Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

2,751 to 2,800 of 4,260 << first < prev | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Pan wrote:
I'm not the one you have to convince. It's the millenials that are staying home that you have to convince. They only support #2.

Political parties will always skew towards older voters, because that's who shows up to vote. Younger voters always have lower turnout. Other than "think" pieces that are complete b#+%%@~&, I haven't seen a single convincing argument that millenials are different from any generation before them. They're still the same species. As they get older, they'll vote more and will have more control over the party.

If you don't show up to the meeting, you can't* complain about the meeting's agenda.

*well... you can complain all you like, but I'm not going to care. Show up to the meeting.

Mandatory voting laws, and making voting day a national holiday would help, with employees required to allow x amount of hours during the day to vote, would help a lot. As would measures making it easier to vote by mail or extending voting time. Although getting any of those passed would probably require complete control of both congress and the white house to succeed, at minimum.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
You have a minimum wage, why not add a maximum wage?

a maximum wage limits too much of what a person can do.

I have no problem with people making oodles of money, they just have to share with the rest of the class, and can't use it to buy my government.

Oh there's still plenty of ways for people to get disgustingly wealthy, but if the government can say to a company you can't legally pay this person any less why can't they also say to the company you can't legally pay this person any more. We're talking employees here obviously, owners and investors can still be insanely wealthy.

Also, if the maximum wage was linked to the minimum wage, like say it was a factor of the minimum wage, say the maxim wage a company could pay was forty times the lowest wage the company paid then CEOs would have an incentive to see people at the bottom made more.


Pie in the sky, I also want to lower the voting age drastically. If your parents take you to vote at age 10 or 12 (and every couple years after that), you're much more likely to continue the habit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
You have a minimum wage, why not add a maximum wage?

a maximum wage limits too much of what a person can do.

I have no problem with people making oodles of money, they just have to share with the rest of the class, and can't use it to buy my government.

Oh there's still plenty of ways for people to get disgustingly wealthy, but if the government can say to a company you can't legally pay this person any less why can't they also say to the company you can't legally pay this person any more. We're talking employees here obviously, owners and investors can still be insanely wealthy.

Also, if the maximum wage was linked to the minimum wage, like say it was a factor of the minimum wage, say the maxim wage a company could pay was forty times the lowest wage the company paid then CEOs would have an incentive to see people at the bottom made more.

Probably could, though there'd be legal challenges, I'm sure. And a lot of wiggle room in both what counted as "wage" for the CEO and who counted as an employee.

Do my stock options count? At what price? Does the company car (and driver!) and the mansion the company pays for count? Etc, etc.

And on the other, if I'm running the shell company that manages a bunch of suppliers and contractor businesses, do only my direct employees count? Or does the lowest paid person anywhere in my supply chain count? Even overseas?

For actually limiting income, high marginal tax rates just work better.

Sovereign Court

I will say my folks were not that politically minded growing up, but I had no idea about anything political at age 10. Actually, I take that back, I had very religious, very racist, and very republican grandparents that skewed my views at the time. My brother still hasn't shaken that ideology. I wouldn't really be able to discuss politics in any fashion until I was well into my teenage years, if not legal adult years. Given that schools barely teach people how to be a functioning adult, let alone civics, anymore I cant get behind the idea of kids at age 10 voting.

However, I'm positive both hard core party liners would love it. Like making kids go to church and saying the pledge of allegiance at school. Those things are counterproductive if you want to groom an intelligent individual who can think for themselves; though productive if you want to indoctrinate new members. In my opinion, American society just doesn't foster the culture that would make age 10 voting a productive idea.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Instead of lowering the voting age, we should give high school students under 18 a ballot if they have completed a civics course.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Instead of lowering the voting age, we should give high school students under 18 a ballot if they have completed a civics course.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! You are planning on EDUCATING the voters? You can't do that! If they are educated, they get a +5 to their save against my Mind Control Rays! We can't let that happen!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

Pie in the sky, I also want to lower the voting age drastically. If your parents take you to vote at age 10 or 12 (and every couple years after that), you're much more likely to continue the habit.

That's basically just giving parents extra votes.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Pie in the sky, I also want to lower the voting age drastically. If your parents take you to vote at age 10 or 12 (and every couple years after that), you're much more likely to continue the habit.

