Neil Howe: 'Civil War Is More Likely Than People Think'

[Warren Dew]

(12-12-2016, 11:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Rags Wrote:Medical care and retirement provision are 2 things I don't think free enterpriseTM handle.  As such they should be public goods. 

Medical care depends on random stuff like an odd mutation which causes cancer or losing the genetic lotto and getting early heart disease , type I diabetes, going blind, etc.  There's also random stuff like car wrecks.

Retirement and running out of money is where you win the genetic lotto sorta, but losing the economic lotto and winding up with a body wearing construction job.

Whaddya think, and why?

Warren Dew Wrote:I think a medical system that relies primarily on treatment rather than prevention is ridiculously messed up.  We save a few bucks eating and drinking cheap, mass produced junk food, then spend thousands of dollars of "other people's money" fixing the cancer, diabetes, and heart disease that result.  The problem is, we end up also being those "other people" who pay for everyone's medical expenses.  And we're so far into the system - more than a generation - that most people have forgotten what healthy food actually is.  It's a terrible system.

Wrt junk food. I think most folks know how bad the stuff is.  However, consider the dual minimum wage house hold where mom and dad work their asses off and have no time or energy to cook like the "good old days" with stay at home moms. So to enable folks to procure the more expensive fruits/veggies and cook them, we'd need to either raise the minimum wage [I work minimum wage and my employer doesn't even provide me with health insurance so no savings there] or have a guaranteed national income provided or not with an expanded EITC.

...

Quote:The best approach would be for everyone to pay for their own food, doctor's visits, and health insurance; that way, they'd be able to pick a balance that offered them the most benefit for the least cost.

1. That would work if everyone had enough funds for ordinary medical expenses.  Drugs and routine medical visits. The health insurance would need to work like homeowners insurance and be fore catastrophic stuff equivalent to a house fire.

2. The routine stuff can still add up a lot for poor folks though.

We can't really afford a livable guaranteed income yet, but if we cut federal medical support, we could provide a guaranteed supplemental income of about $3000 per year for everyone.  It won't pay rent, but it should be fine for healthy groceries; it's as much as I pay per person, and I shop at Whole Foods.  Replace current welfare programs, and it comes to $4000 to $5000; if people actually lived healthy - and took that vitamin D - that would add enough for some minimal catastrophic insurance once the system adjusted.  People who liived on junk food woould be out of luck, though.

Raise the minimum wage, and you might be out of your job rather than making more money.

Quote:3. Uh, what about the folks who won the genetic lotto and outlive their savings?  The stawk market is not sane or predictable. I mean why did the stawk market go up after Brexit, Trump win, and now Italy's vote?  I'll never understand the stawk market and hell if I can time the thing.

I see retirement as a separate issue.  Right now, we have social security.  Something better could be designed, but it might be best to have it be annuity based to avoid issues about running out before dying.

Quote:

Quote:Current employer contributions to health insurance could be turned into pay which people could choose to use on any of these things.

Yes, that's a hangover from WWII wage/price controls.  It's obsolete and stupid.  Nuking the tax deduction should wipe it out.  I certainly don't like a subsidy to health insurance companies by proxy , tax write offs. The concern I have is the freed up money would be used to pad profits and CEO pay. There's way too much of that going on.

Yes.  The transition would be the issue:  we'd have to make sure those expenses got turned into pay, not padded profits.

Quote:

Warren Dew Wrote:Some level of regulation would be needed to ensure that the insurance companies were able to make good on their promises.  Some level of subsidy could be provided for the poor by state government or private charity, which might cover a minimum level of medical care in the event of a catastrophic eventuality.  But that's as far as I'd really want it.

Uh, "private charity" ?.   That's an Oklahoma state government special.  I can tell you first hand, that option is a no go. Hell, even state government here is a no go , come to think about it.  All the Oklahoma state government cares about is law enforcement and jails.  Lot's of money goes to those 2 . Yeeahyaaawwwww.  The wahoos we've elected are idiots. Like they cut the income tax just right before the oil price crashed and we have major shortfalls.  If I could, I'd pack up and move to a sane state like Colorado. That's why I never bitch when Eric pans Oklahoma, 'cause he's right.

