Should there be a Max voting age?

[NeonSpider]

It occurred to me how different things might be if we had a max voting age. We already have a min voting age (currently 18), where people under this age are not allowed to vote, presumably because they would not be mature enough or knowledgeable enough to make good decisions and likely would be unfit to make such decisions on their own as others could easily "coach" them to vote however they (the others) wanted.

But isn't the exact same true of people beyond a certain age? At some point, people start losing their minds and even regress to childlike states. Often they don't keep up with knowledge and their memories start to go. They become unfit to make good decisions and others can easily "coach" them to vote however they (the others) want. So why not have a maximum voting age?

Here's the deal. People tend to vote more "conservative" as they get older, but it's correlated highly with specifically the fear of death, or awareness of their own mortality and impending doom. In short, they tend to vote the way they do because they're scared and they're not thinking straight, and other people manipulate this to get their votes. Worse, this impacts us all, and bad decisions made by those votes will be around long after the old people who voted for them are dead and gone.

Here is what I propose.

Place a maximum age limit on voting. Let's say age 60. An argument could be made to make it lower than that, but I think 60 is a good cutoff point because the amounts of people who are "all there" in the head steadily declines past that point.

Also I would say decrease the minimum voting age. Lower it from 18 to 16. Since young people will be around longer, they also deserve more say in their government, and I believe many people are of mental sound mind at age 16, and the politically-minded of mentally-sound mind should have a voice in government, if they wish. Those who don't care about it will simply not care and won't vote anyway, so that won't matter so much.

What would this change? We would likely have a huge shift toward a more progressive government. We also would likely see younger and better-capable political candidates. More people would benefit, and of those who perhaps would not perceive a benefit, they're not going to be around much longer anyway, compared to everybody else, and they don't have many years left to endure a decision they dislike anyway, versus their own decisions impacting young people long after they're dead.

Yes I am arguing that, at some point, people become unfit to make decisions that affect other people and that, at such point, they should be barred from making those kinds of decisions. This is why people retire (or are forced to take retirement) from work at a certain age. Why not also retire voting at the same ages? If they're no longer capable of making good work decisions because they're getting "too old for this", why would they be capable of making good voting decisions?

How are they any different from children at the point they become exactly as suggestible as children are, or perhaps even moreso? If we will let a senile old person vote who can be easily manipulated into voting any way the manipulator wishes, then why don't we also let 5 year olds vote who can be easily manipulated into voting any way the manipulator wishes? It makes about as much sense.

Or we can do the sensible thing and at the very least propose a maximum voting age, yeah?

[NeonSpider]

At 8/22/16 11:58 AM, Korriken wrote: Beyond the fact that you would be discriminating against people who are of perfectly sound minds?

This just smacks of "Older people tend to vote for more conservative candidates, so they need to be stopped."

That's precisely what I'm arguing against, however. I am arguing that older people are precisely *not* of sound mind, and that the amounts of older people still of sound mind steadily decreases beyond a certain point and that, in fact, this would be no different than if we allowed young children to vote, for similar reasons.

Perhaps if we had some reliable sound-mindness test? But in absence of such a test, the most logical choice is to make a cutoff at the age at which sound-mindness begins to noticeably decline. Sure, we unfairly eliminate some who are of sound mind, but we already do that by eliminating some who are mentally competent to vote but are merely too young. We have to go with averages.

To allow people to vote beyond any age, then we may as well let people vote at any age, including the very smallest of children. If this seems like a bad idea (and it seems like a bad idea to me), then it seems logical to cap it somewhere. I chose age 60. You might disagree with that exact age, but do you disagree with the principles, or is it merely the exact age chosen you disagree with? Would you perhaps agree if it were, say 70? 80? 90? I do think 60 is a reasonable cutoff though.

[billybobthwarten]

law abiding citizens shouldn't have restrictions, the idea is ridiculous.

very progressive idea, deny those you disagree with the ability to voice their concerns.

[orangebomb]

No, not at all. For a long time, people literately decry people to go vote and now you want to put limits of voting rights because of ageism, can't help but think that sort of reminds me of Jim Crow laws in the late 1800's South, but with seniors instead of African Americans. Why should old people get punished for participating in our democracy just because they vote for what you don't like?

