Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

No, America is not going to follow the GOP, no matter how depressed you may be personally living in a German town in the Michigrim backwoods. America is going to remind the GOP how irrelevant it has become, in November.

2010 and 2014 elections give me much cause to doubt the wisdom of the American people on the whole -- especially under-educated white people who have become the cats' paws of the Right.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

People who believe in Hillary Clinton obviously do so because of her strong anti-war stance. She is not a Neo Con at all, and has promised to roll back the US jihad against the people of the Middle East. She is going to finally close all the torture farms like Guantanamo (as the Democrats promised to do when Obama was elected, but hey, its only been 8 years), and she also promises to give back her golden Ollie North award for gun running to militants if elected. Now that is integrity.

Closing those "torture farms" was not so easy as one thought. Opening them was easy enough for the Rove/Cheney/Bush administration; closing them would have nasty consequences -- like sending jihadi types even more radicalized in their stays in Guantanamo to places unready for them.

The other great thing about Democrats is how good they are to the poor. They promise to get minimum wage people off the tax rolls so that their $8 an hour job doesn't bring home less than $6 right off the top from government skim. What a deplorable practice, and it's good that someone is finally talking about it.

Taxing the poor is pointless, except perhaps for "sin" taxes as on booze and cancerweed. This has been well established in practice.

They also have made a firm statement that they will really consider hopefully thinking about making a firm statement regarding the brutality of their police state someday- if they keep their committee chairmanships and perks. While it's sad that a lot of unarmed black men are being shot in the back of the head, in the front of the head, and in other unpleasant places (like Chicago), there are larger issues to consider and it's going to have to wait until after the election. Hey, making a public statement is a big deal and you don't want to willy nilly go around condemning those fine boys in blue who think that our cities are a game preserve for their sporting needs.

The Republicans have the committee chairmanships. Democrats must win the House to get the chairmanships back. That will be difficult due to gerrymandering (remember? Democrats won the majority of nationwide votes for the House in 2012 and the Republicans kept the majority in the House because there were few marginal seats to win). Republicans may be reactionary and obnoxious, but they certainly know how to entrench power once they get even transitory power. But this is not the Republican Party that some of us know from the 1980s or earlier.

Yes, there is no reason not to vote for a Democrat. They and their bed buddies, the "Republicans" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are surely our best hope to solve the problems the people of this country face. If there is anyone who knows how to fix a problem, its a Demopublican. After all, since they are the architects of the shit we live in, who knows the issues better? That's called experience people. I'm sure will get another rousing speech any day now, and that should mollify the likes of us.

Not since just before the American Civil War have American politics been so polarized. The Democrats are a center Party with a left wing. The Republicans are a right-wing Party with no center.

So let's all line up behind Hillary Clinton, her walker, and ten thousand lobbyists so we can (slowly) march into a bright future. The only thing we have to fear is being called names for not voting for the winning candidate. Voting really matters, and (like prayer), is a great way to feel like you are doing something when you really aren't. If you don't vote, you can't complain that your candidate didn't win. If you do vote and are sadly on the losing side you are still bound by the laws your enemies impose on you, but getting a participation sticker is a nice consolation prize.

Yes, you can vote. You can also volunteer for political causes and have even stronger participation. You can tell your friends, co-workers, and extended family how the Koch syndicate does things, that FoX "News" Channel is an oxymoron, and that the GOP exploits fundamentalist Christians for economic causes that would appall Jesus.

Voting actually change things, because the bureaucracy is like totally affected by the changing of the political guard. You want to make a difference don't you?

You vote for politicians to make certain decisions on your behalf. Tax policies, business subsidies, labor laws, wars for profit... I assure you of this: that one of the first orders of business for the next Republican President with House and Senate majorities will be the establishment of a nationwide "Right-to-Work" (for much less) law that will practically eviscerate labor unions and allow Big Business to exploit workers mercilessly. Living standards in the Corporate States of America will plummet for all but the super-rich who will get to live like sultans. Then there will be changes in tax laws to exempt the rich from income taxes.

Vote Republican -- and vote for a New Serfdom.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

"...why would you give Kinser's posts any consideration, I mean other than for the entertainment of reading the irrationalities of a self-serving moron?"

Awesome moderation. This childish nonsense adds an immeasurable amount of value to this forum.

