Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Classic-Xer]

(08-17-2016, 02:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 12:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Classic Xer does sound more like Reagan than Coolidge (but not much more). But I see Reagan as well behind the times, not a man of his times. His goal was to rescue America from liberalism. I don't think the country needed to be rescued from it. He blamed the 60s for the recession of 1980. He was wrong; progress on civil rights and poverty was NOT the cause of the recession of 1980. Nor were high taxes, which had already been reduced. It was the Vietnam War, and the energy crisis, that caused that recession. Carter cured inflation and the recession it caused by appointing Paul Volcker, and by keeping us out of war. Reagan was the beneficiary. Also, economic cycles happen, and recovery follows recession. Lower taxes can be a stimulus. But Reagan made sure that the boom was severely restricted to the upper classes.

I Wrote:But I'll be stubborn about those 20 years.  The GIs spent most of their lives living crisis era values.  See problem, solve same.  If S&H's theories are going to continue to have merit, we're due to get back to solving problems.  This latest unraveling at least was dominated by Reagan's notion that the government trying to solve problems is the problem.  I'll concede that crisis intensity problem solving can't and shouldn't be maintained indefinitely.  By Reagan's time the GIs and to a lesser extent the other generations had earned a break.

I disagree, as you know. Reagan wasn't necessary at all, even if it's true that some level of compromise is needed with free enterprise values, and that people want a break from too much change. Reagan did not compromise; he was trying to roll back the Great Society (the PBS doc yesterday confirms that Reagan said this specifically), not provide a break or a vacation from further progress.

Unravellings happen, I admit, and the danger is there that they go too far toward individualist values. That does not mean they are merely a break when they go too far. They are a regression. Reagan was not a break-giver; he was a regressive; big time! So, Classic Xer is a follower of Reagan, who was a follower of Coolidge. So, Classic Xer is 5 turnings or more behind, not one.

Well, I consider you to be as partisan as X'er.  You've bought fully into the Blue world view and see nothing good in the Red just as Classic goes the other way.  There is a reason why Reagan was elected and became so highly revered.  He did strike a chord with many Americans.  An awful lot of folks still hear that chord to the extent of hearing nothing else.  Just because you cannot comprehend why history unfolded as it did does not in any way imply that there are no reasons it unfolded as it did.

As I've been telling him, there are reasons why conflicting value systems can be popular, reasons why the tides of opinion turn periodically.  Listening to partisans from either extreme, you can see each believes the other to be stupid, mistaken, evil, wrong, a threat to America, etc...  The other side is seen to have few or no redeeming values.  The only correct answer is to obliterate the other faction entirely.  If this isn't done, America is Doomed!  Doomed, I tell you!  Doomed!  The two of you are similarly blind in being totally unable to see or respect where the other is coming from.

Neither you nor Classic have all the answers or answers that are good all the time.  If you really want to understand US history, you have to understand both conflicting sets of values and see where each has a proper place.

Not that I think either of you will be able to see this.  The two of you pretty well represent the state of the United States today.  Two people standing on opposite mountain tops, yelling at full volume, hands covering their ears.

Bob, I can see the good in the message. However, I don't see much good or much character in your leaders.

[Eric the Green]

(08-17-2016, 02:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Well, I consider you to be as partisan as X'er.  You've bought fully into the Blue world view and see nothing good in the Red just as Classic goes the other way.  There is a reason why Reagan was elected and became so highly revered.  He did strike a chord with many Americans.  An awful lot of folks still hear that chord to the extent of hearing nothing else.  Just because you cannot comprehend why history unfolded as it did does not in any way imply that there are no reasons it unfolded as it did.

I did say some level of compromise is needed with free enterprise values. But then, blue "partisans" are more likely to be able to compromise and see the other side, than red "partisans," quite decisively so in fact, so to be a "partisan" on the "other side" (the "blue side") today is just to recognize reality. No less and no more than that. That people make mistakes in their votes, is not hard to understand at all. It would be quite fanciful to believe that this does not happen. It happened in 1980. But Reagan was a very attractive candidate. People were deceived and fell for the charming actor. There's nothing hard to understand about that. His horoscope score is 19-5. And that it was a 3T (a late 2T actually), made a turn toward individualism more likely; no doubt. As I said.

