Originally Posted by herbal tee

Just a few days ago I heard someone talking about this. I don't know what the guys name was, but he was from NYC and he pointed out that he knew that the Occupy movement of 2011 wasn't going to really change anything because they applied their tactics to the wrong targets. Specifically, he went to one of the general assembies and suggested that instead of just protesting Wall Street they take that protest down to the local Democratic Party headquarters.
He pointed out that the banksters of Wall Street fond it all amusing but not threatening nor an opportunity. For the Democrats a mass movement that gains traction would be BOTH a threat and an opportunity.

Quite so.

If we are entering a new Gilded Age blunting and eventually reversing the effects of the official program is going to take sustained organization and activism. And a lot of that activism is going to have to be within the system. We didn't get from the Gilded Age to the Progressive Era by the masses remaining disorganized the first time, and we won't now either.

Yes indeed, you are correct. I think there's a chance we'll get there at the end of this 4T. It doesn't look good now, but remember we are still in the 1850s/1930s redux. We'll have to go through the 4T before we can say for sure what the new 1T will be like.

All a third party will do in our ''winner take all'' system is enable the Republicans to win elections that they should not be able to win. Until and unless we ever get to the point where an electoral system friendly to a multi party system is enacted this will remain an immutable truth of American politics.

So it appears.

A progressive faction in America is going to need to learn how to be strategic, and to understand how the system works. An unorganized mob (e.g. Occupy Movement; riots over police behavior) achieves little beyond "changing the conversation" for a little while.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

And you have fallen hook line and sinker for the false dichotomy of Republican v. Democrat. You stupidly demonize one party as the cause of all our troubles when really it is simply the more overt evildoer of the two. You cannot conceive of a system in which both parties are no good, because little in American history points to it: perhaps you should look abroad in Latin America for when this happens, as the echoes and current American politics are chilling. Like Latin America, as I have said multiple times, neither party represents the people of the United States. If you do not believe me, Go take a look at the issues Pew Research polls for. Most Americans want reinvestment in infrastructure. Most Americans want a review of the tax code and the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Support for Obama care is rising, as is support for some form of socialized medicine, especially among the young, a trend that has not changed in 10 years.


Now go take a look at C-SPAN and get out a pad. Realize that at any time any senator, one out of 100, could propose a bill with wide public support;it could be any one of these issues. There is absolute silence on the floor of Congress. I think you want to believe that continually voting for the lesser of two evils is a solution, but please excuse me: I have watched my elders try that tactic since I was a very small girl and it never made anything better. At best, you had one party become evil in slow motion and the other just become evil point blank. At best, you got politicians on one side of the aisle far too willing to negotiate in the hopes that a small piece of legislation would get through, when what was needed was all of it.( I am 32 now. I have watched in horror as Congress piddle twiddles and resolves over issues brought up when I was 12, to borrow a phrase from the play 1776.) And year after year, the choice of candidates at election time slowly got worse and worse. each election cycle featured the next politician being slightly more evil than the last one up for office. And each time, my elders told me to hold my nose.

it never occurrs to them that instead we should be demanding much more of our elected officials and a much greater say in who stands for office. It doesn't occur to them that in this sick game of red team versus blue team where it's all the fault of the other team is a flop, fraud, a failure. The only way justice will truly be done is by holding both red and blue team accountable for their crimes and for their corruption. Even if it means replacing both of them as national entities, accountability must be restored, and the people's voice must be heard after 30 years of being ignored. Both Republican and Democratic parties emerged in their current form at the end of the 19th century. We live in the 21st. Just waiting for the Republicans to implode might not be enough. It would still leave us with the Democrats.

