Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.

It is very unlikely we will make it all the way to the 2018 election without a recession getting underway. A recession made extra harsh the collapsing stock market bubble and Republican opposition to any type of anti-recession policy. I think you can count on a Republican victory in 2018 and a landslide if Sanders is president. That said I am still feeling the Bern.

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 an option a Republican Congress can take away. Between the GOP majority and the Wall Street Democrats they will have a veto-proof majority.

And leave us not forget that if elected, Hillary may be under impeachment proceedings from the day she takes office.

The same is just as true of Sanders.

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.

Hey, Mordecai.

Well, you'll get no disagreement from me. I'm not an 'expert' on her reign, but I believe
she was ex-communicated by the Pope(Pius V, IIRC), but I think any Protestant monarch
could pretty much expect that, I guess. The bottom line IMO is that she kept England
autonomous, and more specifically non-Catholic, and she apparently took her position
as defender of the English people as a high priority.

Come to think of it, she kinda reminds me of Carly Fiorina.


Prince

PS: Of note is a contemporary of Elizabeth I: Grace O'Malley.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

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.

I mentioned nothing about intelligence in my post. It was purely about business processes / business systems / globalization / overwork.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

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.

This is wrong. Reagan did not need to threaten anything. Remember Reaganomics was originally a Democratic initiative. Kennedy had proposed the first supply-side tax cut and Carter had put in Volcker at the Fed.

FDR did not seek to soak the rich through high taxes, as Bernie proposes. It was Republicans under Hoover who did that. FDR's tax increases were done with Republican assent. FDR has plenty of Republican support for his wartime economic program, even though I'm sure they found the inequality-suppressing aspects distasteful.

Today's Republicans and non-liberal Democrats (which constitute a veto-proof majority) would never assent to the FDR program and FDR would be completely unable to do jack shit. These same groups in FDR's day did consent, because the alternative was worse. They know this because they got to experience what happens during a deflationary spiral when movement-conservatism-approved policy is SOP.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is wrong. Reagan did not need to threaten anything. Remember Reaganomics was originally a Democratic initiative. Kennedy had proposed the first supply-side tax cut and Carter had put in Volcker at the Fed.

FDR did not seek to soak the rich through high taxes, as Bernie proposes. It was Republicans under Hoover who did that. FDR's tax increases were done with Republican assent. FDR has plenty of Republican support for his wartime economic program, even though I'm sure they found the inequality-suppressing aspects distasteful.

Today's Republicans and non-liberal Democrats (which constitute a veto-proof majority) would never assent to the FDR program and FDR would be completely unable to do jack shit. These same groups in FDR's day did consent, because the alternative was worse. They know this because they got to experience what happens during a deflationary spiral when movement-conservatism-approved policy is SOP.

The recovery began in the summer of 1932. What came after was the result of high tariffs and over regulation

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

The recovery began in the summer of 1932. What came after was the result of high tariffs and over regulation

Pure delusion.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

The recovery began in the summer of 1932. What came after was the result of high tariffs and over regulation

There was no recovery in 1932; things got worse and worse until at FDR's inauguration he had a banking emergency. What came after was New Deal reforms which created a recovery by 1935.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.

Absolutely. Sanders would be better at this than Hillary Clinton. She needs to realize this and get her and Bill going on this in 2018, FWIW. It depends on millennials getting the message that elections happen every 2 years. Citizenship is not a part-time job. Will millennials become civics, or not?

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.

Racketeering Act. I am wondering how Sanders proposes to "break up the banks." Maybe an option?

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.

I expect a recession in 2018-2019, but it may not be major, and there may also be a green energy boom and post-industrial revolution brewing. But no president is going to get just what he wants. I think Bernie is capable of working with the system, despite Hillary's claims. Sanders is not the Ted Cruz of the Left. He is sincere and knows how to get things done. He also knows you don't succeed by starting out with abandoning your position.

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.

Hillary's policies are not necessarily Bill's. Hillary's record in congress is quite progressive.

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.

That's probably true.

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?

Yes, absolutely.

