Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We by no means established that! You did state that, however. An incorrect reading of my statements, nevertheless.

Hey, Eric. You know, Tim did just say he's a little 'loosey-goosey' when it comes to details, so
I say we give him a break. Plus, I suspect we're just messin' with you(at least I know I am).

Originally Posted by Eric

So, I establish that you are responsible for your own figments. I trust they are tasty. I like figments myself.

Cool. Responsibility/Accountability. I like it.


Prince

PS: Plus, I wouldn't want you to feel like you have to act against your 'conscience', you know.

Originally Posted by TnT

This would have been a great idea for "W" and Dick and company before they made Iran the pre-eminent nation in the mideast. That's what ideology instead of pragmatism gets us.

"W" and Dick didn't see a young and largely inexperience liberal like Obama becoming the next president. If they had, they may not have been so ambitious.

Originally Posted by TnT

This whole "self-reliant" mythology always takes me back to John Donne's poem "For Whom the Bell Tolls." The few partly self-reliant folks are those who embrace subsistence farming, and even then, they have to have certain things in order to function, things that they simply can't get or make for themselves. It's all a matter of degree.

I am fascinated by a story that came out a few years ago about a family in Siberia who ran away from WW-II, into the mountains, and truly did "live off the land." Their story was very tragic, and very sad, how desperate much of their lives were. Finally they died out except, if memory serves, for one of the daughters who was so weird that she went back out into the wilderness and was never heard from again.

No, I'm afraid that we are all stuck with one another. If we can't figure that out and learn something from it, then the end of our species will no doubt be filled with pain and needless suffering. Self-sufficiency, actually its illusion, is not a character asset, except in moderate doses.

Tim, you can be self reliant and shop at a grocery store and live in a community.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The question needing an answer: is wacknuttery still viable? I don't think that's resolved at this point, but my gut says no. I can say the same about the boring main stream. That leaves us shy of Cruz, Paul and Bush, but not Walker. He's forged a different image. Whether its seen as viable is another question entirely. If it is, then my money is on him. If he doesn't vaporize in the first week or two, he has a real shot.

The whack-nut stuff would fail if it lacked sponsorship. If it posed a real danger to the Establishment it would be ridiculed in conservative circles. On a YouTube video, Sam Seder shows how spineless Rick Santorum is toward whack jobs (one of whom says "Barack Obama is a Communist dictator", and "We need to have him removed"). Never mind that there is only one Constitutional means of removing an elected President contrary to his desire, to wit impeachment, and that removing the President by sheer force is a coup d'état. If she can't understand why Barack Obama is President, then she has millions of fellow Americans to blame. I am one of them, so she can shake her finger at me and curse me for voting for Barack Obama and even for volunteering for his campaign.

That many of us put up with George W. Bush, perhaps wondering how America could elect someone so awful, ought suggest how to deal with a President that one dislikes. Sure, I made jokes about him and called him such names as "Dubius Maximus", "Spurious George", and (after the invasion of Iraq was shown to be on fraudulent premises) "Busholini"... but asking for him to be removed forcefully from office? No way. Such a removal from office would be a a coup d'état, a horrible precedent for dealing with an unpopular President. Elections have consequences.

Last time they picked the guy next in line. I doubt they will this time. Expect a mild surprise.

The GOP has its quarterback controversy. Such is rarely good for winning.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Here's a paper about this very topic.

That paper takes a different and more detailed approach, and one that has nothing to do with S&H (which is a good thing). Looking at presidential approval ratings during a person's formative years is entirely valid, and legitimate. That's also not good for the Democrats, because Obama's approval ratings have been under 50% for so long. And in fact, recent elections (both presidential and off-year) have shown the youngest voters (18-22) making a sharp break with older Millenials in favor of the Republicans. I think Mitt Romney actually won that age group, but my memory is hazy.

In any case, what I said is true based on the data we have. Generations do have a certain tilt, but they also have consistently shown a "rightward" (pro-Republican more accurately) shift somewhere from 40-60 years old that is larger than their tilt relative to other generations.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Tim, you can be self reliant and shop at a grocery store and live in a community.