PS – this has happened before in history, although not American history. It was also a crisis. You may remember a little fight between the Yorkists and Lancastrians. Neither side was truly fit to rule. And neither side recognized their own avarice. It took a whole new generation to stop the madness, one that had grown up in the shadow of their parents bickering like the Hatfields and the McCoys and tearing up England as a result. Henry Tudor was never supposed to be much of anything except a minor Earl with with a Welsh father but every time the wheel of fortune turned, no matter what happened, no matter if the white rose or the red rose won, it always affected Henry and members of his generation adversely. (look at poor Elizabeth of York: her mother was a nut and had a knack for pissing off every courtier she ever met, not to mention she had extravagant tastes that belied her inability in accounting skills. It is also possible that Henry hearing of the plot to have her wed to Richard and subsequently going into a rage is true, since Henry would have known her prior to his leaving England as a little girl, a tiny cute princess, and this crookback freak probably was wearing her father Edward's old robes while leering at Elizabeth, so hungry for power that little details, such as the fact that Elizabeth was his niece, didn't matter to him.)

Naturally they finally got tired of it and though they got support from disaffected others, they led the way to final victory, ultimately replacing both the Yorkists and Lancastrians. King Henry VII went to work and got rid of the old order with a lot of his friends from Bosworth and most often sent the Idealist archetype packing, literally in the case of Elizabeth Woodville.

Regarding your third paragraph, should we take a page out of the Chicago Bears playbook? We all have the power to fire our representatives, and in two years Obama will be out anyway.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I never said the Dems will save us, of course (Odin can't read, I guess). It is up to us to save the Dems. Only then can the Dems save us; if we the people ARE the Dems. The Reps are beyond saving.

I don't want to save the Dems. The Democrats are a Capitalist Party, just like the Republicans. They are part of the system, and I am against the system. Hillary will tell you everything you want to hear and then when she is in office she will be a good little tool of her corporate owners. The party establishment will never let Warren or Sanders be nominated, and Dems who threaten the system end up having convenient "scandals", like Dean's scream or Weiner's dick pics, that makes them politically impotent, the voters are not actually allowed a real choice.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And the people of America are not smart enough to support a progressive third party.

That is so elitist it's disgusting. Par for the course for somebody who thinks the spiritual elitism of Gnosticism is all fine and dandy.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So what, Mr. Kunstler thinks any 3rd party will do? Just break up the system, that will do the trick? No, only breaking up the old ideologies will do the trick. Then it doesn't matter what the party labels are.

I can't speak for Kunstler, but voting is not going to change anything unless there is the threat of violent revolution. FDR was only allowed to "save the Capitalists from themselves" because the alternative was them hanging from lampposts.

I'm a member of the Socialist Alternative Party, if you wanted to know.

I'm a member of the Socialist Alternative Party, if you wanted to know.

How would a centrally planned economy plan for everyone's needs and wants? How will the needs of the individual be served? I believe in unions for higher wages and more benefits but don't believe in centrally planned economies.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I never said the Dems will save us, of course (Odin can't read, I guess). It is up to us to save the Dems. Only then can the Dems save us; if we the people ARE the Dems. The Reps are beyond saving. And the people of America are not smart enough to support a progressive third party...

Just a few days ago I heard someone talking about this. I don't know what the guys name was, but he was from NYC and he pointed out that he knew that the Occupy movement of 2011 wasn't going to really change anything because they applied their tactics to the wrong targets. Specifically, he went to one of the general assembies and suggested that instead of just protesting Wall Street they take that protest down to the local Democratic Party headquarters.

He pointed out that the banksters of Wall Street found it all amusing but not threatening nor an opportunity. For the Democrats a mass movement that gains traction would be BOTH a threat and an opportunity.

If we are entering a new Gilded Age blunting and eventually reversing the effects of the official program is going to take sustained organization and activism. And a lot of that activism is going to have to be within the system. We didn't get from the Gilded Age to the Progressive Era by the masses remaining disorganized the first time, and we won't now either.

The real problem with this: are we even close to angry enough? Yes, folks like us who pay attention and actually give a damn are there ... have been there for a long time. But a quick perusal of the national electorate shows quite the opposite. Suburbanites are OK, and have more fear of going backwards due to change than they do of decline due to oligarchy - assuming they are even aware that it exists. Progressive urbanites are clustered in urban districts, so their votes have minimal impact on selecting the House - where the money bills originate. We just had an election where the electorate favored progressive policies ... many by wide margins. Then, they voted for the party least likely to affect change.

So I'm betting against anger, and strongly for apathy.

Originally Posted by HT ...

Originally Posted by Eric ...

So what, Mr. Kunstler thinks any 3rd party will do? Just break up the system, that will do the trick? No, only breaking up the old ideologies will do the trick. Then it doesn't matter what the party labels are.

All a third party will do in our ''winner take all'' system is enable the Republicans to win elections that they should not be able to win. Until and unless we ever get to the point where an electoral system friendly to a multi party system is enacted this will remain an immutable truth of American politics.

The Whigs were displaced by being the kind of party that the Democrats are today. Let's say that it becomes obvious that Bush v. Clinton is puke-worthy, and getting moreso by the day. Would a 3rd-party challenge by someone like Elizabeth Warren alter the outcome? I doubt she could win, but insurgents are never expected to win. But enough anger might tilt the results. Bush would win, but it may devastate the DNC Democrats.

If the results for Clinton and the Dems are bad enough, that may be a good thing in the long run. The GOP will get four years (two at a minimum) to make good or tank the country. If the former, then we've all been blowing smoke (though I doubt it). If the latter, then real change might be possible in 2018 and 2020. I think Mary Kate '82 hit it on the nose. Trying to be less Republican is a loser. The Millennials will be put off even more than they currently are, and they are the future.

Originally Posted by decadeologist101

How would a centrally planned economy plan for everyone's needs and wants? How will the needs of the individual be served? I believe in unions for higher wages and more benefits but don't believe in centrally planned economies.

Socialism =/= centrally planned economy. Marxist-Leninist communism is more in line with that, but even then, there is some room for diversity.

Originally Posted by decadeologist101

How would a centrally planned economy plan for everyone's needs and wants? How will the needs of the individual be served? I believe in unions for higher wages and more benefits but don't believe in centrally planned economies.

How does a giant super-corporation like IBM know what all its offices and departments need?

The notion that "central planning doesn't work" is falsified by the fact that it works every day in large, multinational institutions.

Originally Posted by Odin

How does a giant super-corporation like IBM know what all its offices and departments need?

The notion that "central planning doesn't work" is falsified by the fact that it works every day in large, multinational institutions.

The simple answer is that a large company like IBM doesn't know what all of its offices and departments need. Once a company reaches a certain size it tends to reach a critical mass where it will simply run even in spite of itself (that is, it will run on the internal/external bureaucracies). This will happen pretty much regardless of the power structure and the business decisions that are made.

Most executive level members know and accept this. These days, rather than make rational or functional decisions within the business, they make decisions that will impact stock prices. In other words they play the market, not the business. The business is simply something that they stamp on a tax form and gives them input/outputs for things to play around with like cash flow and inventory.

Mega-corps are not centrally planned. They operate more like an organism; they are born, grow bigger, grow up, grow old and die. The nervous system is barely aware of any of this or even why it is happening.

It's actually quite remarkable to watch it operate in this manner.

Originally Posted by Odin

How does a giant super-corporation like IBM know what all its offices and departments need?

The notion that "central planning doesn't work" is falsified by the fact that it works every day in large, multinational institutions.

There are many small businesses out there that attend to people's individual needs. Central planning would kill the small business and try to force square pegs into round holes.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

The simple answer is that a large company like IBM doesn't know what all of its offices and departments need. Once a company reaches a certain size it tends to reach a critical mass where it will simply run even in spite of itself (that is, it will run on the internal/external bureaucracies). This will happen pretty much regardless of the power structure and the business decisions that are made.

