Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Or at the very least, automatic runoffs for Congressional and State legislature and other offices (even Senate seats). Which could be implemented state by state by initiated constitutional amendments. Automatic runoffs would boost the power of third parties and independents because (this is in Australia) voters rank candidates in order of preference. And nobody gets elected with less than a majority of at least preferences. In Australia, candidates for the major parties depend on being the second choice of voters for minor parties. Aussies don't care if it takes several days to determine winners of parliamentary seats and thus who forms the government. Aussies chose this over "first past the post" in the UK and US when they became independent in 1901. And this (along with fines for not voting) makes Australia a far more democratic and fair country than either the US or the UK.

No doubt about it; a reform sorely needed to help save democracy.

The real question regarding automatic runoff would be whether a conservative Supreme Court would shut it down by finding a reason to rule it unconstitutional if it started to catch on. Though if the Court started ruling basically that the US was founded as and should remain an oligarchy, this would truly create impetus for a new constitutional convention.

An excellent reason to hold your nose and vote for Hillary, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No doubt about it; a reform sorely needed to help save democracy.

An excellent reason to hold your nose and vote for Hillary, don't you think?

Hillary is the anti-4T candidate. She campaigns as a 3T-1T bridge, that conveniently avoids the resolution of 4T issues. She's Bill with breasts.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Hillary is the anti-4T candidate. She campaigns as a 3T-1T bridge, that conveniently avoids the resolution of 4T issues. She's Bill with breasts.

--don't they say that after you've been married long enough you start looking like each other, acting like each other, thinking like each other-well @ least finishing each other's sentences

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Hillary is the anti-4T candidate. She campaigns as a 3T-1T bridge, that conveniently avoids the resolution of 4T issues. She's Bill with breasts.

But a 4T IS the bridge. There's no choice that the 4T is a fight with one side winning and the other losing. The increasingly insufficient aggregate demand isn't going to be wished away or swept under the rug.

You're confusing tactics for endpoint.

One tactic is for an angry old man holed up in the WH increasingly laughed at and isolated for his ineffectiveness in dealing with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell - you do remember them? And just like with the '08 Obamatrons and President Obama, the BernieBots will be the first to abandon President Sanders. Any doubt who DebC is supporting; any doubt of her eventual disappointment?

The other tactic is someone in the WH who will be smiling and charming as she slips the shive between your ribs and into your beating heart. It's called "triangulation for revenge" not to be confused with the 1990s "triangulation for kumbaya" or for its lesser cousin "lets sit and be rational" of 2008-2013.

For the later tactic, I can't think of a better choice than a Bill Clinton with breasts.



For those unfamiliar, that's Hillary on the horse in the foreground and the GOP Congressional Caucus on the burning ships in the background.

Originally Posted by playwrite

But a 4T IS the bridge. There's no choice that the 4T is a fight with one side winning and the other losing. The increasingly insufficient aggregate demand isn't going to be wished away or swept under the rug.

You're confusing tactics for endpoint.

One tactic is for an angry old man holed up in the WH increasingly laughed at and isolated for his ineffectiveness in dealing with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell - you do remember them? And just like with the '08 Obamatrons and President Obama, the BernieBots will be the first to abandon President Sanders. Any doubt who DebC is supporting; any doubt of her eventual disappointment?

The other tactic is someone in the WH who will be smiling and charming as she slips the shive between your ribs and into your beating heart. It's called "triangulation for revenge" not to be confused with the 1990s "triangulation for kumbaya" or for its lesser cousin "lets sit and be rational" of 2008-2013.*

For the later tactic, I can't think of a better choice than a Bill Clinton with breasts.


For those unfamiliar, that's Hillary on the horse in the foreground and the GOP Congressional Caucus on the burning ships in the background.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Problems can be papered over or mitigated, but that leaves them in place. 4Ts are supposed to resolve them. So far, I have yet to see a resolution to any problem from Hillary. It's interesting that you hold views similar to Paul Krugman, who is also tone-deaf on this issue.

Now is not a time for incrementalism, because incrementalism is just failure in slow motion. Once the 1T is in place, sclerosis will lock the not-solution in place for the duration. Now, the solution will be addressed, but doing it in a 2T involves action-by-hotheads, which is risky at best. Holding it for the next 4T risks ACW-II.

* I don't see Hillary in that role either. She's pissed, but more than happy to win by attrition ... which is the problem.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Problems can be papered over or mitigated, but that leaves them in place. 4Ts are supposed to resolve them. So far, I have yet to see a resolution to any problem from Hillary. It's interesting that you hold views similar to Paul Krugman, who is also tone-deaf on this issue.

I like playwrite's analogy of a British Queen. Britain's greatest royal rulers were female. I admit that there was also Maggie. But a woman's touch may be just what we need, and an angry old man maybe not.

I am with Bernie, because he has been the consistent liberal and right on the issues. But I am also with Hillary. We need to go with whichever one ends up on top. The alternative is too horrible to conceive. You don't get to the good by going to the bad first. You just get more bad to clean up. We already have too much climate change and inequality baked in to clean up. Even more at this critical stage would be a horrendous blunder. Not that we haven't already made horrendous blunders.

Now is not a time for incrementalism, because incrementalism is just failure in slow motion. Once the 1T is in place, sclerosis will lock the not-solution in place for the duration. Now, the solution will be addressed, but doing it in a 2T involves action-by-hotheads, which is risky at best. Holding it for the next 4T risks ACW-II.

* I don't see Hillary in that role either. She's pissed, but more than happy to win by attrition ... which is the problem.

I had to look back and see what you starred in your edit that you entered as I posted this

OK, that sounds OK. But I don't think, as playwrite pointed out, that we have an alternative to incrementalism at this point, because of who owns the congress. Either Sanders or Hillary may do equally well. They can both work with congress effectively to get a few things done. They can maintain the treaties and the regulations that we so desparately need, and which the Republibots desperately want to tear up.

Dodd-Frank is a workable law to prevent another great recession, and brought back some regulation. We need to keep it. We need to keep the carbon regulations and gas-guzzling limits on. We need that agreement with Iran. We need the negotiations over Syria to continue (which Sanders may disrupt). We need Obama to join the Supreme Court.

I agree we will need to go beyond incrementalism. More than that, I predict that we WILL. But not in the 2010s. It's not in the stars. An ACW II may well be. But if so, it will happen in this 4T, not the next one. That is as sure a prediction as can be.

I'm not sure even Sanders understands all that needs to be done to "solve" the problem. We need to do much more than most people even comprehend yet.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Problems can be papered over or mitigated, but that leaves them in place. 4Ts are supposed to resolve them. So far, I have yet to see a resolution to any problem from Hillary. It's interesting that you hold views similar to Paul Krugman, who is also tone-deaf on this issue.

Now is not a time for incrementalism, because incrementalism is just failure in slow motion. Once the 1T is in place, sclerosis will lock the not-solution in place for the duration. Now, the solution will be addressed, but doing it in a 2T involves action-by-hotheads, which is risky at best. Holding it for the next 4T risks ACW-II.

* I don't see Hillary in that role either. She's pissed, but more than happy to win by attrition ... which is the problem.

And you've seen resolution from Bernie? Like what? And what exactly will be his mechanism for doing so on the scale to do something about this 4T and specifically the growing lack of aggregate demand - giving even more pissed off speeches? Yea, I'm sure that's going to move Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Maybe if Bernie really scolds them they'll pass Medicare-for-all before they vote to repeal Obamacare for the upteenth time?


On the other hand -

President Hillary begins to introduce GOP Congress to her updated triangulation -

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Hillary is the anti-4T candidate. She campaigns as a 3T-1T bridge, that conveniently avoids the resolution of 4T issues. She's Bill with breasts.

Watch out, Playwrite will accuse you of being a "Bernie-Bot" who wants a President Cruz, too!

If the US economy slides in recession and Clinton is the Dem nominee the Republicans will win. Obama and Clinton both made HUGE mistakes, with Obama's tone-deaf bragging about how good the economy is at the SOTU Address and Clinton then essentially running as Obama's 3rd Term. The last 6 years of economic growth has not tricked down and because of that the majority of Americans think the Great Recession never ended.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And you've seen resolution from Bernie? Like what? And what exactly will be his mechanism for doing so on the scale to do something about this 4T and specifically the growing lack of aggregate demand - giving even more pissed off speeches? Yea, I'm sure that's going to move Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Maybe if Bernie really scolds them they'll pass Medicare-for-all before they vote to repeal Obamacare for the upteenth time?

