With the Economic crash bubble pop that is happening right now, it is safe to say that the mid 2010s are over (being phased out slowly)
How does this forum feel about this short period of 2013-2016(ongoing) ?  Here is a quick recap of the mid 2010s that will end on April 2016.

- Boston Marathon Bombing
-  Fancy (Iggy and Charli XCX) song of the decade
- ISIS become a global threat
-Instagram blows up
- Miley cyrus goes crazy and twerks at VMAS
- TRL comes back for one day only
- Global prosperity hits the usa for a a few years (late 2013-2015)
- XBOX one and PS4 become the new systems
- Game of thrones becomes a phenomenom
- Walking Dead blows up
-  Been trill (numberd jerseys become huge) /ass well as purple lipstick
- Boy meets world returns to tv as Girl meets World
-  Spotify becomes a culture jugganaught
- super hero movie over saturation
-4k tv becomes the new thing
-  Frozen becomes Disney movie of the decade
- The social Justice era (mike brown case etc)
- P Williams Happy
- Kendrick Lamar becomes the new PAc
- Taylor Swift becomes the new queen of pop
- Kanye marries Kim Kardashian
- Kylie Jenner becomes a teen sensation
- Bruce Jenner transitions into a woman
-Gay marriage legal everywhere in the USA
-Justin Bieber turns bad and fades away from relevancy
- Uber comes out
- 106 & park ends its 14 year run
- Amy Shumer becomes the new Dane cook

How do we know for sure that the mid-2010s are going to end in April 2016?  Aside from the stock market crash, nothing about pop culture seems to be headed in a truly different direction, at least not yet.  We'll probably get new political discussions by the time the election season enters full swing, but as far as technology, looks, and popular media go, it feels as though remarkably little about the world has changed since the fall of 2013.

Usually you can sort of sense these differences in advance.  9/11, for example, occurred just as teen pop was dying for good and the sixth generation of gaming was beginning to pick up; the 2008 financial meltdown hit during the time Facebook began to outmuscle MySpace, electropop was gaining influence in music, and Obama was elected President of the United States.  For the most part, the summer of 2015 has been totally stagnant in terms of fundamental changes to society.

Even with the crisis now, it's not guaranteed that it'll impact popular culture much.  Fairly little changed, for example, following the 1987 and 1994 crashes.  In the former case, the world was just starting to enter the 80s/90s-Bush '41 period, but the transition was still relatively slow and not directly affected by economics.  In the latter instance, most of the transition into the mid-90s had already occurred during the 1993-1994 school year, with 1994 in general being the early part of the mid-90s sub-era; there was a bit of economic trouble in 1995, but not enough to obliterate the dominant culture of the day, as was the case in 2008.

I still feel like that we're still in the mid 2010s. I'll might say the mid 2010s once the 2016 presidential election happens.

I think the mid 2010's will last up until the end of August 2016 IMO, however, we still do not know what unfolds this Fall in this country yet, we just have to see.

I think the mid 2010's will last up until the end of August 2016 IMO, however, we still do not know what unfolds this Fall in this country yet, we just have to see.


I agree 100%! The middle of a decade doesn't end until August of the '6' year of the decade. 

How do we know for sure that the mid-2010s are going to end in April 2016?  Aside from the stock market crash, nothing about pop culture seems to be headed in a truly different direction, at least not yet.  We'll probably get new political discussions by the time the election season enters full swing, but as far as technology, looks, and popular media go, it feels as though remarkably little about the world has changed since the fall of 2013.

Usually you can sort of sense these differences in advance.  9/11, for example, occurred just as teen pop was dying for good and the sixth generation of gaming was beginning to pick up; the 2008 financial meltdown hit during the time Facebook began to outmuscle MySpace, electropop was gaining influence in music, and Obama was elected President of the United States.  For the most part, the summer of 2015 has been totally stagnant in terms of fundamental changes to society.

Even with the crisis now, it's not guaranteed that it'll impact popular culture much.  Fairly little changed, for example, following the 1987 and 1994 crashes.  In the former case, the world was just starting to enter the 80s/90s-Bush '41 period, but the transition was still relatively slow and not directly affected by economics.  In the latter instance, most of the transition into the mid-90s had already occurred during the 1993-1994 school year, with 1994 in general being the early part of the mid-90s sub-era; there was a bit of economic trouble in 1995, but not enough to obliterate the dominant culture of the day, as was the case in 2008.


The stock market did crash, but it's up again as of right now. 

The stock market did crash, but it's up again as of right now.


That's what I've heard, although it's still too early to tell exactly what's going to happen, whether the current crash will be minor like 1994 or severe like 2008.

I agree 100%! The middle of a decade doesn't end until August of the '6' year of the decade.


I thought it ends in april

I thought it ends in april


That applies to the early part of the decade, in 2013.

I thought it ends in april


Wow, there are people born in 2001 in this forum? Now I really feel old.  :-X

Wow, there are people born in 2001 in this forum? Now I really feel old.  :-X


I don't think that's his actual birth year. I think that's just some guy born in the mid 90s who thought 2001 was the best year in his childhood.

I don't think that's his actual birth year. I think that's just some guy born in the mid 90s who thought 2001 was the best year in his childhood.


Cool.

Unless you mean the later part of the decade by splitting in half, the 6th year is always still the middle of the decade. I think the later part of the decade starts in the middle of 2017.

Yeah, Slim's right. 2016 will still be a mid 10s year. Numerically and culturally. It will also still be an ''Obama year.''

Yeah, Slim's right. 2016 will still be a mid 10s year. Numerically and culturally. It will also still be an ''Obama year.''


Same with how 2008 was still a George W. Bush year.

Same with how 2008 was still a George W. Bush year.

yup, and just like 2000 was still a Clinton year ;)

yup, and just like 2000 was still a Clinton year ;)


Exactly.

I do not think that there will be a change this year. Literally nothing changed this year compared to last year except for a slowing economy. Now 2016 is a different.

I don't think that's his actual birth year. I think that's just some guy born in the mid 90s who thought 2001 was the best year in his childhood.


He was born in 1989.

With the Economic crash bubble pop that is happening right now, it is safe to say that the mid 2010s are over (being phased out slowly)
How does this forum feel about this short period of 2013-2016(ongoing) ?  Here is a quick recap of the mid 2010s that will end on April 2016.

