Who Can Beat Trump?

[Eric the Green]

Can Bernie beat The Donald in 2020? (if he's the nominee)

The blue tide is advancing, and that's good for Bernie. He is leading the pack for the nomination at this early stage, and polls report he's the most popular politician in America. He has name recognition which he didn't have before his previous presidential run. Trump's approval rating hovers around 40%, and he's losing approval in several key states that he won in 2016, such as Michigan and Wisconsin. Bernie did well in the primaries in many of those states, suggesting he may be able to carry the Rust Belt because of his appeal to the working class. His stands on issues are appealing to the rising generation and many who are impatient with politics as usual. He is right that the country has become hostage to an oligarchy, and that better spending priorities and higher taxes on the rich would improve lives. He has been on the correct side of issues for decades, according to his followers. His frugality is no worse than Trump's. He is a good candidate, and his score on my horoscope system is pretty good-- not as good as I originally thought, but still 14-7. He is articulate and honest and generally likable. He was an athlete in youth and is young for his age.

On the other side of the ledger, he is getting old and may have trouble running and winning at 79 years old. Polls that show him up high now could change, just as they did for Hillary. His acceptance of the label "democratic socialism" is a red flag and possible slogan to use against him in a nation full of politicians and voters addicted to free market nostrums. His policies are denounced as impractical and impossible to pay for. Young people and ethnic voters don't vote as much as older white people do. He gets stuck in ruts in his speeches and slogans, and comes across sometimes as an aloof professor. Plus, he would have to beat the odds on my scoring system, since only once in 170 years has a candidate been elected who was not favored by BOTH the mutual candidate scores AND the new moon before election indicator.

On the other hand, still looking at my system, the scores are close between Trump (9-4) and Sanders (14-7), and Sanders has a higher positive number. A miracle could happen, if Uranus' square to the Ascendant from below (but not at the Nadir) indicates a rebellion that overturns the party in power, as it did in 2016 for the first time ever, in a chart that resembled Trump's, and will again in 2020, in a chart that resembles McAuliffe's. So far this is a one-time event, so it's no basis for an empirical pattern. The other caveat is Jupiter's conjunction to Saturn in Dec.2020, a conjunction that 7 times out of 11 has coincided with the party in power losing, including every zero presidential election year since 1960. The 4 times that it did not, was when the dominant party was too entrenched (1820, 1880, 1900 and 1940, although 1880 was a very close election). So this could help whoever the Democrats nominate.

Overall, I cannot really predict definitely that Sanders would lose (as I implied in my other post), but I think the odds are against him.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-21-2018, 12:57 PM)David Horn Wrote:

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

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

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

That is classic turning theory.  I would not be surprised if it all happens in the 2T.  In the last 2T, the civil rights and anti war values become law during the 2T.  There was little delay for the 4T, which is part of why we are seeing no 4T now, no regeneracy.  This might illustrate a new age's pattern.

[Kinser79]

(08-21-2018, 09:36 AM)David Horn Wrote:

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

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

No one ever has to accept an unworkable paradigm, just because it's popular at the moment … and Trumpism even fails the popularity contest.

Really?  Lets take a look at the President's poll numbers.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/pres...trump.aspx

It should be noted that Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. are outliers as one was involved in a gear up to a short war, and the latter was still in the afterglow of 9-11.  Right now the President is on par with every other president since Nixon that has had a seventh quarter in office.  It should be noted that Gallup is noted to lean Democratic by the way.

If the economy keeps growing at just 2% the President's popularity will continue to increase.  Just about everyone who voted for him did so for one or two reasons--rejection of the Dimocrat vision (if they even have one besides shitting on Western Civilization) or because they believed a billionaire might know something about making a rich country even richer.

I'm a bit of an outlier in that I see Trump as a Gorbachev like figure who can manage a soft landing in an imperial collapse.  But then again that would require one to essentially subscribe to the vast majority of Dimitri Orlov's work which few people on this forum do, and even fewer people out on the street have even heard of the man.

 

Quote:The Dems are still out to lunch,

The Dims have been out to lunch for quite some time now.  I've not considered them to be a serious party in ages, and their establishment is even more out to lunch than the laity.

Quote:but the GOP has thrown-in with the closet thing to a true Fascist we've ever produced in this country.

I suppose for you a fascist is anyone slightly to the right of Mao Zedong.  I, however, have studied fascism.  It has distinct features, Nationalist Populism displays none of them.  Possibly unfortunately.  Believe me, if Trump were a fascist, he is a rather poor one because liberal Boomers, and their pink haired SJW brats with degrees in underwater lesbian dance thearpy would have been sent to concentration camps long ago.

That being said, if Trump's mild reforms are thwarted you can be assured that a real fascist will come along, and HE will send those types off to joyous places for their re-education.

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

I agree that S&H describes process rather than outcome.  That being said, there has to be an understanding as to how mid-term elections work.  All of the House is in play (it is every two years anyway) and a third of the Senate.  This time around it is mostly Democrat legislators that are facing challenges.  The one GOP Senator is believed to be in a relatively safe seat and there isn't going to be the traditional Summer Recess for campaigning providing challenger's greater ground time.

Can the Democrats take the House?  Maybe.  I think it unlikely.  But the GOP and Trumpian GOP Members picking up Senate seats is likely and that means he will be able to get his appointments through, and other essential executive functions.

As to HRC's 3 Million more votes/whatever.  Those were all in New York and California.  I hope I don't have to explain how the electorial college works and why having one is a good idea.

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

Ultimately it is irrelevant what the day to day rate is.  The fact remains that Obama himself claimed that the days of even 2% growth were over.  Even a rate of 4.1% is twice that and blows that hypothesis out of the water.

I'm unsure what you mean by "workforce penetration" so I Duck Duck Go-ed it.  I'm fairly certain that you didn't mean the various forms of porn that were provided to my engine.  Employer penetration for which information is available from the various labor departments of the several states largely only have online records as recent as December 2017 (which makes them very old news).

As to trade wars...the US is the country most capable of going full autarky and growth in import substitutes and repairs for those things which can't be substituted (minus tea and coffee as those are the two consumer goods not easily substituted by US production) will also constitute economic growth.

Indeed, these trade wars will in the long run prove beneficial.
1.  New business in import substitution
2.  Weakening competitors
3.  Gaining more advantageous trade deals since they are being negotiated by a competent negotiator.

[Galen]

(08-21-2018, 10:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The Dims have been out to lunch for quite some time now.  I've not considered them to be a serious party in ages, and their establishment is even more out to lunch than the laity.

Do the Dims have more than sheer outrage at Trump to offer?  So far, after the last two years the answer seems to be no.  In the end people will look at their wallet and decide if they are better off.  Judging from how certain demographics are reacting it may be that many are coming to the conclusion that the Dims do not have anything to offer.

