Democrats organize to fight back

[pbrower2a]

(11-26-2016, 07:04 PM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 06:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 02:50 AM)Copperfield Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 04:43 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 04:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Sounds like the same attitude the brownshirts had.

Giving fascism another chance is as much a blunder as  giving convicted serial killer Gary (Green River Killer) Ridgway another chance.

Would you have any problem if the fist were smashing the symbol of the Khmer Rouge of Iraqi Ba'athism?

Nah, I suspect he's simply suggesting that once you declare violence against any ism as acceptable, then all you have to do is declare any folks you don't like as being believers in that ism. Instant license to beat, rape, pillage and kill.

Kind of like when we first started declaring wogs we didn't like as being terrorists, then that definition slowly started to creep toward other undesirables. That is exactly the attitude of brownshirts.

The Nazis had their chance and they showed what they are. Does anyone want to be shoved into a room into which pellets of Zyklon-B are introduced?   

So did we, or is there a particular reason you conveniently overlook the fact that you currently live on land taken during a genocide that dwarfs anything the Nazis could come up with?

I get that you have a WWII fetish but your own country has done far worse and still does far worse each and every day. Your double standards are remarkable.

Disease and (of all things) feral pigs did more to kill off American First Peoples north of about the Potomac. First people found the feral pigs just too dangerous to hunt, and they out-competed the hunter-gatherers for food.

Yes, I know that almost anyone in the United States is living on stolen property. But what property was not stolen at some time and then deeded or sold in normal land transactions?

[The Wonkette]

(11-21-2016, 11:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The chart was for discretionary spending.

Social Security and medicare are entitlements, because people have paid for them. If they are running out of money, it is only because money has been stolen from them, and some people aren't paying enough into them.

I notice your chart also adds payments on the debt; that isn't "discretionary" either, unfortunately, and results almost entirely from imprudent tax cuts, recessions caused by lax Reaganomics repeals of regulation, and unneeded war and military spending.

And of course now we will be paying much more for services the debt, because the debt may explode if Trump gets his way.

It's not my "claim."

Eric, what is the link to your chart, and does it have dollar values with it? Your claim that it is discretionary is odd; SNAP (food stamps) is mandatory and therefore would not be in your chart.

By the way, FWIW, spending on food stamps (SNAP) has been running at about $75 billion a year for the past couple of years.

[Eric the Green]

(11-27-2016, 04:39 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(11-21-2016, 11:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The chart was for discretionary spending.

Social Security and medicare are entitlements, because people have paid for them. If they are running out of money, it is only because money has been stolen from them, and some people aren't paying enough into them.

I notice your chart also adds payments on the debt; that isn't "discretionary" either, unfortunately, and results almost entirely from imprudent tax cuts, recessions caused by lax Reaganomics repeals of regulation, and unneeded war and military spending.

And of course now we will be paying much more for services the debt, because the debt may explode if Trump gets his way.

It's not my "claim."

Eric, what is the link to your chart, and does it have dollar values with it? Your claim that it is discretionary is odd; SNAP (food stamps) is mandatory and therefore would not be in your chart.

By the way, FWIW, spending on food stamps (SNAP) has been running at about $75 billion a year for the past couple of years.

probably in the category of food and agriculture.

I don't have a link to the chart I posted. I'm not sure that, with the caveats I explained, Warren's map is all that different. I'm sure this info is widely available from many sources, from many viewpoints.

[Warren Dew]

What would "critique left" mean exactly? Critique from the left? Critique of the left? Critique from the left of the left?

[Eric the Green]

(12-01-2016, 03:48 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: First a disclaimer and caveat, although he does show certain tendencies, Sanders would need to take some additional steps for me to consider him a Real Nationalist. Nonetheless, here is an excellent Op Ed he has typed up. Without further commentary from me:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini...story.html

'We need to re-instill an ethic of corporate patriotism. We need to send a very loud and clear message to corporate America: The era of outsourcing is over. Instead of offshoring jobs, the time has come for you to start bringing good-paying jobs back to America.'

