Election 2016

College Students Prefer Sanders Over Hillary 2:1, Dems Over Reps 2:1

The GOP is throwing away the youth vote. Here's how to win it back.

|

Student Monitor

College students feel the Bern in a major way, says a new study of people at 100 universities around the country.

According to Student Monitor, a research-and-content shop for student publications, almost three-quarters of respondents said they planned to vote (yeah, yeah, I know: They also plan to go to that Friday 8 A.M. p-chem class too).

Of those planning on voting, fully 44 percent are going to punch a hole for Bernie Sanders, with just 21 percent coloring in for Hillary Clinton and a mere 8 percent rooting for Donald Trump (probably all of them attend Emory).

And there's this, which can't be making Reince Priebus or any of the dozen or so Republicans who remember that Mitt Romney got his ass kicked in 2012 by the weakest incumbent since Herbert Hoover: "Among those with a preference, 65% plan to vote for a Democrat, compared to 35% for a Republican."

Read more at Inside Higher Ed.

It's easy to file heavily Democratic leanings among college students under "no duh." But that's simply ahistorical. Time was when the GOP could pull huge numbers of the student voters and youth voters (18-29 years old) more broadly. Yes, Barack Obama pulverized Romney in 2012, winning 62 percent of the under-30 vote to Romney's 38 percent. But those numbers were actually lower than in 2008, when Obama pulled even bigger percentages. Yet as recently as 2000, Al Gore and George W. Bush split the 18-24 vote, with each taking 47 percent (Ralph Nader pulled 5 percent, almost most certainly from Gore). Ronald Reagan came close to tying Jimmy Carter in 1980 before crushing Walter Mondale among the youngs in 1984. George H.W. Bush trounced Mike Dukakis among the same cohort in 1988:

Washington Post

Hell, even Richard Nixon pulled 48 percent of the youth vote in 1972 against hippie savior George McGovern. So it's not like Republicans can't do well among younger voters, including college kids. In fact, if they want to win presidential elections, they have to. Or at least stay within 10 percentage points or so.

Republicans are unlikely to do so well anytime soon. There's no question that youth support for Obama was something of an aberration that almost no candidate will match again. He was young, black, progressive, good at soaring oratory, etc. at exactly the right time in recent history. That he was matched up against a broken-down old man who seemed out of touch with almost everything in 2008 and then a blow-dried one-term governor who had created the pilot program for Obamacare in 2012 only served to run up the score among younger voters. Simply put, Obama was a perfect youth candidate while McCain and Romney were terrible youth candidates.

Here's the problem and opportunity for Republicans: Millennials aren't idiots, so they're not simply in the tank for Democrats no matter what (recall the youthful enthusiasm surrounding Ron Paul's presidential campaigns, which was hardly based on Sanders-like promises of more free everything).

In fact, millennials are markedly less partisan than their elders despite having voted big for Obama; they are up for grabs politically and ideologically. But as the Reason-Rupe Millennial poll back in 2014 pointed out, there are certain threshold attitudes that reliably turn off younger Americans. For younger voters, it's "culture first, politics second" and if you're against same-sex marriage, pot legalization, and humane treatment of immigrants any conversation is over before it gets started.

Which is to say: It was nice knowing you, Republicans. However awful Donald Trump is when it comes to immigrants, his chief opponent for the GOP presidential nomination, Ted Cruz, is worse. Indeed, one of Cruz's lines of attack (shared by the editors of National Review and other conservative outlets) is that Donald Trump is soft on immigration. He would, don't you know, allow back into the United States some of the 12 million illegals he promises to deport, thus revealing his sickeningly inhumane program as just "a poorly disguised amnesty" scam! 

When it comes to same-sex marriage, which Americans overwhelmingly support, Republican elders have started to hold their tongues about the wickedness of it all, but it may well be too little too late to win the hearts, minds, and votes of millennials. Sixty-one percent of millennial Republicans support gay marriage, which is higher than the overall average for all voters of all parties and all ages. And yet the GOP leadership can't quite hide its moral revulsion at the idea of the state treating individuals in a non-discriminatory way and leading GOP folks ranging from Cruz to Mike Huckabee went out of their way to publicly support Kim Davis, the Kentucky County clerk who refused to abide a Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage. Mounting jesuitical arguments about how it's really the states that should be deciding marriage law (even as Republicans pass laws defining marriage as only between one man and one woman) or that the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds. Those sorts of arguments may be great in debating tournaments but they alienate just about everyone else who knows exactly what most Republican leaders have bee saying for decades: Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married like normal people. In this, by the way, Trump may be less bad than a Cruz or a Kasich, since part of his terrifying "New York values" is plainly not to give a hoot about people's sexuality. If only he could extend that sense of decency to people's countries of origin and religion.

You can almost hear the geniuses at Republican Central reading surveys of younger votes and just writing them off, like they have done with Hispanics. Who needs them? We can't win them anyway because we won't just dish out free stuff (at least not to kids)! They'll change parties when they get their first job and encounter FICA taxes (that fund Social Security and Medicare, which we refuse to reform)!

It was only a few years ago that it seemed likely a young crop of Republican pols—including Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan—would lead small-government conservatism and libertarianism into the political mainstream. Man, wasn't that a time! Rand Paul wowed crowds with lines such as

[Republicans] need to be white, we need to be brown, we need to be black, we need to be with tattoos, without tattoos, with pony tails, without pony tails, with beards, without.

At CPAC (of all places!), he talked about the GOP having become "stale" and "moss-covered." But the moss won and Rand Paul tacked hard-right during his presidential run, calling for an end to refugees and immigrants from suspect countries, and Marco Rubio promised never to reform Social Security if it was bad for his mother. And the last three Republicans standing are not just weak on the threshold issues millennials care about, they are truly godawful.

Gateway Pundit

The worst part of all this is that millennials don't love or even like the Democrats and their policies. In 2013, the College Republican National Committee (CRNC) issued a report about young voters. Consider this:

Millennials, says the report, don't care much about abstractions such as that favorite Republican bogeyman, "big government." But they are into cutting government spending and reducing the national debt, as they realize both things are strangling their future before it begins. Fully 90 percent agree that Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed now, 82 percent are ready to "make tough choices about cutting government spending, even on some programs some people really like," and 72 percent want to cut the size of government "because it is simply too big." Only 17 percent want to increase spending on defense and just 30 percent said that "marriage should be legally defined as only between a man and a women," with 44 percent saying same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere and 26 percent saying it should be up to individual states.

If the Republican Party is in fact ready to implode over the possibility that Donald Trump could be its presidential candidate, whatever rises up from its ashes would do well to understand what millennials—the single-largest generation in American history—wants from its politics. It's not the played-out, proven-failure, free-government-everything that the wizened "democratic socialist" is hawking, or the neo-con adventurism of Hillary Clinton, each of whom hates Uber, for god's sake. They are doing well among college students mostly because nobody else is talking to millennials about future that might be more free and more prosperous. The future painted by Republicans isn't about innovation and prosperity or living your life as you see fit. It's inevitably about an America where gays are at least still marginalized when it comes to marriage and the drug war status quo is in place. An America where there are no more Mexicans and Syrian refugees and that is great because it has bombed ISIS and whatever inevitably replaces it into submission. Not very inspiring, to say the least.

If the GOP can lay off the culture-war stuff, especially ranking on gay marriage and pot legalization, and stop demonizing the dwindling population of illegal immigrants as the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the American Way, they might have a shot at breaking into double digits with today's college kids. And tomorrow's voters for the next 50 years.

NEXT: The Candidates' Public Disservice on Trade

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Millennials aren’t idiots

    Citations?

    1. You beat me to it. +1 education system point to you sir.

    2. QUICK!!

      TO THE MILLENNIAL POLL MOBILE!!!

    3. Well, no more than any other arbitrarily defined group of people.

      1. Up to a certain age people should get smarter as they get older. So in fact, they are probably more stupid than most other groups.

        1. A lot of millennials are over the hump at this point, though. Depending on what kind of smarts you are talking about, I guess. The older millennials are in their early or mid 30s at this point (depending on who you ask). It’s silly that we keep talking about that group as if they are all college students. It would be interesting to see the difference between say the 18-25 age group and the 25-35 age group.

          But, yeah, young people tend to be silly leftists at higher rates.

        2. A lot of lessons are learned through experience. Traditional (straight from high school) college students don’t have much experience.

          A lot of their professors, who also haven’t left college since high school, don’t have much more real world experience than their students.

    4. That was my first thought…

  2. QUICK, DO WHAT MILLENIZALZ WANT!!!!!

    1. Let’s see:

      Free college, free birth control, free health care, forgiving student loans vs. reforming SS and Medicare.

      Stuff they want others to pay for now vs. stuff they have to pay for now for others. Yeah. Libertarian moment.

  3. It better be a good prank Nick…

  4. Millennials aren’t idiots

    Fact check: five hundred Pinocchios.

  5. Hmm, Nick may be right on the cultural issues but, given the teaching that pervades most of academia, I’m actually surprised GOP support is as high as 35%.

    1. Indeed, Reason’s staff miss the obvious.

    2. ^This. I remember college – there’s no way 35% of my classmates were voting Republican.

      1. You might be surprised. I and several other libertarian (Ron Paul Republican, at the time) classmates would just smile and nod for 4 years whenever the conversation went beyond sports, drinking, weed or skiing.

        1. That explains a lot.

    3. I think it’s because people are realizing that “the man” and “the institution” that people fought against in the 60s and 70s has actually become “the man”, and this version of tyranny is even scarier than the old conservative one. Hopefully, the next counterculture movement is going to be a conservative and libertarian one rebelling against the “liberal” (who are very illiberal) overlords.

  6. Millennials, says the report, don’t care much about abstractions such as that favorite Republican bogeyman, “big government.” But they are into cutting government spending and reducing the national debt, as they realize both things are strangling their future before it begins. Fully 90 percent agree that Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed now, 82 percent are ready to “make tough choices about cutting government spending, even on some programs some people really like,” and 72 percent want to cut the size of government “because it is simply too big.”

    There is no way to square that with supporting Bernie Sanders. Either they don’t mean those answers, have no idea who Bernie Sanders actually, are complete morons or all three. Whatever the answer, I think those answers are pretty meaningless.

    1. In 2008, I taught a few math classes at a local private college as adjunct faculty. On the eve of the election I found myself discussing politics and civics with my students in one of my Calc 1 classes.

