Election 2018

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-08-2018, 04:43 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: One conceivable possibility is that the USA may decentralize.  We might see state lines redrawn.  We could  see semi-autonomy on a local scale, such as charter cities.

The catch is that Boomers-as part of a deal-may see their visions realized only in particular regions, or locally.

Would it be possible these days to have a polka dotted state, blue dots in a red sea, within a given area?  You vote town by town which state you belong to?  Every once in a while you can revote to join the other state, but not too often as it would be disruptive?  Would you need a supermajority after the first vote?  What sort of rules would be necessary to create such states?

Would the existing red states let their blue dots go freely?  Vice versa?  Would adding new states of a given color change balance of power in the senate, with two votes given per state?  If you just allowed the blue cities to join in new dotty states, you would move to undo the old slave compromises, get closer to a representative democracy.

Lotsa questions...

[Tim Randal Walker]

Actually, I doubt we will see a change in state lines. But the states might develop a polka dot configuration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city

[pbrower2a]

Some countries have divided themselves into equal subdivisions in which there are large cities or urban areas as subdivisions and other areas being divided as larger territories. So suppose that you have the states of Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky, which have large urban areas crossing state lines. Urban areas including Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Columbus are all each within their respective states. But Greater Cincinnati, Chicago, Louisville, St. Louis, and Omaha obviously cross state lines. (South Bend and Toledo have slight spill-overs into Michigan, but adjusting for such would be nearly trivial).

But such a scheme involves realigning state boundaries so much that the federal basis of government would be so altered that we would not have the same country.

[David Horn]

(11-08-2018, 06:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-08-2018, 04:43 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: One conceivable possibility is that the USA may decentralize.  We might see state lines redrawn.  We could  see semi-autonomy on a local scale, such as charter cities.

The catch is that Boomers-as part of a deal-may see their visions realized only in particular regions, or locally.

Would it be possible these days to have a polka dotted state, blue dots in a red sea, within a given area?  You vote town by town which state you belong to?  Every once in a while you can revote to join the other state, but not too often as it would be disruptive?  Would you need a supermajority after the first vote?  What sort of rules would be necessary to create such states?

Would the existing red states let their blue dots go freely?  Vice versa?  Would adding new states of a given color change balance of power in the senate, with two votes given per state?  If you just allowed the blue cities to join in new dotty states, you would move to undo the old slave compromises, get closer to a representative democracy.

Lotsa questions...

If this happens, it seems to me that Yugoslavia is the model we would follow: fracture until the pieces are stable enough to exist, then reassemble enough to acquire reasonable mass without starting the fracture process again.  At that, only Bosnia and Herzegovina managed to reunite, and that may be due to geography rather than politics.

[Bill the Piper]

What amuses me is the robustness of the American two party system. Obama discredited the Demoncrats, Trump discredited the Rapepublicans, and still no third party achieves anything. What would have to happen to break the duopoly?

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-09-2018, 09:03 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: What amuses me is the robustness of the American two party system. Obama discredited the Demoncrats, Trump discredited the Rapepublicans, and still no third party achieves anything. What would have to happen to break the duopoly?

I'm not clear that Obama totally discredited the Democrats.  True, he did not exact revenge on the Wall Street crowd after the Bush 43 crash, he gave the Republicans a see saw flip passing Obamacare, and he didn't manage to really pass his legacy to Hillary in 2016.  We are more likely to see someone like Bernie, white, male and progressive.  There is no absolute need to push a minority or female candidate on the middle of the country while they are clearly not ready for it yet.

The Tea Party could steal the Republicans from the elites.  The Republican base is already mad enough at their Establishment to elect Trump.  They just need lots of lower candidates to get the name recognition to go after the older candidates.

We'll see.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-09-2018, 09:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm not clear that Obama totally discredited the Democrats.  True, he did not exact revenge on the Wall Street crowd after the Bush 43 crash, he gave the Republicans a see saw flip passing Obamacare, and he didn't manage to really pass his legacy to Hillary in 2016.  We are more likely to see someone like Bernie, white, male and progressive.