If we didn't have that guaranteed supplemental income, federal taxes could be reduced massively instead.  States could increase their taxes to make up, providing them with more room for subsidies or state based guaranteed income.  And I think a lot more people would step up with private charity if that were the social norm, rather than just assuming "the government will take care of it".

Quote:

Quote:Auto accidents would be covered by auto insurance, of course.

I see big numbers for auto insurance bills to pay for lifetime disability payments.

Most of auto insurance goes to paying for damage to cars, not people.  Heck, the part that goes to people mostly goes to lawyers, not medical bills.  Disability insurance isn't that expensive as long as the benefits aren't good enough to tempt people into using them on purpose.

Quote:

Quote:Except for the part about auto insurance, though, that's so far from what we have that we'll probably need to take baby steps even to start moving in that direction.

I have an idea that will save lots of money, but it'll be a big fuck in the ass for Big Pharma.  Let's legalize importation of drugs from the cheapest locations that adhere to generic drug specifications by the FDA?  I say bring 'em in from Mexico/Canada and even India.

Absolutely.  I'm tired of paying for all the expensive drug research costs so the rest of the world pays only the cheap manufacturing costs.  Reimportation needs to be fully legal.

[Marypoza]

(12-12-2016, 11:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Rags Wrote:Medical care and retirement provision are 2 things I don't think free enterpriseTM handle.  As such they should be public goods. 

Medical care depends on random stuff like an odd mutation which causes cancer or losing the genetic lotto and getting early heart disease , type I diabetes, going blind, etc.  There's also random stuff like car wrecks.

Retirement and running out of money is where you win the genetic lotto sorta, but losing the economic lotto and winding up with a body wearing construction job.

Whaddya think, and why?

Warren Dew Wrote:I think a medical system that relies primarily on treatment rather than prevention is ridiculously messed up.  We save a few bucks eating and drinking cheap, mass produced junk food, then spend thousands of dollars of "other people's money" fixing the cancer, diabetes, and heart disease that result.  The problem is, we end up also being those "other people" who pay for everyone's medical expenses.  And we're so far into the system - more than a generation - that most people have forgotten what healthy food actually is.  It's a terrible system.

Wrt junk food. I think most folks know how bad the stuff is.  However, consider the dual minimum wage house hold where mom and dad work their asses off and have no time or energy to cook like the "good old days" with stay at home moms. So to enable folks to procure the more expensive fruits/veggies and cook them, we'd need to either raise the minimum wage [I work minimum wage and my employer doesn't even provide me with health insurance so no savings there] or have a guaranteed national income provided or not with an expanded EITC.  

Quote:Did you know there's an inexpensive supplement that has been shown in clinical trials to prevent 77% of cancers in older women?  Unfortunately since it's cheap, there's no money in marketing it, or even in testing it on men or on younger women.  And since it's an off patent supplement, FDA rules prohibit its sellers from advertising the health benefits, because that would be a problem for the companies that make really expensive, marginally effective cancer drugs who have lots of money for lobbying the FDA.  You've heard of this supplement, even if you didn't know it prevents cancer.  I've written about the cancer result more extensively here:

http://psychohist.livejournal.com/53503.html
http://psychohist.livejournal.com/67372.html

Yup. JohnMc'82 told me about vitamin D when I bitched on the old forum about all of the nuisances of being homozygous HLA DQ2.5. I don't have celiac disease but I do have a bunch of allergy crap.

http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2780726

Quote:The best approach would be for everyone to pay for their own food, doctor's visits, and health insurance; that way, they'd be able to pick a balance that offered them the most benefit for the least cost.

1. That would work if everyone had enough funds for ordinary medical expenses.  Drugs and routine medical visits. The health insurance would need to work like homeowners insurance and be fore catastrophic stuff equivalent to a house fire.

2. The routine stuff can still add up a lot for poor folks though.

3. Uh, what about the folks who won the genetic lotto and outlive their savings?  The stawk market is not sane or predictable. I mean why did the stawk market go up after Brexit, Trump win, and now Italy's vote?  I'll never understand the stawk market and hell if I can time the thing.

Quote:Current employer contributions to health insurance could be turned into pay which people could choose to use on any of these things.

