Support NeoGAF

[WickedAngel]

Said by a man who made a living on stage, television, and screen telling fucking jokes. If he wasn't a prime example of the American dream alive and well I don't know what is.

The absurdity of the "American Dream" has nothing to do with his good fortune.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

Conservatives want to remain a dominantly white america. Liberals want cooperation.

Ran into a conservative old man korean war vet a few days ago, but he was eisenhower conservative. We had a fantastic conversation and he pretty much sounded like a liberal democrat. First republican I've ever encountered in real life that didn't seem racist, or at least didn't sling around the N word freely.

People in this thread say repubs don't want to spent, what fucking planet are you on? Not spending = don't want to spend on programs they don't like.

Man you must live in a shitty area or haven't met anyone in your life to make generalizations like that.

 

[mentalfloss]

Selfish financial reasons.

People don't vote for a peacefull and social country, but for their wallet.

Old or young, doesn't matter. Most people are fucking idiots anyway, no matter what they vote.

This is the correct answer.

 

[JB1981]

Because people get older, pay bills, invest money, own a home, have children, work hard, pay taxes and actually living life is much different than theorizing about how life is meant or ought to be. It's all well and good to be an idealist when you are in college and living off your parent's dime but when you get older, get married, have kids and start to deal with reality your point of view tends to change.

 

[mentalfloss]

Because people get older, pay bills, invest money, own a home, have children, work hard, pay taxes and actually living life is much different than theorizing about how life is meant or ought to be. It's all well and good to be an idealist when you are in college and living off your parent's dime but when you get older, get married, have kids and start to deal with reality your point of view tends to change.

Bullshit.

Married.
Have kids.
Have a job.
We live in a house.
We earned our way here.

And we both feel right now, conservatism isn't the right direction any democratic state should be taking. There has to be a proper balance of environmentalism and civil liberties. We wouldn't sacrifice the liberties of others for an extra penny in our wallet.

 

[Marleyman]

Because people get older, pay bills, invest money, own a home, have children, work hard, pay taxes and actually living life is much different than theorizing about how life is meant or ought to be. It's all well and good to be an idealist when you are in college and living off your parent's dime but when you get older, get married, have kids and start to deal with reality your point of view tends to change.

Hasn't really changed much for me.

 

[JB1981]

Bullshit.

Married.
Have kids.
Have a job.
We live in a house.
We earned our way here.

And we both feel right now, conservatism isn't the right direction any democratic state should be taking. There has to be a proper balance of environmentalism and civil liberties. We wouldn't sacrifice the liberties of others for an extra penny in our wallet.

OK, good for you but it is the case for many just not GAF, which is a far more insular community than this forum wants to believe.

 

[LosDaddie]

It's been the opposite trend for me, actually.

I grew up in a military house and community. So I was a pretty staunch conservative up until about 6yrs ago. I used to have a general disdain for pretty much all things govt related, except for the military, of course. In fact, I remember believing most on the same bullshit methos75 was spewing about the Clinton years. :lol

However, as I continued to work in the private sector (engineering & construction industry) after college, I began to realize how corrupt the business world actually is. The amount of corruption in the construction industry alone is sickening. Then, as I continued to be promoted within my company, I got to see how the "executive" side of businesses function and it wasn't pretty....for the workers below me, that is. Thus, after just a few years out in the "real world", any faith I had the free markets/capitalism was shattered. Man is a greedy creature, who will fuck you over at the first opportunity.

And I always thought having my own kid (almost 3yrs ago now) would make me 100% pro-life, but I've actually become more pro-choice since then. Raising my daughter has been amazing, but also very expensive and time consuming. I don't want anyone to go through that if they aren't ready. Having a kid also pushed me towards wanting a Public Option for our nation's healthcare.

