[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2018-February-22, 12:32, said:

FWIW, I would prefer a system that removed the franchise from folks once they - say - hit 70 and extended it to 16 year olds to the one that we have today

For me, the major arguments in favor of restricting the franchise are

1. Planning horizon
2. Obsolete mental models
3. Declining mental function

Here is a key difference, for this discussion, between 16 and 70.

Someone who is 40 expects, or at least hopes, that he will someday be 70. He does not expect to someday be 16, even if he did see Peggy Sue Got Married. There is thus no way in hell that we will be voting to exclude 70 year-olds from voting. Perhaps you are willing to agree to give up your vote when you are 70, perhaps Cherdano is, but imagine it being put to a popular vote. It might get 27 votes. I don't mean 27%, I mean 27 votes.
It won't happen.

I think we almost octogenarians bring a few things to the table. For one thing, we are very aware that at times in the past we have been wrong. But another thing, for those of us who have had a good life, we really do hope we can help to pass along a prosperous and secure country to future generations.

I recognize that I do not always see things clearly. I also recognize that people who see things differently from me might have a few blind spots of their own.

[y66]

Following up on winstonm's comment on Linda Belcher's 68:32 win in a Kentucky district Trump carried by 50 points, Greg Sargent at WaPo discusses the Trump effect and factors driving these wins with Jessica Post, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, including

Quote

The Beltway and Twittersphere are consumed with debates over whether Democrats should or should not be speaking directly to anti-Trump anger, or whether their failure to more directly attack Trump’s tax plan is helping it (and Trump himself) edge up in popularity. But Post tells me that these candidates are mostly “campaigning on hyper-local issues.”

[Al_U_Card]

 RedSpawn, on 2018-February-22, 09:08, said:

Source: http://www.scmp.com/...nal-nail-coffin



Sounds like Britain and the U.S. share a similar problem but in America we have the luxury of our central bank expanding our money supply by $4 trillion ($4,000,000,000,000) and keeping key interest rates artificially low since the 2008 housing bubble to make it appear that our economic recovery and wealth is long-term.

Bang on. The U$ is a mighty weapon. We are the target and not the beneficiary...
As for the other issue, same age to vote, drink, get married, go to war etc. No age restriction because experience counts whether you like or agree with the other guy's. Your rights and theirs are linked.

[cherdano]

Oh dear. Obviously I knew what I wrote would be provocative, but I did think it was fairly obvious to anyone who has given this serious thought. I mean, it's the proverbial "racist uncle" and not the "racist nephew" for a reason. Or, to take sexism as an example - the most sexist demographic are obviously old men. On many topics (e.g. expectations around childcare), the second-most sexist demographic isn't middle-aged or young men, it's old women.

The quote that amazed me the most was this:

Quote

I think we almost octogenarians bring a few things to the table. For one thing, we are very aware that at times in the past we have been wrong.

Ken, if your octogenarian friends are, on average, more likely to change their minds, or admit they were wrong, than the average person in their 20s, you have an amazing circle of friends!

 kenberg, on 2018-February-22, 12:47, said:

Here is a key difference, for this discussion, between 16 and 70.

Someone who is 40 expects, or at least hopes, that he will someday be 70. He does not expect to someday be 16, even if he did see Peggy Sue Got Married. There is thus no way in hell that we will be voting to exclude 70 year-olds from voting.

I wasn't suggesting to take the franchise away from anyone. But I actually agree with your difference. Consider the following two policy suggestions: a mandatory year of social service after high school, and a mandatory year of social service as you begin retirement (to qualify for your state pension, say). Now, I happen to think that both are extremely awful policy ideas. (I've lived through the former, as an alternative to military service; suffice to say that I could write long posts about it.) For some reason, the former idea (taking away the liberty of every 18-year old for one year for marginal and debatable benefits) is inexplicably popular in polite society. But the latter would be politically dead even before arrival because you would have to justify to voters who would be affected by it. If you propose the former, you should also have to justify it in front of some voters who will be affected by it. (And don't get me started on how long of a process it was in Germany to get rid of conscription, long after the military was clear that it wasn't any useful to them.)

Or consider climate change. If you ask US voters the question "would you be in favour of greenhouse gas regulations if it cost 20$ per month in your energy bill", the answer depends significantly on the age group (almost as much as on partisan affiliation). Well it's completely rational for a 70-year old to be less willing to make trade-offs that will pay off in 30-40 years. But it means that a political system that disenfranchises 16-year olds but doesn't disenfranchise 70-year olds will have a significant bias towards off-loading costs into the future.

