Countdown to a Free America

[Tim Randal Walker]

When we talk about Bill Clinton and all that, we should consider that the country was in an Unraveling mood. As has been commented in the past, the old Civic order starts to fray in late 2T, and really begins to rot during the 3T.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2018, 12:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 09:23 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 03:15 PM)Another Xer Wrote: Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades.  Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie.  Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals.  Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions.  Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.  

Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).

We'll have to disagree on this.  The first Neoliberal Democrats came through with Carter, but it was Bill Clinton that established that philosophy as the central theme of the party.  It was a tragic mistake, even though it that paid short term gains for Bill.  Once the Dems climbed in bed with Wall Street, and let's be honest here: they did in spades, The two parties became Tweedledum and Tweedledee on economics.  That shifted the focus to social issues ... all of them divisive.  When the division was economic, it was at least theoretically possible to unite along class lines.  Now, that's nearly impossible.  Poorer whites don't trust the Dems, because they are on the side of (insert every group except theirs).  Minorities don't trust Dems who don't tow their line, making the appeal to poorer white impossible.

It's Catch 22.

Although I disagreed with the Clinton-era New Democrat cave-in to the neo-liberals, and said so vociferously, and joined the Green Party then, that didn't mean the two parties became tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. Clinton still campaigned loudly against trickle-down economics, and at the 2004 convention (I believe) he said "our way works better." So there is a difference. The Democrats and Republicans are still divided along economic philosophy, and the more so as the Clinton era has passed. It may be up to the poorer whites to drop their resentment against other groups, and realize which party has their back. Trump was able to fool some of them. But you can't fool the people all the time. 

The Democratic candidate who can get both wings on board, is a Democrat with a high horoscope score (translate: someone who can appeal to Americans, can communicate and connect with people and articulate well). As far as the presidency is concerned, the quality of the candidate, AS a candidate, IS EVERYTHING. Obama score 19-2. Hillary score 9-11. Kerry score 8-12. Gore score 10-9. Bill Clinton score 21-3. Dukakis score 2-10. 

Trump score, 9-4. McCain score, 15-13. Romney score, 4-10. Bob Dole score, 12-19. George W Bush score, 17-2. George HW Bush score, 14-6. The numbers speak.


Best bests:
Mitch Landrieu, 16-2
Terry McAuliffe, 11-2 or higher
ONLY if Dems nominate one of these two, do the Democrats have a good chance in 2020 if Trump is the candidate.

Runners up:
Sherrod Brown, 19-8 (has rust belt advantage)
Michael Moore, 16-6
Chris Murphy, 9-3
Oprah Winfrey, 10-3
Antonio Villaraigosa, 15-5 (CA Governor candidate, former LA Mayor)
Gavin Newsom, 7-1 (CA Governor candidate, best chance in 2028)

Maybe, but doubtful:
Debbie Stabenow, 8-3
Chuck Schumer, 15-8
Roy Cooper, 10-4
Jason Carter, 10-4 (future prospect)
Tom Vilsack, 15-6
Joe Biden, 13-8
Bernie Sanders, 14-7
Tulsi Gabbard, 11-6
Andrew Cuomo, 11-6
Janet Napolitano, 11-5
Tammy Baldwin, 13-6 (best after 2020)
Richard Blumenthal, 11-6
Doug Jones, 10-5
Tom Steyer, 12-6
Levi Sanders, 10-1 (future prospect)

Lots of buzz, but these candidates have NO chance:
Kamila Harris, 4-14
Eric Garcetti, 7-7
Elizabeth Warren, 8-7
Kirsten Gillibrand, 7-12
Cory Booker, 6-7
Joe Kennedy III, 7-6
Michelle Obama, 6-6
Joe & Julian Castro, 8-13
Tim Kaine, 11-11
Amy Klobuchar, 7-7
Eric Holder, 8-6 (maybe, if Pence runs in 2020)

Want to go show biz? Besides Michael Moore and Oprah, there are a couple of prospects:
Seth Meyers, 20-3
Stephen Colbert, 20-11 (best from 2024 on)

Republicans? Get a load of this group! Besides Trump himself, the only potential candidates I know so far with good scores are those already tarred with the Trump trash.

Ivanka Trump, 16-2
Jared Kushner, 10-4
Steve Bannon, 10-5

Mike Pence, 8-7

Any suggestions, questions? Let me know!
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

You should pay less attention to what is said by a Democrat and pay more attention to what the Democrat does/did with their power, what the Democrat makes/made for a living salary wise to do political work and ask where the Democrat got all their extra income from that made them so rich like the Clinton's? Why didn't I vote for Bill Clinton? I didn't vote for Bill Clinton because I believed that he was a criminal and I viewed him as being a criminal. He was a decent, smart, talented, decent looking and likeable criminal for a criminal but he was still viewed as a criminal by me. Hilary...Well, I'll just say she didn't have the likable qualities that her life long partner in crime had going for him. However, I'll give her credit for being the brain in their relationship. How much money did the Clinton's make from being involved with shady activities, business dealings, political kick backs, back room/under the table deals, doing work for foreign interests broad and so forth? Multiple millions for sure.