So no, having "real life" experiences has actually pushed me to the Left as I've grown older. Nowadays, it amazes/frightens me how some people have so much faith in the free markets/capitalism. It's like they actually believe the AM radio/Fox News nutjobs. :lol


EDIT: I also never really bought into the Culture War nonsense, either. So that GOP platform never clicked with me. I dunno, I just have never felt that my faith (I'm a Christian) was under attack from the media/Hollywood/feminists/liberals/etc.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I remember reading once that the idea that we get "more conservative" as we get older is generally a false one, that people generally tend to vote for the same party that they first vote for over the course of their entire lives. Don't know how accurate that is, but it's an interesting bit of food for thought.

 

[markatisu]

Because people get older, pay bills, invest money, own a home, have children, work hard, pay taxes and actually living life is much different than theorizing about how life is meant or ought to be. It's all well and good to be an idealist when you are in college and living off your parent's dime but when you get older, get married, have kids and start to deal with reality your point of view tends to change.

I call bullshit, I do all these things now and continue to get screwed by the govt and remain with my original political leanings.

 

[FlashFlooder]

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If
you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head."

This quote sums it up, but doesn't really explain it.

 

[TimeKillr]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I'll throw this into the discussion:

I love how typically Americans equal Left to Democrats and Right to Republicans.

Sure, the democrats are to the left the republicans, but then again mostly everything else is to the left of republicans save fascism.

Americans do not have a true "Left" option - they have a "Right" options and a "Less Right than Republicans, but still Right" option in the Democrats.

If anything the Democrats could be considered middle-right, but nowhere near what the actual Left is everywhere else in the world. How ANYONE can equate the Democrats to socialists in northern europe (or even Canada) is beyond me.

As for American politics, I typically find republicans to be somewhat.. hypocritical. You want less government control on your life, yet you're for *all* of these crazy issues that actually create more control from the govt (anti-abortion, anti gay rights, anti porn, etc). I find that to be completely hilarious, to be honest - it's such a ridiculous point that I don't get how anyone that has a semblance of a brain can not call those government control.

I also love how the republicans work on fear. Death panels, the government deciding what you can and can't do, spending YOUR money on THEIR interests (which is what every government does, including republicans), minorities, etc. That wonderful bastard Glenn Beck is the perfect example of this bullshit: his show is tailor-made to catering to the inner fear of the loss of "American" values. It perfectly illustrates how the republicans work in getting people to vote for them: "Vote for us or else the other side will bring forth the end of the world!". Liberals tend to have a more.. relaxed approach - "What they are doing isn't going to work for this and that reason, and we think our way is better - here's what it is".

We're going through elections here in Canada, and we actually have 5 choices (in Quebec, at least):
The Conservatives, who are far-right
The Liberals, who are middle-right
The NDP, who are left
The Green Party, who are left (and further left than the NDP)
The Bloc Quebecois, who are middle-left

If I was to compare our choices to the american choices, the conservatives are akin to the republicans while the liberals are akin to the democrats.

As for why people change as they get older, it's simply untrue. Most of the people I know have held the same political allegiance their entire lives, whether they are young or old. My parents have been leftist their entire lives and are into their 60s now and are still as left as ever. Most people I know who are conservatives always were conservatives.

I also don't believe in the edict that "The left wants to spend other people's money" - they want everyone to pool their resources together so that EVERYONE can have a better life. Obviously, if you have more resources, you typically wouldn't want to pool your resources with people who have less, because you'll have to contribute more for the same amount of benefits, but the upside is peace, harmony and a society that works better to heighten the standards of life in general. It benefits everyone, not just the people who have less resources to dedicate to the cause. Why?

If people who have less resources are given a better standard of living, they can in turn generate higher resources for the society. If they generate more resources, the people who are resource-rich will need to contribute less of their own resources to the overall pool. Everybody wins - the resource-poor get richer and enjoy the benefits of being richer while the resource-rich need to spend less resources to the pool.

The "downside" to this, according to most people who are against such a system, is that it automatically creates "stragglers" - people who are lazy and who will purposefully not work and simply enjoy the benefits without actually committing resources to the pool, which is a potential problem which is typically cleared within a generation or two because people are given much more opportunities in the system.

This is a simple explanation of "why older people are more to the right" - they typically have more resources, so they need to put in more into the system, and they simply don't want to, because they won't reap the rewards of putting them in.

