The Crisis That Never Ended

[Eric the Green]

(03-30-2020, 08:31 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(03-30-2020, 04:57 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-30-2020, 03:12 PM)gabrielle Wrote: I'm not sure there is any "return to normalcy" after this.  Covid 19 has caused the bottom to drop out from underneath us.  Many in this country don't seem to realize how dire things really are, we are like cartoon characters briefly suspended in air before we fall.  The only thing that might save us would be drastic measures such as what Sanders proposes (and Biden continues to waffle about), and I'm not even sure if that will be enough.  I hope I'm wrong.  Please God let me be wrong.

From a health perspective, this is no worse than the Spanish Flu in 1918.  What's worse is the failure of leadership to follow the lessons of the past, and to hold the miscreants responsible for doing, well, nothing much.  Trump may parlay this to a second term!  That's simply astounding, except for the milquetoast response from the Dems.  

If Bernie had a shot at the nomination (and that's dead-dead-dead), then taking a principled stand is exactly the right thing for him to do.  He doesn't.  Biden can't or won't step up, and Cuomo, who is, can't be the voice for the party. For some reason, the Dems are just flaccid all around -- and I include Nancy Pelosi on that list.  It's Silent generation behavior -- as wrong for a 4T as you can get.  Disgusting.

It's not merely taking a principled stand at this point, it's trying to save the country.  Trying to save lives.  3.3 million people filed unemployment last week.  Many of them are also losing their health insurance at a critical time.  And Biden has just announced that the pandemic crisis has not changed his mind about single payer.  This is not going to work.  And that will become increasingly obvious in the next few weeks.

Why is it that the Siilents, old and increasingly feeble as they are, are still in prominent positions of power?  Why haven't the younger generations stepped up to the plate (in a meaningful way--not the mad king and his circle of sycophants).

The candidates with the best potential to win, Landrieu and McAuliffe, didn't step up. It's a good question. Where are the boomers when we need them? Especially the later boomers? Gen Xers have been too cynical of government, so the ones with talent as candidates are not even available. The best millennials may not appear for some time.

[David Horn]

(03-30-2020, 08:31 PM)gabrielle Wrote: It's not merely taking a principled stand at this point, it's trying to save the country.  Trying to save lives.  3.3 million people filed unemployment last week.  Many of them are also losing their health insurance at a critical time.  And Biden has just announced that the pandemic crisis has not changed his mind about single payer.  This is not going to work.  And that will become increasingly obvious in the next few weeks.

Why is it that the Siilents, old and increasingly feeble as they are, are still in prominent positions of power?  Why haven't the younger generations stepped up to the plate (in a meaningful way--not the mad king and his circle of sycophants).

Well, the mad king is a Boomer; the Silents are all Dems. And there seems to be some aura of high-regard that circles Nancy Pelosi, so she's in for the duration. But let's be honest about Bernie too. He's great in the Grey Champion role, but he has no business being the leader of the free world. It's hard to say who does at this point. This needs to pass to someone who clicks with the young, but isn't geriatric him/herself. EW could have been that person, but her candidacy fell flat and stayed that way. Most of the others are either too centrist for the times or need to wait for the times to need them (Pete Buttigieg being the prime example -- he'll be a great 1T President).

I would vote for Cuomo. He's scrapper who hates Trump to the marrow of his bones. Winning is almost everything this time, but the win has to mean something too. AT least Cuomo is able to say that people come first without it sounding like a commercial.

[David Horn]

(03-30-2020, 11:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-30-2020, 12:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: Here's how I see the options:

1. All the Dems, including Bernie and his followers, unite behind Biden and he wins.  We have a quiet "return to normalcy" that satisfies no one, and the left and center battle it out again in 2024
   
2. All the Dems, including Bernie and his followers, unite behind Biden and he loses. Biden will be the last centrist this cycle
   
3. Dissension reigns in the Democratic Party, but Biden wins.  The Bernie Bros will never be taken seriously again, and the left will be a long time regrouping.
   
4. Dissension reigns in the Democratic Party and Biden loses. The Democrats will come apart at the seams, unless Bernie does a huge mea culpa -- a highly unlikely event.
   

Pick your poison.  In order of preference, Ill go for 1, 3, 2, 4.  I might chose differently if the circumstances were different, but we can't have Trump for 8.

I don't think those options are very likely, or desirable. Fun to discuss though. Regarding them:

#1 is closest to likely, I guess. But as gabrielle said, I don't think a return to normalcy is possible now. The 4T continues and so do its crises and turmoil. The left will pressure Biden to act, if he's elected. He has bent a bit to Bernie's challenge, which may or may not be a good sign. But if Bernie's Revolution keeps the pressure up on him, he may bend some more. I think the left and center will battle it out for the foreseeable future, no matter who wins. But how it shapes up depends entirely on how good the candidates are, as candidates. And also on "whose turn it is."

Since you mentioned it as well, I should note that "return to normalcy" was in quotes for a reason.  No, Uncle Joe can never be more than a place holder in a Crisis, so he'll either bow out after one term (which I find likely) or he'll get challenged.   So he picks to run with him will determine how 2024 actually goes.  In any case, both factions will be in it.

Eric Wrote:#2. Sadly, when Democratic centrists lose, centrists can still be around and do well.

After two hand-picked insiders lose to Donald Trump, the validity of that wing of the party will be toast.  I can't say who will step up, but it won't be a member of the establishment.

Eric Wrote:#3 is not true because of what I said in #1. The problems remain and arouse activism. The Left don't need to regroup, they are already well organized. I don't see a better left wing candidate than Bernie, unless you see Sherrod Brown as left wing.

If Bernie and the Bernie Bros try to deep-six Biden and they miss, the soon-to-be 80-year old leader will be done … and so will they.  In 2024, to say nothing of 2028, Bernie will be too old, and so will EW.  That means a new generation of leaders will have to emerge, run and win primaries. 2028 is about as soon as that's possible, under this scenario, but if Biden does a successful hand-off to his running mate, it may be 2032.

Eric Wrote:#4 I doubt Bernie has anything to mea culpa about. If Biden loses, Trump will begin to abuse his power even more and lose popularity, and may be impeached and even removed. In this situation, the Democrats will not come apart but will unite and win in 2024, after a big midterm victory in 2022. The candidate in 2024 will be closer to the center than Bernie, because that's who is out there who has any chance according to the horoscope scores. AOC for example will never even get close.

Again, this is based on Bernie and his Bros undermining Biden.  A second Trump term blamed on Bernie, and it will be under these circumstances, will call for lots of contrition -- not a Bernie long suit.  That might split the party, or simply weaken it.

Eric Wrote:A breakup of the major parties is possible, but the Democrats, even though they have a left wing that splits off, will not come apart as long as the Republicans do not come apart.

If the left departs for (insert the party that they join or create), the Dems will have a hard time being anything more than equivalent of the British Liberal Party … once dominant and proud and by then, an after thought.

[Eric the Green]

(03-31-2020, 11:44 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-30-2020, 11:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-30-2020, 12:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: Here's how I see the options:

1. All the Dems, including Bernie and his followers, unite behind Biden and he wins.  We have a quiet "return to normalcy" that satisfies no one, and the left and center battle it out again in 2024
   
2. All the Dems, including Bernie and his followers, unite behind Biden and he loses. Biden will be the last centrist this cycle
   
3. Dissension reigns in the Democratic Party, but Biden wins.  The Bernie Bros will never be taken seriously again, and the left will be a long time regrouping.
   
4. Dissension reigns in the Democratic Party and Biden loses. The Democrats will come apart at the seams, unless Bernie does a huge mea culpa -- a highly unlikely event.
   

Pick your poison.  In order of preference, Ill go for 1, 3, 2, 4.  I might chose differently if the circumstances were different, but we can't have Trump for 8.

I don't think those options are very likely, or desirable. Fun to discuss though. Regarding them:

#1 is closest to likely, I guess. But as gabrielle said, I don't think a return to normalcy is possible now. The 4T continues and so do its crises and turmoil. The left will pressure Biden to act, if he's elected. He has bent a bit to Bernie's challenge, which may or may not be a good sign. But if Bernie's Revolution keeps the pressure up on him, he may bend some more. I think the left and center will battle it out for the foreseeable future, no matter who wins. But how it shapes up depends entirely on how good the candidates are, as candidates. And also on "whose turn it is."

