-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Republicans want to cancel voting rights for young people
- Thread starter billwald
- Start date
- Status
As a former member of the USAF, I had a choice in each election. I could register and vote at the location where I was currently living, OR I could register and vote at my "home of record". I could not do both, and I could not make that decision on the day of the elections, because my eligibility to vote had to be proven. It sounds to me that this is what Republicans in the quoted article want done.
Would you want someone to (on election day) "register"and "vote" multiple times, simply by stating that they wanted to vote? It seems to me that "disenfranchisment" is being used by Democrats as an excuse to allow people to do exactly that! (Want proof? So do I, but I cannot provide any. Neither can Democrats prove "disenfranchisement" exists).
Unfortunately, my "home of record" really did "disenfranchise" me while I was overseas. They mailed my ballot to me too late for it to arrive back by the deadline. I did not find out until 6 years later that my ballots for 6 years had been disallowed, because one was late! Seems to me that THAT is a real problem that should have been brought to MY attention long before 6 years had elapsed. What do you think?
Bill :godisgood:
Would you want someone to (on election day) "register"and "vote" multiple times, simply by stating that they wanted to vote? It seems to me that "disenfranchisment" is being used by Democrats as an excuse to allow people to do exactly that! (Want proof? So do I, but I cannot provide any. Neither can Democrats prove "disenfranchisement" exists).
Unfortunately, my "home of record" really did "disenfranchise" me while I was overseas. They mailed my ballot to me too late for it to arrive back by the deadline. I did not find out until 6 years later that my ballots for 6 years had been disallowed, because one was late! Seems to me that THAT is a real problem that should have been brought to MY attention long before 6 years had elapsed. What do you think?
Bill :godisgood:
How dishonest can you get!! EVERYONE agrees that there is a point at which people are too young, and too immature to vote. The only thing that is disagreed upon, is WHAT that age is.
Think about this: in almost every state, it has been recognized that 18 year olds are not mature enough to buy alcohol. You have to be 21, in most states.
It is ridiculous to say someone is not mature enough to buy a beer, but they are mature enough to determine the fate of every man woman and child in the country.
I think the voting age, age to buy a gun, and age to buy alcohol should ALL be set at 21. I would support exemptions to this rule for those serving in the military.
Grown ups should be doing the voting. Not kids.
Think about this: in almost every state, it has been recognized that 18 year olds are not mature enough to buy alcohol. You have to be 21, in most states.
It is ridiculous to say someone is not mature enough to buy a beer, but they are mature enough to determine the fate of every man woman and child in the country.
I think the voting age, age to buy a gun, and age to buy alcohol should ALL be set at 21. I would support exemptions to this rule for those serving in the military.
Grown ups should be doing the voting. Not kids.
Totally agree with you.
There was a big news story in Oswego,NY - home to SUNY, Oswego. College students, many from out of State had registered to vote. On election day, some of them found out they could not vote for City mayor. The reason - their dorm was outside the city limits (whiles some of the dorms were inside city limits). Here is my thinking - if they intended to vote, why did they not do the research? Hey, theses are college students - supposedly intelligent folks.
Does anybody every watch "Jaywalking" on Tonight with Jay Leno - on one hand it is funny how ignorant some of the college students are, but on the other hand it is a very serious issue.
My bottom line - college students should vote in their "Home of Record" until they establish permanent residence in their college town.
This could easily be taken care of by moving election to 4th of July!
Does anybody every watch "Jaywalking" on Tonight with Jay Leno - on one hand it is funny how ignorant some of the college students are, but on the other hand it is a very serious issue.
My bottom line - college students should vote in their "Home of Record" until they establish permanent residence in their college town.
This could easily be taken care of by moving election to 4th of July!
Here, a quote from the article, is the real reason he wants the change:
Following that logic I guess we old folk should not be allowed to vote as we tend to vote conservative. :laugh:
Seriously though, if a person is old enough to fight and die for their country they should be allowed to vote!
Following that logic I guess we old folk should not be allowed to vote as we tend to vote conservative. :laugh:
Seriously though, if a person is old enough to fight and die for their country they should be allowed to vote!