I'm curious, when you place people on ignore or ignore relevant comments/position and obvious signs/ truths/ knowledge and so forth, and continue pumping blue rhetoric and lies and so forth is it because you're egotistical/arrogant and can't handle/accept criticism or accept that you're wrong or is it your job/was your job for many many years that it has become a habit to stick to the blue script/blue narrative and continue pumping blue rhetoric/beliefs regardless of known facts and known situations and so forth that discredit and destroy ones credibility. I should you give you my information and see how well I'd match up vs Trump and Democratic contenders. I won't, I'll just assume that I would match up fairly well and freak you out with my numbers.

I've never been one to divulge personal information to a complete stranger or a group of strangers looking to gain information from me that could/can be used for their personal use or gain or recruiting purposes. Plus, I've never been one to seek the limelight either. I've always been one who prefers to remain ambiguous and enjoy the comforts and joys associated with the fruits of my own labor and the enjoyment of living a free and relatively easy life.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2018, 06:03 AM)Another Xer Wrote: That's the moderator?

Lol, this site has issues.

He's cool. You can say whatever you want about an issue that involves liberals and you don't have to be concerned about what you have to say to a liberal or say about the liberals/liberal policies and you don't have to be to concerned about being banned by a liberal moderator or a moderator who is controlled by liberals.. If you think this site has issues, you should have seen the old site. Lots of issues!

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-20-2018, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

ETG Wrote:Any suggestions, questions? Let me know!
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

I did ask, but IIRC your information costs $.

Quote:You should pay less attention to what is said by a Democrat and pay more attention to what the Democrat does/did with their power, what the Democrat makes/made for a living salary wise to do political work and ask where the Democrat got all their extra income from that made them so rich like the Clinton's?

To be fair, I don't think the Cintons are much worse than other politicians.  Hillery's 2016 campaign was a problem with folks in the DNC colluding to mess with Bernie. Fairness matters, sorry. I suppose Hillery's a velcro candidate as well, since stuff really sticks to here. I think she's an "angle shooter". <- If ya play poker, angle shooters are players  who don't quite break rules, but they really bend them.  Here's one thing that I will always remember:





Disgust can't even cover this.

Quote:Why didn't I vote for Bill Clinton? I didn't vote for Bill Clinton because I believed that he was a criminal and I viewed him as being a criminal. He was a decent, smart, talented, decent looking and likeable criminal for a criminal but he was still viewed as a criminal by me. Hilary...Well, I'll just say she didn't have the likable qualities that her life long  partner in crime had going for him. However, I'll give her credit for being the brain in their relationship. How much money did the Clinton's make from being involved with shady activities, business dealings, political kick backs, back room/under the table deals, doing work for foreign interests broad and so forth? Multiple millions for sure.

Some of those questions lurk in my mind as well.  I think some of this is why , when I look at her, I get this horrid ick feeling. Intuition works that way, but still hard to put to words.

Quote:<snip>

[Classic-Xer]

(04-19-2018, 02:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: So far, the Trump wing continues to support the actual Trump, who has pretty much deferred to the pro-business small government wing. Trump's recent tariff tough talk and a few actions have satisfied the so-called populist wing's aspirations, which is populist ONLY in its anti-free-trade positions. But even then, he is backtracking on this rather substantially, only just weeks after going there. The other big aspect of the Trump wing is not populist, but closet racist and openly xenophobic. That is not populist at all, but does appeal to popular fears and prejudices, which alarms some in the pro-business wing. The GOP has a third wing too, the religious right, which is somewhat dormant but not absent, though it has (Mormons excepted) mostly climbed into bed with the Trump wing.

The Democratic disadvantaged social groups wing, sometimes called left identity politics, is somewhat but not fully distinct from the populist liberal wing, which seeks the social services and regulations opposed by the pro-business anti-government wing. So these two wings are both polarized against the Trump and pro-business (libertarian economics) wings of the GOP. Democrats are not neo-liberals; that's the same as the pro-business wing of the GOP. But some Democrats are more moderate on the real populist or neo-socialist issues, and thus might incorrectly be called neo-liberal. These are just center-leftists or 1990s-style new democrats. The secular, pro-science wing of the Democrats, opposed to the religious right, are the Democratic practitioners of the culture wars, which could be lumped in with the identity politics populists that focus on disadvantaged groups, since they have the same opponents among the racists and the religious right adherents who are frequently the same prejudiced and fearful people, especially in the South.

Sure, the Democrats can work together, since they have the same opponents; those who represent the 1% and anti-government social action. The resentment of welfare given to disadvantaged groups cements the religious right and racist xenophobes together with the pro-business wing that hates social government and taxes. The Democrats then need to cement together the disadvantaged groups (a long but more accurate word than "minorities") with those who are only economically disadvantaged, because the policies for solution are the same for both, and the policies that are the problem are the same too. But just taking the House will not be enough to do anything more than put a few more roadblocks in the path of Trump's great america again. Nothing more can be expected from that.

Trump is working on a long term trade deal with China that will be much more beneficial to American workers and American business in general.

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2018, 03:24 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: When we talk about Bill Clinton and all that, we should consider that the country was in an Unraveling mood.  As has been commented in the past, the old Civic order starts to fray in late 2T, and really begins to rot during the 3T.

