Cycles of the 4T

[Arkarch]

A few years back on the old forums, I proposed a thought about larger cycles than the four generation saeculum to help describe the nature of 4T conflicts.  Perhaps its a theory done before; I am just a casual student of generational theory.  The consideration is that there are pendulums alternating between hot and cold war, internal and external conflicts.  I am not talking about the Soviet-US Cold war which may be part of another cycle.

Current Crisis here in US - Internal Cold War
World War 2 - External Hot War
American Civil War - Internal Hot War
Revolutionary War - External Cold War (if viewed as a proxy battle between England and France)
Glorious Revolution - Internal Cold War (yes there were some battles)
Armada Crisis - External Hot War (England and Spain)
War of the Roses - Internal Hot War (between the houses)

Thats about all I have got into it.

[Warren Dew]

So Donald and Melania are William and Mary? Would that the solution could be so simple.

[Marypoza]

(11-12-2016, 04:15 PM)Arkarch Wrote: A few years back on the old forums, I proposed a thought about larger cycles than the four generation saeculum to help describe the nature of 4T conflicts.  Perhaps its a theory done before; I am just a casual student of generational theory.  The consideration is that there are pendulums alternating between hot and cold war, internal and external conflicts.  I am not talking about the Soviet-US Cold war which may be part of another cycle.

Current Crisis here in US - Internal Cold War
World War 2 - External Hot War
American Civil War - Internal Hot War
Revolutionary War - External Cold War (if viewed as a proxy battle between England and France)
Glorious Revolution - Internal Cold War (yes there were some battles)
Armada Crisis - External Hot War (England and Spain)
War of the Roses - Internal Hot War (between the houses)

Thats about all I have got into it.

-- l wouldn't call the Revoultion cold or external.There definitely were battles, & altho we don't think of it that way it was a civil war  between the Patriots who wanted to, ahem, Brexit & the Tories who did not. Yes each side had European back up, but it was still a civil war. Like Vietnam in the 60s. That was a civil war. We were interfereing in it but it was still a civil war

[Arkarch]

(11-12-2016, 04:29 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 04:15 PM)Arkarch Wrote: A few years back on the old forums, I proposed a thought about larger cycles than the four generation saeculum to help describe the nature of 4T conflicts.  Perhaps its a theory done before; I am just a casual student of generational theory.  The consideration is that there are pendulums alternating between hot and cold war, internal and external conflicts.  I am not talking about the Soviet-US Cold war which may be part of another cycle.

Current Crisis here in US - Internal Cold War
World War 2 - External Hot War
American Civil War - Internal Hot War
Revolutionary War - External Cold War (if viewed as a proxy battle between England and France)
Glorious Revolution - Internal Cold War (yes there were some battles)
Armada Crisis - External Hot War (England and Spain)
War of the Roses - Internal Hot War (between the houses)

Thats about all I have got into it.

-- l wouldn't call the Revoultion cold or external.There definitely were battles, & altho we don't think of it that way it was a civil war  between the Patriots who wanted to, ahem, Brexit & the Tories who did not. Yes each side had European back up, but it was still a civil war. Like Vietnam in the 60s. That was a civil war. We were interfereing in it but it was still a civil war

Well my argument on the Revolution is that without French support, it may have had a different outcome.   I suppose it comes down to British Resolve without the French interfering.   For us, yes, there were definitely different views and it could be considered a civil war.  I am looking at it more from the global view as two superpowers of the time battling each other indirectly.

[Eric the Green]

(11-12-2016, 04:15 PM)Arkarch Wrote: A few years back on the old forums, I proposed a thought about larger cycles than the four generation saeculum to help describe the nature of 4T conflicts.  Perhaps its a theory done before; I am just a casual student of generational theory.  The consideration is that there are pendulums alternating between hot and cold war, internal and external conflicts.  I am not talking about the Soviet-US Cold war which may be part of another cycle.

Current Crisis here in US - Internal Cold War
World War 2 - External Hot War
American Civil War - Internal Hot War
Revolutionary War - External Cold War (if viewed as a proxy battle between England and France)
Glorious Revolution - Internal Cold War (yes there were some battles)
Armada Crisis - External Hot War (England and Spain)
War of the Roses - Internal Hot War (between the houses)

Thats about all I have got into it.

It's a good idea. My earlier proposal, if the Left was to increase its power by the 2020s, was a minor rebellion by the right wing gun totin' anti-taxers that would be put down within a year or two. Not fully cold, but colder than the civil war. Now it looks like American voters may be hooked on Reaganomics forever, so the cold internal war may amount to protests like we see now that are easily shot down and people on the left killed or jailed, as a banana republic is established in full by the time of the 1T.