Quote:As I've been telling him, there are reasons why conflicting value systems can be popular, reasons why the tides of opinion turn periodically.  Listening to partisans from either extreme, you can see each believes the other to be stupid, mistaken, evil, wrong, a threat to America, etc...  The other side is seen to have few or no redeeming values.  The only correct answer is to obliterate the other faction entirely.  If this isn't done, America is Doomed!  Doomed, I tell you!  Doomed!  The two of you are similarly blind in being totally unable to see or respect where the other is coming from.

Not true at all, of course. There is value to free enterprise. You might ignore what I write; you do that a lot. The right might see me, or you, as socialists. You might see people like me as blind to the other side. But that doesn't mean we are that. But we do say there's a time for decision. We are at that time. It is a 4T, baby! The side that wants to go backward 120 years needs to be defeated now.

But there's no real need to quibble whether Classic is 20 or 120 years behind the times. So if you don't mind, I'll end this argument here. Say what you wish.

[Eric the Green]

(08-17-2016, 04:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 02:16 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 02:35 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... Democrats are concerned about helping the disadvantaged, the underdog, the poor, the discriminated against; those going through hard times; those who need a hand up, not just a handout. Which could be you or me. Republicans represent those like Donald Trump or the Koch Brothers who kick people out on the street, who exploit people with low wages and bad working conditions, and who destroy the environment and speculate with the economy. They support gutting social programs for the poor, on the theory that if you then give tax breaks to the rich, business will improve and the benefits will trickle-down, and the poor will either learn self-reliance, or suffer due to their own failure, or their membership in some inferior group. That's what Reagan thought, and that's what he did. But those policies have "died of a theory," just like racism before the Confederacy. They don't work, because if you give the breaks to the already wealthy and powerful, they say thank you very very much, and then pocket the money. There is no trickle; it's a tinkle.

This is the old Democratic focus that is just not there anymore.  Today's Democrats favor niche movements, primarily minority based.  They also favor Wall Street.  Their coalition is the result of decades of drift; the GOP is similarly changed.  Bernie tried to move them back in the direction they occupied at their policy peak, and that may still happen in time ... just not this time.

It never was a Democratic focus.  The Populists and the Socialists had this focus, which today shows up in Trump's and Sander's appeal.  It was never a majority.  The Democratic party as Labor Party-lite was an artifact arising out of the 1932 election. A "1932 moment" has been trying to form for 16 years now.  Two massive bubble bursts have occurred that would in the past have collapsed the economy and forced a "1932 moment".  In both, the establishment has managed to craft a response that allowed the status quo to continue. 

Some of the romantics here feel the end will come when the disgruntled working Americans, either on the Right or the Left, rise up and demand a new deal.  Plenty of scholarship has shown that this simply does not happen. The times when it appears to happen (e.g. 1789, 1917) it turns out that the movement was led by some dispossessed elites who mobilized the masses to put themselves on top in place of the old elites (i.e. meet the new boss--same as the old boss).

If the economic problems of our time are to be resolved in this 4T, it will come from a subset of the political elite who determine that it is in their own best interest to abandon their old economic elite allies to either gain or preserve political power. Right now the route to career success amongst political elites is to maintain existing arrangements with economic elites and to continue to see the world as they do.  A collapse of the economy will change that calculus, creating another "1932 moment" when some group of political entrepreneurs, probably from within one of the existing parties will decide to abandon the economic elite to further their political fortunes.

This does not necessarily require a new election, it can be a faction of policy advisors who win the ear of a panicking chief executive.

If there is any validity to saecular theory, then we should see conditions for change ripen in a 4T.  Trump has pumped-up the LMC white males, and some of the women as well, but, I have to agree, I don't see Trump as a movement leader or his troops as an army.  Stagnation, on the other hand, may move the PTB toward something, but what exactly is up for grabs. 

I don't see Hillary being the change agent.  I don't see it coming from her ads either, since she tends to hang with the same unimaginative crowd.  Article I rabble rousers, like Newt, don't get far so that seems to be a dead end.  Ditto for the private sector actors who have already succeeded in stealing everything in sight, making things worse for everyone but them.  Post-modern academe is out for obvious reasons.  Barring a worse crash than 2007-9 or a major war, I don't see it happening.

It's one of the reasons I think this may fester until the next 2T.