It is clear that we are in a fourth turning and it seems that the usual rules are breaking down which is to be expected in a Fourth Turning.  It would not be surprising if Trump is recognized as a necessary disruption to the status quo in the future.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-22-2018, 03:35 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-21-2018, 10:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The Dims have been out to lunch for quite some time now.  I've not considered them to be a serious party in ages, and their establishment is even more out to lunch than the laity.

Do the Dims have more than sheer outrage at Trump to offer?  So far, after the last two years the answer seems to be no.  In the end people will look at their wallet and decide if they are better off.  Judging from how certain demographics are reacting it may be that many are coming to the conclusion that the Dims do not have anything to offer.

It is clear that we are in a fourth turning and it seems that the usual rules are breaking down which is to be expected in a Fourth Turning.  It would not be surprising if Trump is recognized as a necessary disruption to the status quo in the future.

I do see everybody ready to rule as if they have a mandate when they do not have one.  Trump got a minority of the votes.  Obama did not do much better.  Yet both went right to the extreme parts of their parties agenda and tried to rule from it.  The result is to flip the see saw.  They take the Supreme Court, give away Congress, and the other party often gets the White House sooner or later.

Both parties try to rule their part of the country and hope that gets them support, but instead they get eaten up.  Neither party has tried ruling the whole country.

Now, this thread is about who is going to fact Trump in 2020, but if you believe CNN and the coastal blue media, Trump will be long gone by then.  The Democrats are going to be facing maybe Pence and the more Establishment figures of Congress.  Now, the Republican Establishment did not do so well against Trump.  The middle of the country proved it was able to elect a President that talked a Tea Party anti establishment line.  If Trump is gone, which is a real possibility, it might be Sarah Palin or some other Trump like politician who will tell the base what they want to hear.  The question is weather someone competent is willing to sell their soul and say the right things, and whether Trump's base will actually believe him.

I see both political medias as telling mostly truth, but spinning like crazy.  Will they carefully select stories to tell and how much emphasis to give each one?  Absolutely.  Do they lie outright?  Less so.  It may be the politicians that lie.

One can admire the Republicans for rejecting their establishment, but their outsider is as establishment and as crooked as they come.  Will any Democrat at heart lean far enough to the center to pick up the red dissatisfied?  So far I haven't seen it.

[pbrower2a]

(08-22-2018, 03:35 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-21-2018, 10:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The Dims have been out to lunch for quite some time now.  I've not considered them to be a serious party in ages, and their establishment is even more out to lunch than the laity.

Do the Dims have more than sheer outrage at Trump to offer?  So far, after the last two years the answer seems to be no.  In the end people will look at their wallet and decide if they are better off.  Judging from how certain demographics are reacting it may be that many are coming to the conclusion that the Dims do not have anything to offer.

Crackpot source.

If blacks have gaining in economics, it is because of such attributes as better education, dedication on the job (even on 'bad' jobs), greater mobility (commuting from poor sectors of cities to the suburbs where jobs are), and starting businesses.  Such has nothing to do with politics.

Donald Trump reminds most blacks of the licit capitalist that they least admire -- the landlord, as that is what he is. The perception about most landlords is that the landlord takes the rent money but creates few jobs and does not innovate. (OK, they are paying off lenders and taxing authorities, which may make them heavy creditors too). Blacks are more likely to be tenants than home-owners... and debtors instead of creditors. Both tendencies usually cause people to go to the left side of the political spectrum, as may explain the urban-rural split in the vote. People in the worst parts of Kentucky are more likely to own their dreadful hovels than are people in Silicon Valley who might pay 3K a month for a studio apartment and pay $500 a month to rent parking space. 

...Outrage? Americans have consistently shown disdain for corruption. Despotic tendencies in pols? They have rarely seen such, so we are in uncharted waters on this.

Quote:It is clear that we are in a fourth turning and it seems that the usual rules are breaking down which is to be expected in a Fourth Turning.  It would not be surprising if Trump is recognized as a necessary disruption to the status quo in the future.

I concur that by having no connection to politics in any way before becoming President, except for seeking zoning variances and tax abatement, or maybe shooting off his mouth (as might some drunk in a bar), Donald Trump breaks the pattern of American history by getting into office on sheer demagoguery and his alleged acumen as a businessman. The idea has frequently been pushed around that a business owner or executive with a focus on profit-and-loss would bring more efficiency to government. It has not worked well.  Many aspects of government have no connection to objectives of profit and loss -- diplomacy, the military, law, and corrections. Furthermore, the businessman often sees his industry as a model for society, which can be irrelevant to the rest of society. An automobile executive would likely know little about agriculture or mining.

I see Donald Trump serving one purpose in politics -- doing everything wrong so that Americans can develop a consensus on what is desirable and necessary in political life.

[pbrower2a]

(08-22-2018, 04:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I do see everybody ready to rule as if they have a mandate when they do not have one.  Trump got a minority of the votes.  Obama did not do much better.  Yet both went right to the extreme parts of their parties agenda and tried to rule from it.  The result is to flip the see saw.  They take the Supreme Court, give away Congress, and the other party often gets the White House sooner or later.

Most Presidents believe that they create their own mandates even if they barely got elected. So it was even with the two recent Presidents to be elected with less than a plurality of the vote. John F. Kennedy was extremely successful with that. Reagan certainly was. Obama was successful at that until his opposition had a well-organized, well-funded, shrill program to first gut his political power and eventually 'give' us a President who concurs with the principle that no human suffering, degradation of the public sector, corruption, or environmental destruction can be in excess so long as it creates, indulges, or enforces a profit.

Quote:Both parties try to rule their part of the country and hope that gets them support, but instead they get eaten up.  Neither party has tried ruling the whole country.

We have a clear liberal party and a clear corporatist-reactionary party. There is no compromise between them. it's "my way or the highway" in practice or reality. Obama may have thought that he could govern on the merits of his proposed legislation. His opposition believed that he who has the money makes the rules, which is exactly what Donald Trump and the GOP believe.
Make America Great Again? Sure -- only for about 5% of the people -- 2% in the exploiter classes, and 3% who would succeed under any political system.

Jim Crow? Child labor in manufacturing and mining?  70-hour workweeks and 40-year life expectancies for industrial workers? Unbridled pollution? No thanks.

Quote:Now, this thread is about who is going to fact (defeat) Trump in 2020, but if you believe CNN and the coastal blue media, Trump will be long gone by then.  The Democrats are going to be facing maybe Pence and the more Establishment figures of Congress.  Now, the Republican Establishment did not do so well against Trump.  The middle of the country proved it was able to elect a President that talked a Tea Party anti establishment line.  If Trump is gone, which is a real possibility, it might be Sarah Palin or some other Trump like politician who will tell the base what they want to hear.  The question is weather someone competent is willing to sell their soul and say the right things, and whether Trump's base will actually believe him.