The question is not whether people are involved in community. The question is whether that community is a collectivist, totalitarian government, or whether it follows the traditional American model where associations are bottom-up. The first and foremost being the family, the second the church group, then various private civic organizations and charities, followed last by local government, state government and the federal government in that order.

The Constitution was written for the specific purpose of making the federal government the last resort, not the first. The left today holds the completely opposite view, and wants to nationalize and collectivize every aspect of life, and give the federal government as much money and power as possible. Unfortunately, many Republicans who claim otherwise are very much on board with that mentality, disagreeing only about the form of federal dominance, and not really wanting to reverse it.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That is a bold and startling statement. Care to elaborate?

It's very early, but right now Scott Walker is looking very strong in the polls. He's leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire, without having formally announced or really begun to campaign in earnest.

Jeb Bush is close, but he's got a lot of things going against him. The "establishment" (big money donors and Beltway insiders) seems to be behind him, and he has name recognition on his side. But the record of the Bushes is not very favorable, and Jeb may have the least political skills of any of them. Not only is he suspect to primary voters, he's also got a very tough argument to make when it comes to being a general election candidate. The New York Times and Washington Post have been writing a lot of favorable articles about him. That's a bad sign for him.

Ted Cruz may be more ideologically pure than either of the above, and conservatives appreciate his image as a "fighter" in the Senate. But he is not that strong in the polls, even after his formal announcement and PR push. I think he's got questions about electability and seeming "presidential" to primary voters. I would say it's very unlikely Cruz will be the nominee, and most people share that opinion. VP, maybe.

Rand Paul occupies an unusual space, and will probably hang around for a long time with a portion of the vote, like his father. The Paul army is not big enough to win a nomination, but it is intense.

One of the reasons Walker is so strong is that he fits all of the criteria for a winning candidate. He's a governor, and people want someone from outside Washington DC. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, unlike the last three Republican nominees. Mitt Romney was badly hurt by that. He's a proven winner, having won three times in four years in a state that leans blue. He's from a part of the country that Republicans have made a lot of gains in recently at the state level, and will be targeting in 2016. He's been reliably conservative enough for the base, but also has a large national donor network thanks to his recall campaign.

At this point (again very early), I'd say Walker has a very good chance, and it's up to him to make it happen. Jeb Bush is very much like Hillary Clinton, except the Democrats have no other viable candidates, while the Republicans have many. He could theoretically win, but if he does it will be because all of his opponents disqualify themselves, and voters reluctantly support him as a last resort.

Based on the polls, right now it looks like Walker and Bush competing for the job, with Rand Paul hanging around, and everybody else below those three.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

...if I recall correctly, you've stated that your background involved engineering. Is that correct?

If so, I would think both of those areas would require quite a bit of 'attention to detail'

I think what Tim is describing is sort of an ADDish trait of having a lot of pots cooking but not necessarily finishing all of them. My wife is this way, and she is a good engineer. She is very bright and usually does at least two things at once, like when we go to the movies, I watch the film while she has to have a knitting project to work on while she is watching the movie. When she was working she imposed a system so all the details would followed up on. This system and her natural proclivity for multi-tasking made her an excellent project manager. So one can be like Tim and be a solid engineer.

As to the John Donne thing, I googled it and found that the successive clauses in Donne's prose piece can be presented as a sequence of individual lines that reads like poetry in that form. For this reason it is often called a poem. So Tim was only technically incorrect when he referred to it as a poem, as opposed to "poetic prose by the poet John Donne arranged as if it were a poem" which is likely how he had encountered it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It's very early, but right now Scott Walker is looking very strong in the polls. He's leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire, without having formally announced or really begun to campaign in earnest.

Jeb Bush is close, but he's got a lot of things going against him. The "establishment" (big money donors and Beltway insiders) seems to be behind him, and he has name recognition on his side. But the record of the Bushes is not very favorable, and Jeb may have the least political skills of any of them. Not only is he suspect to primary voters, he's also got a very tough argument to make when it comes to being a general election candidate. The New York Times and Washington Post have been writing a lot of favorable articles about him. That's a bad sign for him.

