Printable View
A test or course that would inform you of the simple issues and 360 view of policy issues would be great. However, any sorrt of course starts a trend towards picking have and have nots of who gets to vote. And im usually not a slippery slope person, but that breaks open pandora's box on being able to choose who gets to vote if you touch that. Id rather it be more open than not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
I did say SIMPLE. That would be incredibly complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
Age is a better distinction that doesn't discriminate based on any other circumstances. I think it is very fair but it makes a lot more sense to push the voting age UP because those who are older have more responsibilities. I would say age 21-23 would be more ideal than the 18 year old voting age right now. An 18 year old:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
1) Hasn't incurred college debt.
2) Probably living in a dorm with a loan they have no clue about.
3) Living with parents.
4) Doesn't pay for much/expenses.
There's just more of an expectation as you grow older in terms of responsibilities so that would be the natural outlier. Restricting it to whether you pay rent or not.. hell, I can see how that would be very invasive to people who want to vote and it certainly isn't something the government can properly scope for. Just not an efficient or effective restraint.
That's funny. When there isn't a script or moment of silence so she can "gather her thoughts", she has no problem orchestrating a paragraph like that. In reality, watch the C-SPAN hearing.. she looked petrified and had no response other than, "Uhm, okay."Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
I almost forgot, Hawkeye said age is MINIMAL in understanding politics. So why not reduce the age to 1? According to Hawkeye, there isn't a reason NOT to!
I agree with your first point.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
But a 21-23 year old will likely have already incurred debt based on a system they have no say on. Also they will have been eligible to have been drafted. So to me 18 actually makes a good deal of sense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There aren't enough responsibilities or experience an 18 year old would have, though. At 21-23, you are fully expected to be part of the labor force and also, be expected to start being an actual adult. I don't know why we call 18 year olds young adults but the fact is, they need to be aged 21 to drink for a reason. We simply don't trust 18 year olds to drink responsibly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
21 is an arbitrarily dumb age for drinking. So much so that we almost universally turn a blind eye for those who drink underage.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
At 18 plus you are expected to either be a part of the work force, or throwing yourself into life changing debt to be a part of the workforce.
They are also more fresh to civics courses which actually educate them on the process itself.
I get the life experiences thing. But many people who are 80+ can’t even use a cell phone and are very disconnected from life as it is today. Should we remove them from the voting populace as well?
I think any effort to push the voting age is just a tactic to manipulate the voting population, and one that skews towards democrats. Eighteen seems to be a pretty appropriate threshold. We have very few informed or perfectly in tune voters as it stands. I’m not seeing a good argument that the least informed voters are those from age 18-21/23.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1) It really isn't dumb. It's designed to make sure that as you age, you are more aware of drinking too much. I drank more as an 18 year old than as a 21 year old because I had different responsibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
2) They aren't going to be jobs for employers of a higher position. Retail, cashier, etc., aren't the same jobs as working for a company in which you are responsible for every mistake you make or risk being fired. It doesn't happen nearly to the same extent of being a retail worker or cashier where a mistake is usually forgotten. Life changing debt.. again, lots of parents provide aid to these 18 year olds as well and many 18 year olds are not going to feel the presence of debt UNTIL they have to start paying it - which is how many student loans work. Payments start after you graduate.
3) They still have valuable life experiences that 18 year olds have never experienced. Having a cell phone or not doesn't change that fact.
4) On an educational basis, yes, there is more than enough evidence that 21-23 year olds are more knowledgeable than 18 year olds.
I don't think people should be allowed to vote until they are indentured servants to the status quo
1). There’s no good reason for age 21 versus age 18 for legal drinking. If anything I’d argue it’s counterproductive as it makes people age 18-21 have to drink while subverting the law. Even after we as a society overwhelmingly accept people who drink underage once they are 18. But I think that’s a point we have to just agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
2). They don’t feel the presence, sure. But by that time it’s already too late. They can’t just get out of that debt at that point. They should have a voice in the process, especially when student loan debt is one of the biggest crises’ America faces.
3). They have life experiences from an out of date time and period. Technology has exponentially accelerated the changes our society goes through. And the times he very old lived in is much less relevant to today than the young. This just goes to my point there is no perfect voter. But to say that 18-21 shouldn’t have a voice because they are too inexperienced is a flawed and invalid one. They are at least more likely to still be living in this time period, from a societal perspective.
4). Sure, I don’t disagree, but people at age 21-23 are probably decently high up there as far as voter quality. They are not the bottom of the barrel, so to compare to age 18-21 to 21-23 is faulty. There are several age segments that would make up a worse voting age block than 21-23.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So if a 21 is more responsible than a 18 year old, and a 31 year old is more responsible than a 21 year old, should the drinking age be 31?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Nastynice is on a rampage spree trying to respond to me because he is upset that I keep destroying him. I won't even bother. All of your replies have been downright silly. If you can actually read something other than the Quran, get back to me. Otherwise, I think it's almost time for your prayer.
I'd say you are on a rampage spree of your own with both nasty and WW.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt
Yea bro, a 21 year old is more responsible than a 18 year old. Good one!Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashBolt