Another theory ,but still too much unknown about how to fix inequality.

Surprisingly little is known about the causes of inequality. A Serbian-American economist proposes an interesting theory


http://www.economist.com/news/books-.../ed/thenewwave


… "Mr Milanovic’s boldest contribution is about “Kuznets waves”, which he offers as an alternative to two other prevailing theories of inequality. Simon Kuznets, a 20th-century economist, argued that inequality is low at low levels of development, rises during industrialisation and falls as countries reach economic maturity; high inequality is the temporary side-effect of the developmental process. Mr Piketty offered an alternative explanation: that high levels of inequality are the natural state of modern economies. Only unusual events, like the two world wars and the Depression of the 1930s, disrupt that normal equilibrium.”…


… "Mr Milanovic suggests that both are mistaken. Across history, he reckons, inequality has tended to flow in cycles: Kuznets waves. In the pre-industrial period, these waves were governed by Malthusian dynamics: inequality would rise as countries enjoyed a spell of good fortune and high incomes, then fall as war or famine dragged average income back to subsistence level.”…


… "Mr Milanovic’s analysis leads him to consider some dark possibilities as he looks ahead. America looks to be falling into the grips of an undemocratic plutocracy, he says, which is dependent on an expanding security state”…


… "The data he provides offer a clearer picture of great economic puzzles, and his bold theorising chips away at tired economic orthodoxies. But the grand theory does as much to reveal the scale of contemporary ignorance as to illuminate the mechanics of the global economy.”…

Trying to post on my phone while sitting on a horse so need to keep this short.
Check OUT SCOTUS ruling on TX voting laws. Awesome. Without Scala and the handwriting on the wall, the conservatives are starting to cowl. This election could be THE turning point.

Originally Posted by radind

We have different opinions and we will just have to watch to see what happens as the Democratic Party takes more control in the next 10 to 20 years.

It will of course take more than just Democrats winning elections, which will require "civic" millennials to learn some civics and vote in midterms. A more activist public is needed too. FDR said "go out and make me make the changes." The people need to get into the streets too and write emails and letters, and support activist organizations. The Democrats are not all that much better than the GOP; they need to be pushed.

But the Republicans are bad, because they are hung up on free market fundamentalist economics and other errors. Just blocking the needed solutions won't work, any more than an extreme socialism will work, or be accepted. So yes, we'll see what happens, but we'll also need to make it happen.

Originally Posted by radind

Another theory ,but still too much unknown about how to fix inequality.

1. Strong, militant, worker-responsive unions. For obvious causes Big Business has done everything possible to eviscerate labor unions. The plutocratic ideal is to allow the employer to seek out and exploit the bargaining weaknesses of employees and drive those to compel the lowest possible wages no matter how profitable the firm. Collective bargaining is the biggest benefit of working under a union contract.

As far as I see things, Big Business would bring back chattel slavery if it could get away with it. At the least, industrial peonage (not the most infamous characteristic of Nazi Germany) is a possible desire of the economic right. (You may not quit except with the consent of the current employer; you must accept whatever terms of employment are offered; you may not disobey an order of an employer; if you fall short of expected norms you may be subjected to physical punishment). 4Ts can bring about the achievement of nightmares as well as great and unambiguous triumph.

2. We the People need to beat the cheat in economics. Gerrymandering has ensured that America is no longer a representative democracy. Political life has been distorted to favor economic elites who know no limits to their own selfish greed other than overall productivity. The Millennial Generation may be just the people to make gerrymandering ineffective.

3. We need question the basic assumption of globalization -- that cheap stuff creates happiness no matter what else is wrong in life. Technological wonders are exactly that, but we are close to the end of the time in which greater productivity of stuff has any further relevance to mass happiness. Even with services, 200 channels of cable TV are not that much more precious than 15 channels of desirable TV if the other 185 are schlock. We may need to tax consumer excess heavily to support single-payer healthcare.