Most executive level members know and accept this. These days, rather than make rational or functional decisions within the business, they make decisions that will impact stock prices. In other words they play the market, not the business. The business is simply something that they stamp on a tax form and gives them input/outputs for things to play around with like cash flow and inventory.

Mega-corps are not centrally planned. They operate more like an organism; they are born, grow bigger, grow up, grow old and die. The nervous system is barely aware of any of this or even why it is happening.

It's actually quite remarkable to watch it operate in this manner.

If you were taken to a casino and were told you could take home your wins and all your losses would be compensated, wouldn't you act riskier? The same concept applies here. It's because the losses are all compensated.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The real problem with this: are we even close to angry enough? Yes, folks like us who pay attention and actually give a damn are there ... have been there for a long time. But a quick perusal of the national electorate shows quite the opposite. Suburbanites are OK, and have more fear of going backwards due to change than they do of decline due to oligarchy - assuming they are even aware that it exists. Progressive urbanites are clustered in urban districts, so their votes have minimal impact on selecting the House - where the money bills originate. We just had an election where the electorate favored progressive policies ... many by wide margins. Then, they voted for the party least likely to affect change.

So I'm betting against anger, and strongly for apathy.



The Whigs were displaced by being the kind of party that the Democrats are today. Let's say that it becomes obvious that Bush v. Clinton is puke-worthy, and getting moreso by the day. Would a 3rd-party challenge by someone like Elizabeth Warren alter the outcome? I doubt she could win, but insurgents are never expected to win. But enough anger might tilt the results. Bush would win, but it may devastate the DNC Democrats.

If the results for Clinton and the Dems are bad enough, that may be a good thing in the long run. The GOP will get four years (two at a minimum) to make good or tank the country. If the former, then we've all been blowing smoke (though I doubt it). If the latter, then real change might be possible in 2018 and 2020. I think Mary Kate '82 hit it on the nose. Trying to be less Republican is a loser. The Millennials will be put off even more than they currently are, and they are the future.

I never argued for being Republican lite. I hate GOP lite. It is a loser. But the idea that the Occupy strategy of disengagement from the system is going to somehow cause the elite to take notice and act to address problems is foolish. The only signal demographic groups who have very low voter turnouts like single women send is that the politicians don't have to account for them at all.
And yes, the national Democratic party seems worse than useless at times. If anyone wanted a clue if the idea of running on mostly feminist issues was going to turn the 2014 midterm they could have studied the Virginia election of 2013. Terry Mac was supposed to win in a ten point landslide. As it turned out the black precincts of Richmond and Norfolk barely pulled him over the line. But in 2014 the party establishment chose to run the Pat Schroder campaign of 1988 a quarter century after it was proven ineffective the only time it was tried. See the re election campaign of Colorado Senator Mark Uterus, I mean Mark Udall.
I don't see a good short or midterm. By undoing Dodd-Frank we have set our economy up for another crash. It would be better to be totally out of power when it hits. Who knows, maybe the Dems. are playing a long game. But I doubt it. The country was primed for New Deal 2.0 in early 2009 and the Obama crew did everything to make sure things didn't go in that direction.
I don't think they've learned much beyond how to refight the culture war with different buzzwords since then. At least that's what the evidence is telling me.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If Eric the green and Pbrower is true to their principles, they will oppose the GOP in all elections. Therefore I no doubts of that I would eventually succeed In converting them to restorationism. Eric and Pbrower would ultimately become future Restorationist voters is that was the only viable alternative to GOP rule.

Restorationism has bigger problems.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Restorationism has bigger problems.

I concur with Cynic Hero on the need to return to classical objectives in education, at the least for our future leaders. Our economic, technical, cultural, and professional elites must relearn virtues consistent with decent treatment of the rest of humanity lest those elites go bad and destroy the strengths that we now take for granted. Although capitalism can thrive with the proles acting with unabashed greed and hedonism (why else would anyone work on an assembly line or in a mine?), the elites cannot do so without becoming oppressors. The blatant luxury of elites implies deprivation of everyone else, and such is hardly good for domestic tranquility. We need leaders capable of refusing to do horrible things to helpless people lest life become miserable instead of the ones that we now have, people as addicted to class privilege and its accoutrements as dopers addicted to heroin.