      These kids were so miseducated and uninformed, it was frightening. It wasn’t that they were closed-minded. Far from it! They were hungry to learn about the system! They peppered me with questions about the electoral college, primaries etc. They really thought elections were a popularity contest, and that the guy with the most votes was supposed to win. I spent 20 minutes answering their questions with basic civics stuff – how supreme court justices get appointed etc. They literally had no idea of any of the basic stuff that they are supposed to get in high school.

      1. I work with some attorneys in their late 20s. They think of me as having some kind of sevant like knowledge of history and civics. I should be flattered but I am not because it is not a reflection of me knowing anything other than what everyone knew 30 or 40 years ago. And these are attorneys with degrees from better schools than any of the ones I attended.

        1. “And these are attorneys with degrees from better more prestigious schools than any of the ones I attended.”

    2. Revealed preferences v stated preferences.

    3. I take door number “All three”, please!

    4. But they are into cutting government spending and reducing the national debt, as they realize both things are strangling their future before it begins.

      Yet they vote for the biggest spenders on the ballot, and when you start asking specifics, there just isn’t any program that they want to cut. Except probably the military.

  7. To win the youth vote promise free college, free healthcare, free birth control and hefty fines for anyone who fails to show proper deference to gays, trans people, and brown people. Also say you love science and then vow to fight GMOs and Monsnato.

    1. “In other news, a new study showing that Red is BAD and Blue is GOOD, and FREE is better than EXPENSIVE.Just goes to show, that you know, conservatism is, like, stupid.

      Here are some tits.”

      1. You Sugarfreed the link to tits.

        I haz a sad.

        1. Yeah, it’s very hard to find another source of tit pics on the webz.

          1. Quantity does not equal quality. And I’m always impressed with the quality that get linked to here.

            Also, is this why there are no female libertarians?

      2. Link doesn’t work. Now I’ll never know how you can find pics of tits on the Internet.

  8. [Obama was] good at soaring oratory,

    I hear people say this all the time, and I am baffled how it can be so. Have you listened to the guy? It’s as unbearable as Dubya. He’s a shitty public speaker. His intonations are annoying. His affectations of compassion and folksiness are so obviously artificial as to be repellent. And then there are the words! Full of bluster, but not actually saying anything meaningful! Even Trump’s speeches are more informative and persuasive.

    I am increasingly of the opinion that people declaring Obama to a great orator are really expressing racial prejudice that blacks are inferior to the rest of the population when it comes to oratory since they truly have the bigotry of low expectations; that – to them – Obama’s shittyness shines because he is nonetheless more articulate than what they expect of most other Negroes.

    1. He is good at soaring oratory…as long has it’s scripted. Speaking extemporaneously…not so much. And yes, the soft bigotry of low expectations probably has something to do with why he gets so much credit.

      1. All he does is read from a teleprompter with the affected cadence of a southern preacher. It gets old fast and sounds like total bullshit even if what he’s saying actually makes sense.

      2. well he’s clean, articulate, and isnt listening to poopy poop dog all the time. what do you want?

    2. I think they just don’t have a lot of experience with good public speakers. For some reason, the truly good ones rarely end up in positions of giving speeches to the public.

      1. Tell me more, Tulpa. You’re so interesting and insightful.

      2. Yet people listen plenty to radio, TV, & audio-only or audio-visual streams. You’d think such a sorting mill would expose them to more & more great speakers. Some lousy ones too, but eventually the audiences are going to flow to the better ones, right?

    3. Couldn’t agree more.

      But yet, places like The Guardian laughably and absurdly compare him to one of the greatest orators in history: Cicero.

      http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..obama-usa1

      Obama is not even in the same universe.

      1. And they published this about the state of the address being ‘dumber’. Guess what? Dubya ranked ahead of Obama.

        http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..ding-level

        I don’t get it. And we’re seeing this nonsense with Trudeau up here.

    4. Even Trump’s speeches are more informative and persuasive.

      Let’s not go crazy.

    5. Uhhhhh……ummmmmm……uhhhhhhhh

      If you can’t give the simplest of speeches without repeated “uhhhhh”, you’re not a great public speaker. Sorry.

  9. I would wager huge money that 90% of the Millennials couldn’t even accurately peg the current national debt within a trillion dollars if you put them on the spot.

    Most of these little dummies actually believe Obama has reduced the debt, because the vermin in the media have brainwashed them and gone out of their way to deliberately confuse people about the debt versus the deficit.

    1. Pfft, I doubt anyone on earth could accurately peg the current national debt to within a trillion. There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and now Federal Economic Reports.

    2. Without checking Google I’m guessing $17 trillion. I remember when 10,11,12,13,14 Trillion dollars were big and important. Then Obama got elected and suddenly no one cared.

    3. I mean, that’s a moving target. “Within $1 trillion” is a bit tough for a moving target, I incorrectly had $18T in my head and I think about debt way more than normal humans.

      Now, the number who don’t even know it as an order of magnitude? That’s probably significant.

      1. Do we include state debt into that figure? I’m always fascinated no one cares about the amount of debt some states are carrying.

  10. God forbid someone is “uncool” with their politics.

    Or, wait, is God anti-cool now? “Chomsky” forbid? “Feelings” forbid?

    FUCK what is it!?

    1. Out:God. IN: Like really hawt vampires.

    2. Chomsky is a false god. The language acquisition device doesn’t exist. General cognitive learning mechanisms are sufficient to explain language acquisition.

  11. “For younger voters, it’s “culture first, politics second” and if you’re against same-sex marriage, pot legalization, and humane treatment of immigrants any conversation is over before it gets started.”

    The good news for Republicans is that same-sex marriage is yesterday’s issue. Voting against Republicans because of same sex-marriage is a bit like voting against Hillary because of the Vietnam War.

    More good news for Republicans? Republicans are probably a lot friendlier to pot-legalization than progressives are. We’ll see pot legalization in Montana and Nevada before we see it in New York City.

    Illegal immigrants? Better shut up about that in the coming years.

    1. “Republicans are probably a lot friendlier to pot-legalization than progressives are.”

      -Citation desperately needed here.

      1. Eric, have you been to Virginia lately? Every time I drive through there I get real interested in universal love, Cheetos, and shitty reggae.

        Something in the air, especially around Alexandria.

        1. Wow. Anecdotal evidence…Impressively done.

          Here’s a website showing who supported Colorado’s Amendment 64 (sorry, don’t know how to hyperlink):

          https://ecopoliticalecon.com/tag/amendment-64/

          Wikipedia also has a map of the Colorado counties colored based upon their vote. Hint: All of the conservative counties voted against. All of the Liberal counties voted for.

          1. And deep Red Kentucky, where the natives love to get high, there isn’t even a credible medical marijuana movement.

          2. Is Colorado run by a Democratic machine?

            Because New York City is, and the Democratic Party machine that runs New York is controlled by the police.

            If the police in NYC don’t want legalization (and why would they want that?), it will have a hard time passing.

            The list of people who oppose legalizing marijuana in Massachusetts includes:

            Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association[7]
            Massachusetts Hospital Association[8]
            Boston Mayor (D) Marty Walsh[9]
            Massachusetts Attorney General (D) Maura Healey[9]
            Massachusetts Sheriffs Association[10]

            If marijuana is legalized in Massachusetts, it’ll be over the objections of the Democratic Party machine.

            1. You’re moving the goalposts. You made a blanket statement about Progressives vs. Republicans regarding MJ.

              1. “More good news for Republicans? Republicans are probably a lot friendlier to pot-legalization than progressives are. We’ll see pot legalization in Montana and Nevada before we see it in New York City.”

                That’s a blanket statement in your world?

                You seem to be talking about Republican voters as if they’re a monolithic bloc of social conservatives.

                Meanwhile, I’m talking about politicians, too.

                Democratic politicians in NYC take their orders from the police unions.

                There’s one Republican alderman out of 50 on the Chicago City Council–and his election was financed by the police union, the sheriff’s union, etc–which mean although the Democrats have 49 out of 50 seats on the city council, the police union is even better represented–it has all 50 seats.

                If the voters support an initiative to legalize, there, it’s the only way they’ll ever get legalization, because the Democrat machines that control cities like Chicago are 100% against it. Just like they are in Boston and New York.

                Nevada doesn’t have that problem and neither does Montana.

                1. Go ask Rahm Emanuel who has more power in Chicago–the mayor or the police?

                  For that matter, you might ask him the same question about the teachers’ union, too.

                  I bet Rahm Emanuel is so scared of the public employees now, he wouldn’t even think of talking about the garbage men.

                  1. OK. I get it. NYC and Chicago == Democrats nationwide to you. Please continue to ignore the political breakdown of places that have ACTUALLY decriminalized or legalized pot.

                    1. So, you are Tulpa, then?

      2. New York City doesn’t think you should be free to buy sugary soft drinks. Why would they let you smoke cannabis?

        1. Because the sugar obsession is entirely based on its perceived relation to socialized medicine. Same as smoking.

          You can’t do that with weed – they can try but it won’t stick.

          1. I don’t buy that. They don’t give a shit about the taxpayers. They make that argument, but it’s really about using the force of government to effect positive change. That’s what being a progressive is all about.

            If you can’t prove that legalizing marijuana will benefit the poor, minorities, and the police unions, you’re out of luck. They may get voters to support legalization anyway, but it will be over the objections of the Democratic Party leadership in New York.

      3. Texas actually had a bill pass committee to decriminalize.

        Texas.

        (Granted it died on the floor, but that’s a huge step forward for the law and order types here. Plus it was authored by a Republican no less.)

        1. My response was to Ken’s assumption that Republicans are more friendly to pot legalization than progressives.

          Supporting obviously false assumptions like that should be a worrying sign of a collective cognitive dissonance within these ranks, no?

          1. Your response was to voices in your head.

            “More good news for Republicans? Republicans are probably a lot friendlier to pot-legalization than progressives are. We’ll see pot legalization in Montana and Nevada before we see it in New York City.”

            The further you get away from cities controlled by Democrat machines (which are dominated by police unions), the more likely we are to see pot legalization. I’d expect New York City and Chicago to be some of the last places to legalize–in no small part because they’re controlled by Democrat machines dominated by police unions.

            1. The Democratic Party does not equal Progressives. Further, just because the Democratic machine doesn’t support legalization, what makes you think that the Republican Party is more likely to support it? Like it or not, legalization initiatives come from the left and libertarians, not Republicans or conservatives.

              1. “Further, just because the Democratic machine doesn’t support legalization, what makes you think that the Republican Party is more likely to support it?”

                They’re less likely to undermine it–because in places where support is more evenly split between the two major parties, the cities and their politics aren’t controlled by one party and run for the benefit of the police union and other government employee interests. The effects of having a one party state ate fairly predictable, and New York City and Chicago are effectively one party states.

