whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

They can't quit Trump. It's absolutely bizarre, and incomprehensible.

---

Really is.

Only explanation I can come up with is they do not believe anyone else will champion their causes. I am not sure there is anyone out there that will appease that part of the population, outside of someone they consider one of their own.

---

That's the biggest part of it. it's a bigger cultural issue within the GOP than Dems. And your last sentence hints at why. Dem leadership seems to always have a genuine concern for the desires of its grassroots, and actively seeks opportunities to advance the progressive agenda, which Dems tend to see is the true purpose of politics. GOP, on the other hand, tends to see their grassroots as unreasonable nutjobs getting in the way of what they believe to be the true purpose of politics - compromising with Dems. The perception that Trump would be different in that regard was a big part of why he won in 2016 (primary and general). In office, Trump proved that he would leave it all on the battlefield to do what he promised, no matter how much grief he got. That's why he has such enduring support. Trumpists are not unreasonable. They are entirely logical. Show them someone who will fight like Trump, and then the issue of moving on largely becomes and issue of fairness and gratitude.. (and there is a credible contender in view, btw.)

The flipside: the Trump critique in this and a couple other current threads is reflective (to matters of degree) of not just a majority of posters here, but of what I see hear elsewhere - a wide range of arguments all spinning on an axis unelectability. What those arguments are hardly unreasonable, they are also not ineluctable.

Amid that dynamic, we see conflicting poll numbers. Some showing RDS pulling ahead. Others, like the one below from this weekend's lede in the Economist, show him still in the lead.



The trend could continue. Or it could not. From the hardly Trump-friendly National Review:

"I'm way more hesitant to call it over for Trump. I even think the NFT sale wasn't entirely worthless it certainly brought in some funds. Trump is funnier, and attracts more of the spotlight, than any of his rivals. If he starts putting in the work by giving speeches and figuring out which lines get a response, he'll identify the issues that matter, and increasingly ditch the grievances about 2020 that don't."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-trump-done/

---

The author is saying it's not over for Trump as far as getting the nomination is concerned. I am not sure I have seen any national pundit say otherwise. There remains a very good possibility, given the nutjobs and morons that comprise his rabid fan base, that he still gets the nomination. However, in the general election against the Dem nominee, whomever that is? Trump doesn't stand a chance. One need look no further than his polling numbers to see that.

Trump is done as a national candidate. He will never win another election. The sooner that we realize that, and start throwing our support behind electable alternatives, the better.

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

We don't agree on much, but this post is spot on. I have talked to a lot of friends whose kids are in their 20's, and unless they move 30 miles outside the city, can't find an affordable home. As a lawyer, I do well compared to most, and here in Austin, we live in a very modest, middle class neighborhood in Round Rock because even I can't afford to live closer to town. My house has more than doubled in value, and I wouldn't even be able to afford it if I were buying today.

I honestly don't understand how anyone can afford to live here. I see houses go on the market, selling in a day or two, and wonder, who the hell is buying these things? Who can afford them? The three on our street that have sold the last year were sold to CA transplants. My only conclusion is Austinites are leaving Austin, and transplants fleeing states like CA are replacing them, having sold their 3 bed, 2 bath home in Orange County for a million dollars.

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Accurate rebuttal.

The younger generation as a rule also don't want to work in any field that is physical or where they might get their hands dirty .

I have a Masters and only used it for 2 years . Then bought a farm ( going into huge debt in the process ) 9 years of 10 hour days later paid the farm off one year early .

Maybe 1 full day off every month , working in the El Paso dry heat and later the freezing winter cold . Man eating farm machinery, 2000 lb bulls and dealing with thieves from Mexico which was only one mile away .

Never had a white employee ….none ever applied .

Then began building houses . Much easier work, much better return……far better working conditions .

But it all took time and never once was there the security of a guaranteed income .

Was sink or swim every year . No government safety net .

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

They can't quit Trump. It's absolutely bizarre, and incomprehensible.

---

Really is.

Only explanation I can come up with is they do not believe anyone else will champion their causes. I am not sure there is anyone out there that will appease that part of the population, outside of someone they consider one of their own.

---

That's the biggest part of it. it's a bigger cultural issue within the GOP than Dems. And your last sentence hints at why. Dem leadership seems to always have a genuine concern for the desires of its grassroots, and actively seeks opportunities to advance the progressive agenda, which Dems tend to see is the true purpose of politics. GOP, on the other hand, tends to see their grassroots as unreasonable nutjobs getting in the way of what they believe to be the true purpose of politics - compromising with Dems. The perception that Trump would be different in that regard was a big part of why he won in 2016 (primary and general). In office, Trump proved that he would leave it all on the battlefield to do what he promised, no matter how much grief he got. That's why he has such enduring support. Trumpists are not unreasonable. They are entirely logical. Show them someone who will fight like Trump, and then the issue of moving on largely becomes and issue of fairness and gratitude.. (and there is a credible contender in view, btw.)

The flipside: the Trump critique in this and a couple other current threads is reflective (to matters of degree) of not just a majority of posters here, but of what I see hear elsewhere - a wide range of arguments all spinning on an axis unelectability. What those arguments are hardly unreasonable, they are also not ineluctable.

Amid that dynamic, we see conflicting poll numbers. Some showing RDS pulling ahead. Others, like the one below from this weekend's lede in the Economist, show him still in the lead.



The trend could continue. Or it could not. From the hardly Trump-friendly National Review:

"I'm way more hesitant to call it over for Trump. I even think the NFT sale wasn't entirely worthless it certainly brought in some funds. Trump is funnier, and attracts more of the spotlight, than any of his rivals. If he starts putting in the work by giving speeches and figuring out which lines get a response, he'll identify the issues that matter, and increasingly ditch the grievances about 2020 that don't."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-trump-done/

---

The author is saying it's not over for Trump as far as getting the nomination is concerned. I am not sure I have seen any national pundit say otherwise. There remains a very good possibility, given the nutjobs and morons that comprise his rabid fan base, that he still gets the nomination. However, in the general election against the Dem nominee, whomever that is? Trump doesn't stand a chance. One need look no further than his polling numbers to see that.

Trump is done as a national candidate. He will never win another election. The sooner that we realize that, and start throwing our support behind electable alternatives, the better.

---

You may be correct about the general. You may also be incorrect about the general. Some signposts:



It is not yet clear that the outcome of the general election is foreordained.

