(01-21-2017, 07:41 PM)TnT Wrote:

(01-21-2017, 09:28 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 06:35 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Be that as it may, I can tell from many of his comments he is totally in "the bubble." Heck, I could have been there too. It's tempting when one is wrapped constantly in the excitement of tech, start ups, etc. In any case, this is precisely the tone deafness that has so enraged the "not coasts" against the coasts. Globalism and middle class health are mutually incompatible.

I don't think that's true, but it is hard.  Everyone wants the Easy Button, so the globalists push for open borders and free trade, the nativists prefer to slam the door shut.  Neither can succeed, because neither is adequate.  The real solution will take decades to complete, but it starts with future-first infrastructure, education and training, and a restructuring of the economy away from capital friendly tax and subsidy policies to something that involves a transfer from the ownership class to everyone else.  How and to what extent is TBD ... but it will either happen or chaos will make an appearance first.

Do you think any of this is possible without a substantial and sustainable and dramatic decrease in the population of our dreadful species?

(01-23-2017, 12:44 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 12:31 AM)Marypoza Wrote: The regeneracy will have arrived when this happens:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3909161/the-democratic-partys-death-is-imminent/

The above also has a pretty good post mortem.

(01-23-2017, 01:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 12:44 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 12:31 AM)Marypoza Wrote: The regeneracy will have arrived when this happens:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3909161/the-democratic-partys-death-is-imminent/

The above also has a pretty good post mortem.

Parties morph and change.  The Dems are unlikely to disappear, but may tack strongly to the left after this disaster.

David Horn Wrote: Moving right hasn't gotten them much of value.  It has also violated Harry Truman's dictum about voters preferring real Republicans over phone Republicans.

(01-23-2017, 02:47 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 01:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 12:44 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 12:31 AM)Marypoza Wrote: The regeneracy will have arrived when this happens:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3909161/the-democratic-partys-death-is-imminent/

The above also has a pretty good post mortem.

Parties morph and change.  The Dems are unlikely to disappear, but may tack strongly to the left after this disaster.

-- l wish. lnstead they appear to be even more clueless than before. Pelosi even thinks We the People don't want change 
Otoh they did put Bernie in charge of outreach. If he can pull in enough Berniecrats to breathe life back into the party, then yeah, reports of its death may be premature

David Horn Wrote: Moving right hasn't gotten them much of value.  It has also violated Harry Truman's dictum about voters preferring real Republicans over phone Republicans.

-- not so sure about that. The voters chose the Donald (a Dem until this past election cycle) over an honest to gawd Goldwater Girl, iow a nominal repug over the Real Thing. But if you're talking about the letter behind their last name then yeah, l guess

(01-22-2017, 04:47 PM)TnT Wrote:

(01-22-2017, 11:36 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a good question TnT. I myself think it MAY be possible for our population to co-exist with Nature, if we use energy sources wisely (phase out fossil fuels) and restrain ourselves from using up all the land other species need to survive.

We are the outcome of natural evolution (which I think is a creative and spiritual and not merely mechanical process; a growth from the inside out, all together with organisms and environment together). So although our behavior has been dreadful in many cases, I prefer to think we are a species relatively young and going through a learning process.

I certainly think a social and economic system which favors the population in general and not a few rich people is more compatible with Nature than the oligarchy we now have. What benefits the general welfare of the people is more compatible with Nature than allowing a few greedy robber barons to exploit Nature ruthlessly, as Trump seems to prefer.

So, we grow and I hope we learn sustainable behavior without too much destruction along the way. I'm sure there will be some.

As history buffs here on this site, we can look back over the known history of our species, its behavior towards others of its kind, towards other species and toward the earth which gave us all life and conclude that there is precious little of any admirable creative and/or spiritual processes at work that we can take credit for.

I'm reminded of a horrible anecdote I ran across some years ago ... it is said that as sunlight shines through the teardrops of a dead infant whose brains were dashed out by a Nazi concentration camp guard - that the rainbow formed is the same kind as that which we judge to be beautiful in the east after a late afternoon thunderstorm.  

There's a mechanistic thought for you to ponder, Eric.  A bit of a philosophical conundrum?

(01-23-2017, 05:53 PM)linus Wrote: Did you read that TNR piece asking aloud if Trump will be like Carter?