                The only place I’ve seen where a Democratic machine supported legalization was in Oakland–and that’s just because a well connected and huge dispensary was smart enough to unionize and hitch their wagon to a public employee union. Suddenly, the Democratic machine started going to bat for the dispensary. Maybe they hope to turn all of those dispensary workers into public employees.

                1. “They’re less likely to undermine it”

                  Lulz. Again….citation’s please. Your fantasy that Republicans aren’t authoritarian nanny assholes is cute.

                  1. Are you Tulpa?

                  2. Wasn’t it in NH where the D governor vetoed med mj the R-led legislature passed?

                    1. It was Democrat governor of New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan.

                      She promised to veto a law that would make it so that possession of a small amount of marijuana wouldn’t necessarily land someone in jail.

                      The measure was defeated in the legislature.

                  3. Do you imagine marijuana legalization happens by default?

                    I’m supposed to believe that the police unions that control politics in these cities are going to stand by and watch the politicians that are beholden to the unions for their seats flush the cops’ bread and butter down the toilet?

                    If you need a direct quote from a police union spokesman in New York City explaining that they’ll never concede to marijuana legalization so long as doing so will hurt the union or its members, then you’re being willfully obtuse.

                    And willful obtuseness is Tulpa’s calling card.

                    Are you Tulpa?

    2. Ken, there you go with your facts again. This isn’t about facts. Its about “culture”, meaning mass-media driven feelz. As long as their twatter is full of “Repubs icky”, they ain’t voting Repub no matter what.

      If the evil right-wing cabal had a brain, they would have been buying up media outlets and social media, rather than throwing cartloads of money at consultants with a record of managing to not just fight the last war, but lose it over and over again.

  12. By the way, I don’t really care about any of the endorsements I’ve seen or read about so far, but Nutnfancy is officially endorsing Cruz.

    “If you’re pro-Second Amendment, dude, you have to vote for Cruz”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUPMZgoR2HQ

    That “dude” has a lot of authority with me on that issue.

    1. Hillary can cause a lot of problems with EOs. And no way she’ll sign the Hearing Protection Act moving suppressors off NFA.

      1. And that’s an important thing!

        I just recently saw the Cloverdale flick, and that was one of the realistic things in the movie.

        *Spoiler Alert*

        Someone fires a .45 in an enclosed space, and it has the effect of like a small concussion grenade.

        Not that the movie is realistic in every way. Later somebody takes out an alien battleship with a Molotov cocktail, but for that one ear ringing moment, the film seemed realistic.

  13. News at…11?

    1. More like “Top 5 reasons you should do X instead of Y” on your cell phone apps.

  14. Whatever Millennials want now will chage in 10 years, if not 10 minutes

    1. I’d like to know how long the “Youth Vote” has skewed left.

      I recall a churchill quote to the effect of changing political stances with age…

      1. But Nick’s writing about college students. In the US that’s increasingly synonymous with “youth” because more people are going to college. In Britain, although the number of college students has risen I’m pretty sure the percentage is still way lower than in the US. That’s because in the UK (and Australia, NZ, etc.) there’s long been alternate ways to get good jobs without going to college.

        1. College students have always been too stupid to live. It’s amazing they manage to survive so often.

  15. The young people today are much more brainwashed into far-left/identity politics than they were in the ’80s. I reposted Emory’s president response below (emphasis mine), it’s choke-full of SJW points. No wonder the millennials care only about culture-war issues.

    On the heels of work begun by students last fall and advanced last month through the Racial Justice Retreat and subsequent working groups, Emory is taking a number of significant steps:

    ? Immediate refinements to certain policy and procedural deficiencies (for example, our bias incident reporting and response process);

    ? Regular and structured opportunities for difficult dialogues (like the Transforming Community Project of several years ago);

    ? A formal process to institutionalize identification, review, and addressing of social justice opportunities and issues

  16. College kids are so brainwashed not only by their professors but by the fact that they get all their news from HuffPo, Salon, and Jezebel and learn current events from Hollywood and HBO. There is little hope for them. The biggest systematic institutionalized form of bias and oppression is the liberal one against free thinkers. Libertarians have no chance.

    1. Yep. This generation grew up with Jon Stewart Leibowitz as their personal Walter Cronkite. How they could possibly not be a bunch of ignorant little dolts?

      1. His demographics were never very strong with that group, though. He also had really miniscule ratings in the scheme of things. I don’t know why he was held up as “influential”

        1. Re-distribution through other media outlets. YouTube had a ton of high-view excerpts from his show.

      2. Make sure they all know he’s a dirty kike, Mike.

        1. Perhaps via a stupid nickname, like “Gone Jew-Fart.”

          Or whatever, i’m not going to enact any more labor for you.

          1. Nice one, X!

            Jawin’ Jew Tart?

            1. That is far too clever for Mike M. to associate himself with, Swiss.

        2. Well, he did change his name. Why?

    2. Spot on colorblindkid. What libertarians should do to counter the groupthink of the youth is form a coalition with old white people who gather their information from a wide variety of sources and approach issues with reason and an open mind.

  17. “Hell, even Richard Nixon pulled 48 percent of the youth vote in 1972 against hippie savior George McGovern. So it’s not like Republicans can’t do well among younger voters, including college kids. In fact, if they want to win presidential elections, they have to. Or at least stay within 10 percentage points or so.”

    Those are different young people than today’s young people. Generation Snowflake is not going to vote for anyone who isn’t promising a massive expansion of state power.

    You said yourself that they prefer Sanders to Hillary by a 2-1 ratio. Do you think Sanders supporters could ever be made to vote Republican?

  18. Why does anyone here care about the GOP winning the youth vote??

    1. The possibility of them capturing them capturing some of the youth vote as that cohort ages is pretty much the only thing that could save us from leftist hegemony which will eventually turn us into Venezuela.

        1. We all know that’s a picture of your house.

    2. Why does anyone care about anything?

      It’s a commentary on current events.

    3. “Why does anyone here care about the GOP winning the youth vote??”

      Good fucking question.

  19. This Democratic-leaning youth is nothing new. Sure, I like to make fun of skinny jeans and messenger bags as much as the next guy, but I can hardly suggest these stats are something unique to millennials.

  20. I grew up watching “Silver Spoons” and the movie “Kidco” thinking, yeah, isn’t capitalism and the free market great. But I have to say that with time I really have pretty much given up on those values. True, I think it’s important to make sure that some religious bigot warmonger doesn’t restrict abortion in case (God forbid!) my wife gets pregnant again, or send my kids off to fight in some bullshit war, but it’s primarily economic issues that I vote on. I look with a jaundiced eye at any politician that says we need to tax businesses and rich people less because that will promote economic growth. There’s simply no evidence for this. And you better believe that for every penny a billionaire saves on his taxes, we’ll end up paying more in taxes.

    Why is it so tres horrible to look out for one’s own economic benefit and to vote for a politician that will raise taxes on billionaires so that middle class people can have decent schools to send their kids to or look forward to a government subsidy when one retires?

    1. Why is it so tres horrible to look out for one’s own economic benefit and to vote for a politician that will raise taxes on billionaires so that middle class people can have decent schools to send their kids to or look forward to a government subsidy when one retires?

      Because it relies on a false view of the marketplace as a zero-sum game and is motivated by envy coupled with a sense of emasculation and resentment.

      1. Are people like you at least capable of acknowledging that we’ve had higher rates of taxation on rich people before and, at the same time, higher economic growth than what we have now? My guess is no.

        1. Are people like you at least capable of acknowledging that we’ve had higher rates of taxation on rich people before

          Actually, we haven’t. Nominal rates were offset by tax shelters. The actual rate paid by rich people has stayed pretty flat, is my recollection. Rich people pay a bigger proportion of taxes paid now than they have in the past.

          You know what correlates with higher growth? Not higher taxes, which only a moron would think drives growth. Less regulation. As our regulatory state has grown, our annual growth rates have declined.

          1. This.

            For example, that was the main purpose of the 1986 Tax Reform Act: abolish tax shelters, but in return lower rates. Progs embarrass themselves when they crow about 90% rates “working.”

        2. http://ourworldindata.org/wp-c…..45×447.png

          Yeah, if only we could bring back the tax rates from the 50’s, back when we had real growth.

          1. ???.

            Isn’t this chart making my point? Economic growth isn’t correlated to the progressivity of the tax code. So, why every time I say that I don’t care what tax rate rich people pay do I get accused of loving Stalin? No, I think we’re better off when we mildly redistribute income from rich people to the middle and working class. That’s what Welfare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and properly-financed public schools do.

            1. “I I I, me me me, I I I I me me me.”

            2. mildly redistribute income

              Fully on third of the federal budget is now transfer payments. One third of the federal budget is money taken from the proverbial rich to be redistributed to someone else.

        3. people like you

          That is racist.

    2. my wife gets pregnant again, or send my kids off to fight in some bullshit war

      Based on your previous schizophrenic posts on “war”, I’m guessing that you’d be ok with sending your kids off to fight in Syria alongside the Russians in the fight against ISIS?

      1. If she gets pregnant again, he knows it won’t be his.

        1. I hope he’s not under the impression that ANY of the children he’s raising are his.

          1. Has he checked with Maury on this?

    3. Raising taxes on billionaires is not going to help anyone’s economic position.

      1. Well, maybe bernie and the other fucks. He’ll have extra cash.

    4. Even if the government confiscated all the wealth of every millionaire and billionaire, it would still not be enough to fund federal entitlements (especially on an ongoing basis), much less state pension funds. So where do you propose we cut welfare spending, Sock?

      1. And the Europeans already have enormous taxes and are also running huge unfunded pension deficits, only they have nothing to tax to deal with the problem. People in Europe are not going to get their promised pensions, so it’s probably a bad idea to be more like them.

        1. If (and it’s a big “if”) we ever close our overseas military bases, watch the supposedly dovish Europeans scream and holler as they scramble to find wealth to steal to pay for their own defense.

          1. The mythical ‘dovishness’ of the Europeans has already pretty much been disproven by the Socialists in France howling about the need for a War on Terror in recent months.

            1. Or their warm hearted compassionate love as their reason for socialism, and how the embrace extends to immigrants.

      2. If we confiscated the wealth of every person in the top 1% we could pay off the deficit and run a substantial surplus. If you remove the income cap on Social Security that program becomes solvent until you and I are dead. I think there may be a tax rate on rich people that may impede economic growth. I tend to think that rate may be very high. But let’s not pretend that rich people paying substantially more taxes doesn’t improve the balance sheet. It does.