That's a good point. Libertarian economics are more in vogue in 3Ts than in 4Ts or early 2Ts, and politicians adjust according to the turning.

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2018, 06:14 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

ETG Wrote:Any suggestions, questions? Let me know!
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

I did ask, but IIRC your information costs $.

Quote:You should pay less attention to what is said by a Democrat and pay more attention to what the Democrat does/did with their power, what the Democrat makes/made for a living salary wise to do political work and ask where the Democrat got all their extra income from that made them so rich like the Clinton's?

To be fair, I don't think the Cintons are much worse than other politicians.  Hillery's 2016 campaign was a problem with folks in the DNC colluding to mess with Bernie. Fairness matters, sorry. I suppose Hillery's a velcro candidate as well, since stuff really sticks to here. I think she's an "angle shooter". <- If ya play poker, angle shooters are players  who don't quite break rules, but they really bend them.  Here's one thing that I will always remember:





Disgust can't even cover this.

Quote:Why didn't I vote for Bill Clinton? I didn't vote for Bill Clinton because I believed that he was a criminal and I viewed him as being a criminal. He was a decent, smart, talented, decent looking and likeable criminal for a criminal but he was still viewed as a criminal by me. Hilary...Well, I'll just say she didn't have the likable qualities that her life long  partner in crime had going for him. However, I'll give her credit for being the brain in their relationship. How much money did the Clinton's make from being involved with shady activities, business dealings, political kick backs, back room/under the table deals, doing work for foreign interests broad and so forth? Multiple millions for sure.

Some of those questions lurk in my mind as well.  I think some of this is why , when I look at her, I get this horrid ick feeling. Intuition works that way, but still hard to put to words.

Quote:<snip>

Not sure which words are yours from this post, Rags, but first of all, the information I was offering or suggestions asked for were about presidential candidates and the horoscope scores, silly boy!

I think that's much better about Hillary (spelled correctly ) The remark in the video, though, was just hyperbole on her part, and maybe some misplaced humor. She didn't conquer anything. Her and Obama's policy protected endangered civilians, and helped several powers facilitate the ongoing revolt by the Libyans against their dictator. That was not bad stuff. It didn't turn out too well, yet, but that's really on the Libyans, and it's there job to replace the dictator with a workable society. They didn't want Hillary's help in that, so she and Obama came, and saw-- and went.

I think your intuition about her was widely shared, and that is one reason she lost. She doesn't admit this, but the horoscope gives us an objective account and a score that reveals it.

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2018, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You should pay less attention to what is said by a Democrat and pay more attention to what the Democrat does/did with their power, what the Democrat makes/made for a living salary wise to do political work and ask where the Democrat got all their extra income from that made them so rich like the Clinton's? Why didn't I vote for Bill Clinton? I didn't vote for Bill Clinton because I believed that he was a criminal and I viewed him as being a criminal. He was a decent, smart, talented, decent looking and likeable criminal for a criminal but he was still viewed as a criminal by me. Hilary...Well, I'll just say she didn't have the likable qualities that her life long partner in crime had going for him. However, I'll give her credit for being the brain in their relationship. How much money did the Clinton's make from being involved with shady activities, business dealings, political kick backs, back room/under the table deals, doing work for foreign interests broad and so forth? Multiple millions for sure.

I did pay attention to what Hillary did. The only thing I could pin down about the Clintons' dealings in recent times that might be considered shady, was that Bill was given lucrative speaking gigs from those who donated to his foundation. Other than that, the special prosecutor in 1998 could not find anything wrong with their past dealings, except to get him for saying "I depends what the definition of is, is" in his testimony about a blow job, which was not much of a basis for the trumped-up impeachment charge. And all the recent charges against Hillary were lies, or exaggerations. Comey's report covered it well.

Quote:I'm curious, when you place people on ignore or ignore relevant comments/position and obvious signs/ truths/ knowledge and so forth, and continue pumping blue rhetoric and lies and so forth is it because you're egotistical/arrogant and can't handle/accept criticism or accept that you're wrong or is it your job/was your job for many many years that it has become a habit to stick to the blue script/blue narrative and continue pumping blue rhetoric/beliefs regardless of known facts and known situations and so forth that discredit and destroy ones credibility. I should you give you my information and see how well I'd match up vs Trump and Democratic contenders. I won't, I'll just assume that I would match up fairly well and freak you out with my numbers.

Your statement of curiosity is only a rant, so it doesn't give me anything I can reply to. My statements are fact and value based. I don't put people on ignore because of their opinions. So I'll leave that to you to analyze.

But that would be interesting. It's funny, Civic Hero asked me for his score, and I assumed it would show that he appeals to no-one but fascists, but it was modestly positive. Nowhere near enough to win though, and you also have to have the status and recognition needed, and be acceptable to a leading party to get nominated. You can give me your birthday, place, and if you can, time, and I could give you your score, all by personal message. Since you admit you don't write well, that might indicate a lower score than you think. But it wouldn't be hard for you to beat my own score. I wouldn't come across well enough to be elected by Americans as their president, and Americans don't usually vote for passionate crusaders like me, whether left or right. My chart is about like Nancy Pelosi's, and similar to Hillary's chart too. I doubt you could match up well with candidates though, since your rhetoric is so often divorced from reality, poise and coherence. But not always; you never really know for sure until you check.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2018, 06:14 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

ETG Wrote:Any suggestions, questions? Let me know!
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

I did ask, but IIRC your information costs $.