Also, lowering the voting age to 16 is a dumb idea, mostly because teenagers aren't really known for making sound political decisions, nor for their frequency of voting in the smaller, but just as crucial elections. (e.g. Legislative elections or mayoral election) I do feel that 18 is the bare minimum as by this time, they would be out of high school and at least have some knowledge on how the political system works. (though I do admit that is a big assumption there) For all intents and purposes, 18 is considered the age of "adulthood" in America anyway, so it would be a rather moot point.

Bottom line is voting is the only sure fire way to implement the change in the government, not put in restrictions that doesn't let people vote because of arbitrary standards. It's already bad enough that there are allegations of voter fraud floating around every election whether through human error or otherwise.

[aviewaskewed]

At 8/22/16 11:58 AM, Korriken wrote: Beyond the fact that you would be discriminating against people who are of perfectly sound minds?

Exactly. It's as bad as those voter id laws many states have that are designed as another tactic to disenfranchise segments of the voting population so as to ensure a specific and desired outcome.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/22/16 06:42 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Exactly. It's as bad as those voter id laws many states have that are designed as another tactic to disenfranchise segments of the voting population so as to ensure a specific and desired outcome.

Then why not let children as young as 5 (or even younger) vote? Everyone who can pick up a pencil and write their name gets a vote. Otherwise you're disenfranchising them. How is that any different?

[SolarFoxProductions]

No, because all of the senior citizens would be in an uproar about it.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/23/16 02:00 AM, Korriken wrote: I know people who are 70-80 years old whose minds are a hell of a lot sharper than yours will ever be.

I seriously doubt that.

And I won't be voting for Trump or Clinton.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/23/16 02:21 AM, Korriken wrote: You're not as clever as you think you are

You don't know me. Don't pretend you do.

Of course, if you want to tell me that the almost the entire Supreme Court is full of feeble minded geezers and you're smarter than all of them, I'll be over here shaking my head.

Strawman.

I get this damnedest feeling you're somewhere between 15-24, and never had a meaningful life experience since birth.

Is that a Republican strategy? Assume everyone who has an opinion you disagree with simply *must* be younger than you are? Extremely bad assumption. Also, I like how you termed it a feeling, implying you make your decisions based on feelings rather than thinking things through.

Based on that, you completely overestimate your intellectual prowess.

So based on your completely false assumptions you made due to your feelings?

Considering your account page says, "Feel free to talk, but don't bother if..." and goes on to basically say, "dissent against the 'progressive' views given to me by those who think for me", I would think it's a safe bet.

How much money do you want to pay me for losing said "bet"?

Also explain to me who these people are that, in your words, "think for me". I don't watch TV so that's right out. I don't listen to talk radio either. And politically I'm not really like any of the people around me. But you simply can't fathom how one can actually *gasp* have a political viewpoint which differs from your right-wing viewpoint unless others were, in your words, thinking for them? Typical.

And I won't be voting for Trump or Clinton.

And I also suppose you didn't support Bernie Sanders because he is also too old?

Again with the strawman arguments. You're really good at that you know?

But since you mention it, yes I was going to vote for Bernie Sanders (in fact did in the primaries).

Because, you see, I never said that every single person beyond a certain age lacked good sense. Averages. It's the same reason we don't let people under a certain age vote. Because, on average, they probably lack the necessary good sense to do so. But there can be exceptions and this won't apply to everybody.

Because we say, since we can't agree on some "good sense" test for voter eligibility, then we must use age-based requirements, currently that one must be 18 or older. The implication is that those under the minimum age lack this "good sense" on average. Now personally I would lower that to 16 because I think most people that age tend to know what they're doing (and I absolutely don't think they should get reduced prison sentences merely for being underage at that age either, if they commit crimes). All I'm saying is those above a certain age also lack this "good sense", on average, and are driven more by fear-based propaganda and feelings rather than thinking things through. If you disagree on what that exact age is, fine, but you're insane if you think people maintain their full mental state their entire lives, even up until extremely advanced age. At some point it'll deteriorate.

I also never said people beyond a certain age couldn't run for Presidency. That's your strawman logic at work.