- Boston Marathon Bombing
-  Fancy (Iggy and Charli XCX) song of the decade
- ISIS become a global threat
-Instagram blows up
- Miley cyrus goes crazy and twerks at VMAS
- TRL comes back for one day only
- Global prosperity hits the usa for a a few years (late 2013-2015)
- XBOX one and PS4 become the new systems
- Game of thrones becomes a phenomenom
- Walking Dead blows up
-  Been trill (numberd jerseys become huge) /ass well as purple lipstick
- Boy meets world returns to tv as Girl meets World
-  Spotify becomes a culture jugganaught
- super hero movie over saturation
-4k tv becomes the new thing
-  Frozen becomes Disney movie of the decade
- The social Justice era (mike brown case etc)
- P Williams Happy
- Kendrick Lamar becomes the new PAc
- Taylor Swift becomes the new queen of pop
- Kanye marries Kim Kardashian
- Kylie Jenner becomes a teen sensation
- Bruce Jenner transitions into a woman
-Gay marriage legal everywhere in the USA
-Justin Bieber turns bad and fades away from relevancy
- Uber comes out
- 106 & park ends its 14 year run
- Amy Shumer becomes the new Dane cook


Everything in bold I put as a "so far". As this decade goes on, there will be more things introduced that will take the place of other ones. By the end of the decade, I doubt people are even going to care about the Hunger Games and Jennifer Lawrence anymore. I think "Mockingjay Part: 2" will be her last hurrah.

With the Economic crash bubble pop that is happening right now, it is safe to say that the mid 2010s are over (being phased out slowly)
How does this forum feel about this short period of 2013-2016(ongoing) ?  Here is a quick recap of the mid 2010s that will end on April 2016.

- Boston Marathon Bombing
-  Fancy (Iggy and Charli XCX) song of the decade
- ISIS become a global threat
-Instagram blows up
- Miley cyrus goes crazy and twerks at VMAS
- TRL comes back for one day only
- Global prosperity hits the usa for a a few years (late 2013-2015)
- XBOX one and PS4 become the new systems
- Game of thrones becomes a phenomenom
- Walking Dead blows up
-  Been trill (numberd jerseys become huge) /ass well as purple lipstick
- Boy meets world returns to tv as Girl meets World
-  Spotify becomes a culture jugganaught
- super hero movie over saturation
-4k tv becomes the new thing
-  Frozen becomes Disney movie of the decade
- The social Justice era (mike brown case etc)
- P Williams Happy
- Kendrick Lamar becomes the new PAc
- Taylor Swift becomes the new queen of pop
- Kanye marries Kim Kardashian
- Kylie Jenner becomes a teen sensation
- Bruce Jenner transitions into a woman
-Gay marriage legal everywhere in the USA
-Justin Bieber turns bad and fades away from relevancy
- Uber comes out
- 106 & park ends its 14 year run
- Amy Shumer becomes the new Dane cook

The super hero Marvel movies are being overdone. And alot of celebrities are embarrassing themselves, but with the advent of social media it probably just seems that way because it goes public so fast.


Everything in bold I put as a "so far". As this decade goes on, there will be more things introduced that will take the place of other ones. By the end of the decade, I doubt people are even going to care about the Hunger Games and Jennifer Lawrence anymore. I think "Mockingjay Part: 2" will be her last hurrah.

Do you think the newest gaming systems are going to go down as a hit in gaming history, or be a disappointment once something new comes out again?

yup, and just like 2000 was still a Clinton year ;)


Well, yes, but the Presidential election years are always associated with who gets elected, not who is in office. People seem to forget that 1980 was a Jimmy Carter year, but we always associate it with Ronald Reagan. You could say the same with 1976. Jimmy Carter wasn't President yet, but he was elected then and people associate him with that time. Same with Bill Clinton and 1992.

Well, yes, but the Presidential election years are always associated with who gets elected, not who is in office. People seem to forget that 1980 was a Jimmy Carter year, but we always associate it with Ronald Reagan. You could say the same with 1976. Jimmy Carter wasn't President yet, but he was elected then and people associate him with that time. Same with Bill Clinton and 1992.


But doesn't the presidential elections happen in November? So, even if the future presidents were elected in those years, it doesn't really happen until November of that same year. So, 1976 was still a Gerald Ford year while 1992 was still a George H.W. Bush year.

But doesn't the presidential elections happen in November? So, even if the future presidents were elected in those years, it doesn't really happen until November of that same year. So, 1976 was still a Gerald Ford year while 1992 was still a George H.W. Bush year.


Technically yes, but nobody remembers it for that. And besides, the "race" occurs all year.

Wow, there are people born in 2001 in this forum? Now I really feel old.  :-X


I was born in 1988

I was born in 1988


Do you find 2001 to be the best year of your life?

I think the mid 2010's will last up until the end of August 2016 IMO, however, we still do not know what unfolds this Fall in this country yet, we just have to see.


We might have a new president.

The super hero Marvel movies are being overdone. And alot of celebrities are embarrassing themselves, but with the advent of social media it probably just seems that way because it goes public so fast.
Do you think the newest gaming systems are going to go down as a hit in gaming history, or be a disappointment once something new comes out again?


I think they might be a hit.

Too soon to say if the mid '10s will end in 2016.  In many decades the '6' year is still firmly in the core of that decade.  I remember back in 2008, when there were hints of change people were saying 2008 was the first true '10s year, but in hindsight it was more '00s. So far, there is no evidence that a major cultural shift is on the horizon.

If I had to guess, there will be more signs of change in 2017 than 2016.

Too soon to say if the mid '10s will end in 2016.  In many decades the '6' year is still firmly in the core of that decade.  I remember back in 2008, when there were hints of change people were saying 2008 was the first true '10s year, but in hindsight it was more '00s. So far, there is no evidence that a major cultural shift is on the horizon.

If I had to guess, there will be more signs of change in 2017 than 2016.


One thing for sure is that 2016 will be different from 2013. The year ending with a '6' in every decade is always different from the '3' year. 1966 has nothing in common with 1963. 1976 has nothing in common with 1973. 1986 has nothing in common with 1983. 1996 has nothing in common with 1993. 2006 has nothing in common with 2003.

As a matter of fact, the '6' year always has more in common with the '9' year. For instance, just watch 311's "Down" or "All Mixed Up" and compare it to Blink-182's "What's My Age Again" or "All the Small Things". They don't look very different, although they sound quite different.

Honestly, it won't be surprising if 2016 starts new trends. I actually want it to happen.

One thing for sure is that 2016 will be different from 2013. The year ending with a '6' in every decade is always different from the '3' year. 1966 has nothing in common with 1963. 1976 has nothing in common with 1973. 1986 has nothing in common with 1983. 1996 has nothing in common with 1993. 2006 has nothing in common with 2003.

