No doubt. Bruce Bartlett is rooting for Trump as a means to discredit the Tea Party.

Yeah, I read that last night. Guy came across as a colossal douche. Attitudes like that are why the "proles" never liked the establishment. And I say this as somebody whose politics are much close to Bartlett's than to say, Sarah Palin's.

I don't get the "despite". You pointed out that the stalwarts were white (as in 90% of their campaign staff) It's like they are Republicans. The problem was when confronted with the slogan Black Lives Matter, they did not know how to respond. Why hadn't they been prepped? Because the campaign is too white. Roughly half of Democrats are minorities, there's plenty of minority talent. If Bernie is to have a chance he has to energize minority voters. So far his rallies look like CPAC.

We are not actually disagreeing here. The whole point I was driving at here, and in another couple of threads like "Generations who grew up differently to the norm", was that a lot of (white) progressive intellectuals take the support of groups like Hispanics and Blacks for granted, and assume that changing demographics mean their inevitable political triumph. Which may be true in the short term, but as the demographics continue to shift and the Republicans as is become much less of a threat they will find that their interests diverge more and more, spurring a realignment of the party system.

Barack Obama became the first black president largely by making white progressives feel comfortable. In the future, as their votes become less necessary, you might start seeing politicians that look a lot more like Charlie Barron.

In the meantime, we're in a bit of an interregnum in terms of party systems, with the Democrats having the edge, but the lines not firmly drawn yet. Having party elites out of touch with their bases is a symptom, if not a direct cause, of that.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Kinser, XYMOX's mention of NBP was not a typo, he was not referring to Lenin's NEP program. He was referring to the national socialist national Bolshevik party in today's Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism

Correct. Putin et al have appropriated NBP content and built on it.

I don't think so. The NBP is opposed to the Putin Government and the Russian state has arrested key figures of that party and it is also banned. Further Putin has been strengthening ties with the Russian Orthodox Church something that the NBP in particular opposes. Putin's ideology may be indecipherable (probably because he doesn't seem to have one other than "make Russia great again") but it is not National Bolshevism.

The NBP is as about as relevant to the Russian state as the American Nazi Party is here.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Bobby Kennedy Jr ( via his mouthpiece Ring of Fire ) is endorsing Bernie

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/...use-you-asked/

That's close by blood line but light years from an endorsement by the "Lion of the Senate" that made Obama possible.

There is only one person in the world that could do for Bernie what Teddy did for Obama - hint: he's no longer in the Senate but his name is in this post. Other hint - ain't gonna happen.

By the way, here's a good refresher for what happened back then -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080303184.html

How Obama Snared the Lion of the Senate

Obama's political brilliance will not be fully appreciated until a few years after he leaves the WH. Sorry, Bernie, and, in fact, Hillary, are not in his league - although they're both light years ahead of anyone in the GOP clown car.

People still don't get this because they're still bitter about not getting a Savior that could poop magic ponies out his ass.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

.... a lot of (white) progressive intellectuals take the support of groups like Hispanics and Blacks for granted, and assume that changing demographics mean their inevitable political triumph. Which may be true in the short term, but as the demographics continue to shift and the Republicans as is become much less of a threat they will find that their interests diverge more and more, spurring a realignment of the party system...

And one would have to assume that the gulf between current Dems and the GOP is also as wide between progressive Whites and Hispanic and Blacks - simply, it's not, and not by orders of magnitudes.

When those differences become the focal points for political choices,it will be a welcomed return to sanity for all (with the exception, of course, of all those old White GOPers left to scream at the kids to get off the lawn at their retirement homes)

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Well there will be a seventh party system, assuming the country remains intact and functional under current construction. The form it takes depends on many variables.

I would say that ideology is a likely point of divergence. Race and/or color will likely play a role. The party seen as the Party of the White Elite can expect whatever party that is (GOP, Dems, or Other) to not gain or have defections of Black Americans. The White Elite almost never has our interests in mind. Ultimately though, I view the US as requiring a Constitutional Convention to sort out many of our electoral and political problems. We have to bear in mind that the Constitution was written for a slave holding, agrigarian federation of states and not a free labor, industrial (some would say post-industrial) semi-federation of states.