People who believe in Hillary Clinton obviously do so because of her strong anti-war stance. She is not a Neo Con at all, and has promised to roll back the US jihad against the people of the Middle East. She is going to finally close all the torture farms like Guantanamo (as the Democrats promised to do when Obama was elected, but hey, its only been 8 years), and she also promises to give back her golden Ollie North award for gun running to militants if elected. Now that is integrity.

The other great thing about Democrats is how good they are to the poor. They promise to get minimum wage people off the tax rolls so that their $8 an hour job doesn't bring home less than $6 right off the top from government skim. What a deplorable practice, and it's good that someone is finally talking about it.

They also have made a firm statement that they will really consider hopefully thinking about making a firm statement regarding the brutality of their police state someday- if they keep their committee chairmanships and perks. While it's sad that a lot of unarmed black men are being shot in the back of the head, in the front of the head, and in other unpleasant places (like Chicago), there are larger issues to consider and it's going to have to wait until after the election. Hey, making a public statement is a big deal and you don't want to willy nilly go around condemning those fine boys in blue who think that our cities are a game preserve for their sporting needs.

Yes, there is no reason not to vote for a Democrat. They and their bed buddies, the "Republicans" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are surely our best hope to solve the problems the people of this country face. If there is anyone who knows how to fix a problem, its a Demopublican. After all, since they are the architects of the shit we live in, who knows the issues better? That's called experience people. I'm sure will get another rousing speech any day now, and that should mollify the likes of us.

So let's all line up behind Hillary Clinton, her walker, and ten thousand lobbyists so we can (slowly) march into a bright future. The only thing we have to fear is being called names for not voting for the winning candidate. Voting really matters, and (like prayer), is a great way to feel like you are doing something when you really aren't. If you don't vote, you can't complain that your candidate didn't win. If you do vote and are sadly on the losing side you are still bound by the laws your enemies impose on you, but getting a participation sticker is a nice consolation prize.

Voting actually change things, because the bureaucracy is like totally affected by the changing of the political guard. You want to make a difference don't you?

Bush got elected in 2000: didn't pay any attention to warnings about 9/11 because it came from Clinton holdovers, he invaded Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11 because his Administration set up a lie about WMDs, he cut taxes way out of proportion for the top 1%, and he allowed a laissez faire approach to regulating the financial sector that lead to the greatest economic contraction and financial meltdown in 75 years.

A Democrat came in and not only cleaned up much of that mess but got health insurance coverage for millions of people, facilitated enormous job growth, got a deal with Iran that removed them as a nuclear threat, and moved the ball down the field on climate change - all against incredibly recalcitrant and hateful Congress.

Your sarcasm and false equivalency meme can only be explained by you being in a coma for the last 15 years.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

No, America is not going to follow the GOP, no matter how depressed you may be personally living in a German town in the Michigrim backwoods. America is going to remind the GOP how irrelevant it has become, in November.

That's a fine sentiment, but don't bet the farm on it. The electorate is splintered this year, and who is motivated will say more than how many are aligned. What happens if the GOTV effort flops in either or both parties ... or the opposite happens? What might trigger a change in historical turnout?

No one knows the answers to any of these questions., any more than they had success predicting the current state of affairs. If Michael Bloomberg (14th richest person in the world) decides to join the fray, then what?

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Closing those "torture farms" was not so easy as one thought. Opening them was easy enough for the Rove/Cheney/Bush administration; closing them would have nasty consequences -- like sending jihadi types even more radicalized in their stays in Guantanamo to places unready for them.

Guantanamo is going to have to close, simply because it cannot stay open in it's present form once relations with Cuba are normalised. The only basis for staying in Guantanamo and maintaining the naval base was continuing hostility to Cuba from 1962. Which makes no sense, especially for Florida business wanting access to Cuba and to Yucatan and Central America and Haiti and Dominican Republic and maybe even Colombia (well within reach of ferries like they have in Europe from Cuba) via Cuba.
If the US is to have a facility like Guantanamo, it will have to make arrangements with some other complaisant country. Maybe Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands. Or Nauru, where Australia detains asylum seekers it won't have.

Taxing the poor is pointless, except perhaps for "sin" taxes as on booze and cancerweed. This has been well established in practice.

For Idealists, the whole point is moralism and "sending a message" practicalities be damned. Idealists worry about the "moral hazard" of not punishing the poor.


