Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Technically, that would apply at 14, 12 and so on as well c.f climate change. With some people that young one might argue that the brain parts involved in decision making aren't developed enough for making such complex decisions, although if memory serves there is a bit of scientific disagreement on this question.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI liked the idea of a "tiered" system of voting rights someone brought up when discussing this topic earlier. Something like 15 for strictly local (town/city level elections), 16 for County elections, 17 for State-level elections, and 18 for Federal elections. How well that'd work in practice, however, is the trouble - how many kids would just vote the way their parents tell them to?
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"And which of those reasons wouldn’t also apply to stripping the vote from people over either the retirement age or the average life expectancy age?
That’s they’re dependant on others? That they’re not contributing to society by being part of the workforce? That their brains are not properly able to process the information needed to make an informed vote choice? That they are normally in the care of others who could manipulate their vote? That they are to far removed from being an active member of society with a serious stake in what government does?
There are good reasons to not let children vote, but they also work jsut as well for why we shouldn’t let the very old vote.
That’s how many adults vote, should their votes not be counted either?
Edited by Silasw on Mar 11th 2019 at 9:05:58 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranChildren are also otherwise restricted in what they can do as regards to adults, and offered a large amount of extra legal protections.
It's not a bad argument that until you're in a position to take on all the other responsibilities and restrictions of being an adult, you shouldn't have a direct say in the people that make those laws. Old people have been able to do that.
The extra legal protection thing is pretty iffy, sure sometimes but it’s also legal to beat a family member if they’re young enough and your child, in many US states it’s legal to have them tortured because of their sexuality.
In the end children are some of the most vulnerable members of society, and we deny them the right to vote themselves protections from other member of society.
Plus we give extra protections to the elderly, social security, Medicare, adult protection services, elder abuse laws, ect... Hell people in assisted living facilities or with careers can still vote, but they’ve had controls put on their life because they’re not capable of being responsible for their own safety.
Like I get the arguments against letting kids vote, I’ve probably lived the best case scenario possible for preparing children to vote, and some of us wouldn’t have been ready at an early age (though I think we’d have been good by 15), hell im sure I can find kids I went to school with who even years after leaving can’t make an informed choice come election time, but all the arguments seem to work just as well for stripping the very old of the vote as well.
Edited by Silasw on Mar 11th 2019 at 9:24:42 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranStacey Adams is not ruling out a run for President.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/11/politics/stacey-abrams-2020-sxsw/index.html
Well, at the very least, this primary is going to be exciting.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.We set a number of arbitrary age barriers to adulthood largely because it's too difficult to create a foolproof test that would establish some standard of "maturity". Older civilizations had tests like "participate in a hunt" or "kill your first enemy", but we can't really do that these days.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 11th 2019 at 5:35:39 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Like I get the arguments against letting kids vote, I’ve probably lived the best case scenario possible for preparing children to vote, and some of us wouldn’t have been ready at an early age (though I think we’d have been good by 15), hell im sure I can find kids I went to school with who even years after leaving can’t make an informed choice come election time, but all the arguments seem to work just as well for stripping the very old of the vote as well. Or you know adults in general. When one looks at some of the motives that voters cite and things like "donkey vote" you certainly wonder...
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI fail to see a meaningful difference between someone nto having proven themselves able to do something and having proven themselves unable after having previously been able to do it, past performance is not inherently representative of future performance.
If the argument is that people who can’t take on the other responsibilities of being an adult shouldn’t be able to vote that’s a solid one, but it applies both to both people not yet able to take on the responsibilities and people no longer able to take on the responsibilities.
Sure but we know from experience that limiting the ability of people in general to vote does not end up being done based on ability but instead based on the powerful oppressing the powerless. So as nice as it sounds in theory it’s not something that should ever be done.
![]()
I mean we could try, one idea is that we introduce such a test as an option for younger people who want to vote, so everyone can vote at 18, but a person under 18 can vote if they pass a specific test that shows they’re ready for the responsibility of voting.
Edited by Silasw on Mar 11th 2019 at 9:55:47 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAn intelligence check is a bad idea. That was how they kept black people from voting back in the day.
