New York Governor Kathy Hochul Wants People To Believe In Their Government Again

[galaxy]

(Sorry to make a new thread just for this, but I couldn't find a better place to post it)

https://buffalonews.com/news/state-and-r...7d2d1.html

This quote immediately brought my mind to S&H when I read it. It's an extremely 4T thing to say and to set as a goal. Her whole speech was very saecular, but this is the sentence that stood out above all others.

As chaotic as it may look on the ground, in many ways we are "doing the 4T thing" as a nation in spite of ourselves. Stay hopeful, friends.

[Eric the Green]

From her record I doubt that she is any more progressive than Cuomo was, and being more progressive is what it will take for us to believe in government again, because otherwise it gets nothing substantial done and our current status as the worst developed country remains.

By the way I don't see her as presidential material.

[galaxy]

(08-24-2021, 07:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: From her record I doubt that she is any more progressive than Cuomo was, and being more progressive is what it will take for us to believe in government again, because otherwise it gets nothing substantial done and our current status as the worst developed country remains.

By the way I don't see her as presidential material.

Give her a chance, more progressivism isn't necessarily the solution for everything.

I agree she's not presidential material, though. She's not a good fit for the nation as a whole, if that makes sense. Personally I think the D governor with the best potential for that is Andy Beshear, who would be both a good candidate on his own and a perfect running mate for a potential future Kamala Harris candidacy.

[Eric the Green]

(08-24-2021, 08:37 PM)galaxy Wrote:

(08-24-2021, 07:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: From her record I doubt that she is any more progressive than Cuomo was, and being more progressive is what it will take for us to believe in government again, because otherwise it gets nothing substantial done and our current status as the worst developed country remains.

By the way I don't see her as presidential material.

Give her a chance, more progressivism isn't necessarily the solution for everything.

I agree she's not presidential material, though. She's not a good fit for the nation as a whole, if that makes sense. Personally I think the D governor with the best potential for that is Andy Beshear, who would be both a good candidate on his own and a perfect running mate for a potential future Kamala Harris candidacy.

Thanks for the suggestion! I never leave any stone unturned. But according to my horoscope method, he has no chance (score 6-13). And being from a cherry-red state, he's probably too moderate for his rather-liberal Party to get nominated, despite doing a pretty-good job as governor.

As for Kamala Harris, if she is nominated she will lose, no matter WHO runs against her (score 3-17). And if she is nominated in 2024, by losing she could bring climate catastrophe to the entire planet. Kamala Harris was a poor presidential candidate who didn't even make it to 2020 and the primaries. The more she spoke, the more her audiences dwindled and her funds dried up. She well-demonstrated her very poor score. Both she and Beshear are boring speakers, as indicated by Mercury trine Saturn in their charts.

[pbrower2a]

(08-24-2021, 06:19 PM)galaxy Wrote: (Sorry to make a new thread just for this, but I couldn't find a better place to post it)

https://buffalonews.com/news/state-and-r...7d2d1.html

This quote immediately brought my mind to S&H when I read it. It's an extremely 4T thing to say and to set as a goal. Her whole speech was very saecular, but this is the sentence that stood out above all others.

As chaotic as it may look on the ground, in many ways we are "doing the 4T thing" as a nation in spite of ourselves. Stay hopeful, friends.

No apology needed. The faults of Andrew Cuomo were of personal behavior and character, and not his agenda. 

As a general pattern, liberals do not suffer their rogues. Right-wingers do, at least if they are on the authoritarian track. One of the most flagrant examples is Adolf Hitler, who drove a woman to suicide and staged an insurrection against the shaky Weimar Republic and then became the leading player in German politics (if never winning an outright majority) on a campaign on law-and-order and 'family values'.  Donald Trump isn't quite as bad, but he still has a large following. Should he run for President he would get at least 45% of the popular vote against an Obama-like pol. (Obama is one of those "do the crime and do the time" types, and his family values are beyond reproach).

Liberals have had their Regeneracy. They want a trustworthy government capable of doing real good for people... and no scandals of sex or corruption. Some conservatives may already want that, but the GOP to which they have long connections wants a government that well serves the rich and powerful while pandering to mass anger and mass superstition. The old sort of conservative who still prefers personal initiative to either crony capitalism or a bloated welfare state has no real home. The fascistic (right-wing populist) part of the GOP is taking over the Party and squeezing out those with a more libertarian approach to economics.

[Eric the Green]

(08-25-2021, 11:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-24-2021, 06:19 PM)galaxy Wrote: (Sorry to make a new thread just for this, but I couldn't find a better place to post it)

https://buffalonews.com/news/state-and-r...7d2d1.html

This quote immediately brought my mind to S&H when I read it. It's an extremely 4T thing to say and to set as a goal. Her whole speech was very saecular, but this is the sentence that stood out above all others.

