"Millennials and Gen Zers may well age into more conservative views, but that doesn’t mean they’ll vote for Republicans."

Here is a very interesting article on the political trends of past and current generations, with the result there is hope for the latest ones.  

Published in the San Diego Union-Tribune, on or about October 30, 2023.

Will young voters’ disdain for GOP last as they age?

Jamelle Bouie The New York Times

As the saying goes, if you’re not a liberal when you’re young, then you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative when you’re old, you have no brain.

The idea, of course, is that liberalism is a game for the youth and that age brings security, stability and a natural resistance to change. The upshot, in U.S. politics, is that while most voters might start on the center-left, with Democrats, they’ll end their political journey on the center-right, with Republicans. One party represents disruption and change; the other party represents a steady hand and the status quo.

Or at least that’s the story. The reality is a little more complicated. Not only does our narrative of political change over time exaggerate the rightward drift among different people as they age, but there’s good evidence that for the youngest generations of Americans, it is hardly happening at all.

The evidence comes from a new Wall Street Journal analysis of the latest data from the General Social Survey, a comprehensive examination of American attitudes and beliefs, conducted since its creation in 1972 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

It is true, these researchers say, that voters typically become more conservative as they get older as they gain income, buy property and start families. But the extent of that drift — of where it finally reaches — depends on where they start. When the Pew Research Center studied this question in 2013, it found that the cohort of baby boomers who turned 18 under Richard Nixon was much more Democratic than the later cohort of boomers who turned 18 under Jimmy Carter.

Overall, according to the General Social Survey, boomers, who came of age during the turmoil and transformation of the 1960s and 1970s, are still more liberal than not. Gen Xers, who came of age during the Reagan revolution, started off more conservative than their older counterparts and have become the most consistently conservative generation in the electorate.

The case of millennial voters is where things start to get interesting. As children of 9/11, the war on terror and the 2008 financial crisis, millennials — born from 1981 to 1996 — entered the electorate much more Democratic than their immediate predecessors. But while they have gotten a little more conservative in the years since, it has been at a much slower rate than you’d expect. What’s more, the gap in the number of millennials who identify as Democrats rather than Republicans is huge, with more than twice as many self-identified Democrats as Republicans. The next cohort on the roster, Gen Z, is even more liberal and Democratic than millennials.

Now, we should always be a little wary of talking about “generations” as uniform, monolithic or even particularly coherent. But groups of Americans do share common experiences that may drive liberal self-identification among the young. In addition to the events of the 2000s, there are those of the 2010s — specifically, the slow and grinding recovery from the 2008 recession and the rise of a right-wing populist movement that continues to threaten the rights of many different people. The slow recovery, in particular, prompted many younger Americans to express their open dissatisfaction with capitalism as an economic system.

There’s something else to consider. For the past 15 years, neither the Republican Party nor political conservatism has stood for stability and a steady hand. Just the opposite: From the tea party onward, it has stood for chaos, disruption and instability.

A person who turned 18 in 2008 lived through, over the next decade, an economic crisis that erupted during a Republican presidential administration, a government shutdown instigated by Republican legislators and a Republican presidential administration that was, from beginning to end, defined by chaos and turmoil.

Now, as they enter the middle of their fourth decade, they are witness to a Republican-led Supreme Court that has ended the constitutional right to an abortion and a Republican congressional party that is so dysfunctional that it can barely elect a speaker of the House, rendering Congress inert at a time when it needs to act.

Democrats are in comparatively better shape, but that’s not the same as good shape. There is a real disconnect between many younger Americans and the Democratic Party, on issues you might expect — like student loan debt — and issues you might not, like U.S. support for the Israeli government.

Millennials and Gen Zers may well age into more conservative views, but that doesn’t mean they’ll vote for Republicans. And if you want to understand the Republican Party’s growing hostility to free and fair elections — to the idea that the party should abide by the will of the majority — you should look no further than its extraordinarily poor standing with the two youngest groups of Americans.

