Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Nobody is talking about the collapse of the "loyalty" pledges, in which last month all GOP candidates pledged to support the ultimate GOP nominee. Third party anyone?


What will Cruz and Kasich and all the other Republican #NeverTrump people do if Trump prevails? What will Trump and his followers do if Trump doesn't prevail?

I'm staying far from Cleveland this summer. My fiancé's daughter, who works in the Cleveland Clinic as a fellow, lives very close to the GOP convention site and is thinking about joining AirBB and renting out her place. I think she needs to make sure she has good property insurance, too.

Or maybe a fourth party. Sanders seems to be flirting with the idea too. In a multiparty system, coalitions and caucuses can always be stiched up later, when Congress convenes. An election that went to the House and Senate might be a good lesson for Americans--to see, just as with the Clinton Impeachment and bush v Gore that the sky did not fall in if this happened. And that coalitions and Congress are important and that Presidents are not all powerful "fearless leaders".

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

What everybody is forgetting is that Palestinians who get or take or were born with Israeli citizenship DO have full rights within Israel even if they are a perpetual minority. The proof that Israeli citizenship is prized amongst Palestinians is the degree to which Israeli Arabs are sought out as bridegrooms by West Bank Palestinian fathers. If West Bank Arabs (Gaza is already de facto an independent country) stop fighting Israel and start moving toward equal rights as Israelis, their rights (including real property rights for those Palestinians who do own land) are guaranteed. Israel is head and shoulders above it's neighbours in this regard. Including so called moderate neighbours like Jordan. And that's all Israel HAS to be. Holding Israel to European standards of behaviour (by Europeans who ghettoise and discriminate against THEIR Muslim citizens and residents) is pure unadulterated anti-semitism.
The Palestinians in Gaza certainly SHOULD be able to be Singapore to Israel's Malaysia. And to get on with their lives. They can't do this as long as they have a leadership that is no better than ISIS (and whose example ISIS learned from) controlling them and punishing them brutally whenever they stray from their leader's line.

The Israeli Right will never let a substantial number of Palestinians get Israeli citizenship exactly because of their "Israel is a Jewish State" ideology. Their end-goal is the complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from the West Bank.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Those Chinese and Russian figures reflect local labor costs and the fact they treat ex military like shit. They don't get the sorts of retirement and vet benes people here do. If the costs were normalized we would not be #1.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Other military-related expenditures


This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which are in the Atomic Energy Defense Activities section,^[16] Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and intelligence-gathering spending by NSA.

Wiki begs to differ.

How about we adjust for boondoggle costs?

Program	2011 Budget request[13]	Change, 2010 to 2011
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter	$11.4 billion	+2.1%
Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis, THAAD, PAC-3)	$9.9 billion	+7.3%
Virginia class submarine	$5.4 billion	+28.0%
Brigade Combat Team Modernization	$3.2 billion	+21.8%
DDG 51 Burke-class Aegis Destroyer	$3.0 billion	+19.6%
P–8A Poseidon	$2.9 billion	−1.6%
V-22 Osprey	$2.8 billion	−6.5%
Carrier Replacement Program	$2.7 billion	+95.8%
F/A-18E/F Hornet	$2.0 billion	+17.4%
Predator and Reaper Unmanned Aerial System	$1.9 billion	+57.8%
Littoral combat ship	$1.8 billion	+12.5%
CVN Refueling and Complex Overhaul	$1.7 billion	−6.0%
Chemical Demilitarization	$1.6 billion	−7.0%
RQ-4 Global Hawk	$1.5 billion	+6.7%
Space-Based Infrared System	$1.5 billion	+54.0%

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-...b_1132570.html
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/20...g-to-kill.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-pentagon.html *

This is just an awesome result of a design by committee Rube Goldberg contraption that ignores sound logic in that as the level of complexity goes up, the more likely things are gonna fuck up.


Wrt empires, we're just like the Romans in that they likewise had selfsame lead poisoning problems to boot.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Nobody is talking about the collapse of the "loyalty" pledges, in which last month all GOP candidates pledged to support the ultimate GOP nominee. Third party anyone?


What will Cruz and Kasich and all the other Republican #NeverTrump people do if Trump prevails? What will Trump and his followers do if Trump doesn't prevail?

