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

(05-22-2021, 02:23 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-21-2021, 05:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]No, it is Trump supporters who have burned a bridge with Americans who prefer rationality, rule of law, wisdom, and intellectual integrity. Admit it: Donald Trump has huge gaps of character that I would not want in a subordinate. Unless I were in an industry such as entertainment or the arts in which character matters little, I would not hire him. To be a factory worker? Well, maybe that would break his narcissism, but I would rather let someone else do that. Fast food? He wouldn't last a week. Retailing? The question is whether he would insult a customer or boss or have a blow-up. Skilled trade? Do you think that his type willingly gets his hands dirty? Teaching or library work? Aside from having little desirable learning and having himself as the focus of the classroom or library, he'd be a disaster. Accounting? Too creative, and not in the positive sense. Writing, editing, or journalism? Do you see coherent communication? Police officer? He would be the worst sort, a brutal cop with sloppy paper work. 

Most people who do real work have their narcissism broken, or they learn the hard way through vocational failures. In an economy in which most people are subordinate to some boss, Trump is the sort of person who tries to order people about before he has earned the position in which to do so.  Most people chafe in jobs too small for their spirits, as someone said to Studs Terkel in Working.  You might try reading that some day to understand what is demanded of people from domestic servants to pro athletes and elected officials or judges. 

True, Joe Biden was  the most viable candidate of all the Democratic candidates at the time. I mean, he was Obama's ( the greatest or at least the most highly anticipated Democratic president we've seen since John F. Kennedy) right hand man for eight years for God's sake. Now, we've got old Biden acting like he's  Bernie in his stead. I wonder how many racist whites supported Biden/Bernie ( a fellow racist white who had represented the racist whites on the Democratic side for many years) in the last election. Bob says the racist whites switched parties. I think they stayed and continued voting to protect paychecks and benefits and the institutions associated with the Democratic party. Bob forgets that Biden and Bird ( the old clansman) served together and were close friends and political allies.

As far as I can see, the white tribe is still the most dominant of the tribes associated with the DNC today. I have a question. Are you able to adapt and adjust to living in an environment where the black tribe or any minority tribe has the right to do or say whatever they want with you. Personally speaking, I do not like the leadership of the white tribe on the Democratic side and I could care less about what eventually happens to them during the reckoning/resolution that's coming. Acerima is on a collision coarse with America and I don't see Liberal Acerima coming out of it in one piece. So, I suggest that you prepare for major impacts.

As I've told Dave and shown others, I'm very similar to them in their way of thinking and my willing to slide the rule of law and morality to the side for the right cause as well. The only difference is, I'm more principled and I'm on the opposite side as them. Plus,  I'm willing to wait (allow more time for the better people stuck among the tribes to move out of harms way and get out of dodge before its to late) for the white leadership cross the line that it should know better than to cross at this point in their lives.

Your side has an advantage in that you control more land, although we have more people on our side than you do. A century ago, the question became whether money or people was to be the priority. The money folks moved into the Republican Party, and the people folks became Democrats. In the 1920s, the Republicans solidified their hold on the fundamentalist puritans while the Democrats corralled the "wets." Wets and labor became the heart of the Democratic Party, and it started to become more urban.

Meanwhile as the Democrats took power and pushed quasi-socialism into being under FDR, the people vs. money dichotomy solidifed and the blacks (then called Negroes) began to migrate to the Democrats. As civil rights got pushed harder in the 1960s, southern Democrats and some other whites moved into the Republican Party, and blacks solidified their presence in the Democratic Party, while other growing ethic and gender groups magnified their presence and power there in the following years. The Great Society of 1964-66 succeeded the New Deal and supported these groups, and aroused further opposition to paying taxes to support the poor and the blacks. The cultural revolution expanded into feminism, the hippies, the gays, gun control advocates aroused by the assassinations, the peaceniks opposed to LBJ's war, ecology proponents, and so on, and became Democrats; and so the opponents to civil rights (the racists) joined with the new religious right, the neo-con superpatriots, the anti-tax/anti-regulation corporate neo-liberals and the gun nuts to solidify their hold on the Republican Party. The Goldwater campaign, powerfully assisted at the last minute by Ronald Reagan, first attained this new "white backlash" cultural identity for the Republicans in 1964 and won five former-Democratic southern states, and it solidified in the years since. 