I'm wondering if a better analogy may turn out to be Andrew Johnson.

I wasn't a political science major and this is the first I heard of "the Politics Presidents Make" but there would seem to be no place in Skowronek’s theory for Andrew Johnson, one of most reviled and least successful presidents, who immediately followed (rather than preceded) a (presumably) "reconstructive" presidency. I'm not going to speculate about what happens, but if Obama turns out to be a genuinely transformative president, in the manner of (but to a lesser extant than) Lincoln and FDR, and Jackson and Reagan, on the right, then Trump may be compared in a certain sense to Andrew Johnson, who gave the South wide latitude to do Reconstruction Their Way, and came to be widely opposed in the North, as well as of course impeached. And he was himself succeeded by someone who sought to extend Lincoln's achievements and legacy, rather than forestall or repeal it.

• More of us opposed their campaign and oppose their agenda than support them, and WE ARE STILL HERE,
  
• We do not approve of the way they won office,
  
• We will not stand for the continued reckless inflaming of fear and bigotry, and
  
• We will FIGHT BACK attacks on our fundamental rights and attacks on vulnerable and marginalized communities.   
  

(01-23-2017, 05:53 PM)linus Wrote: Did you read that TNR piece asking aloud if Trump will be like Carter?

I'm wondering if a better analogy may turn out to be Andrew Johnson.

I wasn't a political science major and this is the first I heard of "the Politics Presidents Make" but there would seem to be no place in Skowronek’s theory for Andrew Johnson, one of most reviled and least successful presidents, who immediately followed (rather than preceded) a (presumably) "reconstructive" presidency. I'm not going to speculate about what happens, but if Obama turns out to be a genuinely transformative president, in the manner of (but to a lesser extant than) Lincoln and FDR, and Jackson and Reagan, on the right, then Trump may be compared in a certain sense to Andrew Johnson, who gave the South wide latitude to do Reconstruction Their Way, and came to be widely opposed in the North, as well as of course impeached. And he was himself succeeded by someone who sought to extend Lincoln's achievements and legacy, rather than forestall or repeal it.

(01-23-2017, 06:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 05:53 PM)linus Wrote: Did you read that TNR piece asking aloud if Trump will be like Carter?

I'm wondering if a better analogy may turn out to be Andrew Johnson.

I wasn't a political science major and this is the first I heard of "the Politics Presidents Make" but there would seem to be no place in Skowronek’s theory for Andrew Johnson, one of most reviled and least successful presidents, who immediately followed (rather than preceded) a (presumably) "reconstructive" presidency. I'm not going to speculate about what happens, but if Obama turns out to be a genuinely transformative president, in the manner of (but to a lesser extant than) Lincoln and FDR, and Jackson and Reagan, on the right, then Trump may be compared in a certain sense to Andrew Johnson, who gave the South wide latitude to do Reconstruction Their Way, and came to be widely opposed in the North, as well as of course impeached. And he was himself succeeded by someone who sought to extend Lincoln's achievements and legacy, rather than forestall or repeal it.

I have to go to alternate history for any analogy.

What if the America Firsters won the 1936 or 1940 election?

(01-23-2017, 06:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 06:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 05:53 PM)linus Wrote: Did you read that TNR piece asking aloud if Trump will be like Carter?

I'm wondering if a better analogy may turn out to be Andrew Johnson.

I wasn't a political science major and this is the first I heard of "the Politics Presidents Make" but there would seem to be no place in Skowronek’s theory for Andrew Johnson, one of most reviled and least successful presidents, who immediately followed (rather than preceded) a (presumably) "reconstructive" presidency. I'm not going to speculate about what happens, but if Obama turns out to be a genuinely transformative president, in the manner of (but to a lesser extant than) Lincoln and FDR, and Jackson and Reagan, on the right, then Trump may be compared in a certain sense to Andrew Johnson, who gave the South wide latitude to do Reconstruction Their Way, and came to be widely opposed in the North, as well as of course impeached. And he was himself succeeded by someone who sought to extend Lincoln's achievements and legacy, rather than forestall or repeal it.

I have to go to alternate history for any analogy.

What if the America Firsters won the 1936 or 1940 election?