I'm staying far from Cleveland this summer. My fiancé's daughter, who works in the Cleveland Clinic as a fellow, lives very close to the GOP convention site and is thinking about joining AirBB and renting out her place. I think she needs to make sure she has good property insurance, too.

If Trump ends up not being the candidate, your side gets a victory handed to you in 2016 and the GOP establishment naturally drifts to your side. I consider this election as a who gives a crap election at this point. The economy isn't going to be worse than it is now regardless of who wins this election. The poor will continue getting poorer. The middle will continue shrinking. The debt will continue growing and the interest payments will start biting into the famed programs associated with the Democrats.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, it wasn't. Only Hamilton gave a rats ass about capitalism, and it was a lot different animal then than it is now. Back then, there really were supply-side limitations to the economy, so capital. had a place, albeit a small one. Capital came into its own when the country (actually much of the world) industrialized. That's when the first big corporations were formed ... at least the first that produced goods.

The animal was smaller and less powerful and more focused on other industries and revenue streams but it was still the same animal as today.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

You are dealing in an anachronism. The words capitalism and capitalism do not appear in the Constitution of the United States. Government in the United States was not established by assuring more right to vote to persons with more wealth (although paupers were often denied the right to vote).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I'm curious to learn how progressives believe they are going to survive and live better without it. You once told me that intelligence was the ability to be able to read in between the lines.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Or maybe a fourth party. Sanders seems to be flirting with the idea too. In a multiparty system, coalitions and caucuses can always be stiched up later, when Congress convenes. An election that went to the House and Senate might be a good lesson for Americans--to see, just as with the Clinton Impeachment and bush v Gore that the sky did not fall in if this happened. And that coalitions and Congress are important and that Presidents are not all powerful "fearless leaders".

I would like to see a viable third party. Four may be too many. It is time to shake up the establishment insiders.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'm curious to learn how progressives believe they are going to survive and live better without it. You once told me that intelligence was the ability to be able to read in between the lines.

Social democracy requires a well-functioning capitalist system for it to work well.

Originally Posted by radind

I would like to see a viable third party. Four may be too many. It is time to shake up the establishment insiders.

Four is probably too few, in fact. Most parliamentary systems (that is, most democracies) have governing coalitions and several parties, usually more than four. But the problem is, the party duopoly has the system stacked in its favor. To shake it up permanently, what is needed are proportional representation (so third parties can get represented based on their proportion of the vote), instant runoff voting (so you can indicate second and third choices), a parliamentary system, open primaries, an end to gerrymandering, and money taken out of politics (which means, at this point, voting Democratic). And probably some other things. One article I read showed how the majority rule concept automatically leads to a two party monopoly and people voting for the lesser evil. A multi-party system with coalition rule allows other parties a voice and some power.

Otherwise, you can hope that candidates like Trump and Sanders blow up the parties, but this may not be permanent. If they are defeated, then the non-establishment sentiment needs somewhere else to go. Where do they go?

Our system is a creaky old anachronism. The USA is the oldest democracy, and probably the most old-fashioned, as well as monolithic and at-least somewhat corrupt (though still not as corrupt as most countries that run elections). The people may be getting wind of this, as we get deeper into the 4T and closer to the moment of crisis and decision in the mid-2020s. What we are seeing now is the spray flying off the rock that foretells the coming tidal wave. Just like Kenneth Clark said about the 1780s in Europe.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

If Trump ends up not being the candidate, your side gets a victory handed to you in 2016 and the GOP establishment naturally drifts to your side. I consider this election as a who gives a crap election at this point. The economy isn't going to be worse than it is now regardless of who wins this election. The poor will continue getting poorer. The middle will continue shrinking. The debt will continue growing and the interest payments will start biting into the famed programs associated with the Democrats.

That's more-or-less correct, except it appears that if Trump IS the candidate, the Democrats get the election handed to them. Although the "stars" agree with you that Trump is the strongest GOP candidate. He is leading for the nomination, anyway.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Or maybe a fourth party. Sanders seems to be flirting with the idea too. In a multiparty system, coalitions and caucuses can always be stitched up later, when Congress convenes. An election that went to the House and Senate might be a good lesson for Americans--to see, just as with the Clinton Impeachment and bush v Gore that the sky did not fall in if this happened.

Didn't it?

