SNL Goes All Out for Democratic Debate With Larry David, Woody Harrelson, Maya Rudolph and More

https://www.thedailybeast.com/snl-goes-a...nKUVW7wpks





Presidential candidates Andrew Yang (Bowen Yang), Pete Buttigieg (Colin Jost), Cory Booker (Chris Redd), Elizabeth Warren (Kate McKinnon), Amy Klobuchar (Rachel Dratch), Tom Steyer (Will Ferrell), Michael Bloomberg (Fred Armisen), Tulsi Gabbard (Cecily Strong) Bernie Sanders (Larry David), Joe Biden (Woody Harrelson) and Kamala Harris (Maya Rudolph) speak at MSNBC’s 2020 Democratic Debate.


Glen Cochrane
3 weeks ago
More people have seen this spoof of the debate than the actual debate.

Rchl Swtzr
3 weeks ago
This is only ever so slightly more absurd then real life.

FedralBI
1 week ago
Anyone else find Cecily Strong's Tulsi terrifyingly arousing.

Reading through these forums, it seems a number of people here believe that this will somehow turn out to be a mild crisis where not much happens.  But if the Fourth Turning theories are correct, this cannot be the case.  As fractured and fragmented as the U.S. is culturally, nothing less than a major crisis could put it back together again.  This leaves a few likely possibilities for the Crisis, which I'll discuss briefly here.

First, it could resolve itself in an enormous war.  The only powers in the world which could realistically take on the U.S., and which there's any reasonable chance of the U.S. fighting, would be China and Russia.  As Crises are an opportunity to resolve issues, it may be that the U.S., and some of its allies, go to war against both China and Russia, under the idea that all nations must be democratic.  This could result in a vastly strengthened United Nations which has real power, an actual global government.

Failing that, the U.S. is left with a civil or revolutionary war.

One possibility is portions of the U.S. attempting to break off and form their own country.  While this is certainly possible, I don't see this as being the core of the crisis or the resolution of it, as that's not where the fault lines are in the country today.  The political divide in the U.S. of left versus right wing is not geographic; rural areas are conservative while cities are liberal.  There's no way to string together all the cities to make a separate nation, nor can the south reasonably rise again when the 30% of its people who are black will have no interest in forming a separate new confederacy.

This leaves us with a revolutionary war of one sort or another.

From the right, you could have a military coup, as some president, with the help of the military, suspends the congress and simply takes over.  From the left, you have the possibility of a socialist revolution.  In either case, they couldn't happen until the climate allowing them was in place.  A socialist revolution can't happen in a wealthy prosperous society, people have to be poor and hungry before they're ready to overthrow the system in such a way.  Similarly, things would have to be really bad before the military would be willing to set aside the constitution and put a dictator in place.

There is, of course, the possibility that parts of all of this happen.  The U.S. goes to war against Russia or China, both sides pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless necessary, the west coast of the U.S. tries to break off and form its own country, Texas announces it's going its own way as well, all hell is breaking loose and the economy has gone to hell, and now some attempt at a government takeover, left or right, takes place.

It's difficult to say which would end up worse.  An all out nuclear war would of course be the worst possible option.  Every socialist revolution has ended in utter disaster.  A right wing government takeover could result in massive amounts of ethnic cleansing, if the U.S. decided to send all members of various races or religions back to their countries of origin.

One way or another, I think this is going to be far, far worse than many of you here are imagining.

First there was Joel Garreau's The Nine Nations of America, then The Day America Told The Truth, by James Patterson and Peter Kim.  Now there is a third entry in this genre: The Untied States of America, by Fred Kilbourne:

http://www.untiedus.com

Nice try, dude - but some of these new nations would simply not be viable.

I'll redraw the map for him:

North Atlantica: The six New England states, plus New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania if Trump loses Pennsylvania in 2020, or the six New England states plus New York and New Jersey only if Trump carries Pennsylvania again in 2020.

North Centralia: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, plus Pennsylvania if Trump carries it again in 2020.

South Atlantica: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida.

South Centralia: Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana.

Granaria: Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas.

Orographia: Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho.

Desertia: Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona.

Pacifica: California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii.

Washington, DC would revert to Maryland, and each new nation would obviously have its own capital.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comme...ve_trends/

Thought this was a very interesting read. The consensus about today’s teens and younger from teachers is that they’re shockingly kind, well behaved, and very creative with meme culture. All traits strongly associated with their archetype.

I never heard that used against left-wing boomers like Jeremy Corbyn or Elizabeth Warren. It's always about conservative boomers who don't care about global warming, go to church and are not "inclusive" enough.

Was there something like "OK missionary" meme against conservative Missionaries during the previous 4T?

Since it will be 2020 soon, it will be around 8 years until this turning ends. We're already more than halfway through.

I think I found someone who embodies every characteristic of Generation X: David Goggins (EDIT: born 1975):


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


This man had a very tough upbringing. He believes that suffering is what’s needed to truly overcome obstacles and to achieve greatness. He realized that nobody was there to help him at a young age and that he himself needed to rise to the occasion to become successful. 

Probably the most quintessential Gen Xer I have ever witnessed.

Or are they typically seen as weak or as lesser than even after the 4T ends?

In view of a spammer clogging up this site with new threads, I am going to try to show how to make a relevant thread. Organized crime isn't what most people think of as business, but it does seem to generate money and grab wealth -- if by hurting its customers or people dependent upon those customers.  That spammer managed to create even more threads than I did -- but mine, you can trust are not spam. So much for the preliminaries. You know what I think of MS-13... I am a liberal on many things, but definitely not crime, and especially on organized crime. 

