Who Can Beat Trump?

[Eric the Green]

The Washington Post is updating its ranking of 15 prospective Democratic presidential candidates, with Sen. Bernie Sanders maintaining his lead of the pack and Oprah Winfrey sinking to last place.



The news outlet updates its ranking quarterly, with the last tally posted in March.



(adding my horoscope scores, just for fun and reference)


Here’s the breakdown, from leader to least-likely:

1: Sanders: The independent Vermont senator will likely seek the Democratic nod in 2020 despite his refusal to run under the party banner as senator in Vermont’s August primary. (14-7)

2: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a progressive, maintains 2nd place. (8-7)

3: California Sen. Kamala Harris, moves ahead of former Vice President Joe Biden, who held the spot in the last ranking.
(4-14)

4: Biden falls to fourth, but still maintains substantial name recognition, as recent polling showed.(13-6)

5: New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker holds onto fifth place, so far refusing to say even if he’ll toss his hat in the ring.(6-7)

6: New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand also remains in place on the listing, though her connection with the Clintons is fraught, the Post pointed out.(7-12)

7: Ex-Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick moves up two notches; he’s promised to make a decision on whether he wants to run by the end of the year, the Post reported.(9-6)

8: Ex-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe holds onto his ranking, as he works in the relatively low-profile job of trying to elect Democratic governors to prevent GOP-controlled redistricting, the Post reported.(11-2)

9: Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder moves up from March’s 12th place ranking, noting recently his nomination would pit “two guys from Queens” against each other in 2020, Fox News reported.(8-6)

10: Ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent, breaks into the rankings as a billionaire who’s spending his dough on 2018 Democratic candidates so far.(8-5)

11: Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy falls from 7th place in March, keeping tabs on New York donors though he’s said he won’t run, according to The New York Times.(9-4?)

12: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo sinks one notch in the ranking as he contends with a primary challenge from “Sex and the City” star Cynthia Nixon.(11-6)

13: Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown dips from 10th place in March, though he maintains a big lead in the polls for his reelection over GOP challenger Rep. James Renacci, the Post reported.(19-8)

14: New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, in 13th place in the March listing, nevertheless “remains perhaps the most legitimate dark horse” in the race, the Post figures.(16-2)

15: Oprah Winfrey, who was in 14th place in the March ranking, comes in last in this listing, continuing to insist a run is out of the question.(10-3)

Related Stories:
Will Trump Face Hillary Clinton in a 2020 Run?(9-4, 9-11)
Dems Are Going Full Socialist, Helping Republicans
© 2018 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Newsmax: 15 Democrats to Watch For 2020 |Newsmax.com[url=https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2FNewsmax.com%2F&h=AT2x-xZAyngYo5GHKDYOpaduULtE-YCxm9WrmOXZF4wSMIHseprwYQ9yXkXpk5_5ghkEf8Pqh8YbP45FFZK7PBqfHXP7W8TUABEL192cQZwvG98dWf2kfHM_odljaFDA18GWSu2juA][/url]

[Kinser79]

The Washington comPost is a doubious source at the best of times.  That being said lets take a look at this list.

1.  Sanders.  The DNC has already proven that they don't want him.  Remember they already cheated him out of the nomination and he was the only one the Dims had in 2016 who could have possibly taken down Trump and it isn't all that likely he would have anyway.  Lets put it this way after he genuflected to Hildebeast he lost his base.

2.  Warren:  Pocahontas has already said she isn't running.  And even if she did it is unlikely she would win against Trump as an incumbent.  Like Hildebeast she is very polarizing and doesn't play well outside of the Blue Block.  The Dims must take back the Rust Belt or be condemed to being a regional party at best.

3.  Harris:  She's a possible but she would have a tough slog.  Mid-Westerners in particular are wary of Californians and she would have a tough time in the South too.

4.  Biden:  Too much Obama baggage.  Enough said.

5.  Cory Booker:  This would be an attempt for an Obama 2.0 but I doubt the country has the stomach for yet an other junior senator with little executive experience either in politics or business.  Need I remind anyone that Newark New Jersey is a shit hole.  Granted it was a shit hole before Booker but he didn't even attempt to turn it around.  In fact he thrived on the corruption.