Either the millennials start voting in midterms and down ballot, or the pressure for a parliamentary systems grows.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.

Still, a lot of his deals would be wrong. He will have little incentive to deal on climate change, unless he sees the light. That should be a "deal breaker" for anyone considering voting for Trump, who has any concern for a sustainable future. Is he going to make a constructive deal on immigration? His starting position says no. How is he going to deal, and with whom? There would be no-one to deal with except right-wing ass holes. His foreign policy is amateurish in the extreme. There's little reason to expect any deal-making from him that would solve any problems. Any "deals" he makes would make things worse. Enabling Russia to expand is not in the interests of the USA, for example.

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.

More likely, if we keep Hillary out of the White House, which we well may not if Trump is the nominee, then we get a chastised Democratic Party that caves in to the overwhelming power of the Republican Party, which will then own everything. This Party is "European" only in the sense of the fascists of the 1930s. Americans do not rebel against authority readily. Give Republicans total control, and they will fall in line and worship at the altar. That it even took 6 long years to elect even a do-nothing Democratic congress, shows this total submission. Bush was already a disaster in 2004. Why didn't they vote him out then? No, keep Hillary out in 2016, and you get Republican power for 8 years. Maybe a better Democratic congress in 6.

Sanders may well be the best choice in 2016 to beat the Republicans. That is very uncertain, but the polls now and my cosmic system suggest that is so. But his nomination is still an uphill battle. It's winnable if he can get more non-whites on his side in the South and West and elsewhere. It's winnable in November if Rubio is not the nominee of the GOP.

A Republican president will not need to triangulate at all. He will just do the will of his right-wing congress. The country did not survive 6 years of Bush. And it was 8 years, because the Democratic congress elected in 2006 did nothing. Certainly thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans did not survive either. World peace was put in danger forever, with the "policeman of the world" becoming an international outlaw. Our debt skyrocketed; our economy almost went off a sheer cliff to total ruin. As you point out, the recession Bush caused is ongoing, and nothing about inequality, poverty, immobility or job loss is being done. A Republican would make it worse, and it would not take long. The climate change crisis got out of control too. The Supreme Court Bush appointed gave us Citizens United, making our country into an oligarchy.

No, the USA did NOT survive 8 years of Bush. NOT AT ALL. We are banana republic-bound. We are headed for the ditch. No, even one year of a Republican White House would be a disaster that we would not survive. At this point, major surgery is needed. Putting a Republican doctor in charge will only make the patient harder to cure, and probably incurable.

We never get good by going for bad. We get bad.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

The recovery began in the summer of 1932. What came after was the result of high tariffs and over regulation

You are confusing the stock market with the economy. The stock market bottomed in summer 1932, the economy bottomed in March 1933.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

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.

Never mind that worker education and training are now all on the employee, but expected on an ongoing basis. I'm sure that has a zero impact on productivity.

Are you paid to write this crap?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Never mind that worker education and training are now all on the employee, but expected on an ongoing basis. I'm sure that has a zero impact on productivity.

Are you paid to write this crap?

He literally sounds like a standard conservative talking points bot.

Originally Posted by Odin

He literally sounds like a standard conservative talking points bot.

Are there web sites you can go to to cut - past talking points?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.
It

is very unlikely we will make it all the way to the 2018 election without a recession getting underway. A recession made extra harsh the collapsing stock market bubble and Republican opposition to any type of anti-recession policy. I think you can count on a Republican victory in 2018 and a landslide if Sanders is president. That said I am still feeling the Bern.

A big part of the reason Obama faced the Republican landslide that he did was that he had to defend compromises that institutionalised "too big to fail". And because Obama was a landslide for a lot of residual outright racism. Which made Obama a "sacrificial pioneer" (the first to do anything comes off looking bad because he is the beta test for the model; in this case, an African-American president).
So what you are saying about a Republican landslide would apply more to Hillary (as it did to Bill) than to Sanders, who sees politics as a continuing crusade and can match the Republican's fire.

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 an option a Republican Congress can take away. Between the GOP majority and the Wall Street Democrats they will have a veto-proof majority.

