Compare this 4T to others

[AspieMillennial]

(05-27-2019, 06:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-27-2019, 10:16 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-27-2019, 09:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-26-2019, 11:42 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-26-2019, 10:59 AM)sbarrera Wrote: I agree that there are many powerful Silents today and that the older generations are keeping the old order on life support; this may be why this 4T seems to be dragging on without reaching the regeneracy.

However, I don't agree that the political system of the US wasn't changed much in the last Crisis; the New Deal was a big change. It created a vast regulatory bureaucracy which arguably has an extra-constitutional legislative function. The right has a problem with this bureaucracy in part because they see it as operating outside of the constitution (and of just being too freedom limiting). The left can argue that the bureaucracy, while in the executive function, is given its powers by legislation. Trumpism seems intent on tearing down the New Deal while asserting government power in specific focused areas (immigration, trade).

Maybe Trump is the regeneracy. I predict this new order will be about making America great and focusing on our own country rather than expansionism, big wars, free trade, or globalism.

That is how Trump fooled the people, saying he was for this focus on our country. But he has hired warmongers as his top advisors, like John Bolton, and is supporting a deadly proxy war against Iran in Yemen, is threatening Iran, is supporting Israel's genocide against Palestinians, was threatening North Korea, is carrying out a sanction campaign that is hurting the people of Venezuela, is expanding our military so we can win so many more wars that we'll get tired of winning, and carried out the war on the IS in a more deadly way. And focusing on our country by weakening our alliances only allows anti-American powers to gain more influence in the world, rather than just stopping the expansion of our world role. This does not help our economy either.

As far as focusing on our own country is concerned, yes he has started debilitating trade wars not only against China, but against nations that are on our level like in Europe, against which no trade wars are needed. And his focus on our country is only about letting big polluters destroy our water, our lands and our national monuments, and giving huge tax breaks to the oligarchy, which has resulted in no benefits to most taxpayers. This continuation of Reaganomics on steroids is not responsible for any economic benefit for our country, but only to the same global corporations he supposedly doesn't want to expand.

I think we shouldn't go to war with these countries. I disagree with him there and think he's acting dangerous though. We don't need all these wars for no reason. Sadly both the Republicans and Democrats are war mongers right now. I do want some tariffs and hard migration limits though. We can't compete with slave labor wages in the third world without sinking ourselves. It's impossible. I think tariffs are one of the only ways to save working class from globalism. Cheap products can be made here through automation with some people in the factories and more expensive products can be made here through different means.

I don't disagree; sensible tariffs should be applied on countries to which our companies send our jobs overseas for cheap labor and cheap regulations. But migrants are often scapegoats for low wages. Most only compete for the low wage jobs, are not paid fairly, and add to the economy through being customers and eventually businessmen and women and good workers. However Trump's migration policy is worrisome. He wants a merit system, which means he wants migrants to be people who would compete with those who get high salaries and wages.

I think restricted migration as in much fewer numbers. I do think the merit based system is dangerous because it's only to breakdown the wages of the middle class. The migrants are not at fault the elites are.

[Kinser79]

(05-26-2019, 11:42 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: Maybe Trump is the regeneracy. I predict this new order will be about making America great and focusing on our own country rather than expansionism, big wars, free trade, or globalism.

I would say Trump is the Orange Grey Champion, MAGA is the Regeneracy, and the new order will be Nationalism-Populism.  Problem is that the Blue Boomers on this forum do not recognize that because it doesn't conform to their expectations, and the 4T will be mostly about breaking down existing institutions to create new ones.

[David Horn]

(05-30-2019, 10:45 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-26-2019, 11:42 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: Maybe Trump is the regeneracy. I predict this new order will be about making America great and focusing on our own country rather than expansionism, big wars, free trade, or globalism.

I would say Trump is the Orange Grey Champion, MAGA is the Regeneracy, and the new order will be Nationalism-Populism.  Problem is that the Blue Boomers on this forum do not recognize that because it doesn't conform to their expectations, and the 4T will be mostly about breaking down existing institutions to create new ones.

