Raise the draft age to 21 unless you are in the military.

[Vastator]

There's really no way to come up with a formula that determines a person 18 years 0 days old is "qualified" to vote while another person 17 years 364 days old, is not. It ain't like the Vote Fairy descends with a magic wand of flooby dust on one's 18th birthday.

In truth some people are knowledgeable and qualified at 18 or much younger while others expend their entire life never attaining that state at all. Which is why the Duopoly party dumbs everything down to catchphrased pandering.

What should really happen is we develop a civics test that determines whether you know enough about how things work in order to vote. Regardless of age. I'll wager we'd lose a hell of a lot more voters than we'd gain.

I've talked to lots of people who can't tell you how many people are in the House of Representatives or why, or how many judges are on the Supreme Court or what kind of cases they hear, but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc.
I don't agree with a civics test, although I teach the rudiments of it to our Hi-SET students. The more you know, the better. But the laws apply to all, so all should have a chance to voice their choice.

No. They shouldn’t. Those on the take, and without property ownership should never be able to cast a vote that determines how the nations funds are allocated. Or vote for those who do.

Everybody owns some kind of property.

I should have been more specific... LAND. Clear enough?

 

[Pogo]

There's really no way to come up with a formula that determines a person 18 years 0 days old is "qualified" to vote while another person 17 years 364 days old, is not. It ain't like the Vote Fairy descends with a magic wand of flooby dust on one's 18th birthday.

In truth some people are knowledgeable and qualified at 18 or much younger while others expend their entire life never attaining that state at all. Which is why the Duopoly party dumbs everything down to catchphrased pandering.

What should really happen is we develop a civics test that determines whether you know enough about how things work in order to vote. Regardless of age. I'll wager we'd lose a hell of a lot more voters than we'd gain.

I've talked to lots of people who can't tell you how many people are in the House of Representatives or why, or how many judges are on the Supreme Court or what kind of cases they hear, but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc.
I don't agree with a civics test, although I teach the rudiments of it to our Hi-SET students. The more you know, the better. But the laws apply to all, so all should have a chance to voice their choice.

Didn't see this post before. This is some waters I'm just treading out to thinking out loud. Clearly there is no magical ability that descends on one by virtue of attaining the age of 18, that wasn't there yesterday, so clearly that's not a legitimate standard. And just as clearly there walk among us (and post among us here) those who are twice, three times, four times that age who haven't a clue what they're doing yet get qualified to vote by the same virtue of having attained X number of years.

So I must conclude that clearly the present benchmark is inadequate and some new one must be sought, else we stay in the same place.

Can't find the clip right now but I refer you to that infamous clip of a voter in West Virginia who says in 2008, "I've had enough of Hussein!". We can all come up with 16 year olds or 14 year olds who know better than that.

I understand that you would like a more informed electorate. That would be great, but I don't agree that a civics test requirement for all voters would actually get you where you want to be. If you want the bar raised, it has to be raised by the powers that be in how they explain things to us, in how their arguments are presented (carefully, not in three minute soundbytes). We used to be treated like fairly informed adults. Not anymore. I don't know exactly what happened or why.

That will never happen because the LCD politicians have no incentive to do so as long as they know numerically all they need is the "I've had enough of Hussein" people. It's a catch-22 because if one does elevate, the next devolves and gets the numbers and guess who wins.

I touched on this somewhat back in this thread Check out who's at the bottom of the chart from that.

​

--- which is the inevitable co-machination when your appeal is entirely to the emotions.

Rump never spake truer words than when his Fraud University preached "you don't sell products, benefits or solutions --- you sell FEELINGS".

 

[Pogo]

There's really no way to come up with a formula that determines a person 18 years 0 days old is "qualified" to vote while another person 17 years 364 days old, is not. It ain't like the Vote Fairy descends with a magic wand of flooby dust on one's 18th birthday.

