Printable View
Given the current political landscape, I think Biden, if elected, would be a bit of a care-taker and unable to radically alter things while being able to damp down on some of the silliness. That actually sounds appealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Nice.
Lol @ "progressive lane"Quote:
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/s...77617749188608
"Joe Biden is a decent guy and I know that if I win the nomination he'll be there for me,if he wins I'll be there for him because our differences are minimal compared to the differences we have with Trump"
Lanes don't exist. Meanwhile,Quote:
If
your first choice
dropped out of the
race or you had to
choose someone
to vote for, who
would you vote for
in the upcoming
presidential
primary election?
Elizabeth Warren
Joe Biden 46%
Bernie Sanders 47%
How does anything work?!?!Quote:
If the 2020
Democratic
presidential
primary election
were held today,
and you had to
choose from the
candidates below,
for whom would
you vote?
Bernie Sanders 48%
Joe Biden 52%
Any president would be preoccupied purging the Trump holdovers and repairing the govt/foreign policy. Has to be acknowledged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'm a bit disappointed - no in fact very much - that the young voters are not there. It doesn't matter for who in fact, all parties even. Young voters... do not vote.
You can do all the Insta - Snapchat - TikTok - Twitter videos & encouragements you like, they dont vote.
Nope, because young people lack judgement or the experience to give context to their judgements. Despite this politicians like to lower the voting age to get the ever younger and immature voter - even if it's only a few % that vote.
Old people lack the perspective to see the world as it is, too bogged down with their own past experiences that they can't understand the present.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
They also do not have the incentive to promote stable policies since they won't be around to see the consequences of their actions.
If we raise the voting age, can we cap it at 80?
The "selfish old people" trope has always struck me as mean-spirited and ungrateful, and more reflective of how millennials see the world than how their grandparents do.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Most old people love their grandkids and want the world to be better for them - ditto parents. Despite this, the millenials who don't vote and have no real life experience decry both their parents and grandparents as ignorant, backwards etc.
It's the ultimate expression of this generations' childish view of the world - like screaming in the candy store when your mother told you you couldn't have BOTH chocolate bars.
Ok, boomerQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
https://i.imgur.com/UrISTP8.jpg
Hey Hooah, a few things.
Sanders' agitation for single payer may have shifted the Overton Window to such an extent as to knock all desire for Obamacare repeal out of Republicans' heads.
https://i.imgur.com/k828vSS.jpg
Check out these California exit poll numbers.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The youth turnout on Super Tuesday was not IIRC lower than 2016. They just didn't rise in turnout where older voters did, leaving them a lower proportion of the voting electorate.
Gens Y and Z are the biggest in history. Look out.
Unless, contrary to your expectation of young non-voters becoming older voters...
Quote:
But their political calculations may soon be out-of-date. By working against young candidates like Cisneros, even in safe Democratic districts, party leaders are working against a viable future for the party. Young voters are already worlds apart from Democrats like Cuellar. They want universal health care and colleges they can afford to attend; they want to raise children on a planet that isn’t doomed. The generation gap that separates Democrats of Cisneros’s ilk from the party’s more conservative Establishment has as much to do with ideology as it does with age. If the party concedes nothing to the young left, it will weaken itself.
Quote:
Democrats don’t necessarily have to worry about losing young people to the GOP; Republicans have a much more difficult time keeping young voters engaged. The real risk is alienation. The party might not turn young people to the right; it just might turn them off altogether. It’s unwise to assume that young people who do not vote will at some point become old people who do. The alternative possibility — that disillusioned youth will become disillusioned middle-aged people and eventually disillusioned seniors — must rate consideration. Unless Democrats can find a way to stoke youth enthusiasm about their candidates and the electoral process in general, their long-term prospects are poor.
Here's that Virginia socialist Lee Carter I talked about, driving some legislation home.
To be fair it's not just socialists, it's having Democratic control of the whole government that allows good things to happen.Quote:
My HB66, which will cap co-pays for insulin products at $50 for a one month supply, has passed both chambers and it's on its way to the governor.
It's almost impossible to overstate how big of a deal this is. It's *HUGE*.
Virginia's really been on a tear lately. Ending prison gerrymandering, also on its way to the governor. (Too bad Fairfax is probably a rapist.)
Finally, a look at the total dysfunction of Bloomberg's campaign into the night:
FREE MARKET EFFICIENCIESQuote:
But despite an almost limitless budget, the Bloomberg campaign would learn that money can’t buy loyalty. Staffers described an almost total lack of belief in Bloomberg himself. “Most people knew this was a grift,” one campaign official explained, describing even leadership as being unwilling to fulfill basic campaign responsibilities. “At our first office meeting, my [director] said, ‘We don’t need to canvass. We can just make calls, right guys?’ And everyone was like, ‘Yeah, that’s sensible.’”