That's basically just giving parents extra votes.

In the short run, perhaps, but establishing the habit of voting which is likely to last past their parents immediate influence (and into teenage rebellion and adulthood) might be a larger effect.

And the 15 year olds are probably more likely to counter their parent's votes, just because.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So...
.
.
.
.

Age 15: voting rights.
Age 18: almost everything else.
Age 21: buy booze and (in some states) marijuana.

Interesting implications.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Pie in the sky, I also want to lower the voting age drastically. If your parents take you to vote at age 10 or 12 (and every couple years after that), you're much more likely to continue the habit.

That's basically just giving parents extra votes.

How long do you think it'll take you to give me an argument that wasn't given for denying women the vote?


The Mad Comrade wrote:

So...

.
.
.
.

Age 15: voting rights.
Age 18: almost everything else.
Age 21: buy booze and (in some states) marijuana.

Interesting implications.

Seems fine to me...shouldn't we give the kids a chance to change the laws that f$~%s them over later on ^^.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Pie in the sky, I also want to lower the voting age drastically. If your parents take you to vote at age 10 or 12 (and every couple years after that), you're much more likely to continue the habit.

That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
How long do you think it'll take you to give me an argument that wasn't given for denying women the vote?

Of course many of those arguments boiled down to "women (and children) aren't responsible enough to make their own decisions." That goes far beyond voting, but somehow I don't think we want to negate all arguments against removing restrictions on kids because they were also used against removing restrictions on women.

We can certainly quibble about the details of where to draw the age line, but at some stage, children simply are not capable of functioning as adults. That women were once thought not to be doesn't change that it's true of kids.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But children aren't actually responsible enough to make there own decisions. That is kind of the whole underlying premise behind a lot of our legal framework.

I of late have had to spend a great deal of time around two very intelligent 12 and 13 year old kids who do very well at school, but are also capable of some incredibly irrational behavior and arguments.


Irontruth wrote:

If you don't show up to the meeting, you can't* complain about the meeting's agenda.

*well... you can complain all you like, but I'm not going to care. Show up to the meeting.

I guess my only comment would be that, in my experience, the agenda is usually set before the meeting happens. Helps out, actually, when planning on what meetings to go to.

"Cosecha is doing banner painting, CAJE is planning Togetherness Tuesday, DSA is building for their pressure the Democrats on single-payer rally and Solidarity Lowell is hosting the Jobs with Justice guy and the adjunct faculty UAW president? Okay, let's go to the last one, and the CAJE thing if we can."


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Pie in the sky, I also want to lower the voting age drastically. If your parents take you to vote at age 10 or 12 (and every couple years after that), you're much more likely to continue the habit.

That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
How long do you think it'll take you to give me an argument that wasn't given for denying women the vote?

Of course many of those arguments boiled down to "women (and children) aren't responsible enough to make their own decisions." That goes far beyond voting, but somehow I don't think we want to negate all arguments against removing restrictions on kids because they were also used against removing restrictions on women.

We can certainly quibble about the details of where to draw the age line, but at some stage, children simply are not capable of functioning as adults. That women were once thought not to be doesn't change that it's true of kids.

History has a way of being cyclical and one should understand if their argument has been used by the oppressor or the oppressed. We see oppressors making the same arguments against different groups of people ever 20-30 years. If that's the side you want to join, feel free to adopt their arguments.

I'm all for a debate on where exactly the line should be drawn for age, but the debate should not involve arguments we know have been used by oppressors.


Cynical thought of the day: Trump has plenty of incentive to start a war with North Korea. It would put an end to the Russia talk and lift his dismal approval numbers in one shot.


I hope he doesn't. That's a legitimate way to start WW3.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

History has a way of being cyclical and one should understand if their argument has been used by the oppressor or the oppressed. We see oppressors making the same arguments against different groups of people ever 20-30 years. If that's the side you want to join, feel free to adopt their arguments.

I'm all for a debate on where exactly the line should be drawn for age, but the debate should not involve arguments we know have been used by oppressors.

REALLY? Pants have been used by oppressors...should we get rid of those, too? YOU ARE ADOPTING THE GARMENTS OF THE OPPRESSORS! ;-)

Meanwhile, as a parent of three teenagers, I believe the voting age should be raised, not lowered. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Pie in the sky, I also want to lower the voting age drastically. If your parents take you to vote at age 10 or 12 (and every couple years after that), you're much more likely to continue the habit.
That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
How long do you think it'll take you to give me an argument that wasn't given for denying women the vote?