        1. No, it would not balance the budget. And even if it did, there is no evidence Congress would rein in spending; Congress would increase it.

          1. I
            300,000,000 people
            1%
            Average salary of the top 1%= 717,000
            Additional taxes=50% of income

            (3.0*10^8)*(0.01)*(7.2*10^5)*(0.5)=~1.1 trillion dollars in additional income. Assume 60% labor participation rate, round down, and you get about 600 billion dollars. That’s greater than the current budget deficit.

              1. Yes. And?

                Thanks to arch-fiend Obama the amount of money we’ll need to take from productive hedge-fund managers and corporate lawyers is about 1/3 of the 2009 number used by Mr. Liberty. If the question is can we apply a rate of taxation upon the very, very wealthy that would balance the budget the answer, available to anyone capable of writing a couple of numbers on the back of an envelope and applying 8th grade math, is yes.

                1. …and applying 8th grade math…

                  And there’s your problem. There’s more to this issue than arithmetic but you can’t grasp it.

            1. I was right. Socialists–like Karl Marx, himself–are just jealous malcontents.

              How, just how can you say that the person earning $700,000 deserves to get home with only half of the money they earned just because you want it?! You just hate people who are more successful than you. And somehow you socialists/progressives/fascists/communists believe that your are more altruistic than others because you want to steal from people you hate to give to people you like.

              I’m now thinking that socialism is a personality disorder.

            2. See, this is the part were you suggest taxes that fuck up the economy: when you start suggesting a maximum income of $700k/year, under the delusion that you get to have some portion of whatever that’s over distributed to you by the government.

            3. 1.1 trillion dollars in additional income

              Terrible, terrible math.

              According to tax foundation, the top 1% in 2011 had a total Adjusted Gross Income of $1.6 Trillion. Of course $400 Billion was already paid to the government. So that leaves about $1.2 Trillion left. Oh but wait, those 1.4 Million returns also paid around 4% of their AGI as payroll taxes and an average of 10% of their AGI to State taxes. Now we are at 1.2 – (1.5 * .14) = $960 Billion.

              Now explain to me- are you saying that you would take half of their AGI? In that case, yeah you get $800 Billion (half of the AGI), but the end result is that these people who made $1.6 Trillion get $160 Billion in income they get to spend after words. Do you think that is going to fly long term?

              In 2011, you needed to earn $380,000 to be in the top 1%. If you think those people will continue to earn $380k a year so that they can take home around $100,000 you are nuts.

        2. In order to “confiscated the wealth of every person in the top 1%” the government would have to force them to liquidate their investments. What do you think would happen to the economy if some 14 trillion dollars were taken out of the economy?

          Either you haven’t thought about this, or you’re incapable of thinking about it.

          1. All the 1% have to do is go down to their vaults and take out some of those gold coins they use to swim around in. What’s so hard about that?

        3. Pay off the deficit, maybe, for a year, though even that is an overestimation. Unless you mean nationalize and sell off their assets.

          But what good will that do? Yay, you’ve run a surplus for a year or two. What will you do a few years later when there’s another deficit and no fat bank accounts to raid?

          1. The hypothetical I outline doesn’t touch assets, just annual income.

            1. Your “eighth grade math” has failed to account for the fact that your hypothetical one percenter has already paid 39.5% of that $700,000.

              1. We could cut spending. That would decrease the deficit.

              2. No, I did account for that by incorporating the 0.5 in the equation. Rich people on average don’t pay 39.5% of their income in taxes… It’s more like 30%, including state, FICA, car license fees, etc. thus, my additional 50% means that rich taxpayers will pay ~85% of their income in taxes– 5% below what they paid in the post-war economic boom.

                1. They didn’t pay 90%.

                2. You’re still a sick person. Wanting to confiscate 85% of someone’s earnings just because you think they don’t need it.

                  Consider a surgeon who’s spent her career perfecting her skills and knowledge to the point that she’s in very high demand. Charging more than other surgeons do is the best way to allocate a scarce resource. But you would come along and take 85% of her earnings such that she makes about as much as a school teacher who works only 9 months out of the year. How is that right? How is that fair? How is that going to ensure that this surgeon’s skill will be available when you desperately need them?

                  This is what envy does to economies. Before long you’ll be using currency for toilet paper. And you still won’t get it.

                3. When the tax rate was 91% they were taxing net income at the highest tax rate, not AGI. So there were tons and tons of loopholes to get your net income down.

            2. Billionaires don’t have annual income

        4. If we confiscated the wealth of every person in the top 1% we could pay off the deficit and run a substantial surplus

          What do you do in five years, asshat?

    5. American socialist: “I, I, I. Me me me. I I I I me me me.”

      1. Yeah, absolutely. You can pay more taxes if you want so that a billionaire can afford another yacht.

        1. You’re the one who want’s to raise our taxes, dipshit.

        2. Fucking non-zero-sum games, how do they work?

        3. What do you have against people who build yachts? Blue collar, hard working people.

          1. I don’t have anything against them. I do not think, though, we should unduly consider their interests over having a health care system that works or providing retirees with subsidies.

            1. So, fuck the boat builders livelihood and ability to have some sense of agency. No, they should be on the dole. You know best.

            2. We had a health care system that worked until your heros (Obama, Reid, Pelosi) destroyed it for the benefit of their cronies.

        4. You can pay more taxes if you want so that a billionaire can afford another yacht.

          I forget which New England state fixed that with a 10% yacht tax.

          Within a year most yacht builders and their employees were out of business.

    6. Why is it so tres horrible to look out for one’s own economic benefit and to vote for a politician that will raise taxes on billionaires so that middle class people can have decent schools to send their kids to or look forward to a government subsidy when one retires?

      Because it’s not looking out for one’s own economic benefit. The taxes won’t be on billionaires and millionaires ? it’ll be on thousandaires. It’s money you could have spent replacing your washing machine or fixing your sewage line that’ll be spent lining some millionaire’s or billionaire’s pocket via subsidies or protection from competition via regulation.

      Plus public schools are paid for mostly by the states and counties, not the Feds, so no matter who you vote for President and no matter how much the Federal government raises taxes, it won’t make much of a difference to the everyday school (schools operated by the DoD, on the other hand, are paid for with Federal dollars and they’ll benefit greatly as will defense contractors).

      And Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. Money you pay in now goes to current retirees. Your SS will come from workers when you retire, if there’s enough money to tax.

    7. I look with a jaundiced eye at any politician that says we need to tax businesses and rich people less because that will promote economic growth.

      Corporate taxes are passed on to customers. Therefore, businesses do not pay taxes–their customers do. However, high corporate taxes do make it logical for businesses to move to cheaper operating environments in another state or country.

      One of the greatest problems with socialists and socialism is the inherent ignorance of human nature and incentives in general. You think that taxing rich people more will allow others to pay less in taxes. But it will merely mean that the rich find loopholes and/or choose to make less money so they pay less in taxes.

    8. You know what’s fucking hilarious?

      Retards like you bitching about tax cuts to the rich, when the majority of the Bush tax cuts (cause lets be honest, that’s what you’re really thinking about) went to the poor and middle class. As it would again if new tax cuts were passed.

      Why do you hate the poor and middle class?

      1. Hey nate,

        I paid $800 less in taxes under obama’s first 2 years. If that’s Black Power socialism give me more of that.

        1. I paid $800 less in taxes under obama’s first 2 years.

          Oh, you mean while the Bush tax cuts were still in effect?

          1. Hahahahahahahahahaha

            God damn if AmSoc isn’t the most retarded troll we have.

    9. Why is it so tres horrible to look out for one’s own economic benefit and to vote for a politician that will raise taxes on billionaires so that middle class people can have decent schools to send their kids to or look forward to a government subsidy when one retires?

      1. Because if “tax the rich” is the solution there’s no reason to limit spending, and Congress will spend more than the taxes raise, and since there aren’t enough billionaires even if they were taxed 100% of everything they have, Congress will soon be raising taxes on the middle class to fund the expanded government programs.
      2. Because increased funding has never historically led to “decent schools” as long as the government continued to run them.
      3. Social Security already costs 15% of your income, provides a pittance for retirement, and is going broke because Congress “borrowed” your contributions for the general fund as soon as they were collected. You don’t really think there are anything but government IOUs in your SS “Retirement Savings Account,” do you?

  21. Holy-fucking-shit, can we please stop talking about generational cohorts as if they all are of one mind about everything?

    1. Nick said 2:1. So that means there’s 1 millennial out there who voted for Trump.

    2. Can we poll millennials first and see whether they think we should?

  22. Bernie promises job prospects and student loan forgiveness. Of course college students flock to him.

  23. “lay off the culture-war stuff,”

    So the LP has been laying off this stuff for 45 years now and, look, it might actually break 1% of the vote this year.

    1. Culture war stuff (particularly abortion) has a lot to do with why many people won’t even consider voting Republican. Maybe they’d lose a lot of voters too if they stopped making that a central thing. But they would gain some too.

      The real problem with the LP, I think, is that they are a bunch of crazy weirdos.

      1. “The real problem with the LP, I think, is that they are a bunch of crazy weirdos.”

        This is true. Most sane libertarians are a) not involved in politics or b) work for the Republicans.

          1. It turns out that people who don’t believe in the efficacy of political solutions tend not to work towards political power. Who knew?

  24. The GOP is throwing away the youth vote. Here’s how to win it back.

    I don’t really want the GOP to win back the youth vote. I want the LP to win it.

    1. Living in denial is one thing, but that’s just deluded.

      1. Let’s face it, it’s all a fantasy. Nothing is ever going to get significantly more libertarian through political processes.

          1. Probably not that way either. The original American Revolution has been pretty singular in actually creating some lasting improvements in human freedom.

            1. And it wasn’t perfect, lasted about a decade.

        1. I’m just here to vent.

          1. I’m here half to vent and half for the self-indulgent philosophizing.

            1. And masturbation euphemisms.

              1. Don’t forget the tits. Lovely birds.

        2. I feel the same way, but I’m not gonna make a definitive conclusion until I know who’s repping the Big Two in the presidential election. If it’s Trump vs. Clinton (and no indie bids), I would be shocked if the Libertarian Party ended up with the same measly percentage as 2012.

        3. How about when Nixon ended the draft?

  25. Maybe the idea put forward here that young people vote for Bernie Sanders because he isn’t a conservative troglodyte on social issues is wrong. Maybe they’ve just looked empirically at the evidence, seen the stagnating wages of their “Silver Spoons” inspired parents, and come away with the message that all this pro-business and free market triumphantalism is Emperor Ayn Rand walking down the street with her clothes off.