Since you're fond of playing this little game called "let's imply things based on completely arbitrary information", I'll give you one. I see you're from California, and Los Angeles in particular. It seems you suffer from the Californians being out of touch with the rest of the country syndrome.

But hey, if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton royally screw over the country, don't blame me. I didn't vote for them. But I'll certainly blame you if you did.

[Feoric]

Fun fact: the only place in the world that has a maximum voting age law is the Vatican -- only Cardinals 80 and under can vote for a new pope. This provision is relatively recent; it was enacted by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

[StaticSkull]

bluntly, no.
some forget, but some are wise

[NeonSpider]

At 8/23/16 09:48 PM, Feoric wrote: Fun fact: the only place in the world that has a maximum voting age law is the Vatican -- only Cardinals 80 and under can vote for a new pope. This provision is relatively recent; it was enacted by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

Fascinating!

I also would like for any who disagree with a max voting age suggestion to specify if they disagree with it on principle, or if it's merely the exact age chosen they disagree with.

Because these are two separate things.

And for anyone who disagrees with it on principle, then why not also allow even the smallest of children to vote, under that same objection? Either age discrimination in regards to voting is bad and we should allow literally everyone to vote, or age discrimination in regards to voting has a place and we should consider if there should be some sort of maximum voting age as well as a minimum one.

If someone merely objects to the suggestion that the max age be 60, well that's not set in stone and was only a suggested maximum age. Maybe it should be 70? 80? 90?

It's just a fact that people of advanced age tend to lose their reasoning abilities at some point. The older they are, the greater amounts of them have lost these abilities. I don't think suggesting there should be *some* max age is so unreasonable, keeping this in mind.

So yes I would agree with the Vatican's choice on setting such a precedent.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/24/16 10:08 AM, TylerFromTexas wrote: To restrict voters over a certain age is discriminating against those who are of perfectly sound mind

But my argument is precisely that they *don't* have sound minds. My argument is precisely that they no longer have sufficient reasoning ability at some point. Where that point is exactly you may argue, but it definitely happens, and the older someone is, the greater chances of it.

If it's not solely on that, then prove to me that the majority of those over 60 are losing their minds.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2683339/

Or just about any medically-relevant text will tend to agree that people lose their cognitive abilities in advanced age. You may argue where exactly you want to draw that line, which is fine, but to suggest such decline doesn't happen is wishful thinking at best, delusional at worst.

Obviously it differs per individual as well.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/24/16 12:14 PM, TylerFromTexas wrote: I never said it doesn't happen, but thanks for the link. Based on averages you speak of, I guess I'm wrong to assume that it only happens to some (though still a good number of) people instead of everyone.

It happens to everyone if they live to be old enough. The only variable is when, which can differ individually. Most people have some amount of cognitive impairment from age 60 onwards. It's possible the impairment starts even earlier than that. So the question is how much impairment is acceptable and how long should we wait?

I think a better solution is to have some sort of test that everyone over 65 (average retirement age) should take.

The problem is you'll find it exceedingly more difficult to construct a useful test which actually measures the thing it's intended to measure, versus simply drawing age-based lines based on averages. Just look at all the controversy over IQ testing to see how difficult this kind of testing might be.

I am acknowledging that cutting the lines at strict age boundaries will be disenfranchising some who are otherwise mentally competent enough to vote, but the same is true of the minimum bound as well. As with the minimum bound, we should ask "Is the average person of this age mentally competent enough to vote?" If the answer is "no", then there's your cutoff.

So the question then shouldn't be so much *if* we should have a maximum cutoff, but rather at what age such a cutoff should be. Though most people have suffered mental decline by age 60, perhaps it is not great enough and thus the cutoff should be age 70, you may argue. Or perhaps you may argue for 80 or 90.

If we say "the majority of people belonging to this group are not of sound enough mind to be making voting decisions" then we should exclude that group from voting. Currently we exclude those under 18 under the assumption their minds are not yet developed enough and thus not sound enough. Using the same logic, either we should also have some upper limit for the exact same reason *or* we shouldn't have any age limits and everyone (regardless of age) gets a vote. Anything else is hypocrisy and double-standards.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/25/16 02:54 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/23/16 10:08 AM, NeonSpider wrote: You don't know me. Don't pretend you do.

