Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Age of Potentential 2016 Candidates - Page 2







Post#26 at 04-01-2015 03:19 PM by millennialX [at Gotham City, USA joined Oct 2010 #posts 6,597]
---
04-01-2015, 03:19 PM #26
Join Date
Oct 2010
Location
Gotham City, USA
Posts
6,597

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Interpreting things any other way makes S&H completely indefensible. Their whole theory falls apart.
This is why I lean 2001, 03 (start of the invasion) and at most 05.
Born in 1981 and INFJ Gen Yer







Post#27 at 04-01-2015 03:40 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-01-2015, 03:40 PM #27
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
I think you're engaged in a heavy dose of wishful thinking, within the context of S&H. There is no way the 4T will last until 2030.
It will certainly last until 2028 or 2029, as Mr. Howe states. It will probably take a year or two for a more conservative mindset to take hold.
The generational time frame is clearly well past the point where Boomers are at their peak. Xers are going to take over fully very soon. I think I remember saying in the past, and it still holds true, that if there is any validity to S&H whatsoever, the 4T started on 9/11/2001. Interpreting things any other way makes S&H completely indefensible. Their whole theory falls apart.
I and many others here disagree. The generational ages fit. But saying the 4T started in 2001 is convenient for those who want the needed changes to be aborted by today's Republican obstruction, and want to divert attention from the real crisis at home to the threat from abroad.

1946 to 2028 is only 82 years. That's even less than the archetypal length of the saeculum as S&H described it. Xers will never fully take over, if they continue to offer such clueless leaders as Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Walker, Paul, etc.

Younger Boomers will be in a position to lead through the 4T to 2029. Due to the Saturn return, they are not in a position to do so (at least as a presidential candidate) in 2016. People who are 56 to 59 years old either do not run, or are defeated, or in rare cases are destroyed in office.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#28 at 04-01-2015 03:47 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-01-2015, 03:47 PM #28
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by millennialX View Post
Here's a question I want to throw out and again provide the disclaimer that I'm a New Deal fan, but does the progressive side always win the 4T? I say yes, but what is "Progressive?"

If the New Deal world is status quo and we are seeing holes in that and the New Left/ Neo Con agenda, then is the Libertarian view progressive?
I'm sure you want a libertarian to explain that, but it is baloney no matter what (s)he says, so I will jump in.

No, the New Deal is not status quo. The status quo is Reaganomics. The New Deal has been all but destroyed. We need to bring it back, and adapt it to the times.

Why do you say New Left/Neo Con? Those are opposites.

Does what we can consider progressive change and is it always tied to what we think the Left is or does it become the NEW LEFT?
The New Left IS the Left. The New Left is the "crusades by boomers in the sixties" that Boomers are "still hooked on" acc. to JPT. They are still the issues today. 2Ts set the agenda; 4Ts carry it out. That is perfectly true this time. I already posted about this today.

Libertarians and Republicans have confused the issue by claiming that slavery is freedom. Their 1984 rhetoric deceives many, but fortunately progressives still speak the truth and are heard. So, progressive is still progressive; more than ever in fact.

The progressive side has always won, and always will-- unless we enter a national decline. That could happen from within or without. Our place in the civilization cycle rules that out; the New Left will win.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#29 at 04-01-2015 04:16 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
04-01-2015, 04:16 PM #29
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by millennialX View Post
Here's a question I want to throw out and again provide the disclaimer that I'm a New Deal fan, but does the progressive side always win the 4T? I say yes, but what is "Progressive?"

If the New Deal world is status quo and we are seeing holes in that and the New Left/ Neo Con agenda, then is the Libertarian view progressive?

Does what we can consider progressive change and is it always tied to what we think the Left is or does it become the NEW LEFT?
The problem is that specific political and ideological movements have appropriated the term "progress" as a justification for their view of how things should be. There was a "Progressive Movement" in the early 20th century, which formed the basis of all of the governments that eventually brought about WWII. The term was discredited for a long time for that reason, and has been recently resurrected by the left to apply to itself.

Actual progress, in the pure meaning of the word, is in the eye of the beholder, and only in hindsight. The modern left likes to pretend the Republicans of Lincoln's day were the left and the secessionists were the right, but that is completely ahistorical. The people at the time did not see themselves that way, and to say otherwise is revisionist history. The Republicans were always the conservative party, descended from the Federalists. The Democrats have always been the party of the "left". It is the ideology of the left that has changed over time, from the ideology of Thomas Jefferson which is now called libertarianism, to the socialist/statist top down, social engineering ideology they hold today - which as I said, is a product of the same mindset that produced the USSR, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, along with lesser manifestations like FDR in the US. The broad term is "totalitarianism".

There are, and always have been, "progressives" in both parties. Over time however, they have heavily gravitated towards the Democratic Party, which they now completely control.

Simply put, "progressive" =/= progress. The former is an ideology that has adopted the term because it's good PR, the latter is a general term that applies to many things.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 04-01-2015 at 04:22 PM.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#30 at 04-01-2015 04:30 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
04-01-2015, 04:30 PM #30
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
But saying the 4T started in 2001 is convenient for those who want the needed changes to be aborted by today's Republican obstruction, and want to divert attention from the real crisis at home to the threat from abroad.
The problem here is that you're assuming everyone thinks the way you do. My view has nothing to do with anything except this: 9/11 fits everything S&H predicted, at roughly the point in time they predicted it would happen. It was slightly "early", but this has never been an exact science. The generational landscape in the real world does not support the claims you're making. Boomers are aging into retirement at a rapid rate. Their peak numbers in elected office were in 2008, and they have fallen off a cliff since then. The decline has been rapid. That happens half way through a turning. The older generation peaks and starts to decline, while the next generation starts to climb to leadership.