Other material:

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

---

That sounds good and all, except that millenials actually spend less on non-essentials than Gen X and Baby Boomers, surprisingly enough. And of course, the fact they spend more on essentials than we ever did tells you all you need to know - everything is more expensive than when we were their age, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

They can't quit Trump. It's absolutely bizarre, and incomprehensible.

---

Really is.

Only explanation I can come up with is they do not believe anyone else will champion their causes. I am not sure there is anyone out there that will appease that part of the population, outside of someone they consider one of their own.

---

That's the biggest part of it. it's a bigger cultural issue within the GOP than Dems. And your last sentence hints at why. Dem leadership seems to always have a genuine concern for the desires of its grassroots, and actively seeks opportunities to advance the progressive agenda, which Dems tend to see is the true purpose of politics. GOP, on the other hand, tends to see their grassroots as unreasonable nutjobs getting in the way of what they believe to be the true purpose of politics - compromising with Dems. The perception that Trump would be different in that regard was a big part of why he won in 2016 (primary and general). In office, Trump proved that he would leave it all on the battlefield to do what he promised, no matter how much grief he got. That's why he has such enduring support. Trumpists are not unreasonable. They are entirely logical. Show them someone who will fight like Trump, and then the issue of moving on largely becomes and issue of fairness and gratitude.. (and there is a credible contender in view, btw.)

The flipside: the Trump critique in this and a couple other current threads is reflective (to matters of degree) of not just a majority of posters here, but of what I see hear elsewhere - a wide range of arguments all spinning on an axis unelectability. What those arguments are hardly unreasonable, they are also not ineluctable.

Amid that dynamic, we see conflicting poll numbers. Some showing RDS pulling ahead. Others, like the one below from this weekend's lede in the Economist, show him still in the lead.



The trend could continue. Or it could not. From the hardly Trump-friendly National Review:

"I'm way more hesitant to call it over for Trump. I even think the NFT sale wasn't entirely worthless it certainly brought in some funds. Trump is funnier, and attracts more of the spotlight, than any of his rivals. If he starts putting in the work by giving speeches and figuring out which lines get a response, he'll identify the issues that matter, and increasingly ditch the grievances about 2020 that don't."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-trump-done/

---

The author is saying it's not over for Trump as far as getting the nomination is concerned. I am not sure I have seen any national pundit say otherwise. There remains a very good possibility, given the nutjobs and morons that comprise his rabid fan base, that he still gets the nomination. However, in the general election against the Dem nominee, whomever that is? Trump doesn't stand a chance. One need look no further than his polling numbers to see that.

Trump is done as a national candidate. He will never win another election. The sooner that we realize that, and start throwing our support behind electable alternatives, the better.

---

You may be correct about the general. You may also be incorrect about the general. Some signposts:



It is not yet clear that the outcome of the general election is foreordained.

---

Foreordained? No. I would say Trump has a slightly better chance than a snowball's chance in hell. Slightly.

He's done. Again, the sooner we all come around to that fact, the better.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

---

That sounds good and all, except that millenials actually spend less on non-essentials than Gen X and Baby Boomers, surprisingly enough. And of course, the fact they spend more on essentials than we ever did tells you all you need to know - everything is more expensive than when we were their age, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

---

What are you defining as essentials? A smartphone, an iwatch and premium cable? I will agree that what we believe is essential has changed and salaries have not caught up. But the ability to not have a smartphone is lost on these generations. To them it is an essential, along with the $150 a month payment.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

---

That sounds good and all, except that millenials actually spend less on non-essentials than Gen X and Baby Boomers, surprisingly enough. And of course, the fact they spend more on essentials than we ever did tells you all you need to know - everything is more expensive than when we were their age, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

---

What are you defining as essentials? A smartphone, an iwatch and premium cable? I will agree that what we believe is essential has changed and salaries have not caught up. But the ability to not have a smartphone is lost on these generations. To them it is an essential, along with the $150 a month payment.

---

Housing and food, for the most part. Thinks like alcohol, clothing, furnishings and recreation would not be essentials.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

---

That sounds good and all, except that millenials actually spend less on non-essentials than Gen X and Baby Boomers, surprisingly enough. And of course, the fact they spend more on essentials than we ever did tells you all you need to know - everything is more expensive than when we were their age, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

---

What are you defining as essentials? A smartphone, an iwatch and premium cable? I will agree that what we believe is essential has changed and salaries have not caught up. But the ability to not have a smartphone is lost on these generations. To them it is an essential, along with the $150 a month payment.

---

Housing and food, for the most part. Thinks like alcohol, clothing, furnishings and recreation would not be essentials.

---

I am sorry we disagree. I do not believe these generations have ir worse than past generations.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

---

That sounds good and all, except that millenials actually spend less on non-essentials than Gen X and Baby Boomers, surprisingly enough. And of course, the fact they spend more on essentials than we ever did tells you all you need to know - everything is more expensive than when we were their age, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

---

What are you defining as essentials? A smartphone, an iwatch and premium cable? I will agree that what we believe is essential has changed and salaries have not caught up. But the ability to not have a smartphone is lost on these generations. To them it is an essential, along with the $150 a month payment.

---

Housing and food, for the most part. Thinks like alcohol, clothing, furnishings and recreation would not be essentials.

---

I am sorry we disagree. I do not believe these generations have ir worse than past generations.

---

Now you're making another different point I don't disagree with. I never said they have it worse than past generations. I said their money doesn't go as far.

Those are two VERY different issues.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

They can't quit Trump. It's absolutely bizarre, and incomprehensible.

---

Really is.

Only explanation I can come up with is they do not believe anyone else will champion their causes. I am not sure there is anyone out there that will appease that part of the population, outside of someone they consider one of their own.

---

That's the biggest part of it. it's a bigger cultural issue within the GOP than Dems. And your last sentence hints at why. Dem leadership seems to always have a genuine concern for the desires of its grassroots, and actively seeks opportunities to advance the progressive agenda, which Dems tend to see is the true purpose of politics. GOP, on the other hand, tends to see their grassroots as unreasonable nutjobs getting in the way of what they believe to be the true purpose of politics - compromising with Dems. The perception that Trump would be different in that regard was a big part of why he won in 2016 (primary and general). In office, Trump proved that he would leave it all on the battlefield to do what he promised, no matter how much grief he got. That's why he has such enduring support. Trumpists are not unreasonable. They are entirely logical. Show them someone who will fight like Trump, and then the issue of moving on largely becomes and issue of fairness and gratitude.. (and there is a credible contender in view, btw.)