6.  Gillibrand:  Too close to Hildebeast and rapey Bill.  Maybe Boomers haven't gotten the message yet, but anyone connected to the Clintons or the Bushes is pretty much toast for at least a generation.

7.  Deval Pattrick:  A Blue Block Governor.  It is unclear if he would play well.  It depends on how far left he runs and how flip-flopity he is. I will say he's a possible.

8.  Terry McAuliffe:  I will say that he's a possible, but he can't win against Trump.  He's an establishment Democrat and they are going to lose against Trump. 

9.  Eric Holder:  A controversial AG who has loads of Obama baggage and would energize the GOP base against him.  Honestly the GOP could run Mitt Romney against him and win.  Romney is not popular outside of the Never Trumper Rinos and maybe Utah (and I think that's because he owns a set of magical underpants).

10.  Bloomberg:  The DNC would never allow him to be nominated.  He could possibly beat Trump, but in the end you'd just basically have Trump with a D after his name.  Given the choice between Incumbent Trump ® and Challenger "Trump" (D), Trump ® wins.

11.  Chris Murphy:  Maybe, can he play well in the Midwest and the Southern Purple states.  If not he can't win.

12.  Andrew Cuomo:  A corrupt New York Governor who is known for corruption and who is very close to the Dimocrat Establishment won't win against Trump.

13.  Sharrod Brown:  If the DNC allows him to get the nomination he would be a big threat to Trump if the Economy falters.  Otherwise he is a paper tiger who has been riding on the coat tails of labor unions which are incredibly weak and have been for a while.

14.  Mitch Landrieu:  Wonderful, all the corruption of New Orleans along with the economic prosparity of that city.  Southerners will turn out in droves for Trump--even the most brainwashed Black ones--against this guy.  He can get elected in New Orleans sure, but he has difficulty state wide even in Louisiana and they are an odd duck to start with.

15.  Oprah:  Yeah....she isn't running.  That said that is probably who the Democrats need to take back the white house.  Unfortunately she's not running.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump is already defeating himself through his gross blunders, his corruption, his shady conduct, and his unwillingness to seek and heed wise counsel, and by failing to do good for people who didn't vote for him the first time. He was able to ensure that the hurt that he did fell on people with interests incompatible with him at any time. That's how one gets "strong disapproval" in the mid-40s.

Just wait until the trade war guts farm incomes. No tax cut can salve a loss of income from falling commodity prices -- and tariffs are themselves taxes. Bad, harsh taxes.

[Bob Butler 54]

I think Kinser underestimates how much his father has enabled the see saw.  I remain unimpressed by the democrats, however, let alone the Republican Establishment.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump is beating himself. If he were a baseball team, he would be the team that commits four errors, loses five runners to pick-offs or caught stealing incidents, and whose pitchers commit balks. If he were a football team, his team would be penalized frequently and have an inordinate number of funbles and interceptions. If he were a basketball team he would commit lots of fouls and throw the ball away several times. Winning teams don't do that.

He is not doing the fundamentals of politics well, and it shows.

[Kinser79]

(08-19-2018, 12:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I think Kinser underestimates how much his father has enabled the see saw.  I remain unimpressed by the democrats, however, let alone the Republican Establishment.

I think Bob you over estimate the see-saw.  Quite frankly the largest voting blocs, Xers and Millennials simply haven't the time for it and Nationalist Populism is solidifying in the GOP.  I think if you're expecting a "Blue Wave" you'll be disappointed.






As to PBR's retarded comments I suggest that he turn off CNN and turn on to at the very least Yahoo! News (even if that is the news service of people too stupid to change their home page).  Personally I get my Trump news directly from the source.  @TheRealDonaldTrump on Twitter.  May as well since that is what the lame stream media talks about anyway.  I don't need a middleman to wrongly interpret the President's fluent English for me.

For news analysis there is plenty of sources to turn to, right and left.

[Eric the Green]

Biden revised score: 14-7, same as Sanders. Not quite as high as Trump, 9-4. Not enough for either one to beat Trump if the new moon forecasts incumbent party victory, which it does; though with caveats (Uranus square the Ascendant in that new moon chart, as in 2016; Jupiter-Saturn zero-year conjunction is a disadvantage to incumbent party, and used to indicate the death in office of whoever was elected). http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Most likely to beat Trump: Landrieu and McAuliffe.

