Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Peregrine,
As you also brought up seawater uranium. This is technically an option, and would provide thousands of years of power, if we were actually able to filter it out. The problem is that the more you filter out the less material that is in the ocean, which means that you need to filter more water to get the same amount of uranium. This basically causes an exponential increase in money and energy usage for processing and it is estimated that within 30 years the process would be too inefficient.

The issue here is that you're talking about economic efficiency, and assuming that the process has to compete with current cheap energy prices to be viable. If, for example, you end all fossil fuel sources and accept that energy prices will increase to ten times their current level then the 30 year number goes up as it becomes profitable to keep extracting uranium past that point. And where that exponential curve goes is highly dependent on engineering questions, if you improve the process you improve the curve and potentially increase the profitable reserves by a significant amount. If you consider the total available amount and set aside costs for a moment you're talking about a 600 year supply for current reactors (or 60,000 years for breeder reactors) even if it is only physically possible to extract 1% of the seawater reserves.

And this just highlights the difference between nuclear and fossil fuels: with fossil fuels you have limited room to improve technology and expand our reserves because it's a mature technology where most of the raw materials have been burned up already, and catastrophic climate effects are looming if we don't cut our use very aggressively. With nuclear the worst-case scenario is comparable to our coal reserves, and there is a ton of room to grow if you're willing to solve the political and economic problems. This makes nuclear worth considering in the long run, while coal is not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Peregrine,
As you also brought up seawater uranium. This is technically an option, and would provide thousands of years of power, if we were actually able to filter it out. The problem is that the more you filter out the less material that is in the ocean, which means that you need to filter more water to get the same amount of uranium. This basically causes an exponential increase in money and energy usage for processing and it is estimated that within 30 years the process would be too inefficient.

The issue here is that you're talking about economic efficiency, and assuming that the process has to compete with current cheap energy prices to be viable. If, for example, you end all fossil fuel sources and accept that energy prices will increase to ten times their current level then the 30 year number goes up as it becomes profitable to keep extracting uranium past that point. And where that exponential curve goes is highly dependent on engineering questions, if you improve the process you improve the curve and potentially increase the profitable reserves by a significant amount. If you consider the total available amount and set aside costs for a moment you're talking about a 600 year supply for current reactors (or 60,000 years for breeder reactors) even if it is only physically possible to extract 1% of the seawater reserves.

And this just highlights the difference between nuclear and fossil fuels: with fossil fuels you have limited room to improve technology and expand our reserves because it's a mature technology where most of the raw materials have been burned up already, and catastrophic climate effects are looming if we don't cut our use very aggressively. With nuclear the worst-case scenario is comparable to our coal reserves, and there is a ton of room to grow if you're willing to solve the political and economic problems. This makes nuclear worth considering in the long run, while coal is not.

The other problem you are not looking into is that nuclear reactors require a TON of rare materials that are in much shorter supply that the uranium itself. The materials needed to make a nuclear reactor are pretty scarce. Currently nuclear energy supplies 2.5% of the world's energy and they estimate that number would be capped at around 10% at the very most, likely it's more like 7%.

 whembly wrote:
Fine... then my stubborn head will keep on clashing with your stubborn head.

Or you could just try a rebuttal of my point

 sebster wrote:
Of course it comes down to energy, state-by-state. With regards to the Presidential elections, you have to factor in that the President represent the United States, and the people within those respective states.

That's how federalism works.

I don't know why you're explaining federalism to me. My points wasn't about federalism. Nor was it about checks and balances. My post was addressing the relative strength of the democrats and the republicans.

Perhaps what you're getting at is it that overall vote totals don't decide winners? That's true, but not really relevant to my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Because your post was one of a few you've made, in addition to posts made by others, that Democrats are in a very weak place, while Republicans are dominant, so I was using vote totals to show general levels of support for each party. Showing how comfortable Republicans should be in holding power, and how much ground Democrats will have to gain to recover power.