In truth some people are knowledgeable and qualified at 18 or much younger while others expend their entire life never attaining that state at all. Which is why the Duopoly party dumbs everything down to catchphrased pandering.

What should really happen is we develop a civics test that determines whether you know enough about how things work in order to vote. Regardless of age. I'll wager we'd lose a hell of a lot more voters than we'd gain.

I've talked to lots of people who can't tell you how many people are in the House of Representatives or why, or how many judges are on the Supreme Court or what kind of cases they hear, but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc.
I don't agree with a civics test, although I teach the rudiments of it to our Hi-SET students. The more you know, the better. But the laws apply to all, so all should have a chance to voice their choice.

No. They shouldn’t. Those on the take, and without property ownership should never be able to cast a vote that determines how the nations funds are allocated. Or vote for those who do.

Everybody owns some kind of property.

I should have been more specific... LAND. Clear enough?

Thanks. That's my opening. If you limit voting to land owners, then (a) you severely limit the electorate to a small élite, and (b) you create an oligarchy of that élite. And then you're back to the striated aristocracy-down unequal society that Liberalism shook off like a bad case of fleas. You're back to the feudal model of lords and serfs.

 

[Vastator]

There's really no way to come up with a formula that determines a person 18 years 0 days old is "qualified" to vote while another person 17 years 364 days old, is not. It ain't like the Vote Fairy descends with a magic wand of flooby dust on one's 18th birthday.

In truth some people are knowledgeable and qualified at 18 or much younger while others expend their entire life never attaining that state at all. Which is why the Duopoly party dumbs everything down to catchphrased pandering.

What should really happen is we develop a civics test that determines whether you know enough about how things work in order to vote. Regardless of age. I'll wager we'd lose a hell of a lot more voters than we'd gain.

I've talked to lots of people who can't tell you how many people are in the House of Representatives or why, or how many judges are on the Supreme Court or what kind of cases they hear, but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc.
I don't agree with a civics test, although I teach the rudiments of it to our Hi-SET students. The more you know, the better. But the laws apply to all, so all should have a chance to voice their choice.

No. They shouldn’t. Those on the take, and without property ownership should never be able to cast a vote that determines how the nations funds are allocated. Or vote for those who do.

Everybody owns some kind of property.

I should have been more specific... LAND. Clear enough?

Thanks. That's my opening. If you limit voting to land owners, then (a) you severely limit the electorate to a small élite, and (b) you create an oligarchy of that élite. And then you're back to the striated aristocracy-down unequal society that Liberalism shook off like a bad case of fleas. You're back to the feudal model of lords and serfs.

Wrong you’re closer to being back where this country was intended to be. With each liberals so called improvement the nation for the most part has gotten worse. We are currently living in the death throes of a once great and mighty nation. And with nearly every Leftist-Liberal “advancement” it only hastens it’s demise. The idea that owning land is somehow invoking the ghost of aristocracy is absurd. Letting the parasite determine how to allot the production of the host is insane; and can only end one way...

 

[OldLady]

There's really no way to come up with a formula that determines a person 18 years 0 days old is "qualified" to vote while another person 17 years 364 days old, is not. It ain't like the Vote Fairy descends with a magic wand of flooby dust on one's 18th birthday.

In truth some people are knowledgeable and qualified at 18 or much younger while others expend their entire life never attaining that state at all. Which is why the Duopoly party dumbs everything down to catchphrased pandering.

What should really happen is we develop a civics test that determines whether you know enough about how things work in order to vote. Regardless of age. I'll wager we'd lose a hell of a lot more voters than we'd gain.

I've talked to lots of people who can't tell you how many people are in the House of Representatives or why, or how many judges are on the Supreme Court or what kind of cases they hear, but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc.
I don't agree with a civics test, although I teach the rudiments of it to our Hi-SET students. The more you know, the better. But the laws apply to all, so all should have a chance to voice their choice.