I thought so. I wonder if he set it up as a non-profit or a for profit. I hate it when an owner of non-profit tells me shut up, suck it up and get used to paying higher taxes on my companies profits. Hey, at least people get a piece of my business profits. The people don't get anything from his business. He should really learn to think before he opens his mouth. Its pretty clear to me, he didn't grow up with people like you and me around and system that allowed dickheads to get their asses kicked. But then again, maybe he did but couldn't understand or see the reason why he got has ass kicked so much.

[Ragnarök_62]

(04-20-2018, 06:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Not sure which words are yours from this post, Rags, but first of all, the information I was offering or suggestions asked for were about presidential candidates and the horoscope scores, silly boy!

I think that's much better about Hillary (spelled correctly  )  The remark in the video, though, was just hyperbole on her part, and maybe some misplaced humor. She didn't conquer anything. Her and Obama's policy protected endangered civilians, and helped several powers facilitate the ongoing revolt by the Libyans against their dictator. That was not bad stuff. It didn't turn out too well, yet, but that's really on the Libyans, and it's there job to replace the dictator with a workable society. They didn't want Hillary's help in that, so she and Obama came, and saw-- and went.

I think your intuition about her was widely shared, and that is one reason she lost. She doesn't admit this, but the horoscope gives us an objective account and a score that reveals it.

I snipped out the stuff that just gets in the way.  First, on the information  you were offering, I can see the confusion.

I was referring to some post long time ago you had about doing folks' horoscopes. I asked if you'd do mine for free. You said no. So, I mixed that stuff in and added it to the information you offered in the most recent post. The confusion lies in which information Eric has specifically.   So... we just differ on "information you were offering or suggestions for..."

As for Libya. OK, that's just a difference of opinion. The best phrase I can come up with is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I can also think of other reasons to get involved there. Qaddafi announced a gold dinar currency for N Africa which messed with the US need for having the world reserve currency. Libya also has a perennial favorite, oil. I also never heard anything about what regime we'd try to put up.  Honestly, I'm very cynical about this "protect civilians", some country needs democracy, and "national security interest".  Like WTF does "national security interest" really mean? I suppose we just disagree on military interventions which is fine. I just think it's stupid and arrogant that the US goes around trashing other countries while our own country has neglected places and people. Hypocrisy sucks, man.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2018, 07:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You should pay less attention to what is said by a Democrat and pay more attention to what the Democrat does/did with their power, what the Democrat makes/made for a living salary wise to do political work and ask where the Democrat got all their extra income from that made them so rich like the Clinton's? Why didn't I vote for Bill Clinton? I didn't vote for Bill Clinton because I believed that he was a criminal and I viewed him as being a criminal. He was a decent, smart, talented, decent looking and likeable criminal for a criminal but he was still viewed as a criminal by me. Hilary...Well, I'll just say she didn't have the likable qualities that her life long  partner in crime had going for him. However, I'll give her credit for being the brain in their relationship. How much money did the Clinton's make from being involved with shady activities, business dealings, political kick backs, back room/under the table deals, doing work for foreign interests broad and so forth? Multiple millions for sure.

I did pay attention to what Hillary did. The only thing I could pin down about the Clintons' dealings in recent times that might be considered shady, was that Bill was given lucrative speaking gigs from those who donated to his foundation. Other than that, the special prosecutor in 1998 could not find anything wrong with their past dealings, except to get him for saying "I depends what the definition of is, is" in his testimony about a blow job, which was not much of a basis for the trumped-up impeachment charge. And all the recent charges against Hillary were lies, or exaggerations. Comey's report covered it well.

Quote:I'm curious, when you place people on ignore or ignore relevant comments/position and obvious signs/ truths/ knowledge and so forth, and continue pumping blue rhetoric and lies and so forth is it because you're egotistical/arrogant and can't handle/accept criticism or accept that you're wrong or is it your job/was your job for many many years that it has become a habit to stick to the blue script/blue narrative and continue pumping blue rhetoric/beliefs regardless of known facts and known situations and so forth that discredit and destroy ones credibility. I should you give you my information and see how well I'd match up vs Trump and Democratic contenders. I won't, I'll just assume that I would match up fairly well and freak you out with my numbers.

Your statement of curiosity is only a rant, so it doesn't give me anything I can reply to. My statements are fact and value based. I don't put people on ignore because of their opinions. So I'll leave that to you to analyze.

But that would be interesting. It's funny, Civic Hero asked me for his score, and I assumed it would show that he appeals to no-one but fascists, but it was modestly positive. Nowhere near enough to win though, and you also have to have the status and recognition needed, and be acceptable to a leading party to get nominated. You can give me your birthday, place, and if you can, time, and I could give you your score, all by personal message. Since you admit you don't write well, that might indicate a lower score than you think. But it wouldn't be hard for you to beat my own score. I wouldn't come across well enough to be elected by Americans as their president, and Americans don't usually vote for passionate crusaders like me, whether left or right. My chart is about like Nancy Pelosi's, and similar to Hillary's chart too. I doubt you could match up well with candidates though, since your rhetoric is so often divorced from reality, poise and coherence. But not always; you never really know for sure until you check.