Of course many of those arguments boiled down to "women (and children) aren't responsible enough to make their own decisions." That goes far beyond voting, but somehow I don't think we want to negate all arguments against removing restrictions on kids because they were also used against removing restrictions on women.

We can certainly quibble about the details of where to draw the age line, but at some stage, children simply are not capable of functioning as adults. That women were once thought not to be doesn't change that it's true of kids.

History has a way of being cyclical and one should understand if their argument has been used by the oppressor or the oppressed. We see oppressors making the same arguments against different groups of people ever 20-30 years. If that's the side you want to join, feel free to adopt their arguments.

I'm all for a debate on where exactly the line should be drawn for age, but the debate should not involve arguments we know have been used by oppressors.

Even if they're right in this context? If it's been argued that women aren't sufficiently responsible to be trusted with the vote, we can't argue that children aren't sufficiently responsible? Even very young children?

I'm all for examining the arguments closely, but a blanket rejection of anything that's ever been used for oppression rejects nearly everything.

Sovereign Court

bugleyman wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

History has a way of being cyclical and one should understand if their argument has been used by the oppressor or the oppressed. We see oppressors making the same arguments against different groups of people ever 20-30 years. If that's the side you want to join, feel free to adopt their arguments.

I'm all for a debate on where exactly the line should be drawn for age, but the debate should not involve arguments we know have been used by oppressors.

REALLY? Pants have been used by oppressors...should we get rid of those, too? YOU ARE ADOPTING THE GARMENTS OF THE OPPRESSORS! ;-)

Down with Pants! Let's start the age of bath robes!


Guy Humual wrote:


Down with Pants! Let's start the age of bath robes!

Right, because the romans weren't an oppressive war mongering oligarchy either..


thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Pie in the sky, I also want to lower the voting age drastically. If your parents take you to vote at age 10 or 12 (and every couple years after that), you're much more likely to continue the habit.
That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
How long do you think it'll take you to give me an argument that wasn't given for denying women the vote?

Of course many of those arguments boiled down to "women (and children) aren't responsible enough to make their own decisions." That goes far beyond voting, but somehow I don't think we want to negate all arguments against removing restrictions on kids because they were also used against removing restrictions on women.

We can certainly quibble about the details of where to draw the age line, but at some stage, children simply are not capable of functioning as adults. That women were once thought not to be doesn't change that it's true of kids.

History has a way of being cyclical and one should understand if their argument has been used by the oppressor or the oppressed. We see oppressors making the same arguments against different groups of people ever 20-30 years. If that's the side you want to join, feel free to adopt their arguments.

I'm all for a debate on where exactly the line should be drawn for age, but the debate should not involve arguments we know have been used by oppressors.

Even if they're right in this context? If it's been argued that women aren't sufficiently responsible to be trusted with the vote, we can't argue that children aren't sufficiently responsible? Even very young children?

I'm all for examining the arguments closely, but a blanket rejection of anything that's ever been used for oppression rejects nearly everything.

Go ahead and pick an actual argument for denying women the vote (to apply to children) that you'd like to defend. Pick a real one. Don't make one up to fit your goal of making a legitimate one to defend, but one from 1919 or before.

If you're unfamiliar with sources: Here's a pamphlet for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Pie in the sky, I also want to lower the voting age drastically. If your parents take you to vote at age 10 or 12 (and every couple years after that), you're much more likely to continue the habit.
That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
How long do you think it'll take you to give me an argument that wasn't given for denying women the vote?

Of course many of those arguments boiled down to "women (and children) aren't responsible enough to make their own decisions." That goes far beyond voting, but somehow I don't think we want to negate all arguments against removing restrictions on kids because they were also used against removing restrictions on women.

We can certainly quibble about the details of where to draw the age line, but at some stage, children simply are not capable of functioning as adults. That women were once thought not to be doesn't change that it's true of kids.

History has a way of being cyclical and one should understand if their argument has been used by the oppressor or the oppressed. We see oppressors making the same arguments against different groups of people ever 20-30 years. If that's the side you want to join, feel free to adopt their arguments.