I've seen Neil Howe's statements since 9/11, and they seem like a lot of self-defense and rationalization, especially when it comes to Millenials, who are nothing like they predicted. At the time of 9/11 he suggested it was the start of the 4T, then he backtracked. They may or may not have identified a cycle that has some merit, but their interpretations and conclusions do not look that great. Their prediction of the future has been very off.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 04-01-2015 at 05:50 PM.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#31 at 04-01-2015 05:07 PM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
04-01-2015, 05:07 PM #31
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

Quote Originally Posted by millennialX View Post
Here's a question I want to throw out and again provide the disclaimer that I'm a New Deal fan, but does the progressive side always win the 4T? I say yes, but what is "Progressive?"

If the New Deal world is status quo and we are seeing holes in that and the New Left/ Neo Con agenda, then is the Libertarian view progressive?

Does what we can consider progressive change and is it always tied to what we think the Left is or does it become the NEW LEFT?
Progressive in this day and age would be repudiation of globalist, corporatist, wage destroying, job killing policies. In this day and age, to reassert national sovereignty without lapsing into bigotry, to stand up for middle and lower income workers and the local and national economy that employs them, and, to appropriately intervene in the most damaging aspects of the 3T "Flat World" economy, is, to me, truly Progressive. Conversely, clinging to discredited 3T utopian bullshit is Reactionary.







Post#32 at 04-01-2015 05:45 PM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
04-01-2015, 05:45 PM #32
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84 View Post
Progressive in this day and age would be repudiation of globalist, corporatist, wage destroying, job killing policies. In this day and age, to reassert national sovereignty without lapsing into bigotry, to stand up for middle and lower income workers and the local and national economy that employs them, and, to appropriately intervene in the most damaging aspects of the 3T "Flat World" economy, is, to me, truly Progressive. Conversely, clinging to discredited 3T utopian bullshit is Reactionary.
The only political voices in recent times saying what you're saying have been Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump. The elections of the 90s involving Perot pitted him as the lone voice against NAFTA and other free trade initiatives, with the nominees of both parties fully on board.

Personally, I think free trade in principle is a good idea, but in reality the playing field is often rendered uneven by government policies. Unless everyone is playing by the same rules, and the rules are enforced (i.e. immigration or currency manipulation by China), you cannot truly have free trade. I believe the US has made agreements for decades now that amount to unilateral disarmament, and have resulted in a siphoning away of US wealth to other countries. In other words, we've been handing our lunch to China, India and so forth, and they've been happily eating it. Meanwhile domestically, we've had a combination of business interests and left wing political interests driving a massive wave of immigration, from both skilled and unskilled workers, driving down wages for US workers across the board.

Something has to give, but it's not clear yet if anyone is willing to take real steps to fix those issues.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 04-01-2015 at 05:49 PM.
"I see you got your fist out, say your peace and get out. Yeah I get the gist of it, but it's alright." - Jerry Garcia, 1987







Post#33 at 04-01-2015 05:46 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,115]
---
04-01-2015, 05:46 PM #33
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,115

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Let's assume the worst, and this becomes a battle of the dynasties. Does it make a bit of difference whether we get Clinton 2.0 or Bush 3.0?
To the extent that it matters at all it does because of Supreme Court appointments. Next year will tell us a lot. As I see it if the GOP wins the White House and gets to appoint more Supreme Court justices, it's game over until the awakening. And even that will mark just the beginning of the end of the early 21st century hegemony that is close to being cemented in place already.

OTOH, if a new GOP president goes culture war against state's rights issues like legalized MJ it could generate an unexpected turn in the crises.
Quote Originally Posted by M and L

Can we get more jaded than we are?
Well,......to be continued?







Post#34 at 04-03-2015 03:24 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-03-2015, 03:24 PM #34
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
To the extent that it matters at all it does because of Supreme Court appointments. Next year will tell us a lot. As I see it if the GOP wins the White House and gets to appoint more Supreme Court justices, it's game over until the awakening. And even that will mark just the beginning of the end of the early 21st century hegemony that is close to being cemented in place already.
Any GOP victory now is a tragedy, and very dangerous to the people. OTOH, it's possible that Jeb Bush could be our next president, and continue for 8 years. As horrible as that would be, it would still be possible for his party to be thrown out in such a landslide in Nov. 2024 that the reform era or a revolution/civil war then unfolds, and it won't be "game over" even then. In fact, that's still time enough for a progressive 4T victory during the following 4 years, and a fine 1T to follow in which the millennials and their allies start building a new society.

So, as frustrated as we all are, it's always wise to keep the long view in mind, remember the true dates of the 4T (2008-2028/29), and not totally give in to defeatism. The regressives are entrenched, but that in itself is the Crisis we face. And it must be faced in the 4T period.