The Democrats needs to make it loud and clear that this is where the Democrats stand. Hillary's ties to some free trade policies of the past was a drag on her credibility on this issue, even though her policies would have probably got the job done while Trump's are bluster and foolishness. Still, too many blue collar Democrats fell for the trap because the Democrats did not fight hard enough for this vote and this concern.

[Eric the Green]

"If Democrats are to have any hope in 2018, they’ll need to reclaim the populism Trump stole in 2016. Schumer embraces this."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...a1a7696e9b

[FLBones]

Exactly. Democrats need to come up with their own populist, anti establishment candidate whom appeals to the working classs if they want to win. That person will have to be someone who is anti-globalism, anti-illegal immigration, anti-free trade, etc. He probably would have to more authoritarian like. A lot of Americans want someone who is a strong and decisive leader and will get us through tough times.

[Eric the Green]

No, it doesn't mean going over to the phony populism of Trump. He used populist and anti-Hillary slogans to confuse the people into thinking he was anti-establishment. He's not; he's the personification of the establishment.

What the Democrats need to do is reclaim the message, which is rightfully theirs because Democrats have been the true populists all along. Hillary was too, just not clearly enough.

I don't know about "authoritarian," in the sense that Trump is, someone who takes away our rights; but certainly someone who can articulate a clear and decisive message and give the impression of a leader.

The Democrats have been the anti-free trade party all along. They need to reclaim that mantle from the Republicans, who are the laissez-faire party. It can't be trade war, as there are delicate negotiations to be made. But the Democrats understand that repairing the tariff regulations that equalize conditions and wages between poor and rich countries, can prevent the outsourcing for cheap labor that is shutting down factories in the USA. Anti-globalism for Democrats cannot mean insulting other races, ethnicities and religions and appealing for prejudice and promising to build walls, as Trump does. That's phony. It means restraining the multi-national corporate cabal.

Obama was already as anti-illegal immigration as we needed. Anti-immigration is just nonsense, and the Democrats have a clear demographic advantage long term on that one. They'll stick with standing up for the poor and middle class people of color as well as those who are white. Republicans have a powerful message of appealing to prejudice and hatred. But just because it is a powerful appeal, does not mean that Democrats should become Republicans and get on that bandwagon. NO, the point is to RESIST this trend toward fascism, and win appeal instead by standing up for truly American populist and progressive principle rather than shilly-shallying and giving the impression, as Hillary did unintentionally, of weakness. NO, Democrats must stand for their TRUE "populist" principles (not the phony Trumpster ones) and fight!

[David Horn]

(12-09-2016, 04:11 PM)FLBones Wrote: Exactly. Democrats need to come up with their own populist, anti establishment candidate whom appeals to the working classs if they want to win. That person will have to be someone who is anti-globalism, anti-illegal immigration, anti-free trade, etc. He probably would have to more authoritarian like. A lot of Americans want someone who is a strong and decisive leader and will get us through tough times.

The Democrats need to transform themselves from the PC party of special pleaders to a broader party focused on defending the not-elite in total.  Other than Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, there aren't a lot of Bernie-types to draw on. 

Assume this is not a single cycle problem.  Being effective as a broad-based party of the non-elite will take more than a white knight POTUS.  They will need the Congress and state offices first.  That's a decade at a minimum.

[Eric the Green]

We'll need a new generation of Bernie types to rise up and get involved, assuming this is still allowed. It will take a while, and it's not clear they have it in them.

I don't see too many leaders around now either. People would do well to pay attention to their horoscope scores. I mean that sincerely.