Assuming your first sentence is true, just what new institutions are even possible under the leadership of a narcissist?  After all, it's all about him, 24/7/365!

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump is a clueless failure as recent polls of approval in the low 40s and disapproval numbers in the low-fifties show. He will need a huge improvement in public opinion to have a chance to get re-elected.

Demographics do not help him, to put it mildly. Older generations in the electorate may be voting, in general, about 55-45 R; millennial adults are voting about 65-35 D. The Republican Party has little to offer Millennial adults except more debt, lower pay, and higher prices and taxes, and I do not see that changing. Millennial voters are roughly replacing older voters as new voters the older voters dying off or becoming unable to vote due to senility. Older voters (mostly) are leaving the electorate at roughly a 1.5% rate every year, and I am not distinguishing Silent, Boom, and X adults.

So 1.5% of the electorate that is net 10% R is replaced every year by an electorate that is net-30% D, so the electorate goes 0.6% more D every year, and 2.4% more D from 2016 to 2020.

Trump is a demagogue, the sort who creates more problems than he solves without the excuse of the world changing too fast. The Gray Champion forces changes that anticipate history. A true regeneracy requires a sizable majority to go along. As for us Boomers -- most of us are near, at, or past retirement age, so even if we make the changes we will not be around to appreciate them. Know well that the Millennial Generation is starting to participate in elections in numbers suggesting that civic participation is important to them. Sure, the post-Crisis world will not fit a Blue Boomer ideal -- but will not fit a Red Boomer ideal, either. MAGA? It will be as much in contempt as "New Era" politics of the 1920s.

[AspieMillennial]

(05-30-2019, 12:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Donald Trump is a clueless failure as recent polls of approval in the low 40s and disapproval numbers in the low-fifties show. He will need a huge improvement in public opinion to have a chance to get re-elected.

Demographics do not help him, to put it mildly. Older generations in the electorate may be voting, in general, about 55-45 R; millennial adults are voting about 65-35 D. The Republican Party has little to offer Millennial adults except more debt, lower pay, and higher prices and taxes, and I do not see that changing. Millennial voters are roughly replacing older voters as new voters the older voters dying off or becoming unable to vote due to senility. Older voters (mostly) are leaving the electorate at roughly a 1.5% rate every year, and I am not distinguishing Silent, Boom, and X adults.

So 1.5% of the electorate that is net 10% R is replaced every year by an electorate that is net-30% D, so the electorate goes 0.6% more D every year, and 2.4% more D from 2016 to 2020.

Trump is a demagogue, the sort who creates more problems than he solves without the excuse of the world changing too fast. The Gray Champion forces changes that anticipate history. A true regeneracy requires a sizable majority to go along. As for us Boomers -- most of us are near, at, or past retirement age, so even if we make the changes we will not be around to appreciate them. Know well that the Millennial Generation is starting to participate in elections in numbers suggesting that civic participation is important to them. Sure, the post-Crisis world will not fit a Blue Boomer ideal -- but will not fit a Red Boomer ideal, either. MAGA? It will be as much in contempt as "New Era" politics of the 1920s.

There are some Millennial supporters of Trump because we're tired of the privilege rhetoric, the impractical solutions, the open borders, and all the guilting complexes that the liberals try to put on us. Some leftist shouting "YOU ARE TOXIC AND PROBLEMATIC" or "YOU NEED TO STOP DRIVING OR EATING MEAT" isn't going to change my mind at all. I will still drive and do as I wish despite the screaming irrational leftists. They need to cool their fee fees.

[David Horn]

(05-30-2019, 02:14 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: There are some Millennial supporters of Trump because we're tired of the privilege rhetoric, the impractical solutions, the open borders, and all the guilting complexes that the liberals try to put on us. Some leftist shouting "YOU ARE TOXIC AND PROBLEMATIC" or "YOU NEED TO STOP DRIVING OR EATING MEAT" isn't going to change my mind at all. I will still drive and do as I wish despite the screaming irrational leftists...

