Posts: 121
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2018
(08-07-2020, 10:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (08-07-2020, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: (08-07-2020, 12:50 AM)jleagans Wrote: (07-13-2020, 12:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (07-12-2020, 07:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: You fail to see the immense power of symbolism. This isn't really about who can row the boat better. It's about who can stand at the helm and inspire others to row as if their lives depend on it.
Somehow I think Susan Rice can fill the bill, just watching and listening to her to some extent.
At least she has "the stars" on her side, indicating talent.
Someone recommended that I look her up. Most people I look at fall short. Sometimes I hit the jackpot.
If course there are a few others around who could do it, but none of them are being considered for vice-president.
Love that you looked up Rice and her stars are good, definitely looking likely to be VP and President in short order.
I can't see Rice as POTUS, because I doubt she can herself. She's talented, but she'll have to be a Trumanesque figure to turn that into policy and progress in general. She's a wonk, not a politician.
The "stars" say otherwise. She does a lot of stump speaking. She doesn't come across as a wonk. She has presence and bearing, and generates confidence.
Your former governor is even better. And Mitch Landrieu is the best. Assuming Biden wins in 2020, some very talented Democratic politicians will have to step up for 2024, or our 4T will likely fail, because the challenger will have a leg up in that election. The best thing Biden can do is pick the best among his choices who could step up to the role. That's Susan Rice, and the worst choice would be Kamala Harris. If the Republicans get back in in 2024, then we just reverse everything and go back to square one, and all the problems fester.
The Republicans actually have a rising star, which I saw on TV recently. Until now their best prospect was a right-wing idiot trumper from Arkansas, Tom Cotton from the cotton lands. But Utah is a state that votes Republican nationally, but sometimes Democratic locally. They had a moderate Republican politician who ran for president a while back, Jon Huntsman. Now they have Spencer Cox, their next governor. He has a 15-2 score on my system. I looked him up because he seemed to have some personal power and heft, some positive charm, and was quite articulate. That's a winning combo for a politician. So, watch for him in the future. He was not going along with the Trump line on mail-in voting, which he is in charge of in Utah, but seemed quite intelligent. Not the change agent we need, I'm sure, but when people are ready for a stable leader, the next Ike, who may not just reverse advances made by Democrats, he may be the guy. That would be better than that young Trump power couple we all know.
I think Susan Rice can still end up playing a linchpin role in the next decade as Secretary of State steadying the waters for us internationally. I don't see Kamala in 2024, and certainly not Tom Cotton. The Utah idea is interesting but I see Utah becoming more Dem (look at Romney) over time.
How do Andrew Yang and AOC's stars look to you? I could see millennial politics of the next era aligning totally around these two politicians.
Posts: 25
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2020
(08-13-2020, 03:36 PM)jleagans Wrote: I think Susan Rice can still end up playing a linchpin role in the next decade as Secretary of State steadying the waters for us internationally. I don't see Kamala in 2024, and certainly not Tom Cotton. The Utah idea is interesting but I see Utah becoming more Dem (look at Romney) over time.
How do Andrew Yang and AOC's stars look to you? I could see millennial politics of the next era aligning totally around these two politicians.
I definitely could see Andrew Yang and AOC as president. They do seem to capture the millenials' attention, and I myself do think that they, or people like them represent the new paradigm for the next saeculum. What they support does appear to align with late 4T/1T goals, such as building new infrastructure, new institutions, and a change of economic paradigm. They're the real breath of fresh air that the party needs.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(08-13-2020, 07:14 PM)RadianMay Wrote: (08-13-2020, 03:36 PM)jleagans Wrote: I think Susan Rice can still end up playing a linchpin role in the next decade as Secretary of State steadying the waters for us internationally. I don't see Kamala in 2024, and certainly not Tom Cotton. The Utah idea is interesting but I see Utah becoming more Dem (look at Romney) over time.
How do Andrew Yang and AOC's stars look to you? I could see millennial politics of the next era aligning totally around these two politicians.
I definitely could see Andrew Yang and AOC as president. They do seem to capture the millenials' attention, and I myself do think that they, or people like them represent the new paradigm for the next saeculum. What they support does appear to align with late 4T/1T goals, such as building new infrastructure, new institutions, and a change of economic paradigm. They're the real breath of fresh air that the party needs.