There was terror from the sky, as Nostradamus predicted, as planes hit the Twin Towers in an attack that an intelligent and careful president could have seen coming. Then another unnecessary war killed thousands and thousands more. Global warming got worse, which Bush did nothing about (and Gore would have), and so the winds and rains came down from the sky, devastating New Orleans-- which Bush did nothing about. Finally, we were catapulting off the greatest fiscal cliff since the Great Depression, and potentially worse! I'd say the sky fell indeed.

And that coalitions and Congress are important and that Presidents are not all powerful "fearless leaders".

That's true, and we should make it more true. And more people need to vote accordingly (pay as much attention to congressional elections).

If the election were to go to the House this year, however, Republicans win. NOT A GOOD IDEA.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

What everybody is forgetting is that Palestinians who get or take or were born with Israeli citizenship DO have full rights within Israel even if they are a perpetual minority. The proof that Israeli citizenship is prized amongst Palestinians is the degree to which Israeli Arabs are sought out as bridegrooms by West Bank Palestinian fathers. If West Bank Arabs (Gaza is already de facto an independent country) stop fighting Israel and start moving toward equal rights as Israelis, their rights (including real property rights for those Palestinians who do own land) are guaranteed. Israel is head and shoulders above it's neighbours in this regard. Including so called moderate neighbours like Jordan. And that's all Israel HAS to be. Holding Israel to European standards of behaviour (by Europeans who ghettoise and discriminate against THEIR Muslim citizens and residents) is pure unadulterated anti-semitism.

No it isn't at all. Not even a little bit. ALL countries need to be held to that standard. Not all can be held to it, but that is their own fault, and they can't lay the blame on anyone but themselves. Yes, that includes Europeans who don't integrate Muslims any better than Israel does. But Palestinians in Israel are discriminated against and scapegoated. Israel needs to be held to a HIGHER standard, because as victims of genocide they above all should have learned not to do it themselves. They have not. Instead they became oppressors themselves, and people excuse them for it. It's the Germans who learned. Those who say that criticizing Israel is anti-semitic, are themselves treading the road to fascism. This idea is probably the biggest roadblock to Arab-Israeli peace. Pro-Israeli people are too fanatic and hypersensitive. I run into this frequently. It's nonsense, and it has to stop. For the best interests of Israel.

Governments need to be criticized when they do wrong. Jews are not the Israeli government, and being against the Israeli government is not being against Judaism; but the people choose their government, so they are responsible for electing creeps like Netanyahu, just as America is for electing creeps like Bush (or potentially, Trump or Cruz). The USA enables Israel's bad behavior. If we didn't, Israel would have to behave, and then it could live in peace.

Israel and Palestine can't be one country, because Israel insists on a Jewish state, and it insists that it owns all the land in Palestine. It is Israel that does not recognize Palestine, and NOT the other way around.

The Palestinians in Gaza certainly SHOULD be able to be Singapore to Israel's Malaysia. And to get on with their lives. They can't do this as long as they have a leadership that is no better than ISIS (and whose example ISIS learned from) controlling them and punishing them brutally whenever they stray from their leader's line.

Nor can they do it if Israel kills thousands of Gazans and razes their cities after blockading them for years, all in retaliation for a few harmless attacks.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's more-or-less correct, except it appears that if Trump IS the candidate, the Democrats get the election handed to them. Although the "stars" agree with you that Trump is the strongest GOP candidate. He is leading for the nomination, anyway.

If Trump is the candidate, the Democrats are going to given the unenviable task of defeating the candidate of the class that made their party great. A political fight that I for one am looking forward to participating in whatever capacity that is needed by the campaign.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Four is probably too few, in fact. Most parliamentary systems (that is, most democracies) have governing coalitions and several parties, usually more than four. But the problem is, the party duopoly has the system stacked in its favor. To shake it up permanently, what is needed are proportional representation (so third parties can get represented based on their proportion of the vote), instant runoff voting (so you can indicate second and third choices), a parliamentary system, open primaries, an end to gerrymandering, and money taken out of politics (which means, at this point, voting Democratic). And probably some other things. One article I read showed how the majority rule concept automatically leads to a two party monopoly and people voting for the lesser evil. A multi-party system with coalition rule allows other parties a voice and some power.