I came here in 1997 originally to point out that the saeculum in modern times equals the orbit of the first modern planet, Uranus. I might as well mention it again. Both are archetypally 84 years, and mean what they do for the same reason. The Uranus Return has been known as the "great American life or death crisis" by astrologers for decades now. Remember again, that Uranus' position when Jamestown was founded (with great trauma) is exactly the same as when the nation was founded, and in between was the King William's War Crisis (glorious revolution crisis). Remember again, Uranus returned to the exact degree and minute it occupied on July 4 1776 on the day Ft. Sumpter was bombed. One cycle later, Uranus returned to that exact degree and minute on D-Day, which the authors pronounced as the climax of the crisis. The next Uranus Return is the cyclic indicator that won't be denied. That is 2027. That will be the crisis climax. That is destiny.

I know, tho, as hard as it is to convince you people of this now, imagine how hard it would be during 8 years of Jeb Bush.

OTOH, if a new GOP president goes culture war against state's rights issues like legalized MJ it could generate an unexpected turn in the crises.
Well,......to be continued?
Legalized what? MJ? maryjane? marijuana?

No, I think the economic issues will turn events. The culture war provides distinctions between red and blue culture, but it is essentially over nationally. Indiana and Arkansas just proved that.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-03-2015 at 03:31 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#35 at 04-03-2015 05:25 PM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
04-03-2015, 05:25 PM #35
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Any GOP victory now is a tragedy, and very dangerous to the people. OTOH, it's possible that Jeb Bush could be our next president, and continue for 8 years. As horrible as that would be, it would still be possible for his party to be thrown out in such a landslide in Nov. 2024 that the reform era or a revolution/civil war then unfolds, and it won't be "game over" even then. In fact, that's still time enough for a progressive 4T victory during the following 4 years, and a fine 1T to follow in which the millennials and their allies start building a new society.

So, as frustrated as we all are, it's always wise to keep the long view in mind, remember the true dates of the 4T (2008-2028/29), and not totally give in to defeatism. The regressives are entrenched, but that in itself is the Crisis we face. And it must be faced in the 4T period.

I came here in 1997 originally to point out that the saeculum in modern times equals the orbit of the first modern planet, Uranus. I might as well mention it again. Both are archetypally 84 years, and mean what they do for the same reason. The Uranus Return has been known as the "great American life or death crisis" by astrologers for decades now. Remember again, that Uranus' position when Jamestown was founded (with great trauma) is exactly the same as when the nation was founded, and in between was the King William's War Crisis (glorious revolution crisis). Remember again, Uranus returned to the exact degree and minute it occupied on July 4 1776 on the day Ft. Sumpter was bombed. One cycle later, Uranus returned to that exact degree and minute on D-Day, which the authors pronounced as the climax of the crisis. The next Uranus Return is the cyclic indicator that won't be denied. That is 2027. That will be the crisis climax. That is destiny.

I know, tho, as hard as it is to convince you people of this now, imagine how hard it would be during 8 years of Jeb Bush.



Legalized what? MJ? maryjane? marijuana?

No, I think the economic issues will turn events. The culture war provides distinctions between red and blue culture, but it is essentially over nationally. Indiana and Arkansas just proved that.
If Jeb Bush wins the election, he'll be a one termer, like his dad. You read it here first.







Post#36 at 04-03-2015 06:54 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-03-2015, 06:54 PM #36
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84 View Post
If Jeb Bush wins the election, he'll be a one termer, like his dad. You read it here first.
I say, if he is elected, he will be re-elected. You heard it here first!

(prediction based on my reading of new moons before elections; I've demonstrated it's workings here already)

And by that time, Congress will go Democratic (either 2020 or 2022).

I'm not sure yet who will win in 2016. Assuming they run, Clinton and Bush will be the nominees. The new moon method favors Clinton. The horoscope analysis method favors Bush.

Which also means, most likely, Clinton will either not run and be succeeded by a Democrat in 2020, or will be re-elected.

In that case, what happens in 2024 is going to be strange.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#37 at 04-03-2015 09:03 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,115]
---
04-03-2015, 09:03 PM #37
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,115

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Any GOP victory now is a tragedy, and very dangerous to the people. OTOH, it's possible that Jeb Bush could be our next president, and continue for 8 years. As horrible as that would be, it would still be possible for his party to be thrown out in such a landslide in Nov. 2024 that the reform era or a revolution/civil war
There is no reason to believe that a revolution/civil war will come out of this 4T. Look at how Occupy was stomped on by the elite. Also consider that much of the so called blue base can't be troubled to vote at anytime except when it's November of a leap year. That kind of ho hum performance isn't going to generate a revolution.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric
Legalized what? MJ? maryjane? marijuana?
Of course.
Quote Originally Posted by Eric
No, I think the economic issues will turn events. The culture war provides distinctions between red and blue culture, but it is essentially over nationally. Indiana and Arkansas just proved that.
Maybe.
There's still a lot of counter-counterculture anger out there. Even if it is on the wane it will still be used as a political mobilizer until it doesn't work anymore....Which may not become true for several more years.