Leviticus 19:34Yeah a mandatory test to be able to vote would just be used to take the vote away from people who need it most, an optional one for people who currently can’t vote might work however.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyranhttps://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2019/03/11/day-781/
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/11/702171200/trump-seeks-more-border-wall-funding-in-new-budget
2/ Trump claimed that "the Democrats hate Jewish people" during a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago. He said he didn't understand how anyone could vote for a Democrat and that they've become the "anti-Jewish party." Trump also speculated that he would be at 98% in the polls if he were to run to become the prime minister of Israel. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, meanwhile, refused to say whether Trump believes Democrats hate Jewish people, saying "I think you should ask Democrats." (Axios / The Hill)
Trump tried to persuade Republican donors not a trust a video where he called the CEO of Apple "Tim Apple." Trump told the donors that he actually said "Tim Cook Apple" really fast, but the "Cook" part of the sentence was soft. Later, Trump claimed he intentionally said "Tim/Apple" instead of Tim Cook and Apple "as an easy way to save time and words." Tim Cook changed his Twitter profile to "Tim Apple." (Axios / ABC News / Politico)
https://www.axios.com/trump-rnc-donors-apple-tim-cook-lie-2fd8b004-6fc3-4f81-9eb0-3b92f3264ef1.html
3/ The former owner of a massage parlor tied to a prostitution ring sold Chinese executives access to Trump through her consulting firm, GY US Investments LLC. Li Yang's website claims its "activities for clients" have included "the opportunity to interact with the president, the [American] Minister of Commerce and other political figures." In particular, Yang arranged for a larger group of Chinese business people to attend a paid fundraiser for Trump in New York City at the end of 2017. Yang personally gave $5,400 to Trump's campaign and $23,500 to the Trump Victory political action committee 11 days prior to the Dec. 2, 2017 event. Foreign visitors may attend fundraisers as long as they don't pay their own entry. GY US also claimed it has "arranged taking photos with the President" at Mar-a-Lago and suggested that could set up a "White House and Capitol Hill Dinner." Since 2017, Yang and her relatives have donated more than $42,000 to a Trump political action committee and more than $16,000 to Trump's campaign. (Mother Jones / Miami Herald / CNN / USA Today)
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article227358809.html
4/ Nancy Pelosi on impeaching Trump: "He's just not worth it." The Speaker of the House called Trump unfit to be president – "ethically," "intellectually" and "curiosity-wise" — but she is "not for impeachment. […] Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it. (Washington Post)
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/11/white-house-trump-will-decide-when-hes-ready-on-manafort-pardon.html
The White House rejected a House Oversight Committee request to interview former deputy counsel Stefan Passantino, who represented Trump to federal ethics officials looking into hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels in 2016. (Axios)
House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff said Robert Mueller was making a "mistake" by not demanding that Trump testify as part of his investigation, "because probably the best way to get the truth would be to put the president under oath." (Washington Post)
Schiff claimed Erik Prince lied during testimony about a 2016 meeting with foreign nationals at Trump Tower. Prince is the former head of Blackwater, the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and an informal adviser to the 2016 Trump campaign. He told Al Jazeera's Mehdi Hasan that he informed the House Intelligence Committee during his testimony in November 2017 about a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump Jr., UAE emissary George Nader, and Israeli social media manipulation specialist Joel Zamel — but none of that is in the transcript from his testimony. (Axios / Al Jazeera)
New video footage from the Venezuelan border shows an anti-government protester setting fire to a convoy of humanitarian aid last month, despite claims by Mike Pence and the State Department that President Nicolas Maduro had ordered the trucks burned. The Colombian government released partial footage from the incident and attempted to blame Maduro, but newly released footage revealed that a member of the opposition threw a Molotov cocktail at the convoy, triggering the blaze. (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html
Milwaukee will host the 2020 Democratic National Convention – a key Midwestern battleground state that Democrats lost for the first time in three decades in 2016. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel / New York Times)
Betsy DeVos illegally delayed implementing a rule that required states to address racial disparities in special education programs. DeVos put off implementing the regulation for two years, which will now take effect immediately after a judge ruled that the was delay "arbitrary and capricious." (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/betsy-devos-special-education.html
🏌️♂️ Trump was named the winner of his own golf club-championship despite not playing in the tournament. A man named Ted Virtue initially won the 2018 Trump International club championship title. Trump, however, challenged Virtue to a nine-hole winner-takes-the-title challenge. Trump won, then offered to be co-champions with Virtue. (Golf)
https://www.golf.com/news/2019/03/10/president-trump-club-championship-did-not-enter/
Edited by sgamer82 on Mar 11th 2019 at 4:27:35 AM
The voting age discussion was taking the thread over a bit, so I've made a thread
for dedicated discussion and two questions to kick it off.
And just to change the topic, with regards to criticising NAFTA, I guess that depends on what the specific criticisms were. There were plenty of aspects of NAFTA that were less than perfect- the populist line was always that NAFTA, as a regional trade agreement, should never have been negotiated at all (until Trump negotiated one himself).
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.I'm not sure I agree with her about breaking up big tech. However, I think she is right about FB having too much power to impact the discourse in ways like this (and it effects both left and right sides of things).
Edited by Soban on Mar 11th 2019 at 8:59:31 AM
The problem, of course, is that social media gets so powerful because people want to talk on the fewest places possible to communicate with as many people as possible.
Break it up and it's a matter of time before people move onto another one.
And so long as they're a private entity they're allowed to remove whatever the hell they want from their own site.
Would it be accurate to interpret that as "I'm waiting to see if Mueller's probe actually gives us enough evidence to incriminate Trump so severely that it's more than worthwhile to at least make a symbolic attempt at impeachment that would be almost certainly dead-on-arrival in the Senate"?
I think it's more "Impeachment isn't worth attempting unless it can actually accomplish something", which would mean she's straight up not going to try unless dems take the senate or republicans start turning on Trump
Does his argument have weight?
Not really. Trump is almost guaranteed to lie. Which does have it's uses, but would still make thing worse politically

Well, plenty of people are still children at 18, and we still let them vote.
I stand with wisewillow on this one: at 16 you're already old enough to get affected by the policies the goverment puts into practice, therefore you should have a say on them.