Originally Posted by B Butler

I know. I agree with you, and her. I still think she's as close as we've got to TR, though.

Would you care to name someone in the pattern of TR who might consider a run? Can we have a regeneracy without a Grey Champion that personifies and advocates the new values?

But, if she does run, would she eventually cave in to the corporate concerns just like Obama has done?

Originally Posted by B Butler

I know. I agree with you, and her. I still think she's as close as we've got to TR, though.

Would you care to name someone in the pattern of TR who might consider a run? Can we have a regeneracy without a Grey Champion that personifies and advocates the new values?

In this age of personality, it will take a true leader to fill that role. Obama never had that bent; he may not have the talent.

It takes a certain type of person to be both the public face of a movement, and still have the inside game to make it work. That type of leadership is very rare. Other than EW, there are no politicians I can name that even have a shot. Business leaders don't have the patience or the will to compromise or cajole, so that's not a source either.

But then again, we are a nation of more than 300Million people. There have to be a least a few good options.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Multi-party party politics doesn't work in the US. Our system doesn't support it. We'd need a major rule set change in order to support more than 2 parties. Basically a new constitution. So one or both parties would have to lose support and at least one would need to ultimately be replaced by the new party. That doesn't even guarantee that a greater than two party democracy would be viable, because the new party could be just as power hungry and self preservationist as the old party (just with, hopefully, an actually relevant platform for once).

We could even see the US going from a one party state masquerading as a two- party state to just a one party state. I'd love to see direct democracy implemented, but I'm far more interested in someone who is going to upgrade our infrastructure, and make the way that the government works and is financed fit the society we live in. It's far better to have something that is viable than fits an idealistic framework.

Republicans and democrats are the problem. Both parties long ago ceased representing the interests of their constituents, and frankly, I think they'd take any opportunity to bail the banks out again. What was quantitative easing, I'd not a means by which we printed a bunch of money off for years and just handed it to the wealthy? These people will pay off the banks at any opportunity because members in congress are in the same socio-economic class as the bankers. Helping the thieving dirtbag bankers helps the upper class as a whole. It's why the Fed will set a zero interest rate, but only order that rate to other banks, so banks can make money off their interest. It's why congress will push a bailout package through with extreme hasre, but that same dirtbag congress will pan a public option. Democrats aren't good guys. Wolves in sheep's clothing are still wolves.

I agree with your last paragraph 100 percent. During elections we tend to put lipstick on the pigs, yet we know they still are pigs. What is working against us is that our individual paths have diverged and we are too busy being mired in our own issues to pay attention to those of the larger society. There can be spicy arguments, and we can agree to disagree--for now--and see how it goes. We can keep working things out, hopefully without anyone compromising their integrity.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... The institutions have to be involved if only in a rejection. But before the existing institutions can be rejected they must be tested and found wanting. Right now Americans do not take the institutional infrastructure of our civilization seriously. Politics is treated as a game where each side backs their team. America goes to war in and whether we win (Gulf) or lose (Vietnam, Iraq) does not matter. American continues on, repeating them over and over, just as the great powers in the 18th and 19th centuries did. We discuss our wars in the most silly way.

The economics of the West have not functioned up to par for some time. In 2008 the economy came close to a collapse, that I believe is parallel to those in 1929 and 1873. Since Americans have conducted the exactly same arguments as happened last time, with the same sides advocating for the same policies (Republicans for austerity and deflation; their opponents for stimulus and inflation) as they did for the last two. Nothing has changed, its like this is the first time.

This is a worldwide issue, not just here. The EU is having the same discussion, as is Japan and Australia. Even China seems to be retrenching to a more classical economic stand. Either we are being subject to mass hysteria, and seeing the same boogeymen everywhere, or the state of the world has changed enough to evoke a degree of cautious behavior that is self defeating. I'm going with option #2.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

I suppose you believe this because they have not done so. I would point out that the Greens, the Communists, Socialists, Populists etc. were/are also about maintaining the status quo since they never changed it either. There has never was a party that fit this criterion, so why do you think such an animal exists?

Could this be because the status quo was changed in the past. We had the institution of slavery then was abruptly ended, yet the only party that called for this to happen peaked at less than 1% of the vote in 1840. That slavery should end was never supported by more than a minority of the electoral, yet it happened. Similarly, those who called for the programs of the New Deal never gained more than a few percent support. None of the majority parties ever called for what happened. And yet it did.