Didn't see this post before. This is some waters I'm just treading out to thinking out loud. Clearly there is no magical ability that descends on one by virtue of attaining the age of 18, that wasn't there yesterday, so clearly that's not a legitimate standard. And just as clearly there walk among us (and post among us here) those who are twice, three times, four times that age who haven't a clue what they're doing yet get qualified to vote by the same virtue of having attained X number of years.

So I must conclude that clearly the present benchmark is inadequate and some new one must be sought, else we stay in the same place.

Can't find the clip right now but I refer you to that infamous clip of a voter in West Virginia who says in 2008, "I've had enough of Hussein!". We can all come up with 16 year olds or 14 year olds who know better than that.

I understand that you would like a more informed electorate. That would be great, but I don't agree that a civics test requirement for all voters would actually get you where you want to be. If you want the bar raised, it has to be raised by the powers that be in how they explain things to us, in how their arguments are presented (carefully, not in three minute soundbytes). We used to be treated like fairly informed adults. Not anymore. I don't know exactly what happened or why.

That will never happen because the LCD politicians have no incentive to do so as long as they know numerically all they need is the "I've had enough of Hussein" people. It's a catch-22 because if one does elevate, the next devolves and gets the numbers and guess who wins.

I touched on this somewhat back in this thread Check out who's at the bottom of the chart from that.

​

--- which is the inevitable co-machination when your appeal is entirely to the emotions.

Rump never spake truer words than when his Fraud University preached "you don't sell products, benefits or solutions --- you sell FEELINGS".

You haven't got much faith in us, do you?

 

[Pogo]

I've talked to lots of people who can't tell you how many people are in the House of Representatives or why, or how many judges are on the Supreme Court or what kind of cases they hear, but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc.
I don't agree with a civics test, although I teach the rudiments of it to our Hi-SET students. The more you know, the better. But the laws apply to all, so all should have a chance to voice their choice.

No. They shouldn’t. Those on the take, and without property ownership should never be able to cast a vote that determines how the nations funds are allocated. Or vote for those who do.

Everybody owns some kind of property.

I should have been more specific... LAND. Clear enough?

Thanks. That's my opening. If you limit voting to land owners, then (a) you severely limit the electorate to a small élite, and (b) you create an oligarchy of that élite. And then you're back to the striated aristocracy-down unequal society that Liberalism shook off like a bad case of fleas. You're back to the feudal model of lords and serfs.

Wrong you’re closer to being back where this country was intended to be. With each liberals so called improvement the nation for the most part has gotten worse. We are currently living in the death throes of a once great and mighty nation. And with nearly every Leftist-Liberal “advancement” it only hastens it’s demise. The idea that owning land is somehow invoking the ghost of aristocracy is absurd. Letting the parasite determine how to allot the production of the host is insane; and can only end one way...

Leftism isn't Liberalism, first of all. Divest that erroneous conflation. Liberalism threw off the European model of how a country should work using landed aristocracy and clergy to run the joint while everybody else worked for them and declared that power derives from the consent of the governed. Unless you're suggesting only property holders are "the governed", that be everybody. So it looks like what you're driving at is indeed "more money = more power", and that's illiberal.

 

[Pogo]

There's really no way to come up with a formula that determines a person 18 years 0 days old is "qualified" to vote while another person 17 years 364 days old, is not. It ain't like the Vote Fairy descends with a magic wand of flooby dust on one's 18th birthday.

In truth some people are knowledgeable and qualified at 18 or much younger while others expend their entire life never attaining that state at all. Which is why the Duopoly party dumbs everything down to catchphrased pandering.

What should really happen is we develop a civics test that determines whether you know enough about how things work in order to vote. Regardless of age. I'll wager we'd lose a hell of a lot more voters than we'd gain.

I've talked to lots of people who can't tell you how many people are in the House of Representatives or why, or how many judges are on the Supreme Court or what kind of cases they hear, but they can tell you how they feel about immigration, abortion, gun rights, etc.
I don't agree with a civics test, although I teach the rudiments of it to our Hi-SET students. The more you know, the better. But the laws apply to all, so all should have a chance to voice their choice.

