Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: US elections, 2016 - Page 120







Post#2976 at 03-27-2016 09:51 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-27-2016, 09:51 AM #2976
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

As of March 27
Bernie in green, Hillary in yellow



First version uploaded by Spartan7W. Later versions uploaded by Prcc27, AHC300, Jc86035, Abjiklam, Magog the Ogre, Ali Zifan, Sleepingstar, JCRules, and Gage. Original uploaded by Spiffy sperry et al. - Map from File: Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016.svg
CC BY-SA 4.0
File: Democratic Party presidential primaries results, 2016.svg
Created: 31 January 2016
Last edited by Eric the Green; 03-27-2016 at 04:36 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2977 at 03-27-2016 12:36 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
03-27-2016, 12:36 PM #2977
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by marypoza View Post
-- Kasich is an ass, ppl here will vote for him just to get him out of Columbus if he's on the ballot in Nov. Which I doubt
Thanks for reminding us. He has been a good candidate as 'mystery meat' when the alternative is 'a toadstool sandwich in arsenic sauce' (apology to Dr. Seuss, How the Grinch Stole Chirstmas)
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#2978 at 03-27-2016 05:07 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
03-27-2016, 05:07 PM #2978
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
As of March 27
Bernie in green, Hillary in yellow



First version uploaded by Spartan7W. Later versions uploaded by Prcc27, AHC300, Jc86035, Abjiklam, Magog the Ogre, Ali Zifan, Sleepingstar, JCRules, and Gage. Original uploaded by Spiffy sperry et al. - Map from File: Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016.svg
CC BY-SA 4.0
File: Democratic Party presidential primaries results, 2016.svg
Created: 31 January 2016
So Bernie won Obama's home state, Hawaii. It's good to see.







Post#2979 at 03-27-2016 05:16 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
03-27-2016, 05:16 PM #2979
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Democratic Primary, what Sanders needs in remaining states.

Remaining states and delegates:
CA 475
CT 55
DC 20
DE 21
HI 25 (results in)
IN 83
KY 55
MD 95
MT 21
NJ 126
NM 34
NY 247
ND 18
OR 61
PA 189
RI 24
SD 20
WV 29
WI 86
WY 14
Guam 7
VI 7
PR 60

Based on trends so far, I make these predictions:

state Clinton Sanders
CA 255-220
CT 30-25
DC 10-10
DE 13-8
IN 43-40
KY 28-27
MD 60-35
MT 4-17
NJ 70-56
NM 17-17
NY 147-100
ND 3-15
OR 20-41
PA 100-89
RI 10-14
SD 5-15
WV 15-14
WI 30-56
WY 4-10
Guam 4-3
VI 4-3
PR 35-25

total 907-840 Clinton

Including Washington (27-74 Sanders), Alaska (3-13), and Hawaii (8-17), Clinton now has 1266 pledged delegates and Sanders 1038, according to wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2016USDem
https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-.../us-primaries/

These predictions would give Clinton 2173 and Sanders 1878, not counting superdelegates and unpledged.

Based on current trends then, Bernie doesn't quite break even with Hillary in winning the remaining delegates. I note that some of these predictions are optimistic for Bernie (e.g. NY and WI).

What must he do to beat my prediction, and win? Bernie needs at least 150 more pledged (elected) delegates than my prediction of 840 to pass Hillary and give him an argument to win at least 350 superdelegates (half). That would give him 2028 to Hillary's 2023 pledged delegates.

To pass Hillary, Sanders must get a score of something like these delegates in each state:

state Clinton Sanders
CA 225-250
CT 20-35
DC 7-13
DE 8-13
IN 37-46
KY 23-32
MD 50-45
MT 3-18
NJ 60-66
ND 3-15
NM 14-20
NY 132-115
OR 10-51
PA 94-95
RI 8-16
SD 3-17
WV 9-20
WI 30-56
WY 2-12
Guam 2-5
VI 2-5
PR 15-45

total remaining pledged delegates in this score: Clinton 757, Sanders 990 (Sanders must win 56.66%)

Bernie must win all remaining primaries except NY and MD, and usually by big margins. MD must be a narrow loss, and NY not a big loss.

On his side, we note that he has won by blowout margins in many northern and western states, including Washington and Alaska tonight. There's hardly anything left in the South now, where Hillary is strongest.

Well, go Bernie! Let's see if you can do it.
KY and IN may be the hardest states for Bernie to win decisively since they are conservative states with Southern behaviour patterns. Hillary won KY big in 2008 and lost IN by a hair to Obama. IN is practically a Southern state stuck in the Midwest because so much of it's population is in the Ohio Valley and much of it's northern population is neglected African-American. It has Southern style punitive criminal justice too.
Still Bernie could surprise even here. Bernie was able to carry MO's Ozark counties which I didn't expect him to do. Bernie might do OK in WV too. For now, ON WISCONSIN!







Post#2980 at 03-27-2016 05:39 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-27-2016, 05:39 PM #2980
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

It is surprising how well he is doing among Democratic primary voters in conservative white states. I wonder if they are democratic socialists, or just anti-Hillary. The problem may be with how few people vote in primaries and especially in caucuses. Bernie enthusiasts are able to win lopsided victories in primaries and caucuses in which few people are voting, especially in small states. Liberals and lefties can capture a lot of convention delegates that way, as Obama and McGovern did before. Bernie still has a number of them ahead that he can win. It's harder to win bigger state primaries with bigger turnouts, though. The big test will be winning CA by enough, and not losing NY by too much.

