I wanted to point out a subset of the things I like about Sanders.

Amazingly, for a man of the crunchy version of Socialist Progressivism one finds in VT, he's one of the saner entities on the left vis a vis the Bill of Rights and especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The so called "Progressives" here in the Bay Area de facto oppose both. If they had their way there would be severe censorship based on a Political Correctness filter and our Natural Rights to personal self defense would be taken away.

Another thing I like is he is not bought into post-modern Globalist economic clap trap. He has a good Nationalist impulse in the area of industrial / labor policy and national strength.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

... You are an old white man, in lockstep with a party run by old white people, against a slate of candidates who are young and "diverse". Yet you are desperately clinging to a trend that has already peaked (in the form of Obama) and is being rejected, and claiming to speak for young people and/or "people of color".

Unlike you, I don't claim to know who will win the 2016 election. All I know is that all of the indicators - polling and economic - and all of the historical trends - like the difficulty of any party winning three terms in the White House - make it highly likely that the next president will be a Republican. Then there is the fact that the Democrats have been decimated in every election since 2008 where Obama was not on the ballot, to the point where Republicans hold more power than they have since before the Great Depression. And to top it off, the Democrats are almost certainly going to nominate a candidate that nobody likes, or trusts, including Democrats who will have to hold their noses to vote for her, who is being investigated by the FBI, and who could very well be indicted before the election.

Yet you claim the Republican Party is about to cease to exist, and the Democrats will win every presidential election for the next 50 years. If you can't recognize how delusional that is, you should seek psychiatric care.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the attacks in Paris, the Democrats restated their refusal to even name Islam, and worse for them, continued to assert that global warming is a greater threat than terrorism.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but your confidence is extremely misplaced. And it's not even shared by many Democrats.

I think the point is the dichotomy between the politicians and the people they nominally lead. The GOP is, as PW noted, a party of Old White Men. The Democrats are a party of Younger Multi-Hued people of both genders. The thing that make this interesting is the misalignment, not the politics.

Normally, younger politicians enter the younger-thinking party. That doesn't mean liberal or conservative; it means exciting. Does the GOP look exciting to you?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I wasn't shocked by the outcome of the 2012 election. Disappointed, but not shocked. I don't remember every word I typed here 3 years ago, but I never thought Romney was a strong candidate, and I'm sure I said so. The polls leading up to it varied widely in their methodology, and it came down to which ones were accurate in their modeling of the electorate. As it turned out, a president who had a terrible record, whose major policies large majorities disapproved of, was re-elected because of the color of his skin. He was given a pass and/or the benefit of the doubt for many things that other presidents have been punished for. That's the reality.

I don't know if Hillary will win or lose, but I do know that the indicators are against her, or any other Democrat. Obama's job approval has been around 45% for years now. The economy has been limping at around 2% growth for 7 years, which means everyone's standard of living has been falling for 7 years (aside from Obama's big donors from Wall Street, Silicon Valley and government, who have received massive infusions of taxpayer funds, and have been living wild). 64% of the public believes the country is on the wrong track.

What always happens in politics is that a pendulum swings from one direction to another. The left has moved so far left and pushed so hard, that a swing back in the other direction is inevitable. In fact, it has already been happening, as I mentioned above. The Democrats are at their lowest ebb of elected office in almost 100 years. Almost all of the major "victories" of the left wing have been achieved undemocratically, through the courts and executive orders, with propaganda blaring 24/7 from their supporters in the media. Something's got to give.

But because the Republicans, even while winning elections, are still very unpopular with their own voters, things are more interesting and more volatile than usual. Hence Trump, and other phenomena. Many people are recognizing the real problem is an elite class of powerful, connected interests that seeks to impose its will and policies on the people without their consent.

In terms of the raw numbers, what is happening is this: the Democrats are still fanatically attached to their long worn ideological dogma, led by aging Boomers and Silents who live in the past. They are unified, and have a high floor of support. They have about 45% of the electorate that will stick with them no matter what, while the Republicans have a much lower level of guaranteed, lockstep voters. However, the Democrats cannot improve on the base turnout they had with Obama. It was completely maxed out. Which means if their turnout falls off, and they lose swing voters, they're in for a massive loss.