Yes, that's a hangover from WWII wage/price controls.  It's obsolete and stupid.  Nuking the tax deduction should wipe it out.  I certainly don't like a subsidy to health insurance companies by proxy , tax write offs. The concern I have is the freed up money would be used to pad profits and CEO pay. There's way too much of that going on. I'd really like to nuke tax write offs for CEO pay, financial engineering stuff like stawk buybacks, mergers, spinoffs, etc. The corporate tax rate can be cut, ... but after the top income tax rate needs to go up to at least 50%. Eh, while I'm at it, I'll go into
  mode.  Lessee,  no more mortgage deductions, abolish all housing agencies [Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, HUD, FHA, VHA, etc.],  abolish useless government agencies Education, DHS,  fucking worthless duplicate agency that is. We already have the FBI/CIA.  The DEA also needs to go.  It's a Nixon legacy and thus sucks. I'd also apply the chainsaw to the defense budget.  Let's close 100+ offshore military bases. We're fucking broke.  Death to empire, death to NATO, death to wars of choice.death to NeoCONS, Death to the war on drugs! Let's all peace out, man.




Here's a Christmas tree Rags wants, but can't have 'cause of the stupid DEA. Who needs lights with this kind of tree since the tree will light you up?

Warren Dew Wrote:Some level of regulation would be needed to ensure that the insurance companies were able to make good on their promises.  Some level of subsidy could be provided for the poor by state government or private charity, which might cover a minimum level of medical care in the event of a catastrophic eventuality.  But that's as far as I'd really want it.

Uh, "private charity" ?.   That's an Oklahoma state government special.  I can tell you first hand, that option is a no go. Hell, even state government here is a no go , come to think about it.  All the Oklahoma state government cares about is law enforcement and jails.  Lot's of money goes to those 2 . Yeeahyaaawwwww.  The wahoos we've elected are idiots. Like they cut the income tax just right before the oil price crashed and we have major shortfalls.  If I could, I'd pack up and move to a sane state like Colorado. That's why I never bitch when Eric pans Oklahoma, 'cause he's right.

Quote:Auto accidents would be covered by auto insurance, of course.

I see big numbers for auto insurance bills to pay for lifetime disability payments.

Quote:Except for the part about auto insurance, though, that's so far from what we have that we'll probably need to take baby steps even to start moving in that direction.

I have an idea that will save lots of money, but it'll be a big fuck in the ass for Big Pharma.  Let's legalize importation of drugs from the cheapest locations that adhere to generic drug specifications by the FDA?  I say bring 'em in from Mexico/Canada and even India.

-- Rags that's some nice bud

[Marypoza]

(12-12-2016, 03:06 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 08:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 04:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 05:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Okay.  So you guys are going to stick with your prejudices no matter what he does.  Thanks for the info.

That is what happened with Obama on the right.  But I actually think Democrats will work with him even though Republicans never return the favor.  For example, Bush passed two tax cuts without having the 60 vote majority in the Senate that Obama needed to pursue his agenda.

Obama's agenda was much more radical.  But we'll see if Obamacare can be repealed without a 60 vote majority, or if the Democrats stonewall that.

The GOP has the votes now to repeal Obamacare as soon as Trump is sworn in--Obama is obviously going to veto that.  It is the replacement of it that would require 60 votes.

Ideally, the best solution is to take Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and etc and combine them all into a Medicare that covers everyone from birth to death.  Eliminating health care insurance except for special circumstances would dramatically bring down prices, end front loading of costs, and aid in industrial competitiveness as no other country insists that employers provide health care to their employees--in fact it is an artifact from regulations put into place during WW2.

The method I indicated above would dramatically reduce waste, fraud and abuse in insurance and government.

---- that's too much like right

[Marypoza]

(12-10-2016, 08:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 06:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Donald Trump is going to tell Democrats "I don't need you". He doesn't need Democrats in any role in what will operate very closely to a single-Party state. The Republican Party is consummately ruthless.

Except for local offices and a handful of State governments, Democrats will be limited to protests and demonstrations.  The next step is to make American government more centralized, weakening the power of any State to operate in any way contrary to the Trump dictatorship.

I expect to hate life every day that Donald Trump is President. Any joy in life will be tainted.