The question is whether the Democrats who vote in the general election will follow the lead of those who vote in the primaries. They may recoil from a leftist. However, the polls at least show that he can win. We don't know how much the folks who are supporting Bernie in the polls know about him or his policies. But his high poll numbers are at least a good sign.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 03-27-2016 at 05:57 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2981 at 03-27-2016 05:52 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
03-27-2016, 05:52 PM #2981
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84 View Post
As much as you try to imagine some majority of GOPers and Indys hating treaties, NATO, etc, the truth is, the actual Silent Majority would not agree to upsetting that apple cart and seeing Europe conquered by the Russian scum.
The European situation is going to get a LOT more complicated in the next few years. The same stressors over immigration, exacerbated by the refugee flow may bring a lot more "Euro-Trumps" to power at the same time it may break up the EU entirely. That and the European debt crisis, which has not gone away. Greece has a lot of Europeans wondering why there should be an EU or even NATO and whether either one benefits anyone besides Europe's "big banks" and business community. Europeans also wonder whether the American alliance subjects Europeans to too much pressure to curb their social spending and be more "American" (unequal).
Europe has largely halted the immigrant flow from Turkey but still must assimilate the refugees (and pre-refugee undocumented and legal immigrants) that have gotten to Europe already. And nationalist parties are growing in Europe. And Russia is willing to appeal to the European Right. And already has it's own allied nations such as Hungary and Serbia.







Post#2982 at 03-27-2016 06:01 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-27-2016, 06:01 PM #2982
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
The European situation is going to get a LOT more complicated in the next few years. The same stressors over immigration, exacerbated by the refugee flow may bring a lot more "Euro-Trumps" to power at the same time it may break up the EU entirely. That and the European debt crisis, which has not gone away. Greece has a lot of Europeans wondering why there should be an EU or even NATO and whether either one benefits anyone besides Europe's "big banks" and business community. Europeans also wonder whether the American alliance subjects Europeans to too much pressure to curb their social spending and be more "American" (unequal).
Europe has been more socialistic for some time despite American free-marketist influence.

Europe has largely halted the immigrant flow from Turkey but still must assimilate the refugees (and pre-refugee undocumented and legal immigrants) that have gotten to Europe already. And nationalist parties are growing in Europe. And Russia is willing to appeal to the European Right. And already has it's own allied nations such as Hungary and Serbia.
I don't think these are Russian allies. The current anti-immigrant trend is only natural, but it will pass as the crisis passes. Integration will be the challenge, though; otherwise more terrorists may arise there.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2983 at 03-27-2016 06:23 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
03-27-2016, 06:23 PM #2983
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Two thoughts:

1. I can only wonder ... what kind of a country is it where a vulgar, flaming asshole like Trump can command the kind of popularity that he does? What does that say about our fellow Americans?

2. What if? ... What if, given Trump's history as a large Democratic Party contributor, he is playing a large hoax on the Republicans? That is, his plan is to get as close as he can to the Repub nomination, even capturing it if he can, and then drop the hammer on them and give the election to the Democratic nominee? Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass??!!
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#2984 at 03-27-2016 07:35 PM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
03-27-2016, 07:35 PM #2984
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Well fine, but that DOESN'T answer my question.


No, the Syrian rebels were not the Islamic State. And it's very cruel to refer to them as such.
I only said that some Syrian rebels were IS. Islamic State gained a great deal of support in Eastern Syria during the opening stages of the Syrian Revolution. If they hadn't had that support they wouldn' have made Raqqa their capital. And that support and those relationships are likely to continue even if the Syrian Regime succeeds in recapturing Raqqa. The Viet Cong were initally prevented from holding territory they took. And IS couldn't hold territory in the face of US troops either. Which did not stop them from coming back. So yes, there are Syrian local rebels in IS. If that isn't so, maybe Deir Az Zawr and Raqqah shouldn't be part of Syria.
I don't have any fondness for the Saudis, but don't have any evidence that they aided Al Qaeda in Iraq.
The Saudis would not be allowed to annex territory. I could care a rat's ass what they do to drive American fossil fool producers out of business. I hope they do! And I don't know if they help ISIS elsewhere in the Middle East (in which case it can't be called ISIS, but only IS, which is the proper initials).
They are actually called Khalifa. And allowing Saudi to annex Sunni Iraq and eastern Syria would be a compromise that would prevent a Shia Crescent aligned with Iran and isolate Russia backed Alawite Syria while permitting it to continue to exist--without the messy business of attempting to make a nation out of "Sunnistan". It's realpolitik, pure and simple. No ideal behind it. But it would recognise the fact that Wahabism has a real following in that part of the Mideast and separate Shia, Sunni and Kurd permanently.

I guess they dose not, if they are such good inventors. I would think the USA developed drones by themselves, or could have.
Americans are very good inventors. But inventing something like a drone is one thing. Getting the military to buy it is something else. Especially when careers are determined in the Air Force by piloting time. Drones were ignored because they were a major threat to military careers--until after 9/11 when they became a military neccessity to patrol Afghanistan.

