Originally Posted by pbrower2a

As neutral as you can get.



The word "Orwellian" fits that pair of words ("death panel") turned into a lie in its own right.

The truth of the matter is that anything resembling a "death panel" in this country is private--decisions by health insurors about what they will and will not pay for on a given policy at a given price. And by "pricers" at hospitals. A health care provider can effectively create what amounts to a "death panel" (or a single "death comptroller") by making these decisions as a matter of corporate policy. Medicare (and especially Medicaid) makes decisions on what will or will not be covered too. (Isn't an arbitrary limit on days of nonemergency mental health care for patients who may be suicidal a "death-panelesque policy?) At least if Medicare is paid for out of tax doars at mainly publicly owned hospitals (because privatefor profit " hospitals are not likely to be solvent under such a regime and may well go bankrupt) the public is in a position to push for transparency in coverage decisions and to lobby for changes in coverage. With private for profit insurors and hospitals they can't.

Important article in today's Salon about the life and death of political parties. Our two parties may not survive in their present form if they do not become more responsive to the people instead of elites. Political parties have collapsed in our nation's history before. It's funny and tells us how ingrained teleological, biblical-prophetic notions of progress are ingrained in our psyches that on a list that discusses essentially cyclical ideas of history (generational saeculum cycles) we believe that situations and forms of organisation that we had in the past cannot recur but are obselete. Such as the breakup of political parties. See http://www.salon.com/2016/02/06/this...f_our_failed_p

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Important article in today's Salon about the life and death of political parties. Our two parties may not survive in their present form if they do not become more responsive to the people instead of elites. Political parties have collapsed in our nation's history before. It's funny and tells us how ingrained teleological, biblical-prophetic notions of progress are ingrained in our psyches that on a list that discusses essentially cyclical ideas of history (generational saeculum cycles) we believe that situations and forms of organisation that we had in the past cannot recur but are obselete. Such as the breakup of political parties. See http://www.salon.com/2016/02/06/this...f_our_failed_p

It is more than time to junk the two parties as they are today. In a 4T period in which there are more independents than members of either party, and in which confidence in the parties is virtually null, I'd say the duopoly is on life support.

However, the polarization of the country today is real enough for the majority of people. So whether what might emerge from this 4T is different in effect, remains to be seen.

William Strauss once said what I also have said, that we can't even count on the borders of the USA remaining the same after this 4T. A break-up of the country is a distinct possibility; one I have mentioned as possible (perhaps even likely) for this 4T (as Howe defines it now) for over 40 years now, long before there were red states and blue states.

P

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is more than time to junk the two parties as they are today. In a 4T period in which there are more independents than members of either party, and in which confidence in the parties is virtually null, I'd say the duopoly is on life support.

However, the polarization of the country today is real enough for the majority of people. So whether what might emerge from this 4T is different in effect, remains to be seen.

William Strauss once said what I also have said, that we can't even count on the borders of the USA remaining the same after this 4T. A break-up of the country is a distinct possibility; one I have mentioned as possible (perhaps even likely) for this 4T (as Howe defines it now) for over 40 years now, long before there were red states and blue states.

-- so what does the chart say? Cast 7/4/1776 2:15A 40°N 75°W

It seems like Hillary supporters can't help themselves from trashing Millennials, and even, like Gloria Steinem, shaming Millennial women for not voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. It is really getting sickening.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is more than time to junk the two parties as they are today. In a 4T period in which there are more independents than members of either party, and in which confidence in the parties is virtually null, I'd say the duopoly is on life support.

However, the polarization of the country today is real enough for the majority of people. So whether what might emerge from this 4T is different in effect, remains to be seen.

William Strauss once said what I also have said, that we can't even count on the borders of the USA remaining the same after this 4T. A break-up of the country is a distinct possibility; one I have mentioned as possible (perhaps even likely) for this 4T (as Howe defines it now) for over 40 years now, long before there were red states and blue states.

The system is broken; the Party system reflects that. American politics have become focused upon power instead of service. One Party clearly represents the power of several economic elites that have united against everyone else in an effort to establish a pure plutocracy; the other exists largely to defend what the rest of Americans still have in what could be a losing proposition. Power comes from those who command the means of buying the bayonets, so to speak. So far the elites have relied upon gentler means of persuasion: Orwellian propaganda applied to political contests. But the Right does everything to entrench even a short-lived advantage in political support, as through gerrymandering that ensures that the representative character of American politics becomes a sham. Think about it: Democrats won the majority of votes for the House of Representatives in 2012, about by the same margin as Barack Obama won the majority of the votes for the Presidency, and yet Republicans maintained control of the House of Representatives.