Post#38 at 04-04-2015 12:59 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-04-2015, 12:59 PM #38
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
There is no reason to believe that a revolution/civil war will come out of this 4T. Look at how Occupy was stomped on by the elite. Also consider that much of the so called blue base can't be troubled to vote at anytime except when it's November of a leap year. That kind of ho hum performance isn't going to generate a revolution.
That stands to reason. However, I have more than reason as the basis for my predictions
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#39 at 04-04-2015 06:34 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-04-2015, 06:34 PM #39
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Bernie Sanders needs to be removed from that list. He's not a potential presidential candidate. As he's the oldest, removing him will significantly lower the average age on the Democratic side.

He's not a potential candidate not only because he insists he's not running (although that should be enough) but because his potential contribution base is too low. He's the antithesis of a big money candidate. He can win a state election in a small state like Vermont where he has plenty of name recognition (without even resorting to the support of the big parties) but that doesn't translate into the ability to win the Democratic nomination.

Aside from that, JPT's idea suffers from a more basic flaw, in that the Democrats have the election locked up. The total electoral votes in states that no Republican can win against even a minimally-competent Democratic candidate totals at least 250, and perhaps as much as 270 if Virginia should now be included in that list (and there are signs it should). For the foreseeable future, until the GOP returns to its roots and stops being the party of Southern white haters of America, or until it goes the way of the Whigs and is replaced by conservative Democrats hiving off and forming a new party, the presidential election will be decided in the Democratic primaries. So the election won't be a good test of whether an Xer can beat a Boomer (although I should point out that that already happened in 2012), if we have a Democratic Boomer running against a Republican Xer. The Xer will lose in that case, but the reason probably won't have anything to do with his generation or indicate anything about whether Xers will win in the future.

I wish I could agree with the poster who dismissed Hillary Clinton's chances. I don't like her much either, but she's pretty likely to win, especially if Elizabeth Warren stays out of the race.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#40 at 04-04-2015 06:53 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-04-2015, 06:53 PM #40
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Xers will never fully take over, if they continue to offer such clueless leaders as Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Walker, Paul, etc.
Well, aren't you making the same mistake JPT did here? There are plenty of Xers who aren't Republicans. Of course they'll take over. It's natural and inevitable.

Regarding the start of the 4T, setting aside the misconceptions displayed here about what a 4T involves, we can look at the leading edge of each generation in 2001 and 2008 and see that in 2001:

Oldest Boomers were 58 -- not entering elderhood yet.

Oldest Xers were 40 -- not entering midlife yet.

Oldest Millennials were 19 -- still in transition to young adulthood (which properly begins around 22).

In 2008:

Oldest Boomers were 65 -- exactly entering elderhood.

Oldest Xers were 47 -- a couple of years into midlife.

Oldest Millennials were 26 -- a few years into young adulthood.

That makes 2008 a much more likely year for the 4T to start based on generational alignment. This is a similar pattern to what was seen in previous Crisis eras at their beginnings. It's a mistake to suppose the Idealist generation provides leadership throughout the Crisis; they are at their peak of influence at its beginning and lose that influence over the course of the 4T. I can understand the mistake, given the way the authors talked about the archetypes in The Fourth Turning. ​But it's still a mistake.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#41 at 04-05-2015 12:37 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-05-2015, 12:37 AM #41
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Well, aren't you making the same mistake JPT did here? There are plenty of Xers who aren't Republicans. Of course they'll take over. It's natural and inevitable.
Well, I did say IF. Only one presidential candidate so far, according to the chart he posted.

Eventually, whatever we may think of him, Corey Booker has a good chance if he ever runs (according to my method).

Regarding the start of the 4T, setting aside the misconceptions displayed here about what a 4T involves, we can look at the leading edge of each generation in 2001 and 2008 and see that in 2001:

Oldest Boomers were 58 -- not entering elderhood yet.

Oldest Xers were 40 -- not entering midlife yet.

Oldest Millennials were 19 -- still in transition to young adulthood (which properly begins around 22).

In 2008:

Oldest Boomers were 65 -- exactly entering elderhood.

Oldest Xers were 47 -- a couple of years into midlife.

Oldest Millennials were 26 -- a few years into young adulthood.

That makes 2008 a much more likely year for the 4T to start based on generational alignment. This is a similar pattern to what was seen in previous Crisis eras at their beginnings. It's a mistake to suppose the Idealist generation provides leadership throughout the Crisis; they are at their peak of influence at its beginning and lose that influence over the course of the 4T. I can understand the mistake, given the way the authors talked about the archetypes in The Fourth Turning. ​But it's still a mistake.
Indeed.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#42 at 04-05-2015 12:43 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-05-2015, 12:43 AM #42
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Bernie Sanders needs to be removed from that list. He's not a potential presidential candidate. As he's the oldest, removing him will significantly lower the average age on the Democratic side.

He's not a potential candidate not only because he insists he's not running (although that should be enough) but because his potential contribution base is too low. He's the antithesis of a big money candidate. He can win a state election in a small state like Vermont where he has plenty of name recognition (without even resorting to the support of the big parties) but that doesn't translate into the ability to win the Democratic nomination.
He can't win, because he's too far left, but he's as much a "potential candidate" as most of the others on the list JPT posted, and he has indicated interest in running. He would run just to make sure the issues get raised from the left point of view. He may do better than expected; he has an excellent horoscope score. Technically, he's a Silent (b.1942).