[Warren Dew]

(11-12-2016, 04:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So Donald and Melania are William and Mary?  Would that the solution could be so simple.

Let's look at this a little closer.

Protestants -> whites (or even white protestants)
Catholics -> immigrants  (or even Catholic immigrants)
James II Declaration of Indulgence -> Obama executive amnesty for immigrants
Glorious Revolution -> election of 2016

Retreat to Ireland -> Calexit?

I think I can believe this only if California really secedes.

[sheridanforbes]

I have been thinking about the super-saeculum idea since Trump won.  If I had really studied this, I should have been able to predict the Trump win.  But alas, I was as surprised as others.

I believe we are in the same "unraveling" super-saeculum as the Glorious Revolution.  The true "crisis" hasn't happened yet, just the catalyst.  The result of the Glorious Revolution put Catholicism to bed once and for all in England, something that the English had been dealing with since Henry VIII.

So what is America's core issue that we've been dealing with for years?

Look to the last Awakening.  It was and has been "human rights," even starting with the Bill of Rights.  Race as been front and center, but gender, sexual preference, and workers' rights also are included.

Trump isn't William or Mary.  He is James II.

James II brought Catholicism back, just like Trump is returning issues of race, gender, sex, and rights back to the 1950s.  Trump is the catalyst just like James II was.

Trump's victory looks like it awoke the Millennials, just like James II awoke the core Protestants to overthrow James II with William and Mary.

The sleeping giant has awoken.

[Emman85]

I think in the current 4T there will be some domestic unrest,semi civil war and a major international conflict, probably the climax itself.

This situation of both internal civil wars and external war is not that unusual in 4Ts, remember China had a civil war and fought in World War 2 and went back to civil war during its last 4T.

[2Legit2Quit]

(11-14-2016, 11:41 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 05:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 04:15 PM)Arkarch Wrote: A few years back on the old forums, I proposed a thought about larger cycles than the four generation saeculum to help describe the nature of 4T conflicts.  Perhaps its a theory done before; I am just a casual student of generational theory.  The consideration is that there are pendulums alternating between hot and cold war, internal and external conflicts.  I am not talking about the Soviet-US Cold war which may be part of another cycle.

Current Crisis here in US - Internal Cold War
World War 2 - External Hot War
American Civil War - Internal Hot War
Revolutionary War - External Cold War (if viewed as a proxy battle between England and France)
Glorious Revolution - Internal Cold War (yes there were some battles)
Armada Crisis - External Hot War (England and Spain)
War of the Roses - Internal Hot War (between the houses)

Thats about all I have got into it.

It's a good idea. My earlier proposal, if the Left was to increase its power by the 2020s, was a minor rebellion by the right wing gun totin' anti-taxers that would be put down within a year or two. Not fully cold, but colder than the civil war. Now it looks like American voters may be hooked on Reaganomics forever, so the cold internal war may amount to protests like we see now that are easily shot down and people on the left killed or jailed, as a banana republic is established in full by the time of the 1T.

Trump isn't doing Reaganomics. Alt-Right /= Reagan. Not even close.

Trump isn't even close to Reagan. Trump isn't even a Republican. 

Clinton is very close to Reagan, but Trump is more like a Molotov cocktail.

[Eric the Green]

(11-21-2016, 10:35 AM)2Legit2Quit Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 11:41 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 05:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 04:15 PM)Arkarch Wrote: A few years back on the old forums, I proposed a thought about larger cycles than the four generation saeculum to help describe the nature of 4T conflicts.  Perhaps its a theory done before; I am just a casual student of generational theory.  The consideration is that there are pendulums alternating between hot and cold war, internal and external conflicts.  I am not talking about the Soviet-US Cold war which may be part of another cycle.

Current Crisis here in US - Internal Cold War
World War 2 - External Hot War
American Civil War - Internal Hot War
Revolutionary War - External Cold War (if viewed as a proxy battle between England and France)
Glorious Revolution - Internal Cold War (yes there were some battles)
Armada Crisis - External Hot War (England and Spain)
War of the Roses - Internal Hot War (between the houses)

Thats about all I have got into it.

It's a good idea. My earlier proposal, if the Left was to increase its power by the 2020s, was a minor rebellion by the right wing gun totin' anti-taxers that would be put down within a year or two. Not fully cold, but colder than the civil war. Now it looks like American voters may be hooked on Reaganomics forever, so the cold internal war may amount to protests like we see now that are easily shot down and people on the left killed or jailed, as a banana republic is established in full by the time of the 1T.