Pence can hardly evade complicity in Trump offenses in getting elected and as President. Add to this, his social values are the sorts to turn back the calendar on same-sex marriage, abortion, and contraception. He seems to want to restore the glorious time of management-labor relations of the 1920s -- that Big Business has the right to determine whether it wants to deal with unions or not. His ideal is an America focused solely on rewards in the Afterlife if proles, and unbridled indulgence (homosexuality and contraception excluded) for the elites. Trump picked Pence as 'impeachment insurance' and 'assassination insurance'. If you think Trump is bad -- Pence is even more reactionary.

Quote:I see (political media) telling mostly truth, but spinning like crazy.  Will they carefully select stories to tell and how much emphasis to give each one?  Absolutely.  Do they lie outright?  Less so.  It may be the politicians that lie.

The media have different constituencies. People are in their own echo chambers, and they are not even looking at the Other Side to look for issues that they can adopt without hurting themselves. Voters may be more effective than the politicians in forcing change. So if Trump's tariffs hurt farmers and ranchers, it could be that Democrats win some unlikely Congressional seats. 

What politicians may be doing is not so much lying as expressing rigid and wrong views of the world. The person who believes in young-Earth creationism may be utterly wrong, but he may believe it so firmly that he gives an honest opinion of his beliefs when asserting that the universe is 6000 or so years old (It's in the Bible, so it must be true!) and that there was a worldwide flood and that Methuselah lived to age 969. If dinosaurs were real, then maybe Jesus rode one. So what about radiometric dating, a fossil record, and genetic data that all prove the relatedness of all living things? Either God created the world and the universe to seem older than it is
as a test of faith, or the Devil forged evidence to trick rationalists and other grave sinners to follow him to eternal damnation. Pie in the sky is far better than an eternity with Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, is it not?

(My theological position: God is benign, or he is not worthy of worship. I do not admire tyrants, gangsters, and serial killers and would never worship a god who is like those in his morals).

Quote:One can admire the Republicans for rejecting their establishment, but their outsider is as establishment and as crooked as they come.  Will any Democrat at heart lean far enough to the center to pick up the red dissatisfied?  So far I haven't seen it.

Through their ineptitude and lack of principle they created their own Frankenstein monster who hijacked their Party.

[Kinser79]

(08-22-2018, 03:35 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-21-2018, 10:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The Dims have been out to lunch for quite some time now.  I've not considered them to be a serious party in ages, and their establishment is even more out to lunch than the laity.

Do the Dims have more than sheer outrage at Trump to offer?  So far, after the last two years the answer seems to be no.  In the end people will look at their wallet and decide if they are better off.  Judging from how certain demographics are reacting it may be that many are coming to the conclusion that the Dims do not have anything to offer.

It is clear that we are in a fourth turning and it seems that the usual rules are breaking down which is to be expected in a Fourth Turning.  It would not be surprising if Trump is recognized as a necessary disruption to the status quo in the future.

I would argue he is more than that.  He is providing not only the necessary disruption to the previous status quo, but also providing the vision required to set up a new status quo.  In short he is in fact the quote, unquote, long awaited Gray Champion.  His main problem with the libtards liberal Boomers on this board is that he isn't the Gray Champion that they wanted.

An unfortunate consequence of more people living to elderhood seems to be that there more people around to whine about how their favorite pet project from the 2T isn't at the forefront of the 4T.

(08-22-2018, 05:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-22-2018, 03:35 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-21-2018, 10:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The Dims have been out to lunch for quite some time now.  I've not considered them to be a serious party in ages, and their establishment is even more out to lunch than the laity.

Do the Dims have more than sheer outrage at Trump to offer?  So far, after the last two years the answer seems to be no.  In the end people will look at their wallet and decide if they are better off.  Judging from how certain demographics are reacting it may be that many are coming to the conclusion that the Dims do not have anything to offer.

Crackpot source.

You should know crackpot sources being a crackpot.  How about the experiences of a Black man instead?  Locally, the black population where I'm from are trending more towards Trump, particularly the younger groups.  So far the only thinking Black person I know who thinks things are getting worse is my own mother--and with her I'm using the term loosely, I'm not convinced she actually thinks all that much (probably because she is so highly educated, a pattern I've noticed, the higher the educational attainment the less independent the thought process).  I think it is because she watches a steady diet of CNN an MSNBC which are known crackpot sources of disinformation.

Quote:If blacks have gaining in economics, it is because of such attributes as better education, dedication on the job (even on 'bad' jobs), greater mobility (commuting from poor sectors of cities to the suburbs where jobs are), and starting businesses.  Such has nothing to do with politics.

Then we should have seen large gains before Trump.  Is that true?  Not really.  Educational attainment has been largely static for a generation and unemployment has been twice that of whites for decades.  I large reason why Blacks are doing better is because expelling foreigners is causing a labor shortage and Black Americans getting of the welfare-Dimocrat-Plantation and into employment are replacing the remittance sending Mexicans.

People with jobs and property tend to be conservative.  Blacks already were socially conservative, and Trump making obtaining jobs and later property more possible will push that demographic right.  Add to that the Dims going full pink haired SJW mode makes an uncomfortable political marriage that much more uncomfortable.

Do not be confused, Maxine Waters does not speak for Black People.  I'm not even sure she speaks for the Black People in her own district seeing as she doesn't even reside in her district.

Quote:Donald Trump reminds most blacks of the licit capitalist that they least admire -- the landlord, as that is what he is. The perception about most landlords is that the landlord takes the rent money but creates few jobs and does not innovate. (OK, they are paying off lenders and taxing authorities, which may make them heavy creditors too). Blacks are more likely to be tenants than home-owners... and debtors instead of creditors. Both tendencies usually cause people to go to the left side of the political spectrum, as may explain the urban-rural split in the vote. People in the worst parts of Kentucky are more likely to own their dreadful hovels than are people in Silicon Valley who might pay 3K a month for a studio apartment and pay $500 a month to rent parking space. 

And you know all of this by being Black of course, and having your finger on the pulse of Black Culture don't you.  Since you claim to have a disorder that doesn't exist...Aspberger's I'm just going to tell you I'm being sarcastic.  I don't expect you to understand sarcasm because quite frankly my experience tells me you have great difficulty with anything outside of your narrow world view.

First, prior to 2015, when CNN discovered that Trump was suddenly "raycis" Trump was incredibly popular among Blacks.  So much so there are rap songs about aspiring to be like him.

Second, Trump's businesses is far more than simply being a landlord.  He is in fact a property developer which means that he not only creates construction jobs, he is far more likely to sell those properties after such development than he is to hold on to them.  Further, where he does not he has a reputation maintaining his properties--you know so he can charge a premium for renting the space he owns.

Third, being a debtor or renter is NOT racial in origin.  Unless of course it is your position that because someone is Black they cannot possibly be a creditor or own their own property.  Which of course begs the question who the real racists are.

Quote:...Outrage? Americans have consistently shown disdain for corruption. Despotic tendencies in pols? They have rarely seen such, so we are in uncharted waters on this.

