I think many people have had it with the Bushes (and their cousin Obama). Time for a real change. I don't expect Jeb to go far. If the GOP is feeling warm and fuzzy they'll promote the Huckster, if not, then maybe Jindal.Originally Posted by Dave 89
Rand Paul appears to be getting ready for a run too. He's changing his views to meet more mainstream GOP views.
"The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now with somebody and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives." - Hunter S Thompson
The Empire is Decadent and Depraved
I like that song, and what I was thinking of was this:
Somehow, people are just not getting the word. It's hard for people to hear the truth through the blizzard of Citizens United, not to mention fear, habit and prejudice. Some people just can't be reached. Their minds are locked. So, we're headed for trouble. People will get what they voted for, or refused to vote about; a good whackin'.
Jonesers are demonstrably the most reliable Republican group. Expect little good to come from them as an electoral bloc.Not needed. An easier way is an easier familial relationship.
Jonesers = parents/aunts/uncles of midwave millies.
There's also an economic tie in. Jonesers came of age with that very nasty early 1980's double dip recession.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-12-2014 at 01:32 AM.
Only available to subscribers.
I think we'd better settle for a centrist this time. Some of you guys don't seem to understand just how far we've fallen into the ditch. The best we can hope for from Amerika is a centrist. Your demand for a true-blue progressive or peacenik is going to plunge Amerika into a darkness from which it will never recover. We will have a choice in Nov.2016 between mediocre and terrible. We'd better choose mediocre. Good just doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell with this electorate, as Tuesday Nov.4's election and Nov. 2010's election should demonstrate beyond all doubt.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-12-2014 at 01:29 AM.
Is there a party available to you that you or Dave would vote for?
Good wasn't running, and even the mediocre ran poorly - choosing to be not-Obama as their central platform issue.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Do you think if a "good" candidate ran, that he could win with this electorate? Even in 2016?
I doubt it strongly.
And the voters should be informed enough to know what the parties stand for, regardless of what these voters are told during one campaign.
Given the informational sewage that comprises the MSM and the plethora of echo chambers on the InterWebs, I'm not even sure how someone who WANTS to be informed can be so.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."
I mentioned the Millie dislike of Hillary in a post on Democratic Underground and about half the posters were the usual Boomers and Xers screaming at us ande calling us lazy, it was depressing.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Yes, but they are not born civics. They are made into civics by their experiences during the 4T. It's not an identity they choose, its something they become because they have to. With a crisis start in 2008, as I believe, Kepi's cohort won't end up as Millennials, they are simply too old. They have some of the pre-crisis traits of Civics as well as some of the nomad traits. But their experiences of the 4T will be as people in their 30's and 40's, after they have formed their ideas on how the world works. It will still affect their thinking, but the effect with be filtered through a belief system that reflects considerable experience with the pre-crisis world. Those a decade or two younger will not have those experiences. Anyone who was old enough to vote when 911 happened is not going to be a Millie when the dust settles.
You lived through a social moment. The nation heaved with unrest. Massive waves of rioting. Strikes, student demonstrations, subversive groups and domestic terrorism. It shows up statistically. I was not old enough to comprehend the violence of the 1960's, you were so you can comment on what the 1960's and early 1970's felt like from an adult perspective. My sense of the data is that Bob Dylan was making a commentary on the scene as he experienced with his lyrics "the times they are a-changing". Based on what I think I know about the period, hope was mixed with anger and acting out. My sense of the youth today is more like my own reaction to the trends of the last four decades, resignation complete with the pragmatic pursuit of individual solutions (i.e. what I did).
The paper suggests a new round may be happened now, but this is entirely as a result of what are called rampages, things like spree shootings commit by one or a small number of individual acts. If you take these things out, which I think are a different thing because of the small number of participants, there is not rising trend in unrest in recent decades. I'm working on a paper on this topic, but I will be including events that do not involve casualties in my analysis.
The structure of a 4T is very different from a 2T. A 2T arises from a response of people that comes from new concepts, that is why S&H call then awakenings. A 4T comes from the external world that acts on society in an irritating way. The irritation continues and gains in strength until society must scratch it. We are at the irritation point, but the scratching hasn't really started yet. Assuming the irritation is largely economic in nature, one can insulate oneself with an asset barrier. If you are rich, but not so rich as to be a target, then you can largely ride out an economic crisis quite well. Not everyone is rich, and so they will be less insulated. After scratching themselves bloody they will eventually have to get serious about the irritation and apply a corrective agent.
I just don't think either side has common sense or is really working in people's interests. This can be seen with the Bush family and how they wrecked things. Republicans and Democrats make rules that combine to make life worse.
As for your other question, I think voting for candidate is better than voting for party.
I think a lot of people making the restrictions on the left act like they are in the interest of the people but really they just get in the way.
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=211813059809
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...eless-shelters
Many homeless people are without enough food because of these laws and regulations based on what is "good for people". The problem is they think they know people better than themselves. Emergencies are not a time to push regulations like that.
