Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gray Champion Predictions
(07-15-2020, 09:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: And yet, it kicked off the progressive era.  If America was great, it was then.  The great problems of the crisis have always been solved.

Sure, the turnings are going to hit unravelling again.  We will get selfish again.  Things will look bad and be bad again.  The slavery compromises are enough that the elites will be dominant again.

The Agricultural Age was bad.  Since, we could only solve a few problems per crisis.  No, we are not apt to end the cycles this time around, to solve the last crisis.  We don't know how much we will address this early in, and how much will have to wait for the next transformation.

Again, let's not be disappointed in advance.  The change is always greater than it looks like going in.

The unique problem this time is the interwoven nature of the crises.  AGW must be addressed if anything else is to succeed, but so must the social stresses trying to tear us apart.  If we're at each other throats, nothing will advance.  COVID may actually be the least problem, though the total lack o preparation for the pandemic and the economic fallout still makes the cut.  IN short, we need to remove the rot and rebuild a lot of societal structure while solving multiple crises at the same time. There's a great visual of that:



Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(07-15-2020, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(07-15-2020, 09:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: And yet, it kicked off the progressive era.  If America was great, it was then.  The great problems of the crisis have always been solved.

Sure, the turnings are going to hit unravelling again.  We will get selfish again.  Things will look bad and be bad again.  The slavery compromises are enough that the elites will be dominant again.

The Agricultural Age was bad.  Since, we could only solve a few problems per crisis.  No, we are not apt to end the cycles this time around, to solve the last crisis.  We don't know how much we will address this early in, and how much will have to wait for the next transformation.

Again, let's not be disappointed in advance.  The change is always greater than it looks like going in.

The unique problem this time is the interwoven nature of the crises.  AGW must be addressed if anything else is to succeed, but so must the social stresses trying to tear us apart.  If we're at each other throats, nothing will advance.  COVID may actually be the least problem, though the total lack o preparation for the pandemic and the economic fallout still makes the cut.  IN short, we need to remove the rot and rebuild a lot of societal structure while solving multiple crises at the same time.

COVID 19 may not be the largest problem, but it might well put the right people in charge and prove to a lot of people that you cannot ignore problems be wishing them away. It may lead other problems to be addressed that are not yet being addressed beyond campaign promises.
About every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom...
Reply
(07-13-2020, 12:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(07-12-2020, 07:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(07-11-2020, 11:48 AM)User3451 Wrote: It doesn't matter if the VP is a woman. It shouldn't have any bearing. Just because someone is a man has nothing to do with "the patriarchy"

It should be the best candidate. 

How many qualified people were there really? Besides Warren, Biden and Sanders?

Hopefully Biden chooses Warren. If he goes with Harris we will go back to the bush/Clinton 3T

You fail to see the immense power of symbolism.  This isn't really about who can row the boat better.  It's about who can stand at the helm and inspire others to row as if their lives depend on it.

Somehow I think Susan Rice can fill the bill, just watching and listening to her to some extent.

At least she has "the stars" on her side, indicating talent.

Someone recommended that I look her up. Most people I look at fall short. Sometimes I hit the jackpot.

If course there are a few others around who could do it, but none of them are being considered for vice-president.

Love that you looked up Rice and her stars are good, definitely looking likely to be VP and President in short order.
Reply
(07-15-2020, 11:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(07-15-2020, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(07-15-2020, 09:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: And yet, it kicked off the progressive era.  If America was great, it was then.  The great problems of the crisis have always been solved.

Sure, the turnings are going to hit unravelling again.  We will get selfish again.  Things will look bad and be bad again.  The slavery compromises are enough that the elites will be dominant again.

The Agricultural Age was bad.  Since, we could only solve a few problems per crisis.  No, we are not apt to end the cycles this time around, to solve the last crisis.  We don't know how much we will address this early in, and how much will have to wait for the next transformation.

