Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Pardon my cynicism about the nature of our economic elites! Do they deserve our trust?

No. But maybe there's more hope among the younger and diverse people to shift future elections away from their power. We may have entered a period of Democratic Party dominance similar to 1932-1968, or to Republican Party dominance from 1860-1932, or Democratic-Republican Party dominance from 1800 to 1828. When the opposition party discredits itself, even if aligned with elites, it can enter a period of eclipse for quite a while, or even disappear. The Republican Party today has now so discredited itself.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No. But maybe there's more hope among the younger and diverse people to shift future elections away from their power. We may have entered a period of Democratic Party dominance similar to 1932-1968, or to Republican Party dominance from 1860-1932, or Democratic-Republican Party dominance from 1800 to 1828. When the opposition party discredits itself, even if aligned with elites, it can enter a period of eclipse for quite a while, or even disappear. The Republican Party today has now so discredited itself.

The Republican Party has no credibility with me, and likely with most people who have above-average intelligence and education. (Sorry about the bragging). Win over the college professors, and you soon win over the school teachers. About a decade or two after you win over the school teachers you get the kids whom those teachers taught. There was an exception with Generation X because the liberal-leaning intellectuals made fools of themselves.

The only question in my mind about the GOP is whether it can entrench itself in power quickly enough to freeze the political order as the ruling elites want it frozen. Paradoxically a more sustainable conservatism may evolve from Obama (see how it worked with Lincoln and even FDR) out of caution and respect for legal precedent and political formalities than it can from the cultivation of greed, superstition, bigotry, and jingoism.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No. But maybe there's more hope among the younger and diverse people to shift future elections away from their power. We may have entered a period of Democratic Party dominance similar to 1932-1968, or to Republican Party dominance from 1860-1932, or Democratic-Republican Party dominance from 1800 to 1828. When the opposition party discredits itself, even if aligned with elites, it can enter a period of eclipse for quite a while, or even disappear. The Republican Party today has now so discredited itself.

I see the GOP as splitting itself into oblivion. The issue for the GOP elite is how they plan to salvage any of their insider power. There is no simple solution.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Republican Party has no credibility with me, and likely with most people who have above-average intelligence and education. (Sorry about the bragging). Win over the college professors, and you soon win over the school teachers. About a decade or two after you win over the school teachers you get the kids whom those teachers taught. There was an exception with Generation X because the liberal-leaning intellectuals made fools of themselves.

The only question in my mind about the GOP is whether it can entrench itself in power quickly enough to freeze the political order as the ruling elites want it frozen. Paradoxically a more sustainable conservatism may evolve from Obama (see how it worked with Lincoln and even FDR) out of caution and respect for legal precedent and political formalities than it can from the cultivation of greed, superstition, bigotry, and jingoism.

I think that it is too late for the national GOP insiders to freeze anything. They are in a death fight for their insider power base.

Satirical page from the Boston Globe:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...as-Trump-front

Originally Posted by radind

I see the GOP as splitting itself into oblivion. The issue for the GOP elite is how they plan to salvage any of their insider power. There is no simple solution.

Well, the Democratic party is largely doing the same thing. It seems to me that we are largely a very loose conglomerate of fanatics, each group of which advocates one red-hot (to them) issue. I suppose that since I have fundamental agreement with many of these issues, that makes me a member of the party. And, for me, it seems that the Republicans are largely bat-crap crazy. They probably see me in much the same light.

Our political landscape seems like a heart in fibrillation, where each small group of cells is going off on its own, with no concerted effort to make the heart beat effectively, driving life-sustaining oxygen and nutreints to the rest of the body. Each special interest group screams for attention, while the body politic suffocates and weakens from lack of sustenance.

Originally Posted by TnT

Well, the Democratic party is largely doing the same thing.

But to a lesser extent.

It seems to me that we are largely a very loose conglomerate of fanatics, each group of which advocates one red-hot (to them) issue. I suppose that since I have fundamental agreement with many of these issues, that makes me a member of the party. And, for me, it seems that the Republicans are largely bat-crap crazy. They probably see me in much the same light.

But the Democrats have the chilly rationalists now unwelcome in the Republican Party. These are the potential conservatives of the 1T. Note that an Obama election has eerie similarities to an Eisenhower election. I can imagine conservatism circa 2035 having made its peace with feminism (if not female chauvinism) and homosexuality (if definitely not the pedophilia that mainstream homosexuals deride as shrilly as do straight people*), and even embracing Islam as a source of wholesome family values. Those chilly rationalists are heavily middle-class in orientation (like Eisenhower and Obama).