Ted Cruz may be more ideologically pure than either of the above, and conservatives appreciate his image as a "fighter" in the Senate. But he is not that strong in the polls, even after his formal announcement and PR push. I think he's got questions about electability and seeming "presidential" to primary voters. I would say it's very unlikely Cruz will be the nominee, and most people share that opinion. VP, maybe.

Rand Paul occupies an unusual space, and will probably hang around for a long time with a portion of the vote, like his father. The Paul army is not big enough to win a nomination, but it is intense.

One of the reasons Walker is so strong is that he fits all of the criteria for a winning candidate. He's a governor, and people want someone from outside Washington DC. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, unlike the last three Republican nominees. Mitt Romney was badly hurt by that. He's a proven winner, having won three times in four years in a state that leans blue. He's from a part of the country that Republicans have made a lot of gains in recently at the state level, and will be targeting in 2016. He's been reliably conservative enough for the base, but also has a large national donor network thanks to his recall campaign.

At this point (again very early), I'd say Walker has a very good chance, and it's up to him to make it happen. Jeb Bush is very much like Hillary Clinton, except the Democrats have no other viable candidates, while the Republicans have many. He could theoretically win, but if he does it will be because all of his opponents disqualify themselves, and voters reluctantly support him as a last resort.

Based on the polls, right now it looks like Walker and Bush competing for the job, with Rand Paul hanging around, and everybody else below those three.

Cruz has very little chance for the nomination because it is clear that is not his goal. Not everyone who runs for president seriously believed he has a reasonable chance of nomination. Do you think either Mike Gravel in 2008 or Herman Cain in 2012 thought he had a chance? Of course not. So why did they run? Presidential elections are the fora in which the major issues to be addressed in the next four years are set. By running one can influence the debate. This I believe was/is the goal of folks like Gravel, Bernie Sanders or Jim Webb. Some run in order to establish credentials as a major league player (e.g. Gore or Biden in 1988, Rubio today) or front runner (McCain in 2000, Romney, Biden in 2008). Some run or threaten to run to raise their political stature outside of electoral politics (Palin, Huckabee, Cain). I think Cruz is in this category. He is running too "ideologically pure" of a campaign to win sufficient support to gain the nomination.

I think Walker falls in the same category as Rubio. He is making trying to move into the big leagues. With a lucky break he could do well. With several lucky breaks he could win the nomination. He's young (47) and could be a future viable candidate as late as 2032. And he could be like Obama and break through on the first try.

But this is the Republican primary and for this we have to look at the anointed candidates. The elections for comparison would be open elections with no incumbents, when the bench empties: 1988, 2000, 2008. In all three, the anointed candidate won easily. In 1988 it was the runner-up from 1980 (who was also the sitting VP). In 2000 it was the son of the previous Republican president. In 2008 it was the runner-up from 2000 (the sitting VP had excluded himself from the contest).

In 2016 there is no credible runner up from 2008 (Romney has already run and lost in 2012). Republicans in 2016 are in the same boat as they were in 2000. The former VP Dan Quayle had flamed out in 1996 and was not running. Ford's VP had flamed out in 1996. There was no heir apparent. Reagan had no offspring who had achieved high elective office, so his line was extinct. Bush I has two sons, each governor of a major state. The eldest was nominated in 2000, and number 2 son is looking to run now. He's the closest thing to an heir apparent so I suppose the nomination will go to him. Really, who else can they choose? He's the only choice. The major job of this primary campaign is to set up the next heir apparent should Bush lose.

So this could be another completely predictable campaign with lots entertainment value like 2012.

Baring some unforeseen catastrophe, it's probably going to be the son of George V* and brother of George VI versus the wife of William VII. You always knew it.

*Regnal numbers are continued on from those inherited from Britain. Since regnal numbers continue after the Commonwealth, I did the same for the interlude under the Articles of Confederation. Of course our head of state is called President, is elected, and serves a fixed term (the number of which is restricted to two by the 22nd Amendment), whereas the British head of state is called King/Queen, inherits the position, and serves for life. On the other hand, our head of state has real power while the British monarch is purely a figurehead.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

"W" and Dick didn't see a young and largely inexperience liberal like Obama becoming the next president. If they had, they may not have been so ambitious.