As a matter of fact, the '6' year always has more in common with the '9' year. For instance, just watch 311's "Down" or "All Mixed Up" and compare it to Blink-182's "What's My Age Again" or "All the Small Things". They don't look very different, although they sound quite different.

Honestly, it won't be surprising if 2016 starts new trends. I actually want it to happen.


Because the mid portion of the decade will always seem to be different than the early portion. Even though I think the early and mid 2000s (except for 2000) were related.

One thing for sure is that 2016 will be different from 2013. The year ending with a '6' in every decade is always different from the '3' year. 1966 has nothing in common with 1963. 1976 has nothing in common with 1973. 1986 has nothing in common with 1983. 1996 has nothing in common with 1993. 2006 has nothing in common with 2003.

Most likely, there will be more similarities than not.  We're already entering the 2015/2016 school year (my old high school began last week), and I still feel like things are almost identical to 2013 as a whole, with the exception of ISIS being a bigger topic and transgender issues being more mainstream.

I also don't think 1996 is that different from 1993, nor is 2006 tremendously distant from 2003.  The mid-90s feel was just starting to emerge in '93, and 1996 didn't have any serious traces of late 90s culture until the last third of the year; 2003 was the crossroads between the early 2000s and mid-2000s, while 2006 was the crossroads between the mid-2000s and late 2000s; they're caught in separate transitions, to be sure, but both definitely had a mid-2000s influence, as well.  In both respective cases, the two years are defined by different trends, to be sure, but I wouldn't call them night and day like your rhetoric seems to imply.

Most likely, there will be more similarities than not.  We're already entering the 2015/2016 school year (my old high school began last week), and I still feel like things are almost identical to 2013 as a whole, with the exception of ISIS being a bigger topic and transgender issues being more mainstream.

I also don't think 1996 is that different from 1993, nor is 2006 tremendously distant from 2003.  The mid-90s feel was just starting to emerge in '93, and 1996 didn't have any serious traces of late 90s culture until the last third of the year; 2003 was the crossroads between the early 2000s and mid-2000s, while 2006 was the crossroads between the mid-2000s and late 2000s; they're caught in separate transitions, to be sure, but both definitely had a mid-2000s influence, as well.  In both respective cases, the two years are defined by different trends, to be sure, but I wouldn't call them night and day like your rhetoric seems to imply.


the 6th year is always the last classic year, when the 7th comes it is no longer classic (decade wise)

1996
2006  etc

the 6th year is always the last classic year, when the 7th comes it is no longer classic (decade wise)

1996
2006  etc


You don't consider 1957-1959, 1967-1969, 1977-1978, and 1987-1988 "classic" years of their respective decades?

the 6th year is always the last classic year, when the 7th comes it is no longer classic (decade wise)

1996
2006  etc


I find 2007 and 2008 to be classic years of the 2000s, simply because they're more related with the U.S. politics and pop culture at the time. As for 2009, I don't find that year to be classic.

You don't consider 1957-1959, 1967-1969, 1977-1978, and 1987-1988 "classic" years of their respective decades?


nope

You don't consider 1957-1959, 1967-1969, 1977-1978, and 1987-1988 "classic" years of their respective decades?


those are all transitional years and not the core years, minus 1969 and maybe 1987

You don't consider 1957-1959, 1967-1969, 1977-1978, and 1987-1988 "classic" years of their respective decades?


While the early 60s were busy with the civil rights movement in the US, especially in my opinion that the early 60s felt more 50s than the rest of the decade. I consider 1969 to be a transitional year from the 60s to the 70s. As for 1967-1968, 1977-1978 and 1987-1988, I find them to be classic years for their decades.

While the early 60s were busy with the civil rights movement in the US, especially in my opinion that the early 60s felt more 50s than the rest of the decade. I consider 1969 to be a transitional year from the 60s to the 70s. As for 1967-1968, 1977-1978 and 1987-1988, I find them to be classic years for their decades.


I consider 1969 the quintessential year of the '60s.  That year is widely regarded as the height of the hippie movement with Woodstock and everything happening then.

I consider 1969 the quintessential year of the '60s.  That year is widely regarded as the height of the hippie movement with Woodstock and everything happening then.


Well with Woodstock, I guess it could be quintessential. But for the whole decade, I might say 1964-1969. The early 60s were more 50s than the rest of the decade, if you were wondering.

Well with Woodstock, I guess it could be quintessential. But for the whole decade, I might say 1964-1969. The early 60s were more 50s than the rest of the decade, if you were wondering.

agreed!

I find 2007 and 2008 to be classic years of the 2000s, simply because they're more related with the U.S. politics and pop culture at the time. As for 2009, I don't find that year to be classic.

me too

You don't consider 1957-1959, 1967-1969, 1977-1978, and 1987-1988 "classic" years of their respective decades?

I know my history on the 50s and yes I defiantly regard the late 50s as the classic years on that decade
I consider 1967-1969 to be the defining years of the decade, but not the classic years, that would be the mid 60s. The 70s is a weird one. 1977 is regarded by many people to be that defining year. So it's definitely classic. But 1978 and 1979 had some new wave bands coming in, the earliest rap music was released, a couple of tv series that we associate with 80s were coming out(Dallas, Dukes of Hazard, etc.)
The 80s is a no brainer. I think 1983-1986/87 were the classic years of that decade.

I consider 1969 the quintessential year of the '60s.  That year is widely regarded as the height of the hippie movement with Woodstock and everything happening then.

While 1969 is just as important as 1968; however, with Nixon being in office, The Brady Bunch being on air, Led Zeppelin debuting,Sesame street coming out. Made it SLIGHTLY different!

I consider 1969 the quintessential year of the '60s.  That year is widely regarded as the height of the hippie movement with Woodstock and everything happening then.


You know, why do you find the last year of every decade to be the quintessential year of that said decade? I don't think that said years were definitive to the decades at all, except for the 50s and 60s.

You know, why do you find the last year of every decade to be the quintessential year of that said decade? I don't think that said years were definitive to the decades at all, except for the 50s and 60s.

Actually, I DON'T find the last year of EVERY decade to be quintessential. I consider the mid 80s, mid 90s, and mid 00s to be definitive of their respective decades.

Actually, I DON'T find the last year of EVERY decade to be quintessential. I consider the mid 80s, mid 90s, and mid 00s to be definitive of their respective decades.


I was asking bchris02. That post wasn't really meant for you, but I agree with your post.

