| 1 person 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.
This past weekend in New Hampshire:
More than 100 people gather outside NH Statehouse to protect ballot access
People sure loved our "Drop the Elephant, Dump the Ass, Build a Party of the Working Class!" sign. Also, sign of the times: nondescript white dude from upstate accosts us and says we have to meet his son. Get introduced to a shy and sulky teenager who's been reading our stuff online. He doesn't say much, shy and sulky teenager after all, but his father keeps telling us how his son turned him on to Comrade Kshama and how great she is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A ten year old will pretty much do what you tell them to; an eighteen year old less so.Because of the Duggers?Sure. Explain to me why duplicate votes for the same candidate ruin the system.That's basically just giving parents extra votes.Can he not just use the one actually being discussed?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.
That's true, alot of 18 year olds didn't listen to Sen. Sanders telling them to vote last November.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's true, alot of 18 year olds didn't listen to Sen. Sanders telling them to vote last November.
That's because he was telling them to vote for Hillary.
A ten year old will pretty much do what you tell them to; an eighteen year old less so.Because of the Duggers?Sure. Explain to me why duplicate votes for the same candidate ruin the system.That's basically just giving parents extra votes.Can he not just use the one actually being discussed?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.
Again, that's an argument of "duplicate votes". We already have "duplicate votes" as hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people vote for the same candidate. The system is built around trying to get more votes than your opponent. What you are describing is a fundamental aspect of how we vote.
Interestingly enough, studies show that parents who foist their politics heavily onto their children end up getting children who rebel and choose the other party later in life. So, larger republican families who push their kids to vote the way the parents do would produce more republican votes in the short term, but potentially produce more democrat votes in the long term.
Additionally, research has shown that even as young as five kids can start rejecting the values of their parents. Particularly when their parents values conflict with those of broader society (and the kid gets exposed to them, such as by going to school). This isn't guaranteed, or across the board for all values the parent holds, but it does happen.
The point of youth enfranchisement is to engage kids younger so they are more likely to engage with government, thereby more likely to insist that government represents their values throughout their life. If low voting rates are a concern for you, and you'd like to see higher voter turnout, lowering the minimum age would have that effect over the long run.
Of course, if you're right and we can't trust family members to make independent decisions, perhaps we should just limit votes to one per household. That would also make it fair for single people who live alone, instead of weighting the votes of their household by 1/2. Consider property taxes, which often pay for schools. Single people shouldn't have that decision to raise their taxes made for them by married people. One vote per household would be fair.
Oh god, fine, Iron, you're absolutely right, we should lower the voting age to 6; happy?
Oh god, fine, Iron, you're absolutely right, we should lower the voting age to 6; happy?
There actually are some legitimate reasons to not let them vote, but people have to move beyond the reasons that were used against women/blacks/asians/etc. And if people don't want to debate me on the issue, that's fine. But if people do engage with me on a topic I'm interested in, don't be mad at me.
I'm interested in the topic and will respond. If you aren't... well... don't?
As for being on topic, I'm as on topic as people declaring George Soros in charge of the party and everything we little people do irrelevant, because if true, none of this is relevant to the topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that was a passing Republican who only posts about once a month.
But I'm with you, citizen.
Lower the voting age!
Even if voting is still for ninnies!
All out for May Day! Strike, strike, strike!
Vive le Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalt!!!!!!
I think each person's votes should count the same. One person, one vote.
Children are people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say lower it at least to fifteen, sixteen, whatever age you can get a job at in your state. I think agricultural workers can still start younger, and I'd give them the franchise, too, even though that probably would end up increasing the Duggar vote.
I think each person's votes should count the same. One person, one vote.
Children are people.
Only barely, and as was stated earlier up-thread, they already aren't treated equally compared to adults (rightfully so) in a LOT of aspects of life. If children should be given the right to vote because they should be allowed the same opportunities as adults, then we might as well repeal those pesky child labor laws too, since the same logic applies.
Yup, it might be that 10 is too young, but that's not a bad way to go about it; if you're old enough to work, you're old enough to vote.
You could even add a voting registration section to the W2, so the pertinent information gets sent to the State, as an additional (not the only) way to register to vote, plus give updated voter information to the voter rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd lower R-rated movies to 15, too.
Only barely, and as was stated earlier up-thread, they already aren't treated equally compared to adults (rightfully so) in a LOT of aspects of life. If children should be given the right to vote because they should be allowed the same opportunities as adults, then we might as well repeal those pesky child labor laws too, since the same logic applies.I think each person's votes should count the same. One person, one vote.
