Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Next President?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Techdread
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by jk View Post
    i really appreciate the level-headed way you deal with this stuff, dcarrigg. i'm always happy to read your posts and writing less myself helps control my blood pressure.
    +1

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Coles
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
    What ideas? What problems?

    We can't even agree on what facts are.

    There's no way to innovate out of those loggerheads.

    We'd first have to agree that there are problems. We'd then have to agree on what those problems are. We'd then have to agree on acting to solve them. And that's all before we even get to the point of discussing solutions.
    .
    I don't see it happening. People are just gonna get more polarized until one vision or another comes to fruition. If we get to the 2030s it seems either we'll have no corporate or estate or cap gains taxes, or we'll have universal healthcare and affordable college and more progressive taxes. Either way, the deficit is going towards 150% of GDP. Those are the choices I see.

    I don't see a middle ground. The status quo is not a stable state. It's like civil unions, they seemed like a good compromise between gay marriage and no gay marriage, but the middle was actually an untenable position that couldn't last. Doing nothing at this point and clinging to the status quo will create change just as fast as doing something.

    There are folks who labeled Uncle Sam a beast, and they set out to starve him. They did a pretty bang up job too. Now he's hungry. Either they'll push until the job is done and they've starved him out, or he'll feast. Either way, I expect the next 10 years to be much more interesting than the last.
    Yesterday I asked Finster Market Discussion - Page 27 if he had read the latest speech by the FED Chairman Powell Federal Reserve Board - Recent Economic Developments and Longer-Term Challenges as I believe that there is an underlying debate going on and that this speech confirms that.

    Finster, as you will no doubt remember, I had placed up here on iTulip a debate about a possible use of the FED $ stash as http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...-Roots-Economy and, that I did also send a copy to Powell at the FED, as also a copy to the White House. Not sure if you noticed, but this speech by Powell in New York February 28th Federal Reserve Board - Recent Economic Developments and Longer-Term Challenges seems to point towards his taking some of my underlying points on board, particularly about the possibility of the unemployment figures being too good to be true. Again, he seems to be asking for further political guidance, beyond their normal remit. I would welcome your viewpoint. Chris.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Coles
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by geodrome View Post
    Gotta pick? Must pick? Can't be "neutral?"

    Imagine a voter turnout of 15%. A big FU from the people. No mandate. What then?
    Perfect!

    Leave a comment:


  • vt
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Here's how Shultz or some other independent could win the Presidency:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.79806404d861

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    In the Starspins of Zorelta 3127 there was a planet called Blornax. Blornax was the seat of a powerful trading empire, the most powerful planet in the Galaxy, actually. This wasn't something many foresaw just a few hundred starspins ago. Blornax was located on an out of the way spiral arm. It was more or less a political oddity, never the most populated planet, and long somewhat untamed. In fact, settlers from the galactic core only landed on Blornax about 500 starspins ago.

    But for the last couple hundred starspins, Blornax had been more or less ruled by a Chancellor. The Blornaxians were good spacefarers and ship builders. Blornax itself was full of valuable natural resources and good farmlands. Every few starspins they'd elect a new Blornaxian Assembly and a new Chancellor. Soon the Blornaxian military and trade routes stretched across the Galaxy. And with that came great wealth and great expenses.

    There had always been a number of very wealthy Blornaxian families, just as there had always been Blornaxian slums. At least as far as anyone could remember that was the case. Most Blornaxians thought of this as the normal order of things, and very few bothered to question it. But then, about the YoZ 3110, a quiet change took place.

    See, in 3110, the High Court of Blornax issued a decree. It ruled that, since telepathy helmets and telepathic transmissions cost credits, and since Blornaxians are guaranteed the right to telepathy, that therefore credits were an expression of telepathy, and so unlimited sums of credits could be spent during a Blornaxian election to send out telepathic messages for or against any candidate one wishes, and the Blornaxian Assembly was no longer allowed to regulate spending on political telepathy.

    Most Blornaxians thought this was probably a bad idea. Most did not like it. But, nevertheless, it came to pass and became the law of the land. Blornaxians soon went back to arguing about other issues and largely forgot all about it.