 

[The Librarian]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I'll throw this into the discussion:

I love how typically Americans equal Left to Democrats and Right to Republicans.

Sure, the democrats are to the left the republicans, but then again mostly everything else is to the left of republicans save fascism.

Americans do not have a true "Left" option - they have a "Right" options and a "Less Right than Republicans, but still Right" option in the Democrats.

If anything the Democrats could be considered middle-right, but nowhere near what the actual Left is everywhere else in the world.

This isn't true. If we were to describe the Democratic Party as whole, "center" would be a better description. There is a large swath of the Democratic Party that is quite liberal (House Progressive Caucus, for example). The Democratic Party has members (or those who caucus with them) that are Democratic-socialist all the way to conservative (liberal on social issues, right on economic issues); Bernie Sanders to Ben Nelson, respectively. While Republicans have conservative to...more conservative. They're more ideologically cohesive. One reason why it's harder to get progressive legislation into law is because there are no more liberal Republicans.

 

[cpp_is_king]

This isn't true. If we were to describe the Democratic Party as whole, "center" would be a better description. There is a large swath of the Democratic Party that is quite liberal (House Progressive Caucus, for example). The Democratic Party has members (or those who caucus with them) that are Democratic-socialist all the way to conservative (liberal on social issues, right on economic issues); Bernie Sanders to Ben Nelson, respectively. While Republicans have conservative to...more conservative. They're more ideologically cohesive. One reason why it's harder to get progressive legislation into law is because there are no more liberal Republicans.

Cuba is quite liberal. Nobody in the US is

 

[The Librarian]

Cuba is quite liberal. Nobody in the US is

Your post is ambiguous, but if we're equating communism to being "quite liberal," then that's a stupid starting point.

 

[Deku]

This quote sums it up, but doesn't really explain it.

Quote is mis-attributed to Churchill. He never said that.

But Churchill was in the now defunct Liberal party before he became a conservative.

 

[Gamer98]

Because OLD PEOPLE CAN'T DRIVE.

.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Your post is ambiguous, but if we're equating communism to being "quite liberal," then that's a stupid starting point.

I mean that if you take the extreme left across the globe, Cuba is there. If you take the extreme right across the globe, you have like Ronald Reagan or Bush. The only person in the US who might be left of center, on the global scale, is Kucinich. For the most part, even the people who are far left on the US scale are right of center on the world scale.

 

[JayDubya]

I suppose you need labels and shorthand to have something approaching a conversation, but you can't really have much of a conversation without agreeing on what the terms mean.

And that's a bit of a problem with these terms, too, of course.

I try to use them in as objective a sense as I can, but everyone kind of has to realize that there's still going to be a lot of murky subjectivity to how other people apply the terms.

Left or Right relative to what? Are you throwing in unrelated topics, other paradigms by which you could understand and compartmentalize the views of others?

A common example - and I'd say mistake - is to forget about the authoritarian / libertarian division and just pretend it's part of left vs. right. This is more prevalent in the US because of the concentration of political power in only two parties. (But there's more than just that. Interventionist in foreign affairs or not? Quick to project military power or only as a last resort? Free trade with all nations or protectionism? Etc.)

It's also more difficult to grasp the nuances of the grossly unfamiliar or unpalatable. You see all the individual issues and nuances among mostly like-minded people better - you may have some differences, but you may all accept certain fundamental beliefs.

* * *


In short, when someone says to me the Democrats are centrists, I chuckle.

This would be expected due to my own subjective position, of course, but there's also something a bit more objective at play, too. Of course, at question is this: is perhaps the status quo always the "center?"

Chiefly: if you want to increase the level of socialism in a society, then you're certainly not much of a centrist, at least not for that particular society. You could do an apples to oranges comparison of different societies, I suppose, but I certainly wouldn't call a party that fails to challenge a socialist healthcare system rightist, even if they're right relative to their peers. Of course, in their society, would that make them centrist, even if if they are meaningfully tolerant of much more leftism in their status quo than in other societies?