Good point. Since praise is general but accusations are specific, no one in power is wiling to take unnecessary risks, even ones with a very high probability of success. Any misstep becomes a campaign ad in no time flat.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

Outside threats don't change institutions, they challenge them, either strengthening them or breaking them. Change occurs from an internal dynamic. We have not had change because most people don't want it.

For Christ's sake, how may times have people here talked about how it doesn't feel like a 4T because their is no WW II-style unifying going on. Unification is rallying around institutions, not changing them. How many people think they problems would be solved if both sides would just work together, or if a third centrist party were to sweep to power and impose common sense reforms. This too is the opposite of change.

The reason why Americans are divided is that what Americans want is mutually incompatible, and what we have right now is good enough.

I buy some of this, but the biggest limiter to change is the ouch factor. You're right that most people find the current mess less threatening to them than the process to change it would be. If and when things get a lot worse, the mental scales may tip the other way. I doubt anyone expects unanimity.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

Of course. What needs to happen is for the status quo to stop looking acceptable for a majority. In 1932 one out of four were out of a job. There was no unemployment. Those people had no income and so lost their homes. They ended up living with relatives or homeless. This happened to my German immigrant grandparents. A wealthy German family took them in, gave them jobs as gardener and domestic, and rented them a small house they owned.

For those who had no families or wealthy benefactors, they ended up homeless living in shanty towns like the favelas in Latin America. People were destitute. It was obvious to all thinking Americans that something was deeply wrong. And yet they entire state of affairs had happened in the space of three years in the richest nation that had ever existed and during a time of peace. It was not like authorities were blindsided. It unfolded right before their eyes and they got advice from the leading experts, yet the medicine they applied did not work.

Life was intolerable for those you had lost their job, or who had a relative who had lost their job and now was living with them. With 25% out of work it stands to reason that a majority of the population was personally affected to a serious degree by the depression. Probably the only time this had ever happened. And so unlike previous downturns (or those afterward) this one gave changes in institutions.

The last time some internal event had seriously impacted the lives of a majority of the electorate had probably been the Civil War. And institutional change happened then.

So far neither the economic downturn nor our wars have seriously impacted a majority. And because of that, Americans can afford to have unserious opinions about what to do. And as long as Americans are unserious about politics then the political parties can continue to win votes by being unserious.

If the problems become serious, then Americans will become serious about the problems. they will lose interest in politicians that continue to offer frivolities, and politicians will offer more serious fare.

I believe that the economic elites think they have parsed the issues thoroughly, and can keep the anger and resentment under enough control to forestall anything that will threaten their dominance. I also doubt that is possible in the long run. But for now, they're winning.

A coalition of Nationalists and anti-globalist business people could be a sharp stick in the side of the current latter-day globalist money power. The current money power predicated their model on a world that had ever diminishing barriers and ever expanding neo-liberal modes of operation world wide. Things like Chinese sweat shops were supposed to be lifted out of existence by the ever increasing enlightened view. How naive this was. It assumed that everyone in the world would be devotees of Locke, Hume, et al. If anything, outside of the Anglosphere plus a few other places, the actual trend has been the opposite, toward despotism. Instead of all boats being lifted by Fukuyamaian and (TL) Friedmanian Flat Worldism and Freakanomics, the race to the bottom has coarsened us all, as we abandoned our standards one by one to deal with Mandarins and Cheiftans on the other side of the world. It has failed. It is time to take care of our own people and land.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have just gotten out my CDs of Verdi's Requiem for Wednesday.

Now playing. Every American liberal knows what died tonight.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Who or what is the requiem for? It now seems obvious that the real requiem for middle class prosperity as we had known it was when Reagan busted the unions over three decades ago. We may just have been too dumb to recognize it at the time. And even today there are many who consider the very word "union" to be a five-letter obscenity. But will admit that they may have pushed the levers further than they needed to during their heyday. But now is a time when we probably need them more than ever.

Democracy in America. Today we have a new level of Government above it all, elected only by the moneyed elite and responsible to it alone. It now rules Congress and most State legislatures and State governors.

To mock the state motto of Michigan,

Si quaeris imperium malum... circumspice.

America the Stupid, learn to love your chains!