[Galen]

(08-19-2018, 08:27 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 12:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I think Kinser underestimates how much his father has enabled the see saw.  I remain unimpressed by the democrats, however, let alone the Republican Establishment.

I think Bob you over estimate the see-saw.  Quite frankly the largest voting blocs, Xers and Millennials simply haven't the time for it and Nationalist Populism is solidifying in the GOP.  I think if you're expecting a "Blue Wave" you'll be disappointed.

Unless something drastic changes it looks like Trump will be fine.  If anything the constant shrill bleating of the press is beginning to annoy normal people which give the R's the advantage.  From a libertarian point of view Trump really isn't a fiscal conservative even though he is willing to scale back government regulation simply because he understands the costs from personal experience.  It also appears that he is willing to let the Syrian war die down with out any more attempts to remove Assad which must piss off Bolton and the rest of the neocons to no end.  The US is also negotiating with the Taliban which suggests that Trump understands the Afghanistan war is unwinnable and is trying to wind that war down which also must piss of the neocons.  If he avoids war with Iran which given his actions, despite bellicose rhetoric, with respect to North Korea then I don't see too many problems for the R's and Trump in the near future.

I have my issues with Trump but so far I like him better than the shit show that would have been if the Hildabeast had won.  I really didn't want to find out who Bill Clinton would have decided to use as his personal humidor for his second residency in the White House.

Styxhexenhammer is giving a far more rational analysis than the legacy media is about the current state of the mid-terms.  I tend to avoid anyone displaying signs of Trump Derangement Syndrome simply because of the inherent bias of people who despise Trump simply because Hillary and they want to reverse the election of 2016.  I regard Trump as far less than ideal from a libertarian perspective but it is hardly likely that I would have gotten a better situation if Clinton had prevailed.

[pbrower2a]

(08-19-2018, 10:01 PM)Galen Wrote: Unless something drastic changes it looks like Trump will be fine.  If anything the constant shrill bleating of the press is beginning to annoy normal people which give the R's the advantage.  From a libertarian point of view Trump really isn't a fiscal conservative even though he is willing to scale back government regulation simply because he understands the costs from personal experience.  It also appears that he is willing to let the Syrian war die down with out any more attempts to remove Assad which must piss off Bolton and the rest of the neocons to no end.  The US is also negotiating with the Taliban which suggests that Trump understands the Afghanistan war is unwinnable and is trying to wind that war down which also must piss of the neocons.  If he avoids war with Iran which given his actions, despite bellicose rhetoric, with respect to North Korea then I don't see too many problems for the R's and Trump in the near future.

I prefer Presidents who do not cozy up with dictatorial leaders and brutal causes. I also prefer those who do not demonize those who disagree with him, a hallmark of a dictator. With someone that cruel, incompetent, and despotic, things usually change for the worse.

Quote:I have my issues with Trump but so far I like him better than the shit show that would have been if the Hildabeast had won.  I really didn't want to find out who Bill Clinton would have decided to use as his personal humidor for his second residency in the White House.

Trump causes me to regret being an American at times. If you have your issues... tax cuts for the Master Class followed by disruptive tariffs. People are going to get hurt, and tax cuts will be poor compensation to offset losses in income or far-greater costs of living.

Quote: I tend to avoid anyone displaying signs of Trump Derangement Syndrome simply because of the inherent bias of people who despise Trump simply because Hillary and they want to reverse the election of 2016.  I regard Trump as far less than ideal from a libertarian perspective but it is hardly likely that I would have gotten a better situation if Clinton had prevailed.

Alienation is the word -- not derangement. People stupid or callow enough to vote for this man deserve the harsh lesson that people like me had some idea that they would get. We now have government by the moneyed elites, government for the moneyed elites, and of the moneyed elites at the expense of us all. I hate this horrible man, someone devoid of any virtue other than wealth... I see the potential Milosevic of America.

[David Horn]

(08-19-2018, 12:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I think Kinser underestimates how much his father has enabled the see saw.  I remain unimpressed by the democrats, however, let alone the Republican Establishment.