T

he Republicans have the committee chairmanships. Democrats must win the House to get the chairmanships back. That will be difficult due to gerrymandering (remember? Democrats won the majority of nationwide votes for the House in 2012 and the Republicans kept the majority in the House because there were few marginal seats to win). Republicans may be reactionary and obnoxious, but they certainly know how to entrench power once they get even transitory power. But this is not the Republican Party that some of us know from the 1980s or earlier.

This is why 2020 (and 2018 if the Dems (probably under Sanders) can get voter participation in non-Presidential elections up) may be a more critical election than 2016. A wave election in 2020 can still put Dem majorities in state legislatures --if Millennials can be sensitised to the need to do so and the possibility of even electing some of their own in primary challenges. Yes, since Sanders is not likely to demobilise the organisation he is building the way Obama did, 2018 could also be a pivotal year.

Not since just before the American Civil War have American politics been so polarized. The Democrats are a center Party with a left wing. The Republicans are a right-wing Party with no center.

Before the Civil War, the Whig Party broke up into splinters leaving the US an effective one party state for about 10 years. The Know Nothings were a third party. The Republicans were a third party. The two merged in coalition in 1860 (though some Know Nothings split off to follow John Bell's American Party). The major reason that the immigration issue disappeared from national consciousness after 1860 was that the Union Army needed to recruit Irish and other European immigrants fresh off the boat. And afterwords, they had paid their dues in blood. Which is why the 14th Amendment was written to apply to immigrants too.

[

QUOTE=pbrower2a;546950]Martin Luther King was a Christian, a non-socialist, and not a black nationalist. if there was any black person that white people were going to accept as an equal (barring some Hollywood types), it was Martin Luther King, Jr.

The KGB files on Martin Luther King showed a chilly relationship between him and the Soviet Union. He had no problem with capitalism so long as it allowed ethnic equality. The Soviet Union preferred the Black nationalist types.

Martin Luther King was a Social Democrat of the European mould. Defining Martin Luther King as a "socialist" was part of the Right's campaign to define anyone against increasing economic inequality as a socialist. King was very dangerous to the American Right. That was why he was assassinated when he moved beyond public accomodation desegregation to union organising and breaking down racial distinctions in the working class.



http://spartacus-educational.com/spa...blogURL41.html



It would be good if we did things again because they are good and not because they expedite and enhance power.[/QUOTE]

Binary matchups involving Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush



Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)



Hillary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio



Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



I no longer take Carson or Fiorina seriously.

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Binary match-ups involving Bernie Sanders. With a poll that I generally trust in Wisconsin (Jeb Bush was not polled, so Wisconsin here appears as a blank) I now have enough states polled to get some idea of the flavor of the 2016 Presidential race should Sanders be the nominee. I thought that New Hampshire might be an exceptionally-good match for Sanders because Sanders is from a neighboring state. There's no reason for Sanders to do so well as he does in Wisconsin (and so much better than Clinton) unless he is doing so well nationwide. Sanders loses North Carolina -- barely -- but any Republican nominee must win North Carolina by at least 7% to have a good chance of winning the popular vote nationwide.

Pollsters now seem not to be taking Jeb Bush seriously.


Bernie Sanders vs. Jeb Bush



Bernie Sanders(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)



(I no longer take Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina seriously).


Bernie Sanders vs. Marco Rubio


Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Apparently, state polls for the presidential election are not held often enough yet to know how they will vote in November.

Binary match-ups involving Bernie Sanders. With a poll that I generally trust in Wisconsin (Jeb Bush was not polled, so Wisconsin here appears as a blank) I now have enough states polled to get some idea of the flavor of the 2016 Presidential race should Sanders be the nominee. I thought that New Hampshire might be an exceptionally-good match for Sanders because Sanders is from a neighboring state. There's no reason for Sanders to do so well as he does in Wisconsin (and so much better than Clinton) unless he is doing so well nationwide. Sanders loses North Carolina -- barely -- but any Republican nominee must win North Carolina by at least 7% to have a good chance of winning the popular vote nationwide.

Pollsters now seem not to be taking Jeb Bush seriously.


Bernie Sanders vs. Jeb Bush



Bernie Sanders(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)



(I no longer take Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina seriously).


Bernie Sanders vs. Marco Rubio


Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Apparently, state polls for the presidential election are not held often enough yet to know how they will vote in November.

We will see more and more of them. So far the action is "Iowa" and "New Hampshire". Then it will be "South Carolina". Then "Super Tuesday".

