Utah = Battle Ground State. Does that change your vote?

[Siro]

Don't give the President(any president) credit for the collective action of over 300 million people.

The boomers created the strong economy in the nineties, the distorted economy in the 2000's, and they also created the great recession. The millenials are slowly but surely pulling us out of that downturn. When they are in their prime working/consuming years the economy will be booming again. They will go through their mid life crisis, distort the economy, and ultimately cause a crash just like the boomers did.

I never understood these generational arguments. It's not like a bunch of people were born in 1960, then you had a lull until they hit the age of 25, at which point they all had their next generation babies.

It's a continuous process where similar number of people are filtering in and out of society. Changes to social and cultural norms should result in a smooth curve, and not in abrupt bursts as one generation leaves the force and another enters.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

I never understood these generational arguments. It's not like a bunch of people were born in 1960, then you had a lull until they hit the age of 25, at which point they all had their next generation babies.

It's a continuous process where similar number of people are filtering in and out of society. Changes to social and cultural norms should result in a smooth curve, and not in abrupt bursts as one generation leaves the force and another enters.

Agreed. I have faith in the next generation to make better decisions. It's not like boomers were following in the generational footsteps of the greatest generation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[♪alt13]

I never understood these generational arguments. It's not like a bunch of people were born in 1960, then you had a lull until they hit the age of 25, at which point they all had their next generation babies.

It's a continuous process where similar number of people are filtering in and out of society. Changes to social and cultural norms should result in a smooth curve, and not in abrupt bursts as one generation leaves the force and another enters.

Thanks to world war 2 and the great depression the baby boomers are a clear wave running through the population pool. People in their 20's have no money. People in their 30's spend all their money. People in their 40's-50's invest their money. People in their 50's-60's horde their money. Keep in mind that that wave of people own nearly 75% of the nations wealth.

 

[♪alt13]

I would add that the effect the boomers had on the economy was multiplied by the transistor maturing basically on the same timeline that they were.

 

[Stoked]

Baby Peterz the topic has moved to economics and that's the deep end for me. Not dodging the earlier topic. Thread has just moved on.

 

[Siro]

Thanks to world war 2 and the great depression the baby boomers are a clear wave running through the population pool. People in their 20's have no money. People in their 30's spend all their money. People in their 40's-50's invest their money. People in their 50's-60's horde their money. Keep in mind that that wave of people own nearly 75% of the nations wealth.

That might make sense for the boomers given the unusual effects of WWII on the population. I am skeptical of the general concept of "generations", and I do not see how it can be meaningful. I similarly find the categorization by decade to be arbitrary. I am at work and typing stealthy from my phone, but all I'm saying is that I'm having a hard time extracting meaning from that concept.

 

[Stoked]

That might make sense for the boomers given the unusual effects of WWII on the population. I am skeptical of the general concept of "generations", and I do not see how it can be meaningful. I similarly find the categorization by decade to be arbitrary. I am at work and typing stealthy from my phone, but all I'm saying is that I'm having a hard time extracting meaning from that concept.

One meaning is how it affects Social Security. The worker to retiree ratio has dropped dramatically. Less workers for each retiree now. Makes it harder to stay solvent.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Baby Peterz the topic has moved to economics and that's the deep end for me. Not dodging the earlier topic. Thread has just moved on.

Word. So in an attempt to re-rail the thread, how can one justify voting against the clear opposition to a Trump presidency? Even if you believe as [MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION] does, that your vote doesn't matter, a vote in opposition of the true threat to the enemy is a vote for the enemy.

A Trump presidency would be a sad, stupid disaster.

I would like to hear the argument to the contrary.

 

[♪alt13]

That might make sense for the boomers given the unusual effects of WWII on the population. I am skeptical of the general concept of "generations", and I do not see how it can be meaningful. I similarly find the categorization by decade to be arbitrary. I am at work and typing stealthy from my phone, but all I'm saying is that I'm having a hard time extracting meaning from that concept.

The baby boomers(and the forgotten generation) are categorized by a deviation in total births. Subsequent generations should also be categorized by their deviation but they will be less obvious until eventually the ripples dissipate or a new event causes a new wave.

Beyond that shared experiences do shape a group of people. We probably can find something worth examining based on say growing up during the aids epidemic, or in the age of terrorism, that I think generations will still be a valuable thing to discuss on some level.

