Kamala Harris selected as Biden's running mate

[appleomac]

It really is amazing the way people will contort themselves, to justify behaviour that defies logic, or shows how opportunistic someone is. Would you be making the same argument if Harris was picked as Trump's VP selection? Or if it was found she worked for Jeffrey Epstein? Of course not, because that's the wrong side. Subtle racism, black-face, multiple ethics violations, associating with a possible pedophile or rapist, is acceptable, because the cancel culture rules only apply when anyone on the right does it. Other wise they're ignored or justified.

Mate, you're the one contorting yourself. You first said that Harris is a hypocrite because she received a donation from Weinstein - which you then said "let's ignore that" once it was pointed out to you the timeline of events, how you misquoted an article and created a false equivalency that a donation must mean the party/person receiving the donation is implicitly or explicitly supporting the donor in all his/her actions (which obviously it does not). Now you're trying to contort yourself into believing that somehow this is about Trump??? No it isn't. The thread was about Harris being selected as Biden's running mate, and all I did was address your inaccuracies! And now you bring up black-face, racism and pedophilia?!?!? And I am contorting something into a bunch of things? Common mate, get a hold of yourself! Just because I do not agree with your assessment with Harris' selection as Biden's running mate, that does not mean I am or need to justify Harris' actions, whatever they may be. You really don't get that do you. All you see is someone (i.e. me) not agreeing with you and pointing out your inaccuracies, and that means (in your mind) that I must be a supporter of "this" or "that" - bringing up things like racism and pedophilia trying to contrive some sort of moral authority to justify your own inaccuracies and/or attack those that don't agree with you lock, stock and barrel!

And I'll let you in on a little secret, pretty much all VP candidates probably since the history of the US are/have been individuals that are "opportunistic" - you know, because they probably see the VP role as a stepping stone to something bigger and/or they see that being VP can be beneficial to them personally! It's widely known that Pence is eyeing a presidential run, so he's opportunistic. Gore ran for President, so he was opportunistic. Bush Sr. was a VP and ran/became President - so he was opportunistic. Nixon was a VP and eventually ran/became president - so he was opportunistic. Yes, generally, people who want to climb the political ladder are (have always been) opportunistic! LOL

 

[Cock Throppled]

Harris is still willing to campaign with a man she believes is a rapist, and who says things that indicate he's a racist, but that's okay, because she a semi-black woman. The Wapo fits the pattern of with their quick-change position:

WaPo in Dec: Dropout Harris was an "uneven campaigner" engulfed by "internal turmoil" and "unable to provide a clear message." Today: a "vibrant and energetic" campaigner, and "vessel for Democratic hopes."

 

[appleomac]

Harris is still willing to campaign with a man she believes is a rapist, and who says things that indicate he's a racist, but that's okay, because she a semi-black woman. The Wapo fits the pattern of with their quick-change position:

WaPo in Dec: Dropout Harris was an "uneven campaigner" engulfed by "internal turmoil" and "unable to provide a clear message." Today: a "vibrant and energetic" campaigner, and "vessel for Democratic hopes."

No doubt Harris is willing to campaign with Biden - that's part of the job as a VP candidate. Now, why don't post the interview or article where she calls Biden a racist and rapist? Seriously mate, that trope has been widely debunked. I get it, it was a rather hot day, easily 30 plus degrees - I guess you can be forgiven for drinking too much Kool-Aid! LOL!

Now, here's the WAPO article criticizing Harris' campaign for Dem Nominee...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a01f3e-15f7-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html
And here's the WAPO article praising Harris as "a vessel for Democratic hopes..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a51930-d1b7-11ea-8c55-61e7fa5e82ab_story.html
Now, you are correct, they are both WAPO articles. But more importantly, they are written by different journalists/authors! LOL. Those articles are not espousing WAPO's opinions - they are articulating the thoughts/opinions of their authors - and AGAIN, those two articles are written by different journalists. Screw the hot weather mate, you actually need to put down the Kool-Aid!

 

[JimDandy]

With Harris's polling so low that she bailed before the first primary in California, how can anyone say that she's an effective running mate?

How well do you think Pence would have done if he had run to represent the Republicans? With his robotic personality and his well know very conservative values, not nearly as well as Harris I would argue. Therefore you must be REALLY hoping Trump dumps Pence and picks someone like Jeb Bush, who did run against him in the run up to 2016 election, as his running mate?