I find the Republican party to by and large be a party of centrists that do not meaningfully advance a cause, only uphold a status quo. The GOP opposes additional socialism well enough but they do precious little about what is already present. How is that "rightist" and not just status quoism?

And by the by, fascism is extreme authoritarianism, not extreme rightism. It is not the "opposite of communism." Communism is exemplary of both extreme authoritarianism AND extreme leftism.

 

[Wray]

As has been stated before. Each generation is more liberal and progressive than the next "generally speaking throughout history". I'm fairly certain that younger people in the 60's who supported the civil rights movement didn't suddenly became anti-civil rights and pro segregation just because they got older. At the time, it was predominately the older generations who comprised the large faction of the country that was against the civil rights movement. Just like how today most supporters of Gay Rights and Gay Marriage are generally younger people, where as it's opponents are older.

Also, keep in mind with regards to today's progressive vs conservative views. Most people older than 65 were heavily influenced by mid-century McCarthyism in their youth and have a very misguided fear of communism and socialism that still exists to this day.

 

[Tristam]

I think most kids nowadays are getting degrees in the liberal arts, which is obviously dominated (institutionally) by the left. The few liberal arts courses I was forced to take definitely leaned towards indoctrination...successfully writing a paper with a view counter to the professor was more difficult than it was worth. So I sold for my soul for an 'A,' numerous times, feeling dirty all the while. Of course, being able to articulate someone else's viewpoint in your own words is a valuable skill to have, albeit doesn't exactly encourage thinking for yourself. On the flipside too, every single engineer I know--from mechanical to nuclear--is a conservative.

Frankly, between the media pressure and our current educational system--apart from technical programs (or economics)--it's not exactly surprising that most young people lean left. That's what you're taught is "right" from Day 1. Whereas most old people grew up in a time where the media and educational system leaned closer to our modern right. Basically, people from every generation are sheep. Political opinions move simultaneously through history, like a flock of birds. This isn't unique to the U.S. either.

There are so many things wrong with this post.

Problem #1: Your definition of "liberal arts." This is thrown around constantly on GAF. The problem is that no one who uses the term has any fucking clue what it means. I presume you understand it to mean a branch of the social sciences (including economics, which you inexplicably exempt from criticism) or the humanities because "liberal" connotes the progressive political leanings associated with the faculty of those disciplines, and because "arts" sounds touchy-feely and accords with your stereotypes of those disciplines' respective curricula.

Now let's contrast your understanding of "liberal arts" to actual facts, courtesy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "liberal arts: college or university curriculum aimed at imparting general knowledge and developing general intellectual capacities in contrast to a professional, vocational, or technical curriculum. In the medieval European university the seven liberal arts were grammar, rhetoric, and logic (the trivium) and geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy (the quadrivium). In modern colleges and universities the liberal arts include the study of literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science as the basis of a general, or liberal, education. Sometimes the liberal-arts curriculum is described as comprehending study of three main branches of knowledge: the humanities (literature, language, philosophy, the fine arts, and history), the physical and biological sciences and mathematics, and the social sciences." (boldfaced emphasis is my own.)

Problem #2: Your assumption that college students are overwhelmingly choosing to pursue a degree in the "liberal arts," especially compared to the past (assuming you take liberal arts to mean a branch of the social sciences or the humanities). It is indeed true that 33% more degrees were awarded in the social sciences and humanities in 2008 than in 1998; it's also true that 9% more were awarded in engineering, 28% more awarded in health professions/medical sciences, and a whopping 44% more awarded to business majors (including finance, accounting, marketing, and management) in the same timespan. Business majors are the most popular choice period, and account for over 20% of all bachelor's degrees awarded every year in the U.S.

Problem #3: Your assumption, based on anecdotal evidence in low-level courses, that "liberal arts" (again, presumably social sciences/humanities) courses don't teach valuable critical thinking skills. Social science/humanities majors score significantly higher than students in engineering, health, communications, and business on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, which is designed to test the very critical thinking skills that a college education is supposed to impart (the social science/humanities majors were only outdone, and just barely so, by science/mathematics majors).

