NationStates Jolt Archive

When I look back on my relatively short life span, I notice a disturbing trend. That trend is that people get stupider as they age. Youngsters learn entire languages from a nearly blank mind in a snap. Kids are good at math and memorizing and mental gymnastics. Now that I have entered my second quarter century, I have noticed a certain slowing of my mental accuity. No longer am I the Mathcounts champion I was in seventh grade. No longer does the muse of creativity supply me with an endless supply of original music. The gears of my mind feel as if they need some lubricant when I attempt a difficult puzzle. It didn't used to be that way.

And I look at those around me. Those aged more than I are slower yet. Scanning a computer screen is a chore for them. They drive like lumbering unalert sloths, and they can't seem to remember a thing you tell them.

But it is said that the dulling of the mind's knife comes with an increased skill in how it is used, something called wisdom. Sure, we may lose our ability to mimic a computer, but we accumulate a wealth of experience, and learn how to apply our minds more efficiently, to innoculate outselves against the naivete of youth. Surely I am more wise than I was, for I know so much more now, right? That's what I thought, but another insight has caused me to think that at some point, this sense of wisdom is simply a delusion.

As people get older, they also tend to get wronger about things that one might suppose would be decided by wisdom. Specifically, politics.

In 2004, the war was the biggest issue. The general public was just beginning to wake up to the fact that they had been hoodwinked. Of course, those of us who paid attention (disproportionately young people) knew it was a sham from the git-go. Anyway, in the 2004 primary, there was one candidate who had opposed the war from the start and who was authentic - Howard Dean. Laugh all you want, but there was nobody else on the ticket who had the credientials to leverage the moral high ground against GW, and the young people knew that. Cut to the 2004 primary - college kids caucus for Dean and soccer mom's and dads show up in force with their friends to vote for Kerry because they thought it wise. That didn't turn out too well, did it.

My grandparents are pretty smart people. In the general election of 2004, they voted for Bush. Why? Because they're experience and wisdom (with a little side of Fox News) told them that Democrats are always big tax and spenders and are foreign policy push-overs, while Republicans are for fiscal conservatism and telling Gorby to tear down walls. Since they know this, they don't need to waste their time probing further. Young people on the other hand are researching like crazy on the Internet, and suffering 8 years of general outrage fatigue over the horror of Bush and co.

My dad's a little smarter than my grandparents. He figured out that Bush wasn't such a great president. But he as baffled at how he managed to mess up so badly. I told him that Bush was an idiot, because that's where all the evidence points (every testimonial, every sentence out of his mouth), and because there's no evidence to the contrary. But my Dad refused to believe that it was possible for somebody who was legitimately stupid to graduate from college and acheive the presidency. His wisdom and experience told him that it was impossible. Evidence continues to mount up that Bush has no idea what's going on.

And now it's 2008. It feels like 2004 all over again, except nobody as utterly dumb as Bush will be on the ticket. On the Republican side, the young in-the-know crowd supports the only actual conservative - Ron Paul, realizing that the other Republicans are worse than the Democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility and the slide to the police state.

On the Democrat side, the youngsters (and the "highly-educated") support Barack Obama, the anti-war, genuine candidate with honest credentials, progressive policies that work to prevent the abuses of the Bush administration from happening again, and the ability to lead more than just democrats, and the ability to do it with common-ground politics. Unfortunately, the dearth of the older democrats supports the "sensible" choice of Hillary Clinton. There wisdom tells them that she's a Clinton, therefore experienced and seasoned (My boss actually said that Obama needs to be more "seasoned") - the safe, common sense choice, and so they look no further, dismissing Obama as a fairy tale candidate without bothering to listen/look/research past his slogan, and ignoring Hillary's problem with the truth, her troublesome record, and her serious electability issues. (The reason the red states are going Barack if because we KNOW how many people hate her. I don't think folks in New York and California have any idea.)

Add to all this the sad hilarity that ensues whenever Congress tries to assess complex issues and new technologies. The case of Senator Steven's "tubes" speech is not an isolated incident. Most of the United States' political problems can be chalked up to the fact that political power is held/given to the elderly in this country, who are presumed to be wiser than they are. They base decisions entirely on preconceptions and guess at the truth because that behavior has been reinforced in them. It's time for the young people to step up and take the reins, or the car keys, because our electorate's going senile. I don't mean stopping old people from voting - but maybe discouraging them from doing so when they're not educated on the issues, not staying silent when folks at the family gathering blame problems on the "liberals", writing letters to the editor, showing up at city council meetings, etc.

P.S. Barack Obama's head speechwriter is 26 years old.

Politics isn't wizardry, you don't need to be old to have learned about it all, especially with the internet it's dead easy and very quick to understand politics etc.

No "Get off my lawn!" option? I'm disappointed.

You somewhat have a point with old people voting for the party for historical reasons, but you could also make the point that young people are often hopelessly idealistic and for a lot of them, "Bush is stupit lol" is about as far as their actual political knowledge goes.

I think that, realistically, "The voting public are what's wrong with democracy" would be just as valid.

The older branch of the Republican Party, with particular regard to the more libertarian members such as the late Barry Goldwater, provided a very important counter-weight to religious extremism.

You somewhat have a point with old people voting for the party for historical reasons, but you could also make the point that young people are often hopelessly idealistic and for a lot of them, "Bush is stupit lol" is about as far as their actual political knowledge goes.

I think that, realistically, "The voting public are what's wrong with democracy" would be just as valid.

Maybe. IMO the problem isn't that young people are hopelessly idealistic, but that old people aren't. There are a great many problems with government that the vast majority of people agree on, but never get solved because old people keep on voting for "realistic" politicians. Because of this, mainstream political dialogue is increasingly obsolete. In the US, we're just now getting starting to approach the libertarianism vs socialism debate we should have had in the mid-20th century at the latest just as technology is starting to render it obsolete. Political philosophies won't come close to broaching the virtual world - addressing the inherent differences in a material society versus an information society - for at least another 20 years, and by then economic forces will have already decided the course society will take. We don't have a government so much as we have a governed-ment. Not a democracy, but a consent-manufacturing unintelligent, complex capitalist system of a media-puppetocracy straight from Noam Chomsky's worst nightmares.

edit - I think it's time for me to go to bed.

Well young adults these days are generally far more knowledgeable on politics than their parents.

Maybe. IMO the problem isn't that young people are hopelessly idealistic, but that old people aren't.
There are problems in both camps. Outspoken idealism cheeses me off, as does people voting for parties because they have in the past, without really checking what they stand for nowadays.

The current thing that's doing my head in is this ridiculous optimism about Obama. The man is young, spiffing. Black, cool, the US could do with a black President. On the other hand, he's not going to radically change anything in the four years he's in power, simply because US foreign policy cannot be changed overnight, and the people behind the Presidency are going to be largely the same as those being Bush.

But there we go.
There are a great many problems with government that the vast majority of people agree on, but never get solved because old people keep on voting for "realistic" politicians. Because of this, mainstream political dialogue is increasingly obsolete.
There's nothing obselete about centralism. It's boring, perhaps, by being so moderately good, but it's a hell of a lot better than Libertarianism and hard-line Socialism (although such measures aren't actually being proposed by anyone).
In the US, we're just now getting starting to approach the libertarianism vs socialism debate we should have had in the mid-20th century at the latest just as technology is starting to render it obsolete.
Technology doesn't render such things obsolete at all, it just gives it a new playing field.

Also, there was a Libertarianism vs. Socialism debate in the mid-20th century, and it ended in the creation of the HUAC, and people like Kennedy getting into power on the back of some apocolyptic nonsense about the threat of the USSR.

The result of that debate was that the political elite desired neither Libertarianism nor Socialism, and it'll stay that way for a long time.
Political philosophies won't come close to broaching the virtual world - addressing the inherent differences in a material society versus an information society - for at least another 20 years, and by then economic forces will have already decided the course society will take. We don't have a government so much as we have a governed-ment.
That's because the virtual world is full of complainers like us, and in 20 years, the real world is still very much going to exist, and will still be very much dominant in political and socio-economic terms to this virtual world you're imagining.
Not a democracy, but a consent-manufacturing unintelligent, complex capitalist system of a media-puppetocracy straight from Noam Chomsky's worst nightmares.

edit - I think it's time for me to go to bed.
Chomsky is rubbish.

