• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lower the voting age in America to 16

Agree or Disagree?


  • Total voters
    89
Not really, but if it did, all it would say is that they don't pander to people with their hands out for short term gain.
:ROFLMAO:
Your opinions are the ones that are not valid.
Such low effort.
You didn't even argue any points
I soundly defeated your ridiculous points. Seriously, you should read the posts before you reply to them.
you just blanket deny everything and call it rebutted, its intellectually lazy as hell.
Thank you for demonstrating you didn't read the post.
 
:ROFLMAO:

Such low effort.

I soundly defeated your ridiculous points. Seriously, you should read the posts before you reply to them.

Thank you for demonstrating you didn't read the post.

For someone who didn't even have the guts to vote in the poll, you sure seem to have a high opinion of yourself.

1664993700677.png
 
For someone who didn't even have the guts to vote in the poll
I don't think I've ever voted in a single poll on this forum. I'm not exactly sure what point you think you're making...is it your position that having the second most posts in the thread (40 with this one) somehow makes my position less obvious than if I was 1 of many in a poll? If so, please explain how you think that makes sense.
, you sure seem to have a high opinion of yourself.
It's well-earned, I can assure you.
 
Sorry, climate scare and gender bending just aren't sustainable. The left's going to have to pitch their rainbow tents someplace else. ;)

Nope. It's here to stay. Get real mad about it.
 
Did you know that when you mix hyperbole and bullshit you get more of both? Wait, I know you do, your posts are an example of that.

Mm, no. What the MAGA freaks did on 1/6 was a betrayal of the American revolution.

And here you are making excuses for them.
 
We are talking about politicians here. They really don't get cancelled, they know what actions will get them voted out of office. Arguing she was cancelled is just phony as hell. She lives and dies by approval rating and she knows it.
The only reason she was canceled was acknowledging that the Drumpf lost the election & incited an insurrection. Her votes were 98% with the Drumpf.
 
Yes, but no lower. Also I'd imagine only a small portion would bother to vote.
 
Mm, no. What the MAGA freaks did on 1/6 was a betrayal of the American revolution.

And here you are making excuses for them.
Nope. Expecting they get due process and are treated humanely, yes.
 
The only reason she was canceled was acknowledging that the Drumpf lost the election & incited an insurrection. Her votes were 98% with the Drumpf.
You would think she could read a room by now.
 
Not always.

Extending the mandate is always good.

One of the things the Soviets always bragged about

Oh come on. Faking elections is not extending the mandate.

was their 100% voter turnout, and our nation and political system were created by men educated in things like history and political philosophy.

So now you're in favor of disenfranchising 80% of the American people because their education does not fit them to vote?

I don’t think playing with G.I. Joes or learning how to be a TikTok influencer would have properly prepared them for that.

This is a very familiar line in the thread. "[1] Most adults are competent, therefore all adults can vote. [2] But most 16 yo's are not competent, therefore neither they nor 17 yo's can vote."

But it's a facile argument, since the first claim [1] defines "competent" so the second claim [2] is always true. The majority of adults are just barely competent to vote, wouldn't you say?
 
You would think she could read a room by now.

Not a room of her own primary voters. But I'll remember her fondly if she wants to try again, somewhere less God-forsaken than Wyoming.
 
Me, too, other than the kayaking part. And I like partying with gay people. They’re fun, and know what beer is.

Beer is urine with bubbles in it. Anyone who cares about their waistline drinks white wine, or spirits with a low-carb mixer.
 
Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Ecuador, Guernsy and Isle of Man, Malta, Nicaragua, Scotland and Wales have a voting age of 16.

East Timor, Greece and Indonesia have a voting age of 17. Indonesia also has the interesting rule that military and police cannot vote.

Perhaps opponents of lowering the age would be mollified if all civil servants were disqualified? Other than military, I'm sure they lean to the left and there are about 2.9 million Federal. But many more for State and Local government: 18.28 million.

Compare with the number of 16 and 17 year olds, only about 7 million.
 
Voting is such a joke.

Half the voters don't even vote.
Half of those that vote are idiots.
Half of the other voters are just partisan hacks, corrupt, etc.
so you are left with about 13% of the eligible voters that are pretty well informed and that are voting according to issues.