Since you mentioned it as well, I should note that "return to normalcy" was in quotes for a reason.  No, Uncle Joe can never be more than a place holder in a Crisis, so he'll either bow out after one term (which I find likely) or he'll get challenged.   So he picks to run with him will determine how 2024 actually goes.  In any case, both factions will be in it.

The 2020 Democratic field was just too weak. Since Biden may pick someone who ran in the 2020 campaign, and he has limited his options to women, we can't assume that his veep will be the nominee in 2024.

Quote:

Eric Wrote:#2. Sadly, when Democratic centrists lose, centrists can still be around and do well.

After two hand-picked insiders lose to Donald Trump, the validity of that wing of the party will be toast.  I can't say who will step up, but it won't be a member of the establishment.

I don't see any such candidate, at least not off hand. The last two insiders were not "hand-picked." They decided to run, and the Democratic voters, dominated by older generations, voted for them. So, they may dominate it again. Maybe at least a less "insider" choice will appear, and if millennials dominate the primary, (s)he could have a chance in 2024. This will be the election in which millennials have their maximum power as a generation, if they use it. But, it still depends on the skill of the candidate, and there aren't many good options.

Just who is and isn't an "insider" is not clear. Arguably Obama was an "outsider" in 2008, but his two successor nominees were his secretary of state and vice-president, and therefore "insiders."

Quote:

Eric Wrote:#3 is not true because of what I said in #1. The problems remain and arouse activism. The Left don't need to regroup, they are already well organized. I don't see a better left wing candidate than Bernie, unless you see Sherrod Brown as left wing.

If Bernie and the Bernie Bros try to deep-six Biden and they miss, the soon-to-be 80-year old leader will be done … and so will they.  In 2024, to say nothing of 2028, Bernie will be too old, and so will EW.  That means a new generation of leaders will have to emerge, run and win primaries. 2028 is about as soon as that's possible, under this scenario, but if Biden does a successful hand-off to his running mate, it may be 2032.

Bernie is done as a candidate, though not as an activist, but as I say, I'm not sure who could take over his mantle.

Quote:

Eric Wrote:#4 I doubt Bernie has anything to mea culpa about. If Biden loses, Trump will begin to abuse his power even more and lose popularity, and may be impeached and even removed. In this situation, the Democrats will not come apart but will unite and win in 2024, after a big midterm victory in 2022. The candidate in 2024 will be closer to the center than Bernie, because that's who is out there who has any chance according to the horoscope scores. AOC for example will never even get close.

Again, this is based on Bernie and his Bros undermining Biden.  A second Trump term blamed on Bernie, and it will be under these circumstances, will call for lots of contrition -- not a Bernie long suit.  That might split the party, or simply weaken it.

I don't see that a Trump loss in 2022 or 2024 would have anything to do with Bernie. If Biden loses in 2020, it will be because Biden was not good enough as a candidate (incipient dementia being the most likely cause, or just because Trump's skill is slightly higher). If Trump wins re-election, he will screw things up badly. His ego will know no bounds. The Democrats will benefit in 2024, and we don't know who the candidate will be. My indicators say this is the most likely series of events, but the indicators are ambiguous.

Quote:

Eric Wrote:A breakup of the major parties is possible, but the Democrats, even though they have a left wing that splits off, will not come apart as long as the Republicans do not come apart.

If the left departs for (insert the party that they join or create), the Dems will have a hard time being anything more than equivalent of the British Liberal Party … once dominant and proud and by then, an after thought.

As long as the current right-wing evil fanatic Republican Party remains united, it will be too evil for the Democrats to break up, aside from the usual departures that happen anyway.

[Eric the Green]

(03-31-2020, 11:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-30-2020, 08:31 PM)gabrielle Wrote: It's not merely taking a principled stand at this point, it's trying to save the country.  Trying to save lives.  3.3 million people filed unemployment last week.  Many of them are also losing their health insurance at a critical time.  And Biden has just announced that the pandemic crisis has not changed his mind about single payer.  This is not going to work.  And that will become increasingly obvious in the next few weeks.

