Election 2020

[Marypoza]

(11-17-2018, 07:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Is Mike Pence Making His Move?
from Daily Kos

As many have noted, Trump seems thoroughly disinterested in even performing the basics of the job as President since the midterm shellacking by Democrats. Reports are that he has become even more isolated and angry, perhaps driven by having to finally confront a reality different from his own version of it.

Trump’s anger may be fueled by worry about what will happen to himself and his family now that Democrats have subpoena power in the House. In addition, it is clear that the Mueller investigation is closing in, perhaps more imminently on Don Jr. than Trump himself right now, but closing in nonetheless. So too are the other investigations into the apparent fraud at the Trump Foundation and the conspiracy to silence women before the election that are currently being pursued in New York, with the latter probably making his domestic life more difficult.

Moreover, the protection racket that Trump has surrounded himself with over the years has taken some enormous hits. Michael Cohen has left the fold and is apparently singing, as are principals with the National Enquirer. Manafort my still be resolute, but Gates, who probably knows everything Manafort knew, is talking. Roger Stone’s operation is increasingly under pressure and there are signs that some in that camp are beginning to fold. There even seems to be a small but growing concern within the Federalist Society that Trump’s shredding of the rule of law has gone too far.

As bad as all that is, there are little hints that the power players in the Republican party may be thinking they have gotten as much out of Trump as they could get. The legislative agenda is dead. They got massacred in the suburbs and only picked up a maximum of two Senate seats in what was the one of most friendly maps in history in last week’s midterms. The next two years portend investigations in multiple areas that will expose massive corruption not only with Trump and his family personally as well within his administration but also with various businesses that have been beneficiaries of that corruption. Those businesses are significant sectors of the party’s donor class.

Additionally, the conservative wing of the party, which is now about all that’s left, may be happy with the last two years of accomplishment but it has never really trusted Trump. With the Democrats now having power in the House, there is a genuine fear that Trump will compromise with the Democrats and squeeze the Republicans in the Senate in order to get a legislative win for himself for 2020. That was surely compounded by Trump’s abandonment of House Republicans before the election and his willingness to consider an infrastructure plan after it.

The party doesn’t need Trump to continue to eliminate regulation and pack the courts with Federalist Society hacks, which is probably about all that can be accomplished in the next two years unless Trump capitulates to Democrats. In fact, there is already someone itching to take that role.

Even in just the few days since the midterms, Mike Pence is using Trump’s disengagement to become a far more forceful figure than we’ve seen before. The Vice President has been active meeting foreign leaders over the last two years but he is now taking that role to a higher level. Pence will be filling in for Trump at both the APEC, ASEAN, and East Asia summits in Asia, the three most important meetings for that region. Pence made the most forceful statement to date from a US official condemning the state-sanctioned violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar directly to Aung San Suu Kyi. I doubt that is something we would have heard from Trump, considering his infatuation with authoritarian regimes and inherent racism.

Pence has often strayed off the Trump reservation in order to advance his own interests but has always managed to stay in Trump’s good graces. It is an open secret that Pence and his team have expressed the desire to be prepared for the 2020 election in case Trump did not survive and it appears that Pence has set up his own political operation to prepare for that potentiality. There are some who are already talking like that is a possibility. Jan Brewer, former Arizona governor, recently talked about Pence saying, “We really, really appreciate him leading our party in that respect. His mission is maybe a little bit different than the president, and he is not under attack 24/7 like the president is.” That sounds remarkably like an endorsement.

Back in early September, there was an anonymous op-ed in the NY Times that declared there were people within the Trump administration that were working to “thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations”. At least some in the White House believed that the source of that op-ed was the Vice President’s office. Now the latest rumor is that Chief of Staff John Kelly is once again headed out the door and one of the most mentioned replacements is none other than Pence’s current Chief of Staff, Nick Ayers.

With Trump seemingly focused on simply surviving and reportedly also suffering from serious mental deterioration, it appears that Pence will more and more become the de-facto, behind the scenes leader of this administration. And if things deteriorate so badly that Republicans actually turn on Trump and impeach him, Pence will then be well-prepared to take over in a relatively smooth transition. Unfortunately, the country will have only swapped an autocrat for a theocrat.


My NOTE however: according to his horoscope score of 8-7, he's easier to beat! That would be the big plus! Even Elizabeth Warren might have a chance (although as I say in my video, those would be two candidates with the charisma of a wooden indian-- go Pocahontas!)

--   if both Pence & the Donald can be taken out, then the Silents would finally get their Prez & she'd be female. Not that l care much 4 Miz Nancy bcuz l don't, but l think it would be nice if the Silents got a Prez b4 they left this Earth

[GeekyCynic]

(11-18-2018, 06:08 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Eric the GreenIs Mike Pence Making His Move?
from Daily Kos

As many have noted, Trump seems thoroughly disinterested in even performing the basics of the job as President since the midterm shellacking by Democrats. Reports are that he has become even more isolated and angry, perhaps driven by having to finally confront a reality different from his own version of it.

Trump’s anger may be fueled by worry about what will happen to himself and his family now that Democrats have subpoena power in the House. In addition, it is clear that the Mueller investigation is closing in, perhaps more imminently on Don Jr. than Trump himself right now, but closing in nonetheless. So too are the other investigations into the apparent fraud at the Trump Foundation and the conspiracy to silence women before the election that are currently being pursued in New York, with the latter probably making his domestic life more difficult.

Moreover, the protection racket that Trump has surrounded himself with over the years has taken some enormous hits. Michael Cohen has left the fold and is apparently singing, as are principals with the National Enquirer. Manafort my still be resolute, but Gates, who probably knows everything Manafort knew, is talking. Roger Stone’s operation is increasingly under pressure and there are signs that some in that camp are beginning to fold. There even seems to be a small but growing concern within the Federalist Society that Trump’s shredding of the rule of law has gone too far.

As bad as all that is, there are little hints that the power players in the Republican party may be thinking they have gotten as much out of Trump as they could get. The legislative agenda is dead. They got massacred in the suburbs and only picked up a maximum of two Senate seats in what was the one of most friendly maps in history in last week’s midterms. The next two years portend investigations in multiple areas that will expose massive corruption not only with Trump and his family personally as well within his administration but also with various businesses that have been beneficiaries of that corruption. Those businesses are significant sectors of the party’s donor class.

Additionally, the conservative wing of the party, which is now about all that’s left, may be happy with the last two years of accomplishment but it has never really trusted Trump. With the Democrats now having power in the House, there is a genuine fear that Trump will compromise with the Democrats and squeeze the Republicans in the Senate in order to get a legislative win for himself for 2020. That was surely compounded by Trump’s abandonment of House Republicans before the election and his willingness to consider an infrastructure plan after it.

The party doesn’t need Trump to continue to eliminate regulation and pack the courts with Federalist Society hacks, which is probably about all that can be accomplished in the next two years unless Trump capitulates to Democrats. In fact, there is already someone itching to take that role.

Even in just the few days since the midterms, Mike Pence is using Trump’s disengagement to become a far more forceful figure than we’ve seen before. The Vice President has been active meeting foreign leaders over the last two years but he is now taking that role to a higher level. Pence will be filling in for Trump at both the APEC, ASEAN, and East Asia summits in Asia, the three most important meetings for that region. Pence made the most forceful statement to date from a US official condemning the state-sanctioned violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar directly to Aung San Suu Kyi. I doubt that is something we would have heard from Trump, considering his infatuation with authoritarian regimes and inherent racism.

Pence has often strayed off the Trump reservation in order to advance his own interests but has always managed to stay in Trump’s good graces. It is an open secret that Pence and his team have expressed the desire to be prepared for the 2020 election in case Trump did not survive and it appears that Pence has set up his own political operation to prepare for that potentiality. There are some who are already talking like that is a possibility. Jan Brewer, former Arizona governor, recently talked about Pence saying, “We really, really appreciate him leading our party in that respect. His mission is maybe a little bit different than the president, and he is not under attack 24/7 like the president is.” That sounds remarkably like an endorsement.

Back in early September, there was an anonymous op-ed in the NY Times that declared there were people within the Trump administration that were working to “thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations”. At least some in the White House believed that the source of that op-ed was the Vice President’s office. Now the latest rumor is that Chief of Staff John Kelly is once again headed out the door and one of the most mentioned replacements is none other than Pence’s current Chief of Staff, Nick Ayers.

With Trump seemingly focused on simply surviving and reportedly also suffering from serious mental deterioration, it appears that Pence will more and more become the de-facto, behind the scenes leader of this administration. And if things deteriorate so badly that Republicans actually turn on Trump and impeach him, Pence will then be well-prepared to take over in a relatively smooth transition. Unfortunately, the country will have only swapped an autocrat for a theocrat.


My NOTE however: according to his horoscope score of 8-7, he's easier to beat! That would be the big plus! Even Elizabeth Warren might have a chance (although as I say in my video, those would be two candidates with the charisma of a wooden indian-- go Pocahontas!)

--   if both Pence & the Donald can be taken out, then the Silents would finally get their Prez & she'd be female. Not that l care much 4 Miz Nancy bcuz l don't, but l think it would be nice if the Silents got a Prez b4 they left this Earth

Now is not the time for a Silent President. Their time for their leadership has passed.

[pbrower2a]

Pence is even more reactionary, abrasive, and ideological than Donald Trump. Think of Senator Mike Lee, except as a lapsed Catholic who became a fundamentalist Protestant. I have no idea of whether Robert Mueller has anything on him yet.

With no idea of what is going on in the mind of Robert Mueller -- he releases no hints unless they can help him in his investigation or a prosecution, like spurring someone to do something that might incriminate him... there could be the time of the Offer That He Cannot Refuse (yes, an allusion to Godfather, but this President is knee-deep in organized crime, Sicilian and Russian) -- seemingly anything is possible, including a resignation.