I don't have to know you. What you type speaks for itself.

Unfortunately it is filtered through your mind, which is less than adequate.

Strawman.

Bullshit. You said "old people" are not of sound mind and shouldn't vote. I refuted that with a group of "old people" whom you couldn't hold a candle to.

Strawman. I never said *all*, which is the strawman you have set up. I only ever said *many*. Of course you won't see this important distinction however, because your rational thinking ability is inadequate. You operate on emotional rather than logical "thinking".

Is that a Republican strategy? Assume everyone who has an opinion you disagree with simply *must* be younger than you are? Extremely bad assumption. Also, I like how you termed it a feeling, implying you make your decisions based on feelings rather than thinking things through.

And here we go with the "Dissent?! REPUBLICAN!" Yep. Typical.

You made blatantly false assumptions. You also appear to be politically to the right. I was merely asking if the two are typical of those with political opinions that lean to the right or if you've some special kinds of learning disabilities.

Tell me, who are you voting for? If you say Donald Trump, you're flat-out Republican and lying through your teeth however much you deny it. No one but far-right Republicans would consider voting for him.

So based on your completely false assumptions you made due to your feelings?

Based on the dumb shit you spew with no basis in fact.

Protip. You disagreeing with something does not make it "dumb shit". People agreeing with you does not make them "smart" either. It just means they agree or disagree. And I've already provided the basis in fact. Clearly you choose to willfully ignore scientific evidence which goes counter to whatever your basic assumptions are. That also seems to be a typically Republican problem.

How much money do you want to pay me for losing said "bet"?

How much you got?

Typical lack of reading comprehension on your part. You see, it is you who owes me, not the other way around. You were wrong on all counts. Thus you lost the "bet".

Also explain to me who these people are that, in your words, "think for me". I don't watch TV so that's right out. I don't listen to talk radio either. And politically I'm not really like any of the people around me. But you simply can't fathom how one can actually *gasp* have a political viewpoint which differs from your right-wing viewpoint unless others were, in your words, thinking for them? Typical.

Actually I can. Also, Talk radio and TV aren't the only places to get your daily dose of propaganda. The shit you spew is extremely typical of people who get their opinions, ideas, and even thoughts from others who tell them what to think.

You say you can, huh? And yet you don't. It's the same BS you spewed the first round. Maybe because, *gasp* your mind is too simple to comprehend that people might, just might, have political opinions which differ from your own and that *gasp* they've arrived at these conclusions on their own.

You say "others". I ask "who". You simply reply with "others". So basically you've got nothing and you're just repeating yourself like a parrot.

Again with the strawman arguments. You're really good at that you know?

It's a legitimate question. You said "old people" are not of sound mind and shouldn't vote. It's not hard to infer that "old people" who aren't "of sound mind" enough to vote should also not hold office. It's barely a step forward.

Strawmans man. You of course can't see how they are due to your lack of sufficient cognitive ability. Others will see the distinction.

But since you mention it, yes I was going to vote for Bernie Sanders (in fact did in the primaries).

That makes you a hypocrite.

No it doesn't. Me failing some strawman test you've set up does not make me a hypocrite. It makes you fail in reading comprehension and logical discourse.

So, discrimination based on "averages" is OK for shutting out voters, but not to bar people from holding office?

Yes, perhaps. That's what I'm trying to determine. They aren't the same thing and should be considered separately. You keep conflating the two.

I also never said people beyond a certain age couldn't run for Presidency. That's your strawman logic at work.

It's called inference. Obviously a person who can't handle their current responsibilities shouldn't be given even more.

You make bad inferences then.

At this point I would say you shouldn't vote. You don't even realize that LA doesn't stand for Los Angeles. It's stands for Louisiana. You would definitely fail the "good sense" test you want to impose on others.

Actually it stands for both. Maybe if you want to be clear then don't use abbreviations because there happens to be a lot of namespace overload. Don't know what that is? I bet you don't.