Aside from that, JPT's idea suffers from a more basic flaw, in that the Democrats have the election locked up. The total electoral votes in states that no Republican can win against even a minimally-competent Democratic candidate totals at least 250, and perhaps as much as 270 if Virginia should now be included in that list (and there are signs it should). For the foreseeable future, until the GOP returns to its roots and stops being the party of Southern white haters of America, or until it goes the way of the Whigs and is replaced by conservative Democrats hiving off and forming a new party, the presidential election will be decided in the Democratic primaries. So the election won't be a good test of whether an Xer can beat a Boomer (although I should point out that that already happened in 2012), if we have a Democratic Boomer running against a Republican Xer. The Xer will lose in that case, but the reason probably won't have anything to do with his generation or indicate anything about whether Xers will win in the future.

I wish I could agree with the poster who dismissed Hillary Clinton's chances. I don't like her much either, but she's pretty likely to win, especially if Elizabeth Warren stays out of the race.
Probably, as long as younger and minority voters turn out, as they did in 2008/2012. Whatever she loses there, she may pick up through a big gender gap. Women will vote for her in droves.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#43 at 04-05-2015 05:11 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
04-05-2015, 05:11 AM #43
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
The problem is that specific political and ideological movements have appropriated the term "progress" as a justification for their view of how things should be. There was a "Progressive Movement" in the early 20th century, which formed the basis of all of the governments that eventually brought about WWII. The term was discredited for a long time for that reason, and has been recently resurrected by the left to apply to itself.
The term "Progressive" went to the political hinterland in America when the New Deal went beyond the Progressive agenda of Theodore Roosevelt. The New Deal was the ideological successor of the Progressive agenda, but far bigger and more extensive -- such as the depraved politics of the 1920s rejected and such as became necessary for the saving of both democracy and capitalism in America in the aftermath of the worst economic meltdown in decades, the meltdown the consequence of the depraved economics of the 1920s.

Henry Wallace used the term Progressive for his left-wing political party against Harry Truman (whom he thought was not 'progressive enough')... but his party went into the political graveyard because it was too left-wing. See also "Peace and Freedom Party".

Communists have tried to use the word as a cover for themselves... but we are talking about Commies, long infamous for lies about themselves. (But fascists are similarly dishonest about themselves). Communism is not ultra-liberal any more than fascists are ultra-conservative. But that was in the 1960s -- fifty years ago, and just because there are people like me who remember when Commies used the word Progressive (referring to the last reform movement in the bourgeois world before the Bolshevik Revolution as if it were a predecessor to Bolshevism) does not mean that the word remains in such use today.

Not a scholar of Lenin, I can not deny that he knew about Theodore Roosevelt and Progressives in America. I see no connection between the two. I googled "Theodore Roosevelt Vladimir Lenin"... and find no evidence of any English-language connection between the two. But I do not have the full Lenin archive available, and Lenin is not one of my favorite guides to political truth. Too much syphilis on his part.

Actual progress, in the pure meaning of the word, is in the eye of the beholder, and only in hindsight.
I think that we can consider the supplanting of horses and buggies with automobiles as progress, and the use of antibiotics as undeniable progress over the application of 'medical' leeches. Children in school instead of in mines and factories is social progress. Abolition of slavery is social progress. Replacement of the divine right of kings with responsible government is political progress.

The modern left likes to pretend the Republicans of Lincoln's day were the left and the secessionists were the right, but that is completely ahistorical.
Throughout the early and middle parts of the 19th century, the abolition of slavery was clearly a liberal agenda. I am inclined to believe that Abraham Lincoln would have begun the emancipation of slaves as the British did in the 1830s by buying slaves from their masters (which is how Abolition came to Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia) and granting them their freedom. By 1860 chattel slavery was a sick joke in much of the world. To be sure, the planters of the Old South were hostile to capitalism in the form of banks, manufacturing, and retailing; the planters did not need them nearby, especially as potential competitors to the feudal order in effect in the South. But feudalism, however much it depended upon the absolute rights of property owners that extended to complete dependency of serfs, was opposed to even early capitalism.

Is anti-capitalism socialist? Not when the anti-capitalism serves monopoly power or traditional elites. To that extent, Nazi Germany was anti-capitalist, turning much of its anti-capitalist rhetoric against the Jews. The old German saying "Antisemitism is the socialism of the dolt", commonplace before 1933, was a ticket to a labor camp between 1933 and 1945.

The people at the time did not see themselves that way, and to say otherwise is revisionist history. The Republicans were always the conservative party, descended from the Federalists.
Slave-owning planters saw themselves as benefactors to their slaves. Nobody wants to see himself as evil -- not even Nazis, gangsters, or child molesters. Nobody wants to believe that he is a sinner deserving of the worst torments of Hell.