Again, let's not be disappointed in advance.  The change is always greater than it looks like going in.

The unique problem this time is the interwoven nature of the crises.  AGW must be addressed if anything else is to succeed, but so must the social stresses trying to tear us apart.  If we're at each other throats, nothing will advance.  COVID may actually be the least problem, though the total lack o preparation for the pandemic and the economic fallout still makes the cut.  IN short, we need to remove the rot and rebuild a lot of societal structure while solving multiple crises at the same time.

COVID 19 may not be the largest problem, but it might well put the right people in charge and prove to a lot of people that you cannot ignore problems be wishing them away.  It may lead other problems to be addressed that are not yet being addressed beyond campaign promises.

Let's hope so.  We haven't had a good run of effective leaders since Reagan, and his leadership is not to my taste to say the least.  Since then, we've wobbled around and played gotcha.  Even big things have been small: GWB's Medicare Part D and the ACA being notably lacking.  Better should be easy to achieve.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(08-07-2020, 12:50 AM)jleagans Wrote:
(07-13-2020, 12:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(07-12-2020, 07:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(07-11-2020, 11:48 AM)User3451 Wrote: It doesn't matter if the VP is a woman. It shouldn't have any bearing. Just because someone is a man has nothing to do with "the patriarchy"

It should be the best candidate. 

How many qualified people were there really? Besides Warren, Biden and Sanders?

Hopefully Biden chooses Warren. If he goes with Harris we will go back to the bush/Clinton 3T

You fail to see the immense power of symbolism.  This isn't really about who can row the boat better.  It's about who can stand at the helm and inspire others to row as if their lives depend on it.

Somehow I think Susan Rice can fill the bill, just watching and listening to her to some extent.

At least she has "the stars" on her side, indicating talent.

Someone recommended that I look her up. Most people I look at fall short. Sometimes I hit the jackpot.

If course there are a few others around who could do it, but none of them are being considered for vice-president.

Love that you looked up Rice and her stars are good, definitely looking likely to be VP and President in short order.

I can't see Rice as POTUS, because I doubt she can herself.  She's talented, but she'll have to be a Trumanesque figure to turn that into policy and progress in general.  She's a wonk, not a politician.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(08-07-2020, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-07-2020, 12:50 AM)jleagans Wrote:
(07-13-2020, 12:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(07-12-2020, 07:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(07-11-2020, 11:48 AM)User3451 Wrote: It doesn't matter if the VP is a woman. It shouldn't have any bearing. Just because someone is a man has nothing to do with "the patriarchy"

It should be the best candidate. 

How many qualified people were there really? Besides Warren, Biden and Sanders?

Hopefully Biden chooses Warren. If he goes with Harris we will go back to the bush/Clinton 3T

You fail to see the immense power of symbolism.  This isn't really about who can row the boat better.  It's about who can stand at the helm and inspire others to row as if their lives depend on it.

Somehow I think Susan Rice can fill the bill, just watching and listening to her to some extent.

At least she has "the stars" on her side, indicating talent.

Someone recommended that I look her up. Most people I look at fall short. Sometimes I hit the jackpot.

If course there are a few others around who could do it, but none of them are being considered for vice-president.

Love that you looked up Rice and her stars are good, definitely looking likely to be VP and President in short order.

I can't see Rice as POTUS, because I doubt she can herself.  She's talented, but she'll have to be a Trumanesque figure to turn that into policy and progress in general.  She's a wonk, not a politician.

The "stars" say otherwise. She does a lot of stump speaking. She doesn't come across as a wonk. She has presence and bearing, and generates confidence.

Your former governor is even better. And Mitch Landrieu is the best. Assuming Biden wins in 2020, some very talented Democratic politicians will have to step up for 2024, or our 4T will likely fail, because the challenger will have a leg up in that election. The best thing Biden can do is pick the best among his choices who could step up to the role. That's Susan Rice, and the worst choice would be Kamala Harris. If the Republicans get back in in 2024, then we just reverse everything and go back to square one, and all the problems fester.

