The failure of the Democratic Party

[SomeGuy]

Quote: may be reading this into Mickey's post, but the thrust of arguments like this is that Trump moved in on policy territory abandoned by the Democrats. The fact is that the Democrats did not abandon the working class, and Trump is offering them false promises.

Opposition to NAFTA was largely a Democratic one for a while.  Come on, Eric, you're decrepit, surely you're old enough to remember Dick Gephardt, David Bonior? 

Quote:He's right that the Democrats must emphasize workers and economic issues, but NO shift is necessary. Only a better candidate on the stump than Trump. They should pay attention to my scoring system. I know, fat chance.

If that's what y'all are pinning your hopes... 

Quote:I doubt they are Democratic politicians saying such things.

DNC chair candidate: My Job is to Shut  White People Down.

Quote:That's what they are doing and saying. Do you remember the things Trump said, or not? Or Sessions? The attack on voting rights? Attacks on Planned Parenthood funding? Bans on other nations and religions entering the USA? And complaints like this here that somehow these issues are not important anymore?

I do remember those things, and I must have missed the bit where they stated that their policy was to enslave black people, put women back in the kitchen, and make Christianity the state religion.
So, no citations then.

Quote:His suggestion is incorrect. Hillary may be finished, but she can't be blamed for any erroneous Democratic Party policy strategy, assuming there was one. It can be said she was a weak candidate for various reasons.

Please show me in the OP where he blamed any of this on Hillary specifically?  Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2017, 04:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 04:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: His suggestion is incorrect. Hillary may be finished, but she can't be blamed for any erroneous Democratic Party policy strategy, assuming there was one. It can be said she was a weak candidate for various reasons.

-- oh 4 Christ's sake Eric read the goddam emails. Why you insist on trying to exonrate this bitch is beyond me

O for Christ's sake yourself. I said she was a weak candidate; there's nothing more to say about her. She is not the issue raised here. The charges against her are not the issue here. The issue here is what policies to follow, and whether to bash people of color as the excuse for the Democrats' failure.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Actually, the real flaw of Levin's "competing nostalgias," if you think about it for not too long, is this: He's basically describing the political longing of the Silents, Boomers, and Xers.  What can the Millennials (the largest generational cohort) possibly be nostalgic for, politically speaking?  All they've known is one long, rolling crisis: Clinton impeachment, Columbine shooting, Bush 43 election by "judicial appointment," the 9-11 attacks, the Global War on Terror, Hurricane Katrina fiasco, Crash of 2008.  Millennials don't really have the lived experience of the Reagan era, and obviously not the 50s and 60s either.

I didn't particularly care for Levin's prescription either, a concept he called "subsidiarity."  But he did crystallize my thinking a bit on 4T theory, the way he approached the problem of polarization as kind of a "tripod" (my characterization, not his)--cultural, economic, and political--unraveling in that order in this turning.

So why are you trying to pin his admittedly serious flawed thesis on anybody? 

As for Millennial nostalgia, I agree with an older thesis of Chas' (I miss him) that nostalgia for the 90s by aging Millennials will eventually be a thing (I mean, you can see little pieces of it already), though reflected more in the arts and culture (read: movies set in the period) than in the politics.

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2017, 04:19 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Opposition to NAFTA was largely a Democratic one for a while.  Come on, Eric, you're decrepit, surely you're old enough to remember Dick Gephardt, David Bonior? 

It still is a Democratic one. Democrats opposed NAFTA and still opposed TPP in far greater numbers than Republicans in congress, and Hillary voted against trade deals too and opposed TPP.

Quote:I do remember those things, and I must have missed the bit where they stated that their policy was to enslave black people, put women back in the kitchen, and make Christianity the state religion.
So, no citations then.

You remember those things, then. That will be the effect of their policies; not going all the way back, for sure, but impeding progress and going some ways back.

Quote:

Quote:His suggestion is incorrect. Hillary may be finished, but she can't be blamed for any erroneous Democratic Party policy strategy, assuming there was one. It can be said she was a weak candidate for various reasons.

Please show me in the OP where he blamed any of this on Hillary specifically?  Go ahead, I'll wait.

