I'd like to take the temperature of the forum on the issue.

From personal experience with two War Baby grandparents ('41 and '43), I'd consider the '43 grandmother to have a basically Boomer disposition, while my '41 grandfather was very much a Silent. So I'm convinced the earliest Prophets can be born during a Crisis.

And based on that personal experience (my Boomer-esque War Baby grandmother's being born in 1943, fourteen years after Black Tuesday), and holding to a 2006 Fourth Turning start date, I'd bet that the cohort of 2020 will look awfully Prophet-like when they've grown up.

Assuming that the GC has any validity as a concept as outlined in The Fourth Turning, it isn't applicable to either Clinton or Trump. 

The Book (doesn't one feel like a Friend of Bill, discussing it that way?) is pretty specific that what makes a Grey Champion a Grey Champion is overwhelming support from the ascending generation. It is the rising Hero generation, after all, that enshrines a Grey Champion's exploits in the annals of Valhalla and records their deeds in the Book of Life &etc. &etc. 

Abraham Lincoln certainly had huge majorities among the rising Gilded in the non-seceded States (he very likely was not a Grey Champion of the Confederacy); the 'Lincoln Shouters' were a paramilitary organization consisting of nothing but male youths in the Union states. And while I haven't been able to find any primary documentation on the demographics of the 1932 election, the overwhelming impression I get from secondary sources is that Franklin Roosevelt was the overwhelming favorite of the G.I. Generation at the time, not the least because of the Democratic promise to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment.

You notice my repeated use of the word "overwhelming"?

Meanwhile, Donald Trump runs a serious risk of coming in fourth place in the youth vote, while Hillary is struggling to match the youth enthusiasm Obama had in his two elections. If we judge potential Grey Champions on the support they muster from the newly-minted Heroes, neither of the two nominees this year qualify. Indeed, it's increasingly plausible that Obama will look very much like a traditional Grey Champion in hindsight. The difference may be something as simple as a reverse Civil War crisis - where many observers include most or all of the 1850s in the Fourth Turning of that Crisis (creating a lengthy head in front of the emergence of the Grey Champion), this Crisis may simply have seen a Grey Champion leave office with a tail of Crises behind him, with nothing really resolved.

Surprisingly - at least according to some here - not me!

It's a massive improvement over the Ayn Rand Right.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29...alt-right/

The label’s become too big to be useful, and tech could suffer for it.

Quick: What do an auto leasing provider, a condiment company and the producers of a serious TV drama have in common? If your answer is “almost nothing”, then you’re right. If your answer is “they have such similar roles in society that they should be regulated and reported on the same way”, then congratulations—you still believe there’s “tech industry”.


Uber is providing predatory sub-prime leases to its drivers through its subsidiary Xchange. Mayonnaise startup (yes, ?) Hampton Creek is under SEC investigation for buying back its own mayo. Amazon is going toe-to-toe with companies like HBO with a prestige series like Transparent. And absurdly, we’re expecting lawmakers, the media and average consumers to understand these wildly different offerings—and countless more ranging from mattresses to medical testing—as part of one single, endlessly complex, industry.
That’s an impossible task, and a bad way to think about technology’s role in society. Perpetuating the myth of a monolithic “tech industry” overtaxes our ability to manage the changes that technology is making to society, and that overload threatens to have increasingly negative impacts.

Once upon a time, it made perfect sense to talk about “the high tech industry” in America — pioneering companies like Intel or Fairchild Semiconductor or IBM or Hewlett Packard made computer processors and related hardware, and most of the companies in Silicon Valley dealt with actual silicon from time to time. These companies offered competing products that shared a market, a set of customers, and sometimes even had employees in common when talent would move from one company to another.

But today, the major players in what’s called the “tech industry” are enormous conglomerates that regularly encompass everything from semiconductor factories to high-end retail stores to Hollywood-style production studios. The upstarts of the business can work on anything from cleaning your laundry to creating drones. There’s no way to put all these different kinds of products and services into any one coherent bucket now that they encompass the entire world of business.

Email address from the following domains have been banned due to large amounts of spam this list will be updated as it changes.

cmail.com
eksprespedycja.pl
mail.ru
mailismagic.com
outlook.com
sogetthis.com
ymail.com
ymail.net
dicyemail.com
mailismagic.com
sogetthis.com

I found this article I think shoudl be interesting. Here is the URL: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p..._race.html

Here is the article:

Quote:To anyone not following the ins and outs of the election, the contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has all the trappings of a close-fought, competitive election. Both candidates dominate the news media; both have held massive rallies and events; both are on the airwaves with ads on television and radio; and both are maneuvering on the ground in an effort to reach broad and diverse constituencies. Turn to CNN or MSNBC, and you’ll see breathless coverage of each development in the race, reinforcing the sense that this a tight contest between two formidable campaigns—one horse hitting the quarter pole half a length ahead of the other.

But of course it’s nothing like that. Hillary Clinton isn’t just leading—she’s dominant. And her odds of winning get stronger each day she holds that dominant position.