Here's one history of drones; I don't see Israel mentioned
http://www.nesta.org.uk/drones-history-flying-robots

Here is the story of the inventor. Apparently he went to Israel, but could not get support, so he came back to the USA and got it built here.
That was the early 1970s. Yom Kippur War and before. Israel trusted the United States then. Opinions in Israel began to change after Nixon held up TOW anti-tank missiles during the Yom Kippur War (Alexander Haig finally sent them without orders in time to turn the tide for Israel), after Jimmy Carter's pressure on Israel to trade land for peace in the Sinai (Israel finally connived with Iran on the hostage crisis and the Republicans to help get Reagan elected and get rid of Carter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octobe...spiracy_theory and then the revealations of Jonathan Pollard, Israel changed it's policy and especially after the exodus of Russian Jews in 1989, both became more neo-liberal and expanded it's high tech and armaments sector using that Russian talent. At that point, Israel began to develop--and market--it's own drones.
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-to...970502/?no-ist

The Iron Dome was a joint venture, but what does it do for the USA? It just protects Israel. My initial question remains. What has Israel done for us, besides get us involved in the Middle East to protect its imperial ambitions?
If and when the US gets back into military interventions in the Mideast or elsewhere, we will see Iron Dome deployed to protect many US bases from incoming missles. Also to protect ships against Chinese short range missiles.
And here is another reason why the US continues to work with Israel. Israel is perfectly capable of shifting it's R&D to China, a nation which has even greater cultural impediments to innovation than the US if the US attempts to exert too much leverage on Israel. See http://www.wrmea.org/2007-april/has-...-warplane.html and http://www.thetower.org/article/chin...est-in-israel/ . China is more than capable of making up for any business Israel loses to BDS moves in Europe and the US. Israel is more than capable of surviving as a free agent and pressure on Israel for a peace settlement that Israel sees as slow suicide will backfire on the US and Europe horribly.

You seem to have quite a bit of ESP to divine what our government and allies are thinking. I don't agree. Maybe I'm just dense, but there's nothing about the "petrodollar" that I can figure has anything to do with this. Oil companies; maybe. But I think that is old hat, and not in Obama's calculations. He knows that wars for oil are nonsense. It's time to get off oil, NOW.
The petrodollar is the basis for our current economy. The US protects and dominates Persian Gulf oil producers. In return, these producers agree to sell oil exclusively for US dollars. That means that countries from Europe to Japan to China to Southeast Asia to Africa require US dollars to buy crude oil. And they get those dollars by manufacturing goods for the US market that are priced cheaply because the dollar is dear for them. That is the basis for the "strong dollar" that has encouraged US firms to move plants abroad. And US ability to have things like near zero interest rates in an economic crisis and have quantitative easing without sparking inflation.
Protecting the petrodollar was the real reason for the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein's real sin was to sell oil to France for Euros and to China for renminbi and gold. The US could not stop France and China from buying Iraq oil so it invaded Iraq to stop Iraq from selling oil. The US found, though, that Iranian oil could not be stopped in this manner. Thus the initiative to Iran to try to get Iran back on the West's side.
Frankly, it is the petrodollar and it's importance (as a function of market share) that is the major reason why the US government was so reluctant to push investments in renewable energy. From Carter to Bush the US pursued a policy of protecting and fostering OPEC's position as long as they would keep oil priced in US dollars. That was behind the policy of "drain America last" that retarded a lot of drilling on public lands for the last 30 years. Which did not stop technology from advancing to the point where first natural gas and then oil started to be "frakked" from beheath private land in places where oil and gas production had been uneconomical. And then during the Bush Administration, the US began to emphasise diversification of international oil production AND domestic production when it became apparent as the Iraq War soured that the US could not protect the petrodollar by keeping oil and gas production centred in the Middle East. Though there is still, obviously a lot of resistance to giving up the petrodollar entirely. Even if we are giving it up for solar and wind (and probably also nuclear) power.

I am predicting a settlement by 2017, which would have to involve a new government. However, it may not last. I don't disagree with your skepticism. But from 2017 on, it may be able to help defeat ISIS. The question for me is, if Europe gets tired of being attacked, it might decide to send troops. Then we should expect both the USA and especially Turkey to do so too. Allies need to act together. I am sure such a powerful alliance could wipe up the IS in Syria. But what happens afterward will not be certain.
Europe, even Russia share the same pressures that the US does to attempt to beat Islamic State on the cheap in terms of money and manpower. Islamic State is perfectly capable of dropping back to insurgent warfare if doing so will a) create a long, open ended war that will exhaust Western commitment and b) cause Western and Western backed opposition reaction that will keep locals alliegiant to them. The strategy has worked before, in the Iraq War but also against the French in Algeria. The strategy has not been that successful against Kurds, Iraqi Shiites on Shia soil, Alawites (which is why the Syrian Civil War is still a civil war) or against Israel, which not only is not going anywhere but has developed some of the best counter-terrorism on the planet.
To truly defeat Islamists would take the kind of commitment the West and Russia showed for the war against the Nazis. And Islamists have been quite careful not to rachet up terror attacks to a level that will bring on that kind of commitment. These attacks are actually pinpricks (even 9/11 produced results that were unexpectedly high for Al Qaeda, who only expected the top half of the towers to fall), comparable to the attacks on shipping of Barbary Corsairs that resulted in payment of tribute for 300 years. The French did not decide that they had enough of paying the Corsairs until they found under Louis Phillippe that they had a technological edge over Algerian Islamists--an edge that is being eroded.



I doubt an Islamic State can flourish there either.
Islamic fundamentalist states have been flourishing in places like Northern Niger for over 15 years. The borders between states in the Sahara are not marked. And much of the Sahara, particularly the southern Sahara is underlain by vast aquifers where concealed wells can be drilled and old tunnels and "fogarras" that were drilled for water in previous years and which can conceal underground bases. All over an area larger than the continental US. The French spent over 50 years subduing the Sahara when it had a much greater technological edge than the West has today. And it took Italy over 25 years to subdue the Senussi in Libya and even then they wound up giving Libya back to the Senussi when they decolonised after WWII.
As for Boko Haram, a lot of Boko Haram fighters are simply moving to Libya. Southern Libya where they blend in with fighters Kadaffi brought in at different times. Even in Nigeria, they are good at taking advantage of conflicts and contradiction that go all the way back to late 19th Century Brfitish "divide and rule". See http://www.amazon.com/The-Rift-Afric.../dp/0297871234 section on Nigeria.