They were ambitious all right -- but they brought America a budget-wrecking war that it did not need and a speculative boom that did what speculative booms usually do. If you think Obama a poor President on ideological grounds, he was not much less experienced and not much more liberal than John F. Kennedy. But that said, Dwight Eisenhower was a cautious, by-the-book leader who never challenged the core of legal precedent. Eisenhower did not leave Kennedy a mess already imploding.

They left America in need of leadership very different from their own. Experience in doing things the wrong way is no asset. President Obama is cautious; he knows his history. He may be comparatively young, but he acts like a mature Reactive. The two Reactive Presidents that America had in the twentieth century (Truman and Eisenhower) now get good reviews. Barack Obama gets bad reviews now -- but so did Truman and Eisenhower in their day. Of course, President Obama gets it worse because of the ferocious assault from right-wing journalism that never gives him a break because he is not a true believer in plutocratic oligarchy and aggressive neocolonialism.

.... you can be self reliant and shop at a grocery store and live in a community.

You still depend upon an economic order in which people are generally trustworthy, one that disparages blatant cheats and frauds because people fear the courts of law and the prisons. You depend upon the electrical grid to keep your food fresh as well as the computer from which you deliver pot shots at liberal thought. You depend upon a highway network. You depend upon police to suppress blatant crime and Armed Forces to keep invaders from stealing everything and enslaving us. You depend upon bank regulations that allow people to trust that the paychecks will not vanish due to bank runs.

You are not so self-reliant as you think.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Playwrite, in regard to splits in the parties -- I think a more logical split would be in the Democrats rather than the GOP. This assumes that the Republican Party continues to champion the neo-Confederate cause, circles the drain as the demographics change, and dies. So-called "moderate" Republicans abandon the party and become Democrats. The whacko birds lose elections and fade into obscurity.

The American electoral system requires two parties and won't long tolerate a one-party state, so the Democrats can't continue in that role for long. They'll split in one direction or the other. Either the progressive Democrats or the conservative Democrats will continue to use that name, the other side will adopt a new one. If the conserva-Dems remain Democrats, former moderate Republicans will, too; otherwise they'll call themselves something else.

As the GOP is now constituted, there's no role for them at all in future politics. They're doomed. As the South urbanizes, the Civil Conflict will finally end, and there will be no more neo-Confederates. Genuine dictionary-definition conservatives will contend with progressives and we'll have a healthy and functioning political culture for the first time -- well, ever.

Yes, I see the Dem split as viable as well. But one that requires first the demise of the GOP, at least as a national party (no more holding the WH or Senate filibuster capacity or House majorities).

I see the possibility of an accelerated GOP demise coming from a split in that party - that may lean more to a hope than a prediction for an acceleration of the inevitable.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As said earlier in the thread, there is a point (as part of the 4T/1T transition if you buy into S&H) where the left goes too far, and people turn against them. I think Brendan Eich and the recent threats of murder and arson against an Indiana pizzeria represent what is and will be the inflection point in that area.

From what passes today as 'conservative,' the Left has increasingly gone too far since Bill Clinton was first elected.

It's just that as today's conservatives increasingly recede from having a consequential national voice, the refrain will be "who cares?"

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

...

But I know from long history here that the people I'm talking to are completely beyond reason, and fully dedicated to a delusional world view in which the left marches ever forward and to greater and greater victories. Despite the fact that the Republicans already control both houses of Congress, the majority of governorships and state legislatures, all as a result of the most recent elections. But you're still here trumpeting the notion that the Democrats are on the way to permanent one party dominance. In other words, nothing has changed. And if some of you still don't see reality, you obviously never will.

Speaking of long history, you may want to go back and review your 2012 "pole skewing" posts that set you up for a lot of confused frustration and eventually led to your self-imposed hiatus from the forum.

