The Student Vote Is Surging. So Are Efforts to Suppress It.

[Daelak]

So then conservatism is only around because people have poor judgment. But then, we already knew that.

Conservatism has always been a tool for the powerful and connected to maintain the status quo in the face of change, people like Ghostpanther are just too deluded to understand this.

[Beefhammer]

Conservatism has always been a tool for the powerful and connected to maintain the status quo in the face of change, people like Ghostpanther are just too deluded to understand this.

Just look at the Banon comments earlier, he targeted incels because they are easy to manipulate. Similarly the GOP relies on the less educated because they lack judgement and critical/independent thinking. It's not coincidence they have been gutting public education and cutting funding for schools for over 40 years. They'd be nothing without idiots.

[Deletedaccount1]

When the Boomers that vote GOP die off in the next decade, the GOP will lose a large voting block that will less than likely to be replaced unless they change their platform for the better of people.

I know you were probably born in 1998 or something stupid but people have been saying this at least the early 90s. I remember someone telling me that once the current generation of old people (people 65-85 in 1992) died off, we'd never have candidates like Pat Buchanan again. And then 2016 happened, woops.

- - - Updated - - -

Just look at the Banon comments earlier, he targeted incels because they are easy to manipulate. Similarly the GOP relies on the less educated because they lack judgement and critical/independent thinking. It's not coincidence they have been gutting public education and cutting funding for schools for over 40 years. They'd be nothing without idiots.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/f...ite-chart.html

[Rasulis]

That's a fair point. Polls and studies can be off and inaccurate for several reasons. I saw a study from the UK taken a few years ago, which showed that people do become more conservative as they age. Maybe the location also makes a difference. *shrugs.

And there is this article....https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...e-conservative

The first reason is personality. Indeed, a review of 92 scientific studies shows that intellectual curiosity tends to decline in old age and that this decline explains age-related increases in conservatism.

The second is judgment, in particular, information-processing capacity. In most people (and I’m sorry to break the news) the speed of information-processing, a core ingredient of judgment and intelligence, peaks around the mid-20s. To make matters worse, most people become considerably slower after their mid-40s, with a substantial deceleration after their 60s. The good news, however, is that slower does not necessarily mean dumber. In fact, older people are better able to rely on knowledge, experience, and expertise, so they are not as affected by slower information-processing capacity

That’s not what the study says at all. The author of the article stretched the conclusion of the study to fit his preconceived idea.

Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Roberts BW1, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W.
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana--Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA. broberts@cyrus.psych.uiuc.edu

The present study used meta-analytic techniques (number of samples = 92) to determine the patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course. Results showed that people increase in measures of social dominance (a facet of extraversion), conscientiousness, and emotional stability, especially in young adulthood (age 20 to 40). In contrast, people increase on measures of social vitality (a 2nd facet of extraversion) and openness in adolescence but then decrease in both of these domains in old age. Agreeableness changed only in old age. Of the 6 trait categories, 4 demonstrated significant change in middle and old age. Gender and attrition had minimal effects on change, whereas longer studies and studies based on younger cohorts showed greater change.

Once you cut through all the psychobabbles, all it actually says is that people between 20 to 40 are more receptive to new ideas and changes, while people which are older than 40 less so. So if you are a conservative by 40, you’ll likely be a conservative for the rest of your life. The opposite is also true. If you are a liberal by 40, you’ll likely be a liberal for the rest of your life.

The study conclusion matches the previous three studies that I linked.

- - - Updated - - -

I know you were probably born in 1998 or something stupid but people have been saying this at least the early 90s. I remember someone telling me that once the current generation of old people (people 65-85 in 1992) died off, we'd never have candidates like Pat Buchanan again. And then 2016 happened, woops.

Texas used to be totally red. Now Democrats control all of Texas metropolitan areas and the fastest growing counties.

[Blur4stuff]

Doesn't matter if Warren/Sanders doesn't get a complete wipe of student loan debt. Whatever plan they end up getting through is still going to be better than what you get with republicans and people like Betty DeVos. The republican answer to these problems is basically, "so what fuck you". If you listen to candidates on the left you at least know they acknowledge the problem and want to do something about it.

Same goes for healthcare, climate change, and the list goes on and on. Take a random sample from young people about their top 5 or 10 issues and it's all but guaranteed that republicans aren't doing shit for most of them. They might even be actively making it worse depending on the issue (like debt, climate, etc...). Meanwhile, it's a safe bet that most, if not all of their issues, are things dems want to work on and already have plans for.

