CDZ Letting 16 year olds vote if they pass a test

[Vastator]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

Sure.16 seems to be a reasonable “age of majority.

 

[well named]

No, and the voting age should be restored to 21, the age of majority.

The age of majority in the US is 18 except in Mississippi where it's defined as 21 but 18 year olds are still considered adults for most purposes, so that the difference is mostly just semantic. It seems to me that this is one good reason not to change the voting age; it seems parsimonious for it to be the same as the legal age of majority... which is 18 almost everywhere.

 

[sakinago]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

No, there is vastly more to knowledge than book smarts. Things like wisdom, experience, having actual “skin in the game”, and taking on actual responsibilities outside of studying for tests. As insensitive as it sounds I’d be down for limiting voting rights to just homeowners, at least over what we have currently. That being people with no skin in the game given the ability of voting to increase the burden of those who do. People who rent don’t have to care (even though it still effects them plenty in a non-immediate, round-about way) about things like property taxes increasing so the town can make and maintain a new fancy park or whatever. Or you have people like old government union workers, retiring at 50 and ballin out like kings on their pensions...but will loose their minds as soon as anyone mentions pension reform, while the city around them is falling apart due to lack of funding.

I’m not saying that people who don’t have skin in the game shouldn’t have a voice, or shouldn’t be able to vote. Just that there’s a big problem in this country, and that problem is government is acting as a credit card for the people, and there’s too many people who aren’t having to make the monthly payments swiping away. There should at least be more control for actual taxpayers, and where their money goes. Say 40% of their taxes they can choose where they want that money going.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

"Pelosi: 'Any Child Who Somehow Escaped Both Abortion And Infanticide Has Earned The Right To Vote'
March 18th, 2019

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a speech advocating for lowering the voting age, Nancy Pelosi passionately argued that any child who avoids being aborted or killed just after birth under Democrats' new push to expand abortion and infanticide rights "has earned the right to vote."

"We need to lower the voting age to 16 and possibly even lower," she said in an address. "Frankly, these kids who somehow make it into this world despite our push for more and more abortion and infanticide have really earned the right to vote for Democrats."

Pelosi commented that she's "pretty amazed" that any children make it into the world at all, and that their fortitude and survival skills should be rewarded. She pointed out that with thousands of babies being murdered in the womb every day, and with Democrats' recent push to protect mothers and doctors who wanted to snuff out a baby's life even after he or she emerges from the womb, the brave few who make it through shouldn't have to wait until they're 18 to have a voice in our political system.

"It's very important that we give emotionally unstable teenagers and children who made it out of the womb the right to vote," she said. "That way, they can choose to vote for more abortion and infanticide."

"It's the circle of life," she added wistfully, blinking off into the distance."
Pelosi: 'Any Child Who Somehow Escaped Both Abortion And Infanticide Has Earned The Right To Vote'

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

I would propose an even simpler test for Democrats. One question: "Who pays for your free stuff? Taxpayers or the Government? "

Oooh.. Better yet for Trumplodytes: who provides your supply of under-age children?

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

No, there is vastly more to knowledge than book smarts. Things like wisdom, experience, having actual “skin in the game”, and taking on actual responsibilities outside of studying for tests. As insensitive as it sounds I’d be down for limiting voting rights to just homeowners, at least over what we have currently. That being people with no skin in the game given the ability of voting to increase the burden of those who do. People who rent don’t have to care (even though it still effects them plenty in a non-immediate, round-about way) about things like property taxes increasing so the town can make and maintain a new fancy park or whatever. Or you have people like old government union workers, retiring at 50 and ballin out like kings on their pensions...but will loose their minds as soon as anyone mentions pension reform, while the city around them is falling apart due to lack of funding.

I’m not saying that people who don’t have skin in the game shouldn’t have a voice, or shouldn’t be able to vote. Just that there’s a big problem in this country, and that problem is government is acting as a credit card for the people, and there’s too many people who aren’t having to make the monthly payments swiping away. There should at least be more control for actual taxpayers, and where their money goes. Say 40% of their taxes they can choose where they want that money going.

Disagree completely with the 'skin in the game' argument. Everybody has 'skin in the game'. If the sole purpose of elected officials was implementing a budget, you might have an argument, but there is a lot more to it than that. Example: why should law-abiding citizens be subject to the laws of the land when they have no say in the choosing of officials that take part in the law-making process? And even the 'skin in the game' loses validity when you are willing to summarily disenfranchise over 100 million people because they do not own a house.

