Hillary for President

Klinker said:

mrincredible said:

Klinker said: A candidate would have to be pretty astounding for me to vote for them if they are over 75.  My preference would be someone under 60.  The Boomers have had their turn and, looking around, they have done a piss poor job. Time for new blood.

 Point of fact: the youngest boomers are in their early 50s.

 I wasn't aware of the formal definition but I was thinking of the generation that brought us the Grateful Dead and the Moral Majority.  Folks in their early 50s seem more like Gen X and less like  Me First and the Gimme Gimmes.  Perhaps a sort of bridge between the two.

 The boomers are the quintessential gimmes.  They knew about the danger to the environment caused by pollution and plastic and did nothing because it would cost money.  They knew the lifestyle they wanted was not sustainable but kicked the debt right down the road.  They let the military and their spending take over the federal budget.    The generation that grew up during the depression and fought world war 2 gave birth to a disaster.  I'm glad I just missed it, although folks my age are rapidly running out of time to fix things.  We are not much better.

FilmCarp said:

Klinker said:

mrincredible said:

Klinker said: A candidate would have to be pretty astounding for me to vote for them if they are over 75.  My preference would be someone under 60.  The Boomers have had their turn and, looking around, they have done a piss poor job. Time for new blood.

 Point of fact: the youngest boomers are in their early 50s.

 I wasn't aware of the formal definition but I was thinking of the generation that brought us the Grateful Dead and the Moral Majority.  Folks in their early 50s seem more like Gen X and less like  Me First and the Gimme Gimmes.  Perhaps a sort of bridge between the two.

 The boomers are the quintessential gimmes.  They knew about the danger to the environment caused by pollution and plastic and did nothing because it would cost money.  They knew the lifestyle they wanted was not sustainable but kicked the debt right down the road.  They let the military and their spending take over the federal budget.    The generation that grew up during the depression and fought world war 2 gave birth to a disaster.  I'm glad I just missed it, although folks my age are rapidly running out of time to fix things.  We are not much better.

Different perspective, think protests, anti-war, Peace, Make Love Not War, a women's right to chose, civil rights, sit-ins, be-ins, love-ins. dropping out, turning on, communes. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Joni Mitchell, Woodstock.

Morganna said:

 Different perspective, think protests, anti-war, Peace, Make Love Not War, a women's right to chose, civil rights, sit-ins, be-ins, love-ins. dropping out, turning on, communes. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Joni Mitchell, Woodstock.

But none of it stuck.  Many of those very same people turned into the Reaganite yuppies of the 1980s.  If there is one thing that drives me nuts about the boomers' mood swings, it is the hypocrisy.  

Of course, there are exceptions.  I know many lovely people of that age group who are nothing like what I describe above.  That said, as a generation, the Boomers really suck.

Morganna said:

FilmCarp said:

Klinker said:

mrincredible said:

Klinker said: A candidate would have to be pretty astounding for me to vote for them if they are over 75.  My preference would be someone under 60.  The Boomers have had their turn and, looking around, they have done a piss poor job. Time for new blood.

 Point of fact: the youngest boomers are in their early 50s.

 I wasn't aware of the formal definition but I was thinking of the generation that brought us the Grateful Dead and the Moral Majority.  Folks in their early 50s seem more like Gen X and less like  Me First and the Gimme Gimmes.  Perhaps a sort of bridge between the two.

 The boomers are the quintessential gimmes.  They knew about the danger to the environment caused by pollution and plastic and did nothing because it would cost money.  They knew the lifestyle they wanted was not sustainable but kicked the debt right down the road.  They let the military and their spending take over the federal budget.    The generation that grew up during the depression and fought world war 2 gave birth to a disaster.  I'm glad I just missed it, although folks my age are rapidly running out of time to fix things.  We are not much better.

 Different perspective, think protests, anti-war, Peace, Make Love Not War, a women's right to chose, civil rights, sit-ins, be-ins, love-ins. dropping out, turning on, communes. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Joni Mitchell, Woodstock.