As chaotic as it may look on the ground, in many ways we are "doing the 4T thing" as a nation in spite of ourselves. Stay hopeful, friends.

No apology needed. The faults of Andrew Cuomo were of personal behavior and character, and not his agenda. 

As a general pattern, liberals do not suffer their rogues. Right-wingers do, at least if they are on the authoritarian track. One of the most flagrant examples is Adolf Hitler, who drove a woman to suicide and staged an insurrection against the shaky Weimar Republic and then became the leading player in German politics (if never winning an outright majority) on a campaign on law-and-order and 'family values'.  Donald Trump isn't quite as bad, but he still has a large following. Should he run for President he would get at least 45% of the popular vote against an Obama-like pol. (Obama is one of those "do the crime and do the time" types, and his family values are beyond reproach).

Liberals have had their Regeneracy. They want a trustworthy government capable of doing real good for people... and no scandals of sex or corruption. Some conservatives may already want that, but the GOP to which they have long connections wants a government that well serves the rich and powerful while pandering to mass anger and mass superstition. The old sort of conservative who still prefers personal initiative to either crony capitalism or a bloated welfare state has no real home. The fascistic (right-wing populist) part of the GOP is taking over the Party and squeezing out those with a more libertarian approach to economics.

Yes, although the "libertarian approach to economics" and worship of "personal initiative" is part and parcel of "well serves the rich and powerful", and those "pandering to mass anger and mass superstition" ALSO even-more do the former (called neo-liberalism or free-market economics, trickle-down economics, social darwinism etc.). It's a complete package, each aspect bound up with the other, and the libertarian economics aspect is just as nefarious as the mass superstition aspect. Both aspects must be defeated now after 40 years of regression, or our nation and our world is headed for destruction.

[pbrower2a]

(08-25-2021, 12:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-25-2021, 11:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-24-2021, 06:19 PM)galaxy Wrote: (Sorry to make a new thread just for this, but I couldn't find a better place to post it)

https://buffalonews.com/news/state-and-r...7d2d1.html

This quote immediately brought my mind to S&H when I read it. It's an extremely 4T thing to say and to set as a goal. Her whole speech was very saecular, but this is the sentence that stood out above all others.

As chaotic as it may look on the ground, in many ways we are "doing the 4T thing" as a nation in spite of ourselves. Stay hopeful, friends.

No apology needed. The faults of Andrew Cuomo were of personal behavior and character, and not his agenda. 

As a general pattern, liberals do not suffer their rogues. Right-wingers do, at least if they are on the authoritarian track. One of the most flagrant examples is Adolf Hitler, who drove a woman to suicide and staged an insurrection against the shaky Weimar Republic and then became the leading player in German politics (if never winning an outright majority) on a campaign on law-and-order and 'family values'.  Donald Trump isn't quite as bad, but he still has a large following. Should he run for President he would get at least 45% of the popular vote against an Obama-like pol. (Obama is one of those "do the crime and do the time" types, and his family values are beyond reproach).

Liberals have had their Regeneracy. They want a trustworthy government capable of doing real good for people... and no scandals of sex or corruption. Some conservatives may already want that, but the GOP to which they have long connections wants a government that well serves the rich and powerful while pandering to mass anger and mass superstition. The old sort of conservative who still prefers personal initiative to either crony capitalism or a bloated welfare state has no real home. The fascistic (right-wing populist) part of the GOP is taking over the Party and squeezing out those with a more libertarian approach to economics.

Yes, although the "libertarian approach to economics" and worship of "personal initiative" is part and parcel of "well serves the rich and powerful", and those "pandering to mass anger and mass superstition" ALSO even-more do the former (called neo-liberalism or free-market economics, trickle-down economics, social darwinism etc.). It's a complete package, each aspect bound up with the other, and the libertarian economics aspect is just as nefarious as the mass superstition aspect. Both aspects must be defeated now after 40 years of regression, or our nation and our world is headed for destruction.

The real question may be even trickier: how do we deal with the End of Scarcity?

I remember when the factory was the most exit from of poverty. That of course is over as factory employment is highly unreliable except perhaps in food processing, where pay is abysmal. Meat-packing plants and dairies may be largely in rural areas, but those are classic sweatshops. 