All data can be found in a recent New York Times article: The Default Major: Skating Through B-School

Conclusion: You need to seriously re-examine your beliefs with empirical evidence. Perhaps you didn't take enough liberal arts courses to learn how to think critically.

 

[The Librarian]

I mean that if you take the extreme left across the globe, Cuba is there. If you take the extreme right across the globe, you have like Ronald Reagan or Bush. The only person in the US who might be left of center, on the global scale, is Kucinich. For the most part, even the people who are far left on the US scale are right of center on the world scale.

Just because somebody is not "extreme left" doesn't make them not a liberal, or quite liberal. You're starting definition of a liberal is too extreme. That's why it was given a different name.

 

[effzee]

There are so many things wrong with this post.

Problem #1: Your definition of "liberal arts." This is thrown around constantly on GAF. The problem is that no one who uses the term has any fucking clue what it means. I presume you understand it to mean a branch of the social sciences (including economics, which you inexplicably exempt from criticism) or the humanities because "liberal" connotes the progressive political leanings associated with the faculty of those disciplines, and because "arts" sounds touchy-feely and accords with your stereotypes of those disciplines' respective curricula.

Now let's contrast your understanding of "liberal arts" to actual facts, courtesy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "liberal arts: college or university curriculum aimed at imparting general knowledge and developing general intellectual capacities in contrast to a professional, vocational, or technical curriculum. In the medieval European university the seven liberal arts were grammar, rhetoric, and logic (the trivium) and geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy (the quadrivium). In modern colleges and universities the liberal arts include the study of literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science as the basis of a general, or liberal, education. Sometimes the liberal-arts curriculum is described as comprehending study of three main branches of knowledge: the humanities (literature, language, philosophy, the fine arts, and history), the physical and biological sciences and mathematics, and the social sciences." (boldfaced emphasis is my own.)

Problem #2: Your assumption that college students are overwhelmingly choosing to pursue a degree in the "liberal arts," especially compared to the past (assuming you take liberal arts to mean a branch of the social sciences or the humanities). It is indeed true that 33% more degrees were awarded in the social sciences and humanities in 2008 than in 1998; it's also true that 9% more were awarded in engineering, 28% more awarded in health professions/medical sciences, and a whopping 44% more awarded to business majors (including finance, accounting, marketing, and management) in the same timespan. Business majors are the most popular choice period, and account for over 20% of all bachelor's degrees awarded every year in the U.S.

Problem #3: Your assumption, based on anecdotal evidence in low-level courses, that "liberal arts" (again, presumably social sciences/humanities) courses don't teach valuable critical thinking skills. Social science/humanities majors score significantly higher than students in engineering, health, communications, and business on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, which is designed to test the very critical thinking skills that a college education is supposed to impart (the social science/humanities majors were only outdone, and just barely so, by science/mathematics majors).

All data can be found in a recent New York Times article: The Default Major: Skating Through B-School

Conclusion: You need to seriously re-examine your beliefs with empirical evidence. Perhaps you didn't take enough liberal arts courses to learn how to think critically.

Excellent post but you do realize you quoted the New York Times? Thats the cornerstone for the LIBERAL MEDIA that is brainwashing our youth!

Because people get older, pay bills, invest money, own a home, have children, work hard, pay taxes and actually living life is much different than theorizing about how life is meant or ought to be. It's all well and good to be an idealist when you are in college and living off your parent's dime but when you get older, get married, have kids and start to deal with reality your point of view tends to change.

This assumes that the young people are wrong and misguided simply because they are either lazy, not rich, and have little to no responsibility.

Dealing with reality doesn't make you liberal or conservative, and if it does, then it means you never really researched and understood what being conservative or liberal meant. Yes its true as you get older you acquire more wealth (generally), get married and have kids (generally), and have more to lose but that doesn't mean you from liberal ideals to conservative. Most people are who they are and then get those views reinforced. If anything the older people are more conservative because of the fear of the unknown, death, and the changing ways which they might not understand.

 

[empty vessel]

Dealing with reality doesn't make you liberal or conservative...