Our political landscape seems like a heart in fibrillation, where each small group of cells is going off on its own, with no concerted effort to make the heart beat effectively, driving life-sustaining oxygen and nutreints to the rest of the body. Each special interest group screams for attention, while the body politic suffocates and weakens from lack of sustenance.

Political polarization looks like evidence of failure of the political mainstream. Special interests? If a Crisis emerges, the loud special interests that aren't in leadership roles are not going to get their ways. There will be more important things to take care of, like survival of the economic order, political system, nation, civilization, or Humanity itself.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

But to a lesser extent.



But the Democrats have the chilly rationalists now unwelcome in the Republican Party. These are the potential conservatives of the 1T.

-- exactly. Which is why I say that the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is gonna split off & form our own party. Some of us have already split off. If Bernie isn't nominated even more of us will be done with the Dems

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- exactly. Which is why I say that the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is gonna split off & form our own party. Some of us have already split off. If Bernie isn't nominated even more of us will be done with the Dems

I was done with the Dems in 1991 and joined the best alternative, the Greens. They are still around. Since 2004 though, and even before, I am mindful of how much worse the Reps are than the Dems-- and how often the Americans support these rascals. I can't forget that when I consider my political activities.

In terms of the political questionnaires I have taken, I can see that I am in agreement with the Greens in the 90%+ range, with the Democrats in the 60%+ range, and with the Republicans in the below 10% range. So, I make my choices in that light, apparently. If anything, Hillary ranks somewhat higher in those numbers than the typical Democratic candidate.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Satirical page from the Boston Globe:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...as-Trump-front

Just imagine a fitting mockup for a "Frankfurter Globus" issue dated April 7, 1933 released in April 1932 that has such headlines as:

Last issue of "Frankfurter Globus"; Josef Goebbels bans sale of newsprint and ink to Globus
Albert Einstein Assassinated
Border skirmishes with Poland and Czechoslovakia
Hitler proposes partition of Switzerland between France, Italy, and Reich
Hitler wins Stalin Prize for destroying German democracy
Gandhi, British Viceroy of India welcome German Jews to India
Mendelssohn's music banned in Germany
Sir Thomas Beecham, Vienna Philharmonic perform concert of "Composers banned in Germany"
Hitler calls Roosevelt a "Jewish cripple"
American rearmanent called for as a spur to recovery
German economy collapses as Jews flee

(fully mine in case anyone questions plagiarism)

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- exactly. Which is why I say that the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is gonna split off & form our own party. Some of us have already split off. If Bernie isn't nominated even more of us will be done with the Dems

But the chilly rationalists, often the conservatives with some moral compass, have been missing in American life. They are useful in some critical occupations (like engineering, medicine, law, and academia). Unlike the angry right-wing demagogues they are comparatively safe fall-backs when radical reforms prove counter-productive or disruptive.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- exactly. Which is why I say that the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" is gonna split off & form our own party. Some of us have already split off. If Bernie isn't nominated even more of us will be done with the Dems

I suggest the "Naval Gazing Party" (NGP) to reflect your relevance as well as your methods.

This, today, from Wall Street on Parade: A Citizen Guide to Wall Street

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/0...-york-primary/

Eight long years after the greatest Wall Street crash since 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression, U.S. mega banks on Wall Street still pose a systemic risk to the safety and soundness of banking and the overall financial stability of the United States.

The public no longer has to guess as to whether the above statement is factual or simply the wild imagining of Wall Street activists. No less than the bank-cozy Federal Reserve confirmed on April 13 that three of the largest Wall Street banks (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo) did not have credible plans to unwind themselves without taxpayer assistance if they were to fail, raising the specter of another epic taxpayer bailout adding to the already staggering $19 trillion national debt, much of which resulted from the last bailout. In the case of JPMorgan Chase, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sent a joint letter with the stunning pronouncement that they have “identified a deficiency” in JPMorgan’s wind-down plan which if not properly addressed could “pose serious adverse effects to the financial stability of the United States.”

...JPMorgan Chase is the largest bank in the U.S. with more than $2 trillion in assets. And yet it was saved from potentially devastating losses to its depository bank because of inquiring minds, not at its regulators, but at Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal. These exotic gambles in derivatives were occurring just four years after the largest Wall Street crash since 1929 and just two years after President Obama assured the country that the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation would never allow these types of abuses to happen again.