4. Finally we need to recreate a different moral climate among potential leaders, one in which crass indulgence, bureaucratic power, sex, and booze are not the objectives of life. It's back to the liberal arts in undergraduate education except for extremely technical and vocational types.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

1. Strong, militant, worker-responsive unions. For obvious causes Big Business has done everything possible to eviscerate labor unions. The plutocratic ideal is to allow the employer to seek out and exploit the bargaining weaknesses of employees and drive those to compel the lowest possible wages no matter how profitable the firm. Collective bargaining is the biggest benefit of working under a union contract.

As far as I see things, Big Business would bring back chattel slavery if it could get away with it. At the least, industrial peonage (not the most infamous characteristic of Nazi Germany) is a possible desire of the economic right. (You may not quit except with the consent of the current employer; you must accept whatever terms of employment are offered; you may not disobey an order of an employer; if you fall short of expected norms you may be subjected to physical punishment). 4Ts can bring about the achievement of nightmares as well as great and unambiguous triumph.

2. We the People need to beat the cheat in economics. Gerrymandering has ensured that America is no longer a representative democracy. Political life has been distorted to favor economic elites who know no limits to their own selfish greed other than overall productivity. The Millennial Generation may be just the people to make gerrymandering ineffective.

3. We need question the basic assumption of globalization -- that cheap stuff creates happiness no matter what else is wrong in life. Technological wonders are exactly that, but we are close to the end of the time in which greater productivity of stuff has any further relevance to mass happiness. Even with services, 200 channels of cable TV are not that much more precious than 15 channels of desirable TV if the other 185 are schlock. We may need to tax consumer excess heavily to support single-payer healthcare.

4. Finally we need to recreate a different moral climate among potential leaders, one in which crass indulgence, bureaucratic power, sex, and booze are not the objectives of life. It's back to the liberal arts in undergraduate education except for extremely technical and vocational types.

We definitely need to change the culture where the power elite dominate . The insider political establishment in both parties looks like part of the problem to me. If the GOP goes down this cycle, then perhaps it will be more obvious that the current Democratic party is not the answer either.
I would like to see term limits as experiment to see if this would mitigate the power elite somewhat.
I am in favor of more liberal arts , but is not clear that this would have much impact.

Originally Posted by radind

We definitely need to change the culture where the power elite dominate . The insider political establishment in both parties looks like part of the problem to me. If the GOP goes down this cycle, then perhaps it will be more obvious that the current Democratic party is not the answer either.

In view of the nativism and anti-intellectualism within the GOP, people who are in many ways conservatives (I'm quite conservative on law and order, child protection, educational content, and drugs) are becoming Democrats.

The Republican Party has become the Party of superstition, sexual repression, cheap-labor interests, wars for profit, environmental degradation, harsh management, and monopoly or crony capitalism.

I would like to see term limits as experiment to see if this would mitigate the power elite somewhat.

I'm not sure. It's up to the People to vote out crooks, fools, and those who can't keep up with the times. Some politicians can be bad from the first day and some might well serve their districts for two or three decades.

I am in favor of more liberal arts , but is not clear that this would have much impact.

Such would change the culture. So we would have lots of college graduates who end up in industrial work? Those are the likely shop stewards if they don't get diverted to technical training. We would have better teachers. Above all we would have business leaders asking questions about whether doing bad to subordinates is a good idea. We need to see people with more humane values.

Another effect: we would have wiser consumers of mass media. More people would be able to judge the emptiness or perversity of the mass media, especially television -- and direct their children away from junk.

It's California (KABC-TV, ABC-7, Los Angeles) in a poll by SurveyUSA. The surprise is that Kasich is now indistinguishable from Cruz in electability, suggesting that the political appeal of remaining largely silent while the others make fools of themselves might not be a winning strategy for November. He will have to show what he believes in at the Republican Party convention this summer.

Significantly, Donald Trump registers 50% "extremely unfavorable" in California.

John Kasich has consistently looked better than Ted Cruz in polling everywhere else against Clinton; this may suggest a change in the pattern. This poll suggests that Californians are the first to catch onto him as no more desirable than Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz is the wrong sort of Hispanic to appeal in California.

...I make much of statistical subtleties that can suggest significant trends.