Also another strawman from you. I specifically said any sort of test would be difficult to manage and difficult to get right. Thus I was *against* such tests. Average age cutoffs seem more manageable than specific testing. Yet you strawman me to be in *favor* of them.

But alright if I was to devise tests of good sense one must pass to vote, they would eliminate those who have lots of emotional fear-based thinking, such as yourself. You're right-wing because you're scared. You're oh so very scared. And scared people don't tend to think straight.

But hey, if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton royally screw over the country, don't blame me. I didn't vote for them. But I'll certainly blame you if you did.

Empirical evidence points to Socialism being unsustainable, but keep living that pipe dream. Just remember in about 40 years when you're 56 and out in a field with a shovel because socialism took over the USA, the economy fell apart in spectacular fashion, and the government ordered everyone out into the fields to farm by hand because heavy equipment costs too much to maintain, just remember, it's precisely what you asked for, just like the Venezuelans.

Also I would include basic mathematics on such a test as well. Clearly you fail at the simple task of adding two numbers together. Tsk Tsk. You already know I'm older than you, and thus it's not that difficult to do ballpark math, which again, no surprise, you've absolutely failed at.

In 40 years I would be ineligible to vote under my own proposed system.

Then again the right-wing isn't known for being very educated.

Also, if you're a Trump Supporter (and you'll have to verify if you are or not), and you're not Native American, then get out of America. Everyone else entered this country illegally so you'd be a hypocrite to remove Mexicans but not yourself, if the criteria were indeed met.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/25/16 11:09 AM, TylerFromTexas wrote: Except it's not an IQ test. You're making it sound way more complex than it needs to be. The test I'm thinking of will determine the person's ability to comprehend what they've read in a given passage, their knowledge of US history, roles of government, and the Constitution. If they pass with at least a 70% in all of those areas, then they've shown they're able to understand what's going on in the nation and form an opinion on where the US should go from there.

It would be difficult to manage and get such testing right, without introducing political bias on one side or the other. It would be more manageable to use cutoff ages rather than testing, unless you can think of a way to eliminate all bias from such testing. At least with cutoff ages, that'd apply to everyone and there could be no argument that so-and-so passed or didn't pass some test on borderline cases.

Maybe 60 is too young. Maybe it should be higher? That's fair to argue.

Also if we're going to have testing, I would include logical thinking and mathematics guidelines on the testing. Those who think emotionally aren't known for making the best decisions. And the math would just be very basic grade school stuff. Nothing too complicated.

If you want to keep throwing in the youth as this double standard then by all means go for it. Voting, partaking in politics, and enlisting in the military is a huge deal for just about everyone. I brought up Ronald Reagan, Gary Johnson, and Korriken brought up Bernie Sanders as a way to point out that they're older than 60 years old, yet they're actively partaking in politics. It would seem very bizarre that if the suppose cut off age is 60 when you have these guys who have, or are trying to become President that will have power to direct the nation in what they see fit.

Well those are specific people and don't represent the averages within their respective age groups. Again, can you come up with a fair test? Then we might be able to do it the testing way instead of flat age cutoff.

If we were to allow kids to vote, then by your definition they're still being disenfranchised because they can't run for public office until a certain age. You can't run for President until you're age 35 and are a National Born Citizen (with some exceptions). By your definition the kids are being disenfranchised by not being able to enlist in the military or drafted.

Nah. Just enfranchised or not enfranchised to vote is all. You'd still need to be at least 35 and so on to run for office. Two different things. And no I wouldn't be in favor of drafting children (or anyone really). If folks want to enlist in the military, they may do so. Drafting seems a very bad idea however.

Regardless of where you cut off the age, my Opa can't vote because other people his age can't seem to comprehend what's going on around him. I have admitted that we all have a decline in mental capacity, but as you said it varies by individual.

Yes and that would be unfortunate. I just think there would be fewer problems with some specific age cutoffs versus specific yearly testing. There will be no edge cases. Either you are or are not beyond that line.

Having a test before they can be registered to vote would make a lot more sense because it only disenfranchise those who are not able to grasp what kind of impact they're potentially making when voting for the next President, Congressman, Governor, etc. This is what you want, correct?

