of a Socialist insurrection. Maybe our economic elites will strike early enough with Dirty Wars that result in people showing signs of supporting a premature revolution or one perhaps thirty years from then getting massacred in sports stadiums.

The ethic of the gangster is exactly what one can expect from a thug state: "Do unto others before they do unto you".

...To ever get a chance to redefine America, Democrats will need to cut into a core vote of the contemporary Right: poor, under-educated white people who used to vote reliably Democratic. It is telling that in the 1976 Presidential election, Jimmy Carter won every former-Confederate State except Virginia. Poor whites in the South need to recognize that poor whites are more trustworthy on politics than the rich plutocrats who now prove equal-opportunity exploiters.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1709 at 01-15-2016 01:04 AM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
01-15-2016, 01:04 AM #1709
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
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
You're confusing absolute totals with rate. The totals in this table include births to recent immigrant parents etc. Fecundity peaked in 1957 at the latest.







Post#1710 at 01-15-2016 09:58 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
01-15-2016, 09:58 AM #1710
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
Judging from this, the moral panic over overpopulation in the early 70s might have had an impact on the birthrate.
No, the decline began well before that.







Post#1711 at 01-15-2016 10:00 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
01-15-2016, 10:00 AM #1711
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84 View Post
You're confusing absolute totals with rate. The totals in this table include births to recent immigrant parents etc. Fecundity peaked in 1957 at the latest.
Both total births and fecundity did peak in 1957. But they was no sharp rise before 1957 no sharp decline after. It was a plateau for both. That the peak was in 1957 as oppose to a year or two earlier or later is not significant.

Just look it up, it's easy enough to find.







Post#1712 at 01-15-2016 10:12 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
01-15-2016, 10:12 AM #1712
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The economy will not go very far south. The Democrats will continue to win indefinitely. Demographic hopes for the Democrats are not a fantasy, yet. Belief in the inevitability of the two-party system may be. Odds are that a progressive agenda will break through in the 2020s.
The point I am making is that we see lots more examples of SJW's than EJW's in the news. This underlines how the Democrats are undermining themselves.
Last edited by Mikebert; 01-15-2016 at 10:25 AM.







Post#1713 at 01-15-2016 11:05 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
01-15-2016, 11:05 AM #1713
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Profit buys power; power enhances profit; profit buys more power; power enhances even greater profits; profits buy even more power; few can see where the cycle stops. (OK, Kinser can see it in a revolution that occurred almost 100 years ago in Petrograd and Moscow. But I can just as easily see the ruling elites on the winning side of a Socialist insurrection.
Yes there is a cycle, and it often (though not always) ends with violence. You and Kinser are wrong when you characterize that conflict as a class conflict, elite vs. non-elite. It is an intra-elite conflict. In more recent cycles elite factions have often had much support from non-elites. Kinser acknowledges that even socialist revolutions have leaders, a revolutionary vanguard. These folks are elites too, and if they do win the conflict they become the new ruling elite.

The core of the cycle is the tendency of elites to proliferate. In a strongly growing economy, more elites can be accommodated and so the growth of elites doesn't lead to problems. At some point economic growth slows as it reaches its limits to growth (today GDP plays the role of population in pre-industrial cycles). Elite numbers become problematic, competition increases, economic inequality soars, political divides harden, this period is analogous to the stagflation phase of pre-industrial cycles (e.g. the late 13th century and late 16th and early 17th centuries). In America this corresponds to the 1760's & early 1770's, the 1850's, the 1890's & early 1900's, and the 1990's and early 2000's. Crisis begins with a sharp drop the demographic/economic fundament of the cycle. In pre-industrial cycles it was marked by the Great Famine in 1315-17 or the governmental bankruptcy in the early 1640's, both associated with violence. In America it was around 1773, 1860 (preludes to war) and in 1907 (marked by a downward shift in capital productivity). A downward shift in capital productivity has happened again in 2006.

So now we are in secular crisis like we entered in ca 1773, 1860 and 1907. Two of the past dates, and the current one were at or close to 4Ts. In the first two cycles the resolution of the secular (cycle) crisis was fast, it occurred within the 4T. In the third secular cycle crisis came at the end of a 2T and we went through an entire 3T in which various things were tried (first by progressives during the Progressive Era and then by conservatives during the New Era). No effective action was taken, inequality continued to rise (perhaps because it was not a 4T?). Then, after the stock market crash, action became possible. That is, it was a 4T. I note that the action was not taken until 11 years into the 4T, though.