Take the polling averages, which aggregate public polls to provide a comprehensive view of the race, with various weights and adjustments for methodology. As of Wednesday, Clinton leads in the Talking Points Memo average by a margin of 3.3 percentage points; according to the Real Clear Politics method for averaging polls, she leads by a margin of 6 points. And in the Huffington Post’s average of national public polls, she leads by 7 points. A 3-point margin is within the realm of a typical, close contest. But in modern presidential elections—where parties vie for votes in a hyperpolarized electorate—6 or 7 points is something close to a landslide, comparable to Barack Obama’s win over John McCain in the 2008 race.

More critical than the size of the lead is its place on the calendar. Polls are at their least predictive in the first half of an election year, before the national conventions. It’s a volatile time, as candidates compete in primaries and parties struggle for a semblance of unity. The conventions act as a reset button, a way to restore that unity and present the parties and their nominees to the public at large. And it’s after the conventions that polls become far more predictive, as the volatility of the primary season dies down and pollsters begin to screen for likely voters.

“Although the convention season is the time for multiple bounces in the polls, one party ends up with an advantage when the dust clears,” write political scientists Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien in their book The Timeline of Presidential Elections. “This gain is a net convention bump rather than a bounce.” The polls we see after the conventions, in other words, tend to reflect a genuine change in the state of the race. And that change is durable. In their analysis of presidential polling, going back to 1952, the candidate leading at this stage of the race always won the popular vote. The margin might differ, but the outcome was on target. It’s why the various polling models from FiveThirtyEight, the New York Times, and the Princeton Election Consortium all give Clinton a high likelihood of winning in November, from 85 percent in the FiveThirtyEight “nowcast,” to 89 percent in the Times calculator, to 96 percent in the Princeton measure of the race.

In other words, Clinton’s odds of losing this election amount to the general chance of an unimaginable black-swan event that transforms the political landscape. If you think there’s a 10-percent chance that the American economy collapses before November, then that is roughly the chance that Donald Trump wins this election.

What we have is a horse running by itself, unperturbed but for the faint possibility of a comet hitting the track.

On top of all of this is the fact that one side is running a campaign, and the other side isn’t. Hillary Clinton is raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on ads (saturating swing states in television spots aimed at disqualifying Trump), organizing, and “get out the vote” efforts. She has hundreds more employees than Trump and far more offices in far more states, including traditionally Republican territory like Georgia and Utah. Trump has none of this: no infrastructure to find and mobilize supporters, an anemic budget for advertising, and little staff to manage volunteers. He is so thinly staffed that for a moment it seemed plausible that Trump’s main organizer in a key Colorado county was a 12-year-old boy.

For Trump, a stronger organization would not be enough to overcome his deficit. But it would minimize the size of the loss. That he’s so outmatched on the ground bodes poorly for how he’ll perform when the voting starts. Unlike Clinton, he won’t “bank” early votes and absentee votes from supporters who could cast them, freeing resources for more marginal voters. He won’t have people to mobilize the least enthusiastic Republicans and bring them to the polls. And he won’t have resources to counter Democratic efforts to demoralize Republican voters through advertising and targeted appeals. At the same time, he’s wasting the resources he has by spending them in deep-red states like Mississippi and deep-blue ones like New York.

If states like Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, and South Carolina are on the edge—thanks to overwhelming nonwhite support for Clinton, third-party candidates, and profound ambivalence for Trump among Republicans—then his weakness and her strength increase the chances those states flip away from the Republican Party.

Of course, if we’re at the point where South Carolina—one of the most conservative states in the union—is vulnerable to a Democratic campaign, then the election is already too far gone for the Republican Party. And there’s little chance that Democrats will lose their lead to complacency. If there’s a bandwagon effect in politics, it’s for winners. In presidential elections, at least, voters seem to want to cast a ballot for the winner. It’s the losing “side” that stays home.
There is no horse race here. Clinton is far enough ahead, at a late enough stage in the election, that what we have is a horse running by itself, unperturbed but for the faint possibility of a comet hitting the track. Place your bets accordingly.

isn't he voting for this guy?!

The Most Important Anti-Obstruction Race in America: Kai Degner vs. Bob Goodlatte.

Oh, and he should send money too!  

Hopefully, Wonkette will pick up the slack.

The polls say otherwise but we cannot know what sorts of chicanery and intrigue may arise out of nowhere, when the Kremlin is directly interfering in a US election.

Thus far the interference has not risen to the level where the actual voting process is impaired, or, where a mass disinformation op throws a monkey wrench into the works very late in the campaign season.

I must wonder - if there were obvious major interference in the election, and, against all odds, it ended up installing Trump, how would the FBI, CIA and Military react?

My guess is there would be an armed struggle for power between the illegitimate Executive Branch and its "children" in those departments.

Into the chaos - Russia / the SCO may then try to do a sneak attack while we are caught up in a Civil War (but not one of the "Red" vs "Blue" variety - it would be one within the Executive Branch).

Or, Russia / the SCO would back the Trump faction and overtly install a puppet government atop the ashes of what used to be the legitimate US Government.

Sounds of crying, weeping will not save
Your faith for bricks and dreams for mortar
All your prayers must seem as nothing
Ninety-six below the wave
When stone is dust and only air remains...

I just heard an interesting story on NPR's Morning Edition this morning saying that while Trump's base IS blue collar it isn't low income as is popularly claimed, it is primarily better paid blue collar workers without a college education with deep anxieties about outsourcing and "immigrants taking their jobs" as well as cultural resentments against "pointy-headed liberal" college-educated people.

No wonder he "loves the poorly-educated"...