Not really.  The Clintons and Obama are pretty much despised by everyone these days.  Manufactured outrage against Trump mostly just exists on the Tee-Vee and I would argue largely constituted of Dimocrat Mouth Pieces and professional malcontents.  Those of us who have to get on with day to day activities such as raising the kids, working and paying the taxes at worst see Trump as more of the same.

I'll leave off responding to the rest of your post here because it is more of the same old canned nonsense you've been posting for two years now and we already know my views on both that and the "points" you "bring up".  One of the reasons I don't post that much anymore is because I'm tired of beating dead horses, and it is evident to me that most of the Boomers here are too busy trying to convince themselves of their own positions to concern themselves with convincing others of their positions.  That makes for a poor debating atmosphere, and quite frankly I have better things to do, like running my business.

[pbrower2a]

(08-22-2018, 06:24 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I would argue he is more than that.  He is providing not only the necessary disruption to the previous status quo, but also providing the vision required to set up a new status quo.  In short he is in fact the quote, unquote, long awaited Gray Champion.  His main problem with the libtards liberal Boomers on this board is that he isn't the Gray Champion that they wanted.

An unfortunate consequence of more people living to elderhood seems to be that there more people around to whine about how their favorite pet project from the 2T isn't at the forefront of the 4T.

His function in history may be to do so many things wrong that he allows subsequent politicians to say "That's what Trump did" as a quick and easy rejection. Most significantly he will be a model of demagoguery, and left-wing demagoguery is as hazardous as right-wing demagoguery.

I do not have a pet project from the Awakening Era to revive. I think we all recognize that Awakening ways are completely irrelevant in a time in which our whole political heritage is in jeopardy. And I do not mean the game show. Survival comes before "peace, love, and dope".

(08-22-2018, 05:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-22-2018, 03:35 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-21-2018, 10:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The Dims have been out to lunch for quite some time now.  I've not considered them to be a serious party in ages, and their establishment is even more out to lunch than the laity.

Do the Dims have more than sheer outrage at Trump to offer?  So far, after the last two years the answer seems to be no.  In the end people will look at their wallet and decide if they are better off.  Judging from how certain demographics are reacting it may be that many are coming to the conclusion that the Dims do not have anything to offer.

Crackpot source.

You should know crackpot sources being a crackpot.[/quote]

I saw a severe gap in the logical argument, not so much an absence of supporting data but instead a presumption of truth of what the source wanted to believe.

Quote:  How about the experiences of a Black man instead?  Locally, the black population where I'm from are trending more towards Trump, particularly the younger groups.  So far the only thinking Black person I know who thinks things are getting worse is my own mother--and with her I'm using the term loosely, I'm not convinced she actually thinks all that much (probably because she is so highly educated, a pattern I've noticed, the higher the educational attainment the less independent the thought process).  I think it is because she watches a steady diet of CNN an MSNBC which are known crackpot sources of disinformation.

One person with a self-selected group of associates. Did I say that things were getting worse, statistically, for blacks? Commuting twenty miles from a bad section of town to a near-minimum-wage job in Suburbia is a hardship, but it implies an improvement. I could make a case for such jobs as first jobs -- that they teach good work habits, that they are often intense work that allows one to be so busy that one cannot brood, that they don't pay enough to tempt one to go deep into debt to participate in "Affluenza", and that the work might be diverse enough that one can figure out the areas in which one might specialize.

Quote:If blacks have gaining in economics, it is because of such attributes as better education, dedication on the job (even on 'bad' jobs), greater mobility (commuting from poor sectors of cities to the suburbs where jobs are), and starting businesses.  Such has nothing to do with politics.

These explanations have nothing to do with politics. It's personal behavior, and a recognition that Whitey doesn't cut any breaks. Obey Whitey's rules, or your life might go from awful to horrific.

Quote:Then we should have seen large gains before Trump.  Is that true?  Not really.  Educational attainment has been largely static for a generation and unemployment has been twice that of whites for decades.  I large reason why Blacks are doing better is because expelling foreigners is causing a labor shortage and Black Americans getting of the welfare-Dimocrat-Plantation and into employment are replacing the remittance sending Mexicans.

On the whole, big gains from the Jim Crow era, with allowances for economic downturns and upswings. The improvement is from a much worse position than that of white people in the same urban areas.

Quote:People with jobs and property tend to be conservative.  Blacks already were socially conservative, and Trump making obtaining jobs and later property more possible will push that demographic right.  Add to that the Dims going full pink haired SJW mode makes an uncomfortable political marriage that much more uncomfortable.

In my experience, and my understanding of history, the Left-Right divide is largely between debtors (Left) and creditors (Right). Note well that the ten-year-old jalopy has a schedule of payments on it that practically assures that its 'owner' will never pay it off before it dies. The effective interest rate on the loan (which could be an inflated price) makes the jalopy a highly0encumbered asset -- an asset with near-zero value. People in debt want a more robust economy even to the point of inflation which reduces the burden of debt. Small-scale creditors are comparatively moderate in politics, knowing that they need income to keep their assets from frittering away. Big creditors want debt to hurt the borrower and make the borrower dependent and helpless so that the debtor will do anything to survive. The classic example of a big creditor is the owner of a landed estate who has sharecroppers and serfs as his effective employees. There's little difference between a Junker and a post-Civil War planter in attitudes toward the 'help'. Keep 'em in debt, and decide things so that the sharecropper or serf gets the alleged privilege of staying on the estate or plantation.

Quote:Do not be confused, Maxine Waters does not speak for Black People.  I'm not even sure she speaks for the Black People in her own district seeing as she doesn't even reside in her district.

40 million people, whose skin color ranges from near-white to jet-black, whose attainments in life can be from being on death row to being Barack Obama or Neil de Grasse Tyson, who are in all classes except the "upper out-of-sight" of families with several generations of large, inherited wealth or the reputation of such?

Maxine Waters no more speaks for black people than Donald Trump speaks for white people.

Quote:

Quote:Donald Trump reminds most blacks of the licit capitalist that they least admire -- the landlord, as that is what he is. The perception about most landlords is that the landlord takes the rent money but creates few jobs and does not innovate. (OK, they are paying off lenders and taxing authorities, which may make them heavy creditors too). Blacks are more likely to be tenants than home-owners... and debtors instead of creditors. Both tendencies usually cause people to go to the left side of the political spectrum, as may explain the urban-rural split in the vote. People in the worst parts of Kentucky are more likely to own their dreadful hovels than are people in Silicon Valley who might pay 3K a month for a studio apartment and pay $500 a month to rent parking space. 

And you know all of this by being Black of course, and having your finger on the pulse of Black Culture don't you.  Since you claim to have a disorder that doesn't exist...Aspberger's I'm just going to tell you I'm being sarcastic.  I don't expect you to understand sarcasm because quite frankly my experience tells me you have great difficulty with anything outside of your narrow world view.