Good luck getting anything done FOR you, though it seems you are ripe for getting things done TO you. Liberty to do as you please only applies to those with the wherewithal to actually take advantage, and that's definitely not you … or me either.

[AspieMillennial]

(05-30-2019, 02:51 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 02:14 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: There are some Millennial supporters of Trump because we're tired of the privilege rhetoric, the impractical solutions, the open borders, and all the guilting complexes that the liberals try to put on us. Some leftist shouting "YOU ARE TOXIC AND PROBLEMATIC" or "YOU NEED TO STOP DRIVING OR EATING MEAT" isn't going to change my mind at all. I will still drive and do as I wish despite the screaming irrational leftists...

Good luck getting anything done FOR you, though it seems you are ripe for getting things done TO you. Liberty to do as you please only applies to those with the wherewithal to actually take advantage, and that's definitely not you … or me either.

What do you mean by that? There are people who want to take away the rights to own guns and the right to free speech? I think both the current left and the current right are totalitarian idiots but the left is more totalitarian than the right at the moment. I'm not totally partisan so I'm not above switching sides when one side gets more dangerous than another. My view now could be different 5-10 years from now.

[pbrower2a]

(05-30-2019, 03:39 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 02:51 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 02:14 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: There are some Millennial supporters of Trump because we're tired of the privilege rhetoric, the impractical solutions, the open borders, and all the guilting complexes that the liberals try to put on us. Some leftist shouting "YOU ARE TOXIC AND PROBLEMATIC" or "YOU NEED TO STOP DRIVING OR EATING MEAT" isn't going to change my mind at all. I will still drive and do as I wish despite the screaming irrational leftists...

Good luck getting anything done FOR you, though it seems you are ripe for getting things done TO you.  Liberty to do as you please only applies to those with the wherewithal to actually take advantage, and that's definitely not you … or me either.

What do you mean by that? There are people who want to take away the rights to own guns and the right to free speech? I think both the current left and the current right are totalitarian idiots but the left is more totalitarian than the right at the moment.  I'm not totally partisan so I'm not above switching sides when one side gets more dangerous than another. My view now could be different 5-10 years from now.

It would seem that 'gun rights' mean little in protecting the essence of political freedom. There are practically no gun rights in the United Kingdom, and Britain has typically been a model democracy. The Soviet Union had gun rights (especially for Communists and people that the Commies trusted), and no freedom.

What matters more than firearms? Checks and balances. Enumerated rights. Fair treatment of minorities.  Respect for political competition as a means of encouraging honesty by the politicians.  The absence of a despotic monarchy and a dominant cadre party.

[AspieMillennial]

(05-30-2019, 05:19 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 03:39 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 02:51 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 02:14 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: There are some Millennial supporters of Trump because we're tired of the privilege rhetoric, the impractical solutions, the open borders, and all the guilting complexes that the liberals try to put on us. Some leftist shouting "YOU ARE TOXIC AND PROBLEMATIC" or "YOU NEED TO STOP DRIVING OR EATING MEAT" isn't going to change my mind at all. I will still drive and do as I wish despite the screaming irrational leftists...

Good luck getting anything done FOR you, though it seems you are ripe for getting things done TO you.  Liberty to do as you please only applies to those with the wherewithal to actually take advantage, and that's definitely not you … or me either.

What do you mean by that? There are people who want to take away the rights to own guns and the right to free speech? I think both the current left and the current right are totalitarian idiots but the left is more totalitarian than the right at the moment.  I'm not totally partisan so I'm not above switching sides when one side gets more dangerous than another. My view now could be different 5-10 years from now.

It would seem that 'gun rights' mean little in protecting the essence of political freedom. There are practically no gun rights in the United Kingdom, and Britain has typically been a model democracy. The Soviet Union had gun rights (especially for Communists and people that the Commies trusted), and no freedom.