I have no idea of how many hooks are in Mike Pence, a very secretive man. It is hard to imagine him as a VP nominee without have some very damning knowledge. Practically all of the Mueller investigation has been about the Trump campaign, and not the presidency itself. It's not that I would expect Mike Pence to have been taking bribes and failing to report such income to the IRS as was the case with Spiro Agnew; history rarely quite repeats.

I have mixed feelings about the timing. Should Trump and Pence both resign before January 3, then Paul Ryan becomes President. Does he remain as such? He had chosen to retire from his House seat, so we have a can of worms. On or after January 3, Nancy Pelosi becomes President. Does the President who has been Speaker of the House then call for the nomination of a Vice-President? What would be a good bipartisan choice? I can imagine such people as Colin Powell, not obviously associated with a political party. But he is old -- really old. Someone respected by both Parties, like (by then) former Governor Jerry Brown or former Senator Richard Lugar?

It is hard to imagine anyone who could do worse than Donald Trump. We certainly want someone who will undo some huge unforced errors of Donald Trump. We need someone who knows his limitations and defers to experts as needed. We need respect for legal formalities and diplomatic protocol -- and certainly not a headstrong know-it-all.

This would not be the time to give someone a head-up on a Presidential bid.

[David Horn]

(11-18-2018, 06:08 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --   if both Pence & the Donald can be taken out, then the Silents would finally get their Prez & she'd be female. Not that l care much 4 Miz Nancy bcuz l don't, but l think it would be nice if the Silents got a Prez b4 they left this Earth

Pelosi gets a bad rap, but it's understandable why. She's all strategy and tactics, when the Dems sorely need inspiration above all else. Think of her as Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander, and then think about Winston Churchill. Churchill was a walking-talking basket case, and a drunk to boot, but he inspired the Brits to fight-on against all odds. If that had been left to Ike, the Brits would have sued for peace. On the other hand, without Ike, the war would have been lost, so both talent sets are needed.

The Dems need a Churchill, and Bernie's the best they have. Since he can't lead the House, a great tactician might be a good alternative for now. I still don't see another septuagenarian in the role as Speaker -- or President for that matter. Bernie may be a great inspiration; he can't be the leader. I guess he'll have to be happy as this era's Benjamin Franklin. Pelosi will play the role of Moses, and hand-off to an Aaron, when one is finally found.

[Marypoza]

(11-19-2018, 03:41 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-18-2018, 06:08 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --   if both Pence & the Donald can be taken out, then the Silents would finally get their Prez & she'd be female. Not that l care much 4 Miz Nancy bcuz l don't, but l think it would be nice if the Silents got a Prez b4 they left this Earth

Pelosi gets a bad rap, but it's understandable why.  She's all strategy and tactics, when the Dems sorely need inspiration above all else.  Think of her as Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander, and then think about Winston Churchill.  Churchill was a walking-talking basket case, and a drunk to boot, but he inspired the Brits to fight-on against all odds.  If that had been left to Ike, the Brits would have sued for peace.  On the other hand, without Ike, the war would have been lost, so both talent sets are needed.

The Dems need a Churchill, and Bernie's the best they have.  Since he can't lead the House, a great tactician might be a good alternative for now.  I still don't see another septuagenarian in the role as  Speaker -- or President for that matter.  Bernie may be a great inspiration; he can't be the leader.  I guess he'll have to be happy as this era's Benjamin Franklin.  Pelosi will play the role of Moses, and hand-off to an Aaron, when one is finally found.

-- well Benjamin Franklin was GC during the Revolution. Bernie can be our GC. The don't have 2 b Prez

[Marypoza]

(11-18-2018, 07:13 PM)GeekyCynic Wrote:

(11-18-2018, 06:08 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Eric the GreenIs Mike Pence Making His Move?
from Daily Kos

As many have noted, Trump seems thoroughly disinterested in even performing the basics of the job as President since the midterm shellacking by Democrats. Reports are that he has become even more isolated and angry, perhaps driven by having to finally confront a reality different from his own version of it.

Trump’s anger may be fueled by worry about what will happen to himself and his family now that Democrats have subpoena power in the House. In addition, it is clear that the Mueller investigation is closing in, perhaps more imminently on Don Jr. than Trump himself right now, but closing in nonetheless. So too are the other investigations into the apparent fraud at the Trump Foundation and the conspiracy to silence women before the election that are currently being pursued in New York, with the latter probably making his domestic life more difficult.

Moreover, the protection racket that Trump has surrounded himself with over the years has taken some enormous hits. Michael Cohen has left the fold and is apparently singing, as are principals with the National Enquirer. Manafort my still be resolute, but Gates, who probably knows everything Manafort knew, is talking. Roger Stone’s operation is increasingly under pressure and there are signs that some in that camp are beginning to fold. There even seems to be a small but growing concern within the Federalist Society that Trump’s shredding of the rule of law has gone too far.

