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 70







Post#1726 at 01-15-2016 05:46 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
01-15-2016, 05:46 PM #1726
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

quotes

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
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. .
Yes, this is the essence of democracy and this is why Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison designed the checks and balances in the Constitution the way that they did. Contrary to what some Marxist-Leninists believe, the architects of the American Revolution, while well to do were not the true elites. The people who owned the most of the resources of the Colonies were absentee, living in England, mostly London and were completely sympathetic with Parliament's designs to bring the Colonies to heel. The Constitution was designed for two reasons: One was in reaction to an unchecked Parliament that was out of control in the UK. The other was the need to create a navy to stand against Islamic jihadists( known as Barbary Pirates) who were demanding gold the US did not have as ransom or jizya and who were literally killing American commerce to the few European nations (in the Mediterranean) who did not sanction the new United States for being a republic and rebellion against it's King.

.
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. .[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

This is why free trade and moves toward limitation of national sovereignty are so dangerous. With disruptive competition between nations, we get separation of power and competition, maybe even expansion into the rest of the Solar System, and above all, alternative systems of governance. With world order, new or old, we get monopoly, world plutocracy and world imperium. One big oppressor is a lot harder to deal with than some local little oppressors.



.
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..[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
.[/QUOTE] We are seeing this now with the rise of "excellent sheep" See http://www.amazon.com/Excellent-Shee.../dp/1476702721 This book, by the way, is an excellent description of Millennial/Homeland Artist young people who are studying at our more elite institutions of higher learning; a must for generational studies. And to see what they grow into when they go to work on Wall Street, read http://www.amazon.com/Young-Money-St...ds=young+money . Artist young people are going from sheltered but pushed and tightly controlled childhoods (by law in many cases; leaving children unattended even for a moment can bring the attention of social services and police except in poor neighbourhoods and a controlled and sheltered childhood is a class distinction) but a childhood and adolescence in which the pressure to excel is unrelenting--to a sheltered university education where failure is no longer an option--to work on Wall Street that involves 16 hour days and while much of it is busywork, is intense and time controlling enough to be very similar to life in religious cults like Scientology or Unification Church. Which may help explain why people on Wall Street cannot conceive of doing anything but what they have been doing.
.[/QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE]

They are not capable of doing so or conceiving of doing so.[/QUOTE
]
. 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. [/QUOTE].

Not to mention the fact that industrial labour is not only repetitive but in the long term, causes industrial injury and disease that shortens lives. Everything from carpal tunnel syndrome to blacklung to back injury from stoop labour in vegetable fields and pesticide exposure. Which is why there is such a demand for temporary foreign labour that is ineligible for workman's compensation. Not to mention the fact that today's repetitive jobs are well on their way to being automated out of existence. See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...t-work/395294/

.They want in the elite that their father is in. [/QUOTE].
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE].An elite with too few openings ensures resentful people locked out. Talented people hostile to the political order are the most dangerous revolutionaries. [/QUOTE].

Right now, these locked out talented people are gravitating in many cases to hacking and the DarkNet. To Agorism, which is the ultimate in libertarian free enterprise because it is illegal. To creating online drug (and kiddie porn and trafficking) markets that are almost impossible for the government to penetrate. Welcome to the world of Anonymous and William Gibson!





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..[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] Only in the United States. 3T in Europe up until 1914 had very little social innovation, just like us (Germany might have been the exception). Even in the US, much of the innovation amounted to protection of existing businesses (state laws banning chain stores and branch banking and requiring retail businesses to buy only from wholesalers come to mind. There was vigirous anti-trust enforcement but also bloody repression of labour organising. Prohibition was a very repressive form of social engineering. Much of the thrust of reform in the 1900s and 1910s amounted to using state power and new administrative tools to control and "resocialise" the "dangerous classes". I think that we are given a distorted view of the Progressive Era in our high school history classes Wilson's "war socialism" was highly repressive, which was one of the reasons it was repudiated in 1920. . Even the vote for women came only at the very end of the process, in 1920.

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 [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Did Obama do the country any favours by backing the banks, deciding that they were "too big to fail" and not letting the country "hit bottom" or was what Obama did the equivalent of bailing out a drunk or paying the gambling debts of a compulsive gambler? Would we have been better off allowing banks that lived by the free market to perish by the free market, opening up the door for a real revolution? Should we be calling Obama the Enabler-In-Chief? (Pardon my Boomer moralising but if the answer is no, maybe the answer should be different about substance abuse too).

; 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. [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
The Republican Right might not have started on the path to rolling back the New Deal as soon as Roosevelt was dead if Roosevelt had had the architects of the abortive "Business Coup" against him tried for treason and executed instead of sternly ordering them to never try that again. (Of course the US might also have become a much more authoritarian place if he had). http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm Impunity for Wall Street really started with FDR.



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? [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

The labour-management crisis is a bit more basic than that. Serfs have job security. Today's "involuntary free-lancers" do not. The real labour challenge is the fact that almost everyone is expendable and jobs are being automated. In other words, Kondriateff creative destruction. But first the destruction.
We need a 6 hour day at $20 per hour with time and a half after 6 and double time after 8 hours if we are to fairly allocate what work is being left to do. 4 shifts instead of 3. Nobody, even in the Sanders camp is talking about that, at least not yet.
What made the last recovery (and the dot-com recovery before it) so tortuous was the fact that employers invested in automation and only had new hires after the potential for automation had been exhausted. Amazon has one of the worst workplaces in the country, forcing temporary workers to work sometimes in 100 degree heat and replacing them after only a few weeks. Not surprisingly, it's newest "wish fulfillment centres" have robots doing almost all of the stocking, picking and packing. Dead end jobs are truly dead end--marked for destruction by automation. In time, there will be other jobs as the potential for nanotech and atomic level tech are realised to create new products, but millions of Americans will wind up on the scrap heap before then. And attempts to 'mummify existing technology and protect jobs by stopping automation will fail because the tech revolution is worldwide. We are seeing machinists and tool and die people being obseleted by first CNC machining, using a computer and now additive 3-d printing manufacturing. This is the real current crisis and this is why immigration has become such a hot issue and hasn't gone away, not bigotry.

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. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

If we need to worry about what the right wing think tanks are advocating, we need to worry about what the left wing think tanks (which are a lot older) advocate too. Think tanks like World Watch Instiute and Club of Rome and Rockefeller Foundation. The Greens are to the Democrats as the Tea Party is to the Republicans. Don't blame the Republicans for coming up with something like Club FOR Growth when Democrats such as Richard D. Lamm came up with Zero Population Growth Inc. and the Hastings Instutitute, which advocates curtailing life supporting medicine to people over 85 (Lamm favours that too). It's ironic as Hell (and the Devil is laughing his sides off) but conservative Republicans are through their policies delivering the limits to growth that Green Democrats have been advocating since the 1970s. Neither side of the elite cares about common people or sees them as anything more than objects.



.
The "Establishment" and "non-Establishment" Republicans believe the same thing. Their public policies on economics will be much the same.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Last edited by MordecaiK; 01-15-2016 at 05:53 PM. Reason: quotes







Post#1727 at 01-15-2016 06:07 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
01-15-2016, 06:07 PM #1727
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
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.
These GOP ideas will fail miserably all right. These ideas are totally irrelevant to the current situation, in which white collar as well as blue collar jobs are being automated out of existence. GOP (Boomer) ideas of hard work fail miserably when confronted with the reality that there is less work to do. And the irony of it all is that the "working rich" are working too hard at their own 16 hour days to notice the contradiction.
Nobody is contemplating the need to shorten hours to spread the work that is remaining around more workers so that everyone is getting some. Income insurance? Forget it! See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...t-work/395294/ How will Boomer moralising by either Party get us out of this mess?







Post#1728 at 01-15-2016 08:28 PM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-15-2016, 08:28 PM #1728
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
My reply was rather quick and loose,
As someone who wants to be taken seriously, which I assume you do want to be taken seriously, quick and loose responses will be called out, especially if you are debating me. I don't involve myself in many debates here because I usually don't have time to make through logical and dialectical evaluations of the subject.

but if you want to use it to try to show some credentials I'm okay with that
I would argue that if someone doesn't understand that Koreans (and East Asians more Generally) use family names first and given names second, and that a hyphenated name in Chinese, Korean and to a lesser extent Japanese indicates a multi-syllable name then it definitely shows that the person posting either has little understanding of the topic of Korea in particular or East Asia in general.

People who want to be taken seriously should also act seriously.

- 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.
The problem you seem to be having here is that Kim is not an absolute dictator, there is actually no such thing as an absolute dictator. In the DPRK there is in fact separations of powers, although not along the same lines as there would be in the West. The same can be said of China, but then again you might also consider Xi Jinping to be an absolute dictator despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps a reading comprehension problem? Let me see if I can spell it out to you one more time -
My reading comprehension is fine. Any failure to communicate would be on your part. Probably due to playing things fast and loose.

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.
Here's the problem. It isn't a binary choice yet. Both the Democrats and the GOP are having primaries, and in the US we have primaries for a reason. It is so that Party Bosses can't anoint the Next Leader. Which strangely was a criticism that the US has had of many single party states.

As such one has a choice until such time as HRC is nominated to vote for or support Sanders, O'Mally or any other Democrat that is running.