 

[♪alt13]

Word. So in an attempt to re-rail the thread, how can one justify voting against the clear opposition to a Trump presidency? Even if you believe as [MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION] does, that your vote doesn't matter, a vote in opposition of the true threat to the enemy is a vote for the enemy.

A Trump presidency would be a sad, stupid disaster.

I would like to hear the argument to the contrary.

Hey, don't try and make the conversation less interesting by immediately jumping back to Trump. Haven't we had enough of that already?

just sayin

 

[Stoked]

Word. So in an attempt to re-rail the thread, how can one justify voting against the clear opposition to a Trump presidency? Even if you believe as [MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION] does, that your vote doesn't matter, a vote in opposition of the true threat to the enemy is a vote for the enemy.

A Trump presidency would be a sad, stupid disaster.

I would like to hear the argument to the contrary.

Ok.

I also think that a Trump presidency would be a disaster. But I think that a Clinton one would as well. In different ways of course but still terrible. They are both bad enough, IMO, that it seems pointless to me to argue who is worse. So I disagree with the premise of Clinton being clearly superior to Trump. To me they are both "the enemy".

As for Utah. It is a reliably red state. So any time, money and effort that needs to be spent there will be spent by Trump not Clinton. That is less time and money Trump will spend in places like NV that Clinton does need. Johnson will be his challenger here and the majority of Johnson votes from Utah will come at Trumps expense. Clinton doesn't need Utah(at all), Trump does. This scenario hurts Trump far worse than Clinton.

This isn't FL or IA we are talking about. It's a state that has been safely red forever that has never stopped a D from winning by being red.

As for Johnson, I don't expect him to win. What I'm hoping for is a 15% in the polls his presence in stage for the debates. A chance at shocking the Rs and Ds. Into a shot across their bow that we are tired of **** policies, **** candidates and political games.

 

[Siro]

One meaning is how it affects Social Security. The worker to retiree ratio has dropped dramatically. Less workers for each retiree now. Makes it harder to stay solvent.

But isn't it more of a gradual decline after that initial uptick?

 

[Stoked]

But isn't it more of a gradual decline after that initial uptick?

Gradual decline which way. Back towards workers to retirees or continuing to decline the way it is?

 

[Siro]

The baby boomers(and the forgotten generation) are categorized by a deviation in total births. Subsequent generations should also be categorized by their deviation but they will be less obvious until eventually the ripples dissipate or a new event causes a new wave.

Beyond that shared experiences do shape a group of people. We probably can find something worth examining based on say growing up during the aids epidemic, or in the age of terrorism, that I think generations will still be a valuable thing to discuss on some level.

I agree, but culture changes very quickly. Different cultural phenomena affect different groups of people in different ways. We're redefining a generation into a much smaller group, under a much more nuanced light. I have no problem with that, but it deviates greatly from the way the concept is typically used(gen x, gen y, millennials, greatest, etc).

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Ok.

I also think that a Trump presidency would be a disaster. But I think that a Clinton one would as well. In different ways of course but still terrible. They are both bad enough, IMO, that it seems pointless to me to argue who is worse. So I disagree with the premise of Clinton being clearly superior to Trump. To me they are both "the enemy".

As for Utah. It is a reliably red state. So any time, money and effort that needs to be spent there will be spent by Trump not Clinton. That is less time and money Trump will spend in places like NV that Clinton does need. Johnson will be his challenger here and the majority of Johnson votes from Utah will come at Trumps expense. Clinton doesn't need Utah(at all), Trump does. This scenario hurts Trump far worse than Clinton.

This isn't FL or IA we are talking about. It's a state that has been safely red forever that has never stopped a D from winning by being red.

As for Johnson, I don't expect him to win. What I'm hoping for is a 15% in the polls his presence in stage for the debates. A chance at shocking the Rs and Ds. Into a shot across their bow that we are tired of **** policies, **** candidates and political games.

OK, thanks for that. I need to remember that my agenda, or at least something close to it, has been towed for the last 8 years and I've been very happy with the results so far. If I felt the way you did, I would have a darker view of the election too. But I think you're experiencing a shot across the bow and maybe it's not realized. Trump is conservatives shot, and Bernie was progressives.

I do not envy the conservatives reality.