Look at this:

(the scores are like a win-loss, favorable to unfavorable percentage)

Bill Clinton 21-2 J (J=Jupiter rising, a big plus)
Barack Obama 19-2
Bernie Sanders 14-7

as opposed to:

Michael Dukakis, 2-12
Al Gore 10-8
John Kerry 8-13
Hillary R. Clinton 9-11 J (probably Jupiter rising, but birth chart not confirmed)
Elizabeth Warren, sorry to say, only 8-7
Tim Kaine, 11-11
Joe and Julian Castro, 7-12
Michelle Obama, 7-6

We'd better make sure we have a good candidate, is all I'm saying. The horoscope scores are just a clue I'm giving you to the general idea, that a candidate has to be able to appeal to the American people. If you have an intuitive feeling that someone is or is not up to the challenge, that's probably reflected in the aspects in their horoscope. Unfortunately, Warren is too whiny and fighting all the time. The charismatic demagogue Donald Trump has a positive score; right now I have it at 9-4. We'll need someone better, if Trump is able and willing to run again, in order to beat him. Fortunately, if Mike Pence takes over, he's only 8-9.

We may have to settle for someone who compromises with the elite, IF they are really appealing, like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama are. Or else, go for the real thing, again IF and only if they have the ability to pull it off.

Let's see who we've got.

On the more compromising side, Gov. Terry McAuliffe has some real ability. He's a Clinton type, but he may have some of the stuff that Bill had, because his score is 12-2, and only got better with my latest count.

Other more-moderate choices that might do OK:

Gavin Newsom, 8-2 (much better count than I had for him before), if he wins the CA governorship. But he'd have a Saturn Return to watch out for in 2024, since he was born in 1966. So maybe not so good for the longer term. He has that great 1966 conjunction of Uranus and Pluto rising in his chart too. He can be hot stuff. And his main thrust in politics has been pretty progressive, but more focused on issues that interest CA rather than the Rust Belt, perhaps.

Antonio Villaraigosa, 15-6; an alternative if he wins the CA governorship instead of Newsom. Former LA mayor instead of former SF mayor.
Andrew Cuomo, current governor of NY. 11-6; pretty good, might do OK against Pence, but probably not against Trump.
Janet Napolitano, 13-5. A good calming presence; much experience. Hasn't made much noise about running.
Jason Carter, grandson of Jimmy, 9-3. Maybe a possibility for the future.
Tom Vilsack, 15-6. I've not been happy with him before, but he might be OK.

Less compromising choices that might challenge the elite:

Sherrod Brown, 20-8. I would recommend him, although a challenge to Trump would be hard for him to win according to the score numbers alone, running against a favored incumbent. But he might carry the Rust Belt, so that would be good strategy. And those 20 positive points put him in good stead. He's even improved his score a little in my latest count. I'd say, let's hope he runs.

Tammy Baldwin, WI lesbian senator, 13-6, with Saturn Return coming; therefore not recommended in my opinion, but she might try.

TV comic Seth Meyers, 21-5. Might be a real challenge to Trump if he decides to take him on.
Another media personality with some chance: Michael Moore, 16-7

If these guys don't work out, I don't see others on the horizon right now, and we might have to wait until some younger leaders emerge. And of course you're right that it will take new leaders in congress and statehouses to rise up as well.

[Odin]

(12-13-2016, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 04:11 PM)FLBones Wrote: Exactly. Democrats need to come up with their own populist, anti establishment candidate whom appeals to the working classs if they want to win. That person will have to be someone who is anti-globalism, anti-illegal immigration, anti-free trade, etc. He probably would have to more authoritarian like. A lot of Americans want someone who is a strong and decisive leader and will get us through tough times.

The Democrats need to transform themselves from the PC party of special pleaders to a broader party focused on defending the not-elite in total.  Other than Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, there aren't a lot of Bernie-types to draw on. 

Assume this is not a single cycle problem.  Being effective as a broad-based party of the non-elite will take more than a white knight POTUS.  They will need the Congress and state offices first.  That's a decade at a minimum.