I was thinking about Obama's bad foreign policy which led to Syria, Libya and Yemen turning into failed states, allowing the global jihad to resurge. The good policy would be either not to incite the Arab Spring riots, and to focus on making the most of Iraq and Afghanistan. So it seems we both dislike Obama, but for different reasons.

Business is what it is. I don't want to whitewash it. Money is not a cause of human misbehaviour, but its effect. There are two ways to get rid of it: one is improving human nature using biotechnology, so that new generations are more altruistic and idealistic, happy to spontaneously devote themselves to good of mankind (that's called gift economy). Another is to improve productivity so that the amount of human work required is very small and likely to be done without financial incentives (that's called post-scarcity). Both solutions are sci-fi at the moment. So we are stuck with using money.

I know what I say is against the zeitgeist of the 4T, but any leftist attempt to bind business with regulations or nationalise property (regardless of intents) has always resulted in lowering productivity, thus delaying the transition to post-scarcity. So, I'm not in favour of "exacting revenge on the Wall Street crowd".

[pbrower2a]

(11-08-2018, 10:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-08-2018, 06:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-08-2018, 04:43 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: One conceivable possibility is that the USA may decentralize.  We might see state lines redrawn.  We could  see semi-autonomy on a local scale, such as charter cities.

The catch is that Boomers-as part of a deal-may see their visions realized only in particular regions, or locally.

Would it be possible these days to have a polka dotted state, blue dots in a red sea, within a given area?  You vote town by town which state you belong to?  Every once in a while you can revote to join the other state, but not too often as it would be disruptive?  Would you need a supermajority after the first vote?  What sort of rules would be necessary to create such states?

Would the existing red states let their blue dots go freely?  Vice versa?  Would adding new states of a given color change balance of power in the senate, with two votes given per state?  If you just allowed the blue cities to join in new dotty states, you would move to undo the old slave compromises, get closer to a representative democracy.

Lotsa questions...

If this happens, it seems to me that Yugoslavia is the model we would follow: fracture until the pieces are stable enough to exist, then reassemble enough to acquire reasonable mass without starting the fracture process again.  At that, only Bosnia and Herzegovina managed to reunite, and that may be due to geography rather than politics.

That did not happen. Serbia and Montenegro split, and that was the end of Yugoslavia.

Even the most likely reunion of two former Yugoslav states, Slovenia and Croatia, has not happened. It is more likely that Macedonia would unite with Bulgaria than with Serbia. Bosnia and Herzegovina have been one legal unit since the Austro-Hungarian Empire took it over from the Turkish Empire in 1907, except during World War II.

...Most American states would be economically viable on their own. Whether some would stay together as they are is much in doubt. I can think of some obvious border changes: the section of Arizona north of the Colorado River might as well be a part of Utah, as Utah can far more reliably do highway maintenance on an expensive expressway (Interstate 15)  that connects a part of Arizona to no other part of Arizona. Pittsburgh is so far west in Pennsylvania that it is closer to Cleveland and Columbus than to Philadelphia. Tennessee? Putting Memphis into Mississippi would improve both Mississippi and Tennessee. El Paso is effectively the capital of southern New Mexico, and at this point it might prefer to be in New Mexico, politically and otherwise.

But how about this solution: go parliamentary. We would have a Prime Minister instead of a strong President, and the vote of no confidence would solve lots of problems. If you say that someone like Eisenhower would have never been Prime Minister -- maybe he would have stood for Parliament as a well-deserved honor and become PM at some point. Maybe Governors would get automatic, formal seats in Parliament... non-voting due to the other responsibilities, but they would be relevant.

One gets fewer outsiders, but Donald Trump shows everything that can go wrong with an outsider as leader.

[Eric the Green]

(11-09-2018, 11:16 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-09-2018, 09:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm not clear that Obama totally discredited the Democrats.  True, he did not exact revenge on the Wall Street crowd after the Bush 43 crash, he gave the Republicans a see saw flip passing Obamacare, and he didn't manage to really pass his legacy to Hillary in 2016.  We are more likely to see someone like Bernie, white, male and progressive.