Well, the Bern has one thing Clinton ain't got, credibility man. With credibility, there's at least a chance of getting something done, of course with a better congress. You need both.

On the other hand -

President Hillary begins to introduce Millies to her updated triangulation - I fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No doubt about it; a reform sorely needed to help save democracy.

An excellent reason to hold your nose and vote for Hillary, don't you think?

Nope! And Hillary would not like automatic runoff either. I might as well hold my nose and vote for Trump. He triangulates too!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I like playwrite's analogy of a British Queen. ...

Hey, Eric.

I'm actually going to agree with you here, generally speaking, but
although the Crisis-aspect may fit, the choice of monarch doesn't.
Elizabeth I was a Reprisal-Nomad.


Prince

PS: And, I believe English Queen would be the correct terminology.
(Great Britain wasn't established until the early 1700s. Just sayin'.)

Originally Posted by Odin

Watch out, Playwrite will accuse you of being a "Bernie-Bot" who wants a President Cruz, too!

If the US economy slides in recession and Clinton is the Dem nominee the Republicans will win. Obama and Clinton both made HUGE mistakes, with Obama's tone-deaf bragging about how good the economy is at the SOTU Address and Clinton then essentially running as Obama's 3rd Term. The last 6 years of economic growth has not tricked down and because of that the majority of Americans think the Great Recession never ended.

For the majority of Americans, the Great Recession has NOT ended. Any more than the recession of the 1870s in the Gilded Age ended for Americans until the late 1890s. 2009 was when the creative destruction of the automation of work started to hit with a vengeance.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Hey, Eric.

I'm actually going to agree with you here, generally speaking, but
although the Crisis-aspect may fit, the choice of monarch doesn't.
Elizabeth I was a Reprisal-Nomad.





Prince

PS: And, I believe English Queen would be the correct terminology.
(Great Britain wasn't established until the early 1700s. Just sayin'.)

Elizabeth I was about as much of a Nomad as a Royal could get. Last in line to the Throne. In a precarious position as far as her own survival was concerned, first from her father, Henry VIII and then from her sister, Mary. She had to change residences repeatedly before she became Queen too. Unable to marry and have children because it would cost her kingdom it's independence or embroil it in a war. A genuine survivor, and ultimately, last of her line, the Tudors.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Nope! And Hillary would not like automatic runoff either. I might as well hold my nose and vote for Trump. He triangulates too!

No he doesn't even do that. He just blusters and says how great he is.

No mere president is going to institute automatic runoffs. That is probably going to come if and when the 4T gets to the point where almost everything is up in the air. In the mid 2020s, if we get to it this time around.

Those of us who know what a threat climate change is, and that if anything it may be too late to deal with it, are horrified at the idea of a denier as president. Not to mention a warmonger like Trump who would tear up the Iran agreement and allow that country to have nucs.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Elizabeth I was about as much of a Nomad as a Royal could get. Last in line to the Throne. In a precarious position as far as her own survival was concerned, first from her father, Henry VIII and then from her sister, Mary. She had to change residences repeatedly before she became Queen too. Unable to marry and have children because it would cost her kingdom it's independence or embroil it in a war. A genuine survivor, and ultimately, last of her line, the Tudors.

And possibly cost her life -- two of her stepmothers -- Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr -- died shortly after giving birth. (Catherine Parr survived Henry VIII, but then married Thomas Seymour and died after presenting him with a daughter.)

Originally Posted by playwrite

And you've seen resolution from Bernie? Like what? And what exactly will be his mechanism for doing so on the scale to do something about this 4T and specifically the growing lack of aggregate demand - giving even more pissed off speeches? Yea, I'm sure that's going to move Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. Maybe if Bernie really scolds them they'll pass Medicare-for-all before they vote to repeal Obamacare for the upteenth time?


On the other hand -

President Hillary begins to introduce GOP Congress to her updated triangulation -

Oh yes, another round of solutions like the ACA, which create much animosity while resolving issues poorly. Let's agree that no one is gong to get the GOP to do anything productive, unless it's on their terms. We need less of that and more invective, properly aimed.