Anyone who expects Big Business to be a solution is a fool. Most giant enterprises are deeply advanced into the latter stages of the corporate life cycle. They seem more intent on upholding the status quo, buying politicians, and having bloated bureaucracies to control assets and the behavior of those unfortunate to do the real work. That's bureaucracy, and bureaucracies do not create wealth. The main effect that I see in corporate bureaucracies is that they effectively bribe the Best and Brightest to accept the rules of plutocracy and not contemplate Marx, Marcuse, or even Orwell. So clean up in the morning, put on clothes that resemble those of a workingman setting off to church on Sunday, commute in a late-model car for about an hour, put in eight hours doing work whose purpose is incomprehensible (and would likely be troubling if one contemplated such), leave in the same late-model car, perhaps stopping for a coffee on the way home if the traffic jam is too severe, get home to a McMansion, dress down as if one were about to go golfing, zap some entrée, and watch perhaps some PBS, some news, or perhaps a sporting event because one is too tired to do anything else... PBS is of course "nobler" than what ill-educated people watch... and then undress, go to bed, and lather, rinse, and repeat.

Bureaucratic entities other than those tax-funded (the government and in effect government contractors) or that operate on a cost-plus basis (insurance companies and hospitals are prime examples) do not innovate. As a general rule their costs rise faster than revenues. 

We need new small businesses to 

(1) fill niches that bankrupt entities leave behind
(2) create opportunities for people who would chafe in giant enterprises
(3) create jobs and generate public revenues through sales taxes
(4) adapt quickly to customer desires -- better than late-stage bureaucratized behemoths
(5) serve as a capital market (banks recycle loan payments into new loans)
(6) have a focus on the owners' income instead of buying politicians. 

Small businesses create wealth. Almost everyone else devours the seed corn.

[galaxy]

(08-25-2021, 04:47 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-24-2021, 08:37 PM)galaxy Wrote:

(08-24-2021, 07:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: From her record I doubt that she is any more progressive than Cuomo was, and being more progressive is what it will take for us to believe in government again, because otherwise it gets nothing substantial done and our current status as the worst developed country remains.

By the way I don't see her as presidential material.

Give her a chance, more progressivism isn't necessarily the solution for everything.

I agree she's not presidential material, though. She's not a good fit for the nation as a whole, if that makes sense. Personally I think the D governor with the best potential for that is Andy Beshear, who would be both a good candidate on his own and a perfect running mate for a potential future Kamala Harris candidacy.

Thanks for the suggestion! I never leave any stone unturned. But according to my horoscope method, he has no chance (score 6-13). And being from a cherry-red state, he's probably too moderate for his rather-liberal Party to get nominated, despite doing a pretty-good job as governor.

As for Kamala Harris, if she is nominated she will lose, no matter WHO runs against her (score 3-17). And if she is nominated in 2024, by losing she could bring climate catastrophe to the entire planet. Kamala Harris was a poor presidential candidate who didn't even make it to 2020 and the primaries. The more she spoke, the more her audiences dwindled and her funds dried up. She well-demonstrated her very poor score. Both she and Beshear are boring speakers, as indicated by Mercury trine Saturn in their charts.

I'm pretty skeptical of astrology, but I'll keep an open mind. What's Biden's score?

[David Horn]

(08-25-2021, 12:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, although the "libertarian approach to economics" and worship of "personal initiative" is part and parcel of "well serves the rich and powerful", and those "pandering to mass anger and mass superstition" ALSO even-more do the former (called neo-liberalism or free-market economics, trickle-down economics, social darwinism etc.). It's a complete package, each aspect bound up with the other, and the libertarian economics aspect is just as nefarious as the mass superstition aspect. Both aspects must be defeated now after 40 years of regression, or our nation and our world is headed for destruction.

And that's the problem that must be solved; one that probably can't be without a mass change of heart. Note: the SJWs are making that much harder by giving practioners of this philosophy plenty of ammunition to oppose change and, more to the point, reinforce the false values that need changing. The ideas of freedom to succeed and personal responsibility are essentially good. They're part of the core beliefs of the nation. Unfortunatel, they've been easy to use for perverse purposes by the cynical and powerful. We have billionaires bulding their own personal rocketships, and the public cheers them on. Changing that will be a challenge.

[Eric the Green]

(08-26-2021, 04:55 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-25-2021, 12:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, although the "libertarian approach to economics" and worship of "personal initiative" is part and parcel of "well serves the rich and powerful", and those "pandering to mass anger and mass superstition" ALSO even-more do the former (called neo-liberalism or free-market economics, trickle-down economics, social darwinism etc.). It's a complete package, each aspect bound up with the other, and the libertarian economics aspect is just as nefarious as the mass superstition aspect. Both aspects must be defeated now after 40 years of regression, or our nation and our world is headed for destruction.

And that's the problem that must be solved; one that probably can't be without a mass change of heart.  Note: the SJWs are making that much harder by giving practitioners of this philosophy plenty of ammunition to oppose change and, more to the point, reinforce the false values that need changing. The ideas of freedom to succeed and personal responsibility are essentially good.  They're part of the core beliefs of the nation.  Unfortunately, they've been easy to use for perverse purposes by the cynical and powerful.  We have billionaires building their own personal rocketships, and the public cheers them on.  Changing that will be a challenge.