Why is it that the Siilents, old and increasingly feeble as they are, are still in prominent positions of power?  Why haven't the younger generations stepped up to the plate (in a meaningful way--not the mad king and his circle of sycophants).

Well, the mad king is a Boomer; the Silents are all Dems.  And there seems to be some aura of high-regard that circles Nancy Pelosi, so she's in for the duration.  But let's be honest about Bernie too.  He's great in the Grey Champion role, but he has no business being the leader of the free world.  It's hard to say who does at this point.  This needs to pass to someone who clicks with the young, but isn't geriatric him/herself. EW could have been that person, but her candidacy fell flat and stayed that way.  Most of the others are either too centrist for the times or need to wait for the times to need them (Pete Buttigieg being the prime example -- he'll be a great 1T President).

I would vote for Cuomo.  He's scrapper who hates Trump to the marrow of his bones. Winning is almost everything this time, but the win has to mean something too.  AT least Cuomo is able to say that people come first without it sounding like a commercial.

Cuomo will not be the candidate in 2020. Possibly in 2024, but he will need to be opposed by Pence or some other weak Republican candidate in order to win. Pete will never be president; Gavin Newsom is the 1T candidate who could win in 2028. Elizabeth could not have won in 2020, but she is a possibility if Biden chooses her as veep and wins, and the Republicans run a weak candidate in 2024. I don't see that as the most likely scenario though.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-31-2020, 02:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As long as the current right-wing evil fanatic Republican Party remains united, it will be too evil for the Democrats to break up, aside from the usual departures that happen anyway.

Not clear.  I thought Trump had swapped the flip flop before the Coronavirus.  While his antics had not lost him his base, the middle of the road people who would not let either the red nor the blue ideals take hold in their extreme during the unraveling period would go blue again.

Since the Coronavirus, I see the blue mind set would have finally kicked in.  If Trump is playing the Buchanan and Hover role of illustrating how badly the old values don't work anymore, by the time of the election people will have been thoroughly  turned off by the anti science, racist, elitist false reality power trip of the Republicans.

In short, we may be getting into the phase where the elites sit around, drinking tea, and cursing whatever Democrat ends up in the White House.  

I still think Mother Nature (or insert your favorite deity here) timed the Coronavirus Trigger about right.  (I still have this image of Her watching Fox News on TV, saw how Trump was blocking action on global warming with lies, and got very mad.)  Trump ought to be thoroughly stewed in his own fantasies by the time the election comes around.

[TheNomad]

No one wants to "pick a poison" anymore. As for the person wondering why there are WAY too many old people and they had said "why aren't the younger stepping up" these OLDER have a stranglehold on positions of power.

They need to step down/away simply to make room for younger people. It isn't that younger generations do not have the will or ability to do these things, just the opposite. They are being blockaded out by the ruffians above who earnestly believe these younger folks are not able or willing to do what is necessary.

This, even when most of these older generations in power barely know what is the Internet except their phone pushes a button with an icon. And their younger staff trains them on such things.

Again, it is my personal belief older folks in power cannot let go of their stranglehold because they are inherently dialed into a Values-Driven crusade. They cannot give up their authority because, to them, doing so is dereliction and abandonment of whatever thing god or the gods or their conscience or their values won't allow.

There are waves of younger people waiting to actually solve the emerging problems barely understood by the Ancients. We should find a way to force them into retirement lest these struggles of the past decades visit us with more doom.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-31-2020, 05:48 PM)TheNomad Wrote: There are waves of younger people waiting to actually solve the emerging problems barely understood by the Ancients.  We should find a way to force them into retirement lest these struggles of the past decades visit us with more doom.

I would say the immediate solutions are clear enough.  Isolation.  Build the ventilators and PPE.  Get the equipment where it is needed.  Your talk of nobody understanding does not really apply to those watching the blue media.  The answers are obvious.

Same with values.  Some value the economy, and are minimizing the threat of the virus.  They see with their bank accounts and live in their dream worlds.  Some value people, and are asking why the federal government and some states are not taking action.  This is red and blue all over, whether you accept the science or create pleasant daydreams of there not existing any threats that a small government cannot handle.