He didn't, but the suggestion was about the campaign Democrats ran, and she was the main candidate who carried and enunciated the Democratic policy proposals. And the point I made is that she and other candidates did not do what Mickey accuses "the Democrats" of doing. If you listened to her speeches, and the lines I quoted from her, that is clear.

The Fox News video you linked comes up too slowly. Very limited example, with no chance of becoming DNC chair, and not a major politician that anyone ever heard, or heard-of.

[TeacherinExile]

(02-04-2017, 04:24 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:Actually, the real flaw of Levin's "competing nostalgias," if you think about it for not too long, is this: He's basically describing the political longing of the Silents, Boomers, and Xers.  What can the Millennials (the largest generational cohort) possibly be nostalgic for, politically speaking?  All they've known is one long, rolling crisis: Clinton impeachment, Columbine shooting, Bush 43 election by "judicial appointment," the 9-11 attacks, the Global War on Terror, Hurricane Katrina fiasco, Crash of 2008.  Millennials don't really have the lived experience of the Reagan era, and obviously not the 50s and 60s either.

I didn't particularly care for Levin's prescription either, a concept he called "subsidiarity."  But he did crystallize my thinking a bit on 4T theory, the way he approached the problem of polarization as kind of a "tripod" (my characterization, not his)--cultural, economic, and political--unraveling in that order in this turning.

So why are you trying to pin his admittedly serious flawed thesis on anybody? 

As for Millennial nostalgia, I agree with an older thesis of Chas' (I miss him) that nostalgia for the 90s by aging Millennials will eventually be a thing (I mean, you can see little pieces of it already), though reflected more in the arts and culture (read: movies set in the period) than in the politics.

It's simple: don't waste your time reading it.  I blitzed through the book thinking it might offer some insight on 4T theory, which it did marginally.  I also read it because it was written by a relatively young conservative, and though I'm no longer on his side of the political spectrum, I try to keep an open mind.  (I've evolved before--and may do so again.)

Yes, every generation (my grown Millennial sons are no exception) will have some kind of nostalgia, for the culture at least.

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2017, 04:19 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: If that's what y'all are pinning your hopes...   

I don't know about that. But the record for my scoring system is pretty good, wouldn't you say?

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

see who scored what

[SomeGuy]

Quote:It still is a Democratic one. Democrats opposed NAFTA and still opposed TPP in far greater numbers than Republicans in congress, and Hillary voted against trade deals too and opposed TPP.

So what you're saying is that he has taken a Democratic issue and made it his own?

Remind me which administration negotiated and pushed for TPP, again?  Who referred to it as the "gold standard" of trade deals?

Quote:You remember those things, then. That will be the effect of their policies; not going all the way back, for sure, but impeding progress and going some ways back.

So you agree that this is you talking and not actually anything any of these people have actually said.

Quote:He didn't, but the suggestion was about the campaign Democrats ran, and she was the main candidate who carried and enunciated the Democratic policy proposals. And the point I made is that she and other candidates did not do what Mickey accuses "the Democrats" of doing. If you listened to her speeches, and the lines I quoted from her, that is clear.

So, again, this is you arguing against something you made up, again.

Quote:The Fox News video you linked comes up too slowly. Very limited example, with no chance of becoming DNC chair, and not a major politician that anyone ever heard, or heard-of.

So we've gone from "I doubt they are Democratic politicians saying such things" to, "Well, some Democratic politicians may have said them, but not ones that count.."

[SomeGuy]

(02-04-2017, 04:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 04:19 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: If that's what y'all are pinning your hopes...   

I don't know about that. But the record for my scoring system is pretty good, wouldn't you say?

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

see who scored what

Yes, you have successfully predicted the Presidents who have previously won.  Good job. How did your system work in 2016? 

I am also glad to see you've gone away from the purple.  That old site was damned near unreadable. 

[SomeGuy]

(02-04-2017, 04:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 04:24 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:Actually, the real flaw of Levin's "competing nostalgias," if you think about it for not too long, is this: He's basically describing the political longing of the Silents, Boomers, and Xers.  What can the Millennials (the largest generational cohort) possibly be nostalgic for, politically speaking?  All they've known is one long, rolling crisis: Clinton impeachment, Columbine shooting, Bush 43 election by "judicial appointment," the 9-11 attacks, the Global War on Terror, Hurricane Katrina fiasco, Crash of 2008.  Millennials don't really have the lived experience of the Reagan era, and obviously not the 50s and 60s either.