Otherwise, you can hope that candidates like Trump and Sanders blow up the parties, but this may not be permanent. If they are defeated, then the non-establishment sentiment needs somewhere else to go. Where do they go?

Our system is a creaky old anachronism. The USA is the oldest democracy, and probably the most old-fashioned, as well as monolithic and at-least somewhat corrupt (though still not as corrupt as most countries that run elections). The people may be getting wind of this, as we get deeper into the 4T and closer to the moment of crisis and decision in the mid-2020s. What we are seeing now is the spray flying off the rock that foretells the coming tidal wave. Just like Kenneth Clark said about the 1780s in Europe.

But, we do not have a parliamentary system and just adding parties won't change this. Actually two parties are OK when you have two reasonable parties. I could see three parties working in some fashion, but at some point with our current system, I would expect more chaos and stalemate with more parties. A viable third party would at least provide an option when the major parties are more concerned with insider power than any voters.

It is always good to have a balance of power and for now, there is little balance. Unlike you, I have no confidence in either power party. If the GOP does implode, I expect that the party would not come back but be replaced with a new party.

However, I fully expect that the country will vote Democratic( for President) for at least the next 20 years, so we will see where this experiment takes us. At the end of this time, there may be a viable new party to challenge at the national level.

Originally Posted by radind

But, we do not have a parliamentary system and just adding parties won't change this. Actually two parties are OK when you have two reasonable parties. I could see three parties working in some fashion, but at some point with our current system, I would expect more chaos and stalemate with more parties. A viable third party would at least provide an option when the major parties are more concerned with insider power than any voters.

We could end up with for all practical purposes a single-party democracy -- and democracy will depend upon democracy within the Party and its openness to the People. That's how South Africa works. That is better than the prospect of having a fascist or Communist Party on the brink of getting power that it will abuse.

I see the Republican Party becoming an authoritarian party. The factional rifts are a power struggle for control of the Party, and not a real contest of ideas. There can be rifts within even a totalitarian Party, as in North Korea (pro-Soviet, pro-China, and nationalist at one time), Nazi Germany (its "left" Strasserites and the Hitler clique intent on winning the support of the conservative landowner and industrialist interests), and the Soviet Union between the demise of Lenin and rise of Stalin. In the end the winning factions kill off the losing factions in Party purges. This is all incompatible with the American past -- but Hitler was a break with the German past, a heritage less despotic than in other countries. Wilhelmine Germany had some traces of democracy.

It is always good to have a balance of power and for now, there is little balance. Unlike (Eric), I have no confidence in either power party. If the GOP does implode, I expect that the party would not come back but be replaced with a new party.

In both cases the new party rifted from the unwieldy Big Tent Party that found itself with constituencies with diametrically-opposed interests for which reconciliation was impossible. In the 1930s the Republican Party became a shell; it would attract disaffected Democrats after World War II ended and the New Deal coalition lost its cause for cohesion.

However, I fully expect that the country will vote Democratic( for President) for at least the next 20 years, so we will see where this experiment takes us. At the end of this time, there may be a viable new party to challenge at the national level.

The first eight of those twenty years are practically over, if you see Obama 2008 as an analogue of FDR 1932. It's not a perfect analogue. At least one set of binary match-ups so far projects a Republican win of the Presidency (Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich). That becomes moot if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is the Republican nominee.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Four is probably too few, in fact. Most parliamentary systems (that is, most democracies) have governing coalitions and several parties, usually more than four. But the problem is, the party duopoly has the system stacked in its favor. To shake it up permanently, what is needed are proportional representation (so third parties can get represented based on their proportion of the vote), instant runoff voting (so you can indicate second and third choices), a parliamentary system, open primaries, an end to gerrymandering, and money taken out of politics (which means, at this point, voting Democratic). And probably some other things. One article I read showed how the majority rule concept automatically leads to a two party monopoly and people voting for the lesser evil. A multi-party system with coalition rule allows other parties a voice and some power.

It's plurality rule (see the 2000 Presidential election), and at times the greater evil isn't so great and the greater good isn't so good. This time the political bad is really bad. The fault with our system is not with its seams (until a few decades people who knew the seams either refused to exploit them or were, like professors of political science who had never run in an election, people in no position to exploit them; it is that people are now ruthless enough to exploit those seams for the establishment and entrenchment of their own political and economic power. The gerrymander has made a mockery of representative government in the House of Representatives and many State legislatures. This election could well decide whether democracy dies or revives in America.