And just so we are clear since Florida is a closed primary state, and since I am registered as a Democrat (due to primary considerations) I will be filling in my bubble for Bernie Sanders.

As for HRC not being in the GOP Clown Car, well that is technically true. However if you listen to her for more than five minutes you realize she is a Reagan Democrat through and through and may as well be a Republican, and given the choice between a Republican (no matter how clownish) and a Democrat who acts like a Republican (no matter how serious) I'll take the Republican. I strongly recommend reading Harry S. Truman's statements to the Americans for Democratic Action on 17 May 1952.

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.
I would argue that Sander's in your face manner is exactly what is needed. FDR, arguably the US' most successful President ever didn't build coalitions, he didn't compromise with his enemies, he did battle with them. He destroyed them, and he won. Clinton will want to be bipartisan. Let me explain to you what being bipartisan means to a Republican (my father is one of those rare creatures known as a black Republican): For the GOP bipartisan means that the Democrats are Bi and the Republicans are Partisan.

As such HRC would offer the same thing that BHO offers, no movement. I'm sorry I'd rather end up in the ditch rather than four more years of drift. At least when we end up in that ditch the GOP will be finished, particularly if it is a Cruz, Rubio or Bush in charge.







Post#1729 at 01-15-2016 08:31 PM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-15-2016, 08:31 PM #1729
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
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.
Considering that the US makes little these days and buys from China poking the DPRK would end up being economic suicide--well until we re-industrialize which both Sanders and Trump put on the table with Protectionism.







Post#1730 at 01-15-2016 08:32 PM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-15-2016, 08:32 PM #1730
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Did you sleep through the 2000 election? An adequately RW SCOTUS can do as it pleases, and feel righteously justified in doing it.
I was underway during most of it. However, I would argue that the 2000 election was going to end up with W as president anyway. Even had the SCOTUS done the right thing, stopped the counting and kicked it over to the House, the GOP majority would have picked W and the rest would have been history.

That being said, a challenge as to what Natural Born Citizen means is not of the same partisan nature as meddling in an election.







Post#1731 at 01-15-2016 11:20 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-15-2016, 11:20 PM #1731
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
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.
The Democrats are definitely Economic Justice Warriors. That is the basis of the campaigns. In the 4T the culture war is on the back burner. The liberals have mostly won it; the right-wing can only whine and yearn for yesterday like Archie Bunker did.

The amazing thing is how Republicans try to sell themselves using some of the same slogans as the Democrats. They want to get on Bernie's bandwagon. That was on full display at Thursday night's debate on Fox business channel (I watched it on youtube). The Republican clowns claim they want to help the working people; they want to create economic prosperity for all. How are they going to do that? By blaming Obama for the mess Republicans themselves caused; the mess they want us to go back to. The Republicans want to expand the policies that don't work: trickle-down economics.

"Help the working man" means take away regulations that protect the people from business malpractice. If business doesn't want to feel the burn of regulation, then it should behave itself (i.e. pay people what they are worth instead of hogging all the earnings, stop polluting, offer safe products and safe working conditions, etc.), and then more regulations could be lifted! They only exist because business people misbehave! It means lower taxes on rich people through a flat tax, which charges poor and lower middle class people more and rich people less, even though the system already does that. Some of them even claim that lower taxes on poor people will help them get out of poverty, when the poor usually don't even pay taxes at all. How is lowering taxes on them going to help them then? They keep complaining about debt, but want to expand military spending and lower taxes like Reagan did. They complain about it even though the deficit is plunging thanks to the sequestration that they themselves imposed. They complain even though deficit spending was necessary, as it always is after the recessions happen, which Republicans almost always cause with their trickle-down, boost-the-rich policies.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-15-2016 at 11:26 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1732 at 01-15-2016 11:24 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-15-2016, 11:24 PM #1732
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
These GOP ideas will fail miserably all right. These ideas are totally irrelevant to the current situation, in which white collar as well as blue collar jobs are being automated out of existence. GOP (Boomer) ideas of hard work fail miserably when confronted with the reality that there is less work to do. And the irony of it all is that the "working rich" are working too hard at their own 16 hour days to notice the contradiction.
You mean red boomer ideas, which were based on Silent and GI and Lost and Missionary and Gilded ideas. Blue boomers are leading us away from those policies. Yes indeed, GOP ideas will fail as they always do.

Nobody is contemplating the need to shorten hours to spread the work that is remaining around more workers so that everyone is getting some. Income insurance? Forget it! See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...t-work/395294/ How will Boomer moralising by either Party get us out of this mess?
Boomers like me are saying exactly that. I've been saying that here for some time. My main critic on this was an X/Millie cusper.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1733 at 01-16-2016 10:45 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
01-16-2016, 10:45 AM #1733
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
As someone who wants to be taken seriously, which I assume you do want to be taken seriously, quick and loose responses will be called out, especially if you are debating me. I don't involve myself in many debates here because I usually don't have time to make through logical and dialectical evaluations of the subject.



I would argue that if someone doesn't understand that Koreans (and East Asians more Generally) use family names first and given names second, and that a hyphenated name in Chinese, Korean and to a lesser extent Japanese indicates a multi-syllable name then it definitely shows that the person posting either has little understanding of the topic of Korea in particular or East Asia in general.

People who want to be taken seriously should also act seriously.
Yawn. How boring. Another poster slips into the sophomoric swamp of grammar police.

I guess with your illusions of self-importance on the forum, you believe you are the first to resort to the technique or that by going Guangan Style it would go unnoticed. Ah, sorry, it doesn't work that way; and I'll let you in on a little secret, I don't give a shit if you post here or not.

Let's refresh back before your grasp at some sort of Asian expertise -

Your train of thought is we don't have to worry about a bellicose moron in the WH triggering a suicidal launch by Kim because the latter will be checked by some sort of dispersion of power within his own governing body. You offer nothing about that specific governing body to support that, but instead just conjecture that such restrains are always in place. Sorry, but history is riff with not only absolute power but using that power to go down with the ship and taking everyone else with them.

I'm sure some part of you sensed the silliness of your 'argument,' resulting in your subconscious need to protect your illusions of self-importance by launching your Guangan Style grammar police tactic of misdirection. Yawn, how clever - I wouldn't be surprise if there was a little Googling on your part to shore you up?


Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
The problem you seem to be having here is that Kim is not an absolute dictator, there is actually no such thing as an absolute dictator. In the DPRK there is in fact separations of powers, although not along the same lines as there would be in the West. The same can be said of China, but then again you might also consider Xi Jinping to be an absolute dictator despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Ah, now that you have created your Guangan Style grammar credentials, you believe you can restate your preposterous view of certitude that Kim is restrained by his own governing bodies. Rather that continue some sort of 'you-said-I-said,' I would suggest that you take another attempt at George's "Animal Farm" that my 8th grader is currently undertaking - the problem with Leftys' "its really all mathematics" is the system is made up human beings, and those considering themselves "more equal" have been known to do some pretty nasty things, without constraint. You guys keep getting surprised by that.


Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
My reading comprehension is fine. Any failure to communicate would be on your part. Probably due to playing things fast and loose.



Here's the problem. It isn't a binary choice yet. Both the Democrats and the GOP are having primaries, and in the US we have primaries for a reason. It is so that Party Bosses can't anoint the Next Leader. Which strangely was a criticism that the US has had of many single party states.

As such one has a choice until such time as HRC is nominated to vote for or support Sanders, O'Mally or any other Democrat that is running.

And just so we are clear since Florida is a closed primary state, and since I am registered as a Democrat (due to primary considerations) I will be filling in my bubble for Bernie Sanders.

As for HRC not being in the GOP Clown Car, well that is technically true. However if you listen to her for more than five minutes you realize she is a Reagan Democrat through and through and may as well be a Republican, and given the choice between a Republican (no matter how clownish) and a Democrat who acts like a Republican (no matter how serious) I'll take the Republican. I strongly recommend reading Harry S. Truman's statements to the Americans for Democratic Action on 17 May 1952.



I would argue that Sander's in your face manner is exactly what is needed. FDR, arguably the US' most successful President ever didn't build coalitions, he didn't compromise with his enemies, he did battle with them. He destroyed them, and he won. Clinton will want to be bipartisan. Let me explain to you what being bipartisan means to a Republican (my father is one of those rare creatures known as a black Republican): For the GOP bipartisan means that the Democrats are Bi and the Republicans are Partisan.

As such HRC would offer the same thing that BHO offers, no movement. I'm sorry I'd rather end up in the ditch rather than four more years of drift. At least when we end up in that ditch the GOP will be finished, particularly if it is a Cruz, Rubio or Bush in charge.
Sorry, but its worse than just a reading comprehension problem, that is merely a symptom. You actually have a problem with logic.

First, you can't seem to differentiation the entire decision tree made up of choices (some of the most critical being binary) from the actual individual choices of that tree. I'm not sure this will get through that self-importance filter you wear so proudly, but let me take a shot at it anyway. You see, we are primarily a two party system and with every election cycle we have a binary choice - that's between two candidates representing one of the two respective parties.To be clear, that's one person from each of two parties, so Kinser, again, that final critical choice is 1 x 2 = 2 (if you have some kids around ask them if you need further clarity).