I didn't particularly care for Levin's prescription either, a concept he called "subsidiarity."  But he did crystallize my thinking a bit on 4T theory, the way he approached the problem of polarization as kind of a "tripod" (my characterization, not his)--cultural, economic, and political--unraveling in that order in this turning.

So why are you trying to pin his admittedly serious flawed thesis on anybody? 

As for Millennial nostalgia, I agree with an older thesis of Chas' (I miss him) that nostalgia for the 90s by aging Millennials will eventually be a thing (I mean, you can see little pieces of it already), though reflected more in the arts and culture (read: movies set in the period) than in the politics.

It's simple: don't waste your time reading it.  I blitzed through the book thinking it might offer some insight on 4T theory, which it did marginally.  I also read it because it was written by a relatively young conservative, and though I'm no longer on his side of the political spectrum, I try to keep an open mind.  (I've evolved before--and may do so again.)

Yes, every generation (my grown Millennial sons are no exception) will have some kind of nostalgia, for the culture at least.

Ok, so we are agreed that the whole thesis is a dead-end.

What are your actual thoughts then on the OP?

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2017, 06:53 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 04:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 04:19 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: If that's what y'all are pinning your hopes...   

I don't know about that. But the record for my scoring system is pretty good, wouldn't you say?

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

see who scored what

Yes, you have successfully predicted the Presidents who have previously won.  Good job. How did your system work in 2016? 

I was thinking that I failed, yes. Too bad for me.

But then, I remembered that the two indicators I put the most stake in, both worked! The new moon before election method predicted the party in power would win. But whenever the popular vote and the electoral college have conflicted, the new moon before the election reflected the popular will and the popular vote, not the electoral. It was correct in 2016. The party in power won the popular vote easily. And my point system always gave the advantage to Donald Trump as the better candidate. Usually, the higher-scoring candidate wins. So yes, my system worked, even if I didn't work. 2016 is included in my list of who scored what, ya know

So yes, it actually worked. But I admit, I was biased, and also I just made some plain errors; it takes me a while to get things right. I actually included a Hillary win and Trump loss in my stats for the point system, noting in my notes that their scores would change a bit if she lost; and left out some things by mistake. So Hillary's score ends up as even lower than before. I thought Jupiter rising would give her a boost, and it did, but not quite enough as I thought it might. It's all indicated on my page what happened. And there is uncertainty about her birth time, and I chose the chart that not only seemed correct, but was the better chart for winning.

Remember too virtually no-one except me predicted the success and nomination of Trump back many months before it happened, and even back in July 2015 after I saw his chart. His chart alone convinced me. And the success of the Bernie Sanders campaign too, back when it was at 2% in the polls. And other events too in the campaign. So all in all, I actually did pretty well.

And my system is not entirely new, though revised for 2016. I successfully used it in the previous 3 elections as well.

The whole point is, regardless of correct strategies, appealing to the right people, running a good campaign, even how the party in power is doing as Lichtman says; if a party chooses a candidate with a lower score than the opposition, you probably won't win. And the popular vote is probably predestined too, at least to a large extent, by which sign ruler (Asc ruler for challenger, or Desc for champ) is highest in the sky, and by whether or not Uranus is doing some rumbling down near the bottom of the chart.

I love Elizabeth Warren. But what would you guess her chart says about whether she could win a race for president or not?

These things are pretty easy to guess. People really ARE reflected in their charts.

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2017, 06:51 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:It still is a Democratic one. Democrats opposed NAFTA and still opposed TPP in far greater numbers than Republicans in congress, and Hillary voted against trade deals too and opposed TPP.

So what you're saying is that he has taken a Democratic issue and made it his own?

Remind me which administration negotiated and pushed for TPP, again?  Who referred to it as the "gold standard" of trade deals?

So you're saying that it's not a ruse that The Donald can take one Democratic issue, trade, and deceive the people that fixing it will be enough, while he screws them in every other way, and that's taking over the Democratic platform? I don't think so.

