Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

May your intimations come true, Mr. Brower.

David Horn Wrote:So why is Hillary in the POTUS race so doggedly?  I'm not a psychologist, but I'll bet it includes (or may consist entirely of) the opportunity to defeat her enemies.  Where we disagree is on her lack of self awareness and even her sense of destiny. I don't see her as insightful at all.  She's certainly dogged and more than adequately scrappy, but I don't see her as a visionary in any sense.  As a visionary, she's the female GHWB.  On score settling, GWB.

We don’t disagree there.  I just don’t think she is stupid* like Trump or intellectually uncurious like GWB. I think your motivation is a reasonable start.  How does becoming another Hoover constitute “defeating her enemies”?  Answer, it doesn’t.  So vison is out.

She is promising small ball, after all, the future is unknowable and if the economic environment continues as it is now, only small ball is possible.  If she wins it is likely Congress will approve Merrit Garland.  And if Ginsburg retires, she will be forced to replace her with a moderate.  Even so, the center of gravity will move to the left, so that’s a win and it will be all she gets. She will use her good working relationships and dogged persistence to make a few small changes, perhaps enough to gain a second term,.  Or perhaps she'll retire out of exhaustion. It’s the best that can be hoped for, from her perspective.
 
On the other hand, what happens if the economy/world order DOES takes a turn for the worse? Suppose the market collapses, there is another financial crisis, and Depression looms.  Yellen meets with her and informs her that the Fed is powerless (they ARE out of ammo and everybody knows it).  The House is adamant, no bailout this time.  They stand ready to insist that everything collapse for surely she will get the blame.  They got revenge for Nixon on her husband and now they are going to get revenge for Hoover.
 
So does she go gently into that good night and let her enemies win without even a fight?  Not if she is “dogged and more than adequately scrappy”.  And that’s what I am hoping for.
 
*stupid is used here as a synonym for unwise rather than unintelligent

In the midst of unceasing attacks on Hillary’s integrity, here’s a much-needed reality check: No one has ever proved intentional wrongdoing on Hillary’s part. None. Zero. Ever.

The astronomical volume of verbal abuse heaped on Hillary tends to obscure a simple, rock-solid fact: She is a highly-respected, trusted, ethical, and honest person.

Her detractors cannot point to a single instance in Hillary’s career as a public servant where she was found to have engaged in purposeful wrongdoing. Not one. Even after repeated investigations. Even with an army of opposition researchers digging into every nook and cranny of her public and private life.

All of the character attacks are based on conjecture, insinuation, innuendo, smears, lies and guilt-by-association.....

http://bluenationreview.com/no-proof-of-...lary-ever/

Let's not forget: the US Senate is up for grab, with plenty of Tea Party victors of 2010 up for re-election in a political environment very different from that of 2010.

Mitch McConnell made a high-stake, low reward bet on being able to hold off until January 2011 to replace Antonin Scalia I am not much of a gambler, but I am good at probabilistic theory -- and making a high-stakes gamble for a very low reward is a very bad bet. So let Obama nominate a moderate. Donald Trump shows no sign of winning the Presidency, and the Republicans have a high chance of losing at least four Senate seats net with Hillary Clinton as President. Republicans risk a wave election this year, and they should have been grasping onto ane edge that they could.

(08-22-2016, 01:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]In the midst of unceasing attacks on Hillary’s integrity, here’s a much-needed reality check: No one has ever proved intentional wrongdoing on Hillary’s part. None. Zero. Ever.

The astronomical volume of verbal abuse heaped on Hillary tends to obscure a simple, rock-solid fact: She is a highly-respected, trusted, ethical, and honest person.

Her detractors cannot point to a single instance in Hillary’s career as a public servant where she was found to have engaged in purposeful wrongdoing. Not one. Even after repeated investigations. Even with an army of opposition researchers digging into every nook and cranny of her public and private life.

All of the character attacks are based on conjecture, insinuation, innuendo, smears, lies and guilt-by-association.....

http://bluenationreview.com/no-proof-of-...lary-ever/

The Anti-Hillary attacks ARE being carried out by political partisans. But the real sentiment that motivates why her opponents look for new signs of corruption on her parts goes far beyond mere partisanship. It is her disgusting adherence to institutionalized patheticness that angers her opponents, primarily Xers and Millies. This shown by her pathetic "America needs more love and kindness" speech. Hillary exemplifies the selfishness of the boomers who have always tried to turn Xers and Millennials into metrosexual "girly-men" and meek "granola-girls". If it wasn't for the boomers incompetence Iraq would have been won easily. Reprisals in the spirit of Oradour and Kragujevac would have deterred any resistance against our forces.