The flipside: the Trump critique in this and a couple other current threads is reflective (to matters of degree) of not just a majority of posters here, but of what I see hear elsewhere - a wide range of arguments all spinning on an axis unelectability. What those arguments are hardly unreasonable, they are also not ineluctable.

Amid that dynamic, we see conflicting poll numbers. Some showing RDS pulling ahead. Others, like the one below from this weekend's lede in the Economist, show him still in the lead.



The trend could continue. Or it could not. From the hardly Trump-friendly National Review:

"I'm way more hesitant to call it over for Trump. I even think the NFT sale wasn't entirely worthless it certainly brought in some funds. Trump is funnier, and attracts more of the spotlight, than any of his rivals. If he starts putting in the work by giving speeches and figuring out which lines get a response, he'll identify the issues that matter, and increasingly ditch the grievances about 2020 that don't."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-trump-done/

---

The author is saying it's not over for Trump as far as getting the nomination is concerned. I am not sure I have seen any national pundit say otherwise. There remains a very good possibility, given the nutjobs and morons that comprise his rabid fan base, that he still gets the nomination. However, in the general election against the Dem nominee, whomever that is? Trump doesn't stand a chance. One need look no further than his polling numbers to see that.

Trump is done as a national candidate. He will never win another election. The sooner that we realize that, and start throwing our support behind electable alternatives, the better.

---

You may be correct about the general. You may also be incorrect about the general. Some signposts:



It is not yet clear that the outcome of the general election is foreordained.

---

Foreordained? No. I would say Trump has a slightly better chance than a snowball's chance in hell. Slightly.

He's done. Again, the sooner we all come around to that fact, the better.

---

Again, the electability argument is weak, because there is no argument for it which cannot be mostly or fully countered with equally valid reasoning or data. If you want someone else on the ticket, you should try other arguments.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

---

That sounds good and all, except that millenials actually spend less on non-essentials than Gen X and Baby Boomers, surprisingly enough. And of course, the fact they spend more on essentials than we ever did tells you all you need to know - everything is more expensive than when we were their age, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

---

What are you defining as essentials? A smartphone, an iwatch and premium cable? I will agree that what we believe is essential has changed and salaries have not caught up. But the ability to not have a smartphone is lost on these generations. To them it is an essential, along with the $150 a month payment.

---

Housing and food, for the most part. Thinks like alcohol, clothing, furnishings and recreation would not be essentials.

---

I am sorry we disagree. I do not believe these generations have ir worse than past generations.

---

Now you're making another different point I don't disagree with. I never said they have it worse than past generations. I said their money doesn't go as far.

Those are two VERY different issues.

---

Is it? The implications is they can't survive, buy a house or make it like Boomers and Depression Era gets did. I sa they are comparable. A smartphone may not be a necessity. An apartment in the neighborhood they want at graduation might not be a necessity. They may need to enlist to get a start. There is no getting around the work is the one oesson I learned. Maybe they need go re-evaluate expectations.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

They can't quit Trump. It's absolutely bizarre, and incomprehensible.

---

Really is.

Only explanation I can come up with is they do not believe anyone else will champion their causes. I am not sure there is anyone out there that will appease that part of the population, outside of someone they consider one of their own.

---

That's the biggest part of it. it's a bigger cultural issue within the GOP than Dems. And your last sentence hints at why. Dem leadership seems to always have a genuine concern for the desires of its grassroots, and actively seeks opportunities to advance the progressive agenda, which Dems tend to see is the true purpose of politics. GOP, on the other hand, tends to see their grassroots as unreasonable nutjobs getting in the way of what they believe to be the true purpose of politics - compromising with Dems. The perception that Trump would be different in that regard was a big part of why he won in 2016 (primary and general). In office, Trump proved that he would leave it all on the battlefield to do what he promised, no matter how much grief he got. That's why he has such enduring support. Trumpists are not unreasonable. They are entirely logical. Show them someone who will fight like Trump, and then the issue of moving on largely becomes and issue of fairness and gratitude.. (and there is a credible contender in view, btw.)

The flipside: the Trump critique in this and a couple other current threads is reflective (to matters of degree) of not just a majority of posters here, but of what I see hear elsewhere - a wide range of arguments all spinning on an axis unelectability. What those arguments are hardly unreasonable, they are also not ineluctable.

Amid that dynamic, we see conflicting poll numbers. Some showing RDS pulling ahead. Others, like the one below from this weekend's lede in the Economist, show him still in the lead.



The trend could continue. Or it could not. From the hardly Trump-friendly National Review:

"I'm way more hesitant to call it over for Trump. I even think the NFT sale wasn't entirely worthless it certainly brought in some funds. Trump is funnier, and attracts more of the spotlight, than any of his rivals. If he starts putting in the work by giving speeches and figuring out which lines get a response, he'll identify the issues that matter, and increasingly ditch the grievances about 2020 that don't."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-trump-done/

---

The author is saying it's not over for Trump as far as getting the nomination is concerned. I am not sure I have seen any national pundit say otherwise. There remains a very good possibility, given the nutjobs and morons that comprise his rabid fan base, that he still gets the nomination. However, in the general election against the Dem nominee, whomever that is? Trump doesn't stand a chance. One need look no further than his polling numbers to see that.

Trump is done as a national candidate. He will never win another election. The sooner that we realize that, and start throwing our support behind electable alternatives, the better.

---

You may be correct about the general. You may also be incorrect about the general. Some signposts:



It is not yet clear that the outcome of the general election is foreordained.

---

Foreordained? No. I would say Trump has a slightly better chance than a snowball's chance in hell. Slightly.

He's done. Again, the sooner we all come around to that fact, the better.

---

Again, the electability argument is weak, because there is no argument for it which cannot be mostly or fully countered with equally valid reasoning or data. If you want someone else on the ticket, you should try other arguments.

---

B.S. Your arguments supporting your contention that he is in any way electable in a general election are absurd at best. We have a 2020 election, a 2022 midterm, a favorability rating around 40% and and an approval rating that has never risen above 50% since his election that tells us he is not electable.