So you would need a very strong case to disenfranchise 16-year old, i.e. that their decision-making is significantly worse than those of 40-year olds or 70-year olds. I don't see it. It's worth remembering that most voters make fairly uninformed decisions. But democracy only has a chance of working if everyone has a chance of making that uninformed decision, and of slightly tipping the political process towards taking their own views interests into account.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2018-February-22, 18:56, said:

Oh dear. Obviously I knew what I wrote would be provocative, but I did think it was fairly obvious to anyone who has given this serious thought. I mean, it's the proverbial "racist uncle" and not the "racist nephew" for a reason. Or, to take sexism as an example - the most sexist demographic are obviously old men. On many topics (e.g. expectations around childcare), the second-most sexist demographic isn't middle-aged or young men, it's old women.

The quote that amazed me the most was this:

Ken, if your octogenarian friends are, on average, more likely to change their minds, or admit they were wrong, than the average person in their 20s, you have an amazing circle of friends!


I wasn't suggesting to take the franchise away from anyone. But I actually agree with your difference. Consider the following two policy suggestions: a mandatory year of social service after high school, and a mandatory year of social service as you begin retirement (to qualify for your state pension, say). Now, I happen to think that both are extremely awful policy ideas. (I've lived through the former, as an alternative to military service; suffice to say that I could write long posts about it.) For some reason, the former idea (taking away the liberty of every 18-year old for one year for marginal and debatable benefits) is inexplicably popular in polite society. But the latter would be politically dead even before arrival because you would have to justify to voters who would be affected by it. If you propose the former, you should also have to justify it in front of some voters who will be affected by it. (And don't get me started on how long of a process it was in Germany to get rid of conscription, long after the military was clear that it wasn't any useful to them.)

Or consider climate change. If you ask US voters the question "would you be in favour of greenhouse gas regulations if it cost 20$ per month in your energy bill", the answer depends significantly on the age group (almost as much as on partisan affiliation). Well it's completely rational for a 70-year old to be less willing to make trade-offs that will pay off in 30-40 years. But it means that a political system that disenfranchises 16-year olds but doesn't disenfranchise 70-year olds will have a significant bias towards off-loading costs into the future.

So you would need a very strong case to disenfranchise 16-year old, i.e. that their decision-making is significantly worse than those of 40-year olds or 70-year olds. I don't see it. It's worth remembering that most voters make fairly uninformed decisions. But democracy only has a chance of working if everyone has a chance of making that uninformed decision, and of slightly tipping the political process towards taking their own views interests into account.

You did not suggest disenfranchising the old.You compared the cases. I might disagree with the comparison, but that's all that it was. Richard seemed to be advocating disenfranchisement in later years. But I am pretty confident he also agrees that it would be a non-starter. Anyway I was primarily addressing him.


As to this year of social service. I have thought about this from time to time and in my opinion if it is to be imposed on anyone (and I agree that it should not be) then it should be imposed on people of my age, but of course only if they have adequate means for their own support. Young people need to be preparing for their own careers, my career is largely over. I think you are no longer in the US and I am not sure how much detail you know, but in many high schools students are required to do "community service" as part of a graduation requirement. I think it is a horrible idea for many reasons. I have seen several cases up reasonably close and most of it borders on fraud. But it is also not the purpose of a school. Student's circumstances vary widely. In the school I went to one girl was working very substantial hours, much of her earnings helping to support her family. Others are in one parent families with young children and have responsibilities beyond what a young person should have. And even when this doesn't apply, I think we need to let people see if they would like to help their community rather than have it be a box that needs to be checked to get a diploma. To require this for graduations seems wrong, to require a year of community service after graduation seems horribly wrong. A military draft can, at times, be justified by the needs of self-defense. Perhaps after a major disaster it is right to tell people that extraordinary circumstances require some sort of mandatory service. But these things should be few and far between.

Just when an adult's right to vote should be taken away is a tough question. Probably so tough that perhaps the practical answer should be never. Suppose I have Alzheimer's and am not sure who I am, let alone who my Senator is. I shouldn't be voting. But it needs to be something like that, and the need for caution is so substantial that I almost think we need to let the demented vote just so that we do not have to get into the issue of who is demented and who isn't. I agree that in some cases it is clear, I suppose I support some instances of disenfranchisement, but drawing the border is tough.

