Countdown to a Free America

[Eric the Green]

(04-08-2018, 11:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: FDR would be a Republican today. I'm surprised blues aren't calling for the removal of his monument too like their doing with Jefferson.

No, FDR would be a radical green or democratic socialist today. He would probably be to the left of Bernie Sanders. We have regressed so far backward that FDR would be on the far left today.

[pbrower2a]

(04-08-2018, 11:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-08-2018, 01:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The 2016 election, if not the result of political shenanigans,  is the result of a demagogue making promises that he can never achieve. The 2020 election will make the current President electorally accountable.

A scenario in which farm income plummets and the stock market loses half its valuation could give America this sort of election:



Donald Trump (R, inc) 54
conservative Mormon  favorite son (I) 6
the new FDR (D) 478

This prediction depends upon some contingencies yet to happen that I cannot rule out.

FDR would be a Republican today. I'm surprised blues aren't calling for the removal of his monument too like their doing with Jefferson.

Jefferson had slaves (even if he was a relatively-gentle slave-owner). FDR may have emancipated even more slaves than did Lincoln, and from even-worse slavery. The Nazis may have been the worst slave-masters ever, and the thug regime in Japan was nearly as horrible.

Jefferson's soaring rhetoric on freedom may have been hypocritical, but that sort of rhetoric came of use to those who intended to abolish slavery. As I approach old age I take another look at hypocrisy; hypocrisy is the intermediate stage between complete denial of moral truth and the acceptance of that truth in full. Hypocrisy is an attempt to deny parts of a great virtue.

Let's remember that Jefferson did something that many Southern slave-masters did: they owned a black woman whom the man treated much like a wife, had children by her, treated his children indulgently, and paradoxically used the institution of slavery to protect his 'property'. After all, it wasn't much of a crime to kidnap a free black man and consign him to slavery -- but it was a great crime to steal a slave from an owner. But it was usually 'free men of color' who did this.

Sally Hemings, Jefferson's quasi-wife, was very light-skinned (3/4 white, and people 3/4 white and 1/4 black can look very light)... and was a cousin of the white wife that he survived. She was also very intelligent, and for someone as brilliant as Jefferson, that mattered greatly in companionship, and probably even more than did skin color not quite in the white range. Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings, and they were 7/8 white. Some of them passed, and Jefferson emancipated them and gave them passage to the western frontier.

I do genealogy, and Thomas Jefferson is a distant relative. (It is too bad that the genealogy site Rootsweb.com on which I have this is down, or I might show the connection). I cannot conclude that the children of Sally Hemings are anything other than his. What Jefferson did was what few white slave-owners did; he did what many free black men did.

Back to the topic of hypocrisy: there are but two sorts of people free of it: saints and thoroughly-evil people. It is regrettable that for every Francis of Assisi there are dozens of the likes of the late (executed) serial killer Alton Coleman, a horrid person who never claimed to be anything humane or decent... or even innocent. People can improve from their own, or at least ancestral hypocrisy. People rarely go from evil to good.

[beechnut79]

(04-09-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-08-2018, 11:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: FDR would be a Republican today. I'm surprised blues aren't calling for the removal of his monument too like their doing with Jefferson.

No, FDR would be a radical green or democratic socialist today. He would probably be to the left of Bernie Sanders. We have regressed so far backward that FDR would be on the far left today.

I have heard that Eisenhower and Jerry Ford both are to the left of most Democrats these days. Do you feel that the latter was the last moderate Republican to get anywhere?

[pbrower2a]

(04-11-2018, 12:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(04-09-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-08-2018, 11:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: FDR would be a Republican today. I'm surprised blues aren't calling for the removal of his monument too like their doing with Jefferson.

No, FDR would be a radical green or democratic socialist today. He would probably be to the left of Bernie Sanders. We have regressed so far backward that FDR would be on the far left today.

I have heard that Eisenhower and Jerry Ford both are to the left of most Democrats these days. Do you feel that the latter was the last moderate Republican to get anywhere?

It is unwise in the extreme to try to discern what some person from the past would think on contemporary politics or 'issues'. What sort of political figure would Napoleon Bonaparte be today? That is an absurd question in the extreme. He may have been a liberal reformer by the standards of the time, and in a speculative history, the best thing for most of Europe would have been to accept his political reforms while rejecting his personality. We cannot know how Karl Marx would have dealt with technological changes that mandated that the capitalist class make a consumer class out of the theretofore exploited and abused proletariat.  Even with someone who could be alive (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), we cannot say how he would stand on same-sex marriage. A man of his time, he probably saw homosexuality as absurd and vile back in the 1960s. But he has been dead for half a century, and we cannot assume that he would have gone along with the idea that same-sex rights are human rights... let alone when.