Nothing to do with my ethnic identity (English, German, Swiss, Welsh, Scots, French, Dutch, Irish, Belgian, Danish, and Norwegian from the time of American settlement... and some mysteries. Some ancestors may have had a good cause to hide an ancestor at one time, and I have no idea what is hidden. If I ever get around to taking one of those DNA tests, I will put the results in this Forum. Maybe not this thread.

Quote:First, prior to 2015, when CNN discovered that Trump was suddenly "raycis" Trump was incredibly popular among Blacks.  So much so there are rap songs about aspiring to be like him.

Central Park jogger. Donald Trump called for the death penalty for a non-capital offense before there was a conviction. He played up the 'racial' overtones then.

Quote:Second, Trump's businesses is far more than simply being a landlord.  He is in fact a property developer which means that he not only creates construction jobs, he is far more likely to sell those properties after such development than he is to hold on to them.  Further, where he does not he has a reputation maintaining his properties--you know so he can charge a premium for renting the space he owns.

Yes, he is a property developer... and he has sold off properties for cash. He is lucky to have been able to buy in cheap, when New York City was a mess, and lease out dear. He is fortunate that he is not a developer and landlord in such a place as Detroit or St. Louis.

Quote:Third, being a debtor or renter is NOT racial in origin.  Unless of course it is your position that because someone is Black they cannot possibly be a creditor or own their own property.  Which of course begs the question who the real racists are.

No -- it is often the result of redlining in the past which kept blacks out of 'desirable' neighborhoods that had potential for appreciation. Also, blacks are much less likely to have any inherited advantage in economics -- even the most successful blacks have more typically than is the case for whites, started with nothing or nearly nothing.  Check the demographics.

Quote:

Quote:...Outrage? Americans have consistently shown disdain for corruption. Despotic tendencies in pols? They have rarely seen such, so we are in uncharted waters on this.

Not really.  The Clintons and Obama are pretty much despised by everyone these days.

People in the Trump cult, of course. You need to get out more.

Quote:  Manufactured outrage against Trump mostly just exists on the Tee-Vee and I would argue largely constituted of Dimocrat Mouth Pieces and professional malcontents.  Those of us who have to get on with day to day activities such as raising the kids, working and paying the taxes at worst see Trump as more of the same.

Oh, the plain-folks fallacy at work.

Quote:I'll leave off responding to the rest of your post here because it is more of the same old canned nonsense you've been posting for two years now and we already know my views on both that and the "points" you "bring up".  One of the reasons I don't post that much anymore is because I'm tired of beating dead horses, and it is evident to me that most of the Boomers here are too busy trying to convince themselves of their own positions to concern themselves with convincing others of their positions.  That makes for a poor debating atmosphere, and quite frankly I have better things to do, like running my business.

Like most boomers I have no leftover agenda from the 1960s and 1970s. Life is more about survival, as this is a Crisis Era. Boomer culture is 'not for export'.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-22-2018, 07:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Life is more about survival, as this is a Crisis Era.

And yet, we have not yet seen a regeneracy. We have not seen one set of values take over and mow down everything in the path. We have not seen the trial and error of a crisis, we have only seen the trial and failure of a false regeneracy, ideas which just do not work so the movement fails. We do have two sets of values taking turns.

We are due for a Crisis by the calendar. We would be crisis bound if the Industrial Age pattern were holding. I am dubious. Add 1964 as the height of the awakening to half of four score and seven and we are well overdue.

We are seeing a faux rejection of the establishment by Trump. We have a movement to reject Washington DC which could have been a regeneracy if real, and some will say it is a regeneracy. I do not see it as sincere, as it incorporates The Swamp, so it is failing spectacularly as a false regeneracy. Bush 43's invasion of Iraq also failed. The Democrats similarly failed to capture enough ongoing votes to create anything like the New Deal.

Maybe in the near future...

[David Horn]

(08-21-2018, 02:45 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

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

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

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

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

They may be the model our plutocrats follow, if we let the plutocrats rule.

[David Horn]

(08-22-2018, 04:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-22-2018, 03:35 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-21-2018, 10:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The Dims have been out to lunch for quite some time now.  I've not considered them to be a serious party in ages, and their establishment is even more out to lunch than the laity.

Do the Dims have more than sheer outrage at Trump to offer?  So far, after the last two years the answer seems to be no.  In the end people will look at their wallet and decide if they are better off.  Judging from how certain demographics are reacting it may be that many are coming to the conclusion that the Dims do not have anything to offer.

It is clear that we are in a fourth turning and it seems that the usual rules are breaking down which is to be expected in a Fourth Turning.  It would not be surprising if Trump is recognized as a necessary disruption to the status quo in the future.

I do see everybody ready to rule as if they have a mandate when they do not have one.  Trump got a minority of the votes.  Obama did not do much better.  Yet both went right to the extreme parts of their parties agenda and tried to rule from it.  The result is to flip the see saw.  They take the Supreme Court, give away Congress, and the other party often gets the White House sooner or later.

Both parties try to rule their part of the country and hope that gets them support, but instead they get eaten up.  Neither party has tried ruling the whole country.

For the foreseeable future, there will not be a 'whole country' to rule. We are simply too tribal, and none of the tribes shows any signs of giving ground. The only tribe that has a snowball's chance of expanding its influence is the science-based one that has part of a political party (Democrats) and part of the independent non-aligned. They seem particularly ill-equipped to lead a political movement.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:Now, this thread is about who is going to fact Trump in 2020, but if you believe CNN and the coastal blue media, Trump will be long gone by then.  The Democrats are going to be facing maybe Pence and the more Establishment figures of Congress.  Now, the Republican Establishment did not do so well against Trump.  The middle of the country proved it was able to elect a President that talked a Tea Party anti establishment line.  If Trump is gone, which is a real possibility, it might be Sarah Palin or some other Trump like politician who will tell the base what they want to hear.  The question is weather someone competent is willing to sell their soul and say the right things, and whether Trump's base will actually believe him.

Trump only has about 35% of the voting public in his corner. Remove Trump and insert another Trump-like candidate, and the numbers will drop even further. I would be more concerned about a three or four way ping-pong match between Trumpists, SJW types and the neo-socialists, with no one able to do anything. The only winners: the same rich guys that have been winning for decades.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:I see both political medias as telling mostly truth, but spinning like crazy.  Will they carefully select stories to tell and how much emphasis to give each one?  Absolutely.  Do they lie outright?  Less so.  It may be the politicians that lie.

One can admire the Republicans for rejecting their establishment, but their outsider is as establishment and as crooked as they come.  Will any Democrat at heart lean far enough to the center to pick up the red dissatisfied?  So far I haven't seen it.