As bad as all that is, there are little hints that the power players in the Republican party may be thinking they have gotten as much out of Trump as they could get. The legislative agenda is dead. They got massacred in the suburbs and only picked up a maximum of two Senate seats in what was the one of most friendly maps in history in last week’s midterms. The next two years portend investigations in multiple areas that will expose massive corruption not only with Trump and his family personally as well within his administration but also with various businesses that have been beneficiaries of that corruption. Those businesses are significant sectors of the party’s donor class.

Additionally, the conservative wing of the party, which is now about all that’s left, may be happy with the last two years of accomplishment but it has never really trusted Trump. With the Democrats now having power in the House, there is a genuine fear that Trump will compromise with the Democrats and squeeze the Republicans in the Senate in order to get a legislative win for himself for 2020. That was surely compounded by Trump’s abandonment of House Republicans before the election and his willingness to consider an infrastructure plan after it.

The party doesn’t need Trump to continue to eliminate regulation and pack the courts with Federalist Society hacks, which is probably about all that can be accomplished in the next two years unless Trump capitulates to Democrats. In fact, there is already someone itching to take that role.

Even in just the few days since the midterms, Mike Pence is using Trump’s disengagement to become a far more forceful figure than we’ve seen before. The Vice President has been active meeting foreign leaders over the last two years but he is now taking that role to a higher level. Pence will be filling in for Trump at both the APEC, ASEAN, and East Asia summits in Asia, the three most important meetings for that region. Pence made the most forceful statement to date from a US official condemning the state-sanctioned violence against the Rohingya minority in Myanmar directly to Aung San Suu Kyi. I doubt that is something we would have heard from Trump, considering his infatuation with authoritarian regimes and inherent racism.

Pence has often strayed off the Trump reservation in order to advance his own interests but has always managed to stay in Trump’s good graces. It is an open secret that Pence and his team have expressed the desire to be prepared for the 2020 election in case Trump did not survive and it appears that Pence has set up his own political operation to prepare for that potentiality. There are some who are already talking like that is a possibility. Jan Brewer, former Arizona governor, recently talked about Pence saying, “We really, really appreciate him leading our party in that respect. His mission is maybe a little bit different than the president, and he is not under attack 24/7 like the president is.” That sounds remarkably like an endorsement.

Back in early September, there was an anonymous op-ed in the NY Times that declared there were people within the Trump administration that were working to “thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations”. At least some in the White House believed that the source of that op-ed was the Vice President’s office. Now the latest rumor is that Chief of Staff John Kelly is once again headed out the door and one of the most mentioned replacements is none other than Pence’s current Chief of Staff, Nick Ayers.

With Trump seemingly focused on simply surviving and reportedly also suffering from serious mental deterioration, it appears that Pence will more and more become the de-facto, behind the scenes leader of this administration. And if things deteriorate so badly that Republicans actually turn on Trump and impeach him, Pence will then be well-prepared to take over in a relatively smooth transition. Unfortunately, the country will have only swapped an autocrat for a theocrat.


My NOTE however: according to his horoscope score of 8-7, he's easier to beat! That would be the big plus! Even Elizabeth Warren might have a chance (although as I say in my video, those would be two candidates with the charisma of a wooden indian-- go Pocahontas!)

--   if both Pence & the Donald can be taken out, then the Silents would finally get their Prez & she'd be female. Not that l care much 4 Miz Nancy bcuz l don't, but l think it would be nice if the Silents got a Prez b4 they left this Earth

Now is not the time for a Silent President. Their time for their leadership has passed.

-- that was just whimsy. But it has occurred 2 me, the Silents may not have had a Prez but they seem 2 have an over long hold on Congress so maybe it balances out

[pbrower2a]

The Silent have had Vice-Presidents (Mondale, Cheney, and Biden).

[pbrower2a]

Let's keep aware of a significant checklist (Umberto Eco):

1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
   
2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
   
3. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
   
4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
   
5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
   
6. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
   
7. The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
   
8. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
   
9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
   
10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
    
11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
    
12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
    
13. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
    
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
    

The Trump cult fits well on most. Trump has yet to call for aggressive warfare, but we all know that he is but one hurt feeling away, and I doubt that he is inculcating heroism as a virtue in its own right. We have resistance to his worst.

[David Horn]

(11-20-2018, 12:36 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- well Benjamin Franklin was GC during the Revolution. Bernie can be our GC. The don't have 2 b Prez

Agreed, but President is still the critical office. Without a better offering, the public will choose among the available choices, and that's why we have Trump. Hillary was toxic, and the hierarchy of the Democratic Party couldn't have been that dense not to notice. Let's avoid the rinse and repeat cycle by actually choosing someone worthy next time.

[pbrower2a]

The Des Moines Register has a poll of Democrats on their preferences in the primary. At this point, I will leave ot to you to sort out who has any advantage as a Democratic front-runner.

What Democrats want:

90% -- someone who will restore good relations with longtime US allies
90% -- someone with a strong moral compass
87% -- someone who understands policy and politics
89% -- someone who will unite the country
90% -- someone who respects decorum
93% -- someone who will tell the truth even if I don't agree
81% -- someone who represents the future of the Democratic party
1% -- don't know

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/...312541002/

Iowa Democrats clearly want someone as different from Donald Trump on substantive issues and personal character as is possible.