I want people to use good sense in making voting decisions. Since specific testing for this "good sense" is too difficult to get right without introducing political bias, it's easier to make age-related cutoffs. We already have one age-related cutoff -- that of people under 18.

What part of, "You're comparing children who never had any prior knowledge of history and politics to elders who have lived through the wars, and the ups and downs of the United States" do you not understand? Despite mental decline among individuals at any given rate, which I have to stress its an individual basis only and not some solid concrete time frame, there are those who's been there, lived through it, partake in politics much longer than we have so far, so their voice needs to be heard.

Some of those children might have great knowledge of history, politics, etc... Also sometimes old people are just old rather than old and wise.

If you could come up with some politically fair test, then perhaps that could be used in lieu of the age-based requirements, but I think you'll find construction of such a test to be a gargantuan task, if done right.

But yes if we had such a test, then anyone who wanted to vote (regardless of age ... even people under 18) could take the test and then vote if they scored high enough on it.

Would it disenfranchise many? Yes. Would it enfranchise some who are not currently enfranchised? Yes.

Is it a good idea? That's what I'm asking in this thread.

It just seems awfully odd to have a minimum voting age but not a maximum, when the same arguments in favor of a minimum also apply to a maximum. Or, as you have suggested, perhaps no minimum or maximum but instead some test people take. Well yes that would work, but the test will be difficult to devise to be entirely fair.

[morefngdbs]

At 8/26/16 10:58 AM, TylerFromTexas wrote:

At 8/26/16 02:16 AM, NeonSpider wrote:

It would be difficult to manage and get such testing right, without introducing political bias on one side or the other. It would be more manageable to use cutoff ages rather than testing, unless you can think of a way to eliminate all bias from such testing.

;;;;
A simple way to do it is once your old enough to go to the bathroom on your own...old enough to vote.

I can see the Presidential posters during an election in that future.

"Old Enough To Sit On A Pot & Pee , OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR ME "

Paid for by the Clinton/Trump campaigns for Emperor.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

I have to agree with a maximum age limit (even though it would never happen) just for the fact that the current generations that are in Congress which are Baby Boomers and the Silent have utterly fucked this country in the last 25 plus years they've been holding the government. the Cost of living is increasing with wages practically be stagnant, we're in two countries when its practically over, we're giving aid to third world shitholes, the healthcare system is broken, we don't pay our service personnel enough. oh and then there's Bailing out car manufacturers and the banks and the financial crisis in 08.
same thing with large corporations with stringent hiring requirements (4 year degrees with job experience) when no one hires people out of college due to saturation and college cost so much your $70,000 in loan debt. then there is low pay while the corporation itself uses tax avoidance strategies to pay less taxes further increasing overhead.

all these things have one thing in common the old people who are calling the shots, and the worst part is that people vote these and listen to these people literally crippling the current generations, this is only going to get fixed when Gen X and Millenials start getting into office but that won't be for another 10 or 12 years which is horrifying.

[NeonSpider]

At 8/27/16 02:04 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/26/16 01:58 AM, NeonSpider wrote:

Also I would include basic mathematics on such a test as well.

Literacy tests have already been deemed unconstitutional. If you studied your American History you'd know that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Constitutional Amendments can be repealed. If you'd studied your American History you'd know that.

In 40 years I would be ineligible to vote under my own proposed system.

that puts you at a mere 20 years old. I was half way through middle school while you were sucking on your mom's tit, kid.

Again with the failing at math! Such failings! No wonder you're so against a gradeschool mathematical requirement -- you'd fail it! You need to repeat 1st Grade.

Then again your state is 6th worst in terms of educational attainment of all the states in the US.

But to put it bluntly, and since you're so immature as to pull this "kid" crap, I'm older than you, kid. I've already said this before, so apparently not only do you fail at math, your memory is also that of a goldfish.

If you knew how law worked, you wouldn't continue spewing dumb shit like this. Name the law that made it illegal for the first Europeans to come to the North American continent.

Are you seriously this retarded? (Rhetorical question. We already know the answer to that.)

Of course it wouldn't be illegal by American or European law at the time to go invading some other areas and slaughtering the people and taking over their lands but that's not the native's law. That's the invader's. By your logic, extreme Islam should be able to invade and take over the entire US because it's not illegal in their laws. And according to your logic you should be more than happy with this. But I'm willing to bet you'd change your rules in this case, like the hypocrite you are.