How Iraq should have been conducted ( and likely would have been if it hadn't been for selfish, tyrannical boomers holding the leash): 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktcXN7fKiQs 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsqVqn5B2LE 

(NOTE: the second clip is accompanied by loud heavy metal music so turn the volume down if preferred)

"her pathetic "America needs more love and kindness" speech. Hillary exemplifies the selfishness of the boomers who have always tried to turn Xers and Millennials into metrosexual "girly-men" and meek "granola-girls"

Love and kindness is selfish
lol

(08-23-2016, 04:16 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-22-2016, 01:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]In the midst of unceasing attacks on Hillary’s integrity, here’s a much-needed reality check: No one has ever proved intentional wrongdoing on Hillary’s part. None. Zero. Ever.

The astronomical volume of verbal abuse heaped on Hillary tends to obscure a simple, rock-solid fact: She is a highly-respected, trusted, ethical, and honest person.

Her detractors cannot point to a single instance in Hillary’s career as a public servant where she was found to have engaged in purposeful wrongdoing. Not one. Even after repeated investigations. Even with an army of opposition researchers digging into every nook and cranny of her public and private life.

All of the character attacks are based on conjecture, insinuation, innuendo, smears, lies and guilt-by-association.....

http://bluenationreview.com/no-proof-of-...lary-ever/

The Anti-Hillary attacks ARE being carried out by political partisans. But the real sentiment that motivates why her opponents look for new signs of corruption on her parts goes far beyond mere partisanship. It is her disgusting adherence to institutionalized patheticness that angers her opponents, primarily Xers and Millies. This shown by her pathetic "America needs more love and kindness" speech. Hillary exemplifies the selfishness of the boomers who have always tried to turn Xers and Millennials into metrosexual "girly-men" and meek "granola-girls". If it wasn't for the boomers incompetence Iraq would have been won easily. Reprisals in the spirit of Oradour and Kragujevac would have deterred any resistance against our forces.

How Iraq should have been conducted ( and likely would have been if it hadn't been for selfish, tyrannical boomers holding the leash): 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktcXN7fKiQs 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsqVqn5B2LE 

(NOTE: the second clip is accompanied by loud heavy metal music so turn the volume down if preferred)

You reek of chickenhawkness.

What a pathetic little man.

Hillary Clinton says "I'm still standing." facebook video: click on the video to play

(08-24-2016, 06:17 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-24-2016, 04:57 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]



Hillary Clinton says "I'm still standing." facebook video: click on the video to play

Will she be the liberal version of "The Iron Lady?"

Hilary's "alt-Right speech" yesterday has given the GOP a "Sophie's choice" - either you are with Trump and everything he stands for or, well, with her.  This is between a rock and a hard place - they can't win with being the Trump Party and they can't win without his base.

It's not just about being shut out of the WH for another 4 or 8 years.  It is having to deal with this dynamo woman - think Obama's manhandling of the GOP in his 2nd term, times a few orders of magnitude.  If I was any of the GOPer's left standing in Congress after this election, I'd be pretty scared too - only those too stupid and/or insane are not.

The bottom line is that no one takes Boy Scout values seriously anymore, except for the Silent and what few G.I.s are still alive. To everyone else, it is better be well-governed by sinners than to be misgoverned by saints.

So it comes to down to who would leave us more well-governed: Hillary, or Trump.

And so far at least, the polls seem to be speaking pretty loudly as to what the answer to that is.

(08-19-2016, 02:01 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]

David Horn Wrote:So why is Hillary in the POTUS race so doggedly?  I'm not a psychologist, but I'll bet it includes (or may consist entirely of) the opportunity to defeat her enemies.  Where we disagree is on her lack of self awareness and even her sense of destiny. I don't see her as insightful at all.  She's certainly dogged and more than adequately scrappy, but I don't see her as a visionary in any sense.  As a visionary, she's the female GHWB.  On score settling, GWB.

We don’t disagree there.  I just don’t think she is stupid* like Trump or intellectually uncurious like GWB. I think your motivation is a reasonable start.  How does becoming another Hoover constitute “defeating her enemies”?  Answer, it doesn’t.  So vison is out.

