Originally Posted by Odin

Apparently many Hillary supporters think Millennials are still children who have their parents pay their bills.

They shit on us and then wonder why we hate them.

This has hit Twitter.

Originally Posted by TnT

Well, clearly it's because blacks, Latinos, Asians and Natives are lazy, tend to lean toward crime as a way to make a living, and are - overall - just more thuggish, and basically inferior to "whites." This is tightly reasoned and extensively documented in The Bell Curve​ by Taylor. >;^)

I wouldn't waste my time reading it considering that there are blacks, Asians and Latino's who are considered equal by whites and mating with whites.

Starting to see returns from Nashua, Manchester and surrounding areas. Sanders is bolstering his lead established earlier in the White Mtn counties.

Meanwhile Trump pulls ahead by a substantial margin. Cruz in 2nd with Kasich at his heels.

Now getting Concord and surrounds and meanwhile the numbers for Nashua/Manchester are now tilting toward Kasich. Trump's lead less pronounced, Kasich in 2nd and out of nowhere - Boooooosh now in 3rd.

46.3% reporting

Democratic

CANDIDATE VOTES % DEL

Sanders
58,763 59.1% 13
Clinton
38,140 38.3% 7

Source: AP

44.7% reporting

Republican

CANDIDATE VOTES % DEL
Trump
36,112 33.8% 9
Kasich
17,079 16.0% 0
Cruz
12,552 11.7% 0
Bush
12,140 11.4% 0
Rubio
11,190 10.5% 0
Christie
8,585 8.0% 0
Fiorina
4,664 4.4% 0
Carson
2,428 2.3% 0
Gilmore
57 0.1% 0




Trump and Sanders projected winners

Getting returns from at least some precincts in all highly populated counties. GOP has Trump, Kasich, Bush, Cruz then Rubio. Amazing how well Kasich and Bush are doing. Meanwhile on the Dem side I now call it for Sanders. There is no counter-trend in any reporting county, this is not unexpected.

I expect Christie to drop out after today.

For GOP I call it for Trump. No counter-trend of any significance in the high population counties.

Cruz now barely edging out Shrub.

This is a notable countertrend.

They don't like Bush in the rural counties. Those are reporting in more slowly.

Cruz might in fact edge out Bush.

Strafford, a rural county with a few thousand votes, just started reporting and with a number of precincts reporting simultaneously. Shrub appears to be in some trouble now. His hope will be that the trend in Hillsborough County (Nashua/Manchester) continues and those numbers overcome the impact of the yet to be reported precincts in the rural counties where they hate him. It is going to be close for 3rd place!

Sanders wins New Hampshire 57-41. On the Republican side, Trump leads, Kasich makes second place, and Bush and Cruz nearly tie in third place.

How am I impressed with Kasich? I am adding his surname to the dictionary so that it does not come up with squiggly red lines as if an error.

Cheshire and Sullivan Counties will make or break Cruz. By my reckoning there are just enough votes there for him to resist the Bush trend in the urban counties. And those two counties are reporting in very slowly. It is going to be a long night in the Bush camp in particular (Cruz doesn't care since he won IA and is focusing on NV, SC and Super Tuesday).

Did some math. By my reckoning Cruz will probably rack up another 2.2 - 2.4K votes. Bush will probably rack up another 7K. Now this is overall popular votes of counties added up. Precinct level summations may not quite work out this way.

Chris Christie is going home to New Jersey tomorrow, instead of South Carolina as planned.

Looking toward Nevada, the precinct caucuses are closed. But people can register and change party affiliation all the way to May. And Nevada is an interesting state as far as universities go. Both major cities, Las Vegas and Reno have large U of N campuses and probably a lot of students who commute to class. So from the looks of things, if Sanders has a decent ground game going, especially on those campuses, he can get quite a few students to a) spend a day standing in line to become registered Democrats and b) go to their precinct caucuses all the way to next Tuesday's caucus night. So he might do better against Hillary in Nevada than one might think since many students will have at home residences and will be fairly dispersed in the number of caucuses they attend instead of being all bunched up around the campuses.
Also, Sanders's push for solar energy will go over very well with workers on Elon Musk's lithium battery factory near Reno.

New Hampshire Primary Results
FEB. 10, 2016, 12:43 PM ET

Republican Primary

CANDIDATES VOTE PCT. DELEGATES
Donald J. Trump 99,268 35.4% 10
John Kasich 44,081 15.7 3
Ted Cruz 32,847 11.7 2
Jeb Bush 30,856 11.0 2
Marco Rubio 29,446 10.5
Chris Christie 20,803 7.4
Carly Fiorina 11,574 4.1
Ben Carson 6,413 2.3
Jim Gilmore 133 0.0
Other 4,829 1.7
-280,250 votes, 97% reporting (290 of 300 precincts)


Democratic Primary
CANDIDATES VOTE PCT. DELEGATES
Bernie Sanders 147,291 60.2% 13
Hillary Clinton 93,443 38.2 9
Other 4,122 1.7
-244,856 votes, 97% reporting (291 of 300 precincts)

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/201.../new-hampshire

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Most astrologers use a chart for about 5 PM, since that's when the Declaration was accepted and signed by John Hancock.

-- isn't the Moon void of course in that chart? There is one chart cast in the late afternoon where the Moon is void of course. I got the 2:15A time from a book back in the day when I was really into casting charts. Don't do it so much any more, don't have the time like I used to

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.

-- So there is a possibility the country could break up. Maybe that is the crisis for this saeculem

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The survival of the state militias is the National Guard. And after the Iraq War, when ALL National Guardspeople got federalised and rotated on at least one job disrupting tour of duty (unless found medically unfit for duty, which many Guardspeople were) poorer white Americans may be leery of joining the National Guard despite the benefits (which do not include access to free medical care).

True in a practical sense, but not in a legal sense. The National Guard is technically a standing army. They can be sent abroad. The president can call on them without an act of Congress. They get paid. They are a limited number of members rather than all adult fit males. The old language would call the Guard a 'select militia' rather than 'The Militia'. As they are hired by the government, select militia were distrusted in the old days nigh on as much as a standing army. These days, posse comitatus restricts military interaction with the public. The Guard generally shows up after a storm or other disaster rather than to oppress the people. The old fear of standing armies has very much faded.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The Israeli experience is the exact opposite. Fewer guns issued to civilians (yes, those guns remain government property) but guns IN civilian hands. And most importantly, those Israelis having those guns getting yearly refresher courses during their month of Army Duty. And THAT kind of "duty to bear arms" has saved a lot of Israeli civilian lives.

In Israel, the distinction between civilian and military is kinda blurry. Everyone is in the Army. And, yes, the Israeli month of duty would serve a similar purpose to the thirteen colony's once a week training. If you want a population ready to respond to an emergency, that's the sort of thing you have to do. Israel is essentially a European colony in the midst of a bunch of potentially hostile locals. This echoes the thirteen colony's situation decently.

But few countries will put their population through that sort of training unless there is a real threat. Unless and until such a threat seriously develops, a rebooted militia isn't going to happen in the US. Individuals who feel threatened can take individual training as they deem necessary, but it will be spotty and generally not cover working in groups or with professional police or military. As professionals generally and sensibly won't want 'help' from an untrained unknown armed (expletive deleted) wandering into a hot fire zone, the training US citizens will generally get is to stay out of the way and don't annoy the professionals.

This difference in training and doctrine between the modern US and Israel likely contributes to the Middle Eastern terrorist's doctrine that a suicide vest is a more cost effective weapon system than a firearm. The kill ratio is apt to be more favorable with the suicide vest.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- isn't the Moon void of course in that chart? There is one chart cast in the late afternoon where the Moon is void of course. I got the 2:15A time from a book back in the day when I was really into casting charts. Don't do it so much any more, don't have the time like I used to

Yes the Moon in VOC. There are some key figures who have the moon or key planets in that 27 Aquarius degree. Maybe the VOC has to do with the progress that still needs to be made; that liberty was promised, but was "void." Like Martin Luther King Jr. said, a check returned for insufficient funds.

-- So there is a possibility the country could break up. Maybe that is the crisis for this saeculem

I have always thought it would be so.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Looking toward Nevada, the precinct caucuses are closed. But people can register and change party affiliation all the way to May. And Nevada is an interesting state as far as universities go. Both major cities, Las Vegas and Reno have large U of N campuses and probably a lot of students who commute to class. So from the looks of things, if Sanders has a decent ground game going, especially on those campuses, he can get quite a few students to a) spend a day standing in line to become registered Democrats and b) go to their precinct caucuses all the way to next Tuesday's caucus night. So he might do better against Hillary in Nevada than one might think since many students will have at home residences and will be fairly dispersed in the number of caucuses they attend instead of being all bunched up around the campuses.
Also, Sanders's push for solar energy will go over very well with workers on Elon Musk's lithium battery factory near Reno.

In the primary scheme of things, Nevada is not Iowa or New Hampshire - almost an afterthought by most campaigns. Relative to NH in particular, there's been little time there for the 'Bern' to have much impact. HC is pretty far out in front of Sanders; the polling is old, from December, but again not much going on in NV, until now, to turn that around. If it does, it would likely be more about the casino workers than college students - big difference between NV and NH cultures on the place of academics in the states. Interesting that the worker union hasn't endorsed Clinton.

A Sanders' upset in NV would be somewhat telling but not lethal to Clinton. On the other hand, a Clinton win, as projected, would tell us nothing.

SC is where there is the opportunity for a fatal blow against either candidate. If Sanders upsets Clinton there, its over. If Sanders loses but it is close, ala Iowa, then Super Tuesday will be red hot. If Clinton wins by something over 10%, its pretty much over for the 'Bern.'

On the GOP side, NV has much of the same attributes of not being much about anything - although it may show some of the hatred towards Trump by segments of the lower economic income folks. SC has some of the same asymmetrical outcomes for candidates. Assuming Christie drops out before SC and endorses Kaisch, then a SC win or even a strong second place behind Trump by Kaisch will end the bids of both Cruz and the Florida tag team of Bush and Rubio - one or more of them might stay in to save face but it will be over. Kaisch is not likely to win, this is the South - something the BernieBots are going to be educated upon. So a Trump win and a muddle for everyone else turns SC into a nothing burger and its on to Super Tuesday.

The only other potential killer here is if Cruz comes in first and it is not close; then it is over for Trump.

Pretty much as I've been calling it, including buying into the possibility of Mike's scenario of Trump's collapse as a 'Loser!' - indicating that scenario is still in play until SC. Also, HC could still lose the whole thing in SC depending on how it plays out (see above). On the other hand, if it plays out with what I see as the most likely scenario (i.e., significant HC and Trump win and muddled 2nd for GOP), then the big question for 2020 will be why both Iowa and NH go first and/or given such importance - White supremacy is so passe in so many ways.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... Agreed. The bare skeletons of the old militia laws are still there in some states, but fleshing them out to anything useful is very unlikely. I had some thoughts that it could conceivably happen in the days after the September 11th attack. Bin Ladin attacked office space. Highly symbolic office space, but office space none the less. He wasn't going to destroy our ability to fight by depriving us of office space. All he did was tick us off and give political clearance for Bush 43 and the neocons to go nuts.

A more serious and damaging attack might focus on dispersed infrastructure... bridges, power lines, aqueducts, etc... No way do we have enough regular forces to defend all that. We'd need a ton of manpower. A solid ISIS campaign against domestic US infrastructure might conceivably bring back the militia. Not much else is likely to. I don't anticipate such a campaign or a new militia as a response. Still, some folk around these forums talk as if a civil war or insurrection might be due this 4T. If domestic conflict gets serious, if communities start coming under threat, the militia as a dispersed trip wire to alert better trained police or military forces is still plausible. I don't see it as anything near likely, but plausible.

I see the rural and NRA types as likely to step up to the plate and help as they can. I see the urban ammophobics cowering in the ruins and repeating a mantra that defense of the community isn't their job.

The original intent was an armed trained populace and a duty to defend the community. Cornell was spot on in reminding people that there used to be a strenuous serious duty to protect the community. That duty has faded from memory and culture, especially in urban areas, but the rights have not faded, especially in rural areas. The rights of the individual do not go away because the government decides not to exercise some of its powers. Any argument to the contrary is really really silly.

In this modern age, no sane society will rely on militia to provide defense unless all other options are closed. That certainly doesn't apply in the US, so the "militias" roaming around in the exurbs and rural areas are gangs, not civil defense agents. We have no authorized militia; I doubt we ever will again. Since we don't, the 2nd becomes moot. You can't just arbitrarily reassign a right specifically set aside to support military defense to some other purpose. It doesn't work that way ... unless your being dishonest about it. You can't twist clear language that far.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Did some math. By my reckoning Cruz will probably rack up another 2.2 - 2.4K votes. Bush will probably rack up another 7K. Now this is overall popular votes of counties added up. Precinct level summations may not quite work out this way.

Well so much for linear extrapolation.

Hillsborough did not continue on the early strong Bush trend and meanwhile Cruz picked up some late votes there. Cruz did very well in rural areas. Done.

Kasich needs some money to flow to him and more campaign organization to do well after his second place NH finish. Overall, I see him as too moderate for the GOP crazies; he can do well only in states where independents can vote. I don't see him winning South Carolina. Trump, Cruz and Bush are probably bunched up fairly close. Trump probably takes it with his NH momentum. SC is Bush's hope to break into the top tier. Don't ever count him out. Rubio will still give it a try and may recover some support, but I don't see him doing better than 4th. So Kasich probably takes 5th, if he and Rubio can beat Carson. That's not a sure thing. Christie is dropping out; Carson will continue, and get about 10% or more in conservatives states. This campaign is a career move for Fiorina, so I don't see her dropping out just yet. She'll have a chance to get back on to the debate stage, where she shines.

Trump will cruise in Nevada; it's a wheel of fortune for him. Rubio may have some room for recovery, but Cruz takes second. Kasich may do OK if he gets that money and organization thing going. As you know I'm not predicting he will last past April or so. I don't sense that Nevada is Bush's ticket.

Cruz has a lot of strength in the Bible belt, and Bush has a lot of money, so Trump has not won this thing yet. Any losses this month will punch holes in Trump's triumphal balloon. Kasich still has potential in the northern and upper mid-western states.

Sanders has a good shot in Nevada, but Clinton may take it. Clinton will recover in South Carolina and likely win it. Sanders is trying to burnish his support among blacks by meeting with Rev. Al Sharpton. Not a good plan, although remember he was actually a presidential candidate some time ago. But if Sanders does somehow make his case that he is the best candidate for African-Americans, an upset could be in the making. If so, Sanders has a good path to the nomination.

CNN.com is reporting that Carly Fiorina is out.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In this modern age, no sane society will rely on militia to provide defense unless all other options are closed. That certainly doesn't apply in the US, so the "militias" roaming around in the exurbs and rural areas are gangs, not civil defense agents. We have no authorized militia; I doubt we ever will again. Since we don't, the 2nd becomes moot. You can't just arbitrarily reassign a right specifically set aside to support military defense to some other purpose. it doesn't work that way ... unless your being dishonest about it. You can't twist clear language that far.

I'm not reassigning any rights. Rights exist in an entirely different part of the Constitution that the powers of the legislature or the executive. If the legislature or executive decides not to exercise some of its powers, this does not effect the Bill of Rights at all. You are trying to read the Constitution as saying so long as the congress and president exercise their power to regulate the militia, it is the right of the People to own and carry arms. That's not what it says. It doesn't work that way unless you are being dishonest about it. You can't twist clear language that far.

Again, the justification - implementation format in the founding father's time listed a reason some select group needed a right, then granted the right to the People. The founding fathers were not into creating elite privileged groups. When they spoke of rights they were created more by God than the government, and everybody had said rights, not just those affiliated with the government.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm not reassigning any rights. Rights exist in an entirely different part of the Constitution that the powers of the legislature or the executive. If the legislature or executive decides not to exercise some of its powers, this does not effect the Bill of Rights at all. You are trying to read the Constitution as saying so long as the congress and president exercise their power to regulate the militia, it is the right of the People to own and carry arms. That's not what it says. It doesn't work that way unless you are being dishonest about it. You can't twist clear language that far.

Again, the justification - implementation format in the founding father's time listed a reason some select group needed a right, then granted the right to the People. The founding fathers were not into creating elite privileged groups. When they spoke of rights they were created more by God than the government, and everybody had said rights, not just those affiliated with the government.

The SCOTUS rarely reverses itself in short order, so barring an outright repeal of the 2nd, the court will try to make its ruling work for the next decade or two. If its a disaster, like Citizens United is rapidly becoming, it may be revisited sooner. Otherwise, I don't expect to see it reversed until well into the 1T. I don't see it making it through the next 2T.