Of course Donald Trump is so reactionary that he would seem happier in the 1920s than in any subsequent generation. Had he lived in the 1850s would Donald Trump want America to rejoin the British empire? That is an absurd question in the extreme.

Donald Trump is the dictionary definition of a reactionary.The economic reforms of FDR have reshaped America in ways that preclude any return to earlier times. The 1920s were a marvelous time for the economic elites, but not so great for anyone else. Life expectancy was decidedly shorter, especially for laborers. The automobiles and roads were far more dangerous than what we would now tolerate. Race relations were simple: one was a Yankee WASP or one was a lesser person with a rigid hierarchy in tow. Old people in industrial occupations typically worked until they dropped dead of old age (heart attack, stroke) or, worse, got killed in industrial accidents while perhaps taking other along with them to the Great Hereafter. Financial shenanigans were the norm,and bank balances were uninsured. Billowing smoke from factories and vile effluents in waters were alleged signs of progress instead of noxious pollution that we would not tolerate today. Workers of all kinds toiled far longer for much less -- and profits were a bigger share of GNP. The only thing better about that time, so far as I could tell, us that real estate was not then so expensive and commutes were not so long. Of course there were far fewer Americans. Note that I said nothing about technology; medicine (before among other things, antibiotics) was primitive by current standards -- and awful --- but most people today would adapt more readily to 1920s technology (except in medicine) more readily than they would have adjusted to the sixty-to-seventy hour workweeks. The bathtub gin and moonshine available in the areas that the Feds missed during Prohibition were as easily poison as illicit delight.

Neither Eisenhower not Ford really challenged the New Deal. They were not fools. Donald Trump is a fool and a reactionary.

[Eric the Green]

(04-11-2018, 12:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(04-09-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-08-2018, 11:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: FDR would be a Republican today. I'm surprised blues aren't calling for the removal of his monument too like their doing with Jefferson.

No, FDR would be a radical green or democratic socialist today. He would probably be to the left of Bernie Sanders. We have regressed so far backward that FDR would be on the far left today.

I have heard that Eisenhower and Jerry Ford both are to the left of most Democrats these days. Do you feel that the latter was the last moderate Republican to get anywhere?

I would agree that Eisenhower was the last moderate Republican to get anywhere politically, although Gerry Ford appointed moderate Nelson Rockefeller as his vice-president. Also, Richard Nixon was moderate on some issues and did some good things, but his main thrust was to push America to the right. Gerry Ford was a conservative who did little but administer vetoes. Since then, Republicans and their presidents have veered ever more rightward. We need to make them pay for this.

[David Horn]

(04-11-2018, 12:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(04-09-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-08-2018, 11:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: FDR would be a Republican today. I'm surprised blues aren't calling for the removal of his monument too like their doing with Jefferson.

No, FDR would be a radical green or democratic socialist today. He would probably be to the left of Bernie Sanders. We have regressed so far backward that FDR would be on the far left today.

I have heard that Eisenhower and Jerry Ford both are to the left of most Democrats these days. Do you feel that the latter was the last moderate Republican to get anywhere?

The concept of Left and Right has so thoroughly changed over the last several decades that it's hard to use those terms to compare historical and current politicians with one another.  Worse, neither party is even vaguely united. The GOP has a Trumpian-Populist wing and a Pro-business-small government wing.  The Dems have a wing consisting of a disconnected coalition of mostly disadvantaged social groups, a Neo-Liberal wing and one that can be called liberal-populist.  Neither party has a coherent message, with the Dems the least coherent of the two.

If the Dems win big in November, it may be a Pyrrhic victory.  With politicians representing all three wings (and a few standing outside the mainstream entirely), show me how they will accomplish anything more productive than fighting amongst themselves.

[Eric the Green]

(04-19-2018, 11:34 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-11-2018, 12:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(04-09-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-08-2018, 11:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: FDR would be a Republican today. I'm surprised blues aren't calling for the removal of his monument too like their doing with Jefferson.

No, FDR would be a radical green or democratic socialist today. He would probably be to the left of Bernie Sanders. We have regressed so far backward that FDR would be on the far left today.

I have heard that Eisenhower and Jerry Ford both are to the left of most Democrats these days. Do you feel that the latter was the last moderate Republican to get anywhere?

The concept of Left and Right has so thoroughly changed over the last several decades that it's hard to use those terms to compare historical and current politicians with one another.  Worse, neither party is even vaguely united. The GOP has a Trumpian-Populist wing and a Pro-business-small government wing.  The Dems have a wing consisting of a disconnected coalition of mostly disadvantaged social groups, a Neo-Liberal wing and one that can be called liberal-populist.  Neither party has a coherent message, with the Dems the least coherent of the two.