The point I am making is that someone who is not, or would not be in Pence's case, successful running for their party for president, can still be considered a good choice for a running mate.

JD

 

[Ray]

The Trumpets will swallow whatever their idol ejaculates, without question.

 

[Miss Hunter]

I would love to have a selective memory as well but sadly I don't.

Everyone has a selective memory. Us humans are nowhere near as rational as we think we are.

 

[Bobert1969]

How well do you think Pence would have done if he had run to represent the Republicans? With his robotic personality and his well know very conservative values, not nearly as well as Harris I would argue. Therefore you must be REALLY hoping Trump dumps Pence and picks someone like Jeb Bush, who did run against him in the run up to 2016 election, as his running mate?

The point I am making is that someone who is not, or would not be in Pence's case, successful running for their party for president, can still be considered a good choice for a running mate.

JD

With Pence, what you see is what you get. He's a man of convictions, whether you agree with those convictions or not. Your point, however, is irrelevant to the original point I was making as the discussion around Harris being the VP candidate to run with Biden is that she is a "sensible" choice because she's a moderate. My point is that she's anything but a moderate and is in fact one of the more extreme liberals in the Senate today, of which her voting record supports.


https://govtrackinsider.com/our-ide...the-most-liberal-senator-in-2019-bbd25493ca72
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2019/senate/ideology
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ris-really-most-liberal-senator-trump-claims/

 

[JimDandy]

With Pence, what you see is what you get. He's a man of convictions, whether you agree with those convictions or not. Your point, however, is irrelevant to the original point I was making as the discussion around Harris being the VP candidate to run with Biden is that she is a "sensible" choice because she's a moderate. My point is that she's anything but a moderate and is in fact one of the more extreme liberals in the Senate today, of which her voting record supports.


https://govtrackinsider.com/our-ide...the-most-liberal-senator-in-2019-bbd25493ca72
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2019/senate/ideology
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ris-really-most-liberal-senator-trump-claims/

I was responding to this statement by you:

"With Harris's polling so low that she bailed before the first primary in California, how can anyone say that she's an effective running mate? "

Again, my argument is that Pence would have had equally low polling numbers, if not lower, if he had managed to get enough support to even run, which he did not.

JD

 

[Bobert1969]

The "Never Bernie" voters in the Democratic party all threw their support to Biden - that was the difference. Jayapal is a Democratic congressperson, Dem Senators and members of congress are not the only ones that select a party leader - the party membership have alot to do with it, and there were tons of "Never Bernie" Dems. In fact, if Jayapal co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, she was probably a Bernie supporter. And since you simply cut and pasted a quote rather than posted the interview or article the quote came from, there is no way to know what the context was. It could of been from a quote from Jayapal making peace to "circle the wagons" around Biden to show a unified Democratic front - that's usually what happens. Saying nothing for the fact that Jayapal doesn't even have the clout in the Democratic party to even claim to be able to control the party or party leader!

Here's a little secret about presidential elections in the US, the potential VP's matter very little! Do you really think the state of California is all of a sudden going to swing to Trump because Harris is on the Democratic ticket? Do you really believe a solidly red state would go blue had Biden selected someone other than Harris? If you don't like Harris, just say so - but stop trying to make her selection as Biden's running mate as something more than it really is - it's just another VP candidate!

You're saying that the NeverBernie voters supporting Biden is the reason Harris, a black woman, received less black support than any other candidate, including pasty white, stiff Tom Steyer? I don't understand the logic behind that one enough to agree or disagree as it doesn't make sense. Harris dropped out of the race because her polling was simply too low to continue to the first primary. That was my point regarding her not being an effective candidate and I replied to Jim Dandy on the extremism of her voting record which showed her as not being the "moderate" put forth by mainstream media.

Btw, here is the article I quoted about Jayapal. My apologies for not including the reference, which I usually do, as I was in a hurry during my response.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/11/progressive-caucus-chief-jayapal-biden-is-movable-on-issues/
Yes, she is talking about supporting Biden because he can be "pressured" (her words) to do what the party wants. I do not understand your point about Jayapal not leading the party. This isn't relevant but to your point, she is considered to be highly influential and she is considered to be the "mentor" for the squad and her endorsement of Sanders was considered to be a big blow to Warren's campaign. Her very liberal views, and those of the squad, are gaining a lot of ground and her views on Biden and his "moveable" nature reflects (in my opinion) the views of most in the party and is one of the reasons why he is the presumptive nominee.