[David Horn]

(12-16-2018, 07:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Des Moines Register has a poll  of Democrats on their preferences in the primary.  At this point, I will leave ot to you to sort out who has any advantage as a Democratic front-runner.

What Democrats want:

90% -- someone who will restore good relations with longtime US allies
90% -- someone with a strong moral compass
87% -- someone who understands policy and politics
89% -- someone who will unite the country
90% -- someone who respects decorum
93% -- someone who will tell the truth even if I don't agree
81% -- someone who represents the future of the Democratic party
1% -- don't know

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/...312541002/

Iowa Democrats clearly want someone as different from Donald Trump on substantive issues and personal character as is possible.

I understand the motivation to pursue the ideal anti-Trump, but really?  The last person we need leading the country is Plaster Saint 3.0. Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being.  He set a great moral standard, but he was a terrible president.  BHO had zero scandals.  He didn't get much done either.  We need a dynamic visionary and charismatic leader who can set goals and get the people behind them.  I have no idea who that might be: maybe Beto O'Rourke.  But one thing's for sure, saints and crank-turners need not apply.  I think we've had plenty of each, and neither type cancels-out scumbags, of which we have also had our fill.

[Eric the Green]

(12-16-2018, 08:39 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-16-2018, 07:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Des Moines Register has a poll  of Democrats on their preferences in the primary.  At this point, I will leave ot to you to sort out who has any advantage as a Democratic front-runner.

What Democrats want:

90% -- someone who will restore good relations with longtime US allies
90% -- someone with a strong moral compass
87% -- someone who understands policy and politics
89% -- someone who will unite the country
90% -- someone who respects decorum
93% -- someone who will tell the truth even if I don't agree
81% -- someone who represents the future of the Democratic party
1% -- don't know

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/...312541002/

Iowa Democrats clearly want someone as different from Donald Trump on substantive issues and personal character as is possible.

I understand the motivation to pursue the ideal anti-Trump, but really?  The last person we need leading the country is Plaster Saint 3.0. Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being.  He set a great moral standard, but he was a terrible president.  BHO had zero scandals.  He didn't get much done either.  We need a dynamic visionary and charismatic leader who can set goals and get the people behind them.  I have no idea who that might be: maybe Beto O'Rourke.  But one thing's for sure, saints and crank-turners need not apply.  I think we've had plenty of each, and neither type cancels-out scumbags, of which we have also had our fill.

Only skilled candidates EVER get elected USA president. That's a fact. According to the horoscope scores, which reveal inherent tendencies in people according to the maxim "as above, so below," as it relates to compatibility with what Americans want in a president, Beto O' Rourke will prove unworthy. The best choices are Mitch Landrieu and Terry McAuliffe to meet these goals reported in this post. There is some momentum for Sherrod Brown; he might have a decent chance. Biden and Sanders, I wouldn't bet on them; they might win if Trump runs again even though his popularity has plummeted well below what it is now. As of now, a 43% approval rating would be good enough base for Trump, with his superior persuasive powers, to barely seal another election in his favor-- unless Landrieu, Mc Auliffe or Brown are nominated.

[pbrower2a]

(12-16-2018, 08:39 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-16-2018, 07:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Des Moines Register has a poll  of Democrats on their preferences in the primary.  At this point, I will leave ot to you to sort out who has any advantage as a Democratic front-runner.

What Democrats want:

90% -- someone who will restore good relations with longtime US allies
90% -- someone with a strong moral compass
87% -- someone who understands policy and politics
89% -- someone who will unite the country
90% -- someone who respects decorum
93% -- someone who will tell the truth even if I don't agree
81% -- someone who represents the future of the Democratic party
1% -- don't know

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/...312541002/

Iowa Democrats clearly want someone as different from Donald Trump on substantive issues and personal character as is possible.

I understand the motivation to pursue the ideal anti-Trump, but really?  The last person we need leading the country is Plaster Saint 3.0. Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being.  He set a great moral standard, but he was a terrible president.  BHO had zero scandals.  He didn't get much done either.  We need a dynamic visionary and charismatic leader who can set goals and get the people behind them.  I have no idea who that might be: maybe Beto O'Rourke.  But one thing's for sure, saints and crank-turners need not apply.  I think we've had plenty of each, and neither type cancels-out scumbags, of which we have also had our fill.

Ideal? Most of this should be taken for granted, and in a wholesome society, people reasonably expect such and get it. Good relations with America's longtime allies was the norm with both the elder and younger George Bush. Strong moral compass? Such marks a good person, and I question whether a rogue would ever be a good President. Knowing policy and politics? 5there are things worth knowing in any endeavor. Respecting decorum? Likewise, this is something that we should expect to take for granted. Telling the truth even when such is inconvenient? Integrity creates fewer problems than does deceit. This is not to say that the President is to disclose all. A conservative Republican should reasonably demand all of this. Trump gives us none of this.