Another employee who specialized in social media explained how their coworkers’ lack of enthusiasm resulted in lackluster engagement with social media audiences, which often led to tweets so perfunctory—many would just copy and paste campaign talking points—that their Twitter accounts would get mistakenly flagged as spam and suspended.
Multiple people described elaborate schemes to undermine the campaign and help their favored candidates. As one staffer explained, “I would actively canvass for Bernie when I was supposed to be canvassing for Mike. I know of at least one team of ‘volunteers’ that was entirely fabricated by the organizers who had to hit their goals. It was easy enough to fudge the data to make it look like real people put in real volunteer work, when in reality Mike was getting nothing out of it.”
You know you (millennial) are counted among the young electorate, dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
He's being blithely arrogant again, but by proxy! Always gotta up your game I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Generational warfare memes aside, it is indisputable that the 20th-century world carelessly mortgaged its prosperity on the back of the 21st.
I'm not, but thanks for proving my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The whole "OK, Boomer" thing is the equivalent of "get over it snowflake", the only reason it's not labelled prejudicial is we live in an ageist society - it's pretty much the only remaining unacknowledged prejudice.
Edit:
Oh, and your whole "limit the electorate to those under 80" would exclude Bernie.
Look back at yourself when you were 16, ask if you deserved to vote - hell you can look back through these actual forums, weren't you one of the ones involved in the ill-fated "EB Tavern" way back when?
And yet they are still probably going to try to repeal the ACA anyways if they win in 2020. IIRC a majority of people, including Republicans, support common sense gun control like universal background checks but we don't see the GOP supporting such legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Sure, but if your campaign is reliant on a surge in youth voters to succeed, this is bad.Quote:
The youth turnout on Super Tuesday was not IIRC lower than 2016. They just didn't rise in turnout where older voters did, leaving them a lower proportion of the voting electorate.
We can make fun of boomers all we want, but they actually vote.
Amazing what can happen when you work with others and build relationships!Quote:
Nah, that's old hat. They'll work on repealing Medicare and Social Security.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
As the Boomers age out of the electorate, you have to cultivate the younger generations. It's dangerous to expect higher turnout as a sole function of age as opposed to political context and civic engagement. (It is promising that Gen X+Y+Z exceeded absolute Boomer turnout for the first time in 2018.)Quote:
Sure, but if your campaign is reliant on a surge in youth voters to succeed, this is bad, which is evergreen.
We can make fun of boomers all we want, but they actually vote.
Young people today have little real, living, historical context for the Great war or World War II - most were born closer to the start of the Afghan War than the fall of the Berlin Wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
What do you expect? Boomers are the ones whose parents suffered during and in the aftermath of WWI and whose grandparents suffered through the Great War, you can sure as hell bet they'll vote, and they won't have any Communist or Fascist anywhere near power.
Lol, an ageist society where the three people everyone is talking about for POTUS are all over 70. You can be President at 35, America has elected 0 people under the age of 42. We've elected 11 over the age of 60.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Wouldn't exclude Pete, who is the guy I wanted, remember?Quote:
Oh, and your whole "limit the electorate to those under 80" would exclude Bernie.
Look back at yourself when you were 16, ask if you deserved to vote - hell you can look back through these actual forums, weren't you one of the ones involved in the ill-fated "EB Tavern" way back when?
PVC, I will be the first to say that when I was younger I acted at times as a complete and utter idiotic shithead. 100%. I will tell you now that over a decade later I still find myself acting like a complete and utter idiotic shithead. And in public I see people in their 40's and 50's screaming at the kids at McDonald's for messing up their burger, acting like complete and utter shitheads.
I don't think age has anything to do with your ability to vote. I think if we say that voting is a right then you should be allowed to vote your adult life, and legally/socially we treat 18 year olds as adults.
But if we think voting is not a right and is contingent, then you need to do better than call the youth too 'selfish'. Work a retail job for 4-6 months and then tell me just how selfless older people are.
This proves my point about older people being too bogged down with past experiences to take in the present. Chris Matthews lost his job going nuts about Bernie shooting people in central park because of 'socialism' and saying that winning a primary was like the Nazi invasion of France. It shows that they don't really understand their children and grandchildren and what direction the world is heading in and most importantly what young people are reacting to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Universal health care has been talked about since Teddy Roosevelt, decades before Nazi's or the Russian Revolution even happened. I would say your perspective is the selfish one; you clearly condemn your younger self and yet your ego doesn't want to believe that anyone else could have been better so you think it prudent to strip away the rights of younger people who are probably much more responsible at their age than you were.
