Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Democrats push to amend Constitution so 16-year-olds can vote


el midgetron

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

To get the ones that are out of control some discipline and self respect.

First, there is no excuse for horrible parenting, and the reason teenagers lack disciple and respect is because they were never taught the importance of those attributes. The only ones responsible for these issues are the parents No One Else, unlike you I don't blame the teenagers, only the parents. Your, choice of attributes is almost spot on, but it really all comes down to Self-Respect. You see, if a teenager doesn't respect themselves first, they cannot respect anyone else.

I have had plenty of 18+ year olds that were assigned to me, and I had to teach them not only self-respect, but everything. They never had a bank account, had no idea how to write a check or to balance their check book, I had to help them get a driver's license, and how to drive car. Yet, I never failed them like their Frikken Parents that set them up for failure.

I took extra personal time to help them, and out of 30 or 40 cases over my Military Career I only had to have only one Court Marshalled and given a Bad Conduct discharge. He stabbed another soldier in the Barracks, I broke his arm disarming him, I felt terrible about the entire situation.:(

So, I am but your wrong, those that are out of control would go AWOL during Basic Training. Do, you know what is done today when a trainee go's AWOL form Basic Training, they discharge them, so why waste the money! Beyond, that I doubt you would feel the same way if you were 16 and mandatory service was implemented. Its, easy to make decisions that affect others live from a soft warm chair in your living room, but unless you have walked the walk, taking the talk may not be a great idea, well enough said!

But to be clear there is NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that has mandatory service starting at 16 years old. 

Oh and by the way, thanks for the response, even though you didn't quote anyone directly!!:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Don't retirees deserve representation? 

Hell no, they are all Rich like me. We all became contractors and worked in the Middle East, where we got paid $155,000 salary plus a minimum of a $5000 bonus annually.

Oh, and by, because we worked in Combat Zones, the US Government made the first $100,000 permanently non-taxable.

Peace partner!:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Don't retirees deserve representation? 

I mean, if we make laws about a child having to have a rapists baby, don't they deserve representation?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

the US Government made the first $100,000 permanently non-taxable.

Man that makes me salty.  After I got out I deployed as a DOD employee, and it was all taxable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Hell no, they are all Rich like me. We all became contractors and worked in the Middle East, where we got paid $155,000 salary plus a minimum of a $5000 bonus annually.

Oh, and by, because we worked in Combat Zones, the US Government made the first $100,000 permanently non-taxable.

Peace partner!:tu:

All good. Though as F3SS has said, I wasn't just talking about military retirees. All senior citizens over the age of 60 are impacted if they don't get to vote. The self funded retirees have their own unique issues that they are worried about. So too are the pensioners who don't own a single thing and are living pay check to pay check. And they will vote for a candidate that best represents their needs. To remove that voting bloc is undemocratic. 

It would also mean that no politician could serve over the age of 60. If we deny voting rights to people over 60 then surely politicians in their 60s are too old. And some of the best presidents that America has ever had would have been disqualified from serving! 

One could also see a chance that this would be the first step in making the elderly a completely different class to the rest of society. If they can't be trusted to vote, then they can't be trusted in a job, which means the new retirement age is effectively 60 (don't know about America, but Australia has an aging population that is causing the retirement age to increase, not decrease). Who would trust a 61 year old school teacher (or factory worker, accountant, salesman, or lawyer) if they can't even be trusted to vote? And with so many people in society reliant on welfare because no one will hire people over the age of 60, it won't be long before society considers ways to shift the elderly on to be a lesser burden on society. There's a number of fantastic sci-fi shows that have dealt with this, Star Trek in particular produced a show where they literally had an alien society euthanising their elderly population in order for the society as a whole to run smoothly. It's not the best episode of Star Trek ever, but they do deal with an interesting ethical dilemma in a unique way, and I really enjoy the episode - Half a Life (link) if you're interested.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

I mean, if we make laws about a child having to have a rapists baby, don't they deserve representation?

