Do you think that if the voting age gets lowered to 16, that the Age of Consent will also be lowered to 16?

[MatureDJ]

I was reading this, and it got me interested:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/opinion/sunday/voting-age-school-shootings.html

Here is a comment:

On this same website there is also an article about the recent backlash against Woody Allen's "Manhattan" in the wake of the #Metoo movement. The "objectionable" thing in that movie is a 17 -year old dating an older man. So which is it- 16 year olds are mature enough to vote and decide the direction of the country, or they are fragile and immature and need protection from older men?

It seems pretty clear that if we can entrust the ability to vote in a young person, that person should be entrusted with determining her sexuality.

Or do you think the femynists would still b!tch about this?

 

[AJ84]

The age of consent being lowered isn’t going to lead to a mass movement of 16 yr old girls jumping into the laps of middle aged men because that’s not what’s stopping teens from sleeping with middle aged men.

 

[Billtx49]

Lowering the voting age to 16 is only a Liberal pipe dream currently high on their looking for new swayable voter Wish list. Isn’t going to happen anytime soon…

 

[zekko]

Lowering the voting age to 16 is only a Liberal pipe dream currently high on their looking for new swayable voter Wish list.

Definitely sounds like a leftist ploy. Younger people always tend to be more liberal politically.

The old saying:
If you're not a liberal when you're young, there's something wrong with your heart. If you're not a conservative when you're older, there's something wrong with your brain.

 

[Billtx49]

The old saying:
If you're not a liberal when you're young, there's something wrong with your heart. If you're not a conservative when you're older, there's something wrong with your brain.

Never heard that before, but it’s true and I’m lovin it…

 

[Billtx49]

One other thing I was thinking is that people mature emotionally more slowly these days, so maybe 18 is just too young.

Exactly. It’s an issue of maturity, but since young adults individually mature at different speeds also, one law doesn’t fit all, but it’s an affront to our voting society in general for some politicians to want to take advantage of the younger ones immaturity and lack of refined judgement …

 

[Bible_Belt]

18 has been the age to form contracts for over a thousand years, going back to the origins of our law in England.

The more people who participate in voting, the more that democrats beat republicans. It is a consistent rule. I have never seen it differently. Florida just restored voting rights to convicted felons. None of them are voting Republican. My state had huge debates over allowing voter registration at the dmv. Republicans fought it. And all of these allegations of voter fraud coming from our embarrassment in chief are just part of what Republicans have been doing for countless decades, urging restrictions on voting, so that as few people get to vote as possible, especially non whites, and that is a formula for Republican victory. Hell, that's why we have a republic in the first place, to keep the rich assh0les in charge by insulating them from the collective will of the people.

 

[user43770]

@Bible_Belt Already deceased people always seem to vote Democrat

 

[redskinsfan92]

It's already 16 in many states regarding sex

 

[highSpeed]

Lowering the voting age to 16 is only a Liberal pipe dream currently high on their looking for new swayable voter Wish list. Isn’t going to happen anytime soon…

I'd think again about that if I were you. If the "progressives", who are really trotsky communists at heart, get all of the dreamers, illegals voting status, it's over, they will literally be able to do whatever the hell they want. It will be hell on earth, the likes of which we in the west couldn't possibly hope to imagine. Read any of the accounts of early lennon, trotsky, stalin, that's what "progressives" want, that's their end goal.

White, western people, men especially, are an anathma to them, something to be squelched out and they dream about that day when they have the power to do so. Much of getting that power rests on getting a voting populace in here that knows no better than to be ruled and ruled out of fear, that's their entire culture where they come from. They'll give the demorats anything to get even a small taste of what we have in the west.

 

[zekko]

I'd think again about that if I were you. If the "progressives", who are really trotsky communists at heart, get all of the dreamers, illegals voting status, it's over, they will literally be able to do whatever the hell they want.

I had actually thought that we had already reached that point about 10 years ago. I did not expect to ever see another Republican president in my lifetime. Trump is not exactly the ideal candidate, but I am enjoying the current tax rates. I was stunned when Trump won. Even so, the last two Republican presidents were initially elected into office while losing the popular vote.

I had thought we had reached the point where Democratic special interest groups had simply outnumbered what used to be the majority in the US. The Republicans currently consist mostly of white males. Feminists, gays, and minority groups are firmly in the pocket of the Democrats. Those groups are all growing. @Bible_Belt is correct. The more people who vote, the more likely a Democratic victory. So after Trump (and I'm not even sure he will seek a second term), again I'm not sure if we will ever see another Republican president.

Others here think there will be a backlash that prevents continued left wing dominance, but I'm more cynical.