The numbers I asked you to check out showed, eh maybe not so much. Republicans have shown more discipline and energy in voting right down the ticket, and voting in mid-terms. But that might just be the energy advantage that naturally goes to the party out of power. Much like Democrats massive results in 2006 and 2008. But even with that Democrats have gotten as many or more votes across the whole over the last 8 years. Ultimately, the US is a 50/50 country, and right now Republicans have managed to fall just on the winning side (Trump's lead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania was within 0.7% and without those three there goes the election), hold the senate narrowly. Only the House appears all that safe, and it will be interesting to see if that safety survives the Donald.

Why do you think I'm constantly harping on how Congress has abdicated much of their power to the Executive Branch? Guess what... the Democrats won't be in power for ever... and now we have Cheeto Jesus. So it's going to be really, REALLY interesting to see the same folks contort themselves in some preztel logics in criticizing Drumpf, who were the same people defending Obama in doing the same thing. You just watch this thread....

One of my favourite bits of sport on dakka is watching the switch when the presidency changes. All of a sudden the people who were terrified about executive power are okay with it, and vice versa.

With respect to my defense of the EC, I'm going to try to explain this as best as I can...

In US, when we talk about “collective rights” ... we're talking about the collective rights in a community (ie, township/cities/STATES). So, let's talk about the state. Coloradans have the right to live the way they want to live, so long as they don’t violate the constitutional rights of the Americans who live there.

As I've explained before, I also live in a federalist system. My state has the same number of senators as the states with 5 or more times the population, because that was written in to the constitution here as a protection for the smaller states. I just listed to my Exec Director going off on a rant about the Federal government trying to use funding control to subvert control of one of our bio-security programs. This is not some new concept to me.

What you're missing is that federalism doesn't need, and doesn't benefit from the EC. Because the federalist system exists due to constitutional restraints on what government can and can't do, and on the existence of the senate, which actually allocates power evenly regardless of state population.

The EC, in contrast, still allocates power to each state based on population, albeit with a minor weighting adjustment due to adding an extra 2 EC votes to each state for the senators. This is a screwy weighting mechanism in the first place, because it triples the power of very small states, while doing little to weight, say, NC against CA.

And the result of this system, as already explained, is that it ends up with a handful of states decide the election, it's just that instead of being the most populous states, it's some totally random collection of states. Honestly you'd be better served by a lottery, picking three big states and three small states out of a bag, and just letting the other states sit this election out At least then you'd get some variety in which states got to decide the presidency this time around.

So. Please... acknowledge that we're coming at this with different perspectives with different opinions. You can disagree with me... so, walk away and agree with we're stubborn mules.

Oh I certainly agree that we're stubborn mules. And I know we have different views, but on this issue I know that we disagree not because of different starting points, but because you aren't really thinking through whether the EC is part of a federalist system.

So... do you want to declare an impass?

Or, do you still want to tango?

Tango.

I do have a plan for cutting our energy needs, but it is pretty controversial.

One of the largest future threats to emissions isn't 1st world countries, it's 3rd world countries that want to be like us one day. The problem is that they have HUGE birthrates.

While I think that even 1st world countries could do with a 10% decline in birth rate, if some of these counties get modernized and don't reduce their birthrate we will be seeing a huge population boom.

How bad would it look to offer additional financial assistance to women in 3rd world countries if they are under the age of 27 and agree to a permanent birth control procedure?


And yes, I know this sounds dangerously close to eugenics. Then again, as Peregrine all ready stated, there are costs we are going to have to live with.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Yeah, but then we are flooding the market with nuclear weapons grade material. What could go wrong there?

Yes, and that's what I mean about accepting that there is no perfect answer. Every option has its limits. So, if you don't like the idea of increasing the supply of weapons-grade nuclear material then what is your energy proposal?

Introduce the 2nd and 3rd stage reactors that are possible with the type of reactor that is typically used in the west.

 Frazzled wrote:
Again.
Anyone who says there is no climate change is a fool so that point is irrelevant.
1. How much change?
2. What is the impact good and bad?
3. What is the cost and effort to adjust to #1?