Sorry, but leaning to the center is another way of saying, be conservative -- very conservative. After 45 years of continuous rightward drift, the center is now to the right of the very conservative Nixon position. Is an activist EPA a centrist position these days? It was a Nixonian program, after all. So forget anything resembling the DLC or candidates like the Clintons. You don't start the pendulum back in the leftward direction without a good strong push.

[pbrower2a]

(08-22-2018, 08:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-22-2018, 07:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Life is more about survival, as this is a Crisis Era.

And yet, we have not yet seen a regeneracy.  We have not seen one set of values take over and mow down everything in the path.  We have not seen the trial and error of a crisis, we have only seen the trial and failure of a false regeneracy, ideas which just do not work so the movement fails.  We do have two sets of values taking turns.

...and the Regeneracy could go either way. Remember: the current elite has the wealth and institutional power behind it, and people with wealth and institutional power almost never yield. History shows that they would rather do genocide than yield. That explains to no small extent Nazi Germany, which had its own sort of Regeneracy -- a Regeneracy that led to the most murderous war and the most reviled genocide in inhuman history. The Nazis certainly mowed down everything in their path... until the British kept them across the channel  and the Soviet Union started winning the big battles.

American tyranny or despotism would never get that bad, but it would have more resources than the Devil's Reich, Thug Japan, and Fascist Italy combined.

Two sets of values taking turns? Little could be more unstable. That's how Spain was before its Civil War, with the Left and Right alternating power until Franco came up with an order with medieval ideology and modern technology -- all the better to squelch any dissidence foolish enough to remain in Spain.

Quote:We are due for a Crisis by the calendar.  We would be crisis bound if the Industrial Age pattern were holding.  I am dubious.  Add 1964 as the height of the awakening to half of four score and seven and we are well overdue.

We are entering a post-industrial era, and our economic, political, and cultural leadership have no idea of how to deal with it. Some, like Trump, would return to the social norms of the early-industrial world even if the technologies to which American are addicted run counter to it.

Quote:We are seeing a faux rejection of the establishment by Trump.  We have a movement to reject Washington DC which could have been a regeneracy if real, and some will say it is a regeneracy.  I do not see it as sincere, as it incorporates The Swamp, so it is failing spectacularly as a false regeneracy.  Bush 43's invasion of Iraq also failed.  The Democrats similarly failed to capture enough ongoing votes to create anything like the New Deal.

Donald Trump is as Establishment as anyone can be. His fake populism is about as genuine as a cat promising to become a vegetarian. Donald Trump is corruption and cruelty in American life, and wherever one sees corruption and cruelty operating openly it has the support of those with economic and institutional power who profit from the corruption and cruelty. Remember: slavery existed as long as it did because it was profitable.

Quote:Maybe in the near future...

Maybe we solve the problem ourselves. Maybe we find things out the hard way. Just think of how hard it was for the Germans to find out the hard way -- their economy shattered and their buildings in rubble, people who once had automobiles then moving about  with hand-drawn carts -- that they had the wrong Regeneracy in 1933, only twelve years too late.

[Eric the Green]

(08-22-2018, 01:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-22-2018, 04:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-22-2018, 03:35 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-21-2018, 10:13 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The Dims have been out to lunch for quite some time now.  I've not considered them to be a serious party in ages, and their establishment is even more out to lunch than the laity.

Do the Dims have more than sheer outrage at Trump to offer?  So far, after the last two years the answer seems to be no.  In the end people will look at their wallet and decide if they are better off.  Judging from how certain demographics are reacting it may be that many are coming to the conclusion that the Dims do not have anything to offer.

It is clear that we are in a fourth turning and it seems that the usual rules are breaking down which is to be expected in a Fourth Turning.  It would not be surprising if Trump is recognized as a necessary disruption to the status quo in the future.

I do see everybody ready to rule as if they have a mandate when they do not have one.  Trump got a minority of the votes.  Obama did not do much better.  Yet both went right to the extreme parts of their parties agenda and tried to rule from it.  The result is to flip the see saw.  They take the Supreme Court, give away Congress, and the other party often gets the White House sooner or later.

Both parties try to rule their part of the country and hope that gets them support, but instead they get eaten up.  Neither party has tried ruling the whole country.

For the foreseeable future, there will not be a 'whole country' to rule.  We are simply too tribal, and none of the tribes shows any signs of giving ground.  The only tribe that has a snowball's chance of expanding its influence is the science-based one that has part of a political party (Democrats) and part of the independent non-aligned.  They seem particularly ill-equipped to lead a political movement.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:Now, this thread is about who is going to fact Trump in 2020, but if you believe CNN and the coastal blue media, Trump will be long gone by then.  The Democrats are going to be facing maybe Pence and the more Establishment figures of Congress.  Now, the Republican Establishment did not do so well against Trump.  The middle of the country proved it was able to elect a President that talked a Tea Party anti establishment line.  If Trump is gone, which is a real possibility, it might be Sarah Palin or some other Trump like politician who will tell the base what they want to hear.  The question is weather someone competent is willing to sell their soul and say the right things, and whether Trump's base will actually believe him.

Trump only has about 35% of the voting public in his corner.  Remove Trump and insert another Trump-like candidate, and the numbers will drop even further.  I would be more concerned about a three or four way ping-pong match between Trumpists, SJW types and the neo-socialists, with no one able to do anything.  The only winners: the same rich guys that have been winning for decades.

Bob Butler 54 Wrote:I see both political medias as telling mostly truth, but spinning like crazy.  Will they carefully select stories to tell and how much emphasis to give each one?  Absolutely.  Do they lie outright?  Less so.  It may be the politicians that lie.

One can admire the Republicans for rejecting their establishment, but their outsider is as establishment and as crooked as they come.  Will any Democrat at heart lean far enough to the center to pick up the red dissatisfied?  So far I haven't seen it.

Sorry, but leaning to the center is another way of saying, be conservative -- very conservative.  After 45 years of continuous rightward drift, the center is now to the right of the very conservative Nixon position.  Is an activist EPA a centrist position these days?  It was a Nixonian program, after all.  So forget anything resembling the DLC or candidates like the Clintons.  You don't start the pendulum back in the leftward direction without a good strong push.

Amen to that. However, the Democrats must win. It will not be ideology that decides who wins, whether left or center. Only skilled candidates ever win. That is empirical fact. 

And I use the horoscope score as an index as to who will prove to be skilled, in case it's not self-evident. That means I propose that only a high-scoring candidate can win. 

The Democratic candidate must be able to connect, communicate and inspire the voters better than Donald Trump can do, and give the impression of leadership ability, optimism and likability. That's possible, but by no means a given.

[David Horn]

I had to give this some thought before I responded.

(08-22-2018, 08:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-22-2018, 07:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Life is more about survival, as this is a Crisis Era.

And yet, we have not yet seen a regeneracy.  We have not seen one set of values take over and mow down everything in the path.  We have not seen the trial and error of a crisis, we have only seen the trial and failure of a false regeneracy, ideas which just do not work so the movement fails.  We do have two sets of values taking turns.