It seems crazy and irrational to push food regulations when the people are starving. Today's politicians seem to act like we're in a 3T and sometimes even a 2T. It's an emergency situation and there shouldn't be pushing of regulations that get in the way of people getting by. It's like not letting people escape a sinking ship because their clothes aren't warm enough according to some arbitrary rules. Neither political party seems to acknowledge that this is a crisis.
Last edited by decadeologist101; 11-13-2014 at 11:55 AM.
According to Elizabeth Warren, just appointed by Harry Reid as Strategic Policy Advisor to the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, her "work" is "to fight for kids who are being crushed by student loan debt. Working moms and dads struggling to make it on minimum wage. Seniors who depend solely on their Social Security checks to keep a roof over their heads. And all of us who just want a level playing field and a fighting chance to succeed."
I think it's pretty clear which side is which.
Possibly, but voters need to understand that voting Republican in congressional elections means a vote for Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, and voting Democratic means a vote for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.As for your other question, I think voting for candidate is better than voting for party.
I can't agree with that. For example, requiring that beverage companies make smaller bottles available, instead of allowing companies to only make huge bottles available, as Bloomberg proposed, is improving the nourishment and health of the people. It has nothing to do with starvation. If people are starving, they need real food anyway, not coke or pepsi. Not that these drinks should be outlawed. But complaining and opposing regulations that force companies to be responsible instead of exploiting people, is nonsense, and obscures the fact that Democrats are making life better and Republicans are making life worse-- which is demonstrably the case.I think a lot of people making the restrictions on the left act like they are in the interest of the people but really they just get in the way.
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=211813059809
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...eless-shelters
Many homeless people are without enough food because of these laws and regulations based on what is "good for people". The problem is they think they know people better than themselves. Emergencies are not a time to push regulations like that.
It seems crazy and irrational to push food regulations when the people are starving. Today's politicians seem to act like we're in a 3T and sometimes even a 2T. It's an emergency situation and there shouldn't be pushing of regulations that get in the way of people getting by. It's like not letting people escape a sinking ship because their clothes aren't warm enough according to some arbitrary rules. Neither political party seems to acknowledge that this is a crisis.
As far as Bloomberg banning donations to homeless shelters in 2012, Bloomberg is not a Democrat anyway, that was not a "progressive" or Democratic proposal, and NY has a new progressive Democratic mayor now.
Younger people are going to need to stop falling for this obfuscation and deceit. One side is better than the other. The better side is going to need to win, and people are going to have to choose. They are also going to need to organize themselves and act as virtually their own government, rather than just voting once every 4 years and thinking this is enough to bring the needed action.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-13-2014 at 03:39 PM.
I think they can be informed just fine, if they want to be. PBS has a lot of good information. Even the MSM News is good enough to get the basic facts of what happens, if you watch the excellent report by Scott Pelley on CBS (probably not the ABC exploitation racket). News from the internet is available; just google it. Ask any question and answers come up from which you can sort and choose. There's lots more available there than echo chambers. Pacifica Radio and Democracy Now are available too, if you want the Left's perspective beyond the corporate MSM.
Republicans are not waiting to try to steal the 2016 election. They are proposing to reward electoral votes in mid-west blue states by congressional district.
As if you didn't know, Republicans own most of these districts through gerrymandering, and many were also ceded to them by people who didn't vote. That would be a great way for them to put Jeb Bush in the White House. That's two thefts in the Bush.
Welcome to the new America, a plutocratic oligarchy in which nobody other than the super-rich has any significance in the political order and may have at best a precarious role in the economic order.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 11-14-2014 at 01:30 AM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Dollars do not know how to shoot, and the richest man in the world cannot fend off a Kh-55 armed with a 1MT warhead.
You either have a message or you don't. If you don't, then someone else has the freedom to assign one to you. Since the Democrats decided to have no message, they got the GOP version, and it stuck. Would a better message have worked better? I believe so, but it's hard to know at this point. The feckless behavior of Democrats running his year was nearly universal.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Is the California version of this nice and dead now? Back in the mid-2000s I thought I heard that conservatives there were trying to get this on the ballot as an initiative. As bad as it would be for the Midwest, if it happened in California it would be game over for the Dems for a long time.
No, Democrats, though they lost their veto-proof majority by one seat in the Assembly this month, they still have a strong majority in both houses of the legislature, plus a Democratic governor. No such scheme has a chance here in CA. Such an initiative would not pass either, and is not being proposed. But the concern is how many purple and blue states now under ruthless Republican control might be forced into this because of the gerrymandered Republican districts created in those states after 2010, mainly because of the failure of poorer ethnic groups and younger voters to vote that year.
Changing to congressional districts would still mean a substantial Democratic electoral vote majority in CA in these times, since those districts are not gerrymandered in CA. Such a change to vote-by-district nationwide might be good, but only if the districts are no longer gerrymandered in any state.