The United States of America is no longer a representative democracy. We now in effect have government by lobbyists who ensure that the political process represents wealth and bureaucratic power within giant corporations instead of the People. The polarization of political opinion demonstrates that quality no longer matters. It is easy to imagine how the current pathology goes, with Tammany-style bosses dominating the cities and some aging suburbs while the industrialists, financiers, and big landowners dominate everything else. Tammany-style bosses offer some modicum of welfare for the helpless and patronage to people with a combination of talent and loyalty at the cost of tolerating the corruption rampant in machine politics while the rest of America has a fascistic order. That's how Hungary was in the 1930s, with "Red" (socialist and Communist) Budapest with the rest of the country under aristocratic landowners who ruled everything else... brutally... much like Southern agrarians in the Jim Crow South.

Of course Hungary was and still is a small country that was sure to end up under the sway of one of its horrible near-neighbors... and in fact, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in turn. But the situation of Hungary in the 1930s resembles how some American states operate. A pithy observation about Atlanta is that Atlanta is a liberal and cosmopolitan city surrounded by primitive, arch-conservative Georgia. Replace "Budapest" with "Atlanta", and you get my idea of how Georgia politics work. But this is by someone who has never been in Georgia. Michigan? That fits well. Both Georgia and Michigan have about the same number of electoral votes. The Michigan Snake Legislature has done everything possible to ensure that liberals west of the US-23 corridor get only minimal representation in state government.

Before something weird and unsatisfying happens in November of this year, just remember: The United States of America is no longer a representative democracy.
Republicans have tried that in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Originally Posted by Odin

It seems like Hillary supporters can't help themselves from trashing Millennials, and even, like Gloria Steinem, shaming Millennial women for not voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. It is really getting sickening.

She believes that 2016 is her 'turn'. But 2016 is also the 'turn' for Jeb Bush; how is that working out?

Originally Posted by Odin

It seems like Hillary supporters can't help themselves from trashing Millennials, and even, like Gloria Steinem, shaming Millennial women for not voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. It is really getting sickening.

I lost all respect for Steinem with the "that's where the boys are" comment. She must think herself to be the only woman on the planet with a functioning brain.

Originally Posted by marypoza

P


-- so what does the chart say? Cast 7/4/1776 2:15A 40°N 75°W

Most astrologers use a chart for about 5 PM, since that's when the Declaration was accepted and signed by John Hancock. According to that, I looked at Neptune (also the signifier of the double rhythm of the saeculum) passing the Nadir of the chart (domestic affairs) and entering Aries (assertive, aggressive sign) in 1861 and thought that Neptune's return to there in circa 2025 would mean another break-up of the country. Uranus of course also is returning to its position of the Declaration in 1776 and the founding of Jamestown in 1607 in 2027, as it also did in 1692, 1861 and 1944. On the Descendant, that usually means war or divorce.

Originally Posted by Odin

It seems like Hillary supporters can't help themselves from trashing Millennials, and even, like Gloria Steinem, shaming Millennial women for not voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. It is really getting sickening.

As someone who came of age during the women's movement, I have always admired Gloria Steinem--until now. I found her comment about young women gravitating to the campaign of Bernie Sanders because that's "where the boys are" to be utterly patronizing. An ironic adjective for a feminist icon, don't you think? The comment by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wasn't much better. It's as if they think the many crowning achievements of women in recent decades are all for naught if female Millennials fail to cast their votes for anyone other than a woman in this election, namely Hillary Clinton. Shame, shame. That's identity politics at its narrowest--and worst. And so 3T.

For NH I'm sticking with:
1st - Trump
2nd - Rubio
3rd - Cruz

My initial assessment for NV:
1st - Cruz
2nd - Trump
3rd - Rubio

And a shift for SC:
1st - Cruz
2nd - Trump
3rd - Rubio
(.... AKA IA repeat)

Bottom line, though, as it has been ... we won't really know until Super Tuesday.

Originally Posted by Odin

It seems like Hillary supporters can't help themselves from trashing Millennials, and even, like Gloria Steinem, shaming Millennial women for not voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. It is really getting sickening.

It's stupid too. If Clinton does get the nomination, she'll need Sanders voters behind her to win the general election.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

For NH I'm sticking with:
1st - Trump
2nd - Rubio
3rd - Cruz

My initial assessment for NV:
1st - Cruz
2nd - Trump
3rd - Rubio

And a shift for SC:
1st - Cruz
2nd - Trump
3rd - Rubio
(.... AKA IA repeat)

Bottom line, though, as it has been ... we won't really know until Super Tuesday.

OK, good try!

I think Trump will get a little trump-bump from New Hampshire. I think he will win NV and probably SC. I expect Rubio would be 2nd in NV, if he doesn't tank soon, and Cruz 2nd in SC. NV is more like CA, so the Cruz crazies should have less pull there, and a Latino candidate would have more. But Nevada loves gamblers, and has a lot of immigrants that GOP voters don't like, so it's a good gamble to say Trump will win it

Let's look at Super Tuesday:
The participating states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado caucuses, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota caucuses, North Dakota Republican caucuses, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming Republican caucuses.