That wasn't a rant. Rants are rants. Rants don't have much thought involved with them. That was a direct question with what should obvious signs of both knowledge and intelligence being involved with it's writing and waiting to be used to examine response. This is about the third time you clammed up and dismissed, so I think my view of you and my assumptions of what you are actually doing here are pretty close to being accurate. So, I'm good with the sign that I was looking for/expecting.

How would my lack luster writing skills affect my score? Do I have to submit an essay for the universe to read and evaluate and determine that portion of my score? Why would I do that when I know you're biased and you've manipulated results before? Sorry dude, I don't trust you.

I achieved a much higher status than Civic at the old 4t (a much bigger forum with a lot more posters involved in the political discussions) so my score would be much than his and yours. Dude, I split the Democratic contingency of the old 4T in two and took out the hard line blues and scattered the more prominent blues (mid level government officials of some sort) to cozy blue world of ignore. I figure I'm not on ignore with you because I must make sense to you some how or another on certain issues relating to working class people.

[Classic-Xer]

(04-20-2018, 06:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 03:24 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: When we talk about Bill Clinton and all that, we should consider that the country was in an Unraveling mood.  As has been commented in the past, the old Civic order starts to fray in late 2T, and really begins to rot during the 3T.

That's a good point. Libertarian economics are more in vogue in 3Ts than in 4Ts or early 2Ts, and politicians adjust according to the turning.

What was, what used to be, probably isn't going to be the same anymore. The concept of Left and Right died with the Soviet Union.

[David Horn]

(04-20-2018, 12:09 PM)Another Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 09:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 08:17 PM)Another Xer Wrote: I stopped at "(Hillary's) a member of the axis of evil."

I'm sure you can do better.

It's an Internet Forum!  Hyperbole is a given.  Rags had plenty of good points you chose to ignore for semantic reasons.  Just address this: how do we get from here to some measure of equanimity?  We don't need absolute equality in all things, but we need a system that prevents the very few from taking it all, and leaves room for people to be people, not robots.

The first thing we have to do is raise taxes on wealth.  Capital gains, dividends, and estates.  People focus on income taxes because it's what they know about, but the taxes that the ultra-wealthy people pay are capital gains, dividends, and estates.  That's why people like Mitt Romney pay a tax rate of 15% - 20%, while hard working educated professionals pay double that - the professionals are paying income taxes.  They vote Republican because they think the Republicans are protecting their taxes but they are wrong.  Nobody is looking out for hard working educated professionals.  They are the big cash-bag that the plutocrats in charge use to fund government.

1. Capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income.  The counterargument is that lower taxes on capital helps generate investment - I don't see any basis for that.  It's just an argument served up by the wealthy to serve the wealthy.  It's certainly not true in the current environment where the wealthy have so much money they don't know what to do, and are inflating all kinds of assets in search of yield but they can't find productive investment because the middle class is broke.  Tax it.
2. Use the money to fund infrastructure jobs across the country.  Get people working again and rebuild this country.
3. Change to singlepayer health insurance that covers everybody.  All available data on this from other countries shows it should lower costs, rather than raise costs.  Our for-profit system is the most inefficient in the world.  Too many middle-men. 
4. Raise the minimum wage, incrementally, and with geographic disparities taken into account.  

To me, that is a start.  It may solve 20% of the problem or 50% of the problem or 100% of the problem - I don't know.  Enact it and reassess in a few years to see what, if any, additional steps need to be taken.

You get no argument from me on this.  In fact, it's the only viable alternative from the left.  But here's the rub.  The SJW faction will cry foul and simply won't support that agenda.  I don't have the foggiest idea how to bridge that gap, because many of the social problems have an economic base.  

You only missed two issues I wish to add: basic competence and climate change.  Without the first, nothing gets done ... much like today.  The second is existential, but under the radar for now.  It needs to be emphasized.  Transitioning to clean energy has an economic benefit too, so that should be non-controversial.  Of course, it is.

[David Horn]

(04-20-2018, 12:19 PM)Another Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 09:23 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 03:15 PM)Another Xer Wrote: Disunity among Democrats is typically one of the most overhyped narratives of the last many decades.  Policy-wise, there was not much difference between Hillary and Bernie.  Much of the supposed division between the two, I think, was unique to the individuals.  Bernie, an Independent running as an old fashioned liberal and Hillary Clinton, who is a lightning rod for differing opinions.  Replace those names with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren and you get the same minimal policy differences without all the rancor.  

Democrats all pretty much stand for the same things - the difference is the degree to which they want to go and the emphasis on certain things (i.e. is campaign finance reform the OMG #1 issue or is it lower down on the list of priorities).

We'll have to disagree on this.  The first Neoliberal Democrats came through with Carter, but it was Bill Clinton that established that philosophy as the central theme of the party.  It was a tragic mistake, even though it that paid short term gains for Bill.  Once the Dems climbed in bed with Wall Street, and let's be honest here: they did in spades, The two parties became Tweedledum and Tweedledee on economics.  That shifted the focus to social issues ... all of them divisive.  When the division was economic, it was at least theoretically possible to unite along class lines.  Now, that's nearly impossible.  Poorer whites don't trust the Dems, because they are on the side of (insert every group except theirs).  Minorities don't trust Dems who don't tow their line, making the appeal to poorer white impossible.