If the Dems win big in November, it may be a Pyrrhic victory.  With politicians representing all three wings (and a few standing outside the mainstream entirely), show me how they will accomplish anything more productive than fighting amongst themselves.

So far, the Trump wing continues to support the actual Trump, who has pretty much deferred to the pro-business small government wing. Trump's recent tariff tough talk and a few actions have satisfied the so-called populist wing's aspirations, which is populist ONLY in its anti-free-trade positions. But even then, he is backtracking on this rather substantially, only just weeks after going there. The other big aspect of the Trump wing is not populist, but closet racist and openly xenophobic. That is not populist at all, but does appeal to popular fears and prejudices, which alarms some in the pro-business wing. The GOP has a third wing too, the religious right, which is somewhat dormant but not absent, though it has (Mormons excepted) mostly climbed into bed with the Trump wing.

The Democratic disadvantaged social groups wing, sometimes called left identity politics, is somewhat but not fully distinct from the populist liberal wing, which seeks the social services and regulations opposed by the pro-business anti-government wing. So these two wings are both polarized against the Trump and pro-business (libertarian economics) wings of the GOP. Democrats are not neo-liberals; that's the same as the pro-business wing of the GOP. But some Democrats are more moderate on the real populist or neo-socialist issues, and thus might incorrectly be called neo-liberal. These are just center-leftists or 1990s-style new democrats. The secular, pro-science wing of the Democrats, opposed to the religious right, are the Democratic practitioners of the culture wars, which could be lumped in with the identity politics populists that focus on disadvantaged groups, since they have the same opponents among the racists and the religious right adherents who are frequently the same prejudiced and fearful people, especially in the South.

Sure, the Democrats can work together, since they have the same opponents; those who represent the 1% and anti-government social action. The resentment of welfare given to disadvantaged groups cements the religious right and racist xenophobes together with the pro-business wing that hates social government and taxes. The Democrats then need to cement together the disadvantaged groups (a long but more accurate word than "minorities") with those who are only economically disadvantaged, because the policies for solution are the same for both, and the policies that are the problem are the same too. But just taking the House will not be enough to do anything more than put a few more roadblocks in the path of Trump's great america again. Nothing more can be expected from that.

[Another Xer]

(04-19-2018, 11:34 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-11-2018, 12:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(04-09-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-08-2018, 11:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: FDR would be a Republican today. I'm surprised blues aren't calling for the removal of his monument too like their doing with Jefferson.

No, FDR would be a radical green or democratic socialist today. He would probably be to the left of Bernie Sanders. We have regressed so far backward that FDR would be on the far left today.

I have heard that Eisenhower and Jerry Ford both are to the left of most Democrats these days. Do you feel that the latter was the last moderate Republican to get anywhere?

The concept of Left and Right has so thoroughly changed over the last several decades that it's hard to use those terms to compare historical and current politicians with one another.  Worse, neither party is even vaguely united. The GOP has a Trumpian-Populist wing and a Pro-business-small government wing.  The Dems have a wing consisting of a disconnected coalition of mostly disadvantaged social groups, a Neo-Liberal wing and one that can be called liberal-populist.  Neither party has a coherent message, with the Dems the least coherent of the two.

If the Dems win big in November, it may be a Pyrrhic victory.  With politicians representing all three wings (and a few standing outside the mainstream entirely), show me how they will accomplish anything more productive than fighting amongst themselves.

Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades.  Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie.  Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals.  Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions.  Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.  

Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).

[Eric the Green]

Yes indeed. And I think we'll need better candidates than Joe and Elizabeth.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-19-2018, 11:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: The concept of Left and Right has so thoroughly changed over the last several decades that it's hard to use those terms to compare historical and current politicians with one another.  Worse, neither party is even vaguely united. The GOP has a Trumpian-Populist wing and a Pro-business-small government wing.  The Dems have a wing consisting of a disconnected coalition of mostly disadvantaged social groups, a Neo-Liberal wing and one that can be called liberal-populist.  Neither party has a coherent message, with the Dems the least coherent of the two.

If the Dems win big in November, it may be a Pyrrhic victory.  With politicians representing all three wings (and a few standing outside the mainstream entirely), show me how they will accomplish anything more productive than fighting amongst themselves.

The concept of Left and Right is only useful and commonly acceptable when speaking with Democrats and their leftist supporters.

[Eric the Green]

Sure, when Republicans just speak with each other, it's all Right, so no Left and Right applies!

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-19-2018, 03:15 PM)Another Xer Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 11:34 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-11-2018, 12:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(04-09-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-08-2018, 11:31 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: FDR would be a Republican today. I'm surprised blues aren't calling for the removal of his monument too like their doing with Jefferson.

No, FDR would be a radical green or democratic socialist today. He would probably be to the left of Bernie Sanders. We have regressed so far backward that FDR would be on the far left today.

I have heard that Eisenhower and Jerry Ford both are to the left of most Democrats these days. Do you feel that the latter was the last moderate Republican to get anywhere?

The concept of Left and Right has so thoroughly changed over the last several decades that it's hard to use those terms to compare historical and current politicians with one another.  Worse, neither party is even vaguely united. The GOP has a Trumpian-Populist wing and a Pro-business-small government wing.  The Dems have a wing consisting of a disconnected coalition of mostly disadvantaged social groups, a Neo-Liberal wing and one that can be called liberal-populist.  Neither party has a coherent message, with the Dems the least coherent of the two.

If the Dems win big in November, it may be a Pyrrhic victory.  With politicians representing all three wings (and a few standing outside the mainstream entirely), show me how they will accomplish anything more productive than fighting amongst themselves.

Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades.  Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie.  Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals.  Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions.  Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.  

Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).

Hillery and Bernie have lots of differences. Hillery is the usual establishment Democrat. She's a member of the axis of evil, Neocon-Neoliberal sort. Bernie is a populist , although he has some trace of taking establishment positions.

NeoCon: is a label I affix to someone who supports stupid shit like the US is the "exceptional nation", likes to suck'Israel's cock,
huge military budgets, bases strewn the globe over, supports regime change, and the new evil empire basically.

NeoLiberal:  is a label I affix to someone who supports global capital flows, knocking down trade barriers, knocking down nation state laws against cartels, labor exploitation, pollution, strip mining a nation's economy in general.  These people are truly evil, since this ideology is trashing the earth.  The results of this ideology are that there are just inputs and outputs to transnationals in their quest for profit. In fact, the earth is just a huge sewer for their products when folks are done with them. The earth of course is a sewer for strip mining natural resources , pollution, and landfills.

SJW's/snowflakes: Whiny ass people who (((obsess))) over minutia, imho. 

 I'd love a combo of Republican and Democrat populists because I'd like all of the Democrat populist positions along with the fact I think we need a nation state to protect against multinationals and unrestrained capital flows. The Republican populists have the right idea on border control, but they need to drop tossing folks in detention for months on end. I can go for any sort of compromise on securing the border in exchange for a path to citizenship for those are here. Restricting future immigration needs to be permanent though. A worker's bill of rights which extends the minimum wage to all persons along with REAL-ID along with some punitive fines for employers who hire illegals. The pull part of illegal immigration needs fixing just as much as pull. On the push side, I'd love to see the US empire crash and burn so Latin America can chart its own destiny. Transnationals are ruining small farms and others and that's another reason for illegal immigration. Finally, I'd get rid of the war on drugs which should also help Latin America.

I find the obsession with disadvantaged groups to be symbolism over substance as well.  Like when the fuck are all of these snowflakes gonna start talking about real stuff like the prison industrial complex, defacto debtor's prisons where folks rot , just because they can't make bail,  lead poisoning in places like Flint, folks with no proper waste disposal like poor folk in the South, etc. ?

The status quo can't last forever since is isn't sustainable or resilient.

[Another Xer]

(04-19-2018, 08:02 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 03:15 PM)Another Xer Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 11:34 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-11-2018, 12:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(04-09-2018, 01:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, FDR would be a radical green or democratic socialist today. He would probably be to the left of Bernie Sanders. We have regressed so far backward that FDR would be on the far left today.

I have heard that Eisenhower and Jerry Ford both are to the left of most Democrats these days. Do you feel that the latter was the last moderate Republican to get anywhere?

The concept of Left and Right has so thoroughly changed over the last several decades that it's hard to use those terms to compare historical and current politicians with one another.  Worse, neither party is even vaguely united. The GOP has a Trumpian-Populist wing and a Pro-business-small government wing.  The Dems have a wing consisting of a disconnected coalition of mostly disadvantaged social groups, a Neo-Liberal wing and one that can be called liberal-populist.  Neither party has a coherent message, with the Dems the least coherent of the two.

If the Dems win big in November, it may be a Pyrrhic victory.  With politicians representing all three wings (and a few standing outside the mainstream entirely), show me how they will accomplish anything more productive than fighting amongst themselves.

Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades.  Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie.  Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals.  Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions.  Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.  

Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).

