If it ends up being Bush v Clinton the Clinton will get my vote. I cannot abide any more Boomers from the Bush clan. Maybe someday, an Xer or Millie from that clan could interest me, but Jeb ... NFW!!!!

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

If it ends up being Bush v Clinton the Clinton will get my vote. I cannot abide any more Boomers from the Bush clan. Maybe someday, an Xer or Millie from that clan could interest me, but Jeb ... NFW!!!!

Good, no bleepin way indeed!

Originally Posted by Kepi

Funny, by not voting we seemed to get net neutrality immediately, without compromise.

Ha! I think you got that by voting; millennials did a lot to put and keep Obama in office, and he appointed the current commissioner and has leaned on him to maintain net neutrality.

Everything obtained by voting was so compromised it might as well not have been done. I'm pleased with the results thus far: the Republicans are now scared that we will vote, the democrats are scared that we won't.

Ha! You sound like Mitch McConnell taking credit for the economic uptick through their obstruction and non-action. No, I don't think so. Cause/effect disconnect there. And I see no evidence that Republicans will be any different than they have been. Instead, they will be worse. Non-voting gave them the Senate and the House. All they do is block everything that we need. Results? Ha!

Sounds like we've begun to shake the the power structure. By the end if this it will be to it's knees. I don't care who is in power, I care that they do what I tell them to, when I tell them to. We're closer to that now than we were 5 years ago with a universally Democratic Party power structure.

You're far, farther away, and nothing has begun to shake at all. The power structure is now firming up. Republicans in power will never do what you tell them to do. Talk to them and they will just ignore you. Democrats will listen; Republicans won't. If you don't care who's in power, you will get people in power who don't care about YOU.

Millennials and Millennial/Xers will have a lot of voting power at this critical upcoming moment in the mid-2020s. I hope you'll be voting. If you want someone other than Democrats, you'll need to make it happen with your votes. Not voting, riots, just-shouting and stuff like that won't work.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ha! I think you got that by voting; millennials did a lot to put and keep Obama in office, and he appointed the current commissioner and has leaned on him to maintain net neutrality.

Ha! You sound like Mitch McConnell taking credit for the economic uptick through their obstruction and non-action. No, I don't think so. Cause/effect disconnect there. And I see no evidence that Republicans will be any different than they have been. Instead, they will be worse. Non-voting gave them the Senate and the House. All they do is block everything that we need. Results? Ha!

You're far, farther away, and nothing has begun to shake at all. The power structure is now firming up. Republicans in power will never do what you tell them to do. Talk to them and they will just ignore you. Democrats will listen; Republicans won't. If you don't care who's in power, you will get people in power who don't care about YOU.

Millennials and Millennial/Xers will have a lot of voting power at this critical upcoming moment in the mid-2020s. I hope you'll be voting. If you want someone other than Democrats, you'll need to make it happen with your votes. Not voting, riots, just-shouting and stuff like that won't work.

Millennials elected Obama, and that was the set up, but the execution was not voting. People were talking about the death of Net Neutrality long before the idea that Republicans would take office had fermented. It was a foregone conclusion. But the minute we say "no, you guys suck, we're not voting" everybody loses their minds and something useful. Sure, you need the set up votes in order to make withholding matter but not voting is a boot to the throat. So next election everybody shows up to ruin Hillary Clinton's credit rating again, and they vote in a bunch more doofy democrats... Then, they're going to fail because that's what they do and we put our boot to their throats by not voting... Or things got so bad we show up and lynch congress on the ellipse. But yeah, simply not sucking as much as the next guy is not enough to earn my vote, and in in order for my vote to be worth something, it must be earned.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

If it ends up being Bush v Clinton the Clinton will get my vote. I cannot abide any more Boomers from the Bush clan. Maybe someday, an Xer or Millie from that clan could interest me, but Jeb ... NFW!!!!

There's no way I'd vote for Jeb either, he's an asshole.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6585346.html

Originally Posted by Kepi

Millennials elected Obama, and that was the set up, but the execution was not voting. People were talking about the death of Net Neutrality long before the idea that Republicans would take office had fermented. It was a foregone conclusion.

I'll toss this in. War seems to get bipartisan approval, a rarity.