I think we should treat people as individuals and not cast doubts on the faculties of people solely on their age, and you call me the ageist?
Why not both?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Attachment 23343
Of course that is important. That's why I do think that Bernie is doing a good job in that regard (though I also wonder how much of it can also be attributed to Trump turning an entire generation and more against the GOP). But in the short term it still doesn't make for a reliable voting group.Quote:
As the Boomers age out of the electorate, you have to cultivate the younger generations. It's dangerous to expect higher turnout as a sole function of age as opposed to political context and civic engagement. (It is promising that Gen X+Y+Z exceeded absolute Boomer turnout for the first time in 2018.)
Also its come to my attention that some people have thought I was talking out of my butt when I described my legislative experience. So here is proof:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
In much the same way that America still has a problem with racism against non-white people but fetishises non-white celbrities a society can have a prejudice against age and yet fetishise certain old people that conform to what it thinks and old person should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Although it undermines your point you must admit you are a more sensible man than you were 10-15 years ago, even if you still have stupid moments.Quote:
Wouldn't exclude Pete, who is the guy I wanted, remember?
PVC, I will be the first to say that when I was younger I acted at times as a complete and utter idiotic shithead. 100%. I will tell you now that over a decade later I still find myself acting like a complete and utter idiotic shithead. And in public I see people in their 40's and 50's screaming at the kids at McDonald's for messing up their burger, acting like complete and utter shitheads.
In the US the real age of maturity is 21, otherwise you'd be allowed to drink at 18. However, what I was referring to the movement to lower the voting age to 16. This is a particular topic of interest to the Left at the moment, and Sanders is interested in it:Quote:
I don't think age has anything to do with your ability to vote. I think if we say that voting is a right then you should be allowed to vote your adult life, and legally/socially we treat 18 year olds as adults.
But if we think voting is not a right and is contingent, then you need to do better than call the youth too 'selfish'. Work a retail job for 4-6 months and then tell me just how selfless older people are.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...er-voting-age/
No, it doesn't. One example of a guy going off his nut does not mean all old people suffer from such mental imbalances. Old people are, generally, similar to young people but they have more experience and more responsibilities which means they tend to take a long view and they have a more realistic appreciation of what's achievable.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Young people talk a good game but, as we have seen, they generally don't actually come out and vote when it matters, so it's difficult to argue they're really deeply invested in the causes they champion.
I'll forgive the personal attack because you apparently were unaware of the move to lower the voting age to include children. The charge made against older people, by you and others, is "They only care about themselves, they won't be alive in 10-20 years so they don't care what effect their votes will have then."Quote:
Universal health care has been talked about since Teddy Roosevelt, decades before Nazi's or the Russian Revolution even happened. I would say your perspective is the selfish one; you clearly condemn your younger self and yet your ego doesn't want to believe that anyone else could have been better so you think it prudent to strip away the rights of younger people who are probably much more responsible at their age than you were.
This is a charge of extreme selfishness - most people that age have children and grandchildren, you are charging them with not caring about their future. The only way I can understand this is if the person saying it has themselves slipped into a selfish mindset. How else am I to explain a generation who believe their parents don't care about them when every parent and grandparent of that generation I have ever met, including my own, cares deeply?
Who told you your parents don't care about your future? I doubt it was your parents themselves. I must admit to a cynical moment here and observe that causing a generational rupture like this benefits elderly socialist politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders because it allows them to supplant the position of young people's own elders and become the "voice of experience" regardless of the fact that the policy positions they are pushing were widely discredited decades ago.
Don't focus on universal healthcare - Obama was also in favour of that - look at literally everything else in Bernie's platform, and compare his platform now to four years ago. Then look at Biden's platform vs Bernie's four years ago.
I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument - that old people don't care about young people or the future. If you want to continue to claim grandparents want to screw their own grandchildren because they've become old and crotchety then yes, I'd call that ageist. Also, look at the contradiction between what you just said here and:Quote:
I think we should treat people as individuals and not cast doubts on the faculties of people solely on their age, and you call me the ageist?
That last bolded part is the part I am taking issue with - the incentive for "old people" to care is the welfare of their children and grandchildren. Now, I challenge you to hold to that point without claiming most grandparents don't love their grandchildren, or their children.Quote:
Old people lack the perspective to see the world as it is, too bogged down with their own past experiences that they can't understand the present.
They also do not have the incentive to promote stable policies since they won't be around to see the consequences of their actions.
You should respect your elders and listen to them, which is does not mean you have to agree with them.
Biden, Sanders, Trump, Bloomberg, and Warren have very different personalities and style. Not sure you can say they conform to anything other than simply being old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Boomers are staying the work force longer which seems to imply that ageism in the work place is at the very least declining.