    1. They so conclude with having little to no knowledge of the decades-long effects of government policy across every substantive area of life. They, like you, have simplistic premises about “greed” and “public service” and make conclusions accordingly.

      We’ve never had a free market in this country (though certain policies more closely approximate it). Also, “pro-business” does not equal “free market.” But you knew that.

      1. Where do I make arguments about greed or public service? I’m appealing to good old fashioned Marxian class consciousness and self-interest.

        1. old fashioned Marxian class consciousness and self-interest.

          Aww, so collectivist greed; the not-so-good kind.

        2. Because Marxist class consciousness always works out so well for the proles.

          You might have thought that 100 million murdered and economy after economy left in shambles over the course of the 20th century would have been enough.

          What you’re missing is that the devastation was the end aimed at.

    2. Sorry to burst your bubble, AmSoc, but Ayn Rand hated libertarianism and libertarians (“hippies of the right” as she called them).

    3. Whose ideas were more successful, Marx’s or Rand’s?

      Marx was a ne’re do well and a malcontent who got most of his ideas from Engles and then wrote a rambling tome that few people actually read. I can’t for the life of me figure out what people see in Karl Marx. The only thing I can think of is that his writings attract people who, like himself, are malcontents who are jealous of the successes of others and look for a justification to confiscate their wealth for themselves. And your comments here convince me that I’m right.

      1. Depends on how you define “successful”. In my view, neither are, since neither have actually had their views put into practice worthy of their respective ideologies (closest examples are the Paris Commune for Marx and one of those libertarian micro-state for Rand).

        1. …since neither have actually had their views put into practice worthy of their respective ideologies…

          So, because Lenin and Mao changed Communism a bit for their particular societies, Marx is off the hook? Both of these dictators purged the intellectuals and the Bourgeoisie. Both implemented central planning of the country including the economy. Both nationalized the means of production and implemented the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I’m sure I’ve missed some, but what else is important?

          Marx’s ideas had their chance and they failed miserably. His ideas inspired Fascism, and Progressivism, Peronism, Maoism, Leninism and others. He inspired labor movements and student movements all over the world. Yet you say that Communism was never put into practise? What more needs done to show that Marx was wrong?

            1. When Venezuela replaces their legislature with workers’ soviets and turns their state-run corporations into large worker-run cooperatives, let me know.

          1. Well “communism” usually refers to either (A) a stateless, classless society or (B) the political and social movement dedicated to establishing (A).

            Second, “changed a bit” is quite an understatement. Under classical Marxist philosophy, the working-class AS A WHOLE (can’t find italics) must overthrow the state and lead the transition to communism; Lenin revised that to have a small cadre of “professional revolutionaries” lead the revolution (which has some dangerous parallels with some other revolutionary tendencies, such as Blanquism). And Mao, as an adherent of Lenin (and Stalin) did the same (to the consternation of many intellectuals and bureaucrats within the Chinese Communist Party).

            Third, nationalizing the means of production doesn’t necessarily imply that you’re a socialist; most capitalist countries had a number of nationalized industries well into the 1970s and 80s, and most (if not all) “capitalist” countries have nationalized the means of production in wartime. Socialism could just as easily be organized under a federation of regional and industrial syndicates, or by via worker’s cooperatives.

            Finally, I’m not sure how Marxism “inspired” Fascism. Yes, Mussolini was a socialist before becoming a fascist, but there’s no such link in the two ideologies. Marxism champions internationalist proletarian revolution and anti-capitalism; fascism, on the other hand, is more nationalist and tends to appeal to the lower-middle class and big business.

  26. Well duh, they’re in college. Fortunately, while they have a lot of brand new ‘opinions’ on politics at that age they also hardly ever vote.

  27. Love the pictures. Bernie looks like they brought him the wrong flavor pudding at the home.

  28. “82 percent are ready to “make tough choices about cutting government spending, even on some programs some people really like.”

    And how much of the 82 percent would be willing to do that? Very little actually would…..

  29. Millennials aren’t idiots…

    HAS ANYONE DEMANDED PROOF OF THIS YET?

    1. I’m proof enough.

      *swaggers off*

      1. There’s no evidence you’re not an idiot either. Nor evidence you’re a ‘millennial’.

        1. BUT HOW DO I PROVE A NEGATIVE, HUH?

          I gotcha there.

          1. There was an area where you had a chance to prove a positive (ie, show evidence of being a ‘millenial’), but you skipped it and tried to claim a ‘gotcha’. As such, I deem thee an idiot.

            1. Ouch.

              *bows before UnCivilServant*

  30. Indoctrination works. That’s why people do it.

    Progressives own public schools the media and colleges, where they spend most of their day propagandizing.

    When children grow up in a progressive theocracy, they grow up as progressives. Duh.

    1. Except for the rebellious scallywags like me who fought them with as much logic as I could every day. They hated me. I called them on fallacies. I asked about opposing views on subjects I knew had to have more than what they said.
      School didn’t have any economic or real civic education. It was just top men.

      1. Nowadays I kinda feel lucky to have had a conservative Economics teacher in high school who told it like it was.

        In a mostly Democratic enclave of Texas, no less.

        1. That would be nice. Luckily, there’s enough books and a great deal of information on the Internet. I’m glad I found it.

    2. I was the only kid in my high school economics class who raised his hand when he asked, “Who thinks we shouldn’t have a minimum wage.”

      But that teacher was the best I’d ever had because he let us actually think for ourselves and debate ideas and topics and such.

  31. People are idiots.

    Millennials are people.

    Millennials are idiots.

    1. I contest your assertion on line 2.

    2. THAT’S NOT HOW THAT WORKS FIST YOU KNOW THAT

    3. Idiots are people, too.

  32. Who was it that wrote “I know Bernie’s numbers don’t work but the things he wants to do are just too important for us to be held back by numbers.” ?

    That person votes.

    Dr. Suthenboy’s requirements to vote: Be over 40, married, have children and own property. Exceptions made for former members of the military under 40.

  33. College students and the youth vote aren’t synonymous and Nick shouldn’t conflate the two. College students are a subset of the youth vote who are, I would think, be much more likely to identify as liberal than the average 18-29 year old. Do they provide an idea of how younger people will vote? Maybe yes, maybe no…there’s not enough info to tell.

  34. College Students Prefer Sanders Over Hillary 2:1, Dems Over Reps 2:1Are Fucking Retarded Commies

    FTFY.

  35. He was young, black, progressive, good at soaring oratory, etc. at exactly the right time in recent history.

    That’s at least 50% incorrect.

    1. OK, middle-aged, half-white, machine politician with a decent voice that reminded people of soaring oratory.

  36. In other news, Paul Ryan goes where reason won’t; the Libertarian case for Trump.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article…..government

    The campaign is apparently “destroying faith in government”.

    1. Faith in government has been half dead for a while – only doublethink has kept the other half alive.

    2. The campaign is apparently “destroying faith in government”.

      For those of us with eyes to see, the government beat Trump’s campaign to that particular end result decades ago.

      1. Yes. And it is more than a bit ironic that the current Speaker of the House seems to think the campaign is responsible for people’s lost faith, not the actions of the government.

        Ryan apparently thinks government is wonderful and everyone would know that if it wasn’t for those dastardly Presidential candidates (really just Trump) ruining everyone’s faith in it.

        1. Yeah, I don’t know how he figures that Trump is a cause and not a symptom of people’s disdain for how government and politics work.

  37. Well, I’m not a Millennial, so I don’t know how much my opinion counts around here anymore. That said, It’s a little telling that Gillespie has to go back twenty years to find a race where the GOP was competitive in the youth vote. And let’s bear in mind, it was Reagan and George Bush. It kinda seems to me that comparing success then to failure now just might be comparing kinda, sorta different samples. Maybe someone can tell me how well Gary Johnson, a guy who’s fiscally responsible and socially tolerant fared among Reason’s Holy Cohort? As far as I’ve been able to see, the generation raised to treat The Daily Show as news isn’t all too keen on either aspect of that formulation.

    Socially progressive is not the same thing as socially tolerant. Maybe Gillespie should spend a weekend reading Robbie’s articles.

    1. Maybe someone can tell me how well Gary Johnson

      This is exactly right. We all go back and forth trying to explain why Nick’s simple formulation is wrong (as you do) but the proof is right there. Gary Johnson is EXACTLY the candidate that Nick wants the GOP to be.

      And yet no kid gives a fuck.

      1. I’m one. There’s a few here. We’re the same 1-5%

  38. Bernie Sanders just looks like a child molester.

  39. Lot simpler than this.

    Rs historically do well with young people who are not in college and who are working full time. The number of students has gone up; Republicans are not gonna do well with them.

    By the by, Nick, if you’ve got the magic formula for the youth vote maybe use it to get some votes for the Libertarian Party?

    1. Makes sense. I got a lot less liberal after a few decent paychecks and saw the tax bite.

      1. This. Also i think it is good to point out if you are paying 20% in taxes that equates to 1 day a week strictly for the government

  40. Nick *really gets the kids these days*. He uses their jive talk on the tweeters and everything.

    1. Also, even if there was such a thing as a millennial expert…. What is Nick’s relevant experience? Does he attribute the 2 or 3 millenials in H&R comments to his groovy fashion sense and pop culture references?

      1. What is Nick’s relevant experience?

        His name’s Nicky G
        And he rocks the telly.
        He’s half-Joe Camel
        And a third Fonzarelli.
        He’s the kung fu hippie
        From Gangsta City.
        He’s a rappin’ surfer,
        And you the fool he pity.

        1. Nicky G is one outrageous dude! /Millennial

  41. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.net-jobs25.com

  42. Asking Republicans to stop scapegoating immigrants and sexual minorities is like asking Democrats to stop selling an ever more expansive and intrusive government as a solution to the problems created by government in the first place: Good advice bound to fall on deaf ears.

  43. Feel the Johnson!

    1. Hey, a Bill Clinton quote!

  44. The worst part of all this is that millennials don’t love or even like the Democrats and their policies.

    Bull fucking shit Nick, you pathetic fucking hack.

  45. I would say, as someone only a few years older then a “millennial”, don’t try to alter your message to make it cool or hip, just talk to them the way you would talk to anyone else, like an adult. It’ll be enough of a departure from what the other major parties are doing to garner some very positive feedback.

  46. Wait. You mean to tell me college students who are likely looking at some student debt are supporting the candidates who say they shouldn’t have to pay those debts?

    Man, who’d ever have thought that!