And no, to your final question, I do not believe any VP pick would swing California nor a "solidly red state". That would be a statistically impossibility. I do believe that in battle ground states that will be much closer, another candidate would help Biden over the edge more so than Harris may.

 

[Bobert1969]

I was responding to this statement by you:

"With Harris's polling so low that she bailed before the first primary in California, how can anyone say that she's an effective running mate? "

Again, my argument is that Pence would have had equally low polling numbers, if not lower, if he had managed to get enough support to even run, which he did not.

JD

Pence would have had a strong chance of gaining evangelical support which is a powerful base to have behind you. A clean cut Christian boy would go far in the South and the Midwest, but not as far as in the past. But like I said, the man has convictions and he's the kind of person that sticks to them (for better or for worse) as evidenced by his gubernatorial record. The same cannot even be joked about for Harris as she's flipped on issues more times than a dirty mattress. Oh, and Pence never ran for President but not because he would not have had support. I believe he would have and it would have been far more than what Harris received. He wanted to run but he could not because of a legal hindrance in his state.

 

[appleomac]

You're saying that the NeverBernie voters supporting Biden is the reason Harris, a black woman, received less black support than any other candidate, including pasty white, stiff Tom Steyer? I don't understand the logic behind that one enough to agree or disagree as it doesn't make sense.

You're not understanding because my comment about the Never Bernie crowd was in relation to what the Dems wanted! More specifically, it was in response to your post below. why the Never Bernie crowd and ultimately why the Dems selected Biden has NOTHING to do with what support Harris received in the Democratic primaries - you are connecting unrelated topics! Moreover, I simply stated that Harris was the safe choice (i.e. safer than others than were apparently on Biden's short list). That does not mean I stated (which you are trying to infer) that Harris is "an effective running mate." Having said all that, you continually point to her abysmal Democratic Primary campaign as your reasoning for why Harris is apparently is not a good choice - I'm assuming, you are trying to make the point that she is not good at campaigning or does not know how to manage a campaign. If that is the case, you need to understand that as a VP candidate, you simply do as you're told. In other words, her people are not running the campaign, Biden's people are! Just because the Dems didn't elect here as the party's nominee does not mean she is unelectable. In fact, Harris does have a record of being electable - i.e. State AG and Senate. Granted it's rather moot point, as VP candidates almost never tilt an election one way or another - VP candidates are just not that important in a General.

The Dems wanted Biden because, according to Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)

“As soon as we get him in the White House, and even before with these task forces that we had, we were able to significantly push Joe Biden to do things that he hadn’t signed on to before.”

In other words, he's someone they can control. Jayapal straight up said as much.

With Harris's polling so low that she bailed before the first primary in California, how can anyone say that she's an effective running mate? Tom Steyer, who was polling at 2%, received more black support than she did.

And as it relates to your insistence that the Dems wanted Biden because of the Jayapal interview. The Jayapal interview shows why Jayapal can now support Biden, not why the Dems collectively chose Biden - there is a difference! The progressive wing of the Dems are no different then the Tea Party faction of the GOP - they are merely a wing or faction of the larger party. It's foolish to believe the Tea Party wing controls the GOP and it's equally foolish to believe that Jayapal and the new progressive wing controls the Dems! If Jayapal and the progressive wing of the Democratic party was that powerful, Sanders would have won the nomination - but he didn't! Jayapal has to put the Biden nomination in the best possible light so as to convince the young progressives (her demographic) to stay engaged and come out and vote Democratic - can you not see that? As far as the Dems' playbook goes so far - it's "let's play safe". Biden was the safe choice for most Dems (which is why he won the nomination). Harris was the safe choice. And if I were a betting man, their campaign strategy will be to play it safe. Hell, the Dem Convention is happening soon - they should get Trojan Condoms to sponsor the damn thing and have a massive slogan that says "LET'S PLAY SAFE!" - because that's what the Dems have done up to this point, and barring something unforeseen, they'll probably continue along that line.