IMO the big problem is that the party has lost it's sense of the guiding principle behind the current party coalition, that guiding principle is being the party that supports whoever is getting screwed over by the economically or socially privileged, be it working class whites, women, minorities, LGBT folks, etc. To quote Poppy Bush, we lack "the vision thing" right now. We are at risk of decomposing into our various competent groups because of the increasingly narcissistic "my pet issue is the most important and if you don't agree you are a reactionary shitlord" mentality of the activist wing of the party.

[Odin]

What's Tammy Duckworth's score, Eric?

[Eric the Green]

(12-13-2016, 05:21 PM)Odin Wrote: What's Tammy Duckworth's score, Eric?

I always respond to these requests. OK, let's see:

Well, first of all, I don't think she's eligible.

"Tammy Duckworth was born on March 12, 1968, in Bangkok, Thailand"
http://www.biography.com/people/tammy-du...h-21129571

In any case, not good: 9-10.

Maggie Hassan and Ms. Cortez-Masto actually won their races; it might be more worth checking their scores. (Well, I got Duckworth mixed up with the one from PA, yes she did win a senate seat in IL.)

Well, Maggie Hassan's score is not good either, 7-7. Catherine Cortez Masto, 10-11

Scores subject to some change if birth times become known.

[Eric the Green]

(12-13-2016, 05:16 PM)Odin Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 04:11 PM)FLBones Wrote: Exactly. Democrats need to come up with their own populist, anti establishment candidate whom appeals to the working classs if they want to win. That person will have to be someone who is anti-globalism, anti-illegal immigration, anti-free trade, etc. He probably would have to more authoritarian like. A lot of Americans want someone who is a strong and decisive leader and will get us through tough times.

The Democrats need to transform themselves from the PC party of special pleaders to a broader party focused on defending the not-elite in total.  Other than Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, there aren't a lot of Bernie-types to draw on. 

Assume this is not a single cycle problem.  Being effective as a broad-based party of the non-elite will take more than a white knight POTUS.  They will need the Congress and state offices first.  That's a decade at a minimum.

IMO the big problem is that the party has lost it's sense of the guiding principle behind the current party coalition, that guiding principle is being the party that supports whoever is getting screwed over by the economically or socially privileged, be it working class whites, women, minorities, LGBT folks, etc. To quote Poppy Bush, we lack "the vision thing" right now. We are at risk of decomposing into our various competent groups because of the increasingly narcissistic "my pet issue is the most important and if you don't agree you are a reactionary shitlord" mentality of the activist wing of the party.

For me, that's right; but you'd better not forget the environment.

[David Horn]

(12-13-2016, 05:16 PM)Odin Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 10:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 04:11 PM)FLBones Wrote: Exactly. Democrats need to come up with their own populist, anti establishment candidate whom appeals to the working classs if they want to win. That person will have to be someone who is anti-globalism, anti-illegal immigration, anti-free trade, etc. He probably would have to more authoritarian like. A lot of Americans want someone who is a strong and decisive leader and will get us through tough times.

The Democrats need to transform themselves from the PC party of special pleaders to a broader party focused on defending the not-elite in total.  Other than Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, there aren't a lot of Bernie-types to draw on. 

Assume this is not a single cycle problem.  Being effective as a broad-based party of the non-elite will take more than a white knight POTUS.  They will need the Congress and state offices first.  That's a decade at a minimum.

IMO the big problem is that the party has lost it's sense of the guiding principle behind the current party coalition, that guiding principle is being the party that supports whoever is getting screwed over by the economically or socially privileged, be it working class whites, women, minorities, LGBT folks, etc. To quote Poppy Bush, we lack "the vision thing" right now. We are at risk of decomposing into our various competent groups because of the increasingly narcissistic "my pet issue is the most important and if you don't agree you are a reactionary shitlord" mentality of the activist wing of the party.

Your last sentence hit the point exactly.  The herd-of-cats party is so incoherent that it is literally a organ for spouting the talking point of the minute from the cause of the hour.  Worse, the special pleaders that feel fully entitled to petition for full and unwavering support of the party have forgotten (assuming they ever knew) that reciprocity is mandatory ... unless losing is the goal.