Damn straight.....some people might have enjoyed the safe, stable Eisenhower years.....but others of us

said "there is more"

We were in the vanguard of every progressive movement.  We went to Mississippi and not to get a tan.

We filled the jails rather than sit on our hands over injustice.  We espoused Gandhi and Thoreau.

We drove our parents crazy and caused J.Edgar Hoover to look under beds to route out the Reds.

We were there.  We took the blows and threw away the rule book.  But by God we were there

Klinker said:

Morganna said:  Different perspective, think protests, anti-war, Peace, Make Love Not War, a women's right to chose, civil rights, sit-ins, be-ins, love-ins. dropping out, turning on, communes. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Joni Mitchell, Woodstock.

 But none of it stuck.  Many of those very same people turned into the Reaganite yuppies of the 1980s.  If there is one thing that drives me nuts about the boomers' mood swings, it is the hypocrisy.   Of course, there are exceptions.  I know many lovely people of that age group who are nothing like what I describe above.  That said, as a generation, the Boomers really suck.

I don't know. I grew up in the city and I never even met a Republican. To me Reagan seemed like a throw back to the 50s. But then there was a cultural divide between living downtown and living on the upper east side.

As a generation, I will say that they are very good at self promotion.

Morganna said:

Klinker said:

Morganna said:  Different perspective, think protests, anti-war, Peace, Make Love Not War, a women's right to chose, civil rights, sit-ins, be-ins, love-ins. dropping out, turning on, communes. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Joni Mitchell, Woodstock.

 But none of it stuck.  Many of those very same people turned into the Reaganite yuppies of the 1980s.  If there is one thing that drives me nuts about the boomers' mood swings, it is the hypocrisy.   Of course, there are exceptions.  I know many lovely people of that age group who are nothing like what I describe above.  That said, as a generation, the Boomers really suck.

 I don't know. I grew up in the city and I never even met a Republican. To me Reagan seemed like a throw back to the 50s. But then there was a cultural divide between living downtown and living on the upper east side.

I imagine that if you grew up in Manhattan or San Francisco, your experiences might not match those of the nation at large.  That has probably been true at any time since the 17th Century.

mrincredible said:

LOST what is your definition of "boomer" and why is it more valid than the typically accepted sociological definition?

As someone born a boomer with only 13 months to spare, I can say I never felt like one. Nor did any older schoolmates seem like they belonged in the same group with anyone who hit puberty before Zeppelin IV came out. So while I don’t know where to draw the line — an issue when trying to limn any generation — I can sympathize with LOST’s inclination to define it for himself.

I mean, while “baby boom generation” is really just a demographic cohort, it’s applied as if it denoted a personality trait, divorced (if you’ll pardon the term) from the experiences that shape a zeitgeist, like Sputnik, the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and Sly and the Rolling Stones.

But enough about me. Tell me about you.

Born between 1946 and 1962

mrincredible said:
As someone who is 50, 54 meets my definition of "early 50s".  

 Then by election time they’ll be in their late 50s.

There's a disturbing agism going on in some posts here. I generally agree that the leadership of our country has skewed older and younger voices need to be heard. But rejecting someone simply because of their age makes about as much sense as rejecting them for their religion or race in my view. Lumping everyone over 60 into a group of undesirables who ruined the country? Think about what that sounds like.

This generational finger pointing (with a significant element of self-congratulation) is total cartoon BS.

Yet the self congratulatoty posts for going to protests in the 60's are fine.  

FilmCarp said:
Yet the self congratulatoty posts for going to protests in the 60's are fine.  

 Also BS

bub said:

FilmCarp said:
Yet the self congratulatoty posts for going to protests in the 60's are fine.  

 Also BS

 After such a towering intellectual argument on the part of Mr, bub....a little pleasantness

author said:

 As sound and pleasant a commentary on supposed generational differences as any of the "this one's better" judgments above.

you could go back and forth for a long time with examples of how people in any generation either screw things up or make things better. Or you could try to look at any individual candidate on their own merits rather than ruling them out because of an arbitrary classification.

mrincredible said:
you could go back and forth for a long time with examples of how people in any generation either screw things up or make things better. Or you could try to look at any individual candidate on their own merits rather than ruling them out because of an arbitrary classification.