I agree, although I note that the neo-liberal/prejudice practitioners no longer have the support of a tenuous majority of the American public, as shown by a 7 million vote loss in the general election popular vote, so they are seeking to maintain power through the state and federal gerrymandering still in place that followed the disaster on Nov.2, 2010, and through the Courts which they have managed to appoint through Sen. McConnell and the electoral college. It won't take a whole lot of hearts to change in order to move the political levers and shake the neo-liberals out of power, but given the systemic political power they have inherited, including a few compliant Democratic moderates, it will be tough.

I suspect the main hearts in need of arousal will be hearts of young millennials which have already been changed, but which need to assume their civic virtue enough to vote in midterm elections. Not to mention enough in sunny, glamorous, hispanic California to vote NO in the current recall election.

[Eric the Green]

(08-25-2021, 10:00 PM)galaxy Wrote:

(08-25-2021, 04:47 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-24-2021, 08:37 PM)galaxy Wrote:

(08-24-2021, 07:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: From her record I doubt that she is any more progressive than Cuomo was, and being more progressive is what it will take for us to believe in government again, because otherwise it gets nothing substantial done and our current status as the worst developed country remains.

By the way I don't see her as presidential material.

Give her a chance, more progressivism isn't necessarily the solution for everything.

I agree she's not presidential material, though. She's not a good fit for the nation as a whole, if that makes sense. Personally I think the D governor with the best potential for that is Andy Beshear, who would be both a good candidate on his own and a perfect running mate for a potential future Kamala Harris candidacy.

Thanks for the suggestion! I never leave any stone unturned. But according to my horoscope method, he has no chance (score 6-13). And being from a cherry-red state, he's probably too moderate for his rather-liberal Party to get nominated, despite doing a pretty-good job as governor.

As for Kamala Harris, if she is nominated she will lose, no matter WHO runs against her (score 3-17). And if she is nominated in 2024, by losing she could bring climate catastrophe to the entire planet. Kamala Harris was a poor presidential candidate who didn't even make it to 2020 and the primaries. The more she spoke, the more her audiences dwindled and her funds dried up. She well-demonstrated her very poor score. Both she and Beshear are boring speakers, as indicated by Mercury trine Saturn in their charts.

I'm pretty skeptical of astrology, but I'll keep an open mind. What's Biden's score?

Since the scores shift a bit after each election, since they are mostly empirical based, Biden's score before the election was 14-7, as was Bernie Sanders'. So either one of them I thought and predicted had a chance to narrowly defeat Trump (9-4 score), since their scores were close within the margin of error. Before the election, in October, I reorganized my system to make it more accurate and less cumbersome, and then I recalculated in case Biden won and in case Trump won. I went with Biden, and predicted he would win with his revised score of 16-6, which is slightly better than Trump's, which stayed the same. Biden won the popular vote by 7 million.

In these scenarios Sanders' score fell to 13-7, which suggests he might not have defeated Trump. And within the electoral college system, Biden won in 2020 with narrow victories in three states with a margin that added up to only about 43,000 votes, smaller than Trump's margin over Hillary in 3 states that gave him the electoral college in 2016. Hillary also won the popular vote, but lost 3 states by a total of 77,744. So Biden's win was very narrow, and I had always predicted a close election were Biden to be nominated. 43,000 votes is a narrow win.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's score kept going down as I revised and updated the system, and has ended up as 7-12. Trump always had the higher score.

See all the scores and methods at http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[Eric the Green]

(08-25-2021, 08:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The real question may be even trickier: how do we deal with the End of Scarcity?.....................

We need new small businesses to 

(1) fill niches that bankrupt entities leave behind
(2) create opportunities for people who would chafe in giant enterprises
(3) create jobs and generate public revenues through sales taxes
(4) adapt quickly to customer desires -- better than late-stage bureaucratized behemoths
(5) serve as a capital market (banks recycle loan payments into new loans)
(6) have a focus on the owners' income instead of buying politicians. 

Small businesses create wealth. Almost everyone else devours the seed corn.

My hypothesis is that, since neo-liberalism has caused the great inequality and decline of the middle class, as well as the crises that threaten our survival and prosperity today, all that is needed is to overthrow neo-liberalism and replace it with a new political narrative, as George Monbiot puts it. That is a tall order, and the new narrative won't be exactly as Monbiot says, but it is do-able. 