Didn't see this post before. This is some waters I'm just treading out to thinking out loud. Clearly there is no magical ability that descends on one by virtue of attaining the age of 18, that wasn't there yesterday, so clearly that's not a legitimate standard. And just as clearly there walk among us (and post among us here) those who are twice, three times, four times that age who haven't a clue what they're doing yet get qualified to vote by the same virtue of having attained X number of years.

So I must conclude that clearly the present benchmark is inadequate and some new one must be sought, else we stay in the same place.

Can't find the clip right now but I refer you to that infamous clip of a voter in West Virginia who says in 2008, "I've had enough of Hussein!". We can all come up with 16 year olds or 14 year olds who know better than that.

I understand that you would like a more informed electorate. That would be great, but I don't agree that a civics test requirement for all voters would actually get you where you want to be. If you want the bar raised, it has to be raised by the powers that be in how they explain things to us, in how their arguments are presented (carefully, not in three minute soundbytes). We used to be treated like fairly informed adults. Not anymore. I don't know exactly what happened or why.

That will never happen because the LCD politicians have no incentive to do so as long as they know numerically all they need is the "I've had enough of Hussein" people. It's a catch-22 because if one does elevate, the next devolves and gets the numbers and guess who wins.

I touched on this somewhat back in this thread Check out who's at the bottom of the chart from that.

​

--- which is the inevitable co-machination when your appeal is entirely to the emotions.

Rump never spake truer words than when his Fraud University preached "you don't sell products, benefits or solutions --- you sell FEELINGS".

You haven't got much faith in us, do you?

The unknown sage said it best:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".

 

[Vastator]

No. They shouldn’t. Those on the take, and without property ownership should never be able to cast a vote that determines how the nations funds are allocated. Or vote for those who do.

Everybody owns some kind of property.

I should have been more specific... LAND. Clear enough?

Thanks. That's my opening. If you limit voting to land owners, then (a) you severely limit the electorate to a small élite, and (b) you create an oligarchy of that élite. And then you're back to the striated aristocracy-down unequal society that Liberalism shook off like a bad case of fleas. You're back to the feudal model of lords and serfs.

Wrong you’re closer to being back where this country was intended to be. With each liberals so called improvement the nation for the most part has gotten worse. We are currently living in the death throes of a once great and mighty nation. And with nearly every Leftist-Liberal “advancement” it only hastens it’s demise. The idea that owning land is somehow invoking the ghost of aristocracy is absurd. Letting the parasite determine how to allot the production of the host is insane; and can only end one way...

Leftism isn't Liberalism, first of all. Divest that erroneous conflation. Liberalism threw off the European model of how a country should work using landed aristocracy and clergy to run the joint while everybody else worked for them and declared that power derives from the consent of the governed. Unless you're suggesting only property holders are "the governed", that be everybody. So it looks like what you're driving at is indeed "more money = more power", and that's illiberal.

Tell the Leftists, and liberals that. The Leftist are the ones who usurped that moniker, and the true liberals have done nothing to retake it. Liberal is synonymous with Leftist in today’s parlance. But I’ll agree with you that today’s “Liberals” share next to nothing in common with the “classic Liberal”, or classic Liberalism.

 

[Vastator]

No. They shouldn’t. Those on the take, and without property ownership should never be able to cast a vote that determines how the nations funds are allocated. Or vote for those who do.

Everybody owns some kind of property.

I should have been more specific... LAND. Clear enough?

Thanks. That's my opening. If you limit voting to land owners, then (a) you severely limit the electorate to a small élite, and (b) you create an oligarchy of that élite. And then you're back to the striated aristocracy-down unequal society that Liberalism shook off like a bad case of fleas. You're back to the feudal model of lords and serfs.