Any case for having 16 year-olds vote has to be made without reference to how they would vote. Some of what you said has the flavor of "Mid-teens tend to agree with me so obviously they are more qualified to vote than are the old farts who disagree with me". I favor not having 16 year-olds vote, regardless of how they would go. At 16 parents are often still supervising who their youngster can date and when they have to be home. Parents are sometimes choosing the college, even the major, for their kids. Not in my case, but in many cases. As a college prof I was stunned to see parents come in on behalf of their (usually embarrassed) kids. Such parental involvement stopped somewhere around fourth grade in my family. At some point we say to the young: You are now an adult, making your own choices. That's a good voting age. 18 sounds fine to me. Actually it's a bit young, but it's what we have and I am ok with it.

[Cyberyeti]

 cherdano, on 2018-February-22, 18:56, said:

Oh dear. Obviously I knew what I wrote would be provocative, but I did think it was fairly obvious to anyone who has given this serious thought. I mean, it's the proverbial "racist uncle" and not the "racist nephew" for a reason. Or, to take sexism as an example - the most sexist demographic are obviously old men. On many topics (e.g. expectations around childcare), the second-most sexist demographic isn't middle-aged or young men, it's old women.

Actually I find the most racist demographic in the UK is the twentysomethings and thirtysomethings in places like the medway towns where they feel that "their jobs" are being done by Eastern Europeans. The fact that the Eastern Europeans might actually have gone to school and listened has little bearing on this in their minds.

[Winstonm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-February-23, 04:31, said:

Actually I find the most racist demographic in the UK is the twentysomethings and thirtysomethings in places like the medway towns where they feel that "their jobs" are being done by Eastern Europeans. The fact that the Eastern Europeans might actually have gone to school and listened has little bearing on this in their minds.

Keep in mind racism is a learned behavior. I doubt these people are more racist than whoever it was that taught them to hate - only more outspoken.

[jjbrr]

 Winstonm, on 2018-February-23, 09:03, said:

Keep in mind racism is a learned behavior. I doubt these people are more racist than whoever it was that taught them to hate - only more outspoken.

[citation needed]

studies suggest even infants prefer their own race.

[barmar]

 jjbrr, on 2018-February-23, 09:18, said:

[citation needed]

studies suggest even infants prefer their own race.

Yes, the capacity to distinguish "us" from "them" and prefer the former is an ancient survival mechanism. "Them" was more likely to be a warring tribe trying to take your stuff away from you. And the most obvious way to distinguish is from appearance.

But racism also goes beyond just "us" and "them". Studies have also shown that in white societies, even black people have more subconscious fear of black people then white people. This is more likely to be a learned from the way black people are portrayed in media -- a black guy on TV is more likely to be a criminal than one of the good guys.

However, these are just small biases, and our higher brain functions allow us to override these instinctual tendencies. Infants also ***** in their pants, but we learn not to do this as we grow. Where the "teaching" comes in is in whether this tendency is reinforced or curbed. Being exposed to more diversity, and viewing it as normal, helps with the latter. Society has been on a generally more inclusive and tolerant trend for centuries, with more rights for blacks, women, gays, trans, disabled, etc.

This is why the younger generations are generally less discriminatory than their predecessors -- they don't just pick up what their parents did, they also learn from peer groups and the media.

But denying the vote to elderly people because they're more likely to be racist would simply be wrong. Every demographic group has some biases, we can't legislate which biases should disenfranchise them. It's bad enough that we have gerrymandering.

[jjbrr]

 barmar, on 2018-February-23, 10:39, said:

our higher brain functions allow us to override these instinctual tendencies

absolutely, god wouldn't have created us any other way. we're perfect.

[Winstonm]

 jjbrr, on 2018-February-23, 09:18, said:

[citation needed]

studies suggest even infants prefer their own race.

I don't think that constitutes racism, at least not as I understand racism. To me, racism is the teaching that other persons are less human or less important due to their differences. Cognition is required for racism, IMO.

In the animal world - of which humans are part - the young must be able to distinguish its own kind in order to survive. So it is not clear to me that the results of testing human infants displays bigotry tendencies rather than discriminatory preference.

[jjbrr]

 Winstonm, on 2018-February-23, 11:19, said:

I don't think that constitutes racism, at least not as I understand racism. To me, racism is the teaching that other persons are less human or less important due to their differences. Cognition is required for racism, IMO.