Hillary Clinton defeats Donald Trump by 34 points, 60 percent to 26 percent.
Hillary Clinton defeats Ted Cruz by 25 points, 57 percent to 32 percent.
Hillary Clinton defeats John Kasich by 23 points, 56 percent to 33 percent.

Bernie Sanders defeats Donald Trump by 39 points, 63 percent to 24 percent.
Bernie Sanders defeats Ted Cruz by 35 points, 61 percent to 26 percent.
Bernie Sanders defeats John Kasich by 29 points, 57 percent to 28 percent.

http://abc7.com/politics/trump-still...shows/1275688/



Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich





Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

California, SurveyUSA, for KABC-TV, ABC-7 in Los Angeles. Binary matchups involving Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders vs. Ted Cruz




Bernie Sanders vs. John Kasich




Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's California (KABC-TV, ABC-7, Los Angeles) in a poll by SurveyUSA. The surprise is that Kasich is now indistinguishable from Cruz in electability, suggesting that the political appeal of remaining largely silent while the others make fools of themselves might not be a winning strategy for November. He will have to show what he believes in at the Republican Party convention this summer.

Significantly, Donald Trump registers 50% "extremely unfavorable" in California.

John Kasich has consistently looked better than Ted Cruz in polling everywhere else against Clinton; this may suggest a change in the pattern. This poll suggests that Californians are the first to catch onto him as no more desirable than Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz is the wrong sort of Hispanic to appeal in California.

...I make much of statistical subtleties that can suggest significant trends.


Hillary Clinton defeats Donald Trump by 34 points, 60 percent to 26 percent.
Hillary Clinton defeats Ted Cruz by 25 points, 57 percent to 32 percent.
Hillary Clinton defeats John Kasich by 23 points, 56 percent to 33 percent.

Bernie Sanders defeats Donald Trump by 39 points, 63 percent to 24 percent.
Bernie Sanders defeats Ted Cruz by 35 points, 61 percent to 26 percent.
Bernie Sanders defeats John Kasich by 29 points, 57 percent to 28 percent.

http://abc7.com/politics/trump-still...shows/1275688/



Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich





Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

I'm a somewhat typical CA Indy in that I don't identify at all with Social Conservatism and I'm not doctrinaire about the size of government - there are many things government is best at. Significantly, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for Trump or anyone of that type. I know I'm not alone. In this state, the GOP is completely dependent on us Indys. Without us, they aren't didley, just an antiquated and vocal minority faction.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm a somewhat typical CA Indy in that I don't identify at all with Social Conservatism and I'm not doctrinaire about the size of government - there are many things government is best at. Significantly, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for Trump or anyone of that type. I know I'm not alone. In this state, the GOP is completely dependent on us Indys. Without us, they aren't didley, just an antiquated and vocal minority faction.

I agree. The GOP is very reliant upon us Indy's.

Commentary on WI thus far ...

"Yee hah ... hicks unite for Trump!"

... problem is ... ain't enough hicks!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Commentary on WI thus far ...

"Yee hah ... hicks unite for Trump!"

... problem is ... ain't enough hicks!

With 77% reporting ... Cruz 49% popular vote, 33 delegates. Trump 34% popular vote, 3 delegates. Kasich 14%, 0 delegates. Delegate count still not complete. The Cruz ground game continues to be impressive.

Sanders 56%, 45 delegates, Clinton 44%, 31 delegates. No surprise.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It will of course take more than just Democrats winning elections, which will require "civic" millennials to learn some civics and vote in midterms. A more activist public is needed too. FDR said "go out and make me make the changes." The people need to get into the streets too and write emails and letters, and support activist organizations. The Democrats are not all that much better than the GOP; they need to be pushed.

But the Republicans are bad, because they are hung up on free market fundamentalist economics and other errors. Just blocking the needed solutions won't work, any more than an extreme socialism will work, or be accepted. So yes, we'll see what happens, but we'll also need to make it happen.