I say semi-federation because much power that once belonged to the states has been taken over by the federal government...some for good (a lot for good actually) and some not-so-good.

Ultimately I would prefer a new constitution with a weak presidency and an almost Westminster like parliamentary system. I would also strongly favor proportional representation in at least one of the two houses of that legislative body.

I would like the US to copy Germany, which is a federal republic with a parliamentary system and some proportional representation.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Bobby Kennedy Jr ( via his mouthpiece Ring of Fire ) is endorsing Bernie

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/...use-you-asked/

Unfortunately Bobby Jr. is also a woo-woo who thinks vaccines cause autism.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And one would have to assume that the gulf between current Dems and the GOP is also as wide between progressive Whites and Hispanic and Blacks - simply, it's not, and not by orders of magnitudes.

When those differences become the focal points for political choices,it will be a welcomed return to sanity for all (with the exception, of course, of all those old White GOPers left to scream at the kids to get off the lawn at their retirement homes)

Sure, for a time. As I pointed out before, any sort of realignment is probably going to require a Democratic victory through the 4T and the die off of the older generations of GOP voters (unless of course the present Republican party pulls something magical out of a hat). Longer term, you may or may not like what the Democratic party might become. Lord knows you don't care for the radical left now.

Which is, of course, precisely the sort of thing that would spur the formation of a new party system in the first place.

Originally Posted by Odin

I would like the US to copy Germany, which is a federal republic with a parliamentary system and some proportional representation.

Could be interesting. Out of curiosity, does anybody here advocating a complete transformation of the Constitutional order actually see a plausible path to that within the near future, complete with signs that it is actually moving in that direction, or is this more along the lines of a "wouldn't it be pretty"?

Not judging, necessarily, just wondering.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Could be interesting. Out of curiosity, does anybody here advocating a complete transformation of the Constitutional order actually see a plausible path to that within the near future, complete with signs that it is actually moving in that direction, or is this more along the lines of a "wouldn't it be pretty"?

Not judging, necessarily, just wondering.

Yes but no. I'd like to see a convention, but I don't anticipate it would work until after a successful regeneracy and transformation. Right now the country is too divided to agree on much. I don't anticipate that a supermajority of states could agree on anything substantial in our current political environment.

Major changes to the constitution generally take place at the 4T 1T cusp. The country is united, or at least the defeated minority is powerless. A new approach has just overcome a major problem. The nation is ready to hammer down these solutions, to carve them in stone.

While I'd genuinely like to see it happen, I can't see a "plausible path... within the near future". Heck, I can't even see signs of a regeneracy in the immediate future. We're at least one major catalyst from breaking deadlock.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Yes but no. I'd like to see a convention, but I don't anticipate it would work until after a successful regeneracy and transformation. Right now the country is too divided to agree on much. I don't anticipate that a supermajority of states could agree on anything substantial in our current political environment.

Major changes to the constitution generally take place at the 4T 1T cusp. The country is united, or at least the defeated minority is powerless. A new approach has just overcome a major problem. The nation is ready to hammer down these solutions, to carve them in stone.

While I'd genuinely like to see it happen, I can't see a "plausible path... within the near future". Heck, I can't even see signs of a regeneracy in the immediate future. We're at least one major catalyst from breaking deadlock.

I have predicted such, and I see a number of reforms that could happen fast after the GOP deadlock is broken, such as taking money out of politics, ending gerrymandering, making filibusters easier to overcome, and possibly other things: proportional representation, limiting the president's power to make war, or even a new parliamentary system, which all other democracies have including even the one we imposed on Iraq! Ours is after all an elected-king imperial presidency system which, since it was the first modern republican or democratic constitution, could be considered out of date. These are just the constitutional and systemic changes; other reforms will happen too. The major constitutional amendment has already been proposed and endorsed by some states: to repeal citizens united. The right to vote also needs to be reaffirmed.