Great Presidents know ho to work the crowd, and threaten their adversaries. Reagan did, as did FDR before him. I'm not Bernie is up to the task, but I know that Hillary isn't even interested.

Originally Posted by Odin

Watch out, Playwrite will accuse you of being a "Bernie-Bot" who wants a President Cruz, too!

If the US economy slides in recession and Clinton is the Dem nominee the Republicans will win. Obama and Clinton both made HUGE mistakes, with Obama's tone-deaf bragging about how good the economy is at the SOTU Address and Clinton then essentially running as Obama's 3rd Term. The last 6 years of economic growth has not tricked down and because of that the majority of Americans think the Great Recession never ended.

It would be wonderful to see the statistics with the bottom and top 5% removed. I suspect they would not be pretty.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

For the majority of Americans, the Great Recession has NOT ended. Any more than the recession of the 1870s in the Gilded Age ended for Americans until the late 1890s. 2009 was when the creative destruction of the automation of work started to hit with a vengeance.

This is a long and sad story. Americans no longer expect to receive their fair share of the gains, because it's been decades since they have:

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is a long and sad story. Americans no longer expect to receive their fair share of the gains, because it's been decades since they have:

And much of the productivity is not "automation" per se. A lot of it is things like:
- I can run a con call / Webex that has people all over the world on it and get those 50 people to make a decision real time. Then the guys in China, then India, then Slovakia, then Ireland, work on it through the 24 hour clock. Of course, the downside is, to have the meeting I needed to work at midnight my time above and beyond "core work hours."
- Matrix management
- OK, I guess this one is a sort of automation - apps that impart workflows married with immense databases to allow all those folks working on the 24 hour clock to formally "move the ball" - and months or years later I can go back and still review it all.
- More crassly, everyone is work, work, work, working more and more hours ... and even when supposedly away from work the boss has you on his electronic leash.
- Etc, etc ....

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Hey, Eric.

I'm actually going to agree with you here, generally speaking, but
although the Crisis-aspect may fit, the choice of monarch doesn't.
Elizabeth I was a Reprisal-Nomad.

Prince agrees with me on something. I think I'll have a drink to celebrate

Yes, but there don't seem to be many Gen X lady candidates yet.

Prince

PS: And, I believe English Queen would be the correct terminology.
(Great Britain wasn't established until the early 1700s. Just sayin'.)

Yes indeed. It's funny how that happened. William Wallace and Robert the Bruce kept Edward Longshanks (so well played by Patrick McGoohan) from taking over Scotland and re-established their own kingdom. Then lo and behold, the Scottish King inherits the English throne! And a century later they made it an official union. So who took over who? And now a lot of Scots want to pull out of the kingdom that they inherited, and keep the one Robert the Bruce established. An interesting irony of history. How to take over your neighbor? Have your neighbor inherit you. Hey, maybe the Mexican president has a son for Chelsea to marry? Or maybe the young George P. Bush can marry the Mexican president's daughter? We can take advantage of the new dynasties! No more immigration problems, presto chango!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

And much of the productivity is not "automation" per se. A lot of it is things like:
- I can run a con call / Webex that has people all over the world on it and get those 50 people to make a decision real time. Then the guys in China, then India, then Slovakia, then Ireland, work on it through the 24 hour clock. Of course, the downside is, to have the meeting I needed to work at midnight my time above and beyond "core work hours."
- Matrix management
- OK, I guess this one is a sort of automation - apps that impart workflows married with immense databases to allow all those folks working on the 24 hour clock to formally "move the ball" - and months or years later I can go back and still review it all.
- More crassly, everyone is work, work, work, working more and more hours ... and even when supposedly away from work the boss has you on his electronic leash.
- Etc, etc ....

Very little of the productivity gains have anything to do with increases in employee productivity as opposed to capital investment, unless you think people are twice as samrt as they were back then.

http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sander...r-pacs-2294847

[QUOTE=playwrite;548367]But a 4T IS the bridge. There's no choice that the 4T is a fight with one side winning and the other losing. The increasingly insufficient aggregate demand isn't going to be wished away or swept under the rug.

You're confusing tactics for endpoint.

