Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 1,364
» Latest member: mayor2
» Forum threads: 1,223
» Forum posts: 38,919

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 12 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 11 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Let's Tell-all about Tuls...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: Eric the Green
3 hours ago
» Replies: 51
» Views: 3,191
Middle East
Forum: Beyond America
Last Post: Teejay
3 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2
The Partisan Divide on Is...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: Eric the Green
4 hours ago
» Replies: 106
» Views: 5,292
Election 2020
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: Eric the Green
4 hours ago
» Replies: 174
» Views: 8,585
Generational Dynamics Wor...
Forum: Theories Of History
Last Post: John J. Xenakis
4 hours ago
» Replies: 2,930
» Views: 597,432
Congratulations, Alina Za...
Forum: Homeland Generation/New Adaptive Generation
Last Post: pbrower2a
Today, 02:21 AM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 969
Report: US Government Chr...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: mayor2
Today, 01:02 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 10
Forum: Beyond America
Last Post: taramarie
Yesterday, 09:42 PM
» Replies: 23
» Views: 1,762
How do you make the 4T go...
Forum: Turnings
Last Post: gabrielle
Yesterday, 10:20 AM
» Replies: 23
» Views: 403
Trump seeks to pardon SEA...
Forum: General Political Discussion
Last Post: Tina89
Yesterday, 12:10 AM
» Replies: 12
» Views: 502

  The Proposed New Zealand Flag Change Failed
Posted by: taramarie - 05-18-2016, 01:18 AM - Forum: Beyond America - Replies (12)

(05-18-2016, 01:12 AM)Dan Wrote:
(05-18-2016, 01:05 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(05-18-2016, 01:01 AM)Dan Wrote:
(05-18-2016, 12:52 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(05-18-2016, 12:43 AM)Galen Wrote: Though that you might.  The modern liberals in the US are either a socialists or progressives but they stole the brand.

Oh I see. I have heard of all these terms and had an idea of what they meant. But as an outsider I do not use these terms here in my own country. No one does in NZ. Those terms are American. I was not aware a liberal could be either a socialist or progressive. So a liberal is a category and socialist or progressive would be considered a sub category within being a liberal. I get it now. I always thought a liberal was something different again.
Tara, I think the party that Roger Douglas founded after Labor booted him is basic basically a libertarian party.

You mean the ACT Party? I do not go with them as they tend to side with National and they have sort of blended in with them. Just as bad as our right wingers who are making things harder on the average kiwi as of late. NZ First however is a mix of both worlds (left and right) which tends to piss off both to my delight naturally!

I don't know the name, and I'm too busy editing the board to look it up.

BTW I added a NZ flag smilie for you.

Yaay! Ta! Look at him he is awesome! I fought for that flag this year as that right bee John Key (right wing) tried to change it. Funny enough even his own party loathed the idea. Fly it high and fly it proudly! Flag-of-new-zealand

Print this item

Posted by: Dan '82 - 05-17-2016, 11:57 PM - Forum: Testing Forum - Replies (33)


Angry Angry Angry

Print this item

Posted by: John J. Xenakis - 05-17-2016, 10:03 PM - Forum: Testing Forum - Replies (3)

This is a test

  • One
  • Two
  • Three


Print this item

  Approval, incumbent US Senators up for election in 2016
Posted by: pbrower2a - 05-17-2016, 05:53 PM - Forum: General Political Discussion - Replies (5)

Note: This assessment can change rapidly should the Republicans not play obstructionist games with the nomination of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Anyone with an approval rating below 40% is in extreme danger of defeat, no matter what State he represents. Many pols with such low approval ratings retire  or get defeated in a primary.

Of course, should Republicans act responsibly with an Obama appointment this assessment reverses.

Update: Vermont, Vermont Public Radio/Castleton: Pat Leahy is up 65-14. I doubt that anyone can dispute this one.
From March (last update)

My take (and rationale):

[Image: genusmap.php?year=1960&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...NE3=0;99;6]

Approval polls only.