I was asking bchris02. That post wasn't really meant for you, but I agree with your post.

oh, ok :)  I was wondering!! ;D ;D ;D

You know, why do you find the last year of every decade to be the quintessential year of that said decade? I don't think that said years were definitive to the decades at all, except for the 50s and 60s.


I don't find the last year of every decade to be the quintessential year.  However, it's usually always in the late portion of said decade because that's when a decade's culture is the most evolved.  I see the quintessential years as follows.

1950s: 1957
1960s: 1969
1970s: 1977
1980s: 1987
1990s: 1996
2000s: 2007

I don't find the last year of every decade to be the quintessential year.  However, it's usually always in the late portion of said decade because that's when a decade's culture is the most evolved.  I see the quintessential years as follows.

1950s: 1957
1960s: 1969
1970s: 1977
1980s: 1987
1990s: 1996
2000s: 2007


Yeah, I agree with 90% of your answers about the quintessential years.

The big hair of the 80s peaked in 1987/1988.

One thing for sure is that 2016 will be different from 2013. The year ending with a '6' in every decade is always different from the '3' year. 1966 has nothing in common with 1963. 1976 has nothing in common with 1973. 1986 has nothing in common with 1983. 1996 has nothing in common with 1993. 2006 has nothing in common with 2003.

As a matter of fact, the '6' year always has more in common with the '9' year. For instance, just watch 311's "Down" or "All Mixed Up" and compare it to Blink-182's "What's My Age Again" or "All the Small Things". They don't look very different, although they sound quite different.

Honestly, it won't be surprising if 2016 starts new trends. I actually want it to happen.

Down and All Mixed Up are both from 311's self titled album 311 and Blink 182 is a different band. I'm really not sure what comparison you're trying to make.  Both are altnernative, but one falls under reggae rock and rap metal while the other is pop and skate punk.

I hope we're now in peak trap music, and that it will diminish next year.

I hope we're now in peak trap music, and that it will diminish next year.


Wow, this decade really has forgettable music.

Down and All Mixed Up are both from 311's self titled album 311 and Blink 182 is a different band. I'm really not sure what comparison you're trying to make.  Both are altnernative, but one falls under reggae rock and rap metal while the other is pop and skate punk.


There are slight musical similarities (both are punk, but different sub genres of it) what I was really getting at was the sartorial ones. Spiky hair, cargo pants, skate shoes, and graphic t-shirts. Although sometimes 311 dressed a little more exquisitely (such as '70s-inspired button downs and camp shirts) and some things (lugz shoes) were out of style by the time Blink-182 hit it big in '00.

Wow, this decade really has forgettable music.


I actually kind of like some trap songs. My favorites are "You Know You Like It" and "Lean On" as they sound most unique compared to other really bad rap songs out today like "Classic Man" and "Hit the Quan". And I don't agree with everything being forgettable as some really great songs are getting recognition instead of remaining obscure.

There are slight musical similarities (both are punk, but different sub genres of it) what I was really getting at was the sartorial ones. Spiky hair, cargo pants, skate shoes, and graphic t-shirts. Although sometimes 311 dressed a little more exquisitely (such as '70s-inspired button downs and camp shirts) and some things (lugz shoes) were out of style by the time Blink-182 hit it big in '00.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/311_(band)
311? They're not punk at all. Want punk bands, listen to Rancid or The Misfits. Spiky hair cargo pants and skate shoes were fashions of the time that many followed.

Live shows 311 wore tank tops, t-shirts, and jeans.

I don't think you've really listened to them.

Wow, this decade really has forgettable music.


It started out so great as well.  I loved the music from 2009-12 and thought this decade's music would end up being amazing based on that.  I think in the summer of 2012, music actually digressed. 

It started out so great as well.  I loved the music from 2009-12 and thought this decade's music would end up being amazing based on that.  I think in the summer of 2012, music actually digressed.


Well, this decade wasn't really the best, music-wise. The only years that I find decent in the 2010s with music is 2010 and 2011. At least those years had good standards compared to 2012.

It started out so great as well.  I loved the music from 2009-12 and thought this decade's music would end up being amazing based on that.  I think in the summer of 2012, music actually digressed.


Agreed. You, I and a couple of others on this site appreciate the earlier electropop era when it was in its prime throughout all of 2009, 2010, and most of 2011. 2012 is when it took a turn for the worse, 2013 was improvement and I give that year credit for some great hit songs, however by then some new artists came on the scene and music started feeling real different with more teenybopper songs and then some of the hip-hip songs today feel like it's just recycled or something. The late 2000's/very early 2010's urban style of electropop music was so original and done extremely well with perfect tone.

Too soon to say if the mid '10s will end in 2016.  In many decades the '6' year is still firmly in the core of that decade.  I remember back in 2008, when there were hints of change people were saying 2008 was the first true '10s year, but in hindsight it was more '00s. So far, there is no evidence that a major cultural shift is on the horizon.

If I had to guess, there will be more signs of change in 2017 than 2016.


How do you know that?

I think the 2015-2016 school year will continue the era that we are in right now and the 2016-2017 school year will be the beginning of something new.

I think the mid 10's would extend until Sept. of 2016. That would be around when late 10's culture might appear on top of that numerically the September month of the 6' year of a decade is usually when it becomes the late part of the decade

I have to disagree. The mid 10s are still in full force and will finish when the 2016-17 school year ends. By then, Obama's influence will dissolve and be replaced with the next president. Furthermore, the atmosphere within the decade will change gradually. 

Here's how I see the Core 2010s:

2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 (Despite Obama leaving the WH during this year, the vibe of his presidency will continue until the school year ends). As of right now, we're currently straight in the middle of the decade.

I have to disagree. The mid 10s are still in full force and will finish when the 2016-17 school year ends. By then, Obama's influence will dissolve and be replaced with the next president. Furthermore, the atmosphere within the decade will change gradually. 

Here's how I see the Core 2010s:

2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 (Despite Obama leaving the WH during this year, the vibe of his presidency will continue until the school year ends). As of right now, we're currently straight in the middle of the decade.


much like the 06-07 for school

much like the 06-07 for school
Right. The 2010s has the same lineage as the 2000s. Although the 2007-08 school year was late 00s, it still had that core 00s vibe. When i look back at that year, I don't see any of the influences from the 10s except a few things.