In view of the cyclical nature of American politics, a rehash of a New Deal agenda might now work if it gets a chance. Such would of course not neglect minorities as was necessary in the 1930s out of fear that Southern whites might turn to fascism to protect white privilege in its crudest form. I do not care whether this Democrat represents the recent past of the Democratic Party or the future. If it is right it will suggest the future -- maybe with younger politicians as President.

Uniting the country? Such is a pipe dream, but we seem to be in the latter part of a 4T... and the generational cycle typically forces unification of some national agenda. It may not be what we like, but it will do so. Trump had his chance, and failed.

We could have had a conservative agenda in which the political mood establishes an ethos that first come profits, then comes investment, then come jobs, then the jobs pay better, and we are all happy as we recognize the bounties of competitive 'free enterprise'. Trump has offered nothing more than crony capitalism, and by doing such he has thrown away the opportunity for conservatives to reshape the fundamentals of American life for at least eight years.

[David Horn]

(12-17-2018, 12:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-16-2018, 08:39 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-16-2018, 07:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Des Moines Register has a poll  of Democrats on their preferences in the primary.  At this point, I will leave ot to you to sort out who has any advantage as a Democratic front-runner.

What Democrats want:

90% -- someone who will restore good relations with longtime US allies
90% -- someone with a strong moral compass
87% -- someone who understands policy and politics
89% -- someone who will unite the country
90% -- someone who respects decorum
93% -- someone who will tell the truth even if I don't agree
81% -- someone who represents the future of the Democratic party
1% -- don't know

Iowa Democrats clearly want someone as different from Donald Trump on substantive issues and personal character as is possible.

I understand the motivation to pursue the ideal anti-Trump, but really?  The last person we need leading the country is Plaster Saint 3.0. Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being.  He set a great moral standard, but he was a terrible president.  BHO had zero scandals.  He didn't get much done either.  We need a dynamic visionary and charismatic leader who can set goals and get the people behind them.  I have no idea who that might be: maybe Beto O'Rourke.  But one thing's for sure, saints and crank-turners need not apply.  I think we've had plenty of each, and neither type cancels-out scumbags, of which we have also had our fill.

Only skilled candidates EVER get elected USA president. That's a fact. According to the horoscope scores, which reveal inherent tendencies in people according to the maxim "as above, so below," as it relates to compatibility with what Americans want in a president, Beto O' Rourke will prove unworthy. The best choices are Mitch Landrieu and Terry McAuliffe to meet these goals reported in this post. There is some momentum for Sherrod Brown; he might have a decent chance. Biden and Sanders, I wouldn't bet on them; they might win if Trump runs again even though his popularity has plummeted well below what it is now. As of now, a 43% approval rating would be good enough base for Trump, with his superior persuasive powers, to barely seal another election in his favor-- unless Landrieu, Mc Auliffe or Brown are nominated.

Yes, it takes a person skilled at RUNNING for President to be ELECTED President. That said, the real skill set needed is BEING President, and getting the job is not the same as doing it, as Trump has shown in spades. I don't see any of the names on your preferred list being the one, though Mitch Landrieu is probably the best of those listed. What we really need is a Winston Churchill or FDR, and leaders of that caliber are always in short supply. At the moment, I don't see any. Beto O'Rourke may be one, but he's too untested for us to evaluate him, and Amy Klobuchar seems to have the chops but may be unelectable.

[pbrower2a]

(12-17-2018, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote: Yes, it takes a person skilled at RUNNING for President to be ELECTED President.  That said, the real skill set needed is BEING President, and getting the job is not the same as doing it, as Trump has shown in spades.  I don't see any of the names on your preferred list being the one, though Mitch Landrieu is probably the best of those listed.  What we really need is a Winston Churchill or FDR, and leaders of that caliber are always in short supply.  At the moment, I don't see any.  Beto O'Rourke may be one, but he's too untested for us to evaluate him, and Amy Klobuchar seems to have the chops but may be unelectable.

Success in prior elected office seems the most relevant factor in making a successful President. Beto O'Rourke is untested. He may have the political skills, but he has never won a statewide elective office. Congressional Representatives and big-city mayors are typically two steps away from the Presidency. At this point I would prefer that Beto O'Rourke run for the Senate seat up for re-election  in Texas in 2020. He is young enough that he could win later in the event that something goes wrong between 2021 and 2024 for the Democratic President.

I see President Trump losing in 2020 to practically any Democrat. He has proved himself a mistake. Sure, he is a businessman  and has brought his business-like ways to the Presidency, but there is more to the Presidency than saying "my way or the highway" to everyone in America. One can say that to one's employees or even to customers in a captive market -- but as President of the United States he is not everybody's boss.

As for Amy Klobuchar -- she may lack charisma, but she does know what to do. She typically wins her Senate seat by a landslide (which Obama also did, a fair indication of what she can do). She got 60% of the vote in 2018 in a not-so-strong D state, indicating that she does some things right. It may be Donald Trump who gives her a chance.

FDR was "too radical" in the 1920s, but in the 1930s he was just right after the problems of America were too radical for the canonical solutions of the 1920s. Churchill was too much of a troublemaker (a common swipe at him was "He will offend Hitler, so he is too risky") until the trouble was already in place. This is a 4T, and core realities can change drastically and decisively.