The Republicans, meanwhile, are fractured and in upheaval because of an intense, unsettled debate about what the future direction of the party (and country) should be. So if the Republicans coalesce around a legitimate "voice of the people" agenda and candidate, rather than perpetuating business as usual, that will more than likely be where the country heads in a big way after 2016. In my opinion, nominating Jeb Bush is the only way the Republicans could tilt things back to an even field. Otherwise, I think they have a clear advantage. But who knows what will ultimately happen. It's still a year away.

To put it another way, the Democrats have a narrow range of support, with a high floor and low ceiling, while the Republicans have a wide range of potential support, with a low floor and high ceiling. If the Republicans coalesced around the right candidate and policies, they could probably win 55% of the vote in a presidential election and completely obliterate the Democrats. If they stick to business as usual, another narrow win or loss is more likely, with a slight tilt in their favor in 2016 for the reasons stated above.

Dude, there is absolutely nothing new that today's Right has to offer - it's basically remains the 'deep thought' of xenophobia, imposing your religious beliefs on others, trickle down economics, and solving all global problems by having other families' children go to war.

The only thing that changes is the level of ignorance and stupidity in our society that occasionally allows you all to come to power with the subsequent opportunity for another generation to learn the horrific consequences of falling for the vile you have to offer. One would think you all bringing us the worse economic contraction since the Great Depression and arguable the worse foreign policy mistake of all time in the Iraq Invasion, both of which are still causing significant problems for all of us, the American public would have learned. But at last, stupidity and ignorance seems to go in cycles - you all are just a symptom of that.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I wanted to point out a subset of the things I like about Sanders.

Amazingly, for a man of the crunchy version of Socialist Progressivism one finds in VT, he's one of the saner entities on the left vis a vis the Bill of Rights and especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The so called "Progressives" here in the Bay Area de facto oppose both. If they had their way there would be severe censorship based on a Political Correctness filter and our Natural Rights to personal self defense would be taken away.

Political correctness seems to be back by popular demand on the colleges campuses. How far that will go we don't know. As for our so-called "natural rights to personal self-defense," I don't see any Democrat able or willing to take that way, but all of them willing to increase regulation to being a modicum of sanity to the issue, while we await someday a consensus that the so-called natural right to self defense is an illusion.

Another thing I like is he is not bought into post-modern Globalist economic clap trap. He has a good Nationalist impulse in the area of industrial / labor policy and national strength.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think the point is the dichotomy between the politicians and the people they nominally lead. The GOP is, as PW noted, a party of Old White Men. The Democrats are a party of Younger Multi-Hued people of both genders. The thing that make this interesting is the misalignment, not the politics.

Normally, younger politicians enter the younger-thinking party. That doesn't mean liberal or conservative; it means exciting. Does the GOP look exciting to you?

The Republican base is largely middle aged, working class and rural, white people of all types. You want excitement then go to a fucking movie or a football game or a liberal pep rally at some college or something.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The Republican base is largely middle aged, working class and rural, white people of all types.

And old aged....

People were excited about Reagan and he was pretty darn old when he ran. I don't think age is a huge factor.

Originally Posted by annla899

People were excited about Reagan and he was pretty darn old when he ran. I don't think age is a huge factor.

All of this liberalism and conservatism: both of thsee would be swept away. Restorationism will dominate the world.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The Republican base is largely middle aged, working class and rural, white people of all types. You want excitement then go to a (profanity excised) movie or a football game or a liberal pep rally at some college or something.

Dullness is not an asset in political competition. "more of the same" might have its attractiveness when it is still new. Eventually even "revolutionary" rhetoric gets stale, as shown in this video:



Translation:

shebr shebr = inch by inch

beit beit = home by home

dar dar = house by house

zenga zenga = lane by lane

ila al-amam = to forward

thawra = revolution

maee el-malayeen = I have milions (ppl)

dakkat saat al amal = time for work

dakkat saat al zahaf = time for march

dakkat saat al intesaar = time for victory

Hear that all the time and you might want some other 'revolution'. Moammar Qaddafi became a one-trick pony in his rhetoric.

So is the current American Right, which well rewards its constituencies and tells outsiders to wait their turn (which will never come so long as the current American Right gets its way).

A cause that has less than majority support obviously can't win free and fair elections. Of course, Qaddafi was never accused of rigging elections; he never held elections of any kind.

Politics isn't for entertainment; it is for creating a safer, more pleasant, more prosperous world than whatever then exists.