I'm a prophet, and I see it happening. As Yogi might say, I'll do the seein' around here

But the full scale of it is being delayed. I have explained the astrological correlates to this for years now. And if we diminish the civil war anomaly in S&H theory, and embrace the double rhythm theory, then the 2010s and 1850s rhyme. That has been explained here for years as well. We will see the conditions ripe.

And mikebert's idea that the elites are behind changes in society, I don't buy. It comes from the people. But it's true that a new "elite" may take over the bottom-up forces of change and use them for their own power plays. No doubt about that; we've seen that before as well, and in every 4T. So although we will see a strong 4T by the 2020s, it's unlikely that any of us will see the level of change we might want to see. People like us are usually disappointed when things revert to the old ways. The arc of history is long, but it does bend toward justice.

[Eric the Green]

(08-17-2016, 02:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Bob, you have been talking about this values stuff for years.  You have never spelt it out. Values are some of the most hard-wired aspects of a persons sense of self.  What one believes about how the world works  (what I call the paradigm) is much more changeable.  For example, I used to believe that financial panics like those in 1873, 1893 or 1929-32 did not happen anymore. So did a lot of people.  Then 2008 happened.  I changed my mind, so, I imagine, did lots of people.  Another example.  Dick Cheney and many others believed that whereas US meddling in the ME might lead to blowback overseas, it posed no threat to the homeland.  Then 911 happened, and Dick Cheney seemed to lose his marbles.

In neither of these situation did values (i.e. emotionally-charged beliefs) change.  I still hold the same things to be ethically important after 2008 as before.  I suspect the same is true for Cheney.  All that changed was value-neutral beliefs about how the world works.

Excellent point, and I agree. Paradigms and worldviews and beliefs about how the world works can change more easily than values and ethics as you describe them.

The trickle down theory of economics is one of those things that people can change their mind about, even if one still values hard work and self-reliance in a general sense. That's the principle paradigm that needs to change now. It is stubbornly held, no doubt. But a shift can happen among some people. It just takes some, maybe 5%, to move elections. And the general ideas such as "politics doesn't matter" and "my votes don't count; politicians are all the same," are also ideas that can, and need, to shift, especially among millennials (even though these ideas were also widely held by boomers when they were young).

It can't be emphasized enough that millennials need to turn out. It's not just a question of who is president, but who is in all the other offices. A major shift can and must happen, and it needs to begin this year. That is Bernie's Revolution now.

[Eric the Green]

(08-17-2016, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'd love to have the power to control the environment. As far as your question, I don't know the answer. I'm not a liberal who appears to believe that we can control the environment or the world with sacrifices.

You really fell into the liberal trap on that one, Classic! Of course we have the power to limit floods and fires in the future. It depends on whether we switch from fossil fuels to solar, wind and electric cars, how fast we change, and whether government helps in this transition. That fact is very well-known indeed. Only the right wing fails to realize this fact today.

[Mikebert]

(08-17-2016, 04:31 PM)David Horn Wrote: Barring a worse crash than 2007-9 or a major war, I don't see it happening.

Yes.  You know I have been predicting a crash for some time now.  I am not alone:

Jon Hussman Wrote:Indeed, the most historically reliable measures of market valuation (those with a correlation of 90% or more with actual subsequent 10-12 year market returns) currently project a likely S&P 500 nominal annual total return averaging just 0.9% over the coming 12-year period, with negative total returns at shorter horizons. As I detailed last week in Morton’s Fork, this outcome is likely to emerge almost regardless of the rate of economic growth and the level of interest rates over the coming decade. On a cyclical horizon, we continue to expect the present market cycle to be completed by a 40-55% decline in the S&P 500 Index; an outcome that would be historically run-of-the-mill from current valuations.

Note Hussman's 55% decline is the 10000 point decline I forecast.  The difference is he uses the entire historical period (all turnings) as his database.  My methods allow me to go further back in history than Hussman, and so I draw my data exclusively from the secular bear markets (2Ts and 4T) because I assume we be 4T.
The other difference is Hussman believes the current valuations are part of normal fluctuations.  I see them a reflection of a drop in capital productivity that began in 2006. This makes the 55% decline that Hussman sees as a worst case actually a best case.  That is, if Congress does not act, as seems likely, the market will fall much further.  It seems such a large loss would have to be accompanied by another financial crisis, and voila, you have 2008 all over again--except worse.