If he does that, he will be inviting secession, and if he resists this, the possible civil war we imagine.

I would not underestimate Donald Trump. His capacity for evil is certainly being demonstrated, and has been. It doesn't look good, especially for the first term. If he survives in office, and our nation and world is not ruined, then the hope is that he can be shifted if the Democrats recover and take congress back in 2020, if not the White House. If Donald still wins, but loses the congress in 2020, and even more in 2022, then his noted "flexibility" might come into play and he might play with the Democrats.

Trump may be unable and unwilling to be well-informed, but he is not a stupid man. He made more mistakes and gaffes than any other candidate in history, and still won, because he was smart enough to hone and project the right message, especially in his ads; while smart-as-a-tack Hillary could not. He has at least spoken like a Democrat in the past, about 10-15 years ago. So, if forced to by the people and a new congress, he might switch back.

I'm looking at the cosmic probabilities now, that say that the incumbent party will win the popular vote in 2020. It's not guaranteed, but it's over 80% likely. At the same time, the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of Dec.2020 in early Aquarius portends the shift in direction that happens every time, on cue, when this conjunction happens every 20 years at the start of the decades. And if Trump is ousted for terrible misdeeds-- even bad enough for the Republicans to take action against him-- or retires because he's tired, or tired of the job, and we get an inferior candidate Mike Pence running in 2020, then the probabilities rise for a Democratic win, along with the change of direction. But if Trump survives and keeps his popularity (whether deserved or not, as we might see it), then the "change of direction" (IF it happens, as I expect) would occur in congress, and take shape also as Trump going along with it.

-- Eric you said the incumbant party would win last yr

[Eric the Green]

The incumbent party DID win last yr, but in cases where the electoral vote conflicts with the popular vote, this indicator (new moon before election) has always predicted the popular vote. SO, I didn't sufficiently take that possibility into account.

But our republic is only 200+ years old, and a new wrinkle appeared that may be significant in 2020. This was that Uranus was square the Ascendant in 2016's New Moon, but from the 3rd instead of the 4th House. Uranus square the Ascendant from the 4th House, or in the 4th House, has always indicated a popular revolt against the party in power.

(The fourth House begins at the Nadir point, where the Sun is at midnight, in a chart cast for any location. The 1st house, from where it is counted as "4th", begins at the Ascendant, the Eastern horizon for the location)

But Uranus square the Ascendant (from below, but not from the 4th House) had never happened before in any of those charts. It symbolized, I presume, the unprecedented nature of this election, much as Lichtman also said. The wrinkle is that this same thing happens again in 2020. So that could be a wild card election too. Like in 2016, the party in power is favored to win the popular vote, according to the usual indications shown by which ruler (Asc or Desc.) is higher in the sky at the moment of the New Moon before the election. But Uranus will square the Ascendant for only the second time ever from the 3rd house and not the 4th. Along with the greater "New Moon" of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction that shifts the direction of political events every 20 years, it would suggest that Trump's defeat is possible if he runs again.

So what will happen in 2020 is not clear yet, and of course, I am not an infallible prophet.

[pbrower2a]

(01-09-2017, 02:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The incumbent party DID win last yr, but in cases where the electoral vote conflicts with the popular vote, this indicator (new moon before election) has always predicted the popular vote. SO, I didn't sufficiently take that possibility into account.

But our republic is only 200+ years old, and a new wrinkle appeared that may be significant in 2020. This was that Uranus was square the Ascendant in 2016's New Moon, but from the 3rd instead of the 4th House. Uranus square the Ascendant from the 4th House, or in the 4th House, has always indicated a popular revolt against the party in power.

But Uranus square the Ascendant (from below, but not from the 4th House) had never happened before in any of those charts. It symbolized, I presume, the unprecedented nature of this election, much as Lichtman also said. The wrinkle is that this same thing happens again in 2020. So that could be a wild card election too. Like in 2016, the party in power is favored to win the popular vote, according to the usual indications shown by which ruler (Asc or Desc.) is higher in the sky at the moment of the New Moon before the election. But Uranus will square the Ascendant for only the second time ever from the 3rd house and not the 4th. Along with the greater "New Moon" of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction that shifts the direction of political events every 20 years, it would suggest that Trump's defeat is possible if he runs again.