The Republican constituency of aging, under-educated white straight Christians is shrinking every year as America becomes increasingly non-white, non-Christian, non-Anglo, and non-straight.Millennial adults generally have nothing to gain from the GOP agenda whatever their ethnic origin, and Democrats are already in position to oust pols who have nothing going for them but tenure and the backing of such people as Adelson and the Koch brothers.

The 3T ideology that came in with the "Reagan Revolution" is getting stale. Republicans are loyal to it, to be sure, but their time will end.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You talk about trends and indicators, and all you offer up is the "three terms meme." I suggest you take a dose of reality with Nate Silver -

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...t-a-metronome/

The article you linked is about two and a half years old. The most recent prediction I've seen from Nate Silver was that 2016 was a 50/50 tossup. I haven't checked his site lately, but you might want to move forward in your information.

More directly, you and many other Democrats are still living by the "emerging Democratic majority" concept as an article of eternal dogma. The problem is that that book was written 15 years ago, and one of its authors (John Judis) has written recently that the left is taking it too far, and placing too much confidence in it. His basic point was that the prediction already came true in the form of Obama, but that is not a guaranteed permanent future, for several reasons. One is that the Republicans are continually adjusting (although not always in the way the left wants). Another is that the coalition the Democrats are relying on is inherently unstable, and over time it will break apart. Simply put, a party reliant on a small group of rich, white elitists obsessed with far left social issues, and an army of poor, non-white voters has massive contradictions just waiting to tear it apart. And finally, no matter how much spin and propaganda a party engages in, elections always come down to performance and circumstances.

That's without noticing that the Democrats' massive overconfidence, pitiless leftward march and increasingly authoritarian mentality, tactics and policy are continually driving away people who used to support them.

In any case, all of the usual Boomer suspects here are just regurgitating talking points written daily by hundreds of left wing opinion writers and pundits. When there is no difference between reading this forum and turning on MSNBC, it's not interesting.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think the point is the dichotomy between the politicians and the people they nominally lead. The GOP is, as PW noted, a party of Old White Men. The Democrats are a party of Younger Multi-Hued people of both genders. The thing that make this interesting is the misalignment, not the politics.

Normally, younger politicians enter the younger-thinking party. That doesn't mean liberal or conservative; it means exciting. Does the GOP look exciting to you?

This is where Boomerism has a massive blind spot. The bread and circuses enjoyed and sold by the most privileged, spoiled and fortunate generation in history start to not only fade, but anger young people as they wake up to the reality that they and their peers can't find a job or live the kind of life Boomers took for granted. All of the "exciting" left wing nonsense and cultural leftism starts looking pretty bad when it becomes clear that it's a substitute for offering people real hope for a decent life. And that is what's happening. Without question. Xers have been very clear about that since the day they were born. Millenials are slowly waking up to it. With Xers poised to take leadership, Millenials will have the alternative they're looking for.

As for my personal insight, there is one thing that is an ironclad law of reality, that many people are in denial about - a denial so fierce that they will preserve it at all costs, to themselves and others. That is this: social "liberalism" leads to economic ruin. Whether it's a young, poor woman who becomes addicted to drugs, has children out of wedlock and contacts numerous STDs, a young, poor man who winds up in prison, or a Wall Street trader who loses everything due to a corrupt scheme. Those damages have piled up, and the nation as a whole is sinking under them. When ever growing numbers of people are born into those lifestyles over multiple generations, knowing nothing else, there is no anchor to return to. The society is finished. We are right at that point, and perhaps irreversibly past it. Those at the bottom are not being lifted up. Those at the top and in the middle are being dragged down. It is all disintegrating. Once the economic decay and social dissipation has gone far enough, the society is vulnerable to conquest.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The article you linked is about two and a half years old. The most recent prediction I've seen from Nate Silver was that 2016 was a 50/50 tossup. I haven't checked his site lately, but you might want to move forward in your information.

Which way is the wind blowing? How do current events look today?

More directly, you and many other Democrats are still living by the "emerging Democratic majority" concept as an article of eternal dogma. The problem is that that book was written 15 years ago, and one of its authors (John Judis) has written recently that the left is taking it too far, and placing too much confidence in it. His basic point was that the prediction already came true in the form of Obama, but that is not a guaranteed permanent future, for several reasons. One is that the Republicans are continually adjusting (although not always in the way the left wants). Another is that the coalition the Democrats are relying on is inherently unstable, and over time it will break apart. Simply put, a party reliant on a small group of rich, white elitists obsessed with far left social issues, and an army of poor, non-white voters has massive contradictions just waiting to tear it apart. And finally, no matter how much spin and propaganda a party engages in, elections always come down to performance and circumstances.