Originally Posted by Mish

US Warmongers vs. Merkel; Why Ukraine is None of Our Business



A huge rift between Europe and the US has opened up in regards to dealing with the situation in Ukraine. The US hawks led by Senator John McCain want to send arms to Ukraine, but German chancellor Angela Merkel sees things much differently.

Chancellor Merkel says Ukraine Crisis Won't be Solved by Military Means.

Speaking at the Munich security conference on Saturday, the German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not against it.

Germany has opposed aiding Ukrainian troops for fear of worsening the conflict, which has already cost more than 5,000 lives, but the idea has many supporters in Washington.

“I cannot imagine any situation in which improved equipment for the Ukrainian army leads to President Putin being so impressed that he believes he will lose militarily,” Merkel said. “I have to put it that bluntly.”

Merkel, Hollande Visit Putin

On Friday, French president Francois Hollande and Chancellor Merkel took the unusual step of flying to Russia to meet with Russian president Vladimir Putin. The five-hour meeting ended with a Promise of More Talks. Details are scant which likely means little progress was made.

McCain Blames US for Ukraine’s Use of Cluster Bombs

Meanwhile back in the states, head warmonger Senator John McCain says US Partially to Blame for Ukraine’s Use of Cluster Bombs.

The US is partially responsible for Ukraine’s indiscriminate use of cluster bombs in the country’s east, US Senator John McCain told Russia’s Sputnik news agency. According to McCain, it is due to the US failing to send Kiev other arms.

“I think that if we had provided them with the weapons they need, they wouldn’t have felt they had to use cluster bombs. So, it’s partially our fault,” said McCain.

Lawmakers to Obama - Arm Ukraine Now

Congress seldom unites on anything but war. And here we go again. The Hill reports Lawmakers to Obama - Arm Ukraine Now.

The White House came under bipartisan pressure from both sides of the Capitol to provide weapons to Ukraine Thursday.

Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee made a big push on the issue, while a bipartisan group of House members called for the same course of action in a letter.

"The United States must act with urgency to provide defensive lethal assistance to Ukraine," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

"Russia's invasion of sovereign territory of Ukraine, which has continued unabated in the face of political and economic sanctions, is the gravest threat to European security in decades," he said.

Meanwhile, the group of House lawmakers said that the administration needed to provide weapons to Ukraine to deter further Russian aggression.

"We are calling on the Administration to increase its support for Ukraine. Tighter sanctions and greater humanitarian assistance should be part of that support, but now, more than ever, the U.S. must supply Ukraine with the means to defend itself," they said in their letter.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Intelligence committee, was the lead signatory on the letter. He was joined by more than 30 Republicans and Democrats.

McCain Calls for Bill Requiring the President to Arm Ukraine

Reuters reports McCain calls for bill requiring U.S. arms to Ukraine if Obama does not act.

U.S. lawmakers will write legislation requiring the United States to send arms to Ukraine if President Barack Obama does not move to send weapons, Republican Senator John McCain said on Thursday.

McCain led about a dozen Republican and Democratic senators at a news conference in pressing Obama to send arms to help Kiev defend itself against a Russian-backed separatist movement.

"We'll be looking at marking up legislation that calls for it," McCain said.

Dead-on-Arrival

That's yet another ridiculous dead-on-arrival proposal.

Why Ukraine is None of Our Business

A CATO Institute commentary by Doug Bandow accurately explains U.S. Should Stay Out of the Russo-Ukrainian Quarrel: Why the Conflict in Ukraine Isn’t America’s Business.

Fighting over the Donetsk airport between Ukraine’s military and separatist forces backed by Russia has flared anew. The U.S. has begun providing heavier weapons as well as personnel training to Kiev. The conflict could go on for a long time, with Kiev and Moscow locked in a small hot war and the U.S. and Russia stuck in a larger Cold War lite. An extended confrontation would be in no one’s interest, especially America’s.

The U.S. has made a habit of promiscuously meddling around the world. The results rarely have been pretty. Thousands of Americans have been killed, tens of thousands have been wounded, hundreds of thousands of foreigners have died, and a multitude of international furies have been loosed.