By July 2008 much of the nature of the 2008 was taking shape. But even then... it took time to determine who would be the likely nominees (this may not be settled for a considerable time). We saw patterns develop, including some seemingly-unlikely surprises. We could reasonably use elections of 2000 and 2004 as a basis from which we could detect change from a pattern that ensured a very close election.

Four years ago there was one certainty: Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee for President. That limited much of the reasonable discussion of the 2012 election. Nobody was discussing the process of selecting the Democratic nominee. One could match any Republican challenger against Obama with 2008 as the new basis.

So what do we have now? The Democrats have two elderly candidates for an open seat. With any pol over 65, the health of a political candidate is always a potential concern. That is generally not so much an issue with Republican nominees. The one reliable certainty will be that the Democratic nominee will be much to the Left of any Republican nominee. This isn't 1952, 1956, or 1976.

Most of us assume that there are no surprises of some state going decidedly to the Left or Right. Count on this: we will find some. The common wisdom on West Virginia was that it was reliably-enough Democratic that it would vote Democratic except in a Republican landslide. Now it can vote Republican in a Democratic landslide. One can say the opposite of Maine and Vermont, the two states that voted for Alf Landon in 1936.

Now for a real curve ball. Michael Bloomberg has suggested that he might run a self-financed campaign as an independent nominee for President. That suggestion is full of contingencies. Those contingencies can appear -- or vanish.

Things will likely get much clarification soon. We will soon find that some candidacies become irrelevant. We will see binary and even three-way polls of individual states as early primaries conclude. We may see some odd switches in states. Between 1992 and 1996, between 2000 and 2004, and between 2008 and 2012 we saw comparatively few states switch sides. That is what one expects with successful Presidencies (even if the "success" is getting away
with catastrophic decisions... at which one must give Dubya some credit). People get what they expect. But between 1988 we saw about half the states change sides, all to the detriment of the Republican incumbent. In 2000 we saw eleven states change sides, any one of which, had it not gone from Clinton to Dubya, would have made Al Gore President of the United States. In 2008 we saw eight states change from Dubya to Obama in the most complete repudiation of the policies of a President since Reagan replaced Carter. (Clinton basically promised to continue the Reagan-Bush 41 foreign policy, so that is not such an extreme switch).

Give it time. Have patience. By September you will see too many polls to deal with. It is slow going now.

As I stated some time ago, if Trump wins Iowa, the race on the GOP side is over. It is the other side of Mike's coin that if he loses, he's a loser and his decline will ensue.

I was thinking we'd have to wait for the Iowa result on Monday night, but that is no longer necessary.

Trump has Iowa in hand as a result of his "hat trick" tonight in his counter venue to the Fox GOP debate.

He had both Mike HuckaJesus and Rick Santorum on stage shaking his hand in front of a YUGE Trump sign. These guys were the Iowa winners in '08 and '12 respectively. They each hold about 5% of Iowa voters, combined that is 10% and nearly all Evangeline - they go to Trump, its a landside in Iowa. That with the recent Falwell endorsement is a giant killer in Iowa.

This is why Trump was willing to take on Fox and not go to the debate.

Unless there is a major gaff between now and the convention, more than Trump shooting someone, it's over folks - Trump will be the GOP nominee.

If Sanders is the Dem nominee, Bloomberg will enter the race and hand the general election to Trump, President Trump.

Besides Clinton, the only other hope is that Trump decides at some point that while the crowd worship is wonderful for a narcissist, actually running the government is pretty hard with lots of compromise and frustration and blame, and he will drop out.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We will see more and more of them. So far the action is "Iowa" and "New Hampshire". Then it will be "South Carolina". Then "Super Tuesday".

By July 2008 much of the nature of the 2008 was taking shape. But even then... it took time to determine who would be the likely nominees (this may not be settled for a considerable time). We saw patterns develop, including some seemingly-unlikely surprises. We could reasonably use elections of 2000 and 2004 as a basis from which we could detect change from a pattern that ensured a very close election.

Four years ago there was one certainty: Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee for President. That limited much of the reasonable discussion of the 2012 election. Nobody was discussing the process of selecting the Democratic nominee. One could match any Republican challenger against Obama with 2008 as the new basis.

So what do we have now? The Democrats have two elderly candidates for an open seat. With any pol over 65, the health of a political candidate is always a potential concern. That is generally not so much an issue with Republican nominees. The one reliable certainty will be that the Democratic nominee will be much to the Left of any Republican nominee. This isn't 1952, 1956, or 1976.