What matters more than firearms? Checks and balances. Enumerated rights. Fair treatment of minorities.  Respect for political competition as a means of encouraging honesty by the politicians.  The absence of a despotic monarchy and a dominant cadre party.

The UK is a bad example. People are arrested for their Twitter posts there so it's not exactly a free country. Now they have knife control. Guns are important because they give you the right to defend yourself on an even playing ground, a right to hunt, and a right to stand up against tyranny.

[pbrower2a]

I can tell you something that criminals fear even more than guns: dogs. Your docile pet can become an aggressive predator on par with "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) in a split second. Dogs are much better behaved under most circumstances than any wild predator, but when protecting loved ones they can create the primal fear of being prey. A dog half your mass is just above you in the food chain. Multiple dogs?

Two eighty-pound dogs = one 160-pound cougar, leopard, or jaguar
Three eighty-pound dogs = one 240-pound pig, lioness or black bear
Four eighty-pound dogs = one 320-pound tiger or alligator

Even pigs are documented man-eaters.

It is telling that one of the rights that Nazis took away quickly from Jews was the right to keep a pet dog. Even a little ankle-biter like a Yorkshire tiger... terror... terrier can do great damage to someone who ends up where he does not belong. Such a dog can snap an Achilles' tendon and force a fall.

Dogs are the strongest and most powerful mammals for their size. How strong? One dog is bred for rescuing struggling swimmers, which means that the dog must be strong enough to overpower someone. They have never been bred for weakness. Sure, you can get along with them if you behave in their presence. Most people get the message, behaving themselves or staying away.

[AspieMillennial]

(05-31-2019, 02:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can tell you something that criminals fear even more than guns: dogs. Your docile pet can become an aggressive predator on par with "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) in a split second. Dogs are much better behaved under most circumstances than any wild predator, but when protecting loved ones they can create the primal fear of being prey. A dog half your mass is just above you in the food chain. Multiple dogs?

Two eighty-pound dogs = one 160-pound cougar, leopard, or jaguar
Three eighty-pound dogs = one 240-pound pig, lioness or black bear
Four eighty-pound dogs = one 320-pound tiger or alligator

Even pigs are documented man-eaters.

It is telling that one of the rights that Nazis took away quickly from Jews was the right to keep a pet dog. Even a little ankle-biter like a Yorkshire tiger... terror... terrier can do great damage to someone who ends up where he does not belong. Such a dog can snap an Achilles' tendon and force a fall.

Dogs are the strongest and most powerful mammals for their size. How strong? One dog is bred for rescuing struggling swimmers, which means that the dog must be strong enough to overpower someone. They have never been bred for weakness. Sure, you can get along with them if you behave in their presence. Most people get the message, behaving themselves or staying away.

This is true but you can control a gun more than you can control a Pitbull or Rottweiler that can turn on you later on and may not attack on command.

[David Horn]

(05-30-2019, 03:39 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 02:51 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 02:14 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: There are some Millennial supporters of Trump because we're tired of the privilege rhetoric, the impractical solutions, the open borders, and all the guilting complexes that the liberals try to put on us. Some leftist shouting "YOU ARE TOXIC AND PROBLEMATIC" or "YOU NEED TO STOP DRIVING OR EATING MEAT" isn't going to change my mind at all. I will still drive and do as I wish despite the screaming irrational leftists...

Good luck getting anything done FOR you, though it seems you are ripe for getting things done TO you.  Liberty to do as you please only applies to those with the wherewithal to actually take advantage, and that's definitely not you … or me either.

What do you mean by that? There are people who want to take away the rights to own guns and the right to free speech? I think both the current left and the current right are totalitarian idiots but the left is more totalitarian than the right at the moment.  I'm not totally partisan so I'm not above switching sides when one side gets more dangerous than another. My view now could be different 5-10 years from now.

The liberty types don't stop with gun and speech rights, and they don't limit speech to the spoken and written word.  For them, money is also speech, and money talks louder than you can, shouting at the top of your lungs.  How do you think we got into the mess we're in today?