I'm all for a debate on where exactly the line should be drawn for age, but the debate should not involve arguments we know have been used by oppressors.

Even if they're right in this context? If it's been argued that women aren't sufficiently responsible to be trusted with the vote, we can't argue that children aren't sufficiently responsible? Even very young children?

I'm all for examining the arguments closely, but a blanket rejection of anything that's ever been used for oppression rejects nearly everything.

Go ahead and pick an actual argument for denying women the vote (to apply to children) that you'd like to defend. Pick a...

Can he not just use the one actually being discussed?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:


Down with Pants! Let's start the age of bath robes!

Right, because the romans weren't an oppressive war mongering oligarchy either..

Where do you stand on a Pants Off Dance Off?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Go ahead and pick an actual argument for denying women the vote (to apply to children) that you'd like to defend. Pick a...

If you really can't see why this question is both ridiculous and irrelevant, then explaining isn't going to help. :/

Edit: Hell, I'll try anyway. You argued that saying that children are too young to vote amounts to oppression, simply because the denial of suffrage has be used as a tool of oppression in the past. That's exactly like arguing that using a pencil amounts to oppression, because the Nazis used pencils to keep records on the Jews.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:


Down with Pants! Let's start the age of bath robes!

Right, because the romans weren't an oppressive war mongering oligarchy either..

Romans didn't wear bathrobes, they wore togas. Dressing gowns are like from the 18th century, but only for around the house, no government was conducted whilst wearing a bathrobe or dressing gown.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
Can he not just use the one actually being discussed?

Sure. Explain to me why duplicate votes for the same candidate ruin the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
Can he not just use the one actually being discussed?
Sure. Explain to me why duplicate votes for the same candidate ruin the system.

Because NOT weighting votes based on fertility rates requires supporting arguments?

You made a bad analogy; it happens. Let it go.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe take the voting rights stuff to a new thread. It is a very interesting and important topic, but not something the Democrats are in a position to effect, unless some big changes happen first.

Let's keep this thread focused on the Future of the Democratic Party.


Irontruth wrote:
I hope he doesn't. That's a legitimate way to start WW3.

The potential fall out (perhaps literal!) would probably be enough to to unite the majority of both parties against him. Republicans LOVE to say Obama was weak on x government, but mostly its rhetoric. If Korea or Iran were "easy to solve" problems they would have been solved.

What I could see is Trump working up some heavy saber-rattling, but resulting in a spectacular failure, due to incompetence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Pan wrote:
I'm not the one you have to convince. It's the millenials that are staying home that you have to convince. They only support #2.

Political parties will always skew towards older voters, because that's who shows up to vote. Younger voters always have lower turnout. Other than "think" pieces that are complete b#+%%@~&, I haven't seen a single convincing argument that millenials are different from any generation before them. They're still the same species. As they get older, they'll vote more and will have more control over the party.

If you don't show up to the meeting, you can't* complain about the meeting's agenda.

*well... you can complain all you like, but I'm not going to care. Show up to the meeting.

Mandatory voting laws, and making voting day a national holiday would help, with employees required to allow x amount of hours during the day to vote, would help a lot. As would measures making it easier to vote by mail or extending voting time. Although getting any of those passed would probably require complete control of both congress and the white house to succeed, at minimum.

Adopting Oregon's voting system nationally would up participation significantly. We had 78 almost 79% participation last year compared to around 55% nationally


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Last post re: voting age adjustment.

Adjusting voting and jury duty age to 15 (at 3 years before 18 compared to +3 years after for buying booze etc) could help instill civic responsibility. Combine that with Oregon's voting system... I like it.

I'd probably tie the voting age to 16 instead of 15, or thereabouts, since so many other things tend to come into play about then: earliest age of employment (outside of child actors/performers), emancipation of minors etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:

[

Where do you stand on a Pants Off Dance Off?

Away


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Pan wrote:
I'm not the one you have to convince. It's the millenials that are staying home that you have to convince. They only support #2.

Political parties will always skew towards older voters, because that's who shows up to vote. Younger voters always have lower turnout. Other than "think" pieces that are complete b#+%%@~&, I haven't seen a single convincing argument that millenials are different from any generation before them. They're still the same species. As they get older, they'll vote more and will have more control over the party.

If you don't show up to the meeting, you can't* complain about the meeting's agenda.