Now before that election, the two parties go through a process, we'll call it "primary season" of selecting one representative to move forward to that big binary choice between the single representative from each of the two parties (there's that 1x2=2 again!). Now certainly, the primary season has a number of decision points on the decision tree and not all of them are binary. However, for at least one party, the choice has essentially been binary almost from the start - Mallory hasn't a chance, and Biden used his binary choice and said no, so its a binary choice between Clinton and Sanders - in fact, one of the biggest complaints was Hillary's team was trying to make it something else. Now granted on the GOP side, it is multi-choice, but one would have to be in a coma to not see how it is turning into binary choices of Establishment v. Non-Establishment or Trump v. Cruz.

Now you may have been confused by my working backwards on the decision tree, starting with the final, and most important, binary decision first - again, the BIG binary choice between the GOP representative and the DEM representative - before backing into the binary choice in the DEM primary between Clinton and Sanders. Sorry, if that confused you, but you should know that this technique of starting with the end in mind is used by those of us who know our way around logic - you might want to attempt it on your own some time.

Now I could have also gone back on the decision tree along the GOP branch and presented the binary choices between Establishment and Non-Establishment and from there the binary choice between Trump and Cruz, but I think this might be a tad too advance for you (e.g., there' a little going back and forward, could be confusing to you) so we will leave that alone for now.

Let's move on to your other wonder of logic - your proposal to vote for Bernie in the primary but vote for anyone from the GOP clown car should they run against Hillary. Since math is in your byline, let's see if we can use that to introduce you to logic, or in your case, illogic.

If Bernie is a +10 and the GOP clown is a -10, you being a 'positive guy' will obviously vote for Bernie.

Now, I believe Clinton is a +5 but would not be surprised if she turned out to be a +7. But let's go with your sense that she is a -5. It is simply illogical for you to vote for a -10 guy when you have the binary choice of voting for a -5 instead- hell even a -9 Clinton this is true against a -10 GOP clown.

Now you might put forth some convoluted hope that by getting the -10 guy in there, with the resulting disaster, we'll get to the position of people's outrage being sufficient to elect a +10 guy NEXT TIME the decision tree comes around. There's some logic to that; it's stupid logic, but it does have some tenants of logic. I suggest you at least stick with stupid logic rather than no logic whatsoever - at least there would then be some ember of that glorious fire that you imagine giving this forum.
Last edited by playwrite; 01-16-2016 at 10:51 AM.
"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#1734 at 01-16-2016 04:03 PM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-16-2016, 04:03 PM #1734
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Yawn. How boring. Another poster slips into the sophomoric swamp of grammar police.
It is boring, but so is attempting to debate with a Democratic Partisan. Face it Playdude, everyone already knows that you'll vote for whomever the Democrats offer. It doesn't matter if it is Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Adolf Hitler. You are part of the Democratic 15%. That is to say 15% of the population is going to vote for whomever the Democrats put on offer. The GOP also has 15%. That 30% is not who decides elections, thankfully.

I guess with your illusions of self-importance on the forum, you believe you are the first to resort to the technique or that by going Guangan Style it would go unnoticed. Ah, sorry, it doesn't work that way; and I'll let you in on a little secret, I don't give a shit if you post here or not.
If I were you I'd leave the psychological analysis to the psychologists on the board. You see I personally don't care if you post either. That we agree on much doesn't mean I even have to like you. Honestly much of the time I think you're a pretentious bore, but I think that of many liberals so you're not alone. You really should stick to posting about MMT, that is one of the few times you're not a pretentious bore.

As for the technique, it is effective. It gets your blood up, I see that by your post. It is effective so I'll use it in the future. See that is the thing I've noticed about Boomers (especially white ones) early on. They hate thinking they aren't being taken seriously--whether they are being serious or not. I blame it on GI parenting and its indulgent ways.

Also it it is Gangnam Style. I googled Gaungan Style and well Google says they've never heard of it. Playing fast and loose again? You know cause it works so effectively against people who actually take the time to think about what they post before they actually post.

Let's refresh back before your grasp at some sort of Asian expertise -
I don't need to. Your ignorance of Asia in general and Korea in particular will do the work for me.

Your train of thought is we don't have to worry about a bellicose moron in the WH triggering a suicidal launch by Kim because the latter will be checked by some sort of dispersion of power within his own governing body. You offer nothing about that specific governing body to support that, but instead just conjecture that such restrains are always in place.
The governmental structure of Korea has been written down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...of_North_Korea

I know, I know wikipedia. Needless to say I've read translated versions of the document for myself. Kim has to deal with his own Party's politburo and his power isn't unlimited. He has exactly as much power as the Army and the Party allows, the two foundations of the power he has. Which is prudent given that he is both young and untested, and that regencies are not uncommon in monarchies which it is slowly becoming evident the DPRK actually is.

Furthermore, I'd argue that any problems with having a Bellicose Moron in the White House would be primarily domestic. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the US does not attack powers with nukes because we don't want ourselves blown up and we most certainly do have checks on said bellicose moron's power. Or do you plan on arguing that the US is itself a totalitarian dictatorship or whatever you plan on claiming the DPRK is.

Sorry, but history is riff with not only absolute power but using that power to go down with the ship and taking everyone else with them.
History is also rife with coups d'etats when something like that is close to happening. Kim's power is not absolute, he rules only by the consent of the Army really. One of the many flaws of Kim Jong-Il's policy of Army First.

I'm sure some part of you sensed the silliness of your 'argument,' resulting in your subconscious need to protect your illusions of self-importance by launching your Guangan Style grammar police tactic of misdirection. Yawn, how clever - I wouldn't be surprise if there was a little Googling on your part to shore you up?
Again with the Guangan Style...if you mean Gangnam Style it is clear that you have not understood the meaning of the song (which I will admit is rather vapid in and of itself, but it actually does have a meaning). No the grammar police tactic is not a misdirection. It is pointing out that someone who can't be bothered to use names correctly cannot be taken seriously.

As for using Google, you may want to try it. One can learn many useful things off google. Hell the search engine has inspired its own religion.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

In some ways I kind of see their point.

Ah, now that you have created your Guangan Style grammar credentials, you believe you can restate your preposterous view of certitude that Kim is restrained by his own governing bodies.
Kim's power rests on the Army's consent. Which is evident upon an analysis of the power dynamics within the DPRK with has been made available through the CIA among other sources.

Rather that continue some sort of 'you-said-I-said,'
I'm not particularly interested in doing that. It is obvious you haven't debated me much, but if you did you'd know I don't play that game. I leave that for the Partisan Republicans on the board.

I would suggest that you take another attempt at George's "Animal Farm" that my 8th grader is currently undertaking - the problem with Leftys' "its really all mathematics" is the system is made up human beings, and those considering themselves "more equal" have been known to do some pretty nasty things, without constraint. You guys keep getting surprised by that.
I've read that book. I understand that book. But it is obvious that you don't understand the Song referenced in my Signature. Furthermore, Animal Farm in the 8th grade, read it in 6th down here. Don't tell me New York now lags behind Florida!

The fact is that Orwell wrote a fable based upon what he thought. The man may have been involved in the Spanish Civil War, but he never learned to speak Spanish so he could only base his thoughts on what he was told was happening. He also never went to the Soviet Union, and even if he had he certainly didn't speak Russian so like Spain he could only base his thoughts on what he was told.

No I have a better book that I think you should review. The Prince by Machiavelli. Even an absolute monarch has to cater to that base which supplies him with power. Kim is no different, and he isn't even close to being an absolute monarch even if him being a monarch is an arguable point.

Sorry, but its worse than just a reading comprehension problem, that is merely a symptom. You actually have a problem with logic.
It isn't my fault you cannot understand basic logic. That logic being that Hillary Vs Any Republican is not a binary choice until AFTER she is anointed (or nominated if you prefer) the Democratic candidate.

First, you can't seem to differentiation the entire decision tree made up of choices (some of the most critical being binary) from the actual individual choices of that tree. I'm not sure this will get through that self-importance filter you wear so proudly, but let me take a shot at it anyway. You see, we are primarily a two party system and with every election cycle we have a binary choice - that's between two candidates representing one of the two respective parties.To be clear, that's one person from each of two parties, so Kinser, again, that final critical choice is 1 x 2 = 2 (if you have some kids around ask them if you need further clarity).
I understand how the two party system works. Perhaps better than you do. I have to, not having either that actually represents me any way, shape or form, though Progressive (not to be confused with Neo-Progressive) Democrats come closest. Also I understand basic math, I did after all graduate the 4th grade.

Now before that election, the two parties go through a process, we'll call it "primary season" of selecting one representative to move forward to that big binary choice between the single representative from each of the two parties (there's that 1x2=2 again!). Now certainly, the primary season has a number of decision points on the decision tree and not all of them are binary. However, for at least one party, the choice has essentially been binary almost from the start - Mallory hasn't a chance, and Biden used his binary choice and said no, so its a binary choice between Clinton and Sanders - in fact, one of the biggest complaints was Hillary's team was trying to make it something else. Now granted on the GOP side, it is multi-choice, but one would have to be in a coma to not see how it is turning into binary choices of Establishment v. Non-Establishment or Trump v. Cruz.
Again not a point of contention other than the fact that the Democrats have their own primary binary choice: A New Deal Progressive vs DLC Corporatist Democrat. In short Sanders Vs Clintion. I could even simply it further An Indpendent that acts like a Democrat (in the New Deal Traditional sense) vs A Democrat that acts like a Republican (That is uses traditionally Non-ClownCar GOP talking points and positions).