You may want to be a little bit humble about suggesting others' delusional world views. Otherwise, I suspect we're headed to experiencing another of your self-inflicted exile post November 2016. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That's what you hope. But reality suggests otherwise. I remember people like you and others in this thread predicting Democrat control of Congress in recent elections as well, where you were completely wrong. But obviously no amount of being proven wrong by reality will stop you all, so enjoy.

Again, you may want to review who has been correct and who has been spectacularly wrong starting particularly with the 2012 Presidential elections.

I think we've been pretty consistent that the devolving of the GOP as a national party begins with (obviously) the only national election held - the Presidency.

The Senate will be next - one step back with two steps forward should not confuse one about the general inevitable direction. The fact that the GOP benefits from 2 Senators per state no matter how puny the relative population will delay but not stop their devolution in the Senate. In fact, one should expect eddies of opposite flow such as the 2014 elections with many more Dems than GOP incumbents coming to term in a mid-election of a second term Presidential term with voter turnout at a low level not seen since the 1950s.

The House will take longer as a result of the gerrymandering. Other GOP rear-guard actions (e.g., voter suppression, personifying corporations, willingness to lie through their teeth) will also delay the inevitable but also carry the seed of disgust that will eventually accelerate the devolution. Most importantly, you all are increasing old and slow, it's your very nature, can't be helped. But it this world, it spells doom. History's trash bin cometh.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

OMG ... political difference = physical difference? Seriously? That PoV is in and of itself quite primitive and lacks sophistication in the extreme.

Sorry XyMOX, but that reference wasn't the equivalent of some non-credential climate skeptic posted on Wattsupwiththat.com.

It is in a peer reviewed scientific journal that is summarizing the results of peer-review scientific articles reporting actual science.

It may be difficult to want to believe but it is what it is. If you think about it, it does explain why facts and logic seem to have little impact on the 'thinking' observed on the Right these days.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I almost hate to write this because the future of the Supreme Court would then depend totally on 4 heartbeats, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg's frail one, for two years, but the quickest way to get there is to have a GOP victory in 2016 followed by two years of worse than Dubya CF in DC.

For those paying attention (unfortunately, that is not most voters), there is no single issue at greater stake in 2016. Well, except maybe war with Iran.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't have to go to Gettysburg to view a previous high water mark. You should take every hot headed liberal college boy and girl to Gettysburg and force them to view the gruesome pictures and take a hard look at all the graves and inform them that that's what it's going take from them in order for them to radically CHANGE AMERICA during their lifetime. Not going to happen, you need those fools and need them to remain being fools and keep them in the dark as far as real life knowledge as it pertains to violent conflicts. BTW, a portion of the Midwest believes that it relies upon you and votes accordingly. A portion of the Midwest currently makes do without you and largely believes in itself. Another portion is self reliant and has always relied upon itself and has no political interest in you whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, you can keep those who believe that rely upon you because they're considered worthless without you. They can have you because you're pretty much worthless without a trust fund. BTW, if the well dries up, which groups are naturally better equipped for survival and dealing with a blood thirsty groups.

I see you're still hoping for that zombie apocalypse (ZA), ey? That's okay; just know the rest of us will continue to move on.

I did finally come to realize why the Right is so enamored with ZA - provides a perfect excuse to shoot people less fortunate.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Sure. It comes down to the fact that the plutocracy has lost control over the GOP, and Ted Cruz is the darling of the Tea Party that now controls the nominating process.

Actually, GOPLifer expresses it better than I can:

http://goplifer.com/2015/03/24/when-...home-to-roost/

Cruz garnering over $30 million in his first week after announcing surprised the holy crap out of everyone. If he is denied the nomination by Establishment GOP, this may be the source of the big split. He's got the ego to do it.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

.... the Democrats have no other viable candidates, while the Republicans have many.

There is a BIG difference between no viable Dems to take on the GOP nominee in the general and no viable Dem to take on Clinton in the primary.

The Dems could field a much larger set of nominees than the GOP clown car; the difference would be any of the Dem nominees would actually win the general against the clown that eventually emerges victorious from their car.

Misunderstanding this most basic situation is what is going to lead to a lot of poor predictions... and even more post-election frustration.