And who opposed TPP during the election despite her earlier comments? And that doesn't count?

And now what is the Donald doing about trade? Insulting the Mexican leader? Sure, that'll work for the people.

Quote:

Quote:You remember those things, then. That will be the effect of their policies; not going all the way back, for sure, but impeding progress and going some ways back.

So you agree that this is you talking and not actually anything any of these people have actually said.

No, you remember that they said them.

Quote:

Quote:He didn't, but the suggestion was about the campaign Democrats ran, and she was the main candidate who carried and enunciated the Democratic policy proposals. And the point I made is that she and other candidates did not do what Mickey accuses "the Democrats" of doing. If you listened to her speeches, and the lines I quoted from her, that is clear.

So, again, this is you arguing against something you made up, again.

I don't think so. Hillary was the face of the Democrats, and what they stood for and what they advocated. And the other Democratic candidates around the country, and the platform, did say the same things. Remember the platform was partly shaped by Bernie Sanders and endorsed by him. It doesn't matter how many words Mickey can pick out.

Quote:

Quote:The Fox News video you linked comes up too slowly. Very limited example, with no chance of becoming DNC chair, and not a major politician that anyone ever heard, or heard-of.

So we've gone from "I doubt they are Democratic politicians saying such things" to, "Well, some Democratic politicians may have said them, but not ones that count.."

It wasn't a very good example that you chose, was it?!

[Eric the Green]

It looks to me like Trump is kinda looking the other way on trade anyway; putting it on a back burner. We'll see, but he seems most dedicated to polluting our rivers, allowing Wall Street speculators to resume their crimes with impunity, allowing criminals and insane people to have any gun they want, banning Muslims and refugees from entering our country no matter who they are; these kinds of things are his true priorities. He really wants to make American great again for his rich buddies, and that's about it. And people voted for this lunatic sadist. Well, it's all in the stars, I guess. That's my consolation.

[Marypoza]

Eric, refresher course: $hillary $hilled NAFTA to  Bill, she helped write the TPP, calling it the "gold standard" (well yeah-  for transnationals) seriously, your excuses for that goldwater bitch are beyond pathetic & bordering on the delusional. I don't like the Donald being in the WH either, but l gotta admit we dodged a bullet last Nov

You stated she can't be blamed for any erroneous policy strategy. Why the f not? She helped shaped that policy, she should take the fall. She doesn't take responsibility for anything. Instead she blames Comey, bambam, the Russians, us deplorable voters..... she's not even pathetic. And she's not even a leader, much less a bad one.

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2017, 08:37 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Eric, refresher course: $hillary $hilled NAFTA to  Bill, she helped write the TPP, calling it the "gold standard" (well yeah-  for transnationals) seriously, your excuses for that goldwater bitch are beyond pathetic & bordering on the delusional. I don't like the Donald being in the WH either, but l gotta admit we dodged a bullet last Nov

You stated she can't be blamed for any erroneous policy strategy. Why the f not? She helped shaped that policy, she should take the fall. She doesn't take responsibility for anything. Instead she blames Comey, bambam, the Russians, us deplorable voters..... she's  not even pathetic. And she's not even a leader, much less a bad one.

She is a good leader, just not a good campaigner to beat Trump. She would have been a good president; just my opinion.

Debating about her seems irrelevant. why do you keep doing it? We need to get over it, grow a backbone and defeat the Republican corporate takeover. Warren understood that meddling in the primaries would just have stoked division among Democrats; that's not a winning strategy.

I mentioned Hillary because the opening post talks about the campaign strategy and approach of the Democratic party that supposedly emphasized "identity politics" (not called that in Mickey's post; it was more like "let's blame whites") over economic issues. Hillary can't be blamed for any erroneous policy strategy, I said, because there WAS no erroneous policy strategy of the kind mentioned in the opening post. There were tactical errors, and she was not a good candidate in several ways, but it was not wrong to appeal to people of color, women and gays as she did, because they are essential to any Democratic coalition. That was not a mistake; Democrats MUST do that to have any chance at all to win. You don't seem to get that, or that this is what I'm saying. And Hillary and other Democrats DID NOT fail to focus on economic issues of concern to workers, as Mickey alleged. Just not true, as I proved.