The fact that you don't seem to understand that no matter the desires of the DNC or the DLC, Hillary is a Democrat that acts like a Republican (and the fact that everyone outside of the Democratic 15% knows this) means we have a choice between whomever the GOP picks (Establishment or Non-Establishment doesn't matter) and whomever the Democrats pick, and whom the Democrats pick does matter. At least for everyone outside of the GOP 15% and the Democrat 15%.

So then if the choice is between say Ted Cruz Vs Ted Cruz Lite (since HRC might not enforce Marijuana Laws and probably will let women have abortions) the clear choice for the 70% is clear. Ted Cruz. Trump is more tricky because his positions quite frankly are all over the map if you listen to the man.

Now you may have been confused by my working backwards on the decision tree, starting with the final, and most important, binary decision first - again, the BIG binary choice between the GOP representative and the DEM representative - before backing into the binary choice in the DEM primary between Clinton and Sanders. Sorry, if that confused you, but you should know that this technique of starting with the end in mind is used by those of us who know our way around logic - you might want to attempt it on your own some time.
Actually I was not confused by it. But the problem you have is in your assumption that HRC will end up being the nominee. Polls conducted in real time seem to indicate otherwise. And that isn't even bringing in the fact that she was supposed to have been the nominee in 2008 and Obama came out of no where running on a Progressive (again not to be confused with Neo-Progressive) platform.

In short you are being illogical from the start by assuming that something which is not a given is in fact a given. It is akin to assuming that x+y=2 that both x and y must be 1 and ignoring the possibility that x or y could be 2 and x or y could be 0.

For the record 2 can be derived through addition by the following processes: 1+1=2, 0+2=2, 2+0=2. If you disbelieve me you may want to consult your 8th grader on the matter.

As such since we are dealing with a binary choice and we know that the answer is 2 we must first determine if either x or y is in fact 0 before we conclude that both are 1. In American politics this happens through one means, the primary process. As such attempting to determine whom one is going to vote for in the General election cannot happen (unless one is voting strictly on the basis of political party--which if that is how you do things, that's your choice but for others the process is quite different) until after it is mathematically impossible for anyone other than the eventual nominee to be nominated.

To make a complex system simple, each state is allocated delegates that are assigned in proportion to how that state goes with the addition of a few delegates from the Party's National Center (AKA Super-delegates...a trick HRC tried in 2008 and failed at as well). These delegates then vote on the basis of the preferences of the electors (IE the people who voted in their state's primary) that sent them to the Convention. This may or may not require several rounds of voting depending on if anyone has an overwhelming majority.

Now I could have also gone back on the decision tree along the GOP branch and presented the binary choices between Establishment and Non-Establishment and from there the binary choice between Trump and Cruz, but I think this might be a tad too advance for you (e.g., there' a little going back and forward, could be confusing to you) so we will leave that alone for now.
Or perhaps you are realizing that you are slowly painting yourself into a corner with real time information trickling in that Sanders is beating Clinton across the board and that he Beats the GOP candidates across the board by more points than HRC does. In any case I'll proceed to blow up your simplistic model because it is first simplistic and second it is wrong.

Let's move on to your other wonder of logic - your proposal to vote for Bernie in the primary but vote for anyone from the GOP clown car should they run against Hillary. Since math is in your byline, let's see if we can use that to introduce you to logic, or in your case, illogic.

If Bernie is a +10 and the GOP clown is a -10, you being a 'positive guy' will obviously vote for Bernie.

Now, I believe Clinton is a +5 but would not be surprised if she turned out to be a +7. But let's go with your sense that she is a -5. It is simply illogical for you to vote for a -10 guy when you have the binary choice of voting for a -5 instead- hell even a -9 Clinton this is true against a -10 GOP clown.

Now you might put forth some convoluted hope that by getting the -10 guy in there, with the resulting disaster, we'll get to the position of people's outrage being sufficient to elect a +10 guy NEXT TIME the decision tree comes around. There's some logic to that; it's stupid logic, but it does have some tenants of logic. I suggest you at least stick with stupid logic rather than no logic whatsoever - at least there would then be some ember of that glorious fire that you imagine giving this forum.
I notice that you're attempting to ascribe plus points and negative points to the candidates. I would contend that if we are going to ascribe these points we should not do so on the basis of Party but rather of actual positions (assuming one can actually nail down Hillary on any, seriously she filp flops more than Romney and as such one can only conclude she'll say anything to get elected).

As such we'll ascribe to New Deal types (and New Deal Lite types) the value of +10, and we'll ascribe to the Tea Party/Know-Nothing types -10.

As such we'll get the following values:

Cruz: -10
Rubio: -7
G. W. Bush: -7 (not on the ballot but used as a frame of reference)
Jeb Bush: -5 (He could have been a worse Governor, in fact we have a worse Governor now)
Bill Clinton: -0.5 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
Trump: ? (really listen to the man, somethings are really monstrous, some things sound like Bernie)
HRC: ? (again listen to her, on the one hand she's all for the ACA & the BHO record, on the next she's claiming that Single Payer would be the end of the USA--never mind Single Payer has been a Democratic position SINCE Truman)
Al Gore: +0.5 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
O'Mally: +3 (I've checked him out he reminds me of a milquetoast version of Mondale)
BHO: +4 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
Bernie: +9 (Sorry but the only +10 president we've had since Lincoln was FDR, though TR was about a +9.5)

Now as we can see we have two candidates, one of which is not guaranteed to win nomination by their party (seriously were you asleep during the Primaries in 2008?) the other of which can win their party's nomination after defeating Cruz (which should be easy, the Birther thing + tapping into raw electoral anger can win Trump the GOP nomination).

Now it should be obvious that since I broke for Obama twice, and Al Gore once, and would have voted for Bill Clinton twice had I had the opportunity to (one has to remember I was 13 and 17 in '92 and '96 respectively) I'm not opposed to voting for candidates I'd consider to be "on the bubble". Often that is the only choice presented. I also voted for Kerry but that was an A.B.B vote. (Anybody but Bush).

Now one would think by looking at the scores I've given these candidates, I'd vote primarily Democratic, and they would be right. The New Deal/Great Society Democrats (to use Truman's terminology "Democrats that act like Democrats") do by and large represent a great deal of my views (they only piss me off in that they don't go far enough). On the other hand, if one carefully looks at the divisions within the Democratic party one will clearly notice that those candidates that coalece into what is usually termed the Democratic Leadership Caucus (DLC) score the lowest of all Democrats. Hillary Clinton is very much a creature of the DLC just like her Husband (whom I've criticized a great deal both in the 90s and 00s for being "too willing to cave to the GOP"). As such I have no reason to expect that she won't, like Bill be at least a -0.5.

Now if we add into the things she actually has said in the past 20 years her numbers sink much much lower than Bill's. As such given her current trajectory we're looking at a -3 at least. Granted that is two points above Jeb Bush and seven points above Cruz, but we do know that HRC is a DLC Democrat and when confronted with a GOP dominated Congress will cave to them because that is what DLC Democrats do (you know, cause they are Republican lite).

As such we have no idea where Trump would place. I've actually listened to the man, and in the GOP debates he is the only person I could stand to vote for if someone besides Hillary (seriously it may not be logical but I viscerally hate the woman and that is a trait shared by many nominal Democrats, including my own mother) and besides Bernie runs on the Democratic ticket and even then it is a close thing. He seems to me to be very much on the bubble.

On the one hand he says some pretty monstrous things, all of it has the look and feel of Red Meat for the Red Base (to be expected during a primary) on the other hand he says some incredibly progressive things (not to be confused with Neo-Progressivism) such as wanting single payer and scrapping NAFTA, TPP and other "free trade" deals that result in the destruction of high paying blue collar jobs upon which the Proletariat depends. That being said, he most likely would place somewhere under Bill Clinton but above Jeb Bush (which remember I scored as -5).

As such assuming that HRC scores at least a -5, which she can do easily just on likability alone never mind her positions (again assuming she actually has some--seriously she acts like a Democratic Romney). Even Ted Cruz starts to look good. You might call it illogical, and maybe it is, but let us see if we can understand why.

You see when one elects a President he also is electing a Vice President, a House, and a Third of the Senate. Now in my case since Rubio is not running for re-election assuming he isn't nominated for Vice President, the choice is simple, vote for the Democrat, any Democrat will do (though a progressive is strongly preferred). It should be noted that we've had a couple constitutional changes lately (since 2000) and one of them prohibits a candidate from appearing twice on the Ballot (one of Jeb Bush's doings, something he did right but only on accident as I told both my BF and Mother). As such it is a safe bet for me to vote for a Democrat for Senate, and I'll also be voting Democratic for the House. This therefore means that even if Hillary runs and I about face and vote a split ticket (extremely rare for me I assure you) and vote for Trump or hell even Cruz those two will be actively working against his agenda and gumming up the works.