    What few Blornaxians noticed was that an odd shift in power on Blornax had already begun. Three years after the High Court's decree, the first credit bleenionaire was appointed Minister of Commerce by the Chancellor. Blornaxians use an odd base 11 number system, and ut doesn't quite translate, but suffice it to say that bleen is quite a large sum. Only a hundred or so families on all of Blornax were bleenionaires. And in all of Blornaxian history, even adjusting credits for inflation, no bleenionaires have ever served as Minister before.

    But, as I said, most Blornaxians didn't stop to notice. Normal Blornaxians were just tired and stressed. They were constantly bombarded with more and more telepathic messages, from Blornax and beyond. Most were just advertising products. But some clever folks skilled in telepathic technology were probing ever deeper into the minds of Blornaxians, working to find out intimate details that might be used to nudge their behavior through future telepathic messages timed just right.

    And in any event, it seemed most Blornaxians had to work harder and harder and go to school longer and longer just to stay out of the slums. Things were not dire for Blornaxians. They still were largely comfortable by galactic standards. But the trade rules had been repeatedly changed over the last few starspins in ways that disadvantaged most Blornaxians, but which led to large windfalls for the hundred bleenionaires families.

    Bleenionaires meanwhile had been buying up more and more of the telepathic networks. Everyone knew this, but most Blornaxians didn't pay it much mind. After all, as long as the telepathic broadcasts were still there, who cared if the owner of them was a bleenionaire or a slevionaire or someone with even lesser means? A transmission is a transmission, right?

    And so, obvious and in plain sight as it occurred, nobody stopped to question what was happening when the first bleenionaire was elected Chancellor just three years after the first bleenionaire had been appointed Minister of Commerce. And this new Chancellor appointed members of five other bleenionaire families as Ministers.

    Soon other bleenionaire families on Blornax took notice. One of them moved immediately to try and remove the Chancellor. Several others sent telepathic messages across Blornax stating their intentions to run against the Chancellor in 2120. Nine short starspins after the High Court of Blornax ruled that credits were telepathy, the separation of wealth and political power on Blornax had all but totally disappeared.

    But still, few Blornaxians noticed. Few cared. A good chunk griped that the bleenionaires had raided the Blornaxian Treasury and that life was getting harder for most Blornaxians. But somehow few grasped the gravity of bleenionaires suddenly for the first time in Blornaxian history actively capturing political office and bleenionaire families suddenly spending enormous quantities of credits on telepathy as they started fighting amongst themselves for political power.

    See, the bleenionaires had long been the heads of the most lucrative trade routes, and they knew a thing or two about how far they could push negotiations. They figured that they had already squeezed the average Blornaxian about as hard as they could, at least while the Blornaxian Republic still stood. And they knew they raided the Blornaxian Treasury, in fact, it was empty and they had been borrowing on the planet's credit to maintain their lavish lifestyles. And no new trade routes had been discovered in tens of starspins. If the bleenionaire families wanted their fortunes to grow, and most did, the obvious next step was to capture existing trade routes from rival bleenionaire families. Soon bleenionaire families were investing heavily in starships and mercenaries along with telepathy. They were digging in for the long war, and preparing to turn on each other. The Blornaxian Republic had turned into a mere appendage for their own affairs.

    Which brings us to the Starspin 3127...

    Leave a comment:


  • vt
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...crisis-1191637

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by vt View Post
    Voter turnout has been declining historically. There are at least 40% that do not vote:

    http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present


    I have a theory that many of the actual voters for Clinton and Trump were not necessarily strong supporters. They may well have been voting Against the other candidate than For who they vote in favor of.

    There are likely more than enough voters to gain 34% of the vote to win a Presidental election. Not high percentage odds but doable. Perot polled at least that high and lead for a short period.
    That's Michael McDonald's website. Here are his figures for 2018 and his thoughts about 2020: https://mobile.twitter.com/electproj...04733841879040

    Turnout is historically very high. It was higher back in the day when women couldn't vote at all and you had property qualifications and Jim Crow hurdles that limited the voting eligible population. But there were never more Americans that voted in a midterm than in 2018. https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com...ince-1914.html

    Leave a comment:


  • vt
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Voter turnout has been declining historically. There are at least 40% that do not vote:

    http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present


    I have a theory that many of the actual voters for Clinton and Trump were not necessarily strong supporters. They may well have been voting Against the other candidate than For who they vote in favor of.