It could happen though, which would mean that in elections such as 2030, as in 2010, Republicans would have a majority in congress for a decade, and probably win every presidential election for a decade too as a result. Conversely, in 2020 the Democrats would have at least a shot at locking up both elections for the decade. In other words, a congressional midterm would have the potential to decide the presidential election too.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-14-2014 at 04:27 PM.
It's the voters' fault if they decide their vote based on one campaign. It's their fault if they don't know they are voting (or abstaining from voting) primarily for which party controls congress, not for a candidate. It's their fault if they don't know the critical issues right now, and which party is right on them. These issues have been stated to people over and over. A TV ad should not be able to sway them from what they already know. If people are swayed and bought by TV ads purchased by the Koch Brothers, it is their fault.
Whoever is in power, will have the most weapons, and will most likely win the civil war.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-14-2014 at 04:28 PM.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...ius_cicero.htm
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-14-2014 at 07:36 PM.
One perspective. However, Clinton still looks strong to me and the GOP has yet to identify an attractive, viable candidate.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/obama...#axzz3JLqPMRF7
if we follow historical patterns, Obama will now proceed slowly and ineffectively to increase military operations in Syria and Iraq, while raising non-military pressure on Russia, or potentially initiating some low-level military activities in Ukraine. The actions will be designed to achieve a rapid negotiating process that will not happen. The presidency will shift to the other party, as it did with Truman, Johnson and George W. Bush. Thus, if patterns hold true, the Republicans will retake the presidency. This is not a pattern unknown to Congress, which means that the Democrats in the legislature will focus on running their own campaigns as far away from Obama and the next Democratic presidential candidate as possible.
This is where we strongly disagree. The responsibility to frame and promote a vision fails uniquely on the political parties. The GOP is dong a great job selling an impossible fantasy. But the Dems have countered that with nothing, so the fantasy reigns. This is how politics works.
People may not understand policy, but they are intuitive about other people. Weak-kneed politicians don't win. No one wants to be lead by a wimpy whiner. So the Dems need a positive and, more to the point, strong message. Right now, they don't have even the shadow of one. History shows that, given an option, the electorate will chose a strong despicable leader over a weak but otherwise good one. They may regret it later, but later isn't now.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 11-18-2014 at 10:45 AM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
2016 grenade to be thrown this week
And on top of this, the 2016 electorate will have 2% less White males over 65 voting than in 2012 - just by demographics
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...e-whirlwind--5
"that latter group [pro-immigration] has far more 'drop-off' or occasional voters"Reaping the Whirlwind
Today we're busily asking when President Obama will drop the immigration executive action hammer and whether Republicans will reply with screeching, government shutdowning or just getting it over with and finally impeaching President Obama. Indeed, this piece in Slate argues that the whole thing isn't as big a deal as it's cracked up to be since whatever President Obama does it's just as easy to undo when he leaves office in January 2017.
But this, I think, misses the point. That's exactly why this is such a big deal. Because if you think this is an explosive issue now, just wait until 2016.
Let's start with a few assumptions and see where they lead.
1) Let's assume, as numerous reports now suggest, that President Obama will issue one or more executive orders that effectively legalize roughly 5 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States.
2) Republicans have already put a huge amount of energy behind the notion that this is not only bad policy but likely also an unconstitutional action and impeachable offense.
3) Given that President Obama almost certainly will do this and the red lines Republicans have put down, it is virtually certain that any 2016 Republican nominee will have to run on undoing this executive order when he or she gets to the White House.
Now, this doesn't mean a notional Republican president in 2017 is going to round up all 5 million people and deport them or force march them over the Mexican border. Indeed, I strongly suspect, after whatever outrage can be reaped is reaped, GOP elites will want the whole issue to go away.
But I don't think the internal dynamics of GOP primaries or post-primaries will allow that to happen.
Now let's work this through.
If there are 5 million people who are affected by this order, the number of people who either have family ties to these individuals or affective relationships with them is much larger. I don't know if it's 15 million or 20 million or 40 million. But it's a lot more than 5 million people who will feel acutely the fate of these people hanging in the balance with the 2016 election. And advocates on both sides of the immigration divide, deporters and pro-immigrant activists will press the issue throughout the 2016 cycle. The 5 million affected can't vote and won't be able to for years. But many family members, friends, community members and employers can.
Yes, these people have been waiting for years to be able to come out of the shadows. But it's one thing to wait and another to come out of the shadows and then be forced to retreat into the darkness, with a perhaps heightened risk of deportation and family separation.
It all adds up to an intense and likely toxic campaign fracas in which a lot of people will have a unique and intense motivation to vote. That [b]will apply to people on both sides of course. But the anti-immigration voters vote consistently almost every cycle. And as intense as your animus is toward undocumented immigrants, it's hard for it to compare to the motivation of voters who directly know someone who will be affected. And that latter group has far more 'drop-off' or occasional voters.
This isn't getting mentioned a lot right now. But behind the headlines I suspect it's one of the key reasons Republican elites are upset that this might happen: because it's an electoral grenade dropped right into the heart of the 2016 campaign.
- sounds a lot like Texas as well as Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Florida and maybe even Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service
Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke
"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman
If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