Cinic Hero believes in one luxury that America cannot afford: helots.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The real problem with this: are we even close to angry enough? Yes, folks like us who pay attention and actually give a damn are there ... have been there for a long time. But a quick perusal of the national electorate shows quite the opposite. Suburbanites are OK, and have more fear of going backwards due to change than they do of decline due to oligarchy - assuming they are even aware that it exists. Progressive urbanites are clustered in urban districts, so their votes have minimal impact on selecting the House - where the money bills originate. We just had an election where the electorate favored progressive policies ... many by wide margins. Then, they voted for the party least likely to affect change.

So I'm betting against anger, and strongly for apathy.

Anger and impotence create despair. Let the Reactionary Party consolidate full control of America in 2017, and America will be a plutocratic, pro-fundamentalist mirror image of the Soviet Union. Foreigners visiting on cheap holidays will see the image of a broken people living off their pasts once they go beyond the urban "cultural center", the National Park, and the ski slope priced out of the budget of Americans other than the super-rich. Resorts will be the best places to work for singles because they will offer opportunities for meeting foreigners who might get a risky opportunity to throw themselves at foreign singles. So it's cheaper due to ultra-cheap labor in America to ski in Colorado than in Switzerland... problem solved.

It would not be long before the warning that one amateur critic said of visiting African countries will apply to America: sadness will follow you everywhere.

The United States can be as isolated from the political trends of the rest of the word as any country once the ruling elite clamps down. Most people will be priced out of buying reading material of any kind, and what passes for the middle class or those kids who still think they have a chance due to their political activism on behalf of the Party will know enough to cling to the narrow list of permitted reading, music, and video. The children of the ruling class will be the vilest brats and snobs in the world. Preach or teach something that the ruling elite dislikes and you may end up in a workplace that is part sweat shop and part concentration camp.

The Right claims to stand for freedom -- but it is freedom for the few and command for the rest.

The Whigs were displaced by being the kind of party that the Democrats are today. Let's say that it becomes obvious that Bush v. Clinton is puke-worthy, and getting moreso by the day. Would a 3rd-party challenge by someone like Elizabeth Warren alter the outcome? I doubt she could win, but insurgents are never expected to win. But enough anger might tilt the results. Bush would win, but it may devastate the DNC Democrats.

It's hard to put the political parties of the 19th century on the Left-Right continuum, except to say that slavery was far... WRONG! The Republican Party is going fascist. The best that we can hope for under an American fascism is something like Salazar's Portugal, the sort of place delightful to visit on a holiday but a terrible place to live. The worst... you don't want to know. In fact it would be the worst nightmare that the world could know because of the military adventurism that plutocratic oligarchies impose upon the world.

If the results for Clinton and the Dems are bad enough, that may be a good thing in the long run. The GOP will get four years (two at a minimum) to make good or tank the country. If the former, then we've all been blowing smoke (though I doubt it). If the latter, then real change might be possible in 2018 and 2020. I think Mary Kate '82 hit it on the nose. Trying to be less Republican is a loser. The Millennials will be put off even more than they currently are, and they are the future.

The Republicans will entrench themselves much as Commies did, making opposition irrelevant and futile if not subject to "ten years without right of correspondence" that ends with a summary execution. Every institution will be corrupted if it is tolerated -- even churches. Owning a small business? If the plutocrats want you to sell out your business you will get one-way travel vouchers for your family and a pittance in euros, pounds, Swiss francs, zlotys, yen... or the threat of a trip to a labor camp.

For me it might be Valium and vodka.