As the saying goes: money talks and bullshit walks.

[pbrower2a]

(05-31-2019, 02:20 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-31-2019, 02:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can tell you something that criminals fear even more than guns: dogs. Your docile pet can become an aggressive predator on par with "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) in a split second. Dogs are much better behaved under most circumstances than any wild predator, but when protecting loved ones they can create the primal fear of being prey. A dog half your mass is just above you in the food chain. Multiple dogs?

Two eighty-pound dogs = one 160-pound cougar, leopard, or jaguar
Three eighty-pound dogs =  one 240-pound pig, lioness or black bear
Four eighty-pound dogs = one 320-pound tiger or alligator

Even pigs are documented man-eaters.

It is telling that one of the rights that Nazis took away quickly from Jews was the right to keep a pet dog. Even a little ankle-biter like a Yorkshire tiger... terror... terrier can do great damage to someone who ends up where he does not belong. Such a dog can snap an Achilles' tendon and force a fall.

Dogs are the strongest and most powerful mammals for their size. How strong? One dog is bred for rescuing struggling swimmers, which means that the dog must be strong enough to overpower someone.   They have never been bred for weakness. Sure, you can get along with them if you behave in their presence. Most people get the message, behaving themselves or staying away.

This is true but you can control a gun more than you can control a Pitbull or Rottweiler that can turn on you later on and may not attack on command.

Any dog is extremely dangerous to an intruder or attacker. The threat of a severe mauling is enough to scare off all but the most dedicated criminals, most of whom are cowards whose fear any dog picks up easily. You need a firearm in your hand for the firearm to be effective. If a crook gets your firearm before you, then the crook turns your defense into offense against you. Crooks cannot turn dogs against their owners.

A dog's bark might be reassuring to its loved ones, but not to someone who obviously does not belong where he is. So imagine this scenario: a burglar enters your house through the window to your eleven-year-old daughter's bedroom -- where your daughter is. He has a rape kit with him; many burglars are rapists. I am sure that if you have a gun you would plug the rapist and concern yourself only with hitting the burglar/rapist instead of your daughter with gunfire.

So your daughter keeps  the door ajar for the family dog, "Mr. D.O. Berman". "Mr. D.O. Berman" gets to the scene quickly because the burglar/rapist wakes him up quickly. At a speed of 35 miles per hour he attacks the burglar and inflicts severe bites and scratches. The burglar/rapist gets an unwelcome lesson in ecology -- that some other critter is above him in the food chain. Your daughter is unhurt, but the burglar/rapist is lucky to get a trip to the hospital -- the jail ward in the hospital.

Or -- your wife takes the dog with her while jogging. Some sexual predator is hiding behind some shrubbery. The dog smells him  and decides to confront. Your wife feels a sharp pull on her, and the crooks gets to hear some angry barking. Time to leave.

If you are a criminal you have no cause to trust even the gentlest of dogs. The difference between the most docile of large carnivores and the most aggressive is a situation.

[Eric the Green]

(05-27-2019, 08:43 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-27-2019, 06:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-27-2019, 10:16 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-27-2019, 09:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-26-2019, 11:42 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote: Maybe Trump is the regeneracy. I predict this new order will be about making America great and focusing on our own country rather than expansionism, big wars, free trade, or globalism.

That is how Trump fooled the people, saying he was for this focus on our country. But he has hired warmongers as his top advisors, like John Bolton, and is supporting a deadly proxy war against Iran in Yemen, is threatening Iran, is supporting Israel's genocide against Palestinians, was threatening North Korea, is carrying out a sanction campaign that is hurting the people of Venezuela, is expanding our military so we can win so many more wars that we'll get tired of winning, and carried out the war on the IS in a more deadly way. And focusing on our country by weakening our alliances only allows anti-American powers to gain more influence in the world, rather than just stopping the expansion of our world role. This does not help our economy either.

