Jump to content
270soft Forum
ThePotatoWalrus

Youngest Forum Users

Recommended Posts

Just now, ThePotatoWalrus said:

That was easy. Who's the oldest?

Probably @Patine

Share this post


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

Probably @Patine

@vcczar and @servo75 are very rough contemporaries. I think @vcczar maybe a bit younger, but @servo75 hints at life experiences and a period when he was in school that are very similar timewise to mine, so I don't know how old, exactly, he is. Plus, Anthony's age is completely unknown.

Share this post


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

@vcczar and @servo75 are very rough contemporaries. I think @vcczar maybe a bit younger, but @servo75 hints at life experiences and a period when he was in school that are very similar timewise to mine, so I don't know how old, exactly, he is. Plus, Anthony's age is completely unknown.

How old are you? What's the average age of the forum (roughly)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first election where I was eligible to vote was Clinton-Dole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, servo75 said:

The first election where I was eligible to vote was Clinton-Dole.

That would have been my first too had I lived in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 19 so I'm definitely not the youngest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first election that I could vote in, and I did vote in, was the 2000 election---Gore vs. Bush.

The first election I remember keeping up with a little bit was the 1988 election, but I was a little kid, so I didn't really understand the issues then. 

I really wish the average of this forum was over 21, rather than about 17. Even smart kids don't really fully develop their critical thinking skills until about the age of 25. Additionally, someone with life experience--as an adult--carries much more weight in political discussions and debate than someone who has lived with their parents their whole life.

I'm curious as to where all you kids will be politically in 10 years. I'm repeating myself, but some of you are new, so I'll mention this again. I used to be much more conservative when I was a kid--Conservative parents, living in a Conservative neighborhood, and living in Texas. Although, centrist is probably more accurate. I never really had an opinion on Fiscal Issues, and I was much more traditional on Social Issues, because I didn't really try to think for myself on politics when I was 15 years old. However, I will say, I never parroted anyone's talking points, since I was politically very quiet. I say centrist because I remember liking Dukakis, Perot, and Bill Clinton, and not liking GHW Bush and Bob Dole, but since I was young, I couldn't explain why I disliked them. Sometime around the age of 16, I hit some sort of cognitive renaissance in regards to awareness of contemporary politics.

Things started making more sense to me, and I had a grasp of what issues were important, etc. In 2000, I got to vote for the first time, since I was of age. I voted for George W. Bush over Al Gore, a vote I very much regret. Both ran on very similar platforms, and Gore was so robotic as to not seem genuine. I was still more of a Bush supporter than a Gore supporter until sometime in early or mid-2001. This was mainly because Conservative Republicans were coming off as so distasteful and heartless, as I began to investigate members of Congress. I was also greatly shifting on my social views, since I was meeting people and making friends of different backgrounds (religions, gender preferences, etc.). It didn't help that I found left-leaning college students much more intelligent, interesting, deep, and selfless, than right-leaning college students, who seems more like stereotypes of the "party school college student" type. The kind that are drunk and debauched 6 days of the week, but in Church on Sunday. Obviously, there were exceptions. By 2002, I was extremely critical for Bush's foreign policy and social policy (I was still neutral on Fiscal Policy).

By 2004, I was certainly in the labor camp over big business. I was a Dennis Kucinich Democrat. I voted for him in the primaries, and John Kerry in the general election. Although, I thought Kerry was a mistake, since he wasn't going to excite voters. By 2008, I was pretty much Left on every issue, even on fiscal issues. Again, I was hoping Kucinich would run again, but by the time of the primaries, I had to pick between Clinton and Obama, which was actually a tougher choice than it seems like it should be. I decided to vote for Obama about two weeks before the Texas primary. About a week before the primary, I got to meet both Obama and Ted Kennedy, when they came to my University. I was in the VIP section, somehow. 2008 to me was a fairly crucial election looking back, since I think the nomination of Sarah Palin as a potential VP really set us on a high-speed trajectory for anti-intellectualism in politics and in policy, since it was a symbolic victory, even while her ticket didn't win. At the time, I just thought she was a female version of Dan Quayle, but she was/is much more dangerous. Obama's victory because of his race and his name, also emboldened racists and bigots. The trinity evils of anti-intellectualism and 21st century racism and bigotry really made an obvious shift in politics. For me, it made the Republican Party unsupportable so long as it composed the bulk of the racists, bigots, and anti-intellectuals. I could, however, respect a few Republicans, like McCain, who would correct his own supporters who happened to be racists or bigots. In 2012, I obviously supported Obama's reelection, even though I thought he was a disappointment by not fulfilling much of his progressive platform, opting to compromise too often, even in times when he didn't need to. 

For 2016, as you may know, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, knowing full well he would not get nominated. And, as I expected I would, I voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election, using much of my energy trying to prevent fellow Sanders supporters from voting for Jill Stein. 