I think her change of mind on TPP (and NAFTA was George H W Bush's law, not hers) was genuine, and we have to disagree on that. It doesn't matter. We agree future candidates must take a stronger approach on trade than Hillary did, and we agree on the issue. Let's hope Democrats field a candidate with a good enough horoscope score to beat Trump, progressive enough to lead the fight, and with a broad enough appeal to unite the opposition. It will be a tall order.

[Mickey123]

(02-04-2017, 02:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Democrats cannot win without the 60s coalition of people or color, women and gays. Republican strategy is to divide and conquer...

(02-04-2017, 02:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...Not so good for women, gays, people of color...

...means blaming people of color, women and gays ...

...by people of color, women and gays...

(02-04-2017, 03:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...women and people of color can rise above the discrimination and profiling that still keeps them down...

...discriminate against and ban religions and peoples...

Your strategy is to be divided and conquer, and this strategy is no longer working and will not work again for the rest of your life.  The 60s coalition of people of color, women and gays is finished.

A storm is coming, Eric, and this storm will wash away all the trivialities and petty bickering and everything else that separates us.  While we don't know what form it will take, imagine that we're in a major war against China, with its 1.3 billion population and its hundreds of nuclear warheads.  China's army dwarfs ours, people are dying by the hundreds of thousands, and while both sides are withholding the use of nuclear weapons, the threat that they'll all be fired off at once is ever present.  No one's going to care about what bathroom men who want to be women want to use, or whether the police are being too rough on certain criminals.

The time is coming where we will all be asked to sacrifice, some much more than others.  Those who attack our country and its values from within will be considered traitors.  There will be no "smashing the patriarchy", no "free the nipple", no slut walks.  Conformity will be valued over individuality, as everyone tries to show that they, too, are fighting to protect the nation.

The unraveling is over.  It's time to grow up and stop whining.  Nobody cares how special a snowflake you are.  "We're gonna need you to charge up that hill through machine gun fire, and try not to get yourself killed, or all that money we spent in training your dumb ass will be wasted".

The time is coming for people of color, women and gays, to demonstrate how much they have to give to the country, not whether they've been able to take enough, just as will be expected of everyone else.

If you, Eric, and the Democratic party and liberals in general fail to realize all this, then you'll be cast aside, your values abandoned, as everyone else deals with the conflict our country will be facing.

[Eric the Green]

(02-05-2017, 01:04 AM)Mickey123 Wrote: Your strategy is to be divided and conquer, and this strategy is no longer working and will not work again for the rest of your life.  The 60s coalition of people of color, women and gays is finished.

Your view is interesting. It contrasts in interesting ways with mine. I welcome the opportunity to bounce off of your scenario.

It would not appear such a coalition is finished, given the fact that it is powering the strongest demonstrations against Trump so far; the coalition seems to be ramping up, thanks to Trump and to a much lesser extent Hillary, the two candidates who made these issues central to the 2016 campaign. And since people of color are becoming more numerous all the time, it is obviously completely fatal for the Democrats not to embrace them and their issues.

Quote:A storm is coming, Eric, and this storm will wash away all the trivialities and petty bickering and everything else that separates us.  While we don't know what form it will take, imagine that we're in a major war against China, with its 1.3 billion population and its hundreds of nuclear warheads.  China's army dwarfs ours, people are dying by the hundreds of thousands, and while both sides are withholding the use of nuclear weapons, the threat that they'll all be fired off at once is ever present.  No one's going to care about what bathroom men who want to be women want to use, or whether the police are being too rough on certain criminals.

The storm is already here, and I have predicted this storm for decades. 2016 is the beginning of a storm that will continue through the rest of the 4T. The weather has now changed and the forecast is for this 2017 storm to build. It will be primarily a domestic storm, some kind of revolution and/or civil strife, as the divisions in our country lead to fundamental choices we must make. No, the storm is here; not with China. We have no beef with China that's worth nuclear war or huge invasions. We are mutually dependent. Trump is the catalyst, and the opposition to him is the regeneracy. It must be unrelenting from now on, until we take power again and through further domestic struggle enact the reforms we need.