Gray -- no incumbent at risk.
White -- retiring incumbent or (should it happen) an incumbent defeated in a primary, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.
Yellow -- incumbent under indictment or with a terminal diagnosis short of the completion of his term, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican running for re-election with current polls available.
Red -- Democrat running for re-election with current polls available.

Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none now) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.

Approval only (although I might accept A/B/C/D/F) -- not favorability. I do not use any Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor ratings because "fair" is ambiguous. A fair performance by a 7-year-old violinist might impress you. A 'fair' performance by an adult violinist indicates something for which you would not want to buy a ticket.


What I see so far with incumbents:

App      Rep  Dem

<40       8     0
40-44    2     0
45-49   1      2
50-54    3      0
55-59    0      0
>60       0      3
retire    3      3  
indict     0      1
oth off  1      0
no poll  6      1

Now -- my projection for the 2016 Senate election:

Sure R:

North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota

Likely R:
Iowa (from Sure R)

Edge R:

Arizona (from Edge R)
Georgia (from Edge R)

All but one of the current tossups are current R seats.

Edge D:
Missouri* (from toss-up)
New Hampshire*
North Carolina* (from toss-up)

Likely D:

Solid D:

*flip (so far all R to D)

New Jersey looks like a fairly sure hold should current, but indicted, Senator Bob Menendez be compelled to resign.

Print this item

  Bernie 4 Prez redux
Posted by: Marypoza - 05-17-2016, 10:07 AM - Forum: General Political Discussion - Replies (41)

Will KY & OR get Berned today?

Print this item

  Gender pay gap
Posted by: Kinser79 - 05-16-2016, 09:04 PM - Forum: General Political Discussion - Replies (32)

Gabrielle, I hate to break this to you darling, but women already get equal pay to men.  If a businessman could save 25%, 23% or whatever the new number is by hiring women over men he'd be smart to fire all the men and hire only women.  The so-called pay gap is a complete myth based on economic ignorance and statistical chicanery. It only surfaces if you take the earnings of all men and all women and do a few simple calculations without taking into consideration other factors, not the least of which is men work more overtime than women and work in higher paying fields than women.

Print this item

  Don't Worry About Peak Oil, Worry About Peak Youth
Posted by: X_4AD_84 - 05-16-2016, 07:43 PM - Forum: Economics - Replies (8)

The great inflection is upon us. The ongoing fall in world wide fecundity, coupled with improved health care and longer life spans, has brought us to the point of Peak Youth.

And guess who's going to pay for this situation?   Huh


Print this item

  Secular Cycle Links
Posted by: Mikebert - 05-16-2016, 07:26 PM - Forum: Peter Turchin's Theroies - Replies (9)

Here are some reference links for secular cycles:

First chapter of Turchin and Nefedov’s Secular Cycles

Secular cycles as demographic cycles:

Two millennia of Chinese secular cycles

Outline of US secular cycle

American instability cycles

Print this item

  WordPress page/future front page.
Posted by: Webmaster - 05-16-2016, 06:35 PM - Forum: About the Forums and Website - No Replies

I've gotten the basic layout for the WordPress site down and set up a preview.  I'll be tinkering somewhat with it, at some point I want a site wide logo.


Print this item

  Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy
Posted by: Eric the Green - 05-16-2016, 03:00 PM - Forum: General Political Discussion - Replies (219)


This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest
[Image: Jill-Abramson-L.png?w=300&q=55&auto=form...7036763f58]
Jill Abramson

I’ve investigated Hillary and know she likes a ‘zone of privacy’ around her. This lack of transparency, rather than any actual corruption, is her greatest fla
It’s impossible to miss the “Hillary for Prison” signs at Trump rallies. At one of the Democratic debates, the moderator asked Hillary Clinton whether she would drop out of the race if she were indicted over her private email server. “Oh for goodness – that is not going to happen,” she said. “I’m not even going to answer that question.”

Based on what I know about the emails, the idea of her being indicted or going to prison is nonsensical. Nonetheless, the belief that Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy is pervasive. A recent New York Times-CBS poll found that 40% of Democrats say she cannot be trusted.