Trump only trumpeted it more loudly, and brought back the "America First" ideology from the opponents of US entry into world war two circa 1940, and also the older Republican policy of high tariffs. He also expanded the racist white-identity appeal and brought it out of the closet, especially with his hate campaign against hispanics and muslims, and accelerated anti-tax/anti-regulation neo-liberalism and environmental/climate destruction.

If Biden has a good deal of success, and he seems off to a good start, some of the furor on the right could dissipate and the left would thus win the coming battle in our cold civil war. Our side will have the majority, accelerated by millennials and Gen Z and the feared immigrants. But the constitution has given the right-wing a growing, built-in advantage in the supreme court, the senate, the electoral college and the 2nd Amendment, and being without principle and now also dedicated to false conspiracy theories, the right will carry out attempts to suppress anyone who is not rich and white from voting. Rural portions could secede from blue states and add a little bit more to their electoral vote and some extra congressional seats, although this would probably not be approved unless the Republicans have already won back Congress. Greater Idaho (aka the State of Jefferson) is already talked about. It may be harder for blue cities to secede from red states. So although the left can fight back if they win the senate in 2022 by giving representation to DC and Puerto Rico, the right-wing side does have some advantages, even though history and the people are not on their side.

Total secession and splitting the country may be the only solution if the left cannot attain a clear victory. I would say, we will not have the usual kind of Prophet Generation if it does not. What kind of generation they would be is open to question. But Prophets are supposed to be victory children, and victory has always meant that the progressive side won.

(05-22-2021, 11:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2021, 02:23 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-21-2021, 05:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]No, it is Trump supporters who have burned a bridge with Americans who prefer rationality, rule of law, wisdom, and intellectual integrity. Admit it: Donald Trump has huge gaps of character that I would not want in a subordinate. Unless I were in an industry such as entertainment or the arts in which character matters little, I would not hire him. To be a factory worker? Well, maybe that would break his narcissism, but I would rather let someone else do that. Fast food? He wouldn't last a week. Retailing? The question is whether he would insult a customer or boss or have a blow-up. Skilled trade? Do you think that his type willingly gets his hands dirty? Teaching or library work? Aside from having little desirable learning and having himself as the focus of the classroom or library, he'd be a disaster. Accounting? Too creative, and not in the positive sense. Writing, editing, or journalism? Do you see coherent communication? Police officer? He would be the worst sort, a brutal cop with sloppy paper work. 

Most people who do real work have their narcissism broken, or they learn the hard way through vocational failures. In an economy in which most people are subordinate to some boss, Trump is the sort of person who tries to order people about before he has earned the position in which to do so.  Most people chafe in jobs too small for their spirits, as someone said to Studs Terkel in Working.  You might try reading that some day to understand what is demanded of people from domestic servants to pro athletes and elected officials or judges. 

True, Joe Biden was  the most viable candidate of all the Democratic candidates at the time. I mean, he was Obama's ( the greatest or at least the most highly anticipated Democratic president we've seen since John F. Kennedy) right hand man for eight years for God's sake. Now, we've got old Biden acting like he's  Bernie in his stead. I wonder how many racist whites supported Biden/Bernie ( a fellow racist white who had represented the racist whites on the Democratic side for many years) in the last election. Bob says the racist whites switched parties. I think they stayed and continued voting to protect paychecks and benefits and the institutions associated with the Democratic party. Bob forgets that Biden and Bird ( the old clansman) served together and were close friends and political allies.

As far as I can see, the white tribe is still the most dominant of the tribes associated with the DNC today. I have a question. Are you able to adapt and adjust to living in an environment where the black tribe or any minority tribe has the right to do or say whatever they want with you. Personally speaking, I do not like the leadership of the white tribe on the Democratic side and I could care less about what eventually happens to them during the reckoning/resolution that's coming. Acerima is on a collision coarse with America and I don't see Liberal Acerima coming out of it in one piece. So, I suggest that you prepare for major impacts.

