Jump to content
DMC

US Politics: Shutbound & Down

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

So Trump 'fighting for the LGBT community' is going really well then. 

He's at least fighting for LGBTQ people as hard as he's fought for the blue collar voters who voted for him. Showing the same valor and determination he showed during Vietnam.

Edited by DanteGabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Correct. but it's important to recognize what part of the brain that is. Without doing a deeper dive, it's the Frontal Lobe, and it's the area that among other things governs our decision making. 

The decision to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was made in 1971 in the United States, at least 20 years before we had the research showing that frontal lobe decision making does not generally become "mature" until around age 25. If that research had been done before 1971 and its results were widely known, perhaps a different decision on lower the voting age would have been made.

We still need a lot more research on these issues -- there needs to be a lot more research specifically linking the brain differences found to actual behaviors. However, there does seem to be a consensus among psychologists and neuroscientists that the problem in decision making that those between the ages of 16 and 25 have relative to those older is largely confined to situations of "hot cognition", where people have to make decisions when their emotions are strongly activated.

When you do experiments in "cold cognition" situations, where you give people good information about an issue when their emotions are not activated, 16 year olds actually do as well on average as people over age 25. But in "hot cognition" situations, younger people make worse decisions because their brains are not as able to allow the logical decision making functions to override their emotions.

Psychologists who advocate the voting age be lowered to 16 (like Lawrence Steinberg) do so because they conceive voting as being a "cold cognition" situation. I am a psychologist who finds that to be an incredibly naive position which confuses how people should make political decisions with how they actually do make them in modern times. I think many voting decisions are highly emotional and are more involved with hot cognition than cold cognition -- and I think that people who run modern political campaigns do so in a way that deliberately tries to make politics and political decisions more emotional and "hotter." Therefore I do NOT want to see the voting age lowered to age 16, because I think that adding to the voting pool more people who will have a hard time not allowing emotions to override logic is exactly what we don't need at this point in history. Unless we can create a culture where the great majority of people do really take a "League of Women Voters" logical dispassionate approach to voting, I think voting is too "hot" a cognitive process to want to add 16 years old into the decision making group.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The decision to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was made in 1971 in the United States, at least 20 years before we had the research showing that frontal lobe decision making does not generally become "mature" until around age 25. If that research had been done before 1971 and its results were widely known, perhaps a different decision on lower the voting age would have been made.

We still need a lot more research on these issues -- there needs to be a lot more research specifically linking the brain differences found to actual behaviors. However, there does seem to be a consensus among psychologists and neuroscientists that the problem in decision making that those between the ages of 16 and 25 have relative to those older is largely confined to situations of "hot cognition", where people have to make decisions when their emotions are strongly activated.

When you do experiments in "cold cognition" situations, where you give people good information about an issue when their emotions are not activated, 16 year olds actually do as well on average as people over age 25. But in "hot cognition" situations, younger people make worse decisions because their brains are not as able to allow the logical decision making functions to override their emotions.

Psychologists who advocate the voting age be lowered to 16 (like Lawrence Steinberg) do so because they conceive voting as being a "cold cognition" situation. I am a psychologist who finds that to be an incredibly naive position which confuses how people should make political decisions with how they actually do make them in modern times. I think many voting decisions are highly emotional and are more involved with hot cognition than cold cognition -- and I think that people who run modern political campaigns do so in a way that deliberately tries to make politics and political decisions more emotional and "hotter." Therefore I do NOT want to see the voting age lowered to age 16, because I think that adding to the voting pool more people who will have a hard time not allowing emotions to override logic is exactly what we don't need at this point in history. Unless we can create a culture where the great majority of people do really take a "League of Women Voters" logical dispassionate approach to voting, I think voting is too "hot" a cognitive process to want to add 16 years old into the decision making group.

 

And yet, the driving age is 16.

IMO, lower the voting age and raise the driving age. 

My daughter got her permit just after she turned 16. Four months in and there was no way she was ready. Then she came down with mono, and I wouldn't allow her to drive until she was completely recovered, which was more than 18 months later. When she turned 18, she reapplied for her permit.

The difference was night and day. She did a thousand times better on Day 1 than she did in 4 months of driving at 16. There was more maturity, more awareness of what was going on around her, and more appreciation for the fact that a car will kill you if not handled properly. 

That being said, these punks are not children. If they think they're mature enough to have a say in what a woman can and cannot do with her body (NOT), then they're old enough to be treated like adults. 