When you’re no longer sure you can win on a level playing field, it’s harder to sustain any enthusiasm for democracy.

Failing Democracy: Knowbody Does It Better Than Democrats

On September 1, 2022, President Joe Biden delivered a blistering, Labor Day speech about the 'clear and present danger' facing our nation by MAGA Republicans.  It was direct, clear, and completely truthful.  It was necessary, free from hyperbole or exaggeration.  

The Battle for the Soul of the Nation

But I’m an American President — not the President of red America or blue America, but of all America.
 
And I believe it is my duty — my duty to level with you, to tell the truth no matter how difficult, no matter how painful.
 
And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution.  They do not believe in the rule of law.  They do not recognize the will of the people. 
 
They refuse to accept the results of a free election.  And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

His message could not have been more clear.  Of course no one person in our country has singular power to make any change:  we all depend on the support of others to affect change.  Trump doesn't stand without the support of his 'cult,' and President Biden doesn't enjoy success without the support of his party, and others.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but where is the political support from other members of the Democratic Party for the important, 'call to arms' message in President Biden's speech?  I heard nothing from them.  I heard more of the same from leaders of Republican Party, and nothing from the so-called supporters of President Biden.  This abject failure to rally around the President and the dire threat he described is exactly what is so terribly wrong, incomprehensible, and indefensible by the Democratic Party and its leaders.  

Absent, and criminally so, given the urgency of his message.  Why was it Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson who offered the most support?

"Biden was right: This is an emergency. And he was right to implore the rest of us — Democrats, independents and “mainstream Republicans” — to turn back the MAGA assault on democracy with our votes.

Was it appropriate to use a prime-time address — the venue for presidents to speak to the nation about important affairs of state — to deliver a political message? Yes, because the attack on our democratic norms, as with any attack on our country from actors outside it or within it, is a fundamental threat to the nation. And because that threat, like it or not, can only realistically be seen as partisan in nature.

Was it proper to use Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed, as his backdrop? Absolutely."   Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post

Without reservation, the clear and present danger comes from the MAGA Republicans.  They are surely and dangerously helped by the complacency and willful failure of their oaths of office by the Democrats.

"...the most substantial gun safety legislation in decades."

 That statement is true only because it's the ONLY "gun safety legislation" in decades.  So much for applauding this watered-down bill.  It's nothing short of an embarrassment, far, far from the legislation needed to address the killing of innocent children, which happens in our public schools, no less.  See below for previous gun control legislation.  I personally gave up hope of actual, substantial gun control legislation after the Newtown Massacre:  if that didn't bring action, nothing will.  And 20 years later, now we have Uvalde.  Again, the new legislation is so weak, it's embarrassing.  This certainly doesn't stop our elected officials from trumpeting this bill, though.  

What is the problem with us?  It's Congress.  It's filled with long time, very old, white men, who are serious only about being re-elected.  They have been shirking their oath of office for decades.  The Founding Fathers, in writing the US Constitution, did an absolutely incredible job of acting on current circumstances and on realizing that those circumstances would change over time, and therefore incorporated a means to address those changes, through amendments.  

The trouble is, now its been 244 years since the Constitution was ratified, the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights almost immediately, then four more in the 1800's.  in the 20th century, only 12 more were added.  Is that enough?  What do you think?  Has there been grand changes since, let's say, 1980?Let's look at a few barometers of change over that time

At our country's founding, there were just 3,929,000 citizens, 94.9% of which lived in rural communities.

In 1900, there were 76,212,000 of us, with still 60% living in rural communities.

By 2000, there were 291,424,000 of us, and just 19% living in rural communities.

Add in technological advances and the pollution that came with it, increased crime, etc., etc., etc., and yes, I think we can all agree we are overdue for several amendments.  

Yet here we are, stuck with a frozen, do-nothing Congress.  Remember, once a new amendment is ratified, it is part of the Constitution, thereby over-ruling what the US Supreme Court may or may not rule on a decision.  