Andrew Yang is an interesting one-trick-pony, but that's about it. On the other hand, AOC has the chops, and will be barely eligible in 2024. I would vote for her.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 121
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2018
I'm pegging AOC as a 2030's President, I just don't see how she doesn't define one of the parties for the next two turnings.
And I think she ends up defining herself in relief to an Andrew Yang technocrat-silicon valley Democrat party. He's not a one-trick pony, UBI was just a starting point (though I can make an argument that UBI is the most important policy debate we will have in this era). Yang's pitch that sold me toward the end is that the Democratic party should be the party that trusts the people. THAT is a platform you can build a party around that dovetails with modern conservative thinking that opens the door for coalitions.
I'm seeing Yang as the next FDR/Reagan party era starter, and AOC either takes over the Republican party or we see a Progressive party actually replace the Republican party.
The historical rhyming with AOD and Teddy Roosevelt is strong, as the Dems stand now exactly where the R's stood when Teddy had to run as a Bull Moose. No one in the flank of a party has ever been able to pull the party back to them.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
08-18-2020, 12:38 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-18-2020, 12:41 AM by Eric the Green.)
(08-17-2020, 06:48 PM)jleagans Wrote: I'm pegging AOC as a 2030's President, I just don't see how she doesn't define one of the parties for the next two turnings.
And I think she ends up defining herself in relief to an Andrew Yang technocrat-silicon valley Democrat party. He's not a one-trick pony, UBI was just a starting point (though I can make an argument that UBI is the most important policy debate we will have in this era). Yang's pitch that sold me toward the end is that the Democratic party should be the party that trusts the people. THAT is a platform you can build a party around that dovetails with modern conservative thinking that opens the door for coalitions.
I'm seeing Yang as the next FDR/Reagan party era starter, and AOC either takes over the Republican party or we see a Progressive party actually replace the Republican party.
The historical rhyming with AOC and Teddy Roosevelt is strong, as the Dems stand now exactly where the R's stood when Teddy had to run as a Bull Moose. No one in the flank of a party has ever been able to pull the party back to them.
My indicators clearly show that neither AOC (score 13-19) nor Yang (score 8-15) will ever be president. But that does not mean they are not important opinion shapers in future years. If the AOC faction grows, she could end up as Speaker.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(08-17-2020, 06:48 PM)jleagans Wrote: I'm pegging AOC as a 2030's President, I just don't see how she doesn't define one of the parties for the next two turnings.
And I think she ends up defining herself in relief to an Andrew Yang technocrat-silicon valley Democrat party. He's not a one-trick pony, UBI was just a starting point (though I can make an argument that UBI is the most important policy debate we will have in this era). Yang's pitch that sold me toward the end is that the Democratic party should be the party that trusts the people. THAT is a platform you can build a party around that dovetails with modern conservative thinking that opens the door for coalitions.
I'm seeing Yang as the next FDR/Reagan party era starter, and AOC either takes over the Republican party or we see a Progressive party actually replace the Republican party.
The historical rhyming with AOD and Teddy Roosevelt is strong, as the Dems stand now exactly where the R's stood when Teddy had to run as a Bull Moose. No one in the flank of a party has ever been able to pull the party back to them.
First, UBI is not that new. The Swiss have tinkered with it for at least 15 years. Second, the plutocrats will want to keep the spoils they've accumulated, even in the event of a strong leveling event. UBI is a perfect tool to keep them rich and the proles quiet. So Yang may be prescient, but not all that progressive. Also remember, UBI is a government benefit that is easily subject to abuse by the government if the wrong people get a chance to tinker. In that, it's a lot like Social Security, and should have an annual COLA and a strict COLA policy to keep meddling to a minimum.
A better choice would be a large and growing Sovereign Wealth Fund, that holds voting stock in most public stocks. Then, the profits benefit everyone and the control on unacceptable behavior is constrained by the ability to vote proxies.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 25
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2020
(08-18-2020, 11:15 AM)David Horn Wrote: First, UBI is not that new. The Swiss have tinkered with it for at least 15 years. Second, the plutocrats will want to keep the spoils they've accumulated, even in the event of a strong leveling event. UBI is a perfect tool to keep them rich and the proles quiet. So Yang may be prescient, but not all that progressive. Also remember, UBI is a government benefit that is easily subject to abuse by the government if the wrong people get a chance to tinker. In that, it's a lot like Social Security, and should have an annual COLA and a strict COLA policy to keep meddling to a minimum.