1) Still being determined. Something in the range of 'quite a lot' to 'lots and lots', with some possibility of 'a really big lot'.
2) While there will be both gains and losses, the important thing to remember is that any amount of change will bring with it enormous costs. Our infrastructure is built around certain weather pattern assumptions, a given amount of rain, a certain temperature range. This has meant we've built vast road networks, housing types, located farming and agricultural land in certain places, based on expectations about weather. Change those weather patterns and you have to look at spending vast amounts to rework, replace, or abandon existing infrastructure and build new infrastructure.
3) Stern report remains the key guide, and it buries the idea that it will be cheaper to adjust than to control. The NPV on controlling/minimising emissions now is something like 10 times the NPV of rebuilding our infrastructure to adjust.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Fine... then my stubborn head will keep on clashing with your stubborn head.

Or you could just try a rebuttal of my point

I can try... but man you're exceptionally verbose at times.

 sebster wrote:
Of course it comes down to energy, state-by-state. With regards to the Presidential elections, you have to factor in that the President represent the United States, and the people within those respective states.

That's how federalism works.

I don't know why you're explaining federalism to me. My points wasn't about federalism. Nor was it about checks and balances.

I'm trying to get you in my frame of mind...

My post was addressing the relative strength of the democrats and the republicans.

Perhaps what you're getting at is it that overall vote totals don't decide winners? That's true, but not really relevant to my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

That's what was my assessment of your critique... so, I'll give it another go.

Because your post was one of a few you've made, in addition to posts made by others, that Democrats are in a very weak place, while Republicans are dominant, so I was using vote totals to show general levels of support for each party. Showing how comfortable Republicans should be in holding power, and how much ground Democrats will have to gain to recover power.

The numbers I asked you to check out showed, eh maybe not so much. Republicans have shown more discipline and energy in voting right down the ticket, and voting in mid-terms. But that might just be the energy advantage that naturally goes to the party out of power. Much like Democrats massive results in 2006 and 2008. But even with that Democrats have gotten as many or more votes across the whole over the last 8 years. Ultimately, the US is a 50/50 country, and right now Republicans have managed to fall just on the winning side (Trump's lead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania was within 0.7% and without those three there goes the election), hold the senate narrowly. Only the House appears all that safe, and it will be interesting to see if that safety survives the Donald.

The Democrats ARE in a weak place, especially on the 'leadership bench'.

I think the House is safe in the next 2-4 years for the GOP. The Senate? Possibly since the Democrats are the ones going to have to defend so much more seats than the GOP... kinda the opposite of this year's election.

As for Drumpf... I'm in shruggie mode... he's proven me wrong so many times... I can't even.

Why do you think I'm constantly harping on how Congress has abdicated much of their power to the Executive Branch? Guess what... the Democrats won't be in power for ever... and now we have Cheeto Jesus. So it's going to be really, REALLY interesting to see the same folks contort themselves in some preztel logics in criticizing Drumpf, who were the same people defending Obama in doing the same thing. You just watch this thread....

One of my favourite bits of sport on dakka is watching the switch when the presidency changes. All of a sudden the people who were terrified about executive power are okay with it, and vice versa.

Yup. Me to.

Going to be interesting when the Obama critics cheers on Cheeto Jesus's "pen and phone" usages.

With respect to my defense of the EC, I'm going to try to explain this as best as I can...

In US, when we talk about “collective rights” ... we're talking about the collective rights in a community (ie, township/cities/STATES). So, let's talk about the state. Coloradans have the right to live the way they want to live, so long as they don’t violate the constitutional rights of the Americans who live there.

As I've explained before, I also live in a federalist system. My state has the same number of senators as the states with 5 or more times the population, because that was written in to the constitution here as a protection for the smaller states. I just listed to my Exec Director going off on a rant about the Federal government trying to use funding control to subvert control of one of our bio-security programs. This is not some new concept to me.

What you're missing is that federalism doesn't need, and doesn't benefit from the EC. Because the federalist system exists due to constitutional restraints on what government can and can't do, and on the existence of the senate, which actually allocates power evenly regardless of state population.

The EC, in contrast, still allocates power to each state based on population, albeit with a minor weighting adjustment due to adding an extra 2 EC votes to each state for the senators. This is a screwy weighting mechanism in the first place, because it triples the power of very small states, while doing little to weight, say, NC against CA.