Also do you think America should just go invading any countries it wants, murdering large portions of the people, then claiming them as additional US states or territories? Because that is literally what you're arguing for, jackass!

You really are a racist asshole. Then again you're a Republican, so that's no surprise.

Also, I love the "Dissenters should just leave" bit you put there.

Nah. I'm just saying you're a damn hypocrite if you're in favor of kicking immigrants out if you yourself are descended from immigrants. Of course logical thinking isn't your forte.

At 8/27/16 12:26 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: all these things have one thing in common the old people who are calling the shots, and the worst part is that people vote these and listen to these people literally crippling the current generations, this is only going to get fixed when Gen X and Millenials start getting into office but that won't be for another 10 or 12 years which is horrifying.

Thank you! Someone with some sense.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/27/16 05:22 PM, NeonSpider wrote:

At 8/27/16 12:26 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: all these things have one thing in common the old people who are calling the shots, and the worst part is that people vote these and listen to these people literally crippling the current generations, this is only going to get fixed when Gen X and Millenials start getting into office but that won't be for another 10 or 12 years which is horrifying.

Thank you! Someone with some sense.

no prob, the worst part is since the baby boomers have gotten into office the quality of life has significantly dropped, we're nearly 20 TRILLION dollars in debt these baby boomer politicians are hemorrhaging money away to fellow old people in terms of tax breaks, deductions and bail outs for corporations and for the people in increasing Social Security that I will never fucking see but I pay into.

THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN FUCKED BY OLD PEOPLE

[uhnomal3]

Has any sequence of votes really made America turn in the right direction, I don't think so. I mean I'm not a scholar or nothing, but America is like 19 trillion dollars in debt, top music lists are littered with domestic conspiracy,, statistics in the drug war are staggering, 36 percent are not participating in the civilian labor force, statistics are inconclusive due to creative reclassification, America fought '' the war on terror'' mostly alone, and the only thing anyone is worried about is gay rights.

This is the land of the free, and with that, we need a revolution.
http://www.bls.gov/
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
http://www.msn.com/en-au/money/company-news/amazon-is-testing-out-a-30-hour-workweek/ar-BBw6fsY?li=AAgfOd8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbvYD9tGAms

[Feoric]

I'll gladly be a part of any revolution that includes Young Jeezy and DJ Drama.

[TaintedLogic]

I respectfully disagree with this.

There are plenty of older people who are mentally present and have valid worldviews, and cutting them out of politics would just hasten their natural mental decline. I also think that older people who aren't mentally present would be highly unlikely to vote anyway, and until there's clear evidence that large numbers of mentally fragile older people are being manipulated into voting a certain way by friends or family, I'm not convinced that's an actual problem. Besides, the whole idea sounds like a sneaky way to give the Democrats an edge - basically a liberal version of the ongoing "voter fraud" incident, which is equally a non-issue IMO.

<<<END RANT>>>

[SwanBrown]

Frankly, at this point I don't even care.
I say let The senile, kids, fetuses legally insane,foreign tourists, potatoes, family pets, and even congressmen vote.
The choices are that bad.
I wonder if I could auction my vote on ebay.

[Kwing]

This thread reeks of generalization. You could make the same argument about people with mental disabilities - just stop people with dementia or psychoses from voting. Or you could say you have to be 22 to vote, since that's the point at which the brain slows development. You might argue that blacks on average have less education and therefore are less capable of making an intelligent political decision. You could probably administer any kind of experiment or test to argue that one demographic is better at making these choices than someone else. Age is an arbitrary restriction.

The one reason you might have a point is that if someone is going to die within the next 4-8 years, their vote doesn't affect them, and hence you could argue they should not be electing representatives who will spend some or most of their term representing a voter that no longer exists. But this is a shaky argument at best because you don't know when someone else will die.

Also consider what would happen from a political standpoint, not just the voters. It would probably be easier to cut retirement and senior care. Yes, people would still resist such cuts, but would it truly be as difficult for anti-retirement legislation to go through congress?