In short, as a teenager, I was a centrist conservative. By my early 20's, having been an adult for a few years, living on my own, I became more liberal. By the time I was 25, I was definitely a progressive, and I've been ever since. The platform has generally been obviously the best platform for the sake of the people of our country and the human race in general. I'm fairly certain some of you 14 to 19 years old will change your political views by the time you hit your mid-20s, even if you stay within the same party. Living life really changes your views. For me, it was growing up in a somewhat gated conservative community, and then leaving it to a much more varied, exciting world & having been unemployed for 18 months during the Great Recession. 

Anyway, I typed this pretty fast. Forgive any typos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 21.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Presidentinsertname said:

18 first election will be local this next mouth.

Did he mean "month"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 30 (turn 31 in a couple weeks). Turned 18 less than a week before the 04 election and registered to vote for Kerry. Have moved a bit left on some issues, a bit right on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of anything that I've moved right on. There are some issues that I'm less interested in, and in those areas I'm more likely to accept centrist or even moderately conservative solutions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, @vcczar if you had to pick people from this forum for a presidential cabinet who would you choose for which job (I've been thinking about this question myself,you don't need to fill alll the jobs of the cabinet).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I can't think of anything that I've moved right on. There are some issues that I'm less interested in, and in those areas I'm more likely to accept centrist or even moderately conservative solutions. 

I think that kind of describes me on environment/climate change to some extent. I used to be a bit of a hardliner, but now I'm more indifferent in the short term, and while I would prefer green solutions, the impact on labor is my top concern. So when looking at projects and regulations, my first question is about job creation/displacement.

The other issue I've moved right on is 2a. I've lived in one of NY/CA all of my life and for most of my life was a proponent of a national gun ban. Now, I appreciate it as a civil liberty, and think my position was unreasonable. I don't own a gun and might not ever, but I appreciate the reasons for ownership.

I've was already left on most economic issues, and have moved further left for the most part. I have become more of a skeptic on union leadership, but I still support the concept and goals of organized labor. I would probably support nationalizion of banks and the health care industry, while years ago I was satisfied with heavy regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a 25 year old I feel odd being among the oldest anything although this being the internet I guess it's not as surprising. Watching the Irish election of 2002 on TV is what started my interest in politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, thr33 said:

I think that kind of describes me on environment/climate change to some extent. I used to be a bit of a hardliner, but now I'm more indifferent in the short term, and while I would prefer green solutions, the impact on labor is my top concern. So when looking at projects and regulations, my first question is about job creation/displacement.

The other issue I've moved right on is 2a. I've lived in one of NY/CA all of my life and for most of my life was a proponent of a national gun ban. Now, I appreciate it as a civil liberty, and think my position was unreasonable. I don't own a gun and might not ever, but I appreciate the reasons for ownership.

I've was already left on most economic issues, and have moved further left for the most part. I have become more of a skeptic on union leadership, but I still support the concept and goals of organized labor. I would probably support nationalizion of banks and the health care industry, while years ago I was satisfied with heavy regulation.

I have to admit, I can't understand the sick (and yes, I use the term 'sick' freely) cultural obsessions with unlimited, unrestricted access to firearms, up to and including assault rifles, and believing that such a thing being an "inalienable right" has any place in a modern, civilized society with any respect for law and order and basic human decency. Forgive me for the rant, but you don't give live in Afghanistan, or Somalia, or Syria, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for such a society doesn't exist at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Patine said:

I have to admit, I can't understand the sick (and yes, I use the term 'sick' freely) cultural obsessions with unlimited, unrestricted access to firearms, up to and including assault rifles, and believing that such a thing being an "inalienable right" has any place in a modern, civilized society with any respect for law and order and basic human decency. Forgive me for the rant, but you don't give live in Afghanistan, or Somalia, or Syria, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for such a society doesn't exist at all.

I have never fired or so much as handled a firearm in my life, so it is hard for me to relate to ownership, but I guess the argument comes from several camps:

• Hobbyists/hunters for sport - I haven't been hunting, so I'm not quite sure if there is any practical utility to so-called assault weapons. From my understanding though, some of the elements of firearms for which there is a desire to regulate - namely types of ammunition, sizes of magazines, and customization (particularly grips) - would have an an adverse impact. Since this is a group hunting/collecting not out of survival, but for entertainment/leisure purposes, I can understand limiting access.

• Home security types - Do assault weapons make a particular individual safer by the numbers? Or does legalization make it more likely that would-be home invaders would be able to access them than if they were illegal and only available by back channels? I'm sure there is some data, but I think it's dangerous to view things by averages/as an aggregate.

• Those arguing Constitutionality - This is a bit more difficult for me to eschew. A lot of people use the Constitution as a guise to justify their interests - which may be in conflict with the standard moral code/practical usage of the day - but there are a lot of firm believers. The document has kept things relatively stable, so I'm wary to cast judgment (though I can understand Overton Window arguments, and as a matter of fact, moving the Overton Window is the principal tenet of my strategic voting).