We are due for a Crisis by the calendar.  We would be crisis bound if the Industrial Age pattern were holding.  I am dubious.  Add 1964 as the height of the awakening to half of four score and seven and we are well overdue.

We are seeing a faux rejection of the establishment by Trump.  We have a movement to reject Washington DC which could have been a regeneracy if real, and some will say it is a regeneracy.  I do not see it as sincere, as it incorporates The Swamp, so it is failing spectacularly as a false regeneracy.  Bush 43's invasion of Iraq also failed.  The Democrats similarly failed to capture enough ongoing votes to create anything like the New Deal.

Maybe in the near future...

First, I'm not sure we are having a definitive 4T this time. Does that make it a failed one? I don't know. We may decide, as a nation, to strike-off in a new direction. We certainly haven't done well following the old paradigms or the Trumpist alternative either. The only real problem I see to this resolving, and a regeneracy blossoming, is the toxic media environment. We're all siloed, and only listening to the voices we want to hear. To break that cycle will require something more dramatic than impeaching a President, I'm afraid. Another economic collapse, with no solution in sight, will certainly scare the bejesus out of everyone. The same applies to a war on our soil. I don't see either happening.so it will probably be a slow spin to an unacceptable bottom before the body politic awakens, looks around and says, "Damn! We need a whole new batch of politicos and a new social and political contract to boot." The very obvious movement to replace humans in all work positions should hurry that along … or not. In any case, will that devolve into war? It's hard to say

[David Horn]

(08-22-2018, 04:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Amen to that. However, the Democrats must win. It will not be ideology that decides who wins, whether left or center. Only skilled candidates ever win. That is empirical fact. 

And I use the horoscope score as an index as to who will prove to be skilled, in case it's not self-evident. That means I propose that only a high-scoring candidate can win. 

The Democratic candidate must be able to connect, communicate and inspire the voters better than Donald Trump can do, and give the impression of leadership ability, optimism and likability. That's possible, but by no means a given.

But let's not forget that winning is necessary but not adequate. If the next go-round by the Dems is another version of wimpy-ball, the following byelection will just flip the House and we'll be right back where we started. This time has to matter.

[Kinser79]

(08-22-2018, 07:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: His function in history may be to do so many things wrong that he allows subsequent politicians to say "That's what Trump did" as a quick and easy rejection. Most significantly he will be a model of demagoguery, and left-wing demagoguery is as hazardous as right-wing demagoguery.

Possibly, but that same function could be applied to any President. Obama, Trump, Nixon, even Washington. I fail to see your point here. Do you even have a point? Probably not but such is life.

Quote:I do not have a pet project from the Awakening Era to revive.

I find that in itself to be highly suspect. Just about every Boomer here has a pet project from the 2T that they are after. Eric wants to instutute a New Age Dark Age for example. You seem to be on the "I'm a victim, give me free shit" line. That you do not recognize that you have a pet project does not mean you don't have one.

Quote:I think we all recognize that Awakening ways are completely irrelevant in a time in which our whole political heritage is in jeopardy. And I do not mean the game show. Survival comes before "peace, love, and dope".

Personally I would welcome it, if boomers left their pet projects to ending wars, having promiscuous sex and taking drugs. The problem is that they don't..or at least the ones who survived into elderhood either smoked so much LDS that their brains are completely fried (see Eric) or were never involved with peace, love, or dope to start with.

(08-22-2018, 05:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I saw a severe gap in the logical argument, not so much an absence of supporting data but instead a presumption of truth of what the source wanted to believe.

In other words you didn't read the source. You just proclaimed it to be crackpot nonsense sight unseen. I on the other hand read the post in question. I've also followed this particular blogger and he's right. If the GOP can capture but 21% of the black vote they shut the Dims out as a national party in perpetuity.

Quote:One person with a self-selected group of associates. Did I say that things were getting worse, statistically, for blacks? Commuting twenty miles from a bad section of town to a near-minimum-wage job in Suburbia is a hardship, but it implies an improvement. I could make a case for such jobs as first jobs -- that they teach good work habits, that they are often intense work that allows one to be so busy that one cannot brood, that they don't pay enough to tempt one to go deep into debt to participate in "Affluenza", and that the work might be diverse enough that one can figure out the areas in which one might specialize.

That data is ancedotal to one Black community, in one state in one region--one that actually has a history of Jim Crow I might add. Suffice it to say things are not getting worse for blacks. There is lower black unemployment, full stop. There is lower black crime, full stop. There is a gradual increase in black wealth, full stop.


Are the black petty-bourgeoisie and withe petty-bourgeoisie equal on those economic terms? No. But I would argue that is due largely to integration destroying most of the black bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie in the 1960s and 1970s. Which incidentally was a Dimocrat project and not a Republican one.

Quote:

Quote:If blacks have gaining in economics, it is because of such attributes as better education, dedication on the job (even on 'bad' jobs), greater mobility (commuting from poor sectors of cities to the suburbs where jobs are), and starting businesses. Such has nothing to do with politics.

These explanations have nothing to do with politics. It's personal behavior, and a recognition that Whitey doesn't cut any breaks. Obey Whitey's rules, or your life might go from awful to horrific.

You are responding to yourself you know that right? Suffice it to say that if one lives in a majority white country (like the US) one has to follow Whitey's rules or face the consequences. The same is true in Black Majority countries. That being said, the South African experience indicates that blacks are less tolerant of minorities than whites are.

Quote:On the whole, big gains from the Jim Crow era, with allowances for economic downturns and upswings. The improvement is from a much worse position than that of white people in the same urban areas.

Not quite. Many Blacks are and have been for a long time on the lower level of educational and economic attainment. Some of this is due to historical circumstance to be sure--people from poor families tend over time to be poor. That being said, if we do suppose that there is racial bias against blacks that doesn't exists for latinos then the greater the number of latinos available to take those lower level jobs and positions that blacks would otherwise occupy would go to them.


Personally I don't believe this to be the case. Rather, I think it has to do with the fact that blacks, by and large, are citizens and know their labor rights whereas large numbers of illegal latino aliens either don't or don't want to make a fuss for fear of ICE. If anything greater enforcement of border controls helps all workers--it just tends to help black workers the most. A happy coincidence.

Quote:In my experience, and my understanding of history, the Left-Right divide is largely between debtors (Left) and creditors (Right).

Typically this is true but not always. After all currently the Left in the US consists of the very poor and the very rich together against everyone who is kinda-sorta in the middle. In a republic with small-d-democratic institutions this does not bode well for the current left. Surely I do not have to explain how bell curves work.

Quote:Note well that the ten-year-old jalopy has a schedule of payments on it that practically assures that its 'owner' will never pay it off before it dies.