Most of us assume that there are no surprises of some state going decidedly to the Left or Right. Count on this: we will find some. The common wisdom on West Virginia was that it was reliably-enough Democratic that it would vote Democratic except in a Republican landslide. Now it can vote Republican in a Democratic landslide. One can say the opposite of Maine and Vermont, the two states that voted for Alf Landon in 1936.

Now for a real curve ball. Michael Bloomberg has suggested that he might run a self-financed campaign as an independent nominee for President. That suggestion is full of contingencies. Those contingencies can appear -- or vanish.

Things will likely get much clarification soon. We will soon find that some candidacies become irrelevant. We will see binary and even three-way polls of individual states as early primaries conclude. We may see some odd switches in states. Between 1992 and 1996, between 2000 and 2004, and between 2008 and 2012 we saw comparatively few states switch sides. That is what one expects with successful Presidencies (even if the "success" is getting away
with catastrophic decisions... at which one must give Dubya some credit). People get what they expect. But between 1988 we saw about half the states change sides, all to the detriment of the Republican incumbent. In 2000 we saw eleven states change sides, any one of which, had it not gone from Clinton to Dubya, would have made Al Gore President of the United States. In 2008 we saw eight states change from Dubya to Obama in the most complete repudiation of the policies of a President since Reagan replaced Carter. (Clinton basically promised to continue the Reagan-Bush 41 foreign policy, so that is not such an extreme switch).

Give it time. Have patience. By September you will see too many polls to deal with. It is slow going now.

Great analysis and insights.

However, I think this all goes away on the GOP side if Trump wins Iowa and on the Dem side if Clinton wins Iowa. It's the nature of what comes next after NH.

On the GOP side, no non-Trump candidate will be able to recover from Trump taking both Iowa and NH. On the Dem side, it is assumed Sanders will take NH but going into the South with Clinton's support from minorities, there's no significant White vote for Sanders - that will instead go to Trump.

If a non-Trump takes Iowa GOP and Sanders takes Iowa on the Dem side, then the uncertainty will continue into the South. However, if either Trump or Clinton takes all or nearly all Super Tuesday states, once again, it will be over on the respective side.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Taxing the poor is pointless, except perhaps for "sin" taxes as on booze and cancerweed. This has been well established in practice.

Taxes should never be imposed based of subjective moral outlooks either, sorry.

Yes, you can vote. You can also volunteer for political causes and have even stronger participation. You can tell your friends, co-workers, and extended family how the Koch syndicate does things, that FoX "News" Channel is an oxymoron, and that the GOP exploits fundamentalist Christians for economic causes that would appall Jesus.

Yup, that another reason I hate Republicans. They're moral nags.

Vote Republican -- and vote for a New Serfdom.

And a vote for idiotic moral nags!

Btw, Bloomberg's a prick. He's a moral nag about soda size of all things. He'll never get my vote. It's Bernie or bust.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gail-s...b_7571906.html

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Taxes should never be imposed based of subjective moral outlooks either, sorry.

I think the danger of smoking is very objective.

It's the same as on similar issues. Prohibition won't work, but taxes/regulation is proper.

Btw, Bloomberg's a prick. He's a moral nag about soda size of all things. He'll never get my vote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gail-s...b_7571906.html

Mine either, of course. However, I am willing to consider support for rules not on customers, but on companies who deliberately refuse to make smaller sizes of soda available, so that people will get hooked and get sick. Very objectively sick.

It's Bernie or bust.

It might well be.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think the danger of smoking is very objective.

Yes, but I have faith that most folks know this and will refrain from doing it with or without monetary nagging.

It's the same as on similar issues. Prohibition won't work, but taxes/regulation is proper.

Sorry, but treating grown adults like children is reprehensible.

Mine either, of course. However, I am willing to consider support for rules not on customers, but on companies who deliberately refuse to make smaller sizes of soda available, so that people will get hooked and get sick. Very objectively sick.

That does not exist here. One can get pops of all sizes. The customer who is mostly adult should choose. If it's a kid, then it should be the kid's parents and not the government's job to decide. That's why prohibition projects like the War on Drugs is such a failure. Anytime the government decides to nanny people, you get disaster and resentful ppl like me. It's like if NYC had a pop tax, I'd be more than happy to litter in Times Square to exact some revenge.

It might well be.

No kidding.
2 egocentric fatcats [Blloomberg,Trump]
1 shrew, [Shillary]
1 old dude [Bernie]

I'll pick the old dude.