Otherwise, you can hope that candidates like Trump and Sanders blow up the parties, but this may not be permanent. If they are defeated, then the non-establishment sentiment needs somewhere else to go. Where do they go?

Maybe the political Establishment needs to become more responsive to the People. The Establishment has become rapacious, corrupt, and despotic. It believes in nothing but its own enrichment and power. That's what one gets in a culture in which elites can get away with unbridled narcissism -- no restraint upon self-indulgence, no responsibility for objectivity when falsehood is expedient. Elite status rightfully goes with some responsibilities, and those who cannot live up to those responsibilities need to be cast off from the elite. Even a lieutenant has special privileges that a sergeant-major does not have... and responsibilities that a NCO does not have.

Our system is a creaky old anachronism. The USA is the oldest democracy, and probably the most old-fashioned, as well as monolithic and at-least somewhat corrupt (though still not as corrupt as most countries that run elections). The people may be getting wind of this, as we get deeper into the 4T and closer to the moment of crisis and decision in the mid-2020s. What we are seeing now is the spray flying off the rock that foretells the coming tidal wave. Just like Kenneth Clark said about the 1780s in Europe.

The people most likely to get burned in America are Generation X characters who have latched onto the Hard Right for gain and indulgence. As I recall, Kenneth Clark said that artistic expression was full of foreboding; expressions of classicism were of unvarnished, manly heroism as opposed to the effete excess of the ruling elites of the time.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We could end up with for all practical purposes a single-party democracy -- and democracy will depend upon democracy within the Party and its openness to the People. That's how South Africa works. That is better than the prospect of having a fascist or Communist Party on the brink of getting power that it will abuse.

I think we will get a chance to see how this works in the USA. It does not appear to me that we are headed toward any fascist or Communist party.

I see the Republican Party becoming an authoritarian party. The factional rifts are a power struggle for control of the Party, and not a real contest of ideas. There can be rifts within even a totalitarian Party, as in North Korea (pro-Soviet, pro-China, and nationalist at one time), Nazi Germany (its "left" Strasserites and the Hitler clique intent on winning the support of the conservative landowner and industrialist interests), and the Soviet Union between the demise of Lenin and rise of Stalin. In the end the winning factions kill off the losing factions in Party purges. This is all incompatible with the American past -- but Hitler was a break with the German past, a heritage less despotic than in other countries. Wilhelmine Germany had some traces of democracy.

I see the Democratic party as equally authoritarian.
Also, I don't see any chance of a new Hitler or a new Stalin, regardless of how this election goes. However, Clinton still looks like the favorite to win in Nov.

The first eight of those twenty years are practically over, if you see Obama 2008 as an analogue of FDR 1932. It's not a perfect analogue. At least one set of binary match-ups so far projects a Republican win of the Presidency (Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich). That becomes moot if Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is the Republican nominee.

I my view, the 20 or 24 years starts in Nov 2016( The Obama terms are essentially history). The GOP is almost history and a new party is needed. I expect that the Democratic party will win the presidency for the next two decades.

Originally Posted by radind

I think we will get a chance to see how this works in the USA. It does not appear to me that we are headed toward any fascist or Communist party.

Government by lobbyists is a novel form of unrepresentative government. Dictatorship? It is certainly undemocratic. I can see democracy becoming empty form in America, and the new political order does not need hammer-and-sickle emblems, swastikas, fasces, or the 100%-American burning crosses. It can keep iconic images of Washington and Lincoln.

I see the Democratic party as equally authoritarian.

Circling the wagons.

Also, I don't see any chance of a new Hitler or a new Stalin, regardless of how this election goes. However, Clinton still looks like the favorite to win in Nov.

It's likely Trump vs. Clinton. The endgame has yet to begin.

I my view, the 20 or 24 years starts in Nov 2016 (The Obama terms are essentially history). The GOP is almost history and a new party is needed. I expect that the Democratic party will win the presidency for the next two decades.

That is a long stretch with one Party in control.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

If Trump is the candidate, the Democrats are going to given the unenviable task of defeating the candidate of the class that made their party great. A political fight that I for one am looking forward to participating in whatever capacity that is needed by the campaign.