So if this model is correct, the secular cycle is supposedly going to be resolved during this 4T. Since one of the key indicators of secular cycles is inequality, that means inequality must peak and start heading down during this 4T. I have no idea how this is supposed to happen. But if it is like last time and 2008 is the 4T start, then we should see action around 2008+11 = 2019 (crisis of 2020 maybe?).

I think it is still possible for this to happen with a Democratic administration (although I cannot say it is likely). Interestingly I can see something like this happening with a Trump administration, although it would be pretty weird, but then weird is a good word to describe The Donald. I cannot see any of the GOP establishment guys overseeing anything like this. Cruz is impossible to fathom as I see him as vaguely supernatural and so incomprehensible to me.
Last edited by Mikebert; 01-16-2016 at 04:38 PM.







Post#1714 at 01-15-2016 11:18 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
01-15-2016, 11:18 AM #1714
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
Considering that Kim's surname is Kim and not Jong, and his given name is correctly Jong-un (yes both syllables are important it is like calling someone named James, Ja) I feel confident to not have to worry about the fears of those too ignorant to understand how single party states work.
My reply was rather quick and loose, but if you want to use it to try to show some credentials I'm okay with that - it's actually kind of amusing. Unfortunately, I do think you lost most of us with your comfort being based on the 'logic' of an absolute dictator being reigned in by those he dictates to without impunity.

Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
Because there is no rational explanation for your Clinton Fanboyism. My so-called Clinton Derangement Syndrome has its roots in the fact that I do not like and do not trust Hillary Clinton, never have liked her, never have trusted her, and I highly doubt that I ever will like or trust her. Now if Chelsea ran I'd vote for her in a heart beat.
Perhaps a reading comprehension problem? Let me see if I can spell it out to you one more time -

Since it is a binary choice, I support HC because she is not of the GOP clown car - a car that is designed to crash us into the ditch again.

If Sanders gets the nomination, I will support him fully with time and money, but he is not my first choice. I believe Sanders' in-your-face approach of dealing with GOP Congressional critters to be at least as nave and unfruitful as Obama's 1st term let's-sit-together-and-be-rational. I'm tired of bucking up disappointed '08 Obamatrons with savior complexes who have now morphed into '16 Bernibots with not a hint of recovering from their naivety. I want a Dem in the WH that will smile and charm GOP morons while she slips the shiv between their ribs and into their political beating hearts.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#1715 at 01-15-2016 11:31 AM by nihilist moron [at joined Jul 2014 #posts 1,230]
---
01-15-2016, 11:31 AM #1715
Join Date
Jul 2014
Posts
1,230

Hey playdude, did you see this one? It's your kinda story.

"Hate mail dildo and penis-shaped candy: Oregon militia sent 'ridiculous stuff'"
http://www.examiner.com/article/hate...diculous-stuff
Nobody ever got to a single truth without talking nonsense fourteen times first.
- Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment







Post#1716 at 01-15-2016 11:36 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
01-15-2016, 11:36 AM #1716
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Playwrite, your poo-pooing Sanders sounds just like how all the usual idiot punditocracy poo-poo'd Obama 8 years ago.

And as for Kinser's North Korea apologism, LOL!
Yep, I was an early '08 HC supporter, but threw considerable weight (particularly in VA and FL) behind Obama once he became the nominee. My concern about Obama proved exactly correct, and not only was I NOT surprised by his first term but spent a lot of time fighting with disappointed Obamatrons (you may remember some of my exchanges with say DebC?).

Given the circumstances, I came to see Obama as a master of the possible; something most people will not grasp for another decade or so.

I may be wrong (again) but I don't see Sanders as having anywhere near the political skills of actually getting anything done. I see a good chance that after 4 years of stalemates and legislative failures, Sanders will be seen as a grumpy old man isolated somewhere in the WH, paving the way for a pathetic re-election attempt and the inevitable taking of the WH by whatever pathetic demigod the GOP an cook up in 2020 - just in time for the new Census and the demigog's coattails to grease GOP gerrymandering to stay in power across the board for another decade regardless of demographics. Not a pretty picture.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#1717 at 01-15-2016 11:49 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
01-15-2016, 11:49 AM #1717
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by nihilist moron View Post
Hey playdude, did you see this one? It's your kinda story.

"Hate mail dildo and penis-shaped candy: Oregon militia sent 'ridiculous stuff'"
http://www.examiner.com/article/hate...diculous-stuff
Yea, just when the news and GOP debates has one ready to give up on her, the good old US of A comes out and reminds us what makes us great!