Libertarianism, like all 'ideologies' has no objective basis in material reality, it is but an outgrowth of the conditions of bourgeois production, and bourgeois property. Thus for the bourgeois 'freedom' means free trade, free capital exchange etc, but for the proletarian majority, 'freedom' means freedom from wage slavery, from exploitation. Libertarianism thus fails to grasp the material interests of different classes, and like all other 'old ideas' is more Hegelian claptrap.

Libertarianism, like all 'ideologies' has no objective basis in material reality, it is but an outgrowth of the conditions of bourgeois production, and bourgeois property. Thus for the bourgeois 'freedom' means free trade, free capital exchange etc, but for the proletarian majority, 'freedom' means freedom from wage slavery, from exploitation. Libertarianism thus fails to grasp the material interests of different classes, and like all other 'old ideas' is more Hegelian claptrap.
Quite.

*Snippage of a bunch of sensible stuff I agree with*

You know what really grinds my gears?

My Grandpa is a "conservative" in the worst sense of the word...listens to Rush Limbaugh daily...derides Hillary Clinton as a "communist"...blames all the nations problems on "liberals"

...one of his biggest "arguments" regarding liberals are their "tax-and-spend" economic policies. I think it's safe to say that he is hardly alone in making this argument.

"Tax-and-spend"...as opposed to the massive borrowing of the last eight years.

Granted, we have a war to pay for...a war we have not raised taxes to pay for, the first such war in our nations history. Instead, young people in the military go and fight overseas, and they will come back to find the financial cost of the war has ALSO been set on their shoulders.

Such borrowing is already showing problems with our current policies. Infastructure such as roads and bridges are a growing concern...the military is stretched too thin to present a credible deterent to aggression (ie Iran/North Korea)...tax cuts continue to benefit wealthy corporations (who's stockholders are largely middle-aged/elderly) while funds for foward-looking projects such as stem-cell research and green energy remain scarce.

It seems that my grandparents, and parents, are more interested in their current well being, rather than the future of the nation. They will continue to vote for "borrowers" rather than "taxers" to ensure they continue to receive the greatest possible benefit from social programs geared to assist them without having to pay additional tax to ensure the programs remain solvent beyond their lifetime.

This is not limited to conservatives. Many older Democratic voters who appear at one level to oppose these policies will fight tooth-and-nail at the state or local level to prevent the changes they advocate nationally from taking root locally.

Our parents and our grandparents are perhaps the first set of generations in this nation to collectively give the finger to their progeny. They are happy to have young people pay back the debt they themselves incurred...PLUS interest.

I myself would be glad to pay more in taxes if it meant we stopped selling off America's future. Old people show no signs of changing their ways. I would be happy if this country had a recession, because perhaps seeing their grandchildren in dire straits would remind these people what it is they have been voting for all along, and when the recession eventually ended our generation would emerge stronger than before.

Old people don't want a stronger, more prosperous nation after they're gone. They want as much as they can get away with, right now...and the future be damned.

I think the song-lyric in my sig says it all.

Makes me fucking sick. :mad:

*Blah blah blah angst*
Yeah, yeah, whatever.

- Overspending happens to everyone

- If you think North Korea or Iran are credible military powers, you're stupid

- Tax cuts benefitting corporations happen everywhere, although they have been excessive under Bush

- Green policies and stem-cell research are being held down by the religious right everywhere in the world

- Your grandparents are by no means whatsoever the first to 'give the finger to their progeny'

- A recession would be terrible for everyone, and is nothing to hope for.

- What the fuck is a 'stronger nation'? That's the kind of vague bullshit I hate.

Some fair comments and a nice topic.

If anything I'd say the older generation was interested in a different kind of politics back in the day - the Cold War meant 'communism' became a dirty word, civil and women's rights were fought in the 50's, 60's & 70's (though certainly carrying on now in a subtler way) - essentially, the battle of ideas was being waged, one that pretty much ended up as the Reagan Revolution, something that will hopefully die with GWB.

It's really not fair to say the older generation aren't aware of politics, it's that life has changed tremendously over the last 20 years, and even then I wouldn't say it's even close to the generation gap of the 60's, 70's. The social changes back then were enormous.

Still, we have the Internet, Nixon killed the American dream, politicians are more aligned with 'scum' than 'statesmen', Cold War ended, 9/11, much has happened.

The fact that the US can even think of voting for Senator Obama is indicative of these changes, changes brought about by, essentially, nearly 20 years of peace.

You have the luxury of voting for Senator Obama in your safety, it skews your perception of the world making you different, not better than older generations.

I was 15 or so when the Cold War ended but it was often the main topic of conversation - the dreaded USSR - most people on these boards can't even remember that and I don't really count myself as the older generation.

- Overspending happens to everyone

All the time??

- If you think North Korea or Iran are credible military powers, you're stupid

Credible in the sense that they have the ability to affect their region in significant ways, and our current commitments leave us unable to prevent this with the threat of an overwhelming response...short of nukes.

- Tax cuts benefitting corporations happen everywhere, although they have been excessive under Bush

I'm not saying end all business tax cuts. I'm saying that a lot of it is money that could be better utilized elsewhere.

- Green policies and stem-cell research are being held down by the religious right everywhere in the world

No...they're being held down by misinformed voters. There is a difference.

How much clout does the "religious right" have in Cuba...Sweden...Thailand...Kenya?

- Your grandparents are by no means whatsoever the first to 'give the finger to their progeny'

Not just mine...yours too. Prior generations in this country worked hard not because it meant immedeate payoff for themselves, but because it would ensure a better future for their children. That hardly seems the case nowadays, except among immigrants (both legal and illegal).

Can you imagine the people who lived and worked through the Great Depression passing the cost of WWII onto their children, who fought it? We'd have had a revolution. Now all the people who worked hard through those years are dead, and the "Greatest Generation" is still so high off of it's collective victory in the Cold War that they feel the world owes them.

- A recession would be terrible for everyone, and is nothing to hope for.

God forbid the economy not grow as much as we thought it would...

Young people aren't much better than the old, as the old will be quick to point out. I say an economic kick in the teeth will do this generation, and this country, more good than bad in the long run.

- What the fuck is a 'stronger nation'? That's the kind of vague bullshit I hate.

A nation that provides for the next generation better than the current one...

...do you honestly think current trends bear out such a development?

No offence but only ignorant children who are aiming to offend say "no offence".

When I look back on my relatively short life span, I notice a disturbing trend. That trend is that people get stupider as they age. Youngsters learn entire languages from a nearly blank mind in a snap. Kids are good at math and memorizing and mental gymnastics. Now that I have entered my second quarter century, I have noticed a certain slowing of my mental accuity. No longer am I the Mathcounts champion I was in seventh grade. No longer does the muse of creativity supply me with an endless supply of original music. The gears of my mind feel as if they need some lubricant when I attempt a difficult puzzle. It didn't used to be that way.

Maybe it's just you.

And I look at those around me. Those aged more than I are slower yet. Scanning a computer screen is a chore for them. They drive like lumbering unalert sloths, and they can't seem to remember a thing you tell them.

Perhaps it's hard for some older people to use computers because they weren't brought up with them. What does being able to use a computer have to do with politics anyway?

Young people have a higher death toll on the road, and are probably more likely to drive recklessly, drive drunk and speed.

No, people with diseases like alzheimers or dimensia can't remember things, and that's not because they're "old", it's because they're suffering from a terrible illness. Plus, do you remember everything?

But it is said that the dulling of the mind's knife comes with an increased skill in how it is used, something called wisdom. Sure, we may lose our ability to mimic a computer, but we accumulate a wealth of experience, and learn how to apply our minds more efficiently, to innoculate outselves against the naivete of youth. Surely I am more wise than I was, for I know so much more now, right? That's what I thought, but another insight has caused me to think that at some point, this sense of wisdom is simply a delusion.

No, it's not said that "the dulling of the mind's knife comes an increased skill in how it's used, something called wisdom". It is, however, often said that "with age comes wisdom" and for some (but not all) people, this is true.

Humans can't mimic computers.

I don't think you're "wise". A wise person wouldn't say "old people are what's wrong with politics".

As people get older, they also tend to get wronger about things that one might suppose would be decided by wisdom. Specifically, politics.

Wronger?

*snip*

P.S. Barack Obama's head speechwriter is 26 years old.

That's nice. He seems like a great speechwriter.

When he's forty five, I'll email him to let him know you think he's going to be "wronger" about politics.

Politics isn't wizardry, you don't need to be old to have learned about it all, especially with the internet it's dead easy and very quick to understand politics etc.

If politics are so easy to learn, then how come we have so many idiot politicians?

