DiscussMormonism.com

Well let’s not get overly shocked by the title - I admit it makes no sense. Farmers are generational hard working folk who don’t care as much about the bad weather as they do about hard work in their effort to be a maker and provide for others. Not really a liberal trait!

“Liberal Farmers” actually refer to the lazy politicians and unemployed who are looking to change the voting age to 16! They want to harvest the dependency education and attitude they’ve spent decades to breed into our younger generation with our public education focus on acceptance of being a “taker instead of a maker”. They’ve bread laziness into our youth and now want their vote for “Free Things and Socialism”! They want to increase the population of takers - its a much easier career path for this younger generation. Just ask their parents!!!

Have I missed anything?

Bach wrote:Have I missed anything?

Yes. You’re the parent. Stop making excuses for your own children.

Next?

Bach wrote:Have I missed anything?

Did you know that this particular brand of conservative excrement contains so much nitrogen and sulfur that it with actually kill the crops?

canpakes wrote:

Bach wrote:Have I missed anything?

Yes. You’re the parent. Stop making excuses for your own children.

Next?

What do you expect? He "bread" them when he should have "bred" them.

Liberals have been trying to choose the consequences of their policies for almost a century now. If you tell them you can't have a plentiful harvest based on laziness and excuses they say, "Yes we can."

My memory is that the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 when people started questioning why they should fight and die for their country in a war they for which they had no vote. (You're old enough for killin'/but not for votin'/You don't believe in war/but what's that gun your totin')

I don't think the same argument can be made by a 16 year old. I think 16 is too young.

Perhaps they could have some sort of learner's ballot, you know, like absentee ballots in North Carolina.

MeDotOrg wrote:My memory is that the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 when people started questioning why they should fight and die for their country in a war they for which they had no vote. (You're old enough for killin'/but not for votin'/You don't believe in war/but what's that gun your totin')

I don't think the same argument can be made by a 16 year old. I think 16 is too young.

Perhaps they could have some sort of learner's ballot, you know, like absentee ballots in North Carolina.

I think that draft age was a big part of it. But it also fits with the common age of majority: if 18 year olds are competent to make contracts, own property, and go to big boy prison, it’s hard to argue they shouldn’t have a voice in government.

I think what you are balancing is the notion that those who are subject to the government ought to have voice in how it is run with the desire to have decision makers understand their decisions and make them from an informed basis. 18 is a traditional cut off for legal adulthood that people take as a proxy for the capacity to make consequential decisions.

I think if you can operate a car, you can vote. On the one hand, almost all voters have horribly uninformed political views if you just ask them. On the other, I think they use heuristics that do a semi-ok job apprending their interests on a collective level - at least compared to the alternatives. I don’t think this is any less true of 16 year olds.

I know several intellectually disabled voters whose political views I respect more than the average voter, and they certainly are less intellectually capable than an average 16 year old.

I am more worried about the very old voting than the very young in terms of capacity to be an informed, rational voter, but I’d oppose banning 85+ year olds from voting in the dementia act of 2023.