    There are likely more than enough voters to gain 34% of the vote to win a Presidental election. Not high percentage odds but doable. Perot polled at least that high and lead for a short period.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by vt View Post
    Yada, yada.

    Paint anyone who disagrees with a left wing agenda as a heartless person who wants to deny health care and education to little children.

    Bill Clinton was a centrist and his administration did well. Democrats and Republicans were both centrists before 2000.

    You have no idea how any one voted or even if they voted. Not sure today's leftists really want to solve problems, just get control.

    Have those on the left who use the race card and other lies ever lived exclusively with the poor on a poverty wage? Did you come from working poor? Have family that came from dirt poor poverty?

    Maybe those that want to throw even more money at the Democrat controlled education and health care rackets just want to create more high paying bureaucratic, unproductive paper shuffling jobs pay off their educated party elite, than to help the poor improve health and education and become middle class individuals.

    They'll keep going down that same old tired road to failure, but still getting votes to stay in power because they "care".

    As Woodsman said the left and right elites have no idea what they are doing and that their days a few. They will be replaced as independents with real innovative ideas to solve problems are voted into power and unite the nation.
    What ideas? What problems?

    We can't even agree on what facts are.

    There's no way to innovate out of those loggerheads.

    We'd first have to agree that there are problems. We'd then have to agree on what those problems are. We'd then have to agree on acting to solve them. And that's all before we even get to the point of discussing solutions.
    .
    I don't see it happening. People are just gonna get more polarized until one vision or another comes to fruition. If we get to the 2030s it seems either we'll have no corporate or estate or cap gains taxes, or we'll have universal healthcare and affordable college and more progressive taxes. Either way, the deficit is going towards 150% of GDP. Those are the choices I see.

    I don't see a middle ground. The status quo is not a stable state. It's like civil unions, they seemed like a good compromise between gay marriage and no gay marriage, but the middle was actually an untenable position that couldn't last. Doing nothing at this point and clinging to the status quo will create change just as fast as doing something.

    There are folks who labeled Uncle Sam a beast, and they set out to starve him. They did a pretty bang up job too. Now he's hungry. Either they'll push until the job is done and they've starved him out, or he'll feast. Either way, I expect the next 10 years to be much more interesting than the last.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    2018 turnout was the highest in a midterm in over 100 years. Extremely high on both sides. In another environment maybe that happens. But I don't see it as a possibility in the here and now. The electorate is less centrist and less complacent than any time in living memory. Conversely, they are more active and more polarized than too. The idea that they'll all just suddenly give up the ghost and become centrists or non voters without some massive intervening event seems super improbable given the trends.

    I'm on about what I think will happen, not what I think ought to.
    Last edited by dcarrigg; 02-27-19, 05:31 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • geodrome
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
    You gotta pick, 1 or 2. Can't be neutral on a moving train.
    Gotta pick? Must pick? Can't be "neutral?"

    Imagine a voter turnout of 15%. A big FU from the people. No mandate. What then?

    Leave a comment:


  • vt
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Yada, yada.

    Paint anyone who disagrees with a left wing agenda as a heartless person who wants to deny health care and education to little children.

    Bill Clinton was a centrist and his administration did well. Democrats and Republicans were both centrists before 2000.

    You have no idea how any one voted or even if they voted. Not sure today's leftists really want to solve problems, just get control.

    Have those on the left who use the race card and other lies ever lived exclusively with the poor on a poverty wage? Did you come from working poor? Have family that came from dirt poor poverty?

    Maybe those that want to throw even more money at the Democrat controlled education and health care rackets just want to create more high paying bureaucratic, unproductive paper shuffling jobs pay off their educated party elite, than to help the poor improve health and education and become middle class individuals.

    They'll keep going down that same old tired road to failure, but still getting votes to stay in power because they "care".