I'm pretty sure it actually rules out conservatism.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

This isn't true. If we were to describe the Democratic Party as whole, "center" would be a better description. There is a large swath of the Democratic Party that is quite liberal (House Progressive Caucus, for example). The Democratic Party has members (or those who caucus with them) that are Democratic-socialist all the way to conservative (liberal on social issues, right on economic issues); Bernie Sanders to Ben Nelson, respectively. While Republicans have conservative to...more conservative. They're more ideologically cohesive. One reason why it's harder to get progressive legislation into law is because there are no more liberal Republicans.

No. The Democratic Party is mid-right if anything.

No support for universal health care, no focus on rehauling the shitty education system, I could go on and on.

If you compare the Democratic part to most other developed Western countries it is the very definition of right.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Well I might as well voice in my experience since most other people have though it is a little late.


Anyway growing up in a working class family I've always been a left. Especially when I saw my mom working enough. When I was a kid she worked at least 80 hours a week (she left home at 6am and got back at 11pm). And this went on for years until I was in high school thus being the only child still living at home.

Let's take the topic of racism for example. Up until a not all that long ago I didn't have my eyes open up to modern racism until I slowly started getting into the real world. I have an accent (due to previously having a speech impediment) and a foreign first name, despite being born opinionin this country. Yet I noticed that people at times tend to talk to me disrespectfully. I especially noticed this once I started going in the city more. When I go into the store to buy something I'm completely ignored, or at few times followed by the employers. I went to the airport a few weeks ago and I was one of the few non-white people in the crowd, and yet despite doing nothing out of the ordinary (just opened up my laptop to try and browser the web like countless other people) I was pulled out of line to have my bag searched. I was the only person they did this to. To add I was dressed just like your typical college kid and brought in a backpack, however I'm part Palestinian and I wondered if that had something to do with it. I also had an experience with police corruption. Once in a while I go up to a night club because one of my friends is friends with the owner. The owner constantly gets harassed by the police as they pull every trick in the book to shut the club down. Which is odd because the club has very little problems. However the indirect reason given is that they don't want minorities in that area and the club's demographic is compromised of minorities. I was once in the security room playing with the cameras when I saw the police approach the owner. This isn't a "I know this friend who has a friend that saw this happened", this is me seeing it with my own eyes.

In terms of class warfare, as time goes on I'm beginning to more and more understand it. I'm currently trying to move out of my mom's house to finish college. However I'm very worried about the finances to do so. I hope to be getting a job as a waiter but with raising gas prices, food prices, housing, and all else I'm getting a bit nervous. I would take out a loan but I already owe way too much and if I keep that attitude up I may eventually find it way too hard to pay it back later. I come from a working class family (not poor) and have made a little mistake, and I'm finding it difficult to make it in this world. I could only imagine what this would be like if I was poor. Meanwhile I have plenty of friends who don't have to worry about shit. They have their parents pay for everything while they just chill and smoke week all day. Yes there's a sense of entitlement that needs to be fulfilled for people, but there's also leveling the playground so people have the same opportunity. You can think whatever about the parents, but why should the children have to work so much harder than their more well do to peers to succeed? I know kids who work two jobs with barely enough to get by while taking 16 credits to try to finish school as soon as possible (because we know their grades must be soaring with that). Yet their are many kids who don't even have a job and try to find the easiest way to graduate ("I'll go with communications because then I won't need to take a Math course!"). Now I'm not trying to say that all people should have the exact to a T same opportunity as that's impossible. But leveling the playing field is a must.

In terms of politics this country seems more and more like a circus as I look into it. Never before have the classes been more unequal, the middle class is shrinking, tax breaks for the rich (how does this make sense?), the richest (what is it 5%) making more money than the bottom 95%, deregulations on businesses (this is what caused the recession in the first place!), and a bunch of other shit. Yet nobody gives a fuck. People always say that politicians are crooks and everything is corrupt as it happens under our noses, but in reality it happens right in front of our faces.

So yeah that's why I describe myself as very left (I'd probably put me in a part that is a level left to the democrats).

Anyway that's my experience.