I was thinking about Obama's bad foreign policy which led to Syria, Libya and Yemen turning into failed states, allowing the global jihad to resurge. The good policy would be either not to incite the Arab Spring riots, and to focus on making the most of Iraq and Afghanistan. So it seems we both dislike Obama, but for different reasons.

Business is what it is. I don't want to whitewash it. Money is not a cause of human misbehaviour, but its effect. There are two ways to get rid of it: one is improving human nature using biotechnology, so that new generations are more altruistic and idealistic, happy to spontaneously devote themselves to good of mankind (that's called gift economy). Another is to improve productivity so that the amount of human work required is very small and likely to be done without financial incentives (that's called post-scarcity). Both solutions are sci-fi at the moment. So we are stuck with using money.

I know what I say is against the zeitgeist of the 4T, but any leftist attempt to bind business with regulations or nationalise property (regardless of intents) has always resulted in lowering productivity, thus delaying the transition to post-scarcity. So, I'm not in favour of "exacting revenge on the Wall Street crowd".

They disobeyed the law, and should have paid the penalty any criminal would pay suitable to their crimes. Business of course needs to be regulated; the best balance between free market and social responsibility is the best policy.

Obama did not incite Arab Spring riots, and they were not riots. They were non-violent protests and revolutions, which often became violent after the tyrants attacked them. It's important to get history correct. Obama's mistake was to go to the opposite extreme from Bush. Balance is needed in foreign policy. There was no basis for Bush's aggressive and unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the attack on Afghanistan was poorly carried out and probably should have focused on capturing bin Laden and his cohorts. Obama on the other hand should have given more support earlier to the Syrian rebels, so that Russia would not have been able to come in and take over. Obama was too passive when it counted.

Obama's foreign policy did not create the Arab Spring Revolutions. The Libyans themselves rose up against their tyrant, inspired by the rebels in Tunisia and Egypt; and so did the Syrians and others. The majority of revolutions don't work out historically; tyrants are often too strong, and rebels can become tyrants in turn. The western allies helped the Libyans, but then the Libyans didn't want help after their victory, and they should have asked for it instead to stabilize their country. It's all on them, and remains so.

Genuine improvement in the human condition will not work from without inward; life by nature grows from within outward. The tech fixes alone will not work, just as facebook did not work to bring the nation and the world together, but drove it apart. Only greater discovery of the life force of growth and intelligence from within us expanding outward can restore and expand human abilities.

[Eric the Green]

(11-09-2018, 09:03 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: What amuses me is the robustness of the American two party system. Obama discredited the Demoncrats, Trump discredited the Rapepublicans, and still no third party achieves anything. What would have to happen to break the duopoly?

Although Obama did not discredit the Democrats, the fact that he was half black and reasonably progressive put the reactionary right-wing of America into a tizzy fit. They feel entitled to rule the USA. They were able to persuade so-called moderates that Obama was attacking the free market and going socialist just because he got a Republican health-care bill passed that the people had wanted, and now want again. Obama was an honorable, moderate and graceful man, and his administration was scandal free, but with young people not voting, and older people stuck on deceptive ideologies (free market economics, religious right, xenophobia, gun-nuttery and militarism, etc), he wasn't able to get the support he needed after less than a year in real power. America discredited ITSELF by not supporting him while in office, just like they didn't support and raged against the even-less challenging, less progressive Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Trump is a total disgrace; he can't be compared to Obama. Like Nixon, Reagan and Bush before him, his administration is loaded with corruption and scandal, and many have fallen into indictments. More will come in a steady stream, because it all emanates from the top. His background of scams (his university, his fake foundation used for his own desires, his ripping off of employees, his sexual deviance and abuse, his money-laundering with foreign governments, his paying off of prostitutes, his discrimination against ethnic groups, his tax evasion, and so much more) should have set off alarms. Only a reactionary country with a broken outdated system could have coughed up this tyrant who censors the press, focuses everything on his own ego, lies all the time, can't work with others, favors only his wealthy class, creates enormous debt to fund an unnecessary military build-up, creates a tax scam, destroys health care, allows more pollution, encourages violent racism, obstructs justice, encourages and perhaps colludes with the Russians to interfere with our elections, appoints the worst possible judges, opposes our tradition of asylum for refugees and immigrants and separates them from families, opposes native american rights, threatens social security and other social programs, destroyed the Iran deal which may lead to an arms race, fails to support gun control and climate action despite ongoing disaster...............

