Lowering the voting age?

[TontoedRanger]

Should be raised to 45

Here! Here! I second that motion!

Last time I was in the voting line my coffee got cold twice. Waiting for all them kids to get out of the way.

Took allllllll day long to vote for Trump Then again for my beloved, beleaguered state to usher in a fine new governor.

 

[schism666]

Not one of your better alts. Some names just don't work, AJ. Always best to go new. Let the past die, kill it if you have to. Some dude I know said that once.

plus he's using the avatar of a much smarter and better man

 

[Kantarii]

You have to have an age cutoff somewhere, and 18 seems as good a place as any.

I agree.

At 18 I had a lot of privileges in the Army. We could vote, smoke and drink, provided we followed certain rules, of course, like staying in the barracks when we drank.

Some states allow it at age 17 if they’re 18 by Election Day; however, I can’t see allowing a kid to vote who isn’t old enough to have their regular driver’s license.
Kant

 

[Dribble]

16 yo,s. are barely trustworthy with a learner’s permit for driving. In that situation, they don’t listen and think they have all the answers. Turning them loose to vote at 16 is just as dangerous as kissing a rattlesnake.Kant

Basically, you just described every Republican on this website.

 

[Wrong Element]

I think 18 is fine. I'd rather see voting more accessible to people who are already eligible to vote.

This too.

Why would anyone want an immature, poorly educated, unskilled, indoctrinated, hormonal driven, overgrown 7 year old voting?

I don't, particularly, but I concede you have that right.

 

[Rotadom]

Basically, you just described every Republican on this website.

Don't mention 16 year olds around the Republicans here

 

[HisArpy]

So the D's want to lower the voting age because teens are "responsible adults" yet they also want to raise the minimum age to buy a gun because "people aren't responsible enough until they're older".

*shakes head at the insipidness of it all*

 

[Kantarii]

So the D's want to lower the voting age because teens are "responsible adults" yet they also want to raise the minimum age to buy a gun because "people aren't responsible enough until they're older".

*shakes head at the insipidness of it all*

There’s a word for that.... it’s on the tip of my tongue; I just can’t think of it, damnitKant

 

[TontoedRanger]

Not one of your better alts. Some names just don't work, AJ. Always best to go new. Let the past die, kill it if you have to. Some dude I know said that once.

Possibly my alleged sensei?!

Nice!

Wow! Golly gee wiz!

Actually, not 1/2 as looney as some say he is. He's a righteous dude.

 

[TontoedRanger]

Don't mention 16 year olds around the Republicans here

Oh yea. You can just imagine what they think of how much lower the LibDems can go.

Most of the conservatives, like myself, don't think to highly of it either. We actually anticipated it.

 

[TontoedRanger]

plus he's using the avatar of a much smarter and better man

A lesson you should seriously consider yourself flameboy.

*smirk*

Must you always follow yourself around?

https://media.giphy.com/media/xT0Gqs2LQIevTVmjNm/giphy.gif

 

[SpeareChucker]

So the D's want to lower the voting age because teens are "responsible adults" yet they also want to raise the minimum age to buy a gun because "people aren't responsible enough until they're older".

*shakes head at the insipidness of it all*

Well said.

Also it seems they want to engage in personal attacks which always seem to be more topical than the actual topic, i.e., the old fallacy that says if you discredit the person you discredit the argument, which, always seems to be a one-way street for those who know they cannot legitimately win the day when it comes to a logical reason for any opposition to their desire for the passions of mob rule.

 

[SpeareChucker]

... and who is more passionate than a teen?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Let's lower the age to register for the draft to 16 and include females and the sexually confused/insane...

 

[Kantarii]

Well said.

Also it seems they want to engage in personal attacks which always seem to be more topical than the actual topic, i.e., the old fallacy that says if you discredit the person you discredit the argument, which, always seems to be a one-way street for those who know they cannot legitimately win the day when it comes to a logical reason for any opposition to their desire for the passions of mob rule.

Ah yes, mob rule. Hahaha... it’s not like we haven’t seen that tactic used recently.