A better choice would be a large and growing Sovereign Wealth Fund, that holds voting stock in most public stocks. Then, the profits benefit everyone and the control on unacceptable behavior is constrained by the ability to vote proxies.
Interesting idea about the voting stocks. I’ll have to read more about that.
It is the case that the American political spectrum is rather truncated compared to the options other countries really have. Far left policies in other countries just don’t exist in America; politics that Bernie (universal healthcare, free college) and Yang (UBI) support are mostly considered moderate left in most developed countries, such as those in Western Europe. Nationalising the electric grid, oil companies, even the health providers are completely unthinkable.
I personally think the reason this is the case has to do with our first past the post voting system, which causes the two party system, and the complete shutdown of meaningful dialogue. With a more proportional voting system, smaller parties further to the right and left, as well as those offering a mix of policies between the democrats and republicans can actually hold influence in congress, and this will force the main parties to consider more ideas. I feel that change from within the party will only happen when an existential threat emerges, and seeing how this election goes, both parties still haven’t learnt their lessons.
I would be blessed to see the day when true proportional representation is implemented on the federal level in this country.
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(08-18-2020, 07:51 PM)RadianMay Wrote: Interesting idea about the voting stocks. I’ll have to read more about that...
We have one, albeit of limited scope. It's controlled by the state of Alaska and is funded by Prudhoe Bay oil. It's why Alaskans get paid rather than pay taxes. Norway has a national version funded by North Sea oil. It doesn't have to be oil, and it shouldn't be in this case.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 149
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2016
(08-18-2020, 12:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My indicators clearly show that neither AOC (score 13-19) nor Yang (score 8-15) will ever be president. But that does not mean they are not important opinion shapers in future years. If the AOC faction grows, she could end up as Speaker.
Seriously. "The Stars?" 2024, 2028 and the 2030's?
I just tossed my chicken bones, and it's clear. John Bolton will successfully serve two terms starting in 2004.
[font=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
Posts: 149
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2016
I know this seems really old-fashioned, re-warmed Malthusian-ism. But ... we just have too damn many people on the planet. Growing the population means that our economic system HAS to be a growth model, not a more sustainable, rational model designed to not overrun the planet's capacity.
COVID is a symptom of our overpopulation. Lots of bio models behave the same way. Once exponential growth reaches a certain point, the organism dies off. This is just the first one of these. There'll be more.
[font=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(08-21-2020, 06:42 PM)TnT Wrote: I know this seems really old-fashioned, re-warmed Malthusian-ism. But ... we just have too damn many people on the planet. Growing the population means that our economic system HAS to be a growth model, not a more sustainable, rational model designed to not overrun the planet's capacity.
COVID is a symptom of our overpopulation. Lots of bio models behave the same way. Once exponential growth reaches a certain point, the organism dies off. This is just the first one of these. There'll be more.
True enough. I see global overpopulation as an issue similar to global warming which will someday become an central issue for a crisis or an awakening. Not yet, though. Should fusion become real and countries like India, China and Russia start installing scrubbers on the stacks remaining, global overpopulation is apt to make it to the front burner.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 149
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2016
(08-21-2020, 09:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (08-21-2020, 06:42 PM)TnT Wrote: I know this seems really old-fashioned, re-warmed Malthusian-ism. But ... we just have too damn many people on the planet. Growing the population means that our economic system HAS to be a growth model, not a more sustainable, rational model designed to not overrun the planet's capacity.
COVID is a symptom of our overpopulation. Lots of bio models behave the same way. Once exponential growth reaches a certain point, the organism dies off. This is just the first one of these. There'll be more.
True enough. I see global overpopulation as an issue similar to global warming which will someday become an central issue for a crisis or an awakening. Not yet, though. Should fusion become real and countries like India, China and Russia start installing scrubbers on the stacks remaining, global overpopulation is apt to make it to the front burner.
The way I see it, AGW is the same thing as overpopulation! If we weren't so many, we wouldn't have AGW. In fact, I can't think of a single solitary problem we have in the world today that wouldn't be essentially solved if the population suddenly decreased by, say, 75%. Perhaps the next pandemic, or one after, might just do the job for us.