 

[Blues Man]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

They can wait until they are 18 period

 

[Wyatt earp]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

Not until they pay taxes and live out of their mothers house.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

No, and the voting age should be restored to 21, the age of majority. Why should children, who are not legally competent to sign a contract, be given the right to vote?

Why do you think the age of majority is 21. It is a state standard, and the vast majority in the U.S. sets it at 18.

Age of Majority – Minors

 

[beautress]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

No, and the voting age should be restored to 21, the age of majority. Why should children, who are not legally competent to sign a contract, be given the right to vote?

Why do you think the age of majority is 21. It is a state standard, and the vast majority in the U.S. sets it at 18.

Age of Majority – Minors

With the Wall going up, the DNC is getting desperate. They know they have the Teachers' Unions on their side who are largely Democrats taking all the credit for all the good things Conservative and Democrat teachers alike do. The DNC can and will turn the screws on teachers to defend their position, when the teachers privately believe their 16 year old kids are too young to keep a marriage together if they have to get married and support a job, help raise a child when they get home, and try to stay married when all their friends are swinging around from one relationship to another, which may seem too exciting to resist for either child parent, so the marriage fizzles, and grandparents who may be retiring have to set aside vacation plans to baby sit their children's babies and children for some time to come.

Is that why the Democrats desire to decriminalize taking a baby's life after it is able to breathe on its own? So they can brag to 16-year-old school children it was them who "saved" their future career in doing something more important than raising a baby the participated in creating?

Sorry, that's not a good enough reason to slam 16-year-olds with something as important as voting wisely to give the nation credibility. There is no credibility greater than giving a child a responsible upbringing, and what will they do with those votes? Decide to vote for the ones who don't show up to vote? Or send children out of a hate-conservatives classroom into a library closed except for receiving votes from 16-year old students on the first or second Tuesday in November? Good grief.

In its best light, allowing 16-year olds the vote is family dysfunction waiting to happen much sooner than ever. And it takes away the American dream of travel when you retire when you can't because you're dragged down with the babies of your babies.

 

[sartre play]

NO.

 

[TNHarley]

No

 

[sakinago]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

No, there is vastly more to knowledge than book smarts. Things like wisdom, experience, having actual “skin in the game”, and taking on actual responsibilities outside of studying for tests. As insensitive as it sounds I’d be down for limiting voting rights to just homeowners, at least over what we have currently. That being people with no skin in the game given the ability of voting to increase the burden of those who do. People who rent don’t have to care (even though it still effects them plenty in a non-immediate, round-about way) about things like property taxes increasing so the town can make and maintain a new fancy park or whatever. Or you have people like old government union workers, retiring at 50 and ballin out like kings on their pensions...but will loose their minds as soon as anyone mentions pension reform, while the city around them is falling apart due to lack of funding.

I’m not saying that people who don’t have skin in the game shouldn’t have a voice, or shouldn’t be able to vote. Just that there’s a big problem in this country, and that problem is government is acting as a credit card for the people, and there’s too many people who aren’t having to make the monthly payments swiping away. There should at least be more control for actual taxpayers, and where their money goes. Say 40% of their taxes they can choose where they want that money going.

Disagree completely with the 'skin in the game' argument. Everybody has 'skin in the game'. If the sole purpose of elected officials was implementing a budget, you might have an argument, but there is a lot more to it than that. Example: why should law-abiding citizens be subject to the laws of the land when they have no say in the choosing of officials that take part in the law-making process? And even the 'skin in the game' loses validity when you are willing to summarily disenfranchise over 100 million people because they do not own a house.

How old are you?

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

No, there is vastly more to knowledge than book smarts. Things like wisdom, experience, having actual “skin in the game”, and taking on actual responsibilities outside of studying for tests. As insensitive as it sounds I’d be down for limiting voting rights to just homeowners, at least over what we have currently. That being people with no skin in the game given the ability of voting to increase the burden of those who do. People who rent don’t have to care (even though it still effects them plenty in a non-immediate, round-about way) about things like property taxes increasing so the town can make and maintain a new fancy park or whatever. Or you have people like old government union workers, retiring at 50 and ballin out like kings on their pensions...but will loose their minds as soon as anyone mentions pension reform, while the city around them is falling apart due to lack of funding.