Trump isn't doing Reaganomics. Alt-Right /= Reagan. Not even close.

Trump isn't even close to Reagan. Trump isn't even a Republican. 

Clinton is very close to Reagan, but Trump is more like a Molotov cocktail.

It's amazing that people (including the above two posters) could get that so completely wrong. And we'll be paying for this huge mistake for centuries. You got fooled, Mr. Legit. Very badly.

The alt-right and the Reagan right have Reaganomics in common. Trumponomics and Reaganomics have trickle-down, free market, libertarian economics in common. And especially where it hurts the most-- the environment we depend on for life, and the species we have no right to kill off, but are doing it. Hillary Clinton is poles apart from Reagan, but Trump is very much on the same team. Removing regulations will hurt the common man economically, very badly. Allow business to do what it wants, and we get hurt, very badly. Trump promises to remove two regulations for every one created. He is closing down the EPA, and other organizations that protect our health from bad products and working conditions. He is lowering taxes on the rich enormously, so they get even more wealth and power. This is the purest Reagan. Hillary would have done the opposite. And Hillary would have stopped the TPP too. And Trump isn't going to succeed in throwing out NAFTA.

If you can't see the target, you can't hit it. If you don't see that Trump is unleashing a war on the environment, and on the economic well-being of all of us, you can't see the target at all. Trump threw a molotov cocktail at the people, not the Establishment. He IS the Establishment; Hillary Clinton is NOT.

The enemy is entirely within. Internal Cold War. Thanks to people who mistook Clinton for Reagan, and voted in Trump, it's going to get much worse now. Let's hope it stays "cold," at least until Sessions starts shooting us down for speaking out. People who can't see what Assad did to his people, and blame it on the US, probably won't be able to see what Trump does to us. Living under a dictator is no fun. As Trump would say, "believe me!"

And a reminder, that Trump has no mandate. His margin in the swing states was small, and his losing margin in the country is still growing.

[Eric the Green]

(11-13-2016, 12:07 PM)sheridanforbes Wrote: I have been thinking about the super-saeculum idea since Trump won.  If I had really studied this, I should have been able to predict the Trump win.  But alas, I was as surprised as others.

I believe we are in the same "unraveling" super-saeculum as the Glorious Revolution.  The true "crisis" hasn't happened yet, just the catalyst.  The result of the Glorious Revolution put Catholicism to bed once and for all in England, something that the English had been dealing with since Henry VIII.

So what is America's core issue that we've been dealing with for years?

Look to the last Awakening.  It was and has been "human rights," even starting with the Bill of Rights.  Race as been front and center, but gender, sexual preference, and workers' rights also are included.

Trump isn't William or Mary.  He is James II.

James II brought Catholicism back, just like Trump is returning issues of race, gender, sex, and rights back to the 1950s.  Trump is the catalyst just like James II was.

Trump's victory looks like it awoke the Millennials, just like James II awoke the core Protestants to overthrow James II with William and Mary.

The sleeping giant has awoken.

Let's hope it stays awake, and that Trump's war on the environment is resisted as strongly as his war on racial and gender equality and human rights.

The people really blew it this election, big time. Especially the people in the rust best and upper midwest. They really, really blew it. The giant will now be up against a neanderthal Supreme Court, as well as Republicans installed at every level of government since 2010.

[disasterzone]

(11-21-2016, 11:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-13-2016, 12:07 PM)sheridanforbes Wrote: I have been thinking about the super-saeculum idea since Trump won.  If I had really studied this, I should have been able to predict the Trump win.  But alas, I was as surprised as others.

I believe we are in the same "unraveling" super-saeculum as the Glorious Revolution.  The true "crisis" hasn't happened yet, just the catalyst.  The result of the Glorious Revolution put Catholicism to bed once and for all in England, something that the English had been dealing with since Henry VIII.

So what is America's core issue that we've been dealing with for years?

Look to the last Awakening.  It was and has been "human rights," even starting with the Bill of Rights.  Race as been front and center, but gender, sexual preference, and workers' rights also are included.

Trump isn't William or Mary.  He is James II.

James II brought Catholicism back, just like Trump is returning issues of race, gender, sex, and rights back to the 1950s.  Trump is the catalyst just like James II was.

Trump's victory looks like it awoke the Millennials, just like James II awoke the core Protestants to overthrow James II with William and Mary.

The sleeping giant has awoken.

Let's hope it stays awake, and that Trump's war on the environment is resisted as strongly as his war on racial and gender equality and human rights.

