California Assembly just passed a bill to allow 17 year olds to vote in California (how much, taxes)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by max210

There you go, littered with references.

Your "rebuttal" was to change the topic so you can prove me wrong about something I didn't even comment about.

There you go again...

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

There you go again...

Don't like the facts?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by nmnita

I normally agree with you on about everything, but this one NO I can remember when I was 18 and wished I could vote (cal way back) By the time I was 21 I understood the law, what was right and what voting was all about. I can remember how serious I took the right to vote. At 18 I don't think I understood. I know at 17 I did not. The only positive thing about this, and it is only one is; most kids don't bother anyway.

You just agreed with me.


I said: Well wanting adults to vote died when they lowered the voting age to 18, so no big deal.


That was my point, they took the vote and gave it too kids who were not ready to vote yet. Dropping it to 17 is stupid, but not much different than at 18. Bad now and bad if dropped to 17.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by max210

Don't like the facts?

Facts? You're quoting an article from Teen Vogue magazine?

And the magazine quotes someone from Truth in Recruitment, a student advocacy group based out of Santa Barbara. ("To donate via check, please send your tax-deductible donation made out to “Santa Barbara Friends Meeting” with Truth in Recruitment in the memo line.")

Sorry; I stopped reading after the third paragraph.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by expatCA

You just agreed with me.


I said: Well wanting adults to vote died when they lowered the voting age to 18, so no big deal.


That was my point, they took the vote and gave it too kids who were not ready to vote yet. Dropping it to 17 is stupid, but not much different than at 18. Bad now and bad if dropped to 17.

I know, I missed read it or misunderstood and realized it too late: Glad we agree one more time.

[Coldjensens]

If you look at statistics, it is pretty irrelevant. Few people under 30 vote. fewer under 25 vote. Even fewer at 21. By the time you get down to 18 hardly any of them vote. At 17 you might get a few hundred votes.

this law is most likely about trying to attract attention than about getting people to actually vote. A lot of laws introduced and even passed in California are just about someone trying to get attention.

I am not sure if they still do that, but when a republican president was in office, California used to introduce a bill every year to reinstate the draft.

Of course states do not reinstate the draft and the bill never had any chance of passing, but it made for some good news coverage. "Oh my, look how bad things have gotten, California might be reinstating the draft" Since few people have any understanding of how our government works (or does not work), it is a news story that serves to get a lot of people worked up.

So many stupid bills for stupid reasons is on basis for a part time legislature. They have too much time on their hands.

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Facts? You're quoting an article from Teen Vogue magazine?

And the magazine quotes someone from Truth in Recruitment, a student advocacy group based out of Santa Barbara. ("To donate via check, please send your tax-deductible donation made out to “Santa Barbara Friends Meeting” with Truth in Recruitment in the memo line.")

Sorry; I stopped reading after the third paragraph.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

And like I mentioned, the below doesn't even address the point I made. Military hires youth because they're highly impressionable, Dems are banking on that strategy, promise them things they have no intention of delivering.

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Not necessarily true. And a large proportion of teenagers don't qualify for military service.

Pentagon: 7 in 10 Youths Would Fail to Qualify for Military Service: https://time.com/2938158/youth-fail-...itary-service/

Up to 75 Percent of US Youth Ineligible for Military Service/Lack of Education, Physical Problems Disqualify Most:
https://www.thoughtco.com/us-youth-i...ervice-3322428

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by max210

And like I mentioned, the below doesn't even address the point I made. Military hires youth because they're highly impressionable, Dems are banking on that strategy, promise them things they have no intention of delivering.

1. No, military doesn’t hire anybody because they’re “impressionable” ... they “enlist” them in hopes they will thrive on national service and be retainable for a career. And recruiters I quoted previously made that point quite clearly.

2. If it were a workable “Dem strategy”, it could just as well be a workable Republican strategy ... so what’s your explanation for it not working in Republican favor? Republicans just incompetent?

Facts are: while there are many Democrats in military service, there are far more Republicans in service. So how is it a “Dem strategy”?

Or you can move along to a topic you know something about ...

[payutenyodagimas]

the age of majority should be lowered to 17 too

so that they will learn early how to be independent and be responsible for your own actions

at 17 you can vote, decide for yourself, and move out from your parents house

brilliant!!!!!

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

1. No, military doesn’t hire anybody because they’re “impressionable” ... they “enlist” them in hopes they will thrive on national service and be retainable for a career. And recruiters I quoted previously made that point quite clearly.

2. If it were a workable “Dem strategy”, it could just as well be a workable Republican strategy ... so what’s your explanation for it not working in Republican favor? Republicans just incompetent?

Facts are: while there are many Democrats in military service, there are far more Republicans in service. So how is it a “Dem strategy”?

Or you can move along to a topic you know something about ...

Repeating the ad campaign is proof? You drank the kool aid and want to tell me I'm wrong because you know it's delicious.

You can look up the fundamental ideologies behind each party and apply it to real life on your own.

Obviously you're living in a bubble or intentionally being obtuse.