So let's at least keep our eye on the right ball.  Voting for incumbents as a bad, bad action to take.  Let's get real people into the Congress.  

 The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act), part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Sep. 13, 1994. The ban outlawed 19 models of semi-automatic assault weapons by name and others by “military features,” as well as large-capacity magazines manufactured after the law’s enactment. The ban expired on Sep. 13, 2004 and was not renewed due in part to NRA lobbying efforts.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (also called the Brady Act) was signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993 and required a five-day waiting period for a licensed seller to hand over a gun to an unlicensed person in states without an alternate background check system. [116] The five-day waiting period has since been replaced by an instant background check system that can take up to three days if there is an inconsistency or more information is needed to complete the sale. [114] Gun owners who have a federal firearms license or a state-issued permit are exempt from the waiting period.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 was enacted as a condition of the Brady Act and provides incentives to states (including grants from the Attorney General) for them to provide information to NICS including information on people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms. [114] The NICS was implemented on Nov. 30, 1998 and later amended on Jan. 8, 2008 in response to the Apr. 16, 2007 Virginia Tech University shooting so that the Attorney General could more easily acquire information pertinent to background checks such as disqualifying mental conditions.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 was enacted on Oct. 26 by President George W. Bush and gives broad civil liability immunity to firearms manufacturers so they cannot be sued by a gun death victim’s family.  The Child Safety Lock Act requires that all handguns be sold with a “secure gun storage or safety device.”

16th	Permits Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the various states or basing it on the United States Census	July 12, 1909	February 3, 1913	3 years, 206 days
17th	Establishes the direct election of United States senators by popular vote	May 13, 1912	April 8, 1913	330 days
18th	Prohibited the manufacturing or sale of alcohol within the United States (Repealed December 5, 1933, via the 21st Amendment)	December 18, 1917	January 16, 1919	1 year, 29 days
19th	Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex	June 4, 1919	August 18, 1920	1 year, 75 days
20th	Changes the dates on which the terms of the president and vice president, and of members of Congress, begin and end, to January 20 and January 3 respectively. States that if the president-elect dies before taking office, the vice president–elect is to be inaugurated as President.	March 2, 1932	January 23, 1933	327 days
21st[22]	Repeals the 18th Amendment and makes it a federal offense to transport or import intoxicating liquors into U.S. states and territories where such is prohibited by law	February 20, 1933	December 5, 1933	288 days
22nd[23]	Limits the number of times a person can be elected president.	March 21, 1947	February 27, 1951	3 years, 343 days
23rd[24]	Grants the District of Columbia electors in the Electoral College	June 16, 1960	March 29, 1961	286 days
24th	Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax	September 14, 1962	January 23, 1964	1 year, 131 days
25th	Addresses succession to the presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the vice president and responding to presidential disabilities	July 6, 1965	February 10, 1967	1 year, 219 days
26th	Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, 18 years of age or older, to vote on account of age	March 23, 1971	July 1, 1971	100 days
27th	Delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives	September 25, 1789	May 5, 1992	202 years,     223 day

IF YOU LOVE OUR COUNTRY, SWITCH TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! IT NEEDS TO BE SAVED!

Our republic is in real trouble, greatly due to because the Republican Party has lost its way.  I'm not kidding, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm pointing out reality.  No one has all the answers, and no one party has all the answers.  We need at least two parties, preferably more, but at least two opposing sides, to make sure we make our country the best it can be.  Unfortunately, current and recent members of the Republican Party don't believe this, instead believe they not only have all the answers, the Democratic Party is pure evil, to boot.  Of course this is ridiculous, self-serving, even insane, in my opinion.  Their agenda is doing nothing short of sending our country down the tubes, and rapidly.  What can we do about it, you ask.  They are frequently either ignoring, re-writing, or skirting objective polices and long-held practices, from voting rights to (fill in the blank).  For an easy and basic and current example, look no further than the current fight over slightly enhanced voting rights:

To be sure, the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 was created with strong support from both parties. In the House, Democrats voted for the final bill by a margin of 217-54 and Republicans by a margin of 111-20; in the Senate, Democrats backed it 49-17 and Republicans 30-1.