And the result of this system, as already explained, is that it ends up with a handful of states decide the election, it's just that instead of being the most populous states, it's some totally random collection of states. Honestly you'd be better served by a lottery, picking three big states and three small states out of a bag, and just letting the other states sit this election out At least then you'd get some variety in which states got to decide the presidency this time around.

I'm not saying the EC is perfect and it could use some tweaks.

But, its a system that gives smaller states "some say" in the Presidential elections, because they are in the union as well and there are regional differences of the voting populations.

So. Please... acknowledge that we're coming at this with different perspectives with different opinions. You can disagree with me... so, walk away and agree with we're stubborn mules.

Oh I certainly agree that we're stubborn mules. And I know we have different views, but on this issue I know that we disagree not because of different starting points, but because you aren't really thinking through whether the EC is part of a federalist system.

I've thought it through plenty.

I've even advocated to repeal the 17th amendment!

So... do you want to declare an impass?

Or, do you still want to tango?

Tango.

Do I lead or do you?

 Frazzled wrote:
Climate change does have the appearance of a religion to many. You must be penitent!

Respect for major scientific institutions doesn't need religion, it just needs a basic acceptance that random chuckleheads who read the internet are not

When NASA, the Royal Academy of Science, CSIRO etc all take something as established science and begin testing the extent of the change and the best means to control that change, then as far as I'm concerned that's that.

It is not a case of anyone being penitent, but a case of some people thinking they know better than experts working in the field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The "a-ha" moment was when the Cook's 97% consensus was debunked... even though the AGW crowd/politicians keeps pushing that for their justifications on new policy changes.

Cook's 97% wasn't 'debunked'. Debunking would require showing the original to have been manipulated or dishonestly created, or at the very least shown to be wildly wrong with subsequent studies. Rather, Cook's study was shown to have some possible methodological issues that meant other studies should be undertaken. Of course, those studies were undertaken, using a variety of methods, and they all returned rates close to or even exceeding 97%. I've even linked to a big list of them here before.

But you keep talking about Cook.

But, if the reason to introduce polices is to kill Oil/Gas/coal industries in favor of more expensive green-tech... then... we will have problems. That's just dumbassery.

Heh, so once again when it comes down to actual policy, you're to the left of the Democrats

 cuda1179 wrote:
I do have a plan for cutting our energy needs, but it is pretty controversial.

One of the largest future threats to emissions isn't 1st world countries, it's 3rd world countries that want to be like us one day. The problem is that they have HUGE birthrates.

While I think that even 1st world countries could do with a 10% decline in birth rate, if some of these counties get modernized and don't reduce their birthrate we will be seeing a huge population boom.

How bad would it look to offer additional financial assistance to women in 3rd world countries if they are under the age of 27 and agree to a permanent birth control procedure?


And yes, I know this sounds dangerously close to eugenics. Then again, as Peregrine all ready stated, there are costs we are going to have to live with.

Considering the birth rare is negatively correlated to increases in standards of living and education, a much better plan would be to simply cooperate with the rest of the world to get them up closer to our standard (assuming that is what they want). You don't need eight (or even four) children when they stop dying due to malnutrition or disease, and when women become part of the workforce and get educated they have fewer kids later in life.

There's a TED talk by Hans Rosling on the subject, but I'm on my phone so I can't find it.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I do have a plan for cutting our energy needs, but it is pretty controversial.

One of the largest future threats to emissions isn't 1st world countries, it's 3rd world countries that want to be like us one day. The problem is that they have HUGE birthrates.

While I think that even 1st world countries could do with a 10% decline in birth rate, if some of these counties get modernized and don't reduce their birthrate we will be seeing a huge population boom.

How bad would it look to offer additional financial assistance to women in 3rd world countries if they are under the age of 27 and agree to a permanent birth control procedure?


And yes, I know this sounds dangerously close to eugenics. Then again, as Peregrine all ready stated, there are costs we are going to have to live with.

"... I know this sounds dangerously close to eugenics." Compulsory sterilization doesn't sound "dangerously close" to eugenics, it pretty much is the cornerstone of eugenics. It sounds like a couple of other things I could think of as well.

 feeder wrote:

Rev Franklin Graham wrote:“They don’t want to be a computer programmer!” Graham continued. “They want to do the same job as their fathers and their grandfathers. There was pride in the manufacturing and the building. And we’ve taken all that away and it’s sad.”

