Raising the voting age to 25

[norwegen]

I was going to suggest raising it to 50 and having to be a property owner. Unless you actually OWN a piece of the USA and have lived a long time, you likely don't really know what the world is really about yet to be informed enough to make your vote count.

Maybe not to age 50, but yes, voters should be informed and intelligent.

Why have moonbats always been trying to include the ignorant in the franchise? Oh, never mind; we already know.

 

[toobfreak]

Especially now days where "kids" are still living at home in their 30's.

 

[Coyote]

Why do democrat fascists constantly try to oppress, ban, silence, attack and destroy those simply wishing to express their different opinions, views, ideas and needs? Views which comport with time-tested age-old views going back generations, not just the past 2 years? Consider how speakers are attacked at colleges simply trying to give a talk about conservative views, ot the thread here about the guy who was attacked on SM and fired from his job after being threatened and attacked just for expressing his view that he didn't think LGBTQ stuff ought to be taught to little kids in school?

Why do Republican Fascists using their legislative power to pass laws banning and silencing free speech that they do not like?

Voting is good.

An informed voter who knows the candidates and issues and can vote INTELLIGENTLY free of media propaganda is even better.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if potential voters had to pass a simple, non-partisan three question basic test to prove COMPETENCY to vote before every election? It might actually get people thinking about and more involved in their country, their government and the issues.

No. Just no. Voting is the most important right of a representational democracy. There are always people looking for some reason to take it away (mostly because they don’t vote the way those people want them to vote).

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Why do democrat fascists constantly try to oppress, ban, silence, attack and destroy those simply wishing to express their different opinions, views, ideas and needs? Views which comport with time-tested age-old views going back generations, not just the past 2 years? Consider how speakers are attacked at colleges simply trying to give a talk about conservative views, ot the thread here about the guy who was attacked on SM and fired from his job after being threatened and attacked just for expressing his view that he didn't think LGBTQ stuff ought to be taught to little kids in school?

Voting is good.

An informed voter who knows the candidates and issues and can vote INTELLIGENTLY free of media propaganda is even better.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if potential voters had to pass a simple, non-partisan three question basic test to prove COMPETENCY to vote before every election? It might actually get people thinking about and more involved in their country, their government and the issues.

Yep.


The Democrat party is all about convincing the losers of the world that they are victims of the successful and then make political hay from the resentment they stir up. It's demagoguery 101.

The LAST thing they want is for people to be content with their life and striving to make America better. If that happened, they lose all their appeal.

 

[Coyote]

Maybe not to age 50, but yes, voters should be informed and intelligent.

Why have moonbats always been trying to include the ignorant in the franchise? Oh, never mind; we already know.

Who defines “informed” and “ intelligent” and how? Oh ya, it would be defined as anyone who agrees with you on the issues.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why do Republican Fascists using their legislative power to pass laws banning and silencing free speech that they do not like?



No. Just no. Voting is the most important right of a representational democracy. There are always people looking for some reason to take it away (mostly because they don’t vote the way those people want them to vote).

That would be dems.
They're constantly trying to stop free speech.
Colleges are a prime example.

 

[norwegen]

Who defines “informed” and “ intelligent” and how? Oh ya, it would be defined as anyone who agrees with you on the issues.

Certainly no one who agrees with you.

 

[toobfreak]

Maybe not to age 50, but yes, voters should be informed and intelligent.

• We don't want unqualified people driving.
• We don't want unqualified people policing.
• We don't want unqualified people operating heavy equipment.
• We don't want unqualified people running our courts.

So doesn't it seem just a little odd then we place no restrictions, requirements, or lower limits on giving people the power to choose the people who will govern our nation, courts, laws and direction of the country--- the highest power of all?

What does reaching the age of 18 prove? Many high-school grads can't even find Canada on a map.

 

[Coyote]

• We don't want unqualified people driving.
• We don't want unqualified people policing.
• We don't want unqualified people operating heavy equipment.
• We don't want unqualified people running our courts.

None of those are rights.

And we do have restrictions on voting:

• minimum age
• must be a citizen
• can’t be incarcerated or convicted of certain crimes.
• must be alive

 

[norwegen]

If voting were a right, it would have no age restrictions. Voting is a state-granted privilege.

 

[toobfreak]

Why do Republican Fascists using their legislative power to pass laws banning and silencing free speech that they do not like?

Please link me to one such law passed and signed into law solely by republicans which bans and silences free speech that they don't like?

Also, if I visit an insane asylum and a crazy person there says he wants the right to jump out of windows, throw people in front of cars or cause mass social chaos, should I give him the right to promote that?

Voting is the most important right of a representational democracy.

Which is exactly why it should not be given out wantonly without meeting some minimal qualification showing at least that you seem to have at least some minimal cognizance of the actual issues and people being voted on, right? What if a bunch of chinese nationalists came here and got American citizenship then voted to allow China buy up all our land and corporations, is that their free will too?

 

[Blaster]

Especially now days where "kids" are still living at home in their 30's.