So what will happen in 2020 is not clear yet, and of course, I am not an infallible prophet.

Three republics are more than two hundred years old. The  oldest is San Marino, a postage-stamp-sized country completely enclosed within Italy; the United States of America (which will probably soon become a Republic in Name Only), and Switzerland (barely over 200 in its current incarnation). Switzerland will likely outlast the USA as a republic. Only 200 years old? That is an eternity for a republic. The o nly older political system still in existence is the Hanoverian kingdom that took the throne in England in the early 1700s.

Given a choice between having a monarch with few reserve powers that the monarch is unlikely to ever use and a dictatorial President, Prime Minister, Premier, or Party Boss who somehow avoids the temptation of a jeweled crown and scepter, I'll take the constitutional monarch who has come to accept a formal and practical democracy any day. Thus I will take Elizabeth II over Donald Trump any day.

[Marypoza]

(01-09-2017, 11:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-09-2017, 02:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The incumbent party DID win last yr, but in cases where the electoral vote conflicts with the popular vote, this indicator (new moon before election) has always predicted the popular vote. SO, I didn't sufficiently take that possibility into account.

But our republic is only 200+ years old, and a new wrinkle appeared that may be significant in 2020. This was that Uranus was square the Ascendant in 2016's New Moon, but from the 3rd instead of the 4th House. Uranus square the Ascendant from the 4th House, or in the 4th House, has always indicated a popular revolt against the party in power.

But Uranus square the Ascendant (from below, but not from the 4th House) had never happened before in any of those charts. It symbolized, I presume, the unprecedented nature of this election, much as Lichtman also said. The wrinkle is that this same thing happens again in 2020. So that could be a wild card election too. Like in 2016, the party in power is favored to win the popular vote, according to the usual indications shown by which ruler (Asc or Desc.) is higher in the sky at the moment of the New Moon before the election. But Uranus will square the Ascendant for only the second time ever from the 3rd house and not the 4th. Along with the greater "New Moon" of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction that shifts the direction of political events every 20 years, it would suggest that Trump's defeat is possible if he runs again.

So what will happen in 2020 is not clear yet, and of course, I am not an infallible prophet.

Three republics are more than two hundred years old. The  oldest is San Marino, a postage-stamp-sized country completely enclosed within Italy; the United States of America (which will probably soon become a Republic in Name Only), and Switzerland (barely over 200 in its current incarnation). Switzerland will likely outlast the USA as a republic. Only 200 years old? That is an eternity for a republic. The o nly older political system still in existence is the Hanoverian kingdom that took the throne in England in the early 1700s.

Given a choice between having a monarch with few reserve powers that the monarch is unlikely to ever use and a dictatorial President, Prime Minister, Premier, or Party Boss who somehow avoids the temptation of a jeweled crown and scepter, I'll take the constitutional monarch who has come to accept a formal and practical democracy any day. Thus I will take Elizabeth II over Donald Trump any day.

-- & so the Revolution comes full circle........

[Eric the Green]

Right now, if NATO splinters, I'd rather bet on the non-anglosphere portion. Except, that may not be practical

[Marypoza]

(01-12-2017, 03:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Right now, if NATO splinters, I'd rather bet on the non-anglosphere portion. Except, that may not be practical

-- just cast a chart

[Eric the Green]

After what I've seen today, on the news, and on the documentaries, it is clearer to me than ever, if that if the progressive side wishes to win, and thereby bring any progress, any solutions to our country and our world, we must be as ruthless as the other side. We cannot be nice. These right-wing assholes are stealing and destroying our country. We can't continue to think we can win by being nice. Mincing words won't work. Democrats must insist on a candidate who can win, who can be a leader and tell the truth and not back down to the American Nazis.

We cannot tolerate the right-wing Nazis calling themselves "anti-establishment," or their insane activities a "revolution." They are fascists. They are ruthless scumbags who only want to keep their nation white, the people poor, and the wealthy rich and in power. There is no excuse, and no basis for "understanding" them. They are sick. They only care about protecting their ridiculous anarchist, oligarchic ideology. We must expose them, we must fight them at every turn. Onto civil war if necessary. We are not one nation, and observing kiwis have no business commenting on this. The American Nazis have only the goals of wrecking our environment, keeping non-whites out, keeping the people poor, keeping them sick, deceiving the people, keeping people on the street, ruining our constitution, taking away our rights, shooting us down in the streets, allowing anyone to shoot us no matter what, and ruining our country and everything it stands for. I don't want to live in the same nation with them.