This man has no contact with reality. If manufacturing comes back to his town, the only jobs available to human Americans will be programming the robots.

Well, you've gotten your panties in a wad but believe it or not, there is a large segment of the population that doesn't want to be computer programmers. I'd rather shove a hot poker up my ass personally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NorseSig wrote:
I am all for green energy, but I won't support it as a mainstream solution until these conditions are met:

It is as consistent, efficient and reliable as fossil fuels.

The cost to use the green technology is the same or less than fossil fuel.

You can ensure the green energy be prevalent.

The manufacturing of green energy materials/devices doesn't require the use of vast amounts of fossil fuels, extremely dangerous and environmentally unfriendly chemicals and or manufacturing processes (looking at you solar panels)

These green sources don't overwhelm the landscape (wind farms are quite ugly)

These green sources MUST be easy to use and something the common person can do.

And that these green sources and products will be durable and long lasting.

That should be posted on the wall of every "greener." i like it.

You can't always get what you waaant.

You can't always get what you waaant.

Something something something need.

And yeah. let's listen to someone in his 70s (a preacher at that) talk about what other people want when it comes to jobs. I'm sure there's lots of people from the halcyon days of yore who really miss the stability and reliability of manufacturing jobs, but that era is dead and they can bitch all they want it's not coming back. Maybe they should stop living in the past so much and get to grips with reality, because its their kids who need jobs and telling them "you'd have one if the gov'ment hadn't sent them all to Mexico" is a spineless excuse to stand against new job markets.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
[And everything you said was still false.

From the list you provided, Hydro makes 6%, All other renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) have a combined total of 7%. 6 plus 7 equals 13.

Wind farms are cool (I mean epic cool and Texas is of course #1 or #2 in its generation-suck it Rhode Island!) but they are opposed by eco's because...reasons. More importantly its not a constant stream generator and needs backup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
You can't always get what you waaant.

You can't always get what you waaant.

Something something something need.

And yeah. let's listen to someone in his 70s (a preacher at that) talk about what other people want when it comes to jobs. I'm sure there's lots of people from the halcyon days of yore who really miss the stability and reliability of manufacturing jobs, but that era is dead and they can bitch all they want it's not coming back. Maybe they should stop living in the past so much and get to grips with reality, because its their kids who need jobs and telling them "you'd have one if the gov'ment hadn't sent them all to Mexico" is a spineless excuse to stand against new job markets.

As She Who Must Be Obeyed said last weekend, we really need to think about what kind of a world we want to leave to Keith Richards.

 Frazzled wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
[And everything you said was still false.

From the list you provided, Hydro makes 6%, All other renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) have a combined total of 7%. 6 plus 7 equals 13.

Wind farms are cool (I mean epci cool and Texas is of course #1 or #2 in its generation-suck it Rhode Island!) but they are opposed by eco's because...reasons. More importantly its not a constant stream generator and needs backup.

They have environmental impacts (such as killing birds), so it's more down to not putting them in migratory paths or stuff like that. But there's always a question, would you rather kill a few birds hit by windmills, or millions because of climate change and habitat reduction? So I'm pretty pro windmill. I tend to push solar more though. Everybody can have solar panels on their roof, and while it won't cover 100% of the needs for everybody, it will cut down on total need. Every suburb is a solar farm waiting to happen.

Mitt may not be SoS, but the Romney family got a nod from the Trumpster.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-rewards-michigan-party-chair-with-national-role/ar-AAlxuLH?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

As She Who Must Be Obeyed said last weekend, we really need to think about what kind of a world we want to leave to Keith Richards.

I actually would be worried about that, not so much Keith Richards himself but my parents generation.