With the exception of 2018, Congress has historically trended over the past 30 years to a much older median age: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...n-age-problem/
Same can be seen for CEO's: https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/st...eased-recently
You will need to provide some data to back up your argument, because the data right now tells me that this 'ageist' society has older people dominating positions of power.
I am a more sensible person than I was, yes. But it wasn't the passing of time that suddenly gave me wisdom. I personally made steps to improve myself for my own sake and that has gotten me to where I am now. In areas where I have not spent as much time improving myself, I can easily find myself becoming an asshole yet again. Age is a heuristic in the sense that typically as you get older, more is expected of you and you have to behave respectfully according to social norms in public, yes. But it really says nothing on the individual level. When you put anybody in a situation where they feel like the consequences for their actions are negligible, they become assholes. Hence my comment about working retail. More importantly that consequence free mentality comes about in the voting booth since no one will know what you vote for.Quote:
Although it undermines your point you must admit you are a more sensible man than you were 10-15 years ago, even if you still have stupid moments.
In the US the real age of maturity is 21, otherwise you'd be allowed to drink at 18. However, what I was referring to the movement to lower the voting age to 16. This is a particular topic of interest to the Left at the moment, and Sanders is interested in it:[/QUOTE]
No, the age of maturity is 18. That is when for the most part you are legally viewed as an adult under the law. You can go to war at 18, you can vote at 18, you will be prosecuted as an adult for crimes at 18.
The age of drinking and smoking has nothing to do with 'maturity' and everything to do with public health. States put their drinking age as 21 in the 1980s because temperance interest groups got the Federal government to bribe them with money for highways in return for raising the drinking age. If it wasn't for the free money states are getting, they would all be set at 18 yr old.
You say this as a matter of fact when the federal budget shows this isn't the case. The majority of non-discretionary spending for the Federal government are entitlements to the elderly, namely Medicare and Social Security.Quote:
No, it doesn't. One example of a guy going off his nut does not mean all old people suffer from such mental imbalances. Old people are, generally, similar to young people but they have more experience and more responsibilities which means they tend to take a long view and they have a more realistic appreciation of what's achievable.
The majority of discretionary spending is the military so we can continue to send naive young people off to imperial wars that statistically they don't want to fight and die over.
There is little investment towards the young in the federal budget. The programs that conservatives have been saying will bankrupt the united states if we let them continue unaltered are the programs that primarily redistribute money to the elderly.
But elderly people don't care, they will vote to keep their entitlements even if it means piling the debt onto their kids, which they have done PVC. 1.5% of GDP goes to paying just the interest on debt.
Just to clarify, I'm favor of keeping these programs with some tweaks to make them more sustainable but that is because I am a young person who thinks 30 years down the line.
Again, is voting a right or is it contingent? Like I said it is well known that the budget problems of the Federal government are not from food stamps and paying student tuition, it's from giving the elderly money.Quote:
I'll forgive the personal attack because you apparently were unaware of the move to lower the voting age to include children. The charge made against older people, by you and others, is "They only care about themselves, they won't be alive in 10-20 years so they don't care what effect their votes will have then."
Because the voting booth is a consequence free environment. And just because you care about your individual children, doesn't mean you give a shit about anyone else's.Quote:
This is a charge of extreme selfishness - most people that age have children and grandchildren, you are charging them with not caring about their future. The only way I can understand this is if the person saying it has themselves slipped into a selfish mindset. How else am I to explain a generation who believe their parents don't care about them when every parent and grandparent of that generation I have ever met, including my own, cares deeply?
Explain to me PVC how California parents who must love their kids ever so much decided that it was great for property taxes to pay for their college so when they attended it was only 900 bucks a year. Then when they finish college it was time to cap property taxes (Prop 13) and starve the same colleges they went to, so now when I went to college, it was $25,000 a year. $100,000 of debt for a 4 year degree. For a job that was no longer unionized because once they became business owners it was time to bust the unions.
People are selfish at the voting booth, it is an undeniable fact and you feel insulted because I find hard to contain my incredulity at your argument which boils down to "well elderly can't be anything but virtuous people because after all they love their children!" Total nonsense.
Wrong, it was the parents.Quote:
Who told you your parents don't care about your future? I doubt it was your parents themselves.
Children are so beloved in society. That's why we put in them debt for not having money for lunch and then deny them food when the debt is due:
https://psmag.com/social-justice/why...for-lunch-debt
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/17/us/un...rnd/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...-bills/460509/
There are children every day who are getting denied food at school because of 'lunch debt'. Why the fuck is this a thing, they are kids, we should feed them.