That was 2013. In 2014, when hundreds of the Dodd-Frank rules had still not been implemented, JPMorgan Chase was charged with two felony counts for its involvement in the Bernie Madoff fraud. A lenient Justice Department brought no criminal charges against any individual at JPMorgan and gave it a deferred prosecution agreement and a two-year probation. The agreement was signed between the Justice Department and JPMorgan on January 6, 2014. But on May 20, 2015, JPMorgan Chase, along with other banks, was charged with a new felony count, to which it admitted, for its involvement in rigging foreign currency markets.

This pattern of serial crimes at JPMorgan Chase and other Wall Street banks is why presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont can say with authority and conviction that the business model of Wall Street is fraud.

Hillary Clinton, vying for the Democratic nod for President while taking millions of dollars in campaign funds from the felonious Wall Street banks, thinks Dodd-Frank reform is working just fine and simply needs some tinkering around the edges. No amount of facts to the contrary or serial charges of new crimes emanating from Wall Street will alter her view. She also refuses to support the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act, which would separate banks holding insured deposits from their gambling casino cousins – legislation which protected the U.S. banking system and made it the envy of the world for 66 years until it was repealed under the Bill Clinton administration in 1999.

Hillary is also clinging desperately to the nutty proposition that the big banks didn’t cause the 2008 Wall Street crash, buttressed by the increasingly desperate sounding New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who some suspect may be auditioning for a role in Hillary’s cabinet were she to become the next President.

Senator Sanders has made breaking up the dangerous, too-big-to-fail banks and restoring the Glass-Steagall Act a centerpiece of his campaign platform. Today, in the New York primary, that issue is taking center stage as is the issue of whether Hillary should be asking voters to just trust her as she continues to feed her campaign with the ill-gotten gains from Wall Street abuses.

Hillary just doesn't get it...but Elizabeth Warren does. (If only she had run for President instead!) Warren introduced S. 1709, 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act of 2015:

To reduce risks to the financial system by limiting banks’ ability to engage in certain risky activities and limiting conflicts of interest, to reinstate certain Glass-Steagall Act protections that were repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and for other purposes.

This is Job One for the next president. Income inequality, fighting terrorism, health care...none of that will matter very much if our banking system melts down again.

Well, at least Krugman would not be the usual Wall Street shill like Clinton and Obama appointed (Rubin, Summers, et al). He has been an outspoken liberal voice on economics and critic of Wall Street and oligarchy for years.

Your link was to Sen. Warren, not Clinton. Where does Hillary say that the banks did not cause the 2008 crash?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, at least Krugman would not be the usual Wall Street shill like Clinton and Obama appointed (Rubin, Summers, et al). He has been an outspoken liberal voice on economics and critic of Wall Street and oligarchy for years.

Your link was to Sen. Warren, not Clinton. Where does Hillary say that the banks did not cause the 2008 crash?

Krugman, whose NYT column I have long read, has proved a bit of a disappointment lately: his critique of Bernie's economic plan was way too slanted, and too much in league with other liberal establishment economists. I would hope that Hillary--if elected--would appoint a much more progressive economist, like Joseph Stiglitz--also a Nobel Laureate.

Bill Clinton--if not Hillary, too--is on record as having said that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause the Crash of '08. I will provide the link.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Krugman, whose NYT column I have long read, has proved a bit of a disappointment lately: his critique of Bernie's economic plan was way too slanted, and too much in league with other liberal establishment economists. I would hope that Hillary--if elected--would appoint a much more progressive economist, like Joseph Stiglitz--also a Nobel Laureate.

Bill Clinton--if not Hillary, too--is on record as having said that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause the Crash of '08. I will provide the link.

In the September 2015 Issue of Inc. magazine, Bill Clinton said, "...Look at all the grief I got for signing the bill that ended Glass-Steagall. There's not a single, solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash."

I honestly can't believe he said that with a straight face. Clinton alludes to some study without citing it by name in support of his wholly unsupportable contention. There are too many experts, too many books, too many studies...that provide more than ample evidence to the contrary. His is a ridiculous statement on its face.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201509/j...l-clinton.html

62.1% reporting

New York
Republican
CANDIDATE VOTE % DEL*

Trump
281,683 60.1% 48

Kasich
117,318 25.0% 0

Cruz
69,806 14.9% 0



62.3% reporting

New York
Democratic

CANDIDATE VOTE % DEL*

Clinton
710,186 58.8% 104

Sanders
498,319 41.2% 85


https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-.../us-primaries/

Originally Posted by Washington Post

In order to make up ground, Sanders would need to win more than 70 percent of the remaining pledged delegates.

(My comment: Sanders is not going to do that.)

Total delegates -- Republican:

Trump 804
Cruz 559
Kasich 144

OUT --


Rubio 171 (no pun intended!)
Carson 9
Bush 4
Fiorina, Huckabee, Paul 1 each

CLINCH AT 1237 -- Trump is 433 away.