If you want the Republicans to lose this next election cycle, then by all means keep propagating that fiction. I can't remember the last time you've been right on any of your predictions.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

---

That sounds good and all, except that millenials actually spend less on non-essentials than Gen X and Baby Boomers, surprisingly enough. And of course, the fact they spend more on essentials than we ever did tells you all you need to know - everything is more expensive than when we were their age, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

---

What are you defining as essentials? A smartphone, an iwatch and premium cable? I will agree that what we believe is essential has changed and salaries have not caught up. But the ability to not have a smartphone is lost on these generations. To them it is an essential, along with the $150 a month payment.

---

Housing and food, for the most part. Thinks like alcohol, clothing, furnishings and recreation would not be essentials.

---

I am sorry we disagree. I do not believe these generations have ir worse than past generations.

---

Now you're making another different point I don't disagree with. I never said they have it worse than past generations. I said their money doesn't go as far.

Those are two VERY different issues.

---

Is it? The implications is they can't survive, buy a house or make it like Boomers and Depression Era gets did. I sa they are comparable. A smartphone may not be a necessity. An apartment in the neighborhood they want at graduation might not be a necessity. They may need to enlist to get a start. There is no getting around the work is the one oesson I learned. Maybe they need go re-evaluate expectations.

---

That may be what you were implying, but not me. I am merely responding to your argument on ROI. It is indisputable that today, we don't get the bang for our buck that we used to. That statistics say today's generation will have a much more difficult time purchasing a home and generating wealth than the preceding generation. I will be the first time such an event has occurred in the history of our country..

Does that mean they have it worse off than those who went through the depression. No, and I never said or suggested as such.

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

They can't quit Trump. It's absolutely bizarre, and incomprehensible.

---

Really is.

Only explanation I can come up with is they do not believe anyone else will champion their causes. I am not sure there is anyone out there that will appease that part of the population, outside of someone they consider one of their own.

---

That's the biggest part of it. it's a bigger cultural issue within the GOP than Dems. And your last sentence hints at why. Dem leadership seems to always have a genuine concern for the desires of its grassroots, and actively seeks opportunities to advance the progressive agenda, which Dems tend to see is the true purpose of politics. GOP, on the other hand, tends to see their grassroots as unreasonable nutjobs getting in the way of what they believe to be the true purpose of politics - compromising with Dems. The perception that Trump would be different in that regard was a big part of why he won in 2016 (primary and general). In office, Trump proved that he would leave it all on the battlefield to do what he promised, no matter how much grief he got. That's why he has such enduring support. Trumpists are not unreasonable. They are entirely logical. Show them someone who will fight like Trump, and then the issue of moving on largely becomes and issue of fairness and gratitude.. (and there is a credible contender in view, btw.)

The flipside: the Trump critique in this and a couple other current threads is reflective (to matters of degree) of not just a majority of posters here, but of what I see hear elsewhere - a wide range of arguments all spinning on an axis unelectability. What those arguments are hardly unreasonable, they are also not ineluctable.

Amid that dynamic, we see conflicting poll numbers. Some showing RDS pulling ahead. Others, like the one below from this weekend's lede in the Economist, show him still in the lead.



The trend could continue. Or it could not. From the hardly Trump-friendly National Review:

"I'm way more hesitant to call it over for Trump. I even think the NFT sale wasn't entirely worthless it certainly brought in some funds. Trump is funnier, and attracts more of the spotlight, than any of his rivals. If he starts putting in the work by giving speeches and figuring out which lines get a response, he'll identify the issues that matter, and increasingly ditch the grievances about 2020 that don't."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-trump-done/

---

The author is saying it's not over for Trump as far as getting the nomination is concerned. I am not sure I have seen any national pundit say otherwise. There remains a very good possibility, given the nutjobs and morons that comprise his rabid fan base, that he still gets the nomination. However, in the general election against the Dem nominee, whomever that is? Trump doesn't stand a chance. One need look no further than his polling numbers to see that.

Trump is done as a national candidate. He will never win another election. The sooner that we realize that, and start throwing our support behind electable alternatives, the better.

---

You may be correct about the general. You may also be incorrect about the general. Some signposts:



It is not yet clear that the outcome of the general election is foreordained.

---

Foreordained? No. I would say Trump has a slightly better chance than a snowball's chance in hell. Slightly.

He's done. Again, the sooner we all come around to that fact, the better.

---

Again, the electability argument is weak, because there is no argument for it which cannot be mostly or fully countered with equally valid reasoning or data. If you want someone else on the ticket, you should try other arguments.

---

Amusing ...really amusing .

Trump's day is clearly over.

A few points in rebuttal:

First, based on history, someone like Desantis should not be even close to Biden (General) or Trump (primary). The fact that he is leading both head-to-head is insane and bodes poorly for Biden and Trump.

Second, Desantis is beating Trump head-to-head in every recent poll I've seen. Trump does better with more candidates. This makes perfect sense.

Third, Desantis leads Trump in virtually all the key states.

Finally, Harvard Harris is the only poll I've seen with Trump leading Biden. Trump's and the RNC's internals have had Biden leading Trump by 2-6 for most of the last year. And the state polls are worse for Trump. He's down in every true swing state - GA, MI, PA, NH, AZ, WI, and NV.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

---

That sounds good and all, except that millenials actually spend less on non-essentials than Gen X and Baby Boomers, surprisingly enough. And of course, the fact they spend more on essentials than we ever did tells you all you need to know - everything is more expensive than when we were their age, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

---

What are you defining as essentials? A smartphone, an iwatch and premium cable? I will agree that what we believe is essential has changed and salaries have not caught up. But the ability to not have a smartphone is lost on these generations. To them it is an essential, along with the $150 a month payment.

---

Housing and food, for the most part. Thinks like alcohol, clothing, furnishings and recreation would not be essentials.

---

I am sorry we disagree. I do not believe these generations have ir worse than past generations.

---

Now you're making another different point I don't disagree with. I never said they have it worse than past generations. I said their money doesn't go as far.

Those are two VERY different issues.

---

Is it? The implications is they can't survive, buy a house or make it like Boomers and Depression Era gets did. I sa they are comparable. A smartphone may not be a necessity. An apartment in the neighborhood they want at graduation might not be a necessity. They may need to enlist to get a start. There is no getting around the work is the one oesson I learned. Maybe they need go re-evaluate expectations.