So you tell me where the new Republican majority is coming from.

That's without noticing that the Democrats' massive overconfidence, pitiless leftward march and increasingly authoritarian mentality, tactics and policy are continually driving away people who used to support them.

It's the GOP that is going authoritarian.

In any case, all of the usual Boomer suspects here are just regurgitating talking points written daily by hundreds of left wing opinion writers and pundits. When there is no difference between reading this forum and turning on MSNBC, it's not interesting.

Guess what I have to say about FoX "News".

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This is where Boomerism has a massive blind spot. The bread and circuses enjoyed and sold by the most privileged, spoiled and fortunate generation in history start to not only fade, but anger young people as they wake up to the reality that they and their peers can't find a job or live the kind of life Boomers took for granted. All of the "exciting" left wing nonsense and cultural leftism starts looking pretty bad when it becomes clear that it's a substitute for offering people real hope for a decent life. And that is what's happening. Without question. Xers have been very clear about that since the day they were born. Millenials are slowly waking up to it. With Xers poised to take leadership, Millenials will have the alternative they're looking for.

Boomers are doing no better in the 3 and a half decades' long Reagan economy than other generations have done. Nobody is; only the wealthy few. Disadvantaged races and other identities have had it worse. But in the 4T, people can unite if they choose to, and act for that decent life they deserve. That will mean social spending, even if reformed, and investment by the government in the infrastructure and human resource development that we need.

As for my personal insight, there is one thing that is an ironclad law of reality, that many people are in denial about - a denial so fierce that they will preserve it at all costs, to themselves and others. That is this: social "liberalism" leads to economic ruin. Whether it's a young, poor woman who becomes addicted to drugs, has children out of wedlock and contacts numerous STDs, a young, poor man who winds up in prison, or a Wall Street trader who loses everything due to a corrupt scheme. Those damages have piled up, and the nation as a whole is sinking under them. When ever growing numbers of people are born into those lifestyles over multiple generations, knowing nothing else, there is no anchor to return to. The society is finished. We are right at that point, and perhaps irreversibly past it. Those at the bottom are not being lifted up. Those at the top and in the middle are being dragged down. It is all disintegrating. Once the economic decay and social dissipation has gone far enough, the society is vulnerable to conquest.

So it is. And we can hope that the liberals will be the conquerers. The young poor man in prison, and the Wall Street trader you mention, will benefit from the release from the conservative regime, which has been Wall Street friendly and permissive, and at war with drug users and anyone else they can put away in jail. The economic decline of the last 35 years is due to several factors, and family decline can be cited, but social liberalism/welfare spending pales besides the policies that have favored the wealthy, through tax breaks, lax regulation, corporate combination, and free trade. If most people are hurting economically, it's because in these post-Reagan times they are not paid well for their work, and because quite often (especially in large corporations) that money is expropriated by their bosses. Automation, outsourcing, lack of investment in communities and social resources (with preference always given to law enforcement over education, recreation, social work, etc.), climate change/dirty energy and pollution, and teach-to-the-test education, are among the main factors in our economic decline, and they need to be reversed. The millennials will support this reversal, which will boost the economy and bring America back in a renewal of energy and confidence in the 2020s and 30s, and a new cultural and spiritual awakening in the late 2040s that brings the sixties to fulfillment.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Dullness is not an asset in political competition. "more of the same" might have its attractiveness when it is still new. Eventually even "revolutionary" rhetoric gets stale, as shown in this video:



Translation:

shebr shebr = inch by inch

beit beit = home by home

dar dar = house by house

zenga zenga = lane by lane

ila al-amam = to forward

thawra = revolution

maee el-malayeen = I have milions (ppl)

dakkat saat al amal = time for work

dakkat saat al zahaf = time for march

dakkat saat al intesaar = time for victory

Hear that all the time and you might want some other 'revolution'. Moammar Qaddafi became a one-trick pony in his rhetoric.

So is the current American Right, which well rewards its constituencies and tells outsiders to wait their turn (which will never come so long as the current American Right gets its way).

A cause that has less than majority support obviously can't win free and fair elections. Of course, Qaddafi was never accused of rigging elections; he never held elections of any kind.

Politics isn't for entertainment; it is for creating a safer, more pleasant, more prosperous world than whatever then exists.