I’m not saying that people who don’t have skin in the game shouldn’t have a voice, or shouldn’t be able to vote. Just that there’s a big problem in this country, and that problem is government is acting as a credit card for the people, and there’s too many people who aren’t having to make the monthly payments swiping away. There should at least be more control for actual taxpayers, and where their money goes. Say 40% of their taxes they can choose where they want that money going.

Disagree completely with the 'skin in the game' argument. Everybody has 'skin in the game'. If the sole purpose of elected officials was implementing a budget, you might have an argument, but there is a lot more to it than that. Example: why should law-abiding citizens be subject to the laws of the land when they have no say in the choosing of officials that take part in the law-making process? And even the 'skin in the game' loses validity when you are willing to summarily disenfranchise over 100 million people because they do not own a house.

How old are you?

Mid 40's. Own 2 homes. Have worked and paid federal taxes since I was 14.

What does my age have to do with anything?

 

[sakinago]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

No, there is vastly more to knowledge than book smarts. Things like wisdom, experience, having actual “skin in the game”, and taking on actual responsibilities outside of studying for tests. As insensitive as it sounds I’d be down for limiting voting rights to just homeowners, at least over what we have currently. That being people with no skin in the game given the ability of voting to increase the burden of those who do. People who rent don’t have to care (even though it still effects them plenty in a non-immediate, round-about way) about things like property taxes increasing so the town can make and maintain a new fancy park or whatever. Or you have people like old government union workers, retiring at 50 and ballin out like kings on their pensions...but will loose their minds as soon as anyone mentions pension reform, while the city around them is falling apart due to lack of funding.

I’m not saying that people who don’t have skin in the game shouldn’t have a voice, or shouldn’t be able to vote. Just that there’s a big problem in this country, and that problem is government is acting as a credit card for the people, and there’s too many people who aren’t having to make the monthly payments swiping away. There should at least be more control for actual taxpayers, and where their money goes. Say 40% of their taxes they can choose where they want that money going.

Disagree completely with the 'skin in the game' argument. Everybody has 'skin in the game'. If the sole purpose of elected officials was implementing a budget, you might have an argument, but there is a lot more to it than that. Example: why should law-abiding citizens be subject to the laws of the land when they have no say in the choosing of officials that take part in the law-making process? And even the 'skin in the game' loses validity when you are willing to summarily disenfranchise over 100 million people because they do not own a house.

How old are you?

Mid 40's. Own 2 homes. Have worked and paid federal taxes since I was 14.

What does my age have to do with anything?

A lot. When I was 16, 18, and even 21, I was a shithead who thought that I knew a lot about the world and how it works. I believed stupid things, wrapped myself up in stupid things, and was far too selfish. This isn’t a rare phenomenon for that age, but it is almost a universal constant. I grew out of that. I’m only 30 now. Some people don’t grow out of that, and don’t recognize how much of a shithead they were, nor gained any useful wisdom. So I highly question older folks advocating for this, either you’re still a shithead in your adolescences who hasn’t evolved in their thinking...or you’re shortsightedly oppurtunistic. I say shortsightedly because generation z’s is rebellious like all other generations, but their version of rebellion is against PC culture, against intersectionalism, so that pendulum is gonna be swinging back, like it always does.

There’s a reason we don’t try kids younger than 18 as adults, and have a separate juvenile court system. I advocate continuing a juvenile type court until the age of 25, which psychology and neurology tells us is when most young adults grow out of criminal tenendcies naturally. There’s a good argument to be made that recidivism has more to do with limiting opportunities by charging essientially kids between 18-25 making stupid decisions, and then having that stain on their record for the foreseeable future, which is in their prime. Your brain isn’t even fully developed until around 24. And since we nerfed the world around us, kids are stuck in their adolescence longer than they used to be 20 years ago. So if you’re gonna let them vote, try them as adults too since that’s how you want to treat them. In my opinion, if anything the voting age should be raised a bit. We have enough children parading as adults and voting as it is. Those advocating for socialism haven’t been taught that they are the future 1%. It’s not taxing the rich, it’s taxing the older who have hard gained wisdom with money, and have had more time to accumulate wealth. Some 70% of Americans will wind up in the top 5% at some point in their life, 80% in the top 7%, 85% top 10%, etc. So it’s not really socialism they’re advocating for, it’s selfish impatience with serious consequences. They just haven’t learned that lesson yet.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Would you be in favor of letting 16 year olds being allowed to vote if they passed a fairly difficult voter competency test that 85% of adults had failed in when given? Let's assume they could study for the test all they want, take it once a day like their driver's permit test, and therefore had to be knowledgeable and/or at least have the dedication to keep studying and trying again and again until they passed. There could even be an additional restriction that they have had a job at some point. When they turn 18, they can simply vote.