Anyone who finances a 10 year old jalopy is a fool and deserves to be taken to the cleaners. Most such vehicles can be purchased for around 1000 dollars, and that money is easily saved by all but the most spend thrift. I should know my son bought a similar jalopy for around that and paid for it in cash with savings from the local Wendy's where he worked during high school.


So one of three things must be clear, either my son is some sort of financial genius, or you know some exceptionally stupid people, or you're making shit up. I'm going with the last one. I know my son isn't a financial genius, and you'd have to leave the house to know anyone including the exceptionally stupid. Occam's razor shaves thinly once again.


I'm not going to bother responding to a bullshit proposal....so.

Quote:

Quote:Do not be confused, Maxine Waters does not speak for Black People. I'm not even sure she speaks for the Black People in her own district seeing as she doesn't even reside in her district.

40 million people, whose skin color ranges from near-white to jet-black, whose attainments in life can be from being on death row to being Barack Obama or Neil de Grasse Tyson, who are in all classes except the "upper out-of-sight" of families with several generations of large, inherited wealth or the reputation of such?


Maxine Waters no more speaks for black people than Donald Trump speaks for white people.

Actually there are quite a few black millionaires and billionaires. I would imagine that these would be the "upper out-of-sight" people you refer to. I just call them rich.


And no Donald Trump doesn't speak for white people. But considering the electoral college he seems to speak for the majority of people in the majority of the states. That is good enough.

Quote:Nothing to do with my ethnic identity (English, German, Swiss, Welsh, Scots, French, Dutch, Irish, Belgian, Danish, and Norwegian from the time of American settlement... and some mysteries. Some ancestors may have had a good cause to hide an ancestor at one time, and I have no idea what is hidden. If I ever get around to taking one of those DNA tests, I will put the results in this Forum. Maybe not this thread.

Are you naturally clueless or do you work at it? My point is that you cannot know anything of the black experience not being black. You may or may not (and actually probably don't as you remind me of those whites who are inadvertently racist while claiming to "have black friends") have an intellectual understanding of it--but can never have an experiential understanding.


For a large number of blacks Trump was someone who they aspired to be like--even though he is white, indeed in spite of him being white--and remains so. Claims by CNN and et al of his supposed racism not withstanding. It sure seems funny to me that a man in the public eye for forty years only suddenly becomes a racist when he decides to run for president. Coincidence? I don't think so. If it looks like a smear campaign, and acts like a smear campaign chances are it actually is a smear campaign.

Quote:Central Park jogger. Donald Trump called for the death penalty for a non-capital offense before there was a conviction. He played up the 'racial' overtones then.

Sauce then we'll talk. As far as I'm aware of he called for the death penalty for someone who raped a Central Park jogger. Rape is pretty much universially considered a heinous crime. Also whites can be lynched too so no racial over tones no matter what the lugenpresse says.

Quote:Yes, he is a property developer... and he has sold off properties for cash. He is lucky to have been able to buy in cheap, when New York City was a mess, and lease out dear. He is fortunate that he is not a developer and landlord in such a place as Detroit or St. Louis.

No he would have sold out quickly and moved on to other pastures. Unlike NYC Detroit based its economy on a single industry. As for St. Louis only sections of the city are terrible. The region it is in as a whole has been on decline for several decades though.


As such I can only conclude that your main quibble about Trump's businesses is that he has been rather successful at them. I imagine that were I white as well as right leaning you'd get on your high horse about my successes. I recently bought out the donut shop I worked at from the previous owners (they had to liquidate some bad debts and I had the capital to take advantage). So far I've increased productivity and profit margins 3%. Mostly by eliminating lot of wasteful overhead in management.


Since I know you don't know shit about restaurants, the average profit of a profitable restaurant is 5%, I'm getting 8% which means I'm essentially making twice the profit of other restaurants of similar category. I'll probably never be a billionaire but if I can make my first million by 50 I'll consider myself successful.

Quote:No -- it is often the result of redlining in the past which kept blacks out of 'desirable' neighborhoods that had potential for appreciation. Also, blacks are much less likely to have any inherited advantage in economics -- even the most successful blacks have more typically than is the case for whites, started with nothing or nearly nothing. Check the demographics.

No. Redlining essentially was a refusal by lenders to lend money to persons residing in certain districts. If a potential creditor refuses to lend you money then you can't owe them money that you didn't borrow. More pernicious was charging higher interest rates to blacks of similar credit ratings, requiring larger down payments and so forth.


As to why desirable neighborhoods are desirable...well...as racist as it may sound no one wants to live around niggers. I certainly don't and I'm as black as the ace of spades. Need I point out again the work of Chris Rock?

Quote:People in the Trump cult, of course. You need to get out more.

Nope. Billy boy got #MeToo-ed already. HRC was never popular. And if you listen to any old black man you have around you'll hear "Sheeit, dat Obama done fucked it up for us. We ain't gonna have a black prezodent for at least fifty years. Motherfucker didn't do nothing bout getting folks back to work just threw some food stamps at them like that would solve the problem."


Incidentally that quoted passage was said by my own Uncle who regularly calls me a honkey loving uncle tom ass coon.

Quote:

Quote:Manufactured outrage against Trump mostly just exists on the Tee-Vee and I would argue largely constituted of Dimocrat Mouth Pieces and professional malcontents. Those of us who have to get on with day to day activities such as raising the kids, working and paying the taxes at worst see Trump as more of the same.

Oh, the plain-folks fallacy at work.

Nope. The plain folks who have jobs and kids and what not don't care if the President slept with every whore in Washington, Bill Clinton proved that. What they care about is bread, gas in the car, and putting shoes in the feet of their brats. If a 4T is about survival then those issues take precedent over if Trump actually grabbed anyone by the pussy in a manner that they didn't like, or said nigger.


The outrage over Trump is almost entirely 3T in character and is completely post-seasonal. Perhaps you don't know what season you're in, but I do.

[Bad Dog]

Pence makes me want Dan Quayle back.

Trump isn't going anywhere, and neither is his base. In Britain, the PM would have been ousted in a week.

Maybe the Brits could loan us a Royal or three?

[pbrower2a]

(08-22-2018, 10:05 PM)Bad Dog Wrote: Pence makes me want Dan Quayle back.

Trump isn't going anywhere, and neither is his base. In Britain, the PM would have been ousted in a week.

Maybe the Brits could loan us a Royal or three?

That could be one way to get Meghan Markle  back!

[David Horn]

(08-22-2018, 10:05 PM)Bad Dog Wrote: Pence makes me want Dan Quayle back.

Trump isn't going anywhere, and neither is his base. In Britain, the PM would have been ousted in a week.

Maybe the Brits could loan us a Royal or three?

True demagogues create their own politics, as Trump certainly has.  If it fails in 2020, then no permanent damage will have been done.  If it continues into another Presidential term, then we're faced with the real question: can a cult of personality rule an advanced country without breaking it beyond repair?  I honestly can't say yes, as much as I would like to, which should be scary enough to give us pause.