The Republican constituency of aging, under-educated white straight Christians is shrinking every year as America becomes increasingly non-white, non-Christian, non-Anglo, and non-straight.Millennial adults generally have nothing to gain from the GOP agenda whatever their ethnic origin, and Democrats are already in position to oust pols who have nothing going for them but tenure and the backing of such people as Adelson and the Koch brothers.

The 3T ideology that came in with the "Reagan Revolution" is getting stale. Republicans are loyal to it, to be sure, but their time will end.

You don't think empty promises, broken hearts and dreams and more and more unrealistic ideas, goals and visions are going to get old and be rejected. Obviously, you don't understand the over advantage that the independent minded American right of today has over the more herd minded left of today.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The article you linked is about two and a half years old. The most recent prediction I've seen from Nate Silver was that 2016 was a 50/50 tossup. I haven't checked his site lately, but you might want to move forward in your information.

He apparently has done no polling or analysis yet.

More directly, you and many other Democrats are still living by the "emerging Democratic majority" concept as an article of eternal dogma. The problem is that that book was written 15 years ago, and one of its authors (John Judis) has written recently that the left is taking it too far, and placing too much confidence in it. His basic point was that the prediction already came true in the form of Obama, but that is not a guaranteed permanent future, for several reasons. One is that the Republicans are continually adjusting (although not always in the way the left wants). Another is that the coalition the Democrats are relying on is inherently unstable, and over time it will break apart. Simply put, a party reliant on a small group of rich, white elitists obsessed with far left social issues, and an army of poor, non-white voters has massive contradictions just waiting to tear it apart. And finally, no matter how much spin and propaganda a party engages in, elections always come down to performance and circumstances.

The emerging Democratic majority idea applies to these times, not 15 years ago. You are right that there's no guarantee. The appeal of xenophobia, trickle-down economics, militarism, welfare bashing, anti-tax crusading, racist dog whistling, and religious prejudice/appeals to conservative social values cannot be underestimated in America. People are easily led astray, and millennials' preference for texting about pop culture and other diversions over pursuing their much-vaunted civic ways could derail liberals' hopes for them. However, the Democratic candidates have not only poor, but middle class non-white voters on their side, and a majority of women (especially in the presidential race if Hillary is the nominee); as well as many whites of all classes concerned about many issues, from inequality to climate change, not just "far left social issues" whatever you mean by that.

Trump crosses some ideological and economic policy lines in his so-called "populist," "carnival barking" appeals, but in the end I doubt that the people will vote for a clown for president over a seasoned veteran.

That's without noticing that the Democrats' massive overconfidence, pitiless leftward march and increasingly authoritarian mentality, tactics and policy are continually driving away people who used to support them.

That "leftward march" (I would call it pitiful rather than pitiless) pales beside the rightward march of the Republicans, and they are driving away supporters even faster. But no Democratic politician or campaigner should have overconfidence. Most of the groups that appeal to me through email and mail for money are the least over-confident folks I know. That's the opposite of what they're selling.

In any case, all of the usual Boomer suspects here are just regurgitating talking points written daily by hundreds of left wing opinion writers and pundits. When there is no difference between reading this forum and turning on MSNBC, it's not interesting.

Since the facts are pretty easy to see these days, and in fact rather stark, I doubt you'd find much that's "interesting" about this subject anywhere.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You don't think empty promises, broken hearts and dreams and more and more unrealistic ideas, goals and visions are going to get old and be rejected. Obviously, you don't understand the over advantage that the independent minded American right of today has over the more herd minded left of today.

You don't think empty promises, broken hearts and dreams and more and more unrealistic ideas, goals and visions are going to get old and be rejected. Obviously, you don't understand the over advantage that the independent minded American left of today has over the more herd minded right of today.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You don't think empty promises, broken hearts and dreams and more and more unrealistic ideas, goals and visions are going to get old and be rejected. Obviously, you don't understand the over advantage that the independent minded American right of today has over the more herd minded left of today.

That's all part of life even with no political context. People make empty promises to themselves just to keep going in rough times. If you have never had a broken heart you have never loved. Unrealistic goals might be better than dreaming of nothing. Seeking to get rich and simply make a good living isn't as bad as dreaming of nothing and getting nothing.

For me, concession of America to the contemporary Right would be to live without dreams or hope.