Wrong you’re closer to being back where this country was intended to be. With each liberals so called improvement the nation for the most part has gotten worse. We are currently living in the death throes of a once great and mighty nation. And with nearly every Leftist-Liberal “advancement” it only hastens it’s demise. The idea that owning land is somehow invoking the ghost of aristocracy is absurd. Letting the parasite determine how to allot the production of the host is insane; and can only end one way...

Leftism isn't Liberalism, first of all. Divest that erroneous conflation. Liberalism threw off the European model of how a country should work using landed aristocracy and clergy to run the joint while everybody else worked for them and declared that power derives from the consent of the governed. Unless you're suggesting only property holders are "the governed", that be everybody. So it looks like what you're driving at is indeed "more money = more power", and that's illiberal.

This nation was founded by classic Liberals. And was carefully crafted to operate smoothly under the strictures they laid out. And did until those who thought they knew better came along and started “tweaking things” ignorant of what the results would actually be.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1970. This was done because people were complaining about being eligible for the draft at 18, yet ineligible to vote after serving a tour.

You can volunteer for the military at 18 and should be able to vote if you do so, except you should not be able to be drafted until you are 21. Also, raise the voting age to 21 for non-military.

A ‘draft’ needs to be done away with altogether.

It’s a ridiculous anachronism completely devoid of merit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1970. This was done because people were complaining about being eligible for the draft at 18, yet ineligible to vote after serving a tour.

You can volunteer for the military at 18 and should be able to vote if you do so, except you should not be able to be drafted until you are 21. Also, raise the voting age to 21 for non-military.

Ummm... we don't actually have a military draft.

We do, but it just isn't active. That's why there is mandatory registration.

One of the reasons why it’s a ridiculous anachronism completely devoid of merit, and why it needs to be eliminated.

And save the nonsense about a ‘national emergency.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why? What do you think would be achieved?

Less young people voting means that the repukes are more likely to win. Same reason they don't want the Darkies voting.

…along with Muslims and Hispanics.

 

[Pogo]

Everybody owns some kind of property.

I should have been more specific... LAND. Clear enough?

Thanks. That's my opening. If you limit voting to land owners, then (a) you severely limit the electorate to a small élite, and (b) you create an oligarchy of that élite. And then you're back to the striated aristocracy-down unequal society that Liberalism shook off like a bad case of fleas. You're back to the feudal model of lords and serfs.

Wrong you’re closer to being back where this country was intended to be. With each liberals so called improvement the nation for the most part has gotten worse. We are currently living in the death throes of a once great and mighty nation. And with nearly every Leftist-Liberal “advancement” it only hastens it’s demise. The idea that owning land is somehow invoking the ghost of aristocracy is absurd. Letting the parasite determine how to allot the production of the host is insane; and can only end one way...

Leftism isn't Liberalism, first of all. Divest that erroneous conflation. Liberalism threw off the European model of how a country should work using landed aristocracy and clergy to run the joint while everybody else worked for them and declared that power derives from the consent of the governed. Unless you're suggesting only property holders are "the governed", that be everybody. So it looks like what you're driving at is indeed "more money = more power", and that's illiberal.

Tell the Leftists, and liberals that. The Leftist are the ones who usurped that moniker, and the true liberals have done nothing to retake it. Liberal is synonymous with Leftist in today’s parlance. But I’ll agree with you that today’s “Liberals” share next to nothing in common with the “classic Liberal”, or classic Liberalism.

"The Leftist are the ones"??

You know "leftist" is a singular, right?

The term Liberal was hijacked by Republicans in the 1940s during the "Red Scare", not by "the leftist" whoever he is. It was a demonization tactic to make Liberal into a slur which is a direct slap in the face to the Founders.

There is no "classic" Liberal. Liberal is Liberal, period. Or should I say there are no classic liberal [sic].