 Virtues and flaws are personal.   To the extent age factors into my consideration of a candidate, it has to do with health (mental and physical) at the older end and lack of experience at the younger end.   

bub said:

.... lack of experience at the younger end.    

 Fiddlesticks sez I. 

(One could also argue that a lack of government experience on the older end can be detrimental.)

Klinker said:

mrincredible said:

Klinker said: A candidate would have to be pretty astounding for me to vote for them if they are over 75.  My preference would be someone under 60.  The Boomers have had their turn and, looking around, they have done a piss poor job. Time for new blood.

 Point of fact: the youngest boomers are in their early 50s.

 
I wasn't aware of the formal definition but I was thinking of the generation that brought us the Grateful Dead and the Moral Majority.  Folks in their early 50s seem more like Gen X and less like  Me First and the Gimme Gimmes.  Perhaps a sort of bridge between the two.

 there is a formal definition of Baby Boomer -- anyone born in the U.S. from 1946-1964.  The youngest Boomers turn 54 this year.  It's pretty much the only generation in the U.S. that actually has a hard and fast set of cutoff years.  Some demographers even overlap Gen X with the last few Baby Boom years.  And to this day, we still don't have a consensus definition of "Millennials."

Mostly "generations" are artificial constructs that are generally meaningless.  The Baby Boom is the one generational definition that kind of makes sense because it was based on birth rates by year. 

And it is improper of course to blame an entire generation for everything that has gone wrong in our country over the past few decades.  But it wouldn't be incorrect to say that for the average working American, he or she has not been well-served by the people who were in power in government and business from about 1980 until now.  

If the successors to Boomers think they are less well off, I would say it is because the the ebb and flow of empires and nothing specific the Boomers did.  The United States was on top of the world from 1945 until, I don't know, 1975.  That was unsustainable.

The crime committed over the last 50 years has been ignoring future liabilities - pensions, infrastructure investment, etc.

the obits for Barbara Bush have been making me think again of how unfairly Hillary Clinton has been treated over the past 25 years.  Barbara Bush received the greatest press throughout her lifetime and now in remembrance.  Hillary Clinton has been personified as a liar, and a whole bunch of unprintable epithets.  And yet the stories about Barbara Bush that came from people who knew her was that she was about as mean as they come.  And yet, she was "America's grandma."  IOKIYAR.

Eff you, filmcarp. Our generation did better than our predecessors, just as our successors will do better than we did. It's the same story in families, generally speaking: I messed my kids up less than my parents messed me up, who messed me up less than their parents did to them. We're learning and getting better over time.

tjohn said:
If the successors to Boomers think they are less well off, I would say it is because the the ebb and flow of empires and nothing specific the Boomers did.  The United States was on top of the world from 1945 until, I don't know, 1975.  That was unsustainable.


The crime committed over the last 50 years has been ignoring future liabilities - pensions, infrastructure investment, etc.

tax and labor policies since 1980 have disadvantaged working people to a great extent.  The country as a whole is still incredibly affluent.  The share that has been sucked up by the upper percentiles is much higher than it was from 1945-1980.

The last few posts highlight one of the many absurdities of the this generation vs that generation debate.  What was done before affects what happens later.  There's no reset button in history with a blank canvas being available to each generation to paint on as it will. Even assuming that a generation has a character (which I don't), if one generation plants the seeds of a disaster or boon that a later generation suffers or benefits from, who gets the credit or blame?  

bub said:
The last few posts highlight one of the many absurdities of the this generation vs that generation debate.  What was done before affects what happens later.  There's no reset button in history with a blank canvas being available to each generation to paint on as it will. Even assuming that a generation has a character (which I don't), if one generation plants the seeds of a disaster or boon that a later generation suffers or benefits from, who gets the credit or blame?  

A generation may not have character, but I’d be comfortable being lumped in with Americans born between 1958 and 1976, give or take, because we’d all recognize the post-’60s, pre-9/11 world of our most formative years (however it formed us individually) without too much disconnect.