politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Sure are. They pay sales tax on their toys and candy
From their time working in the mines and getting a wage? Where do you live, pal?
From pocket money and birthday money, obviously. A lot of kids also get lunch money, and some 15 year olds even work at McDonald's
Buddy, you said ALL of its people. You realize there are pre-k kids with opinions that can write and fill in circles or press buttons? You want them voting?
Just trying to figure out what your end game here is. There’s something called experience and even brains are still developing into their 20s.
pre-k kids should vote if they want to. It's up to the individual.
But they can't vote and up to a certain point kids don't really differentiate from parents so you are effectively giving adults more votes for popping out kids.
If you were stranded on an island with 28 5-6 year olds, an adult teacher, and yourself would you run it like a democracy and let the kids vote?
If I were on a deserted island I'd run it anarchically. I wouldn't erect a state, democratic or not. But if we must have states, then we must also have democracy.
So you would let the 5 year olds die because you wouldn't just tell them what to do knowing they were 5
No. I don't think you understand anarchism.
I feel like you are dodging the concept that children beyond a certain age are capable of limited self determination that scales up as they become more capable.
No I'm not. I'm saying when they get to the age where they want to vote, let them.
Why would the standard be "want to vote" versus are capable of voting. We don't let kids drive cars at the age that they want to drive. The existing standard of 18 is better. I can very well see letting some 16 year olds vote based on having obtained some substantial responsibility within the community but it would be completely abused to give little upper class white kids yet another leg up so its safer to just make it either 16 or 18 for everyone.
There are no federal sales taxes in the us, so, care to try again?
Well I'm not American, I'm talking about my own country when I say no taxation without representation. The rest of what I said stands in America though
They aren't taxed. Their parents are taxed. The same parents who get to vote.
I think children have the right to own things, and if children own the goods they buy, children are taxed. What you're advocating is total parental control over children. That would harm so many kids! Especially queer kids. What if a trans boy spends his birthday money on a binder and hides it from his parents because he knows they'd throw him on the street if they saw it. Are you going to say the goods and services tax on the binder is a tax on the parents? No, that boy has his own property!
You are steady stuck on taxation. The actual point is that a baby that has just dropped out it's mothers womb screaming and crying and shitting on itself isn't capable of helping make decisions for their country. A 25 year old is clearly a fully capable adult at the height of their health and brain development if not maturity.
At some point between inception and 25 we pile increasing responsibility, rights, and privileges. A 3 minute old can't drive, read or understand a voter pamphlet hold a job, decide where they would like to go today, decide what they would like to eat, or realistically anything whatsoever. They have no rights other than the right for their caregiver to perform their duties ably to protect the safety and health by making all decisions for them.
So we have to choose a point between A and B when we think people are capable of taking on that added responsibility. Arguments can be made for different points or even appointing some users those privileges early based on capability. Some are wiser and smarter at 16 than others will be ever. That said the most ridiculous position is to provide that privilege at year zero. This is functionally identical to giving their parents extra votes.
If you are going to argue for giving parents extra votes argue that position directly.
Parents should under absolutely no circumstances be allowed to vote on their children's behalf. Voting should 100% be the kid's choice without any coersion or nonsense.
neither babies nor young children have the faculties for this task. 16-18 is literally the only reasonable choice
You understand this is a post about American politics?
In any case,
Where are you going to draw the line? Neonatals literally cannot do anything other than eat, sleep and look around at a blurry world. Do they get a vote?
What about toddlers? Who might be able to buy something with their parent’s money?
You’re going to have to set the line somewhere, and there’s going to be people disenfranchised. It’s that simple.
The age of majority, whatever that is in your country is usually the simplest and least offensive way to do it.
The minute a baby pops out of the womb, it has the right to vote. It will not be able to exercise that right until it can hold a pencil, but it theoretically has the right, and it can vote as soon as it's decided it wants to participate in politics.
When you say “hold a pencil”…. Do you mean simply holding it? Can some one help put it in their hand?
Do they have to scribble be able to scribble something? Can some one help with that?
What about the very old people who need some help with the pencil?
And this is ignoring the fact that a baby obviously cannot understand the implications of voting.
Same too with a toddler (most of whom can in fact “hold a pencil”
Edit, this is also ignoring the simple fact that children are represented; they simply cannot choose that representation.
Utter nonsense. I already feel like I'm surrounded by children in this conversation.
Naw. What's 'utter nonsense' is that you're unwilling to consider complications and criticism.
Children voting poses a lot of problems. you (more or less) espoused 2 qualifications. the first being that they express a desire to vote. Children- especially very young children- are super easy to manipulate into wanting to do things. Tom Sawyer's fence comes to mind. "gee isn't painting this fence fun? Pay me 2 bucks and I'll let you paint!"
It's why most religious circles will have children's programs. children are way more easily manipulated into forming beliefs that are then assimilated into a world view without any conscious consent on the child's part. They become so ingrained that as adults, childhood beliefs are incredibly hard to kick; even when you come to the belief that they were wrong. those beliefs are largely adopted from the parents.
In terms of children voting, what that means is that the parents are vastly more likely to be the ones to decide who the child votes for.
the second qualification, is an apparent ability to actually vote. taking your statement literally... it should be noted that infants have a grasping reflex that causes them to hold whatever is placed in their hand.
It's utterly nonsensical that you would expect strangers to be able to adequately assess whether a child has the capacity to understand the implications of their vote, as well as ascertaining whether an expressed desire to vote is genuinely from the child, or from undue influence from those around them. And pushing this point a bit further, to also ascertain whether or not that child is truly voting for how they see things- or if their parents are some how coercing that choice.
All of this leads, then to questions about if that child is being coerced to vote outside their best interests by their parents or some other adult.
Further, to your assertion that children don't have representation. again: they do. and that representation is (presumably) elected. What they do not have is the ability to participate in the deciding who that representation will be. unless you live in some authoritarian hellhole, it's unlikely that those representatives would refuse to hear the concerns of children (or indeed, teens), where they would not refuse an adult.
Nice ad hominem, though.