If politics are so easy to learn, then how come we have so many idiot politicians?
The problem is systematic, not personal, you (USA) have a system which is essentially a demagogic popularity contest and parade of cultural ignorance and glorifies collective stupidity. A big part of the problem is treating politics differently than say science, engineering etc, the Greeks has the appropriate attitude to it. Politics is essential, and the indifference and cultural cynicism that liberalism places it in is a cause for such problems. Until you treat politics seriously, it won't treat you seriously. You'll get ridiculous sounbyte campaigns, catchy phrases and talking points, but you won't get change, and you won't get intelligent debate on the material realities.

All the time??
Pretty much, yes.
Credible in the sense that they have the ability to affect their region in significant ways, and our current commitments leave us unable to prevent this with the threat of an overwhelming response...short of nukes.
Iran is the smallest military spender in the region, and is right next to a massive US force in Iraq, the IDF and an allied US force in Saudi Arabia, all of whom could quite plausibly kick their arse in about a day.

North Korea is starting to piss off the Chinese, would have to deal with the South Koreans and US, and maybe the JSDF, which their economy couldn't take, also their kit is 1950s-era junk.
I'm not saying end all business tax cuts. I'm saying that a lot of it is money that could be better utilized elsewhere.
I'd agree to an extent, but if you start putting taxes up too high, then you
No...they're being held down by misinformed voters. There is a difference.
No, they're not. The people who make policy changes on the matter aren't the general public, they're the financial backers of the state, and long will it remain so.
How much clout does the "religious right" have in Cuba...
Not much. Do they have any money to spend on it? No.
Sweden...
Not much, hence why it's going on.
Thailand...
Quite a lot, but they're doing it as a national pride issue.
Kenya?
Loads. No money for it, either.
Not just mine...yours too. Prior generations in this country worked hard not because it meant immedeate payoff for themselves, but because it would ensure a better future for their children. That hardly seems the case nowadays, except among immigrants (both legal and illegal).
Right, I see.

http://static.flickr.com/132/318263814_c459ade057_o.jpg

Take them off, please.
Can you imagine the people who lived and worked through the Great Depression passing the cost of WWII onto their children, who fought it? We'd have had a revolution. Now all the people who worked hard through those years are dead, and the "Greatest Generation" is still so high off of it's collective victory in the Cold War that they feel the world owes them.
Indeed, you passed the cost of that war until the UK, and we only just stopped repaying it a year and a bit ago. Cheers.

Oh and as to the collosal hubris of the US public, that's something not confined to a single generation, by any means.
God forbid the economy not grow as much as we thought it would...

Young people aren't much better than the old, as the old will be quick to point out. I say an economic kick in the teeth will do this generation, and this country, more good than bad in the long run.
No really, a depression would fuck everyone over completely, especially with the state that the subprime market and healthcare is in.

Don't want that kind of thing to happen. Brings out political extremists, who, as history has shown us, are Bad And Wrong.
A nation that provides for the next generation better than the current one...
In what way?
...do you honestly think current trends bear out such a development?
How the hell should I know?

There's a whole ton of things that could happen in the next 20 years or so.

If politics are so easy to learn, then how come we have so many idiot politicians?
You don't. You have smart politicians who pretend to be stupid to keep the oldies pacified with their 'homely' ways.

Pretty much, yes.

Okay, so because "everyone" does it, it's not a problem?

Iran is the smallest military spender in the region, and is right next to a massive US force in Iraq, the IDF and an allied US force in Saudi Arabia, all of whom could quite plausibly kick their arse in about a day.

Iran is already influencing the region in big ways. If we were to use US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan to confront Iran, what would then happen in those countries?

Is the government of Syria, or the people of Iraq, going to let the IDF roll through their countries? What kind of airlift capacity does Israel have? Would we even ask for their direct assistance, given the backlash we'd get as a result from Islamic nations?

North Korea is starting to piss off the Chinese, would have to deal with the South Koreans and US, and maybe the JSDF, which their economy couldn't take, also their kit is 1950s-era junk.

Do you think NK would have test detonated or launched anything if we didn't have the vast majority of our ground forces tied up half-way around the world?

I'd agree to an extent, but if you start putting taxes up too high, then you

Something tells me things got cut off here. :p

No, they're not. The people who make policy changes on the matter aren't the general public, they're the financial backers of the state, and long will it remain so.

Funny...I thought those we elected to office made policy changes.

Meh...one hand washes the other.

Not much. Do they have any money to spend on it? No.

Not much, hence why it's going on.

Quite a lot, but they're doing it as a national pride issue.

Loads. No money for it, either.

I'm going to need a little more evidence than "Not much" and "Loads" regarding the influence of Evangelical politics in other nations before I can seriously address these comments.

Right, I see.

http://static.flickr.com/132/318263814_c459ade057_o.jpg

Take them off, please.

I'm being quite serious. A lot of it has little to do with politics. We've seen life expectancy increase dramatically in only the last 50 years. Previously, few lived long enough to see a significant increase in their own standard of living due to their own efforts. The problems we face regarding the potential insolvency of social programs is largely the result of the fact that we've never had to pay out the ass for the present before...just the future.

We're seeing now that it's damn near impossible to pay for both without cutting back somewhere. Except we're not cutting back...not significantly, and certainly not in the areas where we ought to be, and definetly not to the degree necessary to solve these problems, at least not yet.

Indeed, you passed the cost of that war until the UK, and we only just stopped repaying it a year and a bit ago. Cheers.

Britain payed for the military equipment it recieved. It totalled less than $5 billion dollars over 50 years....chump change by todays spending standards.

If you're about to about to claim that the UK payed the entire military budget of the U.S. from 1941 to 1945, you're going to need more than a "Cheers" to prove your point.

Oh and as to the collosal hubris of the US public, that's something not confined to a single generation, by any means.

True enough, but I think you'll find far less of it among the young, and certainly far more of it among those who've been alive since before WWII.

No really, a depression would fuck everyone over completely, especially with the state that the subprime market and healthcare is in.

Don't want that kind of thing to happen. Brings out political extremists, who, as history has shown us, are Bad And Wrong.

I didn't say depression, I said recession...there is a difference.

I happen to think that regardless of the degree, such an event would be good for the nation in the long-term.

That doesn't mean it won't suck in the short term.

As for the extremists...perhaps we ought to have a mess like that to clean up at home for once...it'll help keep us from blundering about the rest of the world.

In what way?

What am I, a civics teacher? If we're going to argue the definition of government, we might as well start a new thread.

How the hell should I know?

There's a whole ton of things that could happen in the next 20 years or so.

Nice sidestep. ;)

I won't be able to respond again until tonight...but I do hope to find the discussion ongoing when I return. :)

Well young people wear flared trousers and think they look cool, but older people know from experience that they don't and that in a few years time those same young people will be cringing at pictures of how they used to dress. Same with politics, a balance of a radical willingness to try new ideas with a more conservative experienced based approach is probably the best we can do. Removing either would be detrimental.

The problem is systematic, not personal, you (USA) have a system which is essentially a demagogic popularity contest and parade of cultural ignorance and glorifies collective stupidity. A big part of the problem is treating politics differently than say science, engineering etc, the Greeks has the appropriate attitude to it. Politics is essential, and the indifference and cultural cynicism that liberalism places it in is a cause for such problems. Until you treat politics seriously, it won't treat you seriously. You'll get ridiculous sounbyte campaigns, catchy phrases and talking points, but you won't get change, and you won't get intelligent debate on the material realities.


Heh yeah while we get Boris Johnson! Wait.., thats the same sorta thing!

When I look back on my relatively short life span, <snip>

You made me feel young again! I was also this naive in my 20s regarding politics. Please post again in 25 years and let's see how you too will have changed your view with a couple of decades of realism under your belt. ;)

(Btw this is no dig on you either, you sound like my sons who are also in their 20s, I truly enjoyed your post, it made me smile in a all-knowing mom kind of way.)

When I look back on my relatively short life span, I notice a disturbing trend. That trend is that people get stupider as they age. Youngsters learn entire languages from a nearly blank mind in a snap. Kids are good at math and memorizing and mental gymnastics. Now that I have entered my second quarter century, I have noticed a certain slowing of my mental accuity. No longer am I the Mathcounts champion I was in seventh grade. No longer does the muse of creativity supply me with an endless supply of original music. The gears of my mind feel as if they need some lubricant when I attempt a difficult puzzle. It didn't used to be that way.