People want to talk about this election as an outpouring of anger? Well here's some anger; People under 35 are angry at the generations that came before them. It's a hard pill to swallow, because they're your parents and god knows my parents have done a hell of a lot for me and I'd be infinitely worse off without them, but I can't ignore the writing on the wall that my parents generation (not the one before it) has screwed me. That generation has made political and economic choices with long term consequences that will result in me never having the opportunities they did. It certainly makes me angry, and if people want to talk about outpourings of anger I pay attention to the people around me and I legitimately fear for what will happen to my parents in 20 years when my fellows become tired of supporting welfare systems designed to help the elderly that they will never enjoy. Tired isn't even the right word. A better word would be infuriated, because I'm already tired of losing hundreds of dollars from a pitiful paycheck to pay for the well being of a generation that didn't screwed me.

So the answer is yes. People should be afraid of the world we're leaving for people like Keith Richards, because it's only a matter of time before Baby Boomers aren't making the political and economic decisions in this country, and once they're not they'll be at the mercy of people born after 1985 who are increasingly left leaning and increasingly angry at their own forebears and who really might do something drastic in a political environment of vindictive outrage US politics are increasingly becoming.

Here is a very interesting article on the BBC about cryogenic energy storage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37902773

Summary:

Sustainable energy (wind, solar, etc.) has the problem that you can't just switch it up to 10 during the ad break when everyone goes for a cup of tea. The solution is to store spare energy during times of high supply/low demand, and return it to the grid when needed. The difficulty is how to do this.

The cryogenic storage does this by liquifying air and storing it in tanks. When energy is needed, the liquid air is returned to gas phase and used to power turbine generators.

1/4 of Britain's energy comes from sustainables, and we have the biggest cryogenic storage in the world, though it is only a fairly small pilot scheme.

Well here's some anger; People under 35 are angry at the generations that came before them

.

So same as all of historic time then. Good to say things don't change. Its ok-we don't care.

So the answer is yes. People should be afraid of the world we're leaving for people like Keith Richards, because it's only a matter of time before Baby Boomers aren't making the political and economic decisions in this country, and once they're not they'll be at the mercy of people born after 1985

Here's your problem right there. Its helpful when you rant to know what you're ranting about. Baby boomers were born before 1965 not 1985. The group after them were Gen X. Very different group. Baby boomers are retiring right now.

who are increasingly left leaning and increasingly angry at their own forebears and who really might do something drastic in a political environment of vindictive outrage US politics are increasingly becoming.

Old people vote. We also tend to have more guns and contribute to the politicians. Young people don't...
So in the words of the immortal bard: Bringeth it yourng whipper snapper we shalt kick thine asses and verily. Now get thee to a buttery and get mine beer and be quicketh about it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is a very interesting article on the BBC about cryogenic energy storage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37902773

Summary:

Sustainable energy (wind, solar, etc.) has the problem that you can't just switch it up to 10 during the ad break when everyone goes for a cup of tea. The solution is to store spare energy during times of high supply/low demand, and return it to the grid when needed. The difficulty is how to do this.

The cryogenic storage does this by liquifying air and storing it in tanks. When energy is needed, the liquid air is returned to gas phase and used to power turbine generators.

1/4 of Britain's energy comes from sustainables, and we have the biggest cryogenic storage in the world, though it is only a fairly small pilot scheme.

Interesting.

 Frazzled wrote:
[Here's your problem right there. Its helpful when you rant to know what you're ranting about. Baby boomers were born before 1965 not 1985. The group after them were Gen X. Very different group. Baby boomers are retiring right now.

And you assumed a conclusion I wasn't making.

Baby boomers have been preeminently responsible for preserving the sanctity of SS in the US political system, but they're not going to be able to do that for much longer. By the time my parents generation (X) starts needing that system in another 10-20 years, they're going to be tackling the fact that their children don't want it anymore. It was easy to keep SS as a political third rail (and thus untouchable in any real sense) when it was working as intended but that's coming to an end.

It's fallacious to equate the general child anger at their parents with what's already starting to happen. Anger at the generation before us is becoming a political problem and not just a cultural attitude. The last few elections have seen an increasingly wide age gap in politics (and it was pretty wide in 2016 with low turnout among people under 35).

Old people vote. We also tend to have more guns and contribute to the politicians. Young people don't...

