If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain
We actually get dumber as we age and lose critical thinking ability and the ability to reason. The human brain typically reaches it's peak between the ages of 21-25.
We actually get dumber as we age and lose critical thinking ability and the ability to reason. The human brain typically reaches it's peak between the ages of 21-25.
We actually get dumber as we age and lose critical thinking ability and the ability to reason. The human brain typically reaches it's peak between the ages of 21-25.
Yep, I'm actually shocked at how badly my dad's critical-thinking and reasoning skills have declined at age 73. It's no wonder he laps up everything Fox News tells him.
I know this isn’t what most are saying here (although I’ve read some members advocating for it in the past) but it would be horrible to take away voting rights for people after, say, age 70. They’ve paid a lot of taxes over the years, are often more engaged than younger people, and are often some of the smartest people around.
The Following User Says Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
I know this isn’t what most are saying here (although I’ve read some members advocating for it in the past) but it would be horrible to take away voting rights for people after, say, age 70. They’ve paid a lot of taxes over the years, are often more engaged than younger people, and are often some of the smartest people around.
Let’s base it on general intellectual ability then. And since testing isn’t possible, let’s just set an arbitrary limit.
12/80? So voting age gets lowered to 12 and caps out at 80. I’d say mental capacity is about equal in those scenarios, on average, IMO.
Or is ageism only ok against the young? Who actually are affected long term by the votes placed by the elderly.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Logan’s Run had it right. Mandatory retirement at what, 65 or 70? Perfect. Get your old ass out of Washington. Still lets those geriatrics work until everyone else does so quit your crying. Also term limits really really need to be a thing for congress. Supreme Court as well, lifetime appointments are for theocracies.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
As I've noted previously, I (as a shock to no one) mingle in some *very* left leaning circles. This is probably (outside of Twitter, "stare into the void" ventures into Voat and Gab, and random Facebook articles) the most centrist/right-wing space I communicate with on a frequent basis.
I do not identify as a "radical leftist", regardless of my reputation here, and in these other circles I am significantly more center than a good portion of the posters. That said, after discussing this video with a notable amount of self-identifying socialists/communists, this video did resonate.
There are those that have written off the entire system entirely due to the oligarchical nature of the US and the general belief that only "revolution" will change the system, but for many who want to see affected change from within, this video spoke their language, from a person whose comedic opinion they do not distrust. It was exactly the kind of video that would push more ambivalent leftists to consider voting.
And this is effectively the crux of it, and the problem with centrism in the US. You identify more with a group you (in theory) would find morally reprehensible in most contexts from a social standpoint, but hold your nose to share their content and pat them on the back for their output because you share a common goal (their intentions and post-election interests notwithstanding). Leftists however, you do not choose to identify with at all. There is a handwaving of appreciation for their "nobility" and "purity of purpose", but no acknowledgement that you (I assume) very much share many of their social desires.
How sad is it that you will be more humane and welcoming to a group that opposes your base ideals because they have money, power and a slick ad campaign, and dismiss the crass, grassroots attempts at achieving the same thing (ousting Trump), even though you have more in common politically with that group.
If you don't believe there is a merit to engaging or understanding leftists to try and help you achieve your goal, but it's okay to reach across the aisle because they "speak your language", you are the embodiment of why there is so much disillusionment and cynicism about the Democratic Party.
Let’s base it on general intellectual ability then. And since testing isn’t possible, let’s just set an arbitrary limit.
12/80? So voting age gets lowered to 12 and caps out at 80. I’d say mental capacity is about equal in those scenarios, on average, IMO.
Or is ageism only ok against the young? Who actually are affected long term by the votes placed by the elderly.
I think it's a slippery slope because brain development and deterioration isn't necessarily linear or predictable. Things like genetics and how well you look after yourself play a huge role. It's a huge generalization.