Shame on you, red America. Shame on you for ruining and dividing our country. To hell with you. We will fight you to the end. Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, you assholes better shut up. We'll shout right back in your faces. We will put you in jail if you try to stop us!

Suckers, all of you who believe we live in a democracy! We are owned by the Establishment, the wealthy businessmen like Trump who only care about their power over us. We need a revolution now!

[Marypoza]

(01-19-2017, 02:07 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: After what I've seen today, on the news, and on the documentaries, it is clearer to me than ever, if that if the progressive side wishes to win, and thereby bring any progress, any solutions to our country and our world, we must be as ruthless as the other side. We cannot be nice. These right-wing assholes are stealing and destroying our country. We can't continue to think we can win by being nice. Mincing words won't work. Democrats must insist on a candidate who can win, who can be a leader and tell the truth and not back down to the American Nazis.

We cannot tolerate the right-wing Nazis calling themselves "anti-establishment," or their insane activities a "revolution." They are fascists. They are ruthless scumbags who only want to keep their nation white, the people poor, and the wealthy rich and in power. There is no excuse, and no basis for "understanding" them. They are sick. They only care about protecting their ridiculous anarchist, oligarchic ideology. We must expose them, we must fight them at every turn. Onto civil war if necessary. We are not one nation, and observing kiwis have no business commenting on this. The American Nazis have only the goals of wrecking our environment, keeping non-whites out, keeping the people poor, keeping them sick, deceiving the people, keeping people on the street, ruining our constitution, taking away our rights, shooting us down in the streets, allowing anyone to shoot us no matter what, and ruining our country and everything it stands for. I don't want to live in the same nation with them.

Shame on you, red America. Shame on you for ruining and dividing our country. To hell with you. We will fight you to the end. Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, you assholes better shut up. We'll shout right back in your faces. We will put you in jail if you try to stop us!

Suckers, all of you who believe we live in a democracy! We are owned by the Establishment, the wealthy businessmen like Trump who only care about their power over us. We need a revolution now!

-- Eric we progressives had a great candidate. The DNC sabotaged him & insisited on a POS that couldn't win & didn't. Rant @ red America all you want, the DNC owns this debacle

[Eric the Green]

We have to go hard left. And we have to support the Blue candidate. The DNC does NOT own this debacle. Only if you are blind, can you not see that the right-wing made this happen. But yes we need a stronger candidate than Hillary was. The Left owns this debacle to the extent that we keep thinking that if we nominate a moderate, we will defeat the extreme right. That strategy has failed. Sanders understood this and he did well. But conspiracy theories about the DNC are completely beside the point. It's the overall approach Democrats have taken that is the problem. And that means Democrats who voted in past elections, not a few pols. Americans respect people who take a stand. And right now, the right-wing is winning through the most extreme, false and insulting rhetoric possible. Democratic politicians won't want to emulate them, but we must be bold and uncompromising and take a stand. And we need some shouters on the other side, not politicians, who can shout down Hannity and Co., I think. And one thing I notice is how fully the right-wing came around and backed Trump, while some on the Left stayed home. We need to shout against the enemy, not our friends all the time, or we lose.

Obviously, white racism won't work, because the majority is still white, and racism belongs to them (the right-wing); not us. But I'm feeling somebody needs to shout that these people are destroying this country, and say exactly how; like George Carlin did, and Bill Maher, John Oliver and Michael Moore do. At this point, I don't know what will work. But conspiracy theories about the DNC and bitterness over Sanders' loss will not. Dedication to choosing the right candidates going forward is what we need, not wallowing in accusations against the DNC. At this point, it can only be a DNC candidate who can win. The DNC is what we make it. Ellison is apparently the best choice to lead it now.

Maryposa, you must decide who the enemy is. If you think the DNC is the enemy, and not the right wing, then we are on opposite sides of the divide and the potential civil war. And everyone will have to take sides, or leave the country. This is a 4T!!