[QUOTE=MordecaiK;547742]

Guantanamo is going to have to close, simply because it cannot stay open in it's present form once relations with Cuba are normalised. The only basis for staying in Guantanamo and maintaining the naval base was continuing hostility to Cuba from 1962. Which makes no sense, especially for Florida business wanting access to Cuba and to Yucatan and Central America and Haiti and Dominican Republic and maybe even Colombia (well within reach of ferries like they have in Europe from Cuba) via Cuba.

If the US is to have a facility like Guantanamo, it will have to make arrangements with some other complaisant country. Maybe Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands. Or Nauru, where Australia detains asylum seekers it won't have.

One of the Aleutian Islands will do the trick. Sub-arctic island surrounded by very cold waters... No real escape.

For Idealists, the whole point is moralism and "sending a message" practicalities be damned. Idealists worry about the "moral hazard" of not punishing the poor.

Tobacco and alcohol are not good for people. Maybe we would be wise to take chips, candy, and sodas off the list of food-stamp eligible items (but add eligibility for soap, toilet paper, toothpaste... maybe a limited amount for housewares... Unless one objective of welfare is to ensure that its recipients live short lives due to obesity, empty calories need to go.

This is why 2020 (and 2018 if the Dems (probably under Sanders) can get voter participation in non-Presidential elections up) may be a more critical election than 2016. A wave election in 2020 can still put Dem majorities in state legislatures --if Millennials can be sensitised to the need to do so and the possibility of even electing some of their own in primary challenges. Yes, since Sanders is not likely to demobilise the organisation he is building the way Obama did, 2018 could also be a pivotal year.

I hope that you are right. Governors like Walker, Snyder, Scott, and LePage need to go down in the midterm year of 2018. A successful Sanders can ride the generational tide of the rapidly-rising Millennial Generation, which should be challenging Boom and X Tea Party types who run more on fear and resentment than on reason. Congressional districts will have to be redrawn as the result of the 2020 Census.

Before the Civil War, the Whig Party broke up into splinters leaving the US an effective one party state for about 10 years. The Know Nothings were a third party. The Republicans were a third party. The two merged in coalition in 1860 (though some Know Nothings split off to follow John Bell's American Party). The major reason that the immigration issue disappeared from national consciousness after 1860 was that the Union Army needed to recruit Irish and other European immigrants fresh off the boat. And afterwords, they had paid their dues in blood. Which is why the 14th Amendment was written to apply to immigrants too.

American politics were truly awful in the 1850s.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Martin Luther King was a Social Democrat of the European mould. Defining Martin Luther King as a "socialist" was part of the Right's campaign to define anyone against increasing economic inequality as a socialist. King was very dangerous to the American Right. That was why he was assassinated when he moved beyond public accomodation desegregation to union organising and breaking down racial distinctions in the working class.



http://spartacus-educational.com/spa...blogURL41.html

Interesting, provocative link. The Soviet Union always sought to portray the United States as a racist society whose Negroes (the polite word of the time) needed liberation through the Class Struggle.

As should be well known, Marxist-Leninists and social democrats do not get along well. If reactionary mirror-images of Communists are seen as potentially-murderous antitheses of Communists, social democrats are the most dangerous rivals of Marxism-Leninism. Social democrats want democracy (as opposed to "democratic centralism") and have no problems with a capitalist system capable of supporting an excellent system of social welfare.

To the American Right, Martin Luther King was a dangerous radical for whom the "communist" label was all too attractive to avoid pinning onto him. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union saw Dr. King useful until he showed that he was no communist. He never used Communist rhetoric. So casting him as an 'Uncle Tom' became the Soviet pattern -- until he became harmless after death.

It would be good if we did things again because they are good and not because they expedite and enhance power.

Politics as service and not as a means of rewarding one's financial backers? What a concept! That is what the Founding Fathers wanted. That is America at its best.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yes, but I have faith that most folks know this and will refrain from doing it with or without monetary nagging.

Sorry, but treating grown adults like children is reprehensible.

But, we ARE like children. Look at whom we elected in 2004. Geez, we are immature.

That does not exist here. One can get pops of all sizes. The customer who is mostly adult should choose. If it's a kid, then it should be the kid's parents and not the government's job to decide. That's why prohibition projects like the War on Drugs is such a failure. Anytime the government decides to nanny people, you get disaster and resentful ppl like me. It's like if NYC had a pop tax, I'd be more than happy to litter in Times Square to exact some revenge.

