Comments

Biden has lost the approval of many voters under 30, but… — 8 Comments

1. There exists far more reason for the young than for the retired (whose houses have increased in value and whose investments have largely done well during the recent madness), to be enraged at the incompetence (although it is more likely to have been deliberately-planned societal destruction) of this malevolent administration, yet, so successful has been the indoctrination of the young by means of the corruption of K-12 and of the institutions of higher (mis)education, not to mention the popular culture, that most would still, no doubt, regard conservatives or those on the right as the greatest threat to the future of our moribund republic.

2. what is this “some respondents” bit?

   That looks like a red flag. What I do know is that the Economist has gone from being an aggressive anti-Marxist operation in it’s now distant past, to one of many woke publications. I wouldn’t trust YouGov/The Economist’s coloring of their poll results, nor possibly the poll numbers themselves.

3. j e:

   Plenty of older people are renters, however, and plenty are on fixed incomes rather than investment incomes. They are not doing well.

   If you look at the graph at the link, you’ll find that with the 65 and over set, Biden hasn’t lost nearly as many points as with younger groups – but that seems to be because he started out with much lower approval from that 65+ group in the first place.

4. My thoughts when I see a poll stating so and so percentage thing the country is headed in the wrong direction are just which direct do you want it to go? Some want much more of the same and others do not, but both answer the same way – headed in a wrong direction.

5. I guess it wasn’t that long ago that The Economist had good editorials. Here are a few paragraphs of one I saved from the 2002 Christmas special.

   Marx after communism
   As a system of government, communism is dead or dying. As a system of ideas, its future looks secure

   Dec 19th 2002
   Print edition | Christmas Specials

   WHEN Soviet communism fell apart towards the end of the 20th century, nobody could say that it had failed on a technicality. A more comprehensive or ignominious collapse—moral, material and intellectual—would be difficult to imagine. Communism had tyrannised and impoverished its subjects, and slaughtered them in the tens of millions. For decades past, in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, any allusion to the avowed aims of communist doctrine—equality, freedom from exploitation, true justice—had provoked only bitter laughter. Finally, when the monuments were torn down, statues of KarlMarx were defaced as contemptuously as those of Lenin and Stalin. Communism was repudiated as theory and as practice; its champions were cast aside, intellectual founders and sociopathic rulers alike.

   People in the West, their judgment not impaired by having lived in the system Marx inspired, mostly came to a more dispassionate view. Marx had been misunderstood, they tended to feel. The communism of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was a perversion of his thought. What happened in those benighted lands would have appalled Marx as much as it appalls us. It has no bearing on the validity of his ideas.
   – – –
   The central paradox that Marx emphasised—namely, that its own colossal productivity would bring capitalism to its knees, by making socialism followed by communism both materially possible and logically necessary—turned out to be false. Still, Marx could fairly lay claim to having sensed more clearly than others how far capitalism would change the material conditions of the world. And this in turn reflects something else that demands at least a grudging respect: the amazing reach and ambition of his thinking.“

   But the fact remains that on everything that mattered most to Marx himself, he was wrong. The real power he claimed for his system was predictive, and his main predictions are hopeless failures. Concerning the outlook for capitalism, one can always argue that he was wrong only in his timing: in the end, when capitalism has run its course, he will be proved right. Put in such a form, this argument, like many other apologies for Marx, has the advantage of being impossible to falsify. But that does not make it plausible. The trouble is, it leaves out class. This is a wise omission, because class is an idea which has become blurred to the point of meaninglessness. Class antagonism, though, is indispensable to the Marxist world-view. Without it, even if capitalism succumbs to stagnation or decline, the mechanism for its overthrow is missing.

   Class war is the sine qua non of Marx. …

6. Well they voted to get it good and hard and they’re reaping what they’ve sown.

   “British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk that facts are unfair.”
   https://youtu.be/p4QikQuwN6c

7. I have not spoken to her about it, but I have been told my granddaughter does not like Biden because he is not Bernie. She loves Bernie, giver of all things.

8. The young have been pooping in their beds, which they will have to sleep in.

   Fire Joe Biden!

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>