At the same time, let us suppose that Bernie is running. This means that he will get my senator assuming the Democrat wins, which is possible Allan Greyson win on the I-4 alone (the I-4 corridor is an intensely blue stripe down the middle of an otherwise red state), and my representative (which with the new districts can happen, my county has been hit very hard these last few years). He very well could ride a wave of left-populism into a super-majority in both houses. As such this simplies the maths even further and makes your judgements on the presidency alone patently absurd.

So lets us break it down:

GOP Prez w/ GOP Congress: -2 (backward)
GOP Prez w/ Dem Congress: -1 (total gridlock)
HRC Prez w/ GOP Congress: -1 (total gridlock)
HRC Prez w/ Dem Congress: 0 (progress so long as congress doesn't go much further left than John Kerry)
Bernie Prez w/GOP Congress: +1 (making the Republicans say "No" and telling the people they said "No", you know like FDR did.)
Bernie Prez w/ Dem Congress: +2 (forward)

As you can see once one includes the Congress into the metric (which they have to because the President isn't a dictator or even a king) we see that the top score that Hillary can achieve for us is a 0 (and that is assuming she is a hard zero and not a fractional negative which here DLC ways indicate). What is known, is that Hillary will not attract the Presidential race voters which swept BHO into office and weakened the GOP House and Senate in 2012 after the GOP wave of 2010 (though the GOP made marginal gains in 2014 but that was to be expected in a low turn out midterm). As such one must conclude that the realistic outcome of HRC being elected will be a -1 result. That is to say gridlock.

Now, here is the problem with gridlock, we have to deal with the mathematics of the collapse of the Third Republic (I've at times divided US history into various republics on the basis roughly of saeculum, the first was 1789-1865, the second 1865-1945, the third 1945-present). Since we all know that systems that must collapse eventually will, and that some collapses are good for you, and that bigger collapses are nastier than smaller ones, and that frequent collapses are better than infrequent ones. It makes sense that if the best Hillary can offer is gridlock, that therefore a backwards result is better. It is better in that it will bring the collapse of the Third Republic.

Of course best of all would be the establishment of the Fourth Republic through democratic and electorial means with a Democratic Congress and Bernie Sanders at the helm. Which won't happen if Hillary is in fact the nominee. As such it makes logical sense that if the end goal is the destruction of the Third Republic and the creation of the Fourth Republic that "going backwards" really is going forwards.

My apparent failure is not one of logic, but rather your failure to understand the dialectic at play.







Post#1735 at 01-16-2016 05:01 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
01-16-2016, 05:01 PM #1735
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
1907? Must be a typo. 1907 was roughly a 2T-3T cusp.
Not a typo. I am talking about two different cycles, the secular cycle and the S&H cycle. In pre-industrial times they were very different, with the first being 2-4 saecula in length. In industrial times it looks like they may be quite similar in length, at least in America. Both cycles have a crisis phase that are similar but not the same. The last secular cycle crisis began in 1907, while the last 4T began in 1929.

In 1920, the secular cycle crisis was in full swing, the country was close to, if not in, a revolutionary social mood. But no revolution came. The crisis was over by 1924. Then began the fourth phase of the secular cycle, the depression phase (sometimes called the intercycle), which persists until conditions arise suitable for the start of a new secular cycle. This usually involves a reduction in elite numbers or influence and is accompanied by a sharp drop in inequality.

The idea I am considering is: you cannot get a resolution of a secular cycle without a 4T. The boundaries of pre-industrial secular cycles have been 4Ts: Glorious Revolution, Wars of the Roses, Norman Invasion. The boundaries of my proposed secular cycles 1780, 1870, 1940, have all been 4Ts. This idea holds that the reason there was no revolution in 1920 was that the country was in a 3T. It was a trigger too early and did not have the generational fuel to light.


If this holds the end of the current cycle should be around 2020 or maybe 2030, which is consistent with the present 4T. But this would require a reversal in economic inequality in the near future. I cannot see how that could happen.
Last edited by Mikebert; 01-16-2016 at 05:07 PM.







Post#1736 at 01-16-2016 07:06 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
01-16-2016, 07:06 PM #1736
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post

Not a typo. I am talking about two different cycles, the secular cycle and the S&H cycle. In pre-industrial times they were very different, with the first being 2-4 saecula in length. In industrial times it looks like they may be quite similar in length, at least in America. Both cycles have a crisis phase that are similar but not the same. The last secular cycle crisis began in 1907, while the last 4T began in 1929.


Oh. There can be multiple cycles in operation. One 19-year cycle may give an indication of when the troughs and peaks of the economy appear. The peaks of 1929 and 2007 fit the ends of 3T eras as well as pathological bubbles. So when one cycle fits the other in a 4T... then beware!

In 1920, the secular cycle crisis was in full swing, the country was close to, if not in, a revolutionary social mood. But no revolution came. The crisis was over by 1924. Then began the fourth phase of the secular cycle, the depression phase (sometimes called the intercycle), which persists until conditions arise suitable for the start of a new secular cycle. This usually involves a reduction in elite numbers or influence and is accompanied by a sharp drop in inequality.
Without doubt the elites are bloated. That explains the commonplace situation of someone with a graduate degree working as a bartender or a bus driver. Among these are the most dangerous revolutionaries, Right or Left. Thus Lenin; thus Goebbels. Thus also reactionary regimes spying on everything.

Life is great for elites because competent labor is cheap and expendable. It might be pleasant to go to the coffee shop and get an enthralling story in which the barista shows great wit. In good times for educated people not from the elites, the bartender might instead be a repository of detail on the last big prize fight or auto race. But how sure are you that the barista who shows great wit when discussing Russian literature might know more about the Russian Revolution than elites might want an educated workforce to know?

So the elites can choose to first cow the 'surplus' intelligentsia, the educated proletariat. Maybe it can entertain the 'surplus' intelligentsia... but that requires using the 'surplus' intelligentsia and putting its talent to work. Maybe it can impose a reign of terror or even seek its extermination. The safest route is to promote the steady attrition of the 'surplus' intelligentsia by keeping it so economically marginalized that it has no children -- but that might not happen fast enough.

But the surplus intelligentsia exists because the elites have been effective in excluding people not from among itself.

The idea I am considering is: you cannot get a resolution of a secular cycle without a 4T. The boundaries of pre-industrial secular cycles have been 4Ts: Glorious Revolution, Wars of the Roses, Norman Invasion. The boundaries of my proposed secular cycles 1780, 1870, 1940, have all been 4Ts. This idea holds that the reason there was no revolution in 1920 was that the country was in a 3T. It was a trigger too early and did not have the generational fuel to light.
We have foolishly collected enough oily rags to allow some nasty fires.


If this holds the end of the current cycle should be around 2020 or maybe 2030, which is consistent with the present 4T. But this would require a reversal in economic inequality in the near future. I cannot see how that could happen.
Apocalyptic war will be one of the most effective ways in which to deal with economic inequality first by the destruction of and then by the creation of a labor (and talent) shortage out of a labor (and talent) surplus. I thoroughly dread and despise that conclusion... but I cannot dismiss it offhand.
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#1737 at 01-16-2016 09:26 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
01-16-2016, 09:26 PM #1737
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The Democrats are definitely Economic Justice Warriors. That is the basis of the campaigns. In the 4T the culture war is on the back burner. The liberals have mostly won it; the right-wing can only whine and yearn for yesterday like Archie Bunker did.

The amazing thing is how Republicans try to sell themselves using some of the same slogans as the Democrats. They want to get on Bernie's bandwagon. That was on full display at Thursday night's debate on Fox business channel (I watched it on youtube). The Republican clowns claim they want to help the working people; they want to create economic prosperity for all. How are they going to do that? By blaming Obama for the mess Republicans themselves caused; the mess they want us to go back to. The Republicans want to expand the policies that don't work: trickle-down economics.

"Help the working man" means take away regulations that protect the people from business malpractice. If business doesn't want to feel the burn of regulation, then it should behave itself (i.e. pay people what they are worth instead of hogging all the earnings, stop polluting, offer safe products and safe working conditions, etc.), and then more regulations could be lifted! They only exist because business people misbehave! It means lower taxes on rich people through a flat tax, which charges poor and lower middle class people more and rich people less, even though the system already does that. Some of them even claim that lower taxes on poor people will help them get out of poverty, when the poor usually don't even pay taxes at all. How is lowering taxes on them going to help them then? They keep complaining about debt, but want to expand military spending and lower taxes like Reagan did. They complain about it even though the deficit is plunging thanks to the sequestration that they themselves imposed. They complain even though deficit spending was necessary, as it always is after the recessions happen, which Republicans almost always cause with their trickle-down, boost-the-rich policies.
In the 4T culture wars are not just on the back burner, they are off the stove. 4Ts are generally extremely conservative, culturally. The last 4T was when gays started to be seriously persecuted and prosecuted (gays were relatively tolerated during the teens and 20s), Hollywood signed onto the Hayes Commission rules that mandated self-censorship of sex and movie plots in preparation for it's role in wartime propaganda, fascists and communists alike started to be persecuted, women (in the initial stages during the Depression) expected to remain in the home, poor sexual deviants still sterilised (started in the 1910s) and as we know, children and adolescents kept under tight control. All in the United States. And Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Japan were even more tightly controlled with deviants of all stripes from mental patients to homeless to sexually loose to gays disappearing into concentration camps or killed outright. Only France and the UK, which remained more or less 3T right up until 1939 remained somewhat culturally free.
The controls on culture that are established in 4T and continue into the next 1T are what the next 2T Awakening generation rebels against. We're already starting to see the outliers of this new rebellion in the movement for "free range kids".