There are a lot fewer "Blue-Dog Democrats now than there were in 2008. I do not believe that there would be enough of a congressional majority to stop a Senate filibuster of RICO repeal, let alone override a President Sanders veto. And in the meantime, a lot of the lobbyists and Wall Street executives who would push for such a repeal would be sitting in jail with their assets seized. Isolated from their friends in Congress with their names blackened.

And leave us not forget that if elected, Hillary may be under impeachment proceedings from the day she takes office.



The same is just as true of Sanders.

Impeachment is not a vote of no-confidence. Impeachment actually requires proof of some sort of lawbreaking. And a willingness on the part of the Opposition to grant incumbency to a successor Vice President. The Nixon Case is the exception that proves the rule--because Agnew was forced to resign because of illegalities that he was a party to while Governor of Maryland. Which left Nixon isolated. Republicans were not willing to remove Bill Clinton, when push came to shove, because they did not want to hand the White House to Al Gore, and let him have a possibly ten year administration. Would the Republicans want to hand the White House to Elizabeth Warren in such a situation?
Hillary would be vulnerable to impeachment. Bernie is disgustingly honest.
That leaves the ultimate 4T remedy: the States calling a Constitutional Convention. Which is being discussed more and more because of the congressional logjam, with the main opposition to it coming from paleo-conservatives like the John Birch Society and Phyllis Sclafly's Eagles Forum (Yes, Phyllis Schlafly is still alive.) Conservatives started this call. Liberals may finish it.
In a Constitutional Convention, everything is up for grabs and all sorts of compromises--or non-compromises leading to a peaceful breakup of the US into probably three successor states--are possible. Perhaps the very real threat of a Convention would force Congress to compromise. Perhaps not.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is wrong. Reagan did not need to threaten anything. Remember Reaganomics was originally a Democratic initiative. Kennedy had proposed the first supply-side tax cut and Carter had put in Volcker at the Fed.

FDR did not seek to soak the rich through high taxes, as Bernie proposes. It was Republicans under Hoover who did that. FDR's tax increases were done with Republican assent. FDR has plenty of Republican support for his wartime economic program, even though I'm sure they found the inequality-suppressing aspects distasteful.

Today's Republicans and non-liberal Democrats (which constitute a veto-proof majority) would never assent to the FDR program and FDR would be completely unable to do jack shit. These same groups in FDR's day did consent, because the alternative was worse. They know this because they got to experience what happens during a deflationary spiral when movement-conservatism-approved policy is SOP.

That's why someone like Bernie who is willing to butt heads with Congress and organise, organise, organise young liberal voters to actually turn out in a non-Presidential election instead of attempting to compromise would finally be able to prevail. Sanders can target Congresspeople (and perhaps even more importantly, state legislators) for defeat or in extremis, if a criminal case can be brought, removal through indictment.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

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.
Still, a lot of his deals would be wrong. He will have little incentive to deal on climate change, unless he sees the light

Yes, I could easily see Trump using RICO to put Bill McKibben and Tom Steyer behind bars and anyone else organising a blockade. Treat a blockade as "a pattern of criminal behaviour" that amounts to racketeering. He might target some of the other environmental groups like Earthjustice and Center for Biological Diversity that way too. Even Greenpeace.

.

That should be a "deal breaker" for anyone considering voting for Trump, who has any concern for a sustainable future. Is he going to make a constructive deal on immigration?

Trump (as opposed to Cruz) already has signaled that he is willing to allow "good" undocumented workers to return. The way I read it, how much of a compromise that would amount to would depend on a) the economy, which is starting to tank again, b) the reaction from the Republican Base, which gets a lot more nuanced when friends and neighbours and members of their churches get nabbed in ICE raids and c) pushback from Mexico and the very real danger of making an enemy out of Mexico for a generation.

His starting position says no. How is he going to deal, and with whom? There would be no-one to deal with except right-wing ass holes.

Domestically, no. Internationally though is another matter.

His foreign policy is amateurish in the extreme.