Such a loving society and such loving voters who must care a lot about kids to teach them that at 10 years old they can't expect food without having a job!
It benefits socialist politicians because socialists are the only ones telling young people that they deserve to get exactly what their elders had got at their age. It's not that complicated.Quote:
I must admit to a cynical moment here and observe that causing a generational rupture like this benefits elderly socialist politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders because it allows them to supplant the position of young people's own elders and become the "voice of experience" regardless of the fact that the policy positions they are pushing were widely discredited decades ago.
Maybe it is different in the UK. But in the US you are dead wrong, policy is not catered to the young in any way. It is all for the elderly in a very selfish and self destructive manner.Quote:
I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument - that old people don't care about young people or the future. If you want to continue to claim grandparents want to screw their own grandchildren because they've become old and crotchety then yes, I'd call that ageist. Also, look at the contradiction between what you just said here and:
That last bolded part is the part I am taking issue with - the incentive for "old people" to care is the welfare of their children and grandchildren. Now, I challenge you to hold to that point without claiming most grandparents don't love their grandchildren, or their children.
The US is the only advanced nation that does not provide mandatory paid maternity leave.
We do not subsidize childcare for parents.
We do not have universal pre-K when science shows that would have the biggest positive impact on a young person's academic career.
But god forbid a 75 year old misses a social security paycheck that comes out of my payroll when he had ample time in his life to plan for retirement.
I don't have to respect anyone who doesn't respect the fundamental social contract between generations.Quote:
You should respect your elders and listen to them, which is does not mean you have to agree with them.
ACIN, our safety net started with the oldsters but you shouldn't take that as dispositive that the elderly are socially-advantaged compared to the young. That smacks of attacks on "affirmative action" in race relations.
Well, there's all sorts of ageism. There's cultural and consumer aspects such as products to conceal or counteract cosmetic aspects of aging. There's retirement communities, though that's more the opposite valence; the dire state of nursing homes and long-term care facilities is ageism. There's a lot of ageism in the workplace (though perhaps seniority has many advantages among upper management). Pension and social security austerity is ageism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
What were we talking about again?
Age of majority is generally 18 (and almost everywhere in the US).Quote:
In the US the real age of maturity is 21, otherwise you'd be allowed to drink at 18. However, what I was referring to the movement to lower the voting age to 16.
Scotland age of majority is 16, so there's no conceptual barrier to lowering the voting age there.
Evidence?Quote:
Old people are, generally, similar to young people but they have more experience and more responsibilities which means they tend to take a long view and they have a more realistic appreciation of what's achievable.
How do you know the ones talking aren't the ones voting?Quote:
Young people talk a good game but, as we have seen, they generally don't actually come out and vote when it matters, so it's difficult to argue they're really deeply invested in the causes they champion.
Most people care about their own relatives. That's nothing new in human affairs.Quote:
This is a charge of extreme selfishness - most people that age have children and grandchildren, you are charging them with not caring about their future. The only way I can understand this is if the person saying it has themselves slipped into a selfish mindset. How else am I to explain a generation who believe their parents don't care about them when every parent and grandparent of that generation I have ever met, including my own, cares deeply?
https://i.imgur.com/Gf7loT6.jpgQuote:
I must admit to a cynical moment here and observe that causing a generational rupture like this benefits elderly socialist politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders because it allows them to supplant the position of young people's own elders and become the "voice of experience" regardless of the fact that the policy positions they are pushing were widely discredited decades ago.
Yet, objectively, many of them vote against the interests of their posterity.Quote:
That last bolded part is the part I am taking issue with - the incentive for "old people" to care is the welfare of their children and grandchildren.
Irrelevant strawman.Quote:
Now, I challenge you to hold to that point without claiming most grandparents don't love their grandchildren, or their children.
How is this incompatible with anything ACIN said? The conversation is about the behavior of elderly cohorts, and in particular the conservative ones.Quote:
You should respect your elders and listen to them, which is does not mean you have to agree with them.
And dude, you're like 33.
I was referring specifically to Sanders, his age is part of why young people are drawn to him - they seem to cleave to him and his ideals rather than those of their grandparents whom they dismiss with "OK Boomer".Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
"OK Boomer" - there you go, prejudice against the previous generation, just for being the previous generation. "You've had your time" is what you're saying and there have been plenty of people crying how the old shouldn't be allowed to vote and you're complaining about them right here.Quote:
With the exception of 2018, Congress has historically trended over the past 30 years to a much older median age: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...n-age-problem/
Same can be seen for CEO's: https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/st...eased-recently
You will need to provide some data to back up your argument, because the data right now tells me that this 'ageist' society has older people dominating positions of power.