Post#2985 at 03-27-2016 08:01 PM by Classic-X'er [at joined Sep 2012 #posts 1,789]
---
03-27-2016, 08:01 PM #2985
Join Date
Sep 2012
Posts
1,789

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
Two thoughts:

1. I can only wonder ... what kind of a country is it where a vulgar, flaming asshole like Trump can command the kind of popularity that he does? What does that say about our fellow Americans?
The same country that thought it would be cool/nice to elect a community organizer who hung out with equally vulgar, flaming assholes who exist on the progressive side.

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
2. What if? ... What if, given Trump's history as a large Democratic Party contributor, he is playing a large hoax on the Republicans? That is, his plan is to get as close as he can to the Repub nomination, even capturing it if he can, and then drop the hammer on them and give the election to the Democratic nominee? Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass??!!
What would he have to gain by doing that? What would be the gain for Clinton (Clinton era Democrats) hooking up with Romney (Bush era Republicans) be other than to achieve a short term political victory that will be defeated eventually. If you haven't figured out yet, the future of the Democratic party is more in favor of socialism and the future of the Republican party is dedicated to the preservation of THE US CONSTITUTION and its capitalistic system. I'm tired of having political pawns for president.







Post#2986 at 03-28-2016 02:59 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-28-2016, 02:59 AM #2986
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Classic-X'er View Post
The same country that thought it would be cool/nice to elect a community organizer who hung out with equally vulgar, flaming assholes who exist on the progressive side.
Except they weren't.

What would he have to gain by doing that? What would be the gain for Clinton (Clinton era Democrats) hooking up with Romney (Bush era Republicans) be other than to achieve a short term political victory that will be defeated eventually.
I think the TnT theory is not that Trump and Clinton would join forces, but that he would just turn over the election to the Democratic nominee. That would have nothing to do with Bush or Romney.

If you haven't figured out yet, the future of the Democratic party is more in favor of socialism and the future of the Republican party is dedicated to the preservation of THE US CONSTITUTION and its capitalistic system. I'm tired of having political pawns for president.
Socialism in some form has always been a part of America and its constitution, at least since Alexander Hamilton. There is no reason America can't be a constitutional democracy like Scandinavia, and still be fully American. That would just make it up to date, instead of retrograde-- as it is now and since Reagan. There is nothing in the constitution specifying that it is a capitalist country. The famous "enumerated powers of the legislature" do not restrict what the people of the United States decide to do; general powers of legislation are granted for whatever the need, and amendments are allowed.

And from democratic socialism, we progress further into Green. As Europe is also doing. Europe is just a more-advanced civilization than the comparatively hick and redneck country called the USA. There is nothing worth preserving about the USA that does not also exist in many European countries.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2987 at 03-28-2016 03:02 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-28-2016, 03:02 AM #2987
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
Two thoughts:

1. I can only wonder ... what kind of a country is it where a vulgar, flaming asshole like Trump can command the kind of popularity that he does? What does that say about our fellow Americans?
Not much that's good.

2. What if? ... What if, given Trump's history as a large Democratic Party contributor, he is playing a large hoax on the Republicans? That is, his plan is to get as close as he can to the Repub nomination, even capturing it if he can, and then drop the hammer on them and give the election to the Democratic nominee? Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass??!!
Like Salmon Rushdie intimated on the Bill Maher program I posted, Trump may be the manchurian candidate for the Democrats.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2988 at 03-28-2016 03:46 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-28-2016, 03:46 AM #2988
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Can Trump be stopped?

My projection.

Note that this projection and the one for the Democratic primary are not based at all on astrology. Based on that, I predicted after he announced that Trump would not fade, and that Sanders would run a strong campaign. Before the primaries I predicted that Trump would be nominated. I have made no official predictions on the Democratic primary, but have noted that my astrological horoscope system (as so far constructed; subject to revision) favors Trump and Sanders.

Based on current polls and recent election trends, these are the projected delegates that each candidate will win. Where only one candidate has delegates listed, it's a winner take all primary. Except PA which has 54 delegates chosen individually who are not pledged.

Listed in order of primary date:
state Trump Cruz Kasich
WI --- 42 ---
CO 6 30 1
WY 1 13 0
NY 55 15 25
CT 16 4 8
DE 16 --- ---
MD 38 --- ---
PA --- --- 17
RI 10 4 5
IN 57 --- ---
NB 15 15 6
WV 18 12 7
OR 11 10 7
WA 20 16 8
CA 70 70 32
MT --- 27 ---
NJ 51 --- ---
NM 10 10 4
SD --- 29 ---

totals

delegates won as of March 27:
Trump 755 Cruz 465 Kasich 144 Rubio 164 others 15 unpledged 121

projected April-June:
Trump 394 Cruz 297 Kasich 120

total projected on 1st ballot:
Trump 1149 Cruz 762 Kasich 264

Trump needs 88 above my projections plus his current delegate total to win a majority of 1237 on 1st ballot.

Add all others except Kasich to Cruz's total = 1062

Add all others to Cruz = 1326

Some reports are that Cruz has gotten his supporters chosen at state conventions as Trump delegates, who will vote for Trump on the first ballot as required, but then vote for Cruz on the second. Trump is reported to be getting in this game too to head off this tactic.