At least none of these conflicts involved a real military power. In contrast, advocates of confrontation with Russia over Ukraine want to challenge a nation armed with nuclear weapons and an improving conventional military, steeped in nationalist convictions, rooted in historic traditions, and ruled by a tough authoritarian. No one should assume that in a military showdown the Kremlin would yield to Washington or that war with Moscow would be a cakewalk.

Yet Ukraine’s most fervent advocates assume that any American who fails to believe that, say, inaugurating global nuclear war to save their distant ethnic homeland is a Putin troll, Russian agent, friend of dictators, pro-communist fellow traveler, or even worse.

there is at least a Baker’s Dozen of good reasons for America to stay out of today’s messy, tragic, and bloody conflict involving Ukraine and Russia. The first six are reason enough:

1. Ukraine isn’t important geographically
   
2. Russia matters more than Ukraine to America
   
3. Blame is widely shared for Ukraine’s travails
   
4. Washington never guaranteed Ukraine’s security
   
5. Vladimir Putin is not Hitler and Russia is not Nazi Germany (or Stalin’s Soviet Union)
   
6. There’s no genocide

Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...cA3HgPsZrAq.99

I think Obama will veto this nonsense, to his credit. If Putin were to follow suit on selling arms to folks we don't like in our back yard, why doesn't he sell arms to Mexican drug cartels?

Uh, yeah, Ukraine uses cluster bombs because the US doesn't send other weapons? Seriously, I think McCain is getting a bit too old to serve.

But the minute we say "no, you guys suck, we're not voting" everybody loses their minds and something useful. Sure, you need the set up votes in order to make withholding matter but not voting is a boot to the throat. So next election everybody shows up to ruin Hillary Clinton's credit rating again, and they vote in a bunch more doofy democrats...

In the case of Ukraine, the vote for Obama worked. Just imagine if we had someone who thinks like McCain as POTUS around. As for "doofy democrats", yes, the bench isn't that good. I'd say Bernie Sanders may be the best bet though.

Then, they're going to fail because that's what they do and we put our boot to their throats by not voting... Or things got so bad we show up and lynch congress on the ellipse. But yeah, simply not sucking as much as the next guy is not enough to earn my vote, and in in order for my vote to be worth something, it must be earned.

I think the TPTB are hedging by putting $ in Hilery's basket. A Bush vs. Clinton election is indeed a lousy choice.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Millennials elected Obama, and that was the set up, but the execution was not voting. People were talking about the death of Net Neutrality long before the idea that Republicans would take office had fermented. It was a foregone conclusion. But the minute we say "no, you guys suck, we're not voting" everybody loses their minds and something useful. Sure, you need the set up votes in order to make withholding matter but not voting is a boot to the throat. So next election everybody shows up to ruin Hillary Clinton's credit rating again, and they vote in a bunch more doofy democrats... Then, they're going to fail because that's what they do and we put our boot to their throats by not voting... Or things got so bad we show up and lynch congress on the ellipse. But yeah, simply not sucking as much as the next guy is not enough to earn my vote, and in in order for my vote to be worth something, it must be earned.

Then vote for alternative parties. The only message brought by not voting to the PTB is "I don't care; do whatever the fuck you want."

And show up to vote for a good candidate for congress even if you don't vote for Hillary or another doofy Democrat for president.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Then vote for alternative parties. The only message brought by not voting to the PTB is "I don't care; do whatever the fuck you want."

And show up to vote for a good candidate for congress even if you don't vote for Hillary or another doofy Democrat for president.

The only message brought by voting every time us that they can do whatever the fuck they want because your vote is assured no matter what they do 90% of the time. The trick is to mix it up. Don't always vote, but don't never vote either.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The only message brought by voting every time us that they can do whatever the fuck they want because your vote is assured no matter what they do 90% of the time. The trick is to mix it up. Don't always vote, but don't never vote either.

And you don't have to not vote; you can vote selectively, for the candidates and issues you want, and in whichever races you want to vote in. If you don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils, or for someone who hasn't earned your vote, then don't; I can't knock that, since I don't often do it either. But to just stay home is just temperamental, and sends no message at all except "I don't care." No-one can decipher what the message of your non-vote is. Millies need to be civics and use the system they are supposed to be adept at using.

Originally Posted by Kepi

The only message brought by voting every time us that they can do whatever the fuck they want because your vote is assured no matter what they do 90% of the time. The trick is to mix it up. Don't always vote, but don't never vote either.