My guesses for now for the GOPPER clown car:
AL: Trump
AK: Trump
ARK: Cruz
CO: Rubio
GA: Cruz
MA: Trump
MN: Rubio
ND: Trump
OK: Cruz
TN: Cruz
TX: Cruz
VT: Trump
VA: Trump
WY: Cruz

Cruz should do well, although Trump could upset him in those states I have down for Cruz; but after Super Tuesday he will have exhausted most of his strength. His momentum will not spread beyond the south and lower midwest.

New Hampshire: today's poll average:
Trump 32. from Sunday: -.2
Rubio 14.5 -.5
Kasich 13 +.6
Cruz 11.5 -1.3
Bush 9.5 -.3

Sanders 54.5 +.3
Clinton 40.5 -.1

Average of 5 Sunday New Hampshire polls:
Trump 32.2
Rubio 15
Cruz 12.8
Kasich 12.4
Bush 9.8

Sanders 54.2
Clinton 40.6

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment objectively with your mind open?

I've read it with my full command of the English language. Specifically stating a purpose, the militia in this case, frames the right exactly.

It's clearly intended to make it impossible for the government to disarm the militia. Since standing armies were anathema to many of the founders, this assured protection of the state and its citizens when the standing army was not around. This was a hole in the original document that should be included for reference.

Read the obvious intent in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12. The founders preferred to raise armies when needed, and even restricted them to two years unless a follow-on appropriation was passed. Note the following paragraph had no such limits on a navy. Paragraphs 15 and 16 defined the relationship of the Federal government to the militias ... which was pretty precise for this document.

Ignoring the obvious intent of the founders should be the last thing the strict constructionists would do, but they are the ones pushing that opinion. It can't any clearer: the conservatives on the court are legislating this issue in direct contradiction of the constitution they claim to hold dear.

Originally Posted by B Butler

As far as I know he is human. Objective open minded thought might be an unreasonable expectation.

At least I read the entire 2nd, and don't just ignore the intent.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

One incident isn't all the big of an issue.

If someone burned your business to the ground, would that qualify as a big deal or not? If not, would lynching a family member qualify?

Originally Posted by Odin

It seems like Hillary supporters can't help themselves from trashing Millennials, and even, like Gloria Steinem, shaming Millennial women for not voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman. It is really getting sickening.

“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done. It’s not done,” Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...QSL/story.html

By that logic, we might just as well vote for Carly Fiona as Hillary Clinton.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I've read it with my full command of the English language. Specifically stating a purpose, the militia in this case, frames the right exactly.

It's clearly intended to make it impossible for the government to disarm the militia. Since standing armies were anathema to many of the founders, this assured protection of the state and its citizens when the standing army was not around. This was a hole in the original document that should be included for reference.

Read the obvious intent in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12. The founders preferred to raise armies when needed, and even restricted them to two years unless a follow-on appropriation was passed. Note the following paragraph had no such limits on a navy. Paragraphs 15 and 16 defined the relationship of the Federal government to the militias ... which was pretty precise for this document.

Ignoring the obvious intent of the founders should be the last thing the strict constructionists would do, but they are the ones pushing that opinion. It can't any clearer: the conservatives on the court are legislating this issue in direct contradiction of the constitution they claim to hold dear.

Did you miss the language that pertained to the individual's right to keep and bear arms and the language that pertained to the state's right to maintain an organized militia as Constitutional rights that cannot be infringed upon by the Federal government? The obvious intent of the founding fathers was to legally allow and maintain a relatively large armed population for the specific need and use of self/state/national defense.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

At least I read the entire 2nd, and don't just ignore the intent.

No. For most of your life and a long time before that, the Jim Crow Collective Rights interpretation was held to be correct. It sunk deep into the culture and the values of many. That sort of thing isn't changed by mere scholarship. I can quote the text, reference the intent of the authors, cite legal papers covering the issue, point out the Supreme Court precedents, and you and many others remain immune to the obvious. I know. I have done all of the above repeatedly to no effect.

The belief of the authors was that a well armed and trained population was necessary to the security of a free nation. One can well argue that their belief is now incorrect. One can easily argue that changes in weapons, communications, and transportation technology coupled with very different population density might cause one to reevaluate the merit of the justification clause of the 2nd. One cannot reasonably claim their intent was anything other than a well armed and trained populace. One should not interpret the 2nd in a way that conflicts with their firm belief in an armed trained populace.

But I hold this to be an example of how humans think. It's not unique to a particular issue, age group, gender, race or political affiliation. It's human. It's no different from fundamentalists rejecting evolution or conservatives rejecting global warming. Humans can just lock into a perspective and become immune to fact.