Like I stated earlier, if you're a young person there's no sensible reason to vote republican. The only thing that will do it is some kind of irrational or extreme ideological position. Examples of those things would be, "haha suck it liberals" and believing a fertilized egg has a soul.

[Beefhammer]

I know you were probably born in 1998 or something stupid but people have been saying this at least the early 90s. I remember someone telling me that once the current generation of old people (people 65-85 in 1992) died off, we'd never have candidates like Pat Buchanan again. And then 2016 happened, woops.

- - - Updated - - -



https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/f...ite-chart.html

I was born in 1975. Difference is the "greatest" generation at that time was nowhere near the size of the boomers and didn't live as long. Now account for inflation and total number of schools and price per student. There is a reason teachers have to purchase supplies out of pocket for their classrooms.

[TexasRules]

University Of Texas Announces Tuition-Free College Program

Only a decade behind.

Wow free tuition. Now just have to find money for books, rent, food, transportation....I hear rent in Austin is real cheap.

- - - Updated - - -

Dude cruz almost got dethroned by a liberal called beto. If lupe wasn't pro sanctuary city and competent she could've gave Abbott a run for his money. No I don't want an income tax here because or property taxes are already sky high along with other taxes too.

And he had $80 million in funding, more then double Cruz and most from out of state and still lost. Key point, still LOST. I also like your lupe comment....competent, why even bother putting someone up who is incompetent AND pro sanctuary.

[Edge-]

Wow free tuition. Now just have to find money for books, rent, food, transportation....I hear rent in Austin is real cheap.

You're right, capitalism in the US and how we handle higher education is significantly flawed and hurts students, and is in desperate need of an overhaul to make higher education affordable again.

[Ghostpanther]

That’s not what the study says at all. The author of the article stretched the conclusion of the study to fit his preconceived idea.




Once you cut through all the psychobabbles, all it actually says is that people between 20 to 40 are more receptive to new ideas and changes, while people which are older than 40 less so. So if you are a conservative by 40, you’ll likely be a conservative for the rest of your life. The opposite is also true. If you are a liberal by 40, you’ll likely be a liberal for the rest of your life.

The study conclusion matches the previous three studies that I linked.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry. I do not see what you are saying. Everyone is going to get older if they live long enough. lol! And the studies do show that people tend to be more conservative as they age. Sort of explains the old saying, " wisdom comes with age". The article pointed this out and was saying the explanation for why people tend to be more conservative can be explained by how people do think differently as they age.

Like this part ; Indeed, a review of 92 scientific studies shows that intellectual curiosity tends to decline in old age and that this decline explains age-related increases in conservatism.

I mean one can disagree with the author's opinion. But I see his point and agree.

[Crissi]

Getting more conservative does not necessitate turning into a conservative (verb vs noun). Like, I'm certainly less liberal than when I was a teenager, but my core beliefs will not let me be a conservative, ever.

[Ghostpanther]

Getting more conservative does not necessitate turning into a conservative (verb vs noun). Like, I'm certainly less liberal than when I was a teenager, but my core beliefs will not let me be a conservative, ever.

I agree with you. There are conservatives in the Democrat party too I am sure. Which is one reason Joe Manchin ( Democrat Senator ) today said he would not vote for Sanders if he is the Democrat nominee.

[Rasulis]

Sorry. I do not see what you are saying. Everyone is going to get older if they live long enough. lol! And the studies do show that people tend to be more conservative as they age. Sort of explains the old saying, " wisdom comes with age". The article pointed this out and was saying the explanation for why people tend to be more conservative can be explained by how people do think differently as they age.

Like this part ; Indeed, a review of 92 scientific studies shows that intellectual curiosity tends to decline in old age and that this decline explains age-related increases in conservatism.

I mean one can disagree with the author's opinion. But I see his point and agree.

You need to re-read the part below which came from the conclusion of the review of the 92 scientific studies that he quoted. The author of the article did not perform his own review of the 92 studies. He just stretched and bend the conclusion of somebody else's work to fit his narrative. The term "intellectual curiosity" was never even use in the publication.

Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Roberts BW1, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W.
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana--Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA. broberts@cyrus.psych.uiuc.edu

The present study used meta-analytic techniques (number of samples = 92) to determine the patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course. Results showed that people increase in measures of social dominance (a facet of extraversion), conscientiousness, and emotional stability, especially in young adulthood (age 20 to 40). In contrast, people increase on measures of social vitality (a 2nd facet of extraversion) and openness in adolescence but then decrease in both of these domains in old age. Agreeableness changed only in old age. Of the 6 trait categories, 4 demonstrated significant change in middle and old age. Gender and attrition had minimal effects on change, whereas longer studies and studies based on younger cohorts showed greater change.