Well that IS what Bernie is arguing for. People taking to the streets to demand changes. From crowd funding to flash mobs that could get very interesting with online organising.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I'm a somewhat typical CA Indy in that I don't identify at all with Social Conservatism and I'm not doctrinaire about the size of government - there are many things government is best at. Significantly, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for Trump or anyone of that type. I know I'm not alone. In this state, the GOP is completely dependent on us Indys. Without us, they aren't didley, just an antiquated and vocal minority faction.

Republicans here in California are hobbled by a base that is a minority that still hasn't reconciled itself with immigration. It's a heritage thing. A good book to read on the roots of the CA Republican Party is http://thenewpress.com/books/right-out-of-california. Much of what we know as today's American conservatism came directly out of the wars between the growers and the farm workers from the 1930s to the 1960s. California (and it's conservatives) gave us Nixon and Reagan. The Republican Party is still a prisoner of this base.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

With 77% reporting ... Cruz 49% popular vote, 33 delegates. Trump 34% popular vote, 3 delegates. Kasich 14%, 0 delegates. Delegate count still not complete. The Cruz ground game continues to be impressive.

Sanders 56%, 45 delegates, Clinton 44%, 31 delegates. No surprise.

Cruz has probably the smartest ground game in the election. Cruz's organization studied Obama's victory and Obama's tactics from the 2012 Election from the word go and brought it to the Republican Party. Cruz has made a fine art of microtargeting voters and knowing individual voter's likes, dislikes and biases. And Cruz started putting together this organization probably just after 2014 if not before.
Even so, Cruz might not have been in a position to beat Bush or Rubio if Trump had not beaten both of them. It is Trump that is forcing the Republican Establishment to swallow hard and endorse Cruz, who they would otherwise be dismissing as an "extremist". If Cruz does make it to the White House (and he might be able to beat Hillary, though probably not Bernie Sanders) he will owe Donald Trump a debt of gratitude.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Cruz has probably the smartest ground game in the election. Cruz's organization studied Obama's victory and Obama's tactics from the 2012 Election from the word go and brought it to the Republican Party. Cruz has made a fine art of microtargeting voters and knowing individual voter's likes, dislikes and biases. And Cruz started putting together this organization probably just after 2014 if not before.
Even so, Cruz might not have been in a position to beat Bush or Rubio if Trump had not beaten both of them. It is Trump that is forcing the Republican Establishment to swallow hard and endorse Cruz, who they would otherwise be dismissing as an "extremist". If Cruz does make it to the White House (and he might be able to beat Hillary, though probably not Bernie Sanders) he will owe Donald Trump a debt of gratitude.

Cruz isn't going to win without the support of Trump voters.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a;554756[QUOTE

]In view of the nativism and anti-intellectualism within the GOP, people who are in many ways conservatives (I'm quite conservative on law and order, child protection, educational content, and drugs) are becoming Democrats.

The Republican Party started as a coalition of Whigs and nativist "Know Nothings" (American Party). Republicans were nativist, nationalist and protectionist for most of their history despite support from Big Business. As for anti-intellectualism, Sinclair Lewis had a lot to say about that in his classic work "Babbitt" written in the 30s. Trump is just resurrecting the nationalist/protectionist strain in the Republican Party that has been dormant since the 60s.

The Republican Party has become the Party of superstition, sexual repression, cheap-labor interests, wars for profit, environmental degradation, harsh management, and monopoly or crony capitalism.

That was the result of a strain of Republicanism that started in California in the 30s (see "Right Out of California") and inherited the South after Civil Rights drove Southern whites away from being "Dixiecrats". It actually made both parties more honest. Republicans favor "a republic" (meaning oligarchy) not democracy while the Democrats are now free to BE democratic (when they are not trying to be Clintonista "New Democrats").

Such would change the culture. So we would have lots of college graduates who end up in industrial work?

It's hardly a waste. Business needs employees with more education than the high schools are giving students. A lot of businesses, though prefer employees who went to for profit universities and have only a narrow post-high-school education because they are seen as more pliable.

Those are the likely shop stewards if they don't get diverted to technical training.

Of course that's only if we get a government socially democratic enough and powerful enough to cram the right to collective bargaining down business's throats and throw CEOs and personnel managers who attempt to resist unionization in jail.