The Nightly Show has been having a field day with this -

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/01/ni...oregon-militia


Poor militia guys asked for some Ho-hos and instead got the literal go F yourselves.

But showing our NYC values, we're taking up a collection of used butt plugs and forwarding them on to those brave patriots 'manning' the abandoned wildlife viewing shed with its depleted gift shop. God Bless America!
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#1718 at 01-15-2016 01:41 PM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
01-15-2016, 01:41 PM #1718
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Yep, I was an early '08 HC supporter, but threw considerable weight (particularly in VA and FL) behind Obama once he became the nominee. My concern about Obama proved exactly correct, and not only was I NOT surprised by his first term but spent a lot of time fighting with disappointed Obamatrons (you may remember some of my exchanges with say DebC?).

Given the circumstances, I came to see Obama as a master of the possible; something most people will not grasp for another decade or so.

I may be wrong (again) but I don't see Sanders as having anywhere near the political skills of actually getting anything done. I see a good chance that after 4 years of stalemates and legislative failures, Sanders will be seen as a grumpy old man isolated somewhere in the WH, paving the way for a pathetic re-election attempt and the inevitable taking of the WH by whatever pathetic demigod the GOP an cook up in 2020 - just in time for the new Census and the demigog's coattails to grease GOP gerrymandering to stay in power across the board for another decade regardless of demographics. Not a pretty picture.
Since there are now significant minorities with no apparent qualms about sending washed up reality TV personalities to the WH ...

SNOOKIE '20!







Post#1719 at 01-15-2016 02:14 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
01-15-2016, 02:14 PM #1719
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Yes there is a cycle, and it often (though not always) ends with violence. You and Kinser are wrong when you characterize that conflict as a class conflict, elite vs. non-elite. It is an intra-elite conflict. In more recent cycles elite factions have often had much support from non-elites. Kinser acknowledges that even socialist revolutions have leaders, a revolutionary vanguard. These folks are elites too, and if they do win the conflict they become the new ruling elite.
I recognize multiple economic elites (big landowners, tycoons and financiers, corporate bureaucrats, and organized crime); when three of the four operate in lockstep (I can't well characterize the politics of gangsters) one gets pure oppression because those elites cooperate. When those elites turn on each other one gets the possibility of democracy. The disputes between semi-feudal big landowners in the South and Corporate America largely in the North allowed democracy to work in America as a whole (if not in the South) because Northern industrialists appealed to the rural proletariat of the South and Southern planters made alliances with Organized Labor in the North. When elites must appeal to the part of the masses that they can't control they can foster democracy. When the economic elites unite against the proletariat everywhere the result is a harsh plutocracy.

The core of the cycle is the tendency of elites to proliferate. In a strongly growing economy, more elites can be accommodated and so the growth of elites doesn't lead to problems. At some point economic growth slows as it reaches its limits to growth (today GDP plays the role of population in pre-industrial cycles). Elite numbers become problematic, competition increases, economic inequality soars, political divides harden, this period is analogous to the stagflation phase of pre-industrial cycles (e.g. the late 13th century and 16th and centuries). In America this corresponds to the 1760's & early 1770's, the 1850's, the 1890's & early 1900's, and the 1990's and early 2000's. Crisis begins with a sharp drop the demographic/economic fundament of the cycle. In pre-industrial cycles it was marked by the Great Famine in 1315-17 or the governmental bankruptcy in the early 1640's, both associated with violence. In America it was around 1773, 1860 (preludes to war) and in 1907 (marked by a downward shift in capital productivity). A downward shift in capital productivity has happened again in 2006.
Elites can keep social-climbers and talented people out. But they raise their children in opulent splendor, indeed the "gilded cage"... and their children cannot imagine any other way of life. So figure that the business executive who has had one wife of like age and has five children, three by "trophy wives". Do you think that those kids want to start shoe-string businesses? Hardly. That is for proles who can work 14-hour days in a small business that they can't give up on lest they be ruined, even if the small business isn't very lucrative. Do honest-to-backache industrial labor? Those kids are usually too soft for that. They want in the elite that their father is in.

An elite with too few openings ensures resentful people locked out. Talented people hostile to the political order are the most dangerous revolutionaries.