Passage of the law, however, was simply the start. Because some of its special provisions were established as temporary measures, the Voting Rights Act was brought up for reauthorization and expansion over the next half century — in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992 and, most recently, 2006. At every point in this process, Biden noted, the law could count on backing from his Republican predecessors in the White House: “Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush. They all supported the Voting Rights Act.”

It wasn’t simply Republican presidents who supported the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, Biden noted. Republicans in Congress, like their Democratic colleagues, overwhelmingly embraced the measures, too.

“In 2006,” Biden stressed, “the Voting Rights Act passed 390 to 33 in the House of Representatives and 98 to 0 in the Senate.”

Source:  https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/republican-opposition-voting-rights-bills-follows-decades-pretend-support-n1287422

What can we do, asks the millions of Democratic and Independent voters?  The Republican Party has at least 71 million followers, half the Senate (despite the Republican Party Senators representing 42 million FEWER citizens than do the Democratic Senators!), and could win the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections!  Here's is what you and I can do:  switch from a Democratic and Independent voter to Republican!  It's easy to do, perfectly legal, and if enough of us do so, it will encourage sane Republicans to run for office.  There is more than one such member of Congress that has announced s/he is not running for re-election because the party is so completely Trumpian.  This just might disrupt the march and agenda of the Republican Party, and save the House!  

It would also send a very clear message to the Republican Party:  not so fast with your extreme gerrymandering and voting restrictions.  

I am dead serious about this, as I don't see any other way to save our country from failing.  If you agree, and I hope to God you do, switch your party registration now, and get every liberal and independent you know to do the same.  

The Russians have Nothing over the GOP

The Russians have Nothing over the GOP.

The Russians did a good job of mucking with our 2016 elections, the full impact we have yet to discover.  However, they have a long, long way to go before they match the success of the GOP.  Think about it:  the GOP came up with a long range plan to capture state legislative seats, planning for the 2010 census and re-districting that comes with it.  Having succeeded at that step, they then created the most gerrymandered Congressional Districts in our country's history.  This resulted in the GOP taking solidifying it's hold on the House of Representatives.  

Next, they attacked the hours and days that polls are open, cutting them way back, for what reason there can only be one answer, to discourage people from voting.  Also, they got many districts to purge their list of eligible voters, deleting many voters who had every right to continue voting.  

Seriously, the Russians have a long, long way to go before they can match that success.  Oh, I forgot to mention the many federal judgeships that the GOP first massively delayed being filled under Obama, and now have set records in filling those empty benches.  This action will continue to support their twisted agenda for decades.  

Capitalism Run Amuck, On Steroids

Capitalism is under a lot of fire these days, grossly unfairly.  Capitalism in the US is really Crony Capitalism, which is capitalism on selfish, greedy steroids.  A very good example of this is the Nestle Corporation, specifically the North American Waters Division.

According to their website, in 2014 Nestles collected 28 million gallons of water from their facilities in the San Bernardino Mountains.  According the the website of the Courage Campaign, Nestle did so on an expired permit from the US Forest Service, and pay just $524 ANNUALLY for that water! That is not a typo, it really is just $524!!

Their permit expired in 1988, coincidentally one year after they acquired the Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Company.  

According to the Nestles website, they are the biggest food company in the world.  They sell $4.125 BILLION in bottled water in the United States every year, and have a market share of 37.2%, which is huge!  Their brands may surprise you:

Acqua Panna, Arrowhead, Deer Park, Ice Mountain, Montclair, Nestle’s Pure Life, Ozarka, Poland Spring, Resource, Tradwinds, and Zephyrhills in the United States.  They also own Perrier and Pellegrino, and Sweet Leaf Iced Teas 

 Now, does paying $524 dollars to take 28 million gallons of water from a US Forest Service property sound in any way, shape or form fair to you?  To me, it's beyond outrageous.  To go further on the outrage scale, read the paragraph below, from Wikipedia.