Edited by Ice Queen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that Twitter has suspended the account that posted the video of the MAGA hat boy and his confrontation with Mr. Phillips, saying the account claimed to belong to a California school teacher (‘teacher and advocate. Fighting for 20/20’) but actually belonged to a blogger based in Brazil.

The account, @2020fight, posts an average of 130 times a day and has 40k followers. Social media researcher Rob McDonagh said the account is suspicious, due to high follower count, highly polarized and yet inconsistent political imaging, the unusually high number of tweets, and the use of someone else’s image in the profile photo.

Molly McKew, an information warfare researcher who shared the video herself, said she later saw it was being amplified by a large number of anonymous accounts.

Twitter said their rules forbid users from creating “fake and misleading accounts”, and that “Deliberate attempts to manipulate the public conversation on Twitter by using misleading account information is a violation of Twitter rules”.

I guess that rule doesn’t apply to real accounts that use fake and misleading news to manipulate the public conversation on Twitter, like a certain WH account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The decision to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 was made in 1971 in the United States, at least 20 years before we had the research showing that frontal lobe decision making does not generally become "mature" until around age 25. If that research had been done before 1971 and its results were widely known, perhaps a different decision on lower the voting age would have been made.

We still need a lot more research on these issues -- there needs to be a lot more research specifically linking the brain differences found to actual behaviors. However, there does seem to be a consensus among psychologists and neuroscientists that the problem in decision making that those between the ages of 16 and 25 have relative to those older is largely confined to situations of "hot cognition", where people have to make decisions when their emotions are strongly activated.

When you do experiments in "cold cognition" situations, where you give people good information about an issue when their emotions are not activated, 16 year olds actually do as well on average as people over age 25. But in "hot cognition" situations, younger people make worse decisions because their brains are not as able to allow the logical decision making functions to override their emotions.

Psychologists who advocate the voting age be lowered to 16 (like Lawrence Steinberg) do so because they conceive voting as being a "cold cognition" situation. I am a psychologist who finds that to be an incredibly naive position which confuses how people should make political decisions with how they actually do make them in modern times. I think many voting decisions are highly emotional and are more involved with hot cognition than cold cognition -- and I think that people who run modern political campaigns do so in a way that deliberately tries to make politics and political decisions more emotional and "hotter." Therefore I do NOT want to see the voting age lowered to age 16, because I think that adding to the voting pool more people who will have a hard time not allowing emotions to override logic is exactly what we don't need at this point in history. Unless we can create a culture where the great majority of people do really take a "League of Women Voters" logical dispassionate approach to voting, I think voting is too "hot" a cognitive process to want to add 16 years old into the decision making group.

 

Cognitive development is an issue I have always been fascinated by, but I care a lot more about it in the sphere of criminal justice reform than I do about politics. I can’t say I’ve studied it with regards to voting, but if I had to guess, I would say that it’s both hot and cold. I suspect it starts off hot, but cools with time and individual research, and I’m not sure how age affects it. If I had my druthers I’d keep it at 18, but I’d allow minors to vote if (i) they can provide evidence that they pay federal taxes and (ii) they can pass a high school level civics test. I doubt this would be considered constitutional, but it seems fair to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the inevitable concommitant of lowering the legal age of adulthood is sexual predation upon 16 year olds.

Mostly here we tend agree that older people having sex with kids so much younger than they are  -- marrying them! -- especially even people not here think marriage to little girls in some Islamic cultures is a shame and a sin! -- is not a production social or civic proposition. 

I honestly feel that very few 16 year olds are cognitively and emotionally viable for legal adulthood. This is based on so much time spent on campuses of higher education filled with kids doing incredibly stupid self-destructive and destructive to others acts every day.

Yes, I know many a legal adult over 21 isn't emotionally or cognitively viably mature enough in judgment and information either, but one must make a declaration somewhere. For example, this  27-year-old fellow shouldn't even be let out of a prison cell, much less allowed to vote:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/angry-virgin-christopher-cleary-threatened-to-kill-as-many-girls-as-i-see-near-womens-march?ref=home

Quote

“All I wanted was a girlfriend, not 1000 … not a bunch of hoes,” Cleary allegedly wrote. “I’ve never had a girlfriend before and I’m still a virgin, this is why I’m planning on shooting up a public place soon and being the next mass shooter cause I’m ready to die and all the girls the turned me down is going to make it right by killing as many girls as I see.”

That's really mature, all right.

Quote

n a survey of 300 users on a major incel forum, more than half of respondents said they’d considered plastic surgery. Loneliness (only 36.7 percent of respondents said they had friends) and general hatred of humanity (52.9 percent of respondents self-identified as misanthropes) are standard. More than half of respondents were white, and almost all of them under 30 years old.