So now we are in secular crisis like we entered in ca 1773, 1860 and 1907. Two of the past dates, and the current one were at or close to 4Ts. In the first two cycles the resolution of the secular (cycle) crisis was fast, it occurred within the 4T. In the third secular cycle crisis came at the end of a 2T and we went through an entire 3T in which various things were tried (first by progressives during the Progressive Era and then by conservatives during the New Era). No effective action was taken, inequality continued to rise (perhaps because it was not a 4T?). Then, after the stock market crash, action became possible. That is, it was a 4T. I note that the action was not taken until 11 years into the 4T, though.
1907? Must be a typo. 1907 was roughly a 2T-3T cusp.

The Progressive Era of the previous 3T was a time of legitimate progress; the only progress that I can see in the last 3T was technological with cultural consequences. The Crash of 2008 is similar to the Crash of 1930 (the real crash was in 1930 -- not 1929), except that the later one did not come to an end in about a year. Obama prevented another Great Depression by backing the banks; FDR rescued America when it was already in a Depression. Obama rescued economic elites before they lost the means of stabbing him in the back. FDR started the American economy on a path of sound progress after people who could seek a return to the Gilded Age no longer had the means to finance a political resurgence.

So if this model is correct, the secular cycle is supposedly going to be resolved during this 4T. Since one of the key indicators of secular cycles is inequality, that means inequality must peak and start heading down during this 4T. I have no idea how this is supposed to happen. But if it is like last time and 2008 is the 4T start, then we should see action around 2008+11 = 2019 (crisis of 2020 maybe?).
No two Crises are quite alike. Americans will not be turning against an overseas King who tried to clamp down on local freedom this time. Slavery has not made a comeback, so it certainly won't be the issue. Germany and Japan are not Evil Empires that absolutely must be defeated. This time the basic relationship between labor and management has yet to be resolved. The economic elites would be delighted to impose a new serfdom with high-tech systems of enforcement. Will they get the chance?

The politicians are mostly skillful liars. Don't look at what the politicians say -- look at what the right-wing think tanks advocate. It's the sort of economic order (ultra-cheap labor, monopolistic business, brutal management, privatization of any public-sector asset that can be turned into a profiteering operation) that I would emigrate from if I were 30 years younger unless I were from one of the elites.

I think it is still possible for this to happen with a Democratic administration (although I cannot say it is likely). Interestingly I can see something like this happening with a Trump administration, although it would be pretty weird, but then weird is a good word to describe The Donald. I cannot see any of the GOP establishment guys overseeing anything like this. Cruz is impossible to fathom as I see him as vaguely supernatural and so incomprehensible to me.
The "Establishment" and "non-Establishment" Republicans believe the same thing. Their public policies on economics will be much the same.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1720 at 01-15-2016 04:50 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-15-2016, 04:50 PM #1720
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
No. Our difference is in the likelihood of Republicans being discredited if they really fuck up. You see the parties as symmetrical. If one of them fucks up they get thrown out and the other party gets put in.

You have somehow failed to notice that when Republicans fuck up (Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush I, Bush II) the Democrat who comes next is expected to clean up their shit and and then gets tossed out. If the Dem gets uppity, overseers are put in (e.g. 1994, 2010) or Dems get tossed out early (1980). Then the Republicans come in and get to enact their agenda, ramp up the deficit, start wars etc. all over again--and get away with it. This carte blanche has emboldened them. Today they now openly talk of things that they used to ban from Republican speech as being too far on the Right.

Democrats have been cowed by the double standard. Today a Democrat has to call himself of socialist to say things that were perfectly ordinary for a Northern Democrat when I was young.

Democrats are always hoping for someone to save them. Today its demographics. If the GOP wins this will let the Democrats continue to maintain their belief in this fantasy and the left will slowly just dissolve away like the Federalists/Whigs. If the Dems win and then the economy goes south as you and I believe it will, then they are cornered. Their party will face annihilation--they won't have the luxury of feeding on its dying carcass for the rest of their careers. Thus it will be fight or die. I am betting the the Clintons are not going out without a fight.
After decades of carefully manicured messaging, arguably going back into the FDR administration, the conservative business elite have managed to reframe the American standard model to elevate their ideas (hard work, self reliance, Godliness and faith in 'our betters') and demote or totally denigrate their opponents ideas (predominantly communitarian actions including unionizing and egalitarianism). Why should we expect this to reverse course without manifest cause?

Following current practices, we'll get somewhere if a real crisis is triggered, and the GOP fails miserably like Hoover in the early 1930s, or the path back will be long and require a concerted effort getting there. I assume the second will be the case, even though the current crop of Republicans are unusually hubristic and clueless.