Once trickle-down economics is overthrown by outvoting the Republican Party by a strong enough margin to keep them out of power until they disappear or reform themselves, smaller businesses and other workers will have greater equality and that will bring more prosperity to the country. It may not be like the times when people assumed humans had no impact on the planet. Climate change, species loss and pollution won't disappear overnight. But at least the wealthy will no longer be choking the life out of everything with their neo-liberal deceptions. This will allow us to pass the kind of supports that Biden and other progressives are now proposing, and that will help us to deal with the environmental crisis as well as the declines in wealth among the people.

Right now it is crucial for as many people as possible to write/email Senators Sinema and Manchin and remind them that the whole issue of our national and world survival now depends on them. They must vote for the reconciliation bill on the Senate table. Otherwise we will lose our chance to avoid the climate tipping points due to happen soon. So, please write them!-- even if they are not your senators.
https://www.sinema.senate.gov/contact
https://www.manchin.senate.gov/contact-joe/email-joe

[Dustinw5220]

(08-26-2021, 03:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-25-2021, 08:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The real question may be even trickier: how do we deal with the End of Scarcity?.....................

We need new small businesses to 

(1) fill niches that bankrupt entities leave behind
(2) create opportunities for people who would chafe in giant enterprises
(3) create jobs and generate public revenues through sales taxes
(4) adapt quickly to customer desires -- better than late-stage bureaucratized behemoths
(5) serve as a capital market (banks recycle loan payments into new loans)
(6) have a focus on the owners' income instead of buying politicians. 

Small businesses create wealth. Almost everyone else devours the seed corn.

My hypothesis is that, since neo-liberalism has caused the great inequality and decline of the middle class, as well as the crises that threaten our survival and prosperity today, all that is needed is to overthrow neo-liberalism and replace it with a new political narrative, as George Monbiot puts it. That is a tall order, and the new narrative won't be exactly as Monbiot says, but it is do-able. 

Once trickle-down economics is overthrown by outvoting the Republican Party by a strong enough margin to keep them out until they disappear or reform themselves, smaller businesses and other workers will have greater equality and that will bring more prosperity to the country. It may not be like the times when people assumed humans had no impact on the planet. Climate change, species loss and pollution won't disappear overnight. But at least the wealthy will no longer be choking the life out of everything with their neo-liberal deceptions. This will allow us to pass the kind of supports that Biden and other progressives are now proposing, and that will help us to deal with the environmental crisis as well as the declines in wealth among the people.

Right now it is crucial for as many people as possible to write/email Senators Sinema and Manchin and remind them that the whole issue of our national and world survival now depends on them. They must vote for the reconciliation bill on the Senate table. Otherwise we will lose our chance to avoid the climate tipping points due to happen soon. So, please write them!-- even if they are not your senators.
https://www.sinema.senate.gov/contact
https://www.manchin.senate.gov/contact-joe/email-joe

I've never written/emailed senators (or any elected/political figures) before so I'm not sure how I should go about it, what should I say exactly and how long should the messages be (if I do it, I want to do it right)? You don't need an account to email them, do you?

I also have serious worries/doubts that much can be done to change their minds (Sinema and Manchin may be moderate Democrats, but they don't sound like they're on our side) or that enough other Millennials will even step up to write/email them, but given the gravity of our situation and what's at stake, we must try anything at this point!

[Eric the Green]

(08-26-2021, 04:49 PM)Dustinw5220 Wrote:

(08-26-2021, 03:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-25-2021, 08:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The real question may be even trickier: how do we deal with the End of Scarcity?.....................

We need new small businesses to 

(1) fill niches that bankrupt entities leave behind
(2) create opportunities for people who would chafe in giant enterprises
(3) create jobs and generate public revenues through sales taxes
(4) adapt quickly to customer desires -- better than late-stage bureaucratized behemoths
(5) serve as a capital market (banks recycle loan payments into new loans)
(6) have a focus on the owners' income instead of buying politicians. 

Small businesses create wealth. Almost everyone else devours the seed corn.

My hypothesis is that, since neo-liberalism has caused the great inequality and decline of the middle class, as well as the crises that threaten our survival and prosperity today, all that is needed is to overthrow neo-liberalism and replace it with a new political narrative, as George Monbiot puts it. That is a tall order, and the new narrative won't be exactly as Monbiot says, but it is do-able. 

Once trickle-down economics is overthrown by outvoting the Republican Party by a strong enough margin to keep them out until they disappear or reform themselves, smaller businesses and other workers will have greater equality and that will bring more prosperity to the country. It may not be like the times when people assumed humans had no impact on the planet. Climate change, species loss and pollution won't disappear overnight. But at least the wealthy will no longer be choking the life out of everything with their neo-liberal deceptions. This will allow us to pass the kind of supports that Biden and other progressives are now proposing, and that will help us to deal with the environmental crisis as well as the declines in wealth among the people.