No, there is vastly more to knowledge than book smarts. Things like wisdom, experience, having actual “skin in the game”, and taking on actual responsibilities outside of studying for tests. As insensitive as it sounds I’d be down for limiting voting rights to just homeowners, at least over what we have currently. That being people with no skin in the game given the ability of voting to increase the burden of those who do. People who rent don’t have to care (even though it still effects them plenty in a non-immediate, round-about way) about things like property taxes increasing so the town can make and maintain a new fancy park or whatever. Or you have people like old government union workers, retiring at 50 and ballin out like kings on their pensions...but will loose their minds as soon as anyone mentions pension reform, while the city around them is falling apart due to lack of funding.

I’m not saying that people who don’t have skin in the game shouldn’t have a voice, or shouldn’t be able to vote. Just that there’s a big problem in this country, and that problem is government is acting as a credit card for the people, and there’s too many people who aren’t having to make the monthly payments swiping away. There should at least be more control for actual taxpayers, and where their money goes. Say 40% of their taxes they can choose where they want that money going.

Disagree completely with the 'skin in the game' argument. Everybody has 'skin in the game'. If the sole purpose of elected officials was implementing a budget, you might have an argument, but there is a lot more to it than that. Example: why should law-abiding citizens be subject to the laws of the land when they have no say in the choosing of officials that take part in the law-making process? And even the 'skin in the game' loses validity when you are willing to summarily disenfranchise over 100 million people because they do not own a house.

How old are you?

Mid 40's. Own 2 homes. Have worked and paid federal taxes since I was 14.

What does my age have to do with anything?

A lot. When I was 16, 18, and even 21, I was a shithead who thought that I knew a lot about the world and how it works. I believed stupid things, wrapped myself up in stupid things, and was far too selfish. This isn’t a rare phenomenon for that age, but it is almost a universal constant. I grew out of that. I’m only 30 now. Some people don’t grow out of that, and don’t recognize how much of a shithead they were, nor gained any useful wisdom. So I highly question older folks advocating for this, either you’re still a shithead in your adolescences who hasn’t evolved in their thinking...or you’re shortsightedly oppurtunistic. I say shortsightedly because generation z’s is rebellious like all other generations, but their version of rebellion is against PC culture, against intersectionalism, so that pendulum is gonna be swinging back, like it always does.

There’s a reason we don’t try kids younger than 18 as adults, and have a separate juvenile court system. I advocate continuing a juvenile type court until the age of 25, which psychology and neurology tells us is when most young adults grow out of criminal tenendcies naturally. There’s a good argument to be made that recidivism has more to do with limiting opportunities by charging essientially kids between 18-25 making stupid decisions, and then having that stain on their record for the foreseeable future, which is in their prime. Your brain isn’t even fully developed until around 24. And since we nerfed the world around us, kids are stuck in their adolescence longer than they used to be 20 years ago. So if you’re gonna let them vote, try them as adults too since that’s how you want to treat them. In my opinion, if anything the voting age should be raised a bit. We have enough children parading as adults and voting as it is. Those advocating for socialism haven’t been taught that they are the future 1%. It’s not taxing the rich, it’s taxing the older who have hard gained wisdom with money, and have had more time to accumulate wealth. Some 70% of Americans will wind up in the top 5% at some point in their life, 80% in the top 7%, 85% top 10%, etc. So it’s not really socialism they’re advocating for, it’s selfish impatience with serious consequences. They just haven’t learned that lesson yet.

I am not sure what any of this has to do with my statements. I never aligned myself with letting 16 year-olds vote. Don't agree with it. My statement was the systematic disenfranchisement of 100 million people because they don't own a home is ludicrous.

 

[RandomPoster]

I liked this tweet by Mike Huckabee.

 

[task0778]

Used to be you had to be 21 to vote. It was a big deal back in the 60s when we were sending drafted 18 year olds to Vietnam but they couldn't vote so they lowered the voting age. Now the draft is gone, and you got kids that are 18-21 that don't really know enough or have the experience to put most issues into the perspective of time and history. We'd be better off raising the voting age back to 21 rather than lowering it to 16. Even better, raise it to 25.