As far as focusing on our own country is concerned, yes he has started debilitating trade wars not only against China, but against nations that are on our level like in Europe, against which no trade wars are needed. And his focus on our country is only about letting big polluters destroy our water, our lands and our national monuments, and giving huge tax breaks to the oligarchy, which has resulted in no benefits to most taxpayers. This continuation of Reaganomics on steroids is not responsible for any economic benefit for our country, but only to the same global corporations he supposedly doesn't want to expand.

I think we shouldn't go to war with these countries. I disagree with him there and think he's acting dangerous though. We don't need all these wars for no reason. Sadly both the Republicans and Democrats are war mongers right now. I do want some tariffs and hard migration limits though. We can't compete with slave labor wages in the third world without sinking ourselves. It's impossible. I think tariffs are one of the only ways to save working class from globalism. Cheap products can be made here through automation with some people in the factories and more expensive products can be made here through different means.

I don't disagree; sensible tariffs should be applied on countries to which our companies send our jobs overseas for cheap labor and cheap regulations. But migrants are often scapegoats for low wages. Most only compete for the low wage jobs, are not paid fairly, and add to the economy through being customers and eventually businessmen and women and good workers. However Trump's migration policy is worrisome. He wants a merit system, which means he wants migrants to be people who would compete with those who get high salaries and wages.

I think restricted migration as in much fewer numbers. I do think the merit based system is dangerous because it's only to breakdown the wages of the middle class. The migrants are not at fault the elites are.

It seems that under Obama migration over the Mexican border had been reduced to a trickle. Now ironically with Trump's tough-guy approach, migration is exploding. It seems that the president's approach can't control climate change and droughts, nor gangs of thugs enforcing turf wars, nor corrupt tyrannical governments that the USA helped to install which attack the people. And as you say his approach will reduce opportunities for people here. And the destruction of education which he and his alligator Betsy DeVoss sponsor will not help prepare American workers for the higher-paying jobs.

[Eric the Green]

(05-31-2019, 02:20 AM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-31-2019, 02:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I can tell you something that criminals fear even more than guns: dogs. Your docile pet can become an aggressive predator on par with "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) in a split second. Dogs are much better behaved under most circumstances than any wild predator, but when protecting loved ones they can create the primal fear of being prey. A dog half your mass is just above you in the food chain. Multiple dogs?

Two eighty-pound dogs = one 160-pound cougar, leopard, or jaguar
Three eighty-pound dogs =  one 240-pound pig, lioness or black bear
Four eighty-pound dogs = one 320-pound tiger or alligator

Even pigs are documented man-eaters.

It is telling that one of the rights that Nazis took away quickly from Jews was the right to keep a pet dog. Even a little ankle-biter like a Yorkshire tiger... terror... terrier can do great damage to someone who ends up where he does not belong. Such a dog can snap an Achilles' tendon and force a fall.

Dogs are the strongest and most powerful mammals for their size. How strong? One dog is bred for rescuing struggling swimmers, which means that the dog must be strong enough to overpower someone.   They have never been bred for weakness. Sure, you can get along with them if you behave in their presence. Most people get the message, behaving themselves or staying away.

This is true but you can control a gun more than you can control a Pitbull or Rottweiler that can turn on you later on and may not attack on command.

It's also true contrary to the propaganda of the gun nuts that the Nazis did not have gun control.

[Hintergrund]

(05-22-2019, 06:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: He is quite conservative for his age, at least on fiscal and diplomatic matters. He's more socially liberal. As for the nanny state, he sees it as unsustainable and undesirable.

You're gay and have a son? And black and conservative? That combination should be rarer than a unicorn.

(05-30-2019, 02:14 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote: There are some Millennial supporters of Trump because we're tired of the privilege rhetoric, the impractical solutions, the open borders, and all the guilting complexes that the liberals try to put on us. Some leftist shouting "YOU ARE TOXIC AND PROBLEMATIC" or "YOU NEED TO STOP DRIVING OR EATING MEAT" isn't going to change my mind at all. I will still drive and do as I wish despite the screaming irrational leftists. They need to cool their fee fees.