I mean, what HASN'T he done wrong? Even his supposed success in taming Kim Jung Un has resulted in nothing, and his quick defeat of the IS, while good in itself, came at the cost of enormous suffering and thousands of lives lost that would not have died if the Obama strategy in the war had been continued, and could lead to more trouble. His reckless tariff wars are dangerous to many businesses in America without producing change abroad so far.

But, the duopoly has left us with two political parties dominating government, neither of which has the ability or willingness to create progress. Although the real problem is the power of the right wing to obstruct progress, through deception and fear-mongering ideologies which Americans fall for or don't rise up against, the duopoly does not allow enough change to break through. Both parties seem to be more interested in their own power preservation, and thus fear to go against the status quo with bold progressive programs. A parliamentary system is favored in most democracies, rather than the American model. Proportional representation and ranked choice voting, or top tier voting, might be good strategies for breaking up the duopoly and allowing more parties. The people vote for the two parties, because they feel they must, and yet independents are a growing segment of the electorate. The duopoly is not popular.

Our system favors conservatives, which means it cannot answer the peoples' needs. Rural people usually tend to be provincial and parochial in outlook. Our senate gives them far more power, and the electoral college allows them to elect presidents whom the people as a whole did not vote for. Our Republican supreme court enshrines money as free speech, which means our political campaigns are mostly lies and negative attacks. The constant barrage of ads turns off the voters, and makes politicians too dependent on money and spend too much time raising it. Our gerrymandering systems are slowly getting reformed, but for too long politicians have chosen their voters rather than vice versa. Suppression of non-white voters had been a tradition in America before 1965, and now it's back in force, with voter ID laws, purging of voter rolls, closing polling places in poor neighborhoods, and so on. A secretary of state in Georgia can use his position to make himself governor. Republican governors in Florida can make themselves senator or make their brother president. A new progressive era is needed in the 2020s, and I hope it comes as I predicted, even despite the inevitable resistance from the powerful American right-wing that is making this era into a 4th turning crisis.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-09-2018, 09:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They [the businessmen of Wall Street] disobeyed the law, and should have paid the penalty any criminal would pay suitable to their crimes. Business of course needs to be regulated; the best balance between free market and social responsibility is the best policy.

Criminals need to be punished, always. But every individual must be judged separately. The crimes weren't committed by a "Wall Street crowd", but by individuals. Collective responsibility against Big Business is unworthy of a democracy, like collective responsibility against Jews, Chechens or any other ethic group.

Quote:Obama did not incite Arab Spring riots, and they were not riots. They were non-violent protests and revolutions, which often became violent after the tyrants attacked them. It's important to get history correct. Obama's mistake was to go to the opposite extreme from Bush. Balance is needed in foreign policy. There was no basis for Bush's aggressive and unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the attack on Afghanistan was poorly carried out and probably should have focused on capturing bin Laden and his cohorts. Obama on the other hand should have given more support earlier to the Syrian rebels, so that Russia would not have been able to come in and take over. Obama was too passive when it counted.

Obama's foreign policy did not create the Arab Spring Revolutions. The Libyans themselves rose up against their tyrant, inspired by the rebels in Tunisia and Egypt; and so did the Syrians and others. The majority of revolutions don't work out historically; tyrants are often too strong, and rebels can become tyrants in turn. The western allies helped the Libyans, but then the Libyans didn't want help after their victory, and they should have asked for it instead to stabilize their country. It's all on them, and remains so.