Trump can be stopped, if this projection is correct, if Cruz (762 projected delegates) and/or Kasich (264) get all of Rubio's 164 delegates, 7 from other candidates, and 40 of the 121 unpledged delegates on the first ballot, for an anti-Trump majority of 1237. To avoid this fate, Trump will have to up his percentages in primary results from what I project. Beating Cruz in winner-take-all Wisconsin for 42 more delegates on April 5, and doing as well as polls indicate in NY on April 19, would be a good start.

Cruz also needs 175 of Kasich's projected 264 delegates as well as all the other 121 unpledged and all 179 losing candidates' delegates to win on the 2nd ballot (unless he also gets some Trump delegates, or does better in the primaries than I project).

Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...rimaries,_2016

totals from various sources may vary by a few.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 03-28-2016 at 04:46 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2989 at 03-28-2016 03:51 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-28-2016, 03:51 AM #2989
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Latest Republican primary polls:

state, date of poll, Trump, Cruz, Kasich
WI March (avg. of 2) 33 36 20
NY March (avg. of 2) 54 12 10
CT Nov. 24 6 10
MD March 34 25 18
PA March 33 20 30
RI Feb 43 10 14
IN Dec. 26 17 1
WV Feb. 40 20 6
CA March 36 35 14
NJ Feb. 38 10 8
NM Feb. 24 25 4
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2990 at 03-28-2016 03:59 AM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,115]
---
03-28-2016, 03:59 AM #2990
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,115

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
Two thoughts:

1. I can only wonder ... what kind of a country is it where a vulgar, flaming asshole like Trump can command the kind of popularity that he does? What does that say about our fellow Americans?
Trump is a television product. Television sells. And sells out.
2. What if? ... What if, given Trump's history as a large Democratic Party contributor, he is playing a large hoax on the Republicans? That is, his plan is to get as close as he can to the Repub nomination, even capturing it if he can, and then drop the hammer on them and give the election to the Democratic nominee? Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass??!!
I haven't totally ruled that one out myself.







Post#2991 at 03-28-2016 05:45 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
03-28-2016, 05:45 AM #2991
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Well fine, but that DOESN'T answer my question.

So the question remains, if a NATO member hasn't paid up, will Trump defend them if attacked?

I only said that some Syrian rebels were IS. Islamic State gained a great deal of support in Eastern Syria during the opening stages of the Syrian Revolution. If they hadn't had that support they wouldn' have made Raqqa their capital. And that support and those relationships are likely to continue even if the Syrian Regime succeeds in recapturing Raqqa. The Viet Cong were initally prevented from holding territory they took. And IS couldn't hold territory in the face of US troops either. Which did not stop them from coming back. So yes, there are Syrian local rebels in IS. If that isn't so, maybe Deir Az Zawr and Raqqah shouldn't be part of Syria.
As I understood it, in Syria the IS gained power because they had the weapons, and the civil war had immobilized the Assad regime in those areas. They gained some support by providing services, but their brutality has also produced some refugees.

They are actually called Khalifa. And allowing Saudi to annex Sunni Iraq and eastern Syria would be a compromise that would prevent a Shia Crescent aligned with Iran and isolate Russia backed Alawite Syria while permitting it to continue to exist--without the messy business of attempting to make a nation out of "Sunnistan". It's realpolitik, pure and simple. No ideal behind it. But it would recognise the fact that Wahabism has a real following in that part of the Mideast and separate Shia, Sunni and Kurd permanently.
They are called the Islamic State, according to references I read such as wikipedia; their form of "government" is a caliph or khalifa.

Sunni does not at all equal Wahabi. Nor can it be "recognized." It is radical Islam. It won't happen anyway. Syria is not going to remain under alowite control once Assad is deposed (and if he isn't, civil war continues). "Alawite Syria" cannot exist. Iraq is not Shia Iran; it is independent even if Iran has influence there.
Americans are very good inventors. But inventing something like a drone is one thing. Getting the military to buy it is something else. Especially when careers are determined in the Air Force by piloting time. Drones were ignored because they were a major threat to military careers--until after 9/11 when they became a military neccessity to patrol Afghanistan.
Not attributable to Israel, however.

That was the early 1970s. Yom Kippur War and before. Israel trusted the United States then. Opinions in Israel began to change after Nixon held up TOW anti-tank missiles during the Yom Kippur War (Alexander Haig finally sent them without orders in time to turn the tide for Israel), after Jimmy Carter's pressure on Israel to trade land for peace in the Sinai (Israel finally connived with Iran on the hostage crisis and the Republicans to help get Reagan elected and get rid of Carter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octobe...spiracy_theory and then the revealations of Jonathan Pollard, Israel changed it's policy and especially after the exodus of Russian Jews in 1989, both became more neo-liberal and expanded it's high tech and armaments sector using that Russian talent. At that point, Israel began to develop--and market--it's own drones.
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-to...970502/?no-ist
I think the inventor's adventures are more recent than the 1970s, according to the article. Anyway, the question is not whether Israel should trust the US; it's whether the US should trust Israel. I say no.