This idea is easy to test.  If the decline has not begun by June 2018 (three years after the original prediction) it is invalid.  If the decline does begin,but it fails to be as large as forecast, it is invalid, and so on.  There are many ways for it to fail and only one way to succeed.  So if it does happen, that is highly significant. Obviously I don't know now that this hypothesis is valid, hence the need for an experimental trial

[pbrower2a]

Can Donald Trump win? He could if he weren't so erratic. Jimmy Carter saw most of his early lead against Gerald Ford whittled away. Carter still won,, but not by much. George H W Bush looked doomed against Mike Dukakis in 1988... but the elder Bush ended up with a margin of popular victory similar to that of Obama in 2008.

But -- Gerald Ford (if not a particularly good campaigner) and George H W Bush represent rational actors in national politics. Donald Trump isn't.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trum...6-forecast

[David Horn]

(08-17-2016, 08:16 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 04:31 PM)David Horn Wrote: Barring a worse crash than 2007-9 or a major war, I don't see it happening.

Yes.  You know I have been predicting a crash for some time now.  I am not alone:

Jon Hussman Wrote:Indeed, the most historically reliable measures of market valuation (those with a correlation of 90% or more with actual subsequent 10-12 year market returns) currently project a likely S&P 500 nominal annual total return averaging just 0.9% over the coming 12-year period, with negative total returns at shorter horizons. As I detailed last week in Morton’s Fork, this outcome is likely to emerge almost regardless of the rate of economic growth and the level of interest rates over the coming decade. On a cyclical horizon, we continue to expect the present market cycle to be completed by a 40-55% decline in the S&P 500 Index; an outcome that would be historically run-of-the-mill from current valuations.

Note Hussman's 55% decline is the 10000 point decline I forecast.  The difference is he uses the entire historical period (all turnings) as his database.  My methods allow me to go further back in history than Hussman, and so I draw my data exclusively from the secular bear markets (2Ts and 4T) because I assume we be 4T.
The other difference is Hussman believes the current valuations are part of normal fluctuations.  I see them a reflection of a drop in capital productivity that began in 2006. This makes the 55% decline that Hussman sees as a worst case actually a best case.  That is, if Congress does not act, as seems likely, the market will fall much further.  It seems such a large loss would have to be accompanied by another financial crisis, and voila, you have 2008 all over again--except worse.

This idea is easy to test.  If the decline has not begun by June 2018 (three years after the original prediction) it is invalid.  If the decline does begin,but it fails to be as large as forecast, it is invalid, and so on.  There are many ways for it to fail and only one way to succeed.  So if it does happen, that is highly significant. Obviously I don't know now that this hypothesis is valid, hence the need for an experimental trial

Looking at the current state of the economy, it's pretty easy to see overvaluation in stocks, driven by stock buy-backs and other financial wizardry.  The era of maximizing shareholder value has about run its course.  I'm sure all the toying with corporate operations has been a driver of efficiency declines and definitely a prime cause of stagnant wages.  How that plays-out is another issue entirely, but a major retrenchment in stock prices is certainly likely. 

What follows will be the 1T paradigm, and that's an unknown at this point.  We still have no idea, on a macro scale, how to address the transition to non-human labor -- especially at the rate we're making that change.  Most of the ideas I've seen fail to address the human problem of boredom, and that may be bigger than finding a way to keep us all fed, housed and clothed.  Nothing good emerges from having too many people with little to do.  Appalachian whites and inner-city minorities have already run this experiment, and it isn't pretty.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-17-2016, 02:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 01:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not a follower of Reagan. If anything, I'm a follower of Ross Perot. BTW, I tend to lead more than follow.

Do you read your own posts?

I may come across as being a lot like Reagan or very Reagan esque . However, Reagan wasn't the one who inspired me to become politically active and begin voting. The one who actually inspired me to become active and begin to vote was Ross Perot. I'm not a follower of Reagan in the way liberals often say that I am, portray me a being and come across to me as believing. I liked him as President and I view him as the best president that I've seen during my life so far. But that it, I have no significant value placed on him. As I recall, Reagan was a transplanted Midwesterner like myself.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-17-2016, 06:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'd love to have the power to control the environment. As far as your question, I don't know the answer. I'm not a liberal who appears to  believe that we can control the environment or the world with sacrifices.