We would have better teachers. Above all we would have business leaders asking questions about whether doing bad to subordinates is a good idea. We need to see people with more humane values.

Yes indeed. We had business leaders who could ask those kinds of questions from the early 1900s (who supported the early Progressives) to the 1970s. It wasn't until we got a strain of Boomer Idealists of a hyperconservative ilk moving up in business as "yuppies" by the late 70s that we started to get businesses reorganizing themselves to mimic the cults of the 70s, complete with the long hours, lack of sleep, Robert Jay Lifton's 8 criteria for totalist organzations (see http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studym...ctr_lifton.htm ) --check them out and see how businesses like Countrywide Mortgage and Goldman Sachs fit these criteria). Which is why we get such mindless decision making in many of our biggest banks and Fortune 500 companies.

Another effect: we would have wiser consumers of mass media. More people would be able to judge the emptiness or perversity of the mass media, especially television -- and direct their children away from junk.

[/QUOTE]
If college graduates can learn to get their information from a wide variety of online sources instead of relying only on sources that fit their prejudices.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It's California (KABC-TV, ABC-7, Los Angeles) in a poll by SurveyUSA. The surprise is that Kasich is now indistinguishable from Cruz in electability, suggesting that the political appeal of remaining largely silent while the others make fools of themselves might not be a winning strategy for November. He will have to show what he believes in at the Republican Party convention this summer.

Significantly, Donald Trump registers 50% "extremely unfavorable" in California.

John Kasich has consistently looked better than Ted Cruz in polling everywhere else against Clinton; this may suggest a change in the pattern. This poll suggests that Californians are the first to catch onto him as no more desirable than Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz is the wrong sort of Hispanic to appeal in California.

...I make much of statistical subtleties that can suggest significant trends.


Hillary Clinton defeats Donald Trump by 34 points, 60 percent to 26 percent.
Hillary Clinton defeats Ted Cruz by 25 points, 57 percent to 32 percent.
Hillary Clinton defeats John Kasich by 23 points, 56 percent to 33 percent.

Bernie Sanders defeats Donald Trump by 39 points, 63 percent to 24 percent.
Bernie Sanders defeats Ted Cruz by 35 points, 61 percent to 26 percent.
Bernie Sanders defeats John Kasich by 29 points, 57 percent to 28 percent.

http://abc7.com/politics/trump-still...shows/1275688/



Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich





Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or someone leading with less than 40%.

But this is well before the General Election campaign. A candidate with fewer negatives than Trump can find a lot of negatives against Hillary, who is seen almost as negatively as Trump. Wheras Bernie Sanders, if he should get the nomination can only be attacked for being "socialist" at a time when even many of Grump's voters agree with Bernie on issues like pulling away from free trade, Medicare for all and more of an America First foreign policy that won't get the US into ruinous wars. According to the poll above, Hillary loses OH and FL and IA to Cruz and ties Cruz in Wisconsin. And this before the Republicans are going all out negative against Hillary with money and ads behind them. These are states that could result in a Cruz win even with fewer popular votes overall than Hillary.
The question about nominating Bernie, should Trump not get the nomination (which I am seeing as increasingly likely) could come down to whether Democratic superdelegates are more comfortable with holding neither the White House nor either House of Congress to having a "socialist" like Bernie Sanders as President.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

But this is well before the General Election campaign. A candidate with fewer negatives than Trump can find a lot of negatives against Hillary, who is seen almost as negatively as Trump. Wheras Bernie Sanders, if he should get the nomination can only be attacked for being "socialist" at a time when even many of Grump's voters agree with Bernie on issues like pulling away from free trade, Medicare for all and more of an America First foreign policy that won't get the US into ruinous wars. According to the poll above, Hillary loses OH and FL and IA to Cruz and ties Cruz in Wisconsin. And this before the Republicans are going all out negative against Hillary with money and ads behind them. These are states that could result in a Cruz win even with fewer popular votes overall than Hillary.
The question about nominating Bernie, should Trump not get the nomination (which I am seeing as increasingly likely) could come down to whether Democratic superdelegates are more comfortable with holding neither the White House nor either House of Congress to having a "socialist" like Bernie Sanders as President.