The Iron Dome was a joint venture, but what does it do for the USA? It just protects Israel. My initial question remains. What has Israel done for us, besides get us involved in the Middle East to protect its imperial ambitions?
If and when the US gets back into military interventions in the Mideast or elsewhere, we will see Iron Dome deployed to protect many US bases from incoming missles. Also to protect ships against Chinese short range missiles.
So, you propose that Israel has helped its US ally by helping us develop a weapons defense system that may be used someday. So far though, Israel has not supported anything the USA has done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
And here is another reason why the US continues to work with Israel. Israel is perfectly capable of shifting it's R&D to China, a nation which has even greater cultural impediments to innovation than the US if the US attempts to exert too much leverage on Israel. See http://www.wrmea.org/2007-april/has-...-warplane.html and http://www.thetower.org/article/chin...est-in-israel/ . China is more than capable of making up for any business Israel loses to BDS moves in Europe and the US. Israel is more than capable of surviving as a free agent and pressure on Israel for a peace settlement that Israel sees as slow suicide will backfire on the US and Europe horribly.
What has seriously backfired on the USA is our support for Israel. It has justified our involvement in middle east wars. Let Israel find it's money elsewhere if it continues to ruin the peace of its region.
The petrodollar is the basis for our current economy. The US protects and dominates Persian Gulf oil producers. In return, these producers agree to sell oil exclusively for US dollars. That means that countries from Europe to Japan to China to Southeast Asia to Africa require US dollars to buy crude oil. And they get those dollars by manufacturing goods for the US market that are priced cheaply because the dollar is dear for them. That is the basis for the "strong dollar" that has encouraged US firms to move plants abroad. And US ability to have things like near zero interest rates in an economic crisis and have quantitative easing without sparking inflation.
Protecting the petrodollar was the real reason for the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein's real sin was to sell oil to France for Euros and to China for renminbi and gold. The US could not stop France and China from buying Iraq oil so it invaded Iraq to stop Iraq from selling oil. The US found, though, that Iranian oil could not be stopped in this manner. Thus the initiative to Iran to try to get Iran back on the West's side.
Frankly, it is the petrodollar and it's importance (as a function of market share) that is the major reason why the US government was so reluctant to push investments in renewable energy. From Carter to Bush the US pursued a policy of protecting and fostering OPEC's position as long as they would keep oil priced in US dollars. That was behind the policy of "drain America last" that retarded a lot of drilling on public lands for the last 30 years. Which did not stop technology from advancing to the point where first natural gas and then oil started to be "frakked" from beheath private land in places where oil and gas production had been uneconomical. And then during the Bush Administration, the US began to emphasise diversification of international oil production AND domestic production when it became apparent as the Iraq War soured that the US could not protect the petrodollar by keeping oil and gas production centered in the Middle East. Though there is still, obviously a lot of resistance to giving up the petrodollar entirely. Even if we are giving it up for solar and wind (and probably also nuclear) power.
The US resisted renewable energy because oil and coal were profitable to its producers, which control our elections. The US has been negotiating with Iran because a nuclear Iran is dangerous. That all seems pretty straightforward. I find the idea of a "strong dollar" and its effects hard to follow. I know a strong dollar will buy more imports, and so China sells to us. That boosts their industry, and so you don't need the idea that they need to buy oil with dollars to that equation. I don't understand how China or Europe buying oil from the Middle East with dollars instead of Euros or Renminbi helps corporate America. It seems too indirect an explanation for US actions.

Europe, even Russia share the same pressures that the US does to attempt to beat Islamic State on the cheap in terms of money and manpower. Islamic State is perfectly capable of dropping back to insurgent warfare if doing so will a) create a long, open ended war that will exhaust Western commitment and b) cause Western and Western backed opposition reaction that will keep locals alliegiant to them. The strategy has worked before, in the Iraq War but also against the French in Algeria. The strategy has not been that successful against Kurds, Iraqi Shiites on Shia soil, Alawites (which is why the Syrian Civil War is still a civil war) or against Israel, which not only is not going anywhere but has developed some of the best counter-terrorism on the planet.
The Syria civil war is still a civil war because Assad is a monster; period end of story. Now what else are you saying.....

What you say emphasizes the importance of native peoples defending themselves against the terrorists, instead of outsiders doing it. That's part of the "pressure;" realization among people and governments alike that Western/Russian invasions and imperialism will not reverse terrorism. The Sunnis are not supporters of the IS. They didn't defend themselves against the IS at first because they too had a tyrant, the pro-Shia Nouri al-Maliki. So they (foolishly) went along with the IS conquest, until they discovered they had come under a worse tyranny. Now many of them are fighting against the IS to reclaim their homeland under the new PM Haider al-Abadi. This is slowly working, despite early reversals and problems, and Iraq is recovering and throwing out the monsters with the help of the US, its allies, and Iranian militants. As you say, the Kurds are also resisting. Assad has been enabling the IS and encouraging terrorists to come in so they can be blamed for the rebellion against his tyranny. His ally Russia does the right thing sometimes and the wrong thing sometimes. It props him up by killing the rebels, but also required him to dispose of chemical weapons, and now is directing them to take back IS territory in Palmyra. That's pretty good, but since Assad is as bad a tyrant as the IS, it's not liberation.
To truly defeat Islamists would take the kind of commitment the West and Russia showed for the war against the Nazis. And Islamists have been quite careful not to rachet up terror attacks to a level that will bring on that kind of commitment. These attacks are actually pinpricks (even 9/11 produced results that were unexpectedly high for Al Qaeda, who only expected the top half of the towers to fall), comparable to the attacks on shipping of Barbary Corsairs that resulted in payment of tribute for 300 years. The French did not decide that they had enough of paying the Corsairs until they found under Louis Phillippe that they had a technological edge over Algerian Islamists--an edge that is being eroded.
The war against Islamic terrorism is not like the war against the Nazis. IS territory can be taken back much more easily than Nazi territory. It is 100 times easier. I don't agree that terrorists are holding back to keep us from committing to fighting them. They are doing whatever they can to attack us, and others too. That shows they are essentially weak and small. A war will not defeat them. Integration, education, freedom, economic opportunity; these are what will defeat terrorism, once its territorial power base is destroyed and the perps are arrested and jailed.

