When satire sort of...isn't. Sort of.

You really can't tell the difference between a sitting president and one member of Congress, and why one might merit slightly more attention than the other?

No, he really can't, nor can any of the other

It's fun to watch, though.

Almost as much fun as when Democrats were calling for the head of FBI Director Comey for "interfering with" the election and then were horrified when Trump fired FBI Director Comey. All depends on which side of the bread your butter is on. Politics is often called "the second oldest profession" but what it really is is institutionalized hypocrisy.

You're not this stupid.

I can be pissed off that a barista screwed up my order.

I can also be pissed off if they get fired six months later for not sleeping with the boss.

You're not this stupid.

You're right, @Lanzman isn't stupid, but you sure are.

She will be eligible to run for President in 5 years.

She has to win re-election in two years first and Republicans are going to try and tear her down. If she survives that, then she can run for President, but I wouldn't count on it and if she does run, don't count on her winning.

I think she'll survive her first term just fine. While she is more left wing than many Democrats, she's right in tune with the rising generation, the people who are now voting, and who want to effect change. If the GOP keeps on course as it has been up to this point, her winning her seat in 2 years shouldn't be too difficult. All she has to do is work at her stated goals, and keep to that platform. So far, she's doing just that.

Five years is a long way to go politically, who knows how things will change by then and I wouldn't count on all of this rising generation you speak of all being Democrats or liberals, some of them will turn right. By the time she's eligible to run for President a lot of new issues will spring up. We still have a year until the 2020 primaries and the issues that are coming up right now are going to change a year from now.

Some of them will turn right, but not nearly enough. This coming generation isn’t quite as receptive to the mountains of Reagonomics bullshit their parents and grandparents accepted as true.

There is a generational divide that many underestimate, a more distinct divide than has existed in decades.

Those who came of age around the mid 2000s had for the most part no reason to doubt the promises of capitalism. Sure they would support some lefty measures from time to time, but they also knew it was about to be their turn to join in the party.

The GFC changed everything. Opportunities and growth dried up, and we now have a whole generation that on many metrics don't have the stability their parents had.

The generation now coming of age? They're looking to the ones that came before them and seeing under-employment, housing unaffordability, and looking fifty years down the line have no reason to expect they will ever be able to retire.

Expecting people not to rock the boat only works when that boat actually seems like it can float.

It has nothing to do with that, what happens is people turn thirt, grow up, have kids, pay taxes and realize they were indoctrinated their whole lives by left wing professors in college and high school. In other words, they grow out of it. Believe me, I’ve witnessed it first hand and it happened to me as well.

Yep, as a generalisation, the closer people are to the top of the pile (or the more they see a clear path to getting there) the more likely they are to vote conservatively. Things are clearly working, why change them.

Now what do you think happens when you have a generation who are seeing less success than the one before them?

I don’t believe in your premise. People who grew up in the 2000s saw success on a massive scale than anyone has ever seen by entrepreneurs that built their companies themselves. They’ve also seen that it takes little to no talent to be a rich entertainer. They’ve also seen small businesses blow up into giant corporations. They’ve seen small investments turn people into billionaires. They’ve seen entertainers, mostly rappers, turn into billionaires. They’ve seen that if you work hard and you’re determined, you stand a chance at success in this country.

Out of curiosity, what percentage of the population who grew up in the 2000s do you believe are or will be entrepreneurs/rich entertainers/self-made billionaires?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

Are you seriously suggesting that people thinking they will never be able to own a home should just remember that they can always go and found Facebook?

I’m suggesting there’s plenty of examples of success in the 200s to point to and your premise is flawed.

No-one is saying that success is literally impossible, you seem to be entirely missing the point.

Again, percentages. And why aren't you Rich&Famous yet?

Because I didn’t apply myself at the time I should have.

So why don't you go get rich and famous tomorrow, since it's apparently so easy?

I didn’t say it was easy.

But you said it's all just "hard work and determination." Are you not determined? Are you unwilling to work hard?

In my in my current job, yes. Pursuing a musical career, that ship has sailed.

Millionaires and billionaires create enormous value for society (hence their wealth), but the possibility of becoming one has another tremendous benefit for society: the value created by those trying to be wealthy. Although few succeed at becoming millionaires, a great many people who work hard at creating value do manage to become quite well off.

If it weren't possible to benefit from the value one creates, very few people would do it, and we'd all be much poorer for it.

So why aren't you the next Emeril Lagassie or Gordon Ramsay? Or, now that Anthony Bourdain is no longer with us and everyone else has moved up a notch, it should be easy for you - if we subscribe to your belief system - to start at the bottom and be famous within, what, 5-10 years? C'mon, move it.

When the alternatives are "labour to create value for others" or "starve," you'll find people do it despite receiving only a fraction of the value of their labour.

You seem to have missed the point that the U.S. economy is running hotter, with record low unemployment, since any time in recent history. Help wanted signs on every damn door around here. Guess that American Dream is dead!

I would say "not starving" is a pretty good benefit.

And the value for their labor is the price it can command in a free marketplace. They are free to offer their labor elsewhere or to decline work if it does not meet their salary requirements.

I’m working hard every day to be the best I can be.