A couple of other possibilities exist for this period (not due until after 2025 and before 2029-30). If a moderate independent coalition takes power, we might also see a balanced budget amendment, and end to the Fed, a line-item veto, an end to or modifications to the electoral college, and other more-conservative changes, but probably not without some of the more-liberal proposals also, like those above.

The second possibility is that we have secessions and even a civil war. In that case, the new constitution will actually be several of them, for two or more new nations. In that case, the more liberal new nation may act to repeal or modify the second amendment. It is unlikely, but perhaps a possibility. We are talking constitutional changes here, after all. The new Dixieland/Prairieland will of course enact the more conservative ideas that have been floating around since the Contract with America.

So, are you no longer claiming that any right wing uprising would be swiftly put down?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Could be interesting. Out of curiosity, does anybody here advocating a complete transformation of the Constitutional order actually see a plausible path to that within the near future, complete with signs that it is actually moving in that direction, or is this more along the lines of a "wouldn't it be pretty"?

Not judging, necessarily, just wondering.

I think it's unlikely for the foreseeable future, the current constitution is too highly revered to an almost religious degree.

Originally Posted by Odin

I think it's unlikely for the foreseeable future, the current constitution is too highly revered to an almost religious degree.

Ah, so you'd agree with this statement, then?

Relevant Component:

As to a Constitutional Convention, parliamentary democracy? Could be interesting, not really seeing enough movement to make it seem realistic within the foreseeable future. Will keep an eye out for it, but still. The idolization of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers is pretty basic to America's conception of itself, and you'll probably have to wait till the next Awakening to see that start to shift, if indeed it does.

I think our heads are in the same place here.

Originally Posted by Odin

I would like the US to copy Germany, which is a federal republic with a parliamentary system and some proportional representation.

I don't think we would be successful in completely copying the Germans. While their constitution is in many ways superior to ours, our cultures are different. I would expect that we would find a more Westminster like system more to our liking. That said we could change the lower and upper houses a bit. We could have the lower house be a set number of reps with people voting for party lists for proportional representation, and have state elections for senators and have that based on population with a minimum of 2 senators.

The form our constitution has taken has to do with the age in which it was written. I have not examined the German Constitution in some time, but I think that the key is to limit some states having more power than the others as much as possible while allowing the majority to rule. Minority rights have to be protected lest we have mob rule.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Could be interesting. Out of curiosity, does anybody here advocating a complete transformation of the Constitutional order actually see a plausible path to that within the near future, complete with signs that it is actually moving in that direction, or is this more along the lines of a "wouldn't it be pretty"?

Not judging, necessarily, just wondering.

Right now it is the "wouldn't it be pretty" phase. I think that until we have a regeneracy of some sort that we won't see signs of us moving in any direction.

Off the top of my head a new constitution I would like to see would have a Congress composed of two houses. A House of Representives who would be elected along party list lines using proportional representation (this of course means eliminating all laws that enforce a two-party system). I think 500 reps would be a good number. They would elect someone who would act as Prime Minister. The speaker would be appointed by the President.

The upper house would be a senate based upon representation of population and senators must be elected by the state as whole...none of this district crap. I think that 2 million in population would be good, and each state will have to have at least 2 senators minimum, so you'd need a population of at least 4 million before you could get 1 extra senator.

In this case using 2012 population estimates California would get 19 senators for their 38+ million population whereas Wyoming would get 2 (the minimum) and Kentucky 3 (4 million and change population).

The Senate would elect their own President of the Senate who would run the Senate. For legislation to become law both houses would have to agree to it.

The Presidency would be largely reduced to a ceremonial office.

States would be left up to devise their own constitutions though (s)he could appoint people to head various departments, bureaus, and etc as created by Congress.

The Supreme Court would remain largely unchanged except that justices would be required to retire at a certain age. They would still be appointed by the President, but only subject to an up or down vote in the Senate.

Election of the President would be by popular vote. The electoral collage has to go.