Assuming that the GOP imposes a Single-Party dictatorship in 2017, the best thing that could happen to America would be that it get mauled in a war that looked easy at the start and turns into a disaster. Something like the Soviet invasion of Finland.

Recession?

I actually see the exact opposite happening: The same modest growth we have been having since the beginning of the decade continuing for two more years, followed by one last laissez-faire boom in 2017-19, after the Republicans win the 2016 Presidential election - but sometime either in the autumn of 2019 or the winter of 2019-20, there will be an even worse crash than the one that struck nine decades earlier, and then anything might happen: At a guess, we might come up with some Gulf Of Tonkin-like pretext to start a war to "cure" the ensuing depression; and then, depending on how far the right will have gone in the direction of Social Darwinism from 2017 onward, various aggrieved demographic groups, based on race, income, etc., may heed Phil Ochs' lyric from back in the day and decide that yes, treason is worth a try, and openly collaborate with the enemy - very likely, Muslims of one sort or another.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

A coalition of Nationalists and anti-globalist business people could be a sharp stick in the side of the current latter-day globalist money power. The current money power predicated their model on a world that had ever diminishing barriers and ever expanding neo-liberal modes of operation world wide. Things like Chinese sweat shops were supposed to be lifted out of existence by the ever increasing enlightened view. How naive this was. It assumed that everyone in the world would be devotees of Locke, Hume, et al. If anything, outside of the Anglosphere plus a few other places, the actual trend has been the opposite, toward despotism. Instead of all boats being lifted by Fukuyamaian and (TL) Friedmanian Flat Worldism and Freakanomics, the race to the bottom has coarsened us all, as we abandoned our standards one by one to deal with Mandarins and Cheiftans on the other side of the world. It has failed. It is time to take care of our own people and land.

Awhile back I mentioned a book that predicted the end of globalism. Sorry, I don't recall the title or author. I do recall that the book predicted that countries would simply dump the rules. (the sort of WTO rules they now hypocritically disregard.) We may expect countries to seek bilateral deals to secure their interests, and likely the rise of protectionism.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

It is time to take care of our own people and land.

In a USA primed for an Internal Crisis, I can see this viewpoint as easy to sell. By politicians of any background.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Recession?

I actually see the exact opposite happening.

So do I. But suppose I am wrong and there is a recession in 2015. My point is this could be a good thing for the Blue side. Sooner or later we are going to get one. The last thing we would want is to elect yet another Democratic president with a Republican House who will block everything she does, and then have a downturn begin that Democrats are powerless to address. Yet that is all too likely

Originally Posted by TimWalker

In a USA primed for an Internal Crisis, I can see this viewpoint as easy to sell. By politicians of any background.

Eric, our board's resident astrologer, has predicted the current environment of seemingly endless stalemate and societal malaise most likely lingers well into the turn of the next decade. This then gives us time to think over election results and what has been said or not said. Some disagreements may still persist. Sometimes it's a matter of wording. Might ask a question of all member on board, and that is: How are you feeling at this point, especially in relation to your future? What's really worth it to you? These last two questions take on increasing importance following the political onslaught of yesterday. It may be time we slow down the pace and put our attention to getting things done. Then we'll see where we're at.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is a worldwide issue, not just here. The EU is having the same discussion, as is Japan and Australia. Even China seems to be retrenching to a more classical economic stand. Either we are being subject to mass hysteria, and seeing the same boogeymen everywhere, or the state of the world has changed enough to evoke a degree of cautious behavior that is self defeating. I'm going with option #2.

I doubt it is either of those things. I believe one can find the answer like one does in most things political, cui bono?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Eric, our board's resident astrologer, has predicted the current environment of seemingly endless stalemate and societal malaise most likely lingers well into the turn of the next decade. This then gives us time to think over election results and what has been said or not said. Some disagreements may still persist. Sometimes it's a matter of wording. Might ask a question of all member on board, and that is: How are you feeling at this point, especially in relation to your future? What's really worth it to you? These last two questions take on increasing importance following the political onslaught of yesterday. It may be time we slow down the pace and put our attention to getting things done. Then we'll see where we're at.