It's Catch 22.

It was not a mistake, it was a natural response to market forces (in this case the market being votes).  

The white, working class of the Midwest abandoned old fashioned Democratic politics in favor of Reaganomics.  They dug their own grave (and in the process made the financial sectors on the coasts very wealthy).  Their communities are dying now, a relic of the post WWII generational cycle, clinging to old pension offerings with no basis of funds to support them because they voted to leave all the money in the hands of the wealthy, who told them through the media that it would trickle down to them.  Now they want Millenial populations in more productive, wealthy part of the country to subsidize them.  That will be up to the Millenials.

Yes, it was a response to the din from the Reaganauts for ever more wealth transfer to the rich.  Bill played the short game and joined the club.  That merely made the two parties almost indistinguishable on that topic.  The long game (not a Clinton forte) would have lead to a loss in '92 followed a likely win in '96, without sacrificing a central narrative of the party.

'92 ended any interest I had in being a Democrat.  I would like to be reengaged.  I'm heartened by recent events, though the fractures in the party still make me uneasy.  Bill may have made a devils bargain for personal gain ... which is a Clinton forte.

[David Horn]

(04-20-2018, 03:24 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: When we talk about Bill Clinton and all that, we should consider that the country was in an Unraveling mood.  As has been commented in the past, the old Civic order starts to fray in late 2T, and really begins to rot during the 3T.

This is true, but it also leaves room for options: remain true to the central narrative of the party, opt to change the central narrative to reflect changes in society or blow with the wind.  Bill opted for the third, and the party has been unmoored ever since.  Being completely transactional is no more a viable way to run the country than being completely locked into a philosophy, like Scalia or Rand Paul.  Someplace between limp noodle and granite-rigid is a place where principles matter but are open to question.  

So yes, the 3T memes had a lot to do with the decay we've seen.  It's the eat-your-seed-corn turning after all.  That doesn't mean that we have to succumb to it totally.

[David Horn]

(04-20-2018, 06:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Trump is working on a long term trade deal with China that will be much more beneficial to American workers and American business in general.

Sure he is.  

[Another Xer]

(04-21-2018, 08:15 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 12:09 PM)Another Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 09:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 08:17 PM)Another Xer Wrote: I stopped at "(Hillary's) a member of the axis of evil."

I'm sure you can do better.

It's an Internet Forum!  Hyperbole is a given.  Rags had plenty of good points you chose to ignore for semantic reasons.  Just address this: how do we get from here to some measure of equanimity?  We don't need absolute equality in all things, but we need a system that prevents the very few from taking it all, and leaves room for people to be people, not robots.

The first thing we have to do is raise taxes on wealth.  Capital gains, dividends, and estates.  People focus on income taxes because it's what they know about, but the taxes that the ultra-wealthy people pay are capital gains, dividends, and estates.  That's why people like Mitt Romney pay a tax rate of 15% - 20%, while hard working educated professionals pay double that - the professionals are paying income taxes.  They vote Republican because they think the Republicans are protecting their taxes but they are wrong.  Nobody is looking out for hard working educated professionals.  They are the big cash-bag that the plutocrats in charge use to fund government.

1. Capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income.  The counterargument is that lower taxes on capital helps generate investment - I don't see any basis for that.  It's just an argument served up by the wealthy to serve the wealthy.  It's certainly not true in the current environment where the wealthy have so much money they don't know what to do, and are inflating all kinds of assets in search of yield but they can't find productive investment because the middle class is broke.  Tax it.
2. Use the money to fund infrastructure jobs across the country.  Get people working again and rebuild this country.
3. Change to singlepayer health insurance that covers everybody.  All available data on this from other countries shows it should lower costs, rather than raise costs.  Our for-profit system is the most inefficient in the world.  Too many middle-men. 
4. Raise the minimum wage, incrementally, and with geographic disparities taken into account.  

To me, that is a start.  It may solve 20% of the problem or 50% of the problem or 100% of the problem - I don't know.  Enact it and reassess in a few years to see what, if any, additional steps need to be taken.

You get no argument from me on this.  In fact, it's the only viable alternative from the left.  But here's the rub.  The SJW faction will cry foul and simply won't support that agenda.  I don't have the foggiest idea how to bridge that gap, because many of the social problems have an economic base.  

You only missed two issues I wish to add: basic competence and climate change.  Without the first, nothing gets done ... much like today.  The second is existential, but under the radar for now.  It needs to be emphasized.  Transitioning to clean energy has an economic benefit too, so that should be non-controversial.  Of course, it is.

Why would the SJW crowd be averse to the economic agenda I outlined?

[Eric the Green]

(04-21-2018, 08:15 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 12:09 PM)Another Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 09:30 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-19-2018, 08:17 PM)Another Xer Wrote: I stopped at "(Hillary's) a member of the axis of evil."

I'm sure you can do better.