Right. The 2010s has the same lineage as the 2000s. Although the 2007-08 school year was late 00s, it still had that core 00s vibe. When i look back at that year, I don't see any of the influences from the 10s except a few things.


yeah in late 2006-2007 school year, you had xbox 360, ps3, and electropop, facebook gained traction in late 2006
andyou are right 2010s follows the same canon  as 2000s, late 2006 is when WB ended as well , as well skinny
jeans came out in late 2006.

yeah in late 2006-2007 school year, you had xbox 360, ps3, and electropop, facebook gained traction in late 2006
andyou are right 2010s follows the same canon  as 2000s, late 2006 is when WB ended as well , as well skinny
jeans came out in late 2006.


You have a huge point here. In general A LOT of things on TV came to an end in 2006, not just the WB network itself but also Monday Night Football on ABC ending as well as many primetime shows that started in the early 2000's. I consider the 2006-2007 as the transition out of 6th generation gaming (XBOX, GC, PS2) into 7th generation gaming (XBOX 360, Wii, PS3) hitting its peak. However, I disagree about the electropop era though, that didn't really hit its peak until 2008. Electropop had already existed long before 2008 but it wasn't as popular at all before that year. However, overall I do agree that the earliest 2010's influences started around 2006 or 2007. Twitter debuted in 2006 and all the 7th generation consoles were out by the end of 2006 and reached its max popularity by 2007.

yeah in late 2006-2007 school year, you had xbox 360, ps3, and electropop, facebook gained traction in late 2006
andyou are right 2010s follows the same canon  as 2000s, late 2006 is when WB ended as well , as well skinny
jeans came out in late 2006.
True. Except that electropop from 2006 to Spring 2008 was different from the 2008-13 one. The former had many Timbaland produced songs while the latter didn't.

As for the WB, I wish it didnt become the CW. Ever since then, the channel hasn't made many good shows aside from a few.

They did, but people weren't wearing them often until sometime in 2008. I can recall the fashion and I didn't see anyone wearing those jeans in late 2006.

And the Wii which kickstarted the 7th generation of gaming although it began in 2004 due to the Nintendo DS being released that year.

Truth is nobody can predict when change will happen. Just because a similar thin happened in previous decades does not mean the same will happen now. We will have to wait to 2016 to know for sure.

I have to disagree. The mid 10s are still in full force and will finish when the 2016-17 school year ends. By then, Obama's influence will dissolve and be replaced with the next president. Furthermore, the atmosphere within the decade will change gradually. 

Here's how I see the Core 2010s:

2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 (Despite Obama leaving the WH during this year, the vibe of his presidency will continue until the school year ends). As of right now, we're currently straight in the middle of the decade.

We have to wait and see! I'm not sure I want to think about what kind of note the 10's will end on.  :o

We have to wait and see! I'm not sure I want to think about what kind of note the 10's will end on.  :o


If Donald Trump wins the 2016 presidential election, then this decade would end in a really terrible note. If Hilary Clinton or any other Democratic candidate wins, then this decade would end in a decent note.

If Donald Trump wins the 2016 presidential election, then this decade would end in a really terrible note. If Hilary Clinton or any other Democratic candidate wins, then this decade would end in a decent note.

He'd have EVERYONE hating this country and most people who live in it wanting to move to Canada! It would be the definition of hell. I mean, you've seen how he handles the media and what an arrogant douche he is. Nobody can tell him anything so you know that's how he'd handle dignitaries and make the worst impression!

If Donald Trump wins the 2016 presidential election, then this decade would end in a really terrible note. If Hilary Clinton or any other Democratic candidate wins, then this decade would end in a decent note.


However if Bernie Sanders wins this decade would end on a amazing note

However if Bernie Sanders wins this decade would end on a amazing note

I actually agree! :)

However if Bernie Sanders wins this decade would end on a amazing note


True. Because not only would we get our first non-Christian president, we would also have good years upon from us, if he wins.

I fear we will all walk in bell bottoms by 2018. :(

I fear we will all walk in bell bottoms by 2018. :(


Why? What will happen in 2018 that would just seem so bad?

If Donald Trump wins the 2016 presidential election, then this decade would end in a really terrible note. If Hilary Clinton or any other Democratic candidate wins, then this decade would end in a decent note.


We should give him a chance first.

I could easily see Donald Trump being the Ross Perot or Theodore Roosevelt (1912) of the 2016 presidential race.  Realistically, I think Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Scott Walker will be the most reliable choices for the Republicans, but Trump's ego and popularity would probably lead him to becoming an independent/Bull Moose type of candidate in retaliation for not winning the Republican ticket.  The main thing that separates him from Teddy Roosevelt, however, is that he's a blind nutcase who only cares about wealth, whereas Teddy was a hard-working, literate leader who fought for improved treatment of the everyman, against the greed of the business moguls who dominated America at the time.

I could easily see Donald Trump being the Ross Perot or Theodore Roosevelt (1912) of the 2016 presidential race.  Realistically, I think Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Scott Walker will be the most reliable choices for the Republicans, but Trump's ego and popularity would probably lead him to becoming an independent/Bull Moose type of candidate in retaliation for not winning the Republican ticket.  The main thing that separates him from Teddy Roosevelt, however, is that he's a blind nutcase who only cares about wealth, whereas Teddy was a hard-working, literate leader who fought for improved treatment of the everyman, against the greed of the business moguls who dominated America at the time.


I want Jeb Bush to win!

I could easily see Donald Trump being the Ross Perot or Theodore Roosevelt (1912) of the 2016 presidential race.  Realistically, I think Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Scott Walker will be the most reliable choices for the Republicans, but Trump's ego and popularity would probably lead him to becoming an independent/Bull Moose type of candidate in retaliation for not winning the Republican ticket.  The main thing that separates him from Teddy Roosevelt, however, is that he's a blind nutcase who only cares about wealth, whereas Teddy was a hard-working, literate leader who fought for improved treatment of the everyman, against the greed of the business moguls who dominated America at the time.


I think Donald Trump is more related to Ross Perot. Teddy would just be ashamed of Trump's political views. *shudders*

I could easily see Donald Trump being the Ross Perot or Theodore Roosevelt (1912) of the 2016 presidential race.  Realistically, I think Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Scott Walker will be the most reliable choices for the Republicans, but Trump's ego and popularity would probably lead him to becoming an independent/Bull Moose type of candidate in retaliation for not winning the Republican ticket.  The main thing that separates him from Teddy Roosevelt, however, is that he's a blind nutcase who only cares about wealth, whereas Teddy was a hard-working, literate leader who fought for improved treatment of the everyman, against the greed of the business moguls who dominated America at the time.