 

[The Librarian]

No. The Democratic Party is mid-right if anything.

Center-ish and maybe leaning to the left. Bernie Sanders said that in an interview once, and if he, a self-described Democratic-Socialist, views it that way, I don't understand how you can't.

No support for universal health care

Um, have you heard of ACA? And if you have but still need more convincing, I point to you what the current Vermont governor, Peter Shumlin, campaigned on and what the legislature is about to pass.

no focus on rehauling the shitty education system,

Excluding programs like Race to the Top and legislation like Student-Loan Reform, right? Education needs to be addressed, yes, but it'll come up when it comes up. They got a lot of shit passed in the 111th, and I'm sure if they had four years instead of two, they would've gotten to education and immigration.

I could go on and on.

Please do. Meanwhile, I'll just leave the budget from the House Progressive Caucus here.

 

[The Lamp]

I fervently await to hear everybody here's political views 40 years from now.

 

[Meadows]

I fervently await to hear everybody here's political views 40 years from now.

Vote NO to robot presidents!

 

[Flo_Evans]

As has been stated before. Each generation is more liberal and progressive than the next "generally speaking throughout history". I'm fairly certain that younger people in the 60's who supported the civil rights movement didn't suddenly became anti-civil rights and pro segregation just because they got older. At the time, it was predominately the older generations who comprised the large faction of the country that was against the civil rights movement. Just like how today most supporters of Gay Rights and Gay Marriage are generally younger people, where as it's opponents are older.

Also, keep in mind with regards to today's progressive vs conservative views. Most people older than 65 were heavily influenced by mid-century McCarthyism in their youth and have a very misguided fear of communism and socialism that still exists to this day.

I think this is pretty much correct. Each generation gets progressively more liberal, it only seems that people get more conservative as the age because relative to young people today they are.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Seriously, what are you even arguing about? The United States democratic party is the rightest "left" in all of the developed nations and is infamous for being a pushover. I'm not sure how one can argue this.

Center-ish and maybe leaning to the left. Bernie Sanders said that in an interview once, and if he, a self-described Democratic-Socialist, views it that way, I don't understand how you can't.

Because I'm not Bernie Sanders.

Um, have you heard of ACA? And if you have but still need more convincing, I point to you what the current Vermont governor, Peter Shumlin, campaigned on and what the legislature is about to pass. .

Umm okay, well if you cherry pick examples you can prove anything.

UExcluding programs like Race to the Top and legislation like Student-Loan Reform, right? Education needs to be addressed, yes, but it'll come up when it comes up. They got a lot of shit passed in the 111th, and I'm sure if they had four years instead of two, they would've gotten to education and immigration. .

Wishful thinking.

Please do. Meanwhile, I'll just leave the budget from the House Progressive Caucus here.

What's the point of this?

 

[To Far Away Times]

Though I haven't done any research on this, could young people swinging liberal have to do with the quality of the presidents that were in office when they were kids?

Ignoring all the divisive political issues (abortion, 2nd amendment...), lets take a look at how well the U.S. did while each president was in office.

I was born in 1986.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't old enough to remember Ronald Reagan's (Republican) presidency.

I wasn't old enough to remember George H. W. Bush's (Republican) presidency.

I'm old enough to remember President Clinton (Democrat), and most people will agree the U.S. did well while he was in office.

I'm old enough to remember George W. Bush (Republican), who left the country in a needless war and left while the economy was in a recession.

I'm old enough to remember President Barrack Obama (Democrat), who has done a better job than Bush.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For someone my age, at 24, the country just seems to run better when there's a Democrat in office. A small sample size, sure, but I know a lot more about recent presidents than I do about the ones I read about in a history book. Perhaps the older generation grew up with stronger Republican presidents?

 

[leroidys]

I always figured college girls said they where liberal to justify getting ass pounded by the foot ball team.

"Look at me I`m such a free spirit.....next"

New levels of herp derp in this thread. I think I have to stop reading it for my health.

 

[Freshmaker]

So can anybody please give me some insight on this?

It's just something conservatives like to say. It's not actually true.