Children are under the care of parents/guaradians. Those parents/guaradians are entrusted to make decisions for them, therefore the parents are their voting representatives. 

The mothers can always get an abortion from another State if required. Though abortion right now is still a bit of  an up-in-the-air issue, as society hasn't really settled yet from the Roe Vs Wade decision. Give it 1-2 cycles of elections (including mid terms, mayoral races, and everything in between) and you'll see either the politicians changing the abortion laws, or the politicians will be replaced with those who will. Unfortunately, the politicians in the US have been playing politics with abortion - they could have codified Roe vs Wade into an actual law many times (2009 specifically, when Obama ran with that in his campaign promises, and even had a super majority so that the vote would go through even if every single Republican voted against it), but they chose not to because it was better for them to use it as a political weapon. Now the people are dealing with the consequences of that. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Children are under the care of parents/guaradians. Those parents/guaradians are entrusted to make decisions for them, therefore the parents are their voting representatives. 

And if that child is raped by a parent and is forced to have a child, we entrust the parent to make that decision?  Good thing in those cases the parent is their voting representative... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

And if that child is raped by a parent and is forced to have a child, we entrust the parent to make that decision?  Good thing in those cases the parent is their voting representative... 

The parent should be imprisoned, but unfortunately abused childish don't get to vote just because they had a the raw end of the stick at times. When they are old enough they can vote. The elderly already have the freedom to vote,  and imposing age restrictions will remove their voting rights with no ability to get it back.

This distinction makes the whole issue much more nuanced than simply saying that we should do one or the other!

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

 When they are old enough they can vote. The elderly already have the freedom to vote,  and imposing age restrictions will remove their voting rights with no ability to get it back.

If young people can't vote "because their brains!" then old people shouldn't be able to vote when they hit cognitive decline.  What's the difference between a 16 year old, who, lets be honest is more in tune with the world, voting than a 70 year old with cognitive decline and dementia?  I'd prefer someone with cognitive uptick than decline.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

If young people can't vote "because their brains!" then old people shouldn't be able to vote when they hit cognitive decline.  What's the difference between a 16 year old, who, lets be honest is more in tune with the world, voting than a 70 year old with cognitive decline and dementia?  I'd prefer someone with cognitive uptick than decline.

Young people shouldn't vote because voting is for adults. If society were to change the voting age,  also give young people the right to drink alcohol,  marry,  take out a loan,  sign a lease or get killed in war! Elderly folks are adults,  not children, the distinction is obvious!

We don't take away the elderly's right to marry or drink alcohol!

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Young people shouldn't vote because voting is for adults. If society were to change the voting age,  also give young people the right to drink alcohol,  marry,  take out a loan,  sign a lease or get killed in war!

Young people do have the right to drink alcohol.  In the majority of states, children can drink alcohol at home, legally.  Now, are you saying you have to be 18 to get married?  Might want to check up on that.  This ain't Australia, bro.  Get killed in war?  Stop it.  Don't even go there with your soft ass.  You can get killed in war and can't even buy a beer in a bar.  But you don't know anything about that.  

Edited by Agent0range
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

All good. Though as F3SS has said, I wasn't just talking about military retirees. All senior citizens over the age of 60 are impacted if they don't get to vote. The self funded retirees have their own unique issues that they are worried about. So too are the pensioners who don't own a single thing and are living pay check to pay check. And they will vote for a candidate that best represents their needs. To remove that voting bloc is undemocratic

I don’t disagree at all about retires in general, however Military retires have no issues , unless they have made some very bad choices. While I agree  Senior Citizens over 60 that are non-military are impacted in most cases. However, again Military retires can leave service after 20 years in most cases walk away and make 100 thousand plus a year depending upon their Military Occupational Specialty.  But, in any event they have a Federal hiring preference over all non-military, so they walk in an get job at the post offices or any Federal Job. For instance I get $3837 for my Military retirement pay, I get $2950 for VA 100% Disability Pay ( non-taxable, ) $1420 for Social Security.