• Anarchist/'when-the-****-hits-the-fan' people - This I can get to some extent. At some point, it's likely that current institutions will collapse. Is this likely to happen anytime soon? Probably not. But this is a legitimate black swan event, and if people are preparing for the worst, even if it's at odds with the direction of society, I understand their point

The Vegas stuff recently was another reminder to the dangers of access to weapons. From what I can tell, all of the guy's weapons were obtained legally, as were the modification elements. At the same time, I think there is a pretty likely floor to the likelihood of these events occurring. We may not be there, but shooting rampages, domestic terrorism and the like will always happen with some propensity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, thr33 said:

I have never fired or so much as handled a firearm in my life, so it is hard for me to relate to ownership, but I guess the argument comes from several camps:

• Hobbyists/hunters for sport - I haven't been hunting, so I'm not quite sure if there is any practical utility to so-called assault weapons. From my understanding though, some of the elements of firearms for which there is a desire to regulate - namely types of ammunition, sizes of magazines, and customization (particularly grips) - would have an an adverse impact. Since this is a group hunting/collecting not out of survival, but for entertainment/leisure purposes, I can understand limiting access.

• Home security types - Do assault weapons make a particular individual safer by the numbers? Or does legalization make it more likely that would-be home invaders would be able to access them than if they were illegal and only available by back channels? I'm sure there is some data, but I think it's dangerous to view things by averages/as an aggregate.

• Those arguing Constitutionality - This is a bit more difficult for me to eschew. A lot of people use the Constitution as a guise to justify their interests - which may be in conflict with the standard moral code/practical usage of the day - but there are a lot of firm believers. The document has kept things relatively stable, so I'm wary to cast judgment (though I can understand Overton Window arguments, and as a matter of fact, moving the Overton Window is the principal tenet of my strategic voting).

• Anarchist/'when-the-****-hits-the-fan' people - This I can get to some extent. At some point, it's likely that current institutions will collapse. Is this likely to happen anytime soon? Probably not. But this is a legitimate black swan event, and if people are preparing for the worst, even if it's at odds with the direction of society, I understand their point

The Vegas stuff recently was another reminder to the dangers of access to weapons. From what I can tell, all of the guy's weapons were obtained legally, as were the modification elements. At the same time, I think there is a pretty likely floor to the likelihood of these events occurring. We may not be there, but shooting rampages, domestic terrorism and the like will always happen with some propensity.

About the Constitutional part, it's often forgotten (or conveniently) ignore by those arguing gun rights on Constitutional grounds that the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was written in a day when the US was a frontier nation that was 80% rural in population (roughly), when law-enforcement was very scant, wild animals were bold enough to just walk into towns, Native Americans made militant defense of their land claims, the nation's land borders were hostile and undefended, bandits, smugglers, and squatters abounded, American citizens had to provide their own firearms when serving in military duty - they weren't issued weapons on the governments dime, and assault rifles and other currently controversial weapons didn't yet exist. This is why I feel a sober review and revision to parts of the U.S. Constitution outside of timid tinkering amendments that are impossible to pass in the current political environment would be of great benefit - unfortunately, there's no Constitutional mechanism for such an act, which is a major self-defeating aspect of the document, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Patine said:

About the Constitutional part, it's often forgotten (or conveniently) ignore by those arguing gun rights on Constitutional grounds that the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was written in a day when the US was a frontier nation that was 80% rural in population (roughly), when law-enforcement was very scant, wild animals were bold enough to just walk into towns, Native Americans made militant defense of their land claims, the nation's land borders were hostile and undefended, bandits, smugglers, and squatters abounded, American citizens had to provide their own firearms when serving in military duty - they weren't issued weapons on the governments dime, and assault rifles and other currently controversial weapons didn't yet exist. This is why I feel a sober review and revision to parts of the U.S. Constitution outside of timid tinkering amendments that are impossible to pass in the current political environment would be of great benefit - unfortunately, there's no Constitutional mechanism for such an act, which is a major self-defeating aspect of the document, in my opinion.

I don't disagree that either (1) the composition of the population has changed (2) the nature of weapons have changed - both in manners the authors of the Constitution likely did not predict. As you noted however, there really is no practical means of amending the document.

There actually has been a movement (both for and against, there are a lot of signs) in my current home state to push for a NY Constitutional Convention. Interestingly enough, on the federal level, we're approaching the threshold whereby, from my understanding, a convention would be called (2/3 I think?). If states do try and use that provision of Article V (which I don't believe has been used before, since all amendments have passed via Congress), major changes would be possible. Of course, conservatives are much closer to reaching the threshold to convene, so I can't imagine a modernized 2A would be a part of the discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×