Opinion Changing the rules for voting: your thoughts

The voting age changing is fantasy. It’s not going to happen.

I wouldn’t mind seeing the voting age raised. That young contingent for the most part: haven’t been part of a workforce, haven’t saved money, haven’t bought a house, etc. So having no possessions of their own, they often live in an idealistic fantasyland of socialism. It’s cute but it’s not the real world.

Finally, WHY do people running for head of the Executive Branch (ie President) run their mouths like they’re going to be dictators who can create, change, and repeal laws at will, if they get elected?
 
alexdlrg said:
Giving more influence to people who have a legacy that will actually be around to deal with the consequences of our political decisions is absurd to you? Sounds quite natural and logical to me.
Click to expand...
That’s how you get this guys as president
dwayne-elizondo-mountain-dew-herbert-camacho-large.png
 
BFoe said:
This wingnut Republican candidate for president does. It’s their solution to the fact that there are lots of young people about to hit the current voting age, and those young people generally aren’t feeling the Republican agenda.
But why switch one’s agenda to be more in the line with the people, when you can just keep those people from voting instead, right?
Click to expand...
So one person. Okay.
 
I mean I guess I'll say no even though it's going to lead to the official fall of the US. Then again we're probably already there.
 
bufetadanacara said:
I'm referring to income taxes.

So, bums and lazy people who don't work should not get a vote. Welfare recipients shouldn't get a vote.
Click to expand...
Define welfare recipients. Most people receiving benefits also work or have a household member that works. Some are receiving ssi because they are disabled. Do they get to vote? How about the elderly that don’t earn enough from ss to pay tax. Do they get to vote?
 
In a new country I think direct democracy with a point based voting system would be ideal. Have people who contribute, are invested in and have a lot more to risk having a bigger vote for the legislation they want.

The current system of one person one vote is theoretically fair, until you realize that a completely uninformed and ignorant person can nullify the vote of someone who spends their life researching and refining their positions. In my opinion that is not fair, although the implementation of making it fair has some hurdles to it.

Especially nowadays where the two parties are basically cliques in high school and your vote is essentially a signal to the cool high school kids in your area. We need to disassociate politics with social standing, but given that the Democrats have basically overtaken most news media, Hollywood, the music industry, fashion, big city life in general, etc.., They have been leveraging the social status of being a democrat to an extraordinary extent for a few decades now.
 
Day Drinking said:
Ever had wisdom teeth out with local anesthetic and a blindfold? I have. Didn't even need to have them out, doc just said he wanted it as a precautionary.
Click to expand...

avenue94 said:
I have actually. You're describing a rather mundane medical procedure. It's quite common for wisdom teeth removal to be local anesthetic in the US. The precautionary part is less common, but more so because most insurance won't cover it.
Click to expand...
The blindfold is actually the weird part of that story. Did they let you smoke one last cigarette as well? ;)
I too have had wisdom teeth out with nothing but local anesthetic, but sans blindfold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,445
Messages
55,491,354
Members
174,789
Latest member
Jahmaltheknight

Share this page

Back
Top