You are right. lazy Gen Z leaching off their parents because its easier than being self sufficient.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

• must be alive

The Democrat party did away with that.

 

[Coyote]

The Democrat party did away with that.

Yet the zombie voters keep voting Republican….

Republican TV Ad Makes False Claim About 'Dead' Voters - FactCheck.org

An illegal ballot cast on behalf of a deceased voter is rare, and we could find no examples of it occurring in Michigan in 2020 or 2016. Yet, a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Michigan falsely claims in a TV ad that "dead people always vote Democrat," and misleadingly suggests it is a...

www.factcheck.org

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You are right. lazy Gen Z leaching off their parents because its easier than being self sufficient.

I dont know whats wrong with people today.
I couldnt wait to move out of the house even if it meant a couple roommates.

 

[toobfreak]

None of those are rights.

I did not say they were. They were examples of things we license and require education, training and passing skilled tests for that are far less important than selecting the people who will decide the future and direction of the nation.

And we do have restrictions on voting:

• minimum age
• must be a citizen
• can’t be incarcerated or convicted of certain crimes.
• must be alive

Gee, lessee, must be breathing, have a pulse, made it out of high-school (our grads are like 28th in the world now). That's not much of a requirement. A citizen, sure. But that is not even something we enforce in our presidents (the case can still be made that neither Obama nor Harris meet the requirement of being natural-born citizens). And the crime thing I'm a lot more flexible on. Many are falsely convicted and I'm not sure what difference a crime makes in a person's opinion on elected leadership!

Seems to me that we have pretty low standards for voters, and you know what happens when you set a bar low, you get more low-bar people, which is just what we have today. Maybe we should RAISE the bar to vote. Not to exclude anyone, but just to make them work harder to be qualified so THEY MAKE BETTER VOTERS AND CITIZENS by getting INVOLVED IN THE COUNTRY BY BEING BETTER INFORMED.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Please link me to one such law passed and signed into law solely by republicans which bans and silences free speech that they don't like?

Many leftists equate measures that limit the ability of adults to groom children as "banning" free speech.

The truth of the matter is that banning instructional materials designed to teach 10 year old boys how to give blow jobs does not BAN the books involved. Like any sensible restrictions placed on access to pornography, it simply creates age appropriateness.

Saying that a school should not be allowed to expose the book "gender queer" to the children it wants to groom is a FAR cry from banning the book, itself.

 

[Coyote]

Please link me to one such law passed and signed into law solely by republicans which bans and silences free speech that they don't like?

Take any of the anti-“CRT” laws or the so called parental rights laws…or Florida’s law that even restricts the rights of private companies.

Also, if I visit an insane asylum and a crazy person there says he wants the right to jump out of windows, throw people in front of cars or cause mass social chaos, should I give him the right to promote that?

That is nothing like voting.

What you propose is to effectively ban dissent because YOU define those policies as “crazy”. Disenfranchising entire groups of people is the first step in fascism and authoritarian rule.

Which is exactly why it should not be given out wantonly without meeting some minimal qualification showing at least that you seem to have at least some minimal cognizance of the actual issues and people being voted on, right?

Who defines the issues? What is important to you might not be to another. Still “hell no” on this.

What if a bunch of chinese nationalists came here and got American citizenship then voted to allow China buy up all our land and corporations, is that their free will too?

American citizenship is not easy get, the example is ridiculous and still no reason to disenfranchise people.

 

[Coyote]

Many leftists equate measures that limit the ability of adults to groom children as "banning" free speech.

The truth of the matter is that banning instructional materials designed to teach 10 year old boys how to give blow jobs does not BAN the books involved. Like any sensible restrictions placed on access to pornography, it simply creates age appropriateness.

Saying that a school should not be allowed to expose the book "gender queer" to the children it wants to groom is a FAR cry from banning the book, itself.

I was thinking about banning the book on Ruby Bridges and similar books on black people or with LGTQ characters as ordinary people. Is that a good thing? We’ll let history judge that.

 

[toobfreak]

Many leftists equate measures that limit the ability of adults to groom children as "banning" free speech.

That is an Allinsky Ploy forwarding an invalid argument. Funny that banning MAGA and attacking people wearing red hats or sending the FBI to harrass parents wanting more and better from their schools isn't considered an equal banning of free speech.

The truth of the matter is that banning instructional materials designed to teach 10 year old boys how to give blow jobs does not BAN the books involved. Like any sensible restrictions placed on access to pornography, it simply creates age appropriateness.

I'm afraid that when I was 10, I did not know or want to know what a blow job was, I wasn't interested in girls, I was interested in science, medicine and astronomy.

Saying that a school should not be allowed to expose the book "gender queer" to the children it wants to groom is a FAR cry from banning the book, itself.

Isn't what this country is built on based on diversity of opinion? Isn't the POINT to the 1A to PROTECT unpopular views? While I can't see someone wanting queer books in a child's library, I'm willing to listen to the argument so long as I'm allowed to give my views as well.