 

[jwoodie]

Why do you think the age of majority is 21. It is a state standard, and the vast majority in the U.S. sets it at 18.

I said that the age of majority (for voting) should be restored to 21, as it was prior to the Vietnam War. Why should we keep pretending that 18 year olds are adults, when they aren't allowed to purchase alcohol or tobacco? Allowing 16 year olds to vote is even more nonsensical, since they are not considered competent enough to sign contracts.

 

[sakinago]

No, there is vastly more to knowledge than book smarts. Things like wisdom, experience, having actual “skin in the game”, and taking on actual responsibilities outside of studying for tests. As insensitive as it sounds I’d be down for limiting voting rights to just homeowners, at least over what we have currently. That being people with no skin in the game given the ability of voting to increase the burden of those who do. People who rent don’t have to care (even though it still effects them plenty in a non-immediate, round-about way) about things like property taxes increasing so the town can make and maintain a new fancy park or whatever. Or you have people like old government union workers, retiring at 50 and ballin out like kings on their pensions...but will loose their minds as soon as anyone mentions pension reform, while the city around them is falling apart due to lack of funding.

I’m not saying that people who don’t have skin in the game shouldn’t have a voice, or shouldn’t be able to vote. Just that there’s a big problem in this country, and that problem is government is acting as a credit card for the people, and there’s too many people who aren’t having to make the monthly payments swiping away. There should at least be more control for actual taxpayers, and where their money goes. Say 40% of their taxes they can choose where they want that money going.

Disagree completely with the 'skin in the game' argument. Everybody has 'skin in the game'. If the sole purpose of elected officials was implementing a budget, you might have an argument, but there is a lot more to it than that. Example: why should law-abiding citizens be subject to the laws of the land when they have no say in the choosing of officials that take part in the law-making process? And even the 'skin in the game' loses validity when you are willing to summarily disenfranchise over 100 million people because they do not own a house.

How old are you?

Mid 40's. Own 2 homes. Have worked and paid federal taxes since I was 14.

What does my age have to do with anything?

A lot. When I was 16, 18, and even 21, I was a shithead who thought that I knew a lot about the world and how it works. I believed stupid things, wrapped myself up in stupid things, and was far too selfish. This isn’t a rare phenomenon for that age, but it is almost a universal constant. I grew out of that. I’m only 30 now. Some people don’t grow out of that, and don’t recognize how much of a shithead they were, nor gained any useful wisdom. So I highly question older folks advocating for this, either you’re still a shithead in your adolescences who hasn’t evolved in their thinking...or you’re shortsightedly oppurtunistic. I say shortsightedly because generation z’s is rebellious like all other generations, but their version of rebellion is against PC culture, against intersectionalism, so that pendulum is gonna be swinging back, like it always does.

There’s a reason we don’t try kids younger than 18 as adults, and have a separate juvenile court system. I advocate continuing a juvenile type court until the age of 25, which psychology and neurology tells us is when most young adults grow out of criminal tenendcies naturally. There’s a good argument to be made that recidivism has more to do with limiting opportunities by charging essientially kids between 18-25 making stupid decisions, and then having that stain on their record for the foreseeable future, which is in their prime. Your brain isn’t even fully developed until around 24. And since we nerfed the world around us, kids are stuck in their adolescence longer than they used to be 20 years ago. So if you’re gonna let them vote, try them as adults too since that’s how you want to treat them. In my opinion, if anything the voting age should be raised a bit. We have enough children parading as adults and voting as it is. Those advocating for socialism haven’t been taught that they are the future 1%. It’s not taxing the rich, it’s taxing the older who have hard gained wisdom with money, and have had more time to accumulate wealth. Some 70% of Americans will wind up in the top 5% at some point in their life, 80% in the top 7%, 85% top 10%, etc. So it’s not really socialism they’re advocating for, it’s selfish impatience with serious consequences. They just haven’t learned that lesson yet.

I am not sure what any of this has to do with my statements. I never aligned myself with letting 16 year-olds vote. Don't agree with it. My statement was the systematic disenfranchisement of 100 million people because they don't own a home is ludicrous.

I didn’t align myself with limiting voting to homeowners, I said I’d almost prefer it. I was pointing out an issue that where people not having skin in the game can drastically effect those who do. I also went to the other end of the spectrum with retirees on pensions getting votes to continue to drain funds even though its unsustainable and there will be zero money for the ones working today.