 

[appleomac]

With Pence, what you see is what you get. He's a man of convictions, whether you agree with those convictions or not. Your point, however, is irrelevant to the original point I was making as the discussion around Harris being the VP candidate to run with Biden is that she is a "sensible" choice because she's a moderate. My point is that she's anything but a moderate and is in fact one of the more extreme liberals in the Senate today, of which her voting record supports.


https://govtrackinsider.com/our-ide...the-most-liberal-senator-in-2019-bbd25493ca72
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2019/senate/ideology
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ris-really-most-liberal-senator-trump-claims/

With all due respect, have you even read some of those bills in your first link? Other than maybe the tax credit for renters and legalizing marijuana, how are most of those things considered "extreme liberal" (as you put it). Seriously, an act to nominate the late Aretha Franklin for the Congressional Gold Medal is "extreme liberal"? An act to make lynching a federal crime is "extreme liberal"? An act to study the best methodology to count deaths from natural disasters is "extreme liberal"? You can say she is "extreme liberal" (clearly based on someone's else's analysis), you can even believe with every fiber of your being that she is "extreme liberal" - you certainly haven't demonstrated or proven that she is "extreme liberal"! Seriously mate, if you wanted to make the case she is an "extreme liberal" - I believe Harris supported the New Green Deal. That would be better "evidence" that Harris is "extreme liberal" - not nominating Aretha Franklin for a Congressional Gold Medal! LOL

 

[Bobert1969]

You're not understanding because my comment about the Never Bernie crowd was in relation to what the Dems wanted! More specifically, it was in response to your post below. why the Never Bernie crowd and ultimately why the Dems selected Biden has NOTHING to do with what support Harris received in the Democratic primaries - you are connecting unrelated topics! Moreover, I simply stated that Harris was the safe choice (i.e. safer than others than were apparently on Biden's short list). That does not mean I stated (which you are trying to infer) that Harris is "an effective running mate." Having said all that, you continually point to her abysmal Democratic Primary campaign as your reasoning for why Harris is apparently is not a good choice - I'm assuming, you are trying to make the point that she is not good at campaigning or does not know how to manage a campaign. If that is the case, you need to understand that as a VP candidate, you simply do as you're told. In other words, her people are not running the campaign, Biden's people are! Just because the Dems didn't elect here as the party's nominee does not mean she is unelectable. In fact, Harris does have a record of being electable - i.e. State AG and Senate. Granted it's rather moot point, as VP candidates almost never tilt an election one way or another - VP candidates are just not that important in a General.

Sorry, been busy with the ladies. I wasn't inferring anything regarding your comment about Harris being a safe bet. I said she wasn't because he's not the moderate that everyone has been saying she is, so no, I do not believe she is a safe bet. But beyond that, yes, I believe she is a bad choice in general which is why I pointed to her poor performance as a Presidential candidate. Your assumption is wrong, however. She campaigned quite well and at one point was doing quite well but she could not maintain her momentum because it was becoming obvious that she didn't have strong convictions which is why Tulsi was able to destroy her on stage. Regarding her VP spot, this has been talked about as being the first Presidential race where the VP may take a more front and centre role simply because everyone knows that Biden realistically may not last the first four years so the VP spot is more of a placeholder in this race.

Yes, I did read the links but you missed the point. First, I said she was ONE of the more extreme liberals but when you look at how the recognition was established it is because she, among her peers, had among the lowest "co-sponser" rates of any dem member of the senate. That was one of the qualifiers for determining she's one of the most left leaning members of the Senate because so few Republicans signed on to co-sponsor any of her bills. But if you want to talk about the actual extremity of some of her beliefs, she not only wants free medicare for all, she wants free medicare for illegal immigrants. Canada doesn't even do that for visitors to Canada, much less for illegal immigrants. She wants free public college, something we don't even get in Canada. Oh, and she supports the idea of federal elections including 16 years olds as voters. All of those things I listed are considered extreme in most circles. However, I have to admit that the way that the democratic party is moving, it isn't as extreme as it would have been considered just two years ago.

 

[appleomac]

Sorry, been busy with the ladies. I wasn't inferring anything regarding your comment about Harris being a safe bet. I said she wasn't because he's not the moderate that everyone has been saying she is, so no, I do not believe she is a safe bet. But beyond that, yes, I believe she is a bad choice in general which is why I pointed to her poor performance as a Presidential candidate. Your assumption is wrong, however. She campaigned quite well and at one point was doing quite well but she could not maintain her momentum because it was becoming obvious that she didn't have strong convictions which is why Tulsi was able to destroy her on stage. Regarding her VP spot, this has been talked about as being the first Presidential race where the VP may take a more front and centre role simply because everyone knows that Biden realistically may not last the first four years so the VP spot is more of a placeholder in this race.