The Republicans actually have a rising star, which I saw on TV recently. Until now their best prospect was a right-wing idiot trumper from Arkansas, Tom Cotton from the cotton lands. But Utah is a state that votes Republican nationally, but sometimes Democratic locally. They had a moderate Republican politician who ran for president a while back, Jon Huntsman. Now they have Spencer Cox, their next governor. He has a 15-2 score on my system. I looked him up because he seemed to have some personal power and heft, some positive charm, and was quite articulate. That's a winning combo for a politician. So, watch for him in the future. He was not going along with the Trump line on mail-in voting, which he is in charge of in Utah, but seemed quite intelligent. Not the change agent we need, I'm sure, but when people are ready for a stable leader, the next Ike, who may not just reverse advances made by Democrats, he may be the guy. That would be better than that young Trump power couple we all know.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(08-07-2020, 10:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(08-07-2020, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-07-2020, 12:50 AM)jleagans Wrote:
(07-13-2020, 12:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(07-12-2020, 07:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: You fail to see the immense power of symbolism.  This isn't really about who can row the boat better.  It's about who can stand at the helm and inspire others to row as if their lives depend on it.

Somehow I think Susan Rice can fill the bill, just watching and listening to her to some extent.

At least she has "the stars" on her side, indicating talent.

Someone recommended that I look her up. Most people I look at fall short. Sometimes I hit the jackpot.

If course there are a few others around who could do it, but none of them are being considered for vice-president.

Love that you looked up Rice and her stars are good, definitely looking likely to be VP and President in short order.

I can't see Rice as POTUS, because I doubt she can herself.  She's talented, but she'll have to be a Trumanesque figure to turn that into policy and progress in general.  She's a wonk, not a politician.

The "stars" say otherwise. She does a lot of stump speaking. She doesn't come across as a wonk. She has presence and bearing, and generates confidence.

Your former governor is even better. And Mitch Landrieu is the best. Assuming Biden wins in 2020, some very talented Democratic politicians will have to step up for 2024, or our 4T will likely fail, because the challenger will have a leg up in that election. The best thing Biden can do is pick the best among his choices who could step up to the role. That's Susan Rice, and the worst choice would be Kamala Harris. If the Republicans get back in in 2024, then we just reverse everything and go back to square one, and all the problems fester.

The Republicans actually have a rising star, which I saw on TV recently. Until now their best prospect was a right-wing idiot trumper from Arkansas, Tom Cotton from the cotton lands. But Utah is a state that votes Republican nationally, but sometimes Democratic locally. They had a moderate Republican politician who ran for president a while back, Jon Huntsman. Now they have Spencer Cox, their next governor. He has a 15-2 score on my system. I looked him up because he seemed to have some personal power and heft, some positive charm, and was quite articulate. That's a winning combo for a politician. So, watch for him in the future. He was not going along with the Trump line on mail-in voting, which he is in charge of in Utah, but seemed quite intelligent. Not the change agent we need, I'm sure, but when people are ready for a stable leader, the next Ike, who may not just reverse advances made by Democrats, he may be the guy. That would be better than that young Trump power couple we all know.

I think Susan Rice can still end up playing a linchpin role in the next decade as Secretary of State steadying the waters for us internationally.  I don't see Kamala in 2024, and certainly not Tom Cotton.  The Utah idea is interesting but I see Utah becoming more Dem (look at Romney) over time.

How do Andrew Yang and AOC's stars look to you?  I could see millennial politics of the next era aligning totally around these two politicians.
Reply
(08-13-2020, 03:36 PM)jleagans Wrote: I think Susan Rice can still end up playing a linchpin role in the next decade as Secretary of State steadying the waters for us internationally.  I don't see Kamala in 2024, and certainly not Tom Cotton.  The Utah idea is interesting but I see Utah becoming more Dem (look at Romney) over time.