And I look at those around me. Those aged more than I are slower yet. Scanning a computer screen is a chore for them. They drive like lumbering unalert sloths, and they can't seem to remember a thing you tell them.

But it is said that the dulling of the mind's knife comes with an increased skill in how it is used, something called wisdom. Sure, we may lose our ability to mimic a computer, but we accumulate a wealth of experience, and learn how to apply our minds more efficiently, to innoculate outselves against the naivete of youth. Surely I am more wise than I was, for I know so much more now, right? That's what I thought, but another insight has caused me to think that at some point, this sense of wisdom is simply a delusion.

As people get older, they also tend to get wronger about things that one might suppose would be decided by wisdom. Specifically, politics.

In 2004, the war was the biggest issue. The general public was just beginning to wake up to the fact that they had been hoodwinked. Of course, those of us who paid attention (disproportionately young people) knew it was a sham from the git-go. Anyway, in the 2004 primary, there was one candidate who had opposed the war from the start and who was authentic - Howard Dean. Laugh all you want, but there was nobody else on the ticket who had the credientials to leverage the moral high ground against GW, and the young people knew that. Cut to the 2004 primary - college kids caucus for Dean and soccer mom's and dads show up in force with their friends to vote for Kerry because they thought it wise. That didn't turn out too well, did it.

My grandparents are pretty smart people. In the general election of 2004, they voted for Bush. Why? Because they're experience and wisdom (with a little side of Fox News) told them that Democrats are always big tax and spenders and are foreign policy push-overs, while Republicans are for fiscal conservatism and telling Gorby to tear down walls. Since they know this, they don't need to waste their time probing further. Young people on the other hand are researching like crazy on the Internet, and suffering 8 years of general outrage fatigue over the horror of Bush and co.

My dad's a little smarter than my grandparents. He figured out that Bush wasn't such a great president. But he as baffled at how he managed to mess up so badly. I told him that Bush was an idiot, because that's where all the evidence points (every testimonial, every sentence out of his mouth), and because there's no evidence to the contrary. But my Dad refused to believe that it was possible for somebody who was legitimately stupid to graduate from college and acheive the presidency. His wisdom and experience told him that it was impossible. Evidence continues to mount up that Bush has no idea what's going on.

And now it's 2008. It feels like 2004 all over again, except nobody as utterly dumb as Bush will be on the ticket. On the Republican side, the young in-the-know crowd supports the only actual conservative - Ron Paul, realizing that the other Republicans are worse than the Democrats when it comes to fiscal responsibility and the slide to the police state.

On the Democrat side, the youngsters (and the "highly-educated") support Barack Obama, the anti-war, genuine candidate with honest credentials, progressive policies that work to prevent the abuses of the Bush administration from happening again, and the ability to lead more than just democrats, and the ability to do it with common-ground politics. Unfortunately, the dearth of the older democrats supports the "sensible" choice of Hillary Clinton. There wisdom tells them that she's a Clinton, therefore experienced and seasoned (My boss actually said that Obama needs to be more "seasoned") - the safe, common sense choice, and so they look no further, dismissing Obama as a fairy tale candidate without bothering to listen/look/research past his slogan, and ignoring Hillary's problem with the truth, her troublesome record, and her serious electability issues. (The reason the red states are going Barack if because we KNOW how many people hate her. I don't think folks in New York and California have any idea.)

Add to all this the sad hilarity that ensues whenever Congress tries to assess complex issues and new technologies. The case of Senator Steven's "tubes" speech is not an isolated incident. Most of the United States' political problems can be chalked up to the fact that political power is held/given to the elderly in this country, who are presumed to be wiser than they are. They base decisions entirely on preconceptions and guess at the truth because that behavior has been reinforced in them. It's time for the young people to step up and take the reins, or the car keys, because our electorate's going senile. I don't mean stopping old people from voting - but maybe discouraging them from doing so when they're not educated on the issues, not staying silent when folks at the family gathering blame problems on the "liberals", writing letters to the editor, showing up at city council meetings, etc.

P.S. Barack Obama's head speechwriter is 26 years old.
o.o "Stupider" isn't a word...

Anyway, I don't have time to read the rest of that now as I'm supposed to be going off to school, but I just wanted to point that out...

The problem is systematic, not personal, you (USA) have a system which is essentially a demagogic popularity contest and parade of cultural ignorance and glorifies collective stupidity. A big part of the problem is treating politics differently than say science, engineering etc, the Greeks has the appropriate attitude to it. Politics is essential, and the indifference and cultural cynicism that liberalism places it in is a cause for such problems. Until you treat politics seriously, it won't treat you seriously. You'll get ridiculous sounbyte campaigns, catchy phrases and talking points, but you won't get change, and you won't get intelligent debate on the material realities.

Spot on. The best example that I can find in this campaign is that "Obama = evil muslim" hogwash. It honestly astounds me how much traction some figment of a right-wing blogger's imagination gets, even after it's been debunked so many times that there's good cause to commit anyone who still gives it the time of day. Reminds me of when the Ontario Conservatives called their opponent an evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet in 2003 (true story). Do you think this has something to do with the liberal (in the poli-sci sense) view that society should be ruled and managed by an elite cadre of "experts", while us "ordinary folk" go about our lives in an insular fashion? I definitely think liberalism encourages the sort of crippling ignorance we see in western society.

On topic...
I think older people do present a problem today, but not because of any biological reason. Young people are derided as idealistic for wanting things like government transparency, bipartisan co-operation, not being ripped off when it comes to education and health care, etc. From what I've seen of older people, their experience in the political sphere has stripped them of this idealism, leaving them bitter, cynical, even misanthropic in many cases. They support candidates who perpetuate corruption and petty personal feuds. Whether they're on the right or the left, they also tend to support "winner take all" policies by the governments they elect. George W. Bush assaulted every "liberal" enclave in the social sphere throughout his presidency - education, organized labour, social services, etc. - while focusing the government's resources on "conservative" areas of society: the military, religious organizations, even using the Homeland Security department as a slush fund to reward states that voted for him. Clearly this was all acceptable, as he was elected a second time (without significantly engaging the young vote). I can say with a good amount of confidence that if the "older" wing of the Democratic Party sweeps Clinton all the way to the presidency, we'll see the same punitive policies in reverse, because "it's payback time" or whatever.

Liberals (in the scientific sense, again), aka. "realists", have had their shot for more than 200 years, and look at the morally and intellectually bankrupt society we have today. I think it's about time for this modern-day ancien regime to step aside and let people who believe in something have a crack. I wouldn't consider what Obama is offering to be all that idealistic anyway.

You somewhat have a point with old people voting for the party for historical reasons, but you could also make the point that young people are often hopelessly idealistic and for a lot of them, "Bush is stupit lol" is about as far as their actual political knowledge goes.

I think that, realistically, "The voting public are what's wrong with democracy" would be just as valid.

Hmmm, I'm agreeing with Yootopia now?
*runs off and checks for other signs of the apocalypse * ;)

Well young adults these days are generally far more knowledgeable on politics than their parents.

Not necessarily true

Well young adults these days are generally far more knowledgeable on politics than their parents.

Doesn't make 'em any smarter.

Doesn't make 'em any smarter.

Doesn't make 'em much dumber, either.

Seriously, youngsters tend to be more idealisitic. Of course they are, always have been, always will be. Whereas, the older you get, the more cynical and tired of idealism you get. Normal, too.
Neither are signs of wisdom or intelligence.

You somewhat have a point with old people voting for the party for historical reasons, but you could also make the point that young people are often hopelessly idealistic and for a lot of them, "Bush is stupit lol" is about as far as their actual political knowledge goes.

I think that, realistically, "The voting public are what's wrong with democracy" would be just as valid.

Or as George Carlin has said, "maybe it's not the politicians, but the people -- the public -- that sucks." After all, these candidates don't just come from nowhere, they come from us. I hate to keep using comedians as philosophers, but that's what some have kinda become. Quoth Lewis Black: "If this is evolution in terms of candidates, in 12 years, we're gonna be voting for plants."

You know what really grinds my gears?

My Grandpa is a "conservative" in the worst sense of the word...listens to Rush Limbaugh daily...derides Hillary Clinton as a "communist"...blames all the nations problems on "liberals"

...one of his biggest "arguments" regarding liberals are their "tax-and-spend" economic policies. I think it's safe to say that he is hardly alone in making this argument.

"Tax-and-spend"...as opposed to the massive borrowing of the last eight years.