Hillery and Bernie have lots of differences. Hillery is the usual establishment Democrat. She's a member of the axis of evil, Neocon-Neoliberal sort. Bernie is a populist , although he has some trace of taking establishment positions.

NeoCon: is a label I affix to someone who supports stupid shit like the US is the "exceptional nation", likes to suck'Israel's cock,
huge military budgets, bases strewn the globe over, supports regime change, and the new evil empire basically.

NeoLiberal:  is a label I affix to someone who supports global capital flows, knocking down trade barriers, knocking down nation state laws against cartels, labor exploitation, pollution, strip mining a nation's economy in general.  These people are truly evil, since this ideology is trashing the earth.  The results of this ideology are that there are just inputs and outputs to transnationals in their quest for profit. In fact, the earth is just a huge sewer for their products when folks are done with them. The earth of course is a sewer for strip mining natural resources , pollution, and landfills.

SJW's/snowflakes: Whiny ass people who (((obsess))) over minutia, imho. 

 I'd love a combo of Republican and Democrat populists because I'd like all of the Democrat populist positions along with the fact I think we need a nation state to protect against multinationals and unrestrained capital flows. The Republican populists have the right idea on border control, but they need to drop tossing folks in detention for months on end. I can go for any sort of compromise on securing the border in exchange for a path to citizenship for those are here. Restricting future immigration needs to be permanent though. A worker's bill of rights which extends the minimum wage to all persons along with REAL-ID along with some punitive fines for employers who hire illegals. The pull part of illegal immigration needs fixing just as much as pull. On the push side, I'd love to see the US empire crash and burn so Latin America can chart its own destiny. Transnationals are ruining small farms and others and that's another reason for illegal immigration. Finally, I'd get rid of the war on drugs which should also help Latin America.

I find the obsession with disadvantaged groups to be symbolism over substance as well.  Like when the fuck are all of these snowflakes gonna start talking about real stuff like the prison industrial complex, defacto debtor's prisons where folks rot , just because they can't make bail,  lead poisoning in places like Flint, folks with no proper waste disposal like poor folk in the South, etc. ?

The status quo can't last forever since is isn't sustainable or resilient.

I stopped at "(Hillary's) a member of the axis of evil."

I'm sure you can do better.

[Eric the Green]

(04-19-2018, 08:17 PM)Another Xer Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 08:02 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 03:15 PM)Another Xer Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 11:34 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-11-2018, 12:54 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: I have heard that Eisenhower and Jerry Ford both are to the left of most Democrats these days. Do you feel that the latter was the last moderate Republican to get anywhere?

The concept of Left and Right has so thoroughly changed over the last several decades that it's hard to use those terms to compare historical and current politicians with one another.  Worse, neither party is even vaguely united. The GOP has a Trumpian-Populist wing and a Pro-business-small government wing.  The Dems have a wing consisting of a disconnected coalition of mostly disadvantaged social groups, a Neo-Liberal wing and one that can be called liberal-populist.  Neither party has a coherent message, with the Dems the least coherent of the two.

If the Dems win big in November, it may be a Pyrrhic victory.  With politicians representing all three wings (and a few standing outside the mainstream entirely), show me how they will accomplish anything more productive than fighting amongst themselves.

Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades.  Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie.  Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals.  Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions.  Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.  

Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).

Hillery and Bernie have lots of differences. Hillery is the usual establishment Democrat. She's a member of the axis of evil, Neocon-Neoliberal sort. Bernie is a populist , although he has some trace of taking establishment positions.

NeoCon: is a label I affix to someone who supports stupid shit like the US is the "exceptional nation", likes to suck'Israel's cock,
huge military budgets, bases strewn the globe over, supports regime change, and the new evil empire basically.

NeoLiberal:  is a label I affix to someone who supports global capital flows, knocking down trade barriers, knocking down nation state laws against cartels, labor exploitation, pollution, strip mining a nation's economy in general.  These people are truly evil, since this ideology is trashing the earth.  The results of this ideology are that there are just inputs and outputs to transnationals in their quest for profit. In fact, the earth is just a huge sewer for their products when folks are done with them. The earth of course is a sewer for strip mining natural resources , pollution, and landfills.

SJW's/snowflakes: Whiny ass people who (((obsess))) over minutia, imho. 

 I'd love a combo of Republican and Democrat populists because I'd like all of the Democrat populist positions along with the fact I think we need a nation state to protect against multinationals and unrestrained capital flows. The Republican populists have the right idea on border control, but they need to drop tossing folks in detention for months on end. I can go for any sort of compromise on securing the border in exchange for a path to citizenship for those are here. Restricting future immigration needs to be permanent though. A worker's bill of rights which extends the minimum wage to all persons along with REAL-ID along with some punitive fines for employers who hire illegals. The pull part of illegal immigration needs fixing just as much as pull. On the push side, I'd love to see the US empire crash and burn so Latin America can chart its own destiny. Transnationals are ruining small farms and others and that's another reason for illegal immigration. Finally, I'd get rid of the war on drugs which should also help Latin America.

