Yep, I'm starting another generational thread

[jesmu84]

How completely unAmerican.  Tee up George Carlin

Another poster used to reference George Carlin when it came to voting. I'm sure it is just coincidence

[warriorchick]

Because the people who truly care about other people’s problems and want society to improve for the greater good are the vast majority of those who don’t vote.

They must not care that much if they can't be bothered to vote.

[MU82]

George Carlin was a great American whose mantra could be summed up in two words: “f#@k everyone.”   In other words, Carlin was an equal opportunity offender, who by definition, wanted to fix society for everyone.

That makes him more genuinely American than the current voters in this country whose mantra is apparently, “f#@k the half of you.”

Ask yourself this... when’s the last time one of our elected politicians did something for everyone and it made front page news?  That’s what happens when voting is optional... politicians legislate for optics, not for benefit.

Great stuff ... but do we know if Carlin himself actually voted?

Another poster used to reference George Carlin when it came to voting. I'm sure it is just coincidence

Hmmm ... and now chicos ii says "we" Dems. The plot, like my waistline, thickens.

[WarriorDad]

Another poster used to reference George Carlin when it came to voting. I'm sure it is just coincidence

He is referenced every 2 years for as long as I can remember, that would hardly be coincidence.  Carlin is not some obscure celebrity nor were his views not widely known.  That bit is as mainstream as it gets and surfaces every election year.

Over 10M views on YouTube alone for his voting views.  His shows had this as a common theme, CNN interviews, and other media outlets.   Best liberal comic in history.   RIP

You can even purchase merchandise.  https://www.amazon.com/Complain-George-Carlin-Holiday-Birthday/dp/B06XGZZCJL

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/332351647484506830/?lp=true

[WarriorDad]

Because the people who truly care about other people’s problems and want society to improve for the greater good are the vast majority of those who don’t vote.

On the flip side, the vast majority of those who do vote (i.e. those voting D or R) have been polarized such that the only problems they have been conditioned to care about are their own.

They care so much that they don't vote?  Doesn't sound like they care that much.  Do you have evidence to back up the claim that those that care the most about society are the non voters?

George Carlin was a great American whose mantra could be summed up in two words: “f#@k everyone.”   In other words, Carlin was an equal opportunity offender, who by definition, wanted to fix society for everyone.

That makes him more genuinely American than the current voters in this country whose mantra is apparently, “f#@k the half of you.”

Ask yourself this... when’s the last time one of our elected politicians did something for everyone and it made front page news?  That’s what happens when voting is optional... politicians legislate for optics, not for benefit.

I'd ask you, when is the last time when everyone agreed on ONE thing?  I cannot think of anything, therefore by definition whatever a politician does will always have a segment of the population not happy.  Your premise, in my opinion, is impossible because there is no one thing that everyone can get behind and is good for everyone, because nothing is good for everyone.  There will always be some winners and some losers, that goes for any system in the world. 

[WarriorDad]

Great stuff ... but do we know if Carlin himself actually voted?

Hmmm ... and now chicos ii says "we" Dems. The plot, like my waistline, thickens.

Ok chicos.  Been a Democrat since able to register in the 70's. The party is much different now than then, but still registered the same and still largely vote that way.

The last time Carlin voted was 1972, to answer your question.  https://www.thenation.com/article/george-carlin-american-radical/

[Benny B]

They must not care that much if they can't be bothered to vote.

I suppose if you call participating in a process that perpetuates divisiveness “bothering to care.”

When’s the last time a major political candidate won because the majority believed in what he/she stood for?  Never.  Because we’ve been conditioned to believe that there’s a dichotomy in everything and voting for one means voting against the other.

Listen, I’m a moron when it comes to stuff like complex nuclear engineering algorithms, bicycles and hedge trimming, but if anyone thinks that voting more democrats or republicans is going to improve society, then they are a complete moron when it comes to leadership and advancement.

But the real morons are a) the people who actually voted for Hillary or Trump because the believed more in what the candidate stood for than they than they hated about the other and b) those who think resigning ourselves to have to elect “the lesser of two evils” is perfectly acceptable.