Yes, I did read the links but you missed the point. First, I said she was ONE of the more extreme liberals but when you look at how the recognition was established it is because she, among her peers, had among the lowest "co-sponser" rates of any dem member of the senate. That was one of the qualifiers for determining she's one of the most left leaning members of the Senate because so few Republicans signed on to co-sponsor any of her bills. But if you want to talk about the actual extremity of some of her beliefs, she not only wants free medicare for all, she wants free medicare for illegal immigrants. Canada doesn't even do that for visitors to Canada, much less for illegal immigrants. She wants free public college, something we don't even get in Canada. Oh, and she supports the idea of federal elections including 16 years olds as voters. All of those things I listed are considered extreme in most circles. However, I have to admit that the way that the democratic party is moving, it isn't as extreme as it would have been considered just two years ago.

If Harris, in your opinion, is a bad choice - so be it. I don't believe (generally) any VP is a good or bad choice - because they simply do not matter. Time will tell how prominent of a role she plays in this election campaign.

I already know how Govtrack's methodology works when it comes to their "most liberal" labels - and I think it is a fallacy to label any elected member as "liberal" or "conservative" based on if said elected member co-sponsors with opposite aisle members. Contents of their bills matter, in my opinion, not if said bill has an opposite aisle co-sponsor or not.

About the only thing that you mentioned that could be categorized as "extreme liberal" is free healthcare for anyone and everyone that happens to be in the US. Americans cannot even agree how to give themselves universal healthcare - I highly doubt free healthcare for anyone and everyone is actually achievable. Obama had the White House, the Dems had both Congress and the Senate and the closest thing they could get to universal healthcare was the Affordable Care Act - I would bet that the US will not even get a single payer system (like Canada's, which is what the progressives in the Democratic Party want) even if Biden wins. Hell, even if Sanders won the nomination and was elected President I don't think the Americans would get a single payer system!

Free university tuition is not an "extreme liberal" concept - unless you are also opposed to public education (i.e. K-12) generally. Think about it, if you support public education as it is now (i.e. K-12), free university tuition is merely an extension of the idea of public education. If there ever was a serious policy proposal for free tuition that is realistically revenue neutral - every politician would get on board because it would have overwhelming public support - think about it! If you're truly on the right or a conservative - you should believe that education is the true equalizer - public education should be something most conservatives are in favour of. Unfortunately, conservatives see it as more government expenditures, meaning more government expansion - which is actually very narrow-minded. Free tuition is more an investment than it is simply an expense to be paid - think about it!

You really need to stop thinking about policy proposals as being "left" or "right" and start thinking pragmatically in terms of does the policy make sense in terms of what the policy is actually trying to achieve. Both good and bad policy comes from both liberals and conservatives - you need to stop automatically discarding policy proposals simply because "someone on the left" proposed it.

 

[Bobert1969]

If Harris, in your opinion, is a bad choice - so be it. I don't believe (generally) any VP is a good or bad choice - because they simply do not matter. Time will tell how prominent of a role she plays in this election campaign.

I already know how Govtrack's methodology works when it comes to their "most liberal" labels - and I think it is a fallacy to label any elected member as "liberal" or "conservative" based on if said elected member co-sponsors with opposite aisle members. Contents of their bills matter, in my opinion, not if said bill has an opposite aisle co-sponsor or not.

About the only thing that you mentioned that could be categorized as "extreme liberal" is free healthcare for anyone and everyone that happens to be in the US. Americans cannot even agree how to give themselves universal healthcare - I highly doubt free healthcare for anyone and everyone is actually achievable. Obama had the White House, the Dems had both Congress and the Senate and the closest thing they could get to universal healthcare was the Affordable Care Act - I would bet that the US will not even get a single payer system (like Canada's, which is what the progressives in the Democratic Party want) even if Biden wins. Hell, even if Sanders won the nomination and was elected President I don't think the Americans would get a single payer system!

Free university tuition is not an "extreme liberal" concept - unless you are also opposed to public education (i.e. K-12) generally. Think about it, if you support public education as it is now (i.e. K-12), free university tuition is merely an extension of the idea of public education. If there ever was a serious policy proposal for free tuition that is realistically revenue neutral - every politician would get on board because it would have overwhelming public support - think about it! If you're truly on the right or a conservative - you should believe that education is the true equalizer - public education should be something most conservatives are in favour of. Unfortunately, conservatives see it as more government expenditures, meaning more government expansion - which is actually very narrow-minded. Free tuition is more an investment than it is simply an expense to be paid - think about it!