As much I hate Trump, you have to give credit where credits due, he's not bought of by lobbyists. He could practically pay his own campaign without the help of donations. Plus he has stated that the obvious truth that money politics exist and its completely corrupted. So he's addressing the issue, which I'm glad for. However the million dollar question is if he would actually change the system to benefit the everyday man or would he keep it the same to maximize profits for himself? Some might outright say he would the second, however looking at his past voting history and political views it isn't a far fetched idea that he would actually do the former. Also there's the slight possibility that he's actually a progressive but just saying outright crazy things to get him the GOP nomination and then go back on everything he said while running and reveal his true colors as a progressive. Lol just a thought...

the world has been so boring up till now, but it seems like things are finally getting exciting all at once! mass shootings, racial tension, media, donald trump, gay rights... :D

on another note pop culture has become much darker and less bubbly if that makes sense

the world has been so boring up till now, but it seems like things are finally getting exciting all at once! mass shootings, racial tension, media, donald trump, gay rights... :D

on another note pop culture has become much darker and less bubbly if that makes sense


This is the world we're living in now.

the world has been so boring up till now, but it seems like things are finally getting exciting all at once! mass shootings, racial tension, media, donald trump, gay rights... :D

on another note pop culture has become much darker and less bubbly if that makes sense


We already have the same paranoia over mass shootings since 2012, even though we didn't have that much mass shootings after that year.

If Donald Trump wins the 2016 presidential election, then this decade would end in a really terrible note. If Hilary Clinton or any other Democratic candidate wins, then this decade would end in a decent note.
I don't like "The Donald" but I am rooting for Jeb Bush. Hillary-Who needs Obama's 3rd term? Sanders-a self described socialist-No.  He may be a nice guy but his policies won't work.

I want Jeb Bush to win!


Me too!

I don't like "The Donald" but I am rooting for Jeb Bush. Hillary-Who needs Obama's 3rd term? Sanders-a self described socialist-No.  He may be a nice guy but his policies won't work.


Well, suit yourself if you like Jeb Bush more than Trump. Besides, I don't think anybody except for extremely stupid people would vote for Trump anyways.

Well, suit yourself if you like Jeb Bush more than Trump. Besides, I don't think anybody except for extremely stupid people would vote for Trump anyways.


Lol True, but do you think that we actually need ANOTHER Bush?

Lol True, but do you think that we actually need ANOTHER Bush?


Well, it's not like this Bush would be as bad as his brother or father. People who aren't Republicans would take him seriously. But besides, do we actually need Trump to become president of the United States, a person who tries WAY too much to become rich, while saying that the United States need to close their Mexican borders?

Well, it's not like this Bush would be as bad as his brother or father. People who aren't Republicans would take him seriously. But besides, do we actually need Trump to become president of the United States, a person who tries WAY too much to become rich, while saying that the United States need to close their Mexican borders?


That is true! In that case it's just the lesser of two evils. Trump may be the guy to transform the republican part (for better or worse) while Jeb might be one of the first realistic republicans in a while. However who I really want to become president is Bernie Sanders. A Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren ticket would be amazing!!! :D

Lol True, but do you think that we actually need ANOTHER Bush?


or another Clinton.

As much I hate Trump, you have to give credit where credits due, he's not bought of by lobbyists. He could practically pay his own campaign without the help of donations. Plus he has stated that the obvious truth that money politics exist and its completely corrupted. So he's addressing the issue, which I'm glad for. However the million dollar question is if he would actually change the system to benefit the everyday man or would he keep it the same to maximize profits for himself? Some might outright say he would the second, however looking at his past voting history and political views it isn't a far fetched idea that he would actually do the former. Also there's the slight possibility that he's actually a progressive but just saying outright crazy things to get him the GOP nomination and then go back on everything he said while running and reveal his true colors as a progressive. Lol just a thought...


Seriously?  The only reason money politics are an issue to Trump is because of his condescending treatment of pretty much everyone in America who isn't ass-kissing him in some form, including high-level politicians.  He's the absolute embodiment of corporate politics, and he's not an ounce ashamed to admit it.  He constantly refers to his own wealth as an excuse for running an office that's completely irrelevant to running a business; how many businessman presidents can you recall who were actually successful?  The reason he's so popular is largely because he's a loud-mouthed entertainment spectacle, attractive largely to those who don't care about the technicals of politics, and media outlets are exploiting his extravagant, dictatorial persona ad-nauseum.  Big personalities are often game changers in Washington, i.e. Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, but at least those presidents represented the voice of a huge, marginalized population of Americans, as opposed to just being a grand act of shallowness.  Especially after Occupy Wall Street, the backlash against the Tea Party, and the advent of the most socially conscious culture since the 60s, a Donald Trump presidency would be a whole new level of embarrassment.

Seriously?  The only reason money politics are an issue to Trump is because of his condescending treatment of pretty much everyone in America who isn't ass-kissing him in some form, including high-level politicians.  He's the absolute embodiment of corporate politics, and he's not an ounce ashamed to admit it.  He constantly refers to his own wealth as an excuse for running an office that's completely irrelevant to running a business; how many businessman presidents can you recall who were actually successful?  The reason he's so popular is largely because he's a loud-mouthed entertainment spectacle, attractive largely to those who don't care about the technicals of politics, and media outlets are exploiting his extravagant, dictatorial persona ad-nauseum.  Big personalities are often game changers in Washington, i.e. Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, but at least those presidents represented the voice of a huge, marginalized population of Americans, as opposed to just being a grand act of shallowness.  Especially after Occupy Wall Street, the backlash against the Tea Party, and the advent of the most socially conscious culture since the 60s, a Donald Trump presidency would be a whole new level of embarrassment.


Well I never said I liked him or thought he was a good candidate, I was just saying that he was one of the only Republicans to address the issue. However you do got a point, he has proudly stated that he loved "giving to people". So that's definitely a huge flaw in his campaign. But he still seems to be doing well in the polls, So I'm not entirely sure if I should be happy or genuinely scared for my life, lol

or another Clinton.


So damn true!

So damn true!


Can't we just all vote for Sanders (even if he's a self-described socialist)? If you simply don't want to vote for Bush or Clinton, then why are you still complaining about that? We live in the United States of America, and we have the freedom to vote for any godforsaken politician that can be the next candidates for the presidential election. It's simple democracy. You aren't forced to believe what they said. You have a choice. Everyone has a goddamn choice.

Lol True, but do you think that we actually need ANOTHER Bush?
He is the best candidate the Republicans have besides John Kasich. I don't see Kasich winning the Republican Nomination so... Kasich is  this years Republican Version of circa 2012 John Hunstman: all media hype but no "Get Out The Vote" (i.e. Ground Game) to get him the Nomination at the end of the day.