Post#1738 at 01-16-2016 09:45 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
01-16-2016, 09:45 PM #1738
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

One factor in 4Ts that has not been previously noted. The previous 4T helps create the terms of the next 4T both because the rules agreed upon at it's end (Foucault's "regime of truth" from ""Truth and Power ") see http://www.wdog.com/rider/writings/foucault.htm are decaying into contradictions (Wilsonian definitions of states and rules that prohibit things like large scale population transfers between states, land transfers between states and secession from states) on the international level and financialisation and radical inequality on the domestic level, and because the current 4T is close enough to the last 4T to almost (and in this case because of life expectancy are) be close enough to be within living memory. Thus the Revolutionary 4T, by creating the idea of secession influenced the Civil War 4T in the US and the Napoleonic Wars hypernationalism influenced the terms of WWI and WWII in Europe and Russia and in both cases, the rules for the peace that ensued. The Civil War, which Woodrow Wilson grew up during heavily influenced his conclusions when it came to his 14 Points--which was passed on to FDR during WWII. And the WWII Crisis is influencing how the next Crisis will play out from Vladimir Putin's invocation of national sovereignty and differing economic and political systems to the American--and Russian and Chinese-- abhorrence of the creation of new states out of old. The dead hand of the last 4T and lessons overlearned from the previous 4T help set up the next 4T by making the international system brittle when it should be flexible and casting norms in concrete to be broken when they could be bent.







Post#1739 at 01-16-2016 10:00 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
01-16-2016, 10:00 PM #1739
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
And the WWII Crisis is influencing how the next Crisis will play out from Vladimir Putin's invocation of national sovereignty and differing economic and political systems to the American--and Russian and Chinese-- abhorrence of the creation of new states out of old. The dead hand of the last 4T and lessons overlearned from the previous 4T help set up the next 4T by making the international system brittle when it should be flexible and casting norms in concrete to be broken when they could be bent.
This is a problem in places like Africa where there are very few genuine "national states". The old arbitrary lines are kept up in contradiction to reality because the great powers fear any deviation to risk inciting independence movements closer to home. And also in the West the memories of the Sudetenland Crisis in 1938 makes so that any attempt at shifting borders around gets Godwin-ized (something I was guilty of myself earlier in the Ukraine crisis).
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#1740 at 01-17-2016 01:06 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
01-17-2016, 01:06 AM #1740
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Wonderful, right when we lift sanctions on Iran Hillary starts screeching that the sanctions need to be put back on.

This is the last straw, if this warmongering bitch is the nominee I am voting 3rd party for president. Fuck her. I'm sick of this Neo-Con shit.
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#1741 at 01-17-2016 03:33 AM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
01-17-2016, 03:33 AM #1741
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

addition

Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
It is boring, but so is attempting to debate with a Democratic Partisan. Face it Playdude, everyone already knows that you'll vote for whomever the Democrats offer. It doesn't matter if it is Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Adolf Hitler. You are part of the Democratic 15%. That is to say 15% of the population is going to vote for whomever the Democrats put on offer. The GOP also has 15%. That 30% is not who decides elections, thankfully.



If I were you I'd leave the psychological analysis to the psychologists on the board. You see I personally don't care if you post either. That we agree on much doesn't mean I even have to like you. Honestly much of the time I think you're a pretentious bore, but I think that of many liberals so you're not alone. You really should stick to posting about MMT, that is one of the few times you're not a pretentious bore.

As for the technique, it is effective. It gets your blood up, I see that by your post. It is effective so I'll use it in the future. See that is the thing I've noticed about Boomers (especially white ones) early on. They hate thinking they aren't being taken seriously--whether they are being serious or not. I blame it on GI parenting and its indulgent ways.

Also it it is Gangnam Style. I googled Gaungan Style and well Google says they've never heard of it. Playing fast and loose again? You know cause it works so effectively against people who actually take the time to think about what they post before they actually post.



I don't need to. Your ignorance of Asia in general and Korea in particular will do the work for me.



The governmental structure of Korea has been written down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...of_North_Korea

I know, I know wikipedia. Needless to say I've read translated versions of the document for myself. Kim has to deal with his own Party's politburo and his power isn't unlimited. He has exactly as much power as the Army and the Party allows, the two foundations of the power he has. Which is prudent given that he is both young and untested, and that regencies are not uncommon in monarchies which it is slowly becoming evident the DPRK actually is.

Furthermore, I'd argue that any problems with having a Bellicose Moron in the White House would be primarily domestic. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the US does not attack powers with nukes because we don't want ourselves blown up and we most certainly do have checks on said bellicose moron's power. Or do you plan on arguing that the US is itself a totalitarian dictatorship or whatever you plan on claiming the DPRK is.



History is also rife with coups d'etats when something like that is close to happening. Kim's power is not absolute, he rules only by the consent of the Army really. One of the many flaws of Kim Jong-Il's policy of Army First.



Again with the Guangan Style...if you mean Gangnam Style it is clear that you have not understood the meaning of the song (which I will admit is rather vapid in and of itself, but it actually does have a meaning). No the grammar police tactic is not a misdirection. It is pointing out that someone who can't be bothered to use names correctly cannot be taken seriously.

As for using Google, you may want to try it. One can learn many useful things off google. Hell the search engine has inspired its own religion.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

In some ways I kind of see their point.



Kim's power rests on the Army's consent. Which is evident upon an analysis of the power dynamics within the DPRK with has been made available through the CIA among other sources.



I'm not particularly interested in doing that. It is obvious you haven't debated me much, but if you did you'd know I don't play that game. I leave that for the Partisan Republicans on the board.



I've read that book. I understand that book. But it is obvious that you don't understand the Song referenced in my Signature. Furthermore, Animal Farm in the 8th grade, read it in 6th down here. Don't tell me New York now lags behind Florida!

The fact is that Orwell wrote a fable based upon what he thought. The man may have been involved in the Spanish Civil War, but he never learned to speak Spanish so he could only base his thoughts on what he was told was happening. He also never went to the Soviet Union, and even if he had he certainly didn't speak Russian so like Spain he could only base his thoughts on what he was told.

No I have a better book that I think you should review. The Prince by Machiavelli. Even an absolute monarch has to cater to that base which supplies him with power. Kim is no different, and he isn't even close to being an absolute monarch even if him being a monarch is an arguable point.



It isn't my fault you cannot understand basic logic. That logic being that Hillary Vs Any Republican is not a binary choice until AFTER she is anointed (or nominated if you prefer) the Democratic candidate.



I understand how the two party system works. Perhaps better than you do. I have to, not having either that actually represents me any way, shape or form, though Progressive (not to be confused with Neo-Progressive) Democrats come closest. Also I understand basic math, I did after all graduate the 4th grade.



Again not a point of contention other than the fact that the Democrats have their own primary binary choice: A New Deal Progressive vs DLC Corporatist Democrat. In short Sanders Vs Clintion. I could even simply it further An Indpendent that acts like a Democrat (in the New Deal Traditional sense) vs A Democrat that acts like a Republican (That is uses traditionally Non-ClownCar GOP talking points and positions).

The fact that you don't seem to understand that no matter the desires of the DNC or the DLC, Hillary is a Democrat that acts like a Republican (and the fact that everyone outside of the Democratic 15% knows this) means we have a choice between whomever the GOP picks (Establishment or Non-Establishment doesn't matter) and whomever the Democrats pick, and whom the Democrats pick does matter. At least for everyone outside of the GOP 15% and the Democrat 15%.

So then if the choice is between say Ted Cruz Vs Ted Cruz Lite (since HRC might not enforce Marijuana Laws and probably will let women have abortions) the clear choice for the 70% is clear. Ted Cruz. Trump is more tricky because his positions quite frankly are all over the map if you listen to the man.



Actually I was not confused by it. But the problem you have is in your assumption that HRC will end up being the nominee. Polls conducted in real time seem to indicate otherwise. And that isn't even bringing in the fact that she was supposed to have been the nominee in 2008 and Obama came out of no where running on a Progressive (again not to be confused with Neo-Progressive) platform.

In short you are being illogical from the start by assuming that something which is not a given is in fact a given. It is akin to assuming that x+y=2 that both x and y must be 1 and ignoring the possibility that x or y could be 2 and x or y could be 0.

For the record 2 can be derived through addition by the following processes: 1+1=2, 0+2=2, 2+0=2. If you disbelieve me you may want to consult your 8th grader on the matter.

As such since we are dealing with a binary choice and we know that the answer is 2 we must first determine if either x or y is in fact 0 before we conclude that both are 1. In American politics this happens through one means, the primary process. As such attempting to determine whom one is going to vote for in the General election cannot happen (unless one is voting strictly on the basis of political party--which if that is how you do things, that's your choice but for others the process is quite different) until after it is mathematically impossible for anyone other than the eventual nominee to be nominated.