Granted, we have a war to pay for...a war we have not raised taxes to pay for, the first such war in our nations history. Instead, young people in the military go and fight overseas, and they will come back to find the financial cost of the war has ALSO been set on their shoulders.

Such borrowing is already showing problems with our current policies. Infastructure such as roads and bridges are a growing concern...the military is stretched too thin to present a credible deterent to aggression (ie Iran/North Korea)...tax cuts continue to benefit wealthy corporations (who's stockholders are largely middle-aged/elderly) while funds for foward-looking projects such as stem-cell research and green energy remain scarce.

It seems that my grandparents, and parents, are more interested in their current well being, rather than the future of the nation. They will continue to vote for "borrowers" rather than "taxers" to ensure they continue to receive the greatest possible benefit from social programs geared to assist them without having to pay additional tax to ensure the programs remain solvent beyond their lifetime.

This is not limited to conservatives. Many older Democratic voters who appear at one level to oppose these policies will fight tooth-and-nail at the state or local level to prevent the changes they advocate nationally from taking root locally.

Our parents and our grandparents are perhaps the first set of generations in this nation to collectively give the finger to their progeny. They are happy to have young people pay back the debt they themselves incurred...PLUS interest.

I myself would be glad to pay more in taxes if it meant we stopped selling off America's future. Old people show no signs of changing their ways. I would be happy if this country had a recession, because perhaps seeing their grandchildren in dire straits would remind these people what it is they have been voting for all along, and when the recession eventually ended our generation would emerge stronger than before.

Old people don't want a stronger, more prosperous nation after they're gone. They want as much as they can get away with, right now...and the future be damned.

I think the song-lyric in my sig says it all.

Makes me fucking sick. :mad:

Agreed, mostly. A whole generation forgot their idealism when the gravy train pulled into the station in the late 70s and through the 80s. Boomers were given just about everything and instead of passing it on have decided that they'd like to see whether or not "you can't take it with you" is really true.

However, such generalizations, while good for letting off steam, are hardly constructive.

I can't see how any econoomy on a planet with inherently limited resources and an increasing population can be expected to continually grow. Businesses and banks have convinced the majority of the nation that saving is somehow not right and that consumer spending is the only way out of any economic downturn (I spent my last BushCo. rebate check in Canada, and I'll be paying down a Visa bill with the next one). I'm guessing that's because for the inherently wealthy to stay where they are or get richer, they need their investments to pay off, and that's all they care about. Notice that the truly wealthy don't go in for a lot of extravagance like the nouveau riche do. But it seems to me we're long overdue for some kind of economic contraction after growth for so long predicated on anything BUT manufacturing and trade deficits the size of most UN nations' GDP. I don't know what, but SOMEthing has to change.

*snip*

Liberals (in the scientific sense, again), aka. "realists", have had their shot for more than 200 years, and look at the morally and intellectually bankrupt society we have today. I think it's about time for this modern-day ancien regime to step aside and let people who believe in something have a crack. I wouldn't consider what Obama is offering to be all that idealistic anyway.

Wait just a tic -- I'm not sure, but did I just read that you're advocating some sort of religious government, or is that more to mean government run by idealists?

I've seen people of all age groups who are freakishly smart and depressingly stupid.
There are a lot of reasons why old people like Hilary and young people like Obama. Although I would caution anyone who supports Hilary because they liked Bill or because she's another Clinton or anything along those lines - as we saw with the Bush family, just because the first was good doesn't mean the second will be too.

When I look back on my relatively short life span, I notice a disturbing trend. That trend is that people get stupider as they age. Youngsters learn entire languages from a nearly blank mind in a snap. Kids are good at math and memorizing and mental gymnastics. Now that I have entered my second quarter century, I have noticed a certain slowing of my mental accuity. No longer am I the Mathcounts champion I was in seventh grade. No longer does the muse of creativity supply me with an endless supply of original music. The gears of my mind feel as if they need some lubricant when I attempt a difficult puzzle. It didn't used to be that way.



Welcome to old phartdom, next stop , a 6' hole in the ground or 2 hrs at gas mark 74, or a trip inside a firework and be blown all over the landscape :D

However, just because you get old physicallly, it does'nt mean you get old in your mental ability.
What it does mean, is that when presented with a problem, you draw on previous experience to solve it.
For me, an industrial robot programmer, I can make those buggers do a song and dance routine faster than my 19 yr apprentice can make a cup of tea (asumming he does'nt lose the rescipe on his way down to the tea machine :headbang: ) not because I'm cleverer than he is, but because I have a vast store of experience to draw on.

But the only solution to your mental decline would be to learn new stuff, unless you exercise it, your mind will grow weak and flabby just like your muscles would with no exercise.

So sign up for a evening course learning greek, or quantum mechanics, or as I did, some silly computer science thing.

And remember some words of wisdom a girlfriend once gave me
"If it aint hard, It aint worth doing" ;)

It depends on the old person. My grandmother, throughout her entire life, has always been extremely liberal and considerably left of center. Had she been able to go to college, there is no doubt in my mind she would have ended up as a lifelong member of the Women's Lib movement and the New Left in general.

Even without all of that, she was still at least one step ahead of the curve compared to most people. Pro-choice, pro gay marriage, etc. It all depends on the old person.

Old people cant drive. Wait, thats off topic.


What bugs me is whenever you tell an older person you disagree with them (even if theyre only in their late 30s) they say stupid things like "Your too young to know what your talking about", which is ussually IMO the mark of an inability to defend one's arguement.

Old people cant drive. Wait, thats off topic.


What bugs me is whenever you tell an older person you disagree with them (even if theyre only in their late 30s) they say stupid things like "Your too young to know what your talking about", which is ussually IMO the mark of an inability to defend one's arguement.

Or they see your position as so profoundly stupid that they don't want to waste their time on it...

What bugs me is whenever you tell an older person you disagree with them (even if theyre only in their late 30s) they say stupid things like "Your too young to know what your talking about", which is ussually IMO the mark of an inability to defend one's arguement.

Bah, you'll understand when you're older. :p

*also awaits the arrival of Anti-Social Darwinism*

Or they see your position as so profoundly stupid that they don't want to waste their time on it...


Well, when said old person makes BS comments like the reason we have the electoral college is so that small states have as much say as large states (blatantly false) and you call them on it...


The above is a personal experiance with my uncle.

Well, when said old person makes BS comments like the reason we have the electoral college is so that small states have as much say as large states (blatantly false) and you call them on it...


The above is a personal experiance with my uncle.

Relax, just offering a suggestion...

Out of curiosity, what would you say the reason for the electoral college is?

Relax, just offering a suggestion...

Out of curiosity, what would you say the reason for the electoral college is?

I wasnt unrelaxed towards you. The memory just makes me angry.


Anywya, the electoral college was more or less set up as a comprimise between the founding fathers who wanted everyone to vote and the founding fathers who didnt think the common man was capable of making an informed decision and only wanted the educated to vote.


The situation my uncle described was the reason for the Senate...:headbang:

Well, when said old person makes BS comments like the reason we have the electoral college is so that small states have as much say as large states (blatantly false) and you call them on it...

Not "as much", but it does make things more equal in that respect... and that's one of the main justifications offered for keeping it.

I wasnt unrelaxed towards you. The memory just makes me angry.
OK, congrats on getting emotion across accurately with the written word then...

Anyways, the electoral college was more or less set up as a compromise between the founding fathers who wanted everyone to vote and the founding fathers who didn't think the common man was capable of making an informed decision and only wanted the educated to vote.

Which matches up with what my feelings about it.

The situation my uncle described was the reason for the Senate...:headbang:

I've encountered a number of people who think the same thing :(

Old people who think their age gives them a monopoly on wisdom and understanding annoy me.

Young people who think they know everything because they haven't thought anything through also annoy me.

On balance, I'd prefer to just ignore "age" and listen to what people actually say and argue.

Old people who think their age gives them a monopoly on wisdom and understanding annoy me.

Young people who think they know everything because they haven't thought anything through also annoy me.

On balance, I'd prefer to just ignore "age" and listen to what people actually say and argue.

:D

Anywya, the electoral college was more or less set up as a comprimise between the founding fathers who wanted everyone to vote and the founding fathers who didnt think the common man was capable of making an informed decision and only wanted the educated to vote.

Pledged electors and the use of the popular vote made this element completely superfluous after about a century, and effectively superfluous long before that.

So in the modern context, that justification is irrelevant.

The situation my uncle described was the reason for the Senate...:headbang:

Right.