It is very suspicious that the Arab Spring revolutions broke out in so many places at once. Some degree of unrest was unavoidable because of the Awakening going on in the region. But I maintain the Spring would have far less momentum without Western involvement.

https://clarionproject.org/nytimes-obama...ab-spring/

I agree that it would be the right thing to do to intervene in Syria and topple Assad back in 2011, before the war gave rise to ISIS. It would also be good to do some nation building in Syria. Unfortunately, America's resources are not infinite. Iraq and Afghanistan were projects already started, so Obama should have focused on finishing them rather than supporting the Arab Spring. After stabilising the situation in both counties, he could have intervened in Lybia and Syria. A good realistic pace, like toppling one or two tyrannies per decade.

Quote:A new progressive era is needed in the 2020s, and I hope it comes as I predicted, even despite the inevitable resistance from the powerful American right-wing that is making this era into a 4th turning crisis.

Wait! It was you who predicted that the 1T won't start before 2028. "It's in the stars", according to your astrological writings.

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-10-2018, 05:18 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-09-2018, 09:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They [the businessmen of Wall Street] disobeyed the law, and should have paid the penalty any criminal would pay suitable to their crimes. Business of course needs to be regulated; the best balance between free market and social responsibility is the best policy.

Criminals need to be punished, always. But every individual must be judged separately. The crimes weren't committed by a "Wall Street crowd", but by individuals. Collective responsibility against Big Business is unworthy of a democracy, like collective responsibility against Jews, Chechens or any other ethic group.

Quote:Obama did not incite Arab Spring riots, and they were not riots. They were non-violent protests and revolutions, which often became violent after the tyrants attacked them. It's important to get history correct. Obama's mistake was to go to the opposite extreme from Bush. Balance is needed in foreign policy. There was no basis for Bush's aggressive and unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the attack on Afghanistan was poorly carried out and probably should have focused on capturing bin Laden and his cohorts. Obama on the other hand should have given more support earlier to the Syrian rebels, so that Russia would not have been able to come in and take over. Obama was too passive when it counted.

Obama's foreign policy did not create the Arab Spring Revolutions. The Libyans themselves rose up against their tyrant, inspired by the rebels in Tunisia and Egypt; and so did the Syrians and others. The majority of revolutions don't work out historically; tyrants are often too strong, and rebels can become tyrants in turn. The western allies helped the Libyans, but then the Libyans didn't want help after their victory, and they should have asked for it instead to stabilize their country. It's all on them, and remains so.

It is very suspicious that the Arab Spring revolutions broke out in so many places at once. Some degree of unrest was unavoidable because of the Awakening going on in the region. But I maintain the Spring would have far less momentum without Western involvement.

https://clarionproject.org/nytimes-obama...ab-spring/

I agree that it would be the right thing to do to intervene in Syria and topple Assad back in 2011, before the war gave rise to ISIS. It would also be good to do some nation building in Syria. Unfortunately, America's resources are not infinite. Iraq and Afghanistan were projects already started, so Obama should have focused on finishing them rather than supporting the Arab Spring. After stabilising the situation in both counties, he could have intervened in Lybia and Syria. A good realistic pace, like toppling one or two tyrannies per decade.

Quote:A new progressive era is needed in the 2020s, and I hope it comes as I predicted, even despite the inevitable resistance from the powerful American right-wing that is making this era into a 4th turning crisis.

Wait! It was you who predicted that the 1T won't start before 2028. "It's in the stars", according to your astrological writings.

The intervention in Syria would result in what, exactly?  I think Syria would have been an anarchic mess like Libya is now  if the US succeeded. Both countries if you call them that are besotted with assorted tribes, ethnic groups, and religions that don't play nice. Any proposed intervention will result in what has happened so far everywhere the US decided to implement Neocon foreign policy,  It's nothing more than a several trillion dollar clusterfuck. The US would have fared much better if those trillions of dollars went to rebuilt our rotten infrastructure, healthcare access, and a real job training program.

Yes, 2028. This 4T is going to be used to decide what the agenda will be. Neoliberal/Neoconservative dystopia, Back to the Garden utopia, a mishmash culture war policies dystopia, etc. The chosen agenda is what the 1T will build upon.  I think that's when America's sign's head goes out of uranus. I think that's what's in the stars, man.