Islamists attack many different targets from many locations. They attacked Christian women and children in Pakistan today, just for being Christians. A war cannot be really waged against a tactic. It is sad that people have reduced themselves to such monstrosity. All nations and peoples need to fight back and stop it, and try as best they can to root it out. Economies are improving and tyranny is being reduced in many parts of the world. Only continued progress will eventually end the rise of these monsters who only care about killing people and defending stupid ideologies of hatred. We will have a safe society of law and respect, or we won't. Declaring war won't make much difference. It's up to the people to raise their awareness. And electing Trump would be the worst thing Americans can do to stop terrorism. He only encourages more hate and anger towards The West and rejection of all law and respect. As far as getting educated is concerned, we have a whole lot to do here in America too.

If you have a link to an article I can read (not a book to buy) that proves that Boka Haram has moved to Libya, let me know.

You are saying Algerian and Libyan people who wanted to expel the French and Italians were Islamic fundamentalists? Islamic fundies as we know them today didn't exist until the 1970s.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 03-28-2016 at 05:54 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2992 at 03-28-2016 06:49 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
03-28-2016, 06:49 AM #2992
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Can Trump be stopped?

My projection.

Note that this projection and the one for the Democratic primary are not based at all on astrology. Based on that, I predicted after he announced that Trump would not fade, and that Sanders would run a strong campaign. Before the primaries I predicted that Trump would be nominated. I have made no official predictions on the Democratic primary, but have noted that my astrological horoscope system (as so far constructed; subject to revision) favors Trump and Sanders.

Based on current polls and recent election trends, these are the projected delegates that each candidate will win. Where only one candidate has delegates listed, it's a winner take all primary. Except PA which has 54 delegates chosen individually who are not pledged.

Listed in order of primary date:
state Trump Cruz Kasich
WI --- 42 ---
CO 6 30 1
WY 1 13 0
NY 55 15 25
CT 16 4 8
DE 16 --- ---
MD 38 --- ---
PA --- --- 17
RI 10 4 5
IN 57 --- ---
NB 15 15 6
WV 18 12 7
OR 11 10 7
WA 20 16 8
CA 70 70 32
MT --- 27 ---
NJ 51 --- ---
NM 10 10 4
SD --- 29 ---

totals

delegates won as of March 27:
Trump 755 Cruz 465 Kasich 144 Rubio 164 others 15 unpledged 121

projected April-June:
Trump 394 Cruz 297 Kasich 120

total projected on 1st ballot:
Trump 1149 Cruz 762 Kasich 264

Trump needs 88 above my projections plus his current delegate total to win a majority of 1237 on 1st ballot.

Add all others except Kasich to Cruz's total = 1062

Add all others to Cruz = 1326

Some reports are that Cruz has gotten his supporters chosen at state conventions as Trump delegates, who will vote for Trump on the first ballot as required, but then vote for Cruz on the second. Trump is reported to be getting in this game too to head off this tactic.

Trump can be stopped, if this projection is correct, if Cruz (762 projected delegates) and/or Kasich (264) get all of Rubio's 164 delegates, 7 from other candidates, and 40 of the 121 unpledged delegates on the first ballot, for an anti-Trump majority of 1237. To avoid this fate, Trump will have to up his percentages in primary results from what I project. Beating Cruz in winner-take-all Wisconsin for 42 more delegates on April 5, and doing as well as polls indicate in NY on April 19, would be a good start.

Cruz also needs 175 of Kasich's projected 264 delegates as well as all the other 121 unpledged and all 179 losing candidates' delegates to win on the 2nd ballot (unless he also gets some Trump delegates, or does better in the primaries than I project).

Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...rimaries,_2016

totals from various sources may vary by a few.
I wonder about the "57" for Trump in Indiana.Indiana is usually a huge mystery until it votes except that it is likely to go R. If a winner-take-all state, some shift could give the "57" to John Kasich, Governor of neighboring Ohio.

57 delegates is not trivial. Again I am arguing from speculative ignorance.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#2993 at 03-28-2016 10:06 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-28-2016, 10:06 AM #2993
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
Islamic fundamentalist states have been flourishing in places like Northern Niger for over 15 years. The borders between states in the Sahara are not marked. And much of the Sahara, particularly the southern Sahara is underlain by vast aquifers where concealed wells can be drilled and old tunnels and "fogarras" that were drilled for water in previous years and which can conceal underground bases. All over an area larger than the continental US. The French spent over 50 years subduing the Sahara when it had a much greater technological edge than the West has today. And it took Italy over 25 years to subdue the Senussi in Libya and even then they wound up giving Libya back to the Senussi when they decolonised after WWII.
As for Boko Haram, a lot of Boko Haram fighters are simply moving to Libya. Southern Libya where they blend in with fighters Kadaffi brought in at different times. Even in Nigeria, they are good at taking advantage of conflicts and contradiction that go all the way back to late 19th Century Brfitish "divide and rule". See http://www.amazon.com/The-Rift-Afric.../dp/0297871234 section on Nigeria.
Some of the problems go back to at least WWI. Knowing the history is a start, but I don't see any solution to end the violence.







Post#2994 at 03-28-2016 10:08 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-28-2016, 10:08 AM #2994
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Not much that's good.



Like Salmon Rushdie intimated on the Bill Maher program I posted, Trump may be the manchurian candidate for the Democrats.
Regardless of his motives, it does seem that Trump is aiding in the election of Clinton.