The difference is that time has given you the perspective to recognise your flaws, time and just the process of growing up. When I was about 22 my father said to me "You're not really a fully developed adult until you're 25" and my response was "I'm not convinced but I'll get back to you in a few years." Of course, with the benefit of experience he was right - you change much more between 20 and 25 than between 25 and 30.Quote:
I am a more sensible person than I was, yes. But it wasn't the passing of time that suddenly gave me wisdom. I personally made steps to improve myself for my own sake and that has gotten me to where I am now. In areas where I have not spent as much time improving myself, I can easily find myself becoming an asshole yet again. Age is a heuristic in the sense that typically as you get older, more is expected of you and you have to behave respectfully according to social norms in public, yes. But it really says nothing on the individual level. When you put anybody in a situation where they feel like the consequences for their actions are negligible, they become assholes. Hence my comment about working retail. More importantly that consequence free mentality comes about in the voting booth since no one will know what you vote for.
In the UK you can vote, hold office at 18 etc. Not so in the US, so I disagree with you.Quote:
No, the age of maturity is 18. That is when for the most part you are legally viewed as an adult under the law. You can go to war at 18, you can vote at 18, you will be prosecuted as an adult for crimes at 18.
The age of drinking and smoking has nothing to do with 'maturity' and everything to do with public health. States put their drinking age as 21 in the 1980s because temperance interest groups got the Federal government to bribe them with money for highways in return for raising the drinking age. If it wasn't for the free money states are getting, they would all be set at 18 yr old.
This is to misunderstand the basic psychology involved in US spending. For one thing, the elderly who are receiving pensions are less likely to have savings designed to support them in retirement because their working lives were orientated around providing for their families, not saving for a retirement that was as long as their working lives. My Grandfather retired at 65, as he was required to, and died just shy of 100, he went out to work at 15 as an apprentice and spent 50 years in work, then 35 years on a pension - inconceivable even when my parents were born.Quote:
You say this as a matter of fact when the federal budget shows this isn't the case. The majority of non-discretionary spending for the Federal government are entitlements to the elderly, namely Medicare and Social Security.
The majority of discretionary spending is the military so we can continue to send naive young people off to imperial wars that statistically they don't want to fight and die over.
There is little investment towards the young in the federal budget. The programs that conservatives have been saying will bankrupt the united states if we let them continue unaltered are the programs that primarily redistribute money to the elderly.
But elderly people don't care, they will vote to keep their entitlements even if it means piling the debt onto their kids, which they have done PVC. 1.5% of GDP goes to paying just the interest on debt.
Just to clarify, I'm favor of keeping these programs with some tweaks to make them more sustainable but that is because I am a young person who thinks 30 years down the line.
So it's wrong to give the elderly money to feed and clothe themselves when they can no longer work? You want your Gran to give up what, her heating or her food bill? The US budget is incorrectly structured to pay for College enrolments, College enrolments are also too high, too many people go to College and the fees charged by US Colleges are too high. Recent experience in the UK has shown that universities will, in the absence of restrictive legislation, charge as much as they can to fund their research budgets.Quote:
Again, is voting a right or is it contingent? Like I said it is well known that the budget problems of the Federal government are not from food stamps and paying student tuition, it's from giving the elderly money.
That the elderly do not vote for their own beggary hardly makes them selfish.
And yet, how you vote affects your children - so you don't need to care about anyone else's, do you? Do you not see how flawed this line of reasoning is. "They don't care" has already become "They do care, but only about their own family". You're doing the same, arguing for reductions in pension payments even though that will lead to the elderly in Northern States freezing to death (it happens here already, it's not funny).Quote:
Because the voting booth is a consequence free environment. And just because you care about your individual children, doesn't mean you give a shit about anyone else's.
Proposition 13 limited property taxes, preventing annual rises and reassessment except after a change of ownership. Given this was passed in 1978 it would seem not to be specifically a "Boomer" sin but as far as young Californians voting in favour, perhaps they did it to protect their parents?Quote:
Explain to me PVC how California parents who must love their kids ever so much decided that it was great for property taxes to pay for their college so when they attended it was only 900 bucks a year. Then when they finish college it was time to cap property taxes (Prop 13) and starve the same colleges they went to, so now when I went to college, it was $25,000 a year. $100,000 of debt for a 4 year degree. For a job that was no longer unionized because once they became business owners it was time to bust the unions.
The cost of College tuition is a US-wide scandal, not limited to California. The cost of university education has been rising across the First World even as standards have been declining, this is partly due to increased numbers of students and probably partly due to a general decline of Western Society and specifically a decline in the impetus for the wealthy to make large endowments (pre WWII many endowments were perpetual, like that of Cecil Rhodes, now rish people just pay for a new building).