One tactic is for an angry old man holed up in the WH increasingly laughed at and isolated for his ineffectiveness in dealing with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell - you do remember them? And just like with the '08 Obamatrons and President Obama, the BernieBots will be the first to abandon President Sanders. Any doubt who DebC is supporting; any doubt of her eventual disappointment?

Unless the whole point is to play a long game and make a "do nothing Congress" the issue in 2018. To keep the movement active after election in a way that Obama didn't. To come up with local slates for not only Congress and Senate but state legislatures as well--and yes, socialist primary opponents for Dems who won't go Left.
And in the meantime, a President has one rather scary option to effect change--the criminal justice system. RICO, brought in by Nixon gives a President options for jailing uncooperative bank and corporate executives and hedge fund managers, seizing banks and placing them under court appointed "special masters". It is an option FDR never had. And the American public will put up with a lot of pain and Sanders will look a lot less ineffective if the public sees retribution; if the public sees executives making "perp walks" and even committing suicide.
And don't forget that all this may be playing out in the midst of another major recession. Just remember. It took FDR two terms, four elections and some adverse Supreme Court decisions to implement the New Deal. And the measures FDR finished up with were not the measures he started out with.

The other tactic is someone in the WH who will be smiling and charming as she slips the shive between your ribs and into your beating heart. It's called "triangulation for revenge" not to be confused with the 1990s "triangulation for kumbaya" or for its lesser cousin "lets sit and be rational" of 2008-2013.

For the later tactic, I can't think of a better choice than a Bill Clinton with breasts.

In a 4T, that is a recipe for disaster. Think about what the Clinton Administration was like at the beginning of what turned out to be a long 3T. Punitive welfare reform. More punitive criminal justice policies. NAFTA and an immigration policy that tolerated illegal immigration and cemented the illegal status of immigrants. And finally, when Bill Clinton was on the ropes over impeachment--deregulation of banking. And this was a 3T.
Then think about what compromise looked like under Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan in the 1850s.
And leave us not forget that if elected, Hillary may be under impeachment proceedings from the day she takes office. She may not be convicted. But the Republicans will use impeachment to weaken Hillary as they did to Bill. No, the Republicans don't find Hillary charming. Not at all.
The one lesson Americans might take from such a Clinton Administration would be that a President is ineffectual (except for starting wars) without a rubber stamp Congress. A very European lesson. Is that the lesson we want to see the country learn?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No he doesn't even do that. He just blusters and says how great he is.

No mere president is going to institute automatic runoffs. That is probably going to come if and when the 4T gets to the point where almost everything is up in the air. In the mid 2020s, if we get to it this time around.

Those of us who know what a threat climate change is, and that if anything it may be too late to deal with it, are horrified at the idea of a denier as president. Not to mention a warmonger like Trump who would tear up the Iran agreement and allow that country to have nucs.

There are two Donald Trumps. His blustery public persona and the Donald Trump that has put together the deals (and walked away from some) that has built his fortune. Trump wouldn't have the fortune he has in real estate if all there was to him was bluster.
We're not just doing one thing here. When we keep Hillary out of the White House, we end the "New Democrat" Third Way" Democratic Leadership Council triangulation of the 90s and 2000s and half of 2010s that only resulted in a more disciplined, European Republican Party getting what it wanted. We get a more socialist Democratic Party going into the future even if that future starts with Donald Trump in the White House for Dems to snipe at. Let a Republican President triangulate for a change if we can't have Bernie Sanders. The country managed to survive 6 years of Bush before the Dems took back the House and Senate. It won't take that long for that to happen again.

[QUOTE] Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Elizabeth I was about as much of a Nomad as a Royal could get. Last in line to the Throne. In a precarious position as far as her own survival was concerned, first from her father, Henry VIII and then from her sister, Mary. She had to change residences repeatedly before she became Queen too. Unable to marry and have children because it would cost her kingdom it's independence or embroil it in a war. A genuine survivor, and ultimately, last of her line, the Tudors.
[

/QUOTE] And possibly cost her life -- two of her stepmothers -- Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr -- died shortly after giving birth. (Catherine Parr survived Henry VIII, but then married Thomas Seymour and died after presenting him with a daughter.)

Yes. At a time when her death could cost England it's independence to Spain. And which Protestant sovereign could she marry? Eric Vasa of Sweden?