 

[Stoked]

OK, thanks for that. I need to remember that my agenda, or at least something close to it, has been towed for the last 8 years and I've been very happy with the results so far. If I felt the way you did, I would have a darker view of the election too. But I think you're experiencing a shot across the bow and maybe it's not realized. Trump is conservatives shot, and Bernie was progressives.

I do not envy the conservatives reality.

I don't envy them either. I think the Trump nomination and Sanders loss have created a real opportunity here. An opportunity to effect real change in not only the way things are done but what's done.

I see supporting Johnson in Utah as my best way to support that opportunity.

 

[♪alt13]

I agree, but culture changes very quickly. Different cultural phenomena affect different groups of people in different ways. We're redefining a generation into a much smaller group, under a much more nuanced light. I have no problem with that, but it deviates greatly from the way the concept is typically used(gen x, gen y, millennials, greatest, etc).

Agreed.

I think those generations(the ones you listed) are almost completely meaningless categories. The greatest generation was a pretty clear thing but the others are very arbitrarily defined. The millenials should be defined for most discussions as another boom ,albeit a less drastic one, and the gen-xers as a comparative lull.

As far as the economy and who gets credit it is still imv silly to give Presidents much credit. Take away the boomers as a generation and you still have the transistor doing amazing new things in the nineties. When a technology gains that kind of world changing momentum it seems odd to me to say that a dude that had nothing to do with it should get credit. Beyond that Presidents don't really run the show. They try to steer but usually get steered by events. They try to push an agenda but congress still controls what does and doesn't make it to the president's desk. I think 95% of the talk about the effect that this or that president had on the economy is nonsense.

 

[cowhide]

I was logging in to say how babyweeners has stirred the **** pot containing all you two-party-is-broken pop culture junkies but stoked beat me to the starting line. Save your response as most of us could write it for you.


Eh, the only thing wrong with Bush's presidency was engaging in a war he could not win. It was still a noble cause and I can forgive him for that. GWB is a good man. I've stated similar sentiment about H. Clinton acting the way she has with that GOP target on her back. Have we ever seen any political figure under as much scrutiny as H.C.? Where are the Republicans screaming foul like they did when Democrat XYZ allegedly sicked the IRS on political opponents? What Paul Ryan did to her over Benhhazi is no different.

We really haven't had a failed presidency for over a very long time. Trump won't be a failure. He would likely be a colossal disaster. Hillary, on the other hand, will be the moderating leader of what is America's political process. I don't fear her in the least.

The only bad thing during the Bush administration was going into Iraq. Now that is funny stuff. There wasn't anything noble about going to war in Iraq. Lying about the reasons for invading Iraq, is a noble cause? It was a stupid decision that has caused hundreds of thousands of lives and destabilized the Middle East. Whether any candidate is a good person is simply speculation since we only see the public figure. GW Bush might be a great guy to go hunting or have a beer with but he was a complete disaster of a president. However, as bad as Bush was, I would still rather have him as president than Donald Trump. Trump has no clue about running the government and even most military leaders are worried about his foreign policy.

 

[♪alt13]

OK, thanks for that. I need to remember that my agenda, or at least something close to it, has been towed for the last 8 years and I've been very happy with the results so far. If I felt the way you did, I would have a darker view of the election too. But I think you're experiencing a shot across the bow and maybe it's not realized. Trump is conservatives shot, and Bernie was progressives.

I do not envy the conservatives reality.

The thing that the Republicans get to look forward to that the Dems don't is that their bad candidate is going to lose. The republicans are going to have a good oportunity to rebrand in 4 years(course they could totally blow it again). The Dems are getting hitched to someone the country does not like, does not trust, and who is in many ways a neocon.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

The thing that the Republicans get to look forward to that the Dems don't is that their bad candidate is going to lose. The republicans are going to have a good oportunity to rebrand in 4 years(course they could totally blow it again). The Dems are getting hitched to someone the country does not like, does not trust, and who is in many ways a neocon.

I hope for the country's sake you are right. We're stronger with a competent conservative voice. But the conservative movement has been in free fall since Reagan, and Trump (i hope) is rock bottom.

Hillary will carry the torch and keep moving us towards the long game goal. Sure she's flawed, we all are. But she's just a step towards where us progressives think the country, and the world, should be heading. Enjoy fighting the tide, as usual.