How do Andrew Yang and AOC's stars look to you?  I could see millennial politics of the next era aligning totally around these two politicians.

I definitely could see Andrew Yang and AOC as president. They do seem to capture the millenials' attention, and I myself do think that they, or people like them represent the new paradigm for the next saeculum. What they support does appear to align with late 4T/1T goals, such as building new infrastructure, new institutions, and a change of economic paradigm. They're the real breath of fresh air that the party needs.
Reply
(08-13-2020, 07:14 PM)RadianMay Wrote:
(08-13-2020, 03:36 PM)jleagans Wrote: I think Susan Rice can still end up playing a linchpin role in the next decade as Secretary of State steadying the waters for us internationally.  I don't see Kamala in 2024, and certainly not Tom Cotton.  The Utah idea is interesting but I see Utah becoming more Dem (look at Romney) over time.

How do Andrew Yang and AOC's stars look to you?  I could see millennial politics of the next era aligning totally around these two politicians.

I definitely could see Andrew Yang and AOC as president. They do seem to capture the millenials' attention, and I myself do think that they, or people like them represent the new paradigm for the next saeculum. What they support does appear to align with late 4T/1T goals, such as building new infrastructure, new institutions, and a change of economic paradigm. They're the real breath of fresh air that the party needs.

Andrew Yang is an interesting one-trick-pony, but that's about it.  On the other hand, AOC has the chops, and will be barely eligible in 2024.  I would vote for her.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
I'm pegging AOC as a 2030's President, I just don't see how she doesn't define one of the parties for the next two turnings.  

And I think she ends up defining herself in relief to an Andrew Yang technocrat-silicon valley Democrat party.  He's not a one-trick pony, UBI was just a starting point (though I can make an argument that UBI is the most important policy debate we will have in this era). Yang's pitch that sold me toward the end is that the Democratic party should be the party that trusts the people.  THAT is a platform you can build a party around that dovetails with modern conservative thinking that opens the door for coalitions.  

I'm seeing Yang as the next FDR/Reagan party era starter, and AOC either takes over the Republican party or we see a Progressive party actually replace the Republican party.

The historical rhyming with AOD and Teddy Roosevelt is strong, as the Dems stand now exactly where the R's stood when Teddy had to run as a Bull Moose.  No one in the flank of a party has ever been able to pull the party back to them.
Reply
(08-17-2020, 06:48 PM)jleagans Wrote: I'm pegging AOC as a 2030's President, I just don't see how she doesn't define one of the parties for the next two turnings.  

And I think she ends up defining herself in relief to an Andrew Yang technocrat-silicon valley Democrat party.  He's not a one-trick pony, UBI was just a starting point (though I can make an argument that UBI is the most important policy debate we will have in this era). Yang's pitch that sold me toward the end is that the Democratic party should be the party that trusts the people.  THAT is a platform you can build a party around that dovetails with modern conservative thinking that opens the door for coalitions.  

I'm seeing Yang as the next FDR/Reagan party era starter, and AOC either takes over the Republican party or we see a Progressive party actually replace the Republican party.

The historical rhyming with AOC and Teddy Roosevelt is strong, as the Dems stand now exactly where the R's stood when Teddy had to run as a Bull Moose.  No one in the flank of a party has ever been able to pull the party back to them.

My indicators clearly show that neither AOC (score 13-19) nor Yang (score 8-15) will ever be president. But that does not mean they are not important opinion shapers in future years. If the AOC faction grows, she could end up as Speaker.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(08-17-2020, 06:48 PM)jleagans Wrote: I'm pegging AOC as a 2030's President, I just don't see how she doesn't define one of the parties for the next two turnings.  

And I think she ends up defining herself in relief to an Andrew Yang technocrat-silicon valley Democrat party.  He's not a one-trick pony, UBI was just a starting point (though I can make an argument that UBI is the most important policy debate we will have in this era). Yang's pitch that sold me toward the end is that the Democratic party should be the party that trusts the people.  THAT is a platform you can build a party around that dovetails with modern conservative thinking that opens the door for coalitions.  