---

That may be what you were implying, but not me. I am merely responding to your argument on ROI. It is indisputable that today, we don't get the bang for our buck that we used to. That statistics say today's generation will have a much more difficult time purchasing a home and generating wealth than the preceding generation. I will be the first time such an event has occurred in the history of our country..

Does that mean they have it worse off than those who went through the depression. No, and I never said or suggested as such.

---

I have a problem with the analysis you use. It is based on one metric without taking any consideration of other factors. ROI is not simply measure of inflation, although the starting salaries appear very close when solving for inflation. . You do not take quality of life, opportunity options today, choice or an apples to apples look at necessity.

I would make the argument there is a higher ROI potential today with the disruptive technologies and ability to get in early.
. Now you spend 250k on a philosophy degree you will have a tough time.

I do not believe it is as simple an analysis as you do.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

---

That sounds good and all, except that millenials actually spend less on non-essentials than Gen X and Baby Boomers, surprisingly enough. And of course, the fact they spend more on essentials than we ever did tells you all you need to know - everything is more expensive than when we were their age, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

---

What are you defining as essentials? A smartphone, an iwatch and premium cable? I will agree that what we believe is essential has changed and salaries have not caught up. But the ability to not have a smartphone is lost on these generations. To them it is an essential, along with the $150 a month payment.

---

Housing and food, for the most part. Thinks like alcohol, clothing, furnishings and recreation would not be essentials.

---

I am sorry we disagree. I do not believe these generations have ir worse than past generations.

---

Now you're making another different point I don't disagree with. I never said they have it worse than past generations. I said their money doesn't go as far.

Those are two VERY different issues.

---

Is it? The implications is they can't survive, buy a house or make it like Boomers and Depression Era gets did. I sa they are comparable. A smartphone may not be a necessity. An apartment in the neighborhood they want at graduation might not be a necessity. They may need to enlist to get a start. There is no getting around the work is the one oesson I learned. Maybe they need go re-evaluate expectations.

---

That may be what you were implying, but not me. I am merely responding to your argument on ROI. It is indisputable that today, we don't get the bang for our buck that we used to. That statistics say today's generation will have a much more difficult time purchasing a home and generating wealth than the preceding generation. I will be the first time such an event has occurred in the history of our country..

Does that mean they have it worse off than those who went through the depression. No, and I never said or suggested as such.

---

I have a problem with the analysis you use. It is based on one metric without taking any consideration of other factors. ROI is not simply measure of inflation, although the starting salaries appear very close when solving for inflation. . You do not take quality of life, opportunity options today, choice or an apples to apples look at necessity.

I would make the argument there is a higher ROI potential today with the disruptive technologies and ability to get in early.
. Now you spend 250k on a philosophy degree you will have a tough time.

I do not believe it is as simple an analysis as you do.

---

If you believe more opportunities means a higher ROI, well then I don't disagree ROI would be higher under your thought process. I believe the more accurate method is the extent to which your dollar goes, and it's indisputable that it doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k.

Bottom line is statistics across-the-board show that our kids are approx. 80% less wealthy than we were at their age and will spend more on essentials than we ever did. And their chances of owning a home are also less. $56,000 right out of college is better than the $28,000 I made in the 90s. But my first home was $125k. That same home today is $360k. I don't believe that jeans todays generation is lazier or won't settle for less. I think that's what us old geezers sometimes like to think about the younger generation - and respectfully I think you're guilty of that here.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Guy Noir said:

---

Yep me too.

---

Its a con game .

And alumni are the ones getting conned the worst.



Now players are getting paid ....then using the 'portal' to leave on a moments notice.

Not paying the freight any longer. To hell with the entire system .

---

I get what your saying.

But not paying the freight is at pandemic levels. The younger generations do not seem to be willing to do what past generations did. I am watching 50 somethings that paid their dues and should now be highest with seniority at the end of their careers having to do the same entry level work and shift because younger generation won't. I am really worried about who is going to pay the freight in the future. It is really bad in health field now

---

The return on investment just isn't there for younger people like it was for you (assuming Boomer or an adjacent generation). My dad bought the house I grew up in for $40k, with no college and working at a power plant (the "Homer Simpson" life I humorously call it). I just bought a house in that what I would say is a comparable classification (much better neighborhood though) for over $550k. That price differential is insane. Throw in health care costs, student loans (neither of which were huge problems 40nyears ago), etc. and it shouldn't be all that hard to see how discouraging that is to current generations. Hard work only gets you so far, and "so far" becomes less and less every year.

This gets said a lot, but we younger people are just trying to make it in the system that you older people built for us, and y'all have been conditioned strenuously to resist any change whatsoever when your leaders invoke "socialism" or "wokeism" as code words for things that would infringe in their profit margins.

---

That is not true. The ROI is still there, it takes time and sacrifice. Just like it always has.

It took 20 years to get to my current position where I actually have some say. My first house was a VA mortgage, 0% down. That still exists and is a great benefit of service. I moved 7 times in my career and worked in places like Amarillo, TX; Ocala, FL; West Bend, WI because that is where the job was. I worked on over 200 small, not fun projects to get to the point to lead the cool innovation stuff I do now.
It literally took me 25 years to get to a point where I could go to a Conference in Copenhagen.

I am sorry education is not a substitute for experience, you need both. Experience takes time, mistakes, sacrifice, successes, good people, bad people, and sweat. You can't do that in 3 to 5 years. If you don't want to pay for Student Loans, which have allowed more people access to higher education than any other program in history, join the military. They will pay. You say "Boomers" and Older generations had it easier, most of them served at least in the reserves. The GI Bill paid for a lot of the education you see. That is still there.

The problem is that the younger generations want my job in 3 years. They want my house in 3 years. They want the ability to travel like I do immediately. They want to control 200M dollar projects because they have a Masters. AND, they want it all from their living room or their choice of City upon Graduation. That is the problem with those that find no ROI.

There is more ROI now than ever before. You can do more, faster and for more money now than at any time in history. If you are willing to work in the fields that are growing. So, I pretty much call BS on the poor younger generation.

---

Don't disagree with the insinuation that the younger generation doesn't want to work as hard for things as previous generations. That does seem to be the case.