The Democrats have always been the party of the "left". It is the ideology of the left that has changed over time, from the ideology of Thomas Jefferson which is now called libertarianism
By the standard of the time (except on slavery) Jefferson was a big-government liberal. Establishing the University of Virginia is hardly an endorsement of small government. Buying the Port of New Orleans and the land behind it is about as big-government as is possible.


to the socialist/statist top down, social engineering ideology they hold today - which as I said, is a product of the same mindset that produced the USSR, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, along with lesser manifestations like FDR in the US. The broad term is "totalitarianism".
Communism and fascism (see also Ba'athism and ISIS) share anti-liberalism. Liberalism does not need torture chambers, concentration camps, death squads, regimentation of the economy, and the suppression of contrary ideas. If anything I can attribute much of the character of totalitarianism to World War I -- when governments quickly devolved to the worst. Those governments sacrificed freedom for victory and made victory suspect. They turned to ferocious propaganda against the Other Side. All countries turned to the most blatant lies (such as "bayoneting babies in Belgium) to serve the cause. Governments regimented the economy and debased currencies, imposed rigid censorship, and promoted the superiority of the Nation above all else. Governments saw fit to use its youth as cannon fodder in pointless charges against invincible defenses -- resulting in incredible numbers of deaths -- and to use poison gas.

Lenin may have overthrown the weak government that formed after the overthrow of the Tsar, but he had no qualms about operating his Bolshevik regime in the unending style of wartime emergency. Anyone who disagreed would be killed or worse. To be sure, he was the first Marxist leader without qualification, and he scared the Hell out of oppressive elites elsewhere with expropriation and extermination. But with that came features that liberals would find intolerable -- rigid censorship of ideas, brutal enforcement of laws, regimentation of all aspects of life, showcase achievements that depended upon mass suffering (including convict labor), and rigged elections. But economic elites in much of the capitalist world would find the brutality of Bolshevism acceptable -- so long as it was done in the service of those elites. Fascism is Bolshevik methods in the service of reactionary elites.

There are, and always have been, "progressives" in both parties. Over time however, they have heavily gravitated towards the Democratic Party, which they now completely control.
More precisely, the Republican party used to have room for some high-profile liberals. That is over. But as the Republican Party purges out "RINO" types, the Democratic Party has been getting the moderates. The Democratic Party is becoming more conservative for that reason alone. You will often hear of Democrats praising Eisenhower. The Republican Party has become increasingly a party of primitives and even warmongers.

Simply put, "progressive" =/= progress. The former is an ideology that has adopted the term because it's good PR, the latter is a general term that applies to many things.
Even progress is subject to judgment. Progression of cancer from one perverse cell division to dangerous, terminal metastasis is the wrong sort of 'progress'. "Progression" from 'social drinking' to full-blown alcoholism is a disaster.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 04-05-2015 at 01:00 PM.
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







Post#44 at 04-05-2015 05:25 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
04-05-2015, 05:25 AM #44
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84 View Post
If Jeb Bush wins the election, he'll be a one termer, like his dad. You read it here first.
He will be re-elected if elected in 2016. Such would indicate the full consolidation of political power by the Republican Party with the Democratic Party becoming irrelevant because America will be transformed into a plutocratic oligarchy that tolerates no effective opposition. Democrats will win just enough seats to have an ineffective voice in national politics and will dominate urban politics... but urban bosses will know their places. Detroit politicians will know enough to not challenge federal or Michigan politics. The relevant model for America could be Hungary between the two world wars in which the urban areas were safe havens for liberals and minorities and the rest of the country lived in abject fear of ruling elites -- except that unlike Hungary between the two world wars, Hungary was no world power and the US has multiple giant cities.

Intimidation will be the norm in politics, and Republicans will find ways to ensure that only their votes count outside of a few cities and states. Republicans will concede Massachusetts, California, Atlanta, and Milwaukee -- but try to bring Atlanta politics into rural Georgia or Milwaukee politics into rural Wisconsin, and you will face bad results for your personal life.

If Jeb Bush gets elected, then the Republicans still hold the Senate and stand to make gains in the Senate in 2018. Republicans will gain reliable stooges on the Supreme Court, the sorts who believe that economic power is the only basis of political power in America. We might still have a Republic in Name Only.
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







Post#45 at 04-05-2015 12:29 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-05-2015, 12:29 PM #45
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
He can't win, because he's too far left, but he's as much a "potential candidate" as most of the others on the list JPT posted, and he has indicated interest in running.
I disagree that he's too far left to win. I would like to agree that he might run and is a potential candidate, but I can't.

I've linked this article before, but here it is again: http://goplifer.com/2014/11/06/a-rea...-2014-results/

Quote Originally Posted by GOPLifer
The Blue Wall is block of states in which no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win. Tuesday that block finally extended to New Hampshire, meaning that at the outset of any Presidential campaign, a minimally effective Democratic candidate can expect to win 257 electoral votes without even really trying. Thatís 257 out of the 270 needed to win.Arguably Virginia now sits behind that wall as well. Democrats won the Senate seat there essentially without campaigning in a year when hardly anyone but Republicans showed up to vote and the GOP enjoyed its largest wave in modern history. Virginia would take that tally to 270. Again, thatís 270 out of 270.
This means that the next Presidential election, and all subsequent ones until a future party realignment, will be decided in the Democratic primary. Only by sweeping all nine of the states that remain in contention AND also flipping one very solidly Democratic state can a Republican candidate win the White House.
By contrast, Republicans control a far more modest Red Fortress, which currently amounts to 149 electoral votes. This election saw Georgia fall out of that shrinking and increasingly brittle base, after losing our previous lock on North Carolina and Virginia in recent years.