I'm seeing Yang as the next FDR/Reagan party era starter, and AOC either takes over the Republican party or we see a Progressive party actually replace the Republican party.

The historical rhyming with AOD and Teddy Roosevelt is strong, as the Dems stand now exactly where the R's stood when Teddy had to run as a Bull Moose.  No one in the flank of a party has ever been able to pull the party back to them.

First, UBI is not that new. The Swiss have tinkered with it for at least 15 years.  Second, the plutocrats will want to keep the spoils they've accumulated, even in the event of a strong leveling event. UBI is a perfect tool to keep them rich and the proles quiet. So Yang may be prescient, but not all that progressive.  Also remember, UBI is a government benefit that is easily subject to abuse by the government if the wrong people get a chance to tinker.  In that, it's a lot like Social Security, and should have an annual COLA and a strict COLA policy to keep meddling to a minimum.

A better choice would be a large and growing Sovereign Wealth Fund, that holds voting stock in most public stocks.  Then, the profits benefit everyone and the control on unacceptable behavior is constrained by the ability to vote proxies.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(08-18-2020, 11:15 AM)David Horn Wrote: First, UBI is not that new. The Swiss have tinkered with it for at least 15 years.  Second, the plutocrats will want to keep the spoils they've accumulated, even in the event of a strong leveling event. UBI is a perfect tool to keep them rich and the proles quiet. So Yang may be prescient, but not all that progressive.  Also remember, UBI is a government benefit that is easily subject to abuse by the government if the wrong people get a chance to tinker.  In that, it's a lot like Social Security, and should have an annual COLA and a strict COLA policy to keep meddling to a minimum.

A better choice would be a large and growing Sovereign Wealth Fund, that holds voting stock in most public stocks.  Then, the profits benefit everyone and the control on unacceptable behavior is constrained by the ability to vote proxies.

Interesting idea about the voting stocks. I’ll have to read more about that.

It is the case that the American political spectrum is rather truncated compared to the options other countries really have. Far left policies in other countries just don’t exist in America; politics that Bernie (universal healthcare, free college) and Yang (UBI) support are mostly considered moderate left in most developed countries, such as those in Western Europe. Nationalising the electric grid, oil companies, even the health providers are completely unthinkable.

I personally think the reason this is the case has to do with our first past the post voting system, which causes the two party system, and the complete shutdown of meaningful dialogue. With a more proportional voting system, smaller parties further to the right and left, as well as those offering a mix of policies between the democrats and republicans can actually hold influence in congress, and this will force the main parties to consider more ideas. I feel that change from within the party will only happen when an existential threat emerges, and seeing how this election goes, both parties still haven’t learnt their lessons.

I would be blessed to see the day when true proportional representation is implemented on the federal level in this country.
Reply
(08-18-2020, 07:51 PM)RadianMay Wrote: Interesting idea about the voting stocks. I’ll have to read more about that...

We have one, albeit of limited scope.  It's controlled by the state of Alaska and is funded by Prudhoe Bay oil.  It's why Alaskans get paid rather than pay taxes.  Norway has a national version funded by North Sea oil.  It doesn't have to be oil, and it shouldn't be in this case.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(08-18-2020, 12:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My indicators clearly show that neither AOC (score 13-19) nor Yang (score 8-15) will ever be president. But that does not mean they are not important opinion shapers in future years. If the AOC faction grows, she could end up as Speaker.

Seriously.  "The Stars?"  2024, 2028 and the 2030's?

I just tossed my chicken bones, and it's clear.  John Bolton will successfully serve two terms starting in 2004.
[fon‌t=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
Reply
I know this seems really old-fashioned, re-warmed Malthusian-ism. But ... we just have too damn many people on the planet. Growing the population means that our economic system HAS to be a growth model, not a more sustainable, rational model designed to not overrun the planet's capacity.