You really need to stop thinking about policy proposals as being "left" or "right" and start thinking pragmatically in terms of does the policy make sense in terms of what the policy is actually trying to achieve. Both good and bad policy comes from both liberals and conservatives - you need to stop automatically discarding policy proposals simply because "someone on the left" proposed it.

So you think the only thing extreme might be extreme healthcare? How about allowing children to vote?

I think the Govetrac model is quite telling as the level of liberalism or conservatism is measured by the frequency which the other side comes to the centre to meet on a bill for co-sponsorship. I don't think of anything as left or right off the bat. I think of whether it makes sense in the short term, the long term, what it costs and whether it makes things easier or more productive but those types of ideas can generally be classified as being a left leaning issue or a right leaning issue. It's a pretty simple concept. I don't think that funding college and university is an extension of the public school system and I don't think it makes sense from a conservative point of view. For one, I don't believe university is necessary for the vast majority of people. Medical, legal, etc, yes of course but not so much for a lot of other verticals, especially because of how it has morphed over the years into a breeding ground for fascism. Trade schools, those are something I can get behind because to teach a trade is incredibly useful for all involved but the problem is that there is so much more money that goes into funding these institutions because of their size, the level of talent needed needed to teach effectively, etc. But by your argument, using the k-12 model, UBC should be free to anyone and everyone that wishes to attend, yes?

 

[80watts]

So everyone is comparing the candidates moral values; not like the past 4 years and the heap of data on Trump's moral attitude, wonder how the christian republican party deals with the hipocracy of it all. Its all about his lies. His ethics. I always thought that any one who claims to be a Christian would be honest. When I was younger in my teens it was explained this way:
A Christian contractor had his trailer at an jobsite broken into. The insurance man was gonna cover everything wrong with the trailer including the broken screen door which the contractor had broken. The Christian contractor stopped the insurance agent and said that he broke the screen door and that he would pay for it. Honesty.

When I look at Trump and his failure to pay business people back for their honest work by declaring bankruptcy; shows his true Christian Charactor.... He has none. So why is the republican party (Right wing Christians) supporting him. The only answear I can see is that the Republicans want to win at all costs; no matter who they put into the White House.

Fuck I know Americans are stupid but I thought they had one more brain cells then a cow (who shit everywhere).....

 

[appleomac]

So you think the only thing extreme might be extreme healthcare? How about allowing children to vote?

I think the Govetrac model is quite telling as the level of liberalism or conservatism is measured by the frequency which the other side comes to the centre to meet on a bill for co-sponsorship. I don't think of anything as left or right off the bat. I think of whether it makes sense in the short term, the long term, what it costs and whether it makes things easier or more productive but those types of ideas can generally be classified as being a left leaning issue or a right leaning issue. It's a pretty simple concept. I don't think that funding college and university is an extension of the public school system and I don't think it makes sense from a conservative point of view. For one, I don't believe university is necessary for the vast majority of people. Medical, legal, etc, yes of course but not so much for a lot of other verticals, especially because of how it has morphed over the years into a breeding ground for fascism. Trade schools, those are something I can get behind because to teach a trade is incredibly useful for all involved but the problem is that there is so much more money that goes into funding these institutions because of their size, the level of talent needed needed to teach effectively, etc. But by your argument, using the k-12 model, UBC should be free to anyone and everyone that wishes to attend, yes?

Reducing the voting age has been discussed for decades - it's actually nothing new. So what? What's inherently wrong with letting a 16 or 17 year old vote? Conservatives generally oppose lowering the voting age because younger folks tend to be more "left" inclined. But at the same time, younger adults (I'm assuming the same trend would be seen in 16 and 17 year olds), are the least likely to vote - so what is there to be scared of? Heaven forbid the voting age being lowered and younger citizens getting engaged with democracy - what a terrible thing!?!?! Saying nothing for the fact that everything we (i.e. adults) do with respect to policy and taxes and spending will all inevitably affect future generations. In many ways, we're asking future generations to pay for things we want now - so let those that will foot the bill have a say.