I find the obsession with disadvantaged groups to be symbolism over substance as well.  Like when the fuck are all of these snowflakes gonna start talking about real stuff like the prison industrial complex, defacto debtor's prisons where folks rot , just because they can't make bail,  lead poisoning in places like Flint, folks with no proper waste disposal like poor folk in the South, etc. ?

The status quo can't last forever since is isn't sustainable or resilient.

I stopped at "(Hillary's) a member of the axis of evil."

I'm sure you can do better.

He can. Actually, when our esteemed moderator and bird award supervisor took a political questionnaire, he came out scoring close to Hillary. Of course she was just fine on most issues, and was close to Bernie. The neo-con and neo-lib labels are right as you define them, Rags, but they don't apply to Hillary. I would just say she was more hawkish than Bernie, and more liable to compromise with keeping the corporate neo-liberals in line, but she did strongly advocate keeping them in line, and her record was as good as any progressive. Her problem is that she has a low horoscope score. She could not communicate effectively and dispell the mistrust people had in her and the lies told about her.

[Another Xer]

(04-19-2018, 10:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 08:17 PM)Another Xer Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 08:02 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 03:15 PM)Another Xer Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 11:34 AM)David Horn Wrote: The concept of Left and Right has so thoroughly changed over the last several decades that it's hard to use those terms to compare historical and current politicians with one another.  Worse, neither party is even vaguely united. The GOP has a Trumpian-Populist wing and a Pro-business-small government wing.  The Dems have a wing consisting of a disconnected coalition of mostly disadvantaged social groups, a Neo-Liberal wing and one that can be called liberal-populist.  Neither party has a coherent message, with the Dems the least coherent of the two.

If the Dems win big in November, it may be a Pyrrhic victory.  With politicians representing all three wings (and a few standing outside the mainstream entirely), show me how they will accomplish anything more productive than fighting amongst themselves.

Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades.  Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie.  Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals.  Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions.  Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.  

Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).

Hillery and Bernie have lots of differences. Hillery is the usual establishment Democrat. She's a member of the axis of evil, Neocon-Neoliberal sort. Bernie is a populist , although he has some trace of taking establishment positions.

NeoCon: is a label I affix to someone who supports stupid shit like the US is the "exceptional nation", likes to suck'Israel's cock,
huge military budgets, bases strewn the globe over, supports regime change, and the new evil empire basically.

NeoLiberal:  is a label I affix to someone who supports global capital flows, knocking down trade barriers, knocking down nation state laws against cartels, labor exploitation, pollution, strip mining a nation's economy in general.  These people are truly evil, since this ideology is trashing the earth.  The results of this ideology are that there are just inputs and outputs to transnationals in their quest for profit. In fact, the earth is just a huge sewer for their products when folks are done with them. The earth of course is a sewer for strip mining natural resources , pollution, and landfills.

SJW's/snowflakes: Whiny ass people who (((obsess))) over minutia, imho. 

 I'd love a combo of Republican and Democrat populists because I'd like all of the Democrat populist positions along with the fact I think we need a nation state to protect against multinationals and unrestrained capital flows. The Republican populists have the right idea on border control, but they need to drop tossing folks in detention for months on end. I can go for any sort of compromise on securing the border in exchange for a path to citizenship for those are here. Restricting future immigration needs to be permanent though. A worker's bill of rights which extends the minimum wage to all persons along with REAL-ID along with some punitive fines for employers who hire illegals. The pull part of illegal immigration needs fixing just as much as pull. On the push side, I'd love to see the US empire crash and burn so Latin America can chart its own destiny. Transnationals are ruining small farms and others and that's another reason for illegal immigration. Finally, I'd get rid of the war on drugs which should also help Latin America.

I find the obsession with disadvantaged groups to be symbolism over substance as well.  Like when the fuck are all of these snowflakes gonna start talking about real stuff like the prison industrial complex, defacto debtor's prisons where folks rot , just because they can't make bail,  lead poisoning in places like Flint, folks with no proper waste disposal like poor folk in the South, etc. ?

The status quo can't last forever since is isn't sustainable or resilient.

I stopped at "(Hillary's) a member of the axis of evil."

I'm sure you can do better.