Some people, old and young, are selfish in the voting booth. You are demonising the old specifically. I did not say the elderly were specifically virtuous, I said that they were not specifically any more shortsighted or selfish than anyone else, and that they have just as much reason to care about the future as young people do.Quote:
People are selfish at the voting booth, it is an undeniable fact and you feel insulted because I find hard to contain my incredulity at your argument which boils down to "well elderly can't be anything but virtuous people because after all they love their children!" Total nonsense.
To suggest otherwise is highly misanthropic.
I don't know, why is it a thing? Here poor kids essentially get "lunch food stamps" for school, but the parents have to apply for them.Quote:
Wrong, it was the parents.
Children are so beloved in society. That's why we put in them debt for not having money for lunch and then deny them food when the debt is due:
https://psmag.com/social-justice/why...for-lunch-debt
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/17/us/un...rnd/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...-bills/460509/
There are children every day who are getting denied food at school because of 'lunch debt'. Why the fuck is this a thing, they are kids, we should feed them.
Such a loving society and such loving voters who must care a lot about kids to teach them that at 10 years old they can't expect food without having a job!
These socialists are pushing policies that have been repeatedly rejected by electorates over decades. This forced giving of shares to employees? Swedish Socialists proposed this in the 1970's - they were thrown out of Office. The UK enacted virtually complete government ownership of all major industries, including automotive and aviation. Those industries were driven into the ground, the workers went on strike, we had a three day week and it got so bad that we elected Thatcher and felt good about it. Then, last year Corbyn tried the forced acquisition of shares for workers thing again and Labour recorded its worst result since 1935.Quote:
It benefits socialist politicians because socialists are the only ones telling young people that they deserve to get exactly what their elders had got at their age. It's not that complicated.
Now Bernie is pushing the same idea and you think he has a hope in hell? In America? Not to mention Socialism, whilst theoretically laudable, has in practice either resulted in a totalitarian regime, economic collapse or both. Way back in 1917 the Bolsheviks held elections - but the people voted the "wrong" way so the elections were annulled. This is a common theme with socialists - they only support democracy when people vote the "right" way, rather like Islamists, really.
The UK, like the US, has a large and increasingly frail elderly population which costs a huge amount to look after. So as not to completely overwhelm the budget we do such things as:Quote:
Maybe it is different in the UK. But in the US you are dead wrong, policy is not catered to the young in any way. It is all for the elderly in a very selfish and self destructive manner.
The US is the only advanced nation that does not provide mandatory paid maternity leave.
We do not subsidize childcare for parents.
We do not have universal pre-K when science shows that would have the biggest positive impact on a young person's academic career.
But god forbid a 75 year old misses a social security paycheck that comes out of my payroll when he had ample time in his life to plan for retirement.
1. Only offer a state pension below the poverty line, even when the elderly person has been retired for decades.
2. Restrict their access to the "winter fuel allowance" so that they freeze and die.
3. Hammer bereaved spouses with massive death duties to force them to sell their homes.
4. Take all their money from them when they finally can't look after themselves and have to move into a home. Then once they run out of money the state picks up the tab until they finally croak.
In the US you probably have adequate provision for the elderly, so you think they get too much - in the UK "pensioner poverty" is a huge political issue which is the subject of increasingly bitter arguments.
Old people don't want to starve, freeze, or die in their own filth - hardly selfish.
You don't seem to believe in that contract yourself. If you did you wouldn't be so resentful of the fact your society looks after the elderly properly.Quote:
I don't have to respect anyone who doesn't respect the fundamental social contract between generations.
Do you see what Monty did here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
He took my comment to ACIN and misinterpreted it to that instead of me saying ACIN should respect his father and his grandfather* I'm saying ACIN should respect me as his "elder" even though I never suggested any such thing.
This then allows Monty to cast me as "arrogant" and "superior" as though I'm talking down to ACIN instead of arguing with him like an equal.
This is a good example of what I never reply to Monty's posts directly. That, and despite the fact that Monty knows I find conversing with him emotionally distressing he continues to harass me - I assume he'd harass me in private too if he wasn't set on ignore.
I feel the need to address this to point out that Monty is using my refusal to engage with him directly, and avoid referencing his posts, as a way to attack me by proxy. I would not want others on this forum to think I wasn't aware of what was going on - even though I can't respond to Monty directly.
Regarding "maturity:"
Emerging science begins to success that the completion of adult development, notably within the brain, does not occur until roughly age 25.
This suggests that the only ones who have had it 'right' all these years are car insurance and rental car companies.
Most countries use 18, with none using an age past 21.