Younger and minority voters will turn out in larger numbers than their pathetic showing last year, and that's all that matters. It's a rule that in U.S. presidential elections, except when something really weird happens as it did in 1912, or during party realignments such as the one starting in 1932, the party that controls the Southern white vote loses the White House. From the end of the Civil War until the Great Depression, that was the Democrats. Now it's the Republicans. This won't last forever, especially since the South is becoming more urban all the time and joining the rest of the country in its views, but it will still be true in 2016. The Democratic candidate, whoever he or she is, will win the election.

This means there's no such thing as a Democrat too far left to win. There's no downside to nominating Elizabeth Warren if she'll run (which so far she says she won't, unfortunately). She could win the general election every bit as well as Hillary Clinton, and be a much better president.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#46 at 04-05-2015 01:28 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
04-05-2015, 01:28 PM #46
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

If by "left" one means more liberal, then look at this map:



gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red. Electoral votes are as in 1956.

I use the now-archaic "red" for Democrats and "blue" for Republicans. Except for Hawaii, which did not vote for President in the 1950s, the states in white would now seem the most politically-liberal states in the Union. In this case white indicates a state that voted for Eisenhower and Obama -- twice. Stevenson likely got the majority of the vote of organized labor (which probably explains Missouri and West Virginia, big mining states at the time), probably the only liberal constituency that went for him. Eisenhower probably did better among blacks and Jews than any Republican since he.

Eisenhower won Massachusetts and Minnesota, the only two states to vote, respectively, for McGovern and Mondale -- twice. He won Rhode Island, one of only two states outside the South to vote against the Hoover landslide of 1928.

Stevenson brought the Thurmond voters of 1948 back to the Democratic fold, especially in 1956 after Eisenhower backed anti-segregation votes of the Supreme Court. But that clearly wasn't enough.

I've used this map to make a point before: in 2012, the only states that voted for Barack Obama (except Hawaii and the District of Columbia which votes as if a State) voted for Eisenhower. I'd guess that Hawaii would have gone for Eisenhower had it voted.
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







Post#47 at 04-05-2015 01:44 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-05-2015, 01:44 PM #47
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

DO NOT EVER confuse "left" and "right" with "Democratic" and "Republican," ESPECIALLY if you are comparing elections as diverse in party alignment as 1952-56 and 2008-2012. There is so much confusion arising from that, that the data are almost worthless.

In 1952, the transition was under way, but far from complete. Those areas that are now Democratic strongholds were still Republican ones, and the Democrats still for the most part controlled the South. A state like Mississippi would hardly have voted for Stevenson because he was more liberal than Eisenhower. They would have voted for him because he was a Democrat, while Eisenhower was the nominee of the hated Lincoln party, the party of the War of Northern Aggression.

Utterly misleading, pbrower. Shame on you.

Edit: To illustrate what I'm saying here, look at Texas' voting record by party from 1900 on.

1900 - 1924 -- Texas always voted for the Democrat.
1928 -- Texas gave Republican Herbert Hoover a narrow victory.
1932-48 Texas always voted for the Democrat.
1952-56 narrow victories for Eisenhower in Texas.
1960-76 Texas went for the Democrat except in 1972 when it went for Nixon.

1900 to 1976 overall: Republicans won four Texas elections while Democrats won 16.

1980 to 2012 -- all Texas elections won by Republicans.

So from 1900 to 1976, Texas was a Democratic stronghold, only occasionally tossing votes to the GOP candidate. From 1980 on, it's been a Republican stronghold, with the GOP candidate winning literally all of those elections.

Did Texas suddenly change in 1980? Was Texas liberal in the past? Did it become conservative suddenly when Reagan was on the ballot? No, the state hasn't changed much. The parties did.

Always keep that in mind.
Last edited by Brian Rush; 04-05-2015 at 02:02 PM.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#48 at 04-05-2015 02:48 PM by princeofcats67 [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 1,995]
---
04-05-2015, 02:48 PM #48
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
1,995

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
DO NOT EVER confuse "left" and "right" with "Democratic" and "Republican," ...
Yeah, Brian! Kick his ass!


Prince

PS: You know, it's gonna be funny when all the meanings of these
terms really get 'screwed-up'(as far as Prophets understand them).
A veritable "Tower of Babel"!
(I just thought you may want to be prepared, you being a
writer and a part-time 'propagandist'(), and all. !)
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."







Post#49 at 04-05-2015 03:29 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
04-05-2015, 03:29 PM #49
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
DO NOT EVER confuse "left" and "right" with "Democratic" and "Republican," ESPECIALLY if you are comparing elections as diverse in party alignment as 1952-56 and 2008-2012. There is so much confusion arising from that, that the data are almost worthless.
It was JPT who made the statement that the Democrats were consistently on the Left on key issues. The map is intended to refute him. I consider "Jim Crow" right-wing.

Eisenhower won a pair of landslides for reasons having nothing to do with America going to the Right. It could be that by 1952 Harry Truman was seen as a failure, and that anyone seen as 'more of the same' would not be elected. For such an analogue, look at how difficult it would have been for any Republican to win the Presidency in 2008. By 1960 the American political map looked much like it had been in 1960 and as it would be in 1976.