  47. Nick, you got any evidence that campaigning on culture war stuff hurts the votes for the avg. candidate for most public offices, D, R, or nonpartisan? They’re not idiots, either; if it didn’t pay off, how long do you think they’d keep doing it?

  48. I am a millennial and I think my peers are fucking idiots for the most part. I mean, yeah we believe in science and reason over dogma, but that’s slipping a bit with their insufferable goddamn Bernie Sanders cult bullshit. I have never failed to understand a political movement so much in my life. My theory: someone on a college campus somewhere decided Bernie was a cuddly socialist teddy bear, and this person hadn’t yet taken Civics 101 so he thinks the United States of Denmark is possibly after one presidential election, then peer pressure did the rest. I imagine it’s tougher being a Hillary supporter on campus than a college Republican right now.
    But the good thing is they’re going to be lefties for life. Your rightwing movement to use government to loot everyone’s wealth and give it to the wealthy then shut the whole thing down are mere years away from being Terry Schiavoed. Congratulations on all you accomplished. Donald Trump. I seriously never saw that one coming. I mean wow.

    1. Your rightwing movement to use government to loot everyone’s wealth and give it to the wealthy…

      Just how do republicans “loot everyone’s wealth and give it to the wealthy”? Are the wealthy getting tax returned to them they didn’t earn? Are they getting cost of living stipends? How is this transfer of wealth done?

      Actually, you–just like AmSoc–are a jealous malcontent who hates the rich because they have more than you do. To cover your hate, you accuse the objects of your hate of being the ones in the wrong. You accuse the rich of stealing wealth so that you can justify stealing it back. But it’s not yours. Whether they deserve what they have of not matters none. You most certainly don’t deserve their wealth.

      1. Every cent in everyone’s pocket is there because of government policy. It could simply let markets go on their own, in which case we get the social outcomes of laissez-faire policy, which are bad on the whole. It could tax and spend to create a modern civilized society, in which case the distribution ends up different. Republicans aren’t clamoring to end corporate welfare after decades of clamoring to end welfare for the poor. There’s a reason for that.

        Then there’s the simple math that you would pretend doesn’t exist: there is existing stuff that government via taxation pays for that people, especially rich people, benefit from, not least basic property protection. It costs money to try and imprison a guy who tries to take your stuff illegally. So since we’re all agreed that we have to tax, it’s legitimate to ask what the burden should be, and some of us calculate this by measuring outcomes. Duplicitous Republicans simply try to make poor people pay for roads, cops, education, and the military. It’s not their money if it is taken in taxes. It is the people’s. What belongs to whom is entirely decided by law. Without law, nothing belongs to anyone except what people can secure with violence or threats thereof. Which is the very scenario civilization is meant to replace.

        1. Tony:

          Without law, nothing belongs to anyone except what people can secure with violence or threats thereof. Which is the very scenario civilization is meant to replace.

          LOL.

        2. Tony, even before there was government in the modern sense, and even in the Soviet Union, there were rich people and poor people. The only difference was that wealth took different forms (access to Western stores, Western-style clinics, etc) and traveled along different lines (personal contacts, secret deals, Communist Party membership). The only basis for wealth that government is responsible for is the protection of property rights– including against thieves who use government to do the stealing.

          Where those thieves can use the government to seize property, such as refineries, what you wind up with is not San Francisco. It’s Venezuela.

        3. Umm what?

          Are you saying I own your money? How much do you make?

          How did government decide who gets how much?

      2. Nice ad hominem; almost as good as the ones people use against libertarians in the public (libertarians hate poor people, libertarians want to oppress women, etc.). In reality, socialists are not evil ingrates trying to concentrate power in the hands of “top men”, anymore than libertarians are greedy Scrooges profiting off of orphan labor.

        And technically speaking, people can only “earn” wealth if they mix their labor with nature, provided that they actually have the means of protecting their wealth from despoliation or theft. How does a modern businessman “earn” his wealth if he is using the labor of hundreds (if not thousands) of individuals who could just as easily produce the same goods and services without him?

        BTW, I’m not saying that the wealth belongs to the State, nor am I trying to find the “one big flaw” in libertarianism (trust me, I’ve tried). Just trying to poke around…

        1. How does a modern businessman “earn” his wealth if he is using the labor of hundreds (if not thousands) of individuals who could just as easily produce the same goods and services without him?

          I’m sorry, but I’m really confused here. Are you claiming that business owners do not earn their wealth because the product is made by others? Do you really believe that the workers could “just as easily produce the same goods and services without him?” Without his/her investment, direction, product design, process design, logistics, interfacing with customers, suppliers and government, etc., etc.? Or are you just assuming that I accept the marxist Labor Theory of Value? Because otherwise I don’t really get your point.

          To give you a hint of where I’m coming from: I’ve worked on some assembly lines, and I’ve worked as a tooling and manufacturing engineer. I can attest from personal experience that the workers cannot “just as easily produce the same goods and services without [engineers, administrators, investors, etc.]”. Maybe you should bone up on the concept of labor specialization.

          1. I’m not really basing it off of the Marxian LTV, more of the Lockean one (again, just trying to poke around). I doubt anyone here really buys into the whole Marxist LTV argument.

            I’m not saying that labor specialization is integral to modern industrial society. Whether you call it “socialist” or “capitalist”, advanced economies are going to have some degree of specialization. What I’m arguing against is the PRIVATE CONTROL (again, sorry for the caps; can’t find the italics) of factories, where the day-to-day operations are run by investors and executive management. For me, factories resemble mini-societies; you have the (relatively) unskilled guys on the factory floor, the relatively more skilled guys directing the production process (like the intelligentsia, etc), and a few guys at the top controlling the whole process (investors, higher-level management, etc). I see no reason why said factories can’t function under a directly-democratic model; workers elect their managers and they decide the factory’s production plan in reaction to the needs of the market (much like managers do so today).
            In other words, I think the power and responsibility of business-owners can be transferred to the rank-and-file, and that’s why I don’t think they “earn” them from a philosophical point of view. If the acumen and flexibility of the business-owner is the only thing standing between an advanced society and a primitive one, then I’d be otherwise inclined.

            1. Your argument appears to be, simply “I think factory workers could elect their manager, who would manage the factory according to the workers’ desires, and that would work OK. So that means managers don’t ‘earn’ management. And this is an argument against PRIVATE CONTROL. If a manager can prove we need him to avoid CAVEMEN!, then, maybe I’ll care.”

              Your argument seems to be skipping the actual capital investment required to build the factory, etc.

              For example, the worker-factory-management scheme that you’re proposing is completely realizable in our current system. It involves the workers either purchasing the factory, or building their own factory, and, as owners, voting for the executive management.

              However, this is still “private control”, since the workers are, in fact, private entities.

              So, I’m able to follow some of this, but definitely not all of the conclusions.

              1. I skip the aspects of initial capital investment mainly to simplify the nature of the argument; if I were to include that aspect, I’d have to include an entire schematic for an anarcho-syndicalist society.

                And the worker-management scheme is only THEORETICALLY (again, sorry for the caps) realizable under this system, given that most workers don’t have the sufficient savings to buy the full market-value of the factory (even if everyone pooled their capital together). And it wouldn’t necessarily be private control, mainly because the workers are (generally speaking) the “core” of the population. Effectively it would be social control of the means of production, although some sort of regional coordination would be required to make it a de facto “nonprivate” system.

                1. So let’s say he workers do own the factory, and can share the profits between themselves.

                  What happens if the factory starts loosing money?

                  After all, labor isn’t the only factory input. There’s usually power, perhaps water, resources, etc.

                  Who pays for the factory to operate while its operating at a loss?

                  The workers?

                  And what are they getting paid for their labor, while they pay for the resources to operate he factory at a loss?

                  Let’s say that a worker would rather forgo that responsibility, along with the risk, and would rather work for an hourly wage, with no responsibility for providing anything but labor, at an agreed upon rate, and with no responsibility for profit or loss, or other operational e xpenses. Is he allowed to?

                  1. Well, I must state that my proposal (or stated preference, actually) assumes a transition AWAY from market capitalism, not within it. So I find the question of profitability to be somewhat irrelevant.

                    But assuming that market capitalism is preserved, the factory would operate just like a privately-controlled factory in this scenario. The workers would deduct standard market wages from their revenues (thus constituting payroll), account for depreciation, purchases, and the like, AND THEN divide the leftover revenue (as “profit”) amongst themselves. If the factory operates at a loss, then it will either have to rely on credit until it reforms its business practices or declare bankruptcy and pay off its debts and shareholders, although the shareholders will be the workers and not private investors.

                    As for your hypothetical, I find the notion of a worker “forgoing” responsibility to be highly interesting. Not that it’s impossible, but that it is a historically-interesting dilemma, since usually workers (and their equivalents in pre-capitalist societies) have rarely if ever been granted the chance (let alone the choice) to collectively govern society or the means of production. Not to mention the fact that many revolts over the history of the West have been waged over people seeking to wrest such control, whether it be the more collectivist labor disputes of the Gilded Age or the individualist peasant revolts in the Middle Ages. It all depends on the economic system.

                    1. I thought you were simply contemplating Lockean labor theory of value and how a factory could be owned and manage by workers. That itself doesn’t imply we have to get rid of market capitalism, since workers are free, under market capitalism, to own and operate factories.

                      The workers would deduct standard market wages from their revenues (thus constituting payroll), account for depreciation, purchases, and the like, AND THEN divide the leftover revenue (as “profit”) amongst themselves.

                      But, you’re not mentioning the part where, if the factory operates at a loss, then they divide the loss (as “negative profit”) amongst themselves.

                      If operating at a loss requires credit, what’s the collateral? More labor?

                      Also, what is “liquidated” in a bankruptcy? Labor?The labor has already been spent, producing negative value. How are you assigning + value to an asset without labor? Or, an asset for which the labor was resulting in a net loss?

                      As for your hypothetical, I find the notion of a worker “forgoing” responsibility to be highly interesting.

                      Does the question have an answer?

                      Let’s say that a worker would rather forgo that responsibility, along with the risk, and would rather work for an hourly wage, with no responsibility for providing anything but labor, at an agreed upon rate, and with no responsibility for profit or loss, or other operational expenses. Is he allowed to?

                      Or is it only “interesting”?

                    2. The workers would deduct standard market wages from their revenues (thus constituting payroll), account for depreciation,

                      Also, how does depreciation work with the labor theory of value?

                      By the labor theory of value, if you buy something, the cost of it is equivalent to the labor to produce it. So, how does it “depreciate”? Shouldn’t it have a fixed, constant value, equal to the labor that went into producing it? After all, the laborer’s in the factory had to buy the equipment with their own labor, in exchange. Is the labor loosing value, and what is that value measured by?