You really fell into the liberal trap on that one, Classic! Of course we have the power to limit floods and fires in the future. It depends on whether we switch from fossil fuels to solar, wind and electric cars, how fast we change, and whether government helps in this transition. That fact is very well-known indeed. Only the right wing fails to realize this fact today.

Not really. I clearly excluded myself. Whatever we do today will have no impact on the climate change that we'll be experiencing during our lifetime. Dude, you'd need a complete transformation with the snap of two fingers.

[playwrite]

You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame. It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg. All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power. It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday. Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's. That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation. There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades. The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

[Eric the Green]

Trump's Bannon Bomb

90 Shares

By E.J. Dionne
August 17, 2016
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...31537.html

WASHINGTON -- If you thought the old Donald Trump campaign was wild and crazy, just wait for the new Trump campaign now that Breitbart's Steve Bannon has taken over as chief executive.
      The new leadership -- with Bannon and pollster Kellyanne Conway displacing Paul Manafort of the Ukrainian Connection at the top of the heap -- is likely to steer Trump even more in the direction of the European far right. It also tells you something that Bannon sees Sarah Palin, about whom he made a laudatory documentary, as a model for anti-establishment politics.

      Bannon is close to Nigel Farage, the former head of the right-wing UK Independence Party, who offered "massive thanks" to Breitbart News for supporting the party's successful campaign on behalf of Britain's departure from the European Union. "Your UKIP team is just incredible," Bannon told Farage during an interview after the June Brexit vote.
      Judging from Bannon's history, Trump's campaign will become even harsher in its attacks on Hillary Clinton and work hard to insinuate anti-Clinton stories into the mainstream media. Bloomberg Businessweek's Joshua Green quoted Bannon proudly declaring in mid-2015: "We've got the 15 best investigative reporters at the 15 best newspapers in the country all chasing after Hillary Clinton."
      And count on Trump to ramp up his appeals to Bernie Sanders' supporters and the left. Pushing his anti-Clinton film "Clinton Cash" in May, Bannon said he wanted progressives to "understand how the Clintons, who proclaim that they support all your values, essentially have sold you out for money." In his conversation with Farage, Bannon expressed great interest in the role played by left-of-center voters in Brexit's victory.
      A Trump press release Wednesday bragged about the headline on Green's important Businessweek article describing Bannon as "the most dangerous political operative in America." The new CEO poses dangers not only to Clinton, but also to Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan who have been tiptoeing around their party's nominee by simultaneously criticizing him and endorsing him. Bannon has no use for Ryan. A December piece Bannon co-authored began: "Paul Ryan's first major legislative achievement is a total and complete sell-out of the American people masquerading as an appropriations bill."
      Bannon could thus speed the defection of longtime GOP officeholders, while Senate and House campaigns are likely to become even more distant from Trump. In his past endeavors, Bannon targeted not only Clinton but also Jeb Bush. Trump's relations with the Bush wing of the party could hardly be worse, but Bannon is likely to make them impossible.
      There is much good news but one piece of bad news for Clinton in the Trump shakeup. The bad news is that she is likely to have to play more defense, especially if Bannon builds on his success in enticing reporters at non-conservative media outlets to work on stories damaging to her.
      The good news is that Trump seems determined to fight through the campaign on his own terms. This reduces the chances that he will drop out of the presidential race, which, in turn, means that Clinton is more likely to avoid what would be the biggest blow to her chances: a Trump withdrawal and the naming of a new GOP candidate.
      Trump's campaign is also likely to look more extreme, which cannot help the flailing candidate in the suburban, highly educated precincts in states such as Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina where he is hemorrhaging more upscale Republican votes. Bannon's fascination with Palin, who turned off many such voters to John McCain after he chose her as his running mate in 2008, could aggravate rather than ease this problem.
      And if the theme of this latest bit of Trump court intrigue is a return to the "Let Trump be Trump" philosophy, Clinton's operatives will only cheer. Trump being Trump is precisely what led him to this crisis point.  
      Bannon's rise dramatizes the catastrophe GOP establishmentarians brought upon themselves by imagining that they could use the far right for their own purposes while somehow keeping it tame. Bannon's European interests suggest he is far more impressed by right-wing third parties than by traditional Republicanism. He believed the anti-establishment rhetoric that Republican politicians deployed but never really meant when they were attacking President Obama. Now, the GOP faces the possibility of a real split.
      It fell to Palin in her January endorsement of Trump to tell the party establishment off: "We are mad, and we've been had. They need to get used to it." They are unlikely to get used to Bannon.
© 2016, Washington Post Writers Group

