Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is that if you're old enough to die for your country in the military, you're old enough to vote. I'm sticking with that position.
Some people here are advocating tougher "voting laws" and wish to see the required age to vote raised to either 21 or 25. The logic of that position is that the legal age to join military and go to war for the war gods is to raise the age requirement to join the military.
Roy, go home to that pathetic board you love so much. It's dying a miserable death with only about 10 people posting there. It's more like a private messaging board.
Btw, guess who suggested to FJ to invite you over here? Silly me. I thought it would be a good thing for you because you do love posting on message boards, and your village is getting so small that it cannot possibly be very interesting most of the time. There's much more variety and VOLUME here. In Politics & Other Controversies there are 36,538 THREADS, and over 1 million POSTS. Your little village boasts of 38 active members. Ugh! However, I now regret my suggestion to F.
You're on ignore. I do not want to talk to you.
For all those who are unlike my favorite sad sack I will say that Austin doesn't know that a small percentage of the 18 - 21 year olds ever take part in the military but she thinks that because some of them serve the rest should be allowed to vote also. Having that attitude shows that one hasn't managed to get beyond the Vietnam war days when we still had the draft and every able bodied young man was liable to have to serve. Some people never have recovered from all that period.
The trainwreck that is the Obama admiinistration has shown we need to reform voting standards NOW. Suggestions:
1) Only those paying income tax may vote.
2) Raise the minimum voting age to 25.
The framers were onto something when they said only landowners could vote. They founders knew voting was a privilege and only active contributors to the system should have a say.
We should revert to that mentality today. Only those who show gross income on their tax returns should be allowed to vote. If you don't contribute, you don't deserve the privilege. We use the gross figure so as not to penalize people who play the game but have earned tax credits or other deductions which help the economy (such as charitable contributions and depreciation for rental property).
If you're a welfare momma, you stay home on election day. This isn't a punishment; it's the absence of a privilege. Only those who support the system should get a say in how money is spent. If you only sponge off society, why should you get to vote yourself more benefits?
This would go along way in slowing the cycle of inter-generational dependency the Democrats have created. It would also curtail their practice of getting elected by buying votes as Obama has done. And above all, it will reverse the ever-looming point-of-no-return threshold where more than half the population pays no taxes. (See the Roman Empire).
As for a minimum voting age, I think it's important to have first-hand historical perspective. 1992 seems like yesterday to me. For those who recall, we had a similar situation as we have today. We had an unqualified candidate in Bill Clinton with a thin resume and questionable character getting a total pass. We saw the results; an ineffective incompetent morally bankrupt president whose big legacy was getting impeached. We paid for his inaction against terrorism with 9-11. You could argue Clinton's incompetence and inattention to the job (he spent all of 1998 working on his impeachment defense) caused 9-11 and thus the Iraq War. Economically, Clinton's actions with the CRA were the foundation of the mortgage crisis and the subsequent severe recession we are in. Yes, we are still paying and paying dearly because the media failed to scrutinize Bill Clinton.
The problem is, many young voters don't remember any of this. An 18-year-old is too young to have witnessed the backstory, and to have seen the disaster from a media that does not vet liberal candidates.
The result? History has repeated itself. We again elected a completely unvetted unqualified incompetent dishonest candidate in Obama who, only a month in, is wreaking disaster on this country and this economy. And as with Bill Clinton, America will be paying a dear price for decades to come for not heeding history.
Do you really think a homeless bum living over a grate downtown, or a 20-year-old unmarried high school dropout on welfare with three kids should have an equal say in choosing our leadership as the guy working 70 hours a week, employing five workers, and raising a decent family?
I don't. We need voting reform NOW!
I totally agree. If your mot picking up the tab, you don't get to pick the restaurant. Nice to see someone else on this forum not only knows history but also understands it.
I totally agree. If your mot picking up the tab, you don't get to pick the restaurant. Nice to see someone else on this forum not only knows history but also understands it.
Just try and disenfrachise these voters.....Please just try....LOL
Your logic is quite perverted and totally cold and calculated (are you related to Karl Rove?)... I completely side with Austin...
You seem perfectly content for 18 year olds to get blown to pieces on the battlefield, and then in the next breath advocate that they NOT be allowed to vote until 21... assuming they live that long that is.
I think that the age for military service should be raised to whatever the legal voting age is. If you're not allowed to vote, you should not be in the military...
Does that mean you will be deprived of your young, male cannon fodder - the ones who won't 'back off in combat' in your own words? Yes - but who cares what you think?
Hey bob, read your last six words and translate them to me talking to you.
The only people I know who worry about the military, vote or drink, thing are very far left liberals who need those votes from the impressionable age group. Why Austin even suggested that they learn so much in college. Have you been on a campus lately to witness the leftness of the faculties? I have but then I am an old man who someone said couldn't reason because of my age.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I'm definitely for raising the voting age. The state of the public schools is so bad that most high school students haven't a clue what they are voting for. They have no idea of our histroy, and are taught that capitalism is bad.
Is it any wonder we wind up with people like Obama, and the Democrat idiots that we have in Congress like Pelosi, Reid, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer ... Well I guess I'd have to name almost every one.
The age to vote in FEDERAL and STATE elections should remain at 18. The age to vote in LOCAL elections should actually be lowered to 16. At the age of 16 many, if not most teenagers work. While most do not make enough to be liable for Federal taxes, most do pay local taxes in the form of car license taxes, sales taxes and taxes on their cell phones and such. And most teenagers have a direct interest in the public school system because they attend them!
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilypad
When I was in the military, I learned a "heck of alot" about the realities of life, politics, war, etc. and not only from sitting in class after class either. Those young people who join the military should have the right to vote, they are serving the nation in a heroic and special way so definitely deserve that privilege. If the others want the voting privilege, they can join up....
Everybody is a potential member of the Army. They all have to register if they are males (BTW this should be extended to females too)
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilypad
You are presuming the military does not change a person, I think it does and mostly for the better. I have seen the uneducated and illiterate go in and come out very different, disciplined, confident, trained in a specialty or trade, etc. Not a bad thing for a misguided or disadvantaged youth. Definitely not all are success stories, some just not meant for the rigors of military life for a few years, but if it can turn a young person around, wake them up to the reality of becoming a responsible person in society, is not a bad "experience".
That was pretty much my experience back in the 70s but the military back then was more likely to take a gamble on a misguided kid with a few run ins with the local police. Now they want you to be pretty much perfect. No police dings, no prior drug use at all and no grades below a C. Back then, if you had a high school diploma and did well enough on the ASVAB and you were not missing feet, hands or ears, the military would take you. I doubt that they would accept a person like I was today. Not the Air Force anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