Right now it is crucial for as many people as possible to write/email Senators Sinema and Manchin and remind them that the whole issue of our national and world survival now depends on them. They must vote for the reconciliation bill on the Senate table. Otherwise we will lose our chance to avoid the climate tipping points due to happen soon. So, please write them!-- even if they are not your senators.
https://www.sinema.senate.gov/contact
https://www.manchin.senate.gov/contact-joe/email-joe

I've never written/emailed senators (or any elected/political figures) before so I'm not sure how I should go about it, what should I say exactly and how long should the messages be (if I do it, I want to do it right)? You don't need an account to email them, do you?

I also have serious worries/doubts that much can be done to change their minds (Sinema and Manchin may be moderate Democrats, but they don't sound like they're on our side) or that enough other Millennials will even step up to write/email them, but given the gravity of our situation and what's at stake, we must try anything at this point!

Just click on the links and go for it!

I just recounted for them the results of allowing climate change to continue by not passing the only legislation available that adequately addresses the scale of the problem. I'm not saying I did it the right way; just what seemed right to me; that's all anyone can do. These 2 senators are the key to passing this reconciliation bill; the world is concerned and watching, and they are the ones who will make the difference. The tipping points loom soon; you know the stakes: fires, floods, storms, sea-level rise, droughts, severe threat to our food and water, which in turn means more wars and more immigrants surging across our border (of concern to Sinema's state). I also mentioned to Sinema that she is a former Green and that her state is shifting blue/left so she should not worry about her voters. And that she could negotiate over the other aspects of the bill.

[David Horn]

(08-26-2021, 02:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-26-2021, 04:55 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-25-2021, 12:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, although the "libertarian approach to economics" and worship of "personal initiative" is part and parcel of "well serves the rich and powerful", and those "pandering to mass anger and mass superstition" ALSO even-more do the former (called neo-liberalism or free-market economics, trickle-down economics, social darwinism etc.). It's a complete package, each aspect bound up with the other, and the libertarian economics aspect is just as nefarious as the mass superstition aspect. Both aspects must be defeated now after 40 years of regression, or our nation and our world is headed for destruction.

And that's the problem that must be solved; one that probably can't be without a mass change of heart.  Note: the SJWs are making that much harder by giving practitioners of this philosophy plenty of ammunition to oppose change and, more to the point, reinforce the false values that need changing. The ideas of freedom to succeed and personal responsibility are essentially good.  They're part of the core beliefs of the nation.  Unfortunately, they've been easy to use for perverse purposes by the cynical and powerful.  We have billionaires building their own personal rocketships, and the public cheers them on.  Changing that will be a challenge.

I agree, although I note that the neo-liberal/prejudice practitioners no longer have the support of a tenuous majority of the American public, as shown by a 7 million vote loss in the general election popular vote, so they are seeking to maintain power through the state and federal gerrymandering still in place that followed the disaster on Nov.2, 2010, and through the Courts which they have managed to appoint through Sen. McConnell and the electoral college. It won't take a whole lot of hearts to change in order to move the political levers and shake the neo-liberals out of power, but given the systemic political power they have inherited, including a few compliant Democratic moderates, it will be tough.

I suspect the main hearts in need of arousal will be hearts of young millennials which have already been changed, but which need to assume their civic virtue enough to vote in midterm elections. Not to mention enough in sunny, glamorous, hispanic California to vote NO in the current recall election.

The hardest issue to overcome is the built-in conservatve structure of our system -- especially at the Federal level.  As long as Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California, change at the fundamental level will be impossible.  Break California into 10 states (fully legal to do that) and do the same with other large states, then there may be a fighting chance.

[Eric the Green]

(08-27-2021, 08:18 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-26-2021, 02:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(08-26-2021, 04:55 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-25-2021, 12:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, although the "libertarian approach to economics" and worship of "personal initiative" is part and parcel of "well serves the rich and powerful", and those "pandering to mass anger and mass superstition" ALSO even-more do the former (called neo-liberalism or free-market economics, trickle-down economics, social darwinism etc.). It's a complete package, each aspect bound up with the other, and the libertarian economics aspect is just as nefarious as the mass superstition aspect. Both aspects must be defeated now after 40 years of regression, or our nation and our world is headed for destruction.

And that's the problem that must be solved; one that probably can't be without a mass change of heart.  Note: the SJWs are making that much harder by giving practitioners of this philosophy plenty of ammunition to oppose change and, more to the point, reinforce the false values that need changing. The ideas of freedom to succeed and personal responsibility are essentially good.  They're part of the core beliefs of the nation.  Unfortunately, they've been easy to use for perverse purposes by the cynical and powerful.  We have billionaires building their own personal rocketships, and the public cheers them on.  Changing that will be a challenge.