However, it's hard to look at the facts and claim ROI hasn't gotten much worse for young people. The amount of money we are currently spending on "essential" items, like food, is at a greater percentage of our income than at any point since the Consumer Price Index was instituted in the 1920's. I read the other day that buying a home is approximately seven times more expensive today than it was in the 1970's, based on average salaries. And home ownership by young people is at an all-time low as a result. This will be the first generation in history that is less wealthy than parents. What that means is that the parents and grandparents got a lot more bang for their buck than millenials. Sure some of it is attributable to societal factors, but much of it is not.

---

My first job was 28k in Amarillo, now they are coming on at 57k and complaining. Don't give me that it is much different. We did not fly to visit family for the first 20 years of our marriage, we drove from Florida to Wisconsin. We had basic cable. I remember going to the grocery store, the two of us with a calculator. It has always been tough starting out.

In the 10 years I have been in my current position, we have had 155 interns, 2 were hired. Only 2 impressed the staff enough to say we better not let them go. Most, I have no idea of their names, never made an attempt to get involved in beyond the bare level needed to get the credit.

There are many younger people that work hard and that want to work. That is not what I said, it is what you want to read into it. I said it takes time and the you can't substitute experience with academic education. I said they do not want to move for jobs or go the routes other generations did to accomplish goals. They will work hard and then want to be the boss in 6 month. It never has worked that way. They need to pay their dues, like everyone else has.

---

You are arguing a different point altogether, one I don't disagree with. Your original premise is that ROI was the same. It's decidedly not. The dollar doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k (likewise, my initial salary right out of Baylor). Yes, they make more coming out, but cost of living has far exceeded the rise in salaries.

---

28k in 1993 is the same as 57k today, the same as most Masters level jobs pay. It is not that different. The anticipated life style is what has changed. We had no cell phone, a used car with no AC, didn't fly, every vacation was visiting a set of parents. We didn't eat out. I had student loans that I had to put in forebearence some times to make ends meet, cost my to this day in interest, but we did it. My one indulgence was a gym membership.

The spending power was the same. What is expected out of life is not. My first house was 64k in 1996 (about 130 today) in a neighborhood I did not like. I stayed, sold and moved to a better area. My wife and I lived in areas that my kids and most young people would never live today, too far away. They don't like to commute (Like I did!). We went toward older populations and rented at first. Not exciting, but safer. You do things you don't like, move on and get over it. I am not seeing that in many of the younger generations. So, I am not on board with things are so much worse now crowd. If you are taking a vacation at an all inclusive or going on a cruise, it is not a ROI issue.

---

That sounds good and all, except that millenials actually spend less on non-essentials than Gen X and Baby Boomers, surprisingly enough. And of course, the fact they spend more on essentials than we ever did tells you all you need to know - everything is more expensive than when we were their age, and the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to.

---

What are you defining as essentials? A smartphone, an iwatch and premium cable? I will agree that what we believe is essential has changed and salaries have not caught up. But the ability to not have a smartphone is lost on these generations. To them it is an essential, along with the $150 a month payment.

---

Housing and food, for the most part. Thinks like alcohol, clothing, furnishings and recreation would not be essentials.

---

I am sorry we disagree. I do not believe these generations have ir worse than past generations.

---

Now you're making another different point I don't disagree with. I never said they have it worse than past generations. I said their money doesn't go as far.

Those are two VERY different issues.

---

Is it? The implications is they can't survive, buy a house or make it like Boomers and Depression Era gets did. I sa they are comparable. A smartphone may not be a necessity. An apartment in the neighborhood they want at graduation might not be a necessity. They may need to enlist to get a start. There is no getting around the work is the one oesson I learned. Maybe they need go re-evaluate expectations.

---

That may be what you were implying, but not me. I am merely responding to your argument on ROI. It is indisputable that today, we don't get the bang for our buck that we used to. That statistics say today's generation will have a much more difficult time purchasing a home and generating wealth than the preceding generation. I will be the first time such an event has occurred in the history of our country..

Does that mean they have it worse off than those who went through the depression. No, and I never said or suggested as such.

---

I have a problem with the analysis you use. It is based on one metric without taking any consideration of other factors. ROI is not simply measure of inflation, although the starting salaries appear very close when solving for inflation. . You do not take quality of life, opportunity options today, choice or an apples to apples look at necessity.

I would make the argument there is a higher ROI potential today with the disruptive technologies and ability to get in early.
. Now you spend 250k on a philosophy degree you will have a tough time.

I do not believe it is as simple an analysis as you do.

---

If you believe more opportunities means a higher ROI, well then I don't disagree ROI would be higher under your thought process. I believe the more accurate method is the extent to which your dollar goes, and it's indisputable that it doesn't go nearly as far as when you and I were making $28k.

Bottom line is statistics across-the-board show that our kids are approx. 80% less wealthy than we were at their age and will spend more on essentials than we ever did. And their chances of owning a home are also less. $56,000 right out of college is better than the $28,000 I made in the 90s. But my first home was $125k. That same home today is $360k. I don't believe that jeans todays generation is lazier or won't settle for less. I think that's what us old geezers sometimes like to think about the younger generation - and respectfully I think you're guilty of that here.

---

I think we are talking two different things.

I am talking ROI, return on my investment to make a living of Boomers/Pre-Boomers vs Millenials/GX . Since student loans seems to be the dependent variable the younger generations complain about in this equation, wouldn't the cost of education and the the salary you can make be the discussion point?

To have the same "spending power" all I would need is my 1993 salary adjusted for inflation. So, it really wouldn't matter if the dollar is worth less, as long as I get more of them for the discussion of comparing generations. If I was making 28k with a Masters in 1993 all I would need for the same spending power would be a salary of 57k, which is pretty much what a starting salary for most careers with a Masters. Now, if I made less than 57k, than my "career" has less spending power.
So my question back, does it matter to the individual if the majority of careers are paying the equivalent or more in 2022 dollars?


(Value of the dollar is an economic discussion, which is not what this was about. I agree we have over inflated everything, but that is only a problem if the salary is the same and it is not. Ultimately it will correct, but you and I have little control over that. )

Rationalize it all you want, but record numbers of young people of prime working age are living at home with parents. They aren't doing that for fun, they're doing it because they have to, because housing and cost of living in general have spiraled out of control. And these aren't people with useless liberal arts degrees either.

HuMcK said:

---

Rationalize it all you want, but record numbers of young people of prime working age are living at home with parents. They aren't doing that for fun, they're doing it because they have to, because housing and cost of living in general have spiraled out of control. And these aren't people with useless liberal arts degrees either.