Yes there will be a fight for the white middle class and lower-middle class voters. As mikebert and others have pointed out, Trump has to do better than Romney did with white voters in order to win. All indications are that Trump's personal qualities and behavior, more than his apparent views and policies, with make him a weaker candidate than Romney; perhaps much weaker. But I agree that if Clinton and Trump are the nominees, which isn't settled yet, it will still be a battle.

These uncertainties are of such a nature that people often look to things like astrology to divine what might happen. I started a new thread on that some days ago.

Several indicators work, I have found. The horoscope score, which is astrology's measure of innate character and personality, gives Trump an advantage, according to research I am doing and have done into candidate's horoscopes and the aspects within them, and which ones are in the charts of presidential election winners. However Saturn, the planet representing the state and politics, strongly favors Clinton over Trump according to its current place in the zodiac, related to their horoscopes. This is a method discovered by Grant Lewi, which I thoroughly researched. Also, the "horary" method of using the new moon before the election shows the party in power winning. And their charts show that Clinton (and Sanders) are in touch with the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, represented by the generational outer planets that represent the saeculum: Uranus, Neptune and good ol Pluto, and their connections to the candidates' horoscopes. Trump is not.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Another pattern Teacher in Exile pointed out, is that candidates who represent the party in power, but are not incumbents (like Hillary Clinton), have lost elections if they faced a primary challenge, going back to the 1880s. So, despite the potential GOP blow-up, the Clinton fight with Sanders counts against Clinton in the Fall. The 8-year limit that often affects the party in power is also in play. However, the Republicans have gone so far off the deep end compared to where the people are, that the Democrats appear poised to become the dominant party. When a party dominates, the 8-year itch goes away.

The latest Wisconsin primary poll shows Trump back within 1 point of Cruz, while Sanders is up 6 points over Clinton. This is going to be a crucial turning point for the campaign of the insurgents, Sanders and Trump, who have better horoscope scores than the Establishment-favored candidates, Clinton and Cruz. Sanders may also be closing the gap with Clinton in New York, while Trump is still comfortably ahead there. That is the home state for both currently-leading candidates, Trump and Clinton.

I am still going with conventional wisdom, and picking Hillary Clinton to win. We'll see how it works out!

http://www.270towin.com/maps/qgXAA

As of now I predict 314 to 224 in a Trump-Clinton race.

That's giving Ohio and AZ to Trump, which is very doubtful. FL and NH to Clinton and NC to Trump

Sabato's crystal ball predicts Clinton 347, Trump 191

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sabato's crystal ball predicts Clinton 347, Trump 191

Sabato is a good political analyst. I don't think anyone in the GOP could beat Clinton.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sabato's crystal ball predicts Clinton 347, Trump 191

The map looks almost identical to Obama vs McCain in 2008. IIRC, the only difference is that Obama got one of the NE electoral votes.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...That is a long stretch with one Party in control.

It is a very long run, but that is what the emerging demographics look like to me. I think that the GOP is history and a new party will be required to compete with the Democratic party.

Originally Posted by Odin

The Israeli Right will never let a substantial number of Palestinians get Israeli citizenship exactly because of their "Israel is a Jewish State" ideology. Their end-goal is the complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from the West Bank.

Naftali Bennett already has advocated Israeli citizenship for the 80,000 Arabs in Area C. I'm not saying that ciitizenship for Arabs in the rest of the West Bank wouldn't be something that right wing Israelis wouldn't have to swallow hard to accept. But if a status quo of essentially statelessness is unacceptable, most Israelis find citizenship for Palestinians who would accept it (and who have not been involved in attacks on Jews) safer than an independent West Bank. Especially since, even added to Israeli Arabs who are already citizens, Israel would still have a solid Jewish majority and the demographics to KEEP a solid Jewish majority. What people don't realise is that Jews and Israelis have no faith or trust in international guarantees of ANYTHING.
The kind of ethnic cleansing you are talking about would only be seriously considered if an ISIS type regime took over in Jordan. In a situation like that, especially if ISIS was not reversed by international intervention, all bets would be off and very likely ALL Sunni Muslims would be considered to be security risks. But in a situation like that there would be widespread ethnic cleansing elsewhere in the Middle East too (there already is ethnic cleansing in Syria and Iraq).