[Eric the Green]

(11-10-2018, 05:18 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-09-2018, 09:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: They [the businessmen of Wall Street] disobeyed the law, and should have paid the penalty any criminal would pay suitable to their crimes. Business of course needs to be regulated; the best balance between free market and social responsibility is the best policy.

Criminals need to be punished, always. But every individual must be judged separately. The crimes weren't committed by a "Wall Street crowd", but by individuals. Collective responsibility against Big Business is unworthy of a democracy, like collective responsibility against Jews, Chechens or any other ethic group.

Makes sense

Quote:

Quote:Obama did not incite Arab Spring riots, and they were not riots. They were non-violent protests and revolutions, which often became violent after the tyrants attacked them. It's important to get history correct. Obama's mistake was to go to the opposite extreme from Bush. Balance is needed in foreign policy. There was no basis for Bush's aggressive and unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the attack on Afghanistan was poorly carried out and probably should have focused on capturing bin Laden and his cohorts. Obama on the other hand should have given more support earlier to the Syrian rebels, so that Russia would not have been able to come in and take over. Obama was too passive when it counted.

Obama's foreign policy did not create the Arab Spring Revolutions. The Libyans themselves rose up against their tyrant, inspired by the rebels in Tunisia and Egypt; and so did the Syrians and others. The majority of revolutions don't work out historically; tyrants are often too strong, and rebels can become tyrants in turn. The western allies helped the Libyans, but then the Libyans didn't want help after their victory, and they should have asked for it instead to stabilize their country. It's all on them, and remains so.

It is very suspicious that the Arab Spring revolutions broke out in so many places at once. Some degree of unrest was unavoidable because of the Awakening going on in the region. But I maintain the Spring would have far less momentum without Western involvement.

https://clarionproject.org/nytimes-obama...ab-spring/

I agree that it would be the right thing to do to intervene in Syria and topple Assad back in 2011, before the war gave rise to ISIS. It would also be good to do some nation building in Syria. Unfortunately, America's resources are not infinite. Iraq and Afghanistan were projects already started, so Obama should have focused on finishing them rather than supporting the Arab Spring. After stabilising the situation in both counties, he could have intervened in Lybia and Syria. A good realistic pace, like toppling one or two tyrannies per decade.

Suspicions are not history. Rationalists and scientists as well as liberals and reactionaries should not depend on suspicion and conspiracy for their view of the world and the facts. The article didn't confirm it's title that he jumpstarted anything; he was aware of what was ripe to happen, and was preparing his policy in light of what was going to happen. Conspiracy theories are out there that the USA caused the civil wars in the Arab Spring, but they are false.

I did not believe that a direct military troop involvement was needed in Syria or Libya, as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq; just some timely moves of support. It is not our business to topple tyrannies with unprovoked military intervention. It is against international law. The USA invasion of Iraq was illegal, and our only legitimate "business" once Bush started it, was to get out. As it turned out, Obama followed what Bush and the Iraqis worked out as of the timing of withdrawal. Withdrawal was finished just as the Arab Spring was beginning. Then, because USA invasion of Iraq in 2003 had unleashed the Islamic State, more small-scale intervention was needed in 2014-17. It was done more-or-less correctly.

The USA did the right thing in Libya, but the Libyan people decided to do the wrong things.

The USA war cycle is well established according to an astrological timetable. Trouble is, the Afghan invasion, timely according to the cycle, was mishandled and extended to Iraq in a bigger way, and was not finished before the next cycle came around in 2013-14.

It is a cycle that has a double rhythm though, generally speaking. A large intervention is often followed the next cycle by events that lead to the next intervention.

Quote:

Quote:A new progressive era is needed in the 2020s, and I hope it comes as I predicted, even despite the inevitable resistance from the powerful American right-wing that is making this era into a 4th turning crisis.

Wait! It was you who predicted that the 1T won't start before 2028. "It's in the stars", according to your astrological writings.

A 1T is NOT a progressive era. It is exhaustion, recovery, reconstruction, reaction, xenophobia, consensus, and/or steady development. I expect this coming 1T to be more turbulent and active than the last one, according to my astrological indicators. However, it won't start until 2028-29.