The people really blew it this election, big time. Especially the people in the rust best and upper midwest. They really, really blew it. The giant will now be up against a neanderthal Supreme Court, as well as Republicans installed at every level of government since 2010.

When do you think this 4T will end? It's like my entire life has gone to waste.

[Eric the Green]

(11-21-2016, 12:15 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 11:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-13-2016, 12:07 PM)sheridanforbes Wrote: I have been thinking about the super-saeculum idea since Trump won.  If I had really studied this, I should have been able to predict the Trump win.  But alas, I was as surprised as others.

I believe we are in the same "unraveling" super-saeculum as the Glorious Revolution.  The true "crisis" hasn't happened yet, just the catalyst.  The result of the Glorious Revolution put Catholicism to bed once and for all in England, something that the English had been dealing with since Henry VIII.

So what is America's core issue that we've been dealing with for years?

Look to the last Awakening.  It was and has been "human rights," even starting with the Bill of Rights.  Race as been front and center, but gender, sexual preference, and workers' rights also are included.

Trump isn't William or Mary.  He is James II.

James II brought Catholicism back, just like Trump is returning issues of race, gender, sex, and rights back to the 1950s.  Trump is the catalyst just like James II was.

Trump's victory looks like it awoke the Millennials, just like James II awoke the core Protestants to overthrow James II with William and Mary.

The sleeping giant has awoken.

Let's hope it stays awake, and that Trump's war on the environment is resisted as strongly as his war on racial and gender equality and human rights.

The people really blew it this election, big time. Especially the people in the rust best and upper midwest. They really, really blew it. The giant will now be up against a neanderthal Supreme Court, as well as Republicans installed at every level of government since 2010.

When do you think this 4T will end? It's like my entire life has gone to waste.

You're a pretty young guy. A lifetime can be longer if we take care of ourselves. So don't worry, too much

I think this 4T will end in 2028-29 (I'm now in agreement with Mr. Neil Howe on that). Much farther to go. We certainly guaranteed that by "electing" the orange menace. Four more years of living in a regressive society, and probably more, before the 21st century has another chance to even begin. I know, it's depressing.

Mr prediction, though such is no guarantee, is that the year 2022 is a decisive shift toward progress and reform (though also perhaps even more civil strife). In CA, we at least have the joy of living in a progressive state, if not a progressive country. At least, if you like diversity and change.

[2Legit2Quit]

(11-21-2016, 11:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 10:35 AM)2Legit2Quit Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 11:41 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 05:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 04:15 PM)Arkarch Wrote: A few years back on the old forums, I proposed a thought about larger cycles than the four generation saeculum to help describe the nature of 4T conflicts.  Perhaps its a theory done before; I am just a casual student of generational theory.  The consideration is that there are pendulums alternating between hot and cold war, internal and external conflicts.  I am not talking about the Soviet-US Cold war which may be part of another cycle.

Current Crisis here in US - Internal Cold War
World War 2 - External Hot War
American Civil War - Internal Hot War
Revolutionary War - External Cold War (if viewed as a proxy battle between England and France)
Glorious Revolution - Internal Cold War (yes there were some battles)
Armada Crisis - External Hot War (England and Spain)
War of the Roses - Internal Hot War (between the houses)

Thats about all I have got into it.

It's a good idea. My earlier proposal, if the Left was to increase its power by the 2020s, was a minor rebellion by the right wing gun totin' anti-taxers that would be put down within a year or two. Not fully cold, but colder than the civil war. Now it looks like American voters may be hooked on Reaganomics forever, so the cold internal war may amount to protests like we see now that are easily shot down and people on the left killed or jailed, as a banana republic is established in full by the time of the 1T.

Trump isn't doing Reaganomics. Alt-Right /= Reagan. Not even close.

Trump isn't even close to Reagan. Trump isn't even a Republican. 

Clinton is very close to Reagan, but Trump is more like a Molotov cocktail.

It's amazing that people (including the above two posters) could get that so completely wrong. And we'll be paying for this huge mistake for centuries. You got fooled, Mr. Legit. Very badly.

The alt-right and the Reagan right have Reaganomics in common. Trumponomics and Reaganomics have trickle-down, free market, libertarian economics in common. And especially where it hurts the most-- the environment we depend on for life, and the species we have no right to kill off, but are doing it. Hillary Clinton is poles apart from Reagan, but Trump is very much on the same team. Removing regulations will hurt the common man economically, very badly. Allow business to do what it wants, and we get hurt, very badly. Trump promises to remove two regulations for every one created. He is closing down the EPA, and other organizations that protect our health from bad products and working conditions. He is lowering taxes on the rich enormously, so they get even more wealth and power. This is the purest Reagan. Hillary would have done the opposite. And Hillary would have stopped the TPP too. And Trump isn't going to succeed in throwing out NAFTA.

If you can't see the target, you can't hit it. If you don't see that Trump is unleashing a war on the environment, and on the economic well-being of all of us, you can't see the target at all. Trump threw a molotov cocktail at the people, not the Establishment. He IS the Establishment; Hillary Clinton is NOT.

The enemy is entirely within. Internal Cold War. Thanks to people who mistook Clinton for Reagan, and voted in Trump, it's going to get much worse now. Let's hope it stays "cold," at least until Sessions starts shooting us down for speaking out. People who can't see what Assad did to his people, and blame it on the US, probably won't be able to see what Trump does to us. Living under a dictator is no fun. As Trump would say, "believe me!"

And a reminder, that Trump has no mandate. His margin in the swing states was small, and his losing margin in the country is still growing.

I'm no trump fan, as you've implied. 

Clinton is pro tpp. 

Hillary is no friend to the environment. Look at standing rock. 

I have no horse in the race, I'm not interested in emotional appeals or BS.

[MillennialJim]

(11-21-2016, 12:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 12:15 PM)disasterzone Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 11:33 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-13-2016, 12:07 PM)sheridanforbes Wrote: I have been thinking about the super-saeculum idea since Trump won.  If I had really studied this, I should have been able to predict the Trump win.  But alas, I was as surprised as others.

I believe we are in the same "unraveling" super-saeculum as the Glorious Revolution.  The true "crisis" hasn't happened yet, just the catalyst.  The result of the Glorious Revolution put Catholicism to bed once and for all in England, something that the English had been dealing with since Henry VIII.

So what is America's core issue that we've been dealing with for years?

Look to the last Awakening.  It was and has been "human rights," even starting with the Bill of Rights.  Race as been front and center, but gender, sexual preference, and workers' rights also are included.

Trump isn't William or Mary.  He is James II.

James II brought Catholicism back, just like Trump is returning issues of race, gender, sex, and rights back to the 1950s.  Trump is the catalyst just like James II was.

Trump's victory looks like it awoke the Millennials, just like James II awoke the core Protestants to overthrow James II with William and Mary.

The sleeping giant has awoken.

Let's hope it stays awake, and that Trump's war on the environment is resisted as strongly as his war on racial and gender equality and human rights.

The people really blew it this election, big time. Especially the people in the rust best and upper midwest. They really, really blew it. The giant will now be up against a neanderthal Supreme Court, as well as Republicans installed at every level of government since 2010.

When do you think this 4T will end? It's like my entire life has gone to waste.

You're a pretty young guy. A lifetime can be longer if we take care of ourselves. So don't worry, too much

I think this 4T will end in 2028-29 (I'm now in agreement with Mr. Neil Howe on that). Much farther to go. We certainly guaranteed that by "electing" the orange menace. Four more years of living in a regressive society, and probably more, before the 21st century has another chance to even begin. I know, it's depressing.

Mr prediction, though such is no guarantee, is that the year 2022 is a decisive shift toward progress and reform (though also perhaps even more civil strife). In CA, we at least have the joy of living in a progressive state, if not a progressive country. At least, if you like diversity and change.

More and more in the past week I am thinking of the Sullan dictatorship of ancient Rome.  He was a "conservative" at heart who felt he had to destroy norms and radically restructure the system in order to save the republic.  After he died, his successors unwound many of his "reforms" and eventually the successors of those Marian novus homos had their day.  Unfortunately, we know where the cycle of escalations ended.

The Obama years were the opening act.  The Trump years begins the second act.  We're a ways off from the conclusion of this long course we have been on.

[Eric the Green]

(11-21-2016, 02:23 PM)2Legit2Quit Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 11:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 10:35 AM)2Legit2Quit Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 11:41 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 05:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's a good idea. My earlier proposal, if the Left was to increase its power by the 2020s, was a minor rebellion by the right wing gun totin' anti-taxers that would be put down within a year or two. Not fully cold, but colder than the civil war. Now it looks like American voters may be hooked on Reaganomics forever, so the cold internal war may amount to protests like we see now that are easily shot down and people on the left killed or jailed, as a banana republic is established in full by the time of the 1T.

Trump isn't doing Reaganomics. Alt-Right /= Reagan. Not even close.