I for one think the very young people think themselves immortal.  Mardi Gras.  Spring break.  Party on.  Those with a strong belief in the science should be in charge.  Of course, they are not.

But in the early days of a Crisis, you go with what you have got.  The Democrats have chosen seemingly a middle of the road guy (Biden) over the extreme action guy (Sanders).  This feels to me like a mistake.  By the time the Democratic convention comes along, we’ll see where the Coronavirus is and whether they change their minds.  It may be too late.  Biden may have enough votes for a first ballot win.

But wishing the young folk were in charge is as much of a fantasy as Trump is living in.

[beechnut79]

(03-31-2020, 05:48 PM)TheNomad Wrote: No one wants to "pick a poison" anymore.  As for the person wondering why there are WAY too many old people and they had said "why aren't the younger stepping up" these OLDER have a stranglehold on positions of power.

They need to step down/away simply to make room for younger people.  It isn't that younger generations do not have the will or ability to do these things, just the opposite.  They are being blockaded out by the ruffians above who earnestly believe these younger folks are not able or willing to do what is necessary.

This, even when most of these older generations in power barely know what is the Internet except their phone pushes a button with an icon.  And their younger staff trains them on such things.

Again, it is my personal belief older folks in power cannot let go of their stranglehold because they are inherently dialed into a Values-Driven crusade.  They cannot give up their authority because, to them, doing so is dereliction and abandonment of whatever thing god or the gods or their conscience or their values won't allow.  

There are waves of younger people waiting to actually solve the emerging problems barely understood by the Ancients.  We should find a way to force them into retirement lest these struggles of the past decades visit us with more doom.

But there are many examples of when one may need to “pick a poison”. I am at one such crossroads right now. My car is a 2009 model with over 250k miles.  Over the past four years or so I have had to incur some quite expensive repair bills; the alternative being getting a new or more recent model car and be locked into a hefty mandatory payment for the next several years, in addition to higher insurance rates. When my dad was alive he would have definitely advised for the latter option. A classic “pick your poison “ situation if there ever was one. Know I will eventually have to succumb to the latter but hope to delay it as long as possible.

[TheNomad]

(03-31-2020, 09:30 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(03-31-2020, 05:48 PM)TheNomad Wrote: No one wants to "pick a poison" anymore.  As for the person wondering why there are WAY too many old people and they had said "why aren't the younger stepping up" these OLDER have a stranglehold on positions of power.

They need to step down/away simply to make room for younger people.  It isn't that younger generations do not have the will or ability to do these things, just the opposite.  They are being blockaded out by the ruffians above who earnestly believe these younger folks are not able or willing to do what is necessary.

This, even when most of these older generations in power barely know what is the Internet except their phone pushes a button with an icon.  And their younger staff trains them on such things.

Again, it is my personal belief older folks in power cannot let go of their stranglehold because they are inherently dialed into a Values-Driven crusade.  They cannot give up their authority because, to them, doing so is dereliction and abandonment of whatever thing god or the gods or their conscience or their values won't allow.  

There are waves of younger people waiting to actually solve the emerging problems barely understood by the Ancients.  We should find a way to force them into retirement lest these struggles of the past decades visit us with more doom.

But there are many examples of when one may need to “pick a poison”. I am at one such crossroads right now. My car is a 2009 model with over 250k miles.  Over the past four years or so I have had to incur some quite expensive repair bills; the alternative being getting a new or more recent model car and be locked into a hefty mandatory payment for the next several years, in addition to higher insurance rates. When my dad was alive he would have definitely advised for the latter option. A classic “pick your poison “ situation if there ever was one. Know I will eventually have to succumb to the latter but hope to delay it as long as possible.

Oh, I was talking about the standard "pick poison" in "the not-so-best of 2 political candidates" systems we have all endured for a really long time.