However, I agree with PFH that having legal status for all duties and responsibilities (suffrage, military service, full adult treatment under the law) but not privileges (drinking, substance use, etc.) is incommensurate.
Folks, it seems like things might be heating up so lets just keep it civil.
Wasn't me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
So you mischaracterize ACIN, engage in maybe a smidge of revisionist history in the pejorative sense, and advance an incomplete description of our old-age safety net, but the crux here is uncontroversial enough on its own that I doubt anyone here, including ACIN, disagrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Wrong. I was calling attention to the fact that, despite fellating intergenerational deference, you yourself are included among the "young" voters and citizens you're expounding on.Quote:
Do you see what Monty did here?
He took my comment to ACIN and misinterpreted it to that instead of me saying ACIN should respect his father and his grandfather* I'm saying ACIN should respect me as his "elder" even though I never suggested any such thing.
You choose to spew your content on a public forum, in my full view, yet feel entitled that I accommodate you? Get your head out of your rear and suck it up. You're a big boy - or maybe you're too young to know better?Quote:
This is a good example of what I never reply to Monty's posts directly. That, and despite the fact that Monty knows I find conversing with him emotionally distressing he continues to harass me - I assume he'd harass me in private too if he wasn't set on ignore.
I feel the need to address this to point out that Monty is using my refusal to engage with him directly, and avoid referencing his posts, as a way to attack me by proxy. I would not want others on this forum to think I wasn't aware of what was going on - even though I can't respond to Monty directly.
There's no point me responding to personal attacks from someone has repeatedly characterised me as a liar and a fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I beg the moderator's indulgence in drawing attention to this but Monty has been advised that I will not address him directly until he desists from attacks on my character and apologises for his unfounded past accusations. The last time I asked this of him his response was more abuse. I further note that despite my making my best effort to simply not engage with him he continues to attempt to needle me.
He is trying to incite a flame war - I have previously protested this privately, I now do so publicly. I have no desire to engage with Monty, I have no interest in doing so, yet I am continually harassed.
Alright, stop. You attacked my character, and I ask for no apologies - only reflection. With you, civil discussion is abuse and you can never make a mistake or overstep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I'm not needling you, I'm responding to your public posts, which are available for anyone to read and cover topics that overlap with those I or others are also discussing. I will not self-censor on your behalf.
However. For the sake of communal tranquility and a measure of relief, since this obviously makes you anxious, I will refrain from directly addressing you or your posts.
Ok you both are adults, knock it off now. I dont want to hear either of you talk about age or anything like that. Move on.
Let's change topics: VP picks, who do you think Biden or Bernie would/should pick (apologies if this had been discussed before)?
For Biden, he needs to pick an African American VP. If he didn't have the AA vote, he would not be where he is right now in the primary. I 100% think that he depresses black turnout if he doesnt pick a VP who is African American. I also think that Hillary could have won 2016 had she followed this advice. My choice would be Harris, as she is an excellent speaker, well known across the country, and in general would excite the base a lot I believe. Other possibilities would be Stacey Abrams and Corey Booker. I like both of them a lot, I just feel like Harris would be the better pick.
For Bernie, same thing. He knows that he does terribly with the AA community and this could be a way to increase turnout. Although I dont think he would pick Harris or Booker, though he might pick a more moderate VP if he wants to help with unity. He did endorse Abrams so she might be an option, or perhaps Andrew Gillum.
Hmmmmmm.
Does it help Bernie if he picks a VP or a moderate? He might be better picking a moderate woman, I'm not sure picking an African-American will actually help him. Bernie has so many political weaknesses he might be better off appealing to the youth vote than the African-American vote.
Biden should pick someone young, preferably African American or Latino. Whilst the African-American vote is important to Biden I don't think African-Americans need the VP to be "one of their own", but they will be reassured if the VP pick is from a minority.
I think Bernie would be better off with a moderate woman, but I also have the feeling that he wouldnt pick someone moderate as it would hurt his brand. But then again who knows. Perhaps Reps Jayapal or Khanna.
I agree that Biden should pick someone young, though that goes for Bernie too. This is harsh, but both of their ages mean that the VP pick is super important. I disagree about the VP not needing to be African American. Biden himself has said recently that his victory in SC and on Super Tuesday was due to the AA community. I think it would be seen as a slap in the face if the VP wasnt AA.
Sander's choice of a running mate is immaterial unless the announcement of same would somehow derail Biden's nomination effort. There is little track record of success for a pre-nomination veep announcement.
Biden, as the dominant front-runner, can certainly begin to think of candidates for the role -- but even there it is premature, as his time is best spent turning this surge of momentum and support into a first round lock.
Regardless, when one of them gets tehre, I think either would gain a fair bit from tapping Stephanie Murphy for the veep nom.