Trump isn't even close to Reagan. Trump isn't even a Republican. 

Clinton is very close to Reagan, but Trump is more like a Molotov cocktail.

It's amazing that people (including the above two posters) could get that so completely wrong. And we'll be paying for this huge mistake for centuries. You got fooled, Mr. Legit. Very badly.

The alt-right and the Reagan right have Reaganomics in common. Trumponomics and Reaganomics have trickle-down, free market, libertarian economics in common. And especially where it hurts the most-- the environment we depend on for life, and the species we have no right to kill off, but are doing it. Hillary Clinton is poles apart from Reagan, but Trump is very much on the same team. Removing regulations will hurt the common man economically, very badly. Allow business to do what it wants, and we get hurt, very badly. Trump promises to remove two regulations for every one created. He is closing down the EPA, and other organizations that protect our health from bad products and working conditions. He is lowering taxes on the rich enormously, so they get even more wealth and power. This is the purest Reagan. Hillary would have done the opposite. And Hillary would have stopped the TPP too. And Trump isn't going to succeed in throwing out NAFTA.

If you can't see the target, you can't hit it. If you don't see that Trump is unleashing a war on the environment, and on the economic well-being of all of us, you can't see the target at all. Trump threw a molotov cocktail at the people, not the Establishment. He IS the Establishment; Hillary Clinton is NOT.

The enemy is entirely within. Internal Cold War. Thanks to people who mistook Clinton for Reagan, and voted in Trump, it's going to get much worse now. Let's hope it stays "cold," at least until Sessions starts shooting us down for speaking out. People who can't see what Assad did to his people, and blame it on the US, probably won't be able to see what Trump does to us. Living under a dictator is no fun. As Trump would say, "believe me!"

And a reminder, that Trump has no mandate. His margin in the swing states was small, and his losing margin in the country is still growing.

I'm no trump fan, as you've implied. 

Clinton is pro tpp. 

Hillary is no friend to the environment. Look at standing rock. 

I have no horse in the race, I'm not interested in emotional appeals or BS.

I understand, I know you're not a Trump fan. But it's the way elections work. This year, if you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, you were approving of or accepting Donald Trump. That's the way it worked this year.

No, Clinton repudiated and promised to disapprove the TPP. It's funny how people don't keep up with these things. It really costs us, when we end up with another dufus GOP president because we fail to do so.

Hillary was a friend of the environment. Unlike Trump, who called it a hoax, she committed to fighting climate change and accepts the science. Again, it's not a question of emotional appeals, but of facts. I don't know what the resistance to the dakota access pipeline has to do with Hillary; she committed to opposing the XL.

The people cannot make progress if they can't see straight about the candidates running for president. Unfortunately, Americans vote on personality and emotional connection. They don't vote for intellectual policy wonks. Democrats will need to remember that fact.

They have a long list of examples to remind them: Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Adlai Stevenson come to mind.

[Galen]

(11-21-2016, 03:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 02:23 PM)2Legit2Quit Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 11:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 10:35 AM)2Legit2Quit Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 11:41 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Trump isn't doing Reaganomics. Alt-Right /= Reagan. Not even close.

Trump isn't even close to Reagan. Trump isn't even a Republican. 

Clinton is very close to Reagan, but Trump is more like a Molotov cocktail.

It's amazing that people (including the above two posters) could get that so completely wrong. And we'll be paying for this huge mistake for centuries. You got fooled, Mr. Legit. Very badly.

The alt-right and the Reagan right have Reaganomics in common. Trumponomics and Reaganomics have trickle-down, free market, libertarian economics in common. And especially where it hurts the most-- the environment we depend on for life, and the species we have no right to kill off, but are doing it. Hillary Clinton is poles apart from Reagan, but Trump is very much on the same team. Removing regulations will hurt the common man economically, very badly. Allow business to do what it wants, and we get hurt, very badly. Trump promises to remove two regulations for every one created. He is closing down the EPA, and other organizations that protect our health from bad products and working conditions. He is lowering taxes on the rich enormously, so they get even more wealth and power. This is the purest Reagan. Hillary would have done the opposite. And Hillary would have stopped the TPP too. And Trump isn't going to succeed in throwing out NAFTA.

If you can't see the target, you can't hit it. If you don't see that Trump is unleashing a war on the environment, and on the economic well-being of all of us, you can't see the target at all. Trump threw a molotov cocktail at the people, not the Establishment. He IS the Establishment; Hillary Clinton is NOT.

