Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard time. The boomers had it easy. Weak.
That's bullshit. I mean, you certainly could argue that post WWI sure made Germany strong, but I'm personally not super pleased with how that turned out (and compared to the easy/good times that West Germany after WWII and then all of Germany after the Berlin Wall fell, I'd argue that actually shows perfectly the complete opposite; you can flourish and build on "good" times and "hard" times created by man is just pointless endeavors that sets things back). Frankly by that logic, we shouldn't have beaten the Nazis, because Germany was hit worse than we were by both the war and its aftermath so they should have been stronger than we were. Furthermore, with that logic, how do you explain the UK dominating the world? They hadn't gone through anything to justify how much power they had for a while there, and instead actually exploited others that were going through horrible times in order to take them over. Not that they were the only ones.
Well some of the boomers had it easy. But you might wanna check with black people about how easy it was for them. Think they might have a bit of a bone to pick. And yet, that didn't exactly end there either, did it? So their strength through it, didn't magically resolve the issues. Hell, I think plenty of white boomers would take issue about it being easy, many of them don't think terribly fondly of their time in Vietnam for instance. And I think they'd take issue with you seemingly dismissing their failure as them being weak men. Furthermore, isn't it odd how much advancement came once we went "whoa, WTF are we doing? killing each other all over the place helps no one" and started working towards betterment, and then built on that? The "hard" time you're positing are fabricated hard times created by man being stupid. Its the general consistent progress that was happening in the background of all of that which is the source of the actual "good" times. That kept on regardless. It saved us from the hard times, and made the good times fun.
Sorry to be a pedant, since I'm sure you understand the flaws in your argument, but this mentality is garbage and needs to stop. I will protest it everywhere it appears. Its the same bullshit that led to right wing psychopaths believing that making things worse will make them better. Its literally the exact same type of argument that people like Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivik used to justify their actions. And, yes, gonna go there, Hitler too. They felt their nations were being weakened and that they needed to be woken up so that the "strong" men could return and restore order. Its a toxic belief that poisons the minds of men. Want to put yourself through hell to become stronger? Fine, but don't let that lead you to believe that foisting hardship on others is anything other than malice and evil. Similarly, even if it was foisted upon you and you now look back on it as making you a better person, don't feel that should let you do the same to others.
Exactly. I'm not sure why this comes as such a surprise to anyone. He is doing exactly what he said he would do if he got elected. Maybe people are numb to politicians saying one thing then doing another once they get elected that when a politician actually starts doing what he said he was going to do it just comes as a shock to them.
Honestly it's kind of refreshing. On the campaign trail you say you're going to do something. Then once you get elected you start to do it.
I'm not sure where you're getting that people are surprised by this. Hell there's plenty that aren't even against taking action over this stuff, but they know that Turmp and his cronies are buffoons and this is likely just going to blowback on us because they'll fuck it up.
That's debatable, although he is turning out to be exactly as rational people knew he would.
That article was written before Trump took office.It also takes into account other countries besides the US with the last time period being studied 1999.
How is a 50-60% 'keep your promises' rate legit? That means you lie 40-50% of the time.
BTW, here's Trump's Promise Meter which basically says too soon to say:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/
Because its hard for a singular person to actually enact everything. No politician is going to be able to make 100% good on their "promises", which is a stupid idiot's way of viewing things to begin with. Yet a lot of people want to act like Presidents have absolute control and exist in a bubble where they can on a whim achieve it all. It ignores a lot of other political realities. Its not that they necessarily lied, its that there could have been other circumstances. Some people still condemn Bush Sr for raising taxes after expressly promising he wouldn't, but it was the right thing to do, and set things up to enable the prosperity that followed. It killed his political career (shame it didn't also prevent those of his offspring...), but he did it because it was the right thing to do, which history bore out. Granted, I'm not gonna shed tears over him being done, as there was plenty else I didn't like about his Presidency (and political career in general). But he'd be unfairly maligned for not holding his campaign promise, because sometimes they're stupid. Without context it'd just make them look like liars.
Also, is it just me, or does there seem to be a notable increase when Democrats were in power? Sure exceptions (Eisenhower surely contributed to the 32-64 pushing 80%). I won't even say that's a good thing, as I'm sure plenty of the promises turned out to not be good, especially long term. I think the only meaningful thing about those statistics is that it blows apart the stupid "politicians are all liars and suck equally" mentality (that I was fully in for most of my life, well the part where I could even comprehend politics). That's a major key to bringing change, as I still know tons of people spouting that, when if you're objective, I think you can see that is not the case. And that's with me feeling that Democrats would still suffer from general common corruption and occasional horrible misdeeds that seems inherent to humans in practically any position of power. But that is still massively better than how Republicans keep shifting towards actively trying to push those misdeeds.
This generation coming up now is gonna be a good one I think. They remember all of their parents losing their jobs and having to eat crap for a few years. They will be strong.
I think you missed the boat actually. Millennials have shown a lot of responsibility (they actually get fucking criticized over it too). They're the ones dealing with the reality of those situations already.
I guess maybe you're including them. But I was taking it as you were meaning the current youngest generation.
Which, I'm not condemning them, but they have things stacked against them. They're going to be facing some of the biggest challenges in American history, and they're being raised in an environment of easy escapism and addiction (seriously, fucking everything these days is built around addicting them to easy mindless consumption). I'm not wholly pessimistic as there's plenty of areas you can point to where we helped them (we've set them on a course of technological development that has the potential to put them into a very privileged place), but we have really set things up to make it difficult for them. We can still help them too. Which is why its important that we look beyond generations, as we all depend on each other. Instead of blaming boomers or millennials, we need to be going "nah, fuck those specific people that are the actual problem" as those people are going to transcend generations (meaning, millennials will have their own, just as boomers did, as every generation does).