[David Horn]

(08-18-2016, 12:43 PM)playwrite Wrote: You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame.  It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg.  All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the  build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power.  It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday.  Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's.  That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation.  There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at  bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades.  The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

This may be true in the future, even the near future, but it's not true now.  We have two parties consisting of illogical coalitions, and the fact that the GOP is hitting the wall first doesn't make the Dems any less at risk.  So the Republican Party fractures, and then what?  I believe that the successor has to embrace the money, and bid adieu to the rest, preferring that to the exact opposite.  If the money stays, they will moderate all the RW nonsense and draw the UMC out of the Democratic Party.  If the money leaves, the GOP will become the old Democratic Party of the late 19th century.  They'll do better with the money, so that's what I expect.

That leaves the Dems with a coalition of niche special interests that tend to make demands on the party but fail to unite around any issues not their own.  In the current environment, the system will only support two major parties.  Money can fend for itself.  What about the herd-of-cats party?

[Eric the Green]

(08-18-2016, 01:16 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 12:43 PM)playwrite Wrote: You all are way too pessimistic.

The infrastructure necessary for electric driverless vehicles will make Eisenhower's interstate build out look like a piker and thus the 50s/60s economy/bull market rather tame.  It's a race but they are already testing Uber driverless cars out in Pittsburg.  All that an economic contraction would do is hasten the Congress in reaction to provide the stimulus for the  build out.

What you are also missing is that the GOP is effectively destroyed as a national political power.  It was Bush, Trump is just the cheery on top of the sunday.  Adams ending the dominate Jefferson party, Buchanan ending Jackson's, Hoover ended Lincoln's, Carter ended FDR's and Bush/Trump ended Ray-gun's.  That paves the way for eventual recognition and full employment of our monetary system - deficit hawks will be eliminated from the federal government (perhaps taken out and shot for all the harm they have inflicted) and replaced by technocrats that will keep a controlling hand on inflation.  There will be much more federal expenditure, but in a public/private partnership manner that will keep the deposed remnants of the GOP at  bay.

The economy is going to boom and it will be done under an increasingly Progressive government, including the SCOTUS, that will seal the deal for decades.  The hillbillies, like Classic, will eventually come around or at least their kids and grandkids will.

This may be true in the future, even the near future, but it's not true now.  We have two parties consisting of illogical coalitions, and the fact that the GOP is hitting the wall first doesn't make the Dems any less at risk.  So the Republican Party fractures, and then what?  I believe that the successor has to embrace the money, and bid adieu to the rest, preferring that to the exact opposite.  If the money stays, they will moderate all the RW nonsense and draw the UMC out of the Democratic Party.  If the money leaves, the GOP will become the old Democratic Party of the late 19th century.  They'll do better with the money, so that's what I expect.

That leaves the Dems with a coalition of niche special interests that tend to make demands on the party but fail to unite around any issues not their own.  In the current environment, the system will only support two major parties.  Money can fend for itself.  What about the herd-of-cats party?

Norm Chomsky once made the point that the term "special interests" when applied in this way actually means "the population." The Democrats still represent the people and their interests. They can unite just fine, and push their economic agenda in a political environment where inequality and opportunity are big themes again. The "Trumpsters" can only push their deceptions so far. They can fool the uneducated hillbillies, but they are not enough to win elections. Their racist appeal works for some, but meanwhile less-powerful groups and ethnicities are fighting back.

These "niche" interests have a point. You can't deny that those who are disadvantaged in our society economically are also, in many cases, those who have been and still are discriminated against. Black lives matter, and job discrimination, white cronyism, police profiling, the drug war, and so on are real issues for the lower classes, of whom blacks and browns make up the majority. The women are also more likely to be disadvantaged in many cases, so their issues of equal pay and family leave etc. are also economic class issues. Ultimately the class and the rights issues are one issue.