Yeah. "We have guns and money." Let's talk about whose ignoring anger

I think the point here is that if the Millenials generation wants power, they have to go out and take it. Which can start by actually voting.

God forbid they find out how to boycott stuff.

Both Bernie and Hillary relied partially on the youth vote. How'd that turn out. ;-)

"Depressing teenagers is like shooting fish in a barrel."
-Bart Simpson.

I think it's fair to say Bernie won the hearts and minds of lots of youth voters. It just didn't translate to support for Hilary after Bernie dropped out.

 jasper76 wrote:
I think the point here is that if the Millenials generation wants power, they have to go out and take it. Which can start by actually voting.

God forbid they actually find out how to boycott stuff.

Both Bernie and Hillary relied partially on the youth vote. How'd that turn out. ;-)

"Depressing teenagers is like shooting fish in a barrel."
-Bart Simpson.

Yeah. Let's ignore the obvious lesson from 2016 that Hillary was an uninspiring candidate, and assume that no democrats anywhere noticed the effect of Bernie on that demographic, and the pending disaster we have before us with two parties driven into lunacy (because Bernie's politics aren't much saner than Trumps, they're just more socially acceptable because rich people will never not be a valid target to blame society's problems on). Pretend for 5 seconds that as Boomers and Xers get older, fewer will vote. They'll vote more reliably but in steadily decreasing numbers. Meanwhile younger generations will get older, possibly more frustrated, and just waiting for someone to do for them what Trump did in 2016 for the Rust Belt.

And so the world turns. It kind of sucks that young people don't vote reliably, and it seems this never changes.

 jasper76 wrote:
And so the world turns. It kind of sucks that young people don't vote reliably, and it seems this never changes.

They have far more pressing matters to attend. Later they'll realize its irrelevant anyway.

Hillary was an uninspiring candidate. Lich Lord Clintourius couldnt raise the youthful undead

At some point people will realize the young don't vote because they don't think it matters, not because they're lazy. Given them a reason and they show up (and in this regard they're not really any different from anyone else). I would have thought we'd already reached that point but I really need to learn to stop underestimating how obtuse the rest of the world can manage to be.

I'll just be over here. Probably take a decade or two, but I'll make sure the "Called it" T-Shirts are ready

 LordofHats wrote:
At some point people will realize the young don't vote because they don't think it matters, not because they're lazy. Given them a reason and they show up (and in this regard they're not really any different from anyone else). I would have thought we'd already reached that point but I really need to learn to stop underestimating how obtuse the rest of the world can manage to be.

I'll just be over here. Probably take a decade or two, but I'll make sure the "Called it" T-Shirts are ready

Alternatively, politicians may start paying attention to the under-35 population when they start coming out to vote more reliably. It's a catch-22 situation.

 Stevefamine wrote:
Hillary was an uninspiring candidate. Lich Lord Clintourius couldnt raise the youthful undead

A vote for the Lichlord is a vote..for freedom!

 infinite_array wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
At some point people will realize the young don't vote because they don't think it matters, not because they're lazy. Given them a reason and they show up (and in this regard they're not really any different from anyone else). I would have thought we'd already reached that point but I really need to learn to stop underestimating how obtuse the rest of the world can manage to be.

I'll just be over here. Probably take a decade or two, but I'll make sure the "Called it" T-Shirts are ready

Alternatively, politicians may start paying attention to the under-35 population when they start coming out to vote more reliably. It's a catch-22 situation.

Not really. Politicians ignore the under 35 population as a specific demographic because in the past there has been no reason to target it. You can draw people in by focusing on just general politics. That changes when age becomes a major marker not just of political leanings, but of any political activity at all. That's a recent development. To which I again point out, in what world does anyone really think no one noticed the importance of that Demographic to Obama, and what happened in the 2016 election? It's not a question of will that bloc vote anymore, but will they vote for X. As a polity the under 35 demo has become increasingly distinct from the rest of the population. They don't care about manufacturing jobs, they don't care about the retirement age, they don't care about "traditional values", and they blame people older than them for mounting problems with debt, a narrwing job market, and taking what little money they have so air conditioner manufacturers can get some corporate welfare. Obama and Bernie have already shown what it takes to get them to vote.