[Odin]

(01-19-2017, 02:50 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- Eric we progressives had a great candidate. The DNC sabotaged him & insisited on a POS that couldn't win & didn't. Rant @ red America all you want, the DNC owns this debacle

You fringe leftists have proven yourselves to be just as much tools of Putin as Trump supporters.

[Warren Dew]

(01-19-2017, 02:07 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: After what I've seen today, on the news, and on the documentaries, it is clearer to me than ever, if that if the progressive side wishes to win, and thereby bring any progress, any solutions to our country and our world, we must be as ruthless as the other side. We cannot be nice.

Scorched earth policies, and "stealing and destroying our country", are exactly what the Democrats have been doing for 8 years.  Clinton promised to continue those policies.  Trump was just the reaction, from supporters that wanted to keep and preserve our country.

[Anthony '58]

(01-12-2017, 02:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: If NATO splinters The Anglosphere may become the last great hope for free people.

I hope the US remains part of The Anglosphere.

If not, then India becomes the de facto leader of The Anglosphere.

And the #1 destination for progressive American refugees - and no doubt, many more "Best Marigold Hotel" movies.

[beechnut79]

(01-19-2017, 02:07 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: After what I've seen today, on the news, and on the documentaries, it is clearer to me than ever, if that if the progressive side wishes to win, and thereby bring any progress, any solutions to our country and our world, we must be as ruthless as the other side. We cannot be nice. These right-wing assholes are stealing and destroying our country. We can't continue to think we can win by being nice. Mincing words won't work. Democrats must insist on a candidate who can win, who can be a leader and tell the truth and not back down to the American Nazis.

We cannot tolerate the right-wing Nazis calling themselves "anti-establishment," or their insane activities a "revolution." They are fascists. They are ruthless scumbags who only want to keep their nation white, the people poor, and the wealthy rich and in power. There is no excuse, and no basis for "understanding" them. They are sick. They only care about protecting their ridiculous anarchist, oligarchic ideology. We must expose them, we must fight them at every turn. Onto civil war if necessary. We are not one nation, and observing kiwis have no business commenting on this. The American Nazis have only the goals of wrecking our environment, keeping non-whites out, keeping the people poor, keeping them sick, deceiving the people, keeping people on the street, ruining our constitution, taking away our rights, shooting us down in the streets, allowing anyone to shoot us no matter what, and ruining our country and everything it stands for. I don't want to live in the same nation with them.

Shame on you, red America. Shame on you for ruining and dividing our country. To hell with you. We will fight you to the end. Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, you assholes better shut up. We'll shout right back in your faces. We will put you in jail if you try to stop us!

Suckers, all of you who believe we live in a democracy! We are owned by the Establishment, the wealthy businessmen like Trump who only care about their power over us. We need a revolution now!

There have been some successes, after all we did get both Spiro Agnew and later his boss, Richard Nixon during the 1970s. In the former's case it was a comeuppance for his tirades against the progessives of that time. Yet the real carnage didn't begin until the Reagan years, and since then most of the non-rich have been given a classic case of the moody blues (with apologies to the classic rock band of that name).

[radind]

A Civil War would not be civil. I hope that we can avoid another civil war.

[Eric the Green]

(01-19-2017, 12:55 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-19-2017, 02:50 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-19-2017, 02:07 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: After what I've seen today, on the news, and on the documentaries, it is clearer to me than ever, if that if the progressive side wishes to win, and thereby bring any progress, any solutions to our country and our world, we must be as ruthless as the other side. We cannot be nice. These right-wing assholes are stealing and destroying our country. We can't continue to think we can win by being nice. Mincing words won't work. Democrats must insist on a candidate who can win, who can be a leader and tell the truth and not back down to the American Nazis.

We cannot tolerate the right-wing Nazis calling themselves "anti-establishment," or their insane activities a "revolution." They are fascists. They are ruthless scumbags who only want to keep their nation white, the people poor, and the wealthy rich and in power. There is no excuse, and no basis for "understanding" them. They are sick. They only care about protecting their ridiculous anarchist, oligarchic ideology. We must expose them, we must fight them at every turn. Onto civil war if necessary. We are not one nation, and observing kiwis have no business commenting on this. The American Nazis have only the goals of wrecking our environment, keeping non-whites out, keeping the people poor, keeping them sick, deceiving the people, keeping people on the street, ruining our constitution, taking away our rights, shooting us down in the streets, allowing anyone to shoot us no matter what, and ruining our country and everything it stands for. I don't want to live in the same nation with them.