The Dems need to move the social issues off page one, and focus on two issues 95% of the time: inequality and upward mobility as their economic message and global warming as the primary foreign policy objective.  It also wouldn't hurt to show some cojones when threatening foreign powers try to play them.  I don't expect it will happen, but I can hope.

[pbrower2a]

(12-13-2016, 08:10 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 05:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 05:21 PM)Odin Wrote: What's Tammy Duckworth's score, Eric?

I always respond to these requests. OK, let's see:

Well, first of all, I don't think she's eligible.

"Tammy Duckworth was born on March 12, 1968, in Bangkok, Thailand"
http://www.biography.com/people/tammy-du...h-21129571

In any case, not good: 9-9.

Maggie Hassan and Ms. Cortez-Masto actually won their races; it might be more worth checking their scores. (Well, I got Duckworth mixed up with the one from PA, yes she did win a senate seat in IL.)

Well, Maggie Hassan's score is not good either, 7-8. Catherine Cortez Masto, 10-10

Scores subject to some change if birth times become known.

Born in Thailand, what was the actual citizenship of her Dad? That article is not clear about that aspect.,

Her father is a US citizen (Wikipedia) , so in a way she is the inverse of Barack Obama for 'problems' of citizenship.

How about Debbie Stabenow? She will be old in 2020 (70), but her voting record will be an antithesis of the Republican mainstream.

Of course, she could be vulnerable in 2018, but should she get past that election, she becomes a power within the Democratic Party.

[Eric the Green]

That's an interesting suggestion. She is born around the time of Jill Stein, who has a great score of 16-2. Unfortunately Stein does not have enough of a background, or major party backing, and it's probably too late for her to get that. Who knows, but I'll check out Debbie Stabenow (score may shift a bit if her birth time becomes known).

Good score, 8-3. Not an overwhelming positive number, but better than Trump. Stein and Stabenow have the "popular hero" Jupiter-Uranus trine of 1950, which matches Trump's (and Bill Clinton's and GW Bush's) trine of 1946. She would have to be able to overcome the advantage of incumbency in 2020, but might be aided by the "establishment" new moon of Jupiter conjunct Saturn that year, indicating change of direction as it always does. Sherrod Brown has a strong Jupiter-Uranus sextile (60 degree angle aspect), in effect the same "populist" aspect, which helps his score as well.

Her only negative points come from a Moon-Uranus square, which also appears in Hillary's chart, along with a similar one that is scored the same in Donald Trump's chart. So she may seem unconventional to some people, with some wavering popularity. But being the only negative aspect, according to the empirical data base of aspects, gives her a good chance overall.

At 70 in 2020, do you think she has the ambition, energy and talent to be a good presidential candidate?

[pbrower2a]

If Ronald Reagan and Donald "Juvenile Delinquent Who Never Grew Up" Trump can be elected at 70, then why not?

[Eric the Green]

(12-13-2016, 05:38 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-13-2016, 05:21 PM)Odin Wrote: What's Tammy Duckworth's score, Eric?

I always respond to these requests. OK, let's see:

Well, first of all, I don't think she's eligible.

"Tammy Duckworth was born on March 12, 1968, in Bangkok, Thailand"
http://www.biography.com/people/tammy-du...h-21129571

In any case, not good: 9-10.

Maggie Hassan and Ms. Cortez-Masto actually won their races; it might be more worth checking their scores. (Well, I got Duckworth mixed up with the one from PA, yes she did win a senate seat in IL.)

Well, Maggie Hassan's score is not good either, 7-7. Catherine Cortez Masto, 10-11

Scores subject to some change if birth times become known.

Corrected scores:
Duckworth: 9-10
Hassan: 7-7
Cortez Masto 10-11
I have to remember that for 12 Noon charts (birth time unknown) I can't give as many points to lunar aspects; they are uncertain.

Mike Pence corrected to 8-7

[Eric the Green]

George Carlin tells it exactly like it is, and boy they got what they wanted on Nov.8