I agree completely.  Of the two major parties, we have one out of touch and the other out of its mind.   I looked at the list and didn't find many Democrats worth supporting.  That said, Trump is an unmitigated travesty, so I'll either vote happily or reluctantly, but I will vote for the Dems for the next few cycles at a minimum.

It's still hard to see where this leads in the immediate future.  Yes, the New Democrats should emerge in another 10-15 years, but that's then and this is now.  In the meantime, an extreme RW court, coupled with a potentially immovable Senate and the possibility of a two-term Trump makes me noticeably sick to my stomach.

[pbrower2a]

Democrats have the Quarterback Controversy of a bad college program. Maybe we will be lucky and get a Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, or Joe Montana. Maybe we will have to rely heavily on the running game so that the quarterback needs throw few passes. Most great football teams use the running game to set up the kill with the forward pass.

[Eric the Green]

There's only one time when the new moon before election (which applies since 1848), and the horoscope score comparison, were both wrong: 1892, when Cleveland beat Harrison. And that was the exact year of a once-in-493-year conjunction between Neptune and Pluto, which has a millennias-long history of knocking off rulers and empires when it comes around.

So it's very unlikely that both indicators would be wrong. The new moon predicts that the incumbent party will win, even despite some contrary indicators. So I predict Trump will win unless the Democrats nominate someone with a higher score than Trump. Usually the new moon indicator is only wrong, which it rarely is, if the difference between candidate scores is quite substantial, and contrary to the new moon indicator. Note that the currently-favored contenders don't meet this standard, until you get down to #8 on the list, Terry McAuliffe. If there is a Joe Montana lurking among them, it is probably Mitch Landrieu.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[Kinser79]

(08-20-2018, 01:32 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 12:29 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I think Kinser underestimates how much his father has enabled the see saw.  I remain unimpressed by the democrats, however, let alone the Republican Establishment.

I agree completely.  Of the two major parties, we have one out of touch and the other out of its mind.   I looked at the list and didn't find many Democrats worth supporting.  That said, Trump is an unmitigated travesty, so I'll either vote happily or reluctantly, but I will vote for the Dems for the next few cycles at a minimum.

It's still hard to see where this leads in the immediate future.  Yes, the New Democrats should emerge in another 10-15 years, but that's then and this is now.  In the meantime, an extreme RW court, coupled with a potentially immovable Senate and the possibility of a two-term Trump makes me noticeably sick to my stomach.

FIW Mr. Horn you were likely to vote for the Democrats anyway.  From what I can tell you're in line with most Boomers who have yet to realize that their particular paradigm is over and has been over for a long time now.  So far the only thing that Daddy hasn't delivered on is the Wall(s) but I blame the Congress Critters (and Paul "Eddie Munster" Ryan in particular) for that.

If there is a New Democrats to emerge, they will have to be substantially different from the offerings of that party now, and they will likely have to reject the positions of even the least offensive (IE the Blue Dogs) of their party currently.  Last time the GOP had to accept the New Deal.  This time the Democrats will have to accept Nationalist Populism, the Wall, Tariffs and America First.

Remember also Bob suffers from the condition of subscribing to Whig History.  Which is why his presence on a forum discussing cyclical generational driven history is somewhat puzzling. I would consider subscribing to even the barest bones of S&H theory to require the rejection of the notion of liner 'progress'.   I have long maintained that history only has the appearance of 'progressive movement' (not to be confused with the Progressive Movement--which is just an American branding of Neo-Marxist socialism).  In short since history is written by the victors, the victors always proclaim themselves to be the bearers of progress.

Also if Trump is a 'travesty' with 5% GDP growth, and 3% unemployment I'd like some more of that. I want to see GDP growth twice that, and unemployment half that. That's some travesties I can believe in--to paraphrase someone else's campaign slogan.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-21-2018, 03:40 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Remember also Bob suffers from the condition of subscribing to Whig History.  Which is why his presence on a forum discussing cyclical generational driven history is somewhat puzzling. I would consider subscribing to even the barest bones of S&H theory to require the rejection of the notion of liner 'progress'.   I have long maintained that history only has the appearance of 'progressive movement' (not to be confused with the Progressive Movement--which is just an American branding of Neo-Marxist socialism).  In short since history is written by the victors, the victors always proclaim themselves to be the bearers of progress.