She is promising small ball, after all, the future is unknowable and if the economic environment continues as it is now, only small ball is possible.  If she wins it is likely Congress will approve Merrit Garland.  And if Ginsburg retires, she will be forced to replace her with a moderate.  Even so, the center of gravity will move to the left, so that’s a win and it will be all she gets. She will use her good working relationships and dogged persistence to make a few small changes, perhaps enough to gain a second term,.  Or perhaps she'll retire out of exhaustion. It’s the best that can be hoped for, from her perspective.
 
On the other hand, what happens if the economy/world order DOES takes a turn for the worse? Suppose the market collapses, there is another financial crisis, and Depression looms.  Yellen meets with her and informs her that the Fed is powerless (they ARE out of ammo and everybody knows it).  The House is adamant, no bailout this time.  They stand ready to insist that everything collapse for surely she will get the blame.  They got revenge for Nixon on her husband and now they are going to get revenge for Hoover.
 
So does she go gently into that good night and let her enemies win without even a fight?  Not if she is “dogged and more than adequately scrappy”.  And that’s what I am hoping for.
 
*stupid is used here as a synonym for unwise rather than unintelligent

I was going to leave this as-is, since I had little to add.  Now, with the Senate races tightening and both candidates heading for the lowest favorability records in recent history, I've changed my mind.

Hillary is showing just how oblivious she is to the maelstrom circling around her, and how little she will bend, even when it's clearly  in here favor.  The email and the Clinton Foundation issues continue to drip-drip-drip negatives that are not being ignored by the press or the public.  AS expected, her positives continue to drop along with them.  That she's still ahead of Trump is strictly his doing (he's just that bad), but is that a rational position to hold in the biggest political game in the world?  A strategic thinker would see this as a time to cut losses and mend fences, yet she persists in believing that her positions will prevail or, more likely, the issues will just fade away -- this, after 30+years of dogged opposition by an increasingly frustrated and manic GOP. 

She's a professional player who just happens to be totally tone deaf.  Don't expect anything other than dissonance.  Other than the SCOTUS, I see no upside here.

(08-26-2016, 03:10 PM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]Hillary's "alt-Right speech" yesterday has given the GOP a "Sophie's choice" - either you are with Trump and everything he stands for or, well, with her.  This is between a rock and a hard place - they can't win with being the Trump Party and they can't win without his base.

It's not just about being shut out of the WH for another 4 or 8 years.  It is having to deal with this dynamo woman - think Obama's manhandling of the GOP in his 2nd term, times a few orders of magnitude.  If I was any of the GOPer's left standing in Congress after this election, I'd be pretty scared too - only those too stupid and/or insane are not.

So far, the trend continues on its downward spiral.  Her tactics of obscuring, hairsplitting and disavowing didn't work very well for Whitewater and they aren't working now.  Apparently, she can't admit any flaws or failures, no matter how obvious, and that makes her suspect.  Check her favorable ratings in the current round of polls; she's in the low to mid 30s and dropping.

She and Bill share this character trait, so there's no clear voice of reason to sound the alarm.

(08-30-2016, 12:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-19-2016, 02:01 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]

David Horn Wrote:So why is Hillary in the POTUS race so doggedly?  I'm not a psychologist, but I'll bet it includes (or may consist entirely of) the opportunity to defeat her enemies.  Where we disagree is on her lack of self awareness and even her sense of destiny. I don't see her as insightful at all.  She's certainly dogged and more than adequately scrappy, but I don't see her as a visionary in any sense.  As a visionary, she's the female GHWB.  On score settling, GWB.

We don’t disagree there.  I just don’t think she is stupid* like Trump or intellectually uncurious like GWB. I think your motivation is a reasonable start.  How does becoming another Hoover constitute “defeating her enemies”?  Answer, it doesn’t.  So vison is out.

She is promising small ball, after all, the future is unknowable and if the economic environment continues as it is now, only small ball is possible.  If she wins it is likely Congress will approve Merrit Garland.  And if Ginsburg retires, she will be forced to replace her with a moderate.  Even so, the center of gravity will move to the left, so that’s a win and it will be all she gets. She will use her good working relationships and dogged persistence to make a few small changes, perhaps enough to gain a second term,.  Or perhaps she'll retire out of exhaustion. It’s the best that can be hoped for, from her perspective.
 
On the other hand, what happens if the economy/world order DOES takes a turn for the worse? Suppose the market collapses, there is another financial crisis, and Depression looms.  Yellen meets with her and informs her that the Fed is powerless (they ARE out of ammo and everybody knows it).  The House is adamant, no bailout this time.  They stand ready to insist that everything collapse for surely she will get the blame.  They got revenge for Nixon on her husband and now they are going to get revenge for Hoover.
 