Children are people.
False equivalency. I'm not saying anything else can/should/needs to change.
Children are citizens, they do have rights and they should be allowed to vote to protect them. There are issues today, such as climate change, which will have much greater effect on a 15 y/o alive right now, then they will for a 75 y/o. You can even see it in polling data, 65+ is much more resistant to doing anything about climate change, while 18-24 are significantly in favor of doing something. Even polling just republicans of that age produces a majority of people willing to pay extra money to mitigate climate change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of voting rights...
Anyone ever find anything the Democrats have done against Crosscheck?
Seems like Hillary could have easily won with those 7 million potential votes... I would think the Democrats would be more concerned about that then Russia, Jill Stein, Comey, Bernie, etc. but I can't find anything.
Correction: It looks like 1.1 million were actually removed out of 7.2 million on the list.
EDIT: To be clear, I never said there is "no way" to change things. I just think voting for candidates who are bought off by special interests has been shown to be a failing strategy. Unless you are very wealthy, a vote is one of the few levers you have in the system. Don't piss it away on candidates who have intense financial incentive to throw you under the bus.
Only barely, and as was stated earlier up-thread, they already aren't treated equally compared to adults (rightfully so) in a LOT of aspects of life. If children should be given the right to vote because they should be allowed the same opportunities as adults, then we might as well repeal those pesky child labor laws too, since the same logic applies.I think each person's votes should count the same. One person, one vote.
Children are people.
In addition, most laws governing children are intended to protect them from something specific.
What is the specific harm that will happen to a child if they vote?
In a move that surprises no one, Senate Republicans "go nuclear"on the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.
While this probably doesn't bode for the country as a whole, I think it actually helps the Democrats. At least now there won't be any incentive to try to compromise with those who have no interest in actually doing so.
Only barely, and as was stated earlier up-thread, they already aren't treated equally compared to adults (rightfully so) in a LOT of aspects of life. If children should be given the right to vote because they should be allowed the same opportunities as adults, then we might as well repeal those pesky child labor laws too, since the same logic applies.I think each person's votes should count the same. One person, one vote.
Children are people.
In addition, most laws governing children are intended to protect them from something specific.
What is the specific harm that will happen to a child if they vote?
Not really protecting the kids in this case, so much as protecting the rest of us. As uninformed as the average voter is, adding a ton of even less informed kids to the mix is not a good move, especially not when any future benefit is purely speculative.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is the specific harm that will happen to a child if they vote?
S%!~ty president like Trump?
Voting is theoretically considered one of the more serious decisions you can make in a society. It is difficult to argue that someone should be able to make that kind of decision, without also granting them the right to make decisions about marriage, driving, alcohol tobacco and other drugs, self determination (rather then parental control), etc. etc. Also, with the right to make such decisions comes with acceptance of responsibilities such legal treatment as an adult when it comes to crimes and things like bankruptcy, etc. It is difficult to grant someone rights that may seem positive like voting, without also extending responsibility that may be have negative consequences like getting drafted or tried as an adult for a crime.
Either way, it has almost nothing to do with the future of the democratic party, so it belongs in a different thread.
In a move that surprises no one, Senate Republicans "go nuclear"on the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.
While this probably doesn't bode for the country as a whole, I think it actually helps the Democrats. At least now there won't be any incentive to try to compromise with those who have no interest in actually doing so.
Good for Dems in the future? Bad? Yes/no/maybe? I'm really trying to get this thread back on topic. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good for Dems in the future? Bad? Yes/no/maybe? I'm really trying to get this thread back on topic. ;-)
If they learn their lesson that they cannot compromise with republicans good. If they let lucy pull the football away next time they're in power, bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they learn their lesson that they cannot compromise with republicans good. If they let lucy pull the football away next time they're in power, bad.
In this context, wouldn't that essentially require that the Democrats put the judicial filibuster back in place at a time when they themselves wouldn't need it? And do so for nothing more than a promise from Republicans to "play nice in the future"?
I really hope they're not that stupid.
I really hope they're not that stupid.
I have stopped underestimating the power of stupid.
What is the specific harm that will happen to a child if they vote?S+$*ty president like Trump?