Again leftism isn't Liberalism, we don't even disagree on that, so stay on the point. Liberalism rejects the idea that power derives from some privileged class, and that's what limiting power to landowners would create. A class that would also perpetuate itself and block virtually everybody else out of it.

Well that's an aristocracy. There's no way around that.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Why? What do you think would be achieved?

Less young people voting means that the repukes are more likely to win. Same reason they don't want the Darkies voting.

…along with Muslims and Hispanics.

You're a discredit to darkies everywhere.
We want you to vote.
We want everyone to vote.
We want you to do it within the Rules and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I should have been more specific... LAND. Clear enough?

Thanks. That's my opening. If you limit voting to land owners, then (a) you severely limit the electorate to a small élite, and (b) you create an oligarchy of that élite. And then you're back to the striated aristocracy-down unequal society that Liberalism shook off like a bad case of fleas. You're back to the feudal model of lords and serfs.

Wrong you’re closer to being back where this country was intended to be. With each liberals so called improvement the nation for the most part has gotten worse. We are currently living in the death throes of a once great and mighty nation. And with nearly every Leftist-Liberal “advancement” it only hastens it’s demise. The idea that owning land is somehow invoking the ghost of aristocracy is absurd. Letting the parasite determine how to allot the production of the host is insane; and can only end one way...

Leftism isn't Liberalism, first of all. Divest that erroneous conflation. Liberalism threw off the European model of how a country should work using landed aristocracy and clergy to run the joint while everybody else worked for them and declared that power derives from the consent of the governed. Unless you're suggesting only property holders are "the governed", that be everybody. So it looks like what you're driving at is indeed "more money = more power", and that's illiberal.

Tell the Leftists, and liberals that. The Leftist are the ones who usurped that moniker, and the true liberals have done nothing to retake it. Liberal is synonymous with Leftist in today’s parlance. But I’ll agree with you that today’s “Liberals” share next to nothing in common with the “classic Liberal”, or classic Liberalism.

"The Leftist are the ones"??

You know "leftist" is a singular, right?

The term Liberal was hijacked by Republicans in the 1940s during the "Red Scare", not by "the leftist" whoever he is. It was a demonization tactic to make Liberal into a slur which is a direct slap in the face to the Founders.

There is no "classic" Liberal. Liberal is Liberal, period. Or should I say there are no classic liberal [sic].

Again leftism isn't Liberalism, we don't even disagree on that, so stay on the point. Liberalism rejects the idea that power derives from some privileged class, and that's what limiting power to landowners would create. A class that would also perpetuate itself and block virtually everybody else out of it.

Well that's an aristocracy. There's no way around that.

My just LOOK at the word games you must play.

 

[RandomPoster]

The only reason the Leftists want to lower the voting age is because the Leftists have a strangle hold on the education system. As such; often times the programmers spend more time with these impressionable kids than the parents do. Thus they can be easily swayed into voting the “correct” way. Through both indoctrination, and peer pressure...

Yes, the Adult Right Winger voting against his own economic interests after listening to Hate Radio all day... that person isn't indoctrinated at all.

The progressive commie mantra. Add a falsehood to the agenda.

Ignoring 100 years of conservatives suppressing black voting rights, you mean?

Leave it to a liberal to bring race into a conversation that has nothing to do with race in order to try and derail the conversation. Not only that, leave it to a liberal to try and twist 100 years of Democrats suppressing black voting rights into "The Big Switch" myth.

 

[RandomPoster]

The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1970. This was done because people were complaining about being eligible for the draft at 18, yet ineligible to vote after serving a tour.

You can volunteer for the military at 18 and should be able to vote if you do so, except you should not be able to be drafted until you are 21. Also, raise the voting age to 21 for non-military.

Q. Why

A. 'Cause the Republican Party is composed of old white guns and won't get the votes from the young energetic & energized set, whose life experience has seen mass murders by guns, and the old white guys in Congress taking bribes from those who profit from the sale of guns and the carnage they produce.