I also think it's something that has the potential to change in the future as well. People are taking better care of themselves and exercising their brains into later years more than they used to in previous generations, while younger people seem to be less independent than older generations used to be. When I was 18, almost everyone left the nest. Nowadays, young people seem to be delaying that progression, which I think might have an impact on how quickly they mature. If you make a law right now, it could be difficult to change in the future.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 10-16-2020 at 03:09 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
When I was 18, almost everyone left the nest. Nowadays, young people seem to be delaying that progression, which I think might have an impact on how quickly they mature. If you make a law right now, it could be difficult to change in the future.
People are staying at home later now because those old people voted in politicians that made it harder and harder to leave lol.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
I think it's a slippery slope because brain development and deterioration isn't necessarily linear or predictable. Things like genetics and how well you look after yourself play a huge role. It's a huge generalization.
I also think it's something that has the potential to change in the future as well. People are taking better care of themselves and exercising their brains into later years more than they used to in previous generations, while younger people seem to be less independent than older generations used to be. When I was 18, almost everyone left the nest. Nowadays, young people seem to be delaying that progression, which I think might have an impact on how quickly they mature. If you make a law right now, it could be difficult to change in the future.
For sure, I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of not wanting an age limit but being in favour of an age minimum based on zero evidence except old people don’t trust young people.
That's a margin of 4.4% percent...that would be above CNN's margin of error for instance.
Again when your margins of errors are so high, and you can't even meet them, what's the point of the polls, when just a 2% shift in popular vote can shift an election completely? You can't predict that a candidate has an 80% change of winning in multiple swing states, and then to be wrong on all of them and pretend to show that the polls still work.
That's why I am stating, polls are meaningless and less accurate each year due to the lack of good data and the choice in how the polling method happens. Obviously pollsters want to explain why these polls are still accuratea and correct, because the premise of accurate polls is how they make money and build a reputation.
I know I have never been polled in my life, have any of you? And I vote every year at every level.
I don't fit the pollster narrative.
Look you are not alone in this because there is tons of misinformation out there but your posts in this thread reveal that you don’t understand how to interpret polls at all.
Start with the margin of error: the margin of error does not apply to the margin between the candidates, but to each candidate’s vote share.
So for instance if a result was Clinton 44 and Trump 40 for a margin of +4 and the margin of error is +/- 2.5%, that result is within the margin of error. And once out of 20 or so times the result is wrong OUTSIDE the margin of error. So you have to look at polls as one piece of information that gives you a snapshot of vote intentions among a subgroup that can be analogized to predict the election outcome if it were held on the same day as the poll.
The predictive value of polls increases when they are aggregated and averaged, but only to the extent that the “error” that naturally occurs in every poll is random. When errors all go in the same direction there is a risk that the average will be off in that same direction. That would happen where, for instance, there is widespread polling error that happens for the same reason.
Now as rubecube pointed out the narrative that 2016 polls were “wrong” is WAY overblown. Polls in 2016 on an overall basis were no more wrong than in any other election. What happened was two things:
1. The election was very close, which means that even a small polling error can tip the outcome one way or the other.
2. There was a uniform polling “error” in just three states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, which was at the outer reaches of the MOE (but within it; see above how to read the MOE). That error was not random but was the result of not weighting te responses by education. Non-college educated white voters backed Trump by huge margins, but people with college degrees are more likely to answer polls, so that fact caused the polls to be “off” in some of the demographically whitest states (Iowa was another one but less notorious because Trump winning wasn’t a surprise, just that he won by 9 instead of 2 or 3 points).
Another factor was two widely disliked candidates and high numbers of undecided voters up to Election Day, who in large part broke Trump’s way—and that may have had something to do with the Comey letter.
All of that added up to a bit of a perfect storm for Trump. And even with ALL of that going his way, he still barely won. He won those three states by the slimmest of margins in an election with historically low turnout.
Virtually NONE of those things are true today. There are very few undecided voters and Biden is polling above 50% in many states, something Clinton really never did. Turnout looks like it will be incredibly high—over 20 million have already voted and Election Day is still more than 2 weeks away. Some are forecasting turnout of 155-160 million—compared to just 138 million in 2016.