Last edited by a moderator:
Response to first part- You vote conservative?! :laugh: I'd bet you're 'young at heart'!:laugh:
Second part- Wholeheartedly agree.
Bob Alkire
New Member
Havensdad;1656864 I think the voting age said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets address the real issue. Bill says in his title
"Republicans want to cancel voting rights for young people"
If not an outright lie - it is very misleading.
From the article "One bill would permit students to vote in their college towns only if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there - requiring all others to vote in the states or other New Hampshire towns they come from."
The bill DOES NOT keep anyone from voting, only that a person should vote where he has roots - which is only common sense (now I see why the libs are upset!:smilewinkgrin
A college student is only at college town some 8 months a year - and some make several weekend trips home. Therefore he does NOT have roots in his college town.
Here is the real consideration - The population of Oswego, NY is about 18,000 - voting age say @ 80% = 16,000 w/50% reg voters = 8,ooo eligible to vote on election day - there are some 7000 students at Oswego - if 1/4 of them voted in Oswego elections - the students would have 10-20% voting bloc!
So they get what they want - and in May they go back home.
I say NO, NO, NO
and the same goes for military - they should vote in the HOR voting district - unless they have taken steps to become a citizen of their new community.
So lets debate Bills Title - 0f which he, of course is incorrect.
"Republicans want to cancel voting rights for young people"
If not an outright lie - it is very misleading.
From the article "One bill would permit students to vote in their college towns only if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there - requiring all others to vote in the states or other New Hampshire towns they come from."
The bill DOES NOT keep anyone from voting, only that a person should vote where he has roots - which is only common sense (now I see why the libs are upset!:smilewinkgrin
A college student is only at college town some 8 months a year - and some make several weekend trips home. Therefore he does NOT have roots in his college town.Here is the real consideration - The population of Oswego, NY is about 18,000 - voting age say @ 80% = 16,000 w/50% reg voters = 8,ooo eligible to vote on election day - there are some 7000 students at Oswego - if 1/4 of them voted in Oswego elections - the students would have 10-20% voting bloc!
So they get what they want - and in May they go back home.
I say NO, NO, NO
and the same goes for military - they should vote in the HOR voting district - unless they have taken steps to become a citizen of their new community.
So lets debate Bills Title - 0f which he, of course is incorrect.
Last edited by a moderator:
The military should have no exemptions on this. If the age for these things should be 21, then the enlistment age should be 21.
If someone isn't mature enough to vote or to buy a gun, they definitely aren't mature enough for ordnance.
I disagree with this. Military service has a way of maturing people very quickly. Unstable candidates are culled out. People learn,, whether they like it or not, to respect weapons, and act responsibly with them. If Civilians 18-20 want to go through basic training in order to be able to own a gun, fine.
As far as voting, a person who serves our country has earned the right to vote. Some kid in underwear in his parents basement, who thinks free access to Warcraft is a constitutional right, has no business with a firearm, or voting for the direction of this country.
I reject this, as I reject the glorification of military service. It's not some magical thing that grants you special privileges. It is a valuable service, but it doesn't make a person any more valuable than another citizen. Furthermore, it is not as if military service is the only way to attain maturity.
Voting is a right, not a privilege.
Besides, there are several individuals over the age of 21 who are incredibly immature. Should they be denied the right to vote as well?
To bad and quite a shame. Most likely because of a short sightedness about what it is they are actually doing. Putting your life on the line should always be valued in a high manner.
I wish there was a way to do that
I know what they do. I have a number of relatives who served in the military. My father was a paraplegic because of his time in the service, so I grew up seeing the cost every day.
As I said before, it is a valuable service. However, military service doesn't make you any more of a citizen than anyone else.
The whole basis of our constitution is that rights are not granted by a government. They are granted by God. Military service doesn't affect this at all.
In that case, what would define immaturity?
You took his statement to far. such phrases are often used in regards to the level of respect and consideration one should oblige those who serve in our military. I don't believe he meant it the way you assumed. He sidesteps the constitution and enforces only those laws he agrees with. He needs to go and soon.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of whom are you speaking?
- Status