I do think a US war is quite possible around 2025-26, probably involving the fights we are already in rather than a new one; but the tides of history seem to me to focus on the stalemate in this country, and it will be about far more than bathrooms, but about the basic structures of our country and who has the power, just like in all the other 4Ts.

Quote:The time is coming where we will all be asked to sacrifice, some much more than others.  Those who attack our country and its values from within will be considered traitors.  There will be no "smashing the patriarchy", no "free the nipple", no slut walks.  Conformity will be valued over individuality, as everyone tries to show that they, too, are fighting to protect the nation.

No more conformity than during the civil war or revolution; those are the cycles that are returning most clearly. It will be specifically an attack on those who have grasped power in this country, gravely endangered our planet, stirred up prejudice for political gain, and used slogans of freedom to keep people chained to low wages and poverty and unemployment.

Quote:The unraveling is over.  It's time to grow up and stop whining.  Nobody cares how special a snowflake you are.  "We're gonna need you to charge up that hill through machine gun fire, and try not to get yourself killed, or all that money we spent in training your dumb ass will be wasted".

Those kinds of wars are out of date. That's one of the lessons of our saeculum. It's time to move beyond war as fully as we can. A major focus of this 4T is to avoid and stop any such war. And the 4T American wars of the past have usually been about the struggle to defeat the forces of slavery, oppression and reaction and to advance the country beyond out of date structures, not a foreign invasion or imperial project. Even the previous 4T started that way. Revolution and civil war are upon us, just like in all the past 4Ts, and that's the hill we're going to be charging up to achieve victory over the forces of repression and stagnation. We're going to "whine" a great deal more, and the "whining" is already ramping up big time. There will be so much whining even the liberals will get sick of whining. It will be up to us how violent it will be. When we liberals and real moderates come together, the 1% will be defeated without much trouble, along with their fanatical, deceived supporters protecting their guns and their tax money.

And why are you not complaining about THOSE PEOPLE; the Tea Party types who are whining about nothing, who are upset because their cherished libertarian economics ideology is challenged, who are only interested in lower taxes and protecting their right to bear arms, because they fear they might be criminals or insane and have them taken away? These loonies, who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity scream and yell about freedom while their freedoms are being squelched by the big business interests who only care about their own power and wealth? It is time for THEM, the mostly white rural conservatives of this country, to think about the country and not just their whiny little selves and their desire for lower taxes and the dogmas and hatreds fomented by their fundamentalist preachers.

Quote:The time is coming for people of color, women and gays, to demonstrate how much they have to give to the country, not whether they've been able to take enough, just as will be expected of everyone else.

If you, Eric, and the Democratic party and liberals in general fail to realize all this, then you'll be cast aside, your values abandoned, as everyone else deals with the conflict our country will be facing.

What we have to give to the country, is to move it forward and liberate it from Republican obstruction once and for all, forever. That is giving to the country, now; to save it from itself. The time is coming for white people to quit complaining about people of color, and for the Republican divide and conquer strategy to be put aside, so we can remember that we are stronger together in our common fight against the Established Order of neo-liberalism and greed. We must come together and put our country first. Blacks and whites, women and men, all of us, have a common enemy, and that is the 1%, the bosses who have hogged the wealth and power unto themselves and forced most people to work for nothing or have their jobs taken away and replaced with machines and cheap labor, and are threatening the life of our planet. That is the conflict we ARE facing; there's no "will be" about it. It has been the conflict since the 4T began, and it has been the conflict since the 60s. It is now ramped up, as of these two weeks. The 4T is to complete the 2T, not to shut it up. The 2T is when the tasks were given to us to complete in this 4T. We must complete them. Those who don't realize this, are off track seriously.

It is up to Americans to face the task of moving our country forward, or watching it die. The time of decision is at hand. America must change, or America will die.

[Mickey123]

(02-05-2017, 01:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The storm is already here, and I have predicted this storm for decades. 2016 is the beginning of a storm that will continue through the rest of the 4T. The weather has now changed and the forecast is for this 2017 storm to build. It will be primarily a domestic storm, some kind of revolution and/or civil strife, as the divisions in our country lead to fundamental choices we must make. No, the storm is here; not with China. We have no beef with China that's worth nuclear war or huge invasions. We are mutually dependent. Trump is the catalyst, and the opposition to him is the regeneracy. It must be unrelenting from now on, until we take power again and through further domestic struggle enact the reforms we need.