   MS-13 arrests deal blow to gang leadership on Long Island

The violent MS-13 street gang, announcing charges against nearly 100 of the group’s members and associates on Long Island.


Suffolk County District Attorney Timothy Sini revealed a sweeping indictment that he said “decimated” the gang’s leadership and drug suppliers on Long Island. He described the case as the largest of its kind against MS-13 in New York, where the gang has been blamed for dozens of killings since 2016.


The two-year investigation by state and federal authorities thwarted more than a half-dozen murder plots, Sini said, and also provided authorities insights into the gang’s structure and recruiting patterns. The investigation was bolstered by an expansive wire tap in which the authorities monitored calls from more than 200 phone numbers.

Gang members on Long Island conspired with colleagues from as far away as Europe and Oklahoma, collecting cash from drug sales and sending that money to the organization’s leaders in El Salvador, according to the 77-count indictment handed up Monday.

The gang feuded against rivals and would even kill its own members who showed signs of disloyalty or failed to perform “required tasks” such as paying dues or trafficking drugs and weapons, the indictment says.

“MS-13 is a ruthless, savage gang,” Sini said at a news conference, pointing to a machete recovered by law enforcement, the gang’s signature weapon. “They will attempt to recalibrate and send individuals to take up leadership roles in Suffolk County. That’s why we have to stay vigilant.”


Authorities said they seized more than 10 kilograms of cocaine, hundreds of fentanyl pills, drug ledgers, long guns and other firearms, and more than $200,000 cash. Those taken into custody included the leaders of nine so-called “cliques” — factions of MS-13.



“What you’re hearing from us today is that we’re more committed than every to eradicate this gang,” Sini said. ”Is the battle over? Absolutely not.”



MS-13, also known as Mara Salvatrucha, is considered one of the top transnational organized crime threats in the United States. Violence committed by the gang, including the 2016 slayings of two teenage girls, helped spark an aggressive effort by the FBI and the U.S. Justice Department to dismantle the gang,


https://apnews.com/e0782db530284c057a8c06a511aaf56f

One interesting theory that I've come across while researching political realignments, which usually occur every 40 years or so and almost always during Awakening and Crisis turnings, is how well the Roosevelt and Reagan eras line up with each other. Even some presidents elected before the former fit the model. The presidents seem to have a counterpart of the opposing party 40 years before them that fits a distinct role and phase in the overall realignment. There are six of these archetypes, and they are defined as:

The Reformer – This president is elected in a sweeping landslide that realigns the electorate and achieves a national consensus. They set the governing priorities for the next half of the saeculum, and involve drastic changes in domestic policies and foreign situations. Future presidents may differ in small ways but largely operate within the boundaries of the party system before the next Reformer in the cycle. (Examples: Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan)

The Consolidator – Because the Reformer was a popular enough president to change the direction of the nation, the public feels comfortable in electing a second president of that party in a row. They have limited domestic achievements and experience a wane in popularity, unable to live up to the glamour of their predecessors. However, they may leave office with significant foreign accomplishments. (Examples: Harry Truman, George Bush Sr.)

The Consensual – After over at least a decade of one-party domination of the presidency, voters are ready for a change but remain skeptical of a return to the old system. For the first time in a generation, a president of the opposing party serves a successful eight years, but adopts many fiscal and social positions of the other side. Future members of the party look back on this era with mixed feelings, but it puts them in their strongest position since the realigner came to power. (Examples: Dwight Eisenhower, Bill Clinton)

The Accomplisher – This is the halfway point of the new party system. In a close election, the dominant political party retakes control of the White House. Having been a member of the generation that first challenged and changed the system as they came of age, they govern as a true believer in the cause and accomplish many of the same objectives. At the same time, they are met by an opposite generation which grew up under their dominance and are now being challenged in turn. During an eventful eight years tainted by national tragedy and foreign quagmire, the discredited party again loses the White House. (Examples: John F. Kennedy & Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush)

The Precursory – With the current era now decades old, change is inevitable yet resisted. The incumbent president is in an odd position of setting the tone of the new political era but being restrained in maximizing changes to their full effect. Nonetheless, they are a window to the coming reforms, and what they achieve serves as a model for what is to come. (Examples: Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford, Barack Obama)

The Disaster – The Precursory is followed by a brief revival of the once dominant party. They are the last gasps of an old era, vehemently opposed by a newer generation with a starkly different vision. Adjustments that were made over the past forty years are no longer enough to solve the problems of the next forty, which vary in intensity but all signify a dead age. These presidents often only serve one term, although it might be possible for an overarching phase to last longer when looking for leaders in a Crisis era. They are succeeded by a new realigner. (Examples: Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, Donald Trump?)

If the pattern continues, it may become a reliable indicator of where the next 80 years (otherwise known as the saeculum) will take the United States. The 2020s and 2060s are likely to be the setting of the next realigning elections, whereas the 2040s and 2080s are poised to be periods of great political unraveling in various forms, before the cycle starts anew again at some point around 2100. Despite the half-saeculum length of each political era, this aligns quite well with generational theory when you account for slight differences in tone. In 1952, Eisenhower won in a resounding landslide in the 1T, while Clinton was aided in 1992 by the strongest ever third-party bid in Ross Perot, a signature of a 3T. What are your thoughts on this?