For decades she’s been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as “a congenital liar” and accused of covering up her husband’s misconduct, from Arkansas to Monica Lewinsky. Some of this is sexist caricature. Some is stoked by the “Hillary is a liar” videos that flood Facebook feeds. Some of it she brings on herself by insisting on a perimeter or “zone of privacy” that she protects too fiercely. It’s a natural impulse, given the level of scrutiny she’s attracted, more than any male politician I can think of.
[Image: 4096.jpg?w=460&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&f...224408d237]
I would be “dead rich”, to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I’ve spent covering just about every “scandal” that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

The yardsticks I use for measuring a politician’s honesty are pretty simple. Ever since I was an investigative reporter covering the nexus of money and politics, I’ve looked for connections between money (including campaign donations, loans, Super Pac funds, speaking fees, foundation ties) and official actions. I’m on the lookout for lies, scrutinizing statements candidates make in the heat of an election.

The connection between money and action is often fuzzy. Many investigative articles about Clinton end up “raising serious questions” about “potential” conflicts of interest or lapses in her judgment. Of course, she should be held accountable. It was bad judgment, as she has said, to use a private email server. It was colossally stupid to take those hefty speaking fees, but not corrupt. There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.

As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump, who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).

I can see why so many voters believe Clinton is hiding something because her instinct is to withhold. As first lady, she refused to turn over Whitewater documents that might have tamped down the controversy. Instead, by not disclosing information, she fueled speculation that she was hiding grave wrongdoing. In his book about his time working in the Clinton White House, All Too Human, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos wrote that failing to convince the first lady to turn over the records of the Arkansas land deal to the Washington Post was his biggest regret.

The same pattern of concealment repeats itself through the current campaign in her refusal to release the transcripts of her highly paid speeches. So the public is left wondering if she made secret promises to Wall Street or is hiding something else. The speeches are probably anodyne (politicians always praise their hosts), so why not release them?

Colin Diersing, a former student of mine who is a leader of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, thinks a gender-related double standard gets applied to Clinton. “We expect purity from women candidates,” he said. When she behaves like other politicians or changes positions, “it’s seen as dishonest”, he adds. CBS anchor Scott Pelley seemed to prove Diersing’s point when he asked Clinton: “Have you always told the truth?” She gave an honest response, “I’ve always tried to, always. Always.” Pelley said she was leaving “wiggle room”. What politician wouldn’t?

Clinton distrusts the press more than any politician I have covered. In her view, journalists breach the perimeter and echo scurrilous claims about her circulated by unreliable rightwing foes. I attended a private gathering in South Carolina a month after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Only a few reporters were invited and we sat together at a luncheon where Hillary Clinton spoke. She glared down at us, launching into a diatribe about how the press had invaded the Clintons’ private life. The distrust continues.

These are not new thoughts, but they are fundamental to understanding her. Tough as she can seem, she doesn’t have rhino hide, and during her husband’s first term in the White House, according to Her Way, a critical (and excellent) investigative biography of Clinton by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, she became very depressed during the Whitewater imbroglio. A few friends and aides have told me that the email controversy has upset her as badly.
Like most politicians, she’s switched some of her positions and sometimes shades the truth. In debates with Sanders, she cites her tough record on Wall Street, but her Senate bills, like one curbing executive pay, went nowhere. She favors ending the carried interest loophole cherished by hedge funds and private equity executives because it taxes their incomes at a lower rate than ordinary income. But, according to an article by Gerth, she did not sign on to bipartisan legislation in 2007 that would have closed it. She voted for a bankruptcy bill favored by big banks that she initially opposed, drawing criticism from Elizabeth Warren. Clinton says she improved the bill before voting for passage. Her earlier opposition to gay marriage, which she later endorsed, has hurt her with young people. Labor worries about her different statements on trade deals.

Still, Clinton has mainly been constant on issues and changing positions over time is not dishonest.

It’s fair to expect more transparency. But it’s a double standard to insist on her purity.

Print this item