    As Woodsman said the left and right elites have no idea what they are doing and that their days a few. They will be replaced as independents with real innovative ideas to solve problems are voted into power and unite the nation.

    Leave a comment:


  • jk
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    i really appreciate the level-headed way you deal with this stuff, dcarrigg. i'm always happy to read your posts and writing less myself helps control my blood pressure.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    I don't know how much more clearly I can explain this. One more try. There's two theories on how to stimulate the economy at this point. There is no austerity party. There is no third party. It is a binary choice.

    Option 1: Cut taxes for rich people hoping it spurs investment.
    Option 2: Invest in the health and education of workers, hoping it spurs productivity.

    The story of the last half century has been choosing option 1 every time as hard as we can, and even cutting access to option 2 and making it more expensive over time, to the point life expectancy is going backwards, people are despondent, and homeownership rates are back down to Hoover levels for the youth.

    You gotta pick, 1 or 2. Can't be neutral on a moving train. You and I both know you pulled the straight ticket R lever. You can't even criticize a single thing they do. I can. Clinton wanted to cut taxes for the rich too. Just like her husband. Just like Carter. You called all them socialist too. But they were really more like Tony Blair, who was just Thatcher in a suit. He was so right wing and deep in Rupert Murdoch's business, he ended up sleeping with his wife, the Chinese spy after he cooked up fake and poorly forged intel to get into the Iraq War, introduced tuition fees, and cut back on nurses.

    That's what centrism is. That's what the pox on both houses people mean. Pick option 1 every time, cut back on option 2. Obamacare was a Heritage foundation plan, cooked up by John Chafee, the Rhode Island Republican and implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. But when a right wing Democrat tried it Nationwide, you called it socialism and tried to destroy even your own plan.

    Don't you see? The boy cried wolf too many times. If Republican plans cooked up by Republican Senators and the Coors family's Republican think tank back in the 1990s are branded socialist in the 2010s, then everything is socialist. Canada is socialist. Venezuela's socialist. China's socialist. Everywhere and everything is socialist. Pretty soon, it means nothing. You just use the word to describe anything you don't like.

    So you see what happens, right? Kids know you don't like them. They know that anything that might make their lives better, or really any change whatsoever at all except tax cuts, you will just brand as socialist. So more and more they're starting to just take up the label. If Canada's socialist and it seemed nice up there, why not try it, right? Be careful what you wish for. You call right wing Democrats and 1990s tax levels and Republican market based healthcare exchanges socialist long enough that I think nobody will believe you when the real wolf comes. They'll just go, "Oh, that's just grandpa, he always mutters some nonsense about free markets and socialism. I think it's probably something about the cold war from when he was a kid. Anyway, don't mind him."

    Then the kids will hop online and talk to their friends from other countries where they see threads and Instagram photos of outrageous tuition and medical bills every day and every Brit and Canadian and even the Aussies send their pity and advise the broke American to emigrate. But in that environment, your solution is even more tax cuts for the rich. Just keep hitting that same note. Health and education are socialism. Unlimited tax subsidies for billionaires is the only path forward.
    Last edited by dcarrigg; 02-27-19, 09:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • vt
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    First, it's both sides. They both have elites. Democratic socialists have elites that will bankrupt the country and leave all poor.
    And the right wing elites that have their elites that try to keep all for self.

    However socialism in all forms destroys economies and fairly regulated free markets allow poor, uneducated hard working people
    break out and create a larger middle class. It's all about freedom and the current progressives want to stifle it.

    As you may recall I disliked both candidates. In 2016 I stated numerous times that Democrat Jim Webb was the best candidate running, and one who could unite the nation.

    I also stated ban all money from all sources for political candidates. Give them a stipend to spend and that's it. Get the money out of the system.

    I came from blue collar and went to public schools that probably the most diverse in the country. Best friends of all races and nationalities.

    I stated why did the progressive fail to try the banksters and politicians that caused the crash. Of course it was the big bucks that they so gladly accepted to be bought off.

    There's a pox on both houses and the holier than thou progressive, media supported lackey party doesn't want to admit there part in the payoffs.

    Hopefully we see a third party get rid of these two divisive political party charlatans.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X