As I've told Dave and shown others, I'm very similar to them in their way of thinking and my willing to slide the rule of law and morality to the side for the right cause as well. The only difference is, I'm more principled and I'm on the opposite side as them. Plus,  I'm willing to wait (allow more time for the better people stuck among the tribes to move out of harms way and get out of dodge before its to late) for the white leadership cross the line that it should know better than to cross at this point in their lives.

Your side has an advantage in that you control more land, although we have more people on our side than you do. A century ago, the question became whether money or people was to be the priority. The money folks moved into the Republican Party, and the people folks became Democrats. In the 1920s, the Republicans solidified their hold on the fundamentalist puritans while the Democrats corralled the "wets." Wets and labor became the heart of the Democratic Party, and it started to become more urban.

Classic X'er is on the geographic side of the parts of America that have the food, fuel, and water that other Americans need.  People in Blue America would die of thirst, hunger, cold, or heatstroke if his side cut off much of Blue America from those things. OK, there are exceptions: Detroit has an excellent water supply, and people are unlikely to get into big trouble from climatic extremes on the West Coast. Sieges kill; thi9nk of Leningrad in World War II. On the other hand, the sorts of people who would starve or freeze others on behalf of some ideology are themselves brutes with a narrow view of human character. Maybe we know people who think that human nature reduces to primitive needs and drives, but this well serves exploiters and oppressors. I do not know if Classic X'er understands  Maslow's hierarchy of needs,  but what works in a concentration camp or a plantation succeeds only in domains of great human suffering. 

To be sure, many people enjoy being in more bucolic places in which they can get away with far more. On the other hand, what one can get away with, like letting your dog poop in a ditch beside a cornfield, may also suggest what isn't available. There is no free parking for Carnegie Hall, but there is for a Dollar General out in the sticks. This said, buying some staple foods at a Dollar General is an unmemorable experience, and witnessing Turandot is... well, need I say more?  

Quote:Meanwhile as the Democrats took power and pushed quasi-socialism into being under FDR, the people vs. money dichotomy solidifed and the blacks (then called Negroes) began to migrate to the Democrats. As civil rights got pushed harder in the 1960s, southern Democrats and some other whites moved into the Republican Party, and blacks solidified their presence in the Democratic Party, while other growing ethic and gender groups magnified their presence and power there in the following years. The Great Society of 1964-66 succeeded the New Deal and supported these groups, and aroused further opposition to paying taxes to support the poor and the blacks. The cultural revolution expanded into feminism, the hippies, the gays, gun control advocates aroused by the assassinations, the peaceniks opposed to LBJ's war, ecology proponents, and so on, and became Democrats; and so the opponents to civil rights (the racists) joined with the new religious right, the neo-con superpatriots, the anti-tax/anti-regulation corporate neo-liberals and the gun nuts to solidify their hold on the Republican Party. The Goldwater campaign, powerfully assisted at the last minute by Ronald Reagan, first attained this new "white backlash" cultural identity for the Republicans in 1964 and won five former-Democratic southern states, and it solidified in the years since.

 
The Great Depression laid bare the failure of the last gasp of Gilded-era economics in the 1920's. All societies that have a choice do what is necessary for survival, and in a free society a democratically-elected system has the opportunity to change its assumptions. The 1920's really were a slum of a decade for which I have never known anyone who waxed nostalgic about it. To be sure, the early 1930's were a time of hardships of a sort that Americans are unlikely to experience for a very long time (aftermath of global thermonuclear war or the eruption of a supervolcano). I have known people who lived through the 1920's, and the only thing that such people miss about that time was their youth. For the vast majority of Americans, the late 1930's, still considered part of the Great Depression, were an improvement over the late 1920's. I have known people nostalgic for the late 1930's --- when labor started to attain more dignity, when far more people attended high school, when people had refrigerators, radios, and phonographs for the first time, and when people replaced coal as a heating fuel with something less obnoxious.

So what assumptions changed? Most obviously, that prosperity depended upon super-cheap labor that employers could treat badly. In return for being overworked and underpaid, workers would at least have reliable employment that would allow a family to eat three meals a day. When the American economic order failed even at keeping its cheap labor reliably employed and from needing relief, that assumption shattered.    

Quote:Trump only trumpeted it more loudly, and brought back the "America First" ideology from the opponents of US entry into world war two circa 1940, and also the older Republican policy of high tariffs. He also expanded the racist white-identity appeal and brought it out of the closet, especially with his hate campaign against Hispanics and Muslims, and accelerated anti-tax/anti-regulation neo-liberalism and environmental/climate destruction.