It's an Internet Forum!  Hyperbole is a given.  Rags had plenty of good points you chose to ignore for semantic reasons.  Just address this: how do we get from here to some measure of equanimity?  We don't need absolute equality in all things, but we need a system that prevents the very few from taking it all, and leaves room for people to be people, not robots.

The first thing we have to do is raise taxes on wealth.  Capital gains, dividends, and estates.  People focus on income taxes because it's what they know about, but the taxes that the ultra-wealthy people pay are capital gains, dividends, and estates.  That's why people like Mitt Romney pay a tax rate of 15% - 20%, while hard working educated professionals pay double that - the professionals are paying income taxes.  They vote Republican because they think the Republicans are protecting their taxes but they are wrong.  Nobody is looking out for hard working educated professionals.  They are the big cash-bag that the plutocrats in charge use to fund government.

1. Capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income.  The counterargument is that lower taxes on capital helps generate investment - I don't see any basis for that.  It's just an argument served up by the wealthy to serve the wealthy.  It's certainly not true in the current environment where the wealthy have so much money they don't know what to do, and are inflating all kinds of assets in search of yield but they can't find productive investment because the middle class is broke.  Tax it.
2. Use the money to fund infrastructure jobs across the country.  Get people working again and rebuild this country.
3. Change to singlepayer health insurance that covers everybody.  All available data on this from other countries shows it should lower costs, rather than raise costs.  Our for-profit system is the most inefficient in the world.  Too many middle-men. 
4. Raise the minimum wage, incrementally, and with geographic disparities taken into account.  

To me, that is a start.  It may solve 20% of the problem or 50% of the problem or 100% of the problem - I don't know.  Enact it and reassess in a few years to see what, if any, additional steps need to be taken.

You get no argument from me on this.  In fact, it's the only viable alternative from the left.  But here's the rub.  The SJW faction will cry foul and simply won't support that agenda.  I don't have the foggiest idea how to bridge that gap, because many of the social problems have an economic base.  

You only missed two issues I wish to add: basic competence and climate change.  Without the first, nothing gets done ... much like today.  The second is existential, but under the radar for now.  It needs to be emphasized.  Transitioning to clean energy has an economic benefit too, so that should be non-controversial.  Of course, it is.

And gun control may be a viable issue too, if young people press for it. It's certainly been needed for a long, long time. But persistent American mythology has kept us connected to the gun.

Of course, not everything can be done all at once; that's true. Income taxes also need to be raised on wealthier people. Things will roll once the 2020s get going.

I have no concern that the SJW faction will cry foul over any of this. It's what they want too. They just want to make sure that their groups' interests are also protected from injustice, which is a very real concern, and which itself causes a lot of the economic inequality. We all need to see that it's all connected; then the "gap" is bridged without any doubt. Trickle-down, give-breaks-to-job-creaters nonsense-economics cannot exist without appealing to the fears and prejudice of those who don't want to pay for others' government welfare benefits. And the "others" that they mean, are the same people whom the SJWs speak up for.

[Eric the Green]

(04-21-2018, 12:21 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 07:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You should pay less attention to what is said by a Democrat and pay more attention to what the Democrat does/did with their power, what the Democrat makes/made for a living salary wise to do political work and ask where the Democrat got all their extra income from that made them so rich like the Clinton's? Why didn't I vote for Bill Clinton? I didn't vote for Bill Clinton because I believed that he was a criminal and I viewed him as being a criminal. He was a decent, smart, talented, decent looking and likeable criminal for a criminal but he was still viewed as a criminal by me. Hilary...Well, I'll just say she didn't have the likable qualities that her life long  partner in crime had going for him. However, I'll give her credit for being the brain in their relationship. How much money did the Clinton's make from being involved with shady activities, business dealings, political kick backs, back room/under the table deals, doing work for foreign interests broad and so forth? Multiple millions for sure.

I did pay attention to what Hillary did. The only thing I could pin down about the Clintons' dealings in recent times that might be considered shady, was that Bill was given lucrative speaking gigs from those who donated to his foundation. Other than that, the special prosecutor in 1998 could not find anything wrong with their past dealings, except to get him for saying "I depends what the definition of is, is" in his testimony about a blow job, which was not much of a basis for the trumped-up impeachment charge. And all the recent charges against Hillary were lies, or exaggerations. Comey's report covered it well.

Quote:I'm curious, when you place people on ignore or ignore relevant comments/position and obvious signs/ truths/ knowledge and so forth, and continue pumping blue rhetoric and lies and so forth is it because you're egotistical/arrogant and can't handle/accept criticism or accept that you're wrong or is it your job/was your job for many many years that it has become a habit to stick to the blue script/blue narrative and continue pumping blue rhetoric/beliefs regardless of known facts and known situations and so forth that discredit and destroy ones credibility. I should you give you my information and see how well I'd match up vs Trump and Democratic contenders. I won't, I'll just assume that I would match up fairly well and freak you out with my numbers.

Your statement of curiosity is only a rant, so it doesn't give me anything I can reply to. My statements are fact and value based. I don't put people on ignore because of their opinions. So I'll leave that to you to analyze.