[font=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(08-22-2020, 02:30 PM)TnT Wrote: The way I see it, AGW is the same thing as overpopulation! If we weren't so many, we wouldn't have AGW. In fact, I can't think of a single solitary problem we have in the world today that wouldn't be essentially solved if the population suddenly decreased by, say, 75%. Perhaps the next pandemic, or one after, might just do the job for us.
You are correct enough. There is a problem that autocratic China with their one baby policy was for a long time the primary example of population control. Those that are still wrapped up in religious thinking resist anything to do with birth control.
But unfortunately the issue has become two issues. We might get global warming fought against in the near future. Population control so far is something few are willing to talk about and advocate. I am sympathetic and anticipate that it will come in the not to distant future.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
08-22-2020, 07:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2020, 07:46 PM by Eric the Green.)
(08-21-2020, 06:38 PM)TnT Wrote: (08-18-2020, 12:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My indicators clearly show that neither AOC (score 13-19) nor Yang (score 8-15) will ever be president. But that does not mean they are not important opinion shapers in future years. If the AOC faction grows, she could end up as Speaker.
Seriously. "The Stars?" 2024, 2028 and the 2030's?
I just tossed my chicken bones, and it's clear. John Bolton will successfully serve two terms starting in 2004.
ha ha. I haven't even looked at John Bolton's "stars." Nick Bolton's either, ha ha. Seriously, you are surprised about my use of cosmic indicators? How long have you been coming here, off and on? Come on....
Check it out already!
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
Horoscope scores rock!
You missed Woodstock; that must be why you're not hip 
This is the Age of Aquarius, baby!
Posts: 149
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2016
08-23-2020, 01:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-23-2020, 01:22 PM by TnT.)
(08-22-2020, 07:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (08-21-2020, 06:38 PM)TnT Wrote: (08-18-2020, 12:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My indicators clearly show that neither AOC (score 13-19) nor Yang (score 8-15) will ever be president. But that does not mean they are not important opinion shapers in future years. If the AOC faction grows, she could end up as Speaker.
Seriously. "The Stars?" 2024, 2028 and the 2030's?
I just tossed my chicken bones, and it's clear. John Bolton will successfully serve two terms starting in 2004.
ha ha. I haven't even looked at John Bolton's "stars." Nick Bolton's either, ha ha. Seriously, you are surprised about my use of cosmic indicators? How long have you been coming here, off and on? Come on....
Check it out already!
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
Horoscope scores rock!
You missed Woodstock; that must be why you're not hip
This is the Age of Aquarius, baby!
Yup.. We've "done this" before. Objective reality is challenging. My 20+ year study of epistemology has taught me that, if nothing else. I try to remain open-minded, but not open at both ends.
I suppose the closest I can come to the sort of woo-woo- you espouse is in my readings of Jung. The notion of the conscious, the personal sub-consciousness and the lower level of universal consciousness is interesting. The way I interpret that model is that I'm aware of my own conscious. I'm also convinced through experience that there's plenty in my subconscious that bubbles up and influences behavior and modes of thought.
The universal consciousness? My interpretation is that that's the genetic component. Our genetic background, genetic "memory," genetic influence on behavior, thought, etc. seems very reasonable as a partial explanation. See for example, different breeds of dogs. Each has a "job" built into its genetic memory. My son's Brittany for example has as her highest interest, anything that flys. She is totally enthralled by birds. Heck, she'll even point a housefly. Given that, and a hundred other easily accessible examples, it hard not to think that we too have genetic memories that we probably all share with one another.
One example that I think is probable is xenophobia. Given our history as a species, why wouldn't we fear/dislike anyone outside our clan? They represent a threat to our hunting/gathering way of life, which represents the vast, vast majority of the years of genetic background that we have. That, in itself, may partly explain the difficulty we have with racism when we live together in large groups.
So ... there's plenty of uncertainty in observing, interpreting and coming up with a workable view of objective reality without introducing non-reproducible woo-woo and pseudo-scientific quantifications of unrelated phenomena.
[font=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(08-23-2020, 01:20 PM)TnT Wrote: (08-22-2020, 07:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (08-21-2020, 06:38 PM)TnT Wrote: (08-18-2020, 12:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My indicators clearly show that neither AOC (score 13-19) nor Yang (score 8-15) will ever be president. But that does not mean they are not important opinion shapers in future years. If the AOC faction grows, she could end up as Speaker.