*well... you can complain all you like, but I'm not going to care. Show up to the meeting.

Mandatory voting laws, and making voting day a national holiday would help, with employees required to allow x amount of hours during the day to vote, would help a lot. As would measures making it easier to vote by mail or extending voting time. Although getting any of those passed would probably require complete control of both congress and the white house to succeed, at minimum.
Adopting Oregon's voting system nationally would up participation significantly. We had 78 almost 79% participation last year compared to around 55% nationally

Its also harder to *cough cough* suppress votes when there's a paper trail and its all coming in a sealed envelope with a name on the front.


Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
Can he not just use the one actually being discussed?
Sure. Explain to me why duplicate votes for the same candidate ruin the system.

Because of the Duggers?


MMCJawa wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I hope he doesn't. That's a legitimate way to start WW3.

The potential fall out (perhaps literal!) would probably be enough to to unite the majority of both parties against him. Republicans LOVE to say Obama was weak on x government, but mostly its rhetoric. If Korea or Iran were "easy to solve" problems they would have been solved.

What I could see is Trump working up some heavy saber-rattling, but resulting in a spectacular failure, due to incompetence.

Perhaps in the long term. In the short term, we know what would happen, because we've seen it happen many times. His approval rating would shoot up, and things like Russia would be buried, because questioning the president while the country is at war is "unpatriotic."

But the time things caught up with him, it may well be too late for all of us.


MMCJawa wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I hope he doesn't. That's a legitimate way to start WW3.

The potential fall out (perhaps literal!) would probably be enough to to unite the majority of both parties against him. Republicans LOVE to say Obama was weak on x government, but mostly its rhetoric. If Korea or Iran were "easy to solve" problems they would have been solved.

What I could see is Trump working up some heavy saber-rattling, but resulting in a spectacular failure, due to incompetence.

I don't know. Though incompetence is definitely the way to bet. Not just for him, but for the whole team. Tillerson's supposed to be making oil deals, not worrying about diplomatic nonsense. And he's got basically no senior staff anyway. Luckily we've got Jared Kushner stepping in run things for his stepdad - with no experience and again no staff.

So yeah, we're basically screwed. Though frankly, I expect him to more just be played by whatever professionals they deal with. We've already basically rolled over for China - walking back the starting tough talk on Taiwan and threats over island bases and using language which at least implies agreement with China's preferred model for the relationship - likely in all cases because Tillerson didn't know better and either didn't have or didn't take expert advice.
Assad's testing us with the chemical weapon attack, just days after Trump shifted away from "regime change" as a goal. His response: Blame Obama.

All new administrations are tested by foreign powers. So far, it's been amateur hour.
He might try saber rattling, but like with China, he might just fold early too. Terrifyingly, it probably depends on what's being said on the cable channels he watches at night.


bugleyman wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I hope he doesn't. That's a legitimate way to start WW3.

The potential fall out (perhaps literal!) would probably be enough to to unite the majority of both parties against him. Republicans LOVE to say Obama was weak on x government, but mostly its rhetoric. If Korea or Iran were "easy to solve" problems they would have been solved.

What I could see is Trump working up some heavy saber-rattling, but resulting in a spectacular failure, due to incompetence.

Perhaps in the long term. In the short term, we know what would happen, because we've seen it happen many times. His approval rating would shoot up, and things like Russia would be buried, because questioning the president while the country is at war is "unpatriotic."

But the time things caught up with him, it may well be too late for all of us.

I don't actually know if he's got the chops to put together the right kind of propaganda campaign for that. Barring a serious 9/11 style attack on the US.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Luckily we've got Jared Kushner stepping in run things for his stepdad - with no experience and again no staff.

Jared is his son-in-law. His position hinges on staying married to Ivanka


CrystalSeas wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Luckily we've got Jared Kushner stepping in run things for his stepdad - with no experience and again no staff.
Jared is his son-in-law. His position hinges on staying married to Ivanka

Yeah, where the hell did "Stepdad" come into my head from? I was thinking "wife's father" and somehow that translated as "stepdad".