No. Free university tuition does not mean no standards. If you don't have the grades to get in, you don't get in. Government paying the tuition should not mean everyone gets free tuition - you still need the grades to get in in the first place.

 

[Bobert1969]

Reducing the voting age has been discussed for decades - it's actually nothing new. So what? What's inherently wrong with letting a 16 or 17 year old vote? Conservatives generally oppose lowering the voting age because younger folks tend to be more "left" inclined. But at the same time, younger adults (I'm assuming the same trend would be seen in 16 and 17 year olds), are the least likely to vote - so what is there to be scared of? Heaven forbid the voting age being lowered and younger citizens getting engaged with democracy - what a terrible thing!?!?! Saying nothing for the fact that everything we (i.e. adults) do with respect to policy and taxes and spending will all inevitably affect future generations. In many ways, we're asking future generations to pay for things we want now - so let those that will foot the bill have a say.

No. Free university tuition does not mean no standards. If you don't have the grades to get in, you don't get in. Government paying the tuition should not mean everyone gets free tuition - you still need the grades to get in in the first place.

I didn't say free university means no standards.

There is a good reason why children and their manner of rationalizing the world is more left leaning. It's because the prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed till one is in their mid-twenties. This is why teens are considered to be impulsive, and even irrational with their decision making processes so while the discussion has been had for years, it doesn't make any better of an idea.

 

[appleomac]

I didn't say free university means no standards.

There is a good reason why children and their manner of rationalizing the world is more left leaning. It's because the prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed till one is in their mid-twenties. This is why teens are considered to be impulsive, and even irrational with their decision making processes so while the discussion has been had for years, it doesn't make any better of an idea.

LOL! "Impulsive, and even irrational with their decision making processes" does not equate to "left leaning"! That's your own bias about left leaning folks. Just because someone does not agree with you ideologically (and there are many things I don't agree with when it comes to certain left leaning individuals), I would not cast such a wide net and try and equate any and all "left leaning" individuals as irrational and/or impulsive. Think about your logic for one second - if a 40 year old is left leaning, that is not irrational (because their prefrontal cortex is fully developed), yet a 17 year old that is left leaning is irrational (because their prefrontal cortex is NOT fully developed): that sort of duplicity is what is irrational. Moreover, if, (and I'm no human anatomy or brain expert) the "prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed till one is in their mid-twenties", why are you not advocating raising the voting age to 25 as opposed to merely opposing lowering the age to include 16 and 17 year olds? Saying nothing for the fact that (regardless of what the voting age is), democracy does not state that one can vote only if it is deemed "rational." An individuals choice to vote for whomever they choose to vote for is not subject to your personal definition of if such vote is rational or not! And finally, a not fully developed pre-frontal cortex is NOT a guarantee of a "wrong" or "bad" decision. I'm sure all 16 and 17 years make both completely irrational and completely rational choices/decisions all the time. In fact, I'm sure individuals with a fully developed pre-frontal cortex make both completely irrational and completely rational choices/decisions all the time as well!

 

[Bobert1969]

You said it first.

"Conservatives generally oppose lowering the voting age because younger folks tend to be more "left" inclined. "

Maybe you were stating this from your assumed perceptions of what conservatives would think, but it's not relevant. To better explain, if you look at what young people generally believe in their teens, those ideals typically fall into the left leaning category regardless of what my personal opinions are. And please do not get ahead of yourself by assuming my comments reflect an opinion that "any and all" left leaning individuals are irrational and/or impulsive. That was reserved for the original subject of discussion, teenagers. If you do not agree that teenagers make decisions without thinking them through more than an average adult that is in their late twenties or later, then there is nothing left to discuss as you clearly have no idea about the differences in mental development and the correlation with age, which is scientific fact. That's ok, as the average person isn't supposed to know such things. And you're also incorrectly applying a correlation between age and liberalism vs. age and rational thought. I wasn't saying, nor implying, that liberalism in general reflects a lack of rational thought. 40 year old adults are much more rational than teenagers but the difference is that if they are liberal, they can usually find a way to rationalize their positions during an adult discussion. To the degree that they can do so may be in question (much different discussion), but it certainly is a position USUALLY based on a deeper thought process and understanding of the issues as opposed to an emotional knee jerk reaction that a teenager may have. Do you understand the difference now? And I was in fact going to comment about my thoughts about the current voting age as I would not be completely opposed to raising the minimum age to vote to 25 if it were put forth as a possibility.