There is a way in which what you're predicting and hoping for is possible, and that is some sort of socialist revolution.  Perhaps it would also be possible to have a civil war, with the country breaking into pieces, with one or more of the pieces representing the values you share.  Such things are absolutely possible in a Crisis.

I think a socialist revolution is entirely unlikely, as the climate for it does not exist here.  The average person is too well off, and socialism (beyond the socialist programs we already have, such as social security) is not well regarded.

The country breaking into pieces is more likely.  I can easily see it being sparked by the legalization of marijuana in the western states, for example.  The federal government attempts to crack down on marijuana sales in Colorado or Washington State, the state in question calls out the police and the national guard to defend its citizens, and various states start taking sides.  I see this as more of a more of a last ditch scenario, though, where the country can't find any other reasonable way of acting out the crisis and just breaks into pieces.  I don't think much of the country would end up with the set of values you're hoping for if this is how the crisis plays out, though.

[Eric the Green]

(02-05-2017, 04:19 AM)Mickey123 Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 01:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The storm is already here, and I have predicted this storm for decades. 2016 is the beginning of a storm that will continue through the rest of the 4T. The weather has now changed and the forecast is for this 2017 storm to build. It will be primarily a domestic storm, some kind of revolution and/or civil strife, as the divisions in our country lead to fundamental choices we must make. No, the storm is here; not with China. We have no beef with China that's worth nuclear war or huge invasions. We are mutually dependent. Trump is the catalyst, and the opposition to him is the regeneracy. It must be unrelenting from now on, until we take power again and through further domestic struggle enact the reforms we need.

There is a way in which what you're predicting and hoping for is possible, and that is some sort of socialist revolution.  Perhaps it would also be possible to have a civil war, with the country breaking into pieces, with one or more of the pieces representing the values you share.  Such things are absolutely possible in a Crisis.

I think a socialist revolution is entirely unlikely, as the climate for it does not exist here.  The average person is too well off, and socialism (beyond the socialist programs we already have, such as social security) is not well regarded.

Inequality and declining middle class and ecological destruction and domination of our economy by reckless and ruthless big money speculators are real issues. It's easy to dismiss them by putting the label "socialist" on those who want a different direction, and thus attribute to them an ideology that doesn't do well in America. But Bernie Sanders did pretty well anyway, and a broad-based American Left can do well, and it might do well. We must break the aversion to social programs and government action in the name of "freedom." This "smaller government" obsession is the root of all our problems today.

No, people are not doing well. Both Trump and Sanders and also Elizabeth Warren speak to that point. No, many people are just scraping by, have lost good paying jobs or are saddled with debt. Trump wants to shift the blame from the rich guys like himself who are to blame, to immigrants, refugees, welfare recipients, high taxes and regulations. This is the same program that created this problem: Reaganomics. We've had all progress and constructive programs and laws blocked for 40 years now because of Reaganomics. This counter-revolution must be overturned, and the reason conflict is likely, is because of the rigid and fanatical dedication which the reactionaries have to Reaganomics and its allied ideologies like the religious right and resentments against people of color, immigrants and refugees.

Quote:The country breaking into pieces is more likely.  I can easily see it being sparked by the legalization of marijuana in the western states, for example.  The federal government attempts to crack down on marijuana sales in Colorado or Washington State, the state in question calls out the police and the national guard to defend its citizens, and various states start taking sides.  I see this as more of a more of a last ditch scenario, though, where the country can't find any other reasonable way of acting out the crisis and just breaks into pieces.  I don't think much of the country would end up with the set of values you're hoping for if this is how the crisis plays out, though.

It's going to be about much more serious issues than marijuana or transgender bathrooms. It's about our livelihood and our survival. If the Republicans and their resistance to all government action on behalf of the people continue to block all progress and turn back the clock on all social programs and investments, then a break-up of the country is likely. Whether that's a good solution is doubtful, but at least the blue side would be free to keep the polluters and speculators in line in their own territory, and stop attacks on those who are different and seek advancement.