An open move against North Korea would pretty much alienate all our allies in the region (most of who would directly suffer from NK retaliation), and despite all the tough talk that sometimes comes on the right from China, the vast majority of politicians in BOTH parties don't want a military intervention. I mean, talk of increasing tariffs on Chinese goods is enough to make most Republicans get the shakes. Starting a conflict that is likely to drag us into war with China? NOPE.


bugleyman wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
Can he not just use the one actually being discussed?
Sure. Explain to me why duplicate votes for the same candidate ruin the system.

Because NOT weighting votes based on fertility rates requires supporting arguments?

You made a bad analogy; it happens. Let it go.

If your offspring always vote the way you do, then votes are already weighted by fertility, we just delay it by a few years.

You can counter my point if you can find evidence that children don't vote the way their parents do... but then that would counter the original point and support my argument that this is an irrelevant point.

Either way, I win the point.


thejeff wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Luckily we've got Jared Kushner stepping in run things for his stepdad - with no experience and again no staff.
Jared is his son-in-law. His position hinges on staying married to Ivanka
Yeah, where the hell did "Stepdad" come into my head from? I was thinking "wife's father" and somehow that translated as "stepdad".

Well...I think he probably wishes he could trade in his existing sons for Jared, so maybe that is what you were thinking...


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
Can he not just use the one actually being discussed?
Sure. Explain to me why duplicate votes for the same candidate ruin the system.
Because of the Duggers?

And why are the children of the Duggers less deserving of enfranchisement than anyone else?

Are you claiming that they'll suddenly become people you agree with when they turn 18? That you'll start to consider them responsible, informed citizens? Why are you okay with them voting at 18, but not before? Because they're still going to grow up and get to vote.


Irontruth wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
Can he not just use the one actually being discussed?
Sure. Explain to me why duplicate votes for the same candidate ruin the system.

Because NOT weighting votes based on fertility rates requires supporting arguments?

You made a bad analogy; it happens. Let it go.

If your offspring always vote the way you do, then votes are already weighted by fertility, we just delay it by a few years.

You can counter my point if you can find evidence that children don't vote the way their parents do... but then that would counter the original point and support my argument that this is an irrelevant point.

Either way, I win the point.

Well, I suspect, though it's difficult to prove since there's no voting record, that very young children would be most likely to vote like their parents. (Maybe essentially randomly if you go really young.) Teens would be more likely to rebel and vote the opposite and their votes would become increasingly independent of their parents as they moved into adulthood.

"Offspring always vote the way you do" when they turn 18 and can vote is a very different statement than pre-teens would.


There are already thousands, sometimes millions, of people who vote the same way as each other. How is kids voting the same as their parents any different?

And if you use the argument that Republicans have more kids than Democrats, how is that any different than putting in place voting rules that negatively impact African-Americans? Choosing the voting rules that best suit YOUR party is not democratic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Adults are considered to be responsible for there own actions legally. They are at some level participating as independent actors in our society. Working or attending school of their own volition, paying taxes, using various public services and infrastructure, and various other things. Having kids, getting married, and dealing with health care Children are...by the very nature, not.

Children generally speaking don't have the same laws apply to them. They are not allowed freedom to go wherever they want whenever they want. They still are expected to attend some sort of school or equivalent instruction. They are considered dependents for the purposes of taxes. They can't legally work at many jobs. And in general they are rather sheltered from most adult concerns that are likely to be influenced by their voting choices.

Children just are not equivalent to adults. It's a whole basic underpinning of our society. Sure biology and life experience is variable, and there isn't a magic age cut off point between adult and child. But I think you would find very very very few people who actually deal with or have children under the age of 16 that would agree that they are fully functioning adults.

I think getting kids involved in the voting process is commendable, but I would much rather prefer it done through school activities or special events at voting centers pitched to kids, rather than actually giving an 11 year old a ballot and ask them to rationally fill it out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Either way, I win the point.

Sure thing. Can we move on now?


Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
That's basically just giving parents extra votes.
Can he not just use the one actually being discussed?
Sure. Explain to me why duplicate votes for the same candidate ruin the system.
Because of the Duggers?

And why are the children of the Duggers less deserving of enfranchisement than anyone else?

Are you claiming that they'll suddenly become people you agree with when they turn 18? That you'll start to consider them responsible, informed citizens? Why are you okay with them voting at 18, but not before? Because they're still going to grow up and get to vote.

A ten year old will pretty much do what you tell them to; an eighteen year old less so.

2,751 to 2,800 of 4,260 << first < prev | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards