I don't think anyone pays that much attention to Sharpton anymore. I'm glad Sanders didn't kowtow to him.

Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party's "core" is several groups that are each based on identity politics, that then have each other's backs.

Originally Posted by radind

The prospect of Biden as President without being elected would not seem to offer a stable basis to govern.

It appears that in the case where there is no President-elect, then the next in line would be the Vice President-elect( if qualified).


The following article shows a plan in case there is neither a qualified President-elect nor a Vice President-elect.


I would appreciate other views on this.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/print_friendly.html?page=faq_content.html&title=U. %20S.%20Electoral%20College%3A%20Frequently%20Aske d%20Questions
What happens if the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration?
If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.
The Constitution also directs Congress to determine by law a successive line of service to be called upon in the unlikely occurrence that both the President-elect and Vice President-elect fail to qualify by the beginning of the presidential term. Accordingly, federal law (3 U.S.C. Sec. 19) states that, in order, the following would be required, if qualified and, for Cabinet secretaries, if having been confirmed by advice and consent of the Senate, to act as President until such a time as a President has qualified:

• the Speaker of the House of Representatives
• the President pro tempore of the Senate
• the Secretary of State
• the Secretary of the Treasury
• the Secretary of Defense
• the Attorney General
• the Secretary of the Interior
• the Secretary of Agriculture
• the Secretary of Commerce
• the Secretary of Labor
• the Secretary of Health and Human Services
• the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
• the Secretary of Transportation
• the Secretary of Energy
• the Secretary of Education, and
• the Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It could turn into 1824 all over again--with the election going to the House--who can vote for whoever they want (the Senate chooses the VP). And what complicates matters is that the representatives of each state caucus and each state gets one vote. So we could see a Republican House going for an Establishment Republican. Or voting for Paul Ryan. Or splintering until January 20, wherupon Joe Biden takes office by default as Acting President.

-- & the Silents will finally get a Prez

Originally Posted by Odin

I am getting so sick of this kind of divisive BS.

If Clinton gets the nomination because of racial identity politics then I will have lost all hope in this country, because it would show that we are not a coherent society but just a collection of splintered demographic units fighting for influence and patronage.

And then these idiots will wonder why we end up with a President Trump...

Let me help you -

Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.

I'm still awaiting your attempt to back this up -

Originally Posted by Odin

It's increasingly clear that the Clinton campaign is in desperation mode and is resorting to scaring black voters by insinuating that Bernie's populism is for poor whites only. She doesn't give a shit that this risks blowing the party to bits as long as she wins.

- or did you think people wouldn't notice either your own divisiveness or your inability to put-up-or-shut-up when your nasty divisiveness is called out?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

You have a lot more faith in the Clintons than I do, Eric. I look at how far the Clintons pulled the Democratic Party to the Right in the 90s. And Hillary's propensity for military intervention. A lot of repression can be done in an era of war than an era of peace. Woodrow Wilson appeared to be a liberal too, and he gave us an Espionage Act that Hillary would like to prosecute Snowden and Assange under and a Sedition Act that was held unconstitutional by the courts. If Bernie Sanders can be compared to Eugene V Debs, Hillary Clinton can be compared to Edith Wilson--who might have gone far if her husband had not had a stroke and later died.

-- I have always thought of the Clintons as similar to the Wilsons.. & the Presidencies were 80 yrs apart too

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

I don't think anyone pays that much attention to Sharpton anymore. I'm glad Sanders didn't kowtow to him.

Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party's "core" is several groups that are each based on identity politics, that then have each other's backs.

While Bernie isn't kowtow'n to no Black folk, let see what those folks are up to -

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/politi...s-endorsement/

Congressional Black Caucus PAC stands behind Clinton


..."Black folks are not dumb. They come out for individuals that have their best interest at heart," said New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, chair of the CBC political action committee told CNN's Carol Costello on "Newsroom."

...."One of the individuals that has been with us time and time again has been Hillary Clinton. She has been, her whole career, an individual that has been fighting for issues that are important to the African-American community," Meeks said.

...Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, a revered civil rights leader in the 1960s, emphasized that point. He told reporters he didn't recall Sanders' role in the civil rights movement.

"I never saw him. I never met him," Lewis said. "I was chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved with the sit-ins, the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery and directed to voter education project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton."

Oh, as for the Black Caucus 'having the backs' of those they represent - that's their job.

Playing our usual Dem debate game last night of adding -

" and everyone will get a magic pony"

- to the end of each Sanders' remark (try it, it's fun!),

I saw the entire 2016 election process before us.

On the Dem side, two options - - everyone will get a magic pony v. I will clip GOP gonads = magic ponies win

On the GOP side, three options - America great again v. I am the 2nd Coming v. yadda-yadda-yadda = America great again wins


Then, the general - magic ponies with taxes v. America great without taxes.

Even without the coming recession, "without taxes" wins.

President Trump - get use to it; it will be YUGE!

America deserves it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes set the defining principle. It has been expressed many ways, but here are two of the best known. "You don't have a right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater." "Your right to wave your fist around ends where my nose begins." This principle isn't written in the Constitution, but it has become the core of so many Supreme Court precedents that it might as well be.

Free speech ends when one falsely harms another. That's the key principle. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee a right to harm another. Your own rights become irrelevant when you impact the rights of another.

Owning and carrying a firearm does not harm another.

Now if you fire the thing, and the bullet hits somebody, there is definite harm. If you try to claim the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to commit murder, this won't get one out of jail, but they might consider an insane asylum.

Yes, there are limits to every right, but you should do your homework and study up on what these limits are. There are valid well known set in precedent principles that bypass the Bill of Rights for good and proper reason. This does not mean the courts can or will disregard the Bill of Rights on whim or out of gratitude to the politician that appointed one to be judge...

There was a very real offense that probably still is in some places: brandishing a firearm. It was an implied threat. Note the word 'implied', because waving the thing around was defined as fundamentally different from waving ones fist. In fact, just having it upholstered was enough to trigger the statute in some states. Is a faux military weapon slung around your neck and carried across the chest equally threatening. If you actually put your hands on it, what about then? Why should I, as a bystander, have to be on alert because you wish to go about armed for war?

The fact is, the threshold was very low in the past, now it's not. The gun-crowd is working hard to consider anything less than actually shooting the thing as benign. Now we have law enforcement on hair-trigger awareness, and for what? Who gains from these acts, and, more to the point, what do they gain?

Originally Posted by Odin

I am getting so sick of this kind of divisive BS.

If Clinton gets the nomination because of racial identity politics then I will have lost all hope in this country, because it would show that we are not a coherent society but just a collection of splintered demographic units fighting for influence and patronage.

And then these idiots will wonder why we end up with a President Trump...

I agree that we have seen identity politics for so long, it's now considered the default politics of the left. Sanders is trying to break that mold, but minorities will fight it tooth and nail. It's their claim to power, flawed and ineffective as it may be. The LGBT success with SSM is the only real success in that space, and I'm not sure it was due to political action. After all, we all have family, and most families have LGBT members

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

I don't think anyone pays that much attention to Sharpton anymore. I'm glad Sanders didn't kowtow to him.

Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party's "core" is several groups that are each based on identity politics, that then have each other's backs.

I can't see the mutual support part. Many minorities see other minorities as competitors.

Originally Posted by playwrite

While Bernie isn't kowtow'n to no Black folk, let see what those folks are up to -

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/politi...s-endorsement/

Oh, as for the Black Caucus 'having the backs' of those they represent - that's their job.

You seem hell bent on making Odin's point for him. The black caucus supports those who support it. There's nothing wrong with using you clout to get your way, but don't claim it as righteous. Is power politics at the most basic level ... it's a zero-sum game. Put in less-kind terms, it's fighting for scraps.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You seem hell bent on making Odin's point for him. The black caucus supports those who support it. There's nothing wrong with using you clout to get your way, but don't claim it as righteous. Is power politics at the most basic level ... it's a zero-sum game. Put in less-kind terms, it's fighting for scraps.

psss, here's a little secret, that's democracy.

But don't tell the children just yet.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree that we have seen identity politics for so long, it's now considered the default politics of the left. Sanders is trying to break that mold, but minorities will fight it tooth and nail. It's their claim to power, flawed and ineffective as it may be. The LGBT success with SSM is the only real success in that space, and I'm not sure it was due to political action. After all, we all have family, and most families have LGBT members

Democratic politicians have always used the economic class issue. Dukakis for example made it his theme, and so did McGovern. Sanders is even more relevant now, just because he just recites what have become the well-known facts of our time. Inequality and lack of mobility, money in politics, etc. have become much greater after 35 years of Reaganomics and New Democrat compromise. Hillary is vulnerable because of her association with New Democrats like her husband. She's trying to break to the Left to reflect the times, and so is Bill. But since Bernie has cornered the issue, Hillary has to find some way to differentiate herself. So besides moving toward Bernie on the economic issues, she is also emphasizing her supposed greater-interest in "rights," i.e. "identity politics," including women's and children's issues which she has a strong record on, LGBT rights which she doesn't, and ethnic rights, where she has a traditional advantage because blacks and hispanics have often voted for the Clintons in the past for whatever reason.

The gay rights issue is not "the only real success in that space," since women have advanced in many ways; their pay having become more equal, and glass ceilings shattered all over the place. Ethnic groups have succeeded because of the civil rights movement, which is still the basis for black support of Democrats. Bernie actually has a better record on many of these issues than Hillary does. Sanders was actually a pioneer, and put his body on the line in the first desegregation movement in his town. His record on criminal justice is well superior to the Clintons'.

So do blacks and hispanics prefer identity to class politics, and see that as their claim to power? I don't quite see that. They are also often part of the lower class, and would benefit as fully as anyone else by dethroning the wealthy from their great power over us. The main purpose of identity politics is to become part of the mainstream by ending discrimination, not just to take power and dominate people. And it's not clear that Hillary Clinton can hold on to her advantage among them, given the actual records of the two candidates.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Playing our usual Dem debate game last night of adding -

" and everyone will get a magic pony"

- to the end of each Sanders' remark (try it, it's fun!),

I saw the entire 2016 election process before us.

On the Dem side, two options - - everyone will get a magic pony v. I will clip GOP gonads = magic ponies win

On the GOP side, three options - America great again v. I am the 2nd Coming v. yadda-yadda-yadda = America great again wins


Then, the general - magic ponies with taxes v. America great without taxes.

Even without the coming recession, "without taxes" wins.

President Trump - get use to it; it will be YUGE!

America deserves it.

You called Rubio right, so you have some credibility. And it seems logical. But I have a crystal ball that says "magic ponies with taxes" will win. So, we'll see!

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I'm not sure where the impetus for gun control will come from. I checked the question of gun control and millennials thinking that millennials might be more predisposed to gun control and to taking guns away from paranoid parents and lo and behold, found that if anything, Millies (who are the generation most likely to hold and use guns in an organised fashion) favour permissive gun legislation. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...198_story.html . Which is rather surprising, at least from a Boomer point of view. Then again, it's hard to expect the kind of faith in government that restrictions on gun ownership would entail from a generation that is hurting enough to answer a call for a (still peaceful) revolution.

Gun control was already virtually on the books. The public supported it by margins of 90%. Maybe not all the measures we want, but some of them at least. The NRA got busy and killed it in the Republican congress, which did its bidding. Even then it was a close vote. No further impetus is needed but an election in which Republican lose the House. I don't see millennials as dominant in militia groups like those in Oregon.

This country has had a long history of armed insurrection and in many cases, the insurrectionists had their demands met. I'm thinking about unions staging revolts all through the first half of the 20th Century in mining counties that had widespread popular support and finally resulted in the institutionalisation of United Mine Workers in the 1930s. And farmers who confronted sheriffs and would not allow them to enforce foreclosures in the 30s. None of which makes it into contemporary history texts.

Those farmers didn't get very far; most of them lost their land in the dust bowl. In the 1930s unions advanced with sit-down strikes, not guns.

What you are proposing requires regeneracy to start next year under a Sanders Administration. First we get a more equitable society that Millies have a stake in. Then the Right gun owners are isolated. Which will not happen under Establishment (Clinton, Bush or Kasich) business as usual and probably not under a Trump Administration. Unresponsiveness on the part of an entrenched Establishment is what could cause mass insurrection in the 2020s, which would probably start over an ignored or suppressed call for a constitutional convention. And would be very difficult to put down due to the small size of the US Armed Services and likely sympathy for rebels on the part of service people. Even drones can be hacked and turned against their masters.

I expect Hillary would seek to make enough progress toward an equitable society to "trump" a revolution against the Establishment by civic-minded millennials. But much progress is unlikely, not so much because of who the president is, but because of who controls congress.

What you say is possible though, if the Left is not in charge in the 2020s. I expect that they will be, however, and so it is the Right that would rebel, and since the Left would hold the state, and the army staffed by young people who voted Democratic or progressive, I expect USA soldiers would be on board for defeating the lawless, violent sedition by the gun nuts.

Personally, since I think USA soldiers will support WHOEVER runs the government, I don't think a Left armed revolution can succeed in this country, and a successful armed revolution from private right-wing militias is even less likely to succeed than that. So it's only a question of who will be in charge, and thus who will put down the armed revolution.

It may depend on who wins the presidency in 2024. The signs seem ambiguous. The party in power is indicated to lose, which is indicated to be the Democrats (since the indicator shows party in power wins in 2016 and 2020). But it's hard to see the Republicans representing the dominant power of increasingly-diverse Millennials in that election. And progressives historically have, so far, won in all American 4Ts, from any real definition of progress. So the new president could be an independent or third party candidate, or have a high-enough horoscope score to beat the Republican despite the indicator. It's quite possible that today's party duoploy could be broken by 2024. It's already teetering.

A Sanders administration is not a progressive regeneracy, at least in effect, unless he also inspires the people to vote out the Republicans from congress in 2016 and/or end gerrymandering and money-is-speech politics. That make take a few years, beyond the time of Sanders. An equitable society is still likely to be an issue, not a achievement, in the 4T-- which lasts at least to 2028. But SOME gun control is already a shoe-in as soon as Democrats retake power in congress. The recent 90% support is not possible without millennial support too. The question is only how much gun control will happen, and how much (along with other progressive measures) would piss off the reactionaries to start an armed rebellion. I imagine by then that a good portion of the reactionary armed rebels would be millennials, but overall I expect millennials would support the government and gun control. They are civics, after all.

Identity politics will matter little in the Democratic nomination process -- but it will likely be huge in the general election. For Latinos and Asians (especially) the fear of the INS deporting a spouse, a parent, or an older sibling as the result of a decision of the President will scare some into voting Democratic.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Identity politics will matter little in the Democratic nomination process -- but it will likely be huge in the general election. For Latinos and Asians (especially) the fear of the INS deporting a spouse, a parent, or an older sibling as the result of a decision of the President will scare some into voting Democratic.

Trump has even scared me into voting Democratic if he wins the GOP nomination. And trust me, I am far from alone. What that means, in essence, is, even if the Dem nominee were complete crap, they would win be default. Our process is truly broken and bad times are on the way.

Trump still does the worst against Clinton and Sanders in the Real Clear polling averages. Rubio is declining, but still does best. It's not "real clear", of course, how much this could change.

In South Carolina, Bush and Kasich are rising but have a long way to go still. Rubio and Cruz are holding steady. The latest poll:

Trump 36
Cruz 20
Rubio 15
Bush 11
Kasich 9
Carson 5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-4151.html

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

That's Kasich, not Casey. I think.

No, Flat likes senator Bob Casey, and he's a Democrat from PA. He also likes Joe Manchin from WV. His part of the country. Lots of white people who are economically liberal but socially conservative.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

You have (or can find) natal dates for both major parties, Democrat (1828 or 1832) and Republican (1856). Cast horoscopes for the parties themselves. Results might be interesting.

I found the chart for the Republican Party. I'm not sure how to use it though yet. For example, Jupiter aligned with the Party's Sun in early Aries in 1939, 1951, 1963, 1975, 1999 and 2011. I don't see a consistent pattern there at all. What works, is what counts.

We almost had a "spring revolution fails" in 1933 with the Business Coup against FDR in 1933 that was supposed to lead to Roosevelt's resignation "for health reasons" and the installation of General Smedley Butler as figurehead coup leader See http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm The plot failed because Smedley Butler was not interested in being a part of it and went to FDR with the details. Sisi, let's face it, was an army general.
Yes, if Hillary wins then Trump can beat her. Trump's support zooms if a Revolution on the Left becomes impossible.

I doubt most people are ready for a "I want a revolution, and I don't care what kind" sort of mentality.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree that we have seen identity politics for so long, it's now considered the default politics of the left. Sanders is trying to break that mold, but minorities will fight it tooth and nail. It's their claim to power, flawed and ineffective as it may be. The LGBT success with SSM is the only real success in that space, and I'm not sure it was due to political action. After all, we all have family, and most families have LGBT members

So will Sanders break the mold of identity politics?

What is power?



Good comments by the commentators from Young Turks.

I have to admit, that ad makes me think Sanders has the charisma of John F. Kennedy

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

You have a lot more faith in the Clintons than I do, Eric.

Well, I have more faith in them than you do, but that's not saying much

I didn't have too much faith in them when I bolted the party and became a Green because Clinton was going to be nominated in 1992. But I did vote for him in 1992. But not in 1996 after his welfare deform. I saw Nader running, and jumped aboard with both feet.

Since Bush got in though, I am less enthusiastic about having any Republican at the helm.

I look at how far the Clintons pulled the Democratic Party to the Right in the 90s. And Hillary's propensity for military intervention. A lot of repression can be done in an era of war than an era of peace. Woodrow Wilson appeared to be a liberal too, and he gave us an Espionage Act that Hillary would like to prosecute Snowden and Assange under and a Sedition Act that was held unconstitutional by the courts. If Bernie Sanders can be compared to Eugene V Debs, Hillary Clinton can be compared to Edith Wilson--who might have gone far if her husband had not had a stroke and later died.

Possibly. I think the Clinton's have moved more to the left now though, as has their party.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So will Sanders break the mold of identity politics?

What is power?



Good comments by the commentators from Young Turks.

I have to admit, that ad makes me think Sanders has the charisma of John F. Kennedy

I've been ready for togetherness and Regeneracy for some time now. Culture wars and other internal bickering are so 3T. Bernie gets it. He is looking more and more like The Grey Champion.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So will Sanders break the mold of identity politics?

What is power?

https://youtu.be/BFi9pqccwnM

Good comments by the commentators from Young Turks.

I have to admit, that ad makes me think Sanders has the charisma of John F. Kennedy

Sanders' campaign has a real talent for moving ads.

At this point, I'm unironically supporting both Sanders and TRUMP. Anything but another fucking Reaganoid neoliberal.

TRUMP is not some sort of conservative, however alternaright he might be. He's, basically, Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower, and I'm okay with that on a temporary basis. He's not a Southerner, not an evangelical, probably not actually a Christian; there's no way his exposure to the heights of finance hasn't left him a converted cosmopolitan. I won't have to hear about GAWD from the bully pulpit, which is all I really want.