That whole car thing is age-old yeah.  The third option is to lease.  They repair your vehicle when it's needed, then you hand it over for a new vehicle when the lease expires.  That option is sort of better unless you are, in fact, sticking with your older model.  Ownership of a vehicle is probably the worst type of ownership there is.  The depreciation value on such a thing is legendary. I remember my dad pointing out how someone bought a brand new Mustang because they just wanted it, and he had said as soon as the ink was dry, that vehicle lost thousands in value simply by being owned. The wear on vehicles is ridiculous also, which sucks the "value" right out... unless you know how to get ahead of maintenance.

I cannot think of another item of purchase that is less appealing with that in mind.  Really, the concept of "pride in ownership" of a vehicle hearkens back to when we all knew how to care for it ourselves... when the garage was not a storage unit but a place with tools we could apply to save on costs with said vehicle. And, the idea that the vehicles we drive are becoming more crappy as time goes on.... AND the idea of planned obsolescence. Vehicles are almost being made to break down, forcing us to get them fixed, buy new ones, etc. what yuck. All for The Economy. Where would we be without Planned Obsolescence? Our Economy hinges in a continued upward trend. If we stop consuming, we all lose. What shit. To be so tied to such a thing And now, recognizing that America cannot "pause" for anything without the threat of collapse. Back when the nation mourned for the dead president, we might today be being told it was our duty to not mourn too long, lest we put America in peril. I remember after 911, it was Bush's priority to even say in plain words "we should not stop shopping or going to the mall".

Sorry to digress.

When young, my brothers and I worked on our vehicles, buying the parts ourselves, etc.. that's almost unheard of today.  AND so many people do not even live in a place where they could work on a vehicle if they wanted to.  I sometimes see people parked in Walmart or Target parking lots trying to get under their cars.... OR, hogging up the sidewalks, or taking up that precious space on the street.  So many things don't make sense anymore in America.  And I'm not SO old as to think back to when just about everyone I went to school with - their families lived in HOMES.  Not in condos or apartments.

If it were me, deal w your car until you can't anymore, but don't put any more value into "ownership" of a vehicle ever again if you can

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-31-2020, 06:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Same with values.  Some value the economy, and are minimizing the threat of the virus.  They see with their bank accounts and live in their dream worlds.  Some value people, and are asking why the federal government and some states are not taking action.  This is red and blue all over, whether you accept the science or create pleasant daydreams of there not existing any threats that a small government cannot handle.

Well, it started that way.  Some wanted to optimize the economy, others work towards saving lives.  As time goes on, the two are looking the same.  We are not going to be able to push the restart button on the economy until the curve is flattened.  If everybody isolates at once, the numbers of cases are minimized and the precautions can be relaxed.

There are a lot of folks resisting the precautions.  I have spoken of some mothers dropping kids as usual to hang out at the closed mall.  I bumped into another Facebook entry that some mothers are holding sleepovers for the kids.  That is another way that one contaminated family results in many contaminated families.  Fighting the precautions is just leading to the worst of both worlds, deaths and an extended economic shutdown.

[David Horn]

(04-04-2020, 07:00 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-31-2020, 06:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Same with values.  Some value the economy, and are minimizing the threat of the virus.  They see with their bank accounts and live in their dream worlds.  Some value people, and are asking why the federal government and some states are not taking action.  This is red and blue all over, whether you accept the science or create pleasant daydreams of there not existing any threats that a small government cannot handle.

Well, it started that way.  Some wanted to optimize the economy, others work towards saving lives.  As time goes on, the two are looking the same.  We are not going to be able to push the restart button on the economy until the curve is flattened.  If everybody isolates at once, the numbers of cases are minimized and the precautions can be relaxed.

There are a lot of folks resisting the precautions.  I have spoken of some mothers dropping kids as usual to hang out at the closed mall.  I bumped into another Facebook entry that some mothers are holding sleepovers for the kids.  That is another way that one contaminated family results in many contaminated families.  Fighting the precautions is just leading to the worst of both worlds, deaths and an extended economic shutdown.

All true, but let's add testing. With out testing, we can't know who is safe to go back to work, or shop either, for that matter.  Trump seems bored by the testing question, so we may not be doing all that much to get there -- which is a real mystery.  He doesn't give a rat's patoot about people, but he's all-in for money.  This is the one area I would expect him to be all over.