A . Total . Joke
 
Yours cleaves to a radically charged hive mind. The rest of the world just wants to live its life without left-wing interference.
The best of the world are quite socialist. Actual socialist, not insta-commie based only on the word y’all refuse to understand because that would mean you’ve been dumb for god knows how long.
 
So now you're in favor of disenfranchising 80% of the American people because their education does not fit them to vote?

No, children can vote. It just shouldn’t count. Extending suffrage to immature, ignorant people is not a good plan.


This is a very familiar line in the thread. "[1] Most adults are competent, therefore all adults can vote. [2] But most 16 yo's are not competent, therefore neither they nor 17 yo's can vote."

But it's a facile argument, since the first claim [1] defines "competent" so the second claim [2] is always true. The majority of adults are just barely competent to vote, wouldn't you say?

So because we let the rooster strut the yard we might as well open the gate and let the hens and chicks out, too, eh? Makes perfect sense.

Anyway, a facile argument is saying to someone that they should have the power to decide the fate of the civilization at the voting booth, but even when they’re years older they don’t have the maturity to own a gun. And, yeah, there’s a reason people who are adjudged to be mentally incompetent can’t vote.
 
Last edited:
imo most 16 year olds are still under the influence of their parents beliefs and have not been exposed to the different belief systems of others.......
 
The best of the world are quite socialist. Actual socialist, not insta-commie based only on the word y’all refuse to understand because that would mean you’ve been dumb for god knows how long.
"Actual socialist" meaning they want zero private property and the means of production are owned and controlled by the state?
 
"Actual socialist" meaning they want zero private property and the means of production are owned and controlled by the state?
No, that would be the Talk Radio Conservative definition. The one where it’s the exact same thing as Soviet ”communism”, where there was never any plan for a workers paradise nor dissolution of the Vanguard. They just tricked the russians into putting them in power instead of the czars.

Socialism just puts society first, instead of capital being first like in capitalism. Communism is communal and does include state ownership of the means of production.

None of the societies the left points to are communist by that definition. Businesses are privately owned.

Why the **** don’t you know this already? I know damned well it’s been explained to you. Is it some lack of mental capacity in conservatives?

Or just a steady diet of conservative media?
 
No, that would be the Talk Radio Conservative definition. The one where it’s the exact same thing as Soviet ”communism”, where there was never any plan for a workers paradise nor dissolution of the Vanguard. They just tricked the russians into putting them in power instead of the czars.

Socialism just puts society first, instead of capital being first like in capitalism. Communism is communal and does include state ownership of the means of production.

None of the societies the left points to are communist by that definition. Businesses are privately owned.

Why the **** don’t you know this already? I know damned well it’s been explained to you. Is it some lack of mental capacity in conservatives?

Or just a steady diet of conservative media?
Yup to all that ^^^^^^
 
No, children can vote. It just shouldn’t count. Extending suffrage to immature, ignorant people is not a good plan.


"Not a good idea" isn't a strong argument.

So because we let the rooster strut the yard we might as well open the gate and let the hens and chicks out, too, eh? Makes perfect sense.

Another argument by analogy. Not a strong argument.

Anyway, a facile argument is saying to someone that they should have the power to decide the fate of the civilization at the voting booth, but even when they’re years older they don’t have the maturity to own a gun. And, yeah, there’s a reason people who are adjudged to be mentally incompetent can’t vote.

Except we don't look at people's school records, or their work records, and adjudge them unfit to vote. We can only take the vote off mentally ill people if they've been involuntarily admitted to treatment.

So that's another argument by analogy, but even weaker than "roosters and hens".

I think you missed my point. By granting the vote to all adults (other than those with a court process, mental health or criminal) we are DEFINING "mature and responsible" at a very low level which most 16 yo's would meet easily.

There is no justice in applying one rule to a group which is 51% OK, but another rule to some other group which is only 33% OK.

So how do I justify other restrictions on youth, like gun ownership or right to have sex with whoever they like (without getting that person in trouble)? Well I justify it by protecting the young person themselves from negative consequences of some choices. That does not apply to voting: there are no negative consequences for the individual voter.
 
Grace Meng (D-NY) announced today that she reintroduced legislation in the House of Representatives to lower the voting age in America to 16 years old.
Why not give voting rights to babies and toddlers as well then?
 
Back
Top Bottom