That may well be. And it says just how much the US has gotten stuck in a neo-conservative-liberal-interventionist Wilsonian bubble that only amateurs can conceive of any other way to run a foreign policy that endless treaty commitments that become sacred obligations leading to endless wars. When you have a foreign policy that has been totally following a Wilsonian orthodoxy for generations, even scholars at think tanks and international relations schools like Fletcher School of Diplomacy, Georgetown and Korbel (University of Denver and named for Madeline Albright's father) flunk out for questioning that orthodoxy. Yet question it we must, before staying globocop leads us into the next world war. And this is as true for Sanders as it is for Trump, who is the only candidate explicitly talking about walking away from existing treaty commitments that do not serve the national interest.

There's little reason to expect any deal-making from him that would solve any problems. Any "deals" he makes would make things worse. Enabling Russia to expand is not in the interests of the USA, for example.

That depends on whether the US has the wherewithal to prevent Russia from expanding and meet all it's other commitments, which it dosen't. Obama just this week agreed to station US troops in strength in Poland and the Baltic States. Those troops, once there, cannot be sent to the Mideast to fight ISIS. The hard fact of the matter is that at peak strrength, the US was only able to muster 185,000 troops to fight long term in Iraq. And that included deployments of National Guard that rotated through the entire National Guard and in some cases, second deployments that ruined Guardsmen's career, while creating a huge budget deficit.
The US is in a classic international system Unravelling situation. Either the US shares power with Russia and China or it goes to a 4T war with Russia or China (probably eventually both) with the odds against victory. The US simply does not have the preponderance of force to prevail worldwide anymore.
[QUOTE] 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]More likely, if we keep Hillary out of the White House, which we well may not if Trump is the nominee, then we get a chastised Democratic Party that caves in to the overwhelming power of the Republican Party, which will then own everything.

Only if the Republicans resort to ongoing repression and suppression of civil liberties. Which, I'll admit, in a 4T situation, it could try to do. As the Dems under Sanders may have to do to the Republicans if they get the upper hand. Americans (and everyone else) always forfeit liberty in a 4T.

This Party is "European" only in the sense of the fascists of the 1930s. Americans do not rebel against authority read/QUOTE]More likely, if we keep Hillary out of the White House, which we well may not if Trump is the nominee, then we get a chastised Democratic Party that caves in to the overwhelming power of the Republican Party, which will then own everything. ily. Give Republicans total control, and they will fall in line and worship at the altar. That it even took 6 long years to elect even a do-nothing Democratic congress, shows this total submission. Bush was already a disaster in 2004.

Why didn't they vote him out then?

As I recall, they almost did. It took a very close election in Ohio and vote hacking to keep Bush in power in 2004. And that was during a time of relative prosperity.

No, keep Hillary out in 2016, and you get Republican power for 8 years. Maybe a better Democratic congress in 6.

Total control means a filibuster proof Senate majority. Or a Republican Party confident enough in the Senate to abolish the filibuster.

Sanders may well be the best choice in 2016 to beat the Republicans. That is very uncertain, but the polls now and my cosmic system suggest that is so. But his nomination is still an uphill battle. It's winnable if he can get more non-whites on his side in the South and West and elsewhere. It's winnable in November if Rubio is not the nominee of the GOP.

Sanders can win against Trump too.

A Republican president will not need to triangulate at all. He will just do the will of his right-wing congress.

Only if the Senate abolishes the filibuster. Which kept some justices out of the Supreme Court that Bush wanted (Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Myers) who were not only conservative, but CROOKED. And kept drilling out of ANWR.

The country did not survive 6 years of Bush. And it was 8 years, because the Democratic congress elected in 2006 did nothing

And THAT is because so many Democratic congresspeople were Democratic Leadership Council "New Democrat" Clintonistas who had little ideological distance from the Republicans. Which also prevented the Democrats from doing more than passing Obamacare during Obama's first two years in office. People really BELIEVED in a more conservative direction in the 90s and "oughts". That did not start to change really, until Occupy.
.

Certainly thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans did not survive either. World peace was put in danger forever, with the "policeman of the world" becoming an international outlaw.