Now, why do you think each state has a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in the House plus its representation in the Senate?

The Electoral College is a compromise between equal representation and proportional representation. It is designed to give small states more representation than they would have in a purely proportional system.

Old people who think their age gives them a monopoly on wisdom and understanding annoy me.

Young people who think they know everything because they haven't thought anything through also annoy me.

On balance, I'd prefer to just ignore "age" and listen to what people actually say and argue.

Would that everyone did. Well said.

Pledged electors and the use of the popular vote made this element completely superfluous after about a century, and effectively superfluous long before that.

So in the modern context, that justification is irrelevant.



Right.

Now, why do you think each state has a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in the House plus its representation in the Senate?

The Electoral College is a compromise between equal representation and proportional representation. It is designed to give small states more representation than they would have in a purely proportional system.

Right on. Thanks for doing that so I didn't have to. It hurts my head.

Pledged electors and the use of the popular vote made this element completely superfluous after about a century, and effectively superfluous long before that.

So in the modern context, that justification is irrelevant.



Right.

Now, why do you think each state has a number of electoral votes equal to its representation in the House plus its representation in the Senate?

The Electoral College is a compromise between equal representation and proportional representation. It is designed to give small states more representation than they would have in a purely proportional system.



I know how the college works. I guess I didnt explain what my uncle said well enough, but he really basically just described the senate, saying even that each state was worth the same amount.

Get off my lawn, you whippersnappers! When you git to be my age, you'll realize how little you knew when you were your age!

:D

Get off my lawn, you whippersnappers! When you git to be my age, you'll realize how little you knew when you were your age!

I'm sure I will.

The question is whether I'll realize that you knew more. ;)

saying even that each state was worth the same amount.

Well, if he said that....

I just wanted to note that there's some truth to the claim that the EC empowers small states at the expense of large ones. A lot of people miss that, in favor of emphasizing the "winner take all" aspect.

You made me feel young again! I was also this naive in my 20s regarding politics. Please post again in 25 years and let's see how you too will have changed your view with a couple of decades of realism under your belt.
But, by then he will have turned STUPID! :p

Well, if he said that....

I just wanted to note that there's some truth to the claim that the EC empowers small states at the expense of large ones. A lot of people miss that, in favor of emphasizing the "winner take all" aspect.

On the flip side of that, it also makes the vote of a Wyomingan(sp?) worth more then the vote of a Californian.
And since less populous states tend to vote Republican...

And since less populous states tend to vote Republican...

Yeah, without the sixty extra electoral votes Bush got (as compared to forty-two for Gore), he would have lost in 2000.

Everyone should be re-tested for their drivers' license every 8 years.

Fricking Sunday Drivers.

Anyone who is an idealist after 30 is an idiot

Younger voters believe that everything is free and that there are no consequences to any of their actions (thus the Seattle Riots)

The current thing that's doing my head in is this ridiculous optimism about Obama. The man is young, spiffing. Black, cool, the US could do with a black President. On the other hand, he's not going to radically change anything in the four years he's in power, simply because US foreign policy cannot be changed overnight, and the people behind the Presidency are going to be largely the same as those being Bush.The optimism is over-the-top, but even if you miss while shooting for the moon, you still land in the stars. As for foreign policy, it effectively does change over night, since we're changing commander-in-chiefs overnight. And I guarantee you the people behind Obama are going to be vastly different than those behind Bush. It's generally understood that the people behind Bush are the problem with his administration, and Bush is just the puppet-tard that says git-er-done a lot.

There's nothing obselete about centralism. It's boring, perhaps, by being so moderately good, but it's a hell of a lot better than Libertarianism and hard-line Socialism (although such measures aren't actually being proposed by anyone).Let me clarify what I meant. I wasn't meaning to say that centrism is bad, but that the way the extremes are framed is. Values-enforcing conservatism vs values-ignoring leftism is a far-obsolete debate that was philosophically resolved centuries ago with the concept of rights, separation of church and state, etc. When industrialization and consequent urbanization rendered the yeoman farmer obsolete, and the nature of society as a system with coercive forces began to emerge, the debate should have then shifted to libertarianism vs socialism, whether to focus on state-sponsored coercion or its private counterpart, wage slavery, and that debate took root in some circles with Marx and stuff, but in the mainstream, commies vs cappies was just about red vs green and lacked any real discussion of capitalism or communism.

That's because the virtual world is full of complainers like us, and in 20 years, the real world is still very much going to exist, and will still be very much dominant in political and socio-economic terms to this virtual world you're imagining.I disagree. The Internet is already a deciding factor in politics (social networking, e-campaigning, Ron Paul spamming, embarrassing/inspirational youtube videos), and most of the economic activity in the US takes place on the Internet. Sure, the real world will exist just as much as it does now, but it will be less dominant, and more of an annoyance to be managed in a practical way.

**************************

Perhaps it's hard for some older people to use computers because they weren't brought up with them.Perhaps, but my Dad was using computers long before I was, and the Apple II's in elementary school were nothing like today's computers.
What does being able to use a computer have to do with politics anyway?Computers allow you to connect with the Internet, which allows to access to far better resources for analyzing politician's positions and histories, and determining the veracity of political claims, as well as engaging in political discussion with your fellow citizen. Looking at computer ability (after an ample amount of time given to learn) is a useful tool for determining how stupid somebody is because they require little physical work to operate, and interface with a pretty simple set of rules.

Young people have a higher death toll on the road, and are probably more likely to drive recklessly, drive drunk and speed.Point taken, but old people aren't so hot in this realm either. Also, they tend to know their limits better. If only they knew their limits when it came to politics!

No, people with diseases like alzheimers or dimensia can't remember things, and that's not because they're "old", it's because they're suffering from a terrible illness. Plus, do you remember everything?Memory deficiency isn't restricted to old people suffering from dementia or Alzheimers. At 25, my memory is worse than it used to be.

Humans can't mimic computers.Not only can we mimic computers, we ARE computers (or we possess them in our minds).

I don't think you're "wise". A wise person wouldn't say "old people are what's wrong with politics".Sure they would.

Wronger?It's more efficient than typing "more wrong".


*****************************************************8

You made me feel young again! I was also this naive in my 20s regarding politics. Please post again in 25 years and let's see how you too will have changed your view with a couple of decades of realism under your belt. ;)

(Btw this is no dig on you either, you sound like my sons who are also in their 20s, I truly enjoyed your post, it made me smile in a all-knowing mom kind of way.)First of all, my judgment will clearly be compromised by my age in 25 years, unless technology has sufficiently advanced to let me retain my mental acuity. But if I am truly wise, I will be able to look back and say "That man sure made some snappy decisions!" That's what I say right now when I look back on my youth. But hopefully I won't be so quick to judge, because I will have to remember that even if I know somethings better than my kids, like "Suck up to teachers at school" and "Don't stare at hot chicks", I am NOT all-knowing.

What bugs me is whenever you tell an older person you disagree with them (even if theyre only in their late 30s) they say stupid things like "Your too young to know what your talking about", which is ussually IMO the mark of an inability to defend one's arguement.AMEN A-Fucking-MEN. The thing to say to that is "I reject the argument that the elderly have a monopoly on wisdom".

Something seemed ironic about this argument, and I think I've finally figured out what it is.

By law, you must be at least 35 to be president.
These are the ages of the current candidates:
Hillary Clinton: 60
Barack Obama: 46
Mike Gravel: 77

Mike Huckabee: 52
John McCain: 71
Ron Paul: 72

Average age: 63
Average age excluding those who stand little chance of winning the nomination: 59

In other words, the supposedly foolish old people are the ones the supposedly smarter young people are voting for! In fact, one of the youngest guys running would make the worst president. I agree that old people tend to have their views more cemented, and are less likely to change their opinions. But generally, these opinions do have experience to back them, and thus are a pretty reliable middle ground.
To summarize,
Old People: Usually pretty reliable, but nothing fancy.
Young People: The great ideas are balanced out by the awful ones. The average is close to the same as old people.

In fact, one of the youngest guys running would make the worst president.



This is why you fail.


And I just noticed this:

On the Republican side, the young in-the-know crowd supports the only actual conservative - Ron Paul

This is why you fail, and by extension this thread fails. I refuse to believe anyone in the know supports Ron Paul.

