DiRtY $oUtH™ Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Hello again everyone. I was just thinking about the legal voting age which is currently 18. I myself feel that this number should be increased. The reason for me saying this is that being a senior in high school I see many politically misguided people...in other words, they don't know anything about politics and quite frankly, I don't want incompetent people deciding who will run this country. Let me give you an example: The other day a fellow classmate said that if Clinton could be in office again he vote for him simply because "He got head...he's a pimp." Taken as a joke or not, this is not the kind of person I want giving a free vote to an unworthy candidate. (Not targeting Clinton or Democrats in any way.) In addition, many friends that I know who graduated last year told me that they voted for whoever their family voted for. This demonstrates lack of the ability to make your own decisions. Therefore, you are not exercising the right to voice your opinion because you are not even basing the decision on your own beliefs. These are just some examples...All I'm saying is that some people are not as mature as they should be at age 18 and because of this they should not be put in the position to make important decisions such as who will take charge of one the most powerful nations on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 by 18 years a normal person is supposed to have a certain position, if he's not ,well then it's the pain in the a$$ of the nation. Either way, it's democracy, and it's the best out of the worst that we possess. In my opinion 18 year old kids must be responsible for the choices they make. And furthermore If the country has problems with education system it doesn't mean that if we just raise the number everything would be settled. That's a bit naive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 you know there are also middle aged people that said "I'd vote for Clinton again if I could, simply because he got head" so therefore your argument is void. People are people just because someone is 18 and stupid doesn't mean the person that's 18 and smart shouldn't be able to vote. Some people could say "raise vote age to 50 because my neighbor is a dumbass that can't even wipe himself much less efficiently vote." I think it's fine at 18 if it gets changed I think it should be set to atleast 17, or atleast match the drinking age to the voting age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShockV1.89 Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I agree with InsaneSith. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiRtY $oUtH™ Posted November 4, 2003 Author Share Posted November 4, 2003 By 18, one should just be getting out of high school, correct? Well, with all the stresses and work involved in high school, many teenagers do not get a chance to become politically informed. Therefore, they are expected to have fully developed political ideals by this age straight out of high school. I think they should be given time after this point to be allowed to evaluate the different aspects of politics and develop their own political ideals. I am not saying that they are not just sometimes immature, I am also saying that developing a solid political opinion takes time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 Originally posted by DiRtY $oUtH™ By 18, one should just be getting out of high school, correct? Well, with all the stresses and work involved in high school, many teenagers do not get a chance to become politically informed. Therefore, they are expected to have fully developed political ideals by this age straight out of high school. I think they should be given time after this point to be allowed to evaluate the different aspects of politics and develop their own political ideals. I am not saying that they are not just sometimes immature, I am also saying that developing a solid political opinion takes time. What about the adults with stressful jobs? Are you saying my mothers job as a Hemotology Oncology Nurse Practitioner, isn't stressful? She has to deal with kids from the ages of 2 - 19 dying each day, She tells me how the kids one day are so lively and happy then the next day they become so ill and then die. She has paperwork that when stacked is about 3 and a half feet tall. Are you honestly saying that's not stressful? My father deals with troubled youth at school are you telling me that him seeing these kids go through horrible things that they shouldn't have to suffer isn't stressful? My father and mother barely have enough time to talk to me and eat, let alone sleep(yet they still find a way to do so), They also aren't able to constantly keep up to date with politics, they know what they vote for and what all policies their vote is campaigning, But there are millions of American adults that have no idea, many of them I'm sure are just randomly voting. I have tons of disablities many of which myself, my family, and my doctors aren't even sure of what they are, I still make time to learn about the world and both sides of the issues. I may not pay full attention in school either but it doesn't mean I don't know the answers to the test questions, I do know one things though. I am compitent in my knowledge of politics. I understand how the voting system works, I understand how laws are established. I just have yet to find someone running for president that I would vote for. Also think about other adult professions that are stressful, are you trying to say cops aren't compitent enough to vote since they have so much stress? I also know many, MANY immature adults, all of which who have no idea what they want in a president, let alone a burger I know many 15 year olds with solid political ideas, hell sometimes I admire them for their knowledge on foriegn, local, and global politics. Just because a few people suck doesn't mean everyone is an asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amadeus Posted November 8, 2003 Share Posted November 8, 2003 There's always going to be an bad egg in every age group, as InsaneSith said. And also, if you ban eighteen year olds, you ban the people with good judgement as well as the people with bad. I hope I'll be able to express my opinion when I'm eighteen. And I hope others will too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 I think that age is far too important to most people these days. Age has very little to do with maturity. Some 13 year olds are more mature than some 24 year olds. I don't think that the voting age should be raised, because it has to start somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 No matter were its at, someone is always going to complain about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegietto Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 no i don't think so i think 18 is alot better then waiting to 21 i don't think that would be fair i mean most people can't wait to vote i can i don't really care about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 I have to agree that by the age of 18, people should at the knowledge and skills to vote intellegently. I must bring up, though, that job stress & family stress & whatever else shouldn't figure into voting age. After all, voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 because 18 year olds were old enough to be drafted - the right to vote is tied in with every American's responsibility to defend their country. 18 year old kids were doing their duty going off to Vietnam to fight and die for their country, and enough people were bothered by the fact that these young soldiers didn't even have the right to vote that the voting age was lowered to match the draft age. Many of our nation's principles are founded upon the idea of each and every citizen performing their civic duty. If no one ever showed up for jury duty, our court system would not function. The same is true of voting - when citizens do not care enough about their civic duty to be educated about the issues and candidates on the ballot, our system will inevitably fall apart. Voter ignorance and laziness has increased substantially in past years, but this simply means that we need to teach our children about the importance of civic duty and their responsibility to be educated before voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 18 is apropriate. I can tell you from my experience that age is no guarantee of maturity. Look at Bush, he's 60 and is still a provencial neanderthal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griff38 Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 18 is appropriate. I can tell you from my experience that age is no guarantee of maturity. Look at Bush, he's 60 and is still a provencial neanderthal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoman81 Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 As an Integrated Social Studies Ed major, 18 is fine. The limit was dropped from 21 to 18 during the Vietnam War because the draft could send people off to an unpopular war without them being able to say anything against it through the democratic system of our government. If I can find something to back that statement up, I will post it. Yes, students that are roughly 18 are basically graduating from high school. Yeah, high school was stressfull to me. College is a lot worse, get ready. Despite that, there is no reason that a person should not try to keep up on what is going on in their government. If the fact that many people may just punch their vote without knowing who is on the ballot, then get involved. There are plenty of non biased threads here that describe the Presidential Canidates here in this forum. If you leave high school without knowing anything about our government, then, sadly, you're teachers have failed you and have failed to do their jobs. My sugestion: Get involved. Read the newspapers. Watch the news. Spread the word. Come to your own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I don't think the voting age should be raised, though I do think many stupid 18-year olds need to actually think b4 voting. Their vote counts, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 The voting habits of 18 year olds doesn't mean a hill of beans to politicians. Wanna know why? Because so few young people actually vote. Now if the 18 - 28 demographic(s) would start registering in-mass, you would see a sudden shift in political attention to the needs and wants of young people. Education benifits would get better. Health care would get better. The music industry wouldn't have so much control over p2p.... etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcd1234 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I think that the viting age is just fine at 18. You are an adult at that age and you should have the power to help decide who is going to run the country and make decisions that affect their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit I don't think the voting age should be raised, though I do think many stupid 18-year olds need to actually think b4 voting. Their vote counts, after all. I know this doesn't have anything to do with the topic, but PLEASE, this is the SENATE, the place for logical debates over controversial issues and whatnot, could you at least TRY to spell out your words? b4 = before. The AIM-speak makes me want to put out my eyeses. But, just to be on topic, i'm with the majority. If I can get drafted into the military and be shipped off to war, I damn well better be able to choose who is leading this country and making the decisions that directly affect my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklighter Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I think 18 is a decent age. Sure you get incompetant people every now and then abusing their right to vote, but then I'm sure you get the same type of people of most ages. Good thing about having the voting age this low is so it gives the younger members of society (those leaving school, going to university, and broadening out into the big wide world) a chance to express their views and concerns on the political standpoint of the country, and influence it depending on their beliefs. So, I don't think it should be changed, not in my country anyways (UK). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Originally posted by griff38 18 is apropriate. I can tell you from my experience that age is no guarantee of maturity. Look at Bush, he's 60 and is still a provencial neanderthal. NEANDERTHAL?!?!?!? What did he do that makes him a neanderthal? (btw, provencial isn't a word, or at least it's not in my dictionary. ) Seriously though, dude, what did he do? Just curious, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 It was a slight mis-spelling. The word grif was refering to is provincial The third definition under the adjectives is probably the best fit for what grif was saying. Basically it boils down to Bush is 60 years old and he's an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Basically it boils down to Bush is 60 years old and he's an idiot. Now, really, this is just a lame excuse used by people who don't know any better. Too often people equate a midwester accent with a lack of intellegence, but President Bush is no idiot. He's intellegent enough to look at history and see that tax cuts stimulate the economy. He's intellegent enough to look at history and see that evil must be confronted. And if that doesn't cut it for you, the man did graduate from Yale - and it takes more than an idiot to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 He's intelligent enough to see the country get attacked by group A and therefore counter-attack Group B because he was easier to find. He's intelligent enough to provoke North Korea into an nuclear arms race with an ethnocentric comment like, "axis of evil." He's intelligent enough to cut taxes at a time when government spending is at an all time high. He's intelligent enough to note that "trickle-down" economics don't work... but try it again just in case. He's intelligent enough to swindle the stock holders of Harken Oil. He's intelligent enough to squander just about every last bit of good will our country received following 9/11 by taking advantage of the moment to pursue the neo-conservative agenda of invading Iraq in an imperialist aggression. Yeah... he's intelligent. Originally posted by rccar328 And if that doesn't cut it for you, the man did graduate from Yale - and it takes more than an idiot to do that. Yeah... but what was his grade point average? All it takes to graduate Yale is enough money to get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 He's intelligent enough to provoke North Korea into an nuclear arms race with an ethnocentric comment like, "axis of evil." According to Webster's, ethnocentric means, "characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior." http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ethnocentric So...are you saying that just because our President believes that the most prosperous and most powerful nation in the world is superior it is wrong for him to condemn leaders as transparently evil as Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il? We have two options: we can either confront this evil now, or leave it for our children to deal with. One of the Democratic Party's main arguments against the deficit is that if we do not take care of it, our children will have to, and I agree. The same is true with evil. Would you rather deal with the evil in our world now, or leave it for our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. Personally, I believe that the US is the greatest nation in the world - we are an extremely prosperous, extremely powerful nation that was built on the principles of freedom and equality - and over the years we have grown in these principles. By saying that we should not confront these evils, you are saying that we should not "impose" freedom on the peoples of these nations. In the Declaration of Independance, one of America's founding documents, it says, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. If we are to continue our nation in the tradition of this document, do we not have a moral obligation to assist peoples across the world in their struggle for freedom from oppression? If the President's comments were "ethnocentric," it is because prosperity is superior to poverty; freedom is superior to oppression; good is superior to evil. I am proud to have a president who is willing to confront evil in our time instead of denying the existence of evil and leaving it for future generations. As for "imperialist aggression," we are not engaging in a military takeover of Iraq. We are there to free an oppressed people and remove an openly hostile dictator. See http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=121159 for a more thurough description of the reasons we went into Iraq. As for calling Bush a neanderthal, it was my understanding that this was a forum for civilized debate, not foolish bickering and name-calling. He was intellegent enough to be elected President, is intellegent enough to recognise evil in our world, and is intellegent enough to know that evil that is not confronted is left for future generations to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 We aren't the world police. It's not our job to say "YOU ARE EVIL!" and then spread justice with the sword. Just because something may some day BECOME a threat, we cannot act on it, because it just as easily could NOT be a threat, and then all those people who DIED, died needlessly. Ever see Minority Report? Good example there. You can't predict the future because we have CHOICE, and choice can change a lot of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.