[Marypoza]

(02-05-2017, 12:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 04:19 AM)Mickey123 Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 01:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The storm is already here, and I have predicted this storm for decades. 2016 is the beginning of a storm that will continue through the rest of the 4T. The weather has now changed and the forecast is for this 2017 storm to build. It will be primarily a domestic storm, some kind of revolution and/or civil strife, as the divisions in our country lead to fundamental choices we must make. No, the storm is here; not with China. We have no beef with China that's worth nuclear war or huge invasions. We are mutually dependent. Trump is the catalyst, and the opposition to him is the regeneracy. It must be unrelenting from now on, until we take power again and through further domestic struggle enact the reforms we need.

There is a way in which what you're predicting and hoping for is possible, and that is some sort of socialist revolution.  Perhaps it would also be possible to have a civil war, with the country breaking into pieces, with one or more of the pieces representing the values you share.  Such things are absolutely possible in a Crisis.

I think a socialist revolution is entirely unlikely, as the climate for it does not exist here.  The average person is too well off, and socialism (beyond the socialist programs we already have, such as social security) is not well regarded.

Inequality and declining middle class and ecological destruction and domination of our economy by reckless and ruthless big money speculators are real issues. It's easy to dismiss them by putting the label "socialist" on those who want a different direction, and thus attribute to them an ideology that doesn't do well in America. But Bernie Sanders did pretty well anyway, and a broad-based American Left can do well, and it might do well. We must break the aversion to social programs and government action in the name of "freedom." This "smaller government" obsession is the root of all our problems today.

No, people are not doing well. Both Trump and Sanders and also Elizabeth Warren speak to that point. No, many people are just scraping by, have lost good paying jobs or are saddled with debt. Trump wants to shift the blame from the rich guys like himself who are to blame, to immigrants, refugees, welfare recipients, high taxes and regulations. This is the same program that created this problem: Reaganomics. We've had all progress and constructive programs and laws blocked for 40 years now because of Reaganomics. This counter-revolution must be overturned, and the reason conflict is likely, is because of the rigid and fanatical dedication which the reactionaries have to Reaganomics and its allied ideologies like the religious right and resentments against people of color, immigrants and refugees.

Quote:The country breaking into pieces is more likely.  I can easily see it being sparked by the legalization of marijuana in the western states, for example.  The federal government attempts to crack down on marijuana sales in Colorado or Washington State, the state in question calls out the police and the national guard to defend its citizens, and various states start taking sides.  I see this as more of a more of a last ditch scenario, though, where the country can't find any other reasonable way of acting out the crisis and just breaks into pieces.  I don't think much of the country would end up with the set of values you're hoping for if this is how the crisis plays out, though.

It's going to be about much more serious issues than marijuana or transgender bathrooms. It's about our livelihood and our survival. If the Republicans and their resistance to all government action on behalf of the people continue to block all progress and turn back the clock on all social programs and investments, then a break-up of the country is likely. Whether that's a good solution is doubtful, but at least the blue side would be free to keep the polluters and speculators in line in their own territory, and stop attacks on those who are different and seek advancement.

--- keep an eye on  that Pluto return Eric. FYI  for those who don't know: last time Pluto was in Capricorn the Revolution  happened. Now that was a secession, l call it the original  Brexit, & we are definitely into a Brexit zeitgeist these daze.  Already we are hearing talk of a Calexit, can other exits be that far behind?

[Eric the Green]

(02-05-2017, 01:59 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- keep an eye on  that Pluto return Eric. FYI  for those who don't know: last time Pluto was in Capricorn the Revolution  happened. Now that was a secession, l call it the original  Brexit, & we are definitely into a Brexit zeitgeist these daze.  Already we are hearing talk of a Calexit, can other exits be that far behind?

Yes indeed; that's why I think the "storm" has started, because a return is a conjunction by a planet with its original position at birth (in this case the birth of our nation in 1776). And all such "aspects" have an "orb" or closeness to exact in which the aspect is significant. Pluto has entered within that orb now for the first time. It's exact return is in 2022, it enters the sign Aquarius in 2024 (its place during the French Revolution, and finishes its Return in about 2027 just when Uranus is making ITS exact (saecular/83-year) Return, marking the crisis climax to come, just as it has marked it several times before.