So does she go gently into that good night and let her enemies win without even a fight?  Not if she is “dogged and more than adequately scrappy”.  And that’s what I am hoping for.
 
*stupid is used here as a synonym for unwise rather than unintelligent

I was going to leave this as-is, since I had little to add.  Now, with the Senate races tightening and both candidates heading for the lowest favorability records in recent history, I've changed my mind.

Hillary is showing just how oblivious she is to the maelstrom circling around her, and how little she will bend, even when it's clearly in her favor.  The email and the Clinton Foundation issues continue to drip-drip-drip negatives that are not being ignored by the press or the public.  AS expected, her positives continue to drop along with them.  That she's still ahead of Trump is strictly his doing (he's just that bad), but is that a rational position to hold in the biggest political game in the world?  A strategic thinker would see this as a time to cut losses and mend fences, yet she persists in believing that her positions will prevail or, more likely, the issues will just fade away -- this, after 30+years of dogged opposition by an increasingly frustrated and manic GOP. 

She's a professional player who just happens to be totally tone deaf.  Don't expect anything other than dissonance.  Other than the SCOTUS, I see no upside here.

She is not very deft at handling this situation. It's a strange one she's in though. Most of the charges against her have no merit at all. But Hillary does just enough of an appearance of wrong-doing to give her fanatical enemies enough to use to deceive the people that there's fire behind their smoke. The people can't tell the difference between the truth and the gish gallop. And then she dodges it just enough so they can charge her with distorting the truth. Most of it is simply the result of who the opponents are, and their striking ability to foster the big lie on the people, but the Clintons give them just enough to use against them. It is a kind of complacency combined with justified resistance (often by means of withholding) to the other side's tactics. A bit more complacency on Leo Bill's part, and a bit more resistance on Scorpio Hillary's part.

I don't see that much change over the last few months in Hillary's approval ratings. The Hillary rating seems to have declined from about 45 to about 40 in the last week. The real clear average is down today from -10 to -12. Interesting that the Reuters/Ipsos poll is an outlier, giving both Trump and Clinton higher ratings than the other polls do.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...html#polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...ility.html

The main problem with Hillary's campaign now is that it's mostly negative, against Trump. That degrades the campaign, since there's nothing but crap from the other side anyway. She needs to tout her own positives and ideas more.

(08-30-2016, 12:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Hillary is showing just how oblivious she is to the maelstrom circling around her, and how little she will bend, even when it's clearly  in here favor.   A strategic thinker would see this as a time to cut losses and mend fences, yet she persists in believing that her positions will prevail or, more likely, the issues will just fade away -- this, after 30+years of dogged opposition by an increasingly frustrated and manic GOP.

What would you have her do?  A lot of things Obama has done did not pan out well.  I don't fault him for it, because at the time he became president I actually outlined a short list of things I wanted him to do.  Well he went and addressed most of the things I wanted in the order in which I wanted them addressed.  Well he screwed up...but so would I have.  So I can't fault him--except on things like the drone program and all the spying, i.e. things on my list that he did not do.

(08-30-2016, 08:35 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-30-2016, 12:14 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Hillary is showing just how oblivious she is to the maelstrom circling around her, and how little she will bend, even when it's clearly  in here favor.   A strategic thinker would see this as a time to cut losses and mend fences, yet she persists in believing that her positions will prevail or, more likely, the issues will just fade away -- this, after 30+years of dogged opposition by an increasingly frustrated and manic GOP.

What would you have her do?  A lot of things Obama has done did not pan out well.  I don't fault him for it, because at the time he became president I actually outlined a short list of things I wanted him to do.  Well he went and addressed most of the things I wanted in the order in which I wanted them addressed.  Well he screwed up...but so would I have.  So I can't fault him--except on things like the drone program and all the spying, i.e. things on my list that he did not do.

I would avoid policy adjustments entirely.  Her weaknesses are all perception: hers of others and others of her.  She needs to look more human and less like a wonk-bot. 

I admit that it may be impossible to change course now, but I can recommend a single action that might help with her greatest failing: eliminate the echo chamber by hiring senior staff well outside her comfort zone.  This will take two traits not in evidence: courage and humility.  She has been poorly served by the cocoon she lives in, and the timing really stinks (this will have to happen in full view of the media), but she may gain some of the perspective the Clintons are known to shun.