Brian,cforgive me, but I am more of a baseball fan. All I know about the Chicago Bears is that the Fridge was their all time best player and for a while SNL had a rabid group of fans who pretty much thought Mike Ditka was Chuck Norris. Enlighten me.

I know this all pretty well, since I was 12 But it's irrelevant; a squabble among aristocrats for power is not what our current battles are about. The country and the world is at stake. The blue side must win, and then they must be prodded and required to do the right things. Those who thought electing Obama would fix things were sadly mistaken. He needed a congress, and it needed to be kept in power, not swept out the moment the conservatives wailed. And he needed the citizens to stay active and involved. They didn't. They voted and went home, for good. That's not an America that can move forward. The equivalent upper aristocratic class of today can't fight this battle; we live in a peoples' country, and it belongs to us, if we take it back from the upper class.

The Wars of the Roses was more accurately a squabble amongst the ruling class. In many ways this is very comparable to the Culture Wars. Congress has become very badly Balkanized since the election of Ronald Reagan, coinciding largely with Boomers entering echelons of power (not to mention getting into useless debates over violence in video games and in film while institutions set up by their retired parents were starting to crumble.) Like the Lancastrians and the Yorkists, I distinctly remember people my parents age at each other's throats on television, in government, even at school over the PTA. Few did the calculus as to what kind of damage they were doing by screaming at each other, and letting institutions unravel to the point that they are almost unsalvageable now. It was not until the generation that was born to parents who had begun the Wars of the Roses came into adulthood that the deadlock was broken. People threw their support to Henry Tudor in part because his youth was an asset. He could challenge Richard III in battle and the ideas of a new generation could be introduced. Perhaps that is what shall be needed if 2016 does not improve this country's fortunes. Perhaps someone in his early 30s could challenge one of the old ancients for their seat...and win.

Sorry Odin, but total central planning will not work. What this country needs is something far more flexible. In fact, what would be best would probably be something that is a capitalist/socialist hybrid. The bigger question is going to be, for the upcoming decades, what form that will take exactly.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Restorationism has bigger problems.

That has to be the greatest and most repeated SNL line ever.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

Sorry Odin, but total central planning will not work. What this country needs is something far more flexible. In fact, what would be best would probably be something that is a capitalist/socialist hybrid. The bigger question is going to be, for the upcoming decades, what form that will take exactly.

Depends on your definition of "works". The USSR, for all it's faults, authoritarianism, and bureaucratic degeneration did not have a single recession between the mid 30s and the early 80s. That is almost 50 years of continuous economic growth

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Republicans will entrench themselves much as Commies did, making opposition irrelevant and futile if not subject to "ten years without right of correspondence" that ends with a summary execution. Every institution will be corrupted if it is tolerated -- even churches. Owning a small business? If the plutocrats want you to sell out your business you will get one-way travel vouchers for your family and a pittance in euros, pounds, Swiss francs, zlotys, yen... or the threat of a trip to a labor camp.

For me it might be Valium and vodka.

I find no basis for your projections and sincerely hope that you are wrong. For now , this is an area of opinion so I will just watch carefully as events unfold.
Happy New Year.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

... Mega-corps are not centrally planned. They operate more like an organism; they are born, grow bigger, grow up, grow old and die. The nervous system is barely aware of any of this or even why it is happening.

What interests me to watch are examples like Kodak, which totally screwed the pooch and will probably die before long, and a company like Corning, which has continually and successfully, so far, reinvented itself. Some day I might sit down and try to analyze these two and try to tease out the determining factors for their respective behaviors.

Originally Posted by radind

I find no basis for your projections and sincerely hope that your wrong. For now , this is an area of opinion so I will be watching carefully as events unfold.
Happy New Year.

I certainly hope that I am very wrong. I hope that the American people quickly becomes astute enough to reject the Authoritarian Right before it is too late. Any time after November 2016 could be far too late, with America getting its liberty back either after

(1) a political insurrection -- not to be trusted, because it could possibly be Socialist as in Russia or China, in which case one switches one bad set of masters for another.