Post#2995 at 03-28-2016 10:42 AM by Earl and Mooch [at Delaware - we pave paradise and put up parking lots joined Sep 2002 #posts 2,106]
---
03-28-2016, 10:42 AM #2995
Join Date
Sep 2002
Location
Delaware - we pave paradise and put up parking lots
Posts
2,106

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...inton-20160325

"Why young people are right about Hillary Clinton"
"My generation, we were the generation that was going to change the world: somehow we were going to make it a little less lonely, a little less hungry, a little more just place. But it seems that when that promise slipped through our hands we didn´t replace it with nothing but lost faith."

Bruce Springsteen, 1987
http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/1987...+YORK+CITY,+NY







Post#2996 at 03-28-2016 10:44 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-28-2016, 10:44 AM #2996
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
...They are called the Islamic State, according to references I read such as wikipedia; their form of "government" is a caliph or khalifa.
It does not appear to me that we can negotiate with IS.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144
… “What does IS want? In June 2014, the group formally declared the establishment of a “caliphate" - a state governed in accordance with Islamic law, or Sharia, by God's deputy on Earth, or caliph. It has demanded that Muslims across the world swear allegiance to its leader - Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badri al-Samarrai, better known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - and migrate to territory under its control.IS has also told other jihadist groups worldwide that they must accept its supreme authority. Many already have, among them several offshoots of the rival al-Qaeda network.”…
---

...So far though, Israel has not supported anything the USA has done. What has seriously backfired on the USA is our support for Israel. It has justified our involvement in middle east wars. Let Israel find it's money elsewhere if it continues to ruin the peace of its region....
I thought that the US and Israel shared intelligence information. It is not clear to me that Israel is the primary guilty party. The radical islamic opposition seem to deny the right of Israel to exist. I would had difficulty negotiating with someone whose stated goal is to kill me.

The US has been negotiating with Iran because a nuclear Iran is dangerous. That all seems pretty straightforward. I find the idea of a "strong dollar" and its effects hard to follow. I know a strong dollar will buy more imports, and so China sells to us. That boosts their industry, and so you don't need the idea that they need to buy oil with dollars to that equation. I don't understand how China or Europe buying oil from the Middle East with dollars instead of Euros or Renminbi helps corporate America. It seems too indirect an explanation for US actions.
So far, I am not happy with the Iran deal. ( I have not been happy with Iran and the US response for the past 35 years).

The war against Islamic terrorism is not like the war against the Nazis. IS territory can be taken back much more easily than Nazi territory. It is 100 times easier. I don't agree that terrorists are holding back to keep us from committing to fighting them. They are doing whatever they can to attack us, and others too. That shows they are essentially weak and small. A war will not defeat them. Integration, education, freedom, economic opportunity; these are what will defeat terrorism, once its territorial power base is destroyed and the perps are arrested and jailed.
The key thing that IS has in common with Nazis is evil. It is not clear to me how the territorial base will be destroyed.

Islamists attack many different targets from many locations. They attacked Christian women and children in Pakistan today, just for being Christians. A war cannot be really waged against a tactic. It is sad that people have reduced themselves to such monstrosity. All nations and peoples need to fight back and stop it, and try as best they can to root it out. Economies are improving and tyranny is being reduced in many parts of the world. Only continued progress will eventually end the rise of these monsters who only care about killing people and defending stupid ideologies of hatred. We will have a safe society of law and respect, or we won't. Declaring war won't make much difference. It's up to the people to raise their awareness.
The radical Islamic terrorists attacks are way past sad, they are tragic and horrible. It appears to me that they are waging a form of 'war' to advance their cause. How long can we wait to defend ourselves? I don't care whether we call it 'war' or not, but when such attacks continue, a response is justified. This is not the time for semantics. The timeframe for significant progress may be measured in centuries.
Last edited by radind; 03-28-2016 at 10:52 AM.







Post#2997 at 03-28-2016 11:04 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
03-28-2016, 11:04 AM #2997
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
...
I think the TnT theory is not that Trump and Clinton would join forces, but that he would just turn over the election to the Democratic nominee. That would have nothing to do with Bush or Romney.
I am beginning to think that the primary purpose of the GOP is to salvage its power base and that the establishment( including Bush, Romney, McCain, etc.) would prefer Clinton over Trump. They are not true to any cause but their own power. I don't know if Trump's actions to aid Clinton are on purpose or just a byproduct.







Post#2998 at 03-28-2016 12:23 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
03-28-2016, 12:23 PM #2998
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Quote Originally Posted by Classic-X'er View Post
The same country that thought it would be cool/nice to elect a community organizer who hung out with equally vulgar, flaming assholes who exist on the progressive side. ...
Wow. I don't envy your having to be a Trump apologist. I'd be interested in your naming three individuals on "the progressive side" that exhibit the kind of sheer vulgarity evidenced by your guy.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#2999 at 03-28-2016 12:40 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
03-28-2016, 12:40 PM #2999
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
Wow. I don't envy your having to be a Trump apologist. I'd be interested in your naming three individuals on "the progressive side" that exhibit the kind of sheer vulgarity evidenced by your guy.
I'm sure that the Right Reverend Jeremiah Wright will be invoked.

However, whatever you think about Wright's rhetoric, Trump's vulgarity is a completely different animal.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#3000 at 03-28-2016 01:08 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
03-28-2016, 01:08 PM #3000
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
I'm sure that the Right Reverend Jeremiah Wright will be invoked.

However, whatever you think about Wright's rhetoric, Trump's vulgarity is a completely different animal.
I have found that those who use copious vulgarity are usually out of control. I don't want to hear any kid say "But the President uses that (f-bomb) word, too!"
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
-----------------------------------------