Progress is supposed to come in 2T and 4Ts; steady stalemate or reaction is 1Ts and 3Ts. But our current 4T is like the "anomaly" in the 1850s. We are 1850s redux.

Thanks Rags for mentioning the Uranus cycle. It is very formidable. When Uranus returns in its 83-84 year cycle of revolution to its place where it was when Jamestown was founded in 1607 and when the Declaration of Independence signed in 1776, the USA struggles for its very existence. That was a cycle long known in astrology, and Strauss and Howe unknowingly picked up on it. The return in 1861 was exactly to the minute of arc of its place on July 4 1776 when Ft. Sumpter was attacked. The return in 1944 corresponded to D-Day again exactly to the minute of arc, and S&H chose that as the "crisis climax." So look for another climax in 2027.

[Eric the Green]

Another point is that Trump did not discredit the Republicans, since his predecessors had already done that. He has just extended it. Obama pointed this out, and he was a credit to the Democrats, not a discredit.

[pbrower2a]

Shades of 2000... we have a disputed election in Florida!

Is it any wonder that President Trump and the GOP saw the nomination and approval of Bret Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court such a pressing necessity? I expect a crooked fix with this Administration.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-10-2018, 10:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Then, because USA invasion of Iraq in 2003 had unleashed the Islamic State, more small-scale intervention was needed in 2014-17. It was done more-or-less correctly.

So where was this Islamic State during the period from 2007 to 2011?

Quote:The USA did the right thing in Libya, but the Libyan people decided to do the wrong things.

"The Lybian people", like every other society, consists of good people and bad people. Because there were no proper democratic institutions, the bad guys could bully the good ones. That's why nation building is necessary in countries that have no democratic tradition of their own.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-11-2018, 06:33 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: "The Lybian people", like every other society, consists of good people and bad people. Because there were no proper democratic institutions, the bad guys could bully the good ones. That's why nation building is necessary in countries that have no democratic tradition of their own.

As long as you expect a hard time. If a democratic culture expects an autocratic culture to act as if they were something they are not, they are apt to be disappointed. Nation building, especially nation building at gunpoint, is very hard.

[Eric the Green]

(11-11-2018, 06:33 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-10-2018, 10:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Then, because USA invasion of Iraq in 2003 had unleashed the Islamic State, more small-scale intervention was needed in 2014-17. It was done more-or-less correctly.

So where was this Islamic State during the period from 2007 to 2011?

Quote:The USA did the right thing in Libya, but the Libyan people decided to do the wrong things.

"The Lybian people", like every other society, consists of good people and bad people. Because there were no proper democratic institutions, the bad guys could bully the good ones. That's why nation building is necessary in countries that have no democratic tradition of their own.

From 2007 and earlier to 2011, the IS was known as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Yes, Libya needed some help in nation building, but they spurned it.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-12-2018, 01:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-11-2018, 06:33 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-10-2018, 10:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Then, because USA invasion of Iraq in 2003 had unleashed the Islamic State, more small-scale intervention was needed in 2014-17. It was done more-or-less correctly.

So where was this Islamic State during the period from 2007 to 2011?

Quote:The USA did the right thing in Libya, but the Libyan people decided to do the wrong things.

"The Lybian people", like every other society, consists of good people and bad people. Because there were no proper democratic institutions, the bad guys could bully the good ones. That's why nation building is necessary in countries that have no democratic tradition of their own.

From 2007 and earlier to 2011, the IS was known as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Yes, Libya needed some help in nation building, but they spurned it.

Nation building an autocratic state is apt to kill the established autocracy and not have the democratic culture or tradition.  Another autocratic group or a bunch of autocratic groups ends up contesting.  This destabilizes the area.  This is much of why the Middle East is unstable, and why the US has gotten in so much trouble in the region.  With the best of intent, you end up destabilizing.

[Bill the Piper]

(11-12-2018, 01:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: From 2007 and earlier to 2011, the IS was known as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

But it was very weak back then. It only regained real influence after the civil war started in Syria. Some troops left on Syria-Iraq border could easily prevent that.