Voting is theoretically considered one of the more serious decisions you can make in a society. It is difficult to argue that someone should be able to make that kind of decision, without also granting them the right to make decisions about marriage, driving, alcohol tobacco and other drugs, self determination (rather then parental control), etc. etc. Also, with the right to make such decisions comes with acceptance of responsibilities such legal treatment as an adult when it comes to crimes and things like bankruptcy, etc. It is difficult to grant someone rights that may seem positive like voting, without also extending responsibility that may be have negative consequences like getting drafted or tried as an adult for a crime.
Either way, it has almost nothing to do with the future of the democratic party, so it belongs in a different thread.
Children weren't allowed to vote last election. Seems odd that you'd use last election as evidence against them. That mess is the product of only adults voting.
But exit polls had Trump losing the 18-24 age group by 19 points. Every age category swung more and more in his favor, with 65+ going Trump by 7 points. It seems like if you wanted Trump to be less likely to win, you'd want additional younger voters. More young voters could have kept him out of office.
If you don't want to talk about it, don't respond. Seems pretty simple. There's all sorts of stuff I don't want to talk about in this thread (and others)... I don't respond to it. The thread is over 2k posts, don't try to police it being "on topic."
Of course, this is only the filibuster for nominees. The legislative one remains in place for now. I think the arguments are better for Republicans to keep it and I think it may be worth Democrats sacrificing a bit to do so.
I disagree. Republicans aren't going to keep it for very long. It'll last until there is wide Republican support for a bill, but zero Democrat votes for it.
If a non-reconciliation bill for health care passes the house, that appeals to senate republicans, they'll remove the filibuster for legislation in order to pass it. The same goes for any broad, sweeping tax reform bill. The filibuster will remain only as long as Republicans stick to using reconciliation to pass key legislation.
Vermont and Maryland take a step back from the brink:
Vermont Senate repeals call for constitutional convention
Maryland rescinded all past calls for a constitutional convention
If we continue on the path we’re on right now, the very next time there’s a legislative proposal that one side of the aisle feels is so important they cannot let their base down, the pressure builds, then we’re going to vote the nuclear option on the legislative piece,” he said.
“That’s what will happen. Somebody will do it.”
That was from Sen. Bob Corker last week. This week he voted to remove the filibuster. He knows the road we're going down, he knows where it'll end. Yet he still voted to do it.
There were multiple Republican senators who have spoken out against the "nuclear option", and warned about the consequences of removing the filibuster. They ALL voted to remove it.
If Trump's approval continues to crater, the GOP may well hesitate to remove the legislative filibuster out of fear that they'll just be handing it over to the Democrats.
They could take it out, and try to put it back in on their way out, and then require 60 votes for a rules change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the kind of war Trump wages. This new drone warfare doesn't cost any lives and seeing as not even the US government is able to audit the Pentagon the US public has no idea how much the war is costing. If there's a ground fight and bodies start coming back to the US, sure, then I agree it's going to backfire, but if there's clear military targets then this is what the US is good at.Well, Trump is bombing Syria, and the one thing that gets numbers up amongst maniacs is bombing. If he can get into a sustained war without suffering serious casualties his numbers will probably go back up.Maybe. I think we're still far to war-weary for that to work. It only really worked for Bush because of 9/11 anyway. Absent that kind of shock, it's not going to be huge boost. Certainly not a lasting one, since there is no chance of a sustained war in Syria that doesn't turn into an Iraq style disaster. At best.Ah, so more drone strikes and bombing raids like we've been doing for years, but now adding Syrian government targets to the list. Take the pressure off Daesh and help them retake ground. That'll help.
Also, make sure to keep Russia informed so we don't accidentally hit their forces and start WWIII. They can keep Assad posted so we don't do too much real damage.
Might well be the intent here and it might work in the short term, taking the focus off his scandals for a few days, but it's going to be real hard for him to rally the country around this on any larger scale.
The WH is spinning this as "Leadership Week" and a pro-Trump PAC is explicitly using the bombings in fundraising.
Somewhat disgustingly, Fareed Zakaria had a comment along the lines of "Last night Donald Trump became president." I'm sure we'll get another bevy of editorials about how Trump is finally taking this seriously and we'll see a big pivot to actual governance.
Trump always puts his foot back in his mouth, after some little moment that makes him seem somewhat normal. See the week of the State of Union, and how fast the good will disintegrated after a fairly positive take from that.
I think the Syrian strike was just a warning shot, basically "if you don't use chemical weapons, we are willing to leave you alone". I don't actually see this as opening up a new long term conflict
Also...from the WH pov, this is something they can hold up and point while saying "SEE WE ARE NOT RUSSIA'S LACKEYS".