In the animal world - of which humans are part - the young must be able to distinguish its own kind in order to survive. So it is not clear to me that the results of testing human infants displays bigotry tendencies rather than discriminatory preference.

The fact that racism in some form or another has existed throughout the entirety of human history suggests to me that it's more than just something that kids pick up from their parents as they get older.

[Winstonm]

 jjbrr, on 2018-February-23, 11:40, said:

The fact that racism in some form or another has existed throughout the entirety of human history suggests to me that it's more than just something that kids pick up from their parents as they get older.

It doesn't have to be parents. It could be the culture, peers, leaders, religion, or any combination of those. Could it be you (or me) are confusing racism with bigotry or prejudice? Here is something I found to help with just that question:

Quote

Are prejudice, bigotry, and racism the same thing?
No. And this is a HUGE source of misunderstanding.

Prejudice is when a person negatively pre-judges another person or group without getting to know the beliefs, thoughts, and feelings behind their words and actions. A person of any racial group can be prejudiced towards a person of any other racial group. There is no power dynamic involved.

Bigotry is stronger than prejudice, a more severe mindset and often accompanied by discriminatory behavior. It’s arrogant and mean-spirited, but requires neither systems nor power to engage in. So, we can conclude that throughout history prejudice has been on display but not always have bigotry and racism followed.

Racism is the system that allows the racial group that’s already in power to retain power. Since arriving on U.S. soil white people have used their power to create preferential access to survival resources (housing, education, jobs, food, health, legal protection, etc.) for white people while simultaneously impeding people of color’s access to these same resources.Though "reverse racism" is a term I sometimes hear, it has never existed in America. White people are the only racial group to have ever established and retained power in the United States.

If we assume these definitions correct, we would say that the infants displayed prejudice for their own kind and against others based on skin color.

It appears to me that unless cognition is developed - at least using these definitions - neither bigotry nor racism can be developed.

[jjbrr]

I guess we'll have to disagree. I read "preferential access to survival resources" as instinctual rather than learned.

[jjbrr]

To be clear, Rick Gates will plead down to conspiracy against the United States of America. Lordy.

[Winstonm]

 jjbrr, on 2018-February-23, 11:57, said:

I guess we'll have to disagree. I read "preferential access to survival resources" as instinctual rather than learned.

I don't know if it is a disagreement unless you think discrimination, bigotry, and racism are all the same. We may be talking past each other rather than to each other.

[jjbrr]

Quote

Former Trump campaign aide Richard W. Gates III is expected to plead guilty today to conspiracy and lying about a 2013 Ukraine-related meeting between his former business partner Paul Manafort, a lobbyist and California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Moscow).

That's how you know we're family.

[Winstonm]

"I will only hire the best people..."

Papadopoulos(guilty), Flynn(guilty), Gates(guilty), Manafort(???)....

[Winstonm]

And this is pretty interesting:

Quote

Seth Waxman, now a partner specializing in white-collar crime in Dickinson Wright’s Washington office, has a theory of Mueller’s case, which requires no novel reading of existing law to find Trump broke it. It employs the main weapon any federal prosecutor uses to police public corruption. It is Title 18 United States Code, section 201 that specifically makes it a crime for a public official to take “anything of value,” a bribe, in exchange for government action, which can be prospective.

Note that above I wrote “public official.” That’s because the law is generally wielded against public officials. Problem: Mueller is investigating conduct before Trump became one. Enter Waxman. He points out that in 1962, Congress extended the bribery law to cover activity prior to the assumption of office. It did so, he says, in order to close a “loophole” afforded those “who assume public office under a corrupt commitment.” The upshot? Trump became covered by 18 USC not when he was sworn in but as of July 21, 2016 when he became his party’s nominee in Cleveland, Ohio.

What we know of Mueller’s strategy so far is consistent with leveling charges under the bribery statute. This is not to say Mueller is going to indict Trump. He would need an exception from a Justice Department rule, which advises against it. But neither is he likely to send a report laying out grounds for impeachment as former independent counsel Ken Starr did against Bill Clinton relying solely on perjury and obstruction of justice without a finding of an underlying crime.

This would mean any promise of quid pro quo that occurred from July 21, 2016 until the January 2017 inauguration could still be criminally charged.

[hrothgar]

BREAKING: New Mueller charges against former Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort:

Conspiracy

Money Laundering

Foreign lobbying charges

Causing another to mislead Mueller probe in 2016 and Feb. 2017 - an allegation of obstructive actions while Trump was in office