DEMOCRATIC

Clinton 1862
Sanders 1161

There are no other delegates for anyone.

CLINCH AT 2383

Clinton is 519 away.

It is harder to come from behind in a two-way race, especially when nobody has delegates who can go elsewhere.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-.../us-primaries/

Using wikipedia (Green Papers)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...rimaries,_2016
Trump 846
Cruz 548
Kasich 149

Trump beat my projection for NY by 15 delegate votes. He won 90, Kasich won 5 and Cruz 0.

My projection for the rest of the race is 353-222-59. Trump will need to beat my projection by 38 delegates votes now for a 1st ballot win. My projection includes winning Indiana delegates by 45-12. If he beats my projection of 26 total in CT and RI, and wins up to 21 extra votes there, he can afford to lose some of those Indiana delegate votes, and still be on track to fall short by 38. I am projecting 95-55-22 in CA.


Clinton 1446 pledged delegates
Sanders 1203 pledged delegates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...rimaries,_2016

My projection for NY was 147-100 Clinton. Sanders beat that by 8 delegates: 139-108.

For the rest of the race, my projection is 726 Clinton, 674 Sanders. Total would be 2172-1877.

2026 pledged delegates is a majority. Sanders now needs 823 more delegates to reach this; Clinton needs 580. Sanders would also likely need to catch up in total votes cast, and pass her.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Krugman, whose NYT column I have long read, has proved a bit of a disappointment lately: his critique of Bernie's economic plan was way too slanted, and too much in league with other liberal establishment economists. I would hope that Hillary--if elected--would appoint a much more progressive economist, like Joseph Stiglitz--also a Nobel Laureate.

Over all, my experience of the two of them is quite similar, ideologically. There is room to critique Bernie's plans. Krugman would certainly pull Hillary to the left.

Bill Clinton--if not Hillary, too--is on record as having said that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause the Crash of '08. I will provide the link.

You said that Hillary said that "the banks did not cause the crash of 2008."

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

In the September 2015 Issue of Inc. magazine, Bill Clinton said, "...Look at all the grief I got for signing the bill that ended Glass-Steagall. There's not a single, solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash."

I honestly can't believe he said that with a straight face. Clinton alludes to some study without citing it by name in support of his wholly unsupportable contention. There are too many experts, too many books, too many studies...that provide more than ample evidence to the contrary. His is a ridiculous statement on its face.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201509/j...l-clinton.html

I agree with you though; Bill is wrong about that.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I suggest the "Naval Gazing Party" (NGP) to reflect your relevance as well as your methods.

You establishment types don't get it: The American people HATE these policies that every administration since the fall of the Berlin wall has implemented. e HATE free trade, we HATE globalism, we HATE "human rights", we HATE the entire boomer project of trying to change human nature to create a docile humanity. War is fundamental to the human condition, war is in our blood, it is when the stakes are highest and when nations have their rendezvous with destiny.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

You establishment types don't get it: The American people HATE these policies that every administration since the fall of the Berlin wall has implemented. We HATE free trade, we HATE globalism, we HATE "human rights", we HATE the entire boomer project of trying to change human nature to create a docile humanity. War is fundamental to the human condition, war is in our blood, it is when the stakes are highest and when nations have their rendezvous with destiny.

GW Bush was a boomer; he LOVES war. So some say about Hillary.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

GW Bush was a boomer; he LOVES war. So some say about Hillary.

Bush followed the same basic policies as Clinton and Bush 1. I knew Iraq would be a disaster the moment bush announced that Paul Bremer would established to organize elections for a democratic government. Here Bush thought that Islamic barbarians were fundamentally just like us, and like freedom and democracy. We would have been better off had we organized Iraq around simple exploitation and then moving on with our forces into Iran and Syria.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Bush followed the same basic policies as Clinton and Bush 1. I knew Iraq would be a disaster the moment bush announced that Paul Bremer would established to organize elections for a democratic government. Here Bush thought that Islamic barbarians were fundamentally just like us, and like freedom and democracy. We would have been better off had we organized Iraq around simple exploitation and then moving on with our forces into Iran and Syria.

Bush "43" was a disaster because (1) he lied about the casus belli, and (2) he could not imagine anything going wrong.

Before D-Day, Dwight Eisenhower wrote a shame-filled letter of resignation in the event that the invasion failed. He had enough self-doubt to imagine losing the battle that he had planned. Of course D-Day was a huge success, and within eleven months the US Army was in retreat -- from the Soviet Union to a predetermined demarcation line.