 

[highSpeed]

I had actually thought that we had already reached that point about 10 years ago. I did not expect to ever see another Republican president in my lifetime. Trump is not exactly the ideal candidate, but I am enjoying the current tax rates. I was stunned when Trump won. Even so, the last two Republican presidents were initially elected into office while losing the popular vote.

I had thought we had reached the point where Democratic special interest groups had simply outnumbered what used to be the majority in the US. The Republicans currently consist mostly of white males. Feminists, gays, and minority groups are firmly in the pocket of the Democrats. Those groups are all growing. @Bible_Belt is correct. The more people who vote, the more likely a Democratic victory. So after Trump (and I'm not even sure he will seek a second term), again I'm not sure if we will ever see another Republican president.

Others here think there will be a backlash that prevents continued left wing dominance, but I'm more cynical.

You're right, feminists, gays, "minority" groups, they are all staunchly democrat but I fail to understand why. Democrats haven't done sh*t for "minorities" anyway, so why do they continue to vote for them? Like it or not, diversity does not work. You can't have 50 f*cking groups all trying to make rules that best suit them and somehow think we're all going to kumbaya it out, not happening. Someone has to win and democrats have sold out to the communists because at the end of the day, their ideas are all emotion based, they can't win a rational debate and that's why they've sold us out. Conservatives, for their part, are either too stupid or bought off or both to realize that they are helping to bring us to our collective doom.

The reason that none of this has happened yet is for the exact reason you mention, most white males and by proxy, most of the women associated with them, still vote republican. Once those numbers dip low enough that it takes more than white males and their mates to get someone elected, it's over. Might still have one more left in us for 2020 but after that, it's most likely over. And if republicans can't get their sh*t together to bring everyone together for 2020, it might already be over. I'm convinced that republican lawmakers sold us out long ago. They had the f*cking majority for 2 f*cking years and hardly passed sh*t. Why? They could have literally blown the democrats out of the water but for some reason, we know why, they chose not to. Guarantee you, democrats will never be this nice or congenial once they are firmly back in control and believe me, it's coming, soon.

 

[zekko]

You're right, feminists, gays, "minority" groups, they are all staunchly democrat but I fail to understand why. Democrats haven't done sh*t for "minorities" anyway, so why do they continue to vote for them? Like it or not, diversity does not work. You can't have 50 f*cking groups all trying to make rules that best suit them and somehow think we're all going to kumbaya it out, not happening.

The Dems tell the minorities and special interest groups what they want to hear. The conservative message is basically if you want something, work for it. No one wants to hear that when they can line up and get their share paid to them. Anyway, the country is only becoming more diverse, so they're going to have to find a way to make it work.

I'm convinced that republican lawmakers sold us out long ago. They had the f*cking majority for 2 f*cking years and hardly passed sh*t. Why? They could have literally blown the democrats out of the water but for some reason, we know why, they chose not to.

Two reasons: Like you said, they're paid off. And also, they're afraid of the Democrats and the left wing media.

 

[MatureDJ]

Even so, the last two Republican presidents were initially elected into office while losing the popular vote.

The more people who vote, the more likely a Democratic victory. So after Trump (and I'm not even sure he will seek a second term), again I'm not sure if we will ever see another Republican president.

It's true that the last time a Republican POTUS won (i.e., won a plurality) his initial election popular vote was 1988! It is said that the electorate gets 2% more Democratic every 4-year cycle, so even if Trump retains his electoral popularity in PA, WI, MI (i.e., that he squeaked by at less than 1%, with FL not too far behind), he loses. And I don't see his popularity being retained. And except for Kamala Harris, I don't see any potential Dem that would be as nauseous as Hillary (and even Harris wouldn't be as bad). Heck there's that black woman that almost won the governor's race in GA, so if GA is in the mix, even she could beat Trump.

For the record, I like this guy:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...-presidency/mDKDd5KLzYTGHiJ6gvUFPK/story.html

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Voting is a scam. I don't believe it.

 

[Billtx49]

Voting is a scam. I don't believe it.

It’s obviously not, or so many people wouldn’t still be po’ed about the last US presidential election after the voters spoke, but they may eventually wise up…
It can vary by country though, what is your country ?

 

[zekko]

It's true that the last time a Republican POTUS won (i.e., won a plurality) his initial election popular vote was 1988!

30 years ago, that's awhile. Bush 2 did win the popular vote in 2004, but that was as an incumbent, not his initial run.

You're right that there was probably a lot of people who were voting AGAINST Hillary, as opposed to voting FOR Trump. So with the absence of such a polarizing figure on the Democratic side, they could very well win in 2018.

I might also note that Hillary won the popular vote by a much wider margin than Gore did in 2000, so that's another indication that the gap is widening.