I think playwrite is closer to the mark. Money dominates politics today, but a new Supreme Court will make reform possible. I expect the reform era to begin in earnest around 2022. There will be further turmoil from the right wing after that, but I expect the storm to pass, leaving the political landscape nourished for a constructive and active 1T. It's quite possible, though, that the party system could be quite different from what we have today. As Silents and Eisenhower Boomers leave and Millennials take over the voting landscape, our appetite to change the system could grow. I'm not sure how far it will go.

The zero year always marks a major shift. It could mean that Hillary's Democrats are thrown out, like Carter's (and Bill Clinton's) were. But the indicators say something else: the party in power will continue in power in 2020, and a shake up of some kind could occur in 2024. Millennials will be at their maximum power voting-wise in that election, if they make use of it. The Crisis Climax follows the 2024 election immediately and lasts for 4 years. Stay tuned!

[Eric the Green]

(08-18-2016, 12:39 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 06:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 12:45 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'd love to have the power to control the environment. As far as your question, I don't know the answer. I'm not a liberal who appears to  believe that we can control the environment or the world with sacrifices.

You really fell into the liberal trap on that one, Classic! Of course we have the power to limit floods and fires in the future. It depends on whether we switch from fossil fuels to solar, wind and electric cars, how fast we change, and whether government helps in this transition. That fact is very well-known indeed. Only the right wing fails to realize this fact today.

Not really. I clearly excluded myself. Whatever we do today will have no impact on the climate change that we'll be experiencing during our lifetime. Dude, you'd need a complete transformation with the snap of two fingers.

It's true that what we have done by electing Reagan Republicans and Reagan Democrats up and down the ballot for 35 years leaves our climate in poor shape. But it's a matter of degree and severity. If we put progressives in office increasingly now, and if green entrepreneurs are successful, a green energy boom is due to start in 2 years. That's practically a snap of the fingers. The transition will ramp up quickly in the next decade or two, and that will be enough to prevent some floods and hurricanes, even in our lifetimes. They will be less severe than if we do nothing, as Republicans propose, or double down on pollution, as Trump proposes. There's considerable variation in what we will experience, depending on what we do-- or so the climate models predict.

And educated, informed, intelligent and concerned folks (i.e. "progressives") understand that what matters is not just what happens "in our lifetimes."

Since we have failed to prevent many of these severe weather disasters, although we could have, mitigation measures will be needed, as well as relief, and that will require government action (and therefore taxes) too.

[Eric the Green]

(08-18-2016, 10:54 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 02:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 01:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not a follower of Reagan. If anything, I'm a follower of Ross Perot. BTW, I tend to lead more than follow.

Do you read your own posts?

I may come across as being a lot like Reagan or very Reagan esque . However, Reagan wasn't the one who inspired me to become politically active and begin voting. The one who actually inspired me to become active and begin to vote was Ross Perot. I'm not a follower of Reagan in the way liberals often say that I am, portray me a being and come across to me as believing. I liked him as President and I view him as the best president that I've seen during my life so far. But that it, I have no significant value placed on him. As I recall, Reagan was a transplanted Midwesterner like myself.

You like Reagan, Classic, because you hold on to many of his memes and slogans. Ross Perot was no believer in trickle-down economics, but you are. He did not blow the racist dog-whistle of anti-welfare and minority-driven tax and spend, but you respond to it.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-18-2016, 02:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-18-2016, 10:54 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 02:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-17-2016, 01:33 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not a follower of Reagan. If anything, I'm a follower of Ross Perot. BTW, I tend to lead more than follow.

Do you read your own posts?

I may come across as being a lot like Reagan or very Reagan esque . However, Reagan wasn't the one who inspired me to become politically active and begin voting. The one who actually inspired me to become active and begin to vote was Ross Perot. I'm not a follower of Reagan in the way liberals often say that I am, portray me a being and come across to me as believing. I liked him as President and I view him as  the best president that I've seen during my life so far. But that it, I have no significant value placed on him. As I recall, Reagan was a transplanted Midwesterner like myself.

You like Reagan Classic, because you hold on to many of his memes and slogans. Ross Perot was no believer in trickle-down economics, but you are. He did not blow the racist dog-whistle of anti-welfare and minority-driven tax and spend, but you respond to it.