The problem as I heard it is that the pop companies only provide the large size. The customer should have the choice. But I don't know what you are seeing.

I'll pick the old dude.

On that we agree.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But, we ARE like children. Look at whom we elected in 2004. Geez, we are immature.

That doesn't translate to all aspects of life. If you're over 18, you're have to pay your bills on time, you don't get an allowance, you have show "financial responsibility" by having auto insurance, if you own your house, you have to pay your property taxes every year, if you rent, you have to pay your rent every month, etc. Pop and smokes is nothing compared to those other responsibilities. I suppose I can have a child like outburst like mentioned earlier if I'm treated like a child, right? If some nanny wants to tax my pop, then I should be able to litter their public space with .... yeah, filthy ciggie butts I can dig out of ashtrays and those butt containers I see around, right?

The problem as I heard it is that the pop companies only provide the large size. The customer should have the choice. But I don't know what you are seeing.

Different sizes at the store. There's the standard 12 oz. and now this shrinkflation tiny 10 oz. pop. cans. You can get the supersized 3 liter sized pop bottles if you want to. The fast food joints have small, medium and big. We have lots of choices here.

On that we agree.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

That doesn't translate to all aspects of life. If you're over 18, you're have to pay your bills on time, you don't get an allowance, you have show "financial responsibility" by having auto insurance, if you own your house, you have to pay your property taxes every year, if you rent, you have to pay your rent every month, etc. Pop and smokes is nothing compared to those other responsibilities. I suppose I can have a child like outburst like mentioned earlier if I'm treated like a child, right? If some nanny wants to tax my pop, then I should be able to litter their public space with .... yeah, filthy ciggie butts I can dig out of ashtrays and those butt containers I see around, right?

Yeah, and I don't think anything I say is going to dissuade you from your little act of civil disobedience, if it should come to that.

But myself, I'd rather throw the butts in the face of the tobacco company CEOs, or at least any Republican politician that I happen to meet.

Taking care of one's health, I say, is at least as important a responsibility as any financial obligations. And it helps to make you less of a burden on society if you do.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Great analysis and insights.

However, I think this all goes away on the GOP side if Trump wins Iowa and on the Dem side if Clinton wins Iowa. It's the nature of what comes next after NH.

On the GOP side, no non-Trump candidate will be able to recover from Trump taking both Iowa and NH. On the Dem side, it is assumed Sanders will take NH but going into the South with Clinton's support from minorities, there's no significant White vote for Sanders - that will instead go to Trump.

If a non-Trump takes Iowa GOP and Sanders takes Iowa on the Dem side, then the uncertainty will continue into the South. However, if either Trump or Clinton takes all or nearly all Super Tuesday states, once again, it will be over on the respective side.

Clinton is not going to take all or nearly all Super Tuesday states. Not when those states include Colorado, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Vermont. Clinton is not going to take Colorado after being reticent on legalising marijuana. Call it a 500 Clinton-300 Sanders unless Clinton's support continues to decline.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think the danger of smoking is very objective.

It's the same as on similar issues. Prohibition won't work, but taxes/regulation is proper.....

Prohibition of illegal drugs is not working either. I would like to see all drugs legal and taxed. Then use the funds for drug treatment and education on the dangers of drug use. This would put the drug cartels out of business.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

One of the Aleutian Islands will do the trick. Sub-arctic island surrounded by very cold waters... No real escape.

This is a great idea. The only problem would be hiring guards for this. Of course, the military could be tasked for the job with one year hard duty tours.

Tobacco and alcohol are not good for people. Maybe we would be wise to take chips, candy, and sodas off the list of food-stamp eligible items (but add eligibility for soap, toilet paper, toothpaste... maybe a limited amount for housewares... Unless one objective of welfare is to ensure that its recipients live short lives due to obesity, empty calories need to go.

Another good idea.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Clinton is not going to take all or nearly all Super Tuesday states. Not when those states include Colorado, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Vermont. Clinton is not going to take Colorado after being reticent on legalising marijuana. Call it a 500 Clinton-300 Sanders unless Clinton's support continues to decline.

If that's the split, then it's over. Because from there, the primaries go into the teeth of the Dem establishment (e.g., huge state political machines like CA and NY, superdelegates) and states no where near the lily White demographics of Iowa and NH, where that White vote is increasingly more likely a Trump vote, not a Dem vote. Capiche?