Seriously?  The only reason money politics are an issue to Trump is because of his condescending treatment of pretty much everyone in America who isn't ass-kissing him in some form, including high-level politicians.  He's the absolute embodiment of corporate politics, and he's not an ounce ashamed to admit it.  He constantly refers to his own wealth as an excuse for running an office that's completely irrelevant to running a business; how many businessman presidents can you recall who were actually successful?  The reason he's so popular is largely because he's a loud-mouthed entertainment spectacle, attractive largely to those who don't care about the technicals of politics, and media outlets are exploiting his extravagant, dictatorial persona ad-nauseum. Big personalities are often game changers in Washington, i.e. Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, but at least those presidents represented the voice of a huge, marginalized population of Americans, as opposed to just being a grand act of shallowness.  Especially after Occupy Wall Street, the backlash against the Tea Party, and the advent of the most socially conscious culture since the 60s, a Donald Trump presidency would be a whole new level of embarrassment.
Well Trump is also tapping into this "Angry Populism" that is inside the electorate.

or another Clinton.
I don't think Hillary is likeable. I wouldn't vote for her either. She lacks the political skills of her husband(Bill) and isn't charismatic on the stump like Obama is or Reagan was when he was President.

I don't think Hillary is likeable. I wouldn't vote for her either. She lacks the political skills of her husband(Bill) and isn't charismatic on the stump like Obama is or Reagan was when he was President.


How isn't Hillary charismatic for running as president of the United States?

Can't we just all vote for Sanders (even if he's a self-described socialist)? If you simply don't want to vote for Bush or Clinton, then why are you still complaining about that? We live in the United States of America, and we have the freedom to vote for any godforsaken politician that can be the next candidates for the presidential election. It's simple democracy. You aren't forced to believe what they said. You have a choice. Everyone has a goddamn choice.


Lol I'm just expressing my opinion. If you don't like it well that's fine

He is the best candidate the Republicans have besides John Kasich. I don't see Kasich winning the Republican Nomination so... Kasich is  this years Republican Version of circa 2012 John Hunstman: all media hype but no "Get Out The Vote" (i.e. Ground Game) to get him the Nomination at the end of the day.


Well I don't think he's the worst republican, definitely one of the better candidates & I actually think he had a few good ideas on some issues. However the fact that he defended his brother's wars is why I and many others in the country both liberal and conservative, are pretty skeptical

Well I never said I liked him or thought he was a good candidate, I was just saying that he was one of the only Republicans to address the issue. However you do got a point, he has proudly stated that he loved "giving to people". So that's definitely a huge flaw in his campaign. But he still seems to be doing well in the polls, So I'm not entirely sure if I should be happy or genuinely scared for my life, lol


Donald Trump is hardly about "giving to the people."  He's made a lot of philanthropic endorsements over the years, but his ultimate loyalties are with a specific class of business elites like himself, who think those without much money are drug-addicted criminal rapists, leading to disgusting generalizations about Hispanic Americans, who are among those who truly need "giving" the most out of anybody in the country, at least so that they can attain citizenship, better education, and fairer rights.


Well Trump is also tapping into this "Angry Populism" that is inside the electorate.


In other words, he's the spiritual successor to the Tea Party.  This "Angry Populism," whatever it is, is pretty much fueled by socioeconomic forces that manipulate everyday Americans into believing rich business moguls are the heroes who know what's best for the country, when really their actions only serve to further consolidate their own base of power and wealth.

Donald Trump is hardly about "giving to the people."  He's made a lot of philanthropic endorsements over the years, but his ultimate loyalties are with a specific class of business elites like himself, who think those without much money are drug-addicted criminal rapists, leading to disgusting generalizations about Hispanic Americans, who are among those who truly need "giving" the most out of anybody in the country, at least so that they can attain citizenship, better education, and fairer rights.

In other words, he's the spiritual successor to the Tea Party.  This "Angry Populism," whatever it is, is pretty much fueled by socioeconomic forces that manipulate everyday Americans into believing rich business moguls are the heroes who know what's best for the country, when really their actions only serve to further consolidate their own base of power and wealth.


It seems you didn't paraphrase what I was saying. What I meant by 'giving to people' was that he gave to those in political and economic power, so he could get special favors. So I was agreeing with you, that I feel he would most likely not fix the issue, which is that money in politics taints our political system. He addressed the issue, but only to fool us into thinking he would actually fix it.

Do you get what I'm saying now?

It seems you didn't paraphrase what I was saying. What I meant by 'giving to people' was that he gave to those in political and economic power, so he could get special favors. So I was agreeing with you, that I feel he would most likely not fix the issue, which is that money in politics taints our political system. He addressed the issue, but only to fool us into thinking he would actually fix it.

Do you get what I'm saying now?


Yeah, I get what you mean. I just thought "giving to people" was an awkward description of Donald Trump because it's usually associated with those who help the needy. Cronyism is a more appropriate and less ambiguous term to describe Trump's political favors.

Donald Trump is hardly about "giving to the people."  He's made a lot of philanthropic endorsements over the years, but his ultimate loyalties are with a specific class of business elites like himself, who think those without much money are drug-addicted criminal rapists, leading to disgusting generalizations about Hispanic Americans, who are among those who truly need "giving" the most out of anybody in the country, at least so that they can attain citizenship, better education, and fairer rights.


Why would he suspect that Hispanic Americans are all criminals? What, did he see some Mexican cartel robbing a store in Mexico or something? Because that's probably one of the reasons why Mexicans want to get out of their country.

Yeah, I get what you mean. I just thought "giving to people" was an awkward description of Donald Trump because it's usually associated with those who help the needy. Cronyism is a more appropriate and less ambiguous term to describe Trump's political favors.


Well give you a link to this video of Trump saying 'I give to everybody' (referring to lobbyists)

hxn_ZpY1luk

Its freaking hilarious and borderline scary

Why would he suspect that Hispanic Americans are all criminals? What, did he see some Mexican cartel robbing a store in Mexico or something? Because that's probably one of the reasons why Mexicans want to get out of their country.


I guess being as obsessive about wealth as he is, he looks at the economically depressed barrio neighborhoods near the border and focuses on the few who live there with ties to the Mexican cartels as representative of Hispanic culture in general, even though the vast majority of Latin American immigrants to the United States are hard-working, valuistic individuals who just want a higher standard of living like they deserve. Even if he implemented his outrageous wall proposal, Latin Americans would still find several other ways of getting into the country.