To make a complex system simple, each state is allocated delegates that are assigned in proportion to how that state goes with the addition of a few delegates from the Party's National Center (AKA Super-delegates...a trick HRC tried in 2008 and failed at as well). These delegates then vote on the basis of the preferences of the electors (IE the people who voted in their state's primary) that sent them to the Convention. This may or may not require several rounds of voting depending on if anyone has an overwhelming majority.



Or perhaps you are realizing that you are slowly painting yourself into a corner with real time information trickling in that Sanders is beating Clinton across the board and that he Beats the GOP candidates across the board by more points than HRC does. In any case I'll proceed to blow up your simplistic model because it is first simplistic and second it is wrong.



I notice that you're attempting to ascribe plus points and negative points to the candidates. I would contend that if we are going to ascribe these points we should not do so on the basis of Party but rather of actual positions (assuming one can actually nail down Hillary on any, seriously she filp flops more than Romney and as such one can only conclude she'll say anything to get elected).

As such we'll ascribe to New Deal types (and New Deal Lite types) the value of +10, and we'll ascribe to the Tea Party/Know-Nothing types -10.

As such we'll get the following values:

Cruz: -10
Rubio: -7
G. W. Bush: -7 (not on the ballot but used as a frame of reference)
Jeb Bush: -5 (He could have been a worse Governor, in fact we have a worse Governor now)
Bill Clinton: -0.5 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
Trump: ? (really listen to the man, somethings are really monstrous, some things sound like Bernie)
HRC: ? (again listen to her, on the one hand she's all for the ACA & the BHO record, on the next she's claiming that Single Payer would be the end of the USA--never mind Single Payer has been a Democratic position SINCE Truman)
Al Gore: +0.5 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
O'Mally: +3 (I've checked him out he reminds me of a milquetoast version of Mondale)
BHO: +4 (not on the ballot but used as reference)
Bernie: +9 (Sorry but the only +10 president we've had since Lincoln was FDR, though TR was about a +9.5)

Now as we can see we have two candidates, one of which is not guaranteed to win nomination by their party (seriously were you asleep during the Primaries in 2008?) the other of which can win their party's nomination after defeating Cruz (which should be easy, the Birther thing + tapping into raw electoral anger can win Trump the GOP nomination).

Now it should be obvious that since I broke for Obama twice, and Al Gore once, and would have voted for Bill Clinton twice had I had the opportunity to (one has to remember I was 13 and 17 in '92 and '96 respectively) I'm not opposed to voting for candidates I'd consider to be "on the bubble". Often that is the only choice presented. I also voted for Kerry but that was an A.B.B vote. (Anybody but Bush).

Now one would think by looking at the scores I've given these candidates, I'd vote primarily Democratic, and they would be right. The New Deal/Great Society Democrats (to use Truman's terminology "Democrats that act like Democrats") do by and large represent a great deal of my views (they only piss me off in that they don't go far enough). On the other hand, if one carefully looks at the divisions within the Democratic party one will clearly notice that those candidates that coalece into what is usually termed the Democratic Leadership Caucus (DLC) score the lowest of all Democrats. Hillary Clinton is very much a creature of the DLC just like her Husband (whom I've criticized a great deal both in the 90s and 00s for being "too willing to cave to the GOP"). As such I have no reason to expect that she won't, like Bill be at least a -0.5.

Now if we add into the things she actually has said in the past 20 years her numbers sink much much lower than Bill's. As such given her current trajectory we're looking at a -3 at least. Granted that is two points above Jeb Bush and seven points above Cruz, but we do know that HRC is a DLC Democrat and when confronted with a GOP dominated Congress will cave to them because that is what DLC Democrats do (you know, cause they are Republican lite).

As such we have no idea where Trump would place. I've actually listened to the man, and in the GOP debates he is the only person I could stand to vote for if someone besides Hillary (seriously it may not be logical but I viscerally hate the woman and that is a trait shared by many nominal Democrats, including my own mother) and besides Bernie runs on the Democratic ticket and even then it is a close thing. He seems to me to be very much on the bubble.

On the one hand he says some pretty monstrous things, all of it has the look and feel of Red Meat for the Red Base (to be expected during a primary) on the other hand he says some incredibly progressive things (not to be confused with Neo-Progressivism) such as wanting single payer and scrapping NAFTA, TPP and other "free trade" deals that result in the destruction of high paying blue collar jobs upon which the Proletariat depends. That being said, he most likely would place somewhere under Bill Clinton but above Jeb Bush (which remember I scored as -5).

As such assuming that HRC scores at least a -5, which she can do easily just on likability alone never mind her positions (again assuming she actually has some--seriously she acts like a Democratic Romney). Even Ted Cruz starts to look good. You might call it illogical, and maybe it is, but let us see if we can understand why.

You see when one elects a President he also is electing a Vice President, a House, and a Third of the Senate. Now in my case since Rubio is not running for re-election assuming he isn't nominated for Vice President, the choice is simple, vote for the Democrat, any Democrat will do (though a progressive is strongly preferred). It should be noted that we've had a couple constitutional changes lately (since 2000) and one of them prohibits a candidate from appearing twice on the Ballot (one of Jeb Bush's doings, something he did right but only on accident as I told both my BF and Mother). As such it is a safe bet for me to vote for a Democrat for Senate, and I'll also be voting Democratic for the House. This therefore means that even if Hillary runs and I about face and vote a split ticket (extremely rare for me I assure you) and vote for Trump or hell even Cruz those two will be actively working against his agenda and gumming up the works.

At the same time, let us suppose that Bernie is running. This means that he will get my senator assuming the Democrat wins, which is possible Allan Greyson win on the I-4 alone (the I-4 corridor is an intensely blue stripe down the middle of an otherwise red state), and my representative (which with the new districts can happen, my county has been hit very hard these last few years). He very well could ride a wave of left-populism into a super-majority in both houses. As such this simplies the maths even further and makes your judgements on the presidency alone patently absurd.

So lets us break it down:

GOP Prez w/ GOP Congress: -2 (backward)
GOP Prez w/ Dem Congress: -1 (total gridlock)
HRC Prez w/ GOP Congress: -1 (total gridlock)
HRC Prez w/ Dem Congress: 0 (progress so long as congress doesn't go much further left than John Kerry)
Bernie Prez w/GOP Congress: +1 (making the Republicans say "No" and telling the people they said "No", you know like FDR did.)
Bernie Prez w/ Dem Congress: +2 (forward)

As you can see once one includes the Congress into the metric (which they have to because the President isn't a dictator or even a king) we see that the top score that Hillary can achieve for us is a 0 (and that is assuming she is a hard zero and not a fractional negative which here DLC ways indicate). What is known, is that Hillary will not attract the Presidential race voters which swept BHO into office and weakened the GOP House and Senate in 2012 after the GOP wave of 2010 (though the GOP made marginal gains in 2014 but that was to be expected in a low turn out midterm). As such one must conclude that the realistic outcome of HRC being elected will be a -1 result. That is to say gridlock.

Now, here is the problem with gridlock, we have to deal with the mathematics of the collapse of the Third Republic (I've at times divided US history into various republics on the basis roughly of saeculum, the first was 1789-1865, the second 1865-1945, the third 1945-present). Since we all know that systems that must collapse eventually will, and that some collapses are good for you, and that bigger collapses are nastier than smaller ones, and that frequent collapses are better than infrequent ones. It makes sense that if the best Hillary can offer is gridlock, that therefore a backwards result is better. It is better in that it will bring the collapse of the Third Republic.

Of course best of all would be the establishment of the Fourth Republic through democratic and electorial means with a Democratic Congress and Bernie Sanders at the helm. Which won't happen if Hillary is in fact the nominee. As such it makes logical sense that if the end goal is the destruction of the Third Republic and the creation of the Fourth Republic that "going backwards" really is going forwards.

My apparent failure is not one of logic, but rather your failure to understand the dialectic at play.
Very good points. Count on Bernie, if elected to butt heads with a Republican Congress until at least 2018. Unlike Obama, Sanders has been in both Houses of Congress since 1990 and has no illusions about what can be accomplished immediately--unlike Obama when he took office. Sanders can talk to poor rural whites, which Obama couldn't and Hillary, if she ever could as First Lady of Arkansas has forgotten how to do. So Sanders knows that like FDR, he has to fight headwinds for at least 2 years, maybe all four (perhaps with a major recession acting as a current) and win the next two election cycles for the Democrats by keeping the blame on the Republicans. Because 2020 is the big prize--reapportionment! Whether Bernie is strong enough for a second term or must hand the White House over to a younger Dem.
PS: Gangnam is the part of Seoul south of the Han River (gang =river from Chinese kiang Nam =south from Chinese Nan as in Nanjing). (Not surprising since it's the part of Seoul farthest from the DMZ and North Korea) The most high income and hippest part of Seoul.Like Palm Beach or Boca Raton. Gangnam style means a lot more than the one song.
Last edited by MordecaiK; 01-17-2016 at 03:38 AM.







Post#1742 at 01-17-2016 04:40 AM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-17-2016, 04:40 AM #1742
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Wonderful, right when we lift sanctions on Iran Hillary starts screeching that the sanctions need to be put back on.

This is the last straw, if this warmongering bitch is the nominee I am voting 3rd party for president. Fuck her. I'm sick of this Neo-Con shit.
Finally seen the ABC light?