If they'd won the 1940 election, it wouldn't have changed much.  Pearl Harbor would still have forced us into the war.  There might have been less lend-lease before the war, but not enough for Germany to have successfully invaded the UK.

(01-23-2017, 07:56 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 06:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 06:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 05:53 PM)linus Wrote: Did you read that TNR piece asking aloud if Trump will be like Carter?

I'm wondering if a better analogy may turn out to be Andrew Johnson.

I wasn't a political science major and this is the first I heard of "the Politics Presidents Make" but there would seem to be no place in Skowronek’s theory for Andrew Johnson, one of most reviled and least successful presidents, who immediately followed (rather than preceded) a (presumably) "reconstructive" presidency. I'm not going to speculate about what happens, but if Obama turns out to be a genuinely transformative president, in the manner of (but to a lesser extant than) Lincoln and FDR, and Jackson and Reagan, on the right, then Trump may be compared in a certain sense to Andrew Johnson, who gave the South wide latitude to do Reconstruction Their Way, and came to be widely opposed in the North, as well as of course impeached. And he was himself succeeded by someone who sought to extend Lincoln's achievements and legacy, rather than forestall or repeal it.

I have to go to alternate history for any analogy.

What if the America Firsters won the 1936 or 1940 election?

If they'd won the 1940 election, it wouldn't have changed much.  Pearl Harbor would still have forced us into the war.  There might have been less lend-lease before the war, but not enough for Germany to have successfully invaded the UK.

-- wasn't America 1st Lindberg's group? He was pretty tight with Hitler, my guess is we would of stayed out if WW2, like Spain (Hitler's buddy Franco) or entered it on Hitler's side

Quote:The AFC was established on September 4, 1940, by Yale Law School student R. Douglas Stuart, Jr. (son of R. Douglas Stuart, co-founder of Quaker Oats), along with other students, including future President Gerald Ford, future Peace Corps director Sargent Shriver, and future U.S. Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart.[3] Future President John F. Kennedy contributed $100, along with a note saying "What you all are doing is vital."[4][5] At its peak, America First claimed 800,000 dues-paying members in 450 chapters, located mostly in a 300-mile radius of Chicago.[1]
The AFC gained much of its early strength by merging with the more left-wing Keep America Out of War Committee, whose leaders included Norman Thomas and John T. Flynn.
It claimed 135,000 members in 60 chapters in Illinois, its strongest state.[6] Fundraising drives produced about $370,000 from some 25,000 contributors. Nearly half came from a few millionaires such as William H. Regnery, H. Smith Richardson of the Vick Chemical Company, General Robert E. Wood of Sears-Roebuck, Sterling Morton of Morton Salt Company,[citation needed] publisher Joseph M. Patterson (New York Daily News) and his cousin, publisher Robert R. McCormick (Chicago Tribune).
The AFC was never able to get funding for its own public opinion poll. The New York chapter received slightly more than $190,000, most of it from its 47,000 contributors. Since it never had a national membership form or national dues, and local chapters were quite autonomous, historians suggest that the organization's leaders had no idea how many "members" it had.[7]
Serious organizing of the America First Committee took place in Chicago not long after the September 1940 establishment. Chicago was to remain the national headquarters of the committee. To preside over their committee, America First chose General Robert E. Wood, the 61-year-old chairman of Sears, Roebuck and Co.. Wood remained at the head of the committee until it was disbanded in the days after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The America First Committee had its share of prominent businessmen as well as the sympathies of political figures including Democratic Senators Burton K. Wheeler of Montana and David I. Walsh of Massachusetts, Republican Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, and Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas, with its most prominent spokesman being aviator Charles A. Lindbergh. Other celebrities supporting America First were novelist Sinclair Lewis, poet E. E. Cummings, Washington socialite Alice Roosevelt Longworth, film producer Walt Disney, actress Lillian Gish and architect Frank Lloyd Wright. The many student chapters included future celebrities, such as author Gore Vidal (as a student at Phillips Exeter Academy), and the future President Gerald Ford, at Yale Law School.[8]

(01-23-2017, 05:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 02:47 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 01:05 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 12:44 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [quote='Marypoza' pid='18661' dateline='1485149488']
The regeneracy will have arrived when this happens:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3909161/the-democratic-partys-death-is-imminent/

The above also has a pretty good post mortem.