                      Or, for that matter, how is efficiency incentivized?

                      Let’s say the workers in the factory work one factory-men-day and produce 100 X-widgets. the next day, they work one factory-men-day and produce 150 X-widgets. Are the first day’s 100 widgets worth more, individually, than the second day’s 150 widgets, because the same labor went into both?

                      Also, let’s say they could produce 1000 new Y-widgets, and each Y-widget is better, by some measure other than labor, than an X-widget. What reason do they have to switch production to 1000 Y-widgets in a day, since the labor is identical to the labor that went into the 100 X-widgets and the 150 X-widget days?

                      If a worker’s value is according to his labor, aren’t all laborers limited in their value to their ability to maximize the difficulty and duration of their labor? Is that what they’re incentivized to maximize? Is that good?

                    3. Technically speaking, social ownership of the means of production wouldn’t qualify as “capitalism” since it would take out one of the three elements of capitalism (capital accumulation), even if the workers are the ones managing the factory (at least through a purely socialist perspective).

                      Again, this scenario is dependent on the assumption that market capitalism is the predominant economic system, rather than a postcapitalist system (such as socialism). The collateral for credit would be the capital and future profits (which is effectively valorized labor). And if the factory goes into bankruptcy, the inventories and capital equipment (which is owned by the workers) would be liquidated.

                      As for the question, I find it interesting because historically it has been a non-issue; it would be like asking a slave if he would rather be a slave than a freedman. There’s the distinct possibility that such a case might exist, but the scenario remains rather absurd from my perspective. From a libertarian perspective, not so much (I suppose). Basically it wouldn’t be allowed (again, this assumes that market capitalism predominates, something I’m disagreeing with you on); it would be similar to the slavery issue in libertarian circles; you can’t “sell yourself” into slavery, likewise you cannot shirk or “sell” your responsibilities in the factory and be a simple worker (or “wage slave”, as some would say).

                    4. The collateral for credit would be the capital and future profits (which is effectively valorized labor).

                      I’m not really following you. If the collateral for a loan is labor, and you can’t pay the loan, does this imply that the workers have to work for the creditor? So the creditor receives the value for the labor? Does this not create a disruption in the worker/owner/profiter being the same person? It sounds like, under that system, one could become a private property owner by being a creditor, and loaning value to workers in factories.

                    5. I’m point out that, in the current system, workers exchange their time as labor in return for money. Usually, at an hourly rate. As opposed to (in our current system), an owner, who invests value in starting a business or owning a business, in return for potential profits, but also risks, in terms of losses.

                      Most workers don’t go into a factory and wonder if they’re going to be paid for their labor in the end, based on how well the widgets due in the market. This is the risk they would take on in a relatively free system in which people explicitly work and own production, but never work and not own, or own and not work.

                      Yes, this assumes some sort of market: in fact, a labor valued one, in in which people have choices for how they earn and spend labor. However, I think you’ve gone from assuming simple lockean labor theory of value to an entire socialist system, with no markets at all, even for labor, to make such concerns go away. There are certain fundamental questions about how such an economy would work, not just from a worker/management perspective, but from a labor-value perspective, and “socialism” isn’t a strong enough word to just assume it all works out.

                      These are important questions about how labor-theory of value would work. Resources are scarce. Labor applied to one thing cannot be applied to another. Getting rid of markets doesn’t actually make the fundamental issues go away.

                2. Also, I don’t understand your concert of non-private control.

                  The workers in a factory are just the workers in a factory. In the current system, the people who could possibly own a stake in that factory could be much larger, and much more a “core” of the population than the factory workers.

                  For example, the number of shareholders in Apple is much larger than the number of factory workers. When you consider how many funds own Apple, and how many normal people own funds in their 401ks and pensions, etc., it’s much larger number of people than the factory workers.

                  Does this imply that Apple is a public company, and not in private control? By your concept, it seems that it is, and you’re just suggesting that the factory workers should be the only ones allowed to own Apple, and this would make Apple less private.

                  1. Sorry, I guess I should have defined my view of “private ownership” (since it is obviously different than yours’). In my worldview, private ownership of the means of production implies that you ADMINISTER and own businesses, rather than work and own. Working and owning enterprises (as many variants of socialism propose) is different in this respect, mainly because of its resolution of the so-called absentee ownership dilemma. Interestingly enough, there is a similar debate within socialist circles of how to balance workers’ management with social planning.

                    It’s true that Apple’s investors are, theoretically, far more numerous than the company’s workforce. Even if you include major suppliers like Foxconn into the Apple “network”, the number of workers probably won’t equal the number of shareholders. However, I must argue that your argument is flawed in that the largest shareholders in public companies are usually large investment funds (mutual index funds, pension funds, 401ks, etc), which are usually run by a few managers and directors who exercise the collective power of their represented “constituents”. These managers make the day-to-day decisions and exercise the most power when it comes to “shareholder” issues; the shareholders themselves don’t, unless they either retire or elect to withdraw their funds (which is a complicated process). Thus, a worker-run Apple would entail (relatively) public ownership compared to a private shareholder-run Apple.

                    1. Rather than my argument being flawed, it seems that your concept of private ownership is really a concept of alternative management (workers manage themselves), and not really private ownership (i.e., individuals and entities owning companies, and being able to do so with or without working there. That’s the most accepted meaning of the concept.).

                      Tim Cook works for Apple. He also manages Apple. He also owns a portion of Apple. Individual workers also work for Apple and own Apple.

                      Let’s say a worker at Apple wants to keep working at Apple, but wants to sell their portion of ownership of the profits/losses to someone else. Are they allowed to?

                    2. I can see how this is the case, given that my ideal system is one that entails social ownership of the means of production and worker’s self-management. The former is a traditional tenet of most strains of socialist thought, which includes workers both within and without the hypothetical factory.

                      Tim Cook doesn’t “work” for Apple in the sense that he is employed by Apple and has a subordinate role in the company process; rather, I would say that he “runs” Apple with the advice and consent of the company shareholders and the board of directors. And does Apple have a program where rank-and-file workers can receive Apple shares in lieu of fringe benefits and thus offer petitions and referenda to company headquarters over certain policies? That’s what I would consider as “worker ownership”; managers and executives (alongside investors and members of the board) help “run” the company. I’m basically trying to delineate the differences between owning/running a company and “working” for it.

                      And in a socialist society, a worker wouldn’t be able to “sell” their rights because (A) there would be no companies to own, (B) workers would be vested with the inalienable right to democratic decision-making within (and without) their workplace and (C) the connection between “profit” and “surplus” would be severed in a socialist society, with the former being rendered anachronistic and the latter being distributed according to the will of the general public.

                    3. Yes, but you realize the difference between “run” and “work” get blurry.

                      For example, the lowest level workers who run a machine in a company. Are they workers? Are do they run the company?

                      How about the guy with the most experience who oversees that machine? Is he a worker? Does he run the company?

                      What about the guy who manages multiple machine teams and coordinates their effort? Does he work for the company? Does he run the company?

                      What about the CEO?

                      These people are usually paid according to their competition, their replicability, and their value to the company as determined by shareholders/co-workers/managers, as opposed to strictly assigning their value by a “labor” definition that hasn’t been defined yet, other than labeling it as “labor”.

                      If the idea is that we just get rid of CEOs, well, great, but how far down do you go before you get someone who “runs things” but also “works”? The very bottom? The very top? The middle?

                      Again, we’ve seemed to be assuming an entire socialist system. If you want to talk about that, we can, but then you need to tell me exactly what we’re talking about.

                      You’re declaring profit and surplus to be anachronistic, which seems very much as argument by assumption. “Distributing according to the will of the general public” is somewhat dubious: what’s the point of assigning goods a value based on labor, if their distribution is by public opinion? Does every voter promise to decide according to labor theory of value?

                    4. Well only if one uses sloppy definitions. I’m using the terms “run” and “work” within a power-dynamic, where someone who “runs” something exercises power and control over it, whereas someone who “works for” something merely applies his/her labor to something (without necessarily controlling it). Rank-and-file workers rarely exercise control over companies, unless they’re cooperatives. Just because a worker “runs” a company-owned machine doesn’t mean he “runs” the company; the company is more than just that machine, and that worker only has control over that machine.
                      Generally speaking, mainstream economics argues that labor is paid according to its marginal utility. But this assumes that humans are naturally rational and outcome-oriented. I would argue that this theory is wrong because it neglects the power dynamics between labor and management. Workers aren’t necessarily paid according to the value they provide to the company; management must also take into account the possible threat of unionization and strike action, which pushes wages upward. In other words, market capitalism doesn’t operate according to a “frictionless market” model, and in fact cannot.
                      But more to your point, I don’t necessarily oppose a hierarchy in a socialist “industrial army” (to borrow from Marx); my sticking point is that the hierarchy must be transparent and democratically accountable to those it affects, which is basically everyone (implying social ownership and/or control).

                    5. That’s fine.

                      At first, I thought we were simply talking about Lockean labor theory of value, and how a factory could be run by its workers. I don’t think that necessarily assumes that their can’t be free markets, but it merely states that goods have a value according to their labor.

                      For example, I own my labor, and I could perform labor to create goods, and trade them on a market for other goods made by other people’s labor, valued by that labor, and I’m using the labor theory of value, and we have markets, and no one’s voting on this.

                      I raised some issues that could come up with that, and your answer seems to be “Don’t worry, with an overall socialist system in place, with democratically distributed goods and serves, there are no problems.” Well, this implies that we’re talking about some overall socialist system, and not a simple lockean labor theory of value.

                      If humans aren’t rational and outcome-oriented, are humans voting suddenly rational and outcome-oriented? Your criticisms of mainstream economics appear to be skipped in application on your desired socialist model. I’m not sure how that is overcome by people voting, and I see no reason to expect that a socialist distribution of goods and services would be less irrational or more outcome-oriented.

                      Let’s try to start some place simpler, and skip “lockean labor theory of value.”

                      OK, we have people. We have some concept of ownership. What is ownership, and do people own themselves?

                    6. Well only if one uses sloppy definitions. I’m using the terms “run” and “work” within a power-dynamic, where someone who “runs” something exercises power and control over it, whereas someone who “works for” something merely applies his/her labor to something (without necessarily controlling it)

                      I find this definition difficult to follow. If I exercise power and control over something, can I also do so in a context of applying labor to it? If I’m applying labor to something, am I also, in some way, controlling it? What’s the distinction?