Trump's use of the name of an organization best understood as Hitler's "useful idiots" appalled me. Tariffs are bad taxes and restraint of trade, and they lead to terrible inefficiencies. Tariffs thwart exports even more than they protect against imports.   Get a BA in economics and you will never support tariffs unless you somehow sell out to some questionable interests who "need" tariffs for survival.

The difference between the winning and losing sides in World War II was that the winning side convinced itself that everyone had a role to play and needed the means for playing that role, and that the losing side could deem people expendable. As I once suggested in the (supposedly) great debate on World War II,  the Americans, British, and Soviets had the good Jewish scientists, and the Nazis either caused them to flee or shipped them off to the murder camps.  As for the Japanese -- their colonial dream left no dignity to conquered peoples. 

Quote:If Biden has a good deal of success, and he seems off to a good start, some of the furor on the right could dissipate and the left would thus win the coming battle in our cold civil war. Our side will have the majority, accelerated by millennials and Gen Z and the feared immigrants. But the constitution has given the right-wing a growing, built-in advantage in the supreme court, the senate, the electoral college and the 2nd Amendment, and being without principle and now also dedicated to false conspiracy theories, the right will carry out attempts to suppress anyone who is not rich and white from voting. Rural portions could secede from blue states and add a little bit more to their electoral vote and some extra congressional seats, although this would probably not be approved unless the Republicans have already won back Congress. Greater Idaho (aka the State of Jefferson) is already talked about. It may be harder for blue cities to secede from red states. So although the left can fight back if they win the senate in 2022 by giving representation to DC and Puerto Rico, the right-wing side does have some advantages, even though history and the people are not on their side.

Like Trump, Biden repudiates what he sees as a failed predecessor. The difference is that Obama was an above-average President who got most things right, and Trump is horrid. Trump started America down the road to despotism and has been repudiated in practice. Much of the solution has no connection to partisan politics except as reflections of the values of the Millennial Generation. Civic/hero generations typically know much more material (if not emotional as is all too often the case with Reactive/Nomad children) hardship early in life, and they reject the irrational nonsense that gets in the way of some more equitable commonwealth. So, farewell trickle-down economics! Farewell, pseudoscience and conspiracy theories!

We are going to see major changes in the tax structure and an expansion of the safety net. Millennial adults are on the brink of becoming the administrators of a post-Crisis America in education, commerce, media, and overall government. I expect them to undo the inequities that I associate with a corporate nomenklatura that denies opportunities for people not born into the bureaucratic elites    
 

Quote:Total secession and splitting the country may be the only solution if the left cannot attain a clear victory. I would say, we will not have the usual kind of Prophet Generation if it does not. What kind of generation they would be is open to question. But Prophets are supposed to be victory children, and victory has always meant that the progressive side won.

Urban and suburban life are merging in politics and economics. Some suburbs (Harvey and Cicero, Illinois; Wayne, Michigan; McKeesport, Pennsylvania; Hammond, Indiana; East St. Louis, Illinois; and many suburbs of Los Angeles and New York City -- the latter suburbs especially in New Jersey) are thoroughly-nasty places. Maintenance costs rise as tax revenues stagnate or fall, and middle-class people move out only for poorer people to move in. America has huge issues to solve in the 1T, and one of those is mass poverty. Disparities between rich and poor trear at any concept of a national community. We can live in a nation full of traditionally-minded people who have very different traditions, as such is cause for intellectual and cultural richness. Grinding poverty and obnoxious privilege do not create any sense of community but instead put people in hostile camps.

Some countries neatly divide themselves between rural and urban areas in what are the sub-national divisions. To do so in America would require splitting states into their rural and urban areas. Yes, I can imagine people in rural areas to want to distance themselves from the giant cities through some sort of secession... but I can imagine cities in some "Red" states seceding, too. Example: Nashville is much more liberal and sophisticated than the rest of Tennessee.