I endorse the motion to " slow down the pace" and wait for some data. The speculation by many looks to me like a mirror image of the speculation from the 'Right' after the election of President Obama.
In my opinion, the USA is not on the brink of dictatorship. It would help if we could foster and encourage dialogue without so much inflamatory rhetoric.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Awhile back I mentioned a book that predicted the end of globalism. Sorry, I don't recall the title or author. I do recall that the book predicted that countries would simply dump the rules. (the sort of WTO rules they now hypocritically disregard.) We may expect countries to seek bilateral deals to secure their interests, and likely the rise of protectionism.

Globalism is hard in hard times. The following is an update on the European Union.

Traveling Through Multiple Europes

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/trave...#axzz3I3KISQEw

…”Poland was a country confident about its economic strength but worried about its future. History has given the Poles a deep understanding of geopolitics and too many reasons to be worried about the events beyond their borders. I visited Warsaw a few days before the arrival of U.S. President Barack Obama. The excitement caused by his visit was a confirmation of Poland's strategy of developing closer ties with the United States to help it cope with a politically fragmented European Union and a hesitant NATO. The Poles are proud of being members of the European Union, but they are not completely confident that Brussels will come to their rescue should the crisis with Russia escalate.”…

…”Europeanists believe that things would be much better if the European Union became a true federation. They are probably right. The question is how to accomplish this. As Germany learned during its unification in the 1870s and confirmed during its reunification in the 1990s, building a large united political unity out of smaller entities requires the redistribution of money and power. But what should come first, money or reforms? The European Union is currently seeing the worst of both worlds: A monetary union without a fiscal union. In other words, it has sovereign states that don’t control their currencies and supranational institutions that don’t control fiscal policy.”…

Belgium has rioting taking place right now over economics. Russia news reports and cable networks are covering it too.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I doubt it is either of those things. I believe one can find the answer like one does in most things political, cui bono?

Is there a difference, or more precisely, a conflict? We have a very top-heavy control regime in place worldwide. We know who benefits by who makes the decisions. The real difference today is the lack of any coherent opposition, which I lay at the universal decline of the press. Those who follow events closely have two choices: use the press that exists, and assume bias, incompetence or both, or use informal vehicles like this one, and assume that amateurs are better. Neither leads to an informed public, just a more easily manipulated and less cohesive one.

It's hard to be a threat to the PTB if 'we the people' are disorganized and poorly informed.

Originally Posted by radind

I endorse the motion to " slow down the pace" and wait for some data. The speculation by many looks to me like a mirror image of the speculation from the 'Right' after the election of President Obama.
In my opinion, the USA is not on the brink of dictatorship. It would help if we could foster and encourage dialogue without so much inflammatory rhetoric.

I assume little will be accomplished, with the notable exception of even less restricted trade. And of course, that's worked so well for us in the past.

Since we're already well down the 'flat earth' path, more of the same won't make a huge difference.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Belgium has rioting taking place right now over economics. Russia news reports and cable networks are covering it too.

The EU is a captive of its most powerful member: Germany. If New York and California treated Mississippi the same way Germany treats Italy or Greece, Mississippi would be totally bankrupt ... and kept that way.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Belgium has rioting taking place right now over economics. Russia news reports and cable networks are covering it too.

Interestingly, US media, e.g. MSN has NOTHING. Google results how NOTHING on this subject. RT has it as a headline. Telling. Very Telling.

Originally Posted by radind

I endorse the motion to " slow down the pace" and wait for some data. The speculation by many looks to me like a mirror image of the speculation from the 'Right' after the election of President Obama.
In my opinion, the USA is not on the brink of dictatorship. It would help if we could foster and encourage dialogue without so much inflamatory rhetoric.

They way things seem to me, I want more flames.

Originally Posted by noway2

Interestingly, US media, e.g. MSN has NOTHING. Google results how NOTHING on this subject. RT has it as a headline. Telling. Very Telling.

Foreign news is much less censored these days especially in regard to USA news. BBC, aljezera(no clue on the correct spelling), Russia media too.

Originally Posted by noway2

Interestingly, US media, e.g. MSN has NOTHING. Google results how NOTHING on this subject. RT has it as a headline. Telling. Very Telling.

Russia hates the EU / "Old Europe" even more than certain American extremists do.

There won't be a recession in 2015 unless the Republicans create one.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

Foreign news is much less censored these days especially in regard to USA news. BBC, aljezera(no clue on the correct spelling), Russia media too.

Horse pucky. USA news just reports on what people are interested in.

A baby bump on a Kardasian is going to be covered more quickly and for longer than any passe Euro-street mob action.