So yes, the GOP gets undeserved hand waves and the Dems get no credit for the work they do. Is that due to something intrinsic? I don't think so. The Dems and their allies just never go for the throat; the GOP does every time. If you're in a knife fight, bring the biggest knife ... or stay home. This was never a civilized discussion, and it's time to make that abundantly clear.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1721 at 01-15-2016 04:50 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
01-15-2016, 04:50 PM #1721
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by nihilist moron View Post
Hey playdude, did you see this one? It's your kinda story.

"Hate mail dildo and penis-shaped candy: Oregon militia sent 'ridiculous stuff'"
http://www.examiner.com/article/hate...diculous-stuff
Y'all-Qaeda are a bunch of dildos, so it fits!
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1722 at 01-15-2016 04:59 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-15-2016, 04:59 PM #1722
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
No. Our difference is in the likelihood of Republicans being discredited if they really fuck up. You see the parties as symmetrical. If one of them fucks up they get thrown out and the other party gets put in.

You have somehow failed to notice that when Republicans fuck up (Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush I, Bush II) the Democrat who comes next is expected to clean up their shit and and then gets tossed out. If the Dem gets uppity, overseers are put in (e.g. 1994, 2010) or Dems get tossed out early (1980). Then the Republicans come in and get to enact their agenda, ramp up the deficit, start wars etc. all over again--and get away with it. This carte blanche has emboldened them. Today they now openly talk of things that they used to ban from Republican speech as being too far on the Right.

Democrats have been cowed by the double standard. Today a Democrat has to call himself of socialist to say things that were perfectly ordinary for a Northern Democrat when I was young.
After decades of carefully manicured messaging, arguably going back into the FDR administration, the conservative business elite have managed to reframe the American standard model to elevate their ideas (hard work, self reliance, Godliness and faith in 'our betters') and demote or totally denigrate their opponents ideas (predominantly communitarian actions including unionizing and egalitarianism). Why should we expect this to reverse course without manifest cause?

Following current practices, we'll get somewhere if a real crisis is triggered, and the GOP fails miserably like Hoover in the early 1930s, or the path back will be long and require a concerted effort getting there. I assume the second will be the case, even though the current crop of Republicans are unusually hubristic and clueless.

So yes, the GOP gets undeserved hand waves and the Dems get no credit for the work they do. Is that due to something intrinsic? I don't think so. The Dems and their allies just never go for the throat; the GOP does every time. If you're in a knife fight, bring the biggest knife ... or stay home. This was never a civilized discussion, and it's time to make that abundantly clear.

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert ...
Democrats are always hoping for someone to save them. Today its demographics. If the GOP wins this will let the Democrats continue to maintain their belief in this fantasy and the left will slowly just dissolve away like the Federalists/Whigs. If the Dems win and then the economy goes south as you and I believe it will, then they are cornered. Their party will face annihilation--they won't have the luxury of feeding on its dying carcass for the rest of their careers. Thus it will be fight or die. I am betting the Clintons are not going out without a fight.
Assuming it's Hillary that gets the nod, I agree that she and Bill will fight -- just not for us. They are strictly warriors for their own cause. They'll save their party, and themselves, by selling out on the last few principles they have. In the end, there will be the Corporate GOP and the Corporate Dems. The Dems will declare victory in the culture wars, and the GOP gets the rest. Hooray!
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1723 at 01-15-2016 05:12 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-15-2016, 05:12 PM #1723
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
Let us assume what you say is true. Then would it not be incredibly personally risky to start a nuclear war with the only state known to man to have nuclear weapons and to have used them...that is to say the US?
Are you asking for a rational judgment? The Kim Dynasty has been pretty bold over the years, including the Pueblo incident -- arguably an act of war. Tough-guy Richard Nixon did nothing and even got reelected while the crew was held prisoner.

I doubt they think we will do anything no matter the provocation. We never have.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1724 at 01-15-2016 05:17 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-15-2016, 05:17 PM #1724
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by nihilist moron View Post
Go Bernie go! Hillary may get schlonged yet again.
Trump vs Sanders would be an epic 4T election. Popcorn time!
Let's keep the schlonging off the TV ... for the children.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#1725 at 01-15-2016 05:22 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-15-2016, 05:22 PM #1725
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
Wrong.

If the GOP runs someone as their nominee who is not eligible to be president, you can expect a judicial challenge from the Democrats. If their nominee is ruled ineligable to be president then who will they pick?
Did you sleep through the 2000 election? An adequately RW SCOTUS can do as it pleases, and feel righteously justified in doing it.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-----------------------------------------