Election day would be a national holiday where everyone except emergency service personnel would be off. Early voting would be allowed, as would absentee voting. Finally an automated online petitioning system would be implemented so that the congress must act on a petition with a certain number of signatures. (Doesn't mean whatever is petitioned for will pass, but a bill will be written and submitted to at least a committee).

Kinser,

That is interesting, on the other hand, it might be easier just to change election laws.

On the original topic of this thread, Bernie Sanders challenges conventional wisdom among the elite on immigration:

Ezra Klein: You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing …Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.
Ezra Klein: Really?
Bernie Sanders: Of course. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. …
Ezra Klein: But it would make …
Bernie Sanders: Excuse me …
Ezra Klein: It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn’t it?
Bernie Sanders: It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.
You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?
I think from a moral responsibility we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.
Ezra Klein: Then what are the responsibilities that we have? Someone who is poor by US standards is quite well off by, say, Malaysian standards, so if the calculation goes so easily to the benefit of the person in the US, how do we think about that responsibility?
We have a nation-state structure. I agree on that. But philosophically, the question is how do you weight it? How do you think about what the foreign aid budget should be? How do you think about poverty abroad?
Bernie Sanders: I do weigh it. As a United States senator in Vermont, my first obligation is to make certain kids in my state and kids all over this country have the ability to go to college, which is why I am supporting tuition-free public colleges and universities. I believe we should create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and ask the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes. I believe we should raise the minimum wage to at least 15 bucks an hour so people in this county are not living in poverty. I think we end the disgrace of some 20 percent of our kids living in poverty in America. Now, how do you do that?
What you do is understand there’s been a huge redistribution of wealth in the last 30 years from the middle class to the top tenth of 1 percent. The other thing that you understand globally is a horrendous imbalance in terms of wealth in the world. As I mentioned earlier, the top 1 percent will own more than the bottom 99 percent in a year or so. That’s absurd. That takes you to programs like the IMF and so forth and so on.
But I think what we need to be doing as a global economy is making sure that people in poor countries have decent-paying jobs, have education, have health care, have nutrition for their people. That is a moral responsibility, but you don’t do that, as some would suggest, by lowering the standard of American workers, which has already gone down very significantly.

Bold stuff, might shoot him in the foot with the Democratic party of today though.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Kinser,

That is interesting, on the other hand, it might be easier just to change election laws.

Might need its own thread.

On the original topic of this thread, Bernie Sanders challenges conventional wisdom among the elite on immigration:



Bold stuff, might shoot him in the foot with the Democratic party of today though.

Only if the Democratic party insists on sticking to the Boomer led DLC section of that party. Sanders is in line with the thinking of many Xers and Millies regardless their party identification.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Ah, so you'd agree with this statement, then?

Relevant Component:



I think our heads are in the same place here.

Yeah, I pretty much agree.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Sure, for a time. As I pointed out before, any sort of realignment is probably going to require a Democratic victory through the 4T and the die off of the older generations of GOP voters (unless of course the present Republican party pulls something magical out of a hat). Longer term, you may or may not like what the Democratic party might become. Lord knows you don't care for the radical left now.

Which is, of course, precisely the sort of thing that would spur the formation of a new party system in the first place.

Actually, depending on what is meant by contemporary "radical Left," I'm probable more in agreement than not. If we're talking "single payer" and SS-for-all without payroll taxes (except as one of many tools to mitigate harmful inflation if it should arise); free education including post-secondary; vast increases in infrastructure and public space spending (up to the point of harmful inflation); and environmental protection and smart energy investment, etc. etc. then I'm all in.

My issue with many of today's radical Left is their magic pony thinking, e.g., the '08 Obamatrons that saw him as a Messiah and then trashed him a year or two later because he didn't poop magic ponies out his ass. My issue gets amplified with those espousing anything further to the Left as it becomes completely unrealistic and actually harmful (e.g. single party mafia systems like in today's Russia and China). Same goes with the magic pony Libertarians on the Right. Both extremes tend to either (a) get behind the next promised Messiah (Sanders on the Left; any candidate on the Right) coming in and clicking his ruby red slippers together and poof, Nirvana, or (b) are assured some hoped-for bloody revolution will take place where they, of course, will not only survive but prosper because, well, they are obviously not only the correct but the chosen ones. Neither is going to happen, and I find these viewpoints to be not just intellectual laziness but intellectual masturbation.