This is why I say forget boycotting one food market, and BOYCOTT ALL NESTLE PRODUCTS, and see how fast they will come to the table and negotiate a fair and reasonable contract.  

From Wikipedia:  “Additionally, recent evidence suggests that representatives of the Forest Service failed to follow through on a review process for Nestlé's permit to draw water from the San Bernardino wells, which expired in 1988.^[116][117] The former forest supervisor Gene Zimmerman has explained that the review process was rigorous, and that the Forest Service "didn't have the money or the budget or the staff" to follow through on the review of Nestlé's long-expired permit.^[118] However, Zimmerman's observations and action have come under scrutiny for a number of reasons. Firstly, along with the natural resource manager for Nestlé, Larry Lawrence, Zimmerman is a board member for and played a vital role in the founding of the nonprofit Southern California Mountains Foundation, of which Nestlé is the most noteworthy and longtime donor.^[119] Secondly, the Zimmerman Community Partnership Award - an award inspired by Zimmerman's actions and efforts "to create a public/private partnership for resource development and community engagement" - was presented by the foundation to Nestlé's Arrowhead Water division in 2013.^[120] Finally, while Zimmerman retired from his former role in 2005, he currently works as a paid consultant for Nestlé, leading many investigative journalists to question Zimmerman's allegiances prior to his retirement from the Forest Service.^[118]

See Nestles own North American Water Website: 

http://www.nestle-watersna.com/content/documents/pdfs/nwna_at_a_glance_2015.pdf

Public Servants and Private Email

Hillary Clinton decided it was prudent to use her own personal email account, held on her own personal server, to conduct the business of the Secretary of State.  She and her presidential campaign are in serious trouble, and although it had to be a team effort, she has no one to blame but herself.  My bigger question is, how could so many people in the State Department and the Obama Administration miss, and ignore, the fact that Secretary of State Clinton was using a private email account?  

I am not prone to hyperbole or voicing off-the-cuff opinions.  It's taken me a while to digest this news, partly because I just could not believe it, and was waiting for the 'real story' to come out.  I am now shocked and disappointed that this story is true, and so far virtually undefended.  

I would take issue with the mayor of a city setting up a personal email account and using that exclusively for government business.  She was the Secretary of the State, for God's sake, fourth in line to the Presidency!!  She conducted business with other countries! She is, to the best of my knowledge, a very responsible person.  How in the world could she justify using a personal email account to carry out the business of government?  I cannot fathom any reason that will be acceptable to us, the people.  Yet, to compound the issue, we have heard nothing from her in way of an explanation.  Apparently it's just not that important to her.

Fair disclosure, although I used to be a strong Hillary for President supporter, I am no longer.  Too many of her actions or words have led me to believe she is too much like all the other politicians that we elect, and by that I mean, part of the corporate machine that is only interested in furthering their short-term gain, and to hell with the people.

I'm truly at a loss as to:

• how she can justify representing the People of the United States, and President Obama, using a personal email account;
• how those around her accepted this, allowed it to happen, and continue, from her staff to other Cabinet members, to the White House;
• how the Administration was so asleep at the wheel, and let this happen;
• why it is only coming to light now, two years after she left office, six years after this unacceptable practice began

Just from a cover-your-butt factor, can you imagine the fallout if her personal account had been hacked?  She would have no place to run and hide.  If her government account was hacked, she could have successfully pleaded it wasn't her fault, as she had nothing to do with the computer security.  It doesn't matter at all how secure she thought her personal servers were, they were still not government secured.

As far as we know today, she is the only one with access to those ~55,000 pages of emails. Again, it's been TWO YEARS since she left office, so who knows what has been deleted or changed in those emails during that time?  

Politicians continue to find new ways to rock me.  I'm reminded of the quote I recently discovered by President Lincoln:  "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."