Originally Posted by Odin

It is looking like the Democratic Party establishment has resorted to cheating to help Hillary.

They'll do that until it become obvious that she's toxic (assuming that happens), then they'll dump her like a bad date.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

If someone burned you business to the ground, would that qualify as a big deal or not? If not, would lynching a family member qualify?

If someone burned my business to the ground, it would be a big deal at first but I'd work through it and over come it like most people are able to do. If someone lynched a family member and was caught, convicted and executed by the state, I would be satisfied and move on with my life. If someone lynched a family member and was caught, convicted and received a rather light sentence because he was black, I wouldn't be satisfied and consider it as a big deal that would require a future act of justice to morally resolve.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is more than time to junk the two parties as they are today. In a 4T period in which there are more independents than members of either party, and in which confidence in the parties is virtually null, I'd say the duopoly is on life support.

However, the polarization of the country today is real enough for the majority of people. So whether what might emerge from this 4T is different in effect, remains to be seen.

William Strauss once said what I also have said, that we can't even count on the borders of the USA remaining the same after this 4T. A break-up of the country is a distinct possibility; one I have mentioned as possible (perhaps even likely) for this 4T (as Howe defines it now) for over 40 years now, long before there were red states and blue states.

I have seen the breakup of the US as a distinct possibility for some years now. The more because unlike 1860, there isn't the militarised population or the will to keep states in the Union by force. Or the danger from outside ( the breakaway of Central America from Mexico left both wide open to economic penetration, first from the UK and then from the US). The US could split into one conservative and two liberal countries and all three nations would be viable. Or if Canada was agreeable, incorporation of liberal states into Canada, making Canada a rival liberal power to the more conservative rump USA.
The scenario most likely to lead to such a breakup would be a Congressional impasse that leads to the constitutionally mandated calling of a Constitutional Convention--and insurmountable disagreements there. It is at that point that Americans might entertain the idea that the Union is a marriage that cannot be saved and must be ended peacefully; that the nation is two or three countries not one.
We are a long way from that, and frankly, the Sanders Revolution, if it succeeds may avert such a scenario. But at this point, we are on a trajectory in which business and financial institutions and corporations become the only glue holding the nation together, just as is the case in Europe. And that is not enough.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

They'll do that until it become obvious that she's toxic (assuming that happens), then they'll dump her like a bad data.

I assume you meant "bad date". But "bad data" as in malware is also apropos.

In any system where rationing is the goal, you will have some means of deciding who gets something and who does not. It is delusional to pretend that a system of health care rationing would not result in deaths.

If there is enough "health care" to go around, then no rationing is necessary. The questions are then:

1) Why is there not enough medical treatment for everyone?

2) Why is the solution pushed for this mismatch always rationing?

Given that 90% of the population is engaged in unproductive pursuits, there are obviously enough extra people to fill any need that arises. The main problem is that outmoded beliefs about scarcity, and the system that arises from them, have not been displaced yet. In other words the human world is in the process of evolving past the problems of bygone eras.

We are living in post-scarcity times. There is no reason for anyone to starve to death, go homeless, or even go without medical treatment. And the answer is not more authoritarianism.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I have seen the breakup of the US as a distinct possibility for some years now. The more because unlike 1860, there isn't the militarised population or the will to keep states in the Union by force. Or the danger from outside ( the breakaway of Central America from Mexico left both wide open to economic penetration, first from the UK and then from the US). The US could split into one conservative and two liberal countries and all three nations would be viable. Or if Canada was agreeable, incorporation of liberal states into Canada, making Canada a rival liberal power to the more conservative rump USA.

I like that idea myself.

The only problem with allowing such a conservative rump USA to exist, is that we thereby turn over all the wildlife sanctuaries and monuments over to people like the invaders of a wildlife refuge in Burns Oregon, and to all the dune buggy riders and cattle ranchers who want to kill off all the wildlife and ecosystems and trash all the monuments with sporting exploits, etc. A lot of national parks would be closed, and that's an important heritage. So that fact gives me second thoughts about turning over scenic America to the yahoos who live there. (No I'm not saying everyone who lives there is a yahoo)

The scenario most likely to lead to such a breakup would be a Congressional impasse that leads to the constitutionally mandated calling of a Constitutional Convention--and insurmountable disagreements there. It is at that point that Americans might entertain the idea that the Union is a marriage that cannot be saved and must be ended peacefully; that the nation is two or three countries not one.

We are a long way from that, and frankly, the Sanders Revolution, if it succeeds may avert such a scenario. But at this point, we are on a trajectory in which business and financial institutions and corporations become the only glue holding the nation together, just as is the case in Europe. And that is not enough.

I'm not sure just WHAT holds a nation together these days anymore. Just the conviction that it's needed, I guess. But I agree. I don't know what the constitutional mandate is that you refer to though, other than a call for amendments.