(Started at 63 not 65) and my gets an additional $1006 so my monthly income is $9213. While I was working as a Government Contractor $155,000 + a $5,000 a was receiving $160,000 for 10 1/2 Years we never needed to touch that money at all. Since $100,000 was not taxable each year that money is kept in a special account so it isn’t taxed I also have paper work from the Government/ IRS that makes that money permanently Non-taxable. That $1,500,000 has been lock in for interest since I retired from Government Service.

As far as Military Personnel voting most vote Republican, because I can say without any doubt that since I joined in 1978 - 2003 Republicans always gave the Military the highest pay raises. 

37 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It would also mean that no politician could serve over the age of 60. If we deny voting rights to people over 60 then surely politicians in their 60s are too old. And some of the best presidents that America has ever had would have been disqualified from serving!

I don’t agree with taking anyone’s voting right, it’s a Constitutional prerogative and only by changing the Constitution will that every chance.

37 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

One could also see a chance that this would be the first step in making the elderly a completely different class to the rest of society. If they can't be trusted to vote, then they can't be trusted in a job, which means the new retirement age is effectively 60 (don't know about America, but Australia has an aging population that is causing the retirement age to increase, not decrease). Who would trust a 61 year old school teacher (or factory worker, accountant, salesman, or lawyer) if they can't even be trusted to vote?

I disagree with changing any for the Senior Citizens, Who, is actually qualified to say whether the elderly can be trusted to vote?

 

37 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

And with so many people in society reliant on welfare because no one will hire people over the age of 60, it won't be long before society considers ways to shift the elderly on to be a lesser burden on society. There's a number of fantastic sci-fi shows that have dealt with this, Star Trek in particular produced a show where they literally had an alien society euthanising their elderly population in order for the society as a whole to run smoothly. It's not the best episode of Star Trek ever, but they do deal with an interesting ethical dilemma in a unique way, and I really enjoy the episode - Half a Life (link) if you're interested.  

if someone reaches 60, and they need welfare or can’t work I sincerely feel sorry for them. But, they obviously made some bad choices or they would not be in that situation unless there were raised in the Welfare Dynasty where children follow their parents into the program. In my opinion that must be stopped there is no civil right that allows anyone health to collect Welfare, it must stop. I remember that episode of Star Trek, but that’s Sci-fy nothing else. Yet with global warming and environmental crisis, if something doesn’t happen soon, the world’s population is going to start to die off and it will be the elderly first sadly but they will not be wasted!:devil:

Peace Dude

Solent Green Is People!:w00t:

1D645E80-8337-4589-AB49-F5B70904A273.jpeg.74b34c035643b60eddd274e814b2c5cd.jpeg

C20010F7-D340-4126-8871-7DAE3522AAE8.jpeg.8e87f9a23280ba31b77c6058f3f01ad2.jpeg


D171E803-8C90-4083-9ED9-99CC8DB1C667.webp.4bb4eb15ecfa74ffacb0591a9b918827.webp

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

But it was still a mistake to give them the vote :whistle:

You're right.  Kids can't make sophisticated judgements like Biden is senile and poos his pants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

Young people do have the right to drink alcohol.  In the majority of states, children can drink alcohol at home, legally. 

The right to drink alcohol with parental permission! And they can't purchase alcohol.  

 

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

Now, are you saying you have to be 18 to get married?  Might want to check up on that.  This ain't Australia, bro. 

The internet says legal marrying age is 18 in every US State except two:  Nebraska (age 19) and Mississippi (age 21). There may be exceptions (some places allow earlier with parental permission, because these kids are still legally children).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States#:~:text=This age is set by,general marriage age is 21.

 

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

Get killed in war?  Stop it.  Don't even go there with your soft ass. 

Military service,  and particularly being deployed with the possibility of being killed,  is an adult decision that can only be made by adults! I think they allow 17 year olds to enlist but they need to have graduated high school (or equivalent qualifications), and if you want that as the standard for voting I can get behind that! 

 

1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

You can get killed in war and can't even buy a beer in a bar.  But you don't know anything about that.  