Nobody should blame you for disliking the radical Left after that. But they're too dumb to see that, I know.

[pbrower2a]

(05-30-2019, 02:14 PM)AspieMillennial Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 12:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Donald Trump is a clueless failure as recent polls of approval in the low 40s and disapproval numbers in the low-fifties show. He will need a huge improvement in public opinion to have a chance to get re-elected.

Demographics do not help him, to put it mildly. Older generations in the electorate may be voting, in general, about 55-45 R; millennial adults are voting about 65-35 D. The Republican Party has little to offer Millennial adults except more debt, lower pay, and higher prices and taxes, and I do not see that changing. Millennial voters are roughly replacing older voters as new voters the older voters dying off or becoming unable to vote due to senility. Older voters (mostly) are leaving the electorate at roughly a 1.5% rate every year, and I am not distinguishing Silent, Boom, and X adults.

So 1.5% of the electorate that is net 10% R is replaced every year by an electorate that is net-30% D, so the electorate goes 0.6% more D every year, and 2.4% more D from 2016 to 2020.

Trump is a demagogue, the sort who creates more problems than he solves without the excuse of the world changing too fast. The Gray Champion forces changes that anticipate history. A true regeneracy requires a sizable majority to go along. As for us Boomers -- most of us are near, at, or past retirement age, so even if we make the changes we will not be around to appreciate them. Know well that the Millennial Generation is starting to participate in elections in numbers suggesting that civic participation is important to them. Sure, the post-Crisis world will not fit a Blue Boomer ideal -- but will not fit a Red Boomer ideal, either. MAGA? It will be as much in contempt as "New Era" politics of the 1920s.

There are some Millennial supporters of Trump because we're tired of the privilege rhetoric, the impractical solutions, the open borders, and all the guilting complexes that the liberals try to put on us. Some leftist shouting "YOU ARE TOXIC AND PROBLEMATIC" or "YOU NEED TO STOP DRIVING OR EATING MEAT" isn't going to change my mind at all. I will still drive and do as I wish despite the screaming irrational leftists. They need to cool their fee fees.

Donald Trump is no conservative; he is a radical rightist using populist motifs as rhetoric. His economic values are a discredited mirror-image Marxism which holds that what Marxists find wrong about capitalism at its worst are virtues. Economic inequality without the justification of rewarding virtues such as thrift, integrity, competence, industry, cautious use of resources, and reasonable risk-taking that create wealth is nothing more than an endorsement of people being filthy rich due to birth, corruption, crime, or connections. What Marx said was wrong in pathological capitalism, especially the sort that cleaves to feudal privilege, is undeniable. Capitalism has the means for doing better, and markets work far better than central planning. The rentier classes who profit off human suffering make a far better argument for anti-capitalist revolution than can any leftist demagogue.

Conservatives such as Theodore Roosevelt (he considered himself a conservative for such) believe that material progress can and must create a legacy of better and richer lives for people not rich and powerful. A valid conservatism thwarts revolution with reform. So get the children out of the factories and mines and into the schoolhouse so that they can be better workers as adults, set aside some natural beauty for people to appreciate (Man does not live by bread alone), and impose some ethical values (such as "do not hurt your customers") upon people tempted to sell patent medicines full of alcohol and opiates that mask medical disasters.

A conservative like Dwight Eisenhower saw the power of the expressway to facilitate travel and transportation. Government might not operate business, but it can certainly facilitate business. Government can also foster ethnic equity that prevents riots and radicalism. Most importantly, the rule of law is essential to constraining the despotic and elitist policies of politicians.

For a long time, conservatives insisted upon free trade and upon the effort to keep a lid on debt and inflation. The last two Republican Presidents (Dubya and Trump) have been big-government right-wingers who have bloated the deficit and sponsored economic bubbles. That must end.