So if the future split is between those that actually move the ball down the field and those that stay home playing with themselves, from my perch in the afterlife, I'd be pretty happy with the inevitable results.

Look up the sordid details of the 2010 Illinois Senate race between Mark Kirk and Alex Giannoulias, and you will understand why Sanders is a total non-starter in the Midwest as well as (obviously) the South.

If Sanders is the Democratic nominee, the Republican candidate will literally make schneider in November.

I came here to post the same thing that Jordan did. Maybe Kinser can set me straight, but between that and his screwup at Netroots Nation it seems that Sanders really needs to work more on the racial aspects of his campaign.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Actually, depending on what is meant by contemporary "radical Left," I'm probable more in agreement than not. If we're talking "single payer" and SS-for-all without payroll taxes (except as one of many tools to mitigate harmful inflation if it should arise); free education including post-secondary; vast increases in infrastructure and public space spending (up to the point of harmful inflation); and environmental protection and smart energy investment, etc. etc. then I'm all in.

Basically we would be wise this time to do for ourselves what we did for liberated Germany and liberated Japan after World War II -- expunge the demons and establish a fair, workable new order. We Americans excise our own demons, or some other countries solve that problem at best as we did in the late 1940s.

My issue with many of today's radical Left is their magic pony thinking, e.g., the '08 Obamatrons that saw him as a Messiah and then trashed him a year or two later because he didn't poop magic ponies out his ass. My issue gets amplified with those espousing anything further to the Left as it becomes completely unrealistic and actually harmful (e.g. single party mafia systems like in today's Russia and China). Same goes with the magic pony Libertarians on the Right. Both extremes tend to either (a) get behind the next promised Messiah (Sanders on the Left; any candidate on the Right) coming in and clicking his ruby red slippers together and poof, Nirvana, or (b) are assured some hoped-for bloody revolution will take place where they, of course, will not only survive but prosper because, well, they are obviously not only the correct but the chosen ones. Neither is going to happen, and I find these viewpoints to be not just intellectual laziness but intellectual masturbation.

Our Right is as capable of establishing a Mafia-like political order as in Russia or China. But yes -- we got two excellent years out of Barack Obama and wasted the other six. Just think of what the Koch brothers have panned for us -- an economic order of low pay, no job security, and very high (monopolistic) prices. The Right can make America the sort of country that people do everything possible to leave.

So if the future split is between those that actually move the ball down the field and those that stay home playing with themselves, from my perch in the afterlife, I'd be pretty happy with the inevitable results.

One view of Heaven is that one gets a ringside seat watching the horrors of Hell. I figure that after a few minutes of watching the shade of Blondi (Hitler's dog, and paradoxically his last victim) devouring the shade of the man who tested a cyanide pellet on him after commanding that millions be murdered I would be ready for something very different. Learning to play the cello, perhaps?

Another view is that in Heaven the horrors of This World and even worse in Hell are out of sight and out of mind. I'd be satisfied with that.

PW,

Come on, I don't even identify as left-wing and I support most of those. Can you re... Ah, to hell with it, you'll probably be dead before any of this becomes an issue. Enjoy the ride, at this point.

Bronco,

Given his polling among nonwhite primary voters, I'm not seeing this guy taking off. 'Course, the Trump thing is catching me a little by surprise, so come election time, who the fuck knows?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... Sanders is in line with the thinking of many Xers and Millies regardless their party identification.

H-m-m-m. I'm not convinced that's true enough to get the job done. I wish it was. Sanders does well when he gets a hearing, but there are lots of places where the populace of all gens chant LA-LA-LA-LA-LA with their fingers in their ears.