Because guess what... the candidates don’t care about you and what you stand for.  When politicians have to spend over half their time in DC on the hone fundraising, they don’t care.  So voting for someone who doesn’t care is counterproductive to those who want everyone to advance and better themselves.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

We had that setup from 2009 to 2011 Tsmith, and when you look back on it we failed in a lot of areas.  Immigration, gun control, etc.  We had much larger majorities than exist today for the other side.

False.  And you're fooling no one Chicos.

[WarriorDad]

False.  And you're fooling no one Chicos.

Chicos, what is false?

In 2009 to 2011 we had 55 to 60 Senators (it was fluid) because of special elections and independents caucusing.  We had 253 to 256 in the House, a large advantage.  Tell me what is false?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary

[D'Lo Brown]

They care so much that they don't vote?  Doesn't sound like they care that much.  Do you have evidence to back up the claim that those that care the most about society are the non voters?

This is a general idea I have heard from various sources - basically that the fringes of political discourse have become the most fired up, electrified by their fringe sources that cater only to them and have no interest in objectivity/etc. Thus, these are the crowds of people that tend to deliver much higher turnout at the polls compared to groups closer to the middle (such as independents, which are the largest group of voters today). Independents tend to be much more focused on issues compared to tribes. Fringe groups tend to be more focused on the tribe. I'm nearly certain this is what Benny is referencing. Independents could care less about the tribe and vote along with what they believe in, but they have become increasingly disenfranchised by the process, which has shown a dramatic increase in "tribalistic behaviors". It's rare for an independent to find someone to vote for that actually wants to pursue the common person's goals.

Just as a totally made-up example. An independent voter might be very interested in law enforcement reforms as well as education system reforms (things that a large majority of the public wants). It turns out that, more often than not, neither the D or R candidate have any interest in those topics - the R might be selling immigration/border reform and the D might be selling that Rs suck.

There are issues that 80-90+% of the public agree with and want to see happen, but neither party shows interest because they don't cater to average citizens - they cater to the fringes and the donor class.

[Lennys Tap]

Yes, since Democrats currently occupy the White House, control both branches of Congress, and have a majority of the Supreme Court I don't understand why they don't get this fixed!

The last time SS was reformed was 1983, under Reagan. To my recollection, none of 2 Bushes, Clinton or Obama even tried. 17 months in, haven't heard anything from Trump either.

[D'Lo Brown]

The last time SS was reformed was 1983, under Reagan. To my recollection, none of 2 Bushes, Clinton or Obama even tried. 17 months in, haven't heard anything from Trump either.

One might opine that policies tangential to SS/Medicare/etc have a large effect, perhaps even larger than the policies themselves. For example, a reasoned influx of tax-paying young people would do wonders for the solvency of these programs. Therefore, the opposite (cutting off or significantly limiting immigration) will help keep things status quo - meaning the balance of elderly vs. tax-paying will continue to get worse, and make these programs less viable. So, you could say that restrictive immigration policy, keeping the "others" out of our country, etc (positions associated with the elderly) will hurt the elderly in the long run.

[mu03eng]

Someday you and I will have a beer and I'll tell you my lucky story. Not ashamed of it at all!

Did I take advantage of some of that luck through hard work and/or skill and/or being willing to have sex with beautiful women ... well sure, but ...

I'll hold you to that 

Are you telling me Deuce Bigelow, male gigolo is a biography?

[MU82]

I'll hold you to that 

Are you telling me Deuce Bigelow, male gigolo is a biography?

All's I know is that as a Millennial, you obviously are too entitled and coddled to understand.

[mu03eng]

All's I know is that as a Millennial, you obviously are too entitled and coddled to understand.

I refuse to identify as a millennial....I HATE avacados

[warriorchick]

I refuse to identify as a millennial....I HATE avacados

How do you feel about avocados?

[Babybluejeans]

Chicos, what is false?