Herd minds are sometimes needed guys.So we can get things done. That is why there is so much division atm and no way to solve issues because people are too busy bickering over quite often bullshit. Herd minds are granted, dangerous and stagnate over time, but it is so valuable at the time so I do not know why older folk run it down so often. It is necessary for certain things to be solved.

It would be easy to be partisan or ideological in this discussion, but consider generational archetypes. The most important changes we are likely to see with Xer leadership are pragmatism-and in a 4T context-survivalism.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Herd minds are sometimes needed guys.So we can get things done. That is why there is so much division atm and no way to solve issues because people are too busy bickering over quite often bullshit. Herd minds are granted, dangerous and stagnate over time, but it is so valuable at the time so I do not know why older folk run it down so often. It is necessary for certain things to be solved.

We probably need to be talking about Millennial Leadership arriving in addition to X leadership arriving. With Boomer retirements we're going to need both soon.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The article you linked is about two and a half years old. The most recent prediction I've seen from Nate Silver was that 2016 was a 50/50 tossup. I haven't checked his site lately, but you might want to move forward in your information.

You had told us about trends and indicators but all you actually offered up was the WH is a metrodome; Silver's article specifically addresses that. The fact that you noted the article to be over two years old implicitly assumes that there are other factors at play in direct opposition to your original assertion. Cognitive dissonance works as long as one remains in the echo chamber; outside of it, no so much.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

More directly, you and many other Democrats are still living by the "emerging Democratic majority" concept as an article of eternal dogma. The problem is that that book was written 15 years ago, and one of its authors (John Judis) has written recently that the left is taking it too far, and placing too much confidence in it. His basic point was that the prediction already came true in the form of Obama, but that is not a guaranteed permanent future, for several reasons. One is that the Republicans are continually adjusting (although not always in the way the left wants).

Adjusting? Now you're trying to be funny. The only adjustments being made is greater extremism. Tell us how Trump's racism wins the Hispanic vote? Tell us how Rubio's enslavement of women to his religious viewpoint, including in cases of rape, incest and threats to the mother's life, will win women's votes? Tell us how Bush's view that his brother's decision to invade Iraq was peachy and we now need more of other families' kids going to war wins over anyone with a brain? Tells us how the GOP tax cut plans of trickle down economics isn't dead on arrival with any middle class wage earner who hasn't been in a coma for a few decades? You all have nothing new to offer but more extreme versions of what you have been pedalling forever.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Another is that the coalition the Democrats are relying on is inherently unstable, and over time it will break apart. Simply put, a party reliant on a small group of rich, white elitists obsessed with far left social issues, and an army of poor, non-white voters has massive contradictions just waiting to tear it apart.

And just where are these Dem fragments you envision going to go??? The GOP offers them not only nothing, they offer more of the same horseshit that's killing off the middle class.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

And finally, no matter how much spin and propaganda a party engages in, elections always come down to performance and circumstances.

All true, but if what the GOP has to offer is the unsupported spin you provide, then it's no problemo para Democratos.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That's without noticing that the Democrats' massive overconfidence, pitiless leftward march and increasingly authoritarian mentality, tactics and policy are continually driving away people who used to support them.

Who it is driving away are people like yourself. And it's not really driving you away, it's backing you into a corner and you're lashing out. The good news is you're increasingly a minority and you will eventually go away.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In any case, all of the usual Boomer suspects here are just regurgitating talking points written daily by hundreds of left wing opinion writers and pundits. When there is no difference between reading this forum and turning on MSNBC, it's not interesting.

I recognize how hearing the truth rather than the echos in the RedState echo chamber must hurt. Like I said, you will eventually go away.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This is where Boomerism has a massive blind spot. The bread and circuses enjoyed and sold by the most privileged, spoiled and fortunate generation in history start to not only fade, but anger young people as they wake up to the reality that they and their peers can't find a job or live the kind of life Boomers took for granted. All of the "exciting" left wing nonsense and cultural leftism starts looking pretty bad when it becomes clear that it's a substitute for offering people real hope for a decent life. And that is what's happening. Without question. Xers have been very clear about that since the day they were born. Millenials are slowly waking up to it. With Xers poised to take leadership, Millenials will have the alternative they're looking for.