As I said once one factors in Congress the best Hillary can offer is the status quo which is unsustainable







Post#1743 at 01-17-2016 04:45 AM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-17-2016, 04:45 AM #1743
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
Very good points. Count on Bernie, if elected to butt heads with a Republican Congress until at least 2018. Unlike Obama, Sanders has been in both Houses of Congress since 1990 and has no illusions about what can be accomplished immediately--unlike Obama when he took office. Sanders can talk to poor rural whites, which Obama couldn't and Hillary, if she ever could as First Lady of Arkansas has forgotten how to do. So Sanders knows that like FDR, he has to fight headwinds for at least 2 years, maybe all four (perhaps with a major recession acting as a current) and win the next two election cycles for the Democrats by keeping the blame on the Republicans. Because 2020 is the big prize--reapportionment! Whether Bernie is strong enough for a second term or must hand the White House over to a younger Dem.
PS: Gangnam is the part of Seoul south of the Han River (gang =river from Chinese kiang Nam =south from Chinese Nan as in Nanjing). (Not surprising since it's the part of Seoul farthest from the DMZ and North Korea) The most high income and hippest part of Seoul.Like Palm Beach or Boca Raton. Gangnam style means a lot more than the one song.
Actually a great deal of my points came straight from Thom Heartman (whose show can be listened to on many progressive talk radio stations--rare I assure you but they do exist--and he has a TV show on RT). I've found that Thom Heartman is almost always spot on. One of the few Boomers I actually trust.

I'm aware of where Gangnam is in Seoul. One of the reasons why the lyrics of the song are compared to Beverly Hills by Weezer which is one of the reasons (among others) I think Korea is in a 3T. Or at least we can be sure South Korea is.







Post#1744 at 01-17-2016 06:36 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
01-17-2016, 06:36 AM #1744
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
Bernie: +9 (Sorry but the only +10 president we've had since Lincoln was FDR, though TR was about a +9.5)
TR? What are you smoking? Wilson would score higher.

By New Deal or New Deal lite I would think you are referring to economic liberalism/conservatism - not the social side.

Wilson was modestly higher on the economic liberal score, even though he was racist. Although TR did some progressive things, consumer protection is not economically liberal, middle and upper class folks benefit most from safer products, the poor often could not afford to buy these products. TR talked a good game, for example he talked about an income tax. But Wilson actually delivered.

I don't see how Bernie is not a +10. As far as I can tell he holds a liberal economic view on just about everything. Also I am not sure how Rubio scores higher than Cruz. Where do these guys differ, except on immigration, where Cruz holds the more economically liberal position.







Post#1745 at 01-17-2016 06:55 AM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-17-2016, 06:55 AM #1745
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
TR? What are you smoking? Wilson would score higher.
Wilson was a fucking racist, and I mean a racist even by turn of the last century standards. TR was heavily criticized for having a black man over for dinner. Ergo TR > Wilson.

By New Deal or New Deal lite I would think you are referring to economic liberalism/conservatism - not the social side.
Social issues are wedge issues that are best avoided. Democrats can win but they can only do so if they run as economic democrats and leave the social issues alone. Seriously if people want to cling to their bibles and guns let them as long as they understand that the state has a role in insuring that everyone has the Freedom From Want that FDR spoke about.

I shouldn't have to post the Four Freedoms Speech again should I?

Wilson was modestly higher on the economic liberal score, even though he was racist. Although TR did some progressive things, consumer protection is not economically liberal, middle and upper class folks benefit most from safer products, the poor often could not afford to buy these products. TR talked a good game, for example he talked about an income tax. But Wilson actually delivered.
Wilson's racism is great enough to counter act any economic liberalism. TR on the other hand got the ball rolling with conservation, consumer protection, introducing the concept of a progressive income tax into the Overton window (and the constitutional amendment required to have one). In many ways Wilson reaped the fruits of TR.

I don't see how Bernie is not a +10. As far as I can tell he holds a liberal economic view on just about everything. Also I am not sure how Rubio scores higher than Cruz. Where do these guys differ, except on immigration, where Cruz holds the more economically liberal position.
I'm unwilling to give Bernie a +10 until he is elected President. A +9 or hell even a +5 candidate is useless to me unless he can get elected and push his agenda.

Cruz may be more liberal on immigration but he is so only in so far as immigration can be used to depress wages. Rubio's conservatism on immigration is explained by his fear that diluting the Cuban Bloc in South Florida will turn FL blue instead of merely purple (Haitian Americans and other Latinos and Recent Cuban Migrants all vote overwhelmingly Blue as opposed to the Batistaista Red). Furthermore I quite frankly fear Cruz more than Rubio.







Post#1746 at 01-17-2016 09:51 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
01-17-2016, 09:51 AM #1746
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Did you sleep through the 2000 election? An adequately RW SCOTUS can do as it pleases, and feel righteously justified in doing it.
Kinser79 believes in a Marxist-Leninist revolution so fervently that he would gladly support politicians of the Right who would make things so bad that people would have a Socialist insurrection as their sole hope for life and dignity.
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#1747 at 01-17-2016 11:59 AM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-17-2016, 11:59 AM #1747
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Left Arrow Do you even realize what is the core strength of the GOP?

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Kinser79 believes in a Marxist-Leninist revolution so fervently that he would gladly support politicians of the Right who would make things so bad that people would have a Socialist insurrection as their sole hope for life and dignity.
Can you answer that question PBR or are you too part of the 15% I described? The 15% that would vote Democrat even if they ran Hitler or Mussolini.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/201...c-party-become

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/201...ill-rise-again



This should explain the reasoning behind other liberals, progressives and social democrats leaving the Democratic Party







Post#1748 at 01-17-2016 12:17 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-17-2016, 12:17 PM #1748
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
I was underway during most of it. However, I would argue that the 2000 election was going to end up with W as president anyway. Even had the SCOTUS done the right thing, stopped the counting and kicked it over to the House, the GOP majority would have picked W and the rest would have been history.

That being said, a challenge as to what Natural Born Citizen means is not of the same partisan nature as meddling in an election.
It depends. If it's obviously handled in a political manner, it's no different. The Florida vote needed a recount, but the SCOTUS pushed that aside, and dictated a result. Declaring Cruz qualified with less than due diligence would be no different. I do suspect that, having coronated one President, a second similar event would raise the anger level and partisan divide to pre-ACW levels. We know how that went.
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#1749 at 01-17-2016 12:28 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
01-17-2016, 12:28 PM #1749
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Kinser79 View Post
Can you answer that question PBR or are you too part of the 15% I described? The 15% that would vote Democrat even if they ran Hitler or Mussolini.

This should explain the reasoning behind other liberals, progressives and social democrats leaving the Democratic Party
I voted for Ford in 1976, Anderson in 1980, and Democrats since then. I became a very partisan Democrat when I visited the local Republican Party headquarters in 2008 to ask about local candidates and found myself in an attempted brainwashing. The local Republican Party is basically a chapter of the John Birch Society that has melded $cientology onto its reactionary ideology.

A third-party vote is a wasted vote when the other main party offers nothing. Progressives won in ultra-safe states and districts. Otherwise the Koch syndicate prevailed as planned.

Sanders 2016!
Last edited by pbrower2a; 01-17-2016 at 12:51 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1750 at 01-17-2016 12:33 PM by Kinser79 [at joined Jun 2012 #posts 2,897]
---
01-17-2016, 12:33 PM #1750
Join Date
Jun 2012
Posts
2,897

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
It depends. If it's obviously handled in a political manner, it's no different. The Florida vote needed a recount, but the SCOTUS pushed that aside, and dictated a result. Declaring Cruz qualified with less than due diligence would be no different. I do suspect that, having coronated one President, a second similar event would raise the anger level and partisan divide to pre-ACW levels. We know how that went.
I've reviewed the 2000 election after the fact. Part of the problem is that the count in Florida was botched, and the recount was intentionally botched. A great deal of that has to do with who was governor, and who was secretary of state.

My contention is that if got to the point where the SCOTUS had to be called in they should have stopped the recount, and kicked it over to the House of Representives as the Constitution says should happen in cases where the electoral collage can't determine the president. In the case of Florida, a botched election means that their E.C. votes couldn't be allocated and thus neither candidate had the requisite 270 to win.

Had that happened, W would have still ended up being president.

As to declaring Cruz to be qualified with less than due diligence would require the Democrats to bring a suit on the grounds that he is ineligible first. The SCOTUS can only rule on issues when someone brings a suit. It is entirely possible for Cruz to circumvent that problem by having a Resolution of the Congress declaring him a Natural Born Citizen much like John McCain did. However, just because it is possible does not make it probable.

I will, however, agree that should the SCOTUS have a suit brought to their attention, they take it up, and declare Cruz to be a natural born citizen without said due diligence it will increase the partisan divide to pre-ACW levels. Considering that one of the few things Eric and I actually agree on is that this 4T has far more in common with the one before the last one than the last one (IE the one from 1850-1870ish) I would liken it to something akin Dred Scot or ruling the Fugitive Slave Law constitutional. It would be an act by the SCOTUS so repugnant to the People that the only result will be eventual civil war.

There are those on this board who do not recognize the truth that Jefferson wrote when he compared liberty to a tree that must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-----------------------------------------