We may need a crafty politician who has the discretion to decide which derrieres to kick and which feet to step on -- and which people are to be treated with kid gloves. Trump is lacking in those aspects of politics.

[pbrower2a]

Now what do Iowa Republicans want?

90 A person with a strong moral compass
90 A person who will tell the truth, even if I don’t agree
87 Someone who will not raise the national debt
87 Someone who will unite the country
85 A person with experience cutting budgets
83 Someone who will restore relationships with longtime U.S. allies
83 Believer in small government
80 Someone who represents the future of the Republican Party
72 A person with deep knowledge of policy and politics
69 Christian conservative
64 Someone who respects decorum

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/12/16...n.poll.pdf

pbrower2a Wrote:What Democrats want:

90% -- someone who will restore good relations with longtime US allies
90% -- someone with a strong moral compass
87% -- someone who understands policy and politics
89% -- someone who will unite the country
90% -- someone who respects decorum
93% -- someone who will tell the truth even if I don't agree
81% -- someone who represents the future of the Democratic party
1% -- don't know

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/...312541002/

Iowa Democrats clearly want someone as different from Donald Trump on substantive issues and personal character as is possible.

There is some common ground and it is in boldface. Percentages may differ significantly, as on decorum. R tastes in politics are clearly different even on issues not of policy. Of course, polarized as America is, words (think of 'freedom') may mean different things on opposite sides of the partisan rift. This said, "decorum" to a conservative Republican who is also a fundamentalist protestant may require that someone show respect for such bunkum as young-earth creationism.

Republicans may believe in more things that Democrats consider impossible or irrelevant. Integrity, competence, and decency matter. Republicans may be more intent on achieving a specific agenda and endorsing their identity, but this said, I doubt that Democrats endorse waste and graft. Republicans put less significance on decorum, but they think on the whole that it is a good idea. (Even Republicans believe that the President would fare better if he did not leak his spur-of-the-moment, unedited, abrasive tweets, which I did not show). 

Again, this is a 4T, and a 4T can compel people to acquiesce with things that they find distasteful and counerintuitive, but necessary. Survival can be at stake for much more than a specific agenda -- like the country, the legal and political heritage, any possibility of prosperity and progress, the culture, and civilization itself.

[Eric the Green]

(12-17-2018, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-17-2018, 12:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-16-2018, 08:39 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-16-2018, 07:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Des Moines Register has a poll  of Democrats on their preferences in the primary.  At this point, I will leave ot to you to sort out who has any advantage as a Democratic front-runner.

What Democrats want:

90% -- someone who will restore good relations with longtime US allies
90% -- someone with a strong moral compass
87% -- someone who understands policy and politics
89% -- someone who will unite the country
90% -- someone who respects decorum
93% -- someone who will tell the truth even if I don't agree
81% -- someone who represents the future of the Democratic party
1% -- don't know

Iowa Democrats clearly want someone as different from Donald Trump on substantive issues and personal character as is possible.

I understand the motivation to pursue the ideal anti-Trump, but really?  The last person we need leading the country is Plaster Saint 3.0. Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being.  He set a great moral standard, but he was a terrible president.  BHO had zero scandals.  He didn't get much done either.  We need a dynamic visionary and charismatic leader who can set goals and get the people behind them.  I have no idea who that might be: maybe Beto O'Rourke.  But one thing's for sure, saints and crank-turners need not apply.  I think we've had plenty of each, and neither type cancels-out scumbags, of which we have also had our fill.

Only skilled candidates EVER get elected USA president. That's a fact. According to the horoscope scores, which reveal inherent tendencies in people according to the maxim "as above, so below," as it relates to compatibility with what Americans want in a president, Beto O' Rourke will prove unworthy. The best choices are Mitch Landrieu and Terry McAuliffe to meet these goals reported in this post. There is some momentum for Sherrod Brown; he might have a decent chance. Biden and Sanders, I wouldn't bet on them; they might win if Trump runs again even though his popularity has plummeted well below what it is now. As of now, a 43% approval rating would be good enough base for Trump, with his superior persuasive powers, to barely seal another election in his favor-- unless Landrieu, Mc Auliffe or Brown are nominated.

Yes, it takes a person skilled at RUNNING for President to be ELECTED President.  That said, the real skill set needed is BEING President, and getting the job is not the same as doing it, as Trump has shown in spades.  I don't see any of the names on your preferred list being the one, though Mitch Landrieu is probably the best of those listed.  What we really need is a Winston Churchill or FDR, and leaders of that caliber are always in short supply.  At the moment, I don't see any.  Beto O'Rourke may be one, but he's too untested for us to evaluate him, and Amy Klobuchar seems to have the chops but may be unelectable.

