Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
I don't agree that they should abstain, but as the saying goes:
Don't interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
Like, honestly, who do they think their voting bloc is?
Dying, that’s why they’re going full dictator next.
"What are they going to do, protest?" ...this guy probably
Also just want to point out this is just a great example of incremental fascism
I love how every guy Trump backs is a complete asshole who says and does complete asshole shit.
It makes sense that he chooses candidates with similar platforms to his own.
He is making the case that nursing homes had 100% participation in some cases, and there is suspicion that the staff directed them, or maybe some third party gathered them and filled them out themselves. I would love to see the proof of that. It could also be that old people in nursing homes have nothing happening and the staff supported as an activity to keep them active and ...well...it is their right. Could there be an example of someone who actually broke the law and straight up filled out ballots for incapacitated elderly..prosecute that MF'r.
I work in municipal government and we have the busiest ballot box in the county outside my office, and I can vouch that old people fucking love to vote. All day long on election day and the days leading up to it, it's a line of people, many of whom who probably shouldn't be driving, waiting to drop off their ballot. They take it super seriously. I wish everybody was as hyped to vote as the elderly.
Glad someone finally said they support their right to vote lol. The thing about nursing homes is that they often have targeted efforts to help people vote, since they often struggle to get to the polls. This can be an internal effort or an external one, from a partisan group or a voting advocacy group.
I lived in an area where one of the voting locations was actually in a retirement home.
Yeah, I've seen that too
Given the older population's proclivity to vote against the best interests of the next generations in hopes of finally lucking into that American Dream....
Sure, but lets just set a cap not dependent on housing situation.
I don't agree they shouldn't but.....I mean....yeah I wont bitch if all the fucking boomers sit this one out.
I generally agree. I think it's reasonable to restrict young children from voting (though I think we should lower the voting age to 16) because they aren't mentally prepared for the implications of voting. I also think that at a certain point old people start losing those capabilities and also shouldn't vote. On the upper end its going to widely vary so I don't think there's a reasonable way to formulate a just exclusion criteria... but I agree with the general principle.
I don't think a 16 year old is not mentally prepared. It's more that they are still mostly brainwashed by their parents, churches and a general desire to fit into a "team". Fuck, maybe we shouldn't the average American vote. Lol.
Given how we keep coasting along on ancient stupid laws (or even resurrecting them in certain cases - ~cough~ AZ ~cough~ ), I don't think it'd be wise to start instituting short-sighted age-related laws, in the event that life extension starts to rear its head in ways that start quickly invalidating expectations of the past. The only way something like this might make sense is if it there is an objective way to actually measure cognitive ability.
Though I bet cons would fight this tooth and nail, because I have a feeling a lot of their voters and candidates might not pass such tests...
Yeah, I could think of all kinds of ways to rationalize invalidating various age ranges based on stereotypes with a given age range. 18-25? They might be too busy with education to be informed of politics to actually vote responsibly. 25-30? Possibly still living with their parents, and don't have their own house or they are raising small children, and/or trying to start that corporate ladder climbing, so no time to be informed. 30-55? Too busy trying to bust their asses to pay off student debt and support older children, still no time to be informed. 55-70, kids boomeranged home because housing is so expensive, maybe even still paying student loans in addition to trying to help out with their kids' student loans, and so still working/came out of retirement to try to keep a roof over everyone's heads. Probably consuming total nonsense uber-far-right nonsense like Faux and OAN and hate radio in the car, or just merely slightly right wing corporate outlets like MSNBC, so they cannot have the vote, either. 70 and up - probably run out of the workforce by that time and so if you ain't working, you don't matter any more....
This guy has big Saul Goodman energy
To be fair, they should vote. I may not like their vote, but it's their right to do so, and a matter of civic duty.
What's next, the cons start dunking on Faux watchers, too? Average age of Faux watcher is how far from average nursing home resident?