In retrospect, world peace was not put in danger, because during the 'oughts", Russia was weak enough for the US to get away with trying to play globocop even if the US was not successful at it. The US just spent all of it's international legitimacy. Now world peace IS in danger if the US keeps doing this, in a way that wasn't the case in the "00s.

Our debt skyrocketed; our economy almost went off a sheer cliff to total ruin. As you point out, the recession Bush caused is ongoing, and nothing about inequality, poverty, immobility or job loss is being done. A Republican would make it worse, and it would not take long. The climate change crisis got out of control too. The Supreme Court Bush appointed gave us Citizens United, making our country into an oligarchy.

The wrong kind of Democrat (Hillary) can turn this country into an oligarchy too. That's the essence of the beginning of a 4T crisis. Pick your poison and hope it works as chemotherapy.

I'm very conflicted this Super Bowl. I'm from Denver. But the correlation between AFC winners and Republican victories for the White House and NFC winners and the Democrats winning the White House makes me afraid of Denver winning the Super Bowl.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12045298

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I'm very conflicted this Super Bowl. I'm from Denver. But the correlation between AFC winners and Republican victories for the White House and NFC winners and the Democrats winning the White House makes me afraid of Denver winning the Super Bowl.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12045298

I am an Alabama fan, but will pull for Carolina because of Cam Newton.

It looks like lead in the water supply may be the sleeper issue in this election that is waking up. And lead may turn out to be the biggest environmental issue of the next 10 years. Lead affects poorer African Americans and whites and Native Americans alike. Small towns and large. IOWA has contaminated pipes rates of over 30%? No two ways about it. Lead is a political atom bomb. See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/op...lint.html?_r=0

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I'm very conflicted this Super Bowl. I'm from Denver. But the correlation between AFC winners and Republican victories for the White House and NFC winners and the Democrats winning the White House makes me afraid of Denver winning the Super Bowl.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12045298

Presidential elections: Supposedly, an AFC win predicts a Republican triumph, an NFC win predicts a Democratic one. Upon further review: Tell that to the Bushes—George HW won in 1988 despite an NFC victory, as did his son in 2000.
http://www.newser.com/story/138806/d...ns-stocks.html

It appears this rule only goes back to 1980.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blo...impotence-2012

Let's see if it holds before then.

The Green Bay Packers (NFC) won in 1968. Republicans won. Nope.
Dallas Cowboys (NFC) won in 1972. Republicans won. Nope.
Pittsburg Steelers (AFC) won in 1976. Democrats won. Nope.

Best consult my astrology; it will prove a much better bet! The New Moon before election forecasts a Democratic win. It's been right 89% since 1900.

This method, though, is interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskins_Rule

It seems Gore's popular vote victory in 2000 upset a perfect record in this indicator. Because then the definition of "incumbent" flips.

That happened to the new moon indicator in 1888-1896 due to Cleveland's popular vote victory but electoral collage loss. But the method recovered in 1900, and also predicted the 2000 election correctly.

It seems I was not the only one who called the electoral vote count in 2012 exactly. Moody's did, and predicts a Democratic win in 2016. They have been right since 1980.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2468800/201...-presidential/

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

....And it says just how much the US has gotten stuck in a neo-conservative-liberal-interventionist Wilsonian bubble that only amateurs can conceive of any other way to run a foreign policy that endless treaty commitments that become sacred obligations leading to endless wars. When you have a foreign policy that has been totally following a Wilsonian orthodoxy for generations, even scholars at think tanks and international relations schools like Fletcher School of Diplomacy, Georgetown and Korbel (University of Denver and named for Madeline Albright's father) flunk out for questioning that orthodoxy. Yet question it we must, before staying globocop leads us into the next world war. And this is as true for Sanders as it is for Trump, who is the only candidate explicitly talking about walking away from existing treaty commitments that do not serve the national interest.

Of course, we agreed to defend Ukraine too, even though it's not part of NATO, but we haven't.

The US is in a classic international system Unravelling situation. Either the US shares power with Russia and China or it goes to a 4T war with Russia or China (probably eventually both) with the odds against victory. The US simply does not have the preponderance of force to prevail worldwide anymore.

