JD Vance Catch-all | “we have to destroy the universities in this country”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 831
  • Views: 17K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
That's an excellent point. The assumption is binary, I guess. I haven't really thought about that, probably because I come at the whole idea from the corporate law perspective -- and there it's usually considered that a person with 100 shares of stock has less at stake than one with 100K shares.

That's why I favor the formulation of the idea in which kids get their own votes at a younger age, rather than their parents casting their votes for them. And while you might not think that's much of a difference, I think there are plenty of kids out there who won't just do what their parents tell them to do (especially since voting is confidential).
Click to expand...
No, I actually see a big difference between the two as you do.
Thanks for offering the reasoning behind the theory. I hadn’t thought of that and it is a more interesting idea than I have it credit for, though I still don’t agree with it
It seems Germany and Japan’s recent flirtation with it though are more about incentivizing people to have more kids. I definitely don’t want to give more power to people who would have more kids just to give themselves more voting power.
 
superrific said:
That's an excellent point. The assumption is binary, I guess. I haven't really thought about that, probably because I come at the whole idea from the corporate law perspective -- and there it's usually considered that a person with 100 shares of stock has less at stake than one with 100K shares.

That's why I favor the formulation of the idea in which kids get their own votes at a younger age, rather than their parents casting their votes for them. And while you might not think that's much of a difference, I think there are plenty of kids out there who won't just do what their parents tell them to do (especially since voting is confidential).
Click to expand...
What would the rules be? There would have to be a cut off, most kids under 10 are probably voting for who their parents tell them to. Most kids under 18 are probably not informed enough and would vote for a party, like so many adults.
I just can't see this being a good idea.

Also, the your statement about owning more shares does give one more stake in the company. I don't agree that having more kids gives one more stake in the country.

Then there's the considerations of parents that can't have kids, why would they be punished?
 
Wheels81 said:
I’ve often read that historians have ranked John Quincy Adams as the President with the highest IQ. The difference between his IQ and Trump’s would be immense. I’m thinking at least 100 points.
Click to expand...
trump's IQ has been estimated to be between 120 and 130. some sites claim closer to 130. who knows?
 
Callatoroy said:
trump's IQ has been estimated to be between 120 and 130. some sites claim closer to 130. who knows?
Click to expand...
I believe that an IQ of 130 qualifies one for Mensa status, and I would be willing to bet every penny I've ever earned and ever will earn that he isn't even close to Mensa. But I do think that Trump's IQ is probably higher than most people would assume. He is almost completely devoid of any emotional intelligence, his cognitive style is erratic, and he does not seem to be a very organized person in any manner. But his ability to communicate and his political skill/instinct is way, way better than most people give him credit for. So it would not surprise me if he has a much higher IQ than many people believe, but it would definitely surprise me if he was anywhere close to Mensa-level.
 
superrific said:
For the record, giving extra votes to people with children is not a lunatic idea, in my opinion at least. Matty Yglesias has also toyed around with the idea. I would prefer to lower the voting age to 12 or 14 or something like that, but the principle is similar. Don't get me wrong -- I don't wholeheartedly endorse the idea, but there is some merit to it if you strip away the insults and culture-war BS that Vance brings to it.

Basically, the idea is that it's pretty hard to convince old people to support long-term investments. Here I am talking about a) physical infrastructure like a better electricity grid, federally funded research for new technologies, b) education, both in terms of breadth and depth, and c) long-term fiscal solvency. It's not hard to see why -- they won't be around to enjoy them! It's not too different in kind from the problem often facing publicly traded companies -- that the investors, who are often around for only the short- or medium-term, want to slash R&D to juice current earnings, or who judge managers by their ability to hit earnings estimates multiple quarters in a row over their ability to build strong organizations for long-term growth.

Giving additional voice to the people whose interests are more aligned with the long-term health of the country is likely to promote, over time, better management for long-term prosperity. That is the idea, in a nutshell.