Seriously. "The Stars?" 2024, 2028 and the 2030's?
I just tossed my chicken bones, and it's clear. John Bolton will successfully serve two terms starting in 2004.
ha ha. I haven't even looked at John Bolton's "stars." Nick Bolton's either, ha ha. Seriously, you are surprised about my use of cosmic indicators? How long have you been coming here, off and on? Come on....
Check it out already!
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
Horoscope scores rock!
You missed Woodstock; that must be why you're not hip
This is the Age of Aquarius, baby!
Yup.. We've "done this" before. Objective reality is challenging. My 20+ year study of epistemology has taught me that, if nothing else. I try to remain open-minded, but not open at both ends.
I suppose the closest I can come to the sort of woo-woo- you espouse is in my readings of Jung. The notion of the conscious, the personal sub-consciousness and the lower level of universal consciousness is interesting. The way I interpret that model is that I'm aware of my own conscious. I'm also convinced through experience that there's plenty in my subconscious that bubbles up and influences behavior and modes of thought.
The universal consciousness? My interpretation is that that's the genetic component. Our genetic background, genetic "memory," genetic influence on behavior, thought, etc. seems very reasonable as a partial explanation. See for example, different breeds of dogs. Each has a "job" built into its genetic memory. My son's Brittany for example has as her highest interest, anything that flys. She is totally enthralled by birds. Heck, she'll even point a housefly. Given that, and a hundred other easily accessible examples, it hard not to think that we too have genetic memories that we probably all share with one another.
One example that I think is probable is xenophobia. Given our history as a species, why wouldn't we fear/dislike anyone outside our clan? They represent a threat to our hunting/gathering way of life, which represents the vast, vast majority of the years of genetic background that we have. That, in itself, may partly explain the difficulty we have with racism when we live together in large groups.
So ... there's plenty of uncertainty in observing, interpreting and coming up with a workable view of objective reality without introducing non-reproducible woo-woo and pseudo-scientific quantifications of unrelated phenomena.
I don't doubt that most people here are still adherents of the old paradigm. And it has much to recommend it, especially a willingness to respect and pay attention to evidence. Objectivity is the aim and method of scientific investigation.
I am aware, though, that my consciousness is a primary aspect of my being. The first modern scientists like Descartes and Newton recognized this. Newton was an astrologer and an alchemist, and Descartes based his knowledge on the primary fact of his conscious existence.
I don't adhere to genes as the prime explanation for our being. Universal consciousness is implied in our very awareness of reality. Everything I experience is inside my head. And as Bob Dylan said, there's no fences facing us in the sky. Where's the limit? It's ALL within, and we are everywhere. As Led Zeppelin said in their famous song that's often listed as #1 classic rock piece of all time, "all is one and one in all." As Wordsworth wrote, "Nature is all in all."
Those are just words to represent what we all know for sure, if we observe. But it harmonizes with astrology. Skeptics wonder how can Neptune and Pluto influence us? They are so far away! But if you look into an atom, you find that its elementary components are as far away from each other relative to their supposed size as are the planets in our solar system. It's plausible therefore that the solar system is our larger Self.
I think woo-woo can be tested too, and we can learn much from doing this; and since all phenomena ARE in fact all related, as quantum theory proves, and as eastern and esoteric western philosophy has affirmed for millennia, connections can be made. I use astrology because I experienced it, and I use as much empirical verification as I can too, especially about cycles and events. Because I predicted everything in my own chart before looking it up, and predicted before looking it up the exact day of the planetary conjunction of the sixties which I had experienced 2 years before without knowing about it, no-one can tell me that astrology isn't real. I experienced that strange vibration all across the nation, and so did millions of others, of all ages too, and at the same time.
Many astrologers do not do this empirical research that I do, and I don't posit that astrology is an exact science. Not only because it is based on general archetypes (like those Jung, an astrologer and alchemist himself, or even S&H, studied), but because it concerns human behavior and character, about which no exact science can exist. But it IS the first and primary psychological typing system, and all others are derived from it.
But you are welcome to your views. Just don't be surprised if some of us disagree, and swear by some of this woo-woo. Worldviews differ. What, "stars"??