I agree, although I note that the neo-liberal/prejudice practitioners no longer have the support of a tenuous majority of the American public, as shown by a 7 million vote loss in the general election popular vote, so they are seeking to maintain power through the state and federal gerrymandering still in place that followed the disaster on Nov.2, 2010, and through the Courts which they have managed to appoint through Sen. McConnell and the electoral college. It won't take a whole lot of hearts to change in order to move the political levers and shake the neo-liberals out of power, but given the systemic political power they have inherited, including a few compliant Democratic moderates, it will be tough.

I suspect the main hearts in need of arousal will be hearts of young millennials which have already been changed, but which need to assume their civic virtue enough to vote in midterm elections. Not to mention enough in sunny, glamorous, hispanic California to vote NO in the current recall election.

The hardest issue to overcome is the built-in conservative structure of our system -- especially at the Federal level.  As long as Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California, change at the fundamental level will be impossible.  Break California into 10 states (fully legal to do that) and do the same with other large states, then there may be a fighting chance.

Well, we'll need to accomplish lots of things with our government before anything like that ever happens.

I don't think breaking up CA would work anyway, since a few of those pieces would be right-wing. There are Republican rural areas in big states.

I think a few changes will push the levers and shift our system. But it will depend on millennials voting, so that the Democrats win midterms. That's the biggest and the tallest order, but a possible one. If Democrats can get enough of a majority that can get us past Sinema and Manchin, then the filibuster can be reduced or eliminated for a while, even as an emergency measure, since that's where we are; in full-scale emergency right now and for the foreseeable future. Maybe these 2 laggards can be persuaded to remove it for the voting rights acts. We need their support in ending the use of the filibuster on constitutional measures. If somehow this reform can be done, then Puerto Rico can be admitted as a state and DC can be given 2 senators and a representative. The systemic Republican advantage in the Senate and electoral college would then be evened out. It's not that big when you consider that it's already close to even, even with all the rural small Republican states; and a few former red states now shifting blue. The Democrats have some small states too. Adding a few Democratic small states would work better than breaking up big states. Right now, Democratic strength in the cities are what carries these "big states." Texas still has a ways to go to turn blue. But already most of their big cities are ever-more strongly Democratic, and liberal Austin is growing fast. I think Fort Worth is the only red Texas big city left.

Gerrymandering needs to go. The voters favor this, and it's part of the For the People Act. Gerrymandering is how Republicans can take away democracy these days on the state level. The final hurdle may be the Courts. If the Supreme Court enforces the removal of democracy, by for example allowing legislatures to change election outcomes, then 4 additional seats or some other reform will be needed. Again, removal of democracy is a 4th-turning emergency, and we need to oppose it by any means workable and necessary. Further reforms have been introduced in the For the People Act that are just what I predicted would be made in the 2020s. It needs to be passed as soon as possible.

[David Horn]

(08-27-2021, 12:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think breaking up CA would work anyway, since a few of those pieces would be right-wing.

That's OK actually, If California was 7 Blue states and 3 Red states, the net gain in the Senate would be 6 Blue votes.

Then Eric Wrote:I think a few changes will push the levers and shift our system. But it will depend on millennials voting, so that the Democrats win midterms. That's the biggest and the tallest order, but a possible one. If Democrats can get enough of a majority that can get us past Sinema and Manchin, then the filibuster can be reduced or eliminated for a while, even as an emergency measure, since that's where we are; in full-scale emergency right now and for the foreseeable future. Maybe these 2 laggards can be persuaded to remove it for the voting rights acts. If somehow this reform can be done, then Puerto Rico can be admitted as a state and DC can be given 2 senators and a representative. The systemic Republican advantage in the Senate and electoral college would then be evened out. It's not that big when you consider that it's already close to even, even with all the rural small Republican states. The Democrats have some small states too.

Soon, 30% of the population will control 70% of the seats in the Senate. True, not all are Red, but most are.

Then Eric Wrote:Gerrymandering needs to go. The voters favor this, and it's part of the For the People Act. Gerrymandering is how Republicans can take away democracy these days on the state level. The final hurdle may be the Courts. If the Supreme Court enforces the removal of democracy, by for example allowing legislatures to change election outcomes, then 4 additional seats or some other reform will be needed. Again, removal of democracy is a 4th-turning emergency, and we need to oppose it by any means workable and necessary. Further reforms have been introduced in the For the People Act that are just what I predicted would be made in the 2020s. It needs to be passed as soon as possible.

It still takes votes. Dems seem intent to compromise before they actually try to do anything. The media environment doesn't help. The RW media are all-in for the GOPpers, regardless of their actions. The so-called MSM tends to keep to the facts, and the recent criticism of Biden over Afghanistan is a perfect example of that. If it had been Trump, the MSM wouldn't have been very different, but the Fox/OANN/Breitbart media phallange would have been all Trump all the time.