The downsides of the plan are evident to all and do not require elaboration. I am personally agnostic about the idea, as I see the advantages and disadvantages. Maybe this is the corporate law professor in me talking, but bad things tend to happen to institutions over time when you give power to people who don't really care about the success of those institutions. It's the main reason why equity grants became such an important part of executive compensation.
Click to expand...
As a father of 3 I couldn't be more opposed to the idea of lowering the voter age. In fact, I would be in favor of raising it but I know that would never happen. I would estimate that with 3 kids and their close friend groups I have significant interaction with i'm guessing 100 kids currently ranging in ages from 15 to 25. These are extremely bright kids (UNC, Yale, USC Honors, WF, dook, West Point, AFA, Georgetown, UVA, etc) My oldest is incredibly politically astute and has been since 15. My youngest shows a higher than average interest in politics but the average is a pretty low bar for kids his age (18). My middle child shows no interest in politics. I'm obviously speaking from my little closet of the world but these kids are shockingly repulsed by politics. While at a beach gathering my oldest had 12 of his friends there and we were discussing politics. They don't read print news or watch TV news. It's all social media driven. They see politicians as comical actors and not the real players. They see the Zuckerburgs, Gates, Musks, as who really is in charge and they feel helpless to affect any change. They say their vote doesn't matter because those guys are just going to do what they want and politicians can't or won't stop them. When I inquired about voting in local elections they blew it off and said it didn't affect them. When I asked if the country was attacked would they enlist in the service. A couple said they would but several said they would just move to another country because they could work remotely until it all blew over. Sadly, there was very little patriotism.

Those kids were all over 18 so age doesn't affect their ability to vote. But given the level if immaturity the 21 to 25 yo had I damn sure don't want to give kids younger than 18 the right to vote because they just don't give a damn yet. They don't have kids, mortgages, careers or other responsibilities. They are woefully uninformed unless you consider snap chat, twitter, and instagram credible sources of information. So I disagree with the premise that they are more aligned with the long-term health of the country or more likely to promote better management for long-term prosperity. I don't think that kicks in until late 20's to early 30's when they are staring at their first baby. I realize you weren't an advocate for it but just offering my .02 based on my experiences.
 
CFordUNC said:
I believe that an IQ of 130 qualifies one for Mensa status, and I would be willing to bet every penny I've ever earned and ever will earn that he isn't even close to Mensa. But I do think that Trump's IQ is probably higher than most people would assume. He is almost completely devoid of any emotional intelligence, his cognitive style is erratic, and he does not seem to be a very organized person in any manner. But his ability to communicate and his political skill/instinct is way, way better than most people give him credit for. So it would not surprise me if he has a much higher IQ than many people believe, but it would definitely surprise me if he was anywhere close to Mensa-level.
Click to expand...
Mensa starts at 132 for Stanford - Binet. Other tests differ on actual score but the general requirement is 98th Percentile on standardized IQ tests. We had my oldest tested and he scored above the 99th percentile. We were given all kinds of documentation for registering his score but that wasn't the point of having him tested. I seriously doubt trump is mensa level but do agree he is likely smarter than he appears. I always thought Jimmy Carter was the smartest potus in my lifetime but bill might have him beat.
 
Callatoroy said:
Mensa starts at 132 for Stanford - Binet. Other tests differ on actual score but the general requirement is 98th Percentile on standardized IQ tests. We had my oldest tested and he scored above the 99th percentile. We were given all kinds of documentation for registering his score but that wasn't the point of having him tested. I seriously doubt trump is mensa level but do agree he is likely smarter than he appears. I always thought Jimmy Carter was the smartest potus in my lifetime but bill might have him beat.
Click to expand...
Damn! Congrats to your oldest. That's impressive.
 
We couldn't relate so that is why we had him tested. The experts we talked with were game changers for us and really helped us navigate it.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
"This is not who we are." Um, yeah, Meghan, this is exactly what your party is now. It is who you are, and you should have realized that long ago.
Click to expand...
She is exactly right and It's not at all who we are but all you see is what you want to see. It's easy to create a boogeyman and then everyone fits that profile. Its the lazy way out. It requires curiosity, effort and a desire to understand a different pov. By the way, curiosity is one of the signs of intelligence.
 
Callatoroy said:
But given the level if immaturity the 21 to 25 yo had I damn sure don't want to give kids younger than 18 the right to vote because they just don't give a damn yet. They are woefully uninformed unless you consider snap chat, twitter, and instagram credible sources of information.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you don't appreciate the irony in these statements, but it's there, trust me.
 
Callatoroy said:
She is exactly right and It's not at all who we are but all you see is what you want to see. It's easy to create a boogeyman and then everyone fits that profile. Its the lazy way out. It requires curiosity, effort and a desire to understand a different pov. By the way, curiosity is one of the signs of intelligence.
Click to expand...
No, she's exactly wrong and you're the one who is seeing only what you wish to see. Given the two top candidates your party has chosen I feel quite confident in that assertion. Another sign of intelligence is the ability to look at what politicians say and propose and believe in and form conclusions based on their statements and speeches. And it seems quite clear that Donald J. Trump and J.D. Vance and the party they lead is not in favor of things that matter to a great many modern women, such as abortion rights, IVF, and so on.
 
Maybe kids should be worth 3/5ths of a vote.

It's already sort of in the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top