But that would be interesting. It's funny, Civic Hero asked me for his score, and I assumed it would show that he appeals to no-one but fascists, but it was modestly positive. Nowhere near enough to win though, and you also have to have the status and recognition needed, and be acceptable to a leading party to get nominated. You can give me your birthday, place, and if you can, time, and I could give you your score, all by personal message. Since you admit you don't write well, that might indicate a lower score than you think. But it wouldn't be hard for you to beat my own score. I wouldn't come across well enough to be elected by Americans as their president, and Americans don't usually vote for passionate crusaders like me, whether left or right. My chart is about like Nancy Pelosi's, and similar to Hillary's chart too. I doubt you could match up well with candidates though, since your rhetoric is so often divorced from reality, poise and coherence. But not always; you never really know for sure until you check.

That wasn't a rant. Rants are rants. Rants don't have much thought involved with them. That was a direct question with what should obvious signs of both knowledge and intelligence being involved with it's writing and waiting to be used to examine response. This is about the third time you clammed up and dismissed, so I think my view of you and my assumptions of what you are actually doing here are pretty close to being accurate. So, I'm good with the sign that I was looking for/expecting.

Of course it was a rant, just about how you disagree with my views, and therefore I'm wrong. Nothing new for me to consider there.

Quote:How would my lack luster writing skills affect my score? Do I have to submit an essay for the universe to read and evaluate and determine that portion of my score? Why would I do that when I know you're biased and you've manipulated results before? Sorry dude, I don't trust you.

It's just a horoscope score on whether you could win a presidential election, based on where the planets are. I can't change where the planets are when you were born. But I think, generally speaking, that writing skills help a presidential candidate get elected, along with other even more important skills. But, I assume, you are not running for president?

Quote:I achieved a much higher status than Civic at the old 4t (a much bigger forum with a lot more posters involved in the political discussions) so my score would be much than his and yours. Dude, I split the Democratic contingency of the old 4T in two and took out the hard line blues and scattered the more prominent blues (mid level government officials of some sort) to cozy blue world of ignore. I figure I'm not on ignore with you because I must make sense to you some how or another on certain issues relating to working class people.

I don't put people on ignore because of their opinions or whether they make sense to me or not.

[Eric the Green]

(04-20-2018, 07:44 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(04-20-2018, 06:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Not sure which words are yours from this post, Rags, but first of all, the information I was offering or suggestions asked for were about presidential candidates and the horoscope scores, silly boy!

I think that's much better about Hillary (spelled correctly  )  The remark in the video, though, was just hyperbole on her part, and maybe some misplaced humor. She didn't conquer anything. Her and Obama's policy protected endangered civilians, and helped several powers facilitate the ongoing revolt by the Libyans against their dictator. That was not bad stuff. It didn't turn out too well, yet, but that's really on the Libyans, and it's there job to replace the dictator with a workable society. They didn't want Hillary's help in that, so she and Obama came, and saw-- and went.

I think your intuition about her was widely shared, and that is one reason she lost. She doesn't admit this, but the horoscope gives us an objective account and a score that reveals it.

I snipped out the stuff that just gets in the way.  First, on the information  you were offering, I can see the confusion.

I was referring to some post long time ago you had about doing folks' horoscopes. I asked if you'd do mine for free. You said no. So, I mixed that stuff in and added it to the information you offered in the most recent post. The confusion lies in which information Eric has specifically.   So... we just differ on "information you were offering or suggestions for..."

I assume you're all clear now. And I assume that neither you nor Classic Xer plan to run for president. Cynic Hero, I dunno; maybe he thinks he can.

Quote:As for Libya. OK, that's just a difference of opinion. The best phrase I can come up with is "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I can also think of other reasons to get involved there. Qaddafi announced a gold dinar currency for N Africa which messed with the US need for having the world reserve currency. Libya also has a perennial favorite, oil. I also never heard anything about what regime we'd try to put up.  Honestly, I'm very cynical about this "protect civilians", some country needs democracy, and "national security interest".  Like WTF does "national security interest" really mean? I suppose we just disagree on military interventions which is fine. I just think it's stupid and arrogant that the US goes around trashing other countries while our own country has neglected places and people. Hypocrisy sucks, man.

I agree, and I think oil played a role in the decision to get involved in protecting Libyan citizens (which became helping them win their Revolution against Qaddafi), and NOT protecting Syrian citizens or helping them in THEIR Revolution against Assad. I have no info whether currency played a role in their decision or not, so I won't speculate, beyond the likelihood that oil played a role.

I do think that we are citizens of the world, and lawful nations (even if not always lawful) that respect human rights (even a little bit) have a role to play together to stop genocidal mass murder, preferably through the UN if possible. Staying out of others' business is usually a fine idea, but there are limits to most fine ideas. So there we probably do disagree.

Lots of folks make the good point that the USA should not go to war in Syria, but in order to support that point, many invent theories such as the Syrian Revolution is just Al Qaeda terrorists, or just Sunnis against Alowites, or even just the USA's war, and even deny that Assad has killed and tortured and exiled hundreds of thousands of folks. We may not agree with a USA invasion of Syria, or even with lobbing a few missiles against Syrian war facilities, and think that what's happening there is none of our f**king business, but that's no reason simply to deny the horrible facts of what Assad has done. We have to face up to the consequences of our decision and our isolationism, whatever they might be, and whether or not we know if getting involved would have improved things at all or not.