---

This is true. I am seeing it much more often in my neck of the woods. The salaries have not been commensurate with inflation, and I think that's the point he's missing.

One can point to higher salaries to try and prove that people today are better off, but the problem is those salaries don't buy nearly as much as they used to.

sombear said:

---

A few points in rebuttal:

First, based on history, someone like Desantis should not be even close to Biden (General) or Trump (primary). The fact that he is leading both head-to-head is insane and bodes poorly for Biden and Trump.

Second, Desantis is beating Trump head-to-head in every recent poll I've seen. Trump does better with more candidates. This makes perfect sense.

Third, Desantis leads Trump in virtually all the key states.

Finally, Harvard Harris is the only poll I've seen with Trump leading Biden. Trump's and the RNC's internals have had Biden leading Trump by 2-6 for most of the last year. And the state polls are worse for Trump. He's down in every true swing state - GA, MI, PA, NH, AZ, WI, and NV.

---

Several of you are letting your emotion (an in your case establishment spin) unduly affect your logic.
It is not entirely clear at this time who is the leader or who will be the best nominee.

2024 National Republican Primary:

Trump 48%
DeSantis 33%
Pence 8%
Cruz 3%
Haley 2%
Cheney 2%
Abbot 1%
Pompeo 1%
Noem 1%
T. Scott 1%
Youngkin 0%@MorningConsult , 4,105 RV, 12/16-18https://t.co/dQctcc2gBX

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 20, 2022

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

A few points in rebuttal:

First, based on history, someone like Desantis should not be even close to Biden (General) or Trump (primary). The fact that he is leading both head-to-head is insane and bodes poorly for Biden and Trump.

Second, Desantis is beating Trump head-to-head in every recent poll I've seen. Trump does better with more candidates. This makes perfect sense.

Third, Desantis leads Trump in virtually all the key states.

Finally, Harvard Harris is the only poll I've seen with Trump leading Biden. Trump's and the RNC's internals have had Biden leading Trump by 2-6 for most of the last year. And the state polls are worse for Trump. He's down in every true swing state - GA, MI, PA, NH, AZ, WI, and NV.

---

Several of you are letting your emotion (an in your case establishment spin) unduly affect your logic.
It is not entirely clear at this time who is the leader or who will be the best nominee.

2024 National Republican Primary:

Trump 48%
DeSantis 33%
Pence 8%
Cruz 3%
Haley 2%
Cheney 2%
Abbot 1%
Pompeo 1%
Noem 1%
T. Scott 1%
Youngkin 0%@MorningConsult , 4,105 RV, 12/16-18https://t.co/dQctcc2gBX

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 20, 2022

---

So, you post a poll that shows Trump as the lead candidate (he is the only declared candidate) and now all of a sudden, people such as myself are using emotion when we say he can't win the general? You're a hoot.

An ass kicking in 2020, his candidates' ass kickings in 2022, approval rating of 31-41% (depending on the poll) and favorability rating of around 59% says Trump doesn't have a chance. Those aren't emotions, they're facts.

Oh, and here's a recent poll that supports my position, just so you can't accuse me of being "emotional."

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/14/trump-hits-7-year-low-in-new-national-poll-as-biden-approval-climbs.html

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and get off the Trump Train. It's going over a cliff. He's done.

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

A few points in rebuttal:

First, based on history, someone like Desantis should not be even close to Biden (General) or Trump (primary). The fact that he is leading both head-to-head is insane and bodes poorly for Biden and Trump.

Second, Desantis is beating Trump head-to-head in every recent poll I've seen. Trump does better with more candidates. This makes perfect sense.

Third, Desantis leads Trump in virtually all the key states.

Finally, Harvard Harris is the only poll I've seen with Trump leading Biden. Trump's and the RNC's internals have had Biden leading Trump by 2-6 for most of the last year. And the state polls are worse for Trump. He's down in every true swing state - GA, MI, PA, NH, AZ, WI, and NV.

---

Several of you are letting your emotion (an in your case establishment spin) unduly affect your logic.
It is not entirely clear at this time who is the leader or who will be the best nominee.

2024 National Republican Primary:

Trump 48%
DeSantis 33%
Pence 8%
Cruz 3%
Haley 2%
Cheney 2%
Abbot 1%
Pompeo 1%
Noem 1%
T. Scott 1%
Youngkin 0%@MorningConsult , 4,105 RV, 12/16-18https://t.co/dQctcc2gBX

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 20, 2022

---

Now that's funny. I've been an anti-establishment Republican my entire adult life. Do you dispute any of my points?

My experience has been that most of the young people I know (alot) work very hard and have really good jobs. one thing is very different now is the a majority of the young folks don't want a house in the burbs. They spend and value living in the city and spend a large portion of there income on rent and going out. That is why I'm in the Multi Family Business!

whiterock said:

---

sombear said:

---

A few points in rebuttal:

First, based on history, someone like Desantis should not be even close to Biden (General) or Trump (primary). The fact that he is leading both head-to-head is insane and bodes poorly for Biden and Trump.

Second, Desantis is beating Trump head-to-head in every recent poll I've seen. Trump does better with more candidates. This makes perfect sense.

Third, Desantis leads Trump in virtually all the key states.

Finally, Harvard Harris is the only poll I've seen with Trump leading Biden. Trump's and the RNC's internals have had Biden leading Trump by 2-6 for most of the last year. And the state polls are worse for Trump. He's down in every true swing state - GA, MI, PA, NH, AZ, WI, and NV.

---

Several of you are letting your emotion (an in your case establishment spin) unduly affect your logic.
It is not entirely clear at this time who is the leader or who will be the best nominee.

2024 National Republican Primary:

Trump 48%
DeSantis 33%
Pence 8%
Cruz 3%
Haley 2%
Cheney 2%
Abbot 1%
Pompeo 1%
Noem 1%
T. Scott 1%
Youngkin 0%@MorningConsult , 4,105 RV, 12/16-18https://t.co/dQctcc2gBX

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) December 20, 2022

---

You are the establishment and you are spinning

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

They can't quit Trump. It's absolutely bizarre, and incomprehensible.

---

Really is.

Only explanation I can come up with is they do not believe anyone else will champion their causes. I am not sure there is anyone out there that will appease that part of the population, outside of someone they consider one of their own.