Twenty one is an old man? Also, can leftists debate any topic without throwing around accusations of racism, sexism, classism, or any other type of accusation?

 

[Vastator]

I should have been more specific... LAND. Clear enough?

Thanks. That's my opening. If you limit voting to land owners, then (a) you severely limit the electorate to a small élite, and (b) you create an oligarchy of that élite. And then you're back to the striated aristocracy-down unequal society that Liberalism shook off like a bad case of fleas. You're back to the feudal model of lords and serfs.

Wrong you’re closer to being back where this country was intended to be. With each liberals so called improvement the nation for the most part has gotten worse. We are currently living in the death throes of a once great and mighty nation. And with nearly every Leftist-Liberal “advancement” it only hastens it’s demise. The idea that owning land is somehow invoking the ghost of aristocracy is absurd. Letting the parasite determine how to allot the production of the host is insane; and can only end one way...

Leftism isn't Liberalism, first of all. Divest that erroneous conflation. Liberalism threw off the European model of how a country should work using landed aristocracy and clergy to run the joint while everybody else worked for them and declared that power derives from the consent of the governed. Unless you're suggesting only property holders are "the governed", that be everybody. So it looks like what you're driving at is indeed "more money = more power", and that's illiberal.

Tell the Leftists, and liberals that. The Leftist are the ones who usurped that moniker, and the true liberals have done nothing to retake it. Liberal is synonymous with Leftist in today’s parlance. But I’ll agree with you that today’s “Liberals” share next to nothing in common with the “classic Liberal”, or classic Liberalism.

"The Leftist are the ones"??

You know "leftist" is a singular, right?

The term Liberal was hijacked by Republicans in the 1940s during the "Red Scare", not by "the leftist" whoever he is. It was a demonization tactic to make Liberal into a slur which is a direct slap in the face to the Founders.

There is no "classic" Liberal. Liberal is Liberal, period. Or should I say there are no classic liberal [sic].

Again leftism isn't Liberalism, we don't even disagree on that, so stay on the point. Liberalism rejects the idea that power derives from some privileged class, and that's what limiting power to landowners would create. A class that would also perpetuate itself and block virtually everybody else out of it.

Well that's an aristocracy. There's no way around that.

This nation was founded on the premise that only land owners could vote. And with good reason. Doing so means that every tax raise levied came directly out of their own pockets. As such it kept a tight reign on the expansion, of both the size, and power of the government. Allowing noncontributers to vote, has resulted in the exponential growth, of both size, and power of government. All at the cost of those who do produce; while those who don’t , receive the most benefit per unit of contribution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You can volunteer for the military at 18 and should be able to vote if you do so, except you should not be able to be drafted until you are 21. Also, raise the voting age to 21 for non-military.

You do know why they want draftees and voluntary draftees to be as young as possible right?

They get you in there before you're old enough to know better.
Simple as that.

That's actually the reason they want voters to be as young as possible.

Could be. More impressionable. Although the reverse argument can be made about all the old farts on this site entrenched in their own ways.

Me I still think voting should be awarded on some sort of civics test that would demonstrate the subject knows at least a minimum about how things work. Otherwise political rhetoric is going to aim for a lowest common denominator, which means emotional bullshit, because there's no need to aim any higher to achieve your numbers. Give people a test and it won't even matter how old or young they are.

Needless to say, a ‘test’ would be un-Constitutional.

Of course, the Framers anticipated the ignorance, stupidity, emotionalism, and partisanism common to far too many voters – hence a Republic rather than a democracy, the rule of law rather than majority rule.

Unfortunately, we’ve abandoned the Framers’ intent and relegated our rights and protected liberties the spoils of political war, and as a consequence placed our rights and protected liberties in jeopardy.

 

[fncceo]

This nation was founded on the premise that only land owners could vote.

I haven't been able to find that in The Constitution... the document upon which our country's laws derive. Could you point it out to me?