He can. Actually, when our esteemed moderator and bird award supervisor took a political questionnaire, he came out scoring close to Hillary. Of course she was just fine on most issues, and was close to Bernie. The neo-con and neo-lib labels are right as you define them, Rags, but they don't apply to Hillary. I would just say she was more hawkish than Bernie, and more liable to compromise with keeping the corporate neo-liberals in line, but she did strongly advocate keeping them in line, and her record was as good as any progressive. Her problem is that she has a low horoscope score. She could not communicate effectively and dispell the mistrust people had in her and the lies told about her.

That's the moderator?

Lol, this site has issues.

[David Horn]

(04-19-2018, 03:15 PM)Another Xer Wrote: Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades.  Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie.  Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals.  Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions.  Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.  

Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).

We'll have to disagree on this. The first Neoliberal Democrats came through with Carter, but it was Bill Clinton that established that philosophy as the central theme of the party. It was a tragic mistake, even though it that paid short term gains for Bill. Once the Dems climbed in bed with Wall Street, and let's be honest here: they did in spades, The two parties became Tweedledum and Tweedledee on economics. That shifted the focus to social issues ... all of them divisive. When the division was economic, it was at least theoretically possible to unite along class lines. Now, that's nearly impossible. Poorer whites don't trust the Dems, because they are on the side of (insert every group except theirs). Minorities don't trust Dems who don't tow their line, making the appeal to poorer white impossible.

It's Catch 22.

[David Horn]

(04-19-2018, 08:17 PM)Another Xer Wrote: I stopped at "(Hillary's) a member of the axis of evil."

I'm sure you can do better.

It's an Internet Forum!  Hyperbole is a given.  Rags had plenty of good points you chose to ignore for semantic reasons.  Just address this: how do we get from here to some measure of equanimity?  We don't need absolute equality in all things, but we need a system that prevents the very few from taking it all, and leaves room for people to be people, not robots.

[Another Xer]

(04-20-2018, 09:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 08:17 PM)Another Xer Wrote: I stopped at "(Hillary's) a member of the axis of evil."

I'm sure you can do better.

It's an Internet Forum!  Hyperbole is a given.  Rags had plenty of good points you chose to ignore for semantic reasons.  Just address this: how do we get from here to some measure of equanimity?  We don't need absolute equality in all things, but we need a system that prevents the very few from taking it all, and leaves room for people to be people, not robots.

The first thing we have to do is raise taxes on wealth.  Capital gains, dividends, and estates.  People focus on income taxes because it's what they know about, but the taxes that the ultra-wealthy people pay are capital gains, dividends, and estates.  That's why people like Mitt Romney pay a tax rate of 15% - 20%, while hard working educated professionals pay double that - the professionals are paying income taxes.  They vote Republican because they think the Republicans are protecting their taxes but they are wrong.  Nobody is looking out for hard working educated professionals.  They are the big cash-bag that the plutocrats in charge use to fund government.

1. Capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income.  The counterargument is that lower taxes on capital helps generate investment - I don't see any basis for that.  It's just an argument served up by the wealthy to serve the wealthy.  It's certainly not true in the current environment where the wealthy have so much money they don't know what to do, and are inflating all kinds of assets in search of yield but they can't find productive investment because the middle class is broke.  Tax it.
2. Use the money to fund infrastructure jobs across the country.  Get people working again and rebuild this country.
3. Change to singlepayer health insurance that covers everybody.  All available data on this from other countries shows it should lower costs, rather than raise costs.  Our for-profit system is the most inefficient in the world.  Too many middle-men. 
4. Raise the minimum wage, incrementally, and with geographic disparities taken into account.  

To me, that is a start.  It may solve 20% of the problem or 50% of the problem or 100% of the problem - I don't know.  Enact it and reassess in a few years to see what, if any, additional steps need to be taken.

[Another Xer]

(04-20-2018, 09:23 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 03:15 PM)Another Xer Wrote: Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades.  Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie.  Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals.  Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions.  Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.  

Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).

We'll have to disagree on this.  The first Neoliberal Democrats came through with Carter, but it was Bill Clinton that established that philosophy as the central theme of the party.  It was a tragic mistake, even though it that paid short term gains for Bill.  Once the Dems climbed in bed with Wall Street, and let's be honest here: they did in spades, The two parties became Tweedledum and Tweedledee on economics.  That shifted the focus to social issues ... all of them divisive.  When the division was economic, it was at least theoretically possible to unite along class lines.  Now, that's nearly impossible.  Poorer whites don't trust the Dems, because they are on the side of (insert every group except theirs).  Minorities don't trust Dems who don't tow their line, making the appeal to poorer white impossible.

It's Catch 22.

It was not a mistake, it was a natural response to market forces (in this case the market being votes).  