The US should lower the drinking age to 18, in my opinion.  The fact that it's still 21 is a bewildering thought to many outside the US!

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Yet with global warming and environmental crisis, if something doesn’t happen soon, the world’s population is going to start to die off and it will be the elderly first sadly but they will not be wasted!:devil:

Peace Dude

Solent Green Is People!:w00t:

1D645E80-8337-4589-AB49-F5B70904A273.jpeg.74b34c035643b60eddd274e814b2c5cd.jpeg

C20010F7-D340-4126-8871-7DAE3522AAE8.jpeg.8e87f9a23280ba31b77c6058f3f01ad2.jpeg


D171E803-8C90-4083-9ED9-99CC8DB1C667.webp.4bb4eb15ecfa74ffacb0591a9b918827.webp

G'day Reaper, 

Before i begin,  I just wanted to say that I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but for once I think I actually agreed with everything you wrote, so don't need to quote anymore of your post then what's here.  I appreciated your insights into the military,  and I think you're comments are generally sound. 

But this is a discussion forum, and discourse is good,  so to briefly bring this part of your comment up,  I wanted to say that global warming is on the very bottom of any list I have to worry about anything.  I don't think we're anywhere near as bad as the climate alarmists like to scare us into thinking is happening.  

So smile,  everything's (probably) going to be OK :)

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 to drive but cant drink smoke or die for your country ive always seen issues with it and 21 to drink you can die for your country at 18 but cant have a drink while you cash out all very weird to me.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Young people do have the right to drink alcohol.  In the majority of states, children can drink alcohol at home, legally.  Now, are you saying you have to be 18 to get married?  Might want to check up on that.  This ain't Australia, bro.  Get killed in war?  Stop it.  Don't even go there with your soft ass.  You can get killed in war and can't even buy a beer in a bar.  But you don't know anything about that.  

I'd never heard of that.  After a quick Google, it seems you are correct.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

G'day Reaper, 

Before i begin,  I just wanted to say that I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but for once I think I actually agreed with everything you wrote, so don't need to quote anymore of your post then what's here.  I appreciated your insights into the military,  and I think you're comments are generally sound. 

But this is a discussion forum, and discourse is good,  so to briefly bring this part of your comment up,  I wanted to say that global warming is on the very bottom of any list I have to worry about anything.  I don't think we're anywhere near as bad as the climate alarmists like to scare us into thinking is happening.  

So smile,  everything's (probably) going to be OK :)

Guten Abend Mein Freund:) that's cool and thanks for your candor and I hope you don't live on coastline. :yes:

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Between 1993 and 2021 mean sea level has risen across most of the world ocean (blue colors). In some ocean basins, sea level has risen 6-8 inches (15-20 centimeters). Rates of local sea level (dots) on the coast can be larger than the global average due to geological processes like ground settling or smaller than the global average due to processes like the centuries-long rebound of land masses from the loss of ice-age glaciers. Climate Change: Global Sea Level | NOAA Climate.gov

Namaste Dude!:tu:

Clint Black was a very smart man and he realized that Arizona would be the next Ocean Front Property by the year 2330!!!!:D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Guten Abend Mein Freund:) that's cool and thanks for your candor and I hope you don't live on coastline. :yes:

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Between 1993 and 2021 mean sea level has risen across most of the world ocean (blue colors). In some ocean basins, sea level has risen 6-8 inches (15-20 centimeters). Rates of local sea level (dots) on the coast can be larger than the global average due to geological processes like ground settling or smaller than the global average due to processes like the centuries-long rebound of land masses from the loss of ice-age glaciers. Climate Change: Global Sea Level | NOAA Climate.gov

Namaste Dude!:tu:

Clint Black was a very smart man and he realized that Arizona would be the next Ocean Front Property by the year 2330!!!!:D

 

Hey Reaper,

In the 1970s the climate alarmists were saying that by 1980 America would be subject to food and water rationing.  That didn't happen. 

4_1.jpg

In the 1990s, the alarmists were claiming that their children would never see a forest or the butterflies that live in them. 