Lastly, pollsters are now largely weighting their samples for education, such that they model an electorate that reflects the education levels of expected likely voters.
Now, could the polls still be wrong? Sure. But here is the thing: it’s equally likely that they are wrong the other way, and that Biden will actually over perform them as it is that he will underperform them. And a polling error the size of the one in 2016 would not be enough to save Trump this time—unless the race tightens between now and Nov 3 it would have to be an absolutely HUGE and UNIFORM polling error the likes of which have not been seen before—not even in the infamous Dewey v Truman election.
To sum up: stop invoking 2016 as a reason not to trust polls. That narrative is wrong, for the above reasons and about a hundred others I’m not smart enough to explain.
The Following 25 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
I know I have never been polled in my life, have any of you?
Been polled four times this cycle. Once by the Trump campaign, once by Arizona Democrats, once by Trafalgar, and once by Gravis. So the majority of polling has been by the Republicans or Trump affiliated interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Also polls can't accurately predict voter turnout.
"Who will you vote for"
"Will you vote"
Does that person actually vote?
While this is a true statement, it is also not telling the whole story about how voting models work. When projections are done they use what are called Turnout Tables, that are based on historical data from past elections. These help determine to what level projections are made based on projected voter turnout, which comes from polling data, registration data, and new voter registration data. Used in conjunction they can predict very accurately what is going to happen during periods of voting. What they can't predict is last second surprises or interference that may sway the feelings of voters and drive people away from the polls. A perfect example of this, an event that had a massive impact on the last cycle, James Comey's last second announcement of Clinton's emails being further investigated. Can we expect another last second outside influence that will rock the models? We'll see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Yep, I'm actually shocked at how badly my dad's critical-thinking and reasoning skills have declined at age 73. It's no wonder he laps up everything Fox News tells him.
The problem is they draw in older viewers by appealing to their most base values. Then they start pouring on the propaganda and scare tactics that hit these people right in the amygdala, scaring the #### out of them and flooding their brain with cortisol and adrenaline. This is called amygdala hijacking and is how you quickly brainwash someone. Cortisol is addictive, and once hooked it changes your brain chemistry and turns you into an emotional mess. Worse, it affects your health as it prevents you from getting sleep, gives you cravings for things that are bad for you, and breaks down your immune system. So when you look at your father and see a bit of a raving loon, it is because of his brain being flooded with cortisol. Don't worry, this can all be easily reverse. Cancel his cable TV subscription and get him reading more, exercising that grey matter, and he will return to his normal self.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
The two biggest differences in polling between 2016 and this year are the fact there are far fewer undecideds, and that Biden has consistently been at or over 50% whereas Hillary rarely got there. And people actually like or at least respect Biden. Hillary only avoided the least liked candidate in history because Trump was more disliked.
You also cannot underestimate the weight of a disliked female candidate vs a disliked male candidate.
This is still a deeply racist and sexist country.
I've said for 4 years that a male candidate with the same qualifications and history as Clinton would have beat Trump. A male version of Hillary may not have won over a lot of voters, but likely would have been enough to beat Trump's razor thin margins in the midwest.
In other anecdotal news: I already returned my ballot here in PA, dropped it off last Tuesday, and then 24 hours later on Wednesday I got a confirmation email that it had been received. PA mail-in ballots aren't counted until election day, but it's nice to know mine is already in.
Yet another anecdote, just from being around the public in a reasonably red area of PA. There are far more people in my salon who are being vocally critical of Trump than in 2016. There are still some Trump apologists, of course, but it's a far more even mix this time around. Most clients in my chair have either said outright or implied that they have/plan to vote for Biden--though to be fair, I must give off solid Bleeding Heart Liberal vibes because I seem to have avoided/shed most conservative types.
I'm still nervous about this election and I will continue to be until it's over, but I'm less anxious about it than I was 4 years ago.
The Following 24 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