Posts: 121
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2018
Don’t feed the Malthusians y’all .
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(11-14-2018, 04:58 PM)jleagans Wrote: The Gray Champion is something I keep coming back to, and at root its just a fun guessing game.
I believe there will be one President in between Trump and the first Millennial President, that person most likely being the Gray Champion.
My top 5:
1. Michael Bloomberg
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Joe Biden
4. Mitt Romney
5. Elizabeth Warren
None of these people have any charisma whatsoever. Most of the public figures I can think of fall into two categories
1) gutless bureaucrats who toe the party line and speak with fake passion when they're even able to manage that Mitch McConnel and Nancy Pelosi, HRC, etc)
2) celebrities and politicians with lots of "star quality", overlaying a more shallow, vacuous core of attention-grabbing histrionics (AOC, Meghan and Harry, Leonardo di Caprio, etc)
both types are leftover remnants of the 3T, "keep kicking the can of the future down the road for the sake of the present" mindset that will do nothing to serve us in a crisis era. We need a Grey Champion who exudes strength, authority and fiery resolve, and frankly...there is no one like that to be found at present. When he (and it will be a he) does come, I think it will surprise everyone.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
03-17-2022, 05:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-17-2022, 05:09 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-17-2022, 04:19 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (11-14-2018, 04:58 PM)jleagans Wrote: The Gray Champion is something I keep coming back to, and at root its just a fun guessing game.
I believe there will be one President in between Trump and the first Millennial President, that person most likely being the Gray Champion.
My top 5:
(E.M.: horoscope scores I have developed are good guides to whom is really electable for president in the USA; they are like baseball scores of favorable vs. unfavorable factors in one's birth chart)
1. Michael Bloomberg score 7-9
2. Hillary Clinton 7-12 J
3. Joe Biden 16-6
4. Mitt Romney 4-10
5. Elizabeth Warren 6-9
None of these people have any charisma whatsoever. Most of the public figures I can think of fall into two categories
1) gutless bureaucrats who toe the party line and speak with fake passion when they're even able to manage that Mitch McConnel and Nancy Pelosi, HRC, etc)
2) celebrities and politicians with lots of "star quality", overlaying a more shallow, vacuous core of attention-grabbing histrionics (AOC, Meghan and Harry, Leonardo di Caprio, etc)
both types are leftover remnants of the 3T, "keep kicking the can of the future down the road for the sake of the present" mindset that will do nothing to serve us in a crisis era. We need a Grey Champion who exudes strength, authority and fiery resolve, and frankly...there is no one like that to be found at present. When he (and it will be a he) does come, I think it will surprise everyone.
As my scores show, you are correct that none of the 5 you mentioned have much charisma, although Joe had enough to win. None of those 5 are rising new leaders, and it will be none of those (besides Biden) who could be a gray champion. I see very few on the Democratic side with high enough score besides Biden who are willing and in a position to run. And none of today's Republicans can ever be a Gray Champion, because they are all too cautious and reactionary, and because such a champion has always been a progressive relative to the times they are in.
I don't know why you characterize AOC in the way that you do. She is just a good progressive leader with good ideas who has some ability to get herself noticed. Her score is only 12-11, but that's better than 4 of your 5 old fogeys you picked out as your top 5 candidates for gray champion. The other 4 besides Biden are already proven losers.
Perhaps your last sentence will prove true. But there is no such thing as a gray champion in a first turning, and we have only 6 or 7 years to go before it's over; in other words, Joe Biden's term (unless he loses the general election in 2024, in which case no gray champion will be elected president, unless Joe resigns or drops his candidacy for re-election in 2024, and only one or two possible but unlikely Democratic candidates visible now (not including Kamala Harris, score 3-17) could take his place on the Democratic Party ticket in 2024 and get elected).
https://philosopherswheel.com/presidenti...tions.html
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-17-2022, 04:19 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: ... We need a Grey Champion who exudes strength, authority and fiery resolve, and frankly...there is no one like that to be found at present. When he (and it will be a he) does come, I think it will surprise everyone.
Don't bet your bank account on that. We're in an era that needs different thinking, and a woman in the Gray Champion role might be the perfect way to move ahead. Who that might be is the question. AOC has the charisma and the polish, but she may too divisive to get the nod ... at least for now.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
|