(2) Catastrophic defeat in war, in which democracy comes a few years after the victors defeat a fascist regime. America has more economic resources than Germany and Japan combined 75 years ago and probably today... and there is an ocean between America and any major power or possible coalition of major powers.

(3) Slow rot of the political order. The Soviet Union lasted 74 years. Rule by the Communist Party of China has been intact for 65 years and it looks to be in a stronger position than the Soviet Union was in 1982. The Roman Empire, a rotten order from its inception, took over 500 years to crumble.

(4) the best scenario -- a "color" or "flower" revolution. There's a big problem with that -- private, politicized militias will stop that. The revolution that toppled Ferdinand Marcos succeeded in part because the revolutionaries had the support of the United States. South Africa, Chile, and Argentina had pariah regimes that nobody supported. Revolutions of 1989 succeeded because the ruling Commie regimes could expect no help from the Soviet Union, let alone NATO. What Great Power could make promises to American dissidents? China? Likely ally of an authoritarian America. Russia? Likewise. India? Japan? In either case you are stretching the concept of a "Great Power" beyond its breaking point.
If democracy dies in America, then barring a political collapse due to conquest by a Great Power, not even they youngest Americans posting on this website will set foot in a free country except as tourists, expats, refugees, or emigrants.

I suggest that liberals in the next two years visit those American places that they have never been but want to go. In my case, that means New York City, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon. Some liberals might want to find another country should my projections be right, and it might be easier to visit Paris than to visit Chicago -- from Australia, and that has nothing to do with the cost of air travel or hotel accommodations. The American future may be for those with a resolute belief that no human suffering is excessive so long as it churns a profit for the 'right people'.

The Republican Party is highly unlikely to moderate itself. Its core constituency (in numbers) are conformist, undemanding right-wing authoritarians. Its leaders are power-hungry, right-wing authoritarians. The House Republicans, by selecting Stephen Scalise as House Majority Whip, have shown that people who do not vote Republican no longer matter. They have effectively relegated non-whites, non-Anglos, non-Christians, and non-straights the bus even if they have not yet thrown them under the bus.

A recent poll suggested that 51% of Republicans endorse the idea that terror suspects can rightly be threatened of harm to their loved ones if they fail to talk. 61% believe that it is acceptable to throw a terror suspect into a wall, which is more likely to cause broken bones than to cause someone to talk. I can only imagine what elected Republican politicians believe. Majority-of-a-majority is the trend.

So far Democrats still have the President and the filibuster. But just think of what happens if the Republicans increase their hold on the Senate with the aid of huge money from the Koch dynasty-in-all-but-name and the Koch dynasty-in-all-but-name manages to get its President, who would basically function as its regent, elected.

Plutocratic oligarchy is a nasty manner of government. I can imagine state governments run by the Koch front ALEC changing election laws to allow only persons who have lived in the same place for ten years to vote or to allow employers to dictate how their employees vote. There would be a secret ballot offered to the employee, but it would be filled out -- and a secret to the voter who is not allowed to sneak a peak.

I see nothing in the GOP that indicates that it would not resort to some of the same tricks that allowed Commies to gut liberal democracy in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and eastern Germany.

OK. Most now believe that with 34 Senate seats up for grabs in 2016, 24 of them held by Republicans, the Democrats have an excellent chance of getting a Senate majority as the result of the 2016 election.

Happy New Year 2015? I am now more concerned about 2017. The Gleichschaltung begins this week.

Originally Posted by TnT

What interests me to watch are examples like Kodak, which totally screwed the pooch and will probably die before long, and a company like Corning, which has continually and successfully, so far, reinvented itself. Some day I might sit down and try to analyze these two and try to tease out the determining factors for their respective behaviors.

Corning got on the fiber optics bandwagon over 30 years ago, and well, we all know what has happened since then. Bandwidth was needed, and here we now are.