Hmm.  I consider the Industrial Age (chemical weapons, printed information, democracy) to be quite distinct from the Agricultural (muscle powered weapons, written information, hereditary to militaristic kings).  The S&H crises of Western Civilization where primarily to implement the Industrial Age.  As such there is a clear (Yes Whiggish) arrow of progress favoring democracy and human right over kings and military values.  If anything, the Industrial Age proved economic values able to defeat military values on the killing fields.

Thus, S&H is basically about the implementation of Enlightenment values.  New values defeat old.

Whether the Industrial Age pattern continues into whatever comes next (nuclear weapons, computerized information, direct vote democracy?) is open.  Right now, the capitalist elite and post Communist tyrants are having their innings.  The arrow of progress in favor of human rights and democracy is very hard to find, not at all obvious.  The idea of all men being created equal is being quashed by selfish tribalism and greed.  This is generally the case, with conservatives resisting change well for three of the four turnings.

I am assuming global warming, limited resources and taking care of an ever increasing population are problems that will eventually have to be solved.  The existing elites with existing ways of profiting seem to be putting off acknowledging these problems.  They wish to continue the gravy train, the old pattern which they profit from.  I don't think this will go on forever.  It can, however, last the lifetimes of the elites that currently hold power.  When this is no longer the case, the new values might triumph.

I am dubious that the Industrial Age pattern will hold in the age that comes next.  The lack of a domestic spiral of violence, the reluctance in the face of nuclear weapons for anyone to wage a crisis war, speak against the Industrial Age pattern holding.  The last awakening suggests the second turning will become the decisive time, not the fourth.  Things change.

I would just as soon see democracy and human rights prevail, that autocratic elitist governments continue to fade, that there be less kings, slaves and dictators.

Kinser seems to prefer otherwise, claiming the crumbs from the elite autocrats and tyrants.  As such, he has to remain blind to the side he is really on.  He hasn't really switched sides since his communist days.

[pbrower2a]

(08-21-2018, 05:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-21-2018, 03:40 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Remember also Bob suffers from the condition of subscribing to Whig History.  Which is why his presence on a forum discussing cyclical generational driven history is somewhat puzzling. I would consider subscribing to even the barest bones of S&H theory to require the rejection of the notion of liner 'progress'.   I have long maintained that history only has the appearance of 'progressive movement' (not to be confused with the Progressive Movement--which is just an American branding of Neo-Marxist socialism).  In short since history is written by the victors, the victors always proclaim themselves to be the bearers of progress.

Hmm.  I consider the Industrial Age (chemical weapons, printed information, democracy) to be quite distinct from the Agricultural (muscle powered weapons, written information, hereditary to militaristic kings).  The S&H crises of Western Civilization where primarily to implement the Industrial Age.  As such there is a clear (Yes Whiggish) arrow of progress favoring democracy and human right over kings and military values.  If anything, the Industrial Age proved economic values able to defeat military values on the killing fields.

Yes. Infantry may be good for mobility, but artillery does the killing, and air power can disrupt supply chains and destroy the economic ability of a belligerent power. The very survival of a belligerent may depend upon the ultimate machinery of warfare and supply -- naval ships and the merchant marine.

Quote:Thus, S&H is basically about the implementation of Enlightenment values.  New values defeat old.

New, good values beat both bad, old values (slavery in the American Civil War) and bad new ones (fascism in World War II). A Crisis War can demonstrate how flimsy the moral and technological base of a belligerent is. On paper, the Tsar's army was quite impressive; the Japanese had a fearsome war machine by any standard. The Russian Empire failed due to its obsolete transportation network and its lack of incentives for the common man to put his life on the line for a grossly-unjust order. Make Japan a democracy with decent values and put the fascistic KKK in charge of America, and Japan wins dominance of the northern Pacific -- basically the official name for Alaska has an "R" in it instead of an "L", and Americans need passports to go to Hawaii.

Quote:Whether the Industrial Age pattern continues into whatever comes next (nuclear weapons, computerized information, direct vote democracy?) is open.  Right now, the capitalist elite and post Communist tyrants are having their innings.  The arrow of progress in favor of human rights and democracy is very hard to find, not at all obvious.  The idea of all men being created equal is being quashed by selfish tribalism and greed.  This is generally the case, with conservatives resisting change well for three of the four turnings.

What Milovan Djilas said of "Socialist": Yugoslavia applies also to the United States; bureaucratic elites can become no less exploitative than nobility and rapacious capitalists. Thus the Communist nomenklatura that took on an aristocratic character as it gained power without accountability. America's executive elite is doing almost the same thing -- except that it must account for itself to the elites of ownership. But with an aristocracy comes horrible treatment of the people subordinate to it.

Quote:I am assuming global warming, limited resources and taking care of an ever increasing population are problems that will eventually have to be solved.  The existing elites with existing ways of profiting seem to be putting off acknowledging these problems.  They wish to continue the gravy train, the old pattern which they profit from.  I don't think this will go on forever.  It can, however, last the lifetimes of the elites that currently hold power.  When this is no longer the case, the new values might triumph.

Donald Trump suggests that even greater use of fossil fuels is a good idea -- but use of fossil fuels is the cause of the increased volume of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Higher temperatures also imply more water vapor in the air, and water vapor is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.

Few political leaders have so disparaged objective science as has Donald Trump. He do9es so on behalf of powerful special interests who do not have the common good at heart.

Quote:I am dubious that the Industrial Age pattern will hold in the age that comes next.  The lack of a domestic spiral of violence, the reluctance in the face of nuclear weapons for anyone to wage a crisis war, speak against the Industrial Age pattern holding.  The last awakening suggests the second turning will become the decisive time, not the fourth.  Things change.

The Fourth Turning determines what sort of political and institutional leadership is possible, and we have yet to see this one resolve. We can have Lincoln's "new Birth of Freedom" or we can have the "boot stamping on a human face forever" of Orwell's nightmarish Nineteen Eighty-Four. I see no workable compromise between the two. We can have an economic order that gives opportunity and makes equity easy to achieve or we can have a new feudalism complete with a repression that makes slavery on a Southern plantation look permissive by contrast.

We will need to make adjustments. We are at the end of the time in which more stuff brings more happiness, at least in the First World. The crass materialism that one associates with peasants in Fiddler on the Roof was necessary in a society still clearly mired in the agricultural age yet breaking down. During the Great Depression, Americans fount that the 40-hour workweek was more than adequate for meeting all basic needs, and that anything else went either to elite indulgence or pure waste. We will probably also get abundant power from solar energy and have self-driving vehicles. I predict that we will shorten the workweek. We will have to make adjustments, and this will make some commercial institutions obsolete. 24-hour-a-day shopping?  Mediocre restaurants, when people with any competence as cooks can do better than 'casual dining' restaurants? The physical book or recorded media?

Quote:I would just as soon see democracy and human rights prevail, that autocratic elitist governments continue to fade, that there be less kings, slaves and dictators.

Who doesn't? But autocratic regimes have a tendency to implode. Such regimes might try to associate themselves with economic and social progress -- and invariably law-and-order -- proclaiming themselves as the bars to poverty and chaos. If democracy can work in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, then why can it not work in China?

Quote:Kinser seems to prefer otherwise, claiming the crumbs from the elite autocrats and tyrants.  As such, he has to remain blind to the side he is really on.  He hasn't really switched sides since his communist days.

He has gone from admiring Stalin to admiring Trump, going from someone who made a nasty dictatorship even worse to someone who brings a dictatorial or despotic style to America. He cannot accept how unpopular this President is.

[David Horn]

(08-21-2018, 03:40 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: FIW Mr. Horn you were likely to vote for the Democrats anyway.  From what I can tell you're in line with most Boomers who have yet to realize that their particular paradigm is over and has been over for a long time now.  So far the only thing that Daddy hasn't delivered on is the Wall(s) but I blame the Congress Critters (and Paul "Eddie Munster" Ryan in particular) for that.

If there is a New Democrats to emerge, they will have to be substantially different from the offerings of that party now, and they will likely have to reject the positions of even the least offensive (IE the Blue Dogs) of their party currently.  Last time the GOP had to accept the New Deal.  This time the Democrats will have to accept Nationalist Populism, the Wall, Tariffs and America First.

No one ever has to accept an unworkable paradigm, just because it's popular at the moment … and Trumpism even fails the popularity contest. The Dems are still out to lunch, but the GOP has thrown-in with the closet thing to a true Fascist we've ever produced in this country. On one thing, Lincoln was dead right: "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you can't fool all the people all the time." Life isn't a reality show.

Kinser79 Wrote:Remember also Bob suffers from the condition of subscribing to Whig History.  Which is why his presence on a forum discussing cyclical generational driven history is somewhat puzzling. I would consider subscribing to even the barest bones of S&H theory to require the rejection of the notion of liner 'progress'.   I have long maintained that history only has the appearance of 'progressive movement' (not to be confused with the Progressive Movement--which is just an American branding of Neo-Marxist socialism).  In short since history is written by the victors, the victors always proclaim themselves to be the bearers of progress.

S&H never stated that their theory could predict outcome, only process. Right now, it's the 4T process, but the end of this cycle is still in play. Even Hillary, as poor a candidate as she was, managed to out-poll Trump by 3 Million votes. We'll see how that plays on November 7th.

Kinser79 Wrote:Also if Trump is a 'travesty' with 5% GDP growth, and 3% unemployment I'd like some more of that.  I want to see GDP growth twice that, and unemployment half that.  That's some travesties I can believe in--to paraphrase someone else's campaign slogan.

I see you prefer alternate facts to real ones. Fact: GDP growth is not 5%, even in the short term. Check the graph over the last 5 or 10 years, and the current growth rate (4.1%) seems unremarkable. Facts: unemployment is ~3.9%, but workforce penetration is down. Hiring has actually cooled and pay raises are less than the rate of inflation. Growth in an era of trade wars is even less likely.

[David Horn]

(08-21-2018, 05:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: ...  Right now, the capitalist elite and post Communist tyrants are having their innings.  The arrow of progress in favor of human rights and democracy is very hard to find, not at all obvious.  The idea of all men being created equal is being quashed by selfish tribalism and greed.  This is generally the case, with conservatives resisting change well for three of the four turnings.

I am assuming global warming, limited resources and taking care of an ever increasing population are problems that will eventually have to be solved.  The existing elites with existing ways of profiting seem to be putting off acknowledging these problems.  They wish to continue the gravy train, the old pattern which they profit from.  I don't think this will go on forever.  It can, however, last the lifetimes of the elites that currently hold power.  When this is no longer the case, the new values might triumph...

This is the essence of your comments, and the ones I subscribe to as well. Unworkable solutions can prevail for extended periods, if the underlying structure of society is adequately strong and those unworkable solutions aren't overly toxic. But there is an advancing paradigm, fully supported by the Trumpists and not really opposed by conventional Republicans or Democrats, that promotes or at least permits the total emasculation of the workforce for private gain. Once all gains flow to capital and work declines to the point that human effort is essentially unnecessary, the rule of the wealthy will either precipitate a mass removal of undesirable human beings or a revolution that topples capital entirely.

The only alternative is a proactive move to something akin to socialism that permits a sharing of what will be virtually unlimited wealth. The already wealthy will oppose this, and the self-righteous up-by-my-bootstraps crowd may as well, but the alternatives to doing this peacefully are not pretty. This is all speculation on my part, since I don't' expect to be here when it happens. My grandchildren will, and that's enough reason for me to give a damn.

[pbrower2a]

(08-21-2018, 09:55 AM)David Horn Wrote: Unworkable solutions can prevail for extended periods, if the underlying structure of society is adequately strong and those unworkable solutions aren't overly toxic.  But there is an advancing paradigm, fully supported by the Trumpists and not really opposed by conventional Republicans or Democrats, that promotes or at least permits the total emasculation of the workforce for private gain.  Once all gains flow to capital and work declines to the point that human effort is essentially unnecessary, the rule of the wealthy will either precipitate a mass removal of undesirable human beings or a revolution that topples capital entirely.