Cruz is not likely to wear well. If Hillary is a relatively average candidate, Cruz is weaker. According to my source, the latest poll in FL has Hillary ahead of Ted Cruz, with Cruz still ahead in IA and OH.



Hillary Clinton 313, Ted Cruz 225
(If no 2016 polls have been taken, 2012 results are used)
red = Democratic blue = Republican

Latest 2016 polls listed on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statew...election,_2016

STATE CLINTON TRUMP -- CLINTON CRUZ
AK 44 49 -- 37 57
AZ 38 38 -- 35 41
CA 59 28 -- 59 31
FL 49 41 -- 48 43
GA 41 50 -- 42 49
IL 57 32 -- 51 40
IA 42 42 -- 42 45
KS 36 46 -- 35 49
MI 49 38 -- 49 39
MN 43 38 -- 43 45
MS 43 46 -- 40 51
MO 42 40 -- 34 51
NH 47 39 -- 46 35
NJ 52 36 --
NY 53 33 -- 53 32
NC 44 42 -- 45 42
OH 48 42 -- 45 47
PA 46 33 -- 45 35
UT 38 36 -- 32 60
VA 52 35 -- 45 41
WI 47 37 -- 46 43

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Cruz has probably the smartest ground game in the election. Cruz's organization studied Obama's victory and Obama's tactics from the 2012 Election from the word go and brought it to the Republican Party. Cruz has made a fine art of microtargeting voters and knowing individual voter's likes, dislikes and biases. And Cruz started putting together this organization probably just after 2014 if not before.

This can work in the primary, but is he going to win the sort of voters who might have gone for Dubya in 2000 and 2004 but went for Obama in 2012? He has the wrong ideology.

Even so, Cruz might not have been in a position to beat Bush or Rubio if Trump had not beaten both of them. It is Trump that is forcing the Republican Establishment to swallow hard and endorse Cruz, who they would otherwise be dismissing as an "extremist". If Cruz does make it to the White House (and he might be able to beat Hillary, though probably not Bernie Sanders) he will owe Donald Trump a debt of gratitude.

He could induce millions of liberals to discuss either emigration or secession.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/29/...nt-find-a-job/

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

This can work in the primary, but is he going to win the sort of voters who might have gone for Dubya in 2000 and 2004 but went for Obama in 2012? He has the wrong ideology.

He could induce millions of liberals to discuss either emigration or secession.

Cruz is too narrow to win a national election.
I am opposed to secession, but it is interesting that talk of secession seems to comes from progressives.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/29/...nt-find-a-job/

The surest way to create a labor shortage is to grossly underpay workers. At the extreme there has never been a slave system, whether the pre-Civil War South or the Third Reich, that did not have to bring in even more workers.

Unskilled and lightly-skilled workers have always found employment precarious at best, with frequent layoffs and with having to be very resourceful to find and coordinate seasonal work.

Originally Posted by radind

Cruz is too narrow to win a national election.

I believe that you are right. Ted Cruz is more consistently right-wing than Donald Trump. He wants a pure plutocracy, and will deliver that to his supporters if elected and with the collusion of a pliant Congress that will do exactly as their paymasters tell them to do.

I am opposed to secession, but it is interesting that talk of secession seems to comes from progressives.

Secession is too drastic a measure for dealing with a slight unpleasantness of legislation. Should the federal government become despotic or dictatorial and abrogate states' rights in a naked power grab, then secession might be valid. The States have the obligation to have and maintain "republican government", and acquiescence to a dictatorship is contrary to that Constitutional mandate.

But I am way ahead of myself. Much ugliness is possible in a 4T, some of it utterly new to America and with precedents in other countries.

Originally Posted by radind

Cruz is too narrow to win a national election.
I am opposed to secession, but it is interesting that talk of secession seems to comes from progressives.

Lincoln was right.

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...d-south-secede
…. "”Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy,” Lincoln had said in his somber inaugural address a month earlier. “A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.””…