---

That's the biggest part of it. it's a bigger cultural issue within the GOP than Dems. And your last sentence hints at why. Dem leadership seems to always have a genuine concern for the desires of its grassroots, and actively seeks opportunities to advance the progressive agenda, which Dems tend to see is the true purpose of politics. GOP, on the other hand, tends to see their grassroots as unreasonable nutjobs getting in the way of what they believe to be the true purpose of politics - compromising with Dems. The perception that Trump would be different in that regard was a big part of why he won in 2016 (primary and general). In office, Trump proved that he would leave it all on the battlefield to do what he promised, no matter how much grief he got. That's why he has such enduring support. Trumpists are not unreasonable. They are entirely logical. Show them someone who will fight like Trump, and then the issue of moving on largely becomes and issue of fairness and gratitude.. (and there is a credible contender in view, btw.)

The flipside: the Trump critique in this and a couple other current threads is reflective (to matters of degree) of not just a majority of posters here, but of what I see hear elsewhere - a wide range of arguments all spinning on an axis unelectability. What those arguments are hardly unreasonable, they are also not ineluctable.

Amid that dynamic, we see conflicting poll numbers. Some showing RDS pulling ahead. Others, like the one below from this weekend's lede in the Economist, show him still in the lead.



The trend could continue. Or it could not. From the hardly Trump-friendly National Review:

"I'm way more hesitant to call it over for Trump. I even think the NFT sale wasn't entirely worthless it certainly brought in some funds. Trump is funnier, and attracts more of the spotlight, than any of his rivals. If he starts putting in the work by giving speeches and figuring out which lines get a response, he'll identify the issues that matter, and increasingly ditch the grievances about 2020 that don't."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/is-trump-done/

---

The author is saying it's not over for Trump as far as getting the nomination is concerned. I am not sure I have seen any national pundit say otherwise. There remains a very good possibility, given the nutjobs and morons that comprise his rabid fan base, that he still gets the nomination. However, in the general election against the Dem nominee, whomever that is? Trump doesn't stand a chance. One need look no further than his polling numbers to see that.

Trump is done as a national candidate. He will never win another election. The sooner that we realize that, and start throwing our support behind electable alternatives, the better.

---

You may be correct about the general. You may also be incorrect about the general. Some signposts:



It is not yet clear that the outcome of the general election is foreordained.

---

Foreordained? No. I would say Trump has a slightly better chance than a snowball's chance in hell. Slightly.

He's done. Again, the sooner we all come around to that fact, the better.

---

Again, the electability argument is weak, because there is no argument for it which cannot be mostly or fully countered with equally valid reasoning or data. If you want someone else on the ticket, you should try other arguments.

---

B.S. Your arguments supporting your contention that he is in any way electable in a general election are absurd at best. We have a 2020 election, a 2022 midterm, a favorability rating around 40% and and an approval rating that has never risen above 50% since his election that tells us he is not electable.

If you want the Republicans to lose this next election cycle, then by all means keep propagating that fiction. I can't remember the last time you've been right on any of your predictions.

---

And Biden's favorability in a poll I saw yesterday was 31%.
And the analysis of 2022, 2020, 2018 all have observations which do not support the Trump toxicity argument.

I'm not arguing for Trump.
I'm arguing that Trump is competitive enough against Biden that we can win 2024 if we start working on the things we can fix before it gets to candidate time. It's work that has to happen no matter who our candidate will be.

Seriously. Your argument implicitly assumes that Dems can find a way to elected severely flawed candidates, but that for some genetic unremediable reason Republicans cannot. That is a serious problem in and of itself. One of the many implications of mail-in voting is that it diminishes the value of the candidate and emphasizes the importance of party machinery. We must recognize that and address it if we hope to ever win an other national election. So much work to do. We have to play offense: building mail-in voting infrastructure, improving small donor funding platforms, etc.... And we have to play defense: state AGs litigating to fracture Dem structures for corporate funding of ostensibly non-partisan platforms which are anything but non-partisan, going after social media companies as publishers and partisan players, etc..... Each of those things are worth percentage points of the national vote.

One eats an elephant one bite at a time. we've already wasted 6 weeks on squabbling on candidates......

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Trump can't win a general election, which he can't, we should all be hammering on him at this point, and encouraging strong alternatives, like RDS. It makes no sense to hammer on alternatives when the party is about to hitch its wagon to an unhinged loser.

---

look again at the polling numbers. Trump leads in most of the primary polls. But he's below 50% in nearly all of them. The bad news is, that's roughly twice the support he had in 2016, so it's a very strong position to start with. And the numbers he has are near to, if not at his core base of support. Very little chance Trump crumples down into the teens. More likely he's going to remain in the 30-40% range no matter what happens.

The good news is, he is below 50%, which means he's technically vulnerable. (at least for now). But ONLY if he has a single opponent. If we have a crowded field dividing up the non-Trump vote.....Trump probably wins. So keeping the field clean of contenders is arguably MORE important than reducing Trump's numbers. And it's cleaner work, too.

Again, the electability argument is not terribly persuasive. It runs into a number of problems, not the least of which is the fact that the polling data doesn't (at this point) clearly support the assertion. And then there's the irony of the fact that Trump supporters and neverTrumpers both often prove true the old adage about the difficulty of reasoning someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

---

Biden has better polling numbers than Trump in every poll I've seen, around 43% approval and 51% disapproval. Trump is at 39% approval and almost 56% disapproval. This, despite record inflation and a terrible economy - things that generally drive a president's popularity. That should tell you all you need to know (aside from 2020 and 2022). And the idea that Trump will get significantly more popular, as he needs to, is just foolish. We all know he will continue to shoot himself in the foot and be his own worst enemy, as he travels down his 2024 revenge tour. His brand is pretty much dead outside of his sycophants. Meeting with white supremacists and Nazi supporters is not a good look. And then of course there are the potential criminal indictments looming.

Trying to figure out ways to prop up a horrible candidate - that evokes a visceral reaction and most of the country hates - by saying, "Well, he could win if we do this and if we do this," is a recipe for disaster. Sure, if we can game the system significantly, perhaps we can overcome the myriad of negatives and drawbacks and get a 76 year old POS with the disposition and intellect of a 13 year old boy elected. But wouldn't it be much nicer if we could do those things and nominate a smart candidate that 56% of the country doesn't hate? Indeed, it would. We already have one down in Florida.

Trump is done.