From the arch-druid

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-02-25/the-decline-and-fall-of-hillary-cli...

Interesting article on a lot of levels and pretty much spot on the way I see things trending in the future--which is why I remain optimistic even and despite the prospect of a potential Trump presidency on the horizon. IMO--more people than ever are getting that not only is our economy rigged but the establishment of both major parties of our political system has brought it about and those established are desperate to keep the rigged economic/political systems intact and they will become even more increasingly desperate as more of the public comes to this realization and that realization is happening more and more.

> 1

From the article - "....she’ll still probably get the nomination—..."

- Which is probably true. And that is the sad thing.

I do have some quibbles with it. For one I think Obama's 2008 campaign did have a lot of substance to it. He spoke often about looking at reviewing past trade agreements--rebuilding infrastructure, looking at alternative energy options, jobs programs and as far as foreign policy we were going to dial back the overseas adventure shit--we weren't going to torture blah, blah, blah and we were going to have a more transparent govt. And then there was health care which he did make some (but IMO not quite enough) progress with. A lot of that IMO was upended by the investment banking thing (which the deregulating Bush administration was very much responsible for--though Bill Clinton played his part in that too) that tanked our economy and bailing out Wall St. and all that shit had his administration on the defensive from the get go. I don't think he's been a bad POTUS all in all but he made some bad mistakes and one of the worst was bailing out Goldman Sachs and their friends.

One problem I have with Clinton beating Trump is that four years from now the democratic party will be circling the wagons around her to get her to a second term. To me the democratic party can fix itself but it needs someone like Sanders or Warren or some new blood to do that. Hillary winning the presidency complicates and delays that from happening. The old guard--the Pelosi's and Harry Reid's I won't be sorry to see the back end of some of these people. They're just as corrupt as the Clinton's, Bush's and the people of this country don't need them. As for the republican party there's no fixing that. It is hilarious to me how Trump has absolutely demolished all the favorite sons of that party. In tatters. IMO--a lot of what he says is dangerously ignorant. If he were to win IMO it will be a one term thing. The question is how much damage could he do in that much time?--and he could do a lot starting with his supreme court justice but legislatively IMO he'll have a hard time accomplishing anything. The establishment of his own party are aghast and embarrassed and I don't think they're going to be much help to him.

If the past 20 some years has taught me anything we need a fair and regulated economy that works for the citizens of our country and we need the kind of single payer health care that Hillary used to talk about and that Bernie Sanders wants to give us----amongst other things.

"He (Spengler) argued that democracy suffers from a lethal vulnerability, which is that it has no meaningful defenses against the influence of money."

That's a bald way to put it. Are there no meaningful defenses? There have been in the past, in a periodic way.

#3--I've heard of Spengler but I really don't know him. Anyway depending on how you regulate your economy and depending on how you enforce those regulations there is your defense.

"Iʻʻve heard of Spengler, but I really donʻt
know him" (5)

Youʻre not (imo) missing much. Maybe I
had a bad introduction to O. S. and
developed a prejudice, because the first
"Spenglerian" I ever conversed with
was a disgruntled Fascist-leaning unpublished
author. I asked him: if, conceding the
doubtful point that "we" are paralleling the
(downward) progress of the Romans, might
we be NOT at the 4th-5th c. A.D. stage right
now (the 1950s Cold War Era), but at the era
of the Punic Wars j (3rd c. B.C.)? He scoffed
at that and said, no,weʻre definitely at
the Decline and Fall stage.

Spengler's Decline of the West is a remarkable book full of much to contest but also strewn with poetic philosophy, and deeply prescient regarding civilizational changes before during and after its writing.

I don't know that our system is "rigged." If you've got the brains to get a high-paying job, money can help you avoid many problems. Money gives you more freedom and more control over your destiny. It gives you more options for a happpy life. When you hear about people wanting money, it isn't always motivated by greed.

People who acquire money to do other things don't seem to get as much money (and as much influence) as those who simply want as much money as possible. (In general; there are, as always, exceptions.)

It's not that the system is rigged; just that it developed into a system that rewards sociopathy more than altruism.

When has altruism ever been rewarded?

Would it still be altruism if it was rewarded?

I think it would still be altruism, since
the reward would, presumably come
from a voluntary source, and one not
expecting a reward.