People like this really shouldn't be voting.  Or drinking.  Or have access to guns.

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man Drudge is going after AOC hard over the past 24 hours - for making various entirely reasonable statements.  Methinks someone's a bit smitten...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Man Drudge is going after AOC hard over the past 24 hours - for making various entirely reasonable statements.  Methinks someone's a bit smitten...

What is the right wing without a person of color or a woman (bonus, AOC is both!) to turn into a bogeyman? A bunch of mediocre white chuds waiting for scraps to fall off the Koch brothers' plates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so what compromise has been reached between Mitch and Schumer? It still talks about temporary protections and includes 5.7 B for border security (per the Guardian), so I dont know what is different. Maybe the length of the temporary protections for undocumented folk?

I just dont trust Schumer, but maybe someone has more information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see.....just the fact that they are considering bills in the Senate is supposed to be evidence of some sort of compromise (or that people are talking to each other). Boy, some news articles are written confusingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Oh I see.....just the fact that they are considering bills in the Senate is supposed to be evidence of some sort of compromise (or that people are talking to each other). Boy, some news articles are written confusingly.

Yeah all it is is McConnell allowing a vote on an amendment that would be a clean 3-week CR after voting on Trump's proposal.  Not clear yet, but McConnell may have been motivated to allow a vote on the CR so he can get an up-or-down vote (which will still fail in the House, obviously) on Trump's proposal, rather than the Dems simply filibustering.  Otherwise I'm not sure why McConnell would allow a vote on the CR.

Edited by DMC
Forgot to clarify the Trump proposal will still fail in the House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yeah all it is is McConnell allowing a vote on an amendment that would be a clean 3-week CR after voting on Trump's proposal.  Not clear yet, but McConnell may have been motivated to allow a vote on the CR so he can get an up-or-down vote (which will still fail) on Trump's proposal, rather than the Dems simply filibustering.  Otherwise I'm not sure why McConnell would allow a vote on the CR. 

That seems like actually a medium big deal.  If the Republicans can pass Trump's proposal, it would (slightly) increase pressure on Democrats, becuase it would mean the House is singlehandedly standing in the way of the govt reopening.  But the bigger deal is if a clean CR comes up for a vote, it might pass.  And if it did, that would definitely be a win for Democrats.  Trump still won't sign, but if a clean CR comes through both houses of congress, that would look bad for him.

Where are you guys getting these updates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

That seems like actually a medium big deal.

Yeah, it could be indicative of progress in the Senate, at least.

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Where are you guys getting these updates?

Twitter, for the most part.  The Hill already has an article up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IheartIheartTesla said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/jan/22/us-politics-donald-trump-latest-live-updates-government-shutdown

The Guardian has a live blog that updates fairly regularly relating to the shutdown (plus, they are my go-to newspaper)

Ok, I didn't realize that by "putting these up for votes", they still need 60 votes to pass.  The Trump proposal has no chance of getting there, and the Clean CR has very little as well.  If it were only a 50 vote majority, I could see both passing being possible.  At the very least, I could imagine Collins/Murkowski/Gardner voting for both.  But 60 votes isn't gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Ok, I didn't realize that by "putting these up for votes", they still need 60 votes to pass.  The Trump proposal has no chance of getting there, and the Clean CR has very little as well.

Right, which is why I'm confused as to why McConnell would allow a vote on the CR if the Dems are just gonna filibuster the Trump proposal anyway.  All that could potentially do is show some GOP moderates would be ok with the CR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right, which is why I'm confused as to why McConnell would allow a vote on the CR if the Dems are just gonna filibuster the Trump proposal anyway.  All that could potentially do is show some GOP moderates would be ok with the CR.

But probably just a few.  It might not even get to 50.  I agree that I don't see much advantage for McConnell, but I think since Trump's saturday "offer", he wants to show that Republicans are trying to reach a deal.  I think this is all trying to encourage both sideism.  McConnell is correct that IF both sides get equal blame for this shutdown, then Democrats will break first.  But I doubt these moves will do that - Trump owns this shutdown. 

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, it could be McConnell's way of signaling to Trump he's got some pretty antsy members in his caucus that really want the shutdown to end.  But that's really not McConnell's MO - especially considering he reportedly helped engineer the Trump proposal in the first place.  One would think he'd at least want the Trump proposal - and the Dems filibustering it - to get its own news cycle before bringing up the CR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×