The white, working class of the Midwest abandoned old fashioned Democratic politics in favor of Reaganomics.  They dug their own grave (and in the process made the financial sectors on the coasts very wealthy).  Their communities are dying now, a relic of the post WWII generational cycle, clinging to old pension offerings with no basis of funds to support them because they voted to leave all the money in the hands of the wealthy, who told them through the media that it would trickle down to them.  Now they want Millenial populations in more productive, wealthy part of the country to subsidize them.  That will be up to the Millenials.

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2018, 09:23 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 03:15 PM)Another Xer Wrote: Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades.  Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie.  Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals.  Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions.  Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.  

Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).

We'll have to disagree on this.  The first Neoliberal Democrats came through with Carter, but it was Bill Clinton that established that philosophy as the central theme of the party.  It was a tragic mistake, even though it that paid short term gains for Bill.  Once the Dems climbed in bed with Wall Street, and let's be honest here: they did in spades, The two parties became Tweedledum and Tweedledee on economics.  That shifted the focus to social issues ... all of them divisive.  When the division was economic, it was at least theoretically possible to unite along class lines.  Now, that's nearly impossible.  Poorer whites don't trust the Dems, because they are on the side of (insert every group except theirs).  Minorities don't trust Dems who don't tow their line, making the appeal to poorer white impossible.

It's Catch 22.

Although I disagreed with the Clinton-era New Democrat cave-in to the neo-liberals, and said so vociferously, and joined the Green Party then, that didn't mean the two parties became tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. Clinton still campaigned loudly against trickle-down economics, and at the 2004 convention (I believe) he said "our way works better." So there is a difference. The Democrats and Republicans are still divided along economic philosophy, and the more so as the Clinton era has passed. It may be up to the poorer whites to drop their resentment against other groups, and realize which party has their back. Trump was able to fool some of them. But you can't fool the people all the time. 

The Democratic candidate who can get both wings on board, is a Democrat with a high horoscope score (translate: someone who can appeal to Americans, can communicate and connect with people and articulate well). As far as the presidency is concerned, the quality of the candidate, AS a candidate, IS EVERYTHING. Obama score 19-2. Hillary score 9-11. Kerry score 8-12. Gore score 10-9. Bill Clinton score 21-3. Dukakis score 2-10. 

Trump score, 9-4. McCain score, 15-13. Romney score, 4-10. Bob Dole score, 12-19. George W Bush score, 17-2. George HW Bush score, 14-6. The numbers speak.


Best bests:
Mitch Landrieu, 16-2
Terry McAuliffe, 11-2 or higher
ONLY if Dems nominate one of these two, do the Democrats have a good chance in 2020 if Trump is the candidate.

Runners up:
Sherrod Brown, 19-8 (has rust belt advantage)
Michael Moore, 16-6
Chris Murphy, 9-3
Oprah Winfrey, 10-3
Antonio Villaraigosa, 15-5 (CA Governor candidate, former LA Mayor)
Gavin Newsom, 7-1 (CA Governor candidate, best chance in 2028)

Maybe, but doubtful:
Debbie Stabenow, 8-3
Chuck Schumer, 15-8
Roy Cooper, 10-4
Jason Carter, 10-4 (future prospect)
Tom Vilsack, 15-6
Joe Biden, 13-8
Bernie Sanders, 14-7
Tulsi Gabbard, 11-6
Andrew Cuomo, 11-6
Janet Napolitano, 11-5
Tammy Baldwin, 13-6 (best after 2020)
Richard Blumenthal, 11-6
Doug Jones, 10-5
Tom Steyer, 12-6
Levi Sanders, 10-1 (future prospect)

Lots of buzz, but these candidates have NO chance:
Kamila Harris, 4-14
Eric Garcetti, 7-7
Elizabeth Warren, 8-7
Kirsten Gillibrand, 7-12
Cory Booker, 6-7
Joe Kennedy III, 7-6
Michelle Obama, 6-6
Joe & Julian Castro, 8-13
Tim Kaine, 11-11
Amy Klobuchar, 7-7
Eric Holder, 8-6 (maybe, if Pence runs in 2020)

Want to go show biz? Besides Michael Moore and Oprah, there are a couple of prospects:
Seth Meyers, 20-3
Stephen Colbert, 20-11 (best from 2024 on)

Republicans? Get a load of this group! Besides Trump himself, the only potential candidates I know so far with good scores are those already tarred with the Trump trash.

Ivanka Trump, 16-2
Jared Kushner, 10-4
Steve Bannon, 10-5

Mike Pence, 8-7

Any suggestions, questions? Let me know!
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html