                      Maybe we should start out with something more basic. What is labor?

                    7. Yes, but you realize the difference between “run” and “work” get blurry.

                      For example, the lowest level workers who run a machine in a company. Are they workers? Are do they run the company?

                      How about the guy with the most experience who oversees that machine? Is he a worker? Does he run the company?

                      What about the guy who manages multiple machine teams and coordinates their effort? Does he work for the company? Does he run the company?

                      What about the CEO?

                      These people are usually paid according to their competition, their replicability, and their value to the company as determined by shareholders/co-workers/managers, as opposed to strictly assigning their value by a “labor” definition that hasn’t been defined yet, other than labeling it as “labor”.

                      If the idea is that we just get rid of CEOs, well, great, but how far down do you go before you get someone who “runs things” but also “works”? The very bottom? The very top? The middle?

                      Again, we’ve seemed to be assuming an entire socialist system. If you want to talk about that, we can, but then you need to tell me exactly what we’re talking about.

                      You’re declaring profit and surplus to be anachronistic, which seems very much as argument by assumption. “Distributing according to the will of the general public” is somewhat dubious: what’s the point of assigning goods a value based on labor, if their distribution is by public opinion? Does every voter promise to decide according to labor theory of value?

        2. The labor theory of value died ignominiously about a century ago, just for your edification.

          1. I know, and the Austrian School of economics died anonymously in childbirth.

    2. My experience as a university student might have been different from someone at some small liberal arts school somewhere, but I’m only twice as convinced now that universities now are just bureaucratic fiefdoms with a primary goal of advancing utopian socialism. Universities are inner cities that normally exist inside of inner cities, and their mission is to grow in size and fulfill every desire of the students and administrators there with someone else’s money. It doesn’t take more than one semester for that ideology and culture to rub off on the kids there because the vast majority of them aren’t familiar with the real world.

    3. Tony:

      My theory: someone on a college campus somewhere decided Bernie was a cuddly socialist teddy bear, and this person hadn’t yet taken Civics 101 so he thinks the United States of Denmark is possibly after one presidential election, then peer pressure did the rest. I imagine it’s tougher being a Hillary supporter on campus than a college Republican right now.

      Ok, so here’s what went down: Tony went all game theory and started debating the BernieBros and endorsing Hillary, and they treated him like a traitorous piece of crap. So, now they’re all idiots, too.

      And they were mean. Probably treated him worse than a college Republican.

      Boo hoo.

      I am a millennial and I think my peers are fucking idiots for the most part.

      Idiots to the left of him. Idiots to the right. Poor Tony’s stuck in the middle, convinced he’s totally different from those other jokers.

      1. Tony seems really bitter

        1. He’s pretty much just a stupid person who thinks he’s smart.

          1. He posits wild, vague “theories” about the point of civilization “in the first place”, as if there’s even some origin story of civilization that historians agree with.

          2. His theory is that civilization evolved as an alternative to wild bandits, as if it must have been some common mutual aid setup. Never mind alternative theories, which are just as likely, including the idea that roaming violent bandits could have evolved with dominance into territorial war lords, extracting taxes from the local population as an alternative to being killed, and that is the original alternative to everyone fighting each other. If that’s the point of civilization, then perhaps civilization should be rethought.

          3. He infers from this that law is everything (like God), and determines everything. Never mind that the bitching about right wing republicans he does is just as legal as everything else. See this part?

          Tony:It costs money to try and imprison a guy who tries to take your stuff illegally.

          He tries his best to stay consistent and pretend that law determines everything, but he just can’t help himself, as he says:

          Tony:Your rightwing movement to use government to loot everyone’s wealth and give it to the wealthy

          See, government can’t steal because it’s legal… except for looters like us!, whoever that is.

          He’s basically a retard who reads left wing books

          1. Ah yes, as we all know, real intelligence means adopting egregiously fallacious flim-flam like libertarianism, something nobody with any credentials beyond a freshman econ course and a masturbatory session with Ayn Rand actually thinks is anything but a flimsy bullshit excuse for policy that by strange coincidence always endorses less taxation on the wealthy but never gets around to discarding the aspects of civilization libertarians personally like having and are personally capable of noticing without thinking too hard.

            No doubt modern civilization is the product of successive attempts at large-scale organization beginning with the invention of agriculture. But no doubt every system that came before was less respecting of individual rights and more deferential to the whims of strongmen. Only libertarians pretend that there is a primordial system that is more truthful and more freedom-promoting. At least Sanders socialists are looking forward to Denmark in the US. Don’t mistake me: libertarians are still far dumber.

            1. A Denmark that doesn’t in reality exist with respect to what they want.

            2. You’re just cribbing Hobbes Leviathan, where his argument was basically, “So, really, you should just lay back, relax, and enjoy the hereditary monarchic theocracy, because the alternative is CAVEMEN!!!!!”

              It was a baseless, short-sighted, and wrong argument then, just as it is for you.

              No doubt modern civilization is the product of successive attempts at large-scale organization beginning with the invention of agriculture. But no doubt every system that came before was less respecting of individual rights and more deferential to the whims of strongmen.

              If you truly believe, as you state, that the natural state of man is one of violent conflict over resources, then it makes sense to infer that any attempt at large scale agriculture would have taken place among such violent people. People who specialize in farming would do so at the expense of specializing in warfare.

              This implies that it’s much more likely that such a civilization would result from territorial warlords, growing more powerful and dominant by merging and/or defeating other warlords, and establishing rule over a territory, from which they could take (i.e., “tax”) what they needed from the dominated population by force.

              Rather than some mutually agreed upon agriculture/self-defense program that fell prey to the whims of the strongman, it was probably set up from the get go to be that way, which leads naturally, over the centuries, to the modern tax/rule state. Bravo.

              1. Only libertarians pretend that there is a primordial system that is more truthful and more freedom-promoting.

                Actually, your argument is the only one here that’s going back millennia to justify itself, citing the apparently certain “truths” about undocumented hypothesis concerning the origins of the earliest civilizations, where people worshipped rulers as the direct descendants of gods.

                This slowly gave way over the centuries, leading to the enlightenment, which emphasized reason and individualism over the existing order and tradition. But you’re just not comfortable with where the logic of individualism and self-ownership takes you with concern to the state, so you have to roll back the clock a few thousand years and pretend that any such concept, if taken seriously a critique of the government, must lead to CAVEMEN!!!!!

            3. Tony, have you ever in your life tried to make an actual argument? I would guess that a plurality of economists would identify as libertarian (and even more importantly, have the opinions to back it up).

              The command economy hypothesis has failed. It has failed time and time and time again, in every country that has tried it. Denmark has privatized its airports. Most of Europe has been cutting public spending. Even French socialists have backed up on their 75% tax rate on ‘the rich.’ It’s done. There are 2 or 3 countries in the world with a higher median income than the US, one of which is an oil state, another had no federal minimum wage, and none of them has ever taken any where near as many poor immigrants in (which brings down the numbers) or has more than 10 million people.

              You can’t defend your beliefs on empirical or theoretical grounds, so why do you still bother trotting out your slogans?

  49. Nick, Millennials are like 50 million people or so, only about 20% of whom, or 10 million, vote, even in Presidential years. The difference between the 50% Republicans seem to average and the 65% supposedly planning to vote Democrat this time around is one and a half million votes. Even if that were spread around evenly (and it would not surprise me if a disproportionate percentage of those colleges were in deep-blue states), that’s not a lot. Getting another 10% of the black vote would leave those Millennials in the dust, both numerically and because the black vote is disproportionately in battleground states.

    Republicans could do much better by catering to almost any other group than to try to appeal to a bunch of inexperienced, apathetic innumerates with vague SJW leanings.

  50. “For younger voters, it’s “culture first, politics second” and if you’re against same-sex marriage, pot legalization, and humane treatment of immigrants any conversation is over before it gets started.”

    Sure thing, Nick. Nothing like free advice…except more free advice.

  51. Open up those borders; after all, who needs an America!

  52. Atlas Shrugged was a very popular book when I was in high school. ’58 to ’62. Popular culture has a LOT to do with what politics kids like.

  53. Millennials aren’t idiots. Nobody in the two major parties but the Dems are targeting their vote. By not offering real alternatives to government intervention as it relates to millennial concerns, and focusing more on “protecting” society from those things that scare their aged constituency, the GOP has pretty much cut itself off from taking part in the so-called youth vote. There are plenty of social initiatives that a small-government platform would address that would sway a lot more of the millennial vote toward the right. Instead, the Democrats favor expanding the reach of government further while the GOP becomes more transparent in its attempts at doing the same.

  54. Hate to break it to you, Nick, but millennials are bunch of fucking retards. I am not kidding, nobody should be optimistic about this generation coming up in any way. I was born at the tail end of Gen X (who also weren’t the greatest around) We were all brainwashed in public school, we were taught the world owed us everything, self esteem, a job, a house, we were also taught government was good, a ozone hole was going to all burn us alive if we didn’t recycle etc. Some, like myself, saw through all that bull shit and often got in trouble for calling the teacher out when he/she was wrong. This crinkled old Gen X’er sees the attitude of these kids today, plastered to their fucking phones, self absorbed, living with and off their parents, still getting a useless degree in college that puts them in debt and won’t get them a job anywhere, with noses stuck in the air saying “You owe me.” That is your vaunted millennials, parasitic little shits that don’t know the meaning of working to get anything. They are voting for Sanders because the authoritarian, shit licking, jack booted socialist piece of shit is promising them free stuff. Thing is we can’t afford anymore “free stuff” we’re broke, and Sanders will make us even more broke and in debt. So yeah, fuck them, I have no hope of them embracing libertarian values, there is a handful of brave kids but that is it. The whole rotten edifice of the system needs to collapse, these babies need to grow up, this may force them to.

  55. my Aunty Avery got a fantastic metallic Audi Q5 just by working online with a computer
    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.net-jobs25.com

  56. The Republicans would be wasting their time to try and court millennials. When Nixon ran, the Democrats were still the main party of the racist south and, culturally speaking, the parties hadn’t seriously divided that much, not like today. But by now, the brand names are firmly set. Jesse Helms could run for office as a Democrat and win the millennial vote over Michael Bloomberg as a Republican just because of the letters after their names.

  57. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  58. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  59. my roommate’s aunt scored 4214 dollars a week on the internet . She has been unemployed for 7 months but previous month her revenue was 14462 bucks just at work on the MacBook for some hours?AJ!23

    http://www.Aspire-jobs.com/?Gl…..g$98/h.php

  60. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail. +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.ReportMax90.com

  61. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  62. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  63. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.