[SirBeef]

Wow free tuition. Now just have to find money for books, rent, food, transportation....I hear rent in Austin is real cheap.

- - - Updated - - -



And he had $80 million in funding, more then double Cruz and most from out of state and still lost. Key point, still LOST. I also like your lupe comment....competent, why even bother putting someone up who is incompetent AND pro sanctuary.

Oh no now wothout having to pay $12K or more a year in tuition, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to afford those things. What a dumb hill to die on dude.

[TexasRules]

Oh no now wothout having to pay $12K or more a year in tuition, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to afford those things. What a dumb hill to die on dude.

So you are under the impression that these students are paying this money and not using grants/loans? And tuition for out of state is probably triple the in state, do you think those kids are just up and forking over 30k when they get there? That just takes away the tuition, they still have to pay for all that other stuff. So for most people it is just less debt to start. But maybe in your world it's somehow different?

[Orbitus]

So you are under the impression that these students are paying this money and not using grants/loans? And tuition for out of state is probably triple the in state, do you think those kids are just up and forking over 30k when they get there? That just takes away the tuition, they still have to pay for all that other stuff. So for most people it is just less debt to start. But maybe in your world it's somehow different?

Oh, you think they don't have to repay loans that will take literally thousands more thanks to interest?

[Edge-]

So you are under the impression that these students are paying this money and not using grants/loans?

Because there isn't a student loan debt crisis or anything.
Because those debts don't follow people into middle age and/or beyond.
Because the loan forgiveness program with the DoEd actually functions and isn't beyond fucked up, leaving people who have been a part of it for years thinking they were on track while making payments to find out they're fucked.
Because, unlike other kinds of debt, bankruptcy doesn't get rid of your student loans.

And tuition for out of state is probably triple the in state, do you think those kids are just up and forking over 30k when they get there?

They fork over tuition for the first semester, which can be expensive.

That just takes away the tuition, they still have to pay for all that other stuff.

Tuition is often the single biggest cost associated with going to college. That's a HUGE thing for a lot of folks, especially those going to more elite, expensive schools.

So for most people it is just less debt to start. But maybe in your world it's somehow different?

It is different! It's leaving them with potentially much less debt, meaning they can pay it off sooner and begin to start saving for things like down payments on a house and buying shit to stimulate the economy.

You're probably one of the only people I've seen insane enough to view a college moving to a tuition-free system for in-state students as a bad thing. What the hell, dude?

[SirBeef]

Because there isn't a student loan debt crisis or anything.
Because those debts don't follow people into middle age and/or beyond.
Because the loan forgiveness program with the DoEd actually functions and isn't beyond fucked up, leaving people who have been a part of it for years thinking they were on track while making payments to find out they're fucked.
Because, unlike other kinds of debt, bankruptcy doesn't get rid of your student loans.



They fork over tuition for the first semester, which can be expensive.



Tuition is often the single biggest cost associated with going to college. That's a HUGE thing for a lot of folks, especially those going to more elite, expensive schools.



It is different! It's leaving them with potentially much less debt, meaning they can pay it off sooner and begin to start saving for things like down payments on a house and buying shit to stimulate the economy.

You're probably one of the only people I've seen insane enough to view a college moving to a tuition-free system for in-state students as a bad thing. What the hell, dude?

I have a saying about Texas and what they grow 'em besides big. And of course he sees it as bad. He's a conservative, they like their base to be dumb as rocks.

[Rasulis]

Not having to pay tuition actually makes a big difference.

Average Student Loan Debt Statistics by School by State 2019

California university graduates have the fourth lowest student loan debt in the nation and only 49% of California university students graduated with debt.

The top three ranked states have much smaller student population. Not to mention Utah number is highly skewed because of Brigham Young.

[Beefhammer]

Not having to pay tuition actually makes a big difference.

Average Student Loan Debt Statistics by School by State 2019

California university graduates have the fourth lowest student loan debt in the nation and only 49% of California university students graduated with debt.

The top three ranked states have much smaller student population. Not to mention Utah number is highly skewed because of Brigham Young.

Shhh now, they don't don't like facts. It ruins their agenda.

[Howel]

Am I remembering wrong, but didn't some other state do this with one college? It had like 5-6000 students, and they argued that they couldn't set up voting stations in such a place, because it would constitute as a special kind of voting station or some nonsense.