I know I'm the demographic who should be most excited about a Hillary presidency (white upper-middle class Boomer woman) but although I'd vote for her in the general election against just about any Republican, the thought of doing so does not inspire me in any way. Sigh.

My very liberal and politically-active 84-year-old mother feels the same way.

Hey, Mikebert.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I think what Tim is describing is sort of an ADDish trait of having a lot of pots cooking but not necessarily finishing all of them. My wife is this way, and she is a good engineer. She is very bright and usually does at least two things at once, like when we go to the movies, I watch the film while she has to have a knitting project to work on while she is watching the movie. When she was working she imposed a system so all the details would followed up on. This system and her natural proclivity for multi-tasking made her an excellent project manager. So one can be like Tim and be a solid engineer.

Well, thanks for weighing-in, but I'm not a big fan of 'assumptions', so I'll let
Tim speak for himself(if he's so inclined, or course). Good to know, though.

Originally Posted by Mike

As to the John Donne thing, I googled it and found that the successive clauses in Donne's prose piece can be presented as a sequence of individual lines that reads like poetry in that form. For this reason it is often called a poem. So Tim was only technically incorrect when he referred to it as a poem, as opposed to "poetic prose by the poet John Donne arranged as if it were a poem" which is likely how he had encountered it.

Interesting. I wasn't making any comments about the 'form' of Donne's piece.
Call it a treatise, or a story, or a song, ... whatever anyone wants to call it.
I was pointing-out that the title was stated incorrectly, and in my experience,
that's a 'red-flag' that someone might be referencing the piece without having
read the piece(apparently, there's been a lot of that going-around! ), and
hopefully contemplated on what the author was intending to convey.

But, Tim said it was just him following someone else's mistake, and I said that
it wasn't a problem, and that's that. So, ... I guess I'll talk to you later.


Prince

PS: You must feel blessed having such a loving and patient wife.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I see you're still hoping for that zombie apocalypse (ZA), ey? That's okay; just know the rest of us will continue to move on.

I did finally come to realize why the Right is so enamored with ZA - provides a perfect excuse to shoot people less fortunate.

I'm not hoping for one but I think there's a very strong possibility of one occurring during my lifetime.

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is a BIG difference between no viable Dems to take on the GOP nominee in the general and no viable Dem to take on Clinton in the primary.

The Dems could field a much larger set of nominees than the GOP clown car; the difference would be any of the Dem nominees would actually win the general against the clown that eventually emerges victorious from their car.

Misunderstanding this most basic situation is what is going to lead to a lot of poor predictions... and even more post-election frustration.

True. The Democrats could nominate Bozo The Clown as their presidential candidate and still have a 50/50 shot at beating the Republican candidate.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

in my experience, that's a 'red-flag' that someone might be referencing the piece without having read the piece(apparently, there's been a lot of that going-around! ), and hopefully contemplated on what the author was intending to convey.

One time I referenced The Bad News Bears having seen only the trailers not the movies. Boy did that ever cause a stir! But only for a self-professed expert who had apparently never seen the sequel(s?)

Now what's all this about Zombie rights?

P.S. Oddly enough, the message in the trailer was similar to this:
"I'm not a big fan of 'assumptions'"

Hey, wait a minute. There's no birthday party for me here!

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

One time I referenced The Bad News Bears having seen only the trailers not the movies. Boy did that ever cause a stir! But only for a self-professed expert who had apparently never seen the sequel(s?)

I remember. I even went back and checked(I've seriously gotta get a life! )

Originally Posted by Moron

Now what's all this about Zombie rights?

Now that one took me a second. " Eric's Temple"^TM!


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by My 'back-up' conscience!

P.S. Oddly enough, the message in the trailer was similar to this:
"I'm not a big fan of 'assumptions'"

Hey, I didn't say I wasn't a fan; I'm just not a big fan.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

(I've seriously gotta get a life! )

Same here.
So, until that happens ... "For Whom the Bell Tolls" was about God and Catholicism!?

ETA from your link:

The church is catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all.

if by this consideration of another's danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security