The enemy is entirely within. Internal Cold War. Thanks to people who mistook Clinton for Reagan, and voted in Trump, it's going to get much worse now. Let's hope it stays "cold," at least until Sessions starts shooting us down for speaking out. People who can't see what Assad did to his people, and blame it on the US, probably won't be able to see what Trump does to us. Living under a dictator is no fun. As Trump would say, "believe me!"

And a reminder, that Trump has no mandate. His margin in the swing states was small, and his losing margin in the country is still growing.

I'm no trump fan, as you've implied. 

Clinton is pro tpp. 

Hillary is no friend to the environment. Look at standing rock. 

I have no horse in the race, I'm not interested in emotional appeals or BS.

No, Clinton repudiated and promised to disapprove the TPP. It's funny how people don't keep up with these things. It really costs us, when we end up with another dufus GOP president because we fail to do so.

Hillary's stated beliefs are those that get her elected.  Her actual beliefs depend on who is writing the check.

[2Legit2Quit]

(11-21-2016, 03:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 02:23 PM)2Legit2Quit Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 11:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 10:35 AM)2Legit2Quit Wrote:

(11-14-2016, 11:41 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Trump isn't doing Reaganomics. Alt-Right /= Reagan. Not even close.

Trump isn't even close to Reagan. Trump isn't even a Republican. 

Clinton is very close to Reagan, but Trump is more like a Molotov cocktail.

It's amazing that people (including the above two posters) could get that so completely wrong. And we'll be paying for this huge mistake for centuries. You got fooled, Mr. Legit. Very badly.

The alt-right and the Reagan right have Reaganomics in common. Trumponomics and Reaganomics have trickle-down, free market, libertarian economics in common. And especially where it hurts the most-- the environment we depend on for life, and the species we have no right to kill off, but are doing it. Hillary Clinton is poles apart from Reagan, but Trump is very much on the same team. Removing regulations will hurt the common man economically, very badly. Allow business to do what it wants, and we get hurt, very badly. Trump promises to remove two regulations for every one created. He is closing down the EPA, and other organizations that protect our health from bad products and working conditions. He is lowering taxes on the rich enormously, so they get even more wealth and power. This is the purest Reagan. Hillary would have done the opposite. And Hillary would have stopped the TPP too. And Trump isn't going to succeed in throwing out NAFTA.

If you can't see the target, you can't hit it. If you don't see that Trump is unleashing a war on the environment, and on the economic well-being of all of us, you can't see the target at all. Trump threw a molotov cocktail at the people, not the Establishment. He IS the Establishment; Hillary Clinton is NOT.

The enemy is entirely within. Internal Cold War. Thanks to people who mistook Clinton for Reagan, and voted in Trump, it's going to get much worse now. Let's hope it stays "cold," at least until Sessions starts shooting us down for speaking out. People who can't see what Assad did to his people, and blame it on the US, probably won't be able to see what Trump does to us. Living under a dictator is no fun. As Trump would say, "believe me!"

And a reminder, that Trump has no mandate. His margin in the swing states was small, and his losing margin in the country is still growing.

I'm no trump fan, as you've implied. 

Clinton is pro tpp. 

Hillary is no friend to the environment. Look at standing rock. 

I have no horse in the race, I'm not interested in emotional appeals or BS.

I understand, I know you're not a Trump fan. But it's the way elections work. This year, if you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, you were approving of or accepting Donald Trump. That's the way it worked this year.

No, Clinton repudiated and promised to disapprove the TPP. It's funny how people don't keep up with these things. It really costs us, when we end up with another dufus GOP president because we fail to do so.

Hillary was a friend of the environment. Unlike Trump, who called it a hoax, she committed to fighting climate change and accepts the science. Again, it's not a question of emotional appeals, but of facts. I don't know what the resistance to the dakota access pipeline has to do with Hillary; she committed to opposing the XL.

The people cannot make progress if they can't see straight about the candidates running for president. Unfortunately, Americans vote on personality and emotional connection. They don't vote for intellectual policy wonks. Democrats will need to remember that fact.

They have a long list of examples to remind them: Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Adlai Stevenson come to mind.

I appreciate your thoughts but I didn't and still don't believe a word Hillary Clinton said. Podesta's emails give a candid view of a campaign that, as Obama once said, will say anything and do nothing. A pack of two faced liars if I've ever seen one, that believe environmentalists, for one, are whackos. 

I think a trump vs Hillary comparison is beside the point. With both candidates, civil war would be likely. Division is high and successful politicians will address the issues of class and power as we complete the 4T. 

The Dems are in deep trouble. If they do not transfom, trump will coast to reelection. Hard to believe, I know, but he's got his finger on the pulse. The Dems are out of touch. 

