A 12 years can give birth. Nature seems to think they are old and mature enough to care for a baby. Biology is a pretty wacky reason to said what age you can vote, but if you must, you can argue whatever you want. Lower it to 12, even 10. Or, raise it to never - why - because the brain is never ever in a non-developing stage. Well, it does get there - when you are brain dead, literally. If you think the problem is “mentally undeveloped” shouldn’t vote, you also got a big issue. The implication is someone that is mentally developed can maker wiser, more informed, well thoughts out decision on voting. If that’s the problem you want to solve, an age limit isn’t terribly effective. Instead, you should have some type of mental test. Both too young, too old (mentally declined or declining), too easily subjected to propaganda.... should then be excluded. Heck, banning Fox News and other misleading popular media to the mass would make the public wiser and is a more effective method of having a wiser voting populace. Personally, age limit isn’t that necessary. Voting is an active form of activity of personal choice with no requirement that you must vote, and that itself is a strong natural barrier to “weed” out those that aren’t interested enough to invest their time (research included) to go vote. Those that want to vote should just be able to vote. The decision on excluding some of them are unfair, and similar exclusion decision can be made more precisely individually and toward any age group, especially older “mentally declining” group. Instead we choose an easy (lazy) method - age- and apply it to all. If you lower the age to 16 or even 14, what do you think it means? Probably noise. Not that many young folks feel compelled to go voting. But those that are compelled, are then much more likely to do their research and make a more informed personal choice in who to vote for —- I see no reason to exclude this group.
See, all of the things you bring up have different smaller nuances. But I don't think that defacto means I'm in favor of 25 for all of them. Largely because the mental needs are lower. Voting should be offered to 25 year olds because it requires life experience and knowledge, and is a very big decision. Legally though, once you're an adult you get the right so I don't think legally it would ever fly so this argument is pointless. I personally would like the world to see more informed voters and we'd be able to choose better without all the "round up the youth vote" nonsense you see from people offering high emotional arguments and false promises of free stuff. The reason far left people want younger voters is obvious, and that's because they're easier to hoodwink because they are low information voters with no world experience and they are impressionable. It's easier to sell those types of people their bad ideas, because once people grow up they turn away from their false offers of free everything and what not. Once they start paying taxes they suddenly they think differently. Really 18 is fine, and within the law. I would argue that 25 is a more ideal age for the task of voting though. Still not gonna happen so calm down.
I have never been a proponent of raising the voting age but when you think about it the drinking age is now 21 and the tobacco purchase age is now being raised to 21 in some states including Texas. These age limits were raised to a higher age because they believed people under 21 were not mature enough to make good decisions and thus could hurt themselves or others. The quote below is from an article about gun laws. The right to purchase guns is a Constitutional right just as voting is yet many on the left would argue the age to purchase them should be 21 or higher.and I would tend to agree with them. https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/
lol the far left just wants young people to have the vote cause it increases their voter base overnight. There is not another reason. I am a strong proponent of keeping it 18 but if you want to argue changing it, it actually would be more logical to change it higher and not lower.
I'm not talking about articles you bozo. Where are the graphs shown on broadcast tv? Pay attention for the love of god.
@biff17 you sure you wanna go up against the yang gang? You gonna lose every single time brother. Don't do this to yourself.
It's no different than Ron Paul back in the day. He has loyal supporters that talk about him a lot. He generates very little interest from anyone else. It's his job to force himself into the conversation and make himself relevant. That's part of what makes you a good President. It's not the media's job to prop him up. The rest of the candidates all have extended time in the public eye and a record to scrutinize and thus more things to talk about. He doesn't, so he's going to get talked about less. The whininess is so absurd.
All I see is positive press for Yang -- Biden on the other hand is getting hit hard from the right and left especially the ultra libs.
This is a really good point. It's worth analyzing media mentions in terms of the positive vs negative coverage. de Blasio and Beto get talked about a lot, but I suspect almost all of it is about how much of a disaster their campaigns are.
I think it's a fair point. To me I see a mix for Yang. Some still referencing him as a punchline (Colbert has taken some shots at him as a kind of loon, and MSNBC, as in the previous page of this thread, listed his most obscure bits of policy to paint a loony picture) but most of the MSM pieces and interviews have the "wow, some people really like this guy -- he's overperforming!" angle. That's far more prevalent. I totally agree with your previous point: candidates get more coverage and stories when they have a more long-term established public profile for viewers and journalists alike. I would like to think Yang can make a good showing in the coming debate, but I think it's his Waterloo. 10 people are way too many for one stage, and the media and voters alike are mainly hungry to get to a smaller group of "real contenders" (TM).
They are just stealing a page out of the conservative playbook which opposes Motor Voter, Voter ID, Early Voting, Internet Voting, ...
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/po...0190906-rqekljbi2nefbni53dg3xgp2ni-story.html https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/joe-biden-hillary-clinton-trump-access-hollywood https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...ut-iraq-shows-why-our-nation-has-so-many-wars https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-not-even-his-own-wife?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Here's a some examples of what I'm talking about -- I believe I see more negatives about Biden than positives and they generally read as hit pieces.
Yeah, I wish 11 candidates had qualfiied, and we could have had one more split debate, but this time with 5 and 6 people so everyone could get more airtime. This next debate seems like it will be Biden vs Sanders/Warren, with a mix of Harris and Pete, with everyone else being a total afterthought.
Would you agree that it's the media's job to expose the voters to all their options ,not just the candidate of their choosing? When we need to purchase something that we have very little knowledge of, don't we want the salesman to find what you need instead of selling his/her preference?
Yes - to an extent. It's really the candidates' job to do that. But the media hosts debates for candidates to get exposure and lets them come on air plenty. And if voters respond positively to particular candidates (see Harris after the first debate), their polls rise, and then those candidates get more general airtime. But beyond that, the news media's job is to cover the news, and the 2%er candidates are not really news. Yang bombed the first debate and didn't move the needle on the polls in the 2nd debate. He needs to do a lot better in debate #3 & #4. I don't want the media to be the salesmen. They should report the news rather than make it. I want the candidates to demonstrate the ability to take advantage of the opportunities they are given - that gives me an indication of how they might lead if they were President.
That's the thing it's not a tiny part it's the main thing his supporters point to. And it's a large part of his Twitter post.