Well, you said before that McAuliffe had been a competent governor of your state, and that is certainly true. I don't think any of the potential candidates can be known for sure to be a potential Churchill or FDR. Any of them would have to grow into the role, it appears. My scoring method is not too reliable about who has the best skills at BEING president, because the number of examples to look at is small, and people disagree about who should be counted among them. I can guess, according to the astrological traditions, but that would not be the empirical method that seems to work very consistently. There could be an indicator of who each person thinks would be a best president, according to the list of presidents (s)he draws up. As for what is needed in a nominee, the Iowa poll confirmed that the people want someone who can beat Trump. That was confirmed on the PBS Newshour tonight. 

As you know, I recommend the system I have developed as a good indicator of just who that is. Mostly that can be confirmed by any good observer of the candidates, but Beto O'Rourke seems so far to appear to us as much better than his score indicates. That score says he would go down in flames, even against a crippled Trump. Some are now wondering about him, since he ran as a progressive but his record is less than that. So how consistent, courageous and honest is he, really? Does he have the level of strength needed, and does he give the impression of powerful leadership qualities that Americans vote for, as well as just some charm, idealism, youth, good looks and smooth talk? As you say, he is untested. They say he's like Bobby Kennedy, but RFK's score also suggests that he actually might not have been elected had he lived. Even Humphrey had a better score than RFK too. And there's probably an element of destiny at work as to who actually gets elected. They say character is destiny, but who knows, sometimes larger forces are at work.

[David Horn]

(12-17-2018, 08:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well, you said before that McAuliffe had been a competent governor of your state, and that is certainly true. I don't think any of the potential candidates can be known for sure to be a potential Churchill or FDR. Any of them would have to grow into the role, it appears. My scoring method is not too reliable about who has the best skills at BEING president, because the number of examples to look at is small, and people disagree about who should be counted among them. I can guess, according to the astrological traditions, but that would not be the empirical method that seems to work very consistently. There could be an indicator of who each person thinks would be a best president, according to the list of presidents (s)he draws up. As for what is needed in a nominee, the Iowa poll confirmed that the people want someone who can beat Trump. That was confirmed on the PBS Newshour tonight. 

McAuliffe was a really competent crank-turner, and a bit of a salesman to boot. These are all good traits, but far from those needed of a visionary. We desperately need someone who will do for the Democrats what Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan did for the Republicans: point the way.

This time, the way forward has to be something new and innovative. We've never been in a situation like the present, but the same was true when FDR began to fix the mess the markets created in the Great Depression. There is a buzzing sound that tells me that the right idea is being culled from many not-so-good ones, and the culling is being done by groups like Indivisible and the New Democrats. They need to hurry.

Eric Wrote:As you know, I recommend the system I have developed as a good indicator of just who that is. Mostly that can be confirmed by any good observer of the candidates, but Beto O'Rourke seems so far to appear to us as much better than his score indicates. That score says he would go down in flames, even against a crippled Trump. Some are now wondering about him, since he ran as a progressive but his record is less than that. So how consistent, courageous and honest is he, really? Does he have the level of strength needed, and does he give the impression of powerful leadership qualities that Americans vote for, as well as just some charm, idealism, youth, good looks and smooth talk? As you say, he is untested. They say he's like Bobby Kennedy, but RFK's score also suggests that he actually might not have been elected had he lived. Even Humphrey had a better score than RFK too. And there's probably an element of destiny at work as to who actually gets elected. They say character is destiny, but who knows, sometimes larger forces are at work.

Beto has the spark; he may lack the fire. I honestly don't know. I do know that he has a talent to say the right things at the right times. That may not be enough. Unfortunately, there are so few others in the wings with enough grounding to make their vision a reality. Some have suggested that an elder statesman like Joe Biden should run in 2020 on the platform that (s)he will stand aside in 2024. OK, but that's means the VP will have to be one who will carry the flame. Any Veep ideas?

[Eric the Green]

Since Landrieu (score 16-2) served as a lieutenant governor, and has that experience as the second-person to the leader, he would be the best choice that could be made, as a vice-president for Biden (14-7) in 2020, and thus a potential presidential candidate in 2024. Given the advantage which the new moon indicator before the election gives to Republicans in these cases, a candidate with a high horoscope score is essential. I don't see any others besides McAuliffe (11+-2) that could make the grade for sure. Sherrod Brown being my 3rd possibility, has some chance as well.

From what I have heard, McAuliffe is a visionary on a practical level. He doesn't have the eloquence of an Abraham Lincoln (score 16-3), and probably Landrieu does not either. But not seeing anyone else on the horizon now who has any real chance to win, I think so far those are the only possible leaders to take us through the 4T. Maybe the eloquence of a Lincoln or Kennedy (13-6) is not what will work now; maybe a practical visionary, salesman and crank-turner will do the job.

I don't know if a progressive can be elected or re-elected in Nov.2028, given the likely 1T mood coming on. It's possible, but my indicator shows this is unlikely. So if we want a two-term gray champion type, then perhaps (s)he'd better get elected in 2020.

[Eric the Green]

This video makes a lot of good points I agree with. Of course, he doesn't have the benefit of my horoscope system, which says O'Rourke and Harris cannot be elected. However, they could be nominated.