True, I liked Reagan. I've seen myself being emotionally tied memes and slogans associated with Ayn Rand by liberals even though I've never read one of her books, I never learned about her philosophy in school and I didn't know her name until I started posting here. How did I respond to the racist white guy using a dog whistle? Did my actions match the slogans and memes and stereotypes associated with dim witted progressives? Slogans and memes and stereotypes that needy Democrats are dumb enough to pick up on and use in elections and loose power because of their own stupidity.

[pbrower2a]

Paradoxically, the more that I hear from Donald Trump on foreign policy I find a surprise: he is to the Left of every main-party nominee for President since at least George McGovern, and I say at least because McGovern may have been so cast by one of the dirtiest campaign apparatuses in American history.

When Vladimir Putin is acting up, this is the wrong time to ditch NATO. I'll stick to Reagan-Bush I results, which is what Barack Obama has gone for.

How long will it be before Alaska secedes from the United States as an "independent" republic whose first order of business is to make teaching of the Russian language* mandatory at all levels of schooling and whose second order of business will be replacement of the US dollar with the Russian Ruble before its third act of business, a request for incorporation into the Russian Federation?

OK, maybe Michigan could secede under a Trump Presidency as an independent republic, only to join Canada, maybe taking Wisconsin and Minnesota along with us... heck, that's 36 electoral votes that Donald Trump will never get, so he might like that. Of course the elections would have to fit Canadian standards of fairness.

*Russian is a language well worthy of study irrespective of one's politics. I love Russian culture but loathe Russian politics.

[Eric the Green]

(08-18-2016, 05:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Paradoxically, the more that I hear from Donald Trump on foreign policy I find a surprise: he is to the Left of every main-party nominee for President since at least George McGovern, and I say at least because McGovern may have been so cast by one of the dirtiest campaign apparatuses in American history.

When Vladimir Putin is acting up, this is the wrong time to ditch NATO. I'll stick to Reagan-Bush I results, which is what Barack Obama has gone for.

How long will it be before Alaska secedes from the United States as an "independent" republic whose first order of business is to make teaching of the Russian language* mandatory at all levels of schooling and whose second order of business will be replacement of the US dollar with the Russian Ruble before its third act of business, a request for incorporation into the Russian Federation?

OK, maybe Michigan could secede under a Trump Presidency as an independent republic, only to join Canada, maybe taking Wisconsin and Minnesota along with us... heck, that's 36 electoral votes that Donald Trump will never get, so he might like that. Of course the elections would have to fit Canadian standards of fairness.

*Russian is a language well worthy of study irrespective of one's politics. I love Russian culture but loathe Russian politics.

I've thought all the blue states except New Mexico could join Canada, and it would be a contiguous country. And New Mexico and maybe Colorado could go back to Mexico.

[Eric the Green]

(08-18-2016, 03:58 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: True, I liked Reagan. I've seen myself being emotionally tied memes and slogans associated with Ayn Rand by liberals even though I've never read one of her books, I never learned about her philosophy in school and I didn't know her name until I started posting here.

99.9% of the American people who are hooked into Ayn Rand, have never read her books. So that's nothing new. The trickle-down, free-market economics slogans are so ubiquitous that they still enthrall half the country and make it nearly impossible for our government to conduct business. If you liked Reagan, you liked his ideas-- which were strongly related to those of Ayn Rand.

I did watch and record the PBS doc on Reagan; being from CA, he was a dominant figure in my public life for 30 years. I don't know of anyone who could match that. He is a splendid TV host and narrator, whether telling fantasy stories or weaving fantasy policies like voodoo economics. Charming and handsome, but what he did took our nation off track and hooked it on the wrong ideology.

As I mentioned on the astrology thread, the outer planets indicate that he was the first president since TR who took us off track from the spirit of the times and American world leadership in the progress and affairs of humanity. Obama brought us back on track, and Hillary would keep us there, while Trump would take us not only off-track, but likely into a derailment.

Quote: How did I respond to the racist white guy using a dog whistle? Did my actions match the slogans and memes and stereotypes associated with dim witted progressives? Slogans and memes and stereotypes that needy Democrats are dumb enough to pick up on and use in elections and (lose?) power because of their own stupidity.

No, your actions and views often match the slogans and memes and stereotypes associated with dim witted regressives who respond to racist dog-whistles. Slogans and memes and stereotypes that have no appeal whatever to needy Democrats, nor to those smart enough to go the other way and (I hope) win elections as the power of those slogans and memes and stereotypes wanes.