Which means that won't happen.

Only if the Republicans resort to ongoing repression and suppression of civil liberties. Which, I'll admit, in a 4T situation, it could try to do. As the Dems under Sanders may have to do to the Republicans if they get the upper hand. Americans (and everyone else) always forfeit liberty in a 4T.

No, the people and the politicians will submit to Republican rule just like they did throughout the 3T. No 4T violating civil liberties situation is needed.

Total control means a filibuster proof Senate majority. Or a Republican Party confident enough in the Senate to abolish the filibuster.

They probably will abolish it.

Sanders can win against Trump too.

Yes he can. He may even be the stronger candidate. But the point is, people need to vote for either Democrat in the general election, to save the country and the world from total disaster. Any Republican victory is unacceptable.

Only if the Senate abolishes the filibuster. Which kept some justices out of the Supreme Court that Bush wanted (Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Myers) who were not only conservative, but CROOKED. And kept drilling out of ANWR.

If the filibuster survives, Democrats could stop some things, but they will cave on others. They are less monolithic and ruthless than Republicans. More to the point, it doesn't speak to my point. If congress is Republican, the Republican president will submit to them. Only the Democrats might be able to stop them, and probably not even then. I'm sure the Republicans would go nuclear.

And THAT is because so many Democratic congresspeople were Democratic Leadership Council "New Democrat" Clintonistas who had little ideological distance from the Republicans. Which also prevented the Democrats from doing more than passing Obamacare during Obama's first two years in office. People really BELIEVED in a more conservative direction in the 90s and "oughts". That did not start to change really, until Occupy.

That's true. But most of the people will believe the same way as Republicans do, if all branches of the government become strongly Republican. The Sanders/Occupy wing will be fighting an uphill battle.

In retrospect, world peace was not put in danger, because during the 'oughts", Russia was weak enough for the US to get away with trying to play globocop even if the US was not successful at it. The US just spent all of it's international legitimacy. Now world peace IS in danger if the US keeps doing this, in a way that wasn't the case in the '00s.

No, my point was that the Iraq invasion put world peace in danger from then onward. The USA established the precedent of preventive war.

The wrong kind of Democrat (Hillary) can turn this country into an oligarchy too. That's the essence of the beginning of a 4T crisis. Pick your poison and hope it works as chemotherapy.

No, Democrats will not, and Hillary will not. They just won't stand up to them as thoroughly as we want. If they are too weak against the oligarchs, that is more likely to stir revolt from the Left than a total defeat to them (Republican winning the White House IOW). Only when Democrats have some power, is the Left encouraged to push further. As in the sixties, and possibly in 1998 with moveon.org, and 2011, and 2016 with Bernie's campaign.

Poison is not what we need. It will kill the patient.

An interesting blog from a Cambridge PhD student: "Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think" http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/0...-people-think/

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Hillary would be vulnerable to impeachment. Bernie is disgustingly honest.

-- I would say Bernie is refreshingly honest, as in breath of fresh air, but whatever

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.

You're likely not a Cruz troll, but with your Clinton Hater Derangement Syndrome being so intense and irrational to make that at least a suspicion should give you some pause. You're better than that.

An economic downturn impacts the popularity of anyone in the WH, but it might be particularly acute for Sanders if he winds up as the crabby old man holed up in the WH and deemed completely ineffective particularly by those, like you, who will be the first to abandoned their savior - you all would have taken Obama out if the economy had gone south under his term.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

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.

That's in the eye of the beholder, Dr. Rags.

If one is naïve enough to believe that anything Bernie has offered to get the nomination has even a slight chance of being accomplished, then you might find him credible.

If you're full-bore into Clinton Hater Derangement Syndrome, you might find Sanders artful smear of Clinton as credible.

The real problem, however, is if Bernie is the nominee, his credibility is going to get shredded in the general. And if he survives that, what made him seem credible will be what isolates him in the WH as the crabby old guy who can get nothing done - abandoned by the same people that abandoned Obama when they didn't get their promised magic ponies. Saviors tend to get crucified by their own people.