More to the point, she might come to the conclusion that allies can strongly disagree at times.  I would prefer that she becomes fully self aware, but that may be a bridge too far.

The utter foolishness of the tripe against the Clinton Foundation:

Hillary does not benefit from any donations to it, nor does her campaign. Meanwhile, all the senators and congresspeople get "pay to play" funds for their campaign all the time from lobbyists and special interests, quite legally.

Clinton Foundation employees/volunteers and foreign leaders may have thought Hillary could be influenced to give them access or jobs or favors by donations to the Foundation, and asked for it, but none were ever granted. Meanwhile she needed to meet with foreign leaders all the time anyway.

Even if foreign leaders gave to the Foundation, for whatever reason they may have done it, all the money goes to valuable work for children and ill people in Africa and such places and things like that. The Foundation and the money it gets is a great benefit to the world and humanity, unlike the gifts to politicians' campaigns like Trump used to give. So even IF there was pay to play, which there wasn't, the pay was given to help the world, not Hillary.

What a bunch of baloney the Republicans are feeding us. But, I guess, the public has a large appetite for baloney.

Washington (CNN)Former CIA acting-Director Michael Morell said Sunday he'd trust Hillary Clinton with the nation's security, but that Donald Trump is being manipulated by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Morell, who cast Trump as an unwitting agent of Putin in a New York Times op-ed last week, said on ABC's "This Week" that he's comfortable with Clinton after seeing her in action in President Barack Obama's administration.

"I worked with her for four years very closely when she was secretary of state and I was at the CIA. I provided her -- personally provided her some of the most sensitive information that the Central Intelligence Agency has," he said. "She never misused it. She always protected it."

He added: "I would trust her with the crown jewels of the United States government. And, more importantly, I would trust her with the future security of the country and the future security of my kids."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/07/politics/m...ump-putin/

He said this on Charlie Rose too, but Charlie censored it from his website.

(09-02-2016, 12:02 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-02-2016, 01:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Washington (CNN)Former CIA acting-Director Michael Morell said Sunday he'd trust Hillary Clinton with the nation's security, but that Donald Trump is being manipulated by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Morell, who cast Trump as an unwitting agent of Putin in a New York Times op-ed last week, said on ABC's "This Week" that he's comfortable with Clinton after seeing her in action in President Barack Obama's administration.

"I worked with her for four years very closely when she was secretary of state and I was at the CIA. I provided her -- personally provided her some of the most sensitive information that the Central Intelligence Agency has," he said. "She never misused it. She always protected it."

He added: "I would trust her with the crown jewels of the United States government. And, more importantly, I would trust her with the future security of the country and the future security of my kids."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/07/politics/m...ump-putin/

He said this on Charlie Rose too, but Charlie censored it from his website.

This is getting really scary. Trump is doing better and better in the polls. And so much for the idea that the MSM are all extremely liberal. The MSM are also now promoting Trump (e.g. by joining in on the VRWC - a complete 1990s redux - Bimbo explosions are right around the corner). Landslide elections are not good for ratings. Therefore, the MSM are trying to manipulate things to create a horse race.

Meanwhile, the Russians are now in flagrante, attempting to disrupt our election and install Trump. In their twisted world view, one graced with ample tin foil, this is our just dessert for our supposed creation of the Colored Revolutions. They don't know how to separate the actions of the US government from actions of borderless NGOs. In their warped minds they are one and the same.

If Trump gets installed by the Russians I want a military coup. This is the one case where I would accept a military government, at least until order could be restored.

"VRWC" being what??

(09-03-2016, 07:29 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: [ -> ]

An intelligent life-form would have looked that up and come up with the part that you left out in the Trump video.  That little but crucial detail was that Trump and his Secret Service detail were reacting to a man rushing the stage which could very easily have been an assassination attempt.  Trump would be an idiot if he didn't react to a warning from his security detail.

As for the Hillary video I see no evidence of such a threat and that dude whispering in her ear has been spotted before carrying an auto-injector for some unknown drug which suggests that she has some chronic health problem.  Given the obvious bias from CNN it seems pretty clear that the mainstream media is backing Hillary and possibly covering up a major health issue.  The following video should make that point obvious for everyone buy Eric the Obtuse.





Ironically some of the best data you can get on the persuasion techniques both campaigns are using is from Scott Adams, of all people, and I do recommend his blog.  Here is the relevant part of his interview with Robert Rubin.





Eric the Obtuse you are about the most simplistic person and simple minded individual that it has been my misfortune to have ever encountered.