COVID is a symptom of our overpopulation. Lots of bio models behave the same way. Once exponential growth reaches a certain point, the organism dies off. This is just the first one of these. There'll be more.
[fon‌t=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
Reply
(08-21-2020, 06:42 PM)TnT Wrote: I know this seems really old-fashioned, re-warmed Malthusian-ism.  But ... we just have too damn many people on the planet.  Growing the population means that our economic system HAS to be a growth model, not a more sustainable, rational model designed to not overrun the planet's capacity.

COVID is a symptom of our overpopulation.  Lots of bio models behave the same way.  Once exponential growth reaches a certain point, the organism dies off.  This is just the first one of these.  There'll be more.

True enough. I see global overpopulation as an issue similar to global warming which will someday become an central issue for a crisis or an awakening. Not yet, though. Should fusion become real and countries like India, China and Russia start installing scrubbers on the stacks remaining, global overpopulation is apt to make it to the front burner.
About every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom...
Reply
(08-21-2020, 09:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(08-21-2020, 06:42 PM)TnT Wrote: I know this seems really old-fashioned, re-warmed Malthusian-ism.  But ... we just have too damn many people on the planet.  Growing the population means that our economic system HAS to be a growth model, not a more sustainable, rational model designed to not overrun the planet's capacity.

COVID is a symptom of our overpopulation.  Lots of bio models behave the same way.  Once exponential growth reaches a certain point, the organism dies off.  This is just the first one of these.  There'll be more.

True enough.  I see global overpopulation as an issue similar to global warming which will someday become an central issue for a crisis or an awakening.  Not yet, though.  Should fusion become real and countries like India, China and Russia start installing scrubbers on the stacks remaining, global overpopulation is apt to make it to the front burner.

The way I see it, AGW is the same thing as overpopulation!  If we weren't so many, we wouldn't have AGW.  In fact, I can't think of a single solitary problem we have in the world today that wouldn't be essentially solved if the population suddenly decreased by, say, 75%.  Perhaps the next pandemic, or one after, might just do the job for us.
[fon‌t=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
Reply
(08-22-2020, 02:30 PM)TnT Wrote: The way I see it, AGW is the same thing as overpopulation!  If we weren't so many, we wouldn't have AGW.  In fact, I can't think of a single solitary problem we have in the world today that wouldn't be essentially solved if the population suddenly decreased by, say, 75%.  Perhaps the next pandemic, or one after, might just do the job for us.

You are correct enough. There is a problem that autocratic China with their one baby policy was for a long time the primary example of population control. Those that are still wrapped up in religious thinking resist anything to do with birth control.

But unfortunately the issue has become two issues. We might get global warming fought against in the near future. Population control so far is something few are willing to talk about and advocate. I am sympathetic and anticipate that it will come in the not to distant future.
About every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom...
Reply
(08-21-2020, 06:38 PM)TnT Wrote:
(08-18-2020, 12:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My indicators clearly show that neither AOC (score 13-19) nor Yang (score 8-15) will ever be president. But that does not mean they are not important opinion shapers in future years. If the AOC faction grows, she could end up as Speaker.

Seriously.  "The Stars?"  2024, 2028 and the 2030's?

I just tossed my chicken bones, and it's clear.  John Bolton will successfully serve two terms starting in 2004.

ha ha. I haven't even looked at John Bolton's "stars." Nick Bolton's either, ha ha. Seriously, you are surprised about my use of cosmic indicators? How long have you been coming here, off and on? Come on....

Check it out already!

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Horoscope scores rock!

You missed Woodstock; that must be why you're not hip Wink
This is the Age of Aquarius, baby!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Neither of the current major party candidates is the "Grey Champion". Einzige 50 23,560 11-21-2016, 09:32 AM
Last Post: 2Legit2Quit

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)