The optimism is over-the-top, but even if you miss while shooting for the moon, you still land in the stars. As for foreign policy, it effectively does change over night, since we're changing commander-in-chiefs overnight. And I guarantee you the people behind Obama are going to be vastly different than those behind Bush. It's generally understood that the people behind Bush are the problem with his administration, and Bush is just the puppet-tard that says git-er-done a lot.
Judging by both Obama and Clinton's previous hawkish comments, and the fact that an election doesn't change the people at the top of the military ladder, very little is going to change.
Let me clarify what I meant. I wasn't meaning to say that centrism is bad, but that the way the extremes are framed is. Values-enforcing conservatism vs values-ignoring leftism is a far-obsolete debate that was philosophically resolved centuries ago with the concept of rights, separation of church and state, etc. When industrialization and consequent urbanization rendered the yeoman farmer obsolete, and the nature of society as a system with coercive forces began to emerge, the debate should have then shifted to libertarianism vs socialism, whether to focus on state-sponsored coercion or its private counterpart, wage slavery, and that debate took root in some circles with Marx and stuff, but in the mainstream, commies vs cappies was just about red vs green and lacked any real discussion of capitalism or communism.
Rural and urban politics is still about entirely different issues, and young and old voters still believe in very much radical theories for the young, and more mainstream conservative politics for the old.

So war es und so wird es immer sein. Everywhere.
I disagree. The Internet is already a deciding factor in politics (social networking, e-campaigning, Ron Paul spamming, embarrassing/inspirational youtube videos), and most of the economic activity in the US takes place on the Internet. Sure, the real world will exist just as much as it does now, but it will be less dominant, and more of an annoyance to be managed in a practical way.
Yeah, yeah, you're completely right.

Ron Paul's campaign is doing great due to the Paulbots, and Facebook has an incredible impact on the way things are going with those who actually vote, ie middle-aged women, the young and the old, right?

Oh, no wait, Paul's campaign is utterly fucked, and very few who would vote for Ron Paul would do so because of his internet-base campaign, and those turned off by it wouldn't vote libertarian anyway, nobody's opinion has changed due to watching some poorly-cut and directed video on Youtube, nor due to some 'inspiring commentary' on the elections on Facebook.

Out of curiosity, what would you say the reason for the electoral college is?
It was so the southern states would get "credit" for their black people without having to let them vote.

This is why you fail.
Por que? I was speaking of Mike Huckabee, who is the second youngest, after Obama.

I like old people. They tend to vote Tory, they don't tend to like reality television, and they don't dress up in sportswear and rob people.

Okay, so because "everyone" does it, it's not a problem?
It's a problem, but one that we can't really deal with all that much. Governments like to feel like they're doing something for the general public, and often overspend without thinking to do so.
Iran is already influencing the region in big ways.
No, it isn't. It's pissing the world around with a "shall we shant we" nuclear policy, and making ludicrous statements about the holocaust, both of which are of a minor nature, seeing as the Israelis will simply bomb their nuclear sites if they think that Iran is making nuclear weapons.
If we were to use US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan to confront Iran, what would then happen in those countries?
Seeing as you could probably take out most of the entire Persian Army, Navy and Airforce in about 48 hours with airstrikes and little else, not much.
Is the government of Syria, or the people of Iraq, going to let the IDF roll through their countries?
No, but the IDF has won before and could win again against these people, and the Iraqis won't get much say if such a thing does happen.
What kind of airlift capacity does Israel have?
Not that much, but the combat wing of their air force is extremely experienced.
Would we even ask for their direct assistance
No.
given the backlash we'd get as a result from Islamic nations?
The only Islamic nations to complain would be Syria and Iran, and neither of them have many friends internationally. Everyone else would mumble a bit.
Do you think NK would have test detonated or launched anything if we didn't have the vast majority of our ground forces tied up half-way around the world?
Yes, to make some kind of utterly pointless statement about their own power.
Something tells me things got cut off here. :p
Yeah, the comment was basically "raise taxes too quickly, too swiftly, and you will lose workers because of it, which will exacerbate budget problems rather than solving them".
Funny...I thought those we elected to office made policy changes.
Nominally, yes. Actually? Not really, no.
Meh...one hand washes the other.
Quite.
I'm going to need a little more evidence than "Not much" and "Loads" regarding the influence of Evangelical politics in other nations before I can seriously address these comments.
OK then.

Cuba - Very secular state.
Sweden - The church there largely keeps out of politics and is very much reformed.
Thailand - The monkhood have a large amount of influence over the political scene.
Kenya - Christianity is very important as it keeps a lid on social unrest there, to an extent.
I'm being quite serious. A lot of it has little to do with politics. We've seen life expectancy increase dramatically in only the last 50 years. Previously, few lived long enough to see a significant increase in their own standard of living due to their own efforts. The problems we face regarding the potential insolvency of social programs is largely the result of the fact that we've never had to pay out the ass for the present before...just the future.
No, I think you've just correctly discounted it as a political matter, and rightly put it down to a massive increase in life expectancy - before the old didn't have much time to get a state pension, nowadays, they have quite a lot of time to do so.
We're seeing now that it's damn near impossible to pay for both without cutting back somewhere. Except we're not cutting back...not significantly, and certainly not in the areas where we ought to be, and definetly not to the degree necessary to solve these problems, at least not yet.
Not much is going to solve this, and schools sure as hell aren't going to have a "hurrah for teenage pregnancy" section of Citizenship, or whatever you guys call it (where you learn that DRUGS ARE BAD, SMOKING IS BAD, UNPROTECTED SEX IS BAD, DON'T DRINK OVERMUCH, etc.), which is what might actually sort the problem out, by having enough people of a working age to support everyone old in the next 20-30 years.
Britain payed for the military equipment it recieved. It totalled less than $5 billion dollars over 50 years....chump change by todays spending standards.
Plus we gave quite a bit of territory there.
If you're about to about to claim that the UK payed the entire military budget of the U.S. from 1941 to 1945, you're going to need more than a "Cheers" to prove your point.
The US military budget from 1941 to 1945 wasn't paid for by us, no, it was paid for by the Japanese, who gave a staggering amount of land and money after the war.
True enough, but I think you'll find far less of it among the young, and certainly far more of it among those who've been alive since before WWII.
Probably. Still needs to be sorted out.
I didn't say depression, I said recession...there is a difference.

I happen to think that regardless of the degree, such an event would be good for the nation in the long-term.

That doesn't mean it won't suck in the short term.
One thing will lead to the other.
As for the extremists...perhaps we ought to have a mess like that to clean up at home for once...it'll help keep us from blundering about the rest of the world.
Erm, that's exactly what the US doesn't need - an excuse to have people like Blackwater out on the streets 'keeping order'. Foreign policy is not going to change because of a depression.

and they don't dress up in sportswear and rob people.

As opposed to who?

The US military budget from 1941 to 1945 wasn't paid for by us, no, it was paid for by the Japanese, who gave a staggering amount of land and money after the war.

The US military budget was paid for by US citizens purchasing "Liberty Bonds", a mountain of debt paper which was paid off in surprisingly short order by raising the top income tax bracket to a 95% rate (inspired John Lennon's line "That's one for you, nineteen for me..." when the Beatles started making money in the US and were horrified at how little they could keep). Back then, you see, the super-rich and the Republican party agreed with the concept of fiscal responsibility, and eliminating indebtedness rapidly.

Anyone who is an idealist after 30 is an idiot

Younger voters believe that everything is free and that there are no consequences to any of their actions (thus the Seattle Riots)

Uh...you're gonna have to explain that. There were consequences for those who were arrested. Other than that, what was supposed to happen?

Yeah, without the sixty extra electoral votes Bush got (as compared to forty-two for Gore), he would have lost in 2000.

If by "got", you meant "stole", then yes.

Por que? I was speaking of Mike Huckabee, who is the second youngest, after Obama.

Oh, ok. My bad. I misread that.

As much as I don't really like it, this statement is true. Medicare in the US is $440, or 16% of the budget, and another $492 billion (about 18%) is going into social security, $295 billion (about 11%) to medicaid (this cost is diffused to states as well as the federal government), totalling in about 45% in these programs alone. Now these programs don't benefit the elderly solely, but the elderly are the main beneficiaries of these programs. These are only the major programs which mainly benefit the elderly. The elderly is approximately 13% of the population. The money doesn't match the numbers, and in politics money is what makes the world go around. So yes, the elderly are throwing a monkey wrench into the political situation in the US at least, and probably the world as large as well.