(05-23-2021, 09:29 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Some countries neatly divide themselves between rural and urban areas in what are the sub-national divisions. To do so in America would require splitting states into their rural and urban areas. Yes, I can imagine people in rural areas to want to distance themselves from the giant cities through some sort of secession... but I can imagine cities in some "Red" states seceding, too. Example: Nashville is much more liberal and sophisticated than the rest of Tennessee.

Or, we could revert to federalism.  If urban areas resort to more cooperation and specialization to handle their larger problems, let these problems be addressed by urban areas.  The federal government could deal with things like a common defense which effect everybody.

But the federal government has been into one size fits all national solutions, often to big for the rural population, to small for the urban.  Federalism seems a more constructive perspective than splitting the states.

Re-dividing the USA into areas as urban and rural would tear to pieces the state-based political geography of America. To be sure, many of the States are themselves severely polarized. Much of Illinois has little to do with Chicago. Greater Chicago pols  have little to do with the great grain belts of Illinois north of about Interstate 64 or the Appalachian-style mining country to the south of Interstate 64. Then again, the feeling is likely mutual even in a community so close to Chicago as Kankakee. What we have has little sense were we to start over -- with a Constitutional convention that determines everything established in 1787 or in subsequent Amendments anew. We have no idea what would arise. In view of the Tea Party/Trump cult/Qu Qlux Qanon wing of American politics and the fascistic white nationalists, such would be severely ill-timed.

There would be no Constitutional justification, and it is unlikely that state governments would support such.

Federalism relies to no small extent upon the stability of existing borders even if those borders make no current sense. Jonesville, Virginia is closer to the state capitals of Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana than to Richmond. Dalhart, Texas is closer to the state capitals of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and even Nebraska than to Austin.

Just think of how messy things would be today if the entirety of Michigan Territory were admitted as one state:



The territorial capital was Detroit, which was then where most of the population was. I don't have exact figures, but parts of its territory were closer to state capitals of Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and even Arkansas (among states now in existence). I need not mention the future state capitals of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota  (OK, Ironwood is closer to the state capitals of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa -- maybe even Illinois). Michigan pols weren't as sure of themselves as were the founders of the states of Texas and California.

Michigan's contemporary pols knew that they could not administer land as far from Detroit as what are now Bismarck, Pierre  -- even Green Bay, which does not even account for the much-more distinguished record of the Green Bay Packers than of the usually-hapless Detroit Cocker Spaniels football team.

Joke about the Detroit Cocker Spaniels Football Team:

Leonid Brezhnev, Richard Nixon, and William Clay Ford (then the owner of the Detroit Lions) all got to ask one question to God about the future. Brezhnev asked first:

"Will the Soviet Union remain in existence forever?"

"No, but it will not end in your lifetime", said the Almighty. 

Then Nixon asked "is the United States eternal?"

"No", responded the Creator, "but it will remain past the lifetimes of your great-grandchildren".

Next was the turn of William Clay Ford. who asked "Will the Detroit Lions ever make the Super Bowl?"

The Oldest of the Holy Trinity answered, "Yes -- but not in My Lifetime!!"

(05-23-2021, 08:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Next was the turn of William Clay Ford. who asked "Will the Detroit Lions ever make the Super Bowl?"

The Oldest of the Holy Trinity answered, "Yes -- but not in My Lifetime!!"

I didn't know He was such an optimist.  

(05-23-2021, 10:59 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-23-2021, 09:29 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Some countries neatly divide themselves between rural and urban areas in what are the sub-national divisions. To do so in America would require splitting states into their rural and urban areas. Yes, I can imagine people in rural areas to want to distance themselves from the giant cities through some sort of secession... but I can imagine cities in some "Red" states seceding, too. Example: Nashville is much more liberal and sophisticated than the rest of Tennessee.

Or, we could revert to federalism.  If urban areas resort to more cooperation and specialization to handle their larger problems, let these problems be addressed by urban areas.  The federal government could deal with things like a common defense which effect everybody.

Federalism within the States? That would be new, but perhaps not prohibited in the Constitution. I can easily see "Chicagoland", which would extend far enough out to the the Wisconsin state line in the north, to Elgin and Aurora in the west, and Joliet in the southwest as a veritable state within the state as the basis of a regional government. A rural-urban divide is legitimate, but a divide based on race, religion, or social class would not be. Compacts between states involving only parts of both states are well established in the New York-New Jersey Port Authority which owns and maintains the bridges, tunnels, and ports in the New York City metro area but has no authority over anything in Binghamton or Atlantic City. Such would seem relevant to northwestern Indiana, whose problems are not infrastructure. 

Quote:But the federal government has been into one size fits all national solutions, often to big for the rural population, to small for the urban.  Federalism seems a more constructive perspective than splitting the states.

The rural-urban divide is real, and the urban-suburban divide is getting obsolete. It is clear that towns of similar size across state lines -- let us say, Coldwater, Michigan and Angola, Indiana -- have much more in common with each other than with Lansing or Detroit (Coldwater) or Indianapolis (Angola), even if Angola and Coldwater are in different media markets. Taxing the Hell out of rural, low-income Illinois to support the high-cost Chicago area for its exensive public sector while starving the rural areas is unjust. Let people in Greater Chicago pay for that. On the other hand, starving the public sector of Chicago to keep taxes low in low-cost rural Illinois is not such a good idea, either.

(05-22-2021, 06:38 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2021, 03:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]What obvious crimes? I'm not aware of any obvious crimes or any major possibilities either.

Your habit of only reading versions of reality favorable to your worldview will result in your being surprised in the near future.

H--m-m-m.  Maybe the sand is deep enough to avoid knowing the end-of-the-world is at hand.  We're due a few more years of turmoil if not outright strife.  If it can be avoided by closing one's eyes, plugging one's ears and yelling LA-LA-LA, then only the unavoidable end result will be painful.  

(05-22-2021, 11:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]If Biden has a good deal of success, and he seems off to a good start, some of the furor on the right could dissipate and the left would thus win the coming battle in our cold civil war. Our side will have the majority, accelerated by millennials and Gen Z and the feared immigrants. But the constitution has given the right-wing a growing, built-in advantage in the supreme court, the senate, the electoral college and the 2nd Amendment, and being without principle and now also dedicated to false conspiracy theories, the right will carry out attempts to suppress anyone who is not rich and white from voting. Rural portions could secede from blue states and add a little bit more to their electoral vote and some extra congressional seats, although this would probably not be approved unless the Republicans have already won back Congress. Greater Idaho (aka the State of Jefferson) is already talked about. It may be harder for blue cities to secede from red states. So although the left can fight back if they win the senate in 2022 by giving representation to DC and Puerto Rico, the right-wing side does have some advantages, even though history and the people are not on their side.

Total secession and splitting the country may be the only solution if the left cannot attain a clear victory. I would say, we will not have the usual kind of Prophet Generation if it does not. What kind of generation they would be is open to question. But Prophets are supposed to be victory children, and victory has always meant that the progressive side won.

Sadly, dividing the country into Blue and Red will be impossible, for all practical purposes. A better tactic would be to Blue-up parts of Red America. Texas is areal possibility, especially now that the Texas legislature and governor stiffed Harris County out of more-then-due Hurricane Harvey relief funds. Harris County has 5Million residents and 9 Congressional seats. Add Dallas but not Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio and it won't take much to swing this state Blue. When that happens, the Electoral College will be tilted left for the first time in decades, and killing it may finally be an option. I'm still unclear about fixing the Senate.

From there, negotiate from strength, not weakness.

(05-24-2021, 10:02 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2021, 11:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]If Biden has a good deal of success, and he seems off to a good start, some of the furor on the right could dissipate and the left would thus win the coming battle in our cold civil war. Our side will have the majority, accelerated by millennials and Gen Z and the feared immigrants. But the constitution has given the right-wing a growing, built-in advantage in the supreme court, the senate, the electoral college and the 2nd Amendment, and being without principle and now also dedicated to false conspiracy theories, the right will carry out attempts to suppress anyone who is not rich and white from voting. Rural portions could secede from blue states and add a little bit more to their electoral vote and some extra congressional seats, although this would probably not be approved unless the Republicans have already won back Congress. Greater Idaho (aka the State of Jefferson) is already talked about. It may be harder for blue cities to secede from red states. So although the left can fight back if they win the senate in 2022 by giving representation to DC and Puerto Rico, the right-wing side does have some advantages, even though history and the people are not on their side.

Total secession and splitting the country may be the only solution if the left cannot attain a clear victory. I would say, we will not have the usual kind of Prophet Generation if it does not. What kind of generation they would be is open to question. But Prophets are supposed to be victory children, and victory has always meant that the progressive side won.

Sadly, dividing the country into Blue and Red will be impossible, for all practical purposes.   A better tactic would be to Blue-up parts of Red America.  Texas is a real possibility, especially now that the Texas legislature and governor stiffed Harris County out of more-than-due Hurricane Harvey relief funds.  Harris County has 5 Million residents and 9 Congressional seats.  Add Dallas but not Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio and it won't take much to swing this state Blue.  When that happens, the Electoral College will be tilted left for the first time in decades, and killing it may finally be an option. I'm still unclear about fixing the Senate.

From there, negotiate from strength, not weakness.

I hope so. Also, El Paso! Texas is taking a long time though. The Trump vote only decreased from 9% to 6%. It will depend on Biden running again, and a weak Republican candidate in 2024, for Texas to leap blue for the first time since Carter.

If the Senate gets a few more real Democrats, such as in WI and PA, in 2022, and manages to keep Warnock and Kelly, killing the filibuster in 2023 will be even easier than killing the electoral college. Most Senate Democrats and their leadership favor this. If the filibuster is killed or even weakened, then the option of adding seats for DC and PR could cement the Democratic majority. Beto doesn't seem up to much. Perhaps a rematch with Cruz may be in the offing in 2024.

Hahaha

Biden just said he wasn't going to cancel student loan debt.

At all.

What a worthless Reaganoid he is.

(05-24-2021, 09:56 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]Hahaha

Biden just said he wasn't going to cancel student loan debt.

At all.

What a worthless Reaganoid he is.

To cancel it, the debt needs to be absorbed by the government.  To do that, a spending bill needs to be created, passed by both houses and signed by the President (not likely in this environment) or the funding needs to be transferred from another source.  Any suggestions that would pass muster (i.e. the transfers need to be legal).

(05-24-2021, 04:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-24-2021, 10:02 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-22-2021, 11:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]If Biden has a good deal of success, and he seems off to a good start, some of the furor on the right could dissipate and the left would thus win the coming battle in our cold civil war. Our side will have the majority, accelerated by millennials and Gen Z and the feared immigrants. But the constitution has given the right-wing a growing, built-in advantage in the supreme court, the senate, the electoral college and the 2nd Amendment, and being without principle and now also dedicated to false conspiracy theories, the right will carry out attempts to suppress anyone who is not rich and white from voting. Rural portions could secede from blue states and add a little bit more to their electoral vote and some extra congressional seats, although this would probably not be approved unless the Republicans have already won back Congress. Greater Idaho (aka the State of Jefferson) is already talked about. It may be harder for blue cities to secede from red states. So although the left can fight back if they win the senate in 2022 by giving representation to DC and Puerto Rico, the right-wing side does have some advantages, even though history and the people are not on their side.

Total secession and splitting the country may be the only solution if the left cannot attain a clear victory. I would say, we will not have the usual kind of Prophet Generation if it does not. What kind of generation they would be is open to question. But Prophets are supposed to be victory children, and victory has always meant that the progressive side won.

Sadly, dividing the country into Blue and Red will be impossible, for all practical purposes.   A better tactic would be to Blue-up parts of Red America.  Texas is a real possibility, especially now that the Texas legislature and governor stiffed Harris County out of more-than-due Hurricane Harvey relief funds.  Harris County has 5 Million residents and 9 Congressional seats.  Add Dallas but not Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio and it won't take much to swing this state Blue.  When that happens, the Electoral College will be tilted left for the first time in decades, and killing it may finally be an option. I'm still unclear about fixing the Senate.

From there, negotiate from strength, not weakness.

I hope so. Also, El Paso! Texas is taking a long time though. The Trump vote only decreased from 9% to 6%. It will depend on Biden running again, and a weak Republican candidate in 2024, for Texas to leap blue for the first time since Carter.

If the Senate gets a few more real Democrats, such as in WI and PA, in 2022, and manages to keep Warnock and Kelly, killing the filibuster in 2023 will be even easier than killing the electoral college. Most Senate Democrats and their leadership favor this. If the filibuster is killed or even weakened, then the option of adding seats for DC and PR could cement the Democratic majority. Beto doesn't seem up to much. Perhaps a rematch with Cruz may be in the offing in 2024.

The Republicans running Texas seem hellbent to screw-over every Democrat they can, and the Harris County example is only one case. If enough of the not-Trumpist faction of the GOP, and any independents floating around, decide that enough is enough, this could change and quickly.  That many Californians are moving to Texas can't hurt either.

2022 will be a tell.

(05-25-2021, 09:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-24-2021, 09:56 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]Hahaha

Biden just said he wasn't going to cancel student loan debt.

At all.

What a worthless Reaganoid he is.

To cancel it, the debt needs to be absorbed by the government.  To do that, a spending bill needs to be created, passed by both houses and signed by the President (not likely in this environment) or the funding needs to be transferred from another source.  Any suggestions that would pass muster (i.e. the transfers need to be legal).

But I thought the Democrats were the Party Of The People? Do they not control the government? Is Biden not FDR reincarnate indeed? Is he not our Grey Champion?

Republicans are still the Party of wealthy owners and bureaucratic power within giant for-profit corporations.

The USA alternates between being somewhat plutocratic (most of the two terms of Clinton and Obama) and extremely plutocratic (Reagan; either Bush; Trump).

We all know the old rule, don't we?

HE WHO OWNS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES!

Lol. Yes, the Democrats don't serve Capital at all. They really are the Marxist proletarian Party the Republicans accuse them of being.

Dumkopf.

(05-25-2021, 11:12 AM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]Lol. Yes, the Democrats don't serve Capital at all. They really are the Marxist proletarian Party the Republicans accuse them of being.

Dumkopf.

Not always true.  In the Clinton years it was common wisdom to go for the money rather than serving the people.  At the moment, the Democrats are pushing more for the people.  If you promote the general welfare, people will vote for you.

Unless you are racist, of course, and wish to hurt the minorities.  You don't want the general welfare.  I think enough people have swung the other way recently.

I think the meme that working for the general welfare is socialism and therefore evil is way overdone.  Autocracy may be evil, but that is different.  You don't do state hijackings or invade your neighbor.

You also have to give capitol some weight.  In a capitalistic system, capitalism has to run smoothly to get the general welfare.  What is good for GM really is good for America, even when they need a loan from the government.  Still, it is an idea which has been taken a good deal too far of late.

It's sarcasm, brain genius. The Democrats have never been the Party of the People. As evinced by Biden renewing on his plans to cancel student loans. It's a classic bourgeois bait and switch.

(05-25-2021, 10:53 AM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-25-2021, 09:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-24-2021, 09:56 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]Hahaha

Biden just said he wasn't going to cancel student loan debt.

At all.

What a worthless Reaganoid he is.

To cancel it, the debt needs to be absorbed by the government.  To do that, a spending bill needs to be created, passed by both houses and signed by the President (not likely in this environment) or the funding needs to be transferred from another source.  Any suggestions that would pass muster (i.e. the transfers need to be legal).

But I thought the Democrats were the Party Of The People? Do they not control the government? Is Biden not FDR reincarnate indeed? Is he not our Grey Champion?

In other words, no you don't.  Thanks for playing.  

(05-25-2021, 09:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-24-2021, 09:56 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]Hahaha

Biden just said he wasn't going to cancel student loan debt.

At all.

What a worthless Reaganoid he is.

To cancel it, the debt needs to be absorbed by the government.  To do that, a spending bill needs to be created, passed by both houses and signed by the President (not likely in this environment) or the funding needs to be transferred from another source.  Any suggestions that would pass muster (i.e. the transfers need to be legal).

I wonder if such debts can be held to be unfair and just cancelled without the government paying for them.

(05-25-2021, 11:38 AM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]It's sarcasm, brain genius. The Democrats have never been the Party of the People. As evinced by Biden renewing on his plans to cancel student loans. It's a classic bourgeois bait and switch.

It worked during the Progressive Era, FDR through LBJ. Can't do much without a fight in this era of obstructionism. That one doesn't seem to have bubbled up yet.

About that time the Marxist approach went from an almost viable contender to a hated rejected thought by all but the stupidest.