In 2009 to 2011 we had 55 to 60 Senators (it was fluid) because of special elections and independents caucusing.  We had 253 to 256 in the House, a large advantage.  Tell me what is false?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary

Cheekz, if you're going to pretend to be a Dem, you should know why it's false. It's not the numbers, it's that 2009-2011 was far from a failure -- indeed, a remarkable amount was accomplished, especially in light of the inertia that has followed ever since conservatives took the House. Only a FoxNews-tainted Chicos would be blind to that. But you've proven as well as anyone the maxim that "we are who we are."

Also, the constant "other side" thing is super weak. You know that no one actually talks like that, right?

[mu03eng]

How do you feel about avocados?

They are even worse than avacados

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

They are even worse than avacados

Sounds like someone who is bitter about putting all their money in kale futures.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Sounds like someone who is bitter about putting all their money in kale futures.

The only good kale is when it has been slathered in olive oil and baked into a kale chip.  The wrinkly dinosaur kale is best for this, or you end up with microscopically thin kale chips that are exceptionally fragile.

I like to dip the kale chips in some delicious avocado guac.

[mu03eng]

The only good kale is when it has been slathered in olive oil and baked into a kale chip.  The wrinkly dinosaur kale is best for this, or you end up with microscopically thin kale chips that are exceptionally fragile.

I like to dip the kale chips in some delicious avocado guac.

The only good kale is really, super dead kale

[Jay Bee]

With the near death of traditional Defined Benefit retirement plans, there is very little to incent a person to stay with a company, particularly if you are fortunate enough to have a Defined Contribution plan and have already vested any matching company contribution.

In my job I deal a lot with compensation structures at my clients.......

#FakeNews

Do you see no retention benefit of long-term incentive awards such as stock options and restricted stock? I walked away from six-figures of unvested stock comp in the past, but stock comp has kept me less interested in being open to other opportunities over the years.

[D'Lo Brown]

#FakeNews

Do you see no retention benefit of long-term incentive awards such as stock options and restricted stock? I walked away from six-figures of unvested stock comp in the past, but stock comp has kept me less interested in being open to other opportunities over the years.

Then by all means stay. Not even a discussion for most organizations I've worked for, with, or know of through relatives and acquiantances. In my experience, those benefits are largely set aside for the suits only. Further, if the company does have some form of stock options/etc, it tends to be something that was sunsetted at some point and therefore only applies to the older crowd (who were likely to be paid off for it at that point).

One company I did work for provided "stock" in the company after 5 years. It started out as a measly amount of monopoly dollars and advanced to a moderate amount of monopoly dollars after 10-15-20 years. In the end, it added up to very little even for those on the higher end of the spectrum. We're talking like $20-25k after cashing the monopoly money in for US dollars. And I vaguely remember there being "creep" where even in my few years of working there, where to qualify you had to have accrued 7 years, and there were more stipulations.

For the most part, it's relatively safe to say that stock offerings amount more to a gift for those that receive them as opposed to a major investment or retirement fund. For the suits at the biggest companies, though, we all know that a large part of their winnings is in stock.

[Jay Bee]

Then by all means stay. Not even a discussion for most organizations I've worked for, with, or know of through relatives and acquiantances. In my experience, those benefits are largely set aside for the suits only. Further, if the company does have some form of stock options/etc, it tends to be something that was sunsetted at some point and therefore only applies to the older crowd (who were likely to be paid off for it at that point).

One company I did work for provided "stock" in the company after 5 years. It started out as a measly amount of monopoly dollars and advanced to a moderate amount of monopoly dollars after 10-15-20 years. In the end, it added up to very little even for those on the higher end of the spectrum. We're talking like $20-25k after cashing the monopoly money in for US dollars. And I vaguely remember there being "creep" where even in my few years of working there, where to qualify you had to have accrued 7 years, and there were more stipulations.

For the most part, it's relatively safe to say that stock offerings amount more to a gift for those that receive them as opposed to a major investment or retirement fund. For the suits at the biggest companies, though, we all know that a large part of their winnings is in stock.

I think you're just ignorant. Plenty of companies give healthy stock awards to middle management and top performers at even lower levels.

[MU82]

The only good kale is really, super dead kale

I love avocados, and I haven't been a Millennium since ... well ... ever. Love guac. I whip up a batch a couple times a week.

As for that other green thing mentioned ... kale no!