Or, conceivably, protest votes for a third party. Even if the 3rd party's agenda has only marginally greater appeal.

The idea is to hint. I know, Boomers are dense. So...hint, and spank Boomer politicians at the same time.

Let's throw this one out there for discussion: S&H seemed to believe that "nonconformity" was a Prophet value while conformity was a Hero value. I would suggest that conformity was a Missionary value that the GIs perfected, whereas Millennials have made nonconformity more acceptable than the Boomers ever did. I think the appeal of Napoleon Dynamite for example was that even the greatest social outcast could come out on top in a way that did not require any real redefinition.

I don't think this is an Atonement versus Advancement thing, but I thought it would be interesting to compare observations.

Originally Posted by JDW

Let's throw this one out there for discussion: S&H seemed to believe that "nonconformity" was a Prophet value while conformity was a Hero value. I would suggest that conformity was a Missionary value that the GIs perfected, whereas Millennials have made nonconformity more acceptable than the Boomers ever did. I think the appeal of Napoleon Dynamite for example was that even the greatest social outcast could come out on top in a way that did not require any real redefinition.

I don't think this is an Atonement versus Advancement thing, but I thought it would be interesting to compare observations.

Pretty much, although I think S&H would rationalize it as yesterday's outcast is today's plucky hero, with it being more the case that the circle has been widened--but there are still cases of people or cultures being inside or outside that circle.

The GIs weren't strangers to this phenomenon--even promoting in their cultural works that their culture WAS already a mix of things--a mixture that Boomers could no longer recognize as a mixture because it "all looked the same to them" or that that mix was "square" (when really it was a case of squaring the circle) and so they pushed it a little further, while Millennials make the boundaries of "this is acceptable" farther than the Boomers had thought possible. Likewise, the Millennial "diversity" culture could theoretically be seen as "not going far enough" or being "all the same" by the Neo-Boomers because to them they won't see it as a group of individuals they'll just be blinded by the fact that it's a collective group and fail to notice the differences that Millennials and older generations would take notice of but have essentially made meaningless in the eyes of younger generations.

It's a phenomenon I've mentioned before with regards to the acceptance of certain ethnic groups which occurs each time. Various Protestant groups after the American Revolution. Germans after the Civil War. Catholics, Jews, the Irish, and Eastern European whites after WWII.

Arguably I'm going to go out there and say that this Crisis will finally make Black and Gay culture completely kosher--but it'll fail on Hispanic and Muslim culture.

It's tied very much to the idea of comedic "marriageability" principle IMO. If two groups can intermarry and produce offspring than to the eyes of that offspring the previous differentiations between those groups are meaningless because those groups are combined within them. It's the idea in comedy that is expressed with everyone young and old hooking up at the end of the play. In comedy it's supposed to reinforce the idea that there's an agreed upon natural order which is created by this "pairing off", that some things are acceptable--other things aren't. After all a Comedy starts in a world of Tyranny and moves to a World of Desirable Social cohesion and Order. It's why in a Comedy there's typically some lunatic or crazy who is in control of everything--or some law that has outlived its original purpose. The comedy thus is about how that social order puts down that lunatic or agrees to put aside the "crazy law" which they were restricted to before. Thus the world of Comedy moves from tyrannical oppression to "natural order". There is of course many many permutations (sometimes the crazy leader who is imposing their will on the rest of society is made sympathetic and reforms in the end, other times they're gratefully cast out of society), but that's the basic structure.

Archetypal-ly, comedy is thus about when the singular tyrannical Idealist and the ideals they try to enforce on a mostly adult Civic social order. The imposition of those ideals--while fine in the beginning, are by this point way past their expiration date and the now adult Civic Order moves to retire the Idealists or reform them to their own values. The emphasis is on letting go of or getting rid of old ideals that simply don't work in the real world as the Civic social order knows it. Typically how this is accomplished? The tyrannical Idealist is deposed by a social order acting in cohesion with one another. The Civic Social order recalls the aged outcast Nomad leader whom they consider a benevolent grandfather figure who'll let them "live and let live"--which is the thing most adult Civic social orders in a 1T desire.

~Chas'88