Anyone who is an idealist after 30 is an idiot

Younger voters believe that everything is free and that there are no consequences to any of their actions (thus the Seattle Riots)
Stupid old people and their idiotic truisms and generalizations. For the sake of the nation, please stop voting now.
This is why you fail, and by extension this thread fails. I refuse to believe anyone in the know supports Ron Paul.Congratulations on learning how to take quotes out of context. I suppose you can point me to a less hypocritical Republican candidate that has even the slightest awareness of the erosion of civil liberties?

Judging by both Obama and Clinton's previous hawkish comments, and the fact that an election doesn't change the people at the top of the military ladder, very little is going to change.Most of the policy-makers aren't military, and that's where the change is most needed - not in the weapon, but its wielders.

Rural and urban politics is still about entirely different issues, Not so much these days. Improved transportation and information infrastructure has resulted in more shared issues, and suburbia is increasingly supplanting both rural and urban modes of living.

and young and old voters still believe in very much radical theories for the young, and more mainstream conservative politics for the old.From one perspective. As I see it, young voters are more attuned to the obsolescence of formerly relevant but still mainstream issues than are old voters.

So war es und so wird es immer sein. Everywhere.The only thing that has always been and ever will be is change.

Yeah, yeah, you're completely right.

Ron Paul's campaign is doing great due to the Paulbots, and Facebook has an incredible impact on the way things are going with those who actually vote, ie middle-aged women, the young and the old, right?

Oh, no wait, Paul's campaign is utterly fucked, and very few who would vote for Ron Paul would do so because of his internet-base campaign, and those turned off by it wouldn't vote libertarian anyway, nobody's opinion has changed due to watching some poorly-cut and directed video on Youtube, nor due to some 'inspiring commentary' on the elections on Facebook.
1) The Internet turned a kooky fringe candidate into somebody who the media paid attention to and who got more votes than John McCain in Alaska.
2) Barack Obama's candidacy is solely due to the existence of youtube so people can view his speeches, and his campaign relies on social networking on the Internet, be it on his site for organizational purposes, or myspace/facebook for free advertisement purposes.

I like old people. They tend to vote Tory, they don't tend to like reality television, and they don't dress up in sportswear and rob people.
Haha Britain - your country is seriously fucked.
As opposed to who?I think it's the "chavs". Seriously, I don't understand why the scary people in hoodies don't just knock out all the CCTV cameras. And I don't understand why regular people don't carry around concealed weapons to defend themselves regardless of what the law is. Why wouldn't the happy slappers just get happily shot in the face in return? Maybe I'm just getting a media-distorted image of your country.

Stupid old people and their idiotic truisms and generalizations. For the sake of the nation, please stop voting now.

So, any one who does not vote the way you do is to be disenfranchised?

Want some psychiatric 'treatment' for us as well?

As far as Seattle, many young idiots think it is cool to smash businesses and getting arrested means nothing because we cannot afford to put wankers like you in jail

Want to know what happens when then youth are given real power over their elders? Do a little research into Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge

Or maybe not, they may just provide you with inspiration

So, any one who does not vote the way you do is to be disenfranchised?

Want some psychiatric 'treatment' for us as well?

As far as Seattle, many young idiots think it is cool to smash businesses and getting arrested means nothing because we cannot afford to put wankers like you in jail

Want to know what happens when then youth are given real power over their elders? Do a little research into Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge

Or maybe not, they may just provide you with inspiration
You're only perpetuating my perception that old people tend to stereotype more and make blanket generalizations based on isolated incidents. I'm afraid I'm starting to catch your contagious bigotry. I don't require that you be disenfranchised (although what are you being disenfranchised from if you're voting so blindly?). I only ask that you educate yourself instead of making decisions entirely based on flawed preconceptions.

Most of the policy-makers aren't military, and that's where the change is most needed - not in the weapon, but its wielders.
Can't ignore the military's opinion, especially when they're the most powerful one in the world, with quite a lot of armed backing in the general public, too.
Not so much these days. Improved transportation and information infrastructure has resulted in more shared issues, and suburbia is increasingly supplanting both rural and urban modes of living.
No, not really.

Farmers want to improve their lives, city-dwellers theirs, and there is often a conflict of interest between the two.
From one perspective. As I see it, young voters are more attuned to the obsolescence of formerly relevant but still mainstream issues than are old voters.
Yes, but you're wrong.
The only thing that has always been and ever will be is change.
I don't see the young and the old changing how they vote any time soon.
1) The Internet turned a kooky fringe candidate into somebody who the media paid attention to and who got more votes than John McCain in Alaska.
No, it didn't.

His racist background and libertarian policies are what attracted the media to him. What made him win in Alaska was probably the crab fishermen, who don't like the taxes put upon them, nor the new style of fishing which shares everything out equally, instead of the old system in which what they caught was theirs for the keeping.
2) Barack Obama's candidacy is solely due to the existence of youtube so people can view his speeches, and his campaign relies on social networking on the Internet, be it on his site for organizational purposes, or myspace/facebook for free advertisement purposes.
No, you're wrong.

His candidacy is due to him being young and black enough to get a different kind of voter to the booths than the people who voted in Bush, as well as his personal charisma which helps the Democrats out quite a lot.
Haha Britain - your country is seriously fucked.
Not really, no.
I think it's the "chavs". Seriously, I don't understand why the scary people in hoodies don't just knock out all the CCTV cameras. And I don't understand why regular people don't carry around concealed weapons to defend themselves regardless of what the law is. Why wouldn't the happy slappers just get happily shot in the face in return? Maybe I'm just getting a media-distorted image of your country.
You're quite right. On the last point.

This whole "chavs" thing is just middle-aged, middle-class people and their insipid children essentially trying to make being poor illegal.

"Chavs can fuck off and die" is the kind of thing I hear quite often at York College, and it's not exactly helping anyone, especially when these people aren't really doing anything other than hanging around talking with regional accents and wearing caps indoors.

There's the odd bit of violence (and it really is the odd bit), but that's true of bored young males everywhere in the world, and when people come crying to the Students Union office to complain that they've been punched in the face after telling some "chavs" that the pool table was rightfully theirs, despite not actually paying for a game of pool, and basically getting extremely uppity and holier-than-thou with these people, then I get a bit pissed off, really. Not that I say that to their faces, but there we go.

You're only perpetuating my perception that old people tend to stereotype more and make blanket generalizations based on isolated incidents. I'm afraid I'm starting to catch your contagious bigotry. I don't require that you be disenfranchised (although what are you being disenfranchised from if you're voting so blindly?). I only ask that you educate yourself instead of making decisions entirely based on flawed preconceptions.
Oh man, the irony.

"You're only perpetuating my perception that old people tend to stereotype more and make blanket generalisations based on isolated incidents"?

Yes, because that's exactly what you're not doing?

We need to stop those damn kids from skating on the sidewalk!!!:mad:

No, not really.

Farmers want to improve their lives, city-dwellers theirs, and there is often a conflict of interest between the two.Yes really. The urban-rural divide used to be HUGE in this country - it was the dominant conflict in politics shortly after the nation's founding, but now its mainly reduced to a tug-of-war over funding here and there. None of the push-button political issues these days intrinsically hinge upon the the urban-rural divide.

No, it didn't.

His racist background and libertarian policies are what attracted the media to him.
Wrong. The fact that Serenity and V for Vendetta fans donated him a buttload of cash is what drew media attention to him. Racism and libertarianism among fringe candidates isn't news. Racism and libertarianism among candidates that raise 6 million on a single day is.

What made him win in Alaska was probably the crab fishermen, who don't like the taxes put upon them, nor the new style of fishing which shares everything out equally, instead of the old system in which what they caught was theirs for the keeping.As an employee of the Commercial Fisheries Division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, I can verify that you have no idea what you're talking about. And if even if you did, I doubt that crab fishermen pissed about fishery management would have had any sway in the caucus considering that crab fisherman constitute a small minority of Alaskans.

No, you're wrong.

His candidacy is due to him being young and black enough to get a different kind of voter to the booths than the people who voted in Bush, as well as his personal charisma which helps the Democrats out quite a lot.Your racism aside, how the fuck do you think so many democrats know about his blackness and charisma? THE INTERNET

Stupid old people and their idiotic truisms and generalizations. For the sake of the nation, please stop voting now.

This is supposed to be ironic, right? The way you accuse an entire demographic group of making generalizations?

SHHHH DON"T TELL ANYBODY

Just checking. I have a hard enough time telling when people are joking in real life; the absence of facial expressions and body language here only makes it more difficult.

This is supposed to be ironic, right? The way you accuse an entire demographic group of making generalizations?
SHHHH DON"T TELL ANYBODY