It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

[Eric the Green]

(11-21-2016, 04:49 PM)2Legit2Quit Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 03:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 02:23 PM)2Legit2Quit Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 11:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 10:35 AM)2Legit2Quit Wrote: Trump isn't even close to Reagan. Trump isn't even a Republican. 

Clinton is very close to Reagan, but Trump is more like a Molotov cocktail.

It's amazing that people (including the above two posters) could get that so completely wrong. And we'll be paying for this huge mistake for centuries. You got fooled, Mr. Legit. Very badly.

The alt-right and the Reagan right have Reaganomics in common. Trumponomics and Reaganomics have trickle-down, free market, libertarian economics in common. And especially where it hurts the most-- the environment we depend on for life, and the species we have no right to kill off, but are doing it. Hillary Clinton is poles apart from Reagan, but Trump is very much on the same team. Removing regulations will hurt the common man economically, very badly. Allow business to do what it wants, and we get hurt, very badly. Trump promises to remove two regulations for every one created. He is closing down the EPA, and other organizations that protect our health from bad products and working conditions. He is lowering taxes on the rich enormously, so they get even more wealth and power. This is the purest Reagan. Hillary would have done the opposite. And Hillary would have stopped the TPP too. And Trump isn't going to succeed in throwing out NAFTA.

If you can't see the target, you can't hit it. If you don't see that Trump is unleashing a war on the environment, and on the economic well-being of all of us, you can't see the target at all. Trump threw a molotov cocktail at the people, not the Establishment. He IS the Establishment; Hillary Clinton is NOT.

The enemy is entirely within. Internal Cold War. Thanks to people who mistook Clinton for Reagan, and voted in Trump, it's going to get much worse now. Let's hope it stays "cold," at least until Sessions starts shooting us down for speaking out. People who can't see what Assad did to his people, and blame it on the US, probably won't be able to see what Trump does to us. Living under a dictator is no fun. As Trump would say, "believe me!"

And a reminder, that Trump has no mandate. His margin in the swing states was small, and his losing margin in the country is still growing.

I'm no trump fan, as you've implied. 

Clinton is pro tpp. 

Hillary is no friend to the environment. Look at standing rock. 

I have no horse in the race, I'm not interested in emotional appeals or BS.

I understand, I know you're not a Trump fan. But it's the way elections work. This year, if you didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, you were approving of or accepting Donald Trump. That's the way it worked this year.

No, Clinton repudiated and promised to disapprove the TPP. It's funny how people don't keep up with these things. It really costs us, when we end up with another dufus GOP president because we fail to do so.

Hillary was a friend of the environment. Unlike Trump, who called it a hoax, she committed to fighting climate change and accepts the science. Again, it's not a question of emotional appeals, but of facts. I don't know what the resistance to the dakota access pipeline has to do with Hillary; she committed to opposing the XL.

The people cannot make progress if they can't see straight about the candidates running for president. Unfortunately, Americans vote on personality and emotional connection. They don't vote for intellectual policy wonks. Democrats will need to remember that fact.

They have a long list of examples to remind them: Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Adlai Stevenson come to mind.

I appreciate your thoughts but I didn't and still don't believe a word Hillary Clinton said. Podesta's emails give a candid view of a campaign that, as Obama once said, will say anything and do nothing. A pack of two faced liars if I've ever seen one, that believe environmentalists, for one, are whackos. 

I think a trump vs Hillary comparison is beside the point. With both candidates, civil war would be likely. Division is high and successful politicians will address the issues of class and power as we complete the 4T. 

The Dems are in deep trouble. If they do not transfom, trump will coast to reelection. Hard to believe, I know, but he's got his finger on the pulse. The Dems are out of touch. 

It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

OK. I just believe public commitments have more validity than private gossip.

[Mikebert]

(11-12-2016, 06:20 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-12-2016, 04:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: So Donald and Melania are William and Mary?  Would that the solution could be so simple.

Let's look at this a little closer.

Protestants -> whites (or even white protestants)
Catholics -> immigrants  (or even Catholic immigrants)
James II Declaration of Indulgence -> Obama executive amnesty for immigrants
Glorious Revolution -> election of 2016

Retreat to Ireland -> Calexit?

I think I can believe this only if California really secedes.

I would point out that the Glorious Revolution involved a foreign invasion that installed a rival head of state (William, who was the Dutch head of state) in place of the British ruler (Charles).  The analogy would be  Putin = William, Trump = William Sydney,  Hillary Clinton = Charles II, Obama = James II.