Shame on you, red America. Shame on you for ruining and dividing our country. To hell with you. We will fight you to the end. Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, you assholes better shut up. We'll shout right back in your faces. We will put you in jail if you try to stop us!

Suckers, all of you who believe we live in a democracy! We are owned by the Establishment, the wealthy businessmen like Trump who only care about their power over us. We need a revolution now!

-- Eric we progressives had a great candidate. The DNC sabotaged him & insisited on a POS that couldn't win & didn't. Rant @ red America all you want, the DNC owns this debacle

Even if the Dems had nominated Sanders, Trump still would have won.

Sanders just was not quite right to gain the vote of the deer hunting, bass fishing everyperson from Centerline, Macomb County, MI.

True; his revised horoscope score doesn't even match Trump's.

When you factor in Hillary's Jupiter rising, in fact, if her chart is correct, their scores might well be about the same.

However, he would have gotten more of the white working class Rust Belt vote than Hillary got. I think his popular vote margin might have been larger than Hillary's, as the polls suggested; allowing him to carry those three states. It's possible, but on the other hand, Trump and the Republicans would have made him a target too, although Hillary was a better target.

[Eric the Green]

(01-19-2017, 01:24 PM)radind Wrote: A Civil War would not be civil. I hope that we can avoid another civil war.

I hope so. Listening to how Hannity and Limbaugh and those types scream and yell lies and insults and win votes that way, is very disturbing and makes me wonder what will stop them and what will defeat them.

[Marypoza]

(01-19-2017, 03:04 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: We have to go hard left. And we have to support the Blue candidate. The DNC does NOT own this debacle. Only if you are blind, can you not see that the right-wing made this happen. But yes we need a stronger candidate than Hillary was. The Left owns this debacle to the extent that we keep thinking that if we nominate a moderate, we will defeat the extreme right. That strategy has failed. Sanders understood this and he did well. But conspiracy theories about the DNC are completely beside the point. It's the overall approach Democrats have taken that is the problem. And that means Democrats who voted in past elections, not a few pols. Americans respect people who take a stand. And right now, the right-wing is winning through the most extreme, false and insulting rhetoric possible. Democratic politicians won't want to emulate them, but we must be bold and uncompromising and take a stand. And we need some shouters on the other side, not politicians, who can shout down Hannity and Co., I think. And one thing I notice is how fully the right-wing came around and backed Trump, while some on the Left stayed home. We need to shout against the enemy, not our friends all the time, or we lose.

Obviously, white racism won't work, because the majority is still white, and racism belongs to them (the right-wing); not us. But I'm feeling somebody needs to shout that these people are destroying this country, and say exactly how; like George Carlin did, and Bill Maher, John Oliver and Michael Moore do. At this point, I don't know what will work. But conspiracy theories about the DNC and bitterness over Sanders' loss will not. Dedication to choosing the right candidates going forward is what we need, not wallowing in accusations against the DNC. At this point, it can only be a DNC candidate who can win. The DNC is what we make it. Ellison is apparently the best choice to lead it now.

-- unfortunately the DNC, in it's supreme idiocy, appears to be handing the party over to that correct the record troll

Eric Wrote:Maryposa, you must decide who the enemy is. If you think the DNC is the enemy, and not the right wing, then we are on opposite sides of the divide and the potential civil war. And everyone will have to take sides, or leave the country. This is a 4T!!

-- the DNC screwed over an honest to gawd old school dem so could run a mf-ing Goldwater Girl, ie a repug. The DNC has been moving further & further to the right for yrs. & what is it with you dualists anyhow? If ya don't like the DNC (& l don't) you must like the repug Nazis. WRONG!! l can't stand either one
 
Pluto is moving into Capricorn. The last time Pluto was in Capricorn the Revolution happened. Considering Pluto will be making a return, there's gonna be either another revolution or another civil war  take your pick