I can't vote, since I am European, but it is an interesting race;
Personally, I wouldn't like a third Bush, due to all the associations with the family, though Jeb looks smarter than his brother.
Trump is a joke. I must say he has energy, but his diplomatic skills might be too blunt.
The other candidats; Rand Paul seems to know a lot about economy. Further I don't know them well.
Republicans in general are not liked in Europe. Often too much religion.

On the other side, can a democrat replace Obama? Aren't the people tired of the democrats after 8 years?
Hillary? I must say, first I thought she was a good option, but I don't feel "yes" with her, though
she has a lot of inner information through Bill I think.
I think we will hear more of Bernie Sanders; he is an interesting individual, and he sounds more honest
in his opinions than Hillary or an average politician. People like honesty. But is he a president-type?

In the end, you need to choose one who has to make visits to the Russians, the Chinese, many other nations.
You have to imagine who is suited for such a role; and I wouldn't know by now.

I guess being as obsessive about wealth as he is, he looks at the economically depressed barrio neighborhoods near the border and focuses on the few who live there with ties to the Mexican cartels as representative of Hispanic culture in general, even though the vast majority of Latin American immigrants to the United States are hard-working, valuistic individuals who just want a higher standard of living like they deserve. Even if he implemented his outrageous wall proposal, Latin Americans would still find several other ways of getting into the country.
Yeah like overstaying the Temp Visa which accounts for half of the US's illegal immigration total.

Why would he suspect that Hispanic Americans are all criminals? What, did he see some Mexican cartel robbing a store in Mexico or something? Because that's probably one of the reasons why Mexicans want to get out of their country.
Illegal Hispanics of Mexican descent. He never said legal immigrants Hispanics of Mexican Descent were running drug cartels or were criminals. Still not all illegal immigrants who are Hispanics of Mexican Descent are running drug cartels or are robbing stores as you put it. They are mostly hard working people. Still, I think the comment that Trump made about Illegal Immigrant Hispanics who are of Mexican Descent are running drug cartels or are criminals is totally out of touch and that is one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for him. The other reason is because of the comment he made about Megyn Kelly(a FOX News Anchor) sounded anti-woman.

Donald Trump is hardly about "giving to the people."  He's made a lot of philanthropic endorsements over the years, but his ultimate loyalties are with a specific class of business elites like himself, who think those without much money are drug-addicted criminal rapists, leading to disgusting generalizations about Hispanic Americans, who are among those who truly need "giving" the most out of anybody in the country, at least so that they can attain citizenship, better education, and fairer rights.

In other words, he's the spiritual successor to the Tea Party.  This "Angry Populism," whatever it is, is pretty much fueled by socioeconomic forces that manipulate everyday Americans into believing rich business moguls are the heroes who know what's best for the country, when really their actions only serve to further consolidate their own base of power and wealth.
Its debatable wether Trump is the spiritual successor to the Tea Party. Um no quite the opposite people are frustrated with Washington DC and politicians making bad trade deals and allowing 12-13 million illegal immigrants into the country. Also, some people haven't gotten a raise at their job in awhile or maybe they are part-time and want full-time works but can't find full-time work. Its just frustrating to voters and Trump is voicing their concerns.

I just call it "Angry Populism" because that the best word I could find to define Trump's candidacy thus far. Trump is Perot circa 1992 but without the Texas Drawl that's being replaced with an "Angry Tone". Trump's candidacy is heavily talking points and not specific policy proposals just like Perot's was thus far except for his immigration plan which will absolutely fail(send back all illegal immigrants to Mexico which will take 20 years to do.)

Illegal Hispanics of Mexican descent. He never said legal immigrants Hispanics of Mexican Descent were running drug cartels or were criminals. Still not all illegal immigrants who are Hispanics of Mexican Descent are running drug cartels or are robbing stores as you put it. They are mostly hard working people. Still, I think the comment that Trump made about Illegal Immigrant Hispanics who are of Mexican Descent are running drug cartels or are criminals is totally out of touch and that is one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for him. The other reason is because of the comment he made about Megyn Kelly(a FOX News Anchor) sounded anti-woman.


I was saying that he probably saw a Mexican cartel robbing a store in Mexico, not America. So even if they weren't illegal immigrants, he can probably case that all Hispanics are drug-ridden criminals.

So damn true!


I thought Linda McMahon was supposed to be running for President? ???

I don't think Hillary is likeable. I wouldn't vote for her either. She lacks the political skills of her husband(Bill) and isn't charismatic on the stump like Obama is or Reagan was when he was President.


What about Linda McMahon?

Its debatable wether Trump is the spiritual successor to the Tea Party. Um no quite the opposite people are frustrated with Washington DC and politicians making bad trade deals and allowing 12-13 million illegal immigrants into the country. Also, some people haven't gotten a raise at their job in awhile or maybe they are part-time and want full-time works but can't find full-time work. Its just frustrating to voters and Trump is voicing their concerns.

Sounds just like the Tea Party to me. That movement's mantra was basically a demand for fantastically small government due to its followers not earning the money they felt like they deserved, blaming any form of government aid for their losses (including educational and other programs for Hispanics). A lot of people buy into Trump's generalized bullsheesh, but that's due to the way the institutions relevant to them portray individuals outside of their own circles, so unfortunately they'd rather listen to Trump's ignorant "enough is enough" speeches than try to have a nuanced understanding of the Hispanic American community. The Tea Party was much the same, attracting a large following, but due to the workings aof certain elite classes.

I think its about time for this to get moved to the politics board.

Sounds just like the Tea Party to me. That movement's mantra was basically a demand for fantastically small government due to its followers not earning the money they felt like they deserved, blaming any form of government aid for their losses (including educational and other programs for Hispanics). A lot of people buy into Trump's generalized bullsheesh, but that's due to the way the institutions relevant to them portray individuals outside of their own circles, so unfortunately they'd rather listen to Trump's ignorant "enough is enough" speeches than try to have a nuanced understanding of the Hispanic American community. The Tea Party was much the same, attracting a large following, but due to the workings aof certain elite classes.
"The Tea Party" didn't like ObamaCare and "The Hispanic Community" does like ObamaCare so you have a point.  I don't buy into Trump's talking points. I could see right through it.

Tea Party-It didn't survive because they were a bunch of idealogical hacks in the end. "The Tea Party" is forgotten pretty much now. I was a Tea Party guy when they first arrived on the scene on Tax Day 2009 but I didn't want them to shut the government down like they did in 2013.