This entire economic shtick is based on your hope that people are going to confuse the tow truck drivers with the drunks that drove the cars into the ditch. It's not going to work, no matter how many times you click your heels. Sorry, but the vast majority of Millennials are not stupid.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As for my personal insight, there is one thing that is an ironclad law of reality, that many people are in denial about - a denial so fierce that they will preserve it at all costs, to themselves and others. That is this: social "liberalism" leads to economic ruin. Whether it's a young, poor woman who becomes addicted to drugs, has children out of wedlock and contacts numerous STDs, a young, poor man who winds up in prison, or a Wall Street trader who loses everything due to a corrupt scheme. Those damages have piled up, and the nation as a whole is sinking under them. When ever growing numbers of people are born into those lifestyles over multiple generations, knowing nothing else, there is no anchor to return to. The society is finished. We are right at that point, and perhaps irreversibly past it. Those at the bottom are not being lifted up. Those at the top and in the middle are being dragged down. It is all disintegrating. Once the economic decay and social dissipation has gone far enough, the society is vulnerable to conquest.

The problem with you guys is you think those real problems get solved by tax cuts to the 1%s that will trickle down and make a difference - it doesn't. You think that imposing your religious beliefs on others will stop 'the wild vaginas,' get rid of 'the gay,' solve drug addictions, and all the other 'ills' you see in society' - it won't unless you are going to be as ruthless as ISIS in enforcing your form of Sharia Law.

I suggest that instead of watching zombie movies all the time, that you get out and actually go help somebody who actually is faced with the problems you bring up. I guarantee that you will learn something.

Originally Posted by annla899

People were excited about Reagan and he was pretty darn old when he ran. I don't think age is a huge factor.

Youth tends to be attracted to excitement, and the GOP is entertaining but scary. Does that qualify? Maybe it does. The Dems aren't hitting on much ... though Bernie is the best of the batch.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

We probably need to be talking about Millennial Leadership arriving in addition to X leadership arriving. With Boomer retirements we're going to need both soon.

I never said we are total followers in everything and that there are no leaders of my generation. They more so than anything do prefer the group than to be the stand out. I know, I go to school with millies and observe this. But we collect on what we think is most important because we know we can fix things faster as a group. On the thought of millie leaders, I will mention how they are organizing this now. It is not so much of being a leader, but creating a company with a group of millies now. Well that is the trend here in NZ. We gave a speech this year on our plans for after we graduate (next year) and many are planning on creating their own companies as a millie group, (recent grads that they are mates with). Some have their own individual plans too, like myself but even I want to create a company of my own someday with recent grads too if my first movie is successful in the chicago film festival.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This is where Boomerism has a massive blind spot. The bread and circuses enjoyed and sold by the most privileged, spoiled and fortunate generation in history start to not only fade, but anger young people as they wake up to the reality that they and their peers can't find a job or live the kind of life Boomers took for granted. All of the "exciting" left wing nonsense and cultural leftism starts looking pretty bad when it becomes clear that it's a substitute for offering people real hope for a decent life. And that is what's happening. Without question. Xers have been very clear about that since the day they were born. Millenials are slowly waking up to it. With Xers poised to take leadership, Millenials will have the alternative they're looking for.

It's a bit ironic to make the case you do, knowing that the Boomer Right is directly responsible for the failings you rightly decry. Yes, Millies have gotten the shaft, but your party is the one that applied it in force. If you get rewarded for that, then the Millies are toast. Your Xers are even more draconian than your Boomers.

Originally Posted by JPT ...

As for my personal insight, there is one thing that is an ironclad law of reality, that many people are in denial about - a denial so fierce that they will preserve it at all costs, to themselves and others. That is this: social "liberalism" leads to economic ruin. Whether it's a young, poor woman who becomes addicted to drugs, has children out of wedlock and contacts numerous STDs, a young, poor man who winds up in prison, or a Wall Street trader who loses everything due to a corrupt scheme. Those damages have piled up, and the nation as a whole is sinking under them. When ever growing numbers of people are born into those lifestyles over multiple generations, knowing nothing else, there is no anchor to return to. The society is finished. We are right at that point, and perhaps irreversibly past it. Those at the bottom are not being lifted up. Those at the top and in the middle are being dragged down. It is all disintegrating. Once the economic decay and social dissipation has gone far enough, the society is vulnerable to conquest.

You r morality play lacks one element of reality: the areas of the country and the members of society most likely to suffer from the fallings of virtue are all in your camp. Unwed motherhood is rampant in the Red states, and so is crime, drug abuse and poverty. You have a hard time arguing that they are related to "liberalism" in any way: social, cultural or economic. That's not to say that the blather services can't rant-on. They do and they will.