Parties morph and change.  The Dems are unlikely to disappear, but may tack strongly to the left after this disaster.

-- l wish. lnstead they appear to be even more clueless than before. Pelosi even thinks We the People don't want change 
Otoh they did put Bernie in charge of outreach. If he can pull in enough Berniecrats to breathe life back into the party, then yeah, reports of its death may be premature

David Horn Wrote: Moving right hasn't gotten them much of value.  It has also violated Harry Truman's dictum about voters preferring real Republicans over phone Republicans.

-- not so sure about that. The voters chose the Donald (a Dem until this past election cycle) over an honest to gawd Goldwater Girl, iow a nominal repug over the Real Thing. But if you're talking about the letter behind their last name then yeah, l guess

Eric Wrote:The voters chose Donald (a con man who had been a Republican candidate already in 2012)

Eric Wrote:over an honest to goodness sixties liberal activist.

Eric Wrote:Pelosi hasn't said any such thing. But I don't know who was elected yet to head the DNC. They need Ellison, I think.

(01-23-2017, 08:58 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 07:56 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 06:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 06:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [quote='linus' pid='18759' dateline='1485212027']
Did you read that TNR piece asking aloud if Trump will be like Carter?

I'm wondering if a better analogy may turn out to be Andrew Johnson.

I wasn't a political science major and this is the first I heard of "the Politics Presidents Make" but there would seem to be no place in Skowronek’s theory for Andrew Johnson, one of most reviled and least successful presidents, who immediately followed (rather than preceded) a (presumably) "reconstructive" presidency. I'm not going to speculate about what happens, but if Obama turns out to be a genuinely transformative president, in the manner of (but to a lesser extant than) Lincoln and FDR, and Jackson and Reagan, on the right, then Trump may be compared in a certain sense to Andrew Johnson, who gave the South wide latitude to do Reconstruction Their Way, and came to be widely opposed in the North, as well as of course impeached. And he was himself succeeded by someone who sought to extend Lincoln's achievements and legacy, rather than forestall or repeal it.

I have to go to alternate history for any analogy.

What if the America Firsters won the 1936 or 1940 election?

If they'd won the 1940 election, it wouldn't have changed much.  Pearl Harbor would still have forced us into the war.  There might have been less lend-lease before the war, but not enough for Germany to have successfully invaded the UK.

-- wasn't America 1st Lindberg's group? He was pretty tight with Hitler, my guess is we would of stayed out if WW2, like Spain (Hitler's buddy Franco) or entered it on Hitler's side

Quote:The AFC was established on September 4, 1940, by Yale Law School student R. Douglas Stuart, Jr. (son of R. Douglas Stuart, co-founder of Quaker Oats), along with other students, including future President Gerald Ford, future Peace Corps director Sargent Shriver, and future U.S. Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart.[3] Future President John F. Kennedy contributed $100, along with a note saying "What you all are doing is vital."[4][5] At its peak, America First claimed 800,000 dues-paying members in 450 chapters, located mostly in a 300-mile radius of Chicago.[1]
The AFC gained much of its early strength by merging with the more left-wing Keep America Out of War Committee, whose leaders included Norman Thomas and John T. Flynn.
It claimed 135,000 members in 60 chapters in Illinois, its strongest state.[6] Fundraising drives produced about $370,000 from some 25,000 contributors. Nearly half came from a few millionaires such as William H. Regnery, H. Smith Richardson of the Vick Chemical Company, General Robert E. Wood of Sears-Roebuck, Sterling Morton of Morton Salt Company,[citation needed] publisher Joseph M. Patterson (New York Daily News) and his cousin, publisher Robert R. McCormick (Chicago Tribune).
The AFC was never able to get funding for its own public opinion poll. The New York chapter received slightly more than $190,000, most of it from its 47,000 contributors. Since it never had a national membership form or national dues, and local chapters were quite autonomous, historians suggest that the organization's leaders had no idea how many "members" it had.[7]
Serious organizing of the America First Committee took place in Chicago not long after the September 1940 establishment. Chicago was to remain the national headquarters of the committee. To preside over their committee, America First chose General Robert E. Wood, the 61-year-old chairman of Sears, Roebuck and Co.. Wood remained at the head of the committee until it was disbanded in the days after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The America First Committee had its share of prominent businessmen as well as the sympathies of political figures including Democratic Senators Burton K. Wheeler of Montana and David I. Walsh of Massachusetts, Republican Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, and Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas, with its most prominent spokesman being aviator Charles A. Lindbergh. Other celebrities supporting America First were novelist Sinclair Lewis, poet E. E. Cummings, Washington socialite Alice Roosevelt Longworth, film producer Walt Disney, actress Lillian Gish and architect Frank Lloyd Wright. The many student chapters included future celebrities, such as author Gore Vidal (as a student at Phillips Exeter Academy), and the future President Gerald Ford, at Yale Law School.[8]

SomeGuy Wrote:A lot of that "Lindbergh was a Nazi!" stuff was retconning after we got into the war and won.  America First actually dissolved right after Pearl Harbor and Lindbergh flew in the Pacific theater as a civilian.

SomeGuy Wrote:It also would have been difficult for America First to have won the 1936 election since the group didn't form until 1940.

So, if you're looking for an actual fascist candidate in 1936 or 1940, you're left with... Pelley?

SomeGuy Wrote:I dunno, not really seeing the parallel with Trump.  Kinda missing the paramilitary organizations, the antisemitism, etc.  A lot of this "OMG! TRUMP EQUALZ FASHISM!" stuff is just lazy sloganeering.

SomeGuy Wrote:Not really seeing the Andrew Johnson parallel, either.  No victory in a Civil War, no history of campaigning on the same ticket, etc. I think you're just reaching out of a desire to cast Obama as a coalition realigning, transformational president, in a way that he really wasn't.  Politically talented?  Reasonably prudent (except where he let people like Powers and Clinton drag him into Libya)?  Sure.  The inaugurator of a new party system?  Don't see the evidence for it.  Even if we assume that Trump's presidency will be a failure, I think a better comparison would be with Carter, with Obama playing the Nixon (minus the Watergate bit leading to a President Ford/Biden) to some future liberal's Reagan, a man whose undeniable talents weren't enough to decisively shift the Overton window to a new stable configuration.

Of course, this scenario presupposes that Trump and the Republican Congress will fall out and the country continues to drift, paving the way for the left to make a big comeback in 2020, at the Congressional as well as Presidential level.  I don't think that's a foregone conclusion.

(01-23-2017, 06:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I didn't  -- but I see Donald Trump as a potential disaster as President, someone who bucks the demographic trends and tries to turn the calendar back 90 years or so except for technology.  

Quote:thanx for the info. l was thinking more along the lines of staying out of WW2, & after reading the above list if names they definitely wouldn't of aligned with Hitler

Quote:no but he was into eugenics. That's what he admired Hitler for. Until he saw the death camps, that is

Quote:in addition to Silver Legion there was also the Bundt. lnfact one of the largest Nazi rallies ever was held in.... Madison Square Gardens. By the Bundt.

Quote:-- agreed. l think it cheapens the Nazis & what they did. Their horror show should not be made mundane.

Quote:As for the fascism, we already live in a fascist state. But then l go by the Mussolini school of fascism, which is govt of the corporations, by the corporations, & for the corporations (ok, l'm paraphrasing him but that's basically what he said) Under this definition, fascism has nothing to do with killing Jews or beating up gypsies & gays. That would be racism & bigotry

Quote:me neither. The Dems really screwed the pooch this last time round

Quote:If you are thinking of a real fascist to rule America, I would have picked Indiana Grand Dragon David Curtiss Stephenson.

(01-23-2017, 09:42 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

Eric Wrote:The voters chose Donald (a con man who had been a Republican candidate already in 2012)

-- the Donald didn't actually run in 2012:

http://mashable.com/2015/06/16/donald-trump-president-fake/#7SLw.can8aqn

Eric Wrote:over an honest to goodness sixties liberal activist.

-- except the DNC refused to run Bernie. lnfact they went out of their way to ensure they didn't have to 

Eric Wrote:Pelosi hasn't said any such thing. But I don't know who was elected yet to head the DNC. They need Ellison, I think.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/11329/pelosi-people-dont-want-new-direction-james-barrett