We can all thank Saint Ronny for killing the Fairness Doctrine, and making insanity acceptable.

[Eric the Green]

(08-27-2021, 12:30 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-27-2021, 12:11 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't think breaking up CA would work anyway, since a few of those pieces would be right-wing.

That's OK actually,  If California was 7 Blue states and 3 Red states, the net gain in the Senate would be 6 Blue votes.

Then Eric Wrote:I think a few changes will push the levers and shift our system. But it will depend on millennials voting, so that the Democrats win midterms. That's the biggest and the tallest order, but a possible one. If Democrats can get enough of a majority that can get us past Sinema and Manchin, then the filibuster can be reduced or eliminated for a while, even as an emergency measure, since that's where we are; in full-scale emergency right now and for the foreseeable future. Maybe these 2 laggards can be persuaded to remove it for the voting rights acts. If somehow this reform can be done, then Puerto Rico can be admitted as a state and DC can be given 2 senators and a representative. The systemic Republican advantage in the Senate and electoral college would then be evened out. It's not that big when you consider that it's already close to even, even with all the rural small Republican states. The Democrats have some small states too.

Soon, 30% of the population will control 70% of the seats in the Senate.  True, not all are Red, but most are.  

Then Eric Wrote:Gerrymandering needs to go. The voters favor this, and it's part of the For the People Act. Gerrymandering is how Republicans can take away democracy these days on the state level. The final hurdle may be the Courts. If the Supreme Court enforces the removal of democracy, by for example allowing legislatures to change election outcomes, then 4 additional seats or some other reform will be needed. Again, removal of democracy is a 4th-turning emergency, and we need to oppose it by any means workable and necessary. Further reforms have been introduced in the For the People Act that are just what I predicted would be made in the 2020s. It needs to be passed as soon as possible.

It still takes votes.  Dems seem intent to compromise before they actually try to do anything.  The media environment doesn't help.  The RW media are all-in for the GOPpers, regardless of their actions.  The so-called MSM tends to keep to the facts, and the recent criticism of Biden over Afghanistan is a perfect example of that.  If it had been Trump, the MSM wouldn't have been very different, but the Fox/OANN/Breitbart media phallange would have been all Trump all the time.

We can all thank Saint Ronny for killing the Fairness Doctrine, and making insanity acceptable.

I've thought about the CA thingy. If CA were broken up (and there's no guarantee that anyone would consider 10 pieces), CA would lose clout in the electoral college.

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would be a great idea. If the nation moves progressive enough, it could happen. Big IF though, of course.

I think you may be forgetting how many small blue states there are. 



Small Democratic states with 7 or fewer electoral votes:
Maine 3/1
Vermont 3
New Hampshire 4
Rhode Island 4
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
DC 3 (no senators yet)
Oregon 7 (will have 8 after 2020)
Hawaii 4

ADD Puerto Rico: 5!
total 44

Small Republican states with 7 or fewer electoral votes:
West Virginia (4 in new apportionment)
Mississippi 6
Arkansas 6
Iowa 6
Oklahoma 7
Kansas 6
Nebraska 4/1
South Dakota 3
North Dakota 3
Wyoming 3
Montana 4 (gained a vote after 2020)
Idaho 4
Utah 6
Alaska 3

total 65

[Eric the Green]

"Big states" Democratic
CA 54
NY 28
IL 19
PA 19 (swing state)
MI 15 (swing state)
GA 16 (swing state)
total 151

Republican
TX 40 (swing state?)
FL 30 (swing state)
OH 17 (swing state)
NC 16 (swing state)
total 103

Democrats also now have the edge in medium-sized states, 9 states to 6.

Democratic:
NJ 14
VA 13
MD 10
MA 11
WI 10 (swing state)
MN 10
CO 10
AZ 11 (swing state)
WA 12
total 101 (80 if Democrats lose WI and AZ)

Republican:
IN 11
TN 11
SC 9
AL 9
LA 8
MO 10
total 58 (but GOPfers could even it up by taking WI and AZ = 79)

Note: If Kamala Harris is ever nominated, Democrats will lose that year.

[Eric the Green]

"New York Governor Kathy Hochul Wants People To Believe In Their Government Again"

I don't know if in principle New York under Andrew Cuomo had a government that people could not believe in. He did a good job overall, although he made mistakes. Is there a government that does not make mistakes? And his personal misbehavior was not a reflection on "government" especially, just on himself. So I think Gov. Hochul's statement is maybe hyperbole, and as I said irrelevant unless she is planning to make it more progressive, which seems unlikely.