So yes, there are some extreme Leftists who would regulate life into misery by taking the joy out of life. They deserve recognition for what they are, destroyers of what makes life enjoyable. We can all learn to carry our own durable shopping bags to the stores.

[Hintergrund]

(05-30-2019, 12:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: So 1.5% of the electorate that is net 10% R is replaced every year by an electorate that is net-30% D, so the electorate goes 0.6% more D every year, and 2.4% more D from 2016 to 2020.

Yeah... on the condition that the Reps are dumb enough to never, ever change their strategy (say what you want about Trump, but his strategy WAS new), and the Democrats will never, ever piss off their fanbase. (What about the conservative Catholic Hispanics?)

[pbrower2a]

(06-01-2019, 09:17 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 12:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: So 1.5% of the electorate that is net 10% R is replaced every year by an electorate that is net-30% D, so the electorate goes 0.6% more D every year, and 2.4% more D from 2016 to 2020.

Yeah... on the condition that the Reps are dumb enough to never, ever change their strategy (say what you want about Trump, but his strategy WAS new), and the Democrats will never, ever piss off their fanbase. (What about the conservative Catholic Hispanics?)

Trump's strategy is new, but I already see it as ruinous. He is simply too reckless to be a conservative, and I can easily see many people whose economic and cultural positions would ordinarily make them conservatives have been going Democratic. Ethnic minorities entering the middle class are obvious enough.

I can imagine the GOP collapsing either to a fraction of what it used to be or becoming irrelevant altogether if certain things happen. The Republican Party did not disappear altogether in the 1930s; after all it was not at fault for ethical  malfeasance. It could serve as a default for people shut out of machine politics or for people seeking to challenge corrupt or incompetent Democrats who cannot be defeated in primary elections.

Of course I am way ahead of myself in predicting this possibility: that as in the 1820s (with the demise of the Federalists) and in the 1840s (with the demise of the Whigs) the Democratic Party becomes an unwieldy big-tent and splits with the formation of two main parties.

Also possible is that we go parliamentary, but this would require a Constitutional Convention. So why is the structure of the US government more similar to that of  Argentina than to that of Australia?  Because the American Founding Fathers thought the British parliament corrupt and unrepresentative, and most Latin-American countries saw the Presidential system a better solution. Somewhat later the British solved the unrepresentative character of Parliament by basing its representation on population size, making Parliament more suited to meaningful elections. The "rotten borough" with a tiny population might have as much representation as a giant city even if the borough was effectively a ghost town, and some flunky of the king could live there often enough and win an election in that borough with his family members alone.

That is how things were when Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa received independence from Britain. Our Founding Fathers used a Census to determine the size of a Congressional District, and that district could range in size from the tiny 13th district of New York



whose best-known attraction is the Apollo Theater. It is mostly Harlem.

Next door is another tiny district, NY-15:





entirely in the Bronx. The landmark that you would most easily recognize there is Yankee Stadium, whether you recall the "House that Ruth built" or its more modern successor.

Both have over 700,000 people, so they are more populous than some cities and even states. The largest district in territory is Alaska at-large.

...I can see one very attractive feature of a parliamentary system: the vote of no confidence. Were there one, Trump would not last long.

[David Horn]

(06-01-2019, 09:17 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(05-30-2019, 12:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: So 1.5% of the electorate that is net 10% R is replaced every year by an electorate that is net-30% D, so the electorate goes 0.6% more D every year, and 2.4% more D from 2016 to 2020.

Yeah... on the condition that the Reps are dumb enough to never, ever change their strategy (say what you want about Trump, but his strategy WAS new), and the Democrats will never, ever piss off their fanbase. (What about the conservative Catholic Hispanics?)

If you're suggesting that both parties are in a repositioning era, I would agree.  Based solely on results to date, the Dems are moving toward the future majority and the Reps are solidifying a declining base.  That said, it's impossible to say that this is the long term strategy of either party, because one election cycle seems to qualify as a long perspective.