 

This never happened either!

The rhetoric today is identical to the last 50 years,  but despite the dire threats and the fact that we didn't meet the targets that these alarmists demanded we reach, we're still here.  We aren't rationing food and water,  the forests are still there for our children. 

I believe climate change is happening but am not worried. If I'm wrong,  blame the alarmists who threatened us in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s (the examples i provided were only two of many). The phrase "fool me once,  shame on you; fool me twice,  shame on me" springs to mind - because right now I'm in the "fool me twice" boat,  I simply don't believe the alarmists (not to be confused with scientists who all universally agree that climate change is happening - I believe the scientists who aren't threatening the end of the world,  but they don't make the news headlines nearly as much)!

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Hey Reaper,

In the 1970s the climate alarmists were saying that by 1980 America would be subject to food and water rationing.  That didn't happen. 

4_1.jpg

In the 1990s, the alarmists were claiming that their children would never see a forest or the butterflies that live in them. 

 

This never happened either!

The rhetoric today is identical to the last 50 years,  but despite the dire threats and the fact that we didn't meet the targets that these alarmists demanded we reach, we're still here.  We aren't rationing food and water,  the forests are still there for our children. 

I believe climate change is happening but am not worried. If I'm wrong,  blame the alarmists who threatened us in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s (the examples i provided were only two of many). The phrase "fool me once,  shame on you; fool me twice,  shame on me" springs to mind - because right now I'm in the "fool me twice" boat,  I simply don't believe the alarmists (not to be confused with scientists who all universally agree that climate change is happening - I believe the scientists who aren't threatening the end of the world,  but they don't make the news headlines nearly as much)!

The rhetoric may be the same but, I have literally seen Sea Level Rise occur on two different sides of the Pacific Ocean. I lived in Lakewood, Washington from 1989 until 2013, and I had a rented covered space at a dock for Bayliner, no matter the weather winter or Summer I was out on Puget Sound fishing, that's where I could always find my center and relax, I didn't give a dam if it was snowing it was cool, Puget Sound was my Man Cave! :D

When we moved to Korea in 2014, we moved to the West Coast of South Korea, I have access to a boat here also my wife's brother has a boat about the same size as my Bayliner and he keeps his boat at a dock in a Covered space. I have an extra key for the boat and use it at least once month. This boat is also located in the Pacific Ocean and the two locations are 5,205 miles apart.

From 1989 - 2013 at Puget Sound at the dock where my boat was docked the water level rose 14.2 inches it never retreated on the side of the dock there was a measuring stick permanently in the water and I took measurements at slack tide to get an accurate reading. This, occurred over 24 years!

We have lived here in Korea since 2014 - 2023 = 9 years and the sea level at this location when we arrived here was 2 inched less than Puget Sound at the shoreline which is normal because the rise of sea level is based up the height of the shoreline measured by satellite. Since our arrival here I have been watching the sea level rise and in 9 years the sea level has 6.9 inches also all measurements are taken at slack tide!

So, thanks for your thoughts I appreciate them, but we must agree to disagree on subject, I trust the method of observation I am using. :tu:

Peace Dude

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

We aren't rationing food and water,  the forests are still there for our children. 

Who is not water rationing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Who is not water rationing? 

I'm not.  I have a well that provides as much water as I want.  

Smart young people should be making sure their house is not in an area that could flood.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm not.  I have a well that provides as much water as I want.  

Smart young people should be making sure their house is not in an area that could flood.

What has flooding got to do drought?  That fact is water rationing is real and happening.

People build residences in residential zones.  Residential zones have a flood risk.  But, I live a place that is offering a world first guidance in building flood resistant homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

What has flooding got to do drought?  That fact is water rationing is real and happening.

People build residences in residential zones.  Residential zones have a flood risk.  But, I live a place that is offering a world first guidance in building flood resistant homes.

I thought this conversation was discussing climate change.   Seems like allot of places are flooding more than they have in years past.  I live on a hill, so flooding is not an issue for me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.