In 1952, the transition was under way, but far from complete. Those areas that are now Democratic strongholds were still Republican ones, and the Democrats still for the most part controlled the South. A state like Mississippi would hardly have voted for Stevenson because he was more liberal than Eisenhower. They would have voted for him because he was a Democrat, while Eisenhower was the nominee of the hated Lincoln party, the party of the War of Northern Aggression.
Possible interpretation. It's also worth remembering that the South had a big difference in its voting practices: few blacks voted. Also, the New Deal was still in the memories of Southern whites as the political change that reduced the once-severe regional difference between Southern and Northern whites. The Republican Party was the Party of Neglect of the South as well as the Party of Lincoln. "War of Northern Aggression"? Just look at Tennessee, the State that endured the most battles of the American Civil War.

Southern agrarians were fairly liberal on economics but ultra-reactionary on race. It was "thanks for cheap electricity but keep your hands off my segregated way of life".

Utterly misleading, pbrower. Shame on you.
The states in white are either comparatively liberal or are now genuine swing states. With the possible exception of North Carolina and the obvious exceptions of Hawaii and the District of Columbia, all other states or state-like entities in any color other than white are decidedly conservative in their voting.


It's JPT who misled with some ideological boilerplate, probably lifted from some right-wing blog or book*. But the 1950s are the closest to a refutation that the Republican Party was clearly on the Right and the Democratic Party was clearly on the Left. I attribute Stevenson wins in Missouri and West Virginia to militant unions capable of keeping voters in the Democratic fold as unions could not do even in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island.

Edit: To illustrate what I'm saying here, look at Texas' voting record by party from 1900 on.

1900 - 1924 -- Texas always voted for the Democrat.
1928 -- Texas gave Republican Herbert Hoover a narrow victory.
1932-48 Texas always voted for the Democrat.
1952-56 narrow victories for Eisenhower in Texas.
1960-76 Texas went for the Democrat except in 1972 when it went for Nixon.

1900 to 1976 overall: Republicans won four Texas elections while Democrats won 16.

1980 to 2012 -- all Texas elections won by Republicans.

So from 1900 to 1976, Texas was a Democratic stronghold, only occasionally tossing votes to the GOP candidate. From 1980 on, it's been a Republican stronghold, with the GOP candidate winning literally all of those elections.

Did Texas suddenly change in 1980? Was Texas liberal in the past? Did it become conservative suddenly when Reagan was on the ballot? No, the state hasn't changed much. The parties did.

Always keep that in mind.
The political coalitions behind the two main Parties have changed over the years. Texas is a strange case in part because it straddles regions of America (West, Midwest, and South) and is not a region in itself. Missouri is such on a much smaller but more blatant scale. Missouri used to be the bellwether state as a centrally-located microcosm of America, which it no longer is.

I lived in Texas during its transition from being governed largely by right-wing Democrats like Governor Dolph Briscoe almost to the rise of George W. Bush. I saw Democrats getting wiped out in the greater Dallas-Fort Worth area. Although there were still Democratic populists like Jim Hightower and Ann Richards, they got knocked out. Texas has gone from being a conservative, dominant-party state to being a conservative, dominant-Party state. What has changed is that the Democratic Party has some room for populists and progressives and that the Republican Party has no room for anything outside a Fundamentalist-corporatist alliance. Democrats can again win in big cities and places with large Hispanic populations, but that is now it.

Also -- Barack Obama has shown himself the definitive campaigner for urban America (which now includes the older parts of Suburbia as much of it has taken on urban characteristics at the expense of rural characteristics once typical of new suburbs). To be sure he did win very rural Vermont and lost very urban Utah by large margins, which says much about the politics of Vermont and Utah. It could be that Hillary Clinton is more effective outside giant cities and old suburbs than Barack Obama is, which would give different results.

A tip-off on the dividing line between 'new' and 'old' suburbs: Orange County, California split about evenly. Suburban areas around Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta which are fairly new went Republican.

The New York Timeshad (and may still have) an electoral gimmick that showed where Obama did well and did badly in 2008 based on counties, DC, and 'independent cities'. In no Presidential election was the connection between income and Presidential voting so weak. Ethnicity was obvious. Education? Because the level of formal education is usually a good proxy for income, Republicans have typically had lost the worst-educated voters and won the best-educated voters. That has reversed. Southern Baptists and Mormons voted heavily against Obama -- no surprise.

So what was the tip-off? Population density. Barack Obama won the District of Columbia and on the whole about sixty-five counties, Boroughs of New York City, and independent cities. Cities outside county government or merged with county government include such behemoths as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Richmond (Virginia) -- but most of the 'independent cities' are in Virginia, and they include such places as Charlottesville, Harrisonburg, and Fredericksburg that have high population densities despite being cities that one does not know about unless one has been in Virginia.

Outside those sixty-five or so communities, America barely went for John McCain.

*I suspect plagiarism on the part of JPT because, ideologically loaded as the piece is, it looks vetted for broadcast or commercial publishing. My likely suspects are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter. Sarah Palin? She is too sloppy for that. I have no desire to search the 'masterpieces' of contemporary right-wing propaganda to find a source. If he were writing a college paper on American politics and used this material without proper attribution I would grill him on it.
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







Post#50 at 04-05-2015 03:43 PM by princeofcats67 [at joined Jan 2010 #posts 1,995]
---
04-05-2015, 03:43 PM #50
Join Date
Jan 2010
Posts
1,995

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
... I consider "Jim Crow" right-wing.
<chuckle!>


Prince

PS: I rest my case.
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."
-----------------------------------------