Originally Posted by Mary Kate 1982

The Wars of the Roses was more accurately a squabble amongst the ruling class. In many ways this is very comparable to the Culture Wars. Congress has become very badly Balkanized since the election of Ronald Reagan, coinciding largely with Boomers entering echelons of power (not to mention getting into useless debates over violence in video games and in film while institutions set up by their retired parents were starting to crumble.) Like the Lancastrians and the Yorkists, I distinctly remember people my parents age at each other's throats on television, in government, even at school over the PTA. Few did the calculus as to what kind of damage they were doing by screaming at each other, and letting institutions unravel to the point that they are almost unsalvageable now. It was not until the generation that was born to parents who had begun the Wars of the Roses came into adulthood that the deadlock was broken. People threw their support to Henry Tudor in part because his youth was an asset. He could challenge Richard III in battle and the ideas of a new generation could be introduced. Perhaps that is what shall be needed if 2016 does not improve this country's fortunes. Perhaps someone in his early 30s could challenge one of the old ancients for their seat...and win.

I don't see any parallel at all; the Wars of the Roses were a battle between aristocrats, and Henry Tudor won because of accusations against Richard III and because of Henry's ambition to finally win the war for the Lancaster House. There had already been some stability restored under Edward IV. I disagree quite strongly that the decline of our democracy is due to a squabble among boomers. If there were squabbles, it's because there were some important issues to squabble about. Arguments over violence in video games were never high on the national agenda. Civil rights for various groups were still not fully established. But the real squabble was, and still is, the class war. And we must be ready to "squabble" as we have never "squabbled" before, as the 4T continues.

There is no difference between now and the election of Ronald Reagan; nor will there be-- unless and until his ideology is overthrown. It has just been reaffirmed by the voters as strongly as ever. The Reaganoids wanted a system of inequality, and they have largely achieved that, by deceiving the voters with slogans or freedom and race baiting. The main question to be resolved remains whether the ruthless oligarchy of Reaganoids will be voted out, or thrown out, or established permanently in a new banana republic. Unless they are thrown out, no other problem can be acted upon by the government. And the market system also continues to be largely and increasingly dominated by the corporate state that is enabled by these economic-libertarian, trickle-down, free-market oligarchy policies.

The "red" side is the Reaganoid side; the only viable opposition to it, however inadequate, is the "blue" Democratic Party side. They must win before we can pressure them to live up to their ideals and represent the true interests of the people. And if they don't do their job, the people on the Left must be powerful and active enough to "primary" them, persuade them to do the right things, or pressure them through third parties. This is the only way forward for Americans politically at this time.

This is not a generational problem, at all; it is an ideological and party problem; totally. We are not in trouble because people squabbled. That is absurd. We are in trouble because the wrong side of the squabble is winning. Generation Theory should not be used to obscure that fact, and millennials should not be deceived by such hopes and illusions.

Boomers will be needed to lead the way in this 4T, as the theory states. They can only be the Blue Boomers. Never hope for the defeat of Boomers, or Silents, or Xers. Hope for the defeat of Republicans, and hope for real Democrats. And make it happen.

Ughh.

A Shillery vs. Shrub rematch.


I will not, ever, every vote for Shillery

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=68158
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/...ary-bandwagon/

Feh, what a DINO.

And Shrub [ Jeb Shrub Bush. Nope, not this either.] I will not , ever, ever, vote for this piece of work either.

Mr. Yuk fits in quite nicely.



http://jacksonville.com/business/201...oard-directors

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-...corp-dot-board

So, what to do with this clusterfuck? I mean really, 2 corporate America shills to choose from. Fuck 'em both to hell.

1. I'll do a write in for Bernie Sanders on the final ballot.
2. If Shillery looks like the likely winner, I'll vote straight R and hope she gets a congress full of Republicans. If Shrub looks like the winner, vote straight D.




I'll take 4 years of gridlock over these 2 clowns anyday. It's like choosing to drink cyanide or ricin.