The foundations of capitalism with either no welfare state or a very welfare state one crumble when the nexus between work and income disappears. The dream of the two Master Classes (owners and executives) of America is to get First World effort out of people for Third World pay. That of course means the destruction of the welfare state and of the only institutions (unions) that can protect  workers from exploitation and abuse.  Productivity will collapse or workers will turn against their masters.

"Mass removal of undesirable human beings" sounds much like genocide, whether through direct killings or through starvation. Of course if it is simply removing people from the workforce because they are disabled, then millions will have to find ways in which to use their time. I have done that when unemployed several times.

Quote:The only alternative is a proactive move to something akin to socialism that permits a sharing of what will be virtually unlimited wealth.  The already wealthy will oppose this, and the self-righteous up-by-my-bootstraps crowd may as well, but the alternatives to doing this peacefully are not pretty.   This is all speculation on my part, since I don't' expect to be here when it happens.  My grandchildren will, and that's enough reason for me to give a damn.

1. Tax the hell out of easy money. I don't simply mean dividends and interest, as such suggest saving and shrewd investment. Henry George's single tax on economic rents (passive investors taking advantage of intractable scarcity, as in housing) is a good principle. Capitalism works to the extent that it promotes enterprise, thrift, rational decisions, good customer service, careful use of resources, and plain-old toil. Those create or preserve prosperity.

2. Productivity with little human labor might as well compensate people who lose their jobs because of it. Thus robot-based manufacturing and self check-outs. Tax it.

3. We will need to show people how to use their leisure time. That implies extending the normal time of education for youth, perhaps from K-12 to K-14. Even if only to insure that Americans never vote for another demagogue (and many who voted for Donald Trump would have supported Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were they there instead of America) we need to make sure that our youth get economics (there is no free lunch), psychology (know how to detect and reject abusive manipulation), philosophy (at least formal logic!), and English composition (how to make competent reports). While we are at it we might as well expose youth to art, literature, classical music, folk music, jazz, and and first-rate cinema so that they will find out what to do when working 28 hours a week instead of 40. But the liberal arts are impractical, you say? What could be more practical than finding meaning in life, or at least being able to seek it?

Speaking of classical music, I was near the point of ending it all. Then I listened to Schubert's Octet in F for winds and strings... and realized that I did not wish to risk going to some eternal destination in which such music was unavailable. No, it is not a quick, bright, cheery pick-me-up obscene under the circumstances. It's worth the time...






Your life is worth something... take an hour and enjoy something at times languid, at times, peppy, at times profound, and ultimately cathartic.

[David Horn]

(08-21-2018, 10:52 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The foundations of capitalism with either no welfare state or a very welfare state one crumble when the nexus between work and income disappears. The dream of the two Master Classes (owners and executives) of America is to get First World effort out of people for Third World pay. That of course means the destruction of the welfare state and of the only institutions (unions) that can protect  workers from exploitation and abuse.  Productivity will collapse or workers will turn against their masters.

"Mass removal of undesirable human beings" sounds much like genocide, whether through direct killings or through starvation. Of course if it is simply removing people from the workforce because they are disabled, then millions will have to find ways in which to use their time. I have done that when unemployed several times.

There are hundreds of books and articles about the end of work, when the machines will not only do everything cheaper and better, but will be able to replicate themselves and become immortal, in a sense. Let's agree that we can't know the details, but the outline is clear. At present rates of technological advancement, the end game should fall in the next 3T/4T time frame, with the next 2T seeing where we'll be heading before we get there. At that point, what to do with the people is the only remaining question, and who answers will determine how brutal or beneficial the answer will be.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-21-2018, 08:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-21-2018, 05:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I would just as soon see democracy and human rights prevail, that autocratic elitist governments continue to fade, that there be less kings, slaves and dictators.

Who doesn't? But autocratic regimes have a tendency to implode. Such regimes might try to associate themselves with economic and social progress -- and invariably law-and-order -- proclaiming themselves as the bars to poverty and chaos. If democracy can work in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, then why can it not work in China?

China had a really ugly period between the opium wars all the way